Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: buddy on September 06, 2015, 06:35:PM
-
I do not believe that Sheila was the shooter, at least not alone.
I care not about her mental state, as I do not think she could have shot her children.
If Sheila was in a mental state then the shootings would have been more random, not methodical.
-
I do not believe that Sheila was the shooter, at least not alone.
I care not about her mental state, as I do not think she could have shot her children.
If Sheila was in a mental state then the shootings would have been more random, not methodical.
Hi Buddy
I have a feeling Sheila was involved in the murders but not actually in the shootings I don't think she shot anyone.
-
Hi Buddy
I have a feeling Sheila was involved in the murders but not actually in the shootings I don't think she shot anyone.
I don't think she had anything to do with the murders.
A mothers natural instincts is to protect her children , nuts or not.
-
I do not believe that Sheila was the shooter, at least not alone.
I care not about her mental state, as I do not think she could have shot her children.
If Sheila was in a mental state then the shootings would have been more random, not methodical.
why do you not think she would shoot the children when she admitted herself she was a danger to them and had thought they were a product of the devil? And Colin was not the person who went to the police saying she would never have shot her children , initially he seemed to accept that fact?
-
I don't think she had anything to do with the murders.
A mothers natural instincts is to protect her children , nuts or not.
Buddy
I don't think for one minute Sheila thought her boys or herself would be shot she was double crossed IMO
-
I do not believe that Sheila was the shooter, at least not alone.
I care not about her mental state, as I do not think she could have shot her children.
If Sheila was in a mental state then the shootings would have been more random, not methodical.
If Sheila were responsible for the other 4 murders then at minimum she would have had GSR on her hands and clothing, medium velocity spatter from Nevill on her clothing and body and her hands and nails would have had some sort of damage they would not have been completely unscathed unless she wore gloves but then the gloves would have been found at the scene.
It's impossible for her to have killed herself, someone else shot her, removed the moderator and put it away, moved her body flat, left the gun on her and put the Bible in a pool of her blood that formed after she died.
I don't find the notion that she took part in the other murders but was double-crossed and murdered credible. It seems obvious to me that a single person was responsible for all the deaths. The physical evidence proves that person wasn't her. The physical evidence doesn't prove who did it only that she didn't. Non-physical evidence proves Jeremy did it.
-
If Sheila were responsible for the other 4 murders then at minimum she would have had GSR on her hands and clothing, medium velocity spatter from Nevill on her clothing and body and her hands and nails would have had some sort of damage they would not have been completely unscathed unless she wore gloves but then the gloves would have been found at the scene.
It's impossible for her to have killed herself, someone else shot her, removed the moderator and put it away, moved her body flat, left the gun on her and put the Bible in a pool of her blood that formed after she died.
I don't find the notion that she took part in the other murders but was double-crossed and murdered credible. It seems obvious to me that a single person was responsible for all the deaths. The physical evidence proves that person wasn't her. The physical evidence doesn't prove who did it only that she didn't. Non-physical evidence proves Jeremy did it.
Hi Scipio
the anonymous letter received by PH from an ex con states that Jeremy told him Sheila was involved. I think the story could be quite credible other than Sheila did not fire any shots nor did Jeremy take her stained clothes home with him that is utter nonsense if she had fired any shots it would have been more convincing to EP if she had gun residue on her hands and clothes. Maybe Jeremy convinced Sheila that their parents had to go and in all innocence she stood by whilst they were being shot. If this was not the case how did he manage to shoot his parents Sheila would have tried to intervene.
-
Sheila would definitely have shot her mother,no doubt about that, which is evident by the sheer frenzy of the shooter,but it's what followed that's the difficult bit,or how it all began when they were all in their bedrooms,presumably settling in for the night.
Why did Neville move out of the bedroom when his wife was being murdered ? Why did any of them leave the boys ? Unless they thought they wouldn't be shot as well,I don't know. Who but a maniac would have killed the children ?
No,I don't believe Sheila shot herself----------not with a rifle anyway,it's impossible.
Do we know if Neville's gun/rifle was under the bed ? If so,for what reason ?
-
why do you not think she would shoot the children when she admitted herself she was a danger to them and had thought they were a product of the devil? And Colin was not the person who went to the police saying she would never have shot her children , initially he seemed to accept that fact?
Although he accepted that Sheila might have killed herself, Colin had a hard time accepting that she would have killed the boy's but as he was being told this by the police, he had no reason to believe they were wrong.
-
Hi Scipio
the anonymous letter received by PH from an ex con states that Jeremy told him Sheila was involved. I think the story could be quite credible other than Sheila did not fire any shots nor did Jeremy take her stained clothes home with him that is utter nonsense if she had fired any shots it would have been more convincing to EP if she had gun residue on her hands and clothes. Maybe Jeremy convinced Sheila that their parents had to go and in all innocence she stood by whilst they were being shot. If this was not the case how did he manage to shoot his parents Sheila would have tried to intervene.
I don't find it credible at all. Jeremy has done nothing but lie. If he did tell the story to a criminal he clearly lied to him as well. Prisoners lie to other prisoners all the time. They exaggerate how bad they are to rough/tough prisoners and meek prisoners who they want to befriend they try to downplay anything bad they did.
The story is contrived purely to mitigate his own responsibility. It blames Sheila for the other murders and says he shot her only but at Sheila's request. This story is invented to use on someone who faces that the evidence proves that Sheila didn't kill herself. Some people are willing to overlook such evidence and to believe it was manufactured. Most though face this evidence. So the story faces this evidence but mitigates the death by claiming he did it at her request. It also deals with the fact that there was no evidence on her body and clothes with the nonsense that he let her get washed and disposed of her clothing. This tale was entirely made up it is not credible at all. It was made up as a way to explain the state of the evidence and yet still minimize his culpability.
-
Although he accepted that Sheila might have killed herself, Colin had a hard time accepting that she would have killed the boy's but as he was being told this by the police, he had no reason to believe they were wrong.
The family were told the same thing and they did seem to have problems believing the police .
He also did not mention to the police of her having no experience with guns or being so un-coordinated that she could not have committed the crime . If Jb is guilty it does seem that the relatives are to be thanked for pointing out the things he did not .
-
Sheila would definitely have shot her mother,no doubt about that, which is evident by the sheer frenzy of the shooter,but it's what followed that's the difficult bit,or how it all began when they were all in their bedrooms,presumably settling in for the night.
Why did Neville move out of the bedroom when his wife was being murdered ? Why did any of them leave the boys ? Unless they thought they wouldn't be shot as well,I don't know. Who but a maniac would have killed the children ?
No,I don't believe Sheila shot herself----------not with a rifle anyway,it's impossible.
Do we know if Neville's gun/rifle was under the bed ? If so,for what reason ?
The rifle was kept in the closet of the downstairs office. There was a shotgun kept in that same closet. Other shotguns were kept in the bathroom. He didn't have any firearms under his bed.
As for Sheila definitely being willing to shoot her mother- the only thing that would be able to prove her willingness would be if she actually tried. There is zero evidence she ever did. The notion she did so the same time that someone else killed her is not credible the same person killed everyone with the same rifle.
-
The family were told the same thing and they did seem to have problems believing the police .
He also did not mention to the police of her having no experience with guns or being so un-coordinated that she could not have committed the crime . If Jb is guilty it does seem that the relatives are to be thanked for pointing out the things he did not .
He knew his wife was ill, in was suffering from extreme grief having just lost his two sons. He accepted what he was told and he wasn't as familiar with Jeremy's behaviour as the relatives were.
-
I don't find it credible at all. Jeremy has done nothing but lie. If he did tell the story to a criminal he clearly lied to him as well. Prisoners lie to other prisoners all the time. They exaggerate how bad they are to rough/tough prisoners and meek prisoners who they want to befriend they try to downplay anything bad they did.
The story is contrived purely to mitigate his own responsibility. It blames Sheila for the other murders and says he shot her only but at Sheila's request. This story is invented to use on someone who faces that the evidence proves that Sheila didn't kill herself. Some people are willing to overlook such evidence and to believe it was manufactured. Most though face this evidence. So the story faces this evidence but mitigates the death by claiming he did it at her request. It also deals with the fact that there was no evidence on her body and clothes with the nonsense that he let her get washed and disposed of her clothing. This tale was entirely made up it is not credible at all. It was made up as a way to explain the state of the evidence and yet still minimize his culpability.
Scipio
I have never thought Jeremy shot Sheila at her request nor do I think he removed her clothes from WHF but I still think she was present with the knowledge that he was going to shoot their parents only.
-
The rifle was kept in the closet of the downstairs office. There was a shotgun kept in that same closet. Other shotguns were kept in the bathroom. He didn't have any firearms under his bed.
As for Sheila definitely being willing to shoot her mother- the only thing that would be able to prove her willingness would be if she actually tried. There is zero evidence she ever did. The notion she did so the same time that someone else killed her is not credible the same person killed everyone with the same rifle.
Perhaps she did and the first time she tried she was successful?
-
Scipio
I have never thought Jeremy shot Sheila at her request nor do I think he removed her clothes from WHF but I still think she was present with the knowledge that he was going to shoot their parents only.
Why would he tell her about his plans to kill their parents? There is no upside in telling her only the risk of her trying to do something to stop it by blabbing, to take it as a joke and tell people or to accidentally blab it. Her blabbing it would be fatal. There is simply no reason why he would take the risk of her ruining things after his many months of planing finally waiting for her to be there with the boys.
-
The rifle was kept in the closet of the downstairs office. There was a shotgun kept in that same closet. Other shotguns were kept in the bathroom. He didn't have any firearms under his bed.
As for Sheila definitely being willing to shoot her mother- the only thing that would be able to prove her willingness would be if she actually tried. There is zero evidence she ever did. The notion she did so the same time that someone else killed her is not credible the same person killed everyone with the same rifle.
This was no dress rehearsal so there'd have been no proof of " willingness in killing her mother ?". It would have been an immediate decision on Sheila's part to have done so for more reasons than enough. One person who didn't appear surprised was Colin,so what did that tell you ?
-
Perhaps she did and the first time she tried she was successful?
The only way I can see it possible for Sheila to have had a hand in the murders is if Jeremy convinced her that with their parents out of the way she'd be free to start a new life in Canada near Christine.
-
The only way I can see it possible for Sheila to have had a hand in the murders is if Jeremy convinced her that with their parents out of the way she'd be free to start a new life in Canada near Christine.
Jane that is the lines I was thinking on but I guess we will never know.
-
Why would he tell her about his plans to kill their parents? There is no upside in telling her only the risk of her trying to do something to stop it by blabbing, to take it as a joke and tell people or to accidentally blab it. Her blabbing it would be fatal. There is simply no reason why he would take the risk of her ruining things after his many months of planing finally waiting for her to be there with the boys.
Scipio
he told Julie of his plans so I am told the explanation given by Jane seems credible to me.
-
I'd read that things hadn't gone as expected regarding any future after the meeting of Sheila and Christine ?
-
This was no dress rehearsal so there'd have been no proof of " willingness in killing her mother ?". It would have been an immediate decision on Sheila's part to have done so for more reasons than enough. One person who didn't appear surprised was Colin,so what did that tell you ?
That people are willing to believe she killed June because she had a poor relationship with her June doesn't mean much to me.
The physical evidence is clear that she didn't do anything. The notion that she killed June then someone else killed everyone else doesn't compute. The same person killed everyone and used the same weapon on everyone.
-
Sheila clearly didn't shoot anyone, not even herself. Nothing has come to light to show that she did or could have done, there is lots to say she didn't.
-
I also don't believe it was a two person crime.
-
Jane that is the lines I was thinking on but I guess we will never know.
There must have been a huge dichotomy between the fun time she spent with Christine and June's more disciplined approach to life. Possibly she saw in Christine something she'd always felt was missing from her own life.
-
That people are willing to believe she killed June because she had a poor relationship with her June doesn't mean much to me.
The physical evidence is clear that she didn't do anything. The notion that she killed June then someone else killed everyone else doesn't compute. The same person killed everyone and used the same weapon on everyone.
On the contrary,the physical evidence is crystal clear. You can sense the sheer hatred as the woman had been peppered with bullets,including the one between the eyes which would possibly have been done after June had died,in order to get a direct aim.
-
Sheila clearly didn't shoot anyone, not even herself. Nothing has come to light to show that she did or could have done, there is lots to say she didn't.
Mat, I'm not saying she did. I'm saying that it's the only reason I can find for the possibility of her doing it.
-
Sheila clearly didn't shoot anyone, not even herself. Nothing has come to light to show that she did or could have done, there is lots to say she didn't.
Mat
I agree with you all I am saying he may have convinced Sheila their parents needed to go and she went along with it this would mean he could carry out the murders of their parents without interference from her I think the anonymous letter has a degree of truth about it but he told it differently than actually happened to his cell mate.
-
Mat, I'm not saying she did. I'm saying that it's the only reason I can find for the possibility of her doing it.
I was answering the topic, not your post sorry Apes! ;D
:-[
Mat
I agree with you all I am saying he may have convinced Sheila their parents needed to go and she went along with it this would mean he could carry out the murders of their parents without interference from her I think the anonymous letter has a degree of truth about it but he told it differently than actually happened to his cell mate.
I do agree the letter had some truth to it and whoever wrote it had certainly spent a good amount of time with Bamber from a few clues written in the letter, I wouldn't be surprised it Bamber did tell the writer that is how the crime happened, I just don't think Bamber was telling the truth and don't think it happened that way.
-
Scipio
he told Julie of his plans so I am told the explanation given by Jane seems credible to me.
He told Julie well in advance. He did so before he was sure he was even going to do it. He complained to her about them. He needed someone to bitch to and she was his choice. She didn't blab and he even thought she was trying to help him with the sleeping pills so he used her as his confidant and thus kept her appraised of his plans.
That is a big difference between planning everything out and deciding to try confiding his intentions in his sister when he had no reason to and she would be able to ruin everything. He didn't need Sheila's help, he didn't have a confidant type relationship with her where confiding in her would provide him comfort and have any other reason that would benefit him from telling her.
It's no more believable than the police approaching the family and asking them to agree to help lie about finding the moderator. The situations are analogous. Police had no need to recruit the family for such and the family could end up ratting them out intentionally or unintentionally and thus could ruin everything.
-
There must have been a huge dichotomy between the fun time she spent with Christine and June's more disciplined approach to life. Possibly she saw in Christine something she'd always felt was missing from her own life.
Jane
I agree and I think poor Sheila thought her whole life was going to change since meeting her birth Mother.
-
Jane
I agree and I think poor Sheila thought her whole life was going to change since meeting her birth Mother.
So it would be understandable that when it didn't she could have been gripped by depression?
-
So it would be understandable that when it didn't she could have been gripped by depression?
Jane
quite right. Poor Sheila.
-
So it would be understandable that when it didn't she could have been gripped by depression?
Yeah, I agree. What I find just as sad is that there is so much stigma around mental illness and a complete lack of understanding about depression and even schizophrenia that Jeremy is able to use her illness as almost as it is evidence as to why she is guilty.
-
Yeah, I agree. What I find just as sad is that there is so much stigma around mental illness and a complete lack of understanding about depression and even schizophrenia that Jeremy is able to use her illness as almost as it is evidence as to why she is guilty.
It played right into his hands, didn't it?
-
Sadly i think sheila did it!
-
But then again.?..............god i wish i really knew its so bloody frustrating,
-
But then again.?..............god i wish i really knew its so bloody frustrating,
Hahaaha!! I know the feeling notsure ;D ;D
-
Sadly i think sheila did it!
From everything that has been said of her -save a couple of incidents- in the weeks leading up to the massacre, I believe she was depressed and lacked the mental energy to kill one person, let alone five.
-
Sadly i think sheila did it!
It'll certainly depend on " new " information which she will have supplied her psychiatrist with before her death.
-
From everything that has been said of her -save a couple of incidents- in the weeks leading up to the massacre, I believe she was depressed and lacked the mental energy to kill one person, let alone five.
http://www.schizophrenic.com/content/schizophrenia-related/depression-and-schizophrenia
The above link is interesting about schizophrenics and depression, Jane. Almost 50% of PS sufferers also suffer from depression.
-
Sadly i think sheila did it!
Hi notsure
if Sheila was responsible for the murders how come she was so clean and had no gun residue on her hands no blood splatter after beating her Farther have you read her ex husbands book in which he states she would never die with her Mother it would have been with her children also he said she would not have a clue how to use a rifle. Guess if you think Sheila was responsible you believe Nevill phoned Jeremy and so forth. I spent two years thinking Jeremy was innocent then I started to ask myself all these questions and could not come up with answers.
-
http://www.schizophrenic.com/content/schizophrenia-related/depression-and-schizophrenia
The above link is interesting about schizophrenics and depression, Jane. Almost 50% of PS sufferers also suffer from depression.
So it seems one in 10 people suffering from PS will kill themselves and use a more lethal method than other depression suffers.
Worth a read.
-
http://www.schizophrenic.com/content/schizophrenia-related/depression-and-schizophrenia
The above link is interesting about schizophrenics and depression, Jane. Almost 50% of PS sufferers also suffer from depression.
I think if I were told I was schizophrenic, I'd be depressed too. Not just because of the illness, but because of having to take medication everyday - I'd hate that!
-
I don't have schizophrenia,but have to take medication,daily, to keep me alive.Sometimes you have no choice in life whatever it might be.
-
http://www.schizophrenic.com/content/schizophrenia-related/depression-and-schizophrenia
The above link is interesting about schizophrenics and depression, Jane. Almost 50% of PS sufferers also suffer from depression.
Yes Maggie, I do get that, but with schizophrenia it seems to be anxiety which leads clinical depression. I don't think Sheila was clinically depressed -although I get the things she was anxious about- I think she was weighed down psychologically by the path her life had taken. With everything that was going on, all those rejections, which, even the strongest of us, wouldn't have sunk into depression.
-
Yes Maggie, I do get that, but with schizophrenia it seems to be anxiety which leads clinical depression. I don't think Sheila was clinically depressed -although I get the things she was anxious about- I think she was weighed down psychologically by the path her life had taken. With everything that was going on, all those rejections, which, even the strongest of us, wouldn't have sunk into depression.
I agree but she may have had clinical depression due to her PS as well, it states 50% of all suffers are depressed so she certainly had a load to carry. Drugs cause anxiety, life can cause anxiety, lousy relationships and trying over and over to cope with difficult situations cause trauma and general anxiety disorder. We will never know and I accept it is your field and not mine..... however it's an interesting article for he layman, although it doesn't prove anything. :-\
-
She went into a deep depression after the birth of the twins.Post natal depression which a lot of women suffer from.It's pinpointing them that's the problem. Sheila also had to spend more than half her pregnancy in hospital too which is enough in itself to depress anyone. My own daughter had to do in Australia for fear of pre-eclampsia.
-
She went into a deep depression after the birth of the twins.Post natal depression which a lot of women suffer from.It's pinpointing them that's the problem. Sheila also had to spend more than half her pregnancy in hospital too which is enough in itself to depress anyone. My own daughter had to do in Australia for fear of pre-eclampsia.
I agree but she may have had clinical depression due to her PS as well, it states 50% of all suffers are depressed so she certainly had a load to carry. Drugs cause anxiety, life can cause anxiety, lousy relationships and trying over and over to cope with difficult situations cause trauma and general anxiety disorder. We will never know and I accept it is your field and not mine..... however it's an interesting article for he layman, although it doesn't prove anything. :-\
If this girl was schizophrenic, suffering with clinical depression, anxiety, postnatal depression and the depression which hits because of life circumstances, it's surprising she had the energy to move let alone kill.
-
If this girl was schizophrenic, suffering with clinical depression, anxiety, postnatal depression and the depression which hits because of life circumstances, it's surprising she had the energy to move let alone kill.
I agree Jane, I haven't enough knowledge to be able to judge whether she would have had the energy or not, in the article it does state if she had depression as well as PS she would be more likely to have a psychotic episode but I'm not claiming she did kill.... just found the article about Paranoid schizophrenia and depression interesting. I know many PS suffers were, probably still are diagnosed when they attempt suicide and that is the way my cousin was diagnosed when he was 20 and away at university which is quite typical apparently. He did not attempt to kill anyone but himself but he had no means to do so as he tried to gas himself, I have no idea if there had been a gun to hand if he would have used it against others. He was a lovely shy and gentle soul. :-\
-
If she'd been taking her medication pertaining to these illnesses then yes,she'd have remained calm if not zonked-out altogether,but the fact of the matter is that all she had in her system were 5 days left of the antipsychotic,at a reduced dosage with no sign of her having ingested anything else. She probably stopped her medication after her last puff of cannabis which was a few days before.
-
I agree Jane, I haven't enough knowledge to be able to judge whether she would have had the energy or not, in the article it does state if she had depression as well as PS she would be more likely to have a psychotic episode but I'm not claiming she did kill.... just found the article about Paranoid schizophrenia and depression interesting. I know many PS suffers were, probably still are diagnosed when they attempt suicide and that is the way my cousin was diagnosed when he was 20 and away at university which is quite typical apparently. He did not attempt to kill anyone but himself but he had no means to do so as he tried to gas himself, I have no idea if there had been a gun to hand if he would have used it against others. He was a lovely quiet and gentle soul. :-\
Depression is like trough, Maggie. I don't think Sheila was necessarily depressed when she came out of hospital, it fact she had to have been on a high. She was going to meet her mother for the first time and it seems it was every bit as joyous as she'd hoped, meaning her rejection must have been worse than she could ever have envisaged and dragged her down close to the bottom of the trough. On top of this may have come the realization that there was no chance of getting back together with Colin. Although she's said she was looking forward to getting the boys back she must have known there was no way she could cope with them on her own. She MAY have thought that life wasn't worth living but by this time I really don't believe she'd have had the energy to do anything about it.
-
Depression is like trough, Maggie. I don't think Sheila was necessarily depressed when she came out of hospital, it fact she had to have been on a high. She was going to meet her mother for the first time and it seems it was every bit as joyous as she'd hoped, meaning her rejection must have been worse than she could ever have envisaged and dragged her down close to the bottom of the trough. On top of this may have come the realization that there was no chance of getting back together with Colin. Although she's said she was looking forward to getting the boys back she must have known there was no way she could cope with them on her own. She MAY have thought that life wasn't worth living but by this time I really don't believe she'd have had the energy to do anything about it.
I just don't know, I understand about depression have seen it at close quarters but taking the words of the article it does say depression with PS can cause more relapses and psychotic episodes, and anti psychotic drugs can add to this, I know I keep saying the same thing but makes me wonder.... and adds to the fact that withdrawal and lack of interest in anything can be the prelude to a psychotic episode......
-
i wouldent like to comit myself i think though shes the most likely shooter i cant rule jeremy and i cant rule out the possbility somody elese did.
-
I don't have schizophrenia,but have to take medication,daily, to keep me alive.Sometimes you have no choice in life whatever it might be.
That's not what I meant - I'd hate to take medication to keep me sane.
-
That's not what I meant - I'd hate to take medication to keep me sane.
So would I. It's bad enough having to take what you've been prescribed as a life-long therapy, as someone who never took so much as a paracetamol,I'm not exactly over the moon about it,but have to adhere to the " rules ".However taking medication for mental health issues is a different ball-game and one of trial and error according to the type of illness displayed. Some of the side-effects are quite dangerous both to the mind ( although that's what they're prescribed for ) and also the body and physical well-being and depends on the patient's tolerance of the drug.
-
Yes I see what you mean Jane, however, imo we don't have any proof that either of them did it if that's what we are basing our findings on,
I just could not convict on the evidence we have available, I wish I could be as sure as you guilters but I cant, maybe I need another couple of years.!!!!
-
Yes I see what you mean Jane, however, imo we don't have any proof that either of them did it if that's what we are basing our findings on,
I just could not convict on the evidence we have available, I wish I could be as sure as you guilters but I cant, maybe I need another couple of years.!!!!
Not to worry, notsure. You can be notsure for a bit longer. ;D ;D ;D
-
Not to worry, notsure. You can be notsure for a bit longer. ;D ;D ;D
Jane ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jane ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A deep curtsy of acknowledgement ;D
-
Yes I see what you mean Jane, however, imo we don't have any proof that either of them did it if that's what we are basing our findings on,
I just could not convict on the evidence we have available, I wish I could be as sure as you guilters but I cant, maybe I need another couple of years.!!!!
Notsure you never commented on my post to you yesterday asking how you thought Sheila was so clean if she had murdered her entire family she would have had splatters of blood after the beating poor Ralph received also gun residue on her hands. Have you come up with anything yet?.
-
Yes I see what you mean Jane, however, imo we don't have any proof that either of them did it if that's what we are basing our findings on,
I just could not convict on the evidence we have available, I wish I could be as sure as you guilters but I cant, maybe I need another couple of years.!!!!
I started off thinking he was guilty - Crimes That Shook Britain made me change my mind but after looking at all of the 'new evidence' which they claimed challenged his guilt - it turned out to be nothing more than a few admin errors which the CT have twisted and dragged out of proportion. There is also the fact that Jeremy himself is often cagey when you ask him things and almost never gives a straight answer - especially when the question have negative connotations.
-
I started off thinking he was guilty - Crimes That Shook Britain made me change my mind but after looking at all of the 'new evidence' which they claimed challenged his guilt - it turned out to be nothing more than a few admin errors which the CT have twisted and dragged out of proportion. There is also the fact that Jeremy himself is often cagey when you ask him things and almost never gives a straight answer - especially when the question have negative connotations.
It is surprising that CTSB made you change you're mind.
It firstly has incriminating evidence. The bits that question his guilt is just to sensationalise the programme and as you said can be easily checked and explained.
-
It is surprising that CTSB made you change you're mind.
It firstly has incriminating evidence. The bits that question his guilt is just to sensationalise the programme and as you said can be easily checked and explained.
CTSB brought me to the forum - and back then their were a lot more innocent supporters. T think we convinced each other to be honest.
-
Caroline my position was exactly like yours I was influenced by so many posters who thought Jeremy was innocent then I started to look at points raised by the Jeremy guilty and changed my mind and now think he is guilty. I seem to remember the wallet incident helped to change your mind too and you brought it to the forum and we were all in shock that you thought him guilty ;D
-
Hi susan, sorry i dont always have time to stay on the forum for long so forgive me if i didnt respond.
i dont know is the answer?but my point is jb didnt have any marks, blood etc on him either and we dont have that kind of evidence for either of them do we. It works both ways doesnt it? We dont have any proof that either of them did it in my opinion
we have the sound moderator and the blood evidence in that, but thats questionable so that leaves us with which circumstantial evidence we choose to believe.
my feeling on that is that the prosecution were far more forceful and believable in thier ability to paint a picture of JB the monster murderer.
I cannot dismiss shielas awful illness and complete instability. I think we too readily dismiss this as its easier to say JB did it for the money,
-
Susan, i also believe Shiela was capable of killing everyone.
-
Susan, i also believe Shiela was capable of killing everyone.
Notsure
I will be honest with you and I know very little about Sheila's illness other than she was not well. I just cannot see her killing all her family she would have to have gun residue on her hands and clothes and blood splatter on her nightdress. Her ex husband Colin said she knew nothing about guns or reloading and had she been responsible she would have died with her boys not her Mother. The phone calls are not convincing I could go on and on but you will have read it all on here I can never be convinced poor Sheila murdered her family.
-
Hi susan, sorry i dont always have time to stay on the forum for long so forgive me if i didnt respond.
i dont know is the answer?but my point is jb didnt have any marks, blood etc on him either and we dont have that kind of evidence for either of them do we. It works both ways doesnt it? We dont have any proof that either of them did it in my opinion
we have the sound moderator and the blood evidence in that, but thats questionable so that leaves us with which circumstantial evidence we choose to believe.
my feeling on that is that the prosecution were far more forceful and believable in thier ability to paint a picture of JB the monster murderer.
I cannot dismiss shielas awful illness and complete instability. I think we too readily dismiss this as its easier to say JB did it for the money,
Hello notsure
sorry only just seen this post I quite understand you are busy and cannot respond to all posts don't worry about it. Jeremy had time to dispose of all his clothes in the weeks before his arrest. IMO when Ralph was beaten he was near death so would not be capable of resisting so the murderer would not be marked at all. It has always been my opinion that Jeremy convinced Sheila their parents had to be got rid of and Sheila could go off with her birth Mother taking her boys but he tricked her and double crossed her and he did the shooting then killed poor Sheila and her boys she was just present so he would not have had any resistance from her and he could deal with his parents. Although I think this MAY have happened I can tear it to bits myself so as you said we will never know for sure who killed the family Jeremy or Sheila but my money is on Jeremy. Think Sheila let him in this is why the dogs did not make a racket.
-
Hi susan, sorry i dont always have time to stay on the forum for long so forgive me if i didnt respond.
i dont know is the answer?but my point is jb didnt have any marks, blood etc on him either and we dont have that kind of evidence for either of them do we. It works both ways doesnt it? We dont have any proof that either of them did it in my opinion
we have the sound moderator and the blood evidence in that, but thats questionable so that leaves us with which circumstantial evidence we choose to believe.
my feeling on that is that the prosecution were far more forceful and believable in thier ability to paint a picture of JB the monster murderer.
I cannot dismiss shielas awful illness and complete instability. I think we too readily dismiss this as its easier to say JB did it for the money,
Bamber was padded up. Shooting sleeping people and was not searched for one month.
There are over 30 incriminating forensic points. One alive suspect who had lots of motives, an opportunity and no alibi. Julie is also a witness. Her WS having a 'ring of truth' to it. According to Bamber's lawyers.
-
I will keep on reading the posts and information and hopefully one day i will reach the right conclusion.
in the meantime we will just have to accept eachotbers opinions.
-
I will keep on reading the posts and information and hopefully one day i will reach the right conclusion.
in the meantime we will just have to accept eachotbers opinions.
Notsure
you are quite right we all have different theories and opinions and we should accept each others.
-
Hi susan, sorry i dont always have time to stay on the forum for long so forgive me if i didnt respond.
i dont know is the answer?but my point is jb didnt have any marks, blood etc on him either and we dont have that kind of evidence for either of them do we. It works both ways doesnt it? We dont have any proof that either of them did it in my opinion
we have the sound moderator and the blood evidence in that, but thats questionable so that leaves us with which circumstantial evidence we choose to believe.
my feeling on that is that the prosecution were far more forceful and believable in thier ability to paint a picture of JB the monster murderer.
I cannot dismiss shielas awful illness and complete instability. I think we too readily dismiss this as its easier to say JB did it for the money,
Personally, I don't think in this instance that it does work both ways - Jeremy had time to clean himself up, there is no reason why he would have injuries but as he was the 'teller of the tale' - he was able to lead the band. Sheila in a psychotic episode wouldn't have taken time out for a wash the notion of 'ritualistic cleaning' is a bit silly.
-
When was it that granny Bamber died ? I know it's veering off the present conversation but I'd be interested to know.
-
When was it that granny Bamber died ? I know it's veering off the present conversation but I'd be interested to know.
I don't think it specifically states in the books unless April(Jane) can shed some light on the subject? All I could glean was that around the time Jeremy was studying for A Levels at Colchester College in 1981 Beatrice "Granny" Bamber moved in at White House Farm,leaving Clifton House at Guildford because it had become infested with rats. Nevill did get a carer in to look after his mother but June couldn't cope with her habit of leaving her bed to come downstairs for a sherry of an evening so he eventually put her in a home. By March 1985 Nevill is coming under pressure from his bank manager to sell off some of the flats they converted from the home,so I assume Granny had died by then.
-
I don't think it specifically states in the books unless April(Jane) can shed some light on the subject? All I could glean was that around the time Jeremy was studying for A Levels at Colchester College in 1981 Beatrice "Granny" Bamber moved in at White House Farm,leaving Clifton House at Guildford because it had become infested with rats. Nevill did get a carer in to look after his mother but June couldn't cope with her habit of leaving her bed to come downstairs for a sherry of an evening so he eventually put her in a home. By March 1985 Nevill is coming under pressure from his bank manager to sell off some of the flats they converted from the home,so I assume Granny had died by then.
Thanks for that Steve.
-
Hi Scipio
the anonymous letter received by PH from an ex con states that Jeremy told him Sheila was involved. I think the story could be quite credible other than Sheila did not fire any shots nor did Jeremy take her stained clothes home with him that is utter nonsense if she had fired any shots it would have been more convincing to EP if she had gun residue on her hands and clothes. Maybe Jeremy convinced Sheila that their parents had to go and in all innocence she stood by whilst they were being shot. If this was not the case how did he manage to shoot his parents Sheila would have tried to intervene.
PH always gets random phone calls and anonymous letters from those involved. its suspiciously too convenient, no other author gets them only him. ::) My opinion they are imaginary
-
PH always gets random phone calls and anonymous letters from those involved. its suspiciously too convenient, no other author gets them only him. ::) My opinion they are imaginary
Too right,David.
-
PH always gets random phone calls and anonymous letters from those involved. its suspiciously too convenient, no other author gets them only him. ::) My opinion they are imaginary
How do you know they don't?
-
How do you know they don't?
Because no other author on Jeremy Bamber books makes the same claims. Lookout agrees with me which means I must question my own Judgment here.
So far PH to my knowledge has received the following.
1. Random phone call from Brett Collins (So he gets in touch with PH out the blue via anonymous phone call and no one else is the last 30 years)
2. Random threats from Jeremy himself forwarded by an anonymous supporter via post
3. Gets an anonymous letter from a former police officer claiming Jeremy changing his version of events and admitting to guilt. (Why would a police officer give this to PH and hide his identity? If Jeremy did tell him such a revelation he would sell it to the press and inform the CPS. Even more damning is Jeremy Never ever ever changes his version of events)
Just join the dots and smell the coffee on this one. NGB1066 agrees with me also
-
I do not believe that Sheila was the shooter, at least not alone.
I care not about her mental state, as I do not think she could have shot her children.
If Sheila was in a mental state then the shootings would have been more random, not methodical.
There is nothing that appears to be methodical about shootings. Shooting the Children 7 times through the head while they are asleep is not methodical at all. Its very typical of anger and range type murders, If Shelia did not do it I have always held the belief that Jeremy shot them both once in the head then finished the rest of the family off then proceeded to reload and fire repeatedly at the corpses to make it appear unmethodical.
-
There is nothing that appears to be methodical about shootings. Shooting the Children 7 times through the head while they are asleep is not methodical at all. Its very typical of anger and range type murders, If Shelia did not do it I have always held the belief that Jeremy shot them both once in the head then finished the rest of the family off then proceeded to reload and fire repeatedly at the corpses to make it appear unmethodical.
Always been my thoughts too, created scene.
-
There is nothing that appears to be methodical about shootings. Shooting the Children 7 times through the head while they are asleep is not methodical at all. Its very typical of anger and range type murders, If Shelia did not do it I have always held the belief that Jeremy shot them both once in the head then finished the rest of the family off then proceeded to reload and fire repeatedly at the corpses to make it appear unmethodical.
As I've previously said. It wasn't Jeremy doing what Jeremy would naturally have done. It was Jeremy doing to look like a deranged Sheila would have done it. ie messily and unmethodical.
-
Because no other author on Jeremy Bamber books makes the same claims. Lookout agrees with me which means I must question my own Judgment here.
So far PH to my knowledge has received the following.
1. Random phone call from Brett Collins (So he gets in touch with PH out the blue via anonymous phone call and no one else is the last 30 years)
2. Random threats from Jeremy himself forwarded by an anonymous supporter via post
3. Gets an anonymous letter from a former police officer claiming Jeremy changing his version of events and admitting to guilt. (Why would a police officer give this to PH and hide his identity? If Jeremy did tell him such a revelation he would sell it to the press and inform the CPS. Even more damning is Jeremy Never ever ever changes his version of events)
Just join the dots and smell the coffee on this one. NGB1066 agrees with me also
David sorry if I have picked you up wrong but I was under the impression the anonymous letter to PH was from an ex con who had served time with Jeremy and he stated Jeremy had told him that story,
-
David sorry if I have picked you up wrong but I was under the impression the anonymous letter to PH was from an ex con who had served time with Jeremy and he stated Jeremy had told him that story,
I read it as ex cop :-[ lol But the same thing applies why remain anonymous and why not sell the story to the press? Does Jeremy ever change his version of events? No, it don't add up.
-
Hi susan, sorry i dont always have time to stay on the forum for long so forgive me if i didnt respond.
i dont know is the answer?but my point is jb didnt have any marks, blood etc on him either and we dont have that kind of evidence for either of them do we. It works both ways doesnt it? We dont have any proof that either of them did it in my opinion
we have the sound moderator and the blood evidence in that, but thats questionable so that leaves us with which circumstantial evidence we choose to believe.
my feeling on that is that the prosecution were far more forceful and believable in thier ability to paint a picture of JB the monster murderer.
I cannot dismiss shielas awful illness and complete instability. I think we too readily dismiss this as its easier to say JB did it for the money,
Just saying 'I don't know' when asked why Sheila had no marks, oil and gun residue is not sufficient. There needs to be an explanation if you believe Bamber is innocent.
You then deflect onto Bamber not having any marks. But that can be explained away. Which I did do in post 69.
-
David sorry if I have picked you up wrong but I was under the impression the anonymous letter to PH was from an ex con who had served time with Jeremy and he stated Jeremy had told him that story,
We can't be sure the person didn't make up that Jeremy told such story. Even if Jeremy did tell such a story why is it anymore believable than anything else he has said? We know he lies so why should we believe any of it? Jailhouse claims are inherently unreliable. Prisoners have reasons to lie to other prisoners. They will try to act tough with some prisoners and try to tell others they are innocent. The lies in this story were to mitigate his responsibility. He had a reason to lie.
The only jailhouse confessions of any value in my opinion are when prisoners confess to a crime and display detailed knowledge that suggests they indeed were involved. For crimes they are in prison for that means displaying knowledge of details that no one would know unless involved in the crime. If it is a crime they were not suspected of and they know a lot of details it is possible they read about the crime and made up being responsible just to sound big but rarely do people recall many details and to just randomly pick some obscure crime they read about long ago is not very likely. So in that instance using their confession is warranted. Using it alone isn't warranted you would still need to investigate and see if the claims hold water but if enough other evidence is found to corroborate the confession then it is reliable enough to be relied upon.
The letter blames Sheila for most of the murders and accounts for the lack of physical evidence by saying Jeremy let Sheila get washed before killing her and he disposed of her evidence stained clothes. These claims are absurd and make it obvious the scenario was made up. It was either made up by Jeremy or by someone else- who made it up makes no difference.
The purpose of making this up was to pretend that Sheila committed the murders and yet account for the absence of evidence on her body and clothing that would have been present if she killed them.
-
I doubt that Bamber has said anything to anyone which incriminates himself, since conviction.
He wants everyone on his side, inside and outside of prison. Prisoners are notorious for claiming a prisoner confessed to them. Maybe they think it will give them special privileges.
Mike was persuaded after sharing a few hours with Bamber, while ex prisoner Michael O'Reilly now campaigns for Bamber.
It is still possible an ex con contacted PH. But he is probably lying for some reason.
-
We can't be sure the person didn't make up that Jeremy told such story. Even if Jeremy did tell such a story why is it anymore believable than anything else he has said? We know he lies so why should we believe any of it? Jailhouse claims are inherently unreliable. Prisoners have reasons to lie to other prisoners. They will try to act tough with some prisoners and try to tell others they are innocent. The lies in this story were to mitigate his responsibility. He had a reason to lie.
The only jailhouse confessions of any value in my opinion are when prisoners confess to a crime and display detailed knowledge that suggests they indeed were involved. For crimes they are in prison for that means displaying knowledge of details that no one would know unless involved in the crime. If it is a crime they were not suspected of and they know a lot of details it is possible they read about the crime and made up being responsible just to sound big but rarely do people recall many details and to just randomly pick some obscure crime they read about long ago is not very likely. So in that instance using their confession is warranted. Using it alone isn't warranted you would still need to investigate and see if the claims hold water but if enough other evidence is found to corroborate the confession then it is reliable enough to be relied upon.
The letter blames Sheila for most of the murders and accounts for the lack of physical evidence by saying Jeremy let Sheila get washed before killing her and he disposed of her evidence stained clothes. These claims are absurd and make it obvious the scenario was made up. It was either made up by Jeremy or by someone else- who made it up makes no difference.
The purpose of making this up was to pretend that Sheila committed the murders and yet account for the absence of evidence on her body and clothing that would have been present if she killed them.
Scipio
your post makes good sense.
-
I read it as ex cop :-[ lol But the same thing applies why remain anonymous and why not sell the story to the press? Does Jeremy ever change his version of events? No, it don't add up.
David
PH is the ex cop the letter was written by an ex con sent to PH without disclosing their name but said Jeremy had told him this whilst they shared a cell.
-
David
PH is the ex cop the letter was written by an ex con sent to PH without disclosing their name but said Jeremy had told him this whilst they shared a cell.
Is it mentioned when this convosation allegedly took place?
-
Is it mentioned when this convosation allegedly took place?
David I am not sure don't have the book anymore. I am sure one of the other posters will know.
-
Did sheila have any gsr on her or was she completely negative.
-
Apparently she had traces which the lab put down to the fact that handling kitchen utensils would have had the same effect-----------------------------You've got to laugh,haven't you ?
Apart from that,nobody's nightwear was tested.
-
Apparently she had traces which the lab put down to the fact that handling kitchen utensils would have had the same effect-----------------------------You've got to laugh,haven't you ?
Apart from that,nobody's nightwear was tested.
Not 'utensils' but things like detergent.
-
Not 'utensils' but things like detergent.
That's even worse. ;D ;D
-
That's even worse. ;D ;D
Actually no Lookout, it happens to be a fact and basic chemistry.
-
Actually no Lookout, it happens to be a fact and basic chemistry.
I can quite gather that anything which is oil/petroleum based leaves a certain amount of residue,plastic containers etc.
-
I can quite gather that anything which is oil/petroleum based leaves a certain amount of residue,plastic containers etc.
Then I don't understand why you're mocking it?
-
Then I don't understand why you're mocking it?
Mocking what ? I don't do the mocking here !!
-
Apparently she had traces which the lab put down to the fact that handling kitchen utensils would have had the same effect-----------------------------You've got to laugh,haven't you ?
Apart from that,nobody's nightwear was tested.
Mocking what ? I don't do the mocking here !!
The first quote sounds as though you're mocking - why else would 'you have to laugh'?
If something is true why would it be funny? Sheila had TRACE evidence of chemicals associated with GSR and household detergent - so why do you have to laugh? The fact that it was TRACE amounts means it's more likely to be down to detergent than firing the rifle.
-
I wont be buying fairy anymore then.
-
David
PH is the ex cop the letter was written by an ex con sent to PH without disclosing their name but said Jeremy had told him this whilst they shared a cell.
In legal lingo we would say- the anonymous letter purports to have been written by an ex-con who shared a cell with Jeremy.
-
PH always gets random phone calls and anonymous letters from those involved. its suspiciously too convenient, no other author gets them only him. ::) My opinion they are imaginary
And dead people....lots of interviews with now dead people. ???
-
How come Sheila had fragmented bullets in her neck, when whole bullets were recovered from head shots.
-
How come Sheila had fragmented bullets in her neck, when whole bullets were recovered from head shots.
whole bullets weren't recovered. This is what was recovered from her neck:
(http://www.channel4.com/media/images/Channel4/c4-news/JAN/26/26_bamber_bullet_k_MED.jpg)
It is 2/3 the weight of a complete bullet, a third is missing it is not a whole bullet.
-
Whole bullets were recovered. Read the pathologists report.
-
Whole bullets were recovered. Read the pathologists report.
You have no clue what you are talking about the pathologist report doesn't say anything about the bullets he removed being whole.
Fletcher characterized certain fragments as whole bullets in his report. None of them were actually whole, it appears that anything more than half a bullet was called whole for his purposes. No one asked him at trial what he meant in his report by whole because no one cared. They knew that the bullets submitted at trial were the same ones Vanzis had removed. The shape even matches the xray:
(http://s8.postimg.org/jsb8mcsph/sheilaxrayexhibit.jpg)
-
You have no clue what you are talking about the pathologist report doesn't say anything about the bullets he removed being whole.
Fletcher characterized certain fragments as whole bullets in his report. None of them were actually whole, it appears that anything more than half a bullet was called whole for his purposes. No one asked him at trial what he meant in his report by whole because no one cared. They knew that the bullets submitted at trial were the same ones Vanzis had removed. The shape even matches the xray:
(http://s8.postimg.org/jsb8mcsph/sheilaxrayexhibit.jpg)
Taking your usual tack, and insulting honest people.
-
Taking your usual tack, and insulting honest people.
I posted facts and evidence that corrected all your errors/misconceptions.
-
Either Sheila had been moved or only just died.
If she'd been dead for hours,those wounds would have been " plugged " but as all pics show,it appears to be flowing ? It wouldn't do that if she'd been dead a while,so she'd either just died or had been moved and as a consequence the " plugs " would have displaced.
What's it to be ? Just died or been moved ?
-
Either Sheila had been moved or only just died.
If she'd been dead for hours,those wounds would have been " plugged " but as all pics show,it appears to be flowing ? It wouldn't do that if she'd been dead a while,so she'd either just died or had been moved and as a consequence the " plugs " would have displaced.
What's it to be ? Just died or been moved ?
The photos don't show blood to be actively flowing.
-
Either Sheila had been moved or only just died.
If she'd been dead for hours,those wounds would have been " plugged " but as all pics show,it appears to be flowing ? It wouldn't do that if she'd been dead a while,so she'd either just died or had been moved and as a consequence the " plugs " would have displaced.
What's it to be ? Just died or been moved ?
I think it's more a question of it had (once) flowed, dried, and by the time the picture was taken, cracked.
-
The photos don't show blood to be actively flowing.
The coloured ones do just that,so there's a time difference in them being taken.
I don't believe that she had been dead for hours anyway because she's entirely the wrong facial colour.
-
I think it's more a question of it had (once) flowed, dried, and by the time the picture was taken, cracked.
It would only have cracked where it had ceased flowing and was dissipated.
-
There wouldn't have been the amount of blood if she'd been dead for hours as it would have ceased pumping out.
-
There are no photos that show running blood. It's just not true.
-
There wouldn't have been the amount of blood if she'd been dead for hours as it would have ceased pumping out.
The blood in the photos is dry blood it is not actively flowing. The blood in the photos was dry when the raid team entered, when she was declared dead by Dr Craig and hours later when the photos were taken.
-
The coloured ones do just that,so there's a time difference in them being taken.
I don't believe that she had been dead for hours anyway because she's entirely the wrong facial colour.
Depends on the colour balance of the photos, which Tesco is fond of messing with. You can't judge facial colouration without seeing the originals.
-
Jeremy and supporters have claimed the blood on Sheila's neck shows she could not have been shot before 3am.
It is true the blood looks bright red and wet. But then again blood is bright red and wet.
The blood may have just dried glossy. Or the lighting and the way the picture was taken may have exaggerated the redness and brightness of the blood. Or images may have been airbrushed to highlight the redness and glossiness. The original picture certainly shows dried blood.
Officers observed that wet blood had pooled in the crook of Sheila’s right arm. Congealed blood had also formed in the aperture of the lower neck wound. One possibility is that when Sheila was moved by officers at the scene, this plug became detached, and allowed blood accumulated within Sheila’s neck, viscous but not yet congealed, to run thickly beyond the entrance of the wound.
Supporters claim the blood shows Sheila shot herself while everyone was outside or entering WHF. There is a thread asking why she would delay shooting herself for so long. Apart from helping Jeremy contest a future prosecution.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6739.msg308846.html#msg308846
-
The coloured ones do just that,so there's a time difference in them being taken.
I don't believe that she had been dead for hours anyway because she's entirely the wrong facial colour.
They are ALL the same photographs Lookout - the one with the (so called) flowing blood is the SAME picture as the one I keep posting that shows dried cracked blood and facial discolouration. There were only ONE set of pictures but you're free to believe what you like - however, there was only ONE SET!
-
They are ALL the same photographs Lookout - the one with the (so called) flowing blood is the SAME picture as the one I keep posting that shows dried cracked blood and facial discolouration. There were only ONE set of pictures but you're free to believe what you like - however, there was only ONE SET!
Probably too long a post Caroline :-\
-
They are ALL the same photographs Lookout - the one with the (so called) flowing blood is the SAME picture as the one I keep posting that shows dried cracked blood and facial discolouration. There were only ONE set of pictures but you're free to believe what you like - however, there was only ONE SET!
Mmmmmm.
-
Mmmmmm.
That's a matter of fact Lookout.
-
Mmmmmm.
Lookout, I seem to recall that a professional photographer confirmed that one picture was a coloured version of the black and white picture.
-
Mmmmmm.
What does that mean? In my World it is used like this- Mmmm chocolate cake (drooling smiley would be inserted here if this site were not so stingy on the emoticons available)
-
What does that mean? In my World it is used like this- Mmmm chocolate cake (drooling smiley would be inserted here if this site were not so stingy on the emoticons available)
It means I hear what you say but don't believe a word of it.
-
It means I hear what you say but don't believe a word of it.
so this:
(http://www.mynewoldself.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/kid-fingers-in-ears.jpeg)
-
What does that mean? In my World it is used like this- Mmmm chocolate cake (drooling smiley would be inserted here if this site were not so stingy on the emoticons available)
Certainly, that's one possible meaning ;)
-
so this:
(http://www.mynewoldself.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/kid-fingers-in-ears.jpeg)
Spot on!
-
Spot on!
I've never behaved like that in my life. There are more subtle ways.
-
I've never behaved like that in my life. There are more subtle ways.
Yeah, ya have Lookout. I swear there's a post of yours that goes something like Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala etc to indicate that you're not listening, but your mouth must be open coz you can't make a lalalalala sound with it closed ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I've never behaved like that in my life. There are more subtle ways.
You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment! ;)
-
Yeah, ya have Lookout. I swear there's a post of yours that goes something like Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala etc to indicate that you're not listening, but your mouth must be open coz you can't make a lalalalala sound with it closed ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You're making things up again :o
-
You're making things up again :o
Moi?................MOI!!!!!!?....................NEVER!!!!!!! :o :o :o
-
You're making things up again :o
Well, there is a lot of Truth in the old adage, if you can't beat em, join em! ;).
-
Well, there is a lot of Truth in the old adage, if you can't beat em, join em! ;).
I shall remember that for again. ;D
-
You're making things up again :o
I think you posted that to the wrong person, Lookout ;D ;D ;D
-
I think you posted that to the wrong person, Lookout ;D ;D ;D
Ah well,never mind. :-[
-
How long before the tragedy was it that BW had said that Sheila had told her " all people are bad and should be killed " ? Or is that a daft question ?
-
Stan Jones had known about that remark by Sheila but didn't mention anything. Neither did anyone else.
-
Nor was it mentioned in court. Bad news,eh ? I wonder why this was ? All gagged ??
-
How long before the tragedy was it that BW had said that Sheila had told her " all people are bad and should be killed " ? Or is that a daft question ?
It's not a daft question at all lookout. There's no exact date given in CAL's book but it was in June 1985.
Sheila remained at the farmhouse while her mother attended the vicarage garden party and the village fete where she judged a children's fancy dress competition. Barbara remembers an unsettling encounter at some point during her visit. "We had coffee at the kitchen table,just the three of us. Sheila was at the head,opposite the door,where she usually sat,I was on her left and her mother was on her right. For a while she just sat there,looking very weak. Mrs. Bamber and I were chatting and suddenly Sheila said:"All people are bad and deserve to be killed." She just came out with it. But she wasn't herself anyway. Her eyes would look right past you. I only saw her once more after that. I was indoors,watching her cross the yard. The geese were about-perishing things,they used to cackle and chase people. But on this particular occasion I saw Sheila walking across the yard,her body and legs very stiff,staring straight ahead. She moved through the geese as if they weren't there.
Ethel Taylor attended Bible classes in Tolleshunt Major with June,who often gave her a lift to meetings. Around the time of Sheila's penultimate visit to the farm,Ethel recalls that June seemed troubled:"About a month before she died,she said to me,"Pray for Sheila". She didn't say why.
-
It's not a daft question at all lookout. There's no exact date given in CAL's book but it was in June 1985.
Sheila remained at the farmhouse while her mother attended the vicarage garden party and the village fete where she judged a children's fancy dress competition. Barbara remembers an unsettling encounter at some point during her visit. "We had coffee at the kitchen table,just the three of us. Sheila was at the head,opposite the door,where she usually sat,I was on her left and her mother was on her right. For a while she just sat there,looking very weak. Mrs. Bamber and I were chatting and suddenly Sheila said:"All people are bad and deserve to be killed." She just came out with it. But she wasn't herself anyway. Her eyes would look right past you. I only saw her once more after that. I was indoors,watching her cross the yard. The geese were about-perishing things,they used to cackle and chase people. But on this particular occasion I saw Sheila walking across the yard,her body and legs very stiff,staring straight ahead. She moved through the geese as if they weren't there.
Ethel Taylor attended Bible classes in Tolleshunt Major with June,who often gave her a lift to meetings. Around the time of Sheila's penultimate visit to the farm,Ethel recalls that June seemed troubled:"About a month before she died,she said to me,"Pray for Sheila". She didn't say why.
Thankyou so much for this Steve,it's very interesting to say the least as I'd often wondered when,before the murders took place,that Sheila had uttered those words. Now I know.
-
Sad as it is,Sheila might just as well have written on the door of the farmhouse for the hint which was in that " speech ". She seemingly wasn't herself at all and it had appeared very obvious.
-
I've also been studying the " false " photograph of Sheila lying with the rifle " placed " onto her body and anyone with half an eye can see that something's wrong.
The Bible looks to ME as though it was resting at her right side with the palm of her hand at the top of the pages as shown and her thumb ( which was long and slender ) and two of her fingers were visible over the top of the Bible making up the whole of her hand.
There was no place for the rifle but on the floor where it's been said it was. The more stress that's been given to where both the Bible and the gun were found-------------the less likely it is to be true.
-
I've also been studying the " false " photograph of Sheila lying with the rifle " placed " onto her body and anyone with half an eye can see that something's wrong.
The Bible looks to ME as though it was resting at her right side with the palm of her hand at the top of the pages as shown and her thumb ( which was long and slender ) and two of her fingers were visible over the top of the Bible making up the whole of her hand.
There was no place for the rifle but on the floor where it's been said it was. The more stress that's been given to where both the Bible and the gun were found-------------the less likely it is to be true.
The lab tested the Bible for prints there were no prints of any kind in blood. The blood on the top of the Bible pages got there by sitting upside down in a pool of her blood. The blood on the side of the Bible dripped from her body showing it was next to her. The rifle was placed on her body by Jeremy to make it appear she killed herself and the Bible was placed next to her to make it look like she was reading it or there was some religious motivation for the crimes.
-
The lab tested the Bible for prints there were no prints of any kind in blood. The blood on the top of the Bible pages got there by sitting upside down in a pool of her blood. The blood on the side of the Bible dripped from her body showing it was next to her. The rifle was placed on her body by Jeremy to make it appear she killed herself and the Bible was placed next to her to make it look like she was reading it or there was some religious motivation for the crimes.
Whatever you say I don't believe anyway as your thoughts and theories rest on Jeremy's guilt whereas mine don't so thoughts on the matter are going to be different and as far as I'm concerned Jeremy was nowhere near the scene of the murder.It's far easier to find him guilty than it is his innocence so taking more brainpower in working it out. Yours is already worked out for you because he's in prison,but for me it doesn't stop there as it's not right that he should be where he is.
ALL mental patients that I attended to spoke about the " devil " and these were violent women both young and old,so I do know what I'm talking about. They'd stare into space one minute and the next they'd be running about screaming. They see everyone as the " devil ".
Someone shot Sheila but it wasn't Jeremy.
-
Whatever you say I don't believe anyway as your thoughts and theories rest on Jeremy's guilt whereas mine don't so thoughts on the matter are going to be different and as far as I'm concerned Jeremy was nowhere near the scene of the murder.It's far easier to find him guilty than it is his innocence so taking more brainpower in working it out. Yours is already worked out for you because he's in prison,but for me it doesn't stop there as it's not right that he should be where he is.
ALL mental patients that I attended to spoke about the " devil " and these were violent women both young and old,so I do know what I'm talking about. They'd stare into space one minute and the next they'd be running about screaming. They see everyone as the " devil ".
Someone shot Sheila but it wasn't Jeremy.
My believe in his guilt rests with the facts and evidence of the case while you decided he is innocent based on your feelings.
-
My believe in his guilt rests with the facts and evidence of the case while you decided he is innocent based on your feelings.
The supposed " facts and evidence" of the case cuts no ice with me because it's all different for a start.
There's no evidence to speak of and even the circumstantial is wrong half the time besides being flimsy and yes," gut " feelings for I know that something is wrong somewhere and that the police have got it wrong. They've chosen the easy way out.
-
They are ALL the same photographs Lookout - the one with the (so called) flowing blood is the SAME picture as the one I keep posting that shows dried cracked blood and facial discolouration. There were only ONE set of pictures but you're free to believe what you like - however, there was only ONE SET!
They are two separate photographs
PSM/SLI/SMM/BAMBER
00162/2004
28 July 2005
Criminal Cases Review Commission,
DX 715466
BIRMINGHAM 41
Dear Sirs,
Re: Jeremy BAMBER
We refer to our previous correspondence in this matter, the relevant Submissions and the new evidence that we have submitted to the Commission with a view to this matter being referred to the Court of Appeal as we consider right and proper.
We are somewhat concerned at the delay in the matter since :
the photographs that we have submitted which were not disclosed to the Defence at all, a completely different story to the way the Prosecution was founded, and
the new evidence that has been submitted including the radio logs.
This clearly shows a cavalier attitude on the part of the Crown when it came to the question of disclosure.
The matter is further compounded by the admission from the Trial Counsel, Mr. Anthony Arlidge QC, that the documents we have submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission were not even seen by himself prior to our forwarding him a copy. In short, he was not aware of the documents which should have been disclosed and which were clearly hidden from the Defence for whatever reason and for the purposes of these Submissions are quite irrelevant.
You will of course be aware that the time of death of the five members of the Bamber household is of paramount importance. We have sent to the Commission a photograph of Sheila Caffell which was not disclosed to the Defence of the scene of the crime photographs showing blood pouring from her neck. This is a clear indication that if a photograph was taken at approximately 9 am, the time of the murder certainly could not have been before 6 to 7 am and probably somewhat later.
We know that at 7.34 am the officers entered the house. It saddens us that we have now discovered a further Statement which, at this stage, we are not certain whether or not was actually disclosed to the Defence because of the 4 million documents that this case has attracted.
However, the Statement is from Peter Woodcock ATS 426 dated 20th September 1985 and within the Statement it says the following :-
“She had what appeared to be two bullet holes under her chin and blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks”.
This Statement clearly is corroborative to the photographs of Sheila Caffell with blood leaking down from her neck which we have submitted to the Commission and which, at the cost of being repetitive, there was a distinct and clear failure to disclose to the Defence.
We refer to this document, namely the Statement form PC Woodcock, who as we know was the first officer to enter the house at 7.34 am. Even if we allow a few moments for the said police officer to find the bodies, it is clear that what he saw was probably before 9 am in the morning. If as PC Woodcock states there was “blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks” at any time after 7.34 am, and we know that within his Statement 2 hours later, the blood was dry, the time of death or the time that the bullets went into Sheila Caffell’s neck could not have been more than 1 ½ hours, maximum 2 hours, from the moment that Mr. Woodcock saw her.
That being the case and since our client, Jeremy Bamber, was with the police from 3 am onwards and, with this evidence, the time of death being maximum 2 hours before PC Woodcock had seen such, makes the time of death approximately between 5.30 and 6.30 am. Since our client was with the police at the time, we cannot understand now what further procrastination there can be on behalf of the Commission in referring this to the Court of Appeal.
First and foremost on the question of the appalling disclosure that this case has attracted and the manner upon which the evidence now clearly suggests that our client could not be guilty of these murders.
We therefore would be grateful if you will kindly and as a matter of urgency, let us have your views on this with the clear distinction that this is a case that properly should be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
We would remind you with respect that in the case of the Carl Bridgewater murder, a conviction was quashed purely on the basis of an undisclosed fingerprint. Here there is more than 30%, in our view, of non disclosed documents which probably, even today, the Crown have still failed to disclose for whatever reasons.
Further, since there is now (a) the photograph of the blood of Sheila Caffell pouring from her neck and (b) what we have now found to be a corroborative Statement from Peter Woodcock APS 426 dated 20th September 1985 evidencing the state of Sheila Caffell and the timing of such, we cannot see how our client can possibly have been guilty of murder.
We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.
Yours faithfully,
PAUL MARTIN & CO.
-
They are two separate photographs
There was one set of photos taken by police. When making copies of this SINGLE SET of photos they altered the coloring and these altered photos are what some people contend shows wet blood though it is not correct.
-
Of course there are two separate photographs.I've always said this. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
There are at least 3 hours difference from when the first pic was taken.Obviously the later one would be chosen as it fits nicely into the scenario that she'd been deceased for hours rather than just one hour.
-
Of course there are two separate photographs.I've always said this. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
There are at least 3 hours difference from when the first pic was taken.Obviously the later one would be chosen as it fits nicely into the scenario that she'd been deceased for hours rather than just one hour.
Nope. Same set. There is only one set.
-
Of course there are two separate photographs.I've always said this. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
There are at least 3 hours difference from when the first pic was taken.Obviously the later one would be chosen as it fits nicely into the scenario that she'd been deceased for hours rather than just one hour.
Post them both then? Should be a simple thing to do, since you're so sure.
-
Nope. Same set. There is only one set.
No there are more than one set of photos, I have highlighted the relevant text in red bellow
R E G I N A
V
JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER
FURTHER SUBMISSIONS TO THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
CASE NO: 00162/2004
Studio Legale Internazionale,
Via Tommaso Salvini 15,
00197 Roma,
Italy
TEL +44 7766 732099
FAX +39 06 80692652
[email protected]
www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com
REF: DM/DP/GDS
06 JUNE 2004
R. v Jeremy Nevill Bamber
These further submissions should be in conjunction with the application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission filed on the 8 March 2004 and 17 March 2004 respectively. In accordance with the instructions received from the Commission dated 10 March 2004 further information is in the form of these submissions. For the purposes of these further submissions it is necessary to recite the legislation and law in order that the Applicant is fully aware of the limitations and constraints levied upon any submissions made to the Commission.
THE LAW
The terms of reference of the Commission are set out in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 section 13, which provides as follows :-
1. A reference of a conviction, verdict, finding or sentence shall not be made under any of Sections 9 to 12, unless :-
(a) The Commission considers that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made.
(b) The Commission so consider :-
(i) in the case of a conviction, verdict or finding, because of an argument or evidence not raised in the proceedings which led to it, or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it, or
(ii) in the case of a sentence, because of an argument on a point of law or information not so raised, and
(1) in the case of an appeal against the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence has been determined or leave to appeal against it has been refused.
(2) Nothing in Sub Section 1 (b)(i) or (c) would prevent the making of a reference if it appears to the Commission that there are exceptional circumstances which justify making it.
In R v Bamber [2002] EWCA Crim 2912 Lord Justice Kay delivering the approved judgement of the Court stated as follows when considering the question of fresh evidence in appellate proceedings:
“Section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 requires the court to have regard to four matters in deciding whether to admit fresh evidence:
“(a) whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;
(b) whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
(c) whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
(d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings”.
In a number of cases this court has made clear that it will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial (see e.g. Lomas, 53 Cr. App. R. 256 & Jones (Steven) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 56). To do otherwise would permit an appellant to shop around for an expert after conviction and upon finding one favourable to his case mount an appeal based on the views of that expert. To allow that would subvert the trial process and generally speaking the time for advancing expert evidence is before the jury and not after conviction.” (Para 219-220)
The purpose of these submissions in part will satisfy the caveats imposed by precedent and procedure.
DISCLOSURE
We have already outlined in detail the legal submissions regarding disclosure and it is not necessary to recite such for the purposes of these submissions. We have already stated that disclosure is a matter of law regulated by procedure.
The existence of a post mortem photograph of Ralph Bamber’s right arm evidencing lacerations caused by finger nails should have been disclosed by the Prosecuting Authorities to the Applicant as part of their primary disclosure obligation pursuant to section 3(1)(a) Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 at the very least for the Appellate Procedures in 2002. It follows that the failure to do so at the original trial denied the Applicant and his then Learned Counsel vital missed opportunities at indeed advocating the proposition that the said murders were committed by a third party.
Any document which might reasonably found an application for a charge to be quashed, and/or to be stayed as amounting to an abuse of the process of the court, is a document which has a potential to “undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused”. Moreover, failure to disclose to the Applicant the existence of such document, is clearly contrary to the spirit and intendment of the Guidelines issued by the Attorney-General (whether pre- or post- the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, i.e. whether one has regard to the Guidelines issued 18th December 1981 or to the current Guidelines issued 29th November 2000).
Attached to these addendum submissions is the post mortem report on all five victims as adduced at trial and the 2002 Appeal dated 30 day of September 1985. It is important to note the following matters within the said report:
(a) Whilst dated 30 day of September 1985 Professor Peter Vanezis carried out the post mortems on the 7 day of August 1985 commencing at 3.30pm and completing such “on the afternoon of the 8th August 1985.” It follows the said post mortems were carried out without haste and with great care and attention. All the said bodies were subject to radiography for the sake of completeness.
(b) Professor Peter Vanezis has further and readily signed the post mortem report encompassing such within a witness statement format with the caveat: “ This statement, consisting of 15 pages each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.”
THE POST MORTEM REPORT
The post mortem report on Ralph Neville Bamber commences on page 5 and concludes on page 9. It is important to note the observations of Professor Vanezis on page 7 : “ There was loss of skin from the palm of the right hand near the 5th digit. There was a collection of bruises, 3 of which had an approximate linear configuration, covering a distance of approximately 2” x 4” on the ulnar aspect of the right forearm.”
Lord Justice Kay in R v Bamber [2002] EWCA Crim 2912 stated as follows:
“The examination of Nevill Bamber’s body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.” (Para 42)
For the purposes of the Defence, the Crown and the Learned Trial Judge and further the Court of Appeal the evidence was that to the right forearm of Ralph Neville Bamber there existed ONLY bruising of a linear type.
In making these submissions we are fully aware this case has attracted over 4,000,000 documents and that only part of such was available to the defence. Post mortem photographs were made available to the Defence, the Trial Judge, and of course the Jury. In the 35 boxes received from Glaisyers Solicitors therein contained for the Appellate purposes were three blue photograph albums marked:
“METROPOLITAN POLICE. R v Bamber Court Bundle (7B) Photograph Album (1) Jury Bundle”
By inference the said album and its contents were the post mortem photographs before the Jury, the Trial Judge, the Appellate Courts and available to the defence. It must be noted the said albums contain colour photocopies of photographs and not actual photographic paper. By inference the negatives and/or actual photographs are to be found in the possession of the Prosecuting Authorities who were responsible for the Jury Bundle.
Quite apart from the three albums found amongst the 35 boxes a further album, different from the Jury Bundle and consisting of actual photographs was found. It was not encased in a blue photo album folder but bound by black wire spiral binder half broken.
On the cover the markings as follows:
“METROPOLITAN POLICE. R v Bamber Court Bundle (7B) Photograph Album (III) Original Case Photographs”
Amongst the album marked “Original Case Photographs” was a post mortem photograph of Ralph Neville Bamber’s right arm, missing from the album made available to the Jury, Trial Judge and Appellate Courts as well as the Defence.
The photo of Ralph Neville Bamber’s arm does indeed sustain the observation and witness statement of Professor Vanezis in that “there was a collection of bruises, 3 of which had an approximate linear configuration…” and the observation uplifted from the post mortem report in the Court of Appeal’s Approved Judgement in para 42: “linear type bruising to the right forearm,”
but what was not made available to the Court of Appeal was the very post mortem photograph itself since what was available was only the blue photographic albums marked “Jury Bundle” and NOT the album marked “original case photographs.”
-
No there are more than one set of photos, I have highlighted the relevant text in red bellow
You have no idea what you are talking about. Copies were made of the original photos. These copies had enhanced coloring done to them and these enhanced copies are what the Italian clowns and other Jeremy supporters argue shows wet blood. The original non doctored photos show the blood is dark and dry.
-
You have no idea what you are talking about. Copies were made of the original photos. These copies had enhanced coloring done to them and these enhanced copies are what the Italian clowns and other Jeremy supporters argue shows wet blood. The original non doctored photos show the blood is dark and dry.
So you're now arguing with case material. ::)
-
Found------------the proof of blood at the back of Sheila's nightdress. On thread headed ( naturally ) " Bloodstains on the back of Sheila's nightdress "-Oct 10th 2011. General Examination Record 14/8/85.
-
Now you can all tell me how it got there. :o :P :P :P :P
-
Found------------the proof of blood at the back of Sheila's nightdress. On thread headed ( naturally ) " Bloodstains on the back of Sheila's nightdress "-Oct 10th 2011. General Examination Record 14/8/85.
Rather than people search through ALL of the threads Looout, which page is it on and I will post a link to it for you.
-
Found it http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1633.msg49724/topicseen.html#msg49724
-
Rather than people search through ALL of the threads Looout, which page is it on and I will post a link to it for you.
Page 1 thankyou Caroline.
-
Page 1 thankyou Caroline.
I found it Lookout, posted above. Don't agree with Mike's explanation though - I think the large bloodstain at the top the ND came from her wound and small stains are from the carpet that June walked over.
-
I found it Lookout, posted above. Don't agree with Mike's explanation though - I think the large bloodstain at the top the ND came from her wound and small stains are from the carpet that June walked over.
Well that goes without saying------------ ;)
-
Well that goes without saying------------ ;)
If it goes without saying, why did you ask where the stains came from? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
If it goes without saying, why did you ask where the stains came from? ;D ;D ;D ;D
I meant not agreeing with Mike's post which would include the examination too probably,not to mention the fact that I found what I was talking about. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Found------------the proof of blood at the back of Sheila's nightdress. On thread headed ( naturally ) " Bloodstains on the back of Sheila's nightdress "-Oct 10th 2011. General Examination Record 14/8/85.
Just so you know 2011 is not a few weeks ago...
For the 3 drops it says blood "soaked through" that suggests blood was on her body underneath and some soaked through to the outside. Some blood could have went under her gown down her back and then through. It is unclear was the 1/5 is supposed to mean. The others have sizes this doesn't have an inches sign after it though.
The very bottom of the fringe having blood suggests she had been sitting in some blood before her body was moved. This is another red flag indicating her body was moved that the authorities ignored. They stupidly completely ignored the issue till the appeal stage. Lucky for them they got the conviction so it didn't hurt them.
Defense expert Lincoln confirmed the blood on the gown was Sheilas
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1633.0;attach=7708;image)
-
Perhaps 1/5 is actually i/s and stands for 'inside' ? :-\
-
Perhaps 1/5 is actually i/s and stands for 'inside' ? :-\
That's what I read it as meaning, Hartley.
-
Just so you know 2011 is not a few weeks ago...
For the 3 drops it says blood "soaked through" that suggests blood was on her body underneath and some soaked through to the outside. Some blood could have went under her gown down her back and then through. It is unclear was the 1/5 is supposed to mean. The others have sizes this doesn't have an inches sign after it though.
The very bottom of the fringe having blood suggests she had been sitting in some blood before her body was moved. This is another red flag indicating her body was moved that the authorities ignored. They stupidly completely ignored the issue till the appeal stage. Lucky for them they got the conviction so it didn't hurt them.
Defense expert Lincoln confirmed the blood on the gown was Sheilas
The particular reference to the nightdress had been repeated a few weeks ago since 2011. ::) But it seems that only I took notice, t'was only because it was said that Sheila was perfectly clean with no blood etc on her.
-
Perhaps 1/5 is actually i/s and stands for 'inside' ? :-\
That sounds better.
-
The particular reference to the nightdress had been repeated a few weeks ago since 2011. ::) But it seems that only I took notice, t'was only because it was said that Sheila was perfectly clean with no blood etc on her.
You said the examination record was posted a few weeks ago. I wasted a while doing targeted searches of posts the last 50 days. I should have known better than to take your claims at face value...
-
I wasn't here on the forum in 2011,so how would I have seen it other than it having been posted since?
-
I wasn't here on the forum in 2011,so how would I have seen it other than it having been posted since?
I came here after you and I read tons of things posted before I registered. The archive contains an index of sorts to such posts plus photos
-
I didn't know that " Freddie " had left for Iran before the trial. I understood he'd been either " snubbed " because of who he was or just not considered as a suitable witness. However,the truth of the matter is that while in Iran,Freddie was contacted by police but then were notified that he would not return,unless of course it was to testify and because he'd said it would have been purely for the Defence,nobody wanted to know.
I've since learned that the guy was genuinely trying to help Sheila,as a friend and nothing else,contrary to how the media had described the friendship.
-
Even Dr Ferguson was guarded in his evidence at trial not mentioning the fact that Sheila harmed her children,etc----------------because of Patient Confidentiality. Never mind that some poor guy was going to suffer a " death sentence " because of Ferguson's silence ! Because Sheila hadn't been sectioned she was not legally required to have taken ANY of the medication which had been prescribed for her.
-
There are some truly awful episodes involved with this case which I WON'T be repeating and doubtless not many will have known about but upset me greatly.
-
Even Dr Ferguson was guarded in his evidence at trial not mentioning the fact that Sheila harmed her children,etc----------------because of Patient Confidentiality. Never mind that some poor guy was going to suffer a " death sentence " because of Ferguson's silence ! Because Sheila hadn't been sectioned she was not legally required to have taken ANY of the medication which had been prescribed for her.
Huh? Patient confidentiality doesn't come into it when the person dies - Sheila didn't hurt her children, that's rubbish! Sheila had her anti-psychotic medication injected and there is no legal requirement to take medication. It's not a crime not to take them! Where are you getting this stuff from?
-
There are some truly awful episodes involved with this case which I WON'T be repeating and doubtless not many will have known about but upset me greatly.
Then don't listen to gossip Lookout.
-
Bamber told one of the police officers on the massacre night that Sheila had committed child abuse on the twins. He had not reported it at the time.
There is no record of Bamber mentioning this since.
-
lookout has every right to say what she thinks.
shut up telling people to shut up.
-
Even Dr Ferguson was guarded in his evidence at trial not mentioning the fact that Sheila harmed her children,etc----------------because of Patient Confidentiality. Never mind that some poor guy was going to suffer a " death sentence " because of Ferguson's silence ! Because Sheila hadn't been sectioned she was not legally required to have taken ANY of the medication which had been prescribed for her.
I didn't know that " Freddie " had left for Iran before the trial. I understood he'd been either " snubbed " because of who he was or just not considered as a suitable witness. However,the truth of the matter is that while in Iran,Freddie was contacted by police but then were notified that he would not return,unless of course it was to testify and because he'd said it would have been purely for the Defence,nobody wanted to know.
I've since learned that the guy was genuinely trying to help Sheila,as a friend and nothing else,contrary to how the media had described the friendship.
There are some truly awful episodes involved with this case which I WON'T be repeating and doubtless not many will have known about but upset me greatly.
As sincere as I believe you to be about any and everything which could relate to Sheila's involvement and Jeremy's innocence, there are other interpretations of all the above posts.
We do not, of course, know the full truth about why Freddie chose to return to Iran pre trial. He was of course, Iranian, so it's reasonable to assume he had family and possibly business commitments there OR is it possible that he may have needed to "escape" England for a while? "He was contacted by the police" Was he, and WHY? Did he ever return to England? He MAY have been the good friend to Sheila you say he was. He certainly seemed to spend a lot of time on her circuit. He certainly seemed to have been available when she called. It also seems he was ready to listen to her and lend her money. I wonder what MRS Freddie thought of this friendship that she appeared NOT to be part of.
I've read what Dr Ferguson told CAL. I don't recall that he said anything about her harming her children "etc" -I'll concede that she could be guilty of neglect- and it's only Jeremy who says that during a car journey she punched one of the boys in the face but I still uncertain as when he may have been a passenger in a car carrying Sheila, the boys and his parents. Numerous with PS are not sectioned and the number of those who go out and randomly remove peoples' heads, stick knives into strangers, has to be small. I imagine, that had Sheila shown ANY signs of aggression -as opposed to fear and agitation- to staff and/or other patients after her admission, his wording in court would have been very different. From that we must assume that she wasn't considered ill enough for section. Of course, there would have been concern about her not remembering to take medication -a common occurrence with many PS's I believe- but I imagine the fear would have been about her becoming ill again rather than the belief that she would run amok with a knife, OR, indeed, a gun as she'd never previously shown any inclination towards that kind of behaviour. Concerns were allayed by injecting her meds rather than relying on her remembering to take them.......................however, I WILL agree that all was far from right. Dr Ferguson would have preferred her to stay a little longer but conceded that she didn't want Christine to meet with her in a psych clinic, It may be that -had she agreed to stay- he'd have adjusted her meds before she left. You seem not to believe she had PS. I believe that, because of the high she must have been on when she left the clinic and the subsequent rejections and disappointments she experienced, and because everything said of her during that time suggests it, she fell into depression.
Thank-you for NOT posting those "truly awful episodes." I'm sorry, but unsurprised that you were greatly upset, but unless such can be verified, I'd suggest that, as with much else about the case, there is very much, another tale to tell, another side to the story.
-
Then don't listen to gossip Lookout.
I've never listened to gossip-----------such as what RWB,AE and Co. told EP.
-
Reports concerning this were made to Social Services in 1981 when Sheila hadn't shown interest in her sons as well as injuries which had been found on them.SS don't call upon people for nothing.
And the hospital to which a child was taken is reported as saying that there was nothing about the injury to suggest that the mother had caused it to happen. The few other injuries the boys had were deemed to be nothing more than the usual childhood bumps and bruises, ALL of which has been pulled to pieces here on NUMEROUS occasions, Lookout. You can whine all you like about how horrid are we about Jeremy, but thus far, he remains a convicted murderer, but it seems that you're determined to stick something on Sheila, who ISN'T a convicted murderer, whatever it takes
-
xxxx! Just to be noticed,eh ?
Lookout, Jeremy may have lied, but on this occasion, Adam didn't. Jeremy saidf that on an occasion when he was in a car with Sheila, the twins and his parents -all dead, so none can verify the story- one of the boys interrupted Sheila and she punched him straight in the face.
-
One of the twins had bruises and cigarette burns on his body. I imagine the school teacher would have noted and reported seeing them the same as she'd noted that they were getting themselves washed,dressed and fed without assistance.
-
One of the twins had bruises and cigarette burns on his body. I imagine the school teacher would have noted and reported seeing them the same as she'd noted that they were getting themselves washed,dressed and fed without assistance.
I'm not prepared to believe the story of cigarette burns is more than erroneous, Lookout, and it's the nature of children that they sustain bruises. Cigarette burns WOULD have resulted in a hospital visit which would have put this into a report. None such has been provided.
I have said that I accept that Sheila may have neglected them, which is why SS arranged for them to have temporary daycare before they started school.
-
One of the twins had bruises and cigarette burns on his body. I imagine the school teacher would have noted and reported seeing them the same as she'd noted that they were getting themselves washed,dressed and fed without assistance.
There were no cigarette burns at all, one of the twins had a scold, it was an accident. I don't know why you're saying this stuff but you need to tell your source to read up on the case and stop sensationalising.
-
xxxx ! Just to be noticed,eh ?
It's in Wilkes's book.
The officer testified this at trial.
-
There were no cigarette burns at all, one of the twins had a scold, it was an accident. I don't know why you're saying this stuff but you need to tell your source to read up on the case and stop sensationalising.
I'm not sensationalizing. One of the foster carers had pointed the fact out.It's on this forum headed Foster care. The said foster carer wasn't even allowed to have her say in court either.
-
One of the twins had bruises and cigarette burns on his body. I imagine the school teacher would have noted and reported seeing them the same as she'd noted that they were getting themselves washed,dressed and fed without assistance.
Where are you reading this rubbish? And more importantly who is fooling you so severely. Can't complain about peoples reactions to your actions, when you are posting such sensationalist tripe.
God forbid I am starting to agree with Adam about your intentions.
-
There were no cigarette burns at all, one of the twins had a scold, it was an accident. I don't know why you're saying this stuff but you need to tell your source to read up on the case and stop sensationalising.
Haha, almost word for word!
-
I'm not sensationalizing. One of the foster carers had pointed the fact out.It's on this forum headed Foster care. The said foster carer wasn't even allowed to have her say in court either.
Where on the forum Lookout? Which thread? There are literally hundreds of threads and to trawl through them would take hours. If I am going to find it, I need more info.
-
Where on the forum Lookout? Which thread? There are literally hundreds of threads and to trawl through them would take hours. If I am going to find it, I need more info.
Scrub that - found it.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5124.msg220050.html#msg220050
-
Alias posted last year " seems like the boys had bruises and burns ( well one of them ) which is horrible ".
Where did Alias get her information from then ? She was no sensationalist !!
To which Jane answered by saying " between Sheila's volatility ( volatile,was she ??) and Colin's artistic temperament ".
-
Alias posted last year " seems like the boys had bruises and burns ( well one of them ) which is horrible ".
Where did Alias get her information from then ? She was no sensationalist !!
To which Jane answered by saying " between Sheila's volatility ( volatile,was she ??) and Colin's artistic temperament ".
No, they didn't, it was a scald and it was accidental. That's what happens when you don't base your opinions on official documents.
-
The burns were found on legs,face and tummy of one of the boys-------Patti's post of May 2nd 2012.
-
The burns were found on legs,face and tummy of one of the boys-------Patti's post of May 2nd 2012.
We had this discussion a few weeks ago, turned out there was no evidence - just assumptions!
Patti's post where? ???
-
So the source is Patti and Alias?
-
The burns were found on legs,face and tummy of one of the boys-------Patti's post of May 2nd 2012.
Lookout, you really are determined, aren't you, that at some time, in some way, Sheila inflicted deliberate harm to one or both of her boys.
-
So the source is Patti and Alias?
We went over this a couple of weeks ago, the burn was a scald and there was nothing suspicious about it. The was one scald and some bruises. All kids have bruises but I guess it serves to bolster the notion of Sheila killing her kids!
-
Lookout, you really are determined, aren't you, that at some time, in some way, Sheila inflicted deliberate harm to one or both of her boys.
Yes,I'm as determined to prove that these things had been posted as you are to shout me down every step of the way.
Now how about you finding me some forensic evidence left behind by Jeremy,then I can argue against it.
-
Yes,I'm as determined to prove that these things had been posted as you are to shout me down every step of the way.
Now how about you finding me some forensic evidence left behind by Jeremy,then I can argue against it.
How about you posting some official sources for the claim you made about cigarette burns? Given the thread you mentioned makes no reference to any such thing!
-
We had this discussion a few weeks ago, turned out there was no evidence - just assumptions!
Patti's post where? ???
Motivation for Murders----on this forum.
-
Yes,I'm as determined to prove that these things had been posted as you are to shout me down every step of the way.
Now how about you finding me some forensic evidence left behind by Jeremy,then I can argue against it.
Lookout, there's a chasm of difference between saying/showing something was posted and saying someone is guilty of what the post declares.
-
Motivation for Murders----on this forum.
Post no.21.
-
We went over this a couple of weeks ago, the burn was a scald and there was nothing suspicious about it. The was one scald and some bruises. All kids have bruises but I guess it serves to bolster the notion of Sheila killing her kids!
Ah, I see. Thanks Caroline. Not surprised it's rubbish.
-
Well it's pretty obvious that you're not going to bother looking for sources unless they're to discount what I've said. If it was in your favour to do so you would,which shows just how one-sided and biased you all are. It's no longer a forum for debate,it's a case of survival of the fittest and when there's half a dozen against one it's no longer a debate.
-
Post no.21.
Dated when?
-
I don't take Jeremy as a reliable source on anything. The twins would have told Colin if mummy had hurt them.
-
I don't take Jeremy as a reliable source on anything. The twins would have told Colin if mummy had hurt them.
Yeah, I agree on both points.
It's in Jeremy's best interest to say such.
-
I don't take Jeremy as a reliable source on anything. The twins would have told Colin if mummy had hurt them.
And he would certainly have seen the evidence of it.
-
Well it's pretty obvious that you're not going to bother looking for sources unless they're to discount what I've said. If it was in your favour to do so you would,which shows just how one-sided and biased you all are. It's no longer a forum for debate,it's a case of survival of the fittest and when there's half a dozen against one it's no longer a debate.
C'mon Lookout, be fair. It isn't up to anyone but the poster to provide FULL information to others about where they get their information. Life might be much easier for you if you searched first to make certain of what is said. It would stop you giving out information which may not be 100% correct. There's no point in debating what isn't true.
-
I don't take Jeremy as a reliable source on anything. The twins would have told Colin if mummy had hurt them.
Steve, I believe Colin too, made that very point.
-
Well it's pretty obvious that you're not going to bother looking for sources unless they're to discount what I've said. If it was in your favour to do so you would,which shows just how one-sided and biased you all are. It's no longer a forum for debate,it's a case of survival of the fittest and when there's half a dozen against one it's no longer a debate.
You are responsible for what you post and if you can't back it up (especially when it is sensitive material), then just don't post it. You said you weren't going to believe anything that wasn't on an official document and yet you're posting stuff with nothing to back it up.
-
I'm now quoting from a post of 2011. ( Spot the mistakes )
" Quote: The re-submitted swab did have a different identifying mark,but only partially. There were 3 copies of the same submittal form for the lab. DS Davidson testified that it was a mistake on his part to write down 2 identical numbers ( DHL/33 ) and then somehow write down the incorrect number ( DHL/44 ) on the 3rd form.
He also wrote down the wrong time that the swabs had been taken ( 11am rather than 3.15pm ) another mistake on the same form.
DS Lovell.the police liason officer at the lab.,whose job it is to check the submitted paperwork with samples, also stated he made a mistake when he didn't notice that there were two different indentifying marks on the paperwork.
That's already 4 mistakes ( DS Davidson 2, DS Lovell 1 and whoever packaged swab with guns,1 ) on a solitary and pretty crucial evidence in a quintuple shooting. Unquote ".
Particles of lead,barium and antimony fused together are unlikely to remain on a shooter for long.
-
I'm now quoting from a post of 2011. ( Spot the mistakes )
" Quote: The re-submitted swab did have a different identifying mark,but only partially. There were 3 copies of the same submittal form for the lab. DS Davidson testified that it was a mistake on his part to write down 2 identical numbers ( DHL/33 ) and then somehow write down the incorrect number ( DHL/44 ) on the 3rd form.
He also wrote down the wrong time that the swabs had been taken ( 11am rather than 3.15pm ) another mistake on the same form.
DS Lovell.the police liason officer at the lab.,whose job it is to check the submitted paperwork with samples, also stated he made a mistake when he didn't notice that there were two different indentifying marks on the paperwork.
That's already 4 mistakes ( DS Davidson 2, DS Lovell 1 and whoever packaged swab with guns,1 ) on a solitary and pretty crucial evidence in a quintuple shooting. Unquote ".
Particles of lead,barium and antimony fused together are unlikely to remain on a shooter for long.
You might find this thread interesting;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,154.msg326.html#msg326
-
I notice no swabs were taken from June who also had heavy sooty deposits on her hands. If neither had handled the guns in any way where did the soot come from ?
-
I notice no swabs were taken from June who also had heavy sooty deposits on her hands. If neither had handled the guns in any way where did the soot come from ?
Where did you get that from Lookout, the autopsy report mentions nothing about soot, just blood.
-
I notice no swabs were taken from June who also had heavy sooty deposits on her hands. If neither had handled the guns in any way where did the soot come from ?
I don't recall reading in the autopsy report that June had "heavy sooty deposits on her hands", Lookout.
-
I'll look for reference about the visit of Sheila to Colin's mother,Mrs Brencher ? where Sheila had broken down because of the fact that she no longer had full control over the twins. The info. is in Mrs. B's wit-stat.
Colin hadn't wanted to leave his family at WHF. It was purely because of the thought of them all being supervised rather than Sheila have them on her own in London. Something had to have been radically wrong for Colin to have had 95% of the care of the boys.
-
I'll look for reference about the visit of Sheila to Colin's mother,Mrs Brencher ? where Sheila had broken down because of the fact that she no longer had full control over the twins. The info. is in Mrs. B's wit-stat.
Colin hadn't wanted to leave his family at WHF. It was purely because of the thought of them all being supervised rather than Sheila have them on her own in London. Something had to have been radically wrong for Colin to have had 95% of the care of the boys.
I'm sure Sheila was distraught that she wasn't believed capable of caring for her children on her own. It would have been yet another blow to her fragile self esteem and MAYBE affirmation that everything June had said of her was correct. It's doubtful that Sheila would EVER manage without SOMEONE'S support, which is partly why Colin had 95% of their care...................AND the fact that she'd only just come out of hospital following a breakdown.
-
I'm now quoting from a post of 2011. ( Spot the mistakes )
" Quote: The re-submitted swab did have a different identifying mark,but only partially. There were 3 copies of the same submittal form for the lab. DS Davidson testified that it was a mistake on his part to write down 2 identical numbers ( DHL/33 ) and then somehow write down the incorrect number ( DHL/44 ) on the 3rd form.
He also wrote down the wrong time that the swabs had been taken ( 11am rather than 3.15pm ) another mistake on the same form.
DS Lovell.the police liason officer at the lab.,whose job it is to check the submitted paperwork with samples, also stated he made a mistake when he didn't notice that there were two different indentifying marks on the paperwork.
That's already 4 mistakes ( DS Davidson 2, DS Lovell 1 and whoever packaged swab with guns,1 ) on a solitary and pretty crucial evidence in a quintuple shooting. Unquote ".
Particles of lead,barium and antimony fused together are unlikely to remain on a shooter for long.
A huge mistake that stands out is the exhibit prefix was DRH not DHL. It is quite amusing that people who make so many errors themselves are complaining about the police making minor clerical errors. In the meantime such clerical errors don't matter at all. The person filling out the forms messe dup one of 3 by writing 44 instead of 33 and the person who received the forms didn't proofread all 3 carefully enough to notice. That's completely meaningless.
11AM is when they placed the bags over her hands. The bags over her hands wer einclude din the swab kit.
The swabs were not packaged with guns. They were in their own container. It was not a mistake to bring multiple items to the lab at the same time. The lab worker who refused to take the swabs rejected them in error.
As for the claim GSR would dissipate fast that is not the case. It is easy to transfer the GSR if one is very active after the shooting events occurred. Sheila was not active she was dead. She didn't kill herself then walk around the house touching things transferring GSR to them. GSR does not dissipate fast from clothing or hair. Moreover soot stains doesn't dissipate on their own. Elevated lead levels/lead stains on the hand from loading bullets don't just rapidly dissipate on their own either. Sheila's hands were covered with bags to prevent any loss of evidence while her body was moved. They examined the inside of the bags to make sure nothing transferred from her hands to the inside of the bags. No GSR was found. No soot was found, nor was any found on her hands or clothes. That is because she neither loaded nor fired the weapon. Jeremy shot everyone including her.
-
In view of JM's " knowledge " that the tragedy was going to happen,would you not have thought she'd have been as eager to have gone to the police as she was when she volunteered to view the bodies ??
How can ANYONE view bodies of people who they knew they COULD/SHOULD have saved ??
How COULD you live with yourself ?? Can you imagine having that weighing on your conscience for the rest of your life ?? I'd have either topped myself or vanished off the face of the earth somewhere.
But NO. She posed like a tart in memory of those who'd died and collected £25,000+ !!
Makes you wonder if you're better thought of by being heartless and ruthless !!
-
In view of JM's " knowledge " that the tragedy was going to happen,would you not have thought she'd have been as eager to have gone to the police as she was when she volunteered to view the bodies ??
How can ANYONE view bodies of people who they knew they COULD/SHOULD have saved ??
How COULD you live with yourself ?? Can you imagine having that weighing on your conscience for the rest of your life ?? I'd have either topped myself or vanished off the face of the earth somewhere.
But NO. She posed like a tart in memory of those who'd died and collected £25,000+ !!
Makes you wonder if you're better thought of by being heartless and ruthless !!
Obviously nobody agrees that there was any wrong-doing. :o
-
Obviously nobody agrees that there was any wrong-doing. :o
You know what is generally thought here of Julie's performance. It's been said countless times.
-
You know what is generally thought here of Julie's performance. It's been said countless times.
But what is wrong with a person who goes willingly,volunteers in fact,to see the bodies of those she could easily have saved ? How can anyone live with themselves ?
I'd like to ask her that question and can't understand why nobody else has.?
-
But what is wrong with a person who goes willingly,volunteers in fact,to see the bodies of those she could easily have saved ? How can anyone live with themselves ?
I'd like to ask her that question and can't understand why nobody else has.?
Why would you like to ask her that? You don't believe Bamber to be guilty, so if he isn't guilty then he didn't tell Julie of his plans. ;D
-
Why would you like to ask her that? You don't believe Bamber to be guilty, so if he isn't guilty then he didn't tell Julie of his plans. ;D
I would still like to ask her to see what sort of an answer I got,if at all.
-
I would still like to ask her to see what sort of an answer I got,if at all.
You're a Bamber supporter, I think if she heard from you - the response would be pretty sharp.
-
You're a Bamber supporter, I think if she heard from you - the response would be pretty sharp.
I wouldn't expect anything else. I wouldn't exactly be sitting back taking it either.
-
But what is wrong with a person who goes willingly,volunteers in fact,to see the bodies of those she could easily have saved ? How can anyone live with themselves ?
I'd like to ask her that question and can't understand why nobody else has.?
How do you think she could have gone about saving them, Lookout, given that even Jeremy allegedly told her there was nothing she could have done to prevent it.
-
How do you think she could have gone about saving them, Lookout, given that even Jeremy allegedly told her there was nothing she could have done to prevent it.
Reported his alleged plan to the police months before. She marched into the mortuary so why didn't she march into the nearest police station ? Or was she WAITING for it to happen ?? Now I'm being mercenary because I can't understand the woman or anyone for that matter who doesn't report their suspicions especially knowing that the end result was worth nearly half a million. Reason enough to have reported it ? I would say so.
-
Reported his alleged plan to the police months before. She marched into the mortuary so why didn't she march into the nearest police station ? Or was she WAITING for it to happen ?? Now I'm being mercenary because I can't understand the woman or anyone for that matter who doesn't report their suspicions especially knowing that the end result was worth nearly half a million. Reason enough to have reported it ? I would say so.
OK, Lookout, let's suppose she HAD gone to the police and leave aside that their hands were tied until or unless a crime was committed. SUPPOSING they'd had a word with Jeremy? Suave, educated, charming, urbane, confident, superior Jeremy. The one who brazenly told prosecuting counsel, "That is for you to prove, isn't it." He'd have shown surprise, undoubtedly and followed it by telling them his soon to be ex girlfriend was as "nutty" as his sister. He'd have made Julie into a liar and a fool AND they'd have believed him because he just didn't look like a potential murderer. You can see the problems facing social workers, can't you.
-
OK, Lookout, let's suppose she HAD gone to the police and leave aside that their hands were tied until or unless a crime was committed. SUPPOSING they'd had a word with Jeremy? Suave, educated, charming, urbane, confident, superior Jeremy. The one who brazenly told prosecuting counsel, "That is for you to prove, isn't it." He'd have shown surprise, undoubtedly and followed it by telling them his soon to be ex girlfriend was as "nutty" as his sister. He'd have made Julie into a liar and a fool AND they'd have believed him because he just didn't look like a potential murderer. You can see the problems facing social workers, can't you.
Nope,the police wouldn't have believed him. Like they obviously didn't when he was imprisoned.
-
Nope,the police wouldn't have believed him. Like they obviously didn't when he was imprisoned.
I think we both know they would have believed him. At that point no crime had been committed. Those he was planning to kill were still going about their daily lives, his parents in D'Arcy, his sister and her children in London. NOTHING to suggest a crime was going to be committed and he was clever enough to tell Julie that if she said anything and he was discovered she'd be in as much trouble as he....................................................so what COULD she have done, Lookout?
-
Reported his alleged plan to the police months before. She marched into the mortuary so why didn't she march into the nearest police station ? Or was she WAITING for it to happen ?? Now I'm being mercenary because I can't understand the woman or anyone for that matter who doesn't report their suspicions especially knowing that the end result was worth nearly half a million. Reason enough to have reported it ? I would say so.
She didn't tell anyone because she didn't think he was being serious. She thought he was just blowing off steam like many people do when they say they want to kill someone.
-
OK, Lookout, let's suppose she HAD gone to the police and leave aside that their hands were tied until or unless a crime was committed. SUPPOSING they'd had a word with Jeremy? Suave, educated, charming, urbane, confident, superior Jeremy. The one who brazenly told prosecuting counsel, "That is for you to prove, isn't it." He'd have shown surprise, undoubtedly and followed it by telling them his soon to be ex girlfriend was as "nutty" as his sister. He'd have made Julie into a liar and a fool AND they'd have believed him because he just didn't look like a potential murderer. You can see the problems facing social workers, can't you.
She could have warned Colin though not to leave his sons alone with Jeremy at any time.
-
She didn't tell anyone because she didn't think he was being serious. She thought he was just blowing off steam like many people do when they say they want to kill someone.
But he had said it to her on more than one occasion and these rantings became more serious in the New Year. I find Julie's ditherings incomprehensible and her actions throughout are still one of the most shocking aspects of this case.
-
But he had said it to her on more than one occasion and these rantings became more serious in the New Year. I find Julie's ditherings incomprehensible and her actions throughout are still one of the most shocking aspects of this case.
If a relative of yours periodically said they wanted to kill someone but hadn't actually done it despite saying it several times would you take that as a sign they would at some point do it and that you had better tell the authorities?
If a kid says they hate school and want to blow up you say yeah sure...If you catch them making bombs then you know there is a problem.
He told her things that she thought was just talk. She didn't witness him taking some sort of preparations like making bombs that would establish he was carrying it out for real.
In high school I cooked improvised c4 (Ammonium nitrate, nitromethane and powdered aluminum) and set it off in aspirin bottles. It was just for fun we didn't actually do anything destructive with it. I didn't tell my friends I was going to blow anyone or anything up with it beyond see how big a hole it would make in the dirt. If I told them I wanted to use it on someone or something then they would have had cause to rat me out. Then again they joked about blowing something else up but I didn't let anyone else touch the bottles so I have no idea if they were serious or not- I assumed they were just joking. I didn't want to be responsible for one of them blowing their ass off like something out of a jackass movie. This was pre-911 when we could get away with such things. They worked pretty good Bill Murray could have used the in Caddyshack. The powdered aluminum was supposed to add enough velocity to bend steel but we had no steel to try it on so I don't know what it would do to a structure. Most people who say they are going to kill someone don't. That makes it hard to predict if someone is serious unless you see them grabbing a weapon and leaving with it.
Even after the murders she still didn't think he was capable and that was why she bought his claim he hired a hitman. Because of her love for him she still might not have ratted him out if she found out he paid a hitman and thus knew the murder was coming later that evening. It takes a brave/selfless person to actually intervene, particularly if they have no great love for the potential victims. While there are people like that they are in the minority. A minority will stick out their neck by risking their body or relationships for the sake of others. Most people in such situations are like a deer in the headlights. A minority will take action and that is why the minority who do such are called heroes. It is heroic precisely because it is they are doing something the majority is not willing to do.
-
If a relative of yours periodically said they wanted to kill someone but hadn't actually done it despite saying it several times would you take that as a sign they would at some point do it and that you had better tell the authorities?
If a kid says they hate school and want to blow up you say yeah sure...If you catch them making bombs then you know there is a problem.
He told her things that she thought was just talk. She didn't witness him taking some sort of preparations like making bombs that would establish he was carrying it out for real.
In high school I cooked improvised c4 (Ammonium nitrate, nitromethane and powdered aluminum) and set it off in aspirin bottles. It was just for fun we didn't actually do anything destructive with it. I didn't tell my friends I was going to blow anyone or anything up with it beyond see how big a hole it would make in the dirt. If I told them I wanted to use it on someone or something then they would have had cause to rat me out. Then again they joked about blowing something else up but I didn't let anyone else touch the bottles so I have no idea if they were serious or not- I assumed they were just joking. I didn't want to be responsible for one of them blowing their ass off like something out of a jackass movie. This was pre-911 when we could get away with such things. They worked pretty good Bill Murray could have used the in Caddyshack. The powdered aluminum was supposed to add enough velocity to bend steel but we had no steel to try it on so I don't know what it would do to a structure. Most people who say they are going to kill someone don't. That makes it hard to predict if someone is serious unless you see them grabbing a weapon and leaving with it.
Even after the murders she still didn't think he was capable and that was why she bought his claim he hired a hitman. Because of her love for him she still might not have ratted him out if she found out he paid a hitman and thus knew the murder was coming later that evening. It takes a brave/selfless person to actually intervene, particularly if they have no great love for the potential victims. While there are people like that they are in the minority. A minority will stick out their neck by risking their body or relationships for the sake of others. Most people in such situations are like a deer in the headlights. A minority will take action and that is why the minority who do such are called heroes. It is heroic precisely because it is they are doing something the majority is not willing to do.
Or maybe she believed Jeremy's excuse about not marrying her at the turn of the year because the idea arose from June(unsubstantiated) and he didn't want to acquiesce with her wishes. Once she was dead there was no excuse left but of course marriage as we know was not forthcoming. Your adolescent experiences are something akin to the film Breaking Bad.
-
Or maybe she believed Jeremy's excuse about not marrying her at the turn of the year because the idea arose from June(unsubstantiated) and he didn't want to acquiesce with her wishes. Once she was dead there was no excuse left but of course marriage as we know was not forthcoming. Your adolescent experiences are something akin to the film Breaking Bad.
Blowing holes in the dirt in the woods and the kinds of things done on Breaking Bad are quite different. I also made my own smoke grenades. Nothing was done with such items to vandalize though or to cause any other problems. It was simply playing with an improvised weapons survivalist book to see if I could do it. The worst thing I did was make a trap with a tripwire which resulted in a branch from a tree whacking a jerk I hated. I didn't put spikes in it or anything like that. It wasn't a very thick branch so I knew it would not do any real damage. It did leave a red mark on his forehead though. We laughed all day in school. He never did figure out who set it and I only told a few people who I knew would not tell anyone. Someone else previously egged him on to start a fight with me and he lost so I was not afraid to tell him I knew he could not do anything to me. He was really tall but a toothpick his punches had nothing on them at all. He was hitting me and I was laughing because his punches were so weak. I let him punch me 5 times just hysterical. He said I didn't know how to fight so I punched him in the eye/cheek giving him a bright shiner then he ran away. He lied to everyone in school saying he beat me up but they asked how come my face was fine and his wasn't. Then people who saw it said what really happened. It was simply more amusing with him never finding out and having to wonder. He was so paranoid he stopped walking through the woods to school so we didn't have to deal with his crap anymore.
Since that is the worst thing I did you grossly overestimate me. Now people I know- that is another thing they did a lot of bad stuff. I didn't smoke, do drugs or anything else I was the goody goody Jeremy hated. Then I turned 15, got a job, worked ever hour I could and the only bad things I did was there but I was provoked...like I was throwing away sour cream that was no good, we just had to save the lids to get some credit back. Someone would not leave me alone and just let me work. He tried to wipe some of the sour cream on me. I had one container in each hand and chased him. The bastard ran down a hall that had cameras. I lobbed them like grenades at him. Both hit him in the ass and blew up. His whole ass was full of sour cream. Some got on the floor too of course. Then we got called to the office because naturally the manager was in the office at that exact moment watching the cameras.
Another time the same idiot shot me with a water pistol. I got two cleaning bottles and was shooting him back- the spray bottles were awesome they shot a major spray like 30 feet they were the only supplies the store had that were actually good. I was killing him, his little gun wasn't worth crap. The floor was all wet and he was running around then he fell and it was like he was on a slip n slide. He slid down the hall like a bowling ball right through the break room door crashing into the TV. The store managers were having a meeting in there with the district manager. They were watching some work related VCR tape. I should have run away but I couldn't. I was laughing too hard- so I got busted too.
These antics got them mad but not enough to get us fired because on the flip side we actually worked. Most people just slacked off and did nothing. They would let them get away with doing nothing and pile all the work on the few who actually worked. If they fired us nothing would get done so they had no choice but to put up with us and since they dumped everything on us we had the right to blow off steam now and then. It's a lot better to blow off steam with childish antics than keeping it all in and one day blowing up in a violent episode.
-
But he had said it to her on more than one occasion and these rantings became more serious in the New Year. I find Julie's ditherings incomprehensible and her actions throughout are still one of the most shocking aspects of this case.
You used to defend her - or do I remember it wrongly?
My logic always stuggles with Jeremy shooting Sheila twice, then staging it as suicide. Calling police and the whole drill.
Something doesn´t add up there.
-
You used to defend her - or do I remember it wrongly?
My logic always stuggles with Jeremy shooting Sheila twice, then staging it as suicide. Calling police and the whole drill.
Something doesn´t add up there.
Part of the reason some still "struggle" is because they're inside their own heads, using their own "logic" rather than imagining what it was to be JEREMY, in the position HE found himself in, and having to deal with the unplanned for.
-
Part of the reason some still "struggle" is because they're inside their own heads, using their own "logic" rather than imagining what it was to be JEREMY, in the position HE found himself in, and having to deal with the unplanned for.
I can quite see if he had planned the murders why people expect he would have thought things through and if he did you would expect him to see glaring difficulties ie. How to make Sheila's death look like suicide, in a carefully planned exercise you would expect him to maybe have to accept the two shot suicide as part of his plan.
It is Julie Mugford who tells us he planned the killings over a year and this tends to confuse because it sits uncomfortably with what we see happened and that the whole situation seemed to be far more a chaotic attack than anything planned.
It's true once in such a situation anything can happen as no one can plan for human reaction, unforeseen difficulties etc. I would find it easier to believe if JM had never claimed he had prepared by strangling rats etc. which gives an impression of serious planning and attention to detail.
This is contradictory and confusing.
-
I can quite see if he had planned the murders why people expect he would have thought things through and if he did you would expect him to see glaring difficulties ie. How to make Sheila's death look like suicide, in a carefully planned exercise you would expect him to maybe have to accept the two shot suicide as part of his plan.
It is Julie Mugford who tells us he planned the killings over a year and this tends to confuse because it sits uncomfortably with what we see happened and that the whole situation seemed to be far more a chaotic attack than anything planned.
It's true once in such a situation anything can happen as no one can plan for human reaction, unforeseen difficulties etc. I would find it easier to believe if JM had never claimed he had prepared by strangling rats etc. which gives an impression of serious planning and attention to detail.
This is contradictory and confusing.
Maggie, my point is, this isn't about "why people expect (he would have thought thing through)" OR "you would expect him to see....." all of which is about our own frame of reference. In order to see where Jeremy was coming from, it becomes necessary to totally divorce ourselves from where we would be with it. Julie didn't claim that............ JEREMY made a claim which Julie repeated.
-
Maggie, my point is, this isn't about "why people expect (he would have thought thing through)" OR "you would expect him to see....." all of which is about our own frame of reference. In order to see where Jeremy was coming from, it becomes necessary to totally divorce ourselves from where we would be with it. Julie didn't claim that............ JEREMY made a claim which Julie repeated.
Ok April, Julie claimed Jeremy told her but this still sets up contradictions in people's minds however otherwise as you say Jeremy did what he did and we have to accept this as apart from the hard facts all arguments are hypothetical and purists would therefore claim there is no argument which carried to it's extreme becomes a dangerous process, n'est pas? :)
Or have I lost the thread? :-\
-
I do not believe that Sheila was the shooter, at least not alone.
I care not about her mental state, as I do not think she could have shot her children.
If Sheila was in a mental state then the shootings would have been more random, not methodical.
Very true, someone experiencing an episode whilst brandishing a rifle with which they are totally unfamiliar do not generally manage 22 carefully targeted shots killing four people and engage in a struggle for control of said rifle without incurring some blood spatter and/or injury.
Or as David Boutflour recently recorded for a TV dramatisation of the case, Sheila was found with barely a hair out of place!
-
I wouldn't have said the shots were " targeted ". How could anyone miss at a couple of feet away even a closer range than that a few times ? The shots were frenzied and the ones between the eyes would have been done either after death or certainly close to it to have delivered a shot like that.
I can't even visualise much of a struggle either as 2 or 3 shots into Neville would have left him vulnerable and open to a further bashing.
I wouldn't have had a " hair out of place " nor a fingernail if I'd been in control of a rifle shooting two adults.Why would there have to be ?
-
These murders weren't planned,they were spur of the moment done in an act of sheer madness.
-
These murders weren't planned,they were spur of the moment done in an act of sheer madness.
Bollocks. Only some nutter like Jeremy Bamber would murder two innocent babes as they slept. No wonder his real parents want nothing to do with him!
-
Bollocks. Only some nutter like Jeremy Bamber would murder two innocent babes as they slept. No wonder his real parents want nothing to do with him!
I see. Losing it are we ?
-
If a relative of yours periodically said they wanted to kill someone but hadn't actually done it despite saying it several times would you take that as a sign they would at some point do it and that you had better tell the authorities?
If a kid says they hate school and want to blow up you say yeah sure...If you catch them making bombs then you know there is a problem.
He told her things that she thought was just talk. She didn't witness him taking some sort of preparations like making bombs that would establish he was carrying it out for real.
In high school I cooked improvised c4 (Ammonium nitrate, nitromethane and powdered aluminum) and set it off in aspirin bottles. It was just for fun we didn't actually do anything destructive with it. I didn't tell my friends I was going to blow anyone or anything up with it beyond see how big a hole it would make in the dirt. If I told them I wanted to use it on someone or something then they would have had cause to rat me out. Then again they joked about blowing something else up but I didn't let anyone else touch the bottles so I have no idea if they were serious or not- I assumed they were just joking. I didn't want to be responsible for one of them blowing their ass off like something out of a jackass movie. This was pre-911 when we could get away with such things. They worked pretty good Bill Murray could have used the in Caddyshack. The powdered aluminum was supposed to add enough velocity to bend steel but we had no steel to try it on so I don't know what it would do to a structure. Most people who say they are going to kill someone don't. That makes it hard to predict if someone is serious unless you see them grabbing a weapon and leaving with it.
Even after the murders she still didn't think he was capable and that was why she bought his claim he hired a hitman. Because of her love for him she still might not have ratted him out if she found out he paid a hitman and thus knew the murder was coming later that evening. It takes a brave/selfless person to actually intervene, particularly if they have no great love for the potential victims. While there are people like that they are in the minority. A minority will stick out their neck by risking their body or relationships for the sake of others. Most people in such situations are like a deer in the headlights. A minority will take action and that is why the minority who do such are called heroes. It is heroic precisely because it is they are doing something the majority is not willing to do.
Your posts are so long winded it is difficult to concentrate on them.
What about crimes in your country?
Oswald was stitched up in the JFK assassination, with no actual factual evidence.
Jeremy was stitched with no factual evidence,only from people from people who stood to gain.
-
Your posts are so long winded it is difficult to concentrate on them.
What about crimes in your country?
Oswald was stitched up in the JFK assassination, with no actual factual evidence.
Jeremy was stitched with no factual evidence,only from people from people who stood to gain.
There was a ton of factual evidence against Jeremy. You simply choose to ignore it and not believe it the same way looney JFK conspiracy theorists simply dismiss evidence. Dismissing evidence doesn't make it go away. You have to refute evidence to overcome it. Saying no evidence exists because you choose to ignore it or discount it ends up amounting to one lying. If you choose to discount evidence without being able to refute it then admit such don't lie and say there is no evidence.
Julie's testimony against Jeremy is evidence.
Evidence that the killing started in the bedroom where there was no phone and thus that Jeremy made up the distress call is evidence.
Evidence that Jeremy staged bullets in the kitchen to support his made up tale of leaving the gun and ammo out is evidence.
Evidence that Jeremy lied to police saying Sheila fired all weapons in the house and was trained to fire the murder weapon is evidence.
Evidence Jeremy lied about calling police first when in fact he called Julie first is evidence.
The failure of Jeremy to call 999 but instead to call Julie and eventually to look up station numbers is evidence that contradicts his claim of being worried after receiving a distress call.
A lack of evidence on Sheila's body and clothing that would have been present if in fact she had killed the victims and committed suicide is evidence.
Evidence proving it is impossible for Sheila to have killed herself but rather was murdered is evidence.
I can list more but this is sufficient to make my point.
-
Bollocks. Only some nutter like Jeremy Bamber would murder two innocent babes as they slept. No wonder his real parents want nothing to do with him!
The above post got me thinking about a comment made by Carol Ann Lee in the Yorkshire Post:
Jeremy told her that he had never felt any wish to trace his birth parents, as Sheila had done with her own mother. Yet his cousins insist he had indeed made such an attempt, only to be rebuffed. A second rejection, Carol concludes, that must have hurt him deeply.
I wonder if the birth parents have a guilty conscience,or Jeremy just gave up altogether caring about his provenance after they didn't want anything to do with him,or maybe this story is also false? http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/features/bamber-murders-the-definitive-account-1-7368685
-
The above post got me thinking about a comment made by Carol Ann Lee in the Yorkshire Post:
Jeremy told her that he had never felt any wish to trace his birth parents, as Sheila had done with her own mother. Yet his cousins insist he had indeed made such an attempt, only to be rebuffed. A second rejection, Carol concludes, that must have hurt him deeply.
I wonder if the birth parents have a guilty conscience,or Jeremy just gave up altogether caring about his provenance after they didn't want anything to do with him,or maybe this story is also false? http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/features/bamber-murders-the-definitive-account-1-7368685
How about, as well as hurt, humiliated, angry, rejected, worthless, lost all of which would be compounded if the adoptive parents hadn't been able to express their affection.
-
How about, as well as hurt, humiliated, angry, rejected, worthless, lost all of which would be compounded if the adoptive parents hadn't been able to express their affection.
Yes with June fearing the intervention of the adoption agency when the children were small and cognizant herself of her medical history,then perhaps overcompensating for the lack of discipline as Sheila and Jeremy reached adults at a time when parents are often seen as more of an irrelevance as older teenagers wish to lead their own lives. June was only too well aware of the inconsistency and her shortcomings as the heartfelt letter to her children to be opened after her death did attest,yet it was too little too late as Jeremy screwed it up with contempt in the glove compartment of his car,telling Julie "I'm glad she's dead" and Sheila never getting to read it at all.
-
How about, as well as hurt, humiliated, angry, rejected, worthless, lost all of which would be compounded if the adoptive parents hadn't been able to express their affection.
Terrible trauma for him, whatever happened that is a tragedy. Seems he buried it as well which means it could have come out as anger.
-
Terrible trauma for him, whatever happened that is a tragedy. Seems he buried it as well which means it could have come out as anger.
Without somewhere safe to off load it, it could have sat there fermenting until one more perceived insult caused it to blow.
-
Without somewhere safe to off load it, it could have sat there fermenting until one more perceived insult caused it to blow.
I don't know how many serial killers plan their crimes as to those who snap on the spur of the moment. Jeremy's feelings had evidently been festering for years with spasmodic outbursts to various people who did nothing to rein them in.
-
I don't know how many serial killers plan their crimes as to those who snap on the spur of the moment. Jeremy's feelings had evidently been festering for years with spasmodic outbursts to various people who did nothing to rein them in.
It's not IMpossible that he vented all those negative feelings in one act.
-
It's not IMpossible that he vented all those negative feelings in one act.
Yes but not spur of the moment killings if Julie's story is to be believed.
-
The above post got me thinking about a comment made by Carol Ann Lee in the Yorkshire Post:
Jeremy told her that he had never felt any wish to trace his birth parents, as Sheila had done with her own mother. Yet his cousins insist he had indeed made such an attempt, only to be rebuffed. A second rejection, Carol concludes, that must have hurt him deeply.
I wonder if the birth parents have a guilty conscience,or Jeremy just gave up altogether caring about his provenance after they didn't want anything to do with him,or maybe this story is also false? http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/features/bamber-murders-the-definitive-account-1-7368685
That is a very valid point Steve. It would be interesting to know just how close this rebuffal came to the date of the murders. Such rejection could very well have had a very negative psyschological effect on his ability to make rational decisions where his adoptive family were concerned. I wonder which parents he hated most, natural or adoptive?
-
That is a very valid point Steve. It would be interesting to know just how close this rebuffal came to the date of the murders. Such rejection could very well have had a very negative psyschological effect on his ability to make rational decisions where his adoptive family were concerned. I wonder which parents he hated most, natural or adoptive?
I don't think he could ever really talk through his feelings. Ironically unless I'm mistaken Julie provided the hardest shoulder to cry on.
-
I don't think he could ever really talk through his feelings. Ironically unless I'm mistaken Julie provided the hardest shoulder to cry on.
Steve, that's hugely surprising coming from you. You were previously reluctant to hear a word against her.
-
How about, as well as hurt, humiliated, angry, rejected, worthless, lost all of which would be compounded if the adoptive parents hadn't been able to express their affection.
Come on, if you believe Jeremy is guilty how would the above be applicable to him?
A guilty Jeremy would not care about the circumstances of his birth parents, the only reason he would contact them is because he believes they could benefit his campaign financially or by other means
-
Psychopaths don't feel hurt,humiliation,anger,rejection or worthlessness. They have nil feeling ?
-
Steve, that's hugely surprising coming from you. You were previously reluctant to hear a word against her.
Well I don't know whether it necessarily constitutes criticism of her. Given that she was 20 years old and the product of a northern grammar school I doubt she was as sophisticated as some of her southern contemporaries from London.
-
She was more ahead of her game than JB was though Steve. More street-wise.
-
Come on, if you believe Jeremy is guilty how would the above be applicable to him?
A guilty Jeremy would not care about the circumstances of his birth parents, the only reason he would contact them is because he believes they could benefit his campaign financially or by other means
I don't believe it's possible to over estimate damage the initial separation from and rejection by a birth mother can do to a child who has been adopted.
-
She was more ahead of her game than JB was though Steve. More street-wise.
I don't think she was particularly sophisticated for her age lookout. If her education was anything like mine it was sitting behind a wooden desk for 11 years taking orders from the teachers,then doing copious amounts of homework in the evening. Wasn't she ribbed by Jeremy for being a Goody Two Shoes?
-
To be perfectly honest I don't think Jeremy was affected by his adoption though it was plain to see that Sheila was and she was very unhappy for a long time.
-
I don't think she was particularly sophisticated for her age lookout. If her education was anything like mine it was sitting behind a wooden desk for 11 years taking orders from the teachers,then doing copious amounts of homework in the evening. Wasn't she ribbed by Jeremy for being a Goody Two Shoes?
Mine was the same Steve except I decided against the homework which meant I was in detention most Mondays after school doing 'Long Tots and Cross Tots'. ::) ::) :'(
We northern girls were pretty unsophisticated but didn't realise it til we found ourselves among the self assured London girls. I can remember being in awe of such when I moved down when I was 20. This is why I am astonished at JMs behaviour with the cheque book in Oxford Street. Oxford Street was hallowed ground to my northern eyes and I wouldn't have dared to put a foot out of place there.
-
Well I don't know whether it necessarily constitutes criticism of her. Given that she was 20 years old and the product of a northern grammar school I doubt she was as sophisticated as some of her southern contemporaries from London.
Steve, comparing her to her contemporaries back in the 1980's, there was little about Julie that seemed sophisticated. I'm inclined to think she was rather old-fashioned, however, I do believe -and I suspect it had to do with her background -there to have been in her a very strong sense of self preservation and a determination to achieve -to get to the top. Academically, she was getting there. It couldn't have been easy. She had to work to manage...............then she met Jeremy and suddenly it may have looked as if she she could have it all.
-
I don't think she was particularly sophisticated for her age lookout. If her education was anything like mine it was sitting behind a wooden desk for 11 years taking orders from the teachers,then doing copious amounts of homework in the evening. Wasn't she ribbed by Jeremy for being a Goody Two Shoes?
Both were different types of education. You had one who was brought up to do as she was told and the other who had a more laid-back attitude to everything which showed with his lack of enthusiasm when it came to exams. I think possibly because Jeremy knew he had the farm to fall back on for his future whereas Julie had to knuckle under for hers if she wanted to get on in life.
-
Mine was the same Steve except I decided against the homework which meant I was in detention most Mondays after school doing 'Long Tots and Cross Tots'. ::) ::) :'(
We northern girls were pretty unsophisticated but didn't realise it til we found ourselves among the self assured London girls. I can remember being in awe of such when I moved down when I was 20. This is why I am astonished at JMs behaviour with the cheque book in Oxford Street. Oxford Street was hallowed ground to my northern eyes and I wouldn't have dared to put a foot out of place there.
It does seem strange maggie. Maybe Julie was more easily led than is made out.
-
I don't believe it's possible to over estimate damage the initial separation from and rejection by a birth mother can do to a child who has been adopted.
I wonder what Jeremys biological brother and sister think
-
I wonder what Jeremys biological brother and sister think
If they're not curious, I'd be very surprised.
-
If they're not curious, I'd be very surprised.
I imagine it may be very difficult for them to think about.
-
If they're not curious, I'd be very surprised.
I wonder if they even know! The parents may have decided it best never to mention Jeremy. Its possible because who in general public would know who they are to tell them?
-
It's possible that both JB's brother and sister do know. I've often thought how his bio mother must feel and whether at any time she has ever blamed herself in any way. I'm surprised that she's been able to function " normally " throughout her life with this hanging over her. Once a mother always a mother.
-
I wonder if they even know! The parents may have decided it best never to mention Jeremy. Its possible because who in general public would know who they are to tell them?
They know and who they are has been in the public domain for quite some time.