Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Alias on August 29, 2015, 02:59:AM
-
In his book Colin did say that he couldn´t blame Jeremy for killing June because he would have done it himself! Jeremy saved him the trouble! He said that about someone who killed his children in the same sweep, so to say.
At the trial Colin couldn´t judge Jeremy for killing JUNE, he wanted to kill her himself.
But I don´t understand Colin here, Jeremy killed his sons! All he talks about is that he understands why he killed June!
Really confusing. Deeply dysfunctional - and if there is one thing we cannot talk about here: the dysfunction of the Bamber family. Where it all came from.
-
I don't think anyone disputes that it was a disfunctional family - it was a family plagued with mental illness (Sheila and June) and that is never a easy house to live in - nevermind the overly religious tones of the upbringing too.
I think Colin felt that way because he saw a lot of Sheilas problems to be brought on by June and by how June had raised Jeremy and Sheila. That in turn affected his children because Sheila was also struggling with mental illness and again, he laid the blame for this firmly with June.
Colin says he could have killed her - but he didn't. He didn't ACTUALLY plan on killing her and I don't think would ever have harmed her - nevermind murdered her in the middle of the night.
Jeremy did.
THAT is why it doesn't matter where "it all came from" - what matters is JEREMY killed them and he should be locked up and punished - thankfully he is.
-
I don't think anyone disputes that it was a disfunctional family - it was a family plagued with mental illness (Sheila and June) and that is never a easy house to live in - nevermind the overly religious tones of the upbringing too.
I think Colin felt that way because he saw a lot of Sheilas problems to be brought on by June and by how June had raised Jeremy and Sheila. That in turn affected his children because Sheila was also struggling with mental illness and again, he laid the blame for this firmly with June.
Colin says he could have killed her - but he didn't. He didn't ACTUALLY plan on killing her and I don't think would ever have harmed her - nevermind murdered her in the middle of the night.
Jeremy did.
THAT is why it doesn't matter where "it all came from" - what matters is JEREMY killed them and he should be locked up and punished - thankfully he is.
Thank you for your swift answer, It does matter to me however, someone killed their whole family, Jeremy or Sheila, something was wrong either way.
You do not kill your parents (siblings and children) if you are not deeply disturbed for some reason. There is something behind that. Whether it was Sheila or Jeremy - either way
-
It does matter to me where "it all came from".
-
In his book Colin did say that he couldn´t blame Jeremy for killing June because he would have done it himself! Jeremy saved him the trouble! He said that about someone who killed his children in the same sweep, so to say.
At the trial Colin couldn´t judge Jeremy for killing JUNE, he wanted to kill her himself.
But I don´t understand Colin here, Jeremy killed his sons! All he talks about is that he understands why he killed June!
Really confusing. Deeply dysfunctional - and if there is one thing we cannot talk about here: the dysfunction of the Bamber family. Where it all came from.
Julie thought Jeremy was just blowing off steam the same manner Colin did it. She didn't expect him to actually do it. Would Colin have actually done it? Highly doubtful.
-
Somebody did though, for some reason. Kill their whole family.
-
Of course Colin would never do that! He came from a loving family and is doing very well now!
But either Sheila or Jeremy did.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-took-my-little-boys-647185&ved=0CDIQqQIoADAJOChqFQoTCJXEhIOnzccCFU9Z2wodaJoLuQ&usg=AFQjCNHUo6IwVBskC3jzPdq1fmML8FPWKQ&sig2=g_kK2XSKqbmdunTSPkoKBA
CC has no doubt it was Bamber.
-
Colin is not impartial - even though he said something I will never understand - if he believed Jeremy killed his children.
He said when the police rang on his door: "She finally did it"
-
It does matter to me where "it all came from".
Which is exactly what I've been trying to find out since I joined the forum.
In that I don't believe that anything JUST happens out of the blue/for no reason, I suppose I will never fit into Scipio's idea of what a "reasonable thinking person" is. So be it. He deals only with the presented scene. I deal with what caused the scene to be presented and in order to do that I have to look beneath the presenting surface. What I see is a family which had been in turmoil for a long time. Turmoil possibly exacerbated by trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
-
I don't think anyone disputes that it was a disfunctional family - it was a family plagued with mental illness (Sheila and June) and that is never a easy house to live in - nevermind the overly religious tones of the upbringing too.
I think Colin felt that way because he saw a lot of Sheilas problems to be brought on by June and by how June had raised Jeremy and Sheila. That in turn affected his children because Sheila was also struggling with mental illness and again, he laid the blame for this firmly with June.
Colin says he could have killed her - but he didn't. He didn't ACTUALLY plan on killing her and I don't think would ever have harmed her - nevermind murdered her in the middle of the night.
Jeremy did.
THAT is why it doesn't matter where "it all came from" - what matters is JEREMY killed them and he should be locked up and punished - thankfully he is.
He did say he was surprised he was not arrested at one point because I think he said these things in front of a witness.
I think Alias is just making the point that things in that house could have been more complicated than even we realised - whatever the outcome
-
Which is exactly what I've been trying to find out since I joined the forum.
In that I don't believe that anything JUST happens out of the blue/for no reason, I suppose I will never fit into Scipio's idea of what a "reasonable thinking person" is. So be it. He deals only with the presented scene. I deal with what caused the scene to be presented and in order to do that I have to look beneath the presenting surface. What I see is a family which had been in turmoil for a long time. Turmoil possibly exacerbated by trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
And because they kept things to themselves there may have been more going on than even we know.
Its like all the scenarios of Jeremy threatened Sheila to make her crouch in the corner to be shot in the right way that's why she did not even put her hands up to defend herself - its supposition.
We don't know what was said after Jeremy left the house at all.
-
I don't think anyone disputes that it was a disfunctional family - it was a family plagued with mental illness (Sheila and June) and that is never a easy house to live in - nevermind the overly religious tones of the upbringing too.
I think Colin felt that way because he saw a lot of Sheilas problems to be brought on by June and by how June had raised Jeremy and Sheila. That in turn affected his children because Sheila was also struggling with mental illness and again, he laid the blame for this firmly with June.
Colin says he could have killed her - but he didn't. He didn't ACTUALLY plan on killing her and I don't think would ever have harmed her - nevermind murdered her in the middle of the night.
Jeremy did.
THAT is why it doesn't matter where "it all came from" - what matters is JEREMY killed them and he should be locked up and punished - thankfully he is.
Mat, I totally agree...........................OTHER :D than to say that it's because of where "it all came from" that caused Jeremy to do what he did.
-
Thank you for your swift answer, It does matter to me however, someone killed their whole family, Jeremy or Sheila, something was wrong either way.
You do not kill your parents (siblings and children) if you are not deeply disturbed for some reason. There is something behind that. Whether it was Sheila or Jeremy - either way
There was something behind it, he wanted his inheritance. It's true that a lot of things from their childhood contributed to who they became but that's not an excuse.
-
Jeremy would NOT have pumped 25 rounds into the family,nor would he have shot the twins. In fact he wouldn't have killed any of them. It was a completely frenzied and insane massacre,only concentrated in the kitchen and main bedroom leaving the rest of the farmhouse undisturbed.
EP knew that Jeremy wasn't exaggerating when he'd told them that his sister had problems,as they heard from neighbours and friends,one neighbour in particular had said she was,quote, " either the sickest woman in the world or she was on something.Her eyes would follow you everywhere,unquote "
Another neighbour mentioned the screaming in the early hours wakening the neighbours shouting " the world is evil-----------you are evil ".
Some family friends had told the press that she was mixed up in drugs and caused her parents nothing but worry and heartache .
These observations were taken from an excerpt of the Murder Casebook.
-
Jeremy would NOT have pumped 25 rounds into the family,nor would he have shot the twins. In fact he wouldn't have killed any of them. It was a completely frenzied and insane massacre,only concentrated in the kitchen and main bedroom leaving the rest of the farmhouse undisturbed.
EP knew that Jeremy wasn't exaggerating when he'd told them that his sister had problems,as they heard from neighbours and friends,one neighbour in particular had said she was,quote, " either the sickest woman in the world or she was on something.Her eyes would follow you everywhere,unquote "
Another neighbour mentioned the screaming in the early hours wakening the neighbours shouting " the world is evil-----------you are evil ".
Some family friends had told the press that she was mixed up in drugs and caused her parents nothing but worry and heartache .
These observations were taken from an excerpt of the Murder Casebook.
And lots of people thought it was Jeremy - on hearing what happened, one man at the road block said 'it will be that son of theirs'. That was said even before Sheila was the suspect.
It's true there was a lot of anger expressed at the scene - but it was staged to look like a massacre. I'm sure Jeremy released his own anger in the process but keeping enough control to allow him to blame Sheila.
-
Would you not say then that both were as bad as one another ? Spoiled brats springs to mind.
-
Which is exactly what I've been trying to find out since I joined the forum.
In that I don't believe that anything JUST happens out of the blue/for no reason, I suppose I will never fit into Scipio's idea of what a "reasonable thinking person" is. So be it. He deals only with the presented scene. I deal with what caused the scene to be presented and in order to do that I have to look beneath the presenting surface. What I see is a family which had been in turmoil for a long time. Turmoil possibly exacerbated by trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
Jeremy wanted money so he could live to a playboy lifestyle without working. The easiest way to do that would be to kill his family and take possession of everything they own. He didn't want to work hard and wait till they died. It aggravated him that he had to work while Sheila didn't have to work for them to get what aid they gave her. He wanted to live in London in a flat without having to work for them. hat's the reason for the murders. If they were poor he would not have killed them. He killed them for money.
-
Jeremy wanted money so he could live to a playboy lifestyle without working. The easiest way to do that would be to kill his family and take possession of everything they own. He didn't want to work hard and wait till they died. It aggravated him that he had to work while Sheila didn't have to work for them to get what aid they gave her. He wanted to live in London in a flat without having to work for them. hat's the reason for the murders. If they were poor he would not have killed them. He killed them for money.
Scipio I think that is an excellent post and I see it exactly the same as you. Had the Bambers been poor they would all have lived.
-
Jeremy wanted money so he could live to a playboy lifestyle without working. The easiest way to do that would be to kill his family and take possession of everything they own. He didn't want to work hard and wait till they died. It aggravated him that he had to work while Sheila didn't have to work for them to get what aid they gave her. He wanted to live in London in a flat without having to work for them. hat's the reason for the murders. If they were poor he would not have killed them. He killed them for money.
So are you saying that he would have killed a family he loved to get his hands on the money?
-
Jeremy wanted money so he could live to a playboy lifestyle without working. The easiest way to do that would be to kill his family and take possession of everything they own. He didn't want to work hard and wait till they died. It aggravated him that he had to work while Sheila didn't have to work for them to get what aid they gave her. He wanted to live in London in a flat without having to work for them. hat's the reason for the murders. If they were poor he would not have killed them. He killed them for money.
He may not have inherited anything anyway. Thread already created.
-
So are you saying that he would have killed a family he loved to get his hands on the money?
Did Jeremy ever love anybody..Julie he used as a subterfuge for murder,other girlfriends and a host of others he used for sex. His relationship with Suzette was more difficult to discern but what may have been the making of him in the role of father failed to materialize and the relationship faltered. A combination of jealousy of his parents' wealth and new-found disgust at Sheila evolved as he saw the pornographic photographs as a sign of debauchery and not as her desperation to make ends meet. June he tolerated in this matrix as long as she wrote out personal cheques in his favour and paterfamilias Nevill was respected until his physical prowess waned. It was all too easy to blame the zombie Sheila,whom Colin had rejected and whose illness the twins were just beginning to understand.
-
So are you saying that he would have killed a family he loved to get his hands on the money?
If he loved them enough then his love would have overcome his greed. He was busy building up his resentment each day he had to work though. He didn't have the drive to go work for someone else to become a success on his own. He worked for his family because they provided him with a house car and higher salary than he would make starting out on his own (more than someone doing the work he was doing would earn) plus they gave him an ownership interest and said he would one day inherit the farm
He didn't want to wait till they died and keep working.
After inheriting it if he sold the farm he would have to split the proceeds with his sister. He had no intention of farming for life so would have to split it with her or his nephews if she was dead (plus split half of June's interest in the Caravan site) and that is why he killed he rand the boys as well. It wasn't just because she made a good "fallguy".
-
Did Jeremy ever love anybody..Julie he used as a subterfuge for murder,other girlfriends and a host of others he used for sex. His relationship with Suzette was more difficult to discern but what may have been the making of him in the role of father failed to materialize and the relationship faltered. A combination of jealousy of his parents' wealth and new-found disgust at Sheila evolved as he saw the pornographic photographs as a sign of debauchery and not as her desperation to make ends meet. June he tolerated in this matrix as long as she wrote out personal cheques in his favour and paterfamilias Nevill was respected until his physical prowess waned. It was all too easy to blame the zombie Sheila,whom Colin had rejected and whose illness the twins were just beginning to understand.
Steve, I would have to ask if Jeremy ever FELT loved. Love is difficult to extend if it's never been received. Where is that frame of reference for a boy who is told of his adoption almost -to him, perhaps- as learning he's to be sent away to boarding school. Where is the love in that. It's useless simply telling a child that it's loved. Children need that love to be demonstrated by being touched, hugged, being told they're important. It seems to me his only frame of reference for what love was revolved around money and I think, in his eyes, Sheila was getting more for doing less = sibling rivalry raises its' head.
I'm not seeking to excuse what he did. Only to understand the deeper reasons why.
-
Scipio I think that is an excellent post and I see it exactly the same as you. Had the Bambers been poor they would all have lived.
If they had been poor and thus he had to work elsewhere he would only have seen them infrequently. If they hounded the crap out of him when he visited- challenging him to make something more of his life then he simply would have be able to visit less.
He had no drive to go do anything else and thus agreed to work in the family business with the understanding he would take it over when they die. He didn't like the business though and didn't like working period. He could have left but if he left he would have to find a job elsewhere and share the inheritance with Sheila after the last one died.
The easiest way he could get instant money and be able to stop working was by killing them. He would have to pick some grand robbery scheme (like a bank robbery) if they were poor and he was still hell bent on instantly becoming rich to quit working. Killing them was a grand crime realistically attainable as opposed to pie in the sky crimes like drilling into a bank vault.
-
Where do crimes of passion come in ?
-
Steve, I would have to ask if Jeremy ever FELT loved. Love is difficult to extend if it's never been received. Where is that frame of reference for a boy who is told of his adoption almost -to him, perhaps- as learning he's to be sent away to boarding school. Where is the love in that. It's useless simply telling a child that it's loved. Children need that love to be demonstrated by being touched, hugged, being told they're important. It seems to me his only frame of reference for what love was revolved around money and I think, in his eyes, Sheila was getting more for doing less = sibling rivalry raises its' head.
I'm not seeking to excuse what he did. Only to understand the deeper reasons why.
Well said Jane very true and it's easy to see it's very possible that money and love were synonymous in JB's mind.
-
Steve, I would have to ask if Jeremy ever FELT loved. Love is difficult to extend if it's never been received. Where is that frame of reference for a boy who is told of his adoption almost -to him, perhaps- as learning he's to be sent away to boarding school. Where is the love in that. It's useless simply telling a child that it's loved. Children need that love to be demonstrated by being touched, hugged, being told they're important. It seems to me his only frame of reference for what love was revolved around money and I think, in his eyes, Sheila was getting more for doing less = sibling rivalry raises its' head.
I'm not seeking to excuse what he did. Only to understand the deeper reasons why.
You know April I was reading only this morning about Michael Reagan,son of former President Ronald Reagan,who was adopted at birth,sent away to boarding school and not recognized by his own dad on a school visit. The son was indicted for fraud and several other scams during his working life. https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2mrvjl/til_at_the_high_school_graduation_of_michael/
-
If they had been poor and thus he had to work elsewhere he would only have seen them infrequently. If they hounded the crap out of him when he visited- challenging him to make something more of his life then he simply would have be able to visit less.
He had no drive to go do anything else and thus agreed to work in the family business with the understanding he would take it over when they die. He didn't like the business though and didn't like working period. He could have left but if he left he would have to find a job elsewhere and share the inheritance with Sheila after the last one died.
The easiest way he could get instant money and be able to stop working was by killing them. He would have to pick some grand robbery scheme (like a bank robbery) if they were poor and he was still hell bent on instantly becoming rich to quit working. Killing them was a grand crime realistically attainable as opposed to pie in the sky crimes like drilling into a bank vault.
I'm not sure it's true to say he had no drive to do anything else. His biological father was a success and there's no reason to suppose Jeremy himself might not have made something of himself in the military had he not been earmarked to work on the Farm. As it was Nevill and June should have realized this City boy was not cut out for farm work,at which he did make an attempt as well as working at Little Chef on his own initiative. Had they had the foresight they would have lent him the capital to buy a wine bar or given him more say in running Osea Road,as Jeremy himself wished.
-
You know April I was reading only this morning about Michael Reagan,son of former President Ronald Reagan,who was adopted at birth,sent away to boarding school and not recognized by his own dad on a school visit. The son was indicted for fraud and several other scams during his working life. https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2mrvjl/til_at_the_high_school_graduation_of_michael/
Maggie/Steve, for many, in adult life, the more money they have, the more they feel loved and valued. The other big problem to raise its' head can be sexual promiscuity. It begins, in children, as a deep yearning to be touched and cuddled -especially with those children who see other children receiving this attention- unfortunately, at puberty, the need becomes exacerbated by hormones running riot and sex then equates with the love they never felt they received. I WILL add, before I'm jumped on from a great height that not ALL unloved children react like this, neither is it JUST the reserve of adopted children.
-
Would you not say then that both were as bad as one another ? Spoiled brats springs to mind.
Possibly - personally, I don't think either had strong bonds towards their parents but I think Jeremy less so. I think he was more interested in what he could get. Sorry, but that's how I see him.
-
I'm not sure it's true to say he had no drive to do anything else. His biological father was a success and there's no reason to suppose Jeremy himself might not have made something of himself in the military had he not been earmarked to work on the Farm. As it was Nevill and June should have realized this City boy was not cut out for farm work,at which he did make an attempt as well as working at Little Chef on his own initiative. Had they had the foresight they would have lent him the capital to buy a wine bar or given him more say in running Osea Road,as Jeremy himself wished.
Steve, I'm not sure it's FAIR to say Jeremy had no drive to do anything else, but Scipio can be very dogmatic in his assertions! He was probably given to understand from a very early age that it was his duty to take over the farm. That he may not want to probably wasn't given consideration. I think there may have been a time, up to a certain age, when he acquiesced until there came a point when he realized that he would be doing it from duty rather than choice.
-
Did CC tell the jury his " little phrase " that he " could have killed June ?"
-
Did CC tell the jury his " little phrase " that he " could have killed June ?"
I really don't see why you see this as mattering. They were his THOUGHTS. He didn't act on them. The only time our thoughts might become a problem is when we decide to act them out.
-
I really don't see why you see this as mattering. They were his THOUGHTS. He didn't act on them. The only time our thoughts might become a problem is when we decide to act them out.
Really ? Wasn't it " said " that Jeremy could kill his parents ?" One rule for one,eh ?
-
Really ? Wasn't it " said " that Jeremy could kill his parents ?" One rule for one,eh ?
Colin never mentioned thoughts of killing Neville, and his ex wife and children weren't standing in the way of his inheritance.
-
Really ? Wasn't it " said " that Jeremy could kill his parents ?" One rule for one,eh ?
He did. And everyone was killed. With one sole survivor who knew there was something wrong at the farm, due to inherit everything.
Unfortunately you cannot say how Sheila committed the crime to match the crime scene. Or dismiss the forensic and circumstantial evidence. So the only possible alive suspect, Jeremy is guilty.
Lookout you must change stance. If you don't want to PM me beforehand, PM April. She told Maggie this week how difficult it was for her to change stance. So can assist you.
Or April it may be a good idea if you PM Lookout as she is digging in without justification. Get the ball rolling.
-
He did. And everyone was killed. With one sole survivor who knew there was something wrong at the farm, due to inherit everything.
Unfortunately you cannot say how Sheila committed the crime to match the crime scene. Or dismiss the forensic and circumstantial evidence. So the only possible alive suspect, Jeremy is guilty.
Lookout you must change stance. If you don't want to PM me beforehand, PM April. She told Maggie this week how difficult it was for her to change stance. So can assist you.
Or April it may be a good idea if you PM Lookout as she is digging in without justification. Get the ball rolling.
Adam, it isn't for me to try to change anyone's mind. All I can do is introduce alternative ways of seeing things........................besides which, it would be no fun if we all agreed, would it?
-
Lookout it's possible to still get attention as a guilter. Providing you make good points.
Just saying Jeremy is innocent with nothing to back it up is unacceptable.
-
You're a fool Adam------------NOBODY tells me what to do !
-
I've been right too many times in my life and I'm not changing now. It's made me the strong person that I am.
-
]
I've been right too many times in my life and I'm not changing now. It's made me the strong person that I am.
If you're wrong, you're wrong, you have no control over it - unless of course when you are wrong, you never admit it.
-
]If you're wrong, you're wrong, you have no control over it - unless of course when you are wrong, you never admit it.
But I've never been in a situation to be wrong. If I know a thing is wrong,I won't argue against it,it's as simple as that.
-
The idea is not to be wrong in the first place. ;D
-
I've been right too many times in my life and I'm not changing now. It's made me the strong person that I am.
No humility there, then. You must think you share space with God. Omnipotent.
-
]If you're wrong, you're wrong, you have no control over it - unless of course when you are wrong, you never admit it.
From the sounds of it, that's closer to the mark, Caroline, as in, it MUST be someone else's fault I came to that decision because they misinformed me/put a comma in the wrong place. Our Lookout appears to have more in common with Scipio than she'd care to admit ;D ;D ;D
-
No humility there, then. You must think you share space with God. Omnipotent.
Jane,strict discipline in a nursing career means that you can NEVER be wrong----------or else. It's about decision making and you can't afford to make bad ones when people's lives are at stake. The same discipline has carried me through my life,it never leaves you.Plus the upbringing I had.
-
It's a tad childish to make comparisons with " God ". I didn't expect it of you.!
-
From the sounds of it, that's closer to the mark, Caroline, as in, it MUST be someone else's fault I came to that decision because they misinformed me/put a comma in the wrong place. Our Lookout appears to have more in common with Scipio than she'd care to admit ;D ;D ;D
And Jeremy's idea of a MOJ ;D
-
Jane,strict discipline in a nursing career means that you can NEVER be wrong----------or else. It's about decision making and you can't afford to make bad ones when people's lives are at stake. The same discipline has carried me through my life,it never leaves you.Plus the upbringing I had.
So nurses never make bad decisions? Of course they do!!!!! The police have the same discipline - they're never wrong either, are they?? ::)
-
Jane,strict discipline in a nursing career means that you can NEVER be wrong----------or else. It's about decision making and you can't afford to make bad ones when people's lives are at stake. The same discipline has carried me through my life,it never leaves you.Plus the upbringing I had.
Whilst that is highly commendable, Lookout, I'm very surprised that someone higher up the chain didn't remind you about humanity and humility.
-
It's a tad childish to make comparisons with " God ". I didn't expect it of you.!
Yes, it was. My apologies. It was unworthy of me.
-
Whilst that is highly commendable, Lookout, I'm very surprised that someone higher up the chain didn't remind you about humanity and humility.
Humanity went with the territory of nursing.Humility isn't something that describes me at best.Humility comes from achievement which,seeing that I haven't experienced wars/terrorism where soldiers/servicemen/women fought,without thought for their own welfare or safety.Now that IS a humbling act of bravery.
Humility is best left to those deserving of it.
-
Humanity went with the territory of nursing.Humility isn't something that describes me at best.Humility comes from achievement which,seeing that I haven't experienced wars/terrorism where soldiers/servicemen/women fought,without thought for their own welfare or safety.Now that IS a humbling act of bravery.
Humility is best left to those deserving of it.
Actually, showing humility is having the ability to step down and have the courage to own one's own mistakes. However, as you assure us that you're never wrong, I guess you can be forgiven for having no understanding of its' true meaning.
-
Maggie/Steve, for many, in adult life, the more money they have, the more they feel loved and valued. The other big problem to raise its' head can be sexual promiscuity. It begins, in children, as a deep yearning to be touched and cuddled -especially with those children who see other children receiving this attention- unfortunately, at puberty, the need becomes exacerbated by hormones running riot and sex then equates with the love they never felt they received. I WILL add, before I'm jumped on from a great height that not ALL unloved children react like this, neither is it JUST the reserve of adopted children.
I have found the complete opposite to be true. People who want love and affection and simply are given money and gifts do not equate money with love and feel cheated.
-
I have found the complete opposite to be true. People who want love and affection and simply are given money and gifts do not equate money with love and feel cheated.
That comes as no surprise. But I share the opinion of psychologists who say, if a child is taught by parents whose approval it seeks, that money is the most important thing in life and sees the fact demonstrated/reenforced, it WILL feel wonderful -they must love me to spend all this on me- when such an immense and important commodity is bestowed on them in the form of gifts/bribes. I concur, that as realization sets in, so too, may the feeling of being bought off/cheated, but like the drug addict who feels better with the next fix, the next gift will make them feel better/LOVED for a time.
-
That comes as no surprise. But I share the opinion of psychologists who say, if a child is taught by parents whose approval it seeks, that money is the most important thing in life and sees the fact demonstrated/reenforced, it WILL feel wonderful -they must love me to spend all this on me- when such an immense and important commodity is bestowed on them in the form of gifts/bribes. I concur, that as realization sets in, so too, may the feeling of being bought off/cheated, but like the drug addict who feels better with the next fix, the next gift will make them feel better/LOVED for a time.
It makes sense to me, Jane.
-
It makes sense to me, Jane.
Thanks Maggie. I fail to see how people cannot take on board how it's simplicity itself to use daily drips of reinforcement to indoctrinate a child. Perhaps if I called it "grooming from an early age" it would be more understandable.
-
Thanks Maggie. I fail to see how people cannot take on board how it's simplicity itself to use daily drips of reinforcement to indoctrinate a child. Perhaps if I called it "grooming from an early age" it would be more understandable.
People do it all the time, they buy something to make them feel happy/alive and after a few weeks it's old hat and they want another fix. Pretty sad really.
-
I have found the complete opposite to be true. People who want love and affection and simply are given money and gifts do not equate money with love and feel cheated.
Scipio
I see where you are coming from quite often parents shower their kids with material things because they do not have the time to give them love and attention and children do sense this and can feel let down when the novelty of the gifts has worn off. Sad really.
-
Scipio
I see where you are coming from quite often parents shower their kids with material things because they do not have the time to give them love and attention and children do sense this and can feel let down when the novelty of the gifts has worn off. Sad really.
There is not only a lot of resentment, those who are starved for love often end up looking for it in other ways and places including sleeping around, abusing substances and other things that end up causing problems. When they become parents they either 1) break this cycle and make sure they don't treat their kids the same way because they didn't like it; or 2) those who perpetuate it by doing the same thing to their kids.
-
There is not only a lot of resentment, those who are starved for love often end up looking for it in other ways and places including sleeping around, abusing substances and other things that end up causing problems. When they become parents they either 1) break this cycle and make sure they don't treat their kids the same way because they didn't like it; or 2) those who perpetuate it by doing the same thing to their kids.
And this is exactly why I bought in the possibility of sexual promiscuity which often has much less to do with sex than a basic need for affection, the lack of which can cause an emptiness difficult to fill. Substance/alcohol abuse assuages the feelings on a temporary basis until the doses/amounts taken increase and cause their own problems. Unfortunately by the time these people produce their own children, because they know no other way of being, patterns often repeat. Those capable of thinking find help in breaking the cycle. It can be done.
-
In his book Colin did say that he couldn´t blame Jeremy for killing June because he would have done it himself! Jeremy saved him the trouble! He said that about someone who killed his children in the same sweep, so to say.
At the trial Colin couldn´t judge Jeremy for killing JUNE, he wanted to kill her himself.
But I don´t understand Colin here, Jeremy killed his sons! All he talks about is that he understands why he killed June!
Really confusing. Deeply dysfunctional - and if there is one thing we cannot talk about here: the dysfunction of the Bamber family. Where it all came from.
under the cercumstances im rather suprised he said he cant of liked her.
mind you was he thinking straght at the time he had been through a very traumatic expernce.
-
Nugs,June was truly awful towards Sheila and Colin. I felt sorry for them both before they got married as June wouldn't allow Sheila to wear a white wedding dress or get married in a church because Sheila was pregnant. How very Christian-like.!
-
Nugs,June was truly awful towards Sheila and Colin. I felt sorry for them both before they got married as June wouldn't allow Sheila to wear a white wedding dress or get married in a church because Sheila was pregnant. How very Christian-like.!
she did wear a white dress I think ?- I am sure I have seen a picture . But I agree she gave Sheila a hard time .
-
well that explians it then.
-
she did wear a white dress I think ?- I am sure I have seen a picture . But I agree she gave Sheila a hard time .
I think Colin said she was only allowed to wear a cream dress. :-\
-
I think Colin said she was only allowed to wear a cream dress. :-\
According to CAL it was cream. I'm getting good at this, aren't I? ;D ;D ;D
-
ahhh - black and white photo :)
-
According to CAL it was cream. I'm getting good at this, aren't I? ;D ;D ;D
Yes,it was cream. Aw,they wanted to get married at June's church and she said " Indeed not ". I'd have felt sick right away.
-
How bloody cruel was that ?.Poor Sheila having to put up with it. June was cruel to Sheila of that there was no doubt. Poor Neville kept his mouth shut for the sake of peace.
-
How bloody cruel was that ?.Poor Sheila having to put up with it. June was cruel to Sheila of that there was no doubt. Poor Neville kept his mouth shut for the sake of peace.
He may have agreed with June? Or thought of it as women's business and none of his business?
-
Yes,it was cream. Aw,they wanted to get married at June's church and she said " Indeed not ". I'd have felt sick right away.
Sadly, for June, it looks as if she felt herself to be judged on every level, be it by God or the community. It would have made spontaneous, loving motherhood virtually impossible because of all the God/man made rules she had to follow.
-
He may have agreed with June?
I think he did latterly Maggie,again,for peace's sake. This wouldn't have gone down well with Sheila either as once upon a time he'd been very supportive of Sheila. There could have been steaming rows about that,we don't know.
-
Sadly, for June, it looks as if she felt herself to be judged on every level, be it by God or the community. It would have made spontaneous, loving motherhood virtually impossible because of all the God/man made rules she had to follow.
Poor June, she had a raw deal herself in many ways.
-
Poor June, she had a raw deal herself in many ways.
No need to have taken it out on Sheila though. She'd have been better channelling her thoughts on understanding the girl and her needs than living in the past.
-
Poor June, she had a raw deal herself in many ways.
Maggie, I truly believe that SHE believed that God and the world -OK, her family, fellow church goers and friends- would accept, from her, nothing less than perfection and it was something she strove for, putting it before all else.
-
No need to have taken it out on Sheila though. She'd have been better channelling her thoughts on understanding the girl and her needs than living in the past.
She saw herself as saving Sheila from a life of degradation and spending eternity in hell.
-
No need to have taken it out on Sheila though. She'd have been better channelling her thoughts on understanding the girl and her needs than living in the past.
She was ill herself poor woman, don't think she could help herself anymore than Sheila could.
-
She saw herself as saving Sheila from a life of degradation and spending eternity in hell.
It wasn't exactly the right way to go though. In CC's book,those little boys were clinging on to their dad when he'd dropped them off at the farmhouse. It's heartbreaking. They'd told their dad to " tell grannie that one of them didn't like meat " as he was scared she'd cause ructions if he refused.
-
It wasn't exactly the right way to go though. In CC's book,those little boys were clinging on to their dad when he'd dropped them off at the farmhouse. It's heartbreaking. They'd told their dad to " tell grannie that one of them didn't like meat " as he was scared she'd cause ructions if he refused.
No, it wasn't, but I suspect she thought it would cause ructions -from WHERE and from WHOM?- if she didn't insist that he ate it. Remember the fears she had about HER children being taken from her if she didn't "do it by the book"? They were probably still there.
-
No, it wasn't, but I suspect she thought it would cause ructions -from WHERE and from WHOM?- if she didn't insist that he ate it. Remember the fears she had about HER children being taken from her if she didn't "do it by the book"? They were probably still there.
I can understand her fear of losing her adoptive children when they were small, I think many adoptive mothers suffer from this but because June had diagnosed mental health problems she was possibly ultra anxious and as you say this may have continued to her grand children.
-
No, it wasn't, but I suspect she thought it would cause ructions -from WHERE and from WHOM?- if she didn't insist that he ate it. Remember the fears she had about HER children being taken from her if she didn't "do it by the book"? .
They were probably still there------I can go along with that,but there comes a time when you have to brace yourself for the sake of the children.
-
It wasn't exactly the right way to go though. In CC's book,those little boys were clinging on to their dad when he'd dropped them off at the farmhouse. It's heartbreaking. They'd told their dad to " tell grannie that one of them didn't like meat " as he was scared she'd cause ructions if he refused.
Hi lookout
I think that was the last time Colin saw his boys and has carried the guilt of not speaking to June about the meat and the prayers. Poor Colin.
-
Hi lookput
I think that was the last time Colin saw his boys and has carried the guilt of not speaking to June about the meat and the prayers. Poor Colin.
Very distressing,Susan.
-
Very distressing,Susan.
Going to grannies is usually a happy and joyful experience for children because they can" get away" with things that the parents would look down upon,within reason of course. Games,colouring,stories and lego blocks. I loved it more than the children did I think.
June wasn't a " hands on " grannie,as comparisons were made because Christine got on the floor to play with the boys.
It should be some of the happiest times of your life,especially when you can hand them back. ;D ;D ;D
-
he must of felt very strongly about it to say that.
-
I wonder if Colins state of mind as he drove Sheila and his boys to whf that day proved to be the catekyst which sparked off Sheila on the rampage. Colin wan5ing to kiol June Bamber, and shortly afterward June being killed, seems to me to be linked insome way...
-
Well Sheila wasn't exactly overjoyed to be going and neither were those poor children. Colin had been trying his best to put the boys minds at rest by saying " they'd be alright as mummy was with them ". It makes you feel sick in the pit of your stomach-----------well it does me anyway.
-
The " scene " between mother and daughter puts me in mind of the film " Mommy Dearest " which depicted Joan Crawford and her abusive behaviour towards her adopted daughter, Christina. Crawford was a horrible person in real life which is why she was able to play horrible parts in films.
The film was out in 1981.
-
The " scene " between mother and daughter puts me in mind of the film " Mommy Dearest " which depicted Joan Crawford and her abusive behaviour towards her adopted daughter, Christina. Crawford was a horrible person in real life which is why she was able to play horrible parts in films.
The film was out in 1981.
Hi lookout (not lookput hahaha)
I watched that film it was so awful hope Sheila did not go through that although I do believe June was quite strict with her Sheila loved her Dad but not sure about June according to Colin she was not close to June.
-
Hi lookout (not lookput hahaha)
I watched that film it was so awful hope Sheila did not go through that although I do believe June was quite strict with her Sheila loved her Dad but not sure about June according to Colin she was not close to June.
Hi Susan,this is what it puts me in mind of the way Sheila was treated. At first I'd thought of the " Baby Jane " film,but this one sends more of a message.
Poor Neville was betwixt and between the two warring women always trying to keep the peace,until latterly when June had visited her GP again with what appeared to have been a lapse in her own condition in which Neville would have been concerned about so protecting his wife this time.
-
I wonder if Colins state of mind as he drove Sheila and his boys to whf that day proved to be the catekyst which sparked off Sheila on the rampage. Colin wan5ing to kiol June Bamber, and shortly afterward June being killed, seems to me to be linked insome way...
This is something Colin expressed later - however, Jeremy told several people he wanted to kill his family. Seems to me to be linked in some way...
-
Hi Susan,this is what it puts me in mind of the way Sheila was treated. At first I'd thought of the " Baby Jane " film,but this one sends more of a message.
Poor Neville was betwixt and between the two warring women always trying to keep the peace,until latterly when June had visited her GP again with what appeared to have been a lapse in her own condition in which Neville would have been concerned about so protecting his wife this time.
I do feel June gets all the blame, she did take food to Sheila and appeared to try to help and support her however misguided her beliefs/attitude may have been. :-\
-
Hi Susan,this is what it puts me in mind of the way Sheila was treated. At first I'd thought of the " Baby Jane " film,but this one sends more of a message.
Poor Neville was betwixt and between the two warring women always trying to keep the peace,until latterly when June had visited her GP again with what appeared to have been a lapse in her own condition in which Neville would have been concerned about so protecting his wife this time.
Why did Sheila go to WHF for the week if she hated it so much and the boys hated it so much? I can't remember what the reason was but Sheila was a grown woman who had lived away since she was about 17, why take the boys somewhere they hated?
-
Hi Susan,this is what it puts me in mind of the way Sheila was treated. At first I'd thought of the " Baby Jane " film,but this one sends more of a message.
Poor Neville was betwixt and between the two warring women always trying to keep the peace,until latterly when June had visited her GP again with what appeared to have been a lapse in her own condition in which Neville would have been concerned about so protecting his wife this time.
You seem to be writing your own version. They had differences but 'warring women'? ::)
-
You seem to be writing your own version. They had differences but 'warring women'? ::)
Well yes because Claire Powell used my thoughts in words as she wrote that on arrival to WHF when Colin had dropped them off,the two women had begun arguing as soon as they set eyes on each other.
-
Well yes because Claire Powell used my thoughts in words as she wrote that on arrival to WHF when Colin had dropped them off,the two women had begun arguing as soon as they set eyes on each other.
I am still wondering why the boys were taken to WHF if it was such a frightening place for them. Whatever problems it may have caused Sheila surely her boys happiness came first and she shouldn't have taken them there?
-
Why did Sheila go to WHF for the week if she hated it so much and the boys hated it so much? I can't remember what the reason was but Sheila was a grown woman who had lived away since she was about 17, why take the boys somewhere they hated?
Maggie
the boys had no choice and Sheila would think it her duty plus she loved Ralph. You only have to read Colin's book to get the gist of what Sheila thought of June and the wee boys were frightened of her.
-
Susan,it's because I've read snippets of Colin's book that I have a different view of June. I feel he could have said a lot more but probably thought better of it. If anyone knew what life was like at home and at the farmhouse it was Colin as he'd known far more than anyone else,including Jeremy who still sings his mother's praises. I reckon he,Jeremy, didn't know the half. He couldn't have done or he'd have said before now.
-
Maggie
the boys had no choice and Sheila would think it her duty plus she loved Ralph. You only have to read Colin's book to get the gist of what Sheila thought of June and the wee boys were frightened of her.
I know the boys had no choice, am just saying if my children were that frightened of their grandmother I wouldn't take them for more than a day and their grandfather would have understood.
Jeremy seems to want us to believe June was a saint which she obviously wasn't anymore than most people are and she definitely had all kinds of problems but I don't believe she was so wicked she was the cause of everything.
Sheila was a grown woman with free will, she was either very, very ill and therefore needed real support and help or she was as some claim mildly schizophrenic and in charge of her own destiny and making her own choices.... just saying. :-\
-
Susan,it's because I've read snippets of Colin's book that I have a different view of June. I feel he could have said a lot more but probably thought better of it. If anyone knew what life was like at home and at the farmhouse it was Colin as he'd known far more than anyone else,including Jeremy who still sings his mother's praises. I reckon he,Jeremy, didn't know the half. He couldn't have done or he'd have said before now.
Personally I am not sure why he said what he did . June could not give her version could she.
In the beginning when Sheila was being slated in the papers I can understand why he would have tried to defend her. But once Jeremy had been convicted I am not sure why he wrote what he did . He did not have to defend Sheila anymore . I guess he thought it explained her illness?
-
I'd certainly have given her a wide berth.
Sheila was so much under June's spell that she told everyone she met or came into contact with that she didn't get on with her mother. It literally drove the poor girl insane.
Colin had told Stan Jones that " he betted his bottom dollar that June would have been the one to have mentioned foster care for the boys ". He really disliked the woman as he went on to say that " there was no love lost between Bambs and her mother ". This was when CC was being questioned,or as CC put it,intimidated by Stan Jones.
-
Personally I am not sure why he said what he did . June could not give her version could she.
In the beginning when Sheila was being slated in the papers I can understand why he would have tried to defend her. But once Jeremy had been convicted I am not sure why he wrote what he did . He did not have to defend Sheila anymore . I guess he thought it explained her illness?
Have read some of Collin's book but difficult to comment til I have read it all but I do accept his book was very personal and about him trying to make sense of am unbelievable tragedy in his life. I don't believe everything he wrote was particularly factually correct but more his take, emotions and his pain. He was no doubt very angry and June seemed to be the focus of that anger, it's all very sad but others had their responsibility as well.
-
Well yes because Claire Powell used my thoughts in words as she wrote that on arrival to WHF when Colin had dropped them off,the two women had begun arguing as soon as they set eyes on each other.
Perhaps she did write that but she wasn't there and writer notoriously use poetic licence. Colin didn't mention it and he was THERE.
-
I know the boys had no choice, am just saying if my children were that frightened of their grandmother I wouldn't take them for more than a day and their grandfather would have understood.
Jeremy seems to want us to believe June was a saint which she obviously wasn't anymore than most people are and she definitely had all kinds of problems but I don't believe she was so wicked she was the cause of everything.
Sheila was a grown woman with free will, she was either very, very ill and therefore needed real support and help or she was as some claim mildly schizophrenic and in charge of her own destiny and making her own choices.... just saying. :-\
I don't get the impression that the twins were 'frightened' of June, more that they didn't like her strictness. People seem to be suggesting that the trip to WHF was like a trip to monster mansion - I imagine that people's accounts have been influenced in light of what happened.
-
Susan,it's because I've read snippets of Colin's book that I have a different view of June. I feel he could have said a lot more but probably thought better of it. If anyone knew what life was like at home and at the farmhouse it was Colin as he'd known far more than anyone else,including Jeremy who still sings his mother's praises. I reckon he,Jeremy, didn't know the half. He couldn't have done or he'd have said before now.
Why on earth would Colin know more than Jeremy? Jeremy had lived there, June and Nevill were is parents. Did Colin know more than Sheila? That doesn't make sense Lookout.
-
The " scene " between mother and daughter puts me in mind of the film " Mommy Dearest " which depicted Joan Crawford and her abusive behaviour towards her adopted daughter, Christina. Crawford was a horrible person in real life which is why she was able to play horrible parts in films.
The film was out in 1981.
That, of course, would be the scene in your imagination. Colin stayed for a couple of hours(?) and makes no mention of arguments, cat fights or wars between June and Sheila.
-
I don't get the impression that the twins were 'frightened' of June, more that they didn't like her strictness. People seem to be suggesting that the trip to WHF was like a trip to monster mansion - I imagine that people's accounts have been influenced in light of what happened.
I think it's been blown out of proportion . Colin writes that they 'clung' to him when time to leave them at the farm but he may have put his own emotions and sense of loss onto the memory.
Many schizophrenics develop 'hate' figures often the mother, some adopters transfer the anger of the loss of vCard the natural mother onto thevadoptive mother so where did Sheila's problems end and June's begin? Who knows?
-
Why on earth would Colin know more than Jeremy? Jeremy had lived there, June and Nevill were is parents. Did Colin know more than Sheila? That doesn't make sense Lookout.
Because Colin was married to Sheila and had herself lived at the farmhouse and by all accounts received more wrath from her mother than Jeremy ever did. It went on after Sheila's marriage too when June hadn't approved of Colin so that was a bad start. Naturally Colin would have been told about the rocky relationship between the two women as most of his book is written about it.Because Colin was more a man of the world than both Sheila and Jeremy,and because he was outside looking in,he could probably see far more than they. It's usually the way of anyone who can see the faults and foibles from being on the outside as opposed to living amongst them. This is besides what Sheila would have told him and what he'd experienced himself.
CC must have been furious when he wrote his letter to Neville about calling a halt to the prayers and Bible-readings.He didn't want his sons to be brought up that way or to be scared in any way and end up like their mother.
-
I think it's been blown out of proportion . Colin writes that they 'clung' to him when time to leave them at the farm but he may have put his own emotions and sense of loss onto the memory.
Many schizophrenics develop 'hate' figures often the mother, some adopters transfer the anger of the loss of the natural mother onto the padoptive mother so where did Sheila's problems end and June's begin? Who knows?
Maggie Colin may have done what you have suggested but then again he may not we will never know guess he is the only one who does actually know.
-
Because Colin was married to Sheila and had herself lived at the farmhouse and by all accounts received more wrath from her mother than Jeremy ever did. It went on after Sheila's marriage too when June hadn't approved of Colin so that was a bad start. Naturally Colin would have been told about the rocky relationship between the two women as most of his book is written about it.Because Colin was more a man of the world than both Sheila and Jeremy,and because he was outside looking in,he could probably see far more than they. It's usually the way of anyone who can see the faults and foibles from being on the outside as opposed to living amongst them. This is besides what Sheila would have told him and what he'd experienced himself.
CC must have been furious when he wrote his letter to Neville about calling a halt to the prayers and Bible-readings.He didn't want his sons to be brought up that way or to be scared in any way and end up like their mother.
I agree he was angry, but he never gave Neville the letter. Too absorbed in his own thought, perhaps? We'll never know.
-
I agree he was angry, but he never gave Neville the letter. Too absorbed in his own thought, perhaps? We'll never know.
I know the letter wasn't passed on. It didn't need to have been with what occurred. Actions spoke louder.
-
I know the letter wasn't passed on. It didn't need to have been with what occurred. Actions spoke louder.
He could have handed it to Neville when they arrived OR as he was leaving.
-
He could have handed it to Neville when they arrived OR as he was leaving.
Mmmm,I wonder where it ended up ?
-
Speaking of Compassion ( was I ? ) The people of Merseyside have handed in 100,000 signatures after seeing that harrowing picture of those two little boys who drowned on a Turkish beach, to let those people in.
-
Mmmm,I wonder where it ended up ?
I think he handed it to the police. Whatever he did, it's contents are in the public domain.
-
Speaking of Compassion ( was I ? ) The people of Merseyside have handed in 100,000 signatures after seeing that harrowing picture of those two little boys who drowned on a Turkish beach, to let those people in.
Well done Liverpool, typical of that great city. Its a pity so many had to die before the establishment woke up. Shame on the government, the suffering of these people is horrendous.
-
I think it's been blown out of proportion . Colin writes that they 'clung' to him when time to leave them at the farm but he may have put his own emotions and sense of loss onto the memory.
Many schizophrenics develop 'hate' figures often the mother, some adopters transfer the anger of the loss of vCard the natural mother onto thevadoptive mother so where did Sheila's problems end and June's begin? Who knows?
It is intentionally blown out of proportion. He explained what the boys didn't like. They didn't like the food they were served while staying and didn't like being taught about religion, having to do chores... They were probably allowed to do anything they want except when at WHF where they had to do as they were told and were made to do things they didn't like.
People who harp on such do so in order to push an agenda it is not an accident. It is used to try to suggest June and Nevill were horrible people though it is quite ridiculous to suggest this establishes such.
-
Because Colin was married to Sheila and had herself lived at the farmhouse and by all accounts received more wrath from her mother than Jeremy ever did. It went on after Sheila's marriage too when June hadn't approved of Colin so that was a bad start. Naturally Colin would have been told about the rocky relationship between the two women as most of his book is written about it.Because Colin was more a man of the world than both Sheila and Jeremy,and because he was outside looking in,he could probably see far more than they. It's usually the way of anyone who can see the faults and foibles from being on the outside as opposed to living amongst them. This is besides what Sheila would have told him and what he'd experienced himself.
CC must have been furious when he wrote his letter to Neville about calling a halt to the prayers and Bible-readings.He didn't want his sons to be brought up that way or to be scared in any way and end up like their mother.
I wouldn't say Colin was 'more a man of the world'. Having never met him I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to make that judgement. It's not always the case that someone outside looking in can see more clearly, they are bound by what they are told and if what they are told - in this instance, Colin was influenced by Sheila and at times, by Jeremy. If he is only given negative information then that will cloud his opinion and his judgement. Sheila and Jeremy, were the only people who knew what went on behind closed doors and as such would know far more than Colin.
-
It is intentionally blown out of proportion. He explained what the boys didn't like. They didn't like the food they were served while staying and didn't like being taught about religion, having to do chores... They were probably allowed to do anything they want except when at WHF where they had to do as they were told and were made to do things they didn't like.
People who harp on such do so in order to push an agenda it is not an accident. It is used to try to suggest June and Nevill were horrible people though it is quite ridiculous to suggest this establishes such.
if that was the case then colin was showing a surprising amount of concern about it.
i think it had to be a bit more than that.
-
It is intentionally blown out of proportion. He explained what the boys didn't like. They didn't like the food they were served while staying and didn't like being taught about religion, having to do chores... They were probably allowed to do anything they want except when at WHF where they had to do as they were told and were made to do things they didn't like.
People who harp on such do so in order to push an agenda it is not an accident. It is used to try to suggest June and Nevill were horrible people though it is quite ridiculous to suggest this establishes such.
To us it was blown out of all proportion but to June it was the end of the world. Because she too wasn't well and her reasoning on such small matters became an explosive situation. She too couldn't help it being prone to a depressive illness herself.
-
It is intentionally blown out of proportion. He explained what the boys didn't like. They didn't like the food they were served while staying and didn't like being taught about religion, having to do chores... They were probably allowed to do anything they want except when at WHF where they had to do as they were told and were made to do things they didn't like.
People who harp on such do so in order to push an agenda it is not an accident. It is used to try to suggest June and Nevill were horrible people though it is quite ridiculous to suggest this establishes such.
I'm sure they didn't, and encouraging them to do things they don't like WASN'T necessarily bad for them and may have helped them develop. HOWEVER, there are ways of doing this. Forcing them isn't one of them. Make things seem like fun. Engage with them. Sadly, June's way of handling her grandsons seems to have been, as it had been with Sheila, about control. She seems determined that they would do it her way. I see nothing wrong with bringing children up with Christian values but although I don't believe it was her place to do this without the parents' permission, she could have taught them religion without the word ever being mentioned. Surely much better to turn bible stories into adventure stories that she could have told them off by heart instead of reading them in language which isn't easy for children to comprehend. Might it not have been better simply to teach them how to be kind rather than have them on their knees, praying. Her way put them off, even frightened them.
Even when I thought that Jeremy was innocent I didn't suggest that Neville and June were "horrible people" -certainly Neville was thought of as being great fun and excellent company. June was a worthy woman who I believe was kindness itself to those she didn't have any expectations of. Sadly, she had expectations of her family that they appeared unable to fulfil.
-
I'm sure they didn't, and encouraging them to do things they don't like WASN'T necessarily bad for them and may have helped them develop. HOWEVER, there are ways of doing this. Forcing them isn't one of them. Make things seem like fun. Engage with them. Sadly, June's way of handling her grandsons seems to have been, as it had been with Sheila, about control. She seems determined that they would do it her way. I see nothing wrong with bringing children up with Christian values but although I don't believe it was her place to do this without the parents' permission, she could have taught them religion without the word ever being mentioned. Surely much better to turn bible stories into adventure stories that she could have told them off by heart instead of reading them in language which isn't easy for children to comprehend. Might it not have been better simply to teach them how to be kind rather than have them on their knees, praying. Her way put them off, even frightened them.
Even when I thought that Jeremy was innocent I didn't suggest that Neville and June were "horrible people" -certainly Neville was thought of as being great fun and excellent company. June was a worthy woman who I believe was kindness itself to those she didn't have any expectations of. Sadly, she had expectations of her family that they appeared unable to fulfil.
They obviously had Sheila's permission to force them to eat food they didn't want to eat and learn about religion- she was there at the time and permitted such to occur. If children are not forced they will not do things forcing children is often in their best interest.
-
They obviously had Sheila's permission to force them to eat food they didn't want to eat and learn about religion- she was there at the time and permitted such to occur. If children are not forced they will not do things forcing children is often in their best interest.
Strictly speaking, she wasn't "there" she was all over the place, taking no interest in the children what so ever and no interest in helping June -as she relayed to Pam- so it's doubtful she'd have taken much interest in what June was doing with the children. I don't go with forcing children to do anything. Persuading,coercing, manipulating, bribing -if necessary. If they think it was their idea they'll do it much more willingly.
-
Strictly speaking, she wasn't "there" she was all over the place, taking no interest in the children what so ever and no interest in helping June -as she relayed to Pam- so it's doubtful she'd have taken much interest in what June was doing with the children. I don't go with forcing children to do anything. Persuading,coercing, manipulating, bribing -if necessary. If they think it was their idea they'll do it much more willingly.
Agreed Jane, I still wonder why she took them to the farm if the children were so unhappy there. I would guess they were apprehensive because June was quite strict but once there it was quite fun, it's typical of kids to behave like that and then they're as happy as anything when they've worried you to death.
I agree forcing children to do things is wrong in my book, could never force mine to do anything they didn't want to do, I suppose a good beating may have made them do it but I would have had to catch them first ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Agreed Jane, I still wonder why she took them to the farm if the children were so unhappy there. I would guess they were apprehensive because June was quite strict but once there it was quite fun, it's typical of kids to behave like that and then they're as happy as anything when they've worried you to death.
I agree forcing children to do things is wrong in my book, could never force mine to do anything they didn't want to do, I suppose a good beating may have made them do it but I would have had to catch them first ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I think it was the equivalent of a Royal Command visit, Maggie. Colin was taking them to his sister's in Norway and the grandparents wanted to see them before they went -I've often wondered if the money in Neville's wallet was holiday money for the twins. I think they probably DID over egg the pudding on the chance that if they made enough fuss Colin wouldn't make them stay -you have to hand it to them for trying- on the other hand if June was seen to be a firm disciplinarian, I imagine Colin was anything but and was all about free expression, as for Sheila..................To be honest, I don't think opposite ends of the spectrum are good for children and it becomes worse when it's in a tug of love situation. A good beating? Hmm. I wonder if it will ever catch on ;D ;D ;D
-
I think it was the equivalent of a Royal Command visit, Maggie. Colin was taking them to his sister's in Norway and the grandparents wanted to see them before they went -I've often wondered if the money in Neville's wallet was holiday money for the twins. I think they probably DID over egg the pudding on the chance that if they made enough fuss Colin wouldn't make them stay -you have to hand it to them for trying- on the other hand if June was seen to be a firm disciplinarian, I imagine Colin was anything but and was all about free expression, as for Sheila..................To be honest, I don't think opposite ends of the spectrum are good for children and it becomes worse when it's in a tug of love situation. A good beating? Hmm. I wonder if it will ever catch on ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D I am sure it was difficult but don't believe it was as bad as we have been led to believe.
I must say when I managed to catch them beating didn't do much good they're still as naughty as ever ;D ;D ;D
-
Strictly speaking, she wasn't "there" she was all over the place, taking no interest in the children what so ever and no interest in helping June -as she relayed to Pam- so it's doubtful she'd have taken much interest in what June was doing with the children. I don't go with forcing children to do anything. Persuading,coercing, manipulating, bribing -if necessary. If they think it was their idea they'll do it much more willingly.
You say she took no interest in them. You say such from a position of ignorance. You constantly assume you know all about her and the victims though you clearly don't. You say I assume I know everything but it is you who do so and look very foolish in the process.
-
your saying it from ignorance as well we all are.
-
Strictly speaking, she wasn't "there" she was all over the place, taking no interest in the children what so ever and no interest in helping June -as she relayed to Pam- so it's doubtful she'd have taken much interest in what June was doing with the children. I don't go with forcing children to do anything. Persuading,coercing, manipulating, bribing -if necessary. If they think it was their idea they'll do it much more willingly.
You say she took no interest in them. You say such from a position of ignorance. You constantly assume you know all about her and the victims though you clearly don't. You say I assume I know everything but it is you who do so and look very foolish in the process.
OK, unless you're about to twist what I've said, which part of the above are you assuming that I'm assuming? I didn't pull any of it from the ether. June told Pam "she has no interest in anything including the twins." Others spoke of her lethargy. Her zombie-like movements, however I HAVE allowed for the occasion when she was seen skipping with the children in a post where I've said I believe she was depressed AND outlined my reasons for it.So now tell me where, from your lofty superiority come your beliefs of my ignorance?
-
OK, unless you're about to twist what I've said, which part of the above are you assuming that I'm assuming? I didn't pull any of it from the ether. June told Pam "she has no interest in anything including the twins." Others spoke of her lethargy. Her zombie-like movements, however I HAVE allowed for the occasion when she was seen skipping with the children in a post where I've said I believe she was depressed AND outlined my reasons for it.So now tell me where, from your lofty superiority come your beliefs of my ignorance?
Jeremy said she brought the kids to play on the tractor as he was trying to work. That alone says she was with them at least part of the visit and taking an interest in what they were doing. She is the one who stuck her son's dirty pant to soak. These are actual things we know she did we don't know what else she may have been doing with them because all those who would know are dead except for Jeremy would was not with her and the boys that much. You choose to ignore such and take generalizations and say these generalizations mean you know all. Your ignorance of the facts is obviously - no one who didn't know them is in any position to judge their relations and by ignoring such and pretending you know so much you demonstrate you refuse to face you have no frame of reference.
-
Jeremy said she brought the kids to play on the tractor as he was trying to work. That alone says she was with them at least part of the visit and taking an interest in what they were doing. She is the one who stuck her son's dirty pant to soak. These are actual things we know she did we don't know what else she may have been doing with them because all those who would know are dead except for Jeremy would was not with her and the boys that much. You choose to ignore such and take generalizations and say these generalizations mean you know all. Your ignorance of the facts is obviously - no one who didn't know them is in any position to judge their relations and by ignoring such and pretending you know so much you demonstrate you refuse to face you have no frame of reference.
I have to disagree scipio, Pamela stated that June told her on the telephone how worried she was about Sheila's lack of interest in anything including the boys just as Jane stated in her post. It is in fact one of the very few things we definitely know about the night of the murders.
-
Jeremy said she brought the kids to play on the tractor as he was trying to work. That alone says she was with them at least part of the visit and taking an interest in what they were doing. She is the one who stuck her son's dirty pant to soak. These are actual things we know she did we don't know what else she may have been doing with them because all those who would know are dead except for Jeremy would was not with her and the boys that much. You choose to ignore such and take generalizations and say these generalizations mean you know all. Your ignorance of the facts is obviously - no one who didn't know them is in any position to judge their relations and by ignoring such and pretending you know so much you demonstrate you refuse to face you have no frame of reference.
WOW! GEE!! Holy f'ing smoke. Make a point, why don't you!!! I've already said that ONLY 95% of what has been said of her, by those who knew her, during her last couple of weeks suggests depression. I've allowed for a couple of times when her spirits seemed to lift, the occasion you mention being one of them. I'm finding it laughable in the extreme that the only thing you can pick out to point to my ignorance is something I've already mentioned, and isn't it rather strange that it is the ONLY thing, other than soaking their dirty clothes that you can find that she did for/with them in three days. Signs of true devotion, don't you think, that may have worn her out to the point that she couldn't do anything else with them...........................d'ya think that may have been the reason why June told Pam "She has no interest in anything including the twins"?
-
I have to disagree scipio, Pamela stated that June told her on the telephone how worried she was about Sheila's lack of interest in anything including the boys just as Jane stated in her post. It is in fact one of the very few things we definitely know about the night of the murders.
Maggie, his next post, which he'll probably put his own spin on and insist he's right, will probably tell us that June didn't mean what we think she meant.
-
Maggie, his next post, which he'll probably put his own spin on and insist he's right, will probably tell us that June didn't mean what we think she meant.
;) ;)
-
I have to disagree scipio, Pamela stated that June told her on the telephone how worried she was about Sheila's lack of interest in anything including the boys just as Jane stated in her post. It is in fact one of the very few things we definitely know about the night of the murders.
What someone sees as a lack of interest is in the eye of the beholder. There is a reason why courts don't want witnesses to give subjective opinions but only want witnesses who cant detail events they observed and conversations they had so the trier of fact can draw their own conclusions.
I gave 2 examples of things we know happened- one was her taking an interest in washing their clothing and another is she actually went with them to visit Jeremy which he complained about because he said they were bothering him. It is clear at least some of the time she payed attention to them while they were visiting.
It is obvious the Haldol affected her as she had speech problems and sometimes would just sit around vacantly but she wasn't like that 24/7. It was concerning but different than if she were like that always which would have resulted in her doctors being consulted.
It seems June and Nevill wanted Sheila to entertain the boys most of the time and just to have a little bit of time with them which makes me wonder why they even wanted them to stay over.
-
What someone sees as a lack of interest is in the eye of the beholder. There is a reason why courts don't want witnesses to give subjective opinions but only want witnesses who cant detail events they observed and conversations they had so the trier of fact can draw their own conclusions.
I gave 2 examples of things we know happened- one was her taking an interest in washing their clothing and another is she actually went with them to visit Jeremy which he complained about because he said they were bothering him. It is clear at least some of the time she payed attention to them while they were visiting.
It is obvious the Haldol affected her as she had speech problems and sometimes would just sit around vacantly but she wasn't like that 24/7. It was concerning but different than if she were like that always which would have resulted in her doctors being consulted.
It seems June and Nevill wanted Sheila to entertain the boys most of the time and just to have a little bit of time with them which makes me wonder why they even wanted them to stay over.
June was her mother, I am sure she knew what she was speaking about ti Pamela and I am sure Pamela understood what she was saying.
-
What someone sees as a lack of interest is in the eye of the beholder. There is a reason why courts don't want witnesses to give subjective opinions but only want witnesses who cant detail events they observed and conversations they had so the trier of fact can draw their own conclusions.
I gave 2 examples of things we know happened- one was her taking an interest in washing their clothing and another is she actually went with them to visit Jeremy which he complained about because he said they were bothering him. It is clear at least some of the time she payed attention to them while they were visiting.
It is obvious the Haldol affected her as she had speech problems and sometimes would just sit around vacantly but she wasn't like that 24/7. It was concerning but different than if she were like that always which would have resulted in her doctors being consulted.
It seems June and Nevill wanted Sheila to entertain the boys most of the time and just to have a little bit of time with them which makes me wonder why they even wanted them to stay over.
Yes, I allowed for 5% but it seems that what I quote June as having said to her sister-and subsequently provided by Pam, regarding Sheila's behaviour is to be undermined and superseded by YOUR quoting what Jeremy said. How silly of me for not knowing that you would have to place yourself in a position of pre-eminence.
As I've already said -but you probably haven't bothered to read- Colin was taking the boys to his sister in Norway for a holiday. June and Neville wanted to see then before they went. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think they wanted to give them some spending money.
-
Jeremy said she brought the kids to play on the tractor as he was trying to work. That alone says she was with them at least part of the visit and taking an interest in what they were doing. She is the one who stuck her son's dirty pant to soak. These are actual things we know she did we don't know what else she may have been doing with them because all those who would know are dead except for Jeremy would was not with her and the boys that much. You choose to ignore such and take generalizations and say these generalizations mean you know all. Your ignorance of the facts is obviously - no one who didn't know them is in any position to judge their relations and by ignoring such and pretending you know so much you demonstrate you refuse to face you have no frame of reference.
How do you know she put the trousers in to soak - how do you know it was not june?
-
How do you know she put the trousers in to soak - how do you know it was not june?
I had noted that comment, Jan, but I couldn't be certain that the housekeeper hadn't said it. I was too idle to check it out ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I had noted that comment, Jan, but I couldn't be certain that the housekeeper hadn't said it. I was too idle to check it out ;D ;D ;D ;D
I did wonder, I had no memory of ever reading who put the clothes in to soak. :-\
-
How do you know she put the trousers in to soak - how do you know it was not june?
Because of the statement June would not soak clothing in the the kitchen but Sheila was in the habit of doing such and since she soaked her panties in the other bucket then logically she put the trousers in the other. It appears other people picked up on such already though.
-
I did wonder, I had no memory of ever reading who put the clothes in to soak. :-\
How do you know she put the trousers in to soak - how do you know it was not june?
Heheheheeeee YES!!!¬ I'm being a big kid and I don't care. Girls, I think you might like this. I can't find ANYTHING which says SHEILA soaked the boys' clothes............................BUT!!!!! Wait for it!!!!..................... "It had been JUNE'S habit to soak exceptionally dirty clothes before washing them" She's not talking about knickers stained by a menstrual mishap, She's talking about little boys' dirty trousers. NOT my words! NOT I making assumptions! NOT my ignorance! Yah Boo SUCKS, Scipio.
-
I'm sure they didn't, and encouraging them to do things they don't like WASN'T necessarily bad for them and may have helped them develop. HOWEVER, there are ways of doing this. Forcing them isn't one of them. Make things seem like fun. Engage with them. Sadly, June's way of handling her grandsons seems to have been, as it had been with Sheila, about control. She seems determined that they would do it her way. I see nothing wrong with bringing children up with Christian values but although I don't believe it was her place to do this without the parents' permission, she could have taught them religion without the word ever being mentioned. Surely much better to turn bible stories into adventure stories that she could have told them off by heart instead of reading them in language which isn't easy for children to comprehend. Might it not have been better simply to teach them how to be kind rather than have them on their knees, praying. Her way put them off, even frightened them.
Even when I thought that Jeremy was innocent I didn't suggest that Neville and June were "horrible people" -certainly Neville was thought of as being great fun and excellent company. June was a worthy woman who I believe was kindness itself to those she didn't have any expectations of. Sadly, she had expectations of her family that they appeared unable to fulfil.
I wonder to what extent the ECT had altered her perception of reality so much that she was unaware of how others interpreted her(one is reminded of Daniel's drawings)and clung onto the constants in her life of her husband,money and religion. Colin saw that the more Sheila stayed in her mother's company the more she deteriorated and again one thinks of the phenomenon of folie à deux,where one's delusions are foisted upon those nearest to one and something Colin was determined would not spread to his sons.
-
I wonder to what extent the ECT had altered her perception of reality so much that she was unaware of how others interpreted her(one is reminded of Daniel's drawings)and clung onto the constants in her life of her husband,money and religion. Colin saw that the more Sheila stayed in her mother's company the more she deteriorated and again one thinks of the phenomenon of folie à deux,where one's delusions are foisted upon those nearest to and something Colin was determined would not spread to his sons.
Steve, my mother's sister was treated with ECT for depression. I have no memory of how she was prior to it but I knew -sensed- that she wasn't "right" afterwards. She was frequently "somewhere else" or acting oddly. Conversely, I had a friend who maintained that her brother was TOTALLY cured after receiving it -mind you, when she took her son to see a psychiatrist because she believed he was anxious it was she who was prescribed medication for anxiety!!!- I guess you pays your money and takes your choice. I definitely feel that being in each other's company may have had a negative effect on both.
PS. How come you can produce grave/acute accents?
-
Steve, my mother's sister was treated with ECT for depression. I have no memory of how she was prior to it but I knew -sensed- that she wasn't "right" afterwards. She was frequently "somewhere else" or acting oddly. Conversely, I had a friend who maintained that her brother was TOTALLY cured after receiving it -mind you, when she took her son to see a psychiatrist because she believed he was anxious it was she who was prescribed medication for anxiety!!!- I guess you pays your money and takes your choice. I definitely feel that being in each other's company may have had a negative effect on both.
PS. How come you can produce grave/acute accents?
Well I've taught Modern Languages for years and I know that there are two systems Word and Mac I think(someone will correct me) but there's a code whereby you use the Alt key and then type numbers which you can look up online and which are written in my diary.
-
For this system here these are the numbers you need. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061029134307AATm10H
-
There's another system for the French "a" whereby you use Alt+0225 but if you do that here the page just disappears with the whole of your thread. Some member here more competent than myself will be able to give the reason why.
-
Heheheheeeee YES!!!¬ I'm being a big kid and I don't care. Girls, I think you might like this. I can't find ANYTHING which says SHEILA soaked the boys' clothes............................BUT!!!!! Wait for it!!!!..................... "It had been JUNE'S habit to soak exceptionally dirty clothes before washing them" She's not talking about knickers stained by a menstrual mishap, She's talking about little boys' dirty trousers. NOT my words! NOT I making assumptions! NOT my ignorance! Yah Boo SUCKS, Scipio.
Yes I thought that assumption was strange from someone who says he sticks to facts.
-
It appears to me that in scippys world - you are ignorant if you think JB might be innocent. You are ignorant if you think he is guilty. You are ignorant if you have an opinion or alternative view. You are ignorant basically if you dare to think.
Well I think the height of ignorance is bad manners and not considering the feelings and opinions of others .
-
Heheheheeeee YES!!!¬ I'm being a big kid and I don't care. Girls, I think you might like this. I can't find ANYTHING which says SHEILA soaked the boys' clothes............................BUT!!!!! Wait for it!!!!..................... "It had been JUNE'S habit to soak exceptionally dirty clothes before washing them" She's not talking about knickers stained by a menstrual mishap, She's talking about little boys' dirty trousers. NOT my words! NOT I making assumptions! NOT my ignorance! Yah Boo SUCKS, Scipio.
The housekeeper said she would not soak them in the kitchen. That is something wait for it- that only happened when Sheila was over which is why the housekeeper assumed Sheila was the one who would soak things in the kitchen.
-
There's another system for the French "a" whereby you use Alt+0225 but if you do that here the page just disappears with the whole of your thread. Some member here more competent than myself will be able to give the reason why.
á - like this? It should work, it just worked for me.
-
á - like this? It should work, it just worked for me.
Oh good. Yes it's working for me now.
-
It appears to me that in scippys world - you are ignorant if you think JB might be innocent. You are ignorant if you think he is guilty. You are ignorant if you have an opinion or alternative view. You are ignorant basically if you dare to think.
Well I think the height of ignorance is bad manners and not considering the feelings and opinions of others .
the highth of ignorance is thinking you know everything luckly all but 2 posters admit they dont,
-
The housekeeper said she would not soak them in the kitchen. That is something wait for it- that only happened when Sheila was over which is why the housekeeper assumed Sheila was the one who would soak things in the kitchen.
Is there a reference for the housekeepers statement?
-
Is there a reference for the housekeepers statement?
I only saved a small snippet when we were debating the buckets months ago. Mike posted it somewhere but it was in the middle of a thread I think and no one had the foresight to add it to the archive index, oops...
I believe that she said when June soaked clothes in them she left it by the washing machine or the sink in the back kitchen. Sheila was the one who soaked things in the kitchen
-
I only saved a small snippet when we were debating the buckets months ago. Mike posted it somewhere but it was in the middle of a thread I think and no one had the foresight to add it to the archive index, oops...
I believe that she said when June soaked clothes in them she left it by the washing machine or the sink in the back kitchen. Sheila was the one who soaked things in the kitchen
So you have found a line saying that June's knickers had never been seen soaking in the kitchen. I should think NOT, indeed. MOST inappropriate.........................but I wasn't speaking of knickers, June's or Sheila's, I was speaking about the boy's dirty trousers -still small enough to be soaked in buckets- or rather,YOU were. You were using it -that SHEILA had soaked them- as a way of pointing out that I was making assumptions about her state of mind and her relationship with her mother. For one accusing another of making assumptions about weeks of certain behaviours and a life times relationship, YOU are making assumptions based one one -POSSIBLE- act.
Just to set the record straight, Sheila's good friend Tora, says of her, that she had become so unkempt she smelled!!!! She had holes in her tights. Here hair wasn't washed. Her make up was a mess IF she bothered to wear it. I could go on..................This is a girl who seemed to define herself by her looks. A girl who asked, constantly, "Do I look pretty?" A girl to whom it mattered what others thought of her.
At the party, she ignored -all(?)- the children. Took no notice of their games. One of the twins climbed onto her lap. She made no attempt at interaction. Three days later, her mother says "She has no interest in anything including the children"........................but it seems that NONE of them knew what they were talking about, who were with her, because the Great All Knowing Scipio decrees that she wasn't depressed and the POSSIBLE act of soaking her children's trousers -let's not forget that over the three days she was there, ONE person saw her skipping with the children- denotes that there was nothing wrong with her mothering skills.
I believe she was depressed -her life circumstances suggest there was every reason for her to be so- but I don't believe she was responsible for anyone's deaths.You appear to be saying/ believe she was overdosed with one med and/or underdosed with another. Sounds more to me like someone who is keeping their options open and determined to win an argument at any cost. Ethics seem not to apply.
-
So you have found a line saying that June's knickers had never been seen soaking in the kitchen. I should think NOT, indeed. MOST inappropriate.........................but I wasn't speaking of knickers, June's or Sheila's, I was speaking about the boy's dirty trousers -still small enough to be soaked in buckets- or rather,YOU were. You were using it -that SHEILA had soaked them- as a way of pointing out that I was making assumptions about her state of mind and her relationship with her mother. For one accusing another of making assumptions about weeks of certain behaviours and a life times relationship, YOU are making assumptions based one one -POSSIBLE- act.
Just to set the record straight, Sheila's good friend Tora, says of her, that she had become so unkempt she smelled!!!! She had holes in her tights. Here hair wasn't washed. Her make up was a mess IF she bothered to wear it. I could go on..................This is a girl who seemed to define herself by her looks. A girl who asked, constantly, "Do I look pretty?" A girl to whom it mattered what others thought of her.
At the party, she ignored -all(?)- the children. Took no notice of their games. One of the twins climbed onto her lap. She made no attempt at interaction. Three days later, her mother says "She has no interest in anything including the children"........................but it seems that NONE of them knew what they were talking about, who were with her, because the Great All Knowing Scipio decrees that she wasn't depressed and the POSSIBLE act of soaking her children's trousers -let's not forget that over the three days she was there, ONE person saw her skipping with the children- denotes that there was nothing wrong with her mothering skills.
I believe she was depressed -her life circumstances suggest there was every reason for her to be so- but I don't believe she was responsible for anyone's deaths.You appear to be saying/ believe she was overdosed with one med and/or underdosed with another. Sounds more to me like someone who is keeping their options open and determined to win an argument at any cost. Ethics seem not to apply.
No I saved a line about the knickers to post because that was what was being discussed. Jeremy supporters argued that June would not allow buckets of clothes to be left soaking in the kitchen and thus Sheila must have done it after the murders. I posted the snippet to show that the housekeeper observed buckets with Sheila's clothing being left in the kitchen in the past so that disproved the claim June would not allow Sheila to place such buckets in the kitchen. Therefore it is possible the buckets were placed there before the murders and not moved by June.
The statement contained more information about the buckets but I didn't save it because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. Part of what I didn't save discussed how June would leave buckets with clothes being soaked in the back kitchen sink or on the floor next to the washing machine.
-
No I saved a line about the knickers to post because that was what was being discussed. Jeremy supporters argued that June would not allow buckets of clothes to be left soaking in the kitchen and thus Sheila must have done it after the murders. I posted the snippet to show that the housekeeper observed buckets with Sheila's clothing being left in the kitchen in the past so that disproved the claim June would not allow Sheila to place such buckets in the kitchen. Therefore it is possible the buckets were placed there before the murders and not moved by June.
The statement contained more information about the buckets but I didn't save it because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. Part of what I didn't save discussed how June would leave buckets with clothes being soaked in the back kitchen sink or on the floor next to the washing machine.
Yes, I see from post 142 that you introduced panties into a conversation in which neither Jan, Maggie nor I had mentioned them. You then used the fact that -according to you, but without substantiation- Sheila had put the boys' trousers into soak as proof of her interest in them, after which I found details of JUNE'S habit of soaking very soiled clothes prior to putting them in the washing machine.............................................however, the original conversation had been about Sheila's psychological and emotional state,and that, having looked at her relationship with June -or perhaps I should change that to June's relationship with her- PLUS listening to what was said by her friends, male and female, her ex husband, her consultant, Freddie, even Jeremy!!!! I believe her to have been depressed, because she was displaying what, in my understanding, are classic symptoms, and for daring to employ the intelligence learned from the job I was trained for, from your position of apparently knowing much more than I, you called me IGNORANT >:(
-
No I saved a line about the knickers to post because that was what was being discussed. Jeremy supporters argued that June would not allow buckets of clothes to be left soaking in the kitchen and thus Sheila must have done it after the murders. I posted the snippet to show that the housekeeper observed buckets with Sheila's clothing being left in the kitchen in the past so that disproved the claim June would not allow Sheila to place such buckets in the kitchen. Therefore it is possible the buckets were placed there before the murders and not moved by June.
The statement contained more information about the buckets but I didn't save it because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. Part of what I didn't save discussed how June would leave buckets with clothes being soaked in the back kitchen sink or on the floor next to the washing machine.
So what you have just written actually does indicate that it could have been june that soaked the boys clothes? She may have just changed her mind about where to put the buckets.
I found it odd that Sheila or June would leave the clothes soaking - but I also find it odd that Sheila would leave sanitary items even packaging around the house - Most women would not like their parents finding those items - It does seem she was acting strangely.
But whatever the truth I think you made an assumption that Sheila put her sons clothes into soak . June could quite easily been tidying up after her.
-
So what you have just written actually does indicate that it could have been june that soaked the boys clothes?
I found it odd that Sheila or June would leave the clothes soaking - but I also find it odd that Sheila would leave sanitary items even packaging around the house - Most women would not like their parents finding those items - It does seem she was acting strangely.
But whatever the truth I think you made an assumption that Sheila put her sons clothes into soak . June could quite easily been tidying up after her.
I agree this does seem to have been an assumption on scipio's part which is interesting as he usually deals in hard facts :-\ :-\
I have a memory of reading that the buckets were in fact not in the kitchen but in the laundry by the washing machine and had maybe been moved to the kitchen at some time after the murders..... which would mean June may have soaked the clothes.
-
I agree this does seem to have been an assumption on scipio's part which is interesting as he usually deals in hard facts :-\ :-\
I have a memory of reading that the buckets were in fact not in the kitchen but in the laundry by the washing machine and had maybe been moved to the kitchen at some time after the murders..... which would mean June may have soaked the clothes.
I don't think I have seen them in the kitchen photos - and surely they would have got knocked over in the "alleged " fight.
-
I don't think I have seen them in the kitchen photos - and surely they would have got knocked over in the "alleged " fight.
They were in the kitchen.
-
I don't think I have seen them in the kitchen photos - and surely they would have got knocked over in the "alleged " fight.
Have just looked in the archives and there are2 buckets near the little oven where the phone was supposed to have been hidden, we don't know if they are clothes buckets or cleaning buckets but a you say anyone would expect any buckets in the kitchen would have been kicked over during the violent confrontation in the kitchen. I wish I could remember who told me or where I read the buckets were moved into the kitchen.
-
Have just looked in the archives and there are2 buckets near the little oven where the phone was supposed to have been hidden, we don't know if they are clothes buckets or cleaning buckets but a you say anyone would expect any buckets in the kitchen would have been kicked over during the violent confrontation in the kitchen. I wish I could remember who told me or where I read the buckets were moved into the kitchen.
They are the clothes buckets.
-
They are the clothes buckets.
I remember an argument about these buckets but it's so long ago cannot remember any more. Did you ever hear that the buckets were originally in the laundry, which is why they weren't kicked over during the 'battle' in the kitchen?
-
I remember an argument about these buckets but it's so long ago cannot remember any more. Did you ever hear that the buckets were originally in the laundry, which is why they weren't kicked over during the 'battle' in the kitchen?
Various people said they were moved and I initially believed they were right but it turns the buckets are in the crime scene photos in the kitchen so such people were wrong. They were not kicked over because they are in the corner. They were out of the way so no one would trip on them while walking around the kitchen. This ended up saving them from getting spilled during the struggle. The struggle took place on the other side of the kitchen so that obviously helped as well.
-
Various people said they were moved and I initially believed they were right but it turns the buckets are in the crime scene photos in the kitchen so such people were wrong. They were not kicked over because they are in the corner. They were out of the way so no one would trip on them while walking around the kitchen. This ended up saving them from getting spilled during the struggle. The struggle took place on the other side of the kitchen so that obviously helped as well.
I knew you'd say that ;) I have no idea where the buckets were to start with but it's true they're in the crime scene photos. I used to argue they were in the kitchen but was told or read they were originally most definitely by the washing machine .... now I have no idea and in the end it doesn't make much difference imo.
-
I remember an argument about these buckets but it's so long ago cannot remember any more. Did you ever hear that the buckets were originally in the laundry, which is why they weren't kicked over during the 'battle' in the kitchen?
It's quite interesting, re the buckets. We know that it was June's habit to soak very soiled items before washing them but they could not have been large items because there's a limit to what can be stuffed into a bucket of water without the water spilling.
-
It's quite interesting, re the buckets. We know that it was June's habit to soak very soiled items before washing them but they could not have been large items because there's a limit to what can be stuffed into a bucket of water without the water spilling.
Very true, scipio seems to live in a world of stained, soaking clothes according to some of his posts. I have very little memory of EVER soaking anything. We are all different though and should imagine June would be into soaking, it's a wonder she didn't have an old tin bath for the purpose??
-
Yes, I see from post 142 that you introduced panties into a conversation in which neither Jan, Maggie nor I had mentioned them. You then used the fact that -according to you, but without substantiation- Sheila had put the boys' trousers into soak as proof of her interest in them, after which I found details of JUNE'S habit of soaking very soiled clothes prior to putting them in the washing machine.............................................however, the original conversation had been about Sheila's psychological and emotional state,and that, having looked at her relationship with June -or perhaps I should change that to June's relationship with her- PLUS listening to what was said by her friends, male and female, her ex husband, her consultant, Freddie, even Jeremy!!!! I believe her to have been depressed, because she was displaying what, in my understanding, are classic symptoms, and for daring to employ the intelligence learned from the job I was trained for, from your position of apparently knowing much more than I, you called me IGNORANT >:(
I simply made a factual inference. The housekeeper claimed June would soak clothing in buckets and leave them in the laundry area. She said Sheila would leave her panties in the kitchen soaking though. Sheila's panties were soaking in the kitchen. Next to them were children's pants soaking. The logical inference is Sheila not only soaked her panties but the pant since June would leave such in the laundry area if she had soaked them.
I also pointed out that Jeremy complained that Sheila took the boys to visit him as he was using the tractor. his shows she at least spent some time with them on the farm. Thus saying she spent no time with them at all and totally ignored them fully doesn't work.
We don't know how much time she spent with them at WHF but it makes little difference she did obviously spend some and obviously had some interest in them not none at all.
-
I knew you'd say that ;) I have no idea where the buckets were to start with but it's true they're in the crime scene photos. I used to argue they were in the kitchen but was told or read they were originally most definitely by the washing machine .... now I have no idea and in the end it doesn't make much difference imo.
The police crime scene photos show they were in the kitchen by the sink. Thus that is were when the police entered. The claims they were in the back kitchen turned out to be wrong. Photos taken to show the state of things i their ordinary state were misconstrued as crime scene photos and resulted in the false claim that they were in the back kitchen when police raided the house and subsequently moved to the kitchen by someone.
Some Jeremy supporters suggest that after the murders Sheila soaked the pants and panties and other clothing she had worn while committing the crimes. They argue the clothing being in the kitchen supports such because June would not have permitted it. This is why the location is significant. If they were not in the kitchen this argument evaporates. Some rejected the claims for this reason, they said the buckets were found in the back kitchen laundry area and relied on photos showing the ordinary state of things which they misconstrued as crime scene photos.
The crime scene photos are important for another reason, they confirm only 2 buckets are there. Some supporters suggest there were more buckets with additional clothing Sheila wore. The photos show there were only 2 buckets though. So the best they can argue is maybe the two buckets had additional clothing beyond the panties and trousers. Such speculation means little though since it is rank speculation and Eaton insists they only had the blood stained panties and dirty trousers.
-
Then Stan Jones took it as read from AE when she told him that it was menstrual blood in one bucket because " it smelled different " from normal blood. ::) What sort of a person would have fallen for that ?
As he stood there with a pair of canvas shoes under his arm and told AE not to say anything. :o
Makes you wonder doesn't it ?
-
I had heard that the canvas shoes were quite bloodied. Were they Jeremy's size ???
-
Then Stan Jones took it as read from AE when she told him that it was menstrual blood in one bucket because " it smelled different " from normal blood. ::) What sort of a person would have fallen for that ?
As he stood there with a pair of canvas shoes under his arm and told AE not to say anything. :o
Makes you wonder doesn't it ?
Police took it as menstrual blood because the crotch area of the panties were stained and no one had any wounds in their crotch that could have caused such stains.
-
I had heard that the canvas shoes were quite bloodied. Were they Jeremy's size ???
What canvas shoes
-
What canvas shoes
Exactly-----------this is why Stan Jones picked them up smartish from out of the bedroom and told AE " you didn't see them,so be sure to say this in court ".They were Sheila's which she obviously wore on the night of the murders. They were never seen again.
-
I had heard that the canvas shoes were quite bloodied. Were they Jeremy's size ???
The shopkeeper who served June and Sheila earlier in the day said Sheila was wearing black canvas shoes.
-
The shopkeeper who served June and Sheila earlier in the day said Sheila was wearing black canvas shoes.
That's right Maggie. There'd have been enough blood on them for testing.
-
Then Stan Jones took it as read from AE when she told him that it was menstrual blood in one bucket because " it smelled different " from normal blood. ::) What sort of a person would have fallen for that ?
As he stood there with a pair of canvas shoes under his arm and told AE not to say anything. :o
Makes you wonder doesn't it ?
Stan Jones had also prompted AE to tell the court that menstrual blood smelled differently from blood in general. He'd said " be sure to mention that in court " ???
-
It's " little underhanded " things like this that make me believe that Jeremy is innocent. I wonder why AE went along with it if she thought it was wrong ? I thought they were honest people and she should have questioned this about the shoes.
-
I simply made a factual inference. The housekeeper claimed June would soak clothing in buckets and leave them in the laundry area. She said Sheila would leave her panties in the kitchen soaking though. Sheila's panties were soaking in the kitchen. Next to them were children's pants soaking. The logical inference is Sheila not only soaked her panties but the pant since June would leave such in the laundry area if she had soaked them.
I also pointed out that Jeremy complained that Sheila took the boys to visit him as he was using the tractor. his shows she at least spent some time with them on the farm. Thus saying she spent no time with them at all and totally ignored them fully doesn't work.
We don't know how much time she spent with them at WHF but it makes little difference she did obviously spend some and obviously had some interest in them not none at all.
And who said she didn't? I never said she didn't spend SOME time with them. I allowed for the time she was seen skipping with them. Actually, I'm doing what you do. I'm listening to the evidence of those who knew her best. You are making a play of what you don't know to make something out of it. I'm using what I do know, part of which is this, a girl as low in spirits as Sheila wasn't suddenly going to turn into a bright ray of sunshine when she was trapped in a place she didn't want to be. A girl whose children have to live with their father because of her inability to cope isn't miraculously going to become Mother of the year. You DISREGARD what those said who knew her, even her mother's words "she has no interest in anything including the children."
As for you "for the moment dealing with my ignorance and lack of knowledge" it's clearly something which you're practised at coping with as you appear the believe that everyone who isn't you is ignorant, stupid or a liar. You seem not to like that you can't say exactly what she did at the farm, presumably it would give you more leverage with which to feed your rather unhealthy need to be right at other's expense. You really are a very xxxxx,xxxxxxxx xxxxxx man.
-
You do really have to ask yourself what else was moved. I'd want to know, in all fairness when the fate of a young man was in the balance. In fact,I couldn't do what had been done,my conscience wouldn't allow it.
-
Stan Jones had also prompted AE to tell the court that menstrual blood smelled differently from blood in general. He'd said " be sure to mention that in court " ???
Lookout
Little Nun who was previously on this forum did an experiment on the two types of blood on garments soaking in water and she said that menstrual blood smelt the same as blood in general so it appears AE was incorrect saying one was different.
-
It's " little underhanded " things like this that make me believe that Jeremy is innocent. I wonder why AE went along with it if she thought it was wrong ? I thought they were honest people and she should have questioned this about the shoes.
Have been trying to find the statement but can't remember his name so it's a bit time consuming and don't have much at the moment.
-
Lookout
Little Nun who was previously on this forum did an experiment on the two types of blood on garments soaking in water and she said that menstrual blood smelt the same as blood in general so it appears AE was incorrect saying one was different.
Of course AE was wrong,but it makes you wonder if she'd been told to say that just because there was knickers in soak and that's why there was no further interest in the contents of the buckets.
-
Of course AE was wrong,but it makes you wonder if she'd been told to say that just because there was knickers in soak and that's why there was no further interest in the contents of the buckets.
Lookout, it was only a bucket, NOT a bath. There is a limit to how much it will hold before water spills.
-
Evidence incriminating Sheila had been removed. Otherwise why take away those shoes ? The shoes which prevented Sheila from getting blood on her feet. EP need to be questioned about those and their reason for the removal of them from a crime scene.
-
There's a photo of them tucked under the bed somewhere. Or am I mistaking them for Nevill's slippers?
-
Probably surreptitiously shoved under the bed out of sight until later.
-
There's a photo of them tucked under the bed somewhere. Or am I mistaking them for Nevill's slippers?
Nevill'sl slippers were by the bed nearest the door, steve. There isn't a photo of the shoes but there is a comment by AE about the canvas shoes being taken away from the bedroom and the comment that it was best not to mention them for some reason....
-
And who said she didn't? I never said she didn't spend SOME time with them. I allowed for the time she was seen skipping with them. Actually, I'm doing what you do. I'm listening to the evidence of those who knew her best. You are making a play of what you don't know to make something out of it. I'm using what I do know, part of which is this, a girl as low in spirits as Sheila wasn't suddenly going to turn into a bright ray of sunshine when she was trapped in a place she didn't want to be. A girl whose children have to live with their father because of her inability to cope isn't miraculously going to become Mother of the year. You DISREGARD what those said who knew her, even her mother's words "she has no interest in anything including the children."
As for you "for the moment dealing with my ignorance and lack of knowledge" it's clearly something which you're practised at coping with as you appear the believe that everyone who isn't you is ignorant, stupid or a liar. You seem not to like that you can't say exactly what she did at the farm, presumably it would give you more leverage with which to feed your rather unhealthy need to be right at other's expense. You really are a very xxxxx,xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx man.
You are the one xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx. You think you are in a position to know all about the relationships and their psyches. Your xxxxxxx knowledge leaves us no position to think such and if you had half the xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxx you think you possess than you would be aware of your own limitations.
-
Nevill'sl slippers were by the bed nearest the door, steve. There isn't a photo of the shoes but there is a comment by AE about the canvas shoes being taken away from the bedroom and the comment that it was best not to mention them for some reason....
I've seen a photo on this site of some footwear or other sticking out from a bed..
-
I've seen a photo on this site of some footwear or other sticking out from a bed..
Not sure what that was Steve, is it in the archives? Are you talking about Sheila's room because what at least appears to be Nevill's sippers were just by the bed...... Not sure if that photo is in the archives, I rmember it was Caroline who first pointed them out.
-
I've seen a photo on this site of some footwear or other sticking out from a bed..
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=34127;image
This is the pic steve is that what you're thinking of? The slipper on the left of the bed.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=34127;image
This is the pic steve is that what you're thinking of? The slipper on the left of the bed.
Yes sorry was that not the pair we were discussing? There was a close up of them in the photo I recall.
-
Steve,what I'd mentioned earlier were a pair of canvas shoes belonging to Sheila which nobody got to see because Stan Jones whipped them up and whisked them away to wherever never to be seen again.
-
Of course AE was wrong,but it makes you wonder if she'd been told to say that just because there was knickers in soak and that's why there was no further interest in the contents of the buckets.
Ann Eaton came up with it herself no one told her it smells different.
-
Steve,what I'd mentioned earlier were a pair of canvas shoes belonging to Sheila which nobody got to see because Stan Jones whipped them up and whisked them away to wherever never to be seen again.
What you initially said was that there were a pair of canvas shoes with blood on them.
-
Steve,what I'd mentioned earlier were a pair of canvas shoes belonging to Sheila which nobody got to see because Stan Jones whipped them up and whisked them away to wherever never to be seen again.
Yes along with the diary. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3760.0.html
-
Yes sorry was that not the pair we were discussing? There was a close up of them in the photo I recall.
Yes, think Caroline may have found a different pic or blown up the slippers ... so to speak ;D ;D
-
Ann Eaton came up with it herself no one told her it smells different.
It still doesn't alter the fact that she was totally wrong,but Jones went along with it and told her not to forget to tell the court of her findings.
-
Ann Eaton came up with it herself no one told her it smells different.
Think blood always smells when it's stagnated in water :o :o
-
Not sure what that was Steve, is it in the archives? Are you talking about Sheila's room because what at least appears to be Nevill's sippers were just by the bed...... Not sure if that photo is in the archives, I rmember it was Caroline who first pointed them out.
This one? Not sure why the slippers were never mentioned - I do wonder if the slippers and the canvas shoes are the same thing because if there were two sets of footwear, why was one mentioned and the other not?
-
Yes along with the diary. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3760.0.html
I'd forgotten about that.
-
Think blood always smells when it's stagnated in water :o :o
Blood is blood is blood and it all smells metallic on account of the iron content.
-
You are the one silly and pathetic. You think you are in a position to know all about the relationships and their psyches. Your limited knowledge leaves us no position to think such and if you had half the level of intelligence you think you possess than you would be aware of your own limitations.
Scipio, I don't THINK I'm in a position to know about relationships and psyches, I KNOW I am -ALL is your word, NEVER mine. I'm not arrogant enough to profess to know everything- you see, what you fail to realize is, whilst there are millions of people, there are very few dynamics and emotions by comparison, and not one that hasn't been played out, at some time, by others, although few end in murder, of course. The other point is, quite simply, whilst you seem to spend your time shouting about how much more clever you are, than others about guns, legal proceedings et al, things about which I profess to know nothing so DON'T comment on, I listen to what others say and I read situations.
I'm interested in why it appears to bug you so much and it amuses me that I seem to have got under your skin. I wonder why you feel the frequent need to attack me or at least belittle what I do. I wonder what it is to you that some of us still think Jeremy is innocent. I wonder what it has to do with you but you appear to have made it very much your business.
-
This one? Not sure why the slippers were never mentioned - I do wonder if the slippers and the canvas shoes are the same thing because if there were two sets of footwear, why was one mentioned and the other not?
Not sure but Sheila was wearing black canvas shoes when she and June went shopping because the guy who served them described what she was wearing and mentioned what she had on her feet.... can't find the statement, not sure if it's in the archives or if I read it somewhere else.
-
Not sure but Sheila was wearing black canvas shoes when she and June went shopping because the guy who served them described what she was wearing and mentioned what she had on her feet.... can't find the statement, not sure if it's in the archives or if I read it somewhere else.
Maggie, according to CAL she was wearing "black pumps" when she went shopping in Tiptree.
-
Not sure but Sheila was wearing black canvas shoes when she and June went shopping because the guy who served them described what she was wearing and mentioned what she had on her feet.... can't find the statement, not sure if it's in the archives or if I read it somewhere else.
It seems pretty obvious that she would have worn shoes to WHF and not simply have slippers there. But there was never any mention of her shoes having blood or anything else on them. Nor were there reports of shoes period having blood on them which brings me back to my question to Lookout of what blood stained shoes?
-
That slipper under the bed looks to be Neville's judging by the size. Though what it was doing there we don't know. It looked comparatively new.
-
That slipper under the bed looks to be Neville's judging by the size. Though what it was doing there we don't know. It looked comparatively new.
They look like the old fashioned ones with fleecy linings.
-
Maggie, according to CAL she was wearing "black pumps" when she went shopping in Tiptree.
Oh is that where I read it? Pumps, canvas shoes, aren't they the same? Maybe, maybe not who knows?
-
They look like the old fashioned ones with fleecy linings.
They do but would expect Neville to wear such slippers, can't imagine Jeremy would wear anything so naff :o
-
They look like the old fashioned ones with fleecy linings.
Yes,grandpa type.
-
Oh is that where I read it? Pumps, canvas shoes, aren't they the same? Maybe, maybe not who knows?
Flat shoes generally, I think, Maggie. What were once called flatties?
-
It seems pretty obvious that she would have worn shoes to WHF and not simply have slippers there. But there was never any mention of her shoes having blood or anything else on them. Nor were there reports of shoes period having blood on them which brings me back to my question to Lookout of what blood stained shoes?
The last time this confusion reared it's head, I think that people were confusing two things. The slippers/canvas shoes and the blood on the socks.
-
The last time this confusion reared it's head, I think that people were confusing two things. The slippers/canvas shoes and the blood on the socks.
Don't remember any mention of blood on the shoes/slippers - just that they were mentioned by AE and being BIG and SJ took them away with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Maybe he just liked them? ;D
-
Don't remember any mention of blood on the shoes/slippers - just that they were mentioned by AE and being BIG and SJ took them away with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Maybe he just liked them? ;D
I don't remember it either & I'm not senile yet! ;D
-
Flat shoes generally, I think, Maggie. What were once called flatties?
Oh ok haha!! Got you
-
Don't remember any mention of blood on the shoes/slippers - just that they were mentioned by AE and being BIG and SJ took them away with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Maybe he just liked them? ;D
Yes, maybe they were exactly what he was looking for to go with his chinos ;)
-
Don't remember any mention of blood on the shoes/slippers - just that they were mentioned by AE and being BIG and SJ took them away with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Maybe he just liked them? ;D
He told the family to keep quiet so that if something they collected ended up having useful evidence that Jeremy would not be aware of it and they could potentially "catch him out" during questioning. They didn't want him to know about all the evidence so he had the chance to think up excuses in advance.
-
He told the family to keep quiet so that if something they collected ended up having useful evidence that Jeremy would not be aware of it and they could potentially "catch him out" during questioning. They didn't want him to know about all the evidence so he had the chance to think up excuses in advance.
You'd naturally think that way------------but my bet is that they were covered in blood. :o :o
-
It seems pretty obvious that she would have worn shoes to WHF and not simply have slippers there. But there was never any mention of her shoes having blood or anything else on them. Nor were there reports of shoes period having blood on them which brings me back to my question to Lookout of what blood stained shoes?
Why did Jones want to hide them ? They'd have been comfy slip-ons that double-up as slippers around the house. I bet they were squelching !! Would they be the reason that the moderator was tainted ? Both in the same bag ?
-
Why did Jones want to hide them ? They'd have been comfy slip-ons that double-up as slippers around the house. I bet they were squelching !! Would they be the reason that the moderator was tainted ? Both in the same bag ?
Don't think so - they were not collected at the same time .
I did see something that said there was a slipper as well in June and nevilles room near the bed but not sure where I saw it.
that slipper definitely looks like something Neville would wear.
-
Don't think so - they were not collected at the same time .
I did see something that said there was a slipper as well in June and nevilles room near the bed but not sure where I saw it.
that slipper definitely looks like something Neville would wear.
Yes,the slipper was mentioned last night and we came to the conclusion that it was Neville's.His type.
-
I asked Jeremy about the slippers, he said they were Nevill's but that's not really the issue. They obviously belong to Nevill, so why are they in the room Sheila was using?
-
Maybe Sheila had worn them after showering the blood from herself.Her canvas shoes would have also been sodden.
-
Maybe Sheila had worn them after showering the blood from herself.Her canvas shoes would have also been sodden.
Given that that didn't happen, I'm still wondering why they were there. ::)
-
Maybe Sheila had worn them after showering the blood from herself.Her canvas shoes would have also been sodden.
Well, if she put them on after allegedly showering, how come she wasn't wearing them? The dead don't usually put shoes/slippers away neatly.
-
Well, if she put them on after allegedly showering, how come she wasn't wearing them? The dead don't usually put shoes/slippers away neatly.
Only one slipper was poking out from beneath the bed,hardly neatly,as where was the other one ?
-
Only one slipper was poking out from beneath the bed,hardly neatly,as where was the other one ?
Obvioulsy it's hidden from view, you can only see one because of the camera angle.
-
Well, if she put them on after allegedly showering, how come she wasn't wearing them? The dead don't usually put shoes/slippers away neatly.
If they were Nevill's slippers they would have been at least a 12, maybe more so Sheila may have had a bit of difficulty walking in them because I doubt her 'huge' feet were more than an 8.
-
If they were Nevill's slippers they would have been at least a 12, maybe more so Sheila may have had a bit of difficulty walking in them because I doubt her 'huge' feet were more than an 8.
With that much difference it would have been difficult, but bring that size 12 back to a 10 and it would have been possible..................IF she'd worn them. However, it might explain her clean(ish) feet.
-
With that much difference it would have been difficult, but bring that size 12 back to a 10 and it would have been possible..................IF she'd worn them. However, it might explain her clean(ish) feet.
If his feet were a 10 he would fall over surely :o My husband is 6'2 and his feet are size 12 so at 6'4" surely he would have size 12s at the least? :-\ Have occasionally put my feet in his shoes to go outside the dor and nearly broken my neck, they are enormous boats ;D
-
If his feet were a 10 he would fall over surely :o My husband is 6'2 and his feet are size 12 so at 6'4" surely he would have size 12s at the least? :-\ Have occasionally put my feet in his shoes to go outside the dor and nearly broken my neck, they are enormous boats ;D
According to the "Average" web site, the average shoe size for a 6'4" male is 11, Take your pick :D
-
According to the "Average" web site, the average shoe size for a 6'4" male is 11, Take your pick :D
Really??? Oh well, no wonder I nearly break my ankle on his clodhoppers ;D ;D
-
I asked Jeremy about the slippers, he said they were Nevill's but that's not really the issue. They obviously belong to Nevill, so why are they in the room Sheila was using?
I don't like saying this but it sort of gives me the creeps a bit seeing them by the side of her bed .
But I did wonder - and obviously like everything else its just a thought and not an implication of who did it . do you think for a while Sheila may have been upset and or needed calming down and it was her that laid on the bed with june whilst June read the bible to her? And Neville just went and laid on top of the the bed for a while whilst they had a heart to heart?
I always wondered about the teddy on the bed ? Perhaps Sheila was in a state and took it in with her ?
-
If his feet were a 10 he would fall over surely :o My husband is 6'2 and his feet are size 12 so at 6'4" surely he would have size 12s at the least? :-\ Have occasionally put my feet in his shoes to go outside the dor and nearly broken my neck, they are enormous boats ;D
My dad was a good 6'2 and took 11/12's in shoes. My 6'6 nephew takes about a 15 as they are " hand- made " by a chap in Liverpool who caters for the big'uns. I could do with a pair of his old ones to put outside the front door. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't like saying this but it sort of gives me the creeps a bit seeing them by the side of her bed .
But I did wonder - and obviously like everything else its just a thought and not an implication of who did it . do you think for a while Sheila may have been upset and or needed calming down and it was her that laid on the bed with june whilst June read the bible to her? And Neville just went and laid on top of the the bed for a while whilst they had a heart to heart?
I always wondered about the teddy on the bed ? Perhaps Sheila was in a state and took it in with her ?
I have also had thoughts along those lines Jan, this may account for Sheila's presence and death in the main bedroom rather than the boys room. The teddy is very incongruous and haunting somehow ....
-
My dad was a good 6'2 and took 11/12's in shoes. My 6'6 nephew takes about a 15 as they are " hand- made " by a chap in Liverpool who caters for the big'uns. I could do with a pair of his old ones to put outside the front door. ;D ;D ;D ;D
15s....... OMG they would look just the job with some tulips in lookout ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have also had thoughts along those lines Jan, this may account for Sheila's presence and death in the main bedroom rather than the boys room. The teddy is very incongruous and haunting somehow ....
There are some things which are uncomfortable to think about.
-
it might explain why the bed looked liked someone had just laid on top .
He may just have been resting whilst June and Sheila were talking and then just fell asleep and then with everything that went on did not get time to put his slippers on?
-
it might explain why the bed looked liked someone had just laid on top .
He may just have been resting whilst June and Sheila were talking and then just fell asleep and then with everything that went on did not get time to put his slippers on?
I find it unbelievably poignant to think that in the final moments before their deaths Sheila and June may have reached an understanding.
-
I had a thought like that with seeing his slipper underneath her bed.
I also think that Sheila was sitting on the floor propped up against the bed-table reading the Bible before being shot.
-
I had a thought like that with seeing his slipper underneath her bed.
I also think that Sheila was sitting on the floor propped up against the bed-table reading the Bible before being shot.
June was shot in bed. Neville was shot, from the door, because of the left side wounds, sitting on the bed. Yet Sheila wasn't shot?
-
June was shot in bed. Neville was shot, from the door, because of the left side wounds, sitting on the bed. Yet Sheila wasn't shot?
Not at the point where she was reading the Bible,obviously.
-
I don't like saying this but it sort of gives me the creeps a bit seeing them by the side of her bed .
But I did wonder - and obviously like everything else its just a thought and not an implication of who did it . do you think for a while Sheila may have been upset and or needed calming down and it was her that laid on the bed with june whilst June read the bible to her? And Neville just went and laid on top of the the bed for a while whilst they had a heart to heart?
I always wondered about the teddy on the bed ? Perhaps Sheila was in a state and took it in with her ?
I think it's very possible that Sheila slept in the main bedroom that night and that Nevill stayed in her room. It would explain why she was in that room on that side of the bed and it also explain the slippers being in her room. Perhaps she slept there to be closer to the twins and because she was so quiet, her parents may have thought it best she wasn't on her own.
The bear belonged to Nevill Jan - he'd had it a long time. June hated it.
-
I think it's very possible that Sheila slept in the main bedroom that night and that Nevill stayed in her room. It would explain why she was in that room on that side of the bed and it also explain the slippers being in her room. Perhaps she slept there to be closer to the twins and because she was so quiet, her parents may have thought it best she wasn't on her own.
The bear belonged to Nevill Jan - he'd had it a long time. June hated it.
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( I'm not surprised June hated it :o :o :o :o
-
I think it's very possible that Sheila slept in the main bedroom that night and that Nevill stayed in her room. It would explain why she was in that room on that side of the bed and it also explain the slippers being in her room. Perhaps she slept there to be closer to the twins and because she was so quiet, her parents may have thought it best she wasn't on her own.
The bear belonged to Nevill Jan - he'd had it a long time. June hated it.
Actually Caroline, perhaps that scenario makes the jigsaw pieces fit. Supposing Sheila is on/in the bed with June when Jeremy bursts in. He incapacitates June but Sheila cowers on the floor beside the bed. Neville comes in as June is trying to make her way round the bed to Sheila. Jeremy may have ordered him to sit down on the bed before shooting him. He may have managed to get down the stairs whilst Jeremy was shooting Sheila.......................it doesn't work as well when it's written down :-[
-
I think it's very possible that Sheila slept in the main bedroom that night and that Nevill stayed in her room. It would explain why she was in that room on that side of the bed and it also explain the slippers being in her room. Perhaps she slept there to be closer to the twins and because she was so quiet, her parents may have thought it best she wasn't on her own.
The bear belonged to Nevill Jan - he'd had it a long time. June hated it.
It doesn't compute that June would be shot 6 times, Nevill would come in and be shot 4 times then the struggle happen downstairs and yet Sheila just stay there in the bedroom waiting for Jeremy to return. She would have ran to get her kids to try to hide them or get them out of the house if she was there seeing her mother get shot next to her and then her father enter and be shot 4 times.
-
It doesn't compute that June would be shot 6 times, Nevill would come in and be shot 4 times then the struggle happen downstairs and yet Sheila just stay there in the bedroom waiting for Jeremy to return. She would have ran to get her kids to try to hide them or get them out of the house if she was there seeing her mother get shot next to her and then her father enter and be shot 4 times.
She may not have been shot 6 times all in one go, she had enough strength to walk around the room. Perhaps Sheila even received the first shot at this point which is why June walked around the other side of the bed? However, I'm not convinced that Sheila wasn't part of it, albeit in a (somewhat) passive sense.
-
So much movement around the farmhouse. It could have been swiftly done without anyone moving from their beds ?
If it had been Jeremy,he'd have forced the three adults to have stayed put. Nobody tackles a gunman who fires round after round. How and why did Neville end up in the kitchen instead of being with his wife and daughter ?
-
So much movement around the farmhouse. It could have been swiftly done without anyone moving from their beds ?
If it had been Jeremy,he'd have forced the three adults to have stayed put. Nobody tackles a gunman who fires round after round. How and why did Neville end up in the kitchen instead of being with his wife and daughter ?
Would he? You know this because?
-
She may not have been shot 6 times all in one go, she had enough strength to walk around the room. Perhaps Sheila even received the first shot at this point which is why June walked around the other side of the bed? However, I'm not convinced that Sheila wasn't part of it, albeit in a (somewhat) passive sense.
It would also account for none of Nevill's blood in the main bedroom but why some was found in the hallway near Sheila's room.
-
She may not have been shot 6 times all in one go, she had enough strength to walk around the room. Perhaps Sheila even received the first shot at this point which is why June walked around the other side of the bed? However, I'm not convinced that Sheila wasn't part of it, albeit in a (somewhat) passive sense.
In that case maybe Sheila got on the floor to allow Jeremy the space to shoot their mother rather than from fear of being shot.
-
Would he? You know this because?
He'd have been brandishing the rifle and would have the upper hand with 3 people settled in bed. Sitting targets ? He was a crack shot,remember.
-
She may not have been shot 6 times all in one go, she had enough strength to walk around the room. Perhaps Sheila even received the first shot at this point which is why June walked around the other side of the bed? However, I'm not convinced that Sheila wasn't part of it, albeit in a (somewhat) passive sense.
June was shot 4-6 times in the bed. The only shot definitely not delivered while she was in bed was the 7th shot which was between her eyes to make sure she was dead. 4 shots were definitely delivered while she was in bed. The remaining 2 which were to her chest were delivered to her right side the shooter was facing her right side like all the other shots she received in the bed. Jeremy walking back into the room would not be facing her right side. It seems pretty obvious these shots were fired at the same time as the other 4 to her right side.
Both shots to Sheila were fired seconds apart.
It doesn't make any sense that he would shoot June 4 times then shoot Nevill 4 times as he entered (which doesn't work anyway because his left side would not be targeted in such instance, the bullet that grazed him is not where it would be if he was shot upon entering the room plus the trajectory of 2 of the shots establishes Nevill was not fully upright when those shots were delivered) then to let Nevill run away while taking the time to kill Sheila. He would have chased Nevill to try using the last 2 bullets to kill him.
This is basically what you are suggesting:
A)4 bullets on June in the bed
B)4 bullets on Nevill as he enters
C) Nevill flees
D) use last 2 bullets to kill Sheila
E) go try to find Nevill
F) fight with Nevill in the kitchen killing him
G) June stays in bed till Jeremy leaves then goes to Sheila to check her out
H) finishes killing Nevill in the kitchen and comes back upstairs to shoot June 3 more times.
June's blood was under Sheila's body that means June walked to the location before Sheila was lying there. Shooting June from the right side makes little sense if he came back upstairs finding June walking to the door. Her head injury was severe enough that she should not have been able to still be walking around when he came back upstairs and the evidence suggests she wasn't it suggest she was shot between the eyes when she was already down just to make sure she was dead.
The only thing that fits all the evidence is that June was shot 6 times. Nevill was shot 4 times then excaped and things progressed to the kitchen and Sheila either was dragged from her bed to the room or she woke up and was looking at her mother surveying the damage for a very short period of time before Jeremy came back upstairs.
Jeremy telling Sheila his plan in advance in order to try to get her to aid him makes no sense. He would not risk telling her and her then blabbing what he told her to her family. It would ruin everything if she did such.
-
I don't see how there can't be any of Nevill's blood in the bedroom if he received four shots there. And how could there be June's blood under Sheila? I thought June was shot in bed then just managed to haul herself out to the door,where she collapsed.
-
June was wandering around,Steve. The blood spots on the carpet are June's,those blue socks are hers and the few spots of blood in the box-room/sewing-room are also Junes as are those near Sheila so what she was doing wandering about nobody knows.
-
June was shot 4-6 times in the bed. The only shot definitely not delivered while she was in bed was the 7th shot which was between her eyes to make sure she was dead. 4 shots were definitely delivered while she was in bed. The remaining 2 which were to her chest were delivered to her right side the shooter was facing her right side like all the other shots she received in the bed. Jeremy walking back into the room would not be facing her right side. It seems pretty obvious these shots were fired at the same time as the other 4 to her right side.
Both shots to Sheila were fired seconds apart.
It doesn't make any sense that he would shoot June 4 times then shoot Nevill 4 times as he entered (which doesn't work anyway because his left side would not be targeted in such instance, the bullet that grazed him is not where it would be if he was shot upon entering the room plus the trajectory of 2 of the shots establishes Nevill was not fully upright when those shots were delivered) then to let Nevill run away while taking the time to kill Sheila. He would have chased Nevill to try using the last 2 bullets to kill him.
This is basically what you are suggesting:
A)4 bullets on June in the bed
B)4 bullets on Nevill as he enters
C) Nevill flees
D) use last 2 bullets to kill Sheila
E) go try to find Nevill
F) fight with Nevill in the kitchen killing him
G) June stays in bed till Jeremy leaves then goes to Sheila to check her out
H) finishes killing Nevill in the kitchen and comes back upstairs to shoot June 3 more times.
June's blood was under Sheila's body that means June walked to the location before Sheila was lying there. Shooting June from the right side makes little sense if he came back upstairs finding June walking to the door. Her head injury was severe enough that she should not have been able to still be walking around when he came back upstairs and the evidence suggests she wasn't it suggest she was shot between the eyes when she was already down just to make sure she was dead.
The only thing that fits all the evidence is that June was shot 6 times. Nevill was shot 4 times then excaped and things progressed to the kitchen and Sheila either was dragged from her bed to the room or she woke up and was looking at her mother surveying the damage for a very short period of time before Jeremy came back upstairs.
Jeremy telling Sheila his plan in advance in order to try to get her to aid him makes no sense. He would not risk telling her and her then blabbing what he told her to her family. It would ruin everything if she did such.
Someone doesn't just 'blab' a plan like that, it's talked about. However, he risked telling more than just Sheila, he told a few people that he hated his parents and as we all know, he told Julie. If Sheila 'blabbed' all he had to say was that she imagined it because she was 'nuts'.
-
I don't see how there can't be any of Nevill's blood in the bedroom if he received four shots there. And how could there be June's blood under Sheila? I thought June was shot in bed then just managed to haul herself out to the door,where she collapsed.
June walked around the bed Steve and most of the blood on the carpet is hers. There is no blood from Nevill in the main bedroom, but there was some outside of Sheila's room.
-
I don't see how there can't be any of Nevill's blood in the bedroom if he received four shots there. And how could there be June's blood under Sheila? I thought June was shot in bed then just managed to haul herself out to the door,where she collapsed.
They didn't test the bedding to see if any of it had Nevill's blood nor did they test all the blood on the bedroom carpet. That which they did test was June's. Nevill's wounds were not in locations where he would be apt to drip much blood. The main bleeding he would do was if he opened his mouth and that would mainly end up on him. The graze wound didn't cause bleeding and the upper arm wound would have the blood soaked up by his nightshirt. He bumped into the wall and his bloody shirt trandferred blood to the wall in the process.
June had had 3 exit wounds leaking blood in addition to her 6 entrance wounds. She was dripping blood from her neck and head.
They took out a chunk of carpet near the foot of the bed and a chunk near Sheila. They tested 5 of the drops in the samples but not the remainder. These drops came from June. They tested the socks which also had June's blood. She walked around the bed past the socks then turned around and when back towards the door before collapsing.
Sheila was on the floor over such blood after it had already been deposited, it wasn't deposited while she was already on the floor.
-
They didn't test the bedding to see if any of it had Nevill's blood nor did they test all the blood on the bedroom carpet. That which they did test was June's. Nevill's wounds were not in locations where he would be apt to drip much blood. The main bleeding he would do was if he opened his mouth and that would mainly end up on him. The graze wound didn't cause bleeding and the upper arm wound would have the blood soaked up by his nightshirt. He bumped into the wall and his bloody shirt trandferred blood to the wall in the process.
June had had 3 exit wounds leaking blood in addition to her 6 entrance wounds. She was dripping blood from her neck and head.
They took out a chunk of carpet near the foot of the bed and a chunk near Sheila. They tested 5 of the drops in the samples but not the remainder. These drops came from June. They tested the socks which also had June's blood. She walked around the bed past the socks then turned around and when back towards the door before collapsing.
Sheila was on the floor over such blood after it had already been deposited, it wasn't deposited while she was already on the floor.
So Sheila walked over June's body in the doorway in order to get to her position by the bedside cabinet. Another thing occurred to me: the bed nearest the door in Sheila's room was covered with her cosmetics and other accoutrements. No place for any of the twins had they had a bad dream or wanted to sleep in mummy's room. Did Jeremy make note of the routine on the Sunday and Monday before finally deciding that "tonight's the night"?
-
So Sheila walked over June's body in the doorway in order to get to her position by the bedside cabinet. Another thing occurred to me: the bed nearest the door in Sheila's room was covered with her cosmetics and other accoutrements. No place for any of the twins had they had a bad dream or wanted to sleep in mummy's room. Did Jeremy make note of the routine on the Sunday and Monday before finally deciding that "tonight's the night"?
Unless she was already in the room.
-
Someone doesn't just 'blab' a plan like that, it's talked about. However, he risked telling more than just Sheila, he told a few people that he hated his parents and as we all know, he told Julie. If Sheila 'blabbed' all he had to say was that she imagined it because she was 'nuts'.
Saying you don't like your family and approaching someone to tell them you want to kill them are 2 different things. Telling someone you want to kill your family and want them to aid you is different from both.
The only person he told that he wanted to kill them was Julie. She didn't rat him out right away and he trusted her.
Telling his sister shortly before he was going to execute his plan when he was waiting so long for her and the boys to be staying there would be a huge risk.
1) she could blab in which case he would have to deny it but would not be able to go through with it because after she told people this it would be pretty obvious if they died that he was responsible
2) she could decided not to have the boys stay over because of what he said and could ruin things that way
3) Why would he tell her? What possible upside could there be? There is no upside just downside. He would have to be a moron to tell her his plan.
-
Saying you don't like your family and approaching someone to tell them you want to kill them are 2 different things. Telling someone you want to kill your family and want them to aid you is different from both.
The only person he told that he wanted to kill them was Julie. He didn't rat her out right away and he trusted her.
Telling his sister shortly before he was going to execute his plan when he was waiting so long for her and the boys to be staying there would be a huge risk.
1) she could blab in which case he would have to deny it but would not be able to go through with it because after she told people this it would be pretty obvious if they died that he was responsible
2) she could decided not to have the boys stay over because of what he said and could ruin things that way
3) Why would he tell her? What possible upside could there be? There is no upside just downside. He would have to be a moron to tell her his plan.
He knew her - we don't, it's SIMPLY a possibility.
-
He knew her - we don't, it's SIMPLY a possibility.
Caroline, you make an excellent and grounded point. This forum is first and last a place for DISCUSSION -nothing which is said here is going to A) Change the state of the Stock Market or B) Result in Jeremy's release. Some of it MAY, however, have found it's way into books on the subject!!!- It therefore follows that POSSIBILITIES in numerous forms will be offered by some and turned over by others. Rather like a conversation around a dining table.
What it isn't, but sometimes becomes, is a platform from which people's thoughts are jumped on, are ridiculed, belittled and insulted, their thoughts dismissed as being of no consequence, by ego's so large that there is room only their their own views which they insist are right.
-
Are you thinking of writing a book ? ;)
-
Are you thinking of writing a book ? ;)
Is that better, Lookout? :D
-
Is that better, Lookout? :D
Affirmative. ;D
-
He knew her - we don't, it's SIMPLY a possibility.
We know she depended on her parents for financial support and her father for emotional support. We know that her doctor said she was extremely close to him. We know her doctor said her relationship with her mother was improving and was better than it had been in years.
He would have to expect the possibility (and even likelihood) that if he approached her saying he wanted her to help kill them both that she would tell someone before he had the chance to carry it out.
That would ruin his long term planning. Why would he do that? What aid would she be able to bring to the table in helping?
Engaging her help so that she would make sure they switch beds would not help at all. In any event the evidence establishes they didn't switch beds but rather that both parents were attacked in the master bedroom and that this was the start of the event.
If people want to ponder they can ponder whether Jeremy ran away immediately after the gun was empty to reload or Nevill somehow got passed him and fled. They could wonder whether there was a mini physical fight in the bedroom where both parents went after him and he punched the or the fleeing to the kitchen was immediate. These are variables that we can't be sure of so people can ponder them.
Unless Jeremy decided to talk honestly no one is ever going to get an answer though. The wondering of which of these happened will never be answered no matter how much we ponder it. I accept that. I face the things that we will never know and since it makes no real difference in the grand scheme of things I don't worry about it. People who have so much curiosity that they have to know everything no matter how trivial do care but caring won't make them able to figure out which of the possible variables is the one that happened so it still accomplishes little except driving them crazy that they will never know.
-
We know she depended on her parents for financial support and her father for emotional support. We know that her doctor said she was extremely close to him. We know her doctor said her relationship with her mother was improving and was better than it had been in years.
He would have to expect the possibility (and even likelihood) that if he approached her saying he wanted her to help kill them both that she would tell someone before he had the chance to carry it out.
That would ruin his long term planning. Why would he do that? What aid would she be able to bring to the table in helping?
Engaging her help so that she would make sure they switch beds would not help at all. In any event the evidence establishes they didn't switch beds but rather that both parents were attacked in the master bedroom and that this was the start of the event.
If people want to ponder they can ponder whether Jeremy ran away immediately after the gun was empty to reload or Nevill somehow got passed him and fled. They could wonder whether there was a mini physical fight in the bedroom where both parents went after him and he punched the or the fleeing to the kitchen was immediate. These are variables that we can't be sure of so people can ponder them.
Unless Jeremy decided to talk honestly no one is ever going to get an answer though. The wondering of which of these happened will never be answered no matter how much we ponder it. I accept that. I face the things that we will never know and since it makes no real difference in the grand scheme of things I don't worry about it. People who have so much curiosity that they have to know everything no matter how trivial do care but caring won't make them able to figure out which of the possible variables is the one that happened so it still accomplishes little except driving them crazy that they will never know.
She may well have been getting on better with June when Dr Ferguson last spoke with her but how would he possibly know how the relationship would be eighteen weeks down the line after Sheila had met and bonded with her biological mother in a way she never had with June? It MAY be a possibility that Jeremy was able to persuade her that with June and Neville out of the way that she'd be free to make a new life near Christine, in Canada. As Caroline said, it's a possibility. It's NOT set in stone.
-
She may well have been getting on better with June when Dr Ferguson last spoke with her but how would he possibly know how the relationship would be eighteen weeks down the line after Sheila had met and bonded with her biological mother in a way she never had with June? It MAY be a possibility that Jeremy was able to persuade her that with June and Neville out of the way that she'd be free to make a new life near Christine, in Canada. As Caroline said, it's a possibility. It's NOT set in stone.
It's totally unrealistic it is as far fetched a possibility as the things Mike comes up with. No way in hell did Jeremy trust her with a gun. His plan didn't require her aid in any way, shape or form- all telling her about his plan could have accomplished would be ruining it because she could have told someone. The risk of her telling someone would be enormous because it would mean he would have to abandon his plans. If she talked and he carried the plans out anyway then people would know he did it so it would be pointless in going through with it.
-
She may well have been getting on better with June when Dr Ferguson last spoke with her but how would he possibly know how the relationship would be eighteen weeks down the line after Sheila had met and bonded with her biological mother in a way she never had with June? It MAY be a possibility that Jeremy was able to persuade her that with June and Neville out of the way that she'd be free to make a new life near Christine, in Canada. As Caroline said, it's a possibility. It's NOT set in stone.
It's totally unrealistic it is as far fetched a possibility as the things Mike comes up with. No way in hell did Jeremy trust her with a gun. His plan didn't require her aid in any way, shape or form- all telling her about his plan could have accomplished would be ruining it because she could have told someone. The risk of her telling someone would be enormous because it would mean he would have to abandon his plans. If she talked and he carried the plans out anyway then people would know he did it so it would be pointless in going through with it.
I think you may have addressed the above to the wrong person. It bears no relation to anything I said.
-
We know she depended on her parents for financial support and her father for emotional support. We know that her doctor said she was extremely close to him. We know her doctor said her relationship with her mother was improving and was better than it had been in years.
He would have to expect the possibility (and even likelihood) that if he approached her saying he wanted her to help kill them both that she would tell someone before he had the chance to carry it out.
That would ruin his long term planning. Why would he do that? What aid would she be able to bring to the table in helping?
Engaging her help so that she would make sure they switch beds would not help at all. In any event the evidence establishes they didn't switch beds but rather that both parents were attacked in the master bedroom and that this was the start of the event.
If people want to ponder they can ponder whether Jeremy ran away immediately after the gun was empty to reload or Nevill somehow got passed him and fled. They could wonder whether there was a mini physical fight in the bedroom where both parents went after him and he punched the or the fleeing to the kitchen was immediate. These are variables that we can't be sure of so people can ponder them.
Unless Jeremy decided to talk honestly no one is ever going to get an answer though. The wondering of which of these happened will never be answered no matter how much we ponder it. I accept that. I face the things that we will never know and since it makes no real difference in the grand scheme of things I don't worry about it. People who have so much curiosity that they have to know everything no matter how trivial do care but caring won't make them able to figure out which of the possible variables is the one that happened so it still accomplishes little except driving them crazy that they will never know.
How does the evidence establish that Nevill was attacked in the main bedroom? None of his blood is in the main bedroom and his body was found downstairs. Both Sheila and June were found in the main bedroom with no explanation of why Sheila would be there and she was found on the side of the bed (on the floor - to avoid confusion) where Nevill would usually have slept. In fact there is no evidence to show that Nevill was even in the main bedroom that night. The only blood upstairs from Nevill was found outside Sheila's room.
I didn't say that her being in the main bedroom was part of any plan - don't know where you got that from.
-
How does the evidence establish that Nevill was attacked in the main bedroom? None of his blood is in the main bedroom and his body was found downstairs. Both Sheila and June were found in the main bedroom with no explanation of why Sheila would be there and she was found on the side of the bed (on the floor - to avoid confusion) where Nevill would usually have slept. In fact there is no evidence to show that Nevill was even in the main bedroom that night. The only blood upstairs from Nevill was found outside Sheila's room.
I didn't say that her being in the main bedroom was part of any plan - don't know where you got that from.
The bullet that grazed him was in the bedroom as were the shell casings associated with the 4 shots he received there.
His blood was found in the hall further proving he was wounded up there. His blood was also on the wall on the way to the kitchen. The only reason the struggle happened in the kitchen is because the gun was empty and this is why the struggle happened before the 4 shots that were fired in the kitchen.
-
The bullet that grazed him was in the bedroom as were the shell casings associated with the 4 shots he received there.
His blood was found in the hall further proving he was wounded up there. His blood was also on the wall on the way to the kitchen. The only reason the struggle happened in the kitchen is because the gun was empty and this is why the struggle happened before the 4 shots that were fired in the kitchen.
That establishes that the shooter was in the main bedroom and fired at him from there, not that Nevill was. Most of the casings were found near the door and a couple just outside. The only two found on Nevill's side of the bed were those used to kill Sheila. Clearly Nevill would enter the bedroom when he realised what was happening where he could easily have received the 4 shots before heading downstairs. This coud explain why there is a heavy distribution of casings around the area doorway.
-
That establishes that the shooter was in the main bedroom and fired at him from there, not that Nevill was. Most of the casings were found near the door and a couple just outside. The only two found on Nevill's side of the bed were those used to kill Sheila. Clearly Nevill would enter the bedroom when he realised what was happening where he could easily have received the 4 shots before heading downstairs. This coud explain why there is a heavy distribution of casings around the area doorway.
The bullet grazing him proves he was in the bedroom when it grazed him. If he were shot in the hall when it grazed him then the bullet would have been in the hall. All 4 shots including the graze wound were fired with Nevill's left profile facing the killer. His front would have been facing the killer if he was in the hall. The shots to Nevill were too close for the shooter to have been anywhere except the door way if Nevill was in the hall. Shooting in the doorway would result in the shells being in the hall, further inside would result in them being around the chair. Moreover, the lip wound and shoulder wound both feature a down trajectory. The killer was standing at a higher vantage than Nevill. Unless the shooter was standing on something it means Nevill was not fully upright. This supports Nevill being shot while sitting on the bed or as he was getting out of bed. The distribution of the casings supports the shooter being near the foot of the bed shooting June from the right side and turning to shoot Nevill then which would target his left side. Some casings that landed on the bedspread either bounced off or were thrown off when June got up out of bed. Only 1 casing stayed on the bed after June got up. The casings from shooting Nevill as he was getting out of bed or sitting on it would go to June's side of the bed because they eject forward to the right. At least 8 casings were fired with June in bed and Nevill sitting in bed or as he was getting out. That means 8 casings should have been on June's side of the bed or on the floor next to her side of the bed. There unsurprisingly are 8 casings there. The 3 oddball casings are associated with the shot between her eyes (DRH/13) and most likely the 2 chest wounds (DRH/3&4). Either the shooter moved to fire at a different angle or June moved causing the shooter to move slightly so as to cause the different angle so the 2 casings landed more towards the door. The location of the casings suggests she was getting out of bed when these 2 were fired. Only the 2 chest wounds could have been delivered as she was getting out of bed or actually out of bed so that is why DRH/3&4 are most likely associated with such wounds.
-
The bullet grazing him proves he was in the bedroom when it grazed him. If he were shot in the hall when it grazed him then the bullet would have been in the hall. All 4 shots including the graze wound were fired with Nevill's left profile facing the killer. His front would have been facing the killer if he was in the hall. The shots to Nevill were too close for the shooter to have been anywhere except the door way if Nevill was in the hall. Shooting in the doorway would result in the shells being in the hall, further inside would result in them being around the chair. Moreover, the lip wound and shoulder wound both feature a down trajectory. The killer was standing at a higher vantage than Nevill. Unless the shooter was standing on something it means Nevill was not fully upright. This supports Nevill being shot while sitting on the bed or as he was getting out of bed. The distribution of the casings supports the shooter being near the foot of the bed shooting June from the right side and turning to shoot Nevill then which would target his left side. Some casings that landed on the bedspread either bounced off or were thrown off when June got up out of bed. Only 1 casing stayed on the bed after June got up. The casings from shooting Nevill as he was getting out of bed or sitting on it would go to June's side of the bed because they eject forward to the right. At least 8 casings were fired with June in bed and Nevill sitting in bed or as he was getting out. That means 8 casings should have been on June's side of the bed or on the floor next to her side of the bed. There unsurprisingly are 8 casings there. The 3 oddball casings are associated with the shot between her eyes (DRH/13) and most likely the 2 chest wounds (DRH/3&4). Either the shooter moved to fire at a different angle or June moved causing the shooter to move slightly so as to cause the different angle so the 2 casings landed more towards the door. The location of the casings suggests she was getting out of bed when these 2 were fired. Only the 2 chest wounds could have been delivered as she was getting out of bed or actually out of bed so that is why DRH/3&4 are most likely associated with such wounds.
I am getting confused here between casings and bullets -- and I am very confused how the casings were found where they were in Sheilas shots considering where people think the shooter was.
-
I am getting confused here between casings and bullets -- and I am very confused how the casings were found where they were in Sheilas shots considering where people think the shooter was.
I don't know if this mean you are confused because you not understand in full the difference between a casing and a bullet or something else.
When a gun is fired the bullet separates from the case. The bullet flies out of the barrel. In an automatic or semi-auto the casing is automatically removed from the chamber and ejected from the ejection port on the side of the weapon after the shot is fired. In most other weapons they have to be manually ejected and loaded. For instance with a bolt or lever actions rifle you manually work the bolt or lever and that results in the shell being ejected and a new round being fed into the chamber. With the exception of rare left handed weapons the ejection is to the right. The shell ejects right and forward of the Anschutz. If you were firing it and want to use the direction of a compass then it would eject to your Northeast. If you wanted to use a clock it would be 1-2 O'clock from the weapon. The bullet would travel at 12 O'clock because it comes straight out of the weapon.
Sheila was shot while seated on the ground. It was in a confined area. If she was seated against the night stand then the casings hit the side of the bed and bounced. If they hit the side of something they will bounce around. There are some disputes over the location of 1 casing. Some police say it was under her other police say it was to her left. What has been publicly released hasn't resolved the issue. In theory if she shot herself both casing should be in the corner of this wall:
(http://s21.postimg.org/l7jpjpkw7/masterbedroomcorner.jpg)
But the closer she was to the nightstand the more the chance of the shells hitting a wall with enough force to ricochet far off from it. The further away from the wall the less momentum the shell will have and the softer the hit so it could end up not going far from the wall. The location of the 2 shells near Sheila don't equate with where they would naturally land without ricocheting off of something. It makes no difference whether she would be shooting herself or someone shooting her the location of the shells had to be the result of a ricochet. It is unlikely it would ricochet from the corner to the left of her body and the only way it could get under her would be if her body was moved so this is whey either way the location of the 1 casing was highly suspicious. Just to add more to the mix the more the door was opened the better the chance of the door deflect the casings and then not being able to reach the wall. We have no idea what position the door was in when Sheila was shot.
Suppose someone were at the foot of the bed shooting at Nevill as he was sitting on the edge of the bed getting up. The casings would be apt to land on June or if the gun is close enough to bounce off the wall in back of June. In order to hit June's right side the shooter could not be directly in front of June but had to be towards the middle of the bed or even at the foot in front of Nevill's side. That would filter the casings into the corner where most were found. Either June moved/was moving out of bed so the killer had to shift or the killer decided to shift for some other reason to a slightly different angle for the casings to get near the door. I can't draw well but this is a very rudimentary illustration of where the casing would go (the blue arrows) vis a vis a bullet (red arrows)
(http://s4.postimg.org/c0qzysv59/trajectories.jpg)
-
I don't know if this mean you are confused because you not understand in full the difference between a casing and a bullet or something else.
When a gun is fired the bullet separates from the case. The bullet flies out of the barrel. In an automatic or semi-auto the casing is automatically removed from the chamber and ejected from the ejection port on the side of the weapon after the shot is fired. In most other weapons they have to be manually ejected and loaded. For instance with a bolt or lever actions rifle you manually work the bolt or lever and that results in the shell being ejected and a new round being fed into the chamber. With the exception of rare left handed weapons the ejection is to the right. The shell ejects right and forward of the Anschutz. If you were firing it and want to use the direction of a compass then it would eject to your Northeast. If you wanted to use a clock it would be 1-2 O'clock from the weapon. The bullet would travel at 12 O'clock because it comes straight out of the weapon.
Sheila was shot while seated on the ground. It was in a confined area. If she was seated against the night stand then the casings hit the side of the bed and bounced. If they hit the side of something they will bounce around. There are some disputes over the location of 1 casing. Some police say it was under her other police say it was to her left. What has been publicly released hasn't resolved the issue. In theory if she shot herself both casing should be in the corner of this wall:
(http://s21.postimg.org/l7jpjpkw7/masterbedroomcorner.jpg)
But the closer she was to the nightstand the more the chance of the shells hitting a wall with enough force to ricochet far off from it. The further away from the wall the less momentum the shell will have and the softer the hit so it could end up not going far from the wall. The location of the 2 shells near Sheila don't equate with where they would naturally land without ricocheting off of something. It makes no difference whether she would be shooting herself or someone shooting her the location of the shells had to be the result of a ricochet. It is unlikely it would ricochet from the corner to the left of her body and the only way it could get under her would be if her body was moved so this is whey either way the location of the 1 casing was highly suspicious. Just to add more to the mix the more the door was opened the better the chance of the door deflect the casings and then not being able to reach the wall. We have no idea what position the door was in when Sheila was shot.
Suppose someone were at the foot of the bed shooting at Nevill as he was sitting on the edge of the bed getting up. The casings would be apt to land on June or if the gun is close enough to bounce off the wall in back of June. In order to hit June's right side the shooter could not be directly in front of June but had to be towards the middle of the bed or even at the foot in front of Nevill's side. That would filter the casings into the corner where most were found. Either June moved/was moving out of bed so the killer had to shift or the killer decided to shift for some other reason to a slightly different angle for the casings to get near the door. I can't draw well but this is a very rudimentary illustration of where the casing would go (the blue arrows) vis a vis a bullet (red arrows)
(http://s4.postimg.org/c0qzysv59/trajectories.jpg)
No I do know the difference - it was the way you wrote in your post about why Neville was shot in the bedroom not from within the bedroom that confused me.
-
No I do know the difference - it was the way you wrote in your post about why Neville was shot in the bedroom not from within the bedroom that confused me.
The bullet that grazed Nevill's body grazed his arm and chest like this moving fromt he left side of his body to the right:
(http://s4.postimg.org/gkbov77vx/dummy.jpg)
If Nevill were standing in the hall right outside the door facing the stairway instead of facing the room his body would be in the right position but in that case the bullet would have ended up in the hall because it would travel out the bedroom door scrape across his body and end up somewhere to the right of his body.
There is no way for him to be in the hall with his left profile facing the shooter and yet the bullet to get in the bedroom. Nevill had to be shot in the bedroom in order for the bullet to end up in the bedroom.
Hammersley said the bullet that grazed Nevill (DRH/5) was found next to the chair that was sticking out that had clothing on it. The natural location for it to get there would be Nevill standing at the foot of the bed facing the bed and Jeremy to be standing on Nevill's side of the bed. It seems odd that Jeremy would let Nevill run by him so would appear to me that the bullet ricocheted from somewhere to land there. Only Jeremy could tell us if there was a mini-altercation in the bedroom and Nevill was able to pass by him while the gun still had a bullet in it and he was able to get another shot off that grazed him. The casing though associated with such a shot should be to the left of the chair and there is none. That further supports the bullet ricocheted there. If we were talking about a high powered weapon it would go into the wall or floor but we are not. We are talking about something that deflects rather easily.
-
The bullet that grazed Nevill's body grazed his arm and chest like this moving fromt he left side of his body to the right:
(http://s4.postimg.org/gkbov77vx/dummy.jpg)
If Nevill were standing in the hall right outside the door facing the stairway instead of facing the room his body would be in the right position but in that case the bullet would have ended up in the hall because it would travel out the bedroom door scrape across his body and end up somewhere to the right of his body.
There is no way for him to be in the hall with his left profile facing the shooter and yet the bullet to get in the bedroom. Nevill had to be shot in the bedroom in order for the bullet to end up in the bedroom.
Hammersley said the bullet that grazed Nevill (DRH/5) was found next to the chair that was sticking out that had clothing on it. The natural location for it to get there would be Nevill standing at the foot of the bed facing the bed and Jeremy to be standing on Nevill's side of the bed. It seems odd that Jeremy would let Nevill run by him so would appear to me that the bullet ricocheted from somewhere to land there. Only Jeremy could tell us if there was a mini-altercation in the bedroom and Nevill was able to pass by him while the gun still had a bullet in it and he was able to get another shot off that grazed him. The casing though associated with such a shot should be to the left of the chair and there is none. That further supports the bullet ricocheted there. If we were talking about a high powered weapon it would go into the wall or floor but we are not. We are talking about something that deflects rather easily.
Exactly! Jeremy wouldn't let Nevill run by him so it makes more sense for Nevill to be standing just inside the door (I didn't say he didn't enter the bedroom). IF he was staying in Sheila's room he would obviously come into the bedroom if he heard a commotion. It explains why there are no casings on the other side of the room relating to Nevill and how he managed to escape to the kitchen.
-
Exactly! Jeremy wouldn't let Nevill run by him so it makes more sense for Nevill to be standing just inside the door (I didn't say he didn't enter the bedroom). IF he was staying in Sheila's room he would obviously come into the bedroom if he heard a commotion. It explains why there are no casings on the other side of the room relating to Nevill and how he managed to escape to the kitchen.
Caroline
that is a good point we have always wondered why Nevill's blood was not found on the bed or floor in the main bedroom he was not sleeping in that bed that explains his slippers in Sheila's room .
-
Caroline
that is a good point we have always wondered why Nevill's blood was not found on the bed or floor in the main bedroom he was not sleeping in that bed hence explains his slippers in Sheila's room .
Exactly!
-
Caroline
that is a good point we have always wondered why Nevill's blood was not found on the bed or floor in the main bedroom he was not sleeping in that bed that explains his slippers in Sheila's room .
I agree, that makes some sense and would explain some other questions such as how Nevill made it to the kitchen, he couldn't have run past Jeremy with the gun and actually would be hard for him to leave June in the bedroom when he went to all for help but if he couldn't get in the room it makes much more sense for him to run either to the phone or to the gun cupboard via the kitchen or maybe both.
-
I agree, that makes some sense and would explain some other questions such as how Nevill made it to the kitchen, he couldn't have run past Jeremy with the gun and actually would be hard for him to leave June in the bedroom when he went to all for help but if he couldn't get in the room it makes much more sense for him to run either to the phone or to the gun cupboard via the kitchen or maybe both.
Hi Maggie
your points make good sense and add credence to Caroline's post earlier Nevill was never in the main bedroom.
-
Exactly! Jeremy wouldn't let Nevill run by him so it makes more sense for Nevill to be standing just inside the door (I didn't say he didn't enter the bedroom). IF he was staying in Sheila's room he would obviously come into the bedroom if he heard a commotion. It explains why there are no casings on the other side of the room relating to Nevill and how he managed to escape to the kitchen.
Hmm. Sounds like a better explanation than any we previously seem.
-
Hmm. Sounds like a better explanation than any we previously seem.
I guess the "slippers" or "plimsolls" is a question?
I think they look like mens slippers but they are described as plimsolls and flip flops are mentioned as well.
If they are the slippers then I still think he did just lay on Sheilas bed perhaps when June and Sheila were talking.
-
I guess the "slippers" or "plimsolls" is a question?
I think they look like mens slippers but they are described as plimsolls and flip flops are mentioned as well.
If they are the slippers then I still think he did just lay on Sheilas bed perhaps when June and Sheila were talking.
By the shape of them I think they're undoubtedly slippers. Brown, fleecy lined, granddad type slippers.
-
By the shape of them I think they're undoubtedly slippers. Brown, fleecy lined, granddad type slippers.
Personally, I am in no doubt that they are men's slippers. They are similar to these (http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NTA0WDYwMA==/z/EzkAAOSweW5VRNZR/$_12.JPG)
-
Personally, I am in no doubt that they are men's slippers.
Caroline/Jane
I third that they are men's slippers.
-
Caroline/Jane
I third that they are men's slippers.
Deffo men's slippers.
-
Personally, I am in no doubt that they are men's slippers. They are similar to these (http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NTA0WDYwMA==/z/EzkAAOSweW5VRNZR/$_12.JPG)
Caroline/Jane
I third that they are men's slippers.
Deffo men's slippers.
By the shape of them I think they're undoubtedly slippers. Brown, fleecy lined, granddad type slippers.
!!!!! YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES !!!!!
-
Caroline
that is a good point we have always wondered why Nevill's blood was not found on the bed or floor in the main bedroom he was not sleeping in that bed that explains his slippers in Sheila's room .
His blood wasn't found in the bedroom because they didn't test all the blood in there. There probably was a drop or 2 in there though his wounds were not of a nature that there had to be. People keep operating based on false premises.
The bullet that grazed Nevill was found in the bedroom as were the casings associated with that shot and the 3 others her received in the master bedroom. It is crystal clear he was inside the bedroom when he was shot.
-
His blood wasn't found in the bedroom because they didn't test all the blood in there. There probably was a drop or 2 in there though his wounds were not of a nature that there had to be. People keep operating based on false premises.
The bullet that grazed Nevill was found in the bedroom as were the casings associated with that shot and the 3 others her received in the master bedroom. It is crystal clear he was inside the bedroom when he was shot.
So going by the evidence - they didn't find any of Nevill's blood in the bedroom so you're assuming it was there. However, they did find some outside of Sheila's room so we KNOW he was there. I said I accept that he DID enter the bedroom but NOT all the way in.
-
So going by the evidence - they didn't find any of Nevill's blood in the bedroom so you're assuming it was there. However, they did find some outside of Sheila's room so we KNOW he was there. I said I accept that he DID enter the bedroom but NOT all the way in.
They tested the blood in the hall they didn't test most of the blood in the bedroom. The bullets and casings prove the shots were fired in the bedroom while he was in the bedroom. His left profile was facing the killer during all 4 of these shots. The location of the casings suggests he was on the bed. The fact 2 of the shots had to have been delivered while he wasn't standing supports him being on the bed. The blood in the hall at most proves he walked into the hall after he was shot in the master bedroom but we already knew he walked into the hall because he had to in order to get to the kitchen.
Since Jeremy and the weapon were covered in Nevill's blood after the beating the blood could have dripped in the hall from such manner we don't know it came directly from Nevill. That could be why it was only a couple of drops. The drop near Sheila's room could have been dropped by Jeremy as he was going inside. Otherwise Nevill walked in that part of the hall at first but then turned around and ran down the stairs. It is crystal clear he wasn't injured in the bedroom Sheila was staying in and thus the notion he bled after leaving Sheila's bedroom doesn't work.
Either he bled there after leaving the master bedroom or the blood dripped off Jeremy after the beating.
Nevill was shot 4 times while in the master bedroom.
June was definitely shot 4 times in bed and then 2 more times either in bed or as she was getting out of bed/just got out of bed. This is 10 shots the notion Sheila was shot the same time as June and Nevill is fantasy. She was shot after Nevill was killed in the kitchen and the boys were as well.
June was shot between the eyes after walking around the bed to Nevill's side then going back to the door. It is unclear whether this shot came initially or after Nevill was killed in the kitchen. Most likely it was after because it is hard to imagine her walking around the bed through the killer 2 times at all let alone while the gun was still loaded. Most likely he shot her between the eyes after the kitchen episode.
-
Personally, I am in no doubt that they are men's slippers. They are similar to these (http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NTA0WDYwMA==/z/EzkAAOSweW5VRNZR/$_12.JPG)
Moccasin slippers are made for females as well as males:
http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/ugg-australia-ansley-slipper-women/3164992?origin=category-personalizedsort&contextualcategoryid=0&fashionColor=Aster+Suede&resultback=500
-
They tested the blood in the hall they didn't test most of the blood in the bedroom. The bullets and casings prove the shots were fired in the bedroom while he was in the bedroom. His left profile was facing the killer during all 4 of these shots. The location of the casings suggests he was on the bed. The fact 2 of the shots had to have been delivered while he wasn't standing supports him being on the bed. The blood in the hall at most proves he walked into the hall after he was shot in the master bedroom but we already knew he walked into the hall because he had to in order to get to the kitchen.
Since Jeremy and the weapon were covered in Nevill's blood after the beating the blood could have dripped in the hall from such manner we don't know it came directly from Nevill. That could be why it was only a couple of drops. The drop near Sheila's room could have been dropped by Jeremy as he was going inside. Otherwise Nevill walked in that part of the hall at first but then turned around and ran down the stairs. It is crystal clear he wasn't injured in the bedroom Sheila was staying in and thus the notion he bled after leaving Sheila's bedroom doesn't work.
Either he bled there after leaving the master bedroom or the blood dripped off Jeremy after the beating.
Nevill was shot 4 times while in the master bedroom.
June was definitely shot 4 times in bed and then 2 more times either in bed or as she was getting out of bed/just got out of bed. This is 10 shots the notion Sheila was shot the same time as June and Nevill is fantasy. She was shot after Nevill was killed in the kitchen and the boys were as well.
June was shot between the eyes after walking around the bed to Nevill's side then going back to the door. It is unclear whether this shot came initially or after Nevill was killed in the kitchen. Most likely it was after because it is hard to imagine her walking around the bed through the killer 2 times at all let alone while the gun was still loaded. Most likely he shot her between the eyes after the kitchen episode.
Scipio, I'm not entering into one of those back and foth onslaughts - the FACT is, that Nevill sleeping in Sheila's room IS A POSSIBILITY and NONE of the evidence refutes this - in fact there are LOTS of things to support it. End of!
-
Moccasin slippers are made for females as well as males:
http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/ugg-australia-ansley-slipper-women/3164992?origin=category-personalizedsort&contextualcategoryid=0&fashionColor=Aster+Suede&resultback=500
Except those in the bedroom and those in the picture I posted aren't moccasin's or sheepskin. They aren't a fashion item, they are bog standard granddad slippers.
-
Moccasin slippers are made for females as well as males:
http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/ugg-australia-ansley-slipper-women/3164992?origin=category-personalizedsort&contextualcategoryid=0&fashionColor=Aster+Suede&resultback=500
Over here some older people wear sheepskin moccasins, but the brown cloth slippers with tongues, like Neville's, are generally worn by men. I've seen then made for women in burgundy and royal blue embroidered velvet type material.
-
Except those in the bedroom and those in the picture I posted aren't moccasin's or sheepskin. They aren't a fashion item, they are bog standard granddad slippers.
No way in the world would Sheila have worn slippers like that!! :o :o :o :o :o
-
Over here some older people wear sheepskin moccasins, but the brown cloth slippers with tongues, like Neville's, are generally worn by men. I've seen then made for women in burgundy and royal blue embroidered velvet type material.
Haha! Jane, can just see Sheila in a pair of those ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No way in the world would Sheila have worn slippers like that!! :o :o :o :o :o
Never mind Sheila!!! There's no way ANY self respecting woman would would wear them :o :o :o :o
-
Never mind Sheila!!! There's no way ANY self respecting woman would would wear them :o :o :o :o
Not even to take the bins out!! :o :o :o :o ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No way in the world would Sheila have worn slippers like that!! :o :o :o :o :o
Maggie
bet Jeremy would not have worn them either wonder if they still make slippers like that must ask Adam ;D ;D ;D
-
I think they are a mans slippers - but can not find them described as such anywhere and I agree Sheila would not wear those - she had been a model FGS
-
Maybe after showering/bathing,getting from one room to another especially if her footwear was sticky with blood.
-
Maybe after showering/bathing,getting from one room to another especially if her footwear was sticky with blood.
I can't see it they would be like boats on her slim feet.
-
I can't see it they would be like boats on her slim feet.
She wouldn't have cared about that,going from the bathroom to the bedroom flopping around. They were her father's. :(
-
She wouldn't have cared about that,going from the bathroom to the bedroom flopping around. They were her father's. :(
I don't think there was any evidence on the shoes - I just don't think they were Sheilas
-
I don't think there was any evidence on the shoes - I just don't think they were Sheilas
There wouldn't have been evidence if she'd bathed/showered. Washed off along with the GSR.
-
She wouldn't have cared about that,going from the bathroom to the bedroom flopping around. They were her father's. :(
OK possibly but she would do more than flop about, she'd walk out of them all the time. I have experience in such a situation ;D and she'd be more likely to fall over and break her leg than anything else. Nevill's feet must have been huge. :o :o
-
OK possibly but she would do more than flop about, she'd walk out of them all the time. I have experience in such a situation ;D and she'd be more likely to fall over and break her leg than anything else. Nevill's feet must have been huge. :o :o
Shuffle I should have said. ;D
-
Shuffle I should have said. ;D
Exactly, she certainly wouldn't have moved very quickly in them ;D ;D
-
Exactly, she certainly wouldn't have moved very quickly in them ;D ;D
Maggie
had Sheila needed to go to the bathroom she would have gone without slippers just bare feet.
-
Maggie
had Sheila needed to go to the bathroom she would have gone without slippers just bare feet.
I am sure she would. ;D
-
It was just an idea because of them being in Sheila's bedroom. Neville must have walked around bare-footed when he went to the kitchen ?
-
It was just an idea because of them being in Sheila's bedroom. Neville must have walked around bare-footed when he went to the kitchen ?
I doubt he'd have had time to think about putting his slippers on.
-
I doubt he'd have had time to think about putting his slippers on.
But what were they doing half-hidden under Sheila's bed and not his own room ?
-
But what were they doing half-hidden under Sheila's bed and not his own room ?
Perfectly obvious if we accept that he was sleeping in Sheila's room that night and for whatever reason, Sheila was in June's room. I don't think they were deliberately half hidden. More like shoved/kicked under the bed haphazardly.
-
Perfectly obvious if we accept that he was sleeping in Sheila's room that night and for whatever reason, Sheila was in June's room. I don't think they were deliberately half hidden. More like shoved/kicked under the bed haphazardly.
He'd only have been on top of the bed though. Possibly waiting until June had finished her Psalms to Sheila. Until it broke out into a row. Thou Shalt not do this that and the other.
-
He'd only have been on top of the bed though. Possibly waiting until June had finished her Psalms to Sheila. Until it broke out into a row. Thou Shalt not do this that and the other.
What difference does it make whether he was on the bed or in it? It may be that they were so concerned with Sheila's behaviour that it was decided she should be with June that night.
-
What difference does it make whether he was on the bed or in it? It may be that they were so concerned with Sheila's behaviour that it was decided she should be with June that night.
The difference would have been that the bedclothes would have been turned back and not looking as though it hadn't been slept in.
-
You know I can't see the scenario of Sheila sleeping with June,knowing how they didn't get on. I'm sure they had seen enough of each other during the day,let alone that Sheila was dog tired that Tuesday night and probably just wanted to flop onto her bed. Maybe the twins put the slippers there as a joke? I also think Jeremy would have studied the family routine on the Sunday and Monday night and Nevill sleeping in Sheila's room would have been a complication.
-
You know I can't see the scenario of Sheila sleeping with June,knowing how they didn't get on. I'm sure they had seen enough of each other during the day,let alone that Sheila was dog tired that Tuesday night and probably just wanted to flop onto her bed. Maybe the twins put the slippers there as a joke? I also think Jeremy would have studied the family routine on the Sunday and Monday night and Nevill sleeping in Sheila's room would have been a complication.
Or maybe Jeremy put them there, as a sort of sign that no one has been able to pick up on or understand, I think there are a couple of things Jeremy did that night that people were supposed to pick up on and that he thought would make sense if Sheila was guilty.
-
Or maybe Jeremy put them there, as a sort of sign that no one has been able to pick up on or understand, I think there are a couple of things Jeremy did that night that people were supposed to pick up on and that he thought would make sense if Sheila was guilty.
I don't know how much rearranging of the crime scene Jeremy did after tossing the bible next to Sheila and emptying the money from Nevill's wallet and June's handbag. Didn't Ann Eaton say the shower fitting was off its cradle,suggesting he had washed,and there was a suggestion that he had wiped the gun after a glove came off in order to make Sheila's fingerprints more prominent. Of course all this has been discussed before.
-
I don't know how much rearranging of the crime scene Jeremy did after tossing the bible next to Sheila and emptying the money from Nevill's wallet and June's handbag. Didn't Ann Eaton say the shower fitting was off its cradle,suggesting he had washed,and there was a suggestion that he had wiped the gun after a glove came off in order to make Sheila's fingerprints more prominent. Of course all this has been discussed before.
People wonder whether Sheila slept on the bed or in the bed and Jeremy moved the covers back over the bed to make it appear she hadn't gone to sleep yet. It is a distinct possibility he did so though she could have slept on the covers. Unless Jeremy decides to tell the complete truth we will never know and I don't expect he ever will.
-
The difference would have been that the bedclothes would have been turned back and not looking as though it hadn't been slept in.
I think you have totally missed the point but never mind.
-
Or maybe Jeremy put them there, as a sort of sign that no one has been able to pick up on or understand, I think there are a couple of things Jeremy did that night that people were supposed to pick up on and that he thought would make sense if Sheila was guilty.
Nah - far fetched, as a lot of other things here. I mean, really?
-
I just think that Nevill slept in there (sometimes?) when Sheila wasn´t using that bedroom. To me those slippers are totally not significant.
-
I just think that Nevill slept in there (sometimes?) when Sheila wasn´t using that bedroom. To me those slippers are totally not significant.
Ann Eaton said they were Sheila's slippers anyway.
-
Ann Eaton said they were Sheila's slippers anyway.
Another one whose thought processing was questionable.
-
Another one whose thought processing was questionable.
This is the same person who told police that menstrual blood smelled differently from ordinary blood. ::)
-
i dont know wether you can really take what colin said seriously i mean he would of been in trauma at the time.
-
This is the same person who told police that menstrual blood smelled differently from ordinary blood. ::)
The worst of it was,the officer believed her :o
-
Ann Eaton said they were Sheila's slippers anyway.
No she didn't, she said there were some black canvas shoes that were Sheila's - there is no way you could mistake a pair of old men's slippers with women's shoes and those are old men's slippers.
-
No she didn't, she said there were some black canvas shoes that were Sheila's - there is no way you could mistake a pair of old men's slippers with women's shoes and those are old men's slippers.
Because we've never seen these black canvas shoes,there's no telling whose they were either.
-
Because we've never seen these black canvas shoes,there's no telling whose they were either.
No we haven't, but we have seen the granddad slippers.
-
No she didn't, she said there were some black canvas shoes that were Sheila's - there is no way you could mistake a pair of old men's slippers with women's shoes and those are old men's slippers.
The shoes Ann referred to and what people here keep calling slippers are the same thing. The more you post the more I realize you are like Mike and understand why you supported Jeremy.
Unisex slippers:
http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/store/details/Trooper+Cordy-Unisex-Slippers/5915148690003/_/A-5215017?#.VgcxvOxViko
(http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/catalogimage/img/product/regular/5915_14869_0003_015_regular_02.jpg)
-
The shoes Ann referred to and what people here keep calling slippers are the same thing. The more you post the more I realize you are like Mike and understand why you supported Jeremy.
Unisex slippers:
http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/store/details/Trooper+Cordy-Unisex-Slippers/5915148690003/_/A-5215017?#.VgcxvOxViko
(http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/catalogimage/img/product/regular/5915_14869_0003_015_regular_02.jpg)
The more you post the more I realise that you aren't here to debate. Oh and they may well be the same thing - but if what Ann referred to are the footwear in the picture, they AREN'T canvas shoes and they AREN'T Sheila's - they are old mans slippers - but you carry on with your petty bull-shit!
-
The more you post the more I realise that you aren't here to debate. Oh and they may well be the same thing - but if what Ann referred to are the footwear in the picture, they AREN'T canvas shoes and they AREN'T Sheila's - they are old mans slippers - but you carry on with your petty bull-shit!
I posted them to show the style. The style is used for men and women. In the meantime we can't see the toe area of the shoes in question and for all we know they are rounded and thus even more obviously female.
What you posted were not canvas shoes or even black so it is amusing watching you try to get picky to try to defense your nonsense lies.
Making up BS like you do is not debating it is simply making up things which is just what Mike happens to do.
We have you making up that Sheila's slippers were Nevill's so you can pretend you have support for your made up claim he was sleeping in her room and Sheila in his bed though it is clearly every bit nonsense like Mike spews.
-
I posted them to show the style. The style is used for men and women. In the meantime we can't see the toe area of the shoes in question and for all we know they are rounded and thus even more obviously female.
What you posted were not canvas shoes or even black so it is amusing watching you try to get picky to try to defense your nonsense lies.
Making up BS like you do is not debating it is simply making up things which is just what Mike happens to do.
We have you making up that Sheila's slippers were Nevill's so you can pretend you have support for your made up claim he was sleeping in her room and Sheila in his bed though it is clearly every bit nonsense like Mike spews.
Oh shut up Scipo - they are man's slippers - the picture you posted looks NOTHING like the slippers in the CS picture! You seem to have developed a bit of a vendetta - guess you don't like being proved wrong - oh well, nighty night! ;) :P
-
Oh shut up Scipo - they are man's slippers - the picture you posted looks NOTHING like the slippers in the CS picture! You seem to have developed a bit of a vendetta - guess you don't like being proved wrong - oh well, nighty night! ;) :P
You have zero evidence they are man's slippers. You made the claim up just because you want support for your made up claims that Nevill was in that bedroom. There ar eplenty of female slippers tha tlook like this:
(http://s27.postimg.org/mqxpncl03/slipper.jpg)
You posted tweed plaid slippers. I posted black cotton slippers. Canvas is made from cotton so he material and color I posted is much closer than what you posted. You complaining is a laugh. Like Mike's posts that sees to be all yous are good for.
-
You have zero evidence they are man's slippers. You made the claim up just because you want support for your made up claims that Nevill was in that bedroom. There ar eplenty of female slippers tha tlook like this:
(http://s27.postimg.org/mqxpncl03/slipper.jpg)
You posted tweed plaid slippers. I posted black cotton slippers. Canvas is made from cotton so he material and color I posted is much closer than what you posted. You complaining is a laugh. Like Mike's posts that sees to be all yous are good for.
Seriously? You want to argue that a 27 year old woman would wear those? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D By the way, the errrrr ''official' stance is that they were 'canvas SHOES' - you might want to follow that avenue! Musn't divert from the 'official' train of thought - god forbid someone might have an original idea! (Not you though!!)
-
Seriously? You want to argue that a 27 year old woman would wear those? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D By the way, the errrrr ''official' stance is that they were 'canvas SHOES' - you might want to follow that avenue! Musn't divert from the 'official' train of thought - god forbid someone might have an original idea! (Not you though!!)
I can post countless slippers that look similar that which are made for women. I posted a bunch of links in your thread about slippers. Obviously women are buying them or they would not make them.
-
I posted them to show the style. The style is used for men and women. In the meantime we can't see the toe area of the shoes in question and for all we know they are rounded and thus even more obviously female.
What you posted were not canvas shoes or even black so it is amusing watching you try to get picky to try to defense your nonsense lies.
Making up BS like you do is not debating it is simply making up things which is just what Mike happens to do.
We have you making up that Sheila's slippers were Nevill's so you can pretend you have support for your made up claim he was sleeping in her room and Sheila in his bed though it is clearly every bit nonsense like Mike spews.
And the footwear YOU posted in no way resembled the type of slipper WE are talking about. Those great thick rubber soles make yours look like outdoor footwear. OURS are what is referred to as HOUSE SLIPPERS.
You put words in Caroline -and anyone else's mouth- if it doesn't fit with YOUR thinking, but she ISN'T saying the slippers owned by Sheila were really Neville's slippers because it's obvious to everyone but you, that a fashion conscious 27 year old wouldn't have OWNED a pair of old men's WINTER slippers, but obviously SOMEONE owned them, so stop playing the spoilt brat and wake up to the fact that, whilst anything is possible -you see I have more of an open mind that you- it's far more LIKELY that an elderly man is the owner of slippers designed for the elderly, that is his fashion conscious 27 year old daughter. I'll go one stage further, shall I? I think it's doubtful that Sheila even BOUGHT slippers with her. She MAY not even have owned slippers. The black canvas espadrilles -the ones the police took away?- she was seen wearing would have served the purpose.
-
I do have to wonder why those black canvas shoes were whipped away like they were. It's a question which needs an answer.
-
I can post countless slippers that look similar that which are made for women. I posted a bunch of links in your thread about slippers. Obviously women are buying them or they would not make them.
No you didn't, the stuff you posted is nothing like the slippers in question - the picture I just posted is about as near as you can get and they are described as 'Old men slipper'. I'm not being dishonest though, you are - posting pictures that are nothing like the original and trying to pass that off as proof is just laughable. You are totally predictable and will pick away at this because I dared to suggest you might be wrong about something (and you were/are) - you're WRONG about this too. There's not much you're getting right at the moment - is there? 'Sucks for you' - I believe that's an Americanism for 'oh dear'? ;)
-
I'm bored with scipio's nonsense.
He is a trouble maker IMO.
-
what great diffrence do thses slippers make to anything anyway.
-
I'm bored with scipio's nonsense.
He is a trouble maker IMO.
Well, you see Buddy, I dared to tell him he was wrong about something and now (predictably) he will pick at everything I say - even down to arguing over a pair of slippers that are clearly from the 'old man' section of M&S (also available at other department stores and footwear outlets - and online). Sad really, but you are certainly right about the boredom aspect, oh! And the nonsense. ;).
Question for the ladies ......... If your significant other bought you a pair of said slippers, how over the moon would you be?
Question for the men ....... If you bought a pair of said slippers for you significant other, how long would you expect to be sleeping in the spare room/on the sofa? ;D
-
None Nugs.
-
i cant see how thses slippers have any significance to crime who ever they belonged to.
-
what great diffrence do thses slippers make to anything anyway.
Probably none but they could be significant and I have already said why they might be. However, Scipio just latched on to drag an argument out.
-
Probably none but they could be significant and I have already said why they might be. However, Scipio just latched on to drag an argument out.
AS usual.
-
i cant see how thses slippers have any significance to crime who ever they belonged to.
Because clearly they are men's slippers and must have belonged to Nevill, however, they aren't in his room, they are in Sheila's. Also when AE talked about a pair of Sheila's shoes being taken by police from her room, she didn't mention these slippers - I'd have thought she'd have picked up on the fact that Nevill's slippers were in Sheila's room. Of course Sheila may simply have borrowed them but as we don't know, it's odd for them to be there!
-
Because clearly they are men's slippers and must have belonged to Nevill, however, they aren't in his room, they are in Sheila's. Also when AE talked about a pair of Sheila's shoes being taken by police from her room, she didn't mention these slippers - I'd have thought she'd have picked up on the fact that Nevill's slippers were in Sheila's room. Of course Sheila may simply have borrowed them but as we don't know, it's odd for them to be there!
Apparently the police told AE you didn't see this.
-
Apparently the police told AE you didn't see this.
They were Sheila's canvas shoes------------which we obviously didn't see for some unknown reason.
-
They were Sheila's canvas shoes------------which we obviously didn't see for some unknown reason.
If Sheila had canvas shoes to wear, no point in using ''old men's slippers' the slippers - so it's still curious why they would be there?
-
If Sheila had canvas shoes to wear, no point in using ''old men's slippers' the slippers - so it's still curious why they would be there?
Hazard a GUESS Caroline, she put them on after she showered.
-
I think this may be important nugnug. It also reminds me that I must buy a pair of old men's slippers before winter sets in and Caroline is a very good saleswoman.
-
If Sheila had canvas shoes to wear, no point in using ''old men's slippers' the slippers - so it's still curious why they would be there?
I can't think of a reason that the slippers would be there except to have been used by Sheila pro-tem on coming out of the shower. Other than that,Neville could have lain on top of Sheila's bed while mother and daughter continued their discussion from the supper table in the main bedroom.
Where were the black canvas ones found ?
-
I can't think of a reason that the slippers would be there except to have been used by Sheila pro-tem on coming out of the shower. Other than that,Neville could have lain on top of Sheila's bed while mother and daughter continued their discussion from the supper table in the main bedroom.
Where were the black canvas ones found ?
Must be close to where the slippers are located, beside the wardrobe.
-
I wonder if the relatives ever questioned the remark made by Colin ? I bet they weren't best pleased to have heard about it.
-
Must be close to where the slippers are located, beside the wardrobe.
The photo in question is the crime scene photos. On Aug 11 she cleaned up the room up and made both beds thus none of the items on/near the spare bed were there anymore. But hey when did you strive to be accurate...
-
The shoes Ann referred to and what people here keep calling slippers are the same thing. The more you post the more I realize you are like Mike and understand why you supported Jeremy.
Unisex slippers:
http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/store/details/Trooper+Cordy-Unisex-Slippers/5915148690003/_/A-5215017?#.VgcxvOxViko
(http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/catalogimage/img/product/regular/5915_14869_0003_015_regular_02.jpg)
And the more you post like an arrogant pog, the easier it is to believe that's exactly what you are. You probably don't have anything like it where you are OR you're deliberately NOT posting pictures of them because you want to be right. Oh yes, and one more thing. The shoes Ann referred to were BLACK CANVAS ESPADRILLES -as noted by the man in the Tiptree clothes shop- not faux fur lined BROWN FELT SLIPPERS.
-
The photo in question is the crime scene photos. On Aug 11 she cleaned up the room up and made both beds thus none of the items on/near the spare bed were there anymore. But hey when did you strive to be accurate...
More twisting! if none of the items were there any more, where did the shoes come from. You haven't got a clue - you're just babbling trying to save face! Oh and there were two pairs of shoes! But those pictured are MENS SLIPPERS!
-
More twisting! if none of the items were there any more, where did the shoes come from. You haven't got a clue - you're just babbling trying to save face! Oh and there were two pairs of shoes! But those pictured are MENS SLIPPERS!
You have zero evidence they are men's slippers. Contrary to your lies women's slippers are styled that way. In any event Ann Eaton says they were Sheila's. She has a basis to know this you do not you are wildly speculating and ignoring that the shoes were by the bed near her purse and other clothing. Obviously she took them off when she entered the room and placed her clothing there/purse there. Your suggestion that Neivll placed them there to get into bed is downright stupid he didn't use that bed.
But carry on with your nonsense the mental midgets who support Jeremy appreciate this nonsense and so do the rational objective people like me because it amuses us to watch you lie like a fool.
-
You have zero evidence they are men's slippers. Contrary to your lies women's slippers are styled that way. In any event Ann Eaton says they were Sheila's. She has a basis to know this you do not you are wildly speculating and ignoring that the shoes were by the bed near her purse and other clothing. Obviously she took them off when she entered the room and placed her clothing there/purse there. Your suggestion that Neivll placed them there to get into bed is downright stupid he didn't use that bed.
But carry on with your nonsense the mental midgets who support Jeremy appreciate this nonsense and so do the rational objective people like me because it amuses us to watch you lie like a fool.
crikey you have got worse - personal attacks when you are on the back foot . My father would say that's a sign of a lack of intelligence. If you cant say something nice then don't say anything at all.
-
You have zero evidence they are men's slippers. Contrary to your lies women's slippers are styled that way. In any event Ann Eaton says they were Sheila's. She has a basis to know this you do not you are wildly speculating and ignoring that the shoes were by the bed near her purse and other clothing. Obviously she took them off when she entered the room and placed her clothing there/purse there. Your suggestion that Neivll placed them there to get into bed is downright stupid he didn't use that bed.
But carry on with your nonsense the mental midgets who support Jeremy appreciate this nonsense and so do the rational objective people like me because it amuses us to watch you lie like a fool.
I have my eyes and I can see exactly what they are and they are MENS SLIPPERS - you are WRONG yet again! Now calm down!
-
You have zero evidence they are men's slippers. Contrary to your lies women's slippers are styled that way. In any event Ann Eaton says they were Sheila's. She has a basis to know this you do not you are wildly speculating and ignoring that the shoes were by the bed near her purse and other clothing. Obviously she took them off when she entered the room and placed her clothing there/purse there. Your suggestion that Neivll placed them there to get into bed is downright stupid he didn't use that bed.
But carry on with your nonsense the mental midgets who support Jeremy appreciate this nonsense and so do the rational objective people like me because it amuses us to watch you lie like a fool.
Listen, proof is no more needed to establish that the brown felt, faux fur lined SLIPPERS are men's than it is to prove that underpants with fly openings are men's. Over here there is an established demarcation line in bedroom slippers. They don't make brown felt, faux fur lined bedroom slippers for women because women don't wear them.
-
Scipio you have a problem.
On x factor they audition people singing. Some of them sound like foghorns but they truly believe they sound wonderful.
the whole country can hear they cant sing but that doesnt matter they still carry on and believe they can make it as a pop star.
well whatever thier problem is youve got it. :-\
-
Scipio you have a problem.
On x factor they audition people singing. Some of them sound like foghorns but they truly believe they sound wonderful.
the whole country can hear they cant sing but that doesnt matter they still carry on and believe they can make it as a pop star.
well whatever thier problem is youve got it. :-\
He's been dishonest from day 1. He tried to tell the Red Forum that his membership here hadn't been authorised because we were afraid to debate with him. I authorised it on the first day he applied and he could have signed in any time - he chose to be a drama queen and build up his entrance. Truth is, no one cared if he joined or not.
-
Scipio you have a problem.
On x factor they audition people singing. Some of them sound like foghorns but they truly believe they sound wonderful.
the whole country can hear they cant sing but that doesnt matter they still carry on and believe they can make it as a pop star.
well whatever thier problem is youve got it. :-\
Notsure, have SOME compassion, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's gob almighty as it is. The last thing we want is to have it amplified :o :o :o :o :o
-
I can't think of a reason that the slippers would be there except to have been used by Sheila pro-tem on coming out of the shower. Other than that,Neville could have lain on top of Sheila's bed while mother and daughter continued their discussion from the supper table in the main bedroom.
Where were the black canvas ones found ?
Sheila went up to bed while June was on the phone with Pam and Nevill shortly thereafter had to go to the field to fish collecting the rape.
In any event how could he lay on that bed when it was full of Sheila's stuff? Why would he go lay on that bed instead of his own if he had wanted to go lay on a bed instead of collecting the rape anyway?
They are Sheila's and she put them there when she undressed and was playing with things on the bed.
Those suggesting Nevill stiched beds with Sheila so she could sleep with her mother are suggesting complete nonsense.
In the Master bedroom the killer shot June's right side 6 times then turned to target Nevill and shot his left side 4 times- one of which just grazed him and thus the bullet fragment was found in the room instead of in his body. The gun was empty then Nevill and the killer went to the kitchen - one of them pursuing the other- then upon catching up the struggle ensued, Nevill was rendered unconscious the killer was able to reload then shot Nevill 4 times in the head killing him. The killer fully reloaded, went upstairs and then fired 1 shot between June's eyes to make sure she was dead, used 8 shots on the boys and 2 on Sheila. The fantasy nonsense that Sheila was killed with June before Nevill was targeted is just that- fantasy nonsense.
-
Sheila went up to bed while June was on the phone with Pam and Nevill shortly thereafter had to go to the field to fish collecting the rape.
In any event how could he lay on that bed when it was full of Sheila's stuff? Why would he go lay on that bed instead of his own if he had wanted to go lay on a bed instead of collecting the rape anyway?
They are Sheila's and she put them there when she undressed and was playing with things on the bed.
Those suggesting Nevill stiched beds with Sheila so she could sleep with her mother are suggesting complete nonsense.
In the Master bedroom the killer shot June's right side 6 times then turned to target Nevill and shot his left side 4 times- one of which just grazed him and thus the bullet fragment was found in the room instead of in his body. The gun was empty then Nevill and the killer went to the kitchen - one of them pursuing the other- then upon catching up the struggle ensued, Nevill was rendered unconscious the killer was able to reload then shot Nevill 4 times in the head killing him. The killer fully reloaded, went upstairs and then fired 1 shot between June's eyes to make sure she was dead, used 8 shots on the boys and 2 on Sheila. The fantasy nonsense that Sheila was killed with June before Nevill was targeted is just that- fantasy nonsense.
No one is suggesting Nevill 'stiched' beds - he might have switched beds though!! Prove he didn't??
-
He's been dishonest from day 1. He tried to tell the Red Forum that his membership here hadn't been authorised because we were afraid to debate with him. I authorised it on the first day he applied and he could have signed in any time - he chose to be a drama queen and build up his entrance. Truth is, no one cared if he joined or not.
I have no reason to lie about anything. you on the other hand have an agenda so have a motive to lie and you do so regularly.
My membership here was hung up when I logged in it said waiting approval and was like that for weeks.
I view this case objectively while you do not. You are desperate to pretend that the official story is wrong. The official story though holds up so you are stuck posting lies and nonsense to try pretending the official story is wrong.
You want to pretend you are a great researcher who found the truth and the only way you can do that is to distort and pretend reality is different than it actually is.
-
Sheila went up to bed while June was on the phone with Pam and Nevill shortly thereafter had to go to the field to fish collecting the rape.
In any event how could he lay on that bed when it was full of Sheila's stuff? Why would he go lay on that bed instead of his own if he had wanted to go lay on a bed instead of collecting the rape anyway?
They are Sheila's and she put them there when she undressed and was playing with things on the bed.
Those suggesting Nevill stiched beds with Sheila so she could sleep with her mother are suggesting complete nonsense.
In the Master bedroom the killer shot June's right side 6 times then turned to target Nevill and shot his left side 4 times- one of which just grazed him and thus the bullet fragment was found in the room instead of in his body. The gun was empty then Nevill and the killer went to the kitchen - one of them pursuing the other- then upon catching up the struggle ensued, Nevill was rendered unconscious the killer was able to reload then shot Nevill 4 times in the head killing him. The killer fully reloaded, went upstairs and then fired 1 shot between June's eyes to make sure she was dead, used 8 shots on the boys and 2 on Sheila. The fantasy nonsense that Sheila was killed with June before Nevill was targeted is just that- fantasy nonsense.
How did men's slippers suddenly turn into bullets? In Neville's house Neville was entitled to put his slippers wherever he wanted.They are NOT Sheila's. No one would insult her by buying them for her and she was far too "female" to buy them for herself.
-
I've got a fabulous view for the lunar eclipse------------just thought I'd throw that in by way of some respite from Scipio's posts. Diversity stops me from jumping up and down with fury. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have no reason to lie about anything. you on the other hand have an agenda so have a motive to lie and you do so regularly.
My membership here was hung up when I logged in it said waiting approval and was like that for weeks.
I view this case objectively while you do not. You are desperate to pretend that the official story is wrong. The official story though holds up so you are stuck posting lies and nonsense to try pretending the official story is wrong.
You want to pretend you are a great researcher who found the truth and the only way you can do that is to distort and pretend reality is different than it actually is.
Garbage! You wanted everyone to think you were some heavy weight we were all afraid of - pathetic!! Your membership wasn't hug up at all - it was approved straight away!! I should know, I authorised it!!
I want people to think I'm a great researcher?? Why because I spotted a pair of slippers in a crime scene photo? Stupid man! I think you're projecting AGAIN but there are two things you could win a prize here for - the biggest ego and the biggest mouth! You can also take the prise for most boring and most childish ::) ::) ::)
By the way - what is my 'agenda'? Comon mouth almighty - share with everyone what my agenda could possibly be? Why don't you click the heels of whatever unfashionable footwear you happen to be wearing and disappear up your own bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeP! And do us all a favour!!
-
I have no reason to lie about anything. you on the other hand have an agenda so have a motive to lie and you do so regularly.
My membership here was hung up when I logged in it said waiting approval and was like that for weeks.
I view this case objectively while you do not. You are desperate to pretend that the official story is wrong. The official story though holds up so you are stuck posting lies and nonsense to try pretending the official story is wrong.
You want to pretend you are a great researcher who found the truth and the only way you can do that is to distort and pretend reality is different than it actually is.
Maybe not, but you'll use every excuse in the book/take every opportunity to MAKE an argument out of nothing, which actually makes you a trouble maker. To be sooo petty minded as to make an argument about a pair of men's slippers that you have so little knowledge of that you've posted every sort of soft footwear OTHER than the slippers we are talking about, shows how LITTLE interested you are in anything save the I, ME and MYSELF that's so important to your existence.
-
No one is suggesting Nevill 'stiched' beds - he might have switched beds though!! Prove he didn't??
The burden of proof rests with you I don't have to prove a negative. In the meantime I did prove it anyway.
The only way for the casings and bullet that grazed Nevill to be in the bedroom was if that is where he was shot. All 4 shots were to his left profile meaning the killer and he were in the same position for those shots- the killer was facing his left profile. For at least 2 of the shots he was either sitting, lying down or in the process of getting up. The trajectories of the shots to his jaw and shoulder were downward and if he was standing then the trajectory would be upward to hit these locations unless the killer fired the gun while holding is above his/her head which is of course nonsense. The bullet that grazed him was inside the room in a location that it could to get to unless he was deep inside the room when shot. Moreover, if he walked in the door and was shot then they would have been to his front not his left profile.
June was shot 4 times in bed and then 2 more either in bed or as she was getting up. All 6 shots were to her right side. Your suggestion that Jeremy shot June in the chest later when he returned from the kitchen is nonsense. The shots to her chest would have come from the front not to her right side as well. He would have had no reason to shoot her in the chest after making sure between her eyes anyway. Equally ridiculous is that he let Nevill run away while taking the time to stage Sheila on the floor. Giving Nevill time would mean Nevill could grab a shotgun and he didn't know Nevill's voicebox was damaged so for all he knew Nevill could call police.
Sheila is not a baby there is nothing to suggest Sheila would ever want to sleep with her mother as opposed to sleeping on her own. You just made the claim up from nothing no one said that on occasion she would want to sleep with her mother.
Your reckless speculation is pathetic.
-
The burden of proof rests with you I don't have to prove a negative. In the meantime I did prove it anyway.
The only way for the casings and bullet that grazed Nevill to be in the bedroom was if that is where he was shot. All 4 shots were to his left profile meaning the killer and he were in the same position for those shots- the killer was facing his left profile. For at least 2 of the shots he was either sitting, lying down or in the process of getting up. The trajectories of the shots to his jaw and shoulder were downward and if he was standing then the trajectory would be upward to hit these locations unless the killer fired the gun while holding is above his/her head which is of course nonsense. The bullet that grazed him was inside the room in a location that it could to get to unless he was deep inside the room when shot. Moreover, if he walked in the door and was shot then they would have been to his front not his left profile.
June was shot 4 times in bed and then 2 more either in bed or as she was getting up. All 6 shots were to her right side. Your suggestion that Jeremy shot June in the chest later when he returned from the kitchen is nonsense. The shots to her chest would have come from the front not to her right side as well. He would have had no reason to shoot her in the chest after making sure between her eyes anyway. Equally ridiculous is that he let Nevill run away while taking the time to stage Sheila on the floor. Giving Nevill time would mean Nevill could grab a shotgun and he didn't know Nevill's voicebox was damaged so for all he knew Nevill could call police.
Sheila is not a baby there is nothing to suggest Sheila would ever want to sleep with her mother as opposed to sleeping on her own. You just made the claim up from nothing no one said that on occasion she would want to sleep with her mother.
Your reckless speculation is pathetic.
You proved nothing you have speculated like everyone else and I don't have to prove anything to you. You are a nonentity. None of Nevill's blood in the bedroom but there is some outside of Sheila's room - your version (or the official version - because all you do is repeat that!) doesn't account for why none of Nevill's blood was in the bedroom or why Sheila was in there!
-
The burden of proof rests with you I don't have to prove a negative. In the meantime I did prove it anyway.
The only way for the casings and bullet that grazed Nevill to be in the bedroom was if that is where he was shot. All 4 shots were to his left profile meaning the killer and he were in the same position for those shots- the killer was facing his left profile. For at least 2 of the shots he was either sitting, lying down or in the process of getting up. The trajectories of the shots to his jaw and shoulder were downward and if he was standing then the trajectory would be upward to hit these locations unless the killer fired the gun while holding is above his/her head which is of course nonsense. The bullet that grazed him was inside the room in a location that it could to get to unless he was deep inside the room when shot. Moreover, if he walked in the door and was shot then they would have been to his front not his left profile.
June was shot 4 times in bed and then 2 more either in bed or as she was getting up. All 6 shots were to her right side. Your suggestion that Jeremy shot June in the chest later when he returned from the kitchen is nonsense. The shots to her chest would have come from the front not to her right side as well. He would have had no reason to shoot her in the chest after making sure between her eyes anyway. Equally ridiculous is that he let Nevill run away while taking the time to stage Sheila on the floor. Giving Nevill time would mean Nevill could grab a shotgun and he didn't know Nevill's voicebox was damaged so for all he knew Nevill could call police.
Sheila is not a baby there is nothing to suggest Sheila would ever want to sleep with her mother as opposed to sleeping on her own. You just made the claim up from nothing no one said that on occasion she would want to sleep with her mother.
Your reckless speculation is pathetic.
Talk about diverting an argument. I don't recall it having anything to do with bullet trajectory but Hey, when you're losing an argument you've got do do something underhand when you're too little a man and too gutless to admit you might be wrong.
-
Talk about diverting an argument. I don't recall it having anything to do with bullet trajectory but Hey, when you're losing an argument you've got do do something underhand when you're too little a man and too gutless to admit you might be wrong.
I have no problem admitting the offical acocunt is wrong evidence proves such. Caroline offers no proof just her wild speculation that when questioned she childishly responds to by jumping up and down like a baby insisting her allegations are fact.
The claim that Nevill switched rooms with Sheila is not supported by anything and is refuted by the evidence. Making up that the slipper was Nevill's was always a pathetic thing to base the allegations on anyway but there is nothing to suggest it is Nevill's slipper anyway.
Making up that you know the slipper is made of a material they would never make women's slippers out of and making up that women's slippers were not available in black or brown is just worthless lies that undermine the credibility of those making the claims.
-
I have no problem admitting the offical acocunt is wrong evidence proves such. Caroline offers no proof just her wild speculation that when questioned she childishly responds to by jumping up and down like a baby insisting her allegations are fact.
The claim that Nevill switched rooms with Sheila is not supported by anything and is refuted by the evidence. Making up that the slipper was Nevill's was always a pathetic thing to base the allegations on anyway but there is nothing to suggest it is Nevill's slipper anyway.
Making up that you know the slipper is made of a material they would never make women's slippers out of and making up that women's slippers were not available in black or brown is just worthless lies that undermine the credibility of those making the claims.
And where is your proof that a pair of men's slippers belonged to Sheila. I've already said that I don't believe she'd have bought slippers with her -but you've chosen to ignore that- she may not even have owned slippers.
If there is anything pathetic here, it HAS to be a grown man who thinks he knows more about female attire than do women.
-
I have no problem admitting the offical acocunt is wrong evidence proves such. Caroline offers no proof just her wild speculation that when questioned she childishly responds to by jumping up and down like a baby insisting her allegations are fact.
The claim that Nevill switched rooms with Sheila is not supported by anything and is refuted by the evidence. Making up that the slipper was Nevill's was always a pathetic thing to base the allegations on anyway but there is nothing to suggest it is Nevill's slipper anyway.
Making up that you know the slipper is made of a material they would never make women's slippers out of and making up that women's slippers were not available in black or brown is just worthless lies that undermine the credibility of those making the claims.
I broke my leg two weeks ago Scip so no jumping for me for at least 4 weeks. However, you're just repeating what others have said about you - you're really not very good at this arguing malarkey are you? You lose your head far too easily and you really can't admit to being wrong - even though you KNOW you are! Everyone else knows that too!
-
And where is your proof that a pair of men's slippers belonged to Sheila. I've already said that I don't believe she'd have bought slippers with her -but you've chosen to ignore that- she may not even have owned slippers.
If there is anything pathetic here, it HAS to be a grown man who thinks he knows more about female attire than do women.
Scip knows more about EVERYTHING!! ::) ::)
-
And where is your proof that a pair of men's slippers belonged to Sheila. I've already said that I don't believe she'd have bought slippers with her -but you've chosen to ignore that- she may not even have owned slippers.
If there is anything pathetic here, it HAS to be a grown man who thinks he knows more about female attire than do women.
The presumption is they are Sheila's because were in Sheila's room in a location where she would have taken them off while undressing. She put her items on the bed while standing int he very area where the shoes were supporting that is where she kicked them off. Ann Eaton confirmed they were hers. That's sufficient.
What evidence do you have to counter this? None just your made up claims that you refuse to believe she would wear shoes like that and uninformed decision they look too big for her. Your uninformed opinions on the size in relation to her feet - which can't be gleemed from such photo and uninformed opinions about what she would wear means less than nothing.
-
The presumption is they are Sheila's because were in Sheila's room in a location where she would have taken them off while undressing. She put her items on the bed while standing int he very area where the shoes were supporting that is where she kicked them off. Ann Eaton confirmed they were hers. That's sufficient.
What evidence do you have to counter this? None just your made up claims that you refuse to believe she would wear shoes like that and uninformed decision they look too big for her. Your uninformed opinions on the size in relation to her feet - which can't be gleemed from such photo and uninformed opinions about what she would wear means less than nothing.
She wouldn't have kicked off slippers she hadn't bought with her/didn't own. AE DIDN'T confirm that the men's slippers were Sheila's. For the SECOND TIME, Ann hadn't seen Sheila. Didn't even know she was staying. What Ann said was "She had bloody great feet" which could have referred to the black canvas espadrilles the police removed.
-
She wouldn't have kicked off slippers she hadn't bought with her/didn't own. AE DIDN'T confirm that the men's slippers were Sheila's. For the SECOND TIME, Ann hadn't seen Sheila. Didn't even know she was staying. What Ann said was "She had bloody great feet" which could have referred to the black canvas espadrilles the police removed.
She has seen Sheila in the past. She would have a basis to know what shoes Sheila wore while you have no basis.
The shoes were clearly kicked off where Sheila undressed and was standing while playing with the items on the bed. There is nothing to suggest they were not hers. That you decided they are male slippers is not evidence of anything except what your opinion is. That the same people are suggesting Nevill kicked off his shoes there so he could go sleep in the other bed is pathetic but even worse is suggesting Sheila wanted to sleep with her mother. I haven't slept in my parents bed since I was 2. Nothing suggests that Sheila would be different.
We just have fools making wild leaps that cause them humiliation when rational objective people read their babble.
-
She has seen Sheila in the past. She would have a basis to know what shoes Sheila wore while you have no basis.
The shoes were clearly kicked off where Sheila undressed and was standing while playing with the items on the bed. There is nothing to suggest they were not hers. That you decided they are male slippers is not evidence of anything except what your opinion is. That the same people are suggesting Nevill kicked off his shoes there so he could go sleep in the other bed is pathetic but even worse is suggesting Sheila wanted to sleep with her mother. I haven't slept in my parents bed since I was 2. Nothing suggests that Sheila would be different.
We just have fools making wild leaps that cause them humiliation when rational objective people read their babble.
Yes, there is because they are MEN'S and AE wouldn't have a clue what Sheila wore - it just suits you to keep saying it because you have nothing else - Jeremy confirmed they ARE his fathers slippers and as far as I can see, he would gain nothing from lying. He was in a far better position to know that AE - or YOU!
-
She has seen Sheila in the past. She would have a basis to know what shoes Sheila wore while you have no basis.
The shoes were clearly kicked off where Sheila undressed and was standing while playing with the items on the bed. There is nothing to suggest they were not hers. That you decided they are male slippers is not evidence of anything except what your opinion is. That the same people are suggesting Nevill kicked off his shoes there so he could go sleep in the other bed is pathetic but even worse is suggesting Sheila wanted to sleep with her mother. I haven't slept in my parents bed since I was 2. Nothing suggests that Sheila would be different.
We just have fools making wild leaps that cause them humiliation when rational objective people read their babble.
Scipio I do think the Defence have a gripe when black canvas shoes are removed from a crime scene and a Police Officer tells Ann Eaton "you haven't seen those". Along with Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson's evidence which Carol Ann Lee now tells us the Doctor says Sheila was capable of murdering her children they are relevant issues for anyone seeking a retrial.
-
YOOOO HOOOO SCIIIIPPPPIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. WE'RE ALL WAITING FOR YOUR APOLOGY
-
Yes, there is because they are MEN'S and AE wouldn't have a clue what Sheila wore - it just suits you to keep saying it because you have nothing else - Jeremy confirmed they ARE his fathers slippers and as far as I can see, he would gain nothing from lying. He was in a far better position to know that AE - or YOU!
Jeremy had repeatedly lied, nothing he says is trustworthy.
Your claim they are men's is totally unsupported by any evidence it is simply unsupported opinion based upon looking at an unclear photo that doesn't even show the whole shoe. You don't even know it is a slipper. You don't know what the bottom is like or outside material. You can't establish it is not a canvas shoe Ann Eaton referred to. You simply made up it has to be men's has to be too big for Sheila and has to be Nevill's.
-
Jeremy had repeatedly lied, nothing he says is trustworthy.
Your claim they are men's is totally unsupported by any evidence it is simply unsupported opinion based upon looking at an unclear photo that doesn't even show the whole shoe. You don't even know it is a slipper. You don't know what the bottom is like or outside material. You can't establish it is not a canvas shoe Ann Eaton referred to. You simply made up it has to be men's has to be too big for Sheila and has to be Nevill's.
We can SEE what it see and it's an old man's slipper - Jeremy has no reason to lie. You do though because you can't stand being wrong! You would think you would be used to it by now!!
-
Jeremy had repeatedly lied, nothing he says is trustworthy.
Your claim they are men's is totally unsupported by any evidence it is simply unsupported opinion based upon looking at an unclear photo that doesn't even show the whole shoe. You don't even know it is a slipper. You don't know what the bottom is like or outside material. You can't establish it is not a canvas shoe Ann Eaton referred to. You simply made up it has to be men's has to be too big for Sheila and has to be Nevill's.
DUMBO, if it looks like a man's slipper and we say it's a man's slipper and Jeremy corroborates it as BEING a man's slipper, I imagine there's every chance that it IS a man's slipper and you're a bad loser.
-
Scipio I do think the Defence have a gripe when black canvas shoes are removed from a crime scene and a Police Officer tells Ann Eaton "you haven't seen those".
First of all she screwed it up. They told her she didn't see them take the paint samples. They didn't care about the shoes they spoke to her about clothes and shoes to try to support their lie they were there for the inquest because they didn't want anyone to know they actually went there to take the paint samples. She watched them take the samples and didn't want it to get back to Jeremy so told her she didn't see it which means keep quiet.
Second, They didn't want Jeremy to find out they didn't trust him because then he would stop cooperating. Cooperation not only meant enabling them to search the premises without needing a warrant, it means he would talk to them and potentially while talking they could get something useful out of him. If he knew they were suspicious then he would be even more apt to lie about seemingly mundane things. They would see mundane if he wasn't suspicious but he might see their reason for asking if he knew they were suspicious.
There is nothing improper about wanting to conceal the investigation from him.
Along with Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson's evidence which Carol Ann Lee now tells us the Doctor says Sheila was capable of murdering her children they are relevant issues for anyone seeking a retrial.
Ferguson's changed opinions many years after the trial are wholly meaningless. They were based upon things that never happened. Even if he simply changed his mind because he simply viewed the same set of facts differently it makes no difference it is not new evidence. His opinion is meaningless anyway because the evidence that convicted Jeremy was evidence that Sheila could not have killed herself and evidence that Jeremy told Julie he planned to kill them and admitted he was responsible. To refute guilt the prosecution has to undermine one of these two premises. Ferguson's opinions don't relate to either.
-
First of all she screwed it up. They told her she didn't see them take the paint samples. They didn't care about the shoes they spoke to her about clothes and shoes to try to support their lie they were there for the inquest because they didn't want anyone to know they actually went there to take the paint samples. She watched them take the samples and didn't want it to get back to Jeremy so told her she didn't see it which means keep quiet.
Second, They didn't want Jeremy to find out they didn't trust him because then he would stop cooperating. Cooperation not only meant enabling them to search the premises without needing a warrant, it means he would talk to them and potentially while talking they could get something useful out of him. If he knew they were suspicious then he would be even more apt to lie about seemingly mundane things. They would see mundane if he wasn't suspicious but he might see their reason for asking if he knew they were suspicious.
There is nothing improper about wanting to conceal the investigation from him.
Ferguson's changed opinions many years after the trial are wholly meaningless. They were based upon things that never happened. Even if he simply changed his mind because he simply viewed the same set of facts differently it makes no difference it is not new evidence. His opinion is meaningless anyway because the evidence that convicted Jeremy was evidence that Sheila could not have killed herself and evidence that Jeremy told Julie he planned to kill them and admitted he was responsible. To refute guilt the prosecution has to undermine one of these two premises. Ferguson's opinions don't relate to either.
No, you got that WRONG, they said that about the shoes!!!!
-
First of all she screwed it up. They told her she didn't see them take the paint samples. They didn't care about the shoes they spoke to her about clothes and shoes to try to support their lie they were there for the inquest because they didn't want anyone to know they actually went there to take the paint samples. She watched them take the samples and didn't want it to get back to Jeremy so told her she didn't see it which means keep quiet.
Second, They didn't want Jeremy to find out they didn't trust him because then he would stop cooperating. Cooperation not only meant enabling them to search the premises without needing a warrant, it means he would talk to them and potentially while talking they could get something useful out of him. If he knew they were suspicious then he would be even more apt to lie about seemingly mundane things. They would see mundane if he wasn't suspicious but he might see their reason for asking if he knew they were suspicious.
There is nothing improper about wanting to conceal the investigation from him.
Ferguson's changed opinions many years after the trial are wholly meaningless. They were based upon things that never happened. Even if he simply changed his mind because he simply viewed the same set of facts differently it makes no difference it is not new evidence. His opinion is meaningless anyway because the evidence that convicted Jeremy was evidence that Sheila could not have killed herself and evidence that Jeremy told Julie he planned to kill them and admitted he was responsible. To refute guilt the prosecution has to undermine one of these two premises. Ferguson's opinions don't relate to either.
NO, it wasn't about paint samples that they said "You haven't seen this" it was about a pair of black canvas espadrilles when they and Ann were in Sheila's bedroom.
-
NO, it wasn't about paint samples that they said "You haven't seen this" it was about a pair of black canvas espadrilles when they and Ann were in Sheila's bedroom.
(http://s28.postimg.org/ookzoff2l/jonespaintsample.jpg)
-
(http://s28.postimg.org/ookzoff2l/jonespaintsample.jpg)
How very strange. It now appears there may have been several things they told her she knew nothing about.
-
(http://s28.postimg.org/ookzoff2l/jonespaintsample.jpg)
-
As I said Ann Eaton botched it and erroneously claimed they told her to be quiet about shoes though it was paint.
There has been no evidence posted to prove they actually took any shoes into evidence. They didn't note anything of the sort anywhere in their notes or statements and none of the exhibit references pertain to any shoes. They may simply have pretended they were taking shoes though they ultimately didn't.
You don't know if the shoe in the photo is cotton canvas or not because the photo is not good enough. It is black and could indeed be the shoes they asked about which they thought looked big but that she confirmed were Sheila's because she had big feet.
-
As I said Ann Eaton botched it and erroneously claimed they told her to be quiet about shoes though it was paint.
There has been no evidence posted to prove they actually took any shoes into evidence. They didn't note anything of the sort anywhere in their notes or statements and none of the exhibit references pertain to any shoes. They may simply have pretended they were taking shoes though they ultimately didn't.
You don't know if the shoe in the photo is cotton canvas or not because the photo is not good enough. It is black and could indeed be the shoes they asked about which they thought looked big but that she confirmed were Sheila's because she had big feet.
Faux fur lined slippers are n ever made of cotton canvas NOR do they have rope soles. Rather like you the police seem not to know the difference between paint and shoes. I find it UNBELIEVABLE that you have the gall and arrogance to say that those who made the statements, ie both AE and the police have all got it wrong and your version is the correct one.
-
As I said Ann Eaton botched it and erroneously claimed they told her to be quiet about shoes though it was paint.
There has been no evidence posted to prove they actually took any shoes into evidence. They didn't note anything of the sort anywhere in their notes or statements and none of the exhibit references pertain to any shoes. They may simply have pretended they were taking shoes though they ultimately didn't.
You don't know if the shoe in the photo is cotton canvas or not because the photo is not good enough. It is black and could indeed be the shoes they asked about which they thought looked big but that she confirmed were Sheila's because she had big feet.
They all botch it when it doesn't suit your argument! As long as you're right eh? You have a serious problem!
-
Faux fur lined slippers are n ever made of cotton canvas NOR do they have rope soles. Rather like you the police seem not to know the difference between paint and shoes. I find it UNBELIEVABLE that you have the gall and arrogance to say that those who made the statements, ie both AE and the police have all got it wrong and your version is the correct one.
I'm not surprised because he used selective information on the David Bain case and drew a similar erroneous conclusion. I'm not overly concerned whether his grandmother was a transvestite either,but I wouldn't want him banned as he is entertaining at least.
-
I'm not surprised because he used selective information on the David Bain case and drew a similar erroneous conclusion. I'm not overly concerned whether his grandmother was a transvestite either,but I wouldn't want him banned as he is entertaining at least.
Steve, with the way he likes to adorn his slippers it's very possible that his grandmother isn't the only one in the family.
-
They all botch it when it doesn't suit your argument! As long as you're right eh? You have a serious problem!
The police account that they told her to be quiet about the paint is much more reliable than her claim it pertained to shoes which there is zero evidence they actually took and that for sure were never sent to the lab for examination. They didn't go there for shoes it was a ruse they couldn't care less if she told Jeremy they took Sheila's shoes.
Moreover her original account was not that they told her to keep quiet about the shoes she said this years later in her COLP statement when her memory was fuzzy. She originally said it about the paint which resulted in Jeremy alleging she saw police damage the mantle and they told her not to tell anyone.
-
The police account that they told her to be quiet about the paint is much more reliable than her claim it pertained to shoes which there is zero evidence they actually took and that for sure were never sent to the lab for examination. They didn't go there for shoes it was a ruse they couldn't care less if she told Jeremy they took Sheila's shoes.
Moreover her original account was not that they told her to keep quiet about the shoes she said this years later in her COLP statement when her memory was fuzzy. She originally said it about the paint which resulted in Jeremy alleging she saw police damage the mantle and they told her not to tell anyone.
There is the same evidence for both unless you're suggesting that AE is a liar! She said she was told to keep quite about both but because one doesn't suit you, that must be a mistake. You can't make these judgements and try to pass them off as fact - you are assuming one is right and the other not.
-
There is the same evidence for both unless you're suggesting that AE is a liar! She said she was told to keep quite about both but because one doesn't suit you, that must be a mistake. You can't make these judgements and try to pass them off as fact - you are assuming one is right and the other not.
Ann Eaton was wrong about the victims being in bed and many other things. She was wrong about Jones saying she didn't see him take the shoe she said she didn't see him take the paint samples. There is no reason to believe they took the shoes unless you produce evidence since they had no reason to take them, didn't go there to take them and failed to note taking them in their statements, pocketbook's etc. It is just as suspect as the claim the bodies were in the bed. But rational objective thought was never your strong suit and you flat out lied about Cook saying they took the samples because the family found damage to the mantle so honesty is another thing you lack.
You are good at coming up with hairbrained nonsense but little else. Your claims are EXACTLY like Mike's.
Mike: Ann Eaton said June and Sheila were in the bed so this means they were in the bed despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Caroline: Police took Sheila's Shoes because Ann Eatons says so and they even told her to keep it quiet. Nevermind that Jones said he told her to keep quiet about the paint samples. Nevermind tha tno police say they took the shoes and didn't writ in their pocketbooks that they took the shoes and that there are no log entries on property records corresponding to the shoes and that they all stated they went there from the express purpose of taking the paint samples...
You both ignore evidence and rely on errors in support of revisionist claims. In the meantime the claim doesn't even help your claims. Your SOLE evidence tha tthe photo shows a male slipper belonging to Nevill is an unclear photo which you say is clear in your opinion and that your assessment is proven fact.
Your assessment is not evidence of anything except what your opinion is.
You take this fake fact then make the giant leap it means Nevill switched beds with Sheila, that is the same kind of giant leap Mike makes. You are 2 peas in a pod.
-
Ann Eaton was wrong about the victims being in bed and many other things. She was wrong about Jones saying she didn't see him take the shoe she said she didn't see him take the paint samples. There is no reason to believe they took the shoes unless you produce evidence since they had no reason to take them, didn't go there to take them and failed to note taking them in their statements, pocketbook's etc. It is just as suspect as the claim the bodies were in the bed. But rational objective thought was never your strong suit and you flat out lied about Cook saying they took the samples because the family found damage to the mantle so honesty is another thing you lack. You have to make up support for yourself because you have NONE. You make stuff up all the time; like when you supposedly cut yourself and used the base of you palm to stop the blood. Every time you post BS like that, you expose yourself. Evidence? AE said they took the shoes, you're calling her a liar because it suits your agenda. What do you have that they didn't? Oh, that would be nothing!!
You are good at coming up with hairbrained nonsense but little else. Your claims are EXACTLY like Mike's. You keep saying this because you think it will wind me up but it just show how petty you are when you're losing face!
Mike: Ann Eaton said June and Sheila were in the bed so this means they were in the bed despite all the evidence to the contrary. I was arguing against that long before you were here ::)
Caroline: Police took Sheila's Shoes because Ann Eatons says so and they even told her to keep it quiet. Nevermind that Jones said he told her to keep quiet about the paint samples. Nevermind tha tno police say they took the shoes and didn't writ in their pocketbooks that they took the shoes and that there are no log entries on property records corresponding to the shoes and that they all stated they went there from the express purpose of taking the paint samples...
Scipio - AE was wrong because I can't find any reference to police taking the shoes and police always tell the truth about everything. I don't want them to have said 'You haven't seen this' because that doesn't fit with what I believe and my opinion ABOVE ALL is what counts. I'm not interested in what people have said, the story needs to fall in line with what I think because I know everything and I'm NEVER wrong! If it doesn't, then it's because they were wrong or were lying!
You both ignore evidence and rely on errors in support of revisionist claims. In the meantime the claim doesn't even help your claims. Your SOLE evidence tha tthe photo shows a male slipper belonging to Nevill is an unclear photo which you say is clear in your opinion and that your assessment is proven fact.
Your assessment is not evidence of anything except what your opinion is. Just like you except that the picture shows an old mans slipper - the fact that you would rather argue the toss because you have a grudge, doesn't change the fact that it's an old mans slipper!
You take this fake fact then make the giant leap it means Nevill switched beds with Sheila, that is the same kind of giant leap Mike makes. You are 2 peas in a pod. Opps! More pettiness - it's not arguing that you're good at, it's being petty and crying when you lose. Go make-up more friends for yourself - you need them. Perhaps you could make up a little excursion with them and get yourself out of the house and away from your computer for 5 mins. I'm sure whatever adventure you have, you'll always come out on top - but you're the one in control of these fantasies - so that's inevitable!
-
Russell Faria was convicted on a pair of bloodied slippers. Watch this if you have time: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dateline/54680533#54680533
-
Russell Faria was convicted on a pair of bloodied slippers. Watch this if you have time: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dateline/54680533#54680533
Let's start from square one.
He alleges he came home and found his wife dead. She was stabbed many times (55 total) and had the knife still sticking out of her neck. Anyone seeing this would believe she was murdered but not him- he told police she committed suicide.
That alone made police suspicious that he called it suicide. It was ruled out as a suicide for sure because she died after a very early blow most of the stabs were post mortem and thus the amount of blood wasn't that much like normally is the case with a victim stabbed 55 times.
Indeed his slippers were worn during the killing and spatter got on them and then they were put away in the closet. I don't find it particularly persuasive that someone else wore his slippers during the murder in order to frame him...
-
Let's start from square one.
He alleges he came home and found his wife dead. She was stabbed many times (55 total) and had the knife still sticking out of her neck. Anyone seeing this would believe she was murdered but not him- he told police she committed suicide.
That alone made police suspicious that he called it suicide. It was ruled out as a suicide for sure because she died after a very early blow most of the stabs were post mortem and thus the amount of blood wasn't that much like normally is the case with a victim stabbed 55 times.
Indeed his slippers were worn during the killing and spatter got on them and then they were put away in the closet. I don't find it particularly persuasive that someone else wore his slippers during the murder in order to frame him...
It's an interesting case scipio because he does seem to have an airtight alibi. There's also another person who has an interest in his wife's demise,namely Pamela Hupp. He's been released pending a retrial. I think he did it but can't make out how. http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-inexplicable-case-of-russ-faria.html
-
It would have seemed that the canvas shoes in which Sheila wore had to be removed in rather a hurry and without explanation which naturally leaves people guessing.
-
It would have seemed that the canvas shoes in which Sheila wore had to be removed in rather a hurry and without explanation which naturally leaves people guessing.
Yes because why would they need to disappear were they so innocuous?
-
It's an interesting case scipio because he does seem to have an airtight alibi. There's also another person who has an interest in his wife's demise,namely Pamela Hupp. He's been released pending a retrial. I think he did it but can't make out how. http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-inexplicable-case-of-russ-faria.html
The TOD window was presented as 7:30-9:40pm. He left his friends around 8:45 per their testimony. Police suggest the Arby's receipt (9:09 receipt) was given to him by a friend. If he did go to Arby's himself the earliest he could make it home is 20 minutes so 9:30. That least only 10 minutes to fight with her, kill her then call 911. It's not impossible for him to kill her that fast. If the TOD window were earlier then it would prove he was innocent assuming they were telling the truth about him being with them. I haven't seen any evidence that the defense has come up with a different TOD. They certainly should have if they could have.
When someone changes a beneficiary it is a double edged sword. While it presents the opportunity to argue the person killed her for the money it also suggests she was having problems with her husband that she would change the beneficiary to a friend. Someone has to be pretty stupid to commit the murder only days later.
If they found evidence that she wasn't having problems with her husband and would not have changed the beneficiary and to suggest that the switching of the beneficiary was nefarious that would be extremely strong evidence against the friend. There are cases where forgeries occur in order to change a beneficiary. That would blow things wide open. The circumstances surrounding the policy change is where I would investigate if I were defending him. In fact, I think the prosecution argued he got $100 from a different insurance police and that such could have been a motive. Why would she change one policy but not the other? I would definitely look long and hard at who processed that change and exactly how it was processed. I recall cases where a doctor and insurance agent were working in tandem to nefariously change beneficiaries then kill them.
-
The TOD window was presented as 7:30-9:40pm. He left his friends around 8:45 per their testimony. Police suggest the Arby's receipt (9:09 receipt) was given to him by a friend. If he did go to Arby's himself the earliest he could make it home is 20 minutes so 9:30. That least only 10 minutes to fight with her, kill her then call 911. It's not impossible for him to kill her that fast. If the TOD window were earlier then it would prove he was innocent assuming they were telling the truth about him being with them. I haven't seen any evidence that the defense has come up with a different TOD. They certainly should have if they could have.
When someone changes a beneficiary it is a double edged sword. While it presents the opportunity to argue the person killed her for the money it also suggests she was having problems with her husband that she would change the beneficiary to a friend. Someone has to be pretty stupid to commit the murder only days later.
If they found evidence that she wasn't having problems with her husband and would not have changed the beneficiary and to suggest that the switching of the beneficiary was nefarious that would be extremely strong evidence against the friend. There are cases where forgeries occur in order to change a beneficiary. That would blow things wide open. The circumstances surrounding the policy change is where I would investigate if I were defending him. In fact, I think the prosecution argued he got $100 from a different insurance police and that such could have been a motive. Why would she change one policy but not the other? I would definitely look long and hard at who processed that change and exactly how it was processed. I recall cases where a doctor and insurance agent were working in tandem to nefariously change beneficiaries then kill them.
But he has to change his bloodied clothes and hide them within that time period. Wasn't the body cold when Police arrived?
-
But he has to change his bloodied clothes and hide them within that time period. Wasn't the body cold when Police arrived?
Changing right away into his sleeping clothes, killing her then back into his old clothing is possible though somewhat unlikely unless he planned things out. One would expect if it was a spontaneous fight it would have happened right away before he changed One would have to know what his usual habits were so far as changing his clothes when he arrived home. Some people change right away, others do not.
I didn't see any references to the defense posting any expert evidence regarding the time of death in the original trial only appeal references to the window being between 7:30 and 9:40.
I still think the key is the changing of the policy. If in fact her friend murdered her over the beneficiary change then there is more to the story of the change. People change all their policies if they are mad at someone. The only explanation for changing only 1 would be that she wasn't mad but rather wanted to spread her love by giving to multiple beneficiaries. They should be going over the change with a fine tooth comb making sure it wasn't changed by some fraudulent action without her knowledge/approval. That would be the easiest way to establish reasonable doubt. In fact it could be enough for the prosecution to use to go after the friend. The policy change is key hopefully his lawyers recognize that.
-
Changing right away into his sleeping clothes, killing her then back into his old clothing is possible though somewhat unlikely unless he planned things out. One would expect if it was a spontaneous fight it would have happened right away before he changed One would have to know what his usual habits were so far as changing his clothes when he arrived home. Some people change right away, others do not.
I didn't see any references to the defense posting any expert evidence regarding the time of death in the original trial only appeal references to the window being between 7:30 and 9:40.
I still think the key is the changing of the policy. If in fact her friend murdered her over the beneficiary change then there is more to the story of the change. People change all their policies if they are mad at someone. The only explanation for changing only 1 would be that she wasn't mad but rather wanted to spread her love by giving to multiple beneficiaries. They should be going over the change with a fine tooth comb making sure it wasn't changed by some fraudulent action without her knowledge/approval. That would be the easiest way to establish reasonable doubt. In fact it could be enough for the prosecution to use to go after the friend. The policy change is key hopefully his lawyers recognize that.
The policy was changed at a public library and had there been coercion it would have been brought up at trial. I agree about the second policy but the timeline just doesn't fit unless one or more of his game friends are lying,which seems unlikely. There's nothing more the law establishment hate than to bring themselves into disrepute and for that reason and the fact that Faria is unlikely to reoffend my prediction is that he will get off.
-
I have looked into what evidence is available about the change and found some interesting things if true:
"The women had been friends for about 10 years, Hupp told authorities, and had worked together in the insurance business."
Looky here an insurance insider just the kind of red flag I mentioned.
"Hupp also said she didn’t even know if the beneficiary change had been processed at the time of the murder."
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/russell-faria-s-wife-was-stabbed-times-but-was-he/article_dd93f262-594e-5b88-b53f-097fc10033c8.html
She's an insurance insider she would be able to find out whether the change was processed. The on;y way she could deny knowledge is if she didn't know the change was taking place because Betsy didn't tell her.
But evidence shows she was with Betsy at the time the change was made so she had to know. Actually evidence shows she was there with a woman claiming to be Betsy. Whether it really was Betsy no one knows because the librarian who witnessed the change didn't ask them for ID like she was supposed to. So for all anyone knows Hupp took some woman there to impersonate Betsy. This is exactly what I meant that they need to dig deeper. They should push the librarian further to see if she recognized Betsy as the person purporting to be Betsy. I wish I could read her deposition transcript:
"The library assistant is a woman by the name of Lauren Manganelli. So far, I can find no connection with Lauren and Pam. Lauren said during her deposition on 2014 July 22 that she saw Betsy and Pam come into the library and were there about a half hour organizing papers and then approached her in order to ask her to witness the signature. She says the date was 2011 Dec 23. Pamela did most of the talking during this exchange. Pam told Lauren that Betsy a.k.a. Elizabeth Faria was getting a divorce from her husband Russ and because of this she wanted to sign over her policy to her best friend Pam. Either Pam, Elizabeth, or both did mention that Elizabeth had children and the money would be used for them.
Lauren specifically says that she did not ask either woman for identification. This is in direct contrast to what Pam Hupp has told the court. She claims her and Elizabeth had both shown their ID's to Lauren."
They change is the key to the case. Pam told the librarian the change was because of an impending divorce. Betsy told no one else about an impending divorce so far as I can tell. Moreover, if that were true then why would she change only one policy and leave the other in her husband's name? I bet the woman with her wasn't Betsy.
Something else I encountered while reading about the policy is that she told police $100,000 was put in trust for Betsy's kids and $50,000 was to be given to a friend with cancer but she died too soon to have a chance to give it to her. The family of that women, who did in fact die, said she died 1.5 years after Betsy and that Hupp never said a word during those 1.5 years about giving her any money to help cover her cancer bills.
I bet a compelling case could be made against Hupp if they actually tried. I would wager a bundle on them being able to prove the beneficiary change was totally bogus if they would dig deeper. It's always the linchpin, it's cliche but it is cliche because it is so damn common.
Now you know why the appeal was granted. The foul cited in the appeal was not being able to grill Hupp. I bet she will take the 5th Amendment on the stand.
-
I have looked into what evidence is available about the change and found some interesting things if true:
"The women had been friends for about 10 years, Hupp told authorities, and had worked together in the insurance business."
Looky here an insurance insider just the kind of red flag I mentioned.
"Hupp also said she didn’t even know if the beneficiary change had been processed at the time of the murder."
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/russell-faria-s-wife-was-stabbed-times-but-was-he/article_dd93f262-594e-5b88-b53f-097fc10033c8.html
She's an insurance insider she would be able to find out whether the change was processed. The on;y way she could deny knowledge is if she didn't know the change was taking place because Betsy didn't tell her.
But evidence shows she was with Betsy at the time the change was made so she had to know. Actually evidence shows she was there with a woman claiming to be Betsy. Whether it really was Betsy no one knows because the librarian who witnessed the change didn't ask them for ID like she was supposed to. So for all anyone knows Hupp took some woman there to impersonate Betsy. This is exactly what I meant that they need to dig deeper. They should push the librarian further to see if she recognized Betsy as the person purporting to be Betsy. I wish I could read her deposition transcript:
"The library assistant is a woman by the name of Lauren Manganelli. So far, I can find no connection with Lauren and Pam. Lauren said during her deposition on 2014 July 22 that she saw Betsy and Pam come into the library and were there about a half hour organizing papers and then approached her in order to ask her to witness the signature. She says the date was 2011 Dec 23. Pamela did most of the talking during this exchange. Pam told Lauren that Betsy a.k.a. Elizabeth Faria was getting a divorce from her husband Russ and because of this she wanted to sign over her policy to her best friend Pam. Either Pam, Elizabeth, or both did mention that Elizabeth had children and the money would be used for them.
Lauren specifically says that she did not ask either woman for identification. This is in direct contrast to what Pam Hupp has told the court. She claims her and Elizabeth had both shown their ID's to Lauren."
They change is the key to the case. Pam told the librarian the change was because of an impending divorce. Betsy told no one else about an impending divorce so far as I can tell. Moreover, if that were true then why would she change only one policy and leave the other in her husband's name? I bet the woman with her wasn't Betsy.
Something else I encountered while reading about the policy is that she told police $100,000 was put in trust for Betsy's kids and $50,000 was to be given to a friend with cancer but she died too soon to have a chance to give it to her. The family of that women, who did in fact die, said she died 1.5 years after Betsy and that Hupp never said a word during those 1.5 years about giving her any money to help cover her cancer bills.
I bet a compelling case could be made against Hupp if they actually tried. I would wager a bundle on them being able to prove the beneficiary change was totally bogus if they would dig deeper. It's always the linchpin, it's cliche but it is cliche because it is so damn common.
Now you know why the appeal was granted. The foul cited in the appeal was not being able to grill Hupp. I bet she will take the 5th Amendment on the stand.
Hupp was also cagey about whether she entered the house that night,changing her story when pressed. However your scenario of an impostor at the library is risky(this is a murder case after all),the signature could be checked and it would also mean Hupp had an accomplice whom she would have to trust not to inform authorities should anything go awry.
-
Hupp was also cagey about whether she entered the house that night,changing her story when pressed. However your scenario of an impostor at the library is risky(this is a murder case after all),the signature could be checked and it would also mean Hupp had an accomplice whom she would have to trust not to inform authorities should anything go awry.
Why go to a library instead of a bank? Banks notarize for free but they want ID and have CAMERAS. Libraries here have no cameras! It seems too odd to only change one policy if actually planning a divorce and she had other friends she would have told if she was planning a divorce. She was dying why plan a divorce anyway? She had relatives she could have placed in charge of a trust for her kids.
Letting her friend lie about her getting divorced in order to change it makes little sense. It's cliche to forge a beneficiary change because it actually happens. It's actually rare to get a handwriting expert. The standard is to get the testimony of the person who witnessed the signing, in this case the librarian. Most expect that to be sufficient to get away with it. An accomplice would be an accomplice to murder so would never talk unless caught red handed and desiring a deal for leniency.
It's possible she talked Betsy into it but I think much more likely is that she did it fraudulently. She worked in the industry and knew what she could get away with. While less likely it is possible no one did enough digging to tie her to the librarian. For all we know the librarian knew her and signed it for her and made up the other person being with her. The librarian probably would have lied saying they showed ID but sometimes people don't think ahead enough as they are lying.
Notaries fraudulently notarizing things is nothing new. It's happened with everything from simple affidavits to wills. In the Amityville Case a notary notarized an affidavit from a nonexistent person and nothing happened to that notary despite being caught! The affidavit was from a person who supposedly was with DeFeo at the time of the murders and could confirm he didn't commit them. The authorities found no trace of the man living anywhere or even being born because he was fictional. He was supposedly the brother in law of his wife. It gets worse he forged a marriage certificate so he could pretend he was married to his wife at the time of the murders when in fact he never met her until 1985 while he was in prison and married her in 1989. This sounds too outrageous to be true but some people are very brazen. The judge found this all too outrageous to be true and he lost his motion to have his conviction vacated. A Book picked up these lies a decade later and published them as true and a documentary was even made about it. Some people are so stupid they actually believe the book and documentary.
Tell me if this adds up to you:
A) December 23, 2011 husband is removed as beneficiary allegedly because she is planning a divorce though she failed to seek out any divorce attorneys prior to her death and he is left beneficiary of her other policy (which conveniently provides him with a motive- to kill her before she changes the other policy)
B) December 25, 2011 has sex with the husband which is confirmed at autopsy by some of his sperm found inside her which is several days old
-
Why go to a library instead of a bank? Banks notarize for free but they want ID and have CAMERAS. Libraries here have no cameras! It seems too odd to only change one policy if actually planning a divorce and she had other friends she would have told if she was planning a divorce. She was dying why plan a divorce anyway? She had relatives she could have placed in charge of a trust for her kids.
Letting her friend lie about her getting divorced in order to change it makes little sense. It's cliche to forge a beneficiary change because it actually happens. It's actually rare to get a handwriting expert. The standard is to get the testimony of the person who witnessed the signing, in this case the librarian. Most expect that to be sufficient to get away with it. An accomplice would be an accomplice to murder so would never talk unless caught red handed and desiring a deal for leniency.
It's possible she talked Betsy into it but I think much more likely is that she did it fraudulently. She worked in the industry and knew what she could get away with. While less likely it is possible no one did enough digging to tie her to the librarian. For all we know the librarian knew her and signed it for her and made up the other person being with her. The librarian probably would have lied saying they showed ID but sometimes people don't think ahead enough as they are lying.
Notaries fraudulently notarizing things is nothing new. It's happened with everything from simple affidavits to wills. In the Amityville Case a notary notarized an affidavit from a nonexistent person and nothing happened to that notary despite being caught! The affidavit was from a person who supposedly was with DeFeo at the time of the murders and could confirm he didn't commit them. The authorities found no trace of the man living anywhere or even being born because he was fictional. He was supposedly the brother in law of his wife. It gets worse he forged a marriage certificate so he could pretend he was married to his wife at the time of the murders when in fact he never met her until 1985 while he was in prison and married her in 1989. This sounds too outrageous to be true but some people are very brazen. The judge found this all too outrageous to be true and he lost his motion to have his conviction vacated. A Book picked up these lies a decade later and published them as true and a documentary was even made about it. Some people are so stupid they actually believe the book and documentary.
Tell me if this adds up to you:
A) December 23, 2011 husband is removed as beneficiary allegedly because she is planning a divorce though she failed to seek out any divorce attorneys prior to her death and he is left beneficiary of her other policy (which conveniently provides him with a motive- to kill her before she changes the other policy)
B) December 25, 2011 has sex with the husband which is confirmed at autopsy by some of his sperm found inside her which is several days old
The couple had been on a cruise trip only recently and I don't know who spread the rumours about impending divorce. Maybe Pamela Rupp convinced her that the money would be safer in her hands as a trustee and away from the daughters who might spend it all at once. The second insurance policy would take care of Russel upon her imminent death from cancer.
-
The couple had been on a cruise trip only recently and I don't know who spread the rumours about impending divorce. Maybe Pamela Rupp convinced her that the money would be safer in her hands as a trustee and away from the daughters who might spend it all at once. The second insurance policy would take care of Russel upon her imminent death from cancer.
Pam Rupp told the beneficiary change witness that Betsy was doing the change because she was planning to divorce her husband. The Woman there purporting to be Betsy did not deny Rupp's claim that this is why the change was being done. If the true reason was simply because Rupp convinced Betsy she would be a better fiduciary of the funds for the children why would Rupp make up it was because of an impending divorce and why would Betsy stand by this lie?
Rupp to the witness in front of someone purporting to be Betsy- change was because she was planning to divorce her husband.
Rupp to police- motive for the change was because Betsy didn't trust her husband and wanted Rupp to be the trustee of the proceeds
Rupp's account subsequent to conviction- motive for the change was because Betsy wanted Rupp to have the money instead of her husband and kids.
---
I don't believe Betsy enacted the change of there would be no need to keep making up different accounts.
-
For those interested Faria has been found not guilty in his retrial
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/faria-not-guilty-in-lincoln-county-murder-of-his-wife/article_1a377230-8af1-5d79-992a-0f32d1c9bbf6.html
-
For those interested Faria has been found not guilty in his retrial
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/faria-not-guilty-in-lincoln-county-murder-of-his-wife/article_1a377230-8af1-5d79-992a-0f32d1c9bbf6.html
It's hardly a surprise. He's unlikely to reoffend,whether innocent or guilty.
-
It's hardly a surprise. He's unlikely to reoffend,whether innocent or guilty.
The judge announced it was either Pam Hupp or Faria and that they failed to establish it was Faria. Reading between the lines he thinks Hupp did it. It seems obvious anyway that Pam Hupp did it but the county prosecutor is a clown so chances are she won't try Hupp. Hupp changed her story so many times the prosecution didn't even use her at the retrial. Her most recent story is she was having a lesbian affair with the victim...
I could make a strong case against her and tha tis before even looking at whether she took someone else with her to effect the policy change and without investigating with the company whether she phoned the the day of the murder to make sure the change went through. Police didn't bother to do such because they didn't consider her a potential suspect. The lead cop is a complete ass much like the prosecutor. It should be reinvestigated but likely won't be.