Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: keepers on May 04, 2015, 06:00:PM
-
a friend of mine who is a retired old bailey judge , told me that the hardest thing to get over to a jury is that you can aquit a guilty man as its up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Despite what side of the fence you stand on jeremy banners guilt was not and has not ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In today's world of advances in DNA techniques only a NOT GUILTY verdict would be returned if this case was to go for re trial. That's fact and no one can say otherwise. I'm extremely open minded in this case and am very knowledgable in it so am open to persuasion if someone can definitely show me where the guilt is proven!!
-
a friend of mine who is a retired old bailey judge , told me that the hardest thing to get over to a jury is that you can aquit a guilty man as its up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Despite what side of the fence you stand on jeremy banners guilt was not and has not ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In today's world of advances in DNA techniques only a NOT GUILTY verdict would be returned if this case was to go for re trial. That's fact and no one can say otherwise. I'm extremely open minded in this case and am very knowledgable in it so am open to persuasion if someone can definitely show me where the guilt is proven!!
How do you think Sheila committed the massacre.
Please include her chambering the rifle and reloading twice.
Also include Neville's one/two phone calls and the brutal kitchen fight.
-
a friend of mine who is a retired old bailey judge , told me that the hardest thing to get over to a jury is that you can aquit a guilty man as its up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Despite what side of the fence you stand on jeremy banners guilt was not and has not ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In today's world of advances in DNA techniques only a NOT GUILTY verdict would be returned if this case was to go for re trial. That's fact and no one can say otherwise. I'm extremely open minded in this case and am very knowledgable in it so am open to persuasion if someone can definitely show me where the guilt is proven!!
In the nicest possible way,you can count me out as regards proving his guilt------------because I can't.
-
Once again adam you need to read what I've said. Not once do I say Sheila did it!!! I said Jeremy's guilt wasn't proven. Sheila for your information wasn't on trial!
-
DNA would prove it was Sheila's blood.
Wasn't it shown it was June's DNA anyway. How an earth did that get inside the silencer.
-
a friend of mine who is a retired old bailey judge , told me that the hardest thing to get over to a jury is that you can aquit a guilty man as its up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Despite what side of the fence you stand on jeremy banners guilt was not and has not ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In today's world of advances in DNA techniques only a NOT GUILTY verdict would be returned if this case was to go for re trial. That's fact and no one can say otherwise. I'm extremely open minded in this case and am very knowledgable in it so am open to persuasion if someone can definitely show me where the guilt is proven!!
His guilt was indeed proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Among other things the prosecution established Jeremy planned to kill his family, that Sheila was murdered, she can't have killed herself, that there is no evidence she killed or beat anyone else and that Nevill would not have called Jeremy so the only way Jeremy would have known about a problem is if he was the one responsible.
-
Once again adam you need to read what I've said. Not once do I say Sheila did it!!! I said Jeremy's guilt wasn't proven. Sheila for your information wasn't on trial!
You had no need. The judge told the jury that it was either Sheila or Jeremy and it would appear pretty conclusive that it wasn't Sheila.
-
DNA would prove it was Sheila's blood.
Wasn't it shown it was June's DNA anyway. How an earth did that get inside the silencer.
June's DNA got inside through contamination, there was nothing to suggest it was blood based.
The blood removed in 1985 and 1986 though was drawback and is among the evidence that proves Sheila didn't kill herself.
-
Once again adam you need to read what I've said. Not once do I say Sheila did it!!! I said Jeremy's guilt wasn't proven. Sheila for your information wasn't on trial!
Once the prosecution show it was impossible for Sheila to commit the crime, matching the crime scene, then Jeremy is guilty. Beyond reasonable doubt.
Just to make sure they could use the evidence to show Sheila did not commit the crime.
-
But feel free to show me how Sheila could commit the crime. Matching the crime scene of course.
-
Adam, that DNA evidence was never proven as far as the blood in the silencer was concerned, it's since been shown that it can't be trusted and could even be rabbits blood. If all this DNA evidence was correct then why does none of these exhibits still exist, they were all discarded. Maybe somebody had the foresight to think that in 30 years time we're all going to be found out
-
You had no need. The judge told the jury that it was either Sheila or Jeremy and it
would appear pretty conclusive that it wasn't Sheila.
Why ?
-
Adam, that DNA evidence was never proven as far as the blood in the silencer was concerned, it's since been shown that it can't be trusted and could even be rabbits blood. If all this DNA evidence was correct then why does none of these exhibits still exist, they were all discarded. Maybe somebody had the foresight to think that in 30 years time we're all going to be found out
Rabbits blood. It was certainly human blood. And almost certainly Sheila's.
People on here have said the silencer has not been discarded but there is nothing left to test. Which is not surprising as Jeremy tested it after the trial, which did him no favours.
-
Adam, you just said ALMOST certainly Sheila's blood. I'm sorry Adam, but almost isn't good enough to send a man to prison for the rest of his life
-
Keepers, show me how Sheila could have committed the massacre.
Jeremy's supporters refuse ( except two). But still support him. Which is creepy.
I have of course already given a detailed step by step account of how Jeremy committed the massacre.
-
Rabbits blood. It was certainly human blood. And almost certainly Sheila's.
People on here have said the silencer has not been discarded but there is nothing left to test. Which is not surprising as Jeremy tested it after the trial, which did him no favours.
Rabbits blood is the nearest to human blood------------read up about it.
-
Adam, you just said ALMOST certainly Sheila's blood. I'm sorry Adam, but almost isn't good enough to send a man to prison for the rest of his life
There is nothing anyone can do about you're stance there.
It's good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA and CCRC.
But there is a lot more incriminating evidence as you know.
-
Adam, I really don't know what part of my argument you don't understand, I've not once said Sheila committed the murders... Now repeat after me...
-
June's DNA got inside through contamination, there was nothing to suggest it was blood based.
The blood removed in 1985 and 1986 though was drawback and is among the evidence that proves Sheila didn't kill herself.
But those that 'discovered' this evidence stood to inherit a two million dollars worth of estate If a conviction was successful. Its not reasonable to have 100% confidence in this.
-
But those that 'discovered' this evidence stood to inherit a two million dollars worth of estate If a conviction was successful. Its not reasonable to have 100% confidence in this.
I am afraid Jeremy needs proof.
It was impossible for the relatives to correctly contaminate the silencer.
-
Adam, I really don't know what part of my argument you don't understand, I've not once said Sheila committed the murders... Now repeat after me...
No, you haven't. I think you may be playing a game of semantics.
-
There is nothing anyone can do about you're stance there.
It's good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA and CCRC.
Stefan Kliskos case was good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA he was innocent in the end
Susan May case was good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA and CCRC. She was proven innocent yet to this day her name has not been cleared.
You seem to have a very utopian view of the legal system
-
Patti and I used to be on a forum years ago discussing the McCann case,and on the forum was a cop who was local to me at the time,who swore that the McCanns were involved with their daughter's disappearance. He was wrong ! This same cop,when I mentioned the Eddie Gilfoyle case,vanished off the forum ! That said more to me than if he'd spoken. He was obviously involved in it at the time before Eddie's release in 2010.
-
Stefan Kliskos case was good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA he was innocent in the end
Susan May case was good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA and CCRC. She was proven innocent yet to this day her name has not been cleared.
You seem to have a very utopian view of the legal system
There is no proof that the evidence is wrong.
Just Jeremy's accusations that the police are corrupt, everyone else lied and the relatives expertly framed him.
Enjoy the next 30 years Jeremy.
-
Adam, I really don't know what part of my argument you don't understand, I've not once said Sheila committed the murders... Now repeat after me...
Do you believe Sheila committed the massacre ?
-
a friend of mine who is a retired old bailey judge , told me that the hardest thing to get over to a jury is that you can aquit a guilty man as its up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Despite what side of the fence you stand on jeremy banners guilt was not and has not ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In today's world of advances in DNA techniques only a NOT GUILTY verdict would be returned if this case was to go for re trial. That's fact and no one can say otherwise. I'm extremely open minded in this case and am very knowledgable in it so am open to persuasion if someone can definitely show me where the guilt is proven!!
Why would anyone want to acquit a 'guilty' man? Lots of cases are brought to court with only circumstantial evidence, this one is not unique. Nor is it the only case to have a majority verdict accepted.
-
A lot of the "evidence" is nothing more than unconfirmed hearsay.
And saying Sheila could not have done it is not necessarily proof that JB did it. How do you know there was not someone else in the house forcing NB to make the call to get JB there?
Again I am not saying that is what happened - but is it impossible?
JB indicated he was not the only person who knew how to get in and out of the house.
I too have seen no proof that JB was the murderer. And yet he is supposed to be stupid enough to have made several mistakes along the way.
-
Do you believe Sheila committed the massacre ?
try another angle.
-
try another angle.
Keepers is claiming she has never said Sheila was responsible.
But is not satisfied that Jeremy is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Although the police, DPP, jury, COA and CCRC are.
Just wondering if she thought Sheila committed the massacre.
-
But those that 'discovered' this evidence stood to inherit a two million dollars worth of estate If a conviction was successful. Its not reasonable to have 100% confidence in this.
On the contrary it is unreasonable to reject the evidence on the basis you do. The family didn't know a thing about drawback, didn't know Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound let alone a contact wound that would result in drawback, didn't know her blood type, didn't have access to her blood and even if they wanted to plant blood for simplistic reasons without appreciating anything about drawback they would not have used something to spray blood inside. Yet the blood inside the moderator was sprayed inside, that is the only way for blood to get on the first 8 baffles. Furthermore, if the family had planted the blood then Sheila's blood would have been found in the muzzle of the rifle and the family had no access to the murder weapon so can't have removed such blood. If they had known her fatal wound was one that would result in drawback and had known all about drawback they would have known her blood was in the rifle so planting blood in the moderator would be useless.
In order to reject the evidence on the basis of the family finding it you need to establish there is a reasonable chance they planted the evidence. There is not a reasonable chance they planted the evidence. The evidence is safe.
The family are part of the chain of custody. The house was in police control until August 9. August 10 the family, Basil Cock etc went to the house and the moderator, bullets and various weapons were found. The family established the chain of custody of all such weapons. They only had the moderator for less than 2 days, keeping it in a closet or chest until turning it over to police on the 12th. From there the chain was in police custody or at the lab depending on the date. This is sufficient for a court to rule it reliable evidence.
To reject it you have to establish a reasonable likelihood of planting the evidence in question but the defense could not do so the defense had zero basis to suggest they planted any evidence.
-
Rabbits blood is the nearest to human blood------------read up about it.
Rabbit blood is quite different from human blood. A defense expert claims the AK1 Rabbit ENZYME is close to the human AK/1 enzyme. The properties of human blood and rabbit blood are not close. rabbit blood will not show up in a test as human blood.
-
Rabbit blood is quite different from human blood. A defense expert claims the AK1 Rabbit ENZYME is close to the human AK/1 enzyme. The properties of human blood and rabbit blood are not close. rabbit blood will not show up in a test as human blood.
I said it was nearest,especially when tested.
Anyway,the way the specimens were dealt with from the crime was abysmal,as unless tested immediately,they deteriorate. This same laxed procedure happened in the Susan May case when a sample known to have been tested had sat on an officers desk for quite a time.
-
A lot of the "evidence" is nothing more than unconfirmed hearsay.
And saying Sheila could not have done it is not necessarily proof that JB did it. How do you know there was not someone else in the house forcing NB to make the call to get JB there?
Again I am not saying that is what happened - but is it impossible?
JB indicated he was not the only person who knew how to get in and out of the house.
I too have seen no proof that JB was the murderer. And yet he is supposed to be stupid enough to have made several mistakes along the way.
You close your eyes to the proof and intentionally mischaracterize it as hearsay. All that means is you refuse to face the truth nothing more.
You never actually address the evidence that convicted him and make claims that are pointless just to obfuscate. For instance, you claim other people knew how to get in the house through the windows. You seem to be suggesting that someone else may have committed the murders and forced Nevill to place a call to Jeremy implicating Sheila. Why would someone do that it makes no sense at all. Even less sense would be Nevill complying.
What you raise doesn't amount to reasonable doubt it amounts to red herrings to deflect from the fact you can't refute any of the evidence that convicted Jeremy. Ignoring it doesn't refute it that just makes your efforts worthless. An advocate has to take the evidence on directly and competently.
I have yet to see anyone here who asserts Jeremy is innocent serious try to attack the evidence in earnest with the exception of Mike and he attacks it with distortions and misrepresentations. He recognizes the evidence that Sheila didn't kill herself is overwhelming so he approaches things by trying to pretend police killed her instead of Jeremy. If he actually had any genuine evidence to prove his claims it would be worth something- the concept is right but the evidence isn't there so he makes up his own. That includes making up the bullets the Anschutz fired were 35 grain in order to pretend some of the bullets were a different caliber and pretending Sheila only had 1 gunshot wound at the time she was seen by Dr Craig and the other was fired later. Because his claims are made up his efforts of trying to attack the evidence fails to accomplish anything. If he actually tried by using real evidence even though deficient that would still be better than the efforts of people who don't try at all. I would give him props for trying at least if not for the deceptions.
He does deserve props for one thing though he actually recognizes what needs to be refuted. He demonstrates that by making up things to try disputing it.
-
I said it was nearest,especially when tested.
Anyway,the way the specimens were dealt with from the crime was abysmal,as unless tested immediately,they deteriorate. This same laxed procedure happened in the Susan May case when a sample known to have been tested had sat on an officers desk for quite a time.
Rabbit blood is not near human blood when tested, the difference is significant there is no way to mistake rabbit blood for human blood. The defense expert posited maybe the following happened:
1) there was rabbit blood inside prior to the murders
2) June's blood splashed on top of flake of dried rabbit blood
3) By some miracle the Rabbit's AK/1 enzyme survived though June's much more hardy AK2-1 enzyme didn't
4) those doing the test failed to appreciate it was a flake of Rabbit blood that had been mixed with human blood and mistook it all for human blood and messed up the enzyme test and mistook the Ak/1 enzyme for a human enzyme because they are close.
This theory is absurd, they would have detected various elements of the rabbit's blood if there had been a flake of rabbit blood. It was not made to the Court because it is absurd and no expert woudl assert such a stupid thing.
-
Adam... Firstly you've assumed I'm female and I'm not. Just like the expert Kerry daines you've made a judgement on somebody you've never met and got it completely wrong, I titled this thread FACTS so let's stick to them... Only one living being knows the truth.. Jeremy.... Fact. You and I can surmise all we want but the fact is neither of us know. I'm just saying on the evidence alone you have to aquit, as there is no evidence...FACT
-
I reckon the tests were impaired anyway. Utterly useless when you have to resort to testing an old dried up flake which disintegrated.
-
Rabbit blood is not near human blood when tested, the difference is significant there is no way to mistake rabbit blood for human blood. The defense expert posited maybe the following happened:
1) there was rabbit blood inside prior to the murders
2) June's blood splashed on top of flake of dried rabbit blood
3) By some miracle the Rabbit's AK/1 enzyme survived though June's much more hardy AK2-1 enzyme didn't
4) those doing the test failed to appreciate it was a flake of Rabbit blood that had been mixed with human blood and mistook it all for human blood and messed up the enzyme test and mistook the Ak/1 enzyme for a human enzyme because they are close.
This theory is absurd, they would have detected various elements of the rabbit's blood if there had been a flake of rabbit blood. It was not made to the Court because it is absurd and no expert woudl assert such a stupid thing.
so what was the animal blood on the outside of the silencer ?
-
Thanks lookout. We're talking 30 years ago, they tested the blood to destructive and to this day no one knows 100% who or what it belonged to
-
Thanks lookout. We're talking 30 years ago, they tested the blood to destructive and to this day no one knows 100% who or what it belonged to
I think that is what make the case so difficult because the silencer is the only bit of physical evidence - and I don't think the jury understood the blood evidence. We have had chances to read the available documents in our own time without pressure and it still is not clear.
-
Adam... Firstly you've assumed I'm female and I'm not. Just like the expert Kerry daines you've made a judgement on somebody you've never met and got it completely wrong, I titled this thread FACTS so let's stick to them... Only one living being knows the truth.. Jeremy.... Fact. You and I can surmise all we want but the fact is neither of us know. I'm just saying on the evidence alone you have to aquit, as there is no evidence...FACT
The evidence proves:
1) that Jeremy was planning to kill his family
2) That Jeremy staged the bullets in the kitchen after the murders.
3) that in advance of the murders Jeremy removed the phone from the master bedroom
4) That Nevill and June were shot in the bedroom together then after the gun was empty the killer and Nevill went to the kitchen and fought
5) That Nevill would not have been able to make any call to Jeremy because the injuries received in the bedroom precluded him from speaking
6) Sheila didn't load a gun, beat Nevill or shoot anyone else
7) Sheila didn't kill herself
8) Jeremy lied about calling police before Julie he called her first. This further undermines his claim he received a call from Nevill because someone in his place who actually had would have instantly called 999 or rushed over not have called Julie.
The combination of evidence means we know Jeremy killed his family there is no doubt. This is not like proven MOJs where little evidence existed or it was established that police lied- the evidence of his guilt is substantial and zero evidence of police fabricating anything.
-
I reckon the tests were impaired anyway. Utterly useless when you have to resort to testing an old dried up flake which disintegrated.
Nope not useless. It was validly tested, even the defense's own blood expert conceded such and that was why he was not called at trial by the defense he would have helped make the prosecution's case.
-
does anyone know if the jury were shown pictures of Sheilas hands and feet or did they just hear the pathology reports ?
-
Thanks lookout. We're talking 30 years ago, they tested the blood to destructive and to this day no one knows 100% who or what it belonged to
Nonsense, we know for sure it was human blood and the blood type.
-
I think that is what make the case so difficult because the silencer is the only bit of physical evidence - and I don't think the jury understood the blood evidence. We have had chances to read the available documents in our own time without pressure and it still is not clear.
It is clear to me and other rational people.
The lab found human blood of group A on at least the first 5-7 baffles. The blood was group A. In addition a flake of blood trapped between baffles 1 and 2 was found to be human Group A blood and enzyme Ak1 which helps establish it was Sheila's blood not June's.
After the lab removed all visible blood, the defense expert tested it and found microscopic traces of group A blood on the first 8 baffles.
Clearly the blood got on the first 8 baffles through drawback that is the only way it could get on 8 successive baffles it was sprayed inside.
June had a different enzyme than Sheila. June's enzyme was more hardy than Sheila's so the fact Ak1 was found means the Ak2-1 enzyme woudl have been present too had June's blood been in there. June didn't suffer any contact wounds that would result in drawback while Sheila did. If the moderator had not been attached Sheila's blood would have been found in the rifle.
It is all easy to understand and follow.
-
Adam... Firstly you've assumed I'm female and I'm not. Just like the expert Kerry daines you've made a judgement on somebody you've never met and got it completely wrong, I titled this thread FACTS so let's stick to them... Only one living being knows the truth.. Jeremy.... Fact. You and I can surmise all we want but the fact is neither of us know. I'm just saying on the evidence alone you have to aquit, as there is no evidence...FACT
Yes it is a fact that only one living person knows.
I just go by the evidence. Which shows certain guilt.
-
A lot of the "evidence" is nothing more than unconfirmed hearsay.
And saying Sheila could not have done it is not necessarily proof that JB did it. How do you know there was not someone else in the house forcing NB to make the call to get JB there?
Again I am not saying that is what happened - but is it impossible?
JB indicated he was not the only person who knew how to get in and out of the house.
I too have seen no proof that JB was the murderer. And yet he is supposed to be stupid enough to have made several mistakes along the way.
Who else knew how to get in through windows ?
Are you bringing up the random burglar/psychopath theory. Threads have dismissed this.
-
Yes it is a fact that only one living person knows.
I just go by the evidence. Which shows certain guilt.
Erm,what evidence-----------particularly your mountains of forensic that I'm very interested in ?
-
Erm,what evidence-----------particularly your mountains of forensic that I'm very interested in ?
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Threads have been created by me. I also responded to you're request earlier today.
Keep up.
-
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Threads have been created by me. I also responded to you're request earlier today.
Keep up.
Oh,the postage stamp sized info ? Right.
-
Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.
Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a mountain of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.
June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.
There is the silencer evidence which shows beyond doubt it was Bamber.
There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night.
There is the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside.
No one can explain how Sheila could have committed the massacre to match the crime scene. Which shows Jeremy's certain guilt.
-
There is also a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Judges words.
-
There is also a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Judges words.
The judge was only repeating the lies which were told to him by the prosecution as a whole. He wasn't there to oversee the crime as it happened,so therefore his opinion doesn't count.
Imagine admitting that you relied on circumstantial evidence in order to convict someone. Says it all really.
-
The judge was only repeating the lies which were told to him by the prosecution as a whole. He wasn't there to oversee the crime as it happened,so therefore his opinion doesn't count.
Imagine admitting that you relied on circumstantial evidence in order to convict someone. Says it all really.
LOTS of people are convicted by circumstantial evidence.
-
LOTS of people are convicted by circumstantial evidence.
Just because of a hate campaign ? As in this case.
-
Thank you Lookout.
I never knew a judges opinion doesn't count.
-
Just because of a hate campaign ? As in this case.
Nothing to do with any kind of campaign - it's just what happens. When there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence (as in this case), the CPS will agree to peruse a conviction.
-
Nothing to do with any kind of campaign - it's just what happens. When there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence (as in this case), the CPS will agree to peruse a conviction.
And as we all know,they're never always right.
-
For starters, the recent historic abuse cases had no physical evidence, just statements from those who were abused. Do you think all of those convictions should be quashed?
-
And as we all know,they're never always right.
More often than not, they are right.
-
LOTS of people are convicted by circumstantial evidence.
Agreed especially before forensic science came into the forefront.
Its almost impossible to prove a lot of things - that is why we end up going round in circles.
-
Agreed especially before forensic science came into the forefront.
Its almost impossible to prove a lot of things - that is why we end up going round in circles.
Exactly
-
Agreed especially before forensic science came into the forefront.
Its almost impossible to prove a lot of things - that is why we end up going round in circles.
Agreed!
-
However the circumstancial evidence must be true and accurate otherwise that is where the MOJ can come into play IMO.
And for example if one person says there was a massive row - and another describes it as a slight disagreement - you have a matter of perception , or embellishment for an end result. Unless we know the people involved how can we tell?
-
So why do people force the issue that Jeremy is a psychopath when there is no constructive medical proof,i.e. a PET scan showing any abnormality to the frontal lobe which WOULD indicate a problem. How can anyone " diagnose " without physically diagnosing in-depth.?
If a person had a pain down towards the right of the abdomen,you wouldn't suddenly say it was appendicitis,just because the appendix happens to be in that region. And it certainly can't be diagnosed via a telephone call either. It's only by a physical examination that anything to do with the human body,can be diagnosed. This is why we have x-ray machines,CT,MRI and PET scanning.
-
The judge was only repeating the lies which were told to him by the prosecution as a whole. He wasn't there to oversee the crime as it happened,so therefore his opinion doesn't count.
Imagine admitting that you relied on circumstantial evidence in order to convict someone. Says it all really.
I imagine, had it been your family who had been slaughtered, you'd have been grateful for whatEVER evidence convicted the person you believed responsible.
-
So why do people force the issue that Jeremy is a psychopath when there is no constructive medical proof,i.e. a PET scan showing any abnormality to the frontal lobe which WOULD indicate a problem. How can anyone " diagnose " without physically diagnosing in-depth.?
If a person had a pain down towards the right of the abdomen,you wouldn't suddenly say it was appendicitis,just because the appendix happens to be in that region. And it certainly can't be diagnosed via a telephone call either. It's only by a physical examination that anything to do with the human body,can be diagnosed. This is why we have x-ray machines,CT,MRI and PET scanning.
Why do people force the issue that he is innocent when quite clearly he is not?
Most psychopaths are not diagnosed following a PET scan, many do not have them done at all.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder not a physical ailment.
-
The judge was only repeating the lies which were told to him by the prosecution as a whole. He wasn't there to oversee the crime as it happened,so therefore his opinion doesn't count.
Imagine admitting that you relied on circumstantial evidence in order to convict someone. Says it all really.
What do you think the point is of having a Judge oversee a criminal trial then Lookout?
-
So why do people force the issue that Jeremy is a psychopath when there is no constructive medical proof,i.e. a PET scan showing any abnormality to the frontal lobe which WOULD indicate a problem. How can anyone " diagnose " without physically diagnosing in-depth.?
If a person had a pain down towards the right of the abdomen,you wouldn't suddenly say it was appendicitis,just because the appendix happens to be in that region. And it certainly can't be diagnosed via a telephone call either. It's only by a physical examination that anything to do with the human body,can be diagnosed. This is why we have x-ray machines,CT,MRI and PET scanning.
When I suggested that frontal lobe damage was one indicator of psychopathy, you jumped on the 'get Caroline' band wagon telling me I was wrong, when I supplied evidence of Proff James Fallon, you did the same. Now you're saying you agree with it? However, the frontal lobe damage is only one factor - there are others.
-
When I suggested that frontal lobe damage was one indicator of psychopathy, you jumped on the 'get Caroline' band wagon telling me I was wrong, when I supplied evidence of Proff James Fallon, you did the same. Now you're saying you agree with it? However, the frontal lobe damage is only one factor - there are others.
I certainly don't recall disagreeing about frontal lobe brain damage as this is a recognised thing in the diagnosis for any injury/abnormality caused to the brain.
What I probably DID say was there was no way of knowing that Jeremy had this problem just because he was dropped as a toddler-----------without him having been examined for frontal lobe injury/abnormality.
-
I certainly don't recall disagreeing about frontal lobe brain damage as this is a recognised thing in the diagnosis for any injury/abnormality caused to the brain.
What I probably DID say was there was no way of knowing that Jeremy had this problem just because he was dropped as a toddler-----------without him having been examined for frontal lobe injury/abnormality.
Then why didn't you agree that it would be a good idea if he had a scan?
-
Why do people force the issue that he is innocent when quite clearly he is not?
Most psychopaths are not diagnosed following a PET scan, many do not have them done at all.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder not a physical ailment.
Putting Jeremy's case aside Psychopaths can be innocent you know. they don't all commit crimes
-
Putting Jeremy's case aside Psychopaths can be innocent you know. they don't all commit crimes
Duhhhh! Yes we DO know. Many of us have been labouring THAT point for a very long time.
-
Putting Jeremy's case aside Psychopaths can be innocent you know. they don't all commit crimes
But this one did!
-
Going back to the thread - Adam we are still waiting for your mountain of forensic evidence that proves a positive not a negative.
We know its not a fluffy mountain so we would like to hear your summary.
-
Then why didn't you agree that it would be a good idea if he had a scan?
Where did I disagree ?
-
On the contrary it is unreasonable to reject the evidence on the basis you do. The family didn't know a thing about drawback, didn't know Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound let alone a contact wound that would result in drawback, didn't know her blood type, didn't have access to her blood and even if they wanted to plant blood for simplistic reasons without appreciating anything about drawback they would not have used something to spray blood inside. Yet the blood inside the moderator was sprayed inside, that is the only way for blood to get on the first 8 baffles. Furthermore, if the family had planted the blood then Sheila's blood would have been found in the muzzle of the rifle and the family had no access to the murder weapon so can't have removed such blood. If they had known her fatal wound was one that would result in drawback and had known all about drawback they would have known her blood was in the rifle so planting blood in the moderator would be useless.
In order to reject the evidence on the basis of the family finding it you need to establish there is a reasonable chance they planted the evidence. There is not a reasonable chance they planted the evidence. The evidence is safe.
The family are part of the chain of custody. The house was in police control until August 9. August 10 the family, Basil Cock etc went to the house and the moderator, bullets and various weapons were found. The family established the chain of custody of all such weapons. They only had the moderator for less than 2 days, keeping it in a closet or chest until turning it over to police on the 12th. From there the chain was in police custody or at the lab depending on the date. This is sufficient for a court to rule it reliable evidence.
To reject it you have to establish a reasonable likelihood of planting the evidence in question but the defense could not do so the defense had zero basis to suggest they planted any evidence.
What the family did and did not know cannot be fully corroborated. However looking and the evidence it cannot be ruled out 100%
Don't jump to a conclusion but read all I have provided below....
Malcom Fletcher admits the weapon in question is the least likely to produce backspatter.
(http://s8.postimg.org/7ulunnkdx/defence1.jpg)
The only other possibility he sais is deliberate planting of evidence, If he is under the impression it is Shelia's blood then its understandable that he can produce that unlikely alternative.
(http://s24.postimg.org/sriuksbh1/defence2.jpg)
Fletcher then in 2002 agrees with you saying that Shelia's blood would be in the barrel of the weapon had the silencer not been attached. But he does not rule it out 100% saying there is a slight possibility of it not happening.
(http://s28.postimg.org/z71gc637x/defence3.jpg)
How to point of the Blood in the silencer, There is a substantial amount criticism of Mr Hayward's work and his methods of how he produced his results that seems very overlooked. By including
A) Dr Patrick Lincoln came to some different conclusions in his results than that of Mr Hayward.
(http://s14.postimg.org/683zoqjs1/defence4.jpg)
B) Mr Hayward on document (wrongly dated) probably typed by error 3rd of August instead of 23rd sais the possibility of a mix of June and Neville's DNA is a possibility, This is also considered possible by Mark Webster
(http://s24.postimg.org/on0fc2jv9/defence_6.jpg)
Now most damning for Mr Hayward is that he admits his decision was 'influenced' by the Autopsy report of Vanezis. Going by Vanezis claim of a contact wound let him to believe it was more likely Shelia's blood and not a mix of the parents blood. What ever your position on the case it I don't think this is very competent! You should but the samples under 100% of your own professional means without any outside influence specially when it comes to DNA and forensics
(http://s29.postimg.org/6aa1ie6s7/defence7.jpg)
Now putting all the above together it does open the possibility of
A) Manufactured and falsified evidence in the sound moderator
or
B) Shelia shooting the entire family resulting in Neville and Junes blood getting in the moderator then putting the silencer away then shooting herself later.
So I think its safe for me to say Jeremy's innocence is Possible but Very Very Very Improbable and If you rule out the extended family framing him, An Innocent Jeremy is more unlucky than someone being struck by lighting twice then being knocked out by a falling coconut.
-
but you do have to take into account that police in the 80s were well known for bending the truth to get their man . That is a fact. Now why they finally buckled under the pressure from the family I am not really sure . But I have an idea.
-
but you do have to take into account that police in the 80s were well known for bending the truth to get their man . That is a fact. Now why they finally buckled under the pressure from the family I am not really sure . But I have an idea.
If that's the case I would have though some police would have grassed up their colleagues in order to get the £1 Million pound reward he offered in 2002 after his appeal failed
-
What the family did and did not know cannot be fully corroborated. However looking and the evidence it cannot be ruled out 100%
It doesn't have to be ruled out 100%. It just has to be ruled out as being reasonably unlikely. You keep ignoring the actual burden because you can't meet it.
You need to establish it is reasonably likely that the blood was planted by the family or police and that it is reasonably likely blood had been found in the rifle but police or the lab cleaned out the weapon and concealed the finding of such blood. If you can't do this then there is no reasonable basis to doubt the blood evidence.
Don't jump to a conclusion but read all I have provided below....
Malcom Fletcher admits the weapon in question is the least likely to produce backspatter.
(http://s8.postimg.org/7ulunnkdx/defence1.jpg)
No what he said is that GENERALLY SPEAKING .22lr bullets are less likely to cause backspatter than larger caliber bullets. He said however an assessment of backspatter requires looking at the exact circumstances not making broad generalizations. The location of the wound is of the most importance.
The wound location was full of blood, she had already been shot and her neck was full of blood because she had hemorrhaged. The nature of blood and skin in that area is already good for drawback to occur in the case of a contact wound but because of the area was full of blood it was certain to occur.
You and others choose to ignore the realities. The reality is that neither at trial nor on appeal has the defense found ANY expert who refutes that drawback would be certain to occur under such conditions. Not even Webster claimed such. That was one of the reasons why the Court of Appeals said he failed to undermine the prosecution's case he failed to address let alone refute that had the moderator not been attached then blood would have been found in the rifle.
That drawback is even mor elikely when a bullet is larger than a 22lr doesn't render drawback unlikely when a weapon used is 22LR. You have to make assessments based on the location of the wound. Drawback is UNCOMMON when a 22LR is used for a shot to the head but even in those cases there are instances where it happens but it doesn't happen a majoiry of the time. So if that had been the case the defense could safely have argued that drawback would not necessarily occur. But they had to deal with the facts of the case which was a 22LR shot to a body area full of blood and thus that would result in drawback. The only way to try refuting drawback would occur in such location would be to try to find evidence to prove it wasn't a contact shot. If not a contact shot then blood would not get much more than 5mm inside. The blood was found up to 40mm inside. They found no such evidence though.
The only other possibility he sais is deliberate planting of evidence, If he is under the impression it is Shelia's blood then its understandable that he can produce that unlikely alternative.
(http://s24.postimg.org/sriuksbh1/defence2.jpg)
Fletcher then in 2002 agrees with you saying that Shelia's blood would be in the barrel of the weapon had the silencer not been attached. But he does not rule it out 100% saying there is a slight possibility of it not happening.
(http://s28.postimg.org/z71gc637x/defence3.jpg)
His comment was meant to rule out innocent contamination. He was effectively saying it is impossible for the blood to have gotten there through innocent contamination the only way blood could have gotten in the distribution found was drawback or deliberate planting. He wasn't asked what it would take to deliberately plant it though. It would have required spraying it inside using some sort of device.
A very slight possibility is not good enough. The defense needed to establish BOTH of the following it was reasonably likely that blood would not get inside the rifle (very slight possibility doesn't cut it) [or in the alternative that it was reasonably likely blood had been found in the rifle but such finding was concealed] AND that it is reasonably likely the blood was planted in the moderator. You need to establish both in order to refute the prosecution's evidence.
Maybe because I am a lawyer I recognize what the court said is required, maybe because I like guns so much I am able to understand it, maybe because I am not biased I am able to face it while others biased in favor of Jeremy close their eyes to it. The reason why I recognize what the defense needs to establish is not relevant the fact of the matter is that I do and have explained it.
If the defense doesn't face what it needs to establish to get his conviction vacated then the defense is never going to be able to do so because the first step is recognizing it and then seeking evidence to prove it.
How to point of the Blood in the silencer, There is a substantial amount criticism of Mr Hayward's work and his methods of how he produced his results that seems very overlooked. By including
A) Dr Patrick Lincoln came to some different conclusions in his results than that of Mr Hayward.
(http://s14.postimg.org/683zoqjs1/defence4.jpg)
B) Mr Hayward on document (wrongly dated) probably typed by error 3rd of August instead of 23rd sais the possibility of a mix of June and Neville's DNA is a possibility, This is also considered possible by Mark Webster
(http://s24.postimg.org/on0fc2jv9/defence_6.jpg)
Now most damning for Mr Hayward is that he admits his decision was 'influenced' by the Autopsy report of Vanezis. Going by Vanezis claim of a contact wound let him to believe it was more likely Shelia's blood and not a mix of the parents blood. What ever your position on the case it I don't think this is very competent! You should but the samples under 100% of your own professional means without any outside influence specially when it comes to DNA and forensics
(http://s29.postimg.org/6aa1ie6s7/defence7.jpg)
First of all you ignore numerous things.
1) the defense failed to establish there is any way that blood of 2 people shot around the same time could fail to intimately mix. This was fatal to the contentions of the defense at the Appeal hearing. They could not establish it scientifically possible.
2) You are ignoring that even the defense admitted it would be extremely unlikely for anyone to be able to miss that there was a mixture if blood had intimately mixed.
3) The reason why the autopsy is significant is because Neither June nor Nevill suffered any contact wounds let alone contact wounds that were likely to result in drawback so their blood could not get more than 5mm inside. Blood was found to the depth of 40mm and Sheila did have a contact woudn that would result in drawback.
The combination of this makes it clear it was Sheila's blood. It is not reaosnably likely the blood was a mixture of June and Nevill's blood.
Now putting all the above together it does open the possibility of
A) Manufactured and falsified evidence in the sound moderator
or
B) Shelia shooting the entire family resulting in Neville and Junes blood getting in the moderator then putting the silencer away then shooting herself later.
So I think its safe for me to say Jeremy's innocence is Possible but Very Very Very Improbable and If you rule out the extended family framing him, An Innocent Jeremy is more unlucky than someone being struck by lighting twice then being knocked out by a falling coconut.
You got all the issues wrong and worse you failed to do any inquiry related to the family's ability to plant blood. Establishing it was reasonably likely they planted it requires proving they had the requisite knowledge and ability (including access to blood of the victims) not just they had the item in their possession. If they had tried to plant blood it would have simply fallen inside the opening. They would not have sprayed it inside which is the only way it could have gotten 40mm inside on 8 different baffles. In addition it would be necessary to establish police either found blood in the rifle and concealed it or Sheila's wound wasn't really a contact wound.
Based on the existing evidence there is no way to establish it is reasonably likely the blood was planted by anyone. The only people with the requisite skill would have been the lab. Likewise they would be the ones who would have been in a position to have concealed the finding of blood in the rifle. So someone who in earnest was trying to establish doctoring of evidence would try looking there.
This doesn't even take into account the paint. The police would have to have planted the paint and despite this the lab decided to plant blood. In the meantime the family and police did see some blood inside the opening and on the outside face. So the moderator was used and the contention of planting would have to be regarding the blood found deeper inside which was a sign of drawback.
So essentially Sheila had to have used it to kill the others, put it away before killing herself (which makes zero sense) and then the lab planted more blood to make it appear there was drawback inside but if they had planted it then they would have made sure they found Ak1 in all the samples not just the flake.
The allegation Sheila went to the closet got the moderator out and attached it then used it to kill everyone else then put it away before killing herself is all the defense had and has but it is not credible and not reasonably likely. So on top of the fact they can't refute the other evidence the story they try to say happened still fails miserably.
One has to be biased in favor of Jeremy and thus to ignore the evidence or not comprehend the evidence/applicable law in order to argue Jeremy wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Such arguments will not sway people who actually face the evidence and comprehend it and the law. That means they have no hope in hell of convincing an appeal court unless they can establish the existing facts are wrong. They have no way to do that though.
-
Sheila didn't go to the closet as you put it to put the silencer on the gun, the silencer was not fitted to the rifle which fired the second shot, it was never on that gun, and it was never taken off after that rifle fired the fatal shot under her chin...
That is a now proveable and established fact...
-
It doesn't have to be ruled out 100%. It just has to be ruled out as being reasonably unlikely. You keep ignoring the actual burden because you can't meet it.
You need to establish it is reasonably likely that the blood was planted by the family or police and that it is reasonably likely blood had been found in the rifle but police or the lab cleaned out the weapon and concealed the finding of such blood. If you can't do this then there is no reasonable basis to doubt the blood evidence.
No what he said is that GENERALLY SPEAKING .22lr bullets are less likely to cause backspatter than larger caliber bullets. He said however an assessment of backspatter requires looking at the exact circumstances not making broad generalizations. The location of the wound is of the most importance.
The wound location was full of blood, she had already been shot and her neck was full of blood because she had hemorrhaged. The nature of blood and skin in that area is already good for drawback to occur in the case of a contact wound but because of the area was full of blood it was certain to occur.
You and others choose to ignore the realities. The reality is that neither at trial nor on appeal has the defense found ANY expert who refutes that drawback would be certain to occur under such conditions. Not even Webster claimed such. That was one of the reasons why the Court of Appeals said he failed to undermine the prosecution's case he failed to address let alone refute that had the moderator not been attached then blood would have been found in the rifle.
That drawback is even mor elikely when a bullet is larger than a 22lr doesn't render drawback unlikely when a weapon used is 22LR. You have to make assessments based on the location of the wound. Drawback is UNCOMMON when a 22LR is used for a shot to the head but even in those cases there are instances where it happens but it doesn't happen a majoiry of the time. So if that had been the case the defense could safely have argued that drawback would not necessarily occur. But they had to deal with the facts of the case which was a 22LR shot to a body area full of blood and thus that would result in drawback. The only way to try refuting drawback would occur in such location would be to try to find evidence to prove it wasn't a contact shot. If not a contact shot then blood would not get much more than 5mm inside. The blood was found up to 40mm inside. They found no such evidence though.
His comment was meant to rule out innocent contamination. He was effectively saying it is impossible for the blood to have gotten there through innocent contamination the only way blood could have gotten in the distribution found was drawback or deliberate planting. He wasn't asked what it would take to deliberately plant it though. It would have required spraying it inside using some sort of device.
A very slight possibility is not good enough. The defense needed to establish BOTH of the following it was reasonably likely that blood would not get inside the rifle (very slight possibility doesn't cut it) [or in the alternative that it was reasonably likely blood had been found in the rifle but such finding was concealed] AND that it is reasonably likely the blood was planted in the moderator. You need to establish both in order to refute the prosecution's evidence.
Maybe because I am a lawyer I recognize what the court said is required, maybe because I like guns so much I am able to understand it, maybe because I am not biased I am able to face it while others biased in favor of Jeremy close their eyes to it. The reason why I recognize what the defense needs to establish is not relevant the fact of the matter is that I do and have explained it.
If the defense doesn't face what it needs to establish to get his conviction vacated then the defense is never going to be able to do so because the first step is recognizing it and then seeking evidence to prove it.
First of all you ignore numerous things.
1) the defense failed to establish there is any way that blood of 2 people shot around the same time could fail to intimately mix. This was fatal to the contentions of the defense at the Appeal hearing. They could not establish it scientifically possible.
2) You are ignoring that even the defense admitted it would be extremely unlikely for anyone to be able to miss that there was a mixture if blood had intimately mixed.
3) The reason why the autopsy is significant is because Neither June nor Nevill suffered any contact wounds let alone contact wounds that were likely to result in drawback so their blood could not get more than 5mm inside. Blood was found to the depth of 40mm and Sheila did have a contact woudn that would result in drawback.
The combination of this makes it clear it was Sheila's blood. It is not reaosnably likely the blood was a mixture of June and Nevill's blood.
You got all the issues wrong and worse you failed to do any inquiry related to the family's ability to plant blood. Establishing it was reasonably likely they planted it requires proving they had the requisite knowledge and ability (including access to blood of the victims) not just they had the item in their possession. If they had tried to plant blood it would have simply fallen inside the opening. They would not have sprayed it inside which is the only way it could have gotten 40mm inside on 8 different baffles. In addition it would be necessary to establish police either found blood in the rifle and concealed it or Sheila's wound wasn't really a contact wound.
Based on the existing evidence there is no way to establish it is reasonably likely the blood was planted by anyone. The only people with the requisite skill would have been the lab. Likewise they would be the ones who would have been in a position to have concealed the finding of blood in the rifle. So someone who in earnest was trying to establish doctoring of evidence would try looking there.
This doesn't even take into account the paint. The police would have to have planted the paint and despite this the lab decided to plant blood. In the meantime the family and police did see some blood inside the opening and on the outside face. So the moderator was used and the contention of planting would have to be regarding the blood found deeper inside which was a sign of drawback.
So essentially Sheila had to have used it to kill the others, put it away before killing herself (which makes zero sense) and then the lab planted more blood to make it appear there was drawback inside but if they had planted it then they would have made sure they found Ak1 in all the samples not just the flake.
The allegation Sheila went to the closet got the moderator out and attached it then used it to kill everyone else then put it away before killing herself is all the defense had and has but it is not credible and not reasonably likely. So on top of the fact they can't refute the other evidence the story they try to say happened still fails miserably.
One has to be biased in favor of Jeremy and thus to ignore the evidence or not comprehend the evidence/applicable law in order to argue Jeremy wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Such arguments will not sway people who actually face the evidence and comprehend it and the law. That means they have no hope in hell of convincing an appeal court unless they can establish the existing facts are wrong. They have no way to do that though.
I know It will not sway people and I don't expect it to. It's reasonable to believe he is guilty however it's not beyond all doubt. It's possible but extremely improbable
-
but you do have to take into account that police in the 80s were well known for bending the truth to get their man . That is a fact. Now why they finally buckled under the pressure from the family I am not really sure . But I have an idea.
Do you think the police buckled under the mighty RB & AE ?
-
I know It will not sway people and I don't expect it to. It's reasonable to believe he is guilty however it's not beyond all doubt. It's possible but extremely improbable
Our system is not based on beyond all doubt though- it is beyond a reasonable doubt. That legal standard is clearly met here and that is why the defense lawyers had such a large problem at trial and have has such a tough time trying to win an appeal.
The things I highlighted are big problems for the defense. They lack any way to currently refute the evidence that convicted him.
Step one of trying to prove the blood was a mixture of June and Nevill's blood would entail:
1) proving blood could fail to intimately mix inside the moderator
2) proving each suffered contact wounds that could result in drawback into the moderator
3) try to explain why Sheila would have attached the moderator before carrying out the attack (a step that is necessary only because of Jeremy claiming he left the gun out with the moderator unattached which was a big mistake to claim)
4) try to explain why Sheila would have put the moderator away before killing herself
Of course this is all a waste of time unless they also can establish it was reasonably likely that Sheila's fatal wound would not have resulted in drawback.
This is just to try refuting the moderator evidence this doesn't deal with the problems posed by Julie and other things. The defense didn't/doesn't have an easy job. People who want to support Jeremy do not have an easy job given the situation. That being the case many who want to defend him turn to lies and change the facts so as to make their task easier. If lawyers could change facts and make up things it would be easier too but that won't fly in court. People hear the propaganda and then wonder why this propaganda is not swaying the courts- most of it is BS that can't even be presented to the courts that is why and that limited amount which was presented failed because of inadequate proof.
-
Something on the news this morning prompted me to think about when Neville rang Jeremy.
IMO, Neville quite possibly wanted to ring the police,but with Sheila being in the vicinity,and before Neville was shot, he had to quickly revert to ringing Jeremy in case Sheila heard a 999 call being made.
On the news,it was a woman and her children being held hostage by her husband/partner-USA, so the woman had asked if she could order a pizza,to which the answer was yes,so she went ahead and ordered the pizza adding at the end of the order " phone 911,held hostage ". The message was then passed on to police who arrested the man.
-
Something on the news this morning prompted me to think about when Neville rang Jeremy.
IMO, Neville quite possibly wanted to ring the police,but with Sheila being in the vicinity,and before Neville was shot, he had to quickly revert to ringing Jeremy in case Sheila heard a 999 call being made.
On the news,it was a woman and her children being held hostage by her husband/partner-USA, so the woman had asked if she could order a pizza,to which the answer was yes,so she went ahead and ordered the pizza adding at the end of the order " phone 911,held hostage ". The message was then passed on to police who arrested the man.
A 999 call? ;) Least you admit it SHOULD have been a 999 call. But that being the case, why didn't he ask Jeremy to call the police, then he might not have been so confused and spent and age looking up station numbers.
-
A 999 call? ;) Least you admit it SHOULD have been a 999 call. But that being the case, why didn't he ask Jeremy to call the police, then he might not have been so confused and spent and age looking up station numbers.
But he didn't get to make a 999 call at first. I imagine that time spent on the phone was limited with a whirling dervish about the place. For all we know and for the little that Jeremy remembers,his father could have quickly added other words to his short conversation of which Jeremy may have forgotten. Obviously,all that Jeremy remembers hearing,first off,was his father's plea,anything else would have remained a blur.
It's not easy getting your head around any call at that hour of the morning,let alone expecting a call such as it was. Unless you're expecting a call will you remember all that it contained.
Jeremy could have said any old rubbish if he'd wanted to, to the police-----------but he didn't.
-
But he didn't get to make a 999 call at first. I imagine that time spent on the phone was limited with a whirling dervish about the place. For all we know and for the little that Jeremy remembers,his father could have quickly added other words to his short conversation of which Jeremy may have forgotten. Obviously,all that Jeremy remembers hearing,first off,was his father's plea,anything else would have remained a blur.
It's not easy getting your head around any call at that hour of the morning,let alone expecting a call such as it was. Unless you're expecting a call will you remember all that it contained.
Jeremy could have said any old rubbish if he'd wanted to, to the police-----------but he didn't.
Yes, it is, someone has a gun and has gone crazy, it's 3am and your dad sounds panicked/frightened - you call 999, or go over there or both. Jeremy did say 'any old rubbish' and he keeps changing the rubbish which is why none of it rings true.
-
Yes, it is, someone has a gun and has gone crazy, it's 3am and your dad sounds panicked/frightened - you call 999, or go over there or both. Jeremy did say 'any old rubbish' and he keeps changing the rubbish which is why none of it rings true.
Where is this rubbish, what does it say,and how is it changed ?
-
Where is this rubbish, what does it say,and how is it changed ?
The times keep changing Lookout.
-
Do you think the police buckled under the mighty RB & AE ?
No I think there was another influence - but I am keeping my thoughts on that to my self .
But they did go further and further up the chain - and if you read the Dickinson report there is no doubt they did have influence.
-
I would have said that the final straw came when Sheila met Christine. A far cry from the staunch,religious fanatic who adopted Sheila. Christine was the mother that Sheila had missed. So sad.
On the night of the murders,Sheila was expecting a call,or possibly going to make one given the time difference in the two countries ( not sure of the difference in Canada and the UK ) which would explain why Sheila wouldn't have gone to bed that night. It's possible that the bedroom phone could have been moved by Sheila to avoid waking anyone up during the conversation,or indeed being cut-off mid-conversation.
For all we know,there could well have been communication between Sheila and Christine that evening,and after that things went hay-wire.
-
No--------------my " theory" isn't going to go away. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I would have said that the final straw came when Sheila met Christine. A far cry from the staunch,religious fanatic who adopted Sheila. Christine was the mother that Sheila had missed. So sad.
On the night of the murders,Sheila was expecting a call,or possibly going to make one given the time difference in the two countries ( not sure of the difference in Canada and the UK ) which would explain why Sheila wouldn't have gone to bed that night. It's possible that the bedroom phone could have been moved by Sheila to avoid waking anyone up during the conversation,or indeed being cut-off mid-conversation.
For all we know,there could well have been communication between Sheila and Christine that evening,and after that things went hay-wire.
Lookout, isn't that rather like saying that someone died in the middle of having a nightmare? Unless there was confirmation from Christine that there was a conversation arranged between them that night -unlikely, given that her children supposedly knew nothing of Sheila's existence and SOMEWHAT cruel for any communication to take place in the home of her adopted mother, who would undoubtedly been hurt, when she had a perfectly adequate home of her own in which to make/take phone-calls- I think any suggestion that such would occur is gossip/hearsay or fantasy because it can't possibly be known unless it comes directly from Christine.
-
No I think there was another influence - but I am keeping my thoughts on that to my self .
But they did go further and further up the chain - and if you read the Dickinson report there is no doubt they did have influence.
They did because Taff refused to contemplate it was murder/suicide.
Peter Simpson ordered an immediate investigation after speaking to the relatives.
Taff still wouldn't change after Jeremy denied involvement. 'Julie must be lying', he said.
-
Lookout, isn't that rather like saying that someone died in the middle of having a nightmare? Unless there was confirmation from Christine that there was a conversation arranged between them that night -unlikely, given that her children supposedly knew nothing of Sheila's existence and SOMEWHAT cruel for any communication to take place in the home of her adopted mother, who would undoubtedly been hurt, when she had a perfectly adequate home of her own in which to make/take phone-calls- I think any suggestion that such would occur is gossip/hearsay or fantasy because it can't possibly be known unless it comes directly from Christine.
Not forgetting that Sheila was rebelling,and any arrangement for a call to be made to Canada,would further act as part of the rebelling,no matter where the call was made from, as long as it was in earshot of June.
I understand that a call WAS expected,and if it took place,what would Christine have known what followed later ? Apart from she she'd only spoken to Sheila the night before,which I haven't heard whether or not that call took place.
I imagine that June had felt a sense of rejection at having been told about Christine and how she'd interacted with the twins. Not only that,imagine June being told of the kisses and cuddles,etc,to which June would also have felt guilt in not being able to express her love in the same way ( not her fault,it was the way she herself was brought up )
Sheila had found something/someone who'd been missing in her life and must have been overjoyed,though I doubt that June would have shared her enjoyment.In fact,I think that she took the whole meeting,etc quite badly and would have felt more inadequate knowing that Sheila was part of Christine.
This definitely would have had a bearing on what happened that night,I'm sure of it. Even at the mention of a phone call would have been enough to spark things off.
-
Not forgetting that Sheila was rebelling,and any arrangement for a call to be made to Canada,would further act as part of the rebelling,no matter where the call was made from, as long as it was in earshot of June.
I understand that a call WAS expected,and if it took place,what would Christine have known what followed later ? Apart from she she'd only spoken to Sheila the night before,which I haven't heard whether or not that call took place.
I imagine that June had felt a sense of rejection at having been told about Christine and how she'd interacted with the twins. Not only that,imagine June being told of the kisses and cuddles,etc,to which June would also have felt guilt in not being able to express her love in the same way ( not her fault,it was the way she herself was brought up )
Sheila had found something/someone who'd been missing in her life and must have been overjoyed,though I doubt that June would have shared her enjoyment.In fact,I think that she took the whole meeting,etc quite badly and would have felt more inadequate knowing that Sheila was part of Christine.
This definitely would have had a bearing on what happened that night,I'm sure of it. Even at the mention of a phone call would have been enough to spark things off.
Hmm. You may well be right, Lookout. However, for the first time ever, I'm going to do an "Adam" on you and ask for the source from which you got the information that a call from Christine was expected.
It isn't difficult to imagine the scenario you paint but it doesn't make it factual. If we believe that Sheila had found June through God, the picture of an angry, rebelling Sheila wanting to rub June's nose in her own happiness doesn't fit.
-
Hmm. You may well be right, Lookout. However, for the first time ever, I'm going to do an "Adam" on you and ask for the source from which you got the information that a call from Christine was expected.
It isn't difficult to imagine the scenario you paint but it doesn't make it factual. If we believe that Sheila had found June through God, the picture of an angry, rebelling Sheila wanting to rub June's nose in her own happiness doesn't fit.
The source of the phone-call I've read about,but this time I can't remember from where.
To be perfectly honest,I don't think anyone realises how ill June was,and I know I get bombarded every time I say it,but she was still visiting the GP up to the tragedy. Even Jeremy hasn't got a clue about his mother because if I wrote and told him how I felt about her,he'd go apesh1t.
In Claire Powell's book,it states that June had little or no sympathy for Sheila,as it was herself who was ill. Underneath that gentle and gentile façade,there was a harsh persona.
-
Not forgetting also that a year after Sheila had been adopted,June had a breakdown which led to her having ECT therapy,for severe depression,which meant that the child born to Christine,was passed to June,then passed again to foster carers ? while June was in hospital. Then various nursemaids were called in to assist while June recuperated. Not the ideal start for any child,as that in itself would manifest into behavioural problems,which it did,when boarding school was on the list. And so it went on.
-
The source of the phone-call I've read about,but this time I can't remember from where.
To be perfectly honest,I don't think anyone realises how ill June was,and I know I get bombarded every time I say it,but she was still visiting the GP up to the tragedy. Even Jeremy hasn't got a clue about his mother because if I wrote and told him how I felt about her,he'd go apesh1t.
In Claire Powell's book,it states that June had little or no sympathy for Sheila,as it was herself who was ill. Underneath that gentle and gentile façade,there was a harsh persona.
Lookout, recently I feel as if you have slagged me off up hill and down dale for my "tone." I wonder, do you realize that, other than believing that Jeremy is guilty, I support most of what you believe.
Whilst there doesn't seem to be concrete proof that June was visiting her doctor -or WHY- until just prior to her death, I'm not surprised to learn that she may have been and I fully accept that with her mental fragility, life was stressful.
I find it very difficult to accept what Claire Powell says because she didn't know June -I have NEVER heard it said of her by those who did know her that she had an underlying "harsh persona"- so her information must be second/third hand. No matter, it sells books.
As you give the source of your information re the phone call as something you had read, I'm certain that you'll understand that I can't accept it as being fact.
-
lookout reading Colin's book again and it appears he has a very low opinion of poor June and most of what he says and thinks came from Sheila. She appeared to be hard on Sheila but this could have been "tough love" none of us really knows :(
-
Lookout, recently I feel as if you have slagged me off up hill and down dale for my "tone." I wonder, do you realize that, other than believing that Jeremy is guilty, I support most of what you believe.
Whilst there doesn't seem to be concrete proof that June was visiting her doctor -or WHY- until just prior to her death, I'm not surprised to learn that she may have been and I fully accept that with her mental fragility, life was stressful.
I find it very difficult to accept what Claire Powell says because she didn't know June -I have NEVER heard it said of her by those who did know her that she had an underlying "harsh persona"- so her information must be second/third hand. No matter, it sells books.
As you give the source of your information re the phone call as something you had read, I'm certain that you'll understand that I can't accept it as being fact.
Excuse me ? Slagged you off ? When and to whom ? That is indeed a bolt from the blue.Where did it come from ? I haven't slagged anyone off.
-
Excuse me ? Slagged you off ? When and to whom ? That is indeed a bolt from the blue.Where did it come from ? I haven't slagged anyone off.
You posted a very lengthy piece on what you saw as my condescending attitude and how it -I- had changed since I'd come to believe Jeremy was guilty. Slag off. Attack. Censure. Rebuke. What ever name you choose it was hardly a complimentary post. I made an attempt at explanation, ie cause and effect, but the general consensus appeared to be that the fault was AAAALLLL mine. Nonetheless, I hold to what I said in my previous post. There are less differences in our beliefs than you appear to suppose.
-
Where is this post ?
-
Where is this post ?
God knows. But it definitely isn't lingering in my in-box waiting to be pulled out at the requisite time, although I believe we did have someone who kept every post and pm which was sent them. Not MY style.
-
lookout reading Colin's book again and it appears he has a very low opinion of poor June and most of what he says and thinks came from Sheila. She appeared to be hard on Sheila but this could have been "tough love" none of us really knows :(
Colin writes that he cannot judge Jeremy for having killed, because if he hadn´t killed June he would have himself!!
I can never get over this - Colin is convinced Jeremy killed the whole family, including his sons, for Gods sake, but he is talking about June!!!!
I don´t understand Colin, but there were some strong feelings there concerning June, probably also from Sheila´s side.
-
Colin writes that he cannot judge Jeremy for having killed, because if he hadn´t killed June he would have himself!!
I can never get over this - Colin is convinced Jeremy killed the whole family, including his sons, for Gods sake, but he is talking about June!!!!
I don´t understand Colin, but there were some strong feelings there concerning June, probably also from Sheila´s side.
Alias I remember Colin spoke very strongly about his dislike for June especially the way she was with Sheila and he said she was not the person local people thought she was nice generous and kind. It was sad to read this and as I said earlier Colin had very little to say wrong about Jeremy in the book. Think Colin was quite confused about the whole case until later on and he saw things differently.
-
a friend of mine who is a retired old bailey judge , told me that the hardest thing to get over to a jury is that you can aquit a guilty man as its up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Despite what side of the fence you stand on jeremy banners guilt was not and has not ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In today's world of advances in DNA techniques only a NOT GUILTY verdict would be returned if this case was to go for re trial. That's fact and no one can say otherwise. I'm extremely open minded in this case and am very knowledgable in it so am open to persuasion if someone can definitely show me where the guilt is proven!!
Well Keepers - did you get the answers you expected?
-
Well Keepers - did you get the answers you expected?
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy.
If the crime happened today, there is no doubt Jeremy would have been found guilty. Crime scene protocols are a lot more strict and the blood DNA would have been more conclusive.
Taff was the main problem. Any decent man in charge would change direction a lot sooner.
-
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy.
If the crime happened today, there is no doubt Jeremy would have been found guilty. Crime scene protocols are a lot more strict and the blood DNA would have been more conclusive.
Taff was the main problem. Any decent man in charge would change direction a lot sooner.
shut up Adam- and yes that was personal. Its a free country or are you not aware of that either.
-
Professor Bernard Knight had said,I quote," It's practically inconceivable that Jeremy could have committed the murders at all;and a large part of Jeremy's infamy comes from the cold and meticulous nature he used in planning and executing the murders. Julie's unsubstantiated claim that he was " pissed off "and it's " tonight or never ",doesn't wash ",unquote.
Most people helping police with their inquiries don't receive compensation-----------------Julie did !!
-
Professor Bernard Knight had said,I quote," It's practically inconceivable that Jeremy could have committed the murders at all;and a large part of Jeremy's infamy comes from the cold and meticulous nature he used in planning and executing the murders. Julie's unsubstantiated claim that he was " pissed off "and it's " tonight or never ",doesn't wash ",unquote.
Most people helping police with their inquiries don't receive compensation-----------------Julie did !!
That's Bernard Knight's opinion and he's entitled to it, however, it means nothing as far as whether he's actually guilty or not.
What compensation did Julie receive? You're not talking about the NOTW deal are you? That's not compensation.
-
Why did it take 32 visits for JM to make just to say " He did it ?" Nothing hard about saying those 3 words-----------------------is there ?
-
That's Bernard Knight's opinion and he's entitled to it, however, it means nothing as far as whether he's actually guilty or not.
What compensation did Julie receive? You're not talking about the NOTW deal are you? That's not compensation.
At the suggestion of EP,it WAS a form of compensation,something she wouldn't have done under her own volition. Or WOULD she ??
-
Why did it take 32 visits for JM to make just to say " He did it ?" Nothing hard about saying those 3 words-----------------------is there ?
Lookout, whether or not it IS the case, you give the impression that, if you thought it necessary, you would shop your own children in to the police without a moment's hesitation or a backward glance and wash your hands of them -I'm interested that you have failed to act so quickly regarding your friend's daughter- it takes some of us a little longer to reach that point and some of us, like Julie, perhaps, will need either encouragement or incentive.
-
At the suggestion of EP,it WAS a form of compensation,something she wouldn't have done under her own volition. Or WOULD she ??
Where have you got that from? Julie said she was hounded by the press and sought a solicitor who advised her to take the best offer - after the deal was sealed, the others would leave her alone. Nothing to do with EP and it certainly wasn't compensation.
-
Lookout, whether or not it IS the case, you give the impression that, if you thought it necessary, you would shop your own children in to the police without a moment's hesitation or a backward glance and wash your hands of them -I'm interested that you have failed to act so quickly regarding your friend's daughter- it takes some of us a little longer to reach that point and some of us, like Julie, perhaps, will need either encouragement or incentive.
Yes,I would wash my hands if one of my family was involved in criminal activities,providing I'd been through their crime with a fine tooth-comb,which RESULTED in their guilt. Yes,I would. I have an " in-built guard " against anyone having one over on me.
As for my friend's daughter,as long as she doesn't trouble ME,personally,then leave well alone. If she showed aggression toward me,then YES,I'd " shop her " without hesitation.
-
Yes,I would wash my hands if one of my family was involved in criminal activities,providing I'd been through their crime with a fine tooth-comb,which RESULTED in their guilt. Yes,I would. I have an " in-built guard " against anyone having one over on me.
As for my friend's daughter,as long as she doesn't trouble ME,personally,then leave well alone. If she showed aggression toward me,then YES,I'd " shop her " without hesitation.
Isn't that what JM did? Jeremy didn't hurt her personally so .......?
-
Isn't that what JM did? Jeremy didn't hurt her personally so .......?
Entirely different scenario. JM lied--------------I don't !
-
Entirely different scenario. JM lied--------------I don't !
That's your opinion.
-
Where have you got that from? Julie said she was hounded by the press and sought a solicitor who advised her to take the best offer - after the deal was sealed, the others would leave her alone. Nothing to do with EP and it certainly wasn't compensation.
I read long ago in some unfinished online book (don´t remember the author, perhaps someone else has a better memory), that Julie did receive compensation for her 32 sessions with the EP. I think everyone has this right - wages lost because of the time spent with police during an investigation. I think you don´t get that money automatically, but have to apply for it. It was claimed that Julie did.
-
I read long ago in some unfinished online book (don´t remember the author, perhaps someone else has a better memory), that Julie did receive compensation for her 32 sessions with the EP. I think everyone has this right - wages lost because of the time spent with police during an investigation. I think you don´t get that money automatically, but have to apply for it. It was claimed that Julie did.
I've read a lot of things online, most tend not to be true, however, if she did receive such payment (as I've never heard of anyone getting such), it's called 'expenses' not compensation.
-
I've read a lot of things online, most tend not to be true, however, if she did receive such payment (as I've never heard of anyone getting such), it's called 'expenses' not compensation.
I apologize for the lack of knowledge of the finer nuances of technical terms in English.
Anyway, I am actually not slating Julie for this, perhaps that money was a neccessity for her to exist, she was not rich and spent many, many hours with the EP.
-
I apologize for the lack of knowledge of the finer nuances of technical terms in English.
Anyway, I am actually not slating Julie for this, perhaps that money was a neccessity for her to exist, she was not rich and spent many, many hours with the EP.
Lookout was actually talking about the NOTW deal and we don't know that she was paid expenses.
I wasn't knocking your English, simply pointing out there is a difference. Your English is excellent.
-
I read long ago in some unfinished online book (don´t remember the author, perhaps someone else has a better memory), that Julie did receive compensation for her 32 sessions with the EP. I think everyone has this right - wages lost because of the time spent with police during an investigation. I think you don´t get that money automatically, but have to apply for it. It was claimed that Julie did.
Hmm, I believe I read that Julie claimed expenses. This is, apparently, available to all, but few take advantage.
-
Lookout was actually talking about the NOTW deal and we don't know that she was paid expenses.
I wasn't knocking your English, simply pointing out there is a difference. Your English is excellent.
I didn´t know the difference, so my English is not that excellent. I am glad you clarified it for me - honestly.
-
I didn´t know the difference, so my English is not that excellent. I am glad you clarified it for me - honestly.
The difference (and I'm just clarifying it) is that compensation is a payment because you have been wronged in some way (either accidentally or deliberately) and expenses are payments to reimburse you for things like travel and loss of wages etc.
-
The difference (and I'm just clarifying it) is that compensation is a payment because you have been wronged in some way (either accidentally or deliberately) and expenses are payments to reimburse you for things like travel and loss of wages etc.
Yes, I got that.
-
To be honest I can't see how any of us can speculate what type of person Jeremy was, for none of us knew him before the murders or directly after. All we can go on is hearsay or village gossip.
When Egap/Holly went to visit and had drinks with the locals she was amazed to find out that not many people could remember the incident and those that did told her they thought he was innocent.
Yes, he has been portrayed as a bad boy in the press, but I wonder how much of that was true and how much was sensationalized.
Its the same with the photo's the press used, in my opinion they looked at all of them and picked out the most likely one that made him look like a killer.
Caroline posted some glared photo's of Jeremy last week. Having watched the video that Adam posted, he looked rather glum when he sat down and sad...The press were up to the van window and none of us know what they were shouting to him, so he glanced round and smiled at them....It must be never wrecking to be followed and photographed...and camera's half way up your nose. There are many softer photographs of Jeremy that did make the front page....Just saying... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
To be honest I can't see how any of us can speculate what type of person Jeremy was, for none of us knew him before the murders or directly after. All we can go on is hearsay or village gossip.
When Egap/Holly went to visit and had drinks with the locals she was amazed to find out that not many people could remember the incident and those that did told her they thought he was innocent.
Yes, he has been portrayed as a bad boy in the press, but I wonder how much of that was true and how much was sensationalized.
Its the same with the photo's the press used, in my opinion they looked at all of them and picked out the most likely one that made him look like a killer.
Caroline posted some glared photo's of Jeremy last week. Having watched the video that Adam posted, he looked rather glum when he sat down and sad...The press were up to the van window and none of us know what they were shouting to him, so he glanced round and smiled at them....It must be never wrecking to be followed and photographed...and camera's half way up your nose. There are many softer photographs of Jeremy that did make the front page....Just saying... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Think about if you were convicted of a similar crime and you were innocent? I think you would have manner of friends and family backing you up and fighting your corner. Jeremy had VERY FEW people from his past that went that far (if any). It's certainly a measure and reflection of you, when people are prepared to stand up and be counted in your defence. The smile Jeremy gave to the reporter, was more smug imo, than friendly.
-
Think about if you were convicted of a similar crime and you were innocent? I think you would have manner of friends and family backing you up and fighting your corner. Jeremy had VERY FEW people from his past that went that far (if any). It's certainly a measure and reflection of you, when people are prepared to stand up and be counted in your defence. The smile Jeremy gave to the reporter, was more smug imo, than friendly.
I do think the photo of Jeremy smiling could have been a lucky shot, the press take loads of photos and then search through for the best one to make their point and in this case they found one which showed him looking bit weird. The fact is it can be a lucky shot, the way the light falls, all kinds of reasons why they were able to capture that photo. It doesn't prove anything imo.
-
I do think the photo of Jeremy smiling could have been a lucky shot, the press take loads of photos and then search through for the best one to make their point and in this case they found one which showed him looking bit weird. The fact is it can be a lucky shot, the way the light falls, all kinds of reasons why they were able to capture that photo. It doesn't prove anything imo.
The camera was on him from when he got into the back seat, it's video not a single shot caught out of context. The video is there for everyone to view it themselves. I didn't say it 'proved' anything, I said he looked 'smug' and to me he does.
-
Jeremy didn´t have any family that supported him, biological or non-biological, no one. That made him very vulnerable.
Not sure about friends, I think there were some, but none influential and in any case, family counts more.
Here are two quite conflicting images of Jeremy in about the same situation. Take a look in the photo thread, most pictures show a sad and scared young man, very few a smug one. Besides, what did he have to be smug about - a defiant defence mechanism when flaunting his non-convincing smile that never reached the eyes.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40905;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40907;image)
-
The camera was on him from when he got into the back seat, it's video not a single shot caught out of context. The video is there for everyone to view it themselves. I didn't say it 'proved' anything, I said he looked 'smug' and to me he does.
I'm not trying to prove anything and I can see he may look smug but it is a matter of opinion, I think. :-\
-
Jeremy didn´t have any family that supported him, biological or non-biological, no one. That made him very vulnerable.
Not sure about friends, I think there were some, but none influential and in any case, family counts more.
Here are two quite conflicting images of Jeremy in about the same situation. Take a look in the photo thread, most pictures show a sad and scared young man, very few a smug one. Besides, what did he have to be smug about - a defiant defence mechanism when flaunting his non-convincing smile that never reached the eyes.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40905;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40907;image)
That's you opinion - I don't think he looks scared at all, not in any of them. You have to question why no one was prepared to support him. He had no real friends, most of them were Julie's friends and even they were prepared to testify that he had mentioned hating his family.
What did he have to be smug about? He thought he would get away with it.
-
Sorry for going slightly off topic, but the other day when I was adding photos of Sheila to the photo thread, I noticed how different she looked in all the photos. Almost like a different person in each and every picture.
Now, looking through the photos of Jeremy, the same can be said of him. He looks extremely different from photo to photo.
Odd, since they were not biologically related.
-
That's you opinion - I don't think he looks scared at all, not in any of them. You have to question why no one was prepared to support him. He had no real friends, most of them were Julie's friends and even they were prepared to testify that he had mentioned hating his family.
What did he have to be smug about? He thought he would get away with it.
I really cannot say any more if you can´t see he looks scared and sad in the top photo I posted. How would you describe that expression?
-
I'm not trying to prove anything and I can see he may look smug but it is a matter of opinion, I think. :-\
I didn't suggest you were. You originally stated that 'it didn't prove anything' and I said that I didn't say it did. Of course it's an opinion which is why I said 'he looks smug IMO'.
-
I really cannot say any more if you can´t see he looks scared and sad in the top photo I posted. How would you describe that expression?
Menacing.
-
How does he look here?:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4208;image)
Or here?:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4209;image)
-
How does he look here?:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4208;image)
Or here?:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4209;image)
He looks like someone who has just been found out - I certainly don't see 'fear'.
-
Menacing.
Then we see things extremely differently!
-
Then we see things extremely differently!
I think that might be an understatement ;D ;)
-
Taken at inopportune moments.Who's to say how he was feeling or what he was thinking ? Afterall,this is what the press are good at. They do it to the Royals and celebrities alike just to cobble up a story for peoples imaginations. The more the " bad feeling " you have,the better the media like it !!
-
I think that might be an understatement ;D ;)
Try this: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/ei_quiz/12 ;) (doesn´t work with Firefox).
-
Months before the murders,Jeremy and AE had had a blazing row over Vaulty Manor,which was owned by the Speakmans,which the Eatons had wanted to buy. Jeremy,however,put paid to that thought by saying that his father intended to buy the place himself.
This was when AE stormed into a rage and tore the wallpaper in the toilet at WHF.
Would Jeremy have thrown all that away ? Of course he wouldn't. Neville's intention would have created the fireworks which Jeremy would have delighted in seeing,plus the extra revenue which that would have collated.
-
Months before the murders,Jeremy and AE had had a blazing row over Vaulty Manor,which was owned by the Speakmans,which the Eatons had wanted to buy. Jeremy,however,put paid to that thought by saying that his father intended to buy the place himself.
This was when AE stormed into a rage and tore the wallpaper in the toilet at WHF.
Would Jeremy have thrown all that away ? Of course he wouldn't. Neville's intention would have created the fireworks which Jeremy would have delighted in seeing,plus the extra revenue which that would have collated.
Did the jury know this little gem ? There was a Hell of a lot the jury weren't privy to. Fair trial ?? I don't think so.
-
Taken at inopportune moments.Who's to say how he was feeling or what he was thinking ? Afterall,this is what the press are good at. They do it to the Royals and celebrities alike just to cobble up a story for peoples imaginations. The more the " bad feeling " you have,the better the media like it !!
But you have just said what you thought he was thinking and feeling in Alias's poll.
-
But you have just said what you thought he was thinking and feeling in Alias's poll.
Yes ? That's what I said and meant,why ?
-
The question asked how he would be feeling,so I answered.
-
False claims,statements and witnesses. Collusion began as soon as the investigation went from murder/suicide to murder. Blame lays purely in the hands of EP who instigated those concerned to do their damndest in securing a conviction by painting the blackest picture of Jeremy that they could muster. Jeremy was then left to run the gauntlet of police on one side and the extended relatives on the other and without familial support for himself,he became easy meat to blame for the crime.
Read the news on Glenn Ford,an African/American who'd been on Death Row for 30 years after having been found guilty by an all-white jury. The girlfriend of one of the robbers had falsely claimed that it was Ford who'd murdered the jeweller,and her claim got him the " death sentence "( nearly )
He was released last year when his conviction was overturned.
The guy had kept up his plea of innocence for 30 years even after a number of failed appeals.
Why had he been charged with the murder in the first place ? Because whoever fired the gun was left-handed.Ford was left-handed,but so was the original suspect,a friend of the girlfriend who'd blamed Ford in the first place.
-
Another attempted murder by a 28 year old woman who was sawing through the necks of two children at the house where she was staying. Sadie Jenkins used a steak knife to cut her victims,when voices in her head told her to do so. Sadie was said to have been suffering from an amphetamine induced psychosis and that when she attacked the children she KNEW what she was doing but didn't know that her actions were wrong.
It's now up to the jury to decide on whether she was insane at the time.
The children are a 7 year old boy and a 16 month girl. Both recovering/recovered. It was May last year.
-
A female ex-sergeant had to resign from Essex Police because she was being bullied. Was being told she should stay at home looking after her daughter instead of working. The woman became suicidal,so resigned. They were making it difficult because she was a single mother.
-
A female ex-sergeant had to resign from Essex Police because she was being bullied. Was being told she should stay at home looking after her daughter instead of working. The woman became suicidal,so resigned. They were making it difficult because she was a single mother.
When was this?
It is a huge problem that women are bullied in what is called "male oriented" jobs. Guess they don´t like the competition.
-
When was this?
It is a huge problem that women are bullied in what is called "male oriented" jobs. Guess they don´t like the competition.
She resigned last year after having asked for flexible hours in 2011 and was bullied since then.
Sympathetic lot,aren't they ?
-
The ex-sergeant in question was working with the prisoner processing team. I wonder if she was looking through some Bamber files at the time. :o
-
The ex-sergeant in question was working with the prisoner processing team. I wonder if she was looking through some Bamber files at the time. :o
Talk about jumping the gun! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Talk about jumping the gun! ;D ;D ;D ;D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>always on the ball. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>always on the ball. ;D ;D ;D ;D
The ball that got hit into the bunker! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The ball that got hit into the bunker! ;D ;D ;D ;D
I'm a Bullseye person myself. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm a Bullseye person myself. ;D ;D ;D ;D
They don't have a bullseye in the bunker ;D ;D ;D
-
They don't have a bullseye in the bunker ;D ;D ;D
I was thinking more the course. ;D
-
I was thinking more the course. ;D
They don't have one on the course either ;D ;D
-
They don't have one on the course either ;D ;D
At the 19th they do. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
At the 19th they do. ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D I'll give you that! ;)
-
Here goes. Im a newbie so please be gentle! !
I think im going to need a pretty hard skin to post on here , but i agree with keepers on this one! There is reasonable doubt and if i was a jury member i would have had to have found not guilty. There simply wasnt enough hard evidence and too many cockups by the police for any of it not to raise doubt.
This is all about how we percieve certain situations and characters. How we would react and what we would have done! No one can say 100% that jb is guilty as no one saw him or sheila do it.
I wonder how the jury members feelvabout it now! Does anyone know?
-
Here goes. Im a newbie so please be gentle! !
I think im going to need a pretty hard skin to post on here , but i agree with keepers on this one! There is reasonable doubt and if i was a jury member i would have had to have found not guilty. There simply wasnt enough hard evidence and too many cockups by the police for any of it not to raise doubt.
This is all about how we percieve certain situations and characters. How we would react and what we would have done! No one can say 100% that jb is guilty as no one saw him or sheila do it.
I wonder how the jury members feelvabout it now! Does anyone know?
Hello Notsure
I note your comments and I agree about EP making a total mess of the investigation. Perhaps you may wish to give us your views on the phone calls and how come Sheila was so clean.
Sorry forgot to say Welcome to the Forum
-
Here goes. Im a newbie so please be gentle! !
I think im going to need a pretty hard skin to post on here , but i agree with keepers on this one! There is reasonable doubt and if i was a jury member i would have had to have found not guilty. There simply wasnt enough hard evidence and too many cockups by the police for any of it not to raise doubt.
This is all about how we percieve certain situations and characters. How we would react and what we would have done! No one can say 100% that jb is guilty as no one saw him or sheila do it.
I wonder how the jury members feelvabout it now! Does anyone know?
Well done on your first post, Notsure -I hope that state will be cured soon ;)- and welcome to the forum. I rather think that at the time of the trial I too, would have said "not guilty" BUT we haven't seen the transcripts so we're not fully aware of what happened. I don't think Jeremy did himself any good with his supercilious and arrogant attitude and although I would never be in a hurry to fight Julie's corner, I imagine she was a very powerful and convincing witness. We have often mused on how jury members feel about it now.
-
Here goes. Im a newbie so please be gentle! !
I think im going to need a pretty hard skin to post on here , but i agree with keepers on this one! There is reasonable doubt and if i was a jury member i would have had to have found not guilty. There simply wasnt enough hard evidence and too many cockups by the police for any of it not to raise doubt.
This is all about how we percieve certain situations and characters. How we would react and what we would have done! No one can say 100% that jb is guilty as no one saw him or sheila do it.
I wonder how the jury members feelvabout it now! Does anyone know?
The problem with such a position is that no cockups by police have been established. This site features tons of allegations none of which have any evidentiary support. Jurors are presented competent evidence and must evaluate from the basis of such.
I am 100% sure Jeremy did it because it is not possible for Sheila to have:
1) killed herself with the moderator attached
2) after she was dead to have:
a) removed the moderator and put it away in the closet
b) moved her body from a seated position to a flat position
c) after a pool of blood formed after she was moved flat to then open the Bible and place it in such pool.
All of these things establish with 100% certainly someone else killed her and then staged the scene. Jeremy's claim that he received a call from Nevill with Nevill would not have made and which in fact was impossible for Nevill to have made establishes Jeremy is the one who killed Sheila. He had no way to know anything happened at WHF let alone that someone framed Sheila unless he did it. Other physical evidence proves that Sheila didn't beat or kill anyone else either. The same person who kille dher killed everyone else as well. There is much more evidence against Jeremy but this evidence is the most powerful.
The law doesn't require 100% proof though anyway. Proof must simply be beyond a reasonable doubt which means it is reasonably likely that someone is guilty and not reasonably likely that someone else did it instead.
It is not reasonably likely that Sheila killed anyone else or herself. It is not reasonably likely Jeremy could have known about the murders and have been able to contact police unless he was responsible. That is more than enough in the eyes of the law. To overturn his conviction requires proving it was reasonably likely that Sheila committed the murders and killed herself but the defense has no way to prove that based on the existing facts.
Jeremy supporters thus often make up different fake facts to try to pretend Sheila did it but such evidence it worthless because made up evidence can't be brought before an Appeal Court. The most recent CCRC submission was a complete flop and in order to keep making claims publicly that were rejected by the CCRC the defense will not publish the CCRC rejection. If they published it then people would see why arguments being advanced publicly to support Jeremy are invalid.
-
Hi scipio
You havent dissapointed me in your response and i will reslond but unfirtunately i have to pop out to pick my daughter up.
Will get back to you thanjs
-
Hi scipio
You havent dissapointed me in your response and i will reslond but unfirtunately i have to pop out to pick my daughter up.
Will get back to you thanjs
You might want to read some of the links I sent to you before you do. Obviously not all the statements but the Court decision and Report provide at least a solid foundation and you can read the various statements of the "witnesses" over time.
There is no need to rush a response.
-
The fact of the matter is that Sheila's blood did not get into the sound moderator by drawback, it got there by being forced out of the end of the gun barrel into the sound moderator at the time of test firing, proven by her blood being found on the rear of baffle plate 5, then consecutive front and rear of all other baffles all the way to the top of the sound moderator, even to the extent of some of her blood possibly being forced out onto the moderators end cap at the top end of the silencer. this helps to demonstrate the opposite to the theory of blowback relied upon by the prosecution during trial. Blood got into the sound moderator after being blasted in there from the rifle barrel using test fire control ammunition. If the means of its presence in the silencer had been because of drawback, the blood would have been found at its lowest point on the baffle plates on a top surface of one of the baffles...
In other words, Bamber was stitched up by Fletchers dodgy blowback theory. Fletcher knew exactly how the blood had been forced into the silencer at the bottom end, and this was one of the reasons why the earlier test fire of the anshuzt rifle was deliberately withheld, because to have to admit that control rounds had been fired via the anshuzt rifle with the silencer fitted on an occasion before the date the blood was identified as being unique to Sheila, (between 12th and 19th September 1985), would have rendered the blowback theory irrelevant. So, Fletcher concealed his knowledge of the earlier test fire, so that his blowback theory would be accepted...
These are the facts...
-
I have just found out Nosture has been reading David Shaw's 'An innocent Man'.
A very poor and biased book and very poor choice if you want to find out about the case. So poor it's not even on Amazon.
A little investigation would have lead you to Wilkes's book. Easily the best book and not biased.
-
I have just read a few lines of David Shaw's the book.
Jeremy didn't dial 999 as he was not aware of police protocol !
-
However Nosture can prove me wrong and explain how Sheila committed the crime.
The crime scene is well documented.
Thank you in advance Nosture. .
-
What I don't quite get, and forgive me for mentioning it in this particular thread, is that the prosecutions ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, states that all the 25 shots fired were with use of ELEY .22LR ammunition, but Ralph Bamber never purchased ELEY .22LR ammunition, and RADCLIFEE the gun dealer never sold that type of ammunition to Ralph Bamber, Ralph Bamber purchased 500 rounds of ELEY .22 subsonic ammunition, so it now seems that a third party brought along their own source of ELEY .22LR ammunition intent of using this in the shootings...
-
What I don't quite get, and forgive me for mentioning it in this particular thread, is that the prosecutions ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, states that all the 25 shots fired were with use of ELEY .22LR ammunition, but Ralph Bamber never purchased ELEY .22LR ammunition, and RADCLIFEE the gun dealer never sold that type of ammunition to Ralph Bamber, Ralph Bamber purchased 500 rounds of ELEY .22 subsonic ammunition, so it now seems that a third party brought along their own source of ELEY .22LR ammunition intent of using this in the shootings...
How many times are you going to post the same disproved lie?
Fletcher wrote in his statement that the ammunition he tested was Eley subsonic Hollow points and that the ammunition used for the murders was the same. By saying it was the same he was asserting the ammunition used for the murders was also Eley subsonic Hollow points. Some of the bullets were too damaged to say what they were form the bullets alone he had to used the casings. Since the only ammo at WHF was Eley 22LR subsonic that was the only ammunition available for use in the Anschutz.
If other ammo had been used it would be even more evidence Sheila wasn't responsible and that the murderer took ammunition to/from the scene. Your babble doesn't help Jeremy
-
Ralph Bamber did not purchase ELEY .22LR ammunition, and Radcliffe never sold him any. Radcliffe sold Ralph Bamber 500 rounds of ELEY .22 subsonic ammunition, not ELEY .22LR ammunition, now you know as well as I do that ELEY manufactured different types of .22 ammunition. Now, Bamber has been framed for these murders based upon a set of dodgy ELEY .22LR ammunition which was never at whf in the first instance. A third party brought their own ammunition intent on using it to kill everyone. Why would Jeremy if he be the killer bring his own different type of ELEY .22 ammunition to use in the shootings if he intended to kill his own sister and then pin the blame for the other four deaths, and her own suicide upon herself? It doesn't make sense, but the involvement of someone else in the murders does make sense. My money is on the scruffy looking hunched up man seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour after the police first arrived at the farmhouse, being the number one suspect. At the time of this sighting Jeremy was in the company of the police in Pages Lane...
-
Ralph Bamber did not purchase ELEY .22LR ammunition, and Radcliffe never sold him any. Radcliffe sold Ralph Bamber 500 rounds of ELEY .22 subsonic ammunition, not ELEY .22LR ammunition, now you know as well as I do that ELEY manufactured different types of .22 ammunition. Now, Bamber has been framed for these murders based upon a set of dodgy ELEY .22LR ammunition which was never at whf in the first instance. A third party brought their own ammunition intent on using it to kill everyone. Why would Jeremy if he be the killer bring his own different type of ELEY .22 ammunition to use in the shootings if he intended to kill his own sister and then pin the blame for the other four deaths, and her own suicide upon herself? It doesn't make sense, but the involvement of someone else in the murders does make sense. My money is on the scruffy looking hunched up man seen walking away from the farmhouse about an hour after the police first arrived at the farmhouse, being the number one suspect. At the time of this sighting Jeremy was in the company of the police in Pages Lane...
The ammunition purchased was 22LR which is short for 22 long rifle which is all over the box of the ammunition that Nevill purchased and for good reason- the Anschutz he purchased was chambered in 22LR. All you are doing is humiliating yourself claiming they were some caliber other than 22LR.
-
The ammunition purchased was 22LR which is short for 22 long rifle which is all over the box of the ammunition that Nevill purchased and for good reason- the Anschutz he purchased was chambered in 22LR. All you are doing is humiliating yourself claiming they were some caliber other than 22LR.
the box inside which Ralph Bamber purchased the 500 rounds of ELEY .22 subsonic ammunition was never photographed, neither have individual ELEY spent cartridges in with at the scene been photographed so that any of us can see for ourselves the fine detail at the heart of this investigation. The police have not withheld all this evidence for no good reason at all, they have not disclosed photographs of these things because to have done so, exposes the dodgy crime scene ammunition for what it is, for example, it is ELEY .22LR ammunition purchased by someone other than Ralph Bamber. The police knew this to be true, they knew that a variety of different types of .22 ammunition was used at the time of the shooting, but in order to present the case as simple and uncomplicated as possible, so that Bamber could have no opportunity to point the finger of suspicion at someone else, they made it into a one gun crime, using one kind if ammunition from the same batch. Unfortunately for them they fabricated the ballistics evidence using a type of ELEY .22LR ammunition that had not been sold too, or ever purchased by Ralph Bamber, and that is a fact...
-
the box inside which Ralph Bamber purchased the 500 rounds of ELEY .22 subsonic ammunition was never photographed, neither have individual ELEY spent cartridges in with at the scene been photographed so that any of us can see for ourselves the fine detail at the heart of this investigation. The police have not withheld all this evidence for no good reason at all, they have not disclosed photographs of these things because to have done so, exposes the dodgy crime scene ammunition for what it is, for example, it is ELEY .22LR ammunition purchased by someone other than Ralph Bamber. The police knew this to be true, they knew that a variety of different types of .22 ammunition was used at the time of the shooting, but in order to present the case as simple and uncomplicated as possible, so that Bamber could have no opportunity to point the finger of suspicion at someone else, they made it into a one gun crime, using one kind if ammunition from the same batch. Unfortunately for them they fabricated the ballistics evidence using a type of ELEY .22LR ammunition that had not been sold too, or ever purchased by Ralph Bamber, and that is a fact...
If the ammunition had been different and fired by different weapons than Fletcher would have indicated such in his assessment. Far from helping clear Jeremy such evidence would be additional proof that Sheila didn't kill herself and such would have been welcome by prosecutors not concealed.
The truth is that the Anschutz was used for all 25 shots and the ammunition used was the ammunition Nevill had purchased. The defense has found nothing to prove otherwise you just ignore the evidence and simply make up that other ammunition and weapons were used though you have zero evidence to prove such.
-
Adam
' you just found out that notsure is reading an innocent man'
Wow what a revelation. ! The book is posted here on this forum and it is here on this forum that i mentioned i was reading it.
you dont like the book as it argues away all your theories.
-
Adam
' you just found out that notsure is reading an innocent man'
Wow what a revelation. ! The book is posted here on this forum and it is here on this forum that i mentioned i was reading it.
you dont like the book as it argues away all your theories.
Yes, but most of what is written in that book has been blow away quite some time ago. What specifically stands out in the book for you?
-
Adam
' you just found out that notsure is reading an innocent man'
Wow what a revelation. ! The book is posted here on this forum and it is here on this forum that i mentioned i was reading it.
you dont like the book as it argues away all your theories.
Are you sure you're not sure, notsure?
-
Lol
Im done for tonight!
-
Lol
Im done for tonight!
You sure? ;)
-
Are you sure you're not sure, notsure?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam
' you just found out that notsure is reading an innocent man'
Wow what a revelation. ! The book is posted here on this forum and it is here on this forum that i mentioned i was reading it.
you dont like the book as it argues away all your theories.
The book makes excuses for all the circumstantial and forensic evidence. Together with Jeremy's strange behaviour after the massacre and bad family relations.
Feel free to respond to post number 173.
-
Facts-------------there are more holes in this case than a colander !
-
" all's going well "----------" something's wrong at the farm ". What ?
It's either one or t'other ?
Both are alleged to have been said.? Which one is right ? Take your pick.
-
The book makes excuses for all the circumstantial and forensic evidence. Together with Jeremy's strange behaviour after the massacre and bad family relations.
Feel free to respond to post number 173.
what forensic evidence does it make excuses for ? forensic evidence is either there or it is not.
Circumstantial evidence is what it says on the tin :D so of course there can be explanations or perhaps excuses . Bad family relations - it depends who you believe does it not?
-
Bad " planning " on Jeremy's part. Instead of dumping JM,they could have got married,lived at WHF and reaped the benefits of the business ( which is what JM originally must have had in mind )so in effect,she not only lost Jeremy,but her chances of becoming " lady of the manor ".Enough to make any woman go running looking for revenge and her chance of blocking the future of Jeremy.
IF Jeremy had been guilty,would not this have been a way of securing WHF and its assets by passing them over to his " wife " ? He'd have had 10 months in which to do it,as this is what any man with half a brain would have done had he planned with military precision. Not to " slaughter " his family,then dump his girlfriend at such a crucial time ::) It's only natural that there'd have been finger-pointing.He left himself wide open to suspicion. NOBODY is as stupid as that.!!
-
Strange too that JM KNEW about the forthcoming murders. In my books and in the minds of others,she was an accessory.
How many guys are in prison at this moment who were " friends " of those who'd murdered.? It's known as Joint Enterprise. Jordan Cunliffe was accused of this.He didn't touch the victim,he probably didn't know when he set out that night ( unlike JM who " knew " ) that some poor soul was going to be murdered, but being part of the accused is as bad as having carried out the deed.
-
Bad " planning " on Jeremy's part. Instead of dumping JM,they could have got married,lived at WHF and reaped the benefits of the business ( which is what JM originally must have had in mind )so in effect,she not only lost Jeremy,but her chances of becoming " lady of the manor ".Enough to make any woman go running looking for revenge and her chance of blocking the future of Jeremy.
IF Jeremy had been guilty,would not this have been a way of securing WHF and its assets by passing them over to his " wife " ? He'd have had 10 months in which to do it,as this is what any man with half a brain would have done had he planned with military precision. Not to " slaughter " his family,then dump his girlfriend at such a crucial time ::) It's only natural that there'd have been finger-pointing.He left himself wide open to suspicion. NOBODY is as stupid as that.!!
1) He didn't have the assets himself officially they belonged to the estate. He had no way to marry her and have them immediately pass to her.
2) He didn't want to marry her at that point he wanted to have fun. He didn't think she would rat him out after the breakup and didn't think police would believe her anyway. He felt that police would do what his supporters do and simply dismiss her claims. He told her this when they were arguing before they broke up and she threatened to talk.
Evidence of various lies by Jeremy and evidence Sheila could not have killed herself and a lack of evidence she killed anyone else resulted in police believing Julie and corroborating her claims. Jeremy didn't anticipate such. He didn't realize he botched things up so badly.
He made a big mistake by constantly telling her he wanted to kill his family, telling her the plans he had in store for how he was going to do it, and telling her after the fact that he did it including before he even called police. He didn't view this as requiring him to marry Julie and live a normal life. He didn't kill everyone in order to live a normal life married to Julie. He did it so he could pursue a party lifestyle. People like him blow everything partying then are back to working the trenches they hate. I can give countless example of people who inherited businesses and substantial assets but failed to have any interest in taking the effort required to run them successfully instead preferring to have fun and at the end the businesses go under, they spend all their assets on entertainment and then have to go get what they consider a menial job and to live what they consider a boring life. Some of the regret their actions while others glorify their party days and tell the stories with fondess, they live to tell those stories and basically live in the past.
-
I'm not arguing as to whether he'd have married her or not. Under the circumstances it's what any man with a manipulative nature would have done to get himself out of a hole.
JM never opened her mouth about his " plan " so it was even less likely that she'd have opened up once there was a ring on her finger. She liked the lobster and champagne too---------plus the holidays. I noticed she didn't refuse all this knowing " what he'd done ".
It's a miracle she didn't choke as she ate the fine cuisine !
What sort of a woman accepts money,holidays and 5* eating from a " murderer ".Don't say because she loved him--------she loved the life-style.
30 years is proof that she didn't love him.
-
Strange too that JM KNEW about the forthcoming murders. In my books and in the minds of others,she was an accessory.
How many guys are in prison at this moment who were " friends " of those who'd murdered.? It's known as Joint Enterprise. Jordan Cunliffe was accused of this.He didn't touch the victim,he probably didn't know when he set out that night ( unlike JM who " knew " ) that some poor soul was going to be murdered, but being part of the accused is as bad as having carried out the deed.
Knowing someone plans to do something bad doesn't make you an accessory doing something to aid them does.
She said she didn't believe he was actually going to do it though. I had a friend who said he was going to blow up our high school, he never did it though. She treated him the way we treated him when he said such. Jeremy made somewhat more detailed plans that he did and conveyed such plans to her so some say she should have realized he was serious. But it is hard to take people serious who say such things unless you see actual preparations being made like see bombs being built. If she did think he was going to do it bu didn't care that just makes her a horrible person not an accessory. If she aided him in his planning that would make her an accessory.
There is only one area where her actions could potentially have made her an accessory or guilty of obstruction of justice. That related to her support of Jeremy receiving a phone call from WHF. It hinges on what she knew and what her intent was. If she knew Jeremy was making up receiving a call and helping to support a fake call that at the very least is obstruction and could very well make her an accessory after the fact.
She said that before the murders Jeremy told her a call from WHF would be made to him and this would be his alibi. She was vague about whether he would simply make up this call or someone would really call. Her vagueness could be because she realized if she admitted he said it was going to be made up then her support of him receiving a call was aiding and abetting him.
She said that in his call to her at 11:30 he told her tonight is the night.
She alleges at 3AM the night of the murders he told her the murder plan was going well and he received a distress call from WHF and that he wanted her to convey this to police. For all we know he told her he was going to pretend he received a distress call and needed her to say he called her to report to her that he had received this call and sounded very worried. If he did tell her that then she committed a crime by telling police what she did on the first 2 days after the murders.
She initially told police what he wanted her to say. Later she told police that he called at 3AM saying all was going well with the murders and that he received a call from Nevill. She framed it as her failing to tell police everything she knew not actively lying to then. She said she failed to mention the parts where he said he had not been to bed yet, all was going well with the murders, tonight is the night from the prior call, neglecting to mention how he had long been talking about killing the and finally not mentioning his admission he was responsible. She said she didn't lie for him she just didn't tell police everything she knew.
It is hard to see how she could think that a call was really made to Jeremy. It seems obvious he planned to lie and make up receiving a call. She paints herself as stupid and really believing such. People will have lingering suspicions that she knew there was no call and was lying for him but there is no way to prove it since Jeremy won't give his version. Jeremy wants to pretend he is innocent so won't give his account of what he really said to her.
-
I'm not arguing as to whether he'd have married her or not. Under the circumstances it's what any man with a manipulative nature would have done to get himself out of a hole.
JM never opened her mouth about his " plan " so it was even less likely that she'd have opened up once there was a ring on her finger. She liked the lobster and champagne too---------plus the holidays. I noticed she didn't refuse all this knowing " what he'd done ".
It's a miracle she didn't choke as she ate the fine cuisine !
What sort of a woman accepts money,holidays and 5* eating from a " murderer ".Don't say because she loved him--------she loved the life-style.
30 years is proof that she didn't love him.
She didn't love the lifestyle that is why they broke up. The constant partying annoyed her she wanted something more substantive out of life.
-
When Sheila had one of her episodes, she could not recognise anybody she knew, and She could not even remember anything about her own behaviour on those occasions, it was as if she was under a trance, and had taken on another personality, her evil monstrous alter ego, the white witch, Joan of arc, caught up in between the forces of good and evil - when she got like this, no-one could feel safe in her presence. Let's get the facts right, her confidant Freddie Emani himself admitted to being frightened for his own safety, and the safety of others, including children, when Sheila was that way inclined...
if Sheila made Freddie Emani ferried and in fear of losing his life when Sheila went into her violent rages, image how poor old Ralph Banner must have felt when Sheila turned on him with one of his loaded guns?
-
She didn't love the lifestyle that is why they broke up. The constant partying annoyed her she wanted something more substantive out of life.
Oh yeah,pull the other one.
-
When Sheila had one of her episodes, she could not recognise anybody she knew, and She could not even remember anything about her own behaviour on those occasions, it was as if she was under a trance, and had taken on another personality, her evil monstrous alter ego, the white witch, Joan of arc, caught up in between the forces of good and evil - when she got like this, no-one could feel safe in her presence. Let's get the facts right, her confidant Freddie Emani himself admitted to being frightened for his own safety, and the safety of others, including children, when Sheila was that way inclined...
if Sheila made Freddie Emani ferried and in fear of losing his life when Sheila went into her violent rages, image how poor old Ralph Banner must have felt when Sheila turned on him with one of his loaded guns?
You keep digging your hole by ignoring things in the very statement you are highlighting:
(http://s29.postimg.org/6rq7t01nb/freddie.jpg)
She instantly recognized Nevill and calmed down and became rational.
Jeremy is the one who had the gun on him and he opened fire so quickly that there wasn't much time to think. June was shot first so she was hit before she was even awake and might never have ever realized what was going on. Nevill knew he had to try to fight back to save his life and saw his wife shot up so probably was pissed more than anything.
Sheila didn't even know how to use the gun so Nevill would have simply taken it away from her had she been seen with the weapon. The notion he would have called Jeremy for help is laughable.
-
None of us know what Sheila was capable of doing once she changed into that other person often hidden away inside her tortured mind. Since, when someone has a psychotic episode like Sheila is rumoured to have had frequently, people end up doing all sorts of things they weren't thought to have been capable of doing whilst in a normal state. I don't think anyone can say that the capabilities of a normal person are always replicated in the changed version of that same person having had a psychotic episode. Intact evidence elsewhere tends to show that someone having such a psychotic episode often does amazing things, and capable of immense strength and determination, not recognised at all when that person returns to, or had been in a normal state...
-
None of us know what Sheila was capable of doing once she changed into that other person often hidden away inside her tortured mind. Since, when someone has a psychotic episode like Sheila is rumoured to have had frequently, people end up doing all sorts of things they weren't thought to have been capable of doing whilst in a normal state. I don't think anyone can say that the capabilities of a normal person are always replicated in the changed version of that same person having had a psychotic episode. Intact evidence elsewhere tends to show that someone having such a psychotic episode often does amazing things, and capable of immense strength and determination, not recognised at all when that person returns to, or had been in a normal state...
We know she didn't have the power to kill to kill everyone without getting any evidence on her closes and body or the power to kill herself with the moderator attached then while dead move her body flat and use telekinesis powers to float the moderator down to the closet, and the Bible to a pool of her blood. Nor did Nevill have the opportunity let alone a motive to call Jeremy and claim Sheila was going crazy with the gun.
-
Sheila's body and clothing was contaminated with blood and other marks consistent with her being responsible for killing the other 4 victims. She had blood and marks on her hand, her arm, her neck, her foot and her nightdress which leaves not doubt whatsoever that her body and clothing were not blood and injury free as the police and its supporters would have us believe. Clearly, she had been involved in some sort of a direct altercation with Ralph, she left her mark on his forearm as evidenced by the presence of several deep gouge marks caused by her digging her fingernails into his arm. Despite some arguing that the gouge marks were made by the guns barrel, which even if true would only strengthen the case for the sound moderator not being fitted to the rifles barrel, established by the fact that the size, shape, and dimensions of the gouges being too small to have been inflicted with use of the end of the silencer...
-
Sheila's body and clothing was contaminated with blood and other marks consistent with her being responsible for killing the other 4 victims. She had blood and marks on her hand, her arm, her neck, her foot and her nightdress which leaves not doubt whatsoever that her body and clothing were not blood and injury free as the police and its supporters would have us believe.
The only blood on her was her own it was tested and was found to be hers. That blood was:
1) blood that ran down her shoulder and side of her breast
2) blood that was on her outer palm/wrist which got there when she tried to plug her neck wound
3) blood that ran down from her wrist to her elbow as her hand was holding her neck wound. Gravity carried the blood down to her elbow.
She had no blood from any victims, no GSR on her hands or clothing, no soot on her hands and clothing and no injuries or trauma of any kind to her hands or fingernails.
Clearly, she had been involved in some sort of a direct altercation with Ralph, she left her mark on his forearm as evidenced by the presence of several deep gouge marks caused by her digging her fingernails into his arm. Despite some arguing that the gouge marks were made by the guns barrel, which even if true would only strengthen the case for the sound moderator not being fitted to the rifles barrel, established by the fact that the size, shape, and dimensions of the gouges being too small to have been inflicted with use of the end of the silencer...
The gouge marks were made by the butt of the rifle. he corner of the butt causes marks like that. The longer/wider abrasions were made by the butt of the rifle dragging against his arm. When the corner dug in it causes roundish marks when dragged over a broad area it causes the lateral marks.
Fingernails cause scratches like these:
(http://i.imgur.com/Il4OQ0W.jpg)
(http://whatallergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Scratch1.jpg)
(http://i31.tinypic.com/33a7yiq.jpg)
(https://paullukesworld.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/11.jpg)
-
Digs/grabs with the nails in elderly flesh will draw blood. Skin loses its elasticity as you get older and also thins.
-
Do we know of a letter written by CC to EP explaining CC's reason for Sheila having killed the family ?
Of course not-----------it was hushed up. It's no wonder that CC wasn't allowed to change his statement !
-
Do we know of a letter written by CC to EP explaining CC's reason for Sheila having killed the family ?
Of course not-----------it was hushed up. It's no wonder that CC wasn't allowed to change his statement !
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. CC's letter was a letter addressed to Nevill which he never mailed or handed to him. This letter stated he wanted full time custody of the kids. He didn't give it to Nevill because he wasn't yet prepared to demand full time custody and risk fighting them for it he was still mulling it over if he wanted to do such.
During the appeal process Jeremy's lawyers took this letter to Ferguson and told him that Nevill received this letter and as a result Nevill went to her supporting she give up custody to Collin. He said she would view this as betrayal and this could have given her motive to act.
He never gave the letter to Nevill or spoke with him verbally about obtaining full time custody so it is impossible Nevill could have told her that he supported her giving up custody to Nevill. This nonsense was rejected by the Court of Appeals. Eveyrthing you raise has either been soundly rejected already or is simply made up like your claim June and Nevill had marks in their arms from Sheila digging into them.
Pertinent points form the Court of Appeal Decision:
"He was seeking Nevill Bamber's support in convincing Sheila that the boys should continue to stay with him most of the time, and that he should have full control over their well-being. It is to be noted that he and Sheila had joint custody of the children.
This letter was referred to in a disclosed statement made by Mr Caffell on 11 September 1985. He actually produced the letter to the police officer who took the statement, and it was given an exhibit number (ARD/1) although technically it could never have been an exhibit. In such circumstances, the suggestion that this letter was never disclosed to the defence is, we have to say, manifestly unsustainable. So also is the assertion, implicit in the appellant's skeleton argument on this ground that the police at least in breach of their duty to ensure that all relevant material was disclosed failed, deliberately or inadvertently, to ensure that this material was drawn to the attention of the defence team. The reference to the document in the disclosed statement alerted the defence to its existence and it was for the defence to satisfy themselves as to whether or not it was relevant to the case that they wished to present to the court.
That conclusion is enough to dispose of this particular ground of appeal, but in deference to Mr Turner's submissions on the point we go further and express our view that this draft letter, even though it may have reflected Mr Caffell's views, was of minimal if any relevance to the issues that the jury had to consider. The letter was never sent; and there is no evidence that Mr Caffell's views, or his request was ever conveyed to Nevill Bamber, Sheila Caffell or any other member of the family. Mr Caffell himself was not present on the evening of 6 August when the discussion described by the trial judge took place. The most relevant evidence of Sheila's reaction to the suggestion that the boys should be fostered was that given by the appellant himself and related to a point in time only a matter of hours before the killing took place."
"However, Mr Turner sought permission to call before us further psychiatric evidence, primarily from Dr Ferguson. In the statement tendered to this court in support of this application Dr Ferguson suggests that if he had been aware of the letter from Colin Caffell with the possible scenario that he might take over full time care of the children from Sheila coupled with the possibility that Nevill Bamber might have pleaded Colin Caffell's case, he would have suggested that this could have had a potentially catastrophic effect on Sheila Caffell. This would have been partly because she would have been resistant to the suggestion of having her children removed from her care and partly because it might have transformed her image of her father from a support and mentor into that of a hostile figure.
However, it is clear that Dr Ferguson had already dealt with a broadly similar scenario in his evidence in chief. ... It appears to us that when Dr Ferguson provided his most recent statement in support of this application he overlooked the fact that the letter written by Colin Caffell was never sent and there is no evidence that it ever came to Nevill Bamber's knowledge. He also does not appear to be aware of the very considerable extent to which Colin Caffell was, at the material time, already responsible for the day to day care of the two boys. In the circumstances it does not seem to us that Dr Ferguson is in any position to add significantly to the evidence that he gave to the jury in October of 1986. No new issue is raised which was not already fully before the jury, and in the circumstances it did not seem to us necessary or expedient in the interests of justice that further evidence on this topic should now be admitted before this court and we declined to hear such evidence. There is thus nothing of any substance in this ground and we reject it."
-
I don't have to write a chapter in order to get my point across.
CC also wrote to EP,which is what I said,and the reason why you don't believe it is because it was hushed up and has never seen daylight.
You just can't stand anyone getting one over on you,can you ? Out comes all the abuse and insults to cover that fact up.
-
I don't have to write a chapter in order to get my point across.
CC also wrote to EP,which is what I said,and the reason why you don't believe it is because it was hushed up and has never seen daylight.
You just can't stand anyone getting one over on you,can you ? Out comes all the abuse and insults to cover that fact up.
Post proof that CC wrote to EP expressing his reasons why Sheila is the killer. You can't can you? ;D Because it is made up, isn't it?
-
Post proof that CC wrote to EP expressing his reasons why Sheila is the killer. You can't can you? ;D Because it is made up, isn't it?
It's in the " Free Library".Why do you keep saying that I'm making things up ? I've NEVER seen any of your contributions to the case apart from sniping at mine !!
-
I'm not even sure what the Free Library is - but I've no interest in finding out or searching because I know that such a letter does not exist, so it would be a waste of time.
-
I don't have to write a chapter in order to get my point across.
CC also wrote to EP,which is what I said,and the reason why you don't believe it is because it was hushed up and has never seen daylight.
You just can't stand anyone getting one over on you,can you ? Out comes all the abuse and insults to cover that fact up.
I have to write a chapter to get people making false claims to recognize they are wrong about such claims.
CC didn't write any letters to police, like everyone else he wrote up statements for the police who questioned him. The police told him what they wanted him to address in the statements.
-
The police told him what they wanted him to address in the statements.
Indeed they did----------------------
-
The police told him what they wanted him to address in the statements.
Indeed they did----------------------
That is the purpose of statement to address specific things not to just let people babble and hope they will include something useful.
-
I think our scip is copying and pasting from documents.
-
I think our scip is copying and pasting from documents.
I've thought that for long enough-------------sad isn't it ?
-
I think our scip is copying and pasting from documents.
Quoting from evidence is how you prove you have evidence. In some instances people refuse to accept the evidence posted elsewhere on this site unless you actually post snap shots of it or direct quotes. I quoted from the Court of Appeals decision and explained that is where the quote was from. Naturally a quote is useless unless the source is reputable.
-
I think our scip is copying and pasting from documents.
Did you miss where he said
Pertinent points form the Court of Appeal Decision:
-
wouldent it be much more simple just to post the link if its from the court of appeal.
-
wouldent it be much more simple just to post the link if its from the court of appeal.
It's a large document, most of them are. Much easier to just copy and paste the part that proves your point rather than tell someone to go and read the whole thing.
-
well you can do both.
-
Scip i have read the appeal etc etc. Im left feeling 50 50 now.
Can anyone tell me why he has been claiming innocence for 30 years . Please dont anyone say because hes a physopath.
How does a human being spend 30 years doing that! Why doesnt he just get on with whatever life he has inside if hes guikty.
it does NOT make sense
-
Notsure I think he has been claiming innocence for 30 years because he thinks he has a good chance of having his conviction quashed but guess he may not be as confident now. It is my opinion the silencer was not used if I am right Jeremy knows this too also I don't think he ever told Julie he intended killing his family if this is correct he knows that too so all he has to do is prove this and he will walk it was a close call one more vote for innocent he would have walked.
-
He would have been better off doing the rehab programmes and fighting his case to get on human rights and rehab !
-
Scip i have read the appeal etc etc. Im left feeling 50 50 now.
Can anyone tell me why he has been claiming innocence for 30 years . Please dont anyone say because hes a physopath.
How does a human being spend 30 years doing that! Why doesnt he just get on with whatever life he has inside if hes guikty.
it does NOT make sense
somtimes guilty people genuinely think there innocent thats the only possbility i can think of.
-
somtimes guilty people genuinely think there innocent thats the only possbility i can think of.
There is a thread on why he protests his innocence.
Lots of reasons. Extra recent reasons from the recent video being he is a psychopath.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5358.msg238056.html#msg238056
-
There is a thread on why he protests his innocence.
Lots of reasons. Extra recent reasons from the recent video being he is a psychopath.
And they are all assumption and bluff - there is no substance to any of them - only one person knows the truth about that subject - and it is not you.
-
Scip i have read the appeal etc etc. Im left feeling 50 50 now.
Can anyone tell me why he has been claiming innocence for 30 years . Please dont anyone say because hes a physopath.
How does a human being spend 30 years doing that! Why doesnt he just get on with whatever life he has inside if hes guikty.
it does NOT make sense
You are asking us to get inside the head of criminals. Why are some people willing to admit their errors while others are not? Why are some caught lying willing to admit they lied while others refuse to admit it and still insist they are right despite evidence proving they lied? There are a sizable number of people caught dead to rights who refuse to admit their guilt nonetheless. In one case a guy who was convicted of murder insisted for more than a decade he was innocent. He got implicated in a prison bomb plot and to avoid severe punishment for that crime he agreed to tell where he buried the body of a victim so that the parents could finally put her in a cemetery.
Why did he refuse to admit his guilt for so long? I doubt he did it in order to keep a trump card of where the body was buried to use later. Indeed he could have admitted guilt and still saved that trump card to play at a later date. He never admitted why he killed her. He never even explicitly admitted killing her he simply told where the body was thus giving away that he must have killed her.
We can look at possibilities of why Jeremy is acting as he is but there is no way to know for sure.
1) He could like the publicity and care about his image in history- trying to have a legacy by being known as someone who some feel was given a raw deal
2) He could like the attention he gets from supporters and is afraid if he tells the truth then no one will write to him anymore or pay any attention to him
3) He could have believed he actually stood a real chance of fooling the appeal courts and getting his conviction vacated
4) He could feel that since he will never get paroled he has nothing to lose in maintaining his innocence and keep hoping to find a way to fool the courts to get out and feel that even if it is unsuccessful the hope gives him something to do and something to live for.
5) He could be embarrassed by his actions (some criminals are proud and brag about their crimes while others do not) so no matter what doesn't want to admit to them
Maybe it is one or more of these maybe it is just his ego or something else. he only way to ever find out would be if he decided to explain his motivation.
Since there are so many people who never admit their guilt even though the evidence is overwhelming one can't look at such to assess whether they are innocent one needs to look at the evidence itself to judge.
-
One other possibility: He is innocent.
-
yes theres also that as well.
-
One other possibility: He is innocent.
Of course he's innocent. Can you give me a list on what EP had him convicted on ?
-
mind you hes never had any reall incentive to say he was anything elese im mean if he was guilty what good would admiting guilt do him.
mind you theres a diffrence bettween not admiting guilt and vigrously protesting your innocence wich he has done.
-
mind you hes never had any reall incentive to say he was anything elese im mean if he was guilty what good would admiting guilt do him.
Wouldn't do him any good.
People say he has been claiming innocence for 30 plus years & he wouldn't do this if he wasn't TRULY innocent... but he was sentenced in 1986 and given the whole life tariff in 1994. That's only That's eight years in which he was appealling and had the first stab at it, which obviously failed. He wasn't going to admit his guilt in this time frame because he was having his first chance to appeal.
The truth is AFTER 1994 admitting his guilt would do absolutely NO good to Bamber because he was serving a whole life tarriff. So the only option is to win appeal.
-
One other possibility: He is innocent.
That's not possible the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.
-
What evidence of his guilt ? Have we seen any notes on the findings by EP ?
-
What evidence of his guilt ? Have we seen any notes on the findings by EP ?
The evidence that Sheila didn't load a gun, fire a gun, beat Neville, or kill herself but rather was murdered for starters. The evidence that Nevill would not have called Jeremy and could not have called Jeremy establishes he is the one who did it and framed Sheila. This is confirmed by Julie's testimony that he planned their murders, framing Sheila and that he admitted to being responsible. There was a host of evidence regard various lies he told and things he did to further the frame job like lying about leaving out the gun and extra bullets. All of this was used to establish his guilt.
-
Who said ? Sheila was brought up with guns.She'd have known how to load one from the age of 10 probably. As for firing a gun-------------a child of 10 and under can do that ( these are LAME excuses ) A person in charge of a weapon such as a rifle has the upper hand.A couple of shots to Neville would have put him out of action,but the real reason he didn't fight back was because he was confronted by a woman. Had it been Jeremy,then Neville would definitely have stood up to him,feeling less helpless man to man rather than having to face a woman,his own daughter. Then Jeremy would have shown signs of having had a clout or two.
Neville must have been in a quandary as to what would pan out when he phoned Jeremy. Which he DID.
There was NO planning of any murders. Psychotic episodes such as Sheila had,are unpredictable,and as it happened,she was very very sick.
If you believed everything that JM said,then there's nothing down for you, if you can't tell spin from the truth.
-
Frame Sheila ? Jeremy couldn't frame a picture !
-
Who said ? Sheila was brought up with guns.She'd have known how to load one from the age of 10 probably. As for firing a gun-------------a child of 10 and under can do that ( these are LAME excuses ) A person in charge of a weapon such as a rifle has the upper hand.A couple of shots to Neville would have put him out of action,but the real reason he didn't fight back was because he was confronted by a woman. Had it been Jeremy,then Neville would definitely have stood up to him,feeling less helpless man to man rather than having to face a woman,his own daughter. Then Jeremy would have shown signs of having had a clout or two.
Neville must have been in a quandary as to what would pan out when he phoned Jeremy. Which he DID.
There was NO planning of any murders. Psychotic episodes such as Sheila had,are unpredictable,and as it happened,she was very very sick.
If you believed everything that JM said,then there's nothing down for you, if you can't tell spin from the truth.
Nevill only owned shotguns as she was growing up. He purchased his first semi-auto at Jeremy's insistence in November 1984. Sheila didn't have any interest in the shotguns and had none int he rifle, she didn't want to know how to load it.
on top of her having no interest in guns and not knowing how to load and operate the Anschutz it is obvious she didn't load it, fired it or beat Nevill with it because there would have been evidence on her clothing and body had she done such. The fact she was murdered and can't have killed herself makes it clear the others were murdered by the same person she was. When everything combined is taken into account the case against Jeremy is too strong to overcome.
-
Like most of these type of killings, and where a mentally ill person is involved,it's the authorities who've let the people down badly.
One such case was on the news this morning where parents were separated/divorced,and where the father had full custody of the children. One of the children was allowed to stay with its mother for a weekend, and she burnt the place down with the little boy,and,including herself. The other children had stayed miles away with their father,who'd said that his little son should never have been allowed to stay with his mother. He's in tears still,poor man.
-
Can anyone account for the two different ages which were recorded per call ? 26/27 ?
-
Can anyone account for the two different ages which were recorded per call ? 26/27 ?
Yes I accounted for it long ago and will cut and paste from such post since you are such a fan of my cuttting and pasting.
Either:
1) West accidentally told Bonnett a different age than West recorded on his log
or
2) Bonnett accidentally recorded a different age than West told him either because he heard it wrong or simply wrote the wrong thing in haste. If someone is rattling off full sentences they are talking ahead of you. Yo are recording things they said moments earlier instead of what they are saying at that exact moment and it is easy to misremember what they said.
These are the only possible explanations there are no others.
-
" Accidentally ",you say. The other fact that the force couldn't tell if it was a man or a woman that they saw through the kitchen window--------------another " accident ?"
Thank God it wasn't my life which was hanging in the balance in a courtroom,where I was being tried for murder if these " accidents " kept cropping up.
Would you have been happy about the original investigation being withheld if it was you who were on trial,knowing you were innocent ? NONE of these files have seen daylight for 30 years. Phone-calls,times,etc.
-
" Accidentally ",you say. The other fact that the force couldn't tell if it was a man or a woman that they saw through the kitchen window--------------another " accident ?"
Thank God it wasn't my life which was hanging in the balance in a courtroom,where I was being tried for murder if these " accidents " kept cropping up.
Would you have been happy about the original investigation being withheld if it was you who were on trial,knowing you were innocent ? NONE of these files have seen daylight for 30 years. Phone-calls,times,etc.
Jeremy didn't give her correct age anyway. But it made no difference since the only one in her 20s was Sheila.
As for Nevill, his hair looked wild and from the back it is easy to see how one can think it was the body of an elderly woman.
You nitpick the police because you have nothing valid to raise and try suggesting these things mean they must have committed other errors of significance. It is not unlike when people pick on my typos to deflect from the fact they can't deal with my arguments.
-
" Accidentally ",you say. The other fact that the force couldn't tell if it was a man or a woman that they saw through the kitchen window--------------another " accident ?"
Thank God it wasn't my life which was hanging in the balance in a courtroom,where I was being tried for murder if these " accidents " kept cropping up.
Would you have been happy about the original investigation being withheld if it was you who were on trial,knowing you were innocent ? NONE of these files have seen daylight for 30 years. Phone-calls,times,etc.
It is a bit terrifying at times lookout. I also think I still believe jury service is the fairest judgement however, relying on the judgement of others with all the prejudice, fixed opinions, stupidity and lack of interest human beings are capable of any accused person can be at risk of an MOJ. imo
-
Jeremy didn't give her correct age anyway. But it made no difference since the only one in her 20s was Sheila.
As for Nevill, his hair looked wild and from the back it is easy to see how one can think it was the body of an elderly woman.
You nitpick the police because you have nothing valid to raise and try suggesting these things mean they must have committed other errors of significance. It is not unlike when people pick on my typos to deflect from the fact they can't deal with my arguments.
Whatever you believe about the case, scipio I cannot see anything wrong with healthy 'nit picking' of any establishment organisation, that is the way mistakes are discovered and injustices exposed. There's a long list of brave people who have 'nit picked' their way to the truth.
-
It is a bit terrifying at times lookout. I also think I still believe jury service is the fairest judgement however, relying on the judgement of others with all the prejudice, fixed opinions, stupidity and lack of interest human beings are capable of any accused person can be at risk of an MOJ. imo
It is frightening Maggie, as you can't help thinking that if this is the way the case is going,it would make you wonder if they got anything right at all. Especially a case of this enormity. Scary indeed.
-
Whatever you believe about the case, scipio I cannot see anything wrong with healthy 'nit picking' of any establishment organisation, that is the way mistakes are discovered and injustices exposed. There's a long list of brave people who have 'nit picked' their way to the truth.
By definition nitpicking is about things that don't matter. Vetting discrepancies that can actually lead somewhere is not simply nitpicking. The change in the prefixes for example lead no where but upon learning of the changes but not knowing why they occurred it was a valid avenue to pursue- it simply didn't wind up being fruitful. That West told Bonnett a different age than he wrote or Bonnett wrote a different age than West provided has no potential to matter in the grand scheme of things and questioning them to try o find out who made the mistake would be a waste of time. Not only will they not be able to figure out which on of them made the mistake it makes no difference either way.
When you find out the valid reasons for the changes in the prefixed and gripe about it anyway then at that point it is worthless nitpicking because you already know it is meaningless. Various items were labeled DB because they were found by Boutflour and the prefix was changed to DRB because David Bird was already using DB. It would not be possible to have multiple items marked DB/, DB/2, DB/3- it would be confusing and defeat the entire purpose of having a designation system. Despite this Mike insists DB/1 and DRB/1 were different moderators. He doesn't argue DB/2 and DRB/2 were different scopes though or that DB/3 and DRB/3 were different sets of bullets. So he is not being consistent. Most people though admit the truth about this issue. Still such people nitpick and say that the simply fact they screwed up and used the DB prefix without realizing it was already in use shows the police didn't know what they were doing and that means their work can't be trusted because they are sloppy. Anyone can make clerical errors it doesn't mean mistakes were made while examining the physical evidence.
-
By definition nitpicking is about things that don't matter. Vetting discrepancies that can actually lead somewhere is not simply nitpicking. The change in the prefixes for example lead no where but upon learning of the changes but not knowing why they occurred it was a valid avenue to pursue- it simply didn't wind up being fruitful. That West told Bonnett a different age than he wrote or Bonnett wrote a different age than West provided has no potential to matter in the grand scheme of things and questioning them to try o find out who made the mistake would be a waste of time. Not only will they not be able to figure out which on of them made the mistake it makes no difference either way.
When you find out the valid reasons for the changes in the prefixed and gripe about it anyway then at that point it is worthless nitpicking because you already know it is meaningless. Various items were labeled DB because they were found by Boutflour and the prefix was changed to DRB because David Bird was already using DB. It would not be possible to have multiple items marked DB/, DB/2, DB/3- it would be confusing and defeat the entire purpose of having a designation system. Despite this Mike insists DB/1 and DRB/1 were different moderators. He doesn't argue DB/2 and DRB/2 were different scopes though or that DB/3 and DRB/3 were different sets of bullets. So he is not being consistent. Most people though admit the truth about this issue. Still such people nitpick and say that the simply fact they screwed up and used the DB prefix without realizing it was already in use shows the police didn't know what they were doing and that means their work can't be trusted because they are sloppy. Anyone can make clerical errors it doesn't mean mistakes were made while examining the physical evidence.
Don't quite agree, how do we know what matters until we follow it up. Pulling at a small thread can unravel all kinds of things. ;)
-
Don't quite agree, how do we know what matters until we follow it up. Pulling at a small thread can unravel all kinds of things. ;)
All it takes is a small catch to begin unravelling. ;D ;D ;D
-
Jeremy has had yet another prison move. This time to Wakefield--------still in Yorkshire.
-
Jeremy has had yet another prison move. This time to Wakefield--------still in Yorkshire.
This is how you know , JB as no mental health issues , he as been moved around 30 times , but never to Ashworth or Broadmoor !!
-
This is how you know , JB as no mental health issues , he as been moved around 30 times , but never to Ashworth or Broadmoor !!
My thoughts exactly,Jon.
-
This is how you know , JB as no mental health issues , he as been moved around 30 times , but never to Ashworth or Broadmoor !!
So only the prisoners in Ash or Broadmoor have mental health issues? Prisoners in any other prisons do not?
-
This is how you know , JB as no mental health issues , he as been moved around 30 times , but never to Ashworth or Broadmoor !!
Neither here or there. You don't have to have mental health problems to be an inheritance killer.
-
So only the prisoners in Ash or Broadmoor have mental health issues? Prisoners in any other prisons do not?
I'm talking dangerous unpredictable serial killers who are KNOWN and PROVED to have mental issues. ::)
-
So only the prisoners in Ash or Broadmoor have mental health issues? Prisoners in any other prisons do not?
No , but not all prisoner's have been moved 30 times !
The state would have JB in a mental institution at the first opportunity !!
-
I wonder what this move is all about ? It must have been done under cover of darkness or it'd have been splashed in the papers.
-
I wonder what this move is all about ? It must have been done under cover of darkness or it'd have been splashed in the papers.
Lookout, I really don't believe that there's the interest there once was, from any quarter, in Jeremy, now.
-
I wonder what this move is all about ? It must have been done under cover of darkness or it'd have been splashed in the papers.
Yes , very strange getting transferred to Wakefield at this stage , unless it's for a disciplinary matter !!
-
Yes , very strange getting transferred to Wakefield at this stage , unless it's for a disciplinary matter !!
Could be disciplinary, could be for his safety. Maybe he isn't well liked.
-
Yes , very strange getting transferred to Wakefield at this stage , unless it's for a disciplinary matter !!
I'm sure we'd have heard before now,Jon.
-
Now THAT would have been slashed in the news,if it had been a disciplinary matter.
I don't think the place has a very good reputation as prisons go. I wonder if some bright spark is going to try and " break " him.? They'll have a job whoever it is.
-
This is how you know , JB as no mental health issues , he as been moved around 30 times , but never to Ashworth or Broadmoor !!
Yiu don't get moved to Broadmoor simple for having psychopathic tendencies - prisons are full of psychopaths.
-
Prisoners get moved around all of the time - nothing odd about it.
-
I wonder which prison he'll " die " in ?
-
Now THAT would have been slashed in the news,if it had been a disciplinary matter.
I don't think the place has a very good reputation as prisons go. I wonder if some bright spark is going to try and " break " him.? They'll have a job whoever it is.
He's already broken.
-
I wonder which prison he'll " die " in ?
The last one.
-
He's already broken.
In what way ? Seeing as you seem to know everything as well.
-
In what way ? Seeing as you seem to know everything as well.
It's not a healthy mind that kills 5 people just for money. I'd also appreciate you not being so rude - I wasn't rude to you but I can be if you prefer?
-
It's not a healthy mind that kills 5 people just for money. I'd also appreciate you not being so rude - I wasn't rude to you but I can be if you prefer?
I wouldn't notice the difference if you were rude or not,as you're abrupt in answering anyway.
My motto-----------Doasyouwouldbedoneby. Touche
-
I wouldn't notice the difference if you were rude or not,as you're abrupt in answering anyway.
My motto-----------Doasyouwouldbedoneby. Touche
Ha, ha! Silly woman! ;D ;D ;D
-
Ha, ha! Silly woman! ;D ;D ;D
Not silly at all---wary,yes.
-
Yiu don't get moved to Broadmoor simple for having psychopathic tendencies - prisons are full of psychopaths.
Over a 30 year period , involving nearly 30 prison moves , a prisoner with mental health issues , would have been through Broadmoor or Ashworth , this is a fact !!
-
Over a 30 year period , involving nearly 30 prison moves , a prisoner with mental health issues , would have been through Broadmoor or Ashworth , this is a fact !!
What do you think the reason for 30 moves in 30 years is?
Maybe NGB knows.
-
Over a 30 year period , involving nearly 30 prison moves , a prisoner with mental health issues , would have been through Broadmoor or Ashworth , this is a fact !!
Rampton too if it's still in existence.
-
What do you think the reason for 30 moves in 30 years is?
Maybe NGB knows.
Always causing disruption , fighting , or a flight risk .
The state showing you who is boss !
I would go with the latter .
-
Always causing disruption , fighting , or a flight risk .
The state showing you who is boss !
I would go with the latter .
I will ask NGB and post his reply in this topic, if he feels he is able to answer.
-
Over a 30 year period , involving nearly 30 prison moves , a prisoner with mental health issues , would have been through Broadmoor or Ashworth , this is a fact !!
I was unaware that Jeremy HAD mental health issues. Psychopathy is a personality disorder and the majority of psychopaths don't commit murder -although they are as capable of committing other crimes as any other convicted criminal- and would therefore not be regarded as "criminally insane" and not suitable for hospitalization in places such as Broadmoor and Ashworth.
-
I was unaware that Jeremy HAD mental health issues. Psychopathy is a personality disorder and the majority of psychopaths don't commit murder -although they are as capable of committing other crimes as any other convicted criminal- and would therefore not be regarded as "criminally insane" and not suitable for hospitalization in places such as Broadmoor and Ashworth.
You are unaware JB as mental health issues , as he probably does not , if he had , over a 30 year period involving nearly 30 prison moves , he would have passed through Ashworth or Broadmoor .
Category A prisoners , do get moved around , but 30 times is very unusual .
-
Always causing disruption , fighting , or a flight risk .
The state showing you who is boss !
I would go with the latter .
Isn't that -30 moves in as many years- a rather expensive step for the state to take merely to show who is boss. Multiply that by the amount of whole lifers and it could equate to movement between prisons on an almost daily basis!!!!!
-
Isn't that -30 moves in as many years- a rather expensive step for the state to take merely to show who is boss. Multiply that by the amount of whole lifers and it could equate to movement between prisons on an almost daily basis!!!!!
Who says they move all lifers , once a year ?
-
Who says they move all lifers , once a year ?
Only if the state wants them to know who's boss. Other than that, I'd say that there has to be another reason.
-
Only if the state wants them to know who's boss. Other than that, I'd say that there has to be another reason.
Then tell us ,why as JB been moved so often ?
-
Then tell us ,why as JB been moved so often ?
prisoners get moved all the time.
-
Over a 30 year period , involving nearly 30 prison moves , a prisoner with mental health issues , would have been through Broadmoor or Ashworth , this is a fact !!
No it's not a fact at all - psychopathy is NOT considered as insane. It's a personality disorder, a way of thinking, it's not a mental illness.
-
prisoners get moved all the time.
I would never have knew that !!
-
I would never have knew that !!
If you know that, why are you asking?? ;D ;D ;D
-
No it's not a fact at all - psychopathy is NOT considered as insane. It's a personality disorder, a way of thinking, it's not a mental illness.
You will not find any certified psychopath's , who have served 30 years in British jail's , who have not passed through Ashworth or Broadmoor after being moved around 30 times , this is a fact .
-
You will not find any certified psychopath's , who have served 30 years in British jail's , who have not passed through Ashworth or Broadmoor after being moved around 30 times , this is a fact .
Is this a competition to make the biggest sweeping statement and and call it a FACT? Is there a prize? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Is this a competition to make the biggest sweeping statement and and call it a FACT? Is there a prize? ;D ;D ;D ;D
I would not know , but let me tell you , you do not have a clue what you are talking about on this subject , maybe it's best you go and try and win some prizes in the ' what was in the wallet ' or ' the Mick Fielder does not tell lies ' subjects .
-
I would not know , but let me tell you , you do not have a clue what you are talking about on this subject , maybe it's best you go and try and win some prizes in the ' what was in the wallet ' or ' the Mick Fielder does not tell lies ' subjects .
You can say that again! You're talking absolute rubbish - you have no idea what a psychopath is!!
-
You will not find any certified psychopath's , who have served 30 years in British jail's , who have not passed through Ashworth or Broadmoor after being moved around 30 times , this is a fact .
Source please
You could not possibly know this...
-
I would not know , but let me tell you , you do not have a clue what you are talking about on this subject , maybe it's best you go and try and win some prizes in the ' what was in the wallet ' or ' the Mick Fielder does not tell lies ' subjects .
By the way, I have never asked what was in the wallet, get it right! I have also never said that MF doesn't tell lies - however, he's not lying about Bamber!!
-
Source please
You could not possibly know this...
He doesn't! ;D
-
Glory be,he's in the worst prison in the country.It's nick-named " Monster Mansion ". All the recognised killers are in there. I've been reading about it.
-
Shipman hanged himself there.
-
Source please
You could not possibly know this...
You name one person who as ?
-
The only notorious one who's missing is Sutcliffe. Being a paranoid schizo.,he's in Broadmoor.
-
The only notorious one who's missing is Sutcliffe. Being a paranoid schizo.,he's in Broadmoor.
If Sheila never killed herself , she would have ended up in the ladies equivalent ;) ,being a paranoid schizo herself .
-
If Sheila never killed herself , she would have ended up in the ladies equivalent ;) ,being a paranoid schizo herself .
She didn't kill herself, she was a victim of your hero!
-
If Sheila never killed herself , she would have ended up in the ladies equivalent ;) ,being a paranoid schizo herself .
That's right Jon. Sutcliffe was/is quite sane ( he was at trial ) but diagnosed as a schizo.
-
If Sheila never killed herself , she would have ended up in the ladies equivalent ;) ,being a paranoid schizo herself .
IF Sheila had committed the murders and lived she would have been placed in a psych unit.
-
That's right Jon. Sutcliffe was/is quite sane ( he was at trial ) but diagnosed as a schizo.
He was later diagnosed as a schizophrenic and sent to Broadmoor.
-
She didn't kill herself, she was a victim of your hero!
I have come to expect better from you , much better !!
-
I have come to expect better from you , much better !!
I'm sooooooooooo ashamed :-[ :-[ :-[ ;D ;D ;)
-
He was later diagnosed as a schizophrenic and sent to Broadmoor.
::) ::) ::) That's what I said,Polly. Except that he was diagnosed before the trial in order to establish which prison he should go to.
-
::) ::) ::) That's what I said,Polly. Except that he was diagnosed before the trial in order to establish which prison he should go to.
The diagnosis was made prior but it was kicked out by the court and he was sent to Parkhurst and considered SANE. It wasn't until 1983 that he was sectioned and sent to Broadmoor.
-
The diagnosis was made prior but it was kicked out by the court and he was sent to Parkhurst and considered SANE. It wasn't until 1983 that he was sectioned and sent to Broadmoor.
I somehow have difficulty in connecting schizophrenia with being sane. But,there you are. The fact that someone is sectioned is also questionable too. I realise that this is carried out to establish the diagnosis of the type of mental illness,as was the procedures in both June and Sheila. Psychotic illnesses being the results in each.
-
You name one person who as ?
Do you mean - 'you name one person who has?'
Please don't deflect my question. You made a claim and I asked for a source...
-
I somehow have difficulty in connecting schizophrenia with being sane. But,there you are. The fact that someone is sectioned is also questionable too. I realise that this is carried out to establish the diagnosis of the type of mental illness,as was the procedures in both June and Sheila. Psychotic illnesses being the results in each.
No they didn't class schizophrenia sane, the notion that he had it was dismissed by the court. You question whether someone can be sectioned because of it and yet you have argued that Sheila was????
-
If Sheila never killed herself , she would have ended up in the ladies equivalent ;) ,being a paranoid schizo herself .
You may want to state this is your opinion or you'll have us all thinking this was a fact.
I must say Jon your post is of bad taste.... ;D
-
If Sheila never killed herself , she would have ended up in the ladies equivalent ;) ,being a paranoid schizo herself .
Uh, that comes off a bit tacky, Jon! Here I was thinking I'd found a supporter I could be pals with!
-
::) ::) ::) ::) Gawd.
-
I'm now curious to find out why Jeremy has been moved to this prison in Wakefield,that houses the toughest,obnoxious criminals known to man.
Also where at Full Sutton you were allowed to send postage stamps,it's not allowed here and s.a.e's are requested.
This move comes as further new information is gathered in order to furnish a submission in the near future. Because of the " status " of this particular prison is notorious,was the move carried out to further blacken JB more than he already is, by putting him with those whose evil acts dominated,and still do,so as to remind the public that the occupants of the prison will ALL die there,including Jeremy ?
So that the least notice taken of him the better ? To keep mouths shut ?
I think there's more to this move than just the usual prison move. There was no news such as there usually is when a high-profile prisoner moves jails and where the press are out in their droves taking shots at the big white van.
-
I'm now curious to find out why Jeremy has been moved to this prison in Wakefield,that houses the toughest,obnoxious criminals known to man.
Also where at Full Sutton you were allowed to send postage stamps,it's not allowed here and s.a.e's are requested.
This move comes as further new information is gathered in order to furnish a submission in the near future. Because of the " status " of this particular prison is notorious,was the move carried out to further blacken JB more than he already is, by putting him with those whose evil acts dominated,and still do,so as to remind the public that the occupants of the prison will ALL die there,including Jeremy ?
So that the least notice taken of him the better ? To keep mouths shut ?
I think there's more to this move than just the usual prison move. There was no news such as there usually is when a high-profile prisoner moves jails and where the press are out in their droves taking shots at the big white van.
I have NEVER seen a new report of a prisoner moving jails. Why in gods name would that be noteworthy? That only happens after a conviction as the prisoner leaves the court.
Wakefield houses a number of whole life tariffs, perhaps they are planning to keep them all in one place. It's not surprising that the stalwarts are trying to make a conspiracy out of it though. You write to him, why don't you just ask?
-
I'm now curious to find out why Jeremy has been moved to this prison in Wakefield,that houses the toughest,obnoxious criminals known to man.
Also where at Full Sutton you were allowed to send postage stamps,it's not allowed here and s.a.e's are requested.
This move comes as further new information is gathered in order to furnish a submission in the near future. Because of the " status " of this particular prison is notorious,was the move carried out to further blacken JB more than he already is, by putting him with those whose evil acts dominated,and still do,so as to remind the public that the occupants of the prison will ALL die there,including Jeremy ?
So that the least notice taken of him the better ? To keep mouths shut ?
I think there's more to this move than just the usual prison move. There was no news such as there usually is when a high-profile prisoner moves jails and where the press are out in their droves taking shots at the big white van.
I have obviously been asleep when the press have printed, as front page news, the moving of dangerous criminals from one prison to another. All I have EVER been aware of is reading that a prisoner is being held at..............OR a prisoner, after a court hearing, has been returned to. As for Jeremy still being "high profile," possibly only in his own mind. Even those incarcerated for heinous crimes in recent years have faded from the minds of the general populous. It may be that it's only forums such as this which keep their names alive for the few who are interested.
-
I have NEVER seen a new report of a prisoner moving jails. Why in gods name would that be noteworthy? That only happens after a conviction as the prisoner leaves the court.
Wakefield houses a number of whole life tariffs, perhaps they are planning to keep them all in one place. It's not surprising that the stalwarts are trying to make a conspiracy out of it though. You write to him, why don't you just ask?
The media followed the ripper.
You also write to him.I thought you'd be more interested in yet another of your own theories.
That bronson was given air-time too.
-
The media followed the ripper.
You also write to him.I thought you'd be more interested in yet another of your own theories.
That bronson was given air-time too.
Yes, for a time, but his name is rarely mentioned now. We all know that today's news is tomorrow's chip wrapper and Jeremy has ceased to be today's news.
-
The media followed the ripper.
You also write to him.I thought you'd be more interested in yet another of your own theories.
That bronson was given air-time too.
The Ripper was sectioned and then moved to Broadmoor after being found sane when convicted - that's noteworthy. I have never seen Bronson on the news when moved - although he also spent time in Broadmoor. I don't write to Jeremy any more but what theories? I'm not the one trying to make the move into yet another conspiracy theory ;D ;D. Simple way to find out is to ask him - but please yourself ::) ::)
-
Yes, for a time, but his name is rarely mentioned now. We all know that today's news is tomorrow's chip wrapper and Jeremy has ceased to be today's news.
The ripper was in the news a couple of weeks ago talking about him having a day release ?? Also moving him to a cushy area because he reckons he's cured of his schizophrenia ( has to be a first ) ::)
-
The ripper was in the news a couple of weeks ago talking about him having a day release ?? Also moving him to a cushy area because he reckons he's cured of his schizophrenia ( has to be a first ) ::)
The Ripper on day release is a FAR BIGGER headline grabber than Jeremy being moved a few miles to another prison.
-
The Ripper on day release is a FAR BIGGER headline grabber than Jeremy being moved a few miles to another prison.
I didn't see the above as headline news,only online as residents were up in arms about it,but why it was kept as quiet as it was,worldwide,I don't know.
Even the evil philpotts were in the news yesterday ( same prison as JB ) about the amount of tax-payers money spent on their legal aid.
-
I didn't see the above as headline news,only online as residents were up in arms about it,but why it was kept as quiet as it was,worldwide,I don't know.
Even the evil philpotts were in the news yesterday ( same prison as JB ) about the amount of tax-payers money spent on their legal aid.
But not about them being moved to another prison.
-
But not about them being moved to another prison.
The Bulger murderers were given enough press,even to this day.
-
The Bulger murderers were given enough press,even to this day.
Only one of them and not because they were moved to another prison ;D ;D
-
Only one of them and not because they were moved to another prison ;D ;D
At first when they were moved to an open prison. Only for Denise,James's mother keeping tags of the movements,they probably would have been released sooner than their due times.
-
What do you think the reason for 30 moves in 30 years is?
Maybe NGB knows.
Category A prisoners are routinely moved from time to time for security reasons.
-
Thanks for that Justice. Security reasons ?
-
Thanks for that Justice. Security reasons ?
Charles Bronson has been moved 120 times since he was first jailed in 1974 for seven years for armed robbery. But i think this is more to do with prisons not being able to handle him. I think he is in a special cell made for him at Wakefield?
-
Charles Bronson has been moved 120 times since he was first jailed in 1974 for seven years for armed robbery. But i think this is more to do with prisons not being able to handle him. I think he is in a special cell made for him at Wakefield?
Goodness me. I know the place is full of rotters,and I also know what I'd do as well. ;D ;D
-
I'm trying to picture a " man-size " figure crawling around on the bedroom floor,shooting at his mother and sister. June had received some shots while in a sitting position and Sheila,as we know,received her shots,one of which was in an upward position.
Strange how both women were found close enough for the rifle to have been fired from a foot away for June's injuries ??
-
The shot that June received between the eyes,IMO,would have been done after the poor woman had died.
-
I'm trying to picture a " man-size " figure crawling around on the bedroom floor,shooting at his mother and sister. June had received some shots while in a sitting position and Sheila,as we know,received her shots,one of which was in an upward position.
Strange how both women were found close enough for the rifle to have been fired from a foot away for June's injuries ??
Why would he be crawling around the floor?
-
Why would he be crawling around the floor?
To shoot while June was in a sitting position with her back against the door. The same with the angle that the fatal bullet went into Sheila's brain------upwards.
So far as I can gather,the shots that June received didn't enter at an angle,and as police had themselves pointed out,she was in a sitting position,so the shooter would have had to have been a rifle length away plus another foot to have shot straight into her,and also sitting facing her.
-
To shoot while June was in a sitting position with her back against the door. The same with the angle that the fatal bullet went into Sheila's brain------upwards.
So far as I can gather,the shots that June received didn't enter at an angle,and as police had themselves pointed out,she was in a sitting position,so the shooter would have had to have been a rifle length away plus another foot to have shot straight into her,and also sitting facing her.
I don't think he was crawling around the floor. Don't know much about bullet trajectories - but I'm sure NGB or Scip (or both) will be able to explain this aspect?
-
I don't think he was crawling around the floor. Don't know much about bullet trajectories - but I'm sure NGB or Scip (or both) will be able to explain this aspect?
In all likelihood she was lying on the floor and was shot between the eyes to make sure she was dead. If she were standing it would mean she was running to her attacker which would be pretty strange. Furthermore if she were standing when shot it means she was shot in the initial burst and that Jeremy had 11 bullets in the gun. While it is quite possible for him to have 11 shots in the gun her movements are hard to explain. She walked around the bed to Nevill's side then back towards the door. There is not that much room to walk and she would have had great difficulty walking through the killer so it is easier to think she walked to Nevill's side after the killer left the room or at least while the killer was in the doorway. So she would have to have run around the bed and then turned around and walk to the doorway with the killer aiming the gun at her head. Then have spun around after being shot. This seems unlikely. Much more likely is that she collapsed and was shot later while on the floor just to make sure she was dead. They didn't have any reconstruction experts go to the scene and didn't preserve enough for modern reconstructionists to work their craft well. They do a pretty amazing job today of piecing together the progression of events.
I personally still wonder whether June ended up jumping across the bed to Nevill's side and getting out of bed on Nevill's side and the blood trail simply was from her walking from his side towards the door as opposed to walking back and forth. The bedding was destroyed so there is no way to know. Unless Nevill was sleeping on the quilt the killer moved the quilt over the sheets later. It is not credible that Nevill fixed his quilt after getting out of bed. The crime scene officers didn't take the bedding but rather left it there and during the cleanup that Jeremy wanted done it was destroyed. This is one of the things that was lousy police work, the crime scene officers should have taken all the bedding. Because it was considered a murder suicide they didn't take all they should have but that is not really a valid excuse it is simply an explanation for their actions. They looked for things that supported the murder suicide theory and that's pretty much it.
-
In all likelihood she was lying on the floor and was shot between the eyes to make sure she was dead. If she were standing it would mean she was running to her attacker which would be pretty strange. Furthermore if she were standing when shot it means she was shot in the initial burst and that Jeremy had 11 bullets in the gun. While it is quite possible for him to have 11 shots in the gun her movements are hard to explain. She walked around the bed to Nevill's side then back towards the door. There is not that much room to walk and she would have had great difficulty walking through the killer so it is easier to think she walked to Nevill's side after the killer left the room or at least while the killer was in the doorway. So she would have to have run around the bed and then turned around and walk to the doorway with the killer aiming the gun at her head. Then have spun around after being shot. This seems unlikely. Much more likely is that she collapsed and was shot later while on the floor just to make sure she was dead. They didn't have any reconstruction experts go to the scene and didn't preserve enough for modern reconstructionists to work their craft well. They do a pretty amazing job today of piecing together the progression of events.
I personally still wonder whether June ended up jumping across the bed to Nevill's side and getting out of bed on Nevill's side and the blood trail simply was from her walking from his side towards the door as opposed to walking back and forth. The bedding was destroyed so there is no way to know. Unless Nevill was sleeping on the quilt the killer moved the quilt over the sheets later. It is not credible that Nevill fixed his quilt after getting out of bed. The crime scene officers didn't take the bedding but rather left it there and during the cleanup that Jeremy wanted done it was destroyed. This is one of the things that was lousy police work, the crime scene officers should have taken all the bedding. Because it was considered a murder suicide they didn't take all they should have but that is not really a valid excuse it is simply an explanation for their actions. They looked for things that supported the murder suicide theory and that's pretty much it.
Perhaps she was trying to get to the other door that led through to the twins room - but something stopped her?
-
Perhaps she was trying to get to the other door that led through to the twins room - but something stopped her?
I would think the fact the door connected to the twins bedroom would have been her reason for being where she was found. Some say she wasn't close to the twins but she seems to have been either returning or going to their room.
-
I would think the fact the door connected to the twins bedroom would have been her reason for being where she was found.
Sorry Maggie, I wasn't talking about Sheila, I was talking about June. She may have been making for the door that led through to the twins room. If the killer was in the door way blocking her exit, she might have tried to get out another way but something stopped her - just a thought.
-
Sorry Maggie, I wasn't talking about Sheila, I was talking about June. She may have been making for the door that led through to the twins room. If the killer was in the door way blocking her exit, she might have tried to get out another way but something stopped her - just a thought.
That also makes sense. Have just come in on this without reading the past posts. Some people believe there was more than one killer?
-
That also makes sense. Have just come in on this without reading the past posts. Some people believe there was more than one killer?
They do indeed :)
-
They do indeed :)
It is interesting that June was peppered with bullets apart from the shot dead centre between the eyes like an assassination ?? Like two different styles of working, if you'll excuse the expression :-\
-
It is interesting that June was peppered with bullets apart from the shot dead centre between the eyes like an assassination ??
It's certainly execution style.
-
It is interesting that June was peppered with bullets apart from the shot dead centre between the eyes like an assassination ?? Like two different styles of working, if you'll excuse the expression :-\
The first shot was to her head but then she woke up and moved around making it harder to target her accurately. Even though people assume it is easy to target someone laying down it actually isn't as easy as you think. Higher targets are easier to hit and moving targets are always a challenge. When Nevill stopped moving the killer was able to shoot him in the head "execution style". When June stopped moving she was able to be shot between the eyes "execution style". The boys were asleep so were able to be shot in the head "execution style". June and Nevill woke up and moved unlike the boys hence why they were shot in multiple places beyond simply the head.
-
It is interesting that June was peppered with bullets apart from the shot dead centre between the eyes like an assassination ?? Like two different styles of working, if you'll excuse the expression :-\
The poor woman was shot with meaningful hatred and a determination to rid that person of " evil ",which had eaten into the mind of the shooter,and it WASN'T Jeremy. Sheila,in her mind was fighting between good and evil,which in her delusional state was the right thing to do.
Sheila hadn't been religious,but the only time that she was, came after her discharge from hospital in March 1985,when she mentioned that she'd found God. ( re.letter to AE from hospital )
Sheila had been on a downward spiral and it was inevitable how it was going to end.
-
Another mother killed her beautiful baby while suffering post-natal depression.
I can't believe that the woman was asked if she felt suicidal ::) Of course she's going to say no !!
Apparently the woman had previously received a letter from her ex-partner to which scared her. It was discussing her access to the children.
The mother suffocated her 10 month old daughter,then tried to take her own life by taking an overdose,but was sick and managed to come to.
The NSPCC urged more support for families dealing with perinatal mental health issues.
-
Another mother killed her beautiful baby while suffering post-natal depression.
I can't believe that the woman was asked if she felt suicidal ::) Of course she's going to say no !!
Apparently the woman had previously received a letter from her ex-partner to which scared her. It was discussing her access to the children.
The mother suffocated her 10 month old daughter,then tried to take her own life by taking an overdose,but was sick and managed to come to.
The NSPCC urged more support for families dealing with perinatal mental health issues.
What's that got to do with this topic? Why do you only post about women that kill? Not using it as propaganda surely?
-
What's that got to do with this topic? Why do you only post about women that kill? Not using it as propaganda surely?
Heaven forbid Mat! :o :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
It has EVERYTHING to do with the state of Sheila's mind !!
-
It has EVERYTHING to do with the state of Sheila's mind !!
Some unrelated case 30 years after Sheila was murdered has nothing to do with THIS case or the state of her mind. She was n medication ANTI-psychotic medication
-
Some unrelated case 30 years after Sheila was murdered has nothing to do with THIS case or the state of her mind. She was n medication ANTI-psychotic medication
Why don't you admit that her medication had been reduced by 50% instead of in steps of 10% at a time ? It's as disasterous to reduce medication like that as it is to abstain as the illness returns with a vengeance.
Maybe different if she was/had been improving-------------but she wasn't,as her condition had deteriorated.
-
Why don't you admit that her medication had been reduced by 50% instead of in steps of 10% at a time ? It's as disasterous to reduce medication like that as it is to abstain as the illness returns with a vengeance.
Maybe different if she was/had been improving-------------but she wasn't,as her condition had deteriorated.
Who said her condition had deteriorated? AND I know her medication was reduced but she was STILL taking medication. Please don't try and tell me that what she was taking was just the same as taking nothing - I know for a fact that isn't true.
-
Who said her condition had deteriorated? AND I know her medication was reduced but she was STILL taking medication. Please don't try and tell me that what she was taking was just the same as taking nothing - I know for a fact that isn't true.
You seem not to know anything about medication and its effects when reduced as drastically as it was. It was as good as nothing in Sheila's condition
One of the doctors,possibly Ferguson had stated that her mental health had deteriorated.
I'm sorry if it's not what you wanted to know !
-
Doctor Ferguson had told Colin that her condition had deteriorated.
-
You seem not to know anything about medication and its effects when reduced as drastically as it was. It was as good as nothing in Sheila's condition
One of the doctors,possibly Ferguson had stated that her mental health had deteriorated.
I'm sorry if it's not what you wanted to know !
Lookout, you're the one that knows NOTHING about this case. Absolute zero. It's an embarrassment you even comment on it!
You pluck things out of thin air. Claim the most ABSURD things that even supporters distance themselves from your inept ramblings.
You mislead about where you have read things - claiming your information comes from COLP statements when it REALLY came from a pro bamber blog.
You continually post incorrect details about the autopsy reports, they are available on this forum for anyone to read - so why you add things to them I'll never know.
Then there is your false claim that the phone call between Jeremy and his Dad is held on an answering machine tape. ;D
It has EVERYTHING to do with the state of Sheila's mind !!
No it doesn't. It had NOTHING to do with Sheila or this case. You just use a 10 month old childs death to further your own case. Distasteful in the extreme! But whatever makes Sheila seem guilty eh?
-
Joined at the hip,are we ? Tsk.
All YOU ever say about the case is slagging off what IV'E said----------------so back off !!
-
You seem not to know anything about medication and its effects when reduced as drastically as it was. It was as good as nothing in Sheila's condition
One of the doctors,possibly Ferguson had stated that her mental health had deteriorated.
I'm sorry if it's not what you wanted to know !
I can only believe that what Ferguson meant was that her health had deteriorated since he'd seen her previously when she'd had her earlier breakdown. I don't believe he'd have allowed her to discharge herself had he been at all concerned about her own safety and that of others, and I believe he thought that meds delivered by monthly injections was the answer.
-
I can only believe that what Ferguson meant was that her health had deteriorated since he'd seen her previously when she'd had her earlier breakdown. I don't believe he'd have allowed her to discharge herself had he been at all concerned about her own safety and that of others, and I believe he thought that meds delivered by monthly injections was the answer.
It makes no sense to me that such a comment would be made about her mental health at the same time as her medication was being cut in half.
I don't believe it one bit! ;D
-
I can only believe that what Ferguson meant was that her health had deteriorated since he'd seen her previously when she'd had her earlier breakdown. I don't believe he'd have allowed her to discharge herself had he been at all concerned about her own safety and that of others, and I believe he thought that meds delivered by monthly injections was the answer.
A symptom of taking a high-potency neuroleptic in a lower dose has been known to cause Akithisia which DOES cause a patient to commit mass murder either within a household or randomly in the public domain.
Her health------------meaning Mental Health as there was NOTHING wrong with her physically when she'd been examined by Vanezis.
It DOES state that Ferguson wasn't happy with her sudden release from hospital,but it must have been HER own decision. He also disagreed with the 50% reduction in the Haldol,that Angeloglou made.
-
A symptom of taking a high-potency neuroleptic in a lower dose has been known to cause Akithisia which DOES cause a patient to commit mass murder either within a household or randomly in the public domain.
Her health------------meaning Mental Health as there was NOTHING wrong with her physically when she'd been examined by Vanezis.
It DOES state that Ferguson wasn't happy with her sudden release from hospital,but it must have been HER own decision. He also disagreed with the 50% reduction in the Haldol,that Angeloglou made.
Lookout, I think DOES cause has to be redefined as CAN/MAY cause because I feel perfectly certain, that if every patient proscribed it went on to commit murder, it would have been withdrawn.
I'm fully aware that when speaking of her health, Ferguson, as a consultant psychiatrist, was referring to her mental health. I'm also aware that he wasn't happy with her leaving hospital a week early but he did understand that she didn't want her reunion with Christine to take place in a psych clinic.
I don't recall that he said anything untoward about the locum's 50% reduction of her meds. It surprised me but I'm prepared to see it as closing ranks.
-
The discussion for the 50% decrease of Haldol had taken place by phone between Doctors Ferguson and Angeloglou,but reasons for the reduction have remained unknown.
The dangers of reduction have been pointed out. Because a further injection would have shortly been due,the remains of the previous one would have all but diminished leaving Sheila in a very dangerous situation suffering withdrawal symptoms from those that she hadn't taken on top of the diminishing Haldol.
I would NOT have wanted to have been in her company at that point !!
-
You seem not to know anything about medication and its effects when reduced as drastically as it was. It was as good as nothing in Sheila's condition
One of the doctors,possibly Ferguson had stated that her mental health had deteriorated.
I'm sorry if it's not what you wanted to know !
No Lookout, you're trying to make things fit again, she was still taking anti-psychotic medication and that's a fact! Where did Ferguson say that? It sounds more like a comment made in reference to the fact that he THOUGHT she had committed suicide - ie. Sheila has committed suicide therefore her condition must have deteriorated!!
-
The discussion for the 50% decrease of Haldol had taken place by phone between Doctors Ferguson and Angeloglou,but reasons for the reduction have remained unknown.
The dangers of reduction have been pointed out. Because a further injection would have shortly been due,the remains of the previous one would have all but diminished leaving Sheila in a very dangerous situation suffering withdrawal symptoms from those that she hadn't taken on top of the diminishing Haldol.
I would NOT have wanted to have been in her company at that point !!
Lookout, I don't recall a telephone conversation between those two doctors and it WASN'T Dr Angeloglou who administered the 50% reduction, it was a locum. The letter asking for permission was delayed so it's very doubtful that Dr F knew of the reduction until MUCH later, by which time the locum had left. I believe there to be a WS from her in archives.
-
The discussion for the 50% decrease of Haldol had taken place by phone between Doctors Ferguson and Angeloglou,but reasons for the reduction have remained unknown.
The dangers of reduction have been pointed out. Because a further injection would have shortly been due,the remains of the previous one would have all but diminished leaving Sheila in a very dangerous situation suffering withdrawal symptoms from those that she hadn't taken on top of the diminishing Haldol.
I would NOT have wanted to have been in her company at that point !!
You're over playing it, I'd have much rather been in Sheila's company than Jeremy's!!
-
No Lookout, you're trying to make things fit again, she was still taking anti-psychotic medication and that's a fact! Where did Ferguson say that? It sounds more like a comment made in reference to the fact that he THOUGHT she had committed suicide - ie. Sheila has committed suicide therefore her condition must have deteriorated!!
I'm NOT trying to " make things fit " at all. Once upon a time,you were more than happy to have accepted information if it had meant a step closer to Jeremy's innocence. Now,because you've completely turned tail,you trash anything that has the least hint of his support.
A lot of this information you'd have been aware of when you supported him,so why ask questions about anything ? I don't get you.
Dr Ferguson had told Colin that her condition had deteriorated AFTER she'd left hospital in 1985.
-
I'm NOT trying to " make things fit " at all. Once upon a time,you were more than happy to have accepted information if it had meant a step closer to Jeremy's innocence. Now,because you've completely turned tail,you trash anything that has the least hint of his support.
A lot of this information you'd have been aware of when you supported him,so why ask questions about anything ? I don't get you.
Dr Ferguson had told Colin that her condition had deteriorated AFTER she'd left hospital in 1985.
OH!! That is where you are WRONG, I didn't 'accept' anything without checking it out and I'm still the same in that regard. Where are you reading that Ferguson told Colin that her condition had deteriorated?? It's all very well posting it and I'm not calling you a liar - BUT, I like to read stuff for myself. There for far too many mistakes on the site to accept anything at face value.
-
There were 5 people killed at WHF.
5 is a significant number according to the Bible. It symbolizes God's Grace,Goodness and Favour towards humans.
5 being the number of Grace and multiplied by itself=25 is Grace upon Grace. ( John 1-16 )
The 10 commandments contain two sets of 5. The first 5 are a relationship with God. The second 5 concern relationships with other humans.
25 bullets. 5x3's which were written on a note left by Sheila.
3x5=15 bullets in one rifle. 2x5=10 bullets in another rifle===25 total.
-
There were 5 people killed at WHF.
5 is a significant number according to the Bible. It symbolizes God's Grace,Goodness and Favour towards humans.
5 being the number of Grace and multiplied by itself=25 is Grace upon Grace. ( John 1-16 )
The 10 commandments contain two sets of 5. The first 5 are a relationship with God. The second 5 concern relationships with other humans.
25 bullets. 5x3's which were written on a note left by Sheila.
3x5=15 bullets in one rifle. 2x5=10 bullets in another rifle===25 total.
Are you suggesting Sheila shot them with a gun in one hand and a Bible complete with calculations in the other?
-
Are you suggesting Sheila shot them with a gun in one hand and a Bible complete with calculations in the other?
Just the Bible-------seeing as it was found nearby with SOMEBODY'S blood on it.
-
Just the Bible-------seeing as it was found nearby with SOMEBODY'S blood on it.
Are you saying that Sheila was dragged into a pool of someone else's blood? Lookout, are there NO lengths to which you won't go to try and make Jeremy appear innocent?
-
Are you saying that Sheila was dragged into a pool of someone else's blood? Lookout, are there NO lengths to which you won't go to try and make Jeremy appear innocent?
Did I say that ? I happened to mention the Bible with blood on it--------Get a Grip !!
-
Did I say that ? I happened to mention the Bible with blood on it--------Get a Grip !!
Just the Bible-------seeing as it was found nearby with SOMEBODY'S blood on it.
The way you said "SOMEBODY'S blood on it" seemed to imply that you were suggesting it may NOT have been Sheila's. I just asked the question to which the only reply necessary was a straightforward YES or NO. I can't see your reasoning in telling me to "Get a grip."
-
The way you said "SOMEBODY'S blood on it" seemed to imply that you were suggesting it may NOT have been Sheila's. I just asked the question to which the only reply necessary was a straightforward YES or NO. I can't see your reasoning in telling me to "Get a grip."
It's not you who needs to 'get a grip' April.
-
There were 5 people killed at WHF.
5 is a significant number according to the Bible. It symbolizes God's Grace,Goodness and Favour towards humans.
5 being the number of Grace and multiplied by itself=25 is Grace upon Grace. ( John 1-16 )
The 10 commandments contain two sets of 5. The first 5 are a relationship with God. The second 5 concern relationships with other humans.
25 bullets. 5x3's which were written on a note left by Sheila.
3x5=15 bullets in one rifle. 2x5=10 bullets in another rifle===25 total.
3 is the most sacred number in the Bible.
In the meantime the number of victims was a result of how many Jeremy needed to kill to inherit everything. 25 shots is how many it took to complete the mission. If he needed to reload more because 25 failed to kill them he would have reloaded again.
You spend your time on childish nonsense like this instead of the key facts and evidence. Rational people consider the most important evidence to be:
1) evidence she didn't load a gun, fire a gun, or beat Nevill and thus can't have killed anyone else.
2) evidence she can't have shot herself because she didn't fire the gun and can't have shot herself with the moderator attached
3)after she died her body was moved flat, the moderator put away and the bible placed in a pool of her blood that formed after she died thus someone was there at the scene staging things right after she died.
These things all prove someone else killed everyone.
Your erroneous babble about 5 being a significant religious number doesn't in any way refute the key evidence. You just hide you eyes to it because you don't want to face it. Unless you can rebut it though you have no rational basis to assert Jeremy is innocent and Sheila killed everyone including herself.
-
Did I say that ? I happened to mention the Bible with blood on it--------Get a Grip !!
The pool of blood that the Bible was placed in did not form until after Sheila was dead so obviously she didn't place the Bible in the pool of blood so who did? The person who put it there did so while the blood was still wet.
-
There were 5 people killed at WHF.
5 is a significant number according to the Bible. It symbolizes God's Grace,Goodness and Favour towards humans.
5 being the number of Grace and multiplied by itself=25 is Grace upon Grace. ( John 1-16 )
The 10 commandments contain two sets of 5. The first 5 are a relationship with God. The second 5 concern relationships with other humans.
25 bullets. 5x3's which were written on a note left by Sheila.
3x5=15 bullets in one rifle. 2x5=10 bullets in another rifle===25 total.
Saints preserve us! ;D ;D ;D This reads like an obsessive compulsives nightmare!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Saints preserve us! ;D ;D ;D This reads like an obsessive compulsives nightmare!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Crazy tripe!
The pool of blood that the Bible was placed in did not form until after Sheila was dead so obviously she didn't place the Bible in the pool of blood so who did? The person who put it there did so while the blood was still wet.
Agreed, seems clear the bible was placed there afterwards, or else there would be no blood to lay it on to leave a mark.
-
Crazy tripe!
There are 5 gold rings in the 12 days of Christmas, 12 – 5 = 7, which (spookily) is the day of the murders. Christmas is on 25th December which also contains a 5 and also a 2 (and adds up to 7). 5-2 = 3 - there are 3 French Hens in the 12 Days of Christmas, a farm has hens. OMG! The killer was Santa Claus! :o :o :o :o ;D
-
There are 5 gold rings in the 12 days of Christmas, 12 – 5 = 7, which (spookily) is the day of the murders. Christmas is on 25th December which also contains a 5 and also a 2. 5-2 = 3 - there are 3 French Hens in the 12 Days of Christmas, a farm has hens. OMG! The killer was Santa Claus! :o :o :o :o ;D
;D
-
The main evidence against Jeremy and rebuttals
1) If Sheila had been the one who attacked everyone else then Sheila would have:
A) had elevated lead levels on her hands and visible lead stains from loading the bullets
B) had soot/GSR on her hands and clothing
C) had Nevill's blood (medium velocity impact spatter) on her clothing and body
D) some sort of damage/evidence on her feet and damage/marks to her nails and hand when the rifle stock broke
F) would have had high velocity impact spatter from shooting Nevill and June.
Rebuttal:
Maybe Sheila wore gloves and after killing everyone she changed her clothing and bathed.
Problem with rebuttal:
A) The clothing and gloves still would have been at the scene but no such items were present.
B) Someone who decided to commit suicide would have no reason to wash up and change. Only people who hope to get away with murder wash up and change.
2) Sheila could not have killed herself because:
A) She could not kill herself without getting soot/GSR on her hands and gown and yet none was found on her
B) She was shot with the moderator attached and could not have reached the trigger
C) After she was dead the moderator was removed and put away in the closet
D) After she was dead her body was moved flat causing the blood flow to change resulting in a pool of blood forming on the floor. She could not have moved her body while she was dead someone else had to do it.
E) Someone else placed the Bible in the pool of blood that formed after she died while that blood was still wet
Rebuttal: Maybe police messed up when running the tests for GSR/soot and maybe the family or police planted the blood inside the moderator and maybe she died right before police entered and they are the ones who moved her body and the Bible causing it to get full of the blood.
Alternative moderator rebuttal: Sheila used the moderator but put it away before shooting herself and the blood inside was June's and Nevill's not hers.
Problems with rebuttal:
A) Soot is visible to the naked eye and there is nothing to suggest police or the lab made any errors in the GSR/soot testing.
B) there is no evidence to suggest blood was planted in the moderator and it would have taken more expertise to plant in the manner it was found than possessed by those accused of planting it moreover if it had been planted then blood would have been found in the rifle
C) The state of rigor and stomach contents suggests Sheila died before police even reached the scene. No one heard any shots and no one heard her try to communicate with the. There is no evidence to suggest she died soon enough to still be bleeding when police entered they say the blood on her was dry. There is nothing to suggest police moved her until hours after they entered and nothing to indicate they moved the Bible into a pool of blood though moving it to a pool of dry blood would not end up getting blood on it anyway.
Problem with alternative moderator Rebuttal:
A) She would not have gone to the close tot get the moderator let alone put it away int he closet again when finished killing everyone
B) It was not likely June and Nevill suffered wounds that would have resulted in drawback
C) there was no way for Nevill and June's blood not ti intimately mix if their blood had gotten inside and there was no way experts would miss an intimate mixture they could only miss a mixture if the blood did not intimately mix.
3) Evidence that Jeremy staged bullets after the murders in order to support his story that Sheila found a weapon of opportunity that he had left out. He staged too many thereby revealing he staged them.
Rebuttal:
Maybe Sheila went to the closet for some reason and got 5 bullets from the closet or maybe the gun had 5 bullets in it when Jeremy got it out of the closet.
Problems with rebuttal:
A) There is no plausible reason why Sheila would use 20 rounds from the kitchen and despite knowing there were still 30 more to get 5 rounds from the closet.
B) The gun was always stored unloaded and Jeremy insists the gun had no bullets in it when he picked it up. If it had bullets in it he would have rushed outside with it. He insisted it was empty and this is why he took a box of bullets and loaded it.
There is plenty of other evidence against Jeremy including lies/conflicting claims he told, Julie's testimony and his actions not matching those of someone who received the phone call claimed. But this is the most important evidence.
-
There are 5 gold rings in the 12 days of Christmas, 12 – 5 = 7, which (spookily) is the day of the murders. Christmas is on 25th December which also contains a 5 and also a 2 (and adds up to 7). 5-2 = 3 - there are 3 French Hens in the 12 Days of Christmas, a farm has hens. OMG! The killer was Santa Claus! :o :o :o :o ;D
Bloody typical !!
-
Bloody typical !!
And about as relevant as your post.
-
And about as relevant as your post.
And your POSTS !!
-
And your POSTS !!
Calm down dear! ;D ;D ;D
-
Calm down dear! ;D ;D ;D
I'm as calm as I'll ever be. It's my confidence which shines through on occasion.
-
I'm as calm as I'll ever be. It's my confidence which shines through on occasion.
But not your ability to back up arguments? Ferguson? £200,000.00?
-
I'm as calm as I'll ever be. It's my confidence which shines through on occasion.
Correction. Intransigence ;D
-
;D
Don't you EVER come up with anything constructive to post except to perch yourself in the sidelines ready to snipe at whatever I've posted for your sick entertainment ? I've heard of spite pertaining to a woman,but-----------------
-
Don't you EVER come up with anything constructive to post except to perch yourself in the sidelines ready to snipe at whatever I've posted for your sick entertainment ? I've heard of spite pertaining to a woman,but-----------------
Oh, shut up Lookout. If you didn't post such tripe people wouldn't always be disagreeing with you and proving you wrong. If you're willing to post lies about a child killer then expect good and honest people to stand up against it!!
-
Sheila WOULD have known what she was doing on the night of the murders,but WOULDN'T necessarily have known her victims because of her delusional state of mind.
There aren't many murders of children where the parent/s haven't been responsible.
-
Sheila WOULD have known what she was doing on the night of the murders,but WOULDN'T necessarily have known her victims because of her delusional state of mind.
There aren't many murders of children where the parent/s haven't been responsible.
Huh?? There are THOUSANDS!! :o :o :o
-
Huh?? There are THOUSANDS!! :o :o :o
It's usually the mother.
-
It's usually the mother.
Or her boyfriend.............or the child's father................or brother.................or one of his mates.
-
It's usually the mother.
Infanticide is not only RARE in humans, it is also rare in primate groups. You can check that out is you like!
-
Or her boyfriend.............or the child's father................or brother.................or one of his mates.
More likely her boyfriend.............or the child's father................or brother.................or one of his mates ......... or complete stranger.
http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-serial-killers-of-children/ranker-crime
-
Or the mother.
-
Or the mother.
The mother is the LEAST likely.
-
The mother is the LEAST likely.
I'm afraid that the list of " Mothers who kill " is getting longer.
-
I'm afraid that the list of " Mothers who kill " is getting longer.
But STILL VERY SHORT and one less that you count.
-
Does anyone know why two teams from the firearms unit were sent to WHF,and how soon were the second team sent after the first ?
-
Why wasn't a unit dispatched as soon as the knowledge of guns held on the premises was known ?
-
Much has been mulled over about Jeremy's " delay " over phone-calls but surely the most outstanding is the fact that nearly 3 hours were WASTED outside WHF instead of acting immediately where 4 lives were at stake. Was that not more important than having discussed Jeremy's " dilatory " attitude on not ringing 999 ? His was 10 minutes possibly wasted but 3 hours is/was worse for a team who would have been fully equipped to have dealt with the situation.
Jeremy's wasted minutes pales into insignificance or it should do against a professional team of men.
-
Much has been mulled over about Jeremy's " delay " over phone-calls but surely the most outstanding is the fact that nearly 3 hours were WASTED outside WHF instead of acting immediately where 4 lives were at stake. Was that not more important than having discussed Jeremy's " dilatory " attitude on not ringing 999 ? His was 10 minutes possibly wasted but 3 hours is/was worse for a team who would have been fully equipped to have dealt with the situation.
Jeremy's wasted minutes pales into insignificance or it should do against a professional team of men.
It's police procedure, they won't risk the lives of officers or hostages until they are as sure as they can be, that there is limited danger. If police go charging in, it could mean more victims on both sides. That's why they try to negotiate with the suspect, which is what they did. Unfortunately, the 'suspect' was already dead, along with everyone else and the culprit was leading them up the garden path and orchestrating proceedings.
-
It's police procedure, they won't risk the lives of officers or hostages until they are as sure as they can be, that there is limited danger. If police go charging in, it could mean more victims on both sides. That's why they try to negotiate with the suspect, which is what they did. Unfortunately, the 'suspect' was already dead, along with everyone else and the culprit was leading them up the garden path and orchestrating proceedings.
Agreed, plus they had to wait the correct officer that can actually go into the house, armed officers.
And lets not forget JEREMY had told them that inside the farmhouse Sheila had gone beserk with a gun.
-
Agreed, plus they had to wait the correct officer that can actually go into the house, armed officers.
And lets not forget JEREMY had told them that inside the farmhouse Sheila had gone beserk with a gun.
Exactly! He played them like a fiddle!
-
Exactly! He played them like a fiddle!
But now supporters slate police... even though it was Bamber (innocent or guilty) who set the scene outside!
-
Agreed, plus they had to wait the correct officer that can actually go into the house, armed officers.
And lets not forget JEREMY had told them that inside the farmhouse Sheila had gone beserk with a gun.
And let's not also forget that Jeremy's words were backed up by those allegedly said by his father who was supposedly witnessing the unfolding of events as the happened.
-
And let's not also forget that Jeremy's words were backed up by those allegedly said by his father who was supposedly witnessing the unfolding of events as the happened.
Very good point actually, Apes. Not only was Jeremy setting the scene with his words, he was also double bating the hook with what his Father had said in the phone call.
No unarmed officer would have gone near that house.
-
Very good point actually, Apes. Not only was Jeremy setting the scene with his words, he was also double bating the hook with what his Father had said in the phone call.
No unarmed officer would have gone near that house.
Mat, at that point, I believe Jeremy may have taken and conveyed to the police, the authority of his father as a magistrate which might have doubled their caution.
-
Sorry folks,but these armed teams don't hang around today. When there's a drugs-bust,they knock the door down and barge inside the offending property,many times facing danger themselves as where there are drugs,there are arms. Police DO risk being killed,they know this.There's no waiting around for 3 hours waiting for the perpetrators to make a quick dash to make them look idiots or undermine the task that they'd set out to do.
It's far more dangerous nowadays too ! WHF was chickenfeed in comparison. ::) Excuses excuses.
-
Sorry folks,but these armed teams don't hang around today. When there's a drugs-bust,they knock the door down and barge inside the offending property,many times facing danger themselves as where there are drugs,there are arms. Police DO risk being killed,they know this.There's no waiting around for 3 hours waiting for the perpetrators to make a quick dash to make them look idiots or undermine the task that they'd set out to do.
It's far more dangerous nowadays too ! WHF was chickenfeed in comparison. ::) Excuses excuses.
Sorry Lookout, but if those armed teams don't adhere to a VERY strict code of conduct there would be mass mayhem. To the uninitiated it may appear that they work randomly but the bottom line is, that for the safety of the team, they work as a team......................and there's no "I" in team.
-
Sorry folks,but these armed teams don't hang around today. When there's a drugs-bust,they knock the door down and barge inside the offending property,many times facing danger themselves as where there are drugs,there are arms. Police DO risk being killed,they know this.There's no waiting around for 3 hours waiting for the perpetrators to make a quick dash to make them look idiots or undermine the task that they'd set out to do.
It's far more dangerous nowadays too ! WHF was chickenfeed in comparison. ::) Excuses excuses.
Post full of BS !! ;D ::)
Sorry folks,but these armed teams don't hang around today.
There weren't armed officers outside for the entire time, it took time for the armed officers to arrive!
When there's a drugs-bust,they knock the door down and barge inside the offending property,many times facing danger themselves as where there are drugs,there are arms.
That has nothing to do with ANYTHING we are talking about here. This was an apparent hostage situation - Jeremy said his sister was a nutter and had a gun.There was no response from inside the house - hostages!!
::) Excuses excuses.
They are not excuses, you've been given the operational reasons for why they didn't enter WHF. Any way it wouldn't have mattered if they did enter when they got there as Jeremy had already killed everyone inside as the evidence showed. Not sure why you support him but it's a bit rich to accuse members of making excuses.
-
So,Mat,you KNEW that the occupants were deceased when the raid team arrived ? How was that ?
-
So,Mat,you KNEW that the occupants were deceased when the raid team arrived ? How was that ?
Because their killer was standing outside with the police!! ::)
-
Because their killer was standing outside with the police!! ::)
Really ? ::) Why send out for a follow-up team then ? Seemed a bit of a waste,didn't it ? Was it after the conversation the first team had with someone inside,or did they do it for fun ?
-
Really ? ::) Why send out for a follow-up team then ? Seemed a bit of a waste,didn't it ? Was it after the conversation the first team had with someone inside,or did they do it for fun ?
You post such xxxx!! ;D ;D
The reply for attempts at conversation with anyone inside WHF was "NO RESPONSE"
-
You post such xxxx!! ;D ;D
The reply for attempts at conversation with anyone inside WHF was "NO RESPONSE"
That makes it worse. " No Response ",so they send for a second crew ? There must be 6 blank tapes then somewhere,stored. ::) Or just of the cop speaking down his microphone--------to himself ?
-
That makes it worse. " No Response ",so they send for a second crew ? There must be 6 blank tapes then somewhere,stored. ::) Or just of the cop speaking down his microphone--------to himself ?
Well, no one can accuse them of not giving anyone, who may have been alive, every chance of entering into dialogue with them.
-
That makes it worse. " No Response ",so they send for a second crew ? There must be 6 blank tapes then somewhere,stored. ::) Or just of the cop speaking down his microphone--------to himself ?
They lacked enough manpower to raid the house and still guard the perimeter. They didn't know if Sheila was holding everyone hostage and would shoot them if police entered or if she would shoot at them. They didn't know if she would run out another door or window on the other side of the house than they entered from. 9 officers ended up raiding the house with the rest guarding the perimeter. They didn't even have 9 armed officers initially.
They were using a megaphone to shout at the house. There was no tape recordings of anything.
-
They lacked enough manpower to raid the house and still guard the perimeter. They didn't know if Sheila was holding everyone hostage and would shoot them if police entered or if she would shoot at them. They didn't know if she would run out another door or window on the other side of the house than they entered from. 9 officers ended up raiding the house with the rest guarding the perimeter. They didn't even have 9 armed officers initially.
They were using a megaphone to shout at the house. There was no tape recordings of anything.
When armed police raid a house,they're not to know if there are children present,or what kind of danger they could be in,so why was WHF any different ? If children are known to be inside the premises all the more reason to act as swiftly as possible. Lord knows there were enough police around the farmhouse.
I'm NOT taking your excuse about " lacking manpower ".
-
When armed police raid a house,they're not to know if there are children present,or what kind of danger they could be in,so why was WHF any different ? If children are known to be inside the premises all the more reason to act as swiftly as possible. Lord knows there were enough police around the farmhouse.
I'm NOT taking your excuse about " lacking manpower ".
Well, of course, I would say, if there were children in the house, they should be extra careful about charging in like bulls in china shops. Emotionally, whilst wanting them to go in yesterday, reasonably I'd want them to exercise every caution.
-
When armed police raid a house,they're not to know if there are children present,or what kind of danger they could be in,so why was WHF any different ? If children are known to be inside the premises all the more reason to act as swiftly as possible. Lord knows there were enough police around the farmhouse.
I'm NOT taking your excuse about " lacking manpower ".
They followed procedure.
-
When armed police raid a house,they're not to know if there are children present,or what kind of danger they could be in,so why was WHF any different ? If children are known to be inside the premises all the more reason to act as swiftly as possible. Lord knows there were enough police around the farmhouse.
I'm NOT taking your excuse about " lacking manpower ".
There were 6 armed men there- if 4 stayed outside so that only 1 was covering each side that leaves 2 to try to clear the house. They wanted far more inside to clear such a big house that supposedly had so many firearms at hand.
-
On the contrary it is unreasonable to reject the evidence on the basis you do. The family didn't know a thing about drawback, didn't they didn't need to know anything at all about drawback. That was the province of ballistic experts... know Sheila's fatal wound was a contact but by the time of the autopsy the pathologist did, and following on from this, so did the police, and eventually the ballistic expert who was responsible for introducing the phenomena of drawback to explain the presence of Sheila's blood inside the silencer wound let alone a contact wound that would result in drawback, as I say, this was the province of the ballistic expert. didn't know her blood type, but the pathologist did, so did the police, and the lab expertsdidn't have access to her blood this is not strictly true since they had access to the farmhouse, and Ann Eaton recovered Sheila Caffells heavily bloodstained knickers and took them home in the back of her brothers car... and even if they wanted to plant blood for simplistic reasons without appreciating anything about drawback they would not have used something to spray blood inside. Sheila's blood got into the silencer at the time of the second shot. After the shot in question, police found themselves in a dilemma, because the only way police could promote her death as a suicide, was if they took off the silencer so that the length of the family owned rifle could then be said to have fired both shots by her own hand. With the silencer left on, they would not have been able to say that the rifle so configured that it had been used to inflict the first (lower) shot, because it would have been too long to have been a weapon used at the time... Yet the blood inside the moderator was sprayed inside, yes... that is the only way for blood to get on the first 8 baffles. it did, according to the ballistic experts theory, yes... Furthermore, if the family had planted the blood then Sheila's blood would have been found in the muzzle of the rifle and the family had no access to the murder weapon so can't have removed such blood. First of all, the blood only sprayed as far down as the sixth baffle, secondly the other baffles closest to the muzzle end of the barrel were blood free, how then could blood have jumped 11 other baffles and then contaminate the barrel of the rifle? Furthermore, relatives had possession of the silencers, of which we are talking about two different ones, (first 'SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1', second 'DRB/1') and If they had known her fatal wound was one that would result in drawback and had known all about drawback they would have known her blood was in the rifle so planting blood in the moderator would be useless. this is not true, because the pathologist, the police, and the ballistic expert all knew that the wounds to Sheila be throat were contact in nature, which coupled with the fact that the barrel of the rifle was blood free, ought to have known that a silencer had been attached to the barrel of the gun at the time she was shot. I believe the police did know, because they removed it at the scene, so that they could present her death as a suicide, rather than have to admit to their own involvement in her death. ..
In order to reject the evidence on the basis of the family finding it you need to establish there is a reasonable chance they planted the evidence. Ann Eaton handed over the second silencer ('DRB/1') to 'DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985. 'DS Davidson' and 'DS Eastwood' fingerprinted it on the 13th September, and this second silencer was not sent to the lab until the 20th September, 1985, to be checked for blood a fibers. This second silencer which was the brainchild of David Boutflour and Ann Eaton is the silencer upon which the red paint from the kitchen aga was contained. There was none of Sheila's blood inside the second silencer, it arrived at the lab' after blood had already been found inside the first silencer (first 'SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1)... There is not a reasonable chance they planted the evidence. this is not true, since Boutflour and Eaton introduced the second silencer, DRB/1', (I am not referring to the first 'SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1) on the 11th September 1985. Furthermore, it had to be either the relatives or the police who made the additional 'U' shaped scratch on the front fascia of the kitchen aga which was firstly photographed by police on the 12th / 14th September (the 'U' shaped scratch is absent on all photographs taken on the run August, 1985) The evidence is safe. From the perspective of a corrupt prosecution and the fact that a conviction was secured only because relatives introduced the second silencer (DRB'/1') on the 11th September 1985, contaminated with red paint from the kitchen aga, Bamber remains safely in custody. But now that the second silencer ('DRB/1') is known to have been introduced by Boutflour and Eaton on the 11th September, rather than the 12th August, 1985, it becomes a game changer. It can now be proven that Sheila's blood was not found inside this second silencer ('DRB/1') because it arrived at the lab' too late (on the 20th September) by which stage Sheila's blood had already been found inside the first silencer (first 'SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1), and already analysed on the 12th, 13th, 18th and 19th September 1985. The court was deceived regarding Sheila's blood and red paint from the aga being present inside and upon the same silencer. With this in mind, the convictions are unsafe, and must be quashed...
The family are part of the chain of custody. The the relatives introduced the second silencer ('DRB/1') containing the red paint from the aga, on the 11th September, 1985... house was in police control until August 9. police had all the time in the world to to present Sheila's death as a suicide, with use of the same gun, and to hide the silencer because it's use in the second shooting of Sheila, was too long to have been used by her to shoot herself on the first occasion... August 10 the family, Basil Cock etc went to the house and the moderator, bullets and various weapons were found. TheDavid Boutflour found the silencer ('SBJ/1') Jones Junior placed back in the cupboard on 9th August when cops gave keys back to Ann Eaton... family established the chain of custody of all such weapons.yes, they introduced the first silencer (first 'SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1) on the 12th August 1985, containing Sheila's blood, and Boutflour and Eaton introduced the second silencer ('DRB/1') on the 11th September 1985, containing the red paint... They only had the moderator for less than 2 days they had the second silencer ('DRB/1') for over a month until Ann Eaton handed ('DRB/1') over to DC Oakley on the 11th September 1985..., keeping it in a closet or chest until turning it over to police on the 12th. From where did they keep the second silencer ('DRB/1') for over a month before they handed it over to police on 11th September 1985? there the chain was in police custody or at the lab depending on the date.Hangon a minute - lets get the now known facts right concerning the whereabouts of both silencers on the 11th September 1985? Ok, first things first, the original silencer (SBJ/1, SJ/1, DB/1) was sent to the lab' by 'Ron' Cook on the 30th August, 1985, received by the ballistic expert, Fletcher, and the blood expert, Hayward, inside which we now know was found the blood group evidence belonging to Sheila, tested on the 12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th September 1985. So, there can be no doubt, there is no doubt at all, Sheila's blood was found to have been present inside a totally different silencer than the one exhibited during Bambers trial (DRB/1)22, which was not handed to DC Oakley by Ann Eaton until the 11th September 1985, along with other exhibits which were originally marked, DRB/2, DRB/3, and DRB/4. This second silencer (DRB/1) was still in police possession between the 11th and the 20th September, 1985, and did not get sent to the lab' to be checked by police until the 20th, so rest assured Sheila's unique blood was never inside silencer DRB/1. However, red paint from the scratch on the aga was present in this second silencers end cap knurl, consistent with it having been used to make the 'U' shaped mark on the front facing panel on the Agfa surround in the kitchen, a mark which is not present there in crime scene photographs taken on 7th August, 1985, but which materialise there by 14th September, 1985. There is no doubt whatsoever that the end of the second silencer (DRB/1) was deliberately scoured against the front face of the kitchen aga post 7th August 1985. The position of the red particles of paint crushed into the knurl of the second silencer, is consistent with the shape and size of the 'U' shaped mark being spoken about. Nobody but the relatives or the police had the opportunity or the motive to deliberately fabricate the 'U' shaped scratch mark on the kitchen aga. It is very telling, that from police perspective, in particular, by reliance upon DS Davidsons COLP interview, where he makes mention of a paint sample, RC/1, being taken by Cook on the 8th August 1985, because some red paint had been found ingrained onto the end of a guns barrel (not the silencer). Of course, once either Boutflour and Eaton had deliberately scratched the aga, marks that were present on the aga surround made by the end of a guns barrel, and the end of the second silencer (DRB/1)... This is sufficient for a court to rule it reliable evidence.
To reject it you have to establish a reasonable likelihood of planting the evidence in question but the defense could not do so the defense had zero basis They have good cause now that the truth about the late introduction of the second silencer can be proven to suggest they planted any evidence. Yes, they did plant evidence, and Eaton and Boutflour still lie regarding the handiong over of the second silencer to DC Oakley (DRB/1) on the 11th September 1985, a silencer they had for a month, a silencer that was used to deliberately make the 'U' shaped mark on the aga...
-
a friend of mine who is a retired old bailey judge , told me that the hardest thing to get over to a jury is that you can aquit a guilty man as its up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Despite what side of the fence you stand on jeremy banners guilt was not and has not ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In today's world of advances in DNA techniques only a NOT GUILTY verdict would be returned if this case was to go for re trial. That's fact and no one can say otherwise. I'm extremely open minded in this case and am very knowledgable in it so am open to persuasion if someone can definitely show me where the guilt is proven!!
The judge had ruled that it " was either Sheila or Jeremy " ? So why wasn't Jeremy acquitted,especially as there was no proof in which to connect him to the murders ?
In effect,Jeremy was imprisoned because " it might/could " have been him. What a way to conduct a mass-murder trial.
-
The judge had ruled that it " was either Sheila or Jeremy " ? So why wasn't Jeremy acquitted,especially as there was no proof in which to connect him to the murders ?
In effect,Jeremy was imprisoned because " it might/could " have been him. What a way to conduct a mass-murder trial.
No physical evidence but there was/is evidence of a circumstantial nature.
-
No physical evidence but there was/is evidence of a circumstantial nature.
Circumstantial ? Mmmmm.Much the same as posters have been on here when describing me ! But you're ALL wrong !! How can ANYONE know what a person's like when they don't know them ?
I admit I don't know Jeremy,but---------------I could never envisage him as being the killer in any shape or form. Even reading the newspapers back in 1985 I'd made up my mind then that it wasn't him.
-
Circumstantial ? Mmmmm.Much the same as posters have been on here when describing me ! But you're ALL wrong !! How can ANYONE know what a person's like when they don't know them ?
I admit I don't know Jeremy,but---------------I could never envisage him as being the killer in any shape or form. Even reading the newspapers back in 1985 I'd made up my mind then that it wasn't him.
I think to be fair Lookout, your posts give you away
What I fail to understand is the fact that you would side with those individuals who'd actually bother with anyone who'd committed such a heinous crime,as to " help " them rehabilitate ? You,and others like you leave me speechless and offended !
Just say for instance that Jeremy had murdered the twins. Would you still feel the same,or would you say what others,including myself if I thought he was guilty, that the man should be left to die in prison ?
I've never heard you mention JB and rehabilitation in the same sentence ? Would it apply to him in your world ?
I don't agree with your way of thinking because I'm on the side of the victims at all times,never the criminals.
-
I think to be fair Lookout, your posts give you away
There you go,describing/analyzing. They are my thoughts,not necessarily my overall persona,so you don't really know,do you ? I can think anything I like but it doesn't stop me from being ME as a person.
-
Circumstantial ? Mmmmm.Much the same as posters have been on here when describing me ! But you're ALL wrong !! How can ANYONE know what a person's like when they don't know them ?
I admit I don't know Jeremy,but---------------I could never envisage him as being the killer in any shape or form. Even reading the newspapers back in 1985 I'd made up my mind then that it wasn't him.
You have enough to say about Jeremy, his character and what you believe he is like. Perhaps you should heed your own words?
I CAN envisage him being a killer - just because you made your mind up 30 years ago, doesn't mean you made it up the right way.
-
We'll see,aye ?
-
We'll see,aye ?
See what? You've been hanging on to this since I joined this forum and we haven't seen anything yet!
-
See what? You've been hanging on to this since I joined this forum and we haven't seen anything yet!
Why should that bother you ? He's already where you want him to be.
A bit of patience wouldn't go amiss. I'm in no hurry,but it would appear that you are.Strange,that.
-
Why should that bother you ? He's already where you want him to be.
A bit of patience wouldn't go amiss. I'm in no hurry,but it would appear that you are.Strange,that.
It doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it's not me taking things said here personally. I couldn't care less what you think. Patience about what? I thought it was all 'hotting up' and an appeal was imminent? ::)
Where did you get that I was in a hurry from what I said? It's just you taking things personally again and trying to have a dig - just like the 'mud slinging comment'. Chill out Lookout and take your own advice on 'patience'.
-
People should look at the now known facts, not at the then known facts. Relatives can now be shown to have been deceitful. Yes, no matter what they say, no matter what they have been saying for the past three decades about not handing over the second silencer (11th September 1985). I can confidently say, that Ann Eaton and David Boutflour, are liars. Let these lying bastards take me to court for slander. Ann Eaton handed over the second silencer ('DRB/1') to 'DC Oakley' on the 11th September, 1985, this second silencer was not sent to the lab for its very first time, until the 20th September 1985. They deny the truth, because they know the implications of the truth. Yes, David Boutflour and Ann Eaton framed Jeremy Bamber with the introduction of the second silencer ('DRB/1') on the 11th September, 1985. A silencer which was contaminated with red paint from the kitchen aga surround. Let the relatives take me to court, if I am not telling the truth, let them shut this forum down!!! They cannot because what I am saying is the truth. I will defend my position, I have no wealth, only the facts. Let these corrupt relatives do what they have to do. Let them sue me for all of my nothingness. Guided by greed, what have the relatives got to lose? Oh, I see it clearly, they might just be found out to be liars!!!
I win...
-
Let Essex police take me to court, to try and shut this forum down. This rotten evil vile police force (only equalled in the history of the British police force service by South Yorkshire police) framed Jeremy Bamber by accepting the second silencer ('DRB/1') on the 11th September containing the red paint from the kitchen aga!!
Yes, Essex police are a dishonest public service, they advocate criminality by its own officers, and any witness prepared to go along with such a dishonest approach!!!
If the truth is the way forward, Ann Eaton and David Boutflour, and the cops which bought into this conspiracy, need to be prosecuted before any of them die, so that all of them, every last one of the lying bastards can see what real justice does to vile Criminals, of which they all are...
-
Lock every one of these lying bastards up, until their trial, drag the remand period out, and upon conviction, give each and every one of these lying bastards, the maximum sentence allowable, and may each and everyone of these lying bastards, die in prison - because what these horrible members of society, and public servants have done in this particular case have done, is unforgivable, it's despicable, it was dishonest, and unlawful...
Ann Eaton is not a freemason, she does not fall under the protection of this 'vile group in society who hide behind good deeds to the public', she is a woman, not a freemason. Her only hope of receiving a lesser sentence, is that she finds it within her heart to finally tell the truth about how she, her bike brother, David Boutflour, and corrupted police officers, framed Jeremy Bamber, for the killing of his sister. He didn't kill his sister. It wasn't to his advantage to kill her, even if (which is not true) that he had killed the other four victims. I am a person who seeks the truth. I do not take this approach lightly. The relatives, and Essex Police framed him. I have no reason to lie. I present the now known facts, facts which the court which tried Jeremy never got to know about!!!
-
A second silencer ('DRB/1'), introduced on the 11th September 1985, by 'Ann Eaton' to 'DC Oakley, sent to the lab (too late) on the 20th September, 1985, much too late, for Sheila's blood to have been found inside it!!!
Take me to court, you relatives, you Essex police, if you believe I am stating facts which are defamortary? You won't, you can't, because each and everyone of you know that I speak the truth. I have no reason to lie, or to make stories up. Ann Eaton and David Boutflour, and DCS 'Mick' Ainsley are answerable!!! These criminals need to be prosecuted for conspiring to pervert the course of justice!!! Go on, you vile Criminals, sue me, you can have every piece of nothingness that I own, or possess. Take it all if I am lying, or misrepresenting the truth...
I hate dishonesty, by anybody who hides behind a shield of so called honesty!!!
-
Essex police shot dead Sheila Caffell on the bedroom floor!!!
-
Come on relatives, come on Essex Police, sue me for everything I have not got to lose!!!
-
Relatives know, and Essex Police know, that I am telling the truth, the absolute truth, the only real truth - cops shot Sheila, they killed her, she did not shoot herself, she did not commit suicide, she did not take her own life, she did not kill herself, Jeremy did not shoot her dead, he did not kill his sister - I speak the truth, what I am saying and speaking about is the truth...
-
'Ron' Cook fingerprinted the first silencer ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', and 'DB/1') twice, once on the 15th August 1985 by goblins light test, and secondly, by way of 'Superglue treatment', on the 23rd August, 1985, prior to the submission of the first silencer to the lab on the 30th August, 1985. So, why was it necessary, therefore, for 'DS Davidson' and 'DS Eastwood' to fingerprint silencer, 'DRB/1' on the 13th September, 1985, when by that stage the first silencer ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1') was already fingerprinted by Cook?
Oh, I see, another inconsistency which has flagged up!!!
Inconsistencies, and discrepancies do not crop up when you are dealing with truth - truth is universal, it doesn't matter how you approach the truth, you can never find inconsistencies or discrepancies...
-
I am almost 61 years of age, and I have finally learned how to find out, if something is true or not!!!
I have found that if something is true, that you will never find any inconsistencies, or any discrepancies, in a so called statement of truth. This is because absolute truth is universal, it doesn't matter whichever angle you approach truth from, you will always arrive at the same conclusion. 61 years (almost) of experience, in an environment of dishonest / honest activities, by one or more parties. With 100% certainty, Jeremy Bambers convictions were secured on the back of a dishonest prosecution...
-
If, as I am saying, there were two different silencers, the first one ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1') found in a cupboard by David Boutflour on 10th August, 1985, and a second one ('DRB/1') handed to 'DC Oakley by 'Ann Eaton' on the 11th September, 1985, the former contain abated with Sheila Caffells blood, the latter contaminated with red paint from the kitchen aga surround, then surely everyone should be in total agreement that these convictions ought to be quashed. Since, Sheila's blood, and red paint from the kitchen aga, could not possibly have been found inside or upon the same silencer, be it the first silencer ('SBJ/1', 'SJ/1', 'DB/1') found by David Boutflour on 10th August 1985, handed to Jones Junior by Peter Eaton on 12th August, 1985, or the second silencer which relatives had control over for more than a month ('DRB/1') before Ann Eaton handed it over to DC Oakley on the 11th September, 1985?
Be true to your heart, you know that Bamber was stitched up by evidence relating to these two different silencers that the dishonest prosecuting authorities merged into one silencer!!!
-
Relatives will never admit to being a party to this silencer conspiracy, neither will crooked Essex police, but the facts are there for all to see!!!
They lied, they 'fabricated, and now they refuse to speak' - I say, arrest the lot of them, put them all in a cell on their own, interview them, then charge them all, and give each and every last one of them the maximum prison sentence that can be given for this type of offence - lock the lot of them up, forever...
-
...I win...
"I win"?!!! Very revealing statement, Mike. A Freudian slip, perhaps?
-
"I win"?!!! Very revealing statement, Mike. A Freudian slip, perhaps?
...
-
Relatives will never admit to being a party to this silencer conspiracy, neither will crooked Essex police, but the facts are there for all to see!!!
They lied, they 'fabricated, and now they refuse to speak' - I say, arrest the lot of them, put them all in a cell on their own, interview them, then charge them all, and give each and every last one of them the maximum prison sentence that can be given for this type of offence - lock the lot of them up, forever...
Bamber must be seething.
The relatives, EP and Julie all working together to frame him. And that was just after Sheila had massacred his closest living relatives. And herself.
-
Bamber must be seething.
The relatives, EP and Julie all working together to frame him. And that was just after Sheila had massacred his closest living relatives. And herself.
Yes.. and don't forget, his only protection from corrupt police and scheming relatves was killed by his sister. Nevill would have fended the lot of them off. Both the dodgy cops and the vultures.
-
Yes.. and don't forget, his only protection from corrupt police and scheming relatves was killed by his sister. Nevill would have fended the lot of them off. Both the dodgy cops and the vultures.
Too right he would,well said.
-
Yes.. and don't forget, his only protection from corrupt police and scheming relatves was killed by his sister. Nevill would have fended the lot of them off. Both the dodgy cops and the vultures.
Are you saying that Nevill, a magistrate, condoned Jeremy's 'boyish' japes? Robbing the family business? Growing and selling weed? Jeremy MAY have come to the conclusion that, courtesy of his father, he was above the law.
-
Are you saying that Nevill, a magistrate, condoned Jeremy's 'boyish' japes? Robbing the family business? Growing and selling weed? Jeremy MAY have come to the conclusion that, courtesy of his father, he was above the law.
No that wasn't what I was saying at all.
-
Yes.. and don't forget, his only protection from corrupt police and scheming relatves was killed by his sister. Nevill would have fended the lot of them off. Both the dodgy cops and the vultures.
But this is supposition Roch, showing bias, therefore your argument holds no weight.
-
Roch's argument holds as much weight as everyone else's ! Does it not ?
-
Roch's argument holds as much weight as everyone else's ! Does it not ?
No it shows bias, he appears angry with the relatives & police.
-
Your posts show bias too,don't forget and you're forever wound-up about JB's guilty to the hilt anger.
I'm not involved emotionally with this case or the SH case. Therefore there is no bias one way or the other.
My aim is to empower victims of con artists Lookout and to encourage the victims to speak out. I was once a victim of a con artist and therefore I have first hand knowledge and experience. I can see clearly how Bamber manipulates and deceives others therefore by sharing some of my experiences I hope my posts will help others in some way.
It is people like you who appear wound up and angry with people like me.
-
But this is supposition Roch, showing bias, therefore your argument holds no weight.
Perhaps. However, that doesn't mean I am wrong in asserting that... Jeremy Bamber was left without any protection, in the wake of both the killing of Nevill and the removal of DCI Jones. It is probably a moot argument for obvious reasons - but although Uncle Bobby managed to get DCI Jones removed - he would not dared have shown his hand at all, with Nevill still around.
My opinion? Who is right in this case and who is wrong in this case - has not yet been fully decided.
-
Perhaps. However, that doesn't mean I am wrong in asserting that... Jeremy Bamber was left without any protection, in the wake of both the killing of Nevill and the removal of DCI Jones. It is probably a moot argument for obvious reasons - but although Uncle Bobby managed to get DCI Jones removed - he would not dared have shown his hand at all, with Nevill still around.
My opinion? Who is right in this case and who is wrong in this case - has not yet been fully decided.
That's a fair comment Roch and I accept it. Will PM you. Though would like to bring it back to the board.
Have decided to bring it back to the board...
What do you mean when you say Jeremy was left without protection. Do you mean he had no family member looking out for his best interests?
What about his legal team?
I can only use SH's case to try to understand this but the police originally believed the murder was sexual motivated. It annoys me that the police decided to drop this motive and wrongly pursue a burglary gone wrong motive. As the confession and disclosures that followed support this. As did a number of documents in the case files.
By doing so they swept an awful lot under the carpet. Like for example the dynamics of the Hall family. You see I believe the police knew they were a dysfunctional family and could have uncovered a lot more had they continued to follow the evidence.
There's never been any secret of the fact that I disliked SH's mother and brother, in particular. But my dislike for them got in the way of my objectivity following the Zenith burglary omission. Therefore rather than seeing SH for what he was, I mistakenly got taken in by his childhood disclosures, which kept my focus elsewhere.
This is what I perceive you to be doing.
Jeremy Bamber was responsible for his own actions that night, just as SH was.
Imo you should focus on Jeremy's evidence he gave to the police and during his trial and see the flaws in this before considering outside factors.
-
but although Uncle Bobby managed to get DCI Jones removed - he would not dared have shown his hand at all, with Nevill still around.
My opinion? Who is right in this case and who is wrong in this case - has not yet been fully decided.
I felt very similarly towards some of the Hall family. However is was the fact they dared to show their hands in the end that helped the truth unravel.
-
Perhaps. However, that doesn't mean I am wrong in asserting that... Jeremy Bamber was left without any protection, in the wake of both the killing of Nevill and the removal of DCI Jones. It is probably a moot argument for obvious reasons - but although Uncle Bobby managed to get DCI Jones removed - he would not dared have shown his hand at all, with Nevill still around.
My opinion? Who is right in this case and who is wrong in this case - has not yet been fully decided.
There wouldn't have been any reason 'to show a hand' if Nevill was around. Unfortunately, someone made sure he wasn't.
-
" People like me ?" Are sick and bloody tired of MY posts being removed when YOU can say what you like !! It STINKS !!
I am sorry you feel this way Lookout but I do assure you many posters have had their posts removed over the past few days.
I try to be as fair as I possibly can be on this forum although I admit at times I miss things as I am not on here 24 hours a day.
I do not ever remove posts because I disagree with the opinions therein, I remove posts that I consider are abusive and personal, whoever has written them.
I cannot remove any posts because some posters don't agree with the sentiments or style of the post..
I am responsible for all posts removed and edited over the Christmas period and in fact over the past year.
I have always tried to give thought to a situation before editing and to be fair in any decision I make.
I have asked quite a few 'innocents' to mod with me but no one is willing to do it. I would be really grateful for some help
Any offers??
-
Bamber must be seething.
The relatives, EP and Julie all working together to frame him. And that was just after Sheila had massacred his closest living relatives. And herself. Sheila didn't kill herself, she was shot once downstairs by 7.37am, and did not get shot a second time until after 8.44am, when the police surgeon, Dr Craig pronounced her as being dead, at a time when her body at that stage was on the far side of the bed with what appeared to be an entry wound to her neck. How could Jeremy possibly have had anything to do with arranging his sisters body upstairs on the bedroom floor after 8.44am, in possession of the only rifle found upstairs by police, which at 7.15am was resting against a first floor window. Not just any old first floor window, not even the main bedroom window of the same room her body ended up in, but by all accounts, the box room window in another part of the farmhouse!!! Imagine that then, Jeremy somehow having been capable or orchestrating his sisters body from kitchen downstairs to main bedroom upstairs, and to top it all off he somehow got hold of the rifle which at around 7.15am was resting against the box room window on the first floor, and he somehow inflicted the second shot which effectively killed her using that rifle which everybody knows was in a different room of the farmhouse just before the firearm officers went it to try to end the seige - by gum, Bamber was a very clever person to have managed all these activities involving his sisters body from kitchen to bedroom, and the rifle from the box room to the bedroom, right under the noses of all those firearm officers outside the farmhouse, and inside...
Great, that's it then, Bamber guilty, bring back hanging just for him...
-
Police: Do you know how your father died?
Bamber: I had read in the papers that he was shot in the head
Police: Is that all you know about how your father died?
Bamber: I think the police or I think you in fact said he died in the kitchen in his armchair by the stove but I've also noticed in the kitchen the broken light slip up I've read many different stories in the press so its difficult to know what's true
Police: I am asking you about your father you say you have read in the paper that he was shot 7 times, sorry in the head what else have you read in the papers, only about your father
Bamber: I've read a lot and can't and don't want to remember anything Apart from the broken lampshade
Police: How do you think your father died
Bamber: No comment
Police: Julie said that after the shooting you told her certain things before I go any further what is the significance of the broken Lamp shade you mentioned
Bamber: Jean mentioned it and I noticed it and it wasn't broken before my parents died How would he know if he left the house around 10pm? More importantly he has just been asked how he thinks his father died and refuses to answer instead is focused on an object/the broken shade
Police: I will ask you how you think it got broken
Bamber: Can't comment It's NO comment NOT can't comment - he's slipped up again - He's playing games, also referred to as dupers delight
Because there could be many reasons it got broken, may be naturally, accidentally by a stray bullet etc. I wouldn't mind a break
Police: Just a few seconds
Bamber: No I will finish now
He insists on a break at this point
-
Police: Do you know how your father died?
Bamber: I had read in the papers that he was shot in the head
Police: Is that all you know about how your father died?
Bamber: I think the police or I think you in fact said he died in the kitchen in his armchair by the stove but I've also noticed in the kitchen the broken light slip up I've read many different stories in the press so its difficult to know what's true
Police: I am asking you about your father you say you have read in the paper that he was shot 7 times, sorry in the head what else have you read in the papers, only about your father
Bamber: I've read a lot and can't and don't want to remember anything Apart from the broken lampshade
Police: How do you think your father died
Bamber: No comment
Police: Julie said that after the shooting you told her certain things before I go any further what is the significance of the broken Lamp shade you mentioned
Bamber: Jean mentioned it and I noticed it and it wasn't broken before my parents died How would he know if he left the house around 10pm? More importantly he has just been asked how he thinks his father died and refuses to answer instead is focused on an object/the broken shade
Police: I will ask you how you think it got broken
Bamber: Can't comment It's NO comment NOT can't comment - he's slipped up again - He's playing games, also referred to as dupers delight
Because there could be many reasons it got broken, may be naturally, accidentally by a stray bullet etc. I wouldn't mind a break
Police: Just a few seconds
Bamber: No I will finish now
He insists on a break at this point
So he took an interest in the family lampshades, did he? It's a rather unusual hobby, but I guess he MUST have looked up at it prior to the murders in order for him to know that it hadn't previously been damaged.
-
So he took an interest in the family lampshades, did he? It's a rather unusual hobby, but I guess he MUST have looked up at it prior to the murders in order for him to know that it hadn't previously been damaged.
Many of his answers during interview have been rehearsed.
I find this quite telling Jane especially given in the context to which he brought it up during the questioning of how his father died. He refused to answer how he thought his father died preferring instead to introduce the broken shade.
"Jean mentioned it and I noticed it and it wasn't broken before my parents died
If he left his parents home at around 10pm ish how did he know it wasn't broken before they died? How did he know for example his Dad hasn't knocked it when changing the light bulb at 10.15pm for example?
He appears too sure of himself and too sure of the murder scene. His reasoning's for why the lamp shade broke sound rehearsed. As though he's gone over his answers time and time again. But what kind of answer is the lamp shade could have broken naturally?
This 'reasoning' isn't isolated. Like when asked how his fingerprints could have got on the bible.
I wonder whether he broke the lamp shade after the murders. During his come down from the adrenaline high he most likely experienced?
-
There wouldn't have been any reason 'to show a hand' if Nevill was around. Unfortunately, someone made sure he wasn't.
Yes, that was part of the point I was making. Another way of looking at it is that Robert Boutflour would not have been presented with the opportunity in the first place, if somebody hadn't killed Nevill. I do feel that they were opportunists.
-
Yes, that was part of the point I was making. Another way of looking at it is that Robert Boutflour would not have been presented with the opportunity in the first place, if somebody hadn't killed Nevill. I do feel that they were opportunists.
You and other see them as opportunists and I guess if you see Bamber as innocent, that maybe a given. I thought something similar once over. However, if you believe he is guilty, you can understand that they wouldn't want him to 'get away with it', I wouldn't either.
-
You and other see them as opportunists and I guess if you see Bamber as innocent, that maybe a given. I thought something similar once over. However, if you believe he is guilty, you can understand that they wouldn't want him to 'get away with it', I wouldn't either.
I might be mistaken but I think you suspect the silencer evidence is either bogus or at the very least, highly questionable. If a group people are prepared to become involved in introducing a questionable exhibit - how much of it was not wanting him to get away with it and not wanting the Bamber estate to get away from them? I think their motives were blurred.
-
I might be mistaken but I think you suspect the silencer evidence is either bogus or at the very least, highly questionable. If a group people are prepared to become involved in introducing a questionable exhibit - how much of it was not wanting him to get away with it and not wanting the Bamber estate to get away from them? I think their motives were blurred.
Sadly Roch what we will never have are statements from June and Nevill about their son. However have you ever considered the possibility the contents of such statements may not be as supportive as you would like to believe and may indeed support those of the extended family?
Although SH's mother gave evidence to support her son during his trial and indeed publicly campaigned for his release, her statements didn't contain what one might expect them to have contained. Much of her evidence couldn't be used in court as it couldn't be supported either way but it did give away clues as to how she perceived her son and indeed showed the comparison between one son and the other.
What is your definition of a questionable exhibit?
SH's mother brought to court a black velour jacket she said she believed could be the origin of the flock fibres - the main circumstantial evidence that convicted SH.
The silencer evidence could have been a genuine human error, a cognitive distortion. The relatives may have honestly believed it was used during the murders.
-
I might be mistaken but I think you suspect the silencer evidence is either bogus or at the very least, highly questionable. If a group people are prepared to become involved in introducing a questionable exhibit - how much of it was not wanting him to get away with it and not wanting the Bamber estate to get away from them? I think their motives were blurred.
Perfect it's just been a catalogue of errors and cover ups
-
I might be mistaken but I think you suspect the silencer evidence is either bogus or at the very least, highly questionable. If a group people are prepared to become involved in introducing a questionable exhibit - how much of it was not wanting him to get away with it and not wanting the Bamber estate to get away from them? I think their motives were blurred.
I don't believe the silencer evidence, that doesn't mean I believe the family were at the heart of that.
-
I don't believe the silencer evidence, that doesn't mean I believe the family were at the heart of that.
If we take that line, is there not a danger we are also 'making excuses' for them? I think they made their intentions very clear to police, very early on.
-
If we take that line, is there not a danger we are also 'making excuses' for them? I think they made their intentions very clear to police, very early on.
No, I think there is a lot of that with Bamber though - explaining his behaviour away in favour of condemning the relatives. I have no admiration for them either, but in their position, I'd have wanted him caught too.
-
Sadly Roch what we will never have are statements from June and Nevill about their son. However have you ever considered the possibility the contents of such statements may not be as supportive as you would like to believe and may indeed support those of the extended family?
Although SH's mother gave evidence to support her son during his trial and indeed publicly campaigned for his release, her statements didn't contain what one might expect them to have contained. Much of her evidence couldn't be used in court as it couldn't be supported either way but it did give away clues as to how she perceived her son and indeed showed the comparison between one son and the other.
What is your definition of a questionable exhibit?
SH's mother brought to court a black velour jacket she said she believed could be the origin of the flock fibres - the main circumstantial evidence that convicted SH.
The silencer evidence could have been a genuine human error, a cognitive distortion. The relatives may have honestly believed it was used during the murders.
I don't think the relatives believed much with the silencer. They just handed it into Stan Jones, who then handed it in for testing.The results came back several weeks later.
-
I don't believe the silencer evidence, that doesn't mean I believe the family were at the heart of that.
Well it has to be one or the other surely?
-
Well it has to be one or the other surely?
I don't think the idea came from the family so no, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
-
To my way of thinking,Sheila had handled the silencer by trying to fix it to the rifle thinking it may dull the sound of firing and because of her erratic temperament,scratched the silencer,as DB had pointed out the mark on it,but she wouldn't have put it back in the cupboard. Was that fingerprinted ??
This is not to say that Sheila used the silencer,but it wouldn't have been her blood on it at this point,nor at any point,so it's a mystery as to how the blood got there if allegedly it was Sheila's. How would Sheila's blood have got on the silencer ? Always supposing it was hers ?
-
To my way of thinking,Sheila had handled the silencer by trying to fix it to the rifle thinking it may dull the sound of firing and because of her erratic temperament,scratched the silencer,as DB had pointed out the mark on it,but she wouldn't have put it back in the cupboard. Was that fingerprinted ??
This is not to say that Sheila used the silencer,but it wouldn't have been her blood on it at this point,nor at any point,so it's a mystery as to how the blood got there if allegedly it was Sheila's. How would Sheila's blood have got on the silencer ? Always supposing it was hers ?
So she thought about shooting the family before going crazy? ;D ;D
-
To my way of thinking,Sheila had handled the silencer by trying to fix it to the rifle thinking it may dull the sound of firing and because of her erratic temperament,scratched the silencer,as DB had pointed out the mark on it,but she wouldn't have put it back in the cupboard. Was that fingerprinted ??
This is not to say that Sheila used the silencer,but it wouldn't have been her blood on it at this point,nor at any point,so it's a mystery as to how the blood got there if allegedly it was Sheila's. How would Sheila's blood have got on the silencer ? Always supposing it was hers ?
One of Sheila's shots was a contact shot. So drawback went into the silencer. There was no blood on the end of the rifle.
Bamber took the silencer off either because he realised the rifle was too long for Sheila with it on. Or he wanted to burn Nevill's back with the rifle end.
Sheila would not bother putting the silencer on as Nevill was already awake.
-
Well it has to be one or the other surely?
More likely both. Gives a new meaning to the term Joint Enterprise. If the truth comes to light, watch how each side will find a way to blame the other.
-
I don't believe the silencer evidence, that doesn't mean I believe the family were at the heart of that.
It was at the heart of what they wanted to achieve. It was a vehicle for the result they strove for. They provided it, after having also put immense pressure on ACC Simpson. If it's not a genuine exhibit, why should they be shielded or have excuses made for them?
-
More likely both. Gives a new meaning to the term Joint Enterprise. If the truth comes to light, watch how each side will find a way to blame the other.
Roch, Jeremy Bamber murdered 5 family members. Two of which were sleeping 6 year old boys. How can you continue to blame his relatives and the police?
For 32 years he has denied his guilt and in the process conned many innocent people into supporting him. Why are you making allowances for Bamber and none for the police and his family? You appear to be in denial or possibly suffering congntive dissonance? Look back at some of my old posts on the SH case. I was still in denial after he confessed. Not in relation to his guilt but to his crimes. I was still making excuses for why he did what he did. That appears to be where you are at the moment.
-
It was at the heart of what they wanted to achieve. It was a vehicle for the result they strove for. They provided it, after having also put immense pressure on ACC Simpson. If it's not a genuine exhibit, why should they be shielded or have excuses made for them?
It is Jeremy Bamber who was responsible for the murders, not the relatives of police.
The frog in the SH case was not a genuine exhibit. It wasn't used to smash the window. The pole was. The pole was never even tested.
Who cares about the silencer if the right man is behind bars?
You cannot possibly know what they wanted to achieve, other than they knew he was guilty. They strove for justice. For him to lose his liberty for his unforgivable crimes.
-
It was at the heart of what they wanted to achieve. It was a vehicle for the result they strove for. They provided it, after having also put immense pressure on ACC Simpson. If it's not a genuine exhibit, why should they be shielded or have excuses made for them?
The relatives were more than likely terrified and doing all they could to help the police. Jeremy remained at large having just murdered their 5 family members. Why are you focusing on the exhibit? Why do you appear to need to get to the bottom of this more than Jeremy's guilt?
-
Police: Do you know how your father died?
Bamber: I had read in the papers that he was shot in the head
Police: Is that all you know about how your father died?
Bamber: I think the police or I think you in fact said he died in the kitchen in his armchair by the stove but I've also noticed in the kitchen the broken light slip up I've read many different stories in the press so its difficult to know what's true
Police: I am asking you about your father you say you have read in the paper that he was shot 7 times, sorry in the head what else have you read in the papers, only about your father
Bamber: I've read a lot and can't and don't want to remember anything Apart from the broken lampshade
Police: How do you think your father died
Bamber: No comment
Police: Julie said that after the shooting you told her certain things before I go any further what is the significance of the broken Lamp shade you mentioned
Bamber: Jean mentioned it and I noticed it and it wasn't broken before my parents died How would he know if he left the house around 10pm? More importantly he has just been asked how he thinks his father died and refuses to answer instead is focused on an object/the broken shade
Police: I will ask you how you think it got broken
Bamber: Can't comment It's NO comment NOT can't comment - he's slipped up again - He's playing games, also referred to as dupers delight
Because there could be many reasons it got broken, may be naturally, accidentally by a stray bullet etc. I wouldn't mind a break
Police: Just a few seconds
Bamber: No I will finish now
He insists on a break at this point
"Given that individuals with strong psychopathic traits have no capacity for deep bonds, everyone is merely an object to be used in anyway they see fit. http://neuroinstincts.com/violent-psychopaths-and-crime/
The above example where Jeremy brings up the lamp shade after the police ask him how he thinks his father died, shows what he thinks of his father.
-
Don't you think it fair that folk make their OWN minds up about the case,instead of you spreading propaganda on every thread ? Because that's what it is----------propaganda. Unfounded.
-
Don't you think it fair that folk make their OWN minds up about the case,instead of you spreading propaganda on every thread ? Because that's what it is----------propaganda. Unfounded.
I am not misleading anyone Lookout. My posts are based on the evidence in this case and from my own experiences.
The propaganda is coming from Jeremy Bamber.
-
Don't you think it fair that folk make their OWN minds up about the case,instead of you spreading propaganda on every thread ? Because that's what it is----------propaganda. Unfounded.
It is your own posts that are unfounded! None of your posts are supported with evidence. I am unsure where your conclusions come from?
-
It is your own posts that are unfounded! None of your posts are supported with evidence. I am unsure where your conclusions come from?
Not from cutting and pasting that's for sure.
Wouldn't you rather wait until the legal people working in the background,have reached their decision first before plastering everywhere with your " oh so sure " verdict of guilty ? Unless of course you claim to be more knowledgeable than they ? Then of course,if you think that,then that's another problem in itself.
-
Not from cutting and pasting that's for sure.
Wouldn't you rather wait until the legal people working in the background,have reached their decision first before plastering everywhere with your " oh so sure " verdict of guilty ? Unless of course you claim to be more knowledgeable than they ? Then of course,if you think that,then that's another problem in itself.
Why don't you wait?
-
It is your own posts that are unfounded! None of your posts are supported with evidence. I am unsure where your conclusions come from?
Lookout will be the first to admit she does more harm than good for Bamber on the forum.
What did you think of Bamber asking Mike to close down the forum ?
-
Why don't you wait?
I am waiting------patiently too.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,385.0.html
-
Lookout will be the first to admit she does more harm than good for Bamber on the forum.
What did you think of Bamber asking Mike to close down the forum ?
Good questions Adam!
I was accused of doing more harm than good regarding SH's case in early 2013. I made the mistake of attempting to defend SH, not seeing what was staring me in the face. His guilt.
SH also asked me to close down the website. I think it was Mat that picked up on this way back when.
With hindsight, SH's guilt was again being exposed and his flaws were being pointed out by others. He turned this on others, or me, never once accepting any responsibility. It was always someone else's fault.
-
I am waiting------patiently too.
Good for you, we aren't expecting anything to happen so will carry on as normal - how long are you prepared to wait before finally admitting there's nothing to wait for?
-
Good questions Adam!
I was accused of doing more harm than good regarding SH's case in early 2013. I made the mistake of attempting to defend SH, not seeing what was staring me in the face. His guilt.
SH also asked me to close down the website. I think it was Mat that picked up on this way back when.
With hindsight, SH's guilt was again being exposed and his flaws were being pointed out by others. He turned this on others, or me, never once accepting any responsibility. It was always someone else's fault.
I think this forum has uncovered more aspects of his guilt than revealing anything of possible innocence.
-
Just reminding all posters to keep to the objective debate.
Remember posts containing personal insults/abuse are not acceptable and will be edited/removed.
Just a reminder!!
-
Good for you, we aren't expecting anything to happen so will carry on as normal - how long are you prepared to wait before finally admitting there's nothing to wait for?
For as long as these things take of course.
-
Good questions Adam!
I was accused of doing more harm than good regarding SH's case in early 2013. I made the mistake of attempting to defend SH, not seeing what was staring me in the face. His guilt.
SH also asked me to close down the website. I think it was Mat that picked up on this way back when.
With hindsight, SH's guilt was again being exposed and his flaws were being pointed out by others. He turned this on others, or me, never once accepting any responsibility. It was always someone else's fault.
The problem with Bamber having this forum, is it just highlights his guilt more.
Not just from what Lookout and other supporters post. But the fact there are so few of them on a forum that is available to millions of people.
Then you have the guilters posting on here. Who have the benefit of a mountain of incriminating forensic and circumstantial evidence to support their arguments. Which results in supporters just spending all their time desparatly fire fighting.
-
For as long as these things take of course.
How long is too long? I've been a member here since 2012 and have been hearing the same 'wait and see' since then. There is nothing new in all of this time and the CT are still going on about a call from Nevill and the police being in conversation - blah blah. The window thing is a waste of time and I certainly see no hope at all as far as the letters were concerned. If there was something BIG, we would have heard rumblings by now but I fear it's the same old rubbish, repackaged and regurgitated.
-
I think this forum has uncovered more aspects of his guilt than revealing anything of possible innocence.
That's because the ratio of supporters has dwindled,and, or left and is down to two or three now. Apart from the odd appearance of Bill Robertson who's a brilliant poster,but unfortunately brings out the guilters who then flood the threads which makes the forum look more like one of guilt,which was/is the main objective of those whose aim is to try and keep it innocent-free.
-
That's because the ratio of supporters has dwindled,and, or left and is down to two or three now. Apart from the odd appearance of Bill Robertson who's a brilliant poster,but unfortunately brings out the guilters who then flood the threads which makes the forum look more like one of guilt,which was/is the main objective of those whose aim is to try and keep it innocent-free.
When someone posts something new, more people respond. This notion that there are 'objectives' at work is just silly.
-
When someone posts something new, more people respond. This notion that there are 'objectives' at work is just silly.
I don't think it's silly. I have my own reasons for saying that. 8)
-
I think this forum has uncovered more aspects of his guilt than revealing anything of possible innocence.
I agree Jane!
Though I fear the campaign team have been advised to stay away from forums. It was through this forum (And of course SH & others) that SH's guilt was uncovered.
-
I don't think it's silly. I have my own reasons for saying that. 8)
I do think it's silly and just adds to the notion of a grand conspiracy - there isn't one.
-
::) ::) oh dear.
Nothing stopping the CT members from glancing on here.They need no " checkpoint charlie " to do so.
-
That's because the ratio of supporters has dwindled,and, or left and is down to two or three now. Apart from the odd appearance of Bill Robertson who's a brilliant poster,but unfortunately brings out the guilters who then flood the threads which makes the forum look more like one of guilt,which was/is the main objective of those whose aim is to try and keep it innocent-free.
I don't know how many posters are aware of it but I have invited many innocent posters/supporters to mod alongside me on the forum.
Sadly, the answer has always been the same .... they are too busy which seems a shame to me, as this forum was set up by Mike as a Jeremy Bamber is Innocent Forum.
I am sure they are busy, we live in a busy world and most of us have commitments but it is surprising how difficult it is to find anyone who would commit even a few hours a week to supporting the forum.
Think it's only fair this is pointed out. :)
-
I don't know how many posters are aware of it but I have invited many innocent posters/supporters to mod alongside me on the forum.
Sadly, the answer has always been the same .... they are too busy which seems a shame to me, as this forum was set up by Mike as a Jeremy Bamber is Innocent Forum.
I am sure they are busy, we live in a busy world and most of us have commitments but it is surprising how difficult it is to find anyone who would commit even a few hours a week to supporting the forum.
Think it's only fair this is pointed out. :)
Why only innocent supporters?
-
Why only innocent supporters?
Because ALL my posts would disappear if it was a staunch,guilty supporter. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Because ALL my posts would disappear if it was a staunch,guilty supporter. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
I don't think so Lookout, it's not like they're crucial to getting him released! ::)
-
The relatives were more than likely terrified and doing all they could to help the police. Jeremy remained at large having just murdered their 5 family members. Why are you focusing on the exhibit? Why do you appear to need to get to the bottom of this more than Jeremy's guilt?
They were terrified of their own perceived understanding, regarding the consequences of Jeremy inheriting. They are terrified of an appeal because of the information that has become disclosed since 2002. They are terrified of the prospect of losing assets, for example in a future civil action. They are terrified of having to answer questions at another appeal. When they say they are terrified of Jeremy Bamber - it's code for being terrified of all these other things.
As for the sound moderator / focussing on an exhibit etc. You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction?
-
They were terrified of their own perceived understanding, regarding the consequences of Jeremy inheriting. They are terrified of an appeal because of the information that has become disclosed since 2002. They are terrified of the prospect of losing assets, for example in a future civil action. They are terrified of having to answer questions at another appeal. When they say they are terrified of Jeremy Bamber - it's code for being terrified of all these other things.
As for the sound moderator / focussing on an exhibit etc. You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction?
In fairness Roch, Steph is pointing out they were terrified at the time and not now.
-
They were terrified of their own perceived understanding, regarding the consequences of Jeremy inheriting. They are terrified of an appeal because of the information that has become disclosed since 2002. They are terrified of the prospect of losing assets, for example in a future civil action. They are terrified of having to answer questions at another appeal. When they say they are terrified of Jeremy Bamber - it's code for being terrified of all these other things.
As for the sound moderator / focussing on an exhibit etc. You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction?
The truth will always come out in the end. You cannot expect to mislead a jury and get away with it for ever
-
In fairness Roch, Steph is pointing out they were terrified at the time and not now.
I saw your post before you edited it. ;) 'Being terrified' is what they wheel out as a generic response. A bit like the generic response that EP wheel out, every time they have to officially respond to a question.
-
I saw your post before you edited it. ;) 'Being terrified' is what they wheel out as a generic response. A bit like the generic response that EP wheel out, every time they have to officially respond to a question.
Thanks Roch, I thought the edited part wasn't warranted, although I have met them a few times I could not be 100 per cent.
-
The relatives thought Bamber was guilty from day one.
They found a silencer when at WHF with Basil Cock & BW. The silencer was tested and together with a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence, helped convict Bamber.
There is nothing else to it.
-
They were terrified of their own perceived understanding, regarding the consequences of Jeremy inheriting. They are terrified of an appeal because of the information that has become disclosed since 2002. They are terrified of the prospect of losing assets, for example in a future civil action. They are terrified of having to answer questions at another appeal. When they say they are terrified of Jeremy Bamber - it's code for being terrified of all these other things.
As for the sound moderator / focussing on an exhibit etc. You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction?
Perhaps we should examine, more closely, just WHY they may have had reason to be "terrified" of Jeremy.
They'd have had a good chance to observe him, the youngest of them being his senior by some 10(?) years. Certainly, they'd have been unlikely ever to have been friends. The age gap being to great. I have to ask what sort of character did the see emerging -I noted yesterday, the EXTREME hostility Lookout displayed towards her own Grandchild for the behaviours he displayed. Strange how she defends Jeremy against EXACTLY the same treatment from his family. Perhaps, they, like her felt justified.
The Boutflours seem to have had a strong work ethic -however wealthy they were, it's relative to how wealthy was Nevill and it was always Jeremy who was the heir. It was he who would hold their future in his hands- this quality appears to have been lacking in Jeremy. We ALL have known those we wouldn't trust further than we could throw them. If Jeremy's character, through his life, had emerged in such a way, they'd have been justified in fearing for their futures.
I, previously, have defended Jeremy against his relatives, but the fact remains that they didn't SUDDENLY turn against a family member for whom they'd formerly felt great affection. Who of us would feel much warmth towards a family member/work colleague who didn't pull their weight/left us with the lion's share of work/was experienced as being dishonest, duplicitous, greedy? How much more strongly might we feel if our future success/failure rested in this person's hands?
-
a friend of mine who is a retired old bailey judge , told me that the hardest thing to get over to a jury is that you can aquit a guilty man as its up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Despite what side of the fence you stand on jeremy banners guilt was not and has not ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In today's world of advances in DNA techniques only a NOT GUILTY verdict would be returned if this case was to go for re trial. That's fact and no one can say otherwise. I'm extremely open minded in this case and am very knowledgable in it so am open to persuasion if someone can definitely show me where the guilt is proven!!
spot on your dont have to think somones incont just that the case hasnt been proved.
-
They were terrified of their own perceived understanding, regarding the consequences of Jeremy inheriting. They are terrified of an appeal because of the information that has become disclosed since 2002. They are terrified of the prospect of losing assets, for example in a future civil action. They are terrified of having to answer questions at another appeal. When they say they are terrified of Jeremy Bamber - it's code for being terrified of all these other things.
As for the sound moderator / focussing on an exhibit etc. You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction?
When was the last time you read all the key witness statements objectively Roch. It's Jeremy Bamber who comes across as money orientated. It's there in black and white.
It's all there in the statements. And his obsession with money has remained since he was convicted; you only need look back at news articles since his conviction.
"You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction? This is exactly what SH's mother attempted to do with her black evening jacket Roch (Have a look at online archived news articles).
But I don't believe that's what the relatives did in this case. There was genuine emotion coming from their evidence. You don't get that in Jeremy's evidence at all.
There won't be another appeal or civil action Roch.
-
Perhaps we should examine, more closely, just WHY they may have had reason to be "terrified" of Jeremy.
They'd have had a good chance to observe him, the youngest of them being his senior by some 10(?) years. Certainly, they'd have been unlikely ever to have been friends. The age gap being to great. I have to ask what sort of character did the see emerging -I noted yesterday, the EXTREME hostility Lookout displayed towards her own Grandchild for the behaviours he displayed. Strange how she defends Jeremy against EXACTLY the same treatment from his family. Perhaps, they, like her felt justified.
The Boutflours seem to have had a strong work ethic -however wealthy they were, it's relative to how wealthy was Nevill and it was always Jeremy who was the heir. It was he who would hold their future in his hands- this quality appears to have been lacking in Jeremy. We ALL have known those we wouldn't trust further than we could throw them. If Jeremy's character, through his life, had emerged in such a way, they'd have been justified in fearing for their futures.
I, previously, have defended Jeremy against his relatives, but the fact remains that they didn't SUDDENLY turn against a family member for whom they'd formerly felt great affection. Who of us would feel much warmth towards a family member/work colleague who didn't pull their weight/left us with the lion's share of work/was experienced as being dishonest, duplicitous, greedy? How much more strongly might we feel if our future success/failure rested in this person's hands?
Pity the 'oh so' astute relatives weren't so astute about Sheila. Even if you were correct in what you assert above - none of it makes any difference if Sheila is capable and motivated to carry out killings. There were two siblings.
Imagine if something had befallen Jeremy, June and Nevill? In those circs, I don't know what part of the estate would have been left to Sheila (possibly nothing on the farming / land side) - but let's just say there was. I'd bet money on Bobby and Ann going out of their way in trying to make out that Sheila was mentally unfit for such an inheritance.
-
When was the last time you read all the key witness statements objectively Roch. It's Jeremy Bamber who comes across as money orientated. It's there in black and white.
It's all there in the statements. And his obsession with money has remained since he was convicted; you only need look back at news articles since his conviction.
"You can't just produce an exhibit in order to prevent a person from 'getting away with' a crime? Furthermore, what does it tell us when something has to be produced in such circs, in order to obtain a conviction? This is exactly what SH's mother attempted to do with her black evening jacket Roch (Have a look at online archived news articles).
But I don't believe that's what the relatives did in this case. There was genuine emotion coming from their evidence. You don't get that in Jeremy's evidence at all.
There won't be another appeal or civil action Roch.
What you are saying about the available statements on the forum, whether they are edited, composite, unsigned or signed - is nothing that hasn't already been said, for example by John Lamberton five years ago. Where are all the statements given in his support by friends and associates? And why do touted potential prosecution witnesses like Babs Wilson provide contradictory info?
-
What you are saying about the available statements on the forum, whether they are edited, composite, unsigned or signed - is nothing that hasn't already been said, for example by John Lamberton five years ago. Where are all the statements given in his support by friends and associates? And why do touted potential prosecution witnesses like Babs Wilson provide contradictory info?
I wasn't aware that what I'm suggesting was said by JL five years ago. Five years ago I was too focused on SH and clearing his name. But that being the case, the guy obviously saw lots we didn't. I'm not sure why you bring JL to the argument? What point are you making to me. You'll need to spell it out Roch as I can assure you I have no idea what or why you are suggesting this?
Jeremy didn't have genuine friends Roch. Just like SH. No one really wanted anything to do with him. They most probably sensed something wasn't quite right with him.
Why do you refer to them as touted witnesses? How do you tout a witness.
And I've already suggested a reason for the contradictions. Conflicting thoughts. Which is common when you are dealing with someone who is highly disordered. They send out mixed messages on purpose. It's done to confuse and make the non disordered person appear crazy.
-
What you are saying about the available statements on the forum, whether they are edited, composite, unsigned or signed - is nothing that hasn't already been said, for example by John Lamberton five years ago. Where are all the statements given in his support by friends and associates? And why do touted potential prosecution witnesses like Babs Wilson provide contradictory info?
You are referring to a highly disordered individual Roch. The answers to your questions lie in Jeremy Bamber's psychology. You appear to have allowed him to get in your mind somehow. You need to be completely objective. Take away all emotion. Then you will see the case for what it is.
-
The relatives thought Bamber was guilty from day one.
They found a silencer when at WHF with Basil Cock & BW. The silencer was tested and together with a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence, helped convict Bamber.
There is nothing else to it.
Not " thought "--------HOPED !
-
Pity the 'oh so' astute relatives weren't so astute about Sheila. Even if you were correct in what you assert above - none of it makes any difference if Sheila is capable and motivated to carry out killings. There were two siblings.
Imagine if something had befallen Jeremy, June and Nevill? In those circs, I don't know what part of the estate would have been left to Sheila (possibly nothing on the farming / land side) - but let's just say there was. I'd bet money on Bobby and Ann going out of their way in trying to make out that Sheila was mentally unfit for such an inheritance.
Well, again we have the age gap. From what I've been told, there were no foundations for any relationship between Ann and Sheila, although I believe David 'chaperoned' her from time to time. He, like several guys I know, MAY, at one time have had the 'hots' for her. Sheila, according to those who have spoken to me, had her eyes set on being other than a farmer's wife, which is fair enough for someone not born into the farming fraternity. That being said, I don't think Sheila loomed large in their lives OR concerns re the family business. If they knew very little about her, I don't think they can be blamed for this. June, so I'm told by those who knew her, was never very open when it came to speaking about her children.
There's little point in us speculating on "what if.............." primarily because I imagine Nevill was an astute enough business man to have sorted out everything financial. I'm certain he was savvy enough NOT to have given Sheila any controlling factor in the business. I don't believe the Boutflour's had a problem with inheritance per se, it was more about what would have occurred to a family business they'd poured their hearts and souls into, if someone, who had little/NO interest in it, other than financial, should get their hands on it.
-
Further, you only need look at AE's long statement to see how the relatives were pampering to his every whim. Who cleaned up the farmhouse after the murders? What was Jeremy focused on when his family had just been slaughtered?
AE very sensibly took notes whilst Jeremy was being interviewed in relation to his witness. Yet, you appear to see this act as suspicious? Why? If anything she was protecting her family; which very much included Jeremy. She talks about elderly relatives and of protecting them also in relation to the news of the murders. Point me to where Jeremy ever did this. Never mind any friends he may or may not have had.
I used to get annoyed that SH didn't appear to have any genuine friends or family members looking out for his best interests. I've concluded they knew things about SH and saw things in him that I did not. And the reason for me not seeing what they could see was because I had fallen for his manipulative and deceptive ways.
The relatives were all running around Jeremy after that fateful night/morning, all the time he was looking out for his own interests.
Insisting his murdered family members were cremated as they were no longer whole? What a crock..
Where is the signed note made by Jeremy to have his families remains cremated btw?
AE appears to have attempted to accommodated everyone following the murders, and the last person she appears to have thought about was herself. Not only must she have been terrified she must have been exhausted. And you wonder why they have the attitude they have now? Good for them. They figured Jeremy out for what he was/is.
-
Maybe they were terrified Bamber would rob them again?
-
Maybe they were terrified Bamber would rob them again?
Why can't they see it Justice?
It's as clear as day, the only one interested in and focused on money is/was Jeremy! His attitude has never changed.
AE pointed out he showed no remorse for having left the gun out. Why didn't he show any remorse.
People need to go back to the basics of this case as though the murders have just happened and follow the evidence from there. Not pick up 5,10 or 20 years later on some point Bamber has used in a later appeal. He's manufactured all of these aspects in order to brainwash his followers.
-
As I remember back in the 80's,things were very tough,financially and interest rates were about 12/13%,which was great if you had money in the bank and investments--------but if you were paying business loans,mortgages,etc. it was crippling. A lot of people were in dire straits at this point so was it any wonder that RWB was paying visits to grannie,cap in hand ?
This was an extremely worrying time for a lot of people and it hit them hard. It was at this time that we had a death in the family where the deceased had died intestate,so if anyone knows about problems arising during this particular time,1986,it's myself ( yes,ME again )
I can see from this point of view,how and why the relatives would have been more than eager to have seen the end of their financial struggle,plus,I can " partly " empathise if their thoughts had turned to the fact that an " incompetent playboy " was going to end up holding the reins of a flourishing family business,while they struggled on working their fingers to the bone trying to make ends meet.
But------at a time like that,any sentiment/s for the deceased is rapidly replaced by the thought of money ! Particularly after a solicitor has brought everyone down to earth after the reading of the will,or in our case,no will which is worse ! Once the state of a will has been digested and monies divided,is when the trouble begins. Even dying intestate,if families aren't close,you also have trouble," cuckoo " or not.
It would,in my estimation,have been when the relatives had seen the contents of the Bamber's will that minds/attitudes and thoughts of the deceased would have been quickly changed. I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall at that stage.
There's nothing like going through these experiences yourself in gaining an insight into what makes people tick,and also seeing what brings out the worst in them and I'm convinced that this went a long way in sealing Jeremy's fate.
-
As I remember back in the 80's,things were very tough,financially and interest rates were about 12/13%,which was great if you had money in the bank and investments--------but if you were paying business loans,mortgages,etc. it was crippling. A lot of people were in dire straits at this point so was it any wonder that RWB was paying visits to grannie,cap in hand ?
This was an extremely worrying time for a lot of people and it hit them hard. It was at this time that we had a death in the family where the deceased had died intestate,so if anyone knows about problems arising during this particular time,1986,it's myself ( yes,ME again )
I can see from this point of view,how and why the relatives would have been more than eager to have seen the end of their financial struggle,plus,I can " partly " empathise if their thoughts had turned to the fact that an " incompetent playboy " was going to end up holding the reins of a flourishing family business,while they struggled on working their fingers to the bone trying to make ends meet.
But------at a time like that,any sentiment/s for the deceased is rapidly replaced by the thought of money ! Particularly after a solicitor has brought everyone down to earth after the reading of the will,or in our case,no will which is worse ! Once the state of a will has been digested and monies divided,is when the trouble begins. Even dying intestate,if families aren't close,you also have trouble," cuckoo " or not.
It would,in my estimation,have been when the relatives had seen the contents of the Bamber's will that minds/attitudes and thoughts of the deceased would have been quickly changed. I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall at that stage.
There's nothing like going through these experiences yourself in gaining an insight into what makes people tick,and also seeing what brings out the worst in them and I'm convinced that this went a long way in sealing Jeremy's fate.
This is about the Jeremy Bamber case Lookout, not you. Why don't you do as Jackie has done and set up a separate thread so that you can vent, instead of taking threads off topic and making them all about you.
-
Why can't they see it Justice?
It's as clear as day, the only one interested in and focused on money is/was Jeremy! His attitude has never changed.
AE pointed out he showed no remorse for having left the gun out. Why didn't he show any remorse.
People need to go back to the basics of this case as though the murders have just happened and follow the evidence from there. Not pick up 5,10 or 20 years later on some point Bamber has used in a later appeal. He's manufactured all of these aspects in order to brainwash his followers.
I agree about the basics, that's what I did when I first had suspicions that Jeremy was guilty. It is easy to get carried away by the notion of 'greedy relatives' making good use of an opportunity to expand an empire. However, when it boils down to it, the deaths would have been a massive shock to them and if they had suspicions over Jeremy, they wouldn't want him part of their fold and who would?
-
This is about the Jeremy Bamber case Lookout, not you. Why don't you do as Jackie has done and set up a separate thread so that you can vent, instead of taking threads off topic and making them all about you.
It still refers to this case ! What's up with you ? You can ALWAYS have your say regarding SH,can't you ??
-
Do as I say,not as I do-----is your motto,isn't it ? You've got your OWN " rant " thread but STILL choose to use these for SH,don't you ?
NEVER tell me what I can do !!
-
I agree about the basics, that's what I did when I first had suspicions that Jeremy was guilty. It is easy to get carried away by the notion of 'greedy relatives' making good use of an opportunity to expand an empire. However, when it boils down to it, the deaths would have been a massive shock to them and if they had suspicions over Jeremy, they wouldn't want him part of their fold and who would?
You make a VERY good point, Caroline. Perhaps, because I've previously focused on/sided with Jeremy's position, I've not given a thought to how the wider family would have felt. Thinking about it, the Bambers had been known to them for far longer than had Jeremy and with the two bro's-in-law/business partners being married to the two sisters whose parents had started the business, even if they didn't seem to be emotionally close, they were tightly linked. The loss of June and Nevill must have been devastating beyond belief and yet they appeared to pull themselves together and deal with it. From what's been said, they appear to have had little choice because the only thing that Jeremy seemed interested, after arranging the funerals with unseemly and inappropriate haste, was getting his hands on as much ready cash, as quickly as possible.
-
You make a VERY good point, Caroline. Perhaps, because I've previously focused on/sided with Jeremy's position, I've not given a thought to how the wider family would have felt. Thinking about it, the Bambers had been known to them for far longer than had Jeremy and with the two bro's-in-law/business partners being married to the two sisters whose parents had started the business, even if they didn't seem to be emotionally close, they were tightly linked. The loss of June and Nevill must have been devastating beyond belief and yet they appeared to pull themselves together and deal with it. From what's been said, they appear to have had little choice because the only thing that Jeremy seemed interested, after arranging the funerals with unseemly and inappropriate haste, was getting his hands on as much ready cash, as quickly as possible.
Exactly Jane! Nevill and June were linch pins and no one suffering such a loss would automatically think of the advantages. The loss together with the suspicion that Jeremy was responsible would be cause for some very sleepless nights and you would want him caught.
-
Exactly Jane! Nevill and June were linch pins and no one suffering such a loss would automatically think of the advantages. The loss together with the suspicion that Jeremy was responsible would be cause for some very sleepless nights and you would want him caught.
JB was very easily accessible though,wasn't he.Always saying where he'd be,or going.He didn't scarper as many would.
-
Would you tell the world you were going abroad if you'd " murdered " a whole family ?
-
JB was very easily accessible though,wasn't he.Always saying where he'd be,or going.He didn't scarper as many would.
I don't know what that has to do with anything. Looked at in another way he was expressing dominance and control. I wonder if he ever said he was planning to do, but if he was needed he'd put it off?
-
Exactly Jane! Nevill and June were linch pins and no one suffering such a loss would automatically think of the advantages. The loss together with the suspicion that Jeremy was responsible would be cause for some very sleepless nights and you would want him caught.
Except Ann had already identified Jeremy as a threat to their livelihood, prior to the killings. I think she informed 'dad and Peter' of the potential threat? They haven't exactly gone in to immediate post-killings period with an open mind have they?
-
Except Ann had already identified Jeremy as a threat to their livelihood, prior to the killings. I think she informed 'dad and Peter' of the potential threat? They haven't exactly gone in to immediate post-killings period with an open mind have they?
I don't think she identified him as a threat exactly? He wound her up and and took pleasure in it. The fact that she took her livelihood seriously and he as a bit of a joke, speaks volumes. She didn't like some of the things he said, one of them being that they would both soon be in charge of Osea - in retrospect, I guess that was a pretty chilling for her. As far as an open mind goes, they knew the characters involved and we don't - they clearly had reason to suspect him.
-
Except Ann had already identified Jeremy as a threat to their livelihood, prior to the killings. I think she informed 'dad and Peter' of the potential threat? They haven't exactly gone in to immediate post-killings period with an open mind have they?
Hi Roch. Can you point me to where AE had already identified Jeremy as a threat to their livelihood, prior to the killings as I'd like to go further with this aspect with you.
Dr Jane Monckton Smith says there are often already signs regarding the offender and you appear to be suggesting the relatives had indeed recognised these signs. Though they obviously didn't recogonise he was a danger to his immediate family members. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8069.0.html
-
I'm posting from my phone. Just wrote a big reply only for it to be wiped out unexpectedly with all text lost. I'll post later on from laptop if I have chance
-
I don't think she identified him as a threat exactly? He wound her up and and took pleasure in it. The fact that she took her livelihood seriously and he as a bit of a joke, speaks volumes. She didn't like some of the things he said, one of them being that they would both soon be in charge of Osea - in retrospect, I guess that was a pretty chilling for her. As far as an open mind goes, they knew the characters involved and we don't - they clearly had reason to suspect him.
THIS is exactly the position from where the major problem stems. Ann -and David- had to work. Not for them the 'luxury' of boarding school followed by 'time out'. They left state schools and after enough college time to earn skills, were put to work at the family business. Neither Sheila nor Jeremy were required to do this. They had a wonderful financial cushion which guaranteed them a soft landing. Of COURSE the didn't take seriously, earning money. They had the bank of family to prop them up. Jeremy -and Sheila- appear to have had a rather frivolous view of work life. They probably thought it was to earn pocket money. That attitude didn't make for good boss material when it was her family's livelihood which stood to be gambled on.
-
The relatives thought Bamber was guilty from day one.
They found a silencer when at WHF with Basil Cock & BW. The silencer was tested and together with a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence, helped convict Bamber.
There is nothing else to it.
Adam. Iv often wondered where this "mountain of forensic evidence" of yours is located. lo and behold its in your "Library of incriminating evidence" how could I have missed it all this time?
(https://s24.postimg.org/lhl7x5vqt/original_empty_library_1.jpg)
2x Zoom
(https://s24.postimg.org/6f8zmhb79/mountain0.jpg)
10x Zoom
(https://s24.postimg.org/cu80j5hx1/mountain1.jpg)
200x Zoom
(https://s24.postimg.org/5fioqrw1h/mountain2.jpg)
1000x Zoom
(https://s24.postimg.org/xgwq4h1bp/mountain3.jpg)
10,000x Zoom. - Glorious!
(https://s24.postimg.org/8c5pr21v9/mountain4.jpg)