Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on February 08, 2016, 07:18:PM
-
I see rats on a daily basis because of being at a farm looking after horses
I know how fast rats move and it's almost impossible to catch live rats
-
I see rats on a daily basis because of being at a farm looking after horses
I know how fast rats move and it's almost impossible to catch live rats
Have you tried? ;D
-
Have you tried? ;D
Yep Saturday, Sunday and today
-
Yep Saturday, Sunday and today
Was the butchers shut? ;D ;D ;D
-
It's possible to set humane traps to catch live rats........................then you can can transfer them to a bag and put them in someone's car if that's what amuses you.
-
It's possible to set humane traps to catch live rats........................then you can can transfer them to a bag and put them in someone's car if that's what amuses you.
Can you point me in the direction where I can find Barbara Wilson says Jeremy set humane traps to catch live rats....
-
Can you point me in the direction where I can find Barbara Wilson says Jeremy set humane traps to catch live rats....
Why would Jeremy want to announce that he was catching live rats to put in her car? He wouldn't want to spoil the surprise, would he?
-
I'm very surprised that the rats didn't bite anyone as they'd have been angry, as well as having been cornered in order to catch. Then put in a car ?? When was this,April 1st ?
-
That sounds more like the truth from the women that appeared to adore Jeremy
-
I'm very surprised that the rats didn't bite anyone as they'd have been angry, as well as having been cornered in order to catch. Then put in a car ?? When was this,April 1st ?
It was in a bag Lookout and Bab's didn't give a date - but Jeremy hasn't denied it!
-
It was in a bag Lookout and Bab's didn't give a date - but Jeremy hasn't denied it!
Suppose he thought it was funny, I don't find it that funny - but maybe me and Bamber have different senses of humour.
I'm very surprised that the rats didn't bite anyone as they'd have been angry, as well as having been cornered in order to catch. Then put in a car ?? When was this,April 1st ?
They weren't running free - read the statement.
-
It was in a bag Lookout and Bab's didn't give a date - but Jeremy hasn't denied it!
Would it make you look stupid denying something like this?
-
Would it make you look stupid denying something like this?
I don't even understand what you're on about?
-
Suppose he thought it was funny, I don't find it that funny - but maybe me and Bamber have different senses of humour.
They weren't running free - read the statement.
Running free or not,it takes some doing to catch LIVE rats with the bare hands without being bitten !!
-
Running free or not,it takes some doing to catch LIVE rats with the bare hands without being bitten !!
Where there's a will...............................
-
Where there's a will...............................
I thought Julie said he gave the rats cannabis to eat to slow them down so he could catch them and strangle them to prove he was capable of killing. Maybe that is how he came to have a spare bag of rats? :-X
I am sceptical about this, I have read that bog standard rats such as sewer rats and river rats don't have the receptors for cannabis to have any effect while other sites claim you can get a rat stoned. I'm not convinced about this story. In fact I find BWs stories difficult to believe. There may be some truth in them but she was recalling events from many years ago which could have been influenced by JBs guilty verdict so I feel they don't really prove anything.
-
I'm sceptical too Maggie,as my way of thinking is that it was just another " Jeremy bashing " tactic----------simply because nobody could think of anything really concrete to involve him with the murders.
-
I thought Julie said he gave the rats cannabis to eat to slow them down so he could catch them and strangle them to prove he was capable of killing. Maybe that is how he came to have a spare bag of rats? :-X
I am sceptical about this, I have read that bog standard rats such as sewer rats and river rats don't have the receptors for cannabis to have any effect while other sites claim you can get a rat stoned. I'm not convinced about this story. In fact I find BWs stories difficult to believe. There may be some truth in them but she was recalling events from many years ago which could have been influenced by JBs guilty verdict so I feel they don't really prove anything.
But Jeremy added fuel to this particular fire by telling Julie a rat story. There COULD follow the suggestion that Julie and Barbara collaborated to concoct a story but I'd call that a collaboration and concoction too far.
"A bag containing rats." Let's just have a look at what such could mean. "Rats" is plural but MAY only mean two as opposed to many. Would this have meant two -or many- live or dead rats? Did it mean adult or baby rats? I think it's possible that BW "expanded" the truth, partly because if she'd picked it up and felt the contents, she I don't believe she'd have opened it.
-
I thought Julie said he gave the rats cannabis to eat to slow them down so he could catch them and strangle them to prove he was capable of killing. Maybe that is how he came to have a spare bag of rats? :-X
I am sceptical about this, I have read that bog standard rats such as sewer rats and river rats don't have the receptors for cannabis to have any effect while other sites claim you can get a rat stoned. I'm not convinced about this story. In fact I find BWs stories difficult to believe. There may be some truth in them but she was recalling events from many years ago which could have been influenced by JBs guilty verdict so I feel they don't really prove anything.
We agree on something
-
But Jeremy added fuel to this particular fire by telling Julie a rat story. There COULD follow the suggestion that Julie and Barbara collaborated to concoct a story but I'd call that a collaboration and concoction too far.
"A bag containing rats." Let's just have a look at what such could mean. "Rats" is plural but MAY only mean two as opposed to many. Would this have meant two -or many- live or dead rats? Did it mean adult or baby rats? I think it's possible that BW "expanded" the truth, partly because if she'd picked it up and felt the contents, she I don't believe she'd have opened it.
Julie said it so it must be true ?
She never lied, she was never deceptive, she was never deceptive was she?
-
One minute JM is believed,next minute she isn't. Mmmm----------only when it suits.
-
One minute JM is believed,next minute she isn't. Mmmm----------only when it suits.
Exactly
She is the key to the whole mystery
-
Exactly
She is the key to the whole mystery
She is indeed and if anyone hasn't been honest,it is she.
-
Julie said it so it must be true ?
She never lied, she was never deceptive, she was never deceptive was she?
Jeremy said it so it must be true? He was never deceptive was he? ::)
-
Who would you lump blame on if you didn't have Julie to use as a scapegoat?
Scapegoat ? When even guilters agree that she wasn't as white as driven snow ? Puzzled,here. :o
-
Scapegoat ? When even guilters agree that she wasn't as white as driven snow ? Puzzled,here. :o
She wasn't - are you saying Jeremy was/is?
-
Scapegoat ? When even guilters agree that she wasn't as white as driven snow ? Puzzled,here. :o
It really is "all or nothing" with you, isn't it, Lookout. No forgiveness EVER for the girl who wasn't as white as driven snow. I believe you think she should spend her life doing penance for it. She certainly, in your eyes, doesn't seem to deserve a second chance. Only Jeremy deserves a second chance. Only Jeremy has endless excuses made for his behaviours.
I was probably one of Julie's greatest detractors. I've never taken a lenient view of the behaviours she displayed. I've made no bones about the fact that I'd have been ashamed of her had she been my daughter............................but I DON'T believe that she did more than relay -reluctantly- those things Jeremy had told her -she MAY have left out how much more she may have known- and I don't see why she should have to spend the rest of her life PAYING for the fact that she once was in love with Jeremy Bamber. I also don't believe she -AND her entirely innocent family- should be hounded by vigilante type individuals baying for her to tell the story they want to hear.
-
Can't answer the question though can you? Because you know Jeremy robbed from his own family!
Robbed from his own family ? When ?
-
Robbed from his own family ? When ?
You are joking, surely?????
-
You are joking, surely?????
What did he rob ?
-
What did he rob ?
Jeremy. Julie. Caravan park. Money.
-
I know that. I thought something else had been dredged up just to add to the list.You wish.
-
I know that. I thought something else had been dredged up just to add to the list.You wish.
Isn't robbing the family business enough for you?
-
Isn't robbing the family business enough for you?
Jeremy's misdemeanours are excused. Just boyish pranks, you see.
-
Jeremy's misdemeanours are excused. Just boyish pranks, you see.
He's such a card! The little scamp! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It really is "all or nothing" with you, isn't it, Lookout. No forgiveness EVER for the girl who wasn't as white as driven snow. I believe you think she should spend her life doing penance for it. She certainly, in your eyes, doesn't seem to deserve a second chance. Only Jeremy deserves a second chance. Only Jeremy has endless excuses made for his behaviours.
I was probably one of Julie's greatest detractors. I've never taken a lenient view of the behaviours she displayed. I've made no bones about the fact that I'd have been ashamed of her had she been my daughter............................but I DON'T believe that she did more than relay -reluctantly- those things Jeremy had told her -she MAY have left out how much more she may have known- and I don't see why she should have to spend the rest of her life PAYING for the fact that she once was in love with Jeremy Bamber. I also don't believe she -AND her entirely innocent family- should be hounded by vigilante type individuals baying for her to tell the story they want to hear.
I take it this post is a joke
Mugford jumped at the chance to view the bodies at the mortuary
That was NOT her responsibility
She jumped at the chance
Sick sick sick
-
I take it this post is a joke
Mugford jumped at the chance to view the bodies at the mortuary
That was NOT her responsibility
She jumped at the chance
Sick sick sick
No, the reality is that she offered ONLY BECAUSE no one else wanted to and she could distinguish the twins from one another. Not sure what you're suggesting?
-
I take it this post is a joke
Mugford jumped at the chance to view the bodies at the mortuary
That was NOT her responsibility
She jumped at the chance
Sick sick sick
I don't recall mentioning that in my post. In fact, it has nothing to do with my post.
Yes. Julie did identify the bodies.
I'm sure you wouldn't say anything you can't prove so I expect you can produce evidence of her jumping at the chance to do it.
If no one else offered to do the identification whether or not it was her responsibility is irrelevant.
Not quite as sick as you painted it as being, eh?
-
I take it this post is a joke
Mugford jumped at the chance to view the bodies at the mortuary
That was NOT her responsibility
She jumped at the chance
Sick sick sick
well if her storys true it sounds pretty sick i dont know how anyone could look at the bodys knowing what she cliamed to know and then still stay silent.
-
The fact that AE couldn't tell the twins apart is indicative of how well she knew Sheila.
-
I take it this post is a joke
Mugford jumped at the chance to view the bodies at the mortuary
That was NOT her responsibility
She jumped at the chance
Sick sick sick
Have you got a source that Julie 'jumped at the chance to identify the bodies'.
There is a recent thread on why she identified the bodies. But nothing stating she 'jumped at the chance'.
-
Why did Julie identify the bodies ?
She wanted to be helpful.
She was not as upset as everyone else. As was not related to any of the deceased.
She still didn't believe or was not sure Bamber was guilty.
She was asked to.
She was not doing anything useful or constructive, as had been whisked over by Bamber. So offered, or was asked.
Bamber seemed to be coping well, and could cope for a short period while Julie went to identify the bodies.
She went with another relative to give moral support.
If she didn't go with another relative, then she would have originally assumed she would be accompanied.
She believed Bamber was guilty, identifying the twins is no worse than being by his side as he acted.
She knew the twins and could identify them.
Bamber didn't offer to do this.
Her WS was true and she felt she could communicate with them.
She offered in error. But couldn't withdraw once the offer had been made.
She wanted a break from the crime scene and police. Which was a situation she had not asked to be a part of.
She believed seeing the twins would help her come to terms with what had happened.
She was in the room when discussions about who would do this started. So not surprising she ended up doing this.
If not in the room, Bamber or someone else recommended to the police Julie could do this.
The police felt Julie was the best person. She could identify the twins but had least emotional attachment.
She had little attachment to the twins. They were her boyfriends sisters, sons.
Bamber had brought her over in a police car. She assumed this was so she could be helpful. Identifying the bodies is being helpful.
No one tried to stop her identifying the twins.
A combination of several of the above.
-
The fact that AE couldn't tell the twins apart is indicative of how well she knew Sheila.
yes i thought that as well.
-
Yes,a likely excuse. ::) It would have been better if she'd told the truth and said sorry she couldn't,as a lot of people can't which is understandable.
-
The fact that AE couldn't tell the twins apart is indicative of how well she knew Sheila.
Actually, all it means is she hadn't seen much of her in the previous six years, which is understandable as they lived in different areas.
-
They weren't identical twins.
-
They weren't identical twins.
They were INDEED identical twins!! This is basic stuff about the case!!
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4118)
-
You would have still told them apart though. If you'd seen them often enough,that is.
-
You would have still told them apart though. If you'd seen them often enough,that is.
Well, of COURSE you would. You insist you're NEVER wrong.
-
You would have still told them apart though. If you'd seen them often enough,that is.
You just claimed they weren't identical now you've changed that to 'you would be able to tell them apart!' You pull this stuff out of thin ait! AE probably didn't see much of Sheila or the twins as they lived in different areas. However, just because Julie agreed to identify them, you and certain others make her sound like a ghoul. If AE had agreed to identify them, she would be called the same. If Jeremy hadn't killed them, they wouldn't have needed identifying and they would be living their own lives with their own kids!
-
You just claimed they weren't identical now you've changed that to 'you would be able to tell them apart!' You pull this stuff out of thin ait! AE probably didn't see much of Sheila or the twins as they lived in different areas. However, just because Julie agreed to identify them, you and certain others make her sound like a ghoul. If AE had agreed to identify them, she would be called the same. If Jeremy hadn't killed them, they wouldn't have needed identifying and they would be living their own lives with their own kids!
So that puts doubt on the veracity about AE's claims that 'Sheila didn't know one end of a gun from the other' and all that about 'missing the toast with the beans because she had such bad hand to eye co-ordination'. She didn't know Sheila that well and had probably never seen her in a psychotic state.
-
So that puts doubt on the veracity about AE's claims that 'Sheila didn't know one end of a gun from the other' and all that about 'missing the toast with the beans because she had such bad hand to eye co-ordination'. She didn't know Sheila that well and had probably never seen her in a psychotic state.
No it doesn't, she knew Sheila didn't use guns when she lived and WHF and she certaily wouldn't using them in the middle of London! Other people have mentioned Sheila's coordination problems so she hadn't made that up and so what if she hadn't seen her in a psychotic state?
-
So that puts doubt on the veracity about AE's claims that 'Sheila didn't know one end of a gun from the other' and all that about 'missing the toast with the beans because she had such bad hand to eye co-ordination'. She didn't know Sheila that well and had probably never seen her in a psychotic state.
It's really easy to pull snippets out of the hat without looking at their background. NOT very insightful, however. The bottom line was that Ann didn't like Sheila and took every opportunity to discredit her. Read those parts of her statement where she complains bitterly about the money the Bambers spent on THEIR DAUGHTER!!!!! Educating her, paying for courses that might have lead to employment, her wedding!!!!!!!!! Read about the times when Ann admits to snubbing Sheila . Ignoring her compliments. Saying she didn't have time to talk. Of course she didn't know Sheila well. There was a 9 year age gap for starters. Ann was an adult, probably married with children -and a VERY different outlook on life- whilst Sheila was still a child. By the time Sheila was a giddy, frivolous teenager, Ann was a serious minded "young matron." Sheila went off to the Bright lights of London. Ann was working hard at the family business. There was, I believe, never any point of mutual understanding between them.
-
Have you got a source that Julie 'jumped at the chance to identify the bodies'.
There is a recent thread on why she identified the bodies. But nothing stating she 'jumped at the chance'.
I came to that conclusion all by myself
She knew her boyfriend had murdered the twins or paid someone (the laughable hit man theory) to murder the twins yet while protecting her boyfriend from being caught she offered to view the bodies
My opinion
-
I came to that conclusion all by myself
She knew her boyfriend had murdered the twins or paid someone (the laughable hit man theory) to murder the twins yet while protecting her boyfriend from being caught she offered to view the bodies
My opinion
I don't recall it being said that there was a family scrum to do the job.
-
I came to that conclusion all by myself
She knew her boyfriend had murdered the twins or paid someone (the laughable hit man theory) to murder the twins yet while protecting her boyfriend from being caught she offered to view the bodies
My opinion
your right about it being a bit sick i mean how can anyone look at the bodys of to dead childrn knowing that there boyfriend killed them and then going on to cuddel him at a funreul when they know his only prtending to cry about it.
-
your it being a bit sick i mean how can anyone look at the bodys of to dead childrn knowing that there boyfriend killed them and then going on to cuddel him at a funreul when they know his only prtending to cry about it.
I agree nugs and also how could that same person go and stay with Colin for a weekend with her boyfriend JB and sleep with him there, show sympathy and support for the loss of his beloved sons knowing that her boyfriend was the murderer.
-
I agree nugs and also how could that same person go and stay with Colin for a weekend with her boyfriend JB and sleep with him there, show sympathy and support for the loss of his beloved sons knowing that her boyfriend was the murderer.
There's nothing to have prevented her from supporting Colin out of guilt for what Jeremy had done. Don't forget she was "very much in love with him and had hoped to marry him."
-
Guilt my eye.If JM had been as truthful and honest as she'd professed to have been,and knowing JB as she did,she'd have spoken her thoughts at trial by saying that he hadn't murdered anyone. JM knew in her heart that it wasn't Jeremy and was dragged along by others who'd had a vested interest.
Nobody can tell me that JM was the type to continue her relationship with a" murderer" of a whole family,including two little boys,whose bodies she'd viewed at the mortuary. No way !! Nobody is THAT much in love knowing that. Also to accept money for holidays after the event and help with moving doesn't gel with the fact that she " knew him as a murderer ".
-
Guilt my eye.If JM had been as truthful and honest as she'd professed to have been,and knowing JB as she did,she'd have spoken her thoughts at trial by saying that he hadn't murdered anyone. JM knew in her heart that it wasn't Jeremy and was dragged along by others who'd had a vested interest.
Nobody can tell me that JM was the type to continue her relationship with a" murderer" of a whole family,including two little boys,whose bodies she'd viewed at the mortuary. No way !! Nobody is THAT much in love knowing that. Also to accept money for holidays after the event and help with moving doesn't gel with the fact that she " knew him as a murderer ".
Perhaps if you were as truthful and honest as you profess to be you wouldn't keep sullying Sheila's memory with salacious bits of information just to blacken her character, and making up things about Jeremy's character which -save insisting that you're NEVER wrong- you know sod all squared, just to may him appear whiter than driven snow.
-
It's really easy to pull snippets out of the hat without looking at their background. NOT very insightful, however. The bottom line was that Ann didn't like Sheila and took every opportunity to discredit her. Read those parts of her statement where she complains bitterly about the money the Bambers spent on THEIR DAUGHTER!!!!! Educating her, paying for courses that might have lead to employment, her wedding!!!!!!!!! Read about the times when Ann admits to snubbing Sheila . Ignoring her compliments. Saying she didn't have time to talk. Of course she didn't know Sheila well. There was a 9 year age gap for starters. Ann was an adult, probably married with children -and a VERY different outlook on life- whilst Sheila was still a child. By the time Sheila was a giddy, frivolous teenager, Ann was a serious minded "young matron." Sheila went off to the Bright lights of London. Ann was working hard at the family business. There was, I believe, never any point of mutual understanding between them.
AE was not trying to discredit Sheila. She was trying to incriminate Jeremy by pretending she knew Sheila well enough to claim it was impossible for her to have committed murder. She was the one using anecdotal incidents for her own ends.
-
AE was not trying to discredit Sheila. She was trying to incriminate Jeremy by pretending she knew Sheila well enough to claim it was impossible for her to have committed murder. She was the one using anecdotal incidents for her own ends.
Well, it would have been interesting to see what she'd have said had she been trying to discredit her. She'd have achieved far more by saying kind things about her. As I said NOT very insightful.
-
I agree nugs and also how could that same person go and stay with Colin for a weekend with her boyfriend JB and sleep with him there, show sympathy and support for the loss of his beloved sons knowing that her boyfriend was the murderer.
especialy affter looking at the bodys how could you even look him in the eye let alone stay with him for the weekend.
-
especialy affter looking at the bodys how could you even look him in the eye let alone stay with him for the weekend.
There is no excusing what she did. My earlier post sought to explain which bears no relationship to condoning.
-
especialy affter looking at the bodys how could you even look him in the eye let alone stay with him for the weekend.
Exactly !