Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on May 06, 2015, 04:54:AM
-
It's no secret Jeremy liked to lavish money on himself.
Spending way beyond his means and always asking his parents for more money.
He owed Neville £2,000p which Neville was unlikely to ever see. If Neville had told Jeremy he had to attend bible classes with June to repay the debt, that would have really upset him.
Even when he obtained money, it quickly went. The caravan break in money being spent quickly on slap up meals and drink ups.
Straight after the massacre was no different. Oblivious to the fact that the police and relatives were investigating other avenues, money was quickly spent. At least £6,000 partying and drug buying in Amsterdam. Then more partying at Burnham, London, Eastbourne and St Tropez followed. Even the funeral had champagne on tap.
A lot of the immediately available cash was being used up. Selling off the valuable items inside WHF and finalising the will was still a long way off. However another option was available.
Jeremy offered pictures of his dead sister to The Sun. Knowing The Sun was a popular newspaper which would publish lewd pictures, and also had some financial muscle, he set out his spiel.
He wanted good money, quickly and in cash. The pictures were very sexy and suggestive and he also had other pictures of other family members. He also offered his life story, something he would offer again to the NOTW.
Michael Fielder says Jeremy and Brett were giggling like a couple of school children, making more innuendo's than a Carry On film.
Even The Sun were appalled. Rejecting the offer and publishing the distasteful episode on their front pages. Which would have made the police even more suspicious.
Are there any other instances where someone connected to an appalling crime have tried to cash in straight away ?
Do people agree this sealed his fate ? As the narrator of the new video said. It is true this put him in a worse light, but there is no mention of it being brought up at trial, so did not effect the juries decision.
-
Are there any other instances where someone connected to an appalling crime have tried to cash in straight away ?
Sef Gonzales the days after he killed his family paid a visit to the family accountant to see how much he was worth and put a deposit down on a new Lexus.
This one guy in America similar to Bamber's age killed his entire family for the family fortune then visited the lawyer to see how much he was worth only to find in his dads will he couldn't get the money till he was 35! then he went ballistic and shouted abuse, That's what got the investigation rolling aginst him.
Brian Blackwell Killed his parents then went on a £30,000 holiday
There are tones of cases specially in America when it involves life insurance.
sadly
-
I would take anything a Sun reporter said with a very large pinch of salt. Especially in those days and with such a sensational case.
-
I would take anything a Sun reporter said with a very large pinch of salt. Especially in those days and with such a sensational case.
Those type of rag mags make up things all he time to this day, so ditto.
I find it hard to believe that they didn´t buy the pictures - or at least arranged to have a look at them. According to Colin, the press were relentless and overstepped every possible bondaries possible in the pursuit of a story in connection to this case, it was a huge thing in the media. Colin had to go into hiding.
NOTW had no problem posting semi-nude photos of Julie M featuring an article about the tragic case.
-
this is based on the word of the sun newspaper so cant possbly be taken seriously.
-
Don't mention that newspaper here !
-
Those type of rag mags make up things all he time to this day, so ditto.
I find it hard to believe that they didn´t buy the pictures - or at least arranged to have a look at them. According to Colin, the press were relentless and overstepped every possible bondaries possible in the pursuit of a story in connection to this case, it was a huge thing in the media. Colin had to go into hiding.
NOTW had no problem posting semi-nude photos of Julie M featuring an article about the tragic case.
Do you think The Sun made up the story and put it on their front page ? More importantly do you have proof ?
Michael Fielder must also be lying in the video.
It is believable that Jeremy approached The Sun. He was spending heavily after the massacre, instructed BW to increase his wages and didn't want to slow down.
It was a high profile case, which the media were interested in. There was the potential to get a lot of ready cash to keep him going until the inheritance.
He was probably not expecting a knock back, and certainly not expecting The Sun to grass on him.
If he could rob the caravan site, he would have not felt much remorse about selling pictures and giving his life story.
-
That newspaper told a pack of lies about Hillsborough,so what's to stop them from continuing ? It told lies about the McCanns and also hacked their phone.
This gutter newspaper will say anything to draw in people like you who believe everything which the press has to report.
-
Do you think The Sun made up the story and put it on their front page ? More importantly do you have proof ?
Michael Fielder must also be lying in the video.
It is believable that Jeremy approached The Sun. He was spending heavily after the massacre, instructed BW to increase his wages and didn't want to slow down.
It was a high profile case, which the media were interested in. There was the potential to get a lot of ready cash to keep him going until the inheritance.
He was probably not expecting a knock back, and certainly not expecting The Sun to grass on him.
If he could rob the caravan site, he would have not felt much remorse about selling pictures and giving his life story.
I thought it was Brett Collins Idea to sell the pornography to the sun?
-
I thought it was Brett Collins Idea to sell the pornography to the sun?
It was either Brett or Jeremy. Or both deciding together.
Brett knew someone who worked for The Sun.
-
do you think the sun newspaper somtimes tells the truth then adam i suppose it is possble.
-
do you think the sun newspaper somtimes tells the truth then adam i suppose it is possble.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3698.0.html
This Thread makes interesting reading imo.
-
I would take anything a Sun reporter said with a very large pinch of salt. Especially in those days and with such a sensational case.
I didn't believe this when I thought Bamber was innocent and even recently, I questioned it. However, after watching the docu, I have to say that I think it's more than likely true. I did once ask Jeremy about this and he declined to answer. He tends to pick and choose what he replies to!
-
I thought it was Brett Collins Idea to sell the pornography to the sun?
He approached the newspaper but he didn't do it off his own back.
-
I didn't believe this when I thought Bamber was innocent and even recently, I questioned it. However, after watching the docu, I have to say that I think it's more than likely true. I did once ask Jeremy about this and he declined to answer. He tends to pick and choose what he replies to!
He declined to answer. Oh dear.
There is no reason for Fielding to lie in a documentary 20 years later.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3698.0.html
This Thread makes interesting reading imo.
Yes, it was interesting when it was 'first' posted, all the way to the the point when it was revealed what KM was 'supposed' to have said. Something about knowing 'the little shit didn't do it' he said the little shit didn't do it because ........... 'They knew it was a drugs gang' which is absurd!
-
i just it might be laugh to ask kelvin mckenzie about this.
-
Well if there was a drugs gang involved,Jeremy's better staying where he is,or he'll be dead meat.
-
He declined to answer. Oh dear.
There is no reason for Fielding to lie in a documentary 20 years later.
How do you know?
-
Well if there was a drugs gang involved,Jeremy's better staying where he is,or he'll be dead meat.
There wasn't ;D ;D ;D
-
How do you know?
Why do you think Fielding would go on TV 20 years later and say he met Collins & Bamber, if he didn't ?
Why do you think Jeremy declined to answer when asked ?
Supporters have to accept this happened. But can say it doesn't make him guilty. Very strange behaviour though for a grieving son/brother/uncle.
-
There wasn't ;D ;D ;D
But he did deal in drugs ?
-
As did Sheila,through Freddie. As well as JM,who fled the country.
-
What was cannabis doing in the safe if it wasn't to supply someone ?
-
Why didn't Jeremy help himself to the cannabis in the safe on the night of the murders ? Was it that he didn't know where the key was kept,or what ?
-
Why do you think Fielding would go on TV 20 years later and say he met Collins & Bamber, if he didn't ?
The same reason the Sun put in in the paper in the first place,
Why do you think Jeremy declined to answer when asked ?
Why should he have to answer questions like this in a normal letter?
Supporters have to accept this happened. But can say it doesn't make him guilty. Very strange behaviour though for a grieving son/brother/uncle.
supporters don't have to do anything. And again, how do we know how someone is supposed to act when all their family have been murdered?
-
Are there any other instances where someone connected to an appalling crime have tried to cash in straight away ?
Do people agree this sealed his fate ? As the narrator of the new video said. It is true this put him in a worse light, but there is no mention of it being brought up at trial, so did not effect the juries decision.
Are there people who committed murders for money who spent the money right away instead of waiting? Yes plenty it would probably be a shorter list of those who didn't spend right away.
Did what seal his fate? Are you asking if being greedy thus committing the murders sealed his fate or spending lavishly after the murders did so? Quite obviously it was the former that sealed his fate. The lavish spending after isn't what convicted him.
-
Are there people who committed murders for money who spent the money right away instead of waiting? Yes plenty it would probably be a shorter list of those who didn't spend right away.
Did what seal his fate? Are you asking if being greedy thus committing the murders sealed his fate or spending lavishly after the murders did so? Quite obviously it was the former that sealed his fate. The lavish spending after isn't what convicted him.
His behaviour as a hole one could argue got the ball rolling against him. Had he put on a much better act and kept it full time for at least a month then maybe things could have been different
-
If he hadn't have opened his mouth about his father ringing him,he might not have had such a severe backlash,then perhaps the investigation would have been more thorough because nobody would have known about the sister either.
-
His behaviour as a hole one could argue got the ball rolling against him. Had he put on a much better act and kept it full time for at least a month then maybe things could have been different
Ultimately two main things did him in- 1) Julie ratting on him and 2) the forensic evidence finally being tested by the lab and revealing the moderator was used
Involving Julie and shooting Sheila with the moderator then putting it away in the closet sealed his fate. The lab realized the implications regardless of police suspicion or lack thereof. If he could go back in time he would have not involved Julie and would have removed the moderator before killing Sheila and simply would have left it out. These were his biggest mistakes of all and what truly sealed his fate in combo with the claim he received a phone call. In hindsight he also obviously would have made the bodies be found in the morning as opposed to claiming he received a phone call.
-
If he hadn't have opened his mouth about his father ringing him,he might not have had such a severe backlash,then perhaps the investigation would have been more thorough because nobody would have known about the sister either.
That would mean he wont be able to tell the police. And the bodies would have to be discovered by someone. How that would play out I don't know
-
That would mean he wont be able to tell the police. And the bodies would have to be discovered by someone. How that would play out I don't know
He " possibly " still could have been blamed,but it would have meant EP working that bit harder to have found out. Without him as a mouthpiece.
-
That would mean he wont be able to tell the police. And the bodies would have to be discovered by someone. How that would play out I don't know
Far better than it did. What is worse:
A) Suspect was aware of the problem claiming he received a call that is unlikely to have occurred
B) Suspect claims to know nothing, claims to have been asleep as usual at the time of the murders
Even if they suspect him there is more evidence against him in scenario A than B.
The proof he did it as opposed to some other third party was that he knew about the problem. Otherwise their main case against him would simply have been Julie's claims and the fact that he is the only one who would profit from the deaths.
If he could go back in time and not tell Julie and make the bodies be found in the morning that means the evidence against him would be that he was the only one who would profit. That still could present a problem but it is still a better situation than with showing police you were aware of the murders and having Julie rat you out.
Furthermore, if he had never intended to pretend he received a phonecall he could have shot both parents as they slept. He might have been able in that case to have prevented Nevill from reaching the kitchen and the fight from ensuing. The fight helped implicate him in several ways including that had Sheila beaten Nevill then she would have had medium velocity impact spatter on her body and clothing.
Consider how much better Jeremy would have been if the following happened:
1) Jeremy managed to immobilize his parents so that there were no struggles
2) Jeremy never told Julie anything so she could not rat him out
3) Jeremy removed the moderator and left it near Sheila's body and killed her without it attached
4) The next morning he and others say something is wrong because the door is locked from the inside and no one will answer so with the help of others he breaks in and they find the bodies then call police.
What is the evidence against him?
1) the evidence of no GSR on her hands or clothing is the main evidence against her not having shot herself or loaded a rifle. If he made her lay down when he shot her and held the gun close across her body though he would have gotten soot and GSR on her gown so even that could have been taken care of with good planning and we are using hindsight afterall.
So the physical evidence that suggests it wasn't a murder suicide would have been substantially more limited and probably not enough to even warrant a trial let alone to result in a conviction.
-
Are there people who committed murders for money who spent the money right away instead of waiting? Yes plenty it would probably be a shorter list of those who didn't spend right away.
Did what seal his fate? Are you asking if being greedy thus committing the murders sealed his fate or spending lavishly after the murders did so? Quite obviously it was the former that sealed his fate. The lavish spending after isn't what convicted him.
By 'cash in' I mean sell their story or pictures to the press. Very soon after the massacre.
My thread posts asks if approaching The Sun sealed his fate. Which is what the narrator of the video said.
-
There were lots of problems in leaving the bodies there and not phoning the police.
He was first on the farm in the morning. So would have been first to discover the bodies.
Everything else would remain the same, moderator, windows, Sheila's condition, motive, no alibi etc. It's just that Bamber would not have had the chance to spend several hours creating the siege situation and insinuating Sheila beforehand.
-
He " possibly " still could have been blamed,but it would have meant EP working that bit harder to have found out. Without him as a mouthpiece.
He signed his own death warrant---stupid idiot. Played straight into the hands of EP.
-
The better story would be that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures of his dead sister. I can now see why The Sun chose to whistle blow on Jeremy as opposed to the less sensationalist story that an ex model had a few saucy pics taken at some point in her career. Why would The Sun make up a story about Jeremy, out of the blue, it had to have a basis in truth.
-
Do you think The Sun made up the story and put it on their front page ? More importantly do you have proof ?
Michael Fielder must also be lying in the video.
It is believable that Jeremy approached The Sun. He was spending heavily after the massacre, instructed BW to increase his wages and didn't want to slow down.
It was a high profile case, which the media were interested in. There was the potential to get a lot of ready cash to keep him going until the inheritance.
He was probably not expecting a knock back, and certainly not expecting The Sun to grass on him.
If he could rob the caravan site, he would have not felt much remorse about selling pictures and giving his life story.
Do you have proof they didn´t?
-
I didn't believe this when I thought Bamber was innocent and even recently, I questioned it. However, after watching the docu, I have to say that I think it's more than likely true. I did once ask Jeremy about this and he declined to answer. He tends to pick and choose what he replies to!
If he is a psychopath, he wouldn´t have a problem with lying to you and answer your question with a NO! ;) ;)
-
The better story would be that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures of his dead sister. I can now see why The Sun chose to whistle blow on Jeremy as opposed to the less sensationalist story that an ex model had a few saucy pics taken at some point in her career. Why would The Sun make up a story about Jeremy, out of the blue, it had to have a basis in truth.
Considering the appauling track records of Rupert Murdoch's Newspaper companies there could have been no basis in truth at all. 8)
-
The better story would be that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures of his dead sister. I can now see why The Sun chose to whistle blow on Jeremy as opposed to the less sensationalist story that an ex model had a few saucy pics taken at some point in her career. Why would The Sun make up a story about Jeremy, out of the blue, it had to have a basis in truth.
To sell papers - they do it all the time those rag mags.
-
The better story would be that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures of his dead sister. I can now see why The Sun chose to whistle blow on Jeremy as opposed to the less sensationalist story that an ex model had a few saucy pics taken at some point in her career. Why would The Sun make up a story about Jeremy, out of the blue, it had to have a basis in truth.
well could be there cosy conections with the old bill wich have been exposed many times.
-
Why would The Sun make up a story about Jeremy, out of the blue, it had to have a basis in truth.
Errm... To sell shed loads of newspapers on the back of a sensational news story?
-
This is a tactic of supporters. When a primary source says something bad about him, they then ask for proof that that person is not lying.
Such as Fielding who is filmed speaking about his meeting with Bamber. It is now up to the guilters to prove he is not lying !
-
the sun is not a primary source unless our brian dead.
-
This is a tactic of supporters. When a primary source says something bad about him, they then ask for proof that that person is not lying.
Such as Fielding who is filmed speaking about his meeting with Bamber. It is now up to the guilters to prove he is not lying !
The Sun is a primary source of the truth???
-
Example of the kind of drivel The Sun published in 1985.
http://i.imgur.com/STJZC4q.jpg
-
Example of the kind of drivel The Sun published in 1985.
http://i.imgur.com/STJZC4q.jpg
Enough to send the men wild looking at that Alias ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
To be fair supporters would firstly try to justify an action which put Jeremy in a bad light. Such as blaming Julie for making Jeremy do the caravan break in.
But when an action is indefensible, the primary source/s are not telling the truth.
-
To be fair supporters would firstly try to justify an action which put Jeremy in a bad light. Such as blaming Julie for making Jeremy do the caravan break in.
But when an action is indefensible, the primary source/s is not telling the truth.
Ignoring the first part of your quote about which nobody was actually talking about, if the primary source is The Sun then no I don't believe they tell the truth. They will stop at nothing to sell newspapers.
-
To be fair supporters would firstly try to justify an action which put Jeremy in a bad light. Such as blaming Julie for making Jeremy do the caravan break in.
But when an action is indefensible, the primary source/s are not telling the truth.
Or like you blaming Jeremy and Susan Battersby for that cheque fraud. 8)
That said, I don´t like that break in, it puts Jeremy in a very bad light. One reason I am on the fence about him - it was a far cry from murder, but he had overstepped a boundary.
-
Ignoring the first part of your quote about which nobody was actually talking about, if the primary source is The Sun then no I don't believe they tell the truth. They will stop at nothing to sell newspapers.
They were taking a risk, putting it on their front page.
At the time Bamber was a free and about to be rich man. Surely he would sue for libel, and win if it was a lie. Making him even richer.
-
It was not just The Sun.
Fielding spoke about it on camera 20 years later. He was no longer working for the Sun.
-
Ignoring the first part of your quote about which nobody was actually talking about, if the primary source is The Sun then no I don't believe they tell the truth. They will stop at nothing to sell newspapers.
That is why I find it hard to believe they refused those photos (or photo, I don´t know.)
They could have had double up - first the story about Jeremy actually selling them the pictures, then a story where they would actually show them.
The Sun - morals? NO!
-
Or like you blaming Jeremy and Susan Battersby for that cheque fraud. 8)
That said, I don´t like that break in, it puts Jeremy in a very bad light. One reason I am on the fence about him - it was a far cry from murder, but he had overstepped a boundary.
I never blamed SB. I just call it 'Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud'.
It was her cheque book. It was 1984. It was minor, Nick Leeson's fraud a few years later brought down a bank.
-
I never blamed SB. I just call it 'Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud'.
It was her cheque book. It was 1984. It was minor, Nick Leeson's fraud a few years later brought down a bank.
It is actually worse for Julie that it was Susan´s cheque book. She admits she used several days talking Susan into it.... then she used days practicing a fake signature.
Fraud is never minor.
-
It is actually worse for Julie that it was Susan´s cheque book. She admits she used several days talking Susan into it.... then she used days practicing a fake signature.
Fraud is never minor.
Have you got a source that she 'used several days' persuading SB.
-
Brett could also sue The Sun. The meeting also puts him in a bad light. He hasn't.
-
Have you got a source that she 'used several days' persuading SB.
Yes, it is in Julie´s statement somewhere. You are not going to make me look for it now!
-
Yes, it is in Julie´s statement somewhere. You are not going to make me look for it now!
Please do.
-
Please do.
No. Have been working all day and part of the evening, you look! Why don´t you trust me?
-
If he is a psychopath, he wouldn´t have a problem with lying to you and answer your question with a NO! ;) ;)
Far better to 'tell the truth where possible' (his words) ;)
-
Considering the appauling track records of Rupert Murdoch's Newspaper companies there could have been no basis in truth at all. 8)
What would make a better story? Soft porn pictures of a dead model that they wouldn't really be able to print anyway? Or a story about the only surviving bother who tried to sell said pictures only a short while after her death? If Jeremy didn't approach the reporter, how did he know that there were soft porn pictures of her? The fact that such pictures existed is confirmed by Colin. Sun reporters are a lot of things but they aren't psychic. 8)
-
Example of the kind of drivel The Sun published in 1985.
http://i.imgur.com/STJZC4q.jpg
Not forgetting that it was the Sun's sister paper that paid Mugford for her not entirely truthful account. Everything printed in any Murdoch rag should automatically be treated with scepticism.
-
i think it is by most people.
-
What would make a better story? Soft porn pictures of a dead model that they wouldn't really be able to print anyway? Or a story about the only surviving bother who tried to sell said pictures only a short while after her death? If Jeremy didn't approach the reporter, how did he know that there were soft porn pictures of her? The fact that such pictures existed is confirmed by Colin. Sun reporters are a lot of things but they aren't psychic. 8)
The photographer who took the alleged pictures of Sheila and the reporter from the sun were both part of the media, they probably knew each other.
Photographer to reporter: "You know what, I took these x-rated pictures of blah blah blah"
Could easily have happened that way, no need to be psychic!
-
The photographer who took the alleged pictures of Sheila and the reporter from the sun were both part of the media, they probably knew each other.
Photographer to reporter: "You know what, I took these x-rated pictures of blah blah blah"
Could easily have happened that way, no need to be psychic!
Why would Rupert Murdoch be producing pornography?
-
The photographer who took the alleged pictures of Sheila and the reporter from the sun were both part of the media, they probably knew each other.
Photographer to reporter: "You know what, I took these x-rated pictures of blah blah blah"
Could easily have happened that way, no need to be psychic!
Now that's denial! The photographer would have got what from it? They didn't use the pictures, they wrote a story about Jeremy Bamber trying to sell his dead sisters pictures.
-
Now that's denial! The photographer would have got what from it? They didn't use the pictures, they wrote a story about Jeremy Bamber trying to sell his dead sisters pictures.
Just thought I´d highlight that. The tone, the rudeness, constantly.
No, it´s a suggestion, doesn´t neccessarily mean I 100% believe it happened that way, but it can be argued, so I did.
-
Colin took some risqué pics,I believe,as did a friend of Sheila,in the garden of the ( female ) friend.
I don't find this any worse than the " horseplay " performed by the very ones who were supposed to be investigating the case.
-
What would make a better story? Soft porn pictures of a dead model that they wouldn't really be able to print anyway? Or a story about the only surviving bother who tried to sell said pictures only a short while after her death? If Jeremy didn't approach the reporter, how did he know that there were soft porn pictures of her? The fact that such pictures existed is confirmed by Colin. Sun reporters are a lot of things but they aren't psychic. 8)
it doesnt take psycic powers to work out that a good looking model may have done a topless shoot at some time.
-
Yes,the Sun newspaper was right when in 1985 it had reported that a police officer had found both June and Sheila on the bed with a rifle between them.
The Sun is always right.Best tabloid amongst them which always tells the truth. Was it Adams who'd reported the " find " ? Good old Adams.
-
Yes,the Sun newspaper was right when in 1985 it had reported that a police officer had found both June and Sheila on the bed with a rifle between them.
The Sun is always right.Best tabloid amongst them which always tells the truth. Was it Adams who'd reported the " find " ? Good old Adams.
They were told that.
-
Just thought I´d highlight that. The tone, the rudeness, constantly.
No, it´s a suggestion, doesn´t neccessarily mean I 100% believe it happened that way, but it can be argued, so I did.
The tone and the rudeness ges both ways and you yourself are far from innocent.
Not sure why you would post something you had no faith in.
-
it doesnt take psycic powers to work out that a good looking model may have done a topless shoot at some time.
What would be the point of making the story up about Jeremy? Or are posters now suggesting that even the newspaper was involved in the 'conspiracy' to frame Bamber? The seed for the tory had to come from somewhere - I think it simply came from Jeremy, anything else, just doesn't make sense.
-
do you know anything about the history of the sun paper yes thats exactly what implying jeremys case is not the only one i can point to a fair few.
-
do you know anything about the history of the sun paper yes thats exactly what implying jeremys case is not the only one i can point to a fair few.
Of course I do and STILL the notion that the police, the family, his girlfriend, his friends, the sun newspaper etc. ALL conspired to frame Bamber is completely absurd. It doesn't make sense and it didn't happen. However, it someone can supply ONE GOOD REASON why this happened, at least that MIGHT go some distance to making the notion possible. It's really not enough or even feasible to suggest that 'something' might have happened during the raid, without mentioning what that 'something' might be because even IF the police had shot Sheila during the raid, she was a suspect with a gun who had killed 4 members of her family and the raid team would not have hesitated to shoot her if they thought she was a danger to them - there would be no need for a cover up. So what else might have occurred that would lead to all of these people lying and conspire to frame an INNOCENT man and leave him to rot in prison?
-
the sun newspaper dont care if someones innocent or guilty of crime none of the murdoch rags and all have an unhealthy incestious relashenship with the old bill.
-
There is no getting away from it that EP were useless.
The " person seen in the window ".Was it a person,or was it a " trick of the light ?"
Were the lights on in the farmhouse,or were they off ?
Was Sheila found on the bed or not ?
Was it a rifle at the window,or not ?
Was the rifle found on Sheila,or beside her ?
Was the Bible found on her chest,or was it on the floor away from her body ?
There are loads of questions,and each newspaper that was published all had different answers to which it would only have been the police giving their story.
Because of this ongoing uncertainty,is it any wonder that the case was a dodgy one ?
Newspapers DO elaborate for the sensationalist factor which sells them. People have been awarded thousands through the tabloids/broadsheets for giving out wrong information. It's happened often.
The McCanns, their friends and Robert Murat.
-
the sun newspaper dont care if someones innocent or guilty of crime none of the murdoch rags and all have an unhealthy incestious relashenship with the old bill.
So you can't think of a reason then?
-
theres a simple reason the police wanted them to print the story.
we have allready gone through the reasons of the girlfriend and the family.
-
As far as I remember the photos were not described - but Colin (I think) did say in his book that some of them had been kept by June ? And were found after the tragedy . Not quite sure which ones they were or why she would keep them?
personally I think if there had been photos available to them they would have taken them and printed them - they never had any morals in respect of other stories - why this one.
-
I also read that June found some pics in a drawer at WHF. They must have sent her off-balance too.
Jan,in some " weird letters " ( which weren't written by Sheila ) there's mention of photo's and the Sun newspaper and other peculiar things. There's only one other person who referred to the word " darlings ",and that was June,so it was she who wrote the letters.
At the time,they didn't mean anything,but I took copies and have them somewhere.
-
As far as I remember the photos were not described - but Colin (I think) did say in his book that some of them had been kept by June ? And were found after the tragedy . Not quite sure which ones they were or why she would keep them?
personally I think if there had been photos available to them they would have taken them and printed them - they never had any morals in respect of other stories - why this one.
they would of printed them a long with some tastless headline.
-
I am afraid Jeremy's supporters have to provide proof that The Sun lied and put it on their front page. And that Fielding lied 20 years later when interviewed on camera.
These are both primary sources of proof that the meeting happened. Jeremy has refused to discuss this. Even when asked about it.
I appreciate supporters cannot try to justify Jeremy's attempt. So will automatically say a newspaper and individuals are lying. But proof is needed.
-
As far as I remember the photos were not described - but Colin (I think) did say in his book that some of them had been kept by June ? And were found after the tragedy . Not quite sure which ones they were or why she would keep them?
personally I think if there had been photos available to them they would have taken them and printed them - they never had any morals in respect of other stories - why this one.
Hello Jan
just looked in Colin's book and the nude photo's of Sheila which had been taken at WHF were found by Jeremy in a drawer at WHF he took them and said June probably found them at Sheila's flat and took them so she could use them as a hold on her if need be. Jeremy told Colin he had Sheila's portfolio at Goldhanger and he wanted to keep the "famous" ones himself. Colin found slides of nude Sheila but they were test shots and Jeremy was gloating (his words not mine) over Colin's shoulder that he had much more revealing shots and you see everything down to the last detail and laughed. Colin said he found Jeremy's behaviour very distasteful looking and talking about nude photo's of his dead sister. Jeremy did admit having the photo's so sad I think.
-
I am afraid Jeremy's supporters have to provide proof that The Sun lied and put it on their front page. And that Fielding lied 20 years later when interviewed on camera.
These are both primary sources of proof that the meeting happened. Jeremy has refused to discuss this. Even when asked about it.
I appreciate supporters cannot try to justify Jeremy's attempt. So will automatically say a newspaper and individuals are lying. But proof is needed.
in dont think aany real proof is needed that the sun newspaper is lying when youve got a rupution like they have the requriment for proof isnt really needed.
-
Hello Jan
just looked in Colin's book and the nude photo's of Sheila which had been taken at WHF were found by Jeremy in a drawer at WHF he took them and said June probably found them at Sheila's flat and took them so she could use them as a hold on her if need be. Jeremy told Colin he had Sheila's portfolio at Goldhanger and he wanted to keep the "famous" ones himself. Colin found slides of nude Sheila but they were test shots and Jeremy was gloating (his words not mine) over Colin's shoulder that he had much more revealing shots and you see everything down to the last detail and laughed. Colin said he found Jeremy's behaviour very distasteful looking and talking about nude photo's of his dead sister. Jeremy did admit having the photo's so sad I think.
I think June did make threats over the photo's, when she mentioned going to the Sun and the police,saying they were going to call.( an excerpt from a tortured mind which was June's ) saying" God told her to do it ".
-
As far as I remember the photos were not described - but Colin (I think) did say in his book that some of them had been kept by June ? And were found after the tragedy . Not quite sure which ones they were or why she would keep them?
personally I think if there had been photos available to them they would have taken them and printed them - they never had any morals in respect of other stories - why this one.
The photo's described in the documentary couldn't have been published because of the content so, the story about Jeremy trying to sell them for cash, made a better story. Perhaps they would have bought them had they not been as explicit as the jurno described.
-
theres a simple reason the police wanted them to print the story.
we have allready gone through the reasons of the girlfriend and the family.
So everyone except Jeremy is lying?
-
Hello Jan
just looked in Colin's book and the nude photo's of Sheila which had been taken at WHF were found by Jeremy in a drawer at WHF he took them and said June probably found them at Sheila's flat and took them so she could use them as a hold on her if need be. Jeremy told Colin he had Sheila's portfolio at Goldhanger and he wanted to keep the "famous" ones himself. Colin found slides of nude Sheila but they were test shots and Jeremy was gloating (his words not mine) over Colin's shoulder that he had much more revealing shots and you see everything down to the last detail and laughed. Colin said he found Jeremy's behaviour very distasteful looking and talking about nude photo's of his dead sister. Jeremy did admit having the photo's so sad I think.
Cheers Susan!! Proof enough!!
-
Oh dear.
-
Hello Jan
just looked in Colin's book and the nude photo's of Sheila which had been taken at WHF were found by Jeremy in a drawer at WHF he took them and said June probably found them at Sheila's flat and took them so she could use them as a hold on her if need be. Jeremy told Colin he had Sheila's portfolio at Goldhanger and he wanted to keep the "famous" ones himself. Colin found slides of nude Sheila but they were test shots and Jeremy was gloating (his words not mine) over Colin's shoulder that he had much more revealing shots and you see everything down to the last detail and laughed. Colin said he found Jeremy's behaviour very distasteful looking and talking about nude photo's of his dead sister. Jeremy did admit having the photo's so sad I think.
Who told Colin this though? The problem with Colin's book is that many things in it are claims he heard from others- sometimes the claims are true other times they are not. The only way to know which are accurate is to figure out where he heard it from and try to trace if the source was correct. Things he claims to have personally witnessed are on sounder footing though it still amounts to his interpretation of things so we must remember that.
-
Who told Colin this though? The problem with Colin's book is that many things in it are claims he heard from others- sometimes the claims are true other times they are not. The only way to know which are accurate is to figure out where he heard it from and try to trace if the source was correct. Things he claims to have personally witnessed are on sounder footing though it still amounts to his interpretation of things so we must remember that.
Hello Scipio this was a conversation held between Colin and Jeremy when Colin went to Sheila's flat to collect his boys belongings and personal photo's of Sheila. I just cannot see what Colin would have to gain by making this up as on the whole he does not speak badly of Jeremy in the book at all and Colin was the only one with nothing to gain and he does come over as a decent guy. Most of what he says in the book was told to him by Sheila and Jeremy guess the relatives told him stuff but they had a financial interest in this case Colin did'ent.
-
Hello Scipio this was a conversation held between Colin and Jeremy when Colin went to Sheila's flat to collect his boys belongings and personal photo's of Sheila. I just cannot see what Colin would have to gain by making this up as on the whole he does not speak badly of Jeremy in the book at all and Colin was the only one with nothing to gain and he does come over as a decent guy. Most of what he says in the book was told to him by Sheila and Jeremy guess the relatives told him stuff but they had a financial interest in this case Colin did'ent.
It is not a matter of whether he lied it is a matter of whether he was lied to or misinterpreted what he was told. Maybe Jeremy told him the truth, maybe Jeremy lied in order to try mitigating the damage by claiming Brett never saw the photos. Other occasions Jeremy lied to get Colin on his side. Despite the fact Jeremy could have lied it sounds like it might have been the truth.
-
Who told Colin this though? The problem with Colin's book is that many things in it are claims he heard from others- sometimes the claims are true other times they are not. The only way to know which are accurate is to figure out where he heard it from and try to trace if the source was correct. Things he claims to have personally witnessed are on sounder footing though it still amounts to his interpretation of things so we must remember that.
Jeremy.
-
It is not a matter of whether he lied it is a matter of whether he was lied to or misinterpreted what he was told. Maybe Jeremy told him the truth, maybe Jeremy lied in order to try mitigating the damage by claiming Brett never saw the photos. Other occasions Jeremy lied to get Colin on his side. Despite the fact Jeremy could have lied it sounds like it might have been the truth.
The point is, that Jeremy told Colin about explicit photographs of his sister and said the same thing to the journalist. I think it's pretty clear that he did indeed try to sell said pictures.
-
It is not a matter of whether he lied it is a matter of whether he was lied to or misinterpreted what he was told. Maybe Jeremy told him the truth, maybe Jeremy lied in order to try mitigating the damage by claiming Brett never saw the photos. Other occasions Jeremy lied to get Colin on his side. Despite the fact Jeremy could have lied it sounds like it might have been the truth.
Scipio why would Jeremy have a need to tell lies to Colin about the explicit photo's Colin did not know about them until Jeremy told him. Brett was not mentioned but Jeremy made it clear he had the photo's at Goldhanger and he was keeping them. One would have to ask themselves is this normal behaviour of a young guy actually even wanting to see explicit pictures of his dead sister the Mother of the wee boys no he should have been more than happy to give them to her ex husband to dispose of but I guess he had different ideas what he wanted to do with them. Quite disgraceful in my eyes and sick. >:(
-
Scipio why would Jeremy have a need to tell lies to Colin about the explicit photo's Colin did not know about them until Jeremy told him. Brett was not mentioned but Jeremy made it clear he had the photo's at Goldhanger and he was keeping them. One would have to ask themselves is this normal behaviour of a young guy actually even wanting to see explicit pictures of his dead sister the Mother of the wee boys no he should have been more than happy to give them to her ex husband to dispose of but I guess he had different ideas what he wanted to do with them. Quite disgraceful in my eyes and sick. >:(
From the standpoint of her being murdered it is quite scummy to want to sell the photos and not being respectful to the dead. She wasn't his biological brother so looking at the photos and not disposing of them is not as sick as would be the case if they were biological siblings and he had some incestuous fantasies he was using them for.
-
From the standpoint of her being murdered it is quite scummy to want to sell the photos and not being respectful to the dead. She wasn't his biological brother so looking at the photos and not disposing of them is not as sick as would be the case if they were biological siblings and he had some incestuous fantasies he was using them for.
I think it's just as sick, biological or not, she had grown up with him and she had just died - murdered by him. It's totally disrespectful and another indicator of his lack of empathy and remorse.
-
Scipio why would Jeremy have a need to tell lies to Colin about the explicit photo's Colin did not know about them until Jeremy told him. Brett was not mentioned but Jeremy made it clear he had the photo's at Goldhanger and he was keeping them. One would have to ask themselves is this normal behaviour of a young guy actually even wanting to see explicit pictures of his dead sister the Mother of the wee boys no he should have been more than happy to give them to her ex husband to dispose of but I guess he had different ideas what he wanted to do with them. Quite disgraceful in my eyes and sick. >:(
Totally agree Susan and how he thought he could sell explicit pictures to a newspaper it totally naive on his part. They can't publish explicit photographs so he was nailed from the off. Obviously the £££££ signs were flashing and (again) he didn't think it through.
-
I think it's just as sick, biological or not, she had grown up with him and she had just died - murdered by him. It's totally disrespectful and another indicator of his lack of empathy and remorse.
Caroline I was just going to respond in a similar manner IMO even if Sheila had been his biological sister it would have made no difference they were brought up together from being babies and were brother and sister as far as they were concerned. His behaviour to Colin with regard to these photo's was not normal at all he really freaked Colin out by his behaviour disgusting in my eyes.
-
I also read that June found some pics in a drawer at WHF. They must have sent her off-balance too.
Jan,in some " weird letters " ( which weren't written by Sheila ) there's mention of photo's and the Sun newspaper and other peculiar things. There's only one other person who referred to the word " darlings ",and that was June,so it was she who wrote the letters.
At the time,they didn't mean anything,but I took copies and have them somewhere.
I think they a "false" if you know what I mean
-
I think they a "false" if you know what I mean
I'm not so sure,Jan. I'm keeping them in mind anyway,as part of it mentions Vincent,and that's the Christian name of the psychiatrist Professor Egan.
-
Cheers Susan!! Proof enough!!
Yes that's what I said - June had some photos of Sheila and I remember Colin saying he thought they had been kept for a reason - so Susan has agreed with what I said.
I never said there were not photos in existence.
I think elsewhere in the book he also said ( not in a creepy way ) that Jeremy used to be proud of his sisters model photos and would show his friends. And they were not pornographic before you misinterpret that comment.
-
I think they a "false" if you know what I mean
If they are the same letters that posters were trying to decipher about 6 months ago, I totally agree. I think they are about as genuine as the the email about the monastery ;)
-
Yes that's what I said - June had some photos of Sheila and I remember Colin saying he thought they had been kept for a reason - so Susan has agreed with what I said.
I never said there were not photos in existence.
I think elsewhere in the book he also said ( not in a creepy way ) that Jeremy used to be proud of his sisters model photos and would show his friends. And they were not pornographic before you misinterpret that comment.
Hello Jan
I seem to recall that Colin did say that Jeremy in his younger days was proud of Sheila and her photo's as you said not nude or anything and he liked to show off to his friends. The book is out I will do some skimming ;D
-
Yes that's what I said - June had some photos of Sheila and I remember Colin saying he thought they had been kept for a reason - so Susan has agreed with what I said.
I never said there were not photos in existence.
I think elsewhere in the book he also said ( not in a creepy way ) that Jeremy used to be proud of his sisters model photos and would show his friends. And they were not pornographic before you misinterpret that comment.
I didn't say you did. My post was in responses to Susan's who kindly looked through Colin's book and found that Jeremy mentioned 'other explicit' pictures. This is how the reporter explained the photographs that Jeremy offered him. So we know such photo's existed and that Jeremy bragged about having them - for me this is enough proof that he did indeed try to sell then to The Sun. The Sun couldn't have printed such pictures so they did the next best thing - they nailed Jeremy. Did he sue them or come out and deny the accusation? Nope. This doesn't mean he's a killer but it does show you what kind of mind he has and what little respect he had for at least one of the victims.
-
I didn't say you did. My post was in responses to Susan's who kindly looked through Colin's book and found that Jeremy mentioned 'other explicit' pictures. This is how the reporter explained the photographs that Jeremy offered him. So we know such photo's existed and that Jeremy bragged about having them - for me this is enough proof that he did indeed try to sell then to The Sun. The Sun couldn't have printed such pictures so they did the next best thing - they nailed Jeremy. Did he sue them or come out and deny the accusation? Nope. This doesn't mean he's a killer but it does show you what kind of mind he has and what little respect he had for at least one of the victims.
Caroline I was going to add to my post just because he took the explicit pictures of Sheila and refused to let Colin have them does not make him a killer but to me it shows he was lacking in morals and feelings and respect even if Sheila was not his biological sister what kind of person would be prepared to try and profit from splashing her photo's all over the paper her life had been brutally taken from her and her little boys and Mum & Dad I just cannot get my head round this.
-
Caroline I was going to add to my post just because he took the explicit pictures of Sheila and refused to let Colin have them does not make him a killer but to me it shows he was lacking in morals and feelings and respect even if Sheila was not his biological sister what kind of person would be prepared to try and profit from splashing her photo's all over the paper her life had been brutally taken from her and her little boys and Mum & Dad I just cannot get my head round this.
Me either. It's cold, callous and sickening.
-
Totally agree Susan and how he thought he could sell explicit pictures to a newspaper it totally naive on his part. They can't publish explicit photographs so he was nailed from the off. Obviously the £££££ signs were flashing and (again) he didn't think it through.
They can crop pictures and they can "bar" them (black bar over certain areas).
This is not a reason for not publishing the pictures.
-
I thought the " myra hindley "lookalike pic of JM after winning her cash was sickening !!
-
They can crop pictures and they can "bar" them (black bar over certain areas).
This is not a reason for not publishing the pictures.
What would the point of that be? 'Here are some cropped pictures of ex model Bambi' or 'Brother of Bambi tries to sell Compromising pictures of Dead Sister' - which one do you think would really be the headline grabber? But that's besides the point, how did the journalist know that Jeremy had such pictures of Sheila? And why has Jeremy made no attempt to challenge the story?
-
I thought the " myra hindley "lookalike pic of JM after winning her cash was sickening !!
So you don't think Jeremy peddling pornographic pictures of his dead recently sister is sickening?
-
What would the point of that be? 'Here are some cropped pictures of ex model Bambi' or 'Brother of Bambi tries to sell Compromising pictures of Dead Sister' - which one do you think would really be the headline grabber? But that's besides the point, how did the journalist know that Jeremy had such pictures of Sheila? And why has Jeremy made no attempt to challenge the story?
Or barred out.
They allegedly refused the pictures without even seeing them, I really do find that hard to believe.
I already answered how the journalist might have known.
You ask Jeremy, you are the one in correspondance with him, not me.
-
Or barred out.
They allegedly refused the pictures without even seeing them, I really do find that hard to believe.
I already answered how the journalist might have known.
You ask Jeremy, you are the one in correspondance with him, not me.
They were described as 'explicit' - obviously the reporter would know they wouldn't be printable.
I have asked Jeremy - I told you that yesterday.
-
So you don't think Jeremy peddling pornographic pictures of his dead recently sister is sickening?
If it's true, it's also an amazingly stupid thing for JB to have done.
-
They were described as 'explicit' - obviously the reporter would know they wouldn't be printable.
I have asked Jeremy - I told you that yesterday.
Ask him again - you have done that before with success!
The Sun refusing pictures because they were described as explicit (without even seeing them)? Uh, oh, then we don´t want them! ;D I don´t think so!
-
I am afraid Jeremy's supporters have to provide proof that The Sun lied and put it on their front page. And that Fielding lied 20 years later when interviewed on camera.
These are both primary sources of proof that the meeting happened. Jeremy has refused to discuss this. Even when asked about it.
I appreciate supporters cannot try to justify Jeremy's attempt. So will automatically say a newspaper and individuals are lying. But proof is needed.
What is really required Adam, is further sources that Jeremy did try to sell pictures to the Sun. With only the Sun as a source the allegation cannot be taken too seriously.
Before the Barry George trial the Sun printed a number of "stories" about George that were clearly in contempt of court. Among the various allegations made by the Sun was the claim that Barry George had an obsession with Jill Dando and that he had many pictures of her and articles about her. This story can only have come from the investigating police and it appears to be an attempt to influence a trial by smearing the suspect.
The supposed obsession was obviously nothing of the sort and the Sun story was so different to the actual truth as to be laughable.
Barry George had hoarded over a number of years hundreds of magazines and newspapers. Jill Dando appeared in only a handful of them. There was no suggestion of George gathering or saving articles about Jill Dando, but obviously as a public figure she would be in the paper sometimes.
So the Sun, with information from the Met, printed a story that they knew to be untrue and which supported a guilty scenario. To be perfectly clear here both the Met and the Sun were pushing the same lies in collusion with each other.
This is not even unusual and I could post about dozens of cases where the Sun has knowingly lied on behalf of the police stretching over more than 30 years.
Fielder has no credibility as a purveyor of truth given that he made his living doing Murdoch's bidding and working on the most disreputable paper in the country.
The Sun and the truth are strangers.
-
They were described as 'explicit' - obviously the reporter would know they wouldn't be printable.
I have asked Jeremy - I told you that yesterday.
I understood that Sheila hadn't wanted that type of photography carried out. I know she was desperate for money,but not that desperate.
-
What is really required Adam, is further sources that Jeremy did try to sell pictures to the Sun. With only the Sun as a source the allegation cannot be taken too seriously.
Before the Barry George trial the Sun printed a number of "stories" about George that were clearly in contempt of court. Among the various allegations made by the Sun was the claim that Barry George had an obsession with Jill Dando and that he had many pictures of her and articles about her. This story can only have come from the investigating police and it appears to be an attempt to influence a trial by smearing the suspect.
The supposed obsession was obviously nothing of the sort and the Sun story was so different to the actual truth as to be laughable.
Barry George had hoarded over a number of years hundreds of magazines and newspapers. Jill Dando appeared in only a handful of them. There was no suggestion of George gathering or saving articles about Jill Dando, but obviously as a public figure she would be in the paper sometimes.
So the Sun, with information from the Met, printed a story that they knew to be untrue and which supported a guilty scenario. To be perfectly clear here both the Met and the Sun were pushing the same lies in collusion with each other.
This is not even unusual and I could post about dozens of cases where the Sun has knowingly lied on behalf of the police stretching over more than 30 years.
Fielder has no credibility as a purveyor of truth given that he made his living doing Murdoch's bidding and working on the most disreputable paper in the country.
The Sun and the truth are strangers.
I know nothing about the Barry George case.
It does seem to fit that Jeremy approached The Sun.
DB said he spent £6,000 in Amsterdam straight after the massacre. The big champagne funeral would have cost a bit. Together with trips to Burnham, Eastbourne, London and St Tropez.
The finalising of the will and selling off of items in WHF were weeks away. Although Jeremy had taken the WHF television.
Jeremy needed ready cash to keep him going. He had pictures and Brett had contacts.
Primary sources say it happened. Jeremy has remained silent.
-
I know nothing about the Barry George case.
It does seem to fit that Jeremy approached The Sun.
DB said he spent £6,000 in Amsterdam straight after the massacre. The big champagne funeral would have cost a bit. Together with trips to Burnham, Eastbourne, London and St Tropez.
The finalising of the will and selling off of items in WHF were weeks away. Although Jeremy had taken the WHF television.
Jeremy needed ready cash to keep him going. He had pictures and Brett had contacts.
Primary sources say it happened. Jeremy has remained silent.
I wonder how long the £500,000 would have lasted if he got away?
-
There is another reason why I believe the reporter. He didn't say Jeremy approached him, he said Brett Collins did. It's obvious that he would know who Jeremy Bamber was BUT how would he know who Brett Collins was?
-
I know nothing about the Barry George case.
It does seem to fit that Jeremy approached The Sun.
DB said he spent £6,000 in Amsterdam straight after the massacre. The big champagne funeral would have cost a bit. Together with trips to Burnham, Eastbourne, London and St Tropez.
The finalising of the will and selling off of items in WHF were weeks away. Although Jeremy had taken the WHF television.
Jeremy needed ready cash to keep him going. He had pictures and Brett had contacts.
Primary sources say it happened. Jeremy has remained silent.
The reason that I brought up the Barry George case was because of the clear collusion in that case between the Sun and the police in getting negative and untrue stories in the press to influence opinion against someone charged but not yet tried for the crime. He was convicted on a majority verdict before the conviction was overturned on retrial after the inevitable first failed appeal.
There are many examples similar to this throughout the years and the Sun's involvement with the police in corruption and outright criminality is well documented and not disputed.
I think it unlikely that Jeremy did approach the Sun. Given the proven track record of the Sun smearing charged person's using duplicity and lies on behalf of the police, it would seem more sensible to accept that any allegation made by the Sun requires further corroboration before being entertained seriously. The Sun's proven track record of of using exactly this kind of tactic should cause even those who believe Bamber guilty to treat any claim by the Sun with caution.
It also stretches credulity that anyone would be stupid enough to attempt to sell pornographic pictures of their own sister after supposedly murdering her and the rest of the family. It would be a helpful story pre trial though and useful early propaganda to influence opinion ahead of the trial.
Relying on stories in the Sun is never going to be a strong argument.
-
There is another reason why I believe the reporter. He didn't say Jeremy approached him, he said Brett Collins did. It's obvious that he would know who Jeremy Bamber was BUT how would he know who Brett Collins was?
He would have known who Brett Collins was. This was the most sensational story of the time and Sun reporters would have been using all of their contacts(eg. the police) to find every angle they could. You cannot seriously be suggesting that a Sun hack would not easily find out who Jeremy's friends and associates were.
Do you really believe that Fielder would not have known about Brett Collins?
-
The reason that I brought up the Barry George case was because of the clear collusion in that case between the Sun and the police in getting negative and untrue stories in the press to influence opinion against someone charged but not yet tried for the crime. He was convicted on a majority verdict before the conviction was overturned on retrial after the inevitable first failed appeal.
There are many examples similar to this throughout the years and the Sun's involvement with the police in corruption and outright criminality is well documented and not disputed.
I think it unlikely that Jeremy did approach the Sun. Given the proven track record of the Sun smearing charged person's using duplicity and lies on behalf of the police, it would seem more sensible to accept that any allegation made by the Sun requires further corroboration before being entertained seriously. The Sun's proven track record of of using exactly this kind of tactic should cause even those who believe Bamber guilty to treat any claim by the Sun with caution.
It also stretches credulity that anyone would be stupid enough to attempt to sell pornographic pictures of their own sister after supposedly murdering her and the rest of the family. It would be a helpful story pre trial though and useful early propaganda to influence opinion ahead of the trial.
Relying on stories in the Sun is never going to be a strong argument.
Good point. If Jeremy did approach the sun maybe the photos where not as explicit as the paper claimed. They may not have been explicit at all
-
Good point. If Jeremy did approach the sun maybe the photos where not as explicit as the paper claimed. They may not have been explicit at all
Given the "form" of the Sun, I think it more likely that they were initiating contacts.
If there were explicit photos then attempting to sell them to the Sun whilst hoping to avoid suspicion for her murder is so unbelievable that it is very likely untrue.
Regardless of whether you believe in guilt or innocence it should be obvious that this allegation is probably false.
-
It seems The Sun deliberately lied on their front page. Kicking a then 'innocent' man when he's down. And risking libel action from a soon to be rich man.
Fielding then lied 20 years later for the cameras. Quite why he would need to do this, I don't know. Bamber had been locked up for 20 years.
As Nugs said, the police got The Sun to publish a false story.
The conspiracy widens.
-
Good point. If Jeremy did approach the sun maybe the photos where not as explicit as the paper claimed. They may not have been explicit at all
The documentary described 'explicit' photographs and Colin recounts when Jeremy told him of finding explicit photographs. Not sure what more evidence you need to be sure that Jeremy talked about explicit pictures?
-
He would have known who Brett Collins was. This was the most sensational story of the time and Sun reporters would have been using all of their contacts(eg. the police) to find every angle they could. You cannot seriously be suggesting that a Sun hack would not easily find out who Jeremy's friends and associates were.
Do you really believe that Fielder would not have known about Brett Collins?
What I am saying is, it is VERY unlikely that The Sun would have mentioned Brett Collins by name. Sensationalist stories what have no basis in reality usually start with 'The Sun has learned from a friend of the family' . Unless they want to set themselves up for lying, you don't use names.
-
The reason that I brought up the Barry George case was because of the clear collusion in that case between the Sun and the police in getting negative and untrue stories in the press to influence opinion against someone charged but not yet tried for the crime. He was convicted on a majority verdict before the conviction was overturned on retrial after the inevitable first failed appeal.
There are many examples similar to this throughout the years and the Sun's involvement with the police in corruption and outright criminality is well documented and not disputed.
I think it unlikely that Jeremy did approach the Sun. Given the proven track record of the Sun smearing charged person's using duplicity and lies on behalf of the police, it would seem more sensible to accept that any allegation made by the Sun requires further corroboration before being entertained seriously. The Sun's proven track record of of using exactly this kind of tactic should cause even those who believe Bamber guilty to treat any claim by the Sun with caution.
It also stretches credulity that anyone would be stupid enough to attempt to sell pornographic pictures of their own sister after supposedly murdering her and the rest of the family. It would be a helpful story pre trial though and useful early propaganda to influence opinion ahead of the trial.
Relying on stories in the Sun is never going to be a strong argument.
You don't just have to rely on The Sun as corroboration, you have Colin's word that Jeremy spoke of explicit photographs or was he part of the grand conspiracy and propaganda machine too? The pictures clearly existed and The Sun found out about them. Of course it would be incredibly stupid to try and sell pictures of your dead sister after having just killed her - so what? Just because it's stupid doesn't mean it didn't happen.
-
It seems The Sun deliberately lied on their front page. Kicking a then 'innocent' man when he's down. And risking libel action from a soon to be rich man.
Fielding then lied 20 years later for the cameras. Quite why he would need to do this, I don't know. Bamber had been locked up for 20 years.
As Nugs said, the police got The Sun to publish a false story.
The conspiracy widens.
They risked a double libel case, from both Jeremy and Brett Colins, thing is, neither of them have denied approaching The Sun and Colin stated that Jeremy mentioned explicit pictures to him too. I certainly don't believe for one moment that The Sun would mention Brett Colins out of the blue and I can't buy that the police would frame Jeremy Bamber and risk being front page headlines themselves. Approaching The Sun and asking them to write a bogus story about a young man who had lost his entire family in a horrific and tragic murder would be even sillier than Bamber approaching them. There would be nothing to stop The Sun blowing the whistle on EP which would likely warrant an investigation and then whatever 'BIG SECRET' prompted their framing of Bamber wouldn't be secret for long.
The list of contributors to the conspiracy grows by the day and the list of liars is endless and we're meant to believe that among them all, only one man remains honourable - Jeremy?
-
You don't just have to rely on The Sun as corroboration, you have Colin's word that Jeremy spoke of explicit photographs or was he part of the grand conspiracy and propaganda machine too? The pictures clearly existed and The Sun found out about them. Of course it would be incredibly stupid to try and sell pictures of your dead sister after having just killed her - so what? Just because it's stupid doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Stupid, in this case, possibly meaning he was riding so high on the wave of his brilliant success in pulling off the perfect crime that I imagine he thought he was untouchable.
-
Stupid, in this case, possibly meaning he was riding so high on the wave of his brilliant success in pulling off the perfect crime that I imagine he thought he was untouchable.
No It's all part of the vast conspiracy against Saint Jeremy ::)
-
No It's all part of the vast conspiracy against Saint Jeremy ::)
Silly me. Of COURSE it is ;)
-
They risked a double libel case, from both Jeremy and Brett Colins, thing is, neither of them have denied approaching The Sun and Colin stated that Jeremy mentioned explicit pictures to him too. I certainly don't believe for one moment that The Sun would mention Brett Colins out of the blue and I can't buy that the police would frame Jeremy Bamber and risk being front page headlines themselves. Approaching The Sun and asking them to write a bogus story about a young man who had lost his entire family in a horrific and tragic murder would be even sillier than Bamber approaching them. There would be nothing to stop The Sun blowing the whistle on EP which would likely warrant an investigation and then whatever 'BIG SECRET' prompted their framing of Bamber wouldn't be secret for long.
The list of contributors to the conspiracy grows by the day and the list of liars is endless and we're meant to believe that among them all, only one man remains honourable - Jeremy?
the sun would never blow the whistle on the police. the relsanship with corupt officers is far to deep for that read up on the daniel morgan murder and simlar incedents.
-
the sun would never blow the whistle on the police.
That's a pretty sweeping statement Nugs. If there is a story in it - yes they would. They have no allegiance to EP.
Like I said, they list of conspiracy contributors just grows and grows.
-
have you read anything about how news internationol operate.
the police give them aceses to priviliged information there relsanship with them is more important than one story.
-
have you read anything about how news internationol operate.
You are talking about recent cases and although The Sun has never had any scruples, you are ignoring the fact that Jeremy spoke of explicit pictures to Colin, he has never denied approaching the paper and neither has Brett Colins.
-
theyve been like that for the last 40 years at least look at how they printed the south yourkshiress polices force acount of hillsborough.
in the case of micheal stone they had the sun were given a key witnes had lied but wouldent print it.
-
theyve been like that for the last 40 years at least look at how they printed the south yourkshiress polices force acount of hillsborough.
You're still ignoring the FACT that Jeremy spoke about explicit pictures to Colin, that Bret Colins was mentioned by name and that neither he nor Jeremy has denied approaching the paper. He had also struck a deal with the NOTW for his story had he been acquitted, so he certainly had no hostility towards a newspaper that had 'supposedly' lied about him.
-
never denied it has anybody actully asked them.
-
never denied it has anybody actully asked them.
Yup, he didn't answer.
-
oh dident he you havent mentioned this before caronine or have you.
-
the sun would never blow the whistle on the police. the relsanship with corupt officers is far to deep for that read up on the daniel morgan murder and simlar incedents.
That's been proved with Hillsborough !
-
it also happend in the micheal stone case where they recived evedence qustioning the safety of the conviction but wouldent print it.
-
A very " selective " tabloid.
-
oh dident he you havent mentioned this before caronine or have you.
I've mentioned it 3 times now nugs :)
-
it also happend in the case where they recived evedence qustioning the safety of the conviction but wouldent print it.
Yes, do understand that The Sun and NOTW are/were the worst kind of newspaper but that doesn't deflect from the fact that the circumstances suggest that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures. Again, it doesn't prove he killed anyone but it does suggest that he had/has no scruples.
-
all i can see is proof that jeremy and brett knew the photos existed but were they the only ones who knew.
-
June knew,nugs,. Maybe Neville too if June told him,so it would be easy to see how they,as a family,would have felt let down,especially Neville.
-
all i can see is proof that jeremy and brett knew the photos existed but were they the only ones who knew.
Jeremy found them in Sheila's flat he admitted to Colin that he had them. Not sure what you're getting at? Surely you can see that the most likely culprit was Jeremy? Even if you think he's innocent the story has more than a ring of truth!
-
June knew,nugs,. Maybe Neville too if June told him,so it would be easy to see how they,as a family,would have felt let down,especially Neville.
No she didn't Lookout, the explicit pictures are not the soft porn snaps that were at WHF. Read the quote that Susan typed out from Colin's book.
-
Hello Jan
just looked in Colin's book and the nude photo's of Sheila which had been taken at WHF were found by Jeremy in a drawer at WHF he took them and said June probably found them at Sheila's flat and took them so she could use them as a hold on her if need be. Jeremy told Colin he had Sheila's portfolio at Goldhanger and he wanted to keep the "famous" ones himself. Colin found slides of nude Sheila but they were test shots and Jeremy was gloating (his words not mine) over Colin's shoulder that he had much more revealing shots and you see everything down to the last detail and laughed. Colin said he found Jeremy's behaviour very distasteful looking and talking about nude photo's of his dead sister. Jeremy did admit having the photo's so sad I think.
There were two lots of pictures, nude pictures taken at WHF and the explicit shots that Jeremy found in her flat. Colin also mentions some slides (possibly the negatives of the nude pictures at WHF). I doubt June would have kept any kind of explicit pictures of her daughter in a drawer at WHF.
-
There were two lots of pictures, nude pictures taken at WHF and the explicit shots that Jeremy found in her flat. Colin also mentions some slides (possibly the negatives of the nude pictures at WHF). I doubt June would have kept any kind of explicit pictures of her daughter in a drawer at WHF.
Caroline been back in the book ;D the nude photo's that Jeremy found in a bureau at WHF were taken by Colin at the beginning of their relationship don't think June would have done anything with them that was just Jeremy's take on it the really explicit ones that showed everything down to the last detail (Jeremy's words) Jeremy took them and refused to let Colin have them back to destroy them :(
-
Colin,knowing that these pics were around,should have destroyed them,at least out of respect,before anyone else saw them.
What were they doing in a place where the children were,anyway ?
-
I can't understand that Sheila went beyond the bounds of this sort of photography when she'd stated that it wasn't going to happen.
-
Colin,knowing that these pics were around,should have destroyed them,at least out of respect,before anyone else saw them.
What were they doing in a place where the children were,anyway ?
Hello Lookout
Colin did not know about the explicit photo's Sheila had them in her flat and of course Colin had no access Jeremy was staying there and allowed Colin to come and take his boys possessions and some of Sheila's stuff he was anxious to recover photo's and correspondence from Sheila's biological family but they had disappeared he knew nothing of these photo's till Jeremy told him about them and Colin wanted them to destroy them but Jeremy would not give them to him. Colin did say Sheila always said she would never go down this road and he thought Sheila must have been desperate to do this. Hope Colin did get them in the end to destroy it is so sad.
-
Hello Lookout
Colin did not know about the explicit photo's Sheila had them in her flat and of course Colin had no access Jeremy was staying there and allowed Colin to come and take his boys possessions and some of Sheila's stuff he was anxious to recover photo's and correspondence from Sheila's biological family but they had disappeared he knew nothing of these photo's till Jeremy told him about them and Colin wanted them to destroy them but Jeremy would not give them to him. Colin did say Sheila always said she would never go down this road and he thought Sheila must have been desperate to do this. Hope Colin did get them in the end to destroy it is so sad.
You'd have thought that even Jeremy would have immediately burned them out of respect. At the same time,you've also got to question Sheila's desperation in wanting such filth exposed,particularly to the photographer. So neither sibling had the respect that they were brought up with. :(
-
Which makes you think that Sheila wasn't the religious fanatic as has been made out,or she wouldn't have allowed her body to have been used in this way. My thoughts.
-
Hello Lookout
Colin did not know about the explicit photo's Sheila had them in her flat and of course Colin had no access Jeremy was staying there and allowed Colin to come and take his boys possessions and some of Sheila's stuff he was anxious to recover photo's and correspondence from Sheila's biological family but they had disappeared he knew nothing of these photo's till Jeremy told him about them and Colin wanted them to destroy them but Jeremy would not give them to him. Colin did say Sheila always said she would never go down this road and he thought Sheila must have been desperate to do this. Hope Colin did get them in the end to destroy it is so sad.
Hi suse, I have never read Colin's book and although I knew about the photos and they had been discussed many times before but it was from a different angle. Am pretty shocked about this actually and if it's true cannot find any excuse for JB behaving like this..... disgusting imo.
-
The reporter claimed he never saw the photographs.
I am not saying that this ifs right far from it, it disgusts me.
But, surely both Brett and Jeremy must have known that these type of explicit photographs using sex toys would never be published. Topless photo's yes but, the way the reporter described them they were hard porn. I can't see Sheila doing anything like whilst married to Colin.
If Colin did not know about the photographs, then Sheila must have had the photo's taken after they had split up. Colin also said that Sheila would never go down that road, yet also said she must have been desperate to have done this. Did Jeremy show them to Colin? :-\
-
Those photographers are the sleaziest monsters who,some of them prey on the vulnerable,to their own filthy satisfaction. Pity we didn't know who the photographer was.
Where were these pics taken,does anyone know ?
It's no wonder both parents felt let down.
-
The reporter claimed he never saw the photographs.
I am not saying that this ifs right far from it, it disgusts me.
But, surely both Brett and Jeremy must have known that these type of explicit photographs using sex toys would never be published. Topless photo's yes but, the way the reporter described them they were hard porn. I can't see Sheila doing anything like whilst married to Colin.
If Colin did not know about the photographs, then Sheila must have had the photo's taken after they had split up. Colin also said that Sheila would never go down that road, yet also said she must have been desperate to have done this. Did Jeremy show them to Colin? :-\
Patti according to Colin Jeremy had already taken the photo's and had them at Goldhanger so I guess Colin never saw them maybe he eventually got hold of them and destroyed them. It was never mentioned about sex toys just that they were explicit down to the last detail I would take the sex toys with a pinch of salt :'(
-
The reporter claimed he never saw the photographs.
I am not saying that this ifs right far from it, it disgusts me.
But, surely both Brett and Jeremy must have known that these type of explicit photographs using sex toys would never be published. Topless photo's yes but, the way the reporter described them they were hard porn. I can't see Sheila doing anything like whilst married to Colin.
If Colin did not know about the photographs, then Sheila must have had the photo's taken after they had split up. Colin also said that Sheila would never go down that road, yet also said she must have been desperate to have done this. Did Jeremy show them to Colin? :-\
I agree Patti it sounds crazy that they would have done such a thing, a. because it's so disgusting and b. because it's so stupid, if you were guilty of such a crime and trying to blame Sheila what would be the point of such behaviour? Even if JB is a full blown psychopath who believed he could get away with anything, surely Brett would have told him it wasn't the place or time for such actions? :-\
-
Hi suse, I have never read Colin's book and although I knew about the photos and they had been discussed many times before but it was from a different angle. Am pretty shocked about this actually and if it's true cannot find any excuse for JB behaving like this..... disgusting imo.
Hello Maggie
very well said I cannot find any excuses for Jeremy's behaviour it was disgusting and unforgivable as I said previously this does not make him a killer but does say alot about his character :'(
-
Hello Maggie
very well said I cannot find any excuses for Jeremy's behaviour it was disgusting and unforgivable as I said previously this does not make him a killer but does say alot about his character :'(
If it's true it says everything about his character.
-
I agree Patti it sounds crazy that they would have done such a thing, a. because it's so disgusting and b. because it's so stupid, if you were guilty of such a crime and trying to blame Sheila what would be the point of such behaviour? Even if JB is a full blown psychopath who believed he could get away with anything, surely Brett would have told him it wasn't the place or time for such actions? :-\
Patti if the reporter never saw the photo's how did he know they were hard porn. Maggie Jeremy laughing over Colin's shoulder about the photo's is not normal behaviour the man had lost his two wee boys and their Mother his ex wife in the most horrendous way.
-
According to Claire Powell,the pics were taken in a friend's garden,by an Australian photographer who Sheila had met,and he'd said that the pics would appear in the " Mayfair " or " Penthouse "---------yeah !
"One of the more respectable nudie magazines,recalled her friend ".What ? Respectable ?
-
Patti if the reporter never saw the photo's how did he know they were hard porn. Maggie Jeremy laughing over Colin's shoulder about the photo's is not normal behaviour the man had lost his two wee boys and their Mother his ex wife in the most horrendous way.
It conjures up a horrendous picture.
-
Colin,knowing that these pics were around,should have destroyed them,at least out of respect,before anyone else saw them.
What were they doing in a place where the children were,anyway ?
How could he destroy them when Jeremy had them and wouldn't give them to him? Jeremy is the one in the wrong here and no matter if you think he's innocent or not, it's clear who had no respect.
-
Hi suse, I have never read Colin's book and although I knew about the photos and they had been discussed many times before but it was from a different angle. Am pretty shocked about this actually and if it's true cannot find any excuse for JB behaving like this..... disgusting imo.
I agree' it's an absolute disgrace and it's aspects like this that show a complete lack or respect, remorse and empathy. You really can't get much lower.
-
Those photographers are the sleaziest monsters who,some of them prey on the vulnerable,to their own filthy satisfaction. Pity we didn't know who the photographer was.
Where were these pics taken,does anyone know ?
It's no wonder both parents felt let down.
I doubt Nevill or June saw these particular pictures Lookout.
-
Patti if the reporter never saw the photo's how did he know they were hard porn. Maggie Jeremy laughing over Colin's shoulder about the photo's is not normal behaviour the man had lost his two wee boys and their Mother his ex wife in the most horrendous way.
they wernt hard porn as far as i know colins acount of what was in the photos seems to differ a bit from the reporters.
-
Patti if the reporter never saw the photo's how did he know they were hard porn. Maggie Jeremy laughing over Colin's shoulder about the photo's is not normal behaviour the man had lost his two wee boys and their Mother his ex wife in the most horrendous way.
Because they were described to him by Jeremy - it's in the documentary Susan
-
they wernt hard porn as far as i know colins acount of what was in the photos seems to differ a bit from the reporters.
Becasue Colin didn't see the pictures! Jeremy just described them to him.
-
they wernt hard porn as far as i know colins acount of what was in the photos seems to differ a bit from the reporters.
nugnug I agree with you but Patti must have read the reporter never saw the pics so how did he know what was on them.
-
Because they were described to him by Jeremy - it's in the documentary Susan
Caroline sorry I missed that :'(
-
I doubt Nevill or June saw these particular pictures Lookout.
Whatever June saw at WHF sounds enough to have caused a certain amount of unpleasantness,as in June's way of thinking,modelling would have been of beautiful clothes,etc and the Vogue magazine---------------but.
-
nugnug I agree with you but Patti must have read the reporter never saw the pics so how did he know what was on them.
Think I have to read the book, have always avoided it because I believe it was a personal book of mourning rather than a factual book but on second thoughts think I should.
-
Becasue Colin didn't see the pictures! Jeremy just described them to him.
so if colin dident see the pictures and the repoerter dident how do we know there are any.
-
so if colin dident see the pictures and the repoerter dident how do we know there are any.
nugnug because Jeremy said he had them and why would he tell lies about them
-
nugnug because Jeremy said he had them and why would he tell lies about them
My initial and long lasting reaction is never to believe the Sun, however if there's a true foundation to this story it has to be believed imo.
-
Depends how honest the photographer was as he'd been told to neither sell them or have them published,so by all accounts,it sounds as though the photographer had them , well the originals anyway.and whether Sheila had actually kept the negatives or prints, which was surprising really as Sheila had felt such guilt over them that she'd told all her friends.You'd have thought that she herself would have burned them if she'd felt like that. Sheila was visibly beside herself over them. It had been apparent that she was full of shame and utterly horrified.
Powell went on to say," what they actually showed remains a mystery " ??
-
My initial and long lasting reaction is never to believe the Sun, however if there's a true foundation to this story it has to be believed imo.
well i trust colins word but i certanly dont trust the reporters.
-
nugnug because Jeremy said he had them and why would he tell lies about them
I understood Jeremy to be a liar anyway. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Apparently,Sheila's "friends were convinced that they were " tasteful " pictures that went a bit too far and caught Sheila unawares".
-
Patti according to Colin Jeremy had already taken the photo's and had them at Goldhanger so I guess Colin never saw them maybe he eventually got hold of them and destroyed them. It was never mentioned about sex toys just that they were explicit down to the last detail I would take the sex toys with a pinch of salt :'(
Hi Susan
Not wanting to through a spanner in the works, but If Colin never saw them and the reporter never saw then, how did they know they were explicit down to the last detail. Was it that Jeremy had told them they were? My mind boggles with Jeremy's actions at times.... :o
-
so if colin dident see the pictures and the repoerter dident how do we know there are any.
Snap Nugs.... ;D
-
It would seem that Jeremy was prone to exaggerating,and this was probably yet another spin from " Billy Liar " himself.
-
and how come jeremy is the only person who knows about thses photos
-
RWB's missed this one. ::) How did that happen ? Especially being followed by a private detective.
-
The outcome of her " sitting " for the pics so far as Sheila had been concerned,was to her,the work of the Devil,and only helped towards a further decline in her health as she had to take on a cleaning job to help the dire financial situation she was in.
-
where are these photos now?
-
Hi Susan
Not wanting to through a spanner in the works, but If Colin never saw them and the reporter never saw then, how did they know they were explicit down to the last detail. Was it that Jeremy had told them they were? My mind boggles with Jeremy's actions at times.... :o
Patti yes Jeremy told Colin they were explicit and Jeremy left some of the nude photo's for Colin so why did he not leave the explicit ones I guess he saw he may beable to use them if the reporter never saw them how he could he say they were hard porn :'( and involved sex toys :'(
-
where are these photos now?
nugnug
I am hoping once Jeremy was convicted they were returned to Colin who wanted them in the first place to destroy.
-
where are these photos now?
There's been no real mention of them or it definitely would have made headline news as the most disgusting pervert as well as a murdering swine.
-
Patti yes Jeremy told Colin they were explicit and Jeremy left some of the nude photo's for Colin so why did he not leave the explicit ones I guess he saw he may beable to use them if the reporter never saw them how he could he say they were hard porn :'( and involved sex toys :'(
Don't ya cry ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Do you think the Sun newspaper reported could have exaggerated the sex toys bit? Its possible. In the video they show you some negatives of which one of them is in our archives. Where did the producers get those from, I wonder.
I'd like to find out who originally gave/sold the photo's of Sheila in first place, so they could put them in the newspapers. Did they come from Jeremy? The sun reported does not tell us where the other photo's were from....I find selling any photo's disgusting. :o
-
There's been no real mention of them or it definitely would have made headline news as the most disgusting pervert as well as a murdering swine.
i heard they had been destroyed.
though im not sure about that.
-
Who else but the one who took the photographs to begin with ?
-
Don't ya cry ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Do you think the Sun newspaper reported could have exaggerated the sex toys bit? Its possible. In the video they show you some negatives of which one of them is in our archives. Where did the producers get those from, I wonder.
I'd like to find out who originally gave/sold the photo's of Sheila in first place, so they could put them in the newspapers. Did they come from Jeremy? The sun reported does not tell us where the other photo's were from....I find selling any photo's disgusting. :o
Patti tears running down my face :'( I would think only one person could have sold the pictures and that is Jeremy. Have not watched the video as I have no sound :'( :'( :'( really did not know much about the pics till Colin mentioned it in his book. Dreadful the Sun could have bought them but could not publish.
-
Who else but the one who took the photographs to begin with ?
You know what these guys ( photographers ) are like. Make a quick buck,and they're away.Afterall,he couldn't get any way further than Australia. He'd have been the one selling them to the newspapers.
-
Why didn't Fielder report the incident to the police if he knew,or saw the existence of such pics ?
-
so from what i gather nobody admits to actully having seen this pictures.
-
so from what i gather nobody admits to actully having seen this pictures.
nugnug Jeremy admitted to Colin that he had seen them.
-
Makes you wonder,as there hasn't been any revealing reference to them,which certainly would have been listed to further blacken his name.
-
nugnug Jeremy admitted to Colin that he had seen them.
but nobody apart from jeremy admited to seeing them and nobody seems to know where they are now.
-
but nobody apart from jeremy admited to seeing them and nobody seems to know where they are now.
nugnug I know very little about the photo's but Patti stated in her post that the reporter said the photo's were hard porn so he must have seen them :'( and the sex toys were mentioned so somebody from the Sun must have seen them.
-
nugnug I know very little about the photo's but Patti stated in her post that the reporter said the photo's were hard porn so he must have seen them :'( and the sex toys were mentioned so somebody from the Sun must have seen them.
Hi Susan what I meant was that the reporter said the photographs were explicit and showed Sheila using/with two sex toys. He then went on the say that he had not seen the photographs. From this and what you said about Colin not seeing them I am amazed that the photo's could be described with no one seeing them. I said that Jeremy must have told them, but I also think that the Sun reporter may have stretched the truth a little bit, because according to Colin he said different to what the reporter said.... ;D
It appears that no one ever saw the photo's and no one knows what happened to them.
-
Hi Susan what I meant was that the reporter said the photographs were explicit and showed Sheila using/with two sex toys. He then went on the say that he had not seen the photographs. From this and what you said about Colin not seeing them I am amazed that the photo's could be described with no one seeing them. I said that Jeremy must have told them, but I also think that the Sun reporter may have stretched the truth a little bit, because according to Colin he said different to what the reporter said.... ;D
It appears that no one ever saw the photo's and no one knows what happened to them.
Patti it is all so confusing I tend to think that Jeremy must have told the reporter what the photo's were about did you say we have one in the Archives I cannot find it also the video did the makers show that they had negatives or something. Jeremy described them as slides in the book :'( If Jeremy did not sell them I guess the relatives would have returned them to Colin to be destroyed best thing for them let the poor girl rest in peace with some dignity :'(
-
Patti tears running down my face :'( I would think only one person could have sold the pictures and that is Jeremy. Have not watched the video as I have no sound :'( :'( :'( really did not know much about the pics till Colin mentioned it in his book. Dreadful the Sun could have bought them but could not publish.
I think I'm losing my mind. You explained things every well initially Susan and I don't know why there is so much confusion - we seem to be the only ones who have the gist but to clarify .....
2 sets of pictures, one at WHF that were just nude pictures and ones that Jeremy found at Sheila's flat that were explicit - the second set (the explicit pictures) are the ones Jeremy described to both Colin and the journalist, these are also the pictures he tried to sell to said journalist.
-
Jeremy " described ",but didn't show them ?
-
Patti it is all so confusing I tend to think that Jeremy must have told the reporter what the photo's were about did you say we have one in the Archives I cannot find it also the video did the makers show that they had negatives or something. Jeremy described them as slides in the book :'( If Jeremy did not sell them I guess the relatives would have returned them to Colin to be destroyed best thing for them let the poor girl rest in peace with some dignity :'(
YES! Jeremy told the reporter what the pictures contained (it's in the documentary that Adam posted a link to) - we don't have a copy of any of those pictures on the forum. I think we would know if we did. The video doesn't show the pictures mentioned to the reporter because Jeremy didn't hand the pictures over - he probably destroyed them when he found they were worth nothing.
-
I think I'm losing my mind. You explained things every well initially Susan and I don't know why there is so much confusion - we seem to be the only ones who have the gist but to clarify .....
2 sets of pictures, one at WHF that were just nude pictures and ones that Jeremy found at Sheila's flat that were explicit - the second set (the explicit pictures) are the ones Jeremy described to both Colin and the journalist, these are also the pictures he tried to sell to said journalist.
Caroline I am quite confused myself now hahaha ;D
-
Jeremy " described ",but didn't show them ?
I think both Susan and I have written about 20 times that Jeremy DESCRIBED the photo's to BOTH the JOURNALIST and COLIN. I really don't know how to make it any clearer??? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
YES! Jeremy told the reporter what the pictures contained (it's in the documentary that Adam posted a link to) - we don't have a copy of any of those pictures on the forum. I think we would know if we did. The video doesn't show the pictures mentioned to the reporter because Jeremy didn't hand the pictures over - he probably destroyed them when he found they were worth nothing.
Caroline this is why I could not find the picture in the Archives unfortunately I cannot get any sound on the Video so it is like watching a silent movie ;D
-
The account from the journalist can be found at the following link, move the progress bar to 33:00 and the journalist gives an account of what Jeremy told him the photographs contained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU
-
Jeremy found the pictures when rummaging around Sheila's flat.
I suspect he was looking at using it as his London base. In between his travels and guest appearances at WHF.
Does anyone know if the flat was bought and paid for. Or was there still a mortgage.
-
This has been yet more vilification towards Jeremy who having been asked by the Sun newspaper if he had any pornographic pics,to which Jeremy had said no,but he'd been aware that Colin Caffell possessed some topless pics but no pornographic ones.
The journalist in question who'd asked for the pics,then decided to run a story which had reported such pics as having been offered them,so in turn reported the matter to the police. No pictures were ever obtained because they hadn't existed.
Which proves that Jeremy had never intended selling any pics to the newspapers.
-
The Sun asked Jeremy,not the other way around. Just because Sheila was a model. How vicious are journalists ?? They did a complete turnaround when nothing was coming forthwith so decided to use Jeremy -------------once again,mug that he was.
-
Jeremy found the pictures when rummaging around Sheila's flat.
I suspect he was looking at using it as his London base. In between his travels and guest appearances at WHF.
Does anyone know if the flat was bought and paid for. Or was there still a mortgage.
Adam don't think Jeremy was rummaging around Sheila's flat he was emptying all the drawers and sorted out what Colin could take he placed all the twins things in black plastic bags. Letters and photo's from Sheila's biological family were missing as well as Colin wanted them to keep her family safe from prying eyes .Most stuff was sold pictures and the like and he told Colin anything he wanted he could buy :'( Some nude photo's were left for Colin along with Sheila's portfolio and photo's of his boys Colin was allowed to take them.
-
This has been yet more vilification towards Jeremy who having been asked by the Sun newspaper if he had any pornographic pics,to which Jeremy had said no,but he'd been aware that Colin Caffell possessed some topless pics but no pornographic ones.
The journalist in question who'd asked for the pics,then decided to run a story which had reported such pics as having been offered them,so in turn reported the matter to the police. No pictures were ever obtained because they hadn't existed.
Which proves that Jeremy had never intended selling any pics to the newspapers.
That's not true Lookout and it's not backed up by Colin. Colin clearly stated that Jeremy told him he had found explicit pictures of Sheila and 'gloated when he told him they 'showed everything down to the last detail'.
-
The police gave Christine's letters to her brother,Peter ? is it.
-
It's been written about 20 times what was said, it's not up for debate, it's in both Colin's book (which Susan posted) and the Journalist in question gives his account in the documentary posted by Adam. It's all there for people to check. No one need rely on anything I'm saying, they can check it themselves.
However, here is the transcript from the journalist in the documentary, which I am posting for Susan because she has no sound.
"We got a call from Jeremy Bamber's friend, Brett Collins; saying that Jeremy Bamber had some photographs to sell of his late sister and would 'we' The Sun newspaper, be interested in buying them. It was a bizarre situation. We were in an oldy worldy pub and we were talking about the photo's, what were they and what did they show? There was apparently shots with a vibrator and with a cucumber being used as a sex toy. Erm and would The Sun be interested in buying them? He said “well we want cash and would like to conclude this every quickly.” I never did see the photographs, whether they did exist or not, I don't know, I reported back to the office what the situation was and got a message back from the editor saying “Turn the bastard over” We ran the story the next day saying “Jeremy Bamber Tries to Sell Pornographic Pictures of his Sister.”
I was applauded, you know, you've got this very cool young man, completely unperturbed by the facts of the situation. The massacre, these dead people that had given him a home and he seemed completely unconcerned about them. He talked about Bambi particularly as an inanimate object, you know, it wasn't a sister that he had known and loved. He seemed completely unconcerned about these people. He wanted money and he wanted it quick."
Caroline
thanks for that I really appreciate knowing what was said with regard to the photo's so this should prove Jeremy did take them and try to sell them. Shame on him.
-
That's not true Lookout and it's not backed up by Colin. Colin clearly stated that Jeremy told him he had found explicit pictures of Sheila and 'gloated when he told him they 'showed everything down to the last detail'.
Jeremy was kidding,as usual. All there were,were topless ones. The rest is hearsay. Jeremy's jokes which were once overlooked,suddenly became the truth when it suited everyone. I bet he could kick himself at times for having been so naïve that folk would decide to back-pedal on him.
-
The police gave Christine's letters to her brother,Peter ? is it.
Lookout that is good to know they were kept private.
-
Lookout that is good to know they were kept private.
The rellies would have had a field day. ::) ;D
-
Jeremy was kidding,as usual. All there were,were topless ones. The rest is hearsay. Jeremy's jokes which were once overlooked,suddenly became the truth when it suited everyone. I bet he could kick himself at times for having been so naïve that folk would decide to back-pedal on him.
Of course, you're welcome to believe that but it's not true.
-
Of course, you're welcome to believe that but it's not true.
Of course I'm right.
-
Caroline
thanks for that I really appreciate knowing what was said with regard to the photo's so this should prove Jeremy did take them and try to sell them. Shame on him.
It does to me, especially given that he mentioned explicit pictures to Colin too.
-
Caroline
thanks for that I really appreciate knowing what was said with regard to the photo's so this should prove Jeremy did take them and try to sell them. Shame on him.
I agree, Susan. It's pretty clear isn't it.
-
I still don't understand why much wasn't made of this as I'm sure it would have made brilliant headline news to those already baying for his blood ?
The press themselves have a lot to answer for as Colin stated in his book, " no matter how a person dies,surely their death should be treated with dignity and allowed the privacy it deserves.From what was being said,the press might as well have stripped all the victims,photographed their naked bodies and pasted all the results over the front pages: had it been allowed, I am sure they would have done ".
-
I still don't understand why much wasn't made of this as I'm sure it would have made brilliant headline news to those already baying for his blood ?
The press themselves have a lot to answer for as Colin stated in his book, " no matter how a person dies,surely their death should be treated with dignity and allowed the privacy it deserves.From what was being said,the press might as well have stripped all the victims,photographed their naked bodies and pasted all the results over the front pages: had it been allowed, I am sure they would have done ".
The press didn't try selling pictures of Sheila, Jeremy did. The press refused to buy the pictures and chose to expose Jeremy instead. Not often I agree with The Sun bit On this occasion they were 100% correct.
-
The press didn't try selling pictures of Sheila, Jeremy did. The press refused to buy the pictures and chose to expose Jeremy instead. Not often I agree with The Sun bit On this occasion they were 100% correct.
Is there any information,statement or the like pertaining to this which was used at the trial ? Proof.?
-
Pity it hadn't been in the press that JM would receive £25,000 on a conviction result.! Now that's obscene !!
-
Pity it hadn't been in the press that JM would receive £25,000 on a conviction result.! Now that's obscene !!
Better her to get money for her story, than for Bamber to murder his family - get away with it and then cash on it with his own NOTW story.
-
Right now,I'm more interested in the proof of these pics,as all we have are the words of the sleaze-balls who work for the press-----------nothing else.
-
Right now,I'm more interested in the proof of these pics,as all we have are the words of the sleaze-balls who work for the press-----------nothing else.
And Colin.
-
And Colin.
? What about Colin ?
-
I think both Susan and I have written about 20 times that Jeremy DESCRIBED the photo's to BOTH the JOURNALIST and COLIN. I really don't know how to make it any clearer??? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Jeremy told Colin about the photos too.
-
Jeremy told Colin about the photos too.
Colin can't talk as he too took photo's of Sheila,but destroyed them. Are these phantom photographs destroyed,also ?
It never came up in court ?
-
Colin can't talk as he too took photo's of Sheila,but destroyed them. Are these phantom photographs destroyed,also ?
It never came up in court ?
Are you saying Colin is lying and making it up that JEREMY told him about the photos?
-
Nor were they listed along with the exhibits.
-
Nor were they listed along with the exhibits.
Because Jeremy had them!
-
Colin can't talk as he too took photo's of Sheila,but destroyed them. Are these phantom photographs destroyed,also ?
It never came up in court ?
No, it came up in The Sun when it happened. Colind took nude pictures of Sheila which he had the decency to destroy. Jeremy have explicit pictures which he wanted to sell for profit.
-
No, it came up in The Sun when it happened. Colind took nude pictures of Sheila which he had the decency to destroy. Jeremy have explicit pictures which he wanted to sell for profit.
Ha,I've yet to see written proof in the shape of a legal document stating the " offence ".
-
is it posble we could ask the sun if they have such documents.
-
Nor were they listed along with the exhibits.
well they wouldent of been anyway at the time it wouldent of constituted evedence.
-
is it posble we could ask the sun if they have such documents.
It's worth a try,nugs.
-
well they wouldent of been anyway at the time it wouldent of constituted evedence.
Everything which was removed,has been listed,nugs.
-
is it posble we could ask the sun if they have such documents.
Would you know if David Dinsmore is still the editor ? I'm going back a couple of years now.
-
Ha,I've yet to see written proof in the shape of a legal document stating the " offence ".
What 'offence'?
-
is it posble we could ask the sun if they have such documents.
What documents?
-
What 'offence'?
The " offence " of " trying to sell explicit pics of a deceased woman ".
-
What documents?
Hi Caroline
think nugnug may mean the actual photographs. Did they ever buy them?
-
What documents?
Legal documents-------------listed as " extortion" in trying to obtain monies by unsavoury means. You should know how everyone sensationalized everything at the time. Dishing the dirt and scraping the barrel springs to mind.
This is what he was supposed to have been trying to do,wasn't it ?? Something that was allegedly full of shock and awe surely would have been listed as a crime/offence at the time ? The fact that he was accompanied by his " poofy " friend was enough to have made headline news ?
Perhaps the Sun can cast their minds back,I won't hold my breath.
-
What documents?
well like a contract or somthing he derw up with them or sighned records of the meeting if a meeting happend im sure the said jornlist would of made an expences cliam.
-
well like a contract or somthing he derw up with them or sighned records of the meeting if a meeting happend im sure the said jornlist would of made an expences cliam.
nugnug sorry I thought by documents you meant the photo's I see now you mean a legal contract or the like in exchange for the photo's.
-
It seems strange to me that nothing came out of " that meeting ?"
-
It seems strange to me that nothing came out of " that meeting ?"
Something did come out of it.
The Sun had a front page story and did not need to pay Jeremy 25k for it.
-
I don't think so. Besides,Jeremy doesn't do blood money !
-
this story is certanly provable of disprovable ethere way.
-
I don't think so. Besides,Jeremy doesn't do blood money !
He didn't get the chance.
-
well like a contract or somthing he derw up with them or sighned records of the meeting if a meeting happend im sure the said jornlist would of made an expences cliam.
What contract? They didn't have a contract with Bamber, the proof is that they wrote the story about it and Bamber didn't deny it, he also told Colin he had explicit pics of Sheila - what more do you want?
-
The " offence " of " trying to sell explicit pics of a deceased woman ".
That's not an offence Lookout, they were his pictures.
-
Legal documents-------------listed as " extortion" in trying to obtain monies by unsavoury means. You should know how everyone sensationalized everything at the time. Dishing the dirt and scraping the barrel springs to mind.
This is what he was supposed to have been trying to do,wasn't it ?? Something that was allegedly full of shock and awe surely would have been listed as a crime/offence at the time ? The fact that he was accompanied by his " poofy " friend was enough to have made headline news ?
Perhaps the Sun can cast their minds back,I won't hold my breath.
Of course it's not a crime! It's morally wrong not legally. The article was written about him trying to sell porno pics of his dead sister - it most definitely DID appear in The Sun, but there was no legal case or charges because of it. Interestingly, there were no denials by Bamber either ;)
-
If it's in the Sun it must be true!
-
If it's in the Sun it must be true!
JUst because it's in The Sun doesn't mean it's not true and enough information had been supplied to show that this particular accusation is legit.
-
That's not an offence Lookout, they were his pictures.
They weren't on the Stokenchurch list,so where were they ?
-
JUst because it's in The Sun doesn't mean it's not true and enough information had been supplied to show that this particular accusation is legit.
It's kind of funny when you think about it. He went to the Sun so they could publish dirty photos and instead they got an even better story- scumbag brother tries to sell us dirty photos of his sister. They did better paying nothing to him than becoming complicit by paying him.
-
It's kind of funny when you think about it. He went to the Sun so they could publish dirty photos and instead they got an even better story- scumbag brother tries to sell us dirty photos of his sister. They did better paying nothing to him than becoming complicit by paying him.
Exactly, there's nothing new in an ex model having a few risky pics taken, but the story about Jeremy trying to sell explicit pics of his dead sister must have been like gold dust to them.
-
They weren't on the Stokenchurch list,so where were they ?
I'm sure they went up in smoke fairly quickly after the article appeared in The Sun.
-
Being in possession of porno pics would have been illegal back then,and I can't understand why he wasn't charged with such,along with the other charges,etc at trial.
Anything " explicit " I'd have classed as pornographic.
-
not necasarly it would depend what was in them the law was very vague on the matter and still is.
-
Being in possession of porno pics would have been illegal back then,and I can't understand why he wasn't charged with such,along with the other charges,etc at trial.
Anything " explicit " I'd have classed as pornographic.
No it wasn't, think you need to check your fact Lookout. Pornography was on the top shelf then but it CERTAINLY wasn't illegal. I'm not sure where you're getting your info from but you should shoot the messenger ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm sure they went up in smoke fairly quickly after the article appeared in The Sun.
If they ever existed at all.Apart from the usual mucky page three articles,I can't see anything being much different. Up in flames with the rest of the evidence. ::)
About as disrespectful as JM posing after the trial. The things some folk will do for money!!
-
not necasarly it would depend what was in them the law was very vague on the matter and still is.
I posted the transcript from the video Nugs and there was nothing in what he said that was remotely illegal. I'll post it again. I have highlighted what Jeremy told the reporter about what the pictures depicted.
"We got a call from Jeremy Bamber's friend, Brett Collins; saying that Jeremy Bamber had some photographs to sell of his late sister and would 'we' The Sun newspaper, be interested in buying them. It was a bizarre situation. We were in an oldy worldy pub and we were talking about the photo's, what were they and what did they show? There was apparently shots with a vibrator and with a cucumber being used as a sex toy. Erm and would The Sun be interested in buying them? He said “well we want cash and would like to conclude this every quickly.” I never did see the photographs, whether they did exist or not, I don't know, I reported back to the office what the situation was and got a message back from the editor saying “Turn the bastard over” We ran the story the next day saying “Jeremy Bamber Tries to Sell Pornographic Pictures of his Sister.”
I was applauded, you know, you've got this very cool young man, completely unperturbed by the facts of the situation. The massacre, these dead people that had given him a home and he seemed completely unconcerned about them. He talked about Bambi particularly as an inanimate object, you know, it wasn't a sister that he had known and loved. He seemed completely unconcerned about these people. He wanted money and he wanted it quick."
-
If they ever existed at all.Apart from the usual mucky page three articles,I can't see anything being much different. Up in flames with the rest of the evidence. ::)
About as disrespectful as JM posing after the trial. The things some folk will do for money!!
Not many 'innocent' people would try and sell explicit pictures of their dead sister only days after her death. You're right - 'the things people will do for money'.
-
I posted the transcript from the video Nugs and there was nothing in what he said that was remotely illegal. I'll post it again. I have highlighted what Jeremy told the reporter about what the pictures depicted.
"We got a call from Jeremy Bamber's friend, Brett Collins; saying that Jeremy Bamber had some photographs to sell of his late sister and would 'we' The Sun newspaper, be interested in buying them. It was a bizarre situation. We were in an oldy worldy pub and we were talking about the photo's, what were they and what did they show? There was apparently shots with a vibrator and with a cucumber being used as a sex toy. Erm and would The Sun be interested in buying them? He said “well we want cash and would like to conclude this every quickly.” I never did see the photographs, whether they did exist or not, I don't know, I reported back to the office what the situation was and got a message back from the editor saying “Turn the bastard over” We ran the story the next day saying “Jeremy Bamber Tries to Sell Pornographic Pictures of his Sister.”
I was applauded, you know, you've got this very cool young man, completely unperturbed by the facts of the situation. The massacre, these dead people that had given him a home and he seemed completely unconcerned about them. He talked about Bambi particularly as an inanimate object, you know, it wasn't a sister that he had known and loved. He seemed completely unconcerned about these people. He wanted money and he wanted it quick."
who is suposed to have taken these photos.
-
who is suposed to have taken these photos.
Nugs, the "who" is hardly relevant. It's more common than may be thought for husbands to want "private," or even to see NOT so private, pictures of wives displayed in "boys" mags. Colin, as an artist, probably took some beautiful private pictures.
Sheila wasn't in high end modelling so undoubtedly would have come across photographers who were more than willing to encourage her to pose for them showing what nature -and the surgeon's knife- had endowed her with. Given that she'd had breast augmentation -which wouldn't have been necessary for serious modelling where less is definitely more- it's very possible that she'd had it done with glamour modelling in mind. The photographer responsible for taking raunchy shots, if he hadn't known her, was unlikely to have been interested in her name or face, ONLY in getting paid. If he HAD known her, I can list NUMEROUS reasons why he wouldn't have wanted to admit to having taken them.
I don't know if you're simply interested to know who took the pictures OR suggesting that they'd done something illegal, in which case I would say that the responsibility was entirely Sheila's as the pictures couldn't have been taken without her cooperation and consent.
-
colin said he hadent even seen the pictures how could he of taken them.
-
colin said he hadent even seen the pictures how could he of taken them.
Hello nugnug
Colin had not seen the explicit pictures that Jeremy had he saw the ones he took at WHF early into their relationship they were nude but not explicit.
-
Nugs, the "who" is hardly relevant. It's more common than may be thought for husbands to want "private," or even to see NOT so private, pictures of wives displayed in "boys" mags. Colin, as an artist, probably took some beautiful private pictures.
Sheila wasn't in high end modelling so undoubtedly would have come across photographers who were more than willing to encourage her to pose for them showing what nature -and the surgeon's knife- had endowed her with. Given that she'd had breast augmentation -which wouldn't have been necessary for serious modelling where less is definitely more- it's very possible that she'd had it done with glamour modelling in mind. The photographer responsible for taking raunchy shots, if he hadn't known her, was unlikely to have been interested in her name or face, ONLY in getting paid. If he HAD known her, I can list NUMEROUS reasons why he wouldn't have wanted to admit to having taken them.
I don't know if you're simply interested to know who took the pictures OR suggesting that they'd done something illegal, in which case I would say that the responsibility was entirely Sheila's as the pictures couldn't have been taken without her cooperation and consent.
i
i am saying i dont belive the hardcore ones exist.
nobodys seen them.
-
colin said he hadent even seen the pictures how could he of taken them.
There appears to have been TWO sets of pictures, Nugs. Is it really that surprising that Colin HADN'T seen pictures that may have been far more sexually explicit than those he had taken? It's possible, that having seen them for herself, in the cold light of day, Sheila wasn't terribly proud of them.
-
So Jeremy may have got hold of both sets of pictures. When rummaging around Sheila's flat, post the expensive Amsterdam/Burnham/funeral jolly ups.
-
So Jeremy may have got hold of both sets of pictures. When rummaging around Sheila's flat, post the expensive Amsterdam/Burnham/funeral jolly ups.
Adam both sets of pictures were at Sheila's flat and Jeremy found them but was only interested in the explicit ones. Colin stated in his book he was in shock that Sheila would be into that type of picture and he said she must have been desperate to do them.
-
who is suposed to have taken these photos.
Only Sheila would know that.
-
well and the person who took them.
-
i
i am saying i dont belive the hardcore ones exist.
nobodys seen them.
So you think Jeremy is lying? (Again), It doesn't matter whether or not they exist, if they don't, then Jeremy must have being trying to extort money from a Journalist. Either way, he USED his dead sister to do it.
-
well and the person who took them.
And that isn't known - they're hardly going to rush forward are they?
-
And that isn't known - they're hardly going to rush forward are they?
Hi Caroline
I seem to think 3 sets of pictures existed ones Colin took some that a friend took but were never used then the explicit ones that Jeremy removed from the flat. Need to get the book out again :'( Yes three sets existed the ones he found at the flat other than ones he had taken were glamour type nude photo's that would be used in a mens mag but they were test shots and never used and indeed taken by a friend.
-
And that isn't known - they're hardly going to rush forward are they?
why not if thats what they do for a living its not ilgal to take those sort of photos.
-
And that isn't known - they're hardly going to rush forward are they?
No, they're certainly not, Caroline. I said I could give numerous reasons why. The first that comes to mind is that the photographer MAY have had the hots for Sheila and been married to a friend of hers. Hardly, under those circumstances, likely to admit his involvement. He may have been taking the photographs as payment for drugs he'd provided her with. Hardly likely to admit his involvement with that, is he? It maybe that taking porny pics was a sideline to his legitimate work. Unlikely to want his cover blown there, is he?
As you say, whoEVER took the pictures, they're not likely to want to put their name to them. There are FAR more reasons for them keeping quiet than owning up.
-
Sheila was a model. So is bound to have pictures in her flat.
Models need a portfolio when applying for modelling jobs.
Jeremy was making himself at home in his new London base, after the Amsterdam, Burnham and funeral spending sprees. So not surprising he found the photos.
It is not surprising he tried to sell them. He thought he could make good money and Brett had contacts. The wills and Sotherbys sale off's were months away.
The Sun published a front page story and Fielding repeated it 20 years later. Both had a lot to lose by lying.
Everything fits.
-
I posted the transcript from the video Nugs and there was nothing in what he said that was remotely illegal. I'll post it again. I have highlighted what Jeremy told the reporter about what the pictures depicted.
"We got a call from Jeremy Bamber's friend, Brett Collins; saying that Jeremy Bamber had some photographs to sell of his late sister and would 'we' The Sun newspaper, be interested in buying them. It was a bizarre situation. We were in an oldy worldy pub and we were talking about the photo's, what were they and what did they show? There was apparently shots with a vibrator and with a cucumber being used as a sex toy. Erm and would The Sun be interested in buying them? He said “well we want cash and would like to conclude this every quickly.” I never did see the photographs, whether they did exist or not, I don't know, I reported back to the office what the situation was and got a message back from the editor saying “Turn the bastard over” We ran the story the next day saying “Jeremy Bamber Tries to Sell Pornographic Pictures of his Sister.”
I was applauded, you know, you've got this very cool young man, completely unperturbed by the facts of the situation. The massacre, these dead people that had given him a home and he seemed completely unconcerned about them. He talked about Bambi particularly as an inanimate object, you know, it wasn't a sister that he had known and loved. He seemed completely unconcerned about these people. He wanted money and he wanted it quick."
Assuming that any of this actually happened, I wonder at which point after agreeing to a meeting and showing interested in buying pictures of a recently deceased woman did this guy decide he could take the moral high ground?
-
No, they're certainly not, Caroline. I said I could give numerous reasons why. The first that comes to mind is that the photographer MAY have had the hots for Sheila and been married to a friend of hers. Hardly, under those circumstances, likely to admit his involvement. He may have been taking the photographs as payment for drugs he'd provided her with. Hardly likely to admit his involvement with that, is he? It maybe that taking porny pics was a sideline to his legitimate work. Unlikely to want his cover blown there, is he?
As you say, whoEVER took the pictures, they're not likely to want to put their name to them. There are FAR more reasons for them keeping quiet than owning up.
Well, said April, the person may even be dead by now. I don't know what more evidence people want - it's obvious that Jeremy tried to sell them to The Sun, it doesn't matter who took them or even if they existed at all - what matters is that Jeremy tried to acquire money by using his dead sister without a thought for her memory. If the pictures don't exist, the only liar is Jeremy, because he described them to two people and tried to sell them to one of them!
-
The pictures must exist. As I said Sheila needed a portfolio of pictures for modelling job applications. People keep pictures anyway. It has been known.
The only place the pictures would be, was in Sheila's flat. Jeremy had unlimited access to this.
Jeremy would not waste his time mentioning pictures that did not exist. He would get no money.
-
Assuming that any of this actually happened, I wonder at which point after agreeing to a meeting and showing interested in buying pictures of a recently deceased woman did this guy decide he could take the moral high ground?
He only found out what the pictures showed at the meeting but as far as 'moral high ground' goes, this just goes to show what kind of person Bamber is. People can argue this didn't happen until they're blue in the face but it's screamingly obvious that it did - it's corroborated by Colin if people don't believe the journalist.
-
Assuming that any of this actually happened, I wonder at which point after agreeing to a meeting and showing interested in buying pictures of a recently deceased woman did this guy decide he could take the moral high ground?
The "when" hardly matters. It may have been pure business acumen that made them decide they could make MORE by appearing to take the moral high ground that by publishing heavily edited pictures.
-
If he didn't have pictures, he may have used it as bait to entice a meeting with a Sun journalist. He could then offer his life story to them, which I understand he also did. Prior to his NOTW offer.
-
If he didn't have pictures, he may have used it as bait to entice a meeting with a Sun journalist. He could then offer his life story to them, which I understand he also did. Prior to his NOTW offer.
Adam if he did'ent have the pictures why tell Colin he had what would be the point.
-
The pictures must exist. As I said Sheila needed a portfolio of pictures for modelling job applications. People keep pictures anyway. It has been known.
The only place the pictures would be, was in Sheila's flat. Jeremy had unlimited access to this.
Jeremy would not waste his time mentioning pictures that did not exist. He would get no money.
Granted, SOME pictures will have existed. Whether THOSE pictures existed is conjecture. I find it interesting that Jeremy, having had his offer rejected by the Sun, didn't seek to sell them abroad. Holland, not being so closely involved may not have had the same scruples as the Sun.
-
Either way there is proof the meeting took place.
The Sun printed it on their front page. Fielding repeated it on camera 20 years later.
Jeremy has never discussed it.
-
Adam if he did'ent have the pictures why tell Colin he had what would be the point.
If Colin is saying this, it is more proof.
Did CC say Jeremy went to The Sun ?
-
Adam Colin did say that about the explicit pictures and he had no reason to tell lies. He told Colin he wanted to keep all the "famous" ones for himself did not say what he was going to do with them.
-
famous what did he mean by famous.
-
famous what did he mean by famous.
He may have the originals of pictures which have already been released to the media.
Or he may have 'potentially' famous but unpublished ones.
-
famous what did he mean by famous.
Before this gets confusing (again). By famous pics, he was talking about pictures used in her modelling work, he told Colin he was keeping those AND the explicit pictures.
-
famous what did he mean by famous.
EXPLICIT
-
It's a good job that Jeremy's intelligent enough to see beyond all this crap. :)
-
Or any other crap which appears on the forum. ::)
-
It's a good job that Jeremy's intelligent enough to see beyond all this crap. :)
I thought he was gormless? Oh that's right, only when it suits the argument. ::)
-
famous what did he mean by famous.
What is your understanding of famous, Nugs? Mine, in this case, is that it refers to the ones which had been in all the papers previously, ie the WELL KNOWN ones.
I find it quite inexplicable that the question of validity of these pictures is still being debated, long past its' sell by date, after Jeremy TOLD the Sun they were available for sale -WHAT would he have produced if they'd gone along with it had they NOT been what he said they were?- and Colin, too, was convinced of their existence. It ISN'T up to us to prove it.
-
I thought he was gormless? Oh that's right, only when it suits the argument. ::)
Gormless---------yes. Intelligent----------yes. Clever---------no.
-
I thought he was gormless? Oh that's right, only when it suits the argument. ::)
And what are you doing if something suits the argument ? The very same thing. ::)
-
What is your understanding of famous, Nugs? Mine, in this case, is that it refers to the ones which had been in all the papers previously, ie the WELL KNOWN ones.
I find it quite inexplicable that the question of validity of these pictures is still being debated, long past its' sell by date, after Jeremy TOLD the Sun they were available for sale -WHAT would he have produced if they'd gone along with it had they NOT been what he said they were?- and Colin, too, was convinced of their existence. It ISN'T up to us to prove it.
by famous he would obviosly mean that a fair few people knew about them but they dident.
-
What is your understanding of famous, Nugs? Mine, in this case, is that it refers to the ones which had been in all the papers previously, ie the WELL KNOWN ones.
I find it quite inexplicable that the question of validity of these pictures is still being debated, long past its' sell by date, after Jeremy TOLD the Sun they were available for sale -WHAT would he have produced if they'd gone along with it had they NOT been what he said they were?- and Colin, too, was convinced of their existence. It ISN'T up to us to prove it.
We don't have to, it's documented in Colin's book, in The Sun and not the documentary. I can understand staunch supporters not wanting to admit it's true because it puts Jeremy in a VERY bad light. Although, as already said, it doesn't make him a killer - just very callous and completely lacking moral fibre.
-
by famous he would obviosly mean that a fair few people knew about them but they dident.
Nugs, by FAMOUS, he's talking about the pictures that appeared in the news NOT THE EXPLICIT pictures because they didn't appear anywhere. Jeremy just told Colin and the resporter about them and what they depicted.
-
And what are you doing if something suits the argument ? The very same thing. ::)
I fully admit when I'm wrong Lookout, if I was wrong about him being guilty, I'd be the first to say so. After all, I wasn't afraid to admit I was (completely) wrong about innocence. I was taken in by smoke and mirrors from the campaign but not no more.
It's obvious he tried to sell those pictures.
-
I fully admit when I'm wrong Lookout, if I was wrong about him being guilty, I'd be the first to say so. After all, I wasn't afraid to admit I was (completely) wrong about innocence. I was taken in my smoke and mirrors from the campaign but not no more.
It's obvious he tried to sell those pictures.
We'll see. ;D ;D
-
We'll see. ;D ;D
Yeah, I was told all the same type of BS too. "On the glorious day" ::)
-
Nugs, by FAMOUS, he's talking about the pictures that appeared in the news NOT THE EXPLICIT pictures because they didn't appear anywhere. Jeremy just told Colin and the resporter about them and what they depicted.
Caroline I am now confused which of the sets of pictures were the "famous" ones Jeremy told Colin he was keeping the "famous ones" for himself and Colin said he did not even know famous ones existed. :'(
-
Caroline I am now confused which of the sets of pictures were the "famous" ones Jeremy told Colin he was keeping the "famous ones" for himself and Colin said he did not even know famous ones existed. :'(
OK;
There was her portfolio - which was obviously the source for some of the pictures in the headlines and might have been in used in some advertising etc. when she was alive. These are 'the famous pictures' Colin wanted the portfolio but Jeremy said he was taking the 'famous pictures' out and keeping them.
Then there are the soft porn pics either found at WHF or put there by Jeremy - the ones he said June had seen.
Then there are the EXPLICIT pictures that he tried to sell to The Sun and also mentioned to Colin.
-
by famous he would obviosly mean that a fair few people knew about them but they dident.
I would be HUGELY surprised if, until the time of her death, more that Sheila and the photographer knew of the existence of the porny ones. The others -the modelling shots had been all over the papers here and in mainland Europe. Which do YOU believe to have been the "famous" ones?
-
OK;
There was her portfolio - which was obviously the source for some of the pictures in the headlines and might have been in used in some advertising etc. when she was alive. These are 'the famous pictures' Colin wanted the portfolio but Jeremy said he was taking the 'famous pictures' out and keeping them.
Then there are the soft porn pics either found at WHF or put there by Jeremy - the ones he said June had seen.
Then there are the EXPLICIT pictures that he tried to sell to The Sun and also mentioned to Colin.
what has confused me is Colin states in his book Jeremy told him he wished to keep all the famous photo's himself Colin stated (I did not even know there were any famous ones) this statement made me think he meant the explicit ones Colin carries on to say he opened a container of slides and was surprised to see they were nude photo's of Sheila and Colin was shocked this is when Jeremy was looking over Colin,s shoulder gloating and eager to tell there were a few more similar boxes but even more revealing and adding you see everything down to the last detail and laughed.
What ever words were used the top and bottom is Jeremy was prepared to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister to the Sun Newspaper.
Anyone interested page 93 of Colin's book.
-
Hi Susan,I have open,page 93,but no mention of photo's,only about destroying blood-stained mattresses and flinging open all the windows of the farmhouse because of the " smell of death lingering ". Which beggars belief in my mind for " someone who can slaughter his family " and see the bloodbath that there must have been,yet bawks at the smell of death when the bodies were well removed ? Doesn't make sense to me.
-
Included on that page,is mention of the distance from WHF to Goldhanger,saying 4 miles ?
Many others have stated 3 miles. That makes a difference to times,pedalling power and all that. ;D ;D ;D.
So what's it to be--------------3 miles or 4 ?
-
what has confused me is Colin states in his book Jeremy told him he wished to keep all the famous photo's himself Colin stated (I did not even know there were any famous ones) this statement made me think he meant the explicit ones Colin carries on to say he opened a container of slides and was surprised to see they were nude photo's of Sheila and Colin was shocked this is when Jeremy was looking over Colin,s shoulder gloating and eager to tell there were a few more similar boxes but even more revealing and adding you see everything down to the last detail and laughed.
What ever words were used the top and bottom is Jeremy was prepared to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister to the Sun Newspaper.
Anyone interested page 93 of Colin's book.
Well, given as the explicit ones weren't famous, I think personally he was talking about those that appeared in the newspapers after she died because by then, they were famous. And yes, you're last point is the whole point.
-
Hi Susan,I have open,page 93,but no mention of photo's,only about destroying blood-stained mattresses and flinging open all the windows of the farmhouse because of the " smell of death lingering ". Which beggars belief in my mind for " someone who can slaughter his family " and see the bloodbath that there must have been,yet bawks at the smell of death when the bodies were well removed ? Doesn't make sense to me.
Hahaha lookout are we in the same book In Search of Rainbow's End Part 2 Choices have you got that I would like a second opinion on the actual meaning of Colin's words.
-
Oooops-----------no Susan,I've got a fixation on Claire Powell's book. ;D ;D ;D ;D Hang on. ::)
Got it. Colin obviously hadn't known what was on some of the slides when he'd looked at them. Oh dear. He thought they were old ones of his own. :o Got a shock when he saw they were all full of " Bambs " in the nude. He'd always thought that Sheila would steer clear of " glamour work " and had said she must have been desperate for money.
Other nude shots had been found in June's bureau at WHF------------oh dear,again. They were what Colin had taken in the field at WHF,oooops.
If anyone exposed the nude ones,it would have been June,in order to shame Sheila-------which she had done.
-
Oooops-----------no Susan,I've got a fixation on Claire Powell's book. ;D ;D ;D ;D Hang on. ::)
Got it. Colin obviously hadn't known what was on some of the slides when he'd looked at them. Oh dear. He thought they were old ones of his own. :o Got a shock when he saw they were all full of " Bambs " in the nude. He'd always thought that Sheila would steer clear of " glamour work " and had said she must have been desperate for money.
Other nude shots had been found in June's bureau at WHF------------oh dear,again. They were what Colin had taken in the field at WHF,oooops.
If anyone exposed the nude ones,it would have been June,in order to shame Sheila-------which she had done.
Hahaha I thought I was going blind ;D have you read it where Colin said in brackets "I did not know there were any famous ones" this made me think Colin was referring to the famous ones as the explicit ones because he would know all about the pictures Sheila had in her portfolio which had been published.
-
Colin had said that because June had other nude snaps that she was probably " snooping around " when Sheila was in hospital. Well well.
Jeremy's answer to his mother having some photo's was " probably to make Sheila toe the line,or shame her ".It's very clear that Jeremy really DIDN'T know his mother !!
-
Oooops-----------no Susan,I've got a fixation on Claire Powell's book. ;D ;D ;D ;D Hang on. ::)
Got it. Colin obviously hadn't known what was on some of the slides when he'd looked at them. Oh dear. He thought they were old ones of his own. :o Got a shock when he saw they were all full of " Bambs " in the nude. He'd always thought that Sheila would steer clear of " glamour work " and had said she must have been desperate for money.
Other nude shots had been found in June's bureau at WHF------------oh dear,again. They were what Colin had taken in the field at WHF,oooops.
If anyone exposed the nude ones,it would have been June,in order to shame Sheila-------which she had done.
I doubt if even MY mother would have openly demonstrated that sort of betrayal >:( Shaming her privately is one think. To shame her publicly, apart from ALL else, ie the effect on Colin, his parents, the rellies, the friends, her GRANDSONS!!! it would have been like admitting her own failure as a parent.
-
I doubt if even MY mother would have openly demonstrated that sort of betrayal >:( Shaming her privately is one think. To shame her publicly, apart from ALL else, ie the effect on Colin, his parents, the rellies, the friends, her GRANDSONS!!! it would have been like admitting her own failure as a parent.
Well,it happened,and I've got a copy of a very weird letter which at first was thought to have been written by Sheila,but it was confirmed that it hadn't been,and piecing things together,the weird letter had been written by June. It refers to photo's,the Sun and the police.
-
How can I write to Jeremy and tell him that his mother was as mad as a box of frogs ? I can't,can I ?
Jeremy must have been really dumb not to have seen through anyone !! What a sheltered life he led. This is what annoys me with him,Jeremy, more than anything.
-
Well,it happened,and I've got a copy of a very weird letter which at first was thought to have been written by Sheila,but it was confirmed that it hadn't been,and piecing things together,the weird letter had been written by June. It refers to photo's,the Sun and the police.
Perhaps you'd be good enough to provide evidence of this letter and what it says so we may judge for ourselves. Given that none of this occurred until after June and Sheila's death, I feel certain that, as you are now saying it was all going on PRIOR to their deaths, you'll understand my scepticism. I'm still mindful of, and smarting about, the monastery scam.
-
Perhaps you'd be good enough to provide evidence of this letter and what it says so we may judge for ourselves. Given that none of this occurred until after June and Sheila's death, I feel certain that, as you are now saying it was all going on PRIOR to their deaths, you'll understand my scepticism. I'm still mindful of, and smarting about, the monastery scam.
I'm doing my utmost to find the letter on here,and in doing so,have finally found what the letters,mentioned in the letter,mean, the letters are SYC and in caps,I thought it was some religious organisation,but it's short for p-syc-hiatrist.
The letter makes reference that" SYC is looking after you and giving you strength so you are ready when the Sun and Police call because they're going to My Dearest Mother I no ( sic ) your ( sic ) upset----Vincent----( could be professor Egan ) I smacked your calm ? I'm sorry you are poorly with your L----- but SYC is teaching ? you.
He won't let anything happen.Yes mummy I have got your your (sic ) looking at my picture in the paper but you will be given a lovely portrait of myself and the twins soon.
The beginning of the letter starts with:
My Darling,just looking at my picture you will break your hearts more,just remember I am your daughter---the---3.3.57---or no---that may you and I,the Sun Newspaper. The photos are going to be in this soon and get this------daily mess cleared up and I must say it is very dirty messy business as I said before----over the Strand a---a dirty---will crawl out,oh---of it you think of----feelings also on/in the----space of in the as can is the dirt is dug up and the public know that my Darling Mummy will !
-------Loves to make it work talk like----was such----your ever/over-------the time he is NO GOOD TO YOU.-----kick himself like------to the Press----of one of------publicly you are 3.
If I was medicated------no disrespect Police from Guildford life ?
It---------please don't break your heart you will be ok SYC is looking after you. Those people in-----will be round soon. Why do you think I've come to you because God told me I had to-------mummy calm.
We are both here with you ------Bless------mummy don't let him see you so hurt. I don't mind him being here while I -------you. SYC is also giving you strength so you are ready when the Sun and Police call because they're going to.
April,where the gaps are,I couldn't decipher the words,it was a really scribbled affair.
I'm now beginning to think that Sheila wrote this------not June,although Jeremy had said it wasn't Sheila,but I'd have said it smacks of her state of mind.
I'm still going to look for it on the forum,as it's been ignored and I think it's significant.!! In more ways than one.
-
P.S.I've missed a bit :
"How dare he say not to buy-----my sons----where-------where they belong."
Very jumbled,a very tortured mind.
-
If this was indeed written by Sheila,what was in the meaning about the Sun newspaper and Police calling ? Because of the murders ? Mmmm. That will have been foreseen.
-
As dear Campion once said-----" Beyond the lies lies the Truth ".
-
As dear Campion once said-----" Beyond the lies lies the Truth ".
Campion was a wise nice funny man and he was of the opinion that Jeremy was innocent.
-
Campion was a wise nice funny man and he was of the opinion that Jeremy was innocent.
Lovely man and totally convinced of Jeremy's innocence.
This case is now sounding like something from the film " Mommy Dearest " .Joan Crawford was such a very cruel person to her daughter.
-
If this was indeed written by Sheila,what was in the meaning about the Sun newspaper and Police calling ? Because of the murders ? Mmmm. That will have been foreseen.
Lookout, It certainly looks as if we are meant to believe that it was written by Sheila. IF it was, what does it reveal, other than a dysfunctional relationship with her mother and a tortured mind, both of which we are all aware. What it doesn't, to my mind, indicate, is the mind of a potential murderer. Rightly or wrongly I have misgivings about its' provenance.
I seem to recall that several of us "amused" ourselves for several days by trying to decipher a supposed code allegedly written by Sheila before we came to realize we were being "had". I don't doubt YOUR sincerity but you CANNOT be unaware of some of the outright rubbish and lies we've been drip fed in the time I've been a member of this forum. None of us likes to feel duped by something we've put faith and trust in. My own desire for the truth is as great as your own.
-
I'm doing my utmost to find the letter on here,and in doing so,have finally found what the letters,mentioned in the letter,mean, the letters are SYC and in caps,I thought it was some religious organisation,but it's short for p-syc-hiatrist.
The letter makes reference that" SYC is looking after you and giving you strength so you are ready when the Sun and Police call because they're going to My Dearest Mother I no ( sic ) your ( sic ) upset----Vincent----( could be professor Egan ) I smacked your calm ? I'm sorry you are poorly with your L----- but SYC is teaching ? you.
He won't let anything happen.Yes mummy I have got your your (sic ) looking at my picture in the paper but you will be given a lovely portrait of myself and the twins soon.
The beginning of the letter starts with:
My Darling,just looking at my picture you will break your hearts more,just remember I am your daughter---the---3.3.57---or no---that may you and I,the Sun Newspaper. The photos are going to be in this soon and get this------daily mess cleared up and I must say it is very dirty messy business as I said before----over the Strand a---a dirty---will crawl out,oh---of it you think of----feelings also on/in the----space of in the as can is the dirt is dug up and the public know that my Darling Mummy will !
-------Loves to make it work talk like----was such----your ever/over-------the time he is NO GOOD TO YOU.-----kick himself like------to the Press----of one of------publicly you are 3.
If I was medicated------no disrespect Police from Guildford life ?
It---------please don't break your heart you will be ok SYC is looking after you. Those people in-----will be round soon. Why do you think I've come to you because God told me I had to-------mummy calm.
We are both here with you ------Bless------mummy don't let him see you so hurt. I don't mind him being here while I -------you. SYC is also giving you strength so you are ready when the Sun and Police call because they're going to.
April,where the gaps are,I couldn't decipher the words,it was a really scribbled affair.
I'm now beginning to think that Sheila wrote this------not June,although Jeremy had said it wasn't Sheila,but I'd have said it smacks of her state of mind.
I'm still going to look for it on the forum,as it's been ignored and I think it's significant.!! In more ways than one.
We have all seen this letter and it's a fake.
-
P.S.I've missed a bit :
"How dare he say not to buy-----my sons----where-------where they belong."
Very jumbled,a very tortured mind.
Very fake.
-
We have all seen this letter and it's a fake.
Where can we see the letter? How do we know it is a fake?
-
Where can we see the letter? How do we know it is a fake?
It's on the forum somewhere and if it's real, I'll join Paddy Ashdown and eat my hat. It has the same note of fakeness and the email about the monastery.
-
Lookout, It certainly looks as if we are meant to believe that it was written by Sheila. IF it was, what does it reveal, other than a dysfunctional relationship with her mother and a tortured mind, both of which we are all aware. What it doesn't, to my mind, indicate, is the mind of a potential murderer. Rightly or wrongly I have misgivings about its' provenance.
I seem to recall that several of us "amused" ourselves for several days by trying to decipher a supposed code allegedly written by Sheila before we came to realize we were being "had". I don't doubt YOUR sincerity but you CANNOT be unaware of some of the outright rubbish and lies we've been drip fed in the time I've been a member of this forum. None of us likes to feel duped by something we've put faith and trust in. My own desire for the truth is as great as your own.
It must have taken me a week after I first saw it,to decipher half of it for it to make any sense or to even get it into some semblance of order. How many people would have known the Christian name of professor Egan. ? Only those who were seen by him,which were both women in the same year.
It still could have been written in June's hand,as her letter to the family began with " My Darlings ",as Jeremy felt sure it wasn't written by Sheila.If I remember rightly,the hand-writing was a bit sketchy too.
Even Sheila's letter to AE was " odd " saying that the CIA were no longer after her and she was joining the CND.
I'm quite surprised that Jeremy said no to it being Sheilas'.You'd have thought he'd have leapt at the chance to" add another string to his bow " in the form of a weird letter written by his sister ?
When I first saw it I thought it was an admission for the murders. It's always puzzled me,worse than ever now that I can't find the bloody thing. I'm so glad I copied it though,as although it was there on the screen,not much notice was taken of it at the time.
-
I'm sitting here killing myself laughing at Jeremy's interview with EP. Where JB gets muddled over times and SJ puts words into his mouth.
Q" You see Mr Bamber we know that at about 3.26 that morning you phoned the Police. We know that at 3.15 you phoned Julie up. What have you to say about this ?"
A." You are very clever men to prove both clocks were accurate ."
Q." I will tell you the Police clock on Control is always accurate."
Q." What did you say to your girlfriend when you phoned her up ?"
A " I cannot remember,you tell me ".
Spot the mistake. How was it SJ knew the times before being told ?
It reminds me of the apprentice who worked on a farm where ducks were kept and in order to make a distinction of where the the breed came from,the farmer lifted the duck up and smelled its behind.
This one,he said,sniffing,is an Aylesbury.The next a Campbell and a Muscovey,etc etc.
The apprentice was fascinated and amazed,then the farmer asked him where he was from,so the apprentice answered, saying, you're the expert.
-
I'm sitting here killing myself laughing at Jeremy's interview with EP. Where JB gets muddled over times and SJ puts words into his mouth.
Q" You see Mr Bamber we know that at about 3.26 that morning you phoned the Police. We know that at 3.15 you phoned Julie up. What have you to say about this ?"
A." You are very clever men to prove both clocks were accurate ."
Q." I will tell you the Police clock on Control is always accurate."
Q." What did you say to your girlfriend when you phoned her up ?"
A " I cannot remember,you tell me ".
Spot the mistake. How was it SJ knew the times before being told ?
It reminds me of the apprentice who worked on a farm where ducks were kept and in order to make a distinction of where the the breed came from,the farmer lifted the duck up and smelled its behind.
This one,he said,sniffing,is an Aylesbury.The next a Campbell and a Muscovey,etc etc.
The apprentice was fascinated and amazed,then the farmer asked him where he was from,so the apprentice answered, saying, you're the expert.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Funny that the situation was so serious he felt he had to call Julie. But can't remember what he said to her.
The situation was also so serious he felt he had to call Julie. But when asked why he called her, he said 'no comment'.
You would think he would be able to answer both questions so soon after a horrific night.
-
Where can we see the letter? How do we know it is a fake?
Tyler will bear me out when she's on the forum again,as both of us were trying to decipher it to make some sense of it. I can't for the life of me remember where it originated from,but it was possible that Mike had had it on an old disc that he'd removed to transfer.
-
Funny that the situation was so serious he felt he had to call Julie. But can't remember what he said to her.
The situation was also so serious he felt he had to call Julie. But when asked why he called her, he said 'no comment'.
You would think he would be able to answer both questions so soon after a horrific night.
His words to your query were " that he was pissed off and wanted a friendly voice to speak to ". Wouldn't you ?
-
Tyler will bear me out when she's on the forum again,as both of us were trying to decipher it to make some sense of it. I can't for the life of me remember where it originated from,but it was possible that Mike had had it on an old disc that he'd removed to transfer.
lookout we will ask tyler when she returns from her hols,
-
It wasn't tyler,it was Jan. I always get mixed up with those two. ::)
-
Jan's got a better memory than me. It was last year I know that much. ;D
-
It wasn't tyler,it was Jan. I always get mixed up with those two. ::)
hahaha lookout they are both lovely ladies and know the case that is why you get them mixed up :)
-
His words to your query were " that he was pissed off and wanted a friendly voice to speak to ". Wouldn't you ?
Am I right in saying that having allegedly receiving a called from a "panicked" Nevill and looking up the number of several local police stations instead of calling 999, he "felt pissed off and wanted a friendly voice to speak to"? Would it not have been better to do something constructive? Perhaps doing what Nevill asked and get lover there?
-
Am I right in saying that having allegedly receiving a called from a "panicked" Nevill and looking up the number of several local police stations instead of calling 999, he "felt pissed off and wanted a friendly voice to speak to"? Would it not have been better to do something constructive? Perhaps doing what Nevill asked and get lover there?
C'mon,have some empathy.Jeremy was in shock, it's no wonder he felt out on a limb,he had nobody to talk to. He was looking for reassurance and it wasn't forthcoming.
I'd go as far as to say he was scared at the unknown. If he'd KNOWN how ravaged with insanity Sheila had been,then no doubt he'd have hurtled to WHF at top speed,but because Sheila had " cried wolf " in the past,this was something he HADN'T expected.
Careful you don't let that guard slip. ;) ;)
-
Found them. Threads- note 1- and note 2. Just over a year ago.
Handwritten notes kept by " Taff "Jones,written by Bambi before her death. May 26th 2014.
-
Oh Lord,I hadn't realised there was more to decipher.Ah well here goes.It'll be worth it if it throws anything up. No wonder Jeremy said it wasn't Sheila.Perhaps because of her skewed mind,it had reflected in her writing which he wouldn't have recognised.
-
C'mon,have some empathy.Jeremy was in shock, it's no wonder he felt out on a limb,he had nobody to talk to. He was looking for reassurance and it wasn't forthcoming.
I'd go as far as to say he was scared at the unknown. If he'd KNOWN how ravaged with insanity Sheila had been,then no doubt he'd have hurtled to WHF at top speed,but because Sheila had " cried wolf " in the past,this was something he HADN'T expected.
Careful you don't let that guard slip. ;) ;)
Sorry Lookout, when someone tells me they feel pissed off!!! because allegedly their panicked father has rung them in the middle of the night to say that their sister has gone mad, she has got hold of a gun so will they please come quickly, they then proceed to diddle away time by looking up local police numbers and call their girlfriend to tell her that something is wrong at the farm but everything is going well, I find myself feeling very short of empathy.
As for his being scared. He wasn't a child. He hadn't just come out of a monastery. He'd travelled the world. He'd been mixed up in one or two shady dealings like drugs and break in and entry. He more than knew which way was up. ALL he had to do was call 999, which required no effort, no struggling to find phone numbers in the middle of the night, and he'd have fulfilled his responsibility to his father. He chose not to and NOWHERE have I seen it written that he ever expressed any remorse for not having acted faster.
-
I'm sitting here killing myself laughing at Jeremy's interview with EP. Where JB gets muddled over times and SJ puts words into his mouth.
Q" You see Mr Bamber we know that at about 3.26 that morning you phoned the Police. We know that at 3.15 you phoned Julie up. What have you to say about this ?"
A." You are very clever men to prove both clocks were accurate ."
Q." I will tell you the Police clock on Control is always accurate."
Q." What did you say to your girlfriend when you phoned her up ?"
A " I cannot remember,you tell me ".
Spot the mistake. How was it SJ knew the times before being told ?
It reminds me of the apprentice who worked on a farm where ducks were kept and in order to make a distinction of where the the breed came from,the farmer lifted the duck up and smelled its behind.
This one,he said,sniffing,is an Aylesbury.The next a Campbell and a Muscovey,etc etc.
The apprentice was fascinated and amazed,then the farmer asked him where he was from,so the apprentice answered, saying, you're the expert.
Eh? He knew because he'd interviewed JM, West, JM's flat mates and he knew the times didn't match those told by JB from his 'previous' statements. Jeremy couldn't answer because he'd forgotten what he'd previously said.
-
Tyler will bear me out when she's on the forum again,as both of us were trying to decipher it to make some sense of it. I can't for the life of me remember where it originated from,but it was possible that Mike had had it on an old disc that he'd removed to transfer.
Oh I remember it and the reason you couldn't decipher it, is because it was rubbish.
-
His words to your query were " that he was pissed off and wanted a friendly voice to speak to ". Wouldn't you ?
Yes he said at trial. But not the pissed off.
-
Jan's got a better memory than me. It was last year I know that much. ;D
Jan just commented on the letters the other day, I think she agrees that they're 'false' too.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6696.msg305015.html#msg305015
-
C'mon,have some empathy.Jeremy was in shock, it's no wonder he felt out on a limb,he had nobody to talk to. He was looking for reassurance and it wasn't forthcoming.
I'd go as far as to say he was scared at the unknown. If he'd KNOWN how ravaged with insanity Sheila had been,then no doubt he'd have hurtled to WHF at top speed,but because Sheila had " cried wolf " in the past,this was something he HADN'T expected.
Careful you don't let that guard slip. ;) ;)
You paint him out to be an absolute moron - anyone passed the age of 5 knows you ring 999 when there is a problem. Empathy is something Jeremy lacks and his guard slipped often.
-
Why would Jeremy be 'pissed off' at Neville's call ?
He was barely awake and Neville needed his help. Thought Jeremy would be flattered that Neville choose the option of phoning him. He had lots of better options. And also Jeremy would be concerned, Sheila had gone crazy and had got the gun.
'Pissed off' is not a feeling he should have felt.
-
Sorry Lookout, when someone tells me they feel pissed off!!! because allegedly their panicked father has rung them in the middle of the night to say that their sister has gone mad, she has got hold of a gun so will they please come quickly, they then proceed to diddle away time by looking up local police numbers and call their girlfriend to tell her that something is wrong at the farm but everything is going well, I find myself feeling very short of empathy.
As for his being scared. He wasn't a child. He hadn't just come out of a monastery. He'd travelled the world. He'd been mixed up in one or two shady dealings like drugs and break in and entry. He more than knew which way was up. ALL he had to do was call 999, which required no effort, no struggling to find phone numbers in the middle of the night, and he'd have fulfilled his responsibility to his father. He chose not to and NOWHERE have I seen it written that he ever expressed any remorse for not having acted faster.
I don't think he took much notice of the family,April,so wouldn't have known what went on from one week to the next,therefore because of his lack of interest,which it was,he was more interested in social life and women,he wouldn't have known in-depth how ill both women were and he had always been so reliant on his family doing everything so that night was no different in that he'd expected his father to do all the phoning,etc,which Neville did btw,as his call was written on the back of the same record that Jeremy had made previously because there had been a PTO on the bottom right hand side of the page.
The letter has been found. Apparently it's part of what the Met have got which had been in Taff's possession. The other part is under PII.
It looks very much like part of a suicide note from Sheila and must have been written on the night of the tragedy.
It's headed " handwritten note kept by DCI " Taff " Jones.
-
Why would Jeremy be 'pissed off' at Neville's call ?
He was barely awake and Neville needed his help. Thought Jeremy would be flattered that Neville choose the option of phoning him. He had lots of better options. And also Jeremy would be concerned, Sheila had gone crazy and had got the gun.
'Pissed off' is not a feeling he should have felt.
Well, it was 3am Adam - and he was fast asleep, bit of a liberty calling him at that time of the morning. ;)
-
I don't think he took much notice of the family,April,so wouldn't have known what went on from one week to the next,therefore because of his lack of interest,which it was,he was more interested in social life and women,he wouldn't have known in-depth how ill both women were and he had always been so reliant on his family doing everything so that night was no different in that he'd expected his father to do all the phoning,etc,which Neville did btw,as his call was written on the back of the same record that Jeremy had made previously because there had been a PTO on the bottom right hand side of the page.
The letter has been found. Apparently it's part of what the Met have got which had been in Taff's possession. The other part is under PII.
It looks very much like part of a suicide note from Sheila and must have been written on the night of the tragedy.
It's headed " handwritten note kept by DCI " Taff " Jones.
Ha, ha!! No he didn't and there is nothing written on the back that mentions Nevill's call to police. Jeremy said he has ALL the PII stuff now so not sure why it's still being mentioned.
-
Well, it was 3am Adam - and he was fast asleep, bit of a liberty calling him at that time of the morning. ;)
Yes, that's about the strength of it and the way Jeremy was I'm afraid.
-
Yes, that's about the strength of it and the way Jeremy was I'm afraid.
Wow!
-
Wow!
Gormless and lazy. Too idle to scratch himself,let alone murder 5 people.
-
The numbers I quoted from that letter--------3.3.57 = although from the Bible it's 3.3.5 :
Jesus replied," Very truly I tell you, no-one can see the Kingdom of God unless they are born again "
"How can someone be born when they are old ?" Nicodemus asked " Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born !"
Jesus answered " Very truly I tell you, no-one can enter the Kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
From the NIV. Holy Bible.
-
Gormless and lazy. Too idle to scratch himself,let alone murder 5 people.
Doesn't REALLY fit with the sharp dresser, the guy who was so well groomed he even coloured his hair, the party animal, the Champagne quaffing Hooray Henry man about town image, all of which required funds. I'd have described him as VERY high maintenance.
-
The numbers I quoted from that letter--------3.3.57 = although from the Bible it's 3.3.5 :
Jesus replied," Very truly I tell you, no-one can see the Kingdom of God unless they are born again "
"How can someone be born when they are old ?" Nicodemus asked " Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born !"
Jesus answered " Very truly I tell you, no-one can enter the Kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
From the NIV. Holy Bible.
Could be someone's birthday. March 3rd 1957.
-
Could be someone's birthday. March 3rd 1957.
I thought that too,so I'll try and find out.
-
The numbers I quoted from that letter--------3.3.57 = although from the Bible it's 3.3.5 :
Jesus replied," Very truly I tell you, no-one can see the Kingdom of God unless they are born again "
"How can someone be born when they are old ?" Nicodemus asked " Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born !"
Jesus answered " Very truly I tell you, no-one can enter the Kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.
From the NIV. Holy Bible.
How does 3.3.57 end up being 3.3.5? If you have to change it to make it fit something then the something you're trying to fit in, is obviously wrong! So the bible reference you have posted, means nothing.
-
Doesn't REALLY fit with the sharp dresser, the guy who was so well groomed he even coloured his hair, the party animal, the Champagne quaffing Hooray Henry man about town image, all of which required funds. I'd have described him as VERY high maintenance.
Well said April, this is more like the Jeremy we all know and ........ well, know.
-
How does 3.3.57 end up being 3.3.5? If you have to change it to make it fit something then the something you're trying to fit in, is obviously wrong! So the bible reference you have posted, means nothing.
Anything can be bent to fit, if you try hard enough. I don't see how it can become a bible verse. Did someone accidentally wrtie the number 57? ;D
-
Yes,anything can be bent to fit,such as the truth from EP and their way of handling it.
What you do to find out what something means,is jiggle it about,such as the numbers 3.3.57. You work on 3.3.5 which takes you to the Bible verses. It's looking for something significant not being bloody childish by saying it can be bent to fit. It's got nothing to do with making anything fit the way you want it to.
Ever heard of process of elimination ? You should try it sometime instead of nit-picking MY POSTS !!
I don't know what the damn numbers are,or mean. Why not you have a go ? Silly me,you're not interested unless it's Jeremy bashing. ::)
-
Yes,anything can be bent to fit,such as the truth from EP and their way of handling it.
What you do to find out what something means,is jiggle it about,such as the numbers 3.3.57. You work on 3.3.5 which takes you to the Bible verses. It's looking for something significant not being bloody childish by saying it can be bent to fit. It's got nothing to do with making anything fit the way you want it to.
Ever heard of process of elimination ? You should try it sometime instead of nit-picking MY POSTS !!
I don't know what the damn numbers are,or mean. Why not you have a go ? Silly me,you're not interested unless it's Jeremy bashing. ::)
Calm down. :-\
I don't know what it means. It's likely as April said, someones birthday. But it obviously doesn't mean 3.3.5
-
Yes,anything can be bent to fit,such as the truth from EP and their way of handling it.
What you do to find out what something means,is jiggle it about,such as the numbers 3.3.57. You work on 3.3.5 which takes you to the Bible verses. It's looking for something significant not being bloody childish by saying it can be bent to fit. It's got nothing to do with making anything fit the way you want it to.
Ever heard of process of elimination ? You should try it sometime instead of nit-picking MY POSTS !!
I don't know what the damn numbers are,or mean. Why not you have a go ? Silly me,you're not interested unless it's Jeremy bashing. ::)
But what you've done is drop the 7, which now means it's completely different to what is originally written. Why not drop one of the 3's or the 5? If you have to change it to make it fit, it's like shaving the corners of a square block to make it fit a round hole - it will fit in the end but it's longer the same block.
-
Yes,anything can be bent to fit,such as the truth from EP and their way of handling it.
What you do to find out what something means,is jiggle it about,such as the numbers 3.3.57. You work on 3.3.5 which takes you to the Bible verses. It's looking for something significant not being bloody childish by saying it can be bent to fit. It's got nothing to do with making anything fit the way you want it to.
Ever heard of process of elimination ? You should try it sometime instead of nit-picking MY POSTS !!
I don't know what the damn numbers are,or mean. Why not you have a go ? Silly me,you're not interested unless it's Jeremy bashing. ::)
Just a thought, Lookout. Before you spend loads of time working out what the letter means wouldn't it be a good idea for both you AND Jeremy to find out if it's for real or yet another scam.
-
But what you've done is drop the 7, which now means it's completely different to what is originally written. Why not drop one of the 3's or the 5? If you have to change it to make it fit, it's like shaving the corners of a square block to make it fit a round hole - it will fit in the end but it's longer the same block.
I've manipulated it like EP did with the real truth of what happened at WHF.
What's wrong in trying to see how it fits in with anything ?
What does it matter to you when you say it's fake anyway ?
At least I'm trying to figure things out which is more than anyone else is doing.
-
I've manipulated it like EP did with the real truth of what happened at WHF.
What's wrong in trying to see how it fits in with anything ?
What does it matter to you when you say it's fake anyway ?
At least I'm trying to figure things out which is more than anyone else is doing.
All I am saying Lookout, is that if you have to change something in order to make it fit, then the result will be incorrect.
-
that reminds me of the police clock that was 10 minutes wrong - or was it ?
And the wordings of the logs - ambiguous -" in conversation with " which apparently does not mean "in conversation with" at all
the rifle at the window - apparently not a rifle after all?
just saying.
-
that reminds me of the police clock that was 10 minutes wrong - or was it ?
And the wordings of the logs - ambiguous -" in conversation with " which apparently does not mean "in conversation with" at all
the rifle at the window - apparently not a rifle after all?
just saying.
West said it wasn't 10 mins fast - I believe him
The wordings of the logs are indeed ambiguous but when you think the words were being relayed to a third party not at the scene, it's not surprising.
Not sure how adamant Jeapes was about it being rifle - and maybe it was but it doesn't mean it was 'thee' rifle.
-
It was the 2nd of the two rifles which were used. The one which was found on Sheila's body ?
The one with the broken stock was in the kitchen.
-
West said it wasn't 10 mins fast - I believe him
The wordings of the logs are indeed ambiguous but when you think the words were being relayed to a third party not at the scene, it's not surprising.
Not sure how adamant Jeapes was about it being rifle - and maybe it was but it doesn't mean it was 'thee' rifle.
I must just add that given the situation (siege), they would all be alerted to danger - seeing something that looked like a rifle would make the notion that it WAS a rifle all the more certain in their minds.
-
It was the 2nd of the two rifles which were used. The one which was found on Sheila's body ?
The one with the broken stock was in the kitchen.
Posting proof of such claims, is always helpful?
-
Didn't you lot study these things before you decided it was all a figment of everyones imagination ?
Surely your memory isn't impaired after 2 years ?
-
Didn't you lot study these things before you decided it was all a figment of everyones imagination ?
Surely your memory isn't impaired after 2 years ?
I don't believe anything without proof - but that's just me and I've NEVER seen ANY proof.
-
I don't believe anything without proof - but that's just me and I've NEVER seen ANY proof.
Claims without proof ARE just figments.
-
I'm surprised you didn't argue the toss when you thought he was innocent ? Surely you must have queried the piece of broken butt with the blood on it which was found in the kitchen ? Or even the phony way that rifle no.2 was placed on top of Sheila's body in the bedroom ? Selective memory,perhaps ?
-
I'm surprised you didn't argue the toss when you thought he was innocent ? Surely you must have queried the piece of broken butt with the blood on it which was found in the kitchen ? Or even the phony way that rifle no.2 was placed on top of Sheila's body in the bedroom ? Selective memory,perhaps ?
I was only interested in the facts Lookout, not in the 'invention' of another rifle. I agree that the rifle was staged on Sheila's body - it was staged by Jeremy.
-
It's no surprise that those who KNEW Jeremy personally say that he's innocent.
What of the rest,including us here,who'd never met,nor knew him at all only what we've read,mainly about those who DIDN'T know him,put him at a very unfair advantage in the beginning as not much was known about him in the area where he lived,or indeed his family come to that.
This thought has come about since from today,every person,96 of those involved in the Hillsborough tragedy,are going to be " under the microscope " . Something I'd like to have seen happen regarding those who gave Jeremy a bad time during the WHF murders. Just a thought.
-
It's no surprise that those who KNEW Jeremy personally say that he's innocent.
What of the rest,including us here,who'd never met,nor knew him at all only what we've read,mainly about those who DIDN'T know him,put him at a very unfair advantage in the beginning as not much was known about him in the area where he lived,or indeed his family come to that.
This thought has come about since from today,every person,96 of those involved in the Hillsborough tragedy,are going to be " under the microscope " . Something I'd like to have seen happen regarding those who gave Jeremy a bad time during the WHF murders. Just a thought.
Like who? Those who KNEW him, testified against him! I think you'll find he was well known in the area and so were the family.
-
N.B. The type of people who didn't/don't like him,Jeremy. Or were quick to judge,including the cops.
For instance,the first man to be scrutinised from the Hillsborough disaster was 18 years of age who had a 9 month old child. How many will judge this man.??
-
N.B. The type of people who didn't/don't like him,Jeremy. Or were quick to judge,including the cops.
For instance,the first man to be scrutinised from the Hillsborough disaster was 18 years of age who had a 9 month old child. How many will judge this man.??
Who are ALL the people that you suggest think he's innocent?
Hillsborough has nothing to do with this case.
-
I was only interested in the facts Lookout, not in the 'invention' of another rifle. I agree that the rifle was staged on Sheila's body - it was staged by Jeremy.
Your theories are becoming more and more absurd," it was staged by Jeremy " ::). When it was the photographer and also part of the investigation to fathom out/re-enact how THEY,EP,thought it had happened.
Of course there has to be movement at a crime scene,or how else are they to figure it out unless they themselves " stage the scene ".There would have been an on the scene as it happened set of photographs,then there'd have been " staged " ones,deliberately done by EP as I explained. Nothing sinister or suspicious in that,except that most think it had been done on purpose by either EP or Jeremy.
-
There was NO conspiracy.NO framing. Both put Jeremy in a bad light and don't do him any favours at all.
-
It was all down to shoddy workmanship on behalf of the EP and other professionals who were involved.
-
Your theories are becoming more and more absurd," it was staged by Jeremy " ::). When it was the photographer and also part of the investigation to fathom out/re-enact how THEY,EP,thought it had happened.
Of course there has to be movement at a crime scene,or how else are they to figure it out unless they themselves " stage the scene ".There would have been an on the scene as it happened set of photographs,then there'd have been " staged " ones,deliberately done by EP as I explained. Nothing sinister or suspicious in that,except that most think it had been done on purpose by either EP or Jeremy.
If we're being 'frank and rude' Lookout - your theories have always been absurd and have no basis in reality. There would have been 'staged crime scene pictures'? That's utter rubbish ;D ;D ;D ;D. It makes no sense but I won't explain why - I'll let you figure that out.
Still waiting for the list of people who knew Jeremy and who believe he's innocent??
-
If we're being 'frank and rude' Lookout - your theories have always been absurd and have no basis in reality. There would have been 'staged crime scene pictures'? That's utter rubbish ;D ;D ;D ;D. It makes no sense but I won't explain why - I'll let you figure that out.
Still waiting for the list of people who knew Jeremy and who believe he's innocent??
You'll find a list on the O S site. We've also had AA on here who's known him for years. It depends where you look. I realise it's limited for those who KNOW he's guilty.
I don't believe that the testimonials were even looked at in court,let alone read out. There are plenty who do believe he's innocent and has suffered a terrible MOJ. Don't you think it odd that so much is surrounding this case since 1985 ? Haven't you ever questioned why that is ?
Of course you're entitled to your own, as well as others,opinions,the same as I am to mine,but finding proof of his innocence is sparse in comparison to the TONS of " proof " of his guilt,because the media,internet etc have force-fed dodgy facts which people choose to believe as the truth.It's up to them of course. The truth is difficult when there's nothing to go on except word of mouth.
It's not rubbish that a crime scene gets disturbed by re-enacting the crime.How else are the police going to try and find out what happened ? I'm sure they're not going to stand there scratching their heads.
EP would have imagined what had happened using staging,moving various objects,etc.
Do you think that they'd have left Neville as he was found ? No,they'd move him to a more" comfortable" position,which wouldn't have been how he was found initially.
-
You'll find a list on the O S site. We've also had AA on here who's known him for years. It depends where you look. I realise it's limited for those who KNOW he's guilty.
I don't believe that the testimonials were even looked at in court,let alone read out. There are plenty who do believe he's innocent and has suffered a terrible MOJ. Don't you think it odd that so much is surrounding this case since 1985 ? Haven't you ever questioned why that is ?
Of course you're entitled to your own, as well as others,opinions,the same as I am to mine,but finding proof of his innocence is sparse in comparison to the TONS of " proof " of his guilt,because the media,internet etc have force-fed dodgy facts which people choose to believe as the truth.It's up to them of course. The truth is difficult when there's nothing to go on except word of mouth.
It's not rubbish that a crime scene gets disturbed by re-enacting the crime.How else are the police going to try and find out what happened ? I'm sure they're not going to stand there scratching their heads.
EP would have imagined what had happened using staging,moving various objects,etc.
Do you think that they'd have left Neville as he was found ? No,they'd move him to a more" comfortable" position,which wouldn't have been how he was found initially.
The list of testimonials have VERY FEW people who actually knew him before the murders. I remember someone else brining this up and managed to mention only 3. Not exactly an endorsement is it? Whereas there are many who describe him in less than a positive light. Some of those helped convict him. The reason why there is so much more evidence to show that he's guilty - is because he's guilty. You are (as you say) entitled to believe that he's not, but as you have just admitted that the evidence points to guilt - I don't understand you position - especially when it's the OS that is FULL of dodgy info (I won't call them facts). Once you scrape away the rubbish and conspiracy theories, you're left with the only plausible outcome - it was Jeremy.
It is against all the rules of forensic science to tamper with the crime scene and the reason why two sets of pictures (actual scene and staged) wouldn't be taken is because it could be later claimed that some of the staged pictures were actually the original pictures and used in underhanded ways. They don't move anything because they need the scene to be left as the killer left it, not rearranging this to make a 'best guess' of what might of happened.
-
The list of testimonials have VERY FEW people who actually knew him before the murders. I remember someone else brining this up and managed to mention only 3. Not exactly an endorsement is it? Whereas there are many who describe him in less than a positive light. Some of those helped convict him. The reason why there is so much more evidence to show that he's guilty - is because he's guilty. You are (as you say) entitled to believe that he's not, but as you have just admitted that the evidence points to guilt - I don't understand you position - especially when it's the OS that is FULL of dodgy info (I won't call them facts). Once you scrape away the rubbish and conspiracy theories, you're left with the only plausible outcome - it was Jeremy.
It is against all the rules of forensic science to tamper with the crime scene and the reason why two sets of pictures (actual scene and staged) wouldn't be taken is because it could be later claimed that some of the staged pictures were actually the original pictures and used in underhanded ways. They don't move anything because they need the scene to be left as the killer left it, not rearranging this to make a 'best guess' of what might of happened.
The list is nothing to go by,as there must have been others who knew him enough to write an appraisal.
It's this " less than positive light " which is unfair,as unless you know someone personally,you can't judge them enough to have staked your life on the fact that " they could kill/murder ".
I think Jeremy was rubbish with a rifle as it sounded as if he used one for amusement/target practice rather than shooting vermin,or HUMANS. Where have I said he's guilty ?
I don't remember reading about a forensic scientist having been present at the scene.Who was it ?
Blimey,even the judge said it could have been either Jeremy or Sheila. He wasn't there,the same as nobody else was,except EP who for some unknown reason changed tack,and this has got to be the crux-----------not the silencer or anything else,but the reason for the change. It's that change that should have been investigated.
-
The list is nothing to go by,as there must have been others who knew him enough to write an appraisal.
It's this " less than positive light " which is unfair,as unless you know someone personally,you can't judge them enough to have staked your life on the fact that " they could kill/murder ".
I think Jeremy was rubbish with a rifle as it sounded as if he used one for amusement/target practice rather than shooting vermin,or HUMANS. Where have I said he's guilty ?
I don't remember reading about a forensic scientist having been present at the scene.Who was it ?
Blimey,even the judge said it could have been either Jeremy or Sheila. He wasn't there,the same as nobody else was,except EP who for some unknown reason changed tack,and this has got to be the crux-----------not the silencer or anything else,but the reason for the change. It's that change that should have been investigated.
Lookout, as you may expect, because I live in the area, I know people who had dealings with Jeremy. Those I know who were friends of June and Nevill have said that Jeremy and Sheila were never mentioned -what ever it was that they were rumoured to be doing it was a question of holding their breath and thanking God it wasn't their children who were said to be doing it- that being said, it was Jeremy who had the dubious reputation locally because Sheila wasn't around as much.
Of those I know who knew him, only one -a co in-law with a cousin and a vicar- believes him to be innocent. That the others didn't like him, doesn't, IMO, make him a murderer, BUT it has to give us some insight to his personality. Mostly, at that stage, it sounds as if he was not the type people would wish their own children to be friends with. No one who knew him has said anything of him that's outrageously dreadful but on the other hand no one has said anything complimentary, either, which in itself says much. I can't believe ALL were wrong in their assessments.
-
The list is nothing to go by,as there must have been others who knew him enough to write an appraisal.
It's this " less than positive light " which is unfair,as unless you know someone personally,you can't judge them enough to have staked your life on the fact that " they could kill/murder ".
I think Jeremy was rubbish with a rifle as it sounded as if he used one for amusement/target practice rather than shooting vermin,or HUMANS. Where have I said he's guilty ?
I don't remember reading about a forensic scientist having been present at the scene.Who was it ?
Blimey,even the judge said it could have been either Jeremy or Sheila. He wasn't there,the same as nobody else was,except EP who for some unknown reason changed tack,and this has got to be the crux-----------not the silencer or anything else,but the reason for the change. It's that change that should have been investigated.
Jeremy wasn't convicted because people didn't like him, he was convicted because he killed his family and tried to push the blame onto his sister, by staging her suicide.
Jeremy has been described as a 'crack shot; with a rifle and no matter how much you try to rewrite the events, they are documented. However, even if he were a bad shot, he would be better that Sheila who had no knowledge of the rifle in question.
Cook (I'm sure you've heard of him?) was the scenes of crime officer in charge of collecting forensic evidence.
The Judge said it was either Jeremy or Sheila because of the phone call. If you believe that Nevill called Jeremy, then you have to believe that Sheila was responsible (Jeremy couldn't have been at WHF murdering the family if he was home taking a called from Nevill). However, if you don't believe that Nevill called, then the notion of the call is Jeremy's alibi. The phone call might have been his alibi, but it also put him in the frame.
-
Jeremy wasn't convicted because people didn't like him, he was convicted because he killed his family and tried to push the blame onto his sister, by staging her suicide.
Jeremy has been described as a 'crack shot; with a rifle and no matter how much you try to rewrite the events, they are documented. However, even if he were a bad shot, he would be better that Sheila who had no knowledge of the rifle in question.
Cook (I'm sure you've heard of him?) was the scenes of crime officer in charge of collecting forensic evidence.
The Judge said it was either Jeremy or Sheila because of the phone call. If you believe that Nevill called Jeremy, then you have to believe that Sheila was responsible (Jeremy couldn't have been at WHF murdering the family if he was home taking a called from Nevill). However, if you don't believe that Nevill called, then the notion of the call is Jeremy's alibi. The phone call might have been his alibi, but it also put him in the frame.
You can't " stage a suicide " with two shots for a start. Jeremy would have been well aware of that big mistake. IMO,one of those shots was delivered by another hand but the shot that killed her pretty well instantly,was self-administered.
I don't give a fig what's documented or what's been said by whom,I've got my own ideas and Jeremy isn't in the equation. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've locked horns with a high-faluting member of the " know-it-all brigade ".
I'm talking about a team of forensic scientists,not Cook. I have an acquaintance who works in forensic sciences and they work separately from the police,also,they are first on the scene kitted out in white from top to bottom to avoid contamination of any sort.
I don't see how a phone-call or not puts Jeremy in the frame. It depends on how you look at it. Either way,it shouldn't make a scrap of difference as to whether he's telling the truth or not.It's whatever you make of it.
-
If someone is convicted of murder people always queue up to jump on the bandwagon and condemn. He may well have not been a very nice person at that time, who knows, but as you say it does not make him a murderer. I think the fact that he was nice looking, public school educated and led a priveleged life all probably did go against him, people have their prejudices. History is littered with people who are perceived as guilty because they don't act the way people think they should and this definitely does go against them. JB, Lindy Chamberlain, Amanda Knox, Joanne Lees, etc etc. JB was also 24 at the time of the murders and has been locked in at that age forevermore in people's eyes. Would you like to be judged for the rest of your life for the things you said and did up to that age? like I say, if someone is convicted of murder people are all too ready to say ooh I knew him and he was a right swine!!
-
That just about sums up peoples perceptions in general.
-
That just about sums up peoples perceptions in general.
see Patti is on line ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You can't " stage a suicide " with two shots for a start. Jeremy would have been well aware of that big mistake. IMO,one of those shots was delivered by another hand but the shot that killed her pretty well instantly,was self-administered.
I don't give a fig what's documented or what's been said by whom,I've got my own ideas and Jeremy isn't in the equation. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've locked horns with a high-faluting member of the " know-it-all brigade ".
I'm talking about a team of forensic scientists,not Cook. I have an acquaintance who works in forensic sciences and they work separately from the police,also,they are first on the scene kitted out in white from top to bottom to avoid contamination of any sort.
I don't see how a phone-call or not puts Jeremy in the frame. It depends on how you look at it. Either way,it shouldn't make a scrap of difference as to whether he's telling the truth or not.It's whatever you make of it.
Forensic scientists may well NOW be first on the scene covered from head to toe in white but I'd stake my life that such was NOT the case at WHF 30 years ago.
Re the phone call, if it didn't happen, and there's nothing which can say that either Jeremy OR the police received a call from Nevill, then we have a laid back Jeremy diddling away time until he feels it's the right time to call them and calling Julie to say that all is well etc. IMO, what he used as an alibi, ie he couldn't have been at the farm murdering his family because he answered a call from his father, ergo, his father was alive at that time, if the call was concocted, bit him on the bum because it implicated him.
-
One thing Jeremy has never refused and that's any test which has been made available. Even if DNA had been available at the time,he'd have offered his services if it meant his freedom. How many would be willing to undergo any tests,etc ? Not a lot. They'd be too scared of being found out,not Jeremy !
Surely this has to stand for something. ? His fearlessness of all things truthful. Says a lot to me.
-
You can't " stage a suicide " with two shots for a start. Jeremy would have been well aware of that big mistake. IMO,one of those shots was delivered by another hand but the shot that killed her pretty well instantly,was self-administered.
I don't give a fig what's documented or what's been said by whom,I've got my own ideas and Jeremy isn't in the equation. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've locked horns with a high-faluting member of the " know-it-all brigade ".
I'm talking about a team of forensic scientists,not Cook. I have an acquaintance who works in forensic sciences and they work separately from the police,also,they are first on the scene kitted out in white from top to bottom to avoid contamination of any sort.
I don't see how a phone-call or not puts Jeremy in the frame. It depends on how you look at it. Either way,it shouldn't make a scrap of difference as to whether he's telling the truth or not.It's whatever you make of it.
He had no choice BUT to stage a suicide, he couldn't exactly go back and unkill everyone.
You might have you own ideas, but if you document them here they are up for debate! If that 'little dig' is referring to me, you're quite a 'know it all' yourself or try to be and as for locking horns, I don't have horns - if you do, that speaks volumes!! :P.
A team of forensic scientists? This was 1985, the police did their own gathering and then sent of their evidence to an independent lab. They had their own scenes of crime officers. The role of SOCO later became a civilian role.
You don't see how the phone call puts Jeremy in the frame? I don't understand how you're not understanding. It's common sense Lookout. IF he was home at the time he received a call, then he couldn't be killing the family and Sheila MUST be guilty because Nevill mentioned that she had gone crazy and had the gun. If Nevill didn't call, then how did Jeremy know about the events at WHF - if he knew and there was no call, he HAS to be guilty. It doesn't depend how you look at it at all!! A call from Nevill = innocent, no call = guilty.
-
If someone is convicted of murder people always queue up to jump on the bandwagon and condemn. He may well have not been a very nice person at that time, who knows, but as you say it does not make him a murderer. I think the fact that he was nice looking, public school educated and led a priveleged life all probably did go against him, people have their prejudices. History is littered with people who are perceived as guilty because they don't act the way people think they should and this definitely does go against them. JB, Lindy Chamberlain, Amanda Knox, Joanne Lees, etc etc. JB was also 24 at the time of the murders and has been locked in at that age forevermore in people's eyes. Would you like to be judged for the rest of your life for the things you said and did up to that age? like I say, if someone is convicted of murder people are all too ready to say ooh I knew him and he was a right swine!!
Hi Sara
I don't judge Jeremy for the way he acted or looked but the dreaded phone call puts him in the frame in my mind but I could be wrong that is for sure. I must admit and hold my hands up I did judge Amanda Knox on the way she looked and behaved and I am still not convinced of her innocence.
-
If someone is convicted of murder people always queue up to jump on the bandwagon and condemn. He may well have not been a very nice person at that time, who knows, but as you say it does not make him a murderer. I think the fact that he was nice looking, public school educated and led a priveleged life all probably did go against him, people have their prejudices. History is littered with people who are perceived as guilty because they don't act the way people think they should and this definitely does go against them. JB, Lindy Chamberlain, Amanda Knox, Joanne Lees, etc etc. JB was also 24 at the time of the murders and has been locked in at that age forevermore in people's eyes. Would you like to be judged for the rest of your life for the things you said and did up to that age? like I say, if someone is convicted of murder people are all too ready to say ooh I knew him and he was a right swine!!
If he wasn't nice looking, I doubt he would have as many supporters and if I had murdered someone I would expect to be judged for the rest of my life, wouldn't you?
-
see Patti is on line ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh,is she ? I've been gassing with a neighbour. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D and getting the washing in.
-
If he wasn't nice looking, I doubt he would have as many supporters and if I had murdered someone I would expect to be judged for the rest of my life, wouldn't you?
There again,I never judge a book by its cover.It could have been the Hunchback for all I care.If he'd been dealt a bum steer by the justice system,I'd still have supported him. No matter who.
-
He had no choice BUT to stage a suicide, he couldn't exactly go back and unkill everyone.
You might have you own ideas, but if you document them here they are up for debate! If that 'little dig' is referring to me, you're quite a 'know it all' yourself or try to be and as for locking horns, I don't have horns - if you do, that speaks volumes!! :P.
A team of forensic scientists? This was 1985, the police did their own gathering and then sent of their evidence to an independent lab. They had their own scenes of crime officers. The role of SOCO later became a civilian role.
You don't see how the phone call puts Jeremy in the frame? I don't understand how you're not understanding. It's common sense Lookout. IF he was home at the time he received a call, then he couldn't be killing the family and Sheila MUST be guilty because Nevill mentioned that she had gone crazy and had the gun. If Nevill didn't call, then how did Jeremy know about the events at WHF - if he knew and there was no call, he HAS to be guilty. It doesn't depend how you look at it at all!! A call from Nevill = innocent, no call = guilty.
-
Ooops,posted before I wrote.
I was meaning Neville's call to the police,not the initial call to Jeremy.
-
He had no choice BUT to stage a suicide, he couldn't exactly go back and unkill everyone.
You might have you own ideas, but if you document them here they are up for debate! If that 'little dig' is referring to me, you're quite a 'know it all' yourself or try to be and as for locking horns, I don't have horns - if you do, that speaks volumes!! :P.
A team of forensic scientists? This was 1985, the police did their own gathering and then sent of their evidence to an independent lab. They had their own scenes of crime officers. The role of SOCO later became a civilian role.
You don't see how the phone call puts Jeremy in the frame? I don't understand how you're not understanding. It's common sense Lookout. IF he was home at the time he received a call, then he couldn't be killing the family and Sheila MUST be guilty because Nevill mentioned that she had gone crazy and had the gun. If Nevill didn't call, then how did Jeremy know about the events at WHF - if he knew and there was no call, he HAS to be guilty. It doesn't depend how you look at it at all!! A call from Nevill = innocent, no call = guilty.
There were no " digs at you " at all,though if the cap fits,etc etc. ;D ;D ;D ;D I was actually referring to the professional bods who I've come into contact with during my working life. Who are not always right,but never admit to their mistakes,some of which had been well covered.
-
If he wasn't nice looking, I doubt he would have as many supporters and if I had murdered someone I would expect to be judged for the rest of my life, wouldn't you?
Excuse me? I don't think that is the case - I think that is a real insult to people intelligence.
Is that the reason you were such a supporter then - because of his looks?
-
the police were also criticised for not using gloves when handling the rifle ::)- and saying they thought it was suicide and murder is no excuse - the murders were still a crime that should have been investigated .
-
Excuse me? I don't think that is the case - I think that is a real insult to people intelligence.
Is that the reason you were such a supporter then - because of his looks?
It's a generalisation Jan, not sure why you should take it personally but it's a common feature here of late.
-
the police were also criticised for not using gloves when handling the rifle ::)- and saying they thought it was suicide and murder is no excuse - the murders were still a crime that should have been investigated .
Jan I agree with you even when the police thought Sheila was responsible the scene should have been investigated very shoddy police work IMO.
-
There were no " digs at you " at all,though if the cap fits,etc etc. ;D ;D ;D ;D I was actually referring to the professional bods who I've come into contact with during my working life. Who are not always right,but never admit to their mistakes,some of which had been well covered.
I might live in the north but I don't own a cap (or a whippet - don't have horns either) so I wouldn't know if it fits or not. :P
-
Jan I agree with you even when the police thought Sheila was responsible the scene should have been investigated very shoddy police work IMO.
I think both sides would agree with this, yes. The police investigation was flawed from the start and mistakes were made. It's these mistakes that have let Bamber protest his innocence for 30 years and is why the police have been critiscised in the past.
-
It's a generalisation Jan, not sure why you should take it personally but it's a common feature here of late.
I wasn't - if its a generalisation it includes a lot of people ;D- I thought you were having a go at the poster.
-
Excuse me? I don't think that is the case - I think that is a real insult to people intelligence.
Is that the reason you were such a supporter then - because of his looks?
Well, I'm going to hold my hands up and admit that I found it very hard to accept that a good looking guy, with a similar upbringing and education to my own, ALSO adopted to boot, could POSSIBLY massacre his family. I doubt that I'm the only one.
-
I wasn't - if its a generalisation it includes a lot of people ;D- I thought you were having a go at the poster.
People always think I'm having a go - they're usually wrong. But it was indeed a generalisation. I also think a lot of people might have been convinced by Crimes That Shook Britain - that's what first struck my attention. But just for the record, he's defo NOT my type.
-
I'm also going to hold my hands up by saying that murderers hail from all walks of life including what you've just mentioned April and not just the poor and deprived areas known as sink estates. Mental illness knows no bounds.
-
I'm also going to hold my hands up by saying that murderers hail from all walks of life including what you've just mentioned April and not just the poor and deprived areas known as sink estates. Mental illness knows no bounds.
.
But I wasn't suggesting that Jeremy was mentally ill.
-
I'm also going to hold my hands up by saying that murderers hail from all walks of life including what you've just mentioned April and not just the poor and deprived areas known as sink estates. Mental illness knows no bounds.
Well said Lookout! I agree. See, you're not 'always' wrong ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :-*
-
.
But I wasn't suggesting that Jeremy was mentally ill.
Well, as we know April, psychopathy isn't an illness ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
Well, as we know April, psychopathy isn't an illness ;) ;D ;D ;D
I wasn't referring to Jeremy ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I wasn't referring to Jeremy ;D ;D ;D ;D
I know ;)
-
I wasn't referring to Jeremy ;D ;D ;D ;D
WEREN'T you, Lookout. Ooops ;D ;D ;D :-[
-
You can't " stage a suicide " with two shots for a start. Jeremy would have been well aware of that big mistake. IMO,one of those shots was delivered by another hand but the shot that killed her pretty well instantly,was self-administered.
I don't give a fig what's documented or what's been said by whom,I've got my own ideas and Jeremy isn't in the equation. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've locked horns with a high-faluting member of the " know-it-all brigade ".
I'm talking about a team of forensic scientists,not Cook. I have an acquaintance who works in forensic sciences and they work separately from the police,also,they are first on the scene kitted out in white from top to bottom to avoid contamination of any sort.
I don't see how a phone-call or not puts Jeremy in the frame. It depends on how you look at it. Either way,it shouldn't make a scrap of difference as to whether he's telling the truth or not.It's whatever you make of it.
You can't stage a suicide with two shots.
Is that because Sheila could not shoot herself twice ?
-
Well, I'm going to hold my hands up and admit that I found it very hard to accept that a good looking guy, with a similar upbringing and education to my own, ALSO adopted to boot, could POSSIBLY massacre his family. I doubt that I'm the only one.
I was actually meaning that his looks education and general confident demeanour would go against him before and during the trial but I see what you mean.
-
You can't stage a suicide with two shots.
Is that because Sheila could not shoot herself twice ?
As you are well aware two shot suicides are not uncommon - especially with an automatic weapon . that is why it was accepted as suicide from the beginning - it is well documented .
But it is doubtful that Jeremy would have been aware of that - hence why I think it unlikely he would stand next to the police and appear to be calm.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6234.msg276743.html#msg276743
-
As you are well aware two shot suicides are not uncommon - especially with an automatic weapon . that is why it was accepted as suicide from the beginning - it is well documented .
But it is doubtful that Jeremy would have been aware of that - hence why I think it unlikely he would stand next to the police and appear to be calm.
Without sounding like a broken record, he could if he were a psychopath. But there is no reason why two shots to Sheila would necessarily make then suspicious of Jeremy.
-
You can't stage a suicide with two shots.
Is that because Sheila could not shoot herself twice ?
Putting the Bamber case aside, You can commit suicide with multiple gunshots even to the head
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide)
-
Putting the Bamber case aside, You can commit suicide with multiple gunshots even to the head
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_gunshot_suicide)
I was repeating what Lookout was saying.
If he shot her twice and decided not to stage the scene as murder/suicide, where would he leave the rifle ?
Once the police decided there was no random burglar/psychopath involved Jeremy would be the only suspect. Thirty years later he would look stupid if still claiming it was a burglar/psychopath, and would not have the option of still insinuating Sheila.
-
I was repeating what Lookout was saying.
If he shot her twice and decided not to stage the scene as murder/suicide, where would he leave the rifle ?
Once the police decided there was no random burglar/psychopath involved Jeremy would be the only suspect. Thirty years later he would look stupid if still claiming it was a burglar/psychopath, and would not have the option of still insinuating Sheila.
If Sheila had not been medically ill and admitted she was worried she would harm her children and had admitted she thought the CIA were after her and that she had suicidal thoughts - I wonder what he would have "set up" instead?
-
If Sheila had not been medically ill and admitted she was worried she would harm her children and had admitted she thought the CIA were after her and that she had suicidal thoughts - I wonder what he would have "set up" instead?
Nothing. Sheila'????s illness gave him the opportunity.
-
Nothing. Sheila'????s illness gave him the opportunity.
If he was greedy enough to risk 5 life sentences for money then surely he would be ingenious to think of something else?
-
If he was greedy enough to risk 5 life sentences for money then surely he would be ingenious to think of something else?
Well he ruled out burning down WHF.
Julie never said he considered the random stranger/burglar option. Both are crazy.
He had one option. And the opportunity.
-
Well he ruled out burning down WHF.
Julie never said he considered the random stranger/burglar option. Both are crazy.
He had one option. And the opportunity.
very clever then to get into the farm that day considering he was not even speaking to his mother just to set up the crime . and he did not even have to leave his prints on the gun considering you think he used gloves.
-
very clever then to get into the farm that day considering he was not even speaking to his mother just to set up the crime . and he did not even have to leave his prints on the gun considering you think he used gloves.
There is a thread on the last supper.
-
Gloves leave fibres. Oh,silly me,they were marigolds. ::) Fancy me forgetting that.
-
very clever then to get into the farm that day considering he was not even speaking to his mother just to set up the crime . and he did not even have to leave his prints on the gun considering you think he used gloves.
It would look odd if his prints weren't on the gun, considering he said he's handled it earlier in the evening.
-
Gloves leave fibres. Oh,silly me,they were marigolds. ::) Fancy me forgetting that.
Or leather ;)
-
Gloves leave fibres. Oh,silly me,they were marigolds. ::) Fancy me forgetting that.
Who said they were marigolds ? I have never read this claim from supporters or guilters.
-
Or leather ;)
Leather's dodgy.
-
Lookout, as you may expect, because I live in the area, I know people who had dealings with Jeremy. Those I know who were friends of June and Nevill have said that Jeremy and Sheila were never mentioned -what ever it was that they were rumoured to be doing it was a question of holding their breath and thanking God it wasn't their children who were said to be doing it- that being said, it was Jeremy who had the dubious reputation locally because Sheila wasn't around as much.
Of those I know who knew him, only one -a co in-law with a cousin and a vicar- believes him to be innocent. That the others didn't like him, doesn't, IMO, make him a murderer, BUT it has to give us some insight to his personality. Mostly, at that stage, it sounds as if he was not the type people would wish their own children to be friends with. No one who knew him has said anything of him that's outrageously dreadful but on the other hand no one has said anything complimentary, either, which in itself says much. I can't believe ALL were wrong in their assessments.
This is all in hindsight. People would feel it was wrong to say good things about a killer. No one has said anything outrageously dreadful - probably because there was nothing dreadful to tell about.
-
Leather's dodgy.
In what respect?
-
In what respect?
Unless they're brand spanking new straight out of their wrapper,they can leave distinctive marks if they've been worn.
-
Excuse me? I don't think that is the case - I think that is a real insult to people intelligence.
Is that the reason you were such a supporter then - because of his looks?
Jeremy doesn´t look good - he did eons ago, but hello!
Caroline, how can you even say such a thing, it is absurd? Even more so a former supporter, LOL!
-
This is all in hindsight. People would feel it was wrong to say good things about a killer. No one has said anything outrageously dreadful - probably because there was nothing dreadful to tell about.
No one said anything outrageously dreadful about Ted Bundy (in fact quite the opposite) until after he was caught.
It's not really the bad things people said about Jeremy that stand out, it's the lack of good things from people who knew him before the murders. There are VERY few who seem to have supported him before and after the trial.
-
Unless they're brand spanking new straight out of their wrapper,they can leave distinctive marks if they've been worn.
Any material would do that.
-
Well he ruled out burning down WHF.
Julie never said he considered the random stranger/burglar option. Both are crazy.
He had one option. And the opportunity.
No one stages a two shot murder as suicide. Impossible. Never heard of any other such case.
-
Any material would do that.
That's why gloves weren't used. ;D
-
Jeremy doesn´t look good - he did eons ago, but hello!
Caroline, how can you even say such a thing, it is absurd? Even more so a former supporter, LOL!
It's easy because as I have already pointed out, it's a GENERALISATION which doesn't mean that EVERYONE is influenced by his looks. Hmmmm, the word 'absurd' - isn't that a little like 'ridiculous'? ;)
-
No one said anything outrageously dreadful about Ted Bundy (in fact quite the opposite) until after he was caught.
It's not really the bad things people said about Jeremy that stand out, it's the lack of good things from people who knew him before the murders. There are VERY few who seem to have supported him before and after the trial.
I think April is talking about how people who knew (probably superficially) Jeremy are talking about him now, not before the murders.
-
It's easy because as I have already pointed out, it's a GENERALISATION which doesn't mean that EVERYONE is influenced by his looks. Hmmmm, the word 'absurd' - isn't that a little like 'ridiculous'? ;)
It is polite - ridiculous is rude. ;)
-
No one stages a two shot murder as suicide. Impossible. Never heard of any other such case.
What would you suggest he did after the two shots were fired? You obviously think that after two shots he would realise that police would suspect murder. Given that he was the only member of the family who had a motive - he'd be the first suspect. If he went home and did nothing, he couldn't be sure they wouldn't work it out. He had no choice but to go ahead with the call, or maybe that's when he decided he needed the call as an alibi. Either way, he needed to put himself in another location and make the police believe that it all kicked off when he wasn't there.
-
It is polite - ridiculous is rude. ;)
OK, I will remember that ;)
-
I think April is talking about how people who knew (probably superficially) Jeremy are talking about him now, not before the murders.
Either way, he doesn't see to have had many friends of his own and even fewer have stood by him.
-
Either way, he doesn't see to have had many friends of his own and even fewer have stood by him.
At least he wasn't a loner.
-
What would you suggest he did after the two shots were fired? You obviously think that after two shots he would realise that police would suspect murder. Given that he was the only member of the family who had a motive - he'd be the first suspect. If he went home and did nothing, he couldn't be sure they wouldn't work it out. He had no choice but to go ahead with the call, or maybe that's when he decided he needed the call as an alibi. Either way, he needed to put himself in another location and make the police believe that it all kicked off when he wasn't there.
Not that I would suggest anything; but if you have some knowledge of different murder cases, which I assume you do, you have to admit that a common thing for killers to do, is stage break ins and burglaries. Mostly they do a lousy job of it, but it is very common.
As I said, this is the only case I have heard of where the killer stages a two shot murder as suicide. I would think that would be the LAST thing you´d do!
-
Either way, he doesn't see to have had many friends of his own and even fewer have stood by him.
I wouldn´t know about that. I don´t know which people support, visit or otherwise have contact with Jeremy.
-
I think that as well,Alias. No way,as that first shot would have eventually killed her anyway,so why would anyone fire a second ?
-
Not that I would suggest anything; but if you have some knowledge of different murder cases, which I assume you do, you have to admit that a common thing for killers to do, is stage break ins and burglaries. Mostly they do a lousy job of it, but it is very common.
As I said, this is the only case I have heard of where the killer stages a two shot murder as suicide. I would think that would be the LAST thing you´d do!
The last thing I would do is kill my family, BUT, if I was to put myself in his shoes, I would certainly try and think of a way to throw the police off my scent. The call was a good idea and bad idea but it did almost work.
-
The last thing I would do is kill my family, BUT, if I was to put myself in his shoes, I would certainly try and think of a way to throw the police off my scent. The call was a good idea and bad idea but it did almost work.
And to make sure the police arrive before you do ::)
-
I think that as well,Alias. No way,as that first shot would have eventually killed her anyway,so why would anyone fire a second ?
How would he know that?
-
And to make sure the police arrive before you do ::)
Exactly.
-
The last thing I would do is kill my family, BUT, if I was to put myself in his shoes, I would certainly try and think of a way to throw the police off my scent. The call was a good idea and bad idea but it did almost work.
Of course it didn´t work - he painted himself into a corner if he really made up that call! How stupid can a man be?
-
And to make sure the police arrive before you do ::)
I don´t find that bit particularly damning because it can be explained in so many ways. One, the police did tell him to wait for them, didn´t they.
Fear is another factor.
-
Of course it didn´t work - he painted himself into a corner if he really made up that call! How stupid can a man be?
Back then calls where not traced or bills itemised. The worst thing was putting the silencer in the cupboard that's if he used it
-
Of course it didn´t work - he painted himself into a corner if he really made up that call! How stupid can a man be?
I said it 'almost' worked. It's not really that stupid because people still believe the call happened and because of it, he must be innocent.
-
I said it 'almost' worked. It's not really that stupid because people still believe the call happened and because of it, he must be innocent.
I can read, now good night.
-
I can read, now good night.
Glad to hear it! Night.
-
I think April is talking about how people who knew (probably superficially) Jeremy are talking about him now, not before the murders.
Absolutely NOT, Alias. ALL those, known to me, who knew Jeremy, were speaking PRE murders. None of them belonged to the set he hung out with POST murders.
-
Absolutely NOT, Alias. ALL those, known to me, who knew Jeremy, were speaking PRE murders. None of them belonged to the set he hung out with POST murders.
That's what I thought you meant - cheers April
-
Absolutely NOT, Alias. ALL those, known to me, who knew Jeremy, were speaking PRE murders. None of them belonged to the set he hung out with POST murders.
No, but what I mean is that the talk about him was POST murders, not PRE. There lies the difference.
-
No, but what I mean is that the talk about him was POST murders, not PRE. There lies the difference.
I can't see where the difference lays -all those who spoke of him had known him since he was a boy and it seems he didn't have the reputation of helping old ladies across the road or simply being "a nice young man"- but if you say so ???
-
I can't see where the difference lays -all those who spoke of him had known him since he was a boy and it seems he didn't have the reputation of helping old ladies across the road or simply being "a nice young man"- but if you say so ???
I tried to lay that out in a precvious post, if you care, you can go back and read. Well, I would be glad if you did instead of making up what you think I think.
-
I tried to lay that out in a precvious post, if you care, you can go back and read. Well, I would be glad if you did instead of making up what you think I think.
Please elucidate. I have absolutely no idea what you think I think YOU think -could be it is you who are putting your own spin on it?- I think therefore ANY imagined "making up" would have been entirely unintentional. :)
-
I can't see where the difference lays -all those who spoke of him had known him since he was a boy and it seems he didn't have the reputation of helping old ladies across the road or simply being "a nice young man"- but if you say so ???
I never said Jeremy was "a nice young man" - you say I did. This has happened before. You make your spin on posts I make and invent things I never said, not even close.
-
I never said Jeremy was "a nice young man" - you say I did. This has happened before. You make your spin on posts I make and invent things I never said, not even close.
Please direct me to where you believe that I said that YOU said that Jeremy was " a nice young man" To the best of MY knowledge, I have only included to expression once and it had NOTHING to do with anything you may, or not have thought.
-
I never said Jeremy was "a nice young man" - you say I did. This has happened before. You make your spin on posts I make and invent things I never said, not even close.
Isn't that what you did with the post below?
I think April is talking about how people who knew (probably superficially) Jeremy are talking about him now, not before the murders.
Because actually April said;
Absolutely NOT, Alias. ALL those, known to me, who knew Jeremy, were speaking PRE murders. None of them belonged to the set he hung out with POST murders.
-
I can't see where the difference lays -all those who spoke of him had known him since he was a boy and it seems he didn't have the reputation of helping old ladies across the road or simply being "a nice young man"- but if you say so ???
Here, April, here you say it.
-
Here, April, here you say it.
Alias, April isn't saying that you think it, she's talking about people who knew him and none of them suggested he was/is 'a lovely boy'.
-
Alias, April isn't saying that you think it, she's talking about people who knew him and none of them suggested he was/is 'a lovely boy'.
So, "if you say so", in a post in a reply to my post does not mean me?
-
So, "if you say so", in a post in a reply to my post does not mean me?
You said there was a difference in what was said about him pre and post murders - she is saying 'if you say so' to that and not that you think Jeremy is 'a lovely boy'.
-
You said there was a difference in what was said about him pre and post murders - she is saying 'if you say so' not that you think Jeremy is 'a lovely boy'.
Just was not clear to me.
-
I can't see where the difference lays -all those who spoke of him had known him since he was a boy and it seems he didn't have the reputation of helping old ladies across the road or simply being "a nice young man"- but if you say so ???
Have been out this afternoon. AMAZED to see this discussion is STILL going on. The above is what I initially said. The following is the same post MINUS the hyphens:- "I can't see where the difference lays but if you say so" Is that any clearer? I would be grateful if in future, if you believe you have any reason to question anything I say, before you jump in to accuse me of saying something I may not have, you'd ask first.
-
Have been out this afternoon. AMAZED to see this discussion is STILL going on. The above is what I initially said. The following is the same post MINUS the hyphens:- "I can't see where the difference lays but if you say so" Is that any clearer? I would be grateful if in future, if you believe you have any reason to question anything I say, before you jump in to accuse me of saying something I may not have, you'd ask first.
That's what I thought you meant. :)
-
So you don´t understand what I said about hindsight.
-
So you don´t understand what I said about hindsight.
I understand what YOU mean but I would fail to understand what THEY meant if pre murders they had experienced Jeremy as being a pillar of the community and decent young man only to ALL turn against him and deny it post murder.
-
I understand what YOU mean but I would fail to understand what THEY meant if pre murders they had experienced Jeremy as being a pillar of the community and decent young man only to ALL turn against him and deny it post murder.
'
As I said, people might feel uncomfortable talking well about a convicted mass murderer. Especially in a small community.
-
'
As I said, people might feel uncomfortable talking well about a convicted mass murderer. Especially in a small community.
There would still be some who had the courage of their convictions. If someone had shown you great kindness prior to committing a crime would you follow the crowd who were pointing the finger OR would you speak as you had experienced?
-
There would still be some who had the courage of their convictions. If someone had shown you great kindness prior to committing a crime would you follow the crowd who were pointing the finger OR would you speak as you had experienced?
I have never been in a situation close to what you describe, so I cannot answer that.
-
There is a thread on the last supper.
in the religious sense?
I just thought Adam - you have created a thread on every subject and every angle , therefore your work is over , finished , ended . How happy you must be you can retire , exit ,leave . Your work is done .
You can go now and start a new crusade .
Bye Bye :) :) :) :)
-
in the religious sense?
I just thought Adam - you have created a thread on every subject and every angle , therefore your work is over , finished , ended . How happy you must be you can retire , exit ,leave . Your work is done .
You can go now and start a new crusade .
Bye Bye
O - M - G!!! PLEEEEZE don't tell me that having re-written the complete WHF saga he's now trying to re-write the Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
O - M - G!!! PLEEEEZE don't tell me that having re-written the complete WHF saga he's now trying to re-write the Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Looks like it .
We will have to think really hard about a thread title he has not covered before - then he can not re-direct us.
Lets start one on ??? ??? ??? ??? ----------- the cannabis found in the safe?
-
Guess who found the key to the safe ?
-
Guess who found the key to the safe ?
lookout who found the key to the safe :)
-
RWB,of course. I bet he couldn't sleep for wondering where it was hidden.
And where was it hidden ? Inside a ceiling lampshade ( must have been bowl-shape ) I wonder if Jeremy ever knew where the key was kept ?
-
RWB,of course. I bet he couldn't sleep for wondering where it was hidden.
And where was it hidden ? Inside a ceiling lampshade ( must have been bowl-shape ) I wonder if Jeremy ever knew where the key was kept ?
Like a game of hide the thimble. ;D ;D ;D ;D Except it was a key.
-
i susgest we ask kelvin about this.
-
i susgest we ask kelvin about this.
Ask him about what?
-
the photos of course.
-
the photos of course.
We don't need to, we have all the proof we need but you fill ye boots!
-
why not ask him about it him an another reporter are the source are they not.
-
why not ask him about it him an another reporter are the source are they not.
I don't need to ask anyone anything, I already know he tried to sell the pictures. You ask if you like.
-
it was only a suggestion.
-
it was only a suggestion.
So why don't you contact him?
-
well i cant he allready blocked me on twiter about somthing else i asked not related to this case.
-
well i cant he allready blocked me on twiter about somthing else i asked not related to this case.
Oh dear.
-
yes i asked him a qustion about the phone hacking scandel.
and suprisingly enough he dident answer and blocked.
though maybe he might answer about a diffrent subject.
-
yes i asked him a qustion about the phone hacking scandel.
Well, perhaps someone else who isn't convinced about the pictures will ask him - I'm 100% that he tried to sell them so don't need confirmation.
-
It is, like so many years ago, why do you care?
-
Well, perhaps someone else who isn't convinced about the pictures will ask him - I'm 100% that he tried to sell them so don't need confirmation.
I'm certain he did too. There is too much in favour of him doing so.
-
I'm certain he did too. There is too much in favour of him doing so.
Hi Mat
according to Colin Jeremy did try and sell the photo's Colin wrote a strong letter to him asking for all the photo's but it was too late as it was splashed all over the newspapers that Jeremy had tried to sell the explicit photo's of poor Sheila.
-
Hi Mat
according to Colin Jeremy did try and sell the photo's Colin wrote a strong letter to him asking for all the photo's but it was too late as it was splashed all over the newspapers that Jeremy had tried to sell the explicit photo's of poor Sheila.
Hi Susan. Yeah, that is true.
I don't doubt Bamber tried to sell them at all.
-
Hi Susan. Yeah, that is true.
I don't doubt Bamber tried to sell them at all.
I do struggle with this, The Sun edited by Kelvin Mackenzie was about as dodgy as a newspaper can be. They wrote collossal lies about Hillsborough as we now know so I have no reason to believe a word they ever wrote. On the other side it's difficult to doubt Colin's word. I just wonder how anyone could be so obtuse as to believe they could get away with it. I understand if JB is a psychopath there would be no moral reasoning or emotional understanding but also psychopaths are known to mimic others and you would expect someone who is obviously brilliant at hiding his true self so well would have been on his best behaviour at this time.
Of course there are arguments about a slipping mask, grandiose self belief etc. but I don't know, like Alias I believe there are unanswered questions . :-\
-
I do struggle with this, The Sun edited by Kelvin Mackenzie was about as dodgy as a newspaper can be. They wrote collossal lies about Hillsborough as we now know so I have no reason to believe a word they ever wrote. On the other side it's difficult to doubt Colin's word. I just wonder how anyone could be so obtuse as to believe they could get away with it. I understand if JB is a psychopath there would be no moral reasoning or emotional understanding but also psychopaths are known to mimic others and you would expect someone who is obviously brilliant at hiding his true self so well would have been on his best behaviour at this time.
Of course there are arguments about a slipping mask, grandiose self belief etc. but I don't know, like Alias I believe there are unanswered questions . :-\
Hello Maggie
how would the Sun Newspaper know about the photo's if somebody had not brought them to their attention. Colin seems to be in no doubt what Jeremy did and as I said earlier he tried to avert the situation by writing to Jeremy to get all the photo's so he could destroy them but it was too late as Colin saw it splashed all over the front page.
-
Hello Maggie
how would the Sun Newspaper know about the photo's if somebody had not brought them to their attention. Colin seems to be in no doubt what Jeremy did and as I said earlier he tried to avert the situation by writing to Jeremy to get all the photo's so he could destroy them but it was too late as Colin saw it splashed all over the front page.
I can see your arguments Susie, that's not my problem. If I could 100% accept this it would be difficult to question any more but it niggles me...... Sorry can't help it :'(
-
I can see your arguments Susie, that's not my problem. If I could 100% accept this it would be difficult to question any more but it niggles me...... Sorry can't help it :'(
Maggie are you having a problem with the explicit photo,s and the Sun and Jeremy trying to sell them. Colin has no doubt this was true as the words the Sun used are exactly the same words Jeremy used to Colin when telling him about the photo's and Colin new straight away Jeremy had contacted the Sun regarding the sale of the photo's. Colin's word is good enough for me he has no agenda why would he make it all up.
-
We all know that the police are in cahoots with the press and vice-versa,EP being no exception. Kelvin McKenzie was editor of the Sun newspaper during the time of the murders,and although he was alleged to have said that the " little shit " didn't do it,he hadn't refused to join the " knees-up " which was presented in celebration of Jeremy being convicted ?? Wheels within wheels and corruption galore.
-
well i cant belive the word of a sun journlist but colin cadfial i dont see any reason not to belive him.
well the corupt relashanship with the police was craly exposed in the phone hacking scandel.
-
well i cant belive the word of a sun journlist but colin cadfial i dont see any reason not to belive him.
well the corupt relashanship with the police was craly exposed in the phone hacking scandel.
Hi nugnug I am with you on that one what reason would Colin have to make it up he tried so hard to get the photo's back to destroy them and as I said earlier how would the Sun know about these explicit photo's if they had not been approached to buy them.
-
As regards CC,why was his immediate reaction that it was Sheila ? Why did he even say what he said ? What led him to blame Sheila ? Do we really know his full story ? I doubt it. Just snippets of it in his book because he didn't feel right fully committing himself to something that he felt would have been one-sided with her no longer being here.
I felt that he could have said a lot more,but turned his attentions to blaming June for the way Sheila was,then continued to view June in a very poor light.
-
what i cant figure out is why he would have brett aprouch the sun and then do the deal himself why dident he aprouch them.
-
We all know that the police are in cahoots with the press and vice-versa,EP being no exception. Kelvin McKenzie was editor of the Sun newspaper during the time of the murders,and although he was alleged to have said that the " little shit " didn't do it,he hadn't refused to join the " knees-up " which was presented in celebration of Jeremy being convicted ?? Wheels within wheels and corruption galore.
The " celebration " which took place was a disgrace and an utter insult to two children who'd been killed.
What was there to celebrate,and who footed the bill---------------the winners ?
-
Did this make headline news in the Sun ? Nah ! They pick and choose their headlines to suit, whether they're right or wrong.
-
what i cant figure out is why he would have brett aprouch the sun and then do the deal himself why dident he aprouch them.
nugnug
Colin stated in his book that the words the Sun printed about these photo's were the very same words Jeremy had used to him previously regarding the photo's so I think maybe Brett set up the meeting for Jeremy who them took over. I have no proof that this happened but it appears that way to me.
-
The Sun were in a win win win situation.
Jeremy approaching them gave them a front page story. Which 30 years later people are still discussing.
Refusing to accept Jeremy's offer also gave them brownie points and showed they had moral standards.
They also saved 25k in not paying Jeremy.
-
i think they would of bought and then grassed him up.
-
The Sun were in a win win win situation.
Jeremy approaching them gave them a front page story. Which 30 years later people are still discussing.
Refusing to accept Jeremy's offer also gave them brownie points and showed they had moral standards.
They also saved 25k in not paying Jeremy.
Plus, it was a far better story than a one which reported that Sheila had some nude shots taken - big deal! Most models have. Jeremy probably USED BC to contact The Sun to keep his name out of it until the money meeting was set up. He simply wasn't as clever as he thought he was.
-
The Sun were in a win win win situation.
Jeremy approaching them gave them a front page story. Which 30 years later people are still discussing.
Refusing to accept Jeremy's offer also gave them brownie points and showed they had moral standards.
They also saved 25k in not paying Jeremy.
Adam I tend to agree with you.
-
i think they would of bought and then grassed him up.
nugnug they kinda grassed him up without buying anything did not have to pay him a penny and got front page story out of it
-
They can't buy and publish the pictures, then grass him up.
That's double standards.
-
its the sun we are talking about yes they could do that.
-
its the sun we are talking about yes they could do that.
For what purpose? They couldn't use the pictures so why would they pay Jeremy for them? That makes no sense at all! They got their story and didn't have to pay a penny for it!!
-
i think they would of bought and then grassed him up.
Had the alleged offer really happened then yes the Sun would have bought the pictures. It would have proven their unlikely tale if they had some evidence of the offer. Had the pictures really been offered then buying them would prove that Jeremy had sold them.
Alternatively Fielder could have recorded the conversation and captured on tape irrefutable evidence of Bamber attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister but he appears not to have done so. I say "appears not to..." because I find it difficult to believe that the meeting with Bamber wasn't recorded if only in the hope of encouraging loose words from him and having undeniable evidence. However the only evidence presented of this offer having taken place is a story in the Sun on the word of a sleazy hack encouraged by the well known defender of truth and justice, Kelvin Mckenzie ::) and backed by nothing else.
The motives for the Sun colluding in lies and misinformation on behalf of the police are something we don't even need to speculate on. It is a matter of public record since Leveson as are the criminal charges and sentences given to Sun reporters and police officers partly as a result of Leveson.
This allegation is raised often but funnily enough is never backed up with any evidence which as has been demonstrated would have been simple to acquire had the offer really taken place. The Sun demonstrably disseminated lies and misinformation on behalf of the police at this time on a regular basis and without real evidence (the pictures or a recording of the conversation) it is worthless.
It just shows that some people are prepared to believe any negative story no matter how unlikely. Even those who believe Bamber guilty should question this story. It sounds too good to be true that the alleged killer is attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister to the publication, which we now know ran negative stories about those charged on behalf of the police.
If I believed Bamber guilty I would still not believe this story because of it's provenance and what we know of this publication regarding their relationship with the police. It seems incredible that so many are willing to believe as fact something based on a "Sun exclusive" :o :o
-
Had the alleged offer really happened then yes the Sun would have bought the pictures. It would have proven their unlikely tale if they had some evidence of the offer. Had the pictures really been offered then buying them would prove that Jeremy had sold them.
Alternatively Fielder could have recorded the conversation and captured on tape irrefutable evidence of Bamber attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister but he appears not to have done so. I say "appears not to..." because I find it difficult to believe that the meeting with Bamber wasn't recorded if only in the hope of encouraging loose words from him and having undeniable evidence. However the only evidence presented of this offer having taken place is a story in the Sun on the word of a sleazy hack encouraged by the well known defender of truth and justice, Kelvin Mckenzie ::) and backed by nothing else.
The motives for the Sun colluding in lies and misinformation on behalf of the police are something we don't even need to speculate on. It is a matter of public record since Leveson as are the criminal charges and sentences given to Sun reporters and police officers partly as a result of Leveson.
This allegation is raised often but funnily enough is never backed up with any evidence which as has been demonstrated would have been simple to acquire had the offer really taken place. The Sun demonstrably disseminated lies and misinformation on behalf of the police at this time on a regular basis and without real evidence (the pictures or a recording of the conversation) it is worthless.
It just shows that some people are prepared to believe any negative story no matter how unlikely. Even those who believe Bamber guilty should question this story. It sounds too good to be true that the alleged killer is attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister to the publication, which we now know ran negative stories about those charged on behalf of the police.
If I believed Bamber guilty I would still not believe this story because of it's provenance and what we know of this publication regarding their relationship with the police. It seems incredible that so many are willing to believe as fact something based on a "Sun exclusive" :o :o
I have to agree gringo, I really don't trust the Sun an inch and would never have a copy anywhere near me or in my house.
-
Had the alleged offer really happened then yes the Sun would have bought the pictures. It would have proven their unlikely tale if they had some evidence of the offer. Had the pictures really been offered then buying them would prove that Jeremy had sold them.
Alternatively Fielder could have recorded the conversation and captured on tape irrefutable evidence of Bamber attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister but he appears not to have done so. I say "appears not to..." because I find it difficult to believe that the meeting with Bamber wasn't recorded if only in the hope of encouraging loose words from him and having undeniable evidence. However the only evidence presented of this offer having taken place is a story in the Sun on the word of a sleazy hack encouraged by the well known defender of truth and justice, Kelvin Mckenzie ::) and backed by nothing else.
The motives for the Sun colluding in lies and misinformation on behalf of the police are something we don't even need to speculate on. It is a matter of public record since Leveson as are the criminal charges and sentences given to Sun reporters and police officers partly as a result of Leveson.
This allegation is raised often but funnily enough is never backed up with any evidence which as has been demonstrated would have been simple to acquire had the offer really taken place. The Sun demonstrably disseminated lies and misinformation on behalf of the police at this time on a regular basis and without real evidence (the pictures or a recording of the conversation) it is worthless.
It just shows that some people are prepared to believe any negative story no matter how unlikely. Even those who believe Bamber guilty should question this story. It sounds too good to be true that the alleged killer is attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister to the publication, which we now know ran negative stories about those charged on behalf of the police.
If I believed Bamber guilty I would still not believe this story because of it's provenance and what we know of this publication regarding their relationship with the police. It seems incredible that so many are willing to believe as fact something based on a "Sun exclusive" :o :o
No, it shows how desperate SOME people are to try and quash any negativity written about Jeremy and are using recent history as proof of the past. The evidence that he tried to sell the pictures is concrete - not because of The Sun but because of Colin! He confirms that the description written in The Sun was the same as the description given to him or was Colin part of the great conspiracy too?
Jeremy tried to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister to The Sun - you can deny it all you want but the proof it there!
-
No, it shows how desperate SOME people are to try and quash any negativity written about Jeremy and are using recent history as proof of the past. The evidence that he tried to sell the pictures is concrete - not because of The Sun but because of Colin! He confirms that the description written in The Sun was the same as the description given to him or was Colin part of the great conspiracy too?
Jeremy tried to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister to The Sun - you can deny it all you want but the proof it there!
The evidence that he attempted to sell explicit pictures is non existent and you could do with raising the bar somewhat on what constitutes "concrete proof".
Don't you question why the Sun has no recording or actual "concrete evidence" of this alleged meeting and offer given the ease of acquiring this evidence,if it really happened?
The idea that the Sun story is true based on the weak reasoning that they attributed to Jeremy the same words that Colin attributes to him is laughable. The Sun would have been all over this story talking to everyone and using the "dark arts" of their trade to get "exclusive sleazy stories". The Sun hacks would have not been doing their "job" if they were not looking for sleazy pictures of a now dead model in a high profile case/story. The Sun cannot be relied upon by anyone as a reliable source of information and if any innocent argument relied on a Sun story as back up it would be rightly derided by guilty supporters as a sign of desperation. The Sun are sleaze merchants not reporters of truth and allegations made by the Sun are less than worthless unless supported by other "concrete" evidence which these aren't.
-
The evidence that he attempted to sell explicit pictures is non existent and you could do with raising the bar somewhat on what constitutes "concrete proof".
Don't you question why the Sun has no recording or actual "concrete evidence" of this alleged meeting and offer given the ease of acquiring this evidence,if it really happened?
The idea that the Sun story is true based on the weak reasoning that they attributed to Jeremy the same words that Colin attributes to him is laughable. The Sun would have been all over this story talking to everyone and using the "dark arts" of their trade to get "exclusive sleazy stories". The Sun hacks would have not been doing their "job" if they were not looking for sleazy pictures of a now dead model in a high profile case/story. The Sun cannot be relied upon by anyone as a reliable source of information and if any innocent argument relied on a Sun story as back up it would be rightly derided by guilty supporters as a sign of desperation. The Sun are sleaze merchants not reporters of truth and allegations made by the Sun are less than worthless unless supported by other "concrete" evidence which these aren't.
Jeremy tried to sell the pictures and none of your foot stamping will change that. He described the pictures to both Fielding and Colin in the SAME way. The Sun would not have been allowed to print the pictures so they decided to run the story of Jeremy trying to sell 'sleazy' pictures of his dead sister - a far more juicy story.
-
Further evidence that Jeremy is lying comes from his own campaign site which Lookout posted earlier;
"After his first arrest and release without charge Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story. Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it. Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story. Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go to meet with the journalist. The Sun journalist wasn’t interested in Jeremy’s account, and continually asked questions about Sheila Caffell and requested any modelling pictures which might have been pornographic. Jeremy had told him that there were none and that there might have been some topless ones but Colin Caffell would have those. The journalist ran the story reporting that the newspaper had been offered these pictures and they also went to the police. The newspaper never obtained pictures of Sheila, because they didn’t exist, further proof that Jeremy Bamber had not intended to sell any pictures to the newspaper."
And yet we KNOW they did because he described them to Colin and Fielding in the same way. This makes it even more certain that he's lying.
-
i think its funny that jeremy never showed them thses pictures and they never asked to see them.
-
i think its funny that jeremy never showed them thses pictures and they never asked to see them.
You don't think it's funny that on the OS they are stating Jeremy didn't have such pictures and yet he described them to Colin and Fielding. Now that's funny!
-
but nobodys ever seen thses pictures colin said he hadent seen them so did fielding.
-
but nobodys ever seen thses pictures colin said he hadent seen them so did fielding.
But Jeremy SAID they did exist and if they don't, that makes him even weirder! Who would make stuff like that up about their dead sister?? :o :o
-
Had the alleged offer really happened then yes the Sun would have bought the pictures. It would have proven their unlikely tale if they had some evidence of the offer. Had the pictures really been offered then buying them would prove that Jeremy had sold them.
Alternatively Fielder could have recorded the conversation and captured on tape irrefutable evidence of Bamber attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister but he appears not to have done so. I say "appears not to..." because I find it difficult to believe that the meeting with Bamber wasn't recorded if only in the hope of encouraging loose words from him and having undeniable evidence. However the only evidence presented of this offer having taken place is a story in the Sun on the word of a sleazy hack encouraged by the well known defender of truth and justice, Kelvin Mckenzie ::) and backed by nothing else.
iam the same this this isnt really about guilt or innocence its about weather you belive the sun newspapwer and kelvin mckenzie.
The motives for the Sun colluding in lies and misinformation on behalf of the police are something we don't even need to speculate on. It is a matter of public record since Leveson as are the criminal charges and sentences given to Sun reporters and police officers partly as a result of Leveson.
This allegation is raised often but funnily enough is never backed up with any evidence which as has been demonstrated would have been simple to acquire had the offer really taken place. The Sun demonstrably disseminated lies and misinformation on behalf of the police at this time on a regular basis and without real evidence (the pictures or a recording of the conversation) it is worthless.
It just shows that some people are prepared to believe any negative story no matter how unlikely. Even those who believe Bamber guilty should question this story. It sounds too good to be true that the alleged killer is attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister to the publication, which we now know ran negative stories about those charged on behalf of the police.
If I believed Bamber guilty I would still not believe this story because of it's provenance and what we know of this publication regarding their relationship with the police. It seems incredible that so many are willing to believe as fact something based on a "Sun exclusive" :o :o
i agrea its not about guilt or innocence its about the credibility of the sun newspaper.
-
i agrea its not about guilt or innocence its about the credibility of the sun newspaper.
Hello nugnug
I do agree with your point but I have seen where some posters biased against the Sun newspaper has IMO clouded their judgement on whether he did or did not try to sell the photo's to the Sun.
-
im like gringo even if there was no qustion about his guilt i still wouldent belive this story.
-
SURELY we can't be calling into question the Sun's integrity!!!!! We ALL know, on a scale of 1-10, where it's integrity is.I recall them informing us, during a particularly difficult winter of discontent, when allegedly every other person was jobless and mothers couldn't afford to put turkey on the table at Christmas, that Her Majesty was buying turkeys for her corgis' Christmas treat!!!!....................
.................But weighed against the Sun's definition of integrity is that of the person who was allegedly offering them pornographic pics of the sister he'd murdered. This would be the same person who, having allegedly received a phone-call from his father, who, in his own words, sounded "panicked" and proceeded to diddle away twenty odd minutes idly flicking through the phone book to find the number of a local police station rather that do the more obvious thing and call 999........................
..................It is also worth noting that whilst this person was allegedly wishing to sue a psychologist for saying he was a psychopath, it hasn't been bought to my notice that he has ever issued a denial about trying to sell pictures to the Sun.
-
For what purpose? They couldn't use the pictures so why would they pay Jeremy for them? That makes no sense at all! They got their story and didn't have to pay a penny for it!!
There were probably some pictures they could have used.
But so soon after the horrific massacre, to post such pictures is too distasteful even for The Sun.
-
but nobodys ever seen thses pictures colin said he hadent seen them so did fielding.
The pictures certainly existed. Jeremy would have found them when rummaging around Sheila's flat after his extensive partying.
Jeremy also said he had more respectable family pictures. And also offered his life story. Just he did to the NOTW.
-
im like gringo even if there was no qustion about his guilt i still wouldent belive this story.
There is no question about his guilt.
A handful of people believe the evidence is somehow wrong and hundreds of people have conspired against him. There is no proof of either.
The proof that the pictures existed are from CC, Fielder and The Sun newspaper. Supporters have to prove they are all lying. Rather than claim they are lying for no reason.
-
SURELY we can't be calling into question the Sun's integrity!!!!! We ALL know, on a scale of 1-10, where it's integrity is.I recall them informing us, during a particularly difficult winter of discontent, when allegedly every other person was jobless and mothers couldn't afford to put turkey on the table at Christmas, that Her Majesty was buying turkeys for her corgis' Christmas treat!!!!....................
.................But weighed against the Sun's definition of integrity is that of the person who was allegedly offering them pornographic pics of the sister he'd murdered. This would be the same person who, having allegedly received a phone-call from his father, who, in his own words, sounded "panicked" and proceeded to diddle away twenty odd minutes idly flicking through the phone book to find the number of a local police station rather that do the more obvious thing and call 999........................
..................It is also worth noting that whilst this person was allegedly wishing to sue a psychologist for saying he was a psychopath, it hasn't been bought to my notice that he has ever issued a denial about trying to sell pictures to the Sun.
theres also the fact that if somone wanted to sell naughty pictures the news of the world would be there first port of call not the sun.
-
im like gringo even if there was no qustion about his guilt i still wouldent belive this story.
nugnug as I see it how would the Sun know about these photo's if Jeremy had not told them. He told Colin and I suspect elaborated on the contents and Colin wrote Jeremy a letter asking for the photo's back so he could destroy them but the day he posted the letter they appeared front page and the words Jeremy used were virtually the words he had used to Colin and as April quoted had he not tried to sell these photo's he would have been shouting from the rooftops but he would know the Sun reporter would have recorded the conversation in the event of Jeremy wanting to sue.
-
They were probably all referring to the usual page 3 pics,which are ten a penny.
Any publications of Sheila's alleged nudity would have been " top shelf " material.
-
theres also the fact that if somone wanted to sell naughty pictures the news of the world would be there first port of call not the sun.
Possibly, but Jeremy has never denied their existence OR trying to sell them. In that his sleaze publication of choice is irrelevant.
-
theres also the fact that if somone wanted to sell naughty pictures the news of the world would be there first port of call not the sun.
Not true.
They are very similar papers. Isn't the NOTW the sister paper to The Sun.
Brett had contacts with The Sun anyway.
Nugs you must stop trying to claim Jeremy did not try to sell pictures to The Sun. You must change stance to 'it doesn't make him the murderer'.
-
You don't think it's funny that on the OS they are stating Jeremy didn't have such pictures and yet he described them to Colin and Fielding. Now that's funny!
I couldn't find any mention of these pictures on the OS.
-
nugnug as I see it how would the Sun know about these photo's if Jeremy had not told them. He told Colin and I suspect elaborated on the contents and Colin wrote Jeremy a letter asking for the photo's back so he could destroy them but the day he posted the letter they appeared front page and the words Jeremy used were virtually the words he had used to Colin and as April quoted had he not tried to sell these photo's he would have been shouting from the rooftops but he would know the Sun reporter would have recorded the conversation in the event of Jeremy wanting to sue.
Susan, that's a valid point you make. If the photos didn't exist, how would the Sun have known about them. They HAD to have received their information from somewhere -someBODY!!! I will allow for the fact of them -perhaps- NOT being as explicit as described and POSSIBLY this was what the Sun banked on. In ANY event, they got their scoop -SAYING that there were porny pics was almost tantamount to publishing such!!!- AND kept their money.
-
Not true.
They are very similar papers. Isn't the NOTW the sister paper to The Sun.
Brett had contacts with The Sun anyway.
Nugs you must stop trying to claim Jeremy did not try to sell pictures to The Sun. You must change stance to 'it doesn't make him the murderer'.
even if i changed stance to 100 percent guilty i still wouldent belive this story.
-
Susan, that's a valid point you make. If the photos didn't exist, how would the Sun have known about them. They HAD to have received their information from somewhere -someBODY!!! I will allow for the fact of them -perhaps- NOT being as explicit as described and POSSIBLY this was what the Sun banked on. In ANY event, they got their scoop -SAYING that there were porny pics was almost tantamount to publishing such!!!- AND kept their money.
April hello
you are quite right the Sun got their impact from their front page story he tried to sell (think the words used were) sex pictures and it cost them nothing and I guess they would have recorded their conversation and Jeremy knew that and this is why he kept quiet.
-
so if they recorded the conversation how come that wasnt used agianst him that would of been very damming.
-
even if i changed stance to 100 percent guilty i still wouldent belive this story.
Why did The Sun risk perjury charges from a soon to be rich man by publishing a made up story on their front page ?
Why did Fielding repeat the story for the cameras 20 years later ?
Why has Jeremy never mentioned it ?
Why did Jeremy not answer Caroline's question on it ?
Is it a coincidence that later, Jeremy approached the NOTW with a post trial offer of his life story ?
In a court of law, the jury will find him guilty of attempting to sell the pictures. The defence just saying 'I don't believe it happened' will get laughed out of court.
-
Jeremy has been convicted of killing his family. I don't see what is so unbelievable about him trying to make a lot of money from The Sun afterwards.
-
so if they recorded the conversation how come that wasnt used agianst him that would of been very damming.
nugnug he never challenged the story they ran about him had he done so they would have produced the recording and Jeremy knew this. I cannot prove this nugnug but I believe Colin he had no reason to lie about the photo's.
-
Jeremy has been convicted of killing his family. I don't see what is so unbelievable about him trying to make a lot of money from The Sun afterwards.
Adam he tried to sell the photo's before he was convicted.
-
so if they recorded the conversation how come that wasnt used agianst him that would of been very damming.
Who said they recorded the conversation ?
If they did it's not surprising Jeremy hasn't brought it up. As he was caught red handed.
The Sun don't need to supply any recording. They are not on trial.
-
Adam he tried to sell the photo's before he was convicted.
I know.
Why are people not believing a convicted murderer would not try to sell pictures of someone he murdered ? He was going to get 40k from the NOTW if found 'Not Guilty' at trial.
-
Who said they recorded the conversation ?
If they did it's not surprising Jeremy hasn't brought it up. As he was caught red handed.
The Sun don't need to supply any recording. They are not on trial.
Adam if Jeremy and taken legal proceedings against them for making the story up they would have produced their recording and shot him down in flames.
-
Adam if Jeremy and taken legal proceedings against them for making the story up they would have produced their recording and shot him down in flames.
Who said they had a recording of the conversation ?
-
If The Sun made up their front page story, and got found out, surely would have to shut down.
Trying to profit from such a terrible event will be unforgivable.
-
Who said they recorded the conversation ?
If they did it's not surprising Jeremy hasn't brought it up. As he was caught red handed.
The Sun don't need to supply any recording. They are not on trial.
well you would think it would be recorded no doubt if he really had aprouched them they would of mentioned to the police and the police would of asked them to record it.
-
well you would think it would be recorded no doubt if he really had aprouched them they would of mentioned to the police and the police would of asked them to record it.
If it's recorded that is why Jeremy has never mentioned it in his 'Campaign for Freedom'.
He's also never mentioned his NOTW deal. But often mentions Julies deal. Funny that.
-
if it happend it would of been recorded thats what im saying work it out.
-
Who said they had a recording of the conversation ?
Adam think about it all Reporters record conversations of this nature .
-
Who said they had a recording of the conversation ?
Put it this way. IF they had recorded the conversation it MAY have been their safeguard against a time when Jeremy MAY have denied such ever occurred........................but as thus far no such denial has been forthcoming there hasn't been the need to us it, IF it had ever existed.
-
I wonder what the protocol was back then ?
If it was to covertly record conversations, then that explains their supreme confidence in publishing the story.
If the protocol was not to record conversations, they may have done so anyway. It was a major crime and The Sun may have told the police about Bamber contacting them. The police instructing them to record the conversation.
Either way, there is no way out for Jeremy.
-
If The Sun made up their front page story, and got found out, surely would have to shut down.
Trying to profit from such a terrible event will be unforgivable.
Have you heard of Hillsborough, Adam?
-
if the police suspected jeremy of the crime you can gaurntee the sun knew about it you can also gaurntee that if he had aprouched the sun the polce would of been informed about this and they wouldent pass up the chance to get a piece of daming evedence like that.
-
if the police suspected jeremy of the crime you can gaurntee the sun knew about it you can also gaurntee that if he had aprouched the sun the polce would of been informed about this and they wouldent pass up the chance to get a piece of daming evedence like that.
There you go then.
The Sun recorded the conversation and Jeremy has to keep quiet and hope no one mentions it.
So why don't supporters say 'it happened but it doesn't make him a murderer ?'.
-
That's right,Adam.NONE of this makes him a murderer.!
-
There you go then.
The Sun recorded the conversation and Jeremy has to keep quiet and hope no one mentions it.
So why don't supporters say 'it happened but it doesn't make him a murderer ?'.
becouse i dont belive it happend nothing to do with being a supporter or not.
-
There you go then.
The Sun recorded the conversation and Jeremy has to keep quiet and hope no one mentions it.
So why don't supporters say 'it happened but it doesn't make him a murderer ?'.
The problem for some is that the Sun can never be trusted, Adam. If you were in any way involved in the horror of Hillsborough and also for many who were not the Sun will never be forgiven and never be trusted again. They still struggle to sell their rag on Merseyside and rightly so. I can believe Jeremy Bamber might possibly be a murderer but I cannot find it anywhere in my head or my heart to believe the Sun. Call me biased but that is how it is.
I am not saying Colin is lying or doubting him in any way but he wrote his book in hindsight and it was a massively emotive thing for him........ I just cannot believe the Sun didn't at the very least put a massive spin on it. :-\
-
becouse i dont belive it happend nothing to do with being a supporter or not.
You just gave a reason why it happened - The Sun told the police (which is believable) and the police told them to record the conversation (which is believable).
Although it is also believable that The Sun would have recorded it anyway. It may have been protocol then.
Or knowing Jeremy's approach could be a front page story anyway. They would have covered themselves by recording it.
Just saying you 'don't believe it happened' is not enough.
-
theres also the fact that if somone wanted to sell naughty pictures the news of the world would be there first port of call not the sun.
The News of The World and The Sun were the SAME newspaper!! ;D ;D ;D
-
It seems more and more likely The Sun recorded the conversation -
It may have been newspaper protocol in 1986.
The police may have told them to.
The seriousness of the crime and Jeremy's amazing approach was headline news on it's own. The Sun needed to cover themselves.
Jeremy cannot manipulate the recording. But he can create 8 minute Youtube videos on Julies NOTW interview.
-
The reputation of The Sun/News of the World has allowed people to use THAT as an EXCUSE to once again dismiss Bamber's disgusting behaviour. It doesn't matter what The Sun has done since - there is enough evidence from Colin to PROVE Bamber tried to sell those pictures. I find it sad that even with this weighted against him, people are still unwilling to admit that 'at least' he did this. I am 100% sure that he did try and sell those pictures and I am sure others are too - even those that won't admit it.
-
The reputation of The Sun/News of the World has allowed people to use THAT as an EXCUSE to once again dismiss Bamber's disgusting behaviour. It doesn't matter what The Sun has done since - there is enough evidence from Colin to PROVE Bamber tried to sell those pictures. I find it sad that even with this weighted against him, people are still unwilling to admit that 'at least' he did this. I am 100% sure that he did try and sell those pictures and I am sure others are too - even those that won't admit it.
Was you last point NOT the case, Caroline, they wouldn't spend as long putting all the blame for it on the Sun to deflect attention away from Jeremy's responsibility in it.
-
Was you last point NOT the case, Caroline, they wouldn't spend as long putting all the blame for it on the Sun to deflect attention away from Jeremy's responsibility in it.
Exactly, whether you believe The Sun or not, you can't get passed this without suggesting that Colin is a liar! He states VERY CLEARLY, that what he read in the article was the SAME as what Bamber told him. Bamber's own website, states that the pictures didn't exist and yet he told at least two people that they did!! Again, one doesn't need to rely on the words of The Sun because we have it CONFIRMED by Colin. I also asked him and he declined to answer. I think the reason why people are unwilling to accept that he did this, is because it doesn't sit well with the notion of an 'innocent man'. I know, I've been there and made similar excuses but I KNEW they were EXCUSES!
-
The reputation of The Sun/News of the World has allowed people to use THAT as an EXCUSE to once again dismiss Bamber's disgusting behaviour. It doesn't matter what The Sun has done since - there is enough evidence from Colin to PROVE Bamber tried to sell those pictures. I find it sad that even with this weighted against him, people are still unwilling to admit that 'at least' he did this. I am 100% sure that he did try and sell those pictures and I am sure others are too - even those that won't admit it.
Some posters should start yoga classes, because boy they are bending over backwards to deny this in completely unbelievable ways. Not believing The Sun/NOTW is one thing, but that isn't enough to discredit this story of Bamber selling the pictures, there are witnesses outside of the Sun - supporters ignore this or brush over it.
Should be ashamed really, as whether they believe Bamber guilty of murder or not its clear he is guilty of this. Unless Fletcher and CC are in on this whole thing too? But it does give a clear view of who is willing to see things openly and honestly and which ones will support Bamber no matter what and see him as being able to do no wrong.
-
The problem for some is that the Sun can never be trusted, Adam. If you were in any way involved in the horror of Hillsborough and also for many who were not the Sun will never be forgiven and never be trusted again. They still struggle to sell their rag on Merseyside and rightly so. I can believe Jeremy Bamber might possibly be a murderer but I cannot find it anywhere in my head or my heart to believe the Sun. Call me biased but that is how it is.
I am not saying Colin is lying or doubting him in any way but he wrote his book in hindsight and it was a massively emotive thing for him........ I just cannot believe the Sun didn't at the very least put a massive spin on it. :-\
Maggie I know how you feel about Hillsborough but why would Colin make this story up and how did the Sun know about these photo's unless they were told and it would need to be Jeremy or Colin and Colin would not do that and you are saying Colin's book was massively emotive so putting that aside who told the Sun.
-
Exactly, whether you believe The Sun or not, you can't get passed this without suggesting that Colin is a liar! He states VERY CLEARLY, that what he read in the article was the SAME as what Bamber told him. Bamber's own website, states that the pictures didn't exist and yet he told at least two people that they did!! Again, one doesn't need to rely on the words of The Sun because we have it CONFIRMED by Colin. I also asked him and he declined to answer. I think the reason why people are unwilling to accept that he did this, is because it doesn't sit well with the notion of an 'innocent man'. I know, I've been there and made similar excuses but I KNEW they were EXCUSES!
Where does it say in his own website that the pictures do not exist ?
-
Where does it say in his own website that the pictures do not exist ?
I just posted this last night but here it is again! 5th paragraph from the bottom.
http://jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/
After his first arrest and release without charge Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story. Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it. Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story. Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go to meet with the journalist. The Sun journalist wasn’t interested in Jeremy’s account, and continually asked questions about Sheila Caffell and requested any modelling pictures which might have been pornographic. Jeremy had told him that there were none and that there might have been some topless ones but Colin Caffell would have those. The journalist ran the story reporting that the newspaper had been offered these pictures and they also went to the police. The newspaper never obtained pictures of Sheila, because they didn’t exist, further proof that Jeremy Bamber had not intended to sell any pictures to the newspaper.
-
Some posters should start yoga classes, because boy they are bending over backwards to deny this in completely unbelievable ways. Not believing The Sun/NOTW is one thing, but that isn't enough to discredit this story of Bamber selling the pictures, there are witnesses outside of the Sun - supporters ignore this or brush over it.
Should be ashamed really, as whether they believe Bamber guilty of murder or not its clear he is guilty of this. Unless Fletcher and CC are in on this whole thing too? But it does give a clear view of who is willing to see things openly and honestly and which ones will support Bamber no matter what and see him as being able to do no wrong.
cc said he dident see the pictures he never mentioned hardcore photos anyway.
-
Some posters should start yoga classes, because boy they are bending over backwards to deny this in completely unbelievable ways. Not believing The Sun/NOTW is one thing, but that isn't enough to discredit this story of Bamber selling the pictures, there are witnesses outside of the Sun - supporters ignore this or brush over it.
Should be ashamed really, as whether they believe Bamber guilty of murder or not its clear he is guilty of this. Unless Fletcher and CC are in on this whole thing too? But it does give a clear view of who is willing to see things openly and honestly and which ones will support Bamber no matter what and see him as being able to do no wrong.
Well said Mat!
-
cc said he dident see the pictures he never mentioned hardcore photos anyway.
It's clear they existed, Nugs. Whether CC saw them or not. He was told about them by Jeremy. I know you don't want that to be true, but tough luck.
Well said Mat!
Thanks, petty excuses galore.
-
It's clear they existed, Nugs. Whether CC saw them or not. He was told about them by Jeremy. I know you don't want that to be true, but tough luck.
Thanks, petty excuses galore.
so why belive jeremy you think hes a murderer.
-
What evidence did EP find that Jeremy was a murderer ?
-
cc said he dident see the pictures he never mentioned hardcore photos anyway.
nugnug Colin refers to them as being very explicit and Jeremy told Colin they showed everything down to the last detail his manner was rather gloating and like the behaviour of an immature schoolboy. The headlines in the paper were Bambi Brother in Photo Scandal he tried to peddle sex snaps of model. The Sun got this story from somebody.
-
I just posted this last night but here it is again! 5th paragraph from the bottom.
http://jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/
After his first arrest and release without charge Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story. Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it. Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story. Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go to meet with the journalist. The Sun journalist wasn’t interested in Jeremy’s account, and continually asked questions about Sheila Caffell and requested any modelling pictures which might have been pornographic. Jeremy had told him that there were none and that there might have been some topless ones but Colin Caffell would have those. The journalist ran the story reporting that the newspaper had been offered these pictures and they also went to the police. The newspaper never obtained pictures of Sheila, because they didn’t exist, further proof that Jeremy Bamber had not intended to sell any pictures to the newspaper.
Thanks. I remember reading this before now.
So the meeting certainly happened.
So Jeremy is claiming entrapment. The Sun approaching him for his life story. Then not following this through but writing a front page lie about Jeremy trying to sell pictures of Sheila.
Talk about kicking a man when he's down.
-
The Sun couldn't publish 'pornographic' pictures of Sheila.
They could publish certain pictures. Bit disgraceful publishing those sorts of pictures of someone who had just committed such a terrible crime.
-
so why belive jeremy you think hes a murderer.
I don't understand why you're making excuses Nugs ???
Who is believing Jeremy? We're not believing him, we're believing COLIN!
-
cc said he dident see the pictures he never mentioned hardcore photos anyway.
It's been said plenty of times now but (again), it doesn't matter, if Colin SAW the pictures, Jeremy 'described' them and the description written in The Sun MATCHED what was said to Colin. Therefore, the person who described the pictures to Colin, MUST be the same person who told the reporter and that person was JEREMY.
-
cc said he dident see the pictures he never mentioned hardcore photos anyway.
Was "hardcore" used as an expression of sexual explicitness back then?
-
Both Jeremy and The Sun agree the meeting happened.
So it is a case of what is a more realistic meeting -
The Sun persuading Jeremy to attend on false pretences. Then asking for 'pornographic' pictures of Sheila to publish. Before creating a front page lie and risking libel charges after Jeremy said there were no pictures.
Or Jeremy requesting the meeting via Brett. Then offering his life story and pictures of Sheila.
-
What evidence did EP find that Jeremy was a murderer ?
Given the vast amount of blood,why weren't there some large footprints,blood on paintwork,etc which would have brushed off clothing.How would Jeremy have known if he left blood anywhere,doors/window-sills,etc ?
Because it was known that it was Jeremy from the outset,why wasn't the silencer tested there and then,along with other bloodied items ? Blood deteriorates if left !! Unless it was kept in a refrigerated environment,any test would be deemed impaired.
Again------------what part did EP play in convicting Jeremy of murder ? Evidence ??
-
Given the vast amount of blood,why weren't there some large footprints,blood on paintwork,etc which would have brushed off clothing.How would Jeremy have known if he left blood anywhere,doors/window-sills,etc ?
Because it was known that it was Jeremy from the outset,why wasn't the silencer tested there and then,along with other bloodied items ? Blood deteriorates if left !! Unless it was kept in a refrigerated environment,any test would be deemed impaired.
Again------------what part did EP play in convicting Jeremy of murder ? Evidence ??
Never seen someone quote their own post before.
This thread is about Jeremy's 'certain' meeting with The Sun.
-
Given the vast amount of blood,why weren't there some large footprints,blood on paintwork,etc which would have brushed off clothing.How would Jeremy have known if he left blood anywhere,doors/window-sills,etc ?
Because it was known that it was Jeremy from the outset,why wasn't the silencer tested there and then,along with other bloodied items ? Blood deteriorates if left !! Unless it was kept in a refrigerated environment,any test would be deemed impaired.
Again------------what part did EP play in convicting Jeremy of murder ? Evidence ??
Because Jeremy put down towels and cushions so the blood of his dead father wouldn't spread. It wasn't known from the outset that it was Jeremy. Not sure where you got that from ;D ;D ;D
AGAIN, you have been given the evidence time after time but you dismiss it and start changing the subject. Just like now, the topic of the thread is about The Sun article - you can't argue the point so you just change the subject!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Everything seems to fit that Jeremy approached The Sun.
He had been spending heavily after the massacre. Putting the spending on the farm account. The wills and selling off the WHF items were a long way off.
He had been to London and rummaging around Sheila's flat. So would have come across photos of Sheila.
He offered his life story to the NOTW months later. So it is not surprising he would do the same to The Sun. With the added bonus to The Sun being that he also had the pictures.
-
Everything seems to fit that Jeremy approached The Sun.
He had been spending heavily after the massacre. Putting the spending on the farm account. The wills and selling off the WHF items were a long way off.
He had been to London and rummaging around Sheila's flat. So would have come across photos of Sheila.
He offered his life story to the NOTW months later. So it is not surprising he would do the same to The Sun. With the added bonus to The Sun being that he also had the pictures.
Adam at the same time of the photograph incident Jeremy was selling antiques and pictures cut glass and other valuable items he told Colin he needed the money to pay death duties.
-
Adam at the same time of the photograph incident Jeremy was selling antiques and pictures cut glass and other valuable items he told Colin he needed the money to pay death duties.
Clearly this is BS because he wouldn't have had to pay any money until AFTER probate. ;D ;D He was selling the stuff for himself!
-
Clearly this is BS because he wouldn't have had to pay any money until AFTER probate. ;D ;D He was selling the stuff for himself!
Far too early to need to sell anything. The authorities don't start banging on the door as soon as someone has died. He just couldn't wait for the money, it motviated him to murder so he obviously had big plans for it and for his life afterwards.
-
It's been said plenty of times now but (again), it doesn't matter, if Colin SAW the pictures, Jeremy 'described' them and the description written in The Sun MATCHED what was said to Colin. Therefore, the person who described the pictures to Colin, MUST be the same person who told the reporter and that person was JEREMY.
thats asumes jeremys theonly one who knows about the pictures it also asumes that colin kept all this to himself and dident tell anybody else.
-
He told Dorothy Foakes if anything happened to anyone he would just sell up.
He wasn't lying about that. And didn't waste any time.
-
thats asumes jeremys theonly one who knows about the pictures it also asumes that colin kept all this to himself and dident tell anybody else.
I'm sure you can think of even more excuses if you try hard enough. He tried to sell them and if now trying to suggest that they didn't even exist - priceless!! ;D ;D ;D. What is funnier, is that article on the OS goes on to suggest the ONLY person not to change their story, is Jeremy ;D ;D ;D ;D and how he was trying to juggle the estate, managing the farm etc. He buggered of and left it all to Peter Eaton!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
thats asumes jeremys theonly one who knows about the pictures it also asumes that colin kept all this to himself and dident tell anybody else.
Colin told the world in his book.
If Jeremy did or didn't tell anyone else, what difference does it make ?
-
I'm sure you can think of even more excuses if you try hard enough. He tried to sell them and if now trying to suggest that they didn't even exist - priceless!! ;D ;D ;D. What is funnier, is that article on the OS goes on to suggest the ONLY person not to change their story, is Jeremy ;D ;D ;D ;D and how he was trying to juggle the estate, managing the farm etc. He buggered of and left it all to Peter Eaton!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
its not making excuses its called considring all possbilitys thats what a discusen forum is supposed to be about.
-
Colin told the world in his book.
If Jeremy did or didn't tell anyone else, what difference does it make ?
None!
-
It's been said plenty of times now but (again), it doesn't matter, if Colin SAW the pictures, Jeremy 'described' them and the description written in The Sun MATCHED what was said to Colin. Therefore, the person who described the pictures to Colin, MUST be the same person who told the reporter and that person was JEREMY.
In how many ways can nude photos be described? Not that many, right? But in each and every person´s mind, it can be interpreted differently.
I can´t see this as proof.
What did Jeremy mean by "famous pictures"? That term can easily be misunderstood. Famous pictures, couldn´t they just have been fashion pictures which had been in magazines?
Besides, I think that Gringo has an excellent point: why wasn´t the meeting recorded, wouldn´t that have been the norm?
-
Clearly this is BS because he wouldn't have had to pay any money until AFTER probate. ;D ;D He was selling the stuff for himself!
Caroline I thought the selling was rather premature for death duties. So much has to happen before that stage is reached.
-
Because Jeremy put down towels and cushions so the blood of his dead father wouldn't spread. It wasn't known from the outset that it was Jeremy. Not sure where you got that from ;D ;D ;D
AGAIN, you have been given the evidence time after time but you dismiss it and start changing the subject. Just like now, the topic of the thread is about The Sun article - you can't argue the point so you just change the subject!! ;D ;D ;D
The reason I've switched subjects/threads is because like ALL the others----------it's getting nowhere, except in repeating the same thing all the time.
Perhaps I've missed the legal documents that went with this subject---------statements from Fielder,etc etc. Recorded conversations or whatever. Seeing these things is believing and I imagine that a lot of recorded conversations were made too which are made during a murder case,but unless such are produced,I'm not interested.
As long as something concerns slagging off Jeremy,then everyone's happy. :(
No point in me being here really seeing it's another anti-Bamber forum.
-
its not making excuses its called considring all possbilitys thats what a discusen forum is supposed to be about.
Of course it is, what difference does it make who he told? It's not the sort of thing you go around bragging about. If he told someone else, they too would be supporting the The Sun article!!
-
No point in me being here really seeing it's another anti-Bamber forum.
This is a forum based on evidence and probability. If the evidence is anti-Bamber...well.... :-\
-
The reason I've switched subjects/threads is because like ALL the others----------it's getting nowhere, except in repeating the same thing all the time.
Perhaps I've missed the legal documents that went with this subject---------statements from Fielder,etc etc. Recorded conversations or whatever. Seeing these things is believing and I imagine that a lot of recorded conversations were made too which are made during a murder case,but unless such are produced,I'm not interested.
As long as something concerns slagging off Jeremy,then everyone's happy. :(
No point in me being here really seeing it's another anti-Bamber forum.
Fielding is interviewed in the video I posted.
Thread is in post 1 of the 'New Video' thread.
Jeremy's OS has confirmed the meeting happened.
-
jeremy hasnt confirmed anything as far as i know.
-
In how many ways can nude photos be described? Not that many, right? But in each and every person´s mind, it can be interpreted differently.
I can´t see this as proof.
What did Jeremy mean by "famous pictures"? That term can easily be misunderstood. Famous pictures, couldn´t they just have been fashion pictures which had been in magazines?
Besides, I think that Gringo has an excellent point: why wasn´t the meeting recorded, wouldn´t that have been the norm?
We do not know whether it was.
However my recent posts have suggested it almost certainly was.
-
In how many ways can nude photos be described? Not that many, right? But in each and every person´s mind, it can be interpreted differently.
I can´t see this as proof.
What did Jeremy mean by "famous pictures"? That term can easily be misunderstood. Famous pictures, couldn´t they just have been fashion pictures which had been in magazines?
Besides, I think that Gringo has an excellent point: why wasn´t the meeting recorded, wouldn´t that have been the norm?
Yes, they can be described in different way but if you add the words dildo and cucumber - it narrows the field. I don't think gringo has ANY point - why didn't they film it for that matter? Why didn't they invite the whole reporting team to witness the event? Simple answer is that 'they didn't' but just because they didn't do something, doesn't alter the FACT that Colin said Jeremy described the pictures to him, in the SAME way as had been reported in The Sun.
-
Yes, they can be described in different way but if you add the words dildo and cucumber - it narrows the field. I don't think gringo has ANY point - why didn't they film it for that matter? Why didn't they invite the whole reporting team to witness the event? Simple answer is that 'they didn't' but just because they didn't do something, doesn't alter the FACT that Colin said Jeremy described the pictures to him, in the SAME way as had been reported in The Sun.
It's not like every reporter films/records every time they meet with someone, crazy! But even if they had there would still be an excuse as to why you can't trust! ;D
-
jeremy hasnt confirmed anything as far as i know.
He hasn't denied it either - he likes to tell the truth where possible ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
its not making excuses its called considring all possbilitys thats what a discusen forum is supposed to be about.
Nugs, it's beginning to look like you've come up with every excuse -sorry, POSSIBILITY- known to man as nothing more than an attempt to exonerate Jeremy...................which MAY mean that you actually think it was an act of supreme callousness or you wouldn't bother.
-
It's not like every reporter films/records every time they meet with someone, crazy! But even if they had there would still be an excuse as to why you can't trust! ;D
Yep, someone could be doing an impression of Jeremy? ;) ;D
-
He hasn't denied it either - he likes to tell the truth where possible ;D ;D ;D ;D
not denying somthing isnt the same as confirming it.
-
It's not like every reporter films/records every time they meet with someone, crazy! But even if they had there would still be an excuse as to why you can't trust! ;D
Colin said as soon as he read the article he knew by the wording Jeremy had told them about the photo's and that is where the story had come from.
-
jeremy hasnt confirmed anything as far as i know.
The OS confirmed the meeting happened. A previous thread showed Jeremy is involved with this.
The OS is saying it was a big sting set up by The Sun. My recent thread shows this laughable.
-
Yep, someone could be doing an impression of Jeremy? ;) ;D
DUCK EVERYONE, we're under attack from flying elephants :D :D :D
-
I have told Nugs he has to change and say 'just because Jeremy did this, it does not make him the killer'.
However he is just saying he does not believe it happened. Although the OS said it did happen.
It seems Lookout accepts it happened. She has not said much, apart from an attempt to change the subject.
-
DUCK EVERYONE, we're under attack from flying elephants :D :D :D
Well, one stopped flying and has been present through out the thread - the elephant is the fact that it's OBVIOUS he tried to sell the pictures but instead of acknowledging it's presence, people are trying to walk around it. 'The Elephant' is getting fatter though, eventually, there will be no space to move for the elephant in the room! ;D ;D ;D ;D 8)
-
In how many ways can nude photos be described? Not that many, right? But in each and every person´s mind, it can be interpreted differently.
I can´t see this as proof.
What did Jeremy mean by "famous pictures"? That term can easily be misunderstood. Famous pictures, couldn´t they just have been fashion pictures which had been in magazines?
Besides, I think that Gringo has an excellent point: why wasn´t the meeting recorded, wouldn´t that have been the norm?
It's possible that the meeting WAS recorded.......................as security against a time when Jeremy may have denied it took place/disputed something said. He never has so producing the recording wasn't necessary.
-
Yes, they can be described in different way but if you add the words dildo and cucumber - it narrows the field. I don't think gringo has ANY point - why didn't they film it for that matter? Why didn't they invite the whole reporting team to witness the event? Simple answer is that 'they didn't' but just because they didn't do something, doesn't alter the FACT that Colin said Jeremy described the pictures to him, in the SAME way as had been reported in The Sun.
Caroline the famous photo's Jeremy removed from Sheila's flat if they were just nude photo's like the ones he left in the cupboard why did he take them it was not because he cared because he could have taken the album with photo's of Sheila and her boys. Colin said that Jeremy's behaviour was distasteful the way he was gloating over the explicit photo's. But we don;t know if the reporter recorded the conversation why was Jeremy not screaming his head off when he saw the article on the front page of the Sun.
-
I have told Nugs he has to change and say 'just because Jeremy did this, it does not make him the killer'.
However he is just saying he does not believe it happened. Although the OS said it did happen.
It seems Lookout accepts it happened. She has not said much, apart from an attempt to change the subject.
No it doesn't make him a killer but by accepting that he did this, I guess you have to accept that if he could do that (without conscience), what else is he capable of?
-
No it doesn't make him a killer but by accepting that he did this, I guess you have to accept that if he could do that (without conscience), what else is he capable of?
That is why Nugs won't accept it.
-
Caroline the famous photo's Jeremy removed from Sheila's flat if they were just nude photo's like the ones he left in the cupboard why did he take them it was not because he cared because he could have taken the album with photo's of Sheila and her boys. Colin said that Jeremy's behaviour was distasteful the way he was gloating over the explicit photo's. But we don;t know if the reporter recorded the conversation why was Jeremy not screaming his head off when he saw the article on the front page of the Sun.
Exactly! ;)
-
The OS confirmed the meeting happened. A previous thread showed Jeremy is involved with this.
The OS is saying it was a big sting set up by The Sun. My recent thread shows this laughable.
i cant find that on the offical sight could you post a link please adam.
-
No it doesn't make him a killer but by accepting that he did this, I guess you have to accept that if he could do that (without conscience), what else is he capable of?
Perfect point.
-
Exactly! ;)
Odd, don't you think, that he was all fired up to sue the psychologist who said he was a psychopath -according to him, she lied- yet when we think what the sale of porny pics would have said about his sister, he didn't turn a hair to deny that he's done it OR make any attempt to try to salvage her reputation when the story broke.
-
http://jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/
For Nugs. Fifth paragraph from the bottom.
-
thankyou adam.
-
It isn't " excuses " that are being made by anyone.It's misinterpreted suggestions. A child can be curious,so why not an adult ? A remark doesn't have to be seen as an excuse. It's a " what if ".
-
Who is this solicitor that advised him not to meet The Sun, after they apparently approached him.
-
Caroline the famous photo's Jeremy removed from Sheila's flat if they were just nude photo's like the ones he left in the cupboard why did he take them it was not because he cared because he could have taken the album with photo's of Sheila and her boys. Colin said that Jeremy's behaviour was distasteful the way he was gloating over the explicit photo's. But we don;t know if the reporter recorded the conversation why was Jeremy not screaming his head off when he saw the article on the front page of the Sun.
I would have thought the word 'distasteful' to describe Jeremy gloating over explicit photo's of his dead sister is a massive understatement. It's too horrible to contemplate imo.
-
I would have thought the word 'distasteful' to describe Jeremy gloating over explicit photo's of his dead sister is a massive understatement. It's too horrible to contemplate imo.
Maggie Colin did describe the incident in stronger terms I just picked out words at random. Jeremy took Sheila's portfolio for himself along with the "famous ones" Colin said he did not know there were any famous ones :'(
-
http://jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/
For Nugs. Fifth paragraph from the bottom.
that confirms a meeting took place yes. it doesnt confirm much else.
-
Maggie Colin did describe the incident in stronger terms I just picked out words at random. Jeremy took Sheila's portfolio for himself along with the "famous ones" Colin said he did not know there were any famous ones :'(
It's disgusting.
-
I would have thought the word 'distasteful' to describe Jeremy gloating over explicit photo's of his dead sister is a massive understatement. It's too horrible to contemplate imo.
i dont think colin actully wrote the book i think it was probely ghost witten probely not all the workds used are actully his.
-
i dont think colin actully wrote the book i think it was probely gohost witten probely not all the workds used are actully his.
I do think he wrote it himself. it´s a bit all over the place - like you could expect from an amateur.
-
I do think he wrote it himself. it´s a bit all over the place - like you could expect from an amateur.
Alias I think he wrote the book he is not consistent at all and is all over the place from one subject to another and comes over as an amateur. I have to keep going back and reading pages again.
-
I do think he wrote it himself. it´s a bit all over the place - like you could expect from an amateur.
I, too, believe that he wrote it himself. It is too random to be professional and I don't think it was written for any reason other than catharsis.
-
i dont he would such mild words to recall the incedent he is recalling thats why i suspected he dident write it all himself some of the wording doesnt sound like words he would use.
-
I, too, believe that he wrote it himself. It is too random to be professional and I don't think it was written for any reason other than catharsis.
I agree. I think it is so understandable that a person would feel the need to share something so unspeakably tragic and sad. No matter what you think of him, poor Colin, what a terrible loss.
-
i dont he would such mild words to recall the incedent he is recalling thats why i suspected he dident write it all himself some of the wording doesnt sound like words he would use.
Nugs, ONE of the reasons that Colin used "mild" words MAY be that using stronger, more explicit words would have bought the reality home to him, causing exquisite, almost intolerable pain. I can fully understand his need to write it down but I ALSO understand that he had to write it in a way he could cope with reading it. As you don't know him, I'm not certain how you can be sure that the words don't sound like those he'd have used.
-
Nugs, ONE of the reasons that Colin used "mild" words MAY be that using stronger, more explicit words would have bought the reality home to him, causing exquisite, almost intolerable pain. I can fully understand his need to write it down but I ALSO understand that he had to write it in a way he could cope with reading it. As you don't know him, I'm not certain how you can be sure that the words don't sound like those he'd have used.
April I agree with you Colin had to live with the book and his words and this is why IMO he did not come over as angry bitter or sad I am sure he felt all these emotions but to print them before his own eyes would have been too much for him to cope with.
-
i dont think colin actully wrote the book i think it was probely ghost witten probely not all the workds used are actully his.
He did write it himself and they are his words - I wonder what the next excuse will be? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
i dont he would such mild words to recall the incedent he is recalling thats why i suspected he dident write it all himself some of the wording doesnt sound like words he would use.
He wrote the book after a lot of soul searching - he wrote it when he has accepted what had happened, he wrote it after he no longer HATED Jeremy or himself. Hence the reason why he's not f'ing and blinding all the way through it!
-
He did write it himself and they are his words - I wonder what the next excuse will be? ;D ;D ;D ;D
its called a discussen you seemto be unable to understand what that means.
-
its called a discussen you seemto be unable to understand what that means.
That's not what you're doing, you're just coming up with excuses which are getting more and more outlandish! Now Colin didn't write his book? You have nothing to back that up - you've just dragged it out of thin air - how can anyone discuss that?
-
what diffrence would it make if it was gosht writtan and a lot of books are it would still be his story just not his exact words.
-
what diffrence would it make if it was gosht writtan and a lot of books are it would still be his story just not his exact words.
It wouldn't make any difference - because it wasn't ghost written, you pulled that out of nowhere.
-
but if it was it wouldent any diffrence weather what was cliamed was true i was just specluating about the wording.
-
but if it was it wouldent any diffrence weather what was cliamed was true i was just specluating about the wording.
They were his words, he talks about actually writing the book IN the book.
-
It seems that there is agreement between The Sun and the OS that a meeting took place.
There is also agreement that pictures of Sheila were discussed.
It is believable that as well as the pictures, Jeremy would also offer his life story. This is what he did to the NOTW. The OS confirms Jeremy went to the meeting expecting to discuss selling his life story.
-
The OS says The Sun approached him. This is not believable as the case was yesterdays news. It was murder/suicide and Jeremy had not been arrested.
The Sun trying to cash in on such a tragic event would do them more harm than good.
-
The OS says The Sun were not interested in Jeremy's version. And were just interested in pornographic pictures.
This is also not believable. The Sun could not publish pornographic pictures. Doing this is also distasteful and offensive.
The Sun would not contact Jeremy and then not be interested in what he had to say.
-
The OS says Jeremy consulted his lawyer before attending the meeting.
This seems strange. Jeremy was obviously suspicious of The Sun contact and contacted his lawyer. The lawyer agreed with his suspicions and advised him not to attend. But he still attended ?
There is no record of the lawyer confirming he was contacted about this.
The Sun are saying Jeremy contacted them.
-
The OS confirms Brett was in attendance. The Sun also confirms this.
Brett had contacts who worked at The Sun.
-
The OS says The Sun approached him. This is not believable as the case was yesterdays news. It was murder/suicide and Jeremy had not been arrested.
The Sun trying to cash in on such a tragic event would do them more harm than good.
Adam directly after the murders it was Sheila the press were interested in not Jeremy. This is according to Colin. Why would they contact Jeremy.
-
The OS confirms pictures do exist. Jeremy said CC had them.
It is more believable that Jeremy would have the pictures. Sheila and CC had been divorced a long time. Pictures of Sheila would be in her flat, which Jeremy had been entering after the massacre.
The OS confirms there were some topless pictures. The Sun says Jeremy had said they were more explicit.
-
The OS says The Sun decided to publish a front page article directly after the meeting.
The Sun article said that Jeremy contacted them and tried to sell pictures of Sheila.
The OS says The Sun risked libel charges and lied.
-
The OS says The OS decided to publish a front page article directly after the meeting.
The Sun article said that Jeremy contacted them and tried to sell pictures of Sheila.
The OS says The Sun risked libel charges and lied.
Adam wonder why Jeremy did not sue the Sun
-
i must admit that i am not sure weather i belive the story on the officail site.
-
If Jeremy was so suspicious after The Sun approached him, I am surprised he didn't record the meeting.
If he didn't consider it, why didn't Brett or the lawyer he consulted suggest it ?
-
i must admit that i am not sure weather i belive the story on the officail site.
So The Sun are lying, CC did not write his book and the OS account is not believable.
-
Adam wonder why Jeremy did not sue the Sun
He didn't get the chance.
However The Sun were taking a risk as Jeremy was soon to be a rich man. Jeremy could have been tape recording the conversation. Brett Collins was also there as a witness.
-
Brett has never confirmed what was said or not said at the meeting. But Brett has been silent on all things.
Brett as a witness really means nothing if The Sun had recorded the conversation.
-
im sure he would of sued had he been found innocent.
-
i must admit that i am not sure weather i belive the story on the officail site.
Hi nugnug
I think the OS will only write positive things about Jeremy they are promoting him as an innocent young man serving a prison sentence for a crime he did not commit. He is according to them the victim.
-
well theres writing what jeremy has told them.
-
The OS says The Sun approached him. This is not believable as the case was yesterdays news. It was murder/suicide and Jeremy had not been arrested.
The Sun trying to cash in on such a tragic event would do them more harm than good.
As it did over the tragedy of Hillsborough, surely you should at least acknowledge that or do you believe the Sun did not 'cash in' did not lie for the police?
I know it is a different event Adam but surely you should concede the Sun Newspaper was far from squeaky clean in the 1980s and proven to do all of the above.
-
well theres writing what jeremy has told them.
nugnug absolutely I guess they get all their information from him and they will see things from the documents available to them I wonder if we have seen all the documents Jeremy has in his possession.
-
The OS says The Sun decided to publish a front page article directly after the meeting.
The Sun article said that Jeremy contacted them and tried to sell pictures of Sheila.
The OS says The Sun risked libel charges and lied.
They might have done if the story wasn't true, but the fact that Jeremy didn't dispute it (and any innocent person would have been FURIOUS), adds even more strength to the story being true. Especially as Brett Collins said nothing also. The pair were banged to rights, Jeremy knows it makes him look bad and so has to lie and play it down. Interestingly, the 'disclaimer' from the author of the article on the OS gives Jeremy a 'get out clause' because he can always say it was the authors view and not his own. But where did the author get the information? It didn't fall from the sky and the story about The Sun article can only have come from on place! Jeremy.
-
As it did over the tragedy of Hillsborough, surely you should at least acknowledge that or do you believe the Sun did not 'cash in' did not lie for the police and the government?
I know it is a different event Adam but surely you should concede the Sun Newspaper was far from squeaky clean in the 1980s and proven to do all of the above.
Maggie we note everything you say and agree with you but this does not mean Jeremy did not try and sell explicit photo's of his dead sister to them no connection at all IMO. Sorry.
-
im sure he would of sued had he been found innocent.
He didn't even try to dispute it. ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie we note everything you say and agree with you but this does not mean Jeremy did not try and sell explicit photo's of his dead sister to them no connection at all IMO. Sorry.
I agree, I am speaking to Adam and his particular argument that the Sun would not lie etc. it is an argument built on sand and he needs to find a better one.
I would like him to acknowledge that The Sun Newspaper did lie for the police in the 1980s, and did cash in on tragedy, it may seem irrelevant but it certainly isn't for the 96 people who died at Hillsborough or their families, or to the fans who were accused of being responsible and the subsequent ruination of lives.
Sorry to go on but I feel it needs saying. :-\
-
He didn't even try to dispute it. ;D ;D ;D
does dispute what happend weather you belive him or not is another but he certanly did dispute it.
-
As it did over the tragedy of Hillsborough, surely you should at least acknowledge that or do you believe the Sun did not 'cash in' did not lie for the police?
I know it is a different event Adam but surely you should concede the Sun Newspaper was far from squeaky clean in the 1980s and proven to do all of the above.
Hate The Sun newspaper, it's a piece of crap. However, the fact that Colin stated the photographs were described in the same way to him by Jeremy, the fact that Jeremy (and Brett Collins) didn't deny or dispute the claims, the fact that the OS starts with a disclaimer, the fact that when I asked him about the story, he just didn't answer and the fact that the OS states that the pictures didn't even exist even though we KNOW he told Colin about them. Leave The Sun out of it - I'm sure you should concede the likelihood of THIS story being untrue - is highly UNLIKELY.
-
I agree, I am speaking to Adam and his particular argument that the Sun would not lie etc. it is an argument built on sand and he needs to find a better one.
I would like him to acknowledge that The Sun Newspaper did lie for the police in the 1980s, and did cash in on tragedy, it may seem irrelevant but it certainly isn't for the 96 people who died at Hillsborough or their families, or to the fans who were accused of being responsible and the subsequent ruination of lives.
Sorry to go on but I feel it needs saying. :-\
i dont belive adam allways seriosly belives what hes saying.
-
Points of agreement between The Sun and OS:
The meeting took place.
Brett was there.
Discussions about photographs took place.
Discussions about Jeremy's life story were discussed.
Topless photographs of Sheila exist.
CC knows about the photographs.
Jeremy did not supply the photographs at the meeting.
The Sun published a front page story straight afterwards. Michael Fielding confirming The Suns story 20 years later.
-
Hate The Sun newspaper, it's a piece of crap. However, the fact that Colin stated the photographs were described in the same way to him by Jeremy, the fact that Jeremy (and Brett Collins) didn't deny or dispute the claims, the fact that the OS starts with a disclaimer, the fact that when I asked him about the story, he just didn't answer and the fact that the OS states that the pictures didn't even exist even though we KNOW he told Colin about them. Leave The Sun out of it - I'm sure you should concede the likelihood of THIS story being untrue - is highly UNLIKELY.
I don't disagree with you I am speaking to Adam about his particular comments as I have just posted.
-
does dispute what happend weather you belive him or not is another but he certanly did dispute it.
Where?
-
i dont belive adam allways seriosly belives what hes saying.
I don't believe that you do.
-
Hate The Sun newspaper, it's a piece of crap. However, the fact that Colin stated the photographs were described in the same way to him by Jeremy, the fact that Jeremy (and Brett Collins) didn't deny or dispute the claims, the fact that the OS starts with a disclaimer, the fact that when I asked him about the story, he just didn't answer and the fact that the OS states that the pictures didn't even exist even though we KNOW he told Colin about them. Leave The Sun out of it - I'm sure you should concede the likelihood of THIS story being untrue - is highly UNLIKELY.
jeremy does deny the cliams he doesnt deny that the meeting took place. bret colins as far as i know has never spocken.
-
Points of disagreement:
The Sun says Jeremy contacted them. Jeremy says it was the other way around.
The Sun says Jeremy claimed to have explicit pictures of Sheila. He wanted money quickly for the pictures. Jeremy claims The Sun were not interested in what he had to say and just wanted to discuss potential pornographic pictures of Sheila.
The Suns front page article was a complete lie according to Jeremy.
-
Points where there is no confirmation:
There is no confirmation whether The Sun reporter taped the conversation. Although it is almost certain he did.
There is no confirmation that Jeremy tape recorded the conversation. Although it is almost certain he did not.
The lawyer who Jeremy consulted prior to the meeting has never confirmed this happened.
-
Where?
he disputes it on the officail site he doesnt dispute that the meeting took place he does dispute what happrend at the meeting.
-
Points where there is no confirmation:
There is no confirmation whether The Sun reporter taped the conversation. Although it is almost certain he did.
There is no confirmation that Jeremy tape recorded the conversation. Although it is almost he did not.
The lawyer who Jeremy consulted prior to the meeting has never confirmed this happened.
so he consulted a lawer about the meeting did he.
-
he disputes it on the officail site he doesnt dispute that the meeting took place he does dispute what happrend at the meeting.
No he doesn't dispute it on the OS - it's written by someone else who is careful to make the claim that the account doesn't come from Jeremy!! ;D ;D ;D ;D You and Lookout even pointed this out the other day - that it's just someone else's opinion! ;)
-
based on what jeremy told them.
-
so he consulted a lawer about the meeting did he.
No, the guy who wrote the article on the OS - SAID he did - that's all we know about that! But as he's written a disclaimer at the beginning of his article, it doesn't have to be true. Priceless!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
based on what jeremy told them.
He doesn't say Jeremy told him ANYTHING - read it, he is careful to distance what he wrote from Jeremy to avoid any come back on Jeremy if it's a pack of lies. But Jeremy didn't deny it AT THE TIME! He could have gone to another newspaper and denied it, Brett Collins could have denied it - neither of them did because they were banged to rights!
-
so he consulted a lawer about the meeting did he.
That is what the OS says. Although no lawyer has confirmed this.
The lawyer apparently advised him not to attend. But for Jeremy money talks.
-
That is what the OS says. Although no lawyer has confirmed this.
The lawyer apparently advised him not to attend. But for Jeremy money talks.
I wonder where this lawyer is? You would imagine that he would have seen HIS OWN solicitor? Of course this man can never come forward because of client confidentiality ;D ;D ::) - or maybe because the lawyer is a figment of Jeremy's imagination?
-
maybe maybes he dead maybe he dident maybe its a matter of client confidentality.
-
Client confidentiality ? But Jeremy is claiming he consulted a lawyer. So not exactly confidential.
Oh sorry, it is the OS, not Jeremy.
You would think the OS would name the lawyer. It would give their article more gravitas.
-
you would think it yes.
-
The OS says Jeremy met The Sun as he wanted to give his side. As he was fed up with the media painting a bad picture of him.
But at the time it was murder/suicide. The media had moved on to the next story. A lawyer had also advised him not to meet The Sun.
-
The OS says Jeremy met The Sun as he wanted to give his side. As he was fed up with the media painting a bad picture of him.
But at the time it was murder/suicide. The media had moved on to the next story.
What stories were printed about Jeremy before his arrest? Think a trip to the library might be in order!
-
It is surprising that The Sun contacted Jeremy.
Could they not see from the funeral footage that Jeremy was still grieving.
-
we could allways askk the sun if they have a recording of it.
-
They might have done if the story wasn't true, but the fact that Jeremy didn't dispute it (and any innocent person would have been FURIOUS), adds even more strength to the story being true. Especially as Brett Collins said nothing also. The pair were banged to rights, Jeremy knows it makes him look bad and so has to lie and play it down. Interestingly, the 'disclaimer' from the author of the article on the OS gives Jeremy a 'get out clause' because he can always say it was the authors view and not his own. But where did the author get the information? It didn't fall from the sky and the story about The Sun article can only have come from on place! Jeremy.
Spot on.
-
we could allways askk the sun if they have a recording of it.
I can't help but feel, that if a recording of the meeting existed, we would have heard it by now.
-
i would of thought so to but it could be worth a try.
-
I can't help but feel, that if a recording of the meeting existed, we would have heard it by now.
I can't see why The Sun would need to record the meeting. I doubt Brett Collin's told the journalist what kind of pictures they were trying to sell and even if a recording existed, people would still dispute it. I really don't think you could provide much more evidence to prove that this happened. Supporters don't want to openly admit it because someone capable of that is capable of anything.
-
The Sun don't need to supply the recording.
I don't remember them supplying recordings to the public of any other cases. If they kept doing that no one would agree to meet them.
The Sun were confident enough to print a front page article. If Jeremy had sued for libel, any recording would have been submitted in court.
-
but whats the harm in asking it would prove the truth ethere way.
-
he disputes it on the officail site he doesnt dispute that the meeting took place he does dispute what happrend at the meeting.
He certainly doesn't . You said he doesn't just a couple of pages back. ;D
-
but whats the harm in asking it would prove the truth ethere way.
So go and ask!
-
He certainly doesn't . You said he doesn't just a couple of pages back. ;D
Both Nugs and Lookout said that the OS article was JUST someone else's account;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6723.msg307525.html#msg307525
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6723.msg307526.html#msg307526
Now the words are Jeremy's? :o ;D ;D
-
i would of thought so to but it could be worth a try.
Nugs, what are you going to do when you've explored every possible avenue and find that each confirms Jeremy being guilty?
-
Both Nugs and Lookout said that the OS article was JUST someone else's account;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6723.msg307525.html#msg307525
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6723.msg307526.html#msg307526
Now the words are Jeremy's? :o ;D ;D
Flip flop almost daily to suit the NEW arguement. Disregarding their previous claims. ::)
-
Flip flop almost daily to suit the NEW arguement. Disregarding their previous claims. ::)
Good thing that Elephant is still in the room! It never forgets!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Good thing that Elephant is still in the room! It never forgets!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
And the flying pigs never fail to hit their target :D
-
Flip flop almost daily to suit the NEW arguement. Disregarding their previous claims. ::)
i never said the words were but the basic information must of come him.
-
Good thing that Elephant is still in the room! It never forgets!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
i thought i had made what i was saying perfectly clear but oh well.
-
i thought i had what i was saying perfectly clear but oh well.
Elephants have huge ears - but don't always use the for listening .
-
it would apear so.
-
i never said the words were but the basic information must of come him.
So then you agree he must be lying?
-
its a big possbilitys hes story his story is untrue but i dont belive its a defante fact.
-
its a big possbilitys hes story his story is untrue but i dont belive its a defante fact.
His story MUST be a lie, because the OS states that the photographs didn't exist, but he told COLIN, that they did.
-
who destroyed thses photos.
-
who destroyed thses photos.
Who do you think?
-
i was hoping you would tell me that was why i asked.
-
According to Vidvic in his post of 2011,the newspaper returned the pics to Colin who then destroyed them. Thread,Re: Justice for all-Correspondence.
-
According to Vidvic in his post of 2011,the newspaper returned the pics to Colin who then destroyed them. Thread,Re: Justice for all-Correspondence.
lookout if the Sun bought them what happened to the money? How would Vidvic know was it through the family.
-
According to Vidvic in his post of 2011,the newspaper returned the pics to Colin who then destroyed them. Thread,Re: Justice for all-Correspondence.
You're talking about something else now - the newspaper never got the pornographic pictures of Sheila!
-
who destroyed thses photos.
Well, let me see, Jeremy HAD the pictures, an article appears in The Sun slagging him off for trying to sell them. I'd say he got rid of them soon after that. Lookout mentioned Vidvic, who will have been talking about the pictures they used when reporting about the case NOT the explicit pictures of Sheila (Just adding that BEFORE mass confusions sets in).
-
lookout if the Sun bought them what happened to the money? How would Vidvic know was it through the family.
They didn't.
-
lookout if the Sun bought them what happened to the money? How would Vidvic know was it through the family.
It seemed that he,Vidvic,got his information from a " legal " source,the 2002 High Court so far as I can gather along with those journalists who'd said that JB had been guilty.
-
Well, let me see, Jeremy HAD the pictures, an article appears in The Sun slagging him off for trying to sell them. I'd say he got rid of them soon after that. Lookout mentioned Vidvic, who will have been talking about the pictures they used when reporting about the case NOT the explicit pictures of Sheila (Just adding that BEFORE mass confusions sets in).
I'm talking about the porn pics,as was Vidvic.
-
You're talking about something else now - the newspaper never got the pornographic pictures of Sheila!
No,I'm not talking about anything else.
-
The pics never went as far as being sold-----------just an attempt to sell them.
-
The pics never went as far as being sold-----------just an attempt to sell them.
Lookout sorry I am getting confused again. If the pictures were never sold how could the newspaper return them to Colin :'(
-
Apparently,the Sun wasn't the only newspaper which had been approached. Meaning,that JB didn't get anywhere with them,no sale-----no money.
-
I'm talking about the porn pics,as was Vidvic.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,854.msg24895.html#msg24895
-
The pics never went as far as being sold-----------just an attempt to sell them.
We already know that, Jeremy TRIED to sell them and was turned down.
-
Apparently,the Sun wasn't the only newspaper which had been approached. Meaning,that JB didn't get anywhere with them,no sale-----no money.
At least you're now admitting Jeremy tried to sell them!
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,854.msg24895.html#msg24895
No,try the thread I quoted June 22nd 2011---------Justice for All-Correspondence. Vidvic quotes some senior journalists.
-
Apparently,the Sun wasn't the only newspaper which had been approached. Meaning,that JB didn't get anywhere with them,no sale-----no money.
But he TRIED, whether he sold them or not - he TRIED to sell pictures of his DEAD sister. The money is neither here nor there the INTENTION to sell them is the DISGUSTING part!!
-
No,try the thread I quoted June 22nd 2011---------Justice for All-Correspondence. Vidvic quotes some senior journalists.
I don't believe that Vidvic was in the habit of contradicting himself.
-
Apparently,the Sun wasn't the only newspaper which had been approached. Meaning,that JB didn't get anywhere with them,no sale-----no money.
So would you say that because no money changed hands, no crime, illegal or immoral, had occurred?
-
But he TRIED, whether he sold them or not - he TRIED to sell pictures of his DEAD sister. The money is neither here nor there the INTENTION to sell them is the DISGUSTING part!!
And I feel rather DISGUSTED at the " horseplay " which had gone on involving EP, for which I believe JB has got info/pics of that. This was 3 adults and two children.
Which is worse ??
-
And I feel rather DISGUSTED at the " horseplay " which had gone on involving EP, for which I believe JB has got info/pics of that. This was 3 adults and two children.
Which is worse ??
Does that mean that you think their inappropriate behaviour exonerates Jeremy's?
-
No,try the thread I quoted June 22nd 2011---------Justice for All-Correspondence. Vidvic quotes some senior journalists.
To save other people trawling;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,978.msg30237.html#msg30237
I think Vic is mistaken about the pictures being returned to Colin, Colin would have mentioned it, as he doesn't Vic is obviously mistaken.
-
And I feel rather DISGUSTED at the " horseplay " which had gone on involving EP, for which I believe JB has got info/pics of that. This was 3 adults and two children.
Which is worse ??
Jeremy trying to sell pictures of his dead sister after he murdered her. I know all about the 'so called' horseplay - but I don't think you know what was involved or you wouldn't be asking that question.
-
To save other people trawling;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,978.msg30237.html#msg30237
I think Vic is mistaken about the pictures being returned to Colin, Colin would have mentioned it, as he doesn't Vic is obviously mistaken.
Not when you read all the post. Senior journalists passing on info to the family,they in turn telling Vidvic.? You're telling me it was a mistake ? Are the rest of his posts mistakes ? Are the senior journos wrong ? Are the relatives wrong ?
-
To save other people trawling;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,978.msg30237.html#msg30237
I think Vic is mistaken about the pictures being returned to Colin, Colin would have mentioned it, as he doesn't Vic is obviously mistaken.
he wouldent neccarsly mention everything that happend.
-
Not when you read all the post. Senior journalists passing on info to the family,they in turn telling Vidvic.? You're telling me it was a mistake ? Are the rest of his posts mistakes ? Are the senior journos wrong ? Are the relatives wrong ?
I don't think you understood the post Lookout.
-
he wouldent neccarsly mention everything that happend.
He clearly states in his book that he NEVER saw the explicit pictures. He mentioned everything else, why (in gods name!) would he miss out having them returned to him later and that after - he destroyed them?
-
maybe vidics talking about the other pictures.
-
maybe vidics talking about the other pictures.
Possibly.
-
the os verson of eents says that jeremy told the sun that colin might have some pictures of sheila.
-
He clearly states in his book that he NEVER saw the explicit pictures. He mentioned everything else, why (in gods name!) would he miss out having them returned to him later and that after - he destroyed them?
I thought his -Vic's- comments re conspiracy theories were interesting.
-
the os verson of eents says that jeremy told the sun that colin might have some pictures of sheila.
We already know that Colin had some slides - but we're not talking about those pictures.
-
so, what I did I do wrong now?!
-
are your just in time vidic.
-
so, what I did I do wrong now?!
Hello Vic nice of you to drop in we have missed you. The floor is now yours ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just reading back......
-
We already know that Colin had some slides - but we're not talking about those pictures.
Colin had the pics he took in the fields at WHF and also some nude ones taken in her garden in London but they were never used the others "famous" as described by Jeremy were taken by Jeremy as he obviously had a use for them.
-
Just reading back......
Look at what you caused ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't think Jeremy took them, they were either a portfolio shoot or a glamour mag for a bit of extra cash. I have absolutely no doubt they existed and I have absolutely no doubt that Jeremy tried to sell them to the Sun, who considered it a bigger story that he was selling them than the pics themselves which they thought was a tasteless act. They met Jeremy and Brett in the pub in Goldhanger, but I don't know what happened to them.
-
I don't think Jeremy took them, they were either a portfolio shoot or a glamour mag for a bit of extra cash. I have absolutely no doubt they existed and I have absolutely no doubt that Jeremy tried to sell them to the Sun, who considered it a bigger story that he was selling them than the pics themselves which they thought was a tasteless act. They met Jeremy and Brett in the pub in Goldhanger, but I don't know what happened to them.
Thanks Vic, I think that is what most of us understand!! ;)
-
Colin had the pics he took in the fields at WHF and also some nude ones taken in her garden in London but they were never used the others "famous" as described by Jeremy were taken by Jeremy as he obviously had a use for them.
By 'took' I think you mean 'removed'?
-
They didn't actually buy them, so didn't have them....and If Colin said he never saw them then I believe him. Maybe they still exist?
-
what were my conspiracy theories, April......?
Hello everyone BTW.....Been a very long time!
-
They didn't actually buy them, so didn't have them....and If Colin said he never saw them then I believe him. Maybe they still exist?
I reckon after The Sun outed Jeremy as a rat, he would have destroyed them - but who knows?
-
Is he still saying he'll be out any day?.......
-
Is he still saying he'll be out any day?.......
Imminent!! ;D ;D
-
Think I've worked out why Tesko was charging around the country meeting 'Z'.... shooting up to Scotland, Down south to Colchester etc...And how he got pics in the Police car...
-
By 'took' I think you mean 'removed'?
sorry I meant removed ;D
-
Think I've worked out why Tesko was charging around the country meeting 'Z'.... shooting up to Scotland, Down south to Colchester etc...And how he got pics in the Police car...
? ?
-
i would of thought if they still existed they would of surficed by now.
-
what were my conspiracy theories, April......?
Hello everyone BTW.....Been a very long time!
Sorry, missed this hi Vic :)
-
what were my conspiracy theories, April......?
Hello everyone BTW.....Been a very long time!
Hi Vic :) Think I should clarify. You were talking about people turning what was ALLEGEDLY being hidden under PII into a conspiracy theory. I was agreeing. NO conspiracy.
-
Remember all the 'Z' crap and his car journeys all over the country...followed by train journeys...with pictures...?
-
Remember all the 'Z' crap and his car journeys all over the country...followed by train journeys...with pictures...?
Yes?
-
Well, I believe Tesko is a 'plater'.... He delivers cars for money to customers and then needs to catch a train to the next one....he also comes down here a lot as there is a huge auction near Colchester...Platers start work really early and sometimes even travel over night... I think this is why he was on the road and trains a lot and had nothing to do with any 'Z'....
-
Well, I believe Tesko is a 'plater'.... He delivers cars for money to customers and then needs to catch a train to the next one....he also comes down here a lot as there is a huge auction near Colchester...Platers start work really early and sometimes even travel over night... I think this is why he was on the road and trains a lot and had nothing to do with any 'Z'....
Oh? Interesting, Mike will no doubt comment?
-
Well, I believe Tesko is a 'plater'.... He delivers cars for money to customers and then needs to catch a train to the next one....he also comes down here a lot as there is a huge auction near Colchester...Platers start work really early and sometimes even travel over night... I think this is why he was on the road and trains a lot and had nothing to do with any 'Z'....
REALLY Vic ??? ??? ??? I'm shocked!!!!!!
-
He would even sometimes have to collect Police cars that were being decommissioned and is a popular job with people that have criminal records as no checks are done.
-
Yes April....totally agree....PII is completely overplayed
-
He would even sometimes have to collect Police cars that were being decommissioned and is a popular job with people that have criminal records as no checks are done.
Wait... Z ain't real?!
-
Lol...afraid not Mat...it's as fake as my Basil Brush signed T Shirt....lol
-
Lol...afraid not Mat...it's as fake as my Basil Brush signed T Shirt....lol
;D
-
I'll say goodnight and cheerio, ascould well be banned in the morning!
-
I agree, I am speaking to Adam and his particular argument that the Sun would not lie etc. it is an argument built on sand and he needs to find a better one.
I would like him to acknowledge that The Sun Newspaper did lie for the police in the 1980s, and did cash in on tragedy, it may seem irrelevant but it certainly isn't for the 96 people who died at Hillsborough or their families, or to the fans who were accused of being responsible and the subsequent ruination of lives.
Sorry to go on but I feel it needs saying. :-\
Hi Maggie, to be borne in mind for anyone regarding the Sun as a reliable source is the ongoing perjury trial of Andy Coulson in Scotland. Aside from the fact that Coulson committed his alleged perjury in a perjury trial(you couldn't make this shit up ;D), the trial sheds some light on the "journalistic" methods of News International as an organisation.
As an example of the sort of information that News International pays(corrupts public servants) police officers for, the trial is currently hearing evidence of the leaking of Milly Dowlers voicemails from the police to the News of the World. They also hacked the phones of Milly Dowler's parents and the phones of the widows of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is obvious that nothing is too low for them in the search for salacious gossip when tragedy occurs. This is who News International and their sleazy publications are. They lie, commit perjury, hack the phones of dead schoolgirls and war widows, corrupt public officials and police officers.
The Sun story has zero credibility to anyone reasonable. I wouldn't believe it regardless of my stance on guilt/innocence because the source has no credibility. Any information that the Sun had about photos was most likely obtained via their usual means.
We can fairly surmise that the relatives had established contact with the press and were attempting to smear Jeremy via the press from Colin's own witness statement 11th September where he states, "At about 9am on Monday 9.9.85 I received a phone call from David Boutflour to the effect that "we" had all been making statements to the police and we are sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. He wouldn't say anymore and that I should be prepared for a bombshell in the press on Tuesday 10.9.85. I asked him if Jeremy knew about it and David said that he knew."
I think it is fair to assume that the one of the first things Sun reporters would have been attempting to uncover in the aftermath of this tragedy, such are their journalistic and ethical standards, would have been racy pictures or stories connected to the dead model.
Their methods have been laid bare by Leveson and the many criminal trials that have followed and to any reasonable person their word is worth nothing. They are a national joke and have been shown to deliberately lie on behalf of the police so many times that relying on this source is desperate stuff.
-
very good points gringo.
-
Hi Maggie, to be borne in mind for anyone regarding the Sun as a reliable source is the ongoing perjury trial of Andy Coulson in Scotland. Aside from the fact that Coulson committed his alleged perjury in a perjury trial(you couldn't make this shit up ;D), the trial sheds some light on the "journalistic" methods of News International as an organisation.
As an example of the sort of information that News International pays(corrupts public servants) police officers for, the trial is currently hearing evidence of the leaking of Milly Dowlers voicemails from the police to the News of the World. They also hacked the phones of Milly Dowler's parents and the phones of the widows of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is obvious that nothing is too low for them in the search for salacious gossip when tragedy occurs. This is who News International and their sleazy publications are. They lie, commit perjury, hack the phones of dead schoolgirls and war widows, corrupt public officials and police officers.
The Sun story has zero credibility to anyone reasonable. I wouldn't believe it regardless of my stance on guilt/innocence because the source has no credibility. Any information that the Sun had about photos was most likely obtained via their usual means.
We can fairly surmise that the relatives had established contact with the press and were attempting to smear Jeremy via the press from Colin's own witness statement 11th September where he states, "At about 9am on Monday 9.9.85 I received a phone call from David Boutflour to the effect that "we" had all been making statements to the police and we are sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. He wouldn't say anymore and that I should be prepared for a bombshell in the press on Tuesday 10.9.85. I asked him if Jeremy knew about it and David said that he knew."
I think it is fair to assume that the one of the first things Sun reporters would have been attempting to uncover in the aftermath of this tragedy, such are their journalistic and ethical standards, would have been racy pictures or stories connected to the dead model.
Their methods have been laid bare by Leveson and the many criminal trials that have followed and to any reasonable person their word is worth nothing. They are a national joke and have been shown to deliberately lie on behalf of the police so many times that relying on this source is desperate stuff.
You might think lots of thing are 'fair to assume' but the FACT that Colin corroborates the description of the photographs is proof enough that they existed. The OS is suggesting that didn't exist when quite clearly - they did. Why make this lie up? You can bandy 'Leveson' as often as you like it has no bearing whatsoever on Jeremy trying to peddle pictures of his dead sister. Colin is the proof, not The Sun!!
-
the os verson of eents says that jeremy told the sun that colin might have some pictures of sheila.
Colin did have some Nugs. Again according to Colin's own statement,
"On Saturday 76th September I went to Sheila's flat at 2 Morshead Mansions. There I saw jeremy Bamber, Sheilas brother. we sat in the sitting room chatting generally. I had gone to the flat to sort out some of the property( clothes, toys) which belonged to my twin sons.
Jeremy had cleaned up the flat and had placed my sons belongings into plastic bags.
There were a number of photographs these being about four albums of family shots, some prints from Sheila's modelling folio and a box of slides, numbering approximately twenty four.
The slides had been professionally taken and were of Sheila in various states of undress in a paddling pool. I think I would describe these slides as "soft pornography" as they were quite explicit in detail.
I asked Jeremy if I could take the slides so that I could destroy them. He agreed that I could take them, which I did...."
Colin goes on to say that there were further slides of a similar nature which were at his house in Goldhanger, which Jeremy agreed that Colin could also have. It was before arrangements had been made to collect these slides that the Sun story appeared, although it was after Colin found out about the slides and at around the same time as the relatives were warning about "bombshells in the press".
-
are very intresting so the story on the offical site is perfectly consitent with colins statement.
-
Colin did have some Nugs. Again according to Colin's own statement,
"On Saturday 76th September I went to Sheila's flat at 2 Morshead Mansions. There I saw jeremy Bamber, Sheilas brother. we sat in the sitting room chatting generally. I had gone to the flat to sort out some of the property( clothes, toys) which belonged to my twin sons.
Jeremy had cleaned up the flat and had placed my sons belongings into plastic bags.
There were a number of photographs these being about four albums of family shots, some prints from Sheila's modelling folio and a box of slides, numbering approximately twenty four.
The slides had been professionally taken and were of Sheila in various states of undress in a paddling pool. I think I would describe these slides as "soft pornography" as they were quite explicit in detail.
I asked Jeremy if I could take the slides so that I could destroy them. He agreed that I could take them, which I did...."
Colin goes on to say that there were further slides of a similar nature which were at his house in Goldhanger, which Jeremy agreed that Colin could also have. It was before arrangements had been made to collect these slides that the Sun story appeared, although it was after Colin found out about the slides and at around the same time as the relatives were warning about "bombshells in the press".
So let's see:
1) Jeremy talked about selling them and the Sun said no
2) Jeremy then Let Colin find out about them and since the were of no use agreed to let Collin have them
3) The Sun screwed him by refusing to pay him and instead did a story about how scummy he was that he wanted to sell them to the Sun and they paid nothing for such a great hatchet job.
So in sum- the irony...
-
Colin did have some Nugs. Again according to Colin's own statement,
"On Saturday 76th September I went to Sheila's flat at 2 Morshead Mansions. There I saw jeremy Bamber, Sheilas brother. we sat in the sitting room chatting generally. I had gone to the flat to sort out some of the property( clothes, toys) which belonged to my twin sons.
Jeremy had cleaned up the flat and had placed my sons belongings into plastic bags.
There were a number of photographs these being about four albums of family shots, some prints from Sheila's modelling folio and a box of slides, numbering approximately twenty four.
The slides had been professionally taken and were of Sheila in various states of undress in a paddling pool. I think I would describe these slides as "soft pornography" as they were quite explicit in detail.
I asked Jeremy if I could take the slides so that I could destroy them. He agreed that I could take them, which I did...."
Colin goes on to say that there were further slides of a similar nature which were at his house in Goldhanger, which Jeremy agreed that Colin could also have. It was before arrangements had been made to collect these slides that the Sun story appeared, although it was after Colin found out about the slides and at around the same time as the relatives were warning about "bombshells in the press".
These are not the photographs in question, Jeremy gave Colin the slides mentioned above but he never actually saw the pictures that Jeremy described to both him and the journalist. Nice try! ::)
-
Thank you Gringo.
I have said several times that there must have been photos at Sheila's flat. She was a model. I didn't know there were four albums worth. This would have been a treasure trove for Jeremy.
It is no surprise Jeremy found them. He had been making the flat into his London based bachelor pad.
-
I appreciate supporters have to go down the discrediting of The Sun route on this issue.
However the OS backs up a lot of The Sun's claims -
The meeting happened.
Brett was there.
Photos were discussed.
No photos were provided at the meeting.
I assume money was discussed. Jeremy would agree to give his life story and/or pictures to The Sun for nothing. He didn't in his NOTW negotiations.
-
If The Sun had written a made up story about the pictures, why would he choose the NOTW to tell his story to if he was acquitted? ;D ;D
-
I appreciate supporters have to go down the discrediting of The Sun route on this issue.
However the OS backs up a lot of The Sun's claims -
The meeting happened.
Brett was there.
Photos were discussed.
No photos were provided at the meeting.
I assume money was discussed. Jeremy would agree to give his life story and/or pictures to The Sun for nothing. He didn't in his NOTW negotiations.
Hi Adam, my remarks about the Sun especially in the 1980s have nothing to do with trying to discredit it or it's journalists and editor, I believe their immorality and lying has been exposed over the past few years and they have been thoroughly discredited.
I am just asking you to acknowledge The Sun Newspaper's proven behaviour which was.... printing lies and false stores on the front page therefore it is a poor argument for you to employ against Jeremy Bamber. I am not doubting Colin's words or therefore that in this case the said rag may have been telling the truth, rather the angle you argue from and your total disrespect to the Hillsborough 96, their families and friends.
-
I appreciate supporters have to go down the discrediting of The Sun route on this issue.
However the OS backs up a lot of The Sun's claims -
The meeting happened.
Brett was there.
Photos were discussed.
well we dont really need to descredit the sun its the sun.
No photos were provided at the meeting.
I assume money was discussed. Jeremy would agree to give his life story and/or pictures to The Sun for nothing. He didn't in his NOTW negotiations.
we dont really need to descredit the its the sun.
-
If The Sun had written a made up story about the pictures, why would he choose the NOTW to tell his story to if he was acquitted? ;D ;D
could it be becouse no other paper was intrested.
-
could it be becouse no other paper was intrested.
Probably wouldn't go near them with a barge-pole. :D
-
So let's see:
1) Jeremy talked about selling them and the Sun said no
2) Jeremy then Let Colin find out about them and since the were of no use agreed to let Collin have them
3) The Sun screwed him by refusing to pay him and instead did a story about how scummy he was that he wanted to sell them to the Sun and they paid nothing for such a great hatchet job.
So in sum- the irony...
the point is that jeremys story is consitant with colins statement so it can not be proven he made it up as has been cliamed.
-
. He had been making the flat into his London based bachelor pad.
What exactly do you mean by this and what is your source?
Also colin mentioned photos of Sheila that her mother had been keeping ( not at the flat)
-
if her mother had been keeping photos they would off been found at whf wouldent they.
-
if her mother had been keeping photos they would off been found at whf wouldent they.
Jeremy said he found the photo's that Colin had taken of Sheila (nude) in the fields at WHF when they first met in his Mothers bureau at WHF and Jeremy removed them and took them back to Sheila's flat and he did give them to Colin.
-
Jeremy said he found the photo's that Colin had taken of Sheila (nude) in the fields at WHF when they first met in his Mothers bureau at WHF and Jeremy removed them and took them back to Sheila's flat and he did give them to Colin.
Yes, Susan, that is correct - it seems that some people are unable to grasp that their are more than one set of pictures and that the explicit pictures were never SEEN by anyone other than JEREMY and BRETT (I'm getting a headache!!). Top and bottom of it is - Jeremy tried to sell pictures of his dead sister to The Sun - people can either accept it or live in denial. Their choice!!
-
Yes, Susan, that is correct - it seems that some people are unable to grasp that their are more than one set of pictures and that the explicit pictures were never SEEN by anyone other than JEREMY and BRETT (I'm getting a headache!!). Top and bottom of it is - Jeremy tried to sell pictures of his dead sister to The Sun - people can either accept it or live in denial. Their choice!!
Caroline quite right and what people need to accept the Sun must have been told about the explicit pictures for them to run their story "Bambi Brother In Photo Scandal" he tried to peddle sex snaps of model. When Colin read the article he knew it was true as the way the Sun described him talking about the pictures was exactly as he had talked to him about them. I think this is proof enough Jeremy tried to sell explicit photo's of his dead sister to the Sun :'(.
-
What " life story ?".He was only 24. ;D ;D ;D ;D He'd never lived.
Life story is when you're about 90.
-
Caroline quite right and what people need to accept the Sun must have been told about the explicit pictures for them to run their story "Bambi Brother In Photo Scandal" he tried to peddle sex snaps of model. When Colin read the article he knew it was true as the way the Sun described him talking about the pictures was exactly as he had talked to him about them. I think this is proof enough Jeremy tried to sell explicit photo's of his dead sister to the Sun :'(.
That's it - in a nut shell - what you betting that someone will come along and confuse things again? The Sun isn't the issue, Colin's confirmation of the description is!! ;D ;D ;)
-
Note the word " tried ",which isn't the same as " did ". ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Note the word " tried ",which isn't the same as " did ". ;D ;D ;D ;D
To me, it's the word "tried" which -I HATE to say it- exonerates even a paper as scummy as the Sun. HAD they gone along with it and BOUGHT them, it would have made them as culpable as Jeremy when her offered to SELL them.
-
That's it - in a nut shell - what you betting that someone will come along and confuse things again? The Sun isn't the issue, Colin's confirmation of the description is!! ;D ;D ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
To me, it's the word "tried" which -I HATE to say it- exonerates even a paper as scummy as the Sun. HAD they gone along with it and BOUGHT them, it would have made them as culpable as Jeremy when her offered to SELL them.
Haven't you ever wondered why they weren't bought ? Not because Sheila was deceased because the press often highlight certain pics of deceased celebrities ( Marylin Monroe for instance ) so it had nothing to do with Sheila being deceased. A few publications refused,allegedly,though I've not seen any reference to them.
-
Haven't you ever wondered why they weren't bought ? Not because Sheila was deceased because the press often highlight certain pics of deceased celebrities ( Marylin Monroe for instance ) so it had nothing to do with Sheila being deceased. A few publications refused,allegedly,though I've not seen any reference to them.
Lookout, I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that this MAY have been the first -the ONLY!!!(?)- altruistic act to be performed by the SUN.........................but before you start to attack me for saying it, I'm also going to suggest that it's reasoning was FAR from altruistic. I think the saw a much bigger story AND the advantage of being seen to keep their nose clean. It mattered not that they DIDN'T have pictures to publish. What mattered was that they COULD publish Jeremy that had approached them with an offer which for the sake of propriety, they declined.
-
Lookout, I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that this MAY have been the first -the ONLY!!!(?)- altruistic act to be performed by the SUN.........................but before you start to attack me for saying it, I'm also going to suggest that it's reasoning was FAR from altruistic. I think the saw a much bigger story AND the advantage of being seen to keep their nose clean. It mattered not that they DIDN'T have pictures to publish. What mattered was that they COULD publish Jeremy that had approached them with an offer which for the sake of propriety, they declined.
Jeremy trying to sell them was the BIGGER story.
-
Jeremy trying to sell them was the BIGGER story.
And they got the story, kept their money AND the moral high ground. A nice days work.
-
they would take the moral hig ground anyway they allways do.
-
Yes, Susan, that is correct - it seems that some people are unable to grasp that their are more than one set of pictures and that the explicit pictures were never SEEN by anyone other than JEREMY and BRETT (I'm getting a headache!!). Top and bottom of it is - Jeremy tried to sell pictures of his dead sister to The Sun - people can either accept it or live in denial. Their choice!!
I am aware there are two sets of photos - but they were originally in two places . I have no Idea why June would keep the photos as she would have disapproved "according to Colin"
I am still not convinced one little bit that if the photos had been there and offered that the sun would have turned them down . They would have jumped at the chance to publish them . They had no morals what so ever. So Yes I am in denial about the full truth of the story. It sounds like one of Adams favourite sayings " it has a ring of truth " about it. But at the moment we have the NOTW versions and Jeremys version - and to be honest if he is guilty they are both liars - the NOTW has actually been proven to lie about lots of things - so in your world - one set of liars against another .
I would not like to judge tbh - but you carry on .
Our acceptance may just take a bit longer than yours.
-
I am aware there are two sets of photos - but they were originally in two places . I have no Idea why June would keep the photos as she would have disapproved "according to Colin"
I am still not convinced one little bit that if the photos had been there and offered that the sun would have turned them down . They would have jumped at the chance to publish them . They had no morals what so ever. So Yes I am in denial about the full truth of the story. It sounds like one of Adams favourite sayings " it has a ring of truth " about it. But at the moment we have the NOTW versions and Jeremys version - and to be honest if he is guilty they are both liars - the NOTW has actually been proven to lie about lots of things - so in your world - one set of liars against another .
I would not like to judge tbh - but you carry on .
Our acceptance may just take a bit longer than yours.
Hi Jan
Actually three sets of photo's existed according to Colin. I am taking Colin's word about the photo's he did write to Jeremy to try and get them back. What niggles me is how did the Sun get to know about these sex snaps (their words) they must have been told by Jeremy or Colin.
-
I am aware there are two sets of photos - but they were originally in two places . I have no Idea why June would keep the photos as she would have disapproved "according to Colin"
I am still not convinced one little bit that if the photos had been there and offered that the sun would have turned them down . They would have jumped at the chance to publish them . They had no morals what so ever. So Yes I am in denial about the full truth of the story. It sounds like one of Adams favourite sayings " it has a ring of truth " about it. But at the moment we have the NOTW versions and Jeremys version - and to be honest if he is guilty they are both liars - the NOTW has actually been proven to lie about lots of things - so in your world - one set of liars against another .
I would not like to judge tbh - but you carry on .
Our acceptance may just take a bit longer than yours.
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy.
I have only said 'ring of truth'once. When creating a thread on Julies WS. The defence lawyers admitted it had a 'ring of truth'. Oh I've just mentioned it twice.
The judge also asked the jury if Julie's testimony had a 'ring of truth' (opps) to it. Do you know I do believe the jury did believe it to be the case.
-
That is a good point.
How did The Sun know of the existence of the photo's ?
And how did they know Jeremy had them ?
And why did they care. It was murder/suicide from weeks ago.
-
It seems Jeremy was very stupid. Or very greedy. Or both.
The OS says The Sun contacted him. This is very very unlikely.
Anyway the OS says Jeremy was suspicious and consulted a lawyer. The lawyer advised him not to attend. Jeremy ignored the advice.
The lawyer did not advise him to tape the interview if he went against his advice. Or the lawyer did advise this and again Jeremy ignored the advice.
Brett was brought along. Neither Brett or Jeremy thought to tape the conversation.
-
how is it unlikely there always contacting relative and family members when a tragedy occurs.
-
That is a good point.
How did The Sun know of the existence of the photo's ?
And how did they know Jeremy had them ?
And why did they care. It was murder/suicide from weeks ago.
she was a model it doesnt take a genuis to work out there might be nude pictures of her.
-
she was a model it doesnt take a genuis to work out there might be nude pictures of her.
Pornographic pictures is what the OS said The Sun were interested in. Although The Sun were not allowed to publish such pictures.
How did The Sun know these pictures existed and that Jeremy had them ?
Why did The Sun contact Jeremy and then not demand to see the photographs. Or pay to get them ? They were obviously desperate to get hold of the pictures they could not publish.
And why did The Sun care. It was news from weeks ago.
-
the could of published censred versons of them.
they have done so before.
-
So The Sun guessed that 'pornographic' pictures of Sheila existed.
They also guessed Jeremy would have them.
They also guessed a grieving Jeremy would be prepared to sell the pictures to them. Rubbishing his dead sister.
The Sun assumed if it published distasteful pictures of a woman with mental health problems, who had committed murder/suicide, the public would not mind.
A meeting was offered. Jeremy stupidly agreed to go. He was fed up with his bad press and the cameras not getting his best side. Although he had spent a lot of time away from the media, abroad and the media did not care anyway.
The Sun decided to print a front page article anyway. Which was all untrue. Profiting from the tragedy and kicking an innocent man when he is down.
-
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy.
1. Why do you keep saying this when you surely must know it makes you look and sound like a ****?
2. Why don't you ever say it to others?
-
I am aware there are two sets of photos - but they were originally in two places . I have no Idea why June would keep the photos as she would have disapproved "according to Colin"
I am still not convinced one little bit that if the photos had been there and offered that the sun would have turned them down . They would have jumped at the chance to publish them . They had no morals what so ever. So Yes I am in denial about the full truth of the story. It sounds like one of Adams favourite sayings " it has a ring of truth " about it. But at the moment we have the NOTW versions and Jeremys version - and to be honest if he is guilty they are both liars - the NOTW has actually been proven to lie about lots of things - so in your world - one set of liars against another .
I would not like to judge tbh - but you carry on .
Our acceptance may just take a bit longer than yours.
I will carry in thanks but I think selling pictures of your sister who you have just murdered is beyond emendation - but hey, that's just me! I couldn't care less what people are convinced of - he tried to sell them and the evidence is there! If people still wish to defend such a person it's their business and for their conscience!
-
well i would rather have that on my consisnse than defending the sun newspaper that would be to much of a heavy burden to bear.
-
Supporters have to say 'alright he tried to sell distasteful pictures of Sheila, but that doesn't mean he is guilty'.
However supporters know that doing such a thing makes it much more likely he is guilty. If you use common sense of course.
-
know they dont have to say that becouse as far as im concerned theres no proof he did.
-
know they dont have to say that becouse as far as im concerned theres no proof he did.
Playing deaf, dumb and blind is how you pretend that Jeremy is innocent but you are not content with that and go further to avoid facing any wrong he has done. It is amusing.
You never have a solid basis for anythign you claim, I'm still waiting for your made up rubbish where I could not tell the difference between a civilian weapon and military weapon. Have you made up what weapon yet?
-
well i would rather have that on my consisnse than defending the sun newspaper that would be to much of a heavy burden to bear.
You would rather peddle porno pics of your dead sister? :o :o
-
Playing deaf, dumb and blind is how you pretend that Jeremy is innocent but you are not content with that and go further to avoid facing any wrong he has done. It is amusing.
You never have a solid basis for anythign you claim, I'm still waiting for your made up rubbish where I could not tell the difference between a civilian weapon and military weapon. Have you made up what weapon yet?
jeremys story is consitant with colins statement as for the thing all in good time.
-
jeremys story is consitant with colins statement as for the thing all in good time.
It's not.
-
Not read much on the forum lately, but I am surprised that this thread is still ongoing 8)
Logic prevails in a way, in my opinion. I doubt anyone in their right minds would attempt to sell pornographic material to a newspaper. Nude photographs, yes.
It was wrong for Jeremy and Brett to try to sell any photographs of Sheila to the press whether they image Sheila dressed or naked whether they were young men or not, there is no excuse for how they behaved.
It was Brett that phoned Fielder. I just wonder how much influence Brett had over Jeremy? Or why Jeremy didn't phone himself?
The argument is flawed from the onset, because no one has ever seen the photo's. Neither Colin or Fielder saw them. The only claim is that of hearsay of what was supposedly told to them by Jeremy and Brett.
I do not believe that Sheila would pose for pornographic pictures and neither did Colin believe she would. It was something she would never do and if she did then she must have been quite desperate.
If she was desperate enough, then why was she? I don't believe she was, for she had the full support of her family when ever she needed it. Sheila was never short of food, clothes, makeup etc, but who paid for it all? Looking good all of the time does not come cheap, not then or now..
-
Jeremy trying to sell them was the BIGGER story.
Ar but, Jeremy didn't sell em and the Sun made a bigger story in regards to his and Brett's approach...saving them a lot money, time and effort. What a scoop lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not read much on the forum lately, but I am surprised that this thread is still ongoing 8)
Logic prevails in a way, in my opinion. I doubt anyone in their right minds would attempt to sell pornographic material to a newspaper. Nude photographs, yes.
It was wrong for Jeremy and Brett to try to sell any photographs of Sheila to the press whether they image Sheila dressed or naked whether they were young men or not, there is no excuse for how they behaved.
It was Brett that phoned Fielder. I just wonder how much influence Brett had over Jeremy? Or why Jeremy didn't phone himself?
The argument is flawed from the onset, because no one has ever seen the photo's. Neither Colin or Fielder saw them. The only claim is that of hearsay of what was supposedly told to them by Jeremy and Brett.
I do not believe that Sheila would pose for pornographic pictures and neither did Colin believe she would. It was something she would never do and if she did then she must have been quite desperate.
If she was desperate enough, then why was she? I don't believe she was, for she had the full support of her family when ever she needed it. Sheila was never short of food, clothes, makeup etc, but who paid for it all? Looking good all of the time does not come cheap, not then or now..
You think they had no photos and were trying to scam the Sun? Realistically they would only have approached the Sun if they actually had them and a reason to use Brett is because Jeremy would want clean hands. In any event the story was that the reporter ultimately spoke to Jeremy.
WHile what he did was scummy it was also stupid, he should have simply had a third party try to negotiate the deal and pretend the third part had no relationship with Jeremy. He had to know it would look bad. He got sloppy out of greed but greed is what this whole case is about. He was so greedy he killed his family, selling nude pics is nothing in comparison. He thought he was in the clear and thus that it would not hurt him. This is what some people call arrogance. I call it stupidity but there is a fine line between the two and it is largely a matter of semantics.
-
You think they had no photos and were trying to scam the Sun? Realistically they would only have approached the Sun if they actually had them and a reason to use Brett is because Jeremy would want clean hands. In any event the story was that the reporter ultimately spoke to Jeremy.
WHile what he did was scummy it was also stupid, he should have simply had a third party try to negotiate the deal and pretend the third part had no relationship with Jeremy. He had to know it would look bad. He got sloppy out of greed but greed is what this whole case is about. He was so greedy he killed his family, selling nude pics is nothing in comparison. He thought he was in the clear and thus that it would not hurt him. This is what some people call arrogance. I call it stupidity but there is a fine line between the two and it is largely a matter of semantics.
The resulting story would hardly have changed HAD they been trying to scam the Sun. Not QUITE sure which would have been more damning, the fact of him HAVING porny pics that he was offering at a price or him SAYING he had porny pics -which, IF they existed MIGHT have been nothing more than Sheila laying on a bear skin rug in her bare skin, aged 6 months. EITHER way his actions can be seen as those of a man supremely arrogant and confident OR a silly, pre-pubescent boy. EITHER way, it's scummy but it is, as you say, "largely a matter of semantics."
-
Hello Patti
I think Colin did believe the pictures were explicit because he was worried about where they were going to end up and this is why he posted a letter to Jeremy asking for the photo's so he could destroy them and just because Colin did not go into details of the photo's in his book does not mean Jeremy had not given him details of the type of photo's they were I for one thinks he did. Jeremy left two sets of nude photo's for Colin why did he remove the third set?
-
Ar but, Jeremy didn't sell em and the Sun made a bigger story in regards to his and Brett's approach...saving them a lot money, time and effort. What a scoop lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
He only didn't sell them because The Sun didn't WANT them. I don't understand why people are defending his INTENTION - the intention is the point that is not only distasteful, it's down right disgusting and shows the man's character. Someone who could do that, is capable of anything
-
Hello Patti
I think Colin did believe the pictures were explicit because he was worried about where they were going to end up and this is why he posted a letter to Jeremy asking for the photo's so he could destroy them and just because Colin did not go into details of the photo's in his book does not mean Jeremy had not given him details of the type of photo's they were I for one thinks he did. Jeremy left two sets of nude photo's for Colin why did he remove the third set?
Colin didn't go into detail out of respect for Sheila - but he did say that the description in The Sun was the same as that told to him by Jeremy. He tried to sell the pictures, of that, there is no doubt.
-
Colin didn't go into detail out of respect for Sheila - but he did say that the description in The Sun was the same as that told to him by Jeremy. He tried to sell the pictures, of that, there is no doubt.
Caroline I agree Colin said very little about the photo's in his book out of respect for Sheila the Mother of his wee boys but I am in no doubt he was told just how explicit they were why did he write to Jeremy asking for them back on the morning they were published but he was too late then he wrote again to Jeremy expressing is absolute anger after he saw the headlines in the Sun. If the pictures were just straight forward nude shots why not leave them with the other two sets of nude photo's he removed them because they were just a little more than nude pictures sex snaps as the Sun called them. All very sad IMO.
-
I can't imagine that Sheila would have even posed for " explicit " pics,as she had remained guarded on the type of pics that were taken. She just wasn't THAT type of model. Topless maybe,but I again imagine that even this went beyond what she herself had in mind.
It's this part of the whole scenario that I can't understand as her character didn't fit in with mucky pics.
-
As for Brett and those like him,they don't rate women's bodies anyway so he'd have been at the forefront of any suggestions of selling, regardless of who it was. The man was ruthless and I wouldn't have thought,a " good friend " for Jeremy to have had. Look how he was over the antiques,certainly not backward in coming forward when it came to pointing out the value of certain household objects.
I just think he was a bad influence on Jeremy,as he was the root cause in RWB hiring a private detective to see what they " got up to ".
-
I can't imagine that Sheila would have even posed for " explicit " pics,as she had remained guarded on the type of pics that were taken. She just wasn't THAT type of model. Topless maybe,but I again imagine that even this went beyond what she herself had in mind.
It's this part of the whole scenario that I can't understand as her character didn't fit in with mucky pics.
yes i thought that as well i cant she her posing for the pictures described.
-
Caroline I agree Colin said very little about the photo's in his book out of respect for Sheila the Mother of his wee boys but I am in no doubt he was told just how explicit they were why did he write to Jeremy asking for them back on the morning they were published but he was too late then he wrote again to Jeremy expressing is absolute anger after he saw the headlines in the Sun. If the pictures were just straight forward nude shots why not leave them with the other two sets of nude photo's he removed them because they were just a little more than nude pictures sex snaps as the Sun called them. All very sad IMO.
I agree, he made it clear that they were described by Jeremy that they were 'anything BUT' simple nude shots. He also said he 'had a feeling' that Jeremy would try to sell them - hence the letter. It is sad and quite unbelievable that an innocent man could do such a thing!
-
I can't imagine that Sheila would have even posed for " explicit " pics,as she had remained guarded on the type of pics that were taken. She just wasn't THAT type of model. Topless maybe,but I again imagine that even this went beyond what she herself had in mind.
It's this part of the whole scenario that I can't understand as her character didn't fit in with mucky pics.
If she'd been as high on drugs as you've sometimes painted her as having been, any inhibitions would have flown out of the window so anything would have been possible.
-
yes i thought that as well i cant she her posing for the pictures described.
If Jeremy made up the explicit pictures, that makes it even WORSE!
-
I can't imagine that Sheila would have even posed for " explicit " pics,as she had remained guarded on the type of pics that were taken. She just wasn't THAT type of model. Topless maybe,but I again imagine that even this went beyond what she herself had in mind.
It's this part of the whole scenario that I can't understand as her character didn't fit in with mucky pics.
Never having met Sheila, you have no idea what she would or wouldn't do. But if the photo's didn't exist, it means 'dear old Jeremy' made them up - what kind of 'grieving' brother would do that to his recently deceased sister?? Despicable!
-
yes i thought that as well i cant she her posing for the pictures described.
Hello nugnug
Colin was shocked when he saw the totally nude photo's that had been taken of Sheila in her garden at the flat he said she told him she would never go into glamour modelling but he was even more worried about the ones Jeremy had removed from her flat think about it why would Jeremy want explicit photo's of Sheila :'(
-
Hello nugnug
Colin was shocked when he saw the totally nude photo's that had been taken of Sheila in her garden at the flat he said she told him she would never go into glamour modelling but he was even more worried about the ones Jeremy had removed from her flat think about it why would Jeremy want explicit photo's of Sheila :'(
I can't even imagine why people are still denying even the nude shots didn't exist - Colin SAW them ;D ;D ;D ;D.
-
she was a model it doesnt take a genuis to work out there might be nude pictures of her.
If you read Colins book the press were everywhere and questioning every relative ,friend and neighbour. They were even hounding colins partners father . So anyone who knew the photos even might have existed could have told them . They were extremely intrusive to the extent that they nearly got punched on a few occasions.
-
1. Why do you keep saying this when you surely must know it makes you look and sound like a ****?
2. Why don't you ever say it to others?
Don't worry I have him on selective ignore . But I did warn him if he said it again I would start getting personal in my replies to him - so I might now just start doing that. I have given him enough chances .
-
I will carry in thanks but I think selling pictures of your sister who you have just murdered is beyond emendation - but hey, that's just me! I couldn't care less what people are convinced of - he tried to sell them and the evidence is there! If people still wish to defend such a person it's their business and for their conscience!
I am not defending him at all and I am glad your conscience is now clear.
I just said even in your new found truth it is one liar against another which makes it even harder to get to the truth.
That is different to defending him .
-
Hello nugnug
Colin was shocked when he saw the totally nude photo's that had been taken of Sheila in her garden at the flat he said she told him she would never go into glamour modelling but he was even more worried about the ones Jeremy had removed from her flat think about it why would Jeremy want explicit photo's of Sheila :'(
I think Susan I will have to read the book again - as it is difficult to take it all in as it skips about so much , there are some bits in it that are interesting.
-
Caroline I agree Colin said very little about the photo's in his book out of respect for Sheila the Mother of his wee boys but I am in no doubt he was told just how explicit they were why did he write to Jeremy asking for them back on the morning they were published but he was too late then he wrote again to Jeremy expressing is absolute anger after he saw the headlines in the Sun. If the pictures were just straight forward nude shots why not leave them with the other two sets of nude photo's he removed them because they were just a little more than nude pictures sex snaps as the Sun called them. All very sad IMO.
When did the story in the Sun about the photos get published? anyone know?
-
I think Susan I will have to read the book again - as it is difficult to take it all in as it skips about so much , there are some bits in it that are interesting.
Jan quite right I have it at my side and I keep referring to certain pages and think I can now recite them from memory ;D ;D ;D but I agree does dodge from subject to subject
-
I am not defending him at all and I am glad your conscience is now clear.
I just said even in your new found truth it is one liar against another which makes it even harder to get to the truth.
That is different to defending him .
Colin isn't a liar. Colin is the one who stated that the description of the photographs was THE SAME. People are emphasising that the story appeared in The Sun newspaper and using that and the recent Leveson findings as an excuse to suggest the story was fictitious - but it was COLIN who said that Jeremy told him about some explicit pictures he had found of Sheila, he said the description was the same as that which appeared in The Sun and on that basis he KNEW the story to be TRUE. Unless people think Colin is a liar too, then the argument that it didn't happen is on a road to nowhere.
-
When did the story in the Sun about the photos get published? anyone know?
Jan not sure when the Sun ran the story not long after the murders according to the book I have seen an extract of the story on the front page. Think somebody on here will know.
-
You think they had no photos and were trying to scam the Sun? Realistically they would only have approached the Sun if they actually had them and a reason to use Brett is because Jeremy would want clean hands. In any event the story was that the reporter ultimately spoke to Jeremy.
WHile what he did was scummy it was also stupid, he should have simply had a third party try to negotiate the deal and pretend the third part had no relationship with Jeremy. He had to know it would look bad. He got sloppy out of greed but greed is what this whole case is about. He was so greedy he killed his family, selling nude pics is nothing in comparison. He thought he was in the clear and thus that it would not hurt him. This is what some people call arrogance. I call it stupidity but there is a fine line between the two and it is largely a matter of semantics.
Not at all. I do believe there were photo's. What I don't believe is that Sheila would do pornographic photo's. There is a massive difference between nude and pornographic photo's. I am surprised that anyone would believe that Sheila was doing porn, she was a model not a porn star.
I think Jeremy and Brett exaggerated to Fielder and then Fielder added to that in order to sell his story.
I make no excuses for what Jeremy said to Colin or to Fielder, its was distasteful and very stupid. I believe more of what Colin said rather than that of Fielder and that the photo's were just nude photo's and not porn as we know it.
Someone took those photo's and no chemist would have developed such photo's, not in those days unless they were done by a professional photographer based in a studio?
No one ever saw the photo's all we have is two different descriptions from Jeremy and Brett. One to Colin and one to Fielder....I know who I believe and that is Colin and the latter does not mention porn or sexual objects. :-\
-
Not at all. I do believe there were photo's. What I don't believe is that Sheila would do pornographic photo's. There is a massive difference between nude and pornographic photo's. I am surprised that anyone would believe that Sheila was doing porn, she was a model not a porn star.
I think Jeremy and Brett exaggerated to Fielder and then Fielder added to that in order to sell his story.
I make no excuses for what Jeremy said to Colin or to Fielder, its was distasteful and very stupid. I believe more of what Colin said rather than that of Fielder and that the photo's were just nude photo's and not porn as we know it.
Someone took those photo's and no chemist would have developed such photo's, not in those days unless they were done by a professional photographer based in a studio?
No one ever saw the photo's all we have is two different descriptions from Jeremy and Brett. One to Colin and one to Fielder....I know who I believe and that is Colin and the latter does not mention porn or sexual objects. :-\
If Jeremy made the story of the pictures up, it's even worse! That he could contemplate his sister in such ways is sick. However, you didn't need a professional photographer to take the pictures or use a developing service, just someone who's hobby was photography. My granddad's hobby was photography and he took all the family pictures and developed them himself.
-
Hello Patti
I think Colin did believe the pictures were explicit because he was worried about where they were going to end up and this is why he posted a letter to Jeremy asking for the photo's so he could destroy them and just because Colin did not go into details of the photo's in his book does not mean Jeremy had not given him details of the type of photo's they were I for one thinks he did. Jeremy left two sets of nude photo's for Colin why did he remove the third set?
Hi Susan :)
I think Colin would have told the truth in his book. I hope he did. I am more inclined to believe Colin than Fielder. I cannot except that Sheila would do porn Susan, nudity yes.
I wonder who took them and developed them, because you would not have had them developed the normal way at a shop or chemist.
I'd also like to read the Sun article to see how much was blown up out of proportion and the date this was published. :-\
-
Hi Susan :)
I think Colin would have told the truth in his book. I hope he did. I am more inclined to believe Colin than Fielder. I cannot except that Sheila would do porn Susan, nudity yes.
I wonder who took them and developed them, because you would not have had them developed the normal way at a shop or chemist.
I'd also like to read the Sun article to see how much was blown up out of proportion and the date this was published. :-\
Hi Patti
guess one has to ask themselves who they believe Colin or Jeremy Colin was worried about the slides and where they would end up and he had a feeling Jeremy would try and sell them. The nude photo's of Sheila taken in her garden were what would be published in a Glamour Mag and they were taken by a friend. Patti do you not wonder why Jeremy left two lots of nude photo's at the flat but removed the third set.
-
He only didn't sell them because The Sun didn't WANT them. I don't understand why people are defending his INTENTION - the intention is the point that is not only distasteful, it's down right disgusting and shows the man's character. Someone who could do that, is capable of anything
I doubt anyone in their right mind would defend his intention to sell any photograph of his sister to the press. The whole idea of him doing this is purely distasteful and disrespectful.
What I am trying to say is that no one has seen the photographs all we have is a description given to two people, one being Colin and the other being Fielder.
I believe Colin not Fielder, I think Fielder sensationalized his story and poor Sheila in my opinion never did porn of any kind. In a way I am if anything defending Sheila. She does not come across as being so seedy.
-
If she'd been as high on drugs as you've sometimes painted her as having been, any inhibitions would have flown out of the window so anything would have been possible.
Not necessarily,as Sheila appeared to be immune from the effects of drugs.If anything,it was the prescription drugs which did her more harm than good and their effects would have been far worse than any noxious substance.
-
I doubt anyone in their right mind would defend his intention to sell any photograph of his sister to the press. The whole idea of him doing this is purely distasteful and disrespectful.
What I am trying to say is that no one has seen the photographs all we have is a description given to two people, one being Colin and the other being Fielder.
I believe Colin not Fielder, I think Fielder sensationalized his story and poor Sheila in my opinion never did porn of any kind. In a way I am if anything defending Sheila. She does not come across as being so seedy.
I get what you're saying and of course Sun reporters don't have the best reputation. However, Colin is saying that the description in The Sun was THE SAME as was said to him. I'm sure it's easy to get a copy of the newspaper from the library -I'm going to try and get a copy on Friday or early next week.
Even if Sheila did pose for such pictures, I don't see that it matters much. Lots of models do similar stuff early in their career. It doesn't sound like the pictures were ever used for anything and were possibly something she regretted.
-
Not necessarily,as Sheila appeared to be immune from the effects of drugs.If anything,it was the prescription drugs which did her more harm than good and their effects would have been far worse than any noxious substance.
Now there's a bold sweeping statement if EVER there was one! ::) ::)
-
Never having met Sheila, you have no idea what she would or wouldn't do. But if the photo's didn't exist, it means 'dear old Jeremy' made them up - what kind of 'grieving' brother would do that to his recently deceased sister?? Despicable!
Why are you making such a big deal over this ? There are heaps of other things that I find more revolting.
-
Why are you making such a big deal over this ? There are heaps of other things that I find more revolting.
You have a strange idea of 'revolting' - it IS a big deal because it IS REVOLTING!
-
Why are you making such a big deal over this ? There are heaps of other things that I find more revolting.
This is my other " bold,sweeping statement " to match the first one. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
if jeremy told colin such photos its a pretty nasty thing to do i cant defend that.
its funny brett colins seems to have nothing to say about the case ethere for or agianst jerermy i allways wonder why.
-
if jeremy told colin such photos its a pretty nasty thing to do i cant defend that.
Exactly Nugs, at least you have the decency to admit it.
-
This is my other " bold,sweeping statement " to match the first one. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Sadly YOU don't.
-
nugnug well said regarding the photo's. I have wondered about Brett too why he did not support Jeremy and it makes me think maybe he thought Jeremy was guilty of the murders and therefore wanted to distance himself from Jeremy just a thought I have no proof of this.
-
nugnug well said regarding the photo's. I have wondered about Brett too why he did not support Jeremy and it makes me think maybe he thought Jeremy was guilty of the murders and therefore wanted to distance himself from Jeremy just a thought I have no proof of this.
My thinking too, Susan.
-
Why are you making such a big deal over this ? There are heaps of other things that I find more revolting.
Lookout, I can't believe that I feel the necessity to clarify this, but it SOUNDS as if you're saying that there was little/nothing wrong with Jeremy trying to sell porny pics of Sheila. Where would you rate it on a scale of 1-10?
-
Lookout, I can't believe that I feel the necessity to clarify this, but it SOUNDS as if you're saying that there was little/nothing wrong with Jeremy trying to sell porny pics of Sheila. Where would you rate it on a scale of 1-10?
I can't believe the hoo-ha about it on here. Just count how many posts you've made of the same thing,it's bordering on paranoia.
I've already said that I can't see Sheila doing anything like that and I mean it.
-
I can't believe the hoo-ha about it on here. Just count how many posts you've made of the same thing,it's bordering on paranoia.
I've already said that I can't see Sheila doing anything like that and I mean it.
You certainly have!! You've also resorted to saying -though how you can possibly know beats me- that she was immune to the effects of the drugs she's been rumoured to have spent thousands on, but you ARE missing the point, are you not? It really isn't relevant whether or NOT Sheila posed for these pictures. The point IS that Jeremy SAID she did and offered them for sale. YOU may brush it aside as being no more than hoo-ha. I'm more inclined to see it as despicable, an act of unspeakably bad taste and down right scummy.....................and you've managed to side step my question.
-
You certainly have!! You've also resorted to saying -though how you can possibly know beats me- that she was immune to the effects of the drugs she's been rumoured to have spent thousands on, but you ARE missing the point, are you not? It really isn't relevant whether or NOT Sheila posed for these pictures. The point IS that Jeremy SAID she did and offered them for sale. YOU may brush it aside as being no more than hoo-ha. I'm more inclined to see it as despicable, an act of unspeakably bad taste and down right scummy.....................and you've managed to side step my question.
Ah,but Jeremy tells lies,does he not ?
-
Ah,but Jeremy tells lies,does he not ?
For someone so rigid about improprieties, I'm HUGELY surprised at your refusal to answer my question. You surely can't claim to be without an opinion on this point when you have SUCH fixed opinions on others so I'll put the question again. As you seem to think that trying -but failing- to sell porny pics of his dead sister was something barely worth mentioning, in terms of propriety, where would you place it on a scale of 1-10
-
Ah,but Jeremy tells lies,does he not ?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Quite big ones.
But I believe SOME supporters would support Bamber no matter what.
-
Yes.
Whoppers-----------when it came to describing the photo's maybe ?
-
if jeremy told colin such photos its a pretty nasty thing to do i cant defend that.
its funny brett colins seems to have nothing to say about the case ethere for or agianst jerermy i allways wonder why.
Brett Collins liked living the good life with Jeremy. With Jeremy jailed he needed to find someone else to go party with. People like that have multiple people they party with anyway they don't have a solitary friend- they spread themselves all around.
What would you expect him to do after Jeremy was found guilty? To go around to the press trying to get them to print that he insists Jeremy is innocent even though the evidence proved otherwise? Why would he bother?
If he saw a good chance of Jeremy winning an appeal maybe then he would have stuck around expecting Jeremy to spread his wealth when he got out but other than that one would expect him to simply party with his other friends and forget about Jeremy.
-
When you look back on old threads from 2012 on this very subject there is one thing that surprises me. I can understand that posters have their own reasons for changing their minds about every subject regarding Jeremy .
But what is really odd is that now their opinions about the Sun newspaper have now equally polarised.
So now the sun would not make up the story or at least spice it up in order to sell papers - whereas before they felt the Sun was telling lies.
Funny that.
-
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy.
Former supporters had to not believe that Jeremy would attempt pictures to The Sun.
If he was capable of attempting this it makes it much more likely he would be capable of murder. If you take the common sense approach.
-
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy.
Former supporters had to not believe that Jeremy would attempt pictures to The Sun.
If he was capable of attempting this it makes it much more likely he would be capable of murder. If you take the common sense approach.
No it doesn't
-
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy.
Former supporters had to not believe that Jeremy would attempt pictures to The Sun.
If he was capable of attempting this it makes it much more likely he would be capable of murder. If you take the common sense approach.
Get lost Adam - I have never seen such a load of old cobblers - even from you.
Go do one - and feel free to report me - I could not give a damn where you are concerned you are a prat.
-
When you look back on old threads from 2012 on this very subject there is one thing that surprises me. I can understand that posters have their own reasons for changing their minds about every subject regarding Jeremy .
But what is really odd is that now their opinions about the Sun newspaper have now equally polarised.
So now the sun would not make up the story or at least spice it up in order to sell papers - whereas before they felt the Sun was telling lies.
Funny that.
Nothing funny at all Jan and if you read the posts in this thread, you will see that no one is supporting The Sun, I think I must have said it about 20 times but it's what COLIN says NOT The Sun that is key!!
I guess you checked back in order to imply that some of us are hypocrites? Well given that several of us have already stated that we found the article hard to defend in the past but made excuses, I'd say that 'then' you might have had a point. However, as we have since had the common sense (yes I did say 'common sense'!) to realise that defending Jeremy's action on this matter is futile. I will also add that I believe most people here know he sold the pictures but some are still defending him for whatever reason and will continue to do so even though it's obvious that he did indeed try to sell the pictures - funny that!
-
Nothing funny at all Jan and if you read the posts in this thread, you will see that no one is supporting The Sun, I think I must have said it about 20 times but it's what COLIN says NOT The Sun that is key!!
I guess you checked back in order to imply that some of us are hypocrites? Well given that several of us have already stated that we found the article hard to defend in the past but made excuses, I'd say that 'then' you might have had a point. However, as we have since had the common sense (yes I did say 'common sense'!) to realise that defending Jeremy's action on this matter is futile. I will also add that I believe most people here know he sold the pictures but some are still defending him for whatever reason and will continue to do so even though it's obvious that he did indeed try to sell the pictures - funny that!
:o guilty conscience?
I never said names at all ?
-
Nothing funny at all Jan and if you read the posts in this thread, you will see that no one is supporting The Sun, I think I must have said it about 20 times but it's what COLIN says NOT The Sun that is key!!
I guess you checked back in order to imply that some of us are hypocrites? Well given that several of us have already stated that we found the article hard to defend in the past but made excuses, I'd say that 'then' you might have had a point. However, as we have since had the common sense (yes I did say 'common sense'!) to realise that defending Jeremy's action on this matter is futile. I will also add that I believe most people here know he sold the pictures but some are still defending him for whatever reason and will continue to do so even though it's obvious that he did indeed try to sell the pictures - funny that!
People like Jan are so invested in the case that they ignore all reality to pretend Jeremy is innocent and that in part entails pretending he was a great guy who loved his family and would not do wrong against them. Clearly selling the photos is not something a grieving relative would do but rather something a greedy person who didn't care about his family would do and since the motive given for the murders was greed those heavily invested find it necessary to reject this.
When you are objective it is far easier because you can follow the evidence without having to worry where it leads, it leads where it leads and that's that.
-
:o guilty conscience?
I never said names at all ?
Nah, you didn't have to - pretty clear what and who you were getting at - but I have broad shoulders! My conscience is clear - I'm not defending the indefensible! But you don't mind that he sold them - and you're right, it doesn't make him a murderer? Just more likely!! ;)
-
People like Jan are so invested in the case that they ignore all reality to pretend Jeremy is innocent and that in part entails pretending he was a great guy who loved his family and would not do wrong against them. Clearly selling the photos is not something a grieving relative would do but rather something a greedy person who didn't care about his family would do and since the motive given for the murders was greed those heavily invested find it necessary to reject this.
When you are objective it is far easier because you can follow the evidence without having to worry where it leads, it leads where it leads and that's that.
Sometimes I think that there are some that would defend him, no matter what!
-
Sometimes I think that there are some that would defend him, no matter what!
Not at all. What's it to you if I view this case differently than yourself ? Get over it.
-
Not at all. What's it to you if I view this case differently than yourself ? Get over it.
Quite frankly I don't care what you think - after what you wrote today, I care even less than I did before. You get on with it and good luck to ya!!
-
Nah, you didn't have to - pretty clear what and who you were getting at - but I have broad shoulders! My conscience is clear - I'm not defending the indefensible! But you don't mind that he sold them - and you're right, it doesn't make him a murderer? Just more likely!! ;)
No - stop putting words into my mouth .
I am trying to get at the truth - Did Colin ever see pornographic photos as described by the Sun ?
Did the Sun approach JB and was he stupid enough to go along ?
Has anyone ever seen the photos to see exactly what they were?
I never said he did ,or did not offer photos - I never said if he did it was justified . But I do not believe every word that the Sun writes - is that clear enough?
Plus if he did I think it less likely he was the murderer because he would have been pretty stupid to bring attention to himself in such an obvious way.
-
No - stop putting words into my mouth .
I am trying to get at the truth - Did Colin ever see pornographic photos as described by the Sun ?
Did the Sun approach JB and was he stupid enough to go along ?
Has anyone ever seen the photos to see exactly what they were?
I never said he did ,or did not offer photos - I never said if he did it was justified . But I do not believe every word that the Sun writes - is that clear enough?
Plus if he did I think it less likely he was the murderer because he would have been pretty stupid to bring attention to himself in such an obvious way.
No what? What words am I putting in your mouth?
The Sun didn't describe the pictures to Colin - that was Jeremy. Whe he read The Sun article he KNEW it was true because the pictures were described the same as had beem described to him from Jeremy.
No, Brett called The Sun on behalf of Jeremy
Jeremy and Brett have seen the photo's (although now the OS is saying they don't exist).
I don't believe every word The Sun writes either - but I believe Jeremy tried to sell those pictures - Clear enough for you?
If he tried to sell them, I think it makes him MORE likely to be the murderer and shows what an arrogant and SOB he was/is.
-
if he tried to sell that them it does make it more likely but the operative word is if.
-
These are the words I was referring to
"But you don't mind that he sold them "
That is not true.
That is putting words into my mouth.
Colin wrote the book after the article presumably and I am not making "excuses" but could he have believed the sun and then Exaggerated what JB told him? Possibly.
To balance the debate ; I do believe Colin on most things he has no reason to lie - but to be honest he has very little to say about Jeremy in the book and perhaps on this he got a bit confused.
So the facts are only Jeremy and Brett saw the photos and what they were actually like. But someone somewhere must know - because someone took them.
-
if he tried to sell that them it does make it more likely but the operative word is if.
Well, I don't think there is any question that he did try to sell them.
-
:o guilty conscience?
I never said names at all ?
To be fair though Jan, I don't think you needed to. It was pretty clear who you were talking about. Who else has changed their opinions on the case since then?
if he tried to sell that them it does make it more likely but the operative word is if.
It shows his character, yes.
These are the words I was referring to
"But you don't mind that he sold them "
That is not true.
That is putting words into my mouth.
Colin wrote the book after the article presumably and I am not making "excuses" but could he have believed the sun and then Exaggerated what JB told him? Possibly.
To balance the debate ; I do believe Colin on most things he has no reason to lie - but to be honest he has very little to say about Jeremy in the book and perhaps on this he got a bit confused.
So the facts are only Jeremy and Brett saw the photos and what they were actually like. But someone somewhere must know - because someone took them.
Or perhaps he wasn't confused and actually meant what he said and what he wrote.
Well, I don't think there is any question that he did try to sell them.
Me either, not if you're being honest and not just scared to see Jeremy in any sort of negative light.
-
Well, I don't think there is any question that he did try to sell them.
Colin suspected he would try and sell them this is why he tried to get them back but it was too late.
-
These are the words I was referring to
"But you don't mind that he sold them "
That is not true.
That is putting words into my mouth.
Colin wrote the book after the article presumably and I am not making "excuses" but could he have believed the sun and then Exaggerated what JB told him? Possibly.
To balance the debate ; I do believe Colin on most things he has no reason to lie - but to be honest he has very little to say about Jeremy in the book and perhaps on this he got a bit confused.
So the facts are only Jeremy and Brett saw the photos and what they were actually like. But someone somewhere must know - because someone took them.
The reason I said that is because you do seem to be making excuses and I haven't heard you say much to condemn the action. Although you're not alone in that. Rather than see Jeremy as Colin recalls, you've turned it around on him and suggest he might be confused?? He doesn't sound confused at all and as he was there and part of the incident. I would rather believe him - not The Sun and certainly NOT Jeremy!
Did Colin get Colin confused? Causing him to reinvent the whole incident OR was it simply that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures to The Sun?
-
Colin suspected he would try and sell them this is why he tried to get them back but it was too late.
And he read him right!
-
so why does he give all the pictures that we actully know exist back to colin why dident he try to sell those as well.
-
Colin suspected he would try and sell them this is why he tried to get them back but it was too late.
But the Sun never published the pictures only described what Jeremy said. Now taking into account that everyone says he is one lying SOB -surely even that was ill judged? they could have been blackening Sheilas name without evidence?
-
so why does he give all the pictures that we actully know exist back to colin why dident he try to sell those as well.
Because he obviously wasn't that clever enough to realise that the ones he had were worthless to a newspaper because they couldn't be published. As usual, he couldn't see the bigger picture.
-
But the Sun never published the pictures only described what Jeremy said. Now taking into account that everyone says he is one lying SOB -surely even that was ill judged? they could have been blackening Sheilas name without evidence?
How were they blackening her name? They didn't say the pictures existed, just that Jeremy said that did. Reading a story like that, I certainly wouldn't have thought ill of Sheila.
-
But the Sun never published the pictures only described what Jeremy said. Now taking into account that everyone says he is one lying SOB -surely even that was ill judged? they could have been blackening Sheilas name without evidence?
How is Sheila the one who comes out looking bad? What about Jeremy??
-
How were they blackening her name? They didn't say the pictures existed, just that Jeremy said that did. Reading a story like that, I certainly wouldn't have thought ill of Sheila.
oh - so you are saying the Sun gave the impression that Jeremy was telling lies and the pictures did not exist?
-
How is Sheila the one who comes out looking bad? What about Jeremy??
Of course the article made JB look bad - but if Sheila was party to having pornographic pictures taken when she had two young sons - and leaving them around for people to find of course she would look bad as well.
But now it seems that the paper made JB out to be telling lies and the pictures may not have existed ??? confused - I am
-
Because he obviously wasn't that clever enough to realise that the ones he had were worthless to a newspaper because they couldn't be published. As usual, he couldn't see the bigger picture.
but he had ones that could be be published and gave back to colin he could have easly sold them and he knew that i dont belive he wouldent know that the sun couldent of printed hard core picture.
-
oh - so you are saying the Sun gave the impression that Jeremy was telling lies and the pictures did not exist?
Am I? I don't think I'm saying that at all! I'm saying that the article wasn't about the pictures, it was about Jeremy trying to sell them. The pictures are immaterial - Jeremy's description of them however, is not! There was no blackening of Sheila's or her reputation.
-
Of course the article made JB look bad - but if Sheila was party to having pornographic pictures taken when she had two young sons - and leaving them around for people to find of course she would look bad as well.
But now it seems that the paper made JB out to be telling lies and the pictures may not have existed ??? confused - I am
Not sure where you're getting that from. :-\
-
Of course the article made JB look bad - but if Sheila was party to having pornographic pictures taken when she had two young sons - and leaving them around for people to find of course she would look bad as well.
But now it seems that the paper made JB out to be telling lies and the pictures may not have existed ??? confused - I am
Now who's putting words in people's mouths?
-
Am I? I don't think I'm saying that at all! I'm saying that the article wasn't about the pictures, it was about Jeremy trying to sell them. The pictures are immaterial - Jeremy's description of them however, is not! There was no blackening of Sheila's or her reputation.
sorry - still don't get that argument .
It was inferred that "pornographic " pictures existed and they allegedly repeated the description that Jeremy gave without actually seeing the pictures.
So yes I do think that tarnishes her reputation if they alleged they existed.
And of course Jeremys ::)
So you don't think they were saying JB backed off because they did not exist - you think that the Sun refused them?
-
sorry - still don't get that argument .
It was inferred that "pornographic " pictures existed and they allegedly repeated the description that Jeremy gave without actually seeing the pictures.
So yes I do think that tarnishes her reputation if they alleged they existed.
And of course Jeremys ::)
So you don't think they were saying JB backed off because they did not exist - you think that the Sun refused them?
I don't think it tarnishes her reputation - not in the slightest, they were her pictures and were NOT in the public domain. It does tarnish Jeremy though, because he tried to put explicit pictures of his dead sister in the public domain, pictures she obviously wanted to remain private.
I have no idea if they existed but if not, it means that they came from Jeremy's imagination - pretty sick considering the situation and I do think The Sun refused them or their would be proof that they bought them and Jeremy now wouldn't be trying to say the whole thing didn't happen.
-
Colin suspected he would try and sell them this is why he tried to get them back but it was too late.
Hi Susan, does Colin say this in his book?
According to his witness statement, Jeremy informed Colin of the existence of the photos and agreed that Colin could have them in order to destroy them. This was after Jeremy had cleaned up Sheila's flat. There is no suggestion that Colin suspected that Jeremy would sell them and the discussion was clearly amicable. In fact it seems clear that Colin suspected that the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy.
In fact Colin was so unconcerned about Jeremy's holding of the pictures that he went to stay with friends in Cornwall for a week leaving only a loose arrangement with Jeremy to collect them at a later unarranged date. These do not appear to be the actions of a man who suspected that Jeremy would attempt to sell them.
-
Hi Susan, does Colin say this in his book?
According to his witness statement, Jeremy informed Colin of the existence of the photos and agreed that Colin could have them in order to destroy them. This was after Jeremy had cleaned up Sheila's flat. There is no suggestion that Colin suspected that Jeremy would sell them and the discussion was clearly amicable. In fact it seems clear that Colin suspected that the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy.
In fact Colin was so unconcerned about Jeremy's holding of the pictures that he went to stay with friends in Cornwall for a week leaving only a loose arrangement with Jeremy to collect them at a later unarranged date. These do not appear to be the actions of a man who suspected that Jeremy would attempt to sell them.
Yes he does say that in the book. In order that people know which pictures Colin is referring to, what he thought about them and what he did or didn't do, I will photocopy the relevant pages tomorrow because it's just getting confusing.
-
Hi Susan, does Colin say this in his book?
According to his witness statement, Jeremy informed Colin of the existence of the photos and agreed that Colin could have them in order to destroy them. This was after Jeremy had cleaned up Sheila's flat. There is no suggestion that Colin suspected that Jeremy would sell them and the discussion was clearly amicable. In fact it seems clear that Colin suspected that the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy.
In fact Colin was so unconcerned about Jeremy's holding of the pictures that he went to stay with friends in Cornwall for a week leaving only a loose arrangement with Jeremy to collect them at a later unarranged date. These do not appear to be the actions of a man who suspected that Jeremy would attempt to sell them.
Which witness statement are you referring to?
-
Susan
http://www.ukpressonline.co.uk/ukpressonline/database/user/userBookshelf.jsp
this is a few articles that are on offer. Double click on the images and they will become bigger.
-
Hello Gringo
Colin was worried what Jeremy would do with the pictures so he wrote to him asking for them back to destroy them he posted them (he even names his local post office) but sadly later that morning he went into his local shop for chocolate and saw the headlines Bambi Brother In Photo Scandal' He tried to peddle sex snaps of model. He said he knew it had to be true because of the way he described them to the Sun was the same words he had used to describe them to him. In anger he wrote to Jeremy then decided to leave Cornwall and spend a few days in Somerset with friends. Gringo everything I have posted are Colin's words I really knew nothing about the photo's until recently when I purchased Colin's book. Hope this helps.
-
When did the story in the Sun about the photos get published? anyone know?
I don't know if you found your answer Jan but if you didn't, again according to Colin's statement of 24/9/85, the story appeared in the Tuesday 17th September edition of the Sun.
-
Susan
http://www.ukpressonline.co.uk/ukpressonline/database/user/userBookshelf.jsp
this is a few articles that are on offer. Double click on the images and they will become bigger.
Patti it said Oops you cannot enter you are not signed in ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hello Gringo
Colin was worried what Jeremy would do with the pictures so he wrote to him asking for them back to destroy them he posted them (he even names his local post office) but sadly later that morning he went into his local shop for chocolate and saw the headlines Bambi Brother In Photo Scandal' He tried to peddle sex snaps of model. He said he knew it had to be true because of the way he described them to the Sun was the same words he had used to describe them to him. In anger he wrote to Jeremy then decided to leave Cornwall and spend a few days in Somerset with friends. Gringo everything I have posted are Colin's words I really knew nothing about the photo's until recently when I purchased Colin's book. Hope this helps.
I assumed so which is why I asked, Susan. I think his witness statements are a much more reliable source and do not paint the picture that Colin's much later book appears to.
-
Which witness statement are you referring to?
His statement of 24/9/85.
-
I assumed so which is why I asked, Susan. I think his witness statements are a much more reliable source and do not paint the picture that Colin's much later book appears to.
Gringo
I have never read his witness statements but will do so.
-
Gringo
I have never read his witness statements but will do so.
I don't think they are in the archives, Susan, but they are in a thread titled simply, "Colin Caffell witness statements" and it was started on 24th september 2011, if this helps :)
-
I don't think they are in the archives, Susan, but they are in a thread titled simply, "Colin Caffell witness statements" and it was started on 24th september 2011, if this helps :)
Gringo many thanks for that saves me searching in vain. Thanks.
-
Of course the article made JB look bad - but if Sheila was party to having pornographic pictures taken when she had two young sons - and leaving them around for people to find of course she would look bad as well.
But now it seems that the paper made JB out to be telling lies and the pictures may not have existed ??? confused - I am
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy.
He tried to sell pictures of Sheila to The Sun. For money.
-
I've been reading the letter that CC drafted out to Neville and it's so distressing to read how those twins were suffering. It must have been a terrible existence for them as that's all I can call it,between being with their mother and staying with their grandmother at WHF. It's heartbreaking.
-
In all the excitement I nearly forgot. He also massacred his family.
-
I don't think they are in the archives, Susan, but they are in a thread titled simply, "Colin Caffell witness statements" and it was started on 24th september 2011, if this helps :)
You mean this one? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.msg47925.html#msg47925
I have typed it out because it's not easy to read. This statement backs up to the letter, what he said in his book and is more damming to Jeremy. Your previous post;
Hi Susan, does Colin say this in his book?
According to his witness statement, Jeremy informed Colin of the existence of the photos and agreed that Colin could have them in order to destroy them. This was after Jeremy had cleaned up Sheila's flat. There is no suggestion that Colin suspected that Jeremy would sell them and the discussion was clearly amicable. In fact it seems clear that Colin suspected that the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy.
In fact Colin was so unconcerned about Jeremy's holding of the pictures that he went to stay with friends in Cornwall for a week leaving only a loose arrangement with Jeremy to collect them at a later unarranged date. These do not appear to be the actions of a man who suspected that Jeremy would attempt to sell them.
I honestly can't believe you wrote the above after reading the following statement! I will paste it now and see what others think (I can probably guess though). This backs up Collin's book and there is CLEAR concern in his words and the reason he wrote to Jeremy was out of concern for what he might do with the photographs. Also note that he confirms the words used in The Sun article were 'exactly' the same as those used by Jeremy to describe the slides to him (Colin). And where does he even hint that he thinks Jeremy is being framed by the relatives?? :o :o
Colin's Statement 24th Sept 1985
During the time of my courtship of Sheila Bamber and before my marriage to her, I took a number of photographs of her.
These photographs include a number which were taken near Whitehouse Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex. These were of Sheila sunbathing in a field and at the time she had no clothes on at all. These photo's were processed onto slides.
At the time Sheila and I separated, she kept these slides in her possession. I have not seen the slides for some years. However, I presumed Sheila had them in her possession at her flat at No 3, Moorhead Mansions.
On Saturday I went to Sheila's flat, there are saw Jeremy Bamber, Sheila's brother, he sat in the sitting room, chatting generally. I had gone to the flat to sort out some of the property (clothes, toys) which belonged to my twin sons,
Jeremy had cleaned up the flat and had placed my sons belongings into plastic bags.
There were a number of photographs, these being about four albums of family shots, some prints of Sheila's modelling folio and a box of slides numbering approximately twenty four.
The slides had been professionally taken and were of Sheila in various states of undress, in a paddling pool, I think. I would describe these slides as soft pornography as they were quite explicit in detail. I asked Jeremy if I could take these slides and destroy them. He agreed that I could take them, which I did. Jeremy also told me that there was some more slides of a similar nature, possibly two or three boxes at his house at Head Street, Goldghanger, Essex.
Jeremy described these slides as being VERY explicit. He told me that one box was of Sheila sunbathing (previously described) and that the others were similar to the slides at Sheila's flat. I asked Jeremy if I could also have these slides and he said yes. No arrangement was made between Jeremy and I to collect these items.
That day Jeremy gave me a key to the flat to enable me to gain access during the next day to collect some of the property belonging to my twin sons.
About midday on Sunday 8th September 1985, I returned to the flat and removed various items, basically toys and books.
Whilst visiting the flat that weekend I realised that anything owned by Sheila which had any value had been removed from the premises.
On Friday 13th September 1985, I travelled by car to Cornwall for a short break and to stay with friends in that county.
Whilst on holiday, I wrote to Jeremy addressing the letter to Moorhead Mansions. I repeated my request of the photographs of Sheila.
A couple of hours after posting this letter, to Jeremy, I saw an article in The Sun newspaper dated 17th September 1985.
This article concerned the incident at Whitehouse Farm during which time, my former wife and twin sons were killed. The reporter described how he met Jeremy Bamber and that Jeremy was offering pornographic photographs of Sheila for sale. In the article, Jeremy is alleged to have said “They show everything right down to the last detail”.
This is 'exactly' how Jeremy described the slides to me when I visited him on 7th September.
I then wrote a second letter to Jeremy in which I described the newspaper report and wanted to know what he was doing. As yet, I have not received a reply from Jeremy and have had no contact with him.
Having removed the other slides from Sheila's flat, I disposed of them by putting them in the dustbin, I did in fact put the slides into a dustbin liner and handed them to a refuse collector to ensure they went into the dustcart.
-
You mean this one? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.msg47925.html#msg47925
I have typed it out because it's not easy to read. This statement backs up to the letter, what he said in his book and is more damming to Jeremy. Your previous post;
I honestly can't believe you wrote the above after reading the following statement! I will paste it now and see what others think (I can probably guess though). This backs up Collin's book and there is CLEAR concern in his words and the reason he wrote to Jeremy was out of concern for what he might do with the photographs. Also note that he confirms the words used in The Sun article were 'exactly' the same as those used by Jeremy to describe the slides to him (Colin).
Colin's Statement 24th Sept 1985
During the time of my courtship of Sheila Bamber and before my marriage to her, I took a number of photographs of her.
These photographs include a number which were taken near Whitehouse Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex. These were of Sheila sunbathing in a field and at the time she had no clothes on at all. These photo's were processed onto slides.
At the time Sheila and I separated, she kept these slides in her possession. I have not seen the slides for some years. However, I presumed Sheila had them in her possession at her flat at No 3, Moorhead Mansions.
On Saturday I went to Sheila's flat, there are saw Jeremy Bamber, Sheila's brother, he sat in the sitting room, chatting generally. I had gone to the flat to sort out some of the property (clothes, toys) which belonged to my twin sons,
Jeremy had cleaned up the flat and had placed my sons belongings into plastic bags.
There were a number of photographs, these being about four albums of family shots, some prints of Sheila's modelling folio and a box of slides numbering approximately twenty four.
The slides had been professionally taken and were of Sheila in various states of undress, in a paddling pool, I think. I would describe these slides as soft pornography as they were quite explicit in detail. I asked Jeremy if I could take these slides and destroy them. He agreed that I could take them, which I did. Jeremy also told me that there was some more slides of a similar nature, possibly two or three boxes at his house at Head Street, Goldghanger, Essex.
Jeremy described these slides as being VERY explicit. He told me that one box was of Sheila sunbathing (previously described) and that the others were similar to the slides at Sheila's flat. I asked Jeremy if I could also have these slides and he said yes. No arrangement was made between Jeremy and I to collect these items.
That day Jeremy gave me a key to the flat to enable me to gain access during the next day to collect some of the property belonging to my twin sons.
About midday on Sunday 8th September 1985, I returned to the flat and removed various items, basically toys and books.
Whilst visiting the flat that weekend I realised that anything owned by Sheila which had any value had been removed from the premises.
On Friday 13th September 1985, I travelled by car to Cornwall for a short break and to stay with friends in that county.
Whilst on holiday, I wrote to Jeremy addressing the letter to Moorhead Mansions. I repeated my request of the photographs of Sheila.
A couple of hours after posting this letter, to Jeremy, I saw an article in The Sun newspaper dated 17th September 1985.
This article concerned the incident at Whitehouse Farm during which time, my former wife and twin sons were killed. The reporter described how he met Jeremy Bamber and that Jeremy was offering pornographic photographs of Sheila for sale. In the article, Jeremy is alleged to have said “They show everything right down to the last detail”.
This is 'exactly' how Jeremy described the slides to me when I visited him on 7th September.
I then wrote a second letter to Jeremy in which I described the newspaper report and wanted to know what he was doing. As yet, I have not received a reply from Jeremy and have had no contact with him.
Having removed the other slides from Sheila's flat, I disposed of them by putting them in the dustbin, I did in fact put the slides into a dustbin liner and handed them to a refuse collector to ensure they went into the dustcart.
I had already typed this out pages back and it does not support the notion that Colin suspected that Jeremy would sell them. The statement makes clear that that Jeremy gave one set of photos to Colin and agreed that Colin could collect the others which were in Goldhanger.. This was agreed on the 7th September and Colin went to stay with friends on the 13th September and wrote 4 days later on the 17th September to repeat his request for the pictures of Sheila.
If he was cóncerned about Jeremy's intentions why did he not arrange to collect them at the earliest opportunity? He left them with Jeremy for six days before going away and then only wrote to repeat his request four days into his break and ten days after Jeremy himself had informed Coilin of their existence.
These do not appear to be the actions of someone who is concerned about Jeremy's intentions.
-
I had already typed this out pages back and it does not support the notion that Colin suspected that Jeremy would sell them. The statement makes clear that that Jeremy gave one set of photos to Colin and agreed that Colin could collect the others which were in Goldhanger.. This was agreed on the 7th September and Colin went to stay with friends on the 13th September and wrote 4 days later on the 17th September to repeat his request for the pictures of Sheila.
If he was cóncerned about Jeremy's intentions why did he not arrange to collect them at the earliest opportunity? He left them with Jeremy for six days before going away and then only wrote to repeat his request four days into his break and ten days after Jeremy himself had informed Coilin of their existence.
These do not appear to be the actions of someone who is concerned about Jeremy's intentions.
He SAID that he was concerned while on break in Cornwell, NOT when Jeremy mentioned initially mentioned the pictures - which is why he wrote the letter. You're once again TRYING to play down the FACTS that show Jeremy in all his glory. This is even worse than your attempt to try and suggest Neville called the police. The statement shows that Colin had clear concerns and these concerns are expanded in his book. He also clearly states that The Sun article quoted the same words used by Jeremy to describe the photographs to Colin - I see you didn't bother to comment on that. Not surprising as you have no where to go with it!
Oh and where does he suggest that the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy?
-
Well one thing has come from this thread and that is that they were not photographs they were slides, taken by a professional photographer.
Plus, although they were explicit down to the last detail. There is nothing to prove sex aids were used. The only person to say this is Fielder...unless someone has gained more information than meeeeeeeeeeeeee :-\
-
Well one thing has come from this thread and that is that they were not photographs they were slides, taken by a professional photographer.
Plus, although they were explicit down to the last detail. There is nothing to prove sex aids were used. The only person to say this is Fielder...unless someone has gained more information than meeeeeeeeeeeeee :-\
The other thing is that whether sex aids were described or not, Jeremy tried to sell the pictures/slides. There is nothing clearer.
-
He SAID that he was concerned while on break in Cornwell, NOT when Jeremy mentioned initially mentioned the pictures - which is why he wrote the letter. You're once again TRYING to play down the FACTS that show Jeremy in all his glory. This is even worse than your attempt to try and suggest Neville called the police. The statement shows that Colin had clear concerns and these concerns are expanded in his book. He also clearly states that The Sun article quoted the same words used by Jeremy to describe the photographs to Colin - I see you didn't bother to comment on that. Not surprising as you have no where to go with it!
Oh and where does he suggest that the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy?
His actions strongly suggest that he was not concerned. His statement does not claim that he became concerned whilst on his break. There is no reason offered as to why Colin suddenly went from being unconcerned to concerned about Jeremy's intentions and it is reasonable to conclude that Colin did not suspect that Jeremy would attempt to sell them. What was it that caused Colin to become concerned whilst in Cornwall when for ten days he had indicated no concern?
The alleged use of the same words is barely worth dismissing, which is why I didn't bother, as Colin himself gives different versions of the words used between his witness statements and his book. Describing explicit pictures as being "explicit" is unlikely to be a unique way of describing explicit pictures is it?
The following is lifted verbatim from Colin's 11th September statement,
"At about 9am on Monday 9.9.85 I received a phone call from David Boutflour to the effect that "we" had all been making statements to the police and we are sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. He wouldn't say anymore and that I should be prepared for a bombshell in the press on Tuesday, 10.9.85. I asked him if Jeremy knew about it and he said he knew.
I unsuccessfully phoned Jeremy that day. My first impression was that all the family were ganging up on Jeremy because of Jeremy's controlling interest in the caravan site and other financial things."
I don't know about you but that suggests to me that Colin suspected the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy.
-
The other thing is that whether sex aids were described or not, Jeremy tried to sell the pictures/slides. There is nothing clearer.
You are beginning to sound like a parrot Caroline hahahaha ;)
I have not disputed the attempt to sell photo's of his sister whether they be normal or nude, I think its disrespectful and wrong and I think the whole forum agrees with me on this.
What I am disputing is the use of sex aids on those stills. Personally, I don't think there are any, we only have the word of Fielder on that. I wonder if the real article published on the 17th mentions sex aids. It would be interesting to see if they do. :-\
-
You are beginning to sound like a parrot Caroline hahahaha ;)
I have not disputed the attempt to sell photo's of his sister whether they be normal or nude, I think its disrespectful and wrong and I think the whole forum agrees with me on this.
What I am disputing is the use of sex aids on those stills. Personally, I don't think there are any, we only have the word of Fielder on that. I wonder if the real article published on the 17th mentions sex aids. It would be interesting to see if they do. :-\
Sometimes you have to kep repeating things Patti because people deliberately try to play down the negatives and give the impression that Jeremy was just a country lad sucking on a piece of straw not really knowing his arse from his elbow. Well, he may have been all of those things but he was also a callous individual who (once again - squawk - pieces of eight!!) tried to sell porno pics of his dead sister.
I honestly don't think the pictures or the content are important, but Jeremy's intention to sell them speaks volumes. I'm trying to get hold of the article - will scan it if I manage to get a copy.
-
His actions strongly suggest that he was not concerned. Rubbish, that's simply your spin and an attempt to play down his action!! His statement does not claim that he became concerned whilst on his break. I didn't say it did, I said he expanded in his book There is no reason offered as to why Colin suddenly went from being unconcerned to concerned about Jeremy's intentions and it is reasonable to conclude that Colin did not suspect that Jeremy would attempt to sell them. He wasn't unconcerned, he was concerned, him being unconcerned comes from you What was it that caused Colin to become concerned whilst in Cornwall when for ten days he had indicated no concern? He didn't indicate no concern - that comes from you!!
The alleged use of the same words is barely worth dismissing, which is why I didn't bother, as Colin himself gives different versions of the words used between his witness statements and his book. Describing explicit pictures as being "explicit" is unlikely to be a unique way of describing explicit pictures is it? No, you didn't mention it because you can't excuse it!
The following is lifted verbatim from Colin's 11th September statement,
"At about 9am on Monday 9.9.85 I received a phone call from David Boutflour to the effect that "we" had all been making statements to the police and we are sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. He wouldn't say anymore and that I should be prepared for a bombshell in the press on Tuesday, 10.9.85. I asked him if Jeremy knew about it and he said he knew.
I unsuccessfully phoned Jeremy that day. My first impression was that all the family were ganging up on Jeremy because of Jeremy's controlling interest in the caravan site and other financial things."
I don't know about you but that suggests to me that Colin suspected the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy. Not at all, it sounds like he thought they were 'ganging up on him' hence why he used that term and not 'framing' - that's YOUR word - just like 'unconcerned' is YOUR word. Colin said he was concerned so I'll go with what HE said about how HE felt and I'll leave you to 'dream on' but don't get too dizzy from spinning ::)
-
Colin used the words "ganging up" in the context of DB stating that "we" had all been making statements to the police and Colin thought that this was because of financial affairs. DB had also stated that they were sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. Colin was also made aware of contacts between the relatives and the press and negative stories being given by the relatives. It is also clear that at this stage Colin still believed that Sheila was responsible.
All of that can be derived from Colin's statements so although he doesn't use the word framing, basic comprehension should allow you to discern that from the context of the comments.
-
Colin used the words "ganging up" in the context of DB stating that "we" had all been making statements to the police and Colin thought that this was because of financial affairs. DB had also stated that they were sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. Colin was also made aware of contacts between the relatives and the press and negative stories being given by the relatives. It is also clear that at this stage Colin still believed that Sheila was responsible.
All of that can be derived from Colin's statements so although he doesn't use the word framing, basic comprehension should allow you to discern that from the context of the comments.
No it can't be derived at all, that's the problem, you derive quite a lot of things rather than sticking to what's been said or done. Someone accused me of putting words in their mouth earlier - I wonder if they will challenge you with the same comment?
-
No it can't be derived at all, that's the problem, you derive quite a lot of things rather than sticking to what's been said or done. Someone accused me of putting words in their mouth earlier - I wonder if they will challenge you with the same comment?
Which bit can't be derived then?
1.) That Colin used the words "ganging up" in the context of DB stating that "we" had all been making statements to the police and that Colin thought that this was because of financial affairs. (this is all stated by Colin himself)
2.) That DB stated that they were sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. (again directly lifted from Colin's statement.)
3.) That Colin was made aware of contacts between the relatives and the press and negative stories being given by the relatives. ( Colin is informed by DB to prepare for a bombshell in the press the next day. I am sure that Colin can work out from this that DB has prior knowledge of this bombshell and therefore must have contact with the press regarding negative stories.)
4.) That it was clear that Colin still believed Sheila responsible at this stage. (Colin talks about chatting generally with Jeremy, he obtains a set of prints as well as other belongings and arranges to collect others at a later unarranged date. He refers to the relatives statements implicating Jeremy as "ganging up" and concludes that it is because of financial matters. Funny that he doesn't suggest that it is because he murdered his two sons, which suggests to anyone with an ounce of comprehension skills that he did not suspect Jeremy at this time.)
That is all I said in my post. So which bit or bits do you struggle to discern yourself? and where did I put words into anyone's mouth?
-
Which bit can't be derived then?
1.) That Colin used the words "ganging up" in the context of DB stating that "we" had all been making statements to the police and that Colin thought that this was because of financial affairs. (this is all stated by Colin himself) - he didn't use the word 'frame' that's coming from you.
2.) That DB stated that they were sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. (again directly lifted from Colin's statement.) He's simply repeating what he was told
3.) That Colin was made aware of contacts between the relatives and the press and negative stories being given by the relatives. ( Colin is informed by DB to prepare for a bombshell in the press the next day. I am sure that Colin can work out from this that DB has prior knowledge of this bombshell and therefore must have contact with the press regarding negative stories.) And?
4.) That it was clear that Colin still believed Sheila responsible at this stage. (Colin talks about chatting generally with Jeremy, he obtains a set of prints as well as other belongings and arranges to collect others at a later unarranged date. Colin said that Jeremy chatted generally not that 'they' did, you're deliberately trying to play down what Colin said. Colin was actually annoyed that he had stuffed the children's stuff into bags and later because of the pictures. you're only reading from one source - he expends in his book. However, the nonchalant rendition of his statement you supply is clearly an attempt to play down his concerns. He refers to the relatives statements implicating Jeremy as "ganging up" and concludes that it is because of financial matters. Funny that he doesn't suggest that it is because he murdered his two sons, which suggests to anyone with an ounce of comprehension skills that he did not suspect Jeremy at this time.) and?
That is all I said in my post. So which bit or bits do you struggle to discern yourself? and where did I put words into anyone's mouth? Substituting 'ganged up on' for framed, which is your slant
-
You mean this one? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.msg47925.html#msg47925
I have typed it out because it's not easy to read. This statement backs up to the letter, what he said in his book and is more damming to Jeremy. Your previous post;
I honestly can't believe you wrote the above after reading the following statement! I will paste it now and see what others think (I can probably guess though). This backs up Collin's book and there is CLEAR concern in his words and the reason he wrote to Jeremy was out of concern for what he might do with the photographs. Also note that he confirms the words used in The Sun article were 'exactly' the same as those used by Jeremy to describe the slides to him (Colin). And where does he even hint that he thinks Jeremy is being framed by the relatives?? :o :o
Colin's Statement 24th Sept 1985
During the time of my courtship of Sheila Bamber and before my marriage to her, I took a number of photographs of her.
These photographs include a number which were taken near Whitehouse Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex. These were of Sheila sunbathing in a field and at the time she had no clothes on at all. These photo's were processed onto slides.
At the time Sheila and I separated, she kept these slides in her possession. I have not seen the slides for some years. However, I presumed Sheila had them in her possession at her flat at No 3, Moorhead Mansions.
On Saturday I went to Sheila's flat, there are saw Jeremy Bamber, Sheila's brother, he sat in the sitting room, chatting generally. I had gone to the flat to sort out some of the property (clothes, toys) which belonged to my twin sons,
Jeremy had cleaned up the flat and had placed my sons belongings into plastic bags.
There were a number of photographs, these being about four albums of family shots, some prints of Sheila's modelling folio and a box of slides numbering approximately twenty four.
The slides had been professionally taken and were of Sheila in various states of undress, in a paddling pool, I think. I would describe these slides as soft pornography as they were quite explicit in detail. I asked Jeremy if I could take these slides and destroy them. He agreed that I could take them, which I did. Jeremy also told me that there was some more slides of a similar nature, possibly two or three boxes at his house at Head Street, Goldghanger, Essex.
Jeremy described these slides as being VERY explicit. He told me that one box was of Sheila sunbathing (previously described) and that the others were similar to the slides at Sheila's flat. I asked Jeremy if I could also have these slides and he said yes. No arrangement was made between Jeremy and I to collect these items.
That day Jeremy gave me a key to the flat to enable me to gain access during the next day to collect some of the property belonging to my twin sons.
About midday on Sunday 8th September 1985, I returned to the flat and removed various items, basically toys and books.
Whilst visiting the flat that weekend I realised that anything owned by Sheila which had any value had been removed from the premises.
On Friday 13th September 1985, I travelled by car to Cornwall for a short break and to stay with friends in that county.
Whilst on holiday, I wrote to Jeremy addressing the letter to Moorhead Mansions. I repeated my request of the photographs of Sheila.
A couple of hours after posting this letter, to Jeremy, I saw an article in The Sun newspaper dated 17th September 1985.
This article concerned the incident at Whitehouse Farm during which time, my former wife and twin sons were killed. The reporter described how he met Jeremy Bamber and that Jeremy was offering pornographic photographs of Sheila for sale. In the article, Jeremy is alleged to have said “They show everything right down to the last detail”.
This is 'exactly' how Jeremy described the slides to me when I visited him on 7th September.
I then wrote a second letter to Jeremy in which I described the newspaper report and wanted to know what he was doing. As yet, I have not received a reply from Jeremy and have had no contact with him.
Having removed the other slides from Sheila's flat, I disposed of them by putting them in the dustbin, I did in fact put the slides into a dustbin liner and handed them to a refuse collector to ensure they went into the dustcart.
It's interesting reading this. Have never read Colin's book and always had the impression that Jeremy and Colin had been quite close, am sure I have read before they were 'like brother's'. Obviously, this was not the case and it seems they were more like acquaintances than friends, it puts a different slant on things imo.
-
It's interesting reading this. Have never read Colin's book and always had the impression that Jeremy and Colin had been quite close, am sure I have read before they were 'like brother's'. Obviously, this was not the case and it seems they were more like acquaintances than friends, it puts a different slant on things imo.
People seem to think that they were close because Jeremy complained about his family to Colin. He complained to Colin because he knew Colin didn't like them either and thus he was a god person to tell. In any event he complained about his family to a wide variety of people he wasn't shy to trash them. His co-workers telling police about such trashing didn't do him any favors his big mouth extended to more than just being too open with Sheila.
After the murders he wanted Colin to believe Sheila did it so naturally interacted with him and tried to convince him by feeding him lies such as the claim the family was going to force her to give the kids up - which he laughed at because they forgot they would need to secure his permission but it was made up they actually simply talked about part time help for her. Jeremy knew part time help would not convince Colin that Sheila had a motive so he exaggerated. Apparently he figured since police didn't know Sheila he could tell them the truth about it just being part time help AND/OR he knew others would tell police it was just part time help they were planning and he figured he had better not lie because it would look suspicious.
The same people seem to think he was really close to Brett Collins as well. I seem to have a different idea of close than most people. I suspect Collins didn't rush back to the UK upon learning of the murders to support Jeremy because he wanted to console his friend. I suspect he rushed because he figured Jeremy was loaded now and figured they could party hardy. It is like when people hear their friend got a huge insurance settlement then when they are broke again the rats flee the ship. Party friends are not true friends. Jeremy might not have had any true friends for all we know. True friendship is a two way street, who was Jeremy a great friend to? Many people have a lot of superficial relationships and few real ones. Clearly we don't know everything and I could be wrong, Brett and Jeremy could have been gay lovers who got close emotionally for all we know but I think that is unlikely. I think Jeremy and Brett were both using eachother.
-
People seem to think that they were close because Jeremy complained about his family to Colin. He complained to Colin because he knew Colin didn't like them either and thus he was a god person to tell. In any event he complained about his family to a wide variety of people he wasn't shy to trash them. His co-workers telling police about such trashing didn't do him any favors his big mouth extended to more than just being too open with Sheila.
After the murders he wanted Colin to believe Sheila did it so naturally interacted with him and tried to convince him by feeding him lies such as the claim the family was going to force her to give the kids up - which he laughed at because they forgot they would need to secure his permission but it was made up they actually simply talked about part time help for her. Jeremy knew part time help would not convince Colin that Sheila had a motive so he exaggerated. Apparently he figured since police didn't know Sheila he could tell them the truth about it just being part time help AND/OR he knew others would tell police it was just part time help they were planning and he figured he had better not lie because it would look suspicious.
The same people seem to think he was really close to Brett Collins as well. I seem to have a different idea of close than most people. I suspect Collins didn't rush back to the UK upon learning of the murders to support Jeremy because he wanted to console his friend. I suspect he rushed because he figured Jeremy was loaded now and figured they could party hardy. It is like when people hear their friend got a huge insurance settlement then when they are broke again the rats flee the ship. Party friends are not true friends. Jeremy might not have had any true friends for all we know. True friendship is a two way street, who was Jeremy a great friend to? Many people have a lot of superficial relationships and few real ones. Clearly we don't know everything and I could be wrong, Brett and Jeremy could have been gay lovers who got close emotionally for all we know but I think that is unlikely. I think Jeremy and Brett were both using eachother.
Hello Scipio yes Brett used Jeremy for the parties and expensive meals and trips abroad once he saw that was coming to an end he left and went back to NZ. Think you are right about Jeremy he did not do close friendships just used people when he had no further use for Colin he did the dirty on him over the pictures . He did tell Colin that he would see him right when he got his inherritance :'(
-
It's interesting reading this. Have never read Colin's book and always had the impression that Jeremy and Colin had been quite close, am sure I have read before they were 'like brother's'. Obviously, this was not the case and it seems they were more like acquaintances than friends, it puts a different slant on things imo.
Colin's book isn't the easiest read but it is interesting to learn how he came to believe Jeremy guilty. It wasn't an overnight thing. He wasn't influenced by the relatives, it was things that Jeremy did/said that he put together - the selling of the photographs being one of them.
I suspect the notion that they were close, came from here but interestingly, Colin wasn't even aware that Jeremy had been adopted and Jeremy wasn't even sure of Colin's surname.
Another interesting point which is in one of the statements and in the book. Colin said that Sheila wasn't happy about Jeremy coming to the party on the Saturday before the murders and that it was the first time that Jeremy had been to one. I wonder if it's just coincidence that he chose that weekend to attend one of Colin's parties for the first time?
-
Colin appeared to be as concerned over the slides as he was at leaving his boys at WHF.!!
-
Colin appeared to be as concerned over the slides as he was at leaving his boys at WHF.!!
So VERY CONCERNED then?
-
Something else that Colin said; Nevill was usually in bed by 09:30/10:00, followed later by June. So, there were no late night dog walks etc. and if Jeremy didn't bring back the last trailer as part of his duties, I can certainly see why Nevill would have been annoyed - this may explain why he seemed in a bad mood 'as though he'd been arguing' when BW called.
-
So VERY CONCERNED then?
why he be that concerned she was his ex.
-
why he be that concerned she was his ex.
Nugs, you have been debating this case for a long time. It's a well known fact that Collin was concerned about the twins going to WHF that weekend ;D - he wasn't happy at the way June often subjected them to religion. He also said he had a bad feeling about them going that particular weekend.
One other point, someone said that Colin left immediately after dropping the twins off - this isn't true, he stayed afew hours before driving home.
-
he was concerned for his children yes but why would he be that concerned about his ex wifes photo sets.
-
he was concerned for his children yes but why would he be that concerned about his ex wifes photo sets.
Well lets see; how about out of decency for the mother of his children? They were private pictures of someone he still cared for who had had problems but at the heart of it, she was his children's mother and she was dead. I'd say those are pretty good reasons for concern?
-
Which bit can't be derived then?
1.) That Colin used the words "ganging up" in the context of DB stating that "we" had all been making statements to the police and that Colin thought that this was because of financial affairs. (this is all stated by Colin himself)
2.) That DB stated that they were sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. (again directly lifted from Colin's statement.)
3.) That Colin was made aware of contacts between the relatives and the press and negative stories being given by the relatives. ( Colin is informed by DB to prepare for a bombshell in the press the next day. I am sure that Colin can work out from this that DB has prior knowledge of this bombshell and therefore must have contact with the press regarding negative stories.)
4.) That it was clear that Colin still believed Sheila responsible at this stage. (Colin talks about chatting generally with Jeremy, he obtains a set of prints as well as other belongings and arranges to collect others at a later unarranged date. He refers to the relatives statements implicating Jeremy as "ganging up" and concludes that it is because of financial matters. Funny that he doesn't suggest that it is because he murdered his two sons, which suggests to anyone with an ounce of comprehension skills that he did not suspect Jeremy at this time.)
That is all I said in my post. So which bit or bits do you struggle to discern yourself? and where did I put words into anyone's mouth?
and he would have no reason to make that up.
-
Well lets see; how about out of decency for the mother of his children? They were private pictures of someone he still cared for who had had problems but at the heart of it, she was his children's mother and she was dead. I'd say those are pretty good reasons for concern?
this the mother who he thinks at the time has killed his children.
-
this the mother who he thinks at the time has killed his children.
Who was ill - at no point does Colin EVER suggest hate for Sheila, when he thought she was responsible, he UNDERSTOOD she was suffering from an illness. Why do you imagine he shouldn't have been concerned about her brother trying to sell such pictures? If it were you, would you not think that was a vile thing to do?
-
hed have to be a saint to be that forgiving.
-
hed have to be a saint to be that forgiving.
I'm not sure what point you're making? Are you suggesting that Colin is lying? Colin is quite a spiritual, non-judgemental person. I can see how he found it easy to forgive and perhaps shoulder some of the blame. However, you didn't answer my questions, so I will ask again;
Why do you imagine he shouldn't have been concerned about her brother trying to sell such pictures?
If it were you, would you not think that was a vile thing to do?
-
hed have to be a saint to be that forgiving.
I wouldn't have said " saint ",nugs. He who bedded another woman on his wedding day ?
-
I wouldn't have said " saint ",nugs. He who bedded another woman on his wedding day ?
Then instead of adhering to his wedding vows of " in sickness and in health ",was divorced 3 months after the twins were born.
-
I'm not sure what point you're making? Are you suggesting that Colin is lying? Colin is quite a spiritual, non-judgemental person. I can see how he found it easy to forgive and perhaps shoulder some of the blame. However, you didn't answer my questions, so I will ask again;
Why do you imagine he shouldn't have been concerned about her brother trying to sell such pictures?
If it were you, would you not think that was a vile thing to do?
the best will in the world even if they were ill and it wasnt there fault i dont think most people could be that forgiving that quickly that soon after there kids had died.
-
My argument has ALWAYS been,that if he'd been anything of a husband,he'd have gone out of his way to help Sheila. After all,there was money at the back of her in her parents, who would NOT have begrudged a halfpenny towards helping their daughter,.
CC could have done MORE to have helped her than he did,instead of turning his back on her,which IMO is unforgiveable---------------------so it's his conscience speaking,nothing else.
-
CC had put the woman through 3 pregnancies,was it ? Was it not up to him to look after her welfare too ?
-
Quick to throw stones aren't you, Lookout. At EVERYONE but Jeremy. And all this coming from an individual that supports a child killer online when they prove daily they don't even understand the case!!
-
I've attended to women in the past whose partners/husbands have cleared off if the pregnancy has either been a difficult one where the woman has had to spend time in hospital,or there's been a still-birth,and instead of being there for support,there's been no sign of them.
If only people would realise the devastating effect it has on the woman. I've seen it first hand. Even under normal conditions within a relationship where a woman loses a baby,is horrendous enough,and most,if not all,are counselled for however long it takes. It's a dreadful time in any woman's life.
-
Quick to throw stones aren't you, Lookout. At EVERYONE but Jeremy. And all this coming from an individual that supports a child killer online when they prove daily they don't even understand the case!!
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I support his innocence ??
-
It's not ALL about Jeremy-bashing--------------it is a pro-forum too !!
-
Am I not permitted to give MY support now,or what ?
-
People seem to think that they were close because Jeremy complained about his family to Colin. He complained to Colin because he knew Colin didn't like them either and thus he was a god person to tell. In any event he complained about his family to a wide variety of people he wasn't shy to trash them. His co-workers telling police about such trashing didn't do him any favors his big mouth extended to more than just being too open with Sheila.
After the murders he wanted Colin to believe Sheila did it so naturally interacted with him and tried to convince him by feeding him lies such as the claim the family was going to force her to give the kids up - which he laughed at because they forgot they would need to secure his permission but it was made up they actually simply talked about part time help for her. Jeremy knew part time help would not convince Colin that Sheila had a motive so he exaggerated. Apparently he figured since police didn't know Sheila he could tell them the truth about it just being part time help AND/OR he knew others would tell police it was just part time help they were planning and he figured he had better not lie because it would look suspicious.
The same people seem to think he was really close to Brett Collins as well. I seem to have a different idea of close than most people. I suspect Collins didn't rush back to the UK upon learning of the murders to support Jeremy because he wanted to console his friend. I suspect he rushed because he figured Jeremy was loaded now and figured they could party hardy. It is like when people hear their friend got a huge insurance settlement then when they are broke again the rats flee the ship. Party friends are not true friends. Jeremy might not have had any true friends for all we know. True friendship is a two way street, who was Jeremy a great friend to? Many people have a lot of superficial relationships and few real ones. Clearly we don't know everything and I could be wrong, Brett and Jeremy could have been gay lovers who got close emotionally for all we know but I think that is unlikely. I think Jeremy and Brett were both using eachother.
You may or may not be right, scipio, I have no idea, we don't even know whether Jeremy and Brett are still in contact or not.
-
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I support his innocence ??
In order to stand by Jeremy, you slag everyone else off and make derogatory comments about the victims! Whatever passed between Colin and Sheila - he lost his two children!! Slagging off the only real victim doesn't make Jeremy sound any more innocent Lookout.
-
the best will in the world even if they were ill and it wasnt there fault i dont think most people could be that forgiving that quickly that soon after there kids had died.
I think you're wrong, but you still didn't answer the questions. But then again, by not answering - it shows that you have no excuse for that Jeremy did.
-
Colin's book isn't the easiest read but it is interesting to learn how he came to believe Jeremy guilty. It wasn't an overnight thing. He wasn't influenced by the relatives, it was things that Jeremy did/said that he put together - the selling of the photographs being one of them.
I suspect the notion that they were close, came from here but interestingly, Colin wasn't even aware that Jeremy had been adopted and Jeremy wasn't even sure of Colin's surname.
Another interesting point which is in one of the statements and in the book. Colin said that Sheila wasn't happy about Jeremy coming to the party on the Saturday before the murders and that it was the first time that Jeremy had been to one. I wonder if it's just coincidence that he chose that weekend to attend one of Colin's parties for the first time?
It surprised me as well that Colin didn't know Jeremy had been adopted as well, I find that really difficult to believe and in the same vein how could Jeremy not have known Sheila's married name?? I really do need to read the book to judge properly for myself, I thin the story of the robin and the windows put me off as much as anything..... poor Colin.
-
In order to stand by Jeremy, you slag everyone else off and make derogatory comments about the victims! Whatever passed between Colin and Sheila - he lost his two children!! Slagging off the only real victim doesn't make Jeremy sound any more innocent Lookout.
Supposed to be a rule that the relatives aren't attacked here......Now I can understand people making comments about AE or RB - WITHIN REASON - but Colin is by any stretch of the imagination innocent. As you say he lost his two children.
-
My argument has ALWAYS been,that if he'd been anything of a husband,he'd have gone out of his way to help Sheila. After all,there was money at the back of her in her parents, who would NOT have begrudged a halfpenny towards helping their daughter,.
CC could have done MORE to have helped her than he did,instead of turning his back on her,which IMO is unforgiveable---------------------so it's his conscience speaking,nothing else.
Shooting her dead didn't help her Lookout - It shows Colin (unlike Jeremy) wasn't interested in the Bambers money. Just as well he got out when he did or we might have been looking at 6 murder victims!!
-
In order to stand by Jeremy, you slag everyone else off and make derogatory comments about the victims! Whatever passed between Colin and Sheila - he lost his two children!! Slagging off the only real victim doesn't make Jeremy sound any more innocent Lookout.
It doesn't make Jeremy any more guilty either.
It's these type of background " checks " that go toward the cause of unrest in a household,and its effects upon who I say was the shooter. Like it or not,but Jeremy is also a victim.
-
It surprised me as well that Colin didn't know Jeremy had been adopted as well, I find that really difficult to believe and in the same vein how could Jeremy not have known Sheila's married name?? I really do need to read the book to judge properly for myself, I thin the story of the robin and the windows put me off as much as anything..... poor Colin.
Yes, there are times when you can't help rolling your eyes but, Colin believes all that stuff and if it helps him get through, I guess it's not all bad. Does make the book a bit of a pain though - but still worth a read.
-
Am I not permitted to give MY support now,or what ?
I doubt anyone could stop you Lookout but slagging off Colin doesn't make Jeremy seem or look any more innocent.
-
I think you're wrong, but you still didn't answer the questions. But then again, by not answering - it shows that you have no excuse for that Jeremy did.
what qustion im just making an obervation.
-
You may or may not be right, scipio, I have no idea, we don't even know whether Jeremy and Brett are still in contact or not.
I don't think they are Maggie.
-
It doesn't make Jeremy any more guilty either.
It's these type of background " checks " that go toward the cause of unrest in a household,and its effects upon who I say was the shooter. Like it or not,but Jeremy is also a victim.
Selling pictures of his dead sister does make him look more guilty! Jeremy is a victim, he's a victim of himself.
-
it does make him more guilty if i did it i cant deny that.
-
what qustion im just making an obervation.
The questions I asked below.
I'm not sure what point you're making? Are you suggesting that Colin is lying? Colin is quite a spiritual, non-judgemental person. I can see how he found it easy to forgive and perhaps shoulder some of the blame. However, you didn't answer my questions, so I will ask again;
Why do you imagine he shouldn't have been concerned about her brother trying to sell such pictures?
If it were you, would you not think that was a vile thing to do?
-
A victim of a dreadful MOJ.
-
Selling pictures of his dead sister does make him look more guilty! Jeremy is a victim, he's a victim of himself.
It shows his character. Not the image he wishes to present of himself through his letters or his blog but an actual look into his true nature when he didn't think it would matter.
-
it does make him more guilty if i did it i cant deny that.
Like I said - least you can see that and are able to admit it Nugs! Someone just seeking the truth, I can admire that!! :)
-
What EVIDENCE did EP find to pin the murders on Jeremy ?
-
My argument has ALWAYS been,that if he'd been anything of a husband,he'd have gone out of his way to help Sheila. After all,there was money at the back of her in her parents, who would NOT have begrudged a halfpenny towards helping their daughter,.
CC could have done MORE to have helped her than he did,instead of turning his back on her,which IMO is unforgiveable---------------------so it's his conscience speaking,nothing else.
That is true Lookout but we all make mistakes in this life and Colin was young and obviously not very emotionally aware.
I do think to have one child murdered never mind two is a massive nightmare which is impossible to ever recover from completely and Colin is no more guilty than many other young people who for whatever reason don't make good decisions or cope very well.
It's likely Colin didn't want to marry Sheila and was coerced into it, possibly by both sets of parents. Back then even in London, never mind the depth of Essex countryside, a couple expecting a baby were expected to marry whether they wanted to or not, it was still a time of shotgun weddings. I would imagine Sheila was very difficult as she possibly already had unrecognised signs of schizophrenia, we know she had a violent temper. I see what you're saying but I think Colin deserves more understanding. :-\
-
My argument has ALWAYS been,that if he'd been anything of a husband,he'd have gone out of his way to help Sheila. After all,there was money at the back of her in her parents, who would NOT have begrudged a halfpenny towards helping their daughter,.
CC could have done MORE to have helped her than he did,instead of turning his back on her,which IMO is unforgiveable---------------------so it's his conscience speaking,nothing else.
Having fairly frequently been the recipient of Bamber largesse MAYBE he reached the point where he needed to be true to himself. It MAY have been that he decided that if he couldn't do it for love -be with Sheila- he wouldn't do it for money. Is the ONE person in Jeremy's world who, for whatever reason. you HAVEN'T condemned. Thus far it seems he's been surrounded by unworthy parents, unaccepting relatives, jealous friends, a lying girlfriend, not to mention the whole EP force out to get him. What a VERY unlucky person.
-
What EVIDENCE did EP find to pin the murders on Jeremy ?
He told Julie about his intentions long before the night of the murders.
The phone call from his Dad shows it was either Sheila or Jeremy.
Sheilas blood in the moderator in the gun cupboard rules her out.
He knew how to enter the premises. That proves oppurtunity.
Denying it all doesn't make it go away. You've already proven that your source doesn't know the case when you made wild claims about Nevilles Pj top.
-
What EVIDENCE did EP find to pin the murders on Jeremy ?
You have had this explained a million times but you just dismiss it. There isn't anything that anyone can say that will budge you and that's fine but there is nothing that will shift me from believing you are sailing up and down a well known river in Egypt and just can't (or won't) get off the boat!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That is true Lookout but we all make mistakes in this life and Colin was young and obviously not very emotionally aware.
I do think to have one child murdered never mind two is a massive nightmare which is impossible to ever recover from completely and Colin is no more guilty than many other young people who for whatever reason don't make good decisions or cope very well.
It's likely Colin didn't want to marry Sheila and was coerced into it, possibly by both sets of parents. Back then even in London, never mind the depth of Essex countryside, a couple expecting a baby were expected to marry whether they wanted to or not, it was still a time of shotgun weddings. I would imagine Sheila was very difficult as she possibly already had unrecognised signs of schizophrenia, we know she had a violent temper. I see what you're saying but I think Colin deserves more understanding. :-\
Excellent post Maggie!
-
Having fairly frequently been the recipient of Bamber largesse MAYBE he reached the point where he needed to be true to himself. It MAY have been that he decided that if he couldn't do it for love -be with Sheila- he wouldn't do it for money. Is the ONE person in Jeremy's world who, for whatever reason. you HAVEN'T condemned. Thus far it seems he's been surrounded by unworthy parents, unaccepting relatives, jealous friends, a lying girlfriend, not to mention the whole EP force out to get him. What a VERY unlucky person.
Excellent post April!
-
He told Julie about his intentions long before the night of the murders.
The phone call from his Dad shows it was either Sheila or Jeremy.
Sheilas blood in the moderator in the gun cupboard rules her out.
He knew how to enter the premises. That proves oppurtunity.
Denying it all doesn't make it go away. You've already proven that your source doesn't know the case when you made wild claims about Nevilles Pj top.
Yes but apart from all that - what evidence did EP have on Jeremy? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, there are times when you can't help rolling your eyes but, Colin believes all that stuff and if it helps him get through, I guess it's not all bad. Does make the book a bit of a pain though - but still worth a read.
I have no problem with spirituality but I felt if Colin grasped at a straw so tenuous his pain was so raw I would feel like a voyeur reading about it, however it seems that is just a one off. 8)
-
Having fairly frequently been the recipient of Bamber largesse MAYBE he reached the point where he needed to be true to himself. It MAY have been that he decided that if he couldn't do it for love -be with Sheila- he wouldn't do it for money. Is the ONE person in Jeremy's world who, for whatever reason. you HAVEN'T condemned. Thus far it seems he's been surrounded by unworthy parents, unaccepting relatives, jealous friends, a lying girlfriend, not to mention the whole EP force out to get him. What a VERY unlucky person.
Great points. :)
Yes but apart from all that - what evidence did EP have on Jeremy? ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D
-
That is true Lookout but we all make mistakes in this life and Colin was young and obviously not very emotionally aware.
I do think to have one child murdered never mind two is a massive nightmare which is impossible to ever recover from completely and Colin is no more guilty than many other young people who for whatever reason don't make good decisions or cope very well.
It's likely Colin didn't want to marry Sheila and was coerced into it. Back then even in London never mind the deoth of Essex countryside, a couple expecting a baby were expected to marry whether they wanted to or not, it was still a time of shotgun weddings. I would imagine Sheila was very difficult as she possibly already had unrecognised signs of schizophrenia, we know she had a violet temper. I see what you're saying but I think Colin deserves more understanding. :-\
Maggie,it's probably that I've seen/met a lot of " Colins " in my line of work which makes me feel so bitter. I've obviously taken the sides of the patients in the past and have shared their tears too. It's something you don't forget,ever,especially,like Sheila,they think the world of their partners and are set for a lifetime----------------that doesn't happen.
I think of Sheila when she wanted " another go at her marriage ",thinking that she and Colin would get back together. That alone is earth shattering when it doesn't happen,and with some who can't hack it,it's the end of their lives. It's very very upsetting,but NOBODY understood.
-
That is true Lookout but we all make mistakes in this life and Colin was young and obviously not very emotionally aware.
I do think to have one child murdered never mind two is a massive nightmare which is impossible to ever recover from completely and Colin is no more guilty than many other young people who for whatever reason don't make good decisions or cope very well.
It's likely Colin didn't want to marry Sheila and was coerced into it, possibly by both sets of parents. Back then even in London, never mind the depth of Essex countryside, a couple expecting a baby were expected to marry whether they wanted to or not, it was still a time of shotgun weddings. I would imagine Sheila was very difficult as she possibly already had unrecognised signs of schizophrenia, we know she had a violent temper. I see what you're saying but I think Colin deserves more understanding. :-\
I totally concur, Maggie.
-
Maggie,it's probably that I've seen/met a lot of " Colins " in my line of work which makes me feel so bitter. I've obviously taken the sides of the patients in the past and have shared their tears too. It's something you don't forget,ever,especially,like Sheila,they think the world of their partners and are set for a lifetime----------------that doesn't happen.
I think of Sheila when she wanted " another go at her marriage ",thinking that she and Colin would get back together. That alone is earth shattering when it doesn't happen,and with some who can't hack it,it's the end of their lives. It's very very upsetting,but NOBODY understood.
No, you just think you have. You don't know Colin and have no idea what happened in their marriage. We don't even know that Sheila wanted to get back together with Colin. Someone mentioned that She asked him in the car on the way to WHF for a reconciliation - but this isn't true, it's another forum myth.
-
none of us know him you dont him ethere.
-
Maggie,it's probably that I've seen/met a lot of " Colins " in my line of work which makes me feel so bitter. I've obviously taken the sides of the patients in the past and have shared their tears too. It's something you don't forget,ever,especially,like Sheila,they think the world of their partners and are set for a lifetime----------------that doesn't happen.
I think of Sheila when she wanted " another go at her marriage ",thinking that she and Colin would get back together. That alone is earth shattering when it doesn't happen,and with some who can't hack it,it's the end of their lives. It's very very upsetting,but NOBODY understood.
I recognize it's tough, Lookout, but after some of the people I'VE worked with where it's GLARINGLY obvious that they shouldn't be together all I can do is hope that they are adult enough to come to that realization themselves before any more hurt is inflicted. Sheila MAY have wanted !another go at her marriage" but if Colin had reached a place where he knew it would never work he was right to walk away. There is no such thing as fairy tales and we can't always make things right in the way people want.
-
Maggie,it's probably that I've seen/met a lot of " Colins " in my line of work which makes me feel so bitter. I've obviously taken the sides of the patients in the past and have shared their tears too. It's something you don't forget,ever,especially,like Sheila,they think the world of their partners and are set for a lifetime----------------that doesn't happen.
I think of Sheila when she wanted " another go at her marriage ",thinking that she and Colin would get back together. That alone is earth shattering when it doesn't happen,and with some who can't hack it,it's the end of their lives. It's very very upsetting,but NOBODY understood.
I agree as I said he probably should never have married her and vice versa but lots can say the same at least these days we have the freedom to escape an unhappy relationship more easily. However hard it is to watch someone's heartbreak because their relationship has broken down etc. we have to remember it's part of life. We have no idea what their relationship was really like, he would possibly agree he was far from well behaved but what of Sheila? we don't know what her behaviour in the relationship was like. I believe Sheila's real tragedy was her dreadful, debilitating illness which was probably no one's fault.
-
none of us know him you dont him ethere.
I'm not the one saying I know lots of people like him and making judgements. He has no reason to lie - Jeremy has LOTS!!
-
What evidence did EP have that they " knew " it was Jeremy ?
-
Can someone please tell me on what evidence EP convicted Jeremy ?
-
Can someone please tell me on what evidence EP convicted Jeremy ?
You've been told many times by many people. You just refuse to believe it and continue to keep your eyes closed.
-
What evidence did EP have that they " knew " it was Jeremy ?
I'd say an eye test was required and maybe a dingy to get you off that boat! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Nothing wrong with my eyesight.It's just that I can't see the list of evidence ;D ;D ;D ;D
Conspicuous by its absence.
-
I happen to know what it's like to fill an A4 writing pad page to page and have no-one take any notice !!
So how Jeremy feels with his floor to ceiling files God only knows.
-
Nothing wrong with my eyesight.It's just that I can't see the list of evidence ;D ;D ;D ;D
Conspicuous by its absence.
Nothing wrong with your eyesight.It's just that you refuse see the what's staring you in the face ;D ;D ;D ;D
You deny it's existence - doesn't matter though, the court didn't!
-
It still doesn't stop me from wanting to know what EP had on him though. I'd like to know.
-
It still doesn't stop me from wanting to know what EP had on him though. I'd like to know.
I hope you get a more comprehensive response to your question than the one you gave mine ;)
-
I hope you get a more comprehensive response to your question than the one you gave mine ;)
Response ? I've only had excuses up to now.Is my question soooooo difficult ? Afterall,whatever the answer is,is what got Jeremy his conviction,and so far---------------------------------
-
"Colin said that Jeremy chatted generally not that they did."
Do you understand the definition of chatting? It is generally regarded as a two way conversation and Colin refers to arrangements made between them which more than suggests a two way conversation.
As for the "ganging up", how on earth do you construe that Colin was not suspicious of the relatives and their motives. His own words make quite clear that the "ganging up" consisted of statements to the police and giving negative stories to the press.
Can you think of a synonym for "ganging up" in the context of these events. Would "attempting to frame him" be apt?
It is also pretty clear that at this stage Colin still thought Sheila responsible so simple logic should tell you that the relatives "ganging up" was seen as an attempt to frame Jeremy by Colin. If you cannot surmise this from Colin's statements then your comprehension skills could do with brushing up.
The book that Colin wrote some years later is not "expanding" on his statements, as you put it. The statements are legal documents that may be tested in court and, well a book some years later isn't is it?
Whatever is said after the event there is no getting away from the fact that Colin did not have concerns about Jeremy selling the slides because there is no reasonable explanation why he would leave them with Jeremy for so long afterwards and then go away for a break if he was concerned. Anything said long after the event which contradicts the contemporaneous account is revisionism.
-
Response ? I've only had excuses up to now.Is my question soooooo difficult ? Afterall,whatever the answer is,is what got Jeremy his conviction,and so far---------------------------------
Lucky you. You made no attempt whatsoever to answer my question which required far less thought than yours. All you were required to do was pick a number between 1-10.
-
Can someone please tell me on what evidence EP convicted Jeremy ?
I told you countless times and all you do in response is to say you refuse to believe it and instead of basing your beliefs in this case on the evidence and his behaviors after the murders you choose to make your decision based on body language in the limited times you saw him on film. Calling Sheila before police and not bothering to call 999 are telling, your body language mumbo jumbo is not.
The evidence in the case consisted of evidence proving:
Sheila didn't load the gun
Sheila didn't beat anyone
Sheila didn't fire a gun
Sheila can't have committed suicide she was murdered
Sheila's murder was staged as a suicide
Julie's testimony that Jeremy planned to kill his family and stage it as a murder suicide at the hands of Sheila
Evidence Jeremy unhooked and hid a perfectly working kitchen phone and replaced it with the bedroom phone so there no longer was a phone in the master bedroom.
Evidence that Nevill was shot in the master bedroom with June and then after the gun was empty things progressed to the kitchen but Nevill's wounds prevented him from speaking (so not only would he not have made a call featuring the lie that Sheila was running around with a gun going crazy, he couldn't make a call).
Evidence also proves Jeremy called Julie before police but lied and claimed he called police first knowing he had no valid excuse for calling her first if he had actually received the call he claims to have received from Nevill.
Jeremy also lied to police at the scene claiming Sheila had fired all weapons in the house and was competent with them.
Jeremy also made up a ridiculous story about getting the gun out to shoot rabbits and leaving it out so as to pretend there was a weapon of opportunity for Sheila to grab but he left out too many bullets for his story to be true thus revealing the bullets were staged later.
In sum, the physical evidence proves Sheila was murdered along with everyone else and framed. Jeremy's claim he received a phone call, Julie's testimony, Jeremy's other claims to police and behavior after allegedly receiving a call from Nevill all demonstrate he is the one who framed her. That is how the case was made.
-
Lucky you. You made no attempt whatsoever to answer my question which required far less thought than yours. All you were required to do was pick a number between 1-10.
Another side-track ?
-
I told you countless times and all you do in response is to say you refuse to believe it and instead of basing your beliefs in this case on the evidence and his behaviors after the murders you choose to make your decision based on body language in the limited times you saw him on film. Calling Sheila before police and not bothering to call 999 are telling, your body language mumbo jumbo is not.
The evidence in the case consisted of evidence proving:
Sheila didn't load the gun
Sheila didn't beat anyone
Sheila didn't fire a gun
Sheila can't have committed suicide she was murdered
Sheila's murder was staged as a suicide
Julie's testimony that Jeremy planned to kill his family and stage it as a murder suicide at the hands of Sheila
Evidence Jeremy unhooked and hid a perfectly working kitchen phone and replaced it with the bedroom phone so there no longer was a phone in the master bedroom.
Evidence that Nevill was shot in the master bedroom with June and then after the gun was empty things progressed to the kitchen but Nevill's wounds prevented him from speaking (so not only would he not have made a call featuring the lie that Sheila was running around with a gun going crazy, he couldn't make a call).
Evidence also proves Jeremy called Julie before police but lied and claimed he called police first knowing he had no valid excuse for calling her first if he had actually received the call he claims to have received from Nevill.
Jeremy also lied to police at the scene claiming Sheila had fired all weapons in the house and was competent with them.
Jeremy also made up a ridiculous story about getting the gun out to shoot rabbits and leaving it out so as to pretend there was a weapon of opportunity for Sheila to grab but he left out too many bullets for his story to be true thus revealing the bullets were staged later.
In sum, the physical evidence proves Sheila was murdered along with everyone else and framed. Jeremy's claim he received a phone call, Julie's testimony, Jeremy's other claims to police and behavior after allegedly receiving a call from Nevill all demonstrate he is the one who framed her. That is how the case was made.
I'm not talking about Sheila.I asked what evidence EP had against Jeremy.
-
Another side-track ?
No. I asked the question first -three times I think- yet you seem to think you have every right to ignore questions from me yet demand a response to your own and you appear to ignore that a jury already gave an answer to your question.
-
So in amongst other posts the question I was asking looks like it was answered - we do not know if the pictures were truly pornographic as the gory "details" came from the Sun and not Jeremy or Colin - so it could be that they blackened Sheilas name without actually seeing the photos. Which is what I was getting at .
Plus pornographic is a strong word for pictures of which we do not actually know what they entailed.
And no I am not defending JB - but also I don't like to see exaggeration of any situation.
After all Colin also said in his book that Jeremy thought the world of Sheila and was proud of her modelling photos . The bit about him being like a brother I am sure came from Colin and referred to an earlier period of time when he was first dating Sheila. He also said at the time of the murders he would support Jeremy.
I was Trying to get to the facts of this "situation" and whether the Sun did embellish the story to sell pictures.
I think in the past Caroline you did comment that even if the Sun were moral enough to refuse to print the photos( which you doubted) you thought that they would have set up a meeting with the cash in order to catch Jeremy red handed and to prove the pictures existed.
-
Hello Jan
I appreciate what you are saying but what concerns me why did Jeremy leave two sets of nude photo's in the flat for Colin to take yet he said he wanted the "famous ones for himself and he made Colin feel uncomfortable talking about how you saw so much more down to the last detail. Colin said in his book he was worried what Jeremy would do with them and did write asking for them back to be destroyed but his letter was too late.The set of slides left for Colin were described by Colin as Glamour type photo's so I do wonder what was in the third set to make Jeremy remove them from the flat. I also think and this is just me reading my own take on the situation that Jeremy did tell Colin what type of photo's they were that he removed but Colin would not print such details in his book. Sheila was his ex wife and the Mother of his boys and would not want to disrespect her by talking of the photo's in detail. The Sun described them as sex snaps so what was in them is not really for us to know. All very sad.
-
No. I asked the question first -three times I think- yet you seem to think you have every right to ignore questions from me yet demand a response to your own and you appear to ignore that a jury already gave an answer to your question.
I'm not falling for that one.What do you think I am ?
-
In actual fact the question is open to anyone willing to answer it------------truthfully,of course.
-
I'm not falling for that one.What do you think I am ?
A little deaf, perhaps :) You have been given the answer to your question countless times by several different people -it isn't their fault if you don't like or believe what they say- yet you STILL refuse to answer what I asked you.
-
I am just posting this - previously posted because as I said I was interested in the timing of the meeting with the newspaper as it would seem extremely stupid for JB to be drawing attention to himself in this way.
"Here's a piece about Jeremys questioning
Vic you can pull me up if you think anything is wrong here
After his first arrest on the 8th of September, he was questioned for four days sometimes until 11pm at night. Police constantly pressed him on the positioning of the gun accusing him of telling some police officers that the rifle was on the table, but he was adamant the gun was on the settle. DS Stan Jones asked him if he had or hadn’t fired the gun. He was insistent that he had not fired the rifle. They went over and over the telephone call from his father. The records of these interviews span for hundreds of pages. DS Jones told Jeremy that Julie had said that he had called her before calling the police which contradicted what both he and Julie had initially told police. The time of the call needed to be ‘fixed’ at a much earlier time for the prosecution to state that he called Julie first.
After days of questioning Jeremy gave in with confusion and said that maybe he did call Julie first. This single discrepancy was used against Jeremy although it actually has no real bearing on the facts; whether he called Julie first or the police second the events still happened just as he had said. Since the interview Jeremy has maintained that he called the police before he called Julie. There are no other discrepancies in Jeremy’s accounts throughout his 27 years.
Through all of the witness accounts, many people have altered their accounts and statements contradict each other, there is only one account which remains the same to this day and it is the account of Jeremy Bamber. This is because it is the truth and the truth does not alter, other witnesses have exaggerated and embellished their original accounts in the media and to different police enquiries. Jeremy had coped with the strain of the continual questioning and by comparison with other miscarriages of justice his version of accounts has not altered; he has never confessed nor altered his story under duress.
After his first arrest and release without charge Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story. Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it. But Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story. Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go to meet with the journalist. But the Sun journalist wasn’t interested in Jeremy’s account, and continually asked questions about Sheila Caffell and requested any modelling pictures which might have been pornographic. Jeremy had told him that there were none and that there might have been some topless ones but Colin Caffell would have those. The journalist ran the story reporting that the newspaper had been offered these pictures and they also went to the police. The newspaper never obtained pictures of Sheila, because they didn’t exist, further proof that Jeremy Bamber had not intended to sell any pictures to the newspaper.
Jeremy’s efforts to tell his story had gone disastrously wrong, this coupled with the burglary at the caravan park made the outlook very bleak. Stories escalated about Jeremy’s relationship with Brett Collins and his trips abroad. Acquaintances turned their backs on him and his often eccentric, foolish behaviour and socializing with homosexuals was amplified by local gossip. His enjoyment of cannabis, later down classified to a class C drug and frequently used by the middle classes was also a major point of “criminality” used by the prosecution. He was presented as having spent a lot of money on holidays but the reality was on his trip to Amsterdam he, Brett and Julie had shared the same room to economise.
After his arrest the trip to the South of France was glamorized but the fact was that Jeremy and Brett stayed in a caravan to keep the costs low. Anything to escape the now intrusive and destructive glare of the media, Jeremy was an innocent man subjected to similar treatment as other people who are vilified in the press and subsequently released without charge.
Jeremy had continued smoking pot, taking prescribed sedatives[10] and alcohol to drown out the shock, pain and sorrow. His arrest and high media profile prompted his new love Virginia to turn her back on him. Julie had contrived a convoluted story to the police, and his relatives had turned against him and by their own admission, were taking belongings from his family home without permission.[11] Even Colin Caffell had become distant and had written to him saying that the relatives had insisted that Jeremy was duping him and was definitely guilty and Colin didn’t know what to believe now his beautiful twins were dead and Jeremy had been arrested and released without charge.[12"
-
So in amongst other posts the question I was asking looks like it was answered - we do not know if the pictures were truly pornographic as the gory "details" came from the Sun and not Jeremy or Colin - so it could be that they blackened Sheilas name without actually seeing the photos. Which is what I was getting at .
Plus pornographic is a strong word for pictures of which we do not actually know what they entailed.
And no I am not defending JB - but also I don't like to see exaggeration of any situation.
After all Colin also said in his book that Jeremy thought the world of Sheila and was proud of her modelling photos . The bit about him being like a brother I am sure came from Colin and referred to an earlier period of time when he was first dating Sheila. He also said at the time of the murders he would support Jeremy.
I was Trying to get to the facts of this "situation" and whether the Sun did embellish the story to sell pictures.
I think in the past Caroline you did comment that even if the Sun were moral enough to refuse to print the photos( which you doubted) you thought that they would have set up a meeting with the cash in order to catch Jeremy red handed and to prove the pictures existed.
you would of thought they would but im geussing some of the more explicit details come from the rather depraved imagentations of tabliod journlists.
-
Hello Jan
I appreciate what you are saying but what concerns me why did Jeremy leave two sets of nude photo's in the flat for Colin to take yet he said he wanted the "famous ones for himself and he made Colin feel uncomfortable talking about how you saw so much more down to the last detail. Colin said in his book he was worried what Jeremy would do with them and did write asking for them back to be destroyed but his letter was too late.The set of slides left for Colin were described by Colin as Glamour type photo's so I do wonder what was in the third set to make Jeremy remove them from the flat. I also think and this is just me reading my own take on the situation that Jeremy did tell Colin what type of photo's they were that he removed but Colin would not print such details in his book. Sheila was his ex wife and the Mother of his boys and would not want to disrespect her by talking of the photo's in detail. The Sun described them as sex snaps so what was in them is not really for us to know. All very sad.
I agree it is sad - but I also can not understand why if they were that bad that they would be left around in a drawer and that does not add up either - like many other things in this case .
-
Jan you forgot to mention that Jeremy was washing/wiping dishes in a hotel ? South of France,for extra pocket money.
-
A little deaf, perhaps :) You have been given the answer to your question countless times by several different people -it isn't their fault if you don't like or believe what they say- yet you STILL refuse to answer what I asked you.
What you asked me has no relevance to the case whatsoever. What I asked you and others IS the case.
-
I agree it is sad - but I also can not understand why if they were that bad that they would be left around in a drawer and that does not add up either - like many other things in this case .
Jan it seems that Jeremy had cleaned out the flat but all the photo's were in a cupboard I think in Sheila's bedroom. What was printed in the paper do you know I only know the headline from Colin.
-
What you asked me has no relevance to the case whatsoever. What I asked you and others IS the case.
That's just your opinion but no matter, you've been given an answer on several occasions which is generous given that he's been convicted and COULD therefore be said to be irrelevant................that you choose NOT to answer my question gives me a clearer and perhaps more truthful answer that if you had.
-
So in amongst other posts the question I was asking looks like it was answered - we do not know if the pictures were truly pornographic as the gory "details" came from the Sun and not Jeremy or Colin - so it could be that they blackened Sheilas name without actually seeing the photos. Which is what I was getting at .
Plus pornographic is a strong word for pictures of which we do not actually know what they entailed.
And no I am not defending JB - but also I don't like to see exaggeration of any situation.
After all Colin also said in his book that Jeremy thought the world of Sheila and was proud of her modelling photos . The bit about him being like a brother I am sure came from Colin and referred to an earlier period of time when he was first dating Sheila. He also said at the time of the murders he would support Jeremy.
I was Trying to get to the facts of this "situation" and whether the Sun did embellish the story to sell pictures.
I think in the past Caroline you did comment that even if the Sun were moral enough to refuse to print the photos( which you doubted) you thought that they would have set up a meeting with the cash in order to catch Jeremy red handed and to prove the pictures existed.
To be totally honest Jan, I think you are defending Jeremy and doing the same as Gringo, you're ignoring what Colin actually said in favour of things you think he SHOULD have said or would have preferred him to say. Read his statement again because he refers to the pictures hHE took as soft 'PORNOGRAPHY' and the ones Jeremy explained to him were A LOT MORE EXPLICIT.
Yes, I did indeed say the above but I also told you that I made excuses for Jeremy - I admit it, it's a shame others can't do the same when we have more information about the situation than we did back then. How can the journalist be exaggerating when it was Jeremy who explained the pictures? Both you and Gringo ignore the FACT that Colin said they were described in exactly the same way as Jeremy had described them to him.
You can drag up what I said in the past all you like, I was WRONG and I made excuses for him. Not no more!! He tried to sell pictures of his dead sister of that I am sure. Whether the pictures existed or not or were pornographic in nature isn't the point - the point is that a so call grieving man who had just lost his family TRIED TO SELL explicit pictures of his dead sister.
-
I am just posting this - previously posted because as I said I was interested in the timing of the meeting with the newspaper as it would seem extremely stupid for JB to be drawing attention to himself in this way.
"Here's a piece about Jeremys questioning
Vic you can pull me up if you think anything is wrong here
After his first arrest on the 8th of September, he was questioned for four days sometimes until 11pm at night. Police constantly pressed him on the positioning of the gun accusing him of telling some police officers that the rifle was on the table, but he was adamant the gun was on the settle. DS Stan Jones asked him if he had or hadn’t fired the gun. He was insistent that he had not fired the rifle. They went over and over the telephone call from his father. The records of these interviews span for hundreds of pages. DS Jones told Jeremy that Julie had said that he had called her before calling the police which contradicted what both he and Julie had initially told police. The time of the call needed to be ‘fixed’ at a much earlier time for the prosecution to state that he called Julie first.
After days of questioning Jeremy gave in with confusion and said that maybe he did call Julie first. This single discrepancy was used against Jeremy although it actually has no real bearing on the facts; whether he called Julie first or the police second the events still happened just as he had said. Since the interview Jeremy has maintained that he called the police before he called Julie. There are no other discrepancies in Jeremy’s accounts throughout his 27 years.
Through all of the witness accounts, many people have altered their accounts and statements contradict each other, there is only one account which remains the same to this day and it is the account of Jeremy Bamber. This is because it is the truth and the truth does not alter, other witnesses have exaggerated and embellished their original accounts in the media and to different police enquiries. Jeremy had coped with the strain of the continual questioning and by comparison with other miscarriages of justice his version of accounts has not altered; he has never confessed nor altered his story under duress.
After his first arrest and release without charge Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story. Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it. But Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story. Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go to meet with the journalist. But the Sun journalist wasn’t interested in Jeremy’s account, and continually asked questions about Sheila Caffell and requested any modelling pictures which might have been pornographic. Jeremy had told him that there were none and that there might have been some topless ones but Colin Caffell would have those. The journalist ran the story reporting that the newspaper had been offered these pictures and they also went to the police. The newspaper never obtained pictures of Sheila, because they didn’t exist, further proof that Jeremy Bamber had not intended to sell any pictures to the newspaper.
Jeremy’s efforts to tell his story had gone disastrously wrong, this coupled with the burglary at the caravan park made the outlook very bleak. Stories escalated about Jeremy’s relationship with Brett Collins and his trips abroad. Acquaintances turned their backs on him and his often eccentric, foolish behaviour and socializing with homosexuals was amplified by local gossip. His enjoyment of cannabis, later down classified to a class C drug and frequently used by the middle classes was also a major point of “criminality” used by the prosecution. He was presented as having spent a lot of money on holidays but the reality was on his trip to Amsterdam he, Brett and Julie had shared the same room to economise.
After his arrest the trip to the South of France was glamorized but the fact was that Jeremy and Brett stayed in a caravan to keep the costs low. Anything to escape the now intrusive and destructive glare of the media, Jeremy was an innocent man subjected to similar treatment as other people who are vilified in the press and subsequently released without charge.
Jeremy had continued smoking pot, taking prescribed sedatives[10] and alcohol to drown out the shock, pain and sorrow. His arrest and high media profile prompted his new love Virginia to turn her back on him. Julie had contrived a convoluted story to the police, and his relatives had turned against him and by their own admission, were taking belongings from his family home without permission.[11] Even Colin Caffell had become distant and had written to him saying that the relatives had insisted that Jeremy was duping him and was definitely guilty and Colin didn’t know what to believe now his beautiful twins were dead and Jeremy had been arrested and released without charge.[12"
Selling the photographs at all is stupid but he tried to! Is the above from the OS? I assume it is because of the excuses held within it.
-
I'm not falling for that one.What do you think I am ?
In denial!
-
To be totally honest Jan, I think you are defending Jeremy and doing the same as Gringo, you're ignoring what Colin actually said in favour of things you think he SHOULD have said or would have preferred him to say. Read his statement again because he refers to the pictures hHE took as soft 'PORNOGRAPHY' and the ones Jeremy explained to him were A LOT MORE EXPLICIT.
Yes, I did indeed say the above but I also told you that I made excuses for Jeremy - I admit it, it's a shame others can't do the same when we have more information about the situation than we did back then. How can the journalist be exaggerating when it was Jeremy who explained the pictures? Both you and Gringo ignore the FACT that Colin said they were described in exactly the same way as Jeremy had described them to him.
You can drag up what I said in the past all you like, I was WRONG and I made excuses for him. Not no more!! He tried to sell pictures of his dead sister of that I am sure. Whether the pictures existed or not or were pornographic in nature isn't the point - the point is that a so call grieving man who had just lost his family TRIED TO SELL explicit pictures of his dead sister.
But as he DIDN'T sell them, ie no money changed hands, apparently he's not guilty of doing anything wrong ;)
-
you would of thought they would but im geussing some of the more explicit details come from the rather depraved imagentations of tabliod journlists.
But again, whatever exaggeration The Sun applied (or not) is NOT the point, the point is that he described them to both the journalist and Colin in the same way and tried to sell pictures of his dead sister!! It's despicable but people are still making excuses for him - amazing!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
In denial!
No way.I've got every confidence that Jeremy is innocent.
-
But as he DIDN'T sell them, ie no money changed hands, apparently he's not guilty of doing anything wrong ;)
It's not that he didn't sell them, he was turned down, even a Sun reporter was disgusted by him - now that's saying something!!
-
No way.I've got every confidence that Jeremy is innocent.
Never mind, that dingy might turn up soon! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Never mind, that dingy might turn up soon! ;D ;D ;D ;D
I don't mind.It's still better than a lifebelt, ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy. Caroline, April and Susan have changed stance while Grahame and Jackie no longer post.
Mike has a grudge against the police after spending time inside. He also shared a cell with Jeremy for an hour. So has decided the campaign will be his purpose in life.
-
But as he DIDN'T sell them, ie no money changed hands, apparently he's not guilty of doing anything wrong ;)
I never said that he did nothing wrong ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
In your world Jeremy is a liar. The sun are liars . So two liars against each other so as usual we are no wiser.
-
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy. Caroline, April and Susan have changed stance while Grahame and Jackie no longer post.
Mike has a grudge against the police after spending time inside. He also shared a cell with Jeremy for an hour. So has decided the campaign will be his purpose in life.
You are a total and complete idiot . I have not one bit of respect or interest for your posts.
-
I never said that he did nothing wrong ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
In your world Jeremy is a liar. The sun are liars . So two liars against each other so as usual we are no wiser.
Jan, I wasn't referring to you!!!! It was Lookout who suggested it along with a comment about a fuss about nothing. I feel sure she will verify it.
-
Never mind, that dingy might turn up soon! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Allegedly very soon -don't worry you wont have to join us there is not much room.
-
Jan, I wasn't referring to you!!!! It was Lookout who suggested it along with a comment about a fuss about nothing. I feel sure she will verify it.
What's non-evidence got to do with a fuss about nothing ? I thought it had everything to do with bagging the right person for the crime.
-
I never said that he did nothing wrong ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
In your world Jeremy is a liar. The sun are liars . So two liars against each other so as usual we are no wiser.
Colin is not a liar though!!
-
Allegedly very soon -don't worry you wont have to join us there is not much room.
I don't need the dingy, I am no longer sailing aimlessly on the ancient Egyptian river - but glad there's a dingy on the way. Don't worry, I won't throw old posts in your face - there would be no point if you'd already admitted to have been wrong in the past!! ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
What's non-evidence got to do with a fuss about nothing ? I thought it had everything to do with bagging the right person for the crime.
Without going back to look, I believe that what you said was along the lines of it being a lot of fuss about nothing because if no money had changed hands for the pictures, Jeremy couldn't be said to have sold them and was therefore NOT guilty of doing so. This was what gave rise to MY question of where you would place the acceptability of his actions on a scale of 1-10.
-
I don't need the dingy, I am no longer sailing aimlessly on the ancient Egyptian river - but glad there's a dingy on the way. Don't worry, I won't throw old posts in your face - there would be no point if you'd already admitted to have been wrong in the past!! ;) ;D ;D ;D
I always admit when I am wrong . And don't boast about being right.
And I was not throwing it in your face - I just asked why you had changed your mind about the Sun as well as Jeremy.
But its obvious as you say, everything he has said is a lie - therefore everyone else must be telling the truth . I get it.
Like you have said we must not take this debate personally . Unless its Adam.
-
You are a total and complete idiot . I have not one bit of respect or interest for your posts.
can we all agrea on this point i think we can
-
Without going back to look, I believe that what you said was along the lines of it being a lot of fuss about nothing because if no money had changed hands for the pictures, Jeremy couldn't be said to have sold them and was therefore NOT guilty of doing so. This was what gave rise to MY question of where you would place the acceptability of his actions on a scale of 1-10.
I would have thought my reply was evidence enough ?
-
can we all Dagrea on this point i think we can
well I do try not to be rude to posters unless pushed. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I never said that he did nothing wrong ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
In your world Jeremy is a liar. The sun are liars . So two liars against each other so as usual we are no wiser.
Why are you still saying it's the sun VS Jeremy? It's surely The Sun & Colin VS Jeremy...you keep convieniently forgetting about Colin, Jan.
-
can we all agrea on this point i think we can
Priceless. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I always admit when I am wrong . And don't boast about being right.
And I was not throwing it in your face - I just asked why you had changed your mind about the Sun as well as Jeremy.
But its obvious as you say, everything he has said is a lie - therefore everyone else must be telling the truth . I get it.
Like you have said we must not take this debate personally . Unless its Adam.
It felt that way and I have already admitted to being wrong in the past. I apologise for snapping.
I have changed my mind about The Sun because I didn't know that Colin backed the story - I have to admit to skip reading his book and I missed that part about the photographs/slides the first time. It is only recently that I have seen the Killing Mum and Dad documentary where the reporter recalls the meeting and I think he sounds very credible. However, it is Colin who convinced me and also given that I think Jeremy is guilty, it doesn't surprise me that he would do such a thing.
Oh! And I also asked him about it and he didn't answer - he doesn't like difficult questions.
-
can we all agrea on this point i think we can
No, I don't think Adam is an idiot. I think he can be annoying and pompous, but he can also be quite funny and knowledgable.
At least he knows the case, which is more than can be said for some.
-
I would have thought my reply was evidence enough ?
Evidence of what?
-
It felt that way and I have already admitted to being wrong in the past. I apologise for snapping.
I have changed my mind about The Sun because I didn't know that Colin backed the story - I have to admit to skip reading his book and I missed that part about the photographs/slides the first time. It is only recently that I have seen the Killing Mum and Dad documentary where the reporter recalls the meeting and I think he sounds very credible. However, it is Colin who convinced me and also given that I think Jeremy is guilty, it doesn't surprise me that he would do such a thing.
Oh! And I also asked him about it and he didn't answer - he doesn't like difficult questions.
I've always believed the story, because I believed the reporter. When I found out he had actually given a statement (which I think I read on the red forum) it added credibility to his story - but as you say when Colin also backs up the story...it sort of seals it.
-
I would have thought my reply was evidence enough ?
Running with that belief, if silence is evidence -although of what, I don't know- then all the voices who answered your question must be evidence .
-
Evidence of what?
In answer to April's post.Stop looking for something that isn't there. ::)
-
In answer to April's post.Stop looking for something that isn't there. ::)
Ha, ha! Exactly, there never is any evidence in your posts!! But at least you admit it!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Running with that belief, if silence is evidence -although of what, I don't know- then all the voices who answered your question must be evidence .
I'd said all I was going to say about the photo's/slides whatever they were. That was my answer,not some cobbled up embellishment about evidence.
Blimey,all this because I happened to ask what evidence EP had to charge Jeremy with murder.
-
Why are you still saying it's the sun VS Jeremy? It's surely The Sun & Colin VS Jeremy...you keep convieniently forgetting about Colin, Jan.
No I do not - I read the book .
I don't believe colin is a liar..
I never said the photos did not exist .
But it was being said on here that they were pornographic and mentioned other sordid details that might not be true. Jeremy gave his version of the meeting and the Sun gave another.
I have never defended the actions I was trying to establish who lied about the details of the meeting and whether I believe the sun had such high morals as to have refused the photos ( that they never saw)
And I questioned the fact that if they were that bad that they would have been left in a drawer.
TBH I am no nearer knowing which version is correct.
Do I believe the police can influence the press to their own agenda - yes I do .
-
I'd said all I was going to say about the photo's/slides whatever they were. That was my answer,not some cobbled up embellishment about evidence.
Blimey,all this because I happened to ask what evidence EP had to charge Jeremy with murder.
Not because you asked that, but because you can't answer April's question. You know Jeremy was wrong so you can't answer to 1-10 question. ::)
-
No I do not - I read the book .
I don't believe colin is a liar..
I never said the photos did not exist .
But it was being said on here that they were pornographic and mentioned other sordid details that might not be true. Jeremy gave his version of the meeting and the Sun gave another.
I have never defended the actions I was trying to establish who lied about the details of the meeting and whether I believe the sun had such high morals as to have refused the photos ( that they never saw)
And I questioned the fact that if they were that bad that they would have been left in a drawer.
TBH I am no nearer knowing which version is correct.
Do I believe the police can influence the press to their own agenda - yes I do .
Colin mentions the word 'pornography' - he said that the pictures he took were soft porn BUT that the ones Jeremy described were far more explicit. He doesn't say what Sheila is doing but perhaps he is trying to maintain her last vestiges of dignity? He certainly didn't come out and say that the article 'exaggerated' the content - that suggestion is coming from here and Jeremy is now denying they even exist. If there is one person out of the three who is lying no matter what - it's Jeremy.
-
Not because you asked that, but because you can't answer April's question. You know Jeremy was wrong so you can't answer to 1-10 question. ::)
It's supposed to be a discussion not an interogation, if anyone puts an opposing view forward they get jumped on. If there were none of us here who believed JB to be innocent all the rest of you would all just have to spend all day agreeing with each other all day and working yourselves up into a frenzy about what a rotter he is.
-
It's supposed to be a discussion not an interogation, if anyone puts an opposing view forward they get jumped on. If there were none of us here who believed JB to be innocent all the rest of you would all just have to spend all day agreeing with each other all day and working yourselves up into a frenzy about what a rotter he is.
What irony. It was only a couple of weeks back that we -members of the guilty party- were saying that, was it not for our presence, it -the forum-, would be like a tea party with everyone agreeing what a nice boy was Jeremy and how none of this was his fault. :D :D :D
-
What irony. It was only a couple of weeks back that we -members of the guilty party- were saying that, was it not for our presence, it -the forum-, would be like a tea party with everyone agreeing what a nice boy was Jeremy and how none of this was his fault. :D :D :D
Haha really? 😃😃
-
Ps I am not saying anything like that, I just truly don't think he's guilty
-
What irony. It was only a couple of weeks back that we -members of the guilty party- were saying that, was it not for our presence, it -the forum-, would be like a tea party with everyone agreeing what a nice boy was Jeremy and how none of this was his fault. :D :D :D
I quite liked it when was a tea party - we then managed to have proper discussions and debate because we were still asking questions and I don't remember anyone saying he was a nice boy , because we don't know him.
I think most of us whether we had doubts or not were searching for the truth.
Now I feel it has got very nasty on here IMO!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I am glad you and Caroline have found your truth - it must be such a relief - but please excuse the rest of us if we are not as convinced as you because I have not seen anything yet which has swayed me - not even Adam ( personally I think he needs support)
-
I quite liked it when was a tea party - we then managed to have proper discussions and debate because we were still asking questions and I don't remember anyone saying he was a nice boy , because we don't know him.
I think most of us whether we had doubts or not were searching for the truth.
Now I feel it has got very nasty on here IMO!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I am glad you and Caroline have found your truth - it must be such a relief - but please excuse the rest of us if we are not as convinced as you because I have not seen anything yet which has swayed me - not even Adam ( personally I think he needs support)
I do agree
-
No I do not - I read the book .
I don't believe colin is a liar..
I never said the photos did not exist .
But it was being said on here that they were pornographic and mentioned other sordid details that might not be true. Jeremy gave his version of the meeting and the Sun gave another.
I have never defended the actions I was trying to establish who lied about the details of the meeting and whether I believe the sun had such high morals as to have refused the photos ( that they never saw)
And I questioned the fact that if they were that bad that they would have been left in a drawer.
TBH I am no nearer knowing which version is correct.
Do I believe the police can influence the press to their own agenda - yes I do .
there morales they decided to tell everybody what was supposed to be in the phoyos when they could of just said porn.
-
It's supposed to be a discussion not an interogation, if anyone puts an opposing view forward they get jumped on. If there were none of us here who believed JB to be innocent all the rest of you would all just have to spend all day agreeing with each other all day and working yourselves up into a frenzy about what a rotter he is.
There are more innocent supporters here than guilty so that argument could be switched right back at you! Why don't you post something that proves the article was a fraud? I'm arguing that the evidence which is overwhelming and if people keep denying what is blatantly obvious, they shouldn't be surprised if they loose. Post some proof and not just excuses.
-
I quite liked it when was a tea party - we then managed to have proper discussions and debate because we were still asking questions and I don't remember anyone saying he was a nice boy , because we don't know him.
I think most of us whether we had doubts or not were searching for the truth.
Now I feel it has got very nasty on here IMO!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I am glad you and Caroline have found your truth - it must be such a relief - but please excuse the rest of us if we are not as convinced as you because I have not seen anything yet which has swayed me - not even Adam ( personally I think he needs support)
This thread isn't about whether he guilty or not, it's about whether he tried to sell pictures of his dead sister. I get the impression that people make excuses because they think agreeing that he sold them somehow weakens their argument that he's innocent. I'll be honest and say that it my opinion it does but it still doesn't mean he killed anyone.
If I had seen the video and read what Colin said previously when I thought he was innocent, there is no way I could have backed the notion that he didn't try to sell the pictures. I may not have changed my mind about guilt on that basis but I couldn't have defended him or made excuses. The argument about The Sun falls flat because of Colin.
-
I can't defend Jeremy on this, but I do question whether or not he was influenced by Brett.
There are many pictures of Sheila in the press, one of them is in a bikini. I would like to know whether that was sold or given and who by?
I am still of the belief that the introduction of sex aids is sensationalized by the gutter press.
-
There are more innocent supporters here than guilty so that argument could be switched right back at you! Why don't you post something that proves the article was a fraud? I'm arguing that the evidence which is overwhelming and if people keep denying what is blatantly obvious, they shouldn't be surprised if they loose. Post some proof and not just excuses.
I'm not making excuses, and I can't prove the article is a fraud any more than you can prove it isn't.
Are there really more innocent supporters? It seems the other way round to me but I could be wrong
-
I'm not making excuses, and I can't prove the article is a fraud any more than you can prove it isn't.
Are there really more innocent supporters? It seems the other way round to me but I could be wrong
I'm the only supporter who is 100% sure of his innocence.
-
Anyone read about the corrupt ( crime reporter ) Sun journalist who developed a corrupt relationship with a cop,over 4 years ? He was spared jail ??? after he'd paid the cop £22,000 for information.
-
I'm not making excuses, and I can't prove the article is a fraud any more than you can prove it isn't.
Are there really more innocent supporters? It seems the other way round to me but I could be wrong
The case for Jeremy trying to sell the pictures.
Jeremy told Colin he had explicit photographs of Sheila
A meeting is set between Jeremy, Brett and a Sun reporter
Reporter claims that Jeremy offered explicit pictures of his dead sister
Colin confirms that the description reported in The Sun is EXACTLY the same as the description given to him by Jeremy.
Jeremy IGNORES Colin's letter asking for an explanation.
Neither Jeremy or Brett disputed the article.
The case against
People don't like The Sun
Jeremy's OS now states that the pictures didn't exist (although the author of the article is careful to state that the opinions written do no come from Jeremy)
Well, it's a tough one - but I think the case FOR just about has it!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Anyone read about the corrupt ( crime reporter ) Sun journalist who developed a corrupt relationship with a cop,over 4 years ? He was spared jail ??? after he'd paid the cop £22,000 for information.
Oh right, so that means the the journalist who wrote about Jeremy must be corrupt? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Oh right, so that means the the journalist who wrote about Jeremy must be corrupt? ;D ;D ;D ;D
One never knows,does one ? Would you trust the press ?
-
The case for Jeremy trying to sell the pictures.
Jeremy told Colin he had explicit photographs of Sheila
A meeting is set between Jeremy, Brett and a Sun reporter
Reporter claims that Jeremy offered explicit pictures of his dead sister
Colin confirms that the description reported in The Sun is EXACTLY the same as the description given to him by Jeremy.
Jeremy IGNORES Colin's letter asking for an explanation.
Neither Jeremy or Brett disputed the article.
The case against
People don't like The Sun
Jeremy's OS now states that the pictures didn't exist (although the author of the article is careful to state that the opinions written do no come from Jeremy)
Well, it's a tough one - but I think the case FOR just about has it!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
We won't agree. And none of that is proof.
-
We won't agree. And none of that is proof.
No, we won't agree but just what would you call proof?
-
9 out of 12 staff of the Sun,are awaiting trial as we speak.
The cop who was involved along with the journalist was given a 2 year sentence last year.
-
9 out of 12 staff of the Sun,are awaiting trial as we speak.
The cop who was involved along with the journalist was given a 2 year sentence last year.
What has that got to do with a story written 30 years ago? You're smoke screening Lookout and although it's thick - it's transparent! ;)
-
What has that got to do with a story written 30 years ago? You're smoke screening Lookout and although it's thick - it's transparent! ;)
Corruption ? It might have everything to do with what happened 30 years ago. 8)
-
What has that got to do with a story written 30 years ago? You're smoke screening Lookout and although it's thick - it's transparent! ;)
Anything to diverge and protect Bamber.......We can all diverge though.
What about her source (who knows more about the case than us) that told her the WRONG information about Nevilles top?
What about the WRONG belief that scratch marks were on all victims?
Or the WRONG words Lookout put into AE's mouth regarding her COLP statement?
Lookout supports a convicted child killers innocence on WRONG information and flawed beliefs.
We won't agree. And none of that is proof.
It's proof enough, SaraT - but I doubt there is ANYTHING that would convince you.
The case for Jeremy trying to sell the pictures.
Jeremy told Colin he had explicit photographs of Sheila
A meeting is set between Jeremy, Brett and a Sun reporter
Reporter claims that Jeremy offered explicit pictures of his dead sister
Colin confirms that the description reported in The Sun is EXACTLY the same as the description given to him by Jeremy.
Jeremy IGNORES Colin's letter asking for an explanation.
Neither Jeremy or Brett disputed the article.
The case against
People don't like The Sun
Jeremy's OS now states that the pictures didn't exist (although the author of the article is careful to state that the opinions written do no come from Jeremy)
Well, it's a tough one - but I think the case FOR just about has it!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Excellent and OBVIOUS points. It's very clear that it happened, a few supporters won't believe it but that means nothing.
-
Corruption ? It might have everything to do with what happened 30 years ago. 8)
Or absolutely nothing!
-
Anything to diverge and protect Bamber.......We can all diverge though.
What about her source (who knows more about the case than us) that told her the WRONG information about Nevilles top?
What about the WRONG belief that scratch marks were on all victims?
Or the WRONG words Lookout put into AE's mouth regarding her COLP statement?
Lookout supports a convicted child killers innocence on WRONG information and flawed beliefs.
It's proof enough, SaraT - but I doubt there is ANYTHING that would convince you.
Excellent and OBVIOUS points. It's very clear that it happened, a few supporters won't believe it but that means nothing.
Cheers Mat :)
It will be interesting to see what Sara (or any one else for that matter) would consider as 'proof'?
-
Anything to diverge and protect Bamber.......We can all diverge though.
What about her source (who knows more about the case than us) that told her the WRONG information about Nevilles top?
What about the WRONG belief that scratch marks were on all victims?
Or the WRONG words Lookout put into AE's mouth regarding her COLP statement?
Lookout supports a convicted child killers innocence on WRONG information and flawed beliefs.
It's proof enough, SaraT - but I doubt there is ANYTHING that would convince you.
Excellent and OBVIOUS points. It's very clear that it happened, a few supporters won't believe it but that means nothing.
-
So SaraT is now coming in for a bashing. ::)
-
So SaraT is now coming in for a bashing. ::)
I'm not bashing her. I just don't think there is anything possible that could convince her.
-
I'm not bashing her. I just don't think there is anything possible that could convince her.
Convince her of what exactly ?
-
Perhaps you'd like to present SaraT with a list of investigative evidence that EP convicted Jeremy of ?
-
Perhaps you'd like to present SaraT with a list of investigative evidence that EP convicted Jeremy of ?
That's been done numberous time on here. She will have read the evidence herself, I am sure she knows what convicted him. You just don't believe it. You choose not to believe it because you like Jeremy.
-
So SaraT is now coming in for a bashing. ::)
What? SaraT answered my post and I asked her a question in response. That's how a discussion works Lookout. Of course we could all just make sweeping statements like you do with nothing to back it up - but that wouldn't get any one anywhere.
-
Convince her of what exactly ?
The thread title Lookout!! Although you have tried to take it off topic so many times now that I'm not surprised you have forgotten what it's all about!
-
The thread title Lookout!! Although you have tried to take it off topic so many times now that I'm not surprised you have forgotten what it's all about!
And she STILL hasn't answered my question :D
-
The thread title Lookout!! Although you have tried to take it off topic so many times now that I'm not surprised you have forgotten what it's all about!
Just keeps repeating "what evidence"....and then she ignores the replies to it anyway. Wish she would create her own topic if she wants to ask about the evidence, so the actual topic of this thread could be discussed.
And she STILL hasn't answered my question :D
I hope you're not holding your breath.
-
Just keeps repeating "what evidence"....and then she ignores the replies to it anyway. Wish she would create her would topic if she wants to ask about the evidence, so the actual topic of this thread could be discussed.
I hope you're not holding your breath.
Are you talking about me?
-
That's been done numberous time on here. She will have read the evidence herself, I am sure she knows what convicted him. You just don't believe it. You choose not to believe it because you like Jeremy.
It's worse than MP's question time here as you never get a straight answer.
The fact that EP had nothing on Jeremy hasn't been done numerous times at all,especially a list,written by EP stating " what they found " in their investigations that led them to convict Jeremy.
I wouldn't say that I " liked the man " at all,it has nothing whatsoever to do with my support of him. I really don't know where you get your ideas from,you're worse than the press.
Jeremy is NOT my type at all. I go for real men,not excuses for one-----------sorry to disappoint.
-
Are you talking about me?
Are you actually serious?
I answered Caroline. Who was Caroline talking about? Who keeps asking "What evidence did EP convict Bamber on?"
Obviously talking about Lookout, not sure how you got confused there.
It's worse than MP's question time here as you never get a straight answer.
The fact that EP had nothing on Jeremy hasn't been done numerous times at all,especially a list,written by EP stating " what they found " in their investigations that led them to convict Jeremy.
I wouldn't say that I " liked the man " at all,it has nothing whatsoever to do with my support of him. I really don't know where you get your ideas from,you're worse than the press.
Jeremy is NOT my type at all. I go for real men,not excuses for one-----------sorry to disappoint.
You speak about him like he is a member of your family. You're not willing to listen or consider anything negative about him - not just connected to the murders. You're unpleasant to members that say anything negative about him. You spend a lot of your time supporting him here and elsewhere.
Can see why I think you like him!
-
Are you talking about me?
No Sara. Their favourite punchbag------------ME. Pathetic lot !!
-
It's what happens if you support Jeremy,I'm afraid. Not good,is it ?
-
It's worse than MP's question time here as you never get a straight answer.
The fact that EP had nothing on Jeremy hasn't been done numerous times at all,especially a list,written by EP stating " what they found " in their investigations that led them to convict Jeremy.
I wouldn't say that I " liked the man " at all,it has nothing whatsoever to do with my support of him. I really don't know where you get your ideas from,you're worse than the press.
Jeremy is NOT my type at all. I go for real men,not excuses for one-----------sorry to disappoint.
You wouldn't say you "liked the man" but you DO say you like ALL those connected to him even LESS so I guess it's relative. ie You like HIM more than you like any of THEM.
-
No Sara. Their favourite punchbag------------ME. Pathetic lot !!
You set yourself up for criticism Lookout and then claim you're being picked on. You're just as capable of dishing hostility as the next person.
-
It's what happens if you support Jeremy,I'm afraid. Not good,is it ?
You're certainly not disliked for believing in Jeremy's innocence.
-
Are you actually serious?
I answered Caroline. Who was Caroline talking about? Who keeps asking "What evidence did EP convict Bamber on?"
Obviously talking about Lookout, not sure how you got confused there.
I genuinely wasn't sure. Do you talk to people like this in your real life?
-
It's what happens if you support Jeremy,I'm afraid. Not good,is it ?
Rubbish ::)
-
I genuinely wasn't sure. Do you talk to people like this in your real life?
I wasn't sure if you were serious or just joking because I couldn't see how you got confused to be honest! ;D
And no, people in my real life wouldn't get spoken to like this because they wouldn't act the way you see on here!
-
So anyway, back to the topic;
If what has been posted here isn't proof that Jeremy tried to sell explicit pictures of his sister; what would be?
-
You wouldn't say you "liked the man" but you DO say you like ALL those connected to him even LESS so I guess it's relative. ie You like HIM more than you like any of THEM.
What on earth is wrong with you ? I can't be doing with any of them,and it's certainly got nothing to do with " liking " Jeremy more or even less than them. Emotion of sorts doesn't come into it.
As for " like ",I like Neil Oliver,the Coast presenter,a far cry from Jeremy and his ilk.
-
So anyway, back to the topic;
If what has been posted here isn't proof that Jeremy tried to sell explicit pictures of his sister; what would be?
Someone actually seeing the bloody things existed in the first place??
-
Tee hee hee hee.
-
Someone actually seeing the bloody things existed in the first place??
my sentements exactly.
-
Someone actually seeing the bloody things existed in the first place??
So you don't believe Jeremy told Colin about the explicit pictures? Jeremy saw them - or was he lying? Or did Colin and then coincidentally a journalist imagine that Jeremy used the same words to describe the pictures - or were they both lying? :-\
-
my sentements exactly.
If the journalist of Colin saw them, you would just say "But how do we know they really saw them?" "We can't trust that the journalist saw them, he works for The Sun"
It doesn't matter if they existed or not, it was the INTENTION to sell them and to describe them in such a manner that is vile and disgusting. Or are you saying that Colin is a liar? Even leaving the journalist out of the equation - someone is a liar and it had to be either Colin or Jeremy - so which?
-
So you don't believe Jeremy told Colin about the explicit pictures? Jeremy saw them - or was he lying? Or did Colin and then coincidentally a journalist imagine that Jeremy used the same words to describe the pictures - or were they both lying? :-\
Caroline wonder who told the Sun about these pictures they would not pick headlines out of thin air saying Bambi Brother peddling sex snaps of model they must have been contacted by somebody and out of the three sets of nude photo's why did Jeremy just remove one set it would not be for sentimental reasons.
-
So you don't believe Jeremy told Colin about the explicit pictures? Jeremy saw them - or was he lying? Or did Colin and then coincidentally a journalist imagine that Jeremy used the same words to describe the pictures - or were they both lying? :-\
That's not what I said. Nobody actually saw them.
-
That's not what I said. Nobody actually saw them.
But THAT isn't the point, is it? The point is that Jeremy SAID they were available -has never denied saying they were available.
-
I think Jeremy just liked watching the reactions of those who he annoyed by what he said,or,and did.
-
I think Jeremy just liked watching the reactions of those who he annoyed by what he said,or,and did.
Are you saying that you agree that Jeremy offered -for sale- sexually explicit pictures of his dead sister to the Sun?
-
That's not what I said. Nobody actually saw them.
But Jeremy said they existed! He said it to Colin because Colin said he did. So Colin and the journalist are lying and the pictures don't exist (therefore only Jeremy is telling the truth), or the pictures didn't exist but Jeremy told Colin and the journalist that they did (therefore Jeremy made the pictures up), or they did exists and Jeremy told Colin and the journalist about them but is now denying they exist (only Jeremy is lying). It can only be one of those options - which one do you favour?
-
Caroline wonder who told the Sun about these pictures they would not pick headlines out of thin air saying Bambi Brother peddling sex snaps of model they must have been contacted by somebody and out of the three sets of nude photo's why did Jeremy just remove one set it would not be for sentimental reasons.
Well, Susan, perhaps Colin was in cahoots with The Sun? Or maybe Jeremy made the explicit shots up? I don't know why people think that making the explicit pics up, is a better option? Where would an idea like that even formulate? 'Oh, my sister is dead, how can I cash in, oh I know, I'll make up the idea that she posed for pornographic pictures, pictures in which 'everything is on show". And what did he imagine would happen if The Sun asked to buy the pictures and he couldn't supply them? I guess he thought everyone would see the funny side and they could all go off and have tea and cake? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
But Jeremy said they existed! He said it to Colin because Colin said he did. So Colin and the journalist are lying and the pictures don't exist (therefore only Jeremy is telling the truth), or the pictures didn't exist but Jeremy told Colin and the journalist that they did (therefore Jeremy made the pictures up), or they did exists and Jeremy told Colin and the journalist about them but is now denying they exist (only Jeremy is lying). It can only be one of those options - which one do you favour?
Calm down Judge Judy, as I've said before, I can't provide definite proof one way or the other,as to what may or may not have happened, neither can you. In my view it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not he's guilty of murder.
-
Calm down Judge Judy, as I've said before, I can't provide definite proof one way or the other,as to what may or may not have happened, neither can you. In my view it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not he's guilty of murder.
Calm? I am calm, what makes you think I'm not? 8) So you don't want to commit yourself to an answer then? I didn't think so. I didn't say it had anything to do with him being guilty - but even Nugs has the bottle to admit that it's more likely that someone who could try and peddle private prono pics of his dead sister - is guilty.
-
Well, Susan, perhaps Colin was in cahoots with The Sun? Or maybe Jeremy made the explicit shots up? I don't know why people think that making the explicit pics up, is a better option? Where would an idea like that even formulate? 'Oh, my sister is dead, how can I cash in, oh I know, I'll make up the idea that she posed for pornographic pictures, pictures in which 'everything is on show". And what did he imagine would happen if The Sun asked to buy the pictures and he couldn't supply them? I guess he thought everyone would see the funny side and they could all go off and have tea and cake? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Caroline ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Calm? I am calm, what makes you think I'm not? 8) So you don't want to commit yourself to an answer then? I didn't think so. I didn't say it had anything to do with him being guilty - but even Nugs has the bottle to admit that it's more likely that someone who could try and peddle private prono pics of his dead sister - is guilty.
With all you've been called on here, I think Judge Judy is the nicest? Although quite a weird one! Suppose it's better than she called Adam on here yesterday. ;D
-
With all you've been called on here, I think Judge Judy is the nicest? Although quite a weird one! Suppose it's better than she called Adam on here yesterday. ;D
I don't know WHERE she got that from? :o :o :o ;D ;D ;D 8)
-
Calm? I am calm, what makes you think I'm not? 8) So you don't want to commit yourself to an answer then? I didn't think so. I didn't say it had anything to do with him being guilty - but even Nugs has the bottle to admit that it's more likely that someone who could try and peddle private prono pics of his dead sister - is guilty.
And I disagree. I don't think it's more likely at all. Plus I don't have to answer your three option questions, it's not compulsory. You don't sound calm at all you sound very worked up all the time.
-
I don't know WHERE she got that from? :o :o :o ;D ;D ;D 8)
Banned for impersonating a judge...lmao ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Banned for impersonating a judge...lmao ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Impersonating? I'll have you know I'm the real deal (Ooosh! Mind me gavel!! :o) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And I disagree. I don't think it's more likely at all. Plus I don't have to answer your three option questions, it's not compulsory. You don't sound calm at all you sound very worked up all the time.
Nah, you reading it wrong ;). You're right, you don't have to answer - I knew you wouldn't. Perhaps you can think of more options?
-
Are you saying that you agree that Jeremy offered -for sale- sexually explicit pictures of his dead sister to the Sun?
Did I say that ? ::) No---------I didn't mention pictures.It was about having a homosexual friend.
-
Did I say that ? ::) No---------I didn't mention pictures.It was about having a homosexual friend.
This thread is about pictures ;D
-
This thread is about pictures ;D
I know.
I was answering your friend from a previous post.
-
Did I say that ? ::) No---------I didn't mention pictures.It was about having a homosexual friend.
This thread has nothing to do with friends, homosexual or otherwise, it's about PICTURES.
-
it might do i cant see how but it might do.
-
More information re: The Sun article.
-
Thanks Caroline, bascially backs up what has been said and adds details. The fact he was at Sheilas looking any money she may have stored away speaks volumes.
-
Thanks Caroline, bascially backs up what has been said and adds details. The fact he was at Sheilas looking any money she may have stored away speaks volumes.
That's Fielders account of what happened and I must say, there is a 'ring of truth about it' ;)
-
What book is this from ?
-
What book is this from ?
Claire Powell
-
Thanks Caroline, bascially backs up what has been said and adds details. The fact he was at Sheilas looking any money she may have stored away speaks volumes.
Hi Mat Jeremy did remove articles from Sheila's flat and sold them . Colin was horrified but Jeremy told him not to worry "I will see you right when I get my money" :'(
-
I didn't know he fell in love with someone while in St Tropez. He really was irresistible.
-
That's Fielders account of what happened and I must say, there is a 'ring of truth about it' ;)
And he was also trying to sell photos of his parents & the twins. I can understand why the motive for murder is said to be MONEY. Greedy bastard.
-
What money ? Sheila didn't have a cent.Her last job was doing a bit of cleaning.Does that constitute a hoard of cash somewhere ? The woman was looking for extra cash herself.
Is this the same book that first quotes that the grandmother carried out the murders ?
That Sheila took cocaine ? When she didn't. ( as per post from someone who'd said she didn't indulge )
-
Hi Mat Jeremy did remove articles from Sheila's flat and sold them . Colin was horrified but Jeremy told him not to worry "I will see you right when I get my money" :'(
Ah, yes, Susan I do remember that. It seems Jeremy didn't know a thing about sentimentality and couldn't see past the financial worth of things.
-
What money ? Sheila didn't have a cent.Her last job was doing a bit of cleaning.Does that constitute a hoard of cash somewhere ? The woman was looking for extra cash herself.
Is this the same book that first quotes that the grandmother carried out the murders ?
That Sheila took cocaine ? When she didn't. ( as per post from someone who'd said she didn't indulge )
where would she of got a stash of money from.
-
where would she of got a stash of money from.
They searched her house for money on the off-chance.
-
so if there was none there and none unacounted for how do we know they searched for it.
-
so if there was none there and none unacounted for how do we know they searched for it.
If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it - does it make a sound? :-\ ???
-
so in other words theres no evedence they ever searched for money.
-
so in other words theres no evedence they ever searched for money.
Claire Powell said they did - her book is quoted here by Lookout quite often. Now, is she only worth her salt when the quote backs up an innocent view point?
-
how would she know weather they did or they did or they dident.
-
So let's see:
1) Jeremy talked about selling them and the Sun said no
2) Jeremy then Let Colin find out about them and since the were of no use agreed to let Collin have them
3) The Sun screwed him by refusing to pay him and instead did a story about how scummy he was that he wanted to sell them to the Sun and they paid nothing for such a great hatchet job.
So in sum- the irony...
All of this makes no sense. THE SUN would have made sure to GET THE PICTURES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Professional people, If Jeremy had this to sell, it would be DYNAMiTE, the SUN wouldn´t just have let it go - to make a "decent" story about a brother selling naked pictures of his DEAD sister.
-
All of this makes no sense. THE SUN would have made sure to GET THE PICTURES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Professional people, If Jeremy had this to sell, it would be DYNAMiTE, the SUN wouldn´t just have let it go - to make a "decent" story about a brother selling naked pictures of his DEAD sister.
The pictures were no use, they couldn't print them. Are you saying that Colin is a liar? To deny this happened both you and gringo have to be saying that Colin lied, The Sun reporter lied - only Jeremy (once again) is telling the truth. This has got to be the unluckiest man in the world because everyone he knew, conspired against him. What utter twaddle!
-
The unlikeliness of if all.
Jeremy has killed his family and then he goes on to sell hard core porn pictures of his sister. Would he be that stupid - is my question. Just sayin.
-
The unlikeliness of if all.
Jeremy has killed his family and then he goes on to sell hard core porn pictures of his sister. Would he be that stupid - is my question. Just sayin.
Yes, evidently.
-
The unlikeliness of if all.
Jeremy has killed his family and then he goes on to sell hard core porn pictures of his sister. Would he be that stupid - is my question. Just sayin.
Almost as unlikely as a conspiracy to frame him for the murders, even though Neville called the police on the night of the crime and the stitch up against Bamber didnt start for months later so there was no reason he wouldn't have found out about the call.
So the police, the relatives and the labs get together, frame Bamber and create/destroy evidence.
Now the Sun and Colin are involved.
As must be judges 30 years later and the commissioners at the CCRC.
And you're saying you don't believe it because it is unlikely?!!! ;D
-
Yes, evidently.
If this happened, Jeremy was as sick as Sheila, but it is forbidden to analyze what went wrong in the Bamber family. To me it is always down to that, If Jeremy is guilty, they seriously xxx xxx xxx both their adopted children, but we are only allowed to talk about them as decent parents.
I insist on talking about them as bad parents if I have to accept Jeremy as guilty.
-
If this happened, Jeremy was as sick as Sheila, but it is forbidden to analyze what went wrong in the Bamber family. To me it is always down to that, If Jeremy is guilty, they seriously xxx xxx xx both their adopted children, but we are only allowed to talk about them as decent parents.
I insist on talking about them as bad parents if I have to accept Jeremy as guilty.
I think that's harsh and bordering on disgusting to be honest Alias, I am sure June and Ralph weren't perfect - but I've seen NOTHING to suggest they did anything wrong that warranted Bamber turning into what he did and doing what he did.
-
I think that's harsh and bordering on disgusting to be honest Alias, I am sure June and Ralph weren't perfect - but I've seen NOTHING to suggest they did anything wrong that warranted Bamber turning into what he did and doing what he did.
Disgusting?
Sheila thought her sons were the Devil´s sons, would rape and kill her. Something for sure was wrong with that family if they also had a son who actually killed them.
-
Disgusting?
Sheila thought her sons were the Devil´s sons, would rape and kill her. Something for sure was wrong with that family if they also had a son who actually killed them.
I tend to blame Bamber, not the victims.
-
I tend to blame Bamber, not the victims.
It´s a really sad story.
-
J. Bamber is a victim too. No matter what, he is. His bio parents didnt want him.
I think the sun would have made sure to get those pictures, they have nothing to prove this session. Why didn´t they record anything, not one bit? Seriously!
-
J. Bamber is a victim too. No matter what, he is. His bio parents didnt want him.
I think the sun would have made sure to get those pictures, they have nothing to prove this session. Why didn´t they record anything, not one bit? Seriously!
If you don't feel loved enough you move out on your own away from your family and make your own life. He stayed to work for them because he got a job, house and would take over upon their retirement- he didn't want to go work hard on his own. But he didn't want to wait till they retired to take over and till they died to inherit. He didn't want to share his inheritance either. He was not a victim in my eyes.
-
There was no guarantee he would have much to take over.
Neville said Jeremy had no business sense.
His relationships with both parents were terrible. And getting worse.
Sheila, Nicolas and Daniel were also due big slices of the inheritance.
Nicholas and Daniel may be old enough to want to have a say in how things are run, when they inherited. Treading on Jeremy's toes after he had slaved on the farm for so long.
Mary Mugford testified that Jeremy told her June was planning to give the twins a bigger slice of her will.
Neville may pass his money to June if he died first. Or vice versa. One or both may live for another 20 years.
The money Neville and June had was reducing due to costs on maintaining Sheila and the twins. Together with her medical bills.
Things were slipping away from Jeremy. Which is why Stan Jones said in the recent video Jeremy was not prepared to wait.
-
If you don't feel loved enough you move out on your own away from your family and make your own life. He stayed to work for them because he got a job, house and would take over upon their retirement- he didn't want to go work hard on his own. But he didn't want to wait till they retired to take over and till they died to inherit. He didn't want to share his inheritance either. He was not a victim in my eyes.
Scipio the Sun got their story without buying the pictures and if the description of them was true they could not have printed them so why pay out money. We don't know if they recorded the conversation with Jeremy or not.
-
It´s a really sad story.
I agree Alias. The issues and effect of adoption are far more complex than most people comprehend, adopted children often have complicated psychological issues which need sensitive handling and understanding. Back in the 1980s no one had a clue about all this, in fact there was very little understanding about the psychological damage to children from all kinds of adult behaviour.
I believe if JB was guilty the whole family were victims of ignorance which was not consciously of their own making, imagine the total abandonment a young child must feel who has already been abandoned by their natural mother ie. The Primal Wound, who no doubt had attachment problems and confusion to be sent far from the security of their home to a strange and inhospitable school. The adoptive parents were no doubt unaware of these issues because they were never encouraged to know or understand and in turn the loosely named Social Workers were often unaware, uninvolved and shockingly uncaring in my experience when working in that area in the late 60s.
This is my opinion, not an accusation towards anyone but in my eyes a tragedy which was repeated many times, whether it was responsible for JB killing or not, whether he killed or not is debate able and why the forum exists but however you look at it, it is a massive tragedy IMO.
-
If you don't feel loved enough you move out on your own away from your family and make your own life. He stayed to work for them because he got a job, house and would take over upon their retirement- he didn't want to go work hard on his own. But he didn't want to wait till they retired to take over and till they died to inherit. He didn't want to share his inheritance either. He was not a victim in my eyes.
That is far too simplistic Scipio , most who suffer these psychological problems are not aware why they feel empty, dissasociated, confused and insecure, they look for love everywhere and anywhere however nothing fills the space unless they go into therapy and begin to understand and heal.
-
I doubt that Bamber was too bothered about being adopted. He certainly couldn't take it out on June and Neville. They didn't abandon him.
It shows Neville and June both wanted him. And went to great lengths to get him.
He should be grateful for being adopted into an affluent family. It's doubtful his biological parents had the same resources, which may be the reason they gave him up.
What really upset him according to Mary Mugford was that he was sent away to boarding school. He never forgave them for that.
-
I doubt that Bamber was too bothered about being adopted. He certainly couldn't take it out on June and Neville. They didn't abandon him.
It shows Neville and June both wanted him. And went to great lengths to get him.
What really upset according to Mary Mugford was that he was sent away to boarding school. He never forgave them for that.
Adam, that would have been an enormous difficulty for him whether he recognised it or not, whether he murdered or not. You have totally ignored most of my post or you just completely fail to attempt to understand any of it.
-
I just don't believe he murdered because he was adopted at six months old. It has nothing to do with the massacre.
-
I doubt that Bamber was too bothered about being adopted. He certainly couldn't take it out on June and Neville. They didn't abandon him.
It shows Neville and June both wanted him. And went to great lengths to get him.
He should be grateful for being adopted into an affluent family. It's doubtful his biological parents had the same resources.
What really upset him according to Mary Mugford was that he was sent away to boarding school. He never forgave them for that.
'Grateful' .... Are you serious? I wonder why you block my argument? What did Mary Mugford understand about adoption? I am not saying Nevill and June didn't want their children, i would never say that I hope as an adoptive mother myself I have some insight, think I said they were all victims from the natural parents all the way through to Jeremy and Sheila and the carnage which was the end result. If June was at fault I woul say I am in no doubt she did her best but was so weighed down with her own mental health difficulties she simply had no way of understanding. Her mental health and mothering problems possibly came from her own upbringing, such is the continuation from generation to generation.
-
I just don't believe he murdered because he was adopted at six months old. It has nothing to do with the massacre.
How do you know this? Have you researched the subject? Have you any understanding of the complexities of adoption?
-
Yes grateful. If his biologically parents did not have the resources, time or motivation to bring up Bamber, he should be grateful Neville and June did.
Mary Mugford testified on what Bamber told her. She never said she was an expert on adoption. I have already created a thread on her testimony.
-
'Grateful' .... Are you serious? I wonder why you block my argument? What did Mary Mugford understand about adoption? I am not saying Nevill and June didn't want their children, i would never say that I hope as an adoptive mother myself I have some insight, think I said they were all victims from the natural parents all the way through to Jeremy and Sheila and the carnage which was the end result. If June was at fault I woul say I am in no doubt she did her best but was so weighed down with her own mental health difficulties she simply had no way of understanding. Her mental health and mothering problems possibly came from her own upbringing, such is the continuation from generation to generation.
Maggie excellent post and very well said :) I think poor June was not really capable of bringing up children but she did do her best and no more than that can a person do..
-
How do you know this? Have you researched the subject? Have you any understanding of the complexities of adoption?
You think he massacred his mother, father, sister and two six year old's after 24 years, because he was adopted ?
He was an inheritance killer. Together with lots of other reasons that have been posted. Adoption has nothing to do with it. You know this. I don't know why you are going on about it.
-
J. Bamber is a victim too. No matter what, he is. His bio parents didnt want him.
I think the sun would have made sure to get those pictures, they have nothing to prove this session. Why didn´t they record anything, not one bit? Seriously!
I think he is to a certain degree, BUT it's certainly no excuse because by most people's standards, he had a bloody good life! However, I think double rejection probably sent him on his way to personality disorder. Being told he was adopted just before sending him to boarding school must have been a lot to bear for an eight year old. I think June and Nevill did their best - they didn't deserve what happened to them and neither did Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel.
-
I just don't believe he murdered because he was adopted at six months old. It has nothing to do with the massacre.
If JB did murder it would very possibly be because of the adoption. He would need to be totally dissasociated and disordered to carry out such a crime or a psychpath, he would not need to be a genetic psychpath but more a sociopath and very mentally damaged. That's my opinion, no way would he rationally decide to kill them all because he had concious and rational adoption issues, that's not what I am saying but you I don't believe you want to hear what I am saying.
-
J. Bamber is a victim too. No matter what, he is. His bio parents didnt want him.
I think the sun would have made sure to get those pictures, they have nothing to prove this session. Why didn´t they record anything, not one bit? Seriously!
Because he didn't realise that 30 years later, conspiracy theories would be rife even when it's as clear as the nose on your face that he tried to sell the pictures.
-
Must admit I do find it odd when adults adopt children that are 6 or 7 years old. There is an advert on TV at the moment showing a young boy being adopted.
Bamber never had this problem. The only parents he knew was Neville and June.
-
I just don't believe he murdered because he was adopted at six months old. It has nothing to do with the massacre.
Seriously? ;D ;D
-
You think he massacred his mother, father, sister and two six year old's after 24 years, because he was adopted ?
He was an inheritance killer. Together with lots of other reasons that have been posted. Adoption has nothing to do with it. You know this. I don't know why you are going on about it.
I am 'going on about it' because this is a possibility IMO. I have every right to say it even if you don't agree with it or for some reason don't want to hear it. The world isn't black and white, just because you want him to be an inheritance killer, psychopath whatever doesn't make him one.
I don't know anything Adam but I can see this as a 'possibility'.
-
If JB did murder it would very possibly be because of the adoption. He would need to be totally dissasociated and disordered to carry out such a crime or a psychpath, he would not need to be a genetic psychpath but more a sociopath and very mentally damaged. That's my opinion, no way would he rationally decide to kill them all because he had concious and rational adoption issues, that's not what I am saying but you I don't believe you want to hear what I am saying.
If ? You know he committed the massacre.
Not being a blood relative would have made it easier for him. But I'm sure he would have still gone ahead anyway. Just as other inheritance killers have.
-
Being adopted would not result in him hating June and Neville. Why would it ? Lots of other things contributed to his hatred built up over 24 years.
Not being a blood relative may have an issue in his decision. But after 24 years, not a big one.
-
Must admit I do find it odd when adults adopt children that are 6 or 7 years old. There is an advert on TV at the moment showing a young boy being adopted.
Bamber never had this problem. The only parents he knew was Neville and June.
What is odd about adults adopting 6 or 7 year olds? Don't you believe some people can love a child simply because that child is a human being not because they 'belong' to them and are of their own flesh and blood....... what has that got to do with love?
-
'Grateful' .... Are you serious? I wonder why you block my argument? What did Mary Mugford understand about adoption? I am not saying Nevill and June didn't want their children, i would never say that I hope as an adoptive mother myself I have some insight, think I said they were all victims from the natural parents all the way through to Jeremy and Sheila and the carnage which was the end result. If June was at fault I woul say I am in no doubt she did her best but was so weighed down with her own mental health difficulties she simply had no way of understanding. Her mental health and mothering problems possibly came from her own upbringing, such is the continuation from generation to generation.
Some people only have children because they see it as fulfilling a purpose and they want someone to pass on the family heritage (if they think they have something worth passing on). Some don't know how to express feelings and don't provide the kind of nurturing relationship that provides for a healthy minded child. That's bad enough when you're a natural child but if adopted, it must make you feel unlovable and finding this out just before being sent to boarding school must have been absolutely crushing. Bamber was/is a victim and as you say, he's more a victim of ignorance than anything else. However, it certainly isn't an excuse for what he did - there were/are others in similar circumstances who didn't feel the need to massacre their entire family. I guess it's a case of individual differences but I have no doubt that June and Nevill thought they did their best.
-
Being adopted would not result in him hating June and Neville. Why would it ? Lots of other things contributed to his hatred built up over 24 years.
Not being a blood relative may have an issue in his decision. But after 24 years, not a big one.
You have absolutely no understanding of psychology.
-
You think he massacred his mother, father, sister and two six year old's after 24 years, because he was adopted ?
He was an inheritance killer. Together with lots of other reasons that have been posted. Adoption has nothing to do with it. You know this. I don't know why you are going on about it.
This proves my last post!
-
Some people only have children because they see it as fulfilling a purpose and they want someone to pass on the family heritage (if they think they have something worth passing on). Some don't know how to express feelings and don't provide the kind of nurturing relationship that provides for a healthy minded child. That's bad enough when you're a natural child but if adopted, it must make you feel unlovable and finding this out just before being sent to boarding school must have been absolutely crushing. Bamber was/is a victim and as you say, he's more a victim of ignorance than anything else. However, it certainly isn't an excuse for what he did - there were/are others in similar circumstances who didn't feel the need to massacre their entire family. I guess it's a case of individual differences but I have no doubt that June and Nevill thought they did their best.
I agree.
-
Speaking of adoption,if I'd been younger,I'd have fought to take that little Rumanian child, " Marie ", who is now in a childrens home in Greece. A beautiful child,with such a sad face. I would have loved her.
-
Speaking of adoption,if I'd been younger,I'd have fought to take that little Rumanian child, " Marie ", who is now in a childrens home in Greece. A beautiful child,with such a sad face. I would have loved her.
Hello lookout
I believe you would as you are a very maternal person a wonderful trait to have :)
-
Some people only have children because they see it as fulfilling a purpose and they want someone to pass on the family heritage (if they think they have something worth passing on). Some don't know how to express feelings and don't provide the kind of nurturing relationship that provides for a healthy minded child. That's bad enough when you're a natural child but if adopted, it must make you feel unlovable and finding this out just before being sent to boarding school must have been absolutely crushing. Bamber was/is a victim and as you say, he's more a victim of ignorance than anything else. However, it certainly isn't an excuse for what he did - there were/are others in similar circumstances who didn't feel the need to massacre their entire family. I guess it's a case of individual differences but I have no doubt that June and Nevill thought they did their best.
Caroline that too is an excellent post and I agree with the points you raised. I did read Jeremy was never interested in his birth parents until maybe after he was sentenced to life in prison.
-
Caroline that too is an excellent post and I agree with the points you raised. I did read Jeremy was never interested in his birth parents until maybe after he was sentenced to life in prison.
Perhaps he was always interested in them Susan but didn't want to be rejected again? Sheila meeting her birth mother probably impacted on him too, causing more resentment?
-
Caroline that too is an excellent post and I agree with the points you raised. I did read Jeremy was never interested in his birth parents until maybe after he was sentenced to life in prison.
Susan, the fact he wasn't conciously interested in his birth parents doesn't really follow. It may even be that those who block any interest to their natural mother etc may be more psychologically damaged than those who do not. Just an observation from me, not a proven fact, however it's a highly complex issue.
-
Hello lookout
I believe you would as you are a very maternal person a wonderful trait to have :)
Hello Susan,that little girl's plight stayed with me for ages.More than anything. I'd have taken her no problem,bless her,and I still think about her and the dreadful life she had for one so young.
-
Hello Susan,that little girl's plight stayed with me for ages.More than anything. I'd have taken her no problem,bless her,and I still think about her and the dreadful life she had for one so young.
lookout I find it all so sad and I feel that I would not be emotionally strong enough to deal with it only help from a distance :)
-
Susan, the fact he wasn't conciously interested in his birth parents doesn't really follow. It may even be that those who block any interest to their natural mother etc may be more psychologically damaged than those who do not. Just an observation from me, not a proven fact, however it's a highly complex issue.
Maggie I appreciate it is a very complex issue and I am out of my depth in understanding it.
-
Speaking of adoption,if I'd been younger,I'd have fought to take that little Rumanian child, " Marie ", who is now in a childrens home in Greece. A beautiful child,with such a sad face. I would have loved her.
All children wherever they are and however they look deserve love. The cities of the world are full of abandoned children, it's a scar on the earth, or more a disgusting wound. We could heal it together if we had the real desire. IMO
-
Perhaps he was always interested in them Susan but didn't want to be rejected again? Sheila meeting her birth mother probably impacted on him too, causing more resentment?
Caroline I had never thought of that but Sheila meeting her birth parents could have caused more resentment we will never know.
-
All children wherever they are and however they look deserve love. The cities of the world are full of abandoned children, it's a scar on the earth.
Bless them all Maggie.It's heartbreaking. Think of the reward of loving just one of them. Money etc doesn't come into it.
-
Maggie I appreciate it is a very complex issue and I am out of my depth in understanding it.
Think we all are, even most in the thick of it are constantly learning. Even a situation where an adoptive parent's permanence is threatened can reinforce psychological wounds of an adopted child. It's a lifelong challenge. At least if everyone involved is aware there is a difficulty it's a step in the right direction. Denial is the most damaging IMO.
Sorry am a long way off topic. Nuff said.
-
That is far too simplistic Scipio , most who suffer these psychological problems are not aware why they feel empty, dissasociated, confused and insecure, they look for love everywhere and anywhere however nothing fills the space unless they go into therapy and begin to understand and heal.
There line between feeling miserable with your family and yet feeling you must stay with them instead of striking it out on your own and feeling miserable around them and deciding to kill them rather than strike out on your own is not fine. A very small minority decide to kill their family. He didn't do it to stop some sort of abuse that was going on, he did it for the money. He is no different than any other killer who kills a close relative(s) for money. They are killing for greed. When you murder because you want to get away from your family and yet don't want to work hard to earn your own place to live, etc then you are killing for money. You are killing because you don't want to put in the effort to work hard and strike it out on your own. He was an educated adult who could have found jobs away form his family doing things other than farming but didn't want to work hard earning his own way, he wanted to enjoy his life partying carefree.
-
If Jeremy ever had thoughts of killing anyone he had ample opportunity on the farmland with all its machinery. " Accidents " do happen in the farming communities where everyone has access to the tractors/harvesters etc.
He'd still have been well off with his father out of the equation.
Then again-----------he had no need to kill at all. It was Sheila who'd waited until everyone was together !!
-
If Jeremy ever had thoughts of killing anyone he had ample opportunity on the farmland with all its machinery. " Accidents " do happen in the farming communities where everyone has access to the tractors/harvesters etc.
He'd still have been well off with his father out of the equation.
Then again-----------he had no need to kill at all. It was Sheila who'd waited until everyone was together !!
I've often wondered lookout with the picture in my mind of those twin boys grasping onto their father as he took his leave that Sunday evening just what the fear factor was,and whatever was in their minds they were certainly not reassured by their mother's presence at the Farm. However I have always thought that the Defence case rested mainly with a sick Sheila who on the spur of the moment had perpetrated these crimes and not planned them in her mind,this scenario making more sense to me.
-
There line between feeling miserable with your family and yet feeling you must stay with them instead of striking it out on your own and feeling miserable around them and deciding to kill them rather than strike out on your own is not fine. A very small minority decide to kill their family. He didn't do it to stop some sort of abuse that was going on, he did it for the money. He is no different than any other killer who kills a close relative(s) for money. They are killing for greed. When you murder because you want to get away from your family and yet don't want to work hard to earn your own place to live, etc then you are killing for money. You are killing because you don't want to put in the effort to work hard and strike it out on your own. He was an educated adult who could have found jobs away form his family doing things other than farming but didn't want to work hard earning his own way, he wanted to enjoy his life partying carefree.
That is all assumption, scipio, you have no more idea than I have why he would murder his family, however I was suggesting that a particular possibility may have caused a disorder in JB. You have ignored that and told me what I should believe because that is what you believe, as I said far too simplistic imo.
-
I've often wondered lookout with the picture in my mind of those twin boys grasping onto their father as he took his leave that Sunday evening just what the fear factor was,and whatever was in their minds they were certainly not reassured by their mother's presence at the Farm. However I have always thought that the Defence case rested mainly with a sick Sheila who on the spur of the moment had perpetrated these crimes and not planned them in her mind,this scenario making more sense to me.
Steve,it doesn't bear thinking how those little boys felt. As you say,with their mother in a state of despair,as she must have been, knowing that the man she'd once married was parting company with his girlfriend,leaving Sheila at the mercy of her mother who she loathed and the poor twins having to face a barrage of prayers during their stay.What an atmosphere.
It certainly was done on the spur of the moment and needed no planning,just an avalanche of thoughts on Sheila's part as to what life/future meant for her,such as it was and she simply cracked.
Nobody in that courtroom would even contemplate the thought that it was Sheila,because of her supposed " fragility ". They didn't know the half I'm afraid.
-
That is all assumption, scipio, you have no more idea than I have why he would murder his family, however I was suggesting that a particular possibility may have caused a disorder in JB. You have ignored that and told me what I should believe because that is what you believe, as I said far too simplistic imo.
Julie stated he told her he was killing them for the inheritance and he told others that he would never share the inheritance. The only reason to wait and kill his parents while Sheila and the boys were also there was to kill all at the same time so he could be the only heir. The evidence establishes why he did it I don't need to make any assumptions.
People are making assumptions about how horrible his life was because he had to feel unwanted by being given up for adoption and being sent to boarding school and not loved like a family should.
Instead of getting a job outside of the family like most people do he went back to mommy and dad saying give me a job, give me a car give me a place to live...but he wasn't happy with that lifestyle he didn't want to work he wanted to enjoy his youth partying and living it up. The lifestyle he wanted is the one he lived after the funerals and he achieved it by murdering the victims.
-
Julie stated he told her he was killing them for the inheritance and he told others that he would never share the inheritance. The only reason to wait and kill his parents while Sheila and the boys were also there was to kill all at the same time so he could be the only heir. The evidence establishes why he did it I don't need to make any assumptions.
People are making assumptions about how horrible his life was because he had to feel unwanted by being given up for adoption and being sent to boarding school and not loved like a family should.
Instead of getting a job outside of the family like most people do he went back to mommy and dad saying give me a job, give me a car give me a place to live...but he wasn't happy with that lifestyle he didn't want to work he wanted to enjoy his youth partying and living it up. The lifestyle he wanted is the one he lived after the funerals and he achieved it by murdering the victims.
I am not making assumptions about his life being horrible, please give me some credence, I was writing about very real damage which can occur to any adopted child, which can become a real disorder if not attended to, it is a serious point but not your point therefore you dismiss it. I have no idea if JB or Sheila suffered badly from this.
-
Julie stated he told her he was killing them for the inheritance and he told others that he would never share the inheritance. The only reason to wait and kill his parents while Sheila and the boys were also there was to kill all at the same time so he could be the only heir. The evidence establishes why he did it I don't need to make any assumptions.
People are making assumptions about how horrible his life was because he had to feel unwanted by being given up for adoption and being sent to boarding school and not loved like a family should.
Instead of getting a job outside of the family like most people do he went back to mommy and dad saying give me a job, give me a car give me a place to live...but he wasn't happy with that lifestyle he didn't want to work he wanted to enjoy his youth partying and living it up. The lifestyle he wanted is the one he lived after the funerals and he achieved it by murdering the victims.
Again I agree with your main thrust and Colin tells us he learned from Sheila that June had threatened to disinherit him at the expense of the twins. I think this is the main reason why he feels no remorse at all,as it is as if his life was set on a predestined course(remember he told Liz Rimington it was important to have money whilst you were young)and of course most people in Jeremy's position would feel similarly that they had too much to lose if they cut the umbilical cord,though under the circumstances it might have been the best course for all and brought June to her senses at last.
-
Julie stated he told her he was killing them for the inheritance and he told others that he would never share the inheritance. The only reason to wait and kill his parents while Sheila and the boys were also there was to kill all at the same time so he could be the only heir. The evidence establishes why he did it I don't need to make any assumptions.
People are making assumptions about how horrible his life was because he had to feel unwanted by being given up for adoption and being sent to boarding school and not loved like a family should.
Instead of getting a job outside of the family like most people do he went back to mommy and dad saying give me a job, give me a car give me a place to live...but he wasn't happy with that lifestyle he didn't want to work he wanted to enjoy his youth partying and living it up. The lifestyle he wanted is the one he lived after the funerals and he achieved it by murdering the victims.
It is not about having a horrible life, people with good lives can suffer very badly from Primal Wound disorder. For some it makes them feel as though they don't really exist and life has no order or meaning,that is all I was saying.
-
It is not about having a horrible life, people with good lives can suffer very badly from Primal Wound disorder. For some it makes them feel as though they don't really exist and life has no order or meaning,that is all I was saying.
People who feel their lives are meaningless kill themselves, in many ways it is the cowardly way out. When you kill others to live it up on their dime the motivation clearly is money. A small minority of people kill spouses or parents to get insurance money/inheritances. Yet it happens on a fairly regular basis nonetheless.
-
People who feel their lives are meaningless kill themselves, in many ways it is the cowardly way out. When you kill others to live it up on their dime the motivation clearly is money. A small minority of people kill spouses or parents to get insurance money/inheritances. Yet it happens on a fairly regular basis nonetheless.
You have no idea what I am talking about, there is no set rules as to why people kill themselves or others.
People who suffer from personality disorder do sometimes murder. The prisons are full of people with personality disorders.
-
Yes grateful. If his biologically parents did not have the resources, time or motivation to bring up Bamber, he should be grateful Neville and June did.
Mary Mugford testified on what Bamber told her. She never said she was an expert on adoption. I have already created a thread on her testimony.
I resent that way of thinking very much. A child should not be grateful to be brought up, it is any child´s right!
If anyone should be grateful, it is the parents who are lucky to be entrusted with bringing a young one up to be a whole, loved human being.
P.S. just read through all the posts, and I have to say, there are many brilliant ones from both sides of the "fence".
How great also to see a debate without bad feelings and insults slung around (too much... :P)!
-
I resent that way of thinking very much. A child should not be grateful to be brought up, it is any child´s right!
If anyone should be grateful, it is the parents who are lucky to be entrusted with bringing a young one up to be a whole, loved human being.
P.S. just read through all the posts, and I have to say, there are many brilliant ones from both sides of the "fence".
How great also to see a debate without bad feelings and insults slung around (too much... :P)!
Alias great post and I agree with you on all counts :)
-
Yes grateful. If his biologically parents did not have the resources, time or motivation to bring up Bamber, he should be grateful Neville and June did.
Mary Mugford testified on what Bamber told her. She never said she was an expert on adoption. I have already created a thread on her testimony.
Never grateful Adam, I believe parents earn love from their children, they don't own them and an adoptive child needs love, security and understanding, the child's needs are the important issue. It's wrong to expect a child to be 'grateful' anymore than they should be made to feel 'guilt'.
-
I resent that way of thinking very much. A child should not be grateful to be brought up, it is any child´s right!
If anyone should be grateful, it is the parents who are lucky to be entrusted with bringing a young one up to be a whole, loved human being.
P.S. just read through all the posts, and I have to say, there are many brilliant ones from both sides of the "fence".
How great also to see a debate without bad feelings and insults slung around (too much... :P)!
Well said Alias.
-
Again I agree with your main thrust and Colin tells us he learned from Sheila that June had threatened to disinherit him at the expense of the twins. I think this is the main reason why he feels no remorse at all,as it is as if his life was set on a predestined course(remember he told Liz Rimington it was important to have money whilst you were young)and of course most people in Jeremy's position would feel similarly that they had too much to lose if they cut the umbilical cord,though under the circumstances it might have been the best course for all and brought June to her senses at last.
I think that if JB is innocent we will find that a lot of Julies "evidence" will be found to be there to paint a false picture to actually give JB a motive. don't forget that at a fairly young age he was already a shareholder in two successful businesses was paid a good wage for farming and had free accommodation. It would appear that in fact the "worse " relationship (at the time of the murders) was between Sheila and June and Colin admitted he felt guilty about not handing over the letter to NB that he wrote. Except for hearsay we have no evidence that JB was to be disinherited. Did that in fact come from Colin ? I always thought that came from Julies mother ?
And why did NB tell the estate manager that he was about to give Jeremy more management responsibilities because he was pleased how he was coming on? If Jeremy was really that bad and his relationship with June was as described then he would have chucked him out of the cottage and taken back his business shares for a start.
-
Never grateful Adam, I believe parents earn love from their children, they don't own them and an adoptive child needs love, security and understanding, the child's needs are the important issue. It's wrong to expect a child to be 'grateful' anymore than they should be made to feel 'guilt'.
totally agree - Sometimes material things and money are the last thing a child needs. And if you expect your children to be grateful it normally does not happen until they have children of their own . then it all usually falls into place. :)
-
I think that if JB is innocent we will find that a lot of Julies "evidence" will be found to be there to paint a false picture to actually give JB a motive. don't forget that at a fairly young age he was already a shareholder in two successful businesses was paid a good wage for farming and had free accommodation. It would appear that in fact the "worse " relationship (at the time of the murders) was between Sheila and June and Colin admitted he felt guilty about not handing over the letter to NB that he wrote. Except for hearsay we have no evidence that JB was to be disinherited. Did that in fact come from Colin ? I always thought that came from Julies mother ?
And why did NB tell the estate manager that he was about to give Jeremy more management responsibilities because he was pleased how he was coming on? If Jeremy was really that bad and his relationship with June was as described then he would have chucked him out of the cottage and taken back his business shares for a start.
I just think Jeremy was going through the motions whilst planning his scheme. Colin tells us in his book that he learned from Sheila that there was a threat from June that he might be disinherited in favour of the twins. Julie had a similar tale that Jeremy was worried his mother might leave a substantial legacy to the Church.
-
I just think Jeremy was going through the motions whilst planning his scheme. Colin tells us in his book that he learned from Sheila that there was a threat from June that he might be disinherited in favour of the twins. Julie had a similar tale that Jeremy was worried his mother might leave a substantial legacy to the Church.
It is a very serious step to disinherit your own child. Jeremy would have had to have done something terrible to warrant the consideration of such a step.
If this rumour, because rumour is what it is, what had Jeremy done?
-
It is a very serious step to disinherit your own child. Jeremy would have had to have done something terrible to warrant the consideration of such a step.
If this rumour, because rumour is what it is, what had Jeremy done?
He robbed the caravan park
-
It is a very serious step to disinherit your own child. Jeremy would have had to have done something terrible to warrant the consideration of such a step.
If this rumour, because rumour is what it is, what had Jeremy done?
He had probably demanded more money to embark on yet another round the world trip. June had refused to write out any further personal cheques and Nevill had bought him a car after he wrecked his old one,commenting that he "hoped he had a good bank manager".
-
He robbed the caravan park
Caroline when you think of it robbing your own parents is pretty low they had been so good to him.
-
I just think Jeremy was going through the motions whilst planning his scheme. Colin tells us in his book that he learned from Sheila that there was a threat from June that he might be disinherited in favour of the twins. Julie had a similar tale that Jeremy was worried his mother might leave a substantial legacy to the Church.
I apologise as I must have missed that bit - I must admit I did "skim " read a lot as it does jump around a lot. I did say the other day that I might read it again .
The only time I have seen it otherwise was that Julie and her mother said it and Basil cock I believe said he had no information about any intent to change the wills.
-
I think that if JB is innocent we will find that a lot of Julies "evidence" will be found to be there to paint a false picture to actually give JB a motive. don't forget that at a fairly young age he was already a shareholder in two successful businesses was paid a good wage for farming and had free accommodation. It would appear that in fact the "worse " relationship (at the time of the murders) was between Sheila and June and Colin admitted he felt guilty about not handing over the letter to NB that he wrote. Except for hearsay we have no evidence that JB was to be disinherited. Did that in fact come from Colin ? I always thought that came from Julies mother ?
And why did NB tell the estate manager that he was about to give Jeremy more management responsibilities because he was pleased how he was coming on? If Jeremy was really that bad and his relationship with June was as described then he would have chucked him out of the cottage and taken back his business shares for a start.
Jeremy's share of the business was very small so didn't make him happy, he wanted a much larger piece of the pie. He broke in and stole money because he was unhappy with his take. In the meantime there was no way to take the shares back you can't legally give something to someone then take it back against their will you can only take something back if you loan something to someone.
People keep ignoring Jeremy's actions after the murders. He immediately quit the job he had farming. Someone else had to take on his duties. He not only stopped doing his old job he didn't take over as the manager. He had Cock appoint someone else as the temporary boss. He acted like he was a retired playboy after the murders and this corresponds with Julie's claims.
People who support Jeremy completely ignore all of his actions after the murders be it his lies to police at the scene, his bogus claim that the murder weapon could not be stored with the scope and moderator attached, staging too many bullets in the kitchen after the murders, replacing a perfectly functioning phone with the bedroom phone and hiding it claiming it broke then later claiming it was just an extra phone when it was found undamaged, calling Julie before police and lying about who he called first and naturally the fact he stopped working on the farm as soon as they were dead. Excuses are always made about him grieving so that is why he was partying it up and quit working. Never do people who support Jeremy take things at face value there is always some excuses made for him.
-
Caroline when you think of it robbing your own parents is pretty low they had been so good to him.
I agree - however ( and I know we are not supposed to give personal experiences) ::) my neice who was very very spolit - but had a very bad relationship with her mother - stole three or four times from her parents - hundreds of pounds and jewellery in the end they had to take her to the police . It was as if she either wanted attention or I think guidelines and limits as to how far she could push them . Her mother was at fault as well for giving her very mixed messages .
She is now what I knew she always was a lovely kind thoughtful girl - but unfortunately this all happened when she was taking her exams so her qualifications suffered . Which is sad. I was tempted at the time to get her to move in with me - but to be fair its always easier to analyse from the outside rather then when you are in the situation yourself.
-
I apologise as I must have missed that bit - I must admit I did "skim " read a lot as it does jump around a lot. I did say the other day that I might read it again .
The only time I have seen it otherwise was that Julie and her mother said it and Basil cock I believe said he had no information about any intent to change the wills.
What matters is Jeremy thinking she would- that provides the motive. It doesn't matter if his perceptions are wrong what matters is what his perceptions were. Telling people the things he did such as telling the workers he didn't plan to share his inheritance with his nephews and sister says much.
The current wills required him to share with his sister if he sold the business. If he ran it then he could keep the proceeds. That was sufficient for him to decide to kill them not to share. If he feared being disinherited that provides an even greater motive to kill them before the change could occur.
The timing of the murders though was based around opportunity- the opportunity to kill all presented itself by virtue of them all being there together and that is what he had been waiting for. Julie's testimony comports with this it was long term planning for when they were all staying there.
There isn't evidence he decided to act at that exact moment because he feared the will was going to be changed in the very near future. He expressed generalized fears that such could happen not any signs that such was imminent and going to happen in upcoming days and he thus had to act.
-
I agree - however ( and I know we are not supposed to give personal experiences) ::) my neice who was very very spolit - but had a very bad relationship with her mother - stole three or four times from her parents - hundreds of pounds and jewellery in the end they had to take her to the police . It was as if she either wanted attention or I think guidelines and limits as to how far she could push them . Her mother was at fault as well for giving her very mixed messages .
She is now what I knew she always was a lovely kind thoughtful girl - but unfortunately this all happened when she was taking her exams so her qualifications suffered . Which is sad. I was tempted at the time to get her to move in with me - but to be fair its always easier to analyse from the outside rather then when you are in the situation yourself.
Jeremy stole for the money, he didn't let on that he did it and didn't want to get caught. He was not happy with the money he was getting. This is a problem for those saying he was content with his lot as is the fact he quit farming. Obviously he would not have quit farming if he enjoyed it and was content with it.
-
What matters is Jeremy thinking she would- that provides the motive. It doesn't matter if his perceptions are wrong what matters is what his perceptions were. Telling people the things he did such as telling the workers he didn't plan to share his inheritance with his nephews and sister says much.
The current wills required him to share with his sister if he sold the business. If he ran it then he could keep the proceeds. That was sufficient for him to decide to kill them not to share. If he feared being disinherited that provides an even greater motive to kill them before the change could occur.
The timing of the murders though was based around opportunity- the opportunity to kill all presented itself by virtue of them all being there together and that is what he had been waiting for. Julie's testimony comports with this it was long term planning for when they were all staying there.
There isn't evidence he decided to act at that exact moment because he feared the will was going to be changed in the very near future. He expressed generalized fears that such could happen not any signs that such was imminent and going to happen in upcoming days and he thus had to act.
#1261 and #1263 are powerful posts. Jeremy told Julie "it's now or never" and how close it came to being "never" which would have spared so much grief for so many.
-
I agree - however ( and I know we are not supposed to give personal experiences) ::) my neice who was very very spolit - but had a very bad relationship with her mother - stole three or four times from her parents - hundreds of pounds and jewellery in the end they had to take her to the police . It was as if she either wanted attention or I think guidelines and limits as to how far she could push them . Her mother was at fault as well for giving her very mixed messages .
She is now what I knew she always was a lovely kind thoughtful girl - but unfortunately this all happened when she was taking her exams so her qualifications suffered . Which is sad. I was tempted at the time to get her to move in with me - but to be fair its always easier to analyse from the outside rather then when you are in the situation yourself.
Jan I totally agree it is so easy to judge looking in from the outside. Did Jeremy steal from his parents as an act of defiance or did he think they can afford to loose it anyway or was it done to impress Julie or was he just wanting the money to spend. Glad your niece turned herself around.
-
What matters is Jeremy thinking she would- that provides the motive. It doesn't matter if his perceptions are wrong what matters is what his perceptions were. Telling people the things he did such as telling the workers he didn't plan to share his inheritance with his nephews and sister says much.
The current wills required him to share with his sister if he sold the business. If he ran it then he could keep the proceeds. That was sufficient for him to decide to kill them not to share. If he feared being disinherited that provides an even greater motive to kill them before the change could occur.
The timing of the murders though was based around opportunity- the opportunity to kill all presented itself by virtue of them all being there together and that is what he had been waiting for. Julie's testimony comports with this it was long term planning for when they were all staying there.
There isn't evidence he decided to act at that exact moment because he feared the will was going to be changed in the very near future. He expressed generalized fears that such could happen not any signs that such was imminent and going to happen in upcoming days and he thus had to act.
I personally don't believe Julie and her mother But I said I will re-read Colins book because that to me is more relevant and I don't remember him saying that.
We also have no idea what June would have done with her inheritance from her mother - for all we know she may have set up Jeremy and Sheila with properties - as she said in her note - she loved them both.
Also Jeremy had said they were going to leave WHF and use the money for coming out of the lease early on other properties - so there were probably other things going on we are not even aware of.
-
Jan I totally agree it is so easy to judge looking in from the outside. Did Jeremy steal from his parents as an act of defiance or did he think they can afford to loose it anyway or was it done to impress Julie or was he just wanting the money to spend. Glad your niece turned herself around.
Plain and simple.
-
Plain and simple.
that is why we should not judge others actions by our own experiences . However that works both ways - because that is your interpretation of his actions - but I would say what ever the truth that there was a complicated family relationship between both Sheila and Jeremy and their mother -so we should not assume that was his motive at that time . The only person who we hear not a bad word about was Neville. So if it was greed do you think he assumed his father would just forgive him if he found out so it was worth the risk ?
-
that is why we should not judge others actions by our own experiences . However that works both ways - because that is your interpretation of his actions - but I would say what ever the truth that there was a complicated family relationship between both Sheila and Jeremy and their mother -so we should not assume that was his motive at that time . The only person who we hear not a bad word about was Neville. So if it was greed do you think he assumed his father would just forgive him if he found out so it was worth the risk ?
Personally, I don't think he cared either way and was only bothered when words like 'disinherited' were mentioned. I think Jeremy had a way of being able to ultimately manipulate others when he needed to - but perhaps he felt he had gone to far this time and risked being cut off.
-
Jeremy stole for the money, he didn't let on that he did it and didn't want to get caught. He was not happy with the money he was getting. This is a problem for those saying he was content with his lot as is the fact he quit farming. Obviously he would not have quit farming if he enjoyed it and was content with it.
He was still young - perhaps at that time he did think that farming was not for him . but a people keep pointing out his parents were very generous to him and if he had of changed his mind he may have only got 1/2 of his inheritance - but I bet they would have supported him in the long run. Neville may have been disappointed but I bet he would have still been there for him. I still think I would have been more angry if I had been Sheila - why should she be written out just because Jeremy was taking over the business? Sure he could have a farm managers wage and his shareholders percentage of future profits - but why would he be entitled to more than 1/2 of the estate. If I had been Sheila I would have felt hurt by what appeared to be favouritism. Also Jeremy had shares in both businesses - Sheila did not have shares why not?
-
Personally, I don't think he cared either way and was only bothered when words like 'disinherited' were mentioned. I think Jeremy had a way of being able to ultimately manipulate others when he needed to - but perhaps he felt he had gone to far this time and risked being cut off.
You don´t disinherit your child for just one mistake, and admittedly, the caravan site burglary was a rather bg mistak, a crime actually. Still, one burglary is not enough to disinherit a child. there must have been more.
-
He was still young - perhaps at that time he did think that farming was not for him . but a people keep pointing out his parents were very generous to him and if he had of changed his mind he may have only got 1/2 of his inheritance - but I bet they would have supported him in the long run. Neville may have been disappointed but I bet he would have still been there for him. I still think I would have been more angry if I had been Sheila - why should she be written out just because Jeremy was taking over the business? Sure he could have a farm managers wage and his shareholders percentage of future profits - but why would he be entitled to more than 1/2 of the estate. If I had been Sheila I would have felt hurt by what appeared to be favouritism. Also Jeremy had shares in both businesses - Sheila did not have shares why not?
June had bought the flat in Maida Vale,which she wanted to put in Sheila's name(wasn't this discussed in the car park at the Northampton hospital with Robert Boutflour during June's incarceration there?). She anyway brough Sheila money and food when she visited.
-
June had bought the flat in Maida Vale,which she wanted to put in Sheila's name(wasn't this discussed in the car park at the Northampton hospital with Robert Boutflour during June's incarceration there?). She anyway brough Sheila money and food when she visited.
June loaned some money for the flat but had it secured by a mortgage - so I don't thing that showed 100% trust. And food is not the same as shares in a business.
Neville had a large overdraft at the time of the murders - seems there were quite high figures of money floating around for loans /property /land deals.
-
June loaned some money for the flat but had it secured by a mortgage - so I don't thing that showed 100% trust. And food is not the same as shares in a business.
Neville had a large overdraft at the time of the murders - seems there were quite high figures of money floating around for loans /property /land deals.
Yes but Clifton House was worth a mint,not to mention Nevill and June's own capital. I cannot quite get to the bottom of the Bambers' money worries.
-
I am not sure they had money worries because even with the overdraft (£100000) the estate was still worth a lot in todays money.
It seems Neville was a canny business man and also was investing in property.
But I find it unusual that he had such a high overdraft when interest rates were high . I guess it was to invest further and he thought it worth the risk.
He also had some expertise because the family managed to ruin the farming business when he was no longer at the helm , and did it in a very short period of time.
-
Yes but Clifton House was worth a mint,not to mention Nevill and June's own capital. I cannot quite get to the bottom of the Bambers' money worries.
Steve did Neville loan money to one of the family to buy some land or am I getting mixed up.
-
Steve did Neville loan money to one of the family to buy some land or am I getting mixed up.
He bought some land from John Eaton. http://jeremybamber.org/ann-peter-eaton/
-
He bought some land from John Eaton. http://jeremybamber.org/ann-peter-eaton/
Steve thanks for that I got part right hahaha
-
You don´t disinherit your child for just one mistake, and admittedly, the caravan site burglary was a rather bg mistak, a crime actually. Still, one burglary is not enough to disinherit a child. there must have been more.
I doubt very much that that was ONE mistake.
-
Yes grateful. If his biologically parents did not have the resources, time or motivation to bring up Bamber, he should be grateful Neville and June did.
Mary Mugford testified on what Bamber told her. She never said she was an expert on adoption. I have already created a thread on her testimony.
I hope to God that no child EVER finds itself unlucky enough to have YOU as its' parent. Children don't ask to come into this world. It's adults, and often VERY irresponsible ones, who are responsible for them being here. If there is gratitude, it should be on the part of the parents for the precious gift of the child.
-
I hope to God that no child EVER finds itself unlucky enough to have YOU as its' parent. Children don't ask to come into this world. It's adults, and often VERY irresponsible ones, who are responsible for them being here. If there is gratitude, it should be on the part of the parents for the precious gift of the child.
I totally agree.