Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on April 16, 2015, 10:18:PM
-
Neville makes his 'mysterious' call to Jeremy:
Jeremy says he tried to call back straight away. Although that was not possible.
He decides not to go straight over. Although Neville had said 'please come over'.
He decides not to call 999. He thought 'it would not make any difference over how long it would take for them to arrive'. Although he didn't think that it takes time to look for the number of a police station.
He decides not to ring nearby farm workers. It 'did not occur to him' he said.
He decides not to ring nearby relatives.
He looks in the phone book and calls Witham police station. Or did he ? There is uncertainty here.
He still decides not to call 999.
He looks in the phone book again and then calls Chelmsford. The forth furthest away police station. Well who wouldn't ?
He then calls Julie. Or was that before phoning the police ? Jeremy is unsure. But he was sure to say 'no comment' when the police asked 'why' he called her ?
He puts on several layers of clothes on. Well you don't want to get chilly now do you ?
He drives slowly to WHF. Testifying that he did not want to arrive before the police.
-
well he was told not to arive before the police by the police.
-
I wouldn't need to think about it or analyse it, I'd call 999 and head straight over there!!
-
To be fair no one knows how they would react if receiving a call. At 3.10am.
-
To be fair no one knows how they would react if receiving a call. At 3.10am.
Rubbish!! Of course they do, if they're HONEST!
-
I might call the forth furthest away police station. If I knew what mine was.
-
Rubbish!! Of course they do, if they're HONEST!
I will be honest: I would not charge over there on my own, I would be too afraid to do that.
I don´t know about the systems in England, but here I would probably have dialed the equivalent of 999 and NOT gone over there on my own. I think people are being dishonest when they say they would have stormed over there to help!
That said, I have no idea how I would really react in a situation like that, and I don´t think any of us can.
-
I might call the forth furthest away police station. If I knew what mine was.
Glad you're just being sarcastic because anyone would call 999 or go over or both. It's hardly rocket science.
-
I will be honest: I would not charge over there on my own, I would be too afraid to do that.
I don´t know about the systems in England, but here I would probably have dialed the equivalent of 999 and NOT gone over there on my own. I think people are being dishonest when they say they would have stormed over there to help!
That said, I have no idea how I would really react in a situation like that, and I don´t think any of us can.
Well, at least you're being honest about phoning the emergency number. I would definitely go over, I can promise you that - so I'm not being dishonest at all.
-
Well, at least you're being honest about phoning the emergency number. I would definitely go over, I can promise you that - so I'm not being dishonest at all.
I'd dial 999 and go over, that's the truth. Not being dishonest. In 2015 I'd dial 999 on my mobile whilst making my way there.
-
Well, at least you're being honest about phoning the emergency number. I would definitely go over, I can promise you that - so I'm not being dishonest at all.
At least? Were you expecting any different? Guess you were.
-
Minutes: Miles:
Chelmsford 0.39 21.1
Maldon 0.20 7.2
Tiptree 0.10 3.8
Witham 0.27 11.1
-
At least? Were you expecting any different? Guess you were.
Oh for gods sake LOL!! You haven't taken offence to that too? Seriously?
-
Suspect Jeremy was trying to delay things.
This was to give him more time to get his head together and ensure he had covered his tracks.
The longer the delay between his phone call and entry into WHF, the more he can distance himself from being involved.
-
Oh for gods sake LOL!! You haven't taken offence to that too? Seriously?
That too? At least?
All those little digs. Dig, dig, dig, all day long.
-
I'd dial 999 and go over, that's the truth. Not being dishonest. In 2015 I'd dial 999 on my mobile whilst making my way there.
I'm not sure why it's dishonest to say you would go over - makes perfect sense to me!!
-
That too? At least?
All those little digs. Dig, dig, dig, all day long.
Yet another overreaction. You never tire of playing victim! Don't talk to me Alias - this is childish!!!!!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
I'm not sure why it's dishonest to say you would go over - makes perfect sense to me!!
Makes sense to me too, it's what I'd do. No doubt about it.
-
I once had to ring the police around 30 years ago. I looked up the local station as it was a local incident and I never thought for a second to ring 999
Putting myself in Jeremy's situation at the same young age he was, I honestly would have dithered, telephoned someone I knew, dithered a bit more then rung the local cop shop and gone very slowly to the farm in the hope the police got there first as I would have been scared and a bit of a ninny. If you are of the viewpoint that he is innocent all his actions seem quite natural to me.
-
I once had to ring the police around 30 years ago. I looked up the local station as it was a local incident and I never thought for a second to ring 999
Putting myself in Jeremy's situation at the same young age he was, I honestly would have dithered, telephoned someone I knew, dithered a bit more then rung the local cop shop and gone very slowly to the farm in the hope the police got there first as I would have been scared and a bit of a ninny. If you are of the viewpoint that he is innocent all his actions seem quite natural to me.
That being the crux!
-
Makes sense to me too, it's what I'd do. No doubt about it.
And me, it would be an automatic reaction.
-
That being the crux!
Whereas I would would think that a guilty person planning the perfect crime would ring 999 and storm over, alerting other family and farm workers on the way.
-
I once had to ring the police around 30 years ago. I looked up the local station as it was a local incident and I never thought for a second to ring 999
Putting myself in Jeremy's situation at the same young age he was, I honestly would have dithered, telephoned someone I knew, dithered a bit more then rung the local cop shop and gone very slowly to the farm in the hope the police got there first as I would have been scared and a bit of a ninny. If you are of the viewpoint that he is innocent all his actions seem quite natural to me.
From someone who knows,eh ? You're right of course.
-
Whereas I would would think that a guilty person planning the perfect crime would ring 999 and storm over, alerting other family and farm workers on the way.
What about if that person were a psychopath? I should expand...
You've looked at the case from innocence, and presumably guilt, not look at it and consider he is a psychopath.
-
From someone who knows,eh ? You're right of course.
I've also rang the police Lookout, I saw a burglary. I could have buggered about calling the local number, or maybe call my Great Aunt in London. However, on reflection, I decided that 999 might get the police there quicker so they could catch the offenders. I also had to call the police for a crime number when I lost a ring (insurance purposes), I called the local number because it wasn't urgent. See the difference?
-
What about if that person were a psychopath?
I don't know how a psychopath would react, but if I had to hazard a guess I would say that they too would ring 999 and create a big buzz round themselves and the event
-
I've also rang the police Lookout, I saw a burglary. I could have buggered about calling the local number, or maybe call my Great Aunt in London. However, on reflection, I decided that 999 might get the police there quicker so they could catch the offenders. I also had to call the police for a crime number when I lost a ring (insurance purposes), I called the local number because it wasn't urgent. See the difference?
I honestly thought all those years ago that ringing the local police would be both quicker and the right thing to do. In 2015 I would ring 999
-
Whereas I would would think that a guilty person planning the perfect crime would ring 999 and storm over, alerting other family and farm workers on the way.
He didn't plan the perfect crime, he got caught. Also an innocent man wouldn't change the times of the call to fit alleged new claims. Jeremy has shifted the time of his call to police to 15 to 20 minutes later, just so he can fit in a call to police from Nevill. Although Nevill could have just called the police in the first place and cut of the middle name.
-
I don't know how a psychopath would react, but if I had to hazard a guess I would say that they too would ring 999 and create a big buzz round themselves and the event
I don't think the 'buzz' could have been any greater!
-
He didn't plan the perfect crime, he got caught. Also an innocent man wouldn't change the times of the call to fit alleged new claims. Jeremy has shifted the time of his call to police to 15 to 20 minutes later, just so he can fit in a call to police from Nevill. Although Nevill could have just called the police in the first place and cut of the middle name.
Planning the perfect crime is different from carrying out the perfect crime. The question was how would you react and I am just answering honestly I would have reacted identically at the time. (What happened afterwards regarding times of calls etc is a separate issue)
-
I don't think the 'buzz' could have been any greater!
:) well that is a retrospective buzz that is still buzzing.
-
:) well that is a retrospective buzz that is still buzzing.
Of course, the game is still afoot!
-
:) well that is a retrospective buzz that is still buzzing.
Hi Sarah, welcome to the forum. Could you please introduce yourself in the foyer. Thank you.
-
Of course, the game is still afoot!
It sure is!
-
Hi Sarah, welcome to the forum. Could you please introduce yourself in the foyer. Thank you.
I think I did yonks ago and then haven't posted since
-
Planning the perfect crime is different from carrying out the perfect crime. The question was how would you react and I am just answering honestly I would have reacted identically at the time. (What happened afterwards regarding times of calls etc is a separate issue)
Hi SaraT, the call timings are indeed a separate issue and ridiculously used as a stick to beat JB by those who are willing to believe that any discrepancy on EP's part, and there are many, over timings are all understandable mistakes.
-
I think I did yonks ago and then haven't posted since
Hi Sarah your first post is tonight. Would you kindly use the foyer to introduce yourself. Thanks.
-
Hi Sarah your first post is tonight. Would you kindly use the foyer to introduce yourself. Thanks.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4842.0.html
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4842.0.html
That's fine Sarah...You must have set up a new profile. ;D
-
That's fine Sarah...You must have set up a new profile. ;D
I must have done, probably forgot my password :)
-
Hi SaraT, the call timings are indeed a separate issue and ridiculously used as a stick to beat JB by those who are willing to believe that any discrepancy on EP's part, and there are many, over timings are all understandable mistakes.
No EP discrepancy in Jeremy originally saying he called police between 03:15-03:20 and now that he called at 03:36 - JUST to fit in that call from Nevill. You know, that call that he 'implicitly' told Jeremy NOT to make!
-
No EP discrepancy in Jeremy originally saying he called police between 03:15-03:20 and now that he called at 03:36 - JUST to fit in that call from Nevill. You know, that call that he 'implicitly' told Jeremy NOT to make!
And there were discrepancies regarding timings in relation to another case I'm familiar with. It turns out all our theories, excuses, whatever you want to call them, were wrong. That is why I suggest caution is used when approaching this case and others like it.
-
Its all so easy in retrospect - We don't know everything about the family and their relationship because most of them cant tell us the truth.So how can we begin to judge . I can imagine as the call was brief and appeared to finish abruptly I would have tried to call back especially if I had not heard it all clearly .After that yes I would probably have called 999 - but we have to remember Jeremy may never have imagined at all what his sister could be capable of.
I will just tell you this - one night I very nearly died in a choking incident at home - it was so close that I thought I was going to die trying to make myself vomit over a bin - I burst a blood vessel in my eye and was on the point of passing out but I could not tell my family what to do because you can not speak. We all know my family should have called an ambulance before trying to help me - but they didn't. Because they were trying to establish what was happening and trying to save me ( none of them knew first aid)
Its easy to look back and say - well it turned out ok ( my husband saved me) but it may not have and then they would have done the wrong thing.
If it turns out JB is innocent - we could say he made a huge mistake in his actions - that's obvious now - or if he is guilty he made a huge mistake even trying to make up a phone call .
But personally I don't think asking what we would do makes one single bit of difference , even if you asked 100 people - they were not there - they did not hear the call and they do not know the family dynamics.
IMO :)
-
well he was told not to arive before the police by the police.
No he wasn't, West told him to go right over he didn't say to wait for police to arrive before going.
-
Neville makes his 'mysterious' call to Jeremy:
Jeremy says he tried to call back straight away. Although that was not possible.
He decides not to go straight over. Although Neville had said 'please come over'.
He decides not to call 999. He thought 'it would not make any difference over how long it would take for them to arrive'. Although he didn't think that it takes time to look for the number of a police station.
He decides not to ring nearby farm workers. It 'did not occur to him' he said.
He decides not to ring nearby relatives.
He looks in the phone book and calls Witham police station. Or did he ? There is uncertainty here.
He still decides not to call 999.
He looks in the phone book again and then calls Chelmsford. The forth furthest away police station. Well who wouldn't ?
He then calls Julie. Or was that before phoning the police ? Jeremy is unsure. But he was sure to say 'no comment' when the police asked 'why' he called her ?
He puts on several layers of clothes on. Well you don't want to get chilly now do you ?
He drives slowly to WHF. Testifying that he did not want to arrive before the police.
Something this fails to take into account is that Sheila never showed any interest in guns and there was no indication she knew how to load and operate the weapon. For her to grab the weapon in and of itself demonstrates something is wrong. That she doesn't likely know how to use it though provides a reason to be more brave in the face of helping.
-
Something this fails to take into account is that Sheila never showed any interest in guns and there was no indication she knew how to load and operate the weapon. For her to grab the weapon in and of itself demonstrates something is wrong. That she doesn't likely know how to use it though provides a reason to be more brave in the face of helping.
That's a poor shot Scip... ;)
We only have the word of relatives that Sheila had no idea or interest in guns. Relatives that hardly saw Jeremy and Sheila. One would have to be present in their family life a little more often to state that as fact.
Sheila was a 27 year old woman, she was not a child Scip. ;D
-
Yet another overreaction. You never tire of playing victim! Don't talk to me Alias - this is childish!!!!!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
And one more dig....
-
That's a poor shot Scip... ;)
We only have the word of relatives that Sheila had no idea or interest in guns. Relatives that hardly saw Jeremy and Sheila. One would have to present in their family life a little more often to state that as fact.
Sheila was a 27 year old woman, she was not a child Scip. ;D
You conveniently ignore that Jeremy himself admitted she had no interest in guns that he was aware of and that she had not fired any guns to his knowledge.
You are also intentionally keep ignoring this was the first semi-auto the family had and thus she never had any way to learn about a semi-auto while growing up.
Far from being a cheap shot I am bringing the full reality of the situation to the hypothetical we are being asked.
Your bias is in full effect here especially since you choose to on one hand ignore Jeremy's own words and suggest the family was lying about Sheila not having an interest in guns and yet to at the same time want to ignore that Jeremy initially lied to police telling them she fired all weapons in the house and had been trained by him to fire the Anschutz.
-
That's a poor shot Scip... ;)
We only have the word of relatives that Sheila had no idea or interest in guns. Relatives that hardly saw Jeremy and Sheila. One would have to be present in their family life a little more often to state that as fact.
Sheila was a 27 year old woman, she was not a child Scip. ;D
And Jeremy was a 25 year old man - fully aware of the emergency number for the police.
-
You conveniently ignore that Jeremy himself admitted she had no interest in guns that he was aware of and that she had not fired any guns to his knowledge.
You are also intentionally keep ignoring this was the first semi-auto the family had and thus she never had any way to learn about a semi-auto while growing up.
Far from being a cheap shot I am bringing the full reality of the situation to the hypothetical we are being asked.
Your bias is in full effect here especially since you choose to on one hand ignore Jeremy's own words and suggest the family was lying about Sheila not having an interest in guns and yet to at the same time want to ignore that Jeremy initially lied to police telling them she fired all weapons in the house and had been trained by him to fire the Anschutz.
Nope you are wrong Scip, I have not ignored it at all. You are the one that is biased because you are tunneled and want to believe everything you read to be correct, but you are not always correct are you. Will you not except that sometimes what you read can be false. You will not look at it from a different perspective or consider an alternative. This is where you fail most of the time and this reflects how biased you really are. Shame you can't balance the scales like a Libran. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just because she had no interest does not mean that she did not know how to pick up a gun and use it.
-
And Jeremy was a 25 year old man - fully aware of the emergency number for the police.
Another dig ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You conveniently ignore that Jeremy himself admitted she had no interest in guns that he was aware of and that she had not fired any guns to his knowledge.
You are also intentionally keep ignoring this was the first semi-auto the family had and thus she never had any way to learn about a semi-auto while growing up.
Far from being a cheap shot I am bringing the full reality of the situation to the hypothetical we are being asked.
Your bias is in full effect here especially since you choose to on one hand ignore Jeremy's own words and suggest the family was lying about Sheila not having an interest in guns and yet to at the same time want to ignore that Jeremy initially lied to police telling them she fired all weapons in the house and had been trained by him to fire the Anschutz.
both my father and my grandfather had no intrest in guns but they both knew how to use one. ive got no intrest in cars but i know how to drive. lack of interest does not mean perfectly capeble of using them.
-
Nope you are wrong Scip, I have not ignored it at all. You are the one that is biased because you are tunneled and want to believe everything you read to be correct, but you are not always correct are you. Will you not except that sometimes what you read can be false. You will not look at it from a different perspective or consider an alternative. [/b] This is where you fail most of the time and this reflects how biased you really are. Shame you can't balance the scales like a Libran. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just because she had no interest does not mean that she did not know how to pick up a gun and use it.
I don't think Scip is biased. But all the above in bold.. you constantly defend someone who does that, even when you know she is wrong. :-\
-
I don't think Scip is biased. But all the above in bold.. you constantly defend someone who does that, even when you know she is wrong. :-\
I think some posters don't understand the concept of being objective. When posters compare something from their own lives you can't help sense they are being guided by their own emotions as opposed to logic and reasoning.
-
I think some posters don't understand the concept of being objective. When posters compare something from their own lives you can't help sense they are being guided by their own emotions as opposed to logic and reasoning.
It seems some people pick and choose things from their own lives to excuse/explain Bambers behaviour, no matter how convulted they seem. There are only so many excuses one can make before all they are doing is denying what is in front of them.
-
I don't think Scip is biased. But all the above in bold.. you constantly defend someone who does that, even when you know she is wrong. :-\
Scip knows I mean no wrong with what I am saying to him and he will not be offended. But, what I cannot understand is that you complain when I speak like that but not when Scip does...I find that very odd.
-
both my father and my grandfather had no intrest in guns but they both knew how to use one. ive got no intrest in cars but i know how to drive. lack of interest does not mean perfectly capeble of using them.
They had to have learned how to use a guns somewhere and in the meantime what guns could they use? The assumption once you use one gun you can use any is not right.
-
Nope you are wrong Scip, I have not ignored it at all. You are the one that is biased because you are tunneled and want to believe everything you read to be correct, but you are not always correct are you. Will you not except that sometimes what you read can be false. You will not look at it from a different perspective or consider an alternative. This is where you fail most of the time and this reflects how biased you really are. Shame you can't balance the scales like a Libran. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Just because she had no interest does not mean that she did not know how to pick up a gun and use it.
You are just projecting. You have tunnel vision not me. Saying someone could be lying is not enough to establish they are which is necessary to disregard something. You want us to believe the family and Jeremy lied in their statements and that Sheila actually had fired guns before and had an interest in them. You want to ignore logic and pretend that because she grew up on a farm she would know how to operate all guns of any kind even though the family hadn't even owned a semi-auto until a few months before the murders.
Being objective means taking the evidence as it is found not ignoring it and that is what you do you put on blinders then absurdly suggest anyone who doesn't wear the blinders you wear are biased. That is classic projection.
We are trying to assess the situation JEREMY claims existed to see if his supposed reaction is one that is credible. His own claims are that she was not known to have any interest in guns or to have fired any to his knowledge. To put ourselves in his place means putting ourselves in the exact position he claimed existed with a sister who had mental problems but the problems were controlled, she wasn't violent towards the family in the past...
You don't want to do that because you know Jeremy's actions are indefensible. That reveals who has the bias in this instance.
People who are biased make poor advocates precisely because they can't see the evidence in the light an objective party sees the evidence and is thus unable to try refuting that evidence competently.
-
He drives slowly to WHF. Testifying that he did not want to arrive before the police.
He didn't drive slowly - the police who overtook him all estimated that he was driving at about (or up to) 30 mph.
To be fair no one knows how they would react if receiving a call. At 3.10am.
Jeremy's initial recollection was that his father called him at about 3:22am.
West told him to go right over he didn't say to wait for police to arrive before going.
According to his statement, Pc West said to Jeremy "go to the house and wait for the Police officers and liaise with them there", so he seemed to think that Jeremy would get there first, but clearly didn't want him to do anything significant there until he'd talked to the police at the scene. That's presumably what nugnug was referring to, albeit slightly inaccurately.
-
I think some posters don't understand the concept of being objective. When posters compare something from their own lives you can't help sense they are being guided by their own emotions as opposed to logic and reasoning.
I understand perfectly the concept of being objective. I'm just saying at that same age and at that time, I didn't call 999.
Had I recieved the same call Jeremy did, I would have acted in the exact same way and I would say that whether I thought he was innocent or guilty.
-
I think some posters don't understand the concept of being objective. When posters compare something from their own lives you can't help sense they are being guided by their own emotions as opposed to logic and reasoning.
It depends how the experience is used because one thing is true, we can learn most from our own experience if we are willing to do so. Imo using an example of such an experience to reinforce an argument is quite acceptable as long as this is done in an objective way.
True enough we all do have a tendency to project our own experiences onto all our opinions, it's human nature which helps us form relationships....... and break them. We do need to be aware of this tendency and not fall into the trap of promoting our own opinions or interpreting others opinions from our own emotional experiences knowingly or more often, unknowingly.imo
-
I understand perfectly the concept of being objective. I'm just saying at that same age and at that time, I didn't call 999.
Had I recieved the same call Jeremy did, I would have acted in the exact same way and I would say that whether I thought he was innocent or guilty.
Hi SaraT, thanks for that, I argue from having also had a similar experience, fortunately with a different outcome, although that night is still remembered with a blackness and dread in my mind.
I agree the argument is not about supporting JB but is a much broader fact that human beings choose fight or flight or a mixture of both under extreme pressure and due to this their actions in hindsight may seem irrational.
How many people look back and question their own behaviour in such situations.
As for JB regretting not phoning 999..... I would suggest, whether he's innocent or guilty, he knows it wouldn't have changed anything.
-
You are just projecting. You have tunnel vision not me. Saying someone could be lying is not enough to establish they are which is necessary to disregard something. You want us to believe the family and Jeremy lied in their statements and that Sheila actually had fired guns before and had an interest in them. You want to ignore logic and pretend that because she grew up on a farm she would know how to operate all guns of any kind even though the family hadn't even owned a semi-auto until a few months before the murders.
Being objective means taking the evidence as it is found not ignoring it and that is what you do you put on blinders then absurdly suggest anyone who doesn't wear the blinders you wear are biased. That is classic projection.
We are trying to assess the situation JEREMY claims existed to see if his supposed reaction is one that is credible. His own claims are that she was not known to have any interest in guns or to have fired any to his knowledge. To put ourselves in his place means putting ourselves in the exact position he claimed existed with a sister who had mental problems but the problems were controlled, she wasn't violent towards the family in the past...
You don't want to do that because you know Jeremy's actions are indefensible. That reveals who has the bias in this instance.
People who are biased make poor advocates precisely because they can't see the evidence in the light an objective party sees the evidence and is thus unable to try refuting that evidence competently.
OK then. If I was to get 10 women and give them each a rifle a magazine and some bullets and asked them to load the magazine and fire a shot, what would you think the outcome would be? It is a simple test. Would you think those 10 women would fail? Of course you do because you do not wish to believe that women could be intelligent enough to load and fire a weapon that according to experts a child would be able to use. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
I understand perfectly the concept of being objective. I'm just saying at that same age and at that time, I didn't call 999.
Had I recieved the same call Jeremy did, I would have acted in the exact same way and I would say that whether I thought he was innocent or guilty.
Had someone gone crazy? Did they have a gun? Did they sound panicked and terrified? Did they request that you go over there? Did the phone go dead?
-
Had someone gone crazy? Did they have a gun? Did they sound panicked and terrified? Did they request that you go over there? Did the phone go dead?
No, none of those things happened of course. It doesn't change my point.
-
No, none of those things happened of course. It doesn't change my point.
It does indeed matter, we have no idea what the situation was in your case but Jeremy's case was an obvious instance where 999 was required. It was at 3am, his father sounded panicked/terrified, his sister had a gun and had gone crazy - the phone then goes dead. I can't believe people are still making excuses on this point but it takes all sorts!
If there was video/CCT footage of Jeremy leaving the scene, people here would still make excuses.
-
It does indeed matter, we have no idea what the situation was in your case but Jeremy's case was an obvious instance where 999 was required. It was at 3am, his father sounded panicked/terrified, his sister had a gun and had gone crazy - the phone then goes dead. I can't believe people are still making excuses on this point but it takes all sorts!
If there was video/CCT footage of Jeremy leaving the scene, people here would still make excuses.
I didn't say it didn't matter I said it didn't change my point, which was I would have been frightened and would have dithered and would have telephoned the local station. I'm not making excuses nor am I talking about any other aspect of the case. I am answering the original question which was 'how would you react'
-
I didn't say it didn't matter I said it didn't change my point, which was I would have been frightened and would have dithered and would have telephoned the local station. I'm not making excuses nor am I talking about any other aspect of the case. I am answering the original question which was 'how would you react'
yeah.
-
I understand perfectly the concept of being objective. I'm just saying at that same age and at that time, I didn't call 999.
Had I recieved the same call Jeremy did, I would have acted in the exact same way and I would say that whether I thought he was innocent or guilty.
Then you are being subjective...
-
It depends how the experience is used because one thing is true, we can learn most from our own experience if we are willing to do so. Imo using an example of such an experience to reinforce an argument is quite acceptable as long as this is done in an objective way.
True enough we all do have a tendency to project our own experiences onto all our opinions, it's human nature which helps us form relationships....... and break them. We do need to be aware of this tendency and not fall into the trap of promoting our own opinions or interpreting others opinions from our own emotional experiences knowingly or more often, unknowingly.imo
You are also being subjective. I am looking at this case from all angles, not just at this alleged phone call - which considering all the other facts, I don't believe happened. I don't believe NB phoned anyone.
-
Hi SaraT, thanks for that, I argue from having also had a similar experience, fortunately with a different outcome, although that night is still remembered with a blackness and dread in my mind.
I agree the argument is not about supporting JB but is a much broader fact that human beings choose fight or flight or a mixture of both under extreme pressure and due to this their actions in hindsight may seem irrational.
How many people look back and question their own behaviour in such situations.
As for JB regretting not phoning 999..... I would suggest, whether he's innocent or guilty, he knows it wouldn't have changed anything.
Being objective is not using bias or basing your argument on your past experiences.
-
Then you are being subjective...
Yes I am being subjective, I answered that particular question based on what I would do. How I would react.
Which was the question asked
-
Yes I am being subjective, I answered that particular question based on what I would do. How I would react.
Which was the question asked
Then you weren't being objective.
-
Being objective is not using bias or basing your argument on your past experiences.
I do know what objective is you don't understand what I am saying. You can use an experience in a way which is not 'influenced by emotional or personal prejuces' ...... objective, well I can.
-
I do know what objective is.
You're not being objective, you have been subjective. And I'm really not sure what 'forming relationships' has to do with the decisions if a mass murderer 30 years ago.
-
OK then. If I was to get 10 women and give them each a rifle a magazine and some bullets and asked them to load the magazine and fire a shot, what would you think the outcome would be? It is a simple test. Would you think those 10 women would fail? Of course you do because you do not wish to believe that women could be intelligent enough to load and fire a weapon that according to experts a child would be able to use. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
You would have to find 10 women in the throws of psychosis because that's the allegation aimed at Sheila.
-
You would have to find 10 women in the throws of psychosis because that's the allegation aimed at Sheila.
Why would I? The argument is she was not familiar to guns therefore it was not possible for her to have picked one up and used it. :-\
-
Why would I? The argument is she was not familiar to guns therefore it was not possible for her to have picked one up and used it. :-\
Because that's the condition Sheila was supposed to be in when she loaded the gun.
-
Because that's the condition Sheila was supposed to be in when she loaded the gun.
So you are saying that her condition prevented her from loading a gun?
-
So you are saying that her condition prevented her from loading a gun?
No, I'm saying that if you're going to replicate the scenario, you need like for like - but OBVIOUSLY psychosis would inhibit someone's ability to perform new tasks and the loading of a semi-automatic would be a new task for Sheila because she'd not loaded such a rifle before!
-
Psychosis would spur them on. It's a powerful adrenaline rush. Abnormal-------but powerful.
-
No, I'm saying that if you're going to replicate the scenario, you need like for like - but OBVIOUSLY psychosis would inhibit someone's ability to perform new tasks and the loading of a semi-automatic would be a new task for Sheila because she'd not loaded such a rifle before!
I don't think I do need to replicate it to the point of it being 10 psychotic women to be honest. Surely the test would confirm that it is either possible or impossible that they could load a gun and fire it.
Are you saying that those with psychosis cannot perform new tasks or use the thinking process?
-
I wouldn't like to be anywhere near a woman who was armed with a gun and having a psychotic episode ! That's two lethal weapons.
-
I don't think I do need to replicate it to the point of it being 10 psychotic women to be honest. Surely the test would confirm that it is either possible or impossible that they could load a gun and fire it.
Are you saying that those with psychosis cannot perform new tasks or use the thinking process?
I have made it perfectly clear what I mean! The allegation is that Sheila 'went crazy' picked up an unloaded rifle, loaded the magazine, attached it, chambered a shot - all while in psychosis. To indicate whether Sheila was capable, you need to replicate the same situation. Of course out of 10 NORMAL women, SOME will manage to load it and others won't.
-
Hi SaraT, thanks for that, I argue from having also had a similar experience, fortunately with a different outcome, although that night is still remembered with a blackness and dread in my mind.
I agree the argument is not about supporting JB but is a much broader fact that human beings choose fight or flight or a mixture of both under extreme pressure and due to this their actions in hindsight may seem irrational.
How many people look back and question their own behaviour in such situations.
As for JB regretting not phoning 999..... I would suggest, whether he's innocent or guilty, he knows it wouldn't have changed anything.
Not if we are talking about a psychopath.
I imagine he regrets a lot of things, like being caught for one.
-
I do know what objective is you don't understand what I am saying. You can use an experience in a way which is not 'influenced by emotional or personal prejuces' ...... objective, well I can.
But that is down to interpretation, you are still being subjective.
-
I have made it perfectly clear what I mean! The allegation is that Sheila 'went crazy' picked up an unloaded rifle, loaded the magazine, attached it, chambered a shot - all while in psychosis. To indicate whether Sheila was capable, you need to replicate the same situation. Of course out of 10 NORMAL women, SOME will manage to load it and others won't.
Don't worry,Sheila would have been quite adept at loading a magazine. Don't let stupidity get in the way of a psychotic episode,because stupid they're not, they still have their faculties albeit twisted in thought.
-
Don't worry,Sheila would have been quite adept at loading a magazine. Don't let stupidity get in the way of a psychotic episode,because stupid they're not, they still have their faculties albeit twisted in thought.
Is this the philosophy you adopted when your were nursing?
-
Is this the philosophy you adopted when your were nursing?
What ? Saying that they're not stupid people ? They WEREN'T,as most were well ahead of their game and more alert than most.
-
Don't worry,Sheila would have been quite adept at loading a magazine. Don't let stupidity get in the way of a psychotic episode,because stupid they're not, they still have their faculties albeit twisted in thought.
What ? Saying that they're not stupid people ? They WEREN'T,as most were well ahead of their game and more alert than most.
Did you xxxxx all your xxxxxxxx like this?
-
Don't worry,Sheila would have been quite adept at loading a magazine. Don't let stupidity get in the way of a psychotic episode,because stupid they're not, they still have their faculties albeit twisted in thought.
No she wasn't! ::)
-
No she wasn't! ::)
Wasn't what ?
-
Hi SaraT, thanks for that, I argue from having also had a similar experience, fortunately with a different outcome, although that night is still remembered with a blackness and dread in my mind.
I agree the argument is not about supporting JB but is a much broader fact that human beings choose fight or flight or a mixture of both under extreme pressure and due to this their actions in hindsight may seem irrational.
How many people look back and question their own behaviour in such situations.
As for JB regretting not phoning 999..... I would suggest, whether he's innocent or guilty, he knows it wouldn't have changed anything.
Of course he does, he'd killed everyone.
-
Wasn't what ?
"quite adept at loading a magazine"
-
Of course he does, he'd killed everyone.
No he didn't.
-
No he didn't.
The law says he did.
-
No he didn't.
Well, now that's for HIM to prove - to coin a phrase! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
"quite adept at loading a magazine"
I'd like to bet that she was. How many times have you people said that Jeremy taught her ?
-
I'd like to bet that she was. How many times have you people said that Jeremy taught her ?
Who are 'YOU PEOPLE'? I've personally said he taught her a total of ZERO times because he didn't - something like that would be said by YOU PEOPLE - those being the people who make excuses and grasp at anything they can to try and make him sound innocent.
-
I'd like to bet that she was. How many times have you people said that Jeremy taught her ?
I for one, haven't. Sheila didn't want to know. This has been corroborated by too many for it not to be true.
-
Who are 'YOU PEOPLE'? I've personally said he taught her a total of ZERO times because he didn't - something like that would be said by YOU PEOPLE - those being the people who make excuses and grasp at anything they can to try and make him sound innocent.
I am not getting tarred with this. I would say Sheila didn't know how to use the weapons and was never taught by anyone. IF Bamber claims he taught her then I think we all know why he would want to paint a picture of her being familiar with the weapons.
A lot of people say she didn't have interest, I believe them.
-
I am not getting tarred with this. I would say Sheila didn't know how to use the weapons and was never taught by anyone. IF Bamber claims he taught her then I think we all know why he would want to paint a picture of her being familiar with the weapons.
A lot of people say she didn't have interest, I believe them.
I remember when the subject was being bandied around in favour of the guilters so that they could blame Jeremy a bit more.
-
I'd like to bet that she was. How many times have you people said that Jeremy taught her ?
This is a perfect example of how you don't pay attention to the actual evidence of the case and thus your opinion of Jeremy's innocence is born entirely on ignorance and bias.
Jeremy lied to police at the scene telling them that he taught her how to operate the Anschutz and that she had fired it and all weapons in the house.
By the time he gave his statement later that day to investigators he changed his story and said he had not known her to have any interest in guns or to have fired any- he made sure to match what the rest of the family was saying. His lies actually would provide an innocent reason for Sheila's fingerprints to be found on the weapon plus it would look suspicious to be the only one with a different story so he dropped the lies.
June told Pam that Jeremy tried to teach Sheila how to load the magazine but she didn't want to learn. Jeremy wanted her to touch it and the weapon so her prints would be found on it.
That is what people have noted. No one claimed she actually learned how to load and fire the weapon except Jeremy supporters who ignore the evidence and just decide that being around people who own guns is sufficient to result in knowing how to use all of them.
-
This is a perfect example of how you don't pay attention to the actual evidence of the case and thus your opinion of Jeremy's innocence is born entirely on ignorance and bias.
Jeremy lied to police at the scene telling them that he taught her how to operate the Anschutz and that she had fired it and all weapons in the house.
By the time he gave his statement later that day to investigators he changed his story and said he had not known her to have any interest in guns or to have fired any- he made sure to match what the rest of the family was saying. His lies actually would provide an innocent reason for Sheila's fingerprints to be found on the weapon plus it would look suspicious to be the only one with a different story so he dropped the lies.
June told Pam that Jeremy tried to teach Sheila how to load the magazine but she didn't want to learn. Jeremy wanted her to touch it and the weapon so her prints would be found on it.
That is what people have noted. No one claimed she actually learned how to load and fire the weapon except Jeremy supporters who ignore the evidence and just decide that being around people who own guns is sufficient to result in knowing how to use all of them.
Someone had already responded to Lookout post and as far as I could tell if wasn't dissimilar to yours - well the bottom line anyway.
I find it strange that posts like this are removed. It makes me wonder if the person removing these posts is acting out of bias or prejudice?
-
Someone had already responded to Lookout post and as far as I could tell if wasn't dissimilar to yours - well the bottom line anyway.
I find it strange that posts like this are removed. It makes me wonder if the person removing these posts is acting out of bias or prejudice?
Nothing from this thread has been removed.
-
Someone had already responded to Lookout post and as far as I could tell if wasn't dissimilar to yours - well the bottom line anyway.
I find it strange that posts like this are removed. It makes me wonder if the person removing these posts is acting out of bias or prejudice?
You will find that threads never stay on topic here and that conversations about the same exact thing can be repeated in different threads. Perhaps you are thinking of a different thread where this happened. The only thing I noticed be deleted recently was the poll thread. I was curious as to why since I had not seen anything nasty the end of the night then when I came on in the morning (your afternoon) it was already gone. I wondered if I missed a fight.
-
Nothing from this thread has been removed.
Patti thanks for that I was trying to work out what had, if anything been removed :)
-
You will find that threads never stay on topic here and that conversations about the same exact thing can be repeated in different threads. Perhaps you are thinking of a different thread where this happened. The only thing I noticed be deleted recently was the poll thread. I was curious as to why since I had not seen anything nasty the end of the night then when I came on in the morning (your afternoon) it was already gone. I wondered if I missed a fight.
Scipio no fights ;D ;D ;D
-
You will find that threads never stay on topic here and that conversations about the same exact thing can be repeated in different threads. Perhaps you are thinking of a different thread where this happened. The only thing I noticed be deleted recently was the poll thread. I was curious as to why since I had not seen anything nasty the end of the night then when I came on in the morning (your afternoon) it was already gone. I wondered if I missed a fight.
There wasn't anything particularly nasty, it just wasn't going 'their' way ;)
-
You will find that threads never stay on topic here and that conversations about the same exact thing can be repeated in different threads. Perhaps you are thinking of a different thread where this happened. The only thing I noticed be deleted recently was the poll thread. I was curious as to why since I had not seen anything nasty the end of the night then when I came on in the morning (your afternoon) it was already gone. I wondered if I missed a fight.
Wrong thread... It was the other thread. I detect bias and prejudice and lots of it.
-
I think some posters don't understand the concept of being objective. When posters compare something from their own lives you can't help sense they are being guided by their own emotions as opposed to logic and reasoning.
that works both ways because posters are constantly doing the same to prove his guilt .
And if you are having a go at me I said I probably would have dialled 999.
But my example was true and does show that people do not always do what is right or correct when under pressure. In all sorts of circumstances - not all have such tragic circumstances.
-
that works both ways because posters are constantly doing the same to prove his guilt .
And if you are having a go at me I said I probably would have dialled 999.
But my example was true and does show that people do not always do what is right or correct when under pressure. In all sorts of circumstances - not all have such tragic circumstances.
I responded to you earlier and my post has been removed. Your example was subjective.
-
Logic and reasoning - If the scenario on the recent tragic murder in Glasgow is proved to be correct - would anyone one logically get in a car with a complete stranger and go back to their flat with them - a question I asked some work colleagues - you would be surprised ( or perhaps not ) about some who said they would .
I am not talking here about a moral question but reduction of risk - so even on a basic decision like that you can have varying reactions/arguments.
-
I responded to you earlier and my post has been removed. Your example was subjective.
My response was I probably would have dialled 999 - so it was not actually .
-
Logic and reasoning - If the scenario on the recent tragic murder in Glasgow is proved to be correct - would anyone one logically get in a car with a complete stranger and go back to their flat with them - a question I asked some work colleagues - you would be surprised ( or perhaps not ) about some who said they would .
I am not talking here about a moral question but reduction of risk - so even on a basic decision like that you can have varying reactions/arguments.
Yes, Jan. It happens all the time, especially at that age.
-
The law says he did.
not much point in having a discussion then.
-
Logic and reasoning - If the scenario on the recent tragic murder in Glasgow is proved to be correct - would anyone one logically get in a car with a complete stranger and go back to their flat with them - a question I asked some work colleagues - you would be surprised ( or perhaps not ) about some who said they would .
I am not talking here about a moral question but reduction of risk - so even on a basic decision like that you can have varying reactions/arguments.
-
My response was I probably would have dialled 999 - so it was not actually .
You originally posted about your own personal experience and comparing it to JB, hence being subjective.
-
You originally posted about your own personal experience and comparing it to JB, hence being subjective.
I think that was me.
-
Jan something strange happened here. I would have thought any guy who would let a young lady out on her own in the early hours is not a gentleman he could have walked her home or rang for a taxi :(
-
I think that was me.
Was it
-
Yes, Jan. It happens all the time, especially at that age.
scary.
personally as it seems he was not telling the truth I wonder if she went to his car because he said he had some drugs there ? Just as bad really but perhaps she did not go back willingly.
But even at 24 people do stupid illogical things .In an ideal world this should not put anyone at risk . but its not an ideal world is it.
I am glad my two are grown up (ish) :)
-
See this is what happens when someone decides to remove posts from threads, my apologies Jan.
-
Logic and reasoning - If the scenario on the recent tragic murder in Glasgow is proved to be correct - would anyone one logically get in a car with a complete stranger and go back to their flat with them - a question I asked some work colleagues - you would be surprised ( or perhaps not ) about some who said they would .
I am not talking here about a moral question but reduction of risk - so even on a basic decision like that you can have varying reactions/arguments.
I'm gonna hold my hands up here and admit to being judgemental. I found it strange that a bright, sensible girl would leave her friends and go back to a stranger's house -stranger danger and all that but it often gets forgotten if raging hormones kick in- and leave it on her own at 4am. Where was HIS sense of chivalry, by the way? Is this the guy who's been charged with her murder or did she meet her murderer when she left on her own?
-
You originally posted about your own personal experience and comparing it to JB, hence being subjective.
you are being pedantic - it was in the same post and I said I would dial 999 first before my observation that was perfectly valid and true .
-
I'm gonna hold my hands up here and admit to being judgemental. I found it strange that a bright, sensible girl would leave her friends and go back to a stranger's house -stranger danger and all that but it often gets forgotten if raging hormones kick in- and leave it on her own at 4am. Where was HIS sense of chivalry, by the way? Is this the guy who's been charged with her murder or did she meet her murderer when she left on her own?
It is not clear yet - because they named the guy who picked her up and took her back to the flat - but there was a witness who saw her leave allegedly at 4 am - which was why he was not a suspect in the beginning . But perhaps he got someone to lie for him? I guess all will become clear . Its all very sad.
-
You originally posted about your own personal experience and comparing it to JB, hence being subjective.
So does that mean you personally think none of us - including you should use a personal experience to discuss a point?
So if for example I said I knew someone who watched people loading guns all their life and found it very easy to pick up a gun and load it - then that would not be relevant to the discussion ?
-
You originally posted about your own personal experience and comparing it to JB, hence being subjective.
Steph, I have to jump in here because having had personal experience of one of those calls -I DID call 999- it's very difficult to recall a time BEFORE it happened. It makes objectivity, when a personal frame of reference gets in the way, quite hard.
-
you are being pedantic - it was in the same post and I said I would dial 999 first before my observation that was perfectly valid and true .
Huh?
You'll need to consult with Patti cos I can't remember what you posted nor my response.
But just for your reference I wasn't being picky over the details, if I suggested you were being subjective then something you or Sara said suggested you were being.
-
So does that mean you personally think none of us - including you should use a personal experience to discuss a point?
So if for example I said I knew someone who watched people loading guns all their life and found it very easy to pick up a gun and load it - then that would not be relevant to the discussion ?
I was going to say the same thing. You wouldn't need to teach someone how to load a gun when they had probably seen others do it hundreds of times
-
See this is what happens when someone decides to remove posts from threads, my apologies Jan.
apology accepted .
and our posts have crossed.
-
apology accepted .
and our posts have crossed.
Thanks and no probs.
-
Steph, I have to jump in here because having had personal experience of one of those calls -I DID call 999- it's very difficult to recall a time BEFORE it happened. It makes objectivity, when a personal frame of reference gets in the way, quite hard.
Oh Christ.. I can't keep up ;D
-
I was going to say the same thing. You wouldn't need to teach someone how to load a gun when they had probably seen others do it hundreds of times
its a theoretical post but also JB has always said that Sheila did go shooting with her father sometimes and as I have said before I used a gun a few times and my parents did not have a clue.( being subjective again) :)
I would be interested to see if all the farmworkers or gamekeepers were asked because if anyone had known they would.
-
Jan something strange happened here. I would have thought any guy who would let a young lady out on her own in the early hours is not a gentleman he could have walked her home or rang for a taxi :(
I am not sure now that is what happened . I don't think she did leave his flat - or if she did he must have followed her ( but then newspapers don't always report correctly)
-
I was going to say the same thing. You wouldn't need to teach someone how to load a gun when they had probably seen others do it hundreds of times
This might be true if Sheila had watched Jeremy load the 'semi-automatic' hundreds of times, but she hadn't. The gun was pretty new and Sheila hadn't come across it before.
-
I am not sure now that is what happened . I don't think she did leave his flat - or if she did he must have followed her ( but then newspapers don't always report correctly)
Jan as you said it will all come out eventually but very sad indeed :(
-
its a theoretical post but also JB has always said that Sheila did go shooting with her father sometimes and as I have said before I used a gun a few times and my parents did not have a clue.( being subjective again) :)
I would be interested to see if all the farmworkers or gamekeepers were asked because if anyone had known they would.
Well he would, but no one else seems to remember it.
-
its a theoretical post but also JB has always said that Sheila did go shooting with her father sometimes and as I have said before I used a gun a few times and my parents did not have a clue.( being subjective again) :)
I would be interested to see if all the farmworkers or gamekeepers were asked because if anyone had known they would.
This is why I suggested a while back on another thread, probably locked or hidden now ;D, where it might be worth suggesting JB disclose more material, as opposed to cherry picking what he wants in the public domain.
-
Well he would, but no one else seems to remember it.
well I would not know as I have not seen all the relevant statements from the people who might know.
-
its a theoretical post but also JB has always said that Sheila did go shooting with her father sometimes and as I have said before I used a gun a few times and my parents did not have a clue.( being subjective again) :)
I would be interested to see if all the farmworkers or gamekeepers were asked because if anyone had known they would.
I think it depends. Again, this is personal, but I used to help a friend who made theatrical costumes. I can't tell you how many times I'd watched her set up her sewing machine. Came the day she asked ME to do it, I was clueless. TOTALLY inept. Exactly the same thing happened when my late partner gave me a computer complete with desk and chair. I'd spent HOURS watching him do work on his office computer but when it came to using mine I was HOPELESSLY lost......................I've improved slightly.
-
well I would not know as I have not seen all the relevant statements from the people who might know.
Cross posted ;D
-
This is why I suggested a while back on another thread, probably locked or hidden now ;D, where it might be worth suggesting JB disclose more material, as opposed to cherry picking what he wants in the public domain.
But people had to be asked the question - in order to answer it . And perhaps the estate workers were not asked. ?
People said JB could not even shoot anything live on the farm - well it seems like he changed a lot to commit this crime ? Or perhaps not?
-
But people had to be asked the question - in order to answer it . And perhaps the estate workers were not asked. ?
People said JB could not even shoot anything live on the farm - well it seems like he changed a lot to commit this crime ? Or perhaps not?
You'd be surprised by the amount of intelligence the police actually collect. It doesn't nessarrily have to be in the form of a statement either, though I would have thought if there were statements taken supporting this, JB would have them.
-
You'd be surprised by the amount of intelligence the police actually collect. It doesn't nessarrily have to be in the form of a statement either, though I would have thought if there were statements taken supporting this, JB would have them.
Only if they have been released by EP . And as we know they had refused to release a lot of the information . Their reasons were given in a reply to Bambergate.
-
Only if they have been released by EP . And as we know they had refused to release a lot of the information . Their reasons were given in a reply to Bambergate.
There appeared to be a lot of material missing in relation to a case I was familiar with, the police certainly hadn't disclosed anything in relation to the burglary that took place on the same night nor regarding the interview under caution in relation to the other lad who had also burgled. There appeared to be quite a lot missing. There were also disclosures made regarding what a lot of believed were alternative viable suspects and the serious organised crime squad....
All I'm suggesting is don't take JB's word for anything. There will be a list of all statements disclosed somewhere. There will most probably be witness statements not disclosed but if JB and his team didn't ask for these pre-trial he obviously won't have them.
However if there are statements missing which he believes can prove his innocence , the CCRC would have seen them and would have disclosed them if they could help him.
-
Only if they have been released by EP . And as we know they had refused to release a lot of the information . Their reasons were given in a reply to Bambergate.
Was not one of the reasons they gave to do with cost? I can see that they probably wouldn't be interested. I imagine that all those involved with the case are either enjoying their retirement or pushing up daisies. As far as they're concerned the case is done and dusted and raking through the paperwork is a waste of human resources and the public purse.
-
It's an even bigger waste of resources,especially the public purse,to keep an innocent man in jail. Jeremy certainly won't be the only one either,except that he beats all records at 30 years so far.
-
It's an even bigger waste of resources,especially the public purse,to keep an innocent man in jail. Jeremy certainly won't be the only one either,except that he beats all records at 30 years so far.
No he doesn't!
-
No he doesn't!
No need to snap !!
-
It's an even bigger waste of resources,especially the public purse,to keep an innocent man in jail. Jeremy certainly won't be the only one either,except that he beats all records at 30 years so far.
The law won't agree with you because the law says he's guilty.
-
No need to snap !!
I didn't snap I merely responded.
-
The law won't agree with you because the law says he's guilty.
And how many times has the law been wrong ? Too many. Over the most serious of crimes as well,which makes one wonder whether they can hack these big cases.
-
And how many times has the law been wrong ? Too many. Over the most serious of crimes as well,which makes one wonder whether they can hack these big cases.
The law has been wrong over and over again
-
The law has been wrong over and over again
It's also been right over and over again, so it's a mute point isn't it. Unless we're to release Bamber on the account of probability?
-
Because that's the condition Sheila was supposed to be in when she loaded the gun.
You can have ice cold, calculated (skewed) logic in the midst of a psychosis. You can also have actually planned whatever crazy thing you are doing.
People mostly assume that during a psychosis you are out of control and frothing at the mouth. That is far from the case always.
-
The law has been wrong over and over again
And how many times has the law been wrong ? Too many. Over the most serious of crimes as well,which makes one wonder whether they can hack these big cases.
Nothing can be 100% fail safe and that includes our judicial system but it's better than the rest. I AGREE that the law has been known to be wrong, but in this case, adding Jeremy's own behaviours into the equation, I think they got it right. It has to be recognized that for MOST who are found guilty, SOMEONE will say they were wrongly convicted. I'm told that there are VERY few guilty persons behind bars.
-
Did you xxxxx all your xxxxxxx like this?
Stephanie, this is super nasty and very personal.
For the record, I can see perfectly well where Lookout is coming from with this - just made a post along those lines. Hadn´t seen hers when I wrote it.
Very nasty.
-
It's also been right over and over again, so it's a mute point isn't it. Unless we're to release Bamber on the account of probability?
We then if my point is mute so is yours isn't it?
Plus I didn't say JB should be released on account of probability
-
Was not one of the reasons they gave to do with cost? I can see that they probably wouldn't be interested. I imagine that all those involved with the case are either enjoying their retirement or pushing up daisies. As far as they're concerned the case is done and dusted and raking through the paperwork is a waste of human resources and the public purse.
one amongst many , but that was a fob off because I am sure if the money was offered they still would have refused . Personally I could not understand that because either PII rules apply or they don't. At least they were kind enough to let us know how many boxes there were.
-
We then if my point is mute so is yours isn't it?
Plus I didn't say JB should be released on account of probability
They are both mute points - Bamber didn't just land in prison though. There is evidence, he lost his trail, all his appeals - a JR agreed with the CCRC. There comes a time when guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the same can not be said for the possibility of his innocence. But as April said there aren't many guilty men in prison. Even Charles Manson has his supporters.
-
You can have ice cold, calculated (skewed)clogic in the midst of a psychosis. You can also have actually planned whatever crazy thing you are doing.
People mostly assume that during a psychosis you are out of control and frothing at the mouth. That is far from the case always.
True, Alias to be psychotic is to have an 'abnormal condition of the mind' and it can present in various forms but all involve a 'loss of contact with reality' therefore although sometimes this causes a 'brainstorm' episode it can also be difficult to recognise other than a person may be severely withdrawn or show unconventional behaviour...... many different forms of psychosis. :-\
-
It's an even bigger waste of resources,especially the public purse,to keep an innocent man in jail. Jeremy certainly won't be the only one either,except that he beats all records at 30 years so far.
Good thing he's guilty then! ;)
-
one amongst many , but that was a fob off because I am sure if the money was offered they still would have refused . Personally I could not understand that because either PII rules apply or they don't. At least they were kind enough to let us know how many boxes there were.
Rather like what MIGHT have happened had Jeremy call 999, we'll never know the answer, will we?
-
You can have ice cold, calculated (skewed)clogic in the midst of a psychosis. You can also have actually planned whatever crazy thing you are doing.
People mostly assume that during a psychosis you are out of control and frothing at the mouth. That is far from the case always.
But they aren't exactly in a 'normal' mindset when in the midst of psychosis, are they? If they were there wouldn't be a name for it. So Carolines point that to do the experiment you'd need to have 100 women in the midst of psychosis - makes sense.
-
But they aren't exactly in a 'normal' mindset when in the midst of psychosis, are they? If they were there wouldn't be a name for it. So Carolines point that to do the experiment you'd need to have 100 women in the midst of psychosis - makes sense.
Mat, what you must have is 100 women in the midst psychosis and a control group of 100 women NOT in psychosis. It's a moot point as to which group would be easiest to set up ;D
-
Mat, what you must have is 100 women in the midst psychosis and a control group of 100 women NOT in psychosis. It's a moot point as to which group would be easiest to set up ;D
;D ;D
-
Rather like what MIGHT have happened had Jeremy call 999, we'll never know the answer, will we?
Wouldn´t it have been the same officers at the scene?
The call would just have been to 999, then the central would call the local cops - the ones Jeremy called in the first place.
-
You can have ice cold, calculated (skewed) logic in the midst of a psychosis. You can also have actually planned whatever crazy thing you are doing.
People mostly assume that during a psychosis you are out of control and frothing at the mouth. That is far from the case always.
I didn't actually mention or assume in what 'state' they would be - just if you're going to suggest that Sheila was capable of working out how to load the rifle and use it (and I didn't say she wasn't), you would have to use subjects that were of a similar ilk. Including, age, sex and state of mind - all having previously never loaded or fired a semi-automatic .22 rifle.
-
Wouldn´t it have been the same officers at the scene?
The call would just have been to 999, then the central would call the local cops - the ones Jeremy called in the first place.
I can't give you the logistics -although I suspect it's to do with cars and personnel being deployed much faster- but I CAN say that if it wasn't a service with a faster response time it wouldn't have the success rate it enjoys.
-
I wasn't answering April's post, I was answering yours! ::) ::) ::) ::) - You're the one making all the digs Alias. You whine on about people being nasty and you're every bit as bad.
I was, Caroline, you are digging yourself into a hole now!
-
Just for the record, it was a valid question. I do not agree with a lot of what Lookout writes nor do I agree with her apparent strong views and opinions regarding mental health. There are many people working within the mental health profession who I believe are not competent in what they do.
And I certainly don't agree with MOST of what you say,so we'll call it quits,eh ?
-
Rather like what MIGHT have happened had Jeremy call 999, we'll never know the answer, will we?
But that was in the past - so we will have to wait and see. EP don't always have the final say.
-
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
back to the thread. So we have established everyone acts differently when under pressure and family dynamics should be taken into account and we don't know ( if he is innocent) whether calling 999 would have helped , or if he had been braver and gone to the house whether he would have been shot as well.
next thread?
-
I have locked this topic as once again things are getting out o hand, I shall cut it back in a minute. I'm sure this will displease people but am afraid its necessary. In the meantime can you PLEASE stick to the topic and leave personalities out of things. Thanks.
-
back to the thread. So we have established everyone acts differently when under pressure and family dynamics should be taken into account and we don't know ( if he is innocent) whether calling 999 would have helped , or if he had been braver and gone to the house whether he would have been shot as well.
next thread?
yes i think we have established that.
-
its a theoretical post but also JB has always said that Sheila did go shooting with her father sometimes and as I have said before I used a gun a few times and my parents did not have a clue.( being subjective again) :)
I would be interested to see if all the farmworkers or gamekeepers were asked because if anyone had known they would.
JB claimed she was around AP and her father as fired shotguns. AP denied it and at any rate they didn't have the Anschutz at the time. Jeremy clearly made the claim up in an effort to pretend that she would know how to use guns ignoring the actual question of whether she would be able to use the Anschutz.
The first time AP even saw the Anschutz was his visit a little over a week prior to the murders.
-
JB claimed she was around AP and her father as fired shotguns. AP denied it and at any rate they didn't have the Anschutz at the time. Jeremy clearly made the claim up in an effort to pretend that she would know how to use guns ignoring the actual question of whether she would be able to use the Anschutz.
The first time AP even saw the Anschutz was his visit a little over a week prior to the murders.
I believe he claimed she used to go shooting with his father - that was my point - I never said she had used that particular gun before. Did Jeremy need special tuition before he used it?
Bit stupid to buy a gun to plant on his sister which was impossible for her to use don't you think? If he had been planning this for so long , was this just a small oversight?
-
I believe he claimed she used to go shooting with his father - that was my point - I never said she had used that particular gun before. Did Jeremy need special tuition before he used it?
Bit stupid to buy a gun to plant on his sister which was impossible for her to use don't you think? If he had been planning this for so long , was this just a small oversight?
Nah, it´s just skip who thinks that the only weapon women are capable of using are frying pans. Yes, he did actually say that!
-
I believe he claimed she used to go shooting with his father - that was my point - I never said she had used that particular gun before. Did Jeremy need special tuition before he used it?
Bit stupid to buy a gun to plant on his sister which was impossible for her to use don't you think? If he had been planning this for so long , was this just a small oversight?
I have heard it's so easy to use a child could manage it.
-
well if you consider the shots were fire from almost point blank range as well.
-
I was just reading two statements and it is interesting that Violet bencher stated that in that June before the murders ( so just a matter of weeks before) Sheila was very emotional and miserable about her life and wanted the boys back and june had told her they were worried about the boys going into foster. Also Freddy said Sheila had slowed down a bit but had no problems with co-ordination or picking things up. Also interestingly at the time of her second breakdown she did not recognise anyone - when he told her about it he thought that she was thinking he had made the whole thing up - which is why I believe that if she did do it you can not apply logic to her actions or where she would kill herself.
-
I believe he claimed she used to go shooting with his father - that was my point - I never said she had used that particular gun before. Did Jeremy need special tuition before he used it?
Bit stupid to buy a gun to plant on his sister which was impossible for her to use don't you think? If he had been planning this for so long , was this just a small oversight?
It's not impossible for her to use. She just had no experience with guns.
To expect her to chamber and re load twice, while Neville is a quivering wreak ringing Jeremy is ridiculous.
Jeremy choose that rifle as it is used for shooting rabbits. Something Jeremy claimed he had loaded it for and left it within easy access for a crazy Sheila.
Anyway Jeremy didn't think Sheila's gun experience would ever be investigated.
-
It's not impossible for her to use. She just had no experience with guns.
To expect her to chamber and re load twice, while Neville is a quivering wreak ringing Jeremy is ridiculous.
Jeremy choose that rifle as it is used for shooting rabbits. Something Jeremy claimed he had loaded it for and left it within easy access for a crazy Sheila.
Anyway Jeremy didn't think Sheila's gun experience would ever be investigated.
According to you Adam, |Jeremy didn't think at all!!
-
I believe he claimed she used to go shooting with his father - that was my point - I never said she had used that particular gun before. Did Jeremy need special tuition before he used it?
Bit stupid to buy a gun to plant on his sister which was impossible for her to use don't you think? If he had been planning this for so long , was this just a small oversight?
He claimed she had walked in the past when Nevill had shotguns. There is no evidence she actually did but this still has no bearing on the use of the Anschutz.
Jeremy initially LIED claiming she had used the weapon. That was his way of dealing with the fact she hadn't. After it because clear police were not concerned he changed it to she had walked with Nevill and AP as they shot shotguns.
The police who knew little about firearms COMPLETELY MISSED the significant point about needing to manually chamber the first round of a semi-auto. That is one of the problems when you have investigators who don't use firearms.
Each time I point out this significant point you and other Jeremy supporters just close your eyes because of your bias. There is no actual evidence that Sheila went with her father as he shot anything with his shotgun- the tale she did so with AP and Nevill together was a lie. Jeremy would have no way to know if she was with Nevill as he shot the gun unless Jeremy was there as well to witness it but he never actually said she was with him and others as shooting took place.
The same BS keeps coming from Jeremy supporters who are too biased to admit the truth. These Jeremy supporters assert:
1) the gun was so simply a child could use it
2) she would have to have seen weapons used because she grew up on a farm.
These 2 arguments do no respond to the points I made. I have pointed this out time and again.
The claim the gun is so easy to use a child can use it refers to the kick and weight of the weapon being not too much for a child to handle. A child would have no idea how to load, unload and fire the weapon though unless trained to do so. Loading all the rounds in the magazine could be too much for a child though. You have to push very hard in order to get the 8-10 rounds in.
Being around a farm doesn't mean you ever see weapons used. Even if you do just watching someone doesn't mean you will see how to use it. You can't easily see what latches people push. So you won't necessarily even know how to use the weapon you saw them use let alone a weapon that functions differently. The Anschutz functioned unlike any other weapon the family had in the past.
I noted how Lynette Fromme grew up around guns but didn't know the first round of the semi-auto she tried to use to assassinate US President Ford needed to be chambered first. She just cocked the hammer pilled the trigger, the hammer fell and nothing happened. Nothing happened because there was no bullet in the chamber for the firing pin (that the hammer hits) to set off. She didn't even realize the first round needed to be chambered let alone how to do it.
That is the same exact situation that Sheila would have faced. Jeremy supporters realize this is a big problem but are not interested int he truth but rather are interested in believing Jeremy is innocent no matter what so just ignore this and try to bury it with the claim well a child could use the gun so that means she just naturally would know how to use it. That is a pathetic argument and copout.
-
If you have never fired a gun before, is it possible to work out how to manually chamber the first round ?
-
It's not impossible for her to use. She just had no experience with guns.
To expect her to chamber and re load twice, while Neville is a quivering wreak ringing Jeremy is ridiculous.
Jeremy choose that rifle as it is used for shooting rabbits. Something Jeremy claimed he had loaded it for and left it within easy access for a crazy Sheila.
Anyway Jeremy didn't think Sheila's gun experience would ever be investigated.
if she had allready shot him shes got all the time she needs to reload.
-
I was just reading two statements and it is interesting that Violet bencher stated that in that June before the murders ( so just a matter of weeks before) Sheila was very emotional and miserable about her life and wanted the boys back and june had told her they were worried about the boys going into foster. Also Freddy said Sheila had slowed down a bit but had no problems with co-ordination or picking things up. Also interestingly at the time of her second breakdown she did not recognise anyone - when he told her about it he thought that she was thinking he had made the whole thing up - which is why I believe that if she did do it you can not apply logic to her actions or where she would kill herself.
Freddie said that she instantly recognized her father and instantly calmed down, that was without even having any medication. Her breakdown occurred because she stopped taking her medication but because the medicine was being injected she had no such opportunity anymore to stop taking it.
That June was scared the authorities might want to take the boys away and send them to a foster home wasn't something that Sheila was scared of. She was upset the boys were mostly with Colin.
The boys were living with Colin most of the time instead of with her on a regular basis and she cried saying she wanted her kids back. She wasn't crying because of anything related to fostering and she also said she could see the tranquilizing effects of the medicine on Sheila:
(http://s13.postimg.org/3m5k98p7b/image.jpg)
-
if she had allready shot him shes got all the time she needs to reload.
Who do you think Sheila shot first ?
David said she shot the twins first. Neville waking up and seeing her standing by the twins with the rifle. Neville then abandoned everyone to run downstairs to ring Jeremy.
-
if she had allready shot him shes got all the time she needs to reload.
The killer had to render Nevill unconscious by breaking the stock on his head in order to be able to reload.
-
Colin says in his book that Sheila´s condition always deteriorated dramatically whenever she went to WHF, NO MATTER THE MEDICATION. He clearly states that.
But of course, don´t believe a man who knew the people involved.
-
and he was her husband so i think he would know her better than most people.
-
Colin says in his book that Sheila´s condition always deteriorated dramatically whenever she went to WHF, NO MATTER THE MEDICATION. He clearly states that.
But of course, don´t believe a man who knew the people involved.
Of course not Alias,when there are people on this site who know better ;)
June told Pamela that night that she was very worried about Sheila's health just before they all died. Whatever happened that night one of the few facts we do know about that night is that June told her sister at about 10pm that she was very worried about Sheila's behaviour and wanted to speak to her the next day about it.
-
Freddie said that she instantly recognized her father and instantly calmed down, that was without even having any medication. Her breakdown occurred because she stopped taking her medication but because the medicine was being injected she had no such opportunity anymore to stop taking it.
That June was scared the authorities might want to take the boys away and send them to a foster home wasn't something that Sheila was scared of. She was upset the boys were mostly with Colin.
The boys were living with Colin most of the time instead of with her on a regular basis and she cried saying she wanted her kids back. She wasn't crying because of anything related to fostering and she also said she could see the tranquilizing effects of the medicine on Sheila:
(http://s13.postimg.org/3m5k98p7b/image.jpg)
I never said that Sheila was crying about the fostering?
why are you just repeating what I said - Freddy said she was slow but not un-coordinated
You or I were not privy to the alleged conversation on the night or how Sheila interpreted it ?
You are assuming her emotions now and what might trigger them.
I was observing from statements that
1) she was miserable and emotional a few weeks before the murders
2) she was allegedly not un-coordinated as has been stated before
3) when she did have a nervous breakdown she was not recognising people around her (perhaps her father arrived towards the end)
4) Her mother mentioned the fear of fostering to Colins mother - so perhaps Sheila did think it was possible if she did not recover fully .
I think you are trying to put words into my mouth ? Not sure why?
-
If you have never fired a gun before, is it possible to work out how to manually chamber the first round ?
We do not 100% know she had not fired a gun before - I thought Anne said Jeremy had tried to teach her?
Jeremy said she had gone out shooting with her father.
-
It's not impossible for her to use. She just had no experience with guns.
To expect her to chamber and re load twice, while Neville is a quivering wreak ringing Jeremy is ridiculous.
Jeremy choose that rifle as it is used for shooting rabbits. Something Jeremy claimed he had loaded it for and left it within easy access for a crazy Sheila.
Anyway Jeremy didn't think Sheila's gun experience would ever be investigated.
So you are saying that Jeremy lied through his teeth about everything about Sheila and did not expect to be investigated?
And can you clarify your comment about Jeremy chose the weapon to shoot rabbits? So are you saying he would not know the power and that it would be so successful in killing humans ? I don't know quite what you are getting at?
-
Colin says in his book that Sheila´s condition always deteriorated dramatically whenever she went to WHF, NO MATTER THE MEDICATION. He clearly states that.
But of course, don´t believe a man who knew the people involved.
Of course not Alias,when there are people on this site who know better ;)
June told Pamela that night that she was very worried about Sheila's health just before they all died. Whatever happened that night one of the few facts we do know about that night is that June told her sister at about 10pm that she was very worried about Sheila's behaviour and wanted to speak to her the next day about it.
and he was her husband so i think he would know her better than most people.
Yes he would know them better than people here, he also believe Jeremy guilty & has said why he doesn't think Sheila is guilty. Wouldn't be a case of you three picking and choosing to give Colin credit one moment and then dismiss him in the other, would it?
-
Hopefully Scipio will answer.
If it is not possible. It's a body blow for Jeremy's supporters. They then have to rely that Sheila knew all about the murder rifle. Which had recently been purchased.
-
Of course not Alias,when there are people on this site who know better ;)
June told Pamela that night that she was very worried about Sheila's health just before they all died. Whatever happened that night one of the few facts we do know about that night is that June told her sister at about 10pm that she was very worried about Sheila's behaviour and wanted to speak to her the next day about it.
Others on this site choose to be objective instead of taking the biased view Alias and you choose to take.
The actual claims was that Sheila didn't like being preached to about her sinful lifestyle and that such preaching is why she would be unhappy after her visits. Colin said that Sheila found God and was bonding with June over religion and they had a better relationship after he second hospital stay.
Biased Jeremy supporters look at conditions in the past instead of the situation at the time of the murders just like supporters keep raising the thoughts she had PRIOR to her 1983 treatment. After that she had no delusions about her family. Biased people ignore that and keep bringing up the delusions she had before her treatment to try to say this means she would have the delusions at the time of the murders.
If people want to fool themselves with such it is no sweat off anyone else's back but when you try to use such as an argument to sway others it fails unless the people you are trying to sway are also biased and thus want to wear the same blinders. An effective advocate can't afford to wear blinders because making arguments that are invalid will not work on a broad scale.
-
We do not 100% know she had not fired a gun before - I thought Anne said Jeremy had tried to teach her?
Jeremy said she had gone out shooting with her father.
We do know she used to go on shooting parties and act as a beater so she had no objection to blood sports. Of course we don't know either way but you would think it's highly possible she had used a gun before at one of the shooting parties or at some other time, it was a way of life on farms wasn't it Jan??
-
he dident think jeremy was guilty from the word go it was only after jeremy was charged untill then he thought sheila did it so he dident think she couldent use a gun.
-
Who do you think Sheila shot first ?
David said she shot the twins first. Neville waking up and seeing her standing by the twins with the rifle. Neville then abandoned everyone to run downstairs to ring Jeremy.
Adam - the only reason you keep going back to this is whether guilty or innocent no poster can answer who was shot first . The sequence has never been proved and never can be unless as you say JB confesses. So it is a bit of a no brainer really . Each time you ask it we will ask you where Sheila was when her boys were being shot , how she got to the room and how apparently she did not try and defend herself at all when someone made her lie down and be shot in the way she was.
-
Yes he would know them better than people here, he also believe Jeremy guilty & has said why he doesn't think Sheila is guilty. Wouldn't be a case of you three picking and choosing to give Colin credit one moment and then dismiss him in the other, would it?
I can´t answer for "us three", only for myself, but it must have been a tremendous relief for Colin that Jeremy was convicted, since it took away the responsibility and probably guilt he must have felt.
"She finally did it" - was Colin´s first reaction to the tragedy.
-
I can´t answer for "us three", only for myself, but it must have been a tremendous relief for Colin that Jeremy was convicted, since it took away the responsibility and probably guilt he must have felt.
"She finally did it" - was Colin´s first reaction to the tragedy.
You can't answer for Nugs or Maggie, but you seem to be able to read Colins mind?
-
We do know he used to go on shooting arties and act as a beater so she had no objection to blood sports. Of course we don't know either way but you would think it's highly possible she had used a gun before at one of the shooting parties or t some other time, it was a way of life on farms wasn't it Jan??
if it was true she couldent use a colin would of known it wasnt straght away but he dident.
-
So you are saying that Jeremy lied through his teeth about everything about Sheila and did not expect to be investigated?
And can you clarify your comment about Jeremy chose the weapon to shoot rabbits? So are you saying he would not know the power and that it would be so successful in killing humans ? I don't know quite what you are getting at?
He told Julie he was 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut case'. He wasn't investigated for a long time afterwards. When the relatives found the silencer and Julie came forward.
He choose a weapon that he could claim he left out earlier in the evening. Saying he fully loaded it after seeing rabbits. However human head shots with the same rifle are also lethal.
-
Of course not Alias,when there are people on this site who know better ;)
June told Pamela that night that she was very worried about Sheila's health just before they all died. Whatever happened that night one of the few facts we do know about that night is that June told her sister at about 10pm that she was very worried about Sheila's behaviour and wanted to speak to her the next day about it.
I've never argued with ANY of you regarding Sheila's emotional and mental health. IMO, that she was not being monitored after her meds being adjusted was a potential recipe for disaster and that's just about the chemicals. Her emotional state was something other. She wasn't having regular counselling and the meds, unless they turned her into a zombie, wouldn't have helped that. June had every right to feel concerned. She was an emotional mess which makes it FAR to easy to pin the murders on her but how COULD she have done it? Where were all the bloodied clothes? Yes, she could have showered. Yes, she could have washed her hair, but WHERE were the clothes she wore?
I'll bet she'd never loaded a gun in her life. If she'd EVER used one, someone would probably have loaded it for her -I believe it to be customary at shoots- so IMO, it goes without saying that she wouldn't have been able to load a weapon she'd never seen before, but she made a very convenient scape-goat.
-
if it was true she couldent use a colin would of known it wasnt straght away but he dident.
When he was initially told - he had no reason to not believe what he was hearing, why would he at that point? It was natural to accept what he was being told. It was only in the time afterwards that he, and everyone else began to realise what had actually happened.
-
I can´t answer for "us three", only for myself, but it must have been a tremendous relief for Colin that Jeremy was convicted, since it took away the responsibility and probably guilt he must have felt.
"She finally did it" - was Colin´s first reaction to the tragedy.
Had Sheila been threatening to kill Neville, June, Nicolas, Daniel and herself ?
It's not surprising Jeremy said to Liz Rimmington 'I'm the only one who knew Sheila was going back to the nut house'.
-
So you are saying that Jeremy lied through his teeth about everything about Sheila and did not expect to be investigated?
And can you clarify your comment about Jeremy chose the weapon to shoot rabbits? So are you saying he would not know the power and that it would be so successful in killing humans ? I don't know quite what you are getting at?
Jeremy wanted a semi-auto that held a lot of rounds. The only semi-auto he could get Nevill to buy for him was a .22LR rifle. He had to claim he wanted a weapon to target shoot with and also to shoot vermin because those were the only potential uses at WHF. He couldn't claim he was planning to hunt bears, deer etc that would require a larger caliber rifle or birds (shotguns). The supposed use limited his options of why he could get Nevill to buy. He could not openly say he wanted to kill humans or large mammals on the farm and thus desired a larger caliber semi-auto (which would be substantially more expensive anyway) and they already owned shotguns if he wanted to shoot birds.
He would have needed to illegally obtain a larger caliber weapon if he wanted one but he figured a .22 was all he could get and he figured it would be good enough. How would Sheila obtain a larger caliber weapon anyway? He needed to pretend she used a weapon found at the farm. Obtaining an illegal weapon that could not be traced back to him and leaving that on Sheila would have set off alarms. The crux of his frame job was that she went crazy and grabbed a weapon of opportunity that was at the farm.
-
You can't answer for Nugs or Maggie, but you seem to be able to read Colins mind?
Unlike many others, I am in the habit of using the words: probably, in my opinion, most likely, so stop accusing me.
-
Jeremy wanted a semi-auto that held a lot of rounds. The only semi-auto he could get Nevill to buy for him was a .22LR rifle. He wanted a weapon to target shoot with and also to shoot vermin. He wasn't planning to hunt bears, deer etc that would require a larger caliber rifle or birds (shotguns). The supposed use limited his options of why he could get Nevill to buy. He could not openly say he wanted to kill humans or large mammals on the farm and thus desired a larger caliber semi-auto (which would be substantially more expensive anyway) and they already owned shotguns if he wanted to shoot birds.
He would have needed to illegally obtain a larger caliber weapon if he wanted it but he figured a .22 was all he could get and he figured it would be good enough. How would Sheila obtain a larger caliber weapon? He needed to pretend she used a weapon found at the farm.
I see his request for this weapon - as a smoking gun. Just horrific that he used Neville to buy the gun he would later kill the entire family with.
-
I see his request for this weapon - as a smoking gun. Just horrific that he used Neville to buy the gun he would later kill the entire family with.
Did Jeremy ask Neville to buy that rifle ?
Thought Neville would buy it anyway for himself. For the vermin on WHF. Jeremy didn't even have access to WHF, let alone the gun.
-
Others on this site choose to be objective instead of taking the biased view Alias and you choose to take.
The actual claims was that Sheila didn't like being preached to about her sinful lifestyle and that such preaching is why she would be unhappy after her visits. Colin said that Sheila found God and was bonding with June over religion and they had a better relationship after he second hospital stay.
Biased Jeremy supporters look at conditions in the past instead of the situation at the time of the murders just like supporters keep raising the thoughts she had PRIOR to her 1983 treatment. After that she had no delusions about her family. Biased people ignore that and keep bringing up the delusions she had before her treatment to try to say this means she would have the delusions at the time of the murders.
If people want to fool themselves with such it is no sweat off anyone else's back but when you try to use such as an argument to sway others it fails unless the people you are trying to sway are also biased and thus want to wear the same blinders. An effective advocate can't afford to wear blinders because making arguments that are invalid will not work on a broad scale.
What are you talking about? I was speaking about the night they died and I did not say it proved anything just that it happened and it did scipio.
I cannot be biased as I have stated over and over again that I don't know if JB is guilty or not or in your book does being biased mean anyone who doesn't agree with every word you write?
-
We do not 100% know she had not fired a gun before - I thought Anne said Jeremy had tried to teach her?
Jeremy said she had gone out shooting with her father.
Weren't Sheila's prints found on the shotgun which was in the upstairs office ? So she was probably wavering that around before she grabbed the rifle which was easier to handle and was possibly more familiar with.
Do we know how Sheila's prints came to be on the shotgun ? Was that ever queried ?
-
Yes he would know them better than people here, he also believe Jeremy guilty & has said why he doesn't think Sheila is guilty. Wouldn't be a case of you three picking and choosing to give Colin credit one moment and then dismiss him in the other, would it?
What does 'you three' mean? That was Alias' post not mine and I haven't even read Colin's book so I can hardly pick and choose anything from it.
-
Unlike many others, I am in the habit of using the words: probably, in my opinion, most likely, so stop accusing me.
Exactly Alias. :)
-
What does 'you three' mean? That was Alias' post not mine and I haven't even read Colin's book so I can hardly pick and choose anything from it.
You claimed there were people here who claim to know more than Colin. You agreed with Alias' post.
What are you talking about? I was speaking about the night they died and I did not say it proved anything just that it happened and it did scipio.
I cannot be biased as I have stated over and over again that I don't know if JB is guilty or not or in your book does being biased mean anyone who doesn't agree with every word you write?
Of course you can be biased. You're quite clearly a supporter - your posts lean in favour of an innocent Jeremy.
-
So you are saying that Jeremy lied through his teeth about everything about Sheila and did not expect to be investigated?.............................................
I won't say that Jeremy "lied through his teeth" about EVERYTHING regarding Sheila -did he not say it was important to tell as much of the truth as possible?- but the truth about her made it eminently possible for him to add to it, that way when the was checked and found to be correct, the padding, too, would be accepted as truth.
-
Weren't Sheila's prints found on the shotgun which was in the upstairs office ? So she was probably wavering that around before she grabbed the rifle which was easier to handle and was possibly more familiar with.
Do we know how Sheila's prints came to be on the shotgun ? Was that ever queried ?
well all the prints is that she touched it for some reason.
-
well all the prints is that she touched it for some reason.
Given that she was resident at WHF her prints were probably on many things.
-
Weren't Sheila's prints found on the shotgun which was in the upstairs office ? So she was probably wavering that around before she grabbed the rifle which was easier to handle and was possibly more familiar with.
Do we know how Sheila's prints came to be on the shotgun ? Was that ever queried ?
How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that no evidence was ever produced of her prints being found on any shotgun. This allegation was made by Mike and other supporters who were unable to produce any evidence to prove it when challenged to do so. All Mike was able to produce was evidence that they found prints not that the prints were of sufficient quality to get a good impression that could be compared to know prints on file, let alone that the prints were matched to anyone.
-
well all the prints is that she touched it for some reason.
I don't think they were on the shotgun, not sure Lookouts claim is correct. Not sure where that comes from.
-
Oh, it's from Mike.
-
Given that she was resident at WHF her prints were probably on many things.
Indeed if her print was on a shotgun it could be because it was left in her way and she was forced to move it. But no one has ever provided any proof to establish the claim is true.
-
You claimed there were people here who claim to know more than Colin. You agreed with Alias' post.
Of course you can be biased. You're quite clearly a supporter - your posts lean in favour of an innocent Jeremy.
You have no idea what I believe, I am interested in the truth and I lean in various directions at different times. Just because I don't tell you every thought I may have doesn't give you the right to judge me.
If I agree with Alias' post that's my perogative but that doesn't make me a supporter anyway as Alias is in the middle also but it's the old adage ..... 'If you're not with us .... you're against us' .
-
I don't think they were on the shotgun, not sure Lookouts claim is correct. Not sure where that comes from.
I didn't think it was correct -although that doesn't mean that someone hasn't written it :D- but I haven't read anything but Wilkes (recently) and Colin's book in the 1990's and it's not something he would have known.
-
Weren't Sheila's prints found on the shotgun which was in the upstairs office ? So she was probably wavering that around before she grabbed the rifle which was easier to handle and was possibly more familiar with.
Do we know how Sheila's prints came to be on the shotgun ? Was that ever queried ?
I've never seen any evidence to back that up.
-
You have no idea what I believe, I am interested in the truth and I lean in various directions at different times. Just because I don't tell you every thought I may have doesn't give you the right to judge me.
If I agree with Alias' post that's my perogative but that doesn't make me a supporter anyway as Alias is in the middle also but it's the old adage ..... 'If you're not with us .... you're against us' .
Perhaps it would be better if people made their opinions ON THE CASE clear? It's hard to tell if people just side with friends or actually have an opinion in favour of guilt of innocence.
-
Indeed if her print was on a shotgun it could be because it was left in her way and she was forced to move it. But no one has ever provided any proof to establish the claim is true.
It's a very innocent way of making certain someone's prints are on something. Just leave the object somewhere it's directly in their way and they're forced to move it.
-
You have no idea what I believe, I am interested in the truth and I lean in various directions at different times. Just because I don't tell you every thought I may have doesn't give you the right to judge me.
If I agree with Alias' post that's my perogative but that doesn't make me a supporter anyway as Alias is in the middle also but it's the old adage ..... 'If you're not with us .... you're against us' .
:o
I'm only going off the posts you make Maggie, never struck me as ANYTHING other than a VERY staunch Bamber supporter.
-
Indeed if her print was on a shotgun it could be because it was left in her way and she was forced to move it. But no one has ever provided any proof to establish the claim is true.
I don't recall seeing anything official claiming her prints were on the shot gun, I think I have only read it here.
-
Perhaps it would be better if people made their opinions ON THE CASE clear? It's hard to tell if people just side with friends or actually have an opinion in favour of guilt of innocence.
I remember when she was modded, it was said that herself and Patti had been selected because the board is a pro Jeremy board and having guilters as mod wouldn't sit right.
People have the right to whatever opinion on the case they like, but it is pretty clear who is in the middle -who supports possible innocence - who is staunch innocence - who is possible guilt and who is staunch guilt!
I certianly know where I am. ;D
-
Perhaps it would be better if people made their opinions ON THE CASE clear? It's hard to tell if people just side with friends or actually have an opinion in favour of guilt of innocence.
Huh? :o
-
Yes he would know them better than people here, he also believe Jeremy guilty & has said why he doesn't think Sheila is guilty. Wouldn't be a case of you three picking and choosing to give Colin credit one moment and then dismiss him in the other, would it?
But Colin did not suspect Jeremy at all until he was charged. He told him at the time he would support him after losing his family . And although he thinks he is guilty now I find it very strange that his book is more about Sheila and her relationship with her mother - not Jeremy .
-
But Colin did not suspect Jeremy at all until he was charged. He told him at the time he would support him after losing his family . And although he thinks he is guilty now I find it very strange that his book is more about Sheila and her relationship with her mother - not Jeremy .
He can only write what he knows about though or whatever he felt he wanted to get off his chest.
-
But Colin did not suspect Jeremy at all until he was charged. He told him at the time he would support him after losing his family . And although he thinks he is guilty now I find it very strange that his book is more about Sheila and her relationship with her mother - not Jeremy .
Probably because they weren't that close?
-
Huh? :o
Something I can help you with Alias? Why the confusion? I think I've made it clear where I stand on the case but if it's slipped you mind. I think he's ......
GUILTY
OK now? ???
-
He told Julie he was 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut case'. He wasn't investigated for a long time afterwards. When the relatives found the silencer and Julie came forward.
He choose a weapon that he could claim he left out earlier in the evening. Saying he fully loaded it after seeing rabbits. However human head shots with the same rifle are also lethal.
So for someone to think they had a "watertight" case in Julies words - then you would have thought he would have planned everything very carefully ? Not as you are saying lie through his teeth so that in fact the very next day he could have been questioned about those lies that he told to the police?
It does not really make sense does it?
-
Something I can help you with Alias? Why the confusion? I think I've made it clear where I stand on the case but if it's slipped you mind. I think he's ......
GUILTY
OK now? ???
Please don´t be condescending towards me. Thank you.
-
Perhaps it would be better if people made their opinions ON THE CASE clear? It's hard to tell if people just side with friends or actually have an opinion in favour of guilt of innocence.
I think all of us on both sides have made our opinions very clear - I don't doubt where any ones views are?
My only change of mind is how he came to be found guilty . I am not convinced of the alleged cock up on the day . But I still think he is innocent.
-
Please don´t be condescending towards me. Thank you.
When you stop, I'll stop ...... but until then, I'll treat like with like - Thank YOU!
-
But Colin did not suspect Jeremy at all until he was charged. He told him at the time he would support him after losing his family . And although he thinks he is guilty now I find it very strange that his book is more about Sheila and her relationship with her mother - not Jeremy .
I'm not surprised. I think the book was a public expression of his loss and writing it was -hopefully- cathartic. I think Jeremy was mostly incidental
-
I'm not surprised. I think the book was a public expression of his loss and writing it was -hopefully- cathartic. I think Jeremy was mostly incidental
I agree, it was about about how he felt and how he came to terms with it.
-
He can only write what he knows about though or whatever he felt he wanted to get off his chest.
Yes I agree and the book is mainly about his own journey. I just had ( and just to make it perfectly clear this is only my opinion and the way I read the book) this odd feeling that he was not totally convinced that JB was guilty at the time of the court case . He certainly did not think much of "the family" and the way he was treated by them .
Later on with the Arguments between him and Jeremy ( not getting into whether they were right or wrong) I think he was convinced - and like we are constantly being reminded he is guilty in the eyes of the law - therefore he must be guilty.
-
I agree, it was about about how he felt and how he came to terms with it.
It's what you would expect really. Claire Powell & Roger Wilkes were writing about the WHF crimes/trials and murders - Colin had a personal story of grief & loss.
Yes I agree and the book is mainly about his own journey. I just had ( and just to make it perfectly clear this is only my opinion and the way I read the book) this odd feeling that he was not totally convinced that JB was guilty at the time of the court case . He certainly did not think much of "the family" and the way he was treated by them .
Later on with the Arguments between him and Jeremy ( not getting into whether they were right or wrong) I think he was convinced - and like we are constantly being reminded he is guilty in the eyes of the law - therefore he must be guilty.
I would totally disagree to be honest. As far as I can tell from his own words, he is convinced.
-
I'm not surprised. I think the book was a public expression of his loss and writing it was -hopefully- cathartic. I think Jeremy was mostly incidental
But would you not think he would somehow want to know why ? He did not seem to indicate that Money was the b all and end all to JB - so you would have thought he would have tried to understand why . He was very good at analysing sheilas situation. That's why I was surprised. Just my opinion that's all .
-
Yes I agree and the book is mainly about his own journey. I just had ( and just to make it perfectly clear this is only my opinion and the way I read the book) this odd feeling that he was not totally convinced that JB was guilty at the time of the court case . He certainly did not think much of "the family" and the way he was treated by them .
Later on with the Arguments between him and Jeremy ( not getting into whether they were right or wrong) I think he was convinced - and like we are constantly being reminded he is guilty in the eyes of the law - therefore he must be guilty.
All I will say on this is that he was probably relieved when the case switched to Jeremy and found it easier to accept it was him instead of Sheila.
-
So for someone to think they had a "watertight" case in Julies words - then you would have thought he would have planned everything very carefully ? Not as you are saying lie through his teeth so that in fact the very next day he could have been questioned about those lies that he told to the police?
It does not really make sense does it?
The point is, Jan, I believe he thought he HAD planned it so well that it WAS watertight. HE may have believed he was the Machiavelian Brain of Britain but the truth was otherwise.
-
It's what you would expect really. Claire Powell & Roger Wilkes were writing about the WHF crimes/trials and murders - Colin had a personal story of grief & loss.
I would totally disagree to be honest. As far as I can tell from his own words, he is convinced.
Yes I said he is convinced now - so we are agreeing :)
-
All I will say on this is that he was probably relieved when the case switched to Jeremy and found it easier to accept it was him instead of Sheila.
Mat, did you see this? ;)
-
All I will say on this is that he was probably relieved when the case switched to Jeremy and found it easier to accept it was him instead of Sheila.
Well he was for a while worried he would be a suspect as well from what I remember because of what he thought about June .
-
Mat, did you see this? ;)
What about it??
-
What about it??
That's what I'm wondering? ::)
-
Probably because they weren't that close?
I thought he said they were close - like brothers at one stage - his words I think .
But on the other hand he did not seem to reveal a lot about him.
-
But would you not think he would somehow want to know why ? He did not seem to indicate that Money was the b all and end all to JB - so you would have thought he would have tried to understand why . He was very good at analysing sheilas situation. That's why I was surprised. Just my opinion that's all .
Colin does not believe the motive for the murders was money. Colin was very fixated on June in his book - even to the point of saying that if Jeremy hadn´t killed June, he would have, so how could he blame Jeremy (!) - very, very odd to say that about someone who killed your children!
-
So for someone to think they had a "watertight" case in Julies words - then you would have thought he would have planned everything very carefully ? Not as you are saying lie through his teeth so that in fact the very next day he could have been questioned about those lies that he told to the police?
It does not really make sense does it?
Julie also said Jeremy said it was an 'open and shut case' and that there was nothing she could do about it.
Believe it or not, part of his plan was telling lies.
-
I thought he said they were close - like brothers at one stage - his words I think .
But on the other hand he did not seem to reveal a lot about him.
Jeremy couldn't even remember his surname.
-
What about it??
I said basically the same thing in a post earlier, and you were quick to accuse me of thinking I could read Colin´s mind.
-
Colin does not believe the motive for the murders was money. Colin was very fixated on June in his book - even to the point of saying that if Jeremy hadn´t killed June, he would have, so how could he blame Jeremy (!) - very, very odd to say that about someone who killed your children!
ties up with what Freddy said as well - he could have believed Sheila would kill her own mother - But just to show I am not totally biased before someone jumps on the bandwagon - he said he was surprised about her father and the twins.
-
I think all of us on both sides have made our opinions very clear - I don't doubt where any ones views are?
My only change of mind is how he came to be found guilty . I am not convinced of the alleged cock up on the day . But I still think he is innocent.
Jan you know he is guilty.
However everyone is allowed to discuss the case and the investigation. Together with Jeremy's attempts to get released.
-
Jeremy couldn't even remember his surname.
which is why I said they were Colins words. I never said they were Jeremys did I ?
why would colin claim that if it were not true?
-
I said basically the same thing in a post earlier, and you were quick to accuse me of thinking I could read Colin´s mind.
I didn't say anything about guilt. I simply meant easier to believe it was Jeremy than the mother of his children.
-
and he was her husband so i think he would know her better than most people.
So you use this logic in this case but not in the other case I'm familiar with. ::) ???
-
Colin does not believe the motive for the murders was money. Colin was very fixated on June in his book - even to the point of saying that if Jeremy hadn´t killed June, he would have, so how could he blame Jeremy (!) - very, very odd to say that about someone who killed your children!
I thought his book hid a lot of the truth,myself. This is where you tend to read between the lines. Colin totally despised June,there was no getting away from that,and blamed her for the way that Sheila was.
-
Jan you know he is guilty.
However everyone is allowed to discuss the case and the investigation. Together with Jeremy's attempts to get released.
-
My cousins and aunt cannot spell my name right - first or last.
They aren´t bad people because of it.
-
which is why I said they were Colins words. I never said they were Jeremys did I ?
why would colin claim that if it were not true?
I didn't say you did. It shows if Colin did think of Jeremy as a brother, it wasn't reciprocated.
-
Too right-----------but why do they do it ?
-
My cousins and aunt cannot spell my name right - first or last.
They aren´t bad people because of it.
I'm sure yu think that means something, but I didn't say he couldn't spell it, I said he couldn't REMEMBER it. I'm sure your cousins and aunt can REMEMBER your name?
-
I thought his book hid a lot of the truth,myself. This is where you tend to read between the lines. Colin totally despised June,there was no getting away from that,and blamed her for the way that Sheila was.
That's probably not a good idea if you don't know the people involved.
-
Perhaps it would be better if people made their opinions ON THE CASE clear? It's hard to tell if people just side with friends or actually have an opinion in favour of guilt of innocence.
I don't side with friends, I am quite capable of having friends who hold a different opinion to myself on anything, \I have no desire the try to make anyone think the same way as I do.
As for people making it CLEAR which side they are on is pointless as no one can ever know if they're telling the truth. I have said enough times that I remain unconvinced either way so there's no secret about it but why do people need to know?
There are different kinds of people, some look at the world as either black or white while others see it in shades of grey, if you see what I mean. I tend to think in a different way than many, think Alias thinks in a similar way to myself.... we're all different.
-
I said basically the same thing in a post earlier, and you were quick to accuse me of thinking I could read Colin´s mind.
I was talking to you about choosing parts of colins book to show innocence, picking and choosing what you believe in his book dependant on how you choose the case. I don't think what Caroline said fits into that? You wouldn't be being cheeky and trying to cause friction between Caroline and I like you did between Stephanie and Caroline would you?
Behave Alias! We're all grown ups.
-
Jan you know he is guilty.
However everyone is allowed to discuss the case and the investigation. Together with Jeremy's attempts to get released.
I will tell you one thing - when I am convinced of his guilt I 100% would not be posting on this forum. Why would I - he would be where I thought he should be - so why waste my time ? What on earth would be the point?
-
I remember when she was modded, it was said that herself and Patti had been selected because the board is a pro Jeremy board and having guilters as mod wouldn't sit right.
People have the right to whatever opinion on the case they like, but it is pretty clear who is in the middle -who supports possible innocence - who is staunch innocence - who is possible guilt and who is staunch guilt!
I certianly know where I am. ;D
I gather I am the 'SHE' you're talking about, think it was more that I wasn't a guilter rather than anything else.
-
I don't side with friends, I am quite capable of having friends who hold a different opinion to myself on anything, \I have no desire the try to make anyone think the same way as I do.
As for people making it CLEAR which side they are on is pointless as no one can ever know if they're telling the truth. I have said enough times that I remain unconvinced either way so there's no secret about it but why do people need to know?
There are different kinds of people, some look at the world as either black or white while others see it in shades of grey, if you see what I mean. I tend to think in a different way than many, think Alias thinks in a similar way to myself.... we're all different.
Actually, I was talking in general terms and didn't say you were trying to convince anyone of anything.
In a debate about guilt of innocence, I'd have thought it would be helpful to know which side someone is arguing from. However, I have never seen the (so called) fence sitters consider anything from a guilty perspective, in fact quite the opposite. They defend Jeremy vehemently - and again, I'm talking in GENERAL terms.
-
I will tell you one thing - when I am convinced of his guilt I 100% would not be posting on this forum. Why would I - he would be where I thought he should be - so why waste my time ? What on earth would be the point?
We'll see.
-
I was talking to you about choosing parts of colins book to show innocence, picking and choosing what you believe in his book dependant on how you choose the case. I don't think what Caroline said fits into that? You wouldn't be being cheeky and trying to cause friction between Caroline and I like you did between Stephanie and Caroline would you?
Behave Alias! We're all grown ups.
Likewise, behave, Mat!
-
I was talking to you about choosing parts of colins book to show innocence, picking and choosing what you believe in his book dependant on how you choose the case. I don't think what Caroline said fits into that? You wouldn't be being cheeky and trying to cause friction between Caroline and I like you did between Stephanie and Caroline would you?
Behave Alias! We're all grown ups.
Most of us ;)
-
I'm sure yu think that means something, but I didn't say he couldn't spell it, I said he couldn't REMEMBER it. I'm sure your cousins and aunt can REMEMBER your name?
Not sure what you mean?
Anyway, it is very related, isn´t it - not remembering a name and not being able to spell the name of a close family member.
-
Actually, I was talking in general terms and didn't say you were trying to convince anyone of anything.
In a debate about guilt of innocence, I'd have thought it would be helpful to know which side someone is arguing from. However, I have never seen the (so called) fence sitters consider anything from a guilty perspective, in fact quite the opposite. They defend Jeremy vehemently - and again, I'm talking in GENERAL terms.
There may be a reason for that but it doesn't mean they don't think it.
-
There may be a reason for that but it doesn't mean they don't think it.
The is a reason.
-
I will tell you one thing - when I am convinced of his guilt I 100% would not be posting on this forum. Why would I - he would be where I thought he should be - so why waste my time ? What on earth would be the point?
Neither would I Jan. I think I've said this before.
-
Neither would I Jan. I think I've said this before.
I'm not sure you ever would be though Lookout.
-
That's probably not a good idea if you don't know the people involved.
Haven't you ever read a book and realised that there was more to it than met the eye ? I have.
-
We'll see.
don't worry I will wave to you all as I leave.
-
Actually, I was talking in general terms and didn't say you were trying to convince anyone of anything.
In a debate about guilt of innocence, I'd have thought it would be helpful to know which side someone is arguing from. However, I have never seen the (so called) fence sitters consider anything from a guilty perspective, in fact quite the opposite. They defend Jeremy vehemently - and again, I'm talking in GENERAL terms.
I have often contemplated the case from a guilty standpoint, but people tend not to notice it - I have noticed.
-
I have often contemplated the case from a guilty standpoint, but people tend not to notice it - I have noticed.
I have my own opinions but unless I was totally convinced it would always be changing therefore, I wouldn't tell. I admit I once was quite convinced JB was innocent but after learning so much about the case I have had to consider all the evidence, read and consider others opinions and have some questions and ideas of my own so now I'm undecided.
-
I have my own opinions but unless I was totally convinced it would always be changing therefore, I wouldn't tell. I admit I once was quite convinced JB was innocent but after learning so much about the case I have had to consider all the evidence, read and consider others opinions and have some questions and ideas of my own so now I'm undecided.
Out of interest, Maggie - if you ever believed he was guilty. Would you feel comfortable "coming out" on the forum?
-
I have my own opinions but unless I was totally convinced it would always be changing therefore, I wouldn't tell. I admit I once was quite convinced JB was innocent but after learning so much about the case I have had to consider all the evidence, read and consider others opinions and have some questions and ideas of my own so now I'm undecided.
Perhaps you need to talk openly about your thoughts. I'm convinced everything becomes much clearer if we hear the words said.
-
I have my own opinions but unless I was totally convinced it would always be changing therefore, I wouldn't tell. I admit I once was quite convinced JB was innocent but after learning so much about the case I have had to consider all the evidence, read and consider others opinions and have some questions and ideas of my own so now I'm undecided.
So what is it about the case that shifted from innocent to undecided? There must be something specific that you're unsure of? I'm not asking to be a smart arse, I'm genuinely interested.
-
Out of interest, Maggie - if you ever believed he was guilty. Would you feel comfortable "coming out" on the forum?
Not sure but I wouldn't stay and argue his guilt against innocents, why would I, what's the point?
-
Perhaps you need to talk openly about your thoughts. I'm convinced everything becomes much clearer if we hear the words said.
I'm not confused April, everything is clear to me, thanks.
-
Not sure but I wouldn't stay and argue his guilt against innocents, why would I, what's the point?
Because it's not supposed to be an 'argument' it's supposed to be a debate.
-
Not sure but I wouldn't stay and argue his guilt against innocents, why would I, what's the point?
I wouldn't hold it against you Maggie if you were to speak of your uncertainties.
-
Not sure but I wouldn't stay and argue his guilt against innocents, why would I, what's the point?
'
So you wouldn´t join the bash the buffs brigade? SORRY! I know this was childish! 8)
-
So what is it about the case that shifted from innocent to undecided? There must be something specific that you're unsure of? I'm not asking to be a smart arse, I'm genuinely interested.
There was nothing specific, different things over a long time but I'm happy where I am at the moment, it's not a huge question in my life. :-\
-
'
So you wouldn´t join the bash the buffs brigade? SORRY! I know this was childish! 8)
Yes, it is and you're already part of your own bash the buffs brigade - whatever that is! ::)
-
Yes, it is and you're already part of your own bash the buffs brigade - whatever that is! ::)
If you want debate and not arguments, you could start by limiting your use of this: ::)
You use it an awful lot.
-
'
So you wouldn´t join the bash the buffs brigade? SORRY! I know this was childish! 8)
Hahahahahahaha,no--------YOU weren't. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Because it's not supposed to be an 'argument' it's supposed to be a debate.
I agree, it's supposed to be a debate.
-
Hahahahahahaha,no--------YOU weren't. ;D ;D ;D ;D
And you all claim to wonder how arguments start ::) ::) ::)
-
I have often contemplated the case from a guilty standpoint, but people tend not to notice it - I have noticed.
yes I did one whole thread where I asked all posters to look at things from both sides - there were a few who found it impossible :)
but it was interesting for those who did.
-
I agree, it's supposed to be a debate.
SOME seem not to understand that.
-
If you want debate and not arguments, you could start by limiting your use of this: ::)
You use it an awful lot.
Are you suggesting its' use limits Caroline's ability to debate intelligently?
-
Are you suggesting its' use limits Caroline's ability to debate intelligently?
I think it comes across as rude and condescending.
-
'
So you wouldn´t join the bash the buffs brigade? SORRY! I know this was childish! 8)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D,
-
If you want debate and not arguments, you could start by limiting your use of this: ::)
You use it an awful lot.
Yes, I'm doing it on purpose and I'll stop using it when you stop trying to stir the pot. Works both ways. You have some kind of a chip on your shoulder - think it's time to let it go, don't you?
-
There was nothing specific, different things over a long time but I'm happy where I am at the moment, it's not a huge question in my life. :-\
Maggie think it was my influence hahahaha kidding I have never tried to influence you in any direction more you me ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.
-
I think it comes across as rude and condescending.
Likewise!
-
Maggie think it was my influence hahahaha kidding I have never tried to influence you in any direction more you me ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.
;D ;D ;D No, I am capable of reasoning and thinking, although some don't seem to think so. Obviously the more you learn the more info you have to use when making decisions, problem is on many questions there are at least two different answers depending which way you look at it. :-\
-
I think it comes across as rude and condescending.
Isn't that more YOUR problem, than Caroline's? Don't you feel that you're asking too much by expecting SO many (strangers!!!) to conform their behaviours to what suits you?
-
And you all claim to wonder how arguments start ::) ::) ::)
I believe the term is called 'passive aggressive?'
-
Isn't that more YOUR problem, than Caroline's? Don't you feel that you're asking too much by expecting SO many (strangers!!!) to conform their behaviours to what suits you?
She's asking the wrong one! I don't go in for conformity, especially when it comes from someone holding a grudge!
-
Isn't that more YOUR problem, than Caroline's? Don't you feel that you're asking too much by expecting SO many (strangers!!!) to conform their behaviours to what suits you?
The board´s problem I would say.
There are valued posters who stay away from here because of the bullying that is going on. It is painful to watch.
And that is the last I will say, because we are heading for another closed thread - before you all jump on me, I am as guilty as anybody else of creating this particular argument.
-
The board´s problem I would say.
There are valued posters who stay away from here because of the bullying that is going on. It is painful to watch.
And that is the last I will say, because we are heading for another closed thread - before you all jump on me, I am as guilty as anybody else of creating this particular argument.
You don't just watch Alias, like you say, you are as guilty as anyone. People were trying to debate earlier and you jumped in with sarcasm for no reason.
The rolled eyes icon is there for anyone to use and you have used it yourself. It seems if Alias doesn't like something - it's called bullying.
-
Can we get back to discussion please otherwise the thread will be closed.
Please remember its not what you say its how you come across.
Debates are tuning into personal arguments.
Any more and we will start removing posts.
-
Can we get back to discussion please otherwise the thread will be closed.
Please remember its not what you say its how you come across.
Debates are tuning into personal arguments.
Any more and we will start removing posts.
Yes, sorry, will do.
-
I have a question for those who believe JB to be guilty, why do you think he rang the local police instead of 999?
What I mean is, if you think he is guilty and the whole thing was planned out why wouldn't he ring 999?
-
I have a question for those who believe JB to be guilty, why do you think he rang the local police instead of 999?
To slow down response times, so he could have a reason for delaying - having to look through the phone book for the number. If you call 999 you expect an EMERGENCY response. Can you imagine, blue lights - and arriving at the farmhouse only MINUTES after Jeremy called them after JUST speaking to Neville? Police go inside and everyone is already shot.
-
And it allows him to 'play things down' have the police believe he didn't realise how bad things were... So many theories...
-
I have a question for those who believe JB to be guilty, why do you think he rang the local police instead of 999?
What I mean is, if you think he is guilty and the whole thing was planned out why wouldn't he ring 999?
Either because he wanted to waste as much time as possible before police responded or he didn't mind wasting time because he knew they were dead so saw no urgency. Had he actually received the call claimed he would have had no reason to call Julie at all let alone to call Julie before calling police then to further waste time by looking up numbers.
-
To slow down response times, so he could have a reason for delaying - having to look through the phone book for the number. If you call 999 you expect an EMERGENCY response. Can you imagine, blue lights - and arriving at the farmhouse only MINUTES after Jeremy called them after JUST speaking to Neville? Police go inside and everyone is already shot.
I see, thanks But would they have gone straight in?
-
another question - I just read a statement of an officer who was not called until gone 5am . He was told it was a siege situation with possible hostages being held or killed . Now why would they say that when they had not heard a single sound or apparently seen any movement at all? Jeremy had not said that any shots had been fired .they said they had challenged the house - but had no response - who where they challenging ? they had seen or heard nothing . also one officer was told to retreat from his original position for his own safety?
-
Either because he wanted to waste as much time as possible before police responded or he didn't mind wasting time because he knew they were dead so saw no urgency. Had he actually received the call claimed he would have had no reason to call Julie at all let alone to call Julie before calling police then to further waste time by looking up numbers.
But would he not think that would cause suspicion? And why would he need to delay? If they were all dead why would it matter if the police went straight round?
-
But would he not think that would cause suspicion? And why would he need to delay? If they were all dead why would it matter if the police went straight round?
That is a very good point Sarah... ;D
-
I see, thanks But would they have gone straight in?
They weren't suitably kitted out to confront anyone who was possibly armed,so no,they wouldn't have gone in.
-
And it allows him to 'play things down' have the police believe he didn't realise how bad things were... So many theories...
Good point actually.
I see, thanks But would they have gone straight in?
I've no idea and neither did he.
But would he not think that would cause suspicion? And why would he need to delay? If they were all dead why would it matter if the police went straight round?
Because the time he says Neville phoned him, that shows Neville was alive - he needs to delay things or Sheila has killed everyone within minutes, washed and killed herself.
another question - I just read a statement of an officer who was not called until gone 5am . He was told it was a siege situation with possible hostages being held or killed . Now why would they say that when they had not heard a single sound or apparently seen any movement at all? Jeremy had not said that any shots had been fired .they said they had challenged the house - but had no response - who where they challenging ? they had seen or heard nothing . also one officer was told to retreat from his original position for his own safety?
They were going off the call Bamber says he recieved. Going off the information from Bamber. He says he got a call that his sister had gone beserk with the gun - they arrive outside, no response - even though Neville had asked Jeremy to come over - so that's why they believed it was a siege situation with possible hostages being held or killed .
They weren't suitably kitted out to confront anyone who was possibly armed,so no,they wouldn't have gone in.
You're speaking with hindsight.
-
Either because he wanted to waste as much time as possible before police responded or he didn't mind wasting time because he knew they were dead so saw no urgency. Had he actually received the call claimed he would have had no reason to call Julie at all let alone to call Julie before calling police then to further waste time by looking up numbers.
You see this doesn't ring true to me, it seems like an excuse to explain away an awkward question. You may be right but on the other hand there's every possibility you could be wrong. He didn't waste very much time with what he did and there may have been an innocent explanation for it.
If he had received the call from Julie as he claimed there may not have been any reason for him to call Julie before or after calling the police in the world of Scipio but in Jeremy's world there may have been a very real reason.
I know you are about to call me a biased liar or something like that, please feel free.
-
Because the time he says Neville phoned him, that shows Neville was alive - he needs to delay things or Sheila has killed everyone within minutes, washed and killed herself.
He could have said his father said she had shot the others and told him to raise the alarm but not to come in as she will shoot, that would delay things
-
He could have said his father said she had shot the others and told him to raise the alarm but not to come in as she will shoot, that would delay things
You think it would be believable that Sheila would shoot the kids dead in their beds...murder her mother... and ralph would call Jeremy??
-
But would he not think that would cause suspicion? And why would he need to delay? If they were all dead why would it matter if the police went straight round?
Because the more time that passed the less chance he felt that they would be able to tell who was killed first and last. The boys were most likely killed 3rd and 4th and even possibly last. That presents a problem from the inheritance standpoint. That is one of the reasons why he would not want Sheila's body in the room with them. He needed people to think they died before both grandparents to avoid them being heirs. If they died after the grandparents they could be viewed as heirs and their shares would go to their father.
Furthermore, he took time to stage the scene and go back home. If police went inside right away they could potentially find out the bodies were there longer than he claimed and would foil his claim of receiving a call.
-
You think it would be believable that Sheila would shoot the kids dead in their beds...murder her mother... and ralph would call Jeremy??
Yes that's a good point. Maybe he could have said she was threatening to shoot and told JB to raise the alarm but for the police not go storm in?
-
Yes that's a good point. Maybe he could have said she was threatening to shoot and told JB to raise the alarm but for the police not go storm in?
Because that doesn't sound suspicious?
Plus once Bamber had alerted the police it would be their decision whether they go in or not and not Jeremy's/Nevilles.
-
Because the more time that passed the less chance he felt that they would be able to tell who was killed first and last. The boys were most likely killed 3rd and 4th and even possibly last. That presents a problem from the inheritance standpoint. That is one of the reasons why he would not want Sheila's body in the room with them. He needed people to think they died before both grandparents to avoid them being heirs. If they died after the grandparents they could be viewed as heirs and their shares would go to their father.
Blimey o'riley that's high faluted thinking! :)
-
Blimey o'riley that's high faluted thinking! :)
You have to consider what a killer would have been thinking about if you are trying to get inside a killer's head.
-
He could have said his father said she had shot the others and told him to raise the alarm but not to come in as she will shoot, that would delay things
Hello Sara IMO the alleged phone call from Ralph was Jeremy's downfall by inventing this call he implicated himself in the killings if he had staged the scene went home to bed and waited till he was contacted next morning he may have got away with it. Just my opinion of course I could be wrong.
-
You think it would be believable that Sheila would shoot the kids dead in their beds...murder her mother... and ralph would call Jeremy??
But someone made an interesting point that perhaps he thought she was threatening to kill herself and had wandered off when he made the call , he obviously did not think she was capable of her threat or of murder - or he himself would not have left guns around . then he heard a shot and dropped the phone
-
another question - I just read a statement of an officer who was not called until gone 5am . He was told it was a siege situation with possible hostages being held or killed . Now why would they say that when they had not heard a single sound or apparently seen any movement at all? Jeremy had not said that any shots had been fired .they said they had challenged the house - but had no response - who where they challenging ? they had seen or heard nothing . also one officer was told to retreat from his original position for his own safety?
This shows me the prosecution disclosed material that would help both sides.
-
But someone made an interesting point that perhaps he thought she was threatening to kill herself and had wandered off when he made the call , he obviously did not think she was capable of her threat or of murder - or he himself would not have left guns around . then he heard a shot and dropped the phone
Yes that is an interesting point
-
But someone made an interesting point that perhaps he thought she was threatening to kill herself and had wandered off when he made the call , he obviously did not think she was capable of her threat or of murder - or he himself would not have left guns around . then he heard a shot and dropped the phone
If she shot everyone else and wandered away leaving him alive then he would either:
1) get the hell out of there to save his ass
2) call police demanding an ambulance be sent and then either get out to save his own ass or go try to help save her if he felt she was going to kill herself.
Calling Jeremy to Keep it in the family would not be an option if she already shot people.
-
Good point actually.
I've no idea and neither did he.
Because the time he says Neville phoned him, that shows Neville was alive - he needs to delay things or Sheila has killed everyone within minutes, washed and killed herself.
They were going off the call Bamber says he recieved. Going off the information from Bamber. He says he got a call that his sister had gone beserk with the gun - they arrive outside, no response - even though Neville had asked Jeremy to come over - so that's why they believed it was a siege situation with possible hostages being held or killed .
You're speaking with hindsight.
I am glad you agree that they could have gone straight in and JB did not know that - because then they would have known immediately he was not telling the truth because they would have been dead for hours not minutes .
And how do we know at what point Sheila committed suicide ? How do we know she had done that before the police arrived?
-
I think if you are going to make up a phone call why not say sheila had telephoned saying I've killed them all and I will shoot anyone that comes in, that would delay things
-
If she shot everyone else and wandered away leaving him alive then he would either:
1) get the hell out of there to save his ass
2) call police demanding an ambulance be sent and then either get out to save his own ass or go try to help save her if he felt she was going to kill herself.
Calling Jeremy to Keep it in the family would not be an option if she already shot people.
I did not say she had shot everyone else - I said he heard a shot or possibly shots
So he would have rushed upstairs to try and find out what the hell was happening . So how long would it take her to shoot the twins and June ? We don't know that all the shots were made to each victim all at once do we?
-
But would he not think that would cause suspicion? And why would he need to delay? If they were all dead why would it matter if the police went straight round?
The police would automatically look at family members as suspects, he would have known this. As I said before, I believe he needed to play things down, calling 999 would would have been a risky. Maybe if the police had gone in sooner he wouldn't have been able to claim innocence like he had or maybe he was always going to. Some manipulative psychopaths always blame others for their behaviours.
-
The police would automatically look at family members as suspects, he would have known this. As I said before, I believe he needed to play things down, calling 999 would would have been a risky. Maybe if the police had gone in sooner he wouldn't have been able to claim innocence like he had or maybe he was always going to. Some manipulative psychopaths always blame others for their behaviours.
so if he played it down - then why did they not go in ? Jeremy never said it was a siege , he never said a shot had been fired - there were children in the house . Now if they had seen movement or heard something I would totally agree with you.
-
Blimey o'riley that's high faluted thinking! :)
get used to it? that's a very short post from Scipio.
so he planned the order of death as well -but told his girlfriend and left a silencer in the cupboard with a blob of blood on the outside.
Clever.
-
get used to it? that's a very short post from Scipio.
so he planned the order of death as well -but told his girlfriend and left a silencer in the cupboard with a blob of blood on the outside.
Clever.
:) you see that's my problem, 'Well before I start I will tell everyone who will listen that I hate my parents, carry out the perfect crime leaving no forensic evidence, but then I will toss the silencer in the cupboard, louse up the phone call, tell my bird I did it and then dump her'
-
I think if you are going to make up a phone call why not say sheila had telephoned saying I've killed them all and I will shoot anyone that comes in, that would delay things
That wouldn't make sense - why announce you'd killed everyone? If you don't want the police to 'come in' you simply don't alert anyone. That scenario would alert suspicion from the off.
-
get used to it? that's a very short post from Scipio.
so he planned the order of death as well -but told his girlfriend and left a silencer in the cupboard with a blob of blood on the outside.
Clever.
That blob of blood was lost in the vortex of the machine which separates the blood groups. What a hash-up that turned out to be. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
But would he not think that would cause suspicion? And why would he need to delay? If they were all dead why would it matter if the police went straight round?
That would depend on what time he killed them.
-
:) you see that's my problem, 'Well before I start I will tell everyone who will listen that I hate my parents, carry out the perfect crime leaving no forensic evidence, but then I will toss the silencer in the cupboard, louse up the phone call, tell my bird I did it and then dump her'
AH, but you may be reckoning without a mind set which is superior to your average everyday pleb -that's anyone who isn't him- and has planned this so carefully that he won't be suspected and has fed the girlfriend enough BS that if she SHOULD go to the police the story will be so ridiculous they won't believe her.
-
AH, but you may be reckoning without a mind set which is superior to your average everyday pleb -that's anyone who isn't him- and has planned this so carefully that he won't be suspected and has fed the girlfriend enough BS that if she SHOULD go to the police the story will be so ridiculous they won't believe her.
That is further convoluting the whole thing!
-
AH, but you may be reckoning without a mind set which is superior to your average everyday pleb -that's anyone who isn't him- and has planned this so carefully that he won't be suspected and has fed the girlfriend enough BS that if she SHOULD go to the police the story will be so ridiculous they won't believe her.
I just don't buy it
-
That is further convoluting the whole thing!
Not in my opinion but you're entitled to yours..................I suppose...............if you must...................we all have our crosses to bear, don't we ;)
-
I did not say she had shot everyone else - I said he heard a shot or possibly shots
So he would have rushed upstairs to try and find out what the hell was happening . So how long would it take her to shoot the twins and June ? We don't know that all the shots were made to each victim all at once do we?
6 shots to June were in rapid succession. The 7th shot (between her eyes) was after she walked around the bed so could and probably did happen after Nevill was killed in the kitchen.
4 shots to Nicholas were close together indicating firing in quick succession, the 5th shot also appears to have been delivered the same time.
3 shots to Daniel seem to have been fired in succession. There was nothing at all that indicated a gap in the shots fired to the boys and there is no reason to go back and shoot them more later.
If Sheila had shot June the 6 times and then the boys each once that would only leave 2 bullets to use on Nevill. It is quite clear the first magazine was used exclusively on June and Nevill.
No matter how many times you avoid facing it, a call from Nevill to Jeremy makes no sense whether any shots had been fired or not.
Nevill had no reason to call Jeremy at all, if shots were fired he would have called 999 requesting medical help. Without shots being fired he would have zero reason to call Jeremy. He had the physical strength to disarm her himself, he had weapons to use if he was scared to disarm her with his bare hands and Jeremy didn't have a good relationship with her so would be worthless in terns of calming her down.
this is before even taking into account the evidence that establishes Sheila didn't load the gun, beat anyone with the gun or shoot anyone with the gun. That is even moreso why Nevill would have no reason to call Jeremy.
While you choose to believe it credible that someone who decided to commit suicide would wash and change her clothes before doing so that is not what objective rational people believe. Objective rational people likewise don't believe the bloody/GSR stained clothing including gloves would vanish without a trace. Nor do they believe she could have shot herself without getting GSR on her nightdress and especially don't believe she could have killed herself while seated, stood up without the blood dripping to the bottom of her gown, put away the moderator then returned to the bedroom, lied down flat, put the gun across her and after a pool of blood formed to put the bible in it.
This all impacts the tale he told about receiving a call from Nevill. The call fails on so many different levels including his alleged reaction to the alleged call being not credible.
-
:) you see that's my problem, 'Well before I start I will tell everyone who will listen that I hate my parents, carry out the perfect crime leaving no forensic evidence, but then I will toss the silencer in the cupboard, louse up the phone call, tell my bird I did it and then dump her'
Stupidity and ignorance is how criminals get caught.
If he knew about drawback he would have removed the moderator and left it near her body.
-
another question - I just read a statement of an officer who was not called until gone 5am . He was told it was a siege situation with possible hostages being held or killed . Now why would they say that when they had not heard a single sound or apparently seen any movement at all? Jeremy had not said that any shots had been fired .they said they had challenged the house - but had no response - who where they challenging ? they had seen or heard nothing . also one officer was told to retreat from his original position for his own safety?
You seem to be looking at things totally backwards. It was alleged to police that Nevill called Jeremy to report that Sheila was going crazy with a gun. The phone was taken off the hook so that police could not call the house thus confirming something was wrong. Obviously things in the house were not well. If things were ok then they would have seen and heard movement the phone would be used to try to call Jeremy to tell him things were ok or see where he was and would then be hung up so that police would have been able to call to check in.
Precisely because they saw no signs of life and no contact with anyone in the house they knew there was trouble and that it could be a hostage situation. That is what they decided right away based on Jeremy's claims, the phone being off the hook and no signs of life.
No sign of movement or communication was a bad thing not a good thing.
-
That blob of blood was lost in the vortex of the machine which separates the blood groups. What a hash-up that turned out to be. ;D ;D ;D ;D
The blood near the opening was used for the test of whether the blood was human or not, it wasn't used for the blood grouping. The blood used for the blood grouping was removed from the baffles and a flake that was stuck at the bottom of the moderator near baffle 1 or 2.
-
:) you see that's my problem, 'Well before I start I will tell everyone who will listen that I hate my parents, carry out the perfect crime leaving no forensic evidence, but then I will toss the silencer in the cupboard, louse up the phone call, tell my bird I did it and then dump her'
He did tell everyone who would listen about what a raw deal his parents gave him. Especially compared to Sheila. He would have told Julie more than anyone else.
There was a mountain of forensic evidence. Thread already created.
He told Julie he had committed the massacre. There is a thread saying why. Lots of reasons.
The silencer was put in box, underneath other boxes, guns, and dartboards at the back of the gun cupboard. The police did not find it.
-
another question - I just read a statement of an officer who was not called until gone 5am . He was told it was a siege situation with possible hostages being held or killed . Now why would they say that when they had not heard a single sound or apparently seen any movement at all? Jeremy had not said that any shots had been fired .they said they had challenged the house - but had no response - who where they challenging ? they had seen or heard nothing . also one officer was told to retreat from his original position for his own safety?
You're clutching at straws again.
It was a siege situation at 5pm. Just because they had not heard anything doesn't mean they won't treat it as a siege. A raid team entered, if that is not a siege I don't know what is.
It is correct the police logs say 'conversations in the house' and then 'conversations in the house met with no response'. Jeremy tried to claim there were conversations in the house, decades later. Perhaps he didn't notice it on the night.
-
so if he played it down - then why did they not go in ? Jeremy never said it was a siege , he never said a shot had been fired - there were children in the house . Now if they had seen movement or heard something I would totally agree with you.
No but he did say Sheila was a 'nutter', 'do lally', a 'looney' 'psychotic depressive' and 'should be locked up'.
He also said Neville had rang him, and that Sheila knew how to use the guns.
He did not urge the police to enter WHF or tell them about the loose windows. Bews and Miller etc were never going to charge in.
-
I have a question for those who believe JB to be guilty, why do you think he rang the local police instead of 999?
What I mean is, if you think he is guilty and the whole thing was planned out why wouldn't he ring 999?
He didn't ring the local police. He rang the forth furthest away police station. He was trying to delay things.
-
I did not say she had shot everyone else - I said he heard a shot or possibly shots
So he would have rushed upstairs to try and find out what the hell was happening . So how long would it take her to shoot the twins and June ? We don't know that all the shots were made to each victim all at once do we?
Do you think Neville was downstairs and heard shots upstairs ?
Then ran upstairs in just his PJ's. Getting shot twice from close range, then twice from a few feet. Before running straight back downstairs.
If he ran upstairs and got within inches of Sheila holding the rifle, there would have been an upstairs confrontation.
-
:) you see that's my problem, 'Well before I start I will tell everyone who will listen that I hate my parents, carry out the perfect crime leaving no forensic evidence, but then I will toss the silencer in the cupboard, louse up the phone call, tell my bird I did it and then dump her'
That is how a psychopath would work.... And they rely on 'confirmation bias' (I've posted about it on another thread) among other things, in order for people to believe their pleas.
-
:) you see that's my problem, 'Well before I start I will tell everyone who will listen that I hate my parents, carry out the perfect crime leaving no forensic evidence, but then I will toss the silencer in the cupboard, louse up the phone call, tell my bird I did it and then dump her'
Did he hate his parents?
-
AH, but you may be reckoning without a mind set which is superior to your average everyday pleb -that's anyone who isn't him- and has planned this so carefully that he won't be suspected and has fed the girlfriend enough BS that if she SHOULD go to the police the story will be so ridiculous they won't believe her.
Agreed!
-
That is further convoluting the whole thing!
How is it? In order to support a theory of innocence or guilt, surely you would agree that you need to look at the entire picture, from every angle possible.
-
6 shots to June were in rapid succession. The 7th shot (between her eyes) was after she walked around the bed so could and probably did happen after Nevill was killed in the kitchen.
4 shots to Nicholas were close together indicating firing in quick succession, the 5th shot also appears to have been delivered the same time.
3 shots to Daniel seem to have been fired in succession. There was nothing at all that indicated a gap in the shots fired to the boys and there is no reason to go back and shoot them more later.
If Sheila had shot June the 6 times and then the boys each once that would only leave 2 bullets to use on Nevill. It is quite clear the first magazine was used exclusively on June and Nevill.
No matter how many times you avoid facing it, a call from Nevill to Jeremy makes no sense whether any shots had been fired or not.
Nevill had no reason to call Jeremy at all, if shots were fired he would have called 999 requesting medical help. Without shots being fired he would have zero reason to call Jeremy. He had the physical strength to disarm her himself, he had weapons to use if he was scared to disarm her with his bare hands and Jeremy didn't have a good relationship with her so would be worthless in terns of calming her down.
this is before even taking into account the evidence that establishes Sheila didn't load the gun, beat anyone with the gun or shoot anyone with the gun. That is even moreso why Nevill would have no reason to call Jeremy.
While you choose to believe it credible that someone who decided to commit suicide would wash and change her clothes before doing so that is not what objective rational people believe. Objective rational people likewise don't believe the bloody/GSR stained clothing including gloves would vanish without a trace. Nor do they believe she could have shot herself without getting GSR on her nightdress and especially don't believe she could have killed herself while seated, stood up without the blood dripping to the bottom of her gown, put away the moderator then returned to the bedroom, lied down flat, put the gun across her and after a pool of blood formed to put the bible in it.
This all impacts the tale he told about receiving a call from Nevill. The call fails on so many different levels including his alleged reaction to the alleged call being not credible.
You've really thought this through... I must say, though it's awful to even think about let alone read, I tend to agree with this. NB was more than likely the first to have been murdered.
-
You've really thought this through... I must say, though it's awful to even think about let alone read, I tend to agree with this. NB was more than likely the first to have been murdered.
In all likelihood June was dead before Nevill. The initial shot to her head was quiet severe. She walked around the bed then collapsed before getting out of the room. The shot between the eyes was probably delivered after she was already dead, it was simply to make sure. If she was still alive and Nevill died before her then the kitchen fight and reloadings were rather quick.
The gun reloadings were worked out a while ago based on the totality of the evidence including spent casings.
Julie said that prior to the murders Jeremy planned to say he got a call from Nevill. Such plan eliminates the ability to kill Nevill in his sleep. How could he claim Nevill called if he died in his sleep? June was attacked in her sleep though. At least 4 and possibly 6 shots were delivered as she was lying in bed. The 2 to her chest could have been as she was sitting up in bed or even as she started to get up. So he most likely fired at June first.
Nevill was shot as his left side profile was to to the killer. He could have been sitting in bed or could have been getting out of bed. He definitely wasn't upright because the wound to his jaw and arm were downward trajectories and if he had been upright then the trajectories would have been up. Vanezis failed to consider that Sheila and Jeremy were both shorter than Nevill and thus would have needed to aim up if Nevill had been fully upright.
The magazine only holds 10 rounds so this means the gun was likely empty. There is a way to load 11 by chambering a round and then ejecting the magazine adding a 10th round and then reinserting it into the gun. If there were 11 that means the shot between June's eyes was delivered as well at this time. It seems odd though that she would run around the with the killer still there in the way. So I am more apt to think the shot between her eyes came later. Once the gun was empty one of two things happened- 1) the killer fled to the kitchen to reload and Nevill chased the killer finally catching up in the kitchen or 2) Nevill fled to the kitchen to arm himself with the killer chased him and caught up in the kitchen.
The whole reason why things proceeded to the kitchen is because Nevill wasn't immobilized by the 4 shots he suffered and the gun was empty. Nevill was beaten until he was unconscious and the killer was then able to reload. He was then shot 2 times in the top of the head and the killer moved slightly and then shot him 2 times in the right side of the head. The killer then fully reloaded and went upstairs again with either 10 or 11 rounds in the gun. If 11 then at this point the killer shot June between the eyes to make sure she was really dead then used 8 shots on the boys and the last 2 on Sheila. The gun was then empty again.
So the gun was partially reloaded to kill Nevill in the kitchen then fully reloaded with 10 rounds combined used on Sheila and the boys. in all likelihood the boys were killed first then Sheila bu if Sheila had woken up and been out of her room then she was killed before the boys. There is no way to know for sure if she woke up herself or not. I doubt she did given her state of being overly tired because of she was being given too much Haldol and wasn't taking a countering agent.
-
In all likelihood June was dead before Nevill. The initial shot to her head was quiet severe. She walked around the bed then collapsed before getting out of the room. The shot between the eyes was probably delivered after she was already dead, it was simply to make sure. If she was still alive and Nevill died before her then the kitchen fight and reloadings were rather quick.
The gun reloadings were worked out a while ago based on the totality of the evidence including spent casings.
Julie said that prior to the murders Jeremy planned to say he got a call from Nevill. Such plan eliminates the ability to kill Nevill in his sleep. How could he claim Nevill called if he died in his sleep? June was attacked in her sleep though. At least 4 and possibly 6 shots were delivered as she was lying in bed. The 2 to her chest could have been as she was sitting up in bed or even as she started to get up. So he most likely fired at June first.
Nevill was shot as his left side profile was to to the killer. He could have been sitting in bed or could have been getting out of bed. He definitely wasn't upright because the wound to his jaw and arm were downward trajectories and if he had been upright then the trajectories would have been up. Vanezis failed to consider that Sheila and Jeremy were both shorter than Nevill and thus would have needed to aim up if Nevill had been fully upright.
The magazine only holds 10 rounds so this means the gun was likely empty. There is a way to load 11 by chambering a round and then ejecting the magazine adding a 10th round and then reinserting it into the gun. If there were 11 that means the shot between June's eyes was delivered as well at this time. It seems odd though that she would run around the with the killer still there in the way. So I am more apt to think the shot between her eyes came later. Once the gun was empty one of two things happened- 1) the killer fled to the kitchen to reload and Nevill chased the killer finally catching up in the kitchen or 2) Nevill fled to the kitchen to arm himself with the killer chased him and caught up in the kitchen.
The whole reason why things proceeded to the kitchen is because Nevill wasn't immobilized by the 4 shots he suffered and the gun was empty. Nevill was beaten until he was unconscious and the killer was then able to reload. He was then shot 2 times in the top of the head and the killer moved slightly and then shot him 2 times in the right side of the head. The killer then fully reloaded and went upstairs again with either 10 or 11 rounds in the gun. If 11 then at this point the killer shot June between the eyes to make sure she was really dead then used 8 shots on the boys and the last 2 on Sheila. The gun was then empty again.
So the gun was partially reloaded to kill Nevill in the kitchen then fully reloaded with 10 rounds combined used on Sheila and the boys. in all likelihood the boys were killed first then Sheila bu if Sheila had woken up and been out of her room then she was killed before the boys. There is no way to know for sure if she woke up herself or not. I doubt she did given her state of being overly tired because of she was being given too much Haldol and wasn't taking a countering agent.
Of everything I've read, this sounds the most likely. Have you considered forwarding this to JB?
-
You're clutching at straws again.
It was a siege situation at 5pm. Just because they had not heard anything doesn't mean they won't treat it as a siege. A raid team entered, if that is not a siege I don't know what is.
It is correct the police logs say 'conversations in the house' and then 'conversations in the house met with no response'. Jeremy tried to claim there were conversations in the house, decades later. Perhaps he didn't notice it on the night.
He was not with the officers who were trying apparently for two hours to get a response so he would not have known . Its not his fault that the officers can not make entries correctly. Its quite clear to the rest of us what "in conversation with" means . Its is as clear as day - but apparently that was just another mistake that we have to let them off for.
-
No but he did say Sheila was a 'nutter', 'do lally', a 'looney' 'psychotic depressive' and 'should be locked up'.
He also said Neville had rang him, and that Sheila knew how to use the guns.
He did not urge the police to enter WHF or tell them about the loose windows. Bews and Miller etc were never going to charge in.
I have asked you several times and told you why you should not keep repeating that. It is not necessary and I have explained why I think that was entered for effect in the later statements. He used the correct medical terms according to the few notebooks we have seen.
-
He didn't ring the local police. He rang the forth furthest away police station. He was trying to delay things.
so why not just wait 15 minutes at his house then ring 999 ? Your argument makes no sense
-
Agreed!
Oh yes that would work . Even though apparently family members are always the first suspects?
-
Do you think Neville was downstairs and heard shots upstairs ?
Then ran upstairs in just his PJ's. Getting shot twice from close range, then twice from a few feet. Before running straight back downstairs.
If he ran upstairs and got within inches of Sheila holding the rifle, there would have been an upstairs confrontation.
Adam - I could say whatever I want and you cant prove or disprove it - hence my post to you the other day about the scenario of the order of shots - anyway Skippy has given it to you on a plate - apparently Jeremy carefully planned the order so the inheritance would be clear . shame the police and courts could not unravel the clear order of deaths that he had lain for them.
-
i think if she was really incapable of of using a gun her husband would of piped up and said somthing i mean its not the hardist weapon in the word to use and it doesnt exactly take brillant marksmanship to shoot somone times from close range.
-
so why not just wait 15 minutes at his house then ring 999 ? Your argument makes no sense
Excellent suggestion Jan, he could have waited an hour,all he had to do was change the time of the phone call from nevill, he had total co troll of the situation if he invented the phone call.
-
i think if she was really incapable of of using a gun her husband would of piped up and said somthing i mean its not the hardist weapon in the word to use and it doesnt exactly take brillant marksmanship to shoot somone times from close range.
nugnug Colin said in his book Sheila knew nothing about guns although it would appear anyone could fire a 2.2 rifle.
-
He was not with the officers who were trying apparently for two hours to get a response so he would not have known . Its not his fault that the officers can not make entries correctly. Its quite clear to the rest of us what "in conversation with" means . Its is as clear as day - but apparently that was just another mistake that we have to let them off for.
Do you think there were conversations with Sheila. The police with load speakers. Sheila shouting from the window.
Jeremy not aware and the police not telling him. Even though he could be used in talking Sheila down.
-
thats not what he said at the time at the time he dident qustion that she had done it.
-
Adam - I could say whatever I want and you cant prove or disprove it - hence my post to you the other day about the scenario of the order of shots - anyway Skippy has given it to you on a plate - apparently Jeremy carefully planned the order so the inheritance would be clear . shame the police and courts could not unravel the clear order of deaths that he had lain for them.
The pathologist at court said it was impossible to tell what time anyone died.
Jeremy would have looked at safety first. By taking out Neville and June first.
-
Excellent suggestion Jan, he could have waited an hour,all he had to do was change the time of the phone call from nevill, he had total co troll of the situation if he invented the phone call.
Morning Maggie/Jan what a good suggestion Jeremy could have delayed the phone call from his Dad had he wanted, I think, bit confused now Scipio will explain why that was not possible ;D
-
so why not just wait 15 minutes at his house then ring 999 ? Your argument makes no sense
He probably did wait 15 minutes or more. To clean up and put on several layers of new clothes.
Then he rang the 4th furthest away police station. To delay things a bit more.
-
Excellent suggestion Jan, he could have waited an hour,all he had to do was change the time of the phone call from nevill, he had total co troll of the situation if he invented the phone call.
well he had all night to phone the police if he was the killer
-
thats not what he said at the time at the time he dident qustion that she had done it.
nugnug I know that he also said Jeremy was like a brother to him so was he convinced by others I have often wondered about this and it would make it so much easier for him to live with it knowing Sheila had not killed his boys. We will never get the answer to this.
-
I have asked you several times and told you why you should not keep repeating that. It is not necessary and I have explained why I think that was entered for effect in the later statements. He used the correct medical terms according to the few notebooks we have seen.
I am afraid that is what witness statements state Jeremy said.
There is no possibility of it not being mentioned just because you don't like it.
-
nugnug I know that he also said Jeremy was like a brother to him so was he convinced by others I have often wondered about this and it would make it so much easier for him to live with it knowing Sheila had not killed his boys. We will never get the answer to this.
its very rare for the vicems familys to qustion the guilt of the man convicted of the crime im not suprised colin thinks jeremy did it.
-
its very rare for the vicems familys to qustion the guilt of the man convicted of the crime im not suprised colin thinks jeremy did it.
nugnug I totally agree with you.
-
Morning Maggie/Jan what a good suggestion Jeremy could have delayed the phone call from his Dad had he wanted, I think, bit confused now Scipio will explain why that was not possible ;D
Of course he will suse ;D We are all ears!!
-
so why not just wait 15 minutes at his house then ring 999 ? Your argument makes no sense
There's a huge amount of post event dotting of "I"'s and crossing of "T"'s going on. Maybe it has to do with that we are STILL trying to come to terms with this appalling crime. You were addressing a point about time wasting, I think but the answer to your question is probably as broad as it is long -leaving aside that adrenalin would have been flowing so holding still might not have been an option- however long he waited prior to making a 999 call, the response time was likely to have been faster than just going down the circuitous route. I think the object of time wasting was in order to take them far enough the recently killed stage to blur the times of death. He didn't know that the police wouldn't go in immediately and if they'd found a JUST dead nevill it would have been obvious he hadn't made a phone call.
-
Jeremy himself said he 'didn't think it would make any difference in how quickly the police arrived'.
If that is the case, why not just dial 999 ?
If you asked 100 unbiased people what they would do in that situation, some would say they would go straight over and not ring the police. Some would say they would ring 999. Not one would say they would look in the phone book for the forth furthest away police station.
-
Excellent suggestion Jan, he could have waited an hour,all he had to do was change the time of the phone call from nevill, he had total co troll of the situation if he invented the phone call.
At this stage I think there would have been a need to move things forward. He may even have had pride in what he'd believed he'd achieved and may have wanted to "share" it.
-
There's a huge amount of post event dotting of "I"'s and crossing of "T"'s going on. Maybe it has to do with that we are STILL trying to come to terms with this appalling crime. You were addressing a point about time wasting, I think but the answer to your question is probably as broad as it is long -leaving aside that adrenalin would have been flowing so holding still might not have been an option- however long he waited prior to making a 999 call, the response time was likely to have been faster than just going down the circuitous route. I think the object of time wasting was in order to take them far enough the recently killed stage to blur the times of death. He didn't know that the police wouldn't go in immediately and if they'd found a JUST dead nevill it would have been obvious he hadn't made a phone call.
I am unconvinced by that argument. :-\
-
At this stage I think there would have been a need to move things forward. He may even have had pride in what he'd believed he'd achieved and may have wanted to "share" it.
I agree that is a possibility, but that's all and no more convincing than other reasons recently debated.
-
Jeremy himself said he 'didn't think it would make any difference in how quickly the police arrived'.
If that is the case, why not just dial 999 ?
If you asked 100 unbiased people what they would do in that situation, some would say they would go straight over and not ring the police. Some would say they would ring 999. Not one would say they would look in the phone book for the forth furthest away police station.
well i did offer an explantation if you phone 999 the police take things much more seriously there much more likely to turn up with guns in a hostage sitaun that's not always good.
-
well i did offer an explantation if you phone 999 the police take things much more seriously there much more likely to turn up with guns in a hostage sitaun that's not always good.
Really ? Was Jeremy aware of this ? He is a clever boy. Why has he never said this.
So he wanted the police there. But didn't want a big fuss made.
-
Jeremy himself said he 'didn't think it would make any difference in how quickly the police arrived'.
If that is the case, why not just dial 999 ?
If you asked 100 unbiased people what they would do in that situation, some would say they would go straight over and not ring the police. Some would say they would ring 999. Not one would say they would look in the phone book for the forth furthest away police station.
Caroline created an EXCELLENT poll in which she laid out all the options available to Jeremy and asking what WE would have done under those circumstances. There weren't 100 responses, but other than 4 voters who admitted to not knowing what they'd do!!!! all other voters combined calling 999 with responding to the "Come quickly" request. Sadly the poll was removed.
-
Really ? Was Jeremy aware of this ? He is a clever boy. Why has he never said this.
So he wanted the police there. But didn't want a big fuss made.
if you phone 999 it means its an emergency if you just want a bit of back up its much better to hone the local police station.
i think he intended just go around there but was frightened to go on his own. in wich case the local number would be the number you would phone.
-
I am unconvinced by that argument. :-\
Can you offer a better one.................or even offer one?
-
if you phone 999 it means its an emergency if you just want a bit of back up its much better to hone the local police station.
i think he intended just go around there but was frightened to go on his own. in wich case the local number would be the number you would phone.
Hm! So he gets a silly o' clock call from his panicked father who tells him his sister has gone mad and got hold of a gun, and to please come quickly......................and Jeremy thinks it ISN'T an emergency so the local plod on his push bike -or Ford Anglia if there's one available- will be enough back up?
-
I think in this day and age,a 999 call would be the absolute norm as most areas now have seen a great rise in crime over the last 30 years where police work flat-out as opposed to in the past where an ordinary station number would have summoned them as quickly as an urgent one.
The 3 in the morning then,was a lot,lot different to a 3 in the morning now--------times have changed,vastly. You actually had the bobby on a bike and on foot over 30 years ago.
-
Oh yes that would work . Even though apparently family members are always the first suspects?
A family member was the first suspect, they one Jeremy tried to set up - Sheila.
-
Hm! So he gets a silly o' clock call from his panicked father who tells him his sister has gone mad and got hold of a gun, and to please come quickly......................and Jeremy thinks it ISN'T an emergency so the local plod on his push bike -or Ford Anglia if there's one available- will be enough back up?
yes well if you dont want people geting shot local plod are best people to get around there.
if you consider its a family member with the gun not a stranger and your own dads in there and theres 2 young children in there yoou might want the heavy crashing through the window armed to the teeth.
-
if you phone 999 it means its an emergency if you just want a bit of back up its much better to hone the local police station.
i think he intended just go around there but was frightened to go on his own. in wich case the local number would be the number you would phone.
Yes he was frightened to go on his own. So phoned the forth furthest away police station.
But didn't want them to arrive with rifles. So just told them he had got a call from his father who had said Sheila had gone crazy with a loaded rifle.
-
yes well if you dont want people geting shot local plod are best people to get around there.
if you consider its a family member with the gun not a stranger and your own dads in there and theres 2 young children in there yoou might want the heavy crashing through the window armed to the teeth.
To even consider, after that ALLEGED call, that a local plod would fit the bil is stretching belief too far. Never mind about them crashing through windows armed to the teeth with weapons their jobs and training has equipped them to use, my first priority would have been to make certain that a "mad" woman with a gun didn't use it inappropriately. Glass can be replaced, people can't.
-
Then why didn't June,Neville or even Sheila break a few windows to " scare the attacker away ?"
-
According to a few ( tongue-in-cheek ) tabloids,Neville was found in the hall. Maybe trying to escape via the front door ?
-
I think in this day and age,a 999 call would be the absolute norm as most areas now have seen a great rise in crime over the last 30 years where police work flat-out as opposed to in the past where an ordinary station number would have summoned them as quickly as an urgent one.
The 3 in the morning then,was a lot,lot different to a 3 in the morning now--------times have changed,vastly. You actually had the bobby on a bike and on foot over 30 years ago.
As it was "the absolute norm" 30 years ago and maybe even MORE so then. As you so correctly point out, the only alternative MAY have been a bobby on a bike OR if he was lucky a hairdryer on wheels OR if her was VERY lucky, a Ford Anglia might have been available providing it wasn't too far out of area. I was only at HQ that the big response vehicles were readily available because they were garaged there. An "ordinary" station couldn't be guaranteed to summon any faster than calling 999 purely because they weren't manned 24/7. If the one guy manning it was on rest days there was no one to answer the phone so if a call was non urgent the caller had to phone the next nearest station. Not bu ANY stretch of the imagination can it be said that Jeremy's call to a local station was non urgent.
-
Then why didn't June,Neville or even Sheila break a few windows to " scare the attacker away ?"
WHO would have heard, Lookout -the place is isolated.
-
If Sheila could scare the electric man,then surely she wouldn't have been averse to scaring an "unwelcome guest " during one of her " do's ",being the first one to pick up a weapon in order to shield her children.
I'm sure the " attacker " would have left via the front door,as it wouldn't have made any difference,rather than exiting out of a window which would have been more noticeable if someone had been passing. Now that would have been suspicious ::)
-
To even consider, after that ALLEGED call, that a local plod would fit the bil is stretching belief too far. Never mind about them crashing through windows armed to the teeth with weapons their jobs and training has equipped them to use, my first priority would have been to make certain that a "mad" woman with a gun didn't use it inappropriately. Glass can be replaced, people can't.
its a bit diffrent when the person holding the gun holding the gun is your own sister if a lot of armed police come out there is a good chance they will shoot her and theres a lot more chance that she will be panicked and shoot somebody inside.
-
If Sheila could scare the electric man,then surely she wouldn't have been averse to scaring an "unwelcome guest " during one of her " do's ",being the first one to pick up a weapon in order to shield her children.
I'm sure the " attacker " would have left via the front door,as it wouldn't have made any difference,rather than exiting out of a window which would have been more noticeable if someone had been passing. Now that would have been suspicious ::)
Trying to re write what happened will neither change what happened, UNhappen what happened OR, imo, change who was responsible for it happening.
-
its very rare for the vicems familys to qustion the guilt of the man convicted of the crime im not suprised colin thinks jeremy did it.
That is true. I am sometimes surprised how relatives hold on to an unsafe conviction, even when there is crystal clear new proof.
Guess it must be human nature, because you see it all the time.
-
Then why didn't June,Neville or even Sheila break a few windows to " scare the attacker away ?"
How would breaking windows stop them getting shot ?
June and the twins were shot while asleep.
-
Trying to re write what happened will neither change what happened, UNhappen what happened OR, imo, change who was responsible for it happening.
Mmmmm,works both ways in this debate ?
-
That is true. I am sometimes surprised how relatives hold on to an unsafe conviction, even when there is crystal clear new proof.
Guess it must be human nature, because you see it all the time.
It is a safe conviction. Unbiased Mick Gradwell confirmed this. And so have the appeal judges.
-
WHO would have heard, Lookout -the place is isolated.
Mr Smith walking his dog had heard a gunshot ? So there's nothing like the sound of breaking glass as well as shooting into the air,to arouse those in the cottages not far away. Or even the odd one or two who like a walk in the summer air. Farmers start early in the harvest time if the weather's fine.
-
Hm! So he gets a silly o' clock call from his panicked father who tells him his sister has gone mad and got hold of a gun, and to please come quickly......................and Jeremy thinks it ISN'T an emergency so the local plod on his push bike -or Ford Anglia if there's one available- will be enough back up?
If that phonecall happened, I can imagine it would have been very confusing for Jeremy.
First, he was half asleep, secondly, he must have wondered why his father called him and not the police and deduced that the situation couldn´t be all that serious, still serious enough to call the local cops, thirdly, there had been incidents in the past where Sheila had a breakdown during the night.
I do think he called Julie, because he did not quite know what to do. She didn´t take his call seriously and told him to go back to bed.
-
It is a safe conviction. Unbiased Mick Gradwell confirmed this. And so have the appeal judges.
Nope-----------read about him in the Jersey Abuse Scandal,then tell me what you think of him !!
-
yes well if you dont want people geting shot local plod are best people to get around there.
if you consider its a family member with the gun not a stranger and your own dads in there and theres 2 young children in there yoou might want the heavy crashing through the window armed to the teeth.
So you're saying he knew all of that and called the local 'plod' with all that in mind? Yet when asked why he didn't call 999 he said 'I don't know'. That might have been the time to explain his cunning plan but sadly, he just 'didn't know'.
-
Then why didn't June,Neville or even Sheila break a few windows to " scare the attacker away ?"
Would not Sheila have been screaming down the phone to Jeremy for help ??
-
Would not Sheila have been screaming down the phone to Jeremy for help ??
She ALWAYS stuck up for her brother,even as a child.
-
If that phonecall happened, I can imagine it would have been very confusing for Jeremy.
First, he was half asleep, secondly, he must have wondered why his father called him and not the police and deduced that the situation couldn´t be all that serious, still serious enough to call the local cops, thirdly, there had been incidents in the past where Sheila had a breakdown during the night.
I do think he called Julie, because he did not quite know what to do. She didn´t take his call seriously and told him to go back to bed.
She didn't get the (alleged) call from Nevill so it wasn't up to her to decide what he should do.
-
If Sheila could scare the electric man,then surely she wouldn't have been averse to scaring an "unwelcome guest " during one of her " do's ",being the first one to pick up a weapon in order to shield her children.
I'm sure the " attacker " would have left via the front door,as it wouldn't have made any difference,rather than exiting out of a window which would have been more noticeable if someone had been passing. Now that would have been suspicious ::)
Who would have been passing by the house at WHF at that time? They would literally have been on WHF property. He left by the window so that it would LOOK like an inside job.
-
Do you think there were conversations with Sheila. The police with load speakers. Sheila shouting from the window.
Jeremy not aware and the police not telling him. Even though he could be used in talking Sheila down.
Where did I say that? I said it was agreed the police could not write in plain English.
-
She didn't get the (alleged) call from Nevill so it wasn't up to her to decide what he should do.
Her reaction was strange though, you have to admit that.
-
At this stage I think there would have been a need to move things forward. He may even have had pride in what he'd believed he'd achieved and may have wanted to "share" it.
ahh so that's why he told Julie as well . Boasting . Possible . Fits in with the character that is built up of him. Like I said lets hope she was telling the truth and not helping the police.
-
Mr Smith walking his dog had heard a gunshot ? So there's nothing like the sound of breaking glass as well as shooting into the air,to arouse those in the cottages not far away. Or even the odd one or two who like a walk in the summer air. Farmers start early in the harvest time if the weather's fine.
And did Mr Smith say that the shot he heard definitely came from WHF, bearing in mind that it took some 25 shots to complete the job? In such isolation sound travels. It's very rural. There were likely to have been poachers. A shot being fired signifies nothing.
-
Really ? Was Jeremy aware of this ? He is a clever boy. Why has he never said this.
So he wanted the police there. But didn't want a big fuss made.
Make up your mind - what situation is he trying to create?
A siege with hostages - or the family seated round a table with Sheila just holding a gun?
-
And did Mr Smith say that the shot he heard definitely came from WHF, bearing in mind that it took some 25 shots to complete the job? In such isolation sound travels. It's very rural. There were likely to have been poachers. A shot being fired signifies nothing.
Sound of breaking glass would travel too - you just asked "who would have heard."
-
Does anyone know where the cottages where located on the farm?
-
its a bit diffrent when the person holding the gun holding the gun is your own sister if a lot of armed police come out there is a good chance they will shoot her and theres a lot more chance that she will be panicked and shoot somebody inside.
Jeremy's ONLY responsibility was to get the police there ASAP because Sheila was allegedly posing a threat to the family. What trained professionals thought was appropriate action was nothing to do with Jeremy.
-
A family member was the first suspect, they one Jeremy tried to set up - Sheila.
but apparently it is an obviously staged scene and they would according to skippy be able to tell immediately from her hands and nightdress that she had never fired the gun at all - not on the family and not on herself. These were officers of many years experience - Why did they not spot that ?
-
Does anyone know where the cottages where located on the farm?
I thought they were in the lane leading from the main road Patti but I could be wrong. :-\
-
Would not Sheila have been screaming down the phone to Jeremy for help ??
That would have been rather silly. She wouldn't have got any reply as Jeremy was already there.
-
If that phonecall happened, I can imagine it would have been very confusing for Jeremy.
First, he was half asleep, secondly, he must have wondered why his father called him and not the police and deduced that the situation couldn´t be all that serious, still serious enough to call the local cops, thirdly, there had been incidents in the past where Sheila had a breakdown during the night.
I do think he called Julie, because he did not quite know what to do. She didn´t take his call seriously and told him to go back to bed.
According to Julie, all he said was that something was wrong at the farm but not to worry as all was going well which hardly sounds like a worried man who'd made a silly o' clock call to seek advice.........in fact what it sounds like is someone who is feeling rather pleased with themself.
-
According to Julie, all he said was that something was wrong at the farm but not to worry as all was going well which hardly sounds like a worried man who'd made a silly o' clock call to seek advice.........in fact what it sounds like is someone who is feeling rather pleased with themself.
The account of that phonecall cannot be verbatim, since it does not make sense.
-
I thought they were in the lane leading from the main road Patti but I could be wrong. :-\
Hartley might know lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That would have been rather silly. She wouldn't have got any reply as Jeremy was already there.
Do you KNOW that ?
-
According to Julie, all he said was that something was wrong at the farm but not to worry as all was going well which hardly sounds like a worried man who'd made a silly o' clock call to seek advice.........in fact what it sounds like is someone who is feeling rather pleased with themself.
Did you listen in at the call as well ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sound of breaking glass would travel too - you just asked "who would have heard."
But who would know where it came from? WHF stands in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by open fields, I'd guess 2-3 miles from the village either side of it.
-
It was said a shotgun shot was heard I believe - and that sounds very different to a rifle .
Personally I still think there could have been poachers around - nothing to do with the murders - it would explain the lamps that were allegedly found in the fields.
Pity they were not found though because they could have been the witnesses to JB cycling away from the house. ( note I did not add a sarcastic post script to this )
-
AH, but you may be reckoning without a mind set which is superior to your average everyday pleb -that's anyone who isn't him- and has planned this so carefully that he won't be suspected and has fed the girlfriend enough BS that if she SHOULD go to the police the story will be so ridiculous they won't believe her.
Agreed!
Oh yes that would work . Even though apparently family members are always the first suspects?
Why wouldn't it... He said himself he 'should have been an actor...'
-
I thought they were in the lane leading from the main road Patti but I could be wrong. :-\
I wonder if these are the cottages Maggie???
Someone who lived close did make teas for the police so they must have lived close to the farm.
-
Did you listen in at the call as well ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Did Jeremy refute what she'd said? Lookout, in order for him to be innocent one has to attach the status of LIAR to each and EVERY person who had a hand in his conviction, each of whom will have needed to have had a different agenda which is part of what doesn't add up.
-
So you're saying he knew all of that and called the local 'plod' with all that in mind? Yet when asked why he didn't call 999 he said 'I don't know'. That might have been the time to explain his cunning plan but sadly, he just 'didn't know'.
if he intended to go over there like hes dad told him to but was a bit frightend and just wanted a bit of back up local lod were the best people to call.
-
But who would know where it came from? WHF stands in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by open fields, I'd guess 2-3 miles from the village either side of it.
If you are threatened on your life, if you had a chance, you would do anything to attract help and not think about the distance to the closest neighbours. IMO
-
But who would know where it came from? WHF stands in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by open fields, I'd guess 2-3 miles from the village either side of it.
I think there are cottages close by. Did not one of them make a statement to say they heard Jeremy's car go down the lane that night on the 6th...and someone heard a shot????
-
Why wouldn't it... He said himself he 'should have been an actor...'
did he - or was that just "hearsay" ?
depends on who you believe I suppose.
-
Sound of breaking glass would travel too - you just asked "who would have heard."
We had this argument in another case I'm familiar with. According to around a dozen neighbours they heard noises at around 2am. The murder occurred sometime after. 5.30am - not one statement/witness heard the sound of breaking glass.
-
did he - or was that just "hearsay" ?
depends on who you believe I suppose.
Yes, everyone else - or just Jeremy?
-
The account of that phonecall cannot be verbatim, since it does not make sense.
OK If we say that THAT and every other piece of evidence given against him is a lie and such can be proved, whilst it MIGHT set him free, it won't make him innocent. What would be preferable? To let him out on a technicality but still having the guilty verdict hanging over him or leaving well enough alone?
-
Did Jeremy refute what she'd said? Lookout, in order for him to be innocent one has to attach the status of LIAR to each and EVERY person who had a hand in his conviction, each of whom will have needed to have had a different agenda which is part of what doesn't add up.
I agree with you in one respect - however some of the people she testified certainly changed their stories . And that does not add up either.
I have said before its obvious from Day one the family thought he was guilty and were not going to give up - and if he is ( I know in the eyes of the law he is) Then they are to be congratulated for their tenacity in the light of the actions of the police who were apparently totally inept. But if their belief was based on an error of judgement and the "truth" was embellished to get a conviction - then obviously the outcome is a mistake.
I don't know them well enough to judge .
-
OK If we say that THAT and every other piece of evidence given against him is a lie and such can be proved, whilst it MIGHT set him free, it won't make him innocent. What would be preferable? To let him out on a technicality but still having the guilty verdict hanging over him or leaving well enough alone?
Especially that snippet of Julie´s account does not make the least bit sense. Some words are missing, I am almost a 100% sure of that.
-
Make up your mind - what situation is he trying to create?
A siege with hostages - or the family seated round a table with Sheila just holding a gun?
My mind was made up. But Nugs has got me all confused.
Saying Jeremy phoned the forth furthest away police station, rather than 999 because he wanted a certain type of police reaction. Although Jeremy has never said this.
-
Yes, everyone else - or just Jeremy?
Well people should not lie to the police in their statements - ever - then we would not be in this position would we?
-
If you are threatened on your life, if you had a chance, you would do anything to attract help and not think about the distance to the closest neighbours. IMO
Why do you not apply that logic to Jeremy when he idled away time looking for local police numbers instead of calling 999. They were family, not just neighbours.
-
I agree with you in one respect - however some of the people she testified certainly changed their stories . And that does not add up either.
I have said before its obvious from Day one the family thought he was guilty and were not going to give up - and if he is ( I know in the eyes of the law he is) Then they are to be congratulated for their tenacity in the light of the actions of the police who were apparently totally inept. But if their belief was based on an error of judgement and the "truth" was embellished to get a conviction - then obviously the outcome is a mistake.
I don't know them well enough to judge .
The police were not inept. They had to go along with Jeremy's version until the evidence had been processed.
-
Who would have been passing by the house at WHF at that time? They would literally have been on WHF property. He left by the window so that it would LOOK like an inside job.
The guy who was walking his dog heard a shot,which must have been well after Neville had been out with his dogs,as he'd normally leave the farmhouse between 10 and 10.30 pm.
I wouldn't " buy " leaving by the window if I thought he was guilty.There'd be neither the point,nor the sense in doing that,and besides,you've just said yourself that nobody would have been around,so why not leave by the front door to save squeezing through a window which would trap any fibres and leave all kinds of evidence ? As it happened,there was no proof that anyone got through any window.
-
We had this argument in another case I'm familiar with. According to around a dozen neighbours they heard noises at around 2am. The murder occurred sometime after. 5.30am - not one statement/witness heard the sound of breaking glass.
What breaking glass would they hear ? No windows were broken.
-
We had this argument in another case I'm familiar with. According to around a dozen neighbours they heard noises at around 2am. The murder occurred sometime after. 5.30am - not one statement/witness heard the sound of breaking glass.
What breaking glass would they hear ? No windows were broken.
-
I agree with you in one respect - however some of the people she testified certainly changed their stories . And that does not add up either.
I have said before its obvious from Day one the family thought he was guilty and were not going to give up - and if he is ( I know in the eyes of the law he is) Then they are to be congratulated for their tenacity in the light of the actions of the police who were apparently totally inept. But if their belief was based on an error of judgement and the "truth" was embellished to get a conviction - then obviously the outcome is a mistake.
I don't know them well enough to judge .
My feelings about the family's relationship with him are well documented. I haven't changed my mind about that. MUCH as I'd love to believe RWB would have single handedly got him convicted -such I believe was his loathing of him- I DO think that they were genuine in their belief that he was guilty. All of which could be more emotional than logical.
-
Why do you not apply that logic to Jeremy when he idled away time looking for local police numbers instead of calling 999. They were family, not just neighbours.
If he is innocent, and I do say if, the seriousness of the situation clearly hadn´t sunk in.
-
Well people should not lie to the police in their statements - ever - then we would not be in this position would we?
It happens... I have witness statements where many prosecution witnesses have lied.
-
Especially that snippet of Julie´s account does not make the least bit sense. Some words are missing, I am almost a 100% sure of that.
Oh I agree. I think she was probably waiting for that call -if not exactly then but at some time- and I think she was far more implicated than she was prepared to let on so naturally she'd have left out the parts which would have made it obvious..................but omitting some of the truth doesn't make Jeremy innocent.
-
Well people should not lie to the police in their statements - ever - then we would not be in this position would we?
Annoying and frustrating isn't it, but it changes nothing :)
-
Oh I agree. I think she was probably waiting for that call -if not exactly then but at some time- and I think she was far more implicated than she was prepared to let on so naturally she'd have left out the parts which would have made it obvious..................but omitting some of the truth doesn't make Jeremy innocent.
I don't believe she was waiting for the call. Someone else answered the phone.
-
Annoying and frustrating isn't it, but it changes nothing :)
Not now - we are where we are but it did at the time .It nearly let a murderer escape. ( in the eyes of the law)
so I would say it is criminal rather than frustrating.
-
Did Jeremy refute what she'd said? Lookout, in order for him to be innocent one has to attach the status of LIAR to each and EVERY person who had a hand in his conviction, each of whom will have needed to have had a different agenda which is part of what doesn't add up.
Good point April!
-
I don't believe she was waiting for the call. Someone else answered the phone.
All that means is someone else's room was nearer to it and they got there first. If you'd bothered to read the post properly I DID say that she wasn't necessarily expecting it THEN as in at that hour, on that day.
-
It happens... I have witness statements where many prosecution witnesses have lied.
so that means there is the possibility in this case that people still lied in court then.
even if they believed he was guilty - is that right?
-
so that means there is the possibility in this case that people still lied in court then.
even if they believed he was guilty - is that right?
Proof please.
Or is Jeremy's next CCRC submission going to be 'I believe people lied in court. But I have no proof'.
-
so that means there is the possibility in this case that people still lied in court then.
even if they believed he was guilty - is that right?
BECAUSE they believed he was guilty? Bit of an irony, isn't it :)
-
Proof please.
Or is Jeremy's next CCRC submission going to be 'I believe people lied in court. But I have no proof'.
Be interesting to see how one would go about proving "a possibility"
-
My feelings about the family's relationship with him are well documented. I haven't changed my mind about that. MUCH as I'd love to believe RWB would have single handedly got him convicted -such I believe was his loathing of him- I DO think that they were genuine in their belief that he was guilty. All of which could be more emotional than logical.
Human nature dictates that if you hate a person so much for whatever reason ( just because he'd been adopted,even ),you'd be only too glad to see the back of that person whatever lengths you felt you could go to,and by doing so,you'd have NO conscience whatsoever.
Because RWB was recognised in certain circles,what he said went a long way. Jeremy was the thorn in the side of all the relatives,in fact,the Bambers themselves were,hence the aggression shown towards Neville by one of his own relatives. It's little wonder that the family kept to themselves,as sadly this happens in a lot of families where business is concerned and relatives are part of that business.
This case had already been solved after Jeremy's first arrest because EP could find nothing involving him to the murders,zilch., In the near 12 months before he was rearrested,the relatives were kicking up a stink that a " non-blood " was going to benefit and oversee the businesses which were involved.
RWB had already written to EP to tell of their dismay in which the case was handled and ALL were pretty upset that they,the relatives,weren't given the consideration that they expected.
However,it was an entirely different letter that reached EP after Jeremy's second and final arrest,full of bowing and scraping,etc etc.
Why did EP wait so long in rearresting Jeremy and what did they " find " in 12 months that they weren't able to find initially,to connect him to the murders ?
-
Proof please.
Or is Jeremy's next CCRC submission going to be 'I believe people lied in court. But I have no proof'.
Adam - Julie definitely lied in either her original statement or in court . There is proof of that.
Barbara Wilson also changed her statements .
The family said there were many family arguments - June Bouttell said the family got on really well and she had never witnessed an argument.
If you examine the evidence of how the silencer was found , where it was stored , and who reported it and handed it to the police - there are discrepancies.
And I think there is no point in anticipating the next submission - we will just have to wait and see.
-
If he is innocent, and I do say if, the seriousness of the situation clearly hadn´t sunk in.
Nevill, in the alleged call, couldn't have made it MORE clear how serious he believed the situation to be. Even Jeremy admitted that he'd sounded panicked.
-
BECAUSE they believed he was guilty? Bit of an irony, isn't it :)
That is why I said I had changed my opinion about some things - and yes I do think that sometimes they Embellished the truth in order to get JB - but I think now it was purely because they did feel he was guilty and probably hated him as well.
I am not sure they did it through greed - and it seems that they mucked up with the lucrative business they got left anyway ( the farming business) .
But that does not mean they were right in their beliefs .
-
Nevill, in the alleged call, couldn't have made it MORE clear how serious he believed the situation to be. Even Jeremy admitted that he'd sounded panicked.
Sometimes things take time to sink in, and it differs from person to person.
-
Adam - Julie definitely lied in either her original statement or in court . There is proof of that.
Barbara Wilson also changed her statements .
The family said there were many family arguments - June Bouttell said the family got on really well and she had never witnessed an argument.
If you examine the evidence of how the silencer was found , where it was stored , and who reported it and handed it to the police - there are discrepancies.
And I think there is no point in anticipating the next submission - we will just have to wait and see.
Who lied in court ? Proof please.
-
Nevill, in the alleged call, couldn't have made it MORE clear how serious he believed the situation to be. Even Jeremy admitted that he'd sounded panicked.
As the time and conversation went on and things began to sink in he did - he did not say that in the beginning ( according to the police)
-
My mind was made up. But Nugs has got me all confused.
Saying Jeremy phoned the forth furthest away police station, rather than 999 because he wanted a certain type of police reaction. Although Jeremy has never said this.
im saying if just wanted want some protection or support theres no reason to phone 999.
if you just want to make sure everything is all right i mean by the time they got she might of put the gun down.
-
im saying if just wanted want some protection or support theres no reason to phone 999.
if you just want to make sure everything is all right i mean by the time they got she might of put the gun down.
What protection do you imagine he thought would be afforded him by a plod on a bike or a pop pop? The first thing he'd have done was call for back up. OH!!! I SEE, it would have wasted MORE time, wouldn't it?
-
Who lied in court ? Proof please.
There will be proof----------------eventually. ( fingers crossed on that score )
-
What protection do you imagine he thought would be afforded him by a plod on a bike or a pop pop? The first thing he'd have done was call for back up. OH!!! I SEE, it would have wasted MORE time, wouldn't it?
for all he knew things might of calmed down by the time he got there.
if your going into a dangrous sitaun haveing sone else there with you is much better than going alone.
-
for all he knew things might of calmed down by the time he got there.
if your going into a dangrous sitaun haveing sone else there with you is much better than going alone.
But it wasn't his call to make, Nugs, and why would he chose to go into a dangerous situation and be accompanied ONLY by one unarmed guy, possibly on a pop pop? Which ever way one chooses to see it, Jeremy wasted time.
-
Who lied in court ? Proof please.
who did not lie - proof please.
-
who did not lie - proof please.
I'd call that an ace :D
-
who did not lie - proof please.
No one lied. There is no proof anyone did.
Apart from Jeremy. Of which there was a lot of proof. Both forensic and circumstantial.
Supporters are getting more desperate, claiming witnesses lied in court. Of which there is no proof.
-
basic logic says when somone changes a statement they cant be telling the truth in both statments.
-
I suppose claiming witnesses lied in court is better than saying Sheila mistook the silencer for a tampon.
-
basic logic says when somone changes a statement they cant be telling the truth in both statments.
15 love
oops sounds like I was being over friendly
-
I suppose claiming witnesses lied in court is better than saying Sheila mistook the silencer for a tampon.
Don't attribute that to a group of people rather than an individual - its not clever.
-
Don't attribute that to a group of people rather than an individual - its not clever.
No, not clever at all. I have never even felt like commenting on that claim because it is too far out for me to even contemplate.
-
No one lied. There is no proof anyone did.
Apart from Jeremy. Of which there was a lot of proof. Both forensic and circumstantial.
Supporters are getting more desperate, claiming witnesses lied in court. Of which there is no proof.
we will have to wait and see wont we .
-
I wonder if these are the cottages Maggie???
Someone who lived close did make teas for the police so they must have lived close to the farm.
Yes they are.
The Foakes.
-
Yes they are.
The Foakes.
Thank you Hartley. ;)
-
Is there any statements from the Foakes anywhere on the forum?
-
Is there any statements from the Foakes anywhere on the forum?
No, or at least I don't think so.
Wasn't there a Howie who lived in the other cottage? :-\
-
No, or at least I don't think so.
Wasn't there a Howie who lived in the other cottage? :-\
Just looked in the phone book and there was a Howie living at Wicks Manor.....1984?
-
Is there any statements from the Foakes anywhere on the forum?
I remember an ex member hearing that one of the Foakes' family had reason to believe JB could not have done it, unfortunately he didn't tell anyone why he was so certain and he's now deceased.
-
I remember an ex member hearing that one of the Foakes' family had reason to believe JB could not have done it, unfortunately he didn't tell anyone why he was so certain and he's now deceased.
Maggie I remember that now wonder what it was maybe he saw something but he kept it tom himself.
-
I remember an ex member hearing that one of the Foakes' family had reason to believe JB could not have done it, unfortunately he didn't tell anyone why he was so certain and he's now deceased.
I remember some talk about it Maggie. I'm sure I have read a document somewhere. Could be our Campion? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I remember an ex member hearing that one of the Foakes' family had reason to believe JB could not have done it, unfortunately he didn't tell anyone why he was so certain and he's now deceased.
I remember some talk about it Maggie. I'm sure I have read a document somewhere. Could be our Campion? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I remember some talk about it Maggie. I'm sure I have read a document somewhere. Could be our Campion? ;D ;D ;D ;D
No it wasn't campion who told us it was someone else who now resides on red.
-
No it wasn't campion who told us it was someone else who now resides on red.
Maybe you are thinking of the Howie's?
Have a look at pages 30-31 of RWB COLP statement.
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,513.msg8782.html#msg8782 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,513.msg8782.html#msg8782)
-
Yes they are.
The Foakes.
There is a thread on why Neville or Jeremy didn't call the Foakes's.
Very surprising that Neville choose not to. They had worked at WHF for decades.
Jeremy said 'it didn't occur to him'.
-
I remember an ex member hearing that one of the Foakes' family had reason to believe JB could not have done it, unfortunately he didn't tell anyone why he was so certain and he's now deceased.
Ex member.
Hearing.
Reason to believe.
Didn't tell anyone why.
Now deceased.
I think Scipio will now change stance.
-
Ex member.
Hearing.
Reason to believe.
Didn't tell anyone why.
Now deceased.
I think Scipio will now change stance.
Sounds convincing doesn't it? ;D
-
Ex member.
Hearing.
Reason to believe.
Didn't tell anyone why.
Now deceased.
I think Scipio will now change stance.
It wasn't meant to be proof of anything, I was just referring to the Foakes family. :P
-
It wasn't meant to be proof of anything, I was just referring to the Foakes family. :P
Maggie you are right was not aware we said this was proof of anything we casually mentioned a conversation held on this forum and repeated what was said. no more no less nothing sinister or strange no need to panic folks Scipio understands us this is why he did not comment.
-
Maggie you are right was not aware we said this was proof of anything we casually mentioned a conversation held on this forum and repeated what was said. no more no less nothing sinister or strange no need to panic folks Scipio understands us this is why he did not comment.
Why do you think Neville or Jeremy didn't call the Foakes's ? They were literally about 100 yards away.
-
Why do you think Neville or Jeremy didn't call the Foakes's ? They were literally about 100 yards away.
I don't know Adam, I'm sure you have the answer. I would hazard a guess that in most circumstances it would not be in Nevill's psychie to phone his farm labourer about personal stuff.
If there was a phone call to Jeremy, Neville did not say anyone had been shot, he said he needed help with Sheila, that was not the Foakse's business, it was family business.
-
Why do you think Neville or Jeremy didn't call the Foakes's ? They were literally about 100 yards away.
Adam think you may know my answer to that question IMO no phone call from Ralph to Jeremy.
-
They had been working for the Bambers for 36 years.
Dorothy testified that Jeremy said 'he didn't get on with his Sheila. And that he 'would not share his money with Sheila'. If anything happened to the family Jeremy would 'sell the whole lot and pack up'.
Leonard testified that he saw Sheila and the twins the day before the shootings. He said 'she looked happy enough to me'.
What is also interesting is that is that they both lived in a tied cottage at WHF. Surely the best people for Neville to ring when Sheila went 'crazy'.
They were already there. They knew Neville & Sheila & there were two of them. They probably had a key and unlike Jeremy, Neville trusted them, otherwise they would not be working for him. For 36 years.
Forget about keeping it in the family. Sheila had 'gone crazy & had got the gun'. Anyway, working for a family business for 36 years and you are practically family.
Both Neville and Jeremy rang the police so were not interested in keeping things private.
But Neville made a mysterious call to Jeremy. Who said himself he 'did not get on' with Sheila.
And why didn't Jeremy call the Folkes's, instead of Julie and a police station miles away ? Jeremy said it did not occur to him.
-
They had been working for the Bambers for 36 years.
Dorothy testified that Jeremy said 'he didn't get on with his Sheila. And that he 'would not share his money with Sheila'. If anything happened to the family Jeremy would 'sell the whole lot and pack up'.
Leonard testified that he saw Sheila and the twins the day before the shootings. He said 'she looked happy enough to me'.
What is also interesting is that is that they both lived in a tied cottage at WHF. Surely the best people for Neville to ring when Sheila went 'crazy'.
They were already there. They knew Neville & Sheila & there were two of them. They probably had a key and unlike Jeremy, Neville trusted them, otherwise they would not be working for him. For 36 years.
Forget about keeping it in the family. Sheila had 'gone crazy & had got the gun'. Anyway, working for a family business for 36 years and you are practically family.
Both Neville and Jeremy rang the police so were not interested in keeping things private.
But Neville made a mysterious call to Jeremy. Who said himself he 'did not get on' with Sheila.
And why didn't Jeremy call the Folkes's, instead of Julie and a police station miles away ? Jeremy said it did not occur to him.
Hi Adam
Where are you getting your info from on the Foakes? Have you seen a statement somewhere? ;D
I don't think Nevill or Jeremy would have phoned the Foakes at the spur of the moment.
I'm trying to think who Jeremy replaced on the farm. Someone was given notice to quit I think, but cannot remember who it was. :-[
-
Hi Adam
Where are you getting your info from on the Foakes? Have you seen a statement somewhere? ;D
I don't think Nevill or Jeremy would have phoned the Foakes at the spur of the moment.
I'm trying to think who Jeremy replaced on the farm. Someone was given notice to quit I think, but cannot remember who it was. :-[
Hello Patti
I have made my feelings clear on the forum with regard to the phone calls but we shall say for the sake of debate Ralph needed help with Sheila he would not have phoned one of his farm workers it would be kept in the family and Jeremy would be the one to call.
-
Hello Patti
I have made my feelings clear on the forum with regard to the phone calls but we shall say for the sake of debate Ralph needed help with Sheila he would not have phoned one of his farm workers it would be kept in the family and Jeremy would be the one to call.
Hi Susan ;D
Agreed Susan. We can throw many things on the table looking back in hindsight, but I feel sure his first reaction would be to call his son... ;D
-
Hi Adam
Where are you getting your info from on the Foakes? Have you seen a statement somewhere? ;D
I don't think Nevill or Jeremy would have phoned the Foakes at the spur of the moment.
I'm trying to think who Jeremy replaced on the farm. Someone was given notice to quit I think, but cannot remember who it was. :-[
All in Wilkes's book.
-
Hi Susan ;D
Agreed Susan. We can throw many things on the table looking back in hindsight, but I feel sure his first reaction would be to call his son... ;D
There are 40 reasons not to.
June was nearer than Jeremy.
-
There are 40 reasons not to.
June was nearer than Jeremy.
Adam was one of the neighbours called June too.
-
Patti will confirm this or otherwise when I get to it in the book I am now on page 8 ;D ;D ;D ;D why do I bother with books I ask myself like some who don't exercise but buy running shoes ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
All in Wilkes's book.
Arrr I shall have to dig his book out.... ;D
-
Patti will confirm this or otherwise when I get to it in the book I am now on page 8 ;D ;D ;D ;D why do I bother with books I ask myself like some who don't exercise but buy running shoes ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hahahahah look in the index Susan for Foakes. ;)
-
Adam was one of the neighbours called June too.
June was Neville's wife. She slept through it all.
-
June was Neville's wife. She slept through it all.
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ??? ??? ???
-
Hahahahah look in the index Susan for Foakes. ;)
Patti looked in the index and found it alas Adam is right again :'(
-
They had been working for the Bambers for 36 years.
Dorothy testified that Jeremy said 'he didn't get on with his Sheila. And that he 'would not share his money with Sheila'. If anything happened to the family Jeremy would 'sell the whole lot and pack up'.
Leonard testified that he saw Sheila and the twins the day before the shootings. He said 'she looked happy enough to me'.
What is also interesting is that is that they both lived in a tied cottage at WHF. Surely the best people for Neville to ring when Sheila went 'crazy'.
They were already there. They knew Neville & Sheila & there were two of them. They probably had a key and unlike Jeremy, Neville trusted them, otherwise they would not be working for him. For 36 years.
Forget about keeping it in the family. Sheila had 'gone crazy & had got the gun'. Anyway, working for a family business for 36 years and you are practically family.
Both Neville and Jeremy rang the police so were not interested in keeping things private.
But Neville made a mysterious call to Jeremy. Who said himself he 'did not get on' with Sheila.
And why didn't Jeremy call the Folkes's, instead of Julie and a police station miles away ? Jeremy said it did not occur to him.
I am not disputing what Dorothy or Leonard testified, it was another Foakes who apparently didn't believe in Jeremy's guilt and when I have time I may be able to find the posts, it was an interesting thread anyway..
Adam, it was just a comment not in any way more than that,
-
Patti looked in the index and found it alas Adam is right again :'(
Good on ya! ;D Did it say anymore? :-\
-
Good on ya! ;D Did it say anymore? :-\
Patti only did a skim it appears another family by the same name lived in Jeremy's cottage before him. I will start taking these books serious now and read them so I can keep an eye on Adam :) Trouble with these books we only get to hear one side of the story as the others involved have sadly died :(
-
Patti only did a skim it appears another family by the same name lived in Jeremy's cottage before him. I will start taking these books serious now and read them so I can keep an eye on Adam :) Trouble with these books we only get to hear one side of the story as the others involved have sadly died :(
Wilkes book is the best book so far imo. Looking forward to PH's book and i do believe there is another one coming out...It would be good to compare all of them...There is a brilliant book thread somewhere on the forum.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Patti only did a skim it appears another family by the same name lived in Jeremy's cottage before him. I will start taking these books serious now and read them so I can keep an eye on Adam :) Trouble with these books we only get to hear one side of the story as the others involved have sadly died :(
You don't need to keep an eye on me. Everything I say can be backed up with a 'source available upon request'. Jan asked for ten sources once. I provided 17.
-
Patti only did a skim it appears another family by the same name lived in Jeremy's cottage before him. I will start taking these books serious now and read them so I can keep an eye on Adam :) Trouble with these books we only get to hear one side of the story as the others involved have sadly died :(
Thats interesting Suse, maybe that was the Foakes who said JB couldn't be guilty because ..... He reckoned he had proof I think but as the police didn't ask, he didn't tell. These country old timers are something else, not many left now.
-
Thats interesting Suse, maybe that was the Foakes who said JB couldn't be guilty because ..... He reckoned he had proof I think but as the police didn't ask, he didn't tell. These country old timers are something else, not many left now.
Maggie must agree not many of us left ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You don't need to keep an eye on me. Everything I say can be backed up with a 'source available upon request'. Jan asked for ten sources once. I provided 17.
Adam it was meant as a joke I have posted in the past that I have learnt so much from your sources and threads.
-
Wilkes book is the best book so far imo. Looking forward to PH's book and i do believe there is another one coming out...It would be good to compare all of them...There is a brilliant book thread somewhere on the forum.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti I am looking forward to both the books the second one is by Carol Ann Lee another Yorkshire lass ;D hers will be published on the 30th July methinks better get reading and get this one finished. Guess the forum will be buzzing in the summer ;D
-
There are 40 reasons not to.
June was nearer than Jeremy.
Good point Adam!
-
Wilkes book is the best book so far imo. Looking forward to PH's book and i do believe there is another one coming out...It would be good to compare all of them...There is a brilliant book thread somewhere on the forum.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
maybe we would should all write books i mean we spend so much time typing about this we might as well get payed for it.
adams book good be bamber how i solved it 30 years after the conviction.
-
maybe we would should all write books i mean we spend so much time typing about this we might as well get payed for it.
adams book good be bamber how i solved it 30 years after the conviction.
nugnug I agree this is why I cannot get too interested in the books I have because I have read it all on here I am hoping the two new books will throw up something new for us to talk about. Adam could join up all his threads and hey presto a book ;D
-
Who was Dorothy Foakes ? I only remember a Doris,and it was she who'd remarked to the police that Jeremy didn't have the gumption to have killed his family.
-
Who was Dorothy Foakes ? I only remember a Doris,and it was she who'd remarked to the police that Jeremy didn't have the gumption to have killed his family.
But we've seen from people that knew him that he did.
-
But we've seen from people that knew him that he did.
We'll see,eh ?
-
Hello lookout she was the wife of Len who had worked for the Bambers for years. Will go back to the book and see who the others were we have a Julie and a Jill no mention of Doris in Wilkies book.
-
Hello lookout she was the wife of Len who had worked for the Bambers for years. Will go back to the book and see who the others were we have a Julie and a Jill no mention of Doris in Wilkies book.
they were daughters I think of Len they all lived in the tied cottages.
-
they were daughters I think of Len they all lived in the tied cottages.
guess Doris is short for Dorothy where is Adam when I need him ;D
-
Deffo Dorothy.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Deffo Dorothy.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti what is deffo Dorothy is the answer Doris ;D ;D ;D
-
Who was Dorothy Foakes ? I only remember a Doris,and it was she who'd remarked to the police that Jeremy didn't have the gumption to have killed his family.
Hi Lookout, Dorothy or Doris, think you are probably right, I just copied Adam ;D ;D ;D ;D.... always dangerous ;D
-
Yes,never thought it could be another version of Dorothy. Like Peggy is for Margaret.,
-
Yes,never thought it could be another version of Dorothy. Like Peggy is for Margaret.,
hahaha lookout don 't confuse the issue with more names ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Can anyone explain the reason for AE's speed in which she cleaned up at WHF when she " knew " that Jeremy had been suspected by themselves,rather than leave the place as it was because of their " suspicions ". What she did,was to wash/wipe away any " evidence ".Doesn't make sense ?? What was the purpose.?
-
Anyone else,if they'd suspected a certain person would have left well alone,surely. AE had pointed a finger from day one.
I would have understood if Jeremy had gone in tidying-up/cleaning,then I'd have said it was him covering his tracks.?
-
hahaha lookout don 't confuse the issue with more names ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
So I've heard,Susan. ;D ;D ;D ;D It's possible that I was thinking of Doris Stokes. Who's Doris Stokes ? ;D ;D ;D
-
So I've heard,Susan. ;D ;D ;D ;D It's possible that I was thinking of Doris Stokes. Who's Doris Stokes ? ;D ;D ;D
She was a medium I think ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
She was a medium I think ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
lookout shall I go and look in the Wilkies book or on one of Adams threads ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
lookout shall I go and look in the Wilkies book or on one of Adams threads ;D ;D ;D ;D
My threads go by Wilkes book. But also all the online articles, witness statements and Youtube videos.
So better to go by my threads.
-
im thinking of writing a book about you adam becouse you must be the hitman.
-
My threads go by Wilkes book. But also all the online articles, witness statements and Youtube videos.
So better to go by my threads.
Adam I appreciate your threads will have much more information than a mere book.