Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on June 11, 2015, 03:22:AM
-
Peter Eaton- (received Aug 12, 1985)
Nevill's moderator- SBJ/1, renumbered DB/1, renumbered DRB/1
Ann Eaton:
AE/1 the telescopic rifle scope (renamed DB/2 and ultimately DRB/2)
AE/2 box containing Abu carrier Bag and rifle ammunition (renamed DB/3 and ultimately DRB/3)
CAE/1 Letter from Sheila to AE that was mailed from the hospital during her second breakdown (turned over to police on Aug 7, 1985)
CAE/1A Plan of the Caravan site prepared for Police
CAE/2 Notecard containing statements made by Jeremy the day of the murders
CAE/3 kitchen plan showing normal positions of the victims when they sat at the kitchen table
CAE/4 Notecard from August 8, 1985
CAE/5 List of questions prepared for police officers
CAE/6 Spare Key removed from coal shed by Jean Boutell and handed over to AE
CAE/7 Card from flowers sent by Jeremy to the Eatons
CAE/8 AJ/Barker circular found in rubbish bin
David Boutflour (rcd Sep 14, 1985)
Large Box of Raker shotgun shells containing 14 X 25 round boxes initial exhibit HGO/1, renamed DB/4 and subsequently DRB/4.
If anyone knows any others feel free to add to the list.
Robert Boutflour
RWB/1 Diary
-
So where do you think this is going to lead to ? What relevance is all this ?
-
So where do you think this is going to lead to ? What relevance is all this ?
It's called clarification.
-
It's called clarification.
Of what,or whose ?
-
Of what,or whose ?
The list is self explanatory Lookout.
-
So where do you think this is going to lead to ? What relevance is all this ?
Edification PARTICULARLY since some falsely claim AE/1, CAE/1 and SJ/1 among other designations were given to moderators collected from the family and/or WHF and some distort the designation history of other exhibits taken from the family as well.
In assessing whether there was any wrongdoing afoot during the moderator designation changes it is relevant that 3 other items were also changed to the DB designation at the same time as the moderator and the same 3 were later changed to the DRB designation at the same time as the moderator.
-
Nothing new.The case was built on false claims.
-
Nothing new.The case was built on false claims.
You and other Jeremy supporters allege such but the only evidence put forth to try to support such allegations has been nonsense such as nonsense this very thread is intended to set straight. The only thing you have raised to attack the case has been bogus for instance the false claim June and Nevill had nail marks from Sheila in their arms. Many Jeremy supporters feel the need to make things up because there is no genuine evidence to undermine the conviction. Few are willing to go with rational allegations because there is nothing to support those allegations and those allegations fail to address most of the evidence that convicted Jeremy. Instead there are nonsense claims of Nevill phoning police and claims of Sheila being shot by police and her body staged...
Supporters even absurdly suggest there is something wrong with removing the gun from Sheila's body and then taking photos. Supporters try to twist that into some conspiracy though they are unable to articulate what difference it makes. The suggestion seems to be that police lied about finding the gun on Sheila's body in order to support their claim she did it. This is supposed to prove they tried to frame her and because they were willing to try to frame her it means they must have been willing to try to frame Jeremy. It makes no sense at all that they would try to frame her and if they did decide to do such they would have never decided to go after Jeremy they would simply have stuck with her and made up further evidence. In the meantime if she wasn't guilty clearly Jeremy was. The notion someone outside the household did it is not the least bit credible.
All these smokescreens are because there is zero evidence that police found evidence establishing: Sheila loaded the weapon, fired the weapon or beat Nevill and then concealed such evidence. Indeed if such evidence had been found it would have been pointed out during the initially 3 weeks that they blamed Sheila. The failure to find any such evidence and proof that she didn't do any of these things is why they had to switch gears and face they were wrong about her. If there were evidence that police concealed proof of Sheila's guilt such would be raised by Jeremy supporters. There is none so instead smokescreens and deceptions are resorted to.
-
"Supporters even absurdly suggest there is something wrong with removing the gun from Sheila's body and then taking photos"
you said before they did not do this? then you said they would have made the rifle safe before taking photos.
Of course it is relevant - if the jury were shown pictures that "allegedly" showed a clearly set up suicide and that influenced their decision, but in fact things had been moved about and what they saw was not the original scene then of course it is relevant.
-
"Supporters even absurdly suggest there is something wrong with removing the gun from Sheila's body and then taking photos"
you said before they did not do this? then you said they would have made the rifle safe before taking photos.
Of course it is relevant - if the jury were shown pictures that "allegedly" showed a clearly set up suicide and that influenced their decision, but in fact things had been moved about and what they saw was not the original scene then of course it is relevant.
They moved the gun to take pictures of the blood on Sheila's nightdress and haven't denied doing so. There were pictures before it was moved and after. Had they not taken pictures of the blood stain, people would be asking why they hadn't.
-
"Supporters even absurdly suggest there is something wrong with removing the gun from Sheila's body and then taking photos"
you said before they did not do this? then you said they would have made the rifle safe before taking photos.
Of course it is relevant - if the jury were shown pictures that "allegedly" showed a clearly set up suicide and that influenced their decision, but in fact things had been moved about and what they saw was not the original scene then of course it is relevant.
I have always admitted police took the gun off her to take photos of the blood that was covered up by the rifle. I never said they didn't. There was nothing wrong with doing such it was proper procedure.
They took photos of her with the gun on her then removed it and took photos of her without it.
The killer did indeed place the gun on Sheila to make it appear she killed herself. If the killer had instead left it next to her body that still was to make it appear she killed herself. It makes no difference if it had been left on her or next to her. The fact she could not have killed herself and didn't kill anyone else helps prove Jeremy killed them all. The fact Nevill would not have made a call to Jeremy claiming he needed help disarming Sheila and could not have made a call to Jeremy help prove he murdered them. Julie's testimony that he was planning to kill them and did so helps prove he did it. The gun being found on her body instead of next to is not what convicted Jeremy but for the sake of accuracy it was on her body.
-
However the rifle was positioned does NOT mean that Jeremy killed all the family-------PROVE IT !!
-
However the rifle was positioned does NOT mean that Jeremy killed all the family-------PROVE IT !!
The location of the rifle was only important so far as it had to at least be close to Sheila in order to try fooling police into thinking she killed herself. Quite clearly she could not have killed herself with a gun far away from her body because she instantly died from her second wound and would not have been able to have moved her body far away before dying.
You seem to have a complete lack of reading comprehension skills because with the exception of Jeremy supporters such as Jan no one has suggested that the gun being on her body as opposed to next to it had any bearing on proving who the killer was.
-
However the rifle was positioned does NOT mean that Jeremy killed all the family-------PROVE IT !!
Errrm, given that Jeremy is already convicted, I think the onus is on those who think is innocent to PROVE IT!!
-
Errrm, given that Jeremy is already convicted, I think the onus is on those who think is innocent to PROVE IT!!
Her argument is a strawman argument, no one suggested the location of the gun on her body is proof that she didn't kill herself but rather that Jeremy killed everyone.
This is what I actually wrote:
"All these smokescreens are because there is zero evidence that police found evidence establishing: Sheila loaded the weapon, fired the weapon or beat Nevill and then concealed such evidence. Indeed if such evidence had been found it would have been pointed out during the initially 3 weeks that they blamed Sheila. The failure to find any such evidence and proof that she didn't do any of these things is why they had to switch gears and face they were wrong about her. If there were evidence that police concealed proof of Sheila's guilt such would be raised by Jeremy supporters. There is none so instead smokescreens and deceptions are resorted to."
Lookout and many other supporters always try changing the subject from the proper inquiry because they have no evidence to establish Sheila loaded a gun, fired a gun, or beat Nevill and such proof is what is needed to establish Sheila committed the murders as opposed to Jeremy. They have nothing to refute the evidence that says Sheila can't have killed herself. So what they do is ignore the actual evidence and create strawman arguments that they attack.
-
Errrm, given that Jeremy is already convicted, I think the onus is on those who think is innocent to PROVE IT!!
They've been trying and failing for years. I can't think of one good arguement that has been brought up.
-
What's the point,then,in debating ??
-
What's the point,then,in debating ??
The onus on you and other supporters is to produce a valid argument for innocence.
-
The onus on you and other supporters is to produce a valid argument for innocence.
Crikey Caroline you sound just like Scipio. This is a forum for discussion not a court.
-
Crikey Caroline you sound just like Scipio. This is a forum for discussion not a court.
The burden of proof in a debate rests with the proponent. This is not merely in court but a general rule.
-
Jan's right.It is like a ruddy courtroom---------------as if it mattered ::) ::)
-
Crikey Caroline you sound just like Scipio. This is a forum for discussion not a court.
Is it?
-
They've been trying and failing for years. I can't think of one good arguement that has been brought up.
Why are you trying to come up with one - 30, yes, thirty years after?
My answer= he probably didn´t do it.
-
Why are you trying to come up with one - 30, yes, thirty years after?
Not sure what your post means, doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not trying to come up with anything. The point was supporters coming up with a good evidence based argument and the fact that they never have.
-
Why are you trying to prove that someone who already has a life sentence, the harshest you can get, is guilty?
Must be a doubt in your heart.
-
Why are you trying to prove that someone who already has a life sentence, the harshest you can get, is guilty?
Must be a doubt in your heart.
There is no doubt, there is enough evidence to prove guilt 100% for me. I am honest about my position on the case, I think he is guilty.
Why do people talk about The Yorkshire Ripper? Charles Manson? Bronson? NOT because they think they are innocent - but there are those that believe those killers are innocent.
The insane theories by some supporters don't knock my belief in his guilt. The 2002 appeal (which gives you an insight into what the defence have) doesn't knock my belief in his guilt.
It's all mirrors and smoke screens and none of it is backed up by ANYTHING if you look into it deeply, you may be tricked by it and have doubt because of it - but I certainly don't.
-
But you are still talking about it = doubt.
-
Honestly I dont think JB did it. Its just a feeling
-
Honesty is - honesty
-
Why are you trying to prove that someone who already has a life sentence, the harshest you can get, is guilty?
Must be a doubt in your heart.
OH!! not this old chestnut - reason being that people are STILL making excuses for him. By the way, those 200 boxes? Jeremy has admitted to having seen most of!
-
Honestly I dont think JB did it. Its just a feeling
So no more fence sitting then? But for an decent argument, you need more than a feeling.
-
Honestly I dont think JB did it. Its just a feeling
A feeling that requires ignoring the evidence in the case... People who believe Jeremy is innocent need to close their eyes to reality and make up nonsense to try to pretend it is possible for him to be innocent. That says volumes about whether he truly is innocent.
Since Jeremy supporters make up so much nonsense that is why people who think he is guilty make the effort to refute such lies and rubbish. If pro-Jeremy nonsense wasn't spewed there would be no opportunity to refute such but since it is spewed the opportunity to counter it exists.
If Jeremy is innocent then:
1) why didn't Sheila have blood of the victims on her, elevated lead levels from loading the bullets, GSR/soot on her hands and gown and have Nevill's blood on her body and gown? The killer would have had all of these things.
2) How could Sheila have killed herself with the rifle sans moderator and yet no blood to get inside the rifle and yet blood to be inside the moderator?
3) How could Sheila have died seated then after a short while move her own body flat and also to have
placed the Bible in a pool of blood that formed after she died?
4) How could Jeremy have taken out a full or near full box of ammo (47-50 rounds), 25 rounds from such box be used and yet 30 remain? Quiet clearly the bullets were staged after the murders- how could Jeremy have staged it after the murders unless he were the killer?
5) How could Jeremy have found the gun with the moderator and scope removed when it was routinely stored with them attached? Quite obviously he removed the scope in anticipation of the murders.
6) Why would Jeremy leave the bullets and gun out and why would Nevill and June not put them away knowing the twins were over?
7) Why would Jeremy have removed the bedroom phone to replace a perfectly good kitchen phone and then lie about it later unless he did it for the murders?
8 ) Why would Nevill try to phone Jeremy if Sheila was threatening him with a gun? He would either arm himself or dial 999 if he needed help.
9) The evidence proves the shooting started int he master bedroom with both Nevill and June being shot until the magazine was empty. Then Nevill and the killer went to the kitchen. How could Nevill have phoned before the shooting started when they were attacked in a room that had no phone and by the time he got to the kitchen he was injured and could not speak?
10) If Jeremy actually received a call from Nevill he would not have called Julie period he would have either rushed over or have called police. Calling Julie period gives away he didn't receive the call claimed but worse he lied about it and told police he immediately tried to call Nevill back then called the police and last called Julie. He would not have been able to call Nevill back though he would have to have waited for the phone to clear which would have taken a couple of minutes. If he were telling the truth he would have told police his phone would not work at first. 2 of Julie's roomates even insist the call came around 3AM so before the time Jeremy even claimed he received a call from Nevill.
11) Why would Sheila want to kill everyone she had no motive.
12) Sheila only had episodes when she was off her medication but she took her medication 3 weeks earlier and the injections last 6 weeks.
13) Sheila went to sleep early because her medication caused her to be tired a lot. It is a major tranquilizer and she was even diagnoses as being over medicated because of the symptoms witnesses described of her having problems communicating and being drowsy and vacant. What would make her wake up at 3AM and send her into an episode despite her medication?
14) WHy would Julie make up such a detailed account of him planning the murders and knowing he had no alibi why would she make up a claim he told her he hired a hitman? If she were going to make up something she would make up that he confessed to killing everyone himself.
Your feeling is based on little more than ridiculous biases you have including the refusal to face Jeremy's own lies and claims such as refusing to accept Jeremy's own assertions he could fit through the kitchen window. You mainly base your feelings on the notion he would not have shot Sheila a second time and instead would have fled and risked her surviving. Your feelings are not rational based and ignore all the evidence in the case.
-
So no more fence sitting then? But for an decent argument, you need more than a feeling.
At least she is being honest about her position finally, though we knew it all along anyway so there was no benefit to pretending otherwise.
-
Lookout, it sounds, to me, as if you're saying that you felt shocked and disappointed when Caroline and I "changed sides." I CAN understand that. I don't think Caroline will attack me if I include her when I say that we were both vociferous -OK, MOUTHY!!!- in our support of Jeremy. I can, however, ONLY speak for myself when I say that I was beginning to HEAR myself sounding as if I was having to make excuses for his actions and behaviours and it was at that point that I began re-evaluating. Whilst it may have seemed sudden and shocking to you, it actually took weeks of evaluation before I was certain enough to say how I felt because I knew, that having committed to it, there'd be no going back. Even THEN, I didn't feel entirely certain but when I started to apply logic, ie what I believe HAD happened as opposed to what I would have LIKED to have happened, I felt confident that I HAD made the right decision.
I'm laying it on the line here, Lookout. I'm revealing exactly how it was and being as honest as I can. I'm sorry if you feel disappointed, but whilst on many occasions, I'll go with the flow, rather than make waves simply because I can, in this case I HAD to be true to myself. I couldn't pretend to believe something I no longer had faith in.
I can't argue with your post,April,it's a very fair one and explained very well too.
-
Same here April, both you and Maggie will remember that I initially told you both that I had doubts but it was quite some time before I wrote on the forum about it. And even then, it was ONLY because the discussion had dried up!!
Yes, Caroline, I remember. Both Maggie and I encouraged you to "come out" -a bit selfishly, perhaps- to generate discussion on a flagging forum. For myself, I carried it around for WEEKS, feeling really disloyal but I was actually being disloyal ONLY to myself and I felt as if a weight had been lifted from my shoulders when I was able to confess how I felt.
-
Yes, Caroline, I remember. Both Maggie and I encouraged you to "come out" -a bit selfishly, perhaps- to generate discussion on a flagging forum. For myself, I carried it around for WEEKS, feeling really disloyal but I was actually being disloyal ONLY to myself and I felt as if a weight had been lifted from my shoulders when I was able to confess how I felt.
I would probably have felt like yourself if it were not for the fact that top police officers,etc couldn't find any evidence that it was Jeremy. Top cops of all people who were specialised in murder investigations and contrary to what people say about Jeremy " having fooled " them------------no chance,these guys can't be fooled by anyone.
EP had ignored the inheritance spiel and had made their minds up that it was none other than Sheila.
Top cops NEVER ignore evidence,and if it wasn't there to start with after their searches,etc.These guys were 100% certain that it was Sheila.
Make no mistake,Jeremy couldn't fool any of the team who dealt with the murders.
I have the biggest issues with the lack of evidence,as well as the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
-
I would probably have felt like yourself if it were not for the fact that top police officers,etc couldn't find any evidence that it was Jeremy. Top cops of all people who were specialised in murder investigations and contrary to what people say about Jeremy " having fooled " them------------no chance,these guys can't be fooled by anyone.
EP had ignored the inheritance spiel and had made their minds up that it was none other than Sheila.
Top cops NEVER ignore evidence,and if it wasn't there to start with after their searches,etc.These guys were 100% certain that it was Sheila.
Make no mistake,Jeremy couldn't fool any of the team who dealt with the murders.
I have the biggest issues with the lack of evidence,as well as the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Lookout, I don't live in a black or white world. For me, it's all about grey area. Sadly, EVERYONE makes mistakes. Mike made a point of saying that the police weren't influenced by anything Jeremy said. We are ALL influenced by the first words we here about a situation. Who, other than Jeremy, knew the family? I believe he told them exactly what he wanted them to hear to plant the belief that Sheila was responsible. Until he opened his mouth -father saying daughter gone mad, has gun. Sister mentally ill, just released from psych hospital, knows how to use guns- EP were what new borns are, tabula rasa, a clean slate. Jeremy was the first person, on that occasion, to inform their slate. VERY difficult, with that mind set installed, to think any other way. This is by no means the only crime where police have looked at it from the wrong angle and gone down the wrong road.
-
Lookout, I don't live in a black or white world. For me, it's all about grey area. Sadly, EVERYONE makes mistakes. Mike made a point of saying that the police weren't influenced by anything Jeremy said. We are ALL influenced by the first words we here about a situation. Who, other than Jeremy, knew the family? I believe he told them exactly what he wanted them to hear to plant the belief that Sheila was responsible. Until he opened his mouth -father saying daughter gone mad, has gun. Sister mentally ill, just released from psych hospital, knows how to use guns- EP were what new borns are, tabula rasa, a clean slate. Jeremy was the first person, on that occasion, to inform their slate. VERY difficult, with that mind set installed, to think any other way. This is by no means the only crime where police have looked at it from the wrong angle and gone down the wrong road.
I'm still giving Jeremy the benefit of the doubt.This is what it's about in a situation such as this where there are no alibi's. I remain of the belief that Neville did ring Jeremy,and that police would naturally ask about the weapons held within WHF,it being a farm where it's not unusual for there to be guns.
There's no accounting for the differences in the age of Sheila,with normally the older member of the family who'd get it wrong.
Why would Jeremy give two different ages ? Liars are supposed to have good memories. If this was a planned assassination,then everything else would run with the same precision. But it didn't.It was an utter shambles if it was meant as planned,with so many anomalies made by a few.
There is at least one officer who wishes to remain anonymous for the time being,who attended the scene and who is 100% certain of Jeremy's innocence. I have no name.
-
Well you request I am banned whenever I criticise Nugnug. Although you are content to let him call mine and Scopio's posts 'bullshit', say Scipio made up documents and create threads on false quotes.
To be fair the moderators are on you're side, telling me it is acceptable for Nugnug to say 'bullshit' but guilters are not allowed to criticise his posts as he has writing problems.
You have never put me on ignore. Jan claims she does. But then always engages when seeing my post when someone quotes it. So don't know why she does it.
You fought hard to defend Jeremy when I first joined. Similar to another elderly poster of 30 years, Lookout, you were not going change stance without a fight.
As you said, you found yourself having to defend Jeremy too much. As I was the only guilter posting on a regular basis at the time, a thank you would be have been nice. Otherwise it would now just be you and Lookout in denial.
Not too late to say 'thank you'.
I have defended myself against Nug's charges and challenged Nug to produce evidence to prove his bogus charges and have not been penalized as a result. No one told e I have to lay off or will suffer sanction.
I have gone after Mike's distortions with great vigor and aside from a long time ago when Mike banned Harters and I for a short period I have not been banned for my position. It would be hard pressed for anyone to argue I walk on eggshells here because I am in the "guilty camp".
-
I'm still giving Jeremy the benefit of the doubt.This is what it's about in a situation such as this where there are no alibi's. I remain of the belief that Neville did ring Jeremy,and that police would naturally ask about the weapons held within WHF,it being a farm where it's not unusual for there to be guns.
There's no accounting for the differences in the age of Sheila,with normally the older member of the family who'd get it wrong.
Why would Jeremy give two different ages ? Liars are supposed to have good memories. If this was a planned assassination,then everything else would run with the same precision. But it didn't.It was an utter shambles if it was meant as planned,with so many anomalies made by a few.
There is at least one officer who wishes to remain anonymous for the time being,who attended the scene and who is 100% certain of Jeremy's innocence. I have no name.
I accepted the phone call partly because numbers/timings/distances etc go over my head. It didn't help that the timings kept changing. It wasn't that which made me think. It was the wording. Jeremy told the police that his father had sounded "panicked" -3am. His daughter had gone mad. She had a gun!!!- and yet MUST have waited the best part of 20 minutes before contacting the police. I accept that there may not have been any response from the first police station. SURELY then, recalling "panicked" he'd have dialled 999 but NO, he spends MORE time going through the phone book to look for another at according to Mike 3.36!!! I can only think he was deliberately wasting time. I CAN'T make excuses for him, Lookout. It just isn't possible to heap excuse on excuse ad infinitum. We're not talking about a child here. This is a man -OK, an immature one- who has been through boarding school and spent much time making his own way on the other side of the world and having to make his own decisions. It seems to me that he was a man who'd spent much time going against everything his father stood for unless it suited him.
I think you have it wrong about the discrepancies in Sheila's age. It wasn't Jeremy who got it wrong. He may have given the correct age but it was misquoted when the message was passed on.
Personally, re Neville's alleged call, I'd have found it MORE believable if he'd called the police first and THEN phoned Jeremy to advise him of the situation. Just out of interest, do you believe Neville took time to look through the phone book to find a police station OR did he call 999, OR do you believe that he never made a call.
-
I accepted the phone call partly because numbers/timings/distances etc go over my head. It didn't help that the timings kept changing. It wasn't that which made me think. It was the wording. Jeremy told the police that his father had sounded "panicked" -3am. His daughter had gone mad. She had a gun!!!- and yet MUST have waited the best part of 20 minutes before contacting the police. I accept that there may not have been any response from the first police station. SURELY then, recalling "panicked" he'd have dialled 999 but NO, he spends MORE time going through the phone book to look for another at according to Mike 3.36!!! I can only think he was deliberately wasting time. I CAN'T make excuses for him, Lookout. It just isn't possible to heap excuse on excuse ad infinitum. We're not talking about a child here. This is a man -OK, an immature one- who has been through boarding school and spent much time making his own way on the other side of the world and having to make his own decisions. It seems to me that he was a man who'd spent much time going against everything his father stood for unless it suited him.
I think you have it wrong about the discrepancies in Sheila's age. It wasn't Jeremy who got it wrong. He may have given the correct age but it was misquoted when the message was passed on.
Personally, re Neville's alleged call, I'd have found it MORE believable if he'd called the police first and THEN phoned Jeremy to advise him of the situation. Just out of interest, do you believe Neville took time to look through the phone book to find a police station OR did he call 999, OR do you believe that he never made a call.
Jeremy could not even remember her married name I think it is likely Jeremy did get her age wrong. Many siblings end up being only ballpark right when it comes to their siblings ages even when not adopted. The age apart will fluctuate to make matters worse unless both have the same birthday in different years. The age gap grows or shrinks by a year at the birthday of one or the other. For instance my brother is 1 year younger half the year but 2 years younger than me the other half. Some people don't even know how old they are. When you are adult you start ignoring it and losing count (sometimes intentionally). I know people who have accidentally given their incorrect ages and needed to be corrected. I also know people who screwed up their birthday. My paternal grandmother had us celebrate her birthday the wrong day we found out after she died her birthday was actually a day earlier than we had thought! Screwing up her age is the one thing that Jeremy could have reasonably done. I would not read too much into such an error given what I have seen by others.
-
Jeremy could not even remember her married name I think it is likely Jeremy did get her age wrong. Many siblings end up being only ballpark right when it comes to their siblings ages even when not adopted. The age apart will fluctuate to make matters worse unless both have the same birthday in different years. The age gap grows or shrinks by a year at the birthday of one or the other. For instance my brother is 1 year younger half the year but 2 years younger than me the other half. Some people don't even know how old they are. When you are adult you start ignoring it and losing count (sometimes intentionally). I know people who have accidentally given their incorrect ages and needed to be corrected. I also know people who screwed up their birthday. My paternal grandmother had us celebrate her birthday the wrong day we found out after she died her birthday was actually a day earlier than we had thought! Screwing up her age is the one thing that Jeremy could have reasonably done. I would not read too much into such an error given what I have seen by others.
Well, I did allow him the benefit of the doubt there, but as the age was passed between three people, ONE of them got it wrong and it could equally have been Jeremy. Not a HUGE thing which ever way one views it.
-
I accepted the phone call partly because numbers/timings/distances etc go over my head. It didn't help that the timings kept changing. It wasn't that which made me think. It was the wording. Jeremy told the police that his father had sounded "panicked" -3am. His daughter had gone mad. She had a gun!!!- and yet MUST have waited the best part of 20 minutes before contacting the police. I accept that there may not have been any response from the first police station. SURELY then, recalling "panicked" he'd have dialled 999 but NO, he spends MORE time going through the phone book to look for another at according to Mike 3.36!!! I can only think he was deliberately wasting time. I CAN'T make excuses for him, Lookout. It just isn't possible to heap excuse on excuse ad infinitum. We're not talking about a child here. This is a man -OK, an immature one- who has been through boarding school and spent much time making his own way on the other side of the world and having to make his own decisions. It seems to me that he was a man who'd spent much time going against everything his father stood for unless it suited him.
I think you have it wrong about the discrepancies in Sheila's age. It wasn't Jeremy who got it wrong. He may have given the correct age but it was misquoted when the message was passed on.
Personally, re Neville's alleged call, I'd have found it MORE believable if he'd called the police first and THEN phoned Jeremy to advise him of the situation. Just out of interest, do you believe Neville took time to look through the phone book to find a police station OR did he call 999, OR do you believe that he never made a call.
Surely Jeremy would have known the word panicked,and also the difference between ringing 999 as opposed to the number of the station. Why did he even mention the word ? He needn't have done,need he if it was that he'd planned something. ?
To my mind he said too much for it to have been planned. He may as well have just said he did it and be done with.
A customer doesn't tell a shopkeeper that he's going to burgle his shop.That's too easy. He keeps his mouth shut.
I just can't believe the stupidity of carrying out a crime,after telling two people their intentions,then leaving clues left right and centre. So either Jeremy didn't do it,or he's suffering from mental retardation,because nobody on this earth is that dumb.
It gets worse as you go along if you start looking for all the faux-pars. If you list them all,nobody would believe he was the murderer.
-
Remember one thing,liars have got good memories. Jeremy's memory was somewhat rusty,especially about the times of the calls.
He certainly tried to fathom out the times,but kept on being contradicted by EP on his arrest,which naturally confuses the best of us when someone else butts in with their own interpretations.
I'm looking at this case from a more humane view on how I would have reacted under pressure. I'd have crumbled and told them all to sod off. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well, I did allow him the benefit of the doubt there, but as the age was passed between three people, ONE of them got it wrong and it could equally have been Jeremy. Not a HUGE thing which ever way one views it.
There were two mistakes with Seila's age-
1) Either Jeremy telling her age wrong to West
or
Jeremy telling west her correct age but West screwing it up and recording a different age than Jeremy told him
and
2) Either West verbally telling Bonnett a different age than West recorded in writing
or
Bonnett accidentally writing down a different age than West told him either because he misheard or misrembered by the time he wrote it down.
I think Jeremy screwing up her age is rather likely and not a big deal. Not remembering her last name is more surprising that he should really have known. I think Jeremy had to build up courage to call the police and was practicing what he would say and that is why there was the time gap between him calling Julie and calling police. He was so focused on the story he was making up he didn't pay as much attention to trying to think of her last name or trying to calculate her age.
-
Surely Jeremy would have known the word panicked,and also the difference between ringing 999 as opposed to the number of the station. Why did he even mention the word ? He needn't have done,need he if it was that he'd planned something. ?
To my mind he said too much for it to have been planned. He may as well have just said he did it and be done with.
A customer doesn't tell a shopkeeper that he's going to burgle his shop.That's too easy. He keeps his mouth shut.
I just can't believe the stupidity of carrying out a crime,after telling two people their intentions,then leaving clues left right and centre. So either Jeremy didn't do it,or he's suffering from mental retardation,because nobody on this earth is that dumb.
It gets worse as you go along if you start looking for all the faux-pars. If you list them all,nobody would believe he was the murderer.
But Lookout, YOU'RE coming from a place where Neville made a phone call. I'M coming from a place where he didn't.
Looking at it from you're perspective. Of COURSE Jeremy would have know the things you mentioned. And acted/responded accordingly/instinctively. He didn't.
Looking at it from my perspective, he threw in the word almost as an after thought, having been put on hold, as a way of building up a picture of him having received a call. I feel very confident that if one of my friends rang me sounding panicked I would pick up on that panic and I would instinctively convey that panic to the next person I spoke with. So there is a situation where Jeremy, as an after thought, threw in the word. He didn't feel it because the call had never been made so he hadn't experienced it. IF the call had been genuine, having heard "Gone mad, got hold of a gun" at 3am he would have FELT Neville's panic. You can tell me till cows return that Neville was a man who had no time for police, insisted that things were kept en famille, that he always managed to calm Sheila down but that call, had it happened, would have indicated that something was VERY wrong and things were out of his control. It would have caused Jeremy to respond in a totally other way. He didn't because he wasn't feeling ANY of what he said he heard so much of it was probably made up as he went.
It matters not that he spoke to others of possible plans. He could admit at some point that he'd had such thoughts from time to time.......................but lucky him, Sheila beat him to it, didn't she.
-
There were two mistakes with Seila's age-
1) Either Jeremy telling her age wrong to West
or
Jeremy telling west her correct age but West screwing it up and recording a different age than Jeremy told him
and
2) Either West verbally telling Bonnett a different age than West recorded in writing
or
Bonnett accidentally writing down a different age than West told him either because he misheard or misrembered by the time he wrote it down.
I think Jeremy screwing up her age is rather likely and not a big deal. Not remembering her last name is more surprising that he should really have known. I think Jeremy had to build up courage to call the police and was practicing what he would say and that is why there was the time gap between him calling Julie and calling police. He was so focused on the story he was making up he didn't pay as much attention to trying to think of her last name or trying to calculate her age.
Yeh, I said the same thing but I did a precis 8)
-
Remember one thing,liars have got good memories. Jeremy's memory was somewhat rusty,especially about the times of the calls.
He certainly tried to fathom out the times,but kept on being contradicted by EP on his arrest,which naturally confuses the best of us when someone else butts in with their own interpretations.
I'm looking at this case from a more humane view on how I would have reacted under pressure. I'd have crumbled and told them all to sod off. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Liars have bad memories that is how they get caught. They forget the lie they told last and end up contradicting their own claims. Good liars either say little or have good memories and stay in character forever so are not caught in contradictions. Extraneous evidence can be used to prove people lie though it doesn't just take liars contradicting themselves. Successful liars make up lies there are no way of disproving and stick to their story without fail.
-
But Lookout, YOU'RE coming from a place where Neville made a phone call. I'M coming from a place where he didn't.
Looking at it from you're perspective. Of COURSE Jeremy would have know the things you mentioned. And acted/responded accordingly/instinctively. He didn't.
Looking at it from my perspective, he threw in the word almost as an after thought, having been put on hold, as a way of building up a picture of him having received a call. I feel very confident that if one of my friends rang me sounding panicked I would pick up on that panic and I would instinctively convey that panic to the next person I spoke with. So there is a situation where Jeremy, as an after thought, threw in the word. He didn't feel it because the call had never been made so he hadn't experienced it. IF the call had been genuine, having heard "Gone mad, got hold of a gun" at 3am he would have FELT Neville's panic. You can tell me till cows return that Neville was a man who had no time for police, insisted that things were kept en famille, that he always managed to calm Sheila down but that call, had it happened, would have indicated that something was VERY wrong and things were out of his control. It would have caused Jeremy to respond in a totally other way. He didn't because he wasn't feeling ANY of what he said he heard so much of it was probably made up as he went.
It matters not that he spoke to others of possible plans. He could admit at some point that he'd had such thoughts from time to time.......................but lucky him, Sheila beat him to it, didn't she.
I would have said that Jeremy was put on the spot as regards having been questioned because it's something that he would have least expected,as would anyone if they were innocent of any wrong doing.
The tragedy alone would numb the mind without having to face a barrage of questions that you were ill-prepared for.
I honestly can't believe why and how he was blamed. Sods law--------the last man standing,he'll fit the bill with this list of hearsay and circumstantial evidence.
I'm not convinced otherwise.
-
It's a known fact too,that years later you remember,or rather he'd remember snippets of things better than he would have at the time of the tragedy. Certain things in his life will have come to the fore. This is why people keep diaries, in order to refer to the past, as some things get forgotten.
-
I would have said that Jeremy was put on the spot as regards having been questioned because it's something that he would have least expected,as would anyone if they were innocent of any wrong doing.
The tragedy alone would numb the mind without having to face a barrage of questions that you were ill-prepared for.
I honestly can't believe why and how he was blamed. Sods law--------the last man standing,he'll fit the bill with this list of hearsay and circumstantial evidence.
I'm not convinced otherwise.
But at the time of those phone calls, Lookout, no tragedy had occurred, supposedly. You say that you can't see how he was blamed but he set up that possibility from the off with his story of Neville telling him Sheila had gone mad and got a gun. Once they'd ruled out Sheila it only left Jeremy.
-
It's a known fact too,that years later you remember,or rather he'd remember snippets of things better than he would have at the time of the tragedy. Certain things in his life will have come to the fore. This is why people keep diaries, in order to refer to the past, as some things get forgotten.
Perfectly true, but it isn't always possible to know whether we have sequential recall.
-
Remember one thing,liars have got good memories. Jeremy's memory was somewhat rusty,especially about the times of the calls.
He certainly tried to fathom out the times,but kept on being contradicted by EP on his arrest,which naturally confuses the best of us when someone else butts in with their own interpretations.
I'm looking at this case from a more humane view on how I would have reacted under pressure. I'd have crumbled and told them all to sod off. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Liars don't necessarily have good memories at all, they NEED good memories. Some tell so many lies that they can't remember everything they said and trip themselves up! Remember Jeremy saying to Julie that "It's important to tell the truth as much as possible" - said like a true liar and quite a revealing comment!
-
Liars don't necessarily have good memories at all, they NEED good memories. Some tell so many lies that they can't remember everything they said and trip themselves up! Remember Jeremy saying to Julie that "It's important to tell the truth as much as possible" - said like a true liar and quite a revealing comment!
They way I see it is that Jeremy at times told different lies to different people. He told stories suited to the police according to what he thought they would buy and he changed the stories slightly when talking with Colin, or when talking with other relatives to suit the person that he was talking to and what he thought they needed to hear.
-
It's a known fact too,that years later you remember,or rather he'd remember snippets of things better than he would have at the time of the tragedy. Certain things in his life will have come to the fore. This is why people keep diaries, in order to refer to the past, as some things get forgotten.
This is a contradiction Lookout;
He remembers things better now than then (on the one hand) but people keep diaries to remember things from the past? If people remember things from the past better NOW, why would anyone need to keep a diary? People don't remember things better years later - memory fades with time which is why the police like to take statements as soon as possible after an incident and they now conduct a 'cognitive' interview with a series of question to help the witness remember things like smells and other sensory information from the event because it aides memory.
-
They way I see it is that Jeremy at times told different lies to different people. He told stories suited to the police according to what he thought they would buy and he changed the stories slightly when talking with Colin, or when talking with other relatives to suit the person that he was talking to and what he thought they needed to hear.
I agree. I don't think he can help 'embellishing' and it just makes the lie more obvious.
-
I agree. I don't think he can help 'embellishing' and it just makes the lie more obvious.
And the belief that he was infallible. He didn't think there would be any cross checking.
-
And the belief that he was infallible. He didn't think there would be any cross checking.
Or double crossing ;)
-
Or double crossing ;)
:o :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Liars don't necessarily have good memories at all, they NEED good memories. Some tell so many lies that they can't remember everything they said and trip themselves up! Remember Jeremy saying to Julie that "It's important to tell the truth as much as possible" - said like a true liar and quite a revealing comment!
I'd imagine that the rules for liars would be to remember the things that matter-------like times,which have to be the most accurate when committing a crime such as murder. This is so you don't get caught by the way.
There are so many other factors too. First and foremost is your alibi. Where was Jeremy's ? He'd have sussed that one first if he'd have done it. Why wait until JM's back in London,or BC has gone to Greece ? I could have arranged things better myself. ::)
-
This is a contradiction Lookout;
He remembers things better now than then (on the one hand) but people keep diaries to remember things from the past? If people remember things from the past better NOW, why would anyone need to keep a diary? People don't remember things better years later - memory fades with time which is why the police like to take statements as soon as possible after an incident and they now conduct a 'cognitive' interview with a series of question to help the witness remember things like smells and other sensory information from the event because it aides memory.
People keep a diary so they won't/don't forget. Such as the one JM had which she foresaw in January was it ? My word,some forward thinking that was.
-
I'd imagine that the rules for liars would be to remember the things that matter-------like times,which have to be the most accurate when committing a crime such as murder. This is so you don't get caught by the way.
There are so many other factors too. First and foremost is your alibi. Where was Jeremy's ? He'd have sussed that one first if he'd have done it. Why wait until JM's back in London,or BC has gone to Greece ? I could have arranged things better myself. ::)
Lookout, he GAVE himself an alibi. The alleged phone call from Neville was -supposed- proof that Neville was still alive at 3am and if Jeremy had been at home -in Goldhanger- taking the call, how could he have been at WHF shooting his family?
-
Of course when giving himself the alibi he knew that the police would not go in to rescue the children and also he knew they would not establish a time of death. Back to the old circle .The cleverest murderer or the most stupid for his later actions. All depends which angle you choose to look at it.
-
Of course when giving himself the alibi he knew that the police would not go in to rescue the children and also he knew they would not establish a time of death. Back to the old circle .The cleverest murderer or the most stupid for his later actions. All depends which angle you choose to look at it.
Quite right Jan. He absolutely didn't so he couldn't risk making the call to the police TOO early in case they did break in and it became obvious that Neville wouldn't have been able to make a call at 3am -let alone another at circa 3.20- on the grounds that he had been dead for some time. The longer he left it the harder it would be to accurately establish TOD. As it was, I don't believe it ever was.
-
I'd imagine that the rules for liars would be to remember the things that matter-------like times,which have to be the most accurate when committing a crime such as murder. This is so you don't get caught by the way.
There are so many other factors too. First and foremost is your alibi. Where was Jeremy's ? He'd have sussed that one first if he'd have done it. Why wait until JM's back in London,or BC has gone to Greece ? I could have arranged things better myself. ::)
Errr the phone call from his father.
-
Of course when giving himself the alibi he knew that the police would not go in to rescue the children and also he knew they would not establish a time of death. Back to the old circle .The cleverest murderer or the most stupid for his later actions. All depends which angle you choose to look at it.
Which is why he played things down and didn't call 999. The police don't just steam on into a situation like that, it could do more harm than good.
-
Errr the phone call from his father.
It would be fine if it was believable by all,but it obviously wasn't enough to quench the thirst of the baying wolves. What I was getting at was another voice,a live one.
-
It would be fine if it was believable by all,but it obviously wasn't enough to quench the thirst of the baying wolves. What I was getting at was another voice,a live one.
It was believed initially, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
-
It's what you call tuff sh1t when nobody will believe you. I'd hate to be in that position/predicament where you know yourself what happened and what you did,then end up flummoxed because nobody else does,though how the Hell they'd know different if they weren't there,Lord knows.
Your word against that of the law----------it stinks.
-
It's what you call tuff sh1t when nobody will believe you. I'd hate to be in that position/predicament where you know yourself what happened and what you did,then end up flummoxed because nobody else does,though how the Hell they'd know different if they weren't there,Lord knows.
Your word against that of the law----------it stinks.
No if you're guilty.
-
It would be fine if it was believable by all,but it obviously wasn't enough to quench the thirst of the baying wolves. What I was getting at was another voice,a live one.
It sounded perfectly reasonable and it's a VERY valid reason of exactly why, despite Mike saying otherwise, that the police were influenced by everything Jeremy said. But for other influences it may have lasted even longer.
-
It's what you call tuff sh1t when nobody will believe you. I'd hate to be in that position/predicament where you know yourself what happened and what you did,then end up flummoxed because nobody else does,though how the Hell they'd know different if they weren't there,Lord knows.
Your word against that of the law----------it stinks.
Lookout, you appear either to be looking at this from your own position -obviously innocent and incensed at being suspected- OR from the place you'd like Jeremy to occupy. Try turning this around and seeing it from how the police may have seen it when things started to appear somewhat different from how they first had. It would have been impossible for them NOT to suspect him.
-
It was believed initially, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
For a month------why the sudden change though.? What was it that happened after a month ?
-
For a month------why the sudden change though.? What was it that happened after a month ?
They all had their cataracts removed ;D
-
Lookout, you appear either to be looking at this from your own position -obviously innocent and incensed at being suspected- OR from the place you'd like Jeremy to occupy. Try turning this around and seeing it from how the police may have seen it when things started to appear somewhat different from how they first had. It would have been impossible for them NOT to suspect him.
I know how the police work,April.
Not sure if I've mentioned this before.I probably have. A friend of the family----a cop,was on night duty near the Manchester ship canal,years ago.Just before he was due to go off duty at 6am,he spotted a body floating downwards towards where he was,so he found a length of wood and kept pushing it away from him as far as he could or he'd be faced with a load of paperwork before he went off duty.
I'm going back years,but I don't doubt that avoidances similar to this still go on.
In one way,it was better for the new staff coming on duty as there would be a continuence of this one case,of hopefully the same officers for that day.
Continuity is key to progress. This,I feel didn't happen in the Bamber case as everyone's notes didn't tally at all. Or,certain things had been omitted which doesn't give a true overall description from each individual officer.
One said the rifle was on Sheila's body,another didn't see a rifle,and someone else said it was 18ins away from the body on the floor of the bedroom---------so which is it to be ?
-
I know how the police work,April.
Not sure if I've mentioned this before.I probably have. A friend of the family----a cop,was on night duty near the Manchester ship canal,years ago.Just before he was due to go off duty at 6am,he spotted a body floating downwards towards where he was,so he found a length of wood and kept pushing it away from him as far as he could or he'd be faced with a load of paperwork before he went off duty.
I'm going back years,but I don't doubt that avoidances similar to this still go on.
In one way,it was better for the new staff coming on duty as there would be a continuence of this one case,of hopefully the same officers for that day.
Continuity is key to progress. This,I feel didn't happen in the Bamber case as everyone's notes didn't tally at all. Or,certain things had been omitted which doesn't give a true overall description from each individual officer.
One said the rifle was on Sheila's body,another didn't see a rifle,and someone else said it was 18ins away from the body on the floor of the bedroom---------so which is it to be ?
I, too, have been regaled with police anecdotes. At the time I thought they were amusing. I suspect similar STILL happens in ALL public service employment.
We have to remember that when these notes were written they weren't written for our benefit and it's highly likely that not all personnel were present at the same time so it's possible that the rifle MAY have been moved and then put back, meaning all of it is true.
-
For a month------why the sudden change though.? What was it that happened after a month ?
The family found a silencer (yeah I know ::) ) and Julie came forward. BUT there were officers who just weren't happy with the original decision anyway.
-
I, too, have been regaled with police anecdotes. At the time I thought they were amusing. I suspect similar STILL happens in ALL public service employment.
We have to remember that when these notes were written they weren't written for our benefit and it's highly likely that not all personnel were present at the same time so it's possible that the rifle MAY have been moved and then put back, meaning all of it is true.
I also have had experience of dodgy coppers - one in particular destroyed a piece of evidence in order to get a conviction. However, I wouldn't tar them all with the same brush.
-
I, too, have been regaled with police anecdotes. At the time I thought they were amusing. I suspect similar STILL happens in ALL public service employment.
We have to remember that when these notes were written they weren't written for our benefit and it's highly likely that not all personnel were present at the same time so it's possible that the rifle MAY have been moved and then put back, meaning all of it is true.
Again,care hadn't been taken because gloves weren't worn when the rifle was moved as fingerprints belonging to an unknown male were found to be on it. Not really good enough when dealing with such a case.
Regarding the notes,which were a joke. Put together they'd have read like one of those " pass around " stories where a person starts something off and the next person continues and so on. Nothing matched.
Unfortunately,nobody's interested as the truth would open the biggest can of worms in history. This case is feared by those who should be helping. It's a political timebomb.
-
Again,care hadn't been taken because gloves weren't worn when the rifle was moved as fingerprints belonging to an unknown male were found to be on it. Not really good enough when dealing with such a case.
Regarding the notes,which were a joke. Put together they'd have read like one of those " pass around " stories where a person starts something off and the next person continues and so on. Nothing matched.
Unfortunately,nobody's interested as the truth would open the biggest can of worms in history. This case is feared by those who should be helping. It's a political timebomb.
Nah ;D ;D
-
Again,care hadn't been taken because gloves weren't worn when the rifle was moved as fingerprints belonging to an unknown male were found to be on it. Not really good enough when dealing with such a case.
Regarding the notes,which were a joke. Put together they'd have read like one of those " pass around " stories where a person starts something off and the next person continues and so on. Nothing matched.
Unfortunately,nobody's interested as the truth would open the biggest can of worms in history. This case is feared by those who should be helping. It's a political timebomb.
Lookout, in your efforts to make Jeremy innocent, on the grounds of gloves not being worn and, what appears to you to be Chinese Whisper notes, you're making it sound as if the MAJORITY of convictions are unsafe. IF that is so, it seems to me that an awful lot of people were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I may be naive but I don't believe that the WHOLE of the British police force is corrupt -although I'll admit that corruption exists- any more that I believe that all the consultants/surgeons in the NHS are drug taking alcoholics who leave instruments in patients. Errors occur EVERYWHERE but despite stamping our feet and demanding that it shouldn't happen, we can't make everything -ANYTHING!!!- 100% fail-safe.
-
Again,care hadn't been taken because gloves weren't worn when the rifle was moved as fingerprints belonging to an unknown male were found to be on it. Not really good enough when dealing with such a case.
Regarding the notes,which were a joke. Put together they'd have read like one of those " pass around " stories where a person starts something off and the next person continues and so on. Nothing matched.
Unfortunately,nobody's interested as the truth would open the biggest can of worms in history. This case is feared by those who should be helping. It's a political timebomb.
The rifle was moved by touching the sling swivels. The prints they lifted that could not be identified were only smudges. They could have belonged to Jeremy for all anyone knows. No one could be ruled in or out because they were incomplete.
Those interested in the truth recognize Jeremy is guilty. Those who don't want to face reality refuse to do so and make up all sorts of excuses to avoid facing Jeremy's guilt.
-
Jeremy could not even remember her married name I think it is likely Jeremy did get her age wrong. Many siblings end up being only ballpark right when it comes to their siblings ages even when not adopted. The age apart will fluctuate to make matters worse unless both have the same birthday in different years. The age gap grows or shrinks by a year at the birthday of one or the other. For instance my brother is 1 year younger half the year but 2 years younger than me the other half. Some people don't even know how old they are. When you are adult you start ignoring it and losing count (sometimes intentionally). I know people who have accidentally given their incorrect ages and needed to be corrected. I also know people who screwed up their birthday. My paternal grandmother had us celebrate her birthday the wrong day we found out after she died her birthday was actually a day earlier than we had thought! Screwing up her age is the one thing that Jeremy could have reasonably done. I would not read too much into such an error given what I have seen by others.
I agree but do dispute your reference to adoption the fact they were adopted siblings and not blood relations is irrelevant in this context IMO.
-
I agree but do dispute your reference to adoption the fact they were adopted siblings and not blood relations is irrelevant in this context IMO.
The fact they were both adopted makes it even less likely they would be able to remember the exact age of the other sibling. You won't have hospital records and the like sitting around the house you grew up in to constantly remind you of the birth year of your sibling(s). I know not only the year but the exact hospital of mine because my mother framed such and I saw them so often I can still picture them in my mind today. You still have to do the math though to calculate ages when you know the year which opens the door to human error. When you are a child you keep track of exactly how old you are with precision because you can't wait to be older and are either constantly telling people on your own or being asked your age by others. Once you are of full legal age then you stop keeping track of your own age with the same dedication and even need to calculate your own age those rare occasions when people ask. When it comes to calculating the age of a sibling you need to know their birth year and the less trappings there were when you were young the less likely you will know it accurately.
-
The fact they were both adopted makes it even less likely they would be able to remember the exact age of the other sibling. You won't have hospital records and the like sitting around the house you grew up in to constantly remind you of the birth year of your sibling(s). I know not only the year but the exact hospital of mine because my mother framed such and I saw them so often I can still picture them in my mind today. You still have to do the math though to calculate ages when you know the year which opens the door to human error. When you are a child you keep track of exactly how old you are with precision because you can't wait to be older and are either constantly telling people on your own or being asked your age by others. Once you are of full legal age then you stop keeping track of your own age with the same dedication and even need to calculate your own age those rare occasions when people ask. When it comes to calculating the age of a sibling you need to know their birth year and the less trappings there were when you were young the less likely you will know it accurately.
WHOA!!!! I'm not letting you get away with that one, Scipio!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sheila and Jeremy had been bought up as brother and sister YEARS before either knew of their adoption. We adopteds may not "have hospital records and the like sitting around the house" we grew up in but here in England we're not so stuck in the dark ages that we don't have birth certificates -albeit, shortened versions- which give our names, sex and date of birth. Hospital of birth would be good but not necessary. I see my reflection therefore I am. Apologies to Descartes.
-
The fact they were both adopted makes it even less likely they would be able to remember the exact age of the other sibling. You won't have hospital records and the like sitting around the house you grew up in to constantly remind you of the birth year of your sibling(s). I know not only the year but the exact hospital of mine because my mother framed such and I saw them so often I can still picture them in my mind today. You still have to do the math though to calculate ages when you know the year which opens the door to human error. When you are a child you keep track of exactly how old you are with precision because you can't wait to be older and are either constantly telling people on your own or being asked your age by others. Once you are of full legal age then you stop keeping track of your own age with the same dedication and even need to calculate your own age those rare occasions when people ask. When it comes to calculating the age of a sibling you need to know their birth year and the less trappings there were when you were young the less likely you will know it accurately.
I assure you Scipio the fact they are adopted makes no difference in this instance. I know from first hand experience.
-
WHOA!!!! I'm not letting you get away with that one, Scipio!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sheila and Jeremy had been bought up as brother and sister YEARS before either knew of their adoption. We adopteds may not "have hospital records and the like sitting around the house" we grew up in but here in England we're not so stuck in the dark ages that we don't have birth certificates -albeit, shortened versions- which give our names, sex and date of birth. Hospital of birth would be good but not necessary. I see my reflection therefore I am. Apologies to Descartes.
Many keep birth certificates in locations where they are easily accessible? Most people hide official government documents. Until I got my first job I was not even allowed to see my Social Security card and I have no idea when I was finally able to handle my birth certificate for the first time I think it was to get my driver's license when I was 17. All such documents were locked away. My wife took up where my mother left off, I have not seen my birth certificate or social security card in several years my wife locked them up in a safe along with hers, our marriage certificate, cash, jewelry or whatever else she has hidden away. I don't think I have ever seen any of my siblings' government records to this day.
The further children are in age the less likely they share interests together and will religiously know each other's ages. To complicate matters they were sent to boarding schools so were not even living together all the time till the oldest officially left home. Jeremy was 23 at the time of the murders and Sheila was 28. Saying she was 26 or 27 was not that far off and within the realm of reasonable error under all the circumstances. It appears he said 27 so was only off by a year.
It is highly unlikely that Jeremy told West 26 but West incorrectly recorded it as 27 yet correctly told Bonnett the 26. Much more likely is that he correctly recorded Jeremy saying 27 but screwed up when telling Bonnett or Bonnett somehow misheard him or misrecorded it.
The notion the 26 on Bonnett's log means Nevill must have phoned Bonnett is one of the most absurd arguments routinely made. Nevill getting his daughter's age 2 years wrong is rather unbelievable since parents seem to know their children's ages better than their own. The 26 is infinitely more likely an error between West and Bonnett than involving anyone else.
-
Many keep birth certificates in locations where they are easily accessible? Most people hide official government documents. Until I got my first job I was not even allowed to see my Social Security card and I have no idea when I was finally able to handle my birth certificate for the first time I think it was to get my driver's license when I was 17. All such documents were locked away. My wife took up where my mother left off, I have not seen my birth certificate or social security card in several years my wife locked them up in a safe along with hers, our marriage certificate, cash, jewelry or whatever else she has hidden away. I don't think I have ever seen any of my siblings' government records to this day.
The further children are in age the less likely they share interests together and will religiously know each other's ages. To complicate matters they were sent to boarding schools so were not even living together all the time till the oldest officially left home. Jeremy was 23 at the time of the murders and Sheila was 28. Saying she was 26 or 27 was not that far off and within the realm of reasonable error under all the circumstances. It appears he said 27 so was only off by a year.
It is highly unlikely that Jeremy told West 26 but West incorrectly recorded it as 27 yet correctly told Bonnett the 26. Much more likely is that he correctly recorded Jeremy saying 27 but screwed up when telling Bonnett or Bonnett somehow misheard him or misrecorded it.
The notion the 26 on Bonnett's log means Nevill must have phoned Bonnett is one of the most absurd arguments routinely made. Nevill getting his daughter's age 2 years wrong is rather unbelievable since parents seem to know their children's ages better than their own. The 26 is infinitely more likely an error between West and Bonnett than involving anyone else.
I will agree totally that where there are vast age gaps and numerous children birth dates -possibly even names!- probably get forgotten. I didn't see my birth certificate until I was an adult although I knew it to be a shortened version.
Birth certificates per se aren't the question, though. It was your suggestion -as I read it- that because they were adopted they weren't as likely to know the age of the other. Do you not think it would be as, if not MORE, important to start the bonding process with two unrelated adopted siblings as with their biological counterparts and is not each remembering the other's special day a natural way of doing it? The Bamber children didn't learn of their adoption until just before Jeremy went to boarding school -8 years old? Sheila COULD have been around 10!!!!- FAR to late to have left it although Sheila MAY have learned of it earlier and told not to tell Jeremy. Not certain how THAT would have worked in practice, it's a lot to expect of a child and VERY unfair. They MUST have known the others birthday by that time. If they didn't something was already very wrong.
Moving on to their adulthood, having been separated by schooling, leaving home, trips abroad, marriage ect, it doesn't in the least surprise me that Jeremy may have got her age wrong. It would probably have been more by good luck than judgement had he got it right.
-
I will agree totally that where there are vast age gaps and numerous children birth dates -possibly even names!- probably get forgotten. I didn't see my birth certificate until I was an adult although I knew it to be a shortened version.
Birth certificates per se aren't the question, though. It was your suggestion -as I read it- that because they were adopted they weren't as likely to know the age of the other. Do you not think it would be as, if not MORE, important to start the bonding process with two unrelated adopted siblings as with their biological counterparts and is not each remembering the other's special day a natural way of doing it? The Bamber children didn't learn of their adoption until just before Jeremy went to boarding school -8 years old? Sheila COULD have been around 10!!!!- FAR to late to have left it although Sheila MAY have learned of it earlier and told not to tell Jeremy. Not certain how THAT would have worked in practice, it's a lot to expect of a child and VERY unfair. They MUST have known the others birthday by that time. If they didn't something was already very wrong.
Moving on to their adulthood, having been separated by schooling, leaving home, trips abroad, marriage ect, it doesn't in the least surprise me that Jeremy may have got her age wrong. It would probably have been more by good luck than judgement had he got it right.
Knowing a birthday and birth year are 2 different things. When young you will see the candles on the cake and know the exact age of your siblings. It won't be the result of calculations it will be from seeing the signs or candles that say happy 8th Birthday. When that stops you lose count of which birthday they are having. It just becomes happy birthday and only milestones are celebrated with a special sign or card. Adoptees are even less likely to see things that would ingrain a birth year in their mind. It is an added handicap in an issue with plenty of handicaps already.
-
Knowing a birthday and birth year are 2 different things. When young you will see the candles on the cake and know the exact age of your siblings. It won't be the result of calculations it will be from seeing the signs or candles that say happy 8th Birthday. When that stops you lose count of which birthday they are having. It just becomes happy birthday and only milestones are celebrated with a special sign or card. Adoptees are even less likely to see things that would ingrain a birth year in their mind. It is an added handicap in an issue with plenty of handicaps already.
I agree that children will be more concerned with the number of candles on the cake than the year of their sibling's birth. The birth year may not arise until mental arithmetic time, or later. I HAVE to write down birth dates because I'm not numerically literate. I'm far from certain about how you've come to that conclusion about adoptees but I am my only frame of reference. I think between us we've thrown in enough variables for the age error to have occurred in any number of ways.
-
Knowing a birthday and birth year are 2 different things. When young you will see the candles on the cake and know the exact age of your siblings. It won't be the result of calculations it will be from seeing the signs or candles that say happy 8th Birthday. When that stops you lose count of which birthday they are having. It just becomes happy birthday and only milestones are celebrated with a special sign or card. Adoptees are even less likely to see things that would ingrain a birth year in their mind. It is an added handicap in an issue with plenty of handicaps already.
I simply don't agree, a secure family is just that whether bio or not. Birthdays are landmarks, cards are sent, presents bought and families celebrate, don't they? I can understand JB as a young man getting his big sisters age mixed up but it has NOTHING to do with being adopted.
-
I agree that children will be more concerned with the number of candles on the cake than the year of their sibling's birth. The birth year may not arise until mental arithmetic time, or later. I HAVE to write down birth dates because I'm not numerically literate. I'm far from certain about how you've come to that conclusion about adoptees but I am my only frame of reference. I think between us we've thrown in enough variables for the age error to have occurred in any number of ways.
I stated where I came up with it- hospital birth documents and the like that exist for natural children will not exist for adopted children and thus there are even fewer things existing that siblings could come across highlighting a birth year than they could potentially come across if a sibling is a natural child. Some keep sonograms and videos with dates on them. My oldest cousin had his birth taped. When we visited I noticed the tape among all their cartoons. It had "Michael's birth" and the full date written on the title. His siblings could potentially have memorized the date from seeing the tape so often as they looked through them. I only saw it a couple of times so the year wasn't ingrained in my memory but given enough exposure it would have been. My simple point was in general there are more things that exist which can expose siblings to the birth year of a natural child than an adopted one.
-
I stated where I came up with it- hospital birth documents and the like that exist for natural children will not exist for adopted children and thus there are even fewer things existing that siblings could come across highlighting a birth year than they could potentially come across if a sibling is a natural child. Some keep sonograms and videos with dates on them. My oldest cousin had his birth taped. When we visited I noticed the tape among all their cartoons. It had "Michael's birth" and the full date written on the title. His siblings could potentially have memorized the date from seeing the tape so often as they looked through them. I only saw it a couple of times so the year wasn't ingrained in my memory but given enough exposure it would have been. My simple point was in general there are more things that exist which can expose siblings to the birth year of a natural child than an adopted one.
I don't agree with you Scorpio, it's up to the adoptive parents to treat adopted kids as least as well as their own, there is no reason why their birthdays would be less well known. I just don't get where you're coming from, a family is a family however it comes together.
-
I stated where I came up with it- hospital birth documents and the like that exist for natural children will not exist for adopted children and thus there are even fewer things existing that siblings could come across highlighting a birth year than they could potentially come across if a sibling is a natural child. Some keep sonograms and videos with dates on them. My oldest cousin had his birth taped. When we visited I noticed the tape among all their cartoons. It had "Michael's birth" and the full date written on the title. His siblings could potentially have memorized the date from seeing the tape so often as they looked through them. I only saw it a couple of times so the year wasn't ingrained in my memory but given enough exposure it would have been. My simple point was in general there are more things that exist which can expose siblings to the birth year of a natural child than an adopted one.
Clearly that is your own frame of reference. Things here are not the same. We -that is adopteds AND biologicals- don't have hospital birth documents although I expect the hospitals do. Our frame of reference is entirely different.
-
Clearly that is your own frame of reference. Things here are not the same. We -that is adopteds AND biologicals- don't have hospital birth documents although I expect the hospitals do. Our frame of reference is entirely different.
True April but even without birth certificates and maybe wrong information given about birth date etc.siblings in any well adjusted family surely know everyone's birthday? What's adoption got to do with it? (Am asking Scorpio not you ;)).
-
True April but even without birth certificates and maybe wrong information given about birth date etc.siblings in any well adjusted family surely know everyone's birthday? What's adoption got to do with it? (Am asking Scorpio not you ;)).
I hear what you say but occasionally there are extenuating circumstances. My stepma-in-law was the youngest of 13 children who lived in a 3 bedroomed house. She recalled that one of her brothers died during the war but had never known him. One of her sisters made an excellent marriage but she had no memory of knowing her. The chances are that in her first memory of siblings there are probably only 5 others, the rest having left school and left home to go to live in jobs or do war work. MOST of them never kept in touch and there was never enough money for birthdays to be remembered by more than "Happy Birthday."
-
True April but even without birth certificates and maybe wrong information given about birth date etc.siblings in any well adjusted family surely know everyone's birthday? What's adoption got to do with it? (Am asking Scorpio not you ;)).
Those siblings that know the birth year of their siblings typically learn such from the methods I mentioned. Absent such most don't the year of birth they know the month and day because that is what is celebrated year after year growing up. They know how many years older/younger in general and calculate age by that method. The problem with that is that it fluctuates. Sometimes Sheila was 4 years older sometimes 5. It depends on the time of the year. You have to actually think about what day it is and what day their birthday falls to figure out if she is 4 year or 5 years older than him on any given day. He seems to have decided to run with the 4 year figure. If he were genuinely worried he would have had more important things on his mind than trying to figure out if their birthday was 4 years apart or 5 years apart at that exact moment so the error wasn't suspicious to police. In contrast not knowing her last name was somewhat noteworthy.
-
I hear what you say but occasionally there are extenuating circumstances. My stepma-in-law was the youngest of 13 children who lived in a 3 bedroomed house. She recalled that one of her brothers died during the war but had never known him. One of her sisters made an excellent marriage but she had no memory of knowing her. The chances are that in her first memory of siblings there are probably only 5 others, the rest having left school and left home to go to live in jobs or do war work. MOST of them never kept in touch and there was never enough money for birthdays to be remembered by more than "Happy Birthday."
I understand that April am just saying to Scorpio that adoption has nothing to do with it. :-\
-
Those siblings that know the birth year of their siblings typically learn such from the methods I mentioned. Absent such most don't the year of birth they know the month and day because that is what is celebrated year after year growing up. They know how many years older/younger in general and calculate age by that method. The problem with that is that it fluctuates. Sometimes Sheila was 4 years older sometimes 5. It depends on the time of the year. You have to actually think about what day it is and what day their birthday falls to figure out if she is 4 year or 5 years older than him on any given day. He seems to have decided to run with the 4 year figure. If he were genuinely worried he would have had more important things on his mind than trying to figure out if their birthday was 4 years apart or 5 years apart at that exact moment so the error wasn't suspicious to police. In contrast not knowing her last name was somewhat noteworthy.
That's all fair enough just saying it has nothing to do with adoption, I can also understand how he may have forgotten her name as he would be under some stress for one reason or another imo.
-
Clearly that is your own frame of reference. Things here are not the same. We -that is adopteds AND biologicals- don't have hospital birth documents although I expect the hospitals do. Our frame of reference is entirely different.
It doesn't matter whether you agree or not with my assessment. You said you don't understand where I came up with it but I explained my reasoning. There is no mystery as to where my position comes from.
-
It doesn't matter whether you agree or not with my assessment. You said you don't understand where I came up with it but I explained my reasoning. There is no mystery as to where my position comes from.
Were you disagreeing with my assessment, then. I have never had your experience. You have never experienced mine. ERGO, our experiences are different which is neither right nor wrong..........................just other.
-
Were you disagreeing with my assessment, then. I have never had your experience. You have never experienced mine. ERGO, our experiences are different which is neither right nor wrong..........................just other.
True. :)
-
True. :)
Maggie you and April have had totally different experiences but similar if you get my meaning :)
-
Maggie you and April have had totally different experiences but similar if you get my meaning :)
Same ball park possibly. :-\ however everyone's experience is different and we see it from different angles as well however I have read what I can to try to help me understand all angles but it's complicated and always personal. :-\
-
Same ball park possibly. :-\ however everyone's experience is different and we see it from different angles as well however I have read what I can to try to help me understand all angles but it's complicated and always personal. :-\
Maggie
I would think it is a very complex matter both from your stance and from April's I am totally ignorant on Adoption but I think more is known and understood about it now than ever before.
-
Maggie
I would think it is a very complex matter both from your stance and from April's I am totally ignorant on Adoption but I think more is known and understood about it now than ever before.
Absolutely, for a start no one realised a tiny baby could suffer huge trauma just being separated from the natural mother.
-
Absolutely, for a start no one realised a tiny baby could suffer huge trauma just being separated from the natural mother.
According to my mother she was told to "treat it as if it was yours and it will grow to be like you" I was SUCH a disappointment!!!!! :D Thankfully we now understand that within 6(?) weeks a baby knows its' mothers voice, smell. touch and walk and can suffer depression if they become separated from her.
-
Absolutely, for a start no one realised a tiny baby could suffer huge trauma just being separated from the natural mother.
Not a hundred years ago,when I worked on a maternity ward,when babies were born,they were whipped up and put in the nursery to give mums a rest after the birth,and it was up to us to bottle-feed where applicable,through the night as well.
I thought this was terrible that they weren't put with their mums,as they do now,40 years on. The mums obviously didn't know any different back then,but it wouldn't happen today as the baby is beside mum. The ward sister was strict and if babies cried they were left to cry if they'd been fed,etc. Very cruel and upsetting for the mums-----------and for me too.I didn't get on with the ward sister for that reason.What a harridan.
-
According to my mother she was told to "treat it as if it was yours and it will grow to be like you" I was SUCH a disappointment!!!!! :D Thankfully we now understand that within 6(?) weeks a baby knows its' mothers voice, smell. touch and walk and can suffer depression if they become separated from her.
From my own experience I would hazard a guess that a particularly alert baby would recognise all that much earlier and could show real signs of distress.
-
According to my mother she was told to "treat it as if it was yours and it will grow to be like you" I was SUCH a disappointment!!!!! :D Thankfully we now understand that within 6(?) weeks a baby knows its' mothers voice, smell. touch and walk and can suffer depression if they become separated from her.
April
that is quite incredible I never knew that. April forgive me for saying but from what you have told us about your Mother I don't think any child would have come upto her expectations sad but true :'(
-
April
that is quite incredible I never knew that. April forgive me for saying but from what you have told us about your Mother I don't think any child would have come upto her expectations sad but true :'(
We can never know, Susan, but it's possible that it was the same for June because neither of her children conformed, in character, to her and Neville's likeness.
-
We can never know, Susan, but it's possible that it was the same for June because neither of her children conformed, in character, to her and Neville's likeness.
I cannot understand how people can be so stupid and so heartless. A child is a child, the fixation of a child in your own likeness is nothing to do with unconditional love which is what every child should have.
Why adopt a child if you aren't going to love it for itself? :o
-
We can never know, Susan, but it's possible that it was the same for June because neither of her children conformed, in character, to her and Neville's likeness.
April that is very true. Sheila and Jeremy did not conform and were the exact opposite of herself and Neville
-
I cannot understand how people can be so stupid and so heartless. A child is a child, the fixation of a child in your own likeness is nothing to do with unconditional love which is what every child should have.
Why adopt a child if you aren't going to love it for itself? :o
It fits with a woman who has -either by birth or adoption- a child to make her own life better. It becomes about what a child will do for/GIVE her, NOT what she can do for/GIVE the child. Sadly, it's the road to unhappiness and disappointment for both.
-
Absolutely, for a start no one realised a tiny baby could suffer huge trauma just being separated from the natural mother.
Oh! I remember studying Attachment Theory and Harlow's Monkey's - brought tears to my eyes! :'( :'(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O60TYAIgC4
I defy anyone to have a dry eye!!
-
It fits with a woman who has -either by birth or adoption- a child to make her own life better. It becomes about what a child will do for/GIVE her, NOT what she can do for/GIVE the child. Sadly, it's the road to unhappiness and disappointment for both.
I know it happens but it's hard to fathom.
-
Oh! I remember studying Attachment Theory and Harlow's Monkey's - brought tears to my eyes! :'( :'(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O60TYAIgC4
I defy anyone to have a dry eye!!
I'd rather not read that :'( however the Primal Wound covers every angle in humans ie. Child, natural and adoptive mothers...... very interesting.
-
I'd rather not read that :'( however the Primal Wound covers every angle in humans ie. Child, natural and adoptive mothers...... very interesting.
It's a film of his original experiment with baby monkey's. It's pretty cruel but it helped to influence child care - for the better. Most early social psychology experiments were cruel.
-
Oh! I remember studying Attachment Theory and Harlow's Monkey's - brought tears to my eyes! :'( :'(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O60TYAIgC4
I defy anyone to have a dry eye!!
I did Bowlby's attachment theory. Apparently, after the war and in order to get women back into "their" kitchens, a worker was paid to prick every tenth contraceptive!!!!!!! and the mother was made to feel wicked for leaving her baby.
-
It's a film of his original experiment with baby monkey's. It's pretty cruel but it helped to influence child care - for the better. Most early social psychology experiments were cruel.
I gathered that, too close to the bone, can't go there poor little monkeys.
-
I did Bowlby's attachment theory. Apparently, after the war and in order to get women back into "their" kitchens, a worker was paid to prick every tenth contraceptive!!!!!!! and the mother was made to feel wicked for leaving her baby.
Really? Didn't work in the end did it? Good old Germaine Greer etc. ;D