Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on October 21, 2015, 01:20:PM
-
PS Woodcock, first firearms officer to squeeze through a small gap of the inner main kitchen / back hallway door, got more than he bargained for when he was confronted by an unarmed Sheila Caffell. The problem for Woodcock was that as he inched forward the muzzle of the rifle he was carrying pointed awkwardly in the wrong direction toward the outside wall of the main kitchen he was hoping to move into. The door was hinged on its left and would for an obstruction behind the door have swung open right to left. He had to carry his rifle with its muzzle following the right hand edge of the door as bit by bit it began to open...
-
It took firearm officers several minutes to budge the dead weight beyond the far side of this inner door, wide enough so that PS Woodcock could commence his attempt at entering the main kitchen...
-
It took firearm officers several minutes to budge the dead weight beyond the far side of this inner door, wide enough so that PS Woodcock could commence his attempt at entering the main kitchen...
Later, Woodcock would have to make 'An Officers Report' about a shooting incident, which took place inside the kitchen, between himself and Sheila...
-
Original contents of his 13 page witness statement confirms all this to be true...
-
There is absolutely no legal reason why the missing page contents should be withheld under pii, because what is contained there in those missing pages has got nothing to do with, the investigation and detection of crime, nothing to do with the protection of witnesses, or a threat to national security - it simply confirms that Sheila Jean Caffell was still alive at that time, and that Jeremy Bamber could not and did not shoot his sister dead downstairs, or upstairs, with or without a SILENCER, or a SOUND MODERATOR...
Simple...
This is the true state of play, Essex police, and the CPS, are deliberately withholding this key part of PS Woodcocks witness statement, because to disclose its contents, serves to show that 'THE STATE' wrongly prosecuted Jeremy Bamber for these murders, even though police had evidence that she did not die until much later on, after Jeremy Bamber had in fact left the scene...
It is in the Public Interest, that at long last, the truth should be allowed to be told, 30 years is long enough to keep the truth hidden...
-
The 'Officers Report', that I have spoken about, is a corroborating piece of evidence, the testimony of Woodcock in his own words relating to how he claims Sheila grabbed the barrel of his rifle as he was coming around the right hand edge of that internal door, and that she appeared to be deliberately pulling the muzzle of the rifle towards her own throat, as though she wanted the officer to shoot her. This explanation was one of the chief reasons why the CPS decided not to Prosecute PS Woodcock for shooting her, and why he was never subject of police disciplinary action. The fact of the matter, is that entry into the kitchen proved problematic for operational reasons, mainly because of the way the inner door in question was hinged on its left and the door itself opened right to left, rendering it impossible for any officer going through such a gap to be expected to enter the room beyond without exposing himself to unexpected attack from a suspect on the other side of that door, who could grab hold of a rifles barrel, as had occurred in this instance, exposing the officer in question, and perhaps others, unnarmed, or otherwise, to the immediate danger of being shot...
-
The shooting incident involving Woodcock and Sheila, in the main kitchen changed the way firearm operations were carried out and executed. Particularly, the way buildings and premises were entered, and ENTRY points and predetermined routes were carried out once a raid team had got inside. One of the features highlighted as a result of the Woodcock / CAFFELL' struggle and shooting in the main kitchen, was the fact that the internal door which caused so much trouble to the raid team, a part from the fact that there was an unseen body directly behind the door in question, was the fact that the door itself was hinged on the left, and the door itself was fitted so it swung open from right to left arkwise. A further problem was that the position of the door in question, was adjacent to the outer wall of the farmhouse, so that as the door eventually swung open in its ark from right to left, the gap between the right edge of the opening door and its door frame did not produce an instant view into the kitchen. Instead, as the gap widened it produced a larger view of the internal face of the main kitchens external wall, which meant that whoever went through that gap effectively was going in pointing the muzzle of the rifles barrel at the outside wall of the main kitchen, so the first thing anyone standing on the other side of that door would see, a part from the fact that the inner door was slowly opening inward of the kitchen, swinging open from their vantage point, left to right toward the hinges of the door on the right of the door, was the fact that the muzzle end of the officers gun barrel came protruding around the edge of the door, enticing anyone on the kitchen side of the door to grab hold of the guns barrel, exactly as Sheila Caffells had done, effectively being able to take the firearm officer by surprise. This was what had indeed happened, allowing Caffel to render partial control over the officers weapon, sufficiently enough to be able to pull the muzzle end of the rifles barrel into her own throat deliberately, so that although at all times, Woodcock had his trigger finger engaged against the trigger, he had ultimately lost full control of his weapon...
-
A lot of mistakes were made during the planning and execution of the raid, which lessons were learned from, so that future firearm operations could be carried out more effectively and safely...
-
To begin with, any romantic notion that anybody looking in of the main kitchen from a vantage point standing outside the glassed window Payne of the window, could see into the far left hand corner of the room to see the inner door being talked about is pure hogwash. I am 100% certain that nobody could have had a clear view of the kitchen side of that inner door, with or without a body sat on a chair pushed hard against that door so as to prevent anyone on the other side of that door, easily if at all possible, from entering the main kitchen...
-
Lets look at the layout and presentation of the key witness statement:-
-
A different type writer was used to produce the page 5 contents, as confirmed by reference to the different "g" typeset on both pages, 4 and 5:-
-
The fact that this page (5) has been retyped by use of a different typewriter needs to be investigated by a high profile investigation which must be supervised by the Home secretary, since, the police cannot be trusted to carry out a proper internal investigation on their own without being properly supervised. There really ought to be a public inquiry into this aspect of the case because so much of the case file has been doctored by Essex police and sanctioned by the CPS. The criminal Justice system in the UK has been brought into disrepute and the balance has to be put back so that members of the British public can once again trust in the criminal justice system.
I am going to provide examples of how it is possible to tell that this witness statement has been doctored:-
To begin with look at the typeset of the letters "y" and "g" on page 5 as opposed to the other 9 pages of the same statement?
The "y" and the "g" on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 all appear like this:- (below)
-
What happened to the original page 5 contents that was typed using the same type writer which typed the other 9 pages (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10)?
How significant and telling that a new page 5 contents has been inserted so as to deliberately conceal evidence that Sheila Caffell was still alive downstairs in the kitchen When Woodcock entered the main kitchen, and later she ended up dead on the bedroom floor, after police moved her body from the bed...
A further 3 pages of vital information has been edited out of this witness statement altogether...
-
It is this stage of Woodcocks witness statement which has been tampered with, to exclude confirmation that Sheila Caffell was alive in the main kitchen upon entry, and that she did not die until much later upstairs in the main bedroom...
Get the original page 5 contents disclosed, and hey presto, Bamber walks free (and rightly so)...
-
In the above version of events, Woodcock describes the kitchen table as having been overturned - what a fucking disgraceful joke, here, according to the police and their supporters no-one moved or touched anything in the main kitchen until after PC Bird took photographs from 10 am onward, but hey, look here at PC Birds photographs taken in the kitchen, the kitchen table is back on its four legs with crockery and utensils, and bullet cases on the top of it...
-
PS Woodcock was the very first firearm officer to enter the main kitchen. He struggled with and shot Sheila Caffell in the throat in an unexpected confrontation where she grabbed the muzzle end of his rifles barrel, the kitchen table was overturned as a result of this confrontational shooting...
-
funny how 3 bullet cases were found on top of the kitchen table, yet according to PS Woodcock (first firearm officer into the kitchen) the kitchen table was overturned, yet in the crime scene photographs the table is not overturned - what is the truth?
-
It remains a possibility that pages, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, are not the original contents and these are the pages that have been retyped...
-
PS Woodcock was the very first firearm officer to enter the main kitchen. He struggled with and shot Sheila Caffell in the throat in an unexpected confrontation where she grabbed the muzzle end of his rifles barrel, the kitchen table was overturned as a result of this confrontational shooting...
I doubt very much that armed response units us a .22 rifle.
-
I doubt very much that armed response units us a .22 rifle.
Just the .22 he grabbed off Sheila ?
-
It remains a possibility that pages, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, are not the original contents and these are the pages that have been retyped...
And a further 3 pages discarded, with a view to hiding the truth about what really took place...
-
In the above version of events, Woodcock describes the kitchen table as having been overturned - what a fucking disgraceful joke, here, according to the police and their supporters no-one moved or touched anything in the main kitchen until after PC Bird took photographs from 10 am onward, but hey, look here at PC Birds photographs taken in the kitchen, the kitchen table is back on its four legs with crockery and utensils, and bullet cases on the top of it...
He clearly made a mistake in respect to the table, I doubt very much that the police would lay breakfast places after having up-righted the table.
-
FIRST CONFIGURATION
13 Pages - containing the full unedited version of the truth detailing PS Woodcocks participation in the whole Operation, from him being contacted at home at around 5.30am, to his removal of the rifle from atop Sheila Caffells body at 11.10am, at the scene...
SECOND CONFIGURATION
Pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, all original contents. Page 5, retyped, using a different type writer. 3 further pages, of original content removed...
THIRD CONFIGURATION
Pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, all retyped by a different type writer, and added in as the main body of the statement. Page 5, original contents. 3 further pages, of original content removed...
-
He clearly made a mistake in respect to the table, I doubt very much that the police would lay breakfast places after having up-righted the table.
A MISTAKE?
The citatation, at the beginning of his witness statement, starts with, "THIS STATEMENT CONSISTING OF 13 PAGES, EACH SIGNED BY ME, IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEGE AND BELIEF, AND I MAKE IT KNOWING THAT IF IT IS TENDED INTO EVIDENCE, AND I HAVE WILFULLY STATED ANYTHING I KNOW TO BE WORNG, OR NOT TO BE TRUE, I SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION"...
-
A MISTAKE?
The citatation, at the beginning of his witness statement, starts with, "THIS STATEMENT CONSISTING OF 13 PAGES, EACH SIGNED BY ME, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEGE AND BELIEF, KNOWING THAT IF IT IS TENDED INTO EVIDENCE, AND ...
I can read what it says but it doesn't say anything about not being able to make a mistake. ONE PERSON said that the table was overturned - the rest that only chairs were moved to allow better access. When I pointed out to you that Jeremy gave the time of 03:10 for his fathers call - you said he was 'mistaken' - doesn't his statement contain the same 'citation'. People make mistakes, however, stating that a table was overturned over a month later (a point that makes no odds to the case - table over-turned or not) is pretty bland compared to making a mistake about an important phone call that would change your life - only hours later.
-
I can read what it says but it doesn't say anything about not being able to make a mistake. ONE PERSON said that the table was overturned - the rest that only chairs were moved to allow better access. When I pointed out to you that Jeremy gave the time of 03:10 for his fathers call - you said he was 'mistaken' - doesn't his statement contain the same 'citation'. People make mistakes, however, stating that a table was overturned over a month later (a point that makes no odds to the case - table over-turned or not) is pretty bland compared to making a mistake about an important phone call that would change your life - only hours later.
First of all I do not believe Jeremy made a mistake in his witness statements about the time he received the call from his father, I have made my thoughts clear regarding this in numerous posts on our forum. But just to recap, when I first met Jeremy at HMP Full Sutton, in 1989, he did not know the timing of the call you are referring to then, and he therefore, can only speculate about precise timings of events from that morning. What he did know is the sequence with which the events occurred. Anyway, how does any of us know whether or not the kitchen table got turned over and uprighted prior to when the the photographs were taken? The scene in the kitchen has clearly been staged before PC Bird got around to taking any pictures with his camera from 10am, onward...
The wooden chair that Ralph's body was sat upon behind the door before ENTRY was made to try and get into the kitchen, was by 10 O'clock, uprighted and pushed back against the main kitchen side of the inner door through which six or more police officers originally entered the kitchen. A towel, a pair of cotten trousers and two seat cushions, were placed near the base of the coal bucket to contain the spread of blood further on the kitchen floor, the handset of the round finger dial phone had been laid to rest by DCI HARRIS on the top of the kitchen worktop, and somebody had removed a blue and white striped jacket which had originally been hanging down in the region of the right hand side of the mantelpiece. So, its alright for police to do things like this, and take photographs two and a half hours later, but declare at court and elsewhere that these pictures show a view of the scene as it was, undisturbed, from the time of entry into the premises?
You think there's nothing wrong with the police trying to hoodwink us into believing something which clearly based solely on the facts, could not possibly be true?
I suppose your also going to say it was a mistake that Woodcock used a different type writer to either retype page contents in keeping with the SECOND CONFIGURATION, and the THIRD CONFIGURATION, aforementioned? Furthermore, another mistake that it states there are 13 pages, yet only 10 signed ones exist?
A MISTAKE?
You want to hope and prey that these criminal practices are never used by the police, against you, or yours, and until then, we'll see what you have to say at that time...
Once the original contents are disclosed, we will see whether or not Woody made a mistake, a mistake, and another mistake. I do do not believe that I am mistaken about what I am saying, make no mistake it...
-
First of all I do not believe Jeremy made a mistake in his witness statements about the time he received the call from his father, I have made my thoughts clear regarding this in numerous posts on our forum. But just to recap, when I first met Jeremy at HMP Full Sutton, in 1989, he did not know the timing of the call you are referring to then, and he therefore, can only speculate about precise timings of events from that morning. What he did know is the sequence with which the events occurred. Anyway, how does any of us know whether or not the kitchen table got turned over and uprighted prior to when the the photographs were taken? The scene in the kitchen has clearly been staged before PC Bird got around to taking any pictures with his camera from 10am, onward...
The wooden chair that Ralph's body was sat upon behind the door before ENTRY was made to try and get into the kitchen, was by 10 O'clock, uprighted and pushed back against the main kitchen side of the inner door through which six or more police officers originally entered the kitchen. A towel, a pair of cotten trousers and two seat cushions, were placed near the base of the coal bucket to contain the spread of blood further on the kitchen floor, the handset of the round finger dial phone had been laid to rest by DCI HARRIS on the top of the kitchen worktop, and somebody had removed a blue and white striped jacket which had originally been hanging down in the region of the right hand side of the mantelpiece. So, its alright for police to do things like this, and take photographs two and a half hours later, but declare at court and elsewhere that these pictures show a view of the scene as it was, undisturbed, from the time of entry into the premises?
You think there's nothing wrong with the police trying to hoodwink us into believing something which clearly based solely on the facts, could not possibly be true?
I suppose your also going to say it was a mistake that Woodcock used a different type writer to either retype page conts in keeping with the SECOND CONFIGURATION, and the THIRD CONFIGURATION, aforementioned? Furthermore, another mistake that it states there are 13 pages, yet only 10 signed ones exist?
A MISTAKE?
You want to hope and prey that these criminal practices are never used by the police, against you, or yours, and until then, we'll see what you have to say at that time...
Once the original contents are disclosed, we will see whether or not Woody made a mistake, a mistake, and another mistake. I do do not believe that I am mistaken about what I am saying, make no mistake it...
I'll answer the rest of your post later but you have made an assumption that I have no experience in this kind of thing. Just because I don't harp on about it doesn't mean I don't know EXACTLY what it's like! That's why in this case - I don't buy it and I'm not going to cry corruption at every twist and turn. I think Jeremy is guilty as sin and I also believe/ KNOW (FOR A FACT!) that there are dodgy police officers. However, they aren't ALL dodgy and there is no way that a conspiracy like the size and magnitude of the one you're suggesting - could stand the test of time
-
Plus...
Ralph's body was moved from its original position behind the door prior to police entering the main kitchen, ending up with his head in the coal bucket....
-
I'll answer the rest of your post later but you have made an assumption that I have no experience in this kind of thing. Just because I don't harp on about it doesn't mean I don't know EXACTLY what it's like! That's why in this case - I don't buy it and I'm not going to cry corruption at every twist and turn. I think Jeremy is guilty as sin and I also believe/ KNOW (FOR A FACT!) that there are dodgy police officers. However, they aren't ALL dodgy and there is no way that a conspiracy like the size and magnitude of the one you're suggesting - could stand the test of time
You and all the others should stop assuming that I believe all police officers are corrupt, because its not true...
-
I'll answer the rest of your post later but you have made an assumption that I have no experience in this kind of thing. Just because I don't harp on about it doesn't mean I don't know EXACTLY what it's like! That's why in this case - I don't buy it and I'm not going to cry corruption at every twist and turn. I think Jeremy is guilty as sin and I also believe/ KNOW (FOR A FACT!) that there are dodgy police officers. However, they aren't ALL dodgy and there is no way that a conspiracy like the size and magnitude of the one you're suggesting - could stand the test of time
You and everybody else wrongly assume that I think all police officers are corrupt. And, it doesn't bother me that you don't think there's anything wrong or dodgy with the evidence used to convict Bamber, I am 100% certain he did not kill his sister like you and the doubting others that do. Once the matter of Woodcocks dodgy witness statement is resolved, along with the release of the ' Officers Report' relating to the shooting incident in the kitchen, which will coincide with Bambers imminent release. So, you and the others can scoff all you like...
-
Missing from Woodcocks witness statement, are the details about the fresh search to relocate Sheilà, and the manner with which she ended up dead on the floor of the bedroom, after her body had been moved there from the bed...
-
You and everybody else wrongly assume that I think all police officers are corrupt. And, it doesn't bother me that you don't think there's anything wrong or dodgy with the evidence used to convict Bamber, I am 100% certain he did not kill his sister like you and the doubting others that do. Once the matter of Woodcocks dodgy witness statement is resolved, along with the release of the ' Officers Report' relating to the shooting incident in the kitchen, which will coincide with Bambers imminent release. So, you and the others can scoff all you like...
I seem to recall, when I first joined in 2012, you saying EXACTLY the same when you told us that Jeremy was due for imminent release because you were in possession of a picture of Sheila on the bed in a state of semi undress after certain officers had leered at he naked genitals. Since then I believe there to have been other occasions when you've said the same thing. I guess when people feel let down and cheated, they will scoff.
-
Surely, what is so problematic, which causes EP to withhold, 4 pages, of PS Woodcocks 13 page witness statement?
It's only 4 pages of evidence, by jove...
-
I seem to recall, when I first joined in 2012, you saying EXACTLY the same when you told us that Jeremy was due for imminent release because you were in possession of a picture of Sheila on the bed in a state of semi undress after certain officers had leered at he naked genitals. Since then I believe there to have been other occasions when you've said the same thing. I guess when people feel let down and cheated, they will scoff.
Photographs of her on the bed were taken, scoff all you like...
-
Photographs of her on the bed were taken, scoff all you like...
As they didn't have the desired effect of getting Jeremy out of jail there's no way of testing whether or not that's true.
-
This is the way all the doubting Thomas's must feel about the manner with which the 13 page witness statement (that only consists of 10 pages) of PS Woodcock has been produced:
(1) - its just a mistake that the most experienced firearm officer to enter the main kitchen as part of the raid team, describes the kitchen table to be overturned, when by reference to police photographs which were taken two and a half hours later, show the same table standing upright on its four legs, and with crockery and utensils upon it. It's just a mistake, by jove...
(2) - its just a mistake, that it states that the witness statement he makes consists of 13 pages, yet there is only 10 pages. It's just a mistake...
(3) - its just a mistake, that the entire contents of page 5 have been retyped by a different typeset, and inserted into the main body of the incomplete 13 page statement that only has 10 pages. It's a mistake...
(4) - its a mistake, that the contents of the original page 5 which was originally typed out in the same typeset as pages, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, is missing, and has not been yet accounted for. It's a mistake...
(5) - its a mistake, that for over 30 years, we still do not yet know, whether or not the 3 missing pages of evidence (being the difference between the total numbers of pages stated, and the actual number of pages, disclosed) ran consecutively with one another, or were numbered randomly, in which case, what if any of the disclosed 10 page numbers, have been renumbered? It's a mistake...
(6) - its a mistake, that Essex police are withholding the original contents of PA Woodcocks 13 page witness statement. It's a mistake...
-
As they didn't have the desired effect of getting Jeremy out of jail there's no way of testing whether or not that's true.
They might yet still secure his release, there are over 70 photographic negatives still missing, with 8 in sequence just before the disclosed photographs of Sheila were taken. Can you tell us why these 72 negatives are cut out and missing?
-
This is the way all the doubting Thomas's must feel about the manner with which the 13 page witness statement (that only consists of 10 pages) of PS Woodcock has been produced:
(1) - its just a mistake that the most experienced firearm officer to enter the main kitchen as part of the raid team, describes the kitchen table to be overturned, when by reference to police photographs which were taken two and a half hours later, show the same table standing upright on its four legs, and with crockery and utensils upon it. It's just a mistake, by jove...
(2) - its just a mistake, that it states that the witness statement he makes consists of 13 pages, yet there is only 10 pages. It's just a mistake...
(3) - its just a mistake, that the entire contents of page 5 have been retyped by a different typeset, and inserted into the main body of the incomplete 13 page statement that only has 10 pages. It's a mistake...
(4) - its a mistake, that the contents of the original page 5 which was originally typed out in the same typeset as pages, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, is missing, and has not been yet accounted for. It's a mistake...
(5) - its a mistake, that for over 30 years, we still do not yet know, whether or not the 3 missing pages of evidence (being the difference between the total numbers of pages stated, and the actual number of pages, disclosed) ran consecutively with one another, or were numbered randomly, in which case, what if any of the disclosed 10 page numbers, have been renumbered? It's a mistake...
(6) - its a mistake, that Essex police are withholding the original contents of PA Woodcocks 13 page witness statement. It's a mistake...
Absolutely!! Spot on Mike!! If we expected to believe Jeremy made them, it's reasonable to believe others do.
-
They might yet still secure his release, there are over 70 photographic negatives still missing, with 8 in sequence just before the disclosed photographs of Sheila were taken. Can you tell us why these 72 negatives are cut out and missing?
But they can't be that important -or even exist- or they'd have been handed over. It's three years since you spoke about them. Re the negs. HOW do we know they're missing?
-
The photo's are important, and they do exist...
Kodak man (Mr Sutherst), discovered that strips of photographic negatives had been cut, with single negatives, and sequences of negatives having been cut from original strips consisting of 10 negatives per strip. The other factor taken into account is that Essex police produced a false photo' album, that they cheekily entitled, 'THE MASTER COPY ALBUM', consisting, of 223 photographs. They even invited the defence team to police head quarters to view these 223 photo's before the commencement of the trial, making out falsely that these 223 photographs were all that had been taken, whilst the blighters had another 358 pictures, along with the 223 pictures in the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM', altogether in a confidential file known to ACC Peter SIMPSON, and the other INVESTIGATING OFFICERS', as 'THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM', containing, 581 photographs. This latter named photo' album was kept under lock and key inside ACC Peter SIMPSON office safe. I have got copies of a schedule produced by PC Bird, which shows the order with which the 223 photo's of the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM', were taken, and the 50 photo's put into a 'COURT ALBUM', but no such schedule detailing the sequence with which the 223 photo's of the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM', were taken against the order with which the 581 photo's of 'THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM', were taken?
There should be 581 photograph negatives, but only 509 have been received into the CCRC's possession...
-
You and everybody else wrongly assume that I think all police officers are corrupt. And, it doesn't bother me that you don't think there's anything wrong or dodgy with the evidence used to convict Bamber, I am 100% certain he did not kill his sister like you and the doubting others that do. Once the matter of Woodcocks dodgy witness statement is resolved, along with the release of the ' Officers Report' relating to the shooting incident in the kitchen, which will coincide with Bambers imminent release. So, you and the others can scoff all you like...
I don't think that - but 'all' (or certainly MOST) would have to be corrupt in this case to pull off what has been alleged. Like you, I don't give much credence to whether people are bothered about what I think or not - I believe he's 100% guilty and the number of times he has shot himself in the foot (along with all of the other evidence) is what convinced me. Admin errors and mistakes won't be freeing Jeremy any time soon and he doesn't have anything else.
-
This is the way all the doubting Thomas's must feel about the manner with which the 13 page witness statement (that only consists of 10 pages) of PS Woodcock has been produced:
(1) - its just a mistake that the most experienced firearm officer to enter the main kitchen as part of the raid team, describes the kitchen table to be overturned, when by reference to police photographs which were taken two and a half hours later, show the same table standing upright on its four legs, and with crockery and utensils upon it. It's just a mistake, by jove...
(2) - its just a mistake, that it states that the witness statement he makes consists of 13 pages, yet there is only 10 pages. It's just a mistake...
(3) - its just a mistake, that the entire contents of page 5 have been retyped by a different typeset, and inserted into the main body of the incomplete 13 page statement that only has 10 pages. It's a mistake...
(4) - its a mistake, that the contents of the original page 5 which was originally typed out in the same typeset as pages, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, is missing, and has not been yet accounted for. It's a mistake...
(5) - its a mistake, that for over 30 years, we still do not yet know, whether or not the 3 missing pages of evidence (being the difference between the total numbers of pages stated, and the actual number of pages, disclosed) ran consecutively with one another, or were numbered randomly, in which case, what if any of the disclosed 10 page numbers, have been renumbered? It's a mistake...
(6) - its a mistake, that Essex police are withholding the original contents of PA Woodcocks 13 page witness statement. It's a mistake...
It's only you that is suggesting the above. He made a mistake about the table being overturned - the rest is just more conspiracy theory.
-
The photo's are important, and they do exist...
Kodak man (Mr Sutherst), discovered that strips of photographic negatives had been cut, with single negatives, and sequences of negatives having been cut from original strips consisting of 10 negatives per strip. The other factor taken into account is that Essex police produced a false photo' album, that they cheekily entitled, 'THE MASTER COPY ALBUM', consisting, of 223 photographs. They even invited the defence team to police head quarters to view these 223 photo's before the commencement of the trial, making out falsely that these 223 photographs were all that had been taken, whilst the blighters had another 358 pictures, along with the 223 pictures in the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM', altogether in a confidential file known to ACC Peter SIMPSON, and the other INVESTIGATING OFFICERS', as 'THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM', containing, 581 photographs. This latter named photo' album was kept under lock and key inside ACC Peter SIMPSON office safe. I have got copies of a schedule produced by PC Bird, which shows the order with which the 223 photo's of the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM', were taken, and the 50 photo's put into a 'COURT ALBUM', but no such schedule detailing the sequence with which the 223 photo's of the 'MASTER COPY ALBUM', were taken against the order with which the 581 photo's of 'THE SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM', were taken?
There should be 581 photograph negatives, but only 509 have been received into the CCRC's possession...
The above would seem to be of no relevance whatsoever. It gets lost amongst all the other revelations you've made and insisted were true. As I'd like to believe that YOU don't lie to us, the only alternative is that others lie to you, you believe it's the truth and pass it on as such. You may wish to consider that when you reflect on the "phantom" child whose existence was, you alleged, revealed to you by the person who said he was responsible for her conception. The press have managed to uncover illegitimate children from far, FAR higher up the social scale than a convicted murderer. Not only would they have uncovered such but they'd have had no compunction about publishing and they certainly wouldn't have been concerned about protecting anyone. Going on the lack of response supporting the news and the present lack of forum traffic, I can only think that I'm not alone in finding it somewhat doubtful.
-
Photographs of her on the bed were taken, scoff all you like...
We have good reason to scoff. First and foremost because the blood evidence leaves no doubt she was on the floor. Then there is the testimony of the witnesses who looked in the bedroom including men who didn't walk around to the other side of the room so NEVER saw her body in the bedroom.
Aside from the fact that the evidence proves she was on the floor your suggestions are idiotic. You need to learn how to make up things that are both plausible and make sense.
Not only does it make no sense for the raid team to remove her body from the bed and place her on the floor, it makes even less sense for the crime scene personnel to take photos of her on the bed and then for them to move her to the floor and lie about finding her on the floor. They would not take any photos of her in the bed if they were going to lie about where they found her.
The only people you could fool with this rubbish are veritable idiots. Even though Jeremy is dishonest he can't even figure out any way to use these stupid allegations to his benefit.
-
We have good reason to scoff. First and foremost because the blood evidence leaves no doubt she was on the floor. Then there is the testimony of the witnesses who looked in the bedroom including men who didn't walk around to the other side of the room so NEVER saw her body in the bedroom.
Aside from the fact that the evidence proves she was on the floor your suggestions are idiotic. You need to learn how to make up things that are both plausible and make sense.
Not only does it make no sense for the raid team to remove her body from the bed and place her on the floor, it makes even less sense for the crime scene personnel to take photos of her on the bed and then for them to move her to the floor and lie about finding her on the floor. They would not take any photos of her in the bed if they were going to lie about where they found her.
The only people you could fool with this rubbish are veritable idiots. Even though Jeremy is dishonest he can't even figure out any way to use these stupid allegations to his benefit.
I once asked him about it, he said it was rubbish (or words to that effect).
-
The only idiots on here are you lot, god help anyone if you were ever on jury service, its because of people like you lot that miscarriages of justice occur...
-
What is the world coming to with people like you lot choosing to believe there is nothing wrong with Woodcocks witness statement - are you for real?
-
I once asked him about it, he said it was rubbish (or words to that effect).
If you are referring to Sheila's body being on the bed, that's not what he told me face to face, or spoke to me about over the phone, or wrote to me about in letters. You show me any letter he has written to you or anybody else, where he says the claim Sheila was on the bed, is rubbish...
If you are referring to his daughter, then I don't know what he told you, but in any event it wasn't Jeremy who told me, it was the child's mother. I found out from her in 2003, that Jeremy had been contemplating getting his daughter to make a claim as a benefactor to a share in the Mabel Speakman estate, because she was 18 years of age at that stage, but there was some confusion about how old a benefactor had to be, for example, 21 as opposed to 18...
I was told this by a close friend of mine, who is the child's mother. I promised her that I would never name either her, or their daughter, which I won't, but it does not prevent me from mentioning Jeremy has a daughter, because its true, he does. He will go mad at me for breaking the news, because the mother of his child confided in me in the first instance. I am not bothered if he has told you that any suggestion about him having a daughter is rubbish, because if he ever writes again to me saying what your saying, I will be at liberty to break the promise I made to the child's mother, and as far as I will be concerned, it will be on Jeremy's head that I am forced to reveal what I know...
-
The Woodcock witness statement is the source through which the truth about what really took place will emerge. Together with the contents of the as yet undisclosed contents of the 'OFFICERS REPORT', about the shooting incident which occurred in the kitchen. If the shooting in the kitchen to which this report refers occurred prior to the police entering the premises, let alone the the kitchen, why would an officer only be making a report about that shooting there, why not make two further reports about the shootings in the main bedroom, and another report about the shootings in the children's bedroom?
The shooting incident in the main kitchen, was clearly a shooting which involved the discharge of an officers firearm upon entering the kitchen, so obviously a police officer returned less ammunition back to the force armoury, than he had taken out at the commencement of the firearm operation...
-
The other odd thing that Woodcock mentions in the retyped page 5 content, is the fact that he states, "THE .22 RIFLE WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE KITCHEN"...
Of course the .22 rifle was not in the kitchen, and it is very telling that Woodcock chooses to make mention of that at this stage. This is because the .22 rifle was currently still resting against the bedroom window, and when he was confronted by Sheila in the main kitchen she was unnarmed, therefore she could not have been shot by the .22 rifle whilst downstairs in the main kitchen. Note how although Woodcock enters the other kitchen, the downstairs office, and upstairs rooms on that side of the farmhouse that Woodcock doesn't mention the .22 rifle as not being preseñt in any of the other rooms of the farmhouse he entered - just the main kitchen. This is because Sheila was shot there in the main kitchen, and more significantly, she was pronounced as being dead there. More importantly, her presumed death was duly described, as 'A SUICIDE' before 7.45am, that morning...
-
Bear with me, I have a great deal more to say, about Sheila being shot in the main kitchen, and much more...
-
I would like another opportunity to sort out the confusion surrounding the claim made by PC Collins, and others, that he somehow made a mistake by identifying the first body he saw through one of the downstairs windows, as a female behind the door, which he later claims was in fact the body of a DEAD MALE, Ralph Bamber. Well, much has already been spoken about regarding this contentious issue...
Now, the first thing I want to talk about, is the window which Collins purpoterdly looked through at the time he reported the female body behind the door? Either side of the rear external farmhouse door was a ground floor window, to the left of that door was situated the laundry / back kitchen window. If as is contended Collins looked in through this window and he saw the body of a female, behind the external farmhouse door via which police intended to force ENTRY, then the sighting of this females body could not possibly have mistaken the body of Ralph Bamber for that of this dead female, because Ralph's body was not in the laundry / back kitchen. His body, was in the main kitchen as we will shortly see. More importantly, whether his body was seated upon a wooden chair pushed up against the inner door of the main kitchen, or further forward with his head pushed into the coal bucket. The fact of the matter is that had PC Collins been standing outside the window to the right of the aforementioned external door, looking into the main kitchen, the body he might (but this is very doubtful) only have seen the body in question, in front of the aforementioned inner door, not behind it...
Ralph Bambers body could not possibly have been mistaken for a female body behind the door, because at all times, whether Collins could have seen his body, at all times his body was in front of the inner door, it could never have been described as being behind any door from his purported vantage point. On the other hand, the body seen by Collins behind the door could only be a reference to him standing outside the laundry / kitchen window, with the female body, as I say, behind the external farmhouse door...
The female body behind the external farmhouse door when viewed by Collins from the vantage point of him standing outside the laundry / back kitchen window, cannot be mistaken for Ralph Bambers body which at all times was in front of the inner door of the main kitchen. Take it from me, one of these BODIES could not possibly have been mistaken for the other, or vice versa, because the body described by Collins as a female body was "BEHIND", the door, not in front of it...
-
Other evidence, supports the case for there being two separate BODIES, one male, one female, one a murder, the other a suicide...
First body to be mentioned in the radio messages, is 'THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE', (7.37am) which can only be reference to the body of Ralph Bamber. So, in this example, Ralph's body is identified as a male body, before any mention is made about a female body. Now, how the hell can Collins be claiming he saw the body of a female behind the door which he later clarifies as a mistake, suggesting that the body he thought was female behind the door, was in fact Ralph Bambers body in front of a door in a neighbouring room. How can this possibly be true, this window, that window, body behind the door, body in front of the door? Yet, the very first police message relayed from the scene, talks about the body of one dead male, before any mention at all of there being the body of a DEAD FEMALE. You see, in order for Collins account to be true and as it were accurate, surely any reference to the finding of a body after ENTRY was made into the premises should only have made mention of the finding of one body, not two. But the timed police message (7.37am) clearly reads, ' THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE', and 'THE BODY OF ONE FEMALE'. Two bodies then, which police came across upon entering the main kitchen. First body mentioned being clearly identified as a dead male, to be precise, "the body of one dead male". Hardly likely then that once the male body has been formally identified firstly, that anybody could thereafter, be mistaken, and refer to his body, as the body of one dead female, since this does not adequately conform to the explanation given by PC Collins, who has referenced to seeing the female body (behind the door), before discovering a male body (in the other room in front of the door). Collins sequence of events, has the female body mentioned before the male body, yet the police radio message logs have got it the other way around - basically put, its a total fuck up in the evidence. It doesn't match, it don't gel, its just a load of codswallop, and this can't be put down to it simply being a catastrophic mistake. How many fucking mistakes do this lot of keystone cops need to have made, before it turns into criminal malpractice, and an abuse of process?
-
A minute later (7.38am), another catastrophic mistake - there is confirmation of two bodies, not one. "One dead male, one dead female"...
How can Collins have rectified his so called mistake of seeing a dead female behind the door, as the body of Ralph Bamber in front of the inner door, when Collins was outside the main kitchen looking in? If there had been a simple mistake as claimed, there would be no mention of finding the "body of one dead male" (7.37am), followed by, "One dead female" (7.38am), period ...
There was then less than 7 minutes elapsed (7.45am), by which stage, 'LINDA' in the control room, is contacting DS Neil Dàvidson at his home, requesting that he come into the office because police at whf, are dealing with a seige situation, involving a murder, and a suicide...
Ya know, I don't know what the dude Collins has been saying, because to be perfectly frank, his evidence and his ape shit explanation simply does not hold water, as we shall soon discover...
-
Just want to recap the following point - my understanding is that a purported sighting of a female body behind the door was made by Collins when he claims he was standing outside one of the ground floor windows. If he was looking through the window to the left of the external farmhouse door, he would have been looking into the laundry / back kitchen window, and if he was, then the female body he saw at that time could only have been Sheila Caffells body behind the external farmhouse door. On the other hand, if Collins was stood outside the other ground floor window looking into the main kitchen, he could not have mistaken Ralph Bambers body for that of the body of a DEAD FEMALE behind the door, because at all times his body was always in front of an inner door...
Allow me to take the matter further, once police entered the farmhouse, had the female body not got up and ran off, her body would have been described by officers inside, as being in front of the external farmhouse door, not behind it. This is because the vantage point of an observer changes, when the observer changes his position, from the window outside with him looking in, to him being inside the laundry / back kitchen looking outward...
-
From what we now know, two bodies were found upon entry to the main kitchen, first mentioned at 7.37am, confirmed at 7.38am, reinforced by 7.45am, with confirmation from the control room, that one of these two bodies was a murder, and the other dead body was a suicide - 7 minutes of intense activity. Crammed into this 7 minutes, includes physical ENTRY into the main kitchen of several firearm officers. A further officer (PC Hall) is called forward into the main kitchen, he opens the door to a set of spiral stairs situated in the corner if the main kitchen. Both he and PS Woodcock notice a bandolier hung there on the stairs. Woodcock and the others, then back track out of the kitchen the same way they have entered, supposedly leaving PC Hall to guard the now open spiral staircase door in the corner of the main kitchen...
Woodcock, Collins, and the others, leave the main kitchen and return to the region of the laundry / back kitchen and search that place. Next they enter the downstairs office otherwise known as 'THE DEN'. Whilst in that room, they locate the so called 'gun cupboard', and they search it. Inside they find a 12 bore shotgun, and box's of ammunition. The 12 bore shotgun is removed from the cupboard and rested against a wall in 'The Den'...
Then, Woodcock, Collins and the others, progress along the back corridor to the bottom of the back stairs. Stealthily they proceed to climb these stairs and find them selves in an upstairs office, which they search. Once that search is completed, they become faced with a locked storeroom door (key in lock on far side of door), when forced open nothing of interest found inside this storeroom, except a trap door in the ceiling which leads to a loft space, and a possible route of escape into the roof via roof lite windows. Store room searched, loft space and roof searched, nothing of interest found. Woodcock, Collins then are confronted by a panel like door which appears to be bolted on the other side, which they had no access to...
Search upstairs completed, one officer left on guard upstairs in region of upstairs office, covering the locked panel like door. Woodcock, and Collins return back downstairs and re-enter the main kitchen. They proceed to other downstairs parts of the farmhouse, searching the two living rooms and the dining room. They are confronted with a locked cellar door - whilst forcing it open, one of the firearm officers falls down into the cellar and becomes injured. He is helped out of the cellar and led away out of the farmhouse to an awaiting ambulance, and a replacement officer is sent into the farmhouse. By this stage, none of the main upstairs rooms had yet been searched. A mirror was used to assist firearms officers up the main staircase. By this stàge, two bodies had already been found downstairs upon entry to the main kitchen. Another three people were yet to be accounted for...
-
Now, to the interesting part...
-
By 7.37am, two bodies had clearly been found and identified as the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, by 7.45am it was known by staff in the control room that one of these BODIES had been murdered, the other had committed suicide...
Very interesting...
-
A decision has to be made, as to who do we think the reference to the dead body found downstairs upon entry and I don't for a minute believe that anybody will argue with me selecting Ralph Bamber here. So, Ralph is the dead male found upon entry to the main kitchen. His death (he has been shot 8 times) can safely be described as a murder. I don't think anybody will object to the way I have selected him to be, (a) the dead male, and (b) who was murdered ..
-
So now, to who the dead female was, a female, who had by 7.45am, been known to have committed suicide? Was this reference to a dead female first mentioned as early at 7.37am, next mentioned at 7.38am, June Bamber, or Sheila Caffell? By 7.45am, the firearm officers inside the farmhouse must have known or been certain in their minds by that (7.45am) stage that one of the two female victims known at a later stage to have in fact died in the tragedy, had died by way of suicide before 7.45am, and in order for the control room to have this knowledge from as early as 7.45am, it must follow that police at the scene must have been aware of a weapon potentially that had been used in the suicide bid...
Now, I ask you out straight, how many idiots amongst us think for one moment that June Bamber committed suicide?
-
Who amongst us, faced with all the weight of this information can honestly say that June Bambers body was the female body that was known to have committed suicide by 7.45am? If so, by which weapon could she have committed suicide by use of, or with? If you look at the crime scene photographs, you cannot see any weapon close enough to her own body to suggest that she could possibly have even remotely to have taken her own life. What are we supposed to believe if she had committed suicide, accept that the rifle had jumped from her grasp and control and fell back into position against the left side of the main bedroom window? Worse still, that after June Bamber had taken her own life by use of the anshuzt rifle, it had flown across the room from her position close to the bedroom door, sailed over the bed, and landed smack bang along the centre of Sheila's body that was laid out parrallel with the edge of the bed on the floor, and that just per chance Sheila in a state of complete collapse suddenly raised her right arm / hand so that the rifle by which June had killed herself, landed snugly into position, so that no sooner did the rifle land atop Sheila's body, than her right hand collapsed right into the perfect position, to permit police to later conclude that it had been Sheila who had in fact committed suicide, not June Bamber...
-
June Bambers body cannot have been the second body in the true sequence of events to have been found by the police. She did not commit suicide, and with her body being preseñt upstairs, there would have been reported that a total of four BODIES had been discovered upstairs, not three. .
-
These problems exist because (a) the firearms operation inside the premises went pearshaped after 8.10am, (b) there was a displacement of Sheila's body from the main kitchen downstairs, to the main bedroom upstairs, (c) the general crime scenes in the main kitchen and the main bedroom were staged by police before crime scene photographs were taken and referred to as how scenes were found before anything was touched or moved by anyone, (D) firearm officers made false witness statements with a view to covering up these activities..
-
If you are referring to Sheila's body being on the bed, that's not what he told me face to face, or spoke to me about over the phone, or wrote to me about in letters. You show me any letter he has written to you or anybody else, where he says the claim Sheila was on the bed, is rubbish...
If you are referring to his daughter, then I don't know what he told you, but in any event it wasn't Jeremy who told me, it was the child's mother. I found out from her in 2003, that Jeremy had been contemplating getting his daughter to make a claim as a benefactor to a share in the Mabel Speakman estate, because she was 18 years of age at that stage, but there was some confusion about how old a benefactor had to be, for example, 21 as opposed to 18...
I was told this by a close friend of mine, who is the child's mother. I promised her that I would never name either her, or their daughter, which I won't, but it does not prevent me from mentioning Jeremy has a daughter, because its true, he does. He will go mad at me for breaking the news, because the mother of his child confided in me in the first instance. I am not bothered if he has told you that any suggestion about him having a daughter is rubbish, because if he ever writes again to me saying what your saying, I will be at liberty to break the promise I made to the child's mother, and as far as I will be concerned, it will be on Jeremy's head that I am forced to reveal what I know...
Well, well, well!!!! How UTTERLY amazing!!! Of all the women, in all the country, this ALLEGED child's mother just SO happens to turn out to be a close friend of yours!!!!! Given some of what you said of the alleged child -given that you said ANYTHING- NOT a friend you value.
One has to wonder if this little child has been trawled across the country from prison to prison to see her "Daddy"? Has she been taught to write little letters to "Daddy"? More important, is "Daddy's" name on her birth certificate? Have the requisite DNA tests been done to establish paternity? Might it be, that because said child is just a figment of imagination, the reason Jeremy only "contemplated" "getting his daughter(!!!!!) to make a claim as a benefactor to a share of the Mabel Speakman estate.........."!!!!!!!! OR perhaps he entered into a scam, whereby some CLAIMING to be his daughter, claimed on his behalf? Hmm. I suppose it can be said that without a name on a birth certificate, ANYTHING is possible. The trouble is, without a name on a birth certificate, NOTHING is possible.
By now, of course, it can't have failed to escape your knowledge, that Jeremy LIES -just for the record, Caroline DOESN'T. If she tells you that Jeremy told her something, you may rest assured, he did- SO, the question is now, having told you and Caroline entirely different stories, to WHOM did he lie?
Of course, quite naturally, THIS -Jeremy having told you one thing and Caroline something entirely different- this is likely to throw doubts on just how honest Jeremy has been and is going to cause people to wonder what other things may he have told different stories about. It MAY turn out to be a secret that you'd have been wiser NOT to break. It's certainly a reminder to me NOT to share any with you.
-
Well, well, well!!!! How UTTERLY amazing!!! Of all the women, in all the country, this ALLEGED child's mother just SO happens to turn out to be a close friend of yours!!!!!
First of all, you nor anybody else chooses who my friends are, or when they became my close friends. In the instant case I first met the mother of Jeremys child in 2002, and from then on we became friends, but none of this / that has got anything to do with you or anybody else, or what Jeremy told this person, or that person. He can tell anybody what the hell he likes, and I am not bothered if he tells somebody else something different, I am only interested in what other people tell me, and that includes what Jeremy has told me in all the years I have known / knew him. Yes, the mother of Jeremys daughter did become a close friend of mine, such friendships have to start somewhere. There's nothing utterly amazing about anything, other than why you think I can't have a close friend who I met through my contact with Jeremy in 2002. You think what you like, but who are you to tell me which friends I can have without it being some sort of a big issue? You should think before you open your gob...
-
Well, well, well!!!! How UTTERLY amazing!!! Of all the women, in all the country, this ALLEGED child's mother just SO happens to turn out to be a close friend of yours!!!!! Given some of what you said of the alleged child -given that you said ANYTHING- NOT a friend you value.
One has to wonder if this little child has been trawled across the country from prison to prison to see her "Daddy"? Has she been taught to write little letters to "Daddy"? More important, is "Daddy's" name on her birth certificate? Have the requisite DNA tests been done to establish paternity? Might it be, that because said child is just a figment of imagination, the reason Jeremy only "contemplated" "getting his daughter(!!!!!) to make a claim as a benefactor to a share of the Mabel Speakman estate.........."!!!!!!!! OR perhaps he entered into a scam, whereby some CLAIMING to be his daughter, claimed on his behalf? Hmm. I suppose it can be said that without a name on a birth certificate, ANYTHING is possible. The trouble is, without a name on a birth certificate, NOTHING is possible.
By now, of course, it can't have failed to escape your knowledge, that Jeremy LIES -just for the record, Caroline DOESN'T. If she tells you that Jeremy told her something, you may rest assured, he did- SO, the question is now, having told you and Caroline entirely different stories, to WHOM did he lie?
Of course, quite naturally, THIS -Jeremy having told you one thing and Caroline something entirely different- this is likely to throw doubts on just how honest Jeremy has been and is going to cause people to wonder what other things may he have told different stories about. It MAY turn out to be a secret that you'd have been wiser NOT to break. It's certainly a reminder to me NOT to share any with you.
Just to be clear, I didn't ask him about the daughter, this is a new claim and I don't communicate with Jeremy now, but it begs the question why anyone would believe such a claim without proof! I asked him about the picture on the bed with one shot to the throat.
-
One has to wonder if this little child has been trawled across the country from prison to prison to see her "Daddy"? Has she been taught to write little letters to "Daddy"? More important, is "Daddy's" name on her birth certificate?
You would have to ask Jeremy about such visits, and the mother of his daughter. I met Jeremys daughter at her mothers house on a couple of occasions, and before you start there is nothing remotely amazing about that...
-
Have the requisite DNA tests been done to establish paternity?
Now, how would I know that sort of detail?
-
Might it be, that because said child is just a figment of imagination, the reason Jeremy only "contemplated" "getting his daughter(!!!!!) to make a claim as a benefactor to a share of the Mabel Speakman estate.........."!!!!!!!! OR perhaps he entered into a scam, whereby some CLAIMING to be his daughter, claimed on his behalf? Hmm. I suppose it can be said that without a name on a birth certificate, ANYTHING is possible. The trouble is, without a name on a birth certificate, NOTHING is possible.
What has any of this got to do with me?
I am only the messenger...
-
By now, of course, it can't have failed to escape your knowledge, that Jeremy LIES -just for the record, Caroline DOESN'T.
Why are you making out an issue that she might lie, then?
-
Now, how would I know that sort of detail?
Then if there is no proof of paternity, it's just a claim. However, I can't see how such a person could make any such financial claim of any sort even if they did exist.
-
If she tells you that Jeremy told her something, you may rest assured, he did
Rests assured that he didn't tell me anything different, other than he told me nothing about his daughter, I was told by the mother of his daughter, who was in regular contact with Jeremy in 2002, onward - so, I am not challenging anything Jeremy may have said to Caroline, I have never even asked her what Jeremy supposedly said to her, she volunteered the information herself on the forum. I am not responsible for what Jeremy may have told her, nor for what she has posted on the forum...
-
SO, the question is now, having told you and Caroline entirely different stories, to WHOM did he lie?
Hang on a minute...
He didn't tell me anything, so don't start putting words into my mouth...
I can speak for myself, and I can think, and I can reconstruct...
-
Of course, quite naturally, THIS -Jeremy having told you one thing He never told me about his daughter in the first instance and Caroline something entirely different He didn't - this is likely to throw doubts on just how honest Jeremy has been How do you work that out when Jeremy hasn't done half of which you maintain he has and is going to cause people to wonder what other things may he have told different stories about. I don't see how that's going to apply in this instance because your accusing Jeremy of doing something he didn't do in the circumstances of this particular matter It MAY turn out to be a secret that you'd have been wiser NOT to break. No contest It's certainly a reminder to me NOT to share any with you. Good, I look forward not to hear from you, goodbye
-
Just the .22 he grabbed off Sheila ?
Mike said "HIS weapon".
-
Mike said "HIS weapon".
I've completely lost track of this lot as at the mo. I'm emailing a stiff email to Talk-Talk who've been responsible for hacking me. No wonder I've been getting weird emails,etc. They can go and run because I'm changing companies. It's been going on non-stop since February and all they asked me to do was change passwords-----------the damage was already done ::) What a rubbish company.
-
I've completely lost track of this lot as at the mo. I'm emailing a stiff email to Talk-Talk who've been responsible for hacking me. No wonder I've been getting weird emails,etc. They can go and run because I'm changing companies. It's been going on non-stop since February and all they asked me to do was change passwords-----------the damage was already done ::) What a rubbish company.
You and me both!! ;D ;D. I just heard about the Talk, Talk hacking - my dad was with them when he died and they tried to suggest that because he had signed a contract with them for a year, that 'I' would have to honour it :o :o :o :o. When I stopped laughing, you can imagine what I told them!! Needless to say, they admitted the error of their ways. If you have an online account 'CHANGE YOU PASSWORD NOW!' then get yourself another provider - personally, I don't think you can beat BT. :)
-
Just to be clear, I didn't ask him about the daughter, this is a new claim and I don't communicate with Jeremy now, but it begs the question why anyone would believe such a claim without proof! I asked him about the picture on the bed with one shot to the throat.
Oh, I see, so he wasn't saying it's rubbish that a photograph of Sheila on the bed exists, or that it's rubbish that Sheila's body was on the bed at all? He was referring to Sheila's body being on the bed with a solitary shot to the throat, was he?
Well, that explains it then, because he hasn't yet seen the photograph of Sheila on the bed sporting a solitary wound in her neck. Until he does, he's bound to be skepticle. Particularly since he is promoting the idea that Sheila was not shot at all downstairs, instead, he suggests that when the police went to enter the farmhouse PC Collins looked through a ground floor window and saw Sheila, but she fled uptairs before police could gràb her, she entered the main bedroom and shot herself dead in the neck...
It doesn't fit in with his approach in his next CCRC application to agree that he believes a photograph of Sheila on the bed with one shot exists. His approach relying on has ideas cannot possibly be true claiming Sheila got shot twice whilst present in the main bedroom...
-
Oh, I see, so he wasn't saying it's rubbish that a photograph of Sheila on the bed exists, or that it's rubbish that Sheila's body was on the bed at all? He was referring to Sheila's body being on the bed with a solitary shot to the throat, was he?
Well, that explains it then, because he hasn't yet seen the photograph of Sheila on the bed sporting a solitary wound in her neck. Until he does, he's bound to be skepticle. Particularly since he is promoting the idea that Sheila was not shot at all downstairs, instead, he suggests that when the police went to enter the farmhouse PC Collins looked through a ground floor window and saw Sheila, but she fled uptairs before police could gràb her, she entered the main bedroom and shot herself dead in the neck...
It doesn't fit in with his approach in his next CCRC application to agree that he believes a photograph of Sheila on the bed with one shot exists. His approach relying on h8s ideas cannot possibly be true claiming Sheila got shot twice whilst present in the main bedroom...
He doesn't think the police shot Sheila (although I think he did once indicate something similar in the past). What he did say was that such a picture (even if it did exist) would be 'irrelevant' as after obtaining most of the PPI materials, there is enough information to formulate further submissions. I have no idea what this information is and tend to believe it's more of the same - I didn't reply and haven't heard from him since.
-
...................... Yes, the mother of Jeremys daughter did become a close friend of mine, such friendships have to start somewhere. There's nothing utterly amazing about anything, other than why you think I can't have a close friend who I met through my contact with Jeremy in 2002. You should think before you open your gob...
Aww Mike. You misunderstand me. I'm all FOR friendship. It's a wonderful thing which enriches our lives. Friends tend only to see the good in us and are very forgiving. I'm sure your friend will understand why you posted an area map of where her daughter lives, and said something rather unflattering about her. Thank-you for your advice. I consider, very carefully, what I say before opening my mouth.
-
I've heard it all now. Total bonkers!! (http://images.zaazu.com/img/Zany-zany-comic-joker-smiley-emoticon-000598-medium.gif)
-
He doesn't think the police shot Sheila (although I think he did once indicate something similar in the past). What he did say was that such a picture (even if it did exist) would be 'irrelevant' as after obtaining most of the PPI materials, there is enough information to formulate further submissions. I have no idea what this information is and tend to believe it's more of the same - I didn't reply and haven't heard from him since.
Well, I think the main concern of Jeremy's is that he likes to feel in control of his own destiny. He doesn't appreciate anyone doing anything to try and help him without that somebody running it past him first. In many ways you can't blame him, but in other ways he sometimes shoots himself in the foot. A typical example of this is represented in the form of his current claim that Sheila fled upstairs from the kitchen and then shot herself when she reached the main bedroom. That approach can't possibly succeed because how does he begin to explain how Sheila was pronounced dead downstairs in the region of the main kitchen at 7.37am, and 7.38am? Oh, I can see it all now, there goes Sheila running off upstairs, on her way to taking her own life, and the police passing radio messages that, "She's dead", describing her death, as " A SUICIDE"...
-
Well, I think the main concern of Jeremy's is that he likes to feel in control of his own destiny.
How can he possibly feel in control of his destiny when he's been locked in a cell for 30 years?
-
I once asked him about it, he said it was rubbish (or words to that effect).
I think that there are some things Jeremy secretly pondered trying but ultimately recognized he had no hope with such claims which Mike has decided to run with and spread against Jeremy's wishes because Jeremy himself felt such lies were not worth pressing.
For instance he might have thought about the idea of pretending he had a child but ultimately decided against it. We have Mike shooting off his mouth though about it. I got involved in this case because someone said it was so similar to the Amityville murders. I saw few similarities but oddly enough similarities keep popping up. In that case DeFeo made up having a child and the mother did try to press
for a portion of the estate. This was done more than a decade after his conviction. Naturally such efforts went no where and if Jeremy tried he would have no better success. The difference is Jeremy recognized it would go nowhere and didn't try pursing such rubbish.
Mike does Jeremy a giant disservice when he spreads things that Jeremy himself refused to pursue.
The same is true of all these moved body claims. The defense looked to see if they could find evidence of such but didn't. Mike and the campaign team are ignoring reality to press things that Jeremy didn't because he had no basis to do so. With the exception of gullible ignorant people this tends to hurt Jeremy as opposed to helping.
-
How can he possibly feel in control of his destiny when he's been locked in a cell for 30 years?
David, liking to FEEL in control is about grabbing every tiny bit from wherever and whenever -it COULD be called manipulation- but it's vastly different from BEING in control.
-
Professor Knight was right in stating that Sheila could have been mobile for half an hour after being shot on the first occasion...
-
Professor Knight was right in stating that Sheila could have been mobile for half an hour after being shot on the first occasion...
He is an expert in his own right, so why would he make something up, which was not true.
-
Jeremy's daughter did not want the media attention afforded once her true identity was made known, this played a massive role in the decision not to make a valid claim as a benefactor in her grandmother's (June), and her great grandmothers estate(s). The mother agreed with her daughters wishes, and according to what I was told, Jeremy had to accept the situation...
-
No official explanation has yet been disclosed to account for the disappearance of the female body after 8.10am, from the main kitchen, downstairs, to the main bedroom upstairs - but we are getting closer to forcing EP into submission...
-
He is an expert in his own right, so why would he make something up, which was not true.
Professor Knight was right in stating that Sheila could have been mobile for half an hour after being shot on the first occasion...
Why would he indeed? He was simply giving his -albeit, professional- opinion. Professional opinions differ. Opinions aren't always correct but, as we know, it doesn't make the person GIVING it a liar.
-
Jeremy's daughter did not want the media attention afforded once her true identity was made known, this played a massive role in the decision not to make a valid claim as a benefactor in her grandmother's (June), and her great grandmothers estate(s). The mother agreed with her daughters wishes, and according to what I was told, Jeremy had to accept the situation...
And if there is no proof of her being Jeremy's daughter, trying to claim from his estate would be a wasted exercise.
-
And if there is no proof of her being Jeremy's daughter, trying to claim from his estate would be a wasted exercise.
You would have to do a DNA test
-
I think that there are some things Jeremy secretly pondered trying but ultimately recognized he had no hope with such claims which Mike has decided to run with and spread against Jeremy's wishes because Jeremy himself felt such lies were not worth pressing.
For instance he might have thought about the idea of pretending he had a child but ultimately decided against it. We have Mike shooting off his mouth though about it. I got involved in this case because someone said it was so similar to the Amityville murders. I saw few similarities but oddly enough similarities keep popping up. In that case DeFeo made up having a child and the mother did try to press
for a portion of the estate. This was done more than a decade after his conviction. Naturally such efforts went no where and if Jeremy tried he would have no better success. The difference is Jeremy recognized it would go nowhere and didn't try pursing such rubbish.
Mike does Jeremy a giant disservice when he spreads things that Jeremy himself refused to pursue.
The same is true of all these moved body claims. The defense looked to see if they could find evidence of such but didn't. Mike and the campaign team are ignoring reality to press things that Jeremy didn't because he had no basis to do so. With the exception of gullible ignorant people this tends to hurt Jeremy as opposed to helping.
According to Mike, Jeremy told him about his 'daughter' in prison. Considering he was popular with women at the time it seems plausible, However because its coming from Mike I don't think much of it.
-
According to Mike, Jeremy told him about his 'daughter' in prison. Considering he was popular with women at the time it seems plausible, However because its coming from Mike I don't think much of it.
That's what I thought but he said earlier that it was the mother who told him. ???
-
According to Mike, Jeremy told him about his 'daughter' in prison. Considering he was popular with women at the time it seems plausible, However because its coming from Mike I don't think much of it.
If Jeremy actually had a child he would used it as a vehicle to pursue the estate. At most he decided to make up having a daughter, told it to a few people and debated using such but ultimately decided against it. It is highly likely Jeremy lied to Mike and others about numerous things. Revealing such things to the public doesn't help Jeremy one bit it would just help establish he lies. So someone who actually wants to help Jeremy as Mike professes would keep quiet instead of revealing such things. I don't think Mike cares about Jeremy one bit I see Mike as trying to use this case for his own personal agenda. I think that is why Jeremy wants Mike to go away. I don't feel sorry for Jeremy because he tried using Mike and others as they tried using him. They all deserve each other and this is not at all unique because birds of a feather...
-
If Jeremy actually had a child he would used it as a vehicle to pursue the estate. At most he decided to make up having a daughter, told it to a few people and debated using such but ultimately decided against it. It is highly likely Jeremy lied to Mike and others about numerous things. Revealing such things to the public doesn't help Jeremy one bit it would just help establish he lies. So someone who actually wants to help Jeremy as Mike professes would keep quiet instead of revealing such things. I don't think Mike cares about Jeremy one bit I see Mike as trying to use this case for his own personal agenda. I think that is why Jeremy wants Mike to go away. I don't feel sorry for Jeremy because he tried using Mike and others as they tried using him. They all deserve each other and this is not at all unique because birds of a feather...
pure assumption. We do not have any evidence whatsoever that Jeremy has ever even claimed he has a daughter.
-
If Jeremy actually had a child he would used it as a vehicle to pursue the estate. At most he decided to make up having a daughter, told it to a few people and debated using such but ultimately decided against it. It is highly likely Jeremy lied to Mike and others about numerous things. Revealing such things to the public doesn't help Jeremy one bit it would just help establish he lies. So someone who actually wants to help Jeremy as Mike professes would keep quiet instead of revealing such things. I don't think Mike cares about Jeremy one bit I see Mike as trying to use this case for his own personal agenda. I think that is why Jeremy wants Mike to go away. I don't feel sorry for Jeremy because he tried using Mike and others as they tried using him. They all deserve each other and this is not at all unique because birds of a feather...
plus you don't know the reason that Jeremy did not want to be involved with Mike so don't assume you do just to jump on the band waggon to use such assumptions to further blacken his character.
-
If Jeremy actually had a child he would used it as a vehicle to pursue the estate. At most he decided to make up having a daughter, told it to a few people and debated using such but ultimately decided against it. It is highly likely Jeremy lied to Mike and others about numerous things. Revealing such things to the public doesn't help Jeremy one bit it would just help establish he lies. So someone who actually wants to help Jeremy as Mike professes would keep quiet instead of revealing such things. I don't think Mike cares about Jeremy one bit I see Mike as trying to use this case for his own personal agenda. I think that is why Jeremy wants Mike to go away. I don't feel sorry for Jeremy because he tried using Mike and others as they tried using him. They all deserve each other and this is not at all unique because birds of a feather...
If its true Jeremy could not force the daughter to do anything, Mikes words were more or less "Write to Jeremy if you don't believe me, He will go mad knowing I have told people" According to Mike he has met the mother so if anyone is making things up its Mike not Jeremy. Sooner or later someone who writes to Jeremy would not resist the urge to ask Jeremy about Mikes claims. So maybe down the line we will hear some feedback.
-
plus you don't know the reason that Jeremy did not want to be involved with Mike so don't assume you do just to jump on the band waggon to use such assumptions to further blacken his character.
The reason behind the apparent falling out has been posted before.
If its true Jeremy could not force the daughter to do anything, Mikes words were more or less "Write to Jeremy if you don't believe me, He will go mad knowing I have told people" According to Mike he has met the mother so if anyone is making things up its Mike not Jeremy. Sooner or later someone who writes to Jeremy would not resist the urge to ask Jeremy about Mikes claims. So maybe down the line we will hear some feedback.
With how Jeremy answers letters, "do you have a daughter" might seem a simple question, but the answer - maybe not so simple.
-
The reason behind the apparent falling out has been posted before.
With how Jeremy answers letters, "do you have a daughter" might seem a simple question, but the answer - maybe not so simple.
Well if Jeremy's answer is not a straight forward no then we will take it from there
-
pure assumption. We do not have any evidence whatsoever that Jeremy has ever even claimed he has a daughter.
What would you think of him if he had?
-
Well if Jeremy's answer is not a straight forward no then we will take it from there
For some reason, people who write to him don't like to ask about the case.
-
For some reason, people who write to him don't like to ask about the case.
You'd think it would be the main thing wouldn't you? ;D
-
For some reason, people who write to him don't like to ask about the case.
How do you know?
-
You'd think it would be the main thing wouldn't you? ;D
Dear Jeremy.... what's your favourite episode of the Flintstones? ;D
-
If its true Jeremy could not force the daughter to do anything, Mikes words were more or less "Write to Jeremy if you don't believe me, He will go mad knowing I have told people" According to Mike he has met the mother so if anyone is making things up its Mike not Jeremy. Sooner or later someone who writes to Jeremy would not resist the urge to ask Jeremy about Mikes claims. So maybe down the line we will hear some feedback.
A minor child doesn't file a case against the estate the parents of the child does so. That is how the parents used such as a vehicle for them to gain control of the money claiming they are going to be trustees of the money for the child.
The flaw in such is if the courts refuse to accept the naked word of the mother and do a paternity test which is what rational courts will do which in turn is why most are smart enough to not try such nonsense. In the some instances people actually had the gumption to try it anyway but those instances simply provide examples of why not to bother since they failed.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Jeremy fathered a child he would have filed a claim contemporaneously. He did filed one decades later simply to be a pest it was not sincere. I consider it quite possible that he toyed with the idea of making up a child to try to take a run at the estates but ultimately realized such would not work and would only hurt so didn't end up doing such.
Whether Mike made it up or Jeremy really did make such claim to Mike matters little, either way Mike is spreading things that harm Jeremy and that he shouldn't be spreading if he actually were out to help Jeremy was he claims. If you run around telling people things that were told to you in private that the person doesn't wan released then you can't claim you are out to help them while betraying their trust.
-
even worse to be honest would be if it was true and someone did a bit of digging and found the person that Mike says exists. Her life would become hell if the press got hold of it , let alone social media.
-
The reason behind the apparent falling out has been posted before.
With how Jeremy answers letters, "do you have a daughter" might seem a simple question, but the answer - maybe not so simple.
I don't personally think it is the full story .
-
What would you think of him if he had?
??? not quite sure what that means. If he has then it looks like he may have tried to keep it quiet to protect her?
It does not make any difference to his guilt or innocence ?
but we seem to be having a discussion with a huge amount of assumptions and no documentary evidence to base it on.
I have no idea where on this subject the truth starts and the lies end but at the moment I have no evidence any of it has come from Jeremy.
-
How do you know?
I think they do .
-
A minor child doesn't file a case against the estate the parents of the child does so. That is how the parents used such as a vehicle for them to gain control of the money claiming they are going to be trustees of the money for the child.
The flaw in such is if the courts refuse to accept the naked word of the mother and do a paternity test which is what rational courts will do which in turn is why most are smart enough to not try such nonsense. In the some instances people actually had the gumption to try it anyway but those instances simply provide examples of why not to bother since they failed.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Jeremy fathered a child he would have filed a claim contemporaneously. He did filed one decades later simply to be a pest it was not sincere. I consider it quite possible that he toyed with the idea of making up a child to try to take a run at the estates but ultimately realized such would not work and would only hurt so didn't end up doing such.
Whether Mike made it up or Jeremy really did make such claim to Mike matters little, either way Mike is spreading things that harm Jeremy and that he shouldn't be spreading if he actually were out to help Jeremy was he claims. If you run around telling people things that were told to you in private that the person doesn't wan released then you can't claim you are out to help them while betraying their trust.
Absolutely. However, the estate would have to be pretty damn certain that the claim was legitimate, WHICH, in the case of an ILlegitmate, with no father's name on the birth certificate and no DNA proof is going to prove difficult.
Let's examine what we know. Mike announced that Jeremy had a daughter. I believed, apparently erroneously, as I think, did others, that Jeremy had told him, but although it seem that Jeremy HAD told him that he'd "contemplated getting her to make a claim for her share of Mabel Speakman's estate" -making it clear that they HAD spoken of it, it appears that it was the daughter's mother -a close friend of Mike's- who'd revealed the "secret."
If we consider the time frame in which this "relationship" occurred, resulting in the birth of a child, I imagine it was highly unlikely that Jeremy went, hand in hand with the mother, perhaps carrying the child, to ensure that his name appeared on the birth certificate, establishing his paternity and responsibility, AND making her his legitimate heir. One wonders, during that time frame, quite WHEN Jeremy would have had the time to devote to such a courtship -if, indeed it WAS such- when there would have been SO many other things going on AND so many "eyes" on him, watching what was going on.
If Jeremy learned of his paternity whilst in prison, it's possible that he wasn't aware of a pregnancy and if he wasn't, how would he be certain he was responsible for it? For a man whose "quickies" were allegedly once a fairly regular part of his social life, and for whom "fidelity" seemed not to be part of his vocabulary, there MAY have been several who could make such claims and making such, on unsuspecting males, isn't unheard of.......................... which puts forward the possibility of a third person, in this equation, who may have been responsible for giving knowledge to one, resulting in us being given information by another.
A possible irony has just struck me. Patterns have an uncanny knack of repeating. Jeremy's biological family have expressed a disinclination to have anything to do with him. How bitter an irony would it be -IF there was a child- that it feels similarly inclined.
-
??? not quite sure what that means. If he has then it looks like he may have tried to keep it quiet to protect her?
It does not make any difference to his guilt or innocence ?
but we seem to be having a discussion with a huge amount of assumptions and no documentary evidence to base it on.
I have no idea where on this subject the truth starts and the lies end but at the moment I have no evidence any of it has come from Jeremy.
No, it makes no difference to guilt of innocence but if he lied about having a daughter would you still defend him?
-
Provisions were made in Mabel SPEAKMANS will for her great grand daughter to benefit from her estate through June's share of Mabel SPEAKMANS estate. Her great grand daughter was born prior to the occasion when June Bamber (7th August 1985), and Mabel SPEAKMAN (10th August 1985) both died, and before Jeremy Bamber even got arrested in September 1985, or convicted in October 1986 - her birth when it occurred entitled her to a claim against her grand mother's estate, and her great grand mother's estate, as a potential benefactor...
So from that we can assume that, as provision appears to have been made SPECIFICALLY for a " great granddaughter" to inherit, all the family knew of the girl-child, Jeremy's name appeared on the birth certificate and the child went by the name of Bamber.
-
So from that we can assume that, as provision appears to have been made SPECIFICALLY for a "grand daughter" to inherit, all the family knew of the girl-child, Jeremy's name appeared on the birth certificate and the child went by the name of Bamber.
And no one twigged? Hmmmmm? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
even worse to be honest would be if it was true and someone did a bit of digging and found the person that Mike says exists. Her life would become hell if the press got hold of it , let alone social media.
Jan, I'd be the first to agree with you was it not for Mike saying that Granny Speakman had actually made provision in her will for this great granddaughter, so Jeremy's name will be on her birth certificate, which has to mean that it's all out in the open anyway.
-
even worse to be honest would be if it was true and someone did a bit of digging and found the person that Mike says exists. Her life would become hell if the press got hold of it , let alone social media.
I agree Jan and for that reason I have removed many of Mike's posts but it continues to be discussed on various threads meaning we can only try to be vigilant and remove anything too personal.
-
I agree Jan and for that reason I have removed many of Mike's posts but it continues to be discussed on various threads meaning we can only try to be vigilant and remove anything too personal.
I wouldn't worry about it Maggie - if there had been a daughter, the press would have gotten hold of it years ago.
-
I wouldn't worry about it Maggie - if there had been a daughter, the press would have gotten hold of it years ago.
I know but it's still 'ikky' imo.
-
I know but it's still 'ikky' imo.
Think about it; if Jeremy had communication with a daughter, there would be so many people who knew inside and outside the prison. There is no way that at least ONE of them, wouldn't have gone to the press.
-
Think about it; if Jeremy had communication with a daughter, there would be so many people who knew inside and outside the prison. There is no way that at least ONE of them, wouldn't have gone to the press.
I know. 8) but I don't like the way it drags the family into another 'situation' with posts about.unknown 'heiress in waiting' etc. even if unproven. :-\
-
Can I ask Mike - how did you come to meet this woman, I mean is she someone who believes Jeremy is innocent and is that why you were introduced?
-
Can I ask Mike - how did you come to meet this woman, I mean is she someone who believes Jeremy is innocent and is that why you were introduced?
If Mike knew about the daughter, then xxxxx knew about the daughter. And when has xxxxxx EVER kept ANYTHING quiet.
I just don't believe it.
-
I know. 8) but I don't like the way it drags the family into another 'situation' with posts about.unknown 'heiress in waiting' etc. even if unproven. :-\
Maggie, sadly I don't think the family will find themselves "Jeremy-free" for SEVERAL generations and I don't think that anything said on a forum will be considered to have contributed to that. IF the alleged child had, as Mike said, been acknowledged in Granny Speakman's will, the family clearly know of her existence and who are we to say that they haven't made provision for her? On the other hand, should the alleged child turn out to be no more than "alleged," I think the family, IF they ever hear about it and IF they're bothered, will shrug it off. They have had to cope with much worse.
-
If Mike knew about the daughter, then xxxxx knew about the daughter. And when has xxxxx EVER kept ANYTHING quiet.
I just don't believe it.
You don't think? :o :o :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You don't think? :o :o :o ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh my god. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
No, it makes no difference to guilt of innocence but if he lied about having a daughter would you still defend him?
I would only judge what I would feel if I knew he had lied and the reason for it?
At the moment she could be as mythical as a unicorn so its hard to judge any feelings whatsoever :)
-
I know but it's still 'ikky' imo.
Yes a trail of place of birth and age etc was laid - and I don't think that was fair. IF it was true then clues were being given .
-
Yes a trail of place of birth and age etc was laid - and I don't think that was fair. IF it was true then clues were being given .
Not only do I believe it to have been unfair. IF she exists? and IF any of what has been said is true? given that it's been alleged that steps had been taken to protect her from any publicity, I consider it to be a gross breach of confidentiality.
-
Maggie, sadly I don't think the family will find themselves "Jeremy-free" for SEVERAL generations and I don't think that anything said on a forum will be considered to have contributed to that. IF the alleged child had, as Mike said, been acknowledged in Granny Speakman's will, the family clearly know of her existence and who are we to say that they haven't made provision for her? On the other hand, should the alleged child turn out to be no more than "alleged," I think the family, IF they ever hear about it and IF they're bothered, will shrug it off. They have had to cope with much worse.
I am always being told by some that I am happy to see the family slagged off..... surely this shows that I am not.
-
I am always being told by some that I am happy to see the family slagged off..... surely this shows that I am not.
Maggie
quite right you have never been disrespectful to the family just the opposite :)
-
Maggie
quite right you have never been disrespectful to the family just the opposite :)
Thank you susan, I do my best to keep things even handed. :)
It is difficult because this is a pro Jeremy Bamber website and because relatives were involved in the conviction they are bound to be part of the story, however they have a right to privacy about their personal business. imo
-
Can I ask Mike - how did you come to meet this woman, I mean is she someone who believes Jeremy is innocent and is that why you were introduced?
I first met her in 2002, after the fàiled appeal hearing in London. She gave me a lot of inside informaton about Jeremy's life before he was taken into custody. I visited people and places of interest based on what she told me, which turned out to be very helpful in helping me to know Jeremy better than I already thought I did. She proved to be a powerful source of information and support to me for around 3 years whilst I trudged back and forth to visit Jeremy, and liaise weekly with Ewen Smith, and eventually, GDS...
-
Maggie
quite right you have never been disrespectful to the family just the opposite :)
:o
Has this always been your opinion, Susan. Or just your current opinion?
-
I first met her in 2002, after the fàiled appeal hearing in London. She gave me a lot of inside informaton about Jeremy's life before he was taken into custody. I visited people and places of interest based on what she told me, which turned out to be very helpful in helping me to know Jeremy better than I already thought I did. She proved to be a powerful source of information and support to me for around 3 years whilst I trudged back and forth to visit Jeremy, and liaise weekly with Ewen Smith, and eventually, GDS...
Mike, why is now a good/appropriate time to reveal?
-
As most will have noted, there does not appear to be a defining moment mentioning the exact time in the police logs about when the raid team first set foot upstairs, and leaving the downstairs rooms already fully searched. This is odd. In operations like this, police almost always record events by reference to specific time. But in this instance, the content of police logs makes no such distinction, other than stating, at 7.37am, "THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE", and " THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND ON ENTRY", then at 8.10am, "AFTER A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE PREMISES, A FURTHER THREE BODIES FOUND UPSTAIRS, FIVE DEAD IN TOTAL"...
I for one, do not accept that a great deal of time had passed between the reported discovery, of " the body of one dead male", occurring, and the mention in the same breath, as " and the body of one dead female, found upon entry", was made. The gap between the finding of "the body of the dead male", and the finding of " the body of the dead female", seems minimal, not drawn out. The alleged sequence of events spoken about in the contents of the dodgy Woodcock, 13 page, witness statement, dated, 20th September, 1985, seem to be referring to a long drawn out sequence of events, between entry into the main kitchen and the discovery of Ralph Bambers body, (a) the search of the spiral staircase in the corner of the kitchen, (b) the exit of the main kitchen and searches of the laundry room, and downstairs office, (c) up the back stairs, into a storeroom, (d) search the upstairs office, (e) be confronted by a locked door panel leading to the other part of the upstairs side of the house (bolted on other side of panel), (f) force open a locked storeroom door, (g) climb into the loft space and search it, (h) go back downstairs, (I) re-enter the main kitchen, (j) enter the dining room and search it, (k) enter the living room and search it, (l) force open the cellar door and search it, (M) enter the downstairs toilet and search it, before the raid team was even ready to go up the main stairs at the front of the house using a mirrored device to enable them to see (n) the body of June Bamber in the doorway of the main bedroom...
-
:o
Has this always been your opinion, Susan. Or just your current opinion?
Mat just my current one ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Mat just my current one ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thought so. ;D
-
I first met her in 2002, after the fàiled appeal hearing in London. She gave me a lot of inside informaton about Jeremy's life before he was taken into custody. I visited people and places of interest based on what she told me, which turned out to be very helpful in helping me to know Jeremy better than I already thought I did. She proved to be a powerful source of information and support to me for around 3 years whilst I trudged back and forth to visit Jeremy, and liaise weekly with Ewen Smith, and eventually, GDS...
Thanks for that Mike- so this means she can't have just been a one night stand?
-
Thanks for that Mike- so this means she can't have just been a one night stand?
That makes even less sense still- she was close to him and yet failed to list him on the birth certificate and failed to pursue him for child support? The mother keeps it a secret from everyone including her family and the father's family (and thus the child) when it is a one night stand or the like.
There are 4 common situations which play themselves out:
1) The mother regrets having any kind of relationship with the father and wants no one to know about such relationship and doesn't want the father in her life or her child's life so refuses to list the father on the birth certificate or to allow anyone to know. Obviously such a person would not be attending the appeal and telling people her daughter is his child.
2) The mother has relations with multiple men around the time of conception and doesn't know who the father is. This obviously would preclude being able to say Jeremy was the father.
3) A woman out for attention, money or in search of a stable spouse makes up that her child's father is someone other than the true father and tries to get the fake father to help raise/support the child or tries to use such to garner fame or something else.
4) A woman and man conspire to pretend the man is the child's father because of some agenda they have. An example of this is Ron DeFeo (of Amityville fame) linking up with Geraldine Gates to make up that her 3rd daughter was DeFeo's and trying to use that to make a run at the estate. After that failed DeFeo admitte dit was a lie but Geraldine continued to use the made up claim to try to get deals from authors and the like and ultimately wound up being successful. Ric Osuna latched onto her lies and presented the in the book he Night the DeFeo's died. The publisher of the book turned it into a documentary called Shattered Hopes which she played a prominent role. So Geraldine essentially reverted to number 3.
If Jeremy and the alleged mother both told Mike about a daughter then it is obvious they were contemplating number 4 but ultimately Jeremy decided against it because it could be disproved with a paternity test so and as a fallback the woman resorted to number 3.
It is quite possible that number 4 or 3 is the case here. But since Mike made up the outlandish claim that he stole a photo of Sheila on the bed that was in the possession of Ewen Smith and then mailed it to Jeremy but police stole it one has to wonder whether Mike made up all of this as well.
-
That makes even less sense still- she was close to him and yet failed to list him on the birth certificate and failed to pursue him for child support? The mother keeps it a secret from everyone including her family and the father's family (and thus the child) when it is a one night stand or the like.
There are 4 common situations which play themselves out:
1) The mother regrets having any kind of relationship with the father and wants no one to know about such relationship and doesn't want the father in her life or her child's life so refuses to list the father on the birth certificate or to allow anyone to know. Obviously such a person would not be attending the appeal and telling people her daughter is his child.
2) The mother has relations with multiple men around the time of conception and doesn't know who the father is. This obviously would preclude being able to say Jeremy was the father.
3) A woman out for attention, money or in search of a stable spouse makes up that her child's father is someone other than the true father and tries to get the fake father to help raise/support the child or tries to use such to garner fame or something else.
4) A woman and man conspire to pretend the man is the child's father because of some agenda they have. An example of this is Ron DeFeo (of Amityville fame) linking up with Geraldine Gates to make up that her 3rd daughter was DeFeo's and trying to use that to make a run at the estate. After that failed DeFeo admitte dit was a lie but Geraldine continued to use the made up claim to try to get deals from authors and the like and ultimately wound up being successful. Ric Osuna latched onto her lies and presented the in the book he Night the DeFeo's died. The publisher of the book turned it into a documentary called Shattered Hopes which she played a prominent role. So Geraldine essentially reverted to number 3.
If Jeremy and the alleged mother both told Mike about a daughter then it is obvious they were contemplating number 4 but ultimately Jeremy decided against it because it could be disproved with a paternity test so and as a fallback the woman resorted to number 3.
It is quite possible that number 4 or 3 is the case here. But since Mike made up the outlandish claim that he stole a photo of Sheila on the bed that was in the possession of Ewen Smith and then mailed it to Jeremy but police stole it one has to wonder whether Mike made up all of this as well.
I can't locate it now -some posts have been removed- but I fairly certain Mike said Granny Speakman had made provision for her great granddaughter in her will (pleeeeeze don't shoot the messenger) so surely this has to mean that not only is Jeremy's name on the birth certificate and the family KNOW of her existence, they MAY also be providing for her?
-
It'll depend if the father's name is on the child's birth certificate as to whether she'll be supported. It's usually down to the father of a child to pay maintenance.
-
It'll depend if the father's name is on the child's birth certificate as to whether she'll be supported. It's usually down to the father of a child to pay maintenance.
Otherwise there's no entitlement whatsoever.
-
It'll depend if the father's name is on the child's birth certificate as to whether she'll be supported. It's usually down to the father of a child to pay maintenance.
Which is why, if Jeremy's name IS on the birth certificate and Granny Speakman had acknowledged her existence by providing for her in her will, it's not impossible, that knowing her wishes, the family have provided for her.
-
Otherwise there's no entitlement whatsoever.
As you correctly say. WITHOUT the father's name being present, any mother to be could name ANY monied family as being her child's relatives.
-
I can't locate it now -some posts have been removed- but I fairly certain Mike said Granny Speakman had made provision for her great granddaughter in her will (pleeeeeze don't shoot the messenger) so surely this has to mean that not only is Jeremy's name on the birth certificate and the family KNOW of her existence, they MAY also be providing for her?
That's correct - I read that.
-
That makes even less sense still- she was close to him and yet failed to list him on the birth certificate and failed to pursue him for child support? The mother keeps it a secret from everyone including her family and the father's family (and thus the child) when it is a one night stand or the like.
There are 4 common situations which play themselves out:
1) The mother regrets having any kind of relationship with the father and wants no one to know about such relationship and doesn't want the father in her life or her child's life so refuses to list the father on the birth certificate or to allow anyone to know. Obviously such a person would not be attending the appeal and telling people her daughter is his child.
2) The mother has relations with multiple men around the time of conception and doesn't know who the father is. This obviously would preclude being able to say Jeremy was the father.
3) A woman out for attention, money or in search of a stable spouse makes up that her child's father is someone other than the true father and tries to get the fake father to help raise/support the child or tries to use such to garner fame or something else.
4) A woman and man conspire to pretend the man is the child's father because of some agenda they have. An example of this is Ron DeFeo (of Amityville fame) linking up with Geraldine Gates to make up that her 3rd daughter was DeFeo's and trying to use that to make a run at the estate. After that failed DeFeo admitte dit was a lie but Geraldine continued to use the made up claim to try to get deals from authors and the like and ultimately wound up being successful. Ric Osuna latched onto her lies and presented the in the book he Night the DeFeo's died. The publisher of the book turned it into a documentary called Shattered Hopes which she played a prominent role. So Geraldine essentially reverted to number 3.
If Jeremy and the alleged mother both told Mike about a daughter then it is obvious they were contemplating number 4 but ultimately Jeremy decided against it because it could be disproved with a paternity test so and as a fallback the woman resorted to number 3.
It is quite possible that number 4 or 3 is the case here. But since Mike made up the outlandish claim that he stole a photo of Sheila on the bed that was in the possession of Ewen Smith and then mailed it to Jeremy but police stole it one has to wonder whether Mike made up all of this as well.
I don't think she would have had a lot of luck getting child support whilst the alleged father is serving a life sentence.
-
I don't think she would have had a lot of luck getting child support whilst the alleged father is serving a life sentence.
Mike said the child was born before the murders.
-
Mike said the child was born before the murders.
Ah so perhaps Julie found out and really was a woman scorned - I see a reason for her lies being formulated !
Not really .
If it was before the murders it does not make any sense.
-
That's correct - I read that.
Thanks Caroline. Would HATE to have got it wrong :-[
-
Ah so perhaps Julie found out and really was a woman scorned - I see a reason for her lies being formulated !
Not really .
If it was before the murders it does not make any sense.
Ha, ha!! Yes, I think Julie would have certainly mentioned it :D
-
Mike said the child was born before the murders.
OK, so WHY the secrecy? He'd made no formal commitment to Julie -in fact he'd broken one- he was seeing at least ONE other woman!! and the "baby mother" doesn't appear to be any of the named females in his life. Bottom line is that he was a free agent.
-
Thanks for that Mike- so this means she can't have just been a one night stand?
Certainly not a one night stand...
-
OK, so WHY the secrecy? He'd made no formal commitment to Julie -in fact he'd broken one- he was seeing at least ONE other woman!! and the "baby mother" doesn't appear to be any of the named females in his life. Bottom line is that he was a free agent.
Well, it can't be Julie or Virginia or Anji Greaves (he saw those two post murders). It can't have been Sue Ford because he husband would have had something to say! We would know if it were Liz Rimmington and besides, she thought he was guilty. Have I missed anyone?
-
Even the fact that grannie made provisions would have been contested-------------successfully.
-
Well, it can't be Julie or Virginia or Anji Greaves (he saw those two post murders). It can't have been Sue Ford because he husband would have had something to say! We would know if it were Liz Rimmington and besides, she thought he was guilty. Have I missed anyone?
Susan Battersby? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The original will would have been made null and void anyway when the will was changed. Even a codicil wouldn't have made any difference.
-
By the beginning of 2004, June Bambers grand daughter, and Mabel Speakmans, great grand daughter, was not receiving any support at all from the relatives...
-
I see a problem with the latest will of Mabel Speakmam...
-
By the beginning of 2004, June Bambers grand daughter, and Mabel Speakmans, great grand daughter, was not receiving any support at all from the relatives...
Without a name on a birth certificate how would they know she was who it was claimed she was?
-
Nobody is obliged to receive any payment/support once they turn 18 or 21.
-
DNA test has already been completed I was informed, prior to 2003, confirming paternity...
-
After confirmation that Jeremy had fathered a daughter, there was a leak of confidential information, and the child's mother was hounded by the press, for a period of six months, but took legal action and has since been left alone. The taking of the legal action by the mother of Jeremy's daughter, it effected the manner with which Jeremy pursued the civil case against the relatives in the Mabel Speakman claim. This action served to deprive June Bambers grand daughter, and Mabel Speakmans great grand daughter from her rightful entitlement as a benefactor in the estates of June Bamber, and her mother, Mabel Speakman - it angers me that it has come down to this. The way I see it, it has turned into another massive injustice, on the grand daughter, and great grand daughters, behalf...
-
After confirmation that Jeremy had fathered a daughter, there was a leak of confidential information, and the child's mother was hounded by the press, for a period of six months, but took legal action and has since been left alone. The taking of the legal action by the mother of Jeremy's daughter, it effected the manner with which Jeremy pursued the civil case against the relatives in the Mabel Speakman claim. This action served to deprive June Bambers grand daughter, and Mabel Speakmans great grand daughter from her rightful entitlement as a benefactor in the estates of June Bamber, and her mother, Mabel Speakman - it angers me that it has come down to this. The way I see it, it has turned unto another massive injustice, on the grand daughter, and great grand daughters behalf...
Which press? Had that happened it would have appeared at least one newspaper but there is nothing on record.
-
DNA test has already been completed I was informed, prior to 2003, confirming paternity...
How kind of you to make enquiries on my behalf. When I asked you about it yesterday, you said "Now, how would you expect me to know such details?" I guess the answer would be for you to do what you've just done. Ask the question.
-
Susan Battersby? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Barbara Wilson?
Princess Diana?
-
Barbara Wilson?
Princess Diana?
Well, now you mention it......................
-
Barbara Wilson?
Princess Diana?
Brett Collins? Well Mike did say she isn't 'womanly' ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Which press? Had that happened it would have appeared at least one newspaper but there is nothing on record.
No, sorry but the press were banned by the injunction taken out from running any cover story, and ordered to leave the mother and her family alone...
-
No, sorry but the press were banned by the injunction taken out from running any cover story, and ordered to leave the mother and her family alone...
A super injunction? :o :o
-
After confirmation that Jeremy had fathered a daughter, there was a leak of confidential information, and the child's mother was hounded by the press, for a period of six months, but took legal action and has since been left alone. The taking of the legal action by the mother of Jeremy's daughter, it effected the manner with which Jeremy pursued the civil case against the relatives in the Mabel Speakman claim. This action served to deprive June Bambers grand daughter, and Mabel Speakmans great grand daughter from her rightful entitlement as a benefactor in the estates of June Bamber, and her mother, Mabel Speakman - it angers me that it has come down to this. The way I see it, it has turned into another massive injustice, on the grand daughter, and great grand daughters, behalf...
So it wasn't much of a secret if someone leaked it to the press. I don't recall seeing ANYTHING about it in the local press,and a journalist friend, who, at the time, owned a press agency and covered the massacre, never said anything about it, which is quite odd given that he shared with me information, that when it was released two years later, was so huge that shocked the whole Country.
-
A super injunction? :o :o
Caroline, aren't these super injunctions a very new thing?
-
No, sorry but the press were banned by the injunction taken out from running any cover story, and ordered to leave the mother and her family alone...
This is apparently why Jeremy did not proceed with any action at that stage (2003), after he lost his own entitlement as a benefactor to granny Speakmans estate. I do know that Jeremy wanted his daughter to enjoy the financial benefits afforded to her as a benefactor once she reached the qualifying age, but legally his hands were tied. The decision to take out the injunction to prevent the mother and daughter being named forced a wedge between Jeremy, and the mother of his daughter, and as far as I know contact between all parties suffered as a result of it. I continued to visit the mother who lives in xxxxxxxxxx until 2004, but have not seen her since then...
-
As most will have noted, there does not appear to be a defining moment mentioning the exact time in the police logs about when the raid team first set foot upstairs, and leaving the downstairs rooms already fully searched. This is odd. In operations like this, police almost always record events by reference to specific time. But in this instance, the content of police logs makes no such distinction, other than stating, at 7.37am, "THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE", and " THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND ON ENTRY", then at 8.10am, "AFTER A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE PREMISES, A FURTHER THREE BODIES FOUND UPSTAIRS, FIVE DEAD IN TOTAL"...
I for one, do not accept that a great deal of time had passed between the reported discovery, of " the body of one dead male", occurring, and the mention in the same breath, as " and the body of one dead female, found upon entry", was made. The gap between the finding of "the body of the dead male", and the finding of " the body of the dead female", seems minimal, not drawn out. The alleged sequence of events spoken about in the contents of the dodgy Woodcock, 13 page, witness statement, dated, 20th September, 1985, seem to be referring to a long drawn out sequence of events, between entry into the main kitchen and the discovery of Ralph Bambers body, (a) the search of the spiral staircase in the corner of the kitchen, (b) the exit of the main kitchen and searches of the laundry room, and downstairs office, (c) up the back stairs, into a storeroom, (d) search the upstairs office, (e) be confronted by a locked door panel leading to the other part of the upstairs side of the house (bolted on other side of panel), (f) force open a locked storeroom door, (g) climb into the loft space and search it, (h) go back downstairs, (I) re-enter the main kitchen, (j) enter the dining room and search it, (k) enter the living room and search it, (l) force open the cellar door and search it, (M) enter the downstairs toilet and search it, before the raid team was even ready to go up the main stairs at the front of the house using a mirrored device to enable them to see (n) the body of June Bamber in the doorway of the main bedroom...
A minute later, (7.38am), "One dead male, one dead female"...
-
Caroline, aren't these super injunctions a very new thing?
Are they? ;D
-
At, 7.42am, "Can someone contact the police surgeon, and the Coroners officer, regarding two bodies"...
-
Are they? ;D
I know celebs -of the Z list type- have been known to take them out.
-
I can't locate it now -some posts have been removed- but I fairly certain Mike said Granny Speakman had made provision for her great granddaughter in her will (pleeeeeze don't shoot the messenger) so surely this has to mean that not only is Jeremy's name on the birth certificate and the family KNOW of her existence, they MAY also be providing for her?
Mike says a lot of things, virtually none of them are ever accurate. Granny's new will made no provision at all for a child of Jeremy. Jeremy was a child when her first will was written.
-
Then, by 7.45am, 'Linda', in the control room was contacting DS Neil Davidson at home, requesting him to come into the office, because police are dealing with an incident at whf involving, "A MURDER", and "A SUICIDE"...
-
As most will have noted, there does not appear to be a defining moment mentioning the exact time in the police logs about when the raid team first set foot upstairs, and leaving the downstairs rooms already fully searched. This is odd. In operations like this, police almost always record events by reference to specific time. But in this instance, the content of police logs makes no such distinction, other than stating, at 7.37am, "THE BODY OF ONE DEAD MALE", and " THE BODY OF ONE DEAD FEMALE, FOUND ON ENTRY", then at 8.10am, "AFTER A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE PREMISES, A FURTHER THREE BODIES FOUND UPSTAIRS, FIVE DEAD IN TOTAL"...
This is a perfect example why your opinions are disregarded as sheer nonsense.
The raid team was not writing down on paper the time they cleared each room. Nor were they passing the time to someone outside ot have such person relay it to the IR room so such could be placed on the log. The raid team was not unique, police do not do such ever. Expecting them to shows what a clown you are.
-
Then, by 7.45am, 'Linda', in the control room was contacting DS Neil Davidson at home, requesting him to come into the office, because police are dealing with an incident at whf involving, "A MURDER", and "A SUICIDE"...
She didn't tell him it was a murder suicide, that was later after the site was cleared hat such surfaced but hey when did you care about the facts...
-
Mike says a lot of things, virtually none of them are ever accurate. Granny's new will made no provision at all for a child of Jeremy. Jeremy was a child when her first will was written.
REALLY, Scipio?
-
Mike is Mike, deal with it
-
From before the moment the raid team even set foot into the farmhouse, the control room had a live feed inside the main kitchen, a room through which the main traffic of human resources passed through, en route to searching and clearing the remaining rooms downstairs, which included the dining room, the living room and the cellar, before the raid team set off up the main stair. Therefore, by reference to the ever reliable control room clock people in the control room who were in possession of a live feed inside the farmhouse, would have known the exact time the search of the main kitchen, the search of the laundry room, the search of the downstairs office, the search of the upstairs storeroom, search of the upstairs office, search of the locked storeroom, search of the loft space, before all the kings horses and all the kings men returned and passed through the main kitchen, as spoken about. What we do know, is that according to one of these police logs, is that no sooner do the raid team force entry into the farmhouse, than it is recorded that "voices can be heard"...
Yet, we are not told, who's voices were heard, or what these people said, at such a crucial stage...
Having now clearly demonstrated that an accurate time was known by reference (Control room clock) to the time and the occasion when after basically searching and clearing all rooms downstairs and upstairs on one side of the main kitchen, with the main traffic passing through the main kitchen, to search the other rooms downstairs and upstairs on the other side of the main kitchen, anyone suggesting that timing was not / is not important nor was it possible to know, is a complete fool, and an idiot...
For many months now, I have had to put up with bafoons accusing me of lying about this, or that, but I have always been able to demonstrate by posting up evidence in most of these instances, and when this has been done, these bafoons have not once apologised so that everybody else can see that on these many other occasions when these morons have been spouting their mouths off, and have been proven to be wrong. Instead, these same morons continue to claim that I am lying about anything and everything I talk about. Not only that, but that nobody takes any notice at all about anything I have got to say - well, the statistics disprove what these morons are saying, and anyway, I don't give a flying toss whether anyone takes any notice of anything I say. I do not post for that reason, I post because its a record of my thoughts at different times, as it were a contemporaneous log. These very same morons who say nobody takes any notice of what I say, themselves are reading and taking note of the very same things, they say nobody takes any notice of...
Bafoons, that is what these people are, utter bafoons...
-
When the main traffic of police resources returned and passed through the main kitchen to commence search of other downstairs and upstairs rooms on the other side of the main kitchen, police in the control room knew the time this occurred / happened. It was therefore relatively easy to pinpoint the events spoken about and recorded in the timed police log entries, as compared to the actual time when for example, "the body of one dead male", and "the body of one dead female" (7.37am), had actually occurred in real time. What is required, are that the contents of the police logs with timed entries, compared with real time reference to the same events. I cannot believe that police were reporting the discovery of two bodies downstairs, and three bodies upstairs, by reference to the content of logs, whilst officially claiming that only one body was found downstairs, with four bodies upstairs, at the beginning of this police investigation, when the case was being dealt with (SC/688/85) as 'four murders and a suicide'. These significant discrepancies required an internal police investigation to find out and establish how displacement of a female body from the kitchen downstairs, ended up in the main bedroom upstairs. According to the police logs there had always been two of the five bodies downstairs, and there had always been only three bodies upstairs...
There would have been an internal police investigation to sort these significant discrepancies out, and this internal police investigation would have needed to take place, prior to the new investigation (SC/786/85) commencing...
The new investigation (SC/786/85) could not get under way, until the problems of body displacement (2) downstairs, and (3) upstairs, was properly sorted out in the original case under SC/688/85...
-
The most senior detectives in Essex police of the day were all involved in the police operation at the scene / and the investigation into the shootings afterwards. There must have been a thorough investigation into the conflicting scenes downstairs and upstairs. Such an internal investigation, would have sought to make some sort of sense to try and explain the very issue now being raised here, by myself. This would have almost certainly resulted in the seizure of the 999 phone link up (eavesdrop), and the taking of witness statements from everyone on duty inside the control room, and at the scene at the material time (7.30 to 8.10am), to pinpoint exactly at what precise time the body of the dead female was found in the kitchen, when compared with the actual sequence of events, and the events if any, which had elapsed before the discovery of the female body, as per the police log entry...
There is no way the police would have allowed such a problematic issue go by unnoticed, or unattended, the discrepancy was too serious a matter to simply allow the matter to be swept under the carpet, so that a line could be drawn under it. I know the truth about what really did happen at the scene, I know the true explanation for why the body count changed downstairs and upstairs after 8.10am, from 2 / 3, into 1 / 4, and that reason was because shortly after 8.10am the firearm operation inside the farmhouse went pearshaped. At this time, leadership of the firearm operation altered and changed from PS Adams as the Commander of the operation, to PI Montgomery as the Commander of the operation. This coincided with discovery of Sheila's body in the region of the main kitchen where it had originally been left, being discovered to be missing, when DCI Harris, DCI Gibbons and PI Montgomery left the forward control point in a nearby farm building, at about 8.10am, leaving PS Adams at the forward control point. Once Sheila's body was found not to be present in the main kitchen, by Harris, Gibbons, and Montgomery, a fresh search of the premises had to be carried out to locate Sheila Caffell, so PI Montgomery took charge of this fresh search inside of the farmhouse from about 8.15am, onwards...
Change in Commandership of the firearm operations at around 8.15am, as described, coincided with DCI Harris, using the round finger dial phone in the kitchen, to contact ACC Peter Simpson, to update him about how the original operation had gone pearshaped. This conversation lasted some 15 minutes until about 8.30am, by which time Sheila was relocated upstairs on the bed in the main bedroom, apparently now dead with what appeared to be a single bullet wound to her neck...
-
Mike we do listen and we do read your posts you have obviously spent hour and hours of your life on this case.
I am just not convinced now that it was a set up as such.
-
Mike we do listen and we do read your posts you have obviously spent hour and hours of your life on this case.
I am just not convinced now that it was a set up as such.
Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to...
Firearm training, was changed after the firearm operation that took place outside and inside whf that particular morning. Many new recommendations were made and introduced as a result of the mistakes which were made, in the planning, preparation and entry, by firearms officers, including the insufficient numbers of firearm officers who went into the building, and left the bodies of victims they found unattended. The internal police investigation I am talking about was carried out on behalf of the firearms department Essex police....
-
Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to...
Thank-you for that, Mike. It's good to know you feel that way
Having now clearly demonstrated that an accurate time was known by reference (Control room clock) anyone suggesting that timing was not / is not important nor was it possible to know, is a complete fool, and an idiot...
Oh dear. That magnanimous gesture was a bit short lived, wasn't it? :D
For many months now, I have had to put up with bafoons accusing me of lying about this, or that, but I have always been able to demonstrate by posting up evidence in most of these instances, and when this has been done, these bafoons have not once apologised so that everybody else can see that on these many other occasions when these morons have been spouting their mouths off, and have been proven to be wrong. Instead, these same morons continue to claim that I am lying about anything and everything I talk about. Not only that, but that nobody takes any notice at all about anything I have got to say - well, the statistics disprove what these morons are saying, and anyway, I don't give a flying toss whether anyone takes any notice of anything I say. I do not post for that reason, I post because its a record of my thoughts at different times, as it were a contemporaneous log. These very same morons who say nobody takes any notice of what I say, themselves are reading and taking note of the very same things, they say nobody takes any notice of...
Bafoons, that is what these people are, utter bafoons...
If everyone is entitled to think what they want, how is it that those of us who think differently are "IDIOTS" "FOOLS" "BUFFOONS" "MORONS" and "LIARS"? You insist of yourself "I post because it's a record of my thoughts at different times................." MOST of us do the same. What makes us different? Other than the names you call us if we don't agree with you and we may not change our minds as frequently as you? At least what I've said proves I've read what YOU'VE said ;D
-
Mike is Mike, deal with it
By the same token Scipio is scipio, Adam is Adam - deal with it!
-
From before the moment the raid team even set foot into the farmhouse, the control room had a live feed inside the main kitchen, a room through which the main traffic of human resources passed through, en route to searching and clearing the remaining rooms downstairs, which included the dining room, the living room and the cellar, before the raid team set off up the main stair. Therefore, by reference to the ever reliable control room clock people in the control room who were in possession of a live feed inside the farmhouse, would have known the exact time the search of the main kitchen, the search of the laundry room, the search of the downstairs office, the search of the upstairs storeroom, search of the upstairs office, search of the locked storeroom, search of the loft space, before all the kings horses and all the kings men returned and passed through the main kitchen, as spoken about. What we do know, is that according to one of these police logs, is that no sooner do the raid team force entry into the farmhouse, than it is recorded that "voices can be heard"...
Yet, we are not told, who's voices were heard, or what these people said, at such a crucial stage...
Having now clearly demonstrated that an accurate time was known by reference (Control room clock) to the time and the occasion when after basically searching and clearing all rooms downstairs and upstairs on one side of the main kitchen, with the main traffic passing through the main kitchen, to search the other rooms downstairs and upstairs on the other side of the main kitchen, anyone suggesting that timing was not / is not important nor was it possible to know, is a complete fool, and an idiot...
For many months now, I have had to put up with bafoons accusing me of lying about this, or that, but I have always been able to demonstrate by posting up evidence in most of these instances, and when this has been done, these bafoons have not once apologised so that everybody else can see that on these many other occasions when these morons have been spouting their mouths off, and have been proven to be wrong. Instead, these same morons continue to claim that I am lying about anything and everything I talk about. Not only that, but that nobody takes any notice at all about anything I have got to say - well, the statistics disprove what these morons are saying, and anyway, I don't give a flying toss whether anyone takes any notice of anything I say. I do not post for that reason, I post because its a record of my thoughts at different times, as it were a contemporaneous log. These very same morons who say nobody takes any notice of what I say, themselves are reading and taking note of the very same things, they say nobody takes any notice of...
Bafoons, that is what these people are, utter bafoons...
Having a different opinion doesn't make anyone a moron or a buffoon. Lots of what you suggest can't be physically proven either way - like the notion of a daughter and personally, I believe that such a 'secret' would have found it's way into the press a LONG time ago. I'm not apologising for believing something different.
-
I'm not bothered what you think, I know the truth and that's all I need to know....
-
I'm not bothered what you think, I know the truth and that's all I need to know....
I'm not bothered by anyone's opinion either - it's just a discussion and people are bound to have different ideas. It's inevitable.
-
I'm not bothered what you think, I know the truth and that's all I need to know....
Mike, are you still adamant that Sheila didn't kill herself?
-
Mike, are you still adamant that Sheila didn't kill herself?
She definitely 100% did not kill herself. She died in the bedroom at around 9.12am, give or take a few seconds, either way...
-
Having now clearly demonstrated that an accurate time was known by reference (Control room clock) to the time and the occasion when after basically searching and clearing all rooms downstairs and upstairs on one side of the main kitchen, with the main traffic passing through the main kitchen, to search the other rooms downstairs and upstairs on the other side of the main kitchen, anyone suggesting that timing was not / is not important nor was it possible to know, is a complete fool, and an idiot...
When, where and how did you demonstrate such? All you did was make the idiotic claim the raid team must have been radioing HQIR after each room they cleared though the log shows that didn't happen.
Calling us fools for exercising our God given right to fail to believe nonsense is funny.
-
Because there was 'definitely ' a shooting incident in the main kitchen after police entered the main kitchen, the timing of when the shooting had taken place would have been noted in any investigation into the discharge of the officers weapon...
-
The audio recording of the shooting would not have been destroyed, because to have done so, or to do so, would amount to 'PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE', and 'CONSPIRACY'...
-
Because there was 'definitely ' a shooting incident in the main kitchen after police entered the main kitchen, the timing of when the shooting had taken place would have been noted in any investigation into the discharge of the officers weapon...
Their weapons were not discharged, you made this all up. Each time you post you have a new story. One minute you claim police fired a single shot next you claim 5. When making up lies you need to make up one lie not 20. Wen you advance 20 mutually exclusive claims it is obvious that you are simply making up nonsense.
-
The contents of the 'OFFICERS REPORT' about the shooting incident in the kitchen upon entry, and the missing 4 pages of the Woodcock 13 page witness statement, will reveal exactly how many shots were fired upon entry...
Particularly, since the 5 shots which police discharged upon entry into the main kitchen were recorded as 5 knocks, (7.34am) in the police log:-
-
The sequence with which these 5 knocks were recorded is important, "Knock, knock knock, knock knock", this coincided with the discharge of Woodcocks entry into the main kitchen, the shooting of Sheila, and finishing off of Ralph Bamber:-
"KNOCK" Sheila pulls muzzle of Woodcocks weapon into her throat, as though she wants him to shoot her...
"KNOCK, KNOCK" Woodcock shoots Ralph in top / back of skull..
"KNOCK, KNOCK" Woodcock shoots Ralph in top / back of skull..
-
. . . DCI Gibbons . . .
Gibbons was a Chief Inspector, not a Detective Chief Inspector, according to his statement.
-
Gibbons was a Chief Inspector, not a Detective Chief Inspector, according to his statement.
Pedantic?