Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on August 11, 2014, 01:59:PM
-
Let's focus then on one of Anne Eatons statements
'Granny Speakman had photos of all the family but I don't think she had a photo of Jeremy amongst them'
what was the point of that statement other than trying to show Jeremy in a bad light'
No proof that Jeremys photo wasn't there so what was the purpose of Annes statement
In other statements Jeremy is described as a poof? does that make him a murderer?
-
i wonder what relvance being a poof had to the case my guess is none at all witch makes me wonder why she said it.
-
Speaking of photos',who was it that tore the one with the twins on it ? You don't do things like that, well a normal person doesn't anyway. Why the little boys ? What did they do to anyone ?
-
but why point out there was no photos of Jeremy unassuming this is true of course.
-
but why point out there was no photos of Jeremy unassuming this is true of course.
There would have been,but were probably burned.
-
well as they stayed with the granny and got all her stuff when she dies so they would have controll oover the photos.
-
Well, I hope granny Speakman had a photo of Jeremy along with all the other family members prior to the murders - if she didn´t, that would have been just mean and low!
I hope that Ann is referring to the time after the murders, where everyone thought Jeremy had done it.
Colin Caffell writes in his book that there was so much hate from the family while each individual was testifying at the trial. He actually worried that those strong expressions of pure hate would harm the prosecution´s case and make the jury feel sorry for Jeremy!
-
What a horrible lot of people.
-
Well, I hope granny Speakman had a photo of Jeremy along with all the other family members prior to the murders - if she didn´t, that would have been just mean and low!
I hope that Ann is referring to the time after the murders, where everyone thought Jeremy had done it.
Colin Caffell writes in his book that there was so much hate from the family while each individual was testifying at the trial. He actually worried that those strong expressions of pure hate would harm the prosecution´s case and make the jury feel sorry for Jeremy!
i am sure she did have a photo of him.
-
i am sure she did have a photo of him.
I think so too. It would have been too mean not only towards Jeremy, but also towards her daughter, June, who´s son it was!
-
i think there trying to make out that granny dident like Jeremy to justify them getting his share of granny's money.
-
What a horrible lot of people.
Hatred towards someone who murdered their loved ones is quite natural and doesn't make them horrible. Do you realize that for defending a killer for such absurd reaosns that you do, that peopel could consider you horrible.
You are in a glass house and should not be casting stones.
I have challenged you to provide a sound basis for asserting Jeremy is innocdent but you can't you have none so relaly ar ein no position to attack anyone.
-
Gawd------------here we go.
-
Quote from Colin´s book. I don´t quite understand him, how can he basically excuse Jeremy who allegedly killed his sons; but in any case, he is not as hateful as the relatives.
"So what else did I see of myself as I looked into those eyes - into the eyes of a cold-blooded murderer? Part of the key has to be in the fact that there had been many occasions I had also wished his sister dead - as I did the night of the killings - and times I had felt murderous towards his mother for the way in which she violated everybody, especially her daughter. Had June still been alive and continued the abuses to my children that I am now more aware of, I myself might have been tempted to kill her. In that respect, Jeremy had saved me the trouble and was standing trial for something I had also wished for.
How then could I stand as an accuser?"
-
Thanks for that,Alias.
-
Reading his book would be the deciding factor for me, in " who killed who " that night.
These anti-Bamber books give a lot away,unwittingly.
-
Quote from Colin´s book. I don´t quite understand him, how can he basically excuse Jeremy who allegedly killed his sons; but in any case, he is not as hateful as the relatives."So what else did I see of myself as I looked into those eyes - into the eyes of a cold-blooded murderer? Part of the key has to be in the fact that there had been many occasions I had also wished his sister dead - as I did the night of the killings - and times I had felt murderous towards his mother for the way in which she violated everybody, especially her daughter. Had June still been alive and continued the abuses to my children that I am now more aware of, I myself might have been tempted to kill her. In that respect, Jeremy had saved me the trouble and was standing trial for something I had also wished for.
How then could I stand as an accuser?"
He wrote the book to try to feel better and come to grips with what happened. Trying to rationalize that things are for the best is a way to do that. How he felt at the time of the murders is quite different I am sure. It takes people a long time to try to convince yourself a tragedy was for the best and to move on.
To say that June hurt his kids by teaching them how to pray and say prayers at night makes you truly wonder about him. He comes off as a complete idiot in many of the things he wrote in his book and it is obvious that their marriage didn't fail simply because of Sheila.
Aside from the few tidbits of factual information tossed in almost as an aside, his book is largely useless. His warped view of things ovciously is not worth much.
-
Reading his book would be the deciding factor for me, in " who killed who " that night.
These anti-Bamber books give a lot away,unwittingly.
His book offers no evidence at all related to the murders. A rational person would evaluate the evidence related to the murders. Only a fool would decide an issue by ignoring the evidence and instead consisering the state of mind of a non-victim who was impacted by the losses and thus considered himself a victim.
-
He wrote the book to try to feel better and come to grips with what happened. Trying to rationalize that things are for the best is a way to do that. How he felt at the time of the murders is quite different I am sure. It takes people a long time to try to convince yourself a tragedy was for the best and to move on.
To say that June hurt his kids by teaching them how to pray and say prayers at night makes you truly wonder about him. He comes off as a complete idiot in many of the things he wrote in his book and it is obvious that their marriage didn't fail simply because of Sheila.
Aside from the few tidbits of factual information tossed in almost as an aside, his book is largely useless. His warped view of things ovciously is not worth much.
This quote is about how he felt at the time of the trial - you cannot make that go away.
He also wrote that the relatives were very friendly in the time leading up to the trial, but dropped him as a hot potato as soon as it was over: he was not one of them.
You cannot make that go away either.
-
There's bags of evidence as far as I'm concerned,as I said,in who murdered who. It's you who wears blinkers and a gag----------------brains of a rocking horse.
-
This quote is about how he felt at the time of the trial - you cannot make that go away.
He also wrote that the relatives were very friendly in the time leading up to the trial, but dropped him as a hot potato as soon as it was over: he was not one of them.
You cannot make that go away either.
No he wrote this book many years later to try to make himself feel better. How he felt at the time of the trial we don't really have any way to know. The fact he tried to convince himself that things were for the best so he coudl move on without killing himself doesn't really mean squat in terms of the murders it jsut speaks to his own personal problems in dealing with the grief.
Other than the few dams of facts tossed in the book is of no use to the crimes and not even very interesting.
-
Excuses just roll off your tongue. You're pathetic !
-
Excuses just roll off your tongue. You're pathetic !
Excuses for what? His oipinions have no bearing at all on the murders and are not evidence. You are pathetic for claiming that the book helps establish Jeremy is innocent and doign anything you can to avoid facing the fact sna devidence of the case to try to pretend he is innocent.
-
Do you notice a pattern in some of the families statements , they use I think
a lot , so if they are proved wrong later they are off the hook .
I noticed that with comments about the original will as well.
-
Do you notice a pattern in some of the families statements , they use I think
a lot , so if they are proved wrong later they are off the hook .
I noticed that with comments about the original will as well.
Good observation.
Julie M uses "probably" a lot... same shit.
-
Good observation.
Julie M uses "probably" a lot... same shit.
another favourite , I noticed " to the best of my knowledge" especially when talking about the guns at the house.
-
another favourite , I noticed " to the best of my knowledge" especially when talking about the guns at the house.
I'm tempted to call them "Get out of jail free" cards OR perhaps that should be "I'm off the hook if I'm wrong" cards.
-
another favourite , I noticed " to the best of my knowledge" especially when talking about the guns at the house.
That is what are always in statements. People are being asked to remember things they might not fully remember. It is why you onways see "on or about" in affidavits and papers filed in court. Just in case a date ends up being wrong you put "on or about".
When people say they are certain they say they are certian but rarely are people fully certain of every date and time something happened.
-
That is what are always in statements. People are being asked to remember things they might not fully remember. It is why you onways see "on or about" in affidavits and papers filed in court. Just in case a date ends up being wrong you put "on or about".
When people say they are certain they say they are certian but rarely are people fully certain of every date and time something happened.
If it were Jeremy we were talking about, your stance would be opposite. It would be a sigh of him being deceptive.
-
He wrote the book to try to feel better and come to grips with what happened. Trying to rationalize that things are for the best is a way to do that. How he felt at the time of the murders is quite different I am sure. It takes people a long time to try to convince yourself a tragedy was for the best and to move on.
To say that June hurt his kids by teaching them how to pray and say prayers at night makes you truly wonder about him. He comes off as a complete idiot in many of the things he wrote in his book and it is obvious that their marriage didn't fail simply because of Sheila.
Aside from the few tidbits of factual information tossed in almost as an aside, his book is largely useless. His warped view of things ovciously is not worth much.
A book is nothing more than it is the reader must make their judgement upon reading it there is one page in that book that pivots this whole case lets see if you can locate it.
-
Do you notice a pattern in some of the families statements , they use I think
a lot , so if they are proved wrong later they are off the hook .
I noticed that with comments about the original will as well.
So does Jeremy - remember the wallet?
-
So does Jeremy - remember the wallet?
oh yes I do. How long after the murders was it you asked him? out of interest?
I was just commenting really that the family used it quite a lot - and also avoid some subjects a lot .
Do you believe that GS was not given any information about Jeremy and never asked about him at all? And yet apparently was as bright as a button?
Like I said before I find it very hard to believe that they did what they did without thinking he was guilty , however I do believe a lot of their statements were embellished and a character assassination was the main aim.
-
i find it very easy to belive that they dident give a toss weather he was guilty or not there was a lot of money involved.
-
i find it very easy to belive that they dident give a toss weather he was guilty or not there was a lot of money involved.
I know - its just I always like to see some good in people, I find it hard to believe they would group together and collude in that way against a family member . I just don't know.
-
oh yes I do. How long after the murders was it you asked him? out of interest?
I was just commenting really that the family used it quite a lot - and also avoid some subjects a lot .
Do you believe that GS was not given any information about Jeremy and never asked about him at all? And yet apparently was as bright as a button?
Like I said before I find it very hard to believe that they did what they did without thinking he was guilty , however I do believe a lot of their statements were embellished and a character assassination was the main aim.
I asked him last year - but he didn't forget about asking about the wallet because although he said he didn't remember my 'specific' question, but thought the answer was 'no' or 'I didn't' - in a later letter he actually recounted being furious when he couldn't find the wallet and said Ann must have been 'buzzing'. I could have understood if he had simply said 'I don't remember' but as I've said before, he dodged the question.
Yes, I do find it strange that GS didn't ask about Jeremy and I have wondered if she was under the impression that Jeremy was also killed.
-
look what I just found. Just shows how people can look so different in photos.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/business/features/farming_feature_janie_s_childhood_idyll_at_osea_remains_a_magical_place_1_2885047
-
I know - its just I always like to see some good in people, I find it hard to believe they would group together and collude in that way against a family member . I just don't know.
they were deeply in debt and his conviction saved them from that from reading there statements i cant really see any good in them.
-
Jeremy had first reported that the wallet was missing. The police didn't appear to be interested.
He'd asked them where his fathers' wallet was.
-
Hello lookout what worried Caroline is that when she communicated with Jeremy he knew how much money was in the wallet and was unable to give a reasonable explanation as to how he had this information.
-
look what I just found. Just shows how people can look so different in photos.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/business/features/farming_feature_janie_s_childhood_idyll_at_osea_remains_a_magical_place_1_2885047
I remember this.It's where June didn't get a mention of having been there herself for over 20 years.
Soon forgotten,eh ?
-
Hello lookout what worried Caroline is that when she communicated with Jeremy he knew how much money was in the wallet and was unable to give a reasonable explanation as to how he had this information.
Exactly Susan! Plus it was the FIRST thing he went looking for one back at WHF
-
Hello lookout what worried Caroline is that when she communicated with Jeremy he knew how much money was in the wallet and was unable to give a reasonable explanation as to how he had this information.
Maybe via the police,Susan,as he had reported it missing from WHF,and probably by the time he got to know,it was very likely a few hundred " lighter ".
-
lookout that could be so but why not give Caroline this explanation the wallet was I suspect very important to him.
-
Maybe via the police,Susan,as he had reported it missing from WHF,and probably by the time he got to know,it was very likely a few hundred " lighter ".
He didn't find out from the police, the police didn't have it - he didn't get it back because AE found it and gave t to RWB. But that isn't the point - how did he know what was in it?
-
It's not unusual for anyone to look for money inside a property,be it hidden,or readily available. When there are relatives looking for the same thing,it's a case of whoever gets there first.
My late husband did the same when his sister died. He knew there'd be money somewhere because of rents from properties,and he'd wanted to find it before anyone else did.
However,when it was finally found,his nephew was with him at the time,he was obliged to split the contents because of it being an intestacy.
Needless to say it was kept quiet and not added to probate.
-
Do we know whether the wallet was fingerprinted or not ? Or if Jeremy had been given money from the previous night which could have prompted his father to say there were ex-amount of pounds left before he goes to the bank ?
We've all said it " I've only got enough to pay so-and-so before I go to the bank tomorrow ".
-
Do we know whether the wallet was fingerprinted or not ? Or if Jeremy had been given money from the previous night which could have prompted his father to say there were ex-amount of pounds left before he goes to the bank ?
We've all said it " I've only got enough to pay so-and-so before I go to the bank tomorrow ".
Well, the excuses can go on and on but if there was a perfectly reasonable explanation, why didn't he simply just answer the question instead of skirting around it?
He remembered it was a 'specific' question and what the answer might be - but forgot the question? He could have just read the letter again to refresh his memory, but instead, he just dodged it completely - then recounted the incident in a later letter when it must have slipped his memory that he's denied it.
-
Well, the excuses can go on and on but if there was a perfectly reasonable explanation, why didn't he simply just answer the question instead of skirting around it?
He remembered it was a 'specific' question and what the answer might be - but forgot the question? He could have just read the letter again to refresh his memory, but instead, he just dodged it completely - then recounted the incident in a later letter when it must have slipped his memory that he's denied it.
I really wouldn't know that,but sadly they ALL seemed to have suffered from selective memory. ;D
-
I really wouldn't know that,but sadly they ALL seemed to have suffered from selective memory. ;D
But they all aren't saying they're innocent of killing 5 people, so it is extra important for Jeremy to be seen to be telling the truth.
-
But they all aren't saying they're innocent of killing 5 people, so it is extra important for Jeremy to be seen to be telling the truth.
Yes,I understand that,and yes,I wouldn't trust any of them with my cat.
-
Yes,I understand that,and yes,I wouldn't trust any of them with my cat.
Jeremy included?
-
Jeremy included?
I was waiting for that. ;D It might surprise you,but yes,seeing that he didn't like Crispy,I doubt he'd like a semi-feral cat,and besides,he used to shoot rabbits. :(
-
Well, the excuses can go on and on but if there was a perfectly reasonable explanation, why didn't he simply just answer the question instead of skirting around it?
He remembered it was a 'specific' question and what the answer might be - but forgot the question? He could have just read the letter again to refresh his memory, but instead, he just dodged it completely - then recounted the incident in a later letter when it must have slipped his memory that he's denied it.
Had police asked him how he knew how much was in the wallet he would evidently have reacted the same way he did when asked to reconcile 30 bullets in the kitchen. No answer.
No answer is basically, I can't even think of a crappy lie.
I can't help come up with a lie to account for the bullets I can think of lies to account for the money in the wallet so that is pretty pathetic that he couldn't.
Obviously if he had a valid reason for knowing then he would be able to come up with that even easier than a lie.
-
ever thought he might not of answered because he dident know the answer.
-
I agree that it would have been very easy for Jeremy to come up with a lie about how he knew what was in the wallet, especially since the communication with Caroline was not direct, but by letter. He had plent of time to come up with something.
I just think he resented the question. It showed that Caroline had doubts about him, and he thought: none of her business, can´t be bothered.
-
if a complete stranger sent you a letter asking you a qustion would you answer it.
-
if a complete stranger sent you a letter asking you a qustion would you answer it.
If I were in jail and have nothing better to do and also want letters to try to convince people I am innocent? Sure, I am answering yours despite no such circumstances.
If I had something to occupy my time and were not trying to convince people I was innocent them I would not respond at all to anyone.