Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Steve_uk on October 29, 2015, 07:05:PM
-
I'm thinking mainly of the judicial process, where Jeremy has been incarcerated for thirty years in a tiny cell measuring not more than ten feet by seven if I hazard a guess, trapped in a cage of iron, which if it were mine I think I'd prefer to end it all today, innocent or guilty. On the other hand we have Colin, the silent victim who has quietly gone about rebuilding the shards of his shattered life with dignity, has remarried and now has more children of his own. Should Colin's wish to see the killer of his sons interned for life be paramount, or has Jeremy served his time and earned the right to eat pot noodle on a Dorset beach, the waves lapping at his feet as he saunters along the sands, or dons a wetsuit to partake of a spot of windsurfing before taking a bite to eat in a nearby cafe?
-
Who has more right? Colin, clearly IMO.
Whereas Colin had got on with his life under horrible circumstances and still hasn't been able to remove himself fully from the murders because Bamber and his supporters won't let him. Even most recently on here supporters have said they can read between the lines of Colins own autobiography and that the don't believe Colin fully believes in Bambers guilt!! Colin corrected this recently with a short interview in which is confirmed, as he says in his book, he believe Bamber to be guilty.
Bamber, the convicted - has shown no remorse over the years. Not one shred.
-
Does any murderer deserve to be released?
And of course if JB is guilty he should serve 5 life sentences .
-
Does any murderer deserve to be released?
And of course if JB is guilty he should serve 5 life sentences .
Alias believes that even if he is guilty he should be out by now.
-
I respect Colin for how he has handled the tragedy and its aftermath and feel that his wishes should be taken into consideration. I would only say that Colin now has a new family,and only he knows whether it has filled a void partly or not. Jeremy has no blood relatives whatsoever on the outside who wish to accommodate him,though no doubt there would be friends to whom he could turn were he to be released. Of course letting him out when he's seventy would mean no meaningful chance for him to start a family of his own.
-
Alias believes that even if he is guilty he should be out by now.
that's probably because we have an inconsistent system .
But what I do think is that the length of incarceration should be set at the time of the trial and not changed without extremely good reason.
-
Does any murderer deserve to be released?
And of course if JB is guilty he should serve 5 life sentences .
Is there a general rule whereby someone convicted of killing one person like Dirty Den Leslie Grantham should be allowed out to pursue an acting career,whilst a mass murderer like Anders Behring Breivik may be let out in 21 years,as happened with Arnfinn Nesset,who may have murdered 138. Should murderers have any hope of release and if not what is the point of keeping them cooped up like hens where there is very little chance of rehabilitation?
-
I respect Colin for how he has handled the tragedy and its aftermath and feel that his wishes should be taken into consideration. I would only say that Colin now has a new family,and only he knows whether it has filled a void partly or not. Jeremy has no blood relatives whatsoever on the outside who wish to accommodate him,though no doubt there would be friends to whom he could turn were he to be released. Of course letting him out when he's seventy would mean no meaningful chance for him to start a family of his own.
There is no reason why he would be entitled to have a family of his own - unless of course he is innocent.
I don't think personally he has shown any indication he would be a threat to anyone but to be honest he might be better off inside - I don't know how he would cope.
-
that's probably because we have an inconsistent system .
But what I do think is that the length of incarceration should be set at the time of the trial and not changed without extremely good reason.
Do you think that the original sentence was adequate? I don't think it was an adequate punishment for the crimes committed, the 5 lives extinguished for sheer greed - I think that the sentence not being adequate is a good reason for it being changed.
-
Who has more right? Colin, clearly IMO.
Whereas Colin had got on with his life under horrible circumstances and still hasn't been able to remove himself fully from the murders because Bamber and his supporters won't let him. Even most recently on here supporters have said they can read between the lines of Colins own autobiography and that the don't believe Colin fully believes in Bambers guilt!! Colin corrected this recently with a short interview in which is confirmed, as he says in his book, he believe Bamber to be guilty.
Bamber, the convicted - has shown no remorse over the years. Not one shred.
A trusting Colin foolishly wrote to Jeremy in the early days post-murders in the hope of some clarification,but as seems usual with that character no meaningful information is imparted through correspondence with him. It set off a spate of letters whereby Jeremy accused him of profiting from the crimes through writing his book,when all Colin wanted to do was to pay tribute to his sons and rectify errors made in press reports.
-
Is there a general rule whereby someone convicted of killing one person like Dirty Den Leslie Grantham should be allowed out to pursue an acting career,whilst a mass murderer like Anders Behring Breivik may be let out in 21 years,as happened with Arnfinn Nesset,who may have murdered 138. Should murderers have any hope of release and if not what is the point of keeping them cooped up like hens where there is very little chance of rehabilitation?
21 years ? Really?
what I was saying is that I don't think 5 murders should be treated the same as one murder .
The no chance of release subject was covered in Jeremys blog - I am not sure what I think really because there is no incentive to improve or change if there is no prospect of release and in Jeremys case he is scuppered because he wont admit guilt so any chance of rehabilitation is removed anyway?
-
Do you think that the original sentence was adequate? I don't think it was an adequate punishment for the crimes committed, the 5 lives extinguished for sheer greed - I think that the sentence not being adequate is a good reason for it being changed.
The criminal justice system is supposed on paper to strike a balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The problem I foresee is if Jeremy wished to travel to a Cornwall beach and find himself in close proximity with Colin and his daughter it would surely be an unacceptable state of affairs?
-
21 years ? Really?
what I was saying is that I don't think 5 murders should be treated the same as one murder .
The no chance of release subject was covered in Jeremys blog - I am not sure what I think really because there is no incentive to improve or change if there is no prospect of release and in Jeremys case he is scuppered because he wont admit guilt so any chance of rehabilitation is removed anyway?
He has said he can't remember being 'outside' it's so long ago, the prison is his world. I cannot imagine how he would be able to cope outside of the prison system, he must be totally institutionalised and innocent or guilty ne would suffer badly on the outside. :-\
-
A trusting Colin foolishly wrote to Jeremy in the early days post-murders in the hope of some clarification,but as seems usual with that character no meaningful information is imparted through correspondence with him. It set off a spate of letters whereby Jeremy accused him of profiting from the crimes through writing his book,when all Colin wanted to do was to pay tribute to his sons and rectify errors made in press reports.
I am not sure it was a spate of letters but yes it seemed Jeremy was angry because the book came at a crucial time in his appeal and I thought the tone of the letters was very inappropriate . But if JB is innocent Colin promised to stick by him after the murders as he had no family and Jeremy must have felt abandoned by him and incredulous that he would believe his guilt. He seemed angrier with him than Julie in some ways - but then we don't know we have seen all letters that have been written do we?
-
Do you think that the original sentence was adequate? I don't think it was an adequate punishment for the crimes committed, the 5 lives extinguished for sheer greed - I think that the sentence not being adequate is a good reason for it being changed.
I wonder what the point of keeping people behind bars for life is solely to vegetate if they are not deemed a risk to the public? If they are criminally insane they should naturally be placed in the appropriate institution.
-
I'm thinking mainly of the judicial process, where Jeremy has been incarcerated for thirty years in a tiny cell measuring not more than ten feet by seven if I hazard a guess, trapped in a cage of iron, which if it were mine I think I'd prefer to end it all today, innocent or guilty. On the other hand we have Colin, the silent victim who has quietly gone about rebuilding the shards of his shattered life with dignity, has remarried and now has more children of his own. Should Colin's wish to see the killer of his sons interned for life be paramount, or has Jeremy served his time and earned the right to eat pot noodle on a Dorset beach, the waves lapping at his feet as he saunters along the sands, or dons a wetsuit to partake of a spot of windsurfing before taking a bite to eat in a nearby cafe?
Steve, I would never have expected less, from you, than this thought provoking and many layered thread.
I'm not Colin and I have no idea what may be his capacity for forgiveness. I don't have children so I will never experience their lives being torn away by another human being but I suspect that if I did I would NEVER forgive them. Doing away with the death penalty eliminated total finality -incidentally, I never saw it as a deterrent but as sending out the message that should someone commit this particular crime, it would be the punishment they'd receive- so when a life sentence is handed down, it should be exactly that. The incidences of those who have murdered, that I believe should be released, are very few.
Having got that out of the way, I wonder how a wholly institutionalized person would cope in the outside world. A person who has had all their thinking done for them surely won't -how ever much they may have longed for their freedom- be able to cope. Then there's the problem of public opinion which isn't easy to change. Especially when the crime committed has involved children. Of course, in the case of younger people being released there's the possibility of changing their identities, but the older the released person, the more difficult they are likely to find the transition. Whatever their age, I see the strong possibility of a life of drinking and drug taking to avoid facing the difficulties and potential loneliness. I also see the possibility of new crimes being committed in order for them to go back to the confines of a prison OR suicides.
-
Do you think that the original sentence was adequate? I don't think it was an adequate punishment for the crimes committed, the 5 lives extinguished for sheer greed - I think that the sentence not being adequate is a good reason for it being changed.
It was the sentence at the time made by the judge. And normally when a sentence is changed each individual case has to go through due process. I don't think this was done in Jeremys case was it?
-
I wonder what the point of keeping people behind bars for life is solely to vegetate if they are not deemed a risk to the public? If they are criminally insane they should naturally be placed in the appropriate institution.
Well personally I think Bamber is a bullet point psychopath. But there is no other options than to keep him behind bars for life because his crimes and the mitigating circumstances are seen as enough to warrant a whole life tariff which is the strongest sentence possible in a country without the death penalty.
It was the sentence at the time made by the judge. And normally when a sentence is changed each individual case has to go through due process. I don't think this was done in Jeremys case was it?
It was changed by the home secretary, they have that power.
Do you think that the original sentence was adequate?
-
The criminal justice system is supposed on paper to strike a balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The problem I foresee is if Jeremy wished to travel to a Cornwall beach and find himself in close proximity with Colin and his daughter it would surely be an unacceptable state of affairs?
a young man I know was killed in an extremely deliberate act of dangerous driving - but the sentence for death by dangerous driving with parole was pathetic - the culprit NEVER showed any remorse or apologised ever. And is now driving around in the same area as the family . I am sure the affect on the family will never go away - but if he had had a longer sentence that actually affected his life it may have been a tiny bit of compensation.
I don't know how Colin would feel about the above situation because he has his own individual way of dealing with things but I am sure he would not be happy.
-
I'm thinking mainly of the judicial process, where Jeremy has been incarcerated for thirty years in a tiny cell measuring not more than ten feet by seven if I hazard a guess, trapped in a cage of iron, which if it were mine I think I'd prefer to end it all today, innocent or guilty. On the other hand we have Colin, the silent victim who has quietly gone about rebuilding the shards of his shattered life with dignity, has remarried and now has more children of his own. Should Colin's wish to see the killer of his sons interned for life be paramount, or has Jeremy served his time and earned the right to eat pot noodle on a Dorset beach, the waves lapping at his feet as he saunters along the sands, or dons a wetsuit to partake of a spot of windsurfing before taking a bite to eat in a nearby cafe?
I don't understand the question Steve. Obviously it's no contest - Jeremy relinquished any rights when he killed 5 people and I don't think he should ever be compared with Colin. Jeremy deserves hi life sentence - Colin was given his when Jeremy pulled the trigger on his children.
-
Well personally I think Bamber is a bullet point psychopath. But there is no other options than to keep him behind bars for life because his crimes and the mitigating circumstances are seen as enough to warrant a whole life tariff which is the strongest sentence possible in a country without the death penalty.
It was changed by the home secretary, they have that power.
Do you think that the original sentence was adequate?
I already said what I thought the sentence should have been .
But why in Jeremys case do you think they should change it ? What had he done to change their minds ? Because he would not admit guilt?
-
The criminal justice system is supposed on paper to strike a balance between punishment and rehabilitation. The problem I foresee is if Jeremy wished to travel to a Cornwall beach and find himself in close proximity with Colin and his daughter it would surely be an unacceptable state of affairs?
How do you rehabilitate someone who has NEVER taken responsibility for their actions?
-
Letter from Jeremy in Wormwood Scrubs to Colin written 16 August 1988:
DEAR COLIN
I READ THE ARTICLE IN YESTERDAY'S INDEPENDENT WITH MUCH SADNESS,THE SAME SADNESS I ALWAYS FEEL WHEN I READ ABOUT YOU AND WHAT YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
YOUR LETTER TODAY,COLIN,WAS I'M AFRAID A TOUCH PREMATURE.YOU'RE WRITING TO ME HOPING,I GUESS,FOR THE LAST FEW PIECES OF THE JIGSAW SO THAT YOU MAY HOLD THE PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED IS NOT POSSIBLE. IF I COULD FURNISH YOU WITH WHAT YOU WANTED THEN I WOULD GLADLY DO SO-WHATEVER HAPPENED THAT FATEFUL NIGHT WILL NEVER BE FULLY EXPLAINED,IN FACT YOU COULD PROBABLY TELL ME MORE THAN I COULD YOU.
THE PAPER DID MENTION IN THE ARTICLE YESTERDAY THAT I WAS APPEALING AND NO DOUBT YOU KNEW THAT ANYWAY. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REACT WHEN THEY QUASH MY CONVICTION ,COLIN,BECAUSE IT'S VERY PROBABLE THEY WILL DO SO? YOU MAY BELIEVE ME GUILTY,YOU MAY NOT,BUT I HOPE THAT IF NOTHING ELSE YOU'LL TRY AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND BECAUSE AT MY APPEAL I WILL PROVE MY INNOCENCE AND BY DOING THAT THE CORNER-STONE OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED,BY WHOM I CAN'T PROVE YET AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO FOR MY APPEAL BUT EVENTUALLY I'LL FIND OUT BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OF FIVE PEOPLE. IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M TALKING RIDDLES AND I'M SORRY THAT I CAN'T EXPLAIN IN A LETTER TO YOU.IT SEEMS SO POINTLESS IN ME SENDING YOU THIS LETTER AS IT'LL ONLY ADD TO YOUR CONFUSION BUT FOR YOU TO WRITE TO ME MUST HAVE TAKEN A GREAT DEAL SO MY REPLYING IS THE LEAST I CAN DO..
-
I already said what I thought the sentence should have been .
But why in Jeremys case do you think they should change it ? What had he done to change their minds ? Because he would not admit guilt?
Because his case falls under what they are allowed to give a whole life tariff, Jan. Which only the home secretary can give, I don't think they trial judge could do so.
-
I already said what I thought the sentence should have been .
But why in Jeremys case do you think they should change it ? What had he done to change their minds ? Because he would not admit guilt?
Jan, it wasn't STRICTLY changed. Justice Drake gave him a MINIMUM of 25 years after which his suitability for release would be assessed. I believe he also said that it was possible he may never be released, although I'm certain Jeremy was clinging to his term being no more than 25 years.
-
I don't understand the question Steve. Obviously it's no contest - Jeremy relinquished any rights when he killed 5 people and I don't think he should ever be compared with Colin. Jeremy deserves hi life sentence - Colin was given his when Jeremy pulled the trigger on his children.
Well I was thinking generically as to whether a murderer can ever earn release and its implications. As Jane says many lifers will have become institutionalized but I just wonder what the point of keeping someone like an animal in a confined space is and whether someone just going through the motions of existence enduring the same stale routine might be better off dead..
-
I already said what I thought the sentence should have been .
But why in Jeremys case do you think they should change it ? What had he done to change their minds ? Because he would not admit guilt?
they probably didn't think 5 years per person was adequate - neither do I.
-
Jeremy's letter to Colin(continued..)
IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU QUESTION WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT SHEILA IN THE NEWSPAPERS SO YOU SHOULD QUESTION WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT ME-I'M NOT GAY OR BI-SEXUAL,I WASN'T A COCAINE SMUGGLER,I DIDN'T KNOW HALF THE PEOPLE I'D BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH,I DIDN'T BREAK SOMEONE'S ARM AT SCHOOL,I DIDN'T KITE CHEQUES AND I DIDN'T RAPE JULIE.WHAT OTHER ODIOUS STUFF THEY WROTE I CAN'T RECALL-EVEN DURING MY TRIAL THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT.
I WON'T GO ON,YOU KNOW ME AND WHAT I WAS LIKE AND I DIDN'T WRITE TO CONVINCE YOU OF MY INNOCENCE EVEN THOUGH I AM,JUST WELL WHATEVER
LOVE
JEREMY
PS.I TRULY WISH I COULD HELP YOU.
-
they probably didn't think 5 years per person was adequate - neither do I.
Consecutive v concurrent?
-
The trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, sentenced Bamber to serve ‘life’ and both he and the Lord Chief Justice recommended that Jeremy Bamber should serve a minimum of 25 years before a review. However, in 1988 the Secretary of State, Mr Douglas Hurd, imposed a whole life tariff without informing Bamber.[5]
After prisoners won a Judicial Review of the Secretary of State’s reserved right not to tell prisoners the length of their sentence, on the 15th of December 1994, the Home Office Prison services, then formally advised Jeremy Bamber of this decision.[6] Until this point, Jeremy Bamber had been unaware that his sentence had been upgraded by the Government retrospectively. The fact that whole life sentences were introduced in 1983, and the first one was not set until 1988, is surprisingly not in breach of Article 7 (1) of the Human Rights Convention.
The Home Office Prison Service also formally advised Jeremy that he would serve the whole life sentence with a review which was already set for 2002 by the Secretary of State.[7] But this review was withdrawn when the House of Lords held that the Secretary of State was not an ‘independent and impartial tribunal.
-
Jan, it wasn't STRICTLY changed. Justice Drake gave him a MINIMUM of 25 years after which his suitability for release would be assessed. I believe he also said that it was possible he may never be released, although I'm certain Jeremy was clinging to his term being no more than 25 years.
I don't think so- the original sentence only offered a review in 2002 - he still probably knew he would not get out.
-
The trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, sentenced Bamber to serve ‘life’ and both he and the Lord Chief Justice recommended that Jeremy Bamber should serve a minimum of 25 years before a review. However, in 1988 the Secretary of State, Mr Douglas Hurd, imposed a whole life tariff without informing Bamber.[5]
After prisoners won a Judicial Review of the Secretary of State’s reserved right not to tell prisoners the length of their sentence, on the 15th of December 1994, the Home Office Prison services, then formally advised Jeremy Bamber of this decision.[6] Until this point, Jeremy Bamber had been unaware that his sentence had been upgraded by the Government retrospectively. The fact that whole life sentences were introduced in 1983, and the first one was not set until 1988, is surprisingly not in breach of Article 7 (1) of the Human Rights Convention.
The Home Office Prison Service also formally advised Jeremy that he would serve the whole life sentence with a review which was already set for 2002 by the Secretary of State.[7] But this review was withdrawn when the House of Lords held that the Secretary of State was not an ‘independent and impartial tribunal.
Being sentenced to life and being sentenced to a whole life tariff are different.
-
Jan, it wasn't STRICTLY changed. Justice Drake gave him a MINIMUM of 25 years after which his suitability for release would be assessed. I believe he also said that it was possible he may never be released, although I'm certain Jeremy was clinging to his term being no more than 25 years.
But it is changed if there is no chance of review whatsoever even if he admitted guilt and now as the court of HR have back tracked that is where he is at now.
-
Jan, it wasn't STRICTLY changed. Justice Drake gave him a MINIMUM of 25 years after which his suitability for release would be assessed. I believe he also said that it was possible he may never be released, although I'm certain Jeremy was clinging to his term being no more than 25 years.
I am sure that was in his head, although I think he believed he could get out on his first appeal. I don't think he believes his future appeals can succeed though.
-
Consecutive v concurrent?
I think he'd have faced a lynch mod if that had happened.
-
Being sentenced to life and being sentenced to a whole life tariff are different.
yes I know
-
Being sentenced to life and being sentenced to a whole life tariff are different.
Yes Mat, I SEETHE every time I hear that someone has been given a life sentence with the recommendation that they serve a minimum of a pathetically short time.
-
I think he'd have faced a lynch mod if that had happened.
That means he would have served only 5 years. :o
Yes Mat, I SEETHE every time I hear that someone has been given a life sentence with the recommendation that they serve a minimum of a pathetically short time.
Yes, me too. A life sentence of 15 years... not sure how that is cricket at all.
-
SCRUBS PRISON,WEDNESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 1989
DEAR COLIN,
SO YOU DECIDED NOT TO REPLY TO MY LETTER,I WONDER WHY? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH THAT I DID NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN OR SHEILA OR MUM AND DAD. HOW SAD,COLIN,THAT YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH REALITY FROM MEDIA HYPE,MISGUIDED POLICE AND MY MONEY-GRABBING RELATIVES. OUT OF EVERYONE I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND BUT INSTEAD YOU'VE MADE YOURSELF A COG IN THE MEDIA WHEEL. THE VERY SAME MEDIA THAT YOU RIDICULE IN THE RADIO TIMES. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE HOW I'VE SUFFERED SINCE SHEILA KILLED MY FAMILY-I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU CARE AND WHY SHOULD YOU,COLIN,WITH YOUR NICE LITTLE BOOK AND YOUR PRETTY LITTLE SCULPTURES POURING OUT YOUR GRIEF TO ANY FILM CREW AROUND-NICE TIMING TOO-EH,-WITH MY APPEAL UP SOON,MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO WAVE A BANNER OUTSIDE THE COURT WITH "JEREMY'S GUILTY BUT I DON'T WANT REVENGE."
GO AND ENJOY YOUR CELEBRITY STATUS,MAYBE YOU'LL BE ON WOGAN NEXT AND CAN ADVERTISE YOUR BOOK AND SCULPTURES THAT WAY-HOW YOU CAN CHEAPEN DANIEL AND NICHOLAS AND THEIR TRAGIC DEATH I JUST DON'T KNOW. NO ONE WANTED ANYTHING OF YOU BEFORE THEN AND NOW THEY'RE GONE YOU'RE USING IT FOR YOUR OWN ENDS-PRETENDING IT'S GRIEF COUNSELLING. YOU WERE ALRIGHT,COLIN,ONCE,BUT NOW I'M SORRY TO SEE YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LEECH LIVING OFF YOUR OWN SONS' TRAGIC DEATH. IF THEY COULD SEE YOU NOW I BET IT WOULD SICKEN THEM AS IT SICKENS ME...I HOPE YOU LOVE YOURSELF,IN FACT I BET YOU DO. WHAT I WISH IS THAT YOU NEVER GET TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'LL FUCK THEM UP TOO-IT WAS YOUR FAULT THAT SHEILA WENT MAD AND KILLED EVERYONE. YOU KNEW SHE WOULD BREAK UNDER THE STRAIN OF BRINGING UP A FAMILY ON HER OWN-YOU DIDN'T CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN EVEN IN THE WOMB..
WITH VERY MUCH SADNESS
JEREMY
-
what would be the average served ( in the old days) 25 years - with parole - on good behaviour 14 years - so for multiple deaths 50 years would have seemed fairer?
But as he has no chance of even a review whatever he does then personally I think if the appeal fails it may be the end for him anyway.
-
SCRUBS PRISON,WEDNESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 1989
DEAR COLIN,
SO YOU DECIDED NOT TO REPLY TO MY LETTER,I WONDER WHY? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH THAT I DID NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN OR SHEILA OR MUM AND DAD. HOW SAD,COLIN,THAT YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH REALITY FROM MEDIA HYPE,MISGUIDED POLICE AND MY MONEY-GRABBING RELATIVES. OUT OF EVERYONE I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND BUT INSTEAD YOU'VE MADE YOURSELF A COG IN THE MEDIA WHEEL. THE VERY SAME MEDIA THAT YOU RIDICULE IN THE RADIO TIMES. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE HOW I'VE SUFFERED SINCE SHEILA KILLED MY FAMILY-I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU CARE AND WHY SHOULD YOU,COLIN,WITH YOUR NICE LITTLE BOOK AND YOUR PRETTY LITTLE SCULPTURES POURING OUT YOUR GRIEF TO ANY FILM CREW AROUND-NICE TIMING TOO-EH,-WITH MY APPEAL UP SOON,MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO WAVE A BANNER OUTSIDE THE COURT WITH "JEREMY'S GUILTY BUT I DON'T WANT REVENGE."
GO AND ENJOY YOUR CELEBRITY STATUS,MAYBE YOU'LL BE ON WOGAN NEXT AND CAN ADVERTISE YOUR BOOK AND SCULPTURES THAT WAY-HOW YOU CAN CHEAPEN DANIEL AND NICHOLAS AND THEIR TRAGIC DEATH I JUST DON'T KNOW. NO ONE WANTED ANYTHING OF YOU BEFORE THEN AND NOW THEY'RE GONE YOU'RE USING IT FOR YOUR OWN ENDS-PRETENDING IT'S GRIEF COUNSELLING. YOU WERE ALRIGHT,COLIN,ONCE,BUT NOW I'M SORRY TO SEE YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LEECH LIVING OFF YOUR OWN SONS' TRAGIC DEATH. IF THEY COULD SEE YOU NOW I BET IT WOULD SICKEN THEM AS IT SICKENS ME...I HOPE YOU LOVE YOURSELF,IN FACT I BET YOU DO. WHAT I WISH IS THAT YOU NEVER GET TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'LL FUCK THEM UP TOO-IT WAS YOUR FAULT THAT SHEILA WENT MAD AND KILLED EVERYONE. YOU KNEW SHE WOULD BREAK UNDER THE STRAIN OF BRINGING UP A FAMILY ON HER OWN-YOU DIDN'T CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN EVEN IN THE WOMB..
WITH VERY MUCH SADNESS
JEREMY
I believe lookout has implied several times that there was no anger in Jeremy. If the above doesn't signify HUGE anger, I don't know what does...................and before ANYONE says it's because he's in prison and innocent, those feelings aren't new. He's been holding them for a VERY long time.
-
Steve, I would never have expected less, from you, than this thought provoking and many layered thread.
I'm not Colin and I have no idea what may be his capacity for forgiveness. I don't have children so I will never experience their lives being torn away by another human being but I suspect that if I did I would NEVER forgive them. Doing away with the death penalty eliminated total finality -incidentally, I never saw it as a deterrent but as sending out the message that should someone commit this particular crime, it would be the punishment they'd receive- so when a life sentence is handed down, it should be exactly that. The incidences of those who have murdered, that I believe should be released, are very few.
Having got that out of the way, I wonder how a wholly institutionalized person would cope in the outside world. A person who has had all their thinking done for them surely won't -how ever much they may have longed for their freedom- be able to cope. Then there's the problem of public opinion which isn't easy to change. Especially when the crime committed has involved children. Of course, in the case of younger people being released there's the possibility of changing their identities, but the older the released person, the more difficult they are likely to find the transition. Whatever their age, I see the strong possibility of a life of drinking and drug taking to avoid facing the difficulties and potential loneliness. I also see the possibility of new crimes being committed in order for them to go back to the confines of a prison OR suicides.
Do you think it harms people by not being able to forgive,do we not see the bitter faces from people we see in town who have been the victims of crime,of broken love affairs or cheated monetarily or does it sustain them in the cold winter nights and give them independence of mind? Either way with Colin I would not condemn him,but I just wonder whether he should have the final say,important as his opinion is speaking for himself and the victims.
-
I said I don't think the letters were appropriate even if he was innocent.
-
I'm not sure how to approach this because I don't believe in " human rights " for starters. To my mind it's often used as an excuse mainly by the wrong-doers in society ( I'm actually thinking about the schoolboy thug who murdered another pupil ) the do-gooders will be out in force,background,one-parent and all that tripe.
Murder is murder and in JB's case after certain questions etc have been answered and there's no other conclusion other than he remains to be a "guilty" man then he can stay where he is until death.
In one respect the publicity that JB's getting is appropriate when so many believe that he's been let down by the system,but if the time comes that he does find freedom,people are going to know him wherever he goes and that won't be good as there'll always be someone out there waiting for him,even if he's proved innocent. If it wasn't on the forum or publicised at all nobody would have been any the wiser if he'd been released or not because nobody would know him.
I wonder how many released murderers are walking the streets ? We don't know do we because it's never made public ? Look how many paedo's are released and God help you if you ever find out who they are ?! The law doesn't allow that because " they've got rights ".NO they jolly well haven't !!
The law is an ass !!
-
Jan, it wasn't STRICTLY changed. Justice Drake gave him a MINIMUM of 25 years after which his suitability for release would be assessed. I believe he also said that it was possible he may never be released, although I'm certain Jeremy was clinging to his term being no more than 25 years.
Do you think politicians should be granted the right to extend a sentence,given that they are often acting out of political expediency,when it's those inside the prison who have day to day contact with prisoners who know them best?
-
Do you think it harms people by not being able to forgive,do we not see the bitter faces from people we see in town who have been the victims of crime,of broken love affairs or cheated monetarily or does it sustain them in the cold winter nights and give them independence of mind? Either way with Colin I would not condemn him,but I just wonder whether he should have the final say,important as his opinion is speaking for himself and the victims.
I don't think the rest of the family would agree with that at all!
-
Do you think it harms people by not being able to forgive,do we not see the bitter faces from people we see in town who have been the victims of crime,of broken love affairs or cheated monetarily or does it sustain them in the cold winter nights and give them independence of mind? Either way with Colin I would not condemn him,but I just wonder whether he should have the final say,important as his opinion is speaking for himself and the victims.
Steve, it's not just about forgiving - although that would be for Colin to decide. It's about protecting society from further crimes and as Jeremy has never acknowledged his culpability it can't be taken that he regrets what he did and would would be no threat in the future.
-
Do you think politicians should be granted the right to extend a sentence,given that they are often acting out of political expediency,when it's those inside the prison who have day to day contact with prisoners who know them best?
I know you were answering Jane - but that's what I was trying to say before . I don't think his sentence should have been changed without due process and to not even tell him ? I don't even understand the logic behind that .
-
SCRUBS PRISON,WEDNESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 1989
DEAR COLIN,
SO YOU DECIDED NOT TO REPLY TO MY LETTER,I WONDER WHY? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH THAT I DID NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN OR SHEILA OR MUM AND DAD. HOW SAD,COLIN,THAT YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH REALITY FROM MEDIA HYPE,MISGUIDED POLICE AND MY MONEY-GRABBING RELATIVES. OUT OF EVERYONE I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND BUT INSTEAD YOU'VE MADE YOURSELF A COG IN THE MEDIA WHEEL. THE VERY SAME MEDIA THAT YOU RIDICULE IN THE RADIO TIMES. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE HOW I'VE SUFFERED SINCE SHEILA KILLED MY FAMILY-I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU CARE AND WHY SHOULD YOU,COLIN,WITH YOUR NICE LITTLE BOOK AND YOUR PRETTY LITTLE SCULPTURES POURING OUT YOUR GRIEF TO ANY FILM CREW AROUND-NICE TIMING TOO-EH,-WITH MY APPEAL UP SOON,MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO WAVE A BANNER OUTSIDE THE COURT WITH "JEREMY'S GUILTY BUT I DON'T WANT REVENGE."
GO AND ENJOY YOUR CELEBRITY STATUS,MAYBE YOU'LL BE ON WOGAN NEXT AND CAN ADVERTISE YOUR BOOK AND SCULPTURES THAT WAY-HOW YOU CAN CHEAPEN DANIEL AND NICHOLAS AND THEIR TRAGIC DEATH I JUST DON'T KNOW. NO ONE WANTED ANYTHING OF YOU BEFORE THEN AND NOW THEY'RE GONE YOU'RE USING IT FOR YOUR OWN ENDS-PRETENDING IT'S GRIEF COUNSELLING. YOU WERE ALRIGHT,COLIN,ONCE,BUT NOW I'M SORRY TO SEE YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LEECH LIVING OFF YOUR OWN SONS' TRAGIC DEATH. IF THEY COULD SEE YOU NOW I BET IT WOULD SICKEN THEM AS IT SICKENS ME...I HOPE YOU LOVE YOURSELF,IN FACT I BET YOU DO. WHAT I WISH IS THAT YOU NEVER GET TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'LL FUCK THEM UP TOO-IT WAS YOUR FAULT THAT SHEILA WENT MAD AND KILLED EVERYONE. YOU KNEW SHE WOULD BREAK UNDER THE STRAIN OF BRINGING UP A FAMILY ON HER OWN-YOU DIDN'T CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN EVEN IN THE WOMB..
WITH VERY MUCH SADNESS
JEREMY
You know I'm just wondering whether Sue Ford's miscarriages started a chain of events which evolved in Jeremy's mind whereby he couldn't stand anyone to be happy around children. I think this thought might have run concurrently with the need to be rid of his restrictive parents and thus his evil scheme was hatched.
-
I'm not sure how to approach this because I don't believe in " human rights " for starters. To my mind it's often used as an excuse mainly by the wrong-doers in society ( I'm actually thinking about the schoolboy thug who murdered another pupil ) the do-gooders will be out in force,background,one-parent and all that tripe.
Murder is murder and in JB's case after certain questions etc have been answered and there's no other conclusion other than he remains to be a "guilty" man then he can stay where he is until death.
In one respect the publicity that JB's getting is appropriate when so many believe that he's been let down by the system,but if the time comes that he does find freedom,people are going to know him wherever he goes and that won't be good as there'll always be someone out there waiting for him,even if he's proved innocent. If it wasn't on the forum or publicised at all nobody would have been any the wiser if he'd been released or not because nobody would know him.
I wonder how many released murderers are walking the streets ? We don't know do we because it's never made public ? Look how many paedo's are released and God help you if you ever find out who they are ?! The law doesn't allow that because " they've got rights ".NO they jolly well haven't !!
The law is an ass !!
You know lookout I bet as we speak deliberations are taking place in those swish London press offices about whether to name the perpetrator of this latest attack at the Aberdeen school. Say what you like about the Ann Maguire stabbing but it was surely not in the public interest to reveal the name of her killer,which served no useful purpose other than to sell more copy.
-
SCRUBS PRISON,WEDNESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 1989
DEAR COLIN,
SO YOU DECIDED NOT TO REPLY TO MY LETTER,I WONDER WHY? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH THAT I DID NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN OR SHEILA OR MUM AND DAD. HOW SAD,COLIN,THAT YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH REALITY FROM MEDIA HYPE,MISGUIDED POLICE AND MY MONEY-GRABBING RELATIVES. OUT OF EVERYONE I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND BUT INSTEAD YOU'VE MADE YOURSELF A COG IN THE MEDIA WHEEL. THE VERY SAME MEDIA THAT YOU RIDICULE IN THE RADIO TIMES. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE HOW I'VE SUFFERED SINCE SHEILA KILLED MY FAMILY-I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU CARE AND WHY SHOULD YOU,COLIN,WITH YOUR NICE LITTLE BOOK AND YOUR PRETTY LITTLE SCULPTURES POURING OUT YOUR GRIEF TO ANY FILM CREW AROUND-NICE TIMING TOO-EH,-WITH MY APPEAL UP SOON,MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO WAVE A BANNER OUTSIDE THE COURT WITH "JEREMY'S GUILTY BUT I DON'T WANT REVENGE."
GO AND ENJOY YOUR CELEBRITY STATUS,MAYBE YOU'LL BE ON WOGAN NEXT AND CAN ADVERTISE YOUR BOOK AND SCULPTURES THAT WAY-HOW YOU CAN CHEAPEN DANIEL AND NICHOLAS AND THEIR TRAGIC DEATH I JUST DON'T KNOW. NO ONE WANTED ANYTHING OF YOU BEFORE THEN AND NOW THEY'RE GONE YOU'RE USING IT FOR YOUR OWN ENDS-PRETENDING IT'S GRIEF COUNSELLING. YOU WERE ALRIGHT,COLIN,ONCE,BUT NOW I'M SORRY TO SEE YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LEECH LIVING OFF YOUR OWN SONS' TRAGIC DEATH. IF THEY COULD SEE YOU NOW I BET IT WOULD SICKEN THEM AS IT SICKENS ME...I HOPE YOU LOVE YOURSELF,IN FACT I BET YOU DO. WHAT I WISH IS THAT YOU NEVER GET TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'LL FUCK THEM UP TOO-IT WAS YOUR FAULT THAT SHEILA WENT MAD AND KILLED EVERYONE. YOU KNEW SHE WOULD BREAK UNDER THE STRAIN OF BRINGING UP A FAMILY ON HER OWN-YOU DIDN'T CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN EVEN IN THE WOMB..
WITH VERY MUCH SADNESS
JEREMY
It is indeed a sad letter, made worse when nobody will believe you. It's like banging your head against a brick wall and unless anyone's been in such a situation they haven't a clue. JB's got the bit wrong where he blamed Colin for Sheila's illness though. Shows how blinkered Jeremy was when he was living at home.
-
Do you think it harms people by not being able to forgive,do we not see the bitter faces from people we see in town who have been the victims of crime,of broken love affairs or cheated monetarily or does it sustain them in the cold winter nights and give them independence of mind? Either way with Colin I would not condemn him,but I just wonder whether he should have the final say,important as his opinion is speaking for himself and the victims.
For the most part, Steve, I believe it probably does, but there are those who hang onto grudges as if they're gold-dust, and put them to use at every opportunity. It may be easier to forgive than to forget. How CAN we be expected to forget hurts inflicted on us? More, how is it possible to forget hurts inflicted on children? Colin HAS moved on. He has a whole new life for himself complete with new family but I suspect there will always be a residual sadness in a corner of his heart -and for the most part, private- for what might have been and what was.
-
You know lookout I bet as we speak deliberations are taking place in those swish London press offices about whether to name the perpetrator of this latest attack at the Aberdeen school. Say what you like about the Ann Maguire stabbing but it was surely not in the public interest to reveal the name of her killer,which served no useful purpose other than to sell more copy.
Why not name the thug ? They should brand him too ! I'm waiting for all the feeble excuses from the PC brigade.
-
Steve, it's not just about forgiving - although that would be for Colin to decide. It's about protecting society from further crimes and as Jeremy has never acknowledged his culpability it can't be taken that he regrets what he did and would would be no threat in the future.
There are alternatives such as tagging,excluding the released from certain areas(such as the Bulger killers being banned from travelling to Merseyside) or even Bastoy Prison in Norway. I won't post the video again as I'm sure most people have seen it by now.
-
You know lookout I bet as we speak deliberations are taking place in those swish London press offices about whether to name the perpetrator of this latest attack at the Aberdeen school. Say what you like about the Ann Maguire stabbing but it was surely not in the public interest to reveal the name of her killer,which served no useful purpose other than to sell more copy.
Steve, my understanding is that his name will be released after the initial hearing tomorrow afternoon.
-
Why not name the thug ? They should brand him too ! I'm waiting for all the feeble excuses from the PC brigade.
Well it won't bring Bailey Gwynne back for one thing.It's too soon to know whether this was an isolated attack but there must surely be hope of rehabilitating a 16-year- old?
-
Steve, my understanding is that his name will be released after the initial hearing tomorrow afternoon.
I personally thing that's a shame as I don't see how the public interest will be served by it.
-
Steve, my understanding is that his name will be released after the initial hearing tomorrow afternoon.
And why not ? Show the world the kind of feral that has been dragged up by its parent/s. We see too many of these disrespectful thugs clambering to get onto buses/trains. They're like wild animals. I usually make sure I've got my brolly.
-
Steve,I'd never make it as a teacher.
-
I'm thinking mainly of the judicial process, where Jeremy has been incarcerated for thirty years in a tiny cell measuring not more than ten feet by seven if I hazard a guess, trapped in a cage of iron, which if it were mine I think I'd prefer to end it all today, innocent or guilty. On the other hand we have Colin, the silent victim who has quietly gone about rebuilding the shards of his shattered life with dignity, has remarried and now has more children of his own. Should Colin's wish to see the killer of his sons interned for life be paramount, or has Jeremy served his time and earned the right to eat pot noodle on a Dorset beach, the waves lapping at his feet as he saunters along the sands, or dons a wetsuit to partake of a spot of windsurfing before taking a bite to eat in a nearby cafe?
The government decides his punishment not Colin. The decision made was that he would be jailed for life because the nature of his actions and his behavior afterwards.
-
And why not ? Show the world the kind of feral that has been dragged up by its parent/s. We see too many of these disrespectful thugs clambering to get onto buses/trains. They're like wild animals. I usually make sure I've got my brolly.
Hahaha Lookout I would hate to be infront of you and your brolly OMG the mind boggles ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The government decides his punishment not Colin. The decision made was that he would be jailed for life because the nature of his actions and his behavior afterwards.
I don't see how Bamber's behaviour post-murders has influenced the Parole Board. As for naming and shaming this bestial minority I think they're beyond shame and I really don't know what the answer is. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pictured-bowker-vale-station-attack-10197925
-
Steve,I'd never make it as a teacher.
I'm glad I'm 25+ years on. I wouldn't recommend it as a career to anyone today,sad to say.
-
I don't see how Bamber's behaviour post-murders has influenced the Parole Board. As for naming and shaming this bestial minority I think they're beyond shame and I really don't know what the answer is. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pictured-bowker-vale-station-attack-10197925
The refusal of a convict to take responsibility for his actions, express regret and demonstrate he recognized the error of his ways and will not act the same in the future plays a huge role in whether to be released.
-
I'm glad I'm 25+ years on. I wouldn't recommend it as a career to anyone today,sad to say.
You have all my sympathy. Gone are the days when the golosher was used on the backsides of the boys and I used to laugh at the dust coming from their trousers.
-
I don't see how Bamber's behaviour post-murders has influenced the Parole Board. As for naming and shaming this bestial minority I think they're beyond shame and I really don't know what the answer is. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pictured-bowker-vale-station-attack-10197925
Steve, I think they will revel in every bit of notoriety they're afforded.
-
You have all my sympathy. Gone are the days when the golosher was used on the backsides of the boys and I used to laugh at the dust coming from their trousers.
My mother taught in the 1950s with a leather strap on the teacher's desk which was never used,and rows of benches where pupils would sit dipping their pens into inkwells producing the most beautiful handwriting.
-
Hahaha Lookout I would hate to be infront of you and your brolly OMG the mind boggles ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
mary poppins it would NOT be ;D
-
My mother taught in the 1950s with a leather strap on the teacher's desk which was never used,and rows of benches where pupils would sit dipping their pens into inkwells producing the most beautiful handwriting.
That's when I attended school Steve,in the 50's. You could hear a pin drop in all classes and there were some brilliant teachers. I remember the old " dip and scratch " pen and inkwells,plenty of blotting paper needed. I still have a bottle of Quink in my desk for my fountain pen.
Yes,a cane was in the corner,or the old golosher. These were indeed happy days even though the teachers were strict. The old headmaster wore a moth-eaten cap and gown and drove an old Austin car which was a real bone-shaker and my friend and I got a lift home now and again because his sister lived near us. She was eccentric too and wore huge beads.No wonder she had a hump on her back with the weight of them.
-
My lifelong friend was a teacher in the 60's 70's and 80's and at the grammar school she'd attended she was in the same class as Sue Johnston the actress.
-
That's when I attended school Steve,in the 50's. You could hear a pin drop in all classes and there were some brilliant teachers. I remember the old " dip and scratch " pen and inkwells,plenty of blotting paper needed. I still have a bottle of Quink in my desk for my fountain pen.
Yes,a cane was in the corner,or the old golosher. These were indeed happy days even though the teachers were strict. The old headmaster wore a moth-eaten cap and gown and drove an old Austin car which was a real bone-shaker and my friend and I got a lift home now and again because his sister lived near us. She was eccentric too and wore huge beads.No wonder she had a hump on her back with the weight of them.
You know that generation which had gone through the war and then the continuation of rationing and often didn't have half of what people consume today,yet there was a pride in them,a solidarity and incessant optimism which my mother imbued me with. I wonder where it all went wrong..
-
My lifelong friend was a teacher in the 60's 70's and 80's and at the grammar school she'd attended she was in the same class as Sue Johnston the actress.
I remember Brookside,the days when soaps used to be worth watching.
-
well watching 3 day nanny this week I would say sending children under three to bed with ipads does not help!
-
You know that generation which had gone through the war and then the continuation of rationing and often didn't have half of what people consume today,yet there was a pride in them,a solidarity and incessant optimism which my mother imbued me with. I wonder where it all went wrong..
Everyone was more or less equal and we had little or no choice how we lived our lives because we were all in the same boat during and after the war. What people did have was respect and were thankful just to be alive. There was no keeping up with the Jones's and as long as us kids were clean and fed was all that seemed to matter.
The age of consumerism put paid to a lot of the neighbourliness,then came the late 60's and things were going down the pan as quick as looking. Awareness of what others had or wore and so it's gone on.
Me ? I couldn't care less. As long as I've got my health that's all that matters.
-
Oh dear I've gone and spoiled your thread now. :( :-[
-
Oh dear I've gone and spoiled your thread now. :( :-[
No because we are talking about rights on this thread but also maybe responsibilities,which some people seem to have forgotten.
-
Colin still thinks of others before himself: http://www.cornishman.co.uk/Beer-drinkers-encouraged-donate-price-pint-help/story-22927015-detail/story.html
-
Has Chris Precious,a friend of Sheila's ever been discussed on this site before? http://www.dover-express.co.uk/wicked-killer-life-mean-life/story-19542418-detail/story.html
-
There are alternatives such as tagging,excluding the released from certain areas(such as the Bulger killers being banned from travelling to Merseyside) or even Bastoy Prison in Norway. I won't post the video again as I'm sure most people have seen it by now.
Would you be happy for Jeremy (who has never taken responsibility for his crimes) to be released?
-
Would you be happy for Jeremy (who has never taken responsibility for his crimes) to be released?
No because I am mindful of Colin's words that he must never be released and out of respect to him I would accede to his request. I do think that there might be a compromise whereby he could be sent to a Scottish island to view Fingal's Cave and thereby not pose any potential threat to Colin's or Ann Eaton's children.
-
30 years is a long time to keep tabs on a person.I know that JB's been housed in a large number of prisons but at each place his behaviour would have been under scrutiny therefore if there had been any sign of a disorder or change it would have been noted and because his overall behaviour has been described as having been impeccable I wouldn't have said that he was a threat to anyone.
Over a 30 year period people can and do change mainly through situations and circumstances and I think most of us over time have had lots of blips in our behaviour perhaps uncharacteristically. I'm aware that no such situations arise when you're couped up in a prison,but there must have been times when JB has longed to let rip about the unfairness of the system. I'd be permanently hopping mad,but that's my nature/persona. JB is of a more calm nature who's taken everything in his stride because he can't do much else.
What I'm trying to say is that he's never displayed any temper/violence like kicking his door now and again out of frustration or throwing any fits of anger. He's probably got past that by channeling his feelings into the work he's doing going through heaps of paperwork and putting it into as near an order as is possible to try and convince the world that he wasn't responsible for the terrible tragedy that took place.
One of the worst things that can ever happen is when you know that you're telling the truth and nobody believes you.
-
30 years is a long time to keep tabs on a person.I know that JB's been housed in a large number of prisons but at each place his behaviour would have been under scrutiny therefore if there had been any sign of a disorder or change it would have been noted and because his overall behaviour has been described as having been impeccable I wouldn't have said that he was a threat to anyone.
Over a 30 year period people can and do change mainly through situations and circumstances and I think most of us over time have had lots of blips in our behaviour perhaps uncharacteristically. I'm aware that no such situations arise when you're couped up in a prison,but there must have been times when JB has longed to let rip about the unfairness of the system. I'd be permanently hopping mad,but that's my nature/persona. JB is of a more calm nature who's taken everything in his stride because he can't do much else.
What I'm trying to say is that he's never displayed any temper/violence like kicking his door now and again out of frustration or throwing any fits of anger. He's probably got past that by channeling his feelings into the work he's doing going through heaps of paperwork and putting it into as near an order as is possible to try and convince the world that he wasn't responsible for the terrible tragedy that took place.
One of the worst things that can ever happen is when you know that you're telling the truth and nobody believes you.
This is why I'm a bit disappointed other people have not addressed whether the passage of time has earned Jeremy the right to hope for eventual release,before he becomes hoary and unable to rebuild any new meaningful life,or whether the crimes committed were so heinous that he has forfeited that right and condemned himself to spending the rest of his days confined in that small space and indeed whether that is conducive to any significant rehabilitation,which is the much harder part of the penal system to achieve.
-
Alias believes that even if he is guilty he should be out by now.
So do I. Far too much room for reasonable doubt plain and simple.
-
This is why I'm a bit disappointed other people have not addressed whether the passage of time has earned Jeremy the right to hope for eventual release,before he becomes hoary and unable to rebuild any new meaningful life,or whether the crimes committed were so heinous that he has forfeited that right and condemned himself to spending the rest of his days confined in that small space and indeed whether that is conducive to any significant rehabilitation,which is the much harder part of the penal system to achieve.
This is all based on the assumption of guilt. What happens to Jeremy should be down to the law/legal system. Hypothetical situation - If Colin should have a say in Jeremy's fate what if Colin does a 180 and starts thinking Jeremy is innocent and demands his release? Then what would you do? Its best the Law decides objectively regardless of what others think.
-
This is all based on the assumption of guilt. What happens to Jeremy should be down to the law/legal system. Hypothetical situation - If Colin should have a say in Jeremy's fate what if Colin does a 180 and starts thinking Jeremy is innocent and demands his release? Then what would you do? Its best the Law decides objectively regardless of what others think.
But I'm not sure that the law does decide objectively. Do you think that if Prince William committed a murder he would ever be brought to trial or would one of his cronies cover for him and the offence reduced to a lesser charge? Some judicial systems do take into consideration the wishes of those most affected by the crimes and this is not a bad thing in my opinion.
Anyway at least those who believe Jeremy innocent have submitted a response.
-
But I'm not sure that the law does decide objectively. Do you think that if Prince William committed a murder he would ever be brought to trial or would one of his cronies cover for him and the offence reduced to a lesser charge? Some judicial systems do take into consideration the wishes of those most affected by the crimes and this is not a bad thing in my opinion.
Anyway at least those who believe Jeremy innocent have submitted a response.
Since every Judge in the land has to swear allegiance to the Queen I doubt he would ever be brought to trial. Unless the public had convincing evidence of his guilt they would probably make a trial happen in order to save their reputation because not doing so would have consequenses.
-
But I'm not sure that the law does decide objectively. Do you think that if Prince William committed a murder he would ever be brought to trial or would one of his cronies cover for him and the offence reduced to a lesser charge? Some judicial systems do take into consideration the wishes of those most affected by the crimes and this is not a bad thing in my opinion.
Anyway at least those who believe Jeremy innocent have submitted a response.
What are we talking about here something like in Absolute Power? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118548/
-
This is all based on the assumption of guilt. What happens to Jeremy should be down to the law/legal system. Hypothetical situation - If Colin should have a say in Jeremy's fate what if Colin does a 180 and starts thinking Jeremy is innocent and demands his release? Then what would you do? Its best the Law decides objectively regardless of what others think.
What legal system ? You know as well as I do that it's all to pot. Did we the public have a say in the return to this country of the guy from Guantanamo ?
The law allows terrorists into the country but turn their backs on their own. The tin-pot law as it stands does exactly what it wants.
-
What are we talking about here something like in Absolute Power? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118548/
I can think of two examples offhand: the Paul Burrell case where the Queen stepped in to avoid anyone from the Royal Family having to appear in the witness box. The other example more recently was the Queen intervening in the Scottish referendum by telling people outside church to "be careful what you wish for".
I applaud Mike's attempts at being a thorn in the Establishment's side because there's nothing more they want than an easy ride when they travel back to their second homes full of servants at the weekend.
-
What legal system ? You know as well as I do that it's all to pot. Did we the public have a say in the return to this country of the guy from Guantanamo ?
The law allows terrorists into the country but turn their backs on their own. The tin-pot law as it stands does exactly what it wants.
Do you know anything about Shaker Aamer and how he ended up in Guantanamo. I suggest you read up on him before making assumptions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34675324
I thought you were interested in MOJ? You are certainly quick to condemn this man!
-
Do you know anything about Shaker Aamer and how he ended up in Guantanamo. I suggest you read up on him before making assumptions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34675324
I thought you were interested in MOJ? You are certainly quick to condemn this man!
He still left his family in the UK and travelled to Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. Why on earth did he do so?
-
He still left his family in the UK and travelled to Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. Why on earth did he do so?
Perhaps before judging, people should wait to hear his story?
-
Do you know anything about Shaker Aamer and how he ended up in Guantanamo. I suggest you read up on him before making assumptions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34675324
I thought you were interested in MOJ? You are certainly quick to condemn this man!
I draw the line at MOJ's concerning someone from Saudi Arabia.This guy reckoned he was working for a charity organisation yet he was non-committant when questioned and faced a bashing rather than speak.
I don't need nor want to read anything concerning this man or anyone else of that ilk.
Let's sit and wait while he settles himself back into this mad country and wait for the fireworks.
-
I draw the line at MOJ's concerning someone from Saudi Arabia.This guy reckoned he was working for a charity organisation yet he was non-committant when questioned and faced a bashing rather than speak.
I don't need nor want to read anything concerning this man or anyone else of that ilk.
Let's sit and wait while he settles himself back into this mad country and wait for the fireworks.
What?? ;D
Would it be different he was white, Lookout?
-
What?? ;D
Would it be different he was white, Lookout?
No different at all I'm afraid because I was the same when Ireland kicked off in the 60's.
-
I draw the line at MOJ's concerning someone from Saudi Arabia.This guy reckoned he was working for a charity organisation yet he was non-committant when questioned and faced a bashing rather than speak.
I don't need nor want to read anything concerning this man or anyone else of that ilk.
Let's sit and wait while he settles himself back into this mad country and wait for the fireworks.
Then you are making an ill informed judgement and I won't comment on the rest. Sorry Lookout BUT I'm just glad not everyone thinks this way but the reason the world is in such a shitty state, is because 'some' people do.
-
I draw the line at MOJ's concerning someone from Saudi Arabia.This guy reckoned he was working for a charity organisation yet he was non-committant when questioned and faced a bashing rather than speak.
I don't need nor want to read anything concerning this man or anyone else of that ilk.
Let's sit and wait while he settles himself back into this mad country and wait for the fireworks.
Their allegiance remain with their own regardless !
-
1,000 signatures have been reached for Mr Gove.
-
I draw the line at MOJ's concerning someone from Saudi Arabia.This guy reckoned he was working for a charity organisation yet he was non-committant when questioned and faced a bashing rather than speak.
I don't need nor want to read anything concerning this man or anyone else of that ilk.
Let's sit and wait while he settles himself back into this mad country and wait for the fireworks.
So being non committing when questioned is a sign of guilt, is it?
-
So being non committing when questioned is a sign of guilt, is it?
Brilliant. ;D
1,000 signatures have been reached for Mr Gove.
Signed also by people who think Bamber is guilty, let's not forget.
-
I can think of two examples offhand: the Paul Burrell case where the Queen stepped in to avoid anyone from the Royal Family having to appear in the witness box. The other example more recently was the Queen intervening in the Scottish referendum by telling people outside church to "be careful what you wish for".
I applaud Mike's attempts at being a thorn in the Establishment's side because there's nothing more they want than an easy ride when they travel back to their second homes full of servants at the weekend.
Burrell was cleared because the Queen herself cleared him:
"The trial of Mr Burrell, who was accused of stealing items belonging to Diana, Princess of Wales, collapsed on Friday after the Queen's disclosure of a conversation with Mr Burrell in which the former butler told her that he had taken items from Diana's home for safekeeping."
Far from him stealing items and hoping no one would notice the Queen said he admitted to her he took them and told her he did so to protect the property. That negates the notion he intended to steal the property.
Are you suggesting she lied to protect him?
-
Burrell was cleared because the Queen herself cleared him:
"The trial of Mr Burrell, who was accused of stealing items belonging to Diana, Princess of Wales, collapsed on Friday after the Queen's disclosure of a conversation with Mr Burrell in which the former butler told her that he had taken items from Diana's home for safekeeping."
Far from him stealing items and hoping no one would notice the Queen said he admitted to her he took them and told her he did so to protect the property. That negates the notion he intended to steal the property.
Are you suggesting she lied to protect him?
Of course not! That would be treason! :o :o :o
-
So being non committing when questioned is a sign of guilt, is it?
In this case-yes.
If all he was doing was charity work,why didn't he say ? What would you have done, told the truth or chanced torture.? Remember,it wasn't a courtroom,he hadn't been charged,etc etc,so why hold back ?
-
In this case-yes.
If all he was doing was charity work,why didn't he say ? What would you have done, told the truth or chanced torture.? Remember,it wasn't a courtroom,he hadn't been charged,etc etc,so why hold back ?
It just seems to me that you're denying him the benefit of the doubt that you give Jeremy in bucket loads.
-
Brilliant. ;D
Signed also by people who think Bamber is guilty, let's not forget.
That's right. It's like a snub towards our system that the law got it wrong.
-
Burrell was cleared because the Queen herself cleared him:
"The trial of Mr Burrell, who was accused of stealing items belonging to Diana, Princess of Wales, collapsed on Friday after the Queen's disclosure of a conversation with Mr Burrell in which the former butler told her that he had taken items from Diana's home for safekeeping."
Far from him stealing items and hoping no one would notice the Queen said he admitted to her he took them and told her he did so to protect the property. That negates the notion he intended to steal the property.
Are you suggesting she lied to protect him?
They both feathered their own nests once Diana was out of the way..http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/43993/Liar-Burrell-won-t-face-a-perjury-probe
-
Taken for " safe-keeping ".I've heard that before. ;)
-
That's right. It's like a snub towards our system that the law got it wrong.
No, that's not people who think Bamber is guilty signed the petition at all. You're mis-representing as usual.
-
That's right. It's like a snub towards our system that the law got it wrong.
Not everyone who signed it thinks Jeremy is innocent - I signed it and did so so we can draw a line under it once and for all. I also made sure that I stated my position.
-
Not everyone who signed it thinks Jeremy is innocent - I signed it and did so so we can draw a line under it once and for all. I also made sure that I stated my position.
I know it isn't just for the innocent as quite a few,including Tatchell is either not sure or says he's guilty. It's mainly to do with having some fairness in the system.
I fully understand that it can go either way,so I'm not holding my breath at this juncture.
-
Shaking a little as she talked,Julie explained that she was only allowed to tell me so much and would only be able to answer certain of my questions. As it is,much of what she could tell me is still unpublishable. She looked frightened and worn out as she told me about Jeremy's gruesome plans and how they had developed several months before the shootings. At the time,however,she hadn't taken him seriously,thinking he was just venting his frustrations over what he saw as his parents' unjustified attempts to control his life,even to the extent that his mother,he said,had threatened to cut him out of her will in favour of the twins if he didn't toe the line. One of the conditions set down by his mother was not having Julie to stay overnight in the cottage his parents had provided for him. As far as his mother was concerned,sex before marriage was "a sin in the eyes of God"-or certainly in the eyes of the local community. The Bambers had offered to set Julie up with a little flat in Colchester,where their son could visit her instead. She actaully lived in South London,where she was in teacher training. There was no doubt in Julie's mind that June's ceaseless proselytising was steadily driving Jeremy crazy. What made it worse for him,really fuelling his hatred and almost certainly putting a nail in their coffin,was the fact that June idolized the twins;in her eyes,they could do no wrong.
That was all very well,I thought,but why kill them? Did she know that?
At this point Julie's friend Liz joined in. She said that money was very important to Jeremy but when he was encouraged to resume working on the farm,the shortage of it really began to rancour,especially when,in his opinion,he put in very long hours. She added that he felt very embittered by the feeling that he was not being given the just recognition and reward for his efforts. Jeremy was paid about eighty pounds a week,an average farm manager's wage at that time-which included the cottage and car-but for the kind of lifestyle he wanted to lead,that wasn't enough. He wanted to be out every night,drinking champagne and and getting in on the London club scene;to have a flat in London,like his sister;take his friends out to dinner and go abroad,much as his father was free to. Jeremy had once said to Liz that it was very important to have money when you were young but also resented having to ask his parents whenever he needed it. With this restriction,Jeremy turned his mind to more illegal resources:mail-order marijuana-which he either grew himself or smuggled in from Amsterdam when he went there(hence the envelopes of cash mentioned earlier)cheque-book fraud(in which the girls had been involved but had since repaid the defrauded amounts in full)and breaking and entering.
-
When I asked Julie why she hadn't said anything to the Police when it first happened,she told me that she hadn't wanted to believe that Jeremy was the killer because she was still very much in love with him. She also said that she was frightened-not only for her own safety but because having tried to challenge him about it afterwards,he had told her that knowing so much about everything,his plans and her own involvement in his illegal activities,she was also implicated in the crime.
According to Liz,Jeremy never believed murder was a crime and thought that morality and social conscience,like religion,were only for the weak. When she told Jeremy she thought he was a psychopath,he had said to her something like,"I know,I'm sick,I have such evil thoughts,I can't help it.."
-
When I asked Julie why she hadn't said anything to the Police when it first happened,she told me that she hadn't wanted to believe that Jeremy was the killer because she was still very much in love with him. She also said that she was frightened-not only for her own safety but because having tried to challenge him about it afterwards,he had told her that knowing so much about everything,his plans and her own involvement in his illegal activities,she was also implicated in the crime.
According to Liz,Jeremy never believed murder was a crime and thought that morality and social conscience,like religion,were only for the weak. When she told Jeremy she thought he was a psychopath,he had said to her something like,"I know,I'm sick,I have such evil thoughts,I can't help it.."
See here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6614.0.html
-
See here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6614.0.html
Anti-social personality disorder,psychopathy..I've just watched a programme about John List,who killed his family because they were drifting from religion,June being in some respects a hypothetical mild version of him. Jeremy was unable to read June and why should he,ultimately preferring murder to the exhausting game of second-guess which was sapping so much emotion from him. I'm not excusing him,just trying to understand.
-
Jeremy hadn't got a clue that his mother was more sick than Sheila was,and I personally won't have it any other way. Sheila wasn't sick she was driven to madness by her mother. No nice bedtime stories for Sheila as a young girl,only passages from the Bible which gave the child nightmares from an early age.So bloody cruel !!
It annoys me when someone can't "see through" another person.
-
Sheila suffered badly through psychological abuse and as a result wasn't able to face a normal healthy life. Poor woman,I feel more sorry for her than anyone else. Controlled and manipulated and in such situations the worm turns.
-
Jeremy hadn't got a clue that his mother was more sick than Sheila was,and I personally won't have it any other way. Sheila wasn't sick she was driven to madness by her mother. No nice bedtime stories for Sheila as a young girl,only passages from the Bible which gave the child nightmares from an early age.So bloody cruel !!
It annoys me when someone can't "see through" another person.
It's easy to "see through" someone when one is on the outside looking in because they can be viewed objectively and rationally. When one is up close to/living with someone, unless one has a critical nature/is consistently critical of that person, seeing through them isn't as easy.
-
Jeremy hadn't got a clue that his mother was more sick than Sheila was,and I personally won't have it any other way. Sheila wasn't sick she was driven to madness by her mother. No nice bedtime stories for Sheila as a young girl,only passages from the Bible which gave the child nightmares from an early age.So bloody cruel !!
It annoys me when someone can't "see through" another person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_delusion
Think the jury is out on the connection of religion and schizophrenia.
IMO if June was more ill than Sheila then she cannot be held accountable to conscious 'cruelty'.
I cannot go along with your thinking Lookout. :-\
I believe Sheila was a schizophrenic and that she was showing early symptoms of the disease in her early teens, if June didn't recognise her illness, well no one else did either and it was brought to the fore after the birth of the twins, which is not unusual. To be diagnosed with schizophrenia you have to present with 5 particular symptoms which sets a person apart from suffering from psychosis.
Adoption can cause depression, mental illness and psychosis because of the breaking of the bond between the baby and it's natural mother.
Sheila was adopted at about 6 months but we know she spent some months before that at a nursery outside Bath therefore she was separated from her natural mother very soon after birth and instead of going to another primary carer she had multiple carers before she even arrived at WHF.
We know that June became ill shortly after Sheila arrived at the farm and spent time away from Sheila, this would have reinforced her original trauma of separation from her natural mother when she was still emotionally and psychologically connected, in fact when she felt she was part of her natural mother. However much June may have wanted to bond with Sheila on a deep level as her primary carer it was already too late and the damage would have been done.
This leaves a wound that can never be totally healed, it obviously affects some adoptees more than others, imo depending on their genetic personality. It can affect any child not just the adopted, any child who loses their natural mother even temporarily at this vital stage in their development will suffer the same wound which can never be completely repaired.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_delusion
Think the jury is out on the connection of religion and schizophrenia.
IMO if June was more ill than Sheila then she cannot be held accountable to conscious 'cruelty'.
I cannot go along with your thinking Lookout. :-\
I believe Sheila was a schizophrenic and that she was showing early symptoms of the disease in her early teens, if June didn't recognise her illness, well no one else did either and it was brought to the fore after the birth of the twins, which is not unusual. To be diagnosed with schizophrenia you have to present with 5 particular symptoms which sets a person apart from suffering from psychosis.
Adoption can cause depression, mental illness and psychosis because of the breaking of the bond between the baby and it's natural mother.
Sheila was adopted at about 6 months but we know she spent some months before that at a nursery outside Bath therefore she was separated from her natural mother very soon after birth and instead of going to another primary carer she had multiple carers before she even arrived at WHF.
We know that June became ill shortly after Sheila arrived at the farm and spent time away from Sheila, this would have reinforced her original trauma of separation from her natural mother when she was still emotionally and psychologically connected, in fact when she felt she was part of her natural mother. However much June may have wanted to bond with Sheila on a deep level as her primary carer it was already too late and the damage would have been done.
This leaves a wound that can never be totally healed, it obviously affects some adoptees more than others, imo depending on their genetic personality. It can affect any child not just the adopted, any child who loses their natural mother even temporarily at this vital stage in their development will suffer the same wound which can never be completely repaired.
I do understand what you're saying,Maggie.
I've studied how June would have felt too at not being able to conceive and the impact that would have had on her mental state. Actually being told to any woman is devastating and its effects can have an everlasting effect especially and probably more so when there's a business to consider,heirs.
We don't know how June took the tragic news but it reflected in her ability to cope and accept her problem which further came to light when Sheila was only eight months old when June had to be treated in hospital which led to her admission as an in-patient for a spell.
I wonder if June had ever wished that she'd bore/borne Sheila herself,that her inability to conceive would have come to the fore aggravating her thoughts.June may have blamed herself,or as her mother used to say " the devil at work ".
Over time and because of June's delicate state of mental health,another visit to the hospital was called for and a second ECT administered to try and improve her mind and block out all past thoughts which were taking over her mind. June was quite a sick person to have had such treatment. I used to think it was a cruel treatment,but the patients who underwent it were pretty unwell.
If anyone should have known about Sheila's moods and behaviour it should have been June having suffered depression herself.
-
I do understand what you're saying,Maggie.
I've studied how June would have felt too at not being able to conceive and the impact that would have had on her mental state. Actually being told to any woman is devastating and its effects can have an everlasting effect especially and probably more so when there's a business to consider,heirs.
We don't know how June took the tragic news but it reflected in her ability to cope and accept her problem which further came to light when Sheila was only eight months old when June had to be treated in hospital which led to her admission as an in-patient for a spell.
I wonder if June had ever wished that she'd bore/borne Sheila herself,that her inability to conceive would have come to the fore aggravating her thoughts.June may have blamed herself,or as her mother used to say " the devil at work ".
Over time and because of June's delicate state of mental health,another visit to the hospital was called for and a second ECT administered to try and improve her mind and block out all past thoughts which were taking over her mind. June was quite a sick person to have had such treatment. I used to think it was a cruel treatment,but the patients who underwent it were pretty unwell.
If anyone should have known about Sheila's moods and behaviour it should have been June having suffered depression herself.
Lookout, I think it highly likely that -like many dreamy young girls believe that if only they could get married, life would be perfect- June had believed that a baby was the answer to her having a perfect life. That's a dangerous mind set for ANY woman, not to mention that it puts on the unborn -unCONCEIVED- child, the onus and responsibility for the mother's future happiness and well being.
So June gets her wish. I can only think that, for some reason, Sheila wasn't EXACTLY what June's previous, fantasy child had been. However young she may have been, Sheila WOULD have sensed this and would have responded accordingly. It would have been a relationship disaster for both mother and child. I feel perfectly certain that Sheila would have been entirely unaware of the reasons why she may have felt rejected by June. She would only have felt that no matter what she did -as far as her mother was concerned- it was never quite right................and that was probably on a good day. It's highly likely that June blamed Sheila's difficulty in/refusal to do what was "right" for her delicate mental health........................
..................This, however, is in NO way unique and isn't the prerogative of the adopted child/mother relationship. It's something prominent in ALL relationships in which the parent puts its' own expectations of their child before what may be in their child's best interests.
-
Lookout, I think it highly likely that -like many dreamy young girls believe that if only they could get married, life would be perfect- June had believed that a baby was the answer to her having a perfect life. That's a dangerous mind set for ANY woman, not to mention that it puts on the unborn -unCONCEIVED- child, the onus and responsibility for the mother's future happiness and well being.
So June gets her wish. I can only think that, for some reason, Sheila wasn't EXACTLY what June's previous, fantasy child had been. However young she may have been, Sheila WOULD have sensed this and would have responded accordingly. It would have been a relationship disaster for both mother and child. I feel perfectly certain that Sheila would have been entirely unaware of the reasons why she may have felt rejected by June. She would only have felt that no matter what she did -as far as her mother was concerned- it was never quite right................and that was probably on a good day. It's highly likely that June blamed Sheila's difficulty in/refusal to do what was "right" for her delicate mental health........................
..................This, however, is in NO way unique and isn't the prerogative of the adopted child/mother relationship. It's something prominent in ALL relationships in which the parent puts its' own expectations of their child before what may be in their child's best interests.
My main argument is that June must have been really ill to have warranted ECT treatment,not once but twice. It's possible that she may not have responded to medication that made the treatment necessary as at one time ECT was the last resort.I don't know whether that still stands today,but all I'm saying is that like it or not she was a very sick woman who towards the end of her life had seemingly relapsed given the amount of appointments she'd had to visit her GP latterly.
It certainly wasn't Sheila's fault that June was totally unsuitable and had taken her on. I'm afraid she wouldn't have passed the criteria today with everything going through the right and proper channels of adoption.
-
I do understand what you're saying,Maggie.
I've studied how June would have felt too at not being able to conceive and the impact that would have had on her mental state. Actually being told to any woman is devastating and its effects can have an everlasting effect especially and probably more so when there's a business to consider,heirs.
We don't know how June took the tragic news but it reflected in her ability to cope and accept her problem which further came to light when Sheila was only eight months old when June had to be treated in hospital which led to her admission as an in-patient for a spell.
I wonder if June had ever wished that she'd bore/borne Sheila herself,that her inability to conceive would have come to the fore aggravating her thoughts.June may have blamed herself,or as her mother used to say " the devil at work ".
Over time and because of June's delicate state of mental health,another visit to the hospital was called for and a second ECT administered to try and improve her mind and block out all past thoughts which were taking over her mind. June was quite a sick person to have had such treatment. I used to think it was a cruel treatment,but the patients who underwent it were pretty unwell.
If anyone should have known about Sheila's moods and behaviour it should have been June having suffered depression herself.
I have lived it Lookout and I don't believe June necessarily though any of that.
I believe Sheila was ill either because she was genetically programmed that way or because her trauma before she got to WHF was profound enough to have caused her to be unable to bond deeply with June or any other primary carer. There certainly was conflict, I would imagine Sheila was probably a conundrum to June as much because of the way the world had changed since June's upbringing as much anything else. June was said to be very strong minded or controlling, depending on how you look at it and there was bound to be difficulties.
It is quite probable that Sheila had a genetic tendency towards schizophrenia which was exacerbated by her adoption and difficulties to bond properly with June but I don't really know, it's all just speculation. I cannot believe that June didn't love Sheila however much 'at sea' she may have been when trying to deal with her. Natural children are not always carbon copies of their parents, one can be like great, great uncle somebody who burned the local church down or whatever. Think all parents hope for the best but they don't always get it and most people muddle through. Sheila's illness definitely would have made relationships very difficult for her.
I agree that June seemed to be ill equipped to deal with children whether natural or adopted due to her own difficulties but I still feel she is harshly treated because of her own mental health problems, she definitely didn't kill anyone and had a dreadful death imo and yet at times she seems to be blamed for the whole catastrophic disaster. I have no idea what June was like as a person but I feel for her, maybe I'm biased because she's a fellow adoptive mother and I make no apologies for this.
-
My main argument is that June must have been really ill to have warranted ECT treatment,not once but twice. It's possible that she may not have responded to medication that made the treatment necessary as at one time ECT was the last resort.I don't know whether that still stands today,but all I'm saying is that like it or not she was a very sick woman who towards the end of her life had seemingly relapsed given the amount of appointments she'd had to visit her GP latterly.
It certainly wasn't Sheila's fault that June was totally unsuitable and had taken her on. I'm afraid she wouldn't have passed the criteria today with everything going through the right and proper channels of adoption.
Lookout, at one time it was the standard treatment given for depression. By the end of June's life it had more or less been jettisoned in favour of "new generations" of anti depressants. Perhaps you could post the dates of her doctors' appointments during her last year.
I agree there are much more stringent rules these days regarding adoption.
-
Lookout, at one time it was the standard treatment given for depression. By the end of June's life it had more or less been jettisoned in favour of "new generations" of anti depressants. Perhaps you could post the dates of her doctors' appointments during her last year.
I agree there are much more stringent rules these days regarding adoption.
I remember a woman who used to request some more ECT every so often when her mood became very low and she would go off to hospital for a few weeks and come back a different woman, that would be in very early 80s. So it was still quite common at that time.
I agree the development of Prosac changed the treatment of depression forever, don't know if ECT is still used but if it is it would now be in very extreme cases.
-
Lookout, at one time it was the standard treatment given for depression. By the end of June's life it had more or less been jettisoned in favour of "new generations" of anti depressants. Perhaps you could post the dates of her doctors' appointments during her last year.
I agree there are much more stringent rules these days regarding adoption.
I'm not sure of dates for her last appointments but Jeremy had said in his statement that she'd been seeing the GP " for ages/weeks " leading up to the tragedy.
-
I remember a woman who used to request some more ECT every so often when her mood became very low and she would go off to hospital for a few weeks and come back a different woman, that would be in very early 80s. So it was still quite common at that time.
I agree the development of Prosac changed the treatment of depression forever, don't know if ECT is still used but if it is it would now be in very extreme cases.
It was very much OUT of favour by the mid 90's, Maggie, Prosac being the new -hero- kid on the block. I had a friend whose brother was treated with ECT as a result of the war. She maintained he was a completely different person after treatment. I refrained from telling her that they'd probably fried that part of the brain responsible for the nightmares/memories. I suppose ECT was marginally better than frontal lobotomy.
-
I'm not sure of dates for her last appointments but Jeremy had said in his statement that she'd been seeing the GP " for ages/weeks " leading up to the tragedy.
As he didn't live at WHF, Lookout, his accuracy regarding appointment times has to be questionable.
-
It was very much OUT of favour by the mid 90's, Maggie, Prosac being the new -hero- kid on the block. I had a friend whose brother was treated with ECT as a result of the war. She maintained he was a completely different person after treatment. I refrained from telling her that they'd probably fried that part of the brain responsible for the nightmares/memories. I suppose ECT was marginally better than frontal lobotomy.
I know it was a horrible treatment but for some it worked. It lifted the misery of depression for some. :-\ I have had my moments but have never suffered deep totally debilitating depression which must be a dreadful black hole to live in.
-
As he didn't live at WHF, Lookout, his accuracy regarding appointment times has to be questionable.
He was there every day working though,so would have known.
-
He was there every day working though,so would have known.
He'd have been working in the fields, not in the house. If he saw her car going out would he have asked her where she'd been when she returned? Most parents don't give adult children running commentaries about their movements.
-
I know it was a horrible treatment but for some it worked. It lifted the misery of depression for some. :-\ I have had my moments but have never suffered deep totally debilitating depression which must be a dreadful black hole to live in.
The women I used to see going to theatre were in a bad way Maggie. It was terrible to see.When I think back it was a damned awful place with cells for the violent ones,a padded cell and an open ward for those with depression and dementia all within the department I worked on and it was hard going.
-
The women I used to see going to theatre were in a bad way Maggie. It was terrible to see.When I think back it was a damned awful place with cells for the violent ones,a padded cell and an open ward for those with depression and dementia all within the department I worked on and it was hard going.
I couldn't have done it, I'm in no doubt of that, Lookout. 8)
-
He'd have been working in the fields, not in the house. If he saw her car going out would he have asked her where she'd been when she returned? Most parents don't give adult children running commentaries about their movements.
He most likely did ask where his mother was if her car was missing. He obviously knew or wouldn't have mentioned it.It's not something you make up.
-
I couldn't have done it, I'm in no doubt of that, Lookout. 8)
I remember transferring a patient to Winwick Mental Hospital ( if it's still there ) and the patient was all trussed up like a turkey ( restrained ) I can't remember offhand why the transfer but I was glad when we got there. The place was in Warrington.
-
I remember transferring a patient to Winwick Mental Hospital ( if it's still there ) and the patient was all trussed up like a turkey ( restrained ) I can't remember offhand why the transfer but I was glad when we got there. The place was in Warrington.
How awful,Lookout. I woukd guess you were very young then as well.
-
How awful,Lookout. I woukd guess you were very young then as well.
Yes I was young Maggie working 4 on and 4 off-7am to 7pm.
-
Yes I was young Maggie working 4 on and 4 off-7am to 7pm.
12 hours and only allowed to sit down for half hour lunch and short break Those were the days ;D ;D ;D
-
12 hours and only allowed to sit down for half hour lunch and short break Those were the days ;D ;D ;D
No wonder I'm a tough old bint,Maggie. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
From The Murders At White House Farm:
When June didn't respond to medication or psychoanalysis,she was given a course of electroshock therapy,receiving the treatment on at least six occasions at St. Andrew's. Lying on a gurney in a hospital gown,the patient would be injected twice;first with a general anaesthetic,then with a muscle relaxant. A mouth guard stopped her from biting her tongue,and oxygen was administered through a face mask. Two metal plates were applied to the temples where conducting gel had been rubbed onto her skin,delivering a series of high-voltage electrical pulses into the brain to produce an epileptic fit. Electroshock took half an hour ,with pulses lasting between five and fifteen seconds. The patient was then turned on her side,ingesting oxygen until the muscle relaxant wore off. A severe headache,sore muscles,and nausea habitually followed. Memory loss was another side effect,usually short term,although some patients reported permanent partial loss.
June was said to have made a full recovery as a result,but the procedure could not address underlying issues or prevent remission. During her absence,Nevill had shared the care of Sheila with family members. When his wife returned home,a seventeen-year-old girl was taken on as full-time nanny. Julia Saye was never aware of any problems in the household and regarded her employers as friends,remaining in touch with them until the end of their lives.
From Colin's book "In Search of the Rainbow's End"
In their book The Family Crucible,family therapists Augustus Napier and Carl Whitaker talk about the family as a "system" in which all members actively participate-albeit unconsciously-as in a biological organism. For example if one part is "sick",then all the parts are sick,and the person referred to as the "presenting problem" is often not really sick but a manifestation of the entire family dynamic-like the fruiting body of a fungus being only the outward representation of something that inhabits and eats away the fabric of an entire tree. It can emerge on any part of the tree,or family.
This all begins to back up my own suspicion that the sickness in the Bamber family had little if anything to do with Bambs's and Jeremy's families of origin but was connected,instead,to their environment-the home they grew up in. In that respect,it was obviously not congenital.
The unfortunate knock-on effect-I see this now but could not have known then-is that by keeping Bambs away from June as much as possible,giving her both space and time to heal,the disturbance was likely to break out in the next weakest link of the family structure,that being Jeremy. It was unlikely to re-emerge in June because her condition had been effectively contained through medical treatment rather than worked out through a process of psychotherapy;the underlying emotional causes having still not been dealt with.
-
No wonder I'm a tough old bint,Maggie. ;D ;D ;D ;D
True!! ;D ;D
-
From The Murders At White House Farm:
When June didn't respond to medication or psychoanalysis,she was given a course of electroshock therapy,receiving the treatment on at least six occasions at St. Andrew's. Lying on a gurney in a hospital gown,the patient would be injected twice;first with a general anaesthetic,then with a muscle relaxant. A mouth guard stopped her from biting her tongue,and oxygen was administered through a face mask. Two metal plates were applied to the temples where conducting gel had been rubbed onto her skin,delivering a series of high-voltage electrical pulses into the brain to produce an epileptic fit. Electroshock took half an hour ,with pulses lasting between five and fifteen seconds. The patient was then turned on her side,ingesting oxygen until the muscle relaxant wore off. A severe headache,sore muscles,and nausea habitually followed. Memory loss was another side effect,usually short term,although some patients reported permanent partial loss.
June was said to have made a full recovery as a result,but the procedure could not address underlying issues or prevent remission. During her absence,Nevill had shared the care of Sheila with family members. When his wife returned home,a seventeen-year-old girl was taken on as full-time nanny. Julia Saye was never aware of any problems in the household and regarded her employers as friends,remaining in touch with them until the end of their lives.
From Colin's book "In Search of the Rainbow's End"
In their book The Family Crucible,family therapists Augustus Napier and Carl Whitaker talk about the family as a "system" in which all members actively participate-albeit unconsciously-as in a biological organism. For example if one part is "sick",then all the parts are sick,and the person referred to as the "presenting problem" is often not really sick but a manifestation of the entire family dynamic-like the fruiting body of a fungus being only the outward representation of something that inhabits and eats away the fabric of an entire tree. It can emerge on any part of the tree,or family.
This all begins to back up my own suspicion that the sickness in the Bamber family had little if anything to do with Bambs's and Jeremy's families of origin but was connected,instead,to their environment-the home they grew up in. In that respect,it was obviously not congenital.
The unfortunate knock-on effect-I see this now but could not have known then-is that by keeping Bambs away from June as much as possible,giving her both space and time to heal,the disturbance was likely to break out in the next weakest link of the family structure,that being Jeremy. It was unlikely to re-emerge in June because her condition had been effectively contained through medical treatment rather than worked out through a process of psychotherapy;the underlying emotional causes having still not been dealt with.
Maybe :-\ but adoption is the common theme and The Primal Wound explains very clearly the trauma which can happen to the adopted baby. Adding to that wound by sending them both away to boarding school was always going to make things even worse emphasising feelings of loss and abandonment in their conscious and unconscious minds. imo :-\
-
Maybe :-\ but adoption is the common theme and The Primal Wound explains very clearly the trauma which can happen to the adopted baby. Adding to that wound by sending them both away to boarding school was always going to make things even worse emphasising feelings of loss and abandonment in their conscious and unconscious minds. imo :-\
I think Jeremy could have overcome this had his parents bought him a West End wine bar to manage,whereas I'm unsure as to the future which awaited Sheila even with June's intended allowance.
-
From The Murders At White House Farm:
When June didn't respond to medication or psychoanalysis,she was given a course of electroshock therapy,receiving the treatment on at least six occasions at St. Andrew's. Lying on a gurney in a hospital gown,the patient would be injected twice;first with a general anaesthetic,then with a muscle relaxant. A mouth guard stopped her from biting her tongue,and oxygen was administered through a face mask. Two metal plates were applied to the temples where conducting gel had been rubbed onto her skin,delivering a series of high-voltage electrical pulses into the brain to produce an epileptic fit. Electroshock took half an hour ,with pulses lasting between five and fifteen seconds. The patient was then turned on her side,ingesting oxygen until the muscle relaxant wore off. A severe headache,sore muscles,and nausea habitually followed. Memory loss was another side effect,usually short term,although some patients reported permanent partial loss.
]June was said to have made a full recovery as a result,but the procedure could not address underlying issues or prevent remission. During her absence,Nevill had shared the care of Sheila with family members. When his wife returned home,a seventeen-year-old girl was taken on as full-time nanny. Julia Saye was never aware of any problems in the household and regarded her employers as friends,remaining in touch with them until the end of their lives.
From Colin's book "In Search of the Rainbow's End"
In their book The Family Crucible,family therapists Augustus Napier and Carl Whitaker talk about the family as a "system" in which all members actively participate-albeit unconsciously-as in a biological organism. For example if one part is "sick",then all the parts are sick,and the person referred to as the "presenting problem" is often not really sick but a manifestation of the entire family dynamic-like the fruiting body of a fungus being only the outward representation of something that inhabits and eats away the fabric of an entire tree. It can emerge on any part of the tree,or family.
This all begins to back up my own suspicion that the sickness in the Bamber family had little if anything to do with Bambs's and Jeremy's families of origin but was connected,instead,to their environment-the home they grew up in. In that respect,it was obviously not congenital.
The unfortunate knock-on effect-I see this now but could not have known then-is that by keeping Bambs away from June as much as possible,giving her both space and time to heal,the disturbance was likely to break out in the next weakest link of the family structure,that being Jeremy. It was unlikely to re-emerge in June because her condition had been effectively contained through medical treatment rather than worked out through a process of psychotherapy;the underlying emotional causes having still not been dealt with.
I'm reminded of the words of a wonderful, old school psychologist called Dorothy Rowe. She maintained that she had never known ECT to cure the problems, in a marriage, which had led to the patient's depression.
I can't disagree with much of what Colin says. MOST of it forms the basis of what I was taught. That which doesn't, I have empirical evidence of.
-
I think Jeremy could have overcome this had his parents bought him a West End wine bar to manage,whereas I'm unsure as to the future which awaited Sheila even with June's intended allowance.
You don't know that Steve. Jeremy could have been more damaged than Sheila for all we know. It is believed that adoptees often latch onto a love of money or possessions rather than give their heart to human beings whom they believe will always let them down. :-\
-
I think Jeremy could have overcome this had his parents bought him a West End wine bar to manage,whereas I'm unsure as to the future which awaited Sheila even with June's intended allowance.
Steve, I think Jeremy was far more capable, than Sheila, of making a fist of something which interested him but it may have seemed to him that it was Sheila, who despite doing nothing to earn them, was given the rewards. Effectively she got it all in the here and now whilst he had to wait -for what must have seemed like ever- before he got his reward.
-
You don't know that Steve. Jeremy could have been more damaged than Sheila for all we know. It is believed that adoptees often latch onto a love of money or possessions rather than give their heart to human beings whom they believe will always let them down. :-\
Trouble is, Maggie, if it's never been given them, unconditionally, they won't know how -or WHERE- to give it.
-
Steve, I think Jeremy was far more capable, than Sheila, of making a fist of something which interested him but it may have seemed to him that it was Sheila, who despite doing nothing to earn them, was given the rewards. Effectively she got it all in the here and now whilst he had to wait -for what must have seemed like ever- before he got his reward.
Yes and what a sign of immaturity that he couldn't recognize that his sister needed special help.
-
In fact they were all young-Jeremy,Julie,Sheila and Colin and all made mistakes which I'm sure when they looked back they lived to regret.
-
Yes and what a sign of immaturity that he couldn't recognize that his sister needed special help.
Steve, I don't believe we do recognize thing we're close up to unless they're pointed out and in the Bambers' case, I think they did their best to keep Sheila's problem under wraps.
-
Steve, I don't believe we do recognize thing we're close up to unless they're pointed out and in the Bambers' case, I think they did their best to keep Sheila's problem under wraps.
I'm not saying it was the case in this instance but often sisters or brothers of an unwell sibling prefer to call them 'lazy' 'pretending' 'attention seeking' etc. rather than admit they are really ill. :-\ They simply don't want to accept the truth so it's easier to pretend it isn't happening.
-
I'm not saying it was the case in this instance but often sisters or brothers of an unwell sibling prefer to call them 'lazy' 'pretending' 'attention seeking' etc. rather than admit they are really ill. :-\ They simply don't want to accept the truth so it's easier to pretend it isn't happening.
OR he didn't know her well enough/had never spent enough time with her/didn't care. Not wanting to accept truth implies fear arising from caring, perhaps.
-
Everything seemed to be done clandestinely and in an underhand way,from keeping Sheila's illness quiet and no doubt Jeremy's schooldays where it's unlikely he told his parents about the abuse he suffered,the bank books and contents of the safe and June's heartfelt letter to be read after her death..
-
Everything seemed to be done clandestinely and in an underhand way,from keeping Sheila's illness quiet and no doubt Jeremy's schooldays where it's unlikely he told his parents about the abuse he suffered,the bank books and contents of the safe and June's heartfelt letter to be read after her death..
There are families like that, I have experienced one, very different from my own family where we were all encouraged to have our own opinions and to voice them and we did!!. ;D ;D If you always have to 'tow the line' and 'play' the family game without veering from the 'party line' I would guess you can end up very confused and bottled up. :-\
-
There are families like that, I have experienced one, very different from my own family where we were all encouraged to have our own opinions and to voice them and we did!!. ;D ;D If you always have to 'tow the line' and 'play' the family game without veering from the 'party line' I would guess you can end up very confused and bottled up. :-\
Is this one explanation for his refusal to open up now..
-
Is this one explanation for his refusal to open up now..
Possibly if that is what he's doing but I'm not sure. I do believe if JB killed the family he must be a narcissistic psychopath who enjoys the notoriety and what he may see as super star status. :-\ No decent human being could contemplate such a horrendous act. imo
-
Possibly if that is what he's doing but I'm not sure. I do believe if JB killed the family he must be a narcissistic psychopath who enjoys the notoriety and what he may see as super star status. :-\
A side to his personality which could have developed because he MAY have experienced Sheila as getting all the attention.
-
I wonder how the "horrible things" Jeremy alleged to Julie manifested themselves? The only thing he has ever mentioned is her pulling his legs to get him out of bed early on Christmas morning.
-
I wonder how the "horrible things" Jeremy alleged to Julie manifested themselves? The only thing he has ever mentioned is her pulling his legs to get him out of bed early on Christmas morning.
Don't know Steve but then I don't know if I believe Julie that much even if JB is guilty, I think she was looking after number one when she went to the police rather than thinking of the people who lost their lives.
-
Don't know Steve but then I don't know if I believe Julie that much even if JB is guilty, I think she was looking after number one when she went to the police rather than thinking of the people who lost their lives.
What did she say that you don't believe? The only lies she would have a reason to tell would be if she
had conspired with him to commit the murders or conspired to help obstruct justice and in such case the lies would be to conceal her guilt. So the lies would be failing to tell her full role. It would mean Jeremy told her even more and she agreed to assist him. While that would be damning to herself it could be even more damning to Jeremy than what she said.
For instance, suppose instead of just telling her that his plan included receiving a call that he told her he was going to lie and pretend he received a call from WHF and that in order to try to get police to believe he actually received such call he was going to call her and she tell police he called and told her he was upset after receiving such fictional call. This is even more damning because it makes it even more clear that the call was fictional. Her claim he told her his plan included receiving a call from WHF is still bad but not as direct about the purpose one has to think about it.
If this had been the case it means that when Julie told police about his telling her he received the call that she was helping him lie. She was part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. If this were true she would have reason to leave out entirely that he had planned to say he received a call form WHF. he fact she mentioned it suggests she truly didn't appreciate he was telling her that he was going to make the call up.
-
Is this one explanation for his refusal to open up now..
No, I think he doesn't want to admit his guilt because he will no longer have the 'is he or isn't he' question and he will simply be classed by other inmates as a child killer and they are classed as the lowest of the low. I'm sure after all this time, they would also take pleasure in taunting him!
-
What did she say that you don't believe? The only lies she would have a reason to tell would be if she
had conspired with him to commit the murders or conspired to help obstruct justice and in such case the lies would be to conceal her guilt. So the lies would be failing to tell her full role. It would mean Jeremy told her even more and she agreed to assist him. While that would be damning to herself it could be even more damning to Jeremy than what she said.
For instance, suppose instead of just telling her that his plan included receiving a call that he told her he was going to lie and pretend he received a call from WHF and that in order to try to get police to believe he actually received such call he was going to call her and she tell police he called and told her he was upset after receiving such fictional call. This is even more damning because it makes it even more clear that the call was fictional. Her claim he told her his plan included receiving a call from WHF is still bad but not as direct about the purpose one has to think about it.
If this had been the case it means that when Julie told police about his telling her he received the call that she was helping him lie. She was part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. If this were true she would have reason to leave out entirely that he had planned to say he received a call form WHF. he fact she mentioned it suggests she truly didn't appreciate he was telling her that he was going to make the call up.
But shouldn't Julie have realized at the call 1 stage(we'll call it the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" call)that Jeremy was serious about killing his family..
-
If she'd have known Steve,she would. That's the question.
-
What did she say that you don't believe? The only lies she would have a reason to tell would be if she
had conspired with him to commit the murders or conspired to help obstruct justice and in such case the lies would be to conceal her guilt. So the lies would be failing to tell her full role. It would mean Jeremy told her even more and she agreed to assist him. While that would be damning to herself it could be even more damning to Jeremy than what she said.
For instance, suppose instead of just telling her that his plan included receiving a call that he told her he was going to lie and pretend he received a call from WHF and that in order to try to get police to believe he actually received such call he was going to call her and she tell police he called and told her he was upset after receiving such fictional call. This is even more damning because it makes it even more clear that the call was fictional. Her claim he told her his plan included receiving a call from WHF is still bad but not as direct about the purpose one has to think about it.
If this had been the case it means that when Julie told police about his telling her he received the call that she was helping him lie. She was part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. If this were true she would have reason to leave out entirely that he had planned to say he received a call form WHF. he fact she mentioned it suggests she truly didn't appreciate he was telling her that he was going to make the call up.
Sorry to disagree with you scip but I find much of her statement and behaviour questionable. This has nothing to do with whether I believe JB guilty or not.
-
Sorry to disagree with you scip but I find much of her statement and behaviour questionable. This has nothing to do with whether I believe JB guilty or not.
But the statement has been gone over many times with a fine tooth comb by Kingsley Napley or whoever is representing him now pro bono..
-
Jeremy's " jokes " and one-liners became serious threats during JM's questioning.
-
But the statement has been gone over many times with a fine tooth comb by Kingsley Napley or whoever is representing him now pro bono..
I'm sure it has but I still question Julie and her behaviour.
-
Sorry to disagree with you scip but I find much of her statement and behaviour questionable. This has nothing to do with whether I believe JB guilty or not.
I don't buy for one second that your past support of Jeremy doesn't affect how you view Julie. If your views were objective you would be able to articulate the reasons why her claims are not credible. Your views seem to have formed based upon your views of Jeremy's innocence.
Claims that police got her to lie for them are absurd and claims she decided to frame him out of anger that they broke up fare no better. These are the only reasons why she would lie to frame him.
If she were trying to frame Jeremy she would have simply stated he confessed to killing them himself. She would not make up a hitman claim let alone name someone who would be able to establish the claim false. This alone makes it obvious she didn't make the claims up. But the fact her claims about the Caravan breakin were corroborated and the level of details she provided about when he told her he wanted to kill them is such that it is not likely she made it up.
Anytime I ask people to explain why they think Julie lied I get the runaround and essentially reading between the lines they say it is just their gut feeling nothing more. Gut feelings definitely involve how one views Jeremy.
-
I'm sure it has but I still question Julie and her behaviour.
You have this view that if she was telling the truth about what he told her then she had to have known he was going to kill them so she should have warned someone.
The reality though is that someone in her place could indeed think he was just blowing off steam and not seriously going to do it. Someone in her place could intentionally close their eyes because they don't want to believe their loved one is so bad. Someone in her place could even think he is serious but not care if he does it or even hope he does anticipating enjoying the spoils.
None of these would make her claims against Jeremy not credible, at worst she simply understated what she knew, understated her role or failed to mention her hope he would so she could prosper as well.
-
I don't buy for one second that your past support of Jeremy doesn't affect how you view Julie. If your views were objective you would be able to articulate the reasons why her claims are not credible. Your views seem to have formed based upon your views of Jeremy's innocence.
Claims that police got her to lie for them are absurd and claims she decided to frame him out of anger that they broke up fare no better. These are the only reasons why she would lie to frame him.
If she were trying to frame Jeremy she would have simply stated he confessed to killing them himself. She would not make up a hitman claim let alone name someone who would be able to establish the claim false. This alone makes it obvious she didn't make the claims up. But the fact her claims about the Caravan breakin were corroborated and the level of details she provided about when he told her he wanted to kill them is such that it is not likely she made it up.
Anytime I ask people to explain why they think Julie lied I get the runaround and essentially reading between the lines they say it is just their gut feeling nothing more. Gut feelings definitely involve how one views Jeremy.
I totally understand why some people might dismiss Julie's evidence. Her own character and behaviour at the time was, at the very least, questionable. The sale of her story to the press, speaks volumes.
However, I would tend to agree with the comment made at the time, that her evidence had the ring of truth about it.
-
You have this view that if she was telling the truth about what he told her then she had to have known he was going to kill them so she should have warned someone.
The reality though is that someone in her place could indeed think he was just blowing off steam and not seriously going to do it. Someone in her place could intentionally close their eyes because they don't want to believe their loved one is so bad. Someone in her place could even think he is serious but not care if he does it or even hope he does anticipating enjoying the spoils.
None of these would make her claims against Jeremy not credible, at worst she simply understated what she knew, understated her role or failed to mention her hope he would so she could prosper as well.
The problem I have is, once Julie was fully aware that he wasn't just 'blowing off steam' and he had in fact just orchestrated the murder of five relatives, two of whom were children, she still delayed informing the Police!
-
You have this view that if she was telling the truth about what he told her then she had to have known he was going to kill them so she should have warned someone.
The reality though is that someone in her place could indeed think he was just blowing off steam and not seriously going to do it. Someone in her place could intentionally close their eyes because they don't want to believe their loved one is so bad. Someone in her place could even think he is serious but not care if he does it or even hope he does anticipating enjoying the spoils.
None of these would make her claims against Jeremy not credible, at worst she simply understated what she knew, understated her role or failed to mention her hope he would so she could prosper as well.
The problem though,Scipio is her job as a primary school teacher,where one might think that someone in such a profession has an empathy with human nature,and whether she has reached her elevated status subsequently through dint of hard work or cerebral competency one cannot maintain the defence of simpleton,however juvenile she may have been at the time.
-
The problem I have is, once Julie was fully aware that he wasn't just 'blowing off steam' and he had in fact just orchestrated the murder of five relatives, two of which were children, she still didn't inform the Police!
I would also assert in retrospect that Jeremy was sounding her out for the murders and however vocal her protests at the time they were evidently not strong enough for her boyfriend to be dissuaded from the enterprise.
-
You have this view that if she was telling the truth about what he told her then she had to have known he was going to kill them so she should have warned someone.
The reality though is that someone in her place could indeed think he was just blowing off steam and not seriously going to do it. Someone in her place could intentionally close their eyes because they don't want to believe their loved one is so bad. Someone in her place could even think he is serious but not care if he does it or even hope he does anticipating enjoying the spoils.
None of these would make her claims against Jeremy not credible, at worst she simply understated what she knew, understated her role or failed to mention her hope he would so she could prosper as well.
I can work all that out, I don't know why you're so protective of Julie Mugford she has nothing to be proud of and her behaviour was questionable for various reasons. Imo
-
I would also assert in retrospect that Jeremy was sounding her out for the murders and however vocal her protests at the time they were evidently not strong enough for her boyfriend to be dissuaded from the enterprise.
Apart from anything else, no one can surely believe there is any excuse for her to go with Jeremy to Colin's house for the weekend after the twins had died and offer support when she knew JB had murdered his beloved boys?
-
Does Julie have the right to be forgiven and start a new life? Does Jeremy have any rights? Does Colin have the right to keep Jeremy behind bars?
-
Apart from anything else, no one can surely believe there is any excuse for her to go with Jeremy to Colin's house for the weekend after the twins had died and offer support when she knew JB had murdered his beloved boys?
She must have desperately wanted to keep him out of prison. They do say love is blind. Did Jeremy offer to buy her a wine bar in the West End to shut her up? We may never know.
-
She must have desperately wanted to keep him out of prison. They do say love is blind. Did Jeremy offer to buy her a wine bar in the West End to shut her up? We may never know.
I don't believe most people would behave in such a way. Imo there's no excuse even at 20, how could anyone do such a thing?
-
I don't believe most people would behave in such a way. Imo there's no excuse even at 20, how could anyone do such a thing?
I suppose she could have pushed to be set up as manageress of a wine bar had she so desired. I also think she deserved a fresh start,but at what cost?
-
The problem I have is, once Julie was fully aware that he wasn't just 'blowing off steam' and he had in fact just orchestrated the murder of five relatives, two of whom were children, she still delayed informing the Police!
She loved him and initially still wanted to be with him in spite of what he did. She didn't rat him out until:
1) they broke up- so she no longer had a need to remain silent
2) her friend told police what Julie had told her so police summoned her
When people have a falling out that is when they are willing to stab them in the back so the timing is not in the least bit surprising.
I can list plenty of women who got divorced then ratted out their husbands criminal actions. Just because they chose to stay silent while married and still wanted to be married to them doesn't mean that they lied about the things they said after the divorce. Most of them waited until police approached them and asked because they found evidence and then wanted to see what the ex-wives had to say.
The simple reality is that people who want to chalk up her claims to lies can't come up with any reason she would lie. The claim she did so for money holds no water at all. It is ludicrous to say she did it figuring after he got convicted she could get a big payday and since she declined so many paid opportunities after the NOTW deal it is even more obvious that line won't go anywhere.
Suggesting she made it up just to cause him trouble makes no sense either. She would not have made up a hit man story if intending to cause him problems and the notion she fed the story to her friend so her friend would contact the police and get police to contact her is also not credible.
He told her about his drugs crimes and even recruited her for them and he let her know about his theft of the caravan site. he thus trusted her. It is thus easy to see how he could trust her with his desire to kill his family. She didn't rat him out after he told her of his plans o burn it down and each time he spoke to her she didn't betray his confidence so he trusted her.
I have patiently waited for people to come up with something to undermine her claims but no one has been able to come up with any good reason to doubt her testimony.
-
He told her about his drugs crimes and even recruited her for them and he let her know about his theft of the caravan site. he thus trusted her. It is thus easy to see how he could trust her with his desire to kill his family. She didn't rat him out after he told her of his plans o burn it down and each time he spoke to her she didn't betray his confidence so he trusted her.
That was big of him,since she acted as lookout on the sea wall.
-
The problem though,Scipio is her job as a primary school teacher,where one might think that someone in such a profession has an empathy with human nature,and whether she has reached her elevated status subsequently through dint of hard work or cerebral competency one cannot maintain the defence of simpleton,however juvenile she may have been at the time.
In an ideal world people would hate all criminals and immediately would inform upon any and all criminals they were aware of regardless of whether it is a family member, loved one or friend. We don't live in an ideal world though. We live in a world where people look the other way and even try to help their friends/loved ones avoid liability even going so far as to helping dispose of bodies.
People who like Jeremy and/or don't like Julie are letting their feelings get in the way of a rational objective evaluation of her testimony. I have no need to defend her behavior to assess whether her claims are credible anymore than I need to justify why someone helped cut up a body and dispose of hit to help a friend. Of course helping cut up and dispose of a body is wrong. That doesn't mean if someone admits they helped do so that it didn't happen. You have to look at he claim itself to evaluate whether it is true that a body was cut up and disposed of. Saying one would have to be a slime ball to help and you don't believe the person is enough of a slime ball so it must be a lie doesn't work anymore than saying Julie would have to be a slime ball to stay with him and you don't think she is enough of a slime ball to do that but is enough of a slime ball to have made up ridiculous lies.
-
He told her about his drugs crimes and even recruited her for them and he let her know about his theft of the caravan site. he thus trusted her. It is thus easy to see how he could trust her with his desire to kill his family. She didn't rat him out after he told her of his plans o burn it down and each time he spoke to her she didn't betray his confidence so he trusted her.
That was big of him,since she acted as lookout on the sea wall.
He trusted her to involve her as lookout. That is the whole point- he trusted her.
-
Analysis of Julie's claims:
1) is it credible that Jeremy would plan to kill his family
2) is it credible Jeremy would trust Julie enough to complain to her about his family and tell Julie of his plans
3) is it credible Julie would listen and not tell anyone
4) is it credible Julie would not rat him out immediately upon finding out he carried the plan out
5) is it credible upon finding out he had carried it out that Julie would stay with him nearly a month before breaking up with him
6) would Julie have a reason to make up the story and tell such to her friend
7) would Julie have a reason to make up the story and repeat the story to police after her friend told the police about it
The answer to 1-5 is yes. The answer to 6 is no she would not have any reason to make up the hit man story and tell such to her friend. The answer to 7 is she certainly would not make up such for attention then to repeat it to police and for good measure. If her goal was to try to get him in trouble she would have gone to police directly about his bad deeds which unquestionably he did. If she were going to make up the killing o add to such actual bad things she would have simply made that he admitted he personally killed all the victims. She would not have made up anything about a hit man herself and it is unlikely she would be able to make up the level of detail she did about all the times he talked to her about planning to kill them. Making up all such conversations including misunderstanding about the sleeping pills and certainly would not be likely. She had no motive to make up things to rat him out. Breaking up over the killings did provide a motive to stop protecting him though when police came calling.
The fact she admitted to numerous bad acts that police never would have otherwise known about and had no way at all to prove on their own is another factor. The characterization as police getting dirt on her then flipped her in exchange for immunity is sheer nonsense. They had no evidence to establish she used drugs, sold drugs or did anything else prior to her admitting such to them while ratting Jeremy out.
-
I don't buy for one second that your past support of Jeremy doesn't affect how you view Julie. If your views were objective you would be able to articulate the reasons why her claims are not credible. Your views seem to have formed based upon your views of Jeremy's innocence.
Claims that police got her to lie for them are absurd and claims she decided to frame him out of anger that they broke up fare no better. These are the only reasons why she would lie to frame him.
If she were trying to frame Jeremy she would have simply stated he confessed to killing them himself. She would not make up a hitman claim let alone name someone who would be able to establish the claim false. This alone makes it obvious she didn't make the claims up. But the fact her claims about the Caravan breakin were corroborated and the level of details she provided about when he told her he wanted to kill them is such that it is not likely she made it up.
Anytime I ask people to explain why they think Julie lied I get the runaround and essentially reading between the lines they say it is just their gut feeling nothing more. Gut feelings definitely involve how one views Jeremy.
I have not said I believe police got Julie to lie for them, I have my own opinions about Julie Mugfird, you are just making assumptions.
You seem to have a need to shoot down in flames anyone who disagrees with your rigid, unimaginative opinions.
People are not robots, they are much more random than you give them credit for.
I agree facts speak for themselves but if some of the facts are not known or have been overlooked you don't have the true picture therefore you form your opinion on a false or half truth.
You seem to want to diminish anyone who won't agree with your 'truth' but that shows you as obsessive and domineering rather than a rational thinker.
I am not a 'sheep' I'm capable of original thought when I'm interested enough to bother, repeating the same old, same old stuff over and over is unoriginal and tedious imo.
-
I have not said I believe police got Julie to lie for them, I have my own opinions about Julie Mugfird, you are just making assumptions.
You seem to have a need to shoot down in flames anyone who disagrees with your rigid, unimaginative opinions.
People are not robots, they are much more random than you give them credit for.
I agree facts speak for themselves but if some of the facts are not known or have been overlooked you don't have the true picture therefore you form your opinion on a false or half truth.
You seem to want to diminish anyone who won't agree with your 'truth' but that shows you as obsessive and domineering rather than a rational thinker.
I am not a 'sheep' I'm capable of original thought when I'm interested enough to bother, repeating the same old, same old stuff over and over is unoriginal and tedious imo.
I would have to agree with this 100% - I think there are lots that people might want to say, but the laws of libel can often prevent someone giving a full, frank reasoned opinion.
-
Ok so he had been telling her for months of his dislike for his family and his plans to get rid of them, but she didnt really believe he meant it, all of a sudden they were dead and he told her he hired a hitman to do it.
initial reaction for any normal human geing would be OH MY God hes done it. SHE WOULD OR SHOULD Hve been utterly petrified and told the police what he had been saying all that time. Bloody hell who wojld have stuck around after that certainly no one i know would have.
doesnt make sense.
-
We have only JM's word that Jeremy said these things,apart from deliberations between witnesses that he'd allegedly said it to RWB as well.
-
Ok so he had been telling her for months of his dislike for his family and his plans to get rid of them, but she didnt really believe he meant it, all of a sudden they were dead and he told her he hired a hitman to do it.
initial reaction for any normal human geing would be OH MY God hes done it. SHE WOULD OR SHOULD Hve been utterly petrified and told the police what he had been saying all that time. Bloody hell who wojld have stuck around after that certainly no one i know would have.
doesnt make sense.
It makes sense if she was part of it, :-\ I felt as you do that Julie's behaviour was really strange and wondered if she had a personality disorder of some kind because even if JB was innocent and she framed him how could she believe that anyone would see her behaviour as normal? It's shocking imo that she stayed the weekend at Colin's if she believed Jeremy was responsible for the boy's deaths and it's very weird for her to believe she could claim the high ground by saying she did such a thing even if she didn't. No decent person could ever find an excuse for such behaviour imo.
-
I think Julie had a background of instability.Weren't her parents separated/divorced ? Didn't Julie say how cruel her father used to be ?Hadn't she also been a victim of a rape crime while on holiday somewhere ? If any of this is true it would account for her behaviour. Then Jeremy with his womanising ways was the final straw when she thought that her life was made. How bitter she must have felt
-
I would have to agree with this 100% - I think there are lots that people might want to say, but the laws of libel can often prevent someone giving a full, frank reasoned opinion.
Opinion can't be the basis of a slander claim. Slander is based upon someone publishing a factual claim that the person knows to be false or is made with a reckless disregard for the truth.
People saying they can't articulate in full what they think of Julie because they might be guilty of slander is simply a cop out.
-
Moving on from the locked threads here is a smattering of Jeremy's thoughts as Christmas approaches: https://youtu.be/5oMUs5EjbF8
..and here are Colin's:
I realized there were going to be occasions when I would miss the boys more than any other. The obvious ones like Christmas and our birthdays were almost too painful to think about. Fortunately,I had that wonderful family of friends to take the sting out of my grief and loneliness that first Christmas. There were other times,however,when the memories would sneak up and I found myself,unexpectedly,in situations where I couldn't avoid my desolation and missed the boys desperately.
When it snowed that February,I wandered up to Highgate to visit the grave on my own. The snow was that lovely powdery type that sparkles in the sunlight. I needn't have had any fears about not finding the site under all that snow because as I came to the bottom of the hill,I was greeted by a sight that made me roar with laughter.
Standing in front of the grave was the loveliest snowman I had ever seen. He wasn't tall by snowman standards,about two feet at the most,had a broad,cheeky smile on his face,and an upside-down flowerpot with a red rose stuck in the hole,on his head. I was once again overjoyed at people's sensitivity to the way the boys would have liked to be remembered;it didn't surprise me later to learn it was Herbie.
On my way home,I passed Hampstead Heath and decided to stop for a walk in the snow. The sun had come out,lighting up the scene with lovely pale colours contrasted by a deep blue sky and dark silhouettes of the trees. The scene was reassuring,like a Christmas card,but my dream was quickly shattered by the squeals of laughter coming from the happy families playing in the snow,throwing snowballs at each other and racing down hills on makeshift toboggans. All of a sudden,vivid memories of Daniel and Nicholas sprang to mind and I desperately wanted to join in the fun and be part of a family again. Knowing I couldn't,I began to wish the snow would go away.
-
Moving on from the locked threads here is a smattering of Jeremy's thoughts as Christmas approaches: https://youtu.be/5oMUs5EjbF8
..and here are Colin's:
I realized there were going to be occasions when I would miss the boys more than any other. The obvious ones like Christmas and our birthdays were almost too painful to think about. Fortunately,I had that wonderful family of friends to take the sting out of my grief and loneliness that first Christmas. There were other times,however,when the memories would sneak up and I found myself,unexpectedly,in situations where I couldn't avoid my desolation and missed the boys desperately.
When it snowed that February,I wandered up to Highgate to visit the grave on my own. The snow was that lovely powdery type that sparkles in the sunlight. I needn't have had any fears about not finding the site under all that snow because as I came to the bottom of the hill,I was greeted by a sight that made me roar with laughter.
Standing in front of the grave was the loveliest snowman I had ever seen. He wasn't tall by snowman standards,about two feet at the most,had a broad,cheeky smile on his face,and an upside-down flowerpot with a red rose stuck in the hole,on his head. I was once again overjoyed at people's sensitivity to the way the boys would have liked to be remembered;it didn't surprise me later to learn it was Herbie.
On my way home,I passed Hampstead Heath and decided to stop for a walk in the snow. The sun had come out,lighting up the scene with lovely pale colours contrasted by a deep blue sky and dark silhouettes of the trees. The scene was reassuring,like a Christmas card,but my dream was quickly shattered by the squeals of laughter coming from the happy families playing in the snow,throwing snowballs at each other and racing down hills on makeshift toboggans. All of a sudden,vivid memories of Daniel and Nicholas sprang to mind and I desperately wanted to join in the fun and be part of a family again. Knowing I couldn't,I began to wish the snow would go away.
Thank you Steve, that is so beautiful and so poignant.
-
Thank you Steve, that is so beautiful and so poignant.
And achingly painful.
-
The next extract puts the fuss about Jeremy's Christmas meal in perspective:
Back home,and terribly distressed,I played a recording Bernie had made of the boys some months before the shootings-which I had only just heard for the first time-listening,over and over again,to one point in particular. It had been by sheer coincidence that while Daniel was talking ,a report on the Ethiopian famine was broadcast on the television news. His reaction to what he saw was so innocent and so perfect:
"Why are the children crying?" said Daniel.
"If you went without food for a couple of days you'd be crying" said Bernie; "they've been a couple of weeks."
"Oh gosh!" said Daniel. "But how can they die without food".
Bernie explained. "Well, if you don't eat food you die. You need food and you need water. There,look,that one's dying!"
"Oh yes," said Daniel,who paused and then slowly added,"Poor little mites." Pleading for a satisfactory answer to the whole world's problems,he finally said,"Well I don't know what's happened. I don't know why they should die like that,do you?"
-
Moving on from the locked threads here is a smattering of Jeremy's thoughts as Christmas approaches: https://youtu.be/5oMUs5EjbF8
..and here are Colin's:
I realized there were going to be occasions when I would miss the boys more than any other. The obvious ones like Christmas and our birthdays were almost too painful to think about. Fortunately,I had that wonderful family of friends to take the sting out of my grief and loneliness that first Christmas. There were other times,however,when the memories would sneak up and I found myself,unexpectedly,in situations where I couldn't avoid my desolation and missed the boys desperately.
When it snowed that February,I wandered up to Highgate to visit the grave on my own. The snow was that lovely powdery type that sparkles in the sunlight. I needn't have had any fears about not finding the site under all that snow because as I came to the bottom of the hill,I was greeted by a sight that made me roar with laughter.
Standing in front of the grave was the loveliest snowman I had ever seen. He wasn't tall by snowman standards,about two feet at the most,had a broad,cheeky smile on his face,and an upside-down flowerpot with a red rose stuck in the hole,on his head. I was once again overjoyed at people's sensitivity to the way the boys would have liked to be remembered;it didn't surprise me later to learn it was Herbie.
On my way home,I passed Hampstead Heath and decided to stop for a walk in the snow. The sun had come out,lighting up the scene with lovely pale colours contrasted by a deep blue sky and dark silhouettes of the trees. The scene was reassuring,like a Christmas card,but my dream was quickly shattered by the squeals of laughter coming from the happy families playing in the snow,throwing snowballs at each other and racing down hills on makeshift toboggans. All of a sudden,vivid memories of Daniel and Nicholas sprang to mind and I desperately wanted to join in the fun and be part of a family again. Knowing I couldn't,I began to wish the snow would go away.
I wouldn't/couldn't cope in either situation. I was bad enough watching Children in Need last night.
-
Does anyone know anything about Chris Precious, purportedly a friend of Sheila's? http://www.dover-express.co.uk/wicked-killer-life-mean-life/story-19542418-detail/story.html
-
Have never previously heard of him, Steve.
-
The danger which weakened Jeremy's chances was lumping him with those other two murderers at the court of human rights. The other danger was in sending him to the toughest and most notorious prison on the map.
-
The danger which weakened Jeremy's chances was lumping him with those other two murderers at the court of human rights. The other danger was in sending him to the toughest and most notorious prison on the map.
Of course if you believe Jeremy is innocent(and you have every right) you will think that way. My mind turned to Jeremy's assertion to Julie that his parents had "forfeited the right to live" in the way they had treated him. Is Jeremy holding back in some way because all we hear from the prison cell is what a wonderful childhood he experienced. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861029&id=HoJDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3862,7291634&hl=en
-
The danger which weakened Jeremy's chances was lumping him with those other two murderers at the court of human rights. The other danger was in sending him to the toughest and most notorious prison on the map.
Where else would be the appropriate place for someone found guilty of murdering 3 adults and 2 children?
-
Of course if you believe Jeremy is innocent(and you have every right) you will think that way. My mind turned to Jeremy's assertion to Julie that his parents had "forfeited the right to live" in the way they had treated him. Is Jeremy holding back in some way because all we hear from the prison cell is what a wonderful childhood he experienced. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19861029&id=HoJDAAAAIBAJ&sjid=q6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3862,7291634&hl=en
Steve it's not my place to dispute the fact that Jeremy enjoyed his childhood as I wasn't there to witness it. However,it doesn't stop me from imagining that it was probably idyllic.
-
Steve it's not my place to dispute the fact that Jeremy enjoyed his childhood as I wasn't there to witness it. However,it doesn't stop me from imagining that it was probably idyllic.
I can't believe you've said that, Lookout. You've been a lot harder on June's ability as a mother than many of us.
-
I can't believe you've said that, Lookout. You've been a lot harder on June's ability as a mother than many of us.
But had Nevill and June "forfeited the right to live" however badly they had treated their son?
-
But had Nevill and June "forfeited the right to live" however badly they had treated their son?
Steve, we abolished the death penalty so no one owns the right to say another's live is forfeit.I think the worst that can be said of his childhood was that it was emotionally impoverished, which is hard on any child but probably worse for those who are adopted, but of course, I'm not factoring in sibling rivalry and a possible feeling of being in the wrong place.
-
But had Nevill and June "forfeited the right to live" however badly they had treated their son?
Of course not. Neither deserved to die for Jeremy's PERCEIVED bad treatment, although this isn't why he killed them - he killed them for the money - I'm sure his negative feelings made going through with the crime easier but it wasn't the motive.
-
I can't believe you've said that, Lookout. You've been a lot harder on June's ability as a mother than many of us.
And ?-----------it doesn't mean to say that the children didn't enjoy themselves. They didn't know any different !
-
I know murder is rare and killing one's parents even rarer. The parents must mean nothing to their child for it to pursue this course,with no redeeming feature or family anecdote to recall. I'm thinking now of David Bain,who like Jeremy volunteered no information about family life during Police interrogation. It's as if they have divorced themselves of all feeling(whether by stimulants with Jeremy or trance with David) and see the slaughter as a means to an end,under which their current perceived predicament is assuaged.
How anybody can continue to live with those deaths on their conscience I cannot begin to fathom,let alone string people like Trudi Benjamin,Poppy Meze and others along.
-
I know murder is rare and killing one's parents even rarer. The parents must mean nothing to their child for it to pursue this course,with no redeeming feature or family anecdote to recall. I'm thinking now of David Bain,who like Jeremy volunteered no information about family life during Police interrogation. It's as if they have divorced themselves of all feeling(whether by stimulants with Jeremy or trance with David) and see the slaughter as a means to an end,under which their current perceived predicament is assuaged.
How anybody can continue to live with those deaths on their conscience I cannot begin to fathom,let alone string people like Trudi Benjamin,Poppy Meze and others along.
Good points actually, Steve, especially the Bain comments.
-
Moving forward: a possible scenario:
1) Colin is brought to Wakefield Prison and Jeremy confesses his crimes to him in the presence of a neutral figure-say Terry Waite or some other man of the cloth, avoiding official channels where at all possible.
2) Jeremy is shipped off to Bastoy Prison,where his rehabilitation can start. In such an environment far from the madding crowd and the hysteria of the British press Jeremy can write a pamphlet on psychopathy,how anger grows insidiously and how to prevent further mass murder. https://youtu.be/01mTKDaKa6Q
-
Moving forward: a possible scenario:
1) Colin is brought to Wakefield Prison and Jeremy confesses his crimes to him in the presence of a neutral figure-say Terry Waite or some other man of the cloth, avoiding official channels where at all possible.
2) Jeremy is shipped off to Bastoy Prison,where his rehabilitation can start. In such an environment far from the madding crowd and the hysteria of the British press Jeremy can write a pamphlet on psychopathy,how anger grows insidiously and how to prevent further mass murder. https://youtu.be/01mTKDaKa6Q
Steve, I suspect that pigs may levitate before it happens.
-
Steve, I suspect that pigs may levitate before it happens.
I agree. Especially considering he's innocent.
-
I agree. Especially considering he's innocent.
But still to be proved after 30 years.
-
I agree. Especially considering he's innocent.
He's not.
-
He's not.
Of course he's innocent. If you're at degree level in psychology you should have read/thought beyond his guilt taking EVERYTHING into consideration,including him as a person from childhood until present day.
-
Of course he's innocent. If you're at degree level in psychology you should have read/thought beyond his guilt taking EVERYTHING into consideration,including him as a person from childhood until present day.
Eh? I think I should be saying that to you! I have looked at this from both sides, whereas you decided he was innocent from day one (for whatever reason) and haven't budged. It's because I have some understanding of psychology that I believe he is a psychopath an has no remorse and I already gave an account of how I believe his childhood and upbringing contributed to his current state.
-
Police photographed the anshuzt rifle resting against the bedroom window (crime scene photograph No. 23), before police took the rifle and positioned 'it' on Sheila Caffells body, and then photographing the rifle on her body, and later on during the trial, relying upon such photographs (26, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, etc) as evidence that these images represented exactly how Sheila Caffell's body was found, unmoved, untouched, by anybody...
-
Of course he's innocent. If you're at degree level in psychology you should have read/thought beyond his guilt taking EVERYTHING into consideration,including him as a person from childhood until present day.
Which is precisely what I've done and having looked at the case from all angles, my conclusion is that he's guilty.
-
You can all keep ignoring the facts, trying to pretend that Jeremy Bamber killed his sister, and that after killing her he set the scene to make it look like she had shot herself. You can all pretend that as a result of Jeremy trying to be so clever, that his efforts even went so far to hoodwink the police into coming to the conclusion that Sheila had killed herself...
But, none of this could be remotely true...
Photographic records taken at the scene on 7th August 1985 (when viewed in sequence) establish beyond doubt that police did not first come across Sheila's body on the floor of the main bedroom with the anshuzt rifle upon her. No, sir. What the original photographic records show and confirm, is that 'the anshuzt rifle', me ducks, was photographed resting against the bedroom window frame, before police moved it onto Sheila Caffells body. Now, what does this activity tell us? Well, it tells all of us that the court was dramatically deceived by the police / prosecutions presentation of their photographic evidence. The police did not photograph the position of the rifle as it was claimed to have been found, but rather, all such photographs proved was that it was the police who set out to promote the idea that Sheila Caffell had taken her own life. Scenes of crime officers (SOCO) deliberately set the scene to support the case that Bambers sister had taken her own life. The sequence with which crime scene photographs were taken ( 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, etc) establishes police culpability for this / that...
-
You can all keep ignoring the facts, trying to pretend that Jeremy Bamber killed his sister, and that after killing her he set the scene to make it look like she had shot herself. You can all pretend that as a result of Jeremy trying to be so clever, that his efforts even went so far to hoodwink the police into coming to the conclusion that Sheila had killed herself...
But, none of this could be remotely true...
Photographic records taken at the scene on 7th August 1985 (when viewed in sequence) establish beyond doubt that police did not first come across Sheila's body on the floor of the main bedroom with the anshuzt rifle upon her. No, sir. What the original photographic records show and confirm, is that 'the anshuzt rifle', me ducks, was photographed resting against the bedroom window frame, before police moved it onto Sheila Caffells body. Now, what does this activity tell us? Well, it tells all of us that the court was dramatically deceived by the police / prosecutions presentation of their photographic evidence. The police did not photograph the position of the rifle as it was claimed to have been found, but rather, all such photographs proved was that it was the police who set out to promote the idea that Sheila Caffell had taken her own life. Scenes of crime officers (SOCO) deliberately set the scene to support the case that Bambers sister had taken her own life. The sequence with which crime scene photographs were taken ( 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, etc) establishes police culpability for this / that...
Indeed we can go in ignoring, what you refer to as, "the facts" which thus far no one has taken up. What we can't ignore is that Jeremy is still, where he is likely to remain, in prison.
You tell us what THE police did but it wasn't the police en masse that you allege to have killed her, but A policeman. Can we expect a confession from this individual any time soon? Is one of the team going to break ranks and spill the beans? OR, will they do what teams, whose lives may depend on the actions of the rest of that team, stick together.
-
Which is precisely what I've done and having looked at the case from all angles, my conclusion is that he's guilty.
Same here, Jane. And am willing to have my mind changed if anything was to present itself, but it hasn't in 30 years. Nothing that has come forward in 30 years has cast any doubt but Jeremy's actions the past 30 years with his changing of times, his strange blogs, the invention of a call from Neville, the changing of "Sheila" to "she" and then back again - all has added to his guilt, for me.
I don't believe there is any "new" evidence, because the same people claiming such are the same people that have claimed this how many times now?the new evidence claims fall under suspicion for me & I don't class Sheilas medical records as new evidence.
To believe in his innocence you have to go with your gut, because there isn't any proof or reason to believe otherwise - and thankfully the legal system in this country deals with evidence and not gut instinct or people that can't hide their hate of Julie or their love of Bamber and allow either of those issues to cloud their judgement and take over.
-
The facts are indisputably clear, Jeremy Bamber did not shoot and kill his sister with 'that' anshuzt rifle which police photographed (crime scene photograph No. 23) leaning against the window frame of the main bedroom, prior to 'it' being brought from the window and placed on the body of Sheila Caffell, as per crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, etc. Shame on you all for not recognising the very serious nature of what police officers have done in staging the scene of Sheila Caffells death, to promote the idea that she had taken her own life. The lot of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for treating what these police officers have done, claiming photographs they took after fabricating the death scene, claiming Jeremy had staged it. Whoever set the rifle on Sheila's body and the taking of photographs after 'they' had tampered with the scene to promote the idea that she had taken her own life, were involved in a conspiracy by that stage, to support the case for Sheila having shot the others, and then herself. If police had not constructed Sheila's death scene by bringing the anshuzt rifle from the bedroom window, onto her body, it would have been more difficult to establish Sheila had killed herself (in the coroners court system), after killing the other four victims. Planting the anshuzt rifle on Sheila's body by police, Was intended to make the passage of the case through the Coroners Court System as smoothly as possible. An example of this, is the fact that during the first full month of the investigation, no steps were taken to match any of the bullets to a particular weapon...
-
The facts are indisputably clear, Jeremy Bamber did not shoot and kill his sister with 'that' anshuzt rifle which police photographed (crime scene photograph No. 23) leaning against the window frame of the main bedroom, prior to 'it' being brought from the window and placed on the body of Sheila Caffell, as per crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, etc. Shame on you all for not recognising the very serious nature of what police officers have done in staging the scene of Sheila Caffells death, to promote the idea that she had taken her own life. The lot of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for treating what these police officers have done, claiming photographs they took after fabricating the death scene, claiming Jeremy had staged it. Whoever set the rifle on Sheila's body and the taking of photographs after 'they' had tampered with the scene to promote the idea that she had taken her own life, were involved in a conspiracy by that stage, to support the case for Sheila having shot the others, and then herself. If police had not constructed Sheila's death scene by bringing the anshuzt rifle from the bedroom window, onto her body, it would have been more difficult to establish Sheila had killed herself (in the coroners court system), after killing the other four victims. Planting the anshuzt rifle on Sheila's body by police, Was intended to make the passage of the case through the Coroners Court System as smoothly as possible. An example of this, is the fact that during the first full month of the investigation, no steps were taken to match any of the bullets to a particular weapon...
I agree with your first comment but come to a completely opposing conclusion.
-
The facts are indisputably clear, Jeremy Bamber did not shoot and kill his sister with 'that' anshuzt rifle which police photographed (crime scene photograph No. 23) leaning against the window frame of the main bedroom, prior to 'it' being brought from the window and placed on the body of Sheila Caffell, as per crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, etc. Shame on you all for not recognising the very serious nature of what police officers have done in staging the scene of Sheila Caffells death, to promote the idea that she had taken her own life. The lot of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for treating what these police officers have done, claiming photographs they took after fabricating the death scene, claiming Jeremy had staged it. Whoever set the rifle on Sheila's body and the taking of photographs after 'they' had tampered with the scene to promote the idea that she had taken her own life, were involved in a conspiracy by that stage, to support the case for Sheila having shot the others, and then herself. If police had not constructed Sheila's death scene by bringing the anshuzt rifle from the bedroom window, onto her body, it would have been more difficult to establish Sheila had killed herself (in the coroners court system), after killing the other four victims. Planting the anshuzt rifle on Sheila's body by police, Was intended to make the passage of the case through the Coroners Court System as smoothly as possible. An example of this, is the fact that during the first full month of the investigation, no steps were taken to match any of the bullets to a particular weapon...
I concur with Caroline, the first five words are correct but your interpretation of the remainder is as usual completely twisted to suit your own agenda.
Certainly the rifle was seen in a photograph leaning against the master bedroom window since a police officer put it there while other photographs were being taken. And yes the police replaced it on Sheila's remains before other photos were taken. Only the officers who attended the scene know the sequence in which these events took place. What occurred was quite normal and did not constitute anything sinister and contrary to what you persistently claim, it certainly doesn't in any way prove that Jeremy Bamber is innocent. Next!
-
To believe in his innocence you have to go with your gut, because there isn't any proof or reason to believe otherwise - and thankfully the legal system in this country deals with evidence and not gut instinct or people that can't hide their hate of Julie or their love of Bamber and allow either of those issues to cloud their judgement and take over.
[/quote]
Twaddle! I do not love Jeremy Bamber or hate Julie Mugford, or vice versa. I don't know them.
No reason to believe that he may be innocent? How about: Lack of credibility of prosecution witness JM. No Rigor in Sheila's arm. No explanation of how Sheila went willingly to be shot. Grave doubt about the admissibility of the silencer after tampering. Indisputable ulterior motives of the relatives.Lack of forensic evidence connecting Jeremy to the crime.. etc.
'The legal system in this country deals with evidence and not gut instinct'. Do you really think that the jury understood all of the evidence? Or at the end of the day 10 of them didn't go with their gut instinct?. If trial and appeal Judges went by the provably accurate evidence alone there would never be any MOJ's, which is sadly not the case.
My brain and my gut's tell me something is wrong with this case.
-
To believe in his innocence you have to go with your gut, because there isn't any proof or reason to believe otherwise - and thankfully the legal system in this country deals with evidence and not gut instinct or people that can't hide their hate of Julie or their love of Bamber and allow either of those issues to cloud their judgement and take over.
Twaddle! I do not love Jeremy Bamber or hate Julie Mugford, or vice versa. I don't know them.
No reason to believe that he may be innocent? How about: Lack of credibility of prosecution witness JM. No Rigor in Sheila's arm. No explanation of how Sheila went willingly to be shot. Grave doubt about the admissibility of the silencer after tampering. Indisputable ulterior motives of the relatives.Lack of forensic evidence connecting Jeremy to the crime.. etc.
'The legal system in this country deals with evidence and not gut instinct'. Do you really think that the jury understood all of the evidence? Or at the end of the day 10 of them didn't go with their gut instinct?. If trial and appeal Judges went by the provably accurate evidence alone there would never be any MOJ's, which is sadly not the case.
My brain and my gut's tell me something is wrong with this case.
No rigor in her arm but livor mortis clearly visible on her face and blood dried and cracking around her mouth. The UNTAMPERED picture tells the whole truth and shows that blood wasn't 'flowing' from any of her wounds!! A 45 degree angle shot - impossible to carry out on yourself with that rifle and have it land in the position it was founds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39391)
What forensic evidence do you imagine they would find in a house that he frequented? He told a tale that police had no reason not to initially believe so the fact that a lot of forensic evidence went by the wayside was down to him.
The legal system here often deals with circumstantial evidence in MANY cases, not just this one. There is nothing unusual at all in a conviction which centres on circumstantial evidence and there is certainly no MOJ in this case. Jeremy just still manages to fool some of the people some of the time.
-
No rigor in her arm but livor mortis clearly visible on her face and blood dried and cracking around her mouth. The UNTAMPERED picture tells the whole truth and shows that blood wasn't 'flowing' from any of her wounds!! A 45 degree angle shot - impossible to carry out on yourself with that rifle and have it land in the position it was founds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39391)
What forensic evidence do you imagine they would find in a house that he frequented? He told a tale that police had no reason not to initially believe so the fact that a lot of forensic evidence went by the wayside was down to him.
The legal system here often deals with circumstantial evidence in MANY cases, not just this one. There is nothing unusual at all in a conviction which centres on circumstantial evidence and there is certainly no MOJ in this case. Jeremy just still manages to fool some of the people some of the time.
I cannot believe in a police conspiracy, why would they? I could believe in a few at the top quietly covering up 'losing' some evidence but a full blown cover up which everyone involved in the case knows about makes no sense. I know the police protect their own but what could they have done that morning which was so horrendous? Can't think of anything.
Jeremy Bamber was no innocent, coming from the background he did he had no excuse to steal from anyone but to steal from his parents who had given him so much speaks volumes imo. It was cynical, cold and calculated.
He knows exactly how to convince and manipulate, he grew up learning how to do it, he is no simple boy out of his depth imo, the way he has survived in the prison service proves that to me.
-
No rigor in her arm but livor mortis clearly visible on her face and blood dried and cracking around her mouth. The UNTAMPERED picture tells the whole truth and shows that blood wasn't 'flowing' from any of her wounds!! A 45 degree angle shot - impossible to carry out on yourself with that rifle and have it land in the position it was founds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39391)
What forensic evidence do you imagine they would find in a house that he frequented? He told a tale that police had no reason not to initially believe so the fact that a lot of forensic evidence went by the wayside was down to him.
The legal system here often deals with circumstantial evidence in MANY cases, not just this one. There is nothing unusual at all in a conviction which centres on circumstantial evidence and there is certainly no MOJ in this case. Jeremy just still manages to fool some of the people some of the time.
I have wondered why the blood had run from both sides of her mouth, it does look as if her head had moved from side to side but of course, the force of the blast would have caused this.
-
I cannot believe in a police conspiracy, why would they? I could believe in a few at the top quietly covering up 'losing' some evidence but a full blown cover up which everyone involved in the case knows about makes no sense. I know the police protect their own but what could they have done that morning which was so horrendous? Can't think of anything.
Jeremy Bamber was no innocent, coming from the background he did he had no excuse to steal from anyone but to steal from his parents who had given him so much speaks volumes imo. It was cynical, cold and calculated.
He knows exactly how to convince and manipulate, he grew up learning how to do it, he is no simple boy out of his depth imo, the way he has survived in the prison service proves that to me.
I agree, there was no reason to frame Jeremy Bamber as they already had the case cut and dried. The ONLY explanation that the supporters can come up with to explain why this could happen is to suggest 'something happened that the police needed to cover up' - yet they haven't a clue what that 'something' could be. Even if they had shot Sheila, it wouldn't have been enough because according to Jeremy, she was a threat to his family and by the same token, would have been viewed as a thread to police if she was armed. It doesn't make sense, but it's all they have.
-
I agree, there was no reason to frame Jeremy Bamber as they already had the case cut and dried. The ONLY explanation that the supporters can come up with to explain why this could happen is to suggest 'something happened that the police needed to cover up' - yet they haven't a clue what that 'something' could be. Even if they had shot Sheila, it wouldn't have been enough because according to Jeremy, she was a threat to his family and by the same token, would have been viewed as a thread to police if she was armed. It doesn't make sense, but it's all they have.
I agree, if Sheila did kill the family, the police shooting her would not have needed to be hidden, the cover up may have been they claimed self defence instead of a panicked killing but in truth it would be accepted though regrettable as they were in a very difficult position and a police life was in danger.
It is very hard to believe someone you have championed is in fact a cold blooded killer, I haven't closed my mind to any theories and look forward to Scott Lomax's new book with interest but so far in the cold light nothing convinces me of his innocence anymore.
-
I agree, if Sheila did kill the family, the police shooting her would not have needed to be hidden, the cover up may have been they claimed self defence instead of a panicked killing but in truth it would be accepted though regrettable as they were in a very difficult position and a police life was in danger.
It is very hard to believe someone you have championed is in fact a cold blooded killer, I haven't closed my mind to any theories and look forward to Scott Lomax's new book with interest but so far in the cold light nothing convinces me of his innocence anymore.
I briefly felt the same but at the end of the day it's the truth that is important. I didn't know SL was writing a new book? To be honest, I'm surprised.
-
I briefly felt the same but at the end of the day it's the truth that is important. I didn't know SL was writing a new book? To be honest, I'm surprised.
I think most must feel this Caroline, we form our own loyalty whether we admit it or not, to let go is a bit difficult but if the arguments don't hold water anymore you have to go with your conscience.
Yes, it's on his site, am interested to see what he has, he says it will be written in a different style to his last. I'm interested to read it, still hope for something stimulating from someone but I guess there is nothing, it's just another tragic human tale, no different from many others. :-\
-
I think most must feel this Caroline, we form our own loyalty whether we admit it or not, to let go is a bit difficult but if the arguments don't hold water anymore you have to go with your conscience.
Yes, it's on his site, am interested to see what he has, he says it will be written in a different style to his last. I'm interested to read it, still hope for something stimulating from someone but I guess there is nothing, it's just another tragic human tale, no different from many others. :-\
Yes, I will read it - wonder what he means by different format? Perhaps he's changed his mind too? ;D
-
I think most must feel this Caroline, we form our own loyalty whether we admit it or not, to let go is a bit difficult but if the arguments don't hold water anymore you have to go with your conscience.
Yes, it's on his site, am interested to see what he has, he says it will be written in a different style to his last. I'm interested to read it, still hope for something stimulating from someone but I guess there is nothing, it's just another tragic human tale, no different from many others. :-\
Maggie hello
at the end of the day none of us know one hundred percent who killed the family on that fateful night we all have our own theories and see things I guess as we want it to be. I am looking forward to SL's book his last one was well written IMO
-
http://www.sclomax.co.uk/forthcoming.html
-
Maggie hello
at the end of the day none of us know one hundred percent who killed the family on that fateful night we all have our own theories and see things I guess as we want it to be. I am looking forward to SL's book his last one was well written IMO
I try now to see it completely objectively but I agree it's very hard not to put our own interpretation on things.
Yes, at least Lomax's book should be different, I'm all for different perspectives ;D
-
http://www.sclomax.co.uk/forthcoming.html
Caroline thanks for the link very interesting indeed look forward to reading it.
-
I think most must feel this Caroline, we form our own loyalty whether we admit it or not, to let go is a bit difficult but if the arguments don't hold water anymore you have to go with your conscience.
Yes, it's on his site, am interested to see what he has, he says it will be written in a different style to his last. I'm interested to read it, still hope for something stimulating from someone but I guess there is nothing, it's just another tragic human tale, no different from many others. :-\
Maggie, I think we feel uncomfortable when we first change our minds. Perhaps, even a littler guilty. Then comes anger that we ever believed to be innocent, someone capable of wiping out his whole family in cold blood. For me, of course, there's the ever present, added extra of adoption, which may(?) have caused me to have a stronger attachment to the innocent case.
-
Maggie, I think we feel uncomfortable when we first change our minds. Perhaps, even a littler guilty. Then comes anger that we ever believed to be innocent, someone capable of wiping out his whole family in cold blood. For me, of course, there's the ever present, added extra of adoption, which may(?) have caused me to have a stronger attachment to the innocent case.
I have thought this for a long time Jane but still have an open mind, always considering any rational arguments which come along, I can't say I am certain therefore I have to be a fence sitter, not a place I find particularly familiar. It's all a tragedy imo.
I have my own attachments because of my personal adoptive mother experience and can see things from both sides therefore I can feel for both sides. As I said I think it's a truly tragic human story who ever did what to whom.
-
I have thought this for a long time Jane but still have an open mind, always considering any rational arguments which come along. I don't feel angry at all, it's all a tragedy imo.
I have my own attachments because of my personal adoptive mother experience and can see things from both sides therefore I can feel for both sides. As I said I think it's a truly tragic human story who ever did what to whom.
Maggie excellent post. When I came on the forum at first I believed so strongly Jeremy was innocent I thought this case was worst MOJ ever then as time went by I looked at things differently and thought maybe my first assumption was wrong and he was guilty. I am still of this opinion but I am open to thoughts and theories from others on the forum because this is not an open and shut case.
-
To believe in his innocence you have to go with your gut, because there isn't any proof or reason to believe otherwise - and thankfully the legal system in this country deals with evidence and not gut instinct or people that can't hide their hate of Julie or their love of Bamber and allow either of those issues to cloud their judgement and take over.
Twaddle! I do not love Jeremy Bamber or hate Julie Mugford, or vice versa. I don't know them.
No reason to believe that he may be innocent? How about: Lack of credibility of prosecution witness JM. No Rigor in Sheila's arm. No explanation of how Sheila went willingly to be shot. Grave doubt about the admissibility of the silencer after tampering. Indisputable ulterior motives of the relatives.Lack of forensic evidence connecting Jeremy to the crime.. etc.
'The legal system in this country deals with evidence and not gut instinct'. Do you really think that the jury understood all of the evidence? Or at the end of the day 10 of them didn't go with their gut instinct?. If trial and appeal Judges went by the provably accurate evidence alone there would never be any MOJ's, which is sadly not the case.
My brain and my gut's tell me something is wrong with this case.
I don't think she knew what was happening in those last few seconds:vacant,spaced out,suffering from Tardive dyskinesia she would have been led by Jeremy to her death like a lamb to the slaughter,unaware of the fate that awaited her,and maybe it was a good thing that she was unaware..
-
http://www.sclomax.co.uk/forthcoming.html
What guff..
-
What guff..
Don't fancy a read then Steve? Must admit, I think he might be jumping on the bandwagon a bit and squeezing the last juice of what is vast becoming a raisin ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Don't fancy a read then Steve? Must admit, I think he might be jumping on the bandwagon a bit and squeezing the last juice of what is vast becoming a raisin ;D ;D ;D ;D
My thoughts too, Caroline. He seems to want a second bite of the apple. Bringing out a second book, when his first one is not even ten years old... I guess with all the publicity he saw a chance to cash in too, unless he has found out something no one else has, but I no longer believe in things like that with this case.
I may give it a read, but I won't rush to read it or hold out much hope.
-
I'll be buying it as I'd rather read fact than fiction.
-
What guff..
Absolutely, he must need the money, what a chump!
The evidence which supports Bambers guilt and Sheila Caffell's innocence does not need to be dissected under a microscope, it is there for all to see, assuming they want to see that is!
My thoughts too, Caroline. He seems to want a second bite of the apple. Bringing out a second book, when his first one is not even ten years old... I guess with all the publicity he saw a chance to cash in too, unless he has found out something no one else has, but I no longer believe in things like that with this case.
Totally agree Mat, it is always about the money.
-
http://www.sclomax.co.uk/forthcoming.html
Was published 'AN' 2008............?
Maybe a new proof reader is in order.
(sorry, couldn't resist :-[ )
-
I'll be buying it as I'd rather read fact than fiction.
The facts speak otherwise!
-
The FACTS are that Scenes of Crime Officers staged Sheila Caffells death scene, then photographed it, and claimed during the trial that these crime scene photographs (25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32) had been taken before anything at the scene had been touched, or moved, proving this was exactly how police found the rifle on her body, yet crime scene photograph, No. 23, which shows the anshuzt rifle resting against the bedroom window, was taken before all the other photographs which show the same rifle then on her body...
(1) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmCART1vcCo
-
So many people have said to me, "It's unbelievable that you are so calm, you have been so strong since it all happened." All I can say is that whatever it was that gave me strength at the beginning seems to have deserted me now. I continue to show this optimistic side in public, and when I'm with my friends, I am, in fact, genuinely happy. Once alone, however, I can't cope; I get listless, morose, and just want to fall apart. This is a side I don't wish my friends to see, they have done enough for me already, and it only serves to bring back their own pain.
Through my loneliness I am desperately searching for something new in my life, people who will lift me from this darkness. Life, however, is cruel, because when I try too hard to fulfill those dreams the attempts always seem fruitless. On the other hand, if the answer is staring me in the face, it is either invisible or untouchable. I often think how nice it would be to meet people who don't connect me with the shootings, just so that I can be relaxed and normal; to keep it a secret for a while at least and get to know them without that tragedy hanging over my head; to bring my conversation out of the frame of its recent existence and make me become aware of other things. In a way, I have come to rely on it to hold me up, socially. I feel almost vulnerable without it. What an awful thing to have as a social crutch. I can hide behind it all too easily.
-
https://youtu.be/sMUrBhYpduY
-
Who cut off the call between Neville and Jeremy ?
-
Who cut off the call between Neville and Jeremy ?
(https://i.imgflip.com/uu8u4.jpg)
-
Who cut off the call between Neville and Jeremy ?
We only have Jeremy's word for the telephone call. The video in #249 shows no blood on the phone. Didn't Scott Lomax tell us Sheila put one finger on the cradle cutting off the phone whilst wielding the rifle in the other? I also notice he trotted out Jeremy's assertion to Police that she had recently indulged in target practice.
-
We only have Jeremy's word for the telephone call. The video in #249 shows no blood on the phone. Didn't Scott Lomax tell us Sheila put one finger on the cradle cutting off the phone whilst wielding the rifle in the other? I also notice he trotted out Jeremy's assertion to Police that she had recently indulged in target practice.
Yes,you're right about what Scott Lomax wrote.I was in anticipation of the swift answer which David presented " there was no phonecall ". How can one be emphatic either way when we don't know ?
As for the target practice-----------Jeremy had said he'd never seen Sheila fire a gun ?
-
Yes,you're right about what Scott Lomax wrote.I was in anticipation of the swift answer which David presented " there was no phonecall ". How can one be emphatic either way when we don't know ?
As for the target practice-----------Jeremy had said he'd never seen Sheila fire a gun ?
"It must be accepted that Sheila was competent with firearms and was capable of carrying out the murders."
It's remarks like this that make me sceptical of Scott Lomax and as others have said whether this is just another of his many cases through which to make money. http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan042.pdf
-
"It must be accepted that Sheila was competent with firearms and was capable of carrying out the murders."
It's remarks like this that make me sceptical of Scott Lomax and as others have said whether this is just another of his many cases through which to make money. http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan042.pdf
There is not allot of money in true crime. If he is after money he is in the wrong business,
-
I see that Jeremy has a new supporter in the form of Dr. Jamie Millard from Berwick. https://www.change.org/p/3878668/c/280141716?recruiter=21622574&utm_source=comment_share&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive&rp_sharecordion_checklist=control
-
I see that Jeremy has a new supporter in the form of Dr. Jamie Millard from Berwick. https://www.change.org/p/3878668/c/280141716?recruiter=21622574&utm_source=comment_share&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive&rp_sharecordion_checklist=control
Wow Murdoch involved aswell? Think Dr Millard needs to do his homework.
-
I see that Jeremy has a new supporter in the form of Dr. Jamie Millard from Berwick. https://www.change.org/p/3878668/c/280141716?recruiter=21622574&utm_source=comment_share&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive&rp_sharecordion_checklist=control
Someone anti-establishment with this telling comment " I've worked on some of the most horrific cases imaginable & even if I got a confession I never took it as the truth unless all the evidence fitted beyond reasonable doubt"
-
I see that Jeremy has a new supporter in the form of Dr. Jamie Millard from Berwick. https://www.change.org/p/3878668/c/280141716?recruiter=21622574&utm_source=comment_share&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive&rp_sharecordion_checklist=control
What an idiot!
-
I see that Jeremy has a new supporter in the form of Dr. Jamie Millard from Berwick. https://www.change.org/p/3878668/c/280141716?recruiter=21622574&utm_source=comment_share&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive&rp_sharecordion_checklist=control
With supporters like this, who needs enemies.
-
Alias believes that even if he is guilty he should be out by now.
Glad you remember me, and it is true, I think Jeremy should be out now, no matter what, whether he killed his family or not.
If Jeremy is guitly, who might he kill now? His bio parents? Nah.
The years he served are enough to pay for the crime (which I think he did not do - impossible, in my eyes)
-
Want to add that in all cases where children kill their parents (and in this case either Sheila or Jeremy killed their parents -no matter what, it was parenticide) - there is serious neglect!
That is a tabu here. It is hard to talk about what went wrong between child and parent, Adopted children. I know some have tried, but were always shot down.
We are to believe the Bambers were a perfect family - except one of their children shot them dead and we aren´t allowed to talk about the dysfunction that must have been there.
-
The years he served are enough to pay for the crime (which I think he did not do - impossible, in my eyes)
10 years for killing five members of your own family? I sure am glad you don't make the laws ::)
-
10 years for killing five members of your own family? I sure am glad you don't make the laws ::)
All parenticides I have heard of have been a result of neglect - or abuse.
-
If Jeremy is guitly, who might he kill now? His bio parents? Nah.
If Jeremy is guilty I can assure you he has a Kill list already drawn up for if he gets out.
1. David Boulflour
2. Julie Mugford
3. Ann Eaton
4. Anthony Arlidge QC
5. The ten jury members
6. The Lab Scientists
-
All parenticides I have heard of have been a result of neglect - or abuse.
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/lol_spider-man.gif)
-
Glad you remember me, and it is true, I think Jeremy should be out now, no matter what, whether he killed his family or not.
If Jeremy is guitly, who might he kill now? His bio parents? Nah.
The years he served are enough to pay for the crime (which I think he did not do - impossible, in my eyes)
Lets free the Ripper as well, I don't think he has it in him to kill anyone else? What a stupid thing to say, let's free them on who might they kill, not what they have done.
-
Lets free the Ripper as well, I don't think he has it in him to kill anyone else? What a stupid thing to say, let's free them on who might they kill, not what they have done.
Justice HI. Good to see you posting again........................perhaps we should put "dear" Rose West on the list. I'm certain she won't be a danger to anyone........................until she needs to cover up some perverted sex act.
-
Glad you remember me, and it is true, I think Jeremy should be out now, no matter what, whether he killed his family or not.
If Jeremy is guitly, who might he kill now? His bio parents? Nah.
The years he served are enough to pay for the crime (which I think he did not do - impossible, in my eyes)
Is the time he has served enough to pay for two lives that didn't get started? The twins would have been about 36 years old now - most likely with a family of their own. Robbed of 60 years between them and you think he's served enough time? Which other child killers should we release in your opinion? Thanks god it's not up to you!
-
Want to add that in all cases where children kill their parents (and in this case either Sheila or Jeremy killed their parents -no matter what, it was parenticide) - there is serious neglect!
That is a tabu here. It is hard to talk about what went wrong between child and parent, Adopted children. I know some have tried, but were always shot down.
We are to believe the Bambers were a perfect family - except one of their children shot them dead and we aren´t allowed to talk about the dysfunction that must have been there.
Oh I see, so it was the victims fault? ::)
-
All parenticides I have heard of have been a result of neglect - or abuse.
You need to do more reading!
-
You need to do more reading!
Also it's not parenticide its familicide a very rare crime
-
Lets free the Ripper as well, I don't think he has it in him to kill anyone else? What a stupid thing to say, let's free them on who might they kill, not what they have done.
I agree, justice. Silly comment, indeed.
Let's free Bamber because who else would he kill? Because he killed for money and has already wiped out everyone he could get inheritance from.
Ridic!!
-
Want to add that in all cases where children kill their parents (and in this case either Sheila or Jeremy killed their parents -no matter what, it was parenticide) - there is serious neglect!
That is a tabu here. It is hard to talk about what went wrong between child and parent, Adopted children. I know some have tried, but were always shot down.
We are to believe the Bambers were a perfect family - except one of their children shot them dead and we aren´t allowed to talk about the dysfunction that must have been there.
I will say this: Jeremy has never claimed that either of his parents sexually abused him. I can't help thinking of the David Bain case,where the father Robin Bain was sullied by the allegations of incest between himself and his daughter. I also wonder about the criminal justice system and whether there is a balance between punishment and rehabilitation,and whether there can be any meaningful rehabilitation with a life spent behind bars. However given the enormity of the crimes and the refusal of Jeremy to acknowledge his complicity there seems to be no alternative in Britain than to keep him lounging in a prison cell playing Gameboy,though whether he is genuinely paying his debts to society is hard to say.
-
I will say this: Jeremy has never claimed that either of his parents sexually abused him. I can't help thinking of the David Bain case,where the father Robin Bain was sullied by the allegations of incest between himself and his daughter. I also wonder about the criminal justice system and whether there is a balance between punishment and rehabilitation,and whether there can be any meaningful rehabilitation with a life spent behind bars. However given the enormity of the crimes and the refusal of Jeremy to acknowledge his complicity there seems to be no alternative in Britain than to keep him lounging in a prison cell playing Gameboy,though whether he is genuinely paying his debts to society is hard to say.
But according to Jeremy, because he's innocent, I can't imagine he feels he owes society a debt.
-
Glad you remember me, and it is true, I think Jeremy should be out now, no matter what, whether he killed his family or not.
If Jeremy is guitly, who might he kill now? His bio parents? Nah.
The years he served are enough to pay for the crime (which I think he did not do - impossible, in my eyes)
We do know Jeremy has been unpredictable in the past,to say the least. Are you really saying that Jeremy has earned the right to windsurf in the Atlantic and sunbathe on Porthchapel Beach,whilst Colin,his wife and daughter are picnicking a few yards away..
-
But according to Jeremy, because he's innocent, I can't imagine he feels he owes society a debt.
Colin has written a book and his grieving process is contained therein. Could one ever imagine such a work emanating from Jeremy? He could never empathize with any of the victims because empathy is alien to him, which is why he had to mimic Colin's grief at the funerals. Admittedly I don't see much outpouring of grief from the Boutflours or the Eatons,which makes Colin's loss all the more heartfelt.
-
We do know Jeremy has been unpredictable in the past,to say the least. Are you really saying that Jeremy has earned the right to windsurf in the Atlantic and sunbathe on Porthchapel Beach,whilst Colin,his wife and daughter are picnicking a few yards away..
In the unlikely event of Jeremy being paroled wouldend the conditions of his parole be not get in contact with relatives of victims ect etc.
-
Colin has written a book and his grieving process is contained therein. Could one ever imagine such a work emanating from Jeremy? He could never empathize with any of the victims because empathy is alien to him, which is why he had to mimic Colin's grief at the funerals. Admittedly I don't see much outpouring of grief from the Boutflours or the Eatons,which makes Colin's loss all the more heartfelt.
Steve, Colin had something that none of the others had, -perhaps it would be more fair to say he could express his emotions in a way the others couldn't- he had art in his soul. He was able to form shapeless lumps of clay into objects of beauty, he could paint pictures just as well with words as he could with paint. I imagine -if he'd had the chance- he'd have been responsible for raising his boys into beautiful people. I've always had the feeling that those little boys were old souls. From the few word attributed to them, there appears to have been a knowingness and wisdom beyond their years. Perhaps the same is true of Colin.
-
Steve, Colin had something that none of the others had, -perhaps it would be more fair to say he could express his emotions in a way the others couldn't- he had art in his soul. He was able to form shapeless lumps of clay into objects of beauty, he could paint pictures just as well with words as he could with paint. I imagine -if he'd had the chance- he'd have been responsible for raising his boys into beautiful people. I've always had the feeling that those little boys were old souls. From the few word attributed to them, there appears to have been a knowingness and wisdom beyond their years. Perhaps the same is true of Colin.
What a beautiful post. I think Sheila could have been the perfect wife for him had she not become ill and from somewhere so badly damaged. She couldn't see too far into the future and possibly lived for the moment in the same way as Jeremy,who also enjoyed the ultimate experience in provoking his parents. He told Colin after the murders his mother never made him laugh,as if there were some justification for his actions therein.
-
What a beautiful post. I think Sheila could have been the perfect wife for him had she not become ill and from somewhere so badly damaged. She couldn't see too far into the future and possibly lived for the moment in the same way as Jeremy,who also enjoyed the ultimate experience in provoking his parents. He told Colin after the murders his mother never made him laugh,as if there were some justification for his actions therein.
Steve, how kind. THANK-YOU. I get what you mean about Sheila but souls don't get a chance to thrive in atmospheres as rigid as I imagine was the one at WHF. I think Sheila's soul had been repressed for the sake of conforming to "the norm." I think laughter would have been considered frivolous.
-
Steve, how kind. THANK-YOU. I get what you mean about Sheila but souls don't get a chance to thrive in atmospheres as rigid as I imagine was the one at WHF. I think Sheila's soul had been repressed for the sake of conforming to "the norm." I think laughter would have been considered frivolous.
Alias goes much further than most in justifying the environment at White House Farm for the children's behaviours. I was struck by two paragraphs in Colin's book which touches on this,and explains why Sheila was so eager to meet her birth mother:
As adoptees, Bambs and Jeremy almost needed more physical love than children with their natural parents; having already been rejected once, they now needed extra reassurance. The trouble was, June and Nevill didn't seem to have that natural connection with parenthood essential to a healthy upbringing. There certainly didn't seem to be any of that true parental bonding which even the Bible talks about in the "Judgement of Solomon". I might also add that Bambs's childhood tantrums never went unchecked with either Granny Speakman or Aunty Pam, both of whom she felt closer to than her mother. Bambs got many of the responses she needed, and often deserved, from them.
Leading psychologist Alice Miller speaks about the need for all children to have an adult witness to the hurts and injustices of their lives. Without this support, the unbearable loneliness compels us to put a lid on our own feelings, repress all memory of the trauma and idealise those who inflicted the abuse; like all children we need to look up to and have the respect of those who care for us. Thus dissociated from the original cause, feelings of anger, helplessness and despair eventually find expression in destructive acts against others(Dr Miller cites criminal behaviour, mass murder and rape as typical) or against themselves(alcoholism,drug addiction,prostitution, psychic disorders and suicide). She then goes on to say that if mistreated children are not to become like this, it is essential that at least once in their life they come into contact with someone who knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the environment-not the helpless child-is at fault. "In this regard," she said,"knowledge or ignorance on the part of society can be instrumental in either saving or destroying a life."
-
Alias goes much further than most in justifying the environment at White House Farm for the children's behaviours. I was struck by two paragraphs in Colin's book which touches on this,and explains why Sheila was so eager to meet her birth mother:
As adoptees, Bambs and Jeremy almost needed more physical love than children with their natural parents; having already been rejected once, they now needed extra reassurance. The trouble was, June and Nevill didn't seem to have that natural connection with parenthood essential to a healthy upbringing. There certainly didn't seem to be any of that true parental bonding which even the Bible talks about in the "Judgement of Solomon". I might also add that Bambs's childhood tantrums never went unchecked with either Granny Speakman or Aunty Pam, both of whom she felt closer to than her mother. Bambs got many of the responses she needed, and often deserved, from them.
Leading psychologist Alice Miller speaks about the need for all children to have an adult witness to the hurts and injustices of their lives. Without this support, the unbearable loneliness compels us to put a lid on our own feelings, repress all memory of the trauma and idealise those who inflicted the abuse; like all children we need to look up to and have the respect of those who care for us. Thus dissociated from the original cause, feelings of anger, helplessness and despair eventually find expression in destructive acts against others(Dr Miller cites criminal behaviour, mass murder and rape as typical) or against themselves(alcoholism,drug addiction,prostitution, psychic disorders and suicide). She then goes on to say that if mistreated children are not to become like this, it is essential that at least once in their life they come into contact with someone who knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the environment-not the helpless child-is at fault. "In this regard," she said,"knowledge or ignorance on the part of society can be instrumental in either saving or destroying a life."
Cannot disagree with that Steve, think it says it all.
-
I will say this: Jeremy has never claimed that either of his parents sexually abused him. I can't help thinking of the David Bain case,where the father Robin Bain was sullied by the allegations of incest between himself and his daughter. I also wonder about the criminal justice system and whether there is a balance between punishment and rehabilitation,and whether there can be any meaningful rehabilitation with a life spent behind bars. However given the enormity of the crimes and the refusal of Jeremy to acknowledge his complicity there seems to be no alternative in Britain than to keep him lounging in a prison cell playing Gameboy,though whether he is genuinely paying his debts to society is hard to say.
I think the only positive thing Jeremy has done is caused major reforms in crime scene handling procedures.
-
Cannot disagree with that Steve, think it says it all.
I like the style of Colin's book,which is a much deeper read than anyone would first think. I'm just wondering about some of the conclusions,especially the environmental factors,when(say) a child brought up on a rough estate in Salford might think that Sheila and Jeremy had an idyllic background. I also wonder about Sheila's deterioration when in June 1985 she made the remark: "All people are bad and should be killed",suggesting that her bonds to Granny Speakman and Aunty Pam were not as strong as may have been previously thought.
-
I like the style of Colin's book,which is a much deeper read than anyone would first think. I'm just wondering about some of the conclusions,especially the environmental factors,when(say) a child brought up on a rough estate in Salford might think that Sheila and Jeremy had an idyllic background. I also wonder about Sheila's deterioration when in June 1985 she made the remark: "All people are bad and should be killed",suggesting that her bonds to Granny Speakman and Aunty Pam were not as strong as may have been previously thought.
I started reading it but life has taken over and I will try to get back to it, It is obviously deeply personal and deserves respect.
-
I started reading it but life has taken over and I will try to get back to it, It is obviously deeply personal and deserves respect.
Yes it does,and we have discussed it before on egap1's book review thread. The remark made by Sheila "all people are bad and should be killed" appears only in Carol Ann Lee's book if my memory serves me right,and was reported by Barbara Wilson as she sat round the kitchen table with her and June. Caroline started a thread on it.
-
I like the style of Colin's book,which is a much deeper read than anyone would first think. I'm just wondering about some of the conclusions,especially the environmental factors,when(say) a child brought up on a rough estate in Salford might think that Sheila and Jeremy had an idyllic background. I also wonder about Sheila's deterioration when in June 1985 she made the remark: "All people are bad and should be killed",suggesting that her bonds to Granny Speakman and Aunty Pam were not as strong as may have been previously thought.
Steve, the first may be about the belief that the grass is always greener on the other side. As for the second, maybe it was a mark of how stifled and repressed Sheila felt.
-
Stifled and repressed enough to kill ! Sheila became like a coiled spring. Not necessarily because it was claimed she was schizophrenic or hadn't taken her " appropriate " medication,but because enough was enough as far as she was concerned and Lord knows she threw out enough hints for what was to come.
-
Stifled and repressed enough to kill ! Sheila became like a coiled spring. Not necessarily because it was claimed she was schizophrenic or hadn't taken her " appropriate " medication,but because enough was enough as far as she was concerned and Lord knows she threw out enough hints for what was to come.
You can pretend she wasn't medicated but she most certainly was.
-
You can pretend she wasn't medicated but she most certainly was.
Sheila had less than a week to go before her next " greatly-reduced " dose of Haldol,to which she was functioning well enough to have gained control of her faculties.No other prescribed drug was ever found in her system which tells me that she had gone over 72 hours without a calminative or anything that would have reduced the effects of the Haldol.
Withdrawal effects from the omissions of her vital drugs and the cannabis would have been felt,hence the disasterous events that took place.
-
Sheila had less than a week to go before her next " greatly-reduced " dose of Haldol,to which she was functioning well enough to have gained control of her faculties.No other prescribed drug was ever found in her system which tells me that she had gone over 72 hours without a calminative or anything that would have reduced the effects of the Haldol.
Withdrawal effects from the omissions of her vital drugs and the cannabis would have been felt,hence the disasterous events that took place.
Lookout having been a nurse, you know fine well that the drug doesn't run down like a sand timer and she was behaving in accordance with the drug side effects which SHOWS it was working. The Haldol was her anti-psychosis medication and she only had TRACE amounts of cannabis in her system - probably smoked at the party on the Saturday night.
-
Sheila had less than a week to go before her next " greatly-reduced " dose of Haldol,to which she was functioning well enough to have gained control of her faculties.No other prescribed drug was ever found in her system which tells me that she had gone over 72 hours without a calminative or anything that would have reduced the effects of the Haldol.
Withdrawal effects from the omissions of her vital drugs and the cannabis would have been felt,hence the disasterous events that took place.
That makes just about as much sense as saying there's a higher chance of becoming pregnant the week prior to the next contraceptive injection being due OR during the last few days of taking the contraceptive pill.
-
Lookout having been a nurse, you know fine well that the drug doesn't run down like a sand timer and she was behaving in accordance with the drug side effects which SHOWS it was working. The Haldol was her anti-psychosis medication and she only had TRACE amounts of cannabis in her system - probably smoked at the party on the Saturday night.
Yes and I also know that if medication isn't taken that previous symptoms return with a vengeance.
-
Lookout having been a nurse, you know fine well that the drug doesn't run down like a sand timer and she was behaving in accordance with the drug side effects which SHOWS it was working. The Haldol was her anti-psychosis medication and she only had TRACE amounts of cannabis in her system - probably smoked at the party on the Saturday night.
You may have had an argument there HAD she been found with a gut full of cannabis in her system. I believe there were trace amounts found.
-
You may have had an argument there HAD she been found with a gut full of cannabis in her system. I believe there were trace amounts found.
Trace or not of cannabis,the damage had already been done through her having taken it to start with while her mind was already unbalanced.
-
Trace or not of cannabis,the damage had already been done through her having taken it to start with while her mind was already unbalanced.
You keep telling yourself that but it's not true Lookout.
-
You keep telling yourself that but it's not true Lookout.
I don't tell myself at all. I read about it yonks ago. Sheila had used the stuff heavily during the 12 months leading up to the tragedy.
-
I don't tell myself at all. I read about it yonks ago. Sheila had used the stuff heavily during the 12 months leading up to the tragedy.
Just because you read it, doesn't make it a fact.
-
Just because you read it, doesn't make it a fact.
So how do you think you learn anything if not by reading ? Try reading about the long-term effects of cannabis before professing to know it all by just your own thoughts.
-
Trace or not of cannabis,the damage had already been done through her having taken it to start with while her mind was already unbalanced.
That may be your truth, but it's not THE truth is it? If the week before her next injection meant that symptoms would be returning then the medical profession would have a shorter time between injections, but they don't - because they are not needed. The final week isn't a downhill slide isn't a decline into hell.
-
That may be your truth, but it's not THE truth is it? If the week before her next injection meant that symptoms would be returning then the medical profession would have a shorter time between injections, but they don't - because they are not needed. The final week isn't a downhill slide isn't a decline into hell.
Sheila would only have been written up for one injection a month as staff relied on her taking her anti-depressives along with the medication which counteracted the side-effects from the Haldol. The staff weren't to know that she'd stopped taking them--------as proved in her blood-test.
Nobody knows when Sheila stopped taking her medication as it was obviously beyond 72 hours because of it not showing up.
-
Sheila would only have been written up for one injection a month as staff relied on her taking her anti-depressives along with the medication which counteracted the side-effects from the Haldol. The staff weren't to know that she'd stopped taking them--------as proved in her blood-test.
Nobody knows when Sheila stopped taking her medication as it was obviously beyond 72 hours because of it not showing up.
I can only imagine, from what you've said, that Haldol was considered to be CRUCIAL. The rest, apparently weren't -people responding differently to them- OR they'd have been delivered in the same way.
-
I can only imagine, from what you've said, that Haldol was considered to be CRUCIAL. The rest, apparently weren't -people responding differently to them- OR they'd have been delivered in the same way.
If it was that Sheila was schizophrenic,then yes Haldol was crucial in suppressing attacks of psychosis,but because Sheila had a couple of attacks----------it wasn't working was it ? It was also crucial that she took other medication/s to counteract the side-effects of the Haldol,along with the anti-depressants that she should have been taking.
Her response to any of the medications clearly meant that they needed changing to which she was never followed up about.
-
If it was that Sheila was schizophrenic,then yes Haldol was crucial in suppressing attacks of psychosis,but because Sheila had a couple of attacks----------it wasn't working was it ? It was also crucial that she took other medication/s to counteract the side-effects of the Haldol,along with the anti-depressants that she should have been taking.
Her response to any of the medications clearly meant that they needed changing to which she was never followed up about.
From where are you getting this information, Lookout? She had a breakdown -her first- in 1983 and was hospitalized and medicated. She failed to take the medication regularly, resulting in another breakdown and re-admission to hospital in 1985 when it was decided to deliver her CRUCIAL meds intravenously rather than rely on her to take them orally. If it had been equally crucial that her other meds were taken, they, too, would have been given intravenously. The dosage of Haldol was reduced, at her last visit to her doctor, by own request because she complained of drowsiness. Had she not been killed, she would presumably have discussed, on her next visit, how she'd coped with the reduction.
-
From where are you getting this information, Lookout? She had a breakdown -her first- in 1983 and was hospitalized and medicated. She failed to take the medication regularly, resulting in another breakdown and re-admission to hospital in 1985 when it was decided to deliver her CRUCIAL meds intravenously rather than rely on her to take them orally. If it had been equally crucial that her other meds were taken, they, too, would have been given intravenously. The dosage of Haldol was reduced, at her last visit to her doctor, by own request because she complained of drowsiness. Had she not been killed, she would presumably have discussed, on her next visit, how she'd coped with the reduction.
It's evident how she coped with her reduction !!
-
It's evident how she coped with her reduction !!
Only to you, given how you've managed to twist the information to make your theory stand up.
-
It's evident how she coped with her reduction !!
In your opinion, Lookout. But those who have spoken about Sheila at that time certainly don't back up anything that you claim. With the butchers you made reading Junes autopsy I don't hold much thought for your opinion on medical grounds.
-
In your opinion, Lookout. But those who have spoken about Sheila at that time certainly don't back up anything that you claim.
With the butchers you made reading Junes autopsy I don't hold much thought for your opinion on medical grounds.
---------------??
-
There's so much conflicting evidence:
"I am aware that Sheila,her two sons and her parents have been found dead in Essex, and that it is suggested that Sheila killed her family and committed suicide. In hindsight I believe that Sheila would have relapsed into a state of acute psychosis, probably having a firmly held belief or delusion involving concepts of good and evil, and certainly paranoid,possibly involving her mother. Sheila is likely to have been in a disturbed psychotic state at the time of the tragedy, although in my experience with her there has never been any issue of threats or violence towards her family." Statement Dr Hugh Cameron Ferguson 08/08/1985
"I would like to add that if Sheila had been over-sedated she would have been vacant, difficult to converse with, and it is possible she would have slept quite soundly and deeply but this is not absolutely certain. I would say that her whole physical performance would be reduced."
Statement Dr Hugh Cameron Ferguson 18/09/1985
This second statement does seem to tally with Sheila's behaviour that final week: her demeanour at Colin's party and during the ride down to the Farm, her lackadaisical attitude and vacant stare at the shop in Tiptree and round the kitchen table that final evening.
-
Conflicting evidence,Steve ? There's heaps of it at every turn and it doesn't bode well for a fair trial. A lot of it came about well after Jeremy was imprisoned.
-
We do know Jeremy has been unpredictable in the past,to say the least. Are you really saying that Jeremy has earned the right to windsurf in the Atlantic and sunbathe on Porthchapel Beach,whilst Colin,his wife and daughter are picnicking a few yards away..
Should Jeremy be home for Christmas, if he can find a home to go to. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/622803/prison-lifers-prisoners-allowed-to-leave-for-Christmas-Philip-Davies-Andrew-Selous
-
Conflicting evidence,Steve ? There's heaps of it at every turn and it doesn't bode well for a fair trial. A lot of it came about well after Jeremy was imprisoned.
Parts of the evidence are not "beyond reasonable doubt" admittedly, but I think the cumulative effect of so many witnesses told against Jeremy.
-
Parts of the evidence are not "beyond reasonable doubt" admittedly, but I think the cumulative effect of so many witnesses told against Jeremy.
It's not surprising seeing that EP did a sweep on the village knocking on doors and telling the inhabitants that he'd murdered two little boys. It's not difficult to obtain witnesses in that way.
-
If it was that Sheila was schizophrenic,then yes Haldol was crucial in suppressing attacks of psychosis,but because Sheila had a couple of attacks----------it wasn't working was it ? It was also crucial that she took other medication/s to counteract the side-effects of the Haldol,along with the anti-depressants that she should have been taking.
Her response to any of the medications clearly meant that they needed changing to which she was never followed up about.
She had the attacks BEFORE she had her medication injected.
-
There's so much conflicting evidence:
"I am aware that Sheila,her two sons and her parents have been found dead in Essex, and that it is suggested that Sheila killed her family and committed suicide. In hindsight I believe that Sheila would have relapsed into a state of acute psychosis, probably having a firmly held belief or delusion involving concepts of good and evil, and certainly paranoid,possibly involving her mother. Sheila is likely to have been in a disturbed psychotic state at the time of the tragedy, although in my experience with her there has never been any issue of threats or violence towards her family." Statement Dr Hugh Cameron Ferguson 08/08/1985
"I would like to add that if Sheila had been over-sedated she would have been vacant, difficult to converse with, and it is possible she would have slept quite soundly and deeply but this is not absolutely certain. I would say that her whole physical performance would be reduced."
Statement Dr Hugh Cameron Ferguson 18/09/1985
This second statement does seem to tally with Sheila's behaviour that final week: her demeanour at Colin's party and during the ride down to the Farm, her lackadaisical attitude and vacant stare at the shop in Tiptree and round the kitchen table that final evening.
To be fair, the doctor is simply trying to give an opinion about what is likely to have happened with the information that she had killed 4 people and herself. He also expresses at the end of the first statement that she had never expressed threats towards her family - which is more than can be said for Jeremy. The statement reads as though he is surprised by the knowledge.
-
There's so much conflicting evidence:
"I am aware that Sheila,her two sons and her parents have been found dead in Essex, and that it is suggested that Sheila killed her family and committed suicide. In hindsight I believe that Sheila would have relapsed into a state of acute psychosis, probably having a firmly held belief or delusion involving concepts of good and evil, and certainly paranoid,possibly involving her mother. Sheila is likely to have been in a disturbed psychotic state at the time of the tragedy, although in my experience with her there has never been any issue of threats or violence towards her family." Statement Dr Hugh Cameron Ferguson 08/08/1985
"I would like to add that if Sheila had been over-sedated she would have been vacant, difficult to converse with, and it is possible she would have slept quite soundly and deeply but this is not absolutely certain. I would say that her whole physical performance would be reduced."
Statement Dr Hugh Cameron Ferguson 18/09/1985
This second statement does seem to tally with Sheila's behaviour that final week: her demeanour at Colin's party and during the ride down to the Farm, her lackadaisical attitude and vacant stare at the shop in Tiptree and round the kitchen table that final evening.
Sheila's behavior also tallies with first phase of psychotic episode.
-
You can pretend she wasn't medicated but she most certainly was.
Medication may reduce the chance of relapse but it doesn't eliminate it.
-
Medication may reduce the chance of relapse but it doesn't eliminate it.
It makes it LESS likely and she was showing side effect signs from the drug.
-
It makes it LESS likely and she was showing side effect signs from the drug.
"Side effect signs from the drug"-------------look it up.
Difficulty in sleeping.
Restlessness.
Agitation.
Mood changes.
Anxiety.
Blank expression.
-
"Side effect signs from the drug"-------------look it up.
Difficulty in sleeping.
Restlessness.
Agitation.
Mood changes.
Anxiety.
Blank expression.
And? Every drug has a list of side effects - some people may experience one or two of them, rarely does anyone get the lot. Here is another list that you can cherry pick from ;)
http://www.medicinenet.com/haloperidol-injection/page3.htm
-
And probably withdrawal symptoms from lack of cannabis. That alone sends some people crazy.
-
And probably withdrawal symptoms from lack of cannabis. That alone sends some people crazy.
Given that you seem to think cannabis had already withered her brain, it's amazing that A) it hadn't got to her earlier and B) only trace elements of it were found at autopsy. To suggest she was "PROBABLY (experiencing) withdrawal symptoms from lack of" it is tantamount to saying she was addicted, something of which there is no evidence.
-
Sheila's behavior also tallies with first phase of psychotic episode.
To do away with June might be feasible,but I feel disquieted about her ability to kill the whole family.
-
Both boys begged Colin not to go away that last night.
-
Why? Because of Jeremy? Or Sheila?
-
To do away with June might be feasible,but I feel disquieted about her ability to kill the whole family.
Why? Its possible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates)
-
Why? Its possible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates)
Sad case, Andrea Yates was very ill. I am so sad to say that those murders happened on my birthday. Five little children died, I will never forget that!
-
Noah Jacob, John Samuel, Paul Abraham, Luke David, Mary Deborah.
-
Why? Its possible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates)
The state Sheila was found in,quite at peace,suggesting that she had recently been awoken from a state of slumber,with no beads of sweat or significant blood stains down the front of her nightie. We have discussed other cases like Andrea Yates and Lianne Smith before,but they are not comparable to this one.
-
That look of peace was sheer relief and contentment in readiness for " the other world ".
-
That look of peace was sheer relief and contentment in readiness for " the other world ".
That comment is vomit inducing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
The state Sheila was found in,quite at peace,suggesting that she had recently been awoken from a state of slumber,with no beads of sweat or significant blood stains down the front of her nightie.
Slight issue with this, June was also suddenly awoken yet found with a terrified look on her face. There is know way Shelia would "be at peach" while Jeremy was engineering her staged suicide.
We have discussed other cases like Andrea Yates and Lianne Smith before,but they are not comparable to this one.
Yes they are.
-
Slight issue with this, June was also suddenly awoken yet found with a terrified look on her face. There is know way Shelia would "be at peach" while Jeremy was engineering her staged suicide.
Yes they are.
I've heard it all from Sheila returning a bloodstained silencer to the gun cupboard to burning her clothes in the Aga,ritually washing and putting on a fresh nightie,not forgetting reloading the rifle and deciding for some reason to shoot herself in the kitchen,all the while suffering from Tardive Dyskinesia..
-
That comment is vomit inducing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh dear,neuroticism setting in ? Stop being dramatic.
-
Oh dear,neuroticism setting in ? Stop being dramatic.
Stop being melodramatic.
-
I've heard it all from Sheila returning a bloodstained silencer to the gun cupboard
Silencer discovered by relatives with financial motive to secure the estate.
washing and putting on a fresh nightie,
I. Hand Swabs of Sheila Can'tII — DRH/33 / Item 17.
I have now been shown documentation which shows that the original hand swabs of Sheila Caffell were rejected by the laboratory on initial submission and that a set of hand swabs purporting to be that of Sheila Caffell were later submitted to the laboratory under a different exhibit and item number. Further, the SOCO exhibit sheets which fail to record any such resubmission. I am confident that this was not a matter of which I was ever aware. The alleged cleanliness of Sheila Caffell's hands was a key issue for the prosecution at trial. We had presented at trial a theory of ritualistic washing in the belief that the evidence presented by the prosecution in this regard was reliable. Had we known
about this issue. I cannot imagine we would not have firstly sought to exclude the evidence at trial; secondly, if admissible, pursued the matter in cross-examination and ,thirdly, instructed an expert to look at this issue more closely in the light of the rejection.
Paul Terzeon 2002
not forgetting reloading the rifle and deciding for some reason to shoot herself in the kitchen,all the while suffering from Tardive Dyskinesia..
None of this happened and it does not need to for Shelia to have done it, The pathologist agreed Shelia could have shot herself twice,
-
Silencer discovered by relatives with financial motive to secure the estate.
I. Hand Swabs of Sheila Can'tII — DRH/33 / Item 17.
I have now been shown documentation which shows that the original hand swabs of Sheila Caffell were rejected by the laboratory on initial submission and that a set of hand swabs purporting to be that of Sheila Caffell were later submitted to the laboratory under a different exhibit and item number. Further, the SOCO exhibit sheets which fail to record any such resubmission. I am confident that this was not a matter of which I was ever aware. The alleged cleanliness of Sheila Caffell's hands was a key issue for the prosecution at trial. We had presented at trial a theory of ritualistic washing in the belief that the evidence presented by the prosecution in this regard was reliable. Had we known
about this issue. I cannot imagine we would not have firstly sought to exclude the evidence at trial; secondly, if admissible, pursued the matter in cross-examination and ,thirdly, instructed an expert to look at this issue more closely in the light of the rejection.
Paul Terzeon 2002
None of this happened and it does not need to for Shelia to have done it, The pathologist agreed Shelia could have shot herself twice,
I believe the wording was that he didn't discount a two shot suicide, which certainly doesn't imply he believed that it was.
-
I suppose she burnt her clothes in the Aga. She just wasn't physically capable of all the things ascribed to her those last few hours of her life.
-
What clothes Sheila wore,were soaking in the buckets--------------originally 3,at the start,then somehow whittled down to 2 ?
-
I suppose she burnt her clothes in the Aga. She just wasn't physically capable of all the things ascribed to her those last few hours of her life.
Steve, she'd have been covered with totally unmentionable debris from numerous shootings and a severe beating, not all of which would have washed away. Jeremy had time on his side. He could take the mess home, have a shower, put soiled clothes in the washing machine, ALL before calling the police.
-
What clothes Sheila wore,were soaking in the buckets--------------originally 3,at the start,then somehow whittled down to 2 ?
The boys clothes were in one bucket and her undies in the other.
-
I've already posted my explanation on Sheila loading the rifle---------one or two at a time if the chamber was spring-loaded. This is why an empty box was found in the bedroom where she'd put a handful of bullets in it from the kitchen. The spring-load would have been too tough to have fully loaded it being a comparatively new rifle as well. Jeremy wouldn't have needed to have done this !!
-
Steve, she'd have been covered with totally unmentionable debris from numerous shootings
Delay in obtaining residues, movement, or washing of the body prior to autopsy will diminish or destroy gunshot residues. (Molina et al, 2007) A rapid loss in numbers of GSR particles occurs from 1 to 3 hours post firearm discharge, though maximum recovery times of 1 to 48 hours have been reported. (Dalby et al, 2010)
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html (http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html)
and a severe beating, not all of which would have washed away.
The "brutal beating" does not appear in Vanezis original autopsy report. All or Nevilles head wounds are attributed to gunshots. Only in the second autopsy report conducted many weeks after does it mention such blunt force trauma.
-
The boys clothes were in one bucket and her undies in the other.
There was a blouse of some sort then the black joggers ( damp ) draped over the bannister which I'm sure weren't June's. These could originally have been in the third bucket.
-
I've already posted my explanation on Sheila loading the rifle---------one or two at a time if the chamber was spring-loaded. This is why an empty box was found in the bedroom where she'd put a handful of bullets in it from the kitchen. The spring-load would have been too tough to have fully loaded it being a comparatively new rifle as well. Jeremy wouldn't have needed to have done this !!
GSR wouldn't have collected in such quantity if bullets were fed piecemeal ( two or three at a time ) not the same impact as a volley of bullets all at once. Chances are she could easily have lost count too by firing if she'd thought that all the bullets were spent.
-
There was a blouse of some sort then the black joggers ( damp ) draped over the bannister which I'm sure weren't June's. These could originally have been in the third bucket.
The ONLY things in the buckets were the children's jogging pants in one and Sheila's knickers in the other. Nothing was damp, they were described as 'in soak'.
-
The ONLY things in the buckets were the children's jogging pants in one and Sheila's knickers in the other. Nothing was damp, they were described as 'in soak'.
It was AE who'd said there'd been 3 buckets.( wit stat ) Strange how EP didn't question the buckets especially if blood was prominent in them. Maybe they didn't see them either,like the silencer ?
-
It was AE who'd said there'd been 3 buckets.( wit stat ) Strange how EP didn't question the buckets especially if blood was prominent in them. Maybe they didn't see them either,like the silencer ?
She didn't mention any blouse.
-
From Colin's book In Search of the Rainbow's End:
The basic symptoms of Tardive Dyskinesia are loss of muscle control causing involuntary movement such as shakes, tongue-rolling and difficulty of speech amongst other things. It can afflict any of the voluntary muscles, from the eyelids to the neck, arms, legs and torso. To make things worse, the drugs which are then prescribed to counteract such disorders have equally horrendous side-effects of their own. While some symptoms can improve, or even disappear after removal from the "offending medication"-as Dr Peter Breggin described it in his book Toxic Psychiatry-most cases are permanent. There is no known treatment for this disease, yet doctors still continue to prescribe these drugs in such a way-high doses or combinations of them known as "cocktails"-that research has proved increases the risk of T.D.
Bambs had been on various combinations, in often high doses, for the best part of two years.
-
This is why I still say that either Sheila was on the wrong medication or she was over medicated as either way she wouldn't have shown signs of improving as patients do when taking the right medication and the appropriate dose. Sheila had obviously been proved difficult to treat whilst in hospital and sadly the easiest remedy is to increase doses for a " quieter life " all round,as in some nursing homes today where the poor old inmates are given " knock-out " drugs and are left in a zombified state.
-
From Colin's book In Search of the Rainbow's End:
The basic symptoms of Tardive Dyskinesia are loss of muscle control causing involuntary movement such as shakes, tongue-rolling and difficulty of speech amongst other things. It can afflict any of the voluntary muscles, from the eyelids to the neck, arms, legs and torso. To make things worse, the drugs which are then prescribed to counteract such disorders have equally horrendous side-effects of their own. While some symptoms can improve, or even disappear after removal from the "offending medication"-as Dr Peter Breggin described it in his book Toxic Psychiatry-most cases are permanent. There is no known treatment for this disease, yet doctors still continue to prescribe these drugs in such a way-high doses or combinations of them known as "cocktails"-that research has proved increases the risk of T.D.
Bambs had been on various combinations, in often high doses, for the best part of two years.
And yet autopsy drug tests only found Halperidol and traces of cannabis. I guess that is a combination but not a prescribed one.
-
"During the funeral service mourners were told: "Sheila found no physical security against distress but eternal security may still be hers". Unfortunately these clergymen failed to make any attempt to say or ask why she found no physical security. The congregation was then called upon to show forgiveness to her and told: "Love does not keep a family record of wrongs." I thought I could detect just a hint of compassion, but when the elderly canon said: "We pray for God's mercy for Sheila, sadly and tragically deranged.." I felt like screaming out at their self-righteousness: they couldn't even recognize the sickness within their own congregation. The only time they came anywhere near mentioning the twins was when the vicar said: "Sheila was a mother and I understand she knew her Gospel." But that was all that was said of Daniel and Nicholas;their actual names were never mentioned.
It seemed that because of her recent appointment to the post of church warden, the entire service was geared to singing the praises of June Bamber, and one might have been mistaken for thinking she had been the only one to die.
By the time we were eventually allowed into the cars and the doors were closed we all breathed a sigh of relief, but as we followed the three hearses out of the village, with the undertaker walking slowly in front, Jeremy started cracking jokes and laughing. To some extent I could accept it as an understandable release of tension but his joking became unnecessarily smutty, making all sorts of remarks about what he would like to be doing to Julie later that afternoon.
The thought of cremating Bambs had never felt right to me,but even more so as the curtains were drawn across the coffins than at any other time. I wanted to scream out: "No,stop! I don't want her burnt, I want to bury her with the twins as she is." I began to feel that once again she had been cheated-by both Church and family; cheated in death as she had been in life. I wanted her placed in the ground, together with the sons she loved, as she was, whole. But there was nothing I could say or do; the curtains closed and that was that. Her body and beautiful face were gone for ever."
-
This is why I still say that either Sheila was on the wrong medication or she was over medicated as either way she wouldn't have shown signs of improving as patients do when taking the right medication and the appropriate dose. Sheila had obviously been proved difficult to treat whilst in hospital and sadly the easiest remedy is to increase doses for a " quieter life " all round,as in some nursing homes today where the poor old inmates are given " knock-out " drugs and are left in a zombified state.
But you're not qualified to make that assumption Lookout - it simply suits a 'Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun' premise.
-
But you're not qualified to make that assumption Lookout - it simply suits a 'Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun' premise.
I was an SRN in charge of handing out medication on surgical/medical wards and if I'd thought that a medication was having adverse effects on a patient I would then speak to the doctor who'd ordered that medication to have been given.
NOBODY is forced to take something that they don't want to or that they feel is making them feel worse. The same goes for medication given to those with mental health issues. Sheila wasn't in touch with her own GP as often as she should have been to discuss her medication,hence the reason why Sheila wished the Haldol dose to be decreased--------she wasn't questioned about her own decision ? At least I haven't read so.
With ANY medication it's trial and error before taking anything that suits/agrees with the condition. Sheila didn't have any follow-up to see how she was progressing whereas when I was on the ward with patients I could see if there were any side-effects and if so would make a phone-call to suggest either a reduction ( by degrees ) or an increase,or even a different medication of which we obviously had to know about according to the illness.
I still maintain that Sheila didn't need the Haldol which obviously had adverse effects in her condition.I would have changed it because her condition was worsening and not improving.
Sheila was undergoing counselling but I don't know how many times she'd attended these sessions,which would have been vital for her to have expressed her feelings,etc as from that it would have given the staff an idea about her problem. Yes,she was paranoid-------but not schizophrenic. Paranoid about doing the right thing for her boys,paranoid about pleasing her mother,paranoid about her self-assurance,paranoid about her appearance. I don't know where the schizophrenia came in.
-
I was an SRN in charge of handing out medication on surgical/medical wards and if I'd thought that a medication was having adverse effects on a patient I would then speak to the doctor who'd ordered that medication to have been given.
NOBODY is forced to take something that they don't want to or that they feel is making them feel worse. The same goes for medication given to those with mental health issues. Sheila wasn't in touch with her own GP as often as she should have been to discuss her medication,hence the reason why Sheila wished the Haldol dose to be decreased--------she wasn't questioned about her own decision ? At least I haven't read so.
With ANY medication it's trial and error before taking anything that suits/agrees with the condition. Sheila didn't have any follow-up to see how she was progressing whereas when I was on the ward with patients I could see if there were any side-effects and if so would make a phone-call to suggest either a reduction ( by degrees ) or an increase,or even a different medication of which we obviously had to know about according to the illness.
I still maintain that Sheila didn't need the Haldol which obviously had adverse effects in her condition.I would have changed it because her condition was worsening and not improving.
Sheila was undergoing counselling but I don't know how many times she'd attended these sessions,which would have been vital for her to have expressed her feelings,etc as from that it would have given the staff an idea about her problem. Yes,she was paranoid-------but not schizophrenic. Paranoid about doing the right thing for her boys,paranoid about pleasing her mother,paranoid about her self-assurance,paranoid about her appearance. I don't know where the schizophrenia came in.
I don't care if you were an SRN or not - SRN's don't diagnose patients, they give the medication that was prescribed by a doctor. Not only that, you have never met or even seen Sheila Bamber or any of her case file, they only information you have about her is from second hand sources and with all due respect to Colin, he wasn't living with her.
-
I don't care if you were an SRN or not - SRN's don't diagnose patients, they give the medication that was prescribed by a doctor. Not only that, you have never met or even seen Sheila Bamber or any of her case file, they only information you have about her is from second hand sources and with all due respect to Colin, he wasn't living with her.
SRN's observe patients to look for any changes and report their findings. What do you think they do ? These changes are then reported to the ward sister who decides the next move.
No,I didn't know Sheila, much the same as you didn't know or meet Jeremy but it doesn't stop you from passing unfounded remarks about him ? Only what you've also read " second-hand, but I've nursed women who had depressive or psychotic illnesses whose medications changed like the weather according to their tolerance of it.
-
SRN's observe patients to look for any changes and report their findings. What do you think they do ? These changes are then reported to the ward sister who decides the next move.
No,I didn't know Sheila, much the same as you didn't know or meet Jeremy but it doesn't stop you from passing unfounded remarks about him ? Only what you've also read " second-hand, but I've nursed women who had depressive or psychotic illnesses whose medications changed like the weather according to their tolerance of it.
Sheila wasn't in hospital overnight and handed a prescription before she left. She would have been monitored whilst she was there and medicated appropriately. Certainly her circumstances changed quite rapidly after she left, and as I've said on numerous occasions, Dr Ferguson, hadn't seen her again and I'm inclined to think, that although she was partly responsible, the NHS allowed her to slip through their fingers........................but that's all an entirely different issue, NOT an indication that she killed anyone. By the way, did you see the programme on psychopaths on Tuesday?
-
Sheila wasn't in hospital overnight and handed a prescription before she left. She would have been monitored whilst she was there and medicated appropriately. Certainly her circumstances changed quite rapidly after she left, and as I've said on numerous occasions, Dr Ferguson, hadn't seen her again and I'm inclined to think, that although she was partly responsible, the NHS allowed her to slip through their fingers........................but that's all an entirely different issue, NOT an indication that she killed anyone. By the way, did you see the programme on psychopaths on Tuesday?
Yes Jane, but five minutes was enough for me. The first case was that of a tough-looking young woman with a pierced tongue who had killed her male employer in a sex game,and when they said this wasn't the first time she'd killed I switched off..
I had to admit after I recovered, thinking about Jeremy he didn't fit that category of killer at all.
-
SRN's observe patients to look for any changes and report their findings. What do you think they do ? These changes are then reported to the ward sister who decides the next move.
No,I didn't know Sheila, much the same as you didn't know or meet Jeremy but it doesn't stop you from passing unfounded remarks about him ? Only what you've also read " second-hand, but I've nursed women who had depressive or psychotic illnesses whose medications changed like the weather according to their tolerance of it.
You didn't observe THIS patient and the difference between me and you Lookout is that I asked Jeremy about the case and gained quite a lot from that whereas you chose not to ask. So I'm 100% ahead on your communication with Sheila!
You more than anyone should KNOW that each and every patient is unique and you should NEVER generalise.
-
Yes Jane, but five minutes was enough for me. The first case was that of a tough-looking young woman with a pierced tongue who had killed her male employer in a sex game,and when they said this wasn't the first time she'd killed I switched off..
I had to admit after I recovered, thinking about Jeremy he didn't fit that category of killer at all.
Brian Blackwell was/is also a psychopath, he killed his parents then went on holiday with his girlfriend - he is in no way the same kind of killer as Joanne Dennehy, who killed because she wanted to see someone die. Psychopaths don't all have the same motivations - they are all different in that respect, they just lack empathy and inhibition which makes it easier for them to kill if need be (and yes, I know not ALL psychopaths kill). Like I said to Lookout, it's hard to generalise and also unwise.
-
You didn't observe THIS patient and the difference between me and you Lookout is that I asked Jeremy about the case and gained quite a lot from that whereas you chose not to ask. So I'm 100% ahead on your communication with Sheila!
You more than anyone should KNOW that each and every patient is unique and you should NEVER generalise.
I'm well aware that every person/patient is different as is their tolerance or intolerance to the same drugs for the same illness.
It's not ME who generalises !
-
Caroline ive noted from several of your comments hthat you have spojen to jb. I presume you got to know him quite well.
Am i right in thinking that he couldnt answer some of the questions you asked him which led you to start doubting him.
i would be really interested to hear from you what those conversations were like and what you got from them.
-
Yes Jane, but five minutes was enough for me. The first case was that of a tough-looking young woman with a pierced tongue who had killed her male employer in a sex game,and when they said this wasn't the first time she'd killed I switched off..
I had to admit after I recovered, thinking about Jeremy he didn't fit that category of killer at all.
Well, for a start, she was female. Jeremy is male. The link between them would seem to be power and control. Certainly Jeremy took low paid, unskilled jobs. With no qualifications, he had no choice, however, because he could talk the talk and walk the walk, he'd have been able to impress his work colleagues who were probably less advantaged than was he. He could be the big fish in the puddle rather than the tiddler in the tide. I thought the programme made perfectly clear that Jeremy had the requisite traits of a psychopath.
-
I'm well aware that every person/patient is different as is their tolerance or intolerance to the same drugs for the same illness.
It's not ME who generalises !
On THAT we will have to agree to disagree but on diagnosing Sheila, there is nothing to suggest that it was incorrect or that her medication wasn't working to stop psychosis.
-
As for me not having asked Jeremy anything, I'm going to make up for lost time by writing a letter to send with his Christmas card ( I received his card this morning ) and ask him questions that I've asked on here and been totally ignored. Perhaps he'll have more manners.
-
Well, for a start, she was female. Jeremy is male. The link between them would seem to be power and control. Certainly Jeremy took low paid, unskilled jobs. With no qualifications, he had no choice, however, because he could talk the talk and walk the walk, he'd have been able to impress his work colleagues who were probably less advantaged than was he. He could be the big fish in the puddle rather than the tiddler in the tide. I thought the programme made perfectly clear that Jeremy had the requisite traits of a psychopath.
You may be right Jane;I was making a snap judgement on five minutes' viewing.
-
As for me not having asked Jeremy anything, I'm going to make up for lost time by writing a letter to send with his Christmas card ( I received his card this morning ) and ask him questions that I've asked on here and been totally ignored. Perhaps he'll have more manners.
Good for you! Perhaps he's the only one that CAN answer your questions.
-
You may be right Jane;I was making a snap judgement on five minutes viewing.
Steve, I have to agree that the Joanne Dennehy case was horrendous. I struggled to get through that part. The last case was about a very good looking, erudite and charming young man. An accomplished liar, naturally, as a video of him selling himself on a dating site, proved. He kidnapped, raped and murdered -his "thing" was about control (does it ring any bells?) and is thought to have been responsible for killing Suzy Lamplaugh.
-
Steve, I have to agree that the Joanne Dennehy case was horrendous. I struggled to get through that part. The last case was about a very good looking, erudite and charming young man. An accomplished liar, naturally, as a video of him selling himself on a dating site, proved. He kidnapped, raped and murdered -his "thing" was about control (does it ring any bells?) and is thought to have been responsible for killing Suzy Lamplaugh.
Yes he killed Shirley Banks as well I think.
-
SRN's observe patients to look for any changes and report their findings. What do you think they do ? These changes are then reported to the ward sister who decides the next move.
No,I didn't know Sheila, much the same as you didn't know or meet Jeremy but it doesn't stop you from passing unfounded remarks about him ? Only what you've also read " second-hand, but I've nursed women who had depressive or psychotic illnesses whose medications changed like the weather according to their tolerance of it.
Hi Lookout. I do agree that back in the old regime trained SRN's knew the patients on their ward inside out and even the doctors agreed this was the case.
Not sure if it was still the same by the mid 80s and certainly it is very different now. The interaction between staff and patients has pretty much disappeared, sadly.
-
Yes he killed Shirley Banks as well I think.
Yes, he did, Steve. I'd forgotten her name.
-
Hi Lookout. I do agree that back in the old regime trained SRN's knew the patients on their ward inside out and even the doctors agreed this was the case.
Not sure if it was still the same by the mid 80s and certainly it is very different now. The interaction between staff and patients has pretty much disappeared, sadly.
Hi Maggie, I have no doubt that this was the case, however, SRN or not, there is no way that anyone can claim to know that Sheila's diagnosis was incorrect or that she was incorrectly medicated without having some inside knowledge of her medical state. The nurses on the wards were clearly familiar with the patients in their care and that's why they were at an advantage.
-
Steve, I have to agree that the Joanne Dennehy case was horrendous. I struggled to get through that part. The last case was about a very good looking, erudite and charming young man. An accomplished liar, naturally, as a video of him selling himself on a dating site, proved. He kidnapped, raped and murdered -his "thing" was about control (does it ring any bells?) and is thought to have been responsible for killing Suzy Lamplaugh.
I saw that Jane, it did seem familiar to me.
-
Brian Blackwell was/is also a psychopath, he killed his parents then went on holiday with his girlfriend - he is in no way the same kind of killer as Joanne Dennehy, who killed because she wanted to see someone die. Psychopaths don't all have the same motivations - they are all different in that respect, they just lack empathy and inhibition which makes it easier for them to kill if need be (and yes, I know not ALL psychopaths kill). Like I said to Lookout, it's hard to generalise and also unwise.
Brian Blackwell has NPD its similar but not the same. Brian was raised in a very unusual way, His mum was running baths and bathing him like a baby all the way up until he was 19 years old! I don't blame him for snapping To be honest, Sad story :(
-
Brian Blackwell has NPD its similar but not the same. Brian was raised in a very unusual way, His mum was running baths and bathing him like a baby all the way up until he was 19 years old! I don't blame him for snapping To be honest, Sad story :(
Jeremy may well also suffer the same disorder, I think both share characteristics.
-
Jeremy may well also suffer the same disorder, I think both share characteristics.
It would go a long way to explaining why Jeremy felt the need to do low paid, menial jobs -rather than applying himself to getting qualifications where he'd have been lost amongst those far brighter than himself-he'd have stood out from the rest and been guaranteed an audience.
-
It would go a long way to explaining why Jeremy felt the need to do low paid, menial jobs -rather than applying himself to getting qualifications where he'd have been lost amongst those far brighter than himself-he'd have stood out from the rest and been guaranteed an audience.
That makes no sense at all. Your saying that by working in the Little Chef by a motorway would make him stand out with an audience? ???
-
That makes no sense at all. Your saying that by working in the Little Chef by a motorway would make him stand out with an audience? ???
IF he is a psychopath he would also be a narcissist ....... all psychopaths are narcissists.
I can see the reasoning of him choosing to be a big fish in a very small pond if that was all that was available at the time.
People suffering from NPD naturally suffer from very low self esteem and not all have the opportunity to be a huge fish in a huge pond so they grab what they can get at the time, better to be 'Manager' than an also ran no matter what the context. It's likely JB preferred that than being a farm labourer, even if he was the bosses son.
On the other hand he may just have preferred doing anything than farming and being dogs body to his father.
Even The Little Chef may have felt more glamourous than grubbing on a farm with a load of yokels he had been brought up to believe were inferior to him. :'(
-
That makes no sense at all. Your saying that by working in the Little Chef by a motorway would make him stand out with an audience? ???
Are you deliberately misinterpreting what people say, or just missing the point?
-
Are you deliberately misinterpreting what people say, or just missing the point?
Well, he's just done it to me too so I guess that's the order of the day.
-
I am trying to fit Jeremy into these disorders,but it doesn't seem to work. The mother bathing the child at an inappropriate age may fit with Brian Blackwell and Gary Ridgway, but surely not with Jeremy( didn't June drop him on the head as a baby anyway and henceforth probably never made physical contact again).
I prefer the scenario that he took a cocktail of drugs just before the murders and was therefore disengaged from his actions, in the same way David Bain learned trancing from his mother and committed the atrocities one step removed from himself. As soon as the effects wore off in each case they both reverted to normal.
-
I am trying to fit Jeremy into these disorders,but it doesn't seem to work. The mother bathing the child at an inappropriate age may fit with Brian Blackwell and Gary Ridgway, but surely not with Jeremy( didn't June drop him on the head as a baby anyway and henceforth probably never made physical contact again).
I prefer the scenario that he took a cocktail of drugs just before the murders and was therefore disengaged from his actions, in the same way David Bain learned trancing from his mother and committed the atrocities one step removed from himself. As soon as the effects wore off in each case they both reverted to normal.
Drugs or no drugs surely anyone seriously contemplating and carrying out such a horrendous crime must be disordered Steve?
-
Drugs or no drugs surely anyone seriously contemplating and carrying out such a horrendous crime must be disordered Steve?
Yes and I don't have any specific knowledge in this field. Plotting to kill someone is a sign of disorder, but lending a sympathetic ear to the plan under the guise of infatuation is surely within the same family of disorders.
-
I am trying to fit Jeremy into these disorders,but it doesn't seem to work. The mother bathing the child at an inappropriate age may fit with Brian Blackwell and Gary Ridgway, but surely not with Jeremy( didn't June drop him on the head as a baby anyway and henceforth probably never made physical contact again).
I prefer the scenario that he took a cocktail of drugs just before the murders and was therefore disengaged from his actions, in the same way David Bain learned trancing from his mother and committed the atrocities one step removed from himself. As soon as the effects wore off in each case they both reverted to normal.
Steve, I guess certain things will only come to light when someone opens up and talks about them. Presently, Jeremy is trying to maintain an "everything in the garden was rosy" position. I don't believe he needed a cocktail of drugs to disengage himself from the act. I think he was crystal clear.
-
Yes and I don't have any specific knowledge in this field. Plotting to kill someone is a sign of disorder, but lending a sympathetic ear to the plan under the guise of infatuation is surely within the same family of disorders.
I completely agree with you Steve. Imo the 'sympathetic ear' was also disordered but I have no proof of that, just an opinion.
-
I completely agree with you Steve. Imo the 'sympathetic ear' was also disordered but I have no proof of that, just an opinion.
From the little understanding I have, balanced against some of what has been said, I think you are both getting warm.
-
IF he is a psychopath he would also be a narcissist ....... all psychopaths are narcissists.
I can see the reasoning of him choosing to be a big fish in a very small pond if that was all that was available at the time.
People suffering from NPD naturally suffer from very low self esteem and not all have the opportunity to be a huge fish in a huge pond so they grab what they can get at the time, better to be 'Manager' than an also ran no matter what the context. It's likely JB preferred that than being a farm labourer, even if he was the bosses son.
On the other hand he may just have preferred doing anything than farming and being dogs body to his father.
Even The Little Chef may have felt more glamourous than grubbing on a farm with a load of yokels he had been brought up to believe were inferior to him. :'(
I think in the CAL book it says Jeremy was tested by a respected expert and is not a psychopath.
-
Yvonne: Julie Mugford
I have described previously the work I do with Jeremy and how we manage to uncover the actual facts of the case.
We can now show that evidence given by Julie Mugford in her witness statements was manipulated by Essex Police in order to deceive the Jury into the false belief that she was a credible witness of good character.
How we evaluated a small part of her evidence is detailed below.
According to Essex Police documentation, Julie Mugford made no fewer than thirteen witness statements to Essex Police. These statements were dated 08.08.85, 08.09.85, 10.09.85, 23.09.85, 14.10.85, 18.11.85, 23.11.85, 09.12.85, 17.12.85, 10.03.86, 08.05.86, 18.05.86 and 05.06.86.
The statements in bold type have never been disclosed to Jeremy or his Defence Counsel and we only uncovered the existence of these none disclosed statements in June 2015. As yet it is unknown what was included in these missing statements.
I unearthed this fact in the following way. I created a document based on the Police document referencing system known as the Holmes computer system. Here the Police allocate each document a specific number which details which “box “or “boxes” the document was in and the number of it. So for example Julie Mugford’s first statement was given the police reference of Holmes 6/147, 17/423, 20/30, 33/182, 40/542, 45/115 and 75/73. So as you can see there is not just one copy of this particular statement but several each allocated a separate and unique referencing number by Essex Police.
By extracting the reference numbers I was able to search the campaign’s document data base in order to detail our reference number alongside the Police one so that we can easily locate the document an example of which is shown below:
Once all the information had been extracted and a chart created it became evident that Essex Police have hidden five of Julie Mugford’s statements from Jeremy, his lawyers and the Courts.
This has been done in the exact same manner for every single person involved in the case, Civilian, Police Officer, doctor etc. The chart which is well over 200 pages in length details well over a thousand individuals in total and several thousand statements and a whole catalogue of anomalies have been revealed. The evidence extracted from this chart is still being analysed.
The served copy
The “served copy” of Julie Mugford’s statement was the only statement discussed at Trial and the only statement shown to the Defence, the Judge and the Court.
So what is a served copy? To put it simply Essex Police had the authority to create a single statement cherry picking information from all the statements Julie Mugford had made to include on it.
I cross referenced the individual statements we have had disclosed against the “served copy” in order to see what exactly had been hidden by Essex Police. To do this cross referencing I firstly typed each of her statements (Including the served copy) into the computer and gave each one of our unique reference numbers. From there I went through each statement word by word and highlighted the words, sentences and paragraphs using a different colour font for the sections that had NOT been included in the served copy.
Once this had been done I could then create a document where all the omitted paragraphs, and sentences could be detailed and reference made to which statement the information had been extracted from.
Next I created a simple chart which was made up of a series of boxes like this:
Finally, on this issue a document was created in the format which we use for the lawyers so that they could have this information in an easy to understand and yet comprehensive form.
From doing this work it became clear that Essex Police manipulated the evidence of the key Prosecution witness, withholding from the defence, the Trial Judge and the Jury the truth of events, and hiding evidence of numerous criminal activities which had been committed by Julie Mugford ,in order to deceive the court to believing that she was an honest and trustworthy witness.
Full disclosure of case documents Essex Police still hold including the hidden statements created by Julie Mugford is now required.
Taken from main site - must admit I would love to see ALL her interviews .
-
I think in the CAL book it says Jeremy was tested by a respected expert and is not a psychopath.
I am just pontificating Jan.
-
Steve, I guess certain things will only come to light when someone opens up and talks about them. Presently, Jeremy is trying to maintain an "everything in the garden was rosy" position. I don't believe he needed a cocktail of drugs to disengage himself from the act. I think he was crystal clear.
These are the two striking parallels between the Jeremy Bamber and David Bain cases. It is alluded to in James McNeish's book, The Mask of Sanity,which I urge those who still believe Bain to be innocent to read. I quote one excerpt from Chapter 18:
One of the reasons,according to Paul Mullen that David Bain facing the jury sanitised everything, minimising the family conflict and his own difficulties within it, was because he wanted the jurors not to understand how angry and distressed he was-"because if they understood that, they would understand why he killed them". Some observers, like the neuro-scientist quoted earlier, go further. "Not anger, hatred. Deep hatred. Deep rage-"narcissistic rage". Absolutely destructive rage. Not rage, end, stop. Murder. He probably thought, I'll shoot mum. No, I'll shoot dad. No, I'll shoot the kids. I'll shoot the bloody lot of them."
-
Yvonne: Julie Mugford
I have described previously the work I do with Jeremy and how we manage to uncover the actual facts of the case.
We can now show that evidence given by Julie Mugford in her witness statements was manipulated by Essex Police in order to deceive the Jury into the false belief that she was a credible witness of good character.
How we evaluated a small part of her evidence is detailed below.
According to Essex Police documentation, Julie Mugford made no fewer than thirteen witness statements to Essex Police. These statements were dated 08.08.85, 08.09.85, 10.09.85, 23.09.85, 14.10.85, 18.11.85, 23.11.85, 09.12.85, 17.12.85, 10.03.86, 08.05.86, 18.05.86 and 05.06.86.
The statements in bold type have never been disclosed to Jeremy or his Defence Counsel and we only uncovered the existence of these none disclosed statements in June 2015. As yet it is unknown what was included in these missing statements.
I unearthed this fact in the following way. I created a document based on the Police document referencing system known as the Holmes computer system. Here the Police allocate each document a specific number which details which “box “or “boxes” the document was in and the number of it. So for example Julie Mugford’s first statement was given the police reference of Holmes 6/147, 17/423, 20/30, 33/182, 40/542, 45/115 and 75/73. So as you can see there is not just one copy of this particular statement but several each allocated a separate and unique referencing number by Essex Police.
By extracting the reference numbers I was able to search the campaign’s document data base in order to detail our reference number alongside the Police one so that we can easily locate the document an example of which is shown below:
Once all the information had been extracted and a chart created it became evident that Essex Police have hidden five of Julie Mugford’s statements from Jeremy, his lawyers and the Courts.
This has been done in the exact same manner for every single person involved in the case, Civilian, Police Officer, doctor etc. The chart which is well over 200 pages in length details well over a thousand individuals in total and several thousand statements and a whole catalogue of anomalies have been revealed. The evidence extracted from this chart is still being analysed.
The served copy
The “served copy” of Julie Mugford’s statement was the only statement discussed at Trial and the only statement shown to the Defence, the Judge and the Court.
So what is a served copy? To put it simply Essex Police had the authority to create a single statement cherry picking information from all the statements Julie Mugford had made to include on it.
I cross referenced the individual statements we have had disclosed against the “served copy” in order to see what exactly had been hidden by Essex Police. To do this cross referencing I firstly typed each of her statements (Including the served copy) into the computer and gave each one of our unique reference numbers. From there I went through each statement word by word and highlighted the words, sentences and paragraphs using a different colour font for the sections that had NOT been included in the served copy.
Once this had been done I could then create a document where all the omitted paragraphs, and sentences could be detailed and reference made to which statement the information had been extracted from.
Next I created a simple chart which was made up of a series of boxes like this:
Finally, on this issue a document was created in the format which we use for the lawyers so that they could have this information in an easy to understand and yet comprehensive form.
From doing this work it became clear that Essex Police manipulated the evidence of the key Prosecution witness, withholding from the defence, the Trial Judge and the Jury the truth of events, and hiding evidence of numerous criminal activities which had been committed by Julie Mugford ,in order to deceive the court to believing that she was an honest and trustworthy witness.
Full disclosure of case documents Essex Police still hold including the hidden statements created by Julie Mugford is now required.
Taken from main site - must admit I would love to see ALL her interviews .
I can't see how you can reach the conclusion that the "truth of events" has been withheld when you don't cite anything to make your case.
-
Some of the truth to this case didn't show itself until June of this year ! What an utter disgrace.
-
I think in the CAL book it says Jeremy was tested by a respected expert and is not a psychopath.
Another 'respected expert' said that he is.
-
Yvonne: Julie Mugford
I have described previously the work I do with Jeremy and how we manage to uncover the actual facts of the case.
We can now show that evidence given by Julie Mugford in her witness statements was manipulated by Essex Police in order to deceive the Jury into the false belief that she was a credible witness of good character.
How we evaluated a small part of her evidence is detailed below.
According to Essex Police documentation, Julie Mugford made no fewer than thirteen witness statements to Essex Police. These statements were dated 08.08.85, 08.09.85, 10.09.85, 23.09.85, 14.10.85, 18.11.85, 23.11.85, 09.12.85, 17.12.85, 10.03.86, 08.05.86, 18.05.86 and 05.06.86.
The statements in bold type have never been disclosed to Jeremy or his Defence Counsel and we only uncovered the existence of these none disclosed statements in June 2015. As yet it is unknown what was included in these missing statements.
I unearthed this fact in the following way. I created a document based on the Police document referencing system known as the Holmes computer system. Here the Police allocate each document a specific number which details which “box “or “boxes” the document was in and the number of it. So for example Julie Mugford’s first statement was given the police reference of Holmes 6/147, 17/423, 20/30, 33/182, 40/542, 45/115 and 75/73. So as you can see there is not just one copy of this particular statement but several each allocated a separate and unique referencing number by Essex Police.
By extracting the reference numbers I was able to search the campaign’s document data base in order to detail our reference number alongside the Police one so that we can easily locate the document an example of which is shown below:
Once all the information had been extracted and a chart created it became evident that Essex Police have hidden five of Julie Mugford’s statements from Jeremy, his lawyers and the Courts.
This has been done in the exact same manner for every single person involved in the case, Civilian, Police Officer, doctor etc. The chart which is well over 200 pages in length details well over a thousand individuals in total and several thousand statements and a whole catalogue of anomalies have been revealed. The evidence extracted from this chart is still being analysed.
The served copy
The “served copy” of Julie Mugford’s statement was the only statement discussed at Trial and the only statement shown to the Defence, the Judge and the Court.
So what is a served copy? To put it simply Essex Police had the authority to create a single statement cherry picking information from all the statements Julie Mugford had made to include on it.
I cross referenced the individual statements we have had disclosed against the “served copy” in order to see what exactly had been hidden by Essex Police. To do this cross referencing I firstly typed each of her statements (Including the served copy) into the computer and gave each one of our unique reference numbers. From there I went through each statement word by word and highlighted the words, sentences and paragraphs using a different colour font for the sections that had NOT been included in the served copy.
Once this had been done I could then create a document where all the omitted paragraphs, and sentences could be detailed and reference made to which statement the information had been extracted from.
Next I created a simple chart which was made up of a series of boxes like this:
Finally, on this issue a document was created in the format which we use for the lawyers so that they could have this information in an easy to understand and yet comprehensive form.
From doing this work it became clear that Essex Police manipulated the evidence of the key Prosecution witness, withholding from the defence, the Trial Judge and the Jury the truth of events, and hiding evidence of numerous criminal activities which had been committed by Julie Mugford ,in order to deceive the court to believing that she was an honest and trustworthy witness.
Full disclosure of case documents Essex Police still hold including the hidden statements created by Julie Mugford is now required.
Taken from main site - must admit I would love to see ALL her interviews .
This sounds like someone using a lot of words but saying very little. I agree that ALL of her statements should be released but personally, I think people will be disappointed because IF there was something that proved EP conspired to frame JB it would have been destroyed years ago.
-
We all have our differences don't we ?
Some ( most ) said Barry George killed Jill Dando-------------but they were wrong weren't they ?
-
We all have our differences don't we ?
Some ( most ) said Barry George killed Jill Dando-------------but they were wrong weren't they ?
I NEVER thought he did however, his submission was accepted because it didn't just rely on a few admin errors and spurious phone calls. They were able to SHOW that he was innocent. However, JUST because Barry George was innocent doesn't mean Jeremy is.
-
I NEVER thought he did however, his submission was accepted because it didn't just rely on a few admin errors and spurious phone calls. They were able to SHOW that he was innocent. However, JUST because Barry George was innocent doesn't mean Jeremy is.
Listing innocent men doesn't make Bamber innocent? Damn! I was going to list the countless number of guilty men in prison in a hope that rubbish arguement would make Bamber guilty!
-
Listing innocent men doesn't make Bamber innocent? Damn! I was going to list the countless number of guilty men in prison in a hope that rubbish arguement would make Bamber guilty!
Foiled again, eh? :))
-
Listing innocent men doesn't make Bamber innocent? Damn! I was going to list the countless number of guilty men in prison in a hope that rubbish arguement would make Bamber guilty!
David failed to list the cases to which he was referring....
The state found 'proof' of guilt in many cases in the 1980s now consider this countries appalling record of finding proof that later turned out to be nothing of the sort. specially in the 1980s. The prosecution forensics in 1986 does not stand up to modern scrutiny.
However if you look at some of the cases where innocent men were freed, they are not the same as this case. In fact they are very very different.
It was either Sheila or Jeremy Bamber. The police clearly made a mistake in the first instance believing Sheila had carried out the murders then ended her own life. They then corrected this mistake when they realised it was Jeremy.
Nothing to do with forensics imo. The anomalies speak for themselves. JB's behaviours imo show clear signs of psychopathy and guilt!
-
I NEVER thought he did however, his submission was accepted because it didn't just rely on a few admin errors and spurious phone calls. They were able to SHOW that he was innocent. However, JUST because Barry George was innocent doesn't mean Jeremy is.
Easy to admit after the event,isn't it ? Any fool can say that.
-
Easy to admit after the event,isn't it ? Any fool can say that.
And you have said it many times!
-
And you have said it many times!
I usually judge beforehand and I'm usually right too.
-
I usually judge beforehand and I'm usually right too.
Sometimes I don't know how you manage to live with yourself, Lookout. The arrogance astounds me. I guess none of us will ever know when you're wrong -and you're as capable of being wrong as we all are- because you're never likely to admit it.
-
Sometimes I don't know how you manage to live with yourself, Lookout. The arrogance astounds me. I guess none of us will ever know when you're wrong -and you're as capable of being wrong as we all are- because you're never likely to admit it.
It's not arrogance. It's experience with people. I'll always admit to being wrong when I am.
-
It's not arrogance. It's experience with people. I'll always admit to being wrong when I am.
Ha, ha!! You NEVER admit to being wrong, even when you're proven wrong!
-
Ha, ha!! You NEVER admit to being wrong, even when you're proven wrong!
Because I'm rarely wrong that's why.
-
Because I'm rarely wrong that's why.
And that's NOT arrogance?
-
Because I'm rarely wrong that's why.
Because you never admit it.
-
And that's NOT arrogance?
Why MUST it be arrogance ? Arrogance isn't even in my make up. Quiet confidence is though.
-
Why MUST it be arrogance ? Arrogance isn't even in my make up. Quiet confidence is though.
You're never wrong but you're not arrogant? I'm sure you're never deluded and always modest too! ::)
-
You're never wrong but you're not arrogant? I'm sure you're never deluded and always modest too! ::)
Wrong ! It just goes to show how you can misjudge people. You're rubbish. :))
-
Wrong ! It just goes to show how you can misjudge people. You're rubbish. :))
Yeah but would never degrade down to your level. 8)
-
Why MUST it be arrogance ? Arrogance isn't even in my make up. Quiet confidence is though.
WHY? Because that's how it's perceived when someone make the sweeping claim of announcing that they're rarely wrong. I'd hazard a guess that humility isn't part of your make up, either. We can all be quietly confident AT TIMES but we don't feel the need to announce it. I don't have a problem with speaking out about my uncertainties.
-
I was wondering where the focal point of the White House was, where the family went to relax and spend time together. I note from all the photographs in the archive there is none of the lounge, where the twins played with their board games and toy guns those final days as reported by Ann Eaton in her statement. One can only imagine that if Sheila and Jeremy's entertainment was confined to their bedrooms as teenagers, upon return from the similar alien environment of their schools there would be very little bonding as a family, with the parents too busy building their bank balances to discuss matters with them as they should have done.
-
WHY? Because that's how it's perceived when someone make the sweeping claim of announcing that they're rarely wrong. I'd hazard a guess that humility isn't part of your make up, either. We can all be quietly confident AT TIMES but we don't feel the need to announce it. I don't have a problem with speaking out about my uncertainties.
Quite amusing though, because Lookout has been shown to be wrong many times. We are all wrong, not a bad thing to be wrong if your mistake is a genuine one.
I was wondering where the focal point of the White House was, where the family went to relax and spend time together. I note from all the photographs in the archive there is none of the lounge, where the twins played with their board games and toy guns those final days as reported by Ann Eaton in her statement. One can only imagine that if Sheila and Jeremy's entertainment was confined to their bedrooms as teenagers, upon return from the similar alien environment of their schools there would be very little bonding as a family, with the parents too busy building their bank balances to discuss matters with them as they should have done.
They weren't rich though, so I don't think they were too focused on their bank balances. They were farmers and with that comes alot of work, weekend work, long hours.
-
I was wondering where the focal point of the White House was, where the family went to relax and spend time together. I note from all the photographs in the archive there is none of the lounge, where the twins played with their board games and toy guns those final days as reported by Ann Eaton in her statement. One can only imagine that if Sheila and Jeremy's entertainment was confined to their bedrooms as teenagers, upon return from the similar alien environment of their schools there would be very little bonding as a family, with the parents too busy building their bank balances to discuss matters with them as they should have done.
I think probably the heart was the kitchen BUT maybe not - I think the reason why there are no pics of the lounge is because it wasn't a focal point of the investigation. Then again, we don't have all of the pictures.
-
Quite amusing though, because Lookout has been shown to be wrong many times. We are all wrong, not a bad thing to be wrong if your mistake is a genuine one.
They weren't rich though, so I don't think they were too focused on their bank balances. They were farmers and with that comes alot of work, weekend work, long hours.
Compared to their contemporaries at Gresham's, who no doubt boasted of their daddies' thousands of acres and stocks and shares Jeremy was on the lower rung of the ladder, but I'm not sure I agree with you that they weren't rich in comparison to (say) Julie's background. I agree that farming is a vocation, but Nevill had the Midas touch and knew what to plant and what to diversify into.
-
I was wondering where the focal point of the White House was, where the family went to relax and spend time together. I note from all the photographs in the archive there is none of the lounge, where the twins played with their board games and toy guns those final days as reported by Ann Eaton in her statement. One can only imagine that if Sheila and Jeremy's entertainment was confined to their bedrooms as teenagers, upon return from the similar alien environment of their schools there would be very little bonding as a family, with the parents too busy building their bank balances to discuss matters with them as they should have done.
There is often a "Family Room" where the children can play/watch television and parents can join them informally. Sometimes it's a large kitchen which performs this function. The drawing room would be an altogether more formal, sit up straight, be on best behaviour, affair. Definitely not child friendly. Farming families don't tend to be money oriented in the way that the nouvelle riche are, partly because it -used to be, anyway- tended to be about OLD money which always seemed to be there, making more.
-
There is often a "Family Room" where the children can play/watch television and parents can join them informally. Sometimes it's a large kitchen which performs this function. The drawing room would be an altogether more formal, sit up straight, be on best behaviour, affair. Definitely not child friendly. Farming families don't tend to be money oriented in the way that the nouvelle riche are, partly because it -used to be, anyway- tended to be about OLD money which always seemed to be there, making more.
So many things ran through my mind and I wondered why there were not two sitting rooms in that large mansion house as well as the kitchen, which to my mind was a bit of a disappointment in the scheme of things. I was thinking when my mother died, the family house was sold and with that the Sunday family gathering was abandoned what effect not having a family room might have had on the Bambers?
-
Compared to their contemporaries at Gresham's, who no doubt boasted of their daddies' thousands of acres and stocks and shares Jeremy was on the lower rung of the ladder, but I'm not sure I agree with you that they weren't rich in comparison to (say) Julie's background. I agree that farming is a vocation, but Nevill had the Midas touch and knew what to plant and what to diversify into.
Steve What do you make of the allegations by Brett Collins that Jeremy was raped at Gresham's? If true that would explain allot more of his hatred towards his parents for sending him there.
-
Compared to their contemporaries at Gresham's, who no doubt boasted of their daddies' thousands of acres and stocks and shares Jeremy was on the lower rung of the ladder, but I'm not sure I agree with you that they weren't rich in comparison to (say) Julie's background. I agree that farming is a vocation, but Nevill had the Midas touch and knew what to plant and what to diversify into.
I was with a friend yesterday whose husband was at Greshams. Taught by a gay master -it was common knowledge- who was a brilliant teacher, he loved every moment of his time there. I agree that they were in a very different position financially from Julie's family. There would have been that casual assuredness that being comfortably cushioned -for generations- brings. I also agree that Nevill had a good head for business.
-
So many things ran through my mind and I wondered why there were not two sitting rooms in that large mansion house as well as the kitchen, which to my mind was a bit of a disappointment in the scheme of things. I was thinking when my mother died, the family house was sold and with that the Sunday family gathering was abandoned what effect not having a family room might have had on the Bambers?
Steve, I imagine that there were two sitting rooms. As you say, the house was big enough but certainly NOT a mansion. I think I've seen a picture of a sitting room which I'd call shabby chic -old money isn't bothered with constantly refurbishing. I'd suppose that as long as they had somewhere where they could be, as a family, it was alright.
-
Steve What do you make of the allegations by Brett Collins that Jeremy was raped at Gresham's? If true that would explain allot more of his hatred towards his parents for sending him there.
Sexuality can be complex and nobody knows for sure, but I do think that something did happen, with a young boy in a strange and vulnerable environment having to bathe and shower not knowing who was nearby. He may have been determined that nothing similar would ever happen to him again, this experience being projected onto the twins as they too were violated when lying utterly defenceless in their beds.
-
Steve, I imagine that there were two sitting rooms. As you say, the house was big enough but certainly NOT a mansion. I think I've seen a picture of a sitting room which I'd call shabby chic -old money isn't bothered with constantly refurbishing. I'd suppose that as long as they had somewhere where they could be, as a family, it was alright.
But did they ever talk to one another? Again there is a parallel with the David Bain case, where admittedly they were not in the same financial circumstances and White House Farm was certainly a much cleaner environment, but I get the feeling that there was a disconnect with both families and as Jeremy and David grew older they both found no other escape than to kill all.
-
Another 'respected expert' said that he is.
is that the one who did not meet with him?
-
I can't help comparing some of the remarks made on the David Bain case to Jeremy:
At the time of writing, David Bain has a minimum of 14 years to serve before he becomes eligible for parole. Some of his relatives, fearing an early discharge, have already left New Zealand and are living abroad. Not only fear of repetiton of the crime, but its pitiful nature and the ghosts of the scene-also the state of the house-have taken a hidden toll. For many months after the trial members of the jury and police both men and women who were at the scene continued to experience nightmares in flashback, despite trauma counselling. Some still do.
For a time David Bain wrote many letters of complaint from prison to the authorities in Wellington. He has settled down and is said by the governor of Paparua Prison to have become a model inmate. The reaction to prison lags to newcomers can be revealing. At Paparua David met with savage humour after arriving from Dunedin. The inmates' response is best summed up by a conversation between the convicted child-abuser Peter Ellis, and David Bain in a wing of the prison. At a chance meeting in a corridor, the following exchange reportedly occurred:
"Hullo David."
"Hullo Peter."
"David, I'll be your friend. But please don't treat me as family."
By most accounts David Bain has now begun to accept that he is in "for the long haul"; he makes phone calls, writes letters, wears out batteries listening to recordings of opera sent by his supporters and friends. His supporters include students, university lecturers, journalists, spiritualists, Christian groups, nurses, housewives. In letters to friends he expresses a faith in Christianity and Jesus. In a magazine article published in August 1996 he excuses his mother for treating his father so badly. He discusses a family in trouble but in such a way -Laniet: "a wonderful loving sister...She was very dear to me"-that the image that is projected remains sanitised.
There are stirrings of self-pity in his letters. But one listens in vain for a voice of grieving, of conscience, of torment, of genuine bewilderment. He feels sorrow. but the sorrow is delivered in the flat monotone of the witness box, devoid of inflection and without a hint of understanding of what life might mean to others. Feeling, like the moral sense, remains absent. Remorse appears beyond him.
-
But did they ever talk to one another? Again there is a parallel with the David Bain case, where admittedly they were not in the same financial circumstances and White House Farm was certainly a much cleaner environment, but I get the feeling that there was a disconnect with both families and as Jeremy and David grew older they both found no other escape than to kill all.
My feeling is that they didn't. I know very few families who are capable of real intimacy -I'm not making sexual references here- most seem to prefer to pretend whatever it is, ISN'T happening. I'm not denigrating, Steve. Intimacy takes courage..............but without it there is that disconnect you were talking about.
-
My feeling is that they didn't. I know very few families who are capable of real intimacy -I'm not making sexual references here- most seem to prefer to pretend whatever it is, ISN'T happening. I'm not denigrating, Steve. Intimacy takes courage..............but without it there is that disconnect you were talking about.
The excuse that the Bambers gave for sending away Jeremy, namely that one day later in life he would have to employ locals and been seen to be in some way superior to them may or may not have been legitimate, but how could they possibly justify doing the same to Sheila, or was the cat let out of the bag that they weren't really interested in parenting, preferring to delegate this role to any paid factotum who came readily to hand..
-
I can't help comparing some of the remarks made on the David Bain case to Jeremy:
At the time of writing, David Bain has a minimum of 14 years to serve before he becomes eligible for parole. Some of his relatives, fearing an early discharge, have already left New Zealand and are living abroad. Not only fear of repetiton of the crime, but its pitiful nature and the ghosts of the scene-also the state of the house-have taken a hidden toll. For many months after the trial members of the jury and police both men and women who were at the scene continued to experience nightmares in flashback, despite trauma counselling. Some still do.
For a time David Bain wrote many letters of complaint from prison to the authorities in Wellington. He has settled down and is said by the governor of Paparua Prison to have become a model inmate. The reaction to prison lags to newcomers can be revealing. At Paparua David met with savage humour after arriving from Dunedin. The inmates' response is best summed up by a conversation between the convicted child-abuser Peter Ellis, and David Bain in a wing of the prison. At a chance meeting in a corridor, the following exchange reportedly occurred:
"Hullo David."
"Hullo Peter."
"David, I'll be your friend. But please don't treat me as family."
By most accounts David Bain has now begun to accept that he is in "for the long haul"; he makes phone calls, writes letters, wears out batteries listening to recordings of opera sent by his supporters and friends. His supporters include students, university lecturers, journalists, spiritualists, Christian groups, nurses, housewives. In letters to friends he expresses a faith in Christianity and Jesus. In a magazine article published in August 1996 he excuses his mother for treating his father so badly. He discusses a family in trouble but in such a way -Laniet: "a wonderful loving sister...She was very dear to me"-that the image that is projected remains sanitised.
There are stirrings of self-pity in his letters. But one listens in vain for a voice of grieving, of conscience, of torment, of genuine bewilderment. He feels sorrow. but the sorrow is delivered in the flat monotone of the witness box, devoid of inflection and without a hint of understanding of what life might mean to others. Feeling, like the moral sense, remains absent. Remorse appears beyond him.
Since you believe David Bain and Marty Tankleff are guilty and Hanratty was innocent when evidence suggests the opposite in all those cases i am starting to think your belief in Jeremy's guilt is an indicator of innocence.
-
Since you believe David Bain and Marty Tankleff are guilty and Hanratty was innocent when evidence suggests the opposite in all those cases i am starting to think your belief in Jeremy's guilt is an indicator of innocence.
Marty Tankleff fits the psychological profile of both David Bain and Jeremy Bamber-no reaction whatsoever to the deaths they caused. Hanratty was an Establishment cover-up but it's impossible to prove.
I could quote another three pages of the Bain case showing more or less exactly how the plan was executed, but I don't wish to bore people..
-
The excuse that the Bambers gave for sending away Jeremy, namely that one day later in life he would have to employ locals and been seen to be in some way superior to them may or may not have been legitimate, but how could they possibly justify doing the same to Sheila, or was the cat let out of the bag that they weren't really interested in parenting, preferring to delegate this role to any paid factotum who came readily to hand..
Steve, sending children away to board was very much the accepted thing in the generation of (some) parents whose children are now in their mid 50's. It's a measure of how boys were supposed to follow on from their fathers when one hears that they can't be allowed to befriend those local children who they may need to employ further down the line -I've had many differences of opinion with such men. Their wives may have deferred to them. I certainly did not. There is also the point that many of these fathers LOVED being "away" so assumed their children would. There are also those who hated it but sent their children to "their" school anyway because "it's what one does."
Girls are thought to benefit because they -allegedly- meet a better class of girl who may just have a brother with a title, marriage, a good one financially, for that generation, being the goal. I have to say that Sheila was the only one (locally) who seemed NOT to achieve at anything. All the others -of my acquaintance- eventually came good even after a "lapse" and settled down to be the same community spirited women as their mothers before them.
I have known some of these mothers to shed copious tears when their children went away, but on the whole, they led such busy lives that it's hard to know how, and where, their children would have fitted in.
-
Steve, sending children away to board was very much the accepted thing in the generation of (some) parents whose children are now in their mid 50's. It's a measure of how boys were supposed to follow on from their fathers when one hears that they can't be allowed to befriend those local children who they may need to employ further down the line -I've had many differences of opinion with such men. Their wives may have deferred to them. I certainly did not. There is also the point that many of these fathers LOVED being "away" so assumed their children would. There are also those who hated it but sent their children to "their" school anyway because "it's what one does."
Girls are thought to benefit because they -allegedly- meet a better class of girl who may just have a brother with a title, marriage, a good one financially, for that generation, being the goal. I have to say that Sheila was the only one (locally) who seemed NOT to achieve at anything. All the others -of my acquaintance- eventually came good even after a "lapse" and settled down to be the same community spirited women as their mothers before them.
I have known some of these mothers to shed copious tears when their children went away, but on the whole, they led such busy lives that it's hard to know how, and where, their children would have fitted in.
I wonder if there was a feeling of resentment on the part of June as Sheila blossomed into a beautiful young teeange girl, with seemingly the world at her feet. Nevill, for his part, could not hide the disappointment as to how Jeremy was shaping up and after the death of his second sister reverted into his own comfortable world of yesteryear, not once offering any word of encouragement as his son left Gresham's with very little to add to his name.
-
The excuse that the Bambers gave for sending away Jeremy, namely that one day later in life he would have to employ locals and been seen to be in some way superior to them may or may not have been legitimate, but how could they possibly justify doing the same to Sheila, or was the cat let out of the bag that they weren't really interested in parenting, preferring to delegate this role to any paid factotum who came readily to hand..
Nevill was sent away to school at a young age, I would imagine it's what people of his social standing did. He no doubt believed it made a man of him. :(
I can't square the thought they didn't want to parent the children with the fact June took food up to Sheila in London every week, and they seemed to be concerned and giving support to her until they all died.
-
is that the one who did not meet with him?
How do yo know he didn't meet him?
-
Nevill was sent away to school at a young age, I would imagine it's what people of his social standing did. He no doubt believed it made a man of him. :(
I can't square the thought they didn't want to parent the children with the fact June took food up to Sheila in London every week, and they seemed to be concerned and giving support to her until they all died.
Maybe the penny had dropped that Sheila was incapable of earning a living in her own right, hence the quarterly allowance facility which she was about to draw up with Basil Cock in Sheila's favour. June may have been guilty of omission rather than deliberate intent, possibly due to the memory lapses she suffered as a side-effect of her medical treatment.
-
Maybe the penny had dropped that Sheila was incapable of earning a living in her own right, hence the quarterly allowance facility which she was about to draw up with Basil Cock in Sheila's favour. June may have been guilty of omission rather than deliberate intent, possibly due to the memory lapses she suffered as a side-effect of her medical treatment.
I'm in no position to judge June in any way, We know little or nothing about her apart from second hand gossip which may or not be true.
I would guess June was not particularly into psychoanalysis and had been brought up to believe in stoicism and fire and brimstone rather than tenderness and compassion however that doesn't mean she wasn't a good woman or she didn't love her children, she possibly just found it hard to show them. :-\
-
I'm in no position to judge June in any way, We know little or nothing about her apart from second hand gossip which may or not be true.
I would guess June was not particularly into psychoanalysis and had been brought up to believe in stoicism and fire and brimstone rather than tenderness and compassion however that doesn't mean she wasn't a good woman or she didn't love her children, she possibly just found it hard to show them. :-\
She did interfere, however, with the lives of Sheila,Jeremy, Colin and the twins and seemed to have free entrance to Moreshead Mansions whenever it suited. She must have had a guilty conscience,hence the heartfelt letter to be opened after her death which contained an apology of sorts, yet was too little too late to save the family from its fate.
-
She did interfere, however, with the lives of Sheila,Jeremy, Colin and the twins and seemed to have free entrance to Moreshead Mansions whenever it suited. She must have had a guilty conscience,hence the heartfelt letter to be opened after her death which contained an apology of sorts, yet was too little too late to save the family from its fate.
Many mothers can be accused of 'interfering' by their children rightly or wrongly but in their eyes they are 'helping' and mean well, however annoying they may be. :-X.
June was Sheila's mother so why would she not be allowed free access, especially when bearing food and money to pay the bills?
Yes, June may have known she was overbearing and judgemental but the fact she wrote such a letter shows her love for her children in spite of her mistakes and an awareness of her own shortcomings.
It is rather touching imo but who am I to judge, I wasn't there.
-
Many mothers can be accused of 'interfering' by their children rightly or wrongly but in their eyes they are 'helping' and mean well, however annoying they may be. :-X.
June was Sheila's mother so why would she not be allowed free access, especially when bearing food and money to pay the bills?
Yes, June may have known she was overbearing and judgemental but the fact she wrote such a letter shows her love for her children in spite of her mistakes and an awareness of her own shortcomings.
It is rather touching imo but who am I to judge, I wasn't there.
I agree Maggie and I think their relationship was far more complex - I don't think Sheila hated June at all!
-
I agree Maggie and I think their relationship was far more complex - I don't think Sheila hated June at all!
I would say it was far MORE likely that Sheila was desperate to know June's approval and love and may have felt that it was because of her own errors in life that June withheld these from her. Children rarely give up on trying to win parental affection, however old they are.
-
Does anyone believe in mediums or spirits? I read a story today about some ghost under a Christmas tree at a pub in Newcastle. It took me back to Betty Shine and her session with Colin. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=df8DFyoWfPkC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=colin+caffell+betty+shine&source=bl&ots=-68WkjHxRv&sig=GHfF-q8bcsenyx4k3pr4d0pMVEI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTmI_ChenJAhXFXhoKHTvjA2AQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=colin%20caffell%20betty%20shine&f=false
-
Does anyone believe in mediums or spirits?
100% No
-
What ?? They're for the troubled minds of the troubled souls.Better going to a counsellor.
Or those with guilty consciences !!
-
Does anyone believe in mediums or spirits? I read a story today about some ghost under a Christmas tree at a pub in Newcastle. It took me back to Betty Shine and her session with Colin. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=df8DFyoWfPkC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=colin+caffell+betty+shine&source=bl&ots=-68WkjHxRv&sig=GHfF-q8bcsenyx4k3pr4d0pMVEI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTmI_ChenJAhXFXhoKHTvjA2AQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=colin%20caffell%20betty%20shine&f=false
I've never heard that story about the tree but the only spirits under Newcastle pub Christmas trees have been consumed to unconsciousness ;D ;D ;D ;D. I went to see a medium a few years about, he tried to generalise but was wrong on EVERY point. He tried to grab back some credibility by telling me my uncle 'John' was with him - most people might have an uncle John - I don't!! This guy was quite well respected locally and his house was huge, all don't through his work (lose the term loosely) as a medium. On the way home, the women I went with were full of how great he was but because they wanted him to be genuine, they were giving him 'hints' - I could hear them. They may help some people, but for the wrong reasons. I would be interested to see one who doesn't ask for payment - they may simply be deluded but if financial gain isn't ther motive .....
-
"It's given me a chance to be a dad in a different way."
Colin, ever the optimist and altruist as he put the needs of others before himself. I cannot help but feel the stark contrast between him and the man who slayed his sons for no other reason than to make the estate tidier to manage, and as both individuals reassess the situation thirty years on it is surely Colin who has made the most progress on life's journey and remains most at ease with himself. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/double-vision-aids-memories-of-pain-1143577.html
-
What will the money be spent on?
All money will go to engage legal services not covered by pro-bono arrangement, ad-hoc forensic work or any legal advice to do with Jeremy’s imprisonment. Additional funds will also be appropriated where necessary for purchase of merchandise to be sold in the proposed Jeremy Bamber store, in order to maintain the wider aims of the Campaign in publicising Jeremy’s wrongful conviction. The Directors and Campaign Management Team will not take any money from the fund in the form of remuneration.
The mind boggles at what you will be able to buy: a free Jeremy hat, a bumper sticker, a wristband, a cuddly toy. Do these people really understand what they are doing and how insensitive it will be for those who wish to live the remainder of their lives in peace?
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/jb-campaign-ltd-and-directors
-
He won't be playing on his i-pad; he'll be amusing himself with his Gameboy instead. https://youtu.be/zvEHP5WdFvA
-
I used to have curtains exactly like those. I don't know whatever happened to them though.
-
What will the money be spent on?
All money will go to engage legal services not covered by pro-bono arrangement, ad-hoc forensic work or any legal advice to do with Jeremy’s imprisonment. Additional funds will also be appropriated where necessary for purchase of merchandise to be sold in the proposed Jeremy Bamber store, in order to maintain the wider aims of the Campaign in publicising Jeremy’s wrongful conviction. The Directors and Campaign Management Team will not take any money from the fund in the form of remuneration.
The mind boggles at what you will be able to buy: a free Jeremy hat, a bumper sticker, a wristband, a cuddly toy. Do these people really understand what they are doing and how insensitive it will be for those who wish to live the remainder of their lives in peace?
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/jb-campaign-ltd-and-directors
I agree Steve - total bad taste!
-
What will the money be spent on?
All money will go to engage legal services not covered by pro-bono arrangement, ad-hoc forensic work or any legal advice to do with Jeremy’s imprisonment. Additional funds will also be appropriated where necessary for purchase of merchandise to be sold in the proposed Jeremy Bamber store, in order to maintain the wider aims of the Campaign in publicising Jeremy’s wrongful conviction. The Directors and Campaign Management Team will not take any money from the fund in the form of remuneration.
The mind boggles at what you will be able to buy: a free Jeremy hat, a bumper sticker, a wristband, a cuddly toy. Do these people really understand what they are doing and how insensitive it will be for those who wish to live the remainder of their lives in peace?
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/jb-campaign-ltd-and-directors
here here well said steve.
-
What will the money be spent on?
All money will go to engage legal services not covered by pro-bono arrangement, ad-hoc forensic work or any legal advice to do with Jeremy’s imprisonment. Additional funds will also be appropriated where necessary for purchase of merchandise to be sold in the proposed Jeremy Bamber store, in order to maintain the wider aims of the Campaign in publicising Jeremy’s wrongful conviction. The Directors and Campaign Management Team will not take any money from the fund in the form of remuneration.
The mind boggles at what you will be able to buy: a free Jeremy hat, a bumper sticker, a wristband, a cuddly toy. Do these people really understand what they are doing and how insensitive it will be for those who wish to live the remainder of their lives in peace?
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/jb-campaign-ltd-and-directors
Steve, how sickening :o
-
I know it's difficult for the Jeremy-is-innocent brigade because they are backing a convicted child killer, and I wouldn't wish to lump them all together. Jeremy does have the right to legal representation and review of evidence and nobody would deny him that. Let's just say I'll be watching this campaign team closely when I have the time.
-
What will the money be spent on?
All money will go to engage legal services not covered by pro-bono arrangement, ad-hoc forensic work or any legal advice to do with Jeremy’s imprisonment. Additional funds will also be appropriated where necessary for purchase of merchandise to be sold in the proposed Jeremy Bamber store, in order to maintain the wider aims of the Campaign in publicising Jeremy’s wrongful conviction. The Directors and Campaign Management Team will not take any money from the fund in the form of remuneration.
The mind boggles at what you will be able to buy: a free Jeremy hat, a bumper sticker, a wristband, a cuddly toy. Do these people really understand what they are doing and how insensitive it will be for those who wish to live the remainder of their lives in peace?
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/jb-campaign-ltd-and-directors
What's next? Join the Jeremy Bamber campaign and get a free goody bag of Jeremy merchandise?
-
What's next? Join the Jeremy Bamber campaign and get a free goody bag of Jeremy merchandise?
It's in thoroughly bad taste. I wonder what some of the directors know what they have let themselves in for..
-
It's in thoroughly bad taste. I wonder what some of the directors know what they have let themselves in for..
There is also an article on the site claiming that only Jeremy supporters maintain and clean the graves of June and Nevill ???
Now even I was 100% convinced Jeremys was innocent I would still realise that's not a good idea to post on the campaign site.
-
There is also an article on the site claiming that only Jeremy supporters maintain and clean the graves of June and Nevill ???
Now even I was 100% convinced Jeremys was innocent I would still realise that's not a good idea to post on the campaign site.
Vile.
-
Vile.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/graves-of-jeremy-s-family (http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/graves-of-jeremy-s-family)
-
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/graves-of-jeremy-s-family (http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/graves-of-jeremy-s-family)
How do they know that? Do these 'grave tenders' inform the campaign team of their good deeds? ::)
-
There is also an article on the site claiming that only Jeremy supporters maintain and clean the graves of June and Nevill ???
Now even I was 100% convinced Jeremys was innocent I would still realise that's not a good idea to post on the campaign site.
David, I have a feeling that the above "nugget" was posted on here previously as an homage to Jeremy's (local?) supporters.
-
I wouldn't have used the word " vile " concerning a grave no matter what the subject was about.
Not having read David's link,it was clearly aimed at those who'd done the most shouting. Out of sight,out of mind are my thoughts on the subject,and that applied to ALL the family including Jeremy.
-
I wouldn't have thought any of the surviving relatives of the Bamber family want ANY of Bambers supporters near the graves and will be interested that the official site is claiming supporters maintain the graves.
I am sure Colin and the remaining relatives are more than capable and active in maintaining the graves of people they are actually related to.
-
I wonder as the strains of Vivaldi's Four Seasons ring out and Spring, symbolic of life reawakening meets our ears, just what the effect is on Colin, who must find the cake baked in Jeremy's honour obnoxious, when his boys never had the chance to reach their seventh birthday. https://youtu.be/lPnbBdgUkkI
-
I'm sure Colin does not want pictures of his twin sons' mortal wounds circulating in the public domain.
-
I wouldn't want to see them for a start and sadly I've seen deceased children/babies who've died through illness and that was bad enough as nobody wants to lose a child.
-
I wouldn't want to see them for a start and sadly I've seen deceased children/babies who've died through illness and that was bad enough as nobody wants to lose a child.
I really can't see a way out of this lookout as those like-minded people who believe Jeremy innocent will surely push for everything to be put in the public domain.
-
I really can't see a way out of this lookout as those like-minded people who believe Jeremy innocent will surely push for everything to be put in the public domain.
It's a tough one Steve,I admit,but like Jeremy,I won't give up my support or optimism that the case will eventually be quashed.
Slowly but surely the much needed help is filtering through and it's all positive.
-
It would be so much easier if the blame could be laid on the shoulders of June, who, a victim of the fire and brimstone upbringing herself had communicated this philosophy to her daughter in the classic folie á deux, though Jeremy had escaped and Colin tried valiently to extricate the twins from its harm. So much neater if Jeremy were innocent, whether this in practice meant a full pardon, a verdict of not guilty following a retrial or simply that the original conviction was unsafe. Everyone would breathe a huge sigh of relief, I doubt anyone else would be punished and Jeremy could obtain a financial settlement he had fought for all along.
I assume in this scenario it is Sheila who is the guilty party (it's always a good bet to blame the dead as they cannot answer back). Sheila died but was spared a worse fate of transportation to Broadmoor and thence quietly forgotten as people picked up the shards of their shattered lives.
Of course it's Trudi who is responsible for opening up healed wounds as she converses in her new-found circle with the joys of friends and hearth, in the kitchen, at the local public house or in a wooded setting, but never once ventures outside her comfort zone: Trudi & Co. who after the small talk is complete rake over the harrowing details of this case as if they are the experts and hold the monopoly on truth. In reality it is Colin who hears the voices of his sons on the wind, vibrating in his ear, but who awakes to find the void, the delusion, which Jeremy bequeathed him.
-
It's a tough one Steve,I admit,but like Jeremy,I won't give up my support or optimism that the case will eventually be quashed.
Slowly but surely the much needed help is filtering through and it's all positive.
That's what they are saying but they aren't talking about ANY new evidence, they are repeating the old stuff - the stuff we were all talking about 4 years ago.
-
That's what they are saying but they aren't talking about ANY new evidence, they are repeating the old stuff - the stuff we were all talking about 4 years ago.
All they can do is keep the case in the public domain. There's really no thorough analysis from the likes of Trudi as to who may be guilty, as she ices her Victoria sandwich and ponders who is going to serve behind the counter at the Jeremy Bamber shop.
-
All they can do is keep the case in the public domain. There's really no thorough analysis from the likes of Trudi as to who may be guilty, as she ices her Victoria sandwich and ponders who is going to serve behind the counter at the Jeremy Bamber shop.
That made me chuckle! ;D ;D
-
A well put post Steve,though I'm sure you've noticed that Trudi is somewhat cautious in what she does say and is very diplomatic. This in my view,is because she will be holding back and it's very difficult not to let slip that which you know that is going to get Jeremy off the hook once and for all.
I'm pretty confident that all will come together at some point this year when all Hell will be let loose which will continue for weeks/months.
However,nothing to do with anything,but each video I've watched/listened to has got on my nerves. If it wasn't the sound of children running amok in the background,it was blowing a gale,then we had the damn fire crackling ( I was more interested in waiting for a spark to shoot out onto the shagpile ) and a noisy bar/restaurant with chattering,and the clanking of glasses. I can't wait for the next one-------maybe a brass-band striking up somewhere ?
I'm sure there's some way of blocking out background noise instead of having to strain,trying to hear what the speaker has to say.
Anyway,that's by the by,but the sooner that this comes to an end,then everyone can breathe easier,including Colin.
-
A well put post Steve,though I'm sure you've noticed that Trudi is somewhat cautious in what she does say and is very diplomatic. This in my view,is because she will be holding back and it's very difficult not to let slip that which you know that is going to get Jeremy off the hook once and for all.
I'm pretty confident that all will come together at some point this year when all Hell will be let loose which will continue for weeks/months.
However,nothing to do with anything,but each video I've watched/listened to has got on my nerves. If it wasn't the sound of children running amok in the background,it was blowing a gale,then we had the damn fire crackling ( I was more interested in waiting for a spark to shoot out onto the shagpile ) and a noisy bar/restaurant with chattering,and the clanking of glasses. I can't wait for the next one-------maybe a brass-band striking up somewhere ?
I'm sure there's some way of blocking out background noise instead of having to strain,trying to hear what the speaker has to say.
Anyway,that's by the by,but the sooner that this comes to an end,then everyone can breathe easier,including Colin.
My hunch is that Colin wants a quiet life, to grieve for his sons in private and for none of the White House Farm tragedy to spill over into the new life he has managed to create for himself.
-
That made me chuckle! ;D ;D
I love his posts.So droll. :)) :))
-
A well put post Steve,though I'm sure you've noticed that Trudi is somewhat cautious in what she does say and is very diplomatic. This in my view,is because she will be holding back and it's very difficult not to let slip that which you know that is going to get Jeremy off the hook once and for all.
I'm pretty confident that all will come together at some point this year when all Hell will be let loose which will continue for weeks/months.
However,nothing to do with anything,but each video I've watched/listened to has got on my nerves. If it wasn't the sound of children running amok in the background,it was blowing a gale,then we had the damn fire crackling ( I was more interested in waiting for a spark to shoot out onto the shagpile ) and a noisy bar/restaurant with chattering,and the clanking of glasses. I can't wait for the next one-------maybe a brass-band striking up somewhere ?
I'm sure there's some way of blocking out background noise instead of having to strain,trying to hear what the speaker has to say.
Anyway,that's by the by,but the sooner that this comes to an end,then everyone can breathe easier,including Colin.
If, by "this comes to an end" you mean that Jeremy's conviction is -AGAIN- deemed to be safe, I feel sure Colin will breathe a huge sigh of relief. Not for a moment do I believe that the release of the man who murdered his sons will suddenly mean he DIDN'T murder them.
-
I love his posts.So droll. :)) :))
Very subtle :)) :))
-
If, by "this comes to an end" you mean that Jeremy's conviction is -AGAIN- deemed to be safe, I feel sure Colin will breathe a huge sigh of relief. Not for a moment do I believe that the release of the man who murdered his sons will suddenly mean he DIDN'T murder them.
It's slowly but surely dawning on many that his conviction is unsafe and I'm sure that once it has been proved so,there'll be yet another outcry about the CJS as it stands. To be hoped that this proof is something that we've all missed along the way.
-
It's slowly but surely dawning on many that his conviction is unsafe and I'm sure that once it has been proved so,there'll be yet another outcry about the CJS as it stands. To be hoped that this proof is something that we've all missed along the way.
But there is nothing to prove it's unsafe and to my knowledge, it isn't possible to prove a negative, ie HOW would it be possible to prove Nevill didn't call the police?
-
But there is nothing to prove it's unsafe and to my knowledge, it isn't possible to prove a negative, ie HOW would it be possible to prove Nevill didn't call the police?
It's impossible. As long as you tell yourself a million times over you're not guilty and fail to answer any of the questions which might cause a flashback to recur you are free to live an unblemished existence, though in limbo from the confines of a prison cell.
-
But there is nothing to prove it's unsafe and to my knowledge, it isn't possible to prove a negative, ie HOW would it be possible to prove Nevill didn't call the police?
Isn't it already explained on the CT forum ? Nobody has disputed it to my knowledge.
-
Isn't it already explained on the CT forum ? Nobody has disputed it to my knowledge.
Of course it is disputed. The fact that Jeremy is in prison shows that the claim is disputed.
-
It's impossible. As long as you tell yourself a million times over you're not guilty and fail to answer any of the questions which might cause a flashback to recur you are free to live an unblemished existence, though in limbo from the confines of a prison cell.
Steve, I will bear that excellent advice in mind until such time a I may find it necessary to put it to use. Hopefully NOT from the confines of a prison cell :)
-
Isn't it already explained on the CT forum ? Nobody has disputed it to my knowledge.
It occurs to my that the CT have to put out "Jeremy friendly" information so they've probably become practised at playing semantics.
-
Of course it is disputed. The fact that Jeremy is in prison shows that the claim is disputed.
I'm talking about those officers who MUST see Vlogs and video's that Trudi has made.
-
Isn't it already explained on the CT forum ? Nobody has disputed it to my knowledge.
The CT site's version is BS and it mist certain IS disputed! Lookout, if they could prove Neville called, that would mean Jeremy is innocent - they can't prove it because it didn't happen.
-
I'm talking about those officers who MUST see Vlogs and video's that Trudi has made.
I imagine they think 'not another one' ::) - you think because Trudi makes a vlog it must be true? ;D ;D
-
I'm talking about those officers who MUST see Vlogs and video's that Trudi has made.
WHY must they, Lookout? I wouldn't know who Trudi was if I didn't belong to the forum.
-
WHY must they, Lookout? I wouldn't know who Trudi was if I didn't belong to the forum.
They have heard it all before - I imagine they just find it amusing now.
-
WHY must they, Lookout? I wouldn't know who Trudi was if I didn't belong to the forum.
Has she ever asked Jeremy any difficult questions? Has she ever conversed with anyone knowledgeable about the case..
-
Has she ever asked Jeremy any difficult questions? Has she ever conversed with anyone knowledgeable about the case..
No, I guess that's why they refuse to debate here or even the red forum. They don't want to hear negatives or promote the notion that people who once believed him innocent, now think he's guilty. That's why they keep saying that people who think he is guilty, haven't read the evidence - they ONLY promote the positives and ignore anything that refutes what they say. It's why they're a clique.
-
Has she ever asked Jeremy any difficult questions? Has she ever conversed with anyone knowledgeable about the case..
Steve, thus far, I think it's only our Caroline who has asked Jeremy anything "difficult". I have the feeling that Trudi wouldn't wish to converse with anyone who had opposing views. I don't think it would take them long to wipe the floor with her.
-
Has she ever asked Jeremy any difficult questions? Has she ever conversed with anyone knowledgeable about the case..
Possibly the legal team that are working for Jeremy. I'd imagine that she's being kept up to speed with whatever is " discovered ".
-
Possibly the legal team that are working for Jeremy. I'd imagine that she's being kept up to speed with whatever is " discovered ".
The CT have NOTHING to do with the legal team.
-
Steve, thus far, I think it's only our Caroline who has asked Jeremy anything "difficult". I have the feeling that Trudi wouldn't wish to converse with anyone who had opposing views. I don't think it would take them long to wipe the floor with her.
I think this was also mat's view, which I am coming round to. What she hasn't begun to think of is how the murders occurred were Jeremy to be innocent.
-
I think this was also mat's view, which I am coming round to. What she hasn't begun to think of is how the murders occurred were Jeremy to be innocent.
She would distance herself from it, Steve. I once recall speaking with a friend's cousin, a would be Mayor of London, until he was deselected!!!!! He was telling my how HE'D managed to prevent nuclear waste being transported though his "patch" by train. I asked where it WAS going. He simply said "Not my problem".
-
The CT have NOTHING to do with the legal team.
Who are the funds for then ?
-
Who are the funds for then ?
Ostensibly for new forensic tests.
-
Ostensibly for new forensic tests.
Exactly-----between the CT and the legal team ( which Caroline has just said that CT have nothing to do with the legal team )
-
I think this was also mat's view, which I am coming round to. What she hasn't begun to think of is how the murders occurred were Jeremy to be innocent.
I agree Steve, not just Trudi though, many who believe Jeremy innocent don't seem to know how Sheila can be guilty.
-
Who are the funds for then ?
Ask them
-
Who are the funds for then ?
They say to help spread the word.
-
They say to help spread the word.
Hallelujah!!
-
Slight issue with this, June was also suddenly awoken yet found with a terrified look on her face. There is know way Shelia would "be at peach" while Jeremy was engineering her staged suicide.
Yes they are.
The pictures I have seen of June in her death, she is very beautiful.
-
The pictures I have seen of June in her death, she is very beautiful.
The conflict of two beautiful women----------so very sad.
-
Slight issue with this, June was also suddenly awoken yet found with a terrified look on her face. There is know way Shelia would "be at peach" while Jeremy was engineering her staged suicide.
Yes they are.
Where is that documented? There are several pictures of June in the archives but none of them clear enough to show any details about her face.
-
Where is that documented? There are several pictures of June in the archives but none of them clear enough to show any details about her face.
Which is probably why. The same goes for Neville. Too horrendous for public display----immoral too might I add.
-
Which is probably why. The same goes for Neville. Too horrendous for public display----immoral too might I add.
David made a statement and has nothing to back it up and 'probably' doesn't cut it.
-
David made a statement and has nothing to back it up and 'probably' doesn't cut it.
Somewhere on this forum many moons ago,a poster asked what the reason was that Neville had been blocked out as well and if there were any more photo's depicting the adults.
If I remember rightly,NGB had answered by saying that for obvious reasons,the photo's were never going to be shown to the public-----------which is fair enough.Who'd want to see them anyway ? Unless they were mercenary in some way.
These horrendous photo's do exist,but not for our eyes thank goodness. EP'll have them.
-
Do we really want these photos out in the public domain, or would it be better for a panel to view them, made up,say of Michael Mansfield QC and Peter Tatchell, to name but two.
-
As I'd said,Steve,I wouldn't want to see them even if it was to prove a point. I don't think it matters.
-
Do we really want these photos out in the public domain, or would it be better for a panel to view them, made up,say of Michael Mansfield QC and Peter Tatchell, to name but two.
No, Steve, we don't. The general public has no right to see ghoulish pictures of deceased persons, especially when/if a case is cut and dried an/or there are family members still living.
-
It was bad enough when Jeremy knew that there were photo's of his parents and sister on the forum. Possibly part of the cause of the rift between him and Mike.
-
Do we really want these photos out in the public domain, or would it be better for a panel to view them, made up,say of Michael Mansfield QC and Peter Tatchell, to name but two.
Speaking of MM QC,he was being interviewed not so long ago about his daughter and I felt so sorry for him. I could see that it was difficult for him to speak and he tried his best to hold back.
-
Do we really want these photos out in the public domain, or would it be better for a panel to view them, made up,say of Michael Mansfield QC and Peter Tatchell, to name but two.
Personally no, BUT there are some VERY graphic pictures of Sheila - I don't see the difference because Sheila was a victim too.
-
Personally no, BUT there are some VERY graphic pictures of Sheila - I don't see the difference because Sheila was a victim too.
Yes I found that strange. I suppose the clamour from the media was too strong for the Home Secretary to withstand.
-
Colin goes about his business, crafting with his hands, supporting noble causes, as no doubt his sons would have done as they followed in his footsteps, instead of condemned to Highgate Cemetery, never to see daylight as Jeremy, Trudi& Co. and others contemplate their next move. https://twitter.com/caffellsculpts
-
Who has more rights in the ebb and flow of life's ambiguous journey, as gaping wounds are opened and Maldon salt rubbed therein as the individuals at the Criminal Cases Review Commission await this latest expedient disguised as impetus to Jeremy's release. A man who after colloquy with his latest apologist ascends the stairwell back to debilitating incarceration, where the merest flaw is seen as sign of human weakness, yet flaws they are now as they always were, concealed in an outwardly affable and respectable manner.
Will Colin hear the voices of his sons again, the incidental chatter accompanying the journey to school, their vivacity, their tenderness, their earnestness beyond their years, or are they forsaken as Divine justice for Colin's transgressions and his boys eternally snatched from him?
Is Jeremy safer in the apostasy of a religion which wrecked both mother and sister, this dullard who feels nothing and who created nothing in contrast to Colin's crafted hands, a Colin who confronts the throes of despair as the evening shadows reflect off the casement, the silhouette of White House Farm etched indelibly on his memory, piercing the thread of his consciousness, a shrine to Jeremy's destructiveness as he starts another week in their shadow, mired in their power, as perhaps both Jeremy and Colin come to realize we may live in a godless world?
-
"How comfortable we all are with Jeremy in our lives.." https://youtu.be/q0HnzXwa0mA
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/18/21/2AA807CB00000578-3166636-image-a-9_1437250227418.jpg
-
"How comfortable we all are with Jeremy in our lives.." https://youtu.be/q0HnzXwa0mA
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/18/21/2AA807CB00000578-3166636-image-a-9_1437250227418.jpg
At least the "shut up and sit down" has been removed from the frontispiece, but any amelioration for the viewer stops there. The video continues with no real insight into these ghastly crimes as Matt appears transfixed by his mother-figure dominatrix, feeling the strain as she serves the same role for Jeremy. I do hold out some hope for the brainwashed Matt however, who still seems somewhat to be finding his feet in the limelight, but Trudi to my mind remains shameless, implacable and beyond redemption.
-
At least the "shut up and sit down" has been removed from the frontispiece, but any amelioration for the viewer stops there. The video continues with no real insight into these ghastly crimes as Matt appears transfixed by his mother-figure dominatrix, feeling the strain as she serves the same role for Jeremy. I do hold out some hope for the brainwashed Matt however, who still seems somewhat to be finding his feet in the limelight, but Trudi to my mind remains shameless, implacable and beyond redemption.
Steve, there are times when you really are VERY naughty. Please excuse any typos as I'm tapping away through tears of laughter.
-
At least the "shut up and sit down" has been removed from the frontispiece, but any amelioration for the viewer stops there. The video continues with no real insight into these ghastly crimes as Matt appears transfixed by his mother-figure dominatrix, feeling the strain as she serves the same role for Jeremy. I do hold out some hope for the brainwashed Matt however, who still seems somewhat to be finding his feet in the limelight, but Trudi to my mind remains shameless, implacable and beyond redemption.
You make me laugh,Steve. :))
Matt seems to be an inoffensive type of a chap but at the same time I don't think he's anyone's fool either. Trudi's not yet sure of her bearings though she's getting more used to presenting than her first attempt. As time goes on she might just tell us a bit about the case because up to now it hasn't been very bowelgripping. I just get the feeling that she's holding back.
-
Steve, there are times when you really are VERY naughty. Please excuse any typos as I'm tapping away through tears of laughter.
You would think he'd been caught driving 35mph in a 30 mile zone. Where is their evidence and how did they draw their conclusions? By the way, are you Essex folk going to forgive John Whittingdale for his indiscretions?
-
You make me laugh,Steve. :))
Matt seems to be an inoffensive type of a chap but at the same time I don't think he's anyone's fool either. Trudi's not yet sure of her bearings though she's getting more used to presenting than her first attempt. As time goes on she might just tell us a bit about the case because up to now it hasn't been very bowelgripping. I just get the feeling that she's holding back.
Sounds like you missed her reading Bambers letter at the graveside?
-
You make me laugh,Steve. :))
Matt seems to be an inoffensive type of a chap but at the same time I don't think he's anyone's fool either. Trudi's not yet sure of her bearings though she's getting more used to presenting than her first attempt. As time goes on she might just tell us a bit about the case because up to now it hasn't been very bowelgripping. I just get the feeling that she's holding back.
Yes I get that feeling too lookout. Maybe she's afraid of dragging hubby and kids into the equation.
-
Sounds like you missed her reading Bambers letter at the graveside?
That was appalling, whatever side of the coin you're on.
-
You would think he'd been caught driving 35mph in a 30 mile zone. Where is their evidence and how did they draw their conclusions? By the way, are you Essex folk going to forgive John Whittingdale for his indiscretions?
Never did like that bloke. Where was he looking to find Slack Alice ??
-
You would think he'd been caught driving 35mph in a 30 mile zone. Where is their evidence and how did they draw their conclusions? By the way, are you Essex folk going to forgive John Whittingdale for his indiscretions?
Actually Steve, I can fully understand why the lady in question resorted to the comparative privacy of a dating site. She could hardly use her client base to select a permanent partner. I'm inclined to be far LESS forgiving of a certain Essex "peer" who was imprisoned as part of the false claims saga.
-
That was appalling, whatever side of the coin you're on.
I don't believe for one minute Bamber wasn't behind that! Only a couple of weeks before SH confessed, he had hand written a letter for the surviving relatives of his victim. It was to be published upon the overturning of his conviction. I believed the letter at the time. :-\
-
That was appalling, whatever side of the coin you're on.
I would have imagined that Trudi got permission from JB first. You don't just go to people's gravesides and start spouting about them to the w.w.w for no reason.
Although I personally admit it was a wrong move because nobody is interested in sob-stories coming from prisoners. They've heard it all before and tend to take no notice. That's my view anyway.
-
I would have imagined that Trudi got permission from JB first. You don't just go to people's gravesides and start spouting about them to the w.w.w for no reason.
Although I personally admit it was a wrong move because nobody is interested in sob-stories coming from prisoners. They've heard it all before and tend to take no notice. That's my view anyway.
Yet you listen to Bambers when he writes to you?
-
Yet you listen to Bambers when he writes to you?
How do you know ? I don't listen to anyone-----------------never have.
-
Do you think Trudi has her own agenda, is genuine, misguided or wishes to incite controversy?
-
I think Trudi means well but she isn't giving any information out,such as we see in Scott Lomax's book for instance. She's not explaining anything about the case itself.
-
Do you think Trudi has her own agenda, is genuine, misguided or wishes to incite controversy?
I'd say she was misguided and quite possibly has an agenda of some sort..
I think Trudi means well but she isn't giving any information out,such as we see in Scott Lomax's book for instance. She's not explaining anything about the case itself.
She is giving information out about the case but it's biased. She doesn't appear to have a full understanding of the case from both sides. She believe Bamber is innocent so that's that. Her bias doesn't allow her to look at the alternative. Plus she's met with Bamber and has regular contact with him and appears to have been taken in by him.
-
It's not the age for " being taken in by anyone " given that news is reported on a daily basis about being conned by some low-life. People are far more alerted to this practice than ever before because of warnings given out about every commodity and of people themselves who pose as beggars and who are not.
Trudi is no fool and good for her for going to see him because it's not until you meet and talk face to face that you get the overall feeling whether you're being taken for a ride or not.
I'm more than aware that some people can be convincing and it's up to your " expertise " to get a" feeling "about that person.
It's the same " feeling " that you get when you take an instant dislike to someone when signals in your brain tell you that all is not as it seems. It's a sense that doesn't readily develop if you've not had experience of a broad spectrum of the public. Children are vulnerable in this respect at not having developed these senses.Animals are more advanced when it comes to sensing.
-
The only ones with an agenda are those who say he's guilty. Busy beavering in the background to try and block the idea of another appeal. Will they succeed against the law like RWB did ? We'll see.
-
It's not the age for " being taken in by anyone " given that news is reported on a daily basis about being conned by some low-life. People are far more alerted to this practice than ever before because of warnings given out about every commodity and of people themselves who pose as beggars and who are not.
Trudi is no fool and good for her for going to see him because it's not until you meet and talk face to face that you get the overall feeling whether you're being taken for a ride or not.
I'm more than aware that some people can be convincing and it's up to your " expertise " to get a" feeling "about that person.
It's the same " feeling " that you get when you take an instant dislike to someone when signals in your brain tell you that all is not as it seems. It's a sense that doesn't readily develop if you've not had experience of a broad spectrum of the public. Children are vulnerable in this respect at not having developed these senses.Animals are more advanced when it comes to sensing.
What is the age then? Age doesn't come into it.
What makes you think yours feelings are superior to others therefore you won't be conned by anyone?
And being a fool doesn't come into it either. It's far more complex than that and probably why you don't understand. Psychopaths blend in. They don't have signs on their foreheads. They can be charming and extremely clued up. Their skills of manipulation are like no other.
-
What is the age then? Age doesn't come into it.
What makes you think yours feelings are superior to others therefore you won't be conned by anyone?
And being a fool doesn't come into it either. It's far more complex than that and probably why you don't understand. Psychopaths blend in. They don't have signs on their foreheads. They can be charming and extremely clued up. Their skills of manipulation are like no other.
Age=era. 21st century.
-
It's not the age for " being taken in by anyone " given that news is reported on a daily basis about being conned by some low-life. People are far more alerted to this practice than ever before because of warnings given out about every commodity and of people themselves who pose as beggars and who are not.
Trudi is no fool and good for her for going to see him because it's not until you meet and talk face to face that you get the overall feeling whether you're being taken for a ride or not.
I'm more than aware that some people can be convincing and it's up to your " expertise " to get a" feeling "about that person.
It's the same " feeling " that you get when you take an instant dislike to someone when signals in your brain tell you that all is not as it seems. It's a sense that doesn't readily develop if you've not had experience of a broad spectrum of the public. Children are vulnerable in this respect at not having developed these senses.Animals are more advanced when it comes to sensing.
What is the age then? Age doesn't come into it.
What makes you think yours feelings are superior to others therefore you won't be conned by anyone?
And being a fool doesn't come into it either. It's far more complex than that and probably why you don't understand. Psychopaths blend in. They don't have signs on their foreheads. They can be charming and extremely clued up. Their skills of manipulation are like no other.
Age=era. 21st century.
So in the 21st century according to you, no one get taken in by people anymore because "given that news is reported on a daily basis about being conned by some low-life. People are far more alerted to this practice than ever before because of warnings given out about every commodity and of people themselves who pose as beggars and who are not.
Totally disagree with you lookout. Con artists do not present as 'low lifes' nor are people aware of the signs to look out for when being conned, as research shows - Psychopathy is not widely known about or indeed understood...
Further;
The below is taken from the OS.
"Make a one off payment to us by bank transfer or set up a monthly standing order. You can donate any amount you like, every penny counts towards helping Jeremy to freedom so remember you can make a difference!
Therefore your statement, "People are far more alerted to this practice than ever before because of warnings given out about every commodity and of people themselves who pose as beggars and who are not - holds no weight.
-
Your above does not apply to the OS.
I'd like to think that if it were a member of my family who had been wrongly accused,that such a fund would be set-up in order to pay for the investigative services of forensic experts etc. No legal aid.
The con in this respect are the extortionate charges made for these services. Can you answer why such services cost so much ?
-
Why not have a look at the breakdown of costs on the OS. They'll be lucky to see change from £10,000 for what their intentions are.
-
Your above does not apply to the OS.
I'd like to think that if it were a member of my family who had been wrongly accused,that such a fund would be set-up in order to pay for the investigative services of forensic experts etc. No legal aid.
The con in this respect are the extortionate charges made for these services. Can you answer why such services cost so much ?
This is your confirmation bias and one of the main reasons you won't accept reasonable argument from people who oppose your views. You have showed you are unable to be objective, instead preferring to dispute anything put in front of you with your personal experiences and because you think you know better.
-
Why not have a look at the breakdown of costs on the OS. They'll be lucky to see change from £10,000 for what their intentions are.
I agree with you - I've seen the breakdown of the costs Lookout and I've seen how they are covering their own costs firsts.
-
I agree with you - I've seen the breakdown of the costs Lookout and I've seen how they are covering their own costs firsts.
Do you know anyone who works for nothing ? Would you ?
-
What's your thoughts on the costs Gemini?
Do you think Jeremy is grateful to all the people who donate
-
What's your thoughts on the costs Gemini?
Do you think Jeremy is grateful to all the people who donate
Hello Jackie, I don't expect you to know how the current appeal is going, but in the past, do these sort of appeals for money raise substantial amounts?
-
Hello Jackie, I don't expect you to know how the current appeal is going, but in the past, do these sort of appeals for money raise substantial amounts?
I think there has been substantial amounts of money raised in the past from generous people who believe Jeremy is innocent
I believe strongly the CT should stand down because they appear to cause setbacks on a regular basis
They continually ignore advice given to them by legal experts
-
The only ones with an agenda are those who say he's guilty. Busy beavering in the background to try and block the idea of another appeal. Will they succeed against the law like RWB did ? We'll see.
I don't think anyone wants to block Jeremy's access to the legal process.
-
The only ones with an agenda are those who say he's guilty. Busy beavering in the background to try and block the idea of another appeal. Will they succeed against the law like RWB did ? We'll see.
That's because the evidence taken at its highest dictates that he is guilty. Not one single person including Jeremy Bamber himself have in the last 31 years provided a single piece of evidence which can cast doubt on that verdict.
-
That's because the evidence taken at its highest dictates that he is guilty. Not one single person including Jeremy Bamber himself have in the last 31 years provided a single piece of evidence which can cast doubt on that verdict.
John,how can anyone produce evidence of their innocence when they were in bed and nobody believes a word they say,except for those WITH an agenda,because everyone else appeared to have done well considering there was little or no investigation done in spite of their protestations of JB's guilt.
-
I think there has been substantial amounts of money raised in the past from generous people who believe Jeremy is innocent
I believe strongly the CT should stand down because they appear to cause setbacks on a regular basis
They continually ignore advice given to them by legal experts
The setback team! ;D
-
The setback team! ;D
Do I detect double standards?
-
John,how can anyone produce evidence of their innocence when they were in bed and nobody believes a word they say,except for those WITH an agenda,because everyone else appeared to have done well considering there was little or no investigation done in spite of their protestations of JB's guilt.
But didn't Jerry tell Julie he hadn't been to bed? Not the sort of thing one makes up eh?
-
Do I detect double standards?
I really don't know what you are detecting
-
But didn't Jerry tell Julie he hadn't been to bed? Not the sort of thing one makes up eh?
You have to dismiss Julie's statement lock, stock and barrel if you're in the innocent camp, whether you are Lady Diana, Waterlow, Flo Krause or Sir Simeon 2003 (apologies to the latter but I don't know his stance, the former two ladies having been taken in by Jeremy's Potemkin charm.) http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/patrons-and-supporters
-
But didn't Jerry tell Julie he hadn't been to bed? Not the sort of thing one makes up eh?
Sez Julie. Heard it all before. She had a lot to say until it came to JB's defence :o ???
It's an age-old acting trick to turn on the tears when being cross-questioned.
It usually indicates that they're losing the plot--------------lying in other words.
-
You have to dismiss Julie's statement lock, stock and barrel if you're in the innocent camp, whether you are Lady Diana, Waterlow, Flo Krause or Sir Simeon 2003 (apologies to the latter but I don't know his stance, the former two ladies having been taken in by Jeremy's Potemkin charm.) http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/patrons-and-supporters
I wouldn't have said that either ladies were taken in given the numbers of years " under their belts ".
I'd hardly have said or called JB charming,either.
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I really must throw this laptop in the bin ::) It's getting on my nerves.
-
I wouldn't have said that either ladies were taken in given the numbers of years " under their belts ".
I'd hardly have said or called JB charming,either.
But where are the specifics as opposed to the generalities and have they read the books and statements or is this just another case to them as per the cab rank rule?
-
John,how can anyone produce evidence of their innocence when they were in bed and nobody believes a word they say,except for those WITH an agenda,because everyone else appeared to have done well considering there was little or no investigation done in spite of their protestations of JB's guilt.
That's right, Jeremy was at home sleeping. Sheila went crazy and Neville phoned Jeremy.
-
You have to dismiss Julie's statement lock, stock and barrel if you're in the innocent camp.
You have to dismiss Julie's statement if you have a shade of sense.
Jeremy's "detailed confession" to her does not corroborate with the facts of the crime
In 2001 Julie told the Sunday Mirror "I still believe he is guilty" But hang on there Julie, if the man confessed to you shouldent you KNOW he is guilty? ::)
-
You have to dismiss Julie's statement if you have a shade of sense.
Jeremy's "detailed confession" to her does not corroborate with the facts of the crime
In 2001 Julie told the Sunday Mirror "I still believe he is guilty" But hang on there Julie, if the man confessed to you shouldent you KNOW he is guilty? ::)
I believe her phraseology was correct. Saying "I KNOW he's guilty" to me, would have suggested she actually DIDN'T know and was seeking the validation of others.
-
You have to dismiss Julie's statement if you have a shade of sense.
Jeremy's "detailed confession" to her does not corroborate with the facts of the crime
In 2001 Julie told the Sunday Mirror "I still believe he is guilty" But hang on there Julie, if the man confessed to you shouldent you KNOW he is guilty? ::)
Are you suggesting people who know Bamber to be guilty do not have a shade of sense and that people like you, who dismiss her statement, are superior?
For reasons only known to you, you appear to be ignoring the following;
"Psychopaths generate as many pretend sob stories as needed in order to draw others into their hidden games, again and again and again. The ability they have to lie pathologically, easily, and confidently makes it possible for them to convince others that such an implausible number of tragedies is plausible, which unfortunately opens the door to a variety of manipulation and exploitation opportunities.
I agree with Jane. She may well have needed validation from others. 2001 was 15 years ago - a lot can change in that time. Or maybe in 2001 she hadn't yet come to understand psychopathy?
As usual your argument is poor. You are clasping at straws and seem intent on dismissing JM's evidence; therefore your confirmation bias is blinding you to the factual evidence in this case.
-
In 2001 Julie told the Sunday Mirror "I still believe he is guilty" But hang on there Julie, if the man confessed to you shouldent you KNOW he is guilty? ::)
In 2001 she could still have been holding two conflicting views regarding Bamber.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
It's not unusual in cases like this.
-
I was reading Julie's statements again last night and in one she mixed up the time when she was on teaching practice, which I doubt many teachers would have done. It tells me she was under stress at the time she volunteered her statement and wasn't as organized an individual as I thought, even though now she has reached the top of her profession(and all credit to her for that achievement). As for Stephanie's dissonance link, maybe Julie was looking beyond the murders to a future together with Jeremy, or was just hoping that somehow there would be no ill effects of staying with him, just as a smoker blocks the thought of cancer out of his mind.
-
I was reading Julie's statements again last night and in one she mixed up the time when she was on teaching practice, which I doubt many teachers would have done. It tells me she was under stress at the time she volunteered her statement and wasn't as organized an individual as I thought, even though now she has reached the top of her profession(and all credit to her for that achievement). As for Stephanie's dissonance link, maybe Julie was looking beyond the murders to a future together with Jeremy, or was just hoping that somehow there would be no ill effects of staying with him, just as a smoker blocks the thought of cancer out of his mind.
I doubt in 2001 she would have been considering a future with Bamber Steve. Cognitive dissonance can affect people differently and can last years. I guess you could liken it to a form of denial. Maybe JM was still trying to understand how the Bamber she thought she knew could annihilate his family like he did?
Maybe her first sentence was 'I still believe he did it' and her second sentence was 'I know he did it.' But the paper decided to run with the first quote? Who knows ;D
-
I doubt in 2001 she would have been considering a future with Bamber Steve. Cognitive dissonance can affect people differently and can last years. I guess you could liken it to a form of denial. Maybe JM was still trying to understand how the Bamber she thought she knew could annihilate his family like he did?
Maybe her first sentence was 'I still believe he did it' and her second sentence was 'I know he did it.' But the paper decided to run with the first quote? Who knows ;D
Well I'm not talking about 2001 Stephanie but attempting to understand Julie's thought processes from Summer 1984, which many in the Jeremy-is-guilty camp still regard as unforgivable.
-
You have to dismiss Julie's statement if you have a shade of sense.
You see David the above statement could also be seen as a form of tactical covert manipulation.
What you are suggesting is unless we don't agree with you, we have no sense. But those that agree with you have sense... But in reality neither are true. Because people hold opposing views doesn't make either person less sensible. There are many psychological factors at play..
-
Well I'm not talking about 2001 Stephanie but attempting to understand Julie's thought processes from Summer 1984, which many in the Jeremy-is-guilty camp still regard as unforgivable.
I doubt in 2001 she would have been considering a future with Bamber Steve. Cognitive dissonance can affect people differently and can last years. I guess you could liken it to a form of denial. Maybe JM was still trying to understand how the Bamber she thought she knew could annihilate his family like he did?
Maybe her first sentence was 'I still believe he did it' and her second sentence was 'I know he did it.' But the paper decided to run with the first quote? Who knows ;D
Steph/Steve. I think by 2001, she may have been wondering -like many of us who have cause to look back at certain aspects of our pasts, wishing we hadn't been there- HOW she'd had any part of it. WHY she had/hadn't done certain things. All of course, with the luxury of hindsight and maturity.
In 1985, whilst it was established that "she'd been very much in love with him and had hoped to marry him" it MAY also have been that she felt that if they HAD married, she'd have been saved from all that subsequently happened. Maybe, as a 21 year old, she fantasized that marriage would somehow "unhappen" what had occurred. It can't have been a time of unalloyed joy for her, but I don't believe she would have experienced what relief it would be to have it over UNTIL she'd experienced it.
-
For reasons only known to you, you appear to be ignoring the following;
"Psychopaths generate as many pretend sob stories as needed in order to draw others into their hidden games, again and again and again. The ability they have to lie pathologically, easily, and confidently makes it possible for them to convince others that such an implausible number of tragedies is plausible, which unfortunately opens the door to a variety of manipulation and exploitation opportunities.
There is no documentary proof that Jeremy has been diagnosed with any mental illness and there is evidence to the contrary. A diagnoses of psychopathy alone or any mental illness for that matter does not establish ones guilt.
As usual your argument is poor. You are clasping at straws and seem intent on dismissing JM's evidence; therefore your confirmation bias is blinding you to the factual evidence in this case.
I put forward the argument here complete with all the evidence needed.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html)
-
There is no documentary proof that Jeremy has been diagnosed with any mental illness and there is evidence to the contrary. A diagnoses of psychopathy alone or any mental illness for that matter does not establish ones guilt.
I put forward the argument here complete with all the evidence needed.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html)
That may be the case David but there was no documentary proof that SH had been diagnosed with a mental health condition or a PD. Therefore again this argument is moot.
What evidence is there to the contrary I've seen none. Please explain..
The arguments I've seen you put forward are weak and you do not back up your arguments with evidence. What you do however attempt to do, is undermine peoples reasoning with comments of a personal nature or play on the vulnerabilities of others in the hope they will support you.
-
There is no documentary proof that Jeremy has been diagnosed with any mental illness and there is evidence to the contrary. A diagnoses of psychopathy alone or any mental illness for that matter does not establish ones guilt.
I put forward the argument here complete with all the evidence needed.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html)
You only need watch the vlog about Terry Mullins and read the thread on this forum to see there is evidence to show Terry Mullins contradicts himself.. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7494.0.html
Where is your argument and where is your evidence?
-
Steph/Steve. I think by 2001, she may have been wondering -like many of us who have cause to look back at certain aspects of our pasts, wishing we hadn't been there- HOW she'd had any part of it. WHY she had/hadn't done certain things. All of course, with the luxury of hindsight and maturity.
In 1985, whilst it was established that "she'd been very much in love with him and had hoped to marry him" it MAY also have been that she felt that if they HAD married, she'd have been saved from all that subsequently happened. Maybe, as a 21 year old, she fantasized that marriage would somehow "unhappen" what had occurred. It can't have been a time of unalloyed joy for her, but I don't believe she would have experienced what relief it would be to have it over UNTIL she'd experienced it.
And/or the fact Bamber continues to publicly maintain his innocence and has the support of the people he has, could make it difficult for her...?
-
I put forward the argument here complete with all the evidence needed.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html)
This isn't an argument David - this is your bias! If that is all the evidence you think is needed to support your claim them you've got a lot more to learn about this case!
The hit man story doesn't prove Julie was lying at all - one of them was but it could just as easily have been Jeremy. Why? Because it is so different from what actually happened that you might assume she would be discredited by telling it. No? Well, you're using it for that very reason now!
AE was told by a police officer about how June and Sheila were found, she no doubt told RWB. They both mention that the bible was on Sheila's chest which as we know, it wasn't when she was discovered. However, perhaps it was when Jeremy left her and it slid off.
Not sure what point you're trying to make by 'the method of travel' as was pointed out to you on the red forum, he had to get there somehow and the bicycle was found in his garden - this supports what Julie said rather than contradicts. The family also saw the bike! He also had to get in the house and the windows are the obvious choice.
The wetsuit was no doubt mentioned to Julie when questioned by Jones "Did Jeremy ever mention anything about a wetsuit" so, Julie notes it down.
The £2000.00 ic clearly a coincidence given that Jeremy went to New Zealand years before the murders.
Lets see;
He had to get there and his mothers bike was in his garden.
He had to get in, doors were locked and bolted from the inside - had to be a window.
Boutflour came up with the notion of the wetsuit, Julie was interviewed at length and Jones may have asked her about it - she noted it down.
Fingerprints on the bullets, finger prints on the rifle - two DIFFERENT things.
£2000.00 years apart? Hardly relevant.
-
He's no more a psychopath than anyone here.
-
And/or the fact Bamber continues to publicly maintain his innocence and has the support of the people he has, could make it difficult for her...?
ALL of that and probably more, Steph. I'm fully aware that there are some here who can only recognize things in terms of "black or white". I don't experience life as being that way. Most -ALL- of what we do is about a host of different reasons but we probably give the one we feel to be most appropriate by way of explanation.
-
He's no more a psychopath than anyone here.
I don't know what makes you confident that there isn't a psychopath here.
-
I don't know what makes you confident that there isn't a psychopath here.
You seem quite confident that there is ?
-
You seem quite confident that there is ?
No. I just don't see any reason why there shouldn't be. There's nothing to say "Psychopaths not allowed".
-
You seem quite confident that there is ?
I don't know whether it's a red herring or not lookout. It doesn't seem to tally with the young Jeremy who craved hugs and affection. There's a quote from Dr. Robert Hare here:
Three decades of these studies, by Hare and others, has confirmed that psychopaths' brains work differently from ours, especially when processing emotion and language. Hare once illustrated this for Nicole Kidman, who had invited him to Hollywood to help her prepare for a role as a psychopath in Malice. How, she wondered, could she show the audience there was something fundamentally wrong with her character?
"I said, 'Here's a scene that you can use,' " Hare says. " 'You're walking down a street and there's an accident. A car has hit a child in the crosswalk. A crowd of people gather round. You walk up, the child's lying on the ground and there's blood running all over the place. You get a little blood on your shoes and you look down and say, "Oh shit." You look over at the child, kind of interested, but you're not repelled or horrified. You're just interested. Then you look at the mother, and you're really fascinated by the mother, who's emoting, crying out, doing all these different things. After a few minutes you turn away and go back to your house. You go into the bathroom and practice mimicking the facial expressions of the mother.' " He then pauses and says, "That's the psychopath: somebody who doesn't understand what's going on emotionally, but understands that something important has happened."
-
No. I just don't see any reason why there shouldn't be. There's nothing to say "Psychopaths not allowed".
Speak for yourself.
-
I don't know whether it's a red herring or not lookout. It doesn't seem to tally with the young Jeremy who craved hugs and affection. There's a quote from Dr. Robert Hare here:
Three decades of these studies, by Hare and others, has confirmed that psychopaths' brains work differently from ours, especially when processing emotion and language. Hare once illustrated this for Nicole Kidman, who had invited him to Hollywood to help her prepare for a role as a psychopath in Malice. How, she wondered, could she show the audience there was something fundamentally wrong with her character?
"I said, 'Here's a scene that you can use,' " Hare says. " 'You're walking down a street and there's an accident. A car has hit a child in the crosswalk. A crowd of people gather round. You walk up, the child's lying on the ground and there's blood running all over the place. You get a little blood on your shoes and you look down and say, "Oh shit." You look over at the child, kind of interested, but you're not repelled or horrified. You're just interested. Then you look at the mother, and you're really fascinated by the mother, who's emoting, crying out, doing all these different things. After a few minutes you turn away and go back to your house. You go into the bathroom and practice mimicking the facial expressions of the mother.' " He then pauses and says, "That's the psychopath: somebody who doesn't understand what's going on emotionally, but understands that something important has happened."
Bit like Bambers acting attempts at the funeral..
-
Speak for yourself.
If you're trying to say that you see no reason for a psychopath to be a member of this forum, perhaps you could explain why.
-
Bit like Bambers acting attempts at the funeral..
..and his reactions outside the farmhouse, knowing all were dead within.
-
Or JM's acting when being questioned by the defence.
-
..and his reactions outside the farmhouse, knowing all were dead within.
... his blogs, his interview with Eric Allison, his letters to various supporters, the way he manipulates his supporters and gaslights all those people around him.. the manner to which he targets his next victim.. The way he feeds off the media attention be it good or bad.. His blatant avoidance of talking about the massacre, the way he turns on those who have helped him.. Etc etc
-
This isn't an argument David - this is your bias! If that is all the evidence you think is needed to support your claim them you've got a lot more to learn about this case!
Please enlighten me ::)
-
Please enlighten me ::)
You've already been enlightened David but you appear to be ignoring the facts that contradict your argument, preferring to use sarcasm or personal slights to anyone who opposes you.
-
Biased ? Don't make me laugh !! Aren't the guilters biased towards his guilt ? Give me strength.
-
Or JM's acting when being questioned by the defence.
We know too little of Julie's background to give a definitive answer, but it's not impossible that, although she knew/understood/intellectualized that what he'd done was wrong, she wasn't able to feel it. It also isn't impossible that since then she's had therapy/counselling.
-
There is no documentary proof that Jeremy has been diagnosed with any mental illness and there is evidence to the contrary. A diagnoses of psychopathy alone or any mental illness for that matter does not establish ones guilt.
I put forward the argument here complete with all the evidence needed.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html)
David why did Jeremy telephone Julie at all and why did he make a beeline for her that first morning at Bourtree Cottage?
-
You've already been enlightened David but you appear to be ignoring the facts that contradict your argument, preferring to use sarcasm or personal slights to anyone who opposes you.
No its not that. I use sarcasm or personal slights because I get fed up of going round in circles with people.
If you read all of Julies September statements then compare it to the facts of the crime, then compare it to RWBs diary and AEs notes you will understand why Jeremy could not have confessed any information to her.
However this does not mean Jeremy is innocent, One can still accept Julie's testimony is false and still accuse Jeremy of being guilty.
-
No its not that. I use sarcasm or personal slights because I get fed up of going round in circles with people.
If you read all of Julies September statements then compare it to the facts of the crime, then compare it to RWBs diary and AEs notes you will understand why Jeremy could not have confessed any information to her.
However this does not mean Jeremy is innocent, One can still accept Julie's testimony is false and still accuse Jeremy of being guilty.
At least you are admitting to your behaviours.
I've read them and compared them and I stick by what myself and others have posted!
You'll have to explain in more detail your last statement, as it makes no sense to me whatsoever... Unless that was your point?
-
No its not that. I use sarcasm or personal slights because I get fed up of going round in circles with people.
If you read all of Julies September statements then compare it to the facts of the crime, then compare it to RWBs diary and AEs notes you will understand why Jeremy could not have confessed any information to her.
However this does not mean Jeremy is innocent, One can still accept Julie's testimony is false and still accuse Jeremy of being guilty.
But the relatives did not live up close with him for a period of nearly two years. Of course Nevill and June felt the detestation but were distracted with worries over Sheila.
-
At least you are admitting to your behaviours.
Iv never denied being sarcastic or criticizing people. most of the time I mean no harm and it depends on the persons sense of humour if they become amused or offended.
I've read them and compared them and I stick by what myself and others have posted!
So you believe Jeremy confessed to Julie information that does not match the facts of the crime and it contains information only the police or the relatives had?
You'll have to explain in more detail your last statement, as it makes no sense to me whatsoever... Unless that was your point?
Julies testimony being false does not exonerate Jeremy
-
David why did Jeremy telephone Julie at all and why did he make a beeline for her that first morning at Bourtree Cottage?
Steve,Jeremy appeared to me to have been a hapless person in any situation let alone one in which his father had phoned about,so he obviously rang the person who was closest to him at the time,and who he'd thought would advise. He was wrong though wasn't he ?
-
Iv never denied being sarcastic or criticizing people. most of the time I mean no harm and it depends on the persons sense of humour if they become amused or offended.
So you believe Jeremy confessed to Julie information that does not match the facts of the crime and it contains information only the police or the relatives had?
Julies testimony being false does not exonerate Jeremy
If Julie's testimony is false, but she only repeated what Jeremy had told her, she can hardly be held responsible for giving false testimony. I think it doubtful that Jeremy told her the whole truth. I think he may have hoped that what he did tell her, wouldn't be believed if she told anyone.
-
But the relatives did not live up close with him for a period of nearly two years. Of course Nevill and June felt the detestation but were distracted with worries over Sheila.
It's not difficult to work out.
The police by their own lack of communication gave Ann Eaton and Rober Boultflour false information about the crime. This exact same false information Julie claims Jeremy told her in his "detailed confession" Now had Jeremy actually confessed like she claims the information would match the crime scene as he is the supposed killer, but instead she gives the same false information the police told the relatives. Thus Jeremy did not and could not have told her anything it could only have come from the relatives or the police.
Do you get what I am saying?
-
Steve,Jeremy appeared to me to have been a hapless person in any situation let alone one in which his father had phoned about,so he obviously rang the person who was closest to him at the time,and who he'd thought would advise. He was wrong though wasn't he ?
Bamber wasn't unlucky, he phoned JM in order to somehow implicate her in order to attempt of protect himself. He probably wanted to gloat.
-
It's not difficult to work out.
The police by their own lack of communication gave Ann Eaton and Rober Boultflour false information about the crime. This exact same false information Julie claims Jeremy told her in his "detailed confession" Now had Jeremy actually confessed like she claims the information would match the crime scene as he is the supposed killer, but instead she gives the same false information the police told the relatives. Thus Jeremy did not and could not have told her anything it could only have come from the relatives or the police.
Do you get what I am saying?
You are wrong David. This has already been pointed out to you but for some reason you are choosing to ignore this fact?
-
Bamber wasn't unlucky, he phoned JM in order to somehow implicate her in order to attempt of protect himself. He probably wanted to gloat.
This is the thinking of one who finds him guilty. It doesn't answer any questions,only your own justifications.
-
You are wrong David. This has already been pointed out to you but for some reason you are choosing to ignore this fact?
No I am not. The statements speak for themselves. To say Jeremy somehow gave Julie the same false information the police gave the relatives and the same information written in RWBs diary weeks before hand defies logic! the odds of Julie being truthful by Jeremy somehow matching all those variables deliberately are astronomically thin.
-
Steve,Jeremy appeared to me to have been a hapless person in any situation let alone one in which his father had phoned about,so he obviously rang the person who was closest to him at the time,and who he'd thought would advise. He was wrong though wasn't he ?
Surely, calling 999 was the place to go for advice.
-
It's not difficult to work out.
The police by their own lack of communication gave Ann Eaton and Rober Boultflour false information about the crime. This exact same false information Julie claims Jeremy told her in his "detailed confession" Now had Jeremy actually confessed like she claims the information would match the crime scene as he is the supposed killer, but instead she gives the same false information the police told the relatives. Thus Jeremy did not and could not have told her anything it could only have come from the relatives or the police.
Do you get what I am saying?
No not really. You're selecting a few pieces of information from a detailed statement of twenty pages, which represents the flow of Julie's association with Jeremy for almost two years. The Raid Team could have found Sheila on the bed and moved her to the floor to perform CPR, which would explain some of Mike's thesis, or Julie could simply have been mistaken in the maelstrom of those few days. The purpose of Jeremy's confession anyway was to exculpate himself from any reprobation from Julie's part and not to incriminate himself when he was set on a new life away from the Farm.
-
"The term projection stems from psychodynamic psychology and refers to one of the automatic mental behaviors conceptualized by traditional theorists as ego defense mechanisms. The rationale behind that notion is that sometimes individuals unconsciously “project” onto others motivations, intentions, or actions that they actually harbor themselves but which they would feel far too unnerved or guilty about to acknowledge as their own.http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/02/27/blame-game/
I see David's ego defence mechanism at play.
-
"The term projection stems from psychodynamic psychology and refers to one of the automatic mental behaviors conceptualized by traditional theorists as ego defense mechanisms. The rationale behind that notion is that sometimes individuals unconsciously “project” onto others motivations, intentions, or actions that they actually harbor themselves but which they would feel far too unnerved or guilty about to acknowledge as their own.http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/02/27/blame-game/
I see David's ego defence mechanism at play.
You see all kinds of things that aren't happening in reality ;D
-
No not really. You're selecting a few pieces of information from a detailed statement of twenty pages, which represents the flow of Julie's association with Jeremy for almost two years. The Raid Team could have found Sheila on the bed and moved her to the floor to perform CPR, which would explain some of Mike's thesis, or Julie could simply have been mistaken in the maelstrom of those few days. The purpose of Jeremy's confession anyway was to exculpate himself from any reprobation from Julie's part and not to incriminate himself when he was set on a new life away from the Farm.
Don't even go there Steve. Sheila was never on the bed hence Sheila's blood was on the floor not on the bed. And why perform CPR on someone completely dead? I know Essex police made clowns of themselves but they are not that daft.
-
Disadvantages of Julie lying to the police if Bamber was innocent:
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
-
You see all kinds of things that aren't happening in reality ;D
Others are in a better position to judge of what they see in us, than are we. Whatever words we say, our actions m ay tell an entirely different story.
-
You see all kinds of things that aren't happening in reality ;D
You see when you revert to tactics like this David you only serve to make your arguments weaker. It's not my reality that's in question is it - it's yours!
-
The reason for Julie putting herself in an impossible situation ( Bamber apparently jilted her) is barely a reason at all.
She didn't lie. It's as simple as that.
David has come up with a theory that no one else has come up with, that Julie, RB and the police all worked together. No one is going along with it.
-
Don't even go there Steve. Sheila was never on the bed hence Sheila's blood was on the floor not on the bed. And why perform CPR on someone completely dead? I know Essex police made clowns of themselves but they are not that daft.
Where on the floor was Sheila's blood ? It was only June's which was found on the floor/Bible/sewing room.
-
Don't even go there Steve. Sheila was never on the bed hence Sheila's blood was on the floor not on the bed. And why perform CPR on someone completely dead? I know Essex police made clowns of themselves but they are not that daft.
I know what you're saying, but Jeremy could just have easily repeated the tale which was circulating on that first morning at Goldhanger, content with any version which did not incriminate himself.
-
You see when you revert to tactics like this David you only serve to make your arguments weaker. It's not my reality that's in question is it - it's yours!
Hardly, Your armchair psychoanalysis is rather illogical and baseless
-
Hardly, Your armchair psychoanalysis is rather illogical and baseless
You are projecting again David!
My research and experiences can hardly be described as arm chair based.
By all means attempt to suggest my posts are illogical and baseless but at least give examples of this and support your argument with evidence... ::)
-
I know what you're saying, but Jeremy could just have easily repeated the tale which was circulating on that first morning at Goldhanger, content with any version which did not incriminate himself.
Your saying "Jeremy could have" which puts you in realm of speculation, At least you realise JMs statement cannot be accepted with certainty.
Its not just the crime scene that does not add up. There is a whole range of things, for example Robert boutflour's theory about the fingerprints is also what Julie said he had confessed to her.
-
Your saying "Jeremy could have" which puts you in realm of speculation, At least you realise JMs statement cannot be accepted with certainty.
Its not just the crime scene that does not add up. There is a whole range of things, for example Robert boutflour's theory about the fingerprints is also what Julie said he had confessed to her.
No David, it is you who suggests JM's statement cannot be accepted with certainty - I say it can!
Steve has already answered you regarding RB but again you are choosing to dismiss it.
You need to look at the evidence combined as opposed to cherry picking..
-
Your saying "Jeremy could have" which puts you in realm of speculation, At least you realise JMs statement cannot be accepted with certainty.
"Deception constitutes a very entertaining game for psychopaths. They use one victim to lie to another. They use both victims to lie to a third. They spin their web of mind-control upon all those around them. They encourage antagonisms or place distance among the people they deceive, so that they won’t compare notes and discover the lies. Often they blend in aspects of the truth with the lies, to focus on that small grain of truth if they’re caught. The bottom line remains that psychopaths are malicious sophists. It really doesn’t matter how often they lie or how often they tell the truth. Psychopaths use both truth and lies instrumentally, to persuade others to accept their false and self-serving version of reality and to get them under their control.
-
You are projecting again David!
My research and experiences can hardly be described as arm chair based.
By all means attempt to suggest my posts are illogical and baseless but at least give examples of this and support your argument with evidence... ::)
psychoanalysis (or psychodynamic theories in general) Are just theories they are not factual science.
If you want to study people's posts on the internet and put those people in little boxes based on your perceived "personality disorder" it doesn't work, you have to at least meet the person.
You don't know me, or anything about me or my background. Thus your perceptions will be very inaccurate.
-
"Deception constitutes a very entertaining game for psychopaths. They use one victim to lie to another. They use both victims to lie to a third. They spin their web of mind-control upon all those around them. They encourage antagonisms or place distance among the people they deceive, so that they won’t compare notes and discover the lies. Often they blend in aspects of the truth with the lies, to focus on that small grain of truth if they’re caught. The bottom line remains that psychopaths are malicious sophists. It really doesn’t matter how often they lie or how often they tell the truth. Psychopaths use both truth and lies instrumentally, to persuade others to accept their false and self-serving version of reality and to get them under their control.
As I have already pointed out several times to you, Jeremy has never been diagnosed as such.
Professor Vincent Egan a chartered forensic psychologist has concluded he not a psychopath. So can you please stop filling the forum with baseless quotes about psychopaths its completely irrelevant.
-
psychoanalysis (or psychodynamic theories in general) Are just theories they are not factual science.
If you want to study people's posts on the internet and put those people in little boxes based on your perceived "personality disorder" it doesn't work, you have to at least meet the person.
You don't know me, or anything about me or my background. Thus your perceptions will be very inaccurate.
Where have I suggested you are personality disordered?
Where have I suggested I know you and your background?
I am merely responding to the posts you make David.
-
As I have already pointed out several times to you, Jeremy has never been diagnosed as such.
Professor Vincent Egan a chartered forensic psychologist has concluded he not a psychopath. So can you please stop filling the forum with baseless quotes about psychopaths its completely irrelevant.
And as I've pointed out to you as a fact, it's not unusual for prisoners to fall under the radar or indeed for mistakes to be made.
You are wrong David! Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath by the psychiatrist engaged by his defence team!
"He has professed his innocence ever since. However, the psychiatrist engaged by Bamber’s defence team said that his very real belief that he had not committed the murders was a prime reason for diagnosing him as a psychopath.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html#ixzz467nv9aiK
So you see, Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath pre-trial. He's been retested by Professor Egan since then and part of that assessment was a self assessment. Meaning Bamber completed a series of questions and
Professor Egan based his findings on Bambers own answers.
So it's not difficult to see how easy it would have been for Bamber to answer the questions however he wanted in order to produce the results he wanted.
-
And as I've pointed out to you as a fact, it's not unusual for prisoners to fall under the radar or indeed for mistakes to be made.
You are wrong David! Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath by the psychiatrist engaged by his defence team!
"He has professed his innocence ever since. However, the psychiatrist engaged by Bamber’s defence team said that his very real belief that he had not committed the murders was a prime reason for diagnosing him as a psychopath.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html#ixzz467nv9aiK
So you see, Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath pre-trial. He's been retested by Professor Egan since then and part of that assessment was a self assessment. Meaning Bamber completed a series of questions and
Professor Egan based his findings on Bambers own answers.
So it's not difficult to see how easy it would have been for Bamber to answer the questions however he wanted in order to produce the results he wanted.
I have read this before. I cannot find the name of this psychiatrist nor any documentary proof he examined Jeremy. Diagnosing him as a psychopath because he protests his innocence is hardly the result of a thorough examination.
As I have already said, I focus on the physical and circumstantial evidence that is the basis of the case. Psychopathy or not does not establish guilt or innocence, to me its rather irrelevant.
-
Not only is the " psychopathy " argument irrelevant,it's also a very hollow and shallow description of a person unknown to any of us. It's just another slight on his character to add to all the other unfounded descriptions of him.
-
Not only is the " psychopathy " argument irrelevant,it's also a very hollow and shallow description of a person unknown to any of us. It's just another slight on his character to add to all the other unfounded descriptions of him.
Well his own defence team referred to him as a classic psychopath. By the way lookout, it is known that some young men who display psychopathic tendencies or are diagnosed as psychopatic can lose the condition by the time they reach mid life or later.
It is not always a case of, 'once a psychopath, always a psychopath'.
-
Well his own defence team referred to him as a classic psychopath. By the way lookout, it is known that some young men who display psychopathic tendencies or are diagnosed as psychopatic can lose the condition by the time they reach mid life or later.
It is not always a case of, 'once a psychopath, always a psychopath'.
Good morning John. Yes I'm aware that psychopathy fizzles out as you age,but it still doesn't mean to say that it had developed in his younger years. Jeremy was a prize show-off as a young man because of his position as a wealthy farmers son. It's a very immature part of human nature generally.
How many Lotto millionaires have " lost friends " because of attitudes of having wealth and suddenly splashing out on all kinds of fripperies saying it " hasn't changed them ?" This ISN'T an indication of psychopathy because of their behaviour. It's childish immaturity which makes them appear to have a split personality,as well as perceptions of others who display jealousy because of their fortunate position.
-
I have read this before. I cannot find the name of this psychiatrist nor any documentary proof he examined Jeremy. Diagnosing him as a psychopath because he protests his innocence is hardly the result of a thorough examination.
As I have already said, I focus on the physical and circumstantial evidence that is the basis of the case. Psychopathy or not does not establish guilt or innocence, to me its rather irrelevant.
Maybe when you write to Bamber again you can ask him why he's sat on that 'golden nugget' and not allowed anyone to see the assessment report carried out at the request of his defence team - pre trial.
It's not me who hasn't looked at this case thoroughly David. You have publicly stated you do not believe JM's evidence, therefore on that basis you are choosing to ignore all the other evidence that points to guilt.
You have to put the blinkers on in order to appease your confirmation bias; that's hardly looking at the case in its entirety.
-
Good morning John. Yes I'm aware that psychopathy fizzles out as you age,but it still doesn't mean to say that it had developed in his younger years. Jeremy was a prize show-off as a young man because of his position as a wealthy farmers son. It's a very immature part of human nature generally.
How many Lotto millionaires have " lost friends " because of attitudes of having wealth and suddenly splashing out on all kinds of fripperies saying it " hasn't changed them ?" This ISN'T an indication of psychopathy because of their behaviour. It's childish immaturity which makes them appear to have a split personality,as well as perceptions of others who display jealousy because of their fortunate position.
Psychopathy does not fizzle out as you age.
"As psychopaths age, they are not able to continue their energy-consuming lifestyle and become burned-out and depressed while they look back on their restless life full of interpersonal discontentment. Their health deteriorates as the effects of their recklessness
- See more at: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/psychotic-affective-disorders/hidden-suffering-psychopath#sthash.qH8ZC7o8.dpuf
The life histories of psychopaths are often characterized by a chaotic family life, lack of parental attention and guidance, parental substance abuse and antisocial behavior, poor relationships, divorce, and adverse neighborhoods.4 These persons may feel that they are prisoners of their own etiological determination and believe that they had, in comparison with normal people, fewer opportunities or advantages in life.
Despite their outward arrogance, psychopaths feel inferior to others and know they are stigmatized by their own behavior. Some psychopaths are superficially adapted to their environment and are even popular, but they feel they must carefully hide their true nature because it will not be acceptable to others. This leaves psychopaths with a difficult choice: adapt and participate in an empty, unreal life, or do not adapt and live a lonely life isolated from the social community. They see the love and friendship others share and feel dejected knowing they will never be part of it.
Psychopaths are known for needing excessive stimulation, but most foolhardy adventures only end in disillusionment because of conflicts with others and unrealistic expectations. Furthermore, many psychopaths are disheartened by their inability to control their sensation-seeking and are repeatedly confronted with their weaknesses. Although they may attempt to change, low fear response and associated inability to learn from experiences lead to repeated negative, frustrating, and depressing confrontations, including trouble with the justice system.
-
I think JB's behaviour under the circumstances is exemplary considering he'd had the carpet pulled from under him. In other words,the prospect of wealth for the rest of his life-----------then nothing. He'd lost everything that he'd dreamed of. I wonder how many of us would cope under the same circumstances,of being innocent but accused of murder and not having anyone believe you ?
I've been in such a situation ( not of an accused murderer ) but of having the world and its wife disbelieving you in favour of the " law ". It's horrible and as much as I stood my ground, I could feel myself cracking but daren't have shown it for fear of appearing weak and worst of all in case anyone saw it as a sign of admission. You HAVE to remain strong to enable to fight on or you've lost and this is what the baying wolves want.
Until anyone has been in a situation where the law THINKS that they're the winners,then nobody knows what it's like to be accused of something that you didn't do. At least we as a family fought tooth and nail,whereas JB didn't have that,just people who were itching to get him " out of the way " by whatever means it took.
-
I think JB's behaviour under the circumstances is exemplary considering he'd had the carpet pulled from under him.
What's exemplary about asking a friend to read a letter to your murdered parents, who you stand guilty of murdering, whilst being filmed then having it published online for the world and his wife to see?
-
Maybe when you write to Bamber again you can ask him why he's sat on that 'golden nugget' and not allowed anyone to see the assessment report carried out at the request of his defence team - pre trial.
It's not me who hasn't looked at this case thoroughly David. You have publicly stated you do not believe JM's evidence, therefore on that basis you are choosing to ignore all the other evidence that points to guilt.
You have to put the blinkers on in order to appease your confirmation bias; that's hardly looking at the case in its entirety.
If you had actually studied the case thoroughly, you would have better points to make other than your belief he is a psychopath.
I have stated several times that refuting JMs testimony does not establish innocence. I know full well Jeremy could be guilty but the burden of proof is on those who assert he is guilty (The State) and they have not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, if they did we would not be having this discussion.
-
What's exemplary about asking a friend to read a letter to your murdered parents, who you stand guilty of murdering, whilst being filmed then having it published online for the world and his wife to see?
That's your view entirely.
-
" Projecting " the psychopathy argument doesn't solve anything. There are far more psychopaths walking the street than there are in prison.
The same as there are far more people with mental health issues outside institutions than there are in them.
-
If you had actually studied the case thoroughly, you would have better points to make other than your belief he is a psychopath.
I have stated several times that refuting JMs testimony does not establish innocence. I know full well Jeremy could be guilty but the burden of proof is on those who assert he is guilty (The State) and they have not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, if they did we would not be having this discussion.
What a perfect post David
Thank you
-
If you had actually studied the case thoroughly, you would have better points to make other than your belief he is a psychopath.
I have stated several times that refuting JMs testimony does not establish innocence. I know full well Jeremy could be guilty but the burden of proof is on those who assert he is guilty (The State) and they have not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, if they did we would not be having this discussion.
As far as the jury were concerned, they did establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Remember, they had the massive advantage of hearing from the witnesses in person.
What makes you think that you are better equipped to judge?
-
As far as the jury were concerned, they did establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Remember, they had the massive advantage of hearing from the witnesses in person.
What makes you think that you are better equipped to judge?
Reasonable doubt based on the evidence that was presented to them. We now know what the Jury heard was not at all the full story.
Guilty or not Jeremy's trial was a parody of justice.
-
Reasonable doubt based on the evidence that was presented to them. We now know what the Jury heard was not at all the full story.
Guilty or not Jeremy's trial was a parody of justice.
If Bamber were to be re- tried, I guarantee the end result would remain the same and/or the verdict would be unanimous!
By all means continue down this path David, but go in the knowledge that the path you are treading has been walked by many others before you and they too have all eventually come to the same conclusions at the end of that path - that being; Bamber is guilty as charged!
Nothing you've posted to date hasn't been written numerous times before. Your arguments are old arguments and all worn out. I don't believe you've found anything that will aide a new appeal nor do I believe you are looking at this case with an open mind, as you often suggest you are. I believe you are here for your own agenda and it has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. I believe you are hoping to achieve something someone else hasn't. It won't happen David, as you will eventually find out. Your arguments will take you no where, apart from around in circles.
You've yet to post anything worth any value or to sway the minds of the people who believe in his guilt nor do I expect you will do anytime soon. Best of luck trying though.
-
Reasonable doubt based on the evidence that was presented to them. We now know what the Jury heard was not at all the full story.
Guilty or not Jeremy's trial was a parody of justice.
We have an appeal system, which Bamber has taken full advantage of. As time has passed by and the evidence re-examined, the case against Bamber looks stronger than ever.
-
We have an appeal system, which Bamber has taken full advantage of. As time has passed by and the evidence re-examined, the case against Bamber looks stronger than ever.
Agreed Neil!
-
If Bamber were to be re- tried, I guarantee the end result would remain the same and/or the verdict would be unanimous!
They wont dare re-trial Bamber because the case would collapse. Thus all the CCRC does is raise the bar.
By all means continue down this path David, but go in the knowledge that the path you are treading has been walked by many others before you and they too have all eventually come to the same conclusions at the end of that path - that being; Bamber is guilty as charged!
Nothing you've posted to date hasn't been written numerous times before. Your arguments are old arguments and all worn out. I don't believe you've found anything that will aide a new appeal nor do I believe you are looking at this case with an open mind, as you often suggest you are. I believe you are here for your own agenda and it has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. I believe you are hoping to achieve something someone else hasn't. It won't happen David, as you will eventually find out. Your arguments will take you no where, apart from around in circles.
When I first got interested in the case, I believed he was guilty. I then became doubtful the more I dug deeper. People underestimate the complexity of the case. Those who say it is straight forward simply allow the Courts and the CCRC to make their minds up for them i.e "Bamber is guilty because he is still in prison"
-
They wont dare re-trial Bamber because the case would collapse. Thus all the CCRC does is raise the bar.
When I first got interested in the case, I believed he was guilty. I then became doubtful the more I dug deeper. People underestimate the complexity of the case. Those who say it is straight forward simply allow the Courts and the CCRC to make their minds up for them i.e "Bamber is guilty because he is still in prison"
How would the case collapse David?
I do not believe Bamber is guilty because he is still in prison. I once believed cases like this were complex but they are not.
Here is an article regarding Simon Halls appeal rejection http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2010/7432.html. He duped many people into believing he was innocent David. Do some research into their backgrounds and look at their qualifications. He was represented by Michael Mansfield QC. Private Eye supported his cause as did numerous other eminent professionals.
No court or independent body set up to investigate MOJ's have made my mind up for me David...
-
They wont dare re-trial Bamber because the case would collapse. Thus all the CCRC does is raise the bar.
When I first got interested in the case, I believed he was guilty. I then became doubtful the more I dug deeper. People underestimate the complexity of the case. Those who say it is straight forward simply allow the Courts and the CCRC to make their minds up for them i.e "Bamber is guilty because he is still in prison"
I have been left with the impression that the opposite is true of the CCRC.
I obviously know nothing about the workings of the CCRC. Perhaps NGB could tell us if, in his considered opinion, Bamber was treated as fairly as any other applicant. They did seem to give the impression that they had spent an awful lot of time and energy considering the last application. As well as extending deadlines, they seemed anxious that Bamber was not left feeling aggrieved.
I do wonder if the mauling they received at the last CoA hearing, has affected their subsequent actions/attitude.
-
We have an appeal system, which Bamber has taken full advantage of. As time has passed by and the evidence re-examined, the case against Bamber looks stronger than ever.
No it does not. The CCRC could not challenge most of the evidence given to them in 2011.
"the Commission and the Court of Appeal, in short, is that they are concerned with safety, not instead whether the accused is guilty of any conviction"
John Cooper QC
"It is better an innocent man serves a life sentence than the law is seen to be making grave errors"
Former Lord Chief Justice
If you want to see how appauling the appeal courts can be I suggest you watch this documentary film if you have the time. The trials of Darrell Hunt (2006)
http://putlocker.is/watch-the-trials-of-darryl-hunt-online-free-putlocker.htm (http://putlocker.is/watch-the-trials-of-darryl-hunt-online-free-putlocker.htm)
-
No it does not. The CCRC could not challenge most of the evidence given to them in 2011.
"the Commission and the Court of Appeal, in short, is that they are concerned with safety, not instead whether the accused is guilty of any conviction"
John Cooper QC
"It is better an innocent man serves a life sentence than the law is seen to be making grave errors"
Former Lord Chief Justice
If you want to see how appauling the appeal courts can be I suggest you watch this documentary film if you have the time. The trials of Darrell Hunt (2006)
http://putlocker.is/watch-the-trials-of-darryl-hunt-online-free-putlocker.htm (http://putlocker.is/watch-the-trials-of-darryl-hunt-online-free-putlocker.htm)
David you sound like an amateur. Dr Michael Naughton is well versed with regards the CRCC. Have a look at some of his research then come back when you have. Following that of course you will need to take into consideration Simon Hall's confession, as I'm not aware of this fact having been included in any current research.
David Jessell;
"My CCRC friends tell me that this just shows how ‘unsafety’ rather than innocence should be the criterion. I’ve never bought that. Such a view simply entrenches that bloodless tendency which reduces injustice to the formulaic, tick box exercise so comfortable for lawyers (one extremely grand lawyer believed the CCRC should be ‘the anteroom to the Court of Appeal’) I wanted to refer Simon Hall because I believed (wrongly) that he didn’t do it. I know it’s not very lawyerly, but I’m rather less interested in giving the guilty a get-out-of-jail-free card.http://thejusticegap.com/2013/09/simon-hall-confession-a-time-to-take-stock/
There is a large amount of misinformation in the public domain David therefore until that misinformation is corrected people like you will continue to be mislead.
-
No it does not. The CCRC could not challenge most of the evidence given to them in 2011
Says who? And what points are you referring to in Bambers submissions to them?
-
David you sound like an amateur. Dr Michael Naughton is well versed with regards the CRCC. Have a look at some of research then come back when you have. Following that of course you will need to take into consideration Simon Hall's confession, as I'm not aware of this fact having been included in any current research.
Simon Hall is a totally different case. I don't know were you see any comparisons TBH :-\
But I can understand why you would be reluctant to listen to JB after your experiences with SH.
Understand, I have never intended to support or help Jeremy, I seldom care about MOJ. My interest in this case is the mystery about it. My motive is to try and establish who done it 100% I want to solve it to the point know one bothers debating it anymore, that is my motive. If I could prove Jeremy is guilty beyond all doubt I would have no problem at all telling everyone. I have no conflict of interest I don't care if Jeremy is guilty or innocent, I only want to know what happened that night and while studying the case I just find more questions than answers this has led me to unintentionally support JB if that makes sense.
-
Simon Hall is a totally different case. I don't know were you see any comparisons TBH :-\
But I can understand why you would be reluctant to listen to JB after your experiences with SH.
Understand, I have never intended to support or help Jeremy, I seldom care about MOJ. My interest in this case is the mystery about it. My motive is to try and establish who done it 100% I want to solve it to the point know one bothers debating it anymore, that is my motive. If I could prove Jeremy is guilty beyond all doubt I would have no problem at all telling everyone. I have no conflict of interest I don't care if Jeremy is guilty or innocent, I only want to know what happened that night and while studying the case I just find more questions than answers this has led me to unintentionally support JB if that makes sense.
I've always believed Bamber to be guilty therefore Simon Halls confession makes no difference to any reluctance you may perceive I have regarding his innocence. Again your argument is weak.
I've always believed Bamber to be guilty but what Ive learned leading up to and following the confession allows me to understand Bambers psychopathy and his motivations for maintaining his innocence for 3 decades.
Many of us have already established SC was an innocent victim who Bamber attempted to frame for his crimes but failed.
What you mean by you want to solve it to the point no one bothers debating it anymore is that you have a lot of catching up to do.
I do not believe all those maintaining innocence are guilty but I do believe many of the cases I have come into contact with over the years are! There are numerous reasons for my strong beliefs and psychopathy is just one of them. Bambers track record of how he has treated many of those people who have attempted to help him over the years is another. There are numerous reasons I firmly believe in his guilt and by far the most compelling for me is the evidence that shows SC didn't do it!
-
Simon Hall is a totally different case. I don't know were you see any comparisons TBH :-\
But I can understand why you would be reluctant to listen to JB after your experiences with SH.
Understand, I have never intended to support or help Jeremy, I seldom care about MOJ. My interest in this case is the mystery about it. My motive is to try and establish who done it 100% I want to solve it to the point know one bothers debating it anymore, that is my motive. If I could prove Jeremy is guilty beyond all doubt I would have no problem at all telling everyone. I have no conflict of interest I don't care if Jeremy is guilty or innocent, I only want to know what happened that night and while studying the case I just find more questions than answers this has led me to unintentionally support JB if that makes sense.
It's your choice if you choose to support Bambers claims of innocence. You appear to be suggesting this is a problem for you or a perceived problem? Is that because you aren't certain or because you don't care one way or another or is because you find if difficult when people express opposing views?
You've already fallen for one fallacy and that relates to the CT. If you believe they act independently to Bamber, you are mistaken. I firmly believe he knows exactly what they do and that he is behind many of the decisions made.
-
And as I've pointed out to you as a fact, it's not unusual for prisoners to fall under the radar or indeed for mistakes to be made.
You are wrong David! Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath by the psychiatrist engaged by his defence team!
"He has professed his innocence ever since. However, the psychiatrist engaged by Bamber’s defence team said that his very real belief that he had not committed the murders was a prime reason for diagnosing him as a psychopath.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html#ixzz467nv9aiK
So you see, Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath pre-trial. He's been retested by Professor Egan since then and part of that assessment was a self assessment. Meaning Bamber completed a series of questions and
Professor Egan based his findings on Bambers own answers.
So it's not difficult to see how easy it would have been for Bamber to answer the questions however he wanted in order to produce the results he wanted.
Reading this Daily Mail article, it seems that Taff was dead against changing stance from the beginning. Vigorously turning down reasonable early requests from respected people to reconsider. Eventually he was overruled by people in Chemlsford.
I suspect Taff realised he was too hasty on the day and wanted to cover himself. He had no evidence to bring to the table to refute the suspicious police, relatives and ultimately his superiors.
-
There are numerous reasons I firmly believe in his guilt and by far the most compelling for me is the evidence that shows SC didn't do it!
It can be established that the evidence that shows SC didn't do it was manufactured, Its a long story but it can be.
Simon Hall confessed after 12 years Jeremy is still protesting after 30!
Lets look at other convicts who are convicted of murdering their families and accused of blaming someone else
Dana Ewell - Does not protest innocence
Sef Gonzales - Does not protest innocence
Ronald DeFeo - Does not protest innocence
The Whitehead Twins - Pleaded Guilty
Brain Blackwell - Pleaded Guilty
Jeffrey Macdonald - Protests his innocence
That's just a few I know of. Dana Ewell is a psychopath no doubt, he has never adamantly protested his innocence while in Jail, Neither has Sef Gonzales.
-
It can be established that the evidence that shows SC didn't do it was manufactured, Its a long story but it can be.
Simon Hall confessed after 12 years Jeremy is still protesting after 30!
Lets look at other convicts who are convicted of murdering their families and accused of blaming someone else
Dana Ewell - Does not protest innocence
Sef Gonzales - Does not protest innocence
Ronald DeFeo - Does not protest innocence
The Whitehead Twins - Pleaded Guilty
Brain Blackwell - Pleaded Guilty
Jeffrey Macdonald - Protests his innocence
That's just a few I know of. Dana Ewell is a psychopath no doubt, he has never adamantly protested his innocence while in Jail, Neither has Sef Gonzales.
I don't think the length of time makes much difference. I can explain this further but after the inquest.
So in most of these cases they have accepted their guilt; only Jeffrey McDonald protests his innocence. What are the similarities between Macdonald and Bamber, if any?
I can already see similarities https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_R._MacDonald any guesses for what they may be ;D
-
I wonder if Whittingdale's services will be requested if there is another appeal ? Each time there's been mention of an appeal,the relatives have been very vocal in calling upon their local or known MP's to throw their weight behind the argument that JB's a " very dangerous and bloody murderer who they all live in fear of " and should remain behind bars.
RWB used to write to EP explaining his disappointment towards the justice system that the family had been let down by the fact that JB was even allowed to appeal.
-
They wont dare re-trial Bamber because the case would collapse. Thus all the CCRC does is raise the bar.
I don't agree, there is more than enough evidence to convict him even now. Nobody has been able to provide any evidence which can show a miscarriage has occurred and that is what counts. I'm afraid Mike Tesko's wild claims and speculations have all fallen on stony ground.
-
It would have appeared that evidence was provided by everyone else barring EP themselves ?
Where is their evidence to say that JB actually committed the crime ?
-
Following the "What you want to interview li'l ol' me?" video featuring Trudi Benjamin as centrepiece we now get Marvellous Matt Paddock and Harriet Harman-lookalike Heidi Hawkins resuming the campaign, with Jeremy relying on Matt's marketing skills and Harriet-sorry Heidi's "extensive secretarial and administrative skills" to move this case forward. The message is to "get the evidence out there", which they conspicuously fail to do in all these video attempts; it seems that the Campaign Team is relying heavily on purportedly undisclosed documents after thirty years finally coming out into the public domain. https://twitter.com/bambertweets
-
Following the "You want to interview li'l ol' me?" video featuring Trudi Benjamin as centrepiece we now get Marvellous Matt Paddock and Harriet Harman-lookalike Heidi Hawkins resuming the campaign, with Jeremy relying on Matt's marketing skills and Harriet-sorry Heidi's "extensive secretarial and administrative skills" to move this case forward. The message is to "get the evidence out there", which they conspicuously fail to do in all these video attempts; it seems that the Campaign Team is relying heavily on purportedly undisclosed documents after thirty years finally coming out into the public domain. https://twitter.com/bambertweets
They're in for a huge disappointment then.
-
Following the "You want to interview li'l ol' me?" video featuring Trudi Benjamin as centrepiece we now get Marvellous Matt Paddock and Harriet Harman-lookalike Heidi Hawkins resuming the campaign, with Jeremy relying on Matt's marketing skills and Harriet-sorry Heidi's "extensive secretarial and administrative skills" to move this case forward. The message is to "get the evidence out there", which they conspicuously fail to do in all these video attempts; it seems that the Campaign Team is relying heavily on purportedly undisclosed documents after thirty years finally coming out into the public domain. https://twitter.com/bambertweets
They're in for a huge disappointment then.
am I right in thinking that the CT beleive the 30 year rule will lead to 'undisclosed evidence' being revealed? That it will be in the public domain once the 30 years is up?
-
I find them so distasteful. I just hope Colin has the sense not to view them.
-
am I right in thinking that the CT beleive the 30 year rule will lead to 'undisclosed evidence' being revealed? That it will be in the public domain once the 30 years is up?
The CT have an electronic document database that holds over several million pages of evidence. Why they are busy baking cakes and reading letters in grave yards god only knows. :-\
-
The CT are obviously building up to an " explosion " of evidence by showing their mundane Vlogs. I've always had the feeling that they're holding back,purposely in case anyone jumps in and steals their thunder first.
They're quite at liberty to hold back on any information that is readily available and the Vlogs are done just to remain in the public eye until such times that this information is ready for release.
I suppose it's a case of rather the Vlogs than a complete and frustrating silence, as a way of filling time and still holding the publics interest in the case.
When the time is right,we'll hear soon enough.
-
Can you imagine what the brainless idiots in the media would make of any leaks of information or evidence which appeared in fits and starts? They'd have a field day using just half a story and putting their own theories in just to fit whatever agenda they favoured-------------like flies round a heap of manure.
I was reading the Keith Blakelock murder and the investigation into that was truly abysmal. David Rose was the journo. It took years before that was finalized.
-
I will make a prediction or two. There is no withheld information capable of clearing Jeremy Bamber and all this talk about new evidence is simply that, TALK! And just for good measure Trudi et all will fade away like most others have done over the years.
-
Not true John.
The fact that qualified lawyers have helped out over the months on a pro-bono basis says it all because who,in their right mind,would bother doing anything for an " already convicted murderer ?" Wouldn't that go against their ethics and everything they've trained,studied and qualified for ?
I don't see EP shouting from the rooftops what their own investigations threw up,or that they haven't got any " hidden " information.
-
Not true John.
The fact that qualified lawyers have helped out over the months on a pro-bono basis says it all because who,in their right mind,would bother doing anything for an " already convicted murderer ?" Wouldn't that go against their ethics and everything they've trained,studied and qualified for ?
I don't see EP shouting from the rooftops what their own investigations threw up,or that they haven't got any " hidden " information.
We all know why they get involved and it isn't for the love of JB.
ps You think lawyers have ethics?? :)
-
We all know why they get involved and it isn't for the love of JB.
ps You think lawyers have ethics?? :)-------------Weeeeeelllll,some of them. :o
-
I think EP thoroughly enjoyed giving themselves a pat on the back for this ( phoney ) conviction !!
-
I think EP thoroughly enjoyed giving themselves a pat on the back for this ( phoney ) conviction !!
In order to claim that you have to have a reason, something which is sorely lacking.
-
In order to claim that you have to have a reason, something which is sorely lacking.
All those involved needed to hang on to their jobs because of their previous very poor detection work.
The Diane Jones case,for instance.
-
All those involved needed to hang on to their jobs because of their previous very poor detection work.
The Diane Jones case,for instance.
If the perpetrator of that crime was who they believed it to be, they never stood a chance. She'd been missing 4/5 days before her disappearance was reported, by which time every trace of evidence could have been removed by what may have been a master craftsman.
-
If the perpetrator of that crime was who they believed it to be, they never stood a chance. She'd been missing 4/5 days before her disappearance was reported, by which time every trace of evidence could have been removed by what may have been a master craftsman.
The case is one of many cold cases which remain unsolved. The DJ one I think has re-opened this year, so given the advancement of forensic science and all it entails,it won't be written off.
-
The case is one of many cold cases which remain unsolved. The DJ one I think has re-opened this year, so given the advancement of forensic science and all it entails,it won't be written off.
I can't find any information to establish what you say and there's certainly not been anything about it in the local rags. I think it's 33 years in July since it happened.
-
I can't find any information to establish what you say and there's certainly not been anything about it in the local rags. I think it's 33 years in July since it happened.
The case was re-reported in March this year so I can only assume that after 33 years,it's also being re-investigated.
-
The case was re-reported in March this year so I can only assume that after 33 years,it's also being re-investigated.
It seems that "new" evidence came to light in 2003 but there is no information of anything since then.
-
It seems that "new" evidence came to light in 2003 but there is no information of anything since then.
We'll have to see how far they get with that one,with their " new " evidence. :-[
-
Why did Jeremy share Colin's hospitality with equanimity at the Lewisham flat several days after the murders, Julie in tow. Could it have been that in his warped mind he believed he had done Colin a favour by dispatching the twins so he along with Jeremy himself could start life anew? http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/28/AS281086004/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1#videoPopUpDiv
-
Why did Jeremy share Colin's hospitality with equanimity at the Lewisham flat several days after the murders, Julie in tow. Could it have been that in his warped mind he believed he had done Colin a favour by dispatching the twins so he along with Jeremy himself could start life anew? http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/28/AS281086004/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1#videoPopUpDiv
Steve, I agree with you that if JB is guilty this was shocking behaviour, however I cannot accept that Julie was ' in tow'. As far as I am aware Julie had a mind of her own and was no shrinking violet.
If JB murdered 5 members of his family it's not difficult to accept his callous attitude to Colin but it puts a big question mark over Julie's behaviour. She claims she knew JB had carried out the murders therefore she also spent a weekend in Colin s home, no doubt commiserating with him over his appalling loss and sleeping with the murderer of his children.
I struggle to excuse such behaviour and question how she was capable of accepting Colin's behaviour with such apparent equanimity.
-
This isn't about " rights " . It's more to do with having the strength and courage to move on which Colin has managed to do,while Jeremy has been stuck in limbo through the most ghastly misunderstanding of the legal system.
A lot of people in Colin's situation haven't been able to move on because their loss/losses have proved too much to bear so have either taken their own lives or have ended up on the drug and alcohol trail combined with mental health problems.
Take the Bulger case where Denise will never ever give up her fight for justice,and if you talk about rights,where are hers ? Her rights to see two monsters end THEIR lives in jail at the way they murdered her gorgeous little boy ? Okay,so Denise re-married but she remains in the news against the unfairness of this justice system and it's plain to see that this poor woman will never break free from what happened.
Even the families of the two monsters were given homes out of their areas as well as new identities,the same as the murderers themselves. Rights ? Don't talk to me about rights !
-
Well this thread is about rights. Would Jeremy Bamber have been put to death had the crime occurred before 1965? Have the Bulger killers due to being children at the time of the atrocity the right to a new life, where the penal system tries to rehabilitate as well as punish? What rights does convicted child killer Jeremy Bamber have now? Can he ever be rehabilitated? Does Colin's wish that he never be let out have any weight? What about Ian Huntley? Would such people be better off dead..
-
The climate in the USA regarding the death penalty has changed over the past 25 years, to the point where it's supported now by only half the population, if that. If they can't bring themselves to execute Darlie Routier after the crimes she has committed then they may as well do away with it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37516595
-
IF there had been evidence which had proved " beyond reasonable doubt " in any murder ,particularly this one,prior to 1965,then the noose would be appropriate.Yes,mistakes were made,by the jury,who were no different in this,the Bamber case,but had we still had the death penalty,would there have been an outpouring over JB ? The answer is NO,because as far as the public were concerned those who were hanged were guilty. ( if you understand my logic )
76/79% of the public agreed with the death penalty,which is a large percentage. An eye for an eye !
Rehabilitation for KNOWN and PROVEN killers is a no no as far as I'm concerned,as they've as much chance of " turning a corner " as trying to knit fog.
Jeremy is NO child killer,much as you'd like to think and say he is.It took him all his time to kill vermin on the farm as all he was fit for was shooting cans off a brick wall,but probably felt cool holding a rifle.
Did any of the relatives including Colin stop and think things over in all of this ? NO. Strange how the first words out of Colin's mouth were " she's done it at last " ( or words to that effect ) Why do you think he'd said that ? What prompted him to say that ? It's only when he joined the furore of the relatives that he became brainwashed,which wasn't difficult seeing as he believed in the occult and robins leaving messages.
As far as everyone was concerned,what they stood to lose had become a nightmare and that was their biggest concern,the financial implications and their futures seeing JB lording it over everyone,a bit of a kid who had no blood-ties. Money was the root of all evil !!
-
Did any of the relatives including Colin stop and think things over in all of this ? NO. Strange how the first words out of Colin's mouth were " she's done it at last " ( or words to that effect ) Why do you think he'd said that What prompted him to say that ? The reason Colin Caffell said what he did was because during her illness she had implied she could commit suicide...NOT KILL her parents! It's only when he joined the furore of the relatives that he be.came brainwashed,which wasn't difficult seeing as he believed in the occult and robins leaving messages. Ridiculing a person who finds comfort in any way after a tragic lose doesn't further your case at all!
As far as everyone was concerned,what they stood to lose had become a nightmare and that was their biggest concern,the financial implications and their futures seeing JB lording it over everyone,a bit of a kid who had no blood-ties. Money was the root of all evil !! 'Bit of a kid' you make Jeremy Bamber sound like a little rascal who wouldn't hurt a fly...WRONG! He was a manipulative arrogant man who stole from his own family and was jealous of his relatives involvement in the family business. the argument with his father on the 18th July at a family/relatives meeting at Vaulty House regarding the running of Osea probably involved Sheila taking on work at Osea,( this was Sheila's birthday) thus including her in any share in Osea that currently went to both Jeremy and Anne. Jeremy Bamber even mentioned this in his Police statement saying Sheila had been offered work at Osea. Then when questioned about his share in Osea he says....I would get 50% Ann getting the other 50%. You fail to see anything wrong with Jeremy Bamber's behaviour, yet the psychiatrist engaged by the defence failed to provide any cause for optimism, announcing to the team that Jeremy Bamber displayed a number of classic psychopathic symptoms, chief of which was his very real belief that he had not committed the murders. Rivlin...JB's defence counsel...dismissed JB's suggestion that the blood had been planted by a relative as to far-fetched to pursue.
-
Before Neville's untimely death he'd been teaching Jeremy the business side of farming and no doubt would have warned him of the pitfalls of working with and being involved in the family,hence that if Jeremy had displayed arrogance,it would have been down to advice,etc given to him by his father in a " familiarity breeds contempt " mode.
It was evident in the Will that no love was lost between families and the last straw would have appeared to have been the measley amount which had been left to the Boutflours. Personally I'd have taken it as an insult given the amount involved,but I certainly wouldn't have gone as far as seeing someone spend their days behind bars !
Neither Sheila nor Jeremy were streetwise like everyone else as they'd had pretty sheltered lives within the confines of WHF then onto boarding school. Neville's reason for sending Jeremy to a public school was because one day there would be ex-pupils from local schools working on the farm that he hadn't wished his son to work alongside as a labourer,so the arrogance stemmed from there.
On the contrary,it was the relatives who'd have been jealous of Jeremy and possibly the Bambers in general as their backgrounds and lives were a far cry from the relatives way of life. Neville was the typical gentleman farmer and wanted Jeremy to follow in his footsteps*.
The relatives went half-way in making sure that this never happened*.
Psychopathy has never been proved and it's so easy a description to give to anyone who allegedly commits murder. Unless an MRI scan is done or an EEG performed,nobody but nobody can say who's a psychopath and who isn't,just by guessing or studying a person.
As for Jeremy having blamed a member of the relatives for planting blood in the silencer,what else was he supposed to think or say when he was being blamed for the murders ? You'd rattle off loads of suggestions if you'd been caught up in something like this knowing that you were totally innocent of any involvement. I'd challenge anyone who wouldn't.
-
Did any of the relatives including Colin stop and think things over in all of this ? NO. Strange how the first words out of Colin's mouth were " she's done it at last " ( or words to that effect ) Why do you think he'd said that What prompted him to say that ? The reason Colin Caffell said what he did was because during her illness she had implied she could commit suicide...NOT KILL her parents! It's only when he joined the furore of the relatives that he be.came brainwashed,which wasn't difficult seeing as he believed in the occult and robins leaving messages. Ridiculing a person who finds comfort in any way after a tragic lose doesn't further your case at all!
As far as everyone was concerned,what they stood to lose had become a nightmare and that was their biggest concern,the financial implications and their futures seeing JB lording it over everyone,a bit of a kid who had no blood-ties. Money was the root of all evil !! 'Bit of a kid' you make Jeremy Bamber sound like a little rascal who wouldn't hurt a fly...WRONG! He was a manipulative arrogant man who stole from his own family and was jealous of his relatives involvement in the family business. the argument with his father on the 18th July at a family/relatives meeting at Vaulty House regarding the running of Osea probably involved Sheila taking on work at Osea,( this was Sheila's birthday) thus including her in any share in Osea that currently went to both Jeremy and Anne. Jeremy Bamber even mentioned this in his Police statement saying Sheila had been offered work at Osea. Then when questioned about his share in Osea he says....I would get 50% Ann getting the other 50%. You fail to see anything wrong with Jeremy Bamber's behaviour, yet the psychiatrist engaged by the defence failed to provide any cause for optimism, announcing to the team that Jeremy Bamber displayed a number of classic psychopathic symptoms, chief of which was his very real belief that he had not committed the murders. Rivlin...JB's defence counsel...dismissed JB's suggestion that the blood had been planted by a relative as to far-fetched to pursue.
You sound like you know him?
Personally I am not sure about the silencer blood evidence , but in any crime where a vital bit of evidence is removed from the crime scene and handled by other persons and then put in a cardboard tube with a bit of tape and not handled with gloves , it makes me very uncomfortable.
-
It was evident in the Will that no love was lost between families and the last straw would have appeared to have been the measley amount which had been left to the Boutflours. Personally I'd have taken it as an insult given the amount involved,but I certainly wouldn't have gone as far as seeing someone spend their days behind bars ! "No love lost between the families? These were family/relatives who shared the running of the Osea Property! They were also from a generation of farmers that covered a large amount of land in Essex. Jeremy Bamber knew what was written in the Wills before the murders having found them in Neville's Safe, hence NB finding a new hiding place for the safe key. I very much doubt that the Boutflour's knew the contents of the Will before the murders. Knowing the contents of the Will also gives JB a motive for murder.
Neither Sheila nor Jeremy were streetwise like everyone else as they'd had pretty sheltered lives within the confines of WHF then onto boarding school. Neville's reason for sending Jeremy to a public school was because one day there would be ex-pupils from local schools working on the farm that he hadn't wished his son to work alongside as a labourer,so the arrogance stemmed from there. |Rubbish, JB's arrogance was evident at a much early age as told by his headmaster, his father sent him to boarding school, as any parent with the means to do so would, to give his son the best start in life.
On the contrary,it was the relatives who'd have been jealous of Jeremy and possibly the Bambers Neville was the typical gentleman farmer and wanted Jeremy to follow in his footsteps*.But JB didn't want to be a farmer, he wanted to be a playboy.
The relatives went half-way in making sure that this never happened*. If the relatives were jealous of the Bamber family, and that's what happens with a lot of families, they didn't commit murder to obtain wealth! I can quite understand how the family felt on finding out the only person left alive on that night was JB and his attitude! I'd have gone through that house with a fine tooth comb, then of course if finding anything incriminating it would be hard to to be believed...as Ann Eaton etc found out! Which reminds me how did JB know how much money was in his father's wallet?
JB was the one who loved the good life for himself, even telling EP whilst outside WHF on the night of the murders he was going to get a porsche! His only interest was in himself and what he could get from the family, he must be gutted it didn't turn out how he planned.
-
Bamber did have a sheltered life. Until he was about 7 and sent to boarding school. Most children are not sent to boarding school. So have sheltered lives within a family environment for at least another ten years.
I suspect boarding school made Bamber more independent. Resulting in him intially rejecting farm life to try other things, and doing extensive travelling.
At the time of the massacre he certainly felt independent and didn't feel he needed his parents for emotional support or advice.
-
Does the quoted £436,000p include the money Mabel Speakman would have left ? Which I assume would have gone to Bamber. The judge did say the inheritance was a lot more than £436,000p.
-
Does the quoted £436,000p include the money Mabel Speakman would have left ? Which I assume would have gone to Bamber. The judge did say the inheritance was a lot more than £436,000p.
Not only that but there was the Maida Vale flat which Jeremy would have inherited outright, unlike White House Farm and Bourtree Cottage.
-
I'm not too sure about the ownership of Maida Vale for as far as I'm led to believe,the parents " maintained " the flat,which could well have been rented---------or,if it had been purchased,it would quite possibly have been mortgaged and if that had been the case Sheila hadn't been in it that long for there to have been much of a profit on the re-sale,so not the " fortune " that some would have said Jeremy would have inherited.
-
It was evident in the Will that no love was lost between families and the last straw would have appeared to have been the measley amount which had been left to the Boutflours. Personally I'd have taken it as an insult given the amount involved,but I certainly wouldn't have gone as far as seeing someone spend their days behind bars ! "No love lost between the families? These were family/relatives who shared the running of the Osea Property! They were also from a generation of farmers that covered a large amount of land in Essex. Jeremy Bamber knew what was written in the Wills before the murders having found them in Neville's Safe, hence NB finding a new hiding place for the safe key. I very much doubt that the Boutflour's knew the contents of the Will before the murders. Knowing the contents of the Will also gives JB a motive for murder.
Neither Sheila nor Jeremy were streetwise like everyone else as they'd had pretty sheltered lives within the confines of WHF then onto boarding school. Neville's reason for sending Jeremy to a public school was because one day there would be ex-pupils from local schools working on the farm that he hadn't wished his son to work alongside as a labourer,so the arrogance stemmed from there. |Rubbish, JB's arrogance was evident at a much early age as told by his headmaster, his father sent him to boarding school, as any parent with the means to do so would, to give his son the best start in life.
On the contrary,it was the relatives who'd have been jealous of Jeremy and possibly the Bambers Neville was the typical gentleman farmer and wanted Jeremy to follow in his footsteps*.But JB didn't want to be a farmer, he wanted to be a playboy.
The relatives went half-way in making sure that this never happened*. If the relatives were jealous of the Bamber family, and that's what happens with a lot of families, they didn't commit murder to obtain wealth! I can quite understand how the family felt on finding out the only person left alive on that night was JB and his attitude! I'd have gone through that house with a fine tooth comb, then of course if finding anything incriminating it would be hard to to be believed...as Ann Eaton etc found out! Which reminds me how did JB know how much money was in his father's wallet?
JB was the one who loved the good life for himself, even telling EP whilst outside WHF on the night of the murders he was going to get a porsche! His only interest was in himself and what he could get from the family, he must be gutted it didn't turn out how he planned.
Have you actually read the truth about the Porsche? And where have you sourced all your information ?
-
It was evident in the Will that no love was lost between families and the last straw would have appeared to have been the measley amount which had been left to the Boutflours. Personally I'd have taken it as an insult given the amount involved,but I certainly wouldn't have gone as far as seeing someone spend their days behind bars ! "No love lost between the families? These were family/relatives who shared the running of the Osea Property! They were also from a generation of farmers that covered a large amount of land in Essex. Jeremy Bamber knew what was written in the Wills before the murders having found them in Neville's Safe, hence NB finding a new hiding place for the safe key. I very much doubt that the Boutflour's knew the contents of the Will before the murders. Knowing the contents of the Will also gives JB a motive for murder.
Neither Sheila nor Jeremy were streetwise like everyone else as they'd had pretty sheltered lives within the confines of WHF then onto boarding school. Neville's reason for sending Jeremy to a public school was because one day there would be ex-pupils from local schools working on the farm that he hadn't wished his son to work alongside as a labourer,so the arrogance stemmed from there. |Rubbish, JB's arrogance was evident at a much early age as told by his headmaster, his father sent him to boarding school, as any parent with the means to do so would, to give his son the best start in life.
On the contrary,it was the relatives who'd have been jealous of Jeremy and possibly the Bambers Neville was the typical gentleman farmer and wanted Jeremy to follow in his footsteps*.But JB didn't want to be a farmer, he wanted to be a playboy.
The relatives went half-way in making sure that this never happened*. If the relatives were jealous of the Bamber family, and that's what happens with a lot of families, they didn't commit murder to obtain wealth! I can quite understand how the family felt on finding out the only person left alive on that night was JB and his attitude! I'd have gone through that house with a fine tooth comb, then of course if finding anything incriminating it would be hard to to be believed...as Ann Eaton etc found out! Which reminds me how did JB know how much money was in his father's wallet?
JB was the one who loved the good life for himself, even telling EP whilst outside WHF on the night of the murders he was going to get a porsche! His only interest was in himself and what he could get from the family, he must be gutted it didn't turn out how he planned.
About the cash in the wallet, 500 pounds was a massive amount in those days not an amount one would carry around for no reason. It must have been from someone or for something which Neville would probably not have made a secret of and may have mentioned to June or Jeremy.
AE states that at WHF, RWB was dispached to look for cash in Neville's clothes. When Jeremy discovered the wallet was missing RWB became visibly distressed.
I suspect that Jeremy and Neville were closer than people knew because of the cannabis that Jeremy knew was in the safe. AE's excuse was that several years earlier Roland had a drug problem, well that makes no sense as any normal person, especially a magistrate, would have flushed it down the toilet not kept it in their safe. It wouldn't surprise me if Neville and Jeremy partook of the occasional smoke together.
-
About the cash in the wallet, 500 pounds was a massive amount in those days not an amount one would carry around for no reason. It must have been from someone or for something which Neville would probably not have made a secret of and may have mentioned to June or Jeremy.
AE states that at WHF, RWB was dispached to look for cash in Neville's clothes. When Jeremy discovered the wallet was missing RWB became visibly distressed.
I suspect that Jeremy and Neville were closer than people knew because of the cannabis that Jeremy knew was in the safe. AE's excuse was that several years earlier Roland had a drug problem, well that makes no sense as any normal person, especially a magistrate, would have flushed it down the toilet not kept it in their safe. It wouldn't surprise me if Neville and Jeremy partook of the occasional smoke together.
What nonsense. Nevill had recently give up smoking as reported by Barbara Wilson and as a local magistrate wouldn't have fallen foul of the law. I'm sure we would have heard about any indiscretions from Jeremy that first morning at Goldhanger anyhow as he seemed to blacken everyone else.
Did Jeremy empty the contents of his father's wallet as he had done with June's handbag and the Osea Road takings?
-
Presumably June's/Sheila's handbag was still intact on the telephone table in the kitchen when photographs were taken. We'd have heard soon enough had both the wallet and purse been emptied of its contents because JB would have got the blame for that too and it would have been added to the " long list " of alleged thefts.
-
Where " rights " are concerned,if I were to vote on this issue,my vote would go to Jeremy above everyone.
It's been so easy to point a finger at the man in so many ways,yet no thought was ever given to the " fragile " health of Sheila,and nobody on this earth could say what had been going on in her mind. The majority of people have said that Sheila wasn't a violent person--------but neither was Jeremy.
In Sheila's case,it had nothing whatsoever to do with violence,her problem was based on FEAR !
As we all know, fear can be both a fight or flight situation according to the release of adrenaline/noradrenaline and has NOTHING to do with aggression when someone is having a psychotic episode. Their emotional imbalance,coupled with a borderline personality disorder brings about an uncontrollable behaviour that in many cases is out of character in certain people who are not known for having a violent/aggressive disposition.
Jeremy has been " holed-up " long enough for people to see if he displayed violent tendencies--------and he doesn't,so it was utterly impossible for him to have murdered anyone when he can't even muster the " energy " to keep banging his cell door out of protest,or drawing attention in some way.
I think that Sheila's psychiatrist should hang his head in shame for having let her down and also ignoring the warning signs as Sheila had told him how she'd felt as she'd literally put herself on the line and had told him what she felt she was capable of. Sheila had been a frightened girl where her fear had taken over her life. NOBODY listened !!
Fear because she'd " lost " her husband.Fear of " losing " her children. Fear of her mother.Fear of what was happening to her,healthwise.Fear of isolation. When so much fear builds up it leads to aggression where that person is no longer responsible for their actions because of irrational thoughts and behaviour.
Much has yet to be read regarding Sheila's medical notes and I can guarantee that when the time comes that we can read of Sheila's mental health status, that we'll then understand that she was a very unstable woman.
-
What nonsense. Nevill had recently give up smoking as reported by Barbara Wilson and as a local magistrate wouldn't have fallen foul of the law. I'm sure we would have heard about any indiscretions from Jeremy that first morning at Goldhanger anyhow as he seemed to blacken everyone else.
Did Jeremy empty the contents of his father's wallet as he had done with June's handbag and the Osea Road takings?
So explain the cannabis in the safe. Giving up cigarettes doesn't mean giving up cannabis. Jeremy said they would get a surprise when they opened the safe.
Jeremy did not empty the contents of the wallet, the whole wallet went missing.
-
Where " rights " are concerned,if I were to vote on this issue,my vote would go to Jeremy above everyone.
It's been so easy to point a finger at the man in so many ways,yet no thought was ever given to the " fragile " health of Sheila,and nobody on this earth could say what had been going on in her mind. The majority of people have said that Sheila wasn't a violent person--------but neither was Jeremy.
In Sheila's case,it had nothing whatsoever to do with violence,her problem was based on FEAR !
As we all know, fear can be both a fight or flight situation according to the release of adrenaline/noradrenaline and has NOTHING to do with aggression when someone is having a psychotic episode. Their emotional imbalance,coupled with a borderline personality disorder brings about an uncontrollable behaviour that in many cases is out of character in certain people who are not known for having a violent/aggressive disposition.
Jeremy has been " holed-up " long enough for people to see if he displayed violent tendencies--------and he doesn't,so it was utterly impossible for him to have murdered anyone when he can't even muster the " energy " to keep banging his cell door out of protest,or drawing attention in some way.
I think that Sheila's psychiatrist should hang his head in shame for having let her down and also ignoring the warning signs as Sheila had told him how she'd felt as she'd literally put herself on the line and had told him what she felt she was capable of. Sheila had been a frightened girl where her fear had taken over her life. NOBODY listened !!
Fear because she'd " lost " her husband.Fear of " losing " her children. Fear of her mother.Fear of what was happening to her,healthwise.Fear of isolation. When so much fear builds up it leads to aggression where that person is no longer responsible for their actions because of irrational thoughts and behaviour.
Much has yet to be read regarding Sheila's medical notes and I can guarantee that when the time comes that we can read of Sheila's mental health status, that we'll then understand that she was a very unstable woman.
That's very well written lookout and who can gainsay that an uptorn Sheila wasn't the vulnerable person that could just have lashed out during a crisis which could have occurred that night, if we are to believe that her children were to be taken from her and her parents' ministrations seen as a further threat were she to be deprived of the security of St. Andrews hospital. I doubt we will ever see Sheila's full medical notes until Dr. Ferguson's death, but what is available in this regard has always seemed to me to be sincere, though of course with mother and daughter having consulted the same physician it does give that individual an inordinate power as to their diagnosis.
-
So explain the cannabis in the safe. Giving up cigarettes doesn't mean giving up cannabis. Jeremy said they would get a surprise when they opened the safe.
Jeremy did not empty the contents of the wallet, the whole wallet went missing.
We have no way of knowing how long the cannabis resin had resided in the safe; far more likely Jeremy planted it there to raise the very suspicions to which you have alluded. If the whole wallet went missing then far more likely Jeremy took all the money therefrom, as Ann Eaton suspected he had acted similarly with his mother's handbag.
-
That's very well written lookout and who can gainsay that an uptorn Sheila wasn't the vulnerable person that could just have lashed out during a crisis which could have occurred that night, if we are to believe that her children were to be taken from her and her parents' ministrations seen as a further threat were she to be deprived of the security of St. Andrews hospital. I doubt we will ever see Sheila's full medical notes until Dr. Ferguson's death, but what is available in this regard has always seemed to me to be sincere, though of course with mother and daughter having consulted the same physician it does give that individual an inordinate power as to their diagnosis.
The way things are going ( at a snail's pace ) it would seem that we'll have to wait for most of those involved to fall off their perches before notes can be released,though I don't see why. Some professionals are a law unto themselves when mistakes are made and they'll use all kinds of " legal " loopholes to avoid reprehension.
Although there's a better understanding of mental health today,we're still not as up to speed with some diagnoses,especially where the young are concerned and it's easy to misdiagnose in this particular field of medicine as there are those who still fall through the net.
It's vital that when a person/patient mentions suicide/killing/harming,that the patient is taken seriously and steps should be taken to keep a closer watch and also involve the family as well as outside help such as health visitors who are conversant in mental health.
-
We have no way of knowing how long the cannabis resin had resided in the safe; far more likely Jeremy planted it there to raise the very suspicions to which you have alluded. If the whole wallet went missing then far more likely Jeremy took all the money therefrom, as Ann Eaton suspected he had acted similarly with his mother's handbag.
What would be the purpose of raising suspicions as to Neville smoking cannabis? What could that possibly do to have an effect on the case? If Jeremy had planted it there as some kind of evidence, then he would hardly draw attention to it.
AE says it was the whole wallet containing the cash and cards. If Jeremy had taken it, why kick up such a fuss? Why did it have such a disturbing effect on RWB?
AE was suspicious about almost everything Jeremy said and did. No surprise there.
-
My sentiments too,lebaleb.
Everyone involved made doubly sure that the focus would be on Jeremy,and there it stayed without a second thought. " Taff " Jones should have gone into the tragedy far more than he had,then it wouldn't have created what we have now.
I don't doubt for a moment that he was wrong about his verdict of murder/suicide,but it wasn't enough in the mass killing to " wrap things up " and more or less slope off to do other things. As a " domestic " like " Taff " had said,he didn't look for a reason/reasons behind the killings.
I'd like to know the real truth behind the reason why a " top cop " left the case in charge of a sergeant at the point when he had.
When there's a break,or you lose continuity of anything or anyone dealing with a specific matter of importance particularly in a case of murder then someone else takes over you usually find that others have different ideas,not always the right ones and confusion sets in. Continuity is vital from that same person in order for anything to go smoothly especially when they've known the case from the start.
-
About the cash in the wallet, 500 pounds was a massive amount in those days not an amount one would carry around for no reason. It must have been from someone or for something which Neville would probably not have made a secret of and may have mentioned to June or Jeremy.
AE states that at WHF, RWB was dispached to look for cash in Neville's clothes. When Jeremy discovered the wallet was missing RWB became visibly distressed.
I suspect that Jeremy and Neville were closer than people knew because of the cannabis that Jeremy knew was in the safe. AE's excuse was that several years earlier Roland had a drug problem, well that makes no sense as any normal person, especially a magistrate, would have flushed it down the toilet not kept it in their safe. It wouldn't surprise me if Neville and Jeremy partook of the occasional smoke together.
Then he would have remembered that.
-
We have no way of knowing how long the cannabis resin had resided in the safe; far more likely Jeremy planted it there to raise the very suspicions to which you have alluded. If the whole wallet went missing then far more likely Jeremy took all the money therefrom, as Ann Eaton suspected he had acted similarly with his mother's handbag.
The cannabis resin was confiscated from a relative (one of the Pargetter's).
-
The cannabis resin was confiscated from a relative (one of the Pargetter's).
Confiscated???? And then kept in the safe for what purpose? So that they could return it to Roland? I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense. Being in possession of cannabis was a criminal offence. He would have been obliged to turn it over to the police or dispose of it and say no more.
-
Confiscated???? And then kept in the safe for what purpose? So that they could return it to Roland? I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense. Being in possession of cannabis was a criminal offence. He would have been obliged to turn it over to the police or dispose of it and say no more.
Perhaps it was a 'roundtuit'. I feel certain that even the Bambers, like the rest of us, had some.
-
I'm sure that what BW had said what Neville had allegedly told her,he would have done ( got a " roundtoit ")
-
Confiscated???? And then kept in the safe for what purpose? So that they could return it to Roland? I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense. Being in possession of cannabis was a criminal offence. He would have been obliged to turn it over to the police or dispose of it and say no more.
Not sure what answer you would like? I have told you the reason - one that Jeremy gave but that's not good enough for you then I don't know what to tell you.
-
Not sure what answer you would like? I have told you the reason - one that Jeremy gave but that's not good enough for you then I don't know what to tell you.
Something logical would be good.
-
Something logical would be good.
Then you best tell Jeremy that.
-
Something logical would be good.
Which suggests:- A) You don't accept what Jeremy said, or B) You don't accept what Caroline said?
-
Which suggests:- A) You don't accept what Jeremy said, or B) You don't accept what Caroline said?
Personally Jane I don't care either way - this place gets sillier and sillier.
-
Personally Jane I don't care either way - this place gets sillier and sillier.
It sometimes feels as if supporters -generally, not just on this forum- want to rewrite the story to arrive at a different outcome.
-
Lol. Thank goodness you, Lookout, Buddy, Nugs and Mike keep it sensible. And thank you for you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
Quit your sarcasm ! Lowest form of wit,you know.
-
Perhaps it was a 'roundtuit'. I feel certain that even the Bambers, like the rest of us, had some.
Excuse my ignorance jane, but what's a 'roundtuit'?
-
Excuse my ignorance jane, but what's a 'roundtuit'?
Heheheee! Well you know how we're all have things that get put on hold until we get round to doing them? A series of ornaments were released simply called "Roundtuits"!!!! It's no more exciting than that, really 8)
-
Heheheee! Well you know how we're all have things that get put on hold until we get round to doing them? A series of ornaments were released simply called "Roundtuits"!!!! It's no more exciting than that, really 8)
Ohhhhh!! Silly me! Thought it was something to do with smoking cannabis . ;D
-
Can posters please stick to the arguments and stop the personal remarks have moved a few posts because they have nothing to do with the thread and are personal and irrelevant but have left some that are borderline.
Would appreciate your compliance, thank you.
-
Excuse my ignorance jane, but what's a 'roundtuit'?
It's a years old " expression ".I've got an ashtray which says the same about quitting smoking. " I'll get a roundtoit " one day.
-
More goading David? You're becoming quite the troll.
Circus indeed! I guess that's why you turned up for the role of chief clown; a role you play so well.
I'm actually the circus lion being forced to go round in circles by the clowns.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/8c/e8/12/8ce8129aa224fee947aaaec5df73f982.jpg)
-
Stop responding to my posts David, I have no wish to discuss anything with you - you're far to odd and obsessed.
-
Stop responding to my posts David, I have no wish to discuss anything with you - you're far to odd and obsessed.
I wish I had his I.T. skills though..
-
So explain the cannabis in the safe. Giving up cigarettes doesn't mean giving up cannabis. Jeremy said they would get a surprise when they opened the safe.
Jeremy did not empty the contents of the wallet, the whole wallet went missing.
For a start.... what was JB doing looking in the safe anyway! Secondly..... Neville Bamber spoke to B Wilson in July 1985 about how ungrateful children could be ...before mentioning a new hiding place was needed for the safe key.... Neville also asked Barbara Wilson if she would mind him having a cigarette in the office that day....something he didn't usually do, so he hadn't given up smoking. As Caroline said, the cannabis was put in safe after Neville confiscated it from his nephew. Or perhaps JB is lying again and it was confiscated from him!
-
I wish I had his I.T. skills though..
I only had skills on the PCIS system when I worked at the hospital. Beyond that I'm rubbish but I'm not bothered,so I wouldn't worry if I were you.
I haven't even explored this laptop,which by all accounts it does everything bar make the tea. Oh,I can turn it into piano mode ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
My sentiments too,lebaleb.
Everyone involved made doubly sure that the focus would be on Jeremy,and there it stayed without a second thought. " Taff " Jones should have gone into the tragedy far more than he had,then it wouldn't have created what we have now.
I don't doubt for a moment that he was wrong about his verdict of murder/suicide,but it wasn't enough in the mass killing to " wrap things up " and more or less slope off to do other things. As a " domestic " like " Taff " had said,he didn't look for a reason/reasons behind the killings.
I'd like to know the real truth behind the reason why a " top cop " left the case in charge of a sergeant at the point when he had.
When there's a break,or you lose continuity of anything or anyone dealing with a specific matter of importance particularly in a case of murder then someone else takes over you usually find that others have different ideas,not always the right ones and confusion sets in. Continuity is vital from that same person in order for anything to go smoothly especially when they've known the case from the start.
[/color]
On entering WHF that fateful night every Police Officer believed Sheila had killed her family and committed suicide the focus wasn't placed on JB until later, that's why 'Taff Jones' was taken off the case because he wasn't prepared to look at any other option.
Especially when the person involved in the investigation took the opinion that it was a Murder/Suicide from the off set..... in other words believed the words of JB!
-
Words ? What words ?
-
Stop responding to my posts David, I have no wish to discuss anything with you - you're far to odd and obsessed.
Then why are you responding to my posts in the first place? ::)
-
On entering WHF that fateful night every Police Officer believed Sheila had killed her family and committed suicide the focus wasn't placed on JB until later, that's why 'Taff Jones' was taken off the case because he wasn't prepared to look at any other option.
Especially when the person involved in the investigation took the opinion that it was a Murder/Suicide from the off set..... in other words believed the words of JB!
One month later they reviewed the evidence in the absence of Taff Jones. Its a big misconception that only Taff Jones thought Sheila was responsible.
-
One month later they reviewed the evidence in the absence of Taff Jones. Its a big misconception that only Taff Jones thought Sheila was responsible.
Clearly many people initially thought or presumed Sheila was responsible. I don't think there is any misconception with that?
-
Words ? What words ?
My father rang and said " Please come over your sister has gone crazy and has gun".
There's more as well.
-
[quote author=Romeo link=topic=7101.msg375681#msg375681 date=147630727
One month later they reviewed the evidence in the absence of Taff Jones. Its a big misconception that only Taff Jones thought Sheila was responsible.
On entering WHF that fateful night every Police Officer believed Sheila had killed her family and committed suicide [/quote]
Read the post David..... ::)
-
Read the post David..... ::)
It was more this I was reffering to.
that's why 'Taff Jones' was taken off the case because he wasn't prepared to look at any other option.
-
It was more this I was reffering to.
that's why 'Taff Jones' was taken off the case because he wasn't prepared to look at any other option.
I think that's a fair assessment, Taff 's unwillingness to investigate further certainly does appear to be a reason for his replacement, does it not?
-
For a start.... what was JB doing looking in the safe anyway! Secondly..... Neville Bamber spoke to B Wilson in July 1985 about how ungrateful children could be ...before mentioning a new hiding place was needed for the safe key.... Neville also asked Barbara Wilson if she would mind him having a cigarette in the office that day....something he didn't usually do, so he hadn't given up smoking. As Caroline said, the cannabis was put in safe after Neville confiscated it from his nephew. Or perhaps JB is lying again and it was confiscated from him!
If a magistrate confiscates cannabis from his/her nephew he/she is hardly likely to keep it for years in his/her safe. Where did you get all the information about Neville's conversation with BW?
-
Clearly many people initially thought or presumed Sheila was responsible. I don't think there is any misconception with that?
H., if we look a how that initial opinion was formed, we can only look to it's source which -even if we're prepared to believe Nevill's alleged call to the police- was Jeremy. The case -certainly the most important, if not the biggest Essex has ever handled- was discussed, at length, at a recent police funeral. All agreed that Jeremy was guilty.
-
H., if we look a how that initial opinion was formed, we can only look to it's source which -even if we're prepared to believe Nevill's alleged call to the police- was Jeremy. The case -certainly the most important, if not the biggest Essex has ever handled- was discussed, at length, at a recent police funeral. All agreed that Jeremy was guilty.
Of course ALL " agreed that Jeremy was guilty " simply because there was not enough input to " Taff's " conclusion ( that we know of !?? ) so naturally it would have seemed/appeared that Jeremy had been guilty. As I've already said,that IF the FULL reason to the initial conclusion had been given ( possibly found in the Kinneally report ?-withheld ! ) then perhaps everyone would have had an insight into why it happened.
How easy is it to kick a man when he's down ? Very easy on here,second nature to most !!
-
Of course ALL " agreed that Jeremy was guilty " simply because there was not enough input to " Taff's " conclusion ( that we know of !?? ) so naturally it would have seemed/appeared that Jeremy had been guilty. As I've already said,that IF the FULL reason to the initial conclusion had been given ( possibly found in the Kinneally report ?-withheld ! ) then perhaps everyone would have had an insight into why it happened.
How easy is it to kick a man when he's down ? Very easy on here,second nature to most !!
How's about the simple gut feeling of experienced men who never supported Taff's conviction to the contrary? How often have you held your own gut feeling -based on your experience and going against your superiors- to be correct? You can't deny the same to others just because you don't agree.
-
How's about the simple gut feeling of experienced men who never supported Taff's conviction to the contrary? How often have you held your own gut feeling -based on your experience and going against your superiors- to be correct? You can't deny the same to others just because you don't agree.
My gut feelings are 99.9% correct. Others prefer the easy way out by following others--------that's the difference.
Experienced men ? I don't think so ! It was an " experienced man " who I'd had a gut-feeling about,a top man in his field and what he'd done was horrendous beyond words.Nobody believed me until he was sent to prison and it made headline news. NHS,POLICE and the like is a closed shop---except where I'm concerned because at the time I was like a dog with a bone.Even my own boss hadn't believed me when I first reported the matter, but if she had have done,there wouldn't have been any more traumatised families.
Some people DON'T want to believe the truth,believing it will go away and I'd been labelled as " paranoid " at the time and had been offered leave !! Not a chance. Paranoid. A new word for being truthful ::)
-
My gut feelings are 99.9% correct. Others prefer the easy way out by following others--------that's the difference.
. Always trust your GUT. It knows your head hasn't figured it out?
-
. Always trust your GUT. It knows your head hasn't figured it out?
Yeah-------well you're just another one.Tell that to the cops !
-
One has to be as crafty and cunning as the police to find out what gut-feelings are all about and how they themselves reach the conclusions that they do. The idea is to work in opposite directions to them to get the right answer.!
-
After all these years the police are only just coming to terms with the fact that mental health DOES exist.
This is utterly shameful in my opinion. An elderly,blind man arrested and fought with all because his white stick had been mistaken for a sword ?
People have been arrested for being drunk and disorderly when they've actually been suffering from hypoglycemia,a most dangerous and sometimes fatal situation.
Gut feeling ? I hardly think so. Over zealous of situations beyond their control is more like it.
-
Yeah-------well you're just another one.Tell that to the cops !
. Because you write to Jeremy, have you ever thought he might be manipulating your gut? Psycopaths are very good at disarming your gut instincts? This is not me saying this by the way it is well known within this field?
-
. Because you write to Jeremy, have you ever thought he might be manipulating your gut? Psycopaths are very good at disarming your gut instincts? This is not me saying this by the way it is well known within this field?
For goodness sake,do you honestly think that anyone would get past me via manipulation ? On the contrary,it's you and others who are being manipulated by the law if you did but know it.There are lots of psychopaths in high places--------well known in the fields of professionalism !! Look it up.
-
For goodness sake,do you honestly think that anyone would get past me via manipulation ? On the contrary,it's you and others who are being manipulated by the law if you did but know it.There are lots of psychopaths in high places--------well known in the fields of professionalism !! Look it up.
Poor Daisy thought the same, Psychopaths typically display an incredible ability to manipulate others and sometimes take pleasure in doing so.
-
I would have even challenged Dr Ferguson about his diagnosis of schizophrenia with Sheila. My reckoning would have been that she'd suffered post-partum psychosis after the twins were born. This can happen within hours of giving birth and if left untreated can create all sorts of other problems.
It's a condition that wouldn't have been as widely known or heard of when the twins were born and just looked upon as the " norm " known as the baby blues.
With this illness,there are similar symptoms to schizophrenia such as seeing/hearing things that aren't there,delusions and hallucinations,as mentioned. Memory loss is common when even family members aren't recognised,nobody appears to be " real " in their lives.
I think about the photograph of the twins which had been torn in half.Was it that she didn't recognise them at the time ?
Medication for this particular illness would have been different to the injections she was having,which to my mind Sheila was suffering badly with the side-effects from it as that which is given for a certain condition can create something else,such as suicide and or violence if the wrong stuff is administered.
The illness can,and does happen to anyone and thankfully people are more aware of it but sadly there aren't the resources for visits beyond the 6 week post-natal visit and those who suffer in silence fall through the net.
-
Given all information on Sheila's mental health being withheld,Jeremy is in his right to fight for another appeal.
-
I would have even challenged Dr Ferguson about his diagnosis of schizophrenia with Sheila. My reckoning would have been that she'd suffered post-partum psychosis after the twins were born. This can happen within hours of giving birth and if left untreated can create all sorts of other problems.
It's a condition that wouldn't have been as widely known or heard of when the twins were born and just looked upon as the " norm " known as the baby blues. Well you'd have been wasting your time as Dr Ferguson stated that during Sheila's first admission she was diagnosed with a schizo - affective disorder ...as you suggest....because although the feelings she expressed were 'clear symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia ', there appeared to be less mood disturbances with her ideas, Dr Ferguson later stated that the first diagnosis was mistaken, declaring himself firmly convinced that she suffered from paranoid schizophrenia
With this illness,there are similar symptoms to schizophrenia such as seeing/hearing things that aren't there,delusions and hallucinations,as mentioned. Memory loss is common when even family members aren't recognised,nobody appears to be " real " in their lives. That's why Sheila loved her father and twin sons unconditionally
I think about the photograph of the twins which had been torn in half.Was it that she didn't recognise them at the time ? Or could it have been JB who sorted out all the photos in Sheila's flat before Colin arrived. Plus keeping Sheila's portfolio to sell at a later date?
Medication for this particular illness would have been different to the injections she was having,which to my mind Sheila was suffering badly with the side-effects from it as that which is given for a certain condition can create something else,such as suicide and or violence if the wrong stuff is administered.
Sheila was suffered from the side-affects of her Schizophrenia drugs, which is why she asked for them to be reduced.
The illness can,and does happen to anyone and thankfully people are more aware of it but sadly there aren't the resources for visits beyond the 6 week post-natal visit and those who suffer in silence fall through the net.
Yes, it is really sad for people who suffer from post-partum psychosis.....Sheila didn't!
-
Yes, it is really sad for people who suffer from post-partum psychosis.....Sheila didn't!
And you would know that ?
The " torn in half " photograph was that of the twins and not from Sheila's portfolio.
The side-effects that Sheila suffered were from the Haldol,hence she'd requested a reduction in volume.
-
And you would know thandt ? A you would know Sheila was suffering from Post Partum Psychosis, and even ready to challenge the Doctor.. ::)
The " torn in half " photograph was that of the twins and not from Sheila's portfolio. The torn photo of the twins was found in Sheila's London flat. It was JB who collected all the family photos whilst taking other things for auction. I said...."PLUS Sheila's portfolio!
The side-effects that Sheila suffered were from the Haldol,hence she'd requested a reduction in volume.
Yes, Haloperidol is used for schizophrenia.... the strength was reduced because Sheila felt it was too strong a dose. Hence her appearance and reactions just before the murders.
-
Given all information on Sheila's mental health being withheld,Jeremy is in his right to fight for another appeal.
I had to admit not knowing anything about postpartum psychosis, and some of the symptoms do seem to fit Sheila down to a tee:
Delusions – false beliefs that are firmly held, sometimes related to the baby, such as it is ‘sent from God’, or is ‘evil’ in some way. Delusions, such as that the mother has won the Lottery, that the TV or radio are referring to her, or that she has special healing powers, are not uncommon.
A lack of insight - a woman experiencing this condition may be unaware that her behaviour is odd in any way. Very often it will be other people who notice that she is behaving oddly and is not well.
The most severe symptoms tend to last two to 12 weeks and mothers will usually remain in hospital throughout that time. The vast majority of women will recover fully. However, postpartum psychosis is often followed by a period of depression, anxiety, and low social confidence.
However I don't think she was in that state the last week at White House Farm. I still think she was suffering from schizophrenia though am unsure as to the overlap between the two illnesses.
https://www.nct.org.uk/parenting/what-postpartum-psychosis
-
Steve,I remain convinced that Sheila had had PPP. Because the condition hadn't been diagnosed and instead schizophrenia had,her medication would have been different too. Also,to have had the illness for 6+ years would have required a more lengthy stay in hospital and most certainly adjustments made in her medication.
Although the Haldol had been reduced, it would have meant also reducing the doses of her other medication to counterbalance the side-effects ,but I don't remember reading about that. However,when a patient takes such a high dose injection of Haldol which Sheila was originally prescribed,it tells me that the patient was/is " severely " ill,otherwise why prescribe such a high dose ? Yet Dr Ferguson had insisted that nobody had been in any danger ? That being the case,why the high dose ? What wasn't he saying as opposed to what he did say ? I just believe that the Haldol exacerbated the condition that Sheila originally had. It's a dangerous drug when administered for the wrong reasons.
Sheila had anxieties as well as low social confidence,which was probably why she took cocaine at parties to give her that confidence.
-
Steve,I remain convinced that Sheila had had PPP. Because the condition hadn't been diagnosed and instead schizophrenia had,her medication would have been different too. Also,to have had the illness for 6+ years would have required a more lengthy stay in hospital and most certainly adjustments made in her medication.
Although the Haldol had been reduced, it would have meant also reducing the doses of her other medication to counterbalance the side-effects ,but I don't remember reading about that. However,when a patient takes such a high dose injection of Haldol which Sheila was originally prescribed,it tells me that the patient was/is " severely " ill,otherwise why prescribe such a high dose ? Yet Dr Ferguson had insisted that nobody had been in any danger ? That being the case,why the high dose ? What wasn't he saying as opposed to what he did say ? I just believe that the Haldol exacerbated the condition that Sheila originally had. It's a dangerous drug when administered for the wrong reasons.
Sheila had anxieties as well as low social confidence,which was probably why she took cocaine at parties to give her that confidence.
Dr Ferguson was unhappy about Sheila discharging herself in March 1985 and maybe she felt she wasn't getting the help she needed and had lost respect for the doctor, which is why he recorded in one statement that she laughed inappropriately during any consultation with him. I always felt Dr Ferguson was sincere in what he did write but ultimately it's only one man's opinion and they did actually let her leave the hospital and not restrain her. As to the cocaine there's no direct reference in any of the four main books to this, the best portrait of her being in Clare Powell's book, which does mention the insecure glamour models of the Maida Vale set where cocaine parties did take place and if one assumes that Sheila attended then it's guilt by association. There's one poignant allusion to a bag of heroin lying in a chest of drawers in one of these parties openly accessible to children, which horrified Sheila, suggesting to me that by that stage the twins were not in any material danger from her and she was more guilty of omission than by deliberate intent, a view also shared by the social workers when they intervened in their care.
-
H., if we look a how that initial opinion was formed, we can only look to it's source which -even if we're prepared to believe Nevill's alleged call to the police- was Jeremy. The case -certainly the most important, if not the biggest Essex has ever handled- was discussed, at length, at a recent police funeral. All agreed that Jeremy was guilty.
well that's hardly the right place to be discussing anyone else's death. Just opinions Jane
-
Dr Ferguson was unhappy about Sheila discharging herself in March 1985 and maybe she felt she wasn't getting the help she needed and had lost respect for the doctor, which is why he recorded in one statement that she laughed inappropriately during any consultation with him. I always felt Dr Ferguson was sincere in what he did write but ultimately it's only one man's opinion and they did actually let her leave the hospital and not restrain her. As to the cocaine there's no direct reference in any of the four main books to this, the best portrait of her being in Clare Powell's book, which does mention the insecure glamour models of the Maida Vale set where cocaine parties did take place and if one assumes that Sheila attended then it's guilt by association. There's one poignant allusion to a bag of heroin lying in a chest of drawers in one of these parties openly accessible to children, which horrified Sheila, suggesting to me that by that stage the twins were not in any material danger from her and she was more guilty of omission than by deliberate intent, a view also shared by the social workers when they intervened in their care.
Sheila would have been admitted under section 3 ? at the clinic. All patients who are admitted in such places are sectioned according to their illness. A section 3 is mainly for those needing treatment and the indication that I get that Sheila had been able to more or less discharge herself,was that she was under this particular section,although I'd still be interested to know. Even on her discharge she should have been " supervised " by having weekly visits from a health worker. During treatment and also after discharge,the patient remains under the " guardianship " of mental health workers. I don't remember reading any of this either !
There's no doubt in my mind that Sheila had been let down by the services which should have been provided.
-
Sheila would have been admitted under section 3 ? at the clinic. All patients who are admitted in such places are sectioned according to their illness. A section 3 is mainly for those needing treatment and the indication that I get that Sheila had been able to more or less discharge herself,was that she was under this particular section,although I'd still be interested to know. Even on her discharge she should have been " supervised " by having weekly visits from a health worker. During treatment and also after discharge,the patient remains under the " guardianship " of mental health workers. I don't remember reading any of this either !
There's no doubt in my mind that Sheila had been let down by the services which should have been provided.
. Poor Sheila, she was let down by Bamber when he murdered her family and framed her for the murders, must have been awful for her, what she had gone through and then to have a brother like him. Must have been awful for her in them dying moments understanding why her brothers jealousy and hatred had made him Di this. Like the Pope said,
“Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others
-
. Poor Sheila, she was let down by Bamber when he murdered her family and framed her for the murders, must have been awful for her, what she had gone through and then to have a brother like him. Must have been awful for her in them dying moments understanding why her brothers jealousy and hatred had made him Di this. Like the Pope said,
“Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others
Why bring the Pope into it ? I'm not interested in him !
I'm sure you'll find that Jeremy didn't do anything,least of all kill his family.
-
Sheila had been let down by the same system we have today which continues to let people down,but on a larger scale than it did in 1985.
-
Why bring the Pope into it ? I'm not interested in him !
I'm sure you'll find that Jeremy didn't do anything,least of all kill his family.
Well don't respond then if your not interested? Bit hypocritical really.
-
“Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others
To the victor belong the spoils Senator William Learned Marcy
History is written by the victor Winston Churchill
Perhaps history is also written by the media?...
-
. Poor Sheila, she was let down by Bamber when he murdered her family and framed her for the murders, must have been awful for her, what she had gone through and then to have a brother like him. Must have been awful for her in them dying moments understanding why her brothers jealousy and hatred had made him Di this. Like the Pope said,
“Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others
Love that quote justice.
-
To the victor belong the spoils Senator William Learned Marcy
History is written by the victor Winston Churchill
Perhaps history is also written by the media?...
And the psychopaths?
-
Well don't respond then if your not interested? Bit hypocritical really.
Why am I hypocritical ? Just because I don't follow the Pope or what he has to say ?
-
And the psychopaths?
Lots of those in the media Maggie ;D
-
Love that quote justice.
Thanks Maggie, Being able to put words together like that requires special talent? The Vatican City is such a great place to visit.
-
And the psychopaths?
Do you mean Jeremy Bamber?
I think Diane Keen has probably been more effective, in the eye of the wider general public :))
-
My gut feelings are 99.9% correct. Others prefer the easy way out by following others--------that's the difference.
Experienced men ? I don't think so ! It was an " experienced man " who I'd had a gut-feeling about,a top man in his field and what he'd done was horrendous beyond words.Nobody believed me until he was sent to prison and it made headline news. NHS,POLICE and the like is a closed shop---except where I'm concerned because at the time I was like a dog with a bone.Even my own boss hadn't believed me when I first reported the matter, but if she had have done,there wouldn't have been any more traumatised families.
Some people DON'T want to believe the truth,believing it will go away and I'd been labelled as " paranoid " at the time and had been offered leave !! Not a chance. Paranoid. A new word for being truthful ::)
NEWS FLASH!!!!!!!! Lookout is the only person to have gut instincts which are correct.
-
Dr Ferguson was unhappy about Sheila discharging herself in March 1985 and maybe she felt she wasn't getting the help she needed and had lost respect for the doctor, which is why he recorded in one statement that she laughed inappropriately during any consultation with him. I always felt Dr Ferguson was sincere in what he did write but ultimately it's only one man's opinion and they did actually let her leave the hospital and not restrain her. As to the cocaine there's no direct reference in any of the four main books to this, the best portrait of her being in Clare Powell's book, which does mention the insecure glamour models of the Maida Vale set where cocaine parties did take place and if one assumes that Sheila attended then it's guilt by association. There's one poignant allusion to a bag of heroin lying in a chest of drawers in one of these parties openly accessible to children, which horrified Sheila, suggesting to me that by that stage the twins were not in any material danger from her and she was more guilty of omission than by deliberate intent, a view also shared by the social workers when they intervened in their care.
Steve, Sheila's reason for leaving the hospital, earlier than Dr Ferguson would have liked, was Christine's visit. She didn't want their first meeting to take place in a psych unit. I suspect that no attempt was made to restrain her because, whilst not as well as would have been hoped, she was no longer ill enough to insist that she stayed. It MAY be, that had she stayed, the dose of Haldol, whilst apparently being the accepted dose for acute patients in the 80's, could have been reduced before she left the hospital.
-
well that's hardly the right place to be discussing anyone else's death. Just opinions Jane
I don't know that they WERE discussing death per se. It was the CASE which was being discussed.
-
I don't know that they WERE discussing death per se. It was the CASE which was being discussed.
Every time I go to a funeral we discuss someone else who has died Jane, only natural as you get older and lose contact, memories and sadness bring out emotions with work colleagues.
-
NEWS FLASH!!!!!!!! Lookout is the only person to have gut instincts which are correct.
No need for that is there ?
-
Every time I go to a funeral we discuss someone else who has died Jane, only natural as you get older and lose contact, memories and sadness bring out emotions with work colleagues.
Yes Justice. It seems to follow on quite naturally at funeral wakes.
-
No need for that is there ?
A perfectly natural response to your assertion that YOUR gut instincts are 99.9 correct. Whilst you didn't QUITE say that few others had instincts as sharply honed as your own, it was implied.
-
A perfectly natural response to your assertion that YOUR gut instincts are 99.9 correct. Whilst you didn't QUITE say that few others had instincts as sharply honed as your own, it was implied.
Following procedures and " by the book investigations,etc " as EP did, isn't always the right thing to do if one or two happen to disagree and because of pressures put upon those who disagree to fall in with others or expect a telling off there will always remain doubt about something.
When " Taff " had given his verdict,everyone was satisfied that murder/suicide was the result.
Then along came S.Jones,gave his verdict and everyone agreed with him ?
This alone doesn't make sense and not one of those officers came forward to question the change. Because they were all under pressure by the man at the top to secure a conviction.
This is what's happening with every system in this country.As long as those at the top get the results they want and provided nobody asks any questions then that's fine.
-
Following procedures and " by the book investigations,etc " as EP did, isn't always the right thing to do if one or two happen to disagree and because of pressures put upon those who disagree to fall in with others or expect a telling off there will always remain doubt about something.
When " Taff " had given his verdict,everyone was satisfied that murder/suicide was the result.
Then along came S.Jones,gave his verdict and everyone agreed with him ?
This alone doesn't make sense and not one of those officers came forward to question the change. Because they were all under pressure by the man at the top to secure a conviction.
This is what's happening with every system in this country.As long as those at the top get the results they want and provided nobody asks any questions then that's fine.
If ones asks from whom "Taff" received the information on which he based his finding of murder/suicide, it seems likely that he'd have received it from HQ/those already at the scene. If one further asks from whom THEIR information came, I guess the answer is Jeremy.
-
If ones asks from whom "Taff" received the information on which he based his finding of murder/suicide, it seems likely that he'd have received it from HQ/those already at the scene. If one further asks from whom THEIR information came, I guess the answer is Jeremy.
I don't think so.
-
Jane,when these latest findings come to fruition and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Jeremy is innocent,what will your thoughts be ?
-
I don't think so.
Well, who else would ANY of them have had contact with at that time of the morning? Was it NOT Jeremy who first mentioned his sister's mental health. Even if you choose to believe that Nevill went through a similar procedure to Jeremy to ring the police, he'd undoubtedly have said similar words to Jeremy's otherwise there'd have been no point in making the call.
-
Jane,when these latest findings come to fruition and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Jeremy is innocent,what will your thoughts be ?
For someone who confesses to trusting no one, you appear far more trusting than many. I'm not holding my breath. Judging by the amount of time it's taken to raise £4500 he doesn't appear to be overburdened by supporters willing to give financial support.
-
For someone who confesses to trusting no one, you appear far more trusting than many. I'm not holding my breath. Judging by the amount of time it's taken to raise £4500 he doesn't appear to be overburdened by supporters willing to give financial support.
I'm not trusting of those who led and orchestrated the final investigation,not at all. Jeremy,yes.
The whole trouble with this fund is that it's come too late in my opinion as so many others including MOJ's are also requesting funding because of there being no legal aid. I actually do think about others in the same boat as Jeremy,but are not as fortunate,not being as educated as he to enable them to get a foothold.
Also,this case isn't as widely known as perhaps some others are,but even so,I reckon the amount will be there before the deadline.
-
I'm not trusting of those who led and orchestrated the final investigation,not at all. Jeremy,yes.
The whole trouble with this fund is that it's come too late in my opinion as so many others including MOJ's are also requesting funding because of there being no legal aid. I actually do think about others in the same boat as Jeremy,but are not as fortunate,not being as educated as he to enable them to get a foothold.
Also,this case isn't as widely known as perhaps some others are,but even so,I reckon the amount will be there before the deadline.
Lookout, you have yet to say from whom you believe the police received information regarding Sheila -at such an unearthly hour of the morning- if it wasn't from Jeremy.
-
Lookout, you have yet to say from whom you believe the police received information regarding Sheila -at such an unearthly hour of the morning- if it wasn't from Jeremy.
It was Neville of course when he rang the police.He'd possibly have had time to also tell them that Sheila had hold of a gun. Because both men would have addressed themselves as Mr Bamber,the police took it as having been ONE Mr Bamber. That mistake cost Jeremy his life. Dozy beggars.
-
It was Neville of course when he rang the police.He'd possibly have had time to also tell them that Sheila had hold of a gun. Because both men would have addressed themselves as Mr Bamber,the police took it as having been ONE Mr Bamber. That mistake cost Jeremy his life. Dozy beggars.
Which, of course, only works if one believes Nevill made that call to the police.
-
Which I do.
It's just a thousand pities that the tapes to these calls aren't available.
-
Which I do.
It's just a thousand pities that the tapes to these calls aren't available.
IF such tapes had EVER existed, I imagine they, along with any other potentially incriminating "stuff" would have disappeared post haste once it became obvious that supporters were looking for a reason to get Jeremy out.
-
IF such tapes had EVER existed, I imagine they, along with any other potentially incriminating "stuff" would have disappeared post haste once it became obvious that supporters were looking for a reason to get Jeremy out.
I'm convinced that such tapes would have existed considering the types of calls,but would have ended up in smoke as other vital material did. There was the excuse that messages had been taped over-------yes,I'll bet,a month later when SJ came onto the scene.
-
Strange how every last thing that would/could have saved Jeremy's neck was completely destroyed.
Makes me wonder about the much requested withheld documents--------whether they too have suddenly gone up in flames because of no answer/reply coming forthwith from EP.
-
Strange how every last thing that would/could have saved Jeremy's neck was completely destroyed.
Makes me wonder about the much requested withheld documents--------whether they too have suddenly gone up in flames because of no answer/reply coming forthwith from EP.
Well, TRY turning it around to make it personal. If you had, rather stupidly, secreted somewhere, proof of some misdeed you'd carried out in another life and you heard that, years down the line, the misdeed was being 'looked into', would you make them available for viewing or would you 'lose' them?
-
Well, TRY turning it around to make it personal. If you had, rather stupidly, secreted somewhere, proof of some misdeed you'd carried out in another life and you heard that, years down the line, the misdeed was being 'looked into', would you make them available for viewing or would you 'lose' them?
But I'm not the police investigating a murder though,and I certainly couldn't live normally if there was some " secret " hanging over me. I have a conscience you see and would have to clear the air one way or another.
I probably wouldn't get myself in such a mess in the first place. That's not the way I was brought up.
-
But I'm not the police investigating a murder though,and I certainly couldn't live normally if there was some " secret " hanging over me. I have a conscience you see and would have to clear the air one way or another.
I probably wouldn't get myself in such a mess in the first place. That's not the way I was brought up.
Clearly, you seem not to have the insight to see how it might have worked and you're probably not a team player. IF there had been a conspiracy at ground level -which I doubt- not for the life of me could I see a single man spilling the beans on the rest of his colleagues. Whatever service it is, a strong feeling of team spirit is encouraged.
-
Clearly, you seem not to have the insight to see how it might have worked and you're probably not a team player. IF there had been a conspiracy at ground level -which I doubt- not for the life of me could I see a single man spilling the beans on the rest of his colleagues. Whatever service it is, a strong feeling of team spirit is encouraged.
As I've already pointed out,they were all under pressure because of a prior meeting that " heads would roll " if any more investigations failed,so with that in mind,you would lie through your teeth to save your skin-------------if you were that way inclined.
-
As I've already pointed out,they were all under pressure because of a prior meeting that " heads would roll " if any more investigations failed,so with that in mind,you would lie through your teeth to save your skin-------------if you were that way inclined.
There's no "I" in team, Lookout. The whole is far more important than the individual. SHOULD such a situation have arisen, it wouldn't have been a question of lying to save one's own skin. I will add here that at least one of the team had 20+ years experience and he never wavered from believing Jeremy was guilty.
-
There's no "I" in team, Lookout. The whole is far more important than the individual. SHOULD such a situation have arisen, it wouldn't have been a question of lying to save one's own skin. I will add here that at least one of the team had 20+ years experience and he never wavered from believing Jeremy was guilty.
That would have been SJ then,the one who never wavered.
-
That would have been SJ then,the one who never wavered.
If you say so.
-
I can't see why they covered up a call from Nevill, as that would have got them in Taff Jones' good books and proved him right. Strange that Nevill had all the time in the world to go into detail about Sheila's illness during that call yet be cut off sharply when he allegedly made the call to Jeremy, which conveniently spares the latter further embellishment of untruths.
-
Good comments Jane J.....
I don't believe for one moment that Neville rang Chelmsford police... JB did! NB was shot in the jaw upstairs, which made speech impossible, he then made it downstairs ( which we know he did probably at gun point) looked up the number for Chelmsford police although he had emergency numbers on the dial of his phone... also rang JB... and didn't leave an excessive amount of blood on the phone in the process..... Never!
Lookout, the police were under the impression it was 5 murders and a suicide when they entered WHF, to say they destroyed evidence that could have proved JB's innocence is not the case. If anything, any evidence that was destroyed was because JB had spun a good line implicating his sister! Taff Jones was in charge in the beginning and believed JB...so he would have been the one to give the go ahead to burn evidence, discard tapes and clear up the crime scene....only to find out later he was wrong to do so! Hence his continued stance that Sheila had committed suicide.... Once the police etc looked into the crime more, it became obvious Sheila had not shot herself twice in the neck.....Taff Jones was then replaced because crucial evidence had been lost! Conclusion....JB spun such a great line regarding his sister, that he shot himself in the foot regarding convincing Taff Jones of his supposed innocence.
-
I can't see why they covered up a call from Nevill, as that would have got them in Taff Jones' good books and proved him right. Strange that Nevill had all the time in the world to go into detail about Sheila's illness during that call yet be cut off sharply when he allegedly made the call to Jeremy, which conveniently spares the latter further embellishment of untruths.
It wasn't covered up as such. A mistake had been made by EP thinking that "a " single call came from Mr Bamber,when in fact there were two Mr Bambers but by the time the messages had been taken and cars dispatched to the " one " address where the incident happened to be,as time went on and a tragedy became imminent,that mistake then became swallowed up with what had happened and so it became too late to rectify.
I can clearly see what happened but it's difficult to put into words what I'm trying to explain.
-
Has an officer,in any case,not just this one,ever come forward and admitted their mistake ?
-
How many years did it take Duckenfield to admit to what he'd done ?
-
It's when these " mistakes " aren't admitted that things become dirty and cover-ups become evident although it didn't begin as a cover-up.
This is what's happened at the very beginning of this case and it went from there-------the blame game,the finger pointing and name-calling !
-
The blessed phone-calls about who phoned who from where to whom. You can tell where all this began by the umpteen edits/mistakes/crossings out on the phone logs-------all six of them.
-
Good comments Jane J.....
I don't believe for one moment that Neville rang Chelmsford police... JB did! NB was shot in the jaw upstairs, which made speech impossible, he then made it downstairs ( which we know he did probably at gun point) looked up the number for Chelmsford police although he had emergency numbers on the dial of his phone... also rang JB... and didn't leave an excessive amount of blood on the phone in the process..... Never!
He rang Jeremy before he was shot.
Lookout, the police were under the impression it was 5 murders and a suicide when they entered WHF, to say they destroyed evidence that could have proved JB's innocence is not the case. If anything, any evidence that was destroyed was because JB had spun a good line implicating his sister! Taff Jones was in charge in the beginning and believed JB...so he would have been the one to give the go ahead to burn evidence.
The evidence crucial to the case was burned in 1996. Its the police that had something to hide not Jeremy.
Once the police etc looked into the crime more, it became obvious Sheila had not shot herself twice in the neck.....Taff Jones was then replaced because crucial evidence had been lost! Conclusion....JB spun such a great line regarding his sister, that he shot himself in the foot regarding convincing Taff Jones of his supposed innocence.
The evidence that suggests Sheila did not shoot herself was nothing more that a sound moderator that was fabricated maliciously. In other words no material evidence at.
By the time Vanezis conducted the autopsy by the early afternoon, Hypostasis was established and consistent with the position of her lying flat on her back. In the crime scene photos taken around 9.30am there is no developed post mortem hypostasis visible. This not only makes it impossible for Jeremy to have killed Sheila it also explains how DI Cook was able to move her arm in the way he did because there was a lack of rigour mortis. It also explains why the blood on her neck looks uncoagulated (Because it was). It also explains why movement was reported at 4am, because Sheila was alive Inside the farm while Jeremy was outside the farm. It also explains why Sheila had undigested food in her stomach while the other four did not because she behaved very differently that night compared to her parents and children.
I know what the response will be
B B B B But Jeremy still in prison so cant be troo. (http://honda-cb750-s.456789.n3.nabble.com/file/n3925020/drool.gif)
-
He rang Jeremy before he was shot.
The evidence crucial to the case was burned in 1996. Its the police that had something to hide not Jeremy.The farm workers and police burnt evidence at WHF long before 1996!
The evidence that suggests Sheila did not shoot herself was nothing more that a sound moderator that was fabricated maliciously. in your opinion, you can't prove it though! In other words no material evidence at. Then of course her clean feet and her staged position to name but two Also the rifle that was place on her body... Then you have the Hypothesis on her arms, her perfectly painted nails, the blood that had run down her right side before congealing, proving she was moved. oh...and Sheila wasn't used to using and loading rifles....However, JB was a good liar I'll give him that!
By the time Vanezis conducted the autopsy by the early afternoon, Hypostasis was established and consistent with the position of her lying flat on her back. In the crime scene photos taken around 9.30am there is no developed post mortem hypostasis visible. This not only makes it impossible for Jeremy to have killed Sheila it also explains how DI Cook was able to move her arm in the way he did because there was a lack of rigour mortis. It also explains why the blood on her neck looks uncoagulated (Because it was). It also explains why movement was reported at 4am, because Sheila was alive Inside the farm while Jeremy was outside the farm. It also explains why Sheila had undigested food in her stomach while the other four did not because she behaved very differently that night compared to her parents and children. I'm not even going there David, you know my opinion on Sheila's Hypothesis and rigor moris, and you won't change my mind. As regards Sheila's undigested food, no other family member was checked, so how can you say the other members did not have undigested food! How did Sheila behave differently? Next you'll be claiming Sheila was still warm!
I know what the response will be
B B B B But Jeremy still in prison so cant be troo. (http://honda-cb750-s.456789.n3.nabble.com/file/n3925020/drool.gif) You've got me wrong there David....That should be a smiley face, as I'm so pleased Jeremy Bamber is where he belongs! :)) :))
-
It wasn't covered up as such. A mistake had been made by EP thinking that "a " single call came from Mr Bamber,when in fact there were two Mr Bambers but by the time the messages had been taken and cars dispatched to the " one " address where the incident happened to be,as time went on and a tragedy became imminent,that mistake then became swallowed up with what had happened and so it became too late to rectify.
I can clearly see what happened but it's difficult to put into words what I'm trying to explain.
The problem with that, Steve, is that I'd say, in this day and age -even back in the 80's- we'd all but dropped the Victorian formality of the use of personal titles. It's a forename/surname society. Nevill MAY have still been 'old school'enough to answer a call with "Bamber here" -he may even have used it when making a call to someone he knew- because he was known locally. Jeremy was too young to adopt such an approach. I don't believe Nevill would have assumed that he'd have been known by those on the desk at police HQ at the time of morning the call is alleged to have taken place. Jeremy, if he hadn't already given his name as being JEREMY Bamber, would NOT have simply stated MR Bamber when asked for his name, ergo I do NOT believe -should I believe that Nevill called the police- there was ANY confusion about names.
-
The problem with that, Steve, is that I'd say, in this day and age -even back in the 80's- we'd all but dropped the Victorian formality of the use of personal titles. It's a forename/surname society. Nevill MAY have still been 'old school'enough to answer a call with "Bamber here" -he may even have used it when making a call to someone he knew- because he was known locally. Jeremy was too young to adopt such an approach. I don't believe Nevill would have assumed that he'd have been known by those on the desk at police HQ at the time of morning the call is alleged to have taken place. Jeremy, if he hadn't already given his name as being JEREMY Bamber, would NOT have simply stated MR Bamber when asked for his name, ergo I do NOT believe -should I believe that Nevill called the police- there was ANY confusion about names.
PS,I'm not Steve.
Old school or not,Neville would have addressed himself to the police as Mr Bamber--------which he did and that's where the mix-up was. The police aren't or weren't very bright at times,especially back then on a quiet night when nothing much was going on,unlike today where they're well and truly kept on their toes with all the crime,and so they may have been parked up somewhere having a cosy chat,their minds miles away from their jobs,then suddenly these calls come through and they have to jump to while probably in a state of confusion as to where the crime actually is and who they themselves are going to address. The name they have is Mr Bamber-----well there were two actually !!
-
Has an officer,in any case,not just this one,ever come forward and admitted their mistake ?
I do believe the officers present at the battle of Orgrave are now admitting mistakes and cover up's, at the time described, the Orgreave evidence was “the biggest frame-up ever”, having highlighted during the trial other alleged police malpractice: an officer who forged another’s signature on a statement, false evidence against individuals, and general police evidence that misrepresented what actually happened
Police are now coming forward, not one but several.
-
PS,I'm not Steve.
Old school or not,Neville would have addressed himself to the police as Mr Bamber--------which he did and that's where the mix-up was. The police aren't or weren't very bright at times,especially back then on a quiet night when nothing much was going on,unlike today where they're well and truly kept on their toes with all the crime,and so they may have been parked up somewhere having a cosy chat,their minds miles away from their jobs,then suddenly these calls come through and they have to jump to while probably in a state of confusion as to where the crime actually is and who they themselves are going to address. The name they have is Mr Bamber-----well there were two actually !!
Sorry about the mix up, Lookout, however, I'm sticking to MY belief that, IF the call was made, he'd have said "I'm/My name is NEVILL Bamber, WHF, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, followed by the message. How such could have become mixed up with JEREMY Bamber, 9 head Street, Goldhanger, is beyond me.
-
Sorry about the mix up, Lookout, however, I'm sticking to MY belief that, IF the call was made, he'd have said "I'm/My name is NEVILL Bamber, WHF, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, followed by the message. How such could have become mixed up with JEREMY Bamber, 9 head Street, Goldhanger, is beyond me.
Plus Bonnett notes on his message form that the sender was West.
I'm pretty sure this has been explained quite clearly, so I don't know why this call from Neville nonsense keeps cropping up.
-
Sorry about the mix up, Lookout, however, I'm sticking to MY belief that, IF the call was made, he'd have said "I'm/My name is NEVILL Bamber, WHF, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, followed by the message. How such could have become mixed up with JEREMY Bamber, 9 head Street, Goldhanger, is beyond me.
It's possible he'd have " quickly/hastily " ( as you would given the circumstances ) that he'd just quoted " Neville Bamber here " but would have put the emphasis on where he was as well as the situation,with little time to say anything else. If Neville had been listening out for the direction of Sheila around the farmhouse,at the same time,chances are that the mouthpiece of the phone wouldn't have been " full on " either because of the movement of his head,so obliterating half his message to whom he'd been speaking.
I'm personally convinced that there was a mix-up of names-------------it doesn't take much if you happened to have been concentrating on what the call had been about.
Today,we call it multi-tasking,it was never heard of nor practised back then.
-
If Jeremy is/was adamant that his father called the police,then that's good enough for me.
Remember when he was disbelieved and called a liar over the fostering when he'd mentioned that ?
Jeremy hasn't told any lies and has been up-front about everything that was asked of him. Compare his statement to others !
-
If Jeremy is/was adamant that his father called the police,then that's good enough for me.
Remember when he was disbelieved and called a liar over the fostering when he'd mentioned that ?
Jeremy hasn't told any lies and has been up-front about everything that was asked of him. Compare his statement to others !
The first log is of a call from Jeremy to West. West's badge number is 1990.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3195;image)
The second log is of a call from West to Bonnett. It's there in black and white, plus we have the testimonies of these two people to corroborate it further.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3199;image)
-
Jeremy is being fobbed off from every direction.Thank God for the willingness of his legal team to see this nightmare through.I personally can't think or imagine a worse position to be in when you know you're telling the truth and nobody's listening. It's an unthinkable situation that needs to happen to someone when they least expect it to know how it feels.
-
If Jeremy is/was adamant that his father called the police,then that's good enough for me.
Remember when he was disbelieved and called a liar over the fostering when he'd mentioned that ?
Jeremy hasn't told any lies and has been up-front about everything that was asked of him. Compare his statement to others !
Bamber said Neville called him at 3.10am. Saying 11 words before the phone went dead. Neville then called the police at 3.26am and Bamber called the police at 3.36am. The police arrived at 3.48am.
What do you believe was happening at WHF between Neville's call to Bamber and Neville's call to the police - 3.10am - 3.26am ?
How did Sheila manage to fit in everything between Neville's call to the police and the police arriving - 3.26am - 3.48am.
What do you believe Bamber was doing between receiving Neville's call and phoning the police - 3.10am - 3.36am ?
-
Jeremy is being fobbed off from every direction.Thank God for the willingness of his legal team to see this nightmare through.I personally can't think or imagine a worse position to be in when you know you're telling the truth and nobody's listening. It's an unthinkable situation that needs to happen to someone when they least expect it to know how it feels.
At least you are listening.
-
Bamber recieved Neville's call at 3.10am, then called the police at 3.36am. This is a 26 minute gap.
He said he called Julie, then looked for the number of the 5th furthest away police station. That's 5 minutes gone.
What about the other 21 minutes ?
-
Jeremy is being fobbed off from every direction.Thank God for the willingness of his legal team to see this nightmare through.I personally can't think or imagine a worse position to be in when you know you're telling the truth and nobody's listening. It's an unthinkable situation that needs to happen to someone when they least expect it to know how it feels.
Jeremy had a " right " to be listened to and heard in court------but he was never given that right,it was never even considered.
Concealments within the archives of documents/files that have remained hidden will contain multitudes of information that would have seen Jeremy walk free if these said items had been given to his defence at trial. This had been a DELIBERATE act to disadvantage Jeremy's defence,plus misleading for the jury.
-
What do you believe was happening at WHF between Neville's call to Bamber and Neville's call to the police - 3.10am - 3.26am ?
Probably a further escalation of events.
How did Sheila manage to fit in everything between Neville's call to the police and the police arriving - 3.26am - 3.48am.
Forgive any slowness on my part - but why would she need to 'fit everything' in to that time-frame?
-
Probably a further escalation of events.
Forgive any slowness on my part - but why would she need to 'fit everything' in to that time-frame?
'A further escalation of events' ? A touch vague.
Sheila 'had gone crazy and had got the gun'. The line went dead and Bamber could not get through. But if Neville then rang the 5th furthest away police station 16 minutes later, Sheila must have calmed down. Before going 'crazy' again. It's a pity Neville didn't take the gun off a calmed down Sheila.
-
Probably a further escalation of events.
Forgive any slowness on my part - but why would she need to 'fit everything' in to that time-frame?
Neville wouldn't call the police if Sheila had started shooting people. It's too late.
So in 22 minutes Sheila -
Fired 24 bullets. Into 3 sleeping people and one awake person. In three different locations. Both up and down stairs.
Chambered twice.
Reloaded twice.
Fought and brutally beat Neville.
Postioned Neville on top of a coal scuttle.
Burnt Neville's back.
Wrote a long suicide note.
Had a shower.
Put a nightie on.
Fetched a bible.
Read a bible.
Shot herself once.
Went downstairs and put the silencer away.
Shot herself again.
-
'A further escalation of events' ? A touch vague.
I wasn't there - so I cannot be specific regarding the exact events which took place.
Sheila 'had gone crazy and had got the gun'. The line went dead and Bamber could not get through. But if Neville then rang the 5th furthest away police station 16 minutes later, Sheila must have calmed down. Before going 'crazy' again. It's a pity Neville didn't take the gun off a calmed down Sheila.
Since you weren't there either - it's also difficult for you be realistically specific, regarding the exact flow of events.
-
Neville wouldn't call the police if Sheila had started shooting people. It's too late.
I can only try to imagine what terror Nevill may have beheld in such a desperate situation. It is an extraordinary situation to find yourself in. It is therefore probably difficult for outside commentators to rationalise what should or should not have took place; and in which order.
-
I can only try to imagine what terror Nevill may have beheld in such a desperate situation. It is an extraordinary situation to find yourself in. It is therefore probably difficult for outside commentators to rationalise what should or should not have took place; and in which order.
It doesn't really bear thinking about,even regarding Neville with past experiences during the war years. Nothing would have prepared him for what was about to happen. Nobody would------- and the matter of time would have been of no significance at any point to anyone.
-
Everyone agrees Neville would have rang the police before Sheila did any of the 13 things on my list.
Supporters have the chance to follow Sherlock and Holly and agree Neville did not phone the 5th furthest away police station. This gives Sheila 38 minutes to get everything done. Rather than 22 minutes. Although that's still not much time.
The other option is to agree that Sheila didn't do several things she is supposed to have done. Such as have a shower, write a suicide note, get and read the bible etc.
However supporters will not make either concession.
-
F.A.O. Jim.
Are you now on the list of supporters ? Just wondering.
-
Everyone agrees Neville would have rang the police before Sheila did any of the 13 things on my list.
Supporters have the chance to follow Sherlock and Holly and agree Neville did not phone the 5th furthest away police station. This gives Sheila 38 minutes to get everything done. Rather than 22 minutes. Although that's still not much time.
The other option is to agree that Sheila didn't do several things she is supposed to have done. Such as have a shower, write a suicide note, get and read the bible etc.
However supporters will not make either concession.
Personally, I think your rigid time restriction is somewhat misguided. I prefer a more fluid approach to events (and the case). I've had you on ignore for a long time - but sometimes read your posts.
-
Personally, I think your rigid time restriction is somewhat misguided. I prefer a more fluid approach to events (and the case). I've had you on ignore for a long time - but sometimes read your posts.
Thanks for the goad. Bit pointless saying it unless you're trying to deflect attention from the time line. Then again you're posts are a bit pointless. Although to be fair you rarely post. So no reason to put you on ignore.
I'm going by the the undisputed times. Given by Bamber or from documents. So rigid. And correct - 3.10am, 3.26am, 3.36am and 3.48am.
The 3.36am/3.36am times are one of the same. Bamber claims it showed Neville called the 5th furthest police station. Although he didn't include this claim in his 2012 CCRC application.
-
Thanks for the goad. Bit pointless saying it. Then again you're posts are a bit pointless. Although to be fair you rarely post. So no reason to put you on ignore.
I'm going by the the undisputed times. Given by Bamber or from documents. So rigid. And correct - 3.10am, 3.26am, 3.36am and 3.48am.
The 3.36am/3.36am times are one of the same. Bamber claims it showed Neville called the 5th furthest police station. Although he didn't include this claim in his 2012 CCRC application.
There are probably a number of people on this forum who feel a large number of your incessant posts are both goading (in a nuisance sense) and pointless. With regard to your take on the time frame, I was referring to why Sheila is supposed to have done everything by 3.48.
-
There are probably a number of people on this forum who feel a large number of your incessant posts are both goading (in a nuisance sense) and pointless. With regard to your take on the time frame, I was referring to why Sheila is supposed to have done everything by 3.48.
You're posts are pointless. Why ? I don't recall any of them. Apart from the ones when you respond to me. Despite suddenly claiming today you have had me on ignore. Anyway, as a supporter I appreciate you will try to deflect attention to me.
3.48am is when the police arrived. What are you saying Sheila did after the police arrived ?
-
Adam trying to derail the debate again will his long lists of crap ::)
#Agenda #Desperation
-
You're posts are pointless. Why ? I don't recall any of them. Apart from the ones when you respond to me. Despite suddenly claiming today you have had me on ignore. Anyway, as a supporter I appreciate you will try to deflect attention to me.
3.48am is when the police arrived. What are you saying Sheila did after the police arrived ?
If it was up to me, you wouldn't be on this forum. Some of my prevoius posts may have been boring and I may have pissed off some previous fellow posters - but not on the scale of your nuisance.
I'm aware of what time the police arrived.
-
If it was up to me, you wouldn't be on this forum. Some of my prevoius posts may have been boring and I may have pissed off some previous fellow posters - but not on the scale of your nuisance.
I'm aware of what time the police arrived.
What do you think Sheila did after the police arrived ?
-
Adam trying to derail the debate again will his long lists of crap ::)
#Agenda #Desperation
Just ignore him,he'll soon get fed up.
-
If Sheila did nothing after 3.48am, then she did everything between 3.10am/3.26am - 3.48am. Which was impossible to do.
Bamber is not sure whether it waa 3.10am or 3.26am. Publically he says Neville called the 5th furthest police station at 3.26am. Privately he didn't include it in his 2012 CCRC submisssion.
-
If Sheila did nothing after 3.48am, then she did everything between 3.10am/3.26am - 3.48am. Which was impossible to do.
What makes you think that Sheila Caffell did nothing after 3.48am?
-
What makes you think that Sheila Caffell did nothing after 3.48am?
No one has ever suggested she did.
I have asked you twice what you think she did.
-
No one has ever suggested she did.
I have asked you twice what you think she did.
Nobody has ever suggested that Sheila did anything after 3.48am? News to me. So the arrival of CA7 represents an arbitrary cut-off point for any activity by Sheila Caffell in the farmhouse? Who gave you that idea?
-
Nobody has ever suggested that Sheila did anything after 3.48am? News to me. So the arrival of CA7 represents an arbitrary cut-off point for any activity by Sheila Caffell in the farmhouse? Who gave you that idea?
What do you believe Sheila did after the police arrived ?
-
What do you believe Sheila did after the police arrived ?
How can I give an accurate account of what she may or may not have done, if I was not there to witness it my self?
-
How can I give an accurate account of what she may or may not have done, if I was not there to witness it my self?
What do you believe Sheila could have done after the police arrived ?
Without making any noise or being seen.
-
What do you believe Sheila could have done after the police arrived ?
I don't understand the significance of the arrival of police at 3.48. They didn't knock at farmhouse or get very close to it. Since their presence outside was not conspicuous, how would it have curtailed any potential activity by Sheila in the farmhouse?
-
Anyway, as a supporter I appreciate you will try to deflect attention to me.
As a 'supporter' I also ask questions veered towards guilt. I recently asked Mike Tesko whether Jeremy Bamber could have mistakenly left Sheila for dead with one gunshot wound upstairs. A scenario that left room for one of his theories about the later mishandling of a rifle by police, accidentally discharging the second shot. This would encompass a situation where both Jeremy is guilty and the police are in a very difficult position also. Mike's response was that Jeremy could have just as well mistakenly left Sheila for dead in the kitchen with one shot.
-
What do you believe Sheila did after the police arrived ? -
Fired 24 bullets. Into 3 sleeping people and one awake person. In three different locations. Both up and down stairs.
Chambered twice.
Reloaded twice.
Fought and brutally beat Neville.
Postioned Neville on top of a coal scuttle.
Burnt Neville's back.
Wrote a long suicide note.
Had a shower.
Put a nightie on.
Fetched a bible.
Read a bible.
Shot herself once.
Went downstairs and put the silencer away.
Shot herself again.
-
What do you believe Sheila did after the police arrived ? -
Fired 24 bullets. Into 3 sleeping people and one awake person. In three different locations. Both up and down stairs.
Chambered twice.
Reloaded twice.
Fought and brutally beat Neville.
Postioned Neville on top of a coal scuttle.
Burnt Neville's back.
Wrote a long suicide note.
Had a shower.
Put a nightie on.
Fetched a bible.
Read a bible.
Shot herself once.
Went downstairs and put the silencer away.
Shot herself again.
Adam, I don't get where you're coming from - so cannot provide you with the type of answer you are seeking. My guess is that the incident may have flared up several times during the night. Or it may have deteriorated extremely quickly, without sufficient prior warning signals. I doubt Nevill could have foreseen the grave and lethal danger that his family were in. Otherwise, perhaps the situation could have been diffused earlier, by timely restraint or outside intervention. Clearly it wasn't. I do not see significance you are attaching to the arrival of CA7 (for reasons already stated).
-
Are we agreed that there were no shots fired within the confines of the house after Police arrived at 3:48am or they would surely have been heard? Wasn't the master bedroom window ajar?
-
Are we agreed that there were no shots fired within the confines of the house after Police arrived at 3:48am or they would surely have been heard? Wasn't the master bedroom window ajar?
Not necessarily, a .22lr with subsonic ammunition does not make a lot of noise. I believe the only two shots fired after the police arrived were the two shots inflicted on Sheila's neck/chin. With the barrel end in contact with the body it would have muffled the noise.
-
Not necessarily, a .22lr with subsonic ammunition does not make a lot of noise. I believe the only two shots fired after the police arrived were the two shots inflicted on Sheila's neck/chin. With the barrel end in contact with the body it would have muffled the noise.
Well someone walking their dog in the neighbourhood that last night around 10:30pm heard a shot and he must have been further away..
-
Are we agreed that there were no shots fired within the confines of the house after Police arrived at 3:48am or they would surely have been heard? Wasn't the master bedroom window ajar?
No sure. As Jeremy Bamber and the crew of CA7 remained some 200 yards from the farmhouse (other than when the initial recce was carried out - which led to the 'sighting'). That is a considerable distance - approx 182 metres. Was a similar weapon not shown by Boyce to be relatively quiet when fired?
-
No sure. As Jeremy Bamber and the crew of CA7 remained some 200 yards from the farmhouse (other than when the initial recce was carried out - which led to the 'sighting'). That is a considerable distance - approx 182 metres. Was a similar weapon not shown by Boyce to be relatively quiet when fired?
Why do we hear sound father away at night better than during the day? Because everything is much quieter.
-
Wonder why if Sheila was in such a rage as suggested, she never reloaded and took pop shots at Bamber and the police? Or killed the dogs because they must have been driving her crazy? She must have known the police were coming because she cut Neville off the phone if you believe it?
-
Wonder why if Sheila was in such a rage as suggested, she never reloaded and took pop shots at Bamber and the police? Or killed the dogs because they must have been driving her crazy? She must have known the police were coming because she cut Neville off the phone if you believe it?
I suppose that brings us back to the "suicide note" and some reference to when Police arrive..
-
Wonder why if Sheila was in such a rage as suggested, she never reloaded and took pop shots at Bamber and the police? Or killed the dogs because they must have been driving her crazy? She must have known the police were coming because she cut Nevill off the phone if you believe it?
The killer's victims were shot at close range. If the killer was Sheila, then I wonder whether she started the incident in a rage or not? Perhaps she just made up her mind and began shooting. Though I understand Nevill suffered terrible injuries.
-
Well someone walking their dog in the neighbourhood that last night around 10:30pm heard a shot and he must have been further away..
Could have been a shotgun or not a gunshot at all
-
Wonder why if Sheila was in such a rage as suggested, she never reloaded and took pop shots at Bamber and the police? Or killed the dogs because they must have been driving her crazy? She must have known the police were coming because she cut Neville off the phone if you believe it?
She had no motive or reason to shoot the police or Jeremy. Its very hard for us to put ourselves in Sheila's mind.
There are three motives that overlap
Motive A) Believes the twins are possessed by the devil, Hatred against June, and also wants to end her life. No known hatred for Neville however in the house he is an obstacle that needs to be eliminated in order to kill June, the twins and herself.
Motive B) The threat of having her children taken away from her combined with her parents suggesting and supporting the idea. This creates the motive for altruistic filicide and could also create a dislike of Neville.
Motive C) She could also have killed the twins in an act of what is know as spouse revenge filicide. Wanting to make Colin suffer for one reason or another by killing the children.
I cant think of reason why she would want to shoot the police or Jeremy. Plus it was dark outside most of the time.
-
Adam, I don't get where you're coming from - so cannot provide you with the type of answer you are seeking. My guess is that the incident may have flared up several times during the night. Or it may have deteriorated extremely quickly, without sufficient prior warning signals. I doubt Nevill could have foreseen the grave and lethal danger that his family were in. Otherwise, perhaps the situation could have been diffused earlier, by timely restraint or outside intervention. Clearly it wasn't. I do not see significance you are attaching to the arrival of CA7 (for reasons already stated).
I have asked the same question 4 times. You have failed to give an answer.
You say Sheila could have continued carrying out the massacre after the police arrived. Then refuse to say what you believe she could have done.
A lot of the 14 things on my list, Sheila may not have done. Such as shower, write a suicide note, change clothes, read the bible and put the silencer away. These are all things supporters have made up and claimed Sheila did. You had the option to discard any of these so she had more chance of completing the massacre in the time scale before the police arrived.
You also had the option of discarding the made up claim that Neville called the fifth furthest away police station. Which even Bamber does not believe happened. This would have given Sheila 38 minutes to complete everything. Rather than 22 minutes.
Just like all supporters you discarded nothing. To be fair, unlike other supporters you then attempted to justify this and said Sheila continued after the police arrived. Which is a new theory. But then didn't say what you believe she could have done and tried to deflect attention onto me.
-
She had no motive or reason to shoot the police or Jeremy. Its very hard for us to put ourselves in Sheila's mind.
There are three motives that overlap
Motive A) Believes the twins are possessed by the devil, Hatred against June, and also wants to end her life. No known hatred for Neville however in the house he is an obstacle that needs to be eliminated in order to kill June, the twins and herself.
Motive B) The threat of having her children taken away from her combined with her parents suggesting and supporting the idea. This creates the motive for altruistic filicide and could also create a dislike of Neville.
Motive C) She could also have killed the twins in an act of what is know as spouse revenge filicide. Wanting to make Colin suffer for one reason or another by killing the children.
I cant think of reason why she would want to shoot the police or Jeremy. Plus it was dark outside most of the time.
Well the quote ascribed to her is "All people are bad and should be killed" which if you take her own logic make your discrete categories irrelevant. It's very unlikely that Nevill and June would add to Sheila's worries by any threats, and this seems to be borne out during the telephone conversation with Pamela and June at 10pm. Far more likely as Julie alleges the fostering issue was raised in the first instance by Jeremy in yet a further attempt to sow discord in that family, and of course we know in retrospect from Call 1 between Jeremy and Julie that incredibly he still had not made his mind up fully to exterminate all, which must make Julie feel all the more liable when she reflects on matters at a distance in the cold light of day.
-
Well the quote ascribed to her is "All people are bad and should be killed" which if you take her own logic make your discrete categories irrelevant.
She is not thinking logically, she is thinking emotionally
-
The killer's victims were shot at close range. If the killer was Sheila, then I wonder whether she started the incident in a rage or not? Perhaps she just made up her mind and began shooting. Though I understand Nevill suffered terrible injuries.
Dont forget those words, "Sheila's gone Crazy, she has got a gun" that to me is someone that's lost it, not someone just making their mind up. If we take Jeremy's word, would Neville have got Jeremy out of bed at that time in a morning knowing full well his son had, had such a long hard day at the farm,if Sheila wasn't going crazy?
I honestly believe that had someone been alive in the house, word would have filtered throughout that someone was alive and a positive and encouraging word would have been passed on to Jeremy, all Jeremy mentions is the dog whining until the police sorted things out, that's in his statement 7th Aug with everything fresh in his mind.
-
Dont forget those words, "Sheila's gone Crazy, she has got a gun" that to me is someone that's lost it, not someone just making their mind up. If we take Jeremy's word, would Neville have got Jeremy out of bed at that time in a morning knowing full well his son had, had such a long hard day at the farm,if Sheila wasn't going crazy?
One log states 'your sister has gone crazy' the other log states 'daughter gone berserk'. If Sheila's presentation had seemed vacant during the evening before, then she may have withdrawn in to her own distorted thinking. Perhaps Sheila wasn't in a rage when she shot the twins. If a withdrawn, listless or vacant person begins shooting their own children - I think most people would see that as 'crazy' or 'berserk'. How else would Nevill rationalise the horror of what was taking place? However, I could be wrong regarding Sheila's presentation - which may have been more akin to the manner in which Mr Emani had described. This would also give the impression of 'crazy' or 'berserk'.
I honestly believe that had someone been alive in the house, word would have filtered throughout that someone was alive and a positive and encouraging word would have been passed on to Jeremy, all Jeremy mentions is the dog whining until the police sorted things out, that's in his statement 7th Aug with everything fresh in his mind.
It would depend on what the police actually knew. If they knew there had been shots fired and casualties, then out of kindness and concern, they may have chosen not to say anything to Jeremy Bamber.
-
Dont forget those words, "Sheila's gone Crazy, she has got a gun" that to me is someone that's lost it, not someone just making their mind up. If we take Jeremy's word, would Neville have got Jeremy out of bed at that time in a morning knowing full well his son had, had such a long hard day at the farm,if Sheila wasn't going crazy?
I honestly believe that had someone been alive in the house, word would have filtered throughout that someone was alive and a positive and encouraging word would have been passed on to Jeremy, all Jeremy mentions is the dog whining until the police sorted things out, that's in his statement 7th Aug with everything fresh in his mind.
Agree 100%
-
Neville WOULD have alerted Jeremy. Because of the unimaginable situation within the farmhouse,he obviously felt powerless to do anything and through the call to Jeremy he would have hoped that he,Jeremy,would have in turn rang the police before it had been too late.
Regardless of the time of night/morning,you wouldn't allow a member of the family,especially your son to sleep through " just because he'd had a long,hard day previously " . Dear me,whatever next ?
-
Neville WOULD have alerted Jeremy. Because of the unimaginable situation within the farmhouse,he obviously felt powerless to do anything and through the call to Jeremy he would have hoped that he,Jeremy,would have in turn rang the police before it had been too late.
Regardless of the time of night/morning,you wouldn't allow a member of the family,especially your son to sleep through " just because he'd had a long,hard day previously " . Dear me,whatever next ?
My How Neville got it wrong then, because Bamber decided to treat it as a non emergency.
-
Neville WOULD have alerted Jeremy. Because of the unimaginable situation within the farmhouse,he obviously felt powerless to do anything and through the call to Jeremy he would have hoped that he,Jeremy,would have in turn rang the police before it had been too late.
Regardless of the time of night/morning,you wouldn't allow a member of the family,especially your son to sleep through " just because he'd had a long,hard day previously " . Dear me,whatever next ?
Again I don't think you read things through, no one is suggesting Neville shouldn't phone Bamber after a hard day.
-
Neville WOULD have alerted Jeremy. Because of the unimaginable situation within the farmhouse,he obviously felt powerless to do anything and through the call to Jeremy he would have hoped that he,Jeremy,would have in turn rang the police before it had been too late.
Regardless of the time of night/morning,you wouldn't allow a member of the family,especially your son to sleep through " just because he'd had a long,hard day previously " . Dear me,whatever next ?
There is no possibility he would have contacted Bamber. He and every other person would have woken their wife and Sheila's mother. Who was in the same house. Thread created today.
-
Why Neville would have asked June for assistance:
June was at WHF.
June was an adult.
June was able bodied and just as strong as Sheila.
An awake June is safer than an asleep June.
An awake June makes Neville safer.
An awake June makes the twins safer.
June had as much chance of claming Sheila down as Bamber would have.
Asking June for assistance means Neville would not have to go downstairs and spend several minutes waiting for Bamber to answer the phone.
Asking June for assistance means Neville would not have to spend several minutes asking the police for assistance.
June would be likely to wake anyway after hearing all the noise. Although in this case she surprisingly remained asleep and was shot with her head on the pillow.
An awake June could have protected the twins.
June was Sheila's mother. She would want to assist her daughter if she was in distress.
Neville did not need Bamber for physical assistance. He was twice as big as Sheila and June was as big as Sheila.
Asking June for assistance means he is not going to put his son in danger.
WHF was as much June's house, as Neville's. As June was Sheila's mother she had a right to know what was happening and decide to attempt to assist.
June was Neville's first option. If that failed he could then decide to ring up other people.
June may refuse to assist (which is unlikely). However June can at least protect herself and be ready for any attack. Rather than be defenceless.
There is no reason not to ask June for assistance.
-
I don't understand the significance of the arrival of police at 3.48. They didn't knock at farmhouse or get very close to it. Since their presence outside was not conspicuous, how would it have curtailed any potential activity by Sheila in the farmhouse?
I suppose we can say that there is no evidence of anybody being alive in the house from 3:48 onwards. The time is only significant in being the earliest point in which people were near the scene and capable of observing the house.
The phone line to the house was also opened and monitored at some point (about 6ish I think?), without anything being heard that indicated living occupants.
-
I suppose we can say that there is no evidence of anybody being alive in the house from 3:48 onwards. The time is only significant in being the earliest point in which people were near the scene and capable of observing the house.
The phone line to the house was also opened and monitored at some point (about 6ish I think?), without anything being heard that indicated living occupants.
I believe it's been suggested that, via the open line, signs of life were detected by a Linda but that the information has been ferreted away.
-
I believe it's been suggested that, via the open line, signs of life were detected by a Linda but that the information has been ferreted away.
A lot of strange things have been suggested or invented.
-
A lot of strange things have been suggested or invented.
Indeed. Hitman doing five murders for the price of none, Cycling in the middle of the night wearing a scuba suit. To name a few ;)
-
I suppose we can say that there is no evidence of anybody being alive in the house from 3:48 onwards. The time is only significant in being the earliest point in which people were near the scene and capable of observing the house.
The phone line to the house was also opened and monitored at some point (about 6ish I think?), without anything being heard that indicated living occupants.
I understand your stance Hartley. We could also say that that the 'firearms team being in conversation with a person from inside the farm' is unlikely to refer to Jeremy Bamber. It precedes another entry that concerns a lack of response to a challenge to persons inside the farm. I think this alone confirms that the 'conversation' entry refers whatever was going on between firearms team and the actual farmhouse, as opposed to Jeremy Bamber. The defence have never had a chance to bring in to a courtroom, a police communications expert to explore these matters (or other indicators worth questioning) - because the entry did not become known until approx two years after Jeremy Bamber's 2nd appeal.
I know there are other 'physiological' concerns regarding whether Sheila died later than the other victims - but I am not really conversant with them. Although I am aware of the two Italian professors' report that was rejected by the CCRC - again I believe the photos they worked from did not become available until after the 2002 appeal. What if they had come to light prior to the 2002 appeal - would we be having the same discussion now? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps if negatives had been released to the defence far earlier, arguments could have been explored earlier. This has always been my stance - that you cannot withhold evidence and simultaneously argue that a convicted person has been given a fair appeal.
I'd like to think there would be more info about the phone-line situation - but if there was anything that had been recently discovered, I think we would have heard about it by now.
-
I understand your stance Hartley. We could also say that that the 'firearms team being in conversation with a person from inside the farm' is unlikely to refer to Jeremy Bamber. It precedes another entry that concerns a lack of response to a challenge to persons inside the farm. I think this alone confirms that the 'conversation' entry refers whatever was going on between firearms team and the actual farmhouse, as opposed to Jeremy Bamber. The defence have never had a chance to bring in to a courtroom, a police communications expert to explore these matters (or other indicators worth questioning) - because the entry did not become known until approx two years after Jeremy Bamber's 2nd appeal.
I know there are other 'physiological' concerns regarding whether Sheila died later than the other victims - but I am not really conversant with them. Although I am aware of the two Italian professors' report that was rejected by the CCRC - again I believe the photos they worked from did not become available until after the 2002 appeal. What if they had come to light prior to the 2002 appeal - would we be having the same discussion now? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps if negatives had been released to the defence far earlier, arguments could have been explored earlier. This has always been my stance - that you cannot withhold evidence and simultaneously argue that a convicted person has been given a fair appeal.
I'd like to think there would be more info about the phone-line situation - but if there was anything that had been recently discovered, I think we would have heard about it by now.
I'm not really forming a stance or an argument here.
Plus I'd been pretty fair in the way I'd worded my post.
It is simply a fact, that there is no evidence available to us which indicates that anybody in the house was alive at any time whilst police were at the scene.
I understand some people's desire for that not to be the case, as the implications are obvious.
-
I'm not really forming a stance or an argument here.
Plus I'd been pretty fair in the way I'd worded my post.
It is simply a fact, that there is no evidence available to us which indicates that anybody in the house was alive at any time whilst police were at the scene.
I understand some people's desire for that not to be the case, as the implications are obvious.
It's possible that we're being drowned in, what can only be, speculative lists. We are then told that 'everyone agrees that....' and said point then, along with manipulated 'facts', becomes an accepted mantra. Has this case become rewritten/speculated beyond recognition?
-
It's possible that we're being drowned in, what can only be, speculative lists. We are then told that 'everyone agrees that....' and said point then, along with manipulated 'facts', becomes an accepted mantra. Has this case become rewritten/speculated beyond recognition?
Maybe, I think some people want to believe that something is true, therefore they set their proof or logic threshold extremely low.
Even when claims have been shown up to be fictitious, others repeat them again and again as if they are gospel.
An example of this is the claim that logs were withheld, despite the fact that Bonnetts log has a court sticker and it appears in a list of court exhibits, and West was handed his log whilst giving evidence in court.
-
It all depends on what information has been withheld.
It's obvious that those on different sides of the argument will have their own views,that won't change,but the original files will I'm sure,answer a lot of the questions.
NONE of us knows the full truth of what went on and it's only been those with the " strongest " views that have followed others with the same mindset.
-
I'm not really forming a stance or an argument here.
Plus I'd been pretty fair in the way I'd worded my post.
It is simply a fact, that there is no evidence available to us which indicates that anybody in the house was alive at any time whilst police were at the scene.
I understand some people's desire for that not to be the case, as the implications are obvious.
Yes I wasn't trying to have a pop. I'm just not in agreement with your statement of fact. And that's not down to me 'wanting' anything to be the case. The example I gave is in black and white from the logs - I've chosen not to write it off as an 'error'. I could be wrong - but at this moment in time I am not convinced I am wrong. If that makes sense ;)
-
Yes I wasn't trying to have a pop. I'm just not in agreement with your statement of fact. And that's not down to me 'wanting' anything to be the case. The example I gave is in black and white from the logs - I've chosen not to write it off as an 'error'. I could be wrong - but at this moment in time I am not convinced I am wrong. If that makes sense ;)
I guess it's not something that you need to agree with but it simply is a fact. There is no evidence 'available' that shows any sign of life in the house during the time that the police were at the scene.
You mention that the logs refers to 'conversation with the house met with no reply' and choose to interpret that in a particular way, you then try to reinforce your interpretation by saying the log was withheld from the defence, which simply isn't true.
I respect that we all have our different opinions (wouldn't it be boring if we didn't), but I do find it odd that you are choosing to believe some things on face value to the extent that you use them to reinforce an argument, or rather a position.
Like your belief that the logs were withheld, yet the documents now available on the forum indicates that is not true. West's log was handed to him in court whilst being questioned by the defence and Bonnett's log has a court sticker and appears on a list of exhibits as item 29.
I'm not having a pop either but there does seem to be a relaxation of soundness and logic when you are choosing to accept something that may assist a view of JB being innocent. Yet something which suggests a guilty JB is dismissed out of hand.
-
Not sure why a document saying 'conversation attempts in the farm house met with no response' would be withheld at trial by the prosecution. It supports their case.
-
Not sure why a document saying 'conversation attempts in the farm house met with no response' would be withheld at trial by the prosecution. It supports their case.
It wasn't withheld, It is also often presented with the 5:25 and 5:29 entries in isolation, rather than showing the next page.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3200;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3206;image)
-
Why did Bamber bring it up decades later and claim there were conversations with Sheila ?
-
Why did Bamber bring it up decades later and claim there were conversations with Sheila ?
Would YOU remember EVERY detail in a crisis ? Or are you super-human ?
-
I guess it's not something that you need to agree with but it simply is a fact. There is no evidence 'available' that shows any sign of life in the house during the time that the police were at the scene.
Hartley, I don’t want to get in to some belligerent ‘post-off’ with you. The log entry is available. Interpreted literally, it is evidence that somebody was still alive in the house. I have not detailed other concerns such as lights in the house or physiological concerns regarding Sheila. Then there's Christopher Bews' changing versions of events with what became known as 'trick of the light'. We also don't know what was in the Keneally report - which was a review of the case evidence, concluded approximately one month after the event, that confirmed Sheila was responsible. Essex Constabulary obviously don't want the defence to know what was in his report. In order for Keneally to reach that conclusion, he may or may not have had access to information which suggested Sheila or others where still alive after 3.48am.
You mention that the logs refers to 'conversation with the house met with no reply' and choose to interpret that in a particular way, you then try to reinforce your interpretation by saying the log was withheld from the defence, which simply isn't true.
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from regarding the logs not being withheld. The defence took that matter to court - because Essex Police insisted that exhibit 29 was the communications document in its entirety – whereas the defence suspected it was merely the first page of a larger document. Nowhere in the logs does it say 'conversation with the house met with no reply'.
I respect that we all have our different opinions (wouldn't it be boring if we didn't), but I do find it odd that you are choosing to believe some things on face value to the extent that you use them to reinforce an argument, or rather a position.
I am interpreting the entry literally. If I am wrong on the following point then I don’t mind being corrected: I believe the police have stated that it was Jeremy Bamber they were in conversation with. For reasons already stated, I do not believe this is the case – therefore I view this particular claim as subterfuge on the part of Essex Constabulary.
Like your belief that the logs were withheld, yet the documents now available on the forum indicates that is not true. West's log was handed to him in court whilst being questioned by the defence and Bonnett's log has a court sticker and appears on a list of exhibits as item 29.
I've tried to deal with this point above.
I'm not having a pop either but there does seem to be a relaxation of soundness and logic when you are choosing to accept something that may assist a view of JB being innocent. Yet something which suggests a guilty JB is dismissed out of hand.
I think that’s a bit unfair. I have moderated my opinion on the case and am more open to possibility of Jeremy Bamber having some involvement or foreknowledge* of the events about to unfold. I have also asked questions on here accordingly. Here’s another one for you off the top of my head… *was the whole gun / rabbit incident merely to facilitate Sheila’s plans? If Jeremy Bamber apparently showed no real remorse after the killings and was known to have viewed his immediate family as being in the way of his own plans (‘better off dead’) – then having a suicidal sister ready to carry-out sending her-self and her children to their rest…
-
I have asked the same question 4 times. You have failed to give an answer.
You say Sheila could have continued carrying out the massacre after the police arrived. Then refuse to say what you believe she could have done.
Adam, I haven't actually said that. I'm just open to the possibility of somebody still being alive in the house after 3.48.
A lot of the 14 things on my list, Sheila may not have done. Such as shower, write a suicide note, change clothes, read the bible and put the silencer away. These are all things supporters have made up and claimed Sheila did. You had the option to discard any of these so she had more chance of completing the massacre in the time scale before the police arrived.
I doubt 'supporters' would have made-up that Sheila put the silencer away. Is this the exhibit flying back and forth between relatives and Essex Police? If it's Sheila's palm print on the bible, then she may have reached for it as part of what was going on in her mind: it was after all, a grave situation of extraordinary magnitude. Similarly, June may have held the bible. Some might say Jeremy Bamber placed Shelia's hand on the bible (though obviously not after 3.48).
You also had the option of discarding the made up claim that Neville called the fifth furthest away police station. Which even Bamber does not believe happened. This would have given Sheila 38 minutes to complete everything. Rather than 22 minutes.
Adam, it's Nevill not Neville. Again, I do not know how 3.48 represents an arbitrary cut-off time for events inside the farmhouse. How do we know that Sheila (or anyone else who may have still been alive) knew that police were outside?
Just like all supporters you discarded nothing. To be fair, unlike other supporters you then attempted to justify this and said Sheila continued after the police arrived. Which is a new theory. But then didn't say what you believe she could have done and tried to deflect attention onto me.
It's not a new theory. I think a lot of people are open to the possibility a series of events, that falls outside of the version where Jeremy Bamber has already left everyone for dead considerably prior to 3.48am.
-
I digress here Roch,I'm sorry but I'm the worst offender for putting an " e " on the end of Nevill,simply because I have a cousin Neville,with an " e " ( he was tour manager/roadie to Jimi Hendrix,among others. )
-
I digress here Roch,I'm sorry but I'm the worst offender for putting an " e " on the end of Nevill,simply because I have a cousin Neville,with an " e " ( he was tour manager/roadie to Jimi Hendrix,among others. )
I can remember Vic bringing it to people's attention. Many of us have committed the same error as Adam.
-
I can remember Vic bringing it to people's attention. Many of us have committed the same error as Adam.
Think spell checker doesn't help either, my lappy is determined to spell Nevill with an 'e' no matter how many times I correct it.
-
The log entry is available. Interpreted literally, it is evidence that somebody was still alive in the house.
I posted the two relevant pages of the log above. It most certainly is not evidence that somebody was still alive. It is clear that the firearms team were hailing the house and received no response. If a response was received, then it would be documented, it is not.
Bonnett's use of the word 'conversation' is what you are clinging on to. Technically it would be the wrong word to have used, however the entries in the log which immediately follow and the fact that no other reference to a response from the house exists, clearly show the civilian radio operators meaning.
We also don't know what was in the Keneally report - which was a review of the case evidence, concluded approximately one month after the event, that confirmed Sheila was responsible.
This is another example of you repeating something which you simply have no real knowledge of but you're happy to take it on face value and recite it to others suggesting that it supports your reasoning.
The reality is, that whilst we do not know the contents of the report or indeed the reasons behind any conclusions contained within it, it's hardly a ground breaking revelation. JB was not arrested until just over a month after the five murders, prior to that time Sheila was indeed thought to be responsible, the victims were even released for funerals on that basis.
Of course a report produced before JB became a suspect, wouldn't have concluded that he was to blame.
Essex Constabulary obviously don't want the defence to know what was in his report. In order for Keneally to reach that conclusion, he may or may not have had access to information which suggested Sheila or others where still alive after 3.48am.
This bit is just nonsense. You can't possibly know the reasons behind such a report not being released yet you immediately decide it is some sort of conspiracy, then you throw in suggestions that he may have known people in the house were still alive after 3:48.
Is it not more likely that Jeremy was not found to be responsible at that time, simply because he was not suspected?
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from regarding the logs not being withheld. The defence took that matter to court - because Essex Police insisted that exhibit 29 was the communications document in its entirety – whereas the defence suspected it was merely the first page of a larger document.
I fear that this is another case of you believing something at face value without actually having cause to do so.
It's strange that there is still a petition to release the logs which are shown on the original list of exhibits and even contain a court sticker (and are posted on this forum).
https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremybamber-s-legal-defence (https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremybamber-s-legal-defence)
The various incarnations that have been referred to as the defence over the years, have claimed many things and requested all manner of different items of evidence, some existed, some didn't and some were already in their possession.
I think Paul Terzeon had a somewhat more eloquent way of stating that something may or may not have been available to the defence.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754)
I think that’s a bit unfair.
I expect so, but I think you are so entrenched in your position on the case that you probably don't even realise you are doing it. :-\
-
I posted the two relevant pages of the log above. It most certainly is not evidence that somebody was still alive. It is clear that the firearms team were hailing the house and received no response. If a response was received, then it would be documented, it is not.
Bonnett's use of the word 'conversation' is what you are clinging on to. Technically it would be the wrong word to have used, however the entries in the log which immediately follow and the fact that no other reference to a response from the house exists, clearly show the civilian radio operators meaning.
This is another example of you repeating something which you simply have no real knowledge of but you're happy to take it on face value and recite it to others suggesting that it supports your reasoning.
The reality is, that whilst we do not know the contents of the report or indeed the reasons behind any conclusions contained within it, it's hardly a ground breaking revelation. JB was not arrested until just over a month after the five murders, prior to that time Sheila was indeed thought to be responsible, the victims were even released for funerals on that basis.
Of course a report produced before JB became a suspect, wouldn't have concluded that he was to blame.
This bit is just nonsense. You can't possibly know the reasons behind such a report not being released yet you immediately decide it is some sort of conspiracy, then you throw in suggestions that he may have known people in the house were still alive after 3:48.
Is it not more likely that Jeremy was not found to be responsible at that time, simply because he was not suspected?
I fear that this is another case of you believing something at face value without actually having cause to do so.
It's strange that there is still a petition to release the logs which are shown on the original list of exhibits and even contain a court sticker (and are posted on this forum).
https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremybamber-s-legal-defence (https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremybamber-s-legal-defence)
The various incarnations that have been referred to as the defence over the years, have claimed many things and requested all manner of different items of evidence, some existed, some didn't and some were already in their possession.
I think Paul Terzeon had a somewhat more eloquent way of stating that something may or may not have been available to the defence.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754)
I expect so, but I think you are so entrenched in your position on the case that you probably don't even realise you are doing it. :-\
If you take the police log literally it does show someone was alive.
4.09am - 'All lights on in premises' - Later when police entered the building several lights were off. Thus someone had to be alive inside to switch them off.
Just for the record I don't take the log literally
-
If you take the police log literally it does show someone was alive.
4.09am - 'All lights on in premises' - Later when police entered the building several lights were off. Thus someone had to be alive inside to switch them off.
Just for the record I don't take the log literally
Reminds me of Dustin Hoffman and the "WALK" & "DON'T WALK" lights in the film Rainman. :P
-
I posted the two relevant pages of the log above. It most certainly is not evidence that somebody was still alive. It is clear that the firearms team were hailing the house and received no response. If a response was received, then it would be documented, it is not.
Bonnett's use of the word 'conversation' is what you are clinging on to. Technically it would be the wrong word to have used, however the entries in the log which immediately follow and the fact that no other reference to a response from the house exists, clearly show the civilian radio operators meaning.
The choice of the word ‘conversation’ and the distinction ‘with a person from within the farm’ is strongly suggestive that some form of two-way communication may have been taking place. The fact that four minutes later, it is recorded that no response is received to challenges made… Challenges for what? Challenges relevant to or as a result of a previous bout of two-way communication? For me, your argument about Bonnett's use of the word 'conversation' would be better served if the police had not attempted to claim that the entry refers to Jeremy Bamber. Clearly it doesn't - precisely because it precedes another entry about challenges to the farmhouse. Therefore the police themselves have inadvertantly undermined the argument you are attempting to pursue.
This is another example of you repeating something which you simply have no real knowledge of but you're happy to take it on face value and recite it to others suggesting that it supports your reasoning.
The reality is, that whilst we do not know the contents of the report or indeed the reasons behind any conclusions contained within it, it's hardly a ground breaking revelation. JB was not arrested until just over a month after the five murders, prior to that time Sheila was indeed thought to be responsible, the victims were even released for funerals on that basis.
Of course a report produced before JB became a suspect, wouldn't have concluded that he was to blame.
As far as I am aware Hartley, the report was requested as a review of the available evidence, at a critical juncture in the investigation. After placing pressure on the DCI Thomas Jones, the relatives then escalated the pressure to ACC Simpson and threatened to go public (i.e. the press) with certain information. If I recall correctly, it was DCS Mike Ainsley who requested the review of the available evidence, presumably because DCI Thomas Jones would not change his position in the midst of all this clamour. It is interesting that Ainsley became the detective who took overall control of the case. He claims the result of the review was delivered on 6th September. Whatever Simpson and Ainsley were angling for didn’t come to fruition – because DI Kenneally vindicated DCI Thomas Jones’ position. Since no exact time has been established for Sheila Caffell’s death, regardless of what information was in Kenneally’s report, I fail to see why there has to be an arbitrary cut off point for activity in the house at 3.48am. Let us see the contents of the report – so that we can make our own minds up?
This bit is just nonsense. You can't possibly know the reasons behind such a report not being released yet you immediately decide it is some sort of conspiracy, then you throw in suggestions that he may have known people in the house were still alive after 3:48.
Is it not more likely that Jeremy was not found to be responsible at that time, simply because he was not suspected?
I actually think I’m being quite logical: in that I suspect the report is not available because it would likely undermine the prosecution’s case against Jeremy Bamber. A similar example may be the missing officer’s report about the ‘shooting in the kitchen’ (curiously though, this isn't listed in the petition).
I fear that this is another case of you believing something at face value without actually having cause to do so.
It's strange that there is still a petition to release the logs which are shown on the original list of exhibits and even contain a court sticker (and are posted on this forum).
https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremybamber-s-legal-defence (https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremybamber-s-legal-defence)
The various incarnations that have been referred to as the defence over the years, have claimed many things and requested all manner of different items of evidence, some existed, some didn't and some were already in their possession.
I think Paul Terzeon had a somewhat more eloquent way of stating that something may or may not have been available to the defence.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754)
I think this is referring to different handwritten logs. I’m not personally saying that such logs exist – but it is clear that some other people believe they did. From what I can remember, it has been claimed there was a mass erasure of evidence not conducive to prosecuting Jeremy Bamber, instigated by DC Ainsley when he took over the case. Presumably, DI Kenneally had access to this original evidence, prior to its erasure.
I expect so, but I think you are so entrenched in your position on the case that you probably don't even realise you are doing it. :-\
Compared to what it previously was, I feel my stance is more open to considering Jeremy Bamber as having some involvement or knowledge of the events – however, I have so far never been able to exclude Sheila Caffell from having had involvement. I am yet to become convinced that Jeremy Bamber did have involvement or was indeed wholly culpable.
-
The choice of the word ‘conversation’ and the distinction ‘with a person from within the farm’ is strongly suggestive that some form of two-way communication may have been taking place. The fact that four minutes later, it is recorded that no response is received to challenges made… Challenges for what? Challenges relevant to or as a result of a previous bout of two-way communication? For me, your argument about Bonnett's use of the word 'conversation' would be better served if the police had not attempted to claim that the entry refers to Jeremy Bamber. Clearly it doesn't - precisely because it precedes another entry about challenges to the farmhouse. Therefore the police themselves have inadvertantly undermined the argument you are attempting to pursue.
As far as I am aware Hartley, the report was requested as a review of the available evidence, at a critical juncture in the investigation. After placing pressure on the DCI Thomas Jones, the relatives then escalated the pressure to ACC Simpson and threatened to go public (i.e. the press) with certain information. If I recall correctly, it was DCS Mike Ainsley who requested the review of the available evidence, presumably because DCI Thomas Jones would not change his position in the midst of all this clamour. It is interesting that Ainsley became the detective who took overall control of the case. He claims the result of the review was delivered on 6th September. Whatever Simpson and Ainsley were angling for didn’t come to fruition – because DI Kenneally vindicated DCI Thomas Jones’ position. Since no exact time has been established for Sheila Caffell’s death, regardless of what information was Kenneally’s report, I fail to see why there has to be an arbitrary cut off point for activity in the house at 3.48am. Let us see the contents of the report – so that we can make our own minds up?
I actually think I’m being quite logical: in that I suspect the report is not available because it would likely undermine the prosecution’s case against Jeremy Bamber. A similar example may be the missing officer’s report about the ‘shooting in the kitchen’ (curiously though, this isn't listed in the petition).
I think this is referring to different handwritten logs. I’m not personally saying that such logs exist – but it is clear that some other people believe they did. From what I can remember, it has been claimed there was a mass erasure of evidence not conducive to prosecuting Jeremy Bamber, instigated by DC Ainsley when he took over the case. Presumably, DI Kenneally had access to this original evidence, prior to its erasure.
Compared to what it previously was, I feel my stance is more open to considering Jeremy Bamber as having some involvement or knowledge of the events – however, I have so far never been able to exclude Sheila Caffell from having had involvement. I am yet to become convinced that Jeremy Bamber did have involvement or was indeed wholly culpable.
I think we are repeating ourselves, I could copy and paste my previous response and use it as a reply here.
-
I think we are repeating ourselves, I could copy and paste my previous response and use it as a reply here.
I felt my most recent response was fair and genuine. I have no desire for any forum conflict. People approach the case from a vast array of different angles.
-
I felt my most recent response was fair and genuine. I have no desire for any forum conflict. People approach the case from a vast array of different angles.
Why do you keep going on about forum conflicts; having a pop and belligerent exchanges?
This is a forum, if you post something, the odds are somebody will respond.
I'm not commenting on the fairness or how genuine your words were, obviously I very much disagree with your assumptions and interpretations, I personally find them to be illogical and unreasonable given the information available to us.
As if to reinforce my opinion, you bring up the the 'officers report of shooting' which has been previously (and quite ridiculously) used to claim the the police fired shots in the house.
My observation that we were repeating ourselves, was intended literally.
-
Why do you keep going on about forum conflicts; having a pop and belligerent exchanges?
This is a forum, if you post something, the odds are somebody will respond.
I'm not commenting on the fairness or how genuine your words were, obviously I very much disagree with your assumptions and interpretations, I personally find them to be illogical and unreasonable given the information available to us.
As if to reinforce my opinion, you bring up the the 'officers report of shooting' which has been previously (and quite ridiculously) used to claim the the police fired shots in the house.
My observation that we were repeating ourselves, was intended literally.
Probably because your tone comes across as prickly. Personally i fail to see how I am being illogical.
-
Probably because your tone comes across as prickly.
I didn't realise typed words had a tone. I think you are mistaken and being somewhat paranoid. :-\
-
I didn't realise typed words had a tone. I think you are mistaken and being somewhat paranoid. :-\
Possibly I am out of step with forum protocol. However tbf - in the past, you've not been the most accommodating when people respond to stuff you've posted up yourself. I'd rather not get in to all that though - as I think it's boring for people reading the forum. So let's stick to the case.
-
Possibly I am out of step with forum protocol. However tbf - in the past, you've not been the most accommodating when people respond to stuff you've posted up yourself. I'd rather not get in to all that though - as I think it's boring for people reading the forum. So let's stick to the case.
Hmmm I'm not sure how true that is. I've simply challenged what you wrote and explained my reasons for doing so.
-
Hmmm I'm not sure how true that is. I've simply challenged what you wrote and explained my reasons for doing so.
Is it not true that if Jeremy had taken on WHF the boutflours would have been indebted?
-
Hartley has for obvious reasons has biased views.
-
Is it not true that if Jeremy had taken on WHF the boutflours would have been indebted?
You've branched off in to a different topic there (which is fine).
In actual fact, as I'm sure most people are aware by now, WHF was and still is owned by a charity trust, so Jeremy taking on WHF wouldn't have had any impact on anybody else. I have however been led to believe that 'The Henry Smith Trust' refused to allow JB to take over the lease on a permanent basis, due to his lack of experience in running an estate.
-
Hmmm I'm not sure how true that is. I've simply challenged what you wrote and explained my reasons for doing so.
OK, my misunderstanding.
-
OK, my misunderstanding.
No worries.
-
You've branched off in to a different topic there (which is fine).
In actual fact, as I'm sure most people are aware by now, WHF was and still is owned by a charity trust, so Jeremy taking on WHF wouldn't have had any impact on anybody else. I have however been led to believe that 'The Henry Smith Trust' refused to allow JB to take over the lease on a permanent basis, due to his lack of experience in running an estate.
Who you led you to believe Hartley?
-
Who you led you to believe Hartley?
Just from discussion with people outside of the forum.
It's a relatively unimportant point with no impact on the case whatsoever.
-
Just from discussion with people outside of the forum.
It's a relatively unimportant point with no impact on the case whatsoever.
It is important Hartley.
Would that person be Ann?
-
It is important Hartley.
Would that person be Ann?
Just word of mouth from people whom you do not know.
Accept it and take it on board, or don't.
I think you was expecting a different answer when asking about JB going in to WHF and the impact on other family members.
-
Who you led you to believe Hartley?
I thought it was well known.
-
Just word of mouth from people whom you do not know.
Accept it and take it on board, or don't.
I think you was expecting a different answer when asking about JB going in to WHF and the impact on other family members.
I wasn't expecting a different answer Hartley. I was the answer I was expecting.
-
I thought it was well known.
Enlighten me Jane.
-
Enlighten me Jane.
I don't know how I can, Buddy. It's just something I know. If I'd thought about it, I'd have assumed it was common knowledge. It's no big deal. What's with the cross examination?
-
I don't know how I can, Buddy. It's just something I know. If I'd thought about it, I'd have assumed it was common knowledge. It's no big deal. What's with the cross examination?
Just say what you know Jane. It is a big deal.
This is a forum where we cross examine, no offence intended.
-
Just say what you know Jane. It is a big deal.
This is a forum where we cross examine, no offence intended.
If you've read what H says -and you clearly have- you know as much as I know. Cross examine someone else to see if they know.
-
I can see that JB had been " guilty " before he was even charged ! Sticks out a mile.
-
If you've read what H says -and you clearly have- you know as much as I know. Cross examine someone else to see if they know.
[/quote
Bowed out then Jane?
-
If you've read what H says -and you clearly have- you know as much as I know. Cross examine someone else to see if they know.
[/quote
Bowed out then Jane?
If you insist.
-
Is it not true that if Jeremy had taken on WHF the boutflours would have been indebted?
Neville owned the land the Eaton's were farming on. They were planning to buy it off Neville when they had the money. So by default they would be indebted to Jeremy instead of Neville.
WHF does not really come into the equation.
-
I can see that JB had been " guilty " before he was even charged ! Sticks out a mile.
I agree.
-
Like I said,JB was hung out to dry long before the trial. A usurpers worst nightmare,someone else taking over.
-
Neville owned the land the Eaton's were farming on. They were planning to buy it off Neville when they had the money. So by default they would be indebted to Jeremy instead of Neville.
WHF does not really come into the equation.
I don't 'know' but I think Buddy may have been thinking of Carbonnell's in Wix?
I think it was owned, or partially owned by Mabel Speakman, so there are some complicated inheritance scenarios that could have presented themselves I suppose.
-
I agree.
So do I.
-
Is it not true that if Jeremy had taken on WHF the boutflours would have been indebted?
No they probably would have been granted a bank loan and worked the land hard as they had for generations, whilst Jeremy lived it up in London squandering his inheritance.
-
I don't 'know' but I think Buddy may have been thinking of Carbonnell's in Wix?
I think it was owned, or partially owned by Mabel Speakman, so there are some complicated inheritance scenarios that could have presented themselves I suppose.
This is all I have on it. :-\
-
No they probably would have been granted a bank loan and worked the land hard as they had for generations, whilst Jeremy lived it up in London squandering his inheritance.
He never had the chance to prove himself,did he ? They made sure of that.
-
This is all I have on it. :-\
Yeah, but that piece of land wasn't associated with the WHF holdings, which as we know, are owned by a charity trust. So I'm not really sure where Buddy was going with it. :-\
-
I am indebted to the late Campion and post this respectfully in tribute to him:
Posts: 1967
Re: Bamber Country
« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2012, 12:38:PM »
Quote
Summer, This is where I think the problems arise, the adopted mothers side of the family. With granny
Speakman passing away so close to Jeremy's arrest, presumably she must have been in poor health
for sometime and her passing would be expected by all parties with a vested interest. Generally,
grandchildren have little specialist knowledge of how much there grandparents are worth in shares and
property. Their children do because they have openly discussed this delicate issue prior to the event,
particularly the farming fraternity, because it involves death duties, mainly inheritance tax. If they weren't in the loop, the consequences may affect there own properties that could be held in a family trust. The grandchildren just view that granparents are well off. This unpleasant scenario is the nature
of these situations, the children have to be well informed. In the unlikely event that an entire generation
is leapfrogged, then those with a vested interest are likely to become hostile to a junior, especially if they are not a direct blood relative. Can a family divide like that, would they push another family member
out and could they make sure that that person would never enter the scenario again, that is for people
to form their own judgement, my opinion is yes it can happen and it's much more common occurrence
than society is prepared to recognise. The Speakman family were seriously rich, because they were
very astute business people and they can only be congratulated for their success, it is what came next
and it's influences and possible motive ?
You can read the full thread here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2282.0.html
-
Yeah, but that piece of land wasn't associated with the WHF holdings, which as we know, are owned by a charity trust. So I'm not really sure where Buddy was going with it. :-\
See below.
The building was actually only listed in February 1987, the National Heritage listing reads as follows:
TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY PAGES LANE TL 91 SW(west side) 3/78White House Farmhouse GVII
TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY PAGES LANE TL 91 SW (west side) 3/78 White House Farmhouse GV II House. Late C18 and early C19. Red and gault brick in Flemish bond, roofed with slate. C18 range of red brick aligned N-S with 2 axial stacks. Early C19 crosswing of gault brick at S end, forming entrance front, with internal stacks at each side. C19 single-storey extension at N end. 2 storeys. Ground floor, 2 early C19 sashes of 16 lights, first floor, 2 similar sashes and one of 12 lights, all with flat brick arches. Central C20 half-glazed door in simple flat-roofed porch with 2 columns and 3 stone steps. Low-pitched hipped roof. Reported to have date 1820 inscribed on beam in roof. White House is shown on Chapman and Andre's map of 1777, then on another site approx. 400 metres to the west. Both were built by a charity established in 1626 by Henry Smith, salter and alderman of London, to which the farm still belongs at the time of survey, May 1985 (P. Morant, The History and Antiquities of Essex, 1768, I, 399).
-
Yeah, but that piece of land wasn't associated with the WHF holdings, which as we know, are owned by a charity trust. So I'm not really sure where Buddy was going with it. :-\
I think Buddy was referring to the inheritance as a whole when he said 'WHF'
The land may be owned by a charity trust under a long term lease, however the farming business "N & J Bamber LTD" was owned by Neville and June.
https://companycheck.co.uk/company/01327321/N--J-BAMBER-LIMITED/companies-house-data (https://companycheck.co.uk/company/01327321/N--J-BAMBER-LIMITED/companies-house-data)
-
We seem now to have reached a most unsatisfactory state of affairs: indeed we are at an impasse as both innocent and guilty camps hold steadfastly to their views, and with no new evidence forthcoming. Those who insist on Jeremy's innocence point to bureaucratic inaccuracies and a cover-up unparalleled at the time, whilst the guilters insist that though there were minor irregularities the correct verdict was ultimately reached.
Where do we go from here? Are Colin's wishes paramount, that the man who deprived him of his two sons should spend the rest of his life behind bars, or is there still some smidgen of hope through the legal process that the sentence can be overturned? Do we begrudge Jeremy a badminton lesson or can rehabilitation only commence when an admission of guilt is made, possibly to Terry Waite or some other man of the cloth, engaging him in discourse to gently coax out the truth, though in a more intimate environment than a reception-room with screwed-down chairs set within the confines of a dank Victorian edifice, where the only outcome hitherto has been an entrenchment of Jeremy's story, buttressed as he is by an army of supporters, celebrities amongst them, who swear blindly that a miscarriage of justice has taken place.
-
From Colin's book re: the silencer:
It was also pointed out to me later, by David Boutflour, that a small textured, washer-like attachment, normally fitted to the end of the gun barrel to protect the screw thread when the silencer is not attached, was found by police-officers on their second inspection of the gun cupboard in the box which had contained the silencer. Without that or the silencer attached, the thread on the end of the barrel would have been marked or damaged in much the same way that the end of the silencer was; however, it was clean and undamaged, further indicating that the silencer was attached throughout the five killings."
-
First of all,I doubt we'll hear anything regarding forensic testing results or the new evidence until 2017 now because of the long break ahead which normally lasts until about the 6th of January.
-
From Colin's book re: the silencer:
It was also pointed out to me later, by David Boutflour, that a small textured, washer-like attachment, normally fitted to the end of the gun barrel to protect the screw thread when the silencer is not attached, was found by police-officers on their second inspection of the gun cupboard in the box which had contained the silencer. Without that or the silencer attached, the thread on the end of the barrel would have been marked or damaged in much the same way that the end of the silencer was; however, it was clean and undamaged, further indicating that the silencer was attached throughout the five killings."
Steve, that's a cut and paste job. You'll be called out on your double standards if your not careful.
-
From Colin's book re: the silencer:
It was also pointed out to me later, by David Boutflour, that a small textured, washer-like attachment, normally fitted to the end of the gun barrel to protect the screw thread when the silencer is not attached, was found by police-officers on their second inspection of the gun cupboard in the box which had contained the silencer. Without that or the silencer attached, the thread on the end of the barrel would have been marked or damaged in much the same way that the end of the silencer was; however, it was clean and undamaged, further indicating that the silencer was attached throughout the five killings."
Ah yes. We can always rely on the word of those who got all the loot and who's reputations rest on sustaining Jeremy's conviction.
-
Steve, that's a cut and paste job. You'll be called out on your double standards if your not careful.
Stephanie there's a difference between a smidgen of Colin's book and the Encyclopaedia Britannica..
-
Ah yes. We can always rely on the word of those who got all the loot and who's reputations rest on sustaining Jeremy's conviction.
The Police didn't get any of the loot. I can't understand why they would go against their own boss of the time when all they probably thought that day was how much overtime they could claim.
-
We seem now to have reached a most unsatisfactory state of affairs: indeed we are at an impasse as both innocent and guilty camps hold steadfastly to their views, and with no new evidence forthcoming. Those who insist on Jeremy's innocence point to bureaucratic inaccuracies and a cover-up unparalleled at the time, whilst the guilters insist that though there were minor inaccuracies the correct verdict was ultimately reached.
Where do we go from here? Are Colin's wishes paramount, that the man who deprived him of his two sons should spend the rest of his life behind bars, or is there still some smidgen of hope through the legal process that the sentence can be overturned? Do we begrudge Jeremy a badminton lesson or can rehabilitation only commence when an admission of guilt is made, possibly to Terry Waite or some other man of the cloth, engaging him in discourse to gently coax out the truth, though in a more intimate environment than a reception-room with screwed-down chairs set within the confines of a dank Victorian edifice, where the only outcome hitherto has been an entrenchment of Jeremy's story, buttressed as he is by an army of supporters, celebrities amongst them, who swear blindly that a miscarriage of justice has taken place.
Whilst I am fully aware of the staffing crisis and financial cut backs in our prisons, pressure should be put on prison Governors, NOMS and all other outside agencies to ensure they are protecting the public, as well as prisoners.
Prisons should be pressured to share with the public the risk level of each prisoner in their care.
-
Stephanie there's a difference between a smidgen of Colin's book and the Encyclopaedia Britannica..
You'll have to explain the difference Steve because most of your posts appear to me like you've swallowed every volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica?
-
You'll have to explain the difference Steve because most of your posts appear to me like you've swallowed every volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica?
Maybe, but it's lodged inside my head and spouted therefrom, not regurgitated verbatim from another person's source.
-
Maybe, but it's lodged inside my head and spouted therefrom, not regurgitated verbatim from another person's source.
I'd understand it if I were taking information from 3rd parties who had given their opinion on the Jeremy Bamber's case over the decades, then adding reams of my own spiel, or another third parties spiel, but I'm not.
The regurgitated verbatim material to which you refer, explains clearly my point regarding disordered individuals, their traits and manipulation techniques. What's the point in attempting to re-invent the wheel and waste time and energy in the process?
If posters aren't interested in reading links of interest or are in denial about Bamber, that's up to them but the information is there if/when they may need it?
-
Whilst I am fully aware of the staffing crisis and financial cut backs in our prisons, pressure should be put on prison Governors, NOMS and all other outside agencies to ensure they are protecting the public, as well as prisoners.
Prisons should be pressured to share with the public the risk level of each prisoner in their care.
It should be a pre-requisite for every prisoner.
Maybe the prison should start classifying prisoners and incorporating a number or letter into their prisoner ID number, which represents their risk level? Along the lines of the digits included in UK driving licences maybe.
Courts should also be forced to publicly disclose the details of a prisoners pathology at the same time the prisoner is sentenced; (following a guilty verdict). They don't need to go into any details but if the prisoner is personality disordered - the public should be told.
-
I'd understand it if I were taking information from 3rd parties who had given their opinion on the Jeremy Bamber's case over the decades, then adding reams of my own spiel, or another third parties spiel, but I'm not.
The regurgitated verbatim material to which you refer, explains clearly my point regarding disordered individuals, their traits and manipulation techniques. What's the point in attempting to re-invent the wheel and waste time and energy in the process?
If posters aren't interested in reading links of interest or are in denial about Bamber, that's up to them but the information is there if/when they may need it?
But what you haven't done successfully is to apply this consistently to specific incidents in Jeremy Bamber's life which reinforces the point you were trying to make. It's why so many members got to screaming pitch when another of your posts appeared(and I was probably one of only a handful of members who has digested them all), and now you've had two complaints you have at least heeded what the silent majority were thinking all along.
-
But what you haven't done successfully is to apply this consistently to specific incidents in Jeremy Bamber's life which reinforces the point you were trying to make. It's why so many members got to screaming pitch when another of your posts appeared(and I was probably one of only a handful of members who has digested them all), and now you've had two complaints you have at least heeded what the silent majority were thinking all along.
I've done it successfully. It's there if people want to read it.
There's no point attempting to debate with posters who have proven they are bias, in denial or have a personal agenda; especially if some of the people fit the criteria in some of the material I've posted.
-
I've done it successfully. It's there if people want to read it.
There's no point attempting to debate with posters who have proven they are bias, in denial or have a personal agenda; especially if some of the people fit the criteria in some of the material I've posted.
From what I recall you've mentioned Aunt Agatha and the Daisygate saga which has been discussed many times before, to be fair sometime before you joined the site. But there's no point in sermonizing on the theory of psychopathy if you can't relate it to day to day activities in Jeremy Bamber's life, whether past or present.
-
I bet most people here and those who are in contact with Jeremy Bamber have never bothered to find out what his current risk levels are. Most people probably won't know what that means and he most certainly won't be divulging it.
-
From what I recall you've mentioned Aunt Agatha and the Daisygate saga which has been discussed many times before, to be fair sometime before you joined the site. But there's no point in sermonizing on the theory of psychopathy if you can't relate it to day to day activities in Jeremy Bamber's life, whether past or present.
When did you join the site Steve?
-
We seem now to have reached a most unsatisfactory state of affairs: indeed we are at an impasse as both innocent and guilty camps hold steadfastly to their views, and with no new evidence forthcoming. Those who insist on Jeremy's innocence point to bureaucratic inaccuracies and a cover-up unparalleled at the time, whilst the guilters insist that though there were minor inaccuracies the correct verdict was ultimately reached.
,
Where do we go from here? Are Colin's wishes paramount, that the man who deprived him of his two sons should spend the rest of his life behind bars, or is there still some smidgen of hope through the legal process that the sentence can be overturned? Do we begrudge Jeremy a badminton lesson or can rehabilitation only commence when an admission of guilt is made, possibly to Terry Waite or some other man of the cloth, engaging him in discourse to gently coax out the truth, though in a more intimate environment than a reception-room with screwed-down chairs set within the confines of a dank Victorian edifice, where the only outcome hitherto has been an entrenchment of Jeremy's story, buttressed as he is by an army of supporters, celebrities amongst them, who swear blindly that a miscarriage of justice has taken place.
hi steve, I agree it seems we have no where else to go until some further information/evidence comes to light. The ct say more in 2017 so hopefully if nothing else will give us something new to talk about.
It's a difficult question regarding colin, if I put myself in his shoes jb should never be let out and any murderer that kills 5 including children should never be freed. I don't think the prisons need to tell us anything regarding the guilty prisoners progress as the punishment would be life incarcerated and they would just have to suffer it.
However miscarriages of justice do happen and if jb is one of those then I wouldn'twant him to be locked up for a day longer. We as a society have to get this right more often. People behave differently to what you and I call the norm it doesn't make them guilty. In the luke mitchell case there was a lit written about him Nd his behaviour and the way he looked and he was tried in the press imo. I have to add I really don't know too much about the case but surely it is right that convictions are not made on police building stories based on people's character totally. P's I don't know enough about the case to say guilt or innocence .
-
When did you join the site Steve?
Why don't you check; the information is there to reference if you're a member.
-
hi steve, I agree it seems we have no where else to go until some further information/evidence comes to light. The ct say more in 2017 so hopefully if nothing else will give us something new to talk about.
It's a difficult question regarding colin, if I put myself in his shoes jb should never be let out and any murderer that kills 5 including children should never be freed. I don't think the prisons need to tell us anything regarding the guilty prisoners progress as the punishment would be life incarcerated and they would just have to suffer it.
However miscarriages of justice do happen and if jb is one of those then I wouldn'twant him to be locked up for a day longer. We as a society have to get this right more often. People behave differently to what you and I call the norm it doesn't make them guilty. In the luke mitchell case there was a lit written about him Nd his behaviour and the way he looked and he was tried in the press imo. I have to add I really don't know too much about the case but surely it is right that convictions are not made on police building stories based on people's character totally. P's I don't know enough about the case to say guilt or innocence .
But what do we do when we have people like Karen Torely campaigning for alleged MOJ's?
She helped free a guilty man from death row, ran off with his brother who was serving 65 years for murder and continued campaigning for people like Simon Hall, having learned nothing.
-
hi steve, I agree it seems we have no where else to go until some further information/evidence comes to light. The ct say more in 2017 so hopefully if nothing else will give us something new to talk about.
It's a difficult question regarding colin, if I put myself in his shoes jb should never be let out and any murderer that kills 5 including children should never be freed. I don't think the prisons need to tell us anything regarding the guilty prisoners progress as the punishment would be life incarcerated and they would just have to suffer it.
However miscarriages of justice do happen and if jb is one of those then I wouldn'twant him to be locked up for a day longer. We as a society have to get this right more often. People behave differently to what you and I call the norm it doesn't make them guilty. In the luke mitchell case there was a lit written about him Nd his behaviour and the way he looked and he was tried in the press imo. I have to add I really don't know too much about the case but surely it is right that convictions are not made on police building stories based on people's character totally. P's I don't know enough about the case to say guilt or innocence .
What a well-thought out post notsure. I was thinking back to the Evans and Allen case in 1964, the last hangings in Britain, and whether I would have wanted Jeremy Bamber to face the same punishment. I wonder whether the controversy would have ended there, or if the campaigners would have been as vociferous had they not had this figurehead incarcerated, however much he may or may not have been directing the traffic. Would the two jurors who found him guilty have increased to three, thus nullifying the whole point of legal state execution if he were to escape any punishment, or would it have been better as a society to rid ourselves of this mass murderer once and for all, rather than keep him alive with the minute chance that he will ever be released and the undoubted concomitant effect on anyone's mental health in the process?
-
What a well-thought out post notsure. I was thinking back to the Evans and Allen case in 1964, the last hangings in Britain, and whether I would have wanted Jeremy Bamber to face the same punishment. I wonder whether the controversy would have ended there, or if the campaigners would have been as vociferous had they not had this figurehead incarcerated, however much he may or may not have been directing the traffic. Would the two jurors who found him guilty have increased to three, thus nullifying the whole point of legal state execution if he were to escape any punishment, or would it have been better as a society to rid ourselves of this mass murderer once and for all, rather than keep him alive with the minute chance that he will ever be released and the undoubted concomitant effect on anyone's mental health in the same position?
oh blimey I'm not sure what I think about the death penalty. !!!! It's a dilemma isn't it. We know jb wouldn't have got it as it was a 10 to 2 and it wouldn't have been allowed. Then again people like Huntley, what's the point in keeping him locked up, I don't think he will ever get out do you. I live just a few miles from those families. . I suppose the system has to work a lot better so we don't find innocent people guilty then we could when certain give out a death penalty when needed ridding society of these evil monsters.
I cannot imagine what it must do to a person's mental health being locked up for innocent or guilty people, I think I would ratherbe dead. IIt's amazing how humans have the ability to cope.
Having said all that I hope I nevery have to sit on a jury in a murder trial.
-
But what do we do when we have people like Karen Torely campaigning for alleged MOJ's?
She helped free a guilty man from death row, ran off with his brother who was serving 65 years for murder and continued campaigning for people like Simon Hall, having learned nothing.
well we live in a democratic country so having said that what would you do?
-
hi steve, I agree it seems we have no where else to go until some further information/evidence comes to light. The ct say more in 2017 so hopefully if nothing else will give us something new to talk about.
It's a difficult question regarding colin, if I put myself in his shoes jb should never be let out and any murderer that kills 5 including children should never be freed. I don't think the prisons need to tell us anything regarding the guilty prisoners progress as the punishment would be life incarcerated and they would just have to suffer it.
However miscarriages of justice do happen and if jb is one of those then I wouldn'twant him to be locked up for a day longer. We as a society have to get this right more often. People behave differently to what you and I call the norm it doesn't make them guilty. In the luke mitchell case there was a lit written about him Nd his behaviour and the way he looked and he was tried in the press imo. I have to add I really don't know too much about the case but surely it is right that convictions are not made on police building stories based on people's character totally. P's I don't know enough about the case to say guilt or innocence .
What a well-thought out post notsure. I was thinking back to the Evans and Allen case in 1964, the last hangings in Britain, and whether I would have wanted Jeremy Bamber to face the same punishment. I wonder whether the controversy would have ended there, or if the campaigners would have been as vociferous had they not had this figurehead incarcerated, however much he may or may not have been directing the traffic. Would the two jurors who found him guilty have increased to three, thus nullifying the whole point of legal state execution if he were to escape any punishment, or would it have been better as a society to rid ourselves of this mass murderer once and for all, rather than keep him alive with the minute chance that he will ever be released and the undoubted concomitant effect on anyone's mental health in the same position?
oh blimey I'm not sure what I think about the death penalty. !!!! It's a dilemma isn't it. We know jb wouldn't have got it as it was a 10 to 2 and it wouldn't have been allowed. Then again people like Huntley, what's the point in keeping him locked up, I don't think he will ever get out do you. I live just a few miles from those families. . I suppose the system has to work a lot better so we don't find innocent people guilty then we could when certain give out a death penalty when needed ridding society of these evil monsters.
I cannot imagine what it must do to a person's mental health being locked up for innocent or guilty people, I think I would ratherbe dead. IIt's amazing how humans have the ability to cope.
Having said all that I hope I nevery have to sit on a jury in a murder trial.
You both highlight a crucial factor.
The importance of raising awareness of personality disorders (PD) and the red flags to look out for.
Since September 2015 UK prisons have started raising awareness with staff and 152 pages of guidelines are now in place. Prior to this time, PD's had been neglected.
It is my belief that in 2017 Jeremy Bamber will be exposed for the con artist he is.
-
well we live in a democratic country so having said that what would you do?
;D ;D I rest my case.
-
The Police didn't get any of the loot. I can't understand why they would go against their own boss of the time when all they probably thought that day was how much overtime they could claim.
The police did not discover any of the evidence used to convict him. The only exception of police getting the loot is DCI Ainsley getting employed by RWB at the business he inherited as a result of Jeremy's conviction.
-
The police did not discover any of the evidence used to convict him. The only exception of police getting the loot is DCI Ainsley getting employed by RWB at the business he inherited as a result of Jeremy's conviction.
They should have found the silencer, but they weren't looking for one. The rest was circumstantial evidence, as Jeremy declared it to be "the perfect crime".
-
You both highlight a crucial factor.
The importance of raising awareness of personality disorders (PD) and the red flags to look out for.
Since 2015 UK prisons have started raising awareness with staff and guidelines are now in place. Prior to this time, PD's had been neglected.
It is my belief that in 2017 Jeremy Bamber will be exposed for the con artist he is.
Stephanie you have something to contribute to this site, but why not give examples as an illustration of your point with references to the literature on the case or the documents in the library here?
-
I've done it successfully. It's there if people want to read it.
There's no point attempting to debate with posters who have proven they are bias, in denial or have a personal agenda; especially if some of the people fit the criteria in some of the material I've posted.
Your unqualified opinion proves nothing.
Here is part of Proffessor Egan's university/work profile.
HCPC-accredited forensic and clinical psychologist. Expert in the administration of forensic risk assessment instruments (PCL-R, HCR-20, SVR-20), assessment of personality disorder (IPDE), and the assessment of intelligence (WASI, WAIS-IV, Wechsler Memory Scale).
He was prepared to put his reputation on the line concluding Jeremy was no psychopath.
What does Stephanie do? Ignore him ::)
But it gets worse. Stephanie then claimed (without evidence) that Bamber had fooled him. In other words making up an excuse to ignore the evidence to suit ones own bias.
-
Stephanie(or anyone): can psychopaths ever be reformed by therapy of some description? I was not referring specifically to Jeremy Bamber but wondered if there were any examples of this?
-
Only in their twilight years does it lessen Steve. If they live that long,that is. It's an incurable disease.
-
Only in their twilight years does it lessen Steve. If they live that long,that is. It's an incurable disease.
Psychopathy is not a disease!
And why wouldn't psychopaths live longer? You clearly have no understanding at all!
And what lessons in the twilight years?
-
A disease of the mind/brain.
-
I said lessens not lessons.
-
A disease of the mind/brain.
No is isn't!
-
I said lessens not lessons.
What lessens?
-
Stephanie(or anyone): can psychopaths ever be reformed by therapy of some description? I was not referring specifically to Jeremy Bamber but wondered if there were any examples of this?
Michael Stone is an example.
An untreatable psychopath.
I can't remember the name of the professor with pyschopathy? I've got a mind block. Caroline will know.
Within the criminal justice system? Who knows? I don't trust the statistics.
-
Only in their twilight years does it lessen Steve. If they live that long,that is. It's an incurable disease.
And what lessons in the twilight years?
I said lessens not lessons.
What lessens in the twilight years Lookout?
-
Michael Stone is an example.
An untreatable psychopath.
I can't remember the name of the professor with pyschopathy? I've got a mind block. Caroline will know.
Within the criminal justice system? Who knows?
medical daily.com would disagree with you Stephanie. Research suggests there are certain things in the brain that normal people dont have with this condition.
I haven't explain ed it very well but im pretty sure you would have to know jb very well and be a professional to evaluate and confirm if he had it or not and correct me if I'm wrong you don't have the qualification to ascertain that.
-
Sorry was referring to your posts about it not being a desease
-
Stephanie(or anyone): can psychopaths ever be reformed by therapy of some description? I was not referring specifically to Jeremy Bamber but wondered if there were any examples of this?
This is a good book written by neuroscientist James Fallon - who discovered through is work, that he a a psychopath. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychopath-Inside-Neuroscientists-Personal-Journey/dp/1617230154/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481414939&sr=8-1&keywords=james+fallon
-
Sorry was referring to your posts about it not being a desease
As I understand it psychopathy is genetic, the brain is actually wired differently which causes them to lack or have very low empathy and inhibits feelings of anxiety. It is not possible to change a psychopath's physiology therefore there is no way of teaching a psychopath how to be empathetic.
On the other hand a sociopath develops due to bad nurture and environment so in theory it may be possible to at least improve the behaviour of a sociopath.
-
This is a good book written by neuroscientist James Fallon - who discovered through is work, that he a a psychopath. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychopath-Inside-Neuroscientists-Personal-Journey/dp/1617230154/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481414939&sr=8-1&keywords=james+fallon
Thanks Caroline, I was trying to remember his name. :)
-
Michael Stone is an example.
An untreatable psychopath.
I can't remember the name of the professor with pyschopathy? I've got a mind block. Caroline will know.
Within the criminal justice system? Who knows? I don't trust the statistics.
It's James Fallon Steph https://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_killer
-
As I understand it psychopathy is genetic, the brain is actually wired differently which causes them to lack or have very low empathy and inhibits feelings of anxiety. It is not possible to change a psychopath's physiology as there is no way of teaching them how to be empathetic.
On the other hand a sociopath develops due to bad nurture and environment so in theory it may be possible to at least improve the behaviour of a sociopath.
It can also be caused by a head injury Maggie. They all share damage, lesions or abnormal function in the prefrontal cortex. Fallon looked at brain scans and found that scans of serial killers ALL had a problem in this area - in looking at a scan of his own, he realised that he also had this problem. It went a long way to explain why he engages in risky behaviours - his family weren't shocked by the revelation.
-
This is a good book written by neuroscientist James Fallon - who discovered through is work, that he a a psychopath. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychopath-Inside-Neuroscientists-Personal-Journey/dp/1617230154/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481414939&sr=8-1&keywords=james+fallon
Oh it says if I order it now it will arrive before Christmas. I assume Mr. Fallon never murdered anyone so was he able to control these urges or did his psychopathy manifest itself in other undesirable traits?
-
As I understand it psychopathy is genetic, the brain is actually wired differently which causes them to lack or have very low empathy and inhibits feelings of anxiety. It is not possible to change a psychopath's physiology therefore there is no way of teaching a psychopath how to be empathetic.
On the other hand a sociopath develops due to bad nurture and environment so in theory it may be possible to at least improve the behaviour of a sociopath.
You see this is what I don't quite understand. I suppose one could have both conditions concurrently, but wasn't Jeremy frightened of strangers when he hid behind his mother's skirts at White House Farm as a young boy?
-
It can also be caused by a head injury Maggie. They all share damage, lesions or abnormal function in the prefrontal cortex. Fallon looked at brain scans and found that scans of serial killers ALL had a problem in this area - in looking at a scan of his own, he realised that he also had this problem. It went a long way to explain why he engages in risky behaviours - his family weren't shocked by the revelation.
I remember reading it Caroline. Think it was in the Observer?
I know there are different grades of psychopaths and most never kill but they will show a lack of empathy and/or a lack of fear.
Winston Churchill was very possibly a psychopath to some degree. He wasn't a very successful peacetime politician but came into his own as a war leader. He possessed the right qualities, you cannot be sentimental about loss of life of the enemy or those on your own side. The aim is to win at all costs.
-
You see this is what I don't quite understand. I suppose one could have both conditions concurrently, but wasn't Jeremy frightened of strangers when he hid behind his mother's skirts at White House Farm as a young boy?
Hi Steve I don't believe a psychopath could develop sociopathy because a sociopath is a person damaged by abuse, neglect and lack of nurturing. They have to have the need for nurturing and love to be damaged by the lack of it. A psychopath is born without the need for love and empathy so wouldn't notice if it were missing?
-
You see this is what I don't quite understand. I suppose one could have both conditions concurrently, but wasn't Jeremy frightened of strangers when he hid behind his mother's skirts at White House Farm as a young boy?
I believe psychopathy doesn't usually show until early teens but I'm not an expert and I have a n open mind on JB's personality so can't help you Steve :)
-
Hi Steve I don't believe a psychopath could develop sociopathy because a sociopath is a person damaged by abuse, neglect and lack of nurturing. They have to have the need for nurturing and love to be damaged by the lack of it. A psychopath is born without the need for love and empathy so wouldn't notice if it were missing?
But this contradicts what Jeremy told Julie, unless of course it was all just a ruse to justify the slaughter. I do find it difficult to square with Jeremy's need for hugs and affection as a child and into adolescence, and of course put Sheila into the picture and some could claim the same might apply.
-
But this contradicts what Jeremy told Julie, unless of course it was all just a ruse to justify the slaughter. I do find it difficult to square with Jeremy's need for hugs and affection as a child and into adolescence, and of course put Sheila into the picture and some could claim the same might apply.
Freud referred to it as the Oedipus complex. http://m.simplypsychology.org/psychosexual.html
-
medical daily.com would disagree with you Stephanie. Research suggests there are certain things in the brain that normal people dont have with this condition.
I haven't explain ed it very well but im pretty sure you would have to know jb very well and be a professional to evaluate and confirm if he had it or not and correct me if I'm wrong you don't have the qualification to ascertain that.
You haven't explained it at all in fact what you've said is back to front!?
-
You see this is what I don't quite understand. I suppose one could have both conditions concurrently, but wasn't Jeremy frightened of strangers when he hid behind his mother's skirts at White House Farm as a young boy?
That's nothing unusual for a child to do,Steve. I hid behind my dad when we visited his aunts. I used to be scared stiff. To a small child,they were terrifying,in my day anyway as they all lived in the past century.
It's only as you get older that you understand certain adults so therefore you become more accustomed to them and their ways of life.Hopefully the brain adjusts ! Some don't.!!
-
Oh it says if I order it now it will arrive before Christmas. I assume Mr. Fallon never murdered anyone so was he able to control these urges or did his psychopathy manifest itself in other undesirable traits?
I agree that it's self-controllable,Steve,given the " right " environment and mindset, free from anything that could trigger unpredictable behaviour.
-
I agree that it's self-controllable,Steve,given the " right " environment and mindset, free from anything that could trigger unpredictable behaviour.
Fallon explains that it's part of who he is and he still engages in risky behaviours and lies simply for the sake of it. He doesn't control it because it's who he is. He's not a killer. nor is he violent - he came from a happy home and had good life experiences, had that not been the case - who knows!
-
Fallon explains that it's part of who he is and he still engages in risky behaviours and lies simply for the sake of it. He doesn't control it because it's who he is. He's not a killer. nor is he violent - he came from a happy home and had good life experiences, had that not been the case - who knows!
I haven't actually read the link,Caroline. Just been reading the Mail about the " Insanity of UK's Invisible Killers ",not necessarily psychopathic nor schizophrenic------which makes it more scary. There are more who are non-diagnosed than are ( which we already knew ) and how these illnesses are being underplayed.
-
You haven't explained it at all in fact what you've said is back to front!?
Oh well never mind. I think most people got what I meant judging from the posts afterwards.
I take it you're not qualified on this subject then.
-
I wonder what would change if Jeremy finally admitted his guilt? Would the chain of correspondence cease, or is he just a nonentity in any case on which the curtain closed a long time ago? Colin says he should never be released, and for me this wish is paramount, but did the politicians look to such a situation when they abolished the death penalty fifty years ago of a man stagnating in prison, stultified as he attempts to enthuse over the latest legal dead end, gerontifying before our very eyes as despite his latest reminiscences the stigma of mass murder refuses to go away. http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/jeremys-56th-birthday-13th-january.html
-
I wonder what would change if Jeremy finally admitted his guilt? Would the chain of correspondence cease, or is he just a nonentity in any case on which the curtain closed a long time ago? Colin says he should never be released, and for me this wish is paramount, but did the politicians look to such a situation when they abolished the death penalty fifty years ago of a man stagnating in prison, stultified as he attempts to enthuse over the latest legal dead end, gerontifying before our very eyes as despite his latest reminiscences the stigma of mass murder refuses to go away. http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/jeremys-56th-birthday-13th-january.html
Sounds like he's removed from reality, has no notion of the real world and actually comes across as a child.
-
Sounds like he's removed from reality, has no notion of the real world and actually comes across as a child.
Do you think he wrote it himself Hartley? It's heartbreaking really what self-deception can do. I wonder if he still has those secret side-laughs or whether he has practised the deceit for so long he no longer thinks he's done anything wrong.
-
It is interesting to see you all rationalise an impossible position.
Jeremy Bamber did not do this crime. On Injustice Anywhere forum the bullet trajectories have been analysed proving that Sheila killed the family and then herself. Accordingly Jeremy is vested with the identical rights in theory as Colin. Colin is a piece of work to decide Jeremy did this because Sheila would have preferred to die next to her children. This is nonsense and psychologically incorrect, her dispute was with June, not Nevill or the children. From New Zealand we are well versed with the parallel case, where Robin Bain shot his family and then himself when they were outing him for incest. There is a similar deluded crowd as here that have twisted the forensics and motivations to support the comfort of authority, in making a false crime reconstruction.
-
It is interesting to see you all rationalise an impossible position.
Jeremy Bamber did not do this crime. On Injustice Anywhere forum the bullet trajectories have been analysed proving that Sheila killed the family and then herself. Accordingly Jeremy is vested with the identical rights in theory as Colin. Colin is a piece of work to decide Jeremy did this because Sheila would have preferred to die next to her children. This is nonsense and psychologically incorrect, her dispute was with June, not Nevill or the children. From New Zealand we are well versed with the parallel case, where Robin Bain shot his family and then himself when they were outing him for incest. There is a similar deluded crowd as here that have twisted the forensics and motivations to support the comfort of authority, in making a false crime reconstruction.
Well I am not familiar with bullet trajectories or with the website you quote, but I would have thought it almost impossible to determine whether a sick, gullible young woman sitting down shot herself or someone else was holding the weapon at the time. How right you were that her beef was with June and not her children, which is why she would have stayed in the children's bedroom and killed herself there, possibly even hugging the dead corpses as Police arrived had she been experiencing the psychotic episode the Jeremy supporters are so fond of maintaining she was in the grips of.
As for Robin Bain you are similarly misinformed. Here was a man whose every action was to put his family first, if you bothered to read any of the literature on the case. His daughter, Arawa, was following in his footsteps as a teacher after becoming Head Girl of her school, whilst David who had suffered most academically in the compound at Papua New Guinea had struggled to cope at university upon the family's return to New Zealand and was more like his nonentity mother in character. Thus the fake typed suicide note claiming that "You are the only one who deserved to stay" is a complete joke, or would be had we not been discussing the death of five.
You are right in one respect to link the crimes. Both were committed by young men who felt they were being marginalized, pushed out of their parents' affection and were struggling to cope with the demands of day-to-day existence. Both were nonentities who craved something better, which in their minds could only be achieved by the extirpation of their families: in David's case through the trancing he had learned through his mother and Jeremy with the cocktail of drugs he ingested to get him through that wicked night of which he has since lost all consciousness, hence these pathetic periodic letters which dupe only the uninformed and the diehards, however sincere the latter group may profess to be.
-
Holly (Goodhead) and David 1819 are very constructive on the forum.
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewforum.php?f=123
Holly has purchased and probably read Trial by Ambush by Joe Karam where the full narrative concerning the trials of David Bain are described. It is essential reading before deciding that the second New Zealand jury erred in acquitting.
I regard it as helpful bracketing the cases, as the state sponsored crime against David Bain will persist until he is compensated (never indeed is the reality).
However, in simple terms the pathologist in Bain identified a contact wound to the left temple on first and only physical examination. The public were led down the rabbit hole because subsequent "experts" contradicted this physical fact by studying photographs.
As in Sheila Caffel, the trajectory through the brain was exactly consistent with self delivery of the bullets.
Robin Bain's life was in disarray, but Laniet had described the incest in a family meeting earlier that evening, and this is why he shot them all. The evidence of Dean Cottle is high quality, but ruled inadmissible by the first trial judge.
We know the case backwards Steve, including the activists. That debate is unwinnable from your camp, and the corollary is that Sheila Caffel is also guilty. The trajectories prove it.
-
Holly (Goodhead) and David 1819 are very constructive on the forum.
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewforum.php?f=123
Holly has purchased and probably read Trial by Ambush by Joe Karam where the full narrative concerning the trials of David Bain are described. It is essential reading before deciding that the second New Zealand jury erred in acquitting.
I regard it as helpful bracketing the cases, as the state sponsored crime against David Bain will persist until he is compensated (never indeed is the reality).
However, in simple terms the pathologist in Bain identified a contact wound to the left temple on first and only physical examination. The public were led down the rabbit hole because subsequent "experts" contradicted this physical fact by studying photographs.
As in Sheila Caffel, the trajectory through the brain was exactly consistent with self delivery of the bullets.
Robin Bain's life was in disarray, but Laniet had described the incest in a family meeting earlier that evening, and this is why he shot them all. The evidence of Dean Cottle is high quality, but ruled inadmissible by the first trial judge.
We know the case backwards Steve, including the activists. That debate is unwinnable from your camp, and the corollary is that Sheila Caffel is also guilty. The trajectories prove it.
Laniet was a fantasist who claimed she had given birth to a black baby in Papua New Guinea. She is one of a handful of exceptions to my rule that victims of abuse should always be believed. She was attempting to move into the world of prostitution in Dunedin but Dean Cottle and her other notorious acolytes knew she hadn't got the bottle. David Bain had told schoolfriends a year before the tragedy that a newspaper round would act as good subterfuge to rape a girl. From the green jersey to the bloodied opera gloves, the lies regarding the washing machine cycle, Laniet's gurgling and the rifle magazine planted next to Robin's body the evidence is all there, if only you choose with an open mind to look for it.
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/story/as-i-knew-david
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-davids-clothes-belonged-to-stephen
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2491659/David-Bains-alleged-rape-plan-111-call-revealed
-
Laniet was a fantasist who claimed she had given birth to a black baby in Papua New Guinea. She is one of a handful of exceptions to my rule that victims of abuse should always be believed. She was attempting to move into the world of prostitution in Dunedin but Dean Cottle and her other notorious acolytes knew she hadn't got the bottle. David Bain had told schoolfriends a year before the tragedy that a newspaper round would act as good subterfuge to rape a girl. From the green jersey to the bloodied opera gloves, the lies regarding the washing machine cycle, Laniet's gurgling and the rifle magazine planted next to Robin's body the evidence is all there, if only you choose with an open mind to look for it.
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/story/as-i-knew-david
http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/blood-on-davids-clothes-belonged-to-stephen
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2491659/David-Bains-alleged-rape-plan-111-call-revealed
Steve, it is hopeless linking to an ex friend. I did read your link, this is the staple diet for guilters in these cases, post hoc anecdotal. There is not one word or phrase in that article that constitutes evidence. It is simply a good example of the universal rite of discovery of bad character that occurs after the police make a false arrest. Bamber, Knox, Bain, Lundy, and so on.
Sorry, no dice. I am pessimistic that we will find common ground.
Robin Bain shot his family then himself, as did Sheila Caffel.
-
Do you think he wrote it himself Hartley? It's heartbreaking really what self-deception can do. I wonder if he still has those secret side-laughs or whether he has practised the deceit for so long he no longer thinks he's done anything wrong.
That's a good point, I presumed that he had written it himself, I guess it may just have been penned by one of his acolytes.
I think he knows exactly what he's done, there's no self deception other than he believes he is successfully fooling people with his stories (I guess that's actually true for some though). His deceit is continuous. You only need to look to his communications with Caroline for an example.
-
Do you think he wrote it himself Hartley? It's heartbreaking really what self-deception can do. I wonder if he still has those secret side-laughs or whether he has practised the deceit for so long he no longer thinks he's done anything wrong.
Steve, he knows his letters will be vetted and censored so he has practised the art of deception and manipulation. His team would have helped to put this together to pull on the heartstrings and hopefully gain more support. What Caroline did was surprise the manipulater and he didn't want to play he realised Caroline didn't believe his lie's.
-
I think he knows exactly what he's done, there's no self deception other than he believes he is successfully fooling people with his stories (I guess that's actually true for some though). His deceit is continuous. You only need to look to his communications with Caroline for an example.
How? It would help if she posted them. People have asked multiple times and she refuses. ::)
Here is one example.
put them here. so we can all read them then could judge his faluire to reply much more clearly.
You must be joking! Write to him yourself and post your own letters. I have posted the relevant pieces when necessary. Talk about being nosey! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Its safe to assume the contents are not what we are led to believe. 8)
Any luck on finding that imaginary ladder?
No. He enters the house, commits five murders, goes outside and gets a ladder from the shed, leans it against the bedroom window, goes back inside and locks the door. Goes upstairs, climbs out of the window and down the ladder, puts ladder back in shed.
-
Steve, he knows his letters will be vetted and censored so he has practised the art of deception and manipulation. His team would have helped to put this together to pull on the heartstrings and hopefully gain more support. What Caroline did was surprise the manipulater and he didn't want to play he realised Caroline didn't believe his lie's.
Even in his letters to Mike that are posted on the forum, you can see how he attempts to control and manipulate.
As you say, Caroline caught him off guard.
-
Steve, he knows his letters will be vetted and censored so he has practised the art of deception and manipulation. His team would have helped to put this together to pull on the heartstrings and hopefully gain more support. What Caroline did was surprise the manipulater and he didn't want to play he realised Caroline didn't believe his lie's.
A very insightful deduction, that, Justice.
-
Even in his letters to Mike that are posted on the forum, you can see how he attempts to control and manipulate.
As you say, Caroline caught him off guard.
He belittled Mike over his attempts to contact a psychic. I don't believe in all the BS myself BUT, his letter sounded afraid?
To be honest, no one was more shocked than me when he avoided answering but I have been around a LOT of liars and can spot one from a mile off.
-
Even in his letters to Mike that are posted on the forum, you can see how he attempts to control and manipulate.
As you say, Caroline caught him off guard.
In jail he is surrounded with psychopaths and sociophath's who feel no empathy, they don't care what Bamber thinks or feels. In Mike he found someone who cared and believed and once Mike was out of prison Bamber lost that control.
-
To be honest, no one was more shocked than me when he avoided answering but I have been around a LOT of liars and can spot one from a mile off.
Really? Then what happened here?
My dealings with MD have simply been an exchange of ideas and I have ALWAYS found him to be an honest and honorable man.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5844.msg259977.html#msg259977 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5844.msg259977.html#msg259977)
Paul Harrison, honest and honourable? Oh Dear!
I have been around a LOT of liars and can spot one from a mile off.
(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/lol_ricky_gervais.gif)
-
He belittled Mike over his attempts to contact a psychic. I don't believe in all the BS myself BUT, his letter sounded afraid?
To be honest, no one was more shocked than me when he avoided answering but I have been around a LOT of liars and can spot one from a mile off.
so not wanting to consult makes you guilty of murder does it you should of of lived 300 years ago you could of had a good and well paid job.
-
How? It would help if she posted them. People have asked multiple times and she refuses. ::)
Here is one example.
Its safe to assume the contents are not what we are led to believe. 8)
Any luck on finding that imaginary ladder?
If word gets out that his letters are being used for entertainment purposes then he is hardly likely to continue that correspondence.
-
so not wanting to consult makes you guilty of murder does it you should of of lived 300 years ago you could of had a good and well paid job.
Although you have NO IDEA what I am referring to, would you like to point out where I said 'nor consulting; makes you guilty of murder?
-
If word gets out that his letters are being used for entertainment purposes then he is hardly likely to continue that correspondence.
I disagree. Following SH's confession, he redacted it a couple of months later and sent out a handful of letters to people on the outside. I was made aware of one letter as the recipient contacted me.
With hindsight I believe he had hoped these letters would make it onto the WWW, after all what did he have to lose?
However what he failed to tell the recipients of the letters was that he was telling prison staff a different story.
Bamber will write to whoever he wants whenever he wants. Even if his letters are published. He has no shame. People like Bamber rely on the loyalty of others to keep the game playing going. He has no loyalties to anyone, as he has showed. He will throw any one under the bus, no matter who they are.
-
If word gets out that his letters are being used for entertainment purposes then he is hardly likely to continue that correspondence.
I don't correspond with Bamber any more Steve. I learnt all I needed to.
-
Although you have NO IDEA what I am referring to, would you like to point out where I said 'nor consulting; makes you guilty of murder?
try reading your own posts.
-
try reading your own posts.
Try reading YOURS!
Thought you wouldn't be able to answer - just like you couldn't back up the claim that I had attacked you. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't correspond with Bamber any more Steve. I learnt all I needed to.
so theres no reason not to publish the letters then.
-
so theres no reason not to publish the letters then.
No have absolutely no chance! ::)
-
No have absolutely no chance! ::)
why not give us a reason.
-
why not give us a reason.
Caroline was a long term passionate Bamber supporter.
Bamber's letters to her would have been thanking her for her support and answering her questions, probably unconvincingly.
Now a passionate guilter it's doubtful Caroline will want to post letters relating to her support.
Mike and David have posted Bamber's letters on here. Both were and still are supporters.
-
yes they have so theres no real reason to we know from her posts carline was a prvious supporter so why should that be a problem.
-
why not give us a reason.
That's simple Nug Nug - the reason is that it has fuck all to do with you! Is that plain enough? What gives you the right to ask me to post letters that weren't sent to satisfy your (or the other idiot's) curiosity? Put your money where your mouth is and write to him yourself - I'm not doing your donkey work for you!
I might believe he's guilty but whatever he told me or didn't tell me will be a subject that 'I CHOOSE' to share - BUT (and let me make this clear), I would NOT post letters on the open forum. There are people I would NEVER share info with and you would be one of them.
-
its everything to do with me and other posters because you brought it here in the first place
-
its everything to do with me and other posters because you brought it here in the first place
Brought what here?
-
its everything to do with me and other posters because you brought it here in the first place
On that basis, why do you refuse to answer any questions in relation to the Billy Middleton case and the murder of an innocent baby girl?
-
That's simple Nug Nug - the reason is that it has fuck all to do with you! Is that plain enough? What gives you the right to ask me to post letters that weren't sent to satisfy your (or the other idiot's) curiosity? Put your money where your mouth is and write to him yourself - I'm not doing your donkey work for you!
I might believe he's guilty but whatever he told me or didn't tell me will be a subject that 'I CHOOSE' to share - BUT (and let me make this clear), I would NOT post letters on the open forum. There are people I would NEVER share info with and you would be one of them.
david has mike has whats the problem with you doing it.
-
david has mike has whats the problem with you doing it.
Brought what here?
-
its everything to do with me and other posters because you brought it here in the first place
Have you heard of virtual mobbing Nugnug?
-
Have you heard of virtual mobbing Nugnug?
I have something he wants but he can be rest assured, he'll never have it! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8)
-
i can only conclude that the letters do not say we have been led to belive.
-
i can only conclude that the letters do not say we have been led to belive.
That must be right then - however, you'll never get to see them so I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Although I don't imagine for one moment you even know what has been said! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
i can only conclude that the letters do not say we have been led to belive.
Personally I don't understand your argument on this nugs. Imo it's never right to post up someone's personal letters on a public forum without permission from the author. It is however the owner ie. The addressee of the letter's personal choice whether they choose to do this and some do while other's don't.
I can't see there is anything sinister in choosing not to. :-\
-
well posters can make of your reply what they will to me it says youve been less than honest about your cliams and that those clias no longer have any credibility but ill let others form there own judgment
-
I have something he wants but he can be rest assured, he'll never have it! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8)
i dont care weather i see them or not your reply has allready told me all i need to know.
-
well posters can make of your reply what they will to me it says youve been less than honest about your cliams and that those clias no longer have any credibility but ill let others form there own judgment
What claims would those be? You don't even seem to know what it is I specifically claimed, you're simply jumping on the tail coats of another poster. Pathetic really. I couldn't give a flying crap what you (or others like you) think. You never had any credibility so from you - the above means a BIG FAT ZERO!
-
It's no secret Caroline was a long term passionate supporter of Bamber. And they exchanged letters supporting each other.
Now a passionate guilter she will not want to remind everyone of her judgement error, by posting the nice letters a convicted killer sent to her.
-
It's no secret Caroline was a long term passionate supporter of Bamber. And they exchanged letters supporting each other.
Now a passionate guilter she will not want to remind everyone of her judgement error, by posting the nice letters a convicted killer sent to her.
Think that's a pretty poor argument as well, Adam. Why d o especially it matter, anyway?
-
i can only conclude that the letters do not say we have been led to belive.
I doubt that anything Bamber wrote in these letters made himself look more guilty. Bamber isn't stupid and his own letters probably made him look more innocent.
Caroline said herself she only changed stance after Bamber didn't answer her question on the last harvest. Rather than because of anything he had written. I was also creating a lot of threads at the time, which two posters confirmed made them change stance at this time.
However it would still be interesting to read Bamber's letters as he may give things away. Such as when he said to Caroline he now has all documents. Prior to the CT currently claiming there are lots of undisclosed documents.
-
What claims would those be? You don't even seem to know what it is I specifically claimed, you're simply jumping on the tail coats of another poster. Pathetic really. I couldn't give a flying crap what you (or others like you) think. You never had any credibility so from you - the above means a BIG FAT ZERO!
you claimed he avoided your question about the wallet but for some strange reason you refuse to back up that cliam.
as I said ill leave people to make of that ewhat they will.
-
you claimed he avoided your question about the wallet but for some strange reason you refuse to back up that cliam.
as I said ill leave people to make of that ewhat they will.
He did ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It's no secret Caroline was a long term passionate supporter of Bamber. And they exchanged letters supporting each other.
Now a passionate guilter she will not want to remind everyone of her judgement error, by posting the nice letters a convicted killer sent to her.
As usual your post is a complete contradiction, if it's no secret why would I need to remind anyone? ::)
You can try and be as sarcastic as you like (although you're not every good at it) but at least instead of writing mountains of repetitive bullshit on a forum, I had the guts to confront the man himself and ask HIM what I wanted to you. You and your little keyboard warriors can sit in the confines of your bedroom under a methane haze and play detective all you like, but you haven't got a clue!
-
If I was a guilter and had letters from Bamber, I would post extracts of the letters if it supported my view on an issue. You can't have a better source than Bamber himself.
People put up links to witness statements, court testimonies, videos and articles. Both for and against people involved in the case. So I would not feel guilty about putting extracts of letters from Bamber. Other posters have.
Bamber knows his letters could find there way into the public domain, which I'm sure he does not mind, otherwise he would not send them. And him & his supporters dish it out to Julie, the relatives and police enough.
-
If I was a guilter and had letters from Bamber, I would post extracts of the letters if it supported my view on an issue. You can't have a better source than Bamber himself.
People put up links to witness statements, court testimonies, videos and articles. Both for and against people involved in the case. So I would not feel guilty about putting extracts of letters from Bamber. Other posters have.
Bamber knows his letters could find there way into the public domain, which I'm sure he does not mind, otherwise he would not send them. And him & his supporters dish it out to Julie, the relatives and police enough.
Other posters may have but I don't think it's right. However, in order to PROVE that he told me he has almost all of the PII stuff - here is an extract from a letter I received asking him about Mike's theory of Sheila on the bed. He states here that he received 'almost' all of the PII stuff after they stopped contact so he now has no need to speculate. I don't lie! What would be the point?
-
Maybe he doesn't know whether he has received all documents. According to Poppy Ann Miller there were some empty boxes. Or are they all clutching at straws? http://poppymeze.blogspot.co.uk/2016_11_01_archive.html
-
Other posters may have but I don't think it's right. However, in order to PROVE that he told me he has almost all of the PII stuff - here is an extract from a letter I received asking him about Mike's theory of Sheila on the bed. He states here that he received 'almost' all of the PII stuff after they stopped contact so he now has no need to speculate.
You were asked to post the letters where you allegedly caught him out and became convinced of his guilt. Posting a cut out of a single sentence from Jeremy about PII is a typical insubstantial reply from you. Its a red herring shrouded in the impression of an honest answer.
I don't lie! What would be the point?
::)
-
You were asked to post the letters where you allegedly caught him out and became convinced of his guilt. Posting a cut out of a single sentence from Jeremy about PII is a typical insubstantial reply from you. Its a red herring shrouded in the impression of an honest answer.
::)
If you'd followed the case you'd know that one of the questions he failed to answer satisfactorily was how he knew the contents of Nevill's wallet, and another which had been mentioned was the conversation about the last load of rapeseed on the Tuesday evening.
I seem to recall you keeping your cards close to your chest a few months back regarding your forensic breakthrough of Sheila. Is the pot calling the kettle black perhaps..
-
If you'd followed the case you'd know that one of the questions he failed to answer satisfactorily was how he knew the contents of Nevill's wallet, and another which had been mentioned was the conversation about the last load of rapeseed on the Tuesday evening.
I seem to recall you keeping your cards close to your chest a few months back regarding your forensic breakthrough of Sheila. Is the pot calling the kettle black perhaps..
Steve_uk, what do you think of these thoughts from IA?
IMO he's completely innocent. The police theory does not fit the crime scene, and it does not fit their own records. The case boils down to a couple of pieces of flimsy evidence versus a more plausible explanation of what happened. The people who "found" that evidence thereby gained Bamber's inheritance. The conviction is bullshit and should be overturned.
The guy that wrote that has an encyclopedic knowledge of hundreds of criminal cases world wide.
Charlie Wilkes.
-
You were asked to post the letters where you allegedly caught him out and became convinced of his guilt. Posting a cut out of a single sentence from Jeremy about PII is a typical insubstantial reply from you. Its a red herring shrouded in the impression of an honest answer.
Blimey, you've got a short memory.
Perhaps you can remember the answer but not the question? :P
On another note, the extract showing the claim that JB has all the PII information, we've heard that before in one of his blog posts haven't we?
-
Steve_uk, what do you think of these thoughts from IA?
IMO he's completely innocent. The police theory does not fit the crime scene, and it does not fit their own records. The case boils down to a couple of pieces of flimsy evidence versus a more plausible explanation of what happened. The people who "found" that evidence thereby gained Bamber's inheritance. The conviction is bullshit and should be overturned.
The guy that wrote that has an encyclopedic knowledge of hundreds of criminal cases world wide.
Charlie Wilkes.
Who? ???
-
Who? ???
Charlie Wilkes. (Jim Lovering)
He was a serious activist in the Amanda Knox solution, where the American state department "persuaded" the untrustworthy Italians to solve the case. The state department was acquainted with inviolable case facts, but almost certainly went over the heads of the Italian Supreme court, and explained to the Italian government where things were heading.
Charlie always starts at the crime scene and the photographs. These for example show a distinctly different colour of Sheila's body compared to June's. So they died at wildly different times. No livor mortis on Sheila, none, but very marked coloration on June. This is dead simple, a data point that renders all others subordinate.
This elegantly explains a common feature of murder suicide, the murders are easy and euphoric, the suicide not quite so, and delayed. I coined the term last minutism, because I was always puzzled by the coincidental timing of Robin Bain's suicide and David Bain's return to the house until I realised how this works. The murderers are not so keen on shooting themselves, but are confronted by a grim reality, explain myself or shoot myself and put all explaining on the investigators. In Bamber and Bain this was a royal disaster for the innocent 23 year old men.
I have done my research on both cases, as have other New Zealanders.
-
There are always people who will claim Bamber is innocent. Wilkes is following Lomax and Woffinden. Although Woffinden has since changed stance.
There is a mountain of forensic evidence against Bamber in the forums library. Together with a mountain of circumstantial evidence. One alive suspect who had a motive, opportunity and no alibi.
If Wilkes wants to give us his more plausible explanation of what happened and explain how Sheila committed the massacre, that would be much appreciated. There is a first time for everything.
-
Charlie Wilkes. (Jim Lovering)
He was a serious activist in the Amanda Knox solution, where the American state department "persuaded" the untrustworthy Italians to solve the case. The state department was acquainted with inviolable case facts, but almost certainly went over the heads of the Italian Supreme court, and explained to the Italian government where things were heading.
Charlie always starts at the crime scene and the photographs. These for example show a distinctly different colour of Sheila's body compared to June's. So they died at wildly different times. No livor mortis on Sheila, none, but very marked coloration on June. This is dead simple, a data point that renders all others subordinate.
This elegantly explains a common feature of murder suicide, the murders are easy and euphoric, the suicide not quite so, and delayed. I coined the term last minutism, because I was always puzzled by the coincidental timing of Robin Bain's suicide and David Bain's return to the house until I realised how this works. The murderers are not so keen on shooting themselves, but are confronted by a grim reality, explain myself or shoot myself and put all explaining on the investigators. In Bamber and Bain this was a royal disaster for the innocent 23 year old men.
I have done my research on both cases, as have other New Zealanders.
How do you think Sheila committed the massacre. To match the crime scene ?
Please ensure you include -
A kitchen fight.
One/two phone calls by Nevill. Dependent on whether you believe Nevill telephoned the police.
Two chambers and two re loads.
The correct bullet allocation.
Sheila committing the massacre, changing, showering, writing a suicide note, reading the bible, moving Nevill's upper body, burning Nevill's back, within 38/22 minutes. Dependent on whether you believe Nevill phoned the police.
-
How do you think Sheila committed the massacre. To match the crime scene ?
Please ensure you include -
A kitchen fight.
One/two phone calls by Nevill. Dependent on whether you believe Nevill telephoned the police.
Two chambers and two re loads.
The correct bullet allocation.
Sheila committing the massacre, changing, showering, writing a suicide note, reading the bible, moving Nevill's upper body, burning Nevill's back, within 38/22 minutes. Dependent on whether you believe Nevill phoned the police.
I have explained often enough.
Sheila went to bed with no period, but when it started she headed downstairs and made a racket with buckets and water that alerted Nevill to the possibility of an intruder, with a young family in his care.
Once again the debate about Sheila's fitness to care for her children in any capacity ensued, and Nevill reminded her how determined June was to prevent her, in full blown crisis to crisis mode, from a caring role.
She grabbed the loaded gun and headed upstairs, where only a woman and 2 children slept.
Nevill hardly feared she was going to actually use it, but phoned Jeremy to repair home to assist with her. While on the phone she pumped 5 bullets into the sleeping June, whereupon he raced upstairs, and she swivelled in the doorway and shot him twice in the mouth, DESCENDING TRAJECTORY. He turned to flee down the stairs, and scored a further two shots in the left arm, DESCENDING TRAJECTORY. The gun was empty, so she swung by the barrel to immobilise him, head in coal scuttle, reloaded 4 bullets quickly, which she drilled in 2 pairs into Nevill's head. Heading back upstairs she discovered June had struggled to the bedroom door with her body wounds, and she reloaded 2 bullets and drilled the pair into her head. Hence all the cartridge cases in the vicinity of the doorway.
Realising the enormity of her actions she considered the still sleeping twins, and what life held for them, she reloaded an easy 8 bullets before the spring loading got tough, and mercy killed them.
Still just after 3 am, she got busy with the branding Nevill's back, probably visited the bathroom and washed her hands, generally removing traces of bullet loading. Much later, when the police had surrounded the farm, because Jeremy had alerted them to Nevill's call to Goldhanger, she took the line of least resistance, she loaded two bullets to the cartridge for surety, and shot herself while prone, exactly where the body was found. The first shot was misjudged, and she slumped to better target her brain. This worked. Hence the remarkable fact of an empty cartridge.
I am no longer convinced the fresh blood photograph is correct, because the photograph was taken some hours later when all blood would be blackened. This in no way alters the crime reconstruction I have outlined, which keeps Sheila blood free, and does not require any fight in the kitchen.
I would like to have this reconstruction analysed and shown to err in significant detail so I can give it more thought, but it certainly fits the crime scene.
Some people wonder why we are interested in this case, and for me it is to help correct a history of New Zealand, where 50% of the population still believe David Bain killed his family. It is an unconscionable outrage that he was not compensated, but insulted by a crooked judge from Queensland commissioned by a wicked government intent on not losing of votes of their Bain hating supporters.
These people often cite the case of Jeremy Bamber to demonstrate that 23 year old men in a hurry for inheritance will butcher a family.
Absolute bullshit squared. The Menendez brothers may have done so, but the facts are screamingly different, and there is no alternative theory, and they confessed.
23 year olds are optimists, think back yourself Adam.
And by the way, if Jeremy had been insane enough to think he really could despatch three adults with a gun and make one replicate a suicide, with no forensic detail that was indisputably connected to his presence at the crime scene, he would never ring the police that night. He would roll up for work and phone them at that time. No ridiculous nonsense with phone calls during the evening. The same thing would happen, he would say my sister is crazy and she must have done all this. Far fewer moving parts in "the plan".
-
Charlie Wilkes. (Jim Lovering)
Oh okay, I must admit I've never heard of him. You obviously hold him in high regards but I'm not sure why anybody should take his views over any one of the countless experts, witnesses and more recently the armchair sleuths who have offered various opinions over the years.
Charlie always starts at the crime scene and the photographs. These for example show a distinctly different colour of Sheila's body compared to June's. So they died at wildly different times. No livor mortis on Sheila, none, but very marked coloration on June. This is dead simple, a data point that renders all others subordinate.
Looking at crime scene photographs to form views on a historic crime doesn't sound particularly ground breaking.
There have been various discussions on this forum and elsewhere regarding blood settlement and attempts to gauge relative times of death. I'm not sure that any particular consensus has been reached, the quality of the photographs in the public domain appears to be a sticking point. Plus if a conclusion could be so easily reached, one wonders why JB remains where he is.
This elegantly explains a common feature of murder suicide, the murders are easy and euphoric, the suicide not quite so, and delayed. I coined the term last minutism, because I was always puzzled by the coincidental timing of Robin Bain's suicide and David Bain's return to the house until I realised how this works. The murderers are not so keen on shooting themselves, but are confronted by a grim reality, explain myself or shoot myself and put all explaining on the investigators. In Bamber and Bain this was a royal disaster for the innocent 23 year old men.
I have done my research on both cases, as have other New Zealanders.
I personally have little knowledge or interest in this other case that you refer to, but what you have written above doesn't appear to really relate to to Whitehouse Murders. In the scenario where Sheila is the guilty party, it involves her having some sort of mental illness induced episode. If you are suggesting that she then returned to a normal state and decided to kill herself rather than explain her actions to the police, then that's fine, although I don't really see what you are relying to reach such a conclusion.
Given the amount of discussions on this forum alone, it can't have escaped your notice that many people have researched this case to varying levels of thoroughness. I'm sure they all think that they have reached the correct conclusion, whatever that may be.
-
Oh okay, I must admit I've never heard of him. You obviously hold him in high regards but I'm not sure why anybody should take his views over any one of the countless experts, witnesses and more recently the armchair sleuths who have offered various opinions over the years.
Looking at crime scene photographs to form views on a historic crime doesn't sound particularly ground breaking.
There have been various discussions on this forum and elsewhere regarding blood settlement and attempts to gauge relative times of death. I'm not sure that any particular consensus has been reached, the quality of the photographs in the public domain appears to be a sticking point. Plus if a conclusion could be so easily reached, one wonders why JB remains where he is.
I personally have little knowledge or interest in this other case that you refer to, but what you have written above doesn't appear to really relate to to Whitehouse Murders. In the scenario where Sheila is the guilty party, it involves her having some sort of mental illness induced episode. If you are suggesting that she then returned to a normal state and decided to kill herself rather than explain her actions to the police, then that's fine, although I don't really see what you are relying to reach such a conclusion.
Given the amount of discussions on this forum alone, it can't have escaped your notice that many people have researched this case to varying levels of thoroughness. I'm sure they all think that they have reached the correct conclusion, whatever that may be.
Yes, I have read plenty of material. I understand there are 4 million case documents.
None are required to understand the crime, just the bullet trajectories pertaining to Nevill and Sheila.
Taff Jones could see this straight away. Why the English public and media have allowed this merry cavort over 3 decades skirt the obvious and only truth must remain a mystery for now, but history habitually repairs these egregious errors in time.
In simple terms, Jeremy is telling the whole truth, and Mugford is telling the whole untruth. Why she is allowed to meddle with education of children is for the Canadian government and the hapless parents to consider. Drunk drivers can't get there, why the lyingest paid to lie liar in British history?
-
I have explained often enough.
Sheila went to bed with no period, but when it started she headed downstairs and made a racket with buckets and water that alerted Nevill to the possibility of an intruder, with a young family in his care.
Once again the debate about Sheila's fitness to care for her children in any capacity ensued, and Nevill reminded her how determined June was to prevent her, in full blown crisis to crisis mode, from a caring role.
She grabbed the loaded gun and headed upstairs, where only a woman and 2 children slept.
Nevill hardly feared she was going to actually use it, but phoned Jeremy to repair home to assist with her. While on the phone she pumped 5 bullets into the sleeping June, whereupon he raced upstairs, and she swivelled in the doorway and shot him twice in the mouth, DESCENDING TRAJECTORY. He turned to flee down the stairs, and scored a further two shots in the left arm, DESCENDING TRAJECTORY. The gun was empty, so she swung by the barrel to immobilise him, head in coal scuttle, reloaded 4 bullets quickly, which she drilled in 2 pairs into Nevill's head. Heading back upstairs she discovered June had struggled to the bedroom door with her body wounds, and she reloaded 2 bullets and drilled the pair into her head. Hence all the cartridge cases in the vicinity of the doorway.
Realising the enormity of her actions she considered the still sleeping twins, and what life held for them, she reloaded an easy 8 bullets before the spring loading got tough, and mercy killed them.
Still just after 3 am, she got busy with the branding Nevill's back, probably visited the bathroom and washed her hands, generally removing traces of bullet loading. Much later, when the police had surrounded the farm, because Jeremy had alerted them to Nevill's call to Goldhanger, she took the line of least resistance, she loaded two bullets to the cartridge for surety, and shot herself while prone, exactly where the body was found. The first shot was misjudged, and she slumped to better target her brain. This worked. Hence the remarkable fact of an empty cartridge.
I am no longer convinced the fresh blood photograph is correct, because the photograph was taken some hours later when all blood would be blackened. This in no way alters the crime reconstruction I have outlined, which keeps Sheila blood free, and does not require any fight in the kitchen.
I would like to have this reconstruction analysed and shown to err in significant detail so I can give it more thought, but it certainly fits the crime scene.
Some people wonder why we are interested in this case, and for me it is to help correct a history of New Zealand, where 50% of the population still believe David Bain killed his family. It is an unconscionable outrage that he was not compensated, but insulted by a crooked judge from Queensland commissioned by a wicked government intent on not losing of votes of their Bain hating supporters.
These people often cite the case of Jeremy Bamber to demonstrate that 23 year old men in a hurry for inheritance will butcher a family.
Absolute bullshit squared. The Menendez brothers may have done so, but the facts are screamingly different, and there is no alternative theory, and they confessed.
23 year olds are optimists, think back yourself Adam.
And by the way, if Jeremy had been insane enough to think he really could despatch three adults with a gun and make one replicate a suicide, with no forensic detail that was indisputably connected to his presence at the crime scene, he would never ring the police that night. He would roll up for work and phone them at that time. No ridiculous nonsense with phone calls during the evening. The same thing would happen, he would say my sister is crazy and she must have done all this. Far fewer moving parts in "the plan".
Thanks.
This is the fifth scenario that has gone into a bit of detail. Yours Holly's & Alias's said straight away Nevill did not call the police. Sherlock later agreed Nevill did not call the police after I questioned his scenario. David eventually changed stance and agreed Nevill did not call the police after I questioned him on his third submitted scenario.
Mike is still saying Nevill called the police. However his scenario was very basic. Just saying "by shooting them".
Saying Nevill did not call the police gives Sheila more time to do everything. Although it would still take her well over an hour. Posters have said Sheila continued doing things after the police arrived, but have never said what.
-
Maybe he doesn't know whether he has received all documents. According to Poppy Ann Miller there were some empty boxes. Or are they all clutching at straws? http://poppymeze.blogspot.co.uk/2016_11_01_archive.html
Well, these are Jeremy's own words and I am sure he knows what is and isn't held under PII or how would he know he had everything? Poppy also posted that BW had died and various other mistakes. I always think it's best to ask the original source.
-
Yes, I have read plenty of material. I understand there are 4 million case documents.
None are required to understand the crime, just the bullet trajectories pertaining to Nevill and Sheila.
Taff Jones could see this straight away. Why the English public and media have allowed this merry cavort over 3 decades skirt the obvious and only truth must remain a mystery for now, but history habitually repairs these egregious errors in time.
In simple terms, Jeremy is telling the whole truth, and Mugford is telling the whole untruth. Why she is allowed to meddle with education of children is for the Canadian government and the hapless parents to consider. Drunk drivers can't get there, why the lyingest paid to lie liar in British history?
You appear selective and inconsistent.
A minute ago it was suggillation that was the clear indicator, now that doesn't matter and it's actually bullet trajectory that trumps everything else.
Why rest upon opinions held by Taff Jones as carrying greater weight than those held by others? Singling him out simply because it fits in with your views is a little on the flimsy side. I haven't read that Taff was an expert in bullet trajectories, or indeed seen anywhere that this was the reason for his opinions held prior to his unfortunate accident.
I'm not sure what relevance JM's life and career has on determining who was responsible for the murders over 30 years ago.
-
What does " trump " everything is that there lay two VERY VISIBLY stiff people and one who hadn't began the full process of RM ?
-
Thanks.
This is the fifth scenario that has gone into a bit of detail. Yours Holly's & Alias's said straight away Nevill did not call the police. Sherlock later agreed Nevill did not call the police after I questioned his scenario. David eventually changed stance and agreed Nevill did not call the police after I questioned him on his third submitted scenario.
Mike is still saying Nevill called the police. However his scenario was very basic. Just saying "by shooting them".
Saying Nevill did not call the police gives Sheila more time to do everything. Although it would still take her well over an hour. Posters have said Sheila continued doing things after the police arrived, but have never said what.
This scenario pulls together the eccentric evidence, particularly the bloody knickers, which only ocurr when a woman begins her period. We know she would not let June discover them in the kitchen in the morning, Nevill coming downstairs to investigate Sheila/Intruder explains all, particularly how June could be shot while asleep, and Nevill being shot downstairs.
Others suggest the twins were shot first, but I do not agree. I see everything beginning with that gun being there by chance, and the continuance of the grim early evening custody/access discussions.
What we do know is that paranoid schizophrenics are no more willing to be shot than the rest of us. It simply never happens, it is an absolute nonsense. I read a thread on red trying to theorise, and it had ideas such as weedkiller as pacifier.
I can't see how you are all so hoodwinked by this case. I know it has become too big to fail, the ramifications for Theresa May as home secreatary now PM are huge. The ramifications for the relatives that acquired Jeremy's money are stupendous also. This should all be reversed, he should be released and the farm returned to him.
This is obvious to blind Freddie. Then everyone can rest their tortured souls.
-
I have explained often enough.
Sheila went to bed with no period, but when it started she headed downstairs and made a racket with buckets and water that alerted Nevill to the possibility of an intruder, with a young family in his care.
Once again the debate about Sheila's fitness to care for her children in any capacity ensued, and Nevill reminded her how determined June was to prevent her, in full blown crisis to crisis mode, from a caring role.
She grabbed the loaded gun and headed upstairs, where only a woman and 2 children slept.
Nevill hardly feared she was going to actually use it, but phoned Jeremy to repair home to assist with her. While on the phone she pumped 5 bullets into the sleeping June, whereupon he raced upstairs, and she swivelled in the doorway and shot him twice in the mouth, DESCENDING TRAJECTORY. He turned to flee down the stairs, and scored a further two shots in the left arm, DESCENDING TRAJECTORY. The gun was empty, so she swung by the barrel to immobilise him, head in coal scuttle, reloaded 4 bullets quickly, which she drilled in 2 pairs into Nevill's head. Heading back upstairs she discovered June had struggled to the bedroom door with her body wounds, and she reloaded 2 bullets and drilled the pair into her head. Hence all the cartridge cases in the vicinity of the doorway.
Realising the enormity of her actions she considered the still sleeping twins, and what life held for them, she reloaded an easy 8 bullets before the spring loading got tough, and mercy killed them.
Still just after 3 am, she got busy with the branding Nevill's back, probably visited the bathroom and washed her hands, generally removing traces of bullet loading. Much later, when the police had surrounded the farm, because Jeremy had alerted them to Nevill's call to Goldhanger, she took the line of least resistance, she loaded two bullets to the cartridge for surety, and shot herself while prone, exactly where the body was found. The first shot was misjudged, and she slumped to better target her brain. This worked. Hence the remarkable fact of an empty cartridge.
I am no longer convinced the fresh blood photograph is correct, because the photograph was taken some hours later when all blood would be blackened. This in no way alters the crime reconstruction I have outlined, which keeps Sheila blood free, and does not require any fight in the kitchen.
I would like to have this reconstruction analysed and shown to err in significant detail so I can give it more thought, but it certainly fits the crime scene.
Some people wonder why we are interested in this case, and for me it is to help correct a history of New Zealand, where 50% of the population still believe David Bain killed his family. It is an unconscionable outrage that he was not compensated, but insulted by a crooked judge from Queensland commissioned by a wicked government intent on not losing of votes of their Bain hating supporters.
These people often cite the case of Jeremy Bamber to demonstrate that 23 year old men in a hurry for inheritance will butcher a family.
Absolute bullshit squared. The Menendez brothers may have done so, but the facts are screamingly different, and there is no alternative theory, and they confessed.
23 year olds are optimists, think back yourself Adam.
And by the way, if Jeremy had been insane enough to think he really could despatch three adults with a gun and make one replicate a suicide, with no forensic detail that was indisputably connected to his presence at the crime scene, he would never ring the police that night. He would roll up for work and phone them at that time. No ridiculous nonsense with phone calls during the evening. The same thing would happen, he would say my sister is crazy and she must have done all this. Far fewer moving parts in "the plan".
At 3am the 'alleged' earlier conversation about fostering is brought up again. Seems a bit of a strange time to start talking about this again.
Both Nevill & Sheila are bare footed in nightie/pyjamas. Although Nevill thought intruders were in WHF & Sheila went downstairs to do things.
The loaded gun had surprisingly apparently not been put away by Nevill, June & certainly not by Bamber, who had not bothered putting it back where he collected it from the night before.
Sheila is upset at the apparent 3am conversation and June's apparent determination. She takes the loaded gun and goes upstairs. Nevill amazingly lets her.
Nevill has preferred to ring Bamber at 3am. Who was 'sleeping like a log' three miles away.
Bamber somehow answers his downstairs phone before his answering machine comes on, within about 15 seconds. Which is the amount of time it would take Sheila to get upstairs, aim and fire at June.
Nevill is aware Sheila has opened fire upstairs as he only says 11 words to Bamber after Bamber answers the phone within 15 seconds.
It's unlikely Nevill would be able to hear the upstairs shots with his one free ear. The gun was quiet.
Nevill runs upstairs unprotected and gets within a foot of Sheila. However no physical confrontation takes place although Sheila manages 4 accurrate shots.
Nevill runs straight back downstairs after being shot 4 times. Why he did nothing upstairs no one knows. He had run upstairs to protect his family after hearing shots. What was he expecting when he got upstairs, tea & biscuits ?
After 9 shots there are still two bullets left. However the kitchen fight now commences.
Nevill had multiple head and arm injuries. Thread created. This would not happen from just one swing of the rifle. Sheila was surprisingly unmarked in this kitchen fight.
Large and 6.4 Nevill fell a long way towards the floor and landed face first on top of a coal scuttle. And does not knock it over.
This scenario has Sheila completing the massacre and washing her hands just after 3am. However Bamber said Nevill rang him at 3.10am before the massacre had started.
The twins had stayed asleep during the massacre. Although people claim Sheila would have woken during Bamber's relatively quiet massacre.
There is no mention of the bible or suicide note. The suicide notes can be discarded however the bible must be included in Sheila's scenario. Otherwise it was a plant. The police were outside, so not sure how Sheila read the bible in the dark.
My Bamber scenario is available to view on the forum, upon request.
-
........ he should be released and the farm returned to him.
Presumably with your research you are aware that the farm was (and is) owned by the 'Henry Smith Trust'?
-
I do believe that in the earlier stages of a " debacle " emerging,that Neville did ring for the police.
-
You appear selective and inconsistent.
A minute ago it was suggillation that was the clear indicator, now that doesn't matter and it's actually bullet trajectory that trumps everything else.
Why rest upon opinions held by Taff Jones as carrying greater weight than those held by others? Singling him out simply because it fits in with your views is a little on the flimsy side. I haven't read that Taff was an expert in bullet trajectories, or indeed seen anywhere that this was the reason for his opinions held prior to his unfortunate accident.
I'm not sure what relevance JM's life and career has on determining who was responsible for the murders over 30 years ago.
JM was described in lurid detail by Carol Ann Lee, for example
Julie stammered: ‘Yes . . . I . . . didn’t know what else to do. I didn’t want to believe it – I didn’t know whether I could believe it.’ She told him that in order to convince herself, she had volunteered to identify the bodies, simultaneously intending to ask Sheila and June for their advice. A collective intake of breath went round the court. Rivlin allowed it to settle, then asked: ‘When you say “the advice of Sheila and her mother”, you are talking about the dead Sheila and the dead mother?’ Julie looked back at him, her chin jutting. ‘Yes, that’s correct. I believe in the spiritual world. I believe you can talk to people and help them reason. I believe there is a God.’ She hesitated, then said: ‘I had no other option. They would know what happened. Nobody else would.’
What a load of crap. She was eying that big cheque and the apartment already. She should be in jail.
-
Presumably with your research you are aware that the farm was (and is) owned by the 'Henry Smith Trust'?
Registered Charity Number 230102
-
Presumably with your research you are aware that the farm was (and is) owned by the 'Henry Smith Trust'?
How about this? I was so intrigued I transcribed the whole thing for reference. Maybe you can see mendacity oozing from this account and contend the relatives are pure as driven snow.
Maybe not though.
On the 29th September 1985 a 24 year old man Jeremy Bamber was arrested at the Port of Dover and charged with shooting his entire family. His father 61 year old Neville his mother 61 year old June his sister 27 year old Sheila and her 2 twins 6 year olds Nicholas and Daniel.
On the 28th October 1986, Jeremy Bamber was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 25 years. To mark his 28th year of wrongful imprisonment we want to trace one of the biggest issues in this case, that of money, and the testimony of key prosecution witnesses, as it was considered that money and the inheritance of the family assets was Jeremy's motive to kill everyone.
Julie Mugford, the girlfriend that Jeremy jilted for another woman not long after the tragedies, made up a story about a hit man, when she herself had been charged with theft, and this particular situation was acted by her to take revenge on an innocent man. She claimed in court that Jeremy had told her, that the hitman had told him, that he had shot Neville 7 times as the police reported, but Neville Bamber was actually shot 8 times. Julie Mugford arranged the deal with the News of the World before the trial for a 25 thousand pound payoff paid on his conviction only, and that sum was worth about 80k in todays terms. She did not sign the contract until minutes after the verdict was announced, when she was waiting with photographers and a journalist, and two police officers in a local hotel, and some of her statements and interviews remain under public interest immunity. Furthermore, Julie Mugford was granted immunity from prosecution provided that she gave evidence for the crown at Jeremy's trial. So much for fair justice.
Jeremy's parents, Neville and June Bamber were a wealthy and successful farming couple. June Bamber was the daughter of wealthy landowners, Lesley and Mabel Speakman. June's sister Pamela married a local man named Robert Boutflour, and they had two children, David and Anne, who also went into the farming business themselves. Later, Anne Boutflour married Peter Eaton, and they farmed Peter's share of the land which was jointly owned with his brother. Before Neville Bamber's death, Peter's father died and Peter's brother, John Eaton, had inherited half the land which he intended to sell to the Bambers. Concerned that their livelihood would be in jeopardy, Peter and Anne did not obtain financial help to purchase this land from Anne's parents, but instead made an approach to Anne's uncle, Neville Bamber, who bought the land from John, so that they were able still to farm the acreage until such time as they could afford to purchase it. This meant that when Neville Bamber died in the tragedy, his son Jeremy now owned unknowingly half of the Eaton's farm. Local gossip was retold about the land deal in police records. Apparently Neville Bamber had had a fight with John Eaton in a local pub over some land that Neville purchased, which Neville felt was vastly overpriced. The jury at Jeremy's trial was suspicious of the testimony of Robert Boutflour and relatives, asked the following question. If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy's being able to kill his own parents. The Eatons and the Boutflours were, after all, the ones who found the only evidence which convicted Jeremy, the sound moderator. Mysteriously, this was in the very cupboard already searched by the police 3 days prior to the relatives finding it. The jury were told via a statement from Robert Boutflour that he was wealthy in his own right, but neither the jury, nor the defence knew anything about the secret land deal in which Jeremy now owned half of the Eatons' land. It was only in 1986, after the trial, when Peter Eaton told the truth about this deal to the Dickenson investigation, which was set up to explore the police handling of the case. Robert Boutflour had also disguised financial affairs from the court in a second way. Jeremy's grandmother Mabel Speakman, who had survived her husband Leslie, rearranged her will leaving a large part of her estate to June and Pamela, her daughters. Robert Boutflour told the jury that he and his wife owned the land that they farmed, but failed to mention that at the time of the tragedies, Mabel Speakman owned the land they farmed, not them. Which meant that once Mabel Speakman died, her estate would pass to June and Pamela. But as June was now deceased and Jeremy was her remaining next of kin, he would also unknowingly have owned half the land they farmed. This only became clear during the statements made by Robert Boutflour to the City of London police in 1991 when he discussed the fact that after his wife inherited the farm from Mabel Speakman, she gave her husband Robert his own equal share of the land they were farming, known as Carbonle's farm. Which meant that he was a wealthy land owner in his own right. This means that during the trial Robert Boutflour did not make it clear to the jury that at the time of the tragedy and during the weeks after, he did not own the land he was farming therefore he did have a very strong motive to lie to the jury as they had suspected. Owing to the Eatons' secret land deal, and if Mabel Speakman had died before her will was changed, Jeremy unknowingly, would have inherited the entire Bamber estate including half of the Eatons' farm and half of the Boutflours' farm, which would have put the relatives into a financially vulnerable position.
According to companies house records in 1985 N and J Bamber limited had been a successful company worth about 400,000 pounds. Neville Bamber the father was worth about 310,000 and a further 80,000 from other personal assets. Jeremy's share was worth about 75,000. After he was convicted he lost legal control of the company. Between the years 1984 and 1988, N and J Bamber made an average profit of about 60,000 a year. Based on these figures the company would have been expected to make about 600,000 pounds in profit, about 60,000 a year over the next ten years. Yet the accounts show that the company made less than 4,000 pounds. This excludes the 58,000 pounds from the winding up of the company in 1998. N and J Bamber Ltd had a fixed asset value of 79,800 pounds in 1984 and a fixed assets value of zero from 1990 to 1998, meaning that between 1985 and 1989 N and J B Ltd lost the whole 79,800 pounds in fixed assets under the control of Peter Eaton and Mr Wilson. Mabel Speakman had been ill for some time, and shortly after the tragedies, but before the trial, she mysteriously changed her will, leaving her entire estate to her daughter Pamela Boutflour. This was just 2 weeks after she had been declared medically unable to make a statement to the police owing to ill health. During the trial Robert Boutflour had responded with a definitive statement that included
" Personally I would have no claim on the estate and would not benefit in any way."
Curiously, Robert Boutflour appears in a deed dated 4 August 1987 which was made between one Mr Cock, Mrs Boutflour the second Robert Boutflour and third defendants Martin Cowell. It was agreed and declared that from the respective deaths of Mr Bamber, Mrs Bamber and Mrs Caffell, Mr Cock stand possessed of all Mrs Boutflour's interest in the respective estates of Mr Bamber Mrs Bamber and Mrs Caffell upon trust for Mrs Boutflour's children, the 5th defendant, Mr Boutflour and 6th defendant, Mrs Eaton in equal shares absolutely. This means that after the death of Neville, June and Sheila, Basil Cock the company accountant was an executor to the estate. He decided that as June's mother Mabel Speakman was still alive when the tragedies happened, she would now inherit the whole estate. As Jeremy was convicted of murder he could not inherit his parents' share, but he still owned 20% of the company N and J Bamber in his own right. Antony Pargeter and Jaqueline Wood were now Neville's next of kin, and in 1992 made a claim against Basil Cock's decision to give the entire estate to Mabel Speakman, simply because when Mabel Speakman died, before the trial but after the tragedy, she had left her entire estate to her daughter Pamela Boutflour, wife of Robert. Pamela then kept half the estate for herself and divided Carbonle's farm between Robert and herself, also giving June and Neville's share of the estate to her children equally, David Boutflour and Anne Eaton. This meant that with Jeremy in prison, the Boutflours and Eatons now had control of all the family assets, including Jeremy's 20% share. The case went to the high court, justice brought by Antony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood. But on the first day of proceedings they all agreed to an out of court settlement. This meant that Jeremy would not know what the exact terms of the settlement were other than the fact that Antony and Jacqueline would take Neville Bamber's share of the estate. The statement of claim does not suggest that Antony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood knew their uncle Neville also owned half of the Eatons' farm. The company was eventually wound up many years later leaving Jeremy with a debt of 16,000 pounds, no assets, which was to ensure that he had no finances with which to fight an appeal. Jeremy therefore has been deprived of his own personal wealth because of his conviction, and has never been able to obtain the personal money taken from him with which to fight legal action. There is therefore no legal aid and he can't progress with this.
The N and J Bamber company solicitor Mr Wilson had made Peter Eaton a director of the company without Jeremy's consent. Jeremy had simply believed that Peter Eaton was acting as a manager after the tragedies. Further to this in 1987, the company secretary, Barbara Wilson, approached the police and reported a string of fraudulent activity allegedly carried out by Peter Eaton. This included the following
1. Disposal of farm machinery
2. Sale of a combine harvester.
3. Theft of monies
4. Excessive expenditure
5. Obtaining of discounts using the Bamber company
6. Obtaining of goods being paid for by the Bamber company
7. Using manpower from the estate on his own land
8. Stealing a tractor engine
9. Selling off cattle from the Bamber farm
10. Sale of Jeremy's car and keeping the funds.
Essex police failed to investigate the claims until after the first appeal of Jeremy, as this would ensure that the integrity of a key prosecution witness was not brought into question. It is unclear whether the allegations relate to the time before Jeremy Bamber was taken into police custody.
Antony Pargeter claimed to have kept his rifle and its accessories at White House Farm where it is licenced for use. In his 12 december 1985 statement he claims he left his rifle at the farm and he told the court at the trial he'd bought a sound moderator with the gun which he kept at WHF and yet noone even questioned where this identical moderator was kept during and after the tragedies. In 1991 Antony Pargeter changed his story and told the city of London police investigation that his gun was not at the farm. In the same year he was awarded 40,000 pounds damages and 60,000 costs by the Sunday Sport when they had claimed he could have been a suspect in the murders because bullets found at the scene could have been fired from his rifle. It is unclear what his statement of claim to the court actually was. For example he may have made the claim that his rifle was not after all at the farm, but we simply do not know.
The evidence presented in this video coupled with the material on the website proving Jeremy's innocence strongly suggests that the court were not told the truth about the relatives' financial motive and neither were the jury clear about Sheila Caffel's medical history. Her diaries and medical records were refused disclosure to the defence. There is and never has been any evidence connecting Jeremy Bamber to the killing of his family. The case at trial relied on those who benefited from his conviction and from the evidence they obtained 3 days after the tragedies
-
How about this?
...............
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've all heard this before and it doesn't relate to my post.
I was merely suggesting that with all of your research, you must surely have been aware that Whitehouse Farm was rented from the 'Henry Smith Charity Trust'.
So your statement that JB should be given ownership is incorrect on a number of levels.
If you've made a mistake, that's fine. It's not a problem.
-
I do believe that in the earlier stages of a " debacle " emerging,that Neville did ring for the police.
Welcome back Lookout.
-
I've put up 16 questions on the latest scenario in post 1048. Which is the same amount I had for David.
David didn't address any of them, except to say Nevill did not call the police.
Hopefully Samson can address my 15 points and with a huge amount of benefits of doubts & multiple very unlikely but not impossible occurances, a Sheila scenario has been created.
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've all heard this before and it doesn't relate to my post.
I was merely suggesting that with all of your research, you must surely have been aware that Whitehouse Farm was rented from the 'Henry Smith Charity Trust'.
So your statement that JB should be given ownership is incorrect on a number of levels.
If you've made a mistake, that's fine. It's not a problem.
I am interested in whether it is all true, partially true or all false. It reads as though Jeremy has been fleeced by a wolf pack. This is not the way society can function.
In reality we are charging around the rabbit hole with Alice and her friends when attending to this fine detail.
As Churchill might say, tomorrow we will be debating who stole the tarts, yet Jeremy will still be innocent.
-
Welcome back Lookout.
Thanks for my welcome Caroline. ;)
-
I've put up 15 questions on the latest scenario in post 1048. Which is the same amount I had for David.
David didn't address any of them, except to say Nevill did not call the police.
Hopefully Samson can address my 15 points and with a huge amount of benefits of doubts & multiple very unlikely but not impossible occurances, a Sheila scenario has been created.
I suggest you start again and eliminate as many moving parts from the crime as possible Adam.
It is stunning how the epicycles disappeared when Galileo put the sun at the center, and the same thing happens when Jeremy is left asleep in bed and awoken with a phone call from Nevill. No bikes, wetsuits, impossible to discard bloody apparel, nylon threads to pull that window latch down to vertical after exiting with no disturbance to the paraphernalia on the window sill, no inside or outside dogs not barking and waking June, no Sheila being subdued with weedkiller so she would enjoy being shot dead next to her dead mother....
-
Welcome back Lookout.
I was hoping I wouldn't be noticed. ;D ;D ;D ;D,but thankyou. It was more to do with Barry George that I returned because I felt pity for a poor man who wasn't able to defend himself.
-
I was hoping I wouldn't be noticed. ;D ;D ;D ;D,but thankyou. It was more to do with Barry George that I returned because I felt pity for a poor man who wasn't able to defend himself.
Whatever the reason, it's not the same without you! ;D
-
I suggest you start again and eliminate as many moving parts from the crime as possible Adam.
It is stunning how the epicycles disappeared when Galileo put the sun at the center, and the same thing happens when Jeremy is left asleep in bed and awoken with a phone call from Nevill. No bikes, wetsuits, impossible to discard bloody apparel, nylon threads to pull that window latch down to vertical after exiting with no disturbance to the paraphernalia on the window sill, no inside or outside dogs not barking and waking June, no Sheila being subdued with weedkiller so she would enjoy being shot dead next to her dead mother....
Sorry I don't quite follow. What's wetsuits got to do with my multiple questions on you're scenario ?
-
Here are my questions again on the latest submitted Sheila scenario. Available for anyone to answer as Samson has currently just mentioned wetsuits.
I will post my Bamber breakdown now. Again, anyone can ask me questions which I will happily answer.
-----------------
At 3am the 'alleged' earlier conversation about fostering is brought up again. Seems a bit of a strange time to start talking about this again.
Both Nevill & Sheila are bare footed in nightie/pyjamas. Although Nevill thought intruders were in WHF & Sheila went downstairs to do things.
The loaded gun had surprisingly apparently not been put away by Nevill, June & certainly not by Bamber, who had not bothered putting it back where he collected it from the night before.
Sheila is upset at the apparent 3am conversation and June's apparent determination. She takes the loaded gun and goes upstairs. Nevill amazingly lets her.
Nevill has preferred to ring Bamber at 3am. Who was 'sleeping like a log' three miles away.
Bamber somehow answers his downstairs phone before his answering machine comes on, within about 15 seconds. Which is the amount of time it would take Sheila to get upstairs, aim and fire at June.
Nevill is aware Sheila has opened fire upstairs as he only says 11 words to Bamber after Bamber answers the phone within 15 seconds.
It's unlikely Nevill would be able to hear the upstairs shots with his one free ear. The gun was quiet.
Nevill runs upstairs unprotected and gets within a foot of Sheila. However no physical confrontation takes place although Sheila manages 4 accurrate shots.
Nevill runs straight back downstairs after being shot 4 times. Why he did nothing upstairs no one knows. He had run upstairs to protect his family after hearing shots. What was he expecting when he got upstairs, tea & biscuits ?
After 9 shots there are still two bullets left. However the kitchen fight now commences.
Nevill had multiple head and arm injuries. Thread created. This would not happen from just one swing of the rifle. Sheila was surprisingly unmarked in this kitchen fight.
Large and 6.4 Nevill fell a long way towards the floor and landed face first on top of a coal scuttle. And does not knock it over.
This scenario has Sheila completing the massacre and washing her hands just after 3am. However Bamber said Nevill rang him at 3.10am before the massacre had started.
The twins had stayed asleep during the massacre. Although people claim Sheila would have woken during Bamber's relatively quiet massacre.
There is no mention of the bible or suicide note. The suicide notes can be discarded however the bible must be included in Sheila's scenario. Otherwise it was a plant. The police were outside, so not sure how Sheila read the bible in the dark.
-
Thanks for my welcome Caroline. ;)
Well, perhaps if you has posted in the correct place for you first post you may have received more welcomes. It isn't a free for all here as it is on the IA board, you're supposed to introduce yourself in the foyer; I suggest you do that.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6549.msg295162.html#msg295162
Page 1. Reply 4.
-
I suggest you start again and eliminate as many moving parts from the crime as possible Adam.
It is stunning how the epicycles disappeared when Galileo put the sun at the center, and the same thing happens when Jeremy is left asleep in bed and awoken with a phone call from Nevill. No bikes, wetsuits, impossible to discard bloody apparel, nylon threads to pull that window latch down to vertical after exiting with no disturbance to the paraphernalia on the window sill, no inside or outside dogs not barking and waking June, no Sheila being subdued with weedkiller so she would enjoy being shot dead next to her dead mother....
Where has the introduction of weed killer come from?
-
Whatever the reason, it's not the same without you! ;D
I didn't know you'd missed me that much. I've not had a dull moment here this last couple of weeks.I might just as well be back at work. :o
-
I suggest you start again and eliminate as many moving parts from the crime as possible Adam.
It is stunning how the epicycles disappeared when Galileo put the sun at the center, and the same thing happens when Jeremy is left asleep in bed and awoken with a phone call from Nevill. No bikes, wetsuits, impossible to discard bloody apparel, nylon threads to pull that window latch down to vertical after exiting with no disturbance to the paraphernalia on the window sill, no inside or outside dogs not barking and waking June, no Sheila being subdued with weedkiller so she would enjoy being shot dead next to her dead mother....
You must be able to read my mind.
-
You must be able to read my mind.
Sigh.
The crime solution is mundane and obvious, I have spent hundreds of hours discussing and analysing it, but in fact a few minutes does really suffice.
I can well imagine how you feel, we are still bedevilled with the problem with another was 23 year old down under who the blood and trajectory evidence show infallibly is innocent.
-
Where has the introduction of weed killer come from?
Red, Caroline
Re: How did Jeremy subdue Sheila?
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2016, 01:49:26 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Holly Goodhead on October 06, 2016, 01:41:01 PM
Such as?
John replies
Liquid weedkiller, ammonia or paint thinners for starters.
-
What I've noticed with Sheila scenarios is it is the posters vision of how they would like it to be.
Things such as 3am conversations about fostering, Nevill letting Sheila go upstairs with a loaded gun & a sleeping 'like a log' Bamber answering his downstairs phone within 15 seconds.
I suppose one of these very unlikely things could have happened. But 16 all in a short period, just to match a vision is impossible.
As soon as questions are asked on the vision, no answers are supplied.
-
Well, perhaps if you has posted in the correct place for you first post you may have received more welcomes. It isn't a free for all here as it is on the IA board, you're supposed to introduce yourself in the foyer; I suggest you do that.
Terse.
-
What I've noticed with Sheila scenarios is it is the posters vision of how they would like it to be.
Things such as 3am conversations about fostering, Nevill letting Sheila go upstairs with a loaded gun & a sleeping 'like a log' Bamber answering his downstairs phone within 15 seconds.
I suppose one of these very unlikely things could have happened. But 16 all in a short period, just to match a vision is impossible.
As soon as questions are asked on the vision, no answers are supplied.
This is commonly employed as a strategy, compile a list looking like a lawyer's bill of things we must believe. A young man called Martin Van Beynen did exactly that after the acquittal of David Bain, and fooled a bunch of people that mattered that here was a proof of wrongful acquittal.
Of course the evidence was similarly incontrovertible, the data showed murder suicide just like here, and the list was as much use as tits on a bull.
-
Terse.
Samson,I know you from another forum ? If you're the same one that is.
-
My Bamber breakdown has no vision or required multiple benefit of the doubts.
It just matches the crime scene. No conversations, phone calls or bible reading in the dark.
-
Samson,I know you from another forum ? If you're the same one that is.
ISF and IA are about it. Which one?
-
ISF and IA are about it. Which one?
IA probably.
-
This is commonly employed as a strategy, compile a list looking like a lawyer's bill of things we must believe. A young man called Martin Van Beynen did exactly that after the acquittal of David Bain, and fooled a bunch of people that mattered that here was a proof of wrongful acquittal.
Of course the evidence was similarly incontrovertible, the data showed murder suicide just like here, and the list was as much use as tits on a bull.
No strategy.
You gave a Sheila scenario. I asked 16 questions. You have so far refused to answer any of them.
-
IA probably.
You must have a different handle there then.
I started with Knox, then just as she was released they reconvicted Mark Lundy, and I work with a few people on that rather bleak case. He is innocent just like our Jeremy, yet at 56, he is stuck for at least 7 more years in jail for a crime actually committed by debt collectors, the murder of his wife and daughter.
Then there is David Tamihere stitched up, it all works the same way, and the villagers unite behind authority, not believing so many people could be so wrong.
-
No strategy.
You gave a Sheila scenario. I asked 16 questions. You have so far refused to answer any of them.
Actually I have been typing continuously trying to keep up. To say I refuse is a broad brush.
If I may ask, is there anything that could change your mind, or would you happily have old Henri Pierrepoint hang him?
Bearing in mind he would be hanged in a heart beat in the golden 50's.
-
The most impossible points in the latest scenario again revolves around Nevill's call to Bamber -
Nevill lets an upset Sheila go upstairs with a loaded rifle. Not impossible. But a 1% chance.
Nevill decides to ring Bamber at 3am. Not impossible but a 1% chance.
Bamber was 'sleeping like a log' but answers the downstairs phone within 15 seconds. Impossible.
Bamber answers the phone at the exact same time Sheila starts shooting June. Which is 15 seconds after Sheila goes upstairs. Impossible.
Nevill hears the upstairs shots with one ear from a quiet rifle. Resulting in him only saying 11 words. Maybe impossible (tests needed) or a 1% chance.
For me two 'impossibles' one 'maybe impossible' and two '1% chances in the space of less than a minute = Impossible.
-
Actually I have been typing continuously trying to keep up. To say I refuse is a broad brush.
If I may ask, is there anything that could change your mind, or would you happily have old Henri Pierrepoint hang him?
Bearing in mind he would be hanged in a heart beat in the golden 50's.
In you're own time. My 16 questions are in posts 1048 or 1063.
-
Actually I have been typing continuously trying to keep up. To say I refuse is a broad brush.
If I may ask, is there anything that could change your mind, or would you happily have old Henri Pierrepoint hang him?
Bearing in mind he would be hanged in a heart beat in the golden 50's.
Samson,this is Adam's full-time job-----if you get my drift ??? Hence his unnatural eagerness.
-
Samson,this is Adam's full-time job-----if you get my drift ??? Hence his unnatural eagerness.
Welcome back Lookout x
-
The most impossible points in the latest scenario again revolves around Nevill's call to Bamber -
Nevill lets an upset Sheila go upstairs with a loaded rifle. Not impossible. But a 1% chance.
Nevill decides to ring Bamber at 3am. Not impossible but a 1% chance.
Bamber was 'sleeping like a log' but answers the downstairs phone within 15 seconds. Impossible.
Bamber answers the phone at the exact same time Sheila starts shooting June. Not impossible but a 1% chance.
Nevill hears the upstairs shots with one ear from a quiet rifle. Resulting in him only saying 11 words. Maybe impossible (tests needed) or a 1% chance.
All this occurred in the space of one minute. For me one 'impossible' one 'maybe impossible' and three '1% chances = Impossible.
Woolly thinking and exactly how I would never approach the crime. This is just how they argue in Bain.
Until Sheila takes the gun, Nevill doesn't anticipate this, but it can happen quickly. As I say, Sheila was downstairs messing with the buckets, and Nevill heard it, June did not. This is the only explanation for June being shot while asleep, and Nevill calling Jeremy at the same time.
15 seconds is a long period. Count it. Only Bamber could be the source of sleeping like a log. So he awoke and answered the phone. Where do you get that 1% from?
I have already stated that with Sheila's two children asleep, and just a woman upstairs, Nevill does not expect her to shoot. Sheila tended to the catatonic in recent weeks, maybe she said very little before taking the gun upstairs. However you look at it, June was shot. This would definitely be heard in a quiet house, and of course the silencer was in the cupboard remember, not on the gun, Nevill heads upstairs and she turns him back with gunfire. This fits the casing positions. By now there is no need for hand to hand combat, Nevill's shoulder is disfunctional. She can swing the rifle by the barrel to further disable him before reloading. She is nowhere near the blood or the mantlepiece underside. The finger nails remain intact but she does leave a toenail polish fragment. They are both barefoot because they have both come down from bed, Sheila to rinse her bloody knickers and Nevill to see what she is up to, but in fact probably thought intruder.
And so on and so forth.
Now, should he be hanged Adam? Are you sure enough I am wrong to hang him? You must answer that for the beyond reasonable doubt test.
-
Welcome back Lookout x
Thankyou justice. x
-
Samson,this is Adam's full-time job-----if you get my drift ??? Hence his unnatural eagerness.
Now I see Adam is just 19 if his profile is correct. I suddenly feel old.
But I see hope, Adam may change his stance with sound reasoning and a fanatical devotion to science and logic. Others won't I know, sadly.
-
Can anyone explain to me why AP got about half the Bamber estate? Perhaps Hartley can help.
-
Now I see Adam is just 19 if his profile is correct. I suddenly feel old.
But I see hope, Adam may change his stance with sound reasoning and a fanatical devotion to science and logic. Others won't I know, sadly.
I can't imagine that every profile will have even " a ring of truth " about them,so seeing isn't always believing.
-
Thankyou justice. x
hi lookout, welcome back. X
-
hi lookout, welcome back. X
Aw,thankyou,Notsure. x
-
Can anyone explain to me why AP got about half the Bamber estate? Perhaps Hartley can help.
Down the line,he was a blood relative as in the order of wills where there are siblings,they have as much right being next of kin to Pamela who was the deceased's sister. This is where a complication can arise if you don't know anything about wills. Siblings are counted as being next of kin along with brothers or sisters of the deceased. Per Stirpes is the term spoken in such wills.
-
Down the line,he was a blood relative as in the order of wills where there are siblings,they have as much right being next of kin to Pamela who was the deceased's sister. This is where a complication can arise if you don't know anything about wills. Siblings are counted as being next of kin along with brothers or sisters of the deceased. Per Stirpes is the term spoken in such wills.
Thanks Lookout, but did that entitle him to half rather than a share?
-
Now I see Adam is just 19 if his profile is correct. I suddenly feel old.
But I see hope, Adam may change his stance with sound reasoning and a fanatical devotion to science and logic. Others won't I know, sadly.
As a " 19 " year old and with the knowledge he's got,would you not think he'd have joined the police and then furthered his education for a higher position ? Afterall,he believes strongly in the law in this case.
Trouble is----we'd have far more MOJ's than we already have. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
As a " 19 " year old and with the knowledge he's got,would you not think he'd have joined the police and then furthered his education for a higher position ? Afterall,he believes strongly in the law in this case.
Trouble is----we'd have far more MOJ's than we already have. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Hello Lookout, good to see you're back on the forum. :)
-
Hello Lookout, good to see you're back on the forum. :)
Thanks Maggie.x
-
Woolly thinking and exactly how I would never approach the crime. This is just how they argue in Bain.
Until Sheila takes the gun, Nevill doesn't anticipate this, but it can happen quickly. As I say, Sheila was downstairs messing with the buckets, and Nevill heard it, June did not. This is the only explanation for June being shot while asleep, and Nevill calling Jeremy at the same time. How did Sheila take the gun quickly if it wasn't even loaded?
15 seconds is a long period. Count it. Only Bamber could be the source of sleeping like a log. So he awoke and answered the phone. Where do you get that 1% from?
I have already stated that with Sheila's two children asleep, and just a woman upstairs, Nevill does not expect her to shoot. So he knows she has the gun, describes her (allegedly) to Jeremy as 'going crazy' but doesn't expect her to shoot even though if he saw her take the gun, he must have seen her load it and did sweet FA!
Sheila tended to the catatonic in recent weeks, maybe she said very little before taking the gun upstairs. Yes, she was taking Haldoperidol, it has that effect but whether she sai every little or not, you're saying that after watching her load the rifle, Nevill left her to walk upstairs saying very little? So at what point is she 'going crazy'? Also why would Nevil call Jeremy instead of taking the gun from Sheila?
However you look at it, June was shot. Yes, we know that
This would definitely be heard in a quiet house, and of course the silencer was in the cupboard remember, not on the gun, Nevill heads upstairs and she turns him back with gunfire. Turns him back from where? This fits the casing positions no it doesn't as you haven't given any indication of where anyone was!
By now there is no need for hand to hand combat, Nevill's shoulder is disfunctional. She can swing the rifle by the barrel to further disable him before reloading. She is nowhere near the blood or the mantlepiece underside. The finger nails remain intact but she does leave a toenail polish fragment. No she doesn't
They are both barefoot because they have both come down from bed, Sheila to rinse her bloody knickers and Nevill to see what she is up to, but in fact probably thought intruder.
And so on and so forth.
Now, should he be hanged Adam? Are you sure enough I am wrong to hang him? You must answer that for the beyond reasonable doubt test.
I'm sure enough that the above is pretty much what didn't happen - don't believe in the DP though!!
If this is the ONLY explanation, then you have MEGA problems!
-
As a " 19 " year old and with the knowledge he's got,would you not think he'd have joined the police and then furthered his education for a higher position ? Afterall,he believes strongly in the law in this case.
Trouble is----we'd have far more MOJ's than we already have. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Hello lookout
welcome back you have been missed the forum seemed quite dull without you Xxx
-
If this is the ONLY explanation, then you have MEGA problems!
I don't think Samson is the only one Caroline ;D
-
Hello lookout
welcome back you have been missed the forum seemed quite dull without you Xxx
That's nice of you Susan. xx ( have been on the phone for an hour here ;D )
-
Hello Lookout, good to see you're back on the forum. :)
Hiya Maggie. x
-
If this is the ONLY explanation, then you have MEGA problems!
I get the impression these "MEGA problems" are like that "MASSIVE list" - Non Existent.
-
Steve_uk, what do you think of these thoughts from IA?
IMO he's completely innocent. The police theory does not fit the crime scene, and it does not fit their own records. The case boils down to a couple of pieces of flimsy evidence versus a more plausible explanation of what happened. The people who "found" that evidence thereby gained Bamber's inheritance. The conviction is bullshit and should be overturned.
The guy that wrote that has an encyclopedic knowledge of hundreds of criminal cases world wide.
Charlie Wilkes.
The person who knew Sheila best was Colin. He knew she would never harm the children but did for a moment think she may have committed suicide. I've no doubt Sheila was troubled and may well have talked about suicide to others as she did to Helen Grimster a few weeks before the murders, little knowing how her brother would take advantage of this.
-
Woolly thinking and exactly how I would never approach the crime. This is just how they argue in Bain.
Until Sheila takes the gun, Nevill doesn't anticipate this, but it can happen quickly. As I say, Sheila was downstairs messing with the buckets, and Nevill heard it, June did not. This is the only explanation for June being shot while asleep, and Nevill calling Jeremy at the same time.
15 seconds is a long period. Count it. Only Bamber could be the source of sleeping like a log. So he awoke and answered the phone. Where do you get that 1% from?
I have already stated that with Sheila's two children asleep, and just a woman upstairs, Nevill does not expect her to shoot. Sheila tended to the catatonic in recent weeks, maybe she said very little before taking the gun upstairs. However you look at it, June was shot. This would definitely be heard in a quiet house, and of course the silencer was in the cupboard remember, not on the gun, Nevill heads upstairs and she turns him back with gunfire. This fits the casing positions. By now there is no need for hand to hand combat, Nevill's shoulder is disfunctional. She can swing the rifle by the barrel to further disable him before reloading. She is nowhere near the blood or the mantlepiece underside. The finger nails remain intact but she does leave a toenail polish fragment. They are both barefoot because they have both come down from bed, Sheila to rinse her bloody knickers and Nevill to see what she is up to, but in fact probably thought intruder.
And so on and so forth.
Now, should he be hanged Adam? Are you sure enough I am wrong to hang him? You must answer that for the beyond reasonable doubt test.
Thanks for answering my reply to 1081. Although my 16 questions in reply 1048 have not been addressed.
Whether Nevill anticipated Sheila taking the gun, he still saw her do it. And then let her go upstairs with the rifle.
My suggestion for June being shot with her head on the pillow was because Bamber entered WHF without being heard. But you believe Nevill woke and June didn't. Although people on here have said June was a light sleeper.
Bamber is the source for 'sleeping like a log'. There is not a 1% chance of him waking & getting downstairs to answer the phone within 15 seconds. It was 0%.
If Nevill didn't expect Sheila to shoot, why ring Bamber. Or easier still take the gun off Sheila. It wasn't a shot gun that would kill him if it went off accidentially. It was a rifle for shooting rabbits.
The prosecution case was that the silencer was on the rifle. However if off the rifle in you're scenario, a shot in another room still may not be heard by Nevill. It was a big house. But if the silenncer was not on, the relatives achieved the frame of the decade on an innocent man.
There was a big fight. The state of the kitchen and Nevill shows this.
Thought they would have both put on footware. Or a dressing gown. I wouldn't like to confront intruders bare footed.
Anyway you're vision of how Sheila committed the massacre requires about 20 unlikely things of you're chosing to fall into place.
My scenario of Bamber committing the massacre which I re posted today, is not reliant on any vision I have. It just has the only logical explanation for each piece of evidence.
-
Charlie Wilkes. (Jim Lovering)
He was a serious activist in the Amanda Knox solution, where the American state department "persuaded" the untrustworthy Italians to solve the case. The state department was acquainted with inviolable case facts, but almost certainly went over the heads of the Italian Supreme court, and explained to the Italian government where things were heading.
Charlie always starts at the crime scene and the photographs. These for example show a distinctly different colour of Sheila's body compared to June's. So they died at wildly different times. No livor mortis on Sheila, none, but very marked coloration on June. This is dead simple, a data point that renders all others subordinate.
This elegantly explains a common feature of murder suicide, the murders are easy and euphoric, the suicide not quite so, and delayed. I coined the term last minutism, because I was always puzzled by the coincidental timing of Robin Bain's suicide and David Bain's return to the house until I realised how this works. The murderers are not so keen on shooting themselves, but are confronted by a grim reality, explain myself or shoot myself and put all explaining on the investigators. In Bamber and Bain this was a royal disaster for the innocent 23 year old men.
I have done my research on both cases, as have other New Zealanders.
Robin was a creature of habit, which David knew only too well. There was an alcove in the living room with a curtain which David knew he could hide behind. David knew the motive for murder on the part of his father was flimsy, hence the typed suicide note, which was his fatal mistake.
-
I have explained often enough.
Sheila went to bed with no period, but when it started she headed downstairs and made a racket with buckets and water that alerted Nevill to the possibility of an intruder, with a young family in his care.
Once again the debate about Sheila's fitness to care for her children in any capacity ensued, and Nevill reminded her how determined June was to prevent her, in full blown crisis to crisis mode, from a caring role.
She grabbed the loaded gun and headed upstairs, where only a woman and 2 children slept.
Nevill hardly feared she was going to actually use it, but phoned Jeremy to repair home to assist with her. While on the phone she pumped 5 bullets into the sleeping June, whereupon he raced upstairs, and she swivelled in the doorway and shot him twice in the mouth, DESCENDING TRAJECTORY. He turned to flee down the stairs, and scored a further two shots in the left arm, DESCENDING TRAJECTORY. The gun was empty, so she swung by the barrel to immobilise him, head in coal scuttle, reloaded 4 bullets quickly, which she drilled in 2 pairs into Nevill's head. Heading back upstairs she discovered June had struggled to the bedroom door with her body wounds, and she reloaded 2 bullets and drilled the pair into her head. Hence all the cartridge cases in the vicinity of the doorway.
Realising the enormity of her actions she considered the still sleeping twins, and what life held for them, she reloaded an easy 8 bullets before the spring loading got tough, and mercy killed them.
Still just after 3 am, she got busy with the branding Nevill's back, probably visited the bathroom and washed her hands, generally removing traces of bullet loading. Much later, when the police had surrounded the farm, because Jeremy had alerted them to Nevill's call to Goldhanger, she took the line of least resistance, she loaded two bullets to the cartridge for surety, and shot herself while prone, exactly where the body was found. The first shot was misjudged, and she slumped to better target her brain. This worked. Hence the remarkable fact of an empty cartridge.
I am no longer convinced the fresh blood photograph is correct, because the photograph was taken some hours later when all blood would be blackened. This in no way alters the crime reconstruction I have outlined, which keeps Sheila blood free, and does not require any fight in the kitchen.
I would like to have this reconstruction analysed and shown to err in significant detail so I can give it more thought, but it certainly fits the crime scene.
Some people wonder why we are interested in this case, and for me it is to help correct a history of New Zealand, where 50% of the population still believe David Bain killed his family. It is an unconscionable outrage that he was not compensated, but insulted by a crooked judge from Queensland commissioned by a wicked government intent on not losing of votes of their Bain hating supporters.
These people often cite the case of Jeremy Bamber to demonstrate that 23 year old men in a hurry for inheritance will butcher a family.
Absolute bullshit squared. The Menendez brothers may have done so, but the facts are screamingly different, and there is no alternative theory, and they confessed.
23 year olds are optimists, think back yourself Adam.
And by the way, if Jeremy had been insane enough to think he really could despatch three adults with a gun and make one replicate a suicide, with no forensic detail that was indisputably connected to his presence at the crime scene, he would never ring the police that night. He would roll up for work and phone them at that time. No ridiculous nonsense with phone calls during the evening. The same thing would happen, he would say my sister is crazy and she must have done all this. Far fewer moving parts in "the plan".
You're attributing far too much to a weary Sheila with mental illness and possible Tardive Dyskinesia. The nightie just doesn't speak to me that she engaged in any activity save walk a short way from her bedroom to the master bedroom. Why do you think she was found in the master bedroom and not any other room in the house? Had she been found in her own bedroom forensics would have been able to prove she never left it. Had she ventured into her sons' room she would have discovered them dead and offered some resistance to Jeremy's evil plan. No, she had to be found in the master bedroom because it all happened so quickly, like a lamb to the slaughter.
As for David Bain, too right that many still believe him guilty, including members of Robin's family, who knew him best. As for no compensation, technically he doesn't have it and the government was wrong to commission a report and dismiss its findings, but to my knowledge the $925.000 given to him for legal fees has gone straight into his bank account.
-
Actually I have been typing continuously trying to keep up. To say I refuse is a broad brush.
If I may ask, is there anything that could change your mind, or would you happily have old Henri Pierrepoint hang him?
Bearing in mind he would be hanged in a heart beat in the golden 50's.
Actually many of us would prefer an insane woman not knowing at all what she was doing to have perpetrated the massacre than a cold, calculating months-long plan by an evil, immature young man who should have been sent packing by his girlfriend long before the deed. You ask what evidence would make us change our minds. Well since the telephone call from Nevill was how this all started any proof that it actually occurred would render the conviction unsafe.
-
Woolly thinking and exactly how I would never approach the crime. This is just how they argue in Bain.
Until Sheila takes the gun, Nevill doesn't anticipate this, but it can happen quickly. As I say, Sheila was downstairs messing with the buckets, and Nevill heard it, June did not. This is the only explanation for June being shot while asleep, and Nevill calling Jeremy at the same time.
15 seconds is a long period. Count it. Only Bamber could be the source of sleeping like a log. So he awoke and answered the phone. Where do you get that 1% from?
I have already stated that with Sheila's two children asleep, and just a woman upstairs, Nevill does not expect her to shoot. Sheila tended to the catatonic in recent weeks, maybe she said very little before taking the gun upstairs. However you look at it, June was shot. This would definitely be heard in a quiet house, and of course the silencer was in the cupboard remember, not on the gun, Nevill heads upstairs and she turns him back with gunfire. This fits the casing positions. By now there is no need for hand to hand combat, Nevill's shoulder is disfunctional. She can swing the rifle by the barrel to further disable him before reloading. She is nowhere near the blood or the mantlepiece underside. The finger nails remain intact but she does leave a toenail polish fragment. They are both barefoot because they have both come down from bed, Sheila to rinse her bloody knickers and Nevill to see what she is up to, but in fact probably thought intruder.
And so on and so forth.
Now, should he be hanged Adam? Are you sure enough I am wrong to hang him? You must answer that for the beyond reasonable doubt test.
For Sheila to reload is again stretching conjecture too far. She was the type of girl who liked glamour, the in-crowd, she liked to paint her nails and not get them broken by messing with guns or doing washing up for that matter. She was weary from the weekend parties and not up to anything much apart from staring and lying in bed. I'm not castigating her in any way but that was the state she was in that week, and if you don't realize it you've not learned much from your encyclopaedic research.
-
Actually many of us would prefer an insane woman not knowing at all what she was doing to have perpetrated the massacre than a cold, calculating months-long plan by an evil, immature young man who should have been sent packing by his girlfriend long before the deed. You ask what evidence would make us change our minds. Well since the telephone call from Nevill was how this all started any proof that it actually occurred would render the conviction unsafe.
Well said Steve!
-
As a " 19 " year old and with the knowledge he's got,would you not think he'd have joined the police and then furthered his education for a higher position ? Afterall,he believes strongly in the law in this case.
Trouble is----we'd have far more MOJ's than we already have. :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
You've been back 2 minutes and already attempting to cause trouble Lookout! ::)
Why are you patronising Adam with regards his age yet if he dare mention anything about yours, he's for the high jump? ::)
What exactly are you doing in order to help alleged MOJ victims, apart from spread idol gossip?
-
Can anyone explain to me why AP got about half the Bamber estate? Perhaps Hartley can help.
The position was that because all five died within a short space of time of one another it was legally the eldest victim's wishes which took precedence. June was older than her husband by a few days only, and with Jeremy disinherited due to the murders the bulk of the estate would return to her mother, Mabel Speakman. There was some controversy regarding Mabel changing her will, but change it she did in favour of her last surviving daughter, Pamela Boutflour. Nevill had left everything to June, thinking that she would outlive him. Sheila hadn't left a will so the Maida Vale flat would return to June, which in turn would pass to her mother then back to Pamela.
So as things stood legally Pamela would have copped the lot. But Anthony Pargeter and Jackie Wood(brother and sister) were the children of Nevill's deceased sister Diana, and in some respects Nevill could relate to them more than his own children. To cut a long story short Anthony and Jackie must have consulted a solicitor and the upshot was Pamela relinquished Nevill's estate to his next of kin and kept what was June's in her own right.
-
The position was that because all five died within a short space of time of one another it was legally the eldest victim's wishes which took precedence. June was older than her husband by a few days only, and with Jeremy disinherited due to the murders the bulk of the estate would return to her mother, Mabel Speakman. There was some controversy regarding Mabel changing her will, but change it she did in favour of her last surviving daughter, Pamela Boutflour. Nevill had left everything to June, thinking that she would outlive him. Sheila hadn't left a will so the Maida Vale flat would return to June, which in turn would pass to her mother then back to Pamela.
So as things stood legally Pamela would have copped the lot. But Anthony Pargeter and Jackie Wood(brother and sister) were the children of Nevill's deceased sister Diana, and in some respects Nevill could relate to them more than his own children. To cut a long story short Anthony and Jackie must have consulted a solicitor and the upshot was Pamela relinquished Nevill's estate to his next of kin and kept what was June's in her own right.
They would have been Nevill's next direct relatives.
-
The position was that because all five died within a short space of time of one another it was legally the eldest victim's wishes which took precedence. June was older than her husband by a few days only, and with Jeremy disinherited due to the murders the bulk of the estate would return to her mother, Mabel Speakman. There was some controversy regarding Mabel changing her will, but change it she did in favour of her last surviving daughter, Pamela Boutflour. Nevill had left everything to June, thinking that she would outlive him. Sheila hadn't left a will so the Maida Vale flat would return to June, which in turn would pass to her mother then back to Pamela.
So as things stood legally Pamela would have copped the lot. But Anthony Pargeter and Jackie Wood(brother and sister) were the children of Nevill's deceased sister Diana, and in some respects Nevill could relate to them more than his own children. To cut a long story short Anthony and Jackie must have consulted a solicitor and the upshot was Pamela relinquished Nevill's estate to his next of kin and kept what was June's in her own right.
Pamela actually refused to accept any inheritance from her sister, which is why it then filtered down to her children.
-
Actually many of us would prefer an insane woman not knowing at all what she was doing to have perpetrated the massacre than a cold, calculating months-long plan by an evil, immature young man who should have been sent packing by his girlfriend long before the deed. You ask what evidence would make us change our minds. Well since the telephone call from Nevill was how this all started any proof that it actually occurred would render the conviction unsafe.
The simplest proof is that it as an absurd concoction to be part of a plan.
Start by explaining how it makes a better plan than turning up to the farm, hearing the dogs barking and not being attended to, and no movement in the house.
And if the answer is that there was a need to actively link Sheila to the gun you would be missing the point.
The scene as found was exactly how a planner wanted it to look. The phone call is a ridiculous moving part, an epicycle to explain a planetary movement better explained by a sun centered solar system.
Indeed the whole scene works fine if Nevill never got the call through, or if the planner made that sensible assumption that he wouldn't.
The phone call has destroyed this young man's life, there was no plan but there was a phone call.
Were it not for the fact we have a similar police confection to devour in the absurd Mark Lundy fabrication, I would put this hoax down to poms being too close to the sun to think straight.
-
The simplest proof is that it as an absurd concoction to be part of a plan.
Start by explaining how it makes a better plan than turning up to the farm, hearing the dogs barking and not being attended to, and no movement in the house.
And if the answer is that there was a need to actively link Sheila to the gun you would be missing the point.
The scene as found was exactly how a planner wanted it to look. The phone call is a ridiculous moving part, an epicycle to explain a planetary movement better explained by a sun centered solar system.
Indeed the whole scene works fine if Nevill never got the call through, or if the planner made that sensible assumption that he wouldn't.
The phone call has destroyed this young man's life, there was no plan but there was a phone call.
Were it not for the fact we have a similar police confection to devour in the absurd Mark Lundy fabrication, I would put this hoax down to poms being too close to the sun to think straight.
The problem the Defence has is the precarious nature of Sheila for several years before the massacre, leading may to believe she simply wasn't capable of all that was ascribed to her that morning. The absence of a telephone in the master bedroom, which might have been a lifeline, speaks volumes and smacks of premeditation, as does the rest of the plan as described by Julie.
-
The person who knew Sheila best was Colin. He knew she would never harm the children but did for a moment think she may have committed suicide. I've no doubt Sheila was troubled and may well have talked about suicide to others as she did to Helen Grimster a few weeks before the murders, little knowing how her brother would take advantage of this.
I have read Colin Caffel's letter of July 2013 in the book. By one Carol Anne Lee.
It demonstrates a self pitying piece of gullible nonsense.
I saw red when Caffel would accuse Bamber, because Sheila, a full on paranoid schizophrenic, "wouldn't hurt her children". I saw some evidence here a few hours before the slaughter that he is responsible for.
From Carol Ann Lee
In Kilburn, Colin felt inexplicably anxious all evening. He drove round to Heather’s flat in South Hill Park, where they continued an argument about his relationship with Sheila. ‘All these bloody problems with Bambs!’ he shouted: ‘I sometimes wish she was dead!’29 Suddenly an overwhelming terror for his sons gripped him, and he broke down, sobbing that he was really frightened for them.
So when his children are dead a few hours later we ignore this grim entreaty and blame Jeremy?
Jesus wept.
-
I have read Colin Caffel's letter in the book. By one Carol Anne Lee.
It demonstrates a self pitying piece of gullible nonsense.
I saw red when Caffel would accuse Bamber because Sheila, a full on paranoid schizophrenic, and saw some evidence here a few hours before the slaughter
In Kilburn, Colin felt inexplicably anxious all evening. He drove round to Heather’s flat in South Hill Park, where they continued an argument about his relationship with Sheila. ‘All these bloody problems with Bambs!’ he shouted: ‘I sometimes wish she was dead!’29 Suddenly an overwhelming terror for his sons gripped him, and he broke down, sobbing that he was really frightened for them.
So when his children are dead a few hours later we ignore this grim entreaty and blame Jeremy?
Jesus wept.
Shocking,isn't it ?
-
Shocking,isn't it ?
Yes as bad as it gets. I tidied my post up a little since yours.
This is the hallmark of all these cases, post hoc discovery that flies in the face of the stark evidence.
Many scalps need taking in this abysmal crime against a fellow citizen.
Don't blame the relatives like Colin? I am not so sure. Amanda Knox deserves a massive apology by the tabloid king John Kercher, but there is no place in the human heart to admit wrong doing it seems.
-
The problem the Defence has is the precarious nature of Sheila for several years before the massacre, leading may to believe she simply wasn't capable of all that was ascribed to her that morning. The absence of a telephone in the master bedroom, which might have been a lifeline, speaks volumes and smacks of premeditation, as does the rest of the plan as described by Julie.
Julie, a woman scorned, lied for money.
Schizophrenics can be dangerous people. I have a nephew with the condition who threatened to kill me.
I don't trust them any more than a cross bred badly handled pitbull.
In my crime reconstruction no physical strength beyond holding a gun is needed. This is the way to find the truth, see if we can make it work with the least moving parts, and lo and behold we have
1. A paranoid schizophrenic
2. A loaded gun
3. Nevill and Sheila in the kitchen where there is both a phone and a gun
4. June asleep
5. Point blank gunshots to the throat whose trajectory is completely compatible with self delivery.
Caso chiuso.
-
I'm perfectly prepared to accept Colin felt this way. After all he was the one who had borne the brunt of Sheila's rages, subservient as she had been to her parents all those years, her waywardness expressing itself at school or in promiscuity on the London scene. But it was only an outburst which many of us have expressed when things are not going our way, and doesn't reflect on the day-to-day London life those two young individuals led, where the twins always came first despite her illness, when her children became manageable as their routine was to visit their mother at Maida Vale at weekends. Nothing was to interfere with these weekends and Nicholas and Daniel were very happy with their visits to Paddington Recreation Ground and the parties held in the neighbourhood with Sheila's model friends' children. It was the visits to White House Farm which as six-year-olds appeared so strange to them, which is why Colin felt cause for concern.
-
Julie, a woman scorned, lied for money.
Schizophrenics can be dangerous people. I have a nephew with the condition who threatened to kill me.
I don't trust them any more than a cross bred badly handled pitbull.
In my crime reconstruction no physical strength betond holding a gun is needed. This is the way to find the truth, see if we can make it work with the least moving parts, and lo and behold we have
1. A paranoid schizophrenic
2. A loaded gun
3. Nevill and Sheila in the kitchen where there is both a phone and a gun
4. June asleep
5. Point blank gunshots to the throat whose trajectory is completely compatible with self delivery.
Caso chiuso.
You see I just don't read the individuals you depict in that way. Julie had her own life to lead; yes she was sore about losing Jeremy but she was career-driven and would recover in the most spectacular way, much to the innocents' chagrin. I wouldn't know one end of that gun from another either, and I don't have the shakes. It was a preposterous scheme really, which is why Jeremy felt the need to embellish that first morning at Goldhanger, his statement consisting of a hybrid of lies and half-truths to throw all present off the scent.
-
I'm perfectly prepared to accept Colin felt this way. After all he was the one who had borne the brunt of Sheila's rages, subservient as she had been to her parents all those years, her waywardness expressing itself at school or in promiscuity on the London scene. But it was only an outburst which many of us have experienced when things are not going our way, and doesn't reflect on the day-to-day London life those two young individuals led, where the twins always came first despite her illness, when her children became manageable as their routine was to visit their mother at Maida Vale at weekends. Nothing was to interfere with these weekends and Nicholas and Daniel were very happy with their visits to Paddington Recreation Ground and the parties held in the neighbourhood with Sheila's model friends' children. It was the visits to White House Farm which as six-year-olds appeared so strange to them, which is why Colin felt cause for concern.
I think you are wasting your time debating with Samson, his judgement is clearly clouded and his bias won't allow him to see past these facts.
Julie, a woman scorned, lied for money.
Schizophrenics can be dangerous people. I have a nephew with the condition who threatened to kill me.
I don't trust them any more than a cross bred badly handled pitbull.
I saw red when Caffel would accuse Bamber, because Sheila, a full on paranoid schizophrenic, "wouldn't hurt her children".
There's no reasoning with people like this in my opinion Steve.
-
Disadvantages of Julie lying to the police if Bamber was innocent.
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police. This happened a year later.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims as Bamber was innocent.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
The only asvantage was an innocent, grieving man would be put in jail. For life.
Julie still had a lot going for her. Young, a job, a degree. Bamber would be forgotten about in a few days.
-
Disadvantages of Julie lying to the police if Bamber was innocent.
There was no evidence against Bamber. He was innocent.
She would be charged by the police. When caught lying.
Having a criminal record may effect her teaching career.
To make Bamber look bad, she had to implicate herself in the caravan break in. Effecting her teaching career ?
Her own 1984 crime may come to light. Effecting her teaching career ?
There was no financial reward in approaching the police.
It shows she was upset about splitting up with Bamber.
She would be on her own. No other witnesses could support her claims.
Bamber would have the last laugh. When Julie was exposed.
She would have to follow through her approach. Right through to the ultimate (unlikely) conviction. Lying to the world.
It would show she was vindictive. Once exposed.
She may quickly wilt under pressure. This is something she had never attempted before, and a massive long term lie. So why bother in the first place ?
It would show she had no sympathy for a grieving man. Once exposed.
It would show how upset she was that she was no longer with Bamber. Once exposed.
It would show she was stupid. Once exposed.
An approach may ultimately be time consuming. Depending on her success. Taking up months or years of her life. Effecting her second degree and teaching career.
It would be her word against Bamber's. For the last month the police had treated it as murder/suicide, which was correct as she knew he was innocent.
She will not know the details of the forensic evidence. It may show Sheila was the killer. Which would not be surprising as Bamber was innocent.
It would be bringing other people into this, such the deceased grieving relatives and her own friends and relatives.
She may feel bad after her initial approach. But is coming clean now an option ?
She had already given a WS and gone around with Bamber for one month. The police will know she had approached them after she split with Bamber.
She was attempting to reverse a decision announced in the media, which the police were in public sticking to - murder/suicide. One month after the massacre.
Her approach may only last a few minutes. Experienced police officers may dismiss it, after all Bamber was innocent. Bamber may not even find out about Julie's attempt for revenge.
If an unsuccessful police approach became news in the media, she would forever be looked upon as a heartless and lying woman. Friends and relatives may desert her.
Julie still had a lot going for her. Young, a job, a degree. Bamber would be forgotten about in a few days.
It's evidently what Bamber was counting on: his word against hers.
-
It's evidently what Bamber was counting on: his word against hers.
Have you studied the close correlation between what Ann Eaton and the police must have told Julie, and what finished as her witness statements.
This correlation shows beyond doubt that she was not relating what Bamber had told her, so she was lying when saying he did tell her these things.
That's right LYING LIKE A FLATFISH FOR THE MONEY.
There is no wiggle room here.
David 1819 has explained it all with attention to detail, but unfortunately your minds are closed.
I have done my homework, and if he was guilty I would not bother posting.
It is the manyinnocents we discuss on IA, life is too short to worry about correct prosecutions excessively.
This case blogs out just like Amanda Knox, trust me, and the guilters skirt evidence the innocenti relish discussing.
That is how it is and always will be.
-
Have you studied the close correlation between what Ann Eaton and the police must have told Julie, and what finished as her witness statements.
This correlation shows beyond doubt that she was not relating what Bamber had told her, so she was lying when saying he did tell her these things.
That's right LYING LIKE A FLATFISH FOR THE MONEY.
There is no wiggle room here.
David 1819 has explained it all with attention to detail, but unfortunately your minds are closed.
I have done my homework, and if he was guilty I would not bother posting.
It is the manyinnocents we discuss on IA, life is too short to worry about correct prosecutions excessively.
This case blogs out just like Amanda Knox, trust me, and the guilters skirt evidence the innocenti relish discussing.
That is how it is and always will be.
What money ? The NOTW offerred her 25k a year after she approached the police.
So AE and the police told Julie what to say ? A triple effort then.
-
Have you studied the close correlation between what Ann Eaton and the police must have told Julie, and what finished as her witness statements.
This correlation shows beyond doubt that she was not relating what Bamber had told her, so she was lying when saying he did tell her these things.
That's right LYING LIKE A FLATFISH FOR THE MONEY.
There is no wiggle room here.
David 1819 has explained it all with attention to detail, but unfortunately your minds are closed.
I have done my homework, and if he was guilty I would not bother posting.
It is the manyinnocents we discuss on IA, life is too short to worry about correct prosecutions excessively.
This case blogs out just like Amanda Knox, trust me, and the guilters skirt evidence the innocenti relish discussing.
That is how it is and always will be.
But even if you accept the assumption that Julie read and was influenced by Robert Boutflour's diaries (and I don't) she went much further in her statement than whatever was written by him or discussed by Ann Eaton. She said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hitman and named him. She claimed she had been told a glove had come off in the fight with Nevill. She said Sheila had been told to lie down and was shot last. The latter tallies with the events of that morning.
Another thing the innocent camp has to explain is why does Jeremy telephone Julie at all? He told PC West that Nevill "didn't sound as if he was kidding", which is a ridiculous thing to say in an emergency call to Police if you're genuinely concerned about the welfare of your family. Why would he be kidding anyway? Was Nevill in the habit of playing sick practical jokes on family members in the middle of the night? What motive does Jeremy have for telephoning Julie at 2am(or whatever time it was) if not to attempt to tie her in as an accessory should she not play ball? Remember he told Police under interrogation on 10 September 1985 that their relationship had been cooling for months. The last thing under those circumstances he would wish to do was encourage her clinginess, unless it was for his own purposes in providing the charade of respectability he needed playing the grieving victim in the aftermath.
-
she went much further in her statement than whatever was written by him or discussed by Ann Eaton. She said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hitman and named him.
Macdonald and the £2000 can be traced back to the police and Robert Boutflour weeks before Julie came forward. Read RWB's diary notes and Barlows handwritten notes.
She said Jeremy had told her he had hired a hitman and named him. She claimed she had been told a glove had come off in the fight with Nevill.
There was no fight. No fight = Lying Mugford
1. Upstairs Neville received three shots. One of those shots made him unable to use his left arm and the other two went into his jaw and lodged into the back of his neck. Thus he could not have put up much of a fight.
2. There are no debris on the carpet that you would find had there been such a fight.
3. No visible marks on Sheila or Jeremy.
For more info - Read Vanezis trail transcript and DI Cooks 1991 COLP interview
She said Sheila had been told to lie down and was shot last. The latter tallies with the events of that morning.
She said Sheila was shot on the bed and the bible was placed on her chest. False information that she could only have got from Ann Eaton.
Proof Julie got information from Ann Eaton and not Jeremy
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667)
-
Macdonald and the £2000 can be traced back to the police and Robert Boutflour weeks before Julie came forward. Read RWB's diary notes and Barlows handwritten notes.
There was no fight. No fight = Lying Mugford
1. Upstairs Neville received three shots. One of those shots made him unable to use his left arm and the other two went into his jaw and lodged into the back of his neck. Thus he could not have put up much of a fight.
2. There are no debris on the carpet that you would find had there been such a fight.
3. No visible marks on Sheila or Jeremy.
For more info - Read Vanezis trail transcript and DI Cooks 1991 COLP interview
She said Sheila was shot on the bed and the bible was placed on her chest. False information that she could only have got from Ann Eaton.
Proof Julie got information from Ann Eaton and not Jeremy
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667)
You are nitpicking again.
Nevill was found in the kitchen, dressed in pyjamas, lying over an overturned chair next to the fireplace, amid a scene suggestive of a struggle. He had been shot eight times, six times to the head and face, fired when the rifle was a few inches from his skin. The remaining shots to his body had occurred from at least two feet away. Based on where the empty cartridges were found—three in the kitchen and one on the stairs—the police concluded that he had been shot four times upstairs, but had managed to get downstairs where a struggle took place, and during which he was hit several times with the rifle and shot again, this time fatally.
What on earth was going on for Nevill to be found located in his favourite chair with his head in the coal scuttle with injuries I won't repeat? As for Julie in the state she was in and after giving a statement of over 20 pages is she not allowed one slip of memory, if she didn't hear the bible on the chest remark from one of the police that morning at Goldhanger anyway?
-
I think we should all read and process this article
One striking feature of people who hold science-skeptic views is that they are often just as educated, and just as interested in science, as the rest of us. The problem is not about whether they are exposed to information, but about whether the information is processed in a balanced way. It manifests itself in what Matthew Hornsey (University of Queensland) describes as "thinking like a lawyer," in that people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to "in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-facts-beliefs-identity-seeds-science.html#jCp
I see this in the Bamber case.
People actually believing Sheila lay down to be shot by her brother next to her mother are in cloud cuckoo land, but I just read it on this forum.
Incridible.
-
I think we should all read and process this article
One striking feature of people who hold science-skeptic views is that they are often just as educated, and just as interested in science, as the rest of us. The problem is not about whether they are exposed to information, but about whether the information is processed in a balanced way. It manifests itself in what Matthew Hornsey (University of Queensland) describes as "thinking like a lawyer," in that people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to "in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-facts-beliefs-identity-seeds-science.html#jCp
Incridible.
Presumably the ironic nature of your post is lost on you.
-
I think we should all read and process this article
One striking feature of people who hold science-skeptic views is that they are often just as educated, and just as interested in science, as the rest of us. The problem is not about whether they are exposed to information, but about whether the information is processed in a balanced way. It manifests itself in what Matthew Hornsey (University of Queensland) describes as "thinking like a lawyer," in that people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to "in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-facts-beliefs-identity-seeds-science.html#jCp
I see this in the Bamber case.
People actually believing Sheila lay down to be shot by her brother next to her mother are in cloud cuckoo land, but I just read it on this forum.
Incridible.
Do they?
People actually believe that a young woman taking haldoperidol had the wherewithal to load and shoot a rifle she'd had no experience of and never miss a target - incredible! I have recently seen the effect of this drug on someone taking a MUCH lower dose, they couldn't function and just had no interest in anything.
-
Sheila was compliant in her execution, that is true.
She shot herself to avoid confronting the polis with grim facts.
-
Sheila was compliant in her execution, that is true.
She shot herself to avoid confronting the polis with grim facts.
Sheila was already dead, when Jeremy made his call to the police. The police had 'grim facts' did they?
-
load and shoot a rifle she'd had no experience of
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I have recently seen the effect of this drug on someone taking a MUCH lower dose, they couldn't function and just had no interest in anything.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-
You are nitpicking again.
Nevill was found in the kitchen, dressed in pyjamas, lying over an overturned chair next to the fireplace, amid a scene suggestive of a struggle. He had been shot eight times, six times to the head and face, fired when the rifle was a few inches from his skin. The remaining shots to his body had occurred from at least two feet away. Based on where the empty cartridges were found—three in the kitchen and one on the stairs—the police concluded that he had been shot four times upstairs, but had managed to get downstairs where a struggle took place, and during which he was hit several times with the rifle and shot again, this time fatally.
What on earth was going on for Nevill to be found located in his favourite chair with his head in the coal scuttle with injuries I won't repeat? As for Julie in the state she was in and after giving a statement of over 20 pages is she not allowed one slip of memory, if she didn't hear the bible on the chest remark from one of the police that morning at Goldhanger anyway?
"I have been asked what I made of what appeared to have been a violent struggle in the kitchen between Mr. Bamber and his assailant. I am aware that by looking at the photographs they might suggest such a struggle, but at the time it did not appear that way to me. I could only see two things broken, one was a lamp shade and the other was a plate or bowl. There was also brown sugar on the floor but it was confined to one small area. I later learnt that the chairs and the brown sugar had been so knocked over by the firearms unit when they rushed about the house looking for Sheila. Yes Mr Bamber must have put up some resistance but it must have been limited because of she bullet wounds to his neck and the one to, I think his left arm, which caused the hone to be smashed. So at that time it did appear feasible that Sheila could have killed her father. "
(https://s29.postimg.org/42sygpzzb/ventrial.jpg)
-
You are nitpicking again.
Nevill was found in the kitchen, dressed in pyjamas, lying over an overturned chair next to the fireplace, amid a scene suggestive of a struggle. He had been shot eight times, six times to the head and face, fired when the rifle was a few inches from his skin. The remaining shots to his body had occurred from at least two feet away. Based on where the empty cartridges were found—three in the kitchen and one on the stairs—the police concluded that he had been shot four times upstairs, but had managed to get downstairs where a struggle took place, and during which he was hit several times with the rifle and shot again, this time fatally.
What on earth was going on for Nevill to be found located in his favourite chair with his head in the coal scuttle with injuries I won't repeat? As for Julie in the state she was in and after giving a statement of over 20 pages is she not allowed one slip of memory, if she didn't hear the bible on the chest remark from one of the police that morning at Goldhanger anyway?
Hi Steve,
I don't think there was a 'struggle' exactly, I think Jeremy made it look that way to coincide with his claim that Sheila had gone 'crazy'. The smashed light etc. were probably all staged for effect.
-
Hi Steve,
I don't think there was a 'struggle' exactly, I think Jeremy made it look that way to coincide with his claim that Sheila had gone 'crazy'. The smashed light etc. were probably all staged for effect.
You have just pulled the rug from Steve Caroline. Who believes the conniving relatives after that? Mendacity oozes everywhere, you should all be thoroughly ashamed to be complicit in this crime against Bamber.
-
Hi Steve,
I don't think there was a 'struggle' exactly, I think Jeremy made it look that way to coincide with his claim that Sheila had gone 'crazy'. The smashed light etc. were probably all staged for effect.
I'm struggling to understand what difference it makes.
Whether a two way struggle took place. Or whether a one sided physical attack took place. Or whether the scene was damaged to suggest a struggle took place.
Or a combination of the above.
Clearly something occurred.
-
You are nitpicking again.
Nevill was found in the kitchen, dressed in pyjamas, lying over an overturned chair next to the fireplace, amid a scene suggestive of a struggle. He had been shot eight times, six times to the head and face, fired when the rifle was a few inches from his skin. The remaining shots to his body had occurred from at least two feet away. Based on where the empty cartridges were found—three in the kitchen and one on the stairs—the police concluded that he had been shot four times upstairs, but had managed to get downstairs where a struggle took place, and during which he was hit several times with the rifle and shot again, this time fatally.
What on earth was going on for Nevill to be found located in his favourite chair with his head in the coal scuttle with injuries I won't repeat? As for Julie in the state she was in and after giving a statement of over 20 pages is she not allowed one slip of memory, if she didn't hear the bible on the chest remark from one of the police that morning at Goldhanger anyway?
You're all wrong because if you were to have believed some of the newspapers re. the tragedy,about 5 in all,Neville was found in the hallway-----so where's it to be ? Soooo many different twists to this case that it makes it very difficult to reach the real truth of what had happened and where everyone had ended up. The ONLY guides that we have are the police.Do we fully trust them enough to have got their investigations 100% right in every way ?
-
Macdonald and the £2000 can be traced back to the police and Robert Boutflour weeks before Julie came forward. Read RWB's diary notes and Barlows handwritten notes.
Barlow mentions MacDonald in his notes on an entry dated 20th August, referring to registered letter sent from Scotland. There are suggestions it related to payment for drugs.
Robert Boutflour has a diary entry on 2nd September which mentions Jeremy borrowing £2000 from Nevill for New Zealand and then lending it to someone else who was (un)able to pay it back.
Is it these two entries that you have used as the basis of your above post?
-
Barlow mentions MacDonald in his notes on an entry dated 20th August, referring to registered letter sent from Scotland. There are suggestions it related to payment for drugs.
Robert Boutflour has a diary entry on 2nd September which mentions Jeremy borrowing £2000 from Nevill for New Zealand and then lending it to someone else who was (un)able to pay it back.
Is it these two entries that you have used as the basis of your above post?
Julie refers to MacDonald in her statement dated 8th September.
-
There was no fight. No fight = Lying Mugford
1. Upstairs Neville received three shots. One of those shots made him unable to use his left arm and the other two went into his jaw and lodged into the back of his neck. Thus he could not have put up much of a fight.
2. There are no debris on the carpet that you would find had there been such a fight.
3. No visible marks on Sheila or Jeremy.
For more info - Read Vanezis trail transcript and DI Cooks 1991 COLP interview]
I'm not sure I agree with your above conclusions.
Clearly something took place in the kitchen. Whether it was a two way fight, or a one sided beating, or indeed damage caused after the event to stage the scene - we can only speculate.
Julie could be lying, or she could be truthfully repeating what she had been told by Jeremy.
I don't think that applying a particular definition to the description of a fight taking place, could be used to determine whether Julie was telling the truth or not.
-
She (Julie) said Sheila was shot on the bed and the bible was placed on her chest. False information that she could only have got from Ann Eaton.
Proof Julie got information from Ann Eaton and not Jeremy
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7899.msg374667.html#msg374667)
I don't think that this is a particularly robust conclusion.
Ann states that she was told by a police officer (she doesn't recall who) that Sheila was on the bed. We of course know that Sheila was found on the floor alongside the bed.
Clearly either Ann or the mystery police officer were mistaken. In some documents Sheila is described as being on the far side of the bed, which is an accurate description but could be misinterpreted as Shelia being actually on the bed.
Julie could have obtained this information from Ann. She could have gleaned it from the police or news reports and simply got it wrong.
She could also be truthfully repeating what she was told by Jeremy.
-
Mendacity oozes everywhere..
You cant get much more mendacious, than Essex Police claiming the 'conversation' entry in the logs refers to Jeremy Bamber. Why would police be shouting at Jeremy through a loudhailer for four minutes - only to get no response from him? Is he deaf as a post? It is obvious that having been placed on the back-foot - this ill thought out response was the best they could produce. Yet people still do not cotton on!
If the reference to 'conversation' was an error in understanding (on the part of Bonnett or whoever) - then the police should provide that as the reason. Or - in the absence of being able to recall /understand what the term referred to - they should have conceded this and not come up with a contrived explanation.
It's the fact that they have come up with a contrived and implausible explanation that should set alarm bells ringing.
-
You cant get much more mendacious, than Essex Police claiming the 'conversation' entry in the logs refers to Jeremy Bamber. Why would police be shouting at Jeremy through a loudhailer for four minutes - only to get no response from him? Is he deaf as a post? It is obvious that having been placed on the back-foot - this ill thought out response was the best they could produce. Yet people still do not cotton on!
If the reference to 'conversation' was an error in understanding (on the part of Bonnett or whoever) - then the police should provide that as the reason. Or - in the absence of being able to recall /understand what the term referred to - they should have conceded this and not come up with a contrived explanation.
It's the fact that they have come up with a contrived and implausible explanation that should set alarm bells ringing.
I'm not sure I follow?
Are you referring to the police hailing the house over loud speaker, which was described as a conversation met with no reply?
-
I'm not sure I follow?
Are you referring to the police hailing the house over loud speaker, which was described as a conversation met with no reply?
There were two logs following the events, the one on the reverse of West's log, doesn't mention anything about a conversation. Had one taken place, it'f not something you would miss off. Clearly the word 'conversation' was simply the wrong choice.
-
Barlow mentions MacDonald in his notes on an entry dated 20th August, referring to registered letter sent from Scotland. There are suggestions it related to payment for drugs.
Robert Boutflour has a diary entry on 2nd September which mentions Jeremy borrowing £2000 from Nevill for New Zealand and then lending it to someone else who was (un)able to pay it back.
Is it these two entries that you have used as the basis of your above post?
Yes. There was a meeting with the police on the 20th of August. RWB and AE were present. During this meeting a question was put forward by someone.(from a man called Mcdoanld??)
So we have Sheila on the bed, bible on her chest, £2000 and a man called Mcdonald. All linked to the relatives before Julie 'comes forward' to say Jeremy paid Mathew Mcdonald £2000. He got Sheila to sit on the bed and ordered her to kill herself and then he placed the bible on her chest.
-
Yes. There was a meeting with the police on the 20th of August. RWB and AE were present. During this meeting a question was put forward by someone.(from a man called Mcdoanld??)
So on 20th August Barlow notes down MacDonalds name in relation to a letter from Scotland.
Then on 2nd September Robert Boutflour notes that Jeremy borrowed £2000 from Nevill and hasn't paid it back.
From that, you somehow decide that it relates to Julie telling the police that Jeremy had told her that he had paid MacDonald to commit 5 murders?
I'm struggling to see a connection.
Surely, it's quite possible that Julie is simply repeating what Jeremy told her?
-
So on 20th August Barlow notes down MacDonalds name in relation to a letter from Scotland.
Then on 2nd September Robert Boutflour notes that Jeremy borrowed £2000 from Nevill and hasn't paid it back.
From that, you somehow decide that it relates to Julie telling the police that Jeremy had told her that he had paid MacDonald to commit 5 murders?
I'm struggling to see a connection.
Surely, it's quite possible that Julie is simply repeating what Jeremy told her?
That's the common sense version.
-
I'm not sure I follow?
Are you referring to the police hailing the house over loud speaker, which was described as a conversation met with no reply?
Yes Hartley. I believe it was described as 'challenges met with no response'.
There were two logs following the events, the one on the reverse of West's log, doesn't mention anything about a conversation. Had one taken place, it'f not something you would miss off. Clearly the word 'conversation' was simply the wrong choice.
If your opinion is a correct assessment, people would prefer Essex Constabulary had provided that as the explanation - rather than the contrived and implausible one about the conversation being with Jeremy.
-
Yes Hartley. I believe it was described as 'challenges met with no response'.
If your opinion is a correct assessment, people would prefer Essex Constabulary had provided that as the explanation - rather than the contrived and implausible one about the conversation being with Jeremy.
I haven't given an opinion Roch.
The loud hailing is described in both West's and Bonnetts logs, using different wording. It may also turn up in Saxby's log if that ever materialised.
I'm not sure I've seen an explanation given which involves JB.
-
I haven't given an opinion Roch.
The loud hailing is described in both West's and Bonnetts logs, using different wording. It may also turn up in Saxby's log if that ever materialised.
I'm not sure I've seen an explanation given which involves JB.
I have heard it mentioned here, never seen anything official though.
-
Hi Steve,
I don't think there was a 'struggle' exactly, I think Jeremy made it look that way to coincide with his claim that Sheila had gone 'crazy'. The smashed light etc. were probably all staged for effect.
Actually I still believe there was some kind of life or death struggle. Nevill wouldn't have given up without a fight and had it been his daughter in the tranquillized state she ascended the stairs after Pamela's telephone call he would easily have been able to disarm her. I believe Julie's evidence when Jeremy told her he had temporarily lost control of his senses, or words to that effect, when he finally no longer had to go through the motions of existence under constant threat of disinheritance.
-
You have just pulled the rug from Steve Caroline. Who believes the conniving relatives after that? Mendacity oozes everywhere, you should all be thoroughly ashamed to be complicit in this crime against Bamber.
Well at least we know where we stand. But for the most part we are civil debaters here and don't accuse each other of wilful lying.
-
You have just pulled the rug from Steve Caroline. Who believes the conniving relatives after that? Mendacity oozes everywhere, you should all be thoroughly ashamed to be complicit in this crime against Bamber.
There has been no crime against Bamber and Steve may be right, it's just not an opinion I share. As for being ashamed? What a ridiculous thing to say! ::)
-
Actually I still believe there was some kind of life or death struggle. Nevill wouldn't have given up without a fight and had it been his daughter in the tranquillized state she ascended the stairs after Pamela's telephone call he would easily have been able to disarm her. I believe Julie's evidence when Jeremy told her he had temporarily lost control of his senses, or words to that effect, when he finally no longer had to go through the motions of existence under constant threat of disinheritance.
You may well be right Steve but I just believe that Jeremy told Julie a load of tosh.
-
Well at least we know where we stand. But for the most part we are civil debaters here and don't accuse each other of wilful lying.
Fair enough.
I avoid making evidence free statements.
It is an axiom, that since Bamber is innocent, there is a small army complicit in keeping him in jail, and keeping the lid on the pressure cooker. It is unavoidable that all those who post on the internet claiming he is guilty are tarred with this brush.
I am sorry it is this way, because I have no doubt in every day life you are reasonable compassionate people, but when the science and logistics in a criminal case offer only one explanation that fits, as is the case here, it is incumbent on all who understand this to apply as much pressure as is consistent within civilized discourse.
It is dangerous to accord people the right to opinions that are proved wrong, you may have your own opinions but the fact that Bamber is innocent is immutable, beyond any doubt.
-
Fair enough.
I avoid making evidence free statements.
It is an axiom, that since Bamber is innocent, there is a small army complicit in keeping him in jail, and keeping the lid on the pressure cooker. It is unavoidable that all those who post on the internet claiming he is guilty are tarred with this brush.
I am sorry it is this way, because I have no doubt in every day life you are reasonable compassionate people, but when the science and logistics in a criminal case offer only one explanation that fits, as is the case here, it is incumbent on all who understand this to apply as much pressure as is consistent within civilized discourse.
It is dangerous to accord people the right to opinions that are proved wrong, you may have your own opinions but the fact that Bamber is innocent is immutable, beyond any doubt.
Agreed
-
Fair enough.
I avoid making evidence free statements.
It is an axiom, that since Bamber is innocent, there is a small army complicit in keeping him in jail, and keeping the lid on the pressure cooker. It is unavoidable that all those who post on the internet claiming he is guilty are tarred with this brush.
I am sorry it is this way, because I have no doubt in every day life you are reasonable compassionate people, but when the science and logistics in a criminal case offer only one explanation that fits, as is the case here, it is incumbent on all who understand this to apply as much pressure as is consistent within civilized discourse.
It is dangerous to accord people the right to opinions that are proved wrong, you may have your own opinions but the fact that Bamber is innocent is immutable, beyond any doubt.
No it isn't.
-
No it isn't.
Caroline, you contributed nothing on IA to the discussion showing there was no reconstruction that allowed gun wound trajectories to be consistent with both Jeremy and Sheila being in the house at the same time.
Carol Anne Lee never discussed this in her book. I see no discussion on red or blue forums, yet this and lack of livor mortis in Sheila's corpse tell the complete story.
Yes you are winning in having your old friend in jail, but in science and logistics you are missing in action.
-
Caroline, you contributed nothing on IA to the discussion showing there was no reconstruction that allowed gun wound trajectories to be consistent with both Jeremy and Sheila being in the house at the same time.
Carol Anne Lee never discussed this in her book. I see no discussion on red or blue forums, yet this and lack of livor mortis in Sheila's corpse tell the complete story.
Yes you are winning in having your old friend in jail, but in science and logistics you are missing in action.
You're big on scenarios and yet all those that you have written simply show a lack of knowledge. You're not just missing in action you're AWOL.
Just to clarify, Jeremy was never a 'friend' - I supported him when I thought he was innocent, writing to him gave me a different impression and took me back to the drawing board. It didn't take long to understand that the rubbish posted on the internet re: two bodies in the kitchen, a call to the police from Nevill, police being in communication - were all just attempts to manipulate those willing to believe he's innocent.
-
You're big on scenarios and yet all those that you have written simply show a lack of knowledge. You're not just missing in action you're AWOL.
Just to clarify, Jeremy was never a 'friend' - I supported him when I thought he was innocent, writing to him gave me a different impression and took me back to the drawing board. It didn't take long to understand that the rubbish posted on the internet re: two bodies in the kitchen, a call to the police from Nevill, police being in communication - were all just attempts to manipulate those willing to believe he's innocent.
but the two bodies in the kitchen is a bi o e Caroline, do t you agree, how on earth can one mistake one body from two. I can see how the communication thing can be a mistake but two bodies no way. I haven't read any explanation that would convince me that this was just an error.
-
but the two bodies in the kitchen is a bi o e Caroline, do t you agree, how on earth can one mistake one body from two. I can see how the communication thing can be a mistake but two bodies no way. I haven't read any explanation that would convince me that this was just an error.
There is a simple explanation for that. Bamber is just trying to manipulate a log.
But if want to believe Sheila kept herself alive in the kitchen for some unexplained reason, then went upstairs after the raid team entered WHF without being seen & shot herself with an upstairs rifle, feel free.
-
Caroline, you contributed nothing on IA to the discussion showing there was no reconstruction that allowed gun wound trajectories to be consistent with both Jeremy and Sheila being in the house at the same time.
Carol Anne Lee never discussed this in her book. I see no discussion on red or blue forums, yet this and lack of livor mortis in Sheila's corpse tell the complete story.
Yes you are winning in having your old friend in jail, but in science and logistics you are missing in action.
Not sure what you mean by gun shot trajectories ?
June, and the twins were shot in bed while they slept. Sheila was shot by the bed. Nevill received four shots after being put onto a coal scuttle and four close range shots upstairs by his bed.
Bamber could have fired all these shots.
-
Not sure what you mean by gun shot trajectories ?
June, and the twins were shot in bed while they slept. Sheila was shot by the bed. Nevill received four shots after being put onto a coal scuttle and four close range shots upstairs by his bed.
Bamber could have fired all these shots.
No he could not.
The 4 shots upstairs were all descending trajectory through the body.
Therefore the shooter was above Nevill, therefore Nevill must have been below on the stairs. The first 2 as he came up were to his face, the next two as he fled to the rear of his left arm.
June was shot first as she was asleep, as seen by the blood on the bed, yet Nevill was downstairs at that time. Why?
This is where the proof begins, then all else follows.
-
No he could not.
The 4 shots upstairs were all descending trajectory through the body.
The shooter was above Nevill so he was below on the stairs. The first 2 as he came up were to his face, the next two as he fled to the rear of his left arm.
This is where the proof begins, then all else follows.
Shell casings and blood stains indicate otherwise.
1 or 2 of the shots were as Nevill took flight and headed down stairs. 4 shots were post death in the kitchen and 2 or 3 shots must have been received when he was in the bedroom.
If the wounds are consistent with a downwards trajectory, could it not simply be explained by Nevill being shot as he got out of bed or by him ducking or raising his arms when shot?
-
Shell casings and blood stains indicate otherwise.
1 or 2 of the shots were as Nevill took flight and headed down stairs. 4 shots were post death in the kitchen and 2 or 3 shots must have been received when he was in the bedroom.
If the wounds are consistent with a downwards trajectory, could it not simply be explained by Nevill being shot as he got out of bed or by him ducking or raising his arms when shot?
Well no. the first two shots were focussed, a pair to the mouth from close range, but downwards trajectory.
This can only be explained by shooter at the doorway on the landing. and Nevill coming up to this unpleasant surprise.
This fits the placing of the cartridge cases.
-
Well no. the first two shots were focussed, a pair to the mouth from close range, but downwards trajectory.
This can only be explained by shooter at the doorway on the landing. and Nevill coming up to this unpleasant surprise.
This fits the placing of the cartridge cases.
Opinions aren't facts.
The shell cases eject to the right. There is an insufficient number of shell casings in that area to make your assertions a realistic scenario. There is also what is thought to be Nevil's blood stains outside the main bedroom.
Whilst I don't wish to take a leaf out of your book and speak in such absolute terms (as I wasn't there), it seems rather plausible that the shooter was in the main bedroom at the foot of the bed, with Nevill being shot 2 or 3 times as he got out of bed and escaped past the shooter towards the stairs, the shooter then pursued firing a further 1 or 2 shots at Nevill as he fled downstairs. The shell casings in the main bedroom appear to add weight to such a scenario.
The bullet trajectories need to take account of the position of the rifle when fired AND the position of the victim. You only seem to be taking in to consideration the former. If Nevil's arm was in the air, the wound is caused by a bullet with an upwards trajectory for example.
Should we then consider your downward trajectory theory to indicate a taller shooter?
-
From the 2002 appeal.
60. Found in or just outside the bedroom were thirteen cartridge cases. Seven would account for the shots into June Bamber, two for the wounds suffered by Sheila Caffell, leaving four cartridge cases that had been fired at Nevill Bamber. Three further cartridge cases were found in the kitchen, with a further case on the stairs leading up from the kitchen.
If one accepts that the four shots to the head which would have immobilised and killed Nevill Bamber were fired in the kitchen where his body was recovered, it would follow that he had received the less serious injuries upstairs in the bedroom and was then able to make his way downstairs where he was subsequently killed.
-----------------------
The two close range head shots to Nevill were when he was getting out of bed.
The other two body shots were when Nevill was standing up & moving towards the door. Bamber moving backwards to avoid physical confrontation but continuing to fire until out of bullets.
-
64.
In respect of the eight shots into Nevill Bamber's body, the six to his head and face were fired when the rifle was within a few inches of the skin. The remaining injuries to the arm were caused when the gun was at least two feet from the body.
______________
There is no way a standing up and fully awake Nevill would have let someone put a rifle a few inches from his face. He must have been in the process of standing up when receiving his first two close range head shots. Caught by surprise while in bed. Highlighted by being found downstairs bare footed and in pyjamas.
-
Well no. the first two shots were focussed, a pair to the mouth from close range, but downwards trajectory.
This can only be explained by shooter at the doorway on the landing. and Nevill coming up to this unpleasant surprise.
This fits the placing of the cartridge cases.
The downward shots are from behind so Nevill wasn't coming UP the stairs.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4467)
-
A fully awake and standing up Nevill would have ducked and used his hands to re direct a rifle that was coming towards his face. It's a natural reaction.
With the rifle and shooter so close, there would have been a physical confrontation. There wasn't.
Supporters say Nevill was caught by surprise. After hearing upstairs gun shots ?
However if in bed not fully awake and getting up it is possible that Bamber managed two face shots. Which is what he was aiming for.
-
The downward shots are from behind so Nevill wasn't coming UP the stairs.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4467)
Were the downward shots the final wounds inflicted on Neville i.e. execution style?
-
Were the downward shots the final wounds inflicted on Neville i.e. execution style?
The head shots yes. To clarify, my pervious post was in relation to the shoulder and arm shots.
-
Were the downward shots the final wounds inflicted on Neville i.e. execution style?
Frenzied style as opposed to" execution style".
-
Antipodeans come with clear sight. The houses are garish in the sunlight.
Nostalgia-NZ seems to believe the foillowing. He is very experienced in cases of this sort.
"I hope so, this is a startlingly bad case, polluted by the noise of people who were not there and investigators who wouldn't or couldn't observe clear scene evidence which told its own story. When you have a world class forensic pathologist's evidence like Knight's overlooked by a Judge who interrupts the witnesses and lawyers mid flight, along with a wailing harridan like JM, I guess not much can be expected by the way of Justice.
One sentence could do; 'observe the trajectories.' "
-
Frenzied style as opposed to" execution style".
I'd have to disagree-the other wounds could be described as 'frenzied' but the right hand side head shots are close together and appear deliberately so in order to finish the job-same with the shot to June in betwwen the eyes after a random pattern to the other wounds.
The phrase that I used ('execution style') still applies if the shooter was Sheila rather than Jeremy as the 'style' was to 'finish off' an already incapacitated victim.
-
I'd have to disagree-the other wounds could be described as 'frenzied' but the right hand side head shots are close together and appear deliberately so in order to finish the job-same with the shot to June in betwwen the eyes after a random pattern to the other wounds.
The phrase that I used ('execution style') still applies if the shooter was Sheila rather than Jeremy as the 'style' was to 'finish off' an already incapacitated victim.
Just one shot between the eyes would be execution style in my books,but because there were several other shots combined, it showed the killer as a novice,whereas,someone with intention would only have used one bullet each.
This wasn't a planned attack.
-
Just one shot between the eyes would be execution style in my books,but because there were several other shots combined, it showed the killer as a novice,whereas,someone with intention would only have used one bullet each.
This wasn't a planned attack.
Surely that would depend on the skill of the shooter and/or the power of the gun used? My view is that the killer fired a number of shots at Nevill and June (I don't mean at both of them at the same time) from a short distance, maybe this was to incapacitate them with the intention to finish them off with a contact shot without any resistance, but I think the killer either overestimated the rifle or underestimated the resilience of Nevill and June and had to finish the job with close up/contact shots, there is a sense of overkill with regards to Nevill and also the twins.
-
I'd have to disagree-the other wounds could be described as 'frenzied' but the right hand side head shots are close together and appear deliberately so in order to finish the job-same with the shot to June in betwwen the eyes after a random pattern to the other wounds.
The phrase that I used ('execution style') still applies if the shooter was Sheila rather than Jeremy as the 'style' was to 'finish off' an already incapacitated victim.
Totally agree Jaycad.
-
______________
There is no way a standing up and fully awake Nevill would have let someone put a rifle a few inches from his face.
What's to stop someone from doing so?
He must have been in the process of standing up when receiving his first two close range head shots. Caught by surprise while in bed. Highlighted by being found downstairs bare footed and in pyjamas.
The shooter was standing at a higher level than Neville. Because the trajectories are all at a downward angle.
-
The shooter was standing at a higher level than Neville. Because the trajectories are all at a downward angle.
Shots 1-4: All would have been instantly fatal. Likely inflicted after death or whilst Nevill was unconscious.
Shots 5-6: These two shots are not really on a downwards trajectory, just off horizontal. Must have caused great pain but were not immediately fatal. Likely to have been inflicted in the master bedroom due to shell case locations.
Shot 7: This shot does have a downwards trajectory and it is likely that this shot was inflicted as Nevill descended the main staircase.
Shot 8: It's difficult to know if this shot had a downwards trajectory or not, as we do not know the position of Nevill's arm when shot. Shell casings suggest that this shot was inflicted in the doorway or just outside the main bedroom.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4467)
-
What's to stop someone from doing so?
The shooter was standing at a higher level than Neville. Because the trajectories are all at a downward angle.
That's what I said, Bamber fired the first two shots into Nevill's face at a downward trajectory. As Nevill was getting out of bed.
The next two shots into the body was as Bamber retreated slightly now Nevill was standing up. Which is not surprising as Nevill was a big man.
-
A fully awake and standing up Nevill would have ducked and used his hands to re direct a rifle that was coming towards his face. It's a natural reaction.
With the rifle and shooter so close, there would have been a physical confrontation. There wasn't.
Supporters say Nevill was caught by surprise. After hearing upstairs gun shots ?
However if in bed not fully awake and getting up it is possible that Bamber managed two face shots. Which is what he was aiming for.
This is an important point. If you're fighting for your life adrenaline kicks in whoever your assailant happens to be.
-
That's what I said, Bamber fired the first two shots into Nevill's face at a downward trajectory. As Nevill was getting out of bed.
The next two shots into the body was as Bamber retreated slightly now Nevill was standing up. Which is not surprising as Nevill was a big man.
It don't work.
1) There is no blood on Neville's side of the bed thus he was not shot in bed.
2) Shell casings contradict anyone being shot on the left side of the room (where Neville was).
3) The blood trail was Junes.
4) Once Neville is out of bed the Killer is not at an elevated level.
Neville must have got out of bed unharmed. Now what?
-
It don't work.
1) There is no blood on Neville's side of the bed thus he was not shot in bed.
2) Shell casings contradict anyone being shot on the left side of the room (where Neville was).
3) The blood trail was Junes.
4) Once Neville is out of bed the Killer is not at an elevated level.
Neville must have got out of bed unharmed. Now what?
Jeremy the Prodigal Son shot his beloved father from the top of the stairs maybe..
-
Jeremy the Prodigal Son shot his beloved father from the top of the stairs maybe..
How does Neville end up downstairs while Jeremy is upstairs?
-
How does Neville end up downstairs while Jeremy is upstairs?
He pushed past him when he ran out of ammunition.
-
It don't work.
1) There is no blood on Neville's side of the bed thus he was not shot in bed.
2) Shell casings contradict anyone being shot on the left side of the room (where Neville was).
3) The blood trail was Junes.
4) Once Neville is out of bed the Killer is not at an elevated level.
Neville must have got out of bed unharmed. Now what?
There won't be any of Nevill's blood in the bedroom. He was only in there for a few seconds while being shot at. So not enough time for any blood to drip down. It was a rifle for shooting rabbits, not a shot gun.
I agree Nevill must have been getting out of bed unharmed. He was sleeping when Bamber started shooting. People usually are sleeping at that time. But he certainly got harmed soon afterwards.
I don't know why supporters are saying the shooter shooting Nevill from an elevated level in the main bedroom shows it's Sheila. It's more likely to be Bamber as he's taller & was wearing shoes. Nevill may have ducked and croached when getting his first two face shots.
I also don't know why you still claim Sheila is the killer. You didn't address any of my 15 questions after you submitted you're third scenario of how Sheila committed the massacre. Except to finally say Nevill did not phone the police.
Anyway, please provide an independent source of where the 13 shell casings in the main bedroom were. As in all aspects of a Bamber scenario, I will submit a simple explanation.
-
This is an important point. If you're fighting for your life adrenaline kicks in whoever your assailant happens to be.
Nevill would certainly not be intimidated by Sheila.
He would be more intimated and reluctant to engage in physical confrontation upstairs, if caught by surprise & didn't know who the attacker was . Or if he knew the shooter was Bamber.
-
There won't be any of Nevill's blood in the bedroom. He was only in there for a few seconds while being shot at. So not enough time for any blood to drip down. It was a rifle for shooting rabbits, not a shot gun.
I agree Nevill must have been getting out of bed unharmed. He was sleeping when Bamber started shooting. People usually are sleeping at that time. But he certainly got harmed soon afterwards.
I don't know why supporters are saying the shooter shooting Nevill from an elevated level in the main bedroom shows it's Sheila. It's more likely to be Bamber as he's taller & was wearing shoes. Nevill may have ducked and croached when getting his first two face shots.
I also don't know why you still claim Sheila is the killer. You didn't address any of my 15 questions after you submitted you're third scenario of how Sheila committed the massacre. Except to finally say Nevill did not phone the police.
Anyway, please provide an independent source of where the 13 shell casings in the main bedroom were. As in all aspects of a Bamber scenario, I will submit a simple explanation.
Curious.
I prefer this simple explanation which favours JB and condemns/should condemn Stan Jones and the evidence planting relatives to purgatory.
Sheila knows Nevill is downstairs and will come rapidly up while she is firing the volley of 5 at June.
She swings and is fully prepared, which is why she gets the facial pair so accurate, and the trajectory is descending at an angle that places Nevill exactly two stairs below her.
-
He pushed past him when he ran out of ammunition.
Absolutely impossible.
Remember he had turned 180 degrees between the first two pairs of shots, which is only possible if he was always below the shooter..
-
...
-
He pushed past him when he ran out of ammunition.
Wouldn't it have been " job half done " if JB had pushed his father downstairs. ?
-
You didn't address any of my 15 questions after you submitted you're third scenario of how Sheila committed the massacre.
"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity and the Trump Tirade)"
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
-
"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity and the Trump Tirade)"
"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad of component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)
You didn't answer any of my 15 questions on you're (3rd) scenario of how Sheila committed the massacre. Except to change stance and say Nevill didn't call the police.
Anyway, have you or anyone else got an independent diagram of the cartridge locations in the main bedroom.
-
Absolutely impossible.
Remember he had turned 180 degrees between the first two pairs of shots, which is only possible if he was always below the shooter..
How do you deduce this Sherlock? Wouldn't it be better to get your Kiwi friend to explain?
-
How do you deduce this Sherlock? Wouldn't it be better to get your Kiwi friend to explain?
Sure, I can probably persuade.
This is not the only case that concerns us, but is probably the most straightforward.
You will come to understand this, you probably already do.
He was deeply involved in Bain, and like Charlie Wilkes and other notables around the internet, starts at the crime scene for illumination.
While I think about it, antipodean males are not preoccupied with tampons, but this case has a tampon cardboard tube, half the kit, bloody knockers in a bucket, all on display, and a dead woman with the business component of the sanitary product inserted. I am sorry to have to point all that out, but it is central to getting Nevill Bamber downstairs near the phone.
I am surprised you can't all see the vital significance.
Aunty June would never allow all that, but Sheila was probably half way through all that when Nevill came down to investigate, or have a cigarette. My view is it is far more likely at 3 am that it was the former, and none of this massacre was planned.
This is far from favourable for Mugford, indeed she can join a list of very very wicked women.
-
Sure, I can probably persuade.
This is not the only case that concerns us, but is probably the most straightforward.
You will come to understand this, you probably already do.
He was deeply involved in Bain, and like Charlie Wilkes and other notables around the internet, starts at the crime scene for illumination.
While I think about it, antipodean males are not preoccupied with tampons, but this case has a tampon cardboard tube, half the kit, bloody knockers in a bucket, all on display, and a dead woman with the business component of the sanitary product inserted. I am sorry to have to point all that out, but it is central to getting Nevill Bamber downstairs near the phone.
I am surprised you can't all see the vital significance.
Aunty June would never allow all that, but Sheila was probably half way through all that when Nevill came down to investigate, or have a cigarette. My view is it is far more likely at 3 am that it was the former, and none of this massacre was planned.
This is far from favourable for Mugford, indeed she can join a list of very very wicked women.
..and you will come to understand that life is not always as straightforward as it seems. There's a terrible dilemma between those who believe him innocent and campaign on his behalf and those of us who still consider him a danger to others, especially children, and who respect Colin's wishes on this matter, notwithstanding whether you believe us disingenuous or not and whether Jeremy performed a pirouette with his gun or not, for which you have still provided no concrete proof.
-
..and you will come to understand that life is not always as straightforward as it seems. There's a terrible dilemma between those who believe him innocent and campaign on his behalf and those of us who still consider him a danger to others, especially children, and who respect Colin's wishes on this matter, notwithstanding whether you believe us disingenuous or not and whether Jeremy performed a pirouette with his gun or not, for which you have still provided no concrete proof.
How noble to respect Colin's wishes on this matter. I don't, I think he is a half wit. No doubt he believes authority for now, but he should investigate the killings of his children scientifically, not with the half baked nonsense posing as a crime narrative on this forum.
The kercher family were similarly accorded false respect. They are also half wits, it is sad to relate.
Caffel owes Bamber a profound apology, the Kercher family owe Amanda Knox the same.
-
How noble to respect Colin's wishes on this matter. I don't, I think he is a half wit. No doubt he believes authority for now, but he should investigate the killings of his children scientifically, not with the half baked nonsense posing as a crime narrative on this forum.
The kercher family were similarly accorded false respect. They are also half wits, it is sad to relate.
Caffel owes Bamber a profound apology, the Kercher family owe Amanda Knox the same.
"How little a person knows what is in himself. To see all the fissures and fractures, to throw light into the dark cavities, to see the landscape of a mind and recognize no part of it but know that it is yours is a fearful and disturbing thing."
GO AND ENJOY YOUR CELEBRITY STATUS, MAYBE YOU'LL BE ON WOGAN NEXT AND CAN ADVERTISE YOUR BOOK AND SCULPTURES THAT WAY-HOW YOU CAN CHEAPEN DANIEL AND NICHOLAS AND THEIR TRAGIC DEATH I JUST DON'T KNOW.NO ONE WANTED ANYTHING OF YOU BEFORE THEN AND NOW THEY'RE GONE YOUR USING IT FOR YOUR OWN ENDS-PRETENDING IT'S GRIEF COUNSELLING. YOU WERE ALRIGHT, COLIN, ONCE, BUT NOW I'M SORRY TO SAY YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LEACH LIVING OFF YOUR OWN SONS' TRAGIC DEATH. IF THEY COULD SEE YOU NOW I BET IT WOULD SICKEN THEM AS IT SICKENS ME...I HOPE YOU LOVE YOURSELF, IN FACT I BET YOU DO. WHAT I WISH IS THAT YOU NEVER HAVE CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'LL F*** THEM UP TOO-IT WAS YOUR FAULT THAT SHEILA WENT MAD AND KILLED EVERYONE. YOU KNEW SHE WOULD BREAK UNDER THE STRAIN OF BRINGING UP A FAMILY ON HER OWN-YOU DIDN'T CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN EVEN IN THE WOMB..
YOU'VE DONE ME MUCH HARM WITH YOUR SELFISH USE OF THE MEDIA SO I'D USE THE SAME TO GET MY OWN BACK. LOOK FORWARD TO AN ARTICLE SOON COLIN MAY IT PRICK YOUR CONSCIENCE IF YOU HAVE ONE,YOUR NOTHING BUT A LEACH JUST THINK WHAT YOUR FEEDING OFF.
WITH VERY MUCH SADNESS
JEREMY
I've never met Colin, but I feel as though I have through reading his book. That's some achievement. One thing I will tell you is that Colin is his own harshest critic. He will have run through the incident which no mortal should have to endure (and which most of us can forget on a daily basis) for many years. It's Jeremy who is now irreparably damaged, whilst Colin has moved on and goodness knows how. Maybe the workshops made him come to the realization what a nonentity Jeremy really is, and the repressed hatred of which the letters were symptomatic are testament to it, of a life which could have held a value for others, but which ended up and will end up in an all-encompassing nihilism, where a confession is precluded by a still all-consuming expectation of material gain, which will not be forthcoming.
-
"How little a person knows what is in himself. To see all the fissures and fractures, to throw light into the dark cavities, to see the landscape of a mind and recognize no part of it but know that it is yours is a fearful and disturbing thing."
GO AND ENJOY YOUR CELEBRITY STATUS, MAYBE YOU'LL BE ON WOGAN NEXT AND CAN ADVERTISE YOUR BOOK AND SCULPTURES THAT WAY-HOW YOU CAN CHEAPEN DANIEL AND NICHOLAS AND THEIR TRAGIC DEATH I JUST DON'T KNOW.NO ONE WANTED ANYTHING OF YOU BEFORE THEN AND NOW THEY'RE GONE YOUR USING IT FOR YOUR OWN ENDS-PRETENDING IT'S GRIEF COUNSELLING. YOU WERE ALRIGHT, COLIN, ONCE, BUT NOW I'M SORRY TO SAY YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LEACH LIVING OFF YOUR OWN SONS' TRAGIC DEATH. IF THEY COULD SEE YOU NOW I BET IT WOULD SICKEN THEM AS IT SICKENS ME...I HOPE YOU LOVE YOURSELF, IN FACT I BET YOU DO. WHAT I WISH IS THAT YOU NEVER HAVE CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'LL F*** THEM UP TOO-IT WAS YOUR FAULT THAT SHEILA WENT MAD AND KILLED EVERYONE. YOU KNEW SHE WOULD BREAK UNDER THE STRAIN OF BRINGING UP A FAMILY ON HER OWN-YOU DIDN'T CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN EVEN IN THE WOMB..
YOU'VE DONE ME MUCH HARM WITH YOUR SELFISH USE OF THE MEDIA SO I'D USE THE SAME TO GET MY OWN BACK. LOOK FORWARD TO AN ARTICLE SOON COLIN MAY IT PRICK YOUR CONSCIENCE IF YOU HAVE ONE,YOUR NOTHING BUT A LEACH JUST THINK WHAT YOUR FEEDING OFF.
WITH VERY MUCH SADNESS
JEREMY
I've never met Colin, but I feel as though I have through reading his book. That's some achievement. One thing I will tell you is that Colin is his own harshest critic. He will have run through the incident which no mortal should have to endure (and which most of us can forget on a daily basis) for many years. It's Jeremy who is now irreparably damaged, whilst Colin has moved on and goodness knows how. Maybe the workshops made him come to the realization what a nonentity Jeremy really is, and the repressed hatred of which the letters were symptomatic are testament to it, of a life which could have held a value for others, but which ended up and will end up in an all-encompassing nihilism, where a confession is precluded by a still all-consuming expectation of material gain, which will not be forthcoming.
Since science and logistics and motivations exonerate Bamber in all but name, I will remain baffled by your obtuseness.
Caffel should research the murder of his children. He clearly has not, at the expense of a hardworking young farmer who was harvesting even as Caffel was expressing fear for his children to a friend a few hours before their death.
You are a writer, would you be prepared to point me to any of your books Steve?
-
How noble to respect Colin's wishes on this matter. I don't, I think he is a half wit. No doubt he believes authority for now, but he should investigate the killings of his children scientifically, not with the half baked nonsense posing as a crime narrative on this forum.
The kercher family were similarly accorded false respect. They are also half wits, it is sad to relate.
Caffel owes Bamber a profound apology, the Kercher family owe Amanda Knox the same.
Colin embraces the hoax because the alternative is a harder pill for him to take. Accepting Jeremy's innocence would require him to feel somewhat guilty for leaving the twins in Sheila's care. :-\
-
He pushed past him when he ran out of ammunition.
Not possible. Because the shots were in a downward trajectory. Unless you want to believe Jeremy stood on the bed?
-
Since science and logistics and motivations exonerate Bamber in all but name, I will remain baffled by your obtuseness.
Caffel should research the murder of his children. He clearly has not, at the expense of a hardworking young farmer who was harvesting even as Caffel was expressing fear for his children to a friend a few hours before their death.
You are a writer, would you be prepared to point me to any of your books Steve?
I've been too busy with more mundane tasks. I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath for your scientific analyses but all we get are words and procrastination.
-
Not possible. Because the shots were in a downward trajectory. Unless you want to believe Jeremy stood on the bed?
Well Jeremy was at the top of the stairs and shot as Nevill proceeded down.
-
I've been too busy with more mundane tasks. I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath for your scientific analyses but all we get are words and procrastination.
How many times should I repeat my idea of a valid reconstruction that accounts for all the evidence, photographed and described?
It all started with Sheila's period. That is science, thus Nevill came downstairs to investigate, logic/logistics.
Think like this Steve
1. The bloody knickers arose after she went to bed or she would have inserted the tampon before turning in.
2. She arose to deal with this, there is no other explanation for the bloody knickers in the bucket, which was found downstairs.
3. All the components of a "tampax" were described at the crime scene. The cardboard tube in the living room as specified by the policeman
".....The cotton wool with the cotton loop end was missing from the tampax as was another piece of the cardboard which I am aware makes up a single tampax. I could not see any blood on it. I definitely did not touch it. To put it simply the part of the tampax left was as if the remainder had been used..........I couldn't understand why this part of the tampax was in the lounge...".
We know indeed the remainder had been inserted, so clearly this was the remainder she was found dead with, therefore she headed downstairs in the bloody knickers with a tampax in hand, and decided to insert it in the lounge, after all no one would see her, and simpler than walking to the cold bathroom.
4. We know that Bamber claims he was phoned, and the found state of the kitchen phone is consistent, receiver loose on the bench. Nevill may have cancelled the call by pushing down the button where normally rests the hand piece, to explain the phone going dead.
Sheila has gone crazy AND she has the gun, not Sheila has gone crazy WITH A gun. Jeremy will know which gun.
On hearing the 5 shots to June upstairs Nevill drops the phone, Sheila knows he will ascend the stairs and she has just one chance to shoot him, as he hoves into view round the winder, she is ready and delivers the pair to the head, getting the mouth. He turns and she empties the gun to his left arm as he flees, and to be honest the rest is straightforward.
All the above explains the found crime scene, including cartridge shell locations, and the contentious relationships.
Please Steve, do me the favour of explaining where I have suggested something that does not fit?
I am planning to write a book, of false prosecutions round the world, and there will be a chapter on the White House Farm murders.
-
We never had photos of the lounge but from what I can gather there was no blood in that area and a tampon had been cut in half. Remember Sheila was dog tired that week and even had she taken the rifle from the settle it's impossible for her to reload with her limited knowledge of guns, to run up and downstairs, not to mention the wrong quantity of staged bullets spilled on the blue and white chequered worktop and the bloodied fingerprints which were never examined but unlikely to be Sheila's as the rifle was blood free. We have the mystery of the phone removed from the master bedroom, which smacks of a premeditated crime and not a young woman in psychosis as must be the Defence's argument for your case to have any credibility whatsoever.
I think Nevill was heading downstairs for the kitchen telephone but failed to reach. In the short space of time available to him he hid his wristwatch under the rug, realizing that his struggle was futile, though did manage to get a hand on the weapon, during which time the light fitting was smashed, after which Jeremy had to wipe the gun down. If Sheila were the culprit her fingerprints should be all over the gun, and if Julie's story about wiping the gun was false they would have found more of Jeremy's fingerprints as he had used it on a pretext to shoot rabbits the previous evening.
I could go on as to the tissue of lies Jeremy invented that first morning at Goldhanger as he held court, the first time in his life he had been the centre of attention after the blunders in his parental upbringing, though we may never know for sure what precipitated the crimes as Jeremy may have sought some other excuse to do away with them and claim a full inheritance.
-
We never had photos of the lounge but from what I can gather there was no blood in that area and a tampon had been cut in half. Remember Sheila was dog tired that week and even had she taken the rifle from the settle it's impossible for her to reload with her limited knowledge of guns, to run up and downstairs, not to mention the wrong quantity of staged bullets spilled on the blue and white chequered worktop and the bloodied fingerprints which were never examined but unlikely to be Sheila's as the rifle was blood free. We have the mystery of the phone removed from the master bedroom, which smacks of a premeditated crime and not a young woman in psychosis as must be the Defence's argument for your case to have any credibility whatsoever.
I think Nevill was heading downstairs for the kitchen telephone but failed to reach. In the short space of time available to him he hid his wristwatch under the rug, realizing that his struggle was futile, though did manage to get a hand on the weapon, during which time the light fitting was smashed, after which Jeremy had to wipe the gun down. If Sheila were the culprit her fingerprints should be all over the gun, and if Julie's story about wiping the gun was false they would have found more of Jeremy's fingerprints as he had used it on a pretext to shoot rabbits the previous evening.
I could go on as to the tissue of lies Jeremy invented that first morning at Goldhanger as he held court, the first time in his life he had been the centre of attention after the blunders in his parental upbringing, though we may never know for sure what precipitated the crimes as Jeremy may have sought some other excuse to do away with them and claim a full inheritance.
You should try to explain the bloody knickers. One more time.
We know she was not bleeding when she went to bed or she would have inserted the tampon first.
We know she was found with a tampon inserted.
Therefore between going to bed and being shot, she was up inserting a tampon.
Between going to bed and being shot we know she was downstairs with bloody knickers and a bucket.
When did she do this in your reconstruction? Do you have an Occam moment that beats my reconstruction, the blood and tampon insertion occurring in the kitchen and lounge after June had gone to bed, and after she first went to bed.
Do we believe all this happened independently of Jeremy dropping by as it were, or should we believe there is a connection as I have outlined?
These were hygiene things R Boutflour insisted would not be tolerated by June. Surely it follows she was interrupted, and if so, this could only be Jeremy OR NEVILL.
My reconstruction says Nevill, yours says Jeremy.
Describe the sequence accordingly with Jeremy interrupting her.
-
You should try to explain the bloody knickers. One more time.
We know she was not bleeding when she went to bed or she would have inserted the tampon first.
We know she was found with a tampon inserted.
Therefore between going to bed and being shot, she was up inserting a tampon.
Between going to bed and being shot we know she was downstairs with bloody knickers and a bucket.
When did she do this in your reconstruction? Do you have an Occam moment that beats my reconstruction, the blood and tampon insertion occurring in the kitchen and lounge after June had gone to bed, and after she first went to bed.
Do we believe all this happened independently of Jeremy dropping by as it were, or should we believe there is a connection as I have outlined?
These were hygiene things R Boutflour insisted would not be tolerated by June. Surely it follows she was interrupted, and if so, this could only be Jeremy OR NEVILL.
My reconstruction says Nevill, yours says Jeremy.
Describe the sequence accordingly with Jeremy interrupting her.
I don't see how it matters really. She could have had her period after the twins were put to bed (you're forgetting some jogging bottoms were also found soaking in a bucket) and the buckets left in the kitchen (farmers are practical people). June cancelled her bible class which may or may not have been because it was she who was dealing with the incident and the period occurred earlier than thought. We don't know what apparel Sheila was wearing during Pam's telephone call and even if she did come downstairs and cut a tampon in half it proves nothing.
-
I don't see how it matters really. She could have had her period after the twins were put to bed (you're forgetting some jogging bottoms were also found soaking in a bucket) and the buckets left in the kitchen to soak(farmers are practical people). June cancelled her bible class which may or may not have been because it was she who was dealing with the incident and the period occurred earlier than thought. We don't know what apparel Sheila was wearing during Pam's telephone call and even if she did come downstairs and cut a tampon in half it proves nothing.
So R Boutflour was wrong? June was fine with the bloody knickers in the kitchen and tampax paraphernalia in the lounge?
No, this has no application to practical farming, infinitely more likely a young woman interrupted by her father, therefore embarrassed, therefore angry.
This eliminates the band aid remedy of the casual June being happy with this found scene before everyone went to bed.
My reco is consistent with R Boutflour testimony frankly, and denying this is part of a pattern of band aid remedies being needed for your reco.
I don't need to know a lot about this case by the way, but I have spent countless hours discussing it in detail, it is ripe for the resolution that inevitably is coming down the pike.
I believe I know enough.
-
Not possible. Because the shots were in a downward trajectory. Unless you want to believe Jeremy stood on the bed?
Why do you keep repeating this? Only one or two shots were at a downwards trajectory, the shots to the shoulder and possibly the arm.
It's quite clear, I wonder why you are attempting to make up something else?
Shots 1-4: All would have been instantly fatal. Likely inflicted after death or whilst Nevill was unconscious.
Shots 5-6: These two shots are not really on a downwards trajectory, just off horizontal. Must have caused great pain but were not immediately fatal. Likely to have been inflicted in the master bedroom due to shell case locations.
Shot 7: This shot does have a downwards trajectory and it is likely that this shot was inflicted as Nevill descended the main staircase.
Shot 8: It's difficult to know if this shot had a downwards trajectory or not, as we do not know the position of Nevill's arm when shot. Shell casings suggest that this shot was inflicted in the doorway or just outside the main bedroom.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4467)
-
I don't see how it matters really. She could have had her period after the twins were put to bed (you're forgetting some jogging bottoms were also found soaking in a bucket) and the buckets left in the kitchen to soak(farmers are practical people). June cancelled her bible class which may or may not have been because it was she who was dealing with the incident and the period occurred earlier than thought. We don't know what apparel Sheila was wearing during Pam's telephone call and even if she did come downstairs and cut a tampon in half it proves nothing.
I don't really see how it matters either.
With regards to the tampax box found in the living room, it strikes me as being out of place. It's not something that you would expect to have been left lying around.
Could Jeremy have placed it there along with a toy gun?
-
A shot to Nevill's arm would be a downward trajectory even if Nevill was fully upright. More so from Bamber as he was taller than Sheila and wearing shoes.
-
Nevill being shot while retreating on the stairs would account for the next downward trajectory.
-
There was little difference in height between Jeremy and his sister. She probably towered over him in her high heels. Doesn't mean to say she was any less strong though.
See the big powerful 60 year old man who was over-powered by a slight 32 year old woman-------who held a gun to him ?? The clue is there somewhere !
-
I have always believed Nevill's two bedroom face shots were when he was getting out of bed. Awake and aware there was someone in the bedroom. The shots were only a few inches from his face.
David has said the evidence does not show this happened and I am waiting for his independent source of the cartridge locations, so I can re evaluate or confirm my original belief.
-
There was little difference in height between Jeremy and his sister. She probably towered over him in her high heels. Doesn't mean to say she was any less strong though.
See the big powerful 60 year old man who was over-powered by a slight 32 year old woman-------who held a gun to him ?? The clue is there somewhere !
Sheila wore high heels during the massacre ?
-
Not enough blood in/on the bed to say that that's where Neville was first shot. It's more blood volume that you should study as opposed to cartridge cases,which could have been kicked along from those not looking where they were walking.
-
Obviously there is no possibility an awake Nevill would have let Sheila load the magazine cartridge into the rifle, then let her go upstairs with it. Preferring to ring Bamber at 3am than stop Sheila before she started.
There is also no possibility Bamber answered the phone at the same time Sheila started shooting June upstairs. Which was around 15 seconds later. Bamber said he was sleeping 'like a log' upstairs.
-
Equally ridiculous is Nevill somehow heard the upstairs shots & charged upstairs bare footed in pyjamas. Then let Sheila get the rifle within inches of his face, before retreating straight back downstairs.
Nevill would have run upstairs with the sole purpose to instantly jump on Sheila.
-
Not enough blood in/on the bed to say that that's where Neville was first shot. It's more blood volume that you should study as opposed to cartridge cases,which could have been kicked along from those not looking where they were walking.
There was no time for any of Nevill's blood to drip onto the carpet. He was heading downstairs within seconds.
If an independent diagram of the 13 cartridge locations is not posted. Or everyone believes they are unreliable, I will stick with the view that Nevill received his face shots while in the process standing up.
-
Sheila wore high heels during the massacre ?
Not Jeremy then?
-
Sheila wore high heels during the massacre ?
D'oh ! I was pointing out how tall Sheila was in comparison to Jeremy,taller still in high heels. In other words there was probably only a couple of inches difference between them,without shoes ::)
-
Not Jeremy then?
He might have done to " over-power " his father.
-
D'oh ! I was pointing out how tall Sheila was in comparison to Jeremy,taller still in high heels. In other words there was probably only a couple of inches difference between them,without shoes ::)
I have read that Bamber was 6 feet. Sheila 5.7. So a five inch difference. Bamber was wearing shoes, so call it 6 inches.
-
I have read that Bamber was 6 feet. Sheila 5.7. So a five inch difference. Bamber was wearing shoes, so call it 6 inches.
And I'd read that Sheila was 5' 8,so there you are,so many conflicting reports. However,regardless of height,which doesn't necessarily come into having the same strength ,it makes no difference.
-
I don't really see how it matters either.
With regards to the tampax box found in the living room, it strikes me as being out of place. It's not something that you would expect to have been left lying around.
Could Jeremy have placed it there along with a toy gun?
Hartley:
I have little idea of your interest in this case, but let me suggest you seem to require affirmation of the guilty verdict, and accordingly will use band aids to patch the case.
Attention must be drawn to the bloody knickers in the bucket in the kitchen, and the half tampax that the policeman I posted earlier, said was missing, ie the cotton and string loop that were inside Sheila's body when she shot herself.
I have been unable in my research to find anyone who has ever had a daughter leave menstrual blood on knickers soaking in a bucket on a kitchen floor before going to bed.
This is so singular that an alternative explanation must be found. This is Bayes, though I hold little regard for this statistical methodology. It is a device employed to add authenticity to the tin labelled common sense, largely redundant, but enlivens the notion of expert witness.
So we typically might multiply probabilities, I get murdered, I leave my knickers soaking in a bucket in my mother's kitchen and leave a tampon applicator in her lounge, then go to bed, all on the same night.
My analysis inverts this to say these matters are closely causally related, I was interrupted after putting the knickers in the bucket, had an argument with he who interrupted me, he was party to a discussion declaring me an unfit mother, so I seized an available and loaded gun and shot the mother fuckers.
The bucket and tampax bear silent witness.
Please Hartley, bring to the discussion an explanation that contradicts this, but explains a young woman retiring to bed after leaving a disgraceful and negligent hygiene construct.
-
And I'd read that Sheila was 5' 8,so there you are,so many conflicting reports. However,regardless of height,which doesn't necessarily come into having the same strength ,it makes no difference.
I mentioned height regarding the downward trajectory.
Some of Nevill's shots apparently having a downward trajectory somehow shows Sheila was the killer. Although Bamber is a lot taller and was wearing shoes.
-
I mentioned height regarding the downward trajectory.
Some of Nevill's shots apparently having a downward trajectory somehow shows Sheila was the killer. Although Bamber is a lot taller and was wearing shoes.
Neville would have been sitting,wouldn't he ? And a tall Sheila hovering over him with a rifle at close range.
-
Equally ridiculous is Nevill somehow heard the upstairs shots & charged upstairs bare footed in pyjamas. Then let Sheila get the rifle within inches of his face, before retreating straight back downstairs.
Nevill would have run upstairs with the sole purpose to instantly jump on Sheila.
Adam, your would haves reveal your ineptitude.
Sheila knew with great certainty that Nevill would hear her shooting June, so swivelled in preparation to shoot him as he ascended the stairs. You might consider how reactive the human mind is, automatically adjusting to sure pending circumstance.
-
Neville would have been sitting,wouldn't he ? And a tall Sheila hovering over him with a rifle at close range.
All shots into Nevill, Sheila could have fired. He was dead for the kitchen shots. After amazingly and conviently landing face first on a coal scuttle. The upstairs arm and shoulder shots could have been fired by Sheila as well.
The exceptions are the first two upstairs face shots, where the rifle was inches from Nevill's face.
There is no way Nevill would run upstairs and not charge and jump on Sheila. Almost certainly before Sheila was able to shoot him. He had heard gun shots so couldn't have been caught by surprise.
-
Adam, your would haves reveal your ineptitude.
Sheila knew with great certainty that Nevill would hear her shooting June, so swivelled in preparation to shoot him as he ascended the stairs. You might consider how reactive the human mind is, automatically adjusting to sure pending circumstance.
It seems that Sheila was a trained SAS commando.
-
It seems that Sheila was a trained SAS commando.
No, that is nonsense Adam. Sheila was now adrenaline pumped, she knew with blind certainty it was him or her when he ascended those stairs, and this confers specific and unexpected powers and focus.
I am unclear why you post prolifically, and claim to be 19, starting posting at 16. Are you 19 years old?
-
So,we have 3 adults. Why didn't Neville jump Jeremy and knock him out ? He could very easily have done,no problem rifle or not. He must have been in contact with combatant tactics during the war.
Why didn't the women protect the children ? Why didn't one of them phone the police ? Why didn't any of them do more than they did,as records stated that they were all fit and healthy.
I can't believe a mother wouldn't shield her children and risk death herself in such a situation.
-
No, that is nonsense Adam. Sheila was now adrenaline pumped, she knew with blind certainty it was him or her when he ascended those stairs, and this confers specific and unexpected powers and focus.
I am unclear why you post prolifically, and claim to be 19, starting posting at 16. Are you 19 years old?
Anyway you're vision is Nevil ran upstairs bare footed and in pyjamas after hearing gun shots.
Sheila had postioned herself ready so she could fire two face shots into Nevill from inches away. Hapless Nevill who used to be in the army walking straight into Sheila's arms, or rather shots & not confronting her at all.
This must have taken place after Bamber answered his phone within 15 seconds.
-
To my mind,Neville wasn't even upstairs at any point. Where were his clothes anyway ?
-
Hartley:
I have little idea of your interest in this case, but let me suggest you seem to require affirmation of the guilty verdict, and accordingly will use band aids to patch the case.
Attention must be drawn to the bloody knickers in the bucket in the kitchen, and the half tampax that the policeman I posted earlier, said was missing, ie the cotton and string loop that were inside Sheila's body when she shot herself.
I have been unable in my research to find anyone who has ever had a daughter leave menstrual blood on knickers soaking in a bucket on a kitchen floor before going to bed.
This is so singular that an alternative explanation must be found. This is Bayes, though I hold little regard for this statistical methodology. It is a device employed to add authenticity to the tin labelled common sense, largely redundant, but enlivens the notion of expert witness.
So we typically might multiply probabilities, I get murdered, I leave my knickers soaking in a bucket in my mother's kitchen and leave a tampon applicator in her lounge, then go to bed, all on the same night.
My analysis inverts this to say these matters are closely causally related, I was interrupted after putting the knickers in the bucket, had an argument with he who interrupted me, he was party to a discussion declaring me an unfit mother, so I seized an available and loaded gun and shot the mother fuckers.
The bucket and tampax bear silent witness.
Please Hartley, bring to the discussion an explanation that contradicts this, but explains a young woman retiring to bed after leaving a disgraceful and negligent hygiene construct.
So everyone was murdered over stained knickers?
WHF was a busy farm and I don't know if you have noticed from the CS pictures but, hygiene was hardly the main though for the day! However, it perfectly reasonable to soak clothes in buckets when the sinks would be in use all day. The kitchen sink for washing up and the scullery sink for washing dirty hands. No one knows who put the clothes in to soak or when they were put there. This theory has no foundation at all!
-
To my mind,Neville wasn't even upstairs at any point. Where were his clothes anyway ?
So you are somehow suggesting my reconstruction is necessarily wrong?
I don't see how.
1. Phone off hook.
2. Sheila with gun on body and neck wounds consistent with self delivery
3. Cartridge cases in found locations.
4. Menstrual blood on knickers in bucket on kitchen floor.
5. Tampon in body, and complement of tampax in lounge.
6. Downward shots to mouth as though shooter on landing and Nevill below on stairs.
7. June shot while clearly asleep.
One of the problems confronting reconstructionists is that people customarily paint with the broad brush, everything is possible, but this is nonsense, one and only one exact sequence occurred.
A reconstruction will make sense of most evidentiary data points, seldom all.
Nevill was most of the way upstairs when turned back by gun fire.
Is this compatible with " never upstairs"? I think it is, but I am interested in what you mean Lookout.
-
So everyone was murdered over stained knickers?
WHF was a busy farm and I don't know if you have noticed from the CS pictures but, hygiene was hardly the main though for the day! However, it perfectly reasonable to soak clothes in buckets when the sinks would be in use all day. The kitchen sink for washing up and the scullery sink for washing dirty hands. No one knows who put the clothes in to soak or when they were put there. This theory has no foundation at all!
Yes, in my crime reconstruction, Sheila went downstairs when she found her period began in bed.
Nevill heard her, and went down to see what was going on.
We must find an explanation for everything found at the scene if we can, and unless you can knock on a thousand doors, and discover households where daughters leave menstrual stained knickers in a bucket on the kitchen floor, then retiring to bed, you fail to address this fundamental data point Caroline.
There is a causal connection in my reconstruction, none in yours.
I live in a household with women, and have never seen menstrual blood anywhere.
-
So you are somehow suggesting my reconstruction is necessarily wrong?
I don't see how.
1. Phone off hook.
2. Sheila with gun on body and neck wounds consistent with self delivery
3. Cartridge cases in found locations.
4. Menstrual blood on knickers in bucket on kitchen floor.
5. Tampon in body, and complement of tampax in lounge.
6. Downward shots to mouth as though shooter on landing and Nevill below on stairs.
7. June shot while clearly asleep.
One of the problems confronting reconstructionists is that people customarily paint with the broad brush, everything is possible, but this is nonsense, one and only one exact sequence occurred.
A reconstruction will make sense of most evidentiary data points, seldom all.
Nevill was most of the way upstairs when turned back by gun fire.
Is this compatible with " never upstairs"? I think it is, but I am interested in what you mean Lookout.
Nevill was shot 4 times in the bedroom. Two face shots were from inches away.
So Sheila could not have opened fire on him as he was coming upstairs. She had to wait until he was in the bedroom.
-
Yes, in my crime reconstruction, Sheila went downstairs when she found her period began in bed.
Nevill heard her, and went down to see what was going on.
We must find an explanation for everything found at the scene if we can, and unless you can knock on a thousand doors, and discover households where daughters leave menstrual stained knickers in a bucket on the kitchen floor, then retiring to bed, you fail to address this fundamental data point Caroline.
There is a causal connection in my reconstruction, none in yours.
I live in a household with women, and have never seen menstrual blood anywhere.
You fail to take into account that some of he twins clothes were soaking too. They are just clothes soaking in water, there is nothing sinister about that at all. You have no idea when the washing was put there and just jump to the conclusion that it was during the early hours of the morning with no evidence to support it and you also have no idea who put the clothes into soak in the first place
-
Anyway you're vision is Nevil ran upstairs bare footed and in pyjamas after hearing gun shots.
Sheila had postioned herself ready so she could fire two face shots into Nevill from inches away. Hapless Nevill who used to be in the army walking straight into Sheila's arms, or rather shots & not confronting her at all.
This must have taken place after Bamber answered his phone within 15 seconds.
Well, the evidence shows this is exactly what happened. Your refutation with incredulity is just where the rubber hits the road, you refute what is the only possible explanation because it flows from your keyboard with grace and style, yet it is a simple truism you confront, fact is stranger than fiction.
-
Well, the evidence shows this is exactly what happened. Your refutation with incredulity is just where the rubber hits the road, you refute what is the only possible explanation because it flows from your keyboard with grace and style, yet it is a simple truism you confront, fact is stranger than fiction.
No it doesn't.
-
You fail to take into account that some of he twins clothes were soaking too. They are just clothes soaking in water, there is nothing sinister about that at all. You have no idea when the washing was put there and just jump to the conclusion that it was during the early hours of the morning with no evidence to support it and you also have no idea who put the clothes into soak in the first place
Come on Caroline, women do not put menstrual stained knickers in buckets and leave them on the kitchen floor, then go to bed. And women do not leave the tampax applicator in the living room then go to bed.
You were not so confused 4 years ago. What happened to drop you down the rabbit hole?
You sadden me, you and JaneJ.
-
So you are somehow suggesting my reconstruction is necessarily wrong?
I don't see how.
1. Phone off hook.
2. Sheila with gun on body and neck wounds consistent with self delivery
3. Cartridge cases in found locations.
4. Menstrual blood on knickers in bucket on kitchen floor.
5. Tampon in body, and complement of tampax in lounge.
6. Downward shots to mouth as though shooter on landing and Nevill below on stairs.
7. June shot while clearly asleep.
One of the problems confronting reconstructionists is that people customarily paint with the broad brush, everything is possible, but this is nonsense, one and only one exact sequence occurred.
A reconstruction will make sense of most evidentiary data points, seldom all.
Nevill was most of the way upstairs when turned back by gun fire.
Is this compatible with " never upstairs"? I think it is, but I am interested in what you mean Lookout.
There was no sign nor mention of Neville's day clothes anywhere. I can only assume that when he returned from his nightly ritual of taking the dogs out,having a shower,in the downstairs bathroom,donning the night clothes then having a quiet G&T and a smoke in the lounge,that this is what he did before retiring to bed.Except for that night he didn't get as far as going up the stairs.
When Sheila was at her flat in Maida Vale,it wasn't unusual for her to ring her father in the early hours and then talk to him until dawn broke,and whether,at the time ,her father had been in bed during those times,I don't know,but he'd obviously take the call downstairs so as not to disturb June ( who was a light sleeper )
The night of the tragedy would be no different if Sheila had wanted to talk to her father,except that he was already there and the kitchen was where they both were.
What I want to know was what direction was the gun cupboard in relation to the settle ( monks seat ) which was nearest to the kitchen ?
None of Neville's blood was found in the bedroom,or the stairs. It was all downstairs.
-
Come on Caroline, women do not put menstrual stained knickers in buckets and leave them on the kitchen floor, then go to bed. And women do not leave the tampax applicator in the living room then go to bed.You were not so confused 4 years ago. What happened to drop you down the rabbit hole?
You sadden me, you and JaneJ.
That's odd, because you make me laugh! ;D ;D
At no time when I thought Bamber might be innocent, did I argue that Sheila killed everyone over her stained pants. Four years ago, I also didn't understand the effects of haldoperidol, I do now but I also hadn't had experience of the man himself - I have now.
The applicator you keep referring to was found next to a toy gun, so the likelihood is that the twins found the tube and used it in play. Maybe they saw Uncle Jeremy messing about with the rifle and the silencer and were simply copying him.
-
There was no sign nor mention of Neville's day clothes anywhere. I can only assume that when he returned from his nightly ritual of taking the dogs out,having a shower,in the downstairs bathroom,donning the night clothes then having a quiet G&T and a smoke in the lounge,that this is what he did before retiring to bed.Except for that night he didn't get as far as going up the stairs.
When Sheila was at her flat in Maida Vale,it wasn't unusual for her to ring her father in the early hours and then talk to him until dawn broke,and whether,at the time ,her father had been in bed during those times,I don't know,but he'd obviously take the call downstairs so as not to disturb June ( who was a light sleeper )
The night of the tragedy would be no different if Sheila had wanted to talk to her father,except that he was already there and the kitchen was where they both were.
What I want to know was what direction was the gun cupboard in relation to the settle ( monks seat ) which was nearest to the kitchen ?
None of Neville's blood was found in the bedroom,or the stairs. It was all downstairs.
There was blood on the stairs and landing that couldn't be typed however, the bullet cases show that he had to be shot four times upstairs, there aren't enough cases in the kitchen for he to have received all shots there.
-
There was no sign nor mention of Neville's day clothes anywhere. I can only assume that when he returned from his nightly ritual of taking the dogs out,having a shower,in the downstairs bathroom,donning the night clothes then having a quiet G&T and a smoke in the lounge,that this is what he did before retiring to bed.Except for that night he didn't get as far as going up the stairs.
When Sheila was at her flat in Maida Vale,it wasn't unusual for her to ring her father in the early hours and then talk to him until dawn broke,and whether,at the time ,her father had been in bed during those times,I don't know,but he'd obviously take the call downstairs so as not to disturb June ( who was a light sleeper )
The night of the tragedy would be no different if Sheila had wanted to talk to her father,except that he was already there and the kitchen was where they both were.
What I want to know was what direction was the gun cupboard in relation to the settle ( monks seat ) which was nearest to the kitchen ?
None of Neville's blood was found in the bedroom,or the stairs. It was all downstairs.
It just seems unlikely to me he would have not retired to bed by 3 am as a farmer, and I am looking at all the found evidence. Since he was in pyjamas he clearly had been in bed.
My reconstruction is heavily relying on the onset of Sheila's period, which clearly commenced after she went to bed, or she would have retired with tampon in place, and obeyed protocol in concealing blood from the household. This is plain common sense and universal protocol. There is a link between the massacre and the unconventional blood in the kitchen, mark my words. The fact this is not laboured by the English is a complete mystery to me. Sherlock and Father Brown would spin in their graves in frustration at not being heard on this matter.
-
You fail to take into account that some of he twins clothes were soaking too. They are just clothes soaking in water, there is nothing sinister about that at all. You have no idea when the washing was put there and just jump to the conclusion that it was during the early hours of the morning with no evidence to support it and you also have no idea who put the clothes into soak in the first place
This is what I mean by visions.
Samson has a vision that -
Sheila had her period at 2pm and used a bucket which had a variety of clothes in. Vision.
Nevill went downstairs in pyjamas and bare footed. After suspecting burglars. Vision.
Nevill then again started telling Sheila about the twins being adopted. At 2pm. Vision.
Sheila loaded the cartridge into the rifle. Nevill let her. Vision.
Sheila went upstairs with the rifle. Neville let her. Vision.
Nevill rang Bamber. Bamber answered the phone within 15 seconds although sleeping 'like a log'. At the same time Nevill hears upstairs gun shots and only says 11 words to Bamber. Vision.
-
That's odd, because you make me laugh! ;D ;D
At no time when I thought Bamber might be innocent, did I argue that Sheila killed everyone over her stained pants. Four years ago, I also didn't understand the effects of haldoperidol, I do now but I also hadn't had experience of the man himself - I have now.
The applicator you keep referring to was found next to a toy gun, so the likelihood is that the twins found the tube and used it in play. Maybe they saw Uncle Jeremy messing about with the rifle and the silencer and were simply copying him.
I theorise that she inserted the tampon in the lounge because she was alone, and the bathroom was remote from the kitchen where she had deposited the knickers.
Yes, I believe the White House murders happened because her period began.
-
There was blood on the stairs and landing that couldn't be typed however, the bullet cases show that he had to be shot four times upstairs, there aren't enough cases in the kitchen for he to have received all shots there.
I don't believe that those bullet cases should have been upstairs. Because there's so much jiggery-pokery with the case,I tend to disbelieve anything and everything connected to the case altogether.
-
I theorise that she inserted the tampon in the lounge because she was alone, and the bathroom was remote from the kitchen where she had deposited the knickers.
Yes, I believe the White House murders happened because her period began.
Don't forget Nevill didn't help matters.
Going on about adoption to Sheila at 2pm. Then letting her load the rifle & go upstairs with it.
-
This is what I mean by visions.
Samson has a vision that -
Sheila had her period at 2pm and used a bucket which had a variety of clothes in. Vision.
Nevill went downstairs in pyjamas and bare footed. After suspecting burglars. Vision.
Nevill then again started telling Sheila about the twins being adopted. At 2pm. Vision.
Sheila loaded the cartridge into the rifle. Nevill let her. Vision.
Sheila went upstairs with the rifle. Neville let her. Vision.
Nevill rang Bamber. Bamber answered the phone within 15 seconds although sleeping 'like a log'. At the same time Nevill hears upstairs gun shots and only says 11 words to Bamber. Vision.
Adam, I eat from the tin labelled COMMON SENSE.
We do not have visions, we try to construct a narrative from what we see.
You might study the case of Mark Lundy to imagine how the aisle with the tins of common sense was skipped. The case is archly similar, and represents a systemic failure that allows the kidnapping of hard working citizenry. He is still in jail, it may be a dead heat, the release days.
-
I theorise that she inserted the tampon in the lounge because she was alone, and the bathroom was remote from the kitchen where she had deposited the knickers.
Yes, I believe the White House murders happened because her period began.
You're just typing the first thing that comes in to your head. ::)
The bathroom is closer than the living room is to the kitchen.
You would need to walk past the bathroom to get from the kitchen to the living room.
-
You're just typing the first thing that comes in to your head. ::)
The bathroom is closer than the living room is to the kitchen.
You would need to walk past the bathroom to get from the kitchen to the living room.
Hartley, the complete tampax is composed of what was in her body and what was in the living room. The knickers in the kitchen are unique. I know this because it is true, and you know this too. You will do a rapid thought experiment to imagine all the young women you have ever known who leave their period blood in the kitchen.
But you won't because you clearly need to toe the party line. The alternative is too difficult for mortal man. I mourn for your lost integrity.
-
Hartley, the complete tampax is composed of what was in her body and what was in the living room. The knickers in the kitchen are unique. I know this because it is true, and you know this too. You will do a rapid thought experiment to imagine all the young women you have ever known who leave their period blood in the kitchen.
But you won't because you clearly need to toe the party line. The alternative is too difficult for mortal man. I mourn for your lost integrity.
The applicator has TWO parts, only one was found next to the toy gun, completely devoid of blood staining. Sheila didn't leave period blood in the kitchen, just some stained clothing which could have been left to soak by June. Her knickers were NOT the only clothes left to soak but you keep ignoring that. This shows that it wasn't unusual to soak clothes before washing - not sure about NZ but it's pretty common here!!
-
I wonder if I am making myself clear.
It is vanishingly unlikely a young woman will be murdered on any given evening.
It is vanishingly unlikely a young woman will leave her menstrual stained knickers in her mother's kitchen then go to bed.
If we can find a connection between these two matters we might resolve a mystery.
I have shown how this can be, but neither defender nor aggressor sees the significance.
Sherlock Holmes surely would, fictional he may be, but he is the schematic sleuth, one who understands.
-
I wonder if I am making myself clear.
It is vanishingly unlikely a young woman will be murdered on any given evening.
It is vanishingly unlikely a young woman will leave her menstrual stained knickers in her mother's kitchen then go to bed.
If we can find a connection between these two matters we might resolve a mystery.
I have shown how this can be, but neither defender nor aggressor sees the significance.
Sherlock Holmes surely would, fictional he may be, but he is the schematic sleuth, one who understands.
It's vanishingly obvious that you are ignoring those facts that don't fit, are making a mountain out of a mole hill and are way off the mark by obsessing over Sheila's stained underwear!!
-
The applicator has TWO parts, only one was found next to the toy gun, completely devoid of blood staining. Sheila didn't leave period blood in the kitchen, just some stained clothing which could have been left to soak by June. Her knickers were NOT the only clothes left to soak but you keep ignoring that. This shows that it wasn't unusual to soak clothes before washing - not sure about NZ but it's pretty common here!!
Do all English women allow bloody knickers to be seen by the general household?
Why have I never seen bloody knickers? Wife, daughter and so on.
We are farmers too you know.
For pity's sake, the case does not rest on this matter, yet it is commonplace that every datapoint founders when an innocent person gets jailed, the list is long and the pattern repeats and repeats like indigestion.
-
Please Hartley, bring to the discussion an explanation that contradicts this, but explains a young woman retiring to bed after leaving a disgraceful and negligent hygiene construct.
Obviously we are all speculating, however:
There are various items of clothing soaking in preparation to be washed, items belonging to both Sheila and her children.
Is it not simply the case that either Sheila, or more likely June, gathered up the dirty washing earlier in the day, noted some items required soaking and so placed them in a bucket of water?
As for the tampon box or applicator, I have not in my experience, known people to have left such things lying around in living rooms, it seems a strange place for it to be. Hence my suggestion that it was placed there by JB to further enhance the perception of Sheila moving around the house and acting weird.
-
Hartley, the complete tampax is composed of what was in her body and what was in the living room. The knickers in the kitchen are unique. I know this because it is true, and you know this too. You will do a rapid thought experiment to imagine all the young women you have ever known who leave their period blood in the kitchen.
But you won't because you clearly need to toe the party line. The alternative is too difficult for mortal man. I mourn for your lost integrity.
Dirty clothes require washing.
Dirty clothes get washed in the kitchen/utility room.
I'm sure you can therefore use your imagination to fill in the gaps. :-\
-
Obviously we are all speculating, however:
There are various items of clothing soaking in preparation to be washed, items belonging to both Sheila and her children.
Is it not simply the case that either Sheila, or more likely June, gathered up the dirty washing earlier in the day, noted some items required soaking and so placed them in a bucket of water?
As for the tampon box or applicator, I have not in my experience, known people to have left such things lying around in living rooms, it seems a strange place for it to be. Hence my suggestion that it was placed there by JB to further enhance the perception of Sheila moving around the house and acting weird.
Ok, it seems we now have
Sheila tossed her knickers in the communal laundry pool, yet they were separated and placed in their own bucket in the kitchen? I don't think so. They would not be left in the kitchen and then everyone goes to bed.
Suggesting Bamber staged the applicator ignores the fact that the found scene finds complete componentry either in the lounge or in Sheila, so somehow allows JB to fluke this.
Desperate Hartley, just not realistic.
-
Ok, it seems we now have
Sheila tossed her knickers in the communal laundry pool, yet they were separated and placed in their own bucket in the kitchen? I don't think so. They would not be left in the kitchen and then everyone goes to bed.
Suggesting Bamber staged the applicator ignores the fact that the found scene finds complete componentry either in the lounge or in Sheila, so somehow allows JB to fluke this.
Desperate Hartley, just not realistic.
Certain stains require soaking in cold water before being washed - blood happens to be one of them. They weren't just left in the kitchen, they were contained in a bucket out of the way.
-
Ok, it seems we now have
Sheila tossed her knickers in the communal laundry pool, yet they were separated and placed in their own bucket in the kitchen? I don't think so. They would not be left in the kitchen and then everyone goes to bed.
Suggesting Bamber staged the applicator ignores the fact that the found scene finds complete componentry either in the lounge or in Sheila, so somehow allows JB to fluke this.
Desperate Hartley, just not realistic.
Washing clothes isn't realistic? Oh okay then. ???
It seems quite normal to me but if you have other thoughts then that's your prerogative. Not sure why you're just picking on the underwear though, the jogging bottoms must surely blow your mind.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=497.0;attach=1562;image)
-
Funnily enough, Ann appears to be similarly bewildered by the tampon box/applicator being located in the lounge.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=497.0;attach=1560;image)
-
So in view of the unmentionable/s on the dining room table,Neville perhaps WAS enjoying a nightcap before Sheila joined him in there and in her mental haze placed the empty box down on the table.
-
So in view of the unmentionable/s on the dining room table,Neville perhaps WAS enjoying a nightcap before Sheila joined him in there and in her mental haze placed the empty box down on the table.
'Unmentionables'? Are we in the dark ages or what? It was a cardboard tube! I doubt Nevill (even if he'd seen it) would even know what it was - June too for that matter!!
-
'Unmentionables'? Are we in the dark ages or what? It was a cardboard tube! I doubt Nevill (even if he'd seen it) would even know what it was - June too for that matter!!
I understood it to have been the box that they were in,advertising the fact. ( dangerous things anyway)
They cause anaphylactic shocks.
-
I understood it to have been the box that they were in,advertising the fact. ( dangerous things anyway)
They cause anaphylactic shocks.
No, just one of the cardboard tube applicators and they don't cause anaphylactic shock if used correctly.
For people who are confused about what was actually found, please refer to the picture below. ONE of the two applicator tubes was found next to a toy gun. It had no blood on it, there were no used sanitary products found - just the tube.
-
Well I don't believe for a second that jb would have thought to deliberately leave a tampon tube anywhere. How would he have known she was on a period, most unlikely imo
-
Well I don't believe for a second that jb would have thought to deliberately leave a tampon tube anywhere. How would he have known she was on a period, most unlikely imo
Hi notsure
I agree with you on this one JB would not know about her period and if Sheila had left it in the lounge earlier June would have moved it as she would not want the children picking it up and back then periods/tampons were not talked about especially with parents that was the way in my home
-
"How little a person knows what is in himself. To see all the fissures and fractures, to throw light into the dark cavities, to see the landscape of a mind and recognize no part of it but know that it is yours is a fearful and disturbing thing."
GO AND ENJOY YOUR CELEBRITY STATUS, MAYBE YOU'LL BE ON WOGAN NEXT AND CAN ADVERTISE YOUR BOOK AND SCULPTURES THAT WAY-HOW YOU CAN CHEAPEN DANIEL AND NICHOLAS AND THEIR TRAGIC DEATH I JUST DON'T KNOW.NO ONE WANTED ANYTHING OF YOU BEFORE THEN AND NOW THEY'RE GONE YOUR USING IT FOR YOUR OWN ENDS-PRETENDING IT'S GRIEF COUNSELLING. YOU WERE ALRIGHT, COLIN, ONCE, BUT NOW I'M SORRY TO SAY YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LEACH LIVING OFF YOUR OWN SONS' TRAGIC DEATH. IF THEY COULD SEE YOU NOW I BET IT WOULD SICKEN THEM AS IT SICKENS ME...I HOPE YOU LOVE YOURSELF, IN FACT I BET YOU DO. WHAT I WISH IS THAT YOU NEVER HAVE CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'LL F*** THEM UP TOO-IT WAS YOUR FAULT THAT SHEILA WENT MAD AND KILLED EVERYONE. YOU KNEW SHE WOULD BREAK UNDER THE STRAIN OF BRINGING UP A FAMILY ON HER OWN-YOU DIDN'T CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN EVEN IN THE WOMB..
YOU'VE DONE ME MUCH HARM WITH YOUR SELFISH USE OF THE MEDIA SO I'D USE THE SAME TO GET MY OWN BACK. LOOK FORWARD TO AN ARTICLE SOON COLIN MAY IT PRICK YOUR CONSCIENCE IF YOU HAVE ONE,YOUR NOTHING BUT A LEACH JUST THINK WHAT YOUR FEEDING OFF.
WITH VERY MUCH SADNESS
JEREMY
I've never met Colin, but I feel as though I have through reading his book. That's some achievement. One thing I will tell you is that Colin is his own harshest critic. He will have run through the incident which no mortal should have to endure (and which most of us can forget on a daily basis) for many years. It's Jeremy who is now irreparably damaged, whilst Colin has moved on and goodness knows how. Maybe the workshops made him come to the realization what a nonentity Jeremy really is, and the repressed hatred of which the letters were symptomatic are testament to it, of a life which could have held a value for others, but which ended up and will end up in an all-encompassing nihilism, where a confession is precluded by a still all-consuming expectation of material gain, which will not be forthcoming.
What was the date of this letter do you know? How soon after Jeremy was found guilty?
As you say, the repressed hatred is all there as is his disordered personality; his envy, his cruelty, his grandiose sense of self. I wonder how many other letters like this are out there?
-
What was the date of this letter do you know? How soon after Jeremy was found guilty?
As you say, the repressed hatred is all there as is his disordered personality; his envy, his cruelty, his grandiose sense of self. I wonder how many other letters like this are out there?
The letter was written from Wormwood Scrubs on 2 February 1989. There are earlier ones quoted in Colin's book.
-
The letter was written from Wormwood Scrubs on 2 February 1989. There are earlier ones quoted in Colin's book.
Have you got them Steve?
-
The letter was written from Wormwood Scrubs on 2 February 1989. There are earlier ones quoted in Colin's book.
Are they of a similar vein?
It's interesting how he attempts to dump his character flaws onto Colin, like for example referring to him as a LEACH.
Bamber is the LEACH who has been living off the murders of his family (The murders he was responsible for) for 31 years.
-
Are they of a similar vein?
It's interesting how he attempts to dump his character flaws onto Colin, like for example referring to him as a LEACH.
Bamber is the LEACH who has been living off the murders of his family (The murders he was responsible for) for 31 years.
I agree and did you notice the word "cheapens" associated with Nicholas and Daniel, as if they were given some kind of monetary value as he realizes the Bamber fortune would be divided between him and his sister and therefore the twins would be in line for an inheritance? He is also fixated about the succession by lambasting Colin about any future children he might have, whilst rueing the demise of his own through Sue Ford's alleged miscarriages, and knowing that he himself will not have any chance now of procreating as he's in for the long term.
I will post some more letters.
-
I agree and did you notice the word "cheapens" associated with Nicholas and Daniel, as if they were given some kind of monetary value as he realizes the Bamber fortune would be divided between him and his sister and therefore the twins would be in line for an inheritance? He is also fixated about the succession by lambasting Colin about any future children he might have, whilst rueing the demise of his own through Sue Ford's alleged miscarriages, and knowing that he himself will not have any chance now of procreating as he's in for the long term.
I will post some more letters.
Indeed Steve,
Though I disagree with you regarding any concern he may have had in relation to procreating. People are objects to him.
As I've said before, there are so many clues in his communications. The comment about grief counselling which he re-hashed some years later in a letter to Mike.
His desperate need for attention (Good or bad) and of 'celebrity' status because he knows he is but an empty vessel, lacking of emotions and conscience.
GO AND ENJOY YOUR CELEBRITY STATUS, MAYBE YOU'LL BE ON WOGAN NEXT AND CAN ADVERTISE YOUR BOOK AND SCULPTURES THAT WAY-HOW YOU CAN CHEAPEN DANIEL AND NICHOLAS AND THEIR TRAGIC DEATH I JUST DON'T KNOW.NO ONE WANTED ANYTHING OF YOU BEFORE THEN AND NOW THEY'RE GONE YOUR USING IT FOR YOUR OWN ENDS-PRETENDING IT'S GRIEF COUNSELLING. YOU WERE ALRIGHT, COLIN, ONCE, BUT NOW I'M SORRY TO SAY YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LEACH LIVING OFF YOUR OWN SONS' TRAGIC DEATH. IF THEY COULD SEE YOU NOW I BET IT WOULD SICKEN THEM AS IT SICKENS ME...I HOPE YOU LOVE YOURSELF, IN FACT I BET YOU DO. WHAT I WISH IS THAT YOU NEVER HAVE CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'LL F*** THEM UP TOO-IT WAS YOUR FAULT THAT SHEILA WENT MAD AND KILLED EVERYONE. YOU KNEW SHE WOULD BREAK UNDER THE STRAIN OF BRINGING UP A FAMILY ON HER OWN-YOU DIDN'T CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN EVEN IN THE WOMB..
YOU'VE DONE ME MUCH HARM WITH YOUR SELFISH USE OF THE MEDIA SO I'D USE THE SAME TO GET MY OWN BACK. LOOK FORWARD TO AN ARTICLE SOON COLIN MAY IT PRICK YOUR CONSCIENCE IF YOU HAVE ONE,YOUR NOTHING BUT A LEACH JUST THINK WHAT YOUR FEEDING OFF.
WITH VERY MUCH SADNESS
JEREMY
-
Colin writes:
It was really my unnatural responses that first made me apportion blame-as a way of avoiding my own conditional shame-and the fact that, on some level, I believed it must really be my fault. My initial blame was a way of avoiding that fact. It had seemed to me that I only had two options: either to beat myself up or to point my finger at someone else who fitted that image. Another option, which was not then apparent to me, was to step outside of it altogether and tell myself that I don't have to identify with either. That's not easy.
There are also times we have very good reason to blame or feel shame: my handling of our marriage breakdown would be a perfect example-and there would be occasions that it would bubble to the surface again, as I would soon discover. But how I deal with it within myself is what changes.
Anyway I decided to write to Jeremy at Wormwood Scrubs, where he had been imprisoned since the trial, in the hope that he might furnish me with some of the last pieces of the jigsaw puzzle-and in a sense he did-but I was far from prepared for his response. It brought me back to reality with a jolt. It was written on 16 August 1988:
DEAR COLIN,
I READ THE ARTICLE IN YESTERDAY'S INDEPENDENT WITH MUCH SADNESS,THE SAME SADNESS I ALWAYS FEEL WHEN I READ ABOUT YOU AND WHAT YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
YOUR LETTER TODAY, COLIN, WAS I'M AFRAID A TOUCH PREMATURE.YOUR WRITING TO ME HOPING, I GUESS, FOR THE LAST FEW PIECES OF THE JIGSAW SO THAT YOU MAY HOLD THE PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED IS NOT POSSIBLE. IF I COULD FURNISH YOU WITH WHAT YOU WANTED THEN I WOULD GLADLY DO SO-WHATEVER HAPPENED THAT FATEFUL NIGHT WILL NEVER BE FULLY EXPLAINED, IN FACT YOU COULD PROBABLY TELL ME MORE THAN I COULD YOU.
THE PAPER DID MENTION IN THE ARTICLE YESTERDAY THAT I WAS APPEALING AND NO DOUBT YOU KNEW THAT ANYWAY. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REACT WHEN THEY QUASH MY CONVICTION, COLIN, BECAUSE IT'S VERY PROBABLE THEY WILL DO SO? YOU MAY BELIEVE ME GUILTY, YOU MAY NOT, BUT I HOPE THAT IF NOTHING ELSE YOU'LL TRY AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND BECAUSE AT MY APPEAL I WILL PROVE MY INNOCENCE AND BY DOING THAT THE CORNER-STONE OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED, BY WHOM I CAN'T PROVE YET AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO FOR MY APPEAL BUT EVENTUALLY I'LL FIND OUT BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OF FIVE PEOPLE. IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M TALKING RIDDLES AND I'M SORRY THAT I CAN'T EXPLAIN IN A LETTER TO YOU. IT SEEMS SO POINTLESS ME SENDING YOU THIS LETTER AS IT'LL ONLY ADD TO YOUR CONFUSION BUT FOR YOU TO WRITE TO ME MUST HAVE TAKEN A GREAT DEAL SO MY REPLYING IS THE LEAST I CAN DO...
-
I agree and did you notice the word "cheapens" associated with Nicholas and Daniel, as if they were given some kind of monetary value as he realizes the Bamber fortune would be divided between him and his sister and therefore the twins would be in line for an inheritance? He is also fixated about the succession by lambasting Colin about any future children he might have, whilst rueing the demise of his own through Sue Ford's alleged miscarriages, and knowing that he himself will not have any chance now of procreating as he's in for the long term.
I will post some more letters.
Lets turn this on its head and ask ourselves what we would do if we were sentenced to prison for the rest of our lives for something we hadn't done. Would we feel hurt, anger, frustration, despair. What would we feel for those that seemed to be making money from our misfortune, how would we deal with it. Would we simply sit in our cell and put up or vent our anger on those that had got it wrong.
I feel sure I would have said something very nasty to those people.
Forget if you feel if jb is guilty or innocent and ask yourself what would I do.
-
Why do you keep repeating this? Only one or two shots were at a downwards trajectory, the shots to the shoulder and possibly the arm.
The shots to the lip/law were also at a downwards trajectory. Read Vanezis trial testimony. I have attached the relevant transcript in this post.
It's quite clear, I wonder why you are attempting to make up something else?
I'm not. I wonder why you believe I am? :-\
-
He continues in the same block capital style for another page or so and then closes with these paragraphs:
IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU QUESTION WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT SHEILA IN THE NEWSPAPERS SO YOU SHOULD QUESTION WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT ME-I'M NOT GAY OR BI-SEXUAL, I WASN'T A COCAINE SMUGGLER, I DIDN'T KNOW HALF THE PEOPLE I'D BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH, I DIDN'T BREAK SOMEONE'S ARM AT SCHOOL, I DIDN'T KITE CHEQUES AND I DIDN'T RAPE JULIE. WHAT OTHER ODIOUS STUFF THEY WROTE I CAN'T RECALL-EVEN DURING MY TRIAL THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT.
I WON'T GO ON, YOU KNOW ME WHAT I WAS LIKE AND I DIDN'T WRITE TO CONVINCE YOU OF MY INNOCENCE EVEN THOUGH I AM, JUST WELL WHATEVER
LOVE
JEREMY
-
Lets turn this on its head and ask ourselves what we would do if we were sentenced to prison for the rest of our lives for something we hadn't done. Would we feel hurt, anger, frustration, despair. What would we feel for those that seemed to be making money from our misfortune, how would we deal with it. Would we simply sit in our cell and put up or vent our anger on those that had got it wrong.
I feel sure I would have said something very nasty to those people.
Forget if you feel if jb is guilty or innocent and ask yourself what would I do.
Did he ever have the slightest inkling of the impact of his crimes or prepare in any way for the aftermath? He knows like the fox that the killing of Nicholas and Daniel was totally unjustifiable which is why he brought them into the letter, mentioning them by name. They died along with Sheila so he did not have to share the spoils, they were not emotionally disturbed but had survived the school of hard knocks and felt a compassion for their fellow friends unique in children of their age, a trait they had inherited from both their unassuming, altruistic parents.
-
Well I don't believe for a second that jb would have thought to deliberately leave a tampon tube anywhere. How would he have known she was on a period, most unlikely imo
I don't think anyone mentioned that Jeremy left it there Notsure?
-
Lets turn this on its head and ask ourselves what we would do if we were sentenced to prison for the rest of our lives for something we hadn't done. Would we feel hurt, anger, frustration, despair. What would we feel for those that seemed to be making money from our misfortune, how would we deal with it. Would we simply sit in our cell and put up or vent our anger on those that had got it wrong.
I feel sure I would have said something very nasty to those people.
Forget if you feel if jb is guilty or innocent and ask yourself what would I do.
Are you sure you're not sure Noture? :-\
-
Lets turn this on its head and ask ourselves what we would do if we were sentenced to prison for the rest of our lives for something we hadn't done. Would we feel hurt, anger, frustration, despair. What would we feel for those that seemed to be making money from our misfortune, how would we deal with it. Would we simply sit in our cell and put up or vent our anger on those that had got it wrong.
I feel sure I would have said something very nasty to those people.
Forget if you feel if jb is guilty or innocent and ask yourself what would I do.
This is what YOU feel sure you would do, you do not talk for the rest of us. These are your beliefs.
-
He continues in the same block capital style for another page or so and then closes with these paragraphs:
IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU QUESTION WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT SHEILA IN THE NEWSPAPERS SO YOU SHOULD QUESTION WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT ME-I'M NOT GAY OR BI-SEXUAL, I WASN'T A COCAINE SMUGGLER, I DIDN'T KNOW HALF THE PEOPLE I'D BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH, I DIDN'T BREAK SOMEONE'S ARM AT SCHOOL, I DIDN'T KITE CHEQUES AND I DIDN'T RAPE JULIE. WHAT OTHER ODIOUS STUFF THEY WROTE I CAN'T RECALL-EVEN DURING MY TRIAL THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT.
I WON'T GO ON, YOU KNOW ME WHAT I WAS LIKE AND I DIDN'T WRITE TO CONVINCE YOU OF MY INNOCENCE EVEN THOUGH I AM, JUST WELL WHATEVER
LOVE
JEREMY
Now where have I heard this before. ::)
Out of interest, where have the claims of him breaking someones arm at school and raping Julie come from?
-
The letter was written from Wormwood Scrubs on 2 February 1989. There are earlier ones quoted in Colin's book.
His letters also show clearly how his emotional development is stunted. This is a man with no boundaries, nothing is taboo.
He just doesn't care. His only concern is Jeremy Bamber.
-
Now where have I heard this before. ::)
Out of interest, where have the claims of him breaking someones arm at school and raping Julie come from?
It's an article from the Independent which I don't have, though it may be on microfiche at the local library. It's the mixture of truth, half-truth and downright lies which make all his pronouncements incredibly difficult to decipher.
-
It's an article from the Independent which I don't have, though it may be on microfiche at the local library. It's the mixture of truth, half-truth and downright lies which make all his pronouncements incredibly difficult to decipher.
I was referring to SH.
Yes, that's what they do. Mix it up with truths, half truths and lies. Maybe there are references to him having broken someone's arm and raping Julie in his prison rrecord's; which would have been taken from his case files?
-
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!
Here is an excerpt you sent me via PM.
"xxxxxx"
haha point proven, you wouldn't have been able to keep your mouth shut that's for sure
I have asked the mods to remove your post as it is not allowed to post private messages on the public board.
I expect you will will go on and on in replying, rest assured you are back on ignore
-
haha point proven, you wouldn't have been able to keep your mouth shut that's for sure
I have asked the mods to remove your post as it is not allowed to post private messages on the public board.
I expect you will will go on and on in replying, rest assured you are back on ignore
I'm not sure what you find so funny? It's not a case of not being able to keep my mouth shut, as you suggest Notsure, it's that I see through your game playing and trolling.
Your posts are made with the sole intention to disrupt debate and you have been targeting me for sometime now.
Your behaviour is see through.
-
Notsure
I thought Hartley mentioned that JB may have left the tampon in the lounge to make it appear Sheila was acting weird on the night of the murders,
-
I don't think anyone mentioned that Jeremy left it there Notsure?
Hartley mentioned that he suggested that jb left it there deliberately
-
Notsure
I thought Hartley mentioned that JB may have left the tampon in the lounge to make it appear Sheila was acting weird on the night of the murders,
hi Susan, yes Hartley did mention it, thanks I'm playing catchup all the time
-
..or he used it to clean the silencer.
-
haha point proven, you wouldn't have been able to keep your mouth shut that's for sure
I have asked the mods to remove your post as it is not allowed to post private messages on the public board.
I expect you will will go on and on in replying, rest assured you are back on ignore
Yet you started an entire thread based on my reply to your PM. Lol
-
hi Susan, yes Hartley did mention it, thanks I'm playing catchup all the time
Hi notsure difficult at times trying to remember who said what :)
-
haha point proven, you wouldn't have been able to keep your mouth shut that's for sure
I have asked the mods to remove your post as it is not allowed to post private messages on the public board.
I expect you will will go on and on in replying, rest assured you are back on ignore
Notsure I always look forward to every post and your not the troll on this forum.
I will report that post and hopefully that person will be banned very soon
-
Notsure I always look forward to every post and your not the troll on this forum.
I will report that post and hopefully that person will be banned very soon
thanks jackie
-
thanks jackie
Notsure you are one of the nicest people on this forum and many share my sentiments Xx
-
It's an article from the Independent which I don't have, though it may be on microfiche at the local library. It's the mixture of truth, half-truth and downright lies which make all his pronouncements incredibly difficult to decipher.
Hi Steve, how true was this, is there any reference in Colin's book? I know it's the News of the world?
http://www.newsoftheworld.top/2016/07/warped-killer-jeremy-bamber-is-hated-by.html
-
Hartley mentioned that he suggested that jb left it there deliberately
Oh OK, didn't see that. Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with the murders.
-
thanks jackie
Be like me Notsure, I have everyone on block now ha ha x
-
..or he used it to clean the silencer.
He couldn't have Steve, the tampon is too big for such use and if he had, cleaned it, there wouldn't have been blood on it.
-
Hi notsure
I agree with you on this one JB would not know about her period and if Sheila had left it in the lounge earlier June would have moved it as she would not want the children picking it up and back then periods/tampons were not talked about especially with parents that was the way in my home
My home too,Susan. A taboo subject only spoken of in mime fashion when mum spoke to her sister ( Cissie and Ada style )
-
Hi Steve, how true was this, is there any reference in Colin's book? I know it's the News of the world?
http://www.newsoftheworld.top/2016/07/warped-killer-jeremy-bamber-is-hated-by.html
Maybe the reason Luke Mitchell couldn't find any books in the library on Satan is because Bamber had them all.
-
Hi Steve, how true was this, is there any reference in Colin's book? I know it's the News of the world?
http://www.newsoftheworld.top/2016/07/warped-killer-jeremy-bamber-is-hated-by.html
Hi justice I don't remember any reference to this in Colin's book, though the film was huge at the time and Jeremy probably thought it funny with the mother and daughter parallel with his own family.
-
Be like me Notsure, I have everyone on block now ha ha x
Including me ? ;D
-
Including me ? ;D
Did someone say something? Ha Ha not you Lookout x
-
Did he ever have the slightest inkling of the impact of his crimes or prepare in any way for the aftermath? He knows like the fox that the killing of Nicholas and Daniel was totally unjustifiable which is why he brought them into the letter, mentioning them by name. They died along with Sheila so he did not have to share the spoils, they were not emotionally disturbed but had survived the school of hard knocks and felt a compassion for their fellow friends unique in children of their age, a trait they had inherited from both their unassuming, altruistic parents.
Jeez Steve, can you really write that with a straight face? Sheila was an unassuming altruistic parent? She was a full blown paranoid schizophrenic who six weeks earlier said “All people are bad and deserve to be killed.” You should know that better than anyone by the obvious thoroughness with which you have researched the background to the sorry saga.
You have me completely flummoxed.
How depressing.
-
Jeez Steve, can you really write that with a straight face? Sheila was an unassuming altruistic parent? She was a full blown paranoid schizophrenic who six weeks earlier said “All people are bad and deserve to be killed.” You should know that better than anyone by the obvious thoroughness with which you have researched the background to the sorry saga.
You have me completely flummoxed.
How depressing.
I'm well aware of that and also aware of the limitations the concomitant medication places on the individual when in a psychotic state. They're far more likely to forget their period with the mess that entails, let alone shoot four dead without missing once and wield the rifle in such a way as to conveniently dispatch oneself for Jeremy situated four miles away to inherit.
-
Steve,nobody would miss a shot from a couple of feet away,or less.Even if you had one eye.
-
I'm well aware of that and also aware of the limitations the concomitant medication places on the individual when in a psychotic state. They're far more likely to forget their period with the mess that entails, let alone shoot four dead without missing once and wield the rifle in such a way as to conveniently dispatch oneself for Jeremy situated four miles away to inherit.
We see different things Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPCoe-6RRks
-
hi Susan, yes Hartley did mention it, thanks I'm playing catchup all the time
Yeah, I don't think that anymore since Caroline showed that it was a toy silencer.
-
The shots to the lip/law were also at a downwards trajectory. Read Vanezis trial testimony. I have attached the relevant transcript in this post.
I think it's a case of making uneducated assumptions.
The bullet tracts being downwards does not necessarily relate to the trajectory of the bullet before it struck it's target, just the route it took after hitting bone.
In any event, Nevilles head would/could have been lower than the rifle whilst he was in the bedroom, the shell casings indicate that he must have been shot in the main bedroom.
I don't actually see how suggesting otherwise aids your cause.
-
I think it's a case of making uneducated assumptions.
The bullet tracts being downwards does not necessarily relate to the trajectory of the bullet before it struck it's target, just the route it took after hitting bone.
In any event, Nevilles head would/could have been lower than the rifle whilst he was in the bedroom, the shell casings indicate that he must have been shot in the main bedroom.
I don't actually see how suggesting otherwise aids your cause.
The shell casings show where the shooter was standing. They are scattered around the doorway. Sheila shot June 5 times then immediately prepared to shoot Nevill as he came up the stairs. She shot him twice surprising him, as he could not see her till he came around the winder. He turned and she fired twice at his left shoulder and the gun was empty.
That is what happened Hartley.
-
The shell casings show where the shooter was standing. They are scattered around the doorway. Sheila shot June 5 times then immediately prepared to shoot Nevill as he came up the stairs. She shot him twice surprising him, as he could not see her till he came around the winder. He turned and she fired twice at his left shoulder and the gun was empty.
That is what happened Hartley.
The shell casings are in the bedroom not the stairs.
It actually makes little difference but you keep claiming things as fact which you can't possibly know.
-
The shell casings are in the bedroom not the stairs.
It actually makes little difference but you keep claiming things as fact which you can't possibly know.
Prove what couldn't happen and you are left with what must have happened to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes.
Start with the notion it is impossible to persuade a young woman to lie down and be shot in suicide pose beside the wrecked body of her mother, and after shooting her twins 8 times in the head.
Move on to the stupidity of shooting a woman before a 2 meter tall fit farmer from a doorway.
Eventually you arrive at what must have happened, and my reconstruction is as close as need be, ask Taff Jones please.
What is in the water up there? You can't hoodwink us in New Zealand.
-
Prove what couldn't happen and you are left with what must have happened to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes.
Start with the notion it is impossible to persuade a young woman to lie down and be shot in suicide pose beside the wrecked body of her mother, and after shooting her twins 8 times in the head.
Move on to the stupidity of shooting a woman before a 2 meter tall fit farmer from a doorway.
Eventually you arrive at what must have happened, and my reconstruction is as close as need be, ask Taff Jones please.
What is in the water up there? You can't hoodwink us in New Zealand.
You were hoodwinked over David Bain, but as there's 11,000 miles between us I'll let that suffice. As for Sheila let's get this right:
Saturday night she spent at a party staring at Julie and admiring her make-up. She had no interest in the twins, who jumped on her lap and felt so exhausted she asked Colin to take her home as she was too frightened to ask her brother. In the end he and Julie took her home and returned to the party.
The following day Colin drove Sheila and the twins down to White House Farm. Sheila never spoke a word in the car.
Monday a workman arrived at the Farm and described a happy, domestic scene with the twins playing normally. The housekeeper Jean Boutell noted no problems.
Tuesday Sheila accompanied her mother to Tiptree on a shopping expedition. She was described as "vacant" by the shopkeeper. On the Tuesday evening June put Sheila on the telephone when Pamela called at 10pm but Sheila didn't say "goodnight Auntie Pam" as usual. June said her daughter was tired and was off to bed.
Suddenly at some point in the night Sheila turns into some whirling dervish and remembers the gun on the settle that Jeremy, then June, then Nevill forgot to make safe. The bullets which Jeremy spilled in full view on the blue and white chequered worktop and whose remainder are too numerous to tally with the bullets used in the crime are again left out by June after her sister's telephone call and Nevill's late night walk with the dog.
Sheila takes up the rifle, creeps upstairs (before or after her period?) and shoots Nevill on the stairs or in the bedroom or both, shoots June in bed, kills her sons, manages to cut off a call from her father to Jeremy but not to Police, struggles with him in the kitchen during which a light fitting gets smashed, bashes him over the head with the rifle stock then writes a suicide note waiting for Police to arrive, shoots herself once in the kitchen then scampers back up the staircase and chooses to lie down next to June whereupon she decides to shoot herself again out of earshot of Police, who by this time have stormed the building. She has changed out of her bloodstained clothes, leaving her tracksuit bottoms and knickers to soak whilst burning her top and bra in the Aga and changing into her nightie for comfort..
https://youtu.be/Jbr4sSXHGRw
-
You were hoodwinked over David Bain, but as there's 11,000 miles between us I'll let that suffice. As for Sheila let's get this right:
Saturday night she spent at a party staring at Julie and admiring her make-up. She had no interest in the twins, who jumped on her lap and felt so exhausted she asked Colin to take her home as she was too frightened to ask her brother. In the end he and Julie took her home and returned to the party.
The following day Colin drove Sheila and the twins down to White House Farm. Sheila never spoke a word in the car.
Monday a workman arrived at the Farm and described a happy, domestic scene with the twins playing normally. The housekeeper Jean Boutell noted no problems.
Tuesday Sheila accompanied her mother to Tiptree on a shopping expedition. She was described as "vacant" by the shopkeeper. On the Tuesday evening June put Sheila on the telephone when Pamela called at 10pm but Sheila didn't say "goodnight Auntie Pam" as usual. June said her daughter was tired and was off to bed.
Suddenly at some point in the night Sheila turns into some whirling dervish and remembers the gun on the settle that Jeremy, then June, then Nevill forgot to make safe. The bullets which Jeremy spilled in full view on the blue and white chequered worktop and whose remainder are too numerous to tally with the bullets used in the crime are again left out by June after her sister's telephone call and Nevill's late night walk with the dog.
Sheila takes up the rifle, creeps upstairs (before or after her period?) and shoots Nevill on the stairs or in the bedroom or both, shoots June in bed, kills her sons, manages to cut off a call from her father to Jeremy but not to Police, struggles with him in the kitchen during which a light fitting gets smashed, bashes him over the head with the rifle stock then writes a suicide note waiting for Police to arrive, shoots herself once in the kitchen then scampers back up the staircase and chooses to lie down next to June whereupon she decides to shoot herself again out of earshot of Police, who by this time have stormed the building. She has changed out of her bloodstained clothes, leaving her tracksuit bottoms and knickers to soak whilst burning her top and bra in the Aga and changing into her nightie for comfort..
https://youtu.be/Jbr4sSXHGRw
From this litany of false statements could you please provide documentation of the suicide note as proven to be found at the crime scene. The one I have seen is not written by Sheila, the cursive at the base of the letters is completely different.
Beyond that, there was no fight in the kitchen, and the scratch under the mantle piece is planted evidence, by Stan Jones or Ann Eaton, take your pick.
-
Did he ever have the slightest inkling of the impact of his crimes or prepare in any way for the aftermath? He knows like the fox that the killing of Nicholas and Daniel was totally unjustifiable which is why he brought them into the letter, mentioning them by name. They died along with Sheila so he did not have to share the spoils, they were not emotionally disturbed but had survived the school of hard knocks and felt a compassion for their fellow friends unique in children of their age, a trait they had inherited from both their unassuming, altruistic parents.
that didn't answer my question at all steve, read my post again.
-
I have highlighted on kindle many passages from Carol Ann Lee's excellent book, which she purports to sign off with an open verdict. LOL.
Although the scene was treated as a major crime scene, there was without doubt a certain lack of urgency in submission of articles to the laboratory and a mistake was made in advising the coroner that the bodies of the victims could be disposed of. Also, as will be seen from the statements of the Eatons and Boutflours, the police search of the premises failed to reveal a vital piece of evidence, namely the sound moderator. Additionally, the police failed to realise the significance of Sheila’s appearance, ie., relatively clean hands and nails immaculate, feet clear of blood. Also the failure to realise that Sheila, in her nightdress, had no means readily available to enable her to carry around the necessary cartridges to reload the rifle at least twice. I make these points at this stage of the report as I feel strongly that the prosecution will receive justifiable criticism from the defence on these points and it would be foolish for us not to agree that this was the case.
So:
Sheila had no means to carry cartridges to reload.
At which point did she require cartridges at hand?
She emptied 5 to June and 4 to Nevill, who by this time had his head in the coal scuttle.
The twins slept through all this, we know because they were shot later, and they were asleep.
She reloaded and delivered two pairs of shots to Nevill's head, then on heading upstairs found June had crawled to the doorway. She mercy killed June, then reloaded and mercy killed the twins.
Much later she shot herself, because the livor mortis had not started when photographed.
-
The shell casings show where the shooter was standing. They are scattered around the doorway. Sheila shot June 5 times then immediately prepared to shoot Nevill as he came up the stairs. She shot him twice surprising him, as he could not see her till he came around the winder. He turned and she fired twice at his left shoulder and the gun was empty.
That is what happened Hartley.
Have you got an independent diagram of the bullet casing location in the bedroom ?
-
I have highlighted on kindle many passages from Carol Ann Lee's excellent book, which she purports to sign off with an open verdict. LOL.
Although the scene was treated as a major crime scene, there was without doubt a certain lack of urgency in submission of articles to the laboratory and a mistake was made in advising the coroner that the bodies of the victims could be disposed of. Also, as will be seen from the statements of the Eatons and Boutflours, the police search of the premises failed to reveal a vital piece of evidence, namely the sound moderator. Additionally, the police failed to realise the significance of Sheila’s appearance, ie., relatively clean hands and nails immaculate, feet clear of blood. Also the failure to realise that Sheila, in her nightdress, had no means readily available to enable her to carry around the necessary cartridges to reload the rifle at least twice. I make these points at this stage of the report as I feel strongly that the prosecution will receive justifiable criticism from the defence on these points and it would be foolish for us not to agree that this was the case.
So:
Sheila had no means to carry cartridges to reload.
At which point did she require cartridges at hand?
She emptied 5 to June and 4 to Nevill, who by this time had his head in the coal scuttle.
The twins slept through all this, we know because they were shot later, and they were asleep.
She reloaded and delivered two pairs of shots to Nevill's head, then on heading upstairs found June had crawled to the doorway. She mercy killed June, then reloaded and mercy killed the twins.
Much later she shot herself, because the livor mortis had not started when photographed.
All this about the police & crime scene is common knowledge. It was the way all police worked then. Douglas Hurd making new laws on how crime scenes are treated after the trial.
I agree the twins slept through it all. If they slept through a Sheila massacre, they would certainly sleep through a Bamber massacre, as Sheila would have as well.
I also agree Sheila or Bamber didn't need to take cartridges upstairs with them. Both would have gone upstairs with a fully loaded rifle. Sheila after Nevill let her load the magazine into the rifle and go upstairs.
-
My home too,Susan. A taboo subject only spoken of in mime fashion when mum spoke to her sister ( Cissie and Ada style )
Hahaha Lookout I remember that too X
-
Yeah, I don't think that anymore since Caroline showed that it was a toy silencer.
Morning Hartley
I cannot find the post in which Caroline suggested the tampon was used as a small silencer although it would be the kinda thing children would use especially with a small gun and I now don't think it has anything to do with the murders along with lots of other stuff posted on here :)
-
The shell casings are in the bedroom not the stairs.
It actually makes little difference but you keep claiming things as fact which you can't possibly know.
People are very creative and the Internet allows them to pull up items that they think are facts, when in fact, they’re not facts Hartley.
-
Morning Hartley
I cannot find the post in which Caroline suggested the tampon was used as a small silencer although it would be the kinda thing children would use especially with a small gun and I now don't think it has anything to do with the murders along with lots of other stuff posted on here :)
Morning Susan.
I think Caroline made the suggestion yesterday but I can't seem to find it now.
The suggestion of the children playing with it was also made in a couple of old threads back in 2011 and 2012. Along with suggestions that it was planted.
I must admit, I didn't really appreciate exactly what it was. Ann seemed to think it was an odd place for it to be. :-\
-
Morning Susan.
I think Caroline made the suggestion yesterday but I can't seem to find it now.
The suggestion of the children playing with it was also made in a couple of old threads back in 2011 and 2012. Along with suggestions that it was planted.
I must admit, I didn't really appreciate exactly what it was. Ann seemed to think it was an odd place for it to be. :-\
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7101.msg385284.html#msg385284
-
that didn't answer my question at all steve, read my post again.
Does anybody ever answer anyone? Anyway he's guilty so your cri de coeur fell on deaf ears I'm afraid.
-
Does anybody ever answer anyone? Anyway he's guilty so your cri de coeur fell on deaf ears I'm afraid.
lol yes it did didn't it, never mind eh
-
lol yes it did didn't it, never mind eh
Jeremy committed the acts thinking he was doing everyone a favour, the largest beneficiary being himself. His letters to Colin show the bitterness that he profited from a book, the relatives inherited the bulk of the estate and Jeremy himself ended up with nothing.
His campaign since is symptomatic of the mindset of a mass murderer bent on deception and not someone who genuinely feels aggrieved through a miscarriage of justice.
-
Prove what couldn't happen and you are left with what must have happened to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes.
Start with the notion it is impossible to persuade a young woman to lie down and be shot in suicide pose beside the wrecked body of her mother, and after shooting her twins 8 times in the head.
Move on to the stupidity of shooting a woman before a 2 meter tall fit farmer from a doorway.
Eventually you arrive at what must have happened, and my reconstruction is as close as need be, ask Taff Jones please.
What is in the water up there? You can't hoodwink us in New Zealand.
I am a bit concerned Samson are you part of the Official Campaign Team
-
Jeremy committed the acts thinking he was doing everyone a favour, the largest beneficiary being himself. His letters to Colin show the bitterness that he profited from a book, the relatives inherited the bulk of the estate and Jeremy himself ended up with nothing.
His campaign since is symptomatic of the mindset of a mass murderer bent on deception and not someone who genuinely feels aggrieved through a miscarriage of justice.
Agreed Steve! Especially your last para!
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7101.msg385284.html#msg385284
Thank you Caroline for the link just goes to show I should read the entire post :)
-
Thank you Caroline for the link just goes to show I should read the entire post :)
No probs - it was quite far back.
-
I am a bit concerned Samson are you part of the Official Campaign Team
No.I have absolutely nothing to do with anyone in England.
My interest is fired by the fact the Bain travesty is more or less identical, and David Bain has children being brought up with half their country thinking their father is a mass killer, yet David Bain's father had serious mental issues and did the crime. The Bamber case is oft cited to demonstrate that 23 year old men will do mass murder and staged suicide to hasten their inheritance.
Beyond that I do what I can in the Lundy case.
What is important to realise is the Bamber case is like a score around the world, an obviously manufactured case by stupid police who have led even sillier relatives by the nose. The case should preoccupy you lot as a national shame in my opinion.
-
It's a disgrace Samson and what's more the battle to seek justice is even worse when dealing with old wind-bags who probably should have retired years ago.
-
No.I have absolutely nothing to do with anyone in England.
My interest is fired by the fact the Bain travesty is more or less identical, and David Bain has children being brought up with half their country thinking their father is a mass killer, yet David Bain's father had serious mental issues and did the crime. The Bamber case is oft cited to demonstrate that 23 year old men will do mass murder and staged suicide to hasten their inheritance.
Beyond that I do what I can in the Lundy case.
What is important to realise is the Bamber case is like a score around the world, an obviously manufactured case by stupid police who have led even sillier relatives by the nose. The case should preoccupy you lot as a national shame in my opinion.
Oh I get it now: you're a Kiwi doctor!
-
Jeremy committed the acts thinking he was doing everyone a favour, the largest beneficiary being himself. His letters to Colin show the bitterness that he profited from a book, the relatives inherited the bulk of the estate and Jeremy himself ended up with nothing.
His campaign since is symptomatic of the mindset of a mass murderer bent on deception and not someone who genuinely feels aggrieved through a miscarriage of justice.
how do you know that he's not someone genuinely aggrieved. You don't steve that's just your opinion. My mind Is open and I have to think about how I would have reacted if I was sent to prison for something I didn't do.
-
how do you know that he's not someone genuinely aggrieved. You don't steve that's just your opinion. My mind Is open and I have to think about how I would have reacted if I was sent to prison for something I didn't do.
His letters simply read as somebody who justifiably, in defence of himself, is prepared to dish out a few home truths. There is some emotive language but there is also a ring of truth in some of the content.
-
His letters simply read as somebody who justifiably, in defence of himself, is prepared to dish out a few home truths. There is some emotive language but there is also a ring of truth in some of the content.
agreed roch
what is an innocent man supposed to do, catch 22 isn't it
-
I can't think of anything worse when telling the truth,knowing it's the truth and nobody believing you.
-
agreed roch
what is an innocent man supposed to do, catch 22 isn't it
Or a guilty one for that matter.
-
how do you know that he's not someone genuinely aggrieved. You don't steve that's just your opinion. My mind Is open and I have to think about how I would have reacted if I was sent to prison for something I didn't do.
He's genuinely aggrieved that he got caught out in committing what he described to Julie as the "perfect crime". Of course it's all circumstantial, because how can you prove someone shot themselves wilfully or whether another hand was on the weapon to guide the shot..
-
He's genuinely aggrieved that he got caught out in committing what he described to Julie as the "perfect crime". Of course it's all circumstantial, because how can you prove someone shot themselves wilfully or whether another hand was on the weapon to guide the shot..
The proof is one of Sheila's shots was a contact shot. Yet there was no blood on the rifle end. However human/Sheila's blood was in the silencer. Dispersed in there through back splatter.
Nugs's suggestion that RB found out he had similar blood to Sheila and shot himself, to perfectly replicate blood back splatter in the silencer, and then perfectly scratched the aga has no supporting evidence.
-
This topic was getting very confusing as it had branched out into something about Mark Lundy. I have moved those posts to the Other High Profile Cases board under a new title of 'Mark Lundy'.
-
This topic was getting very confusing as it had branched out into something about Mark Lundy. I have moved those posts to the Other High Profile Cases board under a new title of 'Mark Lundy'.
Good idea, but there are now two threads there with the same title, David 1819 started one on september 2016, so can they be merged?
An excellent case to study, I have all the files. He is innocent just like Jeremy.
We must fight to get him out of jail as well.
-
Good idea, but there are now two threads there with the same title, David 1819 started one on september 2016, so can they be merged?
An excellent case to study, I have all the files. He is innocent just like Jeremy.
We must fight to get him out of jail as well.
Those two topics have been merged.
-
The proof is one of Sheila's shots was a contact shot. Yet there was no blood on the rifle end. However human/Sheila's blood was in the silencer. Dispersed in there through back splatter.
Nugs's suggestion that RB found out he had similar blood to Sheila and shot himself, to perfectly replicate blood back splatter in the silencer, and then perfectly scratched the aga has no supporting evidence.
Wrong.
https://youtu.be/yPRd912xv9M?t=9m46s (https://youtu.be/yPRd912xv9M?t=9m46s)
-
Wrong.
https://youtu.be/yPRd912xv9M?t=9m46s (https://youtu.be/yPRd912xv9M?t=9m46s)
I think Sutherst got hammered behind the scenes. The scratch-marks seems to have been put on the back-burner.
One thing I always wanted to know about him though - was that Mike Tesko claimed Sutherst aided the defence by establishing the sequence of photography. Frustratingly, Mike has never given any further explanation or details as to Sutherst's assistance in this area.
-
I think Sutherst got hammered behind the scenes. The scratch-marks seems to have been put on the back-burner.
Suthursts evidence should have been submitted along with the evidence that precludes the alleged fight from taking place. No fight = No scratch marks.
It all meshes together 8)
-
Suthursts evidence should have been submitted along with the evidence that precludes the alleged fight from taking place. No fight = No scratch marks.
It all meshes together 8)
I agree, but why didn't the defence do just that?
-
Why didn't the defence call the bank manager?
-
He agreed not to prosecute Mugford, why?
-
She went to court squeaky clean, why?
-
None of the girls were prosecuted for cheque book fraud, why?
-
Suthursts evidence should have been submitted along with the evidence that precludes the alleged fight from taking place. No fight = No scratch marks.
It all meshes together 8)
The CCRC or crown's photographic expert challenged Sutherst's findings.
-
I agree, but why didn't the defence do just that?
When did Smethurst come onto the scene ? Thought it was a long time after the trial & 2002 appeal.
-
The CCRC or crown's photographic expert challenged Sutherst's findings.
So what. The defence could have challenged.
-
When did Smethurst come onto the scene ? Thought it was a long time after the trial & 2002 appeal.
Don't know Adam perhaps Mike can help.
-
So what. The defence could have challenged.
Either his findings were open to question or he overstepped his remit. I'm not sure which.
-
I agree, but why didn't the defence do just that?
Because its an idea of mine that I could only have thought of with the magic superpower of hindsight. :(
-
Because its an idea of mine that I could only have thought of with the magic superpower of hindsight. :(
I didn't get that at all.
-
I think David's upset that his 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' hasn't been used by the CT. As his 'What a waste of time & money' thread on red shows.
Not to worry. It livened up the discussion a bit for a few days. Even Scipio re surfaced on Red.
-
I think David's upset that his 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' hasn't been used by the CT. As his 'What a waste of time & money' thread on red shows.
Not to worry. It livened up the discussion a bit for a few days. Even Scipio re surfaced on Red.
I am not David123
-
It's all gone every quiet :o
-
It's all gone every quiet :o
I was wondering whether prisoners should be allowed access to the mass media of the modern age, including Facebook, Twitter & C, allowing convicted criminals the opportunity to promote themselves and their cause, or would the oxygen of publicity be too high a prize as reward as we see Darlie Routier's long blond hair and pleading face and before we know it we're judging her on her appearance on the day and not the cold, hard, facts of the case.
I sometimes think the Establishment is frightened of any adverse publicity and should a case remain in the public domain for a protracted period they may well come to the conclusion that they have got their pound of flesh after so many year's incarceration and be more favourably disposed to render a conviction unsafe, though still unwilling to grant full absolution.Thus the cases of Sion Jenkins, Jonathan Jones, Sheila Bowler and Lisa and Michelle Taylor remain fresh in one's mind, innocent maybe in the eyes of the law, yet the cocksure judiciary remains unscathed, whatever the timeframe and the outcome of these cases.
-
I am not David123
You're right. It seems he is a new poster who joined in December 2016. His only threads have been complaining about the CT's approach. He's called David.
How do feel about the Bamber's 'Campaign for Freedom' not including you're 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' ?
-
You're right. It seems he is a new poster who joined in December 2016. His only threads have been complaining about the CT's approach. He's called David.
How do you know? his username could be an alias.
How do feel about the Bamber's 'Campaign for Freedom' not including you're 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' ?
As far as know, they don't know about it. Plus it shouldn't be in the public domain anyway. So I feel rather nonchalant.
-
How do you know? his username could be an alias.
As far as know, they don't know about it. Plus it shouldn't be in the public domain anyway. So I feel rather nonchalant.
Well don't wait too long..
-
I have just sat through thirty-eight minutes of a seemingly intelligent though ultimately unintelligible man who professes to illuminate the Jeremy Bamber case, which he continues to describe throughout as a simple case, and indeed it is, though not quite as simple as he imagines.
How one can possibly discern whether a young, gullible woman shot herself in the upstairs bedroom of an isolated Essex farmhouse, or whether the gun was placed in her hands by another before the shot was discharged has been the subject of conjecture for the past thirty-one years. According to Bambergate all the written evidence is there, except when it is held under Public Interest Immunity and it is not.
We are told the case breaks down conveniently into three manageable segments, though I defy anyone to come up with them readily after viewing. We are told Sheila shot herself downstairs before somehow escaping from Police with bullet in situ in her head and scampering up a staircase, to complete the job with (by implication) Anthony Pargeter's rifle in the master bedroom, even though the bolt had been removed therefrom.
https://youtu.be/GcaWYr3O3eE
-
I have just sat through thirty-eight minutes of a seemingly intelligent though ultimately unintelligible man who professes to illuminate the Jeremy Bamber case, which he continues to describe throughout as a simple case, and indeed it is, though not quite as simple as he imagines.
How one can possibly discern whether a young, gullible woman shot herself in the upstairs bedroom of an isolated Essex farmhouse, or whether the gun was placed in her hands by another before the shot was discharged has been the subject of conjecture for the past thirty-one years. According to Bambergate all the written evidence is there, except when it is held under Public Interest Immunity and it is not.
We are told the case breaks down conveniently into three manageable segments, though I defy anyone to come up with them readily after viewing. We are told Sheila shot herself downstairs before somehow escaping from Police with bullet in situ in her head and scampering up a staircase, to complete the job with (by implication) Anthony Pargeter's rifle in the master bedroom, even though the bolt had been removed therefrom.
https://youtu.be/GcaWYr3O3eE
Steve, well done. I could only manage 5 minutes, after which the feigned ingenuousness, total lack of sincerity and carefully orchestrated casualness got the better of me.
-
The man's doing his best,though he's not on his own at being adamant that JB was framed. In his determination to seek justice for JB,he's written dozens of letters to various people,including those who were concerned/involved during the tragedy. Including the husband of JM in Canada to which he got a reply from, which was of interest.
I have been reading the ramblings of RWB's " diary entries " which have more than a touch of desperation and envy both of which make excruciating reading. I can't believe that some of the entries in it were from someone who was supposedly " held in high regard " as a pillar of society. Could have fooled me ! More like a person scorned and hopping mad at the thought that HIS children were going to be deprived of something that was rightly theirs.
-
I have just sat through thirty-eight minutes of a seemingly intelligent though ultimately unintelligible man who professes to illuminate the Jeremy Bamber case, which he continues to describe throughout as a simple case, and indeed it is, though not quite as simple as he imagines.
How one can possibly discern whether a young, gullible woman shot herself in the upstairs bedroom of an isolated Essex farmhouse, or whether the gun was placed in her hands by another before the shot was discharged has been the subject of conjecture for the past thirty-one years. According to Bambergate all the written evidence is there, except when it is held under Public Interest Immunity and it is not.
We are told the case breaks down conveniently into three manageable segments, though I defy anyone to come up with them readily after viewing. We are told Sheila shot herself downstairs before somehow escaping from Police with bullet in situ in her head and scampering up a staircase, to complete the job with (by implication) Anthony Pargeter's rifle in the master bedroom, even though the bolt had been removed therefrom.
https://youtu.be/GcaWYr3O3eE
Not forgetting the " back " staircase which also led to the bedrooms.Was that tested for blood ?
-
Not forgetting the " back " staircase which also led to the bedrooms.Was that tested for blood ?
Judging by the clutter on the stairs, it's unlikely that anyone less agile than the twins could have negotiated them, let alone someone with a bullet in her head.
-
Judging by the clutter on the stairs, it's unlikely that anyone less agile than the twins could have negotiated them, let alone someone with a bullet in her head.
Sheila was lithesome and would have been aware of any clutter so would have avoided any unnecessary noise in flitting up the stairs. The first bullet wasn't in her head !
-
It crushed her jaw didn't it? Or was that the second? It amazes me how seemingly respectable individuals, usually though not exclusively of a scientific bent, fall for the charm of the seducer. I'm always concerned when someone states nonchalantly: "Jeremy is my friend."
-
Sheila was lithesome and would have been aware of any clutter so would have avoided any unnecessary noise in flitting up the stairs. The first bullet wasn't in her head !
You're right, for once. It shattered two vertebrae.
-
It crushed her jaw didn't it? Or was that the second? It amazes me how seemingly respectable individuals, usually though not exclusively of a scientific bent, fall for the charm of the seducer. I'm always concerned when someone states nonchalantly: "Jeremy is my friend."
From what I've been told, Jeremy's best friend was Jeremy. He made use of those who were useful to him until such time as they weren't.
-
"When Maggie talked about palmistry and the tarot we were all fascinated and very keen to have our hands read but personally I was very reticent about the tarot cards; they frightened the s*** out of me. In fact, ever since I could remember I have steered well clear of anything relating to what I thought of as the occult, black magic or death. To my mind the tarot fitted into the heavier side of the occult, and as such, commanded a lot of respect. I didn't realize then that the term "occult" meant virtually anything esoteric that was not connected to the Christian dogma-including Gnosticism, which was one of the earliest forms of Christianity.
The real question, in my opinion, is down to the motives behind the use of these tools: whether the practitioner is using them to empower, in that they are helping an individual to access unique information about themselves (like a modern computer database), which might enable that person to prepare for oncoming challenges-information they have every right to. Or whether those practices are being used to have power over another person or group.
Without a doubt it is the latter that causes me concern-even more so now. The same goes for ritual. There are both positive and negative rituals, which either serve to celebrate a higher purpose or to have power over others. My fear of black magic was a healthy fear and remains so. By the same token, I am equally fearful of extremism within any established religion. There is not a lot of difference.
With Maggie I felt no such threat. She revelled in our attention and would often keep us sitting up half the night with the promise of a reading. When we finally did strike lucky, at about six o' clock one morning, Maggie read my hands first and then Bambs'. The other two tenants had given up and gone to bed. For some reason she seemed totally uninterested in doing theirs yet very keen to do ours.
I had tremendous feelings of apprehension as we sat in Maggie's semi-darkened living room and she reached across the dark velvet-covered table for my hands. One thing I always loved about Maggie was her wonderful sense of the theatrical but I also noticed that her personality changed quite dramatically when she was working. She lost her normal disorganized and affected nature and took on a persona which was both serious and quite formidable. She had already explained that anybody could learn to read hands or the tarot but that she used them only as a focus to tune in, clairvoyantly, to her subject.
-
It crushed her jaw didn't it? Or was that the second? It amazes me how seemingly respectable individuals, usually though not exclusively of a scientific bent, fall for the charm of the seducer. I'm always concerned when someone states nonchalantly: "Jeremy is my friend."
Care to explain how Jeremy coerced Shelia into writing a five page suicide note?
-
"The reading I'll be giving you consists of three parts," she said. "The first will relate to the past, the second to the present and the third to the future." She then told us that in order to gauge the distance in time any one reading goes into the future, it is necessary to measure how far back into the past the first part goes. This can only be done by relating recognizable incidents to the sitter. The rime span between past and present will always be the same as the present in relation to the future. It was all to do with Time being a continuous spiral across the loops of which she could pick up echoes. She later explained that with most people the time span in reading was only a year or so at the most, but with Bambs and I it seemed to go much further back.
-
Care to explain how Jeremy coerced Shelia into writing a five page suicide note?
There's always the power of suggestion from an individual to someone in psychosis or catatonia. Would you care to explain how the bedroom telephone was moved beforehand and how Sheila unscrewed the sights from the murder weapon?
-
As Maggie looked at my hands she would occasionally stop talking, close her eyes and start rocking gently from side to side for short periods; sometimes she rocked backwards and forwards. Every time she opened her eyes and came out of these little trances she would make some quite outstanding revelations about my past, things she couldn't possibly have known about. The one that finally convinced me was to do with the circumstances surrounding an incident in my early teens when I broke a finger. I should first explain, however, that the little finger on my right hand is crooked and looks as if it has been broken at some point but is not actually the one that is broken.
-
As she held my hands she told me that I had once broken the bone in my little finger and I thought: "Aha, I've caught you!"
"The one on the left hand," she said, "and you broke it during a game of football which you didn't want to be part of; in fact you were bullied into the game." I sat there speechless as she rocked a little more and then said, "You weren't in goal, were you? That's what I'm getting." Then she added, "To look at you, I would have put you as a centre forward."
-
She had just described exactly an event going back to when I was about eleven or twelve years old. I had in fact been bullied into a game of football by one of the worst local thugs, who told me to stand in goal. On my first attempt to stop a ball it hit my left hand against the fence behind me and broke the little finger; an insignificant fracture but a significant revelation, after which Bambs and I sat and listened instantly to everything else she had to say.
-
There's always the power of suggestion from an individual to someone in psychosis or catatonia. Would you care to explain how the bedroom telephone was moved beforehand and how Sheila unscrewed the sights from the murder weapon?
There is no evidence that the garbled notes are a suicide letter.
-
There's always the power of suggestion from an individual to someone in psychosis or catatonia. Would you care to explain how the bedroom telephone was moved beforehand and how Sheila unscrewed the sights from the murder weapon?
I don't think the sights were on the rifle Steve.
The telephone would have been moved in case it rang and disturbed the twins. Anyone could have moved it for that purpose. As it happened Pam rang anyway when the boys would have been in bed.
-
Maggie then told me that I would be successful but not in the field I was then studying; she was getting images of what looked to her like a sculptor's armature and that this related, very strongly, to an unexpected achievement of mine during my early teens. I had, apparently. done or made something in such a way that my family were surprised I even had the knowledge, at that age, to do it. Of the many things she told me, most of which I can't remember, this stuck in my mind as a bit of a mystery and-apart from that fact that I had made a figure of a semi-naked Red Indian girl kneeling on the ground about then-in many ways it still does.
-
Maggie then went on to say that I would have two children, both boys, although one of them might be a girl or certainly very feminine. She also said that I would live into my mid-eighties. At this point, Bambs asked her if she could see how a person was going to die or whether she would actually tell anyone the circumstances of their death.
-
"I can see an awful lot of things," said Maggie, "but I will only tell a person what they mainly need to know. There is no constructive purpose in knowing how one is going to die, it would be too distressing and could even prevent someone from getting on with their life properly. In the circumstances of an early or traumatic death I would probably tell a lie if I had to or not mention it at all."
-
When it came to Bambs' turn she preferred to have hers done in private so I went upstairs to bed. When she came up, half an hour later, she told me quite a lot of what had been revealed and was excited to tell me that it looked likely that we would have children together. She had been told that she too would have two boys and, like me, there was confusion about one of them being a girl. "And I'm going to live into my nineties" she said proudly. "Maggie said I would live almost as long as my grandmother is going to, Granny Speakman that is.". Such well-chosen words in the circumstances, considering I wasn't to realize the significance of them until after I had written down this part of the story. Bambs died six months before Gran-so she really did live "almost as long."
-
Thanks for the excerpts from Colin's book Steve I was loath to read his book because it felt almost an intrusion but I'm so pleased I did it was very moving and I felt huge respect for the way he worked to eliminate his bitterness and find some kind of peace. I am sure Colin has grown and developed into a wise and thoughtful man, someone to be respected and very different from the naive self absorbed young man he was when he married Sheila.
-
You're right. It seems he is a new poster who joined in December 2016. His only threads have been complaining about the CT's approach. He's called David.
How do feel about the Bamber's 'Campaign for Freedom' not including you're 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' ?
David just ignore it. Nobody takes Adam seriously anyway. He is just trying to start trouble
-
Thanks for the excerpts from Colin's book Steve I was loath to read his book because it felt almost an intrusion but I'm so pleased I did it was very moving and I felt huge respect for the way he worked to eliminate his bitterness and find some kind of peace. I am sure Colin has grown and developed into a wise and thoughtful man, someone to be respected and very different from the naive self absorbed young man he was when he married Sheila.
A very insightful post Maggie. I'm sure many would wish to turn back the clock if they so could.
-
From what I've been told, Jeremy's best friend was Jeremy. He made use of those who were useful to him until such time as they weren't.
Same old same old
'From what I've been told'
-
Same old same old
'From what I've been told'
Yep, Same old, same old.
http://www.bestsongspk.com/watch/FdnAlSBNceM
Susan I have not done much lately but after I received new information I would like a six part documentary made on the murders. There is only one person for the job so I am pushing for that at the moment
There has to be a series for maximum impact
Above is an old video that got over 1000 views
We have to get the case out there in detail to get to the truth
-
Same old same old
'From what I've been told'
Jackie isn't that your font of knowledge? You've been hoisted on your own petard.
-
I have to congratulate Jackie for her enthusiasm and determination.
At least she has shown willingness in assisting what has to be the worst MOJ in British history.
-
I have to congratulate Jackie for her enthusiasm and determination.
At least she has shown willingness in assisting what has to be the worst MOJ in British history.
Unlike Bob Woffindon!
-
Unlike Bob Woffindon!
He'll be another one left licking his wounds !
-
He'll be another one left licking his wounds !
What wounds?
-
Unlike Bob Woffindon!
Bob Woffindon changed stance.
-
When I went to see Betty, about four months before the trial, I still held this image of all mediums being rather eccentric and theatrical, with homes to match, like Maggie or Madame Arcati in George Bernard Shaw's Blythe Spirit. But this was not to be the case with Betty. She was a fair-haired motherly woman in her mid-fifties whose most outstanding feature was her wonderful laugh. The room she led me to was equally unpretentious, simple-much like a doctor's surgery, with a desk and a treatment table. Most surprising, though, was the fact that there was no hint of her going into a trance or anything like that-she didn't even close her eyes. She said she didn't need to.
The session was taped.
"With you, as I'm talking to you..I'm getting a terrible tragedy-a really terrible tragedy! Does this involve two children? And your ex-wife? ( I had already mentioned to her, on the telephone-almost to throw her off the scent-that I had lost my ex-wife. I gave no other clues.) But there were two or three other people involved...older people...two men and a woman but the young man...a young one...he's still alive. Is he in a mental home?"
Somewhat surprised, I responded immediately. "No, he's in Norwich Prison."
"He's where?"
"Norwich Prison-if it's the man I'm thinking of."
"Oh, well, he's mad. I mean...I get that he should be in a mental home."
I nodded.
-
Betty then went on to describe the two children, one of whom sounded much younger than the other. Also she was not sure if one of them was a little girl, just as Maggie had also described them-it was not uncommon for either Daniel or Nicholas to run around with a dress on.
"I'm getting a child's voice shouting at me," said Betty, "saying, "Come on, Dad, cheer up, we're all right!" And although he was only small, I think he'd been here...back here so many times, he's an old soul, and I think that he is around you all the time. Was there a girl involved, a little girl? Did you have a daughter or was it another son? Two boys."
"Twin boys."
"Twin boys! Well one of them was more feminine than the other."
"Yes."
"Yes, because that one is shyer and he's hiding behind the other one that's a but forceful and so I get the feeling that it's either a girl or he was shyer, more feminine, than the other one. Very artistic he would have been, you know? But these children are around you the whole time, they are, er...it may be funny to say so but they are laughing here."
"I feel they are."
-
"This kiddy really shouted to me, "Come on, Dad, come on, Dad! Come on, Dad, we're all right!"
"He always put on a baby voice, the other one was wiser."
"Yes, but all I can say is although it's tragic, they're very happy. It's almost as though they made the transition so quickly that they didn't have time to think about anything. It wasn't tragic because I think they didn't know. Do you know anything about that? It's almost as though they could have been asleep and so they made the transition while they were asleep. That's what I get-so that nothing was known about it."
-
Steve, thank-you SO much for these excerpts. I read Colin's book back in the early 90's. Reading it now reminds me how moved by it, I was. Looking back, it was around that time, in need of direction, I had a natal chart done, the accuracy of which, was astounding. I can understand how Colin would have been blown away by what he was told. I'm aware that, according to what one is searching for and one's difficulty in finding it, such things can become addictive. I've not felt the need to search in such places since. That's not to say my life is perfect. I've perfected my copying mechanisms!!!
-
Betty then went on to talk about Bambs, when she suddenly stopped and said, "Who's Nicholas? Someone's just called out, "You'll know that I'm Nicholas!" So I wondered who Nicholas was."
"Well there's quite a few Nicholas's I know."
"No, no, this is the child's voice and I didn't know if it's another child involved or anything like that."
In that moment I knew, without a doubt, it was the boys. Daniel had never felt a need to make the distinction. Betty continued:
"Um...but your own life...Your ex-wife...you will not get into communication with her for a long, long, time and someone is saying to me, "Please tell him not to try!"
-
"This kiddy really shouted to me, "Come on, Dad, come on, Dad! Come on, Dad, we're all right!"
"He always put on a baby voice, the other one was wiser."
"Yes, but all I can say is although it's tragic, they're very happy. It's almost as though they made the transition so quickly that they didn't have time to think about anything. It wasn't tragic because I think they didn't know. Do you know anything about that? It's almost as though they could have been asleep and so they made the transition while they were asleep. That's what I get-so that nothing was known about it."
It's very strange that this woman describes them in the way she does. I've always seen them as ethereal wisps.
-
Steve, thank-you SO much for these excerpts. I read Colin's book back in the early 90's. Reading it now reminds me how moved by it, I was. Looking back, it was around that time, in need of direction, I had a natal chart done, the accuracy of which, was astounding. I can understand how Colin would have been blown away by what he was told. I'm aware that, according to what one is searching for and one's difficulty in finding it, such things can become addictive. I've not felt the need to search in such places since. That's not to say my life is perfect. I've perfected my copying mechanisms!!!
Hi Jane there's a bit about the crock of gold, the Rainbow's End, which I might not get to today, but which does encapsulate Colin's journey. I feel that if Colin can cope with the momentous events which engulfed him then it's humbling for the rest of us somehow to make the best of what we have and try and learn from his experiences.
-
It's very strange that this woman describes them in the way she does. I've always seen them as ethereal wisps.
They were mature beyond their years, possessing the best qualities of their parents respectively: thoughtful, humane. I don't think Jeremy could cope with it..
-
Hi Jane there's a bit about the crock of gold, the Rainbow's End, which I might not get to today, but which does encapsulate Colin's journey. I feel that if Colin can cope with the momentous events which engulfed him then it's humbling for the rest of us somehow to make the best of what we have and try and learn from his experiences.
Colin endured the very worst that can happen to any of us. On a purely, and totally beyond our control, esoteric level, I've often felt that the boys were never destined for a long life. However, they certainly should not have had to leave this world in the way they did.
-
They were mature beyond their years, possessing the best qualities of their parents respectively: thoughtful, humane. I don't think Jeremy could cope with it..
I think you've got it, Steve. Those boys were beyond childhood. Thinking about it, they needed to be, didn't they? They were sent into the care of adults who were yet children.
-
"I don't want to really try..."
"No?"
"I just wanted to know...I was wondering about what you were saying, that the twins made the transition very easily. Did she?" I was desperate to find out if Bambs had known anything about it or whether, as I now suspected, she had also been asleep.
"Um...I feel that she still doesn't know what's happening to her. I just feel that she wouldn't be suffering because I feel the mind is energy and it's the mind and what we achieve that goes with us. With her, her mind was already disturbed and so therefore the shock of leaving her physical body... It's another shock on top of her already disturbed mind, so, therefore, she would be in a state of peace for quite a long time. I feel that she is being looked after and she needs a long period of rest and I believe that is what she's having. The information I'm getting through is that she is at peace and when she does eventually come out of this peaceful rest, everything will be so beautiful that she will automatically accept it, that this has happened."
-
"There is another man coming through, a rather forceful man,um..and he, I am afraid, is still angry but that is something he will have to deal with. He's talking about his son, who, um...(long pause). He's saying to me about you as well, that.."We were mistaken about you. We see things in a different light and we were wrong." Now I don't know what that means. It's about your relationship with your wife and he's just saying to you, he's a very positive man and there is no way he would say he was wrong if he hadn't found out he was wrong, through all sorts of ways, and he's just saying to you, "We were wrong." Who's David? "David" he's saying, "David knows all the answers." Now I don't know who David is."
-
"That would be his nephew. David is the one person I haven't really talked to and I feel that he has an awful lot to say but he's got to keep it to himself."
"Well, what he is saying to you is, David knows all the answers and at some time or another David is going to have to tell you."
"Yes."
"For his own progression, he has held back."
By this time both Betty and I were holding back the tears but she had also finally said enough to convince me that what she was telling me was authentic; the part about David having swung it conclusively. At this point in time I had been told that Bambs's cousin, David Boutflour, was going to be one of the most important witnesses at the trial, but that was all I knew. None of his evidence, including the fact that he had found the bloodstained silencer at the back of Nevill's gun cupboard was public knowledge. I certainly didn't know it.
-
Barbara had worked for many years and, as his secretary, knew more about the troubles within the family than anyone. She described their relationship as being more like father and daughter than a formal working one. She was one of the few people Nevill shared all his problems with. Fearful of Jeremy's release, and because of police instructions, Barbara had kept her entire story to herself before the trial-and even then, much of it was too prejudicial to be heard. It was only after June and Nevill's ashes had been buried, some months later, that she finally have her full story to the family. Like me, she had nothing to gain from her testimony but to see justice done.
-
When I saw Barbara, rather than asking direct questions, I told her all about my session with Betty. But when I came to the part about Nevill's anger, she immediately said, "That's because he knew he was going to die!" She then told me how Nevill had suspected for some months that Jeremy was planning to kill him-but thought he would be the only victim. He was convinced his death would come as the result of a shooting accident during the hunting season and never envisaged the entire family being at risk. For this reason he thought he had plenty of time and was in the process of tidying up all the loose ends regarding the farm and his financial affairs, just in case. He was also, apparently, preparing some sort of dossier on Jeremy and had told Barbara that he would soon have to do something very unpleasant that he wasn't looking forward to. He had been referring to handing over the dossier to the authorities. Nevill was angry with himself because his thoroughness and reluctance to turn in his son had led to the deaths of his entire family.
-
The death sentence will never be a deterrent to a disturbed or desperate mind. If a person is pathologically dangerous-as I suspect Jeremy is-then the life sentence should mean life and nothing less.
Now that may offend some of my new friends in prisons, but a sentence has to be what it says it is, otherwise it has no meaning. What might have greater meaning, however-and thereby give meaning and purpose to the whole experience of long-term incarceration-is to begin training inmates in the same skills I have acquired, so that they can begin to help each other in a positive and purposeful way. They are the people who are best equipped to help others coming into the system-not social workers and psychologists(although they do serve a vital purpose) but other "cons".
As a final thought about Jeremy, I suspect his pain is far more complex, more convoluted than anything I experienced at Saughton. He didn't snap suddenly, nor was he driven by an uncontrollable compulsion, like many of the sex offenders. But instead, without any compunction, affect or emotion, any real sense of guilt or remorse, he planned and schemed and waited for the right moment-when he could kill everybody! In that sense, I can see now, he really is "evil beyond belief" and there we depart from any common ground. I am nothing like him, and never will be. Jeremy simply served as a conduit through which I could access and begin to understand my own negative or destructive impulses.
In his book Inside Time, author Ken Smith described Jeremy as "a resident monster of the public imagination, dragged out into the tabloids to rattle at the public from time to time," and as such, "occupies a strange corner in the human psyche".
Yes, Jeremy Bamber touches the imagination-and it's a role he carries very well for us-but let's not forget that he is also very real and very dangerous. Can we ever really risk letting him out of that role, out of prison? I very much doubt it.
-
So what happened with my quest to find the "crock of gold"-my personal Grail? As a metaphor, was it just an illusion, or did I really discover what I was looking for? At some time or another we all dream of finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, yet it always seems an impossible dream; one which is just within walking distance of a solution, yet forever just over the hill. And that's where it's meant to be: just out of reach and forever urging us forward.
Bambs dreamed of wealth and a strong, creative husband to fulfil a life without worry but, like Psyche, her dream was clouded by her beauty. Jeremy also dreamt of riches, but impatient for luxury and fast-living-power-it ate at his soul, turned to greed and became his captor. Now he is even further away from the love that he and Bambs so desperately needed in an environment even more severe than the boarding school he had resented so much. That is a tragedy.
-
A child's view of a rainbow will always have mysterious significance, for we may never know what they have not yet forgotten. Nicholas often included one in his pictures but was never, as far as I know, told of the crock of gold. And in Daniel's case the gold was already in his heart as love and compassion. For me, it will always be the hope that, one day, I will meet my loved ones once again and walk with them in the forest of many colours. I also began to realise that, with all my searching on the horizon, I had failed to look at the ground at my feet, or inside me.
A rainbow is light broken down into its component parts; making the invisible visible and projecting it on a screen, usually a dark sky. In my own case a dark experience. Finding the pot of gold is about bringing all those colours back together again, inside our own hearts.
-
The twins knew where to find it-that crock of gold. In fact Nicholas even showed me his rainbow picture, if I had cared to look properly. He had drawn a bright yellow sun-which, as I said earlier, can often represent the father, in both the literal and spiritual sense-just below the foot of the rainbow. He was saying, in simple symbolic language, that the pot of gold, for him, was in heaven, in God, in the spiritual side of father; that everything I really needed was already in my hands, nowhere else.
-
The journey took many more twists and turns, with travels through many other dark tunnels before I began to realise this. My continuing work as a sculptor also played a powerful role, in that each piece, an image from the heart, led me to other unlived parts of myself, each with its own story and a key to unlock the next mystery.
And so it goes on...The rainbow has many colours, but like a dream it is only around for fleeting moments, and no matter how much we run towards it, we never seem to get any closer. It simply fades away into memory. And, like God, it is not something we can ever hang on to. But to experience its presence, in all its pure, vibrant colours, will always fill our hearts with joy. And that's all we can really hope for.
We are here,
we are not wanting.
We can all now love,
and laugh
and share our thoughts.
We can forget pride,
and live,
can't we?
Bambs, 14 February 1976
St. Valentine's Day
-
A child's view of a rainbow will always have mysterious significance, for we may never know what they have not yet forgotten. Nicholas often included one in his pictures but was never, as far as I know, told of the crock of gold. And in Daniel's case the gold was already in his heart as love and compassion. For me, it will always be the hope that, one day, I will meet my loved ones once again and walk with them in the forest of many colours. I also began to realise that, with all my searching on the horizon, I had failed to look at the ground at my feet, or inside me.
A rainbow is light broken down into its component parts; making the invisible visible and projecting it on a screen, usually a dark sky. In my own case a dark experience. Finding the pot of gold is about bringing all those colours back together again, inside our own hearts.
Poor Colin. He writes so beautifully and with such love.
-
Poor Colin. He writes so beautifully and with such love.
They were a trusting family-Colin, Bambs, Nicholas and Daniel. They never realized fully their material inheritance, but Bambs and Colin bequeathed their children those artistic talents which are either innate or they're not there.
-
Steve, the title of this thread has always stood out for me. It's a very thought provoking question.
My personal opinion is that both of these men are the victims of a tragedy brought about by Sheila's mental health. It's awful to try and imagine what she must have experienced.
The torment leading up to the killings... and torment after the killings. I imagine her skulking around the house, with the bodies of her victims, riddled with bullets. She was the only person in a house full of corpses. Her children and parents slain by her own hand - it must have been the lonliest and eeriest place on earth. I wonder whether she walked between rooms and corpses, surveying the pitiful scene, apologising to them. Or, she was numb to it all? Perhaps she was not and avoided the corpses and killing rooms because she couldn't face going in?
My own personal belief is that both of these men are also victim of corrupt police and self-serving, arrogant relatives. One man is aware of this and sadly, one man is not.
I say Colin is a victim of police and relatives - because he has been sold a false version of events - and his mindset is trapped within this. I find that very sad.
Who has the more rights between the two of them? - I really do not know the answer. But your thread as lasted 96 pages - which is some achievement.
-
They were a trusting family-Colin, Bambs, Nicholas and Daniel. They never realized fully their material inheritance, but Bambs and Colin bequeathed their children those artistic talents which are either innate or they're not there.
So sad Steve and to have it taken away by one mans greed, so sad we haven't seen this talent flourish, I think they would have been an asset to Osea leisure working with Anne's siblings, June and Neville would have been proud to see them working along side the family.
-
Steve, the title of this thread has always stood out for me. It's a very thought provoking question.
My personal opinion is that both of these men are the victims of a tragedy brought about by Sheila's mental health. It's awful to try and imagine what she must have experienced.
The torment leading up to the killings... and torment after the killings. I imagine her skulking around the house, with the bodies of her victims, riddled with bullets. She was the only person in a house full of corpses. Her children and parents slain by her own hand - it must have been the lonliest and eeriest place on earth. I wonder whether she walked between rooms and corpses, surveying the pitiful scene, apologising to them. Or, she was numb to it all? Perhaps she was not and avoided the corpses and killing rooms because she couldn't face going in?
My own personal belief is that both of these men are also victim of corrupt police and self-serving, arrogant relatives. One man is aware of this and sadly, one man is not.
I say Colin is a victim because he has been sold a false version of events and his mindset is trapped within this. I find that very sad.
Who has the more rights between the two of them? - I really do not know the answer. But your thread as lasted 96 pages - which is some achievement.
Hi Roch such an excellent post although very sad and heart wrenching. In my mind I see Sheila wandering around the lonely house so much at peace as she had in her own mind saved her family from the evils of the world I don't think she would have felt sad but happy she was shortly to be free of her tormented mind. Poor Sheila she was I think let down by the system. :( At the beginning Colin was I think convinced Sheila was responsible but he was fed erroneous information to change his mind and I wonder if he has ever thought how wrong he was to put the blame on Jeremy. I have no source to confirm this it is just my personal opinion.
-
Steve, the title of this thread has always stood out for me. It's a very thought provoking question.
My personal opinion is that both of these men are the victims of a tragedy brought about by Sheila's mental health. It's awful to try and imagine what she must have experienced.
The torment leading up to the killings... and torment after the killings. I imagine her skulking around the house, with the bodies of her victims, riddled with bullets. She was the only person in a house full of corpses. Her children and parents slain by her own hand - it must have been the lonliest and eeriest place on earth. I wonder whether she walked between rooms and corpses, surveying the pitiful scene, apologising to them. Or, she was numb to it all? Perhaps she was not and avoided the corpses and killing rooms because she couldn't face going in?
My own personal belief is that both of these men are also victim of corrupt police and self-serving, arrogant relatives. One man is aware of this and sadly, one man is not.
I say Colin is a victim because he has been sold a false version of events and his mindset is trapped within this. I find that very sad.
Who has the more rights between the two of them? - I really do not know the answer. But your thread as lasted 96 pages - which is some achievement.
I wish I could believe that the victims were killed out of love, not hate. But the overwhelming evidence is that Jeremy is responsible. Maybe it's a North-South divide that people reject Julie for that reason, or as Colin points out in his book we just cannot comprehend a good-looking bloke committing such heinous acts. I can't say for definite Jeremy is guilty-all I know that had I heard the evidence I would have convicted, tragic as it all was.
-
So sad Steve and to have it taken away by one mans greed, so sad we haven't seen this talent flourish, I think they would have been an asset to Osea leisure working with Anne's siblings, June and Neville would have been proud to see them working along side the family.
I totally agree Justice and though I'm not usually a huge fan of sculpture I can't help but admire the craftsmanship and expertise of Colin's handiwork, especially the models personal to his family, and who knows what hidden talents the twins had? Even if it turned out they had none it was such a waste and such a shocking crime.
-
Hi Roch such an excellent post although very sad and heart wrenching. In my mind I see Sheila wandering around the lonely house so much at peace as she had in her own mind saved her family from the evils of the world I don't think she would have felt sad but happy she was shortly to be free of her tormented mind. Poor Sheila she was I think let down by the system. :( At the beginning Colin was I think convinced Sheila was responsible but he was fed erroneous information to change his mind and I wonder if he has ever thought how wrong he was to put the blame on Jeremy. I have no source to confirm this it is just my personal opinion.
You can tell from her face there was no struggle, just a few seconds from being woken up to shot. I doubt she would know much about it and at least she died not knowing the fate of her sons in that contiguous chamber of death.
-
I'm sure politicians never thought out exactly what would happen to the mental health of prisoners in 1965 once the death penalty had been abolished and they were left to rot in those tiny cells for the long term.
-
I totally agree Justice and though I'm not usually a huge fan of sculpture I can't help but admire the craftsmanship and expertise of Colin's handiwork, especially the models personal to his family, and who knows what hidden talents the twins had? Even if it turned out they had none it was such a waste and such a shocking crime.
I think as they got older they would have been introduced to Osea leisure and would have enjoyed it, we had a grandson of the owners where I worked and he used to ride in the tractor with me, he used to follow me around all day and I would take him for rides on the beach, his grandad was so pleased when he used to help me. It was part of the progression to ownership, that's what surprises me about Bamber, he didn't seem to give or want this. He never talks about them much, he never says me and the twins used to ride the tractor, we went for walks when they came over etc, I was always busy but I found time for the grandchild and the family respected that.
-
You can tell from her face there was no struggle, just a few seconds from being woken up to shot. I doubt she would know much about it and at least she died not knowing the fate of her sons in that contiguous chamber of death.
Hi steve I agree Sheila looked so serene and at peace :(
-
I think as they got older they would have been introduced to Osea leisure and would have enjoyed it, we had a grandson of the owners where I worked and he used to ride in the tractor with me, he used to follow me around all day and I would take him for rides on the beach, his grandad was so pleased when he used to help me. It was part of the progression to ownership, that's what surprises me about Bamber, he didn't seem to give or want this. He never talks about them much, he never says me and the twins used to ride the tractor, we went for walks when they came over etc, I was always busy but I found time for the grandchild and the family respected that.
I often think, with the twins being the same age as the owners son where I worked and the locations being close, the friendship they might have had, its sad that posters on here don't show respect for the family, they must have an awful lot of bitterness towards Bamber for taking these lives away from them, esp Anne with Neville being her godfather
-
You can tell from her face there was no struggle, just a few seconds from being woken up to shot. I doubt she would know much about it and at least she died not knowing the fate of her sons in that contiguous chamber of death.
Exactly! typical of a Suicide not a homicide. Nevertheless I'm sure you are prepared to argue that Jeremy somehow shaped her facial expression after. Along with coercing her to write a five page suicide letter.
-
I think as they got older they would have been introduced to Osea leisure and would have enjoyed it, we had a grandson of the owners where I worked and he used to ride in the tractor with me, he used to follow me around all day and I would take him for rides on the beach, his grandad was so pleased when he used to help me. It was part of the progression to ownership, that's what surprises me about Bamber, he didn't seem to give or want this. He never talks about them much, he never says me and the twins used to ride the tractor, we went for walks when they came over etc, I was always busy but I found time for the grandchild and the family respected that.
I think working at the Caravan Park was less monotonous work that driving the tractor or using the crop sprayer, but that part of the business seemed to be the prerogative of the Boutflours, and the concomitant resentment may have been why Jeremy was minded to burgle it. I think he did feel shunted into a siding which is why he overcompensated in his leisure time, which only made the dreariness of return all the more unbearable. No outward expression of love from either parent, which only drove Jeremy to excess once his teenage years came to an end.
-
Exactly! typical of a Suicide not a homicide. Nevertheless I'm sure you are prepared to argue that Jeremy somehow shaped her facial expression after. Along with coercing her to write a five page suicide letter.
David is this suicide letter from Sheila available?
-
Exactly! typical of a Suicide not a homicide. Nevertheless I'm sure you are prepared to argue that Jeremy somehow shaped her facial expression after. Along with coercing her to write a five page suicide letter.
The so-called suicide letter if genuine could have been written at any time. You evidently have no experience of anyone with schizophrenia in a confused state, and I'm coming to the conclusion that you are incorrigible after house painter Michael Horsnell's eyewitness account. You conveniently forget that she was supposed to have engaged in a mammoth struggle in the kitchen for control of the gun, during which a ceiling light was smashed.
At least you are engaging with me somewhat, which is an advance I suppose.
-
I totally agree Justice and though I'm not usually a huge fan of sculpture I can't help but admire the craftsmanship and expertise of Colin's handiwork, especially the models personal to his family, and who knows what hidden talents the twins had? Even if it turned out they had none it was such a waste and such a shocking crime.
I think this is why the psychiatrist who worked with him at Full Sutton formed the opinion and spoke about him being the most evil person she had ever worked with, the thought he was sniggering behind Collins back and on his jolly jaunts while the rest of the family were grieving showed the lack of empathy?
-
Poor Colin. He writes so beautifully and with such love.
Well hopefully Colin will know the truth soon
-
Steve, the title of this thread has always stood out for me. It's a very thought provoking question.
My personal opinion is that both of these men are the victims of a tragedy brought about by Sheila's mental health. It's awful to try and imagine what she must have experienced.
The torment leading up to the killings... and torment after the killings. I imagine her skulking around the house, with the bodies of her victims, riddled with bullets. She was the only person in a house full of corpses. Her children and parents slain by her own hand - it must have been the lonliest and eeriest place on earth. I wonder whether she walked between rooms and corpses, surveying the pitiful scene, apologising to them. Or, she was numb to it all? Perhaps she was not and avoided the corpses and killing rooms because she couldn't face going in?
My own personal belief is that both of these men are also victim of corrupt police and self-serving, arrogant relatives. One man is aware of this and sadly, one man is not.
I say Colin is a victim of police and relatives - because he has been sold a false version of events - and his mindset is trapped within this. I find that very sad.
Who has the more rights between the two of them? - I really do not know the answer. But your thread as lasted 96 pages - which is some achievement.
Nobody loved her enough, she needed someone to cherish her
-
So sad Steve and to have it taken away by one mans greed, so sad we haven't seen this talent flourish, I think they would have been an asset to Osea leisure working with Anne's siblings, June and Neville would have been proud to see them working along side the family.
In your opinion ' taken away by one mans greed'
In my opinion a young man has been locked up for over 30 years because of xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx
I believe her and her father were the ringleaders in this miscarriage of justice
-
I think as they got older they would have been introduced to Osea leisure and would have enjoyed it, we had a grandson of the owners where I worked and he used to ride in the tractor with me, he used to follow me around all day and I would take him for rides on the beach, his grandad was so pleased when he used to help me. It was part of the progression to ownership, that's what surprises me about Bamber, he didn't seem to give or want this. He never talks about them much, he never says me and the twins used to ride the tractor, we went for walks when they came over etc, I was always busy but I found time for the grandchild and the family respected that.
He talked about it a lot to me, have you ever spoken to Jeremy?
You haven't have you, so how do you know???
-
Hi Roch such an excellent post although very sad and heart wrenching. In my mind I see Sheila wandering around the lonely house so much at peace as she had in her own mind saved her family from the evils of the world I don't think she would have felt sad but happy she was shortly to be free of her tormented mind. Poor Sheila she was I think let down by the system. :( At the beginning Colin was I think convinced Sheila was responsible but he was fed erroneous information to change his mind and I wonder if he has ever thought how wrong he was to put the blame on Jeremy. I have no source to confirm this it is just my personal opinion.
Good post Susan. I hope soon Colin might air his thoughts on the case again
He could be very confused by everything that has happened since the conviction
-
I often think, with the twins being the same age as the owners son where I worked and the locations being close, the friendship they might have had, its sad that posters on here don't show respect for the family, they must have an awful lot of bitterness towards Bamber for taking these lives away from them, esp Anne with Neville being her godfather
You have to be honest to gain respect
-
Exactly! typical of a Suicide not a homicide. Nevertheless I'm sure you are prepared to argue that Jeremy somehow shaped her facial expression after. Along with coercing her to write a five page suicide letter.
Hi David. Do you believe Sheila killed herself leaning against the bedside table? Lying on the floor for the second shot? Or do you believe she was moved after death?
-
In your opinion ' taken away by one mans greed'
In my opinion a young man has been locked up for over 30 years because of Anne Eatons greed
I believe her and her father were the ringleaders in this miscarriage of justice
Thats a big call Jackie and a very brave accusation.
-
I think this is why the psychiatrist who worked with him at Full Sutton formed the opinion and spoke about him being the most evil person she had ever worked with, the thought he was sniggering behind Collins back and on his jolly jaunts while the rest of the family were grieving showed the lack of empathy?
Are you talking about Jeremy or Julie on the jolly jaunts
Could you post evidence about what the psychiatrist said about Jeremy
-
Thats a big call Jackie and a very brave accusation.
It's common knowledge amongst Essex Police that Jeremy is innocent so someone set him up
Who gained the most from his conviction
-
You have to be honest to gain respect
Just supposing they are innocent, they might still be suffering Jackie. If you or the team have new evidence I suggest you let the courts decide, at the moment I can't but help feel sorry for them.
-
It's common knowledge amongst Essex Police that Jeremy is innocent so someone set him up
Who gained the most from his conviction
I understand that part and I respect your fight, but you have to be careful making accusations like that, that's all I'm saying. I worked the holiday parks Jackie not far from you I seen and understand better than most what goes on, I could tell you a lot more who thought what and what other people thought of the family, I can only form my judgement on my dealings, you asked me in an earlier thread if I spoke to Jeremy, I haven't no, I've spoke to people who have worked with Jeremy and they have given me an unbiased opinion and what he does, what's he like, how liked he is and what's he like to work with, I would say more but I can't. I tell you again I admire your fight and the work you put in, I'm trying to converse without humour, but to accuse without evidence is wrong Jackie.
-
It's common knowledge amongst Essex Police that Jeremy is innocent so someone set him up
Who gained the most from his conviction
Yet the silence is deafening.
-
It's common knowledge amongst Essex Police that Jeremy is innocent so someone set him up
Who gained the most from his conviction
I honestly know some Essex police Jackie and not one of them told me it was common knowledge, they told me it was a cock up investigation. Also at the same time I have witnessed them in a cock up, maybe if you want I could pm you and you could ask your policeman friend to verify this account. But that would give the game away who I am and it's on trust so I honestly don't know what to do, maybe we can think about it?
This was the firearms team by the way.
-
JackieD believes Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins.
Dissapointingly she has never explained how Sheila committed the massacre, despite requests. As with all other posters I was prepared to pretend Sheila was not on Haloperidol & could walk more than 5 steps.
She also believes the relatives fabricated the silencer. But said she 'doesn't have to address' any questions on how they achieved this.
Hopefully her 6 part documentary will be more convincing.
-
In your opinion ' taken away by one mans greed'
In my opinion a young man has been locked up for over 30 years because of Anne Eatons greed
I believe her and her father were the ringleaders in this miscarriage of justice
Not once has he spared Colin's thoughts, how he slumbers in those sombre shadows with the flashbacks of his boys, how he marks each anniversary of the tragedy going through the motions in a futile attempt at normality, attempting to practise some routine to sidestep the demons which must lurk at every turn.
-
JackieD believes Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins.
Dissapointingly she has never explained how Sheila committed the massacre, despite requests. As with all other posters I was prepared to pretend Sheila was not on Haloperidol & could walk more than 5 steps.
She also believes the relatives fabricated the silencer. But said she 'doesn't have to address' any questions on how they achieved this.
Hopefully her 6 part documentary will be more convincing.
One day a film will be made of this tragedy, and I hope #1424 or #1426 will close it, as the camera pans from Paddington Recreation Ground or the campus of White House Farm, with Nicholas and Daniel flying their white kite high into the air, a joyful Sheila and Colin looking proudly on.
-
Yet the silence is deafening.
Steve it's about time for a reality check for you
All you do on this forum is quote from books and you say you have come to the conclusion Jeremy is guilty from what you have read
I have spoken to Jeremy written to Jeremy and spoken to people he grew up with etc etc
I have also exchanged emails on this forum with the person who is an expert on criminal law. This person knows the case inside out and has numerous opportunities to ask Jeremy any questions he wants the answer to
I don't think this person would have supported Jeremy for a second if he thought Jeremy had murdered two children
How lucky is Jeremy to have access to someone like that
On top of this as you know (and you seem to think I should be putting this information on a public forum) I have been told it's common knowledge Jeremy is innocent amongst Essex Police
No Steve I didn't read a few books and come to the conclusion Jeremy was not guilty it goes a lot deeper than that. I have spent years of research coming to the conclusion Jeremy is innocent
-
Not once has he spared Colin's thoughts, how he slumbers in those sombre shadows with the flashbacks of his boys, how he marks each anniversary of the tragedy going through the motions in a futile attempt at normality, attempting to practise some routine to sidestep the demons which must lurk at every turn.
Your posts are boring now Steve, the man is innocent
-
One day a film will be made of this tragedy, and I hope #1424 or #1426 will close it, as the camera pans from Paddington Recreation Ground or the campus of White House Farm, with Nicholas and Daniel flying their white kite high into the air, a joyful Sheila and Colin looking proudly on.
Oh my god what an embarrassing post
I hope when a feature film is made a big financial donation is made to mental health charities
-
Steve it's about time for a reality check for you
All you do on this forum is quote from books and you say you have come to the conclusion Jeremy is guilty from what you have read
I have spoken to Jeremy written to Jeremy and spoken to people he grew up with etc etc
I have also exchanged emails on this forum with the person who is an expert on criminal law. This person knows the case inside out and has numerous opportunities to ask Jeremy any questions he wants the answer to
I don't think this person would have supported Jeremy for a second if he thought Jeremy had murdered two children
How lucky is Jeremy to have access to someone like that
On top of this as you know (and you seem to think I should be putting this information on a public forum) I have been told it's common knowledge Jeremy is innocent amongst Essex Police
No Steve I didn't read a few books and come to the conclusion Jeremy was not guilty it goes a lot deeper than that. I have spent years of research coming to the conclusion Jeremy is innocent
If your lawyer friend is that woman from Sowerby Bridge she is as mistaken as Lorna Lake, Poppy Miller and the rest. If they have real information they should disclose it on the Forum. Where I quote from books it is usually displayed in italic font, the rest is my research and imagination, affording a brief respite to Colin, which is probably more than Jeremy ever will.
-
Your posts are boring now Steve, the man is innocent
I wish they were boring and fantasy, but it's all to real for those most connected with the tragedy.
-
JackieD believes Bamber is innocent because Julie identified the twins.
Dissapointingly she has never explained how Sheila committed the massacre, despite requests. As with all other posters I was prepared to pretend Sheila was not on Haloperidol & could walk more than 5 steps.
She also believes the relatives fabricated the silencer. But said she 'doesn't have to address' any questions on how they achieved this.
Hopefully her 6 part documentary will be more convincing.
Hmmmmmm! Adam, how far did Sheila walk in the town with June, buying trousers for the boys the afternoon before the massacre?
Wonder if she walked all the way up and down Pages Lane where she said 'Hi' to Len Foalkes. Or maybe she cut across Pages Lane on her way to see Jeremy who was cutting corn in the fields, if I remember rightly.
The boys rode on the tractor with Jeremy. That's a heck of a lot of ground covered in 5 very shaky steps.
-
Good post Susan. I hope soon Colin might air his thoughts on the case again
He could be very confused by everything that has happened since the conviction
Jackie
I have often wondered how Colin feels years on after he has had time to think clearly without being emotionally wrecked after loosing his dear boys he knew Jeremy well with and without his faults he may have a different view now deep down and could have niggling doubts about who carried out the murders.
-
Jackie
I have often wondered how Colin feels years on after he has had time to think clearly without being emotionally wrecked after loosing his dear boys he knew Jeremy well with and without his faults he may have a different view now deep down and could have niggling doubts about who carried out the murders.
Its probably something he hates revisiting in his thoughts Susan
-
Hmmmmmm! Adam, how far did Shela walk in the town with June, buying trousers for the boys the afternoon before the massacre?
Wonder if she walked all the way up and down Pages Lane where she said 'Hi' to Len Foalkes. Or maybe she cut across Pages Lane on her way to see Jeremy who was cutting corn in the fields, if I remember rightly.
The boys rode in the tractor with Jeremy. That's a heck of a lot of ground covered in 5 very shaky steps.
But she had to race down the stairs to reload the weapon. Can't you see she was putting on a show in front of the family, but her fragility was there for Michael Horsnell to witness, if only you could see it.
-
If your lawyer friend is that woman from Sowerby Bridge she is as mistaken as Lorna Lake, Poppy Miller and the rest. If they have real information they should disclose it on the Forum. Where I quote from books it is usually displayed in italic font, the rest is my research and imagination, affording a brief respite to Colin, which is probably more than Jeremy ever will.
Steve may I ask who is from Sowerby Bridge?
-
Its probably something he hates revisiting in his thoughts Susan
Justice you could be right he may have blanked it all out :(
-
Steve may I ask who is from Sowerby Bridge?
I don't recall her name. A lawyer, maybe of German extraction. Lives somewhere in Sowerby Bridge or Todmorden.
-
I don't recall her name. A lawyer, maybe of German extraction. Lives somewhere in Sowerby Bridge or Todmorden.
steve thanks for that
-
If your lawyer friend is that woman from Sowerby Bridge she is as mistaken as Lorna Lake, Poppy Miller and the rest. If they have real information they should disclose it on the Forum. Where I quote from books it is usually displayed in italic font, the rest is my research and imagination, affording a brief respite to Colin, which is probably more than Jeremy ever will.
Hi Steve, in fairness Jackie does say on this forum she exchanges emails with an expert in criminal law?
-
Justice you could be right he may have blanked it all out :(
Must be horrible for him thinking, if only. I wonder if he blames himself at all
-
Hi Steve, in fairness Jackie does say on this forum she exchanges emails with an expert in criminal law?
Yes it's her. Maybe she lives in Hebden Bridge. Lives with another woman (didn't want to say that but it might jog other members' memories).
-
Must be horrible for him thinking, if only. I wonder if he blames himself at all
That what annoys me now, because Jeremy could admit to the crime and put Colin's mind somewhat at rest.
-
You've got me thinking now: does this person exist..
-
Nobody loved her enough, she needed someone to cherish her
I agree.
-
Must be horrible for him thinking, if only. I wonder if he blames himself at all
Justice I am sure he will I think it is human nature to think like that he is bound to have flash backs of the good times with Jeremy and Sheila and his lovely wee boys he has done so well making a new life with a new wife and children and I hope he is at peace within.
-
I agree.
It was the downside of women's lib with people expecting them to hold down a career, have a family, nurture them and look presentable all at the same time. Is it any wonder mental health issues have risen since?
-
Steve wish you knew her name I know Hebden Bridge very well and folk who live there
-
Hi Roch such an excellent post although very sad and heart wrenching. In my mind I see Sheila wandering around the lonely house so much at peace as she had in her own mind saved her family from the evils of the world I don't think she would have felt sad but happy she was shortly to be free of her tormented mind. Poor Sheila she was I think let down by the system. :( At the beginning Colin was I think convinced Sheila was responsible but he was fed erroneous information to change his mind and I wonder if he has ever thought how wrong he was to put the blame on Jeremy. I have no source to confirm this it is just my personal opinion.
Thanks Susan.
I can picture her wondering, in a house full of corpses. It is an unsettling picture.
The concept of Essex Police officers portraying to associates and friends that Jeremy Bamber is guilty, is a very wierd proposition to me. They are either not familiar with the crime scenes - or - they are familiar with the crime scenes but prepared to lie about them. It is really that simple.
-
Steve wish you knew her name I know Hebden Bridge very well and folk who live there
It's Flo Krause from Hebden Bridge. http://www.meritzchambers.co.uk/
-
She left the profession in disgust because of the cuts to Legal Aid. http://www.newslocker.com/en-uk/profession/lawyer/flo-krause-legal-aid-cuts-have-forced-me-out-of-my-career-at-the-bar/
-
Thanks Susan.
I can picture her wondering, in a house full of corpses. It is an unsettleing picture.
The concept of Essex Police officers portraying to associates and friends that Jeremy Bamber is guilty, is a very wierd proposition to me. They are either not familiar with the crime scenes - or - they are farmiliar with the crime scenes but prepared to lie about them. It is really that simple.
Roch Taff Jones saw the crime scene and said 4 murders one suicide and that was the true situation he left the scene and then things changed but whatever Taff saw told him all he needed to know I was told from a good source that Taff always believed Jeremy to be innocent and died still thinking that so he must have been utterly convinced.
-
Hmmmmmm! Adam, how far did Sheila walk in the town with June, buying trousers for the boys the afternoon before the massacre?
Wonder if she walked all the way up and down Pages Lane where she said 'Hi' to Len Foalkes. Or maybe she cut across Pages Lane on her way to see Jeremy who was cutting corn in the fields, if I remember rightly.
The boys rode on the tractor with Jeremy. That's a heck of a lot of ground covered in 5 very shaky steps.
If I'm right Jeremy was in the rape field when Sheila came down with the twins and no mention of the twins getting in the tractor, she was there roughly about 10 mins?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1091.0;attach=5549
-
She left the profession in disgust because of the cuts to Legal Aid. http://www.newslocker.com/en-uk/profession/lawyer/flo-krause-legal-aid-cuts-have-forced-me-out-of-my-career-at-the-bar/
Thanks for that info Steve don't know her maybe she left Hebden
-
Roch Taff Jones saw the crime scene and said 4 murders one suicide and that was the true situation he left the scene and then things changed but whatever Taff saw told him all he needed to know I was told from a good source that Taff always believed Jeremy to be innocent and died still thinking that so he must have been utterly convinced.
Taff Jones didn't think Bamber was innocent. By the time Bamber had returned from St Tropez, he was on board with everyone else.
He died 5 months later so had plenty of time to make a fuss after Peter Simpson replaced him. But didn't.
-
But she had to race down the stairs to reload the weapon. Can't you see she was putting on a show in front of the family, but her fragility was there for Michael Horsnell to witness, if only you could see it.
All the evidence is Sheila wouldn't be able to function at all at 2pm.
The sedative effects of Haloperidol were taking effect earlier in the day. As Michael Horsnell, Bamber & PB confirmed.
-
If your lawyer friend is that woman from Sowerby Bridge she is as mistaken as Lorna Lake, Poppy Miller and the rest. If they have real information they should disclose it on the Forum. Where I quote from books it is usually displayed in italic font, the rest is my research and imagination, affording a brief respite to Colin, which is probably more than Jeremy ever will.
Yes Steve you have a great imagination
If you had a longer history on this forum you would know I have nothing to do with lorna lake or poppy Miller
-
Hmmmmmm! Adam, how far did Sheila walk in the town with June, buying trousers for the boys the afternoon before the massacre?
Wonder if she walked all the way up and down Pages Lane where she said 'Hi' to Len Foalkes. Or maybe she cut across Pages Lane on her way to see Jeremy who was cutting corn in the fields, if I remember rightly.
The boys rode on the tractor with Jeremy. That's a heck of a lot of ground covered in 5 very shaky steps.
Thanks Maggie
-
If I'm right Jeremy was in the rape field when Sheila came down with the twins and no mention of the twins getting in the tractor, she was there roughly about 10 mins?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1091.0;attach=5549
Maybe he was in the rape field sorry but he had been cutting corn that day, apparently. She may have only been there 10 minutes justice, I was just pointing out to Adam that Sheila could walk more than 5 steps.
-
That what annoys me now, because Jeremy could admit to the crime and put Colin's mind somewhat at rest.
Not when he is innocent
-
I agree.
He 100% exists and as I said he is highly experienced in criminal law
-
He 100% exists and as I said he is highly experienced in criminal law
Maybe it's time he came on the Forum and argued his corner, or are you still hoping he's let off on a technicality?
-
Maybe he was in the rape field sorry but he had been cutting corn that day, apparently. She may have only been there 10 minutes justice, I was just pointing out to Adam that Sheila could walk more than 5 steps.
Oh sorry, you could be right I'm trying to think the time of year that's all and I thought the rape field was nearer, you could be right about corn. It was the twins in the tractor that threw me because I had never heard of that? If they were I will say sorry only I accused him off never taking them for rides, something I used to do.
-
Oh sorry, you could be right I'm trying to think the time of year that's all and I thought the rape field was nearer, you could be right about corn. It was the twins in the tractor that threw me because I had never heard of that? If they were I will say sorry only I accused him off never taking them for rides, something I used to do.
Justice did you know the family?
-
He 100% exists and as I said he is highly experienced in criminal law
If it's the same one I know Jackie, he is not 100 per cent and very careful what he posts.
-
If it's the same one I know Jackie, he is not 100 per cent and very careful what he posts.
I said he 100% exsists
-
I said he 100% exsists
So pleased you corrected me thanks, your right so it is the same one.
-
Justice did you know the family?
Not enough to talk about the tragedy and what they went through Steve, mine was more to do with social/ Buisness. My friends new them really well Steve and it was introductions through them.
-
She left the profession in disgust because of the cuts to Legal Aid. http://www.newslocker.com/en-uk/profession/lawyer/flo-krause-legal-aid-cuts-have-forced-me-out-of-my-career-at-the-bar/
We have it straight from the horses mouth Steve, Jackie says this lawyer friend 100 per cent exists, but not sure if he is 100 per cent Bamber is innocent. It's a he and not a she, hope this clears it up for you?
-
We have it straight from the horses mouth Steve, Jackie says this lawyer friend 100 per cent exists, but not sure if he is 100 per cent Bamber is innocent. It's a he and not a she, hope this clears it up for you?
Well not really because I'd like to know who he is.
-
Well not really because I'd like to know who he is.
Think about it Steve, forum, friend, he?
-
Think about it Steve, forum, friend, he?
Yes I think the penny has dropped, to coin a phrase. But he could be more vocal on the Forum and keep us abreast of developments.
-
Yes I think the penny has dropped, to coin a phrase. But he could be more vocal on the Forum and keep us abreast of developments.
To be fair Steve it's Jackie who keeps bringing him up, I don't think this person is as bothered, I could be wrong, I think this person knows it's going to very hard for Jeremy. Who knows Jackie might give us more update on what he thinks? This person does a sterling job keeping the forum running and it's all free time remember Steve.
I'm really fascinated on your knowledge of Colin, Steve, you write with such passion and I always read your posts. You and Jane write with such fluency and articulate content of which I envy. I know you too had troubles Steve and probably like me you get through it with help and friends, but how on earth does Colin get through his life sentence, served on him by Bamber making the choice who should live or die.
-
To be fair Steve it's Jackie who keeps bringing him up, I don't think this person is as bothered, I could be wrong, I think this person knows it's going to very hard for Jeremy. Who knows Jackie might give us more update on what he thinks? This person does a sterling job keeping the forum running and it's all free time remember Steve.
I'm really fascinated on your knowledge of Colin, Steve, you write with such passion and I always read your posts. You and Jane write with such fluency and articulate content of which I envy. I know you too had troubles Steve and probably like me you get through it with help and friends, but how on earth does Colin get through his life sentence, served on him by Bamber choosing who should live or die.
I'm humbled by how Colin has coped and avoided self-pity. I suppose he has tried to pick up the pieces in a way I have been unable to and move on, and as an artisan he crafts things of beauty which will still exist long after he expires. He's a Blood Type O which does help and has a career which no doubt he will be able to pursue into old age, barring such illness as arthiritis in his hands. He deserves every happiness. http://www.caffellsculpture.co.uk/sculpture.htm
-
I'm humbled by how Colin has coped and avoided self-pity. I suppose he has tried to pick up the pieces in a way I have been unable to and move on, and as an artisan he crafts things of beauty which will still exist long after he expires. He's a Blood Type O which does help and has a career which no doubt he will be able to pursue into old age, barring such illness as arthiritis in his hands. He deserves every happiness. http://www.caffellsculpture.co.uk/sculpture.htm
What about the guy that's been in prison for 32 years for a crime he hasn't committed? How do you think he feels?
-
What about the guy that's been in prison for 32 years for a crime he hasn't committed? How do you think he feels?
He could put an end to the uncertainty tomorrow by admitting it was his scheme, devised under the influence of the winner-takes-all culture of the 1980s, honed and perfected over the course of several months, depriving his parents of a well-earned retirement, the chance of his mentally ill sister to make a recovery of sorts and his nephews to live a full life and claim a share of the inheritance which in the course of time should have been rightfully theirs.
-
What about the guy that's been in prison for 32 years for a crime he hasn't committed? How do you think he feels?
Looks like he won't be in for much longer David, the police are starting to break ranks, at last, Jackie has a friend who is going to tell all, Bill knows his colleagues have been up to no good and it's now common knowledge within Essex police Jeremy is innocent. I do hold the view though that if these officers had this knowledge or any sort of evidence this makes them worse than Julie. How will Jeremy feel spending all this time in jail and only now breaking ranks? Would it be worth passing this on to Andrew Hunter David? One thing is for sure I'm going to give my daughters wedding guest hell ;)
-
To be fair Steve it's Jackie who keeps bringing him up, I don't think this person is as bothered, I could be wrong, I think this person knows it's going to very hard for Jeremy. Who knows Jackie might give us more update on what he thinks? This person does a sterling job keeping the forum running and it's all free time remember Steve.
I'm really fascinated on your knowledge of Colin, Steve, you write with such passion and I always read your posts. You and Jane write with such fluency and articulate content of which I envy. I know you too had troubles Steve and probably like me you get through it with help and friends, but how on earth does Colin get through his life sentence, served on him by Bamber making the choice who should live or die.
Aww Justice, that's beautiful. THANK-YOU :-* But fluency and articulation alone are nothing without sincerity, and believe me, you have it in spades.
-
Looks like he won't be in for much longer David, the police are starting to break ranks, at last, Jackie has a friend who is going to tell all, Bill knows his colleagues have been up to no good and it's now common knowledge within Essex police Jeremy is innocent. I do hold the view though that if these officers had this knowledge or any sort of evidence this makes them worse than Julie. How will Jeremy feel spending all this time in jail and only now breaking ranks? Would it be worth passing this on to Andrew Hunter David? One thing is for sure I'm going to give my daughters wedding guest hell ;)
I don't think there are any ranks left IMO. Essex police today hardly have anyone left that was envolved. They just act as gatekeepers to dusty case files now.
-
I don't think there are any ranks left IMO. Essex police today hardly have anyone left that was envolved. They just act as gatekeepers to dusty case files now.
Thanks David,
-
Aww Justice, that's beautiful. THANK-YOU :-* But fluency and articulation alone are nothing without sincerity, and believe me, you have it in spades.
Thanks Jane " But" your going to see a new me, gone is the humour and sincerity I'm batting for both sides. Glad your back Jane I've missed you, have they done anything with them burnt huts yet? x
-
Just a thought would anyone mind if I came as a different poster and viewed the case from both sides, I know this would be a first, I could keep my humour for Justice and then change sides again? Posters could have a dig at Justice and praise me as someone else?
-
Just a thought would anyone mind if I came as a different poster and viewed the case from both sides, I know this would be a first, I could keep my humour for Justice and then change sides again? Posters could have a dig at Justice and praise me as someone else?
What humour ?
-
Just a thought would anyone mind if I came as a different poster and viewed the case from both sides, I know this would be a first, I could keep my humour for Justice and then change sides again? Posters could have a dig at Justice and praise me as someone else?
Split Personality Justice??? Think that's one for ngb, unless it's a joke?
I have veered from innocent to 50/50 to probably guilty and now I believe that poor man is very possibly innocent. So 90/10 8)
-
What humour ?
Yes your right Adam, it's something other posters have a problem with and I'm glad you think like me.
-
Split Personality Justice??? Think that's one for ngb, unless it's a joke?
I have veered from innocent to 50/50 to probably guilty and now I believe that poor man is very possibly innocent. So 90/10 8)
Thanks Maggie for giving it some consideration, no it's not a joke, I realise you would have to authorise it because you would be able to check IP addresses and I want to be above board and we want to run the forum fair. I don't joke
-
Must be horrible for him thinking, if only. I wonder if he blames himself at all
In his book he tells us how hard he worked to come to terms with their deaths.
He probably suffered or at times still suffers from Post Traumatic Stress as well as appalling grief which encompasses many feelings. He chose to use Alternative treatments as tools to cope and heal. He wrote about some as them as if he wanted to knock the pain out of him
He may still need such treatments/coping mechanisms from time to time up to this day and no doubt his art gives him great solace.
I doubt Colin allows himself to think deeply about Jeremy but leaves that for others, he has had to learn to accept what happened, the only way for him to survive and find peace.
Accept, that little word, is often the hardest thing of all.....
-
Split Personality Justice??? Think that's one for ngb, unless it's a joke?
I have veered from innocent to 50/50 to probably guilty and now I believe that poor man is very possibly innocent. So 90/10 8)
You need to explain how Sheila committed the massacre.
I did ask you to do this when I joined the forum in 2013. You posted 'get lost Adam'.
Supporting Bamber because you don't know how he got Sheila a few feet into the main bedroom is not enough. I've given you enough options.
As with all other submitted scenarios, you don't need to take into account Sheila was highly sedated & unable to function from the the powerful effects of Haloperidol. Otherwise a scenario would have Sheila not waking up in the first place.
Other posters at the time also refused to submit a scenario but have since gone to 100% guilty .
You don't need to be 50/50 because you're a moderator. Mike is a moderator and is 100% pro Bamber.
-
Just a thought would anyone mind if I came as a different poster and viewed the case from both sides, I know this would be a first, I could keep my humour for Justice and then change sides again? Posters could have a dig at Justice and praise me as someone else?
Justice that would not work as one poster would be biased about the other posters theories. Just my take on it it is very difficult to debate this case.
-
Justice that would not work as one poster would be biased about the other posters theories. Just my take on it it is very difficult to debate this case.
Although it could help when the forum is quiet. GoodJustice and BadJustice could keep the discussion going amongst themselves. I think they would get on fairly well without too many fall outs. :-\
-
You need to explain how Sheila committed the massacre.
I did ask you to do this when I joined the forum in 2013. You posted 'get lost Adam'. Supporting Bamber because you don't know how he got Sheila a few feet into the main bedroom is not enough.
As with all other submitted scenarios, you don't need to take into account Sheila was highly sedated & unable to function from the the powerful effects of Haloperidol. Otherwise a scenario would have Sheila not waking up in the first place.
Other posters at the time also refused but have since gone to 100% guilty .
You don't need to be 50/50 because you're a moderator. Mike is a moderator and is 100% pro Bamber.
Oh there you are!!
I don't hAve to explain anything to you or anyone else thanks Adam.
I have never believed scenarios have any substance at all. How can I know what happened when? Did Sheila stub her toe etc.
It is very helpful of you to tell me what I can or can't do as a moderator, now I will be equally helpful and as a moderator tell you the same.
Please stop pressurising people to give scenarios, some are happy to do so some prefer not to, it is their prerogative.
I cannot find a clause anywhere in the forum rules which states every poster has to give a scenario because Adam says so.
I have always been neutral as a moderator and whatever my views are I will continue to be so.
I have an open mind Adam, a condition incomprehensible to you I would guess.
Maybe I was over enthusiastic 90/10....I'm leaning towards JB....... 50/50 is probably a good place to be.
-
Although it could help when the forum is quiet. GoodJustice and BadJustice could keep the discussion going amongst themselves. I think they would get on fairly well without too many fall outs. :-\
Hello Hartley on reflection you could be right he could argue with himself so we would have no major fall outs maybe one of them could be banned but knowing Justice as I do that would not happen :))
-
Hello Hartley on reflection you could be right he could argue with himself so we would have no major fall outs maybe one of them could be banned but knowing Justice as I do that would not happen :))
A ban would kill two birds with one stone :-\
-
Hello Hartley on reflection you could be right he could argue with himself so we would have no major fall outs maybe one of them could be banned but knowing Justice as I do that would not happen :))
Ha Ha
-
Hello Hartley on reflection you could be right he could argue with himself so we would have no major fall outs maybe one of them could be banned but knowing Justice as I do that would not happen :))
I guess it depends, if BadJustice and GoodJustice got carried away and exchanged a joke, then all hell would probably break loose. :o
-
A ban would kill two birds with one stone :-\
If that's what you think Maggie, for a man that wants Justice and honesty so be it, I could come back as born again Justice
-
Although it could help when the forum is quiet. GoodJustice and BadJustice could keep the discussion going amongst themselves. I think they would get on fairly well without too many fall outs. :-\
Sorry Hartley I would be ruthless with bad Justice
-
Although it could help when the forum is quiet. GoodJustice and BadJustice could keep the discussion going amongst themselves. I think they would get on fairly well without too many fall outs. :-\
So in essence,he'd be talking to himself ? :)) :)) :)) :))
Well I suppose you couldn't talk to anyone better than yourself .
-
Oh there you are!!
I don't hAve to explain anything to you or anyone else thanks Adam.
I have never believed scenarios have any substance at all. How can I know what happened when? Did Sheila stub her toe etc.
It is very helpful of you to tell me what I can or can't do as a moderator, now I will be equally helpful and as a moderator tell you the same.
Please stop pressurising people to give scenarios, some are happy to do so some prefer not to, it is their prerogative.
I cannot find a clause anywhere in the forum rules which states every poster has to give a scenario because Adam says so.
I have always been neutral as a moderator and whatever my views are I will continue to be so.
I have an open mind Adam, a condition incomprehensible to you I would guess.
Maybe I was over enthusiastic 90/10....I'm leaning towards JB....... 50/50 is probably a good place to be.
After 5 years on the forum, you're still not going to give a view on how Sheila committed the massacre.
Bit weird in my view as all the crime scene evidence is available & not disputed. So it should be straight forward to match Sheila to it. Providing it is pretended she was not on Haloperidol.
How do explain all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide all the evidence showing it was Sheila ?
-
Sheila committed the murders because of her state of mind.Need I say more ?
-
After 5 years on the forum, you're still not going to give a view on how Sheila committed the massacre.
Bit weird in my view as all the crime scene evidence is available. So it would be straight forward to match Sheila to it. Providing it is pretended she was not on Haloperidol.
How do explain all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide all the evidence showing it was Sheila ?
I have told you my opinion of scenarios. Haven' t got time to write a fairy story. Sorry Adam
-
What I find appalling is the corruption and manipulation of evidence against Jeremy. Unforgivable !
-
A ban would kill two birds with one stone :-\
It is something I forecast Maggie, the way Scorpio went, I am not bothered I will keep in touch with my friends through email. The biggest joke is someone impersonating a police officer to drum up support for a mass murderer. The lowest of the low everyone knows who it is.
-
I have told you my opinion of scenarios. Haven' t got time to write a fairy story. Sorry Adam
Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide evidence showing Sheila was the killer ?
If not, why do you believe the 50+ pieces of forensic evidence showing Bamber is guilty are wrong. Or are just some of the pieces wrong ?
Other cases just need one piece of forensic evidence for a conviction. Why does the Bamber case need between 1 - 50+ ?
-
It is something I forecast Maggie, the way Scorpio went, I am not bothered I will keep in touch with my friends through email. The biggest joke is someone impersonating a police officer to drum up support for a mass murderer. The lowest of the low everyone knows who it is.
Are you sure about that? IMO everyone doesn't know about that.
-
Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide evidence showing Sheila was the killer ?
If not, why do you believe the 50+ pieces of forensic evidence showing Bamber is guilty are wrong. Or are just some of the pieces wrong ?
Other cases just need one piece of forensic evidence for a conviction. Why does the Bamber case need between 1 - 50+ ?
As you have just said only 'one piece of forensic evidence' is necessary.
Scenarios are a good game but mean nothing.
I have no idea what Ainsley did as I am not Roch and whatever he knows about that he hasn't told me.
-
Justice says that after 32 years no one being able to say how Sheila committed the massacre 'proves nothing'.
I believe it's massive proof as a scenario is based on the vast amount of undisputed crime scene evidence. Together with two alledged WHF phone calls Bamber said Nevill made.
However posters base their Bamber innocence on Julie identifying the twins or AE giving BC Nevill's wallet. These will not be sufficient to get the CCRC to look at the case for a third time.
-
Oh there you are!!
I don't hAve to explain anything to you or anyone else thanks Adam.
I have never believed scenarios have any substance at all. How can I know what happened when? Did Sheila stub her toe etc.
It is very helpful of you to tell me what I can or can't do as a moderator, now I will be equally helpful and as a moderator tell you the same.
Please stop pressurising people to give scenarios, some are happy to do so some prefer not to, it is their prerogative.
I cannot find a clause anywhere in the forum rules which states every poster has to give a scenario because Adam says so.
I have always been neutral as a moderator and whatever my views are I will continue to be so.
I have an open mind Adam, a condition incomprehensible to you I would guess.
Maybe I was over enthusiastic 90/10....I'm leaning towards JB....... 50/50 is probably a good place to be.
If xxxx is not xxxx xxxxxxxxx he demands impossible proof.
Demand impossible proof - Disinformation shills sometimes will demand proof then ignore it when its presented, or continue to demand impossible proofs. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, they will deem the material irrelevant and demand unattainable proof that is virtually impossible for the opponent to retrieve; for the purpose of detracting focus from the mounds of legitimate data available.
-
Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide evidence showing Sheila was the killer ?
If not, why do you believe the 50+ pieces of forensic evidence showing Bamber is guilty are wrong. Or are just some of the pieces wrong ?
Other cases just need one piece of forensic evidence for a conviction. Why does the Bamber case need between 1 - 50+ ?
Part of the problem lays in that this is no longer just about Jeremy's guilt/innocence. There is woven into it many other potential cases of innocence/guilt each having an individual influence on Jeremy's status.
-
After 5 years on the forum, you're still not going to give a view on how Sheila committed the massacre.
Bit weird in my view as all the crime scene evidence is available & not disputed. So it should be straight forward to match Sheila to it. Providing it is pretended she was not on Haloperidol.
How do explain all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide all the evidence showing it was Sheila ?
Do you know what Adam, why don't you apply to join the Official Campaign Team, then you would have your finger right on the pulse
-
Justice says that after 32 years no one being able to say how Sheila committed the massacre 'proves nothing'.
I believe it's massive proof as a scenario is based on the undisputed crime scene evidence. Together with two alledged WHF phone calls Bamber said Nevill made.
However posters base their Bamber innocence on Julie identifying the twins or AE giving BC Nevill's wallet. That would not be sufficient to get the CCRC to look at the case for a third time.
I know you are desperate to know what Roch knows but I cannot help you there.
I do wonder if you have actually read his posts as he has stated in such posts that he has seen evidence that proves Sheila was involved.
As Roch is not a liar then we surely have to accept there may be some doubt there is no evidence proving Sheila was involved.
-
Justice says that after 32 years no one being able to say how Sheila committed the massacre 'proves nothing'.
I believe it's massive proof as a scenario is based on the vast amount of undisputed crime scene evidence. Together with two alledged WHF phone calls Bamber said Nevill made.
However posters base their Bamber innocence on Julie identifying the twins or AE giving BC Nevill's wallet. These will not be sufficient to get the CCRC to look at the case for a third time.
Adam you have made over 16,000 posts can you give me some idea what you think is the percentage of regular posters on this forum who believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty
-
Demand impossible proof - Disinformation shills sometimes will demand proof then ignore it when its presented, or continue to demand impossible proofs. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, they will deem the material irrelevant and demand unattainable proof that is virtually impossible for the opponent to retrieve
Sounds a familiar experience on here.
-
I know you are desperate to know what Roch knows but I cannot help you there.
I do wonder if you have actually read his posts as he has stated in such posts that he has seen evidence that proves Sheila was involved.
As Roch is not a liar then we surely have to accept there may be some doubt there is no evidence proving Sheila was involved.
A lot of people have information which shows Sheila committed the massacre. Mike, Roch, JackieD, Bill.
I bet it must be frustrating for them to not post it on here while other posters still incorrectly believe Bamber is guilty.
-
Part of the problem lays in that this is no longer just about Jeremy's guilt/innocence. There is woven into it many other potential cases of innocence/guilt each having an individual influence on Jeremy's status.
Hi Jane, I think that is a good way of looking at the case. Struck a chord when I read it.
-
A lot of people have information which shows Sheila committed the massacre. Mike, Roch, JackieD, Bill.
I bet it must be frustrating for them to not post it on here while other posters still incorrectly believe Bamber is guilty.
It's in the hands of CT / Legal. I wouldn't bother worrying that there might be an appeal - as I think the current strategy is to stonewall stonewall stonewall by whatever means possible.
-
It's in the hands of CT / Legal. I wouldn't bother worrying that there might be an appeal - as I think the current strategy is to stonewall stonewall stonewall by whatever means possible.
'Stonewall'. I know the feeling.
-
Hi Jane, I think that is a good way of looking at the case. Struck a chord when I read it.
Thanks Roch. I've not been fully involved, forum-wise, for the past 48 hours, so, at the moment, I'm very much looking in from the outside and taking a more detached view. Things have certainly moved on apace!!!
-
A lot of people have information which shows Sheila committed the massacre. Mike, Roch, JackieD, Bill.
I bet it must be frustrating for them to not post it on here while other posters still incorrectly believe Bamber is guilty.
Can't disagree with that.
-
What was it that Lord Denning once said ? " It's better to keep an innocent man serving a life sentence in prison, than for the legal system to be brought into disrepute ".
-
'Stonewall'. I know the feeling.
Thought I had better add - I do not know any information that David or Jackie have. I dont have any information my self. I'm not a researcher on the case and dont have contacts (i.e within CT or legal). But I do keep in touch with Bill - which I started doing again after he came back on the forum after having read a post by David that mentioned him.
-
A lot of people have information which shows Sheila committed the massacre. Mike, Roch, JackieD, Bill.
I bet it must be frustrating for them to not post it on here while other posters still incorrectly believe Bamber is guilty.
Yes let's face it you can't blame some of us for being a doubting Thomas.
-
It is something I forecast Maggie, the way Scorpio went, I am not bothered I will keep in touch with my friends through email. The biggest joke is someone impersonating a police officer to drum up support for a mass murderer. The lowest of the low everyone knows who it is.
Hi Justice who is impersonating a police officer do you mean Bill did not know he was a police officer
-
Yes let's face it you can't blame some of us for being a doubting Thomas.
I have passed all the details of the policeman in question to Ngb including his name and address
That's all I have to say
-
Yes let's face it you can't blame some of us for being a doubting Thomas.
Hi Steve don't be a doubting Thomas keep an open mind and wait and see what happens that is what I am doing I know Roch too well not to believe him and Jackie has been so involved in the case she will be in the know and we all know David found I think a document which has gone to Jeremy's Legal Team.
-
Hi Steve don't be a doubting Thomas keep an open mind and wait and see what happens that is what I am doing I know Roch too well not to believe him and Jackie has been so involved in the case she will be in the know and we all know David found I think a document which has gone to Jeremy's Legal Team.
I think after 32 years someone in authority should set out a timeline. Otherwise we are just going round in circles as Lookout hinted at yesterday.
-
Yes let's face it you can't blame some of us for being a doubting Thomas.
Doubting ?
Hopefully Jackie's 6 part documentary will include Roch's, Bill's & her own information which shows Bamber is innocent.
Together with Mike's picture of Sheila on the bed & an interview with the policeman who knows Bamber is innocent.
-
Doubting ?
Hopefully Jackie's 6 part documentary will include Roch's, Bill's & her own information which shows Bamber is innocent. Together with Mike's picture of Sheila on the bed & an interview with the policeman who knows Bamber is innocent.
I know this thread is primarily a discussion on who has more rights between two men - but I dont have any information to pass on to any documentary makers. I'd be grateful if you stopped posting to the contrary. I'm not a researcher on the case.
-
I know this thread is primarily a discussion on who has more rights between two men - but I dont have any information to pass on to any documentary makers. I'd be grateful if you stopped posting to the contrary. I'm not a researcher on the case.
I would appreciate it if you stopped going on about this mysterious evidence you have that shows 'Sheila definately committted the massacre'.
Or you can always post it.
JackieD may have to use her charm to persuade you while making her 6 part documentary.
-
Adam does have a point..
-
I would appreciate it if you stopped going on about this mysterious evidence you have that shows 'Sheila definately committted the massacre'.
Or you can always post it.
Adam does have a point..
Yes, I agree that he does. I havent mentioned it as much recently (in comparison with before). He is wrong regarding that I can just post it - as this is not in my remit.
I can try to not mention it whatsoever in my posting - but it's difficult to hold-back when reading other members' posts on here.
-
I know this thread is primarily a discussion on who has more rights between two men - but I dont have any information to pass on to any documentary makers. I'd be grateful if you stopped posting to the contrary. I'm not a researcher on the case.
I am reminded of one of George Bernard Shaw's maxims: "He who slays a king and he who dies for him are alike idolators."
One man today had survivor guilt: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3670725/survivor-of-77-london-terror-attack-tony-walters-52-found-dead-hours-after-manchester-bombing-as-friends-claim-he-didnt-want-to-live-in-a-world-where-%c2%adattacks-continue/
Jeremy has no such guilt. He feels aggrieved at the way he was given away by his birth mother, the lackadaisical care and affection he was given by June, the double detachment of the Gresham's banishment, the overwork on the Farm and lack of gratitude shown for his endeavours and the unwarranted preferential treatment he considered Sheila to receive.
Yet Colin's children had an unblemished record vis-a-vis Jeremy. They were collateral damage in his drive for material possessions, gained through inheritance and no inherent talent of his own.
Yes: nobody would deny him access to the best legal representation, but he was and remains a nonentity, whilst some pick up the shards of their shattered lives.
-
It can be frustrating on here at times if you are not a guilter. I do not proclaim innocence, but I am unconvinced of guilt. Some but not all of the guilters love to give snide responses like "well he is in jail ect.
Some will not debate at all and make excuses for any anomalies, but fail to address them. for example,
JM, and SB said they went to the bank on there own volition, but in fact the meeting was arranged by the police, who escorted them to the bank. On it's own it may mean nothing, but to me it shows collusion. It is one of the things among loads of others that make me unconvinced.
The unconvinced are then asked to provide a detailed scenario which even the guilters cannot provide.
Fact is none of us know, hence the debate. I do not strut around saying I know all, because I don't.
Another example "oh no uncle Bobby I could easily kill my parents". It just doesn't ring true to me.
-
It can be frustrating on here at times if you are not a guilter. I do not proclaim innocence, but I am unconvinced of guilt. Some but not all of the guilters love to give snide responses like "well he is in jail ect.
Some will not debate at all and make excuses for any anomalies, but fail to address them. for example,
JM, and SB said they went to the bank on there own volition, but in fact the meeting was arranged by the police, who escorted them to the bank. On it's own it may mean nothing, but to me it shows collusion. It is one of the things among loads of others that make me unconvinced.
The unconvinced are then asked to provide a detailed scenario which even the guilters cannot provide.
Fact is none of us know, hence the debate. I do not strut around saying I know all, because I don't.
Another example "oh no uncle Bobby I could easily kill my parents". It just doesn't ring true to me.
Julie and Susan Battersby both confessed to the cheque fraud. There was a conversation in which Jeremy accused them of being a "goody two shoes", which may or may not have goaded them into theft. Obviously no crime is victim-free, but nobody was physically hurt, nobody died and there were no lasting repercussions.
It's now the Jeremy-Is-Innocent-Brigade who are holding things up, if they are privy to information which is not disclosed to this Forum and which is not being acted upon. If such information is in the domain of Jeremy's legal counsel is it too much to ask within what timeline this information will be released?
The guilters have given a scenario of the horrific crimes many times, unlike the innocents, who ascribe Herculean qualities to a young woman who was barely functioning, and who expect their truth to be accepted without question.
-
Julie and Susan Battersby both confessed to the cheque fraud. There was a conversation in which Jeremy accused them of being a "goody two shoes", which may or may not have goaded them into theft. Obviously no crime is victim-free, but nobody was physically hurt, nobody died and there were no lasting repercussions.
It's now the Jeremy-Is-Innocent-Brigade who are holding things up, if they are privy to information which is not disclosed to this Forum and which is not being acted upon. If such information is in the domain of Jeremy's legal counsel is it too much to ask within what timeline this information will be released?
The guilters have given a scenario of the horrific times many times, unlike the innocents, who ascribe Herculean qualities to a young woman who was barely functioning, and who expect their truth to be accepted without question.
See, I rest my case.
-
See, I rest my case.
I know Buddy
-
See, I rest my case.
You and others are stalling, you are running out of time, you have nothing new to put in the public domain, symbolic of the Julie Mugford and Alan Dovey story, which cannot be proved either way. We guilters don't argue that Jeremy Bamber is a murderer because he robbed Osea Road, but the innocents must equate a thieving Julie Mugford with her lying in the witness box, because that's all they have to go on.
-
You and others are stalling, you are running out of time, you have nothing new to put in the public domain, symbolic of the Julie Mugford and Alan Dovey story, which cannot be proved either way. We guilters don't argue that Jeremy Bamber is a murderer because he robbed Osea Road, but the innocents must equate a thieving Julie Mugford with her lying in the witness box, because that's all they have to go on.
Alan Dovey story CAN be proved, it's in his WS. You guilters have no more than fabricated evidence.
The trouble is Steve is you have become so entrenched now that you can't see the wood for the trees.
How would the family had survived had JB been cleared?
-
Alan Dovey story CAN be proved, it's in his WS. You guilters have no more than fabricated evidence.
The trouble is Steve is you have become so entrenched now that you can't see the wood for the trees.
How would the family had survived had JB been cleared?
They would have carried on, as they had the Speakman money to fall back on. Yes it's an emotional case, and you're right we should all stand back a little from time to time.
-
Yes, I agree that he does. I havent mentioned it as much recently (in comparison with before). He is wrong regarding that I can just post it - as this is not in my remit.
I can try to not mention it whatsoever in my posting - but it's difficult to hold-back when reading other members' posts on here.
Roch I know you have said your information indicating Sheila murdered her family is not yours to share and I respect you for that and as far as I am concerned you can talk about it in every post you make as it has given some of us on the forum hope that an innocent man could be released :)
-
They would have carried on, as they had the Speakman money to fall back on. Yes it's an emotional case, and you're right we should all stand back a little from time to time.
Yes Steve they did have the Speakman money, they also talked Granny Speakman out of leaving anything to JB. They were also stunned when they found out that Neville had bought land from under there feet and given it to JB. I respect your stance, but still think the family were in fear of what JB was going to do. I fall short of the family framing JB, but "found evidence" for the police, and Jones was happy to oblige. The fact they made him head of security stinks IMO.
-
Alan Dovey story CAN be proved, it's in his WS. You guilters have no more than fabricated evidence.
The trouble is Steve is you have become so entrenched now that you can't see the wood for the trees.
How would the family had survived had JB been cleared?
This is the visit to the bank by Julie and Susan on Friday 4th October 1985. I think this can be explained by the Police Officer not escorting them to the bank but being in Dovey's office when the girls arrived. It was 17 years after the event and memories can fade, though I do accept that it could be interpreted as misleading.
-
Yes Steve they did have the Speakman money, they also talked Granny Speakman out of leaving anything to JB. They were also stunned when they found out that Neville had bought land from under there feet and given it to JB. I respect your stance, but still think the family were in fear of what JB was going to do. I fall short of the family framing JB, but "found evidence" for the police, and Jones was happy to oblige. The fact they made him head of security stinks IMO.
Jeremy was not going to inherit directly from his grandmother, whose estate was divided between her two blood daughters. Jeremy wasn't even going to inherit Nevill's money directly, which was willed to June: only the Farm, on condition that he was still farming satisfactorily on the day of his father's demise.
I think Jeremy took all this as a game, cocking a snook at the will. He was devoid of any emotion and saw it as a financial transaction no less. When one compares this with the Julie Mugford and Alan Dovey incident the latter really does pale into insignificance.
-
Jeremy was not going to inherit directly from his grandmother, whose estate was divided between her two blood daughters. Jeremy wasn't even going to inherit Nevill's money directly, which was willed to June: only the Farm, on condition that he was still farming satisfactorily on the day of his father's demise.
I think Jeremy took all this as a game, cocking a snook at the will. He was devoid of any emotion and saw it as a financial transaction no less. When one compares this with the Julie Mugford and Alan Dovey incident the latter really does pale into insignificance.
JB was going to inherit money from his grandmother. I agree that he would not get the farm, but he was
not interested in it anyway. He would have taken the money and run,but the family would have been up the creek, that is why they took over the farm IMO.
I agree Steve that on its own the JM, AD, incident is of no consequence, but it is only one of a number of things that trouble me.
-
JB was going to inherit money from his grandmother. I agree that he would not get the farm, but he was
not interested in it anyway. He would have taken the money and run,but the family would have been up the creek, that is why they took over the farm IMO.
I agree Steve that on its own the JM, AD, incident is of no consequence, but it is only one of a number of things that trouble me.
Well I've told you who the beneficiaries of Mabel Speakman were going to be. The problem Jeremy had was that he wanted money immediately. Barbara Wilson said there was always an ulterior motive in everything he did; that's how his mind worked.
-
With respect Steve we will have to agree to disagree.
-
With respect Steve we will have to agree to disagree.
Even Scott Lomax doesn't argue that Mabel Speakman left a will in favour of her grandson, thus disinheriting her own blood daughters. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H8U7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT44&lpg=PT44&dq=jeremy+bamber+mabel+speakman+will&source=bl&ots=E_UFNN48fW&sig=YDP49vnlV06tREEZ8y1S3PoTY6s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDs7KKwpXUAhVYFMAKHf2BC4wQ6AEIQjAD#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20mabel%20speakman%20will&f=false
-
In your opinion ' taken away by one mans greed'
In my opinion a young man has been locked up for over 30 years because of xxxx xxxxxx greed
I believe her and her father were the ringleaders in this miscarriage of justice
Hi Caroline it was this post I took offence to.
-
Hi Caroline it was this post I took offence to.
I'm not really sure why you would be offended by this post justice.anyone looking at the evidence could come to the conclusion that they instigated the demise of jb and then went on to do everything they could to ensure he was found guilty.
It's not a personal insult it's an observation after reading the material available and an opinion that's all.
Don't take things to heart , imagine how jb feels if he is truly innocent and he has been accused of the worst crime anyone can commit .
-
Even Scott Lomax doesn't argue that Mabel Speakman left a will in favour of her grandson, thus disinheriting her own blood daughters. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H8U7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT44&lpg=PT44&dq=jeremy+bamber+mabel+speakman+will&source=bl&ots=E_UFNN48fW&sig=YDP49vnlV06tREEZ8y1S3PoTY6s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDs7KKwpXUAhVYFMAKHf2BC4wQ6AEIQjAD#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20mabel%20speakman%20will&f=false
Why do you keep quoting books, they are not an accurate source
-
Jeremy has been too busy trying to prove his innocence,with no time to grieve over the period of time that it takes,but once this is over,it'll all hit him hard when he realises that he won't see his family ever again.
His loss will be severely felt by him along with the betrayal of many that mentally he'll be ill-prepared for the outside world without the help, support and intervention of a professional group.It won't be easy for him and I don't envy how institutionalised he'll feel and experience. What a culture shock he'll receive.
-
I'm not really sure why you would be offended by this post justice.anyone looking at the evidence could come to the conclusion that they instigated the demise of jb and then went on to do everything they could to ensure he was found guilty.
It's not a personal insult it's an observation after reading the material available and an opinion that's all.
Don't take things to heart , imagine how jb feels if he is truly innocent and he has been accused of the worst crime anyone can commit .
Hiw would you like your name branded about all the time on a forum saying you were responsible for something without proof, what about her children and grandchildren, just because Jackie says so without providing any evidence. If Anne came on here and called Jackie out she would get banned, it's a joke. I hope soon these people who make lives hard for others on Facebook, twitter, forums are brought to justice themselves. I asked Bill for proof and called him untruthful with Roch and all hell let's loose, at least they have a chance to prove me wrong. The forum is run now to promote untruths and you either swallow it or piss off, I don't want any further part in it, I'm really insensed by it notsure, I asked Jackie to be careful how she worded it and tried to help, i have given up, I hate liars and con merchants and I tried to protect posters from one, but it seems it's ok on here.
There are people commuting suicide through this sort of activity on internet, all I ask was being a bit more considerate, if you think it's ok then go ahead.
-
I'm not really sure why you would be offended by this post justice.anyone looking at the evidence could come to the conclusion that they instigated the demise of jb and then went on to do everything they could to ensure he was found guilty.
It's not a personal insult it's an observation after reading the material available and an opinion that's all.
Don't take things to heart , imagine how jb feels if he is truly innocent and he has been accused of the worst crime anyone can commit .
Their names wasn't blanked out, they have been now by someone.
-
Hiw would you like your name branded about all the time on a forum saying you were responsible for something without proof, what about her children and grandchildren, just because Jackie says so without providing any evidence. If Anne came on here and called Jackie out she would get banned, it's a joke. I hope soon these people who make lives hard for others on Facebook, twitter, forums are brought to justice themselves. I asked Bill for proof and called him untruthful with Roch and all hell let's loose, at least they have a chance to prove me wrong. The forum is run now to promote untruths and you either swallow it or piss off, I don't want any further part in it, I'm really insensed by it notsure, I asked Jackie to be careful how she worded it and tried to help, i have given up, I hate liars and con merchants and I tried to protect posters from one, but it seems it's ok on here.
There are people commuting suicide through this sort of activity on internet, all I ask was being a bit more considerate, if you think it's ok then go ahead.
I agree that if people make unsubstantiated claims, they should expect to be called on it and if they don't like that, they really shouldn't make the claims in the first place. Expecting people to have blind faith in someone they don't know is a bit silly. Personally, I think at the heart of it, this is ALL CT propaganda.
-
Hiw would you like your name branded about all the time on a forum saying you were responsible for something without proof, what about her children and grandchildren, just because Jackie says so without providing any evidence. If Anne came on here and called Jackie out she would get banned, it's a joke. I hope soon these people who make lives hard for others on Facebook, twitter, forums are brought to justice themselves. I asked Bill for proof and called him untruthful with Roch and all hell let's loose, at least they have a chance to prove me wrong. The forum is run now to promote untruths and you either swallow it or piss off, I don't want any further part in it, I'm really insensed by it notsure, I asked Jackie to be careful how she worded it and tried to help, i have given up, I hate liars and con merchants and I tried to protect posters from one, but it seems it's ok on here.
There are people commuting suicide through this sort of activity on internet, all I ask was being a bit more considerate, if you think it's ok then go ahead.
No one is supporting anyone for telling untruths justice. You suggested BR was another poster using a different persona, maybe you were wrong about that?
I don't recall hell breaking loose I recall I may have commented that your accusations weren't acceptable, we can't have any poster accusing others of lying without proof therefore removing the post seemed the best option.
It is fair enough that you are protective towards people you know and believe are being bad mouthed on the forum but that has always been the way it is on here. I have removed the words from the post which made you so angry, I had missed this but if you had pmd me about it I would have edited the post.
I don't believe it's fair to expect me, one moderator on this forum to see everything on here. I am always willing do my best to help and support posters.
-
I agree that if people make unsubstantiated claims, they should expect to be called on it and if they don't like that, they really shouldn't make the claims in the first place. Expecting people to have blind faith in someone they don't know is a bit silly. Personally, I think at the heart of it, this is ALL CT propaganda.
I am not against people being questioned, the reason the posts were removed was because of the accusations.
I would always remove posts in that situation no matter which side of the argument or who they were.
-
No one is supporting anyone for telling untruths justice. You suggested BR was another poster using a different persona, maybe you were wrong about that?
I don't recall hell breaking loose I recall I may have commented that your accusations weren't acceptable, we can't have any poster accusing others of lying without proof therefore removing the post seemed the best option.
It is fair enough that you are protective towards people you know and believe are being bad mouthed on the forum but that has always been the way it is on here. I have removed the words from the post which made you so angry, I had missed this but if you had pmd me about it I would have edited the post.
I don't believe it's fair to expect me, one moderator on this forum to see everything on here. I am always willing do my best to help and support posters.
Maggie you do a superb job and it is possible you may miss posts because you do have a life off the forum. You will never please everybody Maggie but I think you are a fantastic Mod you are fair and have a lovely attitude which is so important as you would not know how to be offensive :-*
-
Maggie you do a superb job and it is possible you may miss posts because you do have a life off the forum. You will never please everybody Maggie but I think you are a fantastic Mod you are fair and have a lovely attitude which is so important as you would not know how to be offensive :-*
That is kind of you Susan. Much appreciated. :)
-
Well said indeed Susan. The trouble is that there are so many people on the forum these days arguing with each other, calling others liars, getting very personal with their comments that you have an impossible job. This is why I do not post anymore.
-
Hiw would you like your name branded about all the time on a forum saying you were responsible for something without proof, what about her children and grandchildren, just because Jackie says so without providing any evidence. If Anne came on here and called Jackie out she would get banned, it's a joke. I hope soon these people who make lives hard for others on Facebook, twitter, forums are brought to justice themselves. I asked Bill for proof and called him untruthful with Roch and all hell let's loose, at least they have a chance to prove me wrong. The forum is run now to promote untruths and you either swallow it or piss off, I don't want any further part in it, I'm really insensed by it notsure, I asked Jackie to be careful how she worded it and tried to help, i have given up, I hate liars and con merchants and I tried to protect posters from one, but it seems it's ok on here.
There are people commuting suicide through this sort of activity on internet, all I ask was being a bit more considerate, if you think it's ok then go ahead.
It is strange that the relatives get accused of framing Bamber. Then the accusers refuse to answer any questions on how they physically achieved this.
It's similar to saying Bamber is innocent just because Julie identified the twins.
No one disputes the relatives did not believe Sheila committed the massacre, or that Julie identified the twins. They put it in their own WS's. How that leaps to Bamber being innocent & the relatives framing him I don't know.
Evidence such as Sheila having to have changed & showered after killing herself, which was added to the library today, is blanked out by supporters.
-
No one is supporting anyone for telling untruths justice. You suggested BR was another poster using a different persona, maybe you were wrong about that?
I don't recall hell breaking loose I recall I may have commented that your accusations weren't acceptable, we can't have any poster accusing others of lying without proof therefore removing the post seemed the best option.
It is fair enough that you are protective towards people you know and believe are being bad mouthed on the forum but that has always been the way it is on here. I have removed the words from the post which made you so angry, I had missed this but if you had pmd me about it I would have edited the post.
I don't believe it's fair to expect me, one moderator on this forum to see everything on here. I am always willing do my best to help and support posters.
Thank you Maggie
-
It is strange that the relatives get accused of framing Bamber. Then the accusers refuse to answer any questions on how they physically achieved this.
Questions have been answered. Problem is you demand impossible proofs.
This is you to a T
"Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely."
"Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance."
http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html (http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html)
-
Questions have been answered. Problem is you demand impossible proofs.
This is you to a T
"Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely."
"Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance."
http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html (http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html)
Not asking for impossible proofs. Just reasonable answers. And no 1, 2 or 3 word answers which you usually do. Enjoy.
Had the relatives ever been in trouble with the law before ?
Did the relatives know there was no other evidence which showed Sheila was the killer ?
Did the relatives know about back splatter ?
Did the relatives know there was no back splatter already on the rifle nozzle ?
Did the relatives know that one of Sheila's shots was a contact shot ?
Did the relatives know the rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila to shoot herself ?
Did the relatives know where to get Sheila's blood ?
If unable to get Sheila's blood, did the relatives know what blood type she was ?
Did the relatives know who in the family had Sheila's blood type ?
Did the relatives know how to expertly put Sheila's blood/blood type into the silencer. Creating the back splatter effect ?
Did the relatives know when WHF was empty so they could go back and scratch the aga ?
Did the relatives know how to scratch the aga to suggest a kitchen fight ?
Did the relatives know that the crime scene photos did not already include pictures of the aga without the scratch's ?
Did the relatives know where to get a strand of Nevill's hair ?
Did the relatives know the risks in attempting this frame and the punishment if found ?
Did the relatives know that each other could be completely trusted in a big crime committe ?
-
Thank you Maggie
No probs justice. :)
-
In reply to Lookout's post #197 on The Rifle in the Window thread:
From Colin's book In Search of the Rainbow's End:
On one of my first visits to the farm, Bambs was showing me some of her paintings and drawings, which her parents had kept from her school-days, when one caught my eye as particularly striking. It portrayed three girls wearing long dresses standing on a spiral staircase, another girl at the bottom, kneeling on the floor in dark clothes, looking down and away from the others. Its imagery was both powerful and disturbing-not unlike Edvard Munch's painting The Scream. When I asked Bambs about it, she told me she had painted it at Moira House when she was eleven years old. The three girls represented the older pupils who were always "really nasty" to her and always made out that they were "so superior and glamorous" and that she was always so "dowdy and pathetic". I told her I thought the painting very moving and advanced for the age at which she did it, and asked if she would let me have it."
A few things strike me here. Sheila is combining elements of her home life (the feeling of helplessness leading to her lack of self-worth, the way her mother may have controlled her attire, the reference to the spiral staircase at White House Farm) with the experience at her new school, which again is an alien environment to her as she is shunned as a newcomer, starting as she did mid-term. Colin turned the picture over and discovered:
"there was a sinister black and white face with bright red lips, which had been crossed out with two broad daubs of red paint. It is often the case that the aborted attempt at a picture can be even more significant than the one which is presented. The whole thing, which in its entirety is even more reminiscent of The Scream, now seems horribly symbolic."
Colin goes on to say that it was the same day that Sheila showed him a picture of Nevill's late sister Diana. Did Sheila have an inkling that she had been packed off to boarding school suddenly because of Nevill's bereavement and his retreat into his own world just as his wife had in the past with her breakdowns? What of the situation whereby two adopted children now resided in a place with two reticent parents, unable or unwilling to express their emotions readily? What impact did this have on both Sheila and Jeremy as they reached their naturally rebellious teenage years, though devoid of an outlet to express their problems and fears?
-
In reply to Lookout's post #197 on The Rifle in the Window thread:
From Colin's book In Search of the Rainbow's End:
On one of my first visits to the farm, Bambs was showing me some of her paintings and drawings, which her parents had kept from her school-days, when one caught my eye as particularly striking. It portrayed three girls wearing long dresses standing on a spiral staircase, another girl at the bottom, kneeling on the floor in dark clothes, looking down and away from the others. Its imagery was both powerful and disturbing-not unlike Edvard Munch's painting The Scream. When I asked Bambs about it, she told me she had painted it at Moira House when she was eleven years old. The three girls represented the older pupils who were always "really nasty" to her and always made out that they were "so superior and glamorous" and that she was always so "dowdy and pathetic". I told her I thought the painting very moving and advanced for the age at which she did it, and asked if she would let me have it."
A few things strike me here. Sheila is combining elements of her home life (the feeling of helplessness leading to her lack of self-worth, the way her mother may have controlled her attire, the reference to the spiral staircase at White House Farm) with the experience at her new school, which again is an alien environment to her as she is shunned as a newcomer, starting as she did mid-term. Colin turned the picture over and discovered:
"there was a sinister black and white face with bright red lips, which had been crossed out with two broad daubs of red paint. It is often the case that the aborted attempt at a picture can be even more significant than the one which is presented. The whole thing, which in its entirety is even more reminiscent of The Scream, now seems horribly symbolic."
Colin goes on to say that it was the same day that Sheila showed him a picture of Nevill's late sister Diana. Did Sheila have an inkling that she had been packed off to boarding school suddenly because of Nevill's bereavement and his retreat into his own world just as his wife had in the past with her breakdowns? What of the situation whereby two adopted children now resided in a place with two reticent parents, unable or unwilling to express their emotions readily? What impact did this have on both Sheila and Jeremy as they reached their naturally rebellious teenage years, though devoid of an outlet to express their problems and fears?
The reason that Sheila is made out to be "shy, timid, incapable and ditsy" is, I imagine, because that exactly how she saw herself. No matter that she may have known that she was attractive. No matter that she may have know she could paint/draw. She never seems to have believed she was attractive/talented ENOUGH. She seems always to have measured herself against others and found herself wanting -it's possible that this is what June did to her as a way of moulding her into becoming a Bamber.
I'm skeptical about her alleged ability to write "prolifically". Colin certainly makes no mention of it in the above passage, concentrating, instead, on her ability to express herself well through the media of paint. Indeed, he makes a point of saying that Sheila had shown him paintings she'd kept from her school days. They must have had meaning to her. He makes no reference to "prolific" writings. The ability to put down feelings in words suggests a rather more academic? thoughtful? introspective? character than Sheila's. There would seem to be an immediacy about painting. A spontaneity. I feel Sheila may have lacked the concentration to write.
-
The reason that Sheila is made out to be "shy, timid, incapable and ditsy" is, I imagine, because that exactly how she saw herself. No matter that she may have known that she was attractive. No matter that she may have know she could paint/draw. She never seems to have believed she was attractive/talented ENOUGH. She seems always to have measured herself against others and found herself wanting -it's possible that this is what June did to her as a way of moulding her into becoming a Bamber.
I'm skeptical about her alleged ability to write "prolifically". Colin certainly makes no mention of it in the above passage, concentrating, instead, on her ability to express herself well through the media of paint. Indeed, he makes a point of saying that Sheila had shown him paintings she'd kept from her school days. They must have had meaning to her. He makes no reference to "prolific" writings. The ability to put down feelings in words suggests a rather more academic? thoughtful? introspective? character than Sheila's. There would seem to be an immediacy about painting. A spontaneity. I feel Sheila may have lacked the concentration to write.
well if we could see her diaries we would perhaps be able to comment on this in more detail.
-
The reason that Sheila is made out to be "shy, timid, incapable and ditsy" is, I imagine, because that exactly how she saw herself. No matter that she may have known that she was attractive. No matter that she may have know she could paint/draw. She never seems to have believed she was attractive/talented ENOUGH. She seems always to have measured herself against others and found herself wanting -it's possible that this is what June did to her as a way of moulding her into becoming a Bamber.
I'm skeptical about her alleged ability to write "prolifically". Colin certainly makes no mention of it in the above passage, concentrating, instead, on her ability to express herself well through the media of paint. Indeed, he makes a point of saying that Sheila had shown him paintings she'd kept from her school days. They must have had meaning to her. He makes no reference to "prolific" writings. The ability to put down feelings in words suggests a rather more academic? thoughtful? introspective? character than Sheila's. There would seem to be an immediacy about painting. A spontaneity. I feel Sheila may have lacked the concentration to write.
I agree that had Sheila been able to express herself more eloquently (the most rebellion growing up were tantrums it seems) her mental health would have been better and she could have seen through June more readily for what she was-namely a control freak who herself had issues to deal with. As it was she expressed her animosity to June by escaping the family environment as quickly as she could, though this in itself brought problems in its wake. With their concentration on Sheila the Bambers took their eyes off the ball with Jeremy and as you say attempted to mould them into something both of them could never possibly become.
-
I agree that had Sheila been able to express herself more eloquently (the most rebellion growing up were tantrums it seems) her mental health would have been better and she could have seen through June more readily for what she was-namely a control freak who herself had issues to deal with. As it was she expressed her animosity to June by escaping the family environment as quickly as she could, though this in itself brought problems in its wake. With their concentration on Sheila the Bambers took their eyes off the ball with Jeremy and as you say attempted to mould them into something both of them could never possibly become.
Although there is little doubt that June was a strong and possibly highly controlling person, I don't believe that is the complete cause for Sheila's apparent self doubt and lack of confidence.
Schizophrenia does not suddenly appear but is a gradual process. Pre schizophrenia tends to show in teenage years as low self esteem and self belief, chaotic thinking, anxiety, etc. Obviously this often goes unnoticed and is dismissed as part of teenage development. It is possible as June had her own mental health problems she was ill equipped to recognise her daughter may have problems other than being a difficult teenager or because of her own religious obsession that Sheila had 'bad blood' possibly because she was illegitimate. Sheila was away at boarding school, finishing school etc. so there was also probably a lack of emotional involvement and support for Sheila not unusual between children and parents who choose to send their children away at a young age.
-
In reply to Lookout's post #197 on The Rifle in the Window thread:
From Colin's book In Search of the Rainbow's End:
On one of my first visits to the farm, Bambs was showing me some of her paintings and drawings, which her parents had kept from her school-days, when one caught my eye as particularly striking. It portrayed three girls wearing long dresses standing on a spiral staircase, another girl at the bottom, kneeling on the floor in dark clothes, looking down and away from the others. Its imagery was both powerful and disturbing-not unlike Edvard Munch's painting The Scream. When I asked Bambs about it, she told me she had painted it at Moira House when she was eleven years old. The three girls represented the older pupils who were always "really nasty" to her and always made out that they were "so superior and glamorous" and that she was always so "dowdy and pathetic". I told her I thought the painting very moving and advanced for the age at which she did it, and asked if she would let me have it."
A few things strike me here. Sheila is combining elements of her home life (the feeling of helplessness leading to her lack of self-worth, the way her mother may have controlled her attire, the reference to the spiral staircase at White House Farm) with the experience at her new school, which again is an alien environment to her as she is shunned as a newcomer, starting as she did mid-term. Colin turned the picture over and discovered:
"there was a sinister black and white face with bright red lips, which had been crossed out with two broad daubs of red paint. It is often the case that the aborted attempt at a picture can be even more significant than the one which is presented. The whole thing, which in its entirety is even more reminiscent of The Scream, now seems horribly symbolic."
Colin goes on to say that it was the same day that Sheila showed him a picture of Nevill's late sister Diana. Did Sheila have an inkling that she had been packed off to boarding school suddenly because of Nevill's bereavement and his retreat into his own world just as his wife had in the past with her breakdowns? What of the situation whereby two adopted children now resided in a place with two reticent parents, unable or unwilling to express their emotions readily? What impact did this have on both Sheila and Jeremy as they reached their naturally rebellious teenage years, though devoid of an outlet to express their problems and fears?
Is there any chance of posting that eleven year old's painting Steve?
-
Although there is little doubt that June was a strong and possibly highly controlling person, I don't believe that is the complete cause for Sheila's apparent self doubt and lack of confidence.
Schizophrenia does not suddenly appear but is a gradual process. Pre schizophrenia tends to show in teenage years as low self esteem and self belief, chaotic thinking, anxiety, etc. Obviously this often goes unnoticed and is dismissed as part of teenage development. It is possible as June had her own mental health problems she was ill equipped to recognise her daughter may have problems other than being a difficult teenager or because of her own religious obsession that Sheila had 'bad blood' possibly because she was illegitimate. Sheila was away at boarding school, finishing school etc. so there was also probably a lack of emotional involvement and support for Sheila not unusual between children and parents who choose to send their children away at a young age.
In theory that's correct. However, the 'grooming' -and that's undoubtedly what it was- of a child starts LONG before it reaches it's teenage years. By the time a child reaches that age it's too late to start. I suspect, from everything I've read, that June had very fixed ideas of how -WHO- her biological child would have been, and set out, perhaps NOT unnaturally, to form Sheila into that child. That Sheila probably reached those difficult teenage years, not knowing who she really was, but not feeling right about the person she was being, is probably not great surprise....................and that's BEFORE the schizophrenia kicks in.
-
Although there is little doubt that June was a strong and possibly highly controlling person, I don't believe that is the complete cause for Sheila's apparent self doubt and lack of confidence.
Schizophrenia does not suddenly appear but is a gradual process. Pre schizophrenia tends to show in teenage years as low self esteem and self belief, chaotic thinking, anxiety, etc. Obviously this often goes unnoticed and is dismissed as part of teenage development. It is possible as June had her own mental health problems she was ill equipped to recognise her daughter may have problems other than being a difficult teenager or because of her own religious obsession that Sheila had 'bad blood' possibly because she was illegitimate. Sheila was away at boarding school, finishing school etc. so there was also probably a lack of emotional involvement and support for Sheila not unusual between children and parents who choose to send their children away at a young age.
It's very sad Maggie and even after expert help later on didn't stop Sheila committing suicide
-
The sad,but true fact was/is that mental illness is invisible and because a person appears that all is well with them,sometimes it couldn't be further from the truth.
You can see physical illnesses along with broken limbs,but mental illness is difficult to pinpoint.
Why it should be treated any differently from physical illness,I don't know,as many will experience mental health at some point in their lives.
-
Although there is little doubt that June was a strong and possibly highly controlling person, I don't believe that is the complete cause for Sheila's apparent self doubt and lack of confidence.
Schizophrenia does not suddenly appear but is a gradual process. Pre schizophrenia tends to show in teenage years as low self esteem and self belief, chaotic thinking, anxiety, etc. Obviously this often goes unnoticed and is dismissed as part of teenage development. It is possible as June had her own mental health problems she was ill equipped to recognise her daughter may have problems other than being a difficult teenager or because of her own religious obsession that Sheila had 'bad blood' possibly because she was illegitimate. Sheila was away at boarding school, finishing school etc. so there was also probably a lack of emotional involvement and support for Sheila not unusual between children and parents who choose to send their children away at a young age.
I agree about the gradual process idea and I'm not blaming June for her daughter's schizophrenia. Once diagnosed the Bambers offered their support as best they knew how: June with her practical offering of food parcels as she drove up to London and Nevill being at the other end of a telephone for her at White House Farm in the evenings and later paying for the private hospital in Northampton.
However there's no doubt that damage was done and I won't let them off lightly. Sheila, as Jeremy, couldn't really benefit from the rigours of a public school education and I'm far more inclined to believe that there was a snob element of what was perceived as paying for the best education money could buy. There was the excuse on behalf of Jeremy that he would have to employ local labour in the future and it was better if he were deemed to be superior to them, but I wonder what excuse they ever gave Sheila had she ever inquired as to why she was packed off to Moira House mid-term? The "Devil's Child" remark by June, coming as it did when her daughter was 17 years old was also unforgivable, as was her limp response to the birth of her grandchildren, just at a time when Sheila needed the most encouragement to move onto a new stage of her life.
-
Is there any chance of posting that eleven year old's painting Steve?
It's not in the book, unfortunately, but I see the picture as a way of releasing some of the tension that she must have endured as a new girl in a strange environment, after the trauma of separation from her birth mother, the acquaintance with June and again isolation as June became ill and needed medical intervention. Sheila evidently depicted herself as head bowed, lowly and dejected, whilst the other girls lauded it from above as they mocked from the superior position of the staircase.
-
I agree about the gradual process idea and I'm not blaming June for her daughter's schizophrenia. Once diagnosed the Bambers offered their support as best they knew how: June with her practical offering of food parcels as she drove up to London and Nevill being at the other end of a telephone for her at White House Farm in the evenings and later paying for the private hospital in Northampton.
However there's no doubt that damage was done and I won't let them off lightly. Sheila, as Jeremy, couldn't really benefit from the rigours of a public school education and I'm far more inclined to believe that there was a snob element of what was perceived as paying for the best education money could buy. There was the excuse on behalf of Jeremy that he would have to employ local labour in the future and it was better if he were deemed to be superior to them, but I wonder what excuse they ever gave Sheila had she ever inquired as to why she was packed off to Moira House mid-term? The "Devil's Child" remark by June, coming as it did when her daughter was 17 years old was also unforgivable, as was her limp response to the birth of her grandchildren, just at a time when Sheila needed the most encouragement to move onto a new stage of her life.
For all that you and I have said re June's upbringing of Sheila and Jeremy, Steve, the simple truth is that she had -as do the rest of us- no other frame of reference than her own. I don't believe there to have been anything snobbish about their choice of school for Sheila. There was no other form of education available to them -I would be interested to know, however, just what it was that the boarding school in Eastbourne appeared to offer which made it a suitable place to bring out whatever they believed were Sheila's talents- OR was it just that mid-term, (was there a family crisis?) it was the only school willing to take her?
-
Even the twins suffered with their thoughts drawn on paper. Not exactly typical of your 5/6 year olds,depicting tears coming from the sun,fire and a general miserable feel to them. Nothing happy about them at all.
-
In theory that's correct. However, the 'grooming' -and that's undoubtedly what it was- of a child starts LONG before it reaches it's teenage years. By the time a child reaches that age it's too late to start. I suspect, from everything I've read, that June had very fixed ideas of how -WHO- her biological child would have been, and set out, perhaps NOT unnaturally, to form Sheila into that child. That Sheila probably reached those difficult teenage years, not knowing who she really was, but not feeling right about the person she was being, is probably not great surprise....................and that's BEFORE the schizophrenia kicks in.
The grooming, or the moulding of Sheila into what June wanted her to become, meant that her daughter never had a safe haven, the nearest to it being her Maida Vale flat, though by then the schizophrenia was incipient as she found it impossible to hold down any day to day job. It was on her modelling assignment in Japan that she came to understand the real world and react against it, as she solicited the appointment with a psychiatrist on her return.
-
The grooming, or the moulding of Sheila into what June wanted her to become, meant that her daughter never had a safe haven, the nearest to it being her Maida Vale flat, though by then the schizophrenia was incipient as she found it impossible to hold down any day to day job. It was on her modelling assignment in Japan that she came to understand the real world and react against it, as she solicited the appointment with a psychiatrist on her return.
Steve, Maida Vale was way, WAY too late. The damage had been done before Sheila started school. It happened during those years when June could inflict, on her, and get no argument, her own dictates of right and wrong, and the way in which a true and grateful Christian child, who adhered to parental strictures, should live her life.
-
For all that you and I have said re June's upbringing of Sheila and Jeremy, Steve, the simple truth is that she had -as do the rest of us- no other frame of reference than her own. I don't believe there to have been anything snobbish about their choice of school for Sheila. There was no other form of education available to them -I would be interested to know, however, just what it was that the boarding school in Eastbourne appeared to offer which made it a suitable place to bring out whatever they believed were Sheila's talents- OR was it just that mid-term, (was there a family crisis?) it was the only school willing to take her?
And yet they did make that momentous decision to pack her off mid-term, which makes me think it was rather spur of the moment. Was Nevill mentally shattered following his sister's death from a car accident in 1968 and was June rather relieved that a developing beauty was moved out of the way? It appears that Hethersett became available a year later, by which time Sheila must have formed her own opinions both about her parents and life in general.
-
Even the twins suffered with their thoughts drawn on paper. Not exactly typical of your 5/6 year olds,depicting tears coming from the sun,fire and a general miserable feel to them. Nothing happy about them at all.
But they were never directed against mummy, only against June. Children are sensitive to atmosphere yet they treasured their weekends spent with her, which makes me think many of these stories which abounded after her death were exaggerations.
-
And yet they did make that momentous decision to pack her off mid-term, which makes me think it was rather spur of the moment. Was Nevill mentally shattered following his sister's death from a car accident in 1968 and was June rather relieved that a developing beauty was moved out of the way? It appears that Hethersett became available a year later, by which time Sheila must have formed her own opinions both about her parents and life in general.
She may have started to form her own opinions, but without professional help, I don't think they'd have been unaccompanied by huge feelings of guilt and disloyalty that this would have been going against everything her mother had taught her was right and proper behaviour. This confusion, of course, doesn't bode well for mental health.
-
Steve, Maida Vale was way, WAY too late. The damage had been done before Sheila started school. It happened during those years when June could inflict, on her, and get no argument, her own dictates of right and wrong, and the way in which a true and grateful Christian child, who adhered to parental strictures, should live her life.
I think she tried to be independent but didn't have the inherent ability or the natural self-confidence to become a success. Her only foil became Colin, and he endured what most men would not. She did gain acquaintances in the Maida Vale set, but they were often in as much need of assistance as Sheila herself.
-
She may have started to form her own opinions, but without professional help, I don't think they'd have been unaccompanied by huge feelings of guilt and disloyalty that this would have been going against everything her mother had taught her was right and proper behaviour. This confusion, of course, doesn't bode well for mental health.
I think she did lack the wherewithal to laugh it off as some children might have done as they advanced in their twenties. The fact that Sheila didn't speak all the way down to White House Farm on that final fateful journey suggests to me that she was still ill and apprehensive of things she would face upon arrival.
-
I think she tried to be independent but didn't have the inherent ability or the natural self-confidence to become a success. Her only foil became Colin, and he endured what most men would not. She did gain acquaintances in the Maida Vale set, but they were often in as much need of assistance as Sheila herself.
Yes. There's a curious dichotomy here, I feel. We know that Sheila and Colin were a match made in hell, but Colin gave Sheila a reason to get away -in her mind- from the restraining influence of her mother. It also gave Colin a guaranteed financial source -at a cost to him- which meant he had no need to get a 'proper job' to support Sheila.
-
I think she did lack the wherewithal to laugh it off as some children might have done as they advanced in their twenties. The fact that Sheila didn't speak all the way down to White House Farm on that final fateful journey suggests to me that she was still ill and apprehensive of things she would face upon arrival.
I see very little of Sheila's childhood as giving her reason to laugh at a later date. I think it's fairly well accepted that when adult children visit the parental homes of their childhood they revert to the children whom had been created during that time. That Sheila showed little joy during that journey MAY have reflected how she'd seen her childhood as being.
-
Yes. There's a curious dichotomy here, I feel. We know that Sheila and Colin were a match made in hell, but Colin gave Sheila a reason to get away -in her mind- from the restraining influence of her mother. It also gave Colin a guaranteed financial source -at a cost to him- which meant he had no need to get a 'proper job' to support Sheila.
I don't think financial considerations were in Colin's mind at all-if anything he preferred the simple life without June's interference. He did see the sense of moving from the Hampstead flat with rising damp into Moreshead Mansions for the sake of the twins, not for himself.
-
I don't think financial considerations were in Colin's mind at all-if anything he preferred the simple life without June's interference. He did see the sense of moving from the Hampstead flat with rising damp into Moreshead Mansions for the sake of the twins, not for himself.
Steve, I know you have huge support for Colin and I'm not attempting to do more here than highlight how wrong was his and Sheila's relationship, despite that they may have been besotted with each other. I'm inclined to see Colin as gentle but somewhat idle character who would take the easy way out if he could find it. I concur that he'd have preferred life without June's interference, but wives from wealthy, middle class families don't come cheap. TWINS are an added strain. We have to remember that he was self employed. As such, if he wasn't doing commission work, he wasn't getting paid. Much as he may have resented their input, I'll bet there were times when he was very grateful for his wealthy inlaws.
-
Steve, I know you have huge support for Colin and I'm not attempting to do more here than highlight how wrong was his and Sheila's relationship, despite that they may have been besotted with each other. I'm inclined to see Colin as gentle but somewhat idle character who would take the easy way out if he could find it. I concur that he'd have preferred life without June's interference, but wives from wealthy, middle class families don't come cheap. TWINS are an added strain. We have to remember that he was self employed. As such, if he wasn't doing commission work, he wasn't getting paid. Much as he may have resented their input, I'll bet there were times when he was very grateful for his wealthy inlaws.
I wouldn't say idle, just not materialistic in the slightest. In this sense I thought he was a good match with Sheila had she been well. I agree that he would avoid confrontation if at all possible.
-
I wouldn't say idle, just not materialistic in the slightest. In this sense I thought he was a good match with Sheila had she been well. I agree that he would avoid confrontation if at all possible.
We're probably splitting hairs over how we see him, but we'll possibly both agree that without Bamber input, Colin couldn't have afforded to be married to Sheila. Of course, a stronger character, than he, might have refused to get married but I think he did, at that point, love Sheila. I'd be curious to know just how much financial input he made towards the twins and how much he relied on his parents and the Bambers. Not for a moment am I suggesting he didn't adore his boys, but we all know that children can't be bought up on fresh air.
-
I don't think financial considerations were in Colin's mind at all-if anything he preferred the simple life without June's interference. He did see the sense of moving from the Hampstead flat with rising damp into Moreshead Mansions for the sake of the twins, not for himself.
I| got the impression from Colin's book that he wasn't particularly proud of himself back in those days. It's all very well being a dreamer and not considering money but he was the father of twins and had two choices, to accept his responsibilities, get a job, any job and support his children or live off his wife's parent's money. | have much admiration for how Colin dealt with the death of his boys and how he developed but he didn't cover himself in glory in the early days and admitted that himself.
-
Unfortunately,June's " interference " came in the shape of a regular allowance which she gave to Sheila,which was fortunate for Colin as it paid the bills.
-
I| got the impression from Colin's book that he wasn't particularly proud of himself back in those days. It's all very well being a dreamer and not considering money but he was the father of twins and had two choices, to accept his responsibilities, get a job, any job and support his children or live off his wife's parent's money. | have much admiration for how Colin dealt with the death of his boys and how he developed but he didn't cover himself in glory in the early days and admitted that himself.
Life is never black or white. Their marriage had resulted in a miscarriage which was the sole reason for the marriage in the first place, but it had gone on to produce the twins, who he adored. It doesn't however, negate that it was a marriage which, had it not been for the pregnancy which failed,would probably never have happened. It was, from the start, entirely unsuitable for Colin, and only marginally less so for Sheila. It's a tragedy and an irony that it took the twin's appalling deaths for Colin to grow into the person he subsequently became.
-
Unfortunately,June's " interference " came in the shape of a regular allowance which she gave to Sheila,which was fortunate for Colin as it paid the bills.
There may have been an informal arrangement as regards finance but the regular allowance June was considering for Sheila (I forget the exact amount but Basil Cock was consulted and it was to be paid quarterly to her) never materialized due to the tragedy.
-
There may have been an informal arrangement as regards finance but the regular allowance June was considering for Sheila (I forget the exact amount but Basil Cock was consulted and it was to be paid quarterly to her) never materialized due to the tragedy.
So I suppose that the idea of an allowance furthered the " motive " in Jeremy's supposed killings ?? ::)
Something else that the relatives et al could sink their teeth into.
-
So I suppose that the idea of an allowance furthered the " motive " in Jeremy's supposed killings ?? ::)
Something else that the relatives et al could sink their teeth into.
I've found the relevant reference in Carol Ann Lee's book under the "Growth" section. It says June felt that as Sheila would turn 28 on 18 July she should become more independent by managing money herself and to this end a deed of covenant was drawn up by Basil Cock to the sum of £3000pa to be paid in four quarterly instalments.
Of course this does give further momentum to the argument that Jeremy killed his family for financial motives, as he already had access to the safe key ( the document was waiting for June's signature), there were the bills for Sheila's hospital stay in March 1985 on Nevill's desk totalling £15,000, and in addition Colin mentions in his book that Sheila would have liked the twins to attend private school.
-
I've found the relevant reference in Carol Ann Lee's book under the "Growth" section. It says June felt that as Sheila would turn 28 on 18 July she should become more independent by managing money herself and to this end a deed of covenant was drawn up by Basil Cock to the sum of £3000pa to be paid in four quarterly instalments.
Of course this does give further momentum to the argument that Jeremy killed his family for financial motives, as he already had access to the safe key ( the document was waiting for June's signature), there were the bills for Sheila's hospital stay in March 1985 on Nevill's desk totalling £15,000, and in addition Colin mentions in his book that Sheila would have liked the twins to attend private school.
I doubt, even had Colin and Sheila still been married, that such funds for such would have been available. The Bambers would, from necessity, always been responsible for the expensive life style they'd bought up Sheila to expect would be hers.
-
I've found the relevant reference in Carol Ann Lee's book under the "Growth" section. It says June felt that as Sheila would turn 28 on 18 July she should become more independent by managing money herself and to this end a deed of covenant was drawn up by Basil Cock to the sum of £3000pa to be paid in four quarterly instalments.
Of course this does give further momentum to the argument that Jeremy killed his family for financial motives, as he already had access to the safe key ( the document was waiting for June's signature), there were the bills for Sheila's hospital stay in March 1985 on Nevill's desk totalling £15,000, and in addition Colin mentions in his book that Sheila would have liked the twins to attend private school.
Jeremy wouldn't have been the only one to have seen that latterly,and so it added more fuel to the fact that there was " reason 'a plenty "to have blamed him. It's known as Sod's Law.
There's a letter on the forum somewhere more or less expressing concern about Sheila's " failing mental health ".It was only written a couple of weeks before the tragedy by Dr.Ferguson,I think ? to another doctor and it " hinted " towards a further stay in hospital or words to that effect. I felt as though Ferguson had reached the end of the line as regards the best treatment etc. because of her anxious state. For £15,000,they could have done more !
I wish I could find it.
-
Jeremy wouldn't have been the only one to have seen that latterly,and so it added more fuel to the fact that there was " reason 'a plenty "to have blamed him. It's known as Sod's Law.
There's a letter on the forum somewhere more or less expressing concern about Sheila's " failing mental health ".It was only written a couple of weeks before the tragedy by Dr.Ferguson,I think ? to another doctor and it " hinted " towards a further stay in hospital or words to that effect. I felt as though Ferguson had reached the end of the line as regards the best treatment etc. because of her anxious state. For £15,000,they could have done more !
I wish I could find it.
Perhaps you can tell us who it is you're suggesting might have taken a sneaky peek at Nevill's and June's private papers. Perhaps you're suggesting that his faithful farm secretary would have passed the information on, OR that one of the wider family, you so revile, paid a sneaky visit.................to do exactly what, I wonder? Certainly not to learn what medical expenses Sheila was incurring. I can't think who, other than Jeremy, would have A) known the whole story B) been interested in the Bamber affairs.
-
To be fair it doesn't actually state that Jeremy had seen the deed of covenant or even got wind of June's future plans for Sheila, but given that Nevill told Barbara they should consider getting a new safe key and Jeremy's concerns that his mother might change her will in favour of the Church as narrated by Julie the finger of suspicion does lie in the direction of Jeremy wanting to claim his inheritance whilst it remained at its zenith.
-
To be fair it doesn't actually state that Jeremy had seen the deed of covenant or even got wind of June's future plans for Sheila, but given that Nevill told Barbara they should consider getting a new safe key and Jeremy's concerns that his mother might change her will in favour of the Church as narrated by Julie the finger of suspicion does lie in the direction of Jeremy wanting to claim his inheritance whilst it remained at its zenith.
Oh I agree, Steve. However, as it was suggested that "Jeremy wouldn't have been the only one to see that..............." it sounded as if Jeremy HAD seen it and I was just wondering who, OTHER than Jeremy might have, coincidentally, sneaked in to take a sneaky look to see what could be found which was of interest, and WHY?
-
Jeremy's legal team have no consideration whatsoever for what Colin must have endured these last few days.
-
Jeremy's legal team have no consideration whatsoever for what Colin must have endured these last few days.
Why would they? Their job is to get Jeremy acquitted.
I hope Colin has found peace though. I don't think people appreciated what he lost - it was all about the other lot.
-
Why would they? Their job is to get Jeremy acquitted.
I hope Colin has found peace though. I don't think people appreciated what he lost - it was all about the other lot.
Well they haven't done very well so far. Just dredged up niggling loose ends.
-
Well they haven't done very well so far. Just dredged up niggling loose ends.
Agreed, but that wasn't the point of my post. I don't know why they're encouraging appeals based on such flimsy information.
-
Agreed, but that wasn't the point of my post. I don't know why they're encouraging appeals based on such flimsy information.
That's really the point!
-
Well they're not doing it to piss Colin off. That was my point.
-
Well they're not doing it to piss Colin off. That was my point.
No, but I suspect he's had enough of seeing such headlines.
-
No, but I suspect he's had enough of seeing such headlines.
Maybe, but lawyers don't take into consideration who might be pissed off about headlines. If they did, no case would get to court.
-
Maybe, but lawyers don't take into consideration who might be pissed off about headlines. If they did, no case would get to court.
No, but they really should consider the strength of something they refer to as 'compelling' because if it's not they will piss off the CCRC which is something they should care about.
-
In Search of the Rainbow's End (cont..)
In the Shadow of Angels
After this book was originally completed in 1994, I felt I had crossed a threshold. The extraordinary journey of my life continued, bringing numerous opportunities that I would continue to grasp with both hands. Having said this, I also yearned to be "normal" again, to be ordinary, but that was never going to be possible. Even though I was now completely at peace with my losses, I had to accept that there was a dark back story to my life that I was destined to live in the shadow of. In the same way that one can never get close to the end of a rainbow, this shadow followed me wherever I went.
-
When I eventually remarried and began a new family this became even more challenging, especially for them. Having an unusual surname didn't help. There were many times I considered changing it, but by so doing I would render myself untraceable to everyone including friends and acquaintances. This would also negate any history of my creative achievements.
-
It was inevitable that Jeremy's attempts to appeal against his conviction would regularly hit the news-stands but on the whole, I tended to turn a blind eye and get on with my life. As far as I was concerned, the conviction was safe and not worth thinking about.
-
Although I had moved on, it seemed the rest of the world had not, and with this I continued to experience a real sense of loneliness born out of endless stereotypical projections of how people imagined I should be, once they realized who I was and what I had been through. Over the years it was clear from people's reactions that I would be forever seen as a "victim" and had to fight to earn the more realistic epithet of "triumphant survivor", as I was once described in Good Housekeeping magazine. I could understand that meeting me confronted many with their worst nightmare, especially if they had children themselves, but they often didn't stick around long enough to find out that I was actually human, with a very positive outlook on life.
-
Why would it have been inevitable that Jeremy would attempt an appeal ? Surely if someone had known for sure that he'd committed mass murder that it would be the total ending to an appeal of any sort ?
-
We all know that many in JB's quarter of Wakefield prison would have been laughed out of court if they'd even attempted to have appealed, it's that sort of a prison isn't it ? So why Jeremy ?
-
He goes on to discuss his projects including the anger and grief workshops, and charity work he did to alleviate the suffering of children traumatised by the Yugoslavia crisis in 1992. He continues:
Looking back, I think my relationship with those wonderful young people helped pave the way for the next stage of my life, becoming a husband and father again. I finally felt ready to settle down but as it turned out not with Jill, the woman with whom I had spent a big part of my adult life.
-
We all know that many in JB's quarter of Wakefield prison would have been laughed out of court if they'd even attempted to have appealed, it's that sort of a prison isn't it ? So why Jeremy ?
Well he wasn't in Wakefield all the time, was he?
-
Why would it have been inevitable that Jeremy would attempt an appeal ? Surely if someone had known for sure that he'd committed mass murder that it would be the total ending to an appeal of any sort ?
I suppose because he had always claimed innocence the lawyers would be pushing for it.
-
Jill and I were together for the second time in our lives for about eight years. In many ways it was as if we had been married. Jill was a long-haul airline stewardess with a passion for literature and I was struggling to write this book and make some sense of the appalling tragedy that had befallen my family. It also felt safe because, like Heather and a few others, Jill knew the twins-and that was very important to me then.
-
Well he wasn't in Wakefield all the time, was he?
No, but he continued as a Cat A prisoner wherever he was.
-
I suppose because he had always claimed innocence the lawyers would be pushing for it.
Why do you think that any lawyer would stick their neck out ?
-
If the truth be known, we were an ideal match during that period, because I needed the time and mental space to write and reflect on the journey of my life; she fulfilled her passion for travel and the time it gave her for reading. On her returns she would be my toughest critic, cross-examining every nuance of my thought processes, but when the book was finished, it left little to sustain the relationship. By the time it was published, although still good friends, we had parted again.
-
Why do you think that any lawyer would stick their neck out ?
I don't know but he's got through enough necks. Are some still working pro bono or hoping for the anticipated compensation?
-
I don't know but he's got through enough. Are some still working pro bono or hoping for the anticipated compensation?
I would think that money plays a big part at the stage where the lawyers are at presently as does their success at winning the case.
-
A few more years passed with one final attempt to make it work, but that also failed. Neither of us had ever felt completely settled together, but without Jill I may never have finished the book. I will always love her for the way she stuck by me through the most difficult times-a bit like a mother-and that, I suspect, is why things would never have worked. She gave me the world, literally, with her airline travel concessions, but knew I had to grow up and leave home.
-
"I welcomed Jeremy into my flat and gave him all the brotherly love as a victim.." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7894563/Murdered-Sheila-Caffells-widow-reveals-welcomed-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-home.html
-
Chapter 30 to follow next week..
-
Chapter 30 to follow next week..
I first met my second wife, Sally, at the Findhorn Foundation in Scotland. I was one of a number of invited speakers at their 1998 Easter conference on the subject of "Conscious Living and Conscious Dying". I was also going to be giving a clay workshop as an experimental demonstration of one of the ways I worked with people in groups. Needless to say, I was feeling very nervous about speaking in front of over three hundred people, especially knowing that many were leading lights in the New Age movement.
Findhorn's co-founder, Eileen Caddy, came in one door to hear me. Phyllis Krystal, author of Cutting the Ties That Bind, through another. Jill, whom I hadn't seen since we finally split up six months earlier, was also there, having stayed on to help out after another workshop the previous week. Seeing all three come in, I reached for the hand of my friend Sarah Boyle (wife of ex-convict and sculptor, Jimmy Boyle), who was sitting next to me at the time. Then Sally walked in, looking more glamorous than was usual for Findhorn. She was there to cover the conference on behalf of Positive News, a journal that focused specifically on good news.
-
Sally introduced herself to me straight after the talk, saying that she had already put her name down for my workshop that afternoon. She had seen that the list was full, but added her name anyway. On hearing this, I pointed out that she could only take part if someone else dropped out. Luckily for her, and for me, someone did.
-
After the workshop, we agreed to meet at another activity that evening and discovered that we lived only a mile or so apart in the same area of London. Jill, seeing the obvious spark between us, left the following day.
-
Some months later, well into our relationship, Sally told me that when she first noticed me across the auditorium, she thought to herself, "Oh, he looks nice," at which point a voice in her head clearly said, "That's the father of your child!" Surprised at this sudden intrusion, she did a double-take, saw me holding hands with the woman next to me and assumed I was already attached. It was only when I got up to give my talk that Sally realized I was running the clay workshop she had signed up for.
Years later, she told me that if intuition hadn't happened, like others before her, she might never have entered the relationship once she'd heard about my past. It also came as quite a shock, because motherhood had not been part of her plan; she was a free-spirited, well-travelled journalist and music presenter on a national radio station. When we discovered Sally was pregnant a year later, we were even more surprised, because problems during an earlier operation had nearly resulted in a hysterectomy to save her life. Yehudi Gordon, the brilliant gynaecologist who had saved her womb, described the pregnancy and subsequent birth of our daughter as "a miracle."
-
Being a parent again was something I had thought long and hard about. There was always going to be a very real danger of idealized projection of the twins onto a new baby, not just from me but also from those who knew the boys well; for this beautiful new child to find herself in the shadow of little boys who were regarded by many as "angels". I had to be very sure in myself that she would not be an emotional replacement, but seen for her own unique qualities. It was therefore an enormous relief to find we had a daughter on the way, sparing her the risk of any potential comparisons had she been a boy.
-
Steve with all due respect, most here have the book and so do I.
You are just copying and pasting the books content with no transformative purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or support a claim. This is technically copyright infringement. :-\
-
Steve with all due respect, most here have the book and so do I.
You are just copying and pasting the books content with no transformative purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or support a claim. This is technically copyright infringement. :-\
Oh I didn't know members had the new copy. I will comment in due course.
-
Oh I didn't know members had the new copy. I will comment in due course.
I got the kindle version last week. I wonder why JBs letters to him have been omitted in this version.
-
I got the kindle version last week. I wonder why JBs letters to him have been omitted in this version.
Are the letters on this thread?
Edit:
Please ignore, I have found them. Thanks.
-
I got the kindle version last week. I wonder why JBs letters to him have been omitted in this version.
They're in Chapter 25.
-
They're in Chapter 25.
They are not all there. Can you check with the paper version.
-
They are not all there. Can you check with the paper version.
Well I don't have the kindle anyway. The book I have is published by Hodder with an orange and pink cover. As I say it's in Chapter 25. Chapters 29 and 30 are new so were not in the hardback edition I bought a few years ago.
-
Well I don't have the kindle anyway. The book I have is published by Hodder with an orange and pink cover. As I say it's in Chapter 25. Chapters 29 and 30 are new so were not in the hardback edition I bought a few years ago.
The 2020 kindle version should be same as the 2020 paper version.
-
Letter from Jeremy in Wormwood Scrubs to Colin written 16 August 1988:
DEAR COLIN
I READ THE ARTICLE IN YESTERDAY'S INDEPENDENT WITH MUCH SADNESS,THE SAME SADNESS I ALWAYS FEEL WHEN I READ ABOUT YOU AND WHAT YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
YOUR LETTER TODAY,COLIN,WAS I'M AFRAID A TOUCH PREMATURE.YOU'RE WRITING TO ME HOPING,I GUESS,FOR THE LAST FEW PIECES OF THE JIGSAW SO THAT YOU MAY HOLD THE PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED IS NOT POSSIBLE. IF I COULD FURNISH YOU WITH WHAT YOU WANTED THEN I WOULD GLADLY DO SO-WHATEVER HAPPENED THAT FATEFUL NIGHT WILL NEVER BE FULLY EXPLAINED,IN FACT YOU COULD PROBABLY TELL ME MORE THAN I COULD YOU.
THE PAPER DID MENTION IN THE ARTICLE YESTERDAY THAT I WAS APPEALING AND NO DOUBT YOU KNEW THAT ANYWAY. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REACT WHEN THEY QUASH MY CONVICTION ,COLIN,BECAUSE IT'S VERY PROBABLE THEY WILL DO SO? YOU MAY BELIEVE ME GUILTY,YOU MAY NOT,BUT I HOPE THAT IF NOTHING ELSE YOU'LL TRY AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND BECAUSE AT MY APPEAL I WILL PROVE MY INNOCENCE AND BY DOING THAT THE CORNER-STONE OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED,BY WHOM I CAN'T PROVE YET AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO FOR MY APPEAL BUT EVENTUALLY I'LL FIND OUT BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OF FIVE PEOPLE. IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M TALKING RIDDLES AND I'M SORRY THAT I CAN'T EXPLAIN IN A LETTER TO YOU.IT SEEMS SO POINTLESS IN ME SENDING YOU THIS LETTER AS IT'LL ONLY ADD TO YOUR CONFUSION BUT FOR YOU TO WRITE TO ME MUST HAVE TAKEN A GREAT DEAL SO MY REPLYING IS THE LEAST I CAN DO..
The part I have highlighted in red is the only part of this letter that appears in Chapter 25 of the 2020 printed version.
-
The part I have highlighted in red is the only part of this letter that appears in Chapter 25 of the 2020 printed version.
Yes. This is what I was on about.
-
SCRUBS PRISON,WEDNESDAY 2 FEBRUARY 1989
DEAR COLIN,
SO YOU DECIDED NOT TO REPLY TO MY LETTER,I WONDER WHY? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FACE THE TRUTH THAT I DID NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN OR SHEILA OR MUM AND DAD. HOW SAD,COLIN,THAT YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH REALITY FROM MEDIA HYPE,MISGUIDED POLICE AND MY MONEY-GRABBING RELATIVES. OUT OF EVERYONE I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND BUT INSTEAD YOU'VE MADE YOURSELF A COG IN THE MEDIA WHEEL. THE VERY SAME MEDIA THAT YOU RIDICULE IN THE RADIO TIMES. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE HOW I'VE SUFFERED SINCE SHEILA KILLED MY FAMILY-I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU CARE AND WHY SHOULD YOU,COLIN,WITH YOUR NICE LITTLE BOOK AND YOUR PRETTY LITTLE SCULPTURES POURING OUT YOUR GRIEF TO ANY FILM CREW AROUND-NICE TIMING TOO-EH,-WITH MY APPEAL UP SOON,MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO WAVE A BANNER OUTSIDE THE COURT WITH "JEREMY'S GUILTY BUT I DON'T WANT REVENGE."
GO AND ENJOY YOUR CELEBRITY STATUS,MAYBE YOU'LL BE ON WOGAN NEXT AND CAN ADVERTISE YOUR BOOK AND SCULPTURES THAT WAY-HOW YOU CAN CHEAPEN DANIEL AND NICHOLAS AND THEIR TRAGIC DEATH I JUST DON'T KNOW. NO ONE WANTED ANYTHING OF YOU BEFORE THEN AND NOW THEY'RE GONE YOU'RE USING IT FOR YOUR OWN ENDS-PRETENDING IT'S GRIEF COUNSELLING. YOU WERE ALRIGHT,COLIN,ONCE,BUT NOW I'M SORRY TO SEE YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A LEECH LIVING OFF YOUR OWN SONS' TRAGIC DEATH. IF THEY COULD SEE YOU NOW I BET IT WOULD SICKEN THEM AS IT SICKENS ME...I HOPE YOU LOVE YOURSELF,IN FACT I BET YOU DO. WHAT I WISH IS THAT YOU NEVER GET TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU'LL FUCK THEM UP TOO-IT WAS YOUR FAULT THAT SHEILA WENT MAD AND KILLED EVERYONE. YOU KNEW SHE WOULD BREAK UNDER THE STRAIN OF BRINGING UP A FAMILY ON HER OWN-YOU DIDN'T CARE FOR YOUR CHILDREN EVEN IN THE WOMB..
YOU'VE DONE ME MUCH HARM WITH YOUR SELFISH USE OF THE MEDIA SO I'D USE THE SAME TO GET MY OWN BACK. LOOK FORWARD TO AN ARTICLE SOON COLIN MAY IT PRICK YOUR CONSCIENCE IF YOU HAVE ONE. YOUR [SIC] NOTHING BUT A LEACH JUST THINK WHAT YOUR [SIC] FEEDING OFF.
WITH VERY MUCH SADNESS
JEREMY
Again, the text in red is what appears in Chapter 25 2020 version. Interestingly, the text in blue appears in the new book but was not in the original thread posting.
-
Again, the text in red is what appears in Chapter 25 2020 version. Interestingly, the text in blue appears in the new book but was not in the original thread posting.
Very strange.
-
Very strange.
Makes me wonder what else, if anything, might be different between the two books...
-
They're in Chapter 25.
Steve when you origanally posted the letters in 2015, did you get the text from your hardback copy of CC's book?
-
Steve when you origanally posted the letters in 2015, did you get the text from your hardback copy of CC's book?
There is more. I am looking. Stay tuned
-
There is more. I am looking. Stay tuned
Oh good :) ...
-
Oh good :) ...
There is another paragraph in that letter omitted, I have put it in bold black.
"DEAR COLIN
I READ THE ARTICLE IN YESTERDAY'S INDEPENDENT WITH MUCH SADNESS,THE SAME SADNESS I ALWAYS FEEL WHEN I READ ABOUT YOU AND WHAT YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
YOUR LETTER TODAY,COLIN,WAS I'M AFRAID A TOUCH PREMATURE.YOU'RE WRITING TO ME HOPING,I GUESS,FOR THE LAST FEW PIECES OF THE JIGSAW SO THAT YOU MAY HOLD THE PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED IS NOT POSSIBLE. IF I COULD FURNISH YOU WITH WHAT YOU WANTED THEN I WOULD GLADLY DO SO-WHATEVER HAPPENED THAT FATEFUL NIGHT WILL NEVER BE FULLY EXPLAINED,IN FACT YOU COULD PROBABLY TELL ME MORE THAN I COULD YOU.
THE PAPER DID MENTION IN THE ARTICLE YESTERDAY THAT I WAS APPEALING AND NO DOUBT YOU KNEW THAT ANYWAY. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO REACT WHEN THEY QUASH MY CONVICTION ,COLIN,BECAUSE IT'S VERY PROBABLE THEY WILL DO SO? YOU MAY BELIEVE ME GUILTY,YOU MAY NOT,BUT I HOPE THAT IF NOTHING ELSE YOU'LL TRY AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND BECAUSE AT MY APPEAL I WILL PROVE MY INNOCENCE AND BY DOING THAT THE CORNER-STONE OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED,BY WHOM I CAN'T PROVE YET AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO FOR MY APPEAL BUT EVENTUALLY I'LL FIND OUT BECAUSE IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OF FIVE PEOPLE. IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M TALKING RIDDLES AND I'M SORRY THAT I CAN'T EXPLAIN IN A LETTER TO YOU.IT SEEMS SO POINTLESS IN ME SENDING YOU THIS LETTER AS IT'LL ONLY ADD TO YOUR CONFUSION BUT FOR YOU TO WRITE TO ME MUST HAVE TAKEN A GREAT DEAL SO MY REPLYING IS THE LEAST I CAN DO..
IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU QUESTION WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT SHEILA IN THE NEWSPAPERS SO YOU SHOULD QUESTION WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT ME - I'M NOT GAY OR BI-SEXUAL, I WASN'T A COCAINE SMUGGLER, I DIDN'T KNOW HALF THE PEOPLE I'D BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH, I DIDN'T BREAK SOMEONE'S ARM AT SCHOOL, I DIDN'T KITE CHEQUES AND I DIDN'T RAPE JULIE. WHAT OTHER ODIOUS STUFF THEY WROTE I CAN'T RECALL EVEN DURING MY TRIAL THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT I WON'T GO ON. YOU KNOW ME AND WHAT I WAS LIKE AND I DIDN'T WRITE TO CONVINCE YOU OF MY INNOCENCE EVEN THOUGH I AM, JUST WELL WHATEVER
LOVE JEREMY
P.S. I TRULY WISH I COULD HELP YOU. "
Only the red text is in the 2020 version. Why?
-
There is another paragraph in that letter omitted, I have put it in bold black.
Only the red text is in the 2020 version. Why?
Thank you David! Interesting...Why? indeed
-
Thank you David! Interesting...Why? indeed
I had a premonition that this would happen.
I only have copies of the pages that contain JB letters of the 1990s publication. So I cannot check much else.
-
I had a premonition that this would happen.
I only have copies of the pages that contain JB letters in the 1994 publication. So I cannot check much else.
Sadly, I have never had a copy of the original hardback book. Although I have tried on and off over the last 10 years to get one.
At the beginning of January, I said on this forum that I hoped the text of the original book would not be edited in the new edition...I remeber it went down like a lead balloon! As if I was making a personal attack on Colin, which I was not.
-
Sadly, I have never had a copy of the original hardback book. Although I have tried on and off over the last 10 years to get one.
At the beginning of January, I said on this forum that I hoped the text of the original book would not be edited in the new edition...I remeber it went down like a lead balloon! As if I was making a personal attack on Colin, which I was not.
The part you highlighted in blue does appear in the origional. It just was not in the text post.
-
Colin wrote -
"It was established that the silencer was attached to the rifle during the fierce fight in the kitchen, when Nevill was killed, and that blood found on the inside of the silencer matched Bambs’s blood group, indicating that it had been fitted to the rifle when she was shot. It had got there by a process known as ‘back-spattering’ – a phenomenon which occurs when a firearm is discharged against flesh beneath which blood is flowing. There was no blood found in the muzzle of the barrel of the rifle, only in the silencer. Of all the twenty-five wounds, the only one that could produce such a large quantity of ‘back-spatter’ was the final, fatal wound to the soft tissue below Bambs’s chin, an area that had been saturated with blood from an earlier shot that had lacerated the jugular vein in her neck. This was the only certain contact wound with an available supply of blood."
Its a shame he believe's this. However I cannot blame him for believing it. :(
-
I think I have Colin’s original book in hardback version somewhere if it’s of any use ?
-
Steve when you origanally posted the letters in 2015, did you get the text from your hardback copy of CC's book?
Yes. Why do you ask?
-
Yes. Why do you ask?
Just wanted to confirm that's all. David and I were comparing the original book with the new edition, as you can see discussed above.
-
Just wanted to confirm that's all. David and I were comparing the original book with the new edition, as you can see discussed above.
What is the reason for being so bitter against Colin, yet silent on Julie?
-
Just wanted to confirm that's all. David and I were comparing the original book with the new edition, as you can see discussed above.
Colin explains what the rest of the letters entailed, he just doesn't republish the entire thing.
-
What is the reason for being so bitter against Colin, yet silent on Julie?
No-one has expressed bitterness Steve. We are just asking a question.
I'm sure either Colin or the publisher had a valid reason. It just seems odd that all.
-
Colin explains what the rest of the letters entailed, he just doesn't republish the entire thing.
Maybe he should.
-
Maybe he should.
Why? They're in his original book.
-
No-one has expressed bitterness Steve. We are just asking a question.
I'm sure either Colin or the publisher had a valid reason. It just seems odd that all.
I'm talking about the letters: they are the epitome of bitterness.
-
Why? They're in his original book.
I misunderstood you. I thought there were some letters which remain unpublished.
-
I misunderstood you. I thought there were some letters which remain unpublished.
No, it's the same letters but instead of published the whole letter, there are extracts and his explanation of the rest.