Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on April 05, 2015, 10:31:PM
-
According to AE's statement (taken between 8th and 13th Sept) she asked Jeremy why he didn't go to WHF as allegedly requested by Nevill's phone call - Jeremy replied that he was frightened that the call may have been a trick in order to lure him to the farm so Sheila could 'shoot him too'. At this point (after the supposed call from Nevill) Jeremy isn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot!
-
It is weird that he is claiming in the minutes after the phone call he was worried he was being lured to WHF so he could be shot too.
There is no reason that should of entered his head at that time BUT if it had - then he WOULD of called 999 at that point.
-
It is weird that he is claiming in the minutes after the phone call he was worried he was being lured to WHF so he could be shot too.
There is no reason that should of entered his head at that time BUT if it had - then he WOULD of called 999 at that point.
He wasn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot ;)
-
He wasn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot ;)
Allegedly, Nevill told him ONLY that Sheila had the gun and gave no indication that it had been used. Jeremy said he was afraid "She would SHOOT ME TOO"
-
According to AE's statement (taken between 8th and 13th Sept) she asked Jeremy why he didn't go to WHF as allegedly requested by Nevill's phone call - Jeremy replied that he was frightened that the call may have been a trick in order to lure him to the farm so Sheila could 'shoot him too'. At this point (after the supposed call from Nevill) Jeremy isn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot!
Is this the same AE you claimed perjured herself , by claiming she saw , a blob of blood that looked like jam , on a silencer , you yourself proving it was not possible ? Did you not actually cut yourself to prove her a liar ?
-
Is this the same AE you claimed perjured herself , by claiming she saw , a blob of blood that looked like jam , on a silencer , you yourself proving it was not possible ? Did you not actually cut yourself to prove her a liar ?
Is this thread about the silencer? Might you be deflecting attention because you can't answer the point? But just for you I'll reiterate that - I don't think the silencer was used! However, when Jeremy was making his statement, there were others present and being as Ann didn't make a great fuss about the above point, she clearly didn't see the significance.
If you have a point to make about the topic, lets hear it, if you want to talk about the silencer - there are plenty of other threads that deal with it.
-
Maybe he was just looking back over the whole morning and wanted to present it in the most dramatic possible terms. We know how he loves to hold court..
-
Maybe he was just looking back over the whole morning and wanted to present it in the most dramatic possible terms. We know how he loves to hold court..
That wouldn't make sense to the comment he made.
-
Is this thread about the silencer? Might you be deflecting attention because you can't answer the point? But just for you I'll reiterate that - I don't think the silencer was used! However, when Jeremy was making his statement, there were others present and being as Ann didn't make a great fuss about the above point, she clearly didn't see the significance.
If you have a point to make about the topic, lets hear it, if you want to talk about the silencer - there are plenty of other threads that deal with it.
My question to you is simple , does AE only tell lies about the silencer ?
-
He is supposed to have said that 1 to 2 days after the fact, so looking back in hindsight he said if I had gone over I would have been shot...?????
-
My question to you is simple , does AE only tell lies about the silencer ?
My own view is if there was any foul play over the silencer it was Robert Boutflour behind it and not his daughter. It must be incredibly difficult to reaffirm lies within such a detailed statement as she gave.
-
My own view is if there was any foul play over the silencer it was Robert Boutflour behind it and not his daughter. It must be incredibly difficult to reaffirm lies within such a detailed statement as she gave.
RWB made no bones about the fact that he expected total obedience from his children, albeit they were adult.
-
IF he is innocent he must have felt he made a huge amount of mistakes on the night which resulted in the death of his whole family - I think he was just trying to cover up for the fact that he probably was quite cowardly . In retrospect it is easy to judge - but perhaps he felt if he had not called the police or Julie and gone over immediately he may have been able to help. Don't forget that if he is innocent there has been a huge amount of character assasination so we don't truly know how he fitted into the family and whether he could have calmed things down . The fact is we know now that if innocent , he probably could not have helped so probably would have been shot.
-
According to AE's statement (taken between 8th and 13th Sept) she asked Jeremy why he didn't go to WHF as allegedly requested by Nevill's phone call - Jeremy replied that he was frightened that the call may have been a trick in order to lure him to the farm so Sheila could 'shoot him too'. At this point (after the supposed call from Nevill) Jeremy isn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot!
This is one of those things I use as an example that Jeremy told different people different things. Note that he didn't use this excuse with the police or at trial. This was constructed specifically for his family to provide an excuse for why he didn't go over. It is like when he told Colin Caffell that Sheila did it because June and Nevill decided she had to give custody of the kids to someone else. That is not what he told anyone else but Collin it was designed just for him. He didn't use these claims with police because they were defective. He figured it was good enough to use on them though.
-
My question to you is simple , does AE only tell lies about the silencer ?
Your question is irrelevant!
-
He is supposed to have said that 1 to 2 days after the fact, so looking back in hindsight he said if I had gone over I would have been shot...?????
No, he said it the day after while being questioned by police and he gave it as his reason for not going to WHF as his dad had (allegedly) requested.
-
Another thing, could Jeremy have used the socks as gloves?
-
No, he said it the day after while being questioned by police and he gave it as his reason for not going to WHF as his dad had (allegedly) requested.
The context is simple he was trying to make up excuses for why he didn't try to go help he provided this in combination with the lie that he called police right away. At trial his excuse was that at first he didn't realize it was an emergency but after thinking about it realized it so then called police. Of course this conflicted with his initial claims to police that he tried to call back got a busy signal then called police right away. He realized saying he didn't go because he was scared it was a set up wasn't the best argument to make, especially since he didn't call 999 and took a while to call police at all. He would have been be shredded had he made this claim during his interrogation or on the witness stand so didn't.
-
Another thing, could Jeremy have used the socks as gloves?
Ingenious Caroline,but why not just throw them on the Aga?
-
Ingenious Caroline,but why not just throw them on the Aga?
His goal was to frame Sheila so logically he would dump the by her if they were able to implicate the killer. They don't have spatter though on them or smears they just have passive blood drops so it is unlikely. Plus it would amount to shooting with a mitten which is a hassle gloves are substantially better.
-
I've added yellow and blue lines to the image posted by Caroline. As you can see, the bloodspots on the carpet are in the same position in relation to these lines, but Sheila's legs are quite differently positioned in relation to them. The differences are far too great to be entirely accounted for by a difference in camera position. This shows that Sheila's legs have moved several inches inbetween the times when the photographs were taken. Who moved her legs and why?
-
I've added yellow and blue lines to the image posted by Caroline. As you can see, the bloodspots on the carpet are in the same position in relation to these lines, but Sheila's legs are quite differently positioned in relation to them. The differences are far too great to be entirely accounted for by a difference in camera position. This shows that Sheila's legs have moved several inches inbetween the times when the photographs were taken. Who moved her legs and why?
The second picture is a slightly different angle - nothing has moved at all. But thats not what the thread is about. feel free to start your own 'conspiracy' thread though.
-
One can tell from the shadows that the camera positions aren't quite the same, and the upper photograph is about 10% magnified in comparison to the lower one, but those differences wouldn't account for the apparent different position of Sheila's legs.
-
One can tell from the shadows that the camera positions aren't quite the same, and the upper photograph is about 10% magnified in comparison to the lower one, but those differences wouldn't account for the apparent different position of Sheila's legs.
I'm not getting into the whole 'body moved conspiracy' theory - because it makes no sense. However, it is crystal clear that the photographer has moved around the body of Sheila to take the second shot - this is evidenced by the bible. You can see the volume of pages in the first shot, in the second, the angle has changed enough so that the volume is no longer visible. The change is position is responsible for the 'illusion' that the body has shifted position.
-
Maybe it was standard practice for crime scene photographers to move bodies slightly in the 80's. To get the best pictures. I would be surprised if that happens now.
I don't see how this incriminates Sheila or Jeremy.
-
i think you might be right adam i think it may of been.
-
i think you might be right adam i think it may of been.
Huh?
-
i think bodys are often moved so they can be photographed this is the only case were appears to have been moved.
of course there not going to tell anyone theyve done it.
-
I thought the police said themselves the body of Sheila was moved slightly.
This has been jumped on by supporters, saying the police took photos of themselves & the bodies in sexual positions. As well as creating banners & urinating outside. Of which no evidence has been provided.
The other claim is Sheila was moved from the bed to the floor by the police. Not sure why they would do this. Again no evidence has been provided. Mike says he has a picture of Sheila on the bed, unfortunately he was not able to post it on here.
-
depends on what they mean by slightly there not going to tell anyone where they moved it from.
-
I was under the impression that rather than move bodies -unless it was to photograph something specific- they moved themselves round the body. SO much easier than moving dead weight, I imagine.
-
depends were the body was it might of been at an angle theat made it hard or impossible to photograph properly.
-
i think bodys are often moved so they can be photographed this is the only case were appears to have been moved.
of course there not going to tell anyone theyve done it.
No they aren't, the whole point of the photographs is to get a representation of the crime scene and it was left. The police moved Sheila's hand and only her hand. Of course people can pretend that the whole body was moved but this won't lead to a free Jeremy.
-
I was under the impression that rather than move bodies -unless it was to photograph something specific- they moved themselves round the body. SO much easier than moving dead weight, I imagine.
And destroying the crime scene thus hindering the investigation.
-
The police said years ago they moved the bodies slightly. This must have been done after the photographer arrived as the pictures are slightly different.
This does not incriminate Sheila or Jeremy.
It also does not highlight any deliberate framing attempt by the police. If what they did was gross misconduct for 1985, then Jeremy would be released on a technicality. He hasn't.
-
The police said years ago they moved the bodies slightly. This must have been done after the photographer arrived as the pictures are slightly different.
This does not incriminate Sheila or Jeremy.
It also does not highlight any deliberate framing attempt by the police. If what they did was gross misconduct for 1985, then Jeremy would be released on a technicality. He hasn't.
Not!
-
Readers post on the previous page shows two slightly different pictures.
-
Readers post on the previous page shows two slightly different pictures.
Caused by photographer moving around the body to take pictures from different angles THUS creating different perspectives. Same thing as professional photographers do at weddings really except that they can ask their subjects to move so they don't have to.
-
Readers post on the previous page shows two slightly different pictures.
No it doesn't, it shows the same subject from a different angle and if you knew anything about the case, you would know the police said they DIDN'T move the body, only her hand to show the blood stain on her nightdress.
-
No it doesn't, it shows the same subject from a different angle and if you knew anything about the case, you would know the police said they DIDN'T move the body, only her hand to show the blood stain on her nightdress.
If you had read up on the case properly, you wouldn't have fought so hard for years protesting Jeremy's innocence. Just because he sent you nice letters.
So the police moved Sheila's arm. After the photographer arrived. How does this matter to anyone ?
-
I've added yellow and blue lines to the image posted by Caroline. As you can see, the bloodspots on the carpet are in the same position in relation to these lines, but Sheila's legs are quite differently positioned in relation to them. The differences are far too great to be entirely accounted for by a difference in camera position. This shows that Sheila's legs have moved several inches inbetween the times when the photographs were taken. Who moved her legs and why?
The position of Sheila's hand is also different and has clearly been moved. This is not explainable by different angles. The angle of bend at the elbow is noticeably different, as is the position of Sheila's hand in relation to the trigger.
Sheila's body has clearly been moved/interfered with between the times these two photographs were taken.
-
The position of Sheila's hand is also different and has clearly been moved. This is not explainable by different angles. The angle of bend at the elbow is noticeably different, as is the position of Sheila's hand in relation to the trigger.
Sheila's body has clearly been moved/interfered with between the times these two photographs were taken.
Her HAND was moved no one (not even the police) are denying that - her WHOLE body was not!
-
The position of Sheila's hand is also different and has clearly been moved. This is not explainable by different angles. The angle of bend at the elbow is noticeably different, as is the position of Sheila's hand in relation to the trigger.
Sheila's body has clearly been moved/interfered with between the times these two photographs were taken.
Why does this matter ?
If correct and not disputed it did not effect the trial or appeals. So won't effect anything in the future.
-
Why does this matter ?
If correct and not disputed it did not effect the trial or appeals. So won't effect anything in the future.
It matters Adam because the point is being made as a distraction. Neither Gringo, Reader or Jon, have given any consideration to the original question which was why would Jeremy imagine that Sheila might be trying to lure him to WHF to 'shoot him too' if at the point of the alleged call, he didn't know that anyone had been shot?
-
Mike says he has a picture of Sheila on the bed. Unfortunately he is not able to publish it.
The police or photographer, or both, must have then agreed to move Sheila's body onto the floor. Then move her arm after the first floor picture.
Quite why they would do this I do not know.
-
It matters Adam because the point is being made as a distraction. Neither Gringo, Reader or Jon, have given any consideration to the original question which was why would Jeremy imagine that Sheila might be trying to lure him to WHF to 'shoot him too' if at the point of the alleged call, he didn't know that anyone had been shot?
Why would Jeremy think Sheila was trying to lure him to WHF ?
It was Neville who made the call. With the call suddenly going dead.
If Sheila wanted to lure Jeremy, she would either ring him herself, or instruct Neville to ring him, without mentioning the words 'crazy' and 'gun'.
-
It matters Adam because the point is being made as a distraction. Neither Gringo, Reader or Jon, have given any consideration to the original question which was why would Jeremy imagine that Sheila might be trying to lure him to WHF to 'shoot him too' if at the point of the alleged call, he didn't know that anyone had been shot?
The original question is based on a bit of gossip off Ann Eaton so your first question should really be asking whether or not the allegation has any credibility. Jon alluded to this but you dismissed his question as irrelevant.
If you yourself believe that Ann Eaton is capable of telling untruths then how is Jon's question irrelevant.
Before discussing why Jeremy thought that "he would be shot too", shouldn't we first establish that he actually said those words.
-
I think that the quote came from AE - so the question about whether we believe all her statements is relevant - because we are attributing the apparent slip to what she is relaying was said. So if she is capable of telling lies how much credence can we attach to this apparent slip up?
Secondly I think it is interesting about the pictures because the level of the top of the sock with the bottom oh her nightdress and the `bottom of the rug is clearly different.
this would tie up with the two officers who said her head was in a different position when they saw her. Because if she had been pulled downwards to take some of the shots her head may have been moved.
Now if that is true , those two officers also said the gun and bible were in a different position so perhaps their statement does have (to quote those immortal words ) a ring of truth about it.
-
The original question is based on a bit of gossip off Ann Eaton so your first question should really be asking whether or not the allegation has any credibility. Jon alluded to this but you dismissed his question as irrelevant.
If you yourself believe that Ann Eaton is capable of telling untruths then how is Jon's question irrelevant.
Before discussing why Jeremy thought that "he would be shot too", shouldn't we first establish that he actually said those words.
Is it in AE's WS ? If it is we have to assume he said it. Unless Jeremy is on record saying it is wrong. People are allowed to say AE is lying. Of which there is no proof.
The only way to know 100% is if there is a tape recording of the conversation. There isn't.
It's a fact Jeremy made no attempt to enter WHF after receiving Neville's call. Supporting AE's claim.
-
I think that the quote came from AE - so the question about whether we believe all her statements is relevant - because we are attributing the apparent slip to what she is relaying was said. So if she is capable of telling lies how much credence can we attach to this apparent slip up?
Secondly I think it is interesting about the pictures because the level of the top of the sock with the bottom oh her nightdress and the `bottom of the rug is clearly different.
this would tie up with the two officers who said her head was in a different position when they saw her. Because if she had been pulled downwards to take some of the shots her head may have been moved.
Now if that is true , those two officers also said the gun and bible were in a different position so perhaps their statement does have (to quote those immortal words ) a ring of truth about it.
If you tell a lie, there has to be a 'point' to the lie and as she simply stated it without making any emphasis, she really didn't see the significance in what was being said.
The pictures are just taken from a different angle. However, perhaps someone could explain why the police would move her body from it's original position by a fraction and then take another pic. Someone will be suggesting they were making an animated movie next!
-
The original question is based on a bit of gossip off Ann Eaton so your first question should really be asking whether or not the allegation has any credibility. Jon alluded to this but you dismissed his question as irrelevant.
If you yourself believe that Ann Eaton is capable of telling untruths then how is Jon's question irrelevant.
Before discussing why Jeremy thought that "he would be shot too", shouldn't we first establish that he actually said those words.
No it wasn't, it was a recollection from Jeremy's original statement the day after the murders. Other people were present and it has never been disputed.
-
AE is supporting Jeremy. Giving a reason why he refused to go within 50 feet of WHF, after getting Neville's call.
Although the reason Jeremy gave AE is a weak one.
-
I think its how you read it....I'm not convinced that its a slip, simply because AE plus the police would have made a bigger point about it and in all fairness AE was a smart lady.
It could mean that when Jeremy was asked why he did not go over. His reply was gawd, it frightens me to think that I could have been lured there to be shot. It depends in what context it was said....She had remembered what he had said a month earlier, but did not go on to say that this comment had been written down on one of notes. The comment could be interpreted incorrectly or interpreted correctly...I am not sure either way, because to me its deemed as hearsay....
-
I think that the quote came from AE - so the question about whether we believe all her statements is relevant - because we are attributing the apparent slip to what she is relaying was said. So if she is capable of telling lies how much credence can we attach to this apparent slip up?
Secondly I think it is interesting about the pictures because the level of the top of the sock with the bottom oh her nightdress and the `bottom of the rug is clearly different.
this would tie up with the two officers who said her head was in a different position when they saw her. Because if she had been pulled downwards to take some of the shots her head may have been moved.
Now if that is true , those two officers also said the gun and bible were in a different position so perhaps their statement does have (to quote those immortal words ) a ring of truth about it.
You spend all your time spinning instead of seeking the truth objectively.
Some Police officers said that when they first looked at the photos they thought maybe things were different than they recalled but after discussing for a while they decided the photos were accurate. You leave that part out to pretend they said things were different.
The photos show the bible sitting in a pool of blood and that pool of blood stained the part of the bible which was sitting in it which means it was like that while the blood was still wet which was well before police ever entered. So this supports the ultimate assessment of the police that the photos were accurate.
in the meantime you also take a very biased approach with Eaton. When she says something you like such as about the blood stained panties you say she is honest but when there is something damaging to your agenda you suggest she lies. You decide whether she is truthful or lying solely based on whether her claims support or hurt your agenda not on any objective basis.
-
I think its how you read it....I'm not convinced that its a slip, simply because AE plus the police would have made a bigger point about it and in all fairness AE was a smart lady.
It could mean that when Jeremy was asked why he did not go over. His reply was gawd, it frightens me to think that I could have been lured there to be shot. It depends in what context it was said....She had remembered what he had said a month earlier, but did not go on to say that this comment had been written down on one of notes. The comment could be interpreted incorrectly or interpreted correctly...I am not sure either way, because to me its deemed as hearsay....
That's not what was said. I purposely didn't mention could have's and would have's because that's putting spin on it. But I knew someone would. What if he did say JUST that?
-
Because he'd rather have been a live coward than a dead hero-------------makes sense to me.
-
Because he'd rather have been a live coward than a dead hero-------------makes sense to me.
At the time of the call Lookout, he wasn't supposed to know that anyone had been 'shot' but his words indicated that he didn't want to be shot by Sheila 'too'.
-
I think its how you read it....I'm not convinced that its a slip, simply because AE plus the police would have made a bigger point about it and in all fairness AE was a smart lady.
It could mean that when Jeremy was asked why he did not go over. His reply was gawd, it frightens me to think that I could have been lured there to be shot. It depends in what context it was said....She had remembered what he had said a month earlier, but did not go on to say that this comment had been written down on one of notes. The comment could be interpreted incorrectly or interpreted correctly...I am not sure either way, because to me its deemed as hearsay....
It amounts to what I said in my first response- he gave AE a different excuse for not rushing over than he gave to police and gave in his trial testimony. Supporters make way too many excuses for his lack of consistency. At trial he gave a much different account of his slow reaction.
This is a damning excuse hat he provided to AE so that is why he dropped it and didn't try to ake it at trial. It is damning for 2 reasons beyond simply him making inconsistent claims:
1) If he was so damn worried about his own safety that he was scared to go check it out then he should have known right away that there was trouble at WHF and should have called 999 instantly not have wasted so much time calling Julie and fumbling with phone books.
2) He wanted to teach Sheila how to use the gun but she didn't want to learn. (he really just wanted to get her prints on it, he wasn't actually interested in her learning) So she didn't know how to use the gun, never had interest in guns and was not known to ever fire any. So claiming he was so worried about her shooting him and being too scared to go over already has problems but this goes BEYOND that and he actually deviously thought up the notion she was forcing Nevill to call in order to sucker him over. That's pretty damn clever and logical for a person supposedly having delusions and acting crazy. That doesn't fit in with the going crazy claim. Why would he think up such a devious hing for her to be plotting? Just from hearing she was going crazy and had a gun? The only reason to think up such a thing is if it was something he would do. It shows his own devious thought process.
It doesn't demonstrate he knew about the shootings prior to the bodies being discovered in the sense it would if he made the statement before the bodies were found but does illustrate a thought process that doesn't fit with what he supposedly knew and was told at the time. Being told she was going cray and grabbed a gun doesn't help support the notion Nevill made the call to set Jeremy up that wouldn't logically cross his mind at the time. fearing he could get hurt is one thing fearing he was being set up goes beyond the pale and would not logically be considered. That is why he didn't repeat the claim to the authorities and at trial. It is damning and it is even more damning because if that was his fear he should have instantly called 999.
-
At the time of the call Lookout, he wasn't supposed to know that anyone had been 'shot' but his words indicated that he didn't want to be shot by Sheila 'too'.
Because it was a working farm,and because most,if not all farmers keep guns,it doesn't take a Philadelphia Lawyer to work out ( that a child of three can fire a gun) let alone a mentally disturbed person,so Jeremy would have naturally assumed that " Sheila " was on the rampage inside the farmhouse.
Nothing wrong in putting your thoughts before your actions ?
-
That's not what was said. I purposely didn't mention could have's and would have's because that's putting spin on it. But I knew someone would. What if he did say JUST that?
I know how it is written but I am not sure in what context it was said. You said it yourself what if he did say just that....Well, it he had then why was this a bone of contention and why did the CPS not use this in court....He could have merely said how frightened he was that he could have been lured over there to be shot himself....He had said this after the fact.
All these statements had been read over and over prior to the trial are you really suggesting that a comment like that had been missed and 30 years on only you yourself have noticed it? If the later is right then well done, but I doubt it had been overlooked and is now being used out of context...Its my opinion and by the way I love to spin those plates hahahahahah
-
Because it was a working farm,and because most,if not all farmers keep guns,it doesn't take a Philadelphia Lawyer to work out ( that a child of three can fire a gun) let alone a mentally disturbed person,so Jeremy would have naturally assumed that " Sheila " was on the rampage inside the farmhouse.
Nothing wrong in putting your thoughts before your actions ?
So having "naturally assumed that Sheila was on the rampage inside the farmhouse" and not rushing over because he was "afraid that it was a trick to lure him over and Sheila would shoot him, too, he proceeds NOT to immediately call 999, but to diddle around searching for numbers to the more obscure police stations and then phoning his girlfriend. Not only does this NOT make sense, it raises the question of what little thought he gave for his father's safety if he can admit to being afraid for his own.
-
Jeremy was quite happy to arrive after the police. Insinuate Sheila. Help create a siege situation. Take a stroll around WHF, sit in a police car, draw diagrams for the police and talk about expensive cars (but only kit cars, mind).
Why ? because Neville had said 'please come over'.
-
So having "naturally assumed that Sheila was on the rampage inside the farmhouse" and not rushing over because he was "afraid that it was a trick to lure him over and Sheila would shoot him, too, he proceeds NOT to immediately call 999, but to diddle around searching for numbers to the more obscure police stations and then phoning his girlfriend. Not only does this NOT make sense, it raises the question of what little thought he gave for his father's safety if he can admit to being afraid for his own.
It really does depend on the way you look at this sort of a situation. The raid team,who were equipped to enter such situations,took their time storming in,so why does it make Jeremy any different ?
-
It amounts to what I said in my first response- he gave AE a different excuse for not rushing over than he gave to police and gave in his trial testimony. Supporters make way too many excuses for his lack of consistency. At trial he gave a much different account of his slow reaction.
This is a damning excuse hat he provided to AE so that is why he dropped it and didn't try to ake it at trial. It is damning for 2 reasons beyond simply him making inconsistent claims:
1) If he was so damn worried about his own safety that he was scared to go check it out then he should have known right away that there was trouble at WHF and should have called 999 instantly not have wasted so much time calling Julie and fumbling with phone books.
2) He wanted to teach Sheila how to use the gun but she didn't want to learn. (he really just wanted to get her prints on it, he wasn't actually interested in her learning) So she didn't know how to use the gun, never had interest in guns and was not known to ever fire any. So claiming he was so worried about her shooting him and being too scared to go over already has problems but this goes BEYOND that and he actually deviously thought up the notion she was forcing Nevill to call in order to sucker him over. That's pretty damn clever and logical for a person supposedly having delusions and acting crazy. That doesn't fit in with the going crazy claim. Why would he think up such a devious hing for her to be plotting? Just from hearing she was going crazy and had a gun? The only reason to think up such a thing is if it was something he would do. It shows his own devious thought process.
It doesn't demonstrate he knew about the shootings prior to the bodies being discovered in the sense it would if he made the statement before the bodies were found but does illustrate a thought process that doesn't fit with what he supposedly knew and was told at the time. Being told she was going cray and grabbed a gun doesn't help support the notion Nevill made the call to set Jeremy up that wouldn't logically cross his mind at the time. fearing he could get hurt is one thing fearing he was being set up goes beyond the pale and would not logically be considered. That is why he didn't repeat the claim to the authorities and at trial. It is damning and it is even more damning because if that was his fear he should have instantly called 999.
In answer to your first point number 1.
He was not worried about his safety the police were. At this point he was not aware of anyone being shot and neither were the police. It was the police who arranged to meet Jeremy. Jeremy had asked if the police would pick him up on route but they said no.
He then phoned Julie to tell her something was wrong at the farm....She told him to go back to bed. Why would calling Julie make him a killer?
2. Where does it say that on the 6th August that he had wanted to teach Sheila how to use a gun. Its not in Jeremy's statement and there was no need to have her prints on the rifle for if he had thought this then he would have ensured that all her prints were over the rifle when he was supposed to have organised it a suicide.
No one needs demonstrations on how to use guns its not rocket science and she was an adult who had be raised on a farm, a farm which in its daily life used guns. Are you telling me she never saw her father use a gun or she never saw any other person use a gun even though Sheila and Colin had been beaters up on a shot in Scotland?
Jeremy has never used the fact that he could have lured to WHF this would mean that his father was forced at gunpoint....and that is not what Jeremy had said and no one has ever said it....
We are talking 1985 there was no reason for dailing 999 when all he had to do was call his local nick. Even if he had called 999 whose headquarters were next door to the nick it would have made no difference to the time any officers arrived at the scene....none at all.
-
In answer to your first point number 1.
He was not worried about his safety the police were. At this point he was not aware of anyone being shot and neither were the police. It was the police who arranged to meet Jeremy. Jeremy had asked if the police would pick him up on route but they said no.
He then phoned Julie to tell her something was wrong at the farm....She told him to go back to bed. Why would calling Julie make him a killer?
2. Where does it say that on the 6th August that he had wanted to teach Sheila how to use a gun. Its not in Jeremy's statement and there was no need to have her prints on the rifle for if he had thought this then he would have ensured that all her prints were over the rifle when he was supposed to have organised it a suicide.
No one needs demonstrations on how to use guns its not rocket science and she was an adult who had be raised on a farm, a farm which in its daily life used guns. Are you telling me she never saw her father use a gun or she never saw any other person use a gun even though Sheila and Colin had been beaters up on a shot in Scotland?
Jeremy has never used the fact that he could have lured to WHF this would mean that his father was forced at gunpoint....and that is not what Jeremy had said and no one has ever said it....
We are talking 1985 there was no reason for dailing 999 when all he had to do was call his local nick. Even if he had called 999 whose headquarters were next door to the nick it would have made no difference to the time any officers arrived at the scene....none at all.
How do you think Sheila committed the massacre ?
Obviously all but two shots need to be from inches away. There needs to be two re loads, a brutal fight and one/two phone calls.
-
It really does depend on the way you look at this sort of a situation. The raid team,who were equipped to enter such situations,took their time storming in,so why does it make Jeremy any different ?
They MAY have taken there time going in from an outsiders viewpoint, but they were there. It took Jeremy nearly an hour from Nevill's alleged call.
-
They MAY have taken there time going in from an outsiders viewpoint, but they were there.
It took Jeremy nearly an hour from Nevill's alleged call.
??
-
Because it was a working farm,and because most,if not all farmers keep guns,it doesn't take a Philadelphia Lawyer to work out ( that a child of three can fire a gun) let alone a mentally disturbed person,so Jeremy would have naturally assumed that " Sheila " was on the rampage inside the farmhouse.
Nothing wrong in putting your thoughts before your actions ?
If you read the evidence from the police statements he did not appear frantic or panicked when he first called - but when they took their time he did become increasingly agitated and cross that they were taking so long.
So if he was guilty - why would that be - there was no rush for them to get there as they could of ( as far as he knew ) established a time of death if they had gone straight in ? They were all dead , he had "set the scene" so no rush really .
But if he was innocent , when he got the call half asleep and confused , probably not sure if his father did want him to call the police or not - what should he do ? Then realisation may have slowly sunk in and then perhaps he got agitated thinking it could be worse than he had first thought , perhaps his father had sounded panicked , why could he not get back through to him ?
You are right in the call he never said a shot had been fired ( not exactly setting a siege situation then) But perhaps in retrospect he thought more about what might be happening.
-
I know how it is written but I am not sure in what context it was said. You said it yourself what if he did say just that....Well, it he had then why was this a bone of contention and why did the CPS not use this in court....He could have merely said how frightened he was that he could have been lured over there to be shot himself....He had said this after the fact.
All these statements had been read over and over prior to the trial are you really suggesting that a comment like that had been missed and 30 years on only you yourself have noticed it? If the later is right then well done, but I doubt it had been overlooked and is now being used out of context...Its my opinion and by the way I love to spin those plates hahahahahah
In what context? the context is clear, she asked why he didn't over to WHF as requested. Not sure what the confusion is? The statement in question isn't written as though it were 'after the fact'? . If he had said 'good thing I didn't go over, it could have been a trick to lure me there ........' but that's not how AE repeated it.
A comment like that was missed? You missed it, others missed it - basically, it was missed. You're right, it is being used out of context because you're trying to alter the context even though you're suggesting the context is confusing? Good luck with the plate spinning - don't drop the ball! ;)
-
In answer to your first point number 1.
He was not worried about his safety the police were. At this point he was not aware of anyone being shot and neither were the police. It was the police who arranged to meet Jeremy. Jeremy had asked if the police would pick him up on route but they said no.
He then phoned Julie to tell her something was wrong at the farm....She told him to go back to bed. Why would calling Julie make him a killer?
2. Where does it say that on the 6th August that he had wanted to teach Sheila how to use a gun. Its not in Jeremy's statement and there was no need to have her prints on the rifle for if he had thought this then he would have ensured that all her prints were over the rifle when he was supposed to have organised it a suicide.
No one needs demonstrations on how to use guns its not rocket science and she was an adult who had be raised on a farm, a farm which in its daily life used guns. Are you telling me she never saw her father use a gun or she never saw any other person use a gun even though Sheila and Colin had been beaters up on a shot in Scotland?
Jeremy has never used the fact that he could have lured to WHF this would mean that his father was forced at gunpoint....and that is not what Jeremy had said and no one has ever said it....
We are talking 1985 there was no reason for dailing 999 when all he had to do was call his local nick. Even if he had called 999 whose headquarters were next door to the nick it would have made no difference to the time any officers arrived at the scene....none at all.
And yet, he said he was!
-
AE's comments are fabrication, and that's probably why they weren't used at the trial. For example, "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by looking at his watch." That's clearly nonsense, and is incompatible with Pc West's evidence. It's possible that this story was invented by the police. Obviously, most of AE's information must have come from the police, as some remarks attributed to Jeremy wouldn't have made sense if spoken directly to AE. In any case, Jeremy obviously didn't use his watch to time the police.
-
If you read the evidence from the police statements he did not appear frantic or panicked when he first called - but when they took their time he did become increasingly agitated and cross that they were taking so long.
So if he was guilty - why would that be - there was no rush for them to get there as they could of ( as far as he knew ) established a time of death if they had gone straight in ? They were all dead , he had "set the scene" so no rush really .
But if he was innocent , when he got the call half asleep and confused , probably not sure if his father did want him to call the police or not - what should he do ? Then realisation may have slowly sunk in and then perhaps he got agitated thinking it could be worse than he had first thought , perhaps his father had sounded panicked , why could he not get back through to him ?
You are right in the call he never said a shot had been fired ( not exactly setting a siege situation then) But perhaps in retrospect he thought more about what might be happening.
Well, his father asked him to come over so maybe he should have done that? What he shouldn't have done (if you believe the timings he NOW gives) is sit there for 26 mins doing SFA.
-
AE's comments are fabrication, and that's probably why they weren't used at the trial. For example, "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by looking at his watch." That's clearly nonsense, and is incompatible with Pc West's evidence. It's possible that this story was invented by the police. Obviously, most of AE's information must have come from the police, as some remarks attributed to Jeremy wouldn't have made sense if spoken directly to AE. In any case, Jeremy obviously didn't use his watch to time the police.
Really? And you know this because? This has never been disputed by Jeremy! Of course, the police invented it, just like they made plans to frame Jeremy by not telling him of Neville's call - just on the off-chance they needed a patsy! ;D
-
AE's comments are fabrication, and that's probably why they weren't used at the trial. For example, "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by looking at his watch." That's clearly nonsense, and is incompatible with Pc West's evidence. It's possible that this story was invented by the police. Obviously, most of AE's information must have come from the police, as some remarks attributed to Jeremy wouldn't have made sense if spoken directly to AE. In any case, Jeremy obviously didn't use his watch to time the police.
Jeremy testified his phone call to the police was five minutes.
I always thought that was optimistic. Eleven minutes is more plausible. But that means he would not leave his cottage until at the earliest 3.47am.
-
AE's comments are fabrication, and that's probably why they weren't used at the trial. For example, "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by looking at his watch." That's clearly nonsense, and is incompatible with Pc West's evidence. It's possible that this story was invented by the police. Obviously, most of AE's information must have come from the police, as some remarks attributed to Jeremy wouldn't have made sense if spoken directly to AE. In any case, Jeremy obviously didn't use his watch to time the police.
Does that mean that you're in a position to know categorically, not only that AE lied, but all police personnel attached to the case, which resulted in forensics having to lie. This is what I construe as nonsense and it started where a decision was allegedly made to withhold the information about Nevill's alleged call to Jeremy just in case they wanted to frame him at a later date.Just LOOK at what was achieved by that one itsy bitsy lie and tell me it makes ANY kind of sense.
-
In what context? the context is clear, she asked why he didn't over to WHF as requested. Not sure what the confusion is? The statement in question isn't written as though it were 'after the fact'? . If he had said 'good thing I didn't go over, it could have been a trick to lure me there ........' but that's not how AE repeated it.
A comment like that was missed? You missed it, others missed it - basically, it was missed. You're right, it is being used out of context because you're trying to alter the context even though you're suggesting the context is confusing? Good luck with the plate spinning - don't drop the ball! ;)
We don't know the rest of the conversation or see what body language was given....Its difficult to access what and how it was said...The fact is nothing was ever made of it. :-\
AE confirms that Jeremy said he put the rifle on the settle, yet police say the kitchen table....I'd like to know what Jones said in his statement of where he said he put the rifle for AE said he was present when he told her he had put it on the settle....I shall take a look.
-
We don't know the rest of the conversation or see what body language was given....Its difficult to access what and how it was said...The fact is nothing was ever made of it. :-\
AE confirms that Jeremy said he put the rifle on the settle, yet police say the kitchen table....I'd like to know what Jones said in his statement of where he said he put the rifle for AE said he was present when he told her he had put it on the settle....I shall take a look.
I know nothing was made of it, which is why I'm asking the question now. There is also nothing to say it was looked into and dismissed yet people here seem prepared to do that. I'll check (over the coming days) to see just how many different excuses were given for not going to WHF or for calling 999.
I've never disputed where Jeremy said he left the rifle?
-
I know nothing was made of it, which is why I'm asking the question now. There is also nothing to say it was looked into and dismissed yet people here seem prepared to do that. I'll check (over the coming days) to see just how many different excuses were given for not going to WHF or for calling 999.
I've never disputed where Jeremy said he left the rifle?
I know you didn't but I am trying to say that hearsay and gossip can change and words can be left out or added. Jones differs from AE in where he said he left the rifle...Jones says he stood the rifle up against the wall. AE said he said that he had left it on the settle....Both AE and Jones were present so which one of them is telling the right story of what Jeremy had said????
-
I know nothing was made of it, which is why I'm asking the question now. There is also nothing to say it was looked into and dismissed yet people here seem prepared to do that. I'll check (over the coming days) to see just how many different excuses were given for not going to WHF or for calling 999.
I've never disputed where Jeremy said he left the rifle?
He did go to WHF. After calling the police and Julie.
He will say he called the police and didn't go alone because of what Neville said.
He didn't call 999 because he said he thought it wouldn't make any difference in how quick they would be.
He didn't go into WHF after arriving because the police would have advised him not to.
Jeremy can just say these things over and over. It doesn't make him guilty or innocent.
-
In answer to your first point number 1.
He was not worried about his safety the police were. At this point he was not aware of anyone being shot and neither were the police. It was the police who arranged to meet Jeremy. Jeremy had asked if the police would pick him up on route but they said no.
He then phoned Julie to tell her something was wrong at the farm....She told him to go back to bed. Why would calling Julie make him a killer?
Police were worried about Jeremy's safety so they told him to go to the potential crime scene? That makes no sense at all. They would have told him to stay home if they were worried that his safety would be in jeopardy at WHF. Jeremy was told to go to WHF because he was the one who summoned the police. They didn't want to just wake up the occupants in what could potentially be a prank call. Furthermore they wanted him there to be able to provide all relevant information he possessed to the police.
Jeremy told AE that he was worried for his safety and that is why he didn't rush over to WHF but instead called police. But he went beyond simply claiming he was worried about his safety he claimed he was worried that Sheila forced Nevill to make the call in order to lure him there so she could murder him as well as the other family members. So he was claiming that at the time of the call he feared Sheila was planning to execute the entire family but one member was missing- Jeremy so Sheila forced Nevill to call Jeremy to get him there so she would be able to execute him along with them. WHY would he think based upon the call he claimed to receive that she planned to execute everyone and thus forced Nevill to lure him there? If you can't see how damning such a claim is then your bias is clouding your judgment even more than normally.
It could be that this is how the burns tie in. Jeremy may have planned to try to get police to believe that Sheila forced her father to make the call to sucker Jeremy there by burning him. He might have planted the burns for that reason. But police never came to such conclusion and if Jeremy asserted such it might give away he did it so he could not push that. Whether he planned for that or not he provided that as a reason to AE for not going there.
It shows his deceptive mind at work that he thought up such and I think is a sign he had that in mind. But it was a claim he didn't make to police or at trial because it was harmful for the reasons I mentioned including the fact that if he did think that Sheila was planning to execute everyone then he should have immediately dialed 999 not have called Julie and taken his sweet time looking up phone numbers. He realized it was not a helpful claim so he didn't repeat it in the future he only made it to AE.
2. Where does it say that on the 6th August that he had wanted to teach Sheila how to use a gun. Its not in Jeremy's statement and there was no need to have her prints on the rifle for if he had thought this then he would have ensured that all her prints were over the rifle when he was supposed to have organised it a suicide.
Jeremy initially told police he trained her how to fire the murder weapon and that she had fired it. He dropped the claim after he realized it made him look bad and decided to match his statements to those he heard the family giving which was that she had no interest in guns and he hadn't known her to fire any. June told Pam that he was trying to teach her to load his rifle but that she had no interest in learning. Pam then told her husband of the conversation and he told police. The reason why he was trying to teach her is obvious he just wanted her to touch it to get her prints on it. He even told Julie he was scared that fresher prints got on the gun during the murders than the ones he planted thus indicating he got her to touch it in advance in an effort to get her prints on it.
Why would he teach her to shoot when she had no interest in learning? He was telling police she was crazy who teaches a crazy person to shoot? He realized it was a bad claim to have made because it is suspicious for him to have taught her so he stopped making it. He just used the claim initially to get those at the scene to believe she would be able to use it. After police were sufficiently convinced she did it he dropped the claim and meshed with that of the family that he didn't know her to shoot ever.
No one needs demonstrations on how to use guns its not rocket science and she was an adult who had be raised on a farm, a farm which in its daily life used guns. Are you telling me she never saw her father use a gun or she never saw any other person use a gun even though Sheila and Colin had been beaters up on a shot in Scotland?
This is a very stupid claim in light of out past debates. It demonstrates bias on your part that prevents you from facing the issue honestly. I have repeatedly noted that just because you see someone use a shotgun or bolt action rifle doesn't mean you will know how to load, unload and fire the weapon you saw operated let alone a semi-auto rifle which functions DIFFERENTLY. Until I made a big deal about it no one here (except perhaps NGB) even knew that the first round had to be manually fed into the chamber to get the weapon to work. No one here would have been able to get it to fire before it could be taken away let alone would know how to release the magazine in order to be able to then reload it.
I even posted an example of someone who grew up around shotguns who tried to kill US President Ford but failed because she didn't know the semi-auto she was using needed to have the first round manually chambered first before so when she pulled the trigger the gun didn't fire and she was disarmed before she could figure out what was wrong she though it just misfired.
You ignore this because you don't want to admit that Sheila would not have known how to use the gun and that had she slapped a magazine in it would not have gone off and Nevill would have been able to disarm her before she could ever figure out why it didn't fire. The gun also had a safety and if it was engaged that would be another problem she would have to deal with.
A girlfriend of one of my friends tried to open the cylinder of a revolver by pulling on the ejector rod like in the manner that cap guns that use disc caps opens. She couldn't figure out how to open it in order to reload it, we gave it to her loaded already and showed her how to shoot not how to unload it. Eventually we had to show her there is a thumb latch that push to the left in order to open it. People who were never taught about weapons have problems figuring out how to work the. We laughed but it is not as if we called her an idiot, guns have different designs and naturally one had to be trained to figure out how to work the properly.
You have this attitude that anyone can instantly know how to load, unload and fire any weapon in existence the first time they set out to use a weapon of any kind without needed any training of any kind. That is far from the case and while people can potentially figure it out given enough time that is dangerous both because they could unintentionally hurt themselves and others plus if someone is being confronted it would provide the opportunity for the person being confronted to disarm them.
Jeremy has never used the fact that he could have lured to WHF this would mean that his father was forced at gunpoint....and that is not what Jeremy had said and no one has ever said it....
He used it on AE but realized it was a damaging argument so didn't make it at trial or to police. Why was he telling different things to different people at different times? That is a signal he is not tellign the truth.
We are talking 1985 there was no reason for dailing 999 when all he had to do was call his local nick. Even if he had called 999 whose headquarters were next door to the nick it would have made no difference to the time any officers arrived at the scene....none at all.
The whole reason 999 exists is because it is an EASY number to remember. It exists so that people don't need to waste time looking for a phonebook to look up police station numbers. It is reserved for emergencies so that instead of waiting on hold to ge tthrough to someone who handles everything under the Sun that you speak to someone who handles emergencies. That is why 999 calls are taped but others are not.
You claim calling 999 would not have been faster than wasting time to look up the number of a station that ended up being empty is absurd. He wasted many minutes looking up 2 different police stations numbers and dialing waiting for someone to answer at the first station. He lost more time as the station he did get through to had to call the 999 operator anyway. It would have been much faster speaking directly from the 999 operator himself from the outset. After finding out the first station was unmanned so he got no answer he should have feared more stations would be unmanned because of the time of night and surely should have dialed 999 at that point. Nope he just looked up another number causally. He had no sense of urgency and thus exhibited no genuine sense of concern. If he had been genuinely concerned he would have rushed over or would have instantly dialed 999 nto have called Julie then wasted time looking up numbers. While you choose to ignore this because of bias you should try taking the blinders off to see how it looks to those who are not objective and not in the tank for Jeremy. Those are the people you have to try finding a way to convince and saying that dialing 999 would not be faster than looking up numbers and hoping to eventually find one where someone will be there to answer flops.
1985 is not different from now except we don't even use phonebooks much anymore and they are significantly smaller than phonebooks of old. Phonebooks of old we used as targets to shoot at the modern ones are way too skinny.
-
We don't know the rest of the conversation or see what body language was given....Its difficult to access what and how it was said...The fact is nothing was ever made of it. :-\
AE confirms that Jeremy said he put the rifle on the settle, yet police say the kitchen table....I'd like to know what Jones said in his statement of where he said he put the rifle for AE said he was present when he told her he had put it on the settle....I shall take a look.
Out of the 6 persons in situ at WHF there remained only 1 who could give any information. Therefore, whatever information THEY gave would have come from Jeremy and I feel perfectly certain that had they made any errors about what was left where, had he believed it to be important, undoubtedly, Jeremy would have said so.
-
We don't know the rest of the conversation or see what body language was given....Its difficult to access what and how it was said...The fact is nothing was ever made of it. :-\
AE confirms that Jeremy said he put the rifle on the settle, yet police say the kitchen table....I'd like to know what Jones said in his statement of where he said he put the rifle for AE said he was present when he told her he had put it on the settle....I shall take a look.
He told the initial responders he left the rifle on the kitchen table. After the bodies were found and he was questioned at Goldhanger by different police he changed it to the settle because he thought that would be more credible that his parents might have left it there. They would have been far less likely to not put it away if he left it on the table plus would have likely confronted him about leaving it there.
It is not as if he told just one of the responders he left it on the table he said it over and over again to those he spoke to just like he told them over and over that he he had taught her how to shoot the murder weapon and that she fired all weapons in the house.
He changed claims as time went on, on purpose and those changes help show his deception.
-
Police were worried about Jeremy's safety so they told him to go to the potential crime scene? That makes no sense at all. They would have told him to stay home if they were worried that his safety would be in jeopardy at WHF. Jeremy was told to go to WHF because he was the one who summoned the police. They didn't want to just wake up the occupants in what could potentially be a prank call. Furthermore they wanted him there to be able to provide all relevant information he possessed to the police.
Jeremy told AE that he was worried for his safety and that is why he didn't rush over to WHF but instead called police. But he went beyond simply claiming he was worried about his safety he claimed he was worried that Sheila forced Nevill to make the call in order to lure him there so she could murder him as well as the other family members. So he was claiming that at the time of the call he feared Sheila was planning to execute the entire family but one member was missing- Jeremy so Sheila forced Nevill to call Jeremy to get him there so she would be able to execute him along with them. WHY would he think based upon the call he claimed to receive that she planned to execute everyone and thus forced Nevill to lure him there? If you can't see how damning such a claim is then your bias is clouding your judgment even more than normally.
It could be that this is how the burns tie in. Jeremy may have planned to try to get police to believe that Sheila forced her father to make the call to sucker Jeremy there by burning him. He might have planted the burns for that reason. But police never came to such conclusion and if Jeremy asserted such it might give away he did it so he could not push that. Whether he planned for that or not he provided that as a reason to AE for not going there.
It shows his deceptive mind at work that he thought up such and I think is a sign he had that in mind. But it was a claim he didn't make to police or at trial because it was harmful for the reasons I mentioned including the fact that if he did think that Sheila was planning to execute everyone then he should have immediately dialed 999 not have called Julie and taken his sweet time looking up phone numbers. He realized it was not a helpful claim so he didn't repeat it in the future he only made it to AE.
Jeremy initially told police he trained her how to fire the murder weapon and that she had fired it. He dropped the claim after he realized it made him look bad and decided to match his statements to those he heard the family giving which was that she had no interest in guns and he hadn't known her to fire any. June told Pam that he was trying to teach her to load his rifle but that she had no interest in learning. Pam then told her husband of the conversation and he told police. The reason why he was trying to teach her is obvious he just wanted her to touch it to get her prints on it. He even told Julie he was scared that fresher prints got on the gun during the murders than the ones he planted thus indicating he got her to touch it in advance in an effort to get her prints on it.
Why would he teach her to shoot when she had no interest in learning? He was telling police she was crazy who teaches a crazy person to shoot? He realized it was a bad claim to have made because it is suspicious for him to have taught her so he stopped making it. He just used the claim initially to get those at the scene to believe she would be able to use it. After police were sufficiently convinced she did it he dropped the claim and meshed with that of the family that he didn't know her to shoot ever.
This is a very stupid claim in light of out past debates. It demonstrates bias on your part that prevents you from facing the issue honestly. I have repeatedly noted that just because you see someone use a shotgun or bolt action rifle doesn't mean you will know how to load, unload and fire the weapon you saw operated let alone a semi-auto rifle which functions DIFFERENTLY. Until I made a big deal about it no one here (except perhaps NGB) even knew that the first round had to be manually fed into the chamber to get the weapon to work. No one here would have been able to get it to fire before it could be taken away let alone would know how to release the magazine in order to be able to then reload it.
I even posted an example of someone who grew up around shotguns who tried to kill US President Ford but failed because she didn't know the semi-auto she was using needed to have the first round manually chambered first before so when she pulled the trigger the gun didn't fire and she was disarmed before she could figure out what was wrong she though it just misfired.
You ignore this because you don't want to admit that Sheila would not have known how to use the gun and that had she slapped a magazine in it would not have gone off and Nevill would have been able to disarm her before she could ever figure out why it didn't fire. The gun also had a safety and if it was engaged that would be another problem she would have to deal with.
A girlfriend of one of my friends tried to open the cylinder of a revolver by pulling on the ejector rod like in the manner that cap guns that use disc caps opens. She couldn't figure out how to open it in order to reload it, we gave it to her loaded already and showed her how to shoot not how to unload it. Eventually we had to show her there is a thumb latch that push to the left in order to open it. People who were never taught about weapons have problems figuring out how to work the. We laughed but it is not as if we called her an idiot, guns have different designs and naturally one had to be trained to figure out how to work the properly.
You have this attitude that anyone can instantly know how to load, unload and fire any weapon in existence the first time they set out to use a weapon of any kind without needed any training of any kind. That is far from the case and while people can potentially figure it out given enough time that is dangerous both because they could unintentionally hurt themselves and others plus if someone is being confronted it would provide the opportunity for the person being confronted to disarm them.
He used it on AE but realized it was a damaging argument so didn't make it at trial or to police. Why was he telling different things to different people at different times? That is a signal he is not tellign the truth.
The whole reason 999 exists is because it is an EASY number to remember. It exists so that people don't need to waste time looking for a phonebook to look up police station numbers. It is reserved for emergencies so that instead of waiting on hold to ge tthrough to someone who handles everything under the Sun that you speak to someone who handles emergencies. That is why 999 calls are taped but others are not.
You claim calling 999 would not have been faster than wasting time to look up the number of a station that ended up being empty is absurd. He wasted many minutes looking up 2 different police stations numbers and dialing waiting for someone to answer at the first station. He lost more time as the station he did get through to had to call the 999 operator anyway. It would have been much faster speaking directly from the 999 operator himself from the outset. After finding out the first station was unmanned so he got no answer he should have feared more stations would be unmanned because of the time of night and surely should have dialed 999 at that point. Nope he just looked up another number causally. He had no sense of urgency and thus exhibited no genuine sense of concern. If he had been genuinely concerned he would have rushed over or would have instantly dialed 999 nto have called Julie then wasted time looking up numbers. While you choose to ignore this because of bias you should try taking the blinders off to see how it looks to those who are not objective and not in the tank for Jeremy. Those are the people you have to try finding a way to convince and saying that dialing 999 would not be faster than looking up numbers and hoping to eventually find one where someone will be there to answer flops.
1985 is not different from now except we don't even use phonebooks much anymore and they are significantly smaller than phonebooks of old. Phonebooks of old we used as targets to shoot at the modern ones are way too skinny.
So glad you said that because we have been told that Jeremy had set the scene...yet you say the police were not worried or they would not have sent him to the crime scene...
So Jeremy's call did not worry them enough to think it was unsafe for him to attend the farm even though he had told them that he had a call from his father telling him that Sheila had got the gun...Even, though he had told the police of all the weapons that were inside the house....They were not convinced were they? Otherwise they would have not allowed him to go to the farm...
-
So glad you said that because we have been told that Jeremy had set the scene...yet you say the police were not worried or they would not have sent him to the crime scene...
So Jeremy's call did not worry them enough to think it was unsafe for him to attend the farm even though he had told them that he had a call from his father telling him that Sheila had got the gun...Even, though he had told the police of all the weapons that were inside the house....They were not convinced were they? Otherwise they would have not allowed him to go to the farm...
Who else was there who could give them information on the lay out and room configuration at WHF. He was THERE with police enough to ensure his safety and they didn't try and force him through the door.
-
So glad you said that because we have been told that Jeremy had set the scene...yet you say the police were not worried or they would not have sent him to the crime scene...
So Jeremy's call did not worry them enough to think it was unsafe for him to attend the farm even though he had told them that he had a call from his father telling him that Sheila had got the gun...Even, though he had told the police of all the weapons that were inside the house....They were not convinced were they? Otherwise they would have not allowed him to go to the farm...
Police often respond to domestic situations where it is reported people have weapons and are threatening others. They don't know what to expect until they get there and talk to the person who called them. In this instance they were not called by someone currently on scene. He was their only contact so they told him to go there so he could fill police in. There was no suggestion that there was a gunman running around outside the farm looking for people to shoot so there was no danger seen in him going there. It was seen as a potential hostage situation for those inside.
Most people receiving a call like Jeremy claimed to receive would at minimum rush over to try looking inside the windows to try to observe what was going on if not entering. Not Jeremy he wasted time on the phone with Julie and looking up police numbers and eventually went over only because police wanted him there. While there did he try to spy in the Windows or knock on the door or anything? No Did he demand Saxby, Bews and yall go inside to see what was going on? No he just hung out calmly first feeding lies about Sheila using all the guns in the house and telling them how crazy she was then talking about guy stuff once he was done with the business talk.
You close your eyes to this because you are in the tank for Jeremy but that presents a problem because unless you look at things the way objective parties do then you can't even begin to try to find a way to try dealing with such problems. Failing to recognize problems exist or pretending they don' exist doesn't make them go away. None of his actions are consistent with receiving a phone call he claims to have received.
When you add this to the other evidence against him is it quite bad. This is not the determinative evidence- it is just supplemental evidence that complements and accords with the rest of the evidence against him.
-
He was answering the questions that the police were asking - and they themselves said that they told Jeremy what they were doing and how they were going to approach the situation.
You are saying Jeremy should have rushed in to help - and yet it is ok for the police to spend hours outside without going in when they had all the experience and equipment. They also spent hours trying to speak to silence apparently.
-
Well, his father asked him to come over so maybe he should have done that? What he shouldn't have done (if you believe the timings he NOW gives) is sit there for 26 mins doing SFA.
Of course perhaps he should have done that. Its all so easy in retrospect.
-
He did go to WHF. After calling the police and Julie.
He will say he called the police and didn't go alone because of what Neville said.
He didn't call 999 because he said he thought it wouldn't make any difference in how quick they would be.
He didn't go into WHF after arriving because the police would have advised him not to.
Jeremy can just say these things over and over. It doesn't make him guilty or innocent.
I think Carolines point is that you should look carefully at what he says in case he makes a "slip"
In that respect it could prove something.
But in this could be just that he was a coward who made a mistake when he got the call and should have done what his father asked him. But being a coward does not make him a murderer either.
A man should not be tried on his character .
-
"None of his actions are consistent with receiving a phone call he claims to have received."
I don't see how this is factual. It is assumption on how a person will react to a call.
we are all different and will react differently .
He made the decision to call the police - probably hoping they would go with him and help calm the situation. He did what they asked and met them there . He was then under their instruction and did beg them to go in at one stage . If you are going to use that argument then none of his actions are consistent with a man that had just a few hours before committed a bloody massacre and destroyed every bit of forensic evidence either.
-
He was answering the questions that the police were asking - and they themselves said that they told Jeremy what they were doing and how they were going to approach the situation.
You are saying Jeremy should have rushed in to help - and yet it is ok for the police to spend hours outside without going in when they had all the experience and equipment. They also spent hours trying to speak to silence apparently.
All the alleged call from Nevill required of Jeremy was to EITHER get himself to WHF OR get someone else there, FAST!!! He actually did neither. He diddled! Easiest thing in the world would have been to dial 999. NOT Jeremy. He diddled his way through a phone book to find SUB police stations which weren't manned 24/7 and at some point rang Julie. There was NO sense of urgency about these calls -apart from commenting "Christ, it took you long enough"- indeed the term "laconic" was used of him.....................yet despite this laissez faire attitude he was apparently afraid to go to the farm in cas "Sheila shot me, too".
The police were entitled to take their time, They had the safety of others to consider AND were being guided by Jeremy whose tales of a mentally deranged sister who could use every firearm in the house would SURELY have prevented them from making unnecessary moves.
-
All this has been discussed before.
Everyone knows Bamber's actions after the 'mysterious' call from Neville were extremely erratic and incriminating. Threads already created.
-
"None of his actions are consistent with receiving a phone call he claims to have received."
I don't see how this is factual. It is assumption on how a person will react to a call.
we are all different and will react differently .
He made the decision to call the police - probably hoping they would go with him and help calm the situation. He did what they asked and met them there . He was then under their instruction and did beg them to go in at one stage . If you are going to use that argument then none of his actions are consistent with a man that had just a few hours before committed a bloody massacre and destroyed every bit of forensic evidence either.
"We are all different and will react differently" -I agree, but are you applying that JUST to Jeremy or every convicted prisoner. If it's the latter we surely, on those grounds, have to give the benefit of the doubt to the majority who are incarcerated.
Given how long he diddled at home he gave a remarkably good performance, at the scene, of being distraught.
-
"We are all different and will react differently" -I agree, but are you applying that JUST to Jeremy or every convicted prisoner. If it's the latter we surely, on those grounds, have to give the benefit of the doubt to the majority who are incarcerated.
Given how long he diddled at home he gave a remarkably good performance, at the scene, of being distraught.
No only those where there is no evidence linking them to the crime (:
-
We don't know the rest of the conversation or see what body language was given....Its difficult to access what and how it was said...The fact is nothing was ever made of it. :-\
There is nothing to make of it, Patti. What we do know is that Ann Eaton was looking for evidence of Jeremy's guilt and she appears to read far too much into the answers to her leading questions. Her evident bias makes her an unreliable source of what Jeremy purportedly said, especially as this statement was given with the intent of incriminating Jeremy.
Discussing why he made this "freudian slip" without context or corroboration from anyone other than AE is jumping the gun. We don't really know whether he said what is claimed, or if he did, in what context but others appear willing to accept that a conversation recalled one month later is a verbatim account and treat it as fact.
-
All this has been discussed before.
Everyone knows Bamber's actions after the 'mysterious' call from Neville were extremely erratic and incriminating. Threads already created.
No that is not true. It is interpretation of his behaviour based on statements - many of which were not made until a month later and covering up for the fact that "allegedly" the police had been duped good and proper and made a massive mistake.
Have you ever seen Jeremy actually questioned about how he felt or reacted on the night?
He definitely denied he said some of the things that the police attributed to him.
-
He was answering the questions that the police were asking - and they themselves said that they told Jeremy what they were doing and how they were going to approach the situation.
You are saying Jeremy should have rushed in to help - and yet it is ok for the police to spend hours outside without going in when they had all the experience and equipment. They also spent hours trying to speak to silence apparently.
Police act rationally not emotionally. They feared there were hostages inside and that rushing in could result in the hostages being shot. They were fed lies about there being an arsenal in the house which Sheila had used in the past.
An emotional person would have gone over and went inside, especially since Sheila was not known to have any interest in guns and had not used them before. Certainly an emotional person would want to at minimum look in the windows to try to see or hear something not to be too scared to even approach a window.
He was not acting emotionally he was aloof and there is a DISCONNECT because on one hand he claimed he was too scared to go over (and even feared some master plan by Sheila to sucker him there) and yet if that were the case he should have had enough concern to immediately dial 999 not to call Julie and then waste time looking up numbers in a phonebook.
While those in the tank for Jeremy are too blinded to see this Jeremy's lawyers were not and at trial he tried to explain his behavior by saying that he initially didn't think there was any emergency, Sheila had been delusional in the past without incident but after thinking about Nevill's words it suddenly hit him that there was a major problem and he had better call police. Then after that he claimed he called Julie because he was troubled. But the evidence that he called Julie before police is strong and his whole construct falls apart under scrutiny.
-
"We are all different and will react differently" -I agree, but are you applying that JUST to Jeremy or every convicted prisoner. If it's the latter we surely, on those grounds, have to give the benefit of the doubt to the majority who are incarcerated.
Given how long he diddled at home he gave a remarkably good performance, at the scene, of being distraught.
Not so good a job at first according to the Appeal Decision:
"Having walked to the house from the lane there was further conversation. The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year."
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
-
There is nothing to make of it, Patti. What we do know is that Ann Eaton was looking for evidence of Jeremy's guilt and she appears to read far too much into the answers to her leading questions. Her evident bias makes her an unreliable source of what Jeremy purportedly said, especially as this statement was given with the intent of incriminating Jeremy.
Discussing why he made this "freudian slip" without context or corroboration from anyone other than AE is jumping the gun. We don't really know whether he said what is claimed, or if he did, in what context but others appear willing to accept that a conversation recalled one month later is a verbatim account and treat it as fact.
She had no reason to make it up. He had a history of lying in contrast and did indeed tell different things to different people. Objective people will believe it. That of course leaves you out. But how biased people choose to view everything in this case is meaningless what matters is how objective people including objective jurors and judges view things.
-
Jeremy's reason for calling Julie does not make sense.
He said 'no comment' when asked in his police interview.
However when testifying he said he 'wanted to hear a friendly voice'.
His father had just rang and said 'please come over, Sheila's gone crazy and she's got the gun'. Yet he was calm enough to decide be wanted to hear a friendly voice. After he had spoken to the police.
-
" Remarkably calm"---------------better than agitated ? Can you tell me how he was supposed to have been,given that we've ALL got our own individual ways of dealing with situations.?
-
No that is not true. It is interpretation of his behaviour based on statements - many of which were not made until a month later and covering up for the fact that "allegedly" the police had been duped good and proper and made a massive mistake.
Have you ever seen Jeremy actually questioned about how he felt or reacted on the night?
He definitely denied he said some of the things that the police attributed to him.
His denials are not credible though. The chance of so many different officers making the same error or up the same stories is unlikely. They had no reason to make such things up and wrote the things early on.
-
Police act rationally not emotionally. They feared there were hostages inside and that rushing in could result in the hostages being shot. They were fed lies about there being an arsenal in the house which Sheila had used in the past.
An emotional person would have gone over and went inside, especially since Sheila was not known to have any interest in guns and had not used them before. Certainly an emotional person would want to at minimum look in the windows to try to see or hear something not to be too scared to even approach a window.
He was not acting emotionally he was aloof and there is a DISCONNECT because on one hand he claimed he was too scared to go over (and even feared some master plan by Sheila to sucker him there) and yet if that were the case he should have had enough concern to immediately dial 999 not to call Julie and then waste time looking up numbers in a phonebook.
While those in the tank for Jeremy are too blinded to see this Jeremy's lawyers were not and at trial he tried to explain his behavior by saying that he initially didn't think there was any emergency, Sheila had been delusional in the past without incident but after thinking about Nevill's words it suddenly hit him that there was a major problem and he had better call police. Then after that he claimed he called Julie because he was troubled. But the evidence that he called Julie before police is strong and his whole construct falls apart under scrutiny.
1) he gave a list of guns that were in the house - were any of those not in there? If not he was not telling lies. ( AP gun does not count because he contradicted himself)
2) He denied he told the police she had used everyone of the guns - and that comment only arrived as an accusation after he was suspected
3) you are basing your opinions with an assumption that british police never lie to get their man. Well there is plenty of evidence including their own admissions to prove that is definitely NOT a fact.
-
Police act rationally not emotionally. They feared there were hostages inside and that rushing in could result in the hostages being shot. They were fed lies about there being an arsenal in the house which Sheila had used in the past.
An emotional person would have gone over and went inside, especially since Sheila was not known to have any interest in guns and had not used them before. Certainly an emotional person would want to at minimum look in the windows to try to see or hear something not to be too scared to even approach a window.
He was not acting emotionally he was aloof and there is a DISCONNECT because on one hand he claimed he was too scared to go over (and even feared some master plan by Sheila to sucker him there) and yet if that were the case he should have had enough concern to immediately dial 999 not to call Julie and then waste time looking up numbers in a phonebook.
While those in the tank for Jeremy are too blinded to see this Jeremy's lawyers were not and at trial he tried to explain his behavior by saying that he initially didn't think there was any emergency, Sheila had been delusional in the past without incident but after thinking about Nevill's words it suddenly hit him that there was a major problem and he had better call police. Then after that he claimed he called Julie because he was troubled. But the evidence that he called Julie before police is strong and his whole construct falls apart under scrutiny.
police act rationaly have you actully ever met a policeman
-
" Remarkably calm"---------------better than agitated ? Can you tell me how he was supposed to have been,given that we've ALL got our own individual ways of dealing with situations.?
Someone actually concerned about the occupants would be demanding police go inside and trying to observe through windows and asking them to call the house to see if they could or go knock on the door/plead with police to knock on the door. He waited along time before finally putting on an act so that he could use that as an excuse to call Julie to tell her not to go to work so she could speak to police on his behalf after the bodies are finally discovered.
After they were found he didn't have survivor guilt. Most people in his place would and that is before even taking into account his claim he is the one who left the bullets, loaded magazine and gun out that allegedly Sheila encountered and used because this weapon of opportunity was there. This is one of the red flags to the family- that he never told them he blamed himself and regretted leaving the gun out and had survivor guilt. He was an inconsistent actor.
-
police act rationaly have you actully ever met a policeman
This is a perfect example of your own biases that prevent you from being rational in any case we discuss. Your attitude is all police are bad no one should ever be convicted...it basically renders your behavior trollish.
-
how do we know he never told them that he might of done they might of forgotton.
-
policeman are people they are no more rational than anybody else.
there not a seprate specious they act emotionally and iratanioly like everybidy elese does.
-
Jeremy's reason for calling Julie does not make sense.
He said 'no comment' when asked in his police interview.
However when testifying he said he 'wanted to hear a friendly voice'.
His father had just rang and said 'please come over, Sheila's gone crazy and she's got the gun'. Yet he was calm enough to decide be wanted to hear a friendly voice. After he had spoken to the police.
I will be honest with you Adam ( not that you will return the favour) I am not sure in what order he made the calls . But he did change the order after the police said they could prove what times he made the calls ( a lie) . He had been questioned for many hours - and was actually asked them to check calls to prove his innocence ( he thought they could)
It was possible his first statement was correct and he called her after the police - because all the original timings in her statement and his and for the police seem to tie up.
Or did he call her first for advice? ( big mistake) and then realise that looked really bad ( in retrospect) when he found his family were all dead - so he panicked and lied ?
I am not sure - because Julie was allowed to change her times and so were the officers - which muddies the waters completely.
As I said the police said he became very agitated with the delay - so perhaps he felt they would just rush over and help straight away - as he had not told them any shots had been fired.
And remember this - If he was guilty they would have arrived at a house - quiet / no shouting /no shooting / no movement / no voices
And he only answered the questions he was asked - so you would think as a guilty man he would have assumed they would have gone in straight away.
-
This is a perfect example of your own biases that prevent you from being rational in any case we discuss. Your attitude is all police are bad no one should ever be convicted...it basically renders your behavior trollish.
That is not what was said at all .
We are all aware that in the 80s there were good and bad police - I can show you proof if you want.
But in a recent documentary they admitted that in the 80s the "fit up" was rife. And trust me you would not dare to "whistle blow"
Try not to twist peoples comments to suit your agenda .
And as for trollish - that is just ridiculous.
-
This is a perfect example of your own biases that prevent you from being rational in any case we discuss. Your attitude is all police are bad no one should ever be convicted...it basically renders your behavior trollish.
I repeat your posts are based on the assumption that every statement by the police in this case was 100% truthful. Well even some of the guilters think the silencer was not used - so how do you find where the truth is told and where it is blurred?
-
1) he gave a list of guns that were in the house - were any of those not in there? If not he was not telling lies. ( AP gun does not count because he contradicted himself)
2) He denied he told the police she had used everyone of the guns - and that comment only arrived as an accusation after he was suspected
3) you are basing your opinions with an assumption that british police never lie to get their man. Well there is plenty of evidence including their own admissions to prove that is definitely NOT a fact.
Jan, I agree unequivocally that police have been known to lie -even our BRITISH police!!!!- but I find it inconceivable that the whole of Essex Division, the relatives, the forensic team et al should all lie because it was decided -at ground level- to withhold, from Jeremy, the fact that his father had called them previously, on the grounds that they may wish to frame him for a crime that they already had a culprit for. It makes no sense at all.....................IMO
-
the whole of essex division were not involved in the investigation thats a gross exageration.
we are talking about a tint few poliman here.
how many policeman lied about hillsbourgh,
-
the whole of essex division were not involved in the investigation thats a gross exageration.
Thank-you for clarifying that, Nugs ;)
-
1) he gave a list of guns that were in the house - were any of those not in there? If not he was not telling lies. ( AP gun does not count because he contradicted himself)
Because who contradicted himself? He claimed there was a large collection of shotguns and 22 rifles. There ended up being a 12 bore shotgun, 2 .410 shotguns, a pellet rifle and the 22LR. 4 firearms and an airgun.
2) He denied he told the police she had used everyone of the guns - and that comment only arrived as an accusation after he was suspected
3) you are basing your opinions with an assumption that british police never lie to get their man. Well there is plenty of evidence including their own admissions to prove that is definitely NOT a fact.
No I am basing my assumptions on evidence while you decide that the police are untrustworthy anytime they say something damaging to Jeremy. The objective way to look at it is to require evidence the police are lying. That is the way it works. You have none. It wasn't just one cop but MANY different cops who Jeremy told Sheila had fired all weapons in the house and that he trained her how to use the murder weapon. Why would they all get together and make up the claim he said that to them? Making it up would serve no purpose. Mercer the dog handler barely had dealings with the other officers why would he make it up? He said while in the car talking to Jeremy that he asked Jeremy if she knew how to fire the murder weapon. His statement reads that Jeremy said to him, "I've taken her out a couple of times and shown her". Why would he make it up? How could he have misinterpreted this?
The statement of the police are much more credible than Jeremy's denials since they had no reason to lie and there were so many of them against his word where he did have a reason to lie. Your biased subjective opinion doesn't change the objective view.
-
Jan, I agree unequivocally that police have been known to lie -even our BRITISH police!!!!- but I find it inconceivable that the whole of Essex Division, the relatives, the forensic team et al should all lie because it was decided -at ground level- to withhold, from Jeremy, the fact that his father had called them previously, on the grounds that they may wish to frame him for a crime that they already had a culprit for. It makes no sense at all.....................IMO
I have never said that I believe that call did happen.
But I can totally understand why the logs would be used in an attempt to bring attention to the case.
And I could not understand why if the police made a mistake on the night and it was convenient for them to go with the murder suicide - why they would change track. However I do think the family did have " friends" in high places and certain influence ( if you know what I mean) so the choices may have been taken out of their hands.
If I did not still have questions I would not be here.
-
I repeat your posts are based on the assumption that every statement by the police in this case was 100% truthful. Well even some of the guilters think the silencer was not used - so how do you find where the truth is told and where it is blurred?
I approach this from the proper standpoint which is that police are presumed to be honest unless proven otherwise. The burden is on you to prove otherwise and when you have MULTIPLE police who spoke to Jeremy at different times saying the same thing it helps establish he did in fact say such things.
Jeremy supporters instead decide that police are untrustworthy and nothing should be believed except those things favorable to Jeremy. It is an absurd position to take.
It helps explain why average Jeremy supporters have no chance in hell of establishing Jeremy's innocence to an objective, informed internet poster let alone an Appellate court. You don't understand what evidence must be refuted let alone try to figure out a way how to refute it. You just ignore everything unfavorable as if they makes it go away.
The burden is on you to prove the police lied just saying different police have on occasion lied doesn't in any way establish it is reasonably likely any of the police in this case lied about anything.
-
I have never said that I believe that call did happen.
But I can totally understand why the logs would be used in an attempt to bring attention to the case.
And I could not understand why if the police made a mistake on the night and it was convenient for them to go with the murder suicide - why they would change track. However I do think the family did have " friends" in high places and certain influence ( if you know what I mean) so the choices may have been taken out of their hands.
If I did not still have questions I would not be here.
You are suggesting that the police should have been stupid and stuck with a theory that they knew was wrong just to save face even after Julie came forward and the lab revealed they were wrong. That would be wrongdoing on their part.
The Critical part of the Dickinson report that deals with all the things that resulted in police being forced to change course was conveniently omitted from the version released publicly by a Jeremy supporter (which Harters copied to post here). The report went day by day discussing the updates int he case but the key September updates where the bullets were processed by the lab and moderator processed and Julie's claims discussed were all intentionally left out.
No one knows for sure what DCI Jones would have done if he were still in charge when these developments came about. No one can say for sure he would have decided to ignore them to save face. It seems silly to speculate whether he would have done the right thing or not.
-
Someone actually concerned about the occupants would be demanding police go inside and trying to observe through windows and asking them to call the house to see if they could or go knock on the door/plead with police to knock on the door. He waited along time before finally putting on an act so that he could use that as an excuse to call Julie to tell her not to go to work so she could speak to police on his behalf after the bodies are finally discovered.
After they were found he didn't have survivor guilt. Most people in his place would and that is before even taking into account his claim he is the one who left the bullets, loaded magazine and gun out that allegedly Sheila encountered and used because this weapon of opportunity was there. This is one of the red flags to the family- that he never told them he blamed himself and regretted leaving the gun out and had survivor guilt. He was an inconsistent actor.
I'm afraid Jeremy wouldn't have been overly familiar with the way police operated and would have seen them as upholders of the law,so were to be obeyed In other words,you don't tell THEM what THEY should,or should not be doing. There's no other way of putting this,but the law will only do what they themselves think fit,and not what you ask/request them to do.
I bet his thoughts are a lot different now as regards the law as it stands,as he looks back and wishes he'd been more forceful towards them. Contrary to what you and others might think,but Jeremy was a gentle soul who wouldn't have said boo to a goose so was less likely to have given the police an " out of character " performance of stamping feet and abuse.
For all we know,Jeremy might have asked questions while he was in the courtyard with the police,but they're not likely to speak up at this late stage,are they ? Even if Jeremy says himself that he was pleading,etc,nobody would believe him anyway. My own belief is that he wouldn't have just stood there like a statue completely speechless,much as the police would like you to think so. They're past-masters when it comes to twisting words,and are bigoted towards those who they think are cleverer than themselves.
-
I have never said that I believe that call did happen.
But I can totally understand why the logs would be used in an attempt to bring attention to the case.
And I could not understand why if the police made a mistake on the night and it was convenient for them to go with the murder suicide - why they would change track. However I do think the family did have " friends" in high places and certain influence ( if you know what I mean) so the choices may have been taken out of their hands.
If I did not still have questions I would not be here.
I think there's a HUGE irony about this Jan. I have never moved from my position of belief that he wasn't seen to be "One of us." I believe it sprung from RWB who indoctrinated Ann and David with his thoughts, but I believe it bypassed Pam. With her it may have been a question of "If I can't say anything nice I won't say anything" and June was her sister, after all.
For WHATEVER reason, I believe they thought Jeremy was guilty and actually for all he said, ACTIONS speak louder and he gave them no good reason to think otherwise. On top of which, I believe that the possibility of him BEING guilty may have been like a guilty secret that they hugged to themselves, hopefully, after all, it was hardly seemly to accuse one's nephew/cousin so perhaps they got round it by saying that Sheila couldn't possibly have done it. The initial reasons for disliking Jeremy were never of his making. He was a child. However, as he got older, I don't think he made any attempt to change things and probably treated them with the contempt he believed them to treat him.
-
I will be honest with you Adam ( not that you will return the favour) I am not sure in what order he made the calls . But he did change the order after the police said they could prove what times he made the calls ( a lie) . He had been questioned for many hours - and was actually asked them to check calls to prove his innocence ( he thought they could)
It was possible his first statement was correct and he called her after the police - because all the original timings in her statement and his and for the police seem to tie up.
Or did he call her first for advice? ( big mistake) and then realise that looked really bad ( in retrospect) when he found his family were all dead - so he panicked and lied ?
There was insufficient time to call her after he finally got off the phone with the police. Moreover, in none of her accounts not even those where she was trying to help him did she claim he told her he had called police. It makes no sense to call her and tell her he needs consoling instead of getting dressed to go meet police like was requested. It is quite obviously he called her first and did so because he was excited and didn't give a crap about her but cared about himself so didn't mind waking her. He was excited and also erroneously thought it would help support his alibi to call her and claim he received a call from WHF reporting trouble. Instead it just looks like he was trying to bolster a nonexistent alibi because someone in his place would not be calling her at all. They would be busy dressing and going to WHF. But he was already dressed he had changed into his PJs to go to sleep ever. He had previously changed out of the clothes he committed the murders in into fresh clothes.
I am not sure - because Julie was allowed to change her times and so were the officers - which muddies the waters completely.
Julie consulted with her roomates and then reported the timing they provided. Their timing makes clear the call came well before police were called. In fact times before even Jeremy claimed that Nevill phoned. All of them make clear the call can't have come after 3:30am and most likely came much earlier. Jeremy was on the phone with police from prior to 3:26 until close to 3:40. That means there is no way his call to Julie was after the call to police.
As I said the police said he became very agitated with the delay - so perhaps he felt they would just rush over and help straight away - as he had not told them any shots had been fired.
He faked the agitation after a long period he wasn't agitated when he should have been and it was jsut an excuse to call Julie so he could tell her not to go to work so that she could talk to police on his behalf to help protect him.
And remember this - If he was guilty they would have arrived at a house - quiet / no shouting /no shooting / no movement / no voices
And he only answered the questions he was asked - so you would think as a guilty man he would have assumed they would have gone in straight away.
There was never any noise from the house or any movements seen. Everyone was dead before police ever arrived.
-
I approach this from the proper standpoint which is that police are presumed to be honest unless proven otherwise. The burden is on you to prove otherwise and when you have MULTIPLE police who spoke to Jeremy at different times saying the same thing it helps establish he did in fact say such things.
Jeremy supporters instead decide that police are untrustworthy and nothing should be believed except those things favorable to Jeremy. It is an absurd position to take.
It helps explain why average Jeremy supporters have no chance in hell of establishing Jeremy's innocence to an objective, informed internet poster let alone an Appellate court. You don't understand what evidence must be refuted let alone try to figure out a way how to refute it. You just ignore everything unfavorable as if they makes it go away.
The burden is on you to prove the police lied just saying different police have on occasion lied doesn't in any way establish it is reasonably likely any of the police in this case lied about anything.
Again you are generalising to prove a point - I never said everything they said was a lie - where did I say that.
I did show you occasions where I thought the police had bent the truth - on several occasions - your answer was that they were just "mistaken"
All I said was that a lot of your statements were based on the assumption that they were telling the truth. One example I believe is the "exaggeration " of what Jeremy said on the night to suit the scenario that they were duped.
If you look at what he said about Sheila using guns in his first statement then it does not agree with the September statements at all. Now if he was the one telling lies the officers ( who obviously had a debrief) would have known within two days he had lied on the night. Guess what they did not pick that up at all.
Get my point ?
Plus the two officers who were "mistaken" about Sheilas head / the gun / and the bible being in a different position?
-
There was insufficient time to call her after he finally got off the phone with the police.
It's clear that he called Julie before calling Pc West, seeking advice as to what he should do.
There was never any noise from the house or any movements seen. Everyone was dead before police ever arrived.
If that's correct (you conveniently ignore the "trick of the light" incident), the police might well have decided to gain entry quietly via a window at a much earlier stage.
-
It's clear that he called Julie before calling Pc West, seeking advice as to what he should do.
If that's correct (you conveniently ignore the "trick of the light" incident), the police might well have decided to gain entry quietly via a window at a much earlier stage.
Police said Jeremy told them he saw movement, they moved their heads and that simulated movement but they realized they didn't see a thing.
How could they quietly enter through the windows? Jeremy failed to tell them the windows could be unlocked until much later. He lied and told them there was no way inside which in itself is damning. Why did he conceal it? Because he wanted them to think there was no way in so they would believe Sheila had to have done it.
As for his call to Julie he did such for 2 reasons 1) he was excited and couldn't contain himself and wanted to share his excitement 2) he was trying to bolster his alibi by having her say he called her so this proves he had genuine concern and really received the call as he claimed.
He had no valid reason for waking her up. Calling her for advice makes little sense so that is why he lied and said he called her after.
-
The 'Crimes that shook Britain' has Jeremy as spotting someone inside WHF. Other sources have it as a police officer.
If it was Jeremy it was a pre planned deliberate lie. If it was the police, it was a mistake.
Either way everyone continued to look at the window and saw nothing.
-
The 'Crimes that shook Britain' has Jeremy as spotting someone inside WHF. Other sources have it as a police officer.
If it was Jeremy it was a pre planned deliberate lie. If it was the police, it was a mistake.
Either way everyone continued to look at the window and saw nothing.
One source is a police officer who was actually there. He said the other police officer on their round about the house saw something more - or so he thought. It was not Jeremy.
-
One source is a police officer who was actually there. He said the other police officer on their round about the house saw something more - or so he thought. It was not Jeremy.
Who?
-
According to Ps Bews, it was Pc Myall, but we can't rely on what Ps Bews said in that documentary. The relevant wording was as shown below.
As we go round, Steve Myall says "Oh, hang on, stop. I think I saw someone move." And we look up and think 'Where?' He said "That window up there." And he's indicating as we're looking at the back of the building, top right, so first floor on the right-hand side, no light coming out of the building, and I couldn't see anything. We, we look at it for a while, and I said "Are you sure you saw something move?" And he said "Well, I think so." I said "Well, let's move back." We became quite satisfied, after a couple of minutes of just moving ourselves slightly, that we could replicate the same sense of movement, and it wasn't anybody moving, it was just a trick of, literally, a trick of the light.
-
Let's remember,it was a cop who first noticed the " trick of light "----------------not Jeremy.!
-
The 'Crimes that shook Britain' has Jeremy as spotting someone inside WHF. Other sources have it as a police officer.
If it was Jeremy it was a pre planned deliberate lie. If it was the police, it was a mistake.
Either way everyone continued to look at the window and saw nothing.
How convenient .
Perhaps you should review the two videos again when the officer involved gets very confused. And why are the police allowed to make so many "mistakes" - I thought they were all professionals who knew how to handle a siege situation and protect the public?
-
How convenient .
Perhaps you should review the two videos again when the officer involved gets very confused. And why are the police allowed to make so many "mistakes" - I thought they were all professionals who knew how to handle a siege situation and protect the public?
Which is why they acted with caution, they weren't to know that everyone was already dead - Jeremy's story contributed to how the situation was handled.
-
Which is why they acted with caution, they weren't to know that everyone was already dead - Jeremy's story contributed to how the situation was handled.
Which in turn is why Jeremy didn't approach the farmhouse as others have pointed out " if it were their family " and rushed in to save them in order to save his own skin,the same as the police's view.
-
Which in turn is why Jeremy didn't approach the farmhouse as others have pointed out " if it were their family " and rushed in to save them in order to save his own skin,the same as the police's view.
Huh?
-
Again you are generalising to prove a point - I never said everything they said was a lie - where did I say that.
I did show you occasions where I thought the police had bent the truth - on several occasions - your answer was that they were just "mistaken"
All I said was that a lot of your statements were based on the assumption that they were telling the truth. One example I believe is the "exaggeration " of what Jeremy said on the night to suit the scenario that they were duped.
If you look at what he said about Sheila using guns in his first statement then it does not agree with the September statements at all. Now if he was the one telling lies the officers ( who obviously had a debrief) would have known within two days he had lied on the night. Guess what they did not pick that up at all.
Get my point ?
Plus the two officers who were "mistaken" about Sheilas head / the gun / and the bible being in a different position?
The police admitted they were WRONG in their initial reaction to the photos that the photos didn't reflect the scene as they remembered it. You ignore that time passed, they only saw her a short time and they had a lot of other things happen job wise. They decided they were wrong. You try pretending they never decided they were wrong and keep asserting they declared the photos don't match. That is dishonesty on your part. In the meantime the supposed movements of her body are inconsequential. you and other Jeremy supporters never point to anything material. She was moved by police after her blood was already dry the movements are meaningless as far as trying to use them to help the defense in any way.
Jeremy MADE UP LIES about Sheila having fired all weapons in the house and having trained her to fire the murder weapon. His lie accomplished its goal they believed she committed the murders. After thinking about it later he realized it sounded suspicious that he would have trained her to use it, that would provide an innocent reason for her fingerprints being found on the weapon plus the family said she had no interest in guns so he changed his claims to match theirs figuring the police already were convinced she did it so he no longer needed to continue with the farce. There is no way he made an innocent mistake falsely remembering he trained her and falsely remembering she fired all weapons in the house. Nor is it credible that so many cops decided to lie and pretend that on so many different occasions he said he trained her and that she fired all the weapons. Jeremy had a reason to lie they didn't.
My approach is an objective rational one while yours is a biased approach. A biased approach allows you to rationalize in your mind what you would like to believe but is worthless in helping establish your beliefs as rational let alone able to be supported by evidence. Unless supported by evidence you have no hope of even getting your claims before a court let alone any chance of convincing a court. Since objective rational people take the same approach as a court you have no chance of convincing them either.
-
Of course they had a reason to lie. They had decided to change track and get Jeremy - so with very little evidence they needed everything they could get - including elaborating what Jeremy said on the night so they did not look like fools.
If he was telling such huge porky pies then why did the police pick it up in his first statements. They knew what he had said on the night - so why not pick up the discrepancies straight away?
It seems to me your bias and conviction that he is guilty blinds you sometimes -You say you like discussion - but all you do is preach and never look at the alternative possibilities.
And I bet all the officers had another debrief before the sept statements.
-
so here you are the very obvious lie that he told to the police on the 8th which contradicts everything he told them on the night. So why did they not pick up on this immediately?
-
Of course they had a reason to lie. They had decided to change track and get Jeremy - so with very little evidence they needed everything they could get - including elaborating what Jeremy said on the night so they did not look like fools.
If he was telling such huge porky pies then why did the police pick it up in his first statements. They knew what he had said on the night - so why not pick up the discrepancies straight away?
It seems to me your bias and conviction that he is guilty blinds you sometimes -You say you like discussion - but all you do is preach and never look at the alternative possibilities.
And I bet all the officers had another debrief before the sept statements.
DCI Jones was at the scene a half hour was convinced Sheila did it and that was the end of it for hi, he didn't care about the kinds of discrepancies raised to him including evidence that Jeremy lied about the gun not fitting in the closet with the scope and moderator attached. The police ignored all the red flags because they were convinced it was a murder suicide. That is why they received a lot of criticism- for failing to follow up on things they should have including failing to get a ballistic expert, biologist and pathologist to the scene because DCI Jones decided it wasn't necessary. They said someone higher than Jones should have been in charge and the fact that didn't happen was one of the problems.
There was no evidence anyone was seen moving and it is qwuite clear no one wa smoving, Sheial didn't commit suicide someone murdered her as well. You ignore all such evidence because of your bias but all your bias does is prefent you from facing the truth. It offers no ability to produce evidence that rebuts the case against Jeremy.
You have ZILCH to refute the moderator evidence you simply ignore it saying you choose to believe it was planted though you have zero evidence to suggest it was. You ignore evidence you don't follow the evidence. Myall had nothing to do with how the investigation was run his job was done when the bodies were found he jsut had to provide accounts of what he did and experienced and nothing more. He had no reason to lie and help railroad Jeremy if he actually saw someone move. Long before the police woke up and pursue Jeremy Myall already decided that he had not seen anything.
It is quite clear that everyone was dead before the police arrived. The window was open in the bedroom and police were listening for any signs of life including sounds. They would have heard any shots fired in the room. All of the evidence combined makes it clear she was killed by someone else then moved flat and left there before police ever arrived. Choosing to ignore this just means you prefer baseless opinions over well supported ones. What you choose to believe is of no consequence in a debate what matters is what you can prove.
That is why I rarely bother presenting my suspicions that Jeremy burned Nevill's back after his death in order to try to make it look like he was forced to make the phone call in an effort to lure Jeremy there. I suspect Jeremy hoped that is what police would believe happened but since they didn't come to the conclusion he wanted he had to deal with that. He couldn't make the claim himself or it would give away he was the one who burned Nevill with such intention. Just like he couldn't tell his lawyers what page he opened the Bible to and what the significance of the passage was because if he admitted he knew it would be evidence he was the one who staged the Bible for such purpose.
Since I can't prove these theories- I can't even prove the burns didn't exist before the murders- I rarely raise them even though they make sense and when I do raise the it is not cited as evidence of Jeremy's guilt. It is just raised when people ask for possibilities to explain these things and even then I rarely raise them.
Jeremy supporters often raise theories that not only are not supported by any evidence but worse make no sense and are refuted by the evidence.
-
so here you are the very obvious lie that he told to the police on the 8th which contradicts everything he told them on the night. So why did they not pick up on this immediately?
Because they either found such inconsequential or failed to recognize the lie. DCI Jones even found it inconsequential that the kitchen window could be locked from the outside. They missed a lot of things they should have picked up and even failed to raise things they could have and should have during his interrogation. Maybe they thought such things to be inconsequential or maybe they were not that bright so failed to appreciate such things. They failed to collect all the firearms, ammunition and firearms related accessories from the house because of the presumption it was a murder suicide though they should have taken them. They just assumed the gun on Sheila was used to kill everyone. It wasn't until September that they found out for sure that was the case. They did a poor job because they believed Jeremy.
You admit they did a poor job but try to pretend it hurt Jeremy though their ineptitude was in his favor. Their ineptitude almost helped him get away with it.
-
"
DCI Jones was at the scene a half hour was convinced Sheila did it and that was the end of it for hi, he didn't care about the kinds of discrepancies raised to him including evidence that Jeremy lied about the gun not fitting in the closet with the scope and moderator attached. The police ignored all the red flags because they were convinced it was a murder suicide. That is why they received a lot of criticism- for failing to follow up on things they should have including failing to get a ballistic expert, biologist and pathologist to the scene because DCI Jones decided it wasn't necessary. They said someone higher than Jones should have been in charge and the fact that didn't happen was one of the problems."
Or as I said Jeremy did not say that on the night and they "embellished " their statements . The notes form the night that I have seen do not support their later statements.
I am not saying that it proves his innocence or guilt - the point I am trying to make is that the later statements were "embellished" to reduce the embarrassment - Or - to get their man .
Also if the scene was so obviously staged - then I can not see why they did realise straight away?
They were not inexperienced officers .
As for the officers who said the body had been in a different position changing their minds later? Perhaps they were told not to rock the boat . As I say they were not inexperienced officers and their job would have trained them to be observant so I can not understand why you keep making excuses for them rather than accepting they may have been correct.
-
"
DCI Jones was at the scene a half hour was convinced Sheila did it and that was the end of it for hi, he didn't care about the kinds of discrepancies raised to him including evidence that Jeremy lied about the gun not fitting in the closet with the scope and moderator attached. The police ignored all the red flags because they were convinced it was a murder suicide. That is why they received a lot of criticism- for failing to follow up on things they should have including failing to get a ballistic expert, biologist and pathologist to the scene because DCI Jones decided it wasn't necessary. They said someone higher than Jones should have been in charge and the fact that didn't happen was one of the problems."
Or as I said Jeremy did not say that on the night and they "embellished " their statements . The notes form the night that I have seen do not support their later statements.
I am not saying that it proves his innocence or guilt - the point I am trying to make is that the later statements were "embellished" to reduce the embarrassment - Or - to get their man .
Also if the scene was so obviously staged - then I can not see why they did realise straight away?
They were not inexperienced officers .
As for the officers who said the body had been in a different position changing their minds later? Perhaps they were told not to rock the boat . As I say they were not inexperienced officers and their job would have trained them to be observant so I can not understand why you keep making excuses for them rather than accepting they may have been correct.
The same source which notes they initially had questions notes that after conferring with all the raid team officers that they were satisfied the photos were accurate. If they were out to deceive and conceal then they would not have bothered mentioning their initial concerns that the photos might have been inaccurate.
-
Of course they had a reason to lie. They had decided to change track and get Jeremy - so with very little evidence they needed everything they could get - including elaborating what Jeremy said on the night so they did not look like fools.
If he was telling such huge porky pies then why did the police pick it up in his first statements. They knew what he had said on the night - so why not pick up the discrepancies straight away?
It seems to me your bias and conviction that he is guilty blinds you sometimes -You say you like discussion - but all you do is preach and never look at the alternative possibilities.
And I bet all the officers had another debrief before the sept statements.
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Together with a motive, opportunity and no alibi.
No one can explain how Sheila could have committed the massacre. The evidence shows she didn't.
The police didn't need to lie. Jeremy lead them into a direction. The evidence saw them change direction.
-
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Together with a motive, opportunity and no alibi.
No one can explain how Sheila could have committed the massacre. The evidence shows she didn't.
The police didn't need to lie. Jeremy lead them into a direction. The evidence saw them change direction.
I would go and look up the definition of mountain if I was you - it is something a police force can obviously trip over even when it is allegedly staring them in the face.
-
Who?
Bews.
-
I believe any Freudian slip made by JB should be scrutinised. I also believe he should be questioned directly regarding them and his responses noted in detail.
From past experience of another case, when I learned the truth that the person was in fact guilty and not innocent as many of us believed, the Freudian slips (made not only by him but others) were central in understanding the facts of the case.
The Freudian slips were highly relevant but were also easily explained away.
My advice would be to support a case like JB's with caution. There are far too many red flags imo for them to be ignored.
-
I believe any Freudian slip made by JB should be scrutinised. I also believe he should be questioned directly regarding them and his responses noted in detail.
From past experience of another case, when I learned the truth that the person was in fact guilty and not innocent as many of us believed, the Freudian slips (made not only by him but others) were central in understanding the facts of the case.
The Freudian slips were highly relevant but were also easily explained away.
My advice would be to support a case like JB's with caution. There are far too many red flags imo for them to be ignored.
Are the strictly Freudian slips, Steph OR could the be such an overblown view of his own intellectual supremacy over the idiots around him that he drops these little gems in because it amuses him?
-
Are the strictly Freudian slips, Steph OR could the be such an overblown view of his own intellectual supremacy over the idiots around him that he drops these little gems in because it amuses him?
Good point! I imagine there is an element of both going on.
-
Are the strictly Freudian slips, Steph OR could the be such an overblown view of his own intellectual supremacy over the idiots around him that he drops these little gems in because it amuses him?
Yes, I think so. He also told different stories to different people. He told them the stories that he thought they would accept and changed them depending on who he was speaking to at that time.
-
Are the strictly Freudian slips, Steph OR could the be such an overblown view of his own intellectual supremacy over the idiots around him that he drops these little gems in because it amuses him?
There is a reason it is called a tangled web. Liars often make up things on the fly and can't remember the lie they told last. They make up different lies for different people and keep adding to their web. If you tell one person you were an RAF fighter pilot and tell another you were an SAS commando then if they compare notes you are busted.
The most successful liars plan in advance what they will say in full and stick to the script. they make a script that accounts for everything that reasonably can trip them up. There was someone who made up a story of being a vet and because he researched the unit he claimed to have been in he made plausible claims. He even someone got governmental vet benefits. he was tripped up by chance because someone actually in the unit in a battle he claims to have been in said he didn't know him. This spawned people to do due diligence and find out he was in fact a fraud.
The hope of fraudsters is that people will not do due diligence and will just believe them because they are so convincing or expect people will not compare notes or expect people will not remember what they claimed in the past. Because they get away with it once they get bold and keep doing it again and again.
-
He also told different stories to different people. He told them the stories that he thought they would accept and changed them depending on who he was speaking to at that time.
I disagree, he would have had to have to stuck to his original ideas/plans, he knew if he made any slip ups someone would be on to him. I don't believe it had anything to do with the 'person he was speaking to at the time' it would have been more to do with he couldn't help himself at times plus you have to have a good memory in order to protect the lie.
His ego would already have been inflated given the fact the police originally believed it was Sheila....
-
I disagree, he would have had to have to stuck to his original ideas/plans, he knew if he made any slip ups someone would be on to him. I don't believe it had anything to do with the 'person he was speaking to at the time' it would have been more to do with he couldn't help himself at times plus you have to have a good memory in order to protect the lie.
His ego would already have been inflated given the fact the police originally believed it was Sheila....
I do agree with that, it made his mask slip a little. He became comfortable and confident when the police believed a murder/suicide.
-
Steph that makes good sense I suspect to be successful at telling lies you need to have a very good memory and at one stage he did think he had gotten away with it and became over confident especially when he was being questioned by the police and indeed during his trial. Guess he got a rude awakening :'( I must add his attitude could have been attributed to the fact he knew he was innocent and that is why he was a little cocky and arrogant. All very confusing :'(.
-
There is a reason it is called a tangled web. Liars often make up things on the fly and can't remember the lie they told last. They make up different lies for different people and keep adding to their web. If you tell one person you were an RAF fighter pilot and tell another you were an SAS commando then if they compare notes you are busted.
The most successful liars plan in advance what they will say in full and stick to the script. they make a script that accounts for everything that reasonably can trip them up. There was someone who made up a story of being a vet and because he researched the unit he claimed to have been in he made plausible claims. He even someone got governmental vet benefits. he was tripped up by chance because someone actually in the unit in a battle he claims to have been in said he didn't know him. This spawned people to do due diligence and find out he was in fact a fraud.
The hope of fraudsters is that people will not do due diligence and will just believe them because they are so convincing or expect people will not compare notes or expect people will not remember what they claimed in the past. Because they get away with it once they get bold and keep doing it again and again.
There is a lie and then there is a pathological lie. Pathological lying is habitual, chronic and compulsive.
http://news.usc.edu/22586/Liars-Brains-Wired-Differently/
“Pathological liars can’t always tell truth from falsehood and contradict themselves in an interview. They are manipulative and they admit they prey on people. They are very brazen in terms of their manner, but very cool when talking about this.”
“Lying takes a lot of effort,” he said.
“It’s almost mind reading. You have to be able to understand the mindset of the other person. You also have to suppress your emotions or regulate them because you don’t want to appear nervous. There’s quite a lot to do there. You’ve got to suppress the truth."
Pathological liars have a surplus of white matter, the study found, and a deficit of gray matter. That means they have more tools to lie coupled with fewer moral restraints than normal people, Raine said.
“They’ve got the equipment to lie, and they don’t have the disinhibition that the rest of us have in telling the big whoppers,” he said.
-
“For example, in the legal system they could potentially be used to help police work out which suspects are lying. In terms of clinical practice, they could help clinicians diagnose who is malingering ? making up disability for financial gain.
I believe the police would have detected many things, like lying, before any trial but were naturally unable to present this as evidence in a court of law as it would have been nothing more than supposition.
-
Steph that makes good sense I suspect to be successful at telling lies you need to have a very good memory and at one stage he did think he had gotten away with it and became over confident especially when he was being questioned by the police and indeed during his trial. Guess he got a rude awakening :'( I must add his attitude could have been attributed to the fact he knew he was innocent and that is why he was a little cocky and arrogant. All very confusing :'(.
I agree Susan. I posted an article above where the research suggests a pathological liar has more grey matter in the brain than the rest of us.
If he were innocent I would expect him to be afraid, angry, screwed up and extremely upset, amongst other things. I would expect his blogs to be about his innocence and innocence only. I can't fathom why he appears, after all these years, to be trying to appeal to a certain audience? Other than the fact he enjoys manipulating people and it helps inflate his ego. My opinion of course.
-
Steph that makes good sense I suspect to be successful at telling lies you need to have a very good memory and at one stage he did think he had gotten away with it and became over confident especially when he was being questioned by the police and indeed during his trial. Guess he got a rude awakening :'( I must add his attitude could have been attributed to the fact he knew he was innocent and that is why he was a little cocky and arrogant. All very confusing :'(.
His morality would also come into question Susan. To be able to tell whopping great porkers about his own family and their demise suggests a clear lack of moral compass.
http://www.way-of-the-mind.com/signs-of-lying.html
-
Psychopaths lie to make others feel sorry for them
"All psychopaths know exactly how to elicit sympathy from their targets. They are exploiters, and so they take advantage of the natural desire most people have to help and nurture their fellow human beings. They use deception (and sometimes a smidgeon of truth) to create a plethora of fabricated ailments and problems. Common pity plays include fake illnesses and injuries, along with “crazy” exes, car accidents, and theft, to name just a few. Psychopaths generate as many pretend sob stories as needed in order to draw others into their hidden games, again and again and again. The ability they have to lie pathologically, easily, and confidently makes it possible for them to convince others that such an implausible number of tragedies is plausible, which unfortunately opens the door to a variety of manipulation and exploitation opportunities.
-
According to AE's statement (taken between 8th and 13th Sept) she asked Jeremy why he didn't go to WHF as allegedly requested by Nevill's phone call - Jeremy replied that he was frightened that the call may have been a trick in order to lure him to the farm so Sheila could 'shoot him too'. At this point (after the supposed call from Nevill) Jeremy isn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6614.msg299657.html#msg299657
-
I think he's displaying classic signs of someone who doesn't know how to "BE". He manages behaviours when he's with those whose behaviour is appropriate to the circumstances. He probably isn't aware of not having the accompanying emotions because he can't feel them.
-
Yes, I think so. He also told different stories to different people. He told them the stories that he thought they would accept and changed them depending on who he was speaking to at that time.
Further, I don't believe pathological liars change their stories depending on the person they are communicating too - I think they see all targets as prey. I think their excitement increases and boredom depletes dependent on who they are lying too.
-
I think he's displaying classic signs of someone who doesn't know how to "BE". He manages behaviours when he's with those whose behaviour is appropriate to the circumstances. He probably isn't aware of not having the accompanying emotions because he can't feel them.
Most certainly - the blogs, the interviews - his evidence....
I imagine all those people he communicates with, if they were to pool their information together they would see questionable patterns of behaviours.
-
I agree Susan. I posted an article above where the research suggests a pathological liar has more grey matter in the brain than the rest of us.
If he were innocent I would expect him to be afraid, angry, screwed up and extremely upset, amongst other things. I would expect his blogs to be about his innocence and innocence only. I can't fathom why he appears, after all these years, to be trying to appeal to a certain audience? Other than the fact he enjoys manipulating people and it helps inflate his ego. My opinion of course.
Steph we will say for the sake of debate the silencer was not used in the murders and Julie was not telling the complete truth Jeremy if he is the killer would know this and I think he has protested his innocence for so long as he feels all he has to do is prove this and he will walk guilty or not guilty. Just my opinion of course.
-
Steph we will say for the sake of debate the silencer was not used in the murders and Julie was not telling the complete truth Jeremy if he is the killer would know this and I think he has protested his innocence for so long as he feels all he has to do is prove this and he will walk guilty or not guilty. Just my opinion of course.
Well if he is guilty it does look pretty certain that the silencer was not used - otherwise why would he be concentrating on it so much.
-
Steph we will say for the sake of debate the silencer was not used in the murders and Julie was not telling the complete truth Jeremy if he is the killer would know this and I think he has protested his innocence for so long as he feels all he has to do is prove this and he will walk guilty or not guilty. Just my opinion of course.
I imagine he's bored beyond belief and by maintaining innocence it gives him something to do.
-
Well if he is guilty it does look pretty certain that the silencer was not used - otherwise why would he be concentrating on it so much.
The silencer was used.
He only started concentrating on it after several years. Whatever any new results are, he can either keep quiet, try to manipulate the results, or claim contamination.
His supporters will see him making a fuss about it, and think there is something fishy going on with the silencer.
So is in a no lose situation.
-
Well if he is guilty it does look pretty certain that the silencer was not used - otherwise why would he be concentrating on it so much.
Because if the silencer wasn't used it's the one -the ONLY- thing he's been accused and convicted of that he really IS innocent of so he'd feel justified in continuing to proclaim it.
-
The silencer was used.
He only started concentrating on it after several years. Whatever any new results are, he can either keep quiet, try to manipulate the results, or claim contamination.
His supporters will see him making a fuss about it, and think there is something fishy going on with the silencer.
So is in a no lose situation.
Sounds like you talk from experience Adam?
-
Because if the silencer wasn't used it's the one -the ONLY- thing he's been accused and convicted of that he really IS innocent of so he'd feel justified in continuing to proclaim it.
Same as the fibre evidence in a case I'm familiar with. The prosecution had made mistakes regarding the fibre evidence, which left room for argument. The fibres had come from the accused!
-
Is he concentrating on the silencer ? I thought it was destroyed decades ago. And prior to that they had run out of anything to test on it.
The results and re tests did Jeremy no favours.
-
Because if the silencer wasn't used it's the one -the ONLY- thing he's been accused and convicted of that he really IS innocent of so he'd feel justified in continuing to proclaim it.
well technically if it was a frame up it is a MOJ whether morally correct or not.
-
Is he concentrating on the silencer ? I thought it was destroyed decades ago. And prior to that they had run out of anything to test on it.
The results and re tests did Jeremy no favours.
why do you carry on repeating things deliberately when you know they are incorrect. You know and have been shown the silencer was not destroyed. The tests on the gun and whether the silencer were on the gun were not completed . and we do not know the full extent of the new submission. But some of them are not to do with the silencer , whether some of them are we have not been fully informed.
-
Well if he is guilty it does look pretty certain that the silencer was not used - otherwise why would he be concentrating on it so much.
This is a very stupid argument. His legal team is concentrating on the moderator for the same reason they concentrated on trying to attack Julie. The most powerful evidence against him was the moderator evidence and Julie's testimony. The only way to reverse the conviction is by refuting such evidence.
The fact he is trying to find a way to counter the moderator evidence doesn't prove it wasn't used it merely reveals he understands the significance. Only refuting the moderator evidence could establish it wasn't used and that would require establishing that sheila's blood was found in the rifle but this was concealed and her blood or blood with exactly the same properties was planted in the moderator.
The existing evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the moderator was used. Nothing at all has been developed to counter this.
-
well technically if it was a frame up it is a MOJ whether morally correct or not.
My understanding of a genuine MOJ is that the person claiming innocence did not commit the crime - someone else did, secondly they would have a sense of morality, without such this would present to me yet further concerns for pathology.
I should add I am referring to murder cases.
-
This is a very stupid argument. His legal team is concentrating on the moderator for the same reason they concentrated on trying to attack Julie. The most powerful evidence against him was the moderator evidence and Julie's testimony. The only way to reverse the conviction is by refuting such evidence.
The fact he is trying to find a way to counter the moderator evidence doesn't prove it wasn't used it merely reveals he understands the significance. Only refuting the moderator evidence could establish it wasn't used and that would require establishing that sheila's blood was found in the rifle but this was concealed and her blood or blood with exactly the same properties was planted in the moderator.
The existing evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the moderator was used. Nothing at all has been developed to counter this.
No it is not a stupid argument because you are not him and you are not on his defence team.So you don't know why they have been concentrating on it. There are guilters who still think the silencer was a plant used to frame him . So if he was guilty and did not use the silencer of course he would try and prove that it was not on the gun at the time.
It was not my argument originally but I concur it is a possibility that is why he was concentrating on it.
-
No it is not a stupid argument because you are not him and you are not on his defence team.So you don't know why they have been concentrating on it. There are guilters who still think the silencer was a plant used to frame him . So if he was guilty and did not use the silencer of course he would try and prove that it was not on the gun at the time.
It was not my argument originally but I concur it is a possibility that is why he was concentrating on it.
It was my argument and I agree. :)
-
It was my argument and I agree. :)
To me, it seems a completely logical reason for him to cling to his innocence. In his mind he knows he didn't use a silencer when he shot them, ergo, he didn't shoot them. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
-
why do you carry on repeating things deliberately when you know they are incorrect. You know and have been shown the silencer was not destroyed. The tests on the gun and whether the silencer were on the gun were not completed . and we do not know the full extent of the new submission. But some of them are not to do with the silencer , whether some of them are we have not been fully informed.
The tests they did are worthless and have zero ability to prove that the moderator wasn't used. The tests involve trying to see what a muzzle imprint from a hard contact shot with the moderator would look like and then to say that because such muzzle imprint is lacking it means the moderator wasn't used.
Neither wound to Sheila was a hard contact shot though so there was no muzzle imprint left and no muzzle imprint was thus observed on her or any other victim for that matter because none of them suffered a hard contact shot either. Alternatively, they would like to pretend she did suffer a hard contact shot with the rifle sans moderator but again no muzzle imprint was observed the people who examined the wounds didn't determine them to be hard contact wounds and thus the efforts are a complete waste of time because there is no way to establish to the court of appeal she suffered a hard contact shot which left a muzzle impression from the rifle sans moderator. They have no photos which reveal any muzzle impressions, no assessments from those who saw her body that she had any muzzle impressions and no reports that she suffered a hard contact wound that could have left a muzzle impression. They do all the tests they want but it won't change these facts so such tests are simply a waste of time because the tests have no ability to prove anything. ONLY if it were determined that she suffered a hard contact wound that resulted in a muzzle impression would testing be called for. The testing would be to assess whether the muzzle imprint matches the gun with or without the moderator.
What they are doing is akin to doing fiber tests they despite no fibers being found with the expectation that if they are able to get favorable results then to look for a way to try to pretend fibers had been found.
-
why do you carry on repeating things deliberately when you know they are incorrect. You know and have been shown the silencer was not destroyed. The tests on the gun and whether the silencer were on the gun were not completed . and we do not know the full extent of the new submission. But some of them are not to do with the silencer , whether some of them are we have not been fully informed.
I don't keep repeating things. Just asked a question.
Please provide evidence that the silencer was not destroyed in 1996. The 'Crimes Hearts and Coronets' article says it was destroyed. Anyway there is nothing left to test.
You keep repeating the term 'if he is guilty'. Which is an improvement from saying he's innocent. Which you used to write.
Even you have to admit defeat in saying Jeremy is innocent. Especially after you bottled it and refused to say how Sheila committed the massacre. But unlike Susan, Caroline and April, you will bottle it again and refuse to change stance.
-
No it is not a stupid argument because you are not him and you are not on his defence team.So you don't know why they have been concentrating on it. There are guilters who still think the silencer was a plant used to frame him . So if he was guilty and did not use the silencer of course he would try and prove that it was not on the gun at the time.
It was not my argument originally but I concur it is a possibility that is why he was concentrating on it.
Even if I had not become a lawyer I still would recognize that the defense has to attack the evidence that resulted in conviction to get a conviction vacated but as a lawyer even moreso I recognize this.
To say that because they are trying to attack the main evidence that proves such evidence is invalid is ABSURD. Only by SUCCESSFULLY attacking it can they refute it. The mere fact they are trying doesn't negate it.
Caroline's argument is even worse and more illogical:
Jeremy knows he didn't use the moderator so knows the prosecution planted Sheila's blood inside. Jeremy thus knew a DNA test of the moderator would clear him. Knowing the prosecution planted her blood would not enable a DNA test to clear him.
The argument totally flops.
He wanted the test to try to find a way to spin the results to pretend it somehow helped him because without the test he had zilch and there was thus no harm in doing the test. He would either still have zilch after the test or something he could try to spin.
-
24 of the 26 shots were contact or from inches away. But the end of the rifle had no blood on.
-
Everything makes sense for the silencer to be on -
It was used for shooting vermin. So would permanently be on. Why take it off ?
AP said it was on the weekend before.
Jeremy went out to shoot rabbits. He would know the silencer should be on in this situation.
Jeremy as the killer would use a silencer. To try to prevent anyone waking.
-
To me, it seems a completely logical reason for him to cling to his innocence. In his mind he knows he didn't use a silencer when he shot them, ergo, he didn't shoot them. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Not to me. Guilty people don't like to admit their guilt for a whole host of reasons. It is quite common for people to be executed or die naturally without ever admitting guilt though they were caught dead to rights.
Jeremy's lawyers are the ones trying to find a way top prove the moderator wasn't used and are doing so because that is the only way his conviction is going to be overturned. People who say it is him who thought it up and is driving the research are just fooling themselves. The moderator was attacked by the trial defense lawyers to the extent they could and multiple people during the appeal addressed it including those here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.15.html
It is by necessity that advocates for Jeremy are trying to find a way to undermine the oderator and the fact they failed to do so is proof the evidence was sound.
It is totally illogical to claim that Jeremy would want a DNA test to prove the prosecution planted Sheila's blood in the moderator since a DNA test would have no ability to prove such.
It is even more illogical to claim the DNA tests had the ability to prove anything given tests done prior to the DNA testing found no blood inside. hey knew from the outset that if any DNA was found they had no ability to prove it was blood based. Jeremy's own expert said the testing had no ability to establish the blood that was present after the murders. It was all a sham. The defense simply planned to try spinning the results because they had nothing valid to raise against the moderator.
They still don't. Their most recent nonsense before the CCRC was to pretend that a muzzle imprint was found around the non-fatal wound and that such muzzle imprint was made by the rifle sans moderator. But no muzzle imprint was in fact found nor could one be found because that wound was a near contact wound and muzzle imprints are not left as a result of near contact wounds.
Some people have decided they want to believe the moderator wasn't used and are especially coming up with excuses to justify their beliefs in their own minds but they fail under objective scrutiny.
Why do guilty murders convicted of rape and murder want rape kits and other evidence tested for DNA? It will likely confirm their guilt so why do they bother? Because they have nothing to lose and hope that there will be something that ends up opening the conviction to attack. If they don't do it then they have nothing and just sit rotting in jail without any hope at all. Why do basketball players lob the ball at the basket from huge distances away when there is a split second left in the game? Because they have nothing to lose in trying. If they don't try then for sure they are going to lose the game. it is the same principle.
-
Everything makes sense for the silencer to be on -
It was used for shooting vermin. So would permanently be on. Why take it off ?
AP said it was on the weekend before.
Jeremy went out to shoot rabbits. He would know the silencer should be on in this situation.
Jeremy as the killer would use a silencer. To try to prevent anyone waking.
Adam I thought Jeremy said the silencer was not on the rifle when he was going to shoot rabbits and also when he left it in the kitchen or where ever before he left to go home
-
Adam I thought Jeremy said the silencer was not on the rifle when he was going to shoot rabbits and also when he left it in the kitchen or where ever before he left to go home
Perhaps Jeremy was not telling the truth ?
-
The tests they did are worthless and have zero ability to prove that the moderator wasn't used. The tests involve trying to see what a muzzle imprint from a hard contact shot with the moderator would look like and then to say that because such muzzle imprint is lacking it means the moderator wasn't used.
Neither wound to Sheila was a hard contact shot though so there was no muzzle imprint left and no muzzle imprint was thus observed on her or any other victim for that matter because none of them suffered a hard contact shot either. Alternatively, they would like to pretend she did suffer a hard contact shot with the rifle sans moderator but again no muzzle imprint was observed the people who examined the wounds didn't determine them to be hard contact wounds and thus the efforts are a complete waste of time because there is no way to establish to the court of appeal she suffered a hard contact shot which left a muzzle impression from the rifle sans moderator. They have no photos which reveal any muzzle impressions, no assessments from those who saw her body that she had any muzzle impressions and no reports that she suffered a hard contact wound that could have left a muzzle impression. They do all the tests they want but it won't change these facts so such tests are simply a waste of time because the tests have no ability to prove anything. ONLY if it were determined that she suffered a hard contact wound that resulted in a muzzle impression would testing be called for. The testing would be to assess whether the muzzle imprint matches the gun with or without the moderator.
What they are doing is akin to doing fiber tests they despite no fibers being found with the expectation that if they are able to get favorable results then to look for a way to try to pretend fibers had been found.
I never commented on the validity of the tests.
-
Not to me..........................................
Not to worry, Scipio. You were the very LAST person I would have expected to make any sort of sense of it. It's WAY too illogical for clever Vulcanites to comprehend :D :-*
-
Adam I thought Jeremy said the silencer was not on the rifle when he was going to shoot rabbits and also when he left it in the kitchen or where ever before he left to go home
He did claim that. He made up the claim he took the gun out and left it out. This lie was to account for:
1) the gun having no scope and moderator (he claimed he didn't have time to attach them because he was scared the rabbits would get away)
2) Sheila wasn't interested in guns so would not have gone to find it herself, his story left a weapon of opportunity out for her to encounter and grab while she was raging
3) accounted for the magazine already being loaded because if she had to load the magazine that would give time for Nevill to grab the weapon because she couldn't load the magazine and hold the weapon the same time plus the unloaded gun would not be able to be used against him as he grabbed it from her.
4) He left the extra ammo out so she could also reload to fire the other 15 shots. He clearly staged these after the murders though because he staged too many. There were 30 bullets left. He claimed he took out a box that was either full or near full. If full that means 50 and thus there should have been 25 left. If near ful then less than 25 should have remained.
-
"Some people have decided they want to believe the moderator wasn't used and are especially coming up with excuses to justify their beliefs in their own minds but they fail under objective scrutiny"
What rubbish. If a poster believes JB is guilty then the easiest thing of all is to accept the silencer evidence . It justifies their whole stance.
To admit the silencer evidence could have been planted is a very difficult position to take - and not that I SPEAK for other posters ( like you do) I would imagine that the "evidence" that they have seen to them does not add up and has planted the seed of doubt - re-inforced by Jeremys persistence in challenging the documents in respect of the silencer.
I think you argue for the sake of arguing - and you must try and remember that you are not in control of other posters opinions or thoughts.
-
I don't keep repeating things. Just asked a question.
Please provide evidence that the silencer was not destroyed in 1996. The 'Crimes Hearts and Coronets' article says it was destroyed. Anyway there is nothing left to test.
You keep repeating the term 'if he is guilty'. Which is an improvement from saying he's innocent. Which you used to write.
Even you have to admit defeat in saying Jeremy is innocent. Especially after you bottled it and refused to say how Sheila committed the massacre. But unlike Susan, Caroline and April, you will bottle it again and refuse to change stance.
what year were the DNA tests done on the silencer Adam?
-
I trust that in 1985, technology was advanced enough for scientists to determine between human and animal blood.
DNA was to become common later in the decade so surely it was easy enough to make this distinction in 1985. Experts at court were even able to state whose blood it was - Sheila's, with a remote possibilities of it being a mixture of Neville's & June's, which the 'Campaign for Freedom' team has disputed.
It was a new rifle, and doubtful anyone would be able to give a rabbit a contact shot. Jeremy said he went outside to shoot them without the silencer on, but they had all gone.
Regardless of whose blood it was, how did human blood get into the silencer ?
Did someone give themselves a contact shot accidentally prior to the massacre, creating the blood splatter effect ? A bit careless and I thought the gun was too long to shoot yourself.
Or did Ann Eaton give Robert Boutflour a contact shot prior to giving the silencer to the police. Taking a huge and optimistic risk that someone else's blood will convict Jeremy. But then how did experts say the blood was Sheila's or Neville/June's ?
Perhaps Sheila shot everyone else with the silencer on. Then put it away in a box and underneath other boxes, dartboards and other guns. That would also mean she put the silencer on the rifle beforehand, as the rifle was left in the kitchen without it attached. The judge said this action 'would be hard to fathom'.
Jeremy also testified Sheila had 'limited' experience with guns. So she may not have been able to put the silencer on. Anyway wasn't she in too much of a 'crazy' rage to be fiddling around with silencers ? And where was Neville while Sheila was rummaging around the gun cupboard ?
Perhaps the police or lab technicians deliberately contaminated the silencer. There is no proof this happened, Jeremy has not claimed this, preferring to accuse the relatives.
Jeremy has always optimistically claimed it was not Sheila's blood in the silencer. But if it is human blood at all, and there is no proof of deliberate contamination, then surely the silencer was used on the massacre night. This again highlights Jeremy's guilt.
-
He did claim that. He made up the claim he took the gun out and left it out. This lie was to account for:
1) the gun having no scope and moderator (he claimed he didn't have time to attach them because he was scared the rabbits would get away)
2) Sheila wasn't interested in guns so would not have gone to find it herself, his story left a weapon of opportunity out for her to encounter and grab while she was raging
3) accounted for the magazine already being loaded because if she had to load the magazine that would give time for Nevill to grab the weapon because she couldn't load the magazine and hold the weapon the same
time plus the unloaded gun would not be able to be used against him as he grabbed it from her.
4) He left the extra ammo out so she could also reload to fire the other 15 shots. He clearly staged these after the murders though because he staged too many. There were 30 bullets left. He claimed he took out a box that was either full or near full. If full that means 50 and thus there should have been 25 left. If near ful then less than 25 should have remained.
Scipio it seems Jeremy had it all worked out very well but guess he was too clever in this respect.
-
I trust that in 1985, technology was advanced enough for scientists to determine between human and animal blood.
DNA was to become common later in the decade so surely it was easy enough to make this distinction in 1985. Experts at court were even able to state whose blood it was - Sheila's, with a remote possibilities of it being a mixture of Neville's & June's, which the 'Campaign for Freedom' team has disputed.
It was a new rifle, and doubtful anyone would be able to give a rabbit a contact shot. Jeremy said he went outside to shoot them without the silencer on, but they had all gone.
Regardless of whose blood it was, how did human blood get into the silencer ?
Did someone give themselves a contact shot accidentally prior to the massacre, creating the blood splatter effect ? A bit careless and I thought the gun was too long to shoot yourself.
Or did Ann Eaton give Robert Boutflour a contact shot prior to giving the silencer to the police. Taking a huge and optimistic risk that someone else's blood will convict Jeremy. But then how did experts say the blood was Sheila's or Neville/June's ?
Perhaps Sheila shot everyone else with the silencer on. Then put it away in a box and underneath other boxes, dartboards and other guns. That would also mean she put the silencer on the rifle beforehand, as the rifle was left in the kitchen without it attached. The judge said this action 'would be hard to fathom'.
Jeremy also testified Sheila had 'limited' experience with guns. So she may not have been able to put the silencer on. Anyway wasn't she in too much of a 'crazy' rage to be fiddling around with silencers ? And where was Neville while Sheila was rummaging around the gun cupboard ?
Perhaps the police or lab technicians deliberately contaminated the silencer. There is no proof this happened, Jeremy has not claimed this, preferring to accuse the relatives.
Jeremy has always optimistically claimed it was not Sheila's blood in the silencer. But if it is human blood at all, and there is no proof of deliberate contamination, then surely the silencer was used on the massacre night. This again highlights Jeremy's guilt.
What year were the DNA tests done on the silencer?
Why was the fact that there was some animal blood on the silencer not revealed in court?
How could there be a "blob" of blood on the outside of the silencer after it had been put away in a box?
Who actually gave the silencer back to the police ( it varies depending on whose statement you read by the way)
Why did Anne not note the fining of the silencer in her notes she was making every day?
-
Well DNA was first used in the 80's. I do not know the year Jeremy decided to have it tested again. Be good to know.
-
What year were the DNA tests done on the silencer?
Why was the fact that there was some animal blood on the silencer not revealed in court?
How could there be a "blob" of blood on the outside of the silencer after it had been put away in a box?
Who actually gave the silencer back to the police ( it varies depending on whose statement you read by the way)
Why did Anne not note the fining of the silencer in her notes she was making every day?
This is another similarity to a case I am familiar with. In this other case, It was believed blood was found on one of the fibre tapings but apparently it was too minute to obtain a DNA profile. Turns out it was irrelevant to the case. All those years of attempting to understand it's significance and have it tested, only to discover it made no difference.
-
Even if I had not become a lawyer I still would recognize that the defense has to attack the evidence that resulted in conviction to get a conviction vacated but as a lawyer even moreso I recognize this.
To say that because they are trying to attack the main evidence that proves such evidence is invalid is ABSURD. Only by SUCCESSFULLY attacking it can they refute it. The mere fact they are trying doesn't negate it.
Caroline's argument is even worse and more illogical:
Jeremy knows he didn't use the moderator so knows the prosecution planted Sheila's blood inside. Jeremy thus knew a DNA test of the moderator would clear him. Knowing the prosecution planted her blood would not enable a DNA test to clear him.
The argument totally flops.
He wanted the test to try to find a way to spin the results to pretend it somehow helped him because without the test he had zilch and there was thus no harm in doing the test. He would either still have zilch after the test or something he could try to spin.
You old smoothie you!! ;) :-* :P
-
Well DNA was first used in the 80's. I do not know the year Jeremy decided to have it tested again. Be good to know.
Not for criminal cases it was not - it was about the 90s (funnily enough when a lot of the evidence was destroyed) when it came into serious contention in more criminal cases. It was originally used in paternity cases.
I believe it was about 2001 - and as far as I am aware the silencer and the rifle and still in existence now.
-
Jeremy has always jumped on the fact that the relatives found the silencer.
As if no one outside a police force has ever found evidence. Or approached the police with information or suspicions.
Everyone did this to frame Jeremy.
-
Jeremy has always jumped on the fact that the relatives found the silencer.
As if no one outside a police force has ever found evidence. Or approached the police with information or suspicions.
Everyone did this to frame Jeremy.
I think Jeremy was peeved that the police did not find anything until their 3rd extensive examination in October....
If they had done their job correctly in the first place we would not be here today, maybe?
But, nice to meet you Adam....regardless. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
In February 1996, Essex police took the bizarre decision, in contravention of their own guidelines, to destroy the outstanding forensic evidence relating to the case: therefore all we will ever know about the blood found in the silencer is that it could have been Sheila’s, and could not have been either Nevill’s or June’s alone, although there was a remote possibility it was a mixture from that of both. This was important as the latter possibility would not have excluded Sheila being responsible for the deaths and then returning the silencer to the cupboard before taking her own life, albeit that this would seem hard to fathom.
From 'Crimes hearts and coronets'.
-
Scipio it seems Jeremy had it all worked out very well but guess he was too clever in this respect.
He lucked out in that many of the things that made no sense were initially overlooked by the police. They were overlooked despite the family pointing out the problems such as the family pointing out he lied about the gun not fitting in the closet with the scope and moderator attached and were normally kept in the clothed with these accessories attached. That is one of the reasons why superiors were dismayed to learn their subordinates were ignoring such things instead of investigating them and thus shirking their duty.
The fact they did such gave him great confidence and he kept lying and changing accounts without a worry. Even during his interrogation they failed to bring up many of his lies and to ask him to account.
-
Evidence provided by DNA testing would be used to catch a criminal in Britain for the first time only 12 months later.
From C, H and C.
-
I think Jeremy was peeved that the police did not find anything until their 3rd extensive examination in October....
If they had done their job correctly in the first place we would not be here today, maybe?
But, nice to meet you Adam....regardless. ;D ;D ;D ;D
It is unrealistic that the family planted her blood and removed it from the rifle. The only allegation of planting that is plausible is the lab. That allegation would have been made even if police took the moderator themselves from day 1 . I don't believe that such would have resulted in Jeremy's defense being less vigorous and the various books etc not being published. Julie still didn't come clean till September and they still would not have processed the moderator till September unless Cook had some huge awakening in addition to the moderator being collected day 1.
-
Scipio if Jeremy did use a silencer I think it was very careless of him to leave it behind in the cupboard with evidence on it. He must have been too confident or plain stupid yet he seemed to have it all worked out pretty well well maybe not as he was caught.
-
Scipio if Jeremy did use a silencer I think it was very careless of him to leave it behind in the cupboard with evidence on it. He must have been too confident or plain stupid yet he seemed to have it all worked out pretty well well maybe not as he was caught.
Agreed!
-
Jeremy has always jumped on the fact that the relatives found the silencer.
As if no one outside a police force has ever found evidence. Or approached the police with information or suspicions.
Everyone did this to frame Jeremy.
Of course he did . They already allegedly had their suspicions and had discussed those . So as soon as they found it they should have got the police there and NOT removed it from the crime scene. They Just made a bad situation ( the police not doing their job properly ) worse.
-
It is unrealistic that the family planted her blood and removed it from the rifle. The only allegation of planting that is plausible is the lab. That allegation would have been made even if police took the moderator themselves from day 1 . I don't believe that such would have resulted in Jeremy's defense being less vigorous and the various books etc not being published. Julie still didn't come clean till September and they still would not have processed the moderator till September unless Cook had some huge awakening in addition to the moderator being collected day 1.
I disagree Scip. No way do I think the family planted anything or that the lab was involved. The silencer had a rather bizarre history, of which most of us can agree on. The silencer was kept at the station for over a month as were the blood samples which were kept in the fridge.
Please don't bite my head off when I say this, but when the silencer was found, I suspect that it was fitted to rifle (18) before test firing or it was sent to the lab. The reason I think that is simple....in order to see if a shoe fits you first have to try it on and that is what I think happened to the silencer, it was fitted onto the rifle to see if it fit. Also it could have been contaminated. This does not explain how the DNA got under the baffles though.
Going back to trial the silencer was tested using the ABO method...
In 2002 they used LCN DNA the results of that test states that it may have been Sheila's DNA but the tests were inconclusive. They excepted that it was June's DNA and the other was that of an unknown male.
The unknown male is significant for it demonstrates the possibility of contamination. However, it cannot be certain that the DNA found came blood, so therefore the silencer/crowns case fails.
Spinning again ;)
-
Did Bamber enter WHF post massacre, after the relatives had found the silencer ?
He said he entered to get documentation for his holiday. Which is strange as he had lived in his cottage a long time.
Maybe he went back to tidy up some loose ends. Including disposing of or cleaning the silencer. But the relatives already had it.
-
In February 1996, Essex police took the bizarre decision, in contravention of their own guidelines, to destroy the outstanding forensic evidence relating to the case: therefore all we will ever know about the blood found in the silencer is that it could have been Sheila’s, and could not have been either Nevill’s or June’s alone, although there was a remote possibility it was a mixture from that of both. This was important as the latter possibility would not have excluded Sheila being responsible for the deaths and then returning the silencer to the cupboard before taking her own life, albeit that this would seem hard to fathom.
From 'Crimes hearts and coronets'.
I am sure Skippy will put you right on the dates of the DNA testing.
there was a programme about it last night and about how it got used / accepted as valid evidence in criminal cases.
And it was known about before the evidence was destroyed. It was an amazing discovery.
-
Did Bamber enter WHF post massacre, after the relatives had found the silencer ?
He said he entered to get documentation for his holiday. Which is strange as he had lived in his cottage a long time.
Maybe he went back to tidy up some loose ends. Including disposing of or cleaning the silencer. But the relatives already had it.
He needed his passport - WHF had a safe. and that was a while after the murders . He could have just accepted the keys when the police offered them to him in the beginning if he wanted to tidy up . Simples :)
-
He needed his passport - WHF had a safe. and that was a while after the murders . He could have just accepted the keys when the police offered them to him in the beginning if he wanted to tidy up . Simples :)
He quite happily gave up the keys. Would he really have done that if he had killed his family?
-
He needed his passport - WHF had a safe. and that was a while after the murders . He could have just accepted the keys when the police offered them to him in the beginning if he wanted to tidy up . Simples :)
Perhaps Jeremy could have bought his own safe. Perhaps he did have his own safe. I would prefer to keep everything in my own property. Unless there is a source, no one will know.
Jeremy entering WHF through the bathroom window after the massacre and creeping around, is once again, very suspicious.
-
Did Bamber enter WHF post massacre, after the relatives had found the silencer ?
He said he entered to get documentation for his holiday. Which is strange as he had lived in his cottage a long time.
Maybe he went back to tidy up some loose ends. Including disposing of or cleaning the silencer. But the relatives already had it.
The police offered the keys to Jeremy after they had finished their investigations and he declined them and suggested they gave them to AE, why would he do that when all he had to do was take the keys to his house and walk in through the door, lock it behind him and tie up all the loose ends he needed to. Doubt he'd give away the keys wait a while then climb through a window one night to retrieve the silencer.
-
He quite happily gave up the keys. Would he really have done that if he had killed his family?
The police had the keys directly after the massacre.
Stan Jones gave AE the keys after a few days. So she could do a tidy up. Jeremy was buying cannabis in Amsterdam and not available.
-
The police had the keys directly after the massacre.
Stan Jones gave AE the keys after a few days. So she could do a tidy up. Jeremy was buying cannabis in Amsterdam and not available.
Adam can you prove his was in Amsterdam the first week? I don't think he was...but I could be wrong. ;D
-
The police offered the keys to Jeremy after they had finished their investigations and he declined them and suggested they gave them to AE, why would he do that when all he had to do was take the keys to his house and walk in through the door, lock it behind him and tie up all the loose ends he needed to. Doubt he'd give away the keys wait a while then climb through a window one night to retrieve the silencer.
If he entered WHF through the bathroom window, after his first holiday, that is very suspicious. As no one saw him enter WHF before his first holiday to Amsterdam.
He would not be aware the silencer was at the lab. But was aware that he was coming more under more suspicion.
As my previous thread said, there was no reason the police would find the silencer within the first three days. However a second search...
-
If he entered WHF through the bathroom window, after his first holiday, that is very suspicious. As no one saw him enter WHF before his first holiday to Amsterdam.
He would not be aware the silencer was at the lab. But was aware that he was becoming more under suspicion.
As my previous thread said, there was no reason the police would find the silencer within the first three days. However a second search...
Pardon?
-
If he entered WHF through the bathroom window, after his first holiday, that is very suspicious. As no one saw him enter WHF before his first holiday to Amsterdam.
He would not be aware the silencer was at the lab. But was aware that he was coming more under more suspicion.
As my previous thread said, there was no reason the police would find the silencer within the first three days. However a second search...
I believe a number of officers looked in the cupboard - more than twice. Besides, who would take the chance they would not find it the first time. Adam, that makes no sense at all.
-
Adam can you prove his was in Amsterdam the first week? I don't think he was...but I could be wrong. ;D
Andrew Hunter is on video saying this.
-
I believe a number of officers looked in the cupboard - more than twice. Besides, who would take the chance they would not find it the first time. Adam, that makes no sense at all.
They were not opening boxes underneath guns, other boxes and dartboards. At the back of the gun cupboard.
Taff had told everyone it was murder/suicide.
-
They were not opening boxes underneath guns, other boxes and dartboards. At the back of the gun cupboard.
Taff had told everyone it was murder/suicide.
The clue is in the word murder - you still have to investigate the "murders" irrespective of the suicide.
-
They were not opening boxes underneath guns, other boxes and dartboards. At the back of the gun cupboard.
Taff had told everyone it was murder/suicide.
Yes, yes, I know I am supposed to believe that Jeremy carelessly threw a bloodied silencer into the cupboard after having shot his sister twice.
-
Yes, yes, I know I am supposed to believe that Jeremy carelessly threw a bloodied silencer into the cupboard after having shot his sister twice.
He didn't throw. He put it in a box. Underneath other boxes, dartboards and guns.
Or are you suggesting Sheila did this after her first shot ?
-
The police had the keys directly after the massacre.
Stan Jones gave AE the keys after a few days. So she could do a tidy up. Jeremy was buying cannabis in Amsterdam and not available.
You are deliberately again mixing up your dates. You know perfectly well what happened .
-
He didn't throw. He put it in a box. Underneath other boxes, dartboards and guns.
Or are you suggesting Sheila did this after her first shot ?
??? twisting again.
-
He didn't throw. He put it in a box. Underneath other boxes, dartboards and guns.
Or are you suggesting Sheila did this after her first shot ?
Putting it in a box, then hiding it is even more puzzling. A deliberate, calculated act where he puts a bloodied silencer with paint and hair to boot in a box, but does not think about wiping it clean - at least on the outside. A very strange thing to do.
Not going to waste my breath on the second part of your post.
-
I'm not deliberately mixing up anything.
Stan Jones gave AE the keys. Jeremy was in Amsterdam, buying Cannabis. Anyway Jeremy said he was never going to go back inside WHF. Until his bathroom window entrance.
-
Putting it in a box, then hiding it is even more puzzling. A deliberate, calculated act where he puts a bloodied silencer with paint and hair to boot in a box, but does not think about wiping it clean - at least on the outside. A very strange thing to do.
Not going to waste my breath on the second part of your post.
He didn't wipe it properly. It's not the only mistake he made.
-
He didn't wipe it properly. It's not the only mistake he made.
How could a match head sized blob of jam-like blood have escaped him?
-
How could a match head sized blob of jam-like blood have escaped him?
He figured no one would even look for it let alone would be able to match the blood to Sheila. That was the whole purpose of telling his bogus story about leaving the gun out sans moderator and scope.
-
How could a match head sized blob of jam-like blood have escaped him?
Thought it was tiny back splatter drops inside the silencer baffles.
Anyway he did miss it.
-
How could a match head sized blob of jam-like blood have escaped him?
How could a match sized blob of jam like blood survive exposed to the air? We know it would have turned dark brown/black and disintegrated in 24 hours therefore someone was imagining things imo.
-
I'm not deliberately mixing up anything.
Stan Jones gave AE the keys. Jeremy was in Amsterdam, buying Cannabis. Anyway Jeremy said he was never going to go back inside WHF. Until his bathroom window entrance.
oh dear - does that mean Anne was telling lies in her statement?
-
Putting it in a box, then hiding it is even more puzzling. A deliberate, calculated act where he puts a bloodied silencer with paint and hair to boot in a box, but does not think about wiping it clean - at least on the outside. A very strange thing to do.
Not going to waste my breath on the second part of your post.
Very strange behaviour, Alias, difficult to believe!
-
He figured no one would even look for it let alone would be able to match the blood to Sheila. That was the whole purpose of telling his bogus story about leaving the gun out sans moderator and scope.
How did the blood of three people on the same baffle? What are the chances of that?
Was the whole purpose of telling the police he had received a call from his father also bogus? Did he figure no one would find out?....Yet he states clearly to Jones why don't you trace the call....Are you saying that he knew that the call could not be traced? No google in those days....Nor did anyone prove he had made enquires in order to establish that.
Such a planned crime was it not? :-\ :-\ :-\
-
How could a match sized blob of jam like blood survive exposed to the air? We know it would have turned dark brown/black and disintegrated in 24 hours therefore someone was imagining things imo.
That is the next inevitable question. That jam-like blob of blood. Logically it couldn´t have been there, but someone claimed it was.
-
How could a match sized blob of jam like blood survive exposed to the air? We know it would have turned dark brown/black and disintegrated in 24 hours therefore someone was imagining things imo.
Hi Maggie
I don't think there is any reference/forensic or documentation about the blob, is there?...it appears to have disappeared... :-\
-
How did the blood of three people on the same baffle? What are the chances of that?
Was the whole purpose of telling the police he had received a call from his father also bogus? Did he figure no one would find out?....Yet he states clearly to Jones why don't you trace the call....Are you saying that he knew that the call could not be traced? No google in those days....Nor did anyone prove he had made enquires in order to establish that.
Such a planned crime was it not? :-\ :-\ :-\
So well planned and carried out, it must have taken him a year to plan it..... not! More like something done on the spur of the moment it was so very badly thought out.
-
Hi Maggie
I don't think there is any reference/forensic or documentation about the blob, is there?...it appears to have disappeared... :-\
AE told us about the 'blob' in her statement didn't she? No mention of blob or hair from the police or prosecution though, I agree.
-
So well planned and carried out, it must have taken him a year to plan it..... not! More like something done on the spur of the moment it was so very badly thought out.
Ha! It was so planned out Maggie that he could not remember the sequence of the telephone calls....
It matters not whether he called Julie first or second before he called the police...its irrelevant.
What does matter though is that he called Julie before he had a call from his father....Its debatable and I still think that they had the technology to prove it one way or the other, but did not pursue it.....
Tracing calls and itemized calls were piloted in many Counties at the time, so the technology was already there....I'm spinning hahaha.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
How did the blood of three people on the same baffle? What are the chances of that?
Was the whole purpose of telling the police he had received a call from his father also bogus? Did he figure no one would find out?....Yet he states clearly to Jones why don't you trace the call....Are you saying that he knew that the call could not be traced? No google in those days....Nor did anyone prove he had made enquires in order to establish that.
Such a planned crime was it not? :-\ :-\ :-\
How do you know what research he did or didn't do? ???
Perhaps he made a call from WHF to his house in Goldhanger, which was picked up by the answer phone, which he later deleted. Perhaps he erroneously thought the police COULD trace a call?
-
According to AE's statement (taken between 8th and 13th Sept) she asked Jeremy why he didn't go to WHF as allegedly requested by Nevill's phone call - Jeremy replied that he was frightened that the call may have been a trick in order to lure him to the farm so Sheila could 'shoot him too'. At this point (after the supposed call from Nevill) Jeremy isn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot!
This has obviously come up before, but it is a very good point.
-
Ha! It was so planned out Maggie that he could not remember the sequence of the telephone calls....
It matters not whether he called Julie first or second before he called the police...its irrelevant.
What does matter though is that he called Julie before he had a call from his father....Its debatable and I still think that they had the technology to prove it one way or the other, but did not pursue it.....
Tracing calls and itemized calls were piloted in many Counties at the time, so the technology was already there....I'm spinning hahaha.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well who knows?
JB gave two accounts.
1. He phoned Julie first and said he couldn't talk for long because he needed to call the police.
2. He phoned Julie after the police because he was pissed at the police.
???
Which is it? Which sounds better. ::)
-
Why would he be pissed at the police. They had despatched cars and were meeting him at WHF.
Thought he would be more concerned about his family.
-
Why would he be pissed at the police. They had despatched cars and were meeting him at WHF.
Thought he would be more concerned about his family.
Yes you would think so.
But there is no time for a call to Julie AFTER calling the police, so why invent that scenario?
-
How do you know what research he did or didn't do? ???
Perhaps he made a call from WHF to his house in Goldhanger, which was picked up by the answer phone, which he later deleted. Perhaps he erroneously thought the police COULD trace a call?
I think we can safely say he did not google....So if he wanted to know the ins and outs of tracing calls he would have had to have either known someone who worked for BT...but, no one has ever come forward to say he had asked about calls, so maybe we can rule that one out...The only way he would know, I guess, is to call BT anonymously and ask them. He could have, or he may not have, or he could have assumed that the call would be traced.
He could have phoned from WHF to Goldhanger, but there is no proof of that either....but it is possible. At trial he was supposed to have phoned Julie at 3am from Goldhanger which puts him at home, or does it? AE said he told police in his first statement that he received a call from his father at 3am.... :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Well who knows?
JB gave two accounts.
1. He phoned Julie first and said he couldn't talk for long because he needed to call the police.
2. He phoned Julie after the police because he was pissed at the police.
???
Which is it? Which sounds better. ::)
I don't know Hartley, but you would think if he had planned this for several months he would have memorized the sequence of events...
Of course it sounds better to say that he called Julie after he had called the police, but he would not commit to that, he told Jones he was unsure and that he could not remember...
To me he was not well rehearsed or was he telling the truth, that he could not remember....He did keep saying to Jones that his first statement would be more reliable. :-\
-
I think we can safely say he did not google....So if he wanted to know the ins and outs of tracing calls he would have had to have either known someone who worked for BT...but, no one has ever come forward to say he had asked about calls, so maybe we can rule that one out...The only way he would know, I guess, is to call BT anonymously and ask them. He could have, or he may not have, or he could have assumed that the call would be traced.
He could have phoned from WHF to Goldhanger, but there is no proof of that either....but it is possible. At trial he was supposed to have phoned Julie at 3am from Goldhanger which puts him at home, or does it? AE said he told police in his first statement that he received a call from his father at 3am.... :-\ :-\ :-\
Maybe he simply assumed calls could be traced, and set them up accordingly. Or he knew that the couldn't (from whatever source) and relied on that.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to suggest? :-\
-
I don't know Hartley, but you would think if he had planned this for several months he would have memorized the sequence of events...
Of course it sounds better to say that he called Julie after he had called the police, but he would not commit to that, he told Jones he was unsure and that he could not remember...
To me he was not well rehearsed or was he telling the truth, that he could not remember....He did keep saying to Jones that his first statement would be more reliable. :-\
I still occasionally have the thought that the suicide situation simply presented itself and what followed was made up as he went along.
-
I don't know Hartley, but you would think if he had planned this for several months he would have memorized the sequence of events...
Of course it sounds better to say that he called Julie after he had called the police, but he would not commit to that, he told Jones he was unsure and that he could not remember...
To me he was not well rehearsed or was he telling the truth, that he could not remember....He did keep saying to Jones that his first statement would be more reliable. :-\
It might sound better, but the various timings don't make it possible. So he's made that part up. Surely you see that?
-
It might sound better, but the various timings don't make it possible. So he's made that part up. Surely you see that?
To be honest with you I do not know. The facts surrounding the calls are not reliable enough for me to come to any positive conclusion. Sorry. :-[
-
To be honest with you I do not know. The facts surrounding the calls are not reliable enough for me to come to any positive conclusion. Sorry. :-[
What is clear is that has stated that called Julie before calling the police, then changed his story and stated that he called her after calling the police.
You can put that down to being traumatised or confused, but personally I put it down to changing his story to suit his manipulation of events.
Caroline's point about his alleged fear of him being lured to the house to also be shot, seems to equally fit in to that category.
It does appear to be a rather telling slip up.
-
What is clear is that has stated that called Julie before calling the police, then changed his story and stated that he called her after calling the police.
You can put that down to being traumatised or confused, but personally I put it down to changing his story to suit his manipulation of events.
Caroline's point about his alleged fear of him being lured to the house to also be shot, seems to equally fit in to that category.
It does appear to be a rather telling slip up.
Indeed.
-
I still occasionally have the thought that the suicide situation simply presented itself and what followed was made up as he went along.
I don´t think anyone would think that a two shot murder presented itself as a suicide situation.
-
The police offered the keys to Jeremy after they had finished their investigations and he declined them and suggested they gave them to AE, why would he do that when all he had to do was take the keys to his house and walk in through the door, lock it behind him and tie up all the loose ends he needed to. Doubt he'd give away the keys wait a while then climb through a window one night to retrieve the silencer.
He was too interested in partying to get the keys. He was going away for an extended vacation so told police to give them to his family. He used the opportunity to pretend he was too upset to ever go to WHF again he gave a performance saying he would never step foot in again Then after returning from his weekend of partying what did he do? Doh ::) he went to WHF to get his father's wallet and take a look at the items he thought he would be able to sell.
When the police gave up the keys it meant they were done with the place he didn't expect them to go back. There was no need to run in to get the moderator and take it back to his place for hiding. If he took it to his place right away and police did search his place they would wonder why he had the moderator at his place and he would have had bigger problems.
He didn't expect they would be able to tell Sheila's blood was inside and that thus it was attached during the murders. He didn't understand the forensic possibilities. He felt putting it away and saying the gun didn't have it attached was good enough.
-
I don´t think anyone would think that a two shot murder presented itself as a suicide situation.
Clearly many people did, and do?
-
What is clear is that has stated that called Julie before calling the police, then changed his story and stated that he called her after calling the police.
You can put that down to being traumatised or confused, but personally I put it down to changing his story to suit his manipulation of events.
Caroline's point about his alleged fear of him being lured to the house to also be shot, seems to equally fit in to that category.
It does appear to be a rather telling slip up.
Jeremy initially told the police that he called Julie after he called the police. Jones confused him and tripped him up...it was then he said he could not remember the sequence of events...
Hartley, I can't take that comment to fit any category, for I don't know the situation, body language or the conversation that surrounded that comment....Surely AE would have picked on that comment, but she didn't. The other things is that we do not know if that comment is from memory or from one of Ann's cards....
It might appear telling to those who think he guilty, but I am not sure one way or the other, but I do sway towards the innocent side ;)....but that might be because the case its self was so badly handled, full of flaws, plus I am so suspicious of Jones....for some reason.
If anyone will persuade me it will be Scip, but he has got to stop being so biased lol
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jeremy initially told the police that he called Julie after he called the police. Jones confused him and tripped him up...it was then he said he could not remember the sequence of events...
Hartley, I can't take that comment to fit any category, for I don't know the situation, body language or the conversation that surrounded that comment....Surely AE would have picked on that comment, but she didn't. The other things is that we do not know if that comment is from memory or from one of Ann's cards....
It might appear telling to those who think he guilty, but I am not sure one way or the other, but I do sway towards the innocent side ;)....but that might be because the case its self was so badly handled, full of flaws, plus I am so suspicious of Jones....for some reason.
If anyone will persuade me it will be Scip, but he has got to stop being so biased lol
;D ;D ;D ;D
I wasn't aware that anybody was trying to persuade you of anything. What would be the point? ???
-
He was too interested in partying to get the keys. He was going away for an extended vacation so told police to give them to his family. He used the opportunity to pretend he was too upset to ever go to WHF again he gave a performance saying he would never step foot in again Then after returning from his weekend of partying what did he do? Doh ::) he went to WHF to get his father's wallet and take a look at the items he thought he would be able to sell.
When the police gave up the keys it meant they were done with the place he didn't expect them to go back. There was no need to run in to get the moderator and take it back to his place for hiding. If he took it to his place right away and police did search his place they would wonder why he had the moderator at his place and he would have had bigger problems.
He didn't expect they would be able to tell Sheila's blood was inside and that thus it was attached during the murders. He didn't understand the forensic possibilities. He felt putting it away and saying the gun didn't have it attached was good enough.
Are you saying that the blood in the moderator was not visible to the naked eye? It does sound far-fetched for him to leave it there in situ when he could have disposed of it in a million places and not hidden it at the Maida Vale flat.
-
Are you saying that the blood in the moderator was not visible to the naked eye? It does sound far-fetched for him to leave it there in situ when he could have disposed of it in a million places and not hidden it at the Maida Vale flat.
If it was missing, would that not have raised suspicion anyway?
-
Are you saying that the blood in the moderator was not visible to the naked eye? It does sound far-fetched for him to leave it there in situ when he could have disposed of it in a million places and not hidden it at the Maida Vale flat.
I think what he means Steve is that in 2002 there were no longer any blood inside the moderator that was visable to the naked eye... :)
-
How did the blood of three people on the same baffle? What are the chances of that?
Was the whole purpose of telling the police he had received a call from his father also bogus? Did he figure no one would find out?....Yet he states clearly to Jones why don't you trace the call....Are you saying that he knew that the call could not be traced? No google in those days....Nor did anyone prove he had made enquires in order to establish that.
Such a planned crime was it not? :-\ :-\ :-\
The only blood established as being inside was Sheila's. The DNA was not blood based and at any rate the baffles were DNA tested in batches. Batch A baffles 1-7. Batch B baffles 8-12, Batch C baffles 13-17. There is no way to know which baffle within the batch the DNA was even found on. It is possible June's DNA was found on different baffle than the DNA of the unknown minor contributor.
IF multiple victims suffer contact wounds that result in drawback in the same shooting episode then the chance of their blood mixing is extremely likely because the vibrations would mix their blood together. The main variable is whether they would suffer drawback as well. That is the most important factor. The only wound of June that even had a remote chance of being a contact wound was her shot between the eyes according to the medical evidence but it was viewed as unlikely and indeed her blood spatter got on the door so it wasn't a contact wound because if it were her blood would not have gotten on the door. So there were no wounds on June that would result in drawback that is the thing that precludes her blood being mixed with Sheila's- the fact her blood would not be able to reach any of the baffles.
Nor did Nevill have any contact wounds. His head shots were several inches away but that's not going to result in drawback. So his blood would no get inside deep enough to touch a baffle. That is why Sheila's blood didn't mix with their blood.
Backspatter results in blood spraying inside at all different angles that is why Sheila's blood was found on 8 baffles in a row. If it just went in 1 direction if could not get behind each successive baffle. Thus if multiple victims are shot at contact range in areas where blood will end up squirting in the weapon naturally some of the blood is going to overlap with blood of other victims- it is highly likely this will happen. If one victim had very little blood going inside then naturally that would reduce the chances of the blood mixing while more blood increases the chance. But the blood that mixes would intimately mix and the scientists would be able to tell it was a mixture.
I get criticized for long posts but I am trying to explain the issues involved in full so that people can hopefully end up understanding every aspect.
-
Are you saying that the blood in the moderator was not visible to the naked eye? It does sound far-fetched for him to leave it there in situ when he could have disposed of it in a million places and not hidden it at the Maida Vale flat.
If he stole the moderator to throw away that would be highly suspicious. In contrast leaving it in the closet he assumed they would just overlook it since he said it wasn't attached. He didn't know they could figure out the blood inside was Sheila's and figure out that it could only get there as a result of her being shot at contact range with it.
Look at Ann's reaction when she saw it, she figured it was just animal blood or something that was innocently transferred while touching it with a bloody hand or shooting an animal. She had no idea about drawback and that they would be able to determine it was Sheila's blood and that it got there from drawback while her fatal shot was fired at contact range.
People keep assuming that just because he planned out his attack that means Jeremy developed great forensic knowledge. It is plainly obvious he didn't know about drawback, that they would be able to figure out it was Sheila's blood and the implications of such. You are looking in hindsight and saying he should have known though if not for this case you wouldn't likely have ever heard of drawback and wouldn't know what it is either.
The blood in the opening wasn't type tested it was just tested to determine if it was human blood. The flake between baffle 1 and 2 and the blood on the baffles is what was type tested and screwed him because that blood couldn't get inside by any means other than drawback. Cutting herself and touching the opening can get a drop near the opening but would not result in it getting on the baffles. That is what was so important. That is what made the case and he had no clue about any of it. It didn't ever cross his mind.
-
I don't know Hartley, but you would think if he had planned this for several months he would have memorized the sequence of events...
Of course it sounds better to say that he called Julie after he had called the police, but he would not commit to that, he told Jones he was unsure and that he could not remember...
To me he was not well rehearsed or was he telling the truth, that he could not remember....He did keep saying to Jones that his first statement would be more reliable. :-\
1) Did he even pay his own phone bill or did Nevill pay that too? He might not have even known that a phone bill didn't list the calls because he might never have seen one.
2) Even if he knew they were not itemized he still might have thought that the phone company would be able to tell when and to where a call was made. Many people were surprised to learn the phone company couldn't tell such and he could very well be one of them.
If he knew there was not going to be any record of a call then he obviously would not have bothered calling his own house. But if he thought that there would be a record of the call then quite obviously he dialed his own number. We have no way to know which is the case because we have no way to get into Jeremy's head and to find out what he thought in regard to phone company technology.
3) Just because he was planning things out doesn't mean he would plan every minute detail of what he was going to say or that he would remember everything he wanted to say and not slip up. I have prepped witness for depositions and court for weeks, went over everything with them and then they get nervous and are like deer in the headlights and end up saying things that are nothing like what they ever said before. Afterwards they told me I was crazy and denied saying things that they said and only after the seeing the tape (depositions are often videotaped now) did they realize I was right. People make mistakes like this despite trying to tell the truth. It is not an easy thing to competently lie without an error and foresee everything so plan for every minute detail.
-
The only blood established as being inside was Sheila's. The DNA was not blood based and at any rate the baffles were DNA tested in batches. Batch A baffles 1-7. Batch B baffles 8-12, Batch C baffles 13-17. There is no way to know which baffle within the batch the DNA was even found on. It is possible June's DNA was found on different baffle than the DNA of the unknown minor contributor.
IF multiple victims suffer contact wounds that result in drawback in the same shooting episode then the chance of their blood mixing is extremely likely because the vibrations would mix their blood together. The main variable is whether they would suffer drawback as well. That is the most important factor. The only wound of June that even had a remote chance of being a contact wound was her shot between the eyes according to the medical evidence but it was viewed as unlikely and indeed her blood spatter got on the door so it wasn't a contact wound because if it were her blood would not have gotten on the door. So there were no wounds on June that would result in drawback that is the thing that precludes her blood being mixed with Sheila's- the fact her blood would not be able to reach any of the baffles.
Nor did Nevill have any contact wounds. His head shots were several inches away but that's not going to result in drawback. So his blood would no get inside deep enough to touch a baffle. That is why Sheila's blood didn't mix with their blood.
Backspatter results in blood spraying inside at all different angles that is why Sheila's blood was found on 8 baffles in a row. If it just went in 1 direction if could not get behind each successive baffle. Thus if multiple victims are shot at contact range in areas where blood will end up squirting in the weapon naturally some of the blood is going to overlap with blood of other victims- it is highly likely this will happen. If one victim had very little blood going inside then naturally that would reduce the chances of the blood mixing while more blood increases the chance. But the blood that mixes would intimately mix and the scientists would be able to tell it was a mixture.
I get criticized for long posts but I am trying to explain the issues involved in full so that people can hopefully end up understanding every aspect.
You are being absolutely biased and contradictorily in your analysis. ;D
Going back to the trial the crowns case was that the blood inside the silencer belonged to Sheila. That blood group belonged to half the population of the UK.
Many years later science had a breakthrough in DNA profiling.
In 2002 the court more or less accepted that the DNA found in the silencer might have belonged to Sheila. This is the point that you fail to ignore.
You use the word minor as being a contributor.....are you suggesting that the unknown DNA belonged to one of the children? This lets you down Scip....for we do not know who this DNA belongs to and no one had made any effort to find out.
Yes your posts are long and drawn out, but that is because you wonder off the point in question. However, I do take on board what you say, but have to read 4 paragraphs before I get to the point of discussion.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You are being absolutely biased and contradictorily in your analysis. ;D
No I am being objective and fully accurate. The prosecution removed all visible blood from the moderator in 1985. Defense expert Lincoln removed all invisible blood from the moderator in 1986.
ONLY DNA testing the blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 would reveal whose DNA that blood belonged to. Testing the moderator subsequent to this would AT MOST reveal whether any blood still remained or it had all been removed. In 1999 they tested the moderator for the presence of blood it tested negative thus all blood had been removed in 1985 and 1986.
The DNA testing of the moderator was thus worthless. Jeremy's own expert is the one who contended the DNA found inside was the result of contamination and was not blood based.
June's DNA was transferred to at least 1 baffle in each of the testing batches as a result of contamination. There was at least 1 minor contributor in each batch but no way to know if the minor contributor for each batch was the same person or a different person. There could have been 1, 2 or 3 different minor contributors.
They tested 7 other areas beyond the baffles. Sheila was the major contributor in 5 of the 7 batches and 1 or each of her sons the major contributor in the other 2. There was at least 1 minor contributor in each of the 7 batches and each could have been the same or someone different. There could have been 4 major contributors and 10 minor contributors.
Going back to the trial the crowns case was that the blood inside the silencer belonged to Sheila. That blood group belonged to half the population of the UK.
Many years later science had a breakthrough in DNA profiling.
In 2002 the court more or less accepted that the DNA found in the silencer might have belonged to Sheila. This is the point that you fail to ignore.
You use the word minor as being a contributor.....are you suggesting that the unknown DNA belonged to one of the children? This lets you down Scip....for we do not know who this DNA belongs to and no one had made any effort to find out.
Yes your posts are long and drawn out, but that is because you wonder of the point in question. However, I do take on board what you say, but have to read 4 paragraphs before I get to the point of discussion.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
There is no way to find out who the contributors were and no need to even try. You keep ignoring:
1) the DNA was NOT BLOOD BASED it was the result of contamination. It is totally IRRELEVANT whose DNA was transferred inside the baffle through contamination. Such is not relevant to the murders
2) Even if some blood had still been inside the moderator that would not in any way be able to help acquit Jeremy UNLESS it were Boutflour's DNA. That would help support the notion that Boutflour's blood had been planted inside in an effort to frame Jeremy. That still might not have been enough it is hard to know what the judges would have made of such. The only DNA test that could have determined whose blood was removed in 1985 and 1986 would be DNA testing that blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 but it was all expended in testing and nothing was saved so there was no blood left to DNA test.
Do you understand that DNA is present in hair, skin, bone, saliva, and semen- not merely blood. To determine DNA is blood based requires doing a test that proves there is blood present on the exact area that is then DNA tested. People touching the moderator was able to contaminate the moderator with DNA. DNA precautions were not taken when the moderator was tested in 1985 and 1986 because DNA wasn't in use. The prosecution and lab experts who were getting tiny traces of DNA on their gloves etc were not worried about transferring tiny trace amounts of DNA to the moderator.
Even though we know about DNA the lab in the Kercher murder case ended up transferring a tiny drop of Kercher's DNA to a knife taken from Sollecito's house. That knife tested negative from blood it was not blood based DNA it was from contamination. It thus proved nothing just like the contamination in this case proves nothing.
10 areas were DNA tested and each area had one major contributor and at least 1 minor contributor:
1) June + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
2) June + at least another male (could be any male victim or a non-victim)
3) June + at least another male (could be any male victim or a non-victim)
4) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
5) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
6) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
7) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
8 ) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
9) Nicolas or Daniel + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
10) Nicolas or Daniel + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
So it could just be as little as 4 victims as the donors or could be as many as all 5 victims plus 9 other people. There could be as few as 4 donors or could be at least 14 donors. There is no way to know since the minor contributor profiles were so small and so incomplete. Even if it mattered there would be no way to figure out who those contributors were but it makes no difference anyway for the reasons I already explained.
-
No I am being objective and fully accurate. The prosecution removed all visible blood from the moderator in 1985. Defense expert Lincoln removed all invisible blood from the moderator in 1986.
But you are not! You have agreed with what I have said and that is there was no visible blood in 2002 because it was removed by previous swabbing.
ONLY DNA testing the blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 would reveal whose DNA that blood belonged to. Testing the moderator subsequent to this would AT MOST reveal whether any blood still remained or it had all been removed. In 1999 they tested the moderator for the presence of blood it tested negative thus all blood had been removed in 1985 and 1986.
I have told you that the COA 2002 excepted that the DNA taken MAY have belonged to Sheila. The crown case fails on this point. :-\
The DNA testing of the moderator was thus worthless. I totally agree Jeremy's own expert is the one who contended the DNA found inside was the result of contamination and was not blood based.
June's DNA was transferred to at least 1 baffle in each of the testing batches as a result of contamination. There was at least 1 minor contributor in each batch but no way to know if the minor contributor for each batch was the same person or a different person. There could have been 1, 2 or 3 different minor contributors. But was June's DNA present as a result of one her family handling the silencer?
They tested 7 other areas beyond the baffles. Sheila was the major contributor in 5 of the 7 batches and 1 or each of her sons the major contributor in the other 2. There was at least 1 minor contributor in each of the 7 batches and each could have been the same or someone different. There could have been 4 major contributors and 10 minor contributors. I do not think that is correct and you might be clutching at straws here.
There is no way to find out who the contributors were and no need to even try. You keep ignoring:
1) the DNA was NOT BLOOD BASED it was the result of contamination. It is totally IRRELEVANT whose DNA was transferred inside the baffle through contamination. Such is not relevant to the murders
2) Even if some blood had still been inside the moderator that would not in any way be able to help acquit Jeremy UNLESS it were Boutflour's DNA. That would help support the notion that Boutflour's blood had been planted inside in an effort to frame Jeremy. That still might not have been enough it is hard to know what the judges would have made of such. The only DNA test that could have determined whose blood was removed in 1985 and 1986 would be DNA testing that blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 but it was all expended in testing and nothing was saved so there was no blood left to DNA test.
Do you understand that DNA is present in hair, skin, bone, saliva, and semen- not merely blood. To determine DNA is blood based requires doing a test that proves there is blood present on the exact area that is then DNA tested. People touching the moderator was able to contaminate the moderator with DNA. DNA precautions were not taken when the moderator was tested in 1985 and 1986 because DNA wasn't in use. The prosecution and lab experts who were getting tiny traces of DNA on their gloves etc were not worried about transferring tiny trace amounts of DNA to the moderator.
Even though we know about DNA the lab in the Kercher murder case ended up transferring a tiny drop of Kercher's DNA to a knife taken from Sollecito's house. That knife tested negative from blood it was not blood based DNA it was from contamination. It thus proved nothing just like the contamination in this case proves nothing.
10 areas were DNA tested and each area had one major contributor and at least 1 minor contributor:
1) June + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
2) June + at least another male (could be any male victim or a non-victim)
3) June + at least another male (could be any male victim or a non-victim)
4) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
5) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
6) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
7) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
8 ) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
9) Nicolas or Daniel + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
10) Nicolas or Daniel + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
So it could just be as little as 4 victims as the donors or could be as many as all 5 victims plus 9 other people. There could be as few as 4 donors or could be at least 14 donors. There is no way to know since the minor contributor profiles were so small and so incomplete. Even if it mattered there would be no way to figure out who those contributors were but it makes no difference anyway for the reasons I already explained.
The rest of your post is copied and pasted from other threads. Can we stick to one point and not 50 thousand please...I only have eyes for one. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The rest of your post is copied and pasted from other threads. Can we stick to one point and not 50 thousand please...I only have eyes for one. ;D ;D ;D ;D
But was June's DNA present as a result of one her family handling the silencer?
I didn't cut and paste anything I typed it all for this thread.
It doesn't matter whether June's DNA was transferred there by Jeremy/Nevill prior to the murders or by someone after. It has no bearing on the blood evidence.
I do not think that is correct and you might be clutching at straws here.
I'm not clutching at straws I accurately explained the results for the sake of accuracy. It has no bearing on the case at all it was for the sake of people understanding the DNA findings merely.
I posted to you the field of possibilities with respect to the major and minor contributors for the ten areas.
These are the most significant excerpts from the 2002 COA decision concerning such:
"Since the CCRC referred this case to the court, further DNA testing has taken place of other parts of the moderator. Seven swabbings have been taken from internal parts of the moderator apart from the baffles. All seven results indicated that DNA from more than one person was present. The results were complex and incomplete and it was not possible to determine how many people had contributed to the DNA from the mixture. ... When comparisons were possible, components matching Sheila Caffell's DNA profile were detected in five of these seven results. The other two results also contained components which matched those of Sheila Caffell, but not at all of the ten areas of DNA tested where information was available for comparison. Some of the components detected did not match the profile of Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins."
Sheila was the major donor in 5 of the 7 batches, someone related to her were the donors in the other 2 batches. The major donor in one batch could have been a minor donor in another. Thus as few as 4 people could be the donors. There are at least 3 major donors and as many as 4. The minor donor in each batch could be someone different or could all be the same there is no way to know.
Whether the contamination occurred before or after the murders makes no difference because it is not blood based and it doesn't matter whether a donor worked in a lab, worked for the company that manufactured the moderator, was a juror, or was a victim.
-
I don't know Hartley, but you would think if he had planned this for several months he would have memorized the sequence of events...
Of course it sounds better to say that he called Julie after he had called the police, but he would not commit to that, he told Jones he was unsure and that he could not remember...
To me he was not well rehearsed or was he telling the truth, that he could not remember....He did keep saying to Jones that his first statement would be more reliable. :-\
It isn't possible to plan with finite detail, the demise of five people, in the same way that a jewellery heist can be planned. MOST important -and without this the murders can't happen- is to arrange for all those who have been chosen to be in the same place, something not necessarily in the would-be murderer's control, he/she must therefore be prepared to grab the chance when the opportunity presents itself.
Jeremy was as well rehearsed as it was possible for him to be. Sheila was staying from Sunday till Thursday(?) so time was pressing -"Tonight's the night"(?) Of course he would have had the basic outline of a plan, but THAT didn't go to order -he wouldn't have been prepared for having to fight with his father or needing to shoot Sheila twice- so MUCH of what occurred was ad hoc.
You, and other members of the Innocent Party, seem to be saying that because he didn't do/plan for A, B, and C he couldn't have done it, but the chances are A, B, and C couldn't BE planned for. He knew his way in and out. He knew where he allegedly left the gun. He was fairly confident that the boys would be in bed. Other than that he had to play it by ear.
-
It isn't possible to plan with finite detail, the demise of five people, in the same way that a jewellery heist can be planned. MOST important -and without this the murders can't happen- is to arrange for all those who have been chosen to be in the same place, something not necessarily in the would-be murderer's control, he/she must therefore be prepared to grab the chance when the opportunity presents itself.
Jeremy was as well rehearsed as it was possible for him to be. Sheila was staying from Sunday till Thursday(?) so time was pressing -"Tonight's the night"(?) Of course he would have had the basic outline of a plan, but THAT didn't go to order -he wouldn't have been prepared for having to fight with his father or needing to shoot Sheila twice- so MUCH of what occurred was ad hoc.
You, and other members of the Innocent Party, seem to be saying that because he didn't do/plan for A, B, and C he couldn't have done it, but the chances are A, B, and C couldn't BE planned for. He knew his way in and out. He knew where he allegedly left the gun. He was fairly confident that the boys would be in bed. Other than that he had to play it by ear.
Think some people remember JM claimed JB had told her he planned 'the perfect crime' I agree you can't plan anything apart from how to enter and exit the house etc. Any other part of any plan would always be subject to so many possibilities it was impossible to plan anything more, which means he climbed through a window in the dark at some time in the early morning ..... literally climbing into the unknown and putting himself into a position of massive risk. Everything was built on chance, hardly a 'perfect crime'.
-
Think some people remember JM claimed JB had told her he planned 'the perfect crime' I agree you can't plan anything apart from how to enter and exit the house etc. Any other part of any plan would always be subject to so many possibilities it was impossible to plan anything more, which means he climbed through a window in the dark at some time in the early morning ..... literally climbing into the unknown and putting himself into a position of massive risk. Everything was built on chance, hardly a 'perfect crime'.
But it isn't and never HAS been about what you, I and others think of as being "the perfect crime." SO often here I read that "Jeremy would NEVER have done............because..............." which is putting OUR interpretation onto it. This whole exercise is what JEREMY thought -BELIEVED- he was capable of and the greater credence we give to him being a psychopath the more it becomes clear that he believed he'd nailed it. Climbing through a window into the unknown is of no moment to a risk taker.The greater the chance, the tastier the reward, the greater the buzz -"LOOK what I went through to achieve this!!!"
-
But it isn't and never HAS been about what you, I and others think of as being "the perfect crime." SO often here I read that "Jeremy would NEVER have done............because..............." which is putting OUR interpretation onto it. This whole exercise is what JEREMY thought -BELIEVED- he was capable of and the greater credence we give to him being a psychopath the more it becomes clear that he believed he'd nailed it. Climbing through a window into the unknown is of no moment to a risk taker.The greater the chance, the tastier the reward, the greater the buzz -"LOOK what I went through to achieve this!!!"
I know it's not about what I think, I was speaking about what Julie Mugford claimed. The perfect crime he planned for a year, I was agreeing with you ie. You cannot plan anything when you are reliant on the chance behaviours of 5 other people, the reason I say scenarios are pointless. Anything could have happened after he climbed through that window...... even to the possibility that Nevill may have shot him.
I know psychopaths tend to be risk takers but it was a hell of a gamble and impossible to plan. More likely to be a spur of the moment crime imo.
-
But it isn't and never HAS been about what you, I and others think of as being "the perfect crime." SO often here I read that "Jeremy would NEVER have done............because..............." which is putting OUR interpretation onto it. This whole exercise is what JEREMY thought -BELIEVED- he was capable of and the greater credence we give to him being a psychopath the more it becomes clear that he believed he'd nailed it. Climbing through a window into the unknown is of no moment to a risk taker.The greater the chance, the tastier the reward, the greater the buzz -"LOOK what I went through to achieve this!!!"
I don't think its fair to call Jeremy a psychopath without knowing the full facts of an evaluation April or tag him with being one. One does not become a psychopath over night, it has many contributing factors over a period of time.
Those that say he is guilty say he planned the murders,. so in effect he planned the phone call, therefore he must have remembered that. He is hardly going to say he can't remember as apposed to yes I called Julie after I called the police. This minor detail took 4 pages up on his statement where Jones tried to put words into his mouth by trying to get Jeremy to say that he called Julie before he called the police. This same officer went out of his way to prove he called Julie before he called the police. So much so that he went to visit the girls the following year and concluded that the clock had been set 10 minutes on so therefore introduced another time of 3am which did not and never has fitted with the none of the calls that were made that night. One has to look back at original statements to see the times that people had given which all matched the time that Jeremy had first stated in his original statement. It was Jones that moved the goal posts, in fact it was Jones that challenged everyones times....I ask was this done to fit Jeremy to the crime, or was everyone changing their original times to suit. I am so suspicious of that man...I know it is wrong of me to say that, but I feel something is not right. :-\
-
Maggie this is what makes me think as Caroline said he was in the house when they all went to bed :'(
-
Maggie this is what makes me think as Caroline said he was in the house when they all went to bed :'(
I have thought that a possibility as well. :-\
-
I don't think its fair to call Jeremy a psychopath without knowing the full facts of an evaluation April or tag him with being one. One does not become a psychopath over night, it has many contributing factors over a period of time.
Those that say he is guilty say he planned the murders,. so in effect he planned the phone call, therefore he must have remembered that. He is hardly going to say he can't remember as apposed to yes I called Julie after I called the police. This minor detail took 4 pages up on his statement where Jones tried to put words into his mouth by trying to get Jeremy to say that he called Julie before he called the police. This same officer went out of his way to prove he called Julie before he called the police. So much so that he went to visit the girls the following year and concluded that the clock had been set 10 minutes on so therefore introduced another time of 3am which did not and never has fitted with the none of the calls that were made that night. One has to look back at original statements to see the times that people had given which all matched the time that Jeremy had first stated in his original statement. It was Jones that moved the goal posts, in fact it was Jones that challenged everyones times....I ask was this done to fit Jeremy to the crime, or was everyone changing their original times to suit. I am so suspicious of that man...I know it is wrong of me to say that, but I feel something is not right. :-\
I agree Patti, this case doesn't feel right and we have no idea whether JB is a psychopath or not. It's easy to make assumptions about him and the case it depends which way you look at it imo.
-
Jeremy initially told the police that he called Julie after he called the police. Jones confused him and tripped him up...it was then he said he could not remember the sequence of events...
Hartley, I can't take that comment to fit any category, for I don't know the situation, body language or the conversation that surrounded that comment....Surely AE would have picked on that comment, but she didn't. The other things is that we do not know if that comment is from memory or from one of Ann's cards....
It might appear telling to those who think he guilty, but I am not sure one way or the other, but I do sway towards the innocent side ;)....but that might be because the case its self was so badly handled, full of flaws, plus I am so suspicious of Jones....for some reason.
If anyone will persuade me it will be Scip, but he has got to stop being so biased lol
;D ;D ;D ;D
The reason Jeremy was 'tripped up' is because he was lying. He realised that the call to Julie would seem odd if it came before the call to police (because he had initially said he called the police IMMEDIATELY). Jones wouldn't have been able to trip him up had Jeremy not been desperately trying to keep his story consistent. It's far easier to remember something that did happen, as opposed to an invention.
-
I agree Patti, this case doesn't feel right and we have no idea whether JB is a psychopath or not. It's easy to make assumptions about him and the case it depends which way you look at it imo.
nobody here is medically qualified to diagnose someone as a psychopath.
-
I don't think its fair to call Jeremy a psychopath without knowing the full facts of an evaluation April or tag him with being one. One does not become a psychopath over night, it has many contributing factors over a period of time.
Those that say he is guilty say he planned the murders,. so in effect he planned the phone call, therefore he must have remembered that. He is hardly going to say he can't remember as apposed to yes I called Julie after I called the police. This minor detail took 4 pages up on his statement where Jones tried to put words into his mouth by trying to get Jeremy to say that he called Julie before he called the police. This same officer went out of his way to prove he called Julie before he called the police. So much so that he went to visit the girls the following year and concluded that the clock had been set 10 minutes on so therefore introduced another time of 3am which did not and never has fitted with the none of the calls that were made that night. One has to look back at original statements to see the times that people had given which all matched the time that Jeremy had first stated in his original statement. It was Jones that moved the goal posts, in fact it was Jones that challenged everyones times....I ask was this done to fit Jeremy to the crime, or was everyone changing their original times to suit. I am so suspicious of that man...I know it is wrong of me to say that, but I feel something is not right. :-\
If you think Jeremy is guilty, it is perfectly reasonable to believe he is a psychopath. If guilty, he planned and orchestrated the murders of 5 members of his family, including two six year old children simply because he thought it was time he received his inheritance - which he didn't think he should have to share. No one said Jeremy became a psychopath overnight -that's not the way it happens - how a psychopath reacts to a situation depends on the situation. You don't have to be a raving axe murderer to be a psychopath, most never kill and those around them may never realise. For Jeremy the murders were simply a means to an end - the family stood in the way of his comfortable, hassle free future so they had to go. He has never expressed any remorse nor admitted to guilt. The psychopath check list could certainly have been written for Jeremy and he has been described using similar terms by people who actually knew him.
Steph is right when she suggests that there are 'red flags' - in fact, it's like red flag day at red flag convention!
Jeremy didn't remember who he called first? Such an important life event and he can't remember? ??? More likely, Jeremy didn't want to commit himself because he wasn't sure how much they 'knew'. Interestingly, Jeremy didn't actually mention calling Julie at all in his first statement - he also said he called the police IMMEDIATELY after his fathers call, but couldn't have done if he buggered about looking for the number of the local station which he later said took him 10 minutes. This is obviously when he called Julie. Today, he claims that he didn't call police until 03:36, so the earlier claim that he called them 'immediately' must have been a lie and what was he doing for a full 26 minutes after the supposed initial call from Nevill? Oh what a tangled web!
-
I agree Patti, this case doesn't feel right and we have no idea whether JB is a psychopath or not. It's easy to make assumptions about him and the case it depends which way you look at it imo.
I'm looking at it from the side of him being guilty - you yourself have also stated (more than once) that if guilty, he MUST be a psychopath.
-
nobody here is medically qualified to diagnose someone as a psychopath.
Very true, nugnug and even if thy were it is impossible to make such a diagnosis without face to face tests etc.
-
I'm looking at it from the side of him being guilty - you yourself have also stated (more than once) that if guilty, he MUST be a psychopath.
I agree I would find it very hard to believe he could have done what he did without being a psychopath or highly disordered and narcissistic.
I know you look at it that way and it's up to you what you believe, Caroline. I'm not convinced JB did it, there are many unanswered questions imo. As I'm not convinced as you are that he is guilty, I can't accept that anyone can say whether or not Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath without professional face to face testing, however that's just my opinion.
-
I'm looking at it from the side of him being guilty - you yourself have also stated (more than once) that if guilty, he MUST be a psychopath.
this seems to be a rather circular argument which hes guilty makes him a psychopath witch makes him guilty.
-
this seems to be a rather circular argument which makes him a psychopath witch makes him guilty.
As far as I'm concerned nugs, I cannot see anyone apart from a psychopath being able to commit those dreadful murders, clean themselves up and face the police cool as you like a few hours later. Sheer badness isn't enough to sustain yourself through such dreadful carnage and not have any emotional reaction.imo
However, this is just my opinion, he may be the exception to the rule :-\ :-\
-
nobody here is medically qualified to diagnose someone as a psychopath.
I think perfectly reasonable on a discussion board to put forward the 'opinion' that a convicted mass murderer is likely to be a psychopath.
-
I agree I would find it very hard to believe he could have done what he did without being a psychopath or highly disordered and narcissistic.
I know you look at it that way and it's up to you what you believe, Caroline. I'm not convinced JB did it, there are many unanswered questions imo. As I'm not convinced as you are that he is guilty, I can't accept that anyone can say whether or not Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath without professional face to face testing, however that's just my opinion.
It's not possible to say whether he is innocent or guilty either without having been there but we all have an opinion. It follows that psychopathy would be a consideration if following a guilty persuasion and it certainly has a place in such a discussion. We know enough about Jeremy to at least hold an opinion and the fact that such an opinion leaves a bad taste in the mouths or some is neither here nor there.
-
As far as I'm concerned nugs, I cannot see anyone being able to commit those dreadful murders, clean themselves up and face the police cool as you like a few hours later. Sheer badness isn't enough to sustain yourself through such dreadful carnage and not have any emotional reaction.imo
However, this is just my opinion, he may be the exception to the rule :-\ :-\
Psychopaths can do just that - and that's not an opinion, it's a fact.
-
I don't think its fair to call Jeremy a psychopath without knowing the full facts of an evaluation April or tag him with being one. One does not become a psychopath over night, it has many contributing factors over a period of time.
Those that say he is guilty say he planned the murders,. so in effect he planned the phone call, therefore he must have remembered that. He is hardly going to say he can't remember as apposed to yes I called Julie after I called the police. This minor detail took 4 pages up on his statement where Jones tried to put words into his mouth by trying to get Jeremy to say that he called Julie before he called the police. This same officer went out of his way to prove he called Julie before he called the police. So much so that he went to visit the girls the following year and concluded that the clock had been set 10 minutes on so therefore introduced another time of 3am which did not and never has fitted with the none of the calls that were made that night. One has to look back at original statements to see the times that people had given which all matched the time that Jeremy had first stated in his original statement. It was Jones that moved the goal posts, in fact it was Jones that challenged everyones times....I ask was this done to fit Jeremy to the crime, or was everyone changing their original times to suit. I am so suspicious of that man...I know it is wrong of me to say that, but I feel something is not right. :-\
I imagine that he was so cock a hoop with having pulled of what HE thought to be the "perfect crime" that he had to call Julie first to let HER know. I would love to know what it was she left out of their conversation because it doesn't make sense as it is, NOR do I think there was ANY element, on his side, of asking her for advice. Asking if Jones moved goal posts and challenged times in order to fit Jeremy to the crime, makes no sense at all because it would have meant getting on board, ie making liars of EVERYONE associated with it, when they already HAD a culprit. Again, I have to ask WHY.
If we accept that it was planned, however loosely, how can someone who has no mental impairment, yet is prepared to slaughter their family, NOT be a psychopath?
-
As far as I'm concerned nugs, I cannot see anyone being able to commit those dreadful murders, clean themselves up and face the police cool as you like a few hours later. Sheer badness isn't enough to sustain yourself through such dreadful carnage and not have any emotional reaction.imo
However, this is just my opinion, he may be the exception to the rule :-\ :-\
As you're not a psychopath, I'd be very surprised if you could. It isn't within your frame of reference.
-
As you're not a psychopath, I'd be very surprised if you could. It isn't within your frame of reference.
meant unless someone was a psychopath, seem to have missed that out of my post. I shall correct it. before everyone tells me what I already know.
-
Psychopaths can do just that - and that's not an opinion, it's a fact.
I know!!
-
It's not possible to say whether he is innocent or guilty either without having been there but we all have an opinion. It follows that psychopathy would be a consideration if following a guilty persuasion and it certainly has a place in such a discussion. We know enough about Jeremy to at least hold an opinion and the fact that such an opinion leaves a bad taste in the mouths or some is neither here nor there.
I have no bad taste in my mouth thanks and I also know what a psychpath is, I have read plenty on the subject. I just missed a couple of words out of my post that's all. I'm not judging your opinion, or forcing my opinion on anybody.
-
if you anilsed the behavior of anybody you could find things to suggest they were a psycopath.
-
According to AE's statement (taken between 8th and 13th Sept) she asked Jeremy why he didn't go to WHF as allegedly requested by Nevill's phone call - Jeremy replied that he was frightened that the call may have been a trick in order to lure him to the farm so Sheila could 'shoot him too'. At this point (after the supposed call from Nevill) Jeremy isn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot!
That sounds like he has absorbed a theory from DCI Thomas Jones. Mike Tesko has always claimed that one of Taff's theories was that the phone call was an attempt made under duress, to lure Jeremy to the farm. i.e. Ralph fluffed the call, to alert Jeremy.
-
if you anilsed the behavior of anybody you could find things to suggest they were a psycopath.
Of course, but only if they ticked ALL the boxes would they actually BE one, and even then, unless one vital element is present, they'll be unlikely to EVER commit murder.
-
i bet through selective interprtation and qaution i could make anyone of you look like pscopaths if i wanted to.
-
I have no bad taste in my mouth thanks and I also know what a psychpath is, I have read plenty on the subject. I just missed a couple of words out of my post that's all. I'm not judging your opinion, or forcing my opinion on anybody.
OK, clam down! I can't know what you mean, only what you post!!
-
i bet through selective interprtation and qaution i could make anyone of you look like pscopaths if i wanted to.
Only problem there Nugs, is that (as far as I know), we haven't been convicted of killing 5 people!!
-
That sounds like he has absorbed a theory from DCI Thomas Jones. Mike Tesko has always claimed that one of Taff's theories was that the phone call was an attempt made under duress, to lure Jeremy to the farm. i.e. Ralph fluffed the call, to alert Jeremy.
Except, he wasn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot at that point.
-
i bet through selective interprtation and qaution i could make anyone of you look like pscopaths if i wanted to.
I expect we could do the same for you. WHAT would it prove, other than we had nothing better to do?
-
I have no bad taste in my mouth thanks and I also know what a psychpath is, I have read plenty on the subject. I just missed a couple of words out of my post that's all. I'm not judging your opinion, or forcing my opinion on anybody.
I'm unconcerned to learn that you know what a psychopath IS. I'd be VERY concerned if you'd said you know how it FEELS.
-
Except, he wasn't supposed to know that anyone had been shot at that point.
I dont get what you mean... and I do get what you mean, if you get what I mean?
Yes he is not supposed to know that anyone has been shot. But his version of events is that a desparate phone call from his dad was received which alleged a crazed Sheila was armed. Given that everyone was then killed and that Taff Jones was of the opinion that Sheila was cuplabale / Jeremy was not, I can see why Jeremy would say that to Ann.
-
I expect we could do the same for you. WHAT would it prove, other than we had nothing better to do?
it would prove that you put anyone in the frame for something very easly.
-
I don't think its fair to call Jeremy a psychopath without knowing the full facts of an evaluation April or tag him with being one. One does not become a psychopath over night, it has many contributing factors over a period of time.
You may want to bring that up with Bob Woffinden, JB's bio father, the police and all others who have referred to him as such.....
IMO JB ticks each box. It's all there. If people want to ignore it and excuse it, that's up to them.
-
I dont get what you mean... and I do get what you mean, if you get what I mean?
Yes he is not supposed to know that anyone has been shot. But his version of events is that a desparate phone call from his dad was received which alleged a crazed Sheila was armed. Given that everyone was then killed and that Taff Jones was of the opinion that Sheila was cuplabale / Jeremy was not, I can see why Jeremy would say that to Ann.
He is recalling why he didn't go to the farm (past tense) and telling Ann what was going through his mind after the call - saying that he was frightened that the call may have been a trick in order to lure him to the farm so Sheila could 'shoot him too'. When his father (allegedly) called, all he said was Sheila had the gun, not that she had shot anyone so why would he use the words 'shoot me too'? It's the 'Shoot me too' that is the Freudian slip.
-
I think perfectly reasonable on a discussion board to put forward the 'opinion' that a convicted mass murderer is likely to be a psychopath.
I have to agree. Psychopathy in the mainstream is misunderstood in my opinion and more needs to be done to educate people. Most psychopaths do not murder but they do wreak havoc on peoples lives.
"Many parents often attribute their children’s psychopathic behavior to maturity issues or a lack of attention and concentration. It is also common for the wide variety of professionals interfacing with such individuals to attribute one’s psychopathic behavior to the existence of some inherent parental deficit or to assume that parental abuse or neglect has undoubtedly taken place. Despite the lack of a single definitive cause to explain the occurrence of this type of behavior, most would agree that encountering individuals displaying such behavior can be both frustrating and at times even dangerous.
Most would also agree that managing individuals choosing to engage in psychopathic behavior often becomes particularly problematic for family members and other personal associates. A large part of the difficulty lies in acquiring a heightened sense or awareness that one’s child is not likely to experience empathy, frequently lies, steals from the family, and can readily provide ample verbal justifications for one’s psychopathic behavior.
One of the problems that arises for parents is how to cope with psychopathic children as they develop into adolescence and adulthood. Unfortunately, when psychopathic behavioral patterns or psychopathic personality traits surface during childhood, the likelihood increases that these same behavioral patterns and personality traits may remain and become more solidified as they age. Given this generalization, how parents, law enforcement, and mental health professionals elect to interact with psychopathic adult children is important because there have been instances where related parental and professional misconceptions or minimizations have resulted in serious physical violence, such as the murder of one or both parents together with siblings.
-
it would prove that you put anyone in the frame for something very easly.
You MIGHT, I WOULDN'T. As I've said, not only do I find the concept of Jeremy being framed by family, friends, police, forensics, photographers, Special Branch, MI5, KGB, IRA and Uncle Tom Cobbly et al. ludicrous BEYOND belief, nobody has yet been able to answer the simple question "WHY"?
-
You MIGHT, I WOULDN'T. As I've said, not only do I find the concept of Jeremy being framed by family, friends, police, forensics, photographers, Special Branch, MI5, KGB, IRA and Uncle Tom Cobbly et al. ludicrous BEYOND belief, nobody has yet been able to answer the simple question "WHY"?
Thank goodness Nugs is an armchair detective hey and not the real McCoy ;D
-
Maggie this is what makes me think as Caroline said he was in the house when they all went to bed :'(
What would his excuse for staying in the house be? He lived very nearby and had a car. I don´t find this likely.
-
I thought the neighbours heard him come back in the car anyway.
-
What would his excuse for staying in the house be? He lived very nearby and had a car. I don´t find this likely.
Alias Caroline suggested that he brought the last trailer in and would be late finishing up so he said he would stay over. If you remember a pair of men's slippers in Sheila's room and both beds were made up but I guess at times this feels feasible others not.
-
I thought the neighbours heard him come back in the car anyway.
They did, Jan or they heard the car come back, am not sure if they saw Jeremy but they stated the car then didn't move until he went out in the early morning. Those cottages are tiny and am sure the car starting under there bedroom window must have woken them??
-
Clearly many people did, and do?
I don´t think a killer who had shot his victim twice would see it as something he should stage as a suicide.
-
I don´t think a killer who had shot his victim twice would see it as something he should stage as a suicide.
He didn't, the police did. He didn't necessarily have a plan and/or if he did he would have had to change tact when something went wrong. He wouldn't necessarily have thought this through. Psychopaths can appear to think quick on their feet.
-
Alias Caroline suggested that he brought the last trailer in and would be late finishing up so he said he would stay over. If you remember a pair of men's slippers in Sheila's room and both beds were made up but I guess at times this feels feasible others not.
There is a possibility but that would have taken a lot of planning someone had to drive his car home and then he had to get back to the cottage to drive the car back :-\ bit unlikely I think suse.
-
He didn't, the police did. He didn't necessarily have a plan and/or if he did he would have had to change tact when something went wrong. He wouldn't necessarily have thought this through. Psychopaths can appear to think quick on their feet.
According to Julie |M|ugford he had planned the murders for a year......
-
According to Julie |M|ugford he had planned the murders for a year......
That doesn't make it fact/true. We only have her word for it.
We can only speculate on whether or not the crime was pre-meditated.
-
And he still didn't get it right,eh,Maggie ? Leaving all kinds of clues. :)
-
That doesn't make it fact/true. We only have her word for it.
Well exactly but her testament at trial was one of two mainstays of the guilty verdict so if she made it up, what else did she make up?
-
And he still didn't get it right,eh,Maggie ? Leaving all kinds of clues. :)
Hence his subsequent arrest, conviction and life meaning life sentence. ;)
-
Well exactly but her testament at trial was one of two mainstays of the guilty verdict so if she made it up, what else did she make up?
That doesn't mean she wasn't a credible witness. Unless JB confesses and gives details we may never know.
-
And he still didn't get it right,eh,Maggie ? Leaving all kinds of clues. :)
Well, no, but then his sense of his own supremacy wasn't matched by the reality of it.
-
I am familiar with another case where a witness for the prosecution lied under oath. His evidence, had he have told the truth, would have made no difference to the eventual decision by the jury imo. It didn't help the accused in the grand scale of things and without the accused admitting it to be true it was merely supposition anyway.
-
There is a possibility but that would have taken a lot of planning someone had to drive his car home and then he had to get back to the cottage to drive the car back :-\ bit unlikely I think suse.
Maggie it has been suggested that he drove his car home phoned Julie parked his car up legged it back through the fields to the trailer then took that back to WHF and he was to stay over after he committed the murders he set the scene out through the window and back to his cottage through the fields which he would know very well then waited phoned Julie and told her about the alleged call from his Dad then phoned the police then back in his car to the farm.
-
Well exactly but her testament at trial was one of two mainstays of the guilty verdict so if she made it up, what else did she make up?
Furthermore the trial was to establish whether JB were guilty or not. Establishing whether he had planned it or not would have been secondary. The jury may not have believed JM when she suggested he had told her he had planned it a year before, they may have ignored this point but still arrived at the same verdict, having believed everything else.
-
Maggie it has been suggested that he drove his car home phoned Julie parked his car up legged it back through the fields to the trailer then took that back to WHF and he was to stay over after he committed the murders he set the scene out through the window and back to his cottage through the fields which he would know very well then waited phoned Julie and told her about the alleged call from his Dad then phoned the police then back in his car to the farm.
I know that's the belief but its a hell of a lot of dashing about, I find it hard to believe but it may have happened. :-\
-
Maggie it has been suggested that he drove his car home phoned Julie parked his car up legged it back through the fields to the trailer then took that back to WHF and he was to stay over after he committed the murders he set the scene out through the window and back to his cottage through the fields which he would know very well then waited phoned Julie and told her about the alleged call from his Dad then phoned the police then back in his car to the farm.
The Bambers and Sheila would have noticed that he took his car home - when he said he wanted to stay the night, that must have seemed odd to them.
I really am not buying into this. Five minutes away in a car: there would have been no reason to sleep over at the farm.
-
BTW, nice to see you back, Roch, it has been ages! :)
-
The Bambers and Sheila would have noticed that he took his car home - when he said he wanted to stay the night, that must have seemed odd to them.
I really am not buying into this. Five minutes away in a car: there would have been no reason to sleep over at the farm.
I did wonder how far the car was parked away from the house and when Ralph went to walk his dogs he would notice the car was gone and that would have been strange. Alias I honestly don't know how or when he got into the house :'( I honestly don't think we will ever know the truth.
-
I know that's the belief but its a hell of a lot of dashing about, I find it hard to believe but it may have happened. :-\
Is it? It's a short drive home and as the crow flies from GH to WHF, it does't look that far and if the trailer was already in the field, he had that to drive the rest of the way.
-
I did wonder how far the car was parked away from the house and when Ralph went to walk his dogs he would notice the car was gone and that would have been strange. Alias I honestly don't know how or when he got into the house :'( I honestly don't think we will ever know the truth.
Neither do I - and that is frustrating!
-
Furthermore the trial was to establish whether JB were guilty or not. Establishing whether he had planned it or not would have been secondary. The jury may not have believed JM when she suggested he had told her he had planned it a year before, they may have ignored this point but still arrived at the same verdict.
Establishing whether he had planned it or not was obviously not the point of the trial but it is quite important, surely as the main witness was under oath and therefore believed to be telling the truth on every other point, we therefore need to believe her when she said he planned it for a year and spoke about it all the time?
-
I know that's the belief but its a hell of a lot of dashing about, I find it hard to believe but it may have happened. :-\
Maggie I am now finding it hard to believe when I think it through guess it is back to the window ???
-
Is it? It's a short drive home and as the crow flies from GH to WHF, it does't look that far and if the trailer was already in the field, he had that to drive the rest of the way.
Then back again over the fields after killing 5 people? Possible I'm sure, think local people have more of an idea about the distance, the state of the pathways and fields he would need to navigate etc.
-
Is it? It's a short drive home and as the crow flies from GH to WHF, it does't look that far and if the trailer was already in the field, he had that to drive the rest of the way.
Caroline had Jeremy intended to stay overnight I wonder as Alias said if the Bambers noticed he had taken his car home unless his home was nearer to the trailer than WHF then they would have accepted why he drove off in his car.
-
Then back again over the fields after killing 5 people? Possible I'm sure, think local people have more of an idea about the distance, the state of the pathways and fields he would need to navigate etc.
Having lived there most of his life, I'm sure he's pretty familiar with all of the short cuts.
-
Having lived there most of his life, I'm sure he's pretty familiar with all of the short cuts.
I'm not really saying he didn't or wasn't familiar with the short cuts, at least I would hope he had at least worked that out beforehand, I have said its obviously possible, was just commenting it was quite a bit of dashing about. Some footpaths do meander all over the place and I don't know anything about the country side in rural Essex, I would guess it was mainly arable, rather than dairy farming and it's generally pretty flat around there?.
-
Caroline had Jeremy intended to stay overnight I wonder as Alias said if the Bambers noticed he had taken his car home unless his home was nearer to the trailer than WHF then they would have accepted why he drove off in his car.
Then notcing the car doesn't even enter into it. He went to the field to fill the last trailer but came back without it - why? I think it's possible that he used this as a means to start an argument with Neville, then drove off in the huff, dropped his car off and called Julie, went back to the trailer and brought it back to WHF with a feeble apology and because his car was back at GH, he suggested staying the night.
-
Then back again over the fields after killing 5 people? Possible I'm sure, think local people have more of an idea about the distance, the state of the pathways and fields he would need to navigate etc.
Just had a look at a map. It is rather far to walk - even if the trailer was situated to make the walk shorter.
We don´t know where the trailer was - it could have been on the other side of WHF compared to Goldhanger.
This is all a bit too convoluted, like the theory is made to fit some "difficult" facts about the case.
-
Then notcing the car doesn't even enter into it. He went to the field to fill the last trailer but came back without it - why? I think it's possible that he used this as a means to start an argument with Neville, then drove off in the huff, dropped his car off and called Julie, went back to the trailer and brought it back to WHF with a feeble apology and because his car was back at GH, he suggested staying the night.
Caroline that makes more sense to me he has the excuse to stay over as he has no car and Ralph could run him back next day after work.
-
Caroline that makes more sense to me he has the excuse to stay over as he has no car and Ralph could run him back next day after work.
I agree that is a possibility makes more sense than climbing through the window imo
-
I agree that is a possibility makes more sense than climbing through the window imo
I think window theory is a red herring.
-
I agree that is a possibility makes more sense than climbing through the window imo
Maggie this way it would rule out the dogs barking and waking the family up. Does anyone know what was the situation with regard to Jeremy's old bedroom.
-
Just had a look at a map. It is rather far to walk - even if the trailer was situated to make the walk shorter.
We don´t know where the trailer was - it could have been on the other side of WHF compared to Goldhanger.
This is all a bit too convoluted, like the theory is made to fit some "difficult" facts about the case.
The full distance is only 2.21 miles, not far at all.
-
It's not like he was against the clock.
-
It's not like he was against the clock.
I still find the whole thing a bit over-designed to explain difficult points about the case.
Well, you know I don´t buy into this.
-
I still find the whole thing a bit over-designed to explain difficult points about the case.
Well, you know I don´t buy into this.
We know, we know. ;D
-
I still find the whole thing a bit over-designed to explain difficult points about the case.
Well, you know I don´t buy into this.
It's OK, it's not for sale :P
-
The full distance is only 2.21 miles, not far at all.
It would be longer than two miles Caroline. There is not a straight path from his back garden to WHF...He would have had to negotiate hedgerows and crops. The ruler needs to follow the fields edges where the paths are and I dare bet it is more than 3 miles...and in the dead of the night would be very difficult...OK he could have used a torch, but that might have seen and I doubt he would risk that.
-
It's OK, it's not for sale :P
;D
-
It would be longer than two miles Caroline. There is not a straight path from his back garden to WHF...He would have had to negotiate hedgerows and crops. The ruler needs to follow the fields edges where the paths are and I dare bet it is more than 3 miles...and in the dead of the night would be very difficult...OK he could have used a torch, but that might have seen and I doubt he would risk that.
There's no straight path from my garden to the fields out back but I can still make my way across them for more than 2.21 miles.
-
It's OK, it's not for sale :P
So it´s for free, but I still won´t have it! :P
-
So it´s for free, but I still won´t have it! :P
Then I believe it even more :P
-
It would be longer than two miles Caroline. There is not a straight path from his back garden to WHF...He would have had to negotiate hedgerows and crops. The ruler needs to follow the fields edges where the paths are and I dare bet it is more than 3 miles...and in the dead of the night would be very difficult...OK he could have used a torch, but that might have seen and I doubt he would risk that.
A couple of torches were found in or near a hedgerow,but I would have thought they'd been checked out for prints,etc,as we've heard no more about them. Possibly nearby campers or something.
-
It would be longer than two miles Caroline. There is not a straight path from his back garden to WHF...He would have had to negotiate hedgerows and crops. The ruler needs to follow the fields edges where the paths are and I dare bet it is more than 3 miles...and in the dead of the night would be very difficult...OK he could have used a torch, but that might have seen and I doubt he would risk that.
He was a fit young man who probably ate all his carrots :D - I don't believe his movements would have been at all that difficult. Again, without his actual version we may never know his exact movements and can speculate till the cows come home, but it's clear there are many plausible possibilities - some not so plausible :D
-
Then I believe it even more :P
We all have our little quirks! ;) ;)
-
A couple of torches were found in or near a hedgerow,but I would have thought they'd been checked out for prints,etc,as we've heard no more about them. Possibly nearby campers or something.
Where can I find this info Lookout?
-
He was a fit young man who probably ate all his carrots :D - I don't believe his movements would have been at all that difficult. Again, without his actual version we may never know his exact movements and can speculate till the cows come home, but it's clear there are many plausible possibilities - some not so plausible :D
I agree, it's simply a possibility BUT, we still don't know who brought the final load of rape back. However, it was brought back.
-
We all have our little quirks! ;) ;)
I took the medicine and mine got better! ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
I took the medicine and mine got better! ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D
Take a little more! ;D
Couldn´t help myself!!! :P :P :P
-
I agree, it's simply a possibility BUT, we still don't know who brought the final load of rape back. However, it was brought back.
Can you point me to this reference ::) thanks
-
Take a little more! ;D
Couldn´t help myself!!! :P :P :P
There are things you can do to remedy that ;)
-
Take a little more! ;D
Couldn´t help myself!!! :P :P :P
Then maybe you need more? :P :P :P
-
Where can I find this info Lookout?
I've no idea but I remember reading about it.
-
Caroline am I correct in saying you asked him about the last load of rape or have I dreamt that :)
-
Caroline am I correct in saying you asked him about the last load of rape or have I dreamt that :)
No, I didn't Susan - but I might ;)
-
I've no idea but I remember reading about it.
So you don't know if it's fact or fiction?
-
Then maybe you need more? :P :P :P
We can have a party! ;D
-
No, I didn't Susan - but I might ;)
Caroline gawd I am now starting to get worried about myself I was convinced you had :'( :'( :'( think I will have some of the stuff you and Alias are having ;D
-
So you don't know if it's fact or fiction?
Found the reference
-
There's no straight path from my garden to the fields out back but I can still make my way across them for more than 2.21 miles.
It depends, it's dairy farming where I live but if it's arable and there's lots of crops planted, in August most would be ready for harvesting so difficult to walk through them ?? ...... Just a thought? :-\
-
So you don't know if it's fact or fiction?
It was fact because from what I can remember,it was established that campers had probably been in the area,as there were other items found as well,or it was someone who was sleeping rough.
-
I agree, it's simply a possibility BUT, we still don't know who brought the final load of rape back. However, it was brought back.
Got it ;D http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6247.msg279021.html#msg279021
-
A couple of torches were found in or near a hedgerow,but I would have thought they'd been checked out for prints,etc,as we've heard no more about them. Possibly nearby campers or something.
I thought the significance of the torches related to suspicions the torches were used to heat something up to then use it to burn Nevill with.
-
I thought the significance of the torches related to suspicions the torches were used to heat something up to then use it to burn Nevill with.
Who makes up these theories?
-
It depends, it's dairy farming where I live but if it's arable and there's lots of crops planted, in August most would be ready for harvesting so difficult to walk through them ?? ...... Just a thought? :-\
They ere already being harvested.
-
Who makes up these theories?
Mostly Jeremy supporters but if the burns were made in connection with the murders something such as a poker could have been heated up to make the burns. Some things alleged are actually plausible.
-
They ere already being harvested.
Oh OK just a thought. Of course they are it was harvest time, silly me but I thought some cereals are harvested later but whatever, it was just a thought.
-
I thought the significance of the torches related to suspicions the torches were used to heat something up to then use it to burn Nevill with.
I have never heard that Scorpio, think you made that up. There was talk about a drugs drop in a field and supposedly torches used to show a plane where to land in the fields but surely just local gossip and myth, I certainly don't believe it.
-
No, I didn't Susan - but I might ;)
Think you should!
-
Got it ;D http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6247.msg279021.html#msg279021
Thanks Steph. Jeremy (for some reason) didn't like being asked if the tractor had a canopy - once he realised why he was being asked (Julie said he's mentioned being inside the cab of the tractor all day), he felt more comfortable answering. I can't help wondering that he thought Jones was going to suggest that someone had seen him drive it back that night so was cautious how he answered?
-
Thanks Steph. Jeremy (for some reason) didn't like being asked if the tractor had a canopy - once he realised why he was being asked (Julie said he's mentioned being inside the cab of the tractor all day), he felt more comfortable answering. I can't help wondering that he thought Jones was going to suggest that someone had seen him drive it back that night so was cautious how he answered?
Yes I saw that - makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. He really appears to have played a cat and mouse game with the police.
-
Mostly Jeremy supporters but if the burns were made in connection with the murders something such as a poker could have been heated up to make the burns. Some things alleged are actually plausible.
I've made NOTHING up,as facts that I've stated DO show up even when I forget where I read them !!
-
I have never heard that Scorpio, think you made that up. There was talk about a drugs drop in a field and supposedly torches used to show a plane where to land in the fields but surely just local gossip and myth, I certainly don't believe it.
Scipio may be testing my knowledge on the case Maggie ;D
-
I've made NOTHING up,as facts that I've stated DO show up even when I forget where I read them !!
You have posted so many fallacies I don't know where to begin.
In any event Steph seemed to be asking where all these specious claims that keep popping up come from and I noted mostly Jeremy supporters.
Someone posited that a torch of some kind was used to heat the rifle to make the marks on Nevill's back. It is plausible something was heated up to make the burns. A cooking torch can be used to heat up something, a weed killing torch can be used even pencil torches. The possibilities of what can be used to heat something is quite large.
-
JB is meant to have gone through all the rigmarole of loading and unloading the gun for a couple of rabbits? Experience would have surely taught him that by the time he'd have gone in to get the gun the rabbits would be nowhere to be seen. I'm not buying it.....
The mention of rabbits bothers me.....
-
"Between 8pm and 9pm I returned to the farmhouse for about 30 minutes whilst my parents and Sheila were having supper. The twins were in bed. I had something to eat. During this my parents and Sheila were discussing future plans for the children and treatment she should have. It was generally about what could be done to help Sheila in my parents eyes. There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems. Whilst they were talking I took my .22 semi-automatic rifle from the study and loaded the magazine in the kitchen after tipping a box of ammunition out onto the side near the telephone in the kitchen. I was in a rush having just seen two rabbits and I left the house leaving the ammunition behind. I loaded the magazine until it was full between 8 to 10 rounds and went outside. I told my parents I was going to get the rabbits. I was outside for about 5 minutes having fired no shots."
Taken from statement of Jeremy Bamber 7-8-1985 - sheet 5-6
-
"Between 8pm and 9pm I returned to the farmhouse for about 30 minutes whilst my parents and Sheila were having supper. The twins were in bed. I had something to eat. During this my parents and Sheila were discussing future plans for the children and treatment she should have. It was generally about what could be done to help Sheila in my parents eyes. There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems. Whilst they were talking I took my .22 semi-automatic rifle from the study and loaded the magazine in the kitchen after tipping a box of ammunition out onto the side near the telephone in the kitchen. I was in a rush having just seen two rabbits and I left the house leaving the ammunition behind. I loaded the magazine until it was full between 8 to 10 rounds and went outside. I told my parents I was going to get the rabbits. I was outside for about 5 minutes having fired no shots."
Taken from statement of Jeremy Bamber 7-8-1985 - sheet 5-6
Why were these two rabbits so important to him? Did he make this up?
How old was he?
-
"Between 8pm and 9pm I returned to the farmhouse for about 30 minutes whilst my parents and Sheila were having supper. The twins were in bed. I had something to eat. During this my parents and Sheila were discussing future plans for the children and treatment she should have. It was generally about what could be done to help Sheila in my parents eyes. There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems. Whilst they were talking I took my .22 semi-automatic rifle from the study and loaded the magazine in the kitchen after tipping a box of ammunition out onto the side near the telephone in the kitchen. I was in a rush having just seen two rabbits and I left the house leaving the ammunition behind. I loaded the magazine until it was full between 8 to 10 rounds and went outside. I told my parents I was going to get the rabbits. I was outside for about 5 minutes having fired no shots."
Taken from statement of Jeremy Bamber 7-8-1985 - sheet 5-6
In his statement taken the next day - he now states
"I returned to the farmhouse around 8 - 9pm for 30 minutes. At this time both my parents and Sheila were sitting around the table having supper. The twins were in bed. I had something to eat standing up at the kitchen sink and did not sit at the table. I joined in on the discussion all 3 were having in relation to future plans for Sheila and the children. I suggested Sheila should take a holiday to give her some interest."
-
JB is meant to have gone through all the rigmarole of loading and unloading the gun for a couple of rabbits? Experience would have surely taught him that by the time he'd have gone in to get the gun the rabbits would be nowhere to be seen. I'm not buying it.....
The mention of rabbits bothers me.....
He told many different tales. In one tale he saw them from the kitchen, in another he heard the from the kitchen, in yet another he claimed he passed them and decided to go get the gun.
He made up the claim he took the gun and bullets out and left it out:
1) to give the false impression there was a weapon of opportunity for Sheila to come across because she had no interest in guns and would not have sought it out herself
2) to say the magazine was already loaded so there was no ability for Nevill to grab the gun and hide it as she tried to load the magazine
3) to say there was an extra ammo supply he left out that she could reload from
4) to provide an excuse for the gun not having the scope and moderator on it. He claimed he didn't have time to install them because he felt the rabbits would have gotten away. He gave the false impression the accessories were not kept installed on the weapon. The scope was normally attached but would have been in the way in close quarter shooting (look through binoculars at something a foot away from you) so he removed it but to hide he removed it especially for the murders he told the lie that it normally wasn't attached.
This rabbit tale was to account for these things.
-
He told many different tales. In one tale he saw them from the kitchen, in another he heard the from the kitchen, in yet another he claimed he passed them and decided to go get the gun.
He made up the claim he took the gun and bullets out and left it out:
1) to give the false impression there was a weapon of opportunity for Sheila to come across because she had no interest in guns and would not have sought it out herself
2) to say the magazine was already loaded so there was no ability for Nevill to grab the gun and hide it as she tried to load the magazine
3) to say there was an extra ammo supply he left out that she could reload from
4) to provide an excuse for the gun not having the scope and moderator on it. He claimed he didn't have time to install them because he felt the rabbits would have gotten away. He gave the false impression the accessories were not kept installed on the weapon. The scope was normally attached but would have been in the way in close quarter shooting (look through binoculars at something a foot away from you) so he removed it but to hide he removed it especially for the murders he told the lie that it normally wasn't attached.
This rabbit tale was to account for these things.
You'll have to provide me with a reference to where he saw and heard the rabbits from the kitchen because I haven't seen that. I read he spotted them near the potato shed.
I don't believe the rabbit story, there are far too many inconsistencies in his statements. If he were telling the truth in the first place there would be no need to change his story.
The fact he seems to have gone to such great lengths in destroying two rabbits, in the knowledge his family were having serious discussions about Sheila and his nephews and their futures further suggests it was made up.
This doesn't sound like the behaviour of a 25 year old.
I have to agree it sounds to me like he was setting the scene.
-
"Between 8pm and 9pm I returned to the farmhouse for about 30 minutes whilst my parents and Sheila were having supper. The twins were in bed. I had something to eat. During this my parents and Sheila were discussing future plans for the children and treatment she should have. It was generally about what could be done to help Sheila in my parents eyes. There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems. Whilst they were talking I took my .22 semi-automatic rifle from the study and loaded the magazine in the kitchen after tipping a box of ammunition out onto the side near the telephone in the kitchen. I was in a rush having just seen two rabbits and I left the house leaving the ammunition behind. I loaded the magazine until it was full between 8 to 10 rounds and went outside. I told my parents I was going to get the rabbits. I was outside for about 5 minutes having fired no shots."
Taken from statement of Jeremy Bamber 7-8-1985 - sheet 5-6
In his statement taken the next day - he now states
"I returned to the farmhouse around 8 - 9pm for 30 minutes. At this time both my parents and Sheila were sitting around the table having supper. The twins were in bed. I had something to eat standing up at the kitchen sink and did not sit at the table. I joined in on the discussion all 3 were having in relation to future plans for Sheila and the children. I suggested Sheila should take a holiday to give her some interest."
One minute he's in such a rush to go out and shoot the rabbits and doesn't have time to join in with the family discussions the next minute he sits down with his family and joins in the discussions before heading out to shoot the rabbits. ::)
-
You'll have to provide me with a reference to where he saw and heard the rabbits from the kitchen because I haven't seen that. I read he spotted them near the potato shed.
I don't believe the rabbit story, there are far too many inconsistencies in his statements. If he were telling the truth in the first place there would be no need to change his story.
The fact he seems to have gone to such great lengths in destroying two rabbits, in the knowledge his family were having serious discussions about Sheila and his nephews and their futures further suggests it was made up.
This doesn't sound like the behaviour of a 25 year old.
I have to agree it sounds to me like he was setting the scene.
He definitely was setting the scene he staged the bullets in the kitchen after the murders and left too many for his claims to be true. Had he actually taken a full or near full box of ammo in the kitchen and left them and these were used by the murderer then there would have been at most 25 bullets left. A full box has 50 rounds and 25 shots were fired so that means 25 bullets left. If it wasn't a full box then it would be less than 25 left. Yet there were 30 rounds. His story doesn't work.
His verbal account to police at the scene featured him hearing rabbits while in the kitchen, running to the study to get his gun and then going out to get them.
In his first written statement he said he was there a half hour as they were talking and that he then saw the rabbits and ran and got his gun.
In his second written statement he said the rabbits while he was outside and went to the house specifically to get his gun.
Despite being in a rush supposedly he didn't load the gun in the study instead he wasted time walking to the kitchen and loaded it in there because that is where he always loaded it. Why would he always load it in the kitchen? In the meantime he was never known to shoot vermin and was against shooting animals he left it to others. The gun was always stored with the scope and moderator attached. He initially lied and said it didn't fit in the closet with them attached.
His claims are simply not credible.
-
"Between 8pm and 9pm I returned to the farmhouse for about 30 minutes whilst my parents and Sheila were having supper. The twins were in bed. I had something to eat. During this my parents and Sheila were discussing future plans for the children and treatment she should have. It was generally about what could be done to help Sheila in my parents eyes. There was a mention of foster parents along with other solutions which might alleviate her problems. Whilst they were talking I took my .22 semi-automatic rifle from the study and loaded the magazine in the kitchen after tipping a box of ammunition out onto the side near the telephone in the kitchen. I was in a rush having just seen two rabbits and I left the house leaving the ammunition behind. I loaded the magazine until it was full between 8 to 10 rounds and went outside. I told my parents I was going to get the rabbits. I was outside for about 5 minutes having fired no shots."
Taken from statement of Jeremy Bamber 7-8-1985 - sheet 5-6
In his first statement he says MY gun yet during this interview http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1144.0.html he say "I think" "I think" - he's not so cock sure... He gives himself away imo...
There are numerous slips like this - I can't be bothered to reference them but to my mind none of it suggests innocence - none of it suggests forgetfulness - none of suggests he was afraid - in fact the opposite imo.
-
In his first statement he says MY gun yet during this interview http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1144.0.html he say "I think" "I think" - he's not so cock sure... He gives himself away imo...
There are numerous slips like this - I can't be bothered to reference them but to my mind none of it suggests innocence - none of it suggests forgetfulness - none of suggests he was afraid - in fact the opposite imo.
The police never called him on his inconsistent statements though. During the interrogation even they never asked his why he claimed one thing to the officers at the scene, another in his August 7 statement and yet a 3rd in his August 8 statement. No one seemed to compare them. That is the kind of thing you can use to shake him up but they failed to take advantage. They might have done too poor a job researching the evidence to have even recognized it.
In turn this emboldened Jeremy. He figured he didn't have to worry about remaining consistent.
-
It's not only his inconsistencies in question it's his attitude and some of the Freudian slips he makes - some of which I suggest he does purposely;
An example -
Page 6:
Q - In any event if your whole family died, you would be well off.
A - I would be better off, financially I would
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5816.0.html
-
It's not only his inconsistencies in question it's his attitude and some of the Freudian slips he makes - some of which I suggest he does purposely;
An example -
Page 6:
Q - In any event if your whole family died, you would be well off.
A - I would be better off, financially I would
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5816.0.html
"Emotions are shallow and short-lived for a psychopath and they will drop 'hints' of their true nature, but in a veiled manner. These hints are also called 'tells.'
-
There is already a thread on his police interviews.
-
Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 don't knows' & 'can't say'. Answers to simple questions about the massacre night and his family.
Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so' & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'
Answers often said in a singing tone. So not exactly outraged and angry at being arrested. Or trying hard to assist the police in confirming it is Sheila.
The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer.
He initially said he phoned Julie before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Julie was phoned after the police phone call. Asked why he phoned Julie, he said 'no comment'.
Now knowing Julie had spoken to the police he said she did it due to 'jilted love'. But did not elaborate.
He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila ! Interestingly after they suggested Sheila could not have shot herself twice. Something he did not argue with or demand proof for. Perhaps because he knew she had not shot herself twice.
When struggling further he suggested Neville may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila'. Suggesting a random women broke in, killed everyone and left the gun on Sheila !
He also admitted he knew lots of ways into WHF through locked or unlocked windows. Something he did not tell the police on the massacre night, or afterwards.
Sadly it seems we will never know about the last conversation between him & Sheila in the fields. He was asked this simple question but said 'no comment'.
His frostiness with the police after becoming a suspect was in stark contrast to the previous few weeks. After first ringing the police at 3.10am/3.26am/3.36am you could hardly stop him talking, as he insinuated Sheila and made them nice cups of tea.
These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Jeremy seemed to be recovering well & enjoying himself, telling the police how lovely the weather was in St Tropez. So he could not use grief/shock as a reason for his evasiveness.
Stan Jones said having to write questions and answers down, (rather than taped interviews) meant Bamber had time to anticipate the next question and prepare his answer. He believed a taped interview would have got a confession. This I do not believe. Bamber was much too determined.
Although he could not remember a lot he testified at court and didn't say the words 'no comment', 'can't say', 'don't remember' & 'don't know' once. Although his answers in court became more vague the more pressure he was under. He didn't sing either but kept smiling at the jury. How nice.
-
Scipio may be testing my knowledge on the case Maggie ;D
Lookout never makes things up.
She does tells the poster 'find it yourself', when a source is requested.
-
Interestingly, Jeremy didn't actually mention calling Julie at all in his first statement . . .
That's incorrect, as he stated "I phoned my girlfriend up from my house about 3.25 a.m. to tell her something appeared wrong and I again phoned her at 5.45 a.m." He didn't say specifically that he called Julie after calling the police, but he had stated earlier "About 3.10 a.m. I received a telephone call from my father."
he also said he called the police IMMEDIATELY after his fathers call, but couldn't have done if he buggered about looking for the number of the local station which he later said took him 10 minutes.
According to his first statement, "I tried to phone back immediately and found my father's phone to be engaged. I immediately phoned Chelmsford Police to inform them of what had happened." He didn't mention looking up the number of the station in that statement. When he was interviewed in September, he stated that he had looked up the number for Chelmsford police station. He didn't state it took him 10 minutes to do that, which would be an absurd amount of time to spend on just looking up one number.
-
That's incorrect, as he stated "I phoned my girlfriend up from my house about 3.25 a.m. to tell her something appeared wrong and I again phoned her at 5.45 a.m." He didn't say specifically that he called Julie after calling the police, but he had stated earlier "About 3.10 a.m. I received a telephone call from my father."
According to his first statement, "I tried to phone back immediately and found my father's phone to be engaged. I immediately phoned Chelmsford Police to inform them of what had happened." He didn't mention looking up the number of the station in that statement. When he was interviewed in September, he stated that he had looked up the number for Chelmsford police station. He didn't state it took him 10 minutes to do that, which would be an absurd amount of time to spend on just looking up one number.
It appears Caroline was referring to his first interview as opposed first statement. Easy mistake to make.
The bottom line is this - if he had told the truth each time he was asked about the phone calls and timings he would have said the same thing. He didn't!
"A lie, no matter how big or how propagated, will be destroyed when it's tested"
-
That's incorrect, as he stated "I phoned my girlfriend up from my house about 3.25 a.m. to tell her something appeared wrong and I again phoned her at 5.45 a.m." He didn't say specifically that he called Julie after calling the police, but he had stated earlier "About 3.10 a.m. I received a telephone call from my father."
According to his first statement, "I tried to phone back immediately and found my father's phone to be engaged. I immediately phoned Chelmsford Police to inform them of what had happened." He didn't mention looking up the number of the station in that statement. When he was interviewed in September, he stated that he had looked up the number for Chelmsford police station. He didn't state it took him 10 minutes to do that, which would be an absurd amount of time to spend on just looking up one number.
Yes, fair comment, I have just read it.
He did mention it taking him around 10 mins to look up the number and I will find the reference.
Just read through his interview, he basically remembers nothing and is extremely cautious when answering, asking to see what he initially said in his earlier statements. However, he does let slip that he called Julie first and when he realises the implications, he changes it. He did the same thing with Jones on the day after the murders. Seems Jeremy doesn't remember anything unless the has the 'rehearsed' version right in front of him.
-
It appears Caroline was referring to his first interview as opposed first statement. Easy mistake to make.
The bottom line is this - if he had told the truth each time he was asked about the phone calls and timings he would have said the same thing. He didn't!
"A lie, no matter how big or how propagated, will be destroyed when it's tested"
How very true! I think it's also very telling that he needed to ask for his statements when interrogated because he simply couldn't remember anything he'd said. he certainly wasn't expecting to be arrested and so had no time to try and recall what he'd originally said. His interrogation is a shambles.
-
A murderer wouldn't forget his lines.This is how some of them think they can get away with it,by repeating everything parrot-fashion,even down to times and timings. These things are imprinted in their minds.
If you're not expecting to be charged,then it's easy to have forgotten what you'd said.Jeremy didn't expect the unexpected so therefore hadn't LEARNED his lines,like a true crim would have done.
Had he not been hesitant,he'd have been blamed for knowing everything off pat,so either way,he can't win. Damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
He wasn't given the privilege of being coached 32 times !
-
A murderer wouldn't forget his lines.This is how some of them think they can get away with it,by repeating everything parrot-fashion,even down to times and timings. These things are imprinted in their minds.
If you're not expecting to be charged,then it's easy to have forgotten what you'd said.Jeremy didn't expect the unexpected so therefore hadn't LEARNED his lines,like a true crim would have done.
Had he not been hesitant,he'd have been blamed for knowing everything off pat,so either way,he can't win. Damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
He wasn't given the privilege of being coached 32 times !
Of course they would and do frequently - that's how they get caught! ::)
-
Of course they would and do frequently - that's how they get caught! ::)
Not all the time. If Jeremy had remained focussed on being charged,he'd have remembered what to say because it would have been in his own interest to remember everything. He just didn't bargain for what he got and was totally unprepared.
-
A murderer wouldn't forget his lines.This is how some of them think they can get away with it,by repeating everything parrot-fashion,even down to times and timings. These things are imprinted in their minds.
If you're not expecting to be charged,then it's easy to have forgotten what you'd said.Jeremy didn't expect the unexpected so therefore hadn't LEARNED his lines,like a true crim would have done.
Had he not been hesitant,he'd have been blamed for knowing everything off pat,so either way,he can't win. Damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
He wasn't given the privilege of being coached 32 times !
You are highlighting the difference between how we perceive ourselves -and remember that psychopaths are so certain of their own supremacy that they cannot conceive of being wrong- and how we are perceived by others. Psychopaths know that they lie but believe they do it so convincingly that we plebs won't notice if the can't always remember what they said the last time they told the story. Jeremy didn't expect to be caught. He thought he'd outwitted the hoi polloi.
-
You are highlighting the difference between how we perceive ourselves -and remember that psychopaths are so certain of their own supremacy that they cannot conceive of being wrong- and how we are perceived by others. Psychopaths know that they lie but believe they do it so convincingly that we plebs won't notice if the can't always remember what they said the last time they told the story. Jeremy didn't expect to be caught. He thought he'd outwitted the hoi polloi.
Has Jeremy had a PET/MRI scan to diagnose psychopathy ?
-
Has Jeremy had a PET/MRI scan to diagnose psychopathy ?
I did hear that he'd refused certain tests but of what earthly use would they be? The prison authorities will continue to care for him whatever the outcome. I don't suppose they ever give thought to it because they would imagine, like many others, they'd assume than anyone who could murder their entire family -the reason he's there- is a psychopath.
-
Has Jeremy had a PET/MRI scan to diagnose psychopathy ?
No but maybe it's time he requested one. It wouldn't surprise me to learn he's been offered one but declined. I imagine, as his crimes are so rare, he has been approached at some point over these 30 plus years by researchers interested in understanding what makes people like him tick.
-
You are highlighting the difference between how we perceive ourselves -and remember that psychopaths are so certain of their own supremacy that they cannot conceive of being wrong- and how we are perceived by others. Psychopaths know that they lie but believe they do it so convincingly that we plebs won't notice if the can't always remember what they said the last time they told the story. Jeremy didn't expect to be caught. He thought he'd outwitted the hoi polloi.
We'll said April.
-
"The incarcerated psychopaths, however, are what a great deal of the available research on psychopathy has been conducted on. It can be very difficult to successfully identify psychopaths, even the ones that are in prison for violent crimes. This is so because the majority of them are exquisite liars, and a lot of them are smart enough to know what researchers are looking for on psychological tests and in one-on-one interviews. In fact, there are inmates that obtain books dealing with psychological testing and various other areas in the field of psychology. These inmates study the material and then, in return for payment, instruct fellow inmates how to answer psychological tests in a manner that will make them look good and possibly get them an early release from jail (Hare, 1993). So, this means that psychopaths can learn how to efficiently trick psychometric tests while they are in prison. Psychopaths have much better access to information about psychological testing and psychology in general when they are not imprisoned, obviously including research regarding psychopathy. It is possible that some of them receive actual training or college degrees in psychology, making them that much more adept at avoiding detection. In summary, it is not as simple to correctly recognize a psychopath as the media and Hollywood make it appear to be. Someone is not automatically a psychopath because they committed murder, rape, torture, etc. There are certain personality traits and socially undesirable behaviors that must be present before someone can be diagnosed as a psychopath (Hare, 1993).
-
How very true! I think it's also very telling that he needed to ask for his statements when interrogated because he simply couldn't remember anything he'd said. he certainly wasn't expecting to be arrested and so had no time to try and recall what he'd originally said. His interrogation is a shambles.
I agree. His change of attitude was apparent, especially when asked certain questions. He became really arrogant at times.
-
Yes, fair comment, I have just read it.
He did mention it taking him around 10 mins to look up the number and I will find the reference.
Just read through his interview, he basically remembers nothing and is extremely cautious when answering, asking to see what he initially said in his earlier statements. However, he does let slip that he called Julie first and when he realises the implications, he changes it. He did the same thing with Jones on the day after the murders. Seems Jeremy doesn't remember anything unless the has the 'rehearsed' version right in front of him.
I spotted that as well. For me there is no suggestion whatsoever that he knew he had been caught.
-
No but maybe it's time he requested one. It wouldn't surprise me to learn he's been offered one but declined. I imagine, as his crimes are so rare, he has been approached at some point over these 30 plus years by researchers interested in understanding what makes people like him tick.
So therefore,it's not for anyone to call Jeremy a psychopath when there are no hard facts/proof that he is one.
-
Has Jeremy had a PET/MRI scan to diagnose psychopathy ?
No but maybe it's time he requested one. It wouldn't surprise me to learn he's been offered one but declined. I imagine, as his crimes are so rare, he has been approached at some point over these 30 plus years by researchers interested in understanding what makes people like him tick.
"The incarcerated psychopaths, however, are what a great deal of the available research on psychopathy has been conducted on. It can be very difficult to successfully identify psychopaths, even the ones that are in prison for violent crimes. This is so because the majority of them are exquisite liars, and a lot of them are smart enough to know what researchers are looking for on psychological tests and in one-on-one interviews. In fact, there are inmates that obtain books dealing with psychological testing and various other areas in the field of psychology. These inmates study the material and then, in return for payment, instruct fellow inmates how to answer psychological tests in a manner that will make them look good and possibly get them an early release from jail (Hare, 1993). So, this means that psychopaths can learn how to efficiently trick psychometric tests while they are in prison. Psychopaths have much better access to information about psychological testing and psychology in general when they are not imprisoned, obviously including research regarding psychopathy. It is possible that some of them receive actual training or college degrees in psychology, making them that much more adept at avoiding detection. In summary, it is not as simple to correctly recognize a psychopath as the media and Hollywood make it appear to be. Someone is not automatically a psychopath because they committed murder, rape, torture, etc. There are certain personality traits and socially undesirable behaviors that must be present before someone can be diagnosed as a psychopath (Hare, 1993).
So therefore,it's not for anyone to call Jeremy a psychopath when there are no hard facts/proof that he is one.
Simply because he's not had a PET/MRI scan means nothing. The fact that he presents with practically all of the characteristics of the Hare checklist should not be ignored imo.
You may wish to see him as a loveable rouge, I see him as calculated and extremely manipulative. Referring to him as a psychopath is a matter of opinion. If your beliefs of him are as strong as you suggest then why would you have a problem with how others perceive him? Surely the opinion of others would have no bearing on your beliefs; unless of course you are having second thoughts?
-
So therefore,it's not for anyone to call Jeremy a psychopath when there are no hard facts/proof that he is one.
So therefore,it's not for anyone to call Jeremy innocent when there are no hard facts/proof that he is .
-
So therefore,it's not for anyone to call Jeremy a psychopath when there are no hard facts/proof that he is one.
So therefore it's not for anyone to call Jeremy 'innocent' when there is no hard facts/proof that he is (far from it).
-
So therefore,it's not for anyone to call Jeremy innocent when there are no hard facts/proof that he is .
Ha, ha!! I genuinely didn't see your post!! ;D ;D ;D
-
So therefore it's not for anyone to call Jeremy 'innocent' when there is no hard facts/proof that he is (far from it).
Ha, ha!! I genuinely didn't see your post!! ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Great minds!!
-
So therefore,it's not for anyone to call Jeremy a psychopath when there are no hard facts/proof that he is one.
But it's OK to name as liars the police, the rellies, the girl friend, forensics and anyone else associated with the case even though "there are no hard facts/proof that" they are???
-
So therefore,it's not for anyone to call Jeremy innocent when there are no hard facts/proof that he is .
This forum is for debate---------right ? You stick to your views and I to mine.
You're all busy condemning Jeremy ( who's already where you want him to be ) yet when I read ALL the posts you describe him as being,your own behaviour is questionable !!
-
This forum is for debate---------right ? You stick to your views and I to mine.
You're all busy condemning Jeremy ( who's already where you want him to be ) yet when I read ALL the posts you describe him as being,your own behaviour is questionable !!
But according to you we are't allowed our own views, unless they agree with yours? It is JB's behaviour that is questionable, hence the different points raised for discussion.
-
But according to you we are't allowed our own views, unless they agree with yours? It is JB's behaviour that is questionable, hence the different points raised for discussion.
Of course you're allowed your own views. It's how you put them over. It seems as though none of you can wait until your opponent posts before you pounce,not just one of you,but ALL,particularly Mat who breezes in from nowhere as soon as he sees a post which I've written. That's NOT debating-------it's nit-picking at its worst.
-
Of course you're allowed your own views. It's how you put them over. It seems as though none of you can wait until your opponent posts before you pounce,not just one of you,but ALL,particularly Mat who breezes in from nowhere as soon as he sees a post which I've written. That's NOT debating-------it's nit-picking at its worst.
Oh, whatever, Lookout. You're not pleasant to guilters and are just as guilty of nit picking.
I don't "breeze" in, but if I comment on your posts more than I do most other members it's because yours are the most outlandish and often people have to ask where you got your information from before they can debate it.
-
Of course you're allowed your own views. It's how you put them over. It seems as though none of you can wait until your opponent posts before you pounce,not just one of you,but ALL,particularly Mat who breezes in from nowhere as soon as he sees a post which I've written. That's NOT debating-------it's nit-picking at its worst.
That's a bit rich coming from you Lookout. Do you not see how you tend to get personal when you don't agree with something?
You speak as though this is a game or something? Opponent? An opponent is someone who competes or opposes in a game or contest! I'm not competing with anyone and I'm most certainly not playing games!
I can't help but get a sense you are projecting your own feelings?
-
Mat I am a guilter and lookout is very pleasant with me and discusses the case in a nice manner and is never abusive or unpleasant :)
-
Mat I am a guilter and lookout is very pleasant with me and discusses the case in a nice manner and is never abusive or unpleasant :)
Pretty sure that's not what you were saying a few months ago, Susan.
-
Of course you're allowed your own views. It's how you put them over. It seems as though none of you can wait until your opponent posts before you pounce,not just one of you,but ALL,particularly Mat who breezes in from nowhere as soon as he sees a post which I've written. That's NOT debating-------it's nit-picking at its worst.
This isn't one sided, Lookout. You have aimed some really STINGING side swipes at me, that's without going down the adoption route........................however, I have no desire to be vindictive so I'm going to say that you, on occasions, leave yourself wide open to being got at. You sometimes come out with, what sound like OUTLANDISH comments, which, whilst possibly being true, are accompanied ONLY by that you've read it "somewhere." We've ALL read stuff "somewhere" but most of us question what we read BEFORE we put it on forum for public scrutiny where we would expect it to be questioned if it didn't sound believable.
-
Pretty sure that's not what you were saying a few months ago, Susan.
Mat lookout and I had words a few months ago over Mason Doyle I held my hands up to ngb and apologised to lookout as I was entirely at fault. I was out of order and quite dreadful and lookout did accept my apology and we are OK now she would have been justified in telling me to "do one"
-
Oh, whatever, Lookout. You're not pleasant to guilters and are just as guilty of nit picking.
I don't "breeze" in, but if I comment on your posts more than I do most other members it's because yours are the most outlandish and often people have to ask where you got your information from before they can debate it.
I wouldn't exactly say that the guilters were overly pleasant with me either,and because of it,they'll get the same attitude back,except that I haven't got it down to as finer art as they as I find being nasty doesn't come as easy to me !!
What could be more " outlandish " than a bicycle and a wetsuit ? I didn't mention those,your team did,trying to scrape what was left in the barrel.
Speaking of information,your contribution has consisted mainly of snipes towards me,and nothing pleases you more than to see your gang descend upon me.Am I bovvered ? NO.! Because I've passed the juvenile stage of " safety in numbers ". ::)
-
I wouldn't exactly say that the guilters were overly pleasant with me either,and because of it,they'll get the same attitude back,except that I haven't got it down to as finer art as they as I find being nasty doesn't come as easy to me !!
What could be more " outlandish " than a bicycle and a wetsuit ? I didn't mention those,your team did,trying to scrape what was left in the barrel.
Speaking of information,your contribution has consisted mainly of snipes towards me,and nothing pleases you more than to see your gang descend upon me.Am I bovvered ? NO.! Because I've passed the juvenile stage of " safety in numbers ". ::)
Perhaps you should name my "gang" so they can speak for themselves as I don't want to speak for anyone else but I don't feel I am part of ANY gang. Perhaps there are just a good number of people who take offence to YOUR posts - doesn't make us a gang.
I have taken offense to some of your posts and I do believe you can be nasty, I can't recall who you were having a go at the other day, I think it may have been April where you said she had shown her true colours, that's being nasty.
What could be more " outlandish " than a bicycle and a wetsuit ? I didn't mention those,your team did,trying to scrape what was left in the barrel.
That didn't start on this forum, Lookout.
-
I wouldn't exactly say that the guilters were overly pleasant with me either,and because of it,they'll get the same attitude back,except that I haven't got it down to as finer art as they as I find being nasty doesn't come as easy to me !!
What could be more " outlandish " than a bicycle and a wetsuit ? I didn't mention those,your team did,trying to scrape what was left in the barrel.
Speaking of information,your contribution has consisted mainly of snipes towards me,and nothing pleases you more than to see your gang descend upon me.Am I bovvered ? NO.! Because I've passed the juvenile stage of " safety in numbers ". ::)
Except, I imagine that you're FULLY aware that those of the Guilty Party who are here now have NEVER subscribed to the sheer stupidity of wet suits on bicycles, OTHER than to ridicule those who did, yet you're content to tar everyone with the same brush.
-
That's a bit rich coming from you Lookout. Do you not see how you tend to get personal when you don't agree with something?
You speak as though this is a game or something? Opponent? An opponent is someone who competes or opposes in a game or contest! I'm not competing with anyone and I'm most certainly not playing games!
I can't help but get a sense you are projecting your own feelings?
I'm neither playing games,nor am I as obsessed with the case as you are. I couldn't care less either way !
-
I'm neither playing games,nor am I as obsessed with the case as you are. I couldn't care less either way !
You care enough to take offence when anyone is negative about Bamber, to spend a lot of time on here AND to write to him.
-
This topic has been locked and if this argument continues on another thread that will be locked too. Please try to keep on track and discuss the case rather than make personal attacks.
The thread will be cut back to the point of discussion when I have the time to do so, which will not be tonight.
-
He did mention it taking him around 10 mins to look up the number and I will find the reference.
Jeremy was asked "Approximately how long would it have taken you to find the number and get through?" He replied "Ten minutes at the outside." That's not the same thing as saying it took him around ten minutes.
-
Jeremy was asked "Approximately how long would it have taken you to find the number and get through?" He replied "Ten minutes at the outside." That's not the same thing as saying it took him around ten minutes.
Why didn't he phone 999. There was a reason he didn't.
If that were my father who had phoned about my sister I would have done all I could to get to the house as quickly as possible and help.
If when I got to the house and the police were there I would have fought with all my might to go into the house to find out what was going on. He didn't because he knew exactly what had happened....
He escaped capture for several months though he probably thought it was game over that Niight.....
-
Jeremy was asked "Approximately how long would it have taken you to find the number and get through?" He replied "Ten minutes at the outside." That's not the same thing as saying it took him around ten minutes.
Which is a devastating admission because he claimed he didn't appreciate that it would be faster to dial 999. Only a moron would not realize that looking up phone numbers instead of dialing 999 wastes time. He had no sense of urgency because he had no concern for them and he had no concern because he killed them so knew they were dead and was thus in no rush.
-
Which is a devastating admission because he claimed he didn't appreciate that it would be faster to dial 999. Only a moron would not realize that looking up phone numbers instead of dialing 999 wastes time. He had no sense of urgency because he had no concern for them and he had no concern because he killed them so knew they were dead and was thus in no rush.
He knew the words but not the music.....
-
Jeremy was asked "Approximately how long would it have taken you to find the number and get through?" He replied "Ten minutes at the outside." That's not the same thing as saying it took him around ten minutes.
Nor is it the same as saying 'just a few minutes' but you're still looking for excuses and have to play it down because you previously said that length of time would be 'absurd'. Glad you agree, it is indeed absurd!!
-
Jeremy was asked "Approximately how long would it have taken you to find the number and get through?" He replied "Ten minutes at the outside." That's not the same thing as saying it took him around ten minutes.
The idea that he should have immediately dialled 999 and that his failure to do so indicates guilt is not really supported by anything, other than the belief of those who believe JB guilty that it is what they would have done.
Is this true though? Why would Jeremy assume the situation was so urgent that he should dial 999? If Neville had been able to call Jeremy then why would Jeremy assume that he was required to dial 999. Surely it would be perfectly reasonable for JB to believe that Nevill either didn't want the police involved or had called himself if he had. If Nevill was able to use the phone to call Jeremy then he was also able to call the police himself so why would JB imagine that he himself should immediately dial 999.
It is only the fact that the phone went dead and that it was engaged when attempting to call back that made calling the police an option according to JB's version.
Whether or not this version is believed obviously depends on your stance of guilt or innocence but to disbelieve it on the basis of JB not dialling 999 is not the best piece of reasoning.
That Nevill kept family affairs private is known, well documented and presumably accepted by all who post on here, so why is it considered not believable that JB would not call 999?
-
The idea that he should have immediately dialled 999 and that his failure to do so indicates guilt is not really supported by anything, other than the belief of those who believe JB guilty that it is what they would have done.
Is this true though? Why would Jeremy assume the situation was so urgent that he should dial 999? If Neville had been able to call Jeremy then why would Jeremy assume that he was required to dial 999. Surely it would be perfectly reasonable for JB to believe that Nevill either didn't want the police involved or had called himself if he had. If Nevill was able to use the phone to call Jeremy then he was also able to call the police himself so why would JB imagine that he himself should immediately dial 999.
It is only the fact that the phone went dead and that it was engaged when attempting to call back that made calling the police an option according to JB's version.
Whether or not this version is believed obviously depends on your stance of guilt or innocence but to disbelieve it on the basis of JB not dialling 999 is not the best piece of reasoning.
That Nevill kept family affairs private is known, well documented and presumably accepted by all who post on here, so why is it considered not believable that JB would not call 999?
It is not the only evidence against Jeremy nor is it the strongest but nonetheless is evidence against Jeremy. Trying to pretend otherwise is what demonstrates bias. Bias is a very dangerous thing because it prevents people from facing things that objectively exist. If you refuse to face something and just live in denial trying to pretend it doesn't exist you get burned because other people not wearing the blinder you are are not going to ignore it. That is why a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
Jeremy's claims are contradictory and make no sense. He was ALLEGEDLY too scared to go over himself so instead he called police. If that were true then right there it means he recognized they were in danger and recognized an urgent need for someone to go there to help- so much in need that he could not help the police were needed. The whole reason 999 exists is so you can remember the number without needed to go look for a phone book. To say he didn't know it would take longer to go get a phone book and look up numbers makes no sense at all. To call and get no answer because a station was unmanned and then still look up another number instead of calling 999 at that point is even worse.
Jeremy's actions make no sense and only people who are in the tank for him will ignore reality and say otherwise.
-
It is not the only evidence against Jeremy nor is it the strongest but nonetheless is evidence against Jeremy. Trying to pretend otherwise is what demonstrates bias. Bias is a very dangerous thing because it prevents people from facing things that objectively exist. If you refuse to face something and just live in denial trying to pretend it doesn't exist you get burned because other people not wearing the blinder you are are not going to ignore it. That is why a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
Jeremy's claims are contradictory and make no sense. He was ALLEGEDLY too scared to go over himself so instead he called police. If that were true then right there it means he recognized they were in danger and recognized an urgent need for someone to go there to help- so much in need that he could not help the police were needed. The whole reason 999 exists is so you can remember the number without needed to go look for a phone book. To say he didn't know it would take longer to go get a phone book and look up numbers makes no sense at all. To call and get no answer because a station was unmanned and then still look up another number instead of calling 999 at that point is even worse.
Jeremy's actions make no sense and on;y peopel who are in the tank for him will ignore reality and say otherwise.
That is why a client who has a
I agree it is not the strongest of evidence. We are talking 30 years ago as you know. It could be that Jeremy had never phoned the police before or any other emergency services and that this was his first time and OK he cocked it up by not dialing 999. He choose to look through the phone book for his local nick. He did not think! It could be as simple as that. :-\
-
I agree it is not the strongest of evidence. We are talking 30 years ago as you know. It could be that Jeremy had never phoned the police before or any other emergency services and that this was his first time and OK he cocked it up by not dialing 999. He choose to look through the phone book for his local nick. He did not think! It could be as simple as that. :-\
We are talking about an independent 25 year adult and not a 5 year old child right? :-\
-
We are talking about an independent 25 year adult and not a 5 year old child right? :-\
Yes why do you ask?
-
The idea that he should have immediately dialled 999 and that his failure to do so indicates guilt is not really supported by anything, other than the belief of those who believe JB guilty that it is what they would have done.
Is this true though? Why would Jeremy assume the situation was so urgent that he should dial 999? If Neville had been able to call Jeremy then why would Jeremy assume that he was required to dial 999. Surely it would be perfectly reasonable for JB to believe that Nevill either didn't want the police involved or had called himself if he had. If Nevill was able to use the phone to call Jeremy then he was also able to call the police himself so why would JB imagine that he himself should immediately dial 999.
It is only the fact that the phone went dead and that it was engaged when attempting to call back that made calling the police an option according to JB's version.
Whether or not this version is believed obviously depends on your stance of guilt or innocence but to disbelieve it on the basis of JB not dialling 999 is not the best piece of reasoning.
That Nevill kept family affairs private is known, well documented and presumably accepted by all who post on here, so why is it considered not believable that JB would not call 999?
He asked him to go over there - so why didn't he? A call at 3am in the morning saying Sheila has gone crazy and has a gun isn't a call you would take lightly.
-
I agree it is not the strongest of evidence. We are talking 30 years ago as you know. It could be that Jeremy had never phoned the police before or any other emergency services and that this was his first time and OK he cocked it up by not dialing 999. He choose to look through the phone book for his local nick. He did not think! It could be as simple as that. :-\
But he didn't claim it was that he didn't remember that 999 existed he said he didn't think it would be faster to call 999 so didn't bother. Surely after calling the first station and finding it not manned he would have realized calling 999 would be faster than continuing to look up numbers of stations that might not be manned. He showed no sense of urgency and that hurts his claim he received the call from Nevill that he claims to have received. Calling Julie before police is another sign that he didn't receive such a call because he would not have wasted time waking her up if he had actually received such a call. He didn't even try to go look in a window or to knock on the door nor did he press police to go knock. Instead he scared the police with lies that Sheila was proficient with all the guns in the house. These are not things that help Jeremy and just saying different people react in different ways doesn't do much to help matters. These things in combination with the other evidence is quite bad. Evidence compounds.
His trial defense never competently dealt with these problems.
-
Some psychopaths without their masks can be extremely child like....
-
Yes why do you ask?
Your description made him sound like an immature, lost soul and he was far from that. I don't believe for one moment he didn't realise that in an emergency he shouldn't call 999. Someone calling at 3am doesn't call for nothing. But the call didn't happen anyway.
-
Some psychopaths without their masks can be extremely child like....
Pure fantasy. Casper ;D ;D ;D
-
He asked him to go over there - so why didn't he? A call at 3am in the morning saying Sheila has gone crazy and has a gun isn't a call you would take lightly.
He did
He didn't
-
He did
He didn't
After a genuine call at that time of the morning, any rational adult would call 999 - I'm sure you know that but you won't admit it here.
-
After a genuine call at that time of the morning, any rational adult would call 999 - I'm sure you know that but you won't admit it here.
There is no uniform generally accepted response to every event that can occur. Everybody reacts and responds differently and it is a sweeping assumption to claim that any response other than dialling 999 is not rational.
-
There is no uniform generally accepted response to every event that can occur. Everybody reacts and responds differently and it is a sweeping assumption to claim that any response other than dialling 999 is not rational.
You're in denial :P
-
There is no uniform generally accepted response to every event that can occur. Everybody reacts and responds differently and it is a sweeping assumption to claim that any response other than dialling 999 is not rational.
yes thats true.
-
There is no uniform generally accepted response to every event that can occur. Everybody reacts and responds differently and it is a sweeping assumption to claim that any response other than dialling 999 is not rational.
The only rational response of someone who actually received the call Jeremy claimed- which he claimed his father sounded terrified- would be to go there or to call 999. Calling Julie to wake her up is not what any rational person would do (that is why Jeremy lied claiming he called Julie after calling police).
No rational person would then further waste time by looking up a phone station number in the phone book.
No person who did so then got no answer at the station because of the house would decide to get the phone book again to look up more numbers instead of calling 999.
His actions on'y make sense if he didn't receive the call he claimed and was just pretending he got a call. That is what Julie said he was doing and that is what the evidence proves he was doing because evidence further proves Sheila never loaded the gun, beat anyone with the gun or shot anyone with the gun. They were all murdered by someone else which means Nevill never would have made the call claimed.
His behavior corroborates and complements the other evidence that establishes his guilt.
-
Surely then, the police were also in denial from the 7th August to the 8th of September, because they excepted his story about not dialing 999.
-
The idea that he should have immediately dialled 999 and that his failure to do so indicates guilt is not really supported by anything, other than the belief of those who believe JB guilty that it is what they would have done.
Is this true though? Why would Jeremy assume the situation was so urgent that he should dial 999? If Neville had been able to call Jeremy then why would Jeremy assume that he was required to dial 999. Surely it would be perfectly reasonable for JB to believe that Nevill either didn't want the police involved or had called himself if he had. If Nevill was able to use the phone to call Jeremy then he was also able to call the police himself so why would JB imagine that he himself should immediately dial 999.
It is only the fact that the phone went dead and that it was engaged when attempting to call back that made calling the police an option according to JB's version.
Whether or not this version is believed obviously depends on your stance of guilt or innocence but to disbelieve it on the basis of JB not dialling 999 is not the best piece of reasoning.
That Nevill kept family affairs private is known, well documented and presumably accepted by all who post on here, so why is it considered not believable that JB would not call 999?
Excellent post,gringo,and what you've said is very feasible indeed. My thoughts too.
-
Surely then, the police were also in denial from the 7th August to the 8th of September, because they excepted his story about not dialing 999.
Why wouldn't they have initially bought his story? They have to investigate before knowing something is BS. Unless they use some of gringo's snake oil or call Mystic Meg.
-
The only rational response of someone who actually received the call Jeremy claimed- which he claimed his father sounded terrified- would be to go there or to call 999. Calling Julie to wake her up is not what any rational person would do (that is why Jeremy lied claiming he called Julie after calling police).
No rational person would then further waste time by looking up a phone station number in the phone book.
No person who did so then got no answer at the station because of the house would decide to get the phone book again to look up more numbers instead of calling 999.
His actions on'y make sense if he didn't receive the call he claimed and was just pretending he got a call. That is what Julie said he was doing and that is what the evidence proves he was doing because evidence further proves Sheila never loaded the gun, beat anyone with the gun or shot anyone with the gun. They were all murdered by someone else which means Nevill never would have made the call claimed.
His behavior corroborates and complements the other evidence that establishes his guilt.
Completely agree, the whole notion of the call is totally ridiculous. He's changed his story about this call frequently but supporters think this is OK. He told various people different things but when asked why he didn't call 999 - he has no answer because there isn't one!!
No call mean guilty and there was no call.
-
it neer ceases to amaze me how many peope know exatly what should of happened in a sitaun thee neer been in.
-
it neer ceases to amaze me how many peope now exatly what should of happend in a sitaun thee neer been in.
As I've said before,it's those who KNOW him to be 100% guilty that are shouting the loudest. Jeremy's sentence was passed 30 years ago to which he's been jailed ever since,so what is it they're seeking ? Quite baffling to me really.
-
As I've said before,it's those who KNOW him to be 100% guilty that are shouting the loudest. Jeremy's sentence was passed 30 years ago to which he's been jailed ever since,so what is it they're seeking ? Quite baffling to me really.
This seems to be the stock comment when the innocent argument runs out of steam. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
This seems to be the stock comment when the innocent argument runs out of steam. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Not at all. It's far easier for yourselves to repeat what's already in place,than it is to bring something new to the argument.
-
Your argument takes very little thought as it's easier to condemn someone than it is to support them, without the evidence that condemned them in the first place,forensic or otherwise.
This is why EP went for the easiest option. ;D
-
Hi Guys
I am hoping when the two new books are out in July it will give us something new to chew on and discuss ;D
-
it neer ceases to amaze me how many peope now exatly what should of happend in a sitaun thee neer been in.
You receive a call at 3:10am, the words 'gun' 'crazy' 'come quick' are uttered in a 'panicked' voice by your father. What would a RATIONAL person do?
A. Call police on 999 (to be on the safe side)?
B. Come quick - as requested?
C. Both A and B?
D. Call someone completely unrelated to the situation who couldn't help even if they wanted to?
E. Mull it over then take time to look for local police station number?
F. Both D and E?
To West he said his dad sounded 'terrified', in his police interview he said his dad sounded 'panicked' to Ann Eaton he said he didn't go over there in case Sheila shot 'him too' and when asked why he didn't call 999, he said he didn't know on occasion, on others that either his family were private people (which makes no sense because he called police anyway) or that he didn't think the situation was serious.
I have no love for the police but none of the above makes any sense other than to have called 999 or to have gone to the farm as requested and ideally both. I know for a FACT Nugs that I WOULD have done the latter - without question and if you're honest with yourself, I'm sure you and most people here would have done the same!! I don't expect that people will be honest though, they will just make more excuses.
-
Not at all. It's far easier for yourselves to repeat what's already in place,than it is to bring something new to the argument.
What new things have you brought?
-
Hi Susan.
They " might " be interesting,but WILL they tell us any more than we already supposedly know.?
I think anyone who has an ounce of uncertainty would agree that all is not well with this case.
I'm actually waiting on some info that won't be contained in either book.
-
Your argument takes very little thought as it's easier to condemn someone than it is to support them, without the evidence that condemned them in the first place,forensic or otherwise.
This is why EP went for the easiest option. ;D
Whereas your argument takes none at all, all you do is agree with Jeremy. You're in denial Lookout and even if you did have doubts, I don't think you would ever admit them. You can't even admit when you have made a mistake.
EP didn't go for the easiest option, the easiest option would have been to stick to their guns about Sheila. Changing to Jeremy brought then a LOT of criticism hence why their was an enquiry. ::) ::) ::)
-
Hi Susan.
They " might " be interesting,but WILL they tell us any more than we already supposedly know.?
I think anyone who has an ounce of uncertainty would agree that all is not well with this case.
I'm actually waiting on some info that won't be contained in either book.
Good luck with that! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You receive a call at 3:10am, the words 'gun' 'crazy' 'come quick' are uttered in a 'panicked' voice by your father. What would a RATIONAL person do?
A. Call police on 999 (to be on the safe side)?
B. Come quick - as requested?
C. Both A and B?
D. Call someone completely unrelated to the situation who couldn't help even if they wanted to?
E. Mull it over then take time to look for local police station number?
F. Both D and E?
To West he said his dad sounded 'terrified', in his police interview he said his dad sounded 'panicked' to Ann Eaton he said he didn't go over there in case Sheila shot 'him too' and when asked why he didn't call 999, he said he didn't know on occasion, on others that either his family were private people (which makes no sense because he called police anyway) or that he didn't think the situation was serious.
I have no love for the police but none of the above makes any sense other than to have called 999 or to have gone to the farm as requested and ideally both. I know for a FACT Nugs that I WOULD have done the latter - without question and if you're honest with yourself, I'm sure you and most people here would have done the same!! I don't expect that people will be honest though, they will just make more excuses.
Caroline thinking about this situation if I were ever in it I guess I would jump in my car and drive over hoping I could sort it out with my sister and my Dad but if I thought it had gone passed that point I would dial 999 don't even have to think about it.
-
Good luck with that! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thankyou. ;D 8)
-
Caroline thinking about this situation if I were ever in it I guess I would jump in my car and drive over hoping I could sort it out with my sister and my Dad but if I thought it had gone passed that point I would dial 999 don't even have to think about it.
Of course Susan, those are the only two sensible options.
-
Jeremy could quite easily have told the police " that he too had been threatened if he dared go near WHF ". After all,why should he have cared what he had to say at that juncture,knowing the'd all died ?" A good,thought-out murderer would have " planned " it better ??
-
Jeremy could quite easily have told the police " that he too had been threatened if he dared go near WHF ". After all,why should he have cared what he had to say at that juncture,knowing the'd all died ?" A good,thought-out murderer would have " planned " it better ??
Then he would have had no excuse for NOT calling 999! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D. I agree but Jeremy wasn't a 'good murderer' which us why he got caught!
-
What new things have you brought?
That's just it--------------I'm not obliged to say,unless someone beats me to it. This is the price for remaining loyal, " that I haven't brought any new things to an argument ". ::)
-
That's just it--------------I'm not obliged to say,unless someone beats me to it. This is the price for remaining loyal, " that I haven't brought any new things to an argument ". ::)
You haven't brought anything new (cept for hinting about the J top) because you haven't got anything new to bring - just the promise of it.
-
Surely then, the police were also in denial from the 7th August to the 8th of September, because they excepted his story about not dialing 999.
The charm of a psychopath who can persuade usually very rational people to accept the ridiculous??
-
Whereas your argument takes none at all, all you do is agree with Jeremy. You're in denial Lookout and even if you did have doubts, I don't think you would ever admit them. You can't even admit when you have made a mistake.
EP didn't go for the easiest option, the easiest option would have been to stick to their guns about Sheila. Changing to Jeremy brought then a LOT of criticism hence why their was an enquiry. ::) ::) ::)
do you think everybody who doesnt agrea with you about somthing is in denial.
-
Hi Susan.
They " might " be interesting,but WILL they tell us any more than we already supposedly know.?
I think anyone who has an ounce of uncertainty would agree that all is not well with this case.
I'm actually waiting on some info that won't be contained in either book.
But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, Lookout. There's no guarantee that anything other than rehashed old material will....................REmaterialize!!!
-
do you think everybody who doesnt agrea with you about somthing is in denial.
Of course not! Are you saying that if you received a call from a loved one saying that one of their family had gone crazy and had a gun you wouldn't go over there are call 999?
-
This case goes a lot deeper than arguing the toss as to why Jeremy didn't ring the 999 number.
What about when AE was told by S. Jones " not to mention to anyone about the the blood on the silencer ".What the Hell was that about ?
-
This case goes a lot deeper than arguing the toss as to why Jeremy didn't ring the 999 number.
What about when AE was told by S. Jones " not to mention to anyone about the the blood on the silencer ".What the Hell was that about ?
I presume you have a reference for this claim?
-
Freudian Slip,was it ?
-
Freudian Slip,was it ?
Well so far it's just you saying it happened without any reference ;D
-
I presume you have a reference for this claim?
A COLP statement made by AE.
-
A COLP statement made by AE.
Which continued with S.Jones being hopping mad that AE had told RWB who in turn told Betty Howie,until it had gone full circle back to S.Jones. Since that " slip ",they didn't speak of the murders,which gave people the impression that they were then hiding something----------oh dear,really ?
-
Of course not! Are you saying that if you received a call from a loved one saying that one of their family had gone crazy and had a gun you wouldn't go over there are call 999?
im saying i dont know ive never been in tat sitaun thats the only honest answer you an give.
-
im saying i dont know ive never been in tat sitaun thats the only honest answer you an give.
I gave an honest answer too - I'd call 999 and go over there. If that is your honest answer, then hope you voted?
-
A COLP statement made by AE.
Just a sec? You think it's odd that a police officer told a witness not to discuss something they found? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
im saying i dont know ive never been in tat sitaun thats the only honest answer you an give.
Nor had I Nugs but when I got THAT call, believe me, there was NO hesitation. It was a situation I couldn't have handled on my own and thinking "Duhhh! What should I do" didn't occur to me. I called 999............................AND there was no gun involved.
-
I gave an honest answer too - I'd call 999 and go over there. If that is your honest answer, then hope you voted?
i did vote.
-
This case goes a lot deeper than arguing the toss as to why Jeremy didn't ring the 999 number.
What about when AE was told by S. Jones " not to mention to anyone about the the blood on the silencer ".What the Hell was that about ?
I suppose if he had said don't tell anyone about the silencer, you could try and spin it that they had plans for it. But the fact that he says don't tell anyone about the BLOOD on the silencer proves it was there and not added later.
-
Just a sec? You think it's odd that a police officer told a witness not to discuss something they found? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That's about the size of it,yes.See for yourself.
-
Which continued with S.Jones being hopping mad that AE had told RWB who in turn told Betty Howie,until it had gone full circle back to S.Jones. Since that " slip ",they didn't speak of the murders,which gave people the impression that they were then hiding something----------oh dear,really ?
This is a perfect example of how you don't go to the primary evidence. There is nothing in Eaton's statements about such. In the past you admitted you got this claim from a web blog.
All Boutflour noted to COLP was that the grapevine was in full effect so he stopped telling people things. Boutflour was mad that Howie spread it around and especially mad because Howie later accused him of setting Jeremy up. The police didn't tell him to stop spreading information he stopped spreading it because instead of people keeping his words in confidence they gossiped.
By the way Boutflour's notes indicate towards the end of August he was told by police about human blood having been found on/in the moderator. Before this he had no idea if it was human or not.
(http://s2.postimg.org/nl3lfdjbt/rwbhowie.jpg)
-
More edited notes. ::)
-
More edited notes. ::)
You are the one who told us to go see for ourselves. I took your advice and read the COLP statements of both AE and RWB. Doing so revealed you were wrong, neither claimed Jones criticized them for spreaidng information about the moderator and told them not to do so. Do you admit your error though upon the actual excerpt being provided? Nope you just make more excuses to defend the BS you found on a biased website. What is particularly funny is that just this morning you wrote that you go to primary sources though once again this illustrates you ignore the primary evidence and instead run with unsupported allegations made by biased parties.
-
This case goes a lot deeper than arguing the toss as to why Jeremy didn't ring the 999 number.
What about when AE was told by S. Jones " not to mention to anyone about the the blood on the silencer ".What the Hell was that about ?
A COLP statement made by AE.
Which continued with S.Jones being hopping mad that AE had told RWB who in turn told Betty Howie,until it had gone full circle back to S.Jones. Since that " slip ",they didn't speak of the murders,which gave people the impression that they were then hiding something----------oh dear,really ?
So now we know this isn't correct, Lookout. Where does it come from, or will you withdraw the accusation?
-
I'm NOT withdrawing any accusation. Accusation ??
What I posted was on a COLP statement said by AE.
As with all guilters,they prefer to see/read what they want to do. But carry on and see how far it gets you.
-
I'm NOT withdrawing any accusation. Accusation ??
What I posted was on a COLP statement said by AE.
As with all guilters,they prefer to see/read what they want to do. But carry on and see how far it gets you.
Post the page of the COLP statement. I just read her full statement and it wasn't there. The only related reference in RWB's statement was the one I posted the snippet of.
-
I'm NOT withdrawing any accusation. Accusation ??
What I posted was on a COLP statement said by AE.
As with all guilters,they prefer to see/read what they want to do. But carry on and see how far it gets you.
Her COLP statement? Have you SEEN it or been told it is there? Scip says he has read it, i've just flicked through it. It is not there.
-
Post the page of the COLP statement. I just read her full statement and it wasn't there. The only related reference in RWB's statement was the one I posted the snippet of.
I didn't read the entire COLP - just AE's parts. It's not there, nothing remotely referencing this conversation is. :-\
-
Her COLP statement? Have you SEEN it or been told it is there? Scip says he has read it, i've just flicked through it. It is not there.
COLP meet the Eatons-------0004.jpg-Google Drive.
-
COLP meet the Eatons-------0004.jpg-Google Drive.
If you saved something to google drive you will have to attach it here because we can't access your account. What you saved is likely the allegations from the Jeremy supporter not AE's statement or RWB's COLP statement because both are posted here.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,606.msg12811.html#msg12811
-
Lookout knows Bamber is guilty. She won't even explain how Sheila did it.
Now that Grahame has left, several supporters have made a 360% turn to guilty and Jan has changed from 'innocent' to 'if guilty', she is the one remaining regular poster on here that supports Jeremy.
So will find it hard. Especially when Scipio keeps to the evidence and batters her. But she will also like the attention
-
Lookout knows Bamber is guilty. She won't even explain how Sheila did it.
Now that Grahame has left, several supporters have made a 360% turn to guilty and Jan has changed from 'innocent' to 'if guilty', she is the one remaining regular poster on here that supports Jeremy.
So will find it hard. Especially when Scipio keeps to the evidence and batters her. But she will also like the attention
Adam why have you posted your post twice we did read it first time round ;D
-
It was mysteriously deleted.
Strange that everyone posts about each other. Then when I post a fact based non abusive post, it gets deleted.
-
Adam why have you posted your post twice we did read it first time round ;D
Shouldn't you be reading you're Wilkes book ?
-
Shouldn't you be reading you're Wilkes book ?
Adam I should I am only at page 4 but cannot tear myself away from you and your posts ;) ;) ;)
-
It was mysteriously deleted.
Strange that everyone posts about each other. Then when I post a fact based non abusive post, it gets deleted.
Adam what have you lost ;D
-
Adam I should I am only at page 4 but cannot tear myself away from you and your posts ;) ;) ;)
When I got the book I read it all quickly.
-
It was mysteriously deleted.
Strange that everyone posts about each other. Then when I post a fact based non abusive post, it gets deleted.
What have you lost Adam? Don't think anyone has removed your post.
-
Sorry it hasn't but is in another thread.
-
When I got the book I read it all quickly.
Adam did you enjoy the book I have given up on Claire Powells it is quite dreadful ;D
-
This is a perfect example of how you don't go to the primary evidence. There is nothing in Eaton's statements about such. In the past you admitted you got this claim from a web blog.
All Boutflour noted to COLP was that the grapevine was in full effect so he stopped telling people things. Boutflour was mad that Howie spread it around and especially mad because Howie later accused him of setting Jeremy up. The police didn't tell him to stop spreading information he stopped spreading it because instead of people keeping his words in confidence they gossiped.
By the way Boutflour's notes indicate towards the end of August he was told by police about human blood having been found on/in the moderator. Before this he had no idea if it was human or not.
(http://s2.postimg.org/nl3lfdjbt/rwbhowie.jpg)
You make it sound as if Boutflour's notes were gospel truth,when he could hardly be called a disinterested party. There is a suspicion in my mind that Boutflour was the one who planted the silencer in the gun cupboard in the first place for his son to find. It was the turning point of the case at a stage when the relatives were desperate to be taken seriously by DCI Taff Jones,who had already dismissed Julie's evidence. Of course this does not necessarily in itself mean that Jeremy is innocent,just that there may well have been underhand dealings to secure the conviction.
-
You make it sound as if Boutflour's notes were gospel truth,when he could hardly be called a disinterested party. There is a suspicion in my mind that Boutflour was the one who planted the silencer in the gun cupboard in the first place for his son to find. It was the turning point of the case at a stage when the relatives were desperate to be taken seriously by DCI Taff Jones,who had already dismissed Julie's evidence. Of course this does not necessarily in itself mean that Jeremy is innocent,just that there may well have been underhand dealings to secure the conviction.
He had no reason to lie about the Howie incident. This is far different from what Lookout claimed about it. It turns out her source was a Bamber propaganda site not AE's COLP statement.
As for your suspicion he planted it for his son to find- planted it from where? Where did he find it and how did he get the blood inside? How did he get the blood out of the rifle so they would think it was drawback from the fatal wound. How did he know she suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback?
-
He had no reason to lie about the Howie incident. This is far different from what Lookout claimed about it. It turns out her source was a Bamber propaganda site not AE's COLP statement.
As for your suspicion he planted it for his son to find- planted it from where? Where did he find it and how did he get the blood inside? How did he get the blood out of the rifle so they would think it was drawback from the fatal wound. How did he know she suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback?
Everything's propaganda to you when you disagree with it. There's a name for people like you.
-
You make it sound as if Boutflour's notes were gospel truth,when he could hardly be called a disinterested party. There is a suspicion in my mind that Boutflour was the one who planted the silencer in the gun cupboard in the first place for his son to find. It was the turning point of the case at a stage when the relatives were desperate to be taken seriously by DCI Taff Jones,who had already dismissed Julie's evidence. Of course this does not necessarily in itself mean that Jeremy is innocent,just that there may well have been underhand dealings to secure the conviction.
We do know that RWB both expected -DEMANDED- total obedience from his adult children. I suspect it had greater effect on David than Ann. As you say, it doesn't make Jeremy innocent and I wouldn't rule out underhand dealings.
-
Everything's propaganda to you when you disagree with it. There's a name for people like you.
No propaganda to me are claims that people with an agenda make and try to support by twisting because they know they have nothing legitimate to raise to support the claims.
-
Everything's propaganda to you when you disagree with it. There's a name for people like you.
I mean this in a completely non confrontational way, but do you now accept that AE did not make the comment you attributed to her in her COLP statement?
-
I mean this in a completely non confrontational way, but do you now accept that AE did not make the comment you attributed to her in her COLP statement?
No--------because nothing surprises me where AE is concerned.
-
No--------because nothing surprises me where AE is concerned.
What she said was that Jones told the family not to tell anyone about the paint. Jones confirmed this in his COLP statement. This was misrepresented as him saying not to tell anyone about the blood and then further twisted into Jones balling them ou for telling Howie though Howie was told before he went there to inspect the paint.
(http://s23.postimg.org/5lji3ox0r/jonescolp.jpg)
-
No--------because nothing surprises me where AE is concerned.
Oh dear - for goodness sake Lookout - just admit when you're wrong! People will have more respect.
-
Oh dear - for goodness sake Lookout - just admit when you're wrong! People will have more respect.
When you read about the underhanded way in which the investigation had been conducted,i.e. shoes taken from the bedroom along with the accompanying phrase " you didn't see those ",doesn't exactly give you confidence in anything else that went on,and because AE was the curious one in all of this,why hadn't she questioned the said remark ? It amounts to mistrust with most of them involved with that case. They all made sure that what they had fitted their own agenda.
-
Oh dear - for goodness sake Lookout - just admit when you're wrong! People will have more respect.
why should she admit just becuse somebodys posted a qaute on white background that could of come from anywhere.
-
why should she admit just becuse somebodys posted a qaute on white background that could of come from anywhere.
Feel free to check AE's COLP yourself, nugs. ;D
-
why should she admit just becuse somebodys posted a qaute on white background that could of come from anywhere.
And how do you think that adopting that attitude helps anything, Nugs?
-
dont you ever qustion why in all the years of this forum being around no other poster from the guilty side has ever found thses so called documents
-
dont you ever qustion why in all the years of this forum being around no other poster from the guilty side has ever found thses so called documents
I think you're confused. Lookouts claim is that what she says is in AE's COLP statement. But Scip has posted that it is actually from a pro-bamber website - which is where his screen shot is from.
You seem to have some mis-trust with Scip - you can quickly clear it up by going to AE's COLP statement yourself and reading it, you'll see what Lookout claims isn't there. Surely easier than sitting debating it ;D
-
dont you ever qustion why in all the years of this forum being around no other poster from the guilty side has ever found thses so called documents
AE's COLP statement is on the forum ???
-
I think you're confused. Lookouts claim is that what she says is in AE's COLP statement. But Scip has posted that it is actually from a pro-bamber website - which is where his screen shot is from.
You seem to have some mis-trust with Scip - you can quickly clear it up by going to AE's COLP statement yourself and reading it, you'll see what Lookout claims isn't there. Surely easier than sitting debating it ;D
You mean like the silencer wasn't there too,in her statement ? Nothing's there when you're NOT looking for it.!!
-
You mean like the silencer wasn't there too,in her statement ? Nothing's there when you're NOT looking for it.!!
I'm not going to waste time on this anymore. I've read it - it's NOT there. You are either wrong or telling lies. It is NOT there. Post what page/line of the COLP statement you're saying this is said. Or find a supporter YOU trust to read AE's COLP for you - because you are just going to keep claiming it until a supporter corrects you like NGB did the other day.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1677.0.html
I even looked through her notes.
In fact, if NGB sees this. Could you be so kind to read AE's COLP when you have time and put this bs to bed please.
-
Damn strange how I found it documented then,isn't it ?
-
I'm not going to waste time on this anymore. I've read it - it's NOT there. You are either wrong or telling lies. It is NOT there. Post what page/line of the COLP statement you're saying this is said. Or find a supporter YOU trust to read AE's COLP for you - because you are just going to keep claiming it until a supporter corrects you like NGB did the other day.
I do NOT lie !! What would be the point ? It was written as part of a COLP meeting. Probably conveniently omitted in the master file,but it was there.I can't be any plainer than that.
-
I do NOT lie !! What would be the point ? It was written as part of a COLP meeting. Probably conveniently omitted in the master file,but it was there.I can't be any plainer than that.
You've been claiming it was in AE's COLP statement. ;D
-
You've been claiming it was in AE's COLP statement. ;D
Because it had a COLP heading that's why. ::)
-
Because it had a COLP heading that's why. ::)
Hi Lookout I will try and help you if I can. Did you see this on this website?
Is it on the official Jeremy Bamber campaign website or is on Poppymeze website. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam did you enjoy the book I have given up on Claire Powells it is quite dreadful ;D
I enjoyed Wilkes's book very much.
Claire Powell's book got good reviews. What didn't you like about it ?
-
Hi Lookout I will try and help you if I can. Did you see this on this website?
Is it on the official Jeremy Bamber campaign website or is on Poppymeze website. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Scips already found it and posted it, Patti. It's on the previous page or the one before that.
-
Patti lookout must have seen this somewhere she would not make things up or tell lies maybe she has mixed it up with something else we all do it. Hey ho does it matter no big deal.
-
I enjoyed Wilkes's book very much.
Claire Powell's book got good reviews. What didn't you like about it ?
Adam I suppose I am being unfair to Claire Powell as I only read a small part of her book and got bored. Guess I have read most of her stuff on the forum but I will read RW book.
-
Hi Lookout I will try and help you if I can. Did you see this on this website?
Is it on the official Jeremy Bamber campaign website or is on Poppymeze website. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hi Patti,on one of Poppy's sites where you can highlight various documents,etc.
-
Hi Patti,on one of Poppy's sites where you can highlight various documents,etc.
Scipio picked up on it last night but passed it off as propaganda-----------which he would.
-
Scipio picked up on it last night but passed it off as propaganda-----------which he would.
I did not think it was on this site Lookout. Was it an official document or was is something that Poppy had said? Is it still there Lookout? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D is it on read my lip;s blog spot?
-
I did not think it was on this site Lookout. Was it an official document or was is something that Poppy had said? Is it still there Lookout? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D is it on read my lip;s blog spot?
It's got 24.55 COLP meet the Eatons0004.jpg-google drive.
It's part of an official document Patti.
-
It's got 24.55 COLP meet the Eatons0004.jpg-google drive.
It's part of an official document Patti.
Is this is Lookout?
-
That's part of it Patti,but you're going to have to highlight the next one,I think.You're on the right track though.
I'm sifting through Vanesiz reports where he notes that the marks on June's and Sheila's arm,as well as Neville's,were consistent with a struggle having taken place.
-
That's part of it Patti,but you're going to have to highlight the next one,I think.You're on the right track though.
I'm sifting through Vanesiz reports where he notes that the marks on June's and Sheila's arm,as well as Neville's,were consistent with a struggle having taken place.
I can't find anything else Lookout. Shall have another look later. I have to go out for while...
The Vanezes reports are all on here Lookout....To be honest I have never read about any marks on either Sheila or June, but I could be wrong....not read the reports for a long time. Catch you later. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I can't find anything else Lookout. Shall have another look later. I have to go out for while...
The Vanezes reports are all on here Lookout....To be honest I have never read about any marks on either Sheila or June, but I could be wrong....not read the reports for a long time. Catch you later. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Vanezis found no injuries to June's arms.
As for the passages Lookout claimed they were from AE's COLP statement but clearly they were not. We have her COLP statement. The sites she got her information from were a propaganda campaign team site and Poppy Ann Miller's propaganda site. Poppy miller even went so far as to claim there are 2 COLP reports, she claims there is a secret one that was never released which found that the moderator evidence was planted. The obvious question is if i is a secret how could she know, if she actually had a copy she would have posted it.
These propaganda sites purposely don't post entire documents because they want to conceal parts that demolish their conspiracy claims thus post limited things like this:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5DLsf0UggyWOGNiMGRhNGYtZWIwZC00MTBmLThjZTUtMjEzZTBiMGQzMzBk/edit?pli=1
This is what Lookout claimed was in AE's COLP statement but it isn't. The person who wrote this miconstrued things. Boutflour is the one who was mad, his statement said he was mad that Howie spread what he told her around so from that point forward he didn't tell anyone things anymore. When Jones took the paint samples he told them not to say anything about it because they didn't want word to get back to Jeremy. The less Jeremy knew about the evidence the better the chance of tripping him up with it.
-
Of course,you're bound to say anything which fits your way of thinking,aren't you ?
-
Of course,you're bound to say anything which fits your way of thinking,aren't you ?
Quite clearly that is not AE's COLP statement it claims she said something which clearly is not in her COLP statement because we have her statement- she sia dJones told them to not tell anyone wabout the paint sample being taken. We have RWB's as well. I posted the snippet from his statement concerning Howie. We even have Jones's COLP statement and I posted the snippet where he confirms what he told them to be quiet about was the paint sample.
My way of thinking is to actually go to the primary evidence and to see what the truth is. yours is to believe any unsupported allegations that helps advance your agenda.
-
Adam I suppose I am being unfair to Claire Powell as I only read a small part of her book and got bored. Guess I have read most of her stuff on the forum but I will read RW book.
Thought you were interested in the case.
-
i thought her book was oks wilkes one is better.
-
i thought her book was oks wilkes one is better.
nugnug that is the feeling I am getting about the two books and I am looking forward to the next two.
-
Thought you were interested in the case.
Adam only when the sun shines this is why I have so little knowledge as the sun don't shine too much up here in the North ;D
-
Does anyone know if Sheila was fostered out when June had her first breakdown ? Sheila would only have been a baby at the time.
-
Does anyone know if Sheila was fostered out when June had her first breakdown ? Sheila would only have been a baby at the time.
I think they had an au pair Lookout but I may be wrong.
-
I think they had an au pair Lookout but I may be wrong.
Possibly Maggie,I'm not sure. Whichever way you look at it,there'd been 3 " mothers " in such a short space of time.
-
Possibly Maggie,I'm not sure. Whichever way you look at it,there'd been 3 " mothers " in such a short space of time.
But he wasn't affected by his adoption he said.
-
But he wasn't affected by his adoption he said.
Think Lookout is talking about when Sheila was a baby, Steph.
-
But he wasn't affected by his adoption he said.
I wasn't talking about Jeremy.
-
I repeat, he wasn't affected by his adoption - his words!
-
I repeat, he wasn't affected by his adoption - his words!
I repeat---------------I wasn't talking about Jeremy. ::)
-
To whom were you referring?
-
To whom were you referring?
Sheila. I'd asked if,when she was a baby, was she fostered while June was in hospital getting over her breakdown. Jeremy hadn't been adopted at that stage.
-
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Wednesday, April 01, 2015
"One of Mums other interests was her love of movies, something which she explained to me had come from her being posted to India during the War as a member of the Auxiliary Nursing Yeomanry. She’d been stationed in Calcutta. Mum explained that it was so hot and humid that to escape the heat the girls would all go to the cinema, one of the few places with air conditioning – that way they could have some respite from that infernal, relentless heat.
Mum was never one to splash out money on herself, it wasn’t about being frugal, she
simply found being selfish impossible – but spoiling the children was fine. Mum didn’t go to the movies on her own, but taking Sheila and I and a couple of our mates to the pictures, with interval ice creams and toffee popcorn, was all fine and dandy. Thing is, looking back now I realise we went to see lots of films that were right up Mum’s street rather than out and out kids stuff. We saw children’s movies too but also lots of Westerns I seem to remember, and Mum would enjoy discussing the films with us afterwards, over milkshakes and banana splits in a small tearoom over the road from the cinema.
I think Mum should have been a teacher as she loved explaining about Geography and History and the moral aspects of films. She was genuinely interested in what Sheila or I thought about a particular issue and we had many discussions after our visits to the cinema.
We continued to catch a movie or two with me, Sheila and Mum, but by my twenties it
tended to be just Mum and I. We would pick what we would go to see carefully as Mum didn’t like the explicitness of many films. It wasn’t because she was in any way a prude; it was because she couldn’t stand lazy film directors who put in unnecessary sex scenes. Mum had watched so many great films by amazing Hollywood directors that she reasoned she could tell the difference between a good movie and a movie using lazy techniques. We’d laugh about it, as it was incongruous with her farmer’s wife image that mum was this high-brow movie critic, but it was something she did know a great deal about. Mum loved Robert Redford, I was into Clint Eastwood, but not in the same way!"
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Wednesday, October 28, 2015
"I know people might think it odd that dad and I often called each other ‘Mate’, it was an in joke between us. This began in 1980. Both dad and I enjoyed the movies and from the age of 12 onwards we’d quite often go to the cinema together. Once I’d learnt to drive and had my own car we’d go to the cinema a little less often as I used to like taking a friend instead. Bringing your dad along if you were hoping for a kiss and a cuddle just wasn’t cool, even I knew that. It sounds so corny thinking back that my taking a young lady to the pictures might have led to something more than friendship, but I had no idea how to do this dating malarkey way back then.
Going back to dad and I, on our movie going days we would always catch the new James Bond film when that came out. We both loved Paul Newman and Robert Redford films and Clint Eastwood too. So anything that they were in we’d go to the cinema and see together."
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk
-
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Wednesday, April 01, 2015
"One of Mums other interests was her love of movies, something which she explained to me had come from her being posted to India during the War as a member of the Auxiliary Nursing Yeomanry. She’d been stationed in Calcutta. Mum explained that it was so hot and humid that to escape the heat the girls would all go to the cinema, one of the few places with air conditioning – that way they could have some respite from that infernal, relentless heat.
Mum was never one to splash out money on herself, it wasn’t about being frugal, she
simply found being selfish impossible – but spoiling the children was fine. Mum didn’t go to the movies on her own, but taking Sheila and I and a couple of our mates to the pictures, with interval ice creams and toffee popcorn, was all fine and dandy. Thing is, looking back now I realise we went to see lots of films that were right up Mum’s street rather than out and out kids stuff. We saw children’s movies too but also lots of Westerns I seem to remember, and Mum would enjoy discussing the films with us afterwards, over milkshakes and banana splits in a small tearoom over the road from the cinema.
I think Mum should have been a teacher as she loved explaining about Geography and History and the moral aspects of films. She was genuinely interested in what Sheila or I thought about a particular issue and we had many discussions after our visits to the cinema.
We continued to catch a movie or two with me, Sheila and Mum, but by my twenties it
tended to be just Mum and I. We would pick what we would go to see carefully as Mum didn’t like the explicitness of many films. It wasn’t because she was in any way a prude; it was because she couldn’t stand lazy film directors who put in unnecessary sex scenes. Mum had watched so many great films by amazing Hollywood directors that she reasoned she could tell the difference between a good movie and a movie using lazy techniques. We’d laugh about it, as it was incongruous with her farmer’s wife image that mum was this high-brow movie critic, but it was something she did know a great deal about. Mum loved Robert Redford, I was into Clint Eastwood, but not in the same way!"
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Wednesday, October 28, 2015
"I know people might think it odd that dad and I often called each other ‘Mate’, it was an in joke between us. This began in 1980. Both dad and I enjoyed the movies and from the age of 12 onwards we’d quite often go to the cinema together. Once I’d learnt to drive and had my own car we’d go to the cinema a little less often as I used to like taking a friend instead. Bringing your dad along if you were hoping for a kiss and a cuddle just wasn’t cool, even I knew that. It sounds so corny thinking back that my taking a young lady to the pictures might have led to something more than friendship, but I had no idea how to do this dating malarkey way back then.
Going back to dad and I, on our movie going days we would always catch the new James Bond film when that came out. We both loved Paul Newman and Robert Redford films and Clint Eastwood too. So anything that they were in we’d go to the cinema and see together."
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk
He's just rehashed his story about his mum with his dad or vice versa....
-
He's just rehashed his story about his mum with his dad or vice versa....
He never has been able to keep his story straight. ;D
-
He never has been able to keep his story straight. ;D
Nor have a few others, come to think.
-
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Wednesday, April 01, 2015
"One of Mums other interests was her love of movies, something which she explained to me had come from her being posted to India during the War as a member of the Auxiliary Nursing Yeomanry. She’d been stationed in Calcutta. Mum explained that it was so hot and humid that to escape the heat the girls would all go to the cinema, one of the few places with air conditioning – that way they could have some respite from that infernal, relentless heat.
Mum was never one to splash out money on herself, it wasn’t about being frugal, she
simply found being selfish impossible – but spoiling the children was fine. Mum didn’t go to the movies on her own, but taking Sheila and I and a couple of our mates to the pictures, with interval ice creams and toffee popcorn, was all fine and dandy. Thing is, looking back now I realise we went to see lots of films that were right up Mum’s street rather than out and out kids stuff. We saw children’s movies too but also lots of Westerns I seem to remember, and Mum would enjoy discussing the films with us afterwards, over milkshakes and banana splits in a small tearoom over the road from the cinema.
I think Mum should have been a teacher as she loved explaining about Geography and History and the moral aspects of films. She was genuinely interested in what Sheila or I thought about a particular issue and we had many discussions after our visits to the cinema.
We continued to catch a movie or two with me, Sheila and Mum, but by my twenties it
tended to be just Mum and I. We would pick what we would go to see carefully as Mum didn’t like the explicitness of many films. It wasn’t because she was in any way a prude; it was because she couldn’t stand lazy film directors who put in unnecessary sex scenes. Mum had watched so many great films by amazing Hollywood directors that she reasoned she could tell the difference between a good movie and a movie using lazy techniques. We’d laugh about it, as it was incongruous with her farmer’s wife image that mum was this high-brow movie critic, but it was something she did know a great deal about. Mum loved Robert Redford, I was into Clint Eastwood, but not in the same way!"
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Wednesday, October 28, 2015
"I know people might think it odd that dad and I often called each other ‘Mate’, it was an in joke between us. This began in 1980. Both dad and I enjoyed the movies and from the age of 12 onwards we’d quite often go to the cinema together. Once I’d learnt to drive and had my own car we’d go to the cinema a little less often as I used to like taking a friend instead. Bringing your dad along if you were hoping for a kiss and a cuddle just wasn’t cool, even I knew that. It sounds so corny thinking back that my taking a young lady to the pictures might have led to something more than friendship, but I had no idea how to do this dating malarkey way back then.
Going back to dad and I, on our movie going days we would always catch the new James Bond film when that came out. We both loved Paul Newman and Robert Redford films and Clint Eastwood too. So anything that they were in we’d go to the cinema and see together."
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk
The following is an exert from the 'Happy Mother's Day' Blog.
"We continued to catch a movie or two with me, Sheila and Mum, but by my twenties it
tended to be just Mum and I. We would pick what we would go to see carefully as Mum didn’t like the explicitness of many films. It wasn’t because she was in any way a prude; it was because she couldn’t stand lazy film directors who put in unnecessary sex scenes. Mum had watched so many great films by amazing Hollywood directors that she reasoned she could tell the difference between a good movie and a movie using lazy techniques. We’d laugh about it, as it was incongruous with her farmer’s wife image that mum was this high-brow movie critic, but it was something she did know a great deal about. Mum loved Robert Redford, I was into Clint Eastwood, but not in the same way!"
Steph is right, the piece about his dad, is just a rehash of the stuff he wrote about his mum. I note that in his twenties he enjoyed gong to the pictures with JUST his mother but as soon as he learned to drive, he didn't want to go with his dad because he wanted to take friends. Talk about a contradiction!!
It is quite funny how he also TRIES to imply that he was naive were girls were concerned - I mean COME ON!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Wow...
-
The following is an exert from the 'Happy Mother's Day' Blog.
"We continued to catch a movie or two with me, Sheila and Mum, but by my twenties it
tended to be just Mum and I. We would pick what we would go to see carefully as Mum didn’t like the explicitness of many films. It wasn’t because she was in any way a prude; it was because she couldn’t stand lazy film directors who put in unnecessary sex scenes. Mum had watched so many great films by amazing Hollywood directors that she reasoned she could tell the difference between a good movie and a movie using lazy techniques. We’d laugh about it, as it was incongruous with her farmer’s wife image that mum was this high-brow movie critic, but it was something she did know a great deal about. Mum loved Robert Redford, I was into Clint Eastwood, but not in the same way!"
Steph is right, the piece about his dad, is just a rehash of the stuff he wrote about his mum. I note that in his twenties he enjoyed gong to the pictures with JUST his mother but as soon as he learned to drive, he didn't want to go with his dad because he wanted to take friends. Talk about a contradiction!!
It is quite funny how he also TRIES to imply that he was naive were girls were concerned - I mean COME ON!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I wouldn't have thought he was around for long enough when he was in his twenties to accompany June to the pictures.
-
I wouldn't have thought he was around for long enough when he was in his twenties to accompany June to the pictures.
No he should have stuck to the story about June bringing delicacies from the cake shop in Colchester,which had more of a ring of truth about it.
-
No he should have stuck to the story about June bringing delicacies from the cake shop in Colchester,which had more of a ring of truth about it.
I thought they baked the cakes themselves? What with all this cinema and cake baking, when did he get the time to plot their demise? :D
-
It's fair to say that he did get on with his mother better than poor Sheila did.
-
It's fair to say that he did get on with his mother better than poor Sheila did.
Not according to BW and various other people!! Even himself, who stated that it was only in the past few months before the murders that they have put their differences aside. I guess he decided to be nice to her - in her last few months.
-
The following is an exert from the 'Happy Mother's Day' Blog.
"We continued to catch a movie or two with me, Sheila and Mum, but by my twenties it
tended to be just Mum and I. We would pick what we would go to see carefully as Mum didn’t like the explicitness of many films. It wasn’t because she was in any way a prude; it was because she couldn’t stand lazy film directors who put in unnecessary sex scenes. Mum had watched so many great films by amazing Hollywood directors that she reasoned she could tell the difference between a good movie and a movie using lazy techniques. We’d laugh about it, as it was incongruous with her farmer’s wife image that mum was this high-brow movie critic, but it was something she did know a great deal about. Mum loved Robert Redford, I was into Clint Eastwood, but not in the same way!"
Steph is right, the piece about his dad, is just a rehash of the stuff he wrote about his mum. I note that in his twenties he enjoyed gong to the pictures with JUST his mother but as soon as he learned to drive, he didn't want to go with his dad because he wanted to take friends. Talk about a contradiction!!
It is quite funny how he also TRIES to imply that he was naive were girls were concerned - I mean COME ON!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
In one blog he talks of reaching his twenties and going to the movies with 'friends' and in another blog he talks about going to the cinema with just his "mum" in his twenties? Very confusing....
Sorry Caroline just re-read your post (above) and you've already pointed this out...
Won't harm re-ittreating the fact....
Who did he go to the movies with in his twenties;
His Mum?
Or
His Friends?
-
Not according to BW and various other people!! Even himself, who stated that it was only in the past few months before the murders that they have put their differences aside. I guess he decided to be nice to her - in her last few months.
I'd tend to ignore what BW said/says, saying one thing and meaning another. I can't be doing with people like that you don't know where you are with them.
-
I wouldn't have thought he was around for long enough when he was in his twenties to accompany June to the pictures.
He's playing to his 'audience' imo - in relation to what he is now writing in his blogs I mean...
-
I'd tend to ignore what BW said/says, saying one thing and meaning another. I can't be doing with people like that you don't know where you are with them.
Unless it's favourable to Jeremy?
-
Unless it's favourable to Jeremy?
She's actually mentioned both sides of the coin.Couldn't make up her mind . ;D ;D Silly woman.
-
And who liked Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood?
JB?
His Mum?
His Dad?
Or
ALL of them?
I would have thought if both parents liked Redford and Eastwood, he would have written so!? Just a thought....
-
And who liked Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood?
JB?
His Mum?
His Dad?
Or
ALL of them?
I would have thought if both parents liked Redford and Eastwood, he would have written so!? Just a thought....
I was thinking the same thing AND how come they didn't ALL go to the cinema at the same time? ;) ;D ;D
-
Sheila would have been with her babies and Neville probably didn't want to go and see a soppy picture.
-
Sheila would have been with her babies and Neville probably didn't want to go and see a soppy picture.
Which reminds me,Sheila had wanted another baby didn't she ? I wonder if the poor thing thought that doing so would cement the marriage ?
-
I was thinking the same thing AND how come they didn't ALL go to the cinema at the same time? ;) ;D ;D
His next blog or the one after that may have them all going to the cinema together ;D He may even point out which parent was a fan of Redford and Eastwood ;D
Wonder what films he's referring to? Will he blog the titles of the films?
-
I've just researched Clint Eastwood films and he didn't appear to make a many films in the 80's?
JB would have been 20 in 1981 - so his 20's would be up until 1990..
And he was 24 when he was arrested, so.....
I've only found 2 movies starring Eastwood in the early 80's?
Same for Redford?
Maybe the local cinemas were 'rehashing' the old films? ;D or maybe he's confused?
-
I wonder which one was the Good,the Bad and the Ugly..
-
;D ;D ;D ;D Very droll Steve. Or perhaps you were serious :-[
-
I wonder which one was the Good,the Bad and the Ugly..
He would have been 5 years old when that was released?
-
He is supposed to have said that 1 to 2 days after the fact, so looking back in hindsight he said if I had gone over I would have been shot...?????
I agree .
Also I do still wonder if Neville was forced to make the call by Sheila.
people say lots of things when they know the facts - like Neville would never have made the call - but if the police had gone round there and Sheila was ranting and raving and had not fired a shot - no one would have thought the call was odd
-
Which reminds me,Sheila had wanted another baby didn't she ? I wonder if the poor thing thought that doing so would cement the marriage ?
Cement the marriage? They were DIVORCED! ;D
-
In one blog he talks of reaching his twenties and going to the movies with 'friends' and in another blog he talks about going to the cinema with just his "mum" in his twenties? Very confusing....
Sorry Caroline just re-read your post (above) and you've already pointed this out...
Won't harm re-ittreating the fact....
Who did he go to the movies with in his twenties;
His Mum?
Or
His Friends?
Maybe they all went together to watch Clint Eastwood or was it Robert Redford? I'm confused!! :-\
-
Cement the marriage? They were DIVORCED! ;D
you know what lookout means - the chance of a reconciliation which was talked about. Although I think that was in Sheilas head.
-
Sheila would have been with her babies and Neville probably didn't want to go and see a soppy picture.
Soppy with Clint Eastwood or Robert Redford?? Nevill loved the pictures, he was especially fond of Clint Redford or maybe it was Robert Eastwood? ???
-
I agree .
Also I do still wonder if Neville was forced to make the call by Sheila.
people say lots of things when they know the facts - like Neville would never have made the call - but if the police had gone round there and Sheila was ranting and raving and had not fired a shot - no one would have thought the call was odd
he said it the following day when AE asked him. In fact it wasn't a day later, it was hours later and he said tht was he reason for not going over - so it wasn't in hindsight, it was he reason at the time.
-
its pretty obvious he meant WHEN he went with his mum later on Sheila did not go . Not that he JUST went with his mum.
And I remember lots of those films and I am the same age - but I just to watch them on TV- not the cinema as far as I remember .
-
I've just researched Clint Eastwood films and he didn't appear to make a many films in the 80's?
JB would have been 20 in 1981 - so his 20's would be up until 1990..
And he was 24 when he was arrested, so.....
I've only found 2 movies starring Eastwood in the early 80's?
Same for Redford?
Maybe the local cinemas were 'rehashing' the old films? ;D or maybe he's confused?
I was just thinking that! My dad used to like Clint Eastwood and his movie going days would have been quite a few years before JB is talking about. ;D ;D ;D
-
its pretty obvious he meant WHEN he went with his mum later on Sheila did not go . Not that he JUST went with his mum.
And I remember lots of those films and I am the same age - but I just to watch them on TV- not the cinema as far as I remember .
He said he stopped going to the pictures with his DAD when he learned to drive because we wanted to go with people his ow age. However, he's previously said that in his twenties he was still going to the pictures with his mother. It doesn't make any sense. I've seen pictures with CE and the RR but never at the pictures - he was talking about the cinema but mentions nothing about what they saw.
-
Cement the marriage? They were DIVORCED! ;D
I know that,but Sheila still thought there might have been a chance,even during her journey to WHF.
-
I know that,but Sheila still thought there might have been a chance,even during her journey to WHF.
This is something that I've previously suggested but since having discovered that she remained silent -according to Colin- for the entire journey it would be very wrong of me to guess at what her thoughts may have been.
-
I know that,but Sheila still thought there might have been a chance,even during her journey to WHF.
Sheila didn't ask Colin for a reconciliation in the car - this is yet another myth.
-
Sheila didn't ask Colin for a reconciliation in the car - this is yet another myth.
Wasn't it he who told her beforehand ?
-
Wasn't it he who told her beforehand ?
Before what?
-
Before what?
Before they left for WHF.
-
Before they left for WHF.
No.
-
Wasn't it he who told her beforehand ?
What did he tell her beforehand?
-
What did he tell her beforehand?
He didn't tell her anything.
-
What did he tell her beforehand?
That there'd be no reconciliation as he had a girlfriend. Sheila had completely misinterpreted the fact that both her and Colin were getting along after the divorce that she'd thought there was a chance.
-
That there'd be no reconciliation as he had a girlfriend. Sheila had completely misinterpreted the fact that both her and Colin were getting along after the divorce that she'd thought there was a chance.
myth
-
myth
Nope. It was written by Jane's fair hand a year or two ago.I saw it while looking for something else.
-
Nope. It was written by Jane's fair hand a year or two ago.I saw it while looking for something else.
Perhaps it was at a time when lots of these things hadn't been squashed but I'm sure Jane now knows it isn't true - I think I may have even quoted it myself in the dark distant past - but it's simply not true.
-
Nope. It was written by Jane's fair hand a year or two ago.I saw it while looking for something else.
GOSH!!! Lookout, do you recall that I stated that as a fact or had I said, as I usually do, supposing, could it have been, might he have?
-
Perhaps it was at a time when lots of these things hadn't been squashed but I'm sure Jane now knows it isn't true - I think I may have even quoted it myself in the dark distant past - but it's simply not true.
Yes Caroline. I WILL set the record straight here. As I haven't read -ANYWHERE- that Colin said such to Sheila, nor that he confessed to saying such, I have to assume that it isn't true.
-
Yes Caroline. I WILL set the record straight here. As I haven't read -ANYWHERE- that Colin said such to Sheila, nor that he confessed to saying such, I have to assume that it isn't true.
Someone on here told me but I haven't read it anywhere else.
-
Someone on here told me but I haven't read it anywhere else.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jane your post from 2013 - can you remember where you got the info from?
Alias, if we look at the 18 weeks between her leaving St Andrews and her death at WHF, we find thad her hopes of being reconciled to her divorced husband came to nothing, her hopes of being reconciled to and forming a relationship with her biological mother came to nothing and in her mind it may have looked as if she was going to have to return to WHF permanently with two children she suspected of wanting to rape or kill her, a feeling probably exacerbated by the inbalance of meds that had not been checked on.
Dr Ferguson had said in a report that his prognosis for her future WAS NOT GOOD, in part because she would stop taking meds and fail to attend follow up appointments. It seems to me that Sheila was in a particularly bad place and the doctors prognosis was being fulfilled faster than he imagined.
I also think I read that Colin said if she had not died they may have had something of more of a family life - so I suppose you can read what you want into that.
-
Jane your post from 2013 - can you remember where you got the info from?
Alias, if we look at the 18 weeks between her leaving St Andrews and her death at WHF, we find thad her hopes of being reconciled to her divorced husband came to nothing, her hopes of being reconciled to and forming a relationship with her biological mother came to nothing and in her mind it may have looked as if she was going to have to return to WHF permanently with two children she suspected of wanting to rape or kill her, a feeling probably exacerbated by the inbalance of meds that had not been checked on.
Dr Ferguson had said in a report that his prognosis for her future WAS NOT GOOD, in part because she would stop taking meds and fail to attend follow up appointments. It seems to me that Sheila was in a particularly bad place and the doctors prognosis was being fulfilled faster than he imagined.
I also think I read that Colin said if she had not died they may have had something of more of a family life - so I suppose you can read what you want into that.
We're not disputing that Colin mentioned after the deaths that there might have been a future reconciliation - in fact he mentioned it in the video you posted a few weeks ago. The point we have disputing is that it was mentioned on the way to WHF.
-
Jane your post from 2013 - can you remember where you got the info from?
Alias, if we look at the 18 weeks between her leaving St Andrews and her death at WHF, we find thad her hopes of being reconciled to her divorced husband came to nothing, her hopes of being reconciled to and forming a relationship with her biological mother came to nothing and in her mind it may have looked as if she was going to have to return to WHF permanently with two children she suspected of wanting to rape or kill her, a feeling probably exacerbated by the inbalance of meds that had not been checked on.
Dr Ferguson had said in a report that his prognosis for her future WAS NOT GOOD, in part because she would stop taking meds and fail to attend follow up appointments. It seems to me that Sheila was in a particularly bad place and the doctors prognosis was being fulfilled faster than he imagined.
I also think I read that Colin said if she had not died they may have had something of more of a family life - so I suppose you can read what you want into that.
Jan, No, I don't remember, but after two years, it's satisfying to know, that although I've "swapped sides," I don't feel any inclination to change what I said.
I wouldn't suppose that you're disputing what Dr Ferguson said of her so I think you are -possibly?- questioning my assessment of her. By way of -hopeful- explanation, I neither pulled it out of the ether nor used a ouija board. It was formed by a mix of her background story and her behaviours at the time -the latter being conveyed by what Colin said- her silence during the journey to WHF speaking far more eloquently than her words may have. I didn't need to be a super sleuth to form an opinion of what the silence was about. There aren't SO many reasons for silence and once the non starters -sore throat/tiredness- were eliminated, I was left with what she was feeling. Joy, contentment and serenity weren't top of the list. Could she have been feeling so angry that had she opened her mouth she'd have exploded. I don't believe so. I thought THEN and believe NOW that she was experiencing utter hopelessness, was deeply depressed. In the short term, I feel she may have thought there was little to look forward to. In the long term, I'm convinced she felt there was nothing to look forward too.
-
Jan, No, I don't remember, but after two years, it's satisfying to know, that although I've "swapped sides," I don't feel any inclination to change what I said.
I wouldn't suppose that you're disputing what Dr Ferguson said of her so I think you are -possibly?- questioning my assessment of her. By way of -hopeful- explanation, I neither pulled it out of the ether nor used a ouija board. It was formed by a mix of her background story and her behaviours at the time -the latter being conveyed by what Colin said- her silence during the journey to WHF speaking far more eloquently than her words may have. I didn't need to be a super sleuth to form an opinion of what the silence was about. There aren't SO many reasons for silence and once the non starters -sore throat/tiredness- were eliminated, I was left with what she was feeling. Joy, contentment and serenity weren't top of the list. Could she have been feeling so angry that had she opened her mouth she'd have exploded. I don't believe so. I thought THEN and believe NOW that she was experiencing utter hopelessness, was deeply depressed. In the short term, I feel she may have thought there was little to look forward to. In the long term, I'm convinced she felt there was nothing to look forward too.
She didn't seem to be making plans for the future yet I feel that she was her own harshest critic. She admonished herself for the abnormal thoughts running through her head as regards the boys and knew that it was her own behaviour which had driven Colin away. The irony is that June was reacting to this by planning to secure her a quarterly allowance,something which Jeremy may or may not have uncovered.
-
She didn't seem to be making plans for the future yet I feel that she was her own harshest critic. She admonished herself for the abnormal thoughts running through her head as regards the boys and knew that it was her own behaviour which had driven Colin away. The irony is that June was reacting to this by planning to secure her a quarterly allowance,something which Jeremy may or may not have uncovered.
It's not a difficult thing to if one feels a complete failure and Sheila hadn't exactly been encouraged to see herself as being otherwise in failing both her mother and God. She appeared to have been locked into a cycle in which she was wholly dependent on the person she felt most put down by and may have been better lively quite apart from. I'm not saying there was fault, just that, like for many, it's the way it was.
-
From his latest blog:
"However I do have a point and it’s maybe a little self-focused"
Another damning statement from JB! I've seen this style of writing before. By using the word 'little' imo he's attempting to play down just how self focused he truly is....
Is knows he's self focused. He's always been self focused. He is a psychopath unable to feel anything towards others.
-
From his latest blog:
"However I do have a point and it’s maybe a little self-focused"
Another damning statement from JB! I've seen this style of writing before. By using the word 'little' imo he's attempting to play down just how self focused he truly is....
Is knows he's self focused. He's always been self focused. He is a psychopath unable to feel anything towards others.
The word 'maybe' is also quite telling.
-
The word 'maybe' is also quite telling.
I get the sense he writes the way he does on purpose.... As though he's grinning to himself as he's putting pen to paper...
-
I get the sense he writes the way he does on purpose.... As though he's grinning to himself as he's putting pen to paper...
Yeah I get that too.
-
Yeah I get that too.
Well he did say tell the truth where possible, even if you have to read between the lines to see what he is saying and how coy he is.
It's a game.