Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on September 03, 2014, 09:50:PM
-
I doubt Jeremy was aware of the conversation between Colin and Sheila on the last journey to WHF (Sheila asking Colin to take her back)
I also doubt Jeremy knew of the change in Sheila's medication
What a coincidence that he would choose to kill his whole family at this time when he most probably did not know either of the above ?????
-
refresh my memory what was this conversation.
-
I doubt Jeremy was aware of the conversation between Colin and Sheila on the last journey to WHF (Sheila asking Colin to take her back)
I also doubt Jeremy knew of the change in Sheila's medication
What a coincidence that he would choose to kill his whole family at this time when he most probably did not know either of the above ?????
So where is your source?
-
refresh my memory what was this conversation.
Sheila was hoping for a reconciliation and had thought there was a chance,poor thing.
-
Sheila was hoping for a reconciliation and had thought there was a chance,poor thing.
Yes, I have heard this mentioned before, but Colin doesn't mention it in his book or in his statement - so where does it come from?
-
I take it that a source cannot be supplied for this claim?
-
Yes,there is a source somewhere ( have just been shopping ) so I will endeavour to find it. I've got a feeling it might be in Claire Powells' book,so I'll check. I've also seen it on a link as well which is probably where I got the info from,but I didn't make it up----------honest. :)
-
Something else I didn't know,and that was neither Neville or June liked Colin. This was partly due to the fact that he and Sheila had lived together before they were married,and because of Junes' strong religious beliefs,they were often against Colin having the children more than he was already doing ??
-
Something else I didn't know,and that was neither Neville or June liked Colin. This was partly due to the fact that he and Sheila had lived together before they were married,and because of Junes' strong religious beliefs,they were often against Colin having the children more than he was already doing ??
June once tried to break up with Colin on behalf of Sheila - without consulting with Sheila first! Both Sheila and Colin were livid. I think it is safe to say that at least June did not like Colin at all.
-
When Jeremy had said in court that there was talk of foster parents that night around the table------it was dismissed.
-
When Jeremy had said in court that there was talk of foster parents that night around the table------it was dismissed.
I have never understood why it was dismissed, since the twins had been in day foster care in the past.
-
I also didn't know that documents had been drawn up with a view to the adoption of the twins ??
Also,in court,a friend of Sheilas' stated that June constantly told Sheila that she was an unfit mother.
Why hasn't information like this been bandied about for a change instead of pointing a finger at Jeremy ?
All this " in-fighting " behind closed doors is hiding a multitude of evidence.
-
If the judge had studied what the REAL motive was behind this murder,instead of it having been about money,then perhaps none of would be here discussing this case.
There are plenty of other motives to murder than money.
-
Something else I didn't know,and that was neither Neville or June liked Colin. This was partly due to the fact that he and Sheila had lived together before they were married,and because of Junes' strong religious beliefs,they were often against Colin having the children more than he was already doing ??
Lookout, I wouldn't have thought it needed saying. I imagine that June regarded him as a heathen or a heretic and Neville may have taken the view that he usually saw men like Colin in his courtroom. I think he was totally outside of their narrow frame of reference. Not a criticism, just an observation. It has no bearing on Jeremy's innocence or guilt.
-
I have never understood why it was dismissed, since the twins had been in day foster care in the past.
And why was it dismissed ? Because statements taken from Mrs Lister and Mrs Lester,both foster carers, were never disclosed to the defence so therefore could not be part of the defence case,,thus countering what Jeremy had said which was believed to have been all lies !!
What chance did Jeremy stand at all,against a pack of individuals who,it would have seemed,PURPOSELY omitted statements to the defence. It stinks to high Heaven.
-
And why was it dismissed ? Because statements taken from Mrs Lister and Mrs Lester,both foster carers, were never disclosed to the defence so therefore could not be part of the defence case,,thus countering what Jeremy had said which was believed to have been all lies !!
What chance did Jeremy stand at all,against a pack of individuals who,it would have seemed,PURPOSELY omitted statements to the defence. It stinks to high Heaven.
Lookout, hard as it maybe to accept, I think the reason it was dismissed is that on its own it has no bearing on whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent. The conversation round the kitchen table MAY have been, word for word, EXACTLY as he said, but that won't necessarily mean he DIDN'T commit the crime.
-
I take it that a source cannot be supplied for this claim?
To probably the rudest person on this forum I will find a source if it is the truth if you find even one thousand people who think Jeremy is guilty
Keep saying it and someone might believe you one day
-
Lookout, hard as it maybe to accept, I think the reason it was dismissed is that on its own it has no bearing on whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent. The conversation round the kitchen table MAY have been, word for word, EXACTLY as he said, but that won't necessarily mean he DIDN'T commit the crime.
I'm fully aware that it wouldn't have let Jeremy off the hook,however,I would think that the first view of anyone who either believes Jeremy,or who doesn't,would rightly say that he didn't get a fair trial anyway given that half the information which should have been given to the defence----------wasn't.
Did the powers that be think that the said information wouldn't be of any help,that it was a foregone conclusion that Jeremy would be convicted,or what ? To have withheld that which could have prevented him from being called a liar in the first inst,was to my mind,beyond disgraceful.
-
To probably the rudest person on this forum I will find a source if it is the truth if you find even one thousand people who think Jeremy is guilty
Keep saying it and someone might believe you one day
Now you've started talking to yourself, weird. ???
-
For two years,Sheila had been talking about killing her mother and the children. No doubt this will appear as part of the medical reports in the next submission. For at leas four months,Sheila herself had contemplated suicide.
At the time,schizophrenics don't say " right,I'm going to kill you now ". Their behaviour is such,that as in Sheilas' case,she'd remained passive for pretty much of the day before the killings,even Jeremy had said in his statement that she'd just sat quietly when foster care came into the conversation. He could easily have lied then at that point and said she was up in arms or something,but he continued to tell it how it actually was,with no exaggerations.
-
According to Lomax's book,Sheila had " gone crazy " many times over the years before the tragedies happened,and with the help of Social Services and of course the immediate family,issues had been resolved without the need for police intervention. This is why Jeremy was always on hand to help with Sheilas' difficulties. Sadly,this is seen as a further excuse to use towards his sister,as it can,and has been twisted to say that Jeremy USED this information to safe-guard himself.
Even the fact about his non 999 phonecall,which I understand about,but nobody else can,as again he's blamed for making excuses.
The " slow driving" also came in for much criticism too,and this was only the beginning of a ghastly nit-picking case. If he'd have sped to WHF,there'd have been suspicion that he'd have " been helping police with their inquiries ",the same pattern as Huntley,who" couldn't do enough for the police ".Now that's suspicious !!
-
Now you've started talking to yourself, weird. ???
You stole my line, well actually I was going to write why are you talking about yourself in third person but...
-
That's right-------------ignore my posts by diverting your attention to something else less interesting.
-
According to Lomax's book,Sheila had " gone crazy " many times over the years before the tragedies happened,and with the help of Social Services and of course the immediate family,issues had been resolved without the need for police intervention. This is why Jeremy was always on hand to help with Sheilas' difficulties. Sadly,this is seen as a further excuse to use towards his sister,as it can,and has been twisted to say that Jeremy USED this information to safe-guard himself.
Even the fact about his non 999 phonecall,which I understand about,but nobody else can,as again he's blamed for making excuses.
The " slow driving" also came in for much criticism too,and this was only the beginning of a ghastly nit-picking case. If he'd have sped to WHF,there'd have been suspicion that he'd have " been helping police with their inquiries ",the same pattern as Huntley,who" couldn't do enough for the police ".Now that's suspicious !!
Lookout, if all that Lomax says is true and Sheila "going crazy" was a regular, but secret occurrence with which Jeremy was regularly involved, what was there to stop him, after her death, with there no longer being the need for secrecy, from bringing it out.
-
Not sure there is a source, if Jackie he one, She isn't keen on posting it.
-
Lookout, if all that Lomax says is true and Sheila "going crazy" was a regular, but secret occurrence with which Jeremy was regularly involved, what was there to stop him, after her death, with there no longer being the need for secrecy, from bringing it out.
I'm sure so much went on and was said afterwards that it must have felt like a mish-mash of whys,hows and wherefores,which wasn't helped because whatever Jeremy said or tried to explain,it was more or less ignored or denied by one and all.
Nobody believed his story about the twins being fostered so why should they have believed that he was a regular visitor during Sheilas' attacks.?
-
I'm sure so much went on and was said afterwards that it must have felt like a mish-mash of whys,hows and wherefores,which wasn't helped because whatever Jeremy said or tried to explain,it was more or less ignored or denied by one and all.
Nobody believed his story about the twins being fostered so why should they have believed that he was a regular visitor during Sheilas' attacks.?
It wasn't a very bright move to withhold information because "nobody believed" one story. He was, in effect, making the job of his defence far more difficult by not giving them the chance to use it.
-
It wasn't a very bright move to withhold information because "nobody believed" one story. He was, in effect, making the job of his defence far more difficult by not giving them the chance to use it.
April,I think Jeremy thought that he was going to be carried along without a fight. He just wasn't prepared himself,at all for what was about to follow. And because he really thought he was going to walk out of that courtroom he wouldn't have been bothered about anything else being offered to the defence. I believe that he told the truth and in his mind he knew so. It was his gung-ho attitude which let him down--------that's all.
-
For two years,Sheila had been talking about killing her mother and the children. No doubt this will appear as part of the medical reports in the next submission. For at leas four months,Sheila herself had contemplated suicide.
At the time,schizophrenics don't say " right,I'm going to kill you now ". Their behaviour is such,that as in Sheilas' case,she'd remained passive for pretty much of the day before the killings,even Jeremy had said in his statement that she'd just sat quietly when foster care came into the conversation. He could easily have lied then at that point and said she was up in arms or something,but he continued to tell it how it actually was,with no exaggerations.
More lies from you.
She didn't talk about killing anyone let alone killing her mother or children. You cna't even present evidence she talked about killing them a signle occasion let alone multiple times over the course of 2 years.
As for suicide she told her dcotro in 1983 that before treatment she contemplated suicide. She never told him anything about contemplating suicide at any point after undergoing treatment let alone contemplating it during the months leading up to her death.
Everything you say is always dead wrong. You coudln't get a fac tin this case right by accident even, you defy the statistical averages...
-
According to Lomax's book,Sheila had " gone crazy " many times over the years before the tragedies happened,and with the help of Social Services and of course the immediate family,issues had been resolved without the need for police intervention. This is why Jeremy was always on hand to help with Sheilas' difficulties. Sadly,this is seen as a further excuse to use towards his sister,as it can,and has been twisted to say that Jeremy USED this information to safe-guard himself.
Even the fact about his non 999 phonecall,which I understand about,but nobody else can,as again he's blamed for making excuses.
The " slow driving" also came in for much criticism too,and this was only the beginning of a ghastly nit-picking case. If he'd have sped to WHF,there'd have been suspicion that he'd have " been helping police with their inquiries ",the same pattern as Huntley,who" couldn't do enough for the police ".Now that's suspicious !!
All his book recounts is the very few instances that were discussed in the statements of her doctor and friends. All of which occurred prior to her being treated or when she stopped tkaing her medicaiton which is why she was put on injections- so that she no longer would relase as a result of not taking her medication. She was never violent towards anyone during the course of these episodes which were not at all common like you want to pretend.
-
More lies from you.
She didn't talk about killing anyone let alone killing her mother or children. You cna't even present evidence she talked about killing them a signle occasion let alone multiple times over the course of 2 years.
As for suicide she told her dcotro in 1983 that before treatment she contemplated suicide. She never told him anything about contemplating suicide at any point after undergoing treatment let alone contemplating it during the months leading up to her death.
Everything you say is always dead wrong. You coudln't get a fac tin this case right by accident even, you defy the statistical averages...
Do you know what ? You're SICK !!
-
Coming from a liar that means very little. Fact: you lied about Sheila telling people she wanted to kill her kids and mother. Fact: you lied that in the months leading up to the murders Sheila kept telling her doctor she was contemplating suicide.
Prove that these claims were not lies post evidence to prove your claims true.
You have been here for years you should be aware of the basic facts of this case but instead everything you post is diametrically opposed to the actual facts. How can one be so hopessly wrong always when the facts have been spelled out here so many times unless it is intentionally lying not just being wrong?
-
Now, now children. ::)
-
It WASN'T me who stated that Sheila wanted to kill her children and her mother.It came from Dr Ferguson in Lomax's book ! Just piss off you're evil.!
-
It WASN'T me who stated that Sheila wanted to kill her children and her mother.It came from Dr Ferguson in Lomax's book ! Just piss off you're evil.!
I've said the same to you in the past - if you promote mistruths knowingly, what else do you expect to be called than a liar? :-\ You do lie.
-
I've said the same to you in the past - if you promote mistruths knowingly, what else do you expect to be called than a liar? :-\ You do lie.
Who asked you for your opinion ? I DON'T lie. As I explained earlier,NOBODY here is telling the truth because we weren't there to witness what went on. Every link,author,for or against are all liars. What's posted her are just copies of their lies,not ours.
Even Jeremy himself disagrees with what's been written in some books,including Lomax's.
What I'd copied is in page 42 of Lomax's book,,so do me a favour and call him a liar,I DARE YOU,COWARD !
-
Who asked you for your opinion ? I DON'T lie. As I explained earlier,NOBODY here is telling the truth because we weren't there to witness what went on. Every link,author,for or against are all liars. What's posted her are just copies of their lies,not ours.
Even Jeremy himself disagrees with what's been written in some books,including Lomax's.
What I'd copied is in page 42 of Lomax's book,,so do me a favour and call him a liar,I DARE YOU,COWARD !
Just a thought. Might it help to prevent PERSONAL accusations by stating that an author was responsible for the words?
-
April,I'm sorry but it's a bit of a beggar that I have to " pre" justify my posts just because some clown comes zooming in at the thought of a good old abuse session.
I didn't know that Mat would just drop from a great height and join in the fray,,though I should be used to it now after over 2 years of bullying from him.
Why he doesn't put me on ignore I don't know.Ask him.
Anyway,I don't/didn't expect an authors words to be questioned.? I can soon get in touch with him.
-
I'm not bullying you. :o Not agreeing with your posts and pulling you up on awful things you've said about the family isn't bullying.
-
I'm not bullying you. :o Not agreeing with your posts and pulling you up on awful things you've said about the family isn't bullying.
It is too.!
-
All his book recounts is the very few instances that were discussed in the statements of her doctor and friends. All of which occurred prior to her being treated or when she stopped tkaing her medicaiton which is why she was put on injections- so that she no longer would relase as a result of not taking her medication. She was never violent towards anyone during the course of these episodes which were not at all common like you want to pretend.
Looks like Scott Lomax gets a lot of things wrong? Mr Lomax said: “I am looking forward to going to the Court of Appeal to watch Bamber walk free after 27 long years in prison.”
-
In fairness to lookout,it IS stated in one of Sheila's psychiatrist statements that Sheila had relayed to him that she feared that one of her boys in particular was a woman hater and may rape her. And that she felt that she was capable of murdering her boys,so that is not a lie. And isn't calling people a liar against forum rules?
-
Lookout is constantly being bullied
Talk about lies and the fantasy world Mat lives in
Ccrc ????
-
I'm not bullying you. :o Not agreeing with your posts and pulling you up on awful things you've said about the family isn't bullying.
maybe you bother to get your facts correct before you go screaming liar at people.
-
Lookout is constantly being bullied
Talk about lies and the fantasy world Mat lives in
Ccrc ????
Because Caroline and Scipio have shown you up as a liar and someone who refuses to admit when they are wrong, you're now trying to start with me again?
I look forward to this online stalker being rebanned. What a mistake to bring her back.
maybe you bother to get your facts correct before you go screaming liar at people.
Show me what in Lookouts post is true. It's often wrong.
-
In fairness to lookout,it IS stated in one of Sheila's psychiatrist statements that Sheila had relayed to him that she feared that one of her boys in particular was a woman hater and may rape her. And that she felt that she was capable of murdering her boys,so that is not a lie. And isn't calling people a liar against forum rules?
i thought i was agianst forum rules to.
-
In fairness to lookout,it IS stated in one of Sheila's psychiatrist statements that Sheila had relayed to him that she feared that one of her boys in particular was a woman hater and may rape her. And that she felt that she was capable of murdering her boys,so that is not a lie. And isn't calling people a liar against forum rules?
Post where she stated she felt she was capable of murdering her boys. Lookout's claim that she said she wanted to kill her boys and mother was indeed a lie and not even close to anything she stated.
Her comments about her having delusions that they could harm her were all before she started her treatment but still nothing of the stort where she was going to harm them she felt they were a threat to her.
-
Because Caroline and Scipio have shown you up as a liar and someone who refuses to admit when they are wrong, you're now trying to start with me again?
I look forward to this online stalker being rebanned. What a mistake to bring her back.
Show me what in Lookouts post is true. It's often wrong.
somone getting somthing wrong does not make them a liar would you scream liar to somones faces if they got somthing wrong or quated somthing you believed might not be true i doubt if you would so why say it online.
if you dont believe it take it up with scott lomax.
-
getting somthing wrong does not make them a liar would scream liar to somones faces if they got somthing or quated you believed might not be true i doubt if you would so why say it online.
if you dont believe it take it up with scott lomax.
No, I don't believe it. Because that is NOT what Scott Lomax said. Lookout can't misquote and then use Scott as her source.
-
Page 42 of Lomax's book !! Read the bloody thing,don't be getting on at me.
-
dont worry lookout people who have actually bothered to read the book know this.
-
To probably the rudest person on this forum I will find a source if it is the truth if you find even one thousand people who think Jeremy is guilty
Keep saying it and someone might believe you one day
I am honored!! Do I get a sash and a tiriari? ;D ;D ;D ;D
So there is no source just yet another myth being peddled as fact. Oh dear!!
-
No, I don't believe it. Because that is NOT what Scott Lomax said. Lookout can't misquote and then use Scott as her source.
Let's go to the video tape (sorry that is one of the sayings of a famous local sport newscaster):
Lookout:
"For two years,Sheila had been talking about killing her mother and the children. No doubt this will appear as part of the medical reports in the next submission. For at leas four months,Sheila herself had contemplated suicide."
Lomax:
“Sheila's psychiatrist, Doctor Ferguson, wrote in his report that his patient self harmed, had expressed thoughts of a suicidal nature and told that she was capable of murdering her sons."
What Lomax left out is that the report in question was Ferguson's 1983 discharge letter where he recorded things that she talked with him about before successfully being treated. Here is how the 2002 Appeal decision addresses such:
"In the discharge letter Dr Ferguson made reference to her morbid thoughts, which included the idea she was capable of murdering her children or communicating an ability to them to kill. He said she had spoken of suicidal thoughts although he did not regard her as a suicide risk. Miss Caffell responded to the treatment at hospital and was discharged on 10 September 1983."
So the truth is that she told Ferguson that before her treatment she had suicidal thoughts (many people do at some point in their life) and that she had delusions about her kids. Ferguson noted that after that successful treatment she never intimated to him any thoughts about suicide or delusions about her family anymore. The delusions she had during her relapse was about Freddie being the devil and she told Ferguson that Freddie was supplying her with narcotics. Hence why Ferguson told Colin he didn 't think Freddie was a good influence on her.
So let's go back to Lookout's claim:
"For two years,Sheila had been talking about killing her mother and the children. No doubt this will appear as part of the medical reports in the next submission. For at leas four months,Sheila herself had contemplated suicide."
Was she talking about killing her children and mother for 2 years? No she didn't talk about killing her mother at all. Did she talk about killing her kids for 2 years? No she intimated that prior to her 1983 treatment that she had delusions that they could do violence to her and she thought she was capable of killing them basically to protect herself. But these delusions stopped upon being treated and she didn't mention having them again. So Lookout's characterization is completely wrong.
Her suggestion that for the 4 months preceding her death she was contemplating suicide is also unfounded. The only evidence of her speaking about suicide is that she told him and others that she had thought about it in the past specifically before her 1983 treatment.
So the jury heard that she talked about these things before her treatment, did not have these problems again after her 1983 treatment and that Ferguson did not see her at risk as going through with any violence against anyone else or herself.
The jury also heard that she stopped taking her medication, had delusions, viewed Freddie as the devil and a big threat and yet still did not harm him. Thus supporting Ferguson's view that she was not a violent threat even when she stopped taking her medicaiton though at the time of the murders she was on her medication.
That is the full story and Lookout's claims are not supported at all.
-
Let's go to the video tape (sorry that is one of the sayings of a famous local sport newscaster):
Lookout:
"For two years,Sheila had been talking about killing her mother and the children. No doubt this will appear as part of the medical reports in the next submission. For at leas four months,Sheila herself had contemplated suicide."
Lomax:
“Sheila's psychiatrist, Doctor Ferguson, wrote in his report that his patient self harmed, had expressed thoughts of a suicidal nature and told that she was capable of murdering her sons."
What Lomax left out is that the report in question was Ferguson's 1983 discharge letter where he recorded things that she talked with him about before successfully being treated. Here is how the 2002 Appeal decision addresses such:
"In the discharge letter Dr Ferguson made reference to her morbid thoughts, which included the idea she was capable of murdering her children or communicating an ability to them to kill. He said she had spoken of suicidal thoughts although he did not regard her as a suicide risk. Miss Caffell responded to the treatment at hospital and was discharged on 10 September 1983."
So the truth is that she told Ferguson that before her treatment she had suicidal thoughts (many people do at some point in their life) and that she had delusions about her kids. Ferguson noted that after that successful treatment she never intimated to him any thoughts about suicide or delusions about her family anymore. The delusions she had during her relapse was about Freddie being the devil and she told Ferguson that Freddie was supplying her with narcotics. Hence why Ferguson told Colin he didn 't think Freddie was a good influence on her.
So let's go back to Lookout's claim:
"For two years,Sheila had been talking about killing her mother and the children. No doubt this will appear as part of the medical reports in the next submission. For at leas four months,Sheila herself had contemplated suicide."
Was she talking about killing her children and mother for 2 years? No she didn't talk about killing her mother at all. Did she talk about killing her kids for 2 years? No she intimated that prior to her 1983 treatment that she had delusions that they could do violence to her and she thought she was capable of killing them basically to protect herself. But these delusions stopped upon being treated and she didn't mention having them again. So Lookout's characterization is completely wrong.
Her suggestion that for the 4 months preceding her death she was contemplating suicide is also unfounded. The only evidence of her speaking about suicide is that she told him and others that she had thought about it in the past specifically before her 1983 treatment.
So the jury heard that she talked about these things before her treatment, did not have these problems again after her 1983 treatment and that Ferguson did not see her at risk as going through with any violence against anyone else or herself.
The jury also heard that she stopped taking her medication, had delusions, viewed Freddie as the devil and a big threat and yet still did not harm him. Thus supporting Ferguson's view that she was not a violent threat even when she stopped taking her medicaiton though at the time of the murders she was on her medication.
That is the full story and Lookout's claims are not supported at all.
A solid and clear post, Scipio that I think has exposed completely the comments for what they are.
-
from Helen grimsters statement in March 1985 - she was still talking about suicidal thoughts
-
Well that's alright then - she had thoughts about harming her sons and but it was two years before .
Nothing odd about that then.
-
from Helen grimsters statement in March 1985 - she was still talking about suicidal thoughts
No all she said is that Sheila told her she had contmeplated suicide in the past not when it was contemplated. That conversation was supposedly the day after she got released from the hosipital. She was discussing how she was placed on tranquilizers because of her prior problems including thinking about suicide and having various delusions.
It doesn't speak to any considerations of suicide on that day and certainly can't speak to the months after the conversation took place.
-
PAGE 42 OF LOMAX'S BOOK !! HERE'S THE FULL PARAGRAPH FOR THE " HARD OF SEEING "::
Quote, "It is known that Sheila had been considering ending her life for at least 4 months before her death and she had contemplated KILLING HER CHILDREN AND MOTHER FOR UP TO TWO YEARS before the fateful night. Therefore it is possible that during the discussion regarding care of the twins,if the discussion did take place,Sheila could have reasoned that she should act out her intentions.She would not have needed to have become very angry or out-wardly upset in order to consider killing because the idea was already in her mind.As her behaviour and thoughts had centred upon religion it is entirely believable that she did not have fear of carrying out the massacre because she believed it was the right thing to do. Her passive response could have been an indication that it did not matter to her what her parents wanted for the children because she had made up her mind that the children were to be shot,that her mother was to be killed in order to cleanse her evil mind and she too was to commit suicide so that she could go to a better world,free of suffering and evil,UNQUOTE".
AS WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF S.LOMAX. PAGE 42 OF HIS BOOK,EVIL,ALMOST BEYOND BELIEF ?.
-
So it's been totally ignored . Right ? While I have to put up with all the crap from the guilty camp,but as soon as I have my say,it's either lies,or I'm living in cloud cuckoo land.
How one-sided is that ? I've NEVER told ANYONE that they are wrong about what they have to say,so isn't it about time the same applied to MY posts instead of a barrage of abuse ? Because I'm bloody sick of it.
-
Sorry----------but I'm trying to get a point across here,and until I do,this gets bumped !!
-
I'm determined ! Motormouth has had more than his fair share of giving HIS points of view,but as soon as an innocent view comes up,he vanishes,especially when it happens to be something that I HAVEN'T " MADE UP OR LIED ABOUT ".
-
Conspicuous by his absence for once------------the silence is deafening.
-
Sorry----------but I'm trying to get a point across here,and until I do,this gets bumped !!
Lookout, however frustrating this must be for you, it appears that EVERYTHING said of Sheila and her condition PRIOR to Dr Ferguson's words, become (conveniently) erased/overruled by them. That I believe Jeremy to be guilty is quite other from the fact that I believe Sheila was hideously let down.
-
April,it's more than frustrating. I was more or less called a liar last night,then again today,and right now this is about ME and not whether anyone's guilty or not. We are bombarded every day with posts from Scipio,but as soon as a few others,including myself post something,it's either ignored if he can't answer,or full of abuse if he can answer.
-
I'm determined ! Motormouth has had more than his fair share of giving HIS points of view,but as soon as an innocent view comes up,he vanishes,especially when it happens to be something that I HAVEN'T " MADE UP OR LIED ABOUT ".
Lookout don't ever give into the bullies on this forum it's been horrendous at times [DELETED] all you need to know is what Colin first said when he answered the door to the police
Admin edit: Don't push your luck Jackie. If you start attacking admins/mods you will not last long here.
-
PAGE 42 OF LOMAX'S BOOK !! HERE'S THE FULL PARAGRAPH FOR THE " HARD OF SEEING "::
Quote, "It is known that Sheila had been considering ending her life for at least 4 months before her death and she had contemplated KILLING HER CHILDREN AND MOTHER FOR UP TO TWO YEARS before the fateful night. Therefore it is possible that during the discussion regarding care of the twins,if the discussion did take place,Sheila could have reasoned that she should act out her intentions.She would not have needed to have become very angry or out-wardly upset in order to consider killing because the idea was already in her mind.As her behaviour and thoughts had centred upon religion it is entirely believable that she did not have fear of carrying out the massacre because she believed it was the right thing to do. Her passive response could have been an indication that it did not matter to her what her parents wanted for the children because she had made up her mind that the children were to be shot,that her mother was to be killed in order to cleanse her evil mind and she too was to commit suicide so that she could go to a better world,free of suffering and evil,UNQUOTE".
AS WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF S.LOMAX. PAGE 42 OF HIS BOOK,EVIL,ALMOST BEYOND BELIEF ?.
Lomax's claims are ambiguous and wrong. I posted the part where he referenced his supposed evidence. Her 1983 release- which discussed her situation prior to being treated. it is unclear whether he was suggesitng he was considering suicide for the entire 4 months prior to her death or is claimign that 4 months before her death she said she contemplated suicide. There is no support for either though.
His other claim is equally ambiguous. Was he suggesting that it had been two years before that she contemplated killing them or contemplated it for the entire 2 years preceeding her death?
What support did he offer for his contentions? Gain a letter that doesn't say anythign about contemplating killing anyone. Rather saying she thought she could be capable of killing her sons to protect herself from them harming her. She didn't say she contemplated killing them of anyone else.
Lomax's book is full of gross distortions as he makes a pathetic attempt to establish Jeremy is innocent. Most of his claims are not supported by evidence and many of his claims are ambiguous.
The facts are as I described them:
She intimated that prior to her 1983 treatment that she had delusions that her children could do violence to her and if they did she thought she was capable of killing them. But these delusions stopped upon being treated and she didn't mention having them again.
She also intimated that prior to her treatment she had thought about suicide.
In 1985 the day after she got out of her second stint in the hospital she told someone about how she was being medicated because she had delusions and in the past had considered suicide.
These are the facts not Lomax's pitiful mischaracterizations or yours.
-
What are you even talking about, Lookout. What you've posted matches with what Scipio has said and as usual NOT your post.
You're posting non-stop to get his attention because you think he is ignoring you? Maybe he isn't online RIGHT NOW or is in another topic? I'm sure he will see your post and respond to it as he usually does.
Lookout don't ever give into the bullies on this forum it's been horrendous at times [DELETED] all you need to know is what Colin first said when he answered the door to the police
It's a stain on this forum [DELETED] - but that has nothing to do with Lookout, her posts or this topic.
Admin edit: The same applies to you Mat.
-
I'm afraid his idea is to" lose" posts if there's even a hint of innocence mentioned,then swamp them all with his. Using DB's words," there are NO winners,everyone LOSES.". So let" him who must be obeyed" bear that in mind,too.
-
I'm determined ! Motormouth has had more than his fair share of giving HIS points of view,but as soon as an innocent view comes up,he vanishes,especially when it happens to be something that I HAVEN'T " MADE UP OR LIED ABOUT ".
Who vanished?
I am 5 hours behind you and have a job. I respond a hell of a lot given those confines.
Not even Lomax's distortions provide any support for your claim that:
"For two years,Sheila had been talking about killing her mother and the children. No doubt this will appear as part of the medical reports in the next submission"
She didn't talk about killing her kids at all. She said that she felt that she was capable of killing them if they did violence to her. It wa sint he wider context of various delusions she had about them. Far form saying this repeatedly over the course of 2 years she had these delusions prior to being treated and after being treated did not have such delusions again. Ferguson said that she didn't talk about her family in 1985 but rather Freddie.
-
Lomax's claims are ambiguous and wrong. I posted the part where he referenced his supposed evidence. Her 1983 release- which discussed her situation prior to being treated. it is unclear whether he was suggesitng he was considering suicide for the entire 4 months prior to her death or is claimign that 4 months before her death she said she contemplated suicide. There is no support for either though.
His other claim is equally ambiguous. Was he suggesting that it had been two years before that she contemplated killing them or contemplated it for the entire 2 years preceeding her death?
What support did he offer for his contentions? Gain a letter that doesn't say anythign about contemplating killing anyone. Rather saying she thought she could be capable of killing her sons to protect herself from them harming her. She didn't say she contemplated killing them of anyone else.
Lomax's book is full of gross distortions as he makes a pathetic attempt to establish Jeremy is innocent. Most of his claims are not supported by evidence and many of his claims are ambiguous.
The facts are as I described them:
She intimated that prior to her 1983 treatment that she had delusions that her children could do violence to her and if they did she thought she was capable of killing them. But these delusions stopped upon being treated and she didn't mention having them again.
She also intimated that prior to her treatment she had thought about suicide.
In 1985 the day after she got out of her second stint in the hospital she told someone about how she was being medicated because she had delusions and in the past had considered suicide.
These are the facts not Lomax's pitiful mischaracterizations or yours.
Lomax fought tooth and nail for Michael George,remember !! Was he wrong then ?
-
What are you even talking about, Lookout. What you've posted matches with what Scipio has said and as usual NOT your post.
You're posting non-stop to get his attention because you think he is ignoring you? Maybe he isn't online RIGHT NOW or is in another topic? I'm sure he will see your post and respond to it as he usually does.
It's a stain on this forum that the abuse to the Hall family ever took place, the fact it was allowed night after night to continue is disgusting - but that has nothing to do with Lookout, her posts or this topic.
Butting in again,I see ! It never fails----------BULLY !
-
April I too as you know believe Jeremy Bamber to be guilty of the murder of his family but Sheila was very badly let down by many :( Poor Sheila she deserved better.
-
Lookout don't ever give into the bullies on this forum it's been horrendous at times [DELETED] all you need to know is what Colin first said when he answered the door to the police
It's my opinion that bullying goes on in this forum and I think Lookout gets bullies and I am entitled to my opinion
-
Lookout don't ever give into the bullies on this forum it's been horrendous at times [DELETED] all you need to know is what Colin first said when he answered the door to the police
It's disgusting,Jackie. I don't know what their aim is at all,but they obviously get something out of being abusive. Must be their ghastly lives that they feel insecure in some way with. Would they start bullying a 74 year old in the street ? Makes you think,doesn't it ?
-
It's disgusting,Jackie. I don't know what their aim is at all,but they obviously get something out of being abusive. Must be their ghastly lives that they feel insecure in some way with. Would they start bullying a 74 year old in the street ? Makes you think,doesn't it ?
Correcting someone who keeps posting the same mistruths isn't bullying. I have no idea who you are, what you are like in person - its your posts that I comment on and your inability to be truthful!! You are still pretending that Lomax and you are saying the same thing!
-
Will I have to apologise from now on after every post for supporting Jeremy,or what ?
-
It's disgusting,Jackie. I don't know what their aim is at all,but they obviously get something out of being abusive. Must be their ghastly lives that they feel insecure in some way with. Would they start bullying a 74 year old in the street ? Makes you think,doesn't it ?
DEAR lookout, they wouldn't get the chance, would they? You'd beat them over the head with your brolly until they submitted and apologized :)
-
DEAR lookout, they wouldn't get the chance, would they? You'd beat them over the head with your brolly until they submitted and apologized :)
You agree she's being bullied?
-
Will I have to apologise from now on after every post for supporting Jeremy,or what ?
-
DEAR lookout, they wouldn't get the chance, would they? You'd beat them over the head with your brolly until they submitted and apologized :)
Too right,April. I don't suffer fools-----------
-
Will I have to apologise from now on after every post for supporting Jeremy,or what ?
I don't care who you support. Bamber. Yorskshire Ripper. Jack The Ripper. Rose West! Doesn't matter to me, you have the right to support whoever you choose to.
You don't have the right to create your own facts though and promote them as truths - thats where the problem is.
-
Lomax fought tooth and nail for Michael George,remember !! Was he wrong then ?
I fon't know if he lied with respect to anything about Barry George or not because I have not read any of his claims.
The fact of the matter is that he grossly distorted with respect to the facts of this case and relating to the law of what needed to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
George's conviction was not overturned on the basis of most clais mad eby his supporters It was overturned solely on the basis of a claim that a single particle of GSR suggested he fired the murder weapon. But much more would be expected if one had recently fired a weapon and it is very easy for a single particle to be transferred.
He was acquitted on retrial because some witnesses were no longer certain like they were previously and there was no physical evidence at all to tie him to firing a weapon, he had no time to have changed so the GSR would still have been on his clothing.
Lomax completely ignores all the evidence that establishes that Sheial did not kill anyone else, could not have killed herself and everything unfavorable to Jeremy or that makes his claims implausible. He distorts beyond reason on so many issues it is ridiculous.
-
I don't care who you support. Bamber. Yorskshire Ripper. Jack The Ripper. Rose West! Doesn't matter to me, you have the right to support whoever you choose to.
You don't have the right to create your own facts though and promote them as truths - thats where the problem is.
This is where you're wrong though because I DON'T and NEVER have created my own facts at all. It probably seems so to a pea-brain such as yourself,but you seem to forget that MY facts are from sources that support Jeremys' innocence,so very different to the ones that you support.
Now do you see where I'm coming from ? No,,I don't suppose you do ! Only you and others like you see the " problem ",but if you look and think hard enough,there's no problem attached to it,only what YOU'VE created in order to suit.
-
You agree she's being bullied?
Mat, I DO think lookout is being got at. POSSIBLY because she doesn't make it clear what/who she's quoting from what she, personally, believes. f she was to say that "WHOEVER" states X,Y and Z and people don't agree, they can only say how they feel about what the author has said and lookout wouldn't get the blame for it. IMO, for what it's worth.
-
It's disgusting,Jackie. I don't know what their aim is at all,but they obviously get something out of being abusive. Must be their ghastly lives that they feel insecure in some way with. Would they start bullying a 74 year old in the street ? Makes you think,doesn't it ?
Who is bullying? People get sick of your trolling. Day in and day out you post bogus claims ignoring the actual facts and continuously claim there is no evidence though people post the evidence that convicted him time and again everytime you suggest such.
You still won't admit you are wrong and still keep posting the same untruths. Sheila didn't say she contemplated killing her mother or kids even a single time let alone say such repeatedly over the course of 2 years. She say anythig about killing her mother and said merely she thought she would be capable of killing her sons if they tried to physically harm her. She said that prior to her treatment she had delusions about them. She never mentioned having any such delusions after she began her treatment.
After beginning her treatment the deusions she had (when she stopped taking her medication) were not about her family.
This has been pointed out time and time again. Your claims are baseless and you were made aware of such so each time you continue to make them anyway it makes you a liar.
-
You agree she's being bullied?
anyone can see shes being bullied,
-
I don't care who you support. Bamber. Yorskshire Ripper. Jack The Ripper. Rose West! Doesn't matter to me, you have the right to support whoever you choose to.
You don't have the right to create your own facts though and promote them as truths - thats where the problem is.
i see your sex case stalkers back agian lookout.
-
Who is bullying? People get sick of your trolling. Day in and day out you post bogus claims ignoring the actual facts and continuously claim there is no evidence though people post the evidence that convicted him time and again everytime you suggest such.
You still won't admit you are wrong and still keep posting the same untruths. Sheila didn't say she contemplated killing her mother or kids even a single time let alone say such repeatedly over the course of 2 years. She say anythig about killing her mother and said merely she thought she would be capable of killing her sons if they tried to physically harm her. She said that prior to her treatment she had delusions about them. She never mentioned having any such delusions after she began her treatment.
After beginning her treatment the deusions she had (when she stopped taking her medication) were not about her family.
This has been pointed out time and time again. Your claims are baseless and you were made aware of such so each time you continue to make them anyway it makes you a liar.
anyone with half a brian can see can you are and now im going to do some bullying of my own i think see how you lot like it.
-
Mat, I DO think lookout is being got at. POSSIBLY because she doesn't make it clear what/who she's quoting from what she, personally, believes. f she was to say that "WHOEVER" states X,Y and Z and people don't agree, they can only say how they feel about what the author has said and lookout wouldn't get the blame for it. IMO, for what it's worth.
The problem for me is that she posts a quote from X... And when asked about it, she says is from X. But when X's post is quoted... it's nothing like Lookouts quote. :-\
-
Mat, I DO think lookout is being got at. POSSIBLY because she doesn't make it clear what/who she's quoting from what she, personally, believes. f she was to say that "WHOEVER" states X,Y and Z and people don't agree, they can only say how they feel about what the author has said and lookout wouldn't get the blame for it. IMO, for what it's worth.
Her claims are different than what Lomax said. At any rate most of Lomax's claims ar esunsupportable and amount to intentional distortions.
Unless Lomax has offers proof that something he says is true ther eis no point in repeating his claims because they amount to unsupported allegations merely. If he does offer evidence you cite that evidence not him.
The supposed evidence cited is the 1983 release letter which quite clearly can't detail anything that happened the 2 years after the relase because Ferguson did not have a crystal ball. So it is plainly obvious Loamx was playing games to overplay his hand and not actually suggesting that from 1983 till her death she told Ferguson she was contemplating killing anyone and his claim she contemplate dkilling her kids wasn't accurate either. There is a difference between contemplating killing someoen and saying you feel you would be cpaable of it if they harmed you.
The suggestion that she was contemplating suicide for the 4 months before she died is no more supportable in fact she never said she contemplated it at all after getting released. She was discussing her delusions and suicidal thoughts before she was treated. She didn't say "I am contemplating suicide today" or "yesterday I contemplated suicide" to anyone.
-
The "slow driving" also came in for much criticism too, . . .
What "slow driving"? He was seen for just a few seconds while being overtaken, and the police in the car that overtook him didn't say he was driving slowly.
-
What "slow driving"? He was seen for just a few seconds while being overtaken, and the police in the car that overtook him didn't say he was driving slowly.
They did indeed say he wass driving slowly and worse they said after they passed him onyl a mile remained to WHF but it took him 2-3 minutes to drive that mile and they asked what took him so long and he said he stopped to put on a sweater or jacket.
-
Who is bullying? People get sick of your trolling. Day in and day out you post bogus claims ignoring the actual facts and continuously claim there is no evidence though people post the evidence that convicted him time and again everytime you suggest such.
You still won't admit you are wrong and still keep posting the same untruths. Sheila didn't say she contemplated killing her mother or kids even a single time let alone say such repeatedly over the course of 2 years. She say anythig about killing her mother and said merely she thought she would be capable of killing her sons if they tried to physically harm her. She said that prior to her treatment she had delusions about them. She never mentioned having any such delusions after she began her treatment.
After beginning her treatment the deusions she had (when she stopped taking her medication) were not about her family.
This has been pointed out time and time again. Your claims are baseless and you were made aware of such so each time you continue to make them anyway it makes you a liar.
Trolling ? You're the troll,full of your own damned importance,never wrong,always right,calling people liars because it doesn't fit your own personal scenario. Yes,I've " met " those like you on the net and they're not nice people. Considering that you say that you're a lawyer,there's absolutely NOTHING about you that describes you as a person in that profession,whether you " live in the States " or in Timbuktu.
Now I'd like a resume of ALL the posts I've made that are " allegedly " lies,or whatever you like to call them.
-
They did indeed say he wass driving slowly and worse they said after they passed him onyl a mile remained to WHF but it took him 2-3 minutes to drive that mile and they asked what took him so long and he said he stopped to put on a sweater or jacket.
your smewhast confusing the word people with yourself.
-
What "slow driving"? He was seen for just a few seconds while being overtaken, and the police in the car that overtook him didn't say he was driving slowly.
Other people on other forums had remarked how slow Jeremy was going so that they could read something into it,such as that it wouldn't look good him speeding along to a place where he'd allegedly slaughtered 5 people,in case he appeared too willing. One has to appreciate how the mind works with some folk.
-
They did indeed say he was driving slowly and worse they said after they passed him onyl a mile remained to WHF but it took him 2-3 minutes to drive that mile and they asked what took him so long and he said he stopped to put on a sweater or jacket.
If he stopped, the delay was due to the fact that he stopped, not slow driving. Once the police had passed him, it needn't have mattered to him whether he stopped for a very brief period or not. Pc Saxby was the only officer whose statement gave an estimate of his speed, and that estimate was 'no more than 30 mph', which is not slow driving, especially for someone being overtaken by a police car at high speed.
-
Mat, I DO think lookout is being got at. POSSIBLY because she doesn't make it clear what/who she's quoting from what she, personally, believes. f she was to say that "WHOEVER" states X,Y and Z and people don't agree, they can only say how they feel about what the author has said and lookout wouldn't get the blame for it. IMO, for what it's worth.
April
You do exactly the same yet you let the bullying continue
This never happened when I first joined the forum when it was just Mike in charge
You were a mod when [DELETED] weren't you?
Admin edit: You have been warned Jackie.
-
April
You do exactly the same yet you let the bullying continue
This never happened when I first joined the forum when it was just Mike in charge
You were a mod when [DELETED] weren't you?
I'm sorry to hear I don't come up to your expectations, Jackie.
-
April you are a good Mod and almost everyone on this forum would agree with me. I have seen where you are accused of over modding and not modding enough you strike a happy balance and I say well done to you. I think you do your best and nobody can ask for more and if they do let them become Mods ;)
-
April
You do exactly the same yet you let the bullying continue
This never happened when I first joined the forum when it was just Mike in charge
You were a mod when [DELETED]weren't you?
Perhaps you should ask the Hall family and Stephanie Bon about the support they received instead of assuming no one did anything. You might learn something. Not that it has anything to do with this thread or the Bamber case.
However, can we please STOP calling Lookout a liar, she isn't a liar simply because she believes what Lomax said. Lookout genuinely believes Jeremy is innocent and is as passionate in her stance as others are about theirs. If people don't agree, then just say why - there is no need to be hostile. Lets just rein it in a little.
-
April
You do exactly the same yet you let the bullying continue
This never happened when I first joined the forum when it was just Mike in charge
You were a mod when [DELETED] weren't you?
To be fair to the mods they did try, but the posts were always late at night. What else can they do? Close topics and delete posts. Which is what they did.
-
...can we please STOP calling Lookout a liar.
It's against forum rules also. No member should be called a liar.
-
Perhaps you should ask the Hall family and Stephanie Bon about the support they received instead of assuming no one did anything. You might learn something. Not that it has anything to do with this thread or the Bamber case.
However, can we please STOP calling Lookout a liar, she isn't a liar simply because she believes what Lomax said. Lookout genuinely believes Jeremy is innocent and is as passionate in her stance as others are about theirs. If people don't agree, then just say why - there is no need to be hostile. Lets just rein it in a little.
my only only only realy critictism of the mods is they put up with far to much criticism.
-
Perhaps you should ask the Hall family and Stephanie Bon about the support they received instead of assuming no one did anything. You might learn something. Not that it has anything to do with this thread or the Bamber case.
However, can we please STOP calling Lookout a liar, she isn't a liar simply because she believes what Lomax said. Lookout genuinely believes Jeremy is innocent and is as passionate in her stance as others are about theirs. If people don't agree, then just say why - there is no need to be hostile. Lets just rein it in a little.
Caroline how dare you
I know exactly what went on [DELETED]You were a mod at the time and always on the forum late at night
You could always ban me for complaining about bullying
Admin edit: You are very close to a ban Jackie. Take this as a final warning.
-
April you are a good Mod and almost everyone on this forum would agree with me. I have seen where you are accused of over modding and not modding enough you strike a happy balance and I say well done to you. I think you do your best and nobody can ask for more and if they do let them become Mods ;)
THANK-YOU, Susan. It's very difficult being all things to all people when everyone has different expectations. I can only do my best and accept that I won't always get it right.
-
Caroline I know lookout very well and one thing she does not do is tell lies she is too straight talking for that maybe she does not come over as she means to do and others read her wrong but you could not meet a more passionate honest woman and Jeremy Bamber is very lucky to have her as a supporter. She does not attack others for saying he is guilty and I admire her for that. If she knows she has posted up incorrect information she is the first to apologise.
-
It's against forum rules also. No member should be called a liar.
or dishonest -its personal - some of the posts against Alias and myself have been well out of order - and I have only reacted once .
If its against the rules I would at least like it pointed out that I am not happy that certain posters seem to be free to post whatever they want.
-
April you know the saying "you can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time" you carry on being "you" and keep up your good work X
-
Trolling ? You're the troll,full of your own damned importance,never wrong,always right,calling people liars because it doesn't fit your own personal scenario. Yes,I've " met " those like you on the net and they're not nice people. Considering that you say that you're a lawyer,there's absolutely NOTHING about you that describes you as a person in that profession,whether you " live in the States " or in Timbuktu.
Now I'd like a resume of ALL the posts I've made that are " allegedly " lies,or whatever you like to call them.
I have yet to see a post from you that is accurate.
All you do on this board is defend Jeremy with distortions and ad hominenm. Most of your day is spent ignoring and evidence posted by others instead of discussing it.
You are incapable in the meantime of posting your own evidence or substance.
What do you do here? Anytime someone posts evidence regarding Jeremy's guilt you run to his defense insisting that there was no evidence against him and that he is innocent and such a great guy. You don't refute the points raised with evidence of your own. Instead you just make the unsupported claim he is innocent and criticize those posting the evidence and so called guilters in general.
What facts have you contributed to this board? What factual debates do you participate in? You post outlandish inaccurate things and praise the outlandish lies posted by Mike.
You interrupt debates instead of contributing to them.
That is usually referred to as a troll in internet lingo.
-
I have yet to see a post from you that is accurate.
All you do on this board is defend Jeremy with distortions and ad hominenm. Most of your day is spent ignoring and evidence posted by others instead of discussing it.
You are incapable in the meantime of posting your own evidence or substance.
What do you do here? Anytime someone posts evidence regarding Jeremy's guilt you run to his defense insisting that there was no evidence against him and that he is innocent and such a great guy. You don't refute the points raised with evidence of your own. Instead you just make the unsupported claim he is innocent and criticize those posting the evidence and so called guilters in general.
What facts have you contributed to this board? What factual debates do you participate in? You post outlandish inaccurate things and praise the outlandish lies posted by Mike.
You interrupt debates instead of contributing to them.
That is usually referred to as a troll in internet lingo.
did you bother to read what rouch just said.
lookout your a great poster the fact this freak is stalking proves how great you are.
-
I can't believe what you've just posted---------------------you need help,you're not right in the head.!!
-
Caroline I know lookout very well and one thing she does not do is tell lies she is too straight talking for that maybe she does not come over as she means to do and others read her wrong but you could not meet a more passionate honest woman and Jeremy Bamber is very lucky to have her as a supporter. She does not attack others for saying he is guilty and I admire her for that. If she knows she has posted up incorrect information she is the first to apologise.
I have never seen her apologize or acknowoledge the false things she has written as being false. Indeed she keeps repeating them ad nauseum including the 2 bogus claims at issue.
She has so far refused to acknowledge that she was wrong about Sheila saying that she was contemplating suicide the 4 months prior to her death.
Likewise she has refused to acknowledge that she was wrong about Sheila telling Ferguson for 2 years that she was contemplating killing her children and mother.
I could spend all day long posting the wacky things she has suggested including that Julie put him up to the Caravan Robbery.
She seems to have no grasp of the facts as all nor does she seem to actually care about them, only to run around insisting Jeremy is innocent.
If she ever responded on point to an issue being debated substantively I would be absolutely astonished. As astonished as a thread here actually staying on subject...
-
You're a control freak and if you think that you can mess with my head,you're mistaken. I'm NOT one of your puppets that you can manipulate,you evil sod !!
-
Here you go again same old rubbish
Remind me what Colin said to the police when he got the news of the murders?
Remember it's a fact Jeremy loved farming
Jeremy never said a bad thing about his family
Babs Wilsons statement
Jeremy got on well with his sister
Fact her boyfriend said so
I could go on but I am bored ready your posts
You don't know anything factual you are just making up whatever you feel like
And you get off on bullying people
-
oh colin said he loved farming did he.
-
Here you go again same old rubbish
Remind me what Colin said to the police when he got the news of the murders?
You mean when he said that he had a hard time believing she would kill the kids and Nevill and could only see her killing her mother because they had problems?
Remember it's a fact Jeremy loved farming
Far from it being a fact there is not a shred of evidence to establish he enjoyed farming only evidence to the contrary including the fact he never farmed again after their death and planned to seell the farms.
Jeremy never said a bad thing about his family
Babs Wilsons statement
He said plenty of bad things about them to others including his prospective mother in law and she testified in court about such. There was alos plenty of evidence that he didn't get along well with his parents.
Jeremy got on well with his sister
Fact her boyfriend said so
He admitted he didn't get along with her and other witnesses said the same thing.
I could go on but I am bored ready your posts
You don't know anything factual you are just making up whatever you feel like
And you get off on bullying people
You are describing yourself. You are the Queen of projection- which is a defense mechanism you probably never heard of though you practice it regularly.
Your supposed facts aren't. You ignore all the significant issues in this case and don't have the first damn clue about the facts and evidence adduced at trial.
You just make generalized claims supportive of Jeremy insisting he is innocent.
Dismissing evidence doesn't make it go away it must be refuted. Posting fake facts doesn't refute the evidence it just makes you look sad.
The first step in trying to refute the evidence is to learn what the evidence was and fully understand it. Of his hardcore supporters the only one actually familiar with the evidence is Mike. He can't that evidence with anything legitimate though so resorts to all sorts of claims that have shot his credibility to hell and result in few people even reading his posts let alone bothering to respond.
-
Here you go again same old rubbish
Remind me what Colin said to the police when he got the news of the murders?
Remember it's a fact Jeremy loved farming
Jeremy never said a bad thing about his family
Babs Wilsons statement
Jeremy got on well with his sister
Fact her boyfriend said so
I could go on but I am bored ready your posts
You don't know anything factual you are just making up whatever you feel like
And you get off on bullying people
what did colin say to the police jackie whatever he said means far more than what mugford said hes got no reaon to lie.
-
You mean when he said that he had a hard time believing she would kill the kids and Nevill and could only see her killing her mother because they had problems?
Skip open your eyes Colin guessed Sheila had committed suicide!!! Anyone in the depths of her illness is NOT acting rationally. It is very PUBLIC knowledge what Sheila said about her children which was far from normal. Sheila was the victim in this. Let down by her family, let down by social services, let's down by her doctors and let down by Colin. If Colin had the slightest inclination Sheila could commit suicide he should have protected his children
Far from it being a fact there is not a shred of evidence to establish he enjoyed farming only evidence to the contrary including the fact he never farmed again after their death and planned to seell the farms.
Open up your eyes Skip
There is factual evidence from his ex girlfriend that he loved farming
When he wanted to travel he chose a country when he could continue farming something he loved
He had a fantastic public school background and could easily have chosen a different career
Of course he would have wanted to get away from where his family was murdered
Have you got factual prove anywhere that he would not have moved somewhere else and carried on farming
He said plenty of bad things about them to others including his prospective mother in law and she testified in court about such. There was alos plenty of evidence that he didn't get along well with his parents.
Open your eyes Skip
What bad things?
Barbara Wilson saw Jeremy on a daily basis and she said the opposite in her statements
Who knew JB better Barbara or Mugfords mother
She probably only met Jeremy on a handful of occasions
He admitted he didn't get along with her and other witnesses said the same thing.
Open your eyes Skip
The closest person to Sheila her boyfriend said Sheila and Jeremy got on well
Fact
You are describing yourself. You are the Queen of projection- which is a defense mechanism you probably never heard of though you practice it regularly.
Your supposed facts aren't. You ignore all the significant issues in this case and don't have the first damn clue about the facts and evidence adduced at trial.
You just make generalized claims supportive of Jeremy insisting he is innocent.
Dismissing evidence doesn't make it go away it must be refuted. Posting fake facts doesn't refute the evidence it just makes you look sad.
The first step in trying to refute the evidence is to learn what the evidence was and fully understand it. Of his hardcore supporters the only one actually familiar with the evidence is Mike. He can't that evidence with anything legitimate though so resorts to all sorts of claims that have shot his credibility to hell and result in few people even reading his posts let alone bothering to respond.
-
anyone can see shes being bullied,
I agree and it is unacceptable and must stop.
-
Jeremy failed his 'A' levels. Twice. Not so fantastic.
There is no mention of Jeremy farming when abroad. He did want to train to be a scuba diver & wrote to June demanding she sent over £1,500.00p.
Jeremy left NZ in a hurry after rumours about money going missing. When in the middle east, Jeremy asked his parents to send over more money, however after financing 15 months abroad, they sent over an air ticket home.
When back in England, Jeremy lived at WHF. But rejected the chance to work on the farm. Deciding to work at Little Chef instead. Then returning to NZ.
Loved farming ?
-
Skip open your eyes Colin guessed Sheila had committed suicide!!! Anyone in the depths of her illness is NOT acting rationally. It is very PUBLIC knowledge what Sheila said about her children which was far from normal. Sheila was the victim in this. Let down by her family, let down by social services, let's down by her doctors and let down by Colin. If Colin had the slightest inclination Sheila could commit suicide he should have protected his children
My eyes are wide open you are the one who keeps your eyes closed.
1) Colin's uninformed opinion as to who what happened is no more esiginficant than the opinion of anyone else. Opinion is not worth anything. WHat matters is what the evidence establishes. Since the evidence establishes his guit you ignore it and spend your time babbling about unsupported opinion.
2) Much of the unsupported opinion you resort to isn't even accurate. Colin found it hard to believe she killed Nevill and the boys. So far from him believing instantly that she did it he had a problem believing she did it. You are harping on the fact he said that if she had killed June and herself he woudl believe that but had a problem beliving she killed Nevill and the boys. Far from establishing this means he believed she did it, it means the opposite. Again though what he initially thought is meaningless. After learning all the facts and evidence he believed Jeremy was guilty.
Does any of this help suggest Jeremy is innocent? Not at all so why are you even raising it? You are raising it because you have nothign at all to sugges the is innocent so are tryting to pretend this does though it doesn't.
Open up your eyes Skip
There is factual evidence from his ex girlfriend that he loved farming
When he wanted to travel he chose a country when he could continue farming something he loved
He had a fantastic public school background and could easily have chosen a different career
Of course he would have wanted to get away from where his family was murdered
Have you got factual prove anywhere that he would not have moved somewhere else and carried on farming
My eyes are wide open yours are still closed. He complained about farming and complained about his parents trapping him in the farming business though he wanted ot live the good life in london. He quit farming at their deaths and neve rfarmed again. He planned to sell the farms to live int he city. You are the one hiding from relaity all to try to pretend he had no motive to kill his family but such efforts fail miserably. You are only managing to fool yourself no one else with your antics.
Open your eyes Skip
What bad things?
Barbara Wilson saw Jeremy on a daily basis and she said the opposite in her statements
Who knew JB better Barbara or Mugfords mother
She probably only met Jeremy on a handful of occasions
They are open Barbara Wilson contradicted herself many times on many issues including this one. Barbara Wilson would tell Jeremy's parents anything he told her so naturally he would not confide in her. Others who he woudl actually confide in say he had many bad things to say about his parents among others.
Your eyed are closed because you desperately want to believe Jeremy was an angel and innocent. All you are doing is proving you are a fool in the process. You have never articulated a valid basis for beiving he is innocent let alone offered any proof of his innocence. Just stupid distortions liek this where you try to sugges the would not have done it because he wa ssuch a great guy. That doesn't refute any of the evidence that convicted him. My reaction is the same that as a court would repsond to your claims they would be laughed at.
Open your eyes and recognize that you need to learn about the facts of the case before you can even attempt to claim you have come to a decision of innocence or guilt that is informed let alone to explain the informed basis for your assessmnet.
Open your eyes Skip
The closest person to Sheila her boyfriend said Sheila and Jeremy got on well
Fact
You mean exhusband and he said that she didn't even want to have Jeremy drive her home shortly before the murders. He implied she had some issue with him. Moreover, Jeremy's girlfirend said he did not ge ton well with his sister and Jeremy said the same thing.
Your eyes are totally closed and you are completely ignorant of all the pertinent facts of the case and evidence that convicted Jeremy.
If there were a challenge issued to see which of us could do a better job of defending Jeremy hands down I would prevail because I am actually fully aware of the facts and evidence that was used to convict Jeremy while you are not and thus I can actually try to repsond to such points and evidence. In contrast you are busy with bogus red herrings and misrepresentaitons that not only are untrue but fail to accomplish anything anyway.
Pretending Jeremy was such a great guy and loved famring and running around telling such to people doesn't do a thing so far as rebutting the evidence against him. That is why you were totally and completely ineffective at helping Jeremy.
-
Skip
I am not talking about her ex husband I am talking about her boyfriend
Jeremy was being honest saying he was not getting on with her around the time of the murders
The FACTS are Sheila was in a bad way around the time of the murders as has been well documented
If he had murdered her with this amazing plan he would never have said what he did
Now you explain that if he had this amazing plan
-
Skip
I am not talking about her ex husband I am talking about her boyfriend
Jeremy was being honest saying he was not getting on with her around the time of the murders
The FACTS are Sheila was in a bad way around the time of the murders as has been well documented
If he had murdered her with this amazing plan he would never have said what he did
Now you explain that if he had this amazing plan
The relevant question is how they got on around the time of the murders not when they were young or even years earlier.
SInce you admit he was telling the truth about not getting on well it seems that your entire exercise trying to establish the contrary was for naught.
-
Not getting on with your sister for a time because of her very serious mental health issues is a million miles away from murdering her
Her boyfriend at the time made the statement they got on with each other
Maybe Jeremy was referring to times when they were a lot closer and spent lots of time together
Sheila's boyfriend obviously didn't believe all the lies and told the truth
-
Not getting on with your sister for a time because of her very serious mental health issues is a million miles away from murdering her
Her boyfriend at the time made the statement they got on with each other
Maybe Jeremy was referring to times when they were a lot closer and spent lots of time together
Sheila's boyfriend obviously didn't believe all the lies and told the truth
If you are talking about Freddie he was causing many of her problems including supplying her with drugs.
In the meantime the fact they didn't get along at the time was just one small piece of the puzzle.
The main evidence of his guilt is everything you hide from and refuse to discuss because you have no way to refute any of it.
-
and her boyfriend has no reason to lie has he.
-
and her boyfriend has no reason to lie has he.
He had had not seen many of their interactions so had no basis to even judge the issue.
In the meantime he lied about supplying drugs to her among other things so in terms of credibility he is not up there.
-
he had no vested intrest ethere way so in my opinion he was much more credible then a lot of the other witneses.
-
He had had not seen many of their interactions so had no basis to even judge the issue.
In the meantime he lied about supplying drugs to her among other things so in terms of credibility he is not up there.
So come on clever dick fill is in how many times did he see Sheila and Jeremy together
You obviously know?
-
has fredie got any reason to want to help jeremy i don't think he has.
-
No of course not Jeremy used to stay with them
-
so jackie what did colin say in all this him and freddie are probely the most reliable witnesses.
-
So come on clever dick fill is in how many times did he see Sheila and Jeremy together
You obviously know?
He mentioned no times in his statement that he he saw them together or even having met Jeremy. He indicated he met Collin, Nevill and June but no mention of Jeremy. He described helping her move along with Collin but no mention of Jeremy helping as well.
He said he barely had any contact with her after she got out of the hospital in 1983 other than causal hellos when they crossed paths at clubs and the like. Then out of the blue one day he decided to pay a visit and she had delusions and was ultimately hospitalized again.
After she got out again he claims to have her about 10-12 times (you will have to read his statement to see the exact number because I am not certian whether he said 10 or a dozen) again at parties and the like but he said she was very slow talking and hard to converse with.
Sheila on the other hand told Ferguson he had been providing her with drugs so his claims he just ran into her at clubs on rare occasion and stopped by after a long time of no contact and she went crazy at that exact time is not so credible. Naturally he would have a reason not to admit he was her drug dealer though...
Why would Sheila lie and tell Ferguson he was selling her drugs if that were not the case?
-
That's not relevant to Jeremy's innocence or guilt just his statement saying how they got on
You are just sidetracking an important point as usual
-
That's not relevant to Jeremy's innocence or guilt just his statement saying how they got on
You are just sidetracking an important point as usual
Sidetracking what important issue? Jeremy himself admits they were not getting on well. He lied and said he was getting along great with his parents though.
The most relevant thing to discuss relative to his guilt or innocence though is the main evidence that convicted him. That is the physical evidence (including lack of physical evidence to establish Sheila did anything) The credibility of his claims regarding receiving a phone call from Nevill. His account about leaving the gun and bullets out which police say amounted to him trying to frame Sheila and finally Julie's statements.
The case against him was that he had motive, opportunity, was aware of the crimes though he would have no reason to know anything was wrong unless he killed them and that the person he fingered and framed had not even touched any bullets let alone fired a weapon or beat anyone. He had the motive and time to wash up and change and dispose of the clothing he had worn while committing the murder while Sheila didn't. Sheila thus could not have killed anyone else. Nor could she have killed herself and then after her death have moved her own body, put the bible in a pool of blood that formed after her death or have removed the moderator and put it away. So she can't have killed herself.
That's the case in a nutshell. There are naturally details about Jeremy being caught lying and staging things like the 30 bullets in support of his framejob which come into play bu these ar a subset of the whole frame job argument.
-
Sidetracking what important issue? Jeremy himself admits they were not getting on well. He lied and said he was getting along great with his parents though.
The most relevant thing to discuss relative to his guilt or innocence though is the main evidence that convicted him. That is the physical evidence (including lack of physical evidence to establish Sheila did anything) The credibility of his claims regarding receiving a phone call from Nevill. His account about leaving the gun and bullets out which police say amounted to him trying to frame Sheila and finally Julie's statements.
The case against him was that he had motive, opportunity, was aware of the crimes though he would have no reason to know anything was wrong unless he killed them and that the person he fingered and framed had not even touched any bullets let alone fired a weapon or beat anyone. He had the motive and time to wash up and change and dispose of the clothing he had worn while committing the murder while Sheila didn't. Sheila thus could not have killed anyone else. Nor could she have killed herself and then after her death have moved her own body, put the bible in a pool of blood that formed after her death or have removed the moderator and put it away. So she can't have killed herself.
That's the case in a nutshell. There are naturally details about Jeremy being caught lying and staging things like the 30 bullets in support of his framejob which come into play bu these ar a subset of the whole frame job argument.
Read Barbara Wilsons statement who saw JB and his parents every day and remind me what is says
-
so how many witnesses and witnesses have we got they did and of those witnesses who had a vested and who dident.
-
Read Barbara Wilsons statement who saw JB and his parents every day and remind me what is says
Barbara Wilson said Nevill was convinced his son was going to kill him and believes Jeremy did it so I don't know why you want to rely on her. The only substantive thing she has to offer is pretty frekaing damning.
-
HELEN GRIMSTER
Sheila SAID "SHE CONTEMPLATED SUICIDE ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION"
Nothing about it being years in the past there then . Could have been the week before or it could mean she was still contemplating. And in March 1985 she thought she was a white witch as well .
words taken from a meeting in March 1985
.
-
HELEN GRIMSTER
Sheila SAID "SHE CONTEMPLATED SUICIDE ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION"
Nothing about it being years in the past there then . Could have been the week before or it could mean she was still contemplating. And in March 1985 she thought she was a white witch as well .
words taken from a meeting in March 1985
.
Again with the broken record nonsense.
YOu were already spoonfed multiple times on this issue. If you knew how to read you would see she said that she met with Sheila on the day AFTER she got out of the hospital in 1985. Her conversation with Sheila was in part about problems sheila had prior to being treated with medication to explain why she needed medication. Grimster doesn't say a thing about SHeila saying she recently contemplated suicide let alone contemplated it that day. Grimster never saw her again after that day so cna't provide any evidence at all regarding her leading up to the murders.
You can strain all you like to try to pretend that Grimster claimed she said she was contemplating suicide recently. But Grimster offered no evidence at all regarding timing other than she said to her that she contemplated it in the past and was discussing all sorts of problems she had before being treated.
Grimster thus adds nothing that we didn't already know from Ferguson about her saying she had thought about suicide.
All this demosntrates is your bias. For some irraitonal reaosn you are heavily biased in favor of Jeremy so twist and strain to try to find evidence to help him but your efforts just make you look silly and depserate.
-
HELEN GRIMSTER
Sheila SAID "SHE CONTEMPLATED SUICIDE ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION"
Nothing about it being years in the past there then . Could have been the week before or it could mean she was still contemplating. And in March 1985 she thought she was a white witch as well .
words taken from a meeting in March 1985
.
a white witch well id never heard that before.
-
Dr Ferguson had no idea about the condition of Sheila at the time of the tragedy, and I don´t think he could be arsed about her in the first place. Read the three statements we have in the documents´ section, read them carefully. He had no idea about her medication, he knew nothing about her, and he did not care one bit!
He was a doctor who did not do a thing when a very ill mother said that her little boys were the devil´s children, were woman haters, were capable of killing and raping her (!). He did nothing to protect those children - other than pumping their mother full of, and I mean full of medication. 200mg Haloperidol every two weeks. Unheard of, really.
This doctor was a disgrace, citing what he said about Sheila is an even bigger disgrace. Go read it for yourselves. He had no idea about Sheila and he couldn´t care less, this man was washing his hands, he knew he had done wrong.
Sheila had not had any "successful treatment" after she said about her little boys they were the devil´s children and were capable of killing her - scipio keeps claiming that. Tell me, what successful treatment?
-
Dr Ferguson had no idea about the condition of Sheila at the time of the tragedy, and I don´t think he could be arsed about her in the first place. Read the three statements we have in the documents´ section, read them carefully. He had no idea about her medication, he knew nothing about her, and he did not care one bit!
He was a doctor who did not do a thing when a very ill mother said that her little boys were the devil´s children, were woman haters, were capable of killing and raping her (!). He did nothing to protect those children - other than pumping their mother full of, and I mean full of medication. 200mg Haloperidol every two weeks. Unheard of, really.
This doctor was a disgrace, citing what he said about Sheila is an even bigger disgrace. Go
read it for yourselves. He had no idea about Sheila and he couldn´t care less, this man was washing his hands, he knew he had done wrong.
Sheila had not had any "successful treatment" after she said about her little boys they were the devil´s children and were capable of killing her - scipio keeps claiming that. Tell me, what successful treatment?
I agree Alias, the medical profession closed ranks at the trial as they always do, covering their backs. To assume a doctor is invincible because he's a professional is naive to say the least. Judging by the information available Sheila, her boys and therefore also her extended family were woefully let down by the system. Imo
-
a white witch well id never heard that before.
I tried to post the statement from the archives - but it did not work .
But the conversation was there - also about her taking drugs. Not very appropriate for Sheila to be talking to a young girl like that really , which is why it seems she was still not right at that date.
It also said she felt "better" because she was getting on better with Colin which shows the importance of him in her life.
Whatever the truth of this case it does look like she may have been let down by the system.
-
Dr Ferguson had no idea about the condition of Sheila at the time of the tragedy, and I don´t think he could be arsed about her in the first place. Read the three statements we have in the documents´ section, read them carefully. He had no idea about her medication, he knew nothing about her, and he did not care one bit!
He was a doctor who did not do a thing when a very ill mother said that her little boys were the devil´s children, were woman haters, were capable of killing and raping her (!). He did nothing to protect those children - other than pumping their mother full of, and I mean full of medication. 200mg Haloperidol every two weeks. Unheard of, really.
This doctor was a disgrace, citing what he said about Sheila is an even bigger disgrace. Go read it for yourselves. He had no idea about Sheila and he couldn´t care less, this man was washing his hands, he knew he had done wrong.
Sheila had not had any "successful treatment" after she said about her little boys they were the devil´s children and were capable of killing her - scipio keeps claiming that. Tell me, what successful treatment?
I agree Alias, the medical profession closed ranks at the trial as they always do, covering their backs. To assume a doctor is invincible because he's a professional is naive to say the least. Judging by the information available Sheila, her boys and therefore also her extended family were woefully let down by the system. Imo
Alias/Maggie, Good Morning :) I need to come in on this. I concur ENTIRELY with what you both say. It was easy, when I thought Sheila was guilty, to keep the focus on her and how horrendously she'd been let down. The worst part of now believing that Jeremy is guilty, for me, is the shifting of focus -almost as if Sheila's plight is no longer of any importance- but NOTHING has changed, regarding Sheila, and just because I no longer believe her to be guilty, it doesn't mean I think she was LESS horrendously let down. Scipiio can say -and fudge/blur her condition/medication- what he likes, but I think I know more about mental illness and emotional/psychological disorder than he does. In my eyes, he's dismissing Sheila because his focus is Jeremy's guilt. HE'S doing the job of a prosecutor. Jeremy is guilty, ergo, there was NOTHING wrong with Sheila.
-
Alias/Maggie, Good Morning :) I need to come in on this. I concur ENTIRELY with what you both say. It was easy, when I thought Sheila was guilty, to keep the focus on her and how horrendously she'd been let down. The worst part of now believing that Jeremy is guilty, for me, is the shifting of focus -almost as if Sheila's plight is no longer of any importance- but NOTHING has changed, regarding Sheila, and just because I no longer believe her to be guilty, it doesn't mean I think she was LESS horrendously let down. Scipiio can say -and fudge/blur her condition/medication- what he likes, but I think I know more about mental illness and emotional/psychological disorder than he does. In my eyes, he's dismissing Sheila because his focus is Jeremy's guilt. HE'S doing the job of a prosecutor. Jeremy is guilty, ergo, there was NOTHING wrong with Sheila.
Good that you finally believe Jeremy is guilty. I have been saying this for several months.
It is a straight forward massacre and attempted frame by a greedy and resentful son. Badly executed by someone who was no criminal mastermind.
Maybe Jackie and Mike will see sense next week.
-
I tried to post the statement from the archives - but it did not work .
But the conversation was there - also about her taking drugs. Not very appropriate for Sheila to be talking to a young girl like that really , which is why it seems she was still not right at that date.
It also said she felt "better" because she was getting on better with Colin which shows the importance of him in her life.
Whatever the truth of this case it does look like she may have been let down by the system.
Jansus, the system, IMO, was only able to let Sheila down because there was collusion. I was speaking with friends of the Bambers yesterday and they had NO idea about Sheila's illness. This, I believe was one of the reasons for her private treatment -a doctor friend once told me that he often found that patients who were known personally to him, visited private doctors when they had conditions they didn't wish to share with him- treating her locally would have been SO much easier, there was a psychiatric facility within 10 miles of them and the Maudsley in London provided excellent psych care, however, tucked away in the wilds of Northamptonshire, there was no danger of family, friends, neighbours and community knowing.
-
Dr Ferguson had no idea about the condition of Sheila at the time of the tragedy, and I don´t think he could be arsed about her in the first place. Read the three statements we have in the documents´ section, read them carefully. He had no idea about her medication, he knew nothing about her, and he did not care one bit!
He was a doctor who did not do a thing when a very ill mother said that her little boys were the devil´s children, were woman haters, were capable of killing and raping her (!). He did nothing to protect those children - other than pumping their mother full of, and I mean full of medication. 200mg Haloperidol every two weeks. Unheard of, really.
This doctor was a disgrace, citing what he said about Sheila is an even bigger disgrace. Go read it for yourselves. He had no idea about Sheila and he couldn´t care less, this man was washing his hands, he knew he had done wrong.
Sheila had not had any "successful treatment" after she said about her little boys they were the devil´s children and were capable of killing her - scipio keeps claiming that. Tell me, what successful treatment?
Her treatment in the hospital in 1983 was considered successful. Her delusions stopped and the only recorded cases of delusions after her treatment was when she stopped taking her medication.
You have no evidence to establish otherwise. Provide us with a documented case of her having a delusion when she was on her medication. The defense coudln't provide any examples at trial so naturally you won't be able to either.
Nor can you provide any evidence of her telling anyone that after her treatment she contemplated suicide. Provide a statement of someone that says she told them she contemplated suicide on a date that is after she was released from the hospital in 1983. You can't. All you can do is provide a handful of statements where she told peopel that she had conteplated suicide in the past. One is from Ferguson who made clear she had such thoughts before she started her treatment but made no mention of any such thoughts after. Another is Grimster who she told she contemplated suicide in the past. She discussed her sickness before she was treated with Grimster os no evidence as to her indicating she contemplated it recently.
The only testimony abou her kids was from Ferguson who insicated she had delusions about them before she was treated in 1983. he said that after her treatment she didn't mention and delusions about her family anymore.
If you want to maintian that she was suicidal in the months before the murders then you need to provide evidence of that. The burden is on you to find peopel who claim she told them she was contemplating suicide during that time. But you have no such evidence so try to play games pretending she told Grimster she was suicidal but that is clearly untrue.
If you want to maintain she was having delusions about her kids and could harm them as a result around the time of the murders then you need to produce evidence of such. Evidence from her doctor that she had such delusions before she was treated and never discussed having any after released in 1983 does not establish such.
You and other Jeremy supporters ignore the physical evidence and strain to suggest that Sheila would commit the murders hoping that somehow that can void the physical evidence but it would no be able to void the physical evidence even if you did have evidence she could possibly kill herself and her kids. But you have no such evidence just strianing and misrepresenting to try to pretend,
It is just like the straining to tyr to pretend there were 3 moderators, strianing to pretend Nevill made a phone call to police, straining to pretend Jeremy had no way to get out of the windows and lock them...
At the end of the day Jeremy supporters strain to do anything to avoid facing relaity and to try to pretend their claims have some evidentiary support though they do not.
-
Her treatment in the hospital in 1983 was considered successful. Her delusions stopped and the only recorded cases of delusions after her treatment was when she stopped taking her medication.
You have no evidence to establish otherwise. Provide us with a documented case of her having a delusion when she was on her medication. The defense coudln't provide any examples at trial so naturally you won't be able to either.
Nor can you provide any evidence of her telling anyone that after her treatment she contemplated suicide. Provide a statement of someone that says she told them she contemplated suicide on a date that is after she was released from the hospital in 1983. You can't. All you can do is provide a handful of statements where she told peopel that she had conteplated suicide in the past. One is from Ferguson who made clear she had such thoughts before she started her treatment but made no mention of any such thoughts after. Another is Grimster who she told she contemplated suicide in the past. She discussed her sickness before she was treated with Grimster os no evidence as to her indicating she contemplated it recently.
The only testimony abou her kids was from Ferguson who insicated she had delusions about them before she was treated in 1983. he said that after her treatment she didn't mention and delusions about her family anymore.
If you want to maintian that she was suicidal in the months before the murders then you need to provide evidence of that. The burden is on you to find peopel who claim she told them she was contemplating suicide during that time. But you have no such evidence so try to play games pretending she told Grimster she was suicidal but that is clearly untrue.
If you want to maintain she was having delusions about her kids and could harm them as a result around the time of the murders then you need to produce evidence of such. Evidence from her doctor that she had such delusions before she was treated and never discussed having any after released in 1983 does not establish such.
You and other Jeremy supporters ignore the physical evidence and strain to suggest that Sheila would commit the murders hoping that somehow that can void the physical evidence but it would no be able to void the physical evidence even if you did have evidence she could possibly kill herself and her kids. But you have no such evidence just strianing and misrepresenting to try to pretend,
It is just like the straining to tyr to pretend there were 3 moderators, strianing to pretend Nevill made a phone call to police, straining to pretend Jeremy had no way to get out of the windows and lock them...
At the end of the day Jeremy supporters strain to do anything to avoid facing relaity and to try to pretend their claims have some evidentiary support though they do not.
Presumably, if there was irrefutable proof that Sheila had committed suicide, you'd be using what she said to Helen Grimster as evidence that she was contemplating it.
-
Barbara Wilson said Nevill was convinced his son was going to kill him and believes Jeremy did it so I don't know why you want to rely on her. The only substantive thing she has to offer is pretty frekaing damning.
Right now post where you got that from
-
Jansus, the system, IMO, was only able to let Sheila down because there was collusion. I was speaking with friends of the Bambers yesterday and they had NO idea about Sheila's illness. This, I believe was one of the reasons for her private treatment -a doctor friend once told me that he often found that patients who were known personally to him, visited private doctors when they had conditions they didn't wish to share with him- treating her locally would have been SO much easier, there was a psychiatric facility within 10 miles of them and the Maudsley in London provided excellent psych care, however, tucked away in the wilds of Northamptonshire, there was no danger of family, friends, neighbours and community knowing.
Exactly friends of the Bambers ??
Do you mean friends of Jeremy?
Why do you think hardly anyone posts on this forum since you and the other moderators let the bullying start
It's constant with Lookout
It was constant with [DELETED] I have never read so much rubbish in all my life
It is without a doubt that people closest to Sheila KNEW she was suicidal
-
April I will tell you what suicidal is what this forum let happen with [DELETED]Do you know how ill she was did you even care
No you didn't because it went on for weeks
Well I hope you suffer what she had to for weeks
I hope you feel what Sheila felt because it's right there staring you right in the face
-
Presumably, if there was irrefutable proof that Sheila had committed suicide, you'd be using what she said to Helen Grimster as evidence that she was contemplating it.
But I would not need to strain to pretend she told Grimster that she contemplated it recently. It woudl be sufficient to say she told Grimster and Ferguson she contemplated it in the past and there is irrefutable evidence she did so thus obviously she kept contemplating it and finally did so.
Also you would use evidence from anyone that says she was depressed because suicide can result from. By no stretch do most people with depression commit suicide but a majority of people who commit suicide suffer from depression.
The problem here is that there is evidence that cuts the opposite way which says she didn't commit suicide and it is being met with straining to say she definitely would have committed suicide.
We have the added problem of the murders in this case. The boys being killed would not be so problemmatic other than with respect to a lack of phycial evidence of having killed them. Mothers who commit suicide frequently (though not a majority of the time) kill their children first. They usually don't kill extended family unless they are also dependants. Family of schizohreniscs who are killed are usually caretakers who stand in the way of the aspirations of the schizophrenics in some way. They don't kill the caretakers then just commit suicide they go try to do something that they felt they were being prevented from doing.
So fitting in the murder of the parents is much harder. But at least itf there were the physical evidence it would be credible such had happened and that we just didn't figure out the motivation. The lack of physical evidence is the main problem. When you add that to all Jeremy's efforts to put the blame on his sister he is effectively screwed.
The key to Jeremy's defense is trying to get around that physical evidence and try to explain away othe rthings liek the staging of the bullets in the kitchen and phone he hid in the kitchen. Mike is the onyl supporter to consistently tackle such but he does so in a dishonest fashion which helps Jeremy not at all because none of such can be used in court since it is bogus (some was already rejected by the courts and CCRC) and when people realize he lied to them it makes them think not willing to listen to anything from Jeremy's side assuming all of it is rubbish.
The physical evidence seems unassailable so I can see why supporters want to avoid dealing with it but debating the periphery won't establish his innocence. Straining about peripheral issues seems even more pointless than straining over the main evidence. Mike's straining at least would mean something if true the strianing here would not change a thing and of course I am not defending Mike's actions. It is just he usually talks about the things that are critical that others usually avoid that I admire, not they way he goes about doing such.
-
April I will tell you what suicidal is what this forum let happen with [DELETED] Do you know how ill she was did you even care
No you didn't because it went on for weeks
Well I hope you suffer what she had to for weeks
I hope you feel what Sheila felt because it's right there staring you right in the face
Thank-you for those good wishes, Jackie. As I had NO idea who was [DELETED], it would have been impossible for me to know what was her state of health.
-
Thank-you for those good wishes, Jackie.
You didn't answer my question which Bambers
Friends of Jeremy?
-
You didn't answer my question which Bambers
Friends of Jeremy?
That's right, I didn't. They're MY friends.
-
April I will tell you what suicidal is what this forum let happen with [DELETED]Do you know how ill she was did you even care
No you didn't because it went on for weeks
Well I hope you suffer what she had to for weeks
I hope you feel what Sheila felt because it's right there staring you right in the face
You have been warned Jackie. This is your final warning. Do not attack the administrators or moderators on this board.
-
That's right, I didn't. They're MY friends.
How dare you have friends!!!!!! :P
You should be ashamed of yourself! :D
-
Here we go again threatened for speaking up on Jeremy and [DELETED] and Lookouts behalf.
This meant to be a forum for discussion and it appears you are using any personal issues you have with Jeremy to allow Moderators to make out they have exclusive information about the case that shows Jeremy to be definately guilty.
As far as I am concerned all the Bambers that are relevant are dead.
I didn't see you making open threats like you have made to me when when [DELETED] were abused week after week.
If you think Jeremy Bamber is guilty why don't you just say so
-
How dare you have friends!!!!!! :P
You should be ashamed of yourself! :D
Grovels, abeyances and abject apologies, my lord. :D
-
Grovels, abeyances and abject apologies, my lord. :D
;D This place is very silly at times.
I think I'll crawl back under my rock until the big bad wolf has passed. :-[
-
;D This place is very silly at times.
I think I'll crawl back under my rock until the big bad wolf has passed. :-[
Awww, I won't have anyone to play with :( :( :( :(
-
Here we go again threatened for speaking up on Jeremy and [DELETED] and Lookouts behalf
This meant to be a forum for discussion and it appears you are using any personal issues you have with Jeremy to allow Moderators to make out they have exclusive information about the case that shows Jeremy to be definately guilty
As far as I am concerned all the Bambers that are relevant are dead
I didn't see you making open threats like you have made to when when [DELETED] were abused week after week
If you think Jeremy Bamber is guilty why don't you just say so
OMG!! How hypocritical! You're not sticking up for anyone, you're using other people to have digs at mods and admins and if anyone is pretending to have inside info, it's you. You still haven't provided a source for your first claim in this thread and yet, you're trying to demand one from Adam. You're shifting the debate away from JB to make personal remarks because you're defense argument is weak!
-
Here we go again threatened for speaking up on Jeremy and [DELETED] and Lookouts behalf.
This meant to be a forum for discussion and it appears you are using any personal issues you have with Jeremy to allow Moderators to make out they have exclusive information about the case that shows Jeremy to be definately guilty.
As far as I am concerned all the Bambers that are relevant are dead.
I didn't see you making open threats like you have made to me when when [DELETED] were abused week after week.
If you think Jeremy Bamber is guilty why don't you just say so.
I do not know what you are talking about. I have no personal issues with Jeremy. I had a friendly chat with him last week. The moderators are allowed to have opinions on the case and to express them. Mike has always made clear that this is a discussion forum and all views can be expressed, as long as this is done in a respectful manner.
You have been warned repeatedly not to attack the admins/mods. You have chosen to ignore that warning. You are now banned for 24 hours. If you post attacks elsewhere during that period your ban will be made permanent.
-
;D This place is very silly at times.
I think I'll crawl back under my rock until the big bad wolf has passed. :-[
Phew, safe again. :D
-
OMG!! How hypocritical! You're not sticking up for anyone, you're using other people to have digs at mods and admins and if anyone is pretending to have inside info, it's you. You still haven't provided a source for your first claim in this thread and yet, you're trying to demand one from Adam. You're shifting the debate away from JB to make personal remarks because you're defense argument is weak!
When did Jackie demand a source from me on this thread ?
I will happily provide one.
-
Lookout, if all that Lomax says is true and Sheila "going crazy" was a regular, but secret occurrence with which Jeremy was regularly involved, what was there to stop him, after her death, with there no longer being the need for secrecy, from bringing it out.
if it was a reguler event it makes more that ralph would phone him and ask him to come down.
-
Hi April. Are you referring to your 'friends' that you said on the forum last year believed Jeremy to be innocent? And if so,can you say if this is still their belief,or have they changed their minds too?
-
I do not know what you are talking about. I have no personal issues with Jeremy. I had a friendly chat with him last week. The moderators are allowed to have opinions on the case and to express them. Mike has always made clear that this is a discussion forum and all views can be expressed, as long as this is done in a respectful manner.
You have been warned repeatedly not to attack the admins/mods. You have chosen to ignore that warning. You are now banned for 24 hours. If you post attacks elsewhere during that period your ban will be made permanent.
Well said Neil, Jackie doesn't debate, she barks out comments and sees anyone with a different view as 'the enemy'. If she even tried to be reasonable and took part in debate she would do Jeremy far more justice.
-
Hi April. Are you referring to your 'friends' that you said on the forum last year believed Jeremy to be innocent? And if so,can you say if this is still their belief,or have they changed their minds too?
Tyler Hello, I think they're hovering around fence level at the moment.
-
I sort of missed why you have changed your mind April?
-
Hello April you can always crawl under the rock with Harters and do whatever takes your fancy ;)
-
When did Jackie demand a source from me on this thread ?
I will happily provide one.
Sorry Adam, it wasn't you, I meant Scipio.
-
;D This place is very silly at times.
I think I'll crawl back under my rock until the big bad wolf has passed. :-[
me too - I think its very sad what has happened to this forum . I don't understand why people can not debate without getting personal. You are either on here because you have a genuine interest in the case and are wanting to learn more - or it appears some posters are on here to disrupt and be personal which I thought was against the rules.
its just sad.
-
Hello April you can always crawl under the rock with Harters and do whatever takes your fancy ;)
Susan, I fear that, with two large egos under one rock, it won't afford us much in the way of protection ;D ;D
-
I sort of missed why you have changed your mind April?
Jansus, I spend a great deal of time playing devil's advocate because most of the time it isn't my opinion which is needed, but clarification. I started to find that more and more it felt as if I was making excuses for Jeremy. Looking at it closely, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to accept that Neville phoned him with such shocking news but he phones Julie, getting her out of bed at an unholy hour and doesn't mention it, other than cryptically. It started to feel as if he was buying time, as with the delay in calling the police. He seems not to have mentioned the boys when telling the police who was in the house. I can accept that at his age he may not have been too interested in them, but this was a potentially dangerous situation.
-
April what makes you think you and Harters have big egos NEVER ;D
-
April very good post one with which I concur. When you think about the case you realise much of what Jeremy did and said casts doubts.
-
April what makes you think you and Harters have big egos NEVER ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jansus, I spend a great deal of time playing devil's advocate because most of the time it isn't my opinion which is needed, but clarification. I started to find that more and more it felt as if I was making excuses for Jeremy. Looking at it closely, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to accept that Neville phoned him with such shocking news but he phones Julie, getting her out of bed at an unholy hour and doesn't mention it, other than cryptically. It started to feel as if he was buying time, as with the delay in calling the police. He seems not to have mentioned the boys when telling the police who was in the house. I can accept that at his age he may not have been too interested in them, but this was a potentially dangerous situation.
Thank you April for your honest answer - I am always interested to see if it is the "bigger picture" or the small details that change peoples minds.
I did see a comment excusing Julie for her reaction on the night because she was confused by being woken up early in the morning and had probably been smoking cannabis , that's why she changed her mind about the timings and the wording of the call. But no one is willing to apply that reasoning to Jeremy. Perhaps he had smoked pot as well and was not really with it , but did not really want to admit that to the police?
It would be interesting to write a timeline of what apparently happened that night between the alleged calls and the police arriving - if we took the original statements from Jeremy and Julie and the police - but unfortunately Julie changing her mind and the police changing theirs means we can really do that.
I still feel that if Jeremy is innocent then Sheila had not started shooting when Neville called - and he did not think she would . He just felt he needed help to calm her .
If Jeremy is guilty - then trying to "set the call" as his alibi seems daft to me - he could just have left them all to be found in the morning - no time of death and the same scenario . And if he was going to use the call I don't think he would have let the police try and confuse him in their questioning because he would have known 100% the time of his call and his call to Julie.
My overwhelming feeling as well is that he would have no way of knowing that as he would be leaving what seems to be such an obviously staged scene that the police would suss out something was wrong straight away - so he would of course be a suspect and therefore his planning would have had to have been so meticulous he would not have made the mistakes that he obviously did.
I know certain posters make a big deal of the bible being on top of the blood and the body having been moved - and I would agree that would be incriminating - but there is the fact that three officers commented about the bible/rifle/head being different in the photos . As much as those comments are being dismissed they did happen and they were experienced officers - why would they comment at all if they did not think there was a problem? If the police moved the body /bible/rifle before the photographs then we are not looking at the original crime scene exactly as it was and I think that could be possible.
IMO :)
I respect NEARLY everyones opinions on here . Because as we have to remind ourselves because MOST of what is posted is opinions unless there are documents to back it up.
There I of course one other possible scenario that Jeremy could never admit to because it would mean he is guilty and that is that Julie was actually in on everything from the start and was going to benefit financially - but she decided to turn him in because he jilted her . Don't think it is likely - but then again what is logical about murder - nothing as far as I can see.
-
Hello jansus do you think had Jeremy Bamber confided in Julie about his plans to murder his family he would have jilted her I cannot see it myself and I do not think he did confide in her as such. He may have made statements "I could kill my family" and other incriminating remarks that she took in jest. I think after their break up she had to think of her own position regarding her criminal activities. I am not even sure she expected him to go to prison and it very nearly did not happen what would Julie have done then. I have not seen any statements where Jeremy has spoke badly of Julie which I find strange because one would expect him to especially if he is innocent. I did read he wrote to her and asked her why she had done this but the letter was returned to him unopened. This case has so many unanswered questions will they ever be answered I suspect not but people will put forward their theories and it will go on and on.
-
Sheila could not have started shooting before Neville called the police. He would not have been able to speak after getting his first four shots upstairs.
Neville would not have time to make phone calls when Sheila started shooting. If she started shooting upstairs when Neville was on the phone, she would be out of bullets by the time Neville got upstairs.
It has already been stated several times that Jeremy's best option is to create the siege situation at WHF.
Jeremy had to admit he phoned Julie. There were several witnesses to the call. What Julie says he said sounds perfectly plausible.
-
Hello jansus do you think had Jeremy Bamber confided in Julie about his plans to murder his family he would have jilted her I cannot see it myself and I do not think he did confide in her as such. He may have made statements "I could kill my family" and other incriminating remarks that she took in jest. I think after their break up she had to think of her own position regarding her criminal activities. I am not even sure she expected him to go to prison and it very nearly did not happen what would Julie have done then. I have not seen any statements where Jeremy has spoke badly of Julie which I find strange because one would expect him to especially if he is innocent. I did read he wrote to her and asked her why she had done this but the letter was returned to him unopened. This case has so many unanswered questions will they ever be answered I suspect not but people will put forward their theories and it will go on and on.
Depends how arrogant you think he is I suppose - If he is arrogant enough to murder 5 people and think he could out wit a whole police force then I would put nothing past him. After all he would think she would do nothing because she would be incriminating herself.
But then again if he is guilty then Julie still went to that morgue knowing he had killed those two young children ( her words not mine ) And I just can not get my head round that either . It would have been so easy for her not to do it.
-
Hello jansus do you think had Jeremy Bamber confided in Julie about his plans to murder his family he would have jilted her I cannot see it myself and I do not think he did confide in her as such. He may have made statements "I could kill my family" and other incriminating remarks that she took in jest. I think after their break up she had to think of her own position regarding her criminal activities. I am not even sure she expected him to go to prison and it very nearly did not happen what would Julie have done then. I have not seen any statements where Jeremy has spoke badly of Julie which I find strange because one would expect him to especially if he is innocent. I did read he wrote to her and asked her why she had done this but the letter was returned to him unopened. This case has so many unanswered questions will they ever be answered I suspect not but people will put forward their theories and it will go on and on.
Did you not read my post on Friday ? It was in reply to you're post. Or have you forgotten it ?
Julie approached the police. She did not need to.
The police knew nothing about Jeremy's caravan break in, or Susan Battersby's 1984 cheque book fraud. There is no evidence that Julie was a drug dealer. Julie did not have to say anything.
There are lots of reasons why Jeremy told Julie. You responded to my post on Friday when I gave you the reasons.
Julie was fully aware that her testimony could help convict Jeremy to 25 years in jail. She has never retracted a word of her WS.
-
Hello jansus do you think had Jeremy Bamber confided in Julie about his plans to murder his family he would have jilted her I cannot see it myself and I do not think he did confide in her as such. He may have made statements "I could kill my family" and other incriminating remarks that she took in jest. I think after their break up she had to think of her own position regarding her criminal activities. I am not even sure she expected him to go to prison and it very nearly did not happen what would Julie have done then. I have not seen any statements where Jeremy has spoke badly of Julie which I find strange because one would expect him to especially if he is innocent. I did read he wrote to her and asked her why she had done this but the letter was returned to him unopened. This case has so many unanswered questions will they ever be answered I suspect not but people will put forward their theories and it will go on and on.
So are you saying even if he is guilty she made up all the stories about burning the house down /drugging the family/ knowing on the night he had done it?/ the hitman story/ the details he allegedly told her about the crime?
-
So are you saying even if he is guilty she made up all the stories about burning the house down /drugging the family/ knowing on the night he had done it?/ the hitman story/ the details he allegedly told her about the crime?
Perhaps Jeremy's defence team were wrong in saying her WS had a 'ring of truth' to it.
-
Adam I have not disagreed with anything you have said regarding Miss Julie. The questions that worry me are why did she wait until after their romance had broken up before going to the police why did she not try and stop the murders i.e. warned Ralph. How could she identify those two little boys then jump back into Jeremy Bamber's bed.As you may know by now I have changed my stance from thinking Jeremy Bamber was innocent of murdering his family to one of guilty. I believe I read on this forum recently that at no given time did Julie say Jeremy Bamber HAD committed the murders. I have said previously he was stitched up because the police knew he was guilty but had no evidence as the scene was not treated as a crime scene at the onset. Again this is my opinion and not written in stone.
-
Depends how arrogant you think he is I suppose - If he is arrogant enough to murder 5 people and think he could out wit a whole police force then I would put nothing past him. After all he would think she would do nothing because she would be incriminating herself.
But then again if he is guilty then Julie still went to that morgue knowing he had killed those two young children ( her words not mine ) And I just can not get my head round that either . It would have been so easy for her not to do it.
I cannot see a problem with Julie going to the morgue. In fact it is quite commendable.
She was not family and it seems that no one else wanted to do it. She was in shock and felt she was helping in some way.
-
Adam I have not disagreed with anything you have said regarding Miss Julie. The questions that worry me are why did she wait until after their romance had broken up before going to the police why did she not try and stop the murders i.e. warned Ralph. How could she identify those two little boys then jump back into Jeremy Bamber's bed.As you may know by now I have changed my stance from thinking Jeremy Bamber was innocent of murdering his family to one of guilty. I believe I read on this forum recently that at no given time did Julie say Jeremy Bamber HAD committed the murders. I have said previously he was stitched up because the police knew he was guilty but had no evidence as the scene was not treated as a crime scene at the onset. Again this is my opinion and not written in stone.
Well one of the reasons the relationship ended was because Jeremy had told Julie of his involvement.
Jeremy never said to Julie he killed his family. He said he paid Matthew Mcdonald to do so. However prior to the massacre Jeremy often spoke to Julie about his hatred and plans to get rid of them. It is all in her WS.
She stayed with Jeremy for one month afterwards, in error. She was in shock and loved Jeremy. Jeremy also asked her to go away with him and Brett, and attend the funeral.
-
jansus I don't know really what Jeremy Bamber said to her or her to him. Think the hitman was a fabrication all I feel is he would not confide in her unless she was in on it. I think she was a stranger to the truth and for some reason which I find so strange he has never challenged her about her accusations. I would have thought he would have been screaming from the rooftops. Why did'ent he?
-
jansus I don't know really what Jeremy Bamber said to her or her to him. Think the hitman was a fabrication all I feel is he would not confide in her unless she was in on it. I think she was a stranger to the truth and for some reason which I find so strange he has never challenged her about her accusations. I would have thought he would have been screaming from the rooftops. Why did'ent he?
He told the police and courts that Julie lied because (according to him), he jilted her.
A very weak reason for a 20 year old woman to tell such serious lies to the police, courts and the media. But anyway jilted woman are just as likely to tell the truth. As previously said.
-
Adam sorry we will have to agree to disagree on this one as I think the very opposite to what you have just posted :'( What did she say when police found MacDonald had a watertight alibi.
I think you just like to disagree with people ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam sorry we will have to agree to disagree on this one as I think the very opposite to what you have just posted :'( What did she say when police found MacDonald had a watertight alibi.
I think you just like to disagree with people ;D ;D ;D ;D
She carried on saying the same thing. That Jeremy told her he had hired MM.
Julies testimony was important more because of what she said Jeremy was telling her prior to the massacre - his family hatred, resentment & plans.
-
I cannot see a problem with Julie going to the morgue. In fact if is quite commendable.
She was not family and it seems that no one else wanted to do it. She was in shock and felt she was helping in some way.
Really?
Bearing in mind she is supposedly very much aware of Jeremy's 'ambitions' to have his family murdered, by his own hands or another, I think it's absolutely disgusting that she would volunteer to see the bodies. In fact I think it's pretty sick.
Yes her later decision to testify against Jeremy is admirable, but that doesn't in any way excuse her earlier behaviour. IMO
-
jansus what I am saying basically for many reasons I think Jeremy Bamber guilty I totally discredit Julie and the silencer evidence and think he was stitched up as I said earlier EP have much to answer for and so has Jeremy Bamber this is only my opinion I could be totally wrong as could many other posters.
-
Thank you April for your honest answer - I am always interested to see if it is the "bigger picture" or the small details that change peoples minds.
I did see a comment excusing Julie for her reaction on the night because she was confused by being woken up early in the morning and had probably been smoking cannabis , that's why she changed her mind about the timings and the wording of the call. But no one is willing to apply that reasoning to Jeremy. Perhaps he had smoked pot as well and was not really with it , but did not really want to admit that to the police?
It would be interesting to write a timeline of what apparently happened that night between the alleged calls and the police arriving - if we took the original statements from Jeremy and Julie and the police - but unfortunately Julie changing her mind and the police changing theirs means we can really do that.
I still feel that if Jeremy is innocent then Sheila had not started shooting when Neville called - and he did not think she would . He just felt he needed help to calm her .
If Jeremy is guilty - then trying to "set the call" as his alibi seems daft to me - he could just have left them all to be found in the morning - no time of death and the same scenario . And if he was going to use the call I don't think he would have let the police try and confuse him in their questioning because he would have known 100% the time of his call and his call to Julie.
My overwhelming feeling as well is that he would have no way of knowing that as he would be leaving what seems to be such an obviously staged scene that the police would suss out something was wrong straight away - so he would of course be a suspect and therefore his planning would have had to have been so meticulous he would not have made the mistakes that he obviously did.
I know certain posters make a big deal of the bible being on top of the blood and the body having been moved - and I would agree that would be incriminating - but there is the fact that three officers commented about the bible/rifle/head being different in the photos . As much as those comments are being dismissed they did happen and they were experienced officers - why would they comment at all if they did not think there was a problem? If the police moved the body /bible/rifle before the photographs then we are not looking at the original crime scene exactly as it was and I think that could be possible.
IMO :)
I respect NEARLY everyones opinions on here . Because as we have to remind ourselves because MOST of what is posted is opinions unless there are documents to back it up.
There I of course one other possible scenario that Jeremy could never admit to because it would mean he is guilty and that is that Julie was actually in on everything from the start and was going to benefit financially - but she decided to turn him in because he jilted her . Don't think it is likely - but then again what is logical about murder - nothing as far as I can see.
Jansus, I LOVE the IMO :D At the end of the day, it's all ANY of us can say, isn't it?
Mine, I have to say, is very definitely what you say in your last paragraph. If this is so, the little minx has him well and truly stitched up, hasn't she.
Much has been made of Jeremy not telling the police certain facts because.....................but it seems he may not have told his lawyers either, in which case the fault can't be said to be entirely theirs............unless of course, they omitted to ask pertinent questions. His attitude in court certainly didn't help him and he SHOULD have been warned about it. It was his liberty which was on the line.
-
Really?
Bearing in mind she is supposedly very much aware of Jeremy's 'ambitions' to have his family murdered, by his own hands or another, I think it's absolutely disgusting that she would volunteer to see the bodies. On fact I think it's pretty sick.
Yes her later decision to testify against Jeremy is admirable, but that doesn't in any way excuse her earlier behaviour. IMO
I disagree.
It was just after the massacre. She was probably trying to convince herself the man she loved did not commit the massacre.
Everyone was in shock, including Julie. She either volunteered or was asked. No one else stopped her or volunteered.
She was not close family so would not get too upset and be calm enough to be able to identify the bodies.
-
Really?
Bearing in mind she is supposedly very much aware of Jeremy's 'ambitions' to have his family murdered, by his own hands or another, I think it's absolutely disgusting that she would volunteer to see the bodies. In fact I think it's pretty sick.
Yes her later decision to testify against Jeremy is admirable, but that doesn't in any way excuse her earlier behaviour. IMO
Another way of looking at it, is that Julie was actually in a unique position to prevent the murders, she not only failed in that way, she then went along with the 'story' for another month. It does not reflect well on her in any respect.
I do not know how the surviving relatives view her, but personally I think she should have been charged as an accessory.
If anybody genuinely thinks otherwise, then all I can do is question their logic. :-\
-
jansus what I am saying basically for many reasons I think Jeremy Bamber guilty I totally discredit Julie and the silencer evidence and think he was stitched up as I said earlier EP have much to answer for and so has Jeremy Bamber this is only my opinion I could be totally wrong as could many other posters.
The silencer evidence and Julies WS is correct and straight forward.
It is Jeremy and his shrinking support who keep bringing these up as they are big things that prove his guilt. Although there are lots of other things that prove his guilt.
-
I cannot see a problem with Julie going to the morgue. In fact it is quite commendable.
She was not family and it seems that no one else wanted to do it. She was in shock and felt she was helping in some way.
IMO, going to identify two children, killed by her boyfriend with her having prior knowledge of his intention, is SICK.
-
I disagree.
It was just after the massacre. She was probably trying to convince herself the man she loved did not commit the massacre.
Everyone was in shock, including Julie. She either volunteered or was asked. No one else stopped her or volunteered.
She was not close family so would not get too upset and be calm enough to be able to identify the bodies.
[/quote
The reason she did the Id was that she was closer to the twins? So I don't get your argument.
And I thought it was her friend that went to the police - not her.
And if he told her for a year he had been planning it I think she had plenty of time.
She was the one who said she knew he had done it . Not me.
-
She was not close family so would not get too upset and be calm enough to be able to identify the bodies.
Do you simply lack imagination or are you totally devoid of compassion?
-
April I have to agree with you totally sick why can't Adam see this saying it is commendable it is double SICK :'(
-
I cannot see a problem with Julie going to the morgue. In fact it is quite commendable.
She was not family and it seems that no one else wanted to do it. She was in shock and felt she was helping in some way.
As I said apparently that was not the reason.
-
Adam AE who is a family member went with her she had no need to go and why did she have to ask why their heads were shaved sick sick sick. :'( :'( :'(
-
IMO, going to identify two children, killed by her boyfriend with her having prior knowledge of his intention, is SICK.
Colin was too upset to identify the bodies. Jeremy was copying Colin's behaviour so was also too upset.
I cannot see a problem with her doing it. But appreciate Jeremy's supporters will try to latch onto it.
-
I disagree.
It was just after the massacre. She was probably trying to convince herself the man she loved did not commit the massacre.
Everyone was in shock, including Julie. She either volunteered or was asked. No one else stopped her or volunteered.
She was not close family so would not get too upset and be calm enough to be able to identify the bodies.
[/quote
The reason she did the Id was that she was closer to the twins? So I don't get your argument.
And I thought it was her friend that went to the police - not her.
And if he told her for a year he had been planning it I think she had plenty of time.
She was the one who said she knew he had done it . Not me.
She was with Liz Rimmington and told her what Jeremy had done. Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones, while Julie was in the room with her.
If Julie went to identify the bodies to be closer to the twins. Then that's her reason.
Julie said on TV Jeremy liked to say things to shock people. She did not believe he would do it.
-
Adam have you yet not realised that April and myself are no longer Jeremy Bamber supporters so what are you on about you are just contrary.
-
Colin was too upset to identify the bodies. Jeremy was copying Colin's behaviour so was also too upset.
I cannot see a problem with her doing it. But appreciate Jeremy's supporters will try to latch onto it.
One doesn't NEED to be a "Jeremy supporter" to believe her actions were sick -she actually said she wanted to go back for a second look to make sure!!!!! I would have thought guilt alone would have prevented her from doing it. I know she speaks of feeling guilty but I guess she had to come up with some reason for keeping her mouth shut for a month.
-
Do you simply lack imagination or are you totally devoid of compassion?
Hey. I praised you today. After 29 years you have finally decided on the obvious - Jeremy is guilty.
Better late than never I suppose.
-
Another way of looking at it, is that Julie was actually in a unique position to prevent the murders, she not only failed in that way, she then went along with the 'story' for another month. It does not reflect well on her in any respect.
I do not know how the surviving relatives view her, but personally I think she should have been charged as an accessory.
If anybody genuinely thinks otherwise, then all I can do is question their logic. :-\
With the exception that is Adam, does a single person disagree with the above? Regardless of your stance on the case. ???
-
Adam have you yet not realised that April and myself are no longer Jeremy Bamber supporters so what are you on about you are just contrary.
I appreciate it is hard for both of you to admit you are wrong. Just as it is for Caroline.
So you will bring up things to try to justify you're previous stance.
A natural thing to do. Nothing wrong with it.
-
April had Jeremy Bamber not got rid of her for another fair maiden she would have never opened her mouth she had her eye on being the next Mrs Bamber. Wonder why he did not scream from the rooftops thst she was not telling the truth this makes me really wonder :-\
-
With the exception that is Adam, does a single person disagree with the above? Regardless of your stance on the case. ???
The police and courts decided she should not be charged as an accessory.
So the law says no.
-
Adam I am not trying to justify my previous stance I have very good reason to have changed it and it has nothing to do with your posts and people like me Caroline and April have looked at the case from both sides of the fence you have just looked on the guilty side this is why your thinking is so limited and not open for discussion.
-
April had Jeremy Bamber not got rid of her for another fair maiden she would have never opened her mouth she had her eye on being the next Mrs Bamber. Wonder why he did not scream from the rooftops thst she was not telling the truth this makes me really wonder :-\
Who knows. Julie was not after money.
Did you not read my thread about June's offer to buy Julie a house ? Or have you forgotten it ?
-
April I have to agree with you totally sick why can't Adam see this saying it is commendable it is double SICK :'(
Susan, I think we are in total agreement that Adam's view that Julie's action was commendable is sicker than sick.
-
The police and courts decided she should not be charged as an accessory.
So the law says no.
You are in my opinion steadfast in your delusions.
She brokered a deal to avoid prosecution, it's quite simple. I do believe her testimony, but it doesn't excuse her earlier behaviour.
I can also understand why those who think Jeremy is innocent, are questioning her motives and ultimately her honesty.
-
Adam I am not trying to justify my previous stance I have very good reason to have changed it and it has nothing to do with your posts and people like me Caroline and April have looked at the case from both sides of the fence you have just looked on the guilty side this is why your thinking is so limited and not open for discussion.
What made you change you're mind then ?
You said yourself you do read about the case away from this board. Someone's posts must have influenced you.
-
Who knows. Julie was not after money.
Did you not read my thread about June's offer to buy Julie a house ? Or have you forgotten it ?
But one can't compare the value of one small property with the value of an entire estate.
-
You are in my opinion steadfast in your delusions.
She brokered a deal to avoid prosecution, it's quite simple. I do believe her testimony, but it doesn't excuse her earlier behaviour.
I can also understand why those who think Jeremy is innocent, are questioning her motives and ultimately her honesty.
She did not broker a deal.
The police knew nothing about Jeremy's caravan break in. Julie told them.
The police found out about Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud after Julie had completed her WS.
The police had nothing to make her speak.
-
Harters from a innocent stance and a guilty stance I have always thought she should have been charged and serving a prison sentence one if she was telling the truth she could have prevented the murders and saved 5 lives she came out of it ridding herself of a criminal record and a cheque for £25,000 gained from the deaths of 5 innocent people two of them being wee children Shame on her.
-
Another way of looking at it, is that Julie was actually in a unique position to prevent the murders, she not only failed in that way, she then went along with the 'story' for another month. It does not reflect well on her in any respect.
I do not know how the surviving relatives view her, but personally I think she should have been charged as an accessory.
If anybody genuinely thinks otherwise, then all I can do is question their logic. :-\
Sorry Harters, I missed this. I agree entirely.
-
You are in my opinion steadfast in your delusions.
She brokered a deal to avoid prosecution, it's quite simple. I do believe her testimony, but it doesn't excuse her earlier behaviour.
I can also understand why those who think Jeremy is innocent, are questioning her motives and ultimately her honesty.
Yes Jeremy's supporters will question her motives.
But the man himself has only ever given one reason why Julie would tell such serious lies over the last 29 years - he (apparently) jilted her.
-
She did not broker a deal.
The police knew nothing about Jeremy's caravan break in. Julie told them.
The police found out about Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud after Julie had completed her WS.
The police had nothing to make her speak.
As I said, delusional.
-
Harters from a innocent stance and a guilty stance I have always thought she should have been charged and serving a prison sentence one if she was telling the truth she could have prevented the murders and saved 5 lives she came out of it ridding herself of a criminal record and a cheque for £25,000 gained from the deaths of 5 innocent people two of them being wee children Shame on her.
Jeremy had a NOTW deal.
And tried to sell pictures of Sheila and his life story to The Sun.
Sick.
-
Adam why I changed my mind was thanks to Caroline and Harters giving me factual information do you not read my posts as I have said all this in detail earlier and not into repeats ;D ;D ;D ;D Adam follow the forum and all the posts ;D
-
She did not broker a deal.
The police knew nothing about Jeremy's caravan break in. Julie told them.
The police found out about Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud after Julie had completed her WS.
The police had nothing to make her speak.
-
Sorry Harters, I missed this. I agree entirely.
Thought I was on ignore for a minute then. :D
-
As I said, delusional.
What deal did she broker ?
And why didn't Jeremy's top lawyers jump all over this ?
-
Adam I AGREE WITH YOU :'(
-
Adam why I changed my mind was thanks to Caroline and Harters giving me factual information do you not read my posts as I have said all this in detail earlier and not into repeats ;D ;D ;D ;D Adam follow the forum and all the posts ;D
Caroline was a Jeremy supporter until a few weeks ago.
Harters has only created two threads in 6 months. He said himself he only creates threads when he has something worthwhile to say. I admire his honesty.
Thought my threads and posts and Scipio's long posts would have persuaded you. But no, you dug in and fire fighted. Which is commendable.
-
Harters any ideas why Jeremy Bamber did not scream from the rooftops that Julie was telling lies unless of course she knew more about his intentions that we know about and he wanted that kept quiet and knew if he pushed her she would reveal more.
-
What deal did she broker ?
And why didn't Jeremy's top lawyers jump all over this ?
She clearly brokered a deal that she would testify in the case against Jeremy to avoid prosecution.
Jeremy's legal team were representing the defence of Jeremy, not the prosecution of Julie. If they showed Julie up to be guilty, then that wouldn't do Jeremy's defence prospects an favours.
That's a pretty stupid post to be honest.
-
Harters any ideas why Jeremy Bamber did not scream from the rooftops that Julie was telling lies unless of course she knew more about his intentions that we know about and he wanted that kept quiet and knew if he pushed her she would reveal more.
You need to read posts and remember what they say.
Jeremy said in court Julie stood up in court and lied because he (apparently) jilted her.
I have said this about three times today.
-
Harters any ideas why Jeremy Bamber did not scream from the rooftops that Julie was telling lies unless of course she knew more about his intentions that we know about and he wanted that kept quiet and knew if he pushed her she would reveal more.
I think the defence tried very, very hard to discredit Julie's testimony, but failed to do so.
I guess it was difficult for Jeremy to make certain allegations without implicating himself.
-
Adam sorry to disappoint you but Caroline has been on the guilty stance much longer than a few weeks I would say months when she came on the forum she thought he was guilty then for a short while innocent then back to guilty where she well and truly sits. Scipio has raised some good points Adam you have posted loads of information that have been helpful you have put so much work into your threads but sometimes you amaze me with your posts :'(
-
She clearly brokered a deal that she would testify in the case against Jeremy to avoid prosecution.
Jeremy's legal team were representing the defence of Jeremy, not the prosecution of Julie. If they showed Julie up to be guilty, then that wouldn't do Jeremy's defence prospects an favours.
That's a pretty stupid post to be honest.
Jeremy had not been arrested when she approached the police.
He was arrested afterwards. So obviously she is going to testify, otherwise why approach the police ?
-
You need to read posts and remember what they say.
Jeremy said in court Julie stood up in court and lied because he (apparently) jilted her.
I have said this about three times today.
Groan. I think you need to wind your neck in a bit. ::)
-
I think the defence tried very, very hard to discredit Julie's testimony, but failed to do so.
I guess it was difficult for Jeremy to make certain allegations without implicating himself.
That included focusing on Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud.
-
Harters I am starting to think this as he would have made such a fuss about her even to this day he has kept quiet which is unlike him.
-
Adam sorry to disappoint you but Caroline has been on the guilty stance much longer than a few weeks I would say months when she came on the forum she thought he was guilty then for a short while innocent then back to guilty where she well and truly sits. Scipio has raised some good points Adam you have posted loads of information that have been helpful you have put so much work into your threads but sometimes you amaze me with your posts :'(
Caroline was always a strong Jeremy supporter, until recently. I should know, she would fire fight my posts and threads enough.
-
Harters I am starting to think this as he would have made such a fuss about her even to this day he has kept quiet which is unlike him.
His OS has a whole chapter trying to discredit Julie.
I assume Jeremy is involved in this and has the final say on what is written.
-
I think the defence tried very, very hard to discredit Julie's testimony, but failed to do so.
I guess it was difficult for Jeremy to make certain allegations without implicating himself.
exactly
what was he supposed to stand up screaming in the court you are a liar and only doing this to get back at me? That would have done him a lot of good. Same old argument really , how could he prove she was telling lies? And if he was innocent what must have been going through his mind? She will never stand up in court and lie on oath?
As Adam has pointed out himself on many occasions you can only answer what is presented to you in court.
-
Caroline was always a strong Jeremy supporter, until recently. I should know, she would fire fight my posts and threads enough.
Adam - why are you arguing with Susan ? Just because it was Caroline that persuaded her and not you?
And why are you defending Julie ? If she is telling the truth then she could at least have stopped him nearly getting away with it by telling the police straight away.
And can you clarify who told the police? Her or Liz?
-
exactly
what was he supposed to stand up screaming in the court you are a liar and only doing this to get back at me? That would have done him a lot of good. Same old argument really , how could he prove she was telling lies? And if he was innocent what must have been going through his mind? She will never stand up in court and lie on oath?
As Adam has pointed out himself on many occasions you can only answer what is presented to you in court.
He did say that. Without shouting and screaming.
Saying Julie is lying in court because he (apparently) jilted her.
-
Adam - why are you arguing with Susan ? Just because it was Caroline that persuaded her and not you?
And why are you defending Julie ? If she is telling the truth then she could at least have stopped him nearly getting away with it by telling the police straight away.
And can you clarify who told the police? Her or Liz?
I'm not so sure that the police weren't already sniffing around.
-
Adam - why are you arguing with Susan ? Just because it was Caroline that persuaded her and not you?
And why are you defending Julie ? If she is telling the truth then she could at least have stopped him nearly getting away with it by telling the police straight away.
And can you clarify who told the police? Her or Liz?
Well yes, she could have told the police on day one.
But Jeremy was her boyfriend.
She loved him.
She was in shock.
She was 20 years old.
She did not want to believe him.
He gave a proxy.
She may not think anyone would believe her.
Jeremy said he was water tight and it was an 'open and shut case'.
-
jansus I mean after the Court case not during the Court. It is something I have not heard him talk about much the silencer yes but not her unless I have missed it of course. Jansus I don't have the answers just my own thoughts on this case.
-
Adam - why are you arguing with Susan ? Just because it was Caroline that persuaded her and not you?
And why are you defending Julie ? If she is telling the truth then she could at least have stopped him nearly getting away with it by telling the police straight away.
And can you clarify who told the police? Her or Liz?
Yes I was very upset that my posts and threads did not persuade Susan. But she is friends with Caroline. Maybe if I had cooked her a meal.
Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones. Julie was in the room so obviously in agreement.
Liz's phone call was simply to arrange for Julie to meet the police. In the meeting/interview Julie told the police everything. She did not need to.
-
julies words page 13
I lay in bed but I did not sleep "as I knew that Jeremy had murdered his family"
If you read he her statement she conveniently covers the bits that the police had problems with - how did he get out of the house and lock the windows - how did he get back to his house without using the car?
Earlier she also talks about cyanide ? ( a small hint) and that she knew he meant it when he talked about getting rid of his family including the twins.
I still ( being charitable ) believe she may have completely elaborated her story because the police convinced he did it and they needed help with the conviction.
But if she was telling the whole truth - then I really can not understand for one moment why Adam is defending her.
-
He did say that. Without shouting and screaming.
Saying Julie is lying in court because he (apparently) jilted her.
the question was why did he not make more of a point /fuss / scream from the roof tops that she was telling lies.
That is what I answered
-
Adam the posts Harters put up had a tremendous influence on my change of stance. Have you ever thought Julie knew exactly what he planned and how he planned to do it but could not say outright as it would incriminate her and she would have been off to prison along with him. Yes why are you arguing with me I thought we were on the same side :'( You just want to be the dominant male I guess ;)
-
jansus I mean after the Court case not during the Court. It is something I have not heard him talk about much the silencer yes but not her unless I have missed it of course. Jansus I don't have the answers just my own thoughts on this case.
except for the letter I have not read anything either .
But her testimony was for things that were only said between the two of them. They were not verified or witnessed by a third person at any time?
So really I don't know what he could do - except what he did - write and I guess beg her to tell the truth?
-
Adam the posts Harters put up had a tremendous influence on my change of stance. Have you ever thought Julie knew exactly what he planned and how he planned to do it but could not say outright as it would incriminate her and she would have been off to prison along with him. Yes why are you arguing with me I thought we were on the same side :'( You just want to be the dominant male I guess ;)
I think this is what Caroline has implied as well - by saying it is not so much what she says but what she doesn't say.
I must admit I would like to see her testimony in full and all the statements she made.
-
Adam the posts Harters put up had a tremendous influence on my change of stance. Have you ever thought Julie knew exactly what he planned and how he planned to do it but could not say outright as it would incriminate her and she would have been off to prison along with him. Yes why are you arguing with me I thought we were on the same side :'( You just want to be the dominant male I guess ;)
Just to be clear though, Susan has her own mind and is entirely welcome to agree or disagree with me on any aspect of the case.
I'm interested in the case simply for the fact that it's an interesting case. I have not set out to change anybodies mind or influence other people in any way.
I certainly don't take any credit or pleasure if people have changed their mind because of things that I have said (typed).
I'm as capable as the next person of making mistakes or errors of judgement.
-
I think this is what Caroline has implied as well - by saying it is not so much what she says but what she doesn't say.
I must admit I would like to see her testimony in full and all the statements she made.
Yes that is one difficulty, the majority, if not all, of the documents released to the public domain have have originated from Jeremy's supporters.
-
Yes I was very upset that my posts and threads did not persuade Susan. But she is friends with Caroline. Maybe if I had cooked her a meal.
Liz Rimmington rang Stan Jones. Julie was in the room so obviously in agreement.
Liz's phone call was simply to arrange for Julie to meet the police. In the meeting/interview Julie told the police everything. She did not need to.
Adam what is your source for your information - because this is what I have read on the forum
Julie Mugford and Elizabeth Rimmington
Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the family and committed suicide. On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone Report Number One. The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a mystery as Essex Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.
This is the sequence of events:
5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12).
Whilst in custody
So why would they take her into custody? sounds to me more like Liz was dobbing her in?
-
witneses dont normaly get taken into custody well not willing ones anyway.
-
plus if the details of the call have not been released how do we know Julie was in the room?
-
Harters I quite agree I very much have a mind of my own and it is entirely my own thoughts and feelings that have made me change my stance. The reason I brought you and Caroline into it because you have with some of your posts made me see things differently. Sorry I did not mean to imply you had converted me. I must admit I have discussed the case in depth with posters by pm and have been greatly influenced by their comments. Sorry Adam.
-
Harters I quite agree I very much have a mind of my own and it is entirely my own thoughts and feelings that have made me change my stance. The reason I brought you and Caroline into it because you have with some of your posts made me see things differently. Sorry I did not mean to imply you had converted me. I must admit I have discussed the case in depth with posters by pm and have been greatly influenced by their comments. Sorry Adam.
Haha, no need to Susan, I wasn't implying that at all. ;)
-
Harters 8) 8) 8)
-
I think it's become a little bit of a pantomime, you have 'certain posters' on both sides of the guilt divide who are actively trying to convince other people and change their minds.
You then have a whole bunch of other posters, who don't care either way and are just interested in the case. Regardless of some people's accusations, I firmly, very firmly, fit in to the latter.
I think the forum is interesting to kick ideas around, but I don't think anybody should be deluded enough to think any difference is being made one way or the other.
Barring the mad one's (and you know who you are) there is a nice bunch of folk on the forum.
-
in a civilised debate ( gosh that makes a change) no one has to apologise for their opinions - because that's all they are .
And I am interested in what makes people change their minds . Whether it be a combination of factors or just one small thing.
The thing that got me interested in the first place is a man that during all his time in jail has fought so hard to prove his innocence. And it obviously is not a straightforward case otherwise no books would have been written . And as the Dickinson report said there were really only two things that put him there , the moderator and Julies evidence. So when Adam accuses me of always going back to Julie when in doubt - that is my reason. And I think that most people would agree that today the way the moderator was handled would not be accepted in court as a piece of evidence that was handled correctly.
-
I think it's become a little bit of a pantomime, you have 'certain posters' on both sides of the guilt divide who are actively trying to convince other people and change their minds.
You then have a whole bunch of other posters, who don't care either way and are just interested in the case. Regardless of some people's accusations, I firmly, very firmly, fit in to the latter.
I think the forum is interesting to kick ideas around, but I don't think anybody should be deluded enough to think any difference is being made one way or the other.
Barring the mad one's (and you know who you are) there is a nice bunch of folk on the forum.
good post . That's why I think personal posts should be avoided where at all possible .
-
Ah well,the " real " Jack the Ripper has been revealed after 126 years. DNA from an old shawl identifies him. Case remains open while the Met solves the mystery. I suppose 126 years isn't so bad to get your man. There's hope for Jeremy yet. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ah well,the " real " Jack the Ripper has been revealed after 126 years. DNA from an old shawl identifies him. Case remains open while the Met solves the mystery. I suppose 126 years isn't so bad to get your man. There's hope for Jeremy yet. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No there isn't.
-
Harters,I'm being facetious meaning another 97 years to go. Will any of us care ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
well theres another 96 years to go then.
-
Harters,I'm being facetious meaning another 97 years to go. Will any of us care ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh okay. :-\ I was being deadly serious, there is no hope.
-
what none at all.
not even a tiny bit.
-
what none at all.
not even a tiny bit.
No, none whatsoever.
-
the question was why did he not make more of a point /fuss / scream from the roof tops that she was telling lies.
That is what I answered
What roof tops.
-
except for the letter I have not read anything either .
But her testimony was for things that were only said between the two of them. They were not verified or witnessed by a third person at any time?
So really I don't know what he could do - except what he did - write and I guess beg her to tell the truth?
A lot of witnesses said similar things to Julie about how much Jeremy hated his family and how he resented his situation.
-
except for the letter I have not read anything either .
But her testimony was for things that were only said between the two of them. They were not verified or witnessed by a third person at any time?
So really I don't know what he could do - except what he did - write and I guess beg her to tell the truth?
Jeremy's OS has a whole chapter on Julie.
-
Oh okay. :-\ I was being deadly serious, there is no hope.
To be perfectly honest,I couldn't rightfully say which way this next "attempt " will go. By my nature I'm not a very optimistic person,seemingly always finding hurdles whatever the situation. It comes with looking too far ahead and not living the moment as most would.
A nice surprise is a bonus to a pessimistic person. ;D ;D ;D ;D
I was always being told never to count my chickens,when I was growing up,and it's stuck with me. That way,you don't get any nasty shocks either.
-
I think this is what Caroline has implied as well - by saying it is not so much what she says but what she doesn't say.
I must admit I would like to see her testimony in full and all the statements she made.
A lot of her testimony is in Wilkes's book. Her WS's are online.
-
To be perfectly honest,I couldn't rightfully say which way this next "attempt " will go. By my nature I'm not a very optimistic person,seemingly always finding hurdles whatever the situation. It comes with looking too far ahead and not living the moment as most would.
A nice surprise is a bonus to a pessimistic person. ;D ;D ;D ;D
I was always being told never to count my chickens,when I was growing up,and it's stuck with me. That way,you don't get any nasty shocks either.
Just my prediction, but there will be no shocks.
-
A lot of her testimony is in Wilkes's book. Her WS's are online.
actually I meant her 32 interviews - my mistake.
-
What roof tops.
its a metaphor
-
Harters I quite agree I very much have a mind of my own and it is entirely my own thoughts and feelings that have made me change my stance. The reason I brought you and Caroline into it because you have with some of your posts made me see things differently. Sorry I did not mean to imply you had converted me. I must admit I have discussed the case in depth with posters by pm and have been greatly influenced by their comments. Sorry Adam.
I never expected me to change you're stance.
You had been on a 90% pro Jeremy forum for a long time. Saying yourself that you only read about the case from this board. So had a strong guilty stance.
When I started posting, you focused more on me, rather than my posts. So did not take in what I was saying. Even now I have to say the same things several times. Which is fine, as you were not the only one.
But pleased Caroline and Harters convinced you.
-
A lot of her testimony is in Wilkes's book. Her WS's are online.
Only about 8 of them are, including the COLP and appeal statements there should be 37 I think.
Wilkes simply paraphrases the parts he wishes to refer to.
-
A lot of witnesses said similar things to Julie about how much Jeremy hated his family and how he resented his situation.
Also some said he did not. Including his father who trusted him enough to give him shares in both businesses
-
Jeremy's OS has a whole chapter on Julie.
yes ? he said she was telling lies - don't quite get your point ? Susan was asking about what he did after the trial as well?
-
I never expected me to change you're stance.
You had been on a 90% pro Jeremy forum for a long time. So had a strong view.
When I started posting, you focused more on me, rather than my posts. So did not take in what I was saying. Even now I have to say the same things several times. Which is fine, as you were not the only one.
But pleased Caroline and Harters convinced you.
Why are you pleased, that's a bit odd. Why are you trying/hoping to change people's minds?
-
yes ? he said she was telling lies - don't quite get your point ? Susan was asking about what he did after the trial as well?
Yes, the OS was created 'after the trial'.
-
A lot of her testimony is in Wilkes's book. Her WS's are online.
Books are no good Adam. They are just authors preferences and don't give the WHOLE picture. The books that have been written ALL give different versions of the same tragic event,while authors,each one of them has interviewed Jeremy,the police and relatives,though I'm not too sure whether the relatives declined on one or two things which Lomax put to them. I do know that AE declined being interviewed at WHF sometime in the 90's.
So we have 3 books which are written about the same case with the same people being interviewed but 3 entirely different views on the tragedy-------------is this right in your eyes ? Because it isn't in mine.
-
Adam what is your source for your information - because this is what I have read on the forum
Julie Mugford and Elizabeth Rimmington
Essex Police were convinced on the basis of all available evidence that Sheila had killed the family and committed suicide. On the 7th September 1985 Elizabeth Rimmington telephoned Witham Police Station to say that Julie Mugford was withholding vital evidence in the White House Farm enquiry. This was at 4pm. This telephone call was documented as Telephone Report Number One. The exact content of this telephone call from Ms Rimmington is still a mystery as Essex Police continue to withhold this document from the Defence.
This is the sequence of events:
5:00pm D.S. Stan Jones goes to the address of Malcolm Waters and takes Julie Mugford into custody. (HOLMES 64/13 and 1/12).
Whilst in custody
So why would they take her into custody? sounds to me more like Liz was dobbing her in?
It is in Wilkes's book. I will find the quote tonight.
-
the only shock will be if the EP release what is in the 200 boxes. They seem very determined not to .
-
Yes, the OS was created 'after the trial'.
I think we are talking at crossed purposes.
-
the only shock will be if the EP release what is in the 200 boxes. They seem very determined not to .
I think you have been listening to propaganda a little too much.
-
I think you have been listening to propaganda a little too much.
no - I have read their statement about why they wont release them ?
it is on the forum .
-
the only shock will be if the EP release what is in the 200 boxes. They seem very determined not to .
Oh yes. The mysterious alleged 200 boxes.
But would Jeremy's cell fit another 200 boxes in ? Apparently it is already jam packed with boxes. Does he have a cell mate ?
-
Oh yes. The mysterious alleged 200 boxes.
But would Jeremy's cell fit another 200 boxes in ? Apparently it is already jam packed with boxes. Does he have a cell mate ?
sarcasm does not suit you Adam.
Stick to facts.
The boxes do exist EP have admitted that . So they are not mysterious. If they did release them I am sure his legal team would help him.
-
no - I have read their statement about why they wont release them ?
it is on the forum .
I am suggesting that you are mistaken in your conclusions.
If such evidence was available, I'd be questioning why both a apparently respected legal team and also the CCRC are not able to be more .............. magical. :-\
-
Adam my love sorry to disappoint you I never had strong view always hazy. Although I may have appeared to have I was confused by so much and two good friends of mine who I speak to by pm helped me so much to understand the situation and they know who they are I have never openly discussed the guilty stance with them as yet. I said to you Caroline and Harters have made many convincing posts not to me directly but on the open forum and I read them thought about them and things started to fit into place, I honestly do not think any posters on either side are trying to convince and convert others to their way of thinking it is not important to people what they believe in is. I can think of one who does not fit into that category :'(
-
Stan Jones was at home when he received a call from someone at Witham Police station. It was Liz Rimmington -
Liz ? (SJ).
Hello
Have you got Julie with you ?
Yes.
Is it about the Bamber case ?
Yes.
Is she making allegations ?
Yes
I will be right over.
Julie said to SJ straight away she just couldn't live with Jeremy's secret anymore. She had tried to deny the truth. But now wanted the truth to come out.
As everyone knows, Julie had no reason to speak to the police. They had nothing on her.
-
Adam you are so funny a real tonic ;D hope you got the accents right ;D
-
Adam you have to say things several times as I'm a little deaf and don 't always hear you. I was focused on you yes not your posts ;D ;D ;D ;D Bless your cotton socks.
-
Stan Jones was at home when he received a call from someone at Witham Police station. It was Liz Rimmington -
Liz ? (SJ).
Hello
Have you got Julie with you ?
Yes.
Is it about the Bamber case ?
Yes.
Is she making allegations ?
Yes
I will be right over.
Julie said to SJ straight away she just couldn't live with Jeremy's secret anymore. She had tried to deny the truth. But now wanted the truth to come out.
As everyone knows, Julie had no reason to speak to the police. They had nothing on her.
how strange - when details of the call have not been released -so you are saying the author spoke to stan jones - and he knew right away what the call was about?
-
I've just been reading about " Damning Evidence kept back by Ann Eaton/Barbara Wilson ". Threats to kill by SC. Nov. 2011. It's on this forum.
I didn't know that BW had done 4 statements ?
-
how strange - when details of the call have not been released -so you are saying the author spoke to stan jones - and he knew right away what the call was about?
The author interviewed everyone. Including Jeremy, excluding Julie.
-
I am suggesting that you are mistaken in your conclusions.
If such evidence was available, I'd be questioning why both a apparently respected legal team and also the CCRC are not able to be more .............. magical. :-\
I think EP like the power as their arguments are not convincing - And the CCRC probably think they have done their bit and are probably concentrating on the list of other cases they have to deal with .
the only people who could in theory get the EP to release them are the home office.
-
The author interviewed everyone. Including Jeremy, excluding Julie.
that's not everyone then. why not the star witness?
-
that's not everyone then. why not the star witness?
He would have asked her. But she said 'no'.
-
I've just been reading about " Damning Evidence kept back by Ann Eaton/Barbara Wilson ". Threats to kill by SC. Nov. 2011. It's on this forum.
I didn't know that BW had done 4 statements ?
What damning evidence? First of all from Barabar Wilson it is hearsay. We don't know what if anything Sheila told Ann let alone the circumstances. Far form a threat to kill the alelgation is she said something to the effect of all people are bad and should be killed. Did she actually say all people should be killed though or did Barabar WIlson get it wrong?
If she did say all peopel should be killed when and what was the context? That would be much more relavenat if someoen supposedly went on a rampage trying to kill as many people as they could.
Far from being damning evidence it is another meaningless pie in the sky claim that has no ability at all to refute the phycial evidence in this case which proves Sheila did not kill anyone else or herself.
-
I think EP like the power as their arguments are not convincing - And the CCRC probably think they have done their bit and are probably concentrating on the list of other cases they have to deal with .
the only people who could in theory get the EP to release them are the home office.
Fantasy. It was not usual to disclose all information, if information is available, an experienced legal team are likely to be able to obtain such information.
As has occurred in the past..
It is now just propaganda and nonsense in my view. Otherwise our highly esteemed and decorated legal practitioners would have a little more lead in their pencils.
Having said that, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
-
I've just been reading about " Damning Evidence kept back by Ann Eaton/Barbara Wilson ". Threats to kill by SC. Nov. 2011. It's on this forum.
I didn't know that BW had done 4 statements ?
BW wrote 17 statements. Only one is one the public domain.
-
Fantasy. It was not usual to disclose all information, if information is available, an experienced legal team are likely to be able to obtain such information.
As has occurred in the past..
It is now just propaganda and nonsense in my view. Otherwise our highly esteemed and decorated legal practitioners would have a little more lead in their pencils.
Having said that, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
if they knew it existed at the time.
I can see some things would be sensitive ( such as photos of the children) and possibly kept under PII - but 200 boxes? Plus all the other items that were destroyed?
You are correct in that some things may have even been seen before and in that case EP are enjoying playing games - perhaps they were smarting after all their criticism .
The way things are going we may never know.
-
if they knew it existed at the time.
I can see some things would be sensitive ( such as photos of the children) and possibly kept under PII - but 200 boxes? Plus all the other items that were destroyed?
You are correct in that some things may have even been seen before and in that case EP are enjoying playing games - perhaps they were smarting after all their criticism .
The way things are going we may never know.
I think that is what JB and his supporters would like you to believe.
Obviously I think that is ......... horlicks. :-\
-
how strange - when details of the call have not been released -so you are saying the author spoke to stan jones - and he knew right away what the call was about?
Hi Janus, stan jones agreed and was portrayed as a hero who stood up to his bosses never wavering in his belief of Bambers guilt. He agreed to go on record and be interrigated for the book, a lot of the serving officers would not cooperate with the book because of Bambers complaint about the force and his attempts to appeal at the time was live.
-
Hello Justice how interesting did not know that ;D
-
If we talk of the week of the murders this is how quick Stan Jones was onto Bamber Mr Jones said he was always sceptical of Bamber's innocence and raised his concerns at a meeting of detectives.
"On the second day after the shooting I spoke out and said it was Bamber who did it. I was ostracised and (I) spent a month of hell.
-
Hello Justice how interesting did not know that ;D
Hi Susan that is in the Law magazine for Essex police feb 1994
-
Neither Sheila nor Jeremy could do any right in the eyes of their mother.
When Sheila was divorced,it hit June with such a terrible blow,as divorce had never been heard of in the family. Then the worry of the twins arose as to what sort of a home they'd have. It was Junes' worst nightmare.
Sheila began to feel the evil inside herself and wondered too if her ex-husband and mother sensed it because of the lack,or inability to express any love and/or understanding towards her,which is when Sheila started to look for her birth mother a year later.
Jeremy,too,came in for criticism after his parents bought him the cottage at Goldhanger,as he continued to work in bars,until he finally gave in and went to work on the farm. The problem was---------that Julie also made herself at home there too,washing,cooking,cleaning and ironing and fussed around Jeremy like a mother hen. June did not like the arrangement and called Julie " that harlot " whenever she spoke to Jeremy,complaining several times about the relationship. Because of this atmosphere,Jeremy had decided that in order to keep the peace it was best not to talk to his mother.
Both Sheila and Jeremy took cocaine on their nights on the town. ( how weak to follow the in-crowd ! )
-
The relationship started to fizzle when Julie began her teaching course at Goldsmiths,as she would now spend most of her time with her flatmates at the South London flat that they all shared. So it wasn't just a matter of who dumped who,as Jeremy too took that opportunity to live his life with a steady stream of women callers at his Goldhanger cottage.
He travelled to London occasionally and while there would stay with either Julie or Sheila,as she had settled in her London flat,bought for her by her parents.
-
Was anyone aware that Jeremy allegedly had previously " tried out a plan " by tranquilising his parents,but it didn't work ?
JB had told officers about this.
-
its pretty obvious that tranquilizers wernt used or ralph wouldn't of woke up.
-
The above posts,using my own phrases/words,were from extracts of Claire Powells' book.
Being extremely anti,it certainly does Jeremy no favours whatsoever,as the more you read what she's written-------------the more I feel that Jeremy is innocent. It's a pretty damaging book,as apparently it states that" Julie,of course,knew that Jeremy had done it ". Did she now ??
JM faced being questioned,minus her makeup,the dark eyeliner,etc,so she'd look like death warmed-up. A favourite trick,eh ?
-
its pretty obvious that tranquilizers wernt used or ralph wouldn't of woke up.
That was allegedly a dummy-run before the murders,nugs. Apparently,Allegedly.
-
a dummy run but then they dident use it at all that's a bit strange there planning to use tranquilizers but then don't.
-
Why,according to Bob Woffinden,that the great deal of evidence which BW furnished,couldn't it have been given, because it was hearsay ? Wasn't most of what was presented at trial,hearsay anyway ?
-
no legally speaking it wasn't hearsay.
i know to the us it might seem like hearsay but leggaly speaking its not.
hearsay is when you say well ive heard this roumour about so and so.
-
Hi Janus, stan jones agreed and was portrayed as a hero who stood up to his bosses never wavering in his belief of Bambers guilt. He agreed to go on record and be interrigated for the book, a lot of the serving officers would not cooperate with the book because of Bambers complaint about the force and his attempts to appeal at the time was live.
Toilet
-
Toilet
Sorry, I meant horlicks, you know bollocks! !!!
-
Ah well,the " real " Jack the Ripper has been revealed after 126 years. DNA from an old shawl identifies him. Case remains open while the Met solves the mystery. I suppose 126 years isn't so bad to get your man. There's hope for Jeremy yet. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I saw that on the news (am in London now). Problem is EP (against court orders) destroyed all physical evidence in the Bamber case back in 1996 (right when forensic DNA was gaining ground....), so nothing will be cleared up there, will it?!
Harters called this an interesting case. It is. Only unsolved cases are interesting - this is basically an unsolved case.
Who cares about a solved case?
-
Harters called this an interesting case. It is. Only unsolved cases are interesting - this is basically an unsolved case.
Who cares about a solved case?
:-\
You can call it a case in which innocence is still claimed. But strange to call it an unsolved case really.
-
:-\
You can call it a case in which innocence is still claimed. But strange to call it an unsolved case really.
Mat, to me it is. There are so many unexplained, unclear things about it.
One thing I know, the cases that "won´t go away", are cases where people have doubts and pending questions in some way - a culprit hasn´t been found, or a body - or there is doubt if the convicted one/s are in fact the guilty ones. Something unresolved. Otherwise people lose interest, naturally. A solved case is not interesting. I think everyone will agree about that.
Guilters use hour upon hour, day upon day, week upon week to try to argue that JB is guilty. Well, HELLO, he was tried and convicted and has the most severe sentence possible where he happens to live.
Why use so much time to prove a case that is over and done with, thirty years old to boot.
Don´t tell me you don´t have doubts.
-
Mat, to me it is. There are so many unexplained, unclear things about it.
One thing I know, the cases that "won´t go away", are cases where people have doubts and pending questions in some way - a culprit hasn´t been found, or a body - or there is doubt if the convicted one/s are in fact the guilty ones. Something unresolved. Otherwise people lose interest, naturally. A solved case is not interesting. I think everyone will agree about that.
Guilters use hour upon hour, day upon day, week upon week to try to argue that JB is guilty. Well, HELLO, he was tried and convicted and has the most severe sentence possible where he happens to live.
Why use so much time to prove a case that is over and done with, thirty years old to boot.
Don´t tell me you don´t have doubts.
Hi Alias, hope you're enjoying London!!
I guess I am one of those dreaded 'guilters' now and I still post because my interest is still there. You don't change your mind and then lose interest. I guess if I had always thought him guilty, I wouldn't have bothered joining the site or even gave him a second thought. I'm pretty convinced he's guilty now and especially after going through the phone call evidence but I suppose you can never be 100% sure.
-
Hi Alias, hope you're enjoying London!!
I guess I am one of those dreaded 'guilters' now and I still post because my interest is still there. You don't change your mind and then lose interest. I guess if I had always thought him guilty, I wouldn't have bothered joining the site or even gave him a second thought. I'm pretty convinced he's guilty now and especially after going through the phone call evidence but I suppose you can never be 100% sure.
Love London! Crappy internet connection, husband has a virus and I can´t sleep (he does, bless him. LOL)!
I do love London, seriously! Drove through Essex quickly by train, we skipped Colchester and went directly for the real thing! Waved at Essex from the train - promise I did! ;)
I once lost interest in what I believed was a MOJ case. I lost interest when I started thinking they were guilty after a long time being convinced of their innocense. They were in prison, so what was there to consider anymore?
Then they suddenly were released from prison on an "Alford Plea" - one of them from death row. So I guess I was wrong in changing my mind from innocent to guilty. No one gets to walk away from death row if guilty. The case I am talking about is the one about the West Memphis Three.
Caroline, maybe you will lose interest when it has settled in your mind that Jeremy Bamber is where he belongs - and nothing "dreaded" about guilters ;)- I have always been on the fence, just have some (very) unanswered questions.
-
Love London! Crappy internet connection, husband has a virus and I can´t sleep (he does, bless him. LOL)!
I do love London, seriously! Drove through Essex quickly by train, we skipped Colchester and went directly for the real thing! Waved at Essex from the train - promise I did! ;)
I once lost interest in what I believed was a MOJ case. I lost interest when I started thinking they were guilty after a long time being convinced of their innocense. They were in prison, so what was there to consider anymore?
Then they suddenly were released from prison on an "Alford Plea" - one of them from death row. So I guess I was wrong in changing my mind from innocent to guilty. No one gets to walk away from death row if guilty. The case I am talking about is the one about the West Memphis Three.
Caroline, maybe you will lose interest when it has settled in your mind that Jeremy Bamber is where he belongs - and nothing "dreaded" about guilters ;)- I have always been on the fence, just have some (very) unanswered questions.
Glad you're having a great time :). With you totally on the 'crappy internet connection' - we have a fault with ours at the mo, got a BT engineer coming to sort it on Tuesday but it keeps cutting out and it's REALLY annoying!! Didn't realise how much I relied on the internet until access became intermittent :o
I don't think I could be 100% certain of guilt (although I might have said I was out of frustration with certain people - and likewise the other way!). There are lots of unanswered things for me too. I guess I should try ans list those - see if we can thrash em out ;D ;D.
Hope you enjoy the rest of your stay X
-
Sorry, I meant horlicks, you know bollocks! !!!
Thanks for that Hartley? These are strong words used in the presence of ladies ones that i like to use face to face. This is not my quote as i stated to Susan this was taken out of the law Essex newspaper, as you stated i don't know anything about the case and i agree all i can go on is research.
-
Thanks for that Hartley? These are strong words used in the presence of ladies ones that i like to use face to face. This is not my quote as i stated to Susan this was taken out of the law Essex newspaper, as you stated i don't know anything about the case and i agree all i can go on is research.
You are very welcome. :)
-
Hi Alias, hope you're enjoying London!!
I guess I am one of those dreaded 'guilters' now and I still post because my interest is still there. You don't change your mind and then lose interest. I guess if I had always thought him guilty, I wouldn't have bothered joining the site or even gave him a second thought. I'm pretty convinced he's guilty now and especially after going through the phone call evidence but I suppose you can never be 100% sure.
Hey Caroline,never mind about you being " one of those dreaded guilters ",how about me being a " shock/horror,, innocent,for which the argument/debate is so much more difficult ? ;) ;) ;) ( affliction )
I still maintain that a GOOD defence team certainly has its work cut out as they really have to go over every little detail with a much finer tooth-comb ( a nitty one ) than does the prosecution,who " shout " their way through and scare the breeches off the jury until they submit.
To date,I've spoken to 3 cops,one of who I loaned my Lomax book to. He just said it was a " muddle " with no definite conclusion ?
The older guy,still working with his dogs wasn't impressed with the investigation and asked why it was that EP had to rely so much on relatives ? Did they know him well enough to point a finger,or didn't they like him ?
None of the 3 could say yea or nay. I'll have another conversation with one of them as he's off work at the moment as it does take some time to put someone clearly in the picture .
It comes to something when officers of the law can't even give a straight answer,though in all fairness,they haven't studied the case,as I just gave them the odd snippet to go on,such as the silencer,which the older guy said he was puzzled as to why it would have had to have been used on a .22 rifle anyway.
-
Hey Caroline,never mind about you being " one of those dreaded guilters ",how about me being a " shock/horror,, innocent,for which the argument/debate is so much more difficult ? ;) ;) ;) ( affliction )
I still maintain that a GOOD defence team certainly has its work cut out as they really have to go over every little detail with a much finer tooth-comb ( a nitty one ) than does the prosecution,who " shout " their way through and scare the breeches off the jury until they submit.
To date,I've spoken to 3 cops,one of who I loaned my Lomax book to. He just said it was a " muddle " with no definite conclusion ?
The older guy,still working with his dogs wasn't impressed with the investigation and asked why it was that EP had to rely so much on relatives ? Did they know him well enough to point a finger,or didn't they like him ?
None of the 3 could say yea or nay. I'll have another conversation with one of them as he's off work at the moment as it does take some time to put someone clearly in the picture .
It comes to something when officers of the law can't even give a straight answer,though in all fairness,they haven't studied the case,as I just gave them the odd snippet to go on,such as the silencer,which the older guy said he was puzzled as to why it would have had to have been used on a .22 rifle anyway.
I agree, it is FAR more difficult for you Lookout (and the other innocent supporters) given that the evidence points to guilty!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Thanks for that Hartley? These are strong words used in the presence of ladies ones that i like to use face to face. This is not my quote as i stated to Susan this was taken out of the law Essex newspaper, as you stated i don't know anything about the case and i agree all i can go on is research.
Also I missed out a comma after the word 'know'. :-[
So you may be taking my meaning a little differently than I intended. :-\
-
The biggest problems are all the unfounded comments ( hearsay ) about Jeremy,in general. Nothing is worse than saying something about someone who you don't know,though it's appreciated that one can know someone for donkeys years and still " not know " them,but the whole fact of this matter is where a mans' liberty has been taken, with half of it due to the writings of authors such as Claire Powell who was/is a friend of the relatives. It's human nature to all clump together to talk about someone,if you're that way inclined,worse if you don't know them that well and surmise from second-hand news,until you believe it must be true.
The 60's ( free love and drugs ) had been and gone and accepted by most,no choice really,but so far as the relatives were concerned,it still remained a lasting issue to which they lived their lives in disgust toward anyone who was different from themselves. 20 years on,and Jeremy was re-enacting that era which didn't go down well with them at all. Like it or lump it,it was there and if there was nothing else going on in the lives of those persons,then this life of" debauchery" remained at the forefront of their conversations.
Lack of understanding played a large part,as both Jeremy and Sheila grew up during the era where lives were less restrained,and those involved in their care,June and Neville,particularly June didn't move with the times which was damaging to her and both children,as it was more or less guaranteed that one of them would eventually rebel,and that was Sheila. The girl craved love,nothing else,and even fell pregnant probably thinking that she'd finally have someone to love and that love be returned.
Latterly,in her own way,Sheila was literally crying out for help.She was one very desperate woman who couldn't make either her voice heard,or her feelings known. Everyone was too busy or too self-absorbed to care.
What's made me more and more sure of Jeremys' innocence was the attitude of an ex-prisoner who I spoke to last year,himself released after serving his " usual " stint.At the age of 51,he's served 30 of those years in and out of prison,once being in Full Sutton. I mentioned Jeremy,who this guy didn't hesitate to say he was guilty because he's " posh and has money ".What,said I ? So this guy went on to say that Jeremy was,or had smuggled drugs " inside his body ",to which I answered that I bet this guy made sure he'd had his share ( as he's a druggie ) didn't answer that one. I didn't ask the guy for the reasons for his imprisonment,but I've been told he's a prolific thief and not to be approached,so dangerous too. Anyway,he made it very clear that he loathed Jeremy. His mother lives in the area and so the police have asked me to keep an eye out if I see him in the area as " things happen when he's around " said the police. ( if I had a gun I'd shoot him ;D )
-
I just want to reiterate on the behaviour of S.Jones,who I've already stated that on visiting the Eatons,he'd left the premises rather drunk after downing most of the contents of a bottle of whisky.PE had offered to take the man home,but Jones insisted he'd drive himself home.
Well the same thing happened on the day after the murders when Jones and Clark went to Goldhanger to interview Jeremy. Jeremy had been shocked to see more than half a litre of whisky had been drunk,with one officer visibly drunk.No prizes for guessing who that would have been !
Jeremy said he'd felt uncomfortable at the time,but the officers didn't think it was out of the ordinary ??
FGS. How can anyone conduct an interview,especially one where 5 people were found dead,when the interviewer was clearly half-pi55ed ?
-
I just want to reiterate on the behaviour of S.Jones,who I've already stated that on visiting the Eatons,he'd left the premises rather drunk after downing most of the contents of a bottle of whisky.PE had offered to take the man home,but Jones insisted he'd drive himself home.
Well the same thing happened on the day after the murders when Jones and Clark went to Goldhanger to interview Jeremy. Jeremy had been shocked to see more than half a litre of whisky had been drunk,with one officer visibly drunk.No prizes for guessing who that would have been !
Jeremy said he'd felt uncomfortable at the time,but the officers didn't think it was out of the ordinary ??
FGS. How can anyone conduct an interview,especially one where 5 people were found dead,when the interviewer was clearly half-pi55ed ?
Where is that from Lookout?
-
Where is that from Lookout?
Claire Powells' book,Harters. Page 224.
-
Claire Powells' book,Harters. Page 224.
Sounds like it has been sensationalised somewhat.
-
well powels pro guilt so she wouldn't make things up to discredit the police she must have a reson for saying that.
-
Sounds like it has been sensationalised somewhat.
Some of it's disgusting,Harters. She's done herself no favours whatsoever if she thinks Jeremy's guilty.
I would say at this stage that more people who read her book,the better. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Some of it's disgusting,Harters. She's done herself no favours whatsoever if she thinks Jeremy's guilty.
I would say at this stage that more people who read her book,the better. ;D ;D ;D ;D
I wouldn't read a great deal in to any of the claims made in the various books.
-
.................. Claire Powell who was/is a friend of the relatives. ...............
Can I ask what makes you think that?
-
doesn't sound like it from some of the things she saying.
i suspect richard Webster might of been.
-
Can I ask what makes you think that?
It's in the frontispiece/preface,whatever you call it.
-
It's in the frontispiece/preface,whatever you call it.
What does it say?
-
doesn't sound like it from some of the things she saying.
i suspect richard Webster might of been.
Claire Powell spoke of DB as being a truly upright and honest man. How would she know that if she didn't know that person.?
-
Claire Powell spoke of DB as being a truly upright and honest man. How would she know that if she didn't know that person.?
So it doesn't say she is friends with the relatives in the preface then? ???
-
Claire Powell spoke of DB as being a truly upright and honest man. How would she know that if she didn't know that person.?
auturs often say things like that probebly she had no way of knowing and just decided it.
-
So it doesn't say she is friends with the relatives in the preface then? ???
I don't think she knew any of the relatives.
If you are going to criticise her book then feel free, but I don't think you should invent a relationship with one of the relatives in order to do so. ???
-
I don't think she knew any of the relatives.
If you are going to criticise her book then feel free, but I don't think you should invent a relationship with one of the relatives in order to do so. ???
Harters,it's the way she describes the family. Unless you know someone well,you don't make any sort of judgement just on one or two meetings/interviews. The fact that Claire struck up any sort of a relationship with them tells me that she was treated the same way as some of the EP officers,,dinners,etc. and being female it was easier. Why would she have described DB in such a way,such as solid and salt of the earth,who he'd felt that, quote, " Sheilas' spirit had haunted the family,urging them to find the truth about the massacre " ,unquote.
There had to be a certain amount of friendship their towards Claire,because as sure as Hell,there was nothing like that towards Lomax.
-
well if shes writing from a pro guilt standpoint shes going to talk the relatives up as much as possible doesn't necasrly mean she knows them or has even met them.
what shes writan about stan jones is rather strange though how does she know that even if its true i doubt if jones or the relatives would of told her.
-
Digressing here in a way,but has anyone read about the late Princess Diana and her phone-calls to Camilla telling her that she'd sent someone to kill her,and to look out of the window and she'll see him ( the killer ) ?
Diana was clearly " unwell " for a long time and none of us know how everyone else involved,suffered because of it. Her attempt to throw herself downstairs,the anorexia,a similar pattern to Sheila when your world falls apart,both having " lost " their husbands to others in their hours of need.
Both had felt that they must " look the part ",appearances,and ask approval of it. Reassurance.
Both had a sticky end to their lives.
-
Post-natal depression had hit both Diana and Sheila.Both had professional help-------which hadn't worked. Both women suffered mentally.
-
i cant see how cliare powell could know weather stan jones Jones downed a bottle of whiskey at the eatons house.
i mean even if it was true i cant see anyone telling her that.
-
Harters,it's the way she describes the family. Unless you know someone well,you don't make any sort of judgement just on one or two meetings/interviews. The fact that Claire struck up any sort of a relationship with them tells me that she was treated the same way as some of the EP officers,,dinners,etc. and being female it was easier. Why would she have described DB in such a way,such as solid and salt of the earth,who he'd felt that, quote, " Sheilas' spirit had haunted the family,urging them to find the truth about the massacre " ,unquote.
There had to be a certain amount of friendship their towards Claire,because as sure as Hell,there was nothing like that towards Lomax.
I think it's poetic license.
The author of the book isn't 'friends' with any of the relatives as far as I am aware.
-
i cant see how cliare powell could know weather stan jones Jones downed a bottle of whiskey at the eatons house.
i mean even if it was true i cant see anyone telling her that.
No,I was wrong with the Eatons' house. That was in a link about Peter Eaton. The other with Jeremy at Goldhanger is right.
-
i cant see how cliare powell could know weather stan jones Jones downed a bottle of whiskey at the eatons house.
i mean even if it was true i cant see anyone telling her that.
Ann's statement refers to whiskey drinking, I suspect Powell has embellished and sensationalised the 'incident' from that information alone.
-
its bit iffy i my opinion a detective drinking whisky with the witnesses a bit overly familer isn't it.
-
It damn well is,nugs. Then again,being a police officer,a higher ranking one at that,he can always deny it--------simply because he can. ;)
-
Harters,it's the way she describes the family. Unless you know someone well,you don't make any sort of judgement just on one or two meetings/interviews. The fact that Claire struck up any sort of a relationship with them tells me that she was treated the same way as some of the EP officers,,dinners,etc. and being female it was easier. Why would she have described DB in such a way,such as solid and salt of the earth,who he'd felt that, quote, " Sheilas' spirit had haunted the family,urging them to find the truth about the massacre " ,unquote.
There had to be a certain amount of friendship their towards Claire,because as sure as Hell,there was nothing like that towards Lomax.
Doesn't that happen here?
-
Doesn't that happen here?
Oh,it does, except that it becomes a whole different ball-game when you actually meet that person or persons face to face.
-
It damn well is,nugs. Then again,being a police officer,a higher ranking one at that,he can always deny it--------simply because he can. ;)
well powells acused him of drink driving drinking on duty on also implied that hes got some sort of drinking problem he was still very much alive and well when she wrote the book but he doesnt seem to have threatened to sue does he and he would have every right to.
-
Oh,it does, except that it becomes a whole different ball-game when you actually meet that person or persons face to face.
How so? We have nothing to base opinion on, only on other people's perceptions but judgements are still made.
-
well powells acused him of drink driving drinking on duty on also implied that hes got some sort of drinking problem he was still very much alive and well when she wrote the book but he doesnt seem to have threatened to sue does he and he would have every right to.
I've been thinking about a few remarks regarding authors being sued,but nobody,to my knowledge has ever come forward,and yes,whatever's said about those who are still alive,they've every right to sue if someone's telling outright lies about them.
-
If I was ever interviewed like that and an officer stunk of ale,he wouldn't hear the last of it. Neither would his superiors. That goes for anyone in any profession.
-
well if what powel says isnt true then its clearly libelous but she was allowed to publish it no hint or threat of a lawsuit even though such a lawsuit would be very easy to win.
-
Twice,on two different occasions it was mentioned,nugs. So there was time enough to have said something if it hadn't been true. Both times,supposedly on duty as well.
-
well theres also acusation of drink driving and thats pretty serious allegation to make agianst a serving policeman.
-
How so? We have nothing to base opinion on, only on other people's perceptions but judgements are still made.
With me,personally and my views on Jeremy,my perceptions go with the territory of those who say he's guilty. There's a vast difference to my mind,in a persons' overall manner and disposition which to me can be easily judged against that of those who say he's innocent.
-
im very suprised that the publishers were ok about printing Powells claims.
-
I'm quite surprised by the book overall considering that her mind seemed to be firmly fixed on Jeremy having committed the murders-------opening lines, quote " it is a story of a charming but greedy and arrogant man who thought he could get away with murder,"unquote.
-
I saw that on the news (am in London now). Problem is EP (against court orders) destroyed all physical evidence in the Bamber case back in 1996 (right when forensic DNA was gaining ground....), so nothing will be cleared up there, will it?!
Harters called this an interesting case. It is. Only unsolved cases are interesting - this is basically an unsolved case.
Who cares about a solved case?
How many times will Jeremy supporters keep perpetuation a myth by claiming there was a court order to preserve the evidence? There wasn't any court order what was violated was police imposed guidelines that evidence will be preseved in cases with open appeal. Time and again I have challenged you and others making this claim to support it with evidence but you can't because there was no such court order.
The cop who destroyed the evidence had no idea the appeal was still considered open. There was no active appeal going on. There was allegedly 2 years of communications between Jeremy's lawyers and the Home Office and it is argued these letters suffice to constitute the appeal being active. The cop who destroyed the evidence had no way to know about these letters though.
Why is the myth about a court order being violate dimportant? Because the reality is tha tther eis the evidence destroyed had no ability at all to help Jeremy. The notion there was some evidence that if DNA tested could have disproved the moderator evidence and proved Sheila was the shooter is complete nonsense.
Your suggestion that they intentionally got rid of the evidence despite a court order to prevent DNA from being used to free him is incorrect.
So too is it nonsense to call this an unsolved case. It is a solved case. Ther eis not one shred of evidence ot support Jeremy's innocence. Those who argue he is innocent have no leg to stand us thus resort to nonsense about how he was framed and bogus claims about how police destroyed evidence against court order to conceal the truth. Only biased people assert such lies and nonsense.
Jack the Ripper is interesting because of the brutal nature of the crimes. Other crimes like Son of Sam that are equally famous though they were solved. The failure of Jack the Ripper being solved simply opened the door to fiction authors to make up all sorts of things about the ripper case that they otherwise could not have done.
Just the supposed DNA doesn't establish weather ther eoculd have been an innocent DNA transfer or the results have been confirmed so the supposed unmasking is anything but certian at this point. But it doesn't mattr anyway most of us don't care. The identity is much more significant at the time of the murders and several decades thereafter. Unmasking the killer after eveyrone who was alive during the murders are dead doesn't mean much because no one really cares or is affected. If Jack the Ripper were confirmed to be on eof the suspects that would at least be of some note though limited. but finding out it was a nobody means little, who really cares...
The largest attention this case got was when the press was busy reporting claims suggesting Jerey was innocent and going to win his appeal. Upon losing it is obvious that he is guilty and the hype was all just hype. Obvious to all except people too biased to face reality and you fall into that camp.
-
I'm quite surprised by the book overall considering that her mind seemed to be firmly fixed on Jeremy having committed the murders-------opening lines, quote " it is a story of a charming but greedy and arrogant man who thought he could get away with murder,"unquote.
which makes it rather surprising that she make such an accusation against an investigating officer.
-
Why can't you just say you disagree with a post instead of calling people ridiculous and biased-----------which is what you,yourself are if you did but realise it. ::)
Unless you were at the crime scene and saw it all,etc,then you're in no position to say who's right and who's wrong.
-
How many times will Jeremy supporters keep lying by claiming there was a court order to preserve the evidence? There wasn't any court order what was violated was police imposed guidelines that evidence will be preseved in cases with open appeal. Time and again I have challenged you and others making this claim to support it with evidence but you can't because there was no such court order.
The cop who destroyed the evidence had no idea the appeal was still considered open. There was no active appeal going on. There was allegedly 2 years of communications between Jeremy's lawyers and the Home Office and it is argued these letters suffice to constitute the appeal being active. The cop who destroyed the evidence had no way to know about these letters though.
Why is the lie about a court order being violate dimportant? Because the reality is tha tther eis the evidence destroyed had no ability at all to help Jeremy. The notion there was some evidence that if DNA tested could have disproved the moderator evidence and proved Sheila was the shooter is complete nonsense.
Your suggestion that they intentionally got rid of the evidence despite a court order to prevent DNA from being used to free him is total nonsense.
So too is it nonsense to call this an unsolved case. It is a solved case. Ther eis not one shred of evidence ot support Jeremy's innocence. Those who argue he is innocent have no leg to stand us thus resort to nonsense about how he was framed and bogus claims about how police destroyed evidence against court order to conceal the truth. Only biased people assert such lies and nonsense.
Jack the Ripper is interesting because of the brutal nature of the crimes. Other crimes like Son of Sam that are equally famous though they were solved. The failure of Jack the Ripper being solved simply opened the door to fiction authors to make up all sorts of things about the ripper case that they otherwise could not have done.
Just the supposed DNA doesn't establish weather ther eoculd have been an innocent DNA transfer or the results have been confirmed so the supposed unmasking is anything but certian at this point. But it doesn't mattr anyway most of us don't care. The identity is much more significant at the time of the murders and several decades thereafter. Unmasking the killer after eveyrone who was alive during the murders are dead doesn't mean much because no one really cares or is affected. If Jack the Ripper were confirmed to be on eof the suspects that would at least be of some note though limited. but finding out it was a nobody means little, who really cares...
The largest attention this case got was when the press was busy reporting claims suggesting Jerey was innocent and going to win his appeal. Upon losing it is obvious that he is guilty and the hype was all just hype. Obvious to all except people too biased to face reality and you fall into that camp.
It's something that will not go away because a court order to stop destruction of evidence being ignored sounds good written down and sounds suspicious, doesn't matter that it's not true. I've chosen to just ignore it over time but new members who see it will certianly think "OMG That IS suspicious" which I think is one fo the main goals. :-\
-
It damn well is,nugs. Then again,being a police officer,a higher ranking one at that,he can always deny it--------simply because he can. ;)
well yes there was no real proof wich makes it even more strange that the publishers allowed powel to print it.
-
If I was ever interviewed like that and an officer stunk of ale,he wouldn't hear the last of it. Neither would his superiors. That goes for anyone in any profession.
it was more than just stinking ale powels alleging that he downed a bottle of the eatons whiskey while he was there then drove home.
-
It's something that will not go away because a court order to stop destruction of evidence being ignored sounds good written down and sounds suspicious, doesn't matter that it's not true. I've chosen to just ignore it over time but new members who see it will certianly think "OMG That IS suspicious" which I think is one fo the main goals. :-\
Yes that lie sounds uch more suspicious than the turth. Police guidelines called for evidence to be preserved where there were open appeals. There was no ongoing appeal per se, just written letters being exchanged between the Home office and Jeremy's defense and a cop in charge of evidence being totally unaware of these communications and tha tit meant the appeal was still open destroying the evidence after 10 years passed because that is the date of destruction unless an appeal is still ongoing.
Caliming there was a court order on file tha tthis cop would have seen and that he intentionally violated it to get rid of evidence sounds much better fodder for trying to fool people into thinking there was a conspiracy to get rid of evidence that could have cleared him. Of course the evidence destroyed had little hope of clearing him but the destruction allows them to pretend there was.
the main gripe of the defense was that June's blood sample was desotryed so they had no way to obtian her DNA profile to use when they examined the moderator but Pam sumbitted her DNA so actually voluntarily cooperated on behald of the defense's efforts. That of course is ignored by those claiming the family was out to frame Jeremy...
-
Will you stop your nasty bullying, scipio? Again you wasted your time on a long reply to my post - why would I bother reading it after being called ridiculous in the first sentence?
I take it that the moderators are fine with it, since it is not even commented on ever, and my conclusion must be that you agree with what he says.
-
Will you stop your nasty bullying, scipio? Again you wasted your time on a long reply to my post - why would I bother reading it after being called ridiculous in the first sentence?
I take it that the moderators are fine with it, since it is not even commented on ever, and my conclusion must be that you agree with what he says.
Actually Alias, I hadn't seen it, I've made one post in the last few hours because as I have already said, I have internet problems. April and Maggie are away and Roch and Neil aren't signed in. I can only deal with something if and when I see it. I have told Scipio to curb it on many occasions so 'ever' is frankly unfair.
The rudeness needs to stop! And that goes for everyone, personal attacks and insults are becoming the norm and to be honest, I'm sick to death of it. We aren't personally involved so a bit of mutual respect wouldn't go amiss. From now on, I'm going to delete personal slants so is there is something which you feel is personal, PM me and I will remove it as long as the complaint isn't for pettiness sake.
I will start with Alias's complaint - and Scipio (once again) there is no need for the personal bull-shit. I'm sure you can disagree without calling people names!
-
Will you stop your nasty bullying, scipio? Again you wasted your time on a long reply to my post - why would I bother reading it after being called ridiculous in the first sentence?
I take it that the moderators are fine with it, since it is not even commented on ever, and my conclusion must be that you agree with what he says.
It is not bullying and there is no need for you to respond. My repsonse corrected the record. You post claim after claim then complain when I prove you wrong. The only way you coudl feture my points woudl be if you could:
1) produce proof of a court order that ordered the evidence preserved- which you can't do because there was no court order such claim is fictitious
or
2) identify evidence that was destoryed tha tif tested coudl potnetially have cleared Jeremy but you can't because there is no evidence that was desotryed which coudl have helped establish Sheila's guilt/his innocence.
Any response other than that fails to refute my claims and thus amounts to you admitting tacitly that I am right. Your post does that right now as you try to avoid the factual issues by claiming I am a bully.
-
Actually Alias, I hadn't seen it, I've made one post in the last few hours because as I have already said, I have internet problems. April and Maggie are away and Roch and Neil aren't signed in. I can only deal with something if and when I see it. I have told Scipio to curb it on many occasions so 'ever' is frankly unfair.
The rudeness needs to stop! And that goes for everyone, personal attacks and insults are becoming the norm and to be honest, I'm sick to death of it. We aren't personally involved so a bit of mutual respect wouldn't go amiss. From now on, I'm going to delete personal slants so is there is something which you feel is personal, PM me and I will remove it as long as the complaint isn't for pettiness sake.
I will start with Alias's complaint - and Scipio (once again) there is no need for the personal bull-shit. I'm sure you can disagree without calling people names!
Thanks - I doubt it will work though. I am beginning to lose any desire to post here.
-
dont be put off from posting its what they want it says in your profile your now a mod anyway.
-
dont be put off from posting its what they want it says in your profile your now a mod anyway.
I am posting, but you have to expect a shitload of insults thrown in your face - not so nice. ;)
Nugs, I am only using the mod thing to edit the photo thread.
-
It is not bullying and there is no need for you to respond. My repsonse corrected the record. You post claim after claim then complain when I prove you wrong. The only way you coudl feture my points woudl be if you could:
1) produce proof of a court order that ordered the evidence preserved- which you can't do because there was no court order such claim is fictitious
or
2) identify evidence that was destoryed tha tif tested coudl potnetially have cleared Jeremy but you can't because there is no evidence that was desotryed which coudl have helped establish Sheila's guilt/his innocence.
Any response other than that fails to refute my claims and thus amounts to you admitting tacitly that I am right. Your post does that right now as you try to avoid the factual issues by claiming I am a bully.
I don´t have to do anything! I frankly prefer not to talk to you at all, so bye, bye bully!
Have fun things to do in London!
-
dont be put off from posting its what they want it says in your profile your now a mod anyway.
Ha, ha!! You think that saves you from insults? I regularly have to remove the knives from my back. ;D ;D ;D
-
It has been removed in scipio´s post, but it is quoted in mat´s. It still says here, on your wonderful board, that I am ridiculous. I am not happy. You must still think it is OK.
I feel that it is looked upon mildly that members are being bullied.
Some things I posted were removed, so I think it is fair that I ask that what is demeaning about me be entirely removed as well.
-
It has been removed in scipio´s post, but it is quoted in mat´s. It still says here, on your wonderful board, that I am ridiculous. I am not happy. You must still think it is OK.
I feel that it is looked upon mildly that members are being bullied.
Some things I posted were removed, so I think it is fair that I ask that what is demeaning about me be entirely removed as well.
I guess by 'you' - you mean me? You just have to point out the post Alias - I can't be expected to see everything. A PM would have sufficed.
-
I agree, it is FAR more difficult for you Lookout (and the other innocent supporters) given that the evidence points to guilty!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
When I joined here I thought it would take two or three weeks to show Jeremy was guilty.
But did not realise how loyal his supporters were. They all dug in and refused to budge. Focusing on me instead of my posts.
However some posters have gone from innocent to guilty. Some have refused to change their stance despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
New posters have joined, with innocent and guilty views.
-
Going back to one or two posts from 2011, something interesting to consider and that was both Neville and Junes black eyes ( prior to the murders ?) and the gouge ( which was covered ) on Sheilas' abdomen ?
Also,the burn marks on Nevilles' back/neck would have been caused by someone forcing him to go where the killer wanted him to go. Would Jeremy bother with all this if his aim had been just to enter the farmhouse,shoot them all then scarper ? You don't start leading people to where you want them to be,you just quick-fire and out ?
I'm studying older posts because I didn't join until 2012,and a lot are quite interesting and thought provoking instead of at present,going over old ground that isn't so old------- but more repetitive.
I think it's about time I wrote to Jeremy to ask a few questions instead of sitting wondering.
-
Going back to one or two posts from 2011, something interesting to consider and that was both Neville and Junes black eyes ( prior to the murders ?) and the gouge ( which was covered ) on Sheilas' abdomen ?
Also,the burn marks on Nevilles' back/neck would have been caused by someone forcing him to go where the killer wanted him to go. Would Jeremy bother with all this if his aim had been just to enter the farmhouse,shoot them all then scarper ? You don't start leading people to where you want them to be,you just quick-fire and out ?
I'm studying older posts because I didn't join until 2012,and a lot are quite interesting and thought provoking instead of at present,going over old ground that isn't so old------- but more repetitive.
I think it's about time I wrote to Jeremy to ask a few questions instead of sitting wondering.
If you do, can you ask him whether he needed to fire a second shot in to Sheila to kill her, or was it an accident with him miscalculating the number of remaining bullets, due to him not realising that after shooting Nevill four times in the kitchen and reloading the partially full magazine, it resulted in there being 11 bullets loaded.
Out of these 11 bullets he distributed 8 to the twins and 1 to June. Did he think that he had left a single bullet for Sheila, yet to his horror there were two, with the second being discharged accidentally?
-
Just as if I'd ask him a question like that ;D ;D ;D ;D I'm far more subtle and diplomatic. ::)
-
Going back to one or two posts from 2011, something interesting to consider and that was both Neville and Junes black eyes ( prior to the murders ?) and the gouge ( which was covered ) on Sheilas' abdomen ?
Also,the burn marks on Nevilles' back/neck would have been caused by someone forcing him to go where the killer wanted him to go. Would Jeremy bother with all this if his aim had been just to enter the farmhouse,shoot them all then scarper ? You don't start leading people to where you want them to be,you just quick-fire and out ?
I'm studying older posts because I didn't join until 2012,and a lot are quite interesting and thought provoking instead of at present,going over old ground that isn't so old------- but more repetitive.
I think it's about time I wrote to Jeremy to ask a few questions instead of sitting wondering.
Hmmmmm, interesting, I already asked him about the black eye and he said he didn't remember it.
-
Hmmmmm, interesting, I already asked him about the black eye and he said he didn't remember it.
In which case,if he's being truthful,he didn't do it. So no violence there then.
Sheila was also a self-harmer too,so there's every possibility that she'd done something nasty to herself. It would be held in her medical notes if it wasn't inflicted on the night of the tragedy ??
I'm flinching here thinking about similar wounds to Neville ( described as gouges ).
-
Caroline was it June that had a black eye or Ralph Bamber?
-
Caroline was it June that had a black eye or Ralph Bamber?
Both but Neville's black eyes were most likely due to his injuries. Jeremy mentioned that June had a black eye 'before' her death and when he asked her about it, she said she walked into a post. When I asked him about it, he said he didn't remember any black eye.
-
Both but Neville's black eyes were most likely due to his injuries. Jeremy mentioned that June had a black eye 'before' her death and when he asked her about it, she said she walked into a post. When I asked him about it, he said he didn't remember any black eye.
The swelling near her eye could have been caused by the bullet that went between her eyes.
-
If you do, can you ask him whether he needed to fire a second shot in to Sheila to kill her, or was it an accident with him miscalculating the number of remaining bullets, due to him not realising that after shooting Nevill four times in the kitchen and reloading the partially full magazine, it resulted in there being 11 bullets loaded.
Out of these 11 bullets he distributed 8 to the twins and 1 to June. Did he think that he had left a single bullet for Sheila, yet to his horror there were two, with the second being discharged accidentally?
Lookout find out all you can about the peter eaton fraud it shows great deception and greed from the family
-
The swelling near her eye could have been caused by the bullet that went between her eyes.
The black eye of Junes' happened a few days before the tragedy,as June was unable to attend her Sunday church.
-
Barbara Wilson thought Peter Eaton couldn't keep his stick fingers out of the till and that was before Jeremy was convicted
How low is that robbing a dead family's estate
And we are expected to believe Anne and Peters statements about Jeremy
-
Barbara Wilson thought Peter Eaton couldn't keep his stick fingers out of the till and that was before Jeremy was convicted
How low is that robbing a dead family's estate
And we are expected to believe Anne and Peters statements about Jeremy
None of her allegations went anywhere. The only details we have seen regarding these alelgations is that they were pretty pathetic.
Instead of relying on unfounded allegations you need to produce evidence.
Naturally you can't do so because you neve reven looke dinto the facts in any depth- BW made an allegation you like so it means the allegations are true. That is the extent of how you operate. For someone supposedly so involved in the campaign your knowledge of the facts in the case is wretched. You and lookout seem to not be aware of the actual evidence and facts discussed ad nauseum on this very board.
Debating people uninformed of the facts is a waste of time when they have no interest in becoming informed. a quote from Heinlein is apropos, "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
-
Can anyone find PROOF at all that Jeremys' house at Goldhanger was still under surveillance on the 6th of August ?
-
Can anyone find PROOF at all that Jeremys' house at Goldhanger was still under surveillance on the 6th of August ?
Can anyone 'PROVE' that it ever was?
-
Can anyone find PROOF at all that Jeremys' house at Goldhanger was still under surveillance on the 6th of August ?
Is there proof it was originally? Nope.
-
Oops sorry caroline, cross posted :-[
-
Oops sorry caroline, cross posted :-[
Nee bother!! ;D ;D
-
None of her allegations went anywhere. The only details we have seen regarding these alelgations is that they were pretty pathetic.
Instead of relying on unfounded allegations you need to produce evidence.
Naturally you can't do so because you neve reven looke dinto the facts in any depth- BW made an allegation you like so it means the allegations are true. That is the extent of how you operate. For someone supposedly so involved in the campaign your knowledge of the facts in the case is wretched. You and lookout seem to not be aware of the actual evidence and facts discussed ad nauseum on this very board.
Debating people uninformed of the facts is a waste of time when they have no interest in becoming informed. a quote from Heinlein is apropos, "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
They definately looked true to me and I expect Peter Eaton would have been charged if Jeremy hadn't been convicted
Sounds like a nice guy like Mugford
-
Can anyone 'PROVE' that it ever was?
You beat me to the punch
-
Can anyone 'PROVE' that it ever was?
EP could do if they were relied on to tell the truth. Seemingly Jeremy was being watched for growing a few weeds,with honest and trusty friend JM making a killing at college selling them,so the police decided to keep a watchful eye on the comings and goings of Jeremy and his massive drug trade.
It was neighbours who'd reported the matter to the police,telling them of JB's activities,so in order that they were believed,the police decided to keep a careful watch on things.
Jeremy himself never believed he was being watched,but then,he wasn't 100% sure was he ?
The only way of knowing this information is from " Taff " Jones's notebook,in which could have been stated,by himself,that Jeremy WAS being watched--------hence " Taffs' " outright conclusion of 4 murders and a suicide. Until then,we're still kept dangling unless some clever dick comes up with the proof that he WASN'T being watched.
-
Until then,we're still kept dangling unless some clever dick comes up with the proof that he WASN'T being watched.
The fact there is no documentation that he was being watched is proof if he wasn't. If a claim is being made that he WAS being watched then proof of that needs to exist to establish that - simply saying there is no proof that he wasn't is making excuses and attempting to decieve.
-
The fact there is no documentation that he was being watched is proof if he wasn't. If a claim is being made that he WAS being watched then proof of that needs to exist to establish that - simply saying there is no proof that he wasn't is making excuses and attempting to decieve.
This is where the uncertainty lies,with " Taff " Jones's notebook. None of us know,and EP aren't likely to crack on at this late stage. Like all the other documents--------In the Laps of the Gods.
He may,or may not have been under surveillance,we really do not know,as we haven't been privy to the elusive notes of " Taff " Jones's.
-
This is where the uncertainty lies,with " Taff " Jones's notebook. None of us know,and EP aren't likely to crack on at this late stage. Like all the other documents--------In the Laps of the Gods.
He may,or may not have been under surveillance,we really do not know,as we haven't been privy to the elusive notes of " Taff " Jones's.
I think it's another myth Lookout, if they thought he was growing weed, they would have just raided his cottage. I went to uni with someone who grew quite a lot of it ad he got raided after someone reported him.
-
I think it's another myth Lookout, if they thought he was growing weed, they would have just raided his cottage. I went to uni with someone who grew quite a lot of it ad he got raided after someone reported him.
While I went out of my way to raise the differences between the cases when comparisons were made on the Amityville site- ironically there was also a claim that the DEA was watching DeFeo's home for suspicion of drug selling. The myth was posted by a disreputable journalist who most likely made it up as opposed to reporting something made up by someone else and fed to him. It is astouding how many things are made up many years after trials.
-
While I went out of my way to raise the differences between the cases when comparisons were made on the Amityville site- ironically there was also a claim that the DEA was watching DeFeo's home for suspicion of drug selling. The myth was posted by a disreputable journalist who most likely made it up as opposed to reporting something made up by someone else and fed to him. It is astouding how many things are made up many years after trials.
As if the real life elements weren't dramatic enough - people like to add things, sometimes of course they grow from a misunderstanding. Someone might have asked if he's had convictions for growing wees and before you know it, there is a full surveillance team added to the mix.
-
I think it's another myth Lookout, if they thought he was growing weed, they would have just raided his cottage. I went to uni with someone who grew quite a lot of it ad he got raided after someone reported him.
I don't rather think it would have been raided as such,but rather surreptitiously guarded/watched by the police on account of Nevilles' position as a magistrate. It wouldn't have looked good to have witnessed that going on. Any rate,it could only have been one of the cousins who then spread gossip about planes landing with cargoes of drugs,that got to neighbouring ears,which in turn reached the ears of the police. They were probably waiting for this huge consignment ::) There was Jeremy with a plant-pot ;D ;D
Small village,bags of gossip---------and old bags. ;D
I would bet,that where Jeremy lived,he couldn't fart without somebody hearing. Good in one respect having nosy neighbours as they're the best security device,but-----------it can go too far when you see a woman wearing a frock made from the same material as the curtains.
-
As if the real life elements weren't dramatic enough - people like to add things, sometimes of course they grow from a misunderstanding. Someone might have asked if he's had convictions for growing wees and before you know it, there is a full surveillance team added to the mix.
Sometimes myths are created on purpose to suggest innocence other times for attention and notoriety. The attention can be just so someone has their name in the spotlight and becomes part of the debate, sometimes for financial motive.
The reporter did it to have a story suggesting innocence because that would garner a lot of attention. He clearly made up too many aspects and the entire tale was absurd. It featured the DEA agents hearing the gunshots and seeing the rifle flashes in each room and yet the agents not calling police or using this as an excuse to go inside the house without a search warrant (the emergency exception kicks in) to search for drugs but rather staying outside until police arrived many hours later and neve rtelling police they were there. It also featured them seeing DeFeo's sister dispose of the murder weapon and return to the house (only she was killed with the same weapon so how could she have been shot with it after she dumped it in the ocean?). So these myths are rarely well thought out.
More than a decade after the murders DeFeo came up with a whole new story that included a fake wife and borther in law and that he had been living in a different state with her. Evne though this tale is absurd and was rejected by the courts and ther eis a host of evidenc eproving it false, an author decided to publish the claim and other lies and there is even a documentary made from it that maintains these lies amond others. The lies were published so the author of the book and producer of the POS could garner fame and fortune. The woman who lied about being his wife at the time of the murders (she did eventually marry him in 1989 though she was already married to someone else!) likewise wants fame and attention. She admitted under oath that all her claims were lies back in 1990 but none of this is mentioned in the works and she keeps changing when they supposedly married. She blames the lack of any marriage records on the mob, she claims the mob was able to erase the marriage records from the Vital Record's office. The author and producer assert this is true. It is so absurd and yet there are morons who believe it. Barnum was so right about a sucker born every minute.
I was banned from the Producer's facebook page because he got crushed in a debate against me where I exposed his lies as nonsense. (his attempt to make a name for himself was to claim a second gun wa sused in the murders and that he found the gun) The gun he found could not have made the land and groove marks on the bullet he claims fired it and worse the largest fragment remaining of the bullet is heavier than a full bullet fired by the gun he found. Equally as bad the spent shell casing was a .35 caliber rifle casing which would in no way fit in the gun he found.
Ever since he has been trying to find my identity out to try to see if he could dig up dirt on me personally. One person who dared to critizie him for instance he attacked because such person had filed bankruptcy in the past. Ever the hypocrite though so he. He is so pathetic he posts 5 star reviews of his own work pretending to be just an ordinary person. It is really astounding the things people will do.
-
I also didn't know that documents had been drawn up with a view to the adoption of the twins ??
Also,in court,a friend of Sheilas' stated that June constantly told Sheila that she was an unfit mother.
Why hasn't information like this been bandied about for a change instead of pointing a finger at Jeremy ?
All this " in-fighting " behind closed doors is hiding a multitude of evidence.
what i cant understand is nevie and june dident have the power to put the twins up for adoption.
-
No,the parents wouldn't,but if they'd told social services the full truth of the situation,then SS would have acted on it. SS have more powers than the police.
-
but sheila dident have custody of them there father did so anything she was doing was rather irrelevant.
-
Well that's right,as Colin wanted complete custody,which was obviously to avoid adoption coming into it at all. I can see where the discussion would have become heated if Sheila had been asked which option she'd wanted----------adoption of the twins,or Colins 100% custody.
Sheila,in her " sick " mind wouldn't have wanted either because she'd have felt that she'd lost all control over her boys and would then have had to have made arrangements in order to see them.
Not a lot to have looked forward to ?
Any mother in her shoes who was told that she was losing full control of her children would go mad.I don't care who it is. To have your children taken from you is enough ( if you're already sick ) to go out and kill.
-
yes that would make sense.
-
I guess by 'you' - you mean me? You just have to point out the post Alias - I can't be expected to see everything. A PM would have sufficed.
I like things out in the open, I hardly ever PM anyone. If I have something to say I say it in the open forum.
I did not mean "you", just anyone on "duty" - this is not your board.
I feel abused and bullied. I have lost every desire posting here, I think that you and most of the other moderators agree with the bullying that is going on, meaning, when scipio calls me an idiot, you agree.
-
I like things out in the open, I hardly ever PM anyone. If I have something to say I say it in the open forum.
I did not mean "you", just anyone on "duty" - this is not your board.
I feel abused and bullied. I have lost every desire posting here, I think that you and most of the other moderators agree with the bullying that is going on, meaning, when scipio calls me an idiot, you agree.
Insults might always be a fact of life. The extent to which we tolerate them, however, is an age-old conundrum.
-
Insults might always be a fact of life. The extent to which we tolerate them, however, is an age-old conundrum.
Hi Alias, am on holiday just now but have read your post. I agree you should not have to put up with abuse and name calling is bullying and abuse.
You're a long term and respected member of this forum who always writes thoughtful well balanced posts and personally I hate to see you treated this way, ..... you deserve better imo :(
I havent read all the board and apologise to others who have been bullied. I'm not criticising other mods we have always worked as avteam just acknowledging Alias' s post ...... in case there's any misunderstanding. ;D
-
I like things out in the open, I hardly ever PM anyone. If I have something to say I say it in the open forum.
I did not mean "you", just anyone on "duty" - this is not your board.
I feel abused and bullied. I have lost every desire posting here, I think that you and most of the other moderators agree with the bullying that is going on, meaning, when scipio calls me an idiot, you agree.
It's disgusting Alias and I probably haven't highlighted how much YOU have been bullied especially when you have always been on the 'fence'
It's obvious the behaviour is to bring about an end to the forum and it's working well
-
Jackie it is quite obvious you are just here to stir up trouble for Caroline but you will not succeed she is too highly thought of on this forum. None of this should be discussed on the open forum it makes other posters feel uncomfortable. Put your efforts to better use and try and find evidence to free Jeremy Bamber.
-
I have always felt Alias was more of a Jeremy supporter. Although she is now saying she is undecided as other former loyal supporters have moved to guilty.
She certainly had a tantrum when I joined, saying she was putting me on ignore. Not sure why as I was posting about Jeremy Bamber, on a Jeremy Bamber forum. Jansus, who still is a Jeremy supporter, also put me on ignore as I highlighted his guilt.
Bit disappointed when Alias did not thank me recently when I answered her question. At first saying she did not ask the question. Then saying she did ask it but was not interested in the answer.
Also a bit disappointed she then told everyone I had been banned for 24 hours, after I responded to Caroline saying 'no one, and I mean no one is interested in reading you're threads'. Which was uncalled for and incorrect. These things should be kept private.
As a moderator Alias can moderate, delete posts or ban people if she is being bullied. I am not allowed to say 'thread already created', or provide a link to another thread which answers someone's question. Obviously other posters think it is outrageous that I did this.
At least Alias has not had a poll created on her. I had that dubious honour from Harters. He was upset that I was creating threads on Jeremy Bamber. On a Jeremy Bamber forum. Someone has to buddie.
-
Jackie it is quite obvious you are just here to stir up trouble for Caroline but you will not succeed she is too highly thought of on this forum. None of this should be discussed on the open forum it makes other posters feel uncomfortable. Put your efforts to better use and try and find evidence to free Jeremy Bamber.
I am here for one reason only because I believe Jeremy is innocent.
I will support Alias or anyone else that feels bullied.
I have known Alias for years and years before you joined the forum
I am not interested in what Caroline says because I believe she is wrong
-
I think that Adam has been treated appallingly during his time on this forum. I tend to scan read his posts, to be honest, but I don't ever remember him having instigated a fued.
-
I am here for one reason only because I believe Jeremy is innocent.
I will support Alias or anyone else that feels bullied.
I have known Alias for years and years before you joined the forum
I am not interested in what Caroline says because I believe she is wrong
Good post.
-
I don't think that Alias is a 'proper' moderator? But I for one certainly think that she should be. Alias is intelligent,level headed and very lovely,but also assertive which,I feel is an important requirement as a moderator. Having Alias as a moderator would also balance out our current moderators regarding the guilty/innocence stance and would be fairer. Imo.
-
I don't think that Alias is a 'proper' moderator? But I for one certainly think that she should be. Alias is intelligent,level headed and very lovely,but also assertive which,I feel is an important requirement as a moderator. Having Alias as a moderator would also balance out our current moderators regarding the guilty/innocence stance and would be fairer. Imo.
I'm fairly certain that she doesn't want to be one though.
-
Jackie excuse me when have I said anything wrong about Alias she is a great person and we have been friends since I joined the forum. I don't think it is appropriate you adding to it by having a pop at Caroline she deleted many of Scipio's posts and has told him on the board to cut out the insults. She has of late been modding the forum alone and she cannot be expected to see everything She is a very fair minded person and I fear she has been attacked more since she changed to a guilty stance which is grossly unfair.
-
I am here for one reason only because I believe Jeremy is innocent.
I will support Alias or anyone else that feels bullied.
I have known Alias for years and years before you joined the forum
I am not interested in what Caroline says because I believe she is wrong
It's interesting you talk about supporting people being bullied when YOU have tried doing that to me - few people stood up to be counted then because of your reputation. People tend to walk on egg shells around you because they don't want to be your next target. This board had taught me to be careful who I trust and who I class as a friend.
For the record, I don't agree with ANYONE being bullied but the forum doesn't need you using the slightest tiff as an opportunity for a dig!! Why don't you TRY debating the case for a change!!
-
I like things out in the open, I hardly ever PM anyone. If I have something to say I say it in the open forum.
I did not mean "you", just anyone on "duty" - this is not your board.
I feel abused and bullied. I have lost every desire posting here, I think that you and most of the other moderators agree with the bullying that is going on, meaning, when scipio calls me an idiot, you agree.
As everyone was on holiday or in bed - there ws only me and there usually is only me on at that time. I didn't say it was my board nor do I want it to be! But I have stuck up for just about every regular member on this board at one time or another. I removed ALL of the posts which upset you but it seems I can't do right for doing wrong. I also feel bullied BUT I DLTBGMD!!
-
Caroline you have been bullied since you changed your stance to guilty. Don't let them get to you as you do a great job and the forum would be a sorry state without you. You have some good loyal friends on here who will always support you because you are a nice fair minded person. XXX
-
Caroline you have been bullied since you changed your stance to guilty. Don't let them get to you as you do a great job and the forum would be a sorry state without you. You have some good loyal friends on here who will always support you because you are a nice fair minded person. XXX
Thanks Susan :) X
-
I don't really see how Jackie can bully anyone. Can't say I have noticed her bullying Caroline myself.
Jackie is a loyal Jeremy supporter, so can create threads and posts proving how Jeremy is innocent. If convincing, people like me will be forced to change stance. Literally bullying me into submission with evidence.
However she tends to just make statements without backing it up with sources.
A recent one was 'Jeremy loved farming'. I answered this statement with lots of evidence showing that he did 'not' like farming. And got no response.
-
As everyone was on holiday or in bed - there ws only me and there usually is only me on at that time. I didn't say it was my board nor do I want it to be! But I have stuck up for just about every regular member on this board at one time or another. I removed ALL of the posts which upset you but it seems I can't do right for doing wrong. I also feel bullied BUT I DLTBGMD!!
For the most part I get on very well with Alias/Abs, but without intending to cause offence, she can be rather sensitive. We've all had to put up being called names or goading comments at one time or another. Sometimes the goading/bullying is more subtle but it can be equally annoying or upsetting.
I'm rather thick skinned and have a bit of a chuckle to myself when somebody thinks they are capable of winding me up, particularly these days.
Whilst I'm sympathetic towards Alias' complaints, she is certainly not alone and if she is so affected by it all, then perhaps Internet forums of this nature are not the place for her. :-\
-
Caroline you have been bullied since you changed your stance to guilty. Don't let them get to you as you do a great job and the forum would be a sorry state without you. You have some good loyal friends on here who will always support you because you are a nice fair minded person. XXX
Yes that is also how I perceive it.
-
Morning Harters what a well balanced good none biased post. I sincerely think you should be a Mod as you are fair minded and can take some flack and your feathers never become ruffled.
-
Morning Harters what a well balanced good none biased post. I sincerely think you should be a Mod as you are fair minded and can take some flack and your feathers never become ruffled.
Not on your nelly. No thank you, not in a million years. :D
-
I don't really see how Jackie can bully anyone. Can't say I have noticed her bullying Caroline myself.
Jackie is a loyal Jeremy supporter, so can create threads and posts proving how Jeremy is innocent. If convincing, people like me will be forced to change stance.
However she tends to just make statements without backing it up with sources.
A recent one was 'Jeremy loved farming'. I answered this statement with lots of evidence showing that he did 'not' like farming. And got no response.
Then you should pay more attention to what you read. She hasn't bullied me - I said she tires but I won't let her get to me because she isn't important.
-
I like things out in the open, I hardly ever PM anyone. If I have something to say I say it in the open forum.
I did not mean "you", just anyone on "duty" - this is not your board.
I feel abused and bullied. I have lost every desire posting here, I think that you and most of the other moderators agree with the bullying that is going on, meaning, when scipio calls me an idiot, you agree.
I am sorry you feel that way Alias. I certainly do not agree with the personal attacks which have been made against you, and against others. It is difficult to know how to deal with this. Our only powers are to ban a member or to delete or edit posts. We try to avoid bans save as a last resort. It is difficult to decide when to edit or delete posts - the posts themselves tend to reflect badly on the poster so it is sometimes better to leave them. If there are posts which offend or upset you please let us know by PM or by using the report facility and whichever administrator or moderator is online can take the necessary action.
You are a long standing and respected member here and you should not feel bullied at any time.
-
Adam I guess you have been on a different forum than the rest of us. I now feel and I have suspected you are here to cause unrest on the forum as you disagreed with me when I said Jeremy Bamber was innocent then when I changed my stance you still disagreed with me.
-
Then you should pay more attention to what you read. She hasn't bullied me - I said she tires but I won't let her get to me because she isn't important.
She tries, and you answer back. So not bullying then.
-
Caroline you have been bullied since you changed your stance to guilty. Don't let them get to you as you do a great job and the forum would be a sorry state without you. You have some good loyal friends on here who will always support you because you are a nice fair minded person. XXX
I'd also like to add that she did a very good job even before she changed her stance.
Obviously other admins and mods also do a very good job.
-
She tries, and you answer back. So not bullying then.
Which is why I said 'tries' is there something wrong with your eyesight?
-
I don't think that Alias is a 'proper' moderator? But I for one certainly think that she should be. Alias is intelligent,level headed and very lovely,but also assertive which,I feel is an important requirement as a moderator. Having Alias as a moderator would also balance out our current moderators regarding the guilty/innocence stance and would be fairer. Imo.
Alias has full moderator powers and I have invited her to use them at any time she feels it appropriate.
-
Harters Shame shame ;D
-
Which is why I said 'tries' is there something wrong with your eyesight?
I have excellent eyes. Why are you mentioning my eyes ?
And why is everyone talking about you being bullied ? You just said she tries. You will answer back and all you're buddies will rally round you. So no bullying.
Other posters have said you over moderate me. Saying I am not allowed to say 'thread already created' or provide links to threads to answer someone's question.
Then saying 'no one, and I mean no one is interested in reading you're threads'. Then banning me when I respond.
Over moderating me is another form of bullying.
-
Harters Shame shame ;D
Well it's a thankless task isn't it. It beats me why people make the effort, although it's great that they do.
-
I have excellent eyes. Why are you mentioning my eyes ?
And why is everyone talking about you being bullied ? You just said she tries. You will answer back and all you're buddies will rally round you. So no bullying.
Other posters have said you over moderate me. Saying I am not allowed to say 'thread already created' or provide links to threads to answer someone's question.
Then saying 'no one, and I mean no one is interested in reading you're threads'. Then banning me when I respond.
Over moderating me is another form of bullying.
Oh I see - we're chewing a few sour grapes are we? ;D ;D ;D ;D Bite hard Adam!! ;)
-
Well it's a thankless task isn't it. It beats me why people make the effort, although it's great that they do.
I'm beginning to wonder that myself!
-
I'd also like to add that she did a very good job even before she changed her stance.
Obviously other admins and mods also do a very good job.
Thanks Harters - it's nice to be appreciated :)
-
Caroline I told you other posters respected you when you were on the innocent stance just as much as where you are now.
-
Adam I guess you have been on a different forum than the rest of us. I now feel and I have suspected you are here to cause unrest on the forum as you disagreed with me when I said Jeremy Bamber was innocent then when I changed my stance you still disagreed with me.
I disagreed with you at the weekend over Julie being forced to tell lies by the police.
The police had nothing on her and she approached the police herself, Liz Rimmington inviting Stan Jones over. Julie being in the room.
I created a thread yesterday explaining why Julie did not not speak for 30 days. Another issue people are always criticising her for. I welcome you're opinion on the thread.
-
Caroline I told you other posters respected you when you were on the innocent stance just as much as where you are now.
Thanks Susan :)
-
Adam I remember last week jansus put up a post to you in which she said "Adam why are you arguing with Susan she is on your side" but hey ho I don't mind you disagreeing with me that is your right but Caroline is a great Mod and is a tremendous asset to this forum and I have seen where you have referred to other posters as stupid and an idiot. I prefer to discuss the case instead of all this petty backing biting that seems to have started of late :'(
-
Adam I did not put you on ignore because you highlighted Jeremys guilt .
Harters you say that people should be thicker skinned - then why have forum rules at all?
If a post breaks the rules then It should be pointed out.
People ahould be able to debate without being rude and personal , and calling posters liars or dis-honest is IMO out of order and against the rules.
-
Adam I did not put you on ignore because you highlighted Jeremys guilt .
Harters you say that people should be thicker skinned - then why have forum rules at all?
If a post breaks the rules then It should be pointed out.
People ahould be able to debate without being rude and personal , and calling posters liars or dis-honest is IMO out of order and against the rules.
I agree.
-
I disagreed with you at the weekend over Julie being forced to tell lies by the police.
The police had nothing on her and she approached the police herself, Liz Rimmington inviting Stan Jones over. Julie being in the room.
I created a thread yesterday explaining why Julie did not not speak for 30 days. Another issue people are always criticising her for. I welcome you're opinion on the thread.
if you aprouch the police yourself you don't get arrested.
-
if you aprouch the police yourself you don't get arrested.
Have you got a source showing she was arrested please ?
The police knew nothing about Jeremy's caravan break in. Or Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud. She was in New Cross when the massacre happened. Jeremy had not been arrested.
So why was Julie arrested ?
-
what do you think held in custody means.
-
what do you think held in custody means.
I don't know.
But she approached the police. Then told them what she knew, creating a WS and then testifying.
Stan Jones went to visit Liz Rimmington and Julie after Liz rang him.
She may have been held in custody weeks later for a short time after the police found out about Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud. That was after she had completed her WS.
-
Adam I did not put you on ignore because you highlighted Jeremys guilt .
Harters you say that people should be thicker skinned - then why have forum rules at all?
If a post breaks the rules then It should be pointed out.
People ahould be able to debate without being rude and personal , and calling posters liars or dis-honest is IMO out of order and against the rules.
I also agree but when there is only one mod online, they can't be expected to see every comment. We do our best to make sure there are limited disruptions and hand out warnings and bans when required. We don't hand them out very often and only when we're left with little alternative, however, we still get criticised and most often we simply can't win.
There is a lot of rudeness on both sides but members are often selective in their complaints. Sorry if that seems harsh but it's the way things have become lately. I've taken a lot of crap from some surprising quarters but such is life. If members feel they have something to add to the mod team, they can always request to join.
-
Harters you say that people should be thicker skinned - then why have forum rules at all?
If a post breaks the rules then It should be pointed out.
People ahould be able to debate without being rude and personal , and calling posters liars or dis-honest is IMO out of order and against the rules.
I don't think that there are enough hours in the day for the volunteering mods and admins to 'nanny' everybody.
Yes I think people whinge and whine a bit too much, in the normal scheme of things it is often the person whining about something which they themselves have also been guilty of (I am not suggesting that is the case with Alias).
If everybody who broke the rules was banned, then I don't think there would be many members left, plus I agree with the view that certain 'rule breaking posts' actually reflect badly on the poster rather than the intended target and therefore there is no harm in them staying up.
Without any rules, this place wouldn't work. The more serious breaches appear (to me) to get dealt with appropriately.
Regardless, of all of that, this is only my opinion. Feel free to approach NGB & Caroline with your complaints if you think it is necessary.
-
well it seems to have stooped now anyway.
-
I don't know.
But she approached the police. Then told them what she knew, creating a WS and then testifying.
Stan Jones went to visit Liz Rimmington and Julie after Liz rang him.
She may have been held in custody weeks later for a short time after the police found out about Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud. That was after she had completed her WS.
She was held in custody immediately.
-
wich is not what is done to to witness who are willingly coperating.