Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on September 21, 2015, 03:52:AM
-
On the massacre night, scene of crime officer and police surgeon, Dr Craig, testified he went for a walk with Bamber.
Bamber told him the previous night there had been discussions about fostering, as Sheila had committed 'non accidental' injury to the twins. Dr Craig told the court this meant child abuse. This goes along with the other unflattering things Bamber was also saying about Sheila at the time.
Bamber told Dr Craig he had not reported Sheila's child abuse. Nor, it seems had Neville and June.
Bamber has never accused Sheila of committing child abuse since in the last 30 years. Although he has since discussed what was said at supper the night before. Partly because he had to when interviewed, compiling his WS and testifying.
Bamber testified Sheila was non responsive to the fostering conversation. This would be even more surprising if she had also been accused of child abuse. It seems the drugs she was taking really had made her very docile. As AE and CAL have said. So it is a surprise she had the anger and strength to massacre her family a few hours later.
Other people testified Sheila was a loving mother, which contradicts her committing child abuse. There is no evidence showing Sheila committed child abuse.
Do other people believe Bamber lied about Sheila committing child abuse ? Why would he be so calculated to say such a terrible lie just minutes after finding out everyone was dead ?
-
Bamber's mind seemed quite focused and together after finding out about the massacre.
Telling the police to 'get rid'/'put down' Crispy because he 'hated the thing' and 'didn't want it messing up his stereo equipment'.
Then telling the police Sheila had committed child abuse on the twins.
Didn't he drive back to his cottage as well ? Telling the police he was 'starving' before making some breakfast.
Anyway, do people believe Bamber lied about Sheila committing child abuse ?
-
None of that is true.
-
None of that is true.
It must be my leg that's being pulled again.
-
I dont buy any of that Adam. Turn it round for a moment and put yourself in an innocent mans shoes. Your family is in the house and you have recieved a call from your dad saying your sisters gone nuts and has got the gun. ( now remember that you are a farming family and guns are always about) .so dont reply with ( why would she get the gun)
The doctor is with you and has been asked to stay with you because police need further information but are worried about your state of mind. He starts chatting to you and asking about your sister. ! Tell me Adam what would YOU have said to the doctor if you were in that position. Now remember, your sister is mentally unstable, has been in and out of hospital. You belueve shes hurt your nephews etc etc?
-
I dont buy any of that Adam. Turn it round for a moment and put yourself in an innocent mans shoes. Your family is in the house and you have recieved a call from your dad saying your sisters gone nuts and has got the gun. ( now remember that you are a farming family and guns are always about) .so dont reply with ( why would she get the gun)
The doctor is with you and has been asked to stay with you because police need further information but are worried about your state of mind. He starts chatting to you and asking about your sister. ! Tell me Adam what would YOU have said to the doctor if you were in that position. Now remember, your sister is mentally unstable, has been in and out of hospital. You belueve shes hurt your nephews etc etc?
America has Scipio. WE have Adam :( :( :(
-
I dont buy any of that Adam. Turn it round for a moment and put yourself in an innocent mans shoes. Your family is in the house and you have recieved a call from your dad saying your sisters gone nuts and has got the gun. ( now remember that you are a farming family and guns are always about) .so dont reply with ( why would she get the gun)
The doctor is with you and has been asked to stay with you because police need further information but are worried about your state of mind. He starts chatting to you and asking about your sister. ! Tell me Adam what would YOU have said to the doctor if you were in that position. Now remember, your sister is mentally unstable, has been in and out of hospital. You belueve shes hurt your nephews etc etc?
First of all if innocent he would tell the truth no exaggerate her illness and lie about her using the weapons in the house and having been trained how to use the murder weapon...
Jeremy lied because he was further trying to get police to blame her for it.
-
Im beginning to wonder which is worse Jane. There both balm cakes!
-
Im beginning to wonder which is worse Jane. There both balm cakes!
Says someone who baselessly supports Jeremy. You attack people who post the official account which you have zero evidence to discount but irrationally choose to discount anyway.
My critics are simply conspiracy theorists who spout nonsense that the majority of the population laughs at.
All such conspiracy theorists are Jeremy supporters or former Jeremy supporters who have changed their mind about Jeremy but to try to save face still suggest the case involved fabricated evidence. Jane irrationally says Julie lied though she has no evidence to establish it. Caroline irrationally says the moderator evidence was fabricated though she has nothing to support such. That lack of support is what makes such beliefs irrational.
That is defining difference between a rational belief and irrational one- whether there is reliable evidence to support the belief.
-
You crack me up scipio.i try to explain that i just dont believe some parts of the version you believe. There doesnt have to be a big piece of evidence to support that its just some of it i just dont find credible.
for that you name call me and continue to argue like a child.
well you can continue on your own because this conversation is over.
-
Says someone who baselessly supports Jeremy. You attack people who post the official account which you have zero evidence to discount but irrationally choose to discount anyway.
My critics are simply conspiracy theorists who spout nonsense that the majority of the population laughs at.
All such conspiracy theorists are Jeremy supporters or former Jeremy supporters who have changed their mind about Jeremy but to try to save face still suggest the case involved fabricated evidence. Jane irrationally says Julie lied though she has no evidence to establish it. Caroline irrationally says the moderator evidence was fabricated though she has nothing to support such. That lack of support is what makes such beliefs irrational.
That is defining difference between a rational belief and irrational one- whether there is reliable evidence to support the belief.
You've got a big axe to grind over this case. Were you a cop who's hanging on by the skin of his teeth in the hope he'll get his pension before this lot blows up in your face ?
-
You've got a big axe to grind over this case. Were you a cop who's hanging on by the skin of his teeth in the hope he'll get his pension before this lot blows up in your face ?
I was a little kid in the US when the murders happened, I have no connection to the handling of the case at all. Nor do I have any other vested interest. I know no participants and don't even have any UK relatives despite all the emails I get saying they left me money in their will and I should send some Nigerian guy money so he can release my inheritance. I have no connection of any UK governmental body.
My strongest connection to the UK is that our law was based on British Common Law in existence at the time of our founding and any such law that has not been altered by subsequent legislative enactments is still binding law here. It is rare to need to use a British case since most things have been altered but it has happened as far as mentioning the case as a starting point and then discussing the alterations made subsequently by legislative enactment. That certainly provides me with no reason to support the UK government engaging in wrongdoing if it could be proven to have occurred. But no one has provided any such evidence though.
Oh I have a few friends who are British citizens or former British citizens but that certainly gives me no bias either. My interest is purely "academic".
-
I was a little kid in the US when the murders happened, I have no connection to the handling of the case at all. Nor do I have any other vested interest. I know no participants and don't even have any UK relatives despite all the emails I get saying they left me money in their will and I should send some Nigerian guy money so he can release my inheritance. I have no connection of any UK governmental body.
My strongest connection to the UK is that our law was based on British Common Law in existence at the time of our founding and any such law that has not been altered by subsequent legislative enactments is still binding law here. It is rare to need to use a British case since most things have been altered but it has happened as far as mentioning the case as a starting point and then discussing the alterations made subsequently by legislative enactment. That certainly provides me with no reason to support the UK government engaging in wrongdoing if it could be proven to have occurred. But no one has provided any such evidence though.
Oh I have a few friends who are British citizens or former British citizens but that certainly gives me no bias either. My interest is purely "academic".
Lets get the facts right, Social services, Social Workers, Foster Carers and Foster Parents did not get involved in the lives of Sheila Caffell and her two young Children, for nothing. She was ill, and probably abused her children through being unwell mentally. Essex police gathered an abundance of evidence in support of this matter, most of which, if not all of it was deliberately withheld until after the trial in October 1986...
-
Lets get the facts right, Social services, Social Workers, Foster Carers and Foster Parents did not get involved in the lives of Sheila Caffell and her two young Children, for nothing. She was ill, and probably abused her children through being unwell mentally. Essex police gathered an abundance of evidence in support of this matter, most of which, if not all of it was deliberately withheld until after the trial in October 1986...
That's as rational as saying that because they arrested MM he must be involved in the murders. Like the investigation of him turned up nothing so too did the social services investigation of Sheila.
-
That's as rational as saying that because they arrested MM he must be involved in the murders. Like the investigation of him turned up nothing so too did the social services investigation of Sheila. No, its not the same, MM was released and police never bothered him again, but in Sheila Caaffels case, Social services, Social Workers, Foster Carers and Foster Parents continued to be involved in the lives of Sheila and her two children for years afterwards, suggesting that there may well have been abuse of the children in this particular case...
-
Bamber told Liz Rimmington 'I'm the only one who knew Sheila was going back into the nut house'.
This is surely another lie. As both Neville and June would know before him. How would Bamber know ? There is no guarantee Neville and June would tell him.
Was there any evidence that Sheila was going to be hospitalised again ?
-
No, its not the same, MM was released and police never bothered him again, but in Sheila Caaffels case, Social services, Social Workers, Foster Carers and Foster Parents continued to be involved in the lives of Sheila and her two children for years afterwards, suggesting that there may well have been abuse of the children in this particular case...
The child protection case was closed they were not monitoring her and the kids. That she used social services of finding jobs and other purposes is not in any way related to the issue of whether being monitored by a child protection agency. In many ways being monitored by a child protection agency is equivalent to the parole process. They meet periodically and can stop by when they desire...
-
The child protection case was closed they were not monitoring her and the kids. That she used social services of finding jobs and other purposes is not in any way related to the issue of whether being monitored by a child protection agency. In many ways being monitored by a child protection agency is equivalent to the parole process. They meet periodically and can stop by when they desire... Where does it mention that involvement of the Social services, social workers, foster Carers, foster parents had been terminated, and the case of protection was ended by the time of the shootings? There is no evidence of official closure, so how do you work that out? The care and safety of childrens lives and upbringing involves on ongoing process that once started does not automaticcaly come to an end when the child victims reach 6 years of age...
-
Where does it mention that involvement of the Social services, social workers, foster Carers, foster parents had been terminated, and the case of protection was ended by the time of the shootings? There is no evidence of official closure, so how do you work that out? The care and safety of childrens lives and upbringing involves on ongoing process that once started does not automaticcaly come to an end when the child victims reach 6 years of age...
The case was closed in December 1982.
-
Yes,I would imagine that Neville chased the interfering busybodies as their presence wouldn't have gone down too well,him being a magistrate and all that.
On the other hand,because the Bambers weren't aware of EVERYTHING because of Sheila living in London,they'd also not have been aware of the odd outburst either,although I would have thought that latterly " Freddie " would have put them in the picture as he'd visited WHF on a couple of occasions.
I liken Sheila to the late Princess Diana at times as both had stifled lives,controlled and even she threw hissy fits but it didn't mean that she was either mentally ill or unbalanced,and her life came to a sticky end with someone who NOBODY approved of.
-
The case was closed in December 1982.
I think a lot of the problem is people not caring that social services closed the case because they didn't find anything.
Social services are in investigative organisation, them being involved doesn't mean any harm has been caused or anyone is guilty of anything.
But then again I think its easy to throw around words like "social services" "medical records" etc when it comes to Sheila, to create a big story.
Ignoring the fact that the case was closed.
-
Lets get the facts right, Social services, Social Workers, Foster Carers and Foster Parents did not get involved in the lives of Sheila Caffell and her two young Children, for nothing. She was ill, and probably abused her children through being unwell mentally. Essex police gathered an abundance of evidence in support of this matter, most of which, if not all of it was deliberately withheld until after the trial in October 1986...
it means they suspected it it doesnt neccarsly mean it happend.
-
I think a lot of the problem is people not caring that social services closed the case because they didn't find anything.
Social services are in investigative organisation, them being involved doesn't mean any harm has been caused or anyone is guilty of anything.
But then again I think its easy to throw around words like "social services" "medical records" etc when it comes to Sheila, to create a big story.
Ignoring the fact that the case was closed.
well they get it wrong a lot both ways.
cases are wrongly closed somtimes.
-
well they get it wrong a lot both ways.
cases are wrongly closed somtimes.
So? Got any evidence THIS one was? No.
-
But many were. Baby P and Victoria Climbie to name 2. Children weren't at risk !! They never are !!
-
what that socail servises get things wrong and wrongly close cases somtimes do you read the newspapers.
ever heard of tracy right baby p victoria climbe the islington child abuse scandel.
-
what that socail servises get things wrong and wrongly close cases somtimes do you read the newspapers.
ever heard of tracy right baby p victoria climbe the islington child abuse scandel.
But many were. Baby P and Victoria Climbie to name 2. Children weren't at risk !! They never are !!
Funny how, the FEW times they get it wrong and they're hounded up hill and down dale, but they're ignored for the MANY times they get it right. MOST human beings DON'T get it right 100% of the time.
-
but we all know they somtimes get it wrong so the fact they closed the case doesnt necasrly mean a lot.
of somtimes they get it wrong the other way and wrongly acuse people.
-
Funny how, the FEW times they get it wrong and they're hounded up hill and down dale, but they're ignored for the MANY times they get it right. MOST human beings DON'T get it right 100% of the time.
A bit like the police.
-
All because social services lack the ability to see past a person's denials.
-
but we all know they somtimes get it wrong so the fact they closed the case doesnt necasrly mean a lot.
of somtimes they get it wrong the other way and wrongly acuse people.
Yes, and the very same people who condemn them for getting it wrong when it involves a child, will scream JUST as loudly when it involves adults who are subsequently found to be innocent.
-
socail services arnt investigating in view to proscuting anybody just weather the child is in danger as the children were in colins care and shiela saw under the supervision of her parents they would of closed the case.
-
Yes, and the very same people who condemn them for getting it wrong when it involves a child, will scream JUST as loudly when it involves adults who are subsequently found to be innocent.
im not saying its easy being a socail worker im just pointing out they make mistakes somtimes.
and the facted they investigated doesnt mean guilt and they fact they droped it doesnt mean innocent.
-
The ONLY person who could have stopped this from happening was Julie Mugford !!! Nobody else.
-
im not saying its easy being a socail worker im just pointing out they make mistakes somtimes.
and the facted they investigated doesnt mean guilt and they fact they droped it doesnt mean innocent.
In other words, damned if they do and damned if they don't. No wonder there's a shortage of those wanting to do social work.
-
In other words, damned if they do and damned if they don't. No wonder there's a shortage of those wanting to do social work.
They want to try getting it right the first time.
-
The ONLY person who could have stopped this from happening was Julie Mugford !!! Nobody else.
Actually, in reality, she only had a VERY small window of opportunity. The police can't take action until a crime is committed. The threat doesn't constitute a crime. More interesting is what you're thinking she may have been able to stop, Lookout :o
-
In other words, damned if they do and damned if they don't. No wonder there's a shortage of those wanting to do social work.
ive just pointed out a fact they get wrong somtimes evrbodys knows that whats the problem.
-
The ONLY person who could have stopped this from happening was Julie Mugford !!! Nobody else.
Or Jeremy.
ive just pointed out a fact they get wrong somtimes evrbodys knows that whats the peoblem.
Nothing to show they did in this case. Saying they have got it wrong before doesn't mean that they did this time, you need evidence to prove they got it wrong. People have killed for money before, if I was to repeat that over and over wouldn't convince people that Jeremy did.
-
They want to try getting it right the first time.
Don't you think they do? Do you imagine they think it's fun when a tragedy happens? Personally, I think they do their best with limited resources and often inexperienced staff, many of whom are left traumatized by what they can't do.
-
Actually, in reality, she only had a VERY small window of opportunity. The police can't take action until a crime is committed. The threat doesn't constitute a crime. More interesting is what you're thinking she may have been able to stop, Lookout :o
Jeremy had allegedly told her well in advance, his intentions for God's sake. How much more hinting does one need ? Even down to allegedly telling of his plans. Plus he'd allegedly told RWB. JB might as well have gone through the village with a megaphone.
-
Don't you think they do? Do you imagine they think it's fun when a tragedy happens? Personally, I think they do their best with limited resources and often inexperienced staff, many of whom are left traumatized by what they can't do.
It's a thankless job, Apes. We only hear about the cases where they get it wrong, but it's ignored and not spoken about the countless of children they actually help.
-
It wouldn't be thankless if the right people were targeted.
-
the fact they close doesnt necarsrly mean they think your innocent it might just mean they think the child is no further danger of abuse.
-
It wouldn't be thankless if the right people were targeted.
Hard to know who the right people are until you target them. Social services work alot from reports from the general public.
-
Jeremy had allegedly told her well in advance, his intentions for God's sake. How much more hinting does one need ? Even down to allegedly telling of his plans. Plus he'd allegedly told RWB. JB might as well have gone through the village with a megaphone.
My friend's life was threatened by her husband's mentally ill ex-wife -who had actually been married and divorced again- the police were informed but they said they were powerless to do anything unless a crime was committed. Standing on my friend's doorstep, in itself WASN'T a crime, but if she'd put one foot over the threshold, it would have been. It didn't matter WHAT Jeremy had told her if the crime hadn't yet been committed.
-
Or Jeremy.
Nothing to show they did in this case. Saying they have got it wrong before doesn't mean that they did this time, you need evidence to prove they got it wrong. People have killed for money before, if I was to repeat that over and over wouldn't convince people that Jeremy did.
wellthey got it wrong one way or the other becouse they acused her in the first place.
-
wellthey got it wrong one way or the other becouse they acused her in the first place.
They investigated. They didn't go in saying she is guilty or innocent of child abuse.
-
It wouldn't be thankless if the right people were targeted.
They don't have their crimes written across their foreheads, Lookout.
-
Hard to know who the right people are until you target them. Social services work alot from reports from the general public.
It's usually from the police if they're attending domestics. Anonymous-calls are not often taken seriously as it's normally someone with an axe to grind against that person,unless the name is already on the register. There has to be proof of injury or neglect.
-
who acused her in the first place they dont normally get involved unless an acusation is made.
-
The police had attended the " taxi " incident,who in turn would automatically contact social services when it involves children.
-
taxi indedent ?
-
The police had attended the " taxi " incident,who in turn would automatically contact social services when it involves children.
Her social worker attended hospital with her to vouch for her. Lookout, I REALLY think it's time this was bought to a close. Sheila DIDN'T deliberately harm her children.
-
what colin say about all this.
-
taxi indedent ?
One of the children must have fiddled with the handle and out he fell. Sheila probably wasn't concentrating.
-
what colin say about all this.
No idea, Nugs. As it was a genuine accident, there'd have been no need for him to be officially informed.
-
One of the children must have fiddled with the handle and out he fell. Sheila probably wasn't concentrating.
She was apparently distracted by/was pondering something her mother had said.
-
well they get it wrong a lot both ways.
cases are wrongly closed somtimes.
Thank goodness some people want to work in child protection. They are the most overworked, abused and stressed workforce but they continue to do their very best.
There is always human error in any profession and tragic mistakes are made but many children live longer and happier lives because some are willing to step outside their comfort zone to try to protect neglected and abused children, women and men.
-
who acused her in the first place they dont normally get involved unless an acusation is made.
That is completely incorrect, SW's get involved to actually HELP when someone needs it. Sheila had been released from psychiatric care so SW's would have gotten involved to assist and to make sure she was able to look after her children and herself.
-
That is completely incorrect, . Sheila had been released from psychiatric care so SW's would have gotten involved to assist and to make sure she was able to look after her children and herself.
"SW's get involved to actually HELP when someone needs it"---------------try telling that to all those who were totally innocent of any wrong doing and whose children were whisked away without notice.
SW's are SUPPOSED to give help/ support where needed,but because of the horrendous cases which have slipped through the net,those who aren't properly trained are over-zealous and a danger.
I know because I've been involved in this " evil " side of them.
-
who acused her in the first place they dont normally get involved unless an acusation is made.
Wrong. Anyone can apply to SS for help, be it with children or right across the age range. Their primary function is to assist.
-
"SW's get involved to actually HELP when someone needs it"---------------try telling that to all those who were totally innocent of any wrong doing and whose children were whisked away without notice.
SW's are SUPPOSED to give help/ support where needed,but because of the horrendous cases which have slipped through the net,those who aren't properly trained are over-zealous and a danger.
I know because I've been involved in this " evil " side of them.
OK Lookout, so they get it wrong. Seems like Jeremy is the only one who gets to see your tolerant and compassionate side. The rest of society seems to get condemned for any infraction you can find. It actually doesn't surprise me to learn that you've been involved with their "evil" side if you're that quick to point out their failings and short comings. Most of us respond well when we're given affirmation rather than negativity.
-
Wrong. Anyone can apply to SS for help, be it with children or right across the age range. Their primary function is to assist.
Absolutely, there are different areas.. Mental Health, Geriatric, Child Protection, Family Support, Adoption and Fostering etc. Child Protection is the toughest and Social Workers in this field are very often signed off sick with anxiety and stress due to the workload they carry, the abuse from 'clients' and continued cuts, imo they do a tremendous job.
All |Social Workers have degrees and continue to be assessed, take courses etc..... Social Work is now recognised as a profession and as in any other caring profession most people are in it for the very best reasons although no doubt there are some, as in all walks of life, who enjoy the power and control and step over the line.
-
Think there have been a few proven evil medics and I have certainly had experience of incompetent doctors but that doesn't wipe out all the honest, hard working committed doctors. Have met a few very unpleasant nurses as well but again I believe the majority are brilliant.
-
OK Lookout, so they get it wrong. Seems like Jeremy is the only one who gets to see your tolerant and compassionate side. The rest of society seems to get condemned for any infraction you can find. It actually doesn't surprise me to learn that you've been involved with their "evil" side if you're that quick to point out their failings and short comings. Most of us respond well when we're given affirmation rather than negativity.
Jane,it's not until you've experienced that side of the law can you understand how it works,and it's a total nightmare trying to make yourself believed.In fact it's like hitting your head against a brick wall with all the bureaucracy with everyone " going by the book " like a load of zombies who've been programmed.
The experience was one I wouldn't wish on anyone,because if you haven't got the wherewithall to stand up against these robots,you're totally lost and like Jeremy,you don't give up the fight either,so I can appreciate where he's coming from.
The experience made me strong,though I was always wary of officialdom though not on this ridiculous scale, I'm even more wary and won't be taken as a fool.
Without knowing this " case " I fail to see how you can comment on my reactions.
-
Think there have been a few proven evil medics and I have certainly had experience of incompetent doctors but that doesn't wipe out all the honest, hard working committed doctors. Have met a few very unpleasant nurses as well but again I believe the majority are brilliant.
'Course. There are bad eggs/rotten apples everywhere, but I guess those on the front line get attacked first because they are visible and available to blame. There can't be a doctor anywhere who hasn't lost a patient -it goes with the territory- and it must be pretty soul destroying for a young doctor to find themselves blamed for a death which was inevitable.
-
Think there have been a few proven evil medics and I have certainly had experience of incompetent doctors but that doesn't wipe out all the honest, hard working committed doctors. Have met a few very unpleasant nurses as well but again I believe the majority are brilliant.
Maggie I worked with one and nobody listened to me then ::) Until a patient reported him,then a few more started to make appearances. I knew he was phony,but it's actually and physically proving it and I wasn't a patient. The case went to court and he was imprisoned.
I actually mentioned my suspicions to a " higher-up " and was disbelieved and made to feel a pest.
-
It's said that you learn from experience.By jove you do. :)
-
Jane,it's not until you've experienced that side of the law can you understand how it works,and it's a total nightmare trying to make yourself believed.In fact it's like hitting your head against a brick wall with all the bureaucracy with everyone " going by the book " like a load of zombies who've been programmed.
The experience was one I wouldn't wish on anyone,because if you haven't got the wherewithall to stand up against these robots,you're totally lost and like Jeremy,you don't give up the fight either,so I can appreciate where he's coming from.
The experience made me strong,though I was always wary of officialdom though not on this ridiculous scale, I'm even more wary and won't be taken as a fool.
Without knowing this " case " I fail to see how you can comment on my reactions.
Lookout, I used to say, to M, exactly what you've just said, ie, it would be different if it was you or one of your boys. The day came when his beloved son was killed outright by a "white van driver." M's stance never ONCE wavered -like you, he found himself in a situation he wouldn't have wished on anyone else- after the inquest he made a point of telling the driver that he had no animosity toward him. That it was a case of "there but for the grace of God.................."
Don't get me wrong. I understand that an experience such as yours COULD cause wariness............but wariness often comes over as hostility -if not overt, just beneath the surface- which can put peoples' backs up. It can be a bad starting place for negotiations.
-
Lookout, I used to say, to M, exactly what you've just said, ie, it would be different if it was you or one of your boys. The day came when his beloved son was killed outright by a "white van driver." M's stance never ONCE wavered -like you, he found himself in a situation he wouldn't have wished on anyone else- after the inquest he made a point of telling the driver that he had no animosity toward him. That it was a case of "there but for the grace of God.................."
Don't get me wrong. I understand that an experience such as yours COULD cause wariness............but wariness often comes over as hostility -if not overt, just beneath the surface- which can put peoples' backs up. It can be a bad starting place for negotiations.
How sad was your story Jane. The trouble with myself is that unless I have control over a situation and to enable to stay in control takes a lot out of you my fear is a depletion of adrenaline to keep me going as it's easy to throw your hand in as you get older. To remain strong with a " fighting " spirit is no mean feat but as a consequence I'm more or less always on my guard which I know isn't good for me nor anyone else and the tendency for appearing abrupt is always there when faced with the unknown.
I've done a complete turnaround from how I used to be, only through the incompetence of others and to always watch out for " fabrications " where no case exists.
The SW's by the way ruined the lives of 4 children,their mother,grandmother and myself with their lies.
-
You crack me up scipio.i try to explain that i just dont believe some parts of the version you believe. There doesnt have to be a big piece of evidence to support that its just some of it i just dont find credible.
for that you name call me and continue to argue like a child.
well you can continue on your own because this conversation is over.
Well said!
-
I am willing to bet that these days if someone in authority had seen the drawings made by the twins SS would be involved ( wrongly or rightly )
-
Indeed Jan,they were quite sickening from such very young children. At that age,they normally see the world in an innocent way with smiley stick figures which are mum and dad.