Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Patti on November 15, 2014, 01:08:AM
-
Ground 11 – the proposed purchase of a Porsche by the appellant
This ground was abandoned before the hearing and nothing further need be said about it.
Why was this ground abandoned? Did it show that the police were not telling the truth when they said that Jeremy told them he would be able to buy a new Porsche with his bonus from the caravan site?
Was it that they had found evidence to support that it was Jeremy who was telling the truth about the Porsche being a kit car...and his words had been twisted.
There is a document from the suppliers of the kit car that confirms that Jeremy had indeed made enquiries about the Porsche kit car......Is this the reason it was abandoned?
Was it because the police got it wrong and Jeremy was telling the truth about what was said that night?
-
Ground 11 – the proposed purchase of a Porsche by the appellant
This ground was abandoned before the hearing and nothing further need be said about it.
Why was this ground abandoned? Did it show that the police were not telling the truth when they said that Jeremy told them he would be able to buy a new Porsche with his bonus from the caravan site?
Was it that they had found evidence to support that it was Jeremy who was telling the truth about the Porsche being a kit car...and his words had been twisted.
There is a document from the suppliers of the kit car that confirms that Jeremy had indeed made enquiries about the Porsche kit car......Is this the reason it was abandoned?
Was it because the police got it wrong and Jeremy was telling the truth about what was said that night?
It was abandoned because it was obviously a totally worthless argument.
The court didn't bother to detial what the allegation was so unless Jeremy's defense releases the argument they revoked we can't determine exactly why they figured out it was worthless and decided to abandon it.
It could have been as stupid as claiming police mislead the jury by saying he was going to buy a Porsche when it was just a kit car. Such would be worthless because aside from not being new, the defense had the ability at trial to correct the record if they wanted to by asking police if he mentioned it was a kit car or by asking Jeremy himself to clarify while he was on the stand. If you don't take advantage of such opportunities then it is your tough luck.
-
It was abandoned because it was obviously a totally worthless argument.
The court didn't bother to detial what the allegation was so unless Jeremy's defense releases the argument they revoked we can't determine exactly why they figured out it was worthless and decided to abandon it.
It could have been as stupid as claiming police mislead the jury by saying he was going to buy a Porsche when it was just a kit car. Such would be worthless because aside from not being new, the defense had the ability at trial to correct the record if they wanted to by asking police if he mentioned it was a kit car or by asking Jeremy himself to clarify while he was on the stand. If you don't take advantage of such opportunities then it is your tough luck.
But in court the officer claimed/and in his statement that Jeremy had told him it was a Porsche and not a kit car. Thus, meaning that the officer in question was trying to mislead a jury it was a clear attempt of showing Jeremy up in bad way. Its a good job that there was proof that it was a kit car, was it not?
Do you not see that the officer in question was determined to show Bamber up in front of the jury as being a greedy, rich young man who had killed his parents and had intended to buy a Porsche as part of the proceeds of this crime. The officer had clearly not told the full truth. He had twisted what Bamber had told him and tried to relate this in court. :-\
-
The police ARE known to exaggerate whatever the case may be about. It's a recognised thing within the force !!
Is it over-zealousness,or something more sinister ? ( if they can get away with it )
-
It was abandoned because it was obviously a totally worthless argument.
The court didn't bother to detial what the allegation was so unless Jeremy's defense releases the argument they revoked we can't determine exactly why they figured out it was worthless and decided to abandon it.
It could have been as stupid as claiming police mislead the jury by saying he was going to buy a Porsche when it was just a kit car. Such would be worthless because aside from not being new, the defense had the ability at trial to correct the record if they wanted to by asking police if he mentioned it was a kit car or by asking Jeremy himself to clarify while he was on the stand. If you don't take advantage of such opportunities then it is your tough luck.
That may have been so. But that hasn't stopped Jeremys enemies to keep on about him boasting that he was going to buy a Porche. In fact they continue to this day to use this to constantly vilifi him as being a greedy man. Perhaps you had better tell THEM that it is irrelevent. This is the kind of thing I don't like about the guilters. They are constantly bringing up things that have been rejected by either the court or the police in order to make Bamber to be a totally depraved character. Where's your adherance to the truth when it comes to this kind of vilification?
-
But in court the officer claimed/and in his statement that Jeremy had told him it was a Porsche and not a kit car. Thus, meaning that the officer in question was trying to mislead a jury it was a clear attempt of showing Jeremy up in bad way. Its a good job that there was proof that it was a kit car, was it not?
Do you not see that the officer in question was determined to show Bamber up in front of the jury as being a greedy, rich young man who had killed his parents and had intended to buy a Porsche as part of the proceeds of this crime. The officer had clearly not told the full truth. He had twisted what Bamber had told him and tried to relate this in court. :-\
1) Jeremy might not have mentioned a kit or the police might not have understood he meant a kit. Proving they intentionally lied about it would thus be next to impossible.
2) even if police intentionally omitted the kit discussion in an effort to decieve that is not the basis for a new trial anyway since the defense had the ability to ask Jeremy what he meant and what he said and to clarify the situation if desired.
If you fail to make an argument at trial you lose it and can't make it on appeal. he exception to tha trule is if you there is new evidence available that was not available at trial which you could not have reasonably been aware of. How could they argue Jeremy wasn't aware he knew he meant a kit car and thus could have told such to the jury?
There is nothing meritorious that could be argued about the Porsche. I'm curious to know what the defense alleged and abandoned just to see how pathetic the claim was.
-
The police ARE known to exaggerate whatever the case may be about. It's a recognised thing within the force !!
Is it over-zealousness,or something more sinister ? ( if they can get away with it )
they dont just exgrate they tell damm right lies the uncoberated word of policam means nothing really.
-
1) Jeremy might not have mentioned a kit or the police might not have understood he meant a kit. Proving they intentionally lied about it would thus be next to impossible.
2) even if police intentionally omitted the kit discussion in an effort to decieve that is not the basis for a new trial anyway since the defense had the ability to ask Jeremy what he meant and what he said and to clarify the situation if desired.
If you fail to make an argument at trial you lose it and can't make it on appeal. he exception to tha trule is if you there is new evidence available that was not available at trial which you could not have reasonably been aware of. How could they argue Jeremy wasn't aware he knew he meant a kit car and thus could have told such to the jury?
There is nothing meritorious that could be argued about the Porsche. I'm curious to know what the defense alleged and abandoned just to see how pathetic the claim was.
No but to pinch your favourite analogy - its is part of the "bigger picture" the police trying to accuse him of spending his inheritance before he had got it.
-
1) Jeremy might not have mentioned a kit or the police might not have understood he meant a kit. Proving they intentionally lied about it would thus be next to impossible.
2) even if police intentionally omitted the kit discussion in an effort to decieve that is not the basis for a new trial anyway since the defense had the ability to ask Jeremy what he meant and what he said and to clarify the situation if desired.
If you fail to make an argument at trial you lose it and can't make it on appeal. he exception to tha trule is if you there is new evidence available that was not available at trial which you could not have reasonably been aware of. How could they argue Jeremy wasn't aware he knew he meant a kit car and thus could have told such to the jury?
There is nothing meritorious that could be argued about the Porsche. I'm curious to know what the defense alleged and abandoned just to see how pathetic the claim was.
on its own its not the basis of new trial but put together with other things it could weather the defence had a chance to bring or not does not matter imcompetence is grounds for appeal if he can prove this was significant and the defence should of brought it up.
-
No but to pinch your favourite analogy - its is part of the "bigger picture" the police trying to accuse him of spending his inheritance before he had got it.
The jury got to decide the bigger picture. The jury herd how instea dof being worried about his family he lied to police about Sheila firing all wepons in the house and lied about calling police before calling Julie and was talking to police about how he was going to get a Porshe instead of expressing concern for his family and running up to the house to try to go in.
While the jury can certainly wonder whether he was expressing how he was planning to spend the money he was about to receive as a result of the murders the more damaging aspect is the lack of concern for his family and the lies he told.
As a defense lawyer I would be much more worried about that aspect and trying to find a way to explain away his lies to police and the overall lack of concern. Of course how do you do that? If he really received the call claimed he should have rushed over right away or dialed 999 instantly and should have been pressuring the police to go in or trying to go take a look for himself. He didn't even put in the effort to try to force police to restarin him and stop him from going in for his own protection. Perhaps he feared they would not stop him otherwise he didn't think to do that.
The defense ultimately dealt with some of these issues in an odd way. Jeremy on one hand still insisted he dialed police before Julie but claimed at first he was not worried and didn't that only after thinking about it for some time did he relaize the situation was urgent and that he had better call police. This is the explanation for why he didn't go there right away and the delay in calling police. He claimed Nevill phoned him at 3:10 and clearly he didn't phone police until 3:23 or so thus there was more than a 10 minute gap and looking in a phone book for numbers doesn't explain that away. So he came up with the was not worried at first routine.
He didn't really provide an explanation for his lies to police, calmly talking about cars and not trying to go inside through a window (like he admitted he could do) to check up on them.
I think he made matters worse with the crap about not being worried at first because the jury knew he called Julie first in spite of his lies to the contrary and that made the call to her make even less sense than it already did.
The Porsche statement was part of a much larger problem.
In any event, if the defense was worried about the jury thinking Jeremy was telling them how he planned to spend the money he was to inherit from the murders the defense could have had Jeremy stress he was talking about a kit car and to discuss the cost of such kit. I have not seen all of Jeremy's testimony but what I have seen didn't do such and I doubt such was done because the appeal court would have likely mentioned it. The defense failing to do so and leaving the impression that it was a real Porsche unrebutted is not a basis to appeal the verdict.
-
dident the police that they made small talk with jeremy to keep him calm.
-
dident the police that they made small talk with jeremy to keep him calm.
They did say that, yes.
-
so that really explians it then.
-
so that really explians it then.
only to someone who chooses to ignore that someone in Jeremy's place who actually received the clal claimed would not have chit chatted about cars but rather would have tried to go inside or demanded police do so. Of course the same people ignore countless other pieces of evidenc eproving Jeremy's guilt though they can't explain any rational reaosn for doing so...
-
dident the police that they made small talk with jeremy to keep him calm.
They certainly did, whatever was said at that time was general conversation. Whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent the constant scrutiny and misrepresentation of every word he said is pathetic IMO and proves nothing. Anyway how stupid do some believe the man is? IF he had just carried out such a horrendous crime in such cold blood he must be a person lacking all emotion, why then would he be so careless as to implicate himself by speaking of plans to buy a car costing many thousands of pounds and way out of his league? It simply doesn't make sense.
-
They certainly did, whatever was said at that time was general conversation. Whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent the constant scrutiny and misrepresentation of every word he said is pathetic IMO and proves nothing. Anyway how stupid do some believe the man is? IF he had just carried out such a horrendous crime in such cold blood he must be a person lacking all emotion, why then would he be so careless as to implicate himself by speaking of plans to buy a car costing many thousands of pounds and way out of his league? It simply doesn't make sense.
Maggie,this is a sad indictment of the way society has gone,over the years.
I know I'm going off the subject in a way,but take the old " whiplash " injury cases. Some are genuine,but an awful lot aren't ! Exaggeration appears in all forms,and mountains out of mole-hills springs to mind.
The police in some instances, work this way to elaborate on a story/incident,and I KNOW this happens,but I won't speak of it on here. Police do these things usually for recognition/promotion,or in extreme cases-----------compensation ! The corruption is rife,believe me.
If they can build a case on the tiniest bit of " non-evidence ",they will,then the media takes over with ridiculously bold headlines which the general public takes in as being gospel,while the perpetrators ( police )escape with impunity just because they can, as they know every twist and turn when it comes to the law,it being on THEIR side.
What hope has Jeremy got when it must be ringing in his ears that " he will die in jail ",because there'll always also be those prison officers who are also corrupt,who'll remind him,Jeremy,that he'll never see the outside world.? Doubtless,one or two will have been small children when the WHF tragedy happened,therefore would NOT know the full story but just follow others,parrot-fashion with no explanation about him being " guilty " except that he's locked up.
-
The police were worried about him thats why they asked the doctor to take a walk with him as well.
I don't think he said half the things they attributed to him in the September. That was just to paint a picture of why they did not go in the house straight away.
Lets face it in the beginning they had no idea that a single shot had even be fired. Jeremy never said that . She could have just been waving it about and ranting and raving.
-
They certainly did, whatever was said at that time was general conversation. Whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent the constant scrutiny and misrepresentation of every word he said is pathetic IMO and proves nothing. Anyway how stupid do some believe the man is? IF he had just carried out such a horrendous crime in such cold blood he must be a person lacking all emotion, why then would he be so careless as to implicate himself by speaking of plans to buy a car costing many thousands of pounds and way out of his league? It simply doesn't make sense.
and how stupid do you have be to belive the uncobrated word of a policeman.
-
and how stupid do you have be to belive the uncobrated word of a policeman.
Extremely stupid,nugs.
-
They certainly did, whatever was said at that time was general conversation. Whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent the constant scrutiny and misrepresentation of every word he said is pathetic IMO and proves nothing. Anyway how stupid do some believe the man is? IF he had just carried out such a horrendous crime in such cold blood he must be a person lacking all emotion, why then would he be so careless as to implicate himself by speaking of plans to buy a car costing many thousands of pounds and way out of his league? It simply doesn't make sense.
It doesn´t make sense either, that Jeremy had just killed his family, and in conversation with police outside the house, he said that he didn´t like his sister much.
Probably the last thing he would have said if he had done it!
-
It doesn´t make sense either, that Jeremy had just killed his family, and in conversation with police outside the house, he said that he didn´t like his sister much.
Probably the last thing he would have said if he had done it!
Yeah, stupid and clever don't usually go hand in hand.
-
As the judge said, he was expertly leading the police into a direction.
Saying Sheila was a looney, psychotic depressive, do lally & a nutter. He also said Sheila committed child abuse against the twins.
After saying that he's not exactly going to say him & Sheila are best mates.
Saying Sheila does get on with Jeremy reinforces the impression Jeremy was giving to the police that Sheila was a 'nutter'. Surely any sane person would get on with a nice charming man like Jeremy.
-
As the judge said, he was expertly leading the police into a direction.
Saying Sheila was a looney, psychotic depressive, do lally & a nutter. He also said Sheila committed child abuse against the twins.
After saying that he's not exactly going to say him & Sheila are best mates.
Saying Sheila does get on with Jeremy reinforces the impression Jeremy was giving to the police that Sheila was a 'nutter'. Surely any sane person would get on with a nice charming man like Jeremy.
You certainly choose your 'quotes' very carefully Adam, most of what you assert in the above can be contradicted by other police statements........ you prove nothing :)
-
It doesn´t make sense either, that Jeremy had just killed his family, and in conversation with police outside the house, he said that he didn´t like his sister much.
Probably the last thing he would have said if he had done it!
If Jeremy had murdered,he'd have been gushing/overacting with sentiment towards his family. Murderers tend to put on an act. Probably because he appeared silent, pensive and didn't show enough emotion,that's what clinched it ::)
-
As the judge said, he was expertly leading the police into a direction.
Saying Sheila was a looney, psychotic depressive, do lally & a nutter. He also said Sheila committed child abuse against the twins.
After saying that he's not exactly going to say him & Sheila are best mates.
Saying Sheila does get on with Jeremy reinforces the impression Jeremy was giving to the police that Sheila was a 'nutter'. Surely any sane person would get on with a nice charming man like Jeremy.
Again - I ask you to show me a statement from an officer from August where he said anything but the name for her illness. And you have been asked to refrain from using the terms above on several occasions. Language like that is not PC now. The police called Jeremy and Brett several derogatory terms that are not acceptable now , even if they were then , which is why we do not repeat them now.
Just because you post something over an over again it does not make it have more effect , it just makes you look desperate.
Jeremy admitted he did not understand her illness - but he had discussed with Colin that he did not think that june was getting the correct treatment for her.
So in your opinion - do you think Sheila was not ill ? And the thoughts she had about her sons and her boyfriend were normal?
-
at the end of the day we dont really know what was said.
-
Again - I ask you to show me a statement from an officer from August where he said anything but the name for her illness. And you have been asked to refrain from using the terms above on several occasions. Language like that is not PC now. The police called Jeremy and Brett several derogatory terms that are not acceptable now , even if they were then , which is why we do not repeat them now.
Just because you post something over an over again it does not make it have more effect , it just makes you look desperate.
Jeremy admitted he did not understand her illness - but he had discussed with Colin that he did not think that june was getting the correct treatment for her.
So in your opinion - do you think Sheila was not ill ? And the thoughts she had about her sons and her boyfriend were normal?
PC or not, it is what the police said Jeremy said.
It is common knowledge he said these things.
The statements have already been posted on here. It may have even been you that posted one of them. When I quoted the statement you said the statement was wrong.
A policeman testified that Jeremy told him that Sheila had committed child abuse against the twins. When asked, Jeremy said he had not reported this.
-
its common knowledge that the police cliamed he said these things big diffrence.
-
PC or not, it is what the police said Jeremy said.
It is common knowledge he said these things.
The statements have already been posted on here. It may have even been you that posted one of them. When I quoted the statement you said the statement was wrong.
A policeman testified that Jeremy told him that Sheila had committed child abuse against the twins. When asked, Jeremy said he had not reported this.
Adam do you really believe that the police would not lie or embellish to get their man? They have done it in other cases .
And as you have so clearly pointed out it is one persons word against another .
It has already been shown with what was said about the car so why not other things?.
If they were covering their backs they were not going to admit what was actually said. A bit of embellishment goes a long way.
It has certainly taken you in.
-
You have just killed your entire family. Stage the killing of your sister as a suicide, setting out to pin the murders on her - but you shoot her twice, oh well, never mind, the stupid coppers will buy that, you tell yourself. You then unscrew the silencer you used, hide it in the back of a cupboard, blood, paint and hair on it, but heck, the cops ARE stupid, you think to yourself.
Later when you meet with the cops outside the house, you tell them all about how you are going to buy a Porche and that you don´t like your sister, whom you just killed. You also think it is a great idea to accuse the police of shooting your family once they found the dead bodies.
It has a ring of truth to it, RIGHT?! :P
-
I tell you something - to be honest - if he is guilty - I STILL don't believe he said half the things attributed to him. No-one would be that stupid.
It was done to get their man.
-
You have just killed your entire family. Stage the killing of your sister as a suicide, setting out to pin the murders on her - but you shoot her twice, oh well, never mind, the stupid coppers will buy that, you tell yourself. You then unscrew the silencer you used, hide it in the back of a cupboard, blood, paint and hair on it, but heck, the cops ARE stupid, you think to yourself.
Later when you meet with the cops outside the house, you tell them all about how you are going to buy a Porche and that you don´t like your sister, whom you just killed. You also think it is a great idea to accuse the police of shooting your family once they found the dead bodies.
It has a ring of truth to it, RIGHT?! :P
Thought you were undecided ? You're posts haven't changed since you claimed this. All of them supporting Jeremy.
He had to shoot her twice. The first bullet didn't kill her..
There was no reason the police would find the silencer in their search, carried out in the first three days. Thread already created.
The police said he spoke about the porche. And highlighted Sheila's illness. Years later trying to justify his cruel words by saying he did not understand her illness.
-
Thought you were undecided ? You're posts haven't changed since you claimed this. All of them supporting Jeremy.
He had to shoot her twice. The first bullet didn't kill her..
There was no reason the police would find the silencer in their search, carried out in the first three days. Thread already created.
The police said he spoke about the porche. And highlighted Sheila's illness. Years later trying to justify his cruel words by saying he did not understand her illness.
He could have staged a break in? I think its odd that she was shot twice and then framed for the murders. It would have been better to have staged a break in and not invented a call from NB at all. It just doesn;t make much sense to me. Its quite odd. :-\
-
Thought you were undecided ? You're posts haven't changed since you claimed this. All of them supporting Jeremy.
He had to shoot her twice. The first bullet didn't kill her..
There was no reason the police would find the silencer in their search, carried out in the first three days. Thread already created.
The police said he spoke about the porche. And highlighted Sheila's illness. Years later trying to justify his cruel words by saying he did not understand her illness.
Adam, you don´t seem to get it. I have never changed my stance - always been undecided. I have told you many times, but it never sinks in, does it?
I don´t understand how anyone CAN be either 100% for either guilt or innocense - this case is a mess, the investigation, everything.
-
He could have staged a break in? I think its odd that she was shot twice and then framed for the murders. It would have been better to have staged a break in and not invented a call from NB at all. It just doesn;t make much sense to me. Its quite odd. :-\
It makes no sense at all. Jeremy is no genius, but to stick to your plan of staging a suicide when you had to use two bullets seems insanely stupid. Who would do such a thing?
It would have made much more sense to stage a break-in, yes, absolutely!
-
He could have staged a break in? I think its odd that she was shot twice and then framed for the murders. It would have been better to have staged a break in and not invented a call from NB at all. It just doesn;t make much sense to me. Its quite odd. :-\
Really don't understand that phone call if he's guilty Patti, it's so hard to comprehend. Why put yourself in such a vulnerable position just after carrying out such a dreadful crime? Why would you do such a thing? He could have just laid low until the morning.......
Whichever way you look at it there are huge question marks, I agree Alias, cannot understand how anyone can be 100% either way. There's always a but........
-
Hello Maggie
think maybe he thought he was giving himself an alibi and that is why he phoned Julie to make it more concrete. Just my take on it could be wrong of course.
-
He could have staged a break in? I think its odd that she was shot twice and then framed for the murders. It would have been better to have staged a break in and not invented a call from NB at all. It just doesn;t make much sense to me. Its quite odd. :-\
We have gone through this.
Who an earth would break in, massacre men, women & children & not take anything.
If Jeremy is innocent, how did Sheila commit the massacre.
-
Adam, you don´t seem to get it. I have never changed my stance - always been undecided. I have told you many times, but it never sinks in, does it?
I don´t understand how anyone CAN be either 100% for either guilt or innocense - this case is a mess, the investigation, everything.
It's not a mess. The police changed direction after one month. They had good reason to, the jury thought.
Jeremy keeps going on about it. Appealing (& failing) & making wild claims which get him in the media.
-
Really don't understand that phone call if he's guilty Patti, it's so hard to comprehend. Why put yourself in such a vulnerable position just after carrying out such a dreadful crime? Why would you do such a thing? He could have just laid low until the morning.......
Whichever way you look at it there are huge question marks, I agree Alias, cannot understand how anyone can be 100% either way. There's always a but........
Hi Maggie :)
And this is what causes doubt in my opinion. This case is so full of holes and man-made assumptions.
The only clinch was the silencer....but even that cannot be deemed to be safe. When you take into perspective that Sheila could have used the silencer then placed it back into the cupboard, which could be possible, it blows the case wide open. Same with the scratch marks underneath the mantel of the aga surround. Those scratches could be related to many things and not necessarily the rifle. Although there was paint found on the silencer it can't be determined or proved it got there on the night of the tragedies. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jeremy's best option was to phone the police and spend several hours insinuating Sheila. Expertly leading them into a direction the judge said.
Several threads already created.
-
We have gone through this.
Who an earth would break in, massacre men, women & children & not take anything.
If Jeremy is innocent, how did Sheila commit the massacre.
I don't know Adam. Thats my answer. I need to know how Jeremy did it? How he got in without the dog barking? How he controlled the situation with 3 adults? Why was Neville downstairs after being shot upstairs? Why was 25 shots fired? How Neville received marks on his arm with the muzzle end of the rifle, which suggests that at that point the silencer has already been removed? I have no answers to the questions I need to know Adam.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello Maggie
think maybe he thought he was giving himself an alibi and that is why he phoned Julie to make it more concrete. Just my take on it could be wrong of course.
I can see the reasoning behind that Susie but it was a dreadful mistake if he is guilty, he put himself right in the middle of it all, especially as Sheila was shot twice and Ralph was battered. It would have been so easy to break a window or something and stage a burglary.
I know some murderers are proud of what they've done and would get pleasure out of being present when it was all discovered but it was one hell of a risk after already taking the risk of climbing into a dark house with available guns lying about for anyone to use, he wouldnt have known where anyone was and why didn't he shoot the dog? I find that really, really strange.
-
We have gone through this.
Who an earth would break in, massacre men, women & children & not take anything.
If Jeremy is innocent, how did Sheila commit the massacre.
If Jeremy just shot Sheila (twice) and left it at that, left a door open, hadn´t invented the call from Nevill, thus not calling the police, the case would be open.
As it was, he preferred to stage a two-shot murder as suicide, paint himself into a corner with the invented phonecall, call the police and face the music, blurting out how he disliked his sister.
Something is terribly off in that scenario.
-
I don't know Adam. Thats my answer. I need to know how Jeremy did it? How he got in without the dog barking? How he controlled the situation with 3 adults? Why was Neville downstairs after being shot upstairs? Why was 25 shots fired? How Neville received marks on his arm with the muzzle end of the rifle, which suggests that at that point the silencer has already been removed? I have no answers to the questions I need to know Adam.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Three 'asleep' adults.
The dog may not have heard Jeremy. Or may not have made a noise if it did hear him. It was not a guard dog.
Neville fled downstairs after realising he 'might die in a shooting accident'.
There is nothing saying what the burn marks were. But Jeremy may have burned Neville to check for life after putting the silencer away.
-
Jeremy's best option was to phone the police and spend several hours insinuating Sheila. Expertly leading them into a direction the judge said.
Several threads already created.
There were other options which wouldn't have pointed the finger only at him or Sheila, it closed the crime right down and it was far from his best option imo. It was crazy, remember Julie claimed Jeremy said he had thought up the perfect crime, well sorry if that was the best he could do, it was all pretty shoddy. ;)
-
Three 'asleep' adults.
The dog may not have heard Jeremy. Or may not have made a noise if it did hear him. It was not a guard dog.
Neville fled downstairs after realising he 'might die in a shooting accident'.
There is nothing saying what the burn marks were. But Jeremy may have burned Neville to check for life after putting the silencer away.
According to Vanezes the marks on Nevilles arm were done by the muzzle of the rifle, they were not burn marks.
The burn marks were on Neville's back....where did they come from?
Yes we only have one adult laying down and that was June. That still gives tw more adults in that bedroom...If Sheila was sleeping with her mother, then what was Neville doing in there? :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
If Jeremy just shot Sheila (twice) and left it at that, left a door open, hadn´t invented the call from Nevill, thus not calling the police, the case would be open.
As it was, he preferred to stage a two-shot murder as suicide, paint himself into a corner with the invented phonecall, call the police and face the music, blurting out how he disliked his sister.
Something is terribly off in that scenario.
The case may not be open. He may have still been convicted. The motive and opportunity was there.
Once the evidence showed Sheila could not have committed the massacre & Julie spoke, he would have been the number one suspect.
-
The case may not be open. He may have still been convicted. The motive and opportunity was there.
Once the evidence showed Sheila could not have committed the massacre & Julie spoke, he would have been the number one suspect.
It would have been a more open case if he had staged a break-in - or simply just left a door open, you have to admit that.
I find it hard to believe he was that stupid.
-
There were other options which wouldn't have pointed the finger only at him or Sheila, it closed the crime right down and it was far from his best option imo. It was crazy, remember Julie claimed Jeremy said he had thought up the perfect crime, well sorry if that was the best he could do, it was all pretty shoddy. ;)
No one said Jeremy was a criminal mastermind.
Jeremy had options. He choose the murder/suicide option.
-
It would have been a more open case if he had staged a break-in - or simply just left a door open, you have to admit that.
I find it hard to believe he was that stupid.
Staging a break in where nothing was taken, but men, women & children were massacred. Then being first on the scene in the morning seems pretty stupid to me.
He wouldn't be able to insinuate Sheila & use her illness.
-
Three 'asleep' adults.
The dog may not have heard Jeremy. Or may not have made a noise if it did hear him. It was not a guard dog.
Neville fled downstairs after realising he 'might die in a shooting accident'.
There is nothing saying what the burn marks were. But Jeremy may have burned Neville to check for life after putting the silencer away.
Too much risk in all this Adam. He wouldn't have known if the adults were awake or asleep, wouldn't know if crispy would bark, or attack him or what he would do, OK, Nevill may have 'fled downstairs' but that would have left the others unprotected because if he was injured he would know JB was in ernest, as for the burn marks find it hard to believe someone would go through all that performance to check if someone was alive. There are much quicker and easier ways than finding an object and heating it up, no .... I don't buy that.
-
Staging a break in where nothing was taken, but men, women & children were massacred. Then being first on the scene in the morning seems pretty stupid to me.
He wouldn't be able to insinuate Sheila & use her illness.
Leaving a door open would widen the possibilities, but Jeremy chose to paint himself into a corner.
Hard to believe.
We have all heard about cases that have never been solved - break ins with nothing taken, but people dead. It happens.
-
Staging a break in where nothing was taken, but men, women & children were massacred. Then being first on the scene in the morning seems pretty stupid to me.
He wouldn't be able to insinuate Sheila & use her illness.
He could have done a lot better than he did and remember he was trying to not be arrested and locked away forever so he surely would have done his very best to to hide the slightest sign of involvement. Jeremy Bamber may not be a genius but he's not stupid and I would have thought his main aims were to kill the rest of the family and not to leave any trail to his door. He may as well have written the police a note because of the silencer and the phone call and Julie, it really doesn't make sense imo
-
Too much risk in all this Adam. He wouldn't have known if the adults were awake or asleep, wouldn't know if crispy would bark, or attack him or what he would do, OK, Nevill may have 'fled downstairs' but that would have left the others unprotected because if he was injured he would know JB was in ernest, as for the burn marks find it hard to believe someone would go through all that performance to check if someone was alive. There are much quicker and easier ways than finding an object and heating it up, no .... I don't buy that.
Jeremy thought it worth the risk.
People are usually asleep at 2am.
He knew Crispy. So knows more than anyone alive what the dog would do. If it woke.
June was shot along with Neville. So would have been dead. Neville fled as he was being shot at. Or he followed Jeremy as he went to re load.
No one knows what the burn marks were.
-
Leaving a door open would widen the possibilities, but Jeremy chose to paint himself into a corner.
Hard to believe.
We have all heard about cases that have never been solved - break ins with nothing taken, but people dead. It happens.
It's true Alias, he didn't need to solve the crime just to make it highly unlikely for him to be implicated, an open door and no trail would have done, his car was parked outside his house all night, who could prove he was involved?
-
Leaving a door open would widen the possibilities, but Jeremy chose to paint himself into a corner.
Hard to believe.
We have all heard about cases that have never been solved - break ins with nothing taken, but people dead. It happens.
Five people massacred. Door left open. Jeremy first on the scene to start work.
Yes no one will suspect Jeremy.
-
Five people massacred. Door left open. Jeremy first on the scene to start work.
Yes no one will suspect Jeremy.
I doubt they would have been able to convict him. There was no physical evidence tying him to the murder scene.
-
It's true Alias, he didn't need to solve the crime just to make it highly unlikely for him to be implicated, an open door and no trail would have done, his car was parked outside his house all night, who could prove he was involved?
June's bike mysteriously arrived at Jeremy's cottage a couple of days before the massacre. He could have walked.
An open door & no trail. No murder/suicide.
It must have been a mad man passing through Essex. Poor Jeremy being first on the scene when going to work.
-
June's bike mysteriously arrived at Jeremy's cottage a couple of days before the massacre. He could have walked.
An open door & no trail. No murder/suicide.
It must have been a mad man passing through Essex. Poor Jeremy being first on the scene when going to work.
It wouldn´t prove anything if he was first to work and alerted the police. I don´t see the importance of that?
-
Jeremy thought it worth the risk.
People are usually asleep at 2am.
He knew Crispy. So knows more than anyone alive what the dog would do. If it woke.
June was shot along with Neville. So would have been dead. Neville fled as he was being shot at. Or he followed Jeremy as he went to re load.
No one knows what the burn marks were.
No one knows what Jeremy did or didn't think, as I said absolutely no guarantees they were all asleep at 2am. It's said he and Crispy weren't friends so surely a possibility he may have barked and growled at him, it was a bit of a risk. You don't know when June died, you are making assumptions, you don't know what Ralph did, how many times he went up and down the stairs before he was shot .......
-
I doubt they would have been able to convict him. There was no physical evidence tying him to the murder scene.
It is just too implausible a story.
At least even 30 years later supporters can still argue that Sheila was in a state to commit the massacre.
-
It is just too implausible a story.
At least even 30 years later supporters can still argue that Sheila was in a state to commit the massacre.
Do you find it very plausible what Jeremy allegedly concocted: a two shot murder staged as a suicide. Then call the cops claiming Nevill called to make sure you paint yourself into a corner?
-
Jeremy thought it worth the risk.
People are usually asleep at 2am.
He knew Crispy. So knows more than anyone alive what the dog would do. If it woke.
June was shot along with Neville. So would have been dead. Neville fled as he was being shot at. Or he followed Jeremy as he went to re load.
No one knows what the burn marks were.
Well if Bamber knew all that then he must have been a ruddy clairvoyant?
-
It wouldn´t prove anything if he was first to work and alerted the police. I don´t see the importance of that?
I agree being first on the scene the next morning means nothing, he could have been seen to be shocked and badly upset, perfect stage for him. Also could have been seen leaving his cottage and driving to work, as normal.
-
It is just too implausible a story.
At least even 30 years later supporters can still argue that Sheila was in a state to commit the massacre.
Totally different argument Adam.
-
No one knows what Jeremy did or didn't think, as I said absolutely no guarantees they were all asleep at 2am. It's said he and Crispy weren't friends so surely a possibility he may have barked and growled at him, it was a bit of a risk. You don't know when June died, you are making assumptions, you don't know what Ralph did, how many times he went up and down the stairs before he was shot .......
June died near the bed. Shot while her head was on the pillow.
-
Do you find it very plausible what Jeremy allegedly concocted: a two shot murder staged as a suicide. Then call the cops claiming Nevill called to make sure you paint yourself into a corner?
It was his best option. Several threads already created.
How did Sheila commit the massacre ? You seem to be keen to try to find faults on Jeremy committing it. All easily answered.
-
June died near the bed. Shot while her head was on the pillow.
So she was shot in the head whilst her head was on the pillow?
-
It was his best option. Several threads already created.
How did Sheila commit the massacre ? You seem to be keen to try to find faults on Jeremy committing it. All easily answered.
If you mean by answering, Several threads already created, I can see it is an easy answer for you, but makes little sense to me! ::)
It can´t be anybody´s "best option" to shoot someone twice, then stage it as a suicide, that is nonsense.
-
So she was shot in the head whilst her head was on the pillow?
Night All :)
-
I agree being first on the scene the next morning means nothing, he could have been seen to be shocked and badly upset, perfect stage for him. Also could have been seen leaving his cottage and driving to work, as normal.
He was shocked and badly upset after spending several hours insinuating Sheila.
-
Night All :)
Night, Maggie!
-
So she was shot in the head whilst her head was on the pillow?
Yes. Professor Macdonnel who Jeremy hired said this.
Thread already created.
-
He was shocked and badly upset after spending several hours insinuating Sheila.
Much more difficult position for him to put himself in, you HAVE to admit there were easier options, surely?
-
He was shocked and badly upset after spending several hours insinuating Sheila.
Huh?
-
If you mean by answering, Several threads already created, I can see it is an easy answer for you, but makes little sense to me! ::)
It can´t be anybody´s "best option" to shoot someone twice, then stage it as a suicide, that is nonsense.
Just as implausible for Sheila to shoot herself twice. As the pathologist said, the shock and pain would have immobilised her.
Anyway. How did Sheila commit the massacre ?
-
Night All :)
Night Maggie. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes. Professor Macdonnel who Jeremy hired said this.
Thread already created.
Well if June could get out of bed and walk a few steps before being shot again by Sheila, then so could Sheila walk if she was shot once. Logical.
-
Just as implausible for Sheila to shoot herself twice. As the pathologist said, the shock and pain would have immobilised her.
Anyway. How did Sheila commit the massacre ?
Well it didn't immobilize June apparently?
-
June more fell out of bed and crawled a few inches.
-
Well if June could get out of bed and walk a few steps before being shot again by Sheila, then so could Sheila walk if she was shot once. Logical.
Jeremy's supporters keep trying to find ways to show Jeremy could not have committed the massacre. Unsuccessfully.
But when I ask how Sheila did it, they go silent. Alias was asked twice on this thread. No response.
I am sure Grahame will respond and tell me.
-
Sheila cannot have been immobilized by the frst shot. The trails of blood on her right arm reveal that, she held her hand to her throat for some time between shot one and shot two.
-
Jeremy's supporters keep trying to find ways to show Jeremy could not have committed the massacre. Unsuccessfully.
But when I ask how Sheila did it, they go silent. Alias was asked twice on this thread. No response.
I am sure Grahame will respond and tell me.
I have answered your question in the past, You asked for a scenario, and I gave you one. It is here somewhere - or should I say, post already created. :P
-
I have answered your question in the past, You asked for a scenario, and I gave you one. It is here somewhere - or should I say, post already created. :P
Oh yes. You must have been one of about two who accepted my invitation. Forgot who the other one was.
You're description had lots of holes in.
Hopefully Grahame is typing up his description now.
-
June more fell out of bed and crawled a few inches.
If she crawled then why is her head the opposite way?
-
Oh yes. You must have been one of about two who accepted my invitation. Forgot who the other one was.
You're description had lots of holes in.
Hopefully Grahame is typing up his description now.
Glad you remember at least.
Gee doesn´t have to type anything, you know!
Your scenarios have loads of holes and errors as well, Adam, none of us know what happened that night.
-
Jeremy's supporters keep trying to find ways to show Jeremy could not have committed the massacre. Unsuccessfully.
But when I ask how Sheila did it, they go silent. Alias was asked twice on this thread. No response.
I am sure Grahame will respond and tell me.
I've told you time and again. How can I help it if you won't listen to logical thinking? It is quite straight forward it is you who continue to turn Bamber into a contortionist to make it look as if he did it. How can I help it if you continue to deny everything Bamber said and how can I help it if you are so gullible so as to continue to believe that lying ex girlfriend of his?
-
Glad you remember at least.
Gee doesn´t have to type anything, you know!
Your scenarios have loads of holes and errors as well, Adam, none of us know what happened that night.
A shortened version
Jeremy cycled/walked to WHF at 2am.
Got in through a loosened window. Picked up a fully loaded rifle.
Crept upstairs. Shot June and Neville 11 times in/by their bed.
Neville gets downstairs. Is followed and brutally beaten and shot again. Dying.
Sheila is lead or carried to the main bedroom. Or had already woken and retreats to the far corner. She is shot and killed.
The asleep twins are killed.
The staging of the scene to make it look like murder/suicide takes place.
Jeremy exits out of a window. Banging it locked from outside. Then walks/cycles home.
Simple.
-
I've told you time and again. How can I help it if you won't listen to logical thinking? It is quite straight forward it is you who continue to turn Bamber into a contortionist to make it look as if he did it. How can I help it if you continue to deny everything Bamber said and how can I help it if you are so gullible so as to continue to believe that lying ex girlfriend of his?
No hiding behind waffle please.
If you can't give me a credible way how Sheila did it, knowing exactly who ended up where & where the bullets were fired, you have to say Jeremy is guilty.
-
A shortened version
Jeremy cycled/walked to WHF at 2am.
Got in through a loosened window. Picked up a fully loaded rifle.
Crept upstairs. Shot June and Neville 11 times in/by their bed.
Neville gets downstairs. Is followed and brutally beaten and shot again. Dying.
Sheila is lead or carried to the main bedroom. Or had already woken and retreats to the far corner. She is shot and killed.
The asleep twins are killed.
The staging of the scene to make it look like murder/suicide takes place.
Jeremy exits out of a window. Banging it locked from outside. Then walks/cycles home.
Simple.
As simple as your thoughts that is. Of course you KNOW all this. lol ;D
-
No hiding behind waffle please.
If you can't give me a credible way how Sheila did it, knowing exactly who ended up where & where the bullets were fired, you have to say Jeremy is guilty.
I don't waffle. I leave the waffling up to you lad. It's all in your mind. It is the easiest thing in the world to invent a scenario as to how you think Bamber did it. Because at best it is all guesswork on your part. You've said it so many times now that you are a slave to the same old scenario. You simply cannot break out of your tiny world of guesses can you? You are a black and white minstrel and you simply cannot free yourself from your self delusion. You cannot contemplate anything else so whatever we say you will inevitable reject. You may think it happened the way you say it did. But it could have happened in an entirely different way? But you cannot conceive of anything else because you are a slave to your own thoughts.
-
What other way is there ?
He had to cycle/walk to WHF.
He had to get through a window.
He had to get a loaded rifle and creep upstairs.
He had to shoot and kill everyone -Neville/June/Sheila/the twins being the most common sense order. Although it may have been a different order.
It's a fact Neville got downstairs and was brutally beaten. Thread already created.
He had to stage the scene and exit through a window. Banging it locked from outside.
What else is there to contemplate ?
-
Anyway Grahame. Rather than insults, please tell me how you think Sheila committed the massacre. As you said I have posted more than once how Jeremy did it. It was easy for me to do.
Surely it cannot be hard for you to do as you strongly believe she did it and are always trying to find ways that Jeremy couldn't have done it.
You know the crime scene. What more information do you need ?
Please include Neville's one/two phone calls. Sheila's two re loads , Neville's brutal beating and June's sleep.
Thank you.
-
FGS,throw away the idea of the bicycle. That debate has died a death. The same as the Porsche,silencer,blood and paint on the silencer and all the other nonsense that exists.
If you can't work out by now who killed who ( leaving Jeremy out of the equation ) then there's no real debate,is there ?
-
Anyway Grahame. Rather than insults, please tell me how you think Sheila committed the massacre. As you said I have posted more than once how Jeremy did it. It was easy for me to do.
Surely it cannot be hard for you to do as you strongly believe she did it and are always trying to find ways that Jeremy couldn't have done it.
You know the crime scene. What more information do you need ?
Please include Neville's one/two phone calls. Sheila's two re loads , Neville's brutal beating and June's sleep.
Thank you.
You insulted me first. But it is true. You do waffle on a lot don't you.
-
Anyway Grahame. Rather than insults, please tell me how you think Sheila committed the massacre. As you said I have posted more than once how Jeremy did it. It was easy for me to do.
Surely it cannot be hard for you to do as you strongly believe she did it and are always trying to find ways that Jeremy couldn't have done it.
You know the crime scene. What more information do you need ?
Please include Neville's one/two phone calls. Sheila's two re loads , Neville's brutal beating and June's sleep.
Thank you.
Adam anyone can dream up a scenario and in the past I have indulged this foolishness just for your sake. But in principle I do not condone scenarios, because of the very reasons I gave at the time we simply do not know because none of us were there, so anything we may come up with is in the end no more than a guess as is your own pet scenario. There may have been factors in the case and indeed the distinct possibility that the police themselves interfered with the scene, plus the doubted use/non use of a silencer. Also as to whether we have ALL the crime scene photographs. As well as the various accusations, like did Bamber set up the scene, or did the police do so etc (for instance where is Taff Jones' notebook?). In other words there are so many variables for anyone to take into consideration that personally because of those things the case is not such a clear cut one as it may seem to be on the surface? So Adam I am not so willing as you are to rush into making scenarios, as all scenarios can be just a figment of our imaginations and I suggest that they are for the very reasons I have given.
ps: The police rejected the bicycle as evidence. If he did it he had to get there. But there is no forensic evidence to say he was anywhere near the place, so that is also just a guess.
-
Sheilas' ILLNESS/MIND committed the crime,NOT her as a person. The woman was of an unsound mind who very likely " heard voices " telling her to do so.
It must be horrendous to hear voices commanding you to carry out,usually,killings.
Adam,I wish that you'd take the time to study those patients who are mentally ill and have voices in their head,then perhaps you'd have some sympathy/empathy how they struggle to live their lives on a daily basis. Sheila took drugs to try and block things out and most of the time her persona masked her real illness.
Nobody but nobody knew how ill Sheila was. Her thoughts finally turned into reality.
-
Reason why Bamber could not have got into WHF undetected:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1LiOApC5As
-
Morning Mr.Gee Jeremy Bamber could have already been in the farmhouse like Caroline suggested it is a possible scenario he brought the last trailer back and went into the house which would be quite the norm.
-
Morning Mr.Gee Jeremy Bamber could have already been in the farmhouse like Caroline suggested it is a possible scenario he brought the last trailer back and went into the house which would be quite the norm.
Morning Susan, indeed he could have. But it is only one more guess isn't it? One reason that I can't be as sure as Adam apparently can? Every thing we suggest is most probably wrong, even though it might make sense to us? That is what I am saying. We say something enough times as Adam does and we become convinced in our own minds that it is the truth to the exclusion of all else. Unhappily in the case of Adam his scenario has become so much of an obsession that he cannot see any other possibility. Even to the extent that he has convinced himself that I am a Bamber supporter instead of a believer in justice, which I am. His thinking together with scipio (who ought to know better) has been polarized so that he only sees in one direction.
-
Grahame we all have our own ideas and it is possible that none of us are correct. I am afraid Adam has no grey area it is either black or white with him whereas I am open to other ideas of what may have happened. I realise you are seeking Justice for Jeremy Bamber and although I am tending to think he is guilty I like many others feel he did not have a fair Trial in fact it was more like a circus and he should have a retrial.
-
FGS,throw away the idea of the bicycle. That debate has died a death. The same as the Porsche,silencer,blood and paint on the silencer and all the other nonsense that exists.
If you can't work out by now who killed who ( leaving Jeremy out of the equation ) then there's no real debate,is there ?
It is pretty certain Jeremy cycled to and from WHF. Threads already created.
Julie said that was his plan & the bike arrived at his cottage just before the massacre.
Jeremy said he got the bike for Julie. Although she was travelling over to spend time with Jeremy. Not go cycling off on her own. The judge didn't accept Jeremy's reason.
-
Just to clarify my position on the Bamber case. I am not a Bamber supporter I am a free thinker on this and a believer in justice. The accusation by some people whose thinking has been polarized to that they cannot see except in one direction alone reminds me of a story that was born out of the troubles in Northern Ireland. A man was held up at gunpoint and asked, "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant". The man relied, " I'm an Atheist". To which came the confused reply, "Yes, but are you Catholic Atheist, or a Protestant Atheist?"
These people remind me of those gunmen. The believe I must be one or the other? In other words if I do not hold to certain views of theirs then it is obvious that I must be a Bamber supporter even though I say I am not. Then they are further confused when I ask questions and have doubts about Bamber and so they come to the conclusion that I am lying and must still be a Bamber supporter.
I am posting this not only to try and clarify where I am in relation to Bamber's guilt or innocence, but also to highlight the inability for these people to look at this case with an open mind and having an open mind, to look at the evidence from all sides instead of having a closed mind on the subject. This I believe is the only way to look at this case fairly and without prejudice. Sadly it is the position of so few on this forum? All I am doing is trying to keep a balanced mind in all this.
-
Grahame we all have our own ideas and it is possible that none of us are correct. I am afraid Adam has no grey area it is either black or white with him whereas I am open to other ideas of what may have happened. I realise you are seeking Justice for Jeremy Bamber and although I am tending to think he is guilty I like many others feel he did not have a fair Trial in fact it was more like a circus and he should have a retrial.
Feel free to comment on the already created thread 'Did Jeremy have a fair trial'.
Giving you're reasons why you believe it was unfair & why he should have a retrial. The legal system does not agree.
-
Feel free to comment on the already created thread 'Did Jeremy have a fair trial'.
Giving you're reasons why you believe it was unfair & why he should have a retrial. The legal system does not agree.
This is precisely the reason I stand where I do. I really am very sad for you Adam as you cannot view these things in a balanced way.
-
Morning Mr.Gee Jeremy Bamber could have already been in the farmhouse like Caroline suggested it is a possible scenario he brought the last trailer back and went into the house which would be quite the norm.
The Foakes's heard Jeremy drive off that night. He also rang Julie at 10am. He wouldn't do that if he was trying to hide inside WHF.
Spending 5-10 minutes driving home, then 20-30 minutes cycling to WHF 3/4 hours later is not hard.
-
Morning Mr.Gee Jeremy Bamber could have already been in the farmhouse like Caroline suggested it is a possible scenario he brought the last trailer back and went into the house which would be quite the norm.
Hi susie I accept that is quite possible but what about his car? Do we know what time he parked his car outside his cottage in Goldhangar ? We know they were alive and out of bed at 10 so if he hid for a couple of hours he wouldn't have been home til early hours yet neighbours said it was parked outside all night??? Xxx
-
This is precisely the reason I stand where I do. I really am very sad for you Adam as you cannot view these things in a balanced way.
I am giving a poster a platform to express her views. And read an already created thread.
Saying it was an unfair trial is fine. But why ?
-
Adam anyone can dream up a scenario and in the past I have indulged this foolishness just for your sake. But in principle I do not condone scenarios, because of the very reasons I gave at the time we simply do not know because none of us were there, so anything we may come up with is in the end no more than a guess as is your own pet scenario. There may have been factors in the case and indeed the distinct possibility that the police themselves interfered with the scene, plus the doubted use/non use of a silencer. Also as to whether we have ALL the crime scene photographs. As well as the various accusations, like did Bamber set up the scene, or did the police do so etc (for instance where is Taff Jones' notebook?). In other words there are so many variables for anyone to take into consideration that personally because of those things the case is not such a clear cut one as it may seem to be on the surface? So Adam I am not so willing as you are to rush into making scenarios, as all scenarios can be just a figment of our imaginations and I suggest that they are for the very reasons I have given.
ps: The police rejected the bicycle as evidence. If he did it he had to get there. But there is no forensic evidence to say he was anywhere near the place, so that is also just a guess.
My apologies. It is unfair of me to expect you to say how Sheila could have massacred her family. Although you believe she did.
You can't even say what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. Well you can, it was either after she started shooting upstairs, or after she ran upstairs with a loaded rifle. Perhaps a trifle late ?
-
Hello Adam hope you will not be offended if I take a rain check answering your post but it is far too complicated and would require me to make accusations I cannot prove and you would not want to see my doing "time" would you now ;D Think maybe in time to come you will have answers to your questions.
-
The prosecution case was that he cycled to WHF. The judge mentioned it in his summing up. Please see 'The judges summing up thread'.
-
The prosecution case was that he cycled to WHF. The judge mentioned it in his summing up. Please see 'The judges summing up thread'.
Are you addressing my post Adam, I am talking about Caroline's suggestion JB stayed in the house after bringing in the last trailer but maybe I should reread it as can't remember her complete suggestion.
-
Hello Maggie I thought Caroline's scenario was feasible although maybe not full proof. He told Ralph he would bring the last trailer in he drove home parked his car rang Julie then legged it back through the fields to the trailer. Drove to the farm and went in may be on the pretence of staying all night and hung about till they were all in bed (not Sheila) I feel she played a part in his plan but that is supposition on my part I cannot see how one person could have carried out these horrendous shootings but I guess we may never know what happened and it is driving me crazy ;D
-
The prosecution case was that he cycled to WHF. The judge mentioned it in his summing up. Please see 'The judges summing up thread'.
But the prosecution totally failed to prove this. They suggested it even though the police failed to find any evidence that he did this. This was completely based entirely on assumption. I suggest that the prosecution was wrong and the jury were wrong (well 10 of them any way) to believe their suggestion without proof of any kind.
Indeed their case was also based upon the presumption that Sheila could not have done the murders therefore it must have been Bamber. A totally wrong conclusion to come to as his guilt or innocence was based upon whether Sheila did it or not. Can I remind you that absolutely no forensic evidence found that even suggests that Bamber did the murders.
Furthermore there is the silencer evidence that should have been rejected outright when even the suggestion that DB took it to bits or not, as contaminated at least.
Then of course there is the evidence of JM that amazingly was accepted as gospel truth by all and sundry, although she had absolutely no one to back up what she said happened when she and Bamber were alone.
Now notice Adam I have not used any kind of scenario to cloud the issues here. My assessment is based entirely on the evidence presented at court and as you could see if you aren't blinded by prejudice just how far short the evidence falls to obtain a conviction and in my opinion was not handled in court how it should have been. Too much was accepted as truth which could not be substantiated. I will go further and say that he was convicted entirely on a "scenario" and not by the facts.
-
I think Adam forgets that the family in their statements and notecards were watching Jeremy like a hawk from day one. Therefore he had no chance of getting rid of forensic evidence/clothes /clean bike etc.
Also if he had any doubt about how he had left the silencer he could have taken those keys to WHF and doubly make sure there was no evidence on the windows / clean the silencer /sort out the phone.
His "simple" scenario is anything but simple and he choses to ignore all of the many angles , practical and psychological that make it almost impossible for Jeremy to do what he suggests .
So in other words it seems impossible that Jeremy could do it - and hard to believe that Sheila could do it - so it came to be that because Sheila was not able to be accused then Jeremy came to trial.
-
Hello Jan I don't think for one moment the bike was used to get Jeremy to WHF or back to his cottage. He could have got rid of clothes etc on the night of the murders does anyone know if the farm had an incinerator? I don't think the silencer was ever used :'( had it been Sheila would not have put it away in the box in the cupboard and Jeremy would not have left incriminating evidence behind at the farm :'( I have never put too much importance on the phone issue no big deal.
-
But the prosecution totally failed to prove this. They suggested it even though the police failed to find any evidence that he did this. This was completely based entirely on assumption. I suggest that the prosecution was wrong and the jury were wrong (well 10 of them any way) to believe their suggestion without proof of any kind.
Indeed their case was also based upon the presumption that Sheila could not have done the murders therefore it must have been Bamber. A totally wrong conclusion to come to as his guilt or innocence was based upon whether Sheila did it or not. Can I remind you that absolutely no forensic evidence found that even suggests that Bamber did the murders.
Furthermore there is the silencer evidence that should have been rejected outright when even the suggestion that DB took it to bits or not, as contaminated at least.
Then of course there is the evidence of JM that amazingly was accepted as gospel truth by all and sundry, although she had absolutely no one to back up what she said happened when she and Bamber were alone.
Now notice Adam I have not used any kind of scenario to cloud the issues here. My assessment is based entirely on the evidence presented at court and as you could see if you aren't blinded by prejudice just how far short the evidence falls to obtain a conviction and in my opinion was not handled in court how it should have been. Too much was accepted as truth which could not be substantiated. I will go further and say that he was convicted entirely on a "scenario" and not by the facts.
Thank you for you're long reply. Retirement boredom ?
Yes I notice you did not make a scenario. Although I politely asked you to.
Thought it would be easy. You know how many bullets were fired, where and who was in WHF & where they were when shot or brutally beaten. Or both.
It was easy for me to make one for Jeremy. Which matched everything.
Then again, no one can even explain what Sheila was doing when Neville made his 'mysterious' phone call to Jeremy.
-
Hello Jan I don't think for one moment the bike was used to get Jeremy to WHF or back to his cottage. He could have got rid of clothes etc on the night of the murders does anyone know if the farm had an incinerator? I don't think the silencer was ever used :'( had it been Sheila would not have put it away in the box in the cupboard and Jeremy would not have left incriminating evidence behind at the farm :'( I have never put too much importance on the phone issue no big deal.
Do you agree with Grahame that it was a coincidence that Jeremy brought his mothers bike to his cottage just before the massacre ?
-
I think Adam forgets that the family in their statements and notecards were watching Jeremy like a hawk from day one. Therefore he had no chance of getting rid of forensic evidence/clothes /clean bike etc.
Also if he had any doubt about how he had left the silencer he could have taken those keys to WHF and doubly make sure there was no evidence on the windows / clean the silencer /sort out the phone.
His "simple" scenario is anything but simple and he choses to ignore all of the many angles , practical and psychological that make it almost impossible for Jeremy to do what he suggests .
So in other words it seems impossible that Jeremy could do it - and hard to believe that Sheila could do it - so it came to be that because Sheila was not able to be accused then Jeremy came to trial.
Jeremy spent a month gallivanting around Europe after the massacre. Was AE tagging along ?
-
Hello Mr Gee excellent post and you approach the case in an unbiased way in order to discover the truth. None of us really know what happened but the trial was a shambles and lacking in real evidence from what I can see.
Guess you are away working this afternoon no rest for the wicked ;D ;D ;D
-
Thank you for you're long reply. Retirement boredom ?
Yes I notice you did not make a scenario. Although I politely asked you to.
Thought it would be easy. You know how many bullets were fired, where and who was in WHF & where they were.
It was easy for me to make one for Jeremy. Which matched everything.
Then again, no one can even explain what Sheila was doing when Neville made his 'mysterious' phone call to Jeremy.
What's you're excuse for boredom then ? Waiting to sign on ??
I think Mr G and myself have well and truly earned our " right to boredom " after 50 odd years of work. I wonder if you could say the same ?
-
Thank you for you're long reply. Retirement boredom ?
Yes I notice you did not make a scenario. Although I politely asked you to.
Thought it would be easy. You know how many bullets were fired, where and who was in WHF & where they were.
It was easy for me to make one for Jeremy. Which matched everything.
Then again, no one can even explain what Sheila was doing when Neville made his 'mysterious' phone call to Jeremy.
You know what, this was totally uncalled for. You have proven to be both a sexist and an ageist, are you also a racist - those are connected. All show narrow mindedness and none of them are pretty!
Back on ignore, Adam. Won´t read your posts.
-
Adam I honestly cannot say why Jeremy Bamber brought the bike from WHF to his cottage maybe he did intend to use it but guess he had a change of mind and thought through the fields would be safer.
-
Alias it is strange where Adam gets his information from as Mr. Gee has not retired probably assuming again and getting it wrong. :'(
-
Alias it is strange where Adam gets his information from as Mr. Gee has not retired probably assuming again and getting it wrong. :'(
In any case, it is incredibly rude and makes me very angry! >:(
P.S. you shouldn´t throw stones if you live in a glass house. The poster who constantly brags about the amounts of threads he creates and all that..... What kind of boredom is that, you have to wonder?
-
In any case, it is incredibly rude and makes me very angry! >:(
Makes me angry too. He's just an ignorant,ill-mannered,disrespectful oaf. I've got no time for him.
-
Alias Adam I think is quite immature and does not have any social graces remember when he referred to me as Mrs Busybody and I was the only one on this forum who made excuses for his behaviour and that was how he respected me does not know the meaning of the word sad really perhaps he will grow out of it.
-
???
-
Alias Adam I think is quite immature and does not have any social graces remember when he referred to me as Mrs Busybody and I was the only one on this forum who made excuses for his behaviour and that was how he respected me does not know the meaning of the word sad really perhaps he will grow out of it.
I remember, What purpose does it serve to attack a poster who has always been kind to you and even defended you?? :o
-
Just to clarify my position on the Bamber case. I am not a Bamber supporter I am a free thinker on this and a believer in justice. The accusation by some people whose thinking has been polarized to that they cannot see except in one direction alone reminds me of a story that was born out of the troubles in Northern Ireland. A man was held up at gunpoint and asked, "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant". The man relied, " I'm an Atheist". To which came the confused reply, "Yes, but are you Catholic Atheist, or a Protestant Atheist?"
These people remind me of those gunmen. The believe I must be one or the other? In other words if I do not hold to certain views of theirs then it is obvious that I must be a Bamber supporter even though I say I am not. Then they are further confused when I ask questions and have doubts about Bamber and so they come to the conclusion that I am lying and must still be a Bamber supporter.
I am posting this not only to try and clarify where I am in relation to Bamber's guilt or innocence, but also to highlight the inability for these people to look at this case with an open mind and having an open mind, to look at the evidence from all sides instead of having a closed mind on the subject. This I believe is the only way to look at this case fairly and without prejudice. Sadly it is the position of so few on this forum? All I am doing is trying to keep a balanced mind in all this.
This is hogwash.
You support Jeremy at every turn for irraitonal reaosns, attack those who beleive the evidence proving his guilt and betray your bias reguarly.
If you were the unbiased, rational freethinker you purport to be then you would face there is no way Sheila could have:
1) killed herself or anyone else without getting GSR on her gown and hand that pulled the trigger
2) could have killed her her mother and father without getting their blood in the form of high velocity impact spatter on her clothing and body as well as medium impact spatter on her clothing and body from Nevill and blood to have transferred from the weapon to her gown as well and her hands to have not left fingerprints in blood on the weapon unless she was wearing gloves
3) Moved her blody flat after she died
4) placed the bible in a pool of her own wet blood that formed after she died
5) removed the moderator and put it away in the closet after she was dead
There is consierably more evidence proving Jeremy's guilt but any raitonal freethinker can't get aorund this evidence. The defense had no experts who could help them get around this evidence either at trial or even now.
Instead of being an unbiased freethinker you have decided to pretend that somehow the above evidence was planted and fabricated though you have not a shred of evidence to suggest such actually happened you just choose to beleive it because you don't want to face Jeremy's guilt.
The same can be said for everyone hear who quesitons his guilt. Despite months of prodding you all for rational bases for your positions and evidence to support same you have all demonstrated no ration basis for your claims just bias built upon deception and distortions that run from distortions of fact to distortions of legal principles to try to pretend the prosecution failed to meet the legal burden required by law.
All those who question his guilt who are honest would admit they are going on blind faith nothing more because that is the relaity of it.
-
Hello Mr Gee excellent post and you approach the case in an unbiased way in order to discover the truth. None of us really know what happened but the trial was a shambles and lacking in real evidence from what I can see.
Guess you are away working this afternoon no rest for the wicked ;D ;D ;D
How was the trial a shambles? The evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself or anyone else and all of Jeremy's lies aimed at suggesting she did in an effort to fram her was not real evidence?
-
Alias beats me ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello scipio just my take on things which is of course my right ;D
-
???
I don't attribute the kindness that Susan shows you - I think you know exactly what you are doing.
You have been given scenarios of how Sheila did it - you ignore them - that's entirely your choice.
When you are on the back foot you resort to allegations and rudeness to the posters and sarcasm
you show no respect for Sheilas illness whatsoever because by doing that you might be showing a chink in your armour.
you exaggerate any point that fits your scenario or your assumptions about Jeremy.
I don't think you are some young whippersnapper that will learn - no way - and guess what I am no old dear either.
-
Oh great - Adams side kick is back as well.
more rudeness to come I guess.
Some parents don't teach their children manners do they.
-
You have just killed your entire family. Stage the killing of your sister as a suicide, setting out to pin the murders on her - but you shoot her twice, oh well, never mind, the stupid coppers will buy that, you tell yourself. You then unscrew the silencer you used, hide it in the back of a cupboard, blood, paint and hair on it, but heck, the cops ARE stupid, you think to yourself.
Later when you meet with the cops outside the house, you tell them all about how you are going to buy a Porche and that you don´t like your sister, whom you just killed. You also think it is a great idea to accuse the police of shooting your family once they found the dead bodies.
It has a ring of truth to it, RIGHT?! :P
It makes alot more sense than SHeila doing the impossible and killing eveyrone else and herself without getting their blood on her or any GSR, after she was dead moving her body flat, placing the bible in a pool of her wet blood and putting the moderator in the closet, Julie making up eveyrthing, Nevill calling his son instead of arming himself, disarming Sheila with his bare hands, or calling 999, Sheila knowing how to chamber a round though she never used the gun before nor did they ever use other semi-autos around her so she had no idea a round even needed to be chambered not to mention June staying in bed through everything and Nevill marched upstairs so they coudl be shot together plus Sheila deciding to get 5-7 rounds from the closet instead of using all 25 rounds from the pile of bullets in the kitchen.
Anyone suggesting such is likely is living in a fantasy world.
This is before even looking at Jeremy's actions. Anyone suggesting Jeremy's alleged actions make sense if he really had received a call from Nevill likewise are living in a fantasy world.
Receiving a call from Nevill then instead of calling 999 or rushing there to calling Julie and eventually look up the number of police stations, to be required to go to the scene so drive slow making sure police arrive first then for him to lie to police saying Sheila fired all weapons and calmly chatting with them instead of trying to look in the windows or go in the house like he had the ability to do (though at the time he lied and said there was no way in except breaking down the door), calling Julie at 6Am to tell her not to go to work because she would need to tell police about the call he received from Nevill... makes no sense at all unless he killed his family.
-
Thank you for you're long reply. Retirement boredom ?
Yes I notice you did not make a scenario. Although I politely asked you to.
Thought it would be easy. You know how many bullets were fired, where and who was in WHF & where they were when shot or brutally beaten. Or both.
It was easy for me to make one for Jeremy. Which matched everything.
Then again, no one can even explain what Sheila was doing when Neville made his 'mysterious' phone call to Jeremy.
It is easy. It is very easy. That is the precisely why I said I don't do senarios. But you still haven't got it have you Adam. It is nothing at all do dp with politeness. Of course your scenario matches everything. What man invents man understands. But the plain facts are that we do not know exactly what happened. What, are you some kind of clairvoyant?
-
Do you agree with Grahame that it was a coincidence that Jeremy brought his mothers bike to his cottage just before the massacre ?
Just about as coincidential as him getting up in the morning of the day before. If nothing had happened then you would obviously not see it as a coincidence.
-
Jeremy spent a month gallivanting around Europe after the massacre. Was AE tagging along ?
As did Mugford remember. Although to be fair to him we don't actually know what happened. I believe that Colin also went away. Do you count that as suspicious as well?
-
What's you're excuse for boredom then ? Waiting to sign on ??
I think Mr G and myself have well and truly earned our " right to boredom " after 50 odd years of work. I wonder if you could say the same ?
Well at least we do this in our retirement instead of slealing our boss's time. ::)
-
In any case, it is incredibly rude and makes me very angry! >:(
P.S. you shouldn´t throw stones if you live in a glass house. The poster who constantly brags about the amounts of threads he creates and all that..... What kind of boredom is that, you have to wonder?
I don't worry about it Alias. You know what the proverb says?, "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child". ;D
-
I don't worry about it Alias. You know what the proverb says?, "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child". ;D
I cannot help that such behaviour makes me angry. I lose everything for people who behave like that!
-
This is hogwash.
You support Jeremy at every turn for irraitonal reaosns, attack those who beleive the evidence proving his guilt and betray your bias reguarly.
If you were the unbiased, rational freethinker you purport to be then you would face there is no way Sheila could have:
1) killed herself or anyone else without getting GSR on her gown and hand that pulled the trigger
2) could have killed her her mother and father without getting their blood in the form of high velocity impact spatter on her clothing and body as well as medium impact spatter on her clothing and body from Nevill and blood to have transferred from the weapon to her gown as well and her hands to have not left fingerprints in blood on the weapon unless she was wearing gloves
3) Moved her blody flat after she died
4) placed the bible in a pool of her own wet blood that formed after she died
5) removed the moderator and put it away in the closet after she was dead
There is consierably more evidence proving Jeremy's guilt but any raitonal freethinker can't get aorund this evidence. The defense had no experts who could help them get around this evidence either at trial or even now.
Instead of being an unbiased freethinker you have decided to pretend that somehow the above evidence was planted and fabricated though you have not a shred of evidence to suggest such actually happened you just choose to beleive it because you don't want to face Jeremy's guilt.
The same can be said for everyone hear who quesitons his guilt. Despite months of prodding you all for rational bases for your positions and evidence to support same you have all demonstrated no ration basis for your claims just bias built upon deception and distortions that run from distortions of fact to distortions of legal principles to try to pretend the prosecution failed to meet the legal burden required by law.
All those who question his guilt who are honest would admit they are going on blind faith nothing more because that is the relaity of it.
Don't be silly scipio. Just grow up and accept the fact that you have just succeeded in brainwashing yourself into having a polarized brain with a total inability to think rational and balanced thought. You certainly are impotent in being able to look at things from another's point of view. Ngb is a far better lawyer than you are and also has the ability of seeing things from other people's perspective without insulting them like you do from your pinacle of personal piety.
-
Hello scipio just my take on things which is of course my right ;D
It's no good Susan he doesn't think it is your right. As I said he is totally impotent in sharing other people's views. Take my advice and just leave him to wallow in his own mire of delusion.
-
I don't attribute the kindness that Susan shows you - I think you know exactly what you are doing.
You have been given scenarios of how Sheila did it - you ignore them - that's entirely your choice.
When you are on the back foot you resort to allegations and rudeness to the posters and sarcasm
you show no respect for Sheilas illness whatsoever because by doing that you might be showing a chink in your armour.
you exaggerate any point that fits your scenario or your assumptions about Jeremy.
I don't think you are some young whippersnapper that will learn - no way - and guess what I am no old dear either.
I'm afraid he is completely devoid of good manners and has managed to learn absolutely no people skills whatsoever. He must have been brought up in a monestary?
-
Oh great - Adams side kick is back as well.
more rudeness to come I guess.
Some parents don't teach their children manners do they.
I don't think he had any parents? He was probably immaculately conceived. If you look closely you may find 666 stamped on his head?
-
Donkey-bred I'd have said. It rhymes too.
-
It makes alot more sense than SHeila doing the impossible and killing eveyrone else and herself without getting their blood on her or any GSR, after she was dead moving her body flat, placing the bible in a pool of her wet blood and putting the moderator in the closet, Julie making up eveyrthing, Nevill calling his son instead of arming himself, disarming Sheila with his bare hands, or calling 999, Sheila knowing how to chamber a round though she never used the gun before nor did they ever use other semi-autos around her so she had no idea a round even needed to be chambered not to mention June staying in bed through everything and Nevill marched upstairs so they coudl be shot together plus Sheila deciding to get 5-7 rounds from the closet instead of using all 25 rounds from the pile of bullets in the kitchen.
Anyone suggesting such is likely is living in a fantasy world.
This is before even looking at Jeremy's actions. Anyone suggesting Jeremy's alleged actions make sense if he really had received a call from Nevill likewise are living in a fantasy world.
Receiving a call from Nevill then instead of calling 999 or rushing there to calling Julie and eventually look up the number of police stations, to be required to go to the scene so drive slow making sure police arrive first then for him to lie to police saying Sheila fired all weapons and calmly chatting with them instead of trying to look in the windows or go in the house like he had the ability to do (though at the time he lied and said there was no way in except breaking down the door), calling Julie at 6Am to tell her not to go to work because she would need to tell police about the call he received from Nevill... makes no sense at all unless he killed his family.
You really do have a very shallow thought pattern don't you? I find it amazing and somewhat laughable that you cannot stretch your thoughts very far at all. ::)
-
You really do have a very shallow thought pattern don't you? I find it amazing and somewhat laughable that you cannot stretch your thoughts very far at all. ::)
Thinking irraitonally in order to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent woudl make me a fool.
-
Thinking irraitonally in order to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent woudl make me a fool.
There you go again. Thinking that I believe Bamber to be innocent just because I don't agree with your scenario. If you don't mind me saying so scipio, but that does speak rather loudly of your egotism.
-
There you go again. Thinking that I believe Bamber to be innocent just because I don't agree with your scenario. If you don't mind me saying so scipio, but that does speak rather loudly of your egotism.
Your own past posts attacking anyone who asserts Jeremy is guilty, saying you wish you were guilty so he coudl be innocent, and other such nonsense betrays your position. Trying to claim you are unbiased is a total waste of time.
In th emeantime anytime you are challenged for evidence to back up your posiiton you cna't do so. Not one person here who doubt's Jeremy's guilt has been able to put together a rational explanation of why they believe such.
Not a single person has put together anythign valid to actually challenge the evidence just irrational dismissal of the evidnec ei use dto try to suggest he is innocent.
I cna and have posted an extremely long and detailed basis for his guit. No one here has dented such or even attempted to try. No one can do the same as far as explaining their opinions. Thisngs ar eposted in piecemeal only and always fall apart upon scrutiny. That is the reality.
-
Your own past posts attacking anyone who asserts Jeremy is guilty, saying you wish you were guilty so he coudl be innocent, and other such nonsense betrays your position. Trying to claim you are unbiased is a total waste of time.
In th emeantime anytime you are challenged for evidence to back up your posiiton you cna't do so. Not one person here who doubt's Jeremy's guilt has been able to put together a rational explanation of why they believe such.
Not a single person has put together anythign valid to actually challenge the evidence just irrational dismissal of the evidnec ei use dto try to suggest he is innocent.
I cna and have posted an extremely long and detailed basis for his guit. No one here has dented such or even attempted to try. No one can do the same as far as explaining their opinions. Thisngs ar eposted in piecemeal only and always fall apart upon scrutiny. That is the reality.
What on earth are you talking about now? Show me where I said I wish I were guilty so he could be innocent. You really are losing the plot scipio. You listen too much to the idle gossip of fools.
Correction, no one has dented your scenario because you think that only you are right and everyone else is wrong. Your ears are stopped and you cannot hear anyone else because your own ego is drowning out their voices.
-
Sounds more like a ruddy great chip on the shoulder rather than a debate. I'd question that too !!
The same with Adam. Maybe they're next door to each other in a correction cell.
-
What on earth are you talking about now? Show me where I said I wish I were guilty so he could be innocent. You really are losing the plot scipio. You listen too much to the idle gossip of fools.
Correction, no one has dented your scenario because you think that only you are right and everyone else is wrong. Your ears are stopped and you cannot hear anyone else because your own ego is drowning out their voices.
I'm talking about posts you made under other names. You have had so many over the years and even used more than one the same time which helped give the impresison of false support by having an alias come to your aid.
You act like someone with a split personaity and constantly contradict yourself. A great example of tha tis how you posted police followed ordinary procedures in waiting to go inside until after making the efofrt to try to talk Sheila out but then only 2 weeks later did a 180 when a newbie (who some thing was really just an old poster using a new alias) alleged that police should have gone in right away. You praised his post and completely abandoned your prior claims about proper police procedure for standoffs.
I already highlighted various quotes from you in the past showing your bias and your ending of your Graham acocunt shows it as well. You claimed you were leaving because you had no ability to refute the evidenc eoffered to estbalish Jeremy's guilt which means you declared your purosoes was to establish his innocence but since you couldn't you were leaivng.
Trying to pretend you are unbiased is a complete waste of time you are not fooling anyway especially not fooling the people you are trying to snow with your BS claims of being unbiased.
-
I'm talking about posts you made under other names. You have had so many over the years and even used more than one the same time which helped give the impresison of false support by having an alias come to your aid.
You act like someone with a split personaity and constantly contradict yourself. A great example of tha tis how you posted police followed ordinary procedures in waiting to go inside until after making the efofrt to try to talk Sheila out but then only 2 weeks later did a 180 when a newbie (who some thing was really just an old poster using a new alias) alleged that police should have gone in right away. You praised his post and completely abandoned your prior claims about proper police procedure for standoffs.
I already highlighted various quotes from you in the past showing your bias and your ending of your Graham acocunt shows it as well. You claimed you were leaving because you had no ability to refute the evidenc eoffered to estbalish Jeremy's guilt which means you declared your purosoes was to establish his innocence but since you couldn't you were leaivng.
Trying to pretend you are unbiased is a complete waste of time you are not fooling anyway especially not fooling the people you are trying to snow with your BS claims of being unbiased.
Scipio
I have been very lenient with you over the past few days even though I have advised you to stick to debating, but it appears that you get rather personal at times. How many more times do I have to warn you before I take action and give you a ban?
I shall have to consider what I am to do before the end of the evening.
Hopefully, things might improve.
-
I'm talking about posts you made under other names. You have had so many over the years and even used more than one the same time which helped give the impresison of false support by having an alias come to your aid.
You act like someone with a split personaity and constantly contradict yourself. A great example of tha tis how you posted police followed ordinary procedures in waiting to go inside until after making the efofrt to try to talk Sheila out but then only 2 weeks later did a 180 when a newbie (who some thing was really just an old poster using a new alias) alleged that police should have gone in right away. You praised his post and completely abandoned your prior claims about proper police procedure for standoffs.
I already highlighted various quotes from you in the past showing your bias and your ending of your Graham acocunt shows it as well. You claimed you were leaving because you had no ability to refute the evidenc eoffered to estbalish Jeremy's guilt which means you declared your purosoes was to establish his innocence but since you couldn't you were leaivng.
Trying to pretend you are unbiased is a complete waste of time you are not fooling anyway especially not fooling the people you are trying to snow with your BS claims of being unbiased.
You haven't been here years so you are going by the lies of others. Go on show me those posts. You can't because I've never said it. I'm trying to fool nobody. How can I possible fool him who is a fool already? You're just trying to be insulting. Hardly an honest man in my book. You can't win me over so you resort to insults. Only a thug and a wicked man does that. My conversations with you are at an end as you do not conduct yourself as a gentleman. Good night little man.
-
Scipio
I have been very lenient with you over the past few days even though I have advised you to stick to debating, but it appears that you get rather personal at times. How many more times do I have to warn you before I take action and give you a ban?
I shall have to consider what I am to do before the end of the evening.
Hopefully, things might improve.
Ban the bugger Patti. He isn't worthy to be in a civilized society.
-
Ban the bugger Patti. He isn't worthy to be in a civilized society.
We shall see Mr Gee. I do not like the idea of banning people, but in order to give the forum some respite I might consider it towards the end of the evening if things do not improve. Meanwhile can we try to be fair, the best way we can.
I find its always better to make an evaluation rather than just hit the ban button....Not long since been on Mr Gee so give me time to read through some of the posts....
I shall be back.... ;D ;D ;D ;D