Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on October 02, 2015, 12:56:AM
-
did shiela atend a party on the night in qustion.
-
did shiela atend a party on the night in qustion.
What's the night in question? Are you referring to the party the weekend before the murders or are you referring to a party where she encountered Freddie?
-
did shiela atend a party on the night in qustion.
Nugs, you have posted here for years, surly you know Sheila didn't attend a party on the night of the murders? ??? ???
-
I should imagine that her itchy feet wanted to go and party again,but she'd found another outlet for all her pent-up energy ! Sadly !!
-
I should imagine that her itchy feet wanted to go and party again,but she'd found another outlet for all her pent-up energy ! Sadly !!
From most of what is said of her behaviour during her last week on earth, she could barely put one foot in front of the other, let alone scratch an itch.
-
I should imagine that her itchy feet wanted to go and party again,but she'd found another outlet for all her pent-up energy ! Sadly !!
Lookout, you know that isn't true and anyone even slightly familiar with the case knows that she was hardly the life and soul of the Saturday night party. I don't see how anyone could paint Sheila as a 'good time girl' because it just simply wasn't the case!
-
Lookout, you know that isn't true and anyone even slightly familiar with the case knows that she was hardly the life and soul of the Saturday night party. I don't see how anyone could paint Sheila as a 'good time girl' because it just simply wasn't the case!
Obviously, due to her adoption, upbringing and illness Sheila was always looking for love in all the wrong places. Very sad imo
-
Lookout, you know that isn't true and anyone even slightly familiar with the case knows that she was hardly the life and soul of the Saturday night party. I don't see how anyone could paint Sheila as a 'good time girl' because it just simply wasn't the case!
I don't think anyone in Sheila's position would have been " the life and soul of a party " with the prospect of heading to WHF," losing her husband " and the possibility of also " losing " the twins.
-
I don't think anyone in Sheila's position would have been " the life and soul of a party " with the prospect of heading to WHF," losing her husband " and the possibility of also " losing " the twins.
Losing her husband? The were divorced and I don't think she feared 'losing the twins'. The ONLY source for such a suggestion was Jeremy. I don't believe for one moment that June or Nevill would suggest or want her to be parted from her children - but of course it does make a neat little motive for a psychotic episode - one which might lead a 'crazy sister' to kill her parents, her children and ultimately - herself.
-
Losing her husband? The were divorced and I don't think she feared 'losing the twins'. The ONLY source for such a suggestion was Jeremy. I don't believe for one moment that June or Nevill would suggest or want her to be parted from her children - but of course it does make a neat little motive for a psychotic episode - one which might lead a 'crazy sister' to kill her parents, her children and ultimately - herself.
so if her diaries turned up and contained just those fears would you consider them relevant?
-
so if her diaries turned up and contained just those fears would you consider them relevant?
That's quite a few if's for something so specific? 'IF' they turned up and 'IF' they contained such evidence - then it would support Jeremy's claim of the discussion around the table. If they didn't contain such fears - what would you consider?
-
so if her diaries turned up and contained just those fears would you consider them relevant?
You'd want to see them first though, right? Being told that Sheilas diaries has turned up and showed her worries and deteriorating mind, is one thing, seeing them and them actually being her diaries - would be something else.
That's quite a few if's for something so specific? 'IF' they turned up and 'IF' they contained such evidence - then it would support Jeremy's claim of the discussion around the table. If they didn't contain such fears - what would you consider?
Missing pages, withheld under PII. :-[ ;D
-
so if her diaries turned up and contained just those fears would you consider them relevant?
Not really since the evidence that convicted Jeremy is that Sheila can't have killed herself but rather was murdered like everyone else and that Jeremy had been planning to kill them and admitted afterwards to being responsible. The only thing relevant is what can counter such. It is not some accident this is what the defense concentrates on. This is what the defense MUST counter.
-
You'd want to see them first though, right? Being told that Sheilas diaries has turned up and showed her worries and deteriorating mind, is one thing, seeing them and them actually being her diaries - would be something else.
Missing pages, withheld under PII. :-[ ;D
Oh YES! I would want to see them, there's no way I would believe anything unless I had seen it for myself. However, I still wouldn't think she was the killer - I'm confident that Jeremy was.
-
That's quite a few if's for something so specific? 'IF' they turned up and 'IF' they contained such evidence - then it would support Jeremy's claim of the discussion around the table. If they didn't contain such fears - what would you consider?
I just think they would be interesting either way ,and of course they would not prove anything but they could be an indication of how she was feeling. She does not strike me as someone who would just use it for dates and actions.
-
You'd want to see them first though, right? Being told that Sheilas diaries has turned up and showed her worries and deteriorating mind, is one thing, seeing them and them actually being her diaries - would be something else.
Missing pages, withheld under PII. :-[ ;D
Of course I would - and I don't think they are under PII . There are two statements - one that said they were given to the "family" after the trial . And another one that said at the time documents were destroyed that they were going to be given back - but they must have been in police possession at some time because the family accused them of not looking after them because someone was trying to sell them to the papers. then the trail goes cold. So I don't think anyone knows for sure where they are .I would have thought they should have gone to Colin to be honest.
-
Of course I would - and I don't think they are under PII . There are two statements - one that said they were given to the "family" after the trial . And another one that said at the time documents were destroyed that they were going to be given back - but they must have been in police possession at some time because the family accused them of not looking after them because someone was trying to sell them to the papers. then the trail goes cold. So I don't think anyone knows for sure where they are .I would have thought they should have gone to Colin to be honest.
Why to Colin, he would no longer be her next of kin, the remaining relatives should have received them and that is where I think they ended up.
-
Why to Colin, he would no longer be her next of kin, the remaining relatives should have received them and that is where I think they ended up.
It's a difficult one, Mat. As they were divorced, her remaining relatives were her next of kin, but I guess she was in closer regular contact with Colin than with them and I imagine her diary entries would have contained more references to him than to them. He had been an ongoing part of her life.
-
Why to Colin, he would no longer be her next of kin, the remaining relatives should have received them and that is where I think they ended up.
because she would obviously write about the children in them so they would mean more to him than family who could not tell them apart.
If they ended up with the family it was after their accusations.
-
It's a difficult one, Mat. As they were divorced, her remaining relatives were her next of kin, but I guess she was in closer regular contact with Colin than with them and I imagine her diary entries would have contained more references to him than to them. He had been an ongoing part of her life.
Jane not sure how the law stands in England but in Scotland Sheila's boys would have been considered her next of kin and their next of kin their Father maybe the law is different in England. Unless of course a will was in place stating differently
-
Jane not sure how the law stands in England but in Scotland Sheila's boys would have been considered her next of kin and their next of kin their Father maybe the law is different in England. Unless of course a will was in place stating differently
I should have made it clear that it was the circumstances of divorce and death which turned the Boutflours into Sheila's rather unlikely next of kin. I think the law is the same here, Susan.
-
This is where blood relatives feature strongly such as the sister of June who would have been the next of kin,not her offspring while she,Pamela was still alive.
-
This is where blood relatives feature strongly such as the sister of June who would have been the next of kin,not her offspring while she,Pamela was still alive.
You're right, Lookout. In the absence of all others, her mother's sister would have taken priority over her mother's niece and nephew but I think it's understood that Pam would have been part of the wider relatives group.
-
You're right, Lookout. In the absence of all others, her mother's sister would have taken priority over her mother's niece and nephew but I think it's understood that Pam would have been part of the wider relatives group.
I feel sorry for Pam somehow,as I imagine her to be the only one within that family with a heart. A person who goes along with whatever the family say and stays very much in the background. I know June was her sister,but it strikes me that she confided a lot in Pam who never broke a confidence as regards Sheila's health and would have been of immense help if June had opened up more to her. She may have done for all we know and that's something that Pam will take to her grave as that's the sort of person she is. A far cry from the rest of them.
-
A person who goes along with whatever the family say and stays very much in the background. I know June was her sister,but it strikes me that she confided a lot in Pam who never broke a confidence as regards Sheila's health and would have been of immense help if June had opened up more to her. She may have done for all we know and that's something that Pam will take to her grave as that's the sort of person she is. A far cry from the rest of them.
Nice to see you woke up as vile as always, Lookout. On the relative attack again and unchallenged. You post erroneous information on the internet about a crime where two children lost their lives - in favour of a convicted murderer - and you're saying other people don't have a heart?! ;D
-
Nice to see you woke up as vile as always, Lookout. On the relative attack again and unchallenged. You post erroneous information on the internet about a crime where two children lost their lives - in favour of a convicted murderer - and you're saying other people don't have a heart?! ;D
Sorry but I'm right. None of them came running to see if they could help in any way. June herself was ill and had been for a long time so you can't tell me that nobody would have known. Wasn't it June who'd helped her nephew with his drug habit ? It was only June and her sister who were the willing horses in the family and they were older than the others so what's your problem ?
-
Sorry but I'm right. None of them came running to see if they could help in any way. June herself was ill and had been for a long time so you can't tell me that nobody would have known. Wasn't it June who'd helped her nephew with his drug habit ? It was only June and her sister who were the willing horses in the family and they were older than the others so what's your problem ?
Perhaps she didn't ask for help because she didn't need any!
-
Sorry but I'm right. None of them came running to see if they could help in any way. June herself was ill and had been for a long time so you can't tell me that nobody would have known. Wasn't it June who'd helped her nephew with his drug habit ? It was only June and her sister who were the willing horses in the family and they were older than the others so what's your problem ?
Problem is you think you're right, in all situations, no matter what and won't be told otherwise. If sitting there and judging the family which you no nothing about is how you think it is best to help Dear Bamber - then so be it - but no one takes your attacks on the family seriously and people see them for what they are.
-
Problem is you think you're right, in all situations, no matter what and won't be told otherwise. If sitting there and judging the family which you no nothing about is how you think it is best to help Dear Bamber - then so be it - but no one takes your attacks on the family seriously and people see them for what they are.
But you are convinced you are right mat so why should it be different for Lookout? She has her opinions just as you have yours but they aren't the same as yours so you don't like them. Why should she be 'told otherwise'? This forum is open to all opinions as far as I am aware.
-
But you are convinced you are right mat so why should it be different for Lookout? She has her opinions just as you have yours but they aren't the same as yours so you don't like them. Why should she be 'told otherwise'? This forum is open to all opinions as far as I am aware.
Nice of you to pop up as usual. ;D
I am right about what, the case? Yeah, because I think that is backed up with evidence and I can post things to back up my opinion - which I think is important.
Having pops at the family is different than debating the case - the family are victims of this crime no matter how you look at it and if you think that Lookout posting what she posts about them is okay then it says a lot about you, Maggie.
-
Nice of you to pop up as usual. ;D
I am right about what, the case? Yeah, because I think that is backed up with evidence and I can post things to back up my opinion - which I think is important.
Having pops at the family is different than debating the case - the family are victims of this crime no matter how you look at it and if you think that Lookout posting what she posts about them is okay then it says a lot about you, Maggie.
It says nothing about me mat, Lookout hasn't said anything 'vile' as you called it in her posts today, you are just splitting hairs and I will 'pop up' as much as I want to especially when I think people are being bullied.... can't bear bullying.
As for being right, because you THINK it's backed up with evidence, I suppose Lookout feels exactly the same. You obviously don't agree with her that's fair enough but don't make personal attacks.
-
It says nothing about me mat, Lookout hasn't said anything 'vile' as you called it in her posts today, you are just splitting hairs and I will 'pop up' as much as I want to especially when I think people are being bullied.... can't bear bullying.
As for being right, because you THINK it's backed up with evidence, I suppose Lookout feels exactly the same. You obviously don't agree with her that's fair enough but don't make personal attacks.
Personal attack? Do you even know what a personal attack is. I attacked her post, I don't know anything about Lookout. I don't care to know anything about Lookout. She hasn't posted anything vile today? She has attacked the relatives in the couple of posts above.
Don't use the bully card, that's not true at all. It seems Lookout is free to post what she likes about the relatives because they are not here to defend themselves, nor should they have to defend themselves from someone attacking them on a constant basis on an internet forum - but when anyone takes offence of Lookouts post to the relatives, whether is is myself, Caroline, April, Petey Vid or Hartley ... YOU pop up with the bullying card. ;D
-
Sorry but I'm right. None of them came running to see if they could help in any way. June herself was ill and had been for a long time so you can't tell me that nobody would have known. Wasn't it June who'd helped her nephew with his drug habit ? It was only June and her sister who were the willing horses in the family and they were older than the others so what's your problem ?
I'm not quite sure what you mean Lookout. What do you mean by "seeing if they could help..........."? I feel perfectly certain, that even if they were aware of June being ill, given that any mental illness was seen as a weakness, it wouldn't have been mentioned. There was no need for Pam to know any more than Neville's nephew was staying for an indefinite period. It was never June's secret to tell.
I'm fully aware that there are families who keep secrets but they are no more or LESS dysfunctional than those families who can't **** without all the other members being aware.
-
Personal attack? Do you even know what a personal attack is. I attacked her post, I don't know anything about Lookout. I don't care to know anything about Lookout. She hasn't posted anything vile today? She has attacked the relatives in the couple of posts above.
Don't use the bully card, that's not true at all. It seems Lookout is free to post what she likes about the relatives because they are not here to defend themselves, nor should they have to defend themselves from someone attacking them on a constant basis on an internet forum - but when anyone takes offence of Lookouts post to the relatives, whether is is myself, Caroline, April, Petey Vid or Hartley ... YOU pop up with the bullying card. ;D
That is totally untrue, I do not 'pop up' with the bullying card but you have just attacked Lookout personally and I have just commented. It's not acceptable to make personal attacks on other posters whatever their opinion.
As far as attacks on the relatives obviously vile attacks are not tolerated but by the nature of the subject being discussed they are bound to be mentioned and there have been far worse attacks in the past than what was posted by Lookout today. I find your comments that I accuse Caroline, April, petey, Vid or Hartley of bullying, ridiculous ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm not quite sure what you mean Lookout. What do you mean by "seeing if they could help..........."? I feel perfectly certain, that even if they were aware of June being ill, given that any mental illness was seen as a weakness, it wouldn't have been mentioned. There was no need for Pam to know any more than Neville's nephew was staying for an indefinite period. It was never June's secret to tell.
I'm fully aware that there are families who keep secrets but they are no more or LESS dysfunctional than those families who can't **** without all the other members being aware.
Apart from Pamela,it would have appeared that June was closer to her people of the church rather than the rest of the family.
I'd imagine Pam would have told RWB of the " illness problems " as he was actually listening in to the final call between the two sisters on the night of the tragedy,who in turn I'm sure would have told the others in the family.
AE knew because of the letter she'd received from Sheila from her hospital bed,but there didn't appear to have been an offer of help in replying to that letter.
-
That is totally untrue, I do not 'pop up' with the bullying card but you have just attacked Lookout personally and I have just commented. It's not acceptable to make personal attacks on other posters whatever their opinion.
As far as attacks on the relatives obviously vile attacks are not tolerated but by the nature of the subject being discussed they are bound to be mentioned and there have been far worse attacks in the past than what was posted by Lookout today. I find your comments that I accuse Caroline, April, petey, Vid or Hartley of bullying, ridiculous ;D ;D ;D ;D
I think you and Lookout are two peas in a pod when it comes to the relatives, so we are never going to agree on posts about them. I wasn't attacking Lookout PERSONALLY. I was attacking her post, the same way that others have in this topic. I take your modding as seriously as I take your posts on the case - so we're clearly never going to agree.
If I have attacked Lookout personally, rather than say her post is vile, which I think it is - I will discuss it with NGB or Lookout.
-
Apart from Pamela,it would have appeared that June was closer to her people of the church rather than the rest of the family.
I'd imagine Pam would have told RWB of the " illness problems " as he was actually listening in to the final call between the two sisters on the night of the tragedy,who in turn I'm sure would have told the others in the family.
AE knew because of the letter she'd received from Sheila from her hospital bed,but there didn't appear to have been an offer of help in replying to that letter.
Even if they knew about it, we don't know what extent they knew about "illness problems". And a lot of people do not know how to act or how to help in that sort of situation and would fear making things worse by mentioning it or going on about it.
-
I think you and Lookout are two peas in a pod when it comes to the relatives, so we are never going to agree on posts about them. I wasn't attacking Lookout PERSONALLY. I was attacking her post, the same way that others have in this topic. I take your modding as seriously as I take your posts on the case - so we're clearly never going to agree.
If I have attacked Lookout personally, rather than say her post is vile, which I think it is - I will discuss it with NGB or Lookout.
Do please discuss it with ngb nothing would please me more
As for me attacking the relatives... are you serious? When have I ever attacked the relatives? I have always defended June rightly or wrongly I have always felt she has been attacked and abused in a way she doesn't deserve... get your facts straight.
You attack lookout personally over and over again and it's very unpleasant, you can disagree with a post without being so personal but you don't seem to even know when you are doing it.
-
I dont think lookouts post was vile at all. Lokout was just posting her opinion and if anything i think matts response was very aggresive.
the family will be discussed and i have my own doubts about thier honesty in this case. In particular AE, however that is not a personal attack it is the way i view the discrepancies in her statements .
-
I dont think lookouts post was vile at all. Lokout was just posting her opinion and if anything i think matts response was very aggresive.
the family will be discussed and i have my own doubts about thier honesty in this case. In particular AE, however that is not a personal attack it is the way i view the discrepancies in her statements .
Perhaps if you viewed Bamber as guilty and the relatives as innocent you would see them being called heartless as derogatory.
-
Apart from Pamela,it would have appeared that June was closer to her people of the church rather than the rest of the family.
I'd imagine Pam would have told RWB of the " illness problems " as he was actually listening in to the final call between the two sisters on the night of the tragedy,who in turn I'm sure would have told the others in the family.
AE knew because of the letter she'd received from Sheila from her hospital bed,but there didn't appear to have been an offer of help in replying to that letter.
Do you not find it illogical that, given no one appeared to know that Sheila was staying at the farm, that RWB chose that particular night to earwig on his wife's telephone call? I don't know what you're implying Ann knew. There was nothing in the letter -the first she'd ever received from her- about Sheila coming to stay at the farm. It would have been totally impracticable for Ann -with her busy life- to drop everything and high-tail it to London to look after a cousin she had nothing in common with.
-
Not really Matt, even if he were guilty i would still have the same opinion of them. I do Not agree with the way they conducted thier own investigation into this case and some of the things they did.
have you ever been in a group of company and some of them have certain views and the eloquent and convincing way they describe those views you find yourselves agreeing with them only to someti e later think to yoyrself ' actually i didnt really agree with what they were saying' . Only thing different in this case is that they were all going to benefit so wanted it all to be true.
-
Not really Matt, even if he were guilty i would still have the same opinion of them. I do Not agree with the way they conducted thier own investigation into this case and some of the things they did.
have you ever been in a group of company and some of them have certain views and the eloquent and convincing way they describe those views you find yourselves agreeing with them only to someti e later think to yoyrself ' actually i didnt really agree with what they were saying' . Only thing different in this case is that they were all going to benefit so wanted it all to be true.
I don't think that they did anything I or others wouldn't do in their situation. They didn't believe the story that was presented to them - they knew Sheila and knew Jeremy and didn't believe Sheila had killed the family, they thought Jeremy was acting strange and was involved. If I was in their situation you can bet I would do the same as they did and I wouldn't leave the police alone until I felt they had paid attention to me and taken me seriously.
It turned out that they were right, and the evidence showed Sheila hadn't killed herself. So who did? ;)
I think you're putting too much emphasis on the money they were going to inherit - and ignoring that Jeremy was also bout to inherit. The relatives had seemed fine and happy in their lives before it, and not money hungry. Jeremy had seemed money hungry and negative of his parents and sister.
-
Not really Matt, even if he were guilty i would still have the same opinion of them. I do Not agree with the way they conducted thier own investigation into this case and some of the things they did.
have you ever been in a group of company and some of them have certain views and the eloquent and convincing way they describe those views you find yourselves agreeing with them only to someti e later think to yoyrself ' actually i didnt really agree with what they were saying' . Only thing different in this case is that they were all going to benefit so wanted it all to be true.
I am not so sure they were thinking of the long term - I think they just did not want Jeremy to inherit and I do think they thought he was guilty so did everything they could to get him convicted by whatever influence they could. But as they were not there on the night then it does not mean they were correct. And Anne herself said she regretted not replying to sheilas letter ( an obvious cry for help) which she could have done so easily. To ignore a letter like that does seem rude if nothing else.
-
Not really Matt, even if he were guilty i would still have the same opinion of them. I do Not agree with the way they conducted thier own investigation into this case and some of the things they did.
have you ever been in a group of company and some of them have certain views and the eloquent and convincing way they describe those views you find yourselves agreeing with them only to someti e later think to yoyrself ' actually i didnt really agree with what they were saying' . Only thing different in this case is that they were all going to benefit so wanted it all to be true.
I think we are in great danger here of thinking we know the people involved when we don't. Much has been written about the relatives and most of it negative. Ask yourself what you would do if you KNEW one of your relatives was responsible for a similar crime and they were about to get off with it. Would you want them around you? Would you want them having a stake in a business you had worked hard for? Would you not feel sick to the stomach at the thought of them getting away with killing 5 people including two six year old boys? I know I would and I would make sure I did ALL I could to get them locked up.
-
I think we are in great danger here of thinking we know the people involved when we don't. Much has been written about the relatives and most of it negative. Ask yourself what you would do if you KNEW one of your relatives was responsible for a similar crime and they were about to get off with it. Would you want them around you? Would you want them having a stake in a business you had worked hard for? Would you not feel sick to the stomach at the thought of them getting away with killing 5 people including two six year old boys? I know I would and I would make sure I did ALL I could to get them locked up.
I'd be like a bull to a rag! Nothing to do with the financial side, but just justice.
-
I'd be like a bull to a rag! Nothing to do with the financial side, but just justice.
How would you EVER trust someone like that, knowing what they had done? If you upset them at work you'd have to sleep with one eye open!!
-
How would you EVER trust someone like that, knowing what they had done? If you upset them at work you'd have to sleep with one eye open!!
Well you couldn't could you which is the question about JM.... how much did she know and if she knew how could she stay with him. Apart from anything it would be terrifying.
There's no question in my mind, if you believed someone had committed one murder never mind 5 it would be horrifying and they definitely would need locking up.
-
Well you couldn't could you which is the question about JM.... how much did she know and if she knew how could she stay with him. Apart from anything it would be terrifying.
There's no question in my mind, if you believed someone had committed one murder never mind 5 it would be horrifying and they definitely would need locking up.
Yes, Julie was certainly unique. Personally, if someone kept telling me they were thinking of killing their family, I would drop them like a ton of XXXX. If their family ended up dead I'd report them as soon as the news broke. She had plenty of opportunity to do so and I don't understand why she left it until after he made it clear, that the only trip she would be getting down the aisle, was when she supported his fake grief at the family funerals. He didn't need her after that.
-
Yes, Julie was certainly unique. Personally, if someone kept telling me they were thinking of killing their family, I would drop them like a ton of XXXX. If their family ended up dead I'd report them as soon as the news broke. She had plenty of opportunity to do so and I don't understand why she left it until after he made it clear, that the only trip she would be getting down the aisle, was when she supported his fake grief at the family funerals. He didn't need her after that.
You know the saying 'it takes one to know one'..... makes you wonder. :-\
-
You know the saying 'it takes one to know one'..... makes you wonder. :-\
Vultures of a feather flock together? ;D ;D
-
Vultures of a feather flock together? ;D ;D
If the cap fits ;D
-
I think we are in great danger here of thinking we know the people involved when we don't. Much has been written about the relatives and most of it negative. Ask yourself what you would do if you KNEW one of your relatives was responsible for a similar crime and they were about to get off with it. Would you want them around you? Would you want them having a stake in a business you had worked hard for? Would you not feel sick to the stomach at the thought of them getting away with killing 5 people including two six year old boys? I know I would and I would make sure I did ALL I could to get them locked up.
This sort of thing goes on a lot of the time-------------without a murder having been committed. Especially when someone dies intestate.
-
This sort of thing goes on a lot of the time-------------without a murder having been committed. Especially when someone dies intestate.
But in this instance murder was committed - 5 of them. If I were AE, I wouldn't have been able to be in the same room as Jeremy if I thought he's killed the whole family and there is no way I could let it drop until he was convicted.
-
But in this instance murder was committed - 5 of them. If I were AE, I wouldn't have been able to be in the same room as Jeremy if I thought he's killed the whole family and there is no way I could let it drop until he was convicted.
Nor could I blame someone on a whim either.
-
But in this instance murder was committed - 5 of them. If I were AE, I wouldn't have been able to be in the same room as Jeremy if I thought he's killed the whole family and there is no way I could let it drop until he was convicted.
Caroline, that post stirred up an uncomfortable memory. I recall that feeling of being suspicious but not being able to prove anything. I also recall feeling SO physically sick when I was near the person concerned -they knew I was suspicious but knew I couldn't do anything so, effectively, they were laughing at me- I couldn't be in the same room with them.
-
Nor could I blame someone on a whim either.
Nor could I and they didn't blame him on a whim, they blamed him because they knew he was talking BS and why would he do that if he wasn't making excuses?
-
Caroline, that post stirred up an uncomfortable memory. I recall that feeling of being suspicious but not being able to prove anything. I also recall feeling SO physically sick when I was near the person concerned -they knew I was suspicious but knew I couldn't do anything so, effectively, they were laughing at me- I couldn't be in the same room with them.
Exactly, it isn't just a case of someone you may not like inheriting a lot of money and part of a business you have also investments in - you would have to interact with someone you believed to be a murderer. Someone capable of killing his own family including two children. If you knew he wasn't keen on you, would you not have cause for concern?
-
Nor could I and they didn't blame him on a whim, they blamed him because they knew he was talking BS and why would he do that if he wasn't making excuses?
How did they know he was talking BS ? Let's face it,we ALL hear what we want to hear if it suits us at the time.
-
Exactly, it isn't just a case of someone you may not like inheriting a lot of money and part of a business you have also investments in - you would have to interact with someone you believed to be a murderer. Someone capable of killing his own family including two children. If you knew he wasn't keen on you, would you not have cause for concern?
It's a shame that there are two issues going on here. There's the major one of the murders but there's also the issue of the probability, that regarding the business, Ann and Jeremy were singing from very different hymn sheets. I imagine, if Jeremy hadn't sold it over their heads, Ann would have been the one doing all the work whilst Jeremy creamed off the profits. I've always defended the rights of adopted children to inherit in the same way as biological children, but I can see very clearly, in this case, Jeremy inheriting COULD have seen him destroy the life's hard work of the entire family.
-
How did they know he was talking BS ? Let's face it,we ALL hear what we want to hear if it suits us at the time.
Because THEY KNEW the people involved and had an idea what they would do or wouldn't do. They knew the gun was relatively new and that Sheila wouldn't have been able to use it.
-
Because THEY KNEW the people involved and had an idea what they would do or wouldn't do. They knew the gun was relatively new and that Sheila wouldn't have been able to use it.
" Had an idea ?". Anything new is a lot easier to use than something out-dated whether it's a rifle or a lawnmower.
-
" Had an idea ?". Anything new is a lot easier to use than something out-dated whether it's a rifle or a lawnmower.
I disagree. Something familiar is easier to handle simply because it IS familiar. The new will handle differently.
-
I disagree. Something familiar is easier to handle simply because it IS familiar. The new will handle differently.
New is efficient.
-
New is efficient.
To a competent handler, maybe.
-
" Had an idea ?". Anything new is a lot easier to use than something out-dated whether it's a rifle or a lawnmower.
So someone having only ever used a pen and paper to keep in contact with family, will be able to email and Skype immediately - because obviously new methods are much easier than old. Can you 'cut and paste' yet Lookout? Perhaps new things aren't really all that easy - eh? And some things have to be shown, like loading a semi-automatic rifle! ;). It would be unusual for Sheila to have chosen the semi-automatic weapon as her weapon of choice had she been mentally stable, but to choose it in the throws of psychosis is just too far fetched.
-
So someone having only ever used a pen and paper to keep in contact with family, will be able to email and Skype immediately - because obviously new methods are much easier than old. Can you 'cut and paste' yet Lookout? Perhaps new things aren't really all that easy - eh? And some things have to be shown, like loading a semi-automatic rifle! ;). It would be unusual for Sheila to have chosen the semi-automatic weapon as her weapon of choice had she been mentally stable, but to choose it in the throws of psychosis is just too far fetched.
My laptop is over 10 years old and when I start doing anything out of the ordinary,it throws a wobbly and stalls,so perhaps a new model would be more efficient as regards cutting and pasting. It overheats and turns itself off so is very hit and miss,then decides not to respond when I use ebay. Old or New ?
I would argue that Sheila even had a psychotic event. I would even argue more by saying that she wasn't as sick as her mother,as at least Sheila knew how to look after the boys when she didn't have a bout of depression.
-
My laptop is over 10 years old and when I start doing anything out of the ordinary,it throws a wobbly and stalls,so perhaps a new model would be more efficient as regards cutting and pasting. It overheats and turns itself off so is very hit and miss,then decides not to respond when I use ebay. Old or New ?
I would argue that Sheila even had a psychotic event. I would even argue more by saying that she wasn't as sick as her mother,as at least Sheila knew how to look after the boys when she didn't have a bout of depression.
My point is that new isn't always (or hardly ever) easier initially - until mastered.
I would agree that Sheila didn't have a psychotic attack - Jeremy just played on her illness. June was functioning perfectly well so I have no idea why you think she was ill.
-
My laptop is over 10 years old and when I start doing anything out of the ordinary,it throws a wobbly and stalls,so perhaps a new model would be more efficient as regards cutting and pasting. It overheats and turns itself off so is very hit and miss,then decides not to respond when I use ebay. Old or New ?
I would argue that Sheila even had a psychotic event. I would even argue more by saying that she wasn't as sick as her mother,as at least Sheila knew how to look after the boys when she didn't have a bout of depression.
And you ALSO argue that a girl who couldn't be said to be clued up re mechanics and logistics could pick up a brand new item and use it as if it had never been out of her hands. When my Godson set up my new lappy a few months back -same make and model as before- it handled differently in subtle ways. I couldn't automatically do with it the thing I'd done with the old one.
-
My point is that new isn't always (or hardly ever) easier initially - until mastered.
I would agree that Sheila didn't have a psychotic attack - Jeremy just played on her illness. June was functioning perfectly well so I have no idea why you think she was ill.
Jeremy knew NOTHING about her illness.He didn't know any different than to blame his sister,though little did/does he know that his sister wasn't mentally ill at all.
-
Jeremy knew NOTHING about her illness.He didn't know any different than to blame his sister,though little did/does he know that his sister wasn't mentally ill at all.
Of course he KNEW! How are you qualified to argue that she wasn't ill when psychiatrists and doctors say otherwise? You never met her and know nothing about her. It just seems that you would RATHER she was guilty than Jeremy. Every single thing we know about Sheila proves you wrong.
-
Of course he KNEW! How are you qualified to argue that she wasn't ill when psychiatrists and doctors say otherwise? You never met her and know nothing about her. It just seems that you would RATHER she was guilty than Jeremy. Every single thing we know about Sheila proves you wrong.
Caroline, I think you've hit A nail on A head. NOTHING new has turned up in 30 yrs -nor do I expect it to- so there is this desperate clutching, by supporters, at ANYTHING which could raise a question mark/show an "I" which hasn't been dotted, a "T" which hasn't been crossed/a sister who was never mentally ill, but showing anger in a way that Jeremy had managed to hide. Mike has given given us every (ludicrous) scenario under the sun, each making it more difficult to believe, which is exactly the opposite of what he's trying to achieve.
-
Caroline, I think you've hit A nail on A head. NOTHING new has turned up in 30 yrs -nor do I expect it to- so there is this desperate clutching, by supporters, at ANYTHING which could raise a question mark/show an "I" which hasn't been dotted, a "T" which hasn't been crossed/a sister who was never mentally ill, but showing anger in a way that Jeremy had managed to hide. Mike has given given us every (ludicrous) scenario under the sun, each making it more difficult to believe, which is exactly the opposite of what he's trying to achieve.
I agree that people are entitled to their own opinions and we aren't always going to agree and it's good to debate new ideas - however there has to be at least SOME basis to argue or debate the point. Simply expressing something off the top of your head when EVERYTHING flies in the face of it is pointless. I don't even think Mike has tried to suggest that Sheila wasn't ill. Even Jeremy said she was - I just don't understand where someone could get an idea like that?
-
I agree that people are entitled to their own opinions and we aren't always going to agree and it's good to debate new ideas - however there has to be at least SOME basis to argue or debate the point. Simply expressing something off the top of your head when EVERYTHING flies in the face of it is pointless. I don't even think Mike has tried to suggest that Sheila wasn't ill. Even Jeremy said she was - I just don't understand where someone could get an idea like that?
I think it may be something about it feeling better/easier to point the feeling at someone who has killed out of anger than someone who has killed because they are ill........................especially if there was a preference about who had done the crime.
-
I think it may be something about it feeling better/easier to point the feeling at someone who has killed out of anger than someone who has killed because they are ill........................especially if there was a preference about who had done the crime.
Someone did kill out of anger, but it wasn't Sheila.