Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 03:01:AM

Title: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 03:01:AM
Involved in petty thievery, he seemed to lack discipline, used his charm to get away with not working too hard.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 09:46:AM
Says a lot about society today.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: David1819 on May 19, 2015, 10:51:AM
Involved in petty thievery, he seemed to lack discipline, used his charm to get away with not working too hard.

Jeremy worked as a waiter in little chef on the A12, Not exactly typical of a grandiose psychopath
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 11:20:AM
Jeremy worked as a waiter in little chef on the A12, Not exactly typical of a grandiose psychopath



It's all relative. My friends 3 children were all sent there to work during the (public) school holidays. They lived near enough to walk. Unless someone took him, Jeremy would undoubtedly have had to have driven there. His background and education would certainly have made it possible to act in grandiose manner with many of his fellow employees.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 11:37:AM


It's all relative. My friends 3 children were all sent there to work during the (public) school holidays. They lived near enough to walk. Unless someone took him, Jeremy would undoubtedly have had to have driven there. His background and education would certainly have made it possible to act in grandiose manner with many of his fellow employees.
Do we have any proof that he acted in such a manner at the Little Chef, April? 
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 11:51:AM
 Oh,I bet he breathed a sigh of relief and was able to " be himself " for once among ordinary people at the Little Chef. It was enough at the time to show him that there was indeed another side to the life he'd been used to under the starchy conditions at WHF. His first taste of freedom.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 11:53:AM
His mother was the creator of the " Jekyll and Hyde " syndrome,if there is such a thing. Neither children were ever allowed to be themselves.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 12:10:PM
Oh,I bet he breathed a sigh of relief and was able to " be himself " for once among ordinary people at the Little Chef. It was enough at the time to show him that there was indeed another side to the life he'd been used to under the starchy conditions at WHF. His first taste of freedom.



It could also have given him the opportunity to feel -perhaps for the first time since leaving Greshams- at the top of the pecking order.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 12:12:PM
Do we have any proof that he acted in such a manner at the Little Chef, April?


With such a transient workforce it's doubtful that any were asked, or, indeed that it was necessary.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 12:17:PM


It could also have given him the opportunity to feel -perhaps for the first time since leaving Greshams- at the top of the pecking order.





Initially,he'd have hung on to that arrogant air that surrounded him,and we all know that it re-appeared when he was questioned by the police. I would say that a lot of public school educated people are like this to the point of appearing unapproachable. Sadly,common sense doesn't prevail always.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 12:17:PM

With such a transient workforce it's doubtful that any were asked, or, indeed that it was necessary.
Well of course but without proof he behaved in a grandiose manner, surely all we have is supposition?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 12:19:PM
 Grandiose doesn't fit in with Little Chef. ;D ;D ;D ;D He'd have been " one of the lads ".
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 12:20:PM
His mother was the creator of the " Jekyll and Hyde " syndrome,if there is such a thing. Neither children were ever allowed to be themselves.


I think you paint a very cruel picture of the person you believe June to have been. NONE of my own acquaintance, who knew her, would recognize the character you present her as having been. If she was hard on her children, I think it would have been because she felt it was expected of her to raise them in a way best befitting, and thus reflecting, the life they'd been adopted into.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 12:23:PM

I think you paint a very cruel picture of the person you believe June to have been. NONE of my own acquaintance, who knew her, would recognize the character you present her as having been. If she was hard on her children, I think it would have been because she felt it was expected of her to raise them in a way best befitting, and thus reflecting, the life they'd been adopted into.





A bit of a contradiction in terms---- " cruel picture " and " it was expected of her ".
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 12:24:PM
Grandiose doesn't fit in with Little Chef. ;D ;D ;D ;D He'd have been " one of the lads ".


The very last thing which Jeremy appears to have wanted to be seen as was "one of the lads". Top of the tree of Hooray Henrys might have suited better.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 12:25:PM




Initially,he'd have hung on to that arrogant air that surrounded him,and we all know that it re-appeared when he was questioned by the police. I would say that a lot of public school educated people are like this to the point of appearing unapproachable. Sadly,common sense doesn't prevail always.
We hear over and over again that JB was arrogant but was he or was he rather a very confident person due to his upbringing and Public School education?  Some people may have misinterpreted him due to their own lack of confidence?  Just a thought.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 12:26:PM




A bit of a contradiction in terms---- " cruel picture " and " it was expected of her ".


I don't understand. Could you elaborate, please.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 19, 2015, 12:32:PM
We hear over and over again that JB was arrogant but was he or was he rather a very confident person due to his upbringing and Public School education?  Some people may have misinterpreted him due to their own lack of confidence?  Just a thought.

Maggie Jeremy's House Master said Jeremy was arrogant and a loner and tended to bully the younger boys all in Colin's book ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 12:33:PM
Well of course but without proof he behaved in a grandiose manner, surely all we have is supposition?


Nor is there proof that he is/was anything like the personality Lookout insists he is/was. I will go further and suggest that there is even LESS proof. 
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 12:37:PM
Jeremy worked as a waiter in little chef on the A12, Not exactly typical of a grandiose psychopath
What is typical of a grandiose psychopath?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 12:39:PM
Well of course but without proof he behaved in a grandiose manner, surely all we have is supposition?

Most of what is said here is supposition.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 12:46:PM
Actually, the comment at the start of the thread was said about someone else not Jeremy bit it certainly fits.

The following contains a quote from his old headmaster and a remark from one of his old school friends.

"Those who knew Bamber at school, noticed his need to express his superiority."

"He was a rather prickly sort of boy" His headmaster at Gresham's, Mr. Logie Bruce-Lockhart, was to recall. "I believe some of the bys found him irritating, in that he could be a relentless tease. I think he showed at touch of arrogance at a very young age"

"A former school friend, John Fielding, remembered Bamber being a bit of an oddball"

(Quote from Murder Casebook 1990, page 224)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 12:52:PM
Actually, the comment at the start of the thread was said about someone else not Jeremy bit it certainly fits.

The following contains a quote from his old headmaster and a remark from one of his old school friends.

"Those who knew Bamber at school, noticed his need to express his superiority."

"He was a rather prickly sort of boy" His headmaster at Gresham's, Mr. Logie Bruce-Lockhart, was to recall. "I believe some of the bys found him irritating, in that he could be a relentless tease. I think he showed at touch of arrogance at a very young age"

"A former school friend, John Fielding, remembered Bamber being a bit of an oddball"

(Quote from Murder Casebook 1990, page 224)


Caroline, I have yet to come across anyone of those who knew him pre murders who supports the description Lookout paints of him. Come to think of it, I've yet to meet anyone who knew June to describe her the way Lookout does.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 12:56:PM
Most of what is said here is supposition.
Of course it is but there are limits imo.

I do agree with April that June has got a really bad press from some and she doesn't deserve to be the scapegoat for Sheila's illness and other dysfunction in the family.  Sheila's illness possibly distorted her understanding of June, it is often the case that PS can cause hatred of a close family member for no apparent reason and I believe we should take Sheila' attitude to June with a pinch of salt.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 19, 2015, 01:03:PM
Of course it is but there are limits imo.

I do agree with April that June has got a really bad press from some and she doesn't deserve to be the scapegoat for Sheila's illness and other dysfunction in the family.  Sheila's illness possibly distorted her understanding of June, it is often the case that PS can cause hatred of a close family member for no apparent reason and I believe we should take Sheila' attitude to June with a pinch of salt.

Maggie I will not quote Colin's book ;D but he talks differently about June and Sheila and their relationship and he does not speak well of June at all but I cannot comment as I did not know June but I cannot see why Colin would make it up and he does not have a good word to say about her and his boys hated going to WHF because of her and her attitude :( He did not blame June for Sheila's illness.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 01:14:PM
Maggie I will not quote Colin's book ;D but he talks differently about June and Sheila and their relationship and he does not speak well of June at all but I cannot comment as I did not know June but I cannot see why Colin would make it up and he does not have a good word to say about her and his boys hated going to WHF because of her and her attitude :( He did not blame June for Sheila's illness.
I am trying to say that Sheila's attitude to June may have been distorted by her illness and this may have been passed on to the boys.  Of course I have no more idea than anyone else what the real truth was but am just putting my thoughts forward as a possibility. :-\
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 19, 2015, 01:16:PM
Maggie I will not quote Colin's book ;D but he talks differently about June and Sheila and their relationship and he does not speak well of June at all but I cannot comment as I did not know June but I cannot see why Colin would make it up and he does not have a good word to say about her and his boys hated going to WHF because of her and her attitude :( He did not blame June for Sheila's illness.

Susan, I think in a way he did. He didn´t think that Sheila was actually mentally ill, but rather "carried" June´s illness for the whole family. A strange dynamics, but it does happen. Of course I don´t know if that was the case, but Colin believed it might be.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 01:18:PM
Of course it is but there are limits imo.

I do agree with April that June has got a really bad press from some and she doesn't deserve to be the scapegoat for Sheila's illness and other dysfunction in the family.  Sheila's illness possibly distorted her understanding of June, it is often the case that PS can cause hatred of a close family member for no apparent reason and I believe we should take Sheila' attitude to June with a pinch of salt.

What limits? I think if guilty, Jeremy has to be a psychopath and as a convicted murderer and the subject of the forum his personality pre and post murders is up for debate.

It certainly your prerogative to take things with a 'pinch of salt' but other people might think the relationship that either Jeremy or Sheila had with June, might be key and it is relevant to the debate (as long as people can back up their argument and not make wild claims).
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 19, 2015, 01:22:PM
I am trying to say that Sheila's attitude to June may have been distorted by her illness and this may have been passed on to the boys.  Of course I have no more idea than anyone else what the real truth was but am just putting my thoughts forward as a possibility. :-\

Maggie
I think the boys did not like going to the farm as they were made to pray too much not just bed time prayers  and she was rather critical of them but the boys really loved Ralph as did Sheila.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 01:23:PM
What limits? I think if guilty, Jeremy has to be a psychopath and as a convicted murderer and the subject of the forum his personality pre and post murders is up for debate.

It certainly your prerogative to take things with a 'pinch of salt' but other people might think the relationship that either Jeremy or Sheila had with June, might be key and it is relevant to the debate (as long as people can back up their argument and not make wild claims).
Thank you for that Caroline, think I can work all that out for myself and I am quite open to other people's arguments and attitudes.
I have always said I believe Jeremey would have to have been a psychopath to have carried out the murders, which is why I continue to question.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 19, 2015, 01:24:PM
Susan, I think in a way he did. He didn´t think that Sheila was actually mentally ill, but rather "carried" June´s illness for the whole family. A strange dynamics, but it does happen. Of course I don´t know if that was the case, but Colin believed it might be.

Alias you could well be right I will need to read the book again I did find it rather hard work and as a result did do some skim reading :'(
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 01:25:PM
Maggie
I think the boys did not like going to the farm as they were made to pray too much not just bed time prayers  and she was rather critical of them but the boys really loved Ralph as did Sheila.
Yes, I appreciate that......
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 19, 2015, 01:27:PM
Maggie
I think the boys did not like going to the farm as they were made to pray too much not just bed time prayers  and she was rather critical of them but the boys really loved Ralph as did Sheila.

Still, they did not want to go to White House Farm. None of them. In fact the boys cried and clung to Colin when he was about to leave, they cried and clung to him desperately, like he had never seen before.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 19, 2015, 01:34:PM
Still, they did not want to go to White House Farm. None of them. In fact the boys cried and clung to Colin when he was about to leave, they cried and clung to him desperately, like he had never seen before.

Alias Colin  feels very guilty as he promised the boys he would speak to June about the prayers and other issues and he never did and that was the last time he saw them.  Think he said that Ralph changed his behaviour towards Sheila because of the way June would react to him June did not like him being all lovey dovey with her :'(
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 01:47:PM
Thank you for that Caroline, think I can work all that out for myself and I am quite open to other people's arguments and attitudes.
I have always said I believe Jeremey would have to have been a psychopath to have carried out the murders, which is why I continue to question.

Work what out? I asked why you think there should be limits and what they should be?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 01:52:PM
Anyway ......

The comments "Involved in petty thievery, he seemed to lack discipline, used his charm to get away with not working too hard"

Were actually said about Ted Bundy - an altogether different kind of psychopath (he enjoyed killing people and there was an element of the 'sadist' about him) - but the description is similar to those made about Jeremy.

Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 19, 2015, 01:56:PM
Anyway ......

The comments "Involved in petty thievery, he seemed to lack discipline, used his charm to get away with not working too hard"

Were actually said about Ted Bundy - an altogether different kind of psychopath (he enjoyed killing people and there was an element of the 'sadist' about him) - but the description is similar to those made about Jeremy.

I disagree about Ted Bundy having been a sadist. He killed his victims instantly. He was a necropheliac and didn´t torture his victims while they were alive.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 01:57:PM
Anyway ......

The comments "Involved in petty thievery, he seemed to lack discipline, used his charm to get away with not working too hard"

Were actually said about Ted Bundy - an altogether different kind of psychopath (he enjoyed killing people and there was an element of the 'sadist' about him) - but the description is similar to those made about Jeremy.
Broadly speaking but I just don't take that as proof of JB being a psychopath as we can find similarities anywhere if we are looking for them.  My argument is that we don't know enough about him, personally to be able to point the finger and say he is a psychopath, however that is my opinion and I respect the fact you see him differently.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 01:59:PM
I disagree about Ted Bundy having been a sadist. He killed his victims instantly. He was a necropheliac and didn´t torture his victims while they were alive.

Well, I'm not a Bundy enthusiast so will bow to your better knowledge. The point was that that the description of his is the same as what has been said about Jeremy.

Just to add - Psychology Today seems to class Bundy as a sadistic killer but if you know better.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/disturbed/201307/sadistic-killers
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 19, 2015, 02:13:PM
Well, I'm not a Bundy enthusiast so will bow to your better knowledge. The point was that that the description of his is the same as what has been said about Jeremy.

Just to add - Psychology Today seems to class Bundy as a sadistic killer but if you know better.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/disturbed/201307/sadistic-killers

I am no expert, all I know is that he killed his victims instantanously, so there was no torture. Thank God for those girls, however horrible it is what happened to them, they did not suffer for long.

Other than that, I find it hard to compare Jeremy and Ted Bundy, vastly different cases.

"Involved in petty thievery, he seemed to lack discipline, used his charm to get away with not working too hard" <- can be said about a lot of people, why do you choose Ted Bundy for comparison?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 02:20:PM
Broadly speaking but I just don't take that as proof of JB being a psychopath as we can find similarities anywhere if we are looking for them.  My argument is that we don't know enough about him, personally to be able to point the finger and say he is a psychopath, however that is my opinion and I respect the fact you see him differently.



What would you consider to be proof that Jeremy is psychopathic?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 02:21:PM

Caroline, I have yet to come across anyone of those who knew him pre murders who supports the description Lookout paints of him. Come to think of it, I've yet to meet anyone who knew June to describe her the way Lookout does.






Because June was similar in character to my own mother--------children should be seen and not heard.
I couldn't " see it " as it was the norm for bro. and myself,but other people had noticed.This is why I can relate. Best behaviour and speak nicely and all that,not so much the Bibley bit,but would never play " Devil music " as she used to call pop music. Family Favourites and Womans Hour were the order of the day. She'd turn in her grave if she saw life as it is today.
I HAD to go to church and Sunday school too,religiously-----------no excuses.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 02:33:PM
I am no expert, all I know is that he killed his victims instantanously, so there was no torture. Thank God for those girls, however horrible it is what happened to them, they did not suffer for long.

Other than that, I find it hard to compare Jeremy and Ted Bundy, vastly different cases.


"Involved in petty thievery, he seemed to lack discipline, used his charm to get away with not working too hard" <- can be said about a lot of people, why do you choose Ted Bundy for comparison?

I already said that; I said the description of them is the same.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 02:37:PM
Broadly speaking but I just don't take that as proof of JB being a psychopath as we can find similarities anywhere if we are looking for them.  My argument is that we don't know enough about him, personally to be able to point the finger and say he is a psychopath, however that is my opinion and I respect the fact you see him differently.

I didn't say it was proof of anything. However, I think he killed 5 people, he has very few people who stood by him and far more that were happy to condemn hi. Their descriptions of him are all pretty similar and there aren't many of the PCL-R items that haven't been attributed to him.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 02:49:PM





Because June was similar in character to my own mother--------children should be seen and not heard.
I couldn't " see it " as it was the norm for bro. and myself,but other people had noticed.This is why I can relate. Best behaviour and speak nicely and all that,not so much the Bibley bit,but would never play " Devil music " as she used to call pop music. Family Favourites and Womans Hour were the order of the day. She'd turn in her grave if she saw life as it is today.
I HAD to go to church and Sunday school too,religiously-----------no excuses.



As she was to mine, Lookout.  The difference being that June's friends saw her as a good, kind and gentle woman. My mother, who was nothing like that, didn't have friends and her peer group within the family tolerated her for the sake of peace. She was too judgemental and dogmatic. If it wasn't done/if THEY didn't do it her way, it was the wrong way. I, too, was forced to church -for which she worked enormously hard and gave to generously- and Sunday school at a time when all other children were permitted to exercise choice in it. The only criticism of June I've read from the family is about the amount of money she spent on Sheila.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 03:15:PM


As she was to mine, Lookout.  The difference being that June's friends saw her as a good, kind and gentle woman. My mother, who was nothing like that, didn't have friends and her peer group within the family tolerated her for the sake of peace. She was too judgemental and dogmatic. If it wasn't done/if THEY didn't do it her way, it was the wrong way. I, too, was forced to church -for which she worked enormously hard and gave to generously- and Sunday school at a time when all other children were permitted to exercise choice in it. The only criticism of June I've read from the family is about the amount of money she spent on Sheila.







I never got to find out about my mum's background,etc. until well after she'd died. I learnt that she was in foster care at 10 because it had been reported that she wasn't attending school,instead she was at home looking after her sick father. She was scrubbing steps to earn a crust,and I never knew any of this.Her own mother had died at 50.
I would have thought that mum would have been different after reading of the hardship she suffered,as she had an easy life with dad,but whether it was bitterness I don't know,but she was strict and a bit like the " Bucket woman " ( Hyacinth ) Very domineering and dad was as placid as can be.
Mum was with the Evangelical lot,and ran around after them,doing the flowers,making cakes all that sort of thing.
The past was never spoken about and through my cousin,I've actually got a photograph ( copy ) of my mum's mum and her grannie together.Originally from another unknown cousin in New York who has the original pic. :o
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: David1819 on May 19, 2015, 04:02:PM
What is typical of a grandiose psychopath?

One would not expect a grandiose psychopath to work bringing meals to people in little chef on the A12
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: David1819 on May 19, 2015, 04:08:PM
It could also have given him the opportunity to feel -perhaps for the first time since leaving Greshams- at the top of the pecking order.

Yeah serving fried eggs, beans and sausages in a Little Chef must have made Jeremy feel omnipotent like superman! Top of the pecking order no doubt  ::)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 04:21:PM
Yeah serving fried eggs, beans and sausages in a Little Chef must have made Jeremy feel omnipotent like superman! Top of the pecking order no doubt  ::)



But supposing he, the suave, debonair, good looking one managed to get all the tips whilst making sure the "minions" did the donkey work? With no qualifications he could hardly bluff his way in to being Chairman of a company so he needed to start somewhere.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 05:12:PM
One would not expect a grandiose psychopath to work bringing meals to people in little chef on the A12

Like I said, where would you expect to find one?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 05:14:PM
Yeah serving fried eggs, beans and sausages in a Little Chef must have made Jeremy feel omnipotent like superman! Top of the pecking order no doubt  ::)

He wasn't about to make a career of it or farming!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 19, 2015, 05:27:PM
So we are supposed to see all waiters, bartenders, McDonald´s employees or whatever as gandiose psychopaths. Will remember that.  ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 05:33:PM
So we are supposed to see all waiters, bartenders, McDonald´s employees or whatever as gandiose psychopaths. Will remember that.  ;D


And any other member of the population for that matter. Don't worry, the majority wouldn't dream of committing murder :D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 05:54:PM
So we are supposed to see all waiters, bartenders, McDonald´s employees or whatever as gandiose psychopaths. Will remember that.  ;D

Errr, no one said that but if that's the way you want to look at it - carry one.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 05:56:PM
Jeremy worked as a waiter in little chef on the A12, Not exactly typical of a grandiose psychopath

By the way, what exactly is a 'grandiose psychopath'? Is that as opposed to a 'modest psychopath'?  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 06:21:PM
He was a typical bed-hopping,cannabis smoking 24 year old of his time.They're no different now,probably worse---------------but they don't commit murder---------too busy bed-hopping.Too tired.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 06:24:PM
He was a typical bed-hopping,cannabis smoking 24 year old of his time.They're no different now,probably worse---------------but they don't commit murder---------too busy bed-hopping.Too tired.

Yeah - not very convincing Lookout  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 06:26:PM
Yeah - not very convincing Lookout  ;D ;D ;D ;D






Try as I might,I just can't see it happening. :o
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 19, 2015, 06:33:PM
An interesting read http://crimeandclues.com/2013/01/26/bite-mark-analysis/

Bundy didn't fit the profile of a killer either.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 19, 2015, 06:42:PM
An interesting read http://crimeandclues.com/2013/01/26/bite-mark-analysis/

Bundy didn't fit the profile of a killer either.

He worked for the republican presidential election campaign team at some point, (candidate, Nelson Rockefeller).
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 06:48:PM
An interesting read http://crimeandclues.com/2013/01/26/bite-mark-analysis/

Bundy didn't fit the profile of a killer either.





I know/knew nothing about him.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 07:11:PM
This is the thing about psychopaths,they're usually serial killers. ?

Jeremy wasn't shy. He had an out-going personality.
He didn't appear to be the inferior one in the relationship. Far from it, the way he splashed the cash to show his status as having the money to do so.
He didn't display violence towards Julie,or she wouldn't have stayed with him. Remember the time when he raised his hand to her and she threatened to phone the police ?
He didn't show anger,and so far as I know,it hasn't been reported while he's been in prison.

You can't compare this twisted individual to Jeremy.They're two entirely different characters altogether.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 19, 2015, 07:19:PM
This is the thing about psychopaths,they're usually serial killers. ?

Jeremy wasn't shy. He had an out-going personality.
He didn't appear to be the inferior one in the relationship. Far from it, the way he splashed the cash to show his status as having the money to do so.
He didn't display violence towards Julie,or she wouldn't have stayed with him. Remember the time when he raised his hand to her and she threatened to phone the police ?
He didn't show anger,and so far as I know,it hasn't been reported while he's been in prison.

You can't compare this twisted individual to Jeremy.They're two entirely different characters altogether.

If you believe Jeremy is guilty and want to compare him with someone, you could pick the Menendez brothers or Brian Blackwell for instance who in both cases killed their parents, then went on spending sprees. Not serial killer Ted Bundy, must be for maximum effect.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 07:22:PM
If you believe Jeremy is guilty and want to compare him with someone, you could pick the Menendez brothers or Brian Blackwell for instance who in both cases killed their parents, then went on spending sprees. Not serial killer Ted Bundy, must be for maximum effect.





I don't believe Jeremy to be guilty,Alias.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 19, 2015, 07:25:PM




I don't believe Jeremy to be guilty,Alias.

Hahah, I know THAT!!!
It is Caroline who thinks that and compares Jeremy to Ted Bundy.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 07:27:PM
This is the thing about psychopaths,they're usually serial killers. ?

Jeremy wasn't shy. He had an out-going personality.
He didn't appear to be the inferior one in the relationship. Far from it, the way he splashed the cash to show his status as having the money to do so.
He didn't display violence towards Julie,or she wouldn't have stayed with him. Remember the time when he raised his hand to her and she threatened to phone the police ?
He didn't show anger,and so far as I know,it hasn't been reported while he's been in prison.

You can't compare this twisted individual to Jeremy.They're two entirely different characters altogether.


Lookout, they are definitely NOT "usually serial killers" or any other sort of killer.
 They ARE charming and confident so an out going personality would follow.
They certainly won't be the "inferior one" in a relationship and the flashing of cash generously is a way of their showing their superiority.
There was no need for him to show violence towards Julie. She wasn't a barrier to his aims.
Likewise why would he need to display anger then or now? Killing was simply a means to an end. Something which needed to be done.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 07:29:PM

Lookout, they are definitely NOT "usually serial killers" or any other sort of killer.
 They ARE charming and confident so an out going personality would follow.
They certainly won't be the "inferior one" in a relationship and the flashing of cash generously is a way of their showing their superiority.
There was no need for him to show violence towards Julie. She wasn't a barrier to his aims.
Likewise why would he need to display anger then or now? Killing was simply a means to an end. Something which needed to be done.






Jeremy didn't have the oomph to kill let alone anger.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 07:30:PM

Lookout, they are definitely NOT "usually serial killers" or any other sort of killer.
 They ARE charming and confident so an out going personality would follow.
They certainly won't be the "inferior one" in a relationship and the flashing of cash generously is a way of their showing their superiority.
There was no need for him to show violence towards Julie. She wasn't a barrier to his aims.
Likewise why would he need to display anger then or now? Killing was simply a means to an end. Something which needed to be done.
A psychopath who kills can be said to be a failed psychopath..... Robert Hare
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 07:31:PM
I bet it took him all his time to muster up the energy to face a days work on the farm.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 19, 2015, 07:39:PM
Hahah, I know THAT!!!
It is Caroline who thinks that and compares Jeremy to Ted Bundy.

Alias Hahaha how can lookout think posters don't know she thinks Jeremy is innocent ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 07:52:PM





Jeremy didn't have the oomph to kill let alone anger.


He didn't need "oomph" or anger, Lookout, only desire.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 07:55:PM
I bet it took him all his time to muster up the energy to face a days work on the farm.



Yes, I agree. One boring monotonous day following another. It must have driven him crackers.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 08:00:PM
A psychopath who kills can be said to be a failed psychopath..... Robert Hare



I feel very certain that any psychopath who achievs their aims by killing wouldn't feel that they'd failed.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 08:05:PM

He didn't need "oomph" or anger, Lookout, only desire.





I doubt if he had that quality either. Not the desiring type I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 08:35:PM


I feel very certain that any psychopath who achievs their aims by killing wouldn't feel that they'd failed.
Maybe not in their own head but the belief is a psychopath should be clever and manipulative enough to reach their goals without killing, the theory is therefore that a psychopath who kills has lost control and therefore failed.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 19, 2015, 08:37:PM
Maybe not in their own head but the belief is a psychopath should be clever and manipulative enough to reach their goals without killing, the theory is therefore that a psychopath who kills has lost control and therefore failed.

Maggie that is very interesting did not know that I am learning more about psychopaths all the time on this forum ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 08:40:PM




I doubt if he had that quality either. Not the desiring type I'm afraid.


Desire comes in many forms, Lookout. We all need a modicum at least to prevent us being brain dead. Jeremy probably had more than most. He desired good clothes and as YOU noted, fine wines. He cared enough about his appearance to colour his hair -I'll bet he couldn't go past a mirror without admiring himself. He liked good hotels and expensive holidays. In fact there was NOTHING that Jeremy desired that could be called common or garden. It all required money which was the thing he desired above all. I don't know who is the slob you keep talking about.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 08:47:PM
Maybe not in their own head but the belief is a psychopath should be clever and manipulative enough to reach their goals without killing, the theory is therefore that a psychopath who kills has lost control and therefore failed.


To a psychopath the need to kill is a means to an end -like opening a safe, perhaps- and no more than something which needs to be done. Loss of control involves emotion, something psychopaths are short on.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 08:53:PM

To a psychopath the need to kill is a means to an end -like opening a safe, perhaps- and no more than something which needs to be done. Loss of control involves emotion, something psychopaths are short on.
I was quoting Bob Hare April, he is highly knowledgeable about psychopaths as I'm sure you know. I imagine he doesn't mean loss of emotional control but rather that such a person  made a bad choice by killing which put them in a vulnerable position........  if you see what I mean.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 09:06:PM
I was quoting Bob Hare April, he is highly knowledgeable about psychopaths as I'm sure you know.



I do indeed Maggie, but it seems to me that what he is offering here is his opinion, eminent though it is, and not necessarily what a psychopath thinks of their own behaviour. His belief that psychopaths SHOULD be clever and manipulative enough to reach goal without killing rather suggests that all of us are so gullible that we'd allow it to happen. The majority DON'T/won't EVER kill.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 09:10:PM


I do indeed Maggie, but it seems to me that what he is offering here is his opinion, eminent though it is, and not necessarily what a psychopath thinks of their own behaviour. His belief that psychopaths SHOULD be clever and manipulative enough to reach goal without killing rather suggests that all of us are so gullible that we'd allow it to happen. The majority DON'T/won't EVER kill.
Yes, I agree it's his opinion, I didn't say it was the killers opinion, I find it an interesting observation.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: SaraT on May 19, 2015, 09:12:PM
Wow some of you have spent a lot of time completely making up scenarios of how JB may have behaved in a grandiose fashion while working at Little Chef ! How do you ever manage to sleep for thinking about him?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 09:16:PM
Wow some of you have spent a lot of time completely making up scenarios of how JB may have behaved in a grandiose fashion while working at Little Chef ! How do you ever manage to sleep for thinking about him?
;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 09:22:PM
Wow some of you have spent a lot of time completely making up scenarios of how JB may have behaved in a grandiose fashion while working at Little Chef ! How do you ever manage to sleep for thinking about him?



As none of his fellow employees were asked and none of us were there all we can do is offer how he MAY have behaved. As there are only so many behaviours which would have been acceptable one of our suggestions is likely to be correct.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 19, 2015, 09:23:PM
Wow some of you have spent a lot of time completely making up scenarios of how JB may have behaved in a grandiose fashion while working at Little Chef ! How do you ever manage to sleep for thinking about him?

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 19, 2015, 09:33:PM
Wow some of you have spent a lot of time completely making up scenarios of how JB may have behaved in a grandiose fashion while working at Little Chef ! How do you ever manage to sleep for thinking about him?

Hahaha, simple, we don´t sleep! Some of us toss and turn all night long trying to figure out good things to say about JB, the other half toss and turn all night long trying to figure out the nastiest possible to come up with!  ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: SaraT on May 19, 2015, 09:34:PM


As none of his fellow employees were asked and none of us were there all we can do is offer how he MAY have behaved. As there are only so many behaviours which would have been acceptable one of our suggestions is likely to be correct.

As none of his fellow employees were asked and none of you were there, go out for a walk or something! You might as well ponder about whether or not he laughed maniacally while he was in the shower or perhaps sang a selection of songs from the shows! Who cares
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jan on May 19, 2015, 09:36:PM

Caroline, I have yet to come across anyone of those who knew him pre murders who supports the description Lookout paints of him. Come to think of it, I've yet to meet anyone who knew June to describe her the way Lookout does.

I think we have to ask ourselves why did Colin portray her that way?

he wrote the book after he knew JB had been convicted - so why bother ?

I felt quite uncomfortable about his portrayal . But why would he lie ? And why even would he write the things he did . And the letter .

Was he influenced by sheilas perception ? Or his childrens? Rather than the truth?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 09:37:PM
Hahaha, simple, we don´t sleep! Some of us toss and turn all night long trying to figure out good things to say about JB, the other half toss and turn all night long trying to figure out the nastiest possible to come up with!  ;D
  ;D ;D ;D 8) 8)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 19, 2015, 09:49:PM
  ;D ;D ;D 8) 8)

love it Alias  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 19, 2015, 09:49:PM
I think we have to ask ourselves why did Colin portray her that way?

he wrote the book after he knew JB had been convicted - so why bother ?

I felt quite uncomfortable about his portrayal . But why would he lie ? And why even would he write the things he did . And the letter .

Was he influenced by sheilas perception ? Or his childrens? Rather than the truth?
Hi Jan, I have not read the book, one reason being that I have always felt it was a very personal and emotional book written to help Colin to heal rather than a factual account.   :-\ I certainly don't know the answer to your question but there are various possibilities as you have shown.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 19, 2015, 09:51:PM
I think we have to ask ourselves why did Colin portray her that way?

he wrote the book after he knew JB had been convicted - so why bother ?

I felt quite uncomfortable about his portrayal . But why would he lie ? And why even would he write the things he did . And the letter .

Was he influenced by sheilas perception ? Or his childrens? Rather than the truth?

Jan I have asked myself the same questions and it is so obvious the way Colin talks of June  that he disliked her intensly and he did say she was not the person local people thought she was i.e. kind and caring and gentle.  Now why would he make this up he had no agenda at all.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 09:52:PM
I think we have to ask ourselves why did Colin portray her that way?

he wrote the book after he knew JB had been convicted - so why bother ?

I felt quite uncomfortable about his portrayal . But why would he lie ? And why even would he write the things he did . And the letter .

Was he influenced by sheilas perception ? Or his childrens? Rather than the truth?


Cause and effect, Jan. We ALL experience people differently according to our and their agenda. I think, without a doubt, that Colin was influenced by what Sheila and the twins said about June. He wasn't lying. He was talking about his experience of her and telling the truth as he saw it. As we all do.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 19, 2015, 09:55:PM
As none of his fellow employees were asked and none of you were there, go out for a walk or something! You might as well ponder about whether or not he laughed maniacally while he was in the shower or perhaps sang a selection of songs from the shows! Who cares


I guess it's all part of what gets discussed on a discussion forum.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 10:06:PM

Desire comes in many forms, Lookout. We all need a modicum at least to prevent us being brain dead. Jeremy probably had more than most. He desired good clothes and as YOU noted, fine wines. He cared enough about his appearance to colour his hair -I'll bet he couldn't go past a mirror without admiring himself. He liked good hotels and expensive holidays. In fact there was NOTHING that Jeremy desired that could be called common or garden. It all required money which was the thing he desired above all. I don't know who is the slob you keep talking about.






Not so much a slob,but a lazy blighter,as in Claire Powells book,nothing short of dynamite would get him shifted. Both his parents despaired of him at times and more or less told him to pull his socks up.
I suppose it was the high-living,boozing and drugs which left him unable to gather himself together. A lot of " mornings after ".
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 19, 2015, 10:10:PM
None of us know what goes on behind closed doors in other families. Neighbours and wider family may have seen June as a kind lady, but that does not have to be the truth. I don´t know how she was, but as susan says, Colin had nothing to gain by talking so badly about her, on the contrary, he made himself look bad saying that if Jeremy hadn´t killed June, he would have!!!
Something must have been wrong in that family for the son to have turned into a mass murderer and the daughter mentally ill.

I know that my teachers thought my mother was a intelligent, beautiful, cool, calm collected lady, in fact they were quite in awe of her. They had no idea of the degree of dysfunction going on in our home. My sister and I were good pupils, no problems in school, but we lived through hell at home with a mentally ill mother. No one could tell.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 19, 2015, 10:37:PM


I don't remember childrens parties being mentioned at WHF. Or the children inviting their little school friends,or friends/visitors calling regularly. Even some of the extended families hadn't been or seen anyone for quite some time and they weren't a million miles away. Not the type of family that you could call on speck. I think this is why June preferred to be out at the church amongst those she knew and who knew her,rather than entertain in her home. But we don't know the real relationship that any of them had with their relatives,a little on the frosty side I'd suspect.
Latterly,June had still been visiting her GP or the psychiatrist,so wouldn't have relished entertaining anyone.
I wonder if Jeremy ever knew or realised how Colin had felt about June.
I thought it odd that June went to one of Sheila's friends to drop off a Bible ? Was it meant as a hint to the friend that she was leading Sheila astray,so to get cracking and read Psalm number whatever ?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 20, 2015, 08:14:AM





Not so much a slob,but a lazy blighter,as in Claire Powells book,nothing short of dynamite would get him shifted. Both his parents despaired of him at times and more or less told him to pull his socks up.
I suppose it was the high-living,boozing and drugs which left him unable to gather himself together. A lot of " mornings after ".


Rather sweeping statements, don't you think. from a woman who didn't know him at the time and didn't get her information from his parents. Name me parents who, at some point, HAVEN'T told partying young to "pull their socks up."  Lazy here is relative. He certainly seems to have had had energy in plenty for doing those things he enjoyed and it seems that Jeremy may have preferred "high living, boozing and drugs" AND the accompanying "mornings after" to the monotonous and mundane of life on the farm. Sadly without the latter, he would have been unable to finance the former. Desire can be a fertile breeding ground for outrageous thoughts.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 20, 2015, 08:51:AM
None of us know what goes on behind closed doors in other families. Neighbours and wider family may have seen June as a kind lady, but that does not have to be the truth. I don´t know how she was, but as susan says, Colin had nothing to gain by talking so badly about her, on the contrary, he made himself look bad saying that if Jeremy hadn´t killed June, he would have!!!
Something must have been wrong in that family for the son to have turned into a mass murderer and the daughter mentally ill.

I know that my teachers thought my mother was a intelligent, beautiful, cool, calm collected lady, in fact they were quite in awe of her. They had no idea of the degree of dysfunction going on in our home. My sister and I were good pupils, no problems in school, but we lived through hell at home with a mentally ill mother. No one could tell.


One "truth" isn't necessarily the WHOLE truth. It's about cause and effect. We react to different stimuli in different ways, ie, when someone addresses us in a way in which we feel neither confronted nor attacked we are more likely to respond similarly.

Colin was saying it how he experienced it. A view which had to have been coloured by how he remembered the twins -clinging to him and pleading with him not to make them stay a WHF and his own guilt about having left them there. His words, regarding June, are undoubtedly angry, but given the tragedy, are they balanced?

It can't be denied that Sheila and Jeremy were probably -in secret- a disappointment to June. I feel qualified to say this because of the numerous times my mother told me I was a disappointment to her and wasn't AT ALL what she had wanted and planned for -not that my permission was ever sought, she assumed I owed her and would acquiesce out of gratitude. I think it reasonable to assume that June had planned for her children to be carbon copies of her and Neville, partly because that was her only frame of reference, partly because her breadth of vision was limited to how her sister's children were, and partly because her world moved silently from season to season and generation to generation with little change. It was safe. Or should have been!

I am truly sorry that you felt unsupported at school. It sounds as if you and your sister would have felt  isolated with your problem.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 10:36:AM

Rather sweeping statements, don't you think. from a woman who didn't know him at the time and didn't get her information from his parents. Name me parents who, at some point, HAVEN'T told partying young to "pull their socks up."  Lazy here is relative. He certainly seems to have had had energy in plenty for doing those things he enjoyed and it seems that Jeremy may have preferred "high living, boozing and drugs" AND the accompanying "mornings after" to the monotonous and mundane of life on the farm. Sadly without the latter, he would have been unable to finance the former. Desire can be a fertile breeding ground for outrageous thoughts.






Which really begs the question as to where he got the energy from after having slogged-it for 16/17 hours harvesting on the day,finishing in the evening of the murders,to have " returned,full of energy,to break-in as he allegedly did,and hurtle round the farmhouse bashing and shooting everyone ?" Travelling by bicycle too. ::)
Makes me feel breathless just thinking about it.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: David1819 on May 20, 2015, 10:45:AM


Which really begs the question as to where he got the energy from after having slogged-it for 16/17 hours harvesting on the day,finishing in the evening of the murders,to have " returned,full of energy,to break-in as he allegedly did,and hurtle round the farmhouse bashing and shooting everyone ?" Travelling by bicycle too. ::)
Makes me feel breathless just thinking about it.

He had a £500,000 inheritance motivating him, that's where he would have got the energy from
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 20, 2015, 10:50:AM





Which really begs the question as to where he got the energy from after having slogged-it for 16/17 hours harvesting on the day,finishing in the evening of the murders,to have " returned,full of energy,to break-in as he allegedly did,and hurtle round the farmhouse bashing and shooting everyone ?" Travelling by bicycle too. ::)
Makes me feel breathless just thinking about it.

You make him sound like an old man. He was a young guy in his prime.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 10:56:AM
You make him sound like an old man. He was a young guy in his prime.





There are plenty of young men today who act like " old men ".Takes them all their time to put one foot in front of the other.What about the " workshy " ones ? That's been going on for years,as well as those who don't get up until gone lunchtime. If Jeremy could have got away with it,he too could have joined that army of slobs.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 20, 2015, 10:58:AM





Which really begs the question as to where he got the energy from after having slogged-it for 16/17 hours harvesting on the day,finishing in the evening of the murders,to have " returned,full of energy,to break-in as he allegedly did,and hurtle round the farmhouse bashing and shooting everyone ?" Travelling by bicycle too. ::)
Makes me feel breathless just thinking about it.


C'mon Lookout. Recall the time when you did a day's slog at whatever -it's all relative- and felt you couldn't even lift a cup to your lips. the prospect of an exciting night out and a quick splash, change of clothes and a bit of lippy and if you weren't ready to party hard, you must be the only one who wasn't. Added to which, your job probably carried much more in the way of responsibility than did Jeremy's.

 Harvesting was only for a limited period so he didn't work those hours on a regular basis. It's possible that partying helped him forget what he had to do to earn enough to party. I think that night he'd have been fuelled by the desire to never again have to and the realization that he would have it all.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 10:58:AM
He had a £500,000 inheritance motivating him, that's where he would have got the energy from





I don't think so. Jeremy would have been the type that anything under a£million wouldn't have been worth it.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 20, 2015, 10:59:AM




There are plenty of young men today who act like " old men ".Takes them all their time to put one foot in front of the other.What about the " workshy " ones ? That's been going on for years,as well as those who don't get up until gone lunchtime. If Jeremy could have got away with it,he too could have joined that army of slobs.

But he wasn't workshy, you said yourself above he'd worked a 16/17 hour day.





I don't think so. Jeremy would have been the type that anything under a£million wouldn't have been worth it.

So he would have killed them for a million?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 11:00:AM
Figure of speech to suit you.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 11:02:AM
But he wasn't workshy, you said yourself above he'd worked a 16/17 hour day.
Because he'd had a good talking to by both parents.
So he would have killed them for a million?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 20, 2015, 11:02:AM




There are plenty of young men today who act like " old men ".Takes them all their time to put one foot in front of the other.What about the " workshy " ones ? That's been going on for years,as well as those who don't get up until gone lunchtime. If Jeremy could have got away with it,he too could have joined that army of slobs.


You are not describing Jeremy here, Lookout. You can't have it both ways. There was none of the "old m an" about Jeremy. He was a party animal whose life revolved around night life. Typical of his generation and type.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 11:04:AM

You are not describing Jeremy here, Lookout. You can't have it both ways. There was none of the "old m an" about Jeremy. He was a party animal whose life revolved around night life. Typical of his generation and type.





Partying was different to working,as it is to the MAJORITY of youngsters.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 11:05:AM
Give me one youngster who hurtles to work the same as they do a night out.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 11:07:AM
Jeremy was NO different to generations of people his age.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 12:19:PM
Give me one youngster who hurtles to work the same as they do a night out.

There are loads of them!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 12:20:PM
Jeremy was NO different to generations of people his age.

Oh, there is one BIG difference, most don't kill their family for inheritance!!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 12:32:PM
Oh, there is one BIG difference, most don't kill their family for inheritance!!






No,they don't,Jeremy included.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 12:33:PM
It wasn't an inheritance murder.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 12:44:PM
Do we know how much cannabis was in the safe ? Nope.
Do we know why,in God's name it was there anyway ? Nope.
Do we know who knew it was there ? Nope.
Do we know where it ended up ? Nope.
Do we know if it was included in the list of items from the farmhouse ? Nope.
Do we know if EP questioned its existence ? Nope.
Do we know if Sheila had demanded any cannabis and had been refused ? Nope.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 12:49:PM
Without her " fix ",Sheila wouldn't have been able to sleep,she'd have been restless and irritable,with mood-swings.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 12:50:PM
It wasn't an inheritance murder.

Well, that's you personal opinion which you're entitled to, however, the court and majority think differently and that won't change.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 12:52:PM
More than enough has been said about Jeremy and his drugs,even JM for that matter,but NOTHING has ever been said about it being in the safe at the farmhouse,or who it belonged to. Strange,that.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 20, 2015, 12:53:PM
Do we know how much cannabis was in the safe ? Nope.
Do we know why,in God's name it was there anyway ? Nope.
Do we know who knew it was there ? Nope.
Do we know where it ended up ? Nope.
Do we know if it was included in the list of items from the farmhouse ? Nope.
Do we know if EP questioned its existence ? Nope.
Do we know if Sheila had demanded any cannabis and had been refused ? Nope.

Hi lookout

Colin said it was taken from somebody staying at the farm by Ralph (think it was the guy from France) Jeremy laughed at his Father's actions as it was just a small cube he told Colin about it not sure what happened to it.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 12:55:PM
Do we know how much cannabis was in the safe ? Nope.
Do we know why,in God's name it was there anyway ? Nope.
Do we know who knew it was there ? Nope.
Do we know where it ended up ? Nope.
Do we know if it was included in the list of items from the farmhouse ? Nope.
Do we know if EP questioned its existence ? Nope.
Do we know if Sheila had demanded any cannabis and had been refused ? Nope.

Jeremy knew it was there but the suggestion that Sheila killed the family because she wanted a joint is really 'out there' Lookout. Cannabis isn't like heroin, it's not a craving you need to fulfil at all costs.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 20, 2015, 12:58:PM
Not that Colin´s word is the godspel, but he happes to think that Jeremy did not kill for the inheritance, but rather out of frustration with - guess who..... June.

It seems to me that there was so much overkill that I can see where he is coming from. An angry person did this, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 12:58:PM
More than enough has been said about Jeremy and his drugs,even JM for that matter,but NOTHING has ever been said about it being in the safe at the farmhouse,or who it belonged to. Strange,that.

If 'nothing' had been said about it, how do we know about it?  ;D ;D ;D

Truth is, plenty has been said about it but as it's nothing to do with the murders, why do you imagine more should be said? The fact that it was still there should tell you it played no part. It was a piece of cannabis resin that Sheila didn't even know existed.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 01:00:PM
Not that Colin´s word is the godspel, but he happes to think that Jeremy did not kill for the inheritance, but rather out of frustration with - guess who..... June.

It seems to me that there was so much overkill that I can see where he is coming from. An angry person did this, in my opinion.

I agree about the anger but that doesn't mean the motive wasn't the inheritance.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 01:02:PM
Jeremy knew it was there but the suggestion that Sheila killed the family because she wanted a joint is really 'out there' Lookout. Cannabis isn't like heroin, it's not a craving you need to fulfil at all costs.  ;D ;D ;D





During the last 12 months of Sheila's life,she'd relied heavily on cannabis and as a consequence,smoked heavily too. Remember,there was only a trace in her bloodstream which meant that her last smoke would have been days before she arrived at WHF.
Because of her reliance on the drug,she would STILL have suffered withdrawal symptoms as I'd mentioned.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 01:04:PM
Hi lookout

Colin said it was taken from somebody staying at the farm by Ralph (think it was the guy from France) Jeremy laughed at his Father's actions as it was just a small cube he told Colin about it not sure what happened to it.




Hi Susan,this is what we're told. ;) To keep us quiet. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 20, 2015, 01:05:PM
I agree about the anger but that doesn't mean the motive wasn't the inheritance.

But the anger aspect does not quite mesh with the year long planning.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 01:05:PM




During the last 12 months of Sheila's life,she'd relied heavily on cannabis and as a consequence,smoked heavily too. Remember,there was only a trace in her bloodstream which meant that her last smoke would have been days before she arrived at WHF.
Because of her reliance on the drug,she would STILL have suffered withdrawal symptoms as I'd mentioned.

Clearly, you know nothing about cannabis Lookout, it doesn't work like that.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 01:06:PM
I agree about the anger but that doesn't mean the motive wasn't the inheritance.





No way did it have anything to do with inheritance. The only one full of anger and frustration was Sheila.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 01:07:PM
But the anger aspect does not quite mesh with the year long planning.

Maybe not to you but it certainly does to me. When it came down to the actual murder, the anger came out - nothing strange about that.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 01:09:PM




No way did it have anything to do with inheritance. The only one full of anger and frustration was Sheila.

That's just your opinion but not one shared by the court or the majority.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 01:10:PM



Hi Susan,this is what we're told. ;) To keep us quiet. ;D ;D ;D

Quiet about what? That the whole thing happened because Sheila didn't have a joint?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 20, 2015, 01:11:PM
Maybe not to you but it certainly does to me. When it came down to the actual murder, the anger came out - nothing strange about that.

But he is supposed to have thought of so many things, little details, down to moving telephones, staging a suicide with the Bible, making Sheila´s bed and on and on - while boiling with anger.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 20, 2015, 01:19:PM
But he is supposed to have thought of so many things, little details, down to moving telephones, staging a suicide with the Bible, making Sheila´s bed and on and on - while boiling with anger.

Not wanting to get caught doesn't mean he wasn't angry.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 01:21:PM
But he is supposed to have thought of so many things, little details, down to moving telephones, staging a suicide with the Bible, making Sheila´s bed and on and on - while boiling with anger.

And? (Although not sure where making Sheila's bed comes into it).
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 20, 2015, 01:22:PM



Hi Susan,this is what we're told. ;) To keep us quiet. ;D ;D ;D

Hi lookout you are so funny and bring a smile to my face that is why I loves ya ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 20, 2015, 01:28:PM
Not wanting to get caught doesn't mean he wasn't angry.

Just saying the overkill and rage doesn´t quite mesh with a cold, calculated inheritance killing. To me at least. Something is off.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 20, 2015, 01:30:PM
And? (Although not sure where making Sheila's bed comes into it).

And? Am I entitled to an opinion, or?

I have heard it claimed that he made her bed - along with a lot of other little things.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 20, 2015, 01:45:PM
And? Am I entitled to an opinion, or?

I have heard it claimed that he made her bed - along with a lot of other little things.

Alias it has been said that Sheila's bed looked like it had not been slept in therefore indicating she never went to bed other than lie on the top some have said she did go to bed and Jeremy made her bed before he left not sure where all this is going but it has been banded about the forum manytimes.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 01:47:PM
And? Am I entitled to an opinion, or?

I have heard it claimed that he made her bed - along with a lot of other little things.

Where did I say you weren't? I am also entitled to mine and see absolutely nothing wrong with the notion that during the execution of the murders he unleashed some anger.

Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 01:49:PM
Alias it has been said that Sheila's bed looked like it had not been slept in therefore indicating she never went to bed other than lie on the top some have said she did go to bed and Jeremy made her bed before he left not sure where all this is going but it has been banded about the forum manytimes.

I've never seen anyone post that Jeremy made the bed but if they did, it's simply their opinion - it's certainly not a main stream belief.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 20, 2015, 01:55:PM
I've never seen anyone post that Jeremy made the bed but if they did, it's simply their opinion - it's certainly not a main stream belief.

maybe I have just imagined it I am really bad for doing that ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 01:59:PM
Quote from: susan link=topic=6723.msg 307072#msg307072 date=1432124556
Hi lookout you are so funny and bring a smile to my face that is why I loves ya ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D





Aww,Susan,that's lovely. Loves ya back. :-* :-* :-* :-* ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 02:27:PM
 He must have made his dad and himself a cup of tea before killing him-----------2 cups on,or near the Aga.

To my knowledge,there was never any boasting done about his conquests after the event. Isn't this another trait of psychopaths  ? I imagine all psychopaths are different in their tactics. So you wouldn't know who was one and who wasn't.   :)
Jeremy hasn't " lost it " in prison either. He's continued to keep his cool. He couldn't have faced this long locked up if he'd been guilty. Not once has he been on suicide watch ( sign of guilt )  He's shown determination to prove his innocence which he has to be admired for.

No planning was done for these murders.It was done on the spur of the moment and carried out in a frenzied and mad fashion. It HAD to be someone who was clinically INSANE.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 20, 2015, 03:10:PM
More than enough has been said about Jeremy and his drugs,even JM for that matter,but NOTHING has ever been said about it being in the safe at the farmhouse,or who it belonged to. Strange,that.



Is there proof of it being in the safe? ie, is it on an items found list?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 20, 2015, 03:14:PM




During the last 12 months of Sheila's life,she'd relied heavily on cannabis and as a consequence,smoked heavily too. Remember,there was only a trace in her bloodstream which meant that her last smoke would have been days before she arrived at WHF.
Because of her reliance on the drug,she would STILL have suffered withdrawal symptoms as I'd mentioned.


Yet when the died there was barely a detectable amount found in her blood which doesn't suggest reliance.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 20, 2015, 03:17:PM




No way did it have anything to do with inheritance. The only one full of anger and frustration was Sheila.


Yet it appears, from what you've said previously, that Jeremy resented being a farm labourer. An early inheritance would have negated his need to be such.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 03:46:PM


Is there proof of it being in the safe? ie, is it on an items found list?





I had read that when RWB found the key to the safe,when opened,there were papers and " some " cannabis.
He was quite an expert when it came to finding things. ::)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 03:49:PM

Yet when the died there was barely a detectable amount found in her blood which doesn't suggest reliance.






It'd most certainly spell reliance when only a trace of it was found in her blood. It must have been all of 4 days that she'd already been without. The fact that it was still in her body at all spoke for itself.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 20, 2015, 03:57:PM




I had read that when RWB found the key to the safe,when opened,there were papers and " some " cannabis.
He was quite an expert when it came to finding things. ::)

lookout Jeremy told Colin the safe contained a small amount of cannabis that Ralph had confiscated from a guest  (young man staying there) and Jeremy thought it was funny.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 04:02:PM
lookout Jeremy told Colin the safe contained a small amount of cannabis that Ralph had confiscated from a guest  (young man staying there) and Jeremy thought it was funny.






Funnier still that the guy was also related to the relatives-------------which is probably why Jeremy laughed. ;D ;D ;D ;D No wonder it was toned down.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 20, 2015, 04:12:PM




I had read that when RWB found the key to the safe,when opened,there were papers and " some " cannabis.
He was quite an expert when it came to finding things. ::)

So there is no official proof then?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 05:11:PM
So there is no official proof then?






There is somewhere------------beyond this forum. :)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 20, 2015, 05:14:PM





There is somewhere------------beyond this forum. :)

Hmmmmm ;)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 05:40:PM
Hmmmmm ;)






Oh,there is,or how would I know ? Also where the key itself was.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 20, 2015, 06:07:PM





Oh,there is,or how would I know ? Also where the key itself was.


I noted RWB's name in the equation  ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 06:13:PM





Oh,there is,or how would I know ? Also where the key itself was.

Because it's been mentioned here many times.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 20, 2015, 06:15:PM

I noted RWB's name in the equation  ;D






Indeed that is so. He who'd had the gall to go above a senior detective after the murder/suicide verdict.
The more I read about that man,the more desperate he was to get shut of Jeremy.I wonder how Neville would have viewed it all had he been alive. 
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 20, 2015, 06:41:PM





Indeed that is so. He who'd had the gall to go above a senior detective after the murder/suicide verdict.
The more I read about that man,the more desperate he was to get shut of Jeremy.I wonder how Neville would have viewed it all had he been alive.

If he'd been alive, it wouldn't have been an issue  ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jan on May 21, 2015, 12:50:PM
So there is no official proof then?

I think you will find it in one of Anne Eatons statements because JB said to her you might get a shock when you open the safe.


So it depends if you believe her - not necessarily Jeremy alone.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 01:22:PM
I think you will find it in one of Anne Eatons statements because JB said to her you might get a shock when you open the safe.


So it depends if you believe her - not necessarily Jeremy alone.

I can't see why anyone would lie about the cannabis. Other the the slant Lookout applied to it, I can't see that it has any baring on what happened.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 01:29:PM
I think you will find it in one of Anne Eatons statements because JB said to her you might get a shock when you open the safe.


So it depends if you believe her - not necessarily Jeremy alone.

Jan Colin stated that Sheila had told him about the cannabis that Ralph had kept in the safe.  It would appear Jeremy thought it funny that Ralph should keep it in the safe..
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 21, 2015, 01:50:PM
Jan Colin stated that Sheila had told him about the cannabis that Ralph had kept in the safe.  It would appear Jeremy thought it funny that Ralph should keep it in the safe..

Well, it was. Why didn´t he throw it out?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 02:19:PM
Well, it was. Why didn´t he throw it out?

Alias  the small lump of cannabis was confiscated from some guy staying at the farm by Ralph it was found in the safe together with the accompanying letter (not sure what the letter was about) Jeremy laughed because he said his parents like to keep things that they could use if desired to make people do as they wished and this is why June took the nude photo's of Sheila and kept them at WHF.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 21, 2015, 02:21:PM
Alias  the small lump of cannabis was confiscated from some guy staying at the farm by Ralph it was found in the safe together with the accompanying letter (not sure what the letter was about) Jeremy laughed because he said his parents like to keep things that they could use if desired to make people do as they wished and this is why June took the nude photo's of Sheila and kept them at WHF.

Not all that nice, if you ask me.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 02:45:PM
Not all that nice, if you ask me.

Alias not nice at all.  Wonder what the letter was.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 02:51:PM
I can't see why anyone would lie about the cannabis. Other the the slant Lookout applied to it, I can't see that it has any baring on what happened.






Folk were quick enough to point out about a measly plant growing in JB's back garden,but weren't so forthcoming about cannabis having been found in the safe at WHF where Jeremy no longer lived.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 05:25:PM





Folk were quick enough to point out about a measly plant growing in JB's back garden,but weren't so forthcoming about cannabis having been found in the safe at WHF where Jeremy no longer lived.

Jeremy sold cannabis, it wasn't just a 'measly plant'.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 05:27:PM
Alias  the small lump of cannabis was confiscated from some guy staying at the farm by Ralph it was found in the safe together with the accompanying letter (not sure what the letter was about) Jeremy laughed because he said his parents like to keep things that they could use if desired to make people do as they wished and this is why June took the nude photo's of Sheila and kept them at WHF.

Kinda shows the regard he held his parents in.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 05:33:PM
Jeremy sold cannabis, it wasn't just a 'measly plant'.






I'm on about the cannabis which was in the safe. Something which RWB forgot to add against Jeremy's list of " horror stories ". Did EP question who it belonged to and where it ended up ?
JM did her fair share of selling too.She went further afield to Canada to bring it back.No objections there,then.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 05:36:PM
Kinda shows the regard he held his parents in.

Sadly it seems he had a very low opinion even to suggest what he did :'(
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jan on May 21, 2015, 06:20:PM
Kinda shows the regard he held his parents in.

so did his side kick bonnie - and according to one official document she smuggled as well.

Nice as she was training to be a teacher - but no doubt that was all Jeremys fault as well.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 06:23:PM
so did his side kick bonnie - and according to one official document she smuggled as well.

Nice as she was training to be a teacher - but no doubt that was all Jeremys fault as well.

She didn't kill her family though.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 21, 2015, 06:26:PM
Alias  the small lump of cannabis was confiscated from some guy staying at the farm by Ralph it was found in the safe together with the accompanying letter (not sure what the letter was about) Jeremy laughed because he said his parents like to keep things that they could use if desired to make people do as they wished and this is why June took the nude photo's of Sheila and kept them at WHF.

That makes little sense that June would keep nude pictures of Sheila to blackmail her with.  It sounds like Jeremy just transferred his own intentions upon them. 
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 06:31:PM
That makes little sense that June would keep nude pictures of Sheila to blackmail her with.  It sounds like Jeremy just transferred his own intentions upon them.





Jeremy had left the family home.Would he not have taken the photos with him rather than leave them in a drawer at WHF. ?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 06:36:PM
That makes little sense that June would keep nude pictures of Sheila to blackmail her with.  It sounds like Jeremy just transferred his own intentions upon them.

What would Nevill and June do with nude pictures of Sheila if she didn't do what they wanted? Sell them in the local rag? Put them in the Post Office window? Jeremy was just trying to put his parents in a bad light (again).
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 06:38:PM




Jeremy had left the family home.Would he not have taken the photos with him rather than leave them in a drawer at WHF. ?

Perhaps the pictures belonged to Sheila and she'd left them behind. But then again, we don't know that the pictures were at WHF, it's once again a story coming from Jeremy.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 21, 2015, 06:39:PM
Jeremy had left the family home.Would he not have taken the photos with him rather than leave them in a drawer at WHF. ?

We only have Jeremy's word that such is where he found them.  June would have destroyed them not saved them so if they were at WHF it was Sheila who brought them there with her and hid them.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 21, 2015, 06:43:PM
What would Nevill and June do with nude pictures of Sheila if she didn't do what they wanted? Sell them in the local rag? Put them in the Post Office window? Jeremy was just trying to put his parents in a bad light (again).

That is why I said it makes little sense and just amounts to Jeremy transferring his own character onto them. There are a tiny minority of parents who might release such to shame a child but certainly June would not want other people knowing about it- it would embarrass her more than Sheila most likely if it got out.

Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 06:45:PM
That is why I said it makes little sense and just amounts to Jeremy transferring his own character onto them. There are a tiny minority of parents who might release such to shame a child but certainly June would not want other people knowing about it- it would embarrass her more than Sheila most likely if it got out.

Of course.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 06:48:PM
That makes little sense that June would keep nude pictures of Sheila to blackmail her with.  It sounds like Jeremy just transferred his own intentions upon them.

Scipio your post makes good sense maybe June just wanted the photo's  in her possession so they would not be viewed by others.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 21, 2015, 07:07:PM
Scipio your post makes good sense maybe June just wanted the photo's  in her possession so they would not be viewed by others.

I think in that case she would destroy them.  Unless one is from a nudist family or family of exotic dancers or something of that sort I can't imagine parents retaining them. June surely didn't work at the Bunny Ranch in Nevada though or some similar establishment and view such pictures proudly. I knew someone who was proud of her daughter who did a nude scene in a movie.  There are some people like that but they are the minority. Given what we know about June though we can safely rule out such "progressive" views of it. Thus I can't fathom a motive for her keeping them.

   

   
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 07:15:PM
I think in that case she would destroy them.  Unless one is from a nudist family or family of exotic dancers or something of that sort I can't imagine parents retaining them. June surely didn't work at the Bunny Ranch in Nevada though or some similar establishment and view such pictures proudly. I knew someone who was proud of her daughter who did a nude scene in a movie.  There are some people like that but they are the minority. Given what we know about June though we can safely rule out such "progressive" views of it. Thus I can't fathom a motive for her keeping them

Scipio

I have just referred to Colin's book in which he talks of these photo's and what Jeremy told him that he found them in his Mother's bureau at WHF and she probably took them away from Sheila's flat when Sheila was in hospital (Jeremy's words not mine) if June removed the photo's for safe keeping why did she not burn them in the Aga why would she keep them that is if she ever had them maybe Jeremy found them in Sheila's flat and just told Colin that story to make June look bad as Caroline previously said.
.

   

 
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 07:15:PM
I don't believe that June had them.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 21, 2015, 07:37:PM
Scipio

I have just referred to Colin's book in which he talks of these photo's and what Jeremy told him that he found them in his Mother's bureau at WHF and she probably took them away from Sheila's flat when Sheila was in hospital (Jeremy's words not mine) if June removed the photo's for safe keeping why did she not burn them in the Aga why would she keep them that is if she ever had them maybe Jeremy found them in Sheila's flat and just told Colin that story to make June look bad as Caroline previously said.

Taking them while she was hospitalized so no one else would find them and then saving them for her till she came out with the intention of giving the back certainly doesn't sound like something June would do.  If June is the woman reported then she would have destroyed them.

Jeremy lied to different people about different things.  He would tell different stories to different people. He lied to Colin about many things including the false claim the family was going for for her to give up the twins for adoption. Colin even noted how dare they think they could do such without his permission. Nothing Jeremy claims is trustworthy. Without evidence to support his claims they simply don't deserve much deference.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 07:40:PM
June was rooting around Sheila's flat when she took the photos. What sort of a person goes rifling through your belongings while you're in hospital ? That was despicable. She deserved to be met by what she saw for being nosy.I'd have put a couple of mouse-traps in there.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 07:42:PM
June was rooting around Sheila's flat when she took the photos. What sort of a person goes rifling through your belongings while you're in hospital ? That was despicable. She deserved to be met by what she saw for being nosy.I'd have put a couple of mouse-traps in there.

Say's who? Claire Powell?  ::)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 07:44:PM
I wasn't aware June had been to Sheilas flat.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 21, 2015, 07:45:PM
June was rooting around Sheila's flat when she took the photos. What sort of a person goes rifling through your belongings while you're in hospital ? That was despicable. She deserved to be met by what she saw for being nosy.I'd have put a couple of mouse-traps in there.



I take it you have evidence of June doing this, Lookout. Frankly, I find the suggestion UTTERLY despicable. It sounds like a deliberate attempt to sully June's good name. IMO, such an action would be alien to her.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 07:46:PM


I take it you have evidence of June doing this, Lookout. Frankly, I find the suggestion UTTERLY despicable. It sounds like a deliberate attempt to sully June's good name. IMO, such an action would be alien to her.

Lookouts vileness towards June continues.  ::)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 07:58:PM
I wasn't aware June had been to Sheilas flat.

Mat if you read Colin's book you will see that Jeremy said virtually the same as lookout other than mouse traps none of us know if Jeremy was telling the truth or lying whether we think he is guilty or not we cannot say for sure that what he said was not true we know the photo's existed as Colin took them. Now we must ask ourselves is Colin despicable for sullying June's name by repeating this in his book.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 07:59:PM
Mat if you read Colin's book you will see that Jeremy said virtually the same as lookout other than mouse traps none of us know if Jeremy was telling the truth or lying whether we think he is guilty or not we cannot say for sure that what he said was not true we know the photo's existed as Colin took them. Now we must ask ourselves is Colin despicable for sullying June's name by repeating this in his book.

No.
Colin states what he says Jeremy told him.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 08:03:PM
No.
Colin states what he says Jeremy told him.

Mat I am quite aware of that but can you be one hundred percent certain Jeremy made it up no you can't and neither can I.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 08:07:PM
Say's who? Claire Powell?  ::)





 It's in one of the books. Although it sounds more of what CP would have written as it's not that long ago since I read about it. Such as Neville and June's disapproval of Colin. Was there nobody that June liked ? Colin didn't have a good word to say about her and some of CP's descriptions of her leave a lot to be desired too.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 08:08:PM
Mat I am quite aware of that but can you be one hundred percent certain Jeremy made it up no you can't and neither can I.

But you can judge it on probability & by going off what Jeremy told other people about the photos. If you believe that Jeremy got the photos from the family safe & that June had put them there then that's up to you - but I don't.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 08:15:PM



STFU,you.I'm repeating what's written in one of the books. Anything to cause unpleasantness !
It's YOU who's vile. Two-faced wimp that you are.

What book calls June barmy?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 21, 2015, 08:18:PM



STFU,you.I'm repeating what's written in one of the books. Anything to cause unpleasantness !
It's YOU who's vile. Two-faced wimp that you are.


Lookout, I'm truly AMAZED that CP can say that of June. She didn't know her and she wasn't with her...............so how the HELL can she say that as if she was there?

?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jan on May 21, 2015, 08:33:PM
No.
Colin states what he says Jeremy told him.

He does - but a I said before he also is very uncomplimentary about June - saying he himself could have killed her ( his words not mine)


I still cant quite work out why - she had no way to put her side of the story - and if JB was guilty it had nothing whatsoever to do with the murders.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 08:36:PM
Pages 87 and 88 in CP's book explain how June was first suspected of the killings.

Page 82 of the same book is where I was damned to Hell over both the red and blue forum for having quoted what CP had written in her book referring to Sheila as a " poor demented creature ".
I never heard the last of saying " creature ".
Here is the context in which was written in,I quote," Gone was the anxious,sweet personality and in its place was a driven,tormented creature ",unquote.

Which was a description given by Sheila's friends as they noticed a huge difference in Sheila after her last visit/stay in hospital before the murders,and was how a friend had described her state of mind.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 08:46:PM
So,Mat,stop acting like a pox doctors clerk running onto the forum every time I post something that you THINK came out of MY mouth. I'm not given to making things up. Try reading CP's book yourself !!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 08:52:PM
So,Mat,stop acting like a pox doctors clerk running onto the forum every time I post something that you THINK came out of MY mouth. I'm not given to making things up. Try reading CP's book yourself !!

It would help Lookout if you said it was a quote. I agree you shouldn't be castigated for what someone else has said, but if you don't mention that it's a quote from someone else, you can't blame people for presuming what you write are your own thoughts.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 08:53:PM
But you can judge it on probability & by going off what Jeremy told other people about the photos. If you believe that Jeremy got the photos from the family safe & that June had put them there then that's up to you - but I don't.

Neither do I or AE and RB would have found them when they first opened the safe before Jeremy ever returned to WHF - post murders.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 08:55:PM
It would help Lookout if you said it was a quote. I agree you shouldn't be castigated for what someone else has said, but if you don't mention that it's a quote from someone else, you can't blame people for presuming what you write are your own thoughts.

I am still waiting to hear what book calls June, "barmy".

Neither do I or AE and RB would have found them when they first opened the safe before Jeremy ever returned to WHF - post murders.

June getting the photos and storing them in the safe is in absolutely no way believable. Good point on AE and RB.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 08:59:PM
I am still waiting to hear what book calls June, "barmy".

June getting the photos and storing them in the safe is in absolutely no way believable. Good point on AE and RB.

If we are talking about the nude photo's that Colin took of Sheila when they first met Jeremy stated he found them in his Mum's bureau he never mentioned safe that is where the lump of cannabis was kept.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 09:01:PM
If we are talking about the nude photo's that Colin took of Sheila when they first met Jeremy stated he found them in his Mum's bureau he never mentioned safe that is where the lump of cannabis was kept.

I am not even sure what a bureau is. Like a writing table? Even less believable.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 09:09:PM
I am not even sure what a bureau is. Like a writing table? Even less believable.

Mat why is that so hard to believe it was quite common place for ladies of that time to have their own bureau which is a place to keep your personal correspondence, photo's letters etc. Jeremy obviously knew what a bureau was the fact he mentioned it to Colin if he was making the whole story up why did he not say he found them at WHF.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 09:12:PM
Mat why is that so hard to believe it was quite common place for ladies of that time to have their own bureau which is a place to keep your personal correspondence, photo's letters etc. Jeremy obviously knew what a bureau was the fact he mentioned it to Colin if he was making the whole story up why did he not say he found them at WHF.

I am obviously NOT saying she didn't own a bureau!  ;D
I don't believe that June found those photos of Sheila and stored them in her writing table. You may and that is fine - but I do not.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 09:17:PM
I am obviously NOT saying she didn't own a bureau!  ;D
I don't believe that June found those photos of Sheila and stored them in her writing table. You may and that is fine - but I do not.

Mat you are saying you don't know what a bureau is ;D I do not believe I have said that I believed the story of the photo's the point I was making it was written by Colin in his book and lookout quoted from that other than adding the mouse traps) April accused lookout of trying to sully June's name she was just repeating what was said in the bloody book.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 21, 2015, 09:22:PM
He does - but a I said before he also is very uncomplimentary about June - saying he himself could have killed her ( his words not mine)


I still cant quite work out why - she had no way to put her side of the story - and if JB was guilty it had nothing whatsoever to do with the murders.

That right there is the strangest thing in his book, and I couldn´t finish it. I cannot wrap my mind around this.
He is describing the trial and talking about the hate towards Jeremy that emanated from the relatives. So much so that he was afraid it might sway the jury to find Jeremy innocent.
He goes on to say that he himself couldn´t judge Jeremy, since he himself would have killed June if Jeremy hadn´t. For Heaven´s sake what about his sons?! Was it all about June for him - his hate for her stronger than his loss of his sons?
I can´t believe that, but that is what you have to conclude from his words. Just couldn´t read on.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 09:23:PM
Mat you are saying you don't know what a bureau is ;D I do not believe I have said that I believed the story of the photo's the point I was making it was written by Colin in his book and lookout quoted from that other than adding the mouse traps) April accused lookout of trying to sully June's name she was just repeating what was said in the bloody book.

I said I think it is like a writing table, Susan. I am pretty sure that's what it is.

Mat you are saying you don't know what a bureau is ;D I do not believe I have said that I believed the story of the photo's the point I was making it was written by Colin in his book and lookout quoted from that other than adding the mouse traps) April accused lookout of trying to sully June's name she was just repeating what was said in the bloody book.

I am not sure what you're trying to do here, Susan. But perhaps you should aim that and April and not me, I don't think I can answer for April. Although April DID ask Lookout how CP would know about it, so I am sure April knew where it was from.
My issue was mainly the word BARMY to describe, June. Which is not from the book. You yourself have expressed to me in the past that Lookout should feel "ashamed"  for her posts about June, haven't you? So I am not sure what point you're trying to make.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 09:30:PM
I am obviously NOT saying she didn't own a bureau!  ;D
I don't believe that June found those photos of Sheila and stored them in her writing table. You may and that is fine - but I do not.

Just looking in Colin's book and interestingly, he mentioned the explicit pictures again .....

"I began to worry about the nude photographs again. If Jeremy was that desperate, I wouldn't put it passed him to try and sell them. As everything started to click and fall into place, I put all my fears into a letter, confronting him and once again demanding the slides. I got it off my chest but I was also too late; within minutes of having posted the letter at St. Just Post Office, I wandered into the local sweetshop to buy some chocolate where, to my horror, I saw the front page of The Sun.

'BAMBI BROTHER IN PHOTO SCANDAL. He tried to peddle sex snaps of model.' When I read the article, I knew if had to be true, they way the described him talking about the pictures was exactly the way he talked to me about them"
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 09:34:PM
Just looking in Colin's book and interestingly, he mentioned the explicit pictures again .....

"I began to worry about the nude photographs again. If Jeremy was that desperate, I wouldn't put it passed him to try and sell them. As everything started to click and fall into place, I put all my fears into a letter, confronting him and once again demanding the slides. I got it off my chest but I was also too late; within minutes of having posted the letter at St. Just Post Office, I wandered into the local sweetshop to buy some chocolate where, to my horror, I saw the front page of The Sun.

'BAMBI BROTHER IN PHOTO SCANDAL. He tried to peddle sex snaps of model.' When I read the article, I knew if had to be true, they way the described him talking about the pictures was exactly the way he talked to me about them"

Adds more weight to it really.  :-\
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 09:35:PM
Adds more weight to it really.  :-\

The journo couldn't know what Jeremy had told Colin and vice versa. Proves he tried to sell them!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 09:37:PM
I'm MORE than aware what people have said about me,but do you know what ? I don't care !
 Thank God I'm an individual,that's all I can say. I'd hate to go with the flow.

As for the word " barmy ",it's nothing to what CC had to say,especially in his letter. :o

Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 21, 2015, 09:42:PM
Mat you are saying you don't know what a bureau is ;D I do not believe I have said that I believed the story of the photo's the point I was making it was written by Colin in his book and lookout quoted from that other than adding the mouse traps) April accused lookout of trying to sully June's name she was just repeating what was said in the bloody book.


I take it you have evidence of June doing this, Lookout. Frankly, I find the suggestion UTTERLY despicable. It sounds like a deliberate attempt to sully June's good name. IMO, such an action would be alien to her.


Please point me to where I have accused Lookout of sullying June's name. MY words were "It sounds like an attempt.............." I don't need to be a member of Mensa to know that she EITHER read it or it's her own opinion -it could even be both- but I wanted to know from where the evidence came that June rifled through Sheila's things when she wasn't there. It isn't IMpossible that Lookout runs June down because she believes that Jeremy is innocent.

It's perfectly understandable that misunderstandings will occur if posters don't make it clear that they are quoting someone else's words.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 09:44:PM
I said I think it is like a writing table, Susan. I am pretty sure that's what it is.

I am not sure what you're trying to do here, Susan. But perhaps you should aim that and April and not me, I don't think I can answer for April. Although April DID ask Lookout how CP would know about it, so I am sure April knew where it was from.
My issue was mainly the word BARMY to describe, June. Which is not from the book. You yourself have expressed to me in the past that Lookout should feel "ashamed"  for her posts about June, haven't you? So I am not sure what point you're trying to make.

Mat the point I am trying to make is I am trying to explain to you what a bureau is ;D I am not talking about barmy as I don't know which if any book this came from and in any event it is a word I do not approve of.  Sorry if you thought I was having a dig at you I was out of order and should have responded to April not you as you were just responding to her post.  Now April started this and as far as I am concerned I am finishing it as it is getting out of hand.  I am one of the most respectful posters on here and do not like disrespect shown to anyone but I guess if somebody is quoting from a book the poster should not be condemned for it. Anyway Mat sorry if I have offended you in anyway it was not my intention :)

Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 09:49:PM

Please point me to where I have accused Lookout of sullying June's name. MY words were "It sounds like an attempt.............." I don't need to be a member of Mensa to know that she EITHER read it or it's her own opinion -it could even be both- but I wanted to know from where the evidence came that June rifled through Sheila's things when she wasn't there. It isn't IMpossible that Lookout runs June down because she believes that Jeremy is innocent.

It's perfectly understandable that misunderstandings will occur if posters don't make it clear that they are quoting someone else's words.

April  I understand and if I did misunderstand you I apologise what more can I say.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 09:50:PM
Mat the point I am trying to make is I am trying to explain to you what a bureau is ;D I am not talking about barmy as I don't know which if any book this came from and in any event it is a word I do not approve of.  Sorry if you thought I was having a dig at you I was out of order and should have responded to April not you as you were just responding to her post.  Now April started this and as far as I am concerned I am finishing it as it is getting out of hand.  I am one of the most respectful posters on here and do not like disrespect shown to anyone but I guess if somebody is quoting from a book the poster should not be condemned for it. Anyway Mat sorry if I have offended you in anyway it was not my intention :)

Fine and dandy and no need for an apology. x
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 09:50:PM
Page 93 of CC's book says that other nude pics that CC took in the fields were in a box in Mums bureau.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 09:52:PM
Page 93 of CC's book says that other nude pics that CC took in the fields were in a box in Mums bureau.





Asked how they ended up in June's bureau---------she was probably snooping when Bambs was in hospital.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 21, 2015, 09:52:PM
April  I understand and if I did misunderstand you I apologise what more can I say.



Thank-you, Susan.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 09:57:PM




Asked how they ended up in June's bureau---------she was probably snooping when Bambs was in hospital. CC's words,not mine.





In future Mat,put brain in gear before opening gob.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 21, 2015, 09:57:PM
Fine and dandy and no need for an apology. x

Mat I have to apologise when I am in the wrong and I am happy you are generous enough to accept my sincere apology :-*
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 09:58:PM

Please point me to where I have accused Lookout of sullying June's name. MY words were "It sounds like an attempt.............." I don't need to be a member of Mensa to know that she EITHER read it or it's her own opinion -it could even be both- but I wanted to know from where the evidence came that June rifled through Sheila's things when she wasn't there. It isn't IMpossible that Lookout runs June down because she believes that Jeremy is innocent.

It's perfectly understandable that misunderstandings will occur if posters don't make it clear that they are quoting someone else's words.

And therein lies the problem.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 10:00:PM




Asked how they ended up in June's bureau---------she was probably snooping when Bambs was in hospital.

Yep, again Jeremy happy to sully his dead mother's name. Hardly the actions of a grieving son.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 10:02:PM




In future Mat,put brain in gear before opening gob.

Well, it would help Lookout if you put the source of your information in future. There would be no misunderstandings or confusion.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 21, 2015, 10:06:PM
Well, it would help Lookout if you put the source of your information in future. There would be no misunderstandings or confusion.

Thanks!  ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 10:12:PM
Yep, again Jeremy happy to sully his dead mother's name. Hardly the actions of a grieving son.





It was COLIN who said that,not Jeremy. ::)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 21, 2015, 10:18:PM
Well, it would help Lookout if you put the source of your information in future. There would be no misunderstandings or confusion.






It makes no bloody difference.A couple of years ago I'd stressed that it was in CP's book that Sheila had been a" demented creature",and nobody took any notice.They all preferred to continue lambasting me for using the word creature as if it had come from me. ::) ::) I make a good punch-bag you see  for blue and red alike..
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 10:40:PM




It was COLIN who said that,not Jeremy. ::)

No it wasn't - Jeremy TOLD him June took the pictures to so she could control Sheila.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 21, 2015, 10:41:PM





It makes no bloody difference.A couple of years ago I'd stressed that it was in CP's book that Sheila had been a" demented creature",and nobody took any notice.They all preferred to continue lambasting me for using the word creature as if it had come from me. ::) ::) I make a good punch-bag you see  for blue and red alike..

It makes a difference to me.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 11:15:AM
No it wasn't - Jeremy TOLD him June took the pictures to so she could control Sheila.






I really don't know where your info comes from,because in CC's book it DOESN'T mention control at all.
What it does say that Jeremy had added,was,quote " that she,June,could bring them out if she ever wanted to SHAME Sheila or use them to make her toe the line in future,unquote " Not CONTROL !!

Pages 93 AND 94 IN CC's book.

 
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 12:38:PM





I really don't know where your info comes from,because in CC's book it DOESN'T mention control at all.
What it does say that Jeremy had added,was,quote " that she,June,could bring them out if she ever wanted to SHAME Sheila or use them to make her toe the line in future,unquote " Not CONTROL !!

Pages 93 AND 94 IN CC's book.

I'm not arguing semantics, the fact is that Jeremy implied to Colin that his mother and father kept the pictures (and other things in the safe), to get people to do what they wanted. The fact that they had died in terrible circumstances seems lost on Jeremy - but it would be, given that he was responsible. He then went ahead and try to sell pictures of his murdered sister. I am honestly shocked that people can't see just how despicable and callous a person has to be to act this way!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 22, 2015, 12:53:PM
I'm not arguing semantics, the fact is that Jeremy implied to Colin that his mother and father kept the pictures (and other things in the safe), to get people to do what they wanted. The fact that they had died in terrible circumstances seems lost on Jeremy - but it would be, given that he was responsible. He then went ahead and try to sell pictures of his murdered sister. I am honestly shocked that people can't see just how despicable and callous a person has to be to act this way!

Caroline
I agree it was the lowest of the low and why would Colin make it up and the newspaper printed that he had offered the pictures to them how could he do that is beyond me :(
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 01:01:PM
I'm not arguing semantics, the fact is that Jeremy implied to Colin that his mother and father kept the pictures (and other things in the safe), to get people to do what they wanted. The fact that they had died in terrible circumstances seems lost on Jeremy - but it would be, given that he was responsible. He then went ahead and try to sell pictures of his murdered sister. I am honestly shocked that people can't see just how despicable and callous a person has to be to act this way!






The same as I am shocked at the despicable acts of callousness that are carried out on the living.
Child abuse which goes unreported,and the latest young rape victim who was arrested and blamed for the crime of a monster.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 03:04:PM





The same as I am shocked at the despicable acts of callousness that are carried out on the living.
Child abuse which goes unreported,and the latest young rape victim who was arrested and blamed for the crime of a monster.

Thn you should JUST as disgusted by Jeremy!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: David1819 on May 22, 2015, 05:28:PM

I really don't know where your info comes from,because in CC's book it DOESN'T mention control at all.
What it does say that Jeremy had added,was,quote " that she,June,could bring them out if she ever wanted to SHAME Sheila or use them to make her toe the line in future,unquote " Not CONTROL !!

Pages 93 AND 94 IN CC's book.

You seem to always be citing books that support Jeremy's guilt... Very Strange  ::)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 05:33:PM
You seem to always be citing books that support Jeremy's guilt... Very Strange  ::)






Because those same books have a habit of running everyone else down apart from Jeremy. Very Strange Indeed.!!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 06:05:PM
Caroline
I agree it was the lowest of the low and why would Colin make it up and the newspaper printed that he had offered the pictures to them how could he do that is beyond me :(






I personally thought it was disgusting that CC would take nude pics of Sheila in the fields where people were working and the grounds of WHF to boot. Knowing full well that Sheila had once been caught by her mother in the same field.That was courting trouble, besides the man having little or no respect for his wife.  No wonder June must have been furious when she saw them. I would have been,too.
What a horrible thing to do. What did he intend doing with them,do we know ?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 06:12:PM





I personally thought it was disgusting that CC would take nude pics of Sheila in the fields where people were working and the grounds of WHF to boot. Knowing full well that Sheila had once been caught by her mother in the same field.That was courting trouble, besides the man having little or no respect for his wife.  No wonder June must have been furious when she saw them. I would have been,too.
What a horrible thing to do. What did he intend doing with them,do we know ?

But not that Jeremy tried to sell pictures of the sister he murdered? It's a little rich to talk about 'respect' under the circumstances. We know what Jeremy intended to do - that's more to the point, you can't pass the buck onto Colin after what Jeremy tried to do.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 06:16:PM
But not that Jeremy tried to sell pictures of the sister he murdered? It's a little rich to talk about 'respect' under the circumstances. We know what Jeremy intended to do - that's more to the point, you can't pass the buck onto Colin after what Jeremy tried to do.






The fact of the matter was that he DIDN'T sell them,so no harm done ?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 06:17:PM





I personally thought it was disgusting that CC would take nude pics of Sheila in the fields where people were working and the grounds of WHF to boot. Knowing full well that Sheila had once been caught by her mother in the same field.That was courting trouble, besides the man having little or no respect for his wife.  No wonder June must have been furious when she saw them. I would have been,too.
What a horrible thing to do. What did he intend doing with them,do we know ?


C'mon Lookout. They were adults. There's the suggestion here that Sheila had no choice in this. She was perfectly entitled to say no had she not approved OR felt it improper/inappropriate. The chances were that they were involved in an erotic game to which a hint of danger/naughtiness added extra frisson. The pictures would probably been for nothing more than their own "delectation."
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 06:18:PM





The fact of the matter was that he DIDN'T sell them,so no harm done ?

That's not the fact of the matter at all - not even close. The Sun didn't want them but his intention to sell them shows that he had no care or consideration for his dead sister. His remarks about his parents show that they too meant nothing - despicable!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 06:21:PM





The fact of the matter was that he DIDN'T sell them,so no harm done ?


So you don't think it says anything about Jeremy's character that he
may have been happy with the idea of the nation being shown porny pictures of his dead sister which, but for him, would have remained unseen?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 06:22:PM

C'mon Lookout. They were adults. There's the suggestion here that Sheila had no choice in this. She was perfectly entitled to say no had she not approved OR felt it improper/inappropriate. The chances were that they were involved in an erotic game to which a hint of danger/naughtiness added extra frisson. The pictures would probably been for nothing more than their own "delectation."






So you don't think that Sheila was manipulated into carrying out these disrespectful poses ?
Not forgetting that she was a girl who was easily led ?? Allegedly.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 06:27:PM





So you don't think that Sheila was manipulated into carrying out these disrespectful poses ?
Not forgetting that she was a girl who was easily led ?? Allegedly.

She obviously consented to the pictures, she didn't get a chance to consent to them being sold because she was dead. You wouldn't be trying to deflect the FACT that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures to The Sun and try to play down the magnitude of such a vile act would you? You don't think what he did was disgusting?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 22, 2015, 06:29:PM
So you don't think that Sheila was manipulated into carrying out these disrespectful poses ?
Not forgetting that she was a girl who was easily led ?? Allegedly.

Some women are exhibitionist, so who knows and more importantly who cares.  You seem to forget about your morals anytime it comes to Jeremy and just attack everyone else except the guy who clearly murdered everyone.  Not only do you close your eyes to such you close your eyes to anything distasteful he did. That is the point people keep making here and you keep stoking the fire.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 06:33:PM
Some women are exhibitionist, so who knows and more importantly who cares.  You seem to forget about your morals anytime it comes to Jeremy and just attack everyone else except the guy who clearly murdered everyone.  Not only do you close your eyes to such you close your eyes to anything distasteful he did. That is the point people keep making here and you keep stoking the fire.

I totally agree, it's a complete deflection from the point at issue. If Sheila consented to such pictures, so what? She didn't consent to them being sold, nor to losing her life and the lives of her children!!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 06:34:PM





So you don't think that Sheila was manipulated into carrying out these disrespectful poses ?
Not forgetting that she was a girl who was easily led ?? Allegedly.

I believe there was once a suggestion here about her alleged promiscuity.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 22, 2015, 06:35:PM





I personally thought it was disgusting that CC would take nude pics of Sheila in the fields where people were working and the grounds of WHF to boot. Knowing full well that Sheila had once been caught by her mother in the same field.That was courting trouble, besides the man having little or no respect for his wife.  No wonder June must have been furious when she saw them. I would have been,too.
What a horrible thing to do. What did he intend doing with them,do we know ?

lookout

Colin took the photo's at the beginning of their relationship and it was meant to remain between them Sheila wanted to be a model and Colin an artist so I think this is why the pics came about nothing vulgar or dirty just lovely pictures of the woman he loved.  Now whether June ever saw them or not I just don't know Jeremy certainly saw them not sure if Colin took these away to destroy them it is a little difficult to understand which photo's he did take.  Very sad state of affairs
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 06:37:PM
Colin describes in his book an incidence where June came driving out into the field - both Colin and Sheila were naked.
I am not sure if this has anything to do with the photos, but this particular day was the day after Sheila had had a provoked abortion.
I can see where June was coming from with her anger that day, I have to say. Sheila was very young - day after abortion, and he was all over her right away.  8)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 06:39:PM

So you don't think it says anything about Jeremy's character that he
may have been happy with the idea of the nation being shown porny pictures of his dead sister which, but for him, would have remained unseen?






They wouldn't have been in the paper anyway-----------not " porny " ones.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 06:40:PM
Colin describes in his book an incidence where June came driving out into the field - both Colin and Sheila were naked.
I am not sure if this has anything to do with the photos, but this particular day was the day after Sheila had had a provoked abortion.
I can see where June was coming from with her anger that day, I have to say. Sheila was very young - day after abortion, and he was all over her right away.  8)

But he didn't kill her or try to sell her pictures to The Sun afterwards, you can't get worse than that.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 06:42:PM





They wouldn't have been in the paper anyway-----------not " porny " ones.

You can't see that the action of trying to sell them is completely disrespectful and well ..... 'evil almost beyond belief?'
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 06:46:PM
But he didn't kill her or try to sell her pictures to The Sun afterwards, you can't get worse than that.

There are so many things Jeremy is supposed to have done, which put him in a bad light, but more than anything paints a picture of the most unintelligent man on Earth!
He has just killed his whole family and stands outside and says to the police that he doesn´t like his sister that much - then he goes on to sell nude photos of her. He must have been seriously bonkers!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 06:47:PM








Susan,if the pics found their way into Junes bureau,then she would have seen them.

Sounds as if June had been intimidated by Sheila's way of life,and Sheila had enjoyed tormenting her mother by her actions and took delight in being as unGodly as she could.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 06:48:PM
There are so many things Jeremy is supposed to have done, which put him in a bad light, but more than anything paints a picture of the most unintelligent man on Earth!
He has just killed his whole family and stands outside and says to the police that he didn´t like his sister that much - then he goes on to sell nude photos of her. He must have been seriously bonkers!

Not the most unintelligent, just VERY arrogant.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 06:48:PM





They wouldn't have been in the paper anyway-----------not " porny " ones.

Whether or not they'd have been published isn't the question, Lookout. The point is that this poor dead girl's own brother saw nothing wrong with offering them for sale.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 22, 2015, 06:48:PM
But he didn't kill her or try to sell her pictures to The Sun afterwards, you can't get worse than that.

It would be extremely scummy to sell nude pictures of family members even if you were not the one who killed them. The same people who excuse him of the murders excuse him of all wrong doing always either trying to say he didn't do the other bad things either or deflecting by attacking others instead. It seems that a big portion of their case of his innocence rests on their perceived notion of his purity and virtue as opposed to relying on the evidence.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 06:50:PM






Susan,if the pics found their way into Junes bureau,then she would have seen them.

Sounds as if June had been intimidated by Sheila's way of life,and Sheila had enjoyed tormenting her mother by her actions and took delight in being as unGodly as she could.

You're avoiding the question Lookout. I think you know what he did was despicable but for whatever reason you can't admit it. There is no other word to describe what he did.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 22, 2015, 06:54:PM
You're avoiding the question Lookout. I think you know what he did was despicable but for whatever reason you can't admit it. There is no other word to describe what he did.

Her case of Jeremy's innocence rests upon the belief Jeremy was virtuous while Sheila was a wreck so Sheila must have done it.  Anything that undercuts his virtue threatens the foundation of her argument.  If she actually looked at the guilt issue in the context of the evidence instead than his ill deeds would not matter so much one way or the other.  But the stand she decided to take requires her to defend his reputation at every turn.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 06:55:PM
It would be extremely scummy to sell nude pictures of family members even if you were not the one who killed them. The same people who excuse him of the murders excuse him of all wrong doing always either trying to say he didn't do the other bad things either or deflecting by attacking others instead. It seems that a big portion of their case of his innocence rests on their perceived notion of his purity and virtue as opposed to relying on the evidence.

The story was actually published and Jeremy hasn't denied trying to sell the pictures, neither has Brett Collins. He described them in the same way to both Colin and the reporter - there is no doubt that he did it and yet people are still trying to make excuses! Unbelievable!  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 06:58:PM
The story was actually published and Jeremy hasn't denied trying to sell the pictures, neither has Brett Collins. He described them in the same way to both Colin and the reporter - there is no doubt that he did it and yet people are still trying to make excuses! Unbelievable!  ;D ;D

You can ask Jeremy about it, Caroline.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 06:59:PM
You're avoiding the question Lookout. I think you know what he did was despicable but for whatever reason you can't admit it. There is no other word to describe what he did.






No,to be perfectly honest,I can't understand the big deal. I'd have been incensed if he had sold them,but he DIDN'T. There's one heck of a difference,as NO damage has been done and nobody is any the wiser.
What about the intimate pics that were first published about the deceased ?? Doesn't anyone find that objectionable,or is it only me ?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 22, 2015, 06:59:PM
Colin describes in his book an incidence where June came driving out into the field - both Colin and Sheila were naked.
I am not sure if this has anything to do with the photos, but this particular day was the day after Sheila had had a provoked abortion.
I can see where June was coming from with her anger that day, I have to say. Sheila was very young - day after abortion, and he was all over her right away.  8)

Alias

Just looked in the book and Colin states he remembers taking the photo's of Sheila right at the beginning of their relationship so it would appear they were before June found them naked in the fields not one hundred percent but it appears like that.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 07:01:PM
The story was actually published and Jeremy hasn't denied trying to sell the pictures, neither has Brett Collins. He described them in the same way to both Colin and the reporter - there is no doubt that he did it and yet people are still trying to make excuses! Unbelievable!  ;D ;D



Strange that whilst he was prepared to sue Kerry Daines(s) for calling him a psychopath, has has not been known to take the "Sun" to task for saying that he attempted to flog them porny pics of his dead sister.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 07:04:PM
You can ask Jeremy about it, Caroline.

Can I? But I already did.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 07:04:PM





No,to be perfectly honest,I can't understand the big deal. I'd have been incensed if he had sold them,but he DIDN'T. There's one heck of a difference,as NO damage has been done and nobody is any the wiser.
What about the intimate pics that were first published about the deceased ?? Doesn't anyone find that objectionable,or is it only me ?


Where would be the difference in the mind set of Jeremy TRYING to sell the pictures and the mind set of Jeremy when his offer was refused?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 07:05:PM





No,to be perfectly honest,I can't understand the big deal. I'd have been incensed if he had sold them,but he DIDN'T. There's one heck of a difference,as NO damage has been done and nobody is any the wiser.
What about the intimate pics that were first published about the deceased ?? Doesn't anyone find that objectionable,or is it only me ?

It wasn't his choice!! They didn't want them. It's not like he changed his mind, THEY didn't want them. I don't get the way you think - I just don't!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 07:07:PM





No,to be perfectly honest,I can't understand the big deal. I'd have been incensed if he had sold them,but he DIDN'T. There's one heck of a difference,as NO damage has been done and nobody is any the wiser.
What about the intimate pics that were first published about the deceased ?? Doesn't anyone find that objectionable,or is it only me ?

I have no idea what you're referring to.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 07:07:PM





No,to be perfectly honest,I can't understand the big deal. I'd have been incensed if he had sold them,but he DIDN'T. There's one heck of a difference,as NO damage has been done and nobody is any the wiser.
What about the intimate pics that were first published about the deceased ?? Doesn't anyone find that objectionable,or is it only me ?

I cannot believe that whilst you're slating Colin for taking the -PRIVATE- pictures you have no problem with Jeremy trying to sell them into the public domain.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 22, 2015, 07:07:PM
Lookout it would seem that the photo's that Colin took were in Sheila's flat and Jeremy said June removed them when Sheila was in hospital and put them in her bureau at WHF if this was the case I am asking myself why did June keep them and not throw them in the Aga I would have thought she would have been terrified of Ralph or the twins finding them.  We will never know the answer. I got the impression from the book that Colin removed them and the test photo's and destroyed them the famous ones as Jeremy called them were taken by him before Colin arrived at the flat.  After reading the book again it seems this was likely.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 07:13:PM
I have no idea what you're referring to.






When publications first went out,it showed  the bodies of June and Neville,as we see them on here.I believe Jeremy showed his objections to the press for having been insensitive.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 07:15:PM
Can I? But I already did.

So we are all waiting for the answer with baited breaths!  ;D

Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 07:19:PM





When publications first went out,it showed  the bodies of June and Neville,as we see them on here.I believe Jeremy showed his objections to the press for having been insensitive.

Strange how the thought of all that potential money in his pocket for flogging porny pics altered his mind set. HowEVER hard you may try lookout, there is NO way to make acceptable what he did.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 07:20:PM





When publications first went out,it showed  the bodies of June and Neville,as we see them on here.I believe Jeremy showed his objections to the press for having been insensitive.

Well, then he's a bigger hypocrite than I first thought. Complains about pictures of his murdered family, then tries to sell compromising pictures of his sister - he was probably more interested in trying to get a payout from the newspaper than he was about any respect for his family.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 07:22:PM
So we are all waiting for the answer with baited breaths!  ;D

Well given as it was one of the first questions I ever asked him, I would recommend you don't hold your breath because as usual, with a difficult question - he doesn't answer! And breathe  :o :o ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 07:26:PM
Strange how the thought of all that potential money in his pocket for flogging porny pics altered his mind set. HowEVER hard you may try lookout, there is NO way to make acceptable what he did.






If anyone else had thought the matter seriously enough,it would have gone down in someone's notebook as another" blot in his copybook" along with the other fabricated/colluded evidence.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 07:27:PM





If anyone else had thought the matter seriously enough,it would have gone down in someone's notebook as another" blot in his copybook" along with the other fabricated/colluded evidence.

It wasn't fabricated - he did it, which would seem to be fine by you.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 07:30:PM





If anyone else had thought the matter seriously enough,it would have gone down in someone's notebook as another" blot in his copybook" along with the other fabricated/colluded evidence.

Why? It was a murder case, not a pornography case.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 07:38:PM
Why? It was a murder case, not a pornography case.







They seemed to have listed everything else via the eyes and ears of RWB. Funny how he didn't press for that as a criminal offence along with the " homosexual activities " JB was alleged to be having with BC.
Collecting pornographic pictures of his sister would have been right up RWB's street to add to the other flimsy" evidence" he'd collected.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 07:38:PM
Well given as it was one of the first questions I ever asked him, I would recommend you don't hold your breath because as usual, with a difficult question - he doesn't answer! And breathe  :o :o ;D ;D ;D

Did you start writing to him before or after you thought he was guilty?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 07:46:PM
Did you start writing to him before or after you thought he was guilty?

I didn't 'start' writing to him, he wrote to me after I simply wished him well. However, if it's anyone's business, it was before. You think because I asked about the pictures it must mean I thought he was guilty? Well if so, your detective work is way off! We were discussing the photographs on her at the time, so I asked him. Least have have the courage to ask him relevant case related questions instead of blowing smoke like he's a celebrity.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 07:47:PM






They seemed to have listed everything else via the eyes and ears of RWB. Funny how he didn't press for that as a criminal offence along with the " homosexual activities " JB was alleged to be having with BC.
Collecting pornographic pictures of his sister would have been right up RWB's street to add to the other flimsy" evidence" he'd collected.


Lookout, are you truly missing the point here or simply trying to deflect from it? If this had come up, as it has now, when I believed Jeremy was innocent, the very least I could have said was that it wasn't one of his finest moments.  I would NOT have been trying to blame others for making it possible for the pictures to exist.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 07:47:PM






They seemed to have listed everything else via the eyes and ears of RWB. Funny how he didn't press for that as a criminal offence along with the " homosexual activities " JB was alleged to be having with BC.
Collecting pornographic pictures of his sister would have been right up RWB's street to add to the other flimsy" evidence" he'd collected.

the pictures were NOT illegal.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 07:48:PM

Lookout, are you truly missing the point here or simply trying to deflect from it? If this had come up, as it has now, when I believed Jeremy was innocent, the very least I could have said was that it wasn't one of his finest moments.  I would NOT have been trying to blame others for making it possible for the pictures to exist.

Only one person at fault here and that's Jeremy, there is no passing the buck or making excuses - it was despicable!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 07:52:PM
I didn't 'start' writing to him, he wrote to me after I simply wished him well. However, if it's anyone's business, it was before. You think because I asked about the pictures it must mean I thought he was guilty? Well if so, your detective work is way off! We were discussing the photographs on her at the time, so I asked him. Least have have the courage to ask him relevant case related questions instead of blowing smoke like he's a celebrity.

I don´t think I treat JB as a celebrity!!!  :o
I don´t want to have any contact with him, I don´t know whether he is a mass murderer.

No, you are way off about my "detective work", nothing along the lines you think. I was wondering what your thoughts were, as a then "supporter", on the alleged attempt to sell those photos. What excuses did you make for this was actually what I was wondering.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 07:56:PM
Only one person at fault here and that's Jeremy, there is no passing the buck or making excuses - it was despicable!


You're right Caroline. Which EVER way we examine this, and from what EVER angle, the simply is NO excusing his actions here -uncaring, unfeeling, insensitive, greedy beyond belief and as you say, despicable.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 08:02:PM
If he really did all those very stupid things, he must have been on drugs. I cannot believe anyone who otherwise functions somewhat normally would be up to antics like that after either killing his whole family or losing them at the hand of his sister. It is so out there that it is hard to fathom.
He must have lived in a haze of a drug induced fantasy world.

Has Brett Collins said anything about anything at all concerning Jeremy and the murders? He seems to have vanished under the radar - a bit like Julie Mugford. I find it a bit odd.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Stephanie on May 22, 2015, 08:21:PM
If he really did all those very stupid things, he must have been on drugs. I cannot believe anyone who otherwise functions somewhat normally would be up to antics like that after either killing his whole family or losing them at the hand of his sister. It is so out there that it is hard to fathom.
He must have lived in a haze of a drug induced fantasy world.

Or be a psychopath - no drugs needed
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 08:28:PM
Or be a psychopath - no drugs needed

Brett Collins was allegedly in on this, wasn´t it his suggestion? Then he too is a psychopath. And Julie, if Jeremy is indeed guilty, then she knew more than she lets on, it is clear, so she is a psychopath too. Three psychopaths.
I think a logical conclusion is that they lived in a drug induced fantasy world, but of course I could be wrong, just speculating because the whole thing is so outlandish.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 08:39:PM
Brett Collins was allegedly in on this, wasn´t it his suggestion? Then he too is a psychopath. And Julie, if Jeremy is indeed guilty, then she knew more than she lets on, it is clear, so she is a psychopath too. Three psychopaths.
I think a logical conclusion is that they lived in a drug induced fantasy world, but of course I could be wrong, just speculating because the whole thing is so outlandish.


 Most psychopaths don't kill and there is a strong chance that we all know/have known/will know one or two during our lives. Also there isn't a law against being one. As for them living in a drug induced fantasy world, perhaps it's as well Jeremy only did minimal farm work or the furrows may have taken on very odd shapes. I also wonder how Julie managed to do a Masters in a drug induced haze.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: David1819 on May 22, 2015, 08:40:PM
Brett Collins was allegedly in on this, wasn´t it his suggestion? Then he too is a psychopath. And Julie, if Jeremy is indeed guilty, then she knew more than she lets on, it is clear, so she is a psychopath too. Three psychopaths.
I think a logical conclusion is that they lived in a drug induced fantasy world, but of course I could be wrong, just speculating because the whole thing is so outlandish.


If it was driven by a drug induced fantasy world then it would be far more sloppy and reckless, The three of them would just go in wreak havoc kill everyone then leave, no phone call no police no covering up.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2015, 08:42:PM
the pictures were NOT illegal.

we havent seen them we dont know weather they were or they wernt,
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: David1819 on May 22, 2015, 08:44:PM
Or be a psychopath - no drugs needed

Jeremy worryingly only reaches 14 out of 22 on the scale of evil, Imagine being a 22!

1 - Those who have killed in self-defense, and who do not show traces of psychopathy

2 - Jealous lovers who committed murder; although egocentric or immature, they are not psychopaths

3 - Willing companions of killers: aberrant personality, impulse-ridden, with some antisocial traits

 4 - Those who have killed in self-defense, but had been extremely provocative toward the victim for that to happen.

 5 - Traumatized, desperate persons who killed abusive relatives or other people, but who show remorse for their crime and are not psychopaths

 6 - Impetuous, hotheaded murderers, yet without marked psychopathic traits

 7 - Highly narcissistic, but not distinctly psychopathic persons—some with a psychotic core—who kill persons next to them, with jealousy as an underlying motive

 8 - Non-psychopathic persons with smoldering rage, and who kill when the rage is ignited.

 9 - Jealous lovers with marked psychopathic features.

 10 - Killers of people "in the way", such as witnesses. Extremely egocentric, but not distinctly psychopathic

 11 - Psychopathic killers of people "in the way", such as close friends or even family members.

 12 - Power-hungry psychopaths who kill when they are "cornered".

 13 - Psychopathic murderers with inadequate, rageful personalities, rage being the reason of their killings.

 14 - Ruthlessly self-centered psychopathic schemers who kill to benefit themselves
 
15 - Psychopathic cold-blooded spree killers or multiple murderers.

 16 - Psychopaths committing multiple vicious acts, with repeated acts of extreme violence

 17 - Sexually perverse serial murderers: Rape is the primary motive and the victim is killed to hide evidence.

 18 - Psychopathic torture-murderers, where murder is the primary motive, and the victim is killed after a torture that was not prolonged

 19 - Psychopaths driven to terrorism, subjugation, intimidation, and rape, but who are short of murder

 20 - Psychopathic torture-murderers, where torture is the primary motive, but in persons with distinct psychoses (such as schizophrenia).

 21 - Psychopaths who do not kill their victims, but do subject them to extreme torture

 22 - Psychopathic torture-murderers, where torture is the primary motive. In most cases, the crime has a sexual motivating factor
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 08:51:PM

If it was driven by a drug induced fantasy world then it would be far more sloppy and reckless, The three of them would just go in wreak havoc kill everyone then leave, no phone call no police no covering up.

The thing is, if Jeremy did this, there actually are a lot of sloppy and reckless actions you have to accept. One being him putting a bloodied silencer into the gun cupboard another the attempt to sell those pictures.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2015, 08:57:PM

Caroline, I have yet to come across anyone of those who knew him pre murders who supports the description Lookout paints of him. Come to think of it, I've yet to meet anyone who knew June to describe her the way Lookout does.

have you met anyone who knew him though.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 09:00:PM
I don´t think I treat JB as a celebrity!!!  :o
I don´t want to have any contact with him, I don´t know whether he is a mass murderer.

No, you are way off about my "detective work", nothing along the lines you think. I was wondering what your thoughts were, as a then "supporter", on the alleged attempt to sell those photos. What excuses did you make for this was actually what I was wondering.

I didn't say YOU treated him like a celebrity - there are those who do though.

I probably defended him when I thought he was innocent - however, when he didn't answer the question, I thought he probably did try to sell the pictures. It's one of the niggles that went towards me changing my mind about him. However, at that point, I hadn't seen the documentary where the reporter recalls the meeting. There is no doubt in my mind that he tried to sell them and he has never denied it, even though I gave him the opportunity.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 09:01:PM
Or be a psychopath - no drugs needed

Spot on!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2015, 09:03:PM
I didn't say YOU treated him like a celebrity - there are those who do though.

I probably defended him when I thought he was innocent - however, when he didn't answer the question, I thought he probably did try to sell the pictures. It's one of the niggles that went towards me changing my mind about him. However, at that point, I hadn't seen the documentary where the reporter recalls the meeting. There is no doubt in my mind that he tried to sell them and he has never denied it, even though I gave him the opportunity.

i thought you said your qustion was about the money.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 09:04:PM
Brett Collins was allegedly in on this, wasn´t it his suggestion? Then he too is a psychopath. And Julie, if Jeremy is indeed guilty, then she knew more than she lets on, it is clear, so she is a psychopath too. Three psychopaths.
I think a logical conclusion is that they lived in a drug induced fantasy world, but of course I could be wrong, just speculating because the whole thing is so outlandish.

Why would it be his suggestion? Jeremy used him to contact The Sun for him. No he doesn't have to be a psychopath, just another victim of Jeremy's manipulation.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2015, 09:07:PM
if he used him to contavt the sun why dident he just let brett sell the pictures for him.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 09:09:PM
have you met anyone who knew him though.


I once knew a man who knew him briefly.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 22, 2015, 09:10:PM
i thought you said your qustion was about the money.


Did you think Caroline only ever asked him one question, Nugs?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 09:15:PM
Spot on!

So do you think that Brett Collins was a psychopath too, allegedly he was in on the pushing of pictures?

It´s just that if a group of people are doing things that are outrageous, very often drugs are involved.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 09:15:PM
i thought you said your qustion was about the money.

Ha, ha!! I did Nugs, I asked him lots of things, not just that!  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2015, 09:16:PM
so did he answer any of them then.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 09:17:PM
if he used him to contavt the sun why dident he just let brett sell the pictures for him.

Because he wanted to make sure he didn't get ripped off I guess. You would have to ask him that.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 09:18:PM
So do you think that Brett Collins was a psychopath too, allegedly he was in on the pushing of pictures?

It´s just that if a group of people are doing things that are outrageous, very often drugs are involved.

Brett Collins wasn't emotionally involved and hadn't just killed his family. I don't think drugs have anything to do with it, if he was spaced out 24/7 people would have noticed.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 09:19:PM
so did he answer any of them then.

Yes, unless they were difficult or might show him in a bad light.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 09:31:PM
Brett Collins wasn't emotionally involved and hadn't just killed his family. I don't think drugs have anything to do with it, if he was spaced out 24/7 people would have noticed.

So I wouldn´t be a psychopath if I suggested my friend sell his dead sister´s porn photos to a newspaper?
You don´t have to be emotionally attached NOT to do this!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 09:35:PM
So I wouldn´t be a psychopath if I suggested my friend sell his dead sister´s porn photos to a newspaper?
You don´t have to be emotionally attached NOT to do this!

That  wouldn't mean you were a psychopath, just immoral. Not sure where you are trying to go with this but it just seems like another attempt to steer the blame away from Jeremy.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 09:40:PM
That  wouldn't mean you were a psychopath, just immoral. Not sure where you are trying to go with this but it just seems like another attempt to steer the blame away from Jeremy.

Somehow I knew people would go there.
What I am doing is trying to make sense of it in my own mind. Drugs seems like a good explanation for several people´s participation in certain things.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 09:41:PM
Somehow I knew people would go there.
What I am doing is trying to make sense of it in my own mind. Drugs seems like a good explanation for several people´s participation in certain things.

The reason why drugs seem like a good explanation is because it's so abhorrent that it's hard to believe anyone would do something so vile ........ and yet.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 22, 2015, 09:48:PM
The reason why drugs seem like a good explanation is because it's so abhorrent that it's hard to believe anyone would do something so vile ........ and yet.

I am thinking about the things Brett was involved in and Julie too, not the murders. Drugs came to mind. That´s all, I am not defending Jeremy, how can that be seen as a defence? I am simply trying to see some logic in this.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 22, 2015, 09:52:PM
I am thinking about the things Brett was involved in and Julie too, not the murders. Drugs came to mind. That´s all, I am not defending Jeremy, how can that be seen as a defence? I am simply trying to see some logic in this.
I know Brett was interviewed by the police when he retuned from his visit to Greece and was discounted.  Mike did post a copy of the interview but haven't been able to find it again.   :-\
We have no idea if Jeremy is still in touch with Brett unless anyone knows differently?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 10:00:PM
I am thinking about the things Brett was involved in and Julie too, not the murders. Drugs came to mind. That´s all, I am not defending Jeremy, how can that be seen as a defence? I am simply trying to see some logic in this.

Perhaps there just isn't any other than Jeremy killed his family for the inheritance, but got caught because of his own stupidity and arrogance?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 10:05:PM
 Fielder wrote a statement at the time of the photo debacle,but was never called to give evidence at trial.
I wonder where his statement is,does anyone know ?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 10:11:PM
Fielder wrote a statement at the time of the photo debacle,but was never called to give evidence at trial.
I wonder where his statement is,does anyone know ?

Perhaps Mike has a copy?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 22, 2015, 10:13:PM
Perhaps Mike has a copy?
Might be worth asking him Lookout and about the Brett interview.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 10:30:PM
Quote," 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 and 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 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. Unquote".
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Steve_uk on May 22, 2015, 10:45:PM

One "truth" isn't necessarily the WHOLE truth. It's about cause and effect. We react to different stimuli in different ways, ie, when someone addresses us in a way in which we feel neither confronted nor attacked we are more likely to respond similarly.

Colin was saying it how he experienced it. A view which had to have been coloured by how he remembered the twins -clinging to him and pleading with him not to make them stay a WHF and his own guilt about having left them there. His words, regarding June, are undoubtedly angry, but given the tragedy, are they balanced?

It can't be denied that Sheila and Jeremy were probably -in secret- a disappointment to June. I feel qualified to say this because of the numerous times my mother told me I was a disappointment to her and wasn't AT ALL what she had wanted and planned for -not that my permission was ever sought, she assumed I owed her and would acquiesce out of gratitude. I think it reasonable to assume that June had planned for her children to be carbon copies of her and Neville, partly because that was her only frame of reference, partly because her breadth of vision was limited to how her sister's children were, and partly because her world moved silently from season to season and generation to generation with little change. It was safe. Or should have been!

I am truly sorry that you felt unsupported at school. It sounds as if you and your sister would have felt  isolated with your problem.
April what a powerful post. I think June did want to exercise control over her children even if she deceived herself that she was doing the right thing by trying to influence their choice of friends by believing it was ultimately for their own good. I was reminded of Obama's remark about country folk clinging to their "guns and religion" which offered some form of certainty and continuity in an ever-changing world. I think Colin blamed June for Sheila's illness with her remark about "always remembering God" and of course "the Devil's child" when the causes of schizophrenia are far more likely to be genetic. When June was stabilized herself at the end after her bouts of illness and left the heartfelt letter to be opened after her death she acknowledged her mistakes,which for her must have been a big deal as the Church must find it difficult to compromise on any morality without it leading to a slippery slope of debauchery and licentiousness.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 22, 2015, 10:48:PM
April what a powerful post. I think June did want to exercise control over her children even if she deceived herself that she was doing the right thing by trying to influence their choice of friends by believing it was ultimately for their own good. I was reminded of Obama's remark about country folk clinging to their "guns and religion" which offered some form of certainty and continuity in an ever-changing world. I think Colin blamed June for Sheila's illness with her remark about "always remembering God" and of course "the Devil's child" when the causes of schizophrenia are far more likely to be genetic. When June was stabilized herself at the end after her bouts of illness and left the heartfelt letter to be opened after her death she acknowledged her mistakes,which for her must have been a big deal as the Church must find it difficult to compromise on any morality without it leading to a slippery slope of debauchery and licentiousness.
Also an excellent post Steve
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 22, 2015, 10:50:PM
Quote," 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 and 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 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. Unquote".

Yeah right!  ;D ;D ;D ;D is that from CP again? What page? That's not what Colin or the journalist states, Jeremy has never said he didn't try to sell them and neither has Colin. That's Jeremy's twist!  ;)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 22, 2015, 11:04:PM
Yeah right!  ;D ;D ;D ;D is that from CP again? What page? That's not what Colin or the journalist states, Jeremy has never said he didn't try to sell them and neither has Colin. That's Jeremy's twist!  ;)






This was courtesy of Roch.But I don't know where it came from there's no reference to it or with it.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 23, 2015, 12:08:AM





This was courtesy of Roch.But I don't know where it came from there's no reference to it or with it.

With respect to Roch, it's not even a proper reference.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 23, 2015, 09:26:AM
I can help you out with that, it came from the 'Official' JB website. See here:
jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/ (http://jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/)

Say no more.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 23, 2015, 09:35:AM
Say no more.


Nuff said :D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 23, 2015, 10:18:AM
 ::) ::) ::) ::)-------------always shooting the messenger !!!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 23, 2015, 11:55:AM
I can help you out with that, it came from the 'Official' JB website. See here:
jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/ (http://jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/)

Once again, everyone is lying except Jeremy!  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 23, 2015, 12:40:PM
Does it not state that it ISN'T an account ? So therefore not to be taken as fact ?

I haven't read what it says-----------just the preface.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: nugnug on May 23, 2015, 12:47:PM
it say acounts of people who knew him so just there opinions really.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 23, 2015, 02:05:PM
That's what I took it as too,nugs. Jumping the gun is favourite here. ::)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 23, 2015, 03:00:PM
Does it not state that it ISN'T an account ? So therefore not to be taken as fact ?

I haven't read what it says-----------just the preface.

What 'it' are you talking about?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 23, 2015, 03:04:PM
What 'it' are you talking about?





Self evident. The PREFACE. Whatever's written beneath it,is someone else's account,not that which is written in document form.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 23, 2015, 05:41:PM




Self evident. The PREFACE. Whatever's written beneath it,is someone else's account,not that which is written in document form.

Written beneath what? I'm not trying to be funny, I honestly don't know what you and Nugs were referring to?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 24, 2015, 10:29:AM
Written beneath what? I'm not trying to be funny, I honestly don't know what you and Nugs were referring to?






Oh dear,I'm sure one isn't that thick. :o " IT ",meaning the information written by someone's own opinion. " IT'S " their own opinion which isn't documented. Their own version in other words.
That which is written beneath the preface.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 24, 2015, 12:57:PM





Oh dear,I'm sure one isn't that thick. :o " IT ",meaning the information written by someone's own opinion. " IT'S " their own opinion which isn't documented. Their own version in other words.
That which is written beneath the preface.

No Lookout, I am NOT thick at all, if your posts were legible I wouldn't need to ask what the hell it is that you're talking about. I wasn't rude to you but if you want to go down that road I can reciprocate! I simply asked you a question to clarify WHAT INFORMATION you were referring to because your post was a random quote and made no sense (nothing new there!!  :P :P :P :P).
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Steve_uk on May 24, 2015, 03:31:PM
"The case is littered with myths and circumstantial evidence" is a quote I think we could all agree on. There doesn't seem to be one piece of incontrovertible incriminating evidence after all Mike and Scipio's ding-dong battles with the silencer,the ammunition spilled out onto the blue and white chequered worktop,the telephone call and of course Julie's evidence to put this case to bed. If the relatives did tamper with evidence to secure a conviction then Jeremy understandably is not going to admit his guilt. He doesn't react to a death whether he caused them or not because he always has been frozen emotionally and I doubt now after 30 years he will allow anyone to get close to him again to uncover the abominable truth.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 24, 2015, 04:03:PM
 I don't think for one minute that anyone will own up/agree to " myths and circumstantial evidence ".

The reason Jeremy " doesn't react to death " is simply that he didn't cause the deaths of 5 people. I certainly wouldn't say he was emotionally frozen either. His life has been on hold for the past 30 years and the only route he can take to feel his emotions is by writing, and studying the reams of documents that he has.
His blogs which appear occasionally are mainly emotional,about his past,as that's all he has and I imagine he does a lot of thinking as well,which is all he can do being couped up.
As for the truth,he's certainly not going to know that if he didn't do it is he ? 
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 24, 2015, 04:33:PM
"The case is littered with myths and circumstantial evidence" is a quote I think we could all agree on. There doesn't seem to be one piece of incontrovertible incriminating evidence after all Mike and Scipio's ding-dong battles with the silencer,the ammunition spilled out onto the blue and white chequered worktop,the telephone call and of course Julie's evidence to put this case to bed. If the relatives did tamper with evidence to secure a conviction then Jeremy understandably is not going to admit his guilt. He doesn't react to a death whether he caused them or not because he always has been frozen emotionally and I doubt now after 30 years he will allow anyone to get close to him again to uncover the abominable truth.


Steve, I absolutely concur. I seem to recall one of your oft used quotes being about "a balance of probabilities" which I think is correct. It's more that possible that Mike and Scipio know far more about what they're talking about than do the rest of us. If the relatives did tamper with evidence, Jeremy would certainly know, and impotent to do anything about it, would, I imagine, be seething. I can't disagree with your assessment of him as being emotionally frozen -although we would possibly NOT agree on all the potential reasons for it. Like you, I we we are unlikely to hear the truth from him.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Steve_uk on May 24, 2015, 04:34:PM
I wonder where the emotion was as a child: the partition from his natural mother,his failure to bond with Nevill and June,his experiences at Gresham's,where the one male he did ever confide in led to him being labelled as "The Bastard" and later the only female he entrusted his life to betrayed him,his experience growing up with Sheila and watching her deteriorate in front of his very eyes,his urge to flee at all cost and the desire for human companionship so strong he succumbed to seduction by nonentity Brett,then there was Suzette who may have been the love of his life and with whom he did finally find some stability but who went back to her husband..it may have been Brambles the dog whom he only really cared about and when he died his emotion was buried alongside..
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 24, 2015, 04:57:PM
I wonder where the emotion was as a child: the partition from his natural mother,his failure to bond with Nevill and June,his experiences at Gresham's,where the one male he did ever confide in led to him being labelled as "The Bastard" and later the only female he entrusted his life to betrayed him,his experience growing up with Sheila and watching her deteriorate in front of his very eyes,his urge to flee at all cost and the desire for human companionship so strong he succumbed to seduction by nonentity Brett,then there was Suzette who may have been the love of his life and with whom he did finally find some stability but who went back to her husband..it may have been Brambles the dog whom he only really cared about and when he died his emotion was buried alongside..


WHOA!!! Steve, THAT is a real tear jerker. You've done a fantastic job of making me feel the pain and loneliness of a little boy who was TOLD where he was going to fit but didn't feel it OR perhaps you just made me recall how it was for me.

If his emotions hadn't become retarded by the time he was sent to Greshams, he would have felt guilty if he realized that he couldn't be the child his parents expected him and would probably have thought that this was why they were sending him away. Brambles MAY have been his only source of unconditional love. I'm inclined to think it didn't come from his parents.We ARE talking about a life time here -I'm very aware that I'm only -barely- skimming the surface. It took me MANY years to become the person I should have been -it's still a work in progress :D- I was told that what it had taken me 40+ years to learn, I wouldn't be able to UNlearn in 40 weeks. It was an effort which was MORE than worth it. Would I be able to say this had my emotions be REpressed? I very much doubt that I'd have seen the need.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 24, 2015, 05:01:PM
Why can´t parents just accept and love the children they are lucky to get unconditionally? Breaks my heart to hear about children who have felt unloved by their parents.
This isn´t just the case with adopted children, in my family two sisters were accepted and loved, I was one of the lucky ones, the third, not so much. It has affected her so incredibly much.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 24, 2015, 05:05:PM
Why can´t parents just accept and love the children they are lucky to get unconditionally? Breaks my heart to hear about children who have felt unloved by their parents.
This isn´t just the case with adopted children, in my family two sisters were accepted and loved, I was one of the lucky ones, the third, not so much. It has affected her so incredibly much.


That's the million dollar question, Alias.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 24, 2015, 05:42:PM
Why can´t parents just accept and love the children they are lucky to get unconditionally? Breaks my heart to hear about children who have felt unloved by their parents.
This isn´t just the case with adopted children, in my family two sisters were accepted and loved, I was one of the lucky ones, the third, not so much. It has affected her so incredibly much.
I agree, I cannot understand how you can't just love any innocent child.  I consider myself very lucky to have had a really secure childhood, it stays with you all your life and is the most important thing we can be given imo.
I don't think it's about being adopted, it's about the capacity of the adults, whoever they are, to be able to emote and give love, I suppose for soe if they don't experience it they have no way of knowing how to do it.  :-\
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 24, 2015, 06:14:PM
I agree, I cannot understand how you can't just love any innocent child.  I consider myself very lucky to have had a really secure childhood, it stays with you all your life and is the most important thing we can be given imo.
I don't think it's about being adopted, it's about the capacity of the adults, whoever they are, to be able to emote and give love, I suppose for soe if they don't experience it they have no way of knowing how to do it.  :-\


In a few words, you have just explained how abuse of all kinds gets handed down through the generations. PATTERNS REPEAT. You say "it stays with you all your life" when you speak of your secure childhood. Sadly, so too, does the INsecure. There is no differentiation. You're correct in that it has more to do with how parents experienced their own childhoods than adoption per se but I don't think the adopted victim of it will see it that way.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 24, 2015, 06:17:PM
I agree, I cannot understand how you can't just love any innocent child.  I consider myself very lucky to have had a really secure childhood, it stays with you all your life and is the most important thing we can be given imo.
I don't think it's about being adopted, it's about the capacity of the adults, whoever they are, to be able to emote and give love, I suppose for soe if they don't experience it they have no way of knowing how to do it.  :-\

Well, the strange thing is with my mother for instance, that she could love two of her children, but not the middle girl. Maybe some self hatred, I don´t know, because that sibling reminds the most of my mother. I can safely say about that sister that she has had it in her to give her son PLENTY of love.
We have another example in my family - maybe we are especially bad! Someone who has two girls and two boys. One girl and one boy get all the love, the other two, not so much. I can´t for the life of me understand it, they are perfectly beautiful, intelligent, pleasant kids!
Maybe this is very common, I don´t know, I hope not!
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 24, 2015, 06:21:PM

In a few words, you have just explained how abuse of all kinds gets handed down through the generations. PATTERNS REPEAT. You say "it stays with you all your life" when you speak of your secure childhood. Sadly, so too, does the INsecure. There is no differentiation. You're correct in that it has more to do with how parents experienced their own childhoods than adoption per se but I don't think the adopted victim of it will see it that way.
I agree April and there are many who are abused or neglected in childhood who are brilliant parents so you could say everyone has a choice and everyone is responsible for their own behaviour. I don't believe it's an excuse but then I don't know how it feels to be that damaged. :-\
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 24, 2015, 06:25:PM
Well, the strange thing is with my mother for instance, that she could love two of her children, but not the middle girl. Maybe some self hatred, I don´t know, because that sibling reminds the most of my mother. I can safely say about that sister that she has had it in her to give her son PLENTY of love.
We have another example in my family - maybe we are especially bad! Someone who has two girls and two boys. One girl and one boy get all the love, the other two, not so much. I can´t for the life of me understand it, they are perfectly beautiful, intelligent, pleasant kids!
Maybe this is very common, I don´t know, I hope not!
Don't think it's that common Alias but it is true in some families there are the golden children or child and the whipping boy/girl.  You poor sister but good for her to not let it make her bitter but to give her child a happy and secure childhood.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 24, 2015, 06:35:PM
Well, the strange thing is with my mother for instance, that she could love two of her children, but not the middle girl. Maybe some self hatred, I don´t know, because that sibling reminds the most of my mother. I can safely say about that sister that she has had it in her to give her son PLENTY of love.
We have another example in my family - maybe we are especially bad! Someone who has two girls and two boys. One girl and one boy get all the love, the other two, not so much. I can´t for the life of me understand it, they are perfectly beautiful, intelligent, pleasant kids!
Maybe this is very common, I don´t know, I hope not!


It's probably more common than you realize and in my experience, those responsible for delivering love in short supply are often genuinely unaware of it. THEY take the view that the child in question is more "difficult" or doesn't respond to them in the same way as its' siblings. Then of course it's discovered that the child in question was conceived at an inappropriate time -moving house had to be postponed/promotion at work didn't happen/the marriage was going through a rough patch. ALL these things can unknowingly get handed down to the child who is innocent of everything -except being born- but sadly becomes guilty of everything.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Alias on May 24, 2015, 06:39:PM

It's probably more common than you realize and in my experience, those responsible for delivering love in short supply are often genuinely unaware of it. THEY take the view that the child in question is more "difficult" or doesn't respond to them in the same way as its' siblings. Then of course it's discovered that the child in question was conceived at an inappropriate time -moving house had to be postponed/promotion at work didn't happen/the marriage was going through a rough patch. ALL these things can unknowingly get handed down to the child who is innocent of everything -except being born- but sadly becomes guilty of everything.

That is probably a good analysis of this phenomenon.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 24, 2015, 06:44:PM

It's probably more common than you realize and in my experience, those responsible for delivering love in short supply are often genuinely unaware of it. THEY take the view that the child in question is more "difficult" or doesn't respond to them in the same way as its' siblings. Then of course it's discovered that the child in question was conceived at an inappropriate time -moving house had to be postponed/promotion at work didn't happen/the marriage was going through a rough patch. ALL these things can unknowingly get handed down to the child who is innocent of everything -except being born- but sadly becomes guilty of everything.
Very true.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Steve_uk on May 24, 2015, 06:53:PM
Some parents are trying to live their lives through their children,a dangerous reincarnation which can only lead to disaster as the child feels the pressure of expectation. Other parents resent their children's successes as they remind them of their own mortality. My mind went back to the case of Will Cormick who killed his teacher in Leeds and a case in France ten years ago of a boy who couldn't finish an essay and just freaked out. Both boys described as from completely normal families..http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/boy-kills-family-while-watching-cartoon-movie-1.225408#.VWIOv0buM4U
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 24, 2015, 06:56:PM
This may turn out to be another one.

http://www.aol.co.uk/2015/05/24/murder-investigation-as-three-found-dead/?ncid=webmail1
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jan on May 24, 2015, 07:02:PM
This may turn out to be another one.

http://www.aol.co.uk/2015/05/24/murder-investigation-as-three-found-dead/?ncid=webmail1

or drugs - that's my bet.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 24, 2015, 07:17:PM
Some parents are trying to live their lives through their children,a dangerous reincarnation which can only lead to disaster as the child feels the pressure of expectation. Other parents resent their children's successes as they remind them of their own mortality. My mind went back to the case of Will Cormick who killed his teacher in Leeds and a case in France ten years ago of a boy who couldn't finish an essay and just freaked out. Both boys described as from completely normal families..http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/boy-kills-family-while-watching-cartoon-movie-1.225408#.VWIOv0buM4U
We need to remember we don't own our children, they're leant to us and hopefully if you're a good parent they will stay with you through your life.  Children never owe their parents simply because they are that, it's earned imo/
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 24, 2015, 07:19:PM
 I don't know what to make of it. I'll wait until there's more information when he's caught.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 24, 2015, 07:20:PM
We need to remember we don't own our children, they're leant to us and hopefully if you're a good parent they will stay with you through your life.  Children never owe their parents simply because they are that, it's earned imo/

Maggie you are so right we have to let them go especially when they acquire a wife but always be there if they need us.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 24, 2015, 07:22:PM
or drugs - that's my bet.
Usually is drugs, another tragedy.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 24, 2015, 07:25:PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32867037
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 24, 2015, 07:28:PM
We need to remember we don't own our children, they're leant to us and hopefully if you're a good parent they will stay with you through your life.  Children never owe their parents simply because they are that, it's earned imo/





Very well said,Maggie.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 24, 2015, 07:30:PM
Maggie you are so right we have to let them go especially when they acquire a wife but always be there if they need us.
They'll go anyway or stay and resent you so better to shut up I think ;D  That way they're more likely to come back. ;)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 24, 2015, 07:38:PM
They'll go anyway or stay and resent you so better to shut up I think ;D  That way they're more likely to come back. ;)

hahaha that is what I do shut up as far as the new wife is concerned ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 25, 2015, 10:15:AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32867037






He and Jeremy are worlds apart.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 25, 2015, 12:16:PM





He and Jeremy are worlds apart.

Huh? I didn't say he was anything like Jeremy, I posted the link because it looks like a case of Familial Homicide.  :P
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 25, 2015, 12:24:PM





He and Jeremy are worlds apart.

Do you not think that's a rather odd thing to say, Lookout, when you post information about endless suicides coupled with child killings. I get what you're alluding to but they can't all replicate what you believe Sheila did. One could even say that they were "worlds apart."
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 25, 2015, 12:31:PM
Do you not think that's a rather odd thing to say, Lookout, when you post information about endless suicides coupled with child killings. I get what you're alluding to but they can't all replicate what you believe Sheila did. One could even say that they were "worlds apart."

It's called leaping on the defence April and reeks of desperation. Trying to defend something when there is nothing to defend! A case of 'me thinks thou doth protest too much'  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 25, 2015, 01:35:PM
Do you not think that's a rather odd thing to say, Lookout, when you post information about endless suicides coupled with child killings. I get what you're alluding to but they can't all replicate what you believe Sheila did. One could even say that they were "worlds apart."

You can bet is there is a story in the press about a Mother harming her children, Lookout posts the link here.  ;D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32867037

I wonder if they will find him alive.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: maggie on May 25, 2015, 01:40:PM
You can bet is there is a story in the press about a Mother harming her children, Lookout posts the link here.  ;D

I wonder if they will find him alive.
I would guess not.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 25, 2015, 03:03:PM
It's called leaping on the defence April and reeks of desperation. Trying to defend something when there is nothing to defend! A case of 'me thinks thou doth protest too much'  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D






Nothing desperate about me at all I'm afraid,even though I expect remarks like that. ;)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 25, 2015, 03:06:PM
I would guess not.






I too wondered if he'd be hanging from a tree somewhere.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 25, 2015, 03:09:PM
Has anyone read the background ?
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: guest154 on May 25, 2015, 03:17:PM
I would guess not.
I tend to agree.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 25, 2015, 03:29:PM
Has anyone read the background ?







According to the DM,he struggled with loneliness and depression possibly after his parents split up. Then he struggled with his mother's alcoholism.
He already has a criminal record,but for what,isn't yet known. He would fly into rages at home and punch holes in the doors and at the walls. Mmmmm.
He didn't get on at work and was also unlucky with women. A loner a lot of the time.
One very angry man I'd say,yet police " don't think he poses a danger ?" Famous last words said by someone else. ::)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 25, 2015, 03:54:PM






According to the DM,he struggled with loneliness and depression possibly after his parents split up. Then he struggled with his mother's alcoholism.
He already has a criminal record,but for what,isn't yet known. He would fly into rages at home and punch holes in the doors and at the walls. Mmmmm.
He didn't get on at work and was also unlucky with women. A loner a lot of the time.
One very angry man I'd say,yet police " don't think he poses a danger ?" Famous last words said by someone else. ::)


Lookout, believe me, I appreciate that this is a difficult one to call. With the luxury of hindsight he posed a very great danger and it resulted in yet another tragedy. However, I wonder how many people had believed -and testified- that he DIDN'T. We have no idea of how emphatic was his mother when she complained about his rages -DID she complain about them, or did she, like your friend with the difficult daughter -even you, on your friend's behalf and maybe, like the Bamber's- prefer to keep it private? It seems that she may have had her own problems to contend with.

We know that police aren't qualified to make mental health assessments so someone above them must have deemed him to be safe but once again I'm getting a sense of the possibility of various agencies not being in communication with each other. It's easy to point fingers when things go wrong and I feel perfectly certain that he wouldn't have been allowed to roam around had he been considered dangerous -although it's up for grabs as to what would have been done with him had it been the case- on the other hand there is nothing the police can do about a potentially dangerous person until or unless they do something which confirms that they are so, by which time, of course, it's often too little, too late.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 25, 2015, 03:59:PM





Nothing desperate about me at all I'm afraid,even though I expect remarks like that. ;)

Good! I never like to disappoint  :P ;)
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jan on May 25, 2015, 06:14:PM
I don't know what to make of it. I'll wait until there's more information when he's caught.

This is quite close to where I live - information is gradually coming out - seems he did suffer from depression and on social media was saying he was finding it hard to cope. And yes it has been said - but not yet verified that his mother was an alcoholic - so lots more information to come out yet I expect.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 25, 2015, 06:15:PM
He's been found dead.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: susan on May 25, 2015, 06:16:PM
think the guy had been found dead in a wood somewhere in Oxford.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jan on May 25, 2015, 06:22:PM
think the guy had been found dead in a wood somewhere in Oxford.

Not surprised to be honest.

Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 25, 2015, 06:47:PM
 No,it doesn't surprise me either. His mind must have been all over the place. Depression does kill,one way or the other.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Steve_uk on May 25, 2015, 06:52:PM
Another tragedy with inherent socio-economic causes as an insecure young man disregarded in the workplace by conceited Oxford students moves in with his mother and potential father-in-law,yet not having the confidence to withstand the usurpers who share his mother's love,Derin too has to die at six years old as Jed reverts to his fantasy Wolverine character and fittingly chooses death with grace as he falls on his sword in a wooded rural landscape.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 25, 2015, 07:22:PM

Lookout, believe me, I appreciate that this is a difficult one to call. With the luxury of hindsight he posed a very great danger and it resulted in yet another tragedy. However, I wonder how many people had believed -and testified- that he DIDN'T. We have no idea of how emphatic was his mother when she complained about his rages -DID she complain about them, or did she, like your friend with the difficult daughter -even you, on your friend's behalf and maybe, like the Bamber's- prefer to keep it private? It seems that she may have had her own problems to contend with.

We know that police aren't qualified to make mental health assessments so someone above them must have deemed him to be safe but once again I'm getting a sense of the possibility of various agencies not being in communication with each other. It's easy to point fingers when things go wrong and I feel perfectly certain that he wouldn't have been allowed to roam around had he been considered dangerous -although it's up for grabs as to what would have been done with him had it been the case- on the other hand there is nothing the police can do about a potentially dangerous person until or unless they do something which confirms that they are so, by which time, of course, it's often too little, too late.







Speaking of which ( friend's daughter ) was kicking off this morning again,so when I heard her,and how angry she sounded,I went round to see if I could speak to her,but she was in her back garden and the outside gate was bolted from the inside so I just quietly called her name and she stopped ranting.
Her front door area,which is  half patterned glass, and looking through into the hall is a mish-mash of furniture used as a barricade. No sign of her little dog which barks at the least thing. Because I've seen the interior of the house,I'm at a loss what to do,if anything. I don't know how anyone on this earth can live in such a shambles. It's worse than a squatters place.
She isn't harming herself or others,just rants now and again,but the reason she won't come out of the house is because she thinks,or even knows she'll be arrested and sectioned.
My friend knows that the only time I'll call the police is if she comes knocking again about some escaped animal in the house,otherwise I can't really do anything.
She becomes violent if,and when she sees her mother. Her mother does contact her by phone as she feels obliged to with having her daughter ( arrangement by police and social services ) and they meet for coffee somewhere,but my friend remains on pins in case the daughter has an outburst,though I'd said that she wasn't likely to have a " turn " in public.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jane on May 26, 2015, 08:46:AM






Speaking of which ( friend's daughter ) was kicking off this morning again,so when I heard her,and how angry she sounded,I went round to see if I could speak to her,but she was in her back garden and the outside gate was bolted from the inside so I just quietly called her name and she stopped ranting.
Her front door area,which is  half patterned glass, and looking through into the hall is a mish-mash of furniture used as a barricade. No sign of her little dog which barks at the least thing. Because I've seen the interior of the house,I'm at a loss what to do,if anything. I don't know how anyone on this earth can live in such a shambles. It's worse than a squatters place.
She isn't harming herself or others,just rants now and again,but the reason she won't come out of the house is because she thinks,or even knows she'll be arrested and sectioned.
My friend knows that the only time I'll call the police is if she comes knocking again about some escaped animal in the house,otherwise I can't really do anything.
She becomes violent if,and when she sees her mother. Her mother does contact her by phone as she feels obliged to with having her daughter ( arrangement by police and social services ) and they meet for coffee somewhere,but my friend remains on pins in case the daughter has an outburst,though I'd said that she wasn't likely to have a " turn " in public.


Lookout, I can't but feel concerned. I wonder just how long you -and the girls' mother, who I believe NOT to be in the best of health, and are both, with respect, getting older- can hope to contain this problem. I can only hope that support for you both will be there at such a time it becomes necessary.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Caroline on May 26, 2015, 09:49:AM






Speaking of which ( friend's daughter ) was kicking off this morning again,so when I heard her,and how angry she sounded,I went round to see if I could speak to her,but she was in her back garden and the outside gate was bolted from the inside so I just quietly called her name and she stopped ranting.
Her front door area,which is  half patterned glass, and looking through into the hall is a mish-mash of furniture used as a barricade. No sign of her little dog which barks at the least thing. Because I've seen the interior of the house,I'm at a loss what to do,if anything. I don't know how anyone on this earth can live in such a shambles. It's worse than a squatters place.
She isn't harming herself or others,just rants now and again,but the reason she won't come out of the house is because she thinks,or even knows she'll be arrested and sectioned.
My friend knows that the only time I'll call the police is if she comes knocking again about some escaped animal in the house,otherwise I can't really do anything.
She becomes violent if,and when she sees her mother. Her mother does contact her by phone as she feels obliged to with having her daughter ( arrangement by police and social services ) and they meet for coffee somewhere,but my friend remains on pins in case the daughter has an outburst,though I'd said that she wasn't likely to have a " turn " in public.

Can you not call Social Services Lookout? It sounds like she needs help, even if she doesn't want it?  :-\ You could also call the RSPCA (anonymously if you wanted) and just say you're concerned for the little dog and explain why.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jan on May 27, 2015, 08:21:PM
Another sad case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3099469/Paranoid-factory-worker-stabbed-parents-death-frenzied-attack-psychotic-episode-smoking-cannabis-years.html
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 27, 2015, 08:27:PM
 It is sad as he didn't see the faces of his parents,he saw other faces during his psychotic attack which is exactly what happens.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 28, 2015, 01:11:AM
Another sad case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3099469/Paranoid-factory-worker-stabbed-parents-death-frenzied-attack-psychotic-episode-smoking-cannabis-years.html

That shows that if they release people they should drug test them because government workers are always fooled. Someone like that who believed aliens took over his parents'  bodies should have been on actual medication not pot.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 28, 2015, 11:08:AM
Let's not forget,Sheila was on both medication AND pot.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: scipio_usmc on May 28, 2015, 04:55:PM
Let's not forget,Sheila was on both medication AND pot.

Sheila used pot before she went to White House Farm, she didn't use it daily in place of medicine. There was none active in her system.

He was using steroids, and amphetamines not just pot.     

"Dantes has since admitted that he has smoked cannabis for the last 12 years for medical reasons and had smoked cannabis and taken amphetamines on the afternoon before the incident."

In the meantime they think he has persistent delusional disorder which is difficult to treat with medication.  Medication usually won't do anything to stop delusions. In 2011 he became aggressive so police had to be called and he was sectioned.  In contrast Sheila was well managed on her medication.



Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 28, 2015, 05:19:PM
Sheila used pot before she went to White House Farm, she didn't use it daily in place of medicine. There was none active in her system.

He was using steroids, and amphetamines not just pot.     

"Dantes has since admitted that he has smoked cannabis for the last 12 years for medical reasons and had smoked cannabis and taken amphetamines on the afternoon before the incident."

In the meantime they think he has persistent delusional disorder which is difficult to treat with medication.  Medication usually won't do anything to stop delusions. In 2011 he became aggressive so police had to be called and he was sectioned.  In contrast Sheila was well managed on her medication.







Sheila used cannabis as well as her medication,this was the problem as the cannabis counteracted the effects of what her medication should have been doing.
Peoples brains are wired differently,and remember that a male can tolerate drugs/alcohol differently from a female because of the differences in metabolism.

To be perfectly honest,I would have said that Sheila had been wrongly diagnosed to begin with,and medication for what the consultant had diagnosed her for was having adverse effects.
Yes----------right medication,wrong diagnosis. Simple as that. Sheila was NO religious freak,as this only occurred when she visited her mother. It was June who'd suffered religious psychosis,not Sheila.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 30, 2015, 03:47:PM
Another sad case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3099469/Paranoid-factory-worker-stabbed-parents-death-frenzied-attack-psychotic-episode-smoking-cannabis-years.html





Quite a harrowing background for a young family.

Part of the heading given to the above family,had the word " dysfunctional ". Such a sad background for both the killer and the little sister that he'd killed.
The mother,a recovering alcoholic ( I personally wouldn't put too much emphasis on recovering ) had been described as a Jekyll and Hyde character and who'd had 4 children to 4 different fathers,made life Hell with her drunkenness. Apparently,it's said that the killer son had only enjoyed a brief couple of years of his short life,and that he'd had a wretched upbringing.
Two of the 4 children had been taken into care.
Those who knew Jed stated that he wasn't a bad lad-------------he was made bad by circumstances.
It's also been said that the little sister who he loved,and she him,he'd killed out of love for her to protect her from the life that he'd had. One of his mother's male friend's said that if things had been different,Jed had the makings of a nice happy lad.

How sad is this ? If it's not religion,it's alcohol which ruins a person's life. :(
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: Jan on May 30, 2015, 09:10:PM
yes it is a very sad story .

Also the other one near me where the guy was very lucky not to kill anyone when he set fire to a cottage ( with an elderly lady inside) the council offices and a funeral parlour. He has been detained under the mental health act - part of the reason was bi-polar. He tried to commit suicide but failed.
Title: Re: Familiar Portrait?
Post by: lookout on May 30, 2015, 09:13:PM
You do have to have a certain amount of sympathy for these people.Their minds are so uncontrollably tormented. It is sad indeed.