Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: sherlock on February 13, 2016, 12:39:AM
-
Does EVERYONE agree that Neville could not possibly have been shot even once when he (allegedly) phoned Jeremy - (unless he was forced to make the call ?)
It seems totally clear that had he been shot (or even heard a shot) that he would have phoned 999 and not Jeremy ... (unless he was forced to make the call)
IF he did phone Jeremy then this would mean (unless he was forced to make the call) that he was :
1) In the kitchen to start with - and phoned Jeremy
2) Returned upstairs - getting shot say 4 times
3) Returned to the kitchen - getting shot 4 times again and beaten badly ...
The logic to the above is that either
a) 1) 2) and 3) are the correct sequence of events OR
b) he was forced to make the call OR
c) the call did not happen ...
All I am trying to do here for now is to see if we ALL agree that only a) b) or c) are possible and that there is no other even remotely possible sequence of events ...
If you agree with the above please just reply with a simple short "yes I agree" post
If you disagree and think there is any other possible sequence of events apart from a) b) or c) then please reply with a short post outlining your reasons ...
Lets not have a debate in this thread about whether a) b) or c) are more likely - lets just see if we can for now at least ALL agree that these are the ONLY 3 possibilities ...
-
He didn't make any call.
-
He didn't make any call.
So you keep saying,Polly.
-
So you keep saying,Polly.
Can you prove he did? Ooops, I forgot. A negative can't be proved, can it?
-
Can you prove he did? Ooops, I forgot. A negative can't be proved, can it?
Can you prove he didn't ? This is what it's all about,proving Jeremy's innocence for a change.
-
Can you prove he didn't ? This is what it's all about,proving Jeremy's innocence for a change.
In isolation it's no more possible to prove that he did or didn't, but before you start thinking you've scored a point here, NOTHING about the case can be taken in isolation, there's a bigger picture and the bigger picture here is Jeremy's behaviour AFTER the alleged call. The CIRCUMSTANCES are what's important and you can make all the excuses you like for Jeremy's behaviour, but for all the sense of urgency implied by the alleged call, Jeremy's reaction was such that he might just as well have NOT bothered to phone the police, other than he needed them to be there so he could push the notion of Sheila's insanity.
-
In isolation it's no more possible to prove that he did or didn't, but before you start thinking you've scored a point here, NOTHING about the case can be taken in isolation, there's a bigger picture and the bigger picture here is Jeremy's behaviour AFTER the alleged call. The CIRCUMSTANCES are what's important and you can make all the excuses you like for Jeremy's behaviour, but for all the sense of urgency implied by the alleged call, Jeremy's reaction was such that he might just as well have NOT bothered to phone the police, other than he needed them to be there so he could push the notion of Sheila's insanity.
You keep talking about Jeremy's " behaviour ". What about Sheila's behaviour too,including her expulsion from school-----------onwards ?
-
You keep talking about Jeremy's " behaviour ". What about Sheila's behaviour too,including her expulsion from school-----------onwards ?
Well, if she managed to get herself expelled from school -for the heinous crime of being unhappy there?- she must be a murderer.........................apologies to any members who may have been expelled.
-
Well, if she managed to get herself expelled from school -for the heinous crime of being unhappy there?- she must be a murderer.........................apologies to any members who may have been expelled.
The other thing, is that in the 'Sheila did it' scenario, it is her mental state that is being cited as her reason/motive.
So her prior behaviour, which in any event doesn't suggest anything untowards, is somewhat irrelevant.
That isn't the case in the 'Jeremy did it' scenario.
-
So you keep saying,Polly.
And I will keep saying it.
-
Well, if she managed to get herself expelled from school -for the heinous crime of being unhappy there?- she must be a murderer.........................apologies to any members who may have been expelled.
Most can turn their lives around after expulsion and go on to be successful from knowing exactly what they want in life,so your remark was rather childish and uncalled for particularly adding murder and a rather patronising and "inflammatory" apology.
I'm afraid I'd have said that Sheila had begun a downward spiral from that point onwards,knowing what we know of her short life. Did her mother help her through the traumatic teen years ? Is it the way you'd have been,courting disaster ?
-
The other thing, is that in the 'Sheila did it' scenario, it is her mental state that is being cited as her reason/motive.
So her prior behaviour, which in any event doesn't suggest anything untowards, is somewhat irrelevant.
That isn't the case in the 'Jeremy did it' scenario.
Exactly!
-
Most can turn their lives around after expulsion and go on to be successful from knowing exactly what they want in life,so your remark was rather childish and uncalled for particularly adding murder and a rather patronising and "inflammatory" apology.
I'm afraid I'd have said that Sheila had begun a downward spiral from that point onwards,knowing what we know of her short life. Did her mother help her through the traumatic teen years ? Is it the way you'd have been,courting disaster ?
My "childish" remark was in response to your own childish labelling of Sheila's expulsion as a mark of her "behaviours." Whilst it's your opinion that it was a "marker" for her future, I don't believe it heralded the making of a murderer.
-
The other thing, is that in the 'Sheila did it' scenario, it is her mental state that is being cited as her reason/motive.
So her prior behaviour, which in any event doesn't suggest anything untowards, is somewhat irrelevant.
That isn't the case in the 'Jeremy did it' scenario.
So Sheila's behaviour,particularly as a mother,was " normal "?
-
So Sheila's behaviour,particularly as a mother,was " normal "?
Normal is relative to each of us. According to how you read SOME of us, you're the only one who fits the criteria :))
-
So Sheila's behaviour,particularly as a mother,was " normal "?
I think you are missing my point, whether Sheilas behaviour was normal or not, is irrelevant in terms of suggesting it influenced or was an indicator that she committed murder.
Whereas in the Jeremy scenario, his actions were due to greed and general evilness, so his personality and prior behaviour becomes relevant (in an idle gossip kind of way).
-
Good to have you back, Harts. Hope it's for longer than a flying visit.
-
Normal is relative to each of us. According to how you read SOME of us, you're the only one who fits the criteria :))
I'm talking about Sheila's" normality" in thinking what her children could do to her. You have a knack of side-tracking that which you think is irrelevant.
-
Good to have you back, Harts. Hope it's for longer than a flying visit.
Unfortunately not, busy boy with family and work at the mo. :(
-
Unfortunately not, busy boy with family and work at the mo. :(
Then we must make the most of you whist we have you ^-^ ^-^
-
Then we must make the most of you whist we have you ^-^ ^-^
Okay, now I'm scared! :o ;D
-
I think you are missing my point, whether Sheilas behaviour was normal or not, is irrelevant in terms of suggesting it influenced or was an indicator that she committed murder.
Whereas in the Jeremy scenario, his actions were due to greed and general evilness, so his personality and prior behaviour becomes relevant (in an idle gossip kind of way).
But it has indeed got relevance if we knew the full facts of Sheila's illness.
-
But it has indeed got relevance if we knew the full facts of Sheila's illness.
I don't follow?
We're not referring to her illness, that's already accepted as a potential trigger for her actions in the 'Sheila did it' scenario.
I'm not sure also what you mean by "full facts", her illness was almost certainly downplayed by the prosecution and emphasised be the defence. They had different goals.
-
But it has indeed got relevance if we knew the full facts of Sheila's illness.
Knowing 'the full facts' (to quote you), would simply tell us Sheila was ill - we already know that. It's simply circumstantial info. I don't know why the CT are trying to obtain her records? But in doing so, they should perhaps also request Jeremy's because he wasn't keep to have his scrutinised!
-
Knowing 'the full facts' (to quote you), would simply tell us Sheila was ill - we already know that. It's simply circumstantial info. I don't know why the CT are trying to obtain her records? But in doing so, they should perhaps also request Jeremy's because he wasn't keep to have his scrutinised!
Probably because it sounds good, they can make out to gullible people that Sheila was actually much worse than suggested.
However, it doesn't really matter, Jeremy was not convicted based on the level of Sheilas illness.
-
Knowing 'the full facts' (to quote you), would simply tell us Sheila was ill - we already know that. It's simply circumstantial info. I don't know why the CT are trying to obtain her records? But in doing so, they should perhaps also request Jeremy's because he wasn't keep to have his scrutinised!
It does give pause for thought about what there might be in HIS records that he's reluctant to have revealed. Hmm?
-
It does give pause for thought about what there might be in HIS records that he's reluctant to have revealed. Hmm?
Yes,let's also see Jeremy's medical records too as I'm as curious as the next in wanting to know why it's been kept " secret ". I'm sure I personally couldn't care less who sees mine because if it helps further the education on the heart,then I'm all for it. There's nothing in my notes that I'd want to keep secret or private for that matter. I don't know what all the fuss is about quite honestly.
-
I don't follow?
We're not referring to her illness, that's already accepted as a potential trigger for her actions in the 'Sheila did it' scenario.
I'm not sure also what you mean by "full facts", her illness was almost certainly downplayed by the prosecution and emphasised be the defence. They had different goals.
Their are claims that more records have been found showing Sheila was more mentally unwell that has already been suggested.
Doesn't prove anything and doesn't get rid of the evidence in the case but gives sheep something to bleet about.
-
Contrary to what you say, Sheila's medical records will prove a lot !
-
Contrary to what you say, Sheila's medical records will prove a lot !
You may receive a VERY nasty shock if Jeremy's are revealed. I'd say if he's going for an appeal, the court would be entitled to see them.
-
You may receive a VERY nasty shock if Jeremy's are revealed. I'd say if he's going for an appeal, the court would be entitled to see them.
" Nasty shock ?" In what way ? I doubt it. Nothing much shocks me anyway,especially from a 24 year old,as he would have been at the time because the " secret " has been there for that long,before he went into prison so it seems.
-
In which case, IF there's nothing to hide, why is he so reluctant for them to be seen?
Possibly something embarrassing rather than sinister.