Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: sherlock on April 08, 2016, 12:53:AM
-
As you all know i am working on many theories ...
But on the balance of probabilities these are the most likely facts ...
Sheila did not do it -it is possible but not so likely - lack of forensics ...
Jeremy did not do it himself - zero evidence to suggest he did - not even Julie claimed this - no previous incidents of violence - no marks etc on him - bike ride unlikely ...
WPC Jeaves was not mistaken about the rifle in the window - unlikely she was mistaken ...
Therefore most likely a third party was in the property when Jeremy was outside ...
More likely there were 2 shooters than 1 - how was Neville at 6 foot 4 and a physically fit farmer overcome and battered - more likely by 2 than 1 ...
More likely Neville was forced to phone Jeremy - the 3 burn marks - he waited 2 or 3 minutes for Jeremy to answer the phone and then only had time for a very few words ...
More likely that David Boutflour and at least one other set Jeremy up with the silencer - he made a slip of the tongue in a video which tells me this is more likely than not ...
Because of all of the above it is more likely than not the Julies "confession" was false ...
More likely than not that whoever the 2 shooters were they were also conneced with the set up of the silencer and forcing Julie to make her false confession ...
More likely than not that Essex Police were not involved in fitting Jeremy up - based on the statistics of how often they do and do not do this in criminal cases ...
Of course some or all of the above could well be wrong ...
But these are the most likely facts in my opinion after studying this case at length ...
One more thing - it is more likely than not that Adanm is going to dispute this with a very long list - more likely than not that Stephanie is going to attemp to sarcasticly rubbish this post whilst accusing me of being Mike - more likely than not that Caroline is going to back her up albeit in a slightly more intelligent way - and more likely than not that Maggie is going to be kept busy moderating this thread should it develop ...
I hope it is also more likely than not that one or two of you may find it interesting ... :))
-
Thanks Sherlock.
Was the third party a hit man then ?
If it wasn't a hit man, was it just a psychopath who was in a remote area at 2pm. Who decided to massacre everyone. Why did the psychopath get Neville to ring Bamber ? Or did Neville decide to ring him himself and implicate Sheila while the third party was choosing his weapon.
Is this third party the hunched man leaving WHF ? It's a pity the police didn't stop him. Or did they not notice him leaving.
-
Thanks Sherlock.
Was the third party a hit man then ?
If it wasn't a hit man, was it just a psychopath who was in a remote area at 2pm. Who decided to massacre everyone. Why did the psychopath get Neville to ring Bamber ? Or did Neville decide to ring him himself and implicate Sheila while the third party was choosing his weapon.
Is this third party the hunched man leaving WHF ? It's a pity the police didn't stop him. Or did they not notice him leaving.
the possible "facts" listed above do not cover who the murderer might have been ,,,
and the list does not make a complete theory ...
it's just a list of facts to debate - and there is already a lot of points to debate without taking it off topic ...
So i will go no comment on who it might have been at this stage ...
But feel free to say you opinion on any of the possibilities listed above please ...
-
Is this third party the hunched man leaving WHF ? It's a pity the police didn't stop him. Or did they not notice him leaving.
more likely than not because :
The Police told the nations most senior journalists at a major Press conference in september 1985 that there had been a report of a hunched up man being seen leaving the area - he was seen and not stopped - this is what the Police told the Press - and this is where the hunched up man theory originated ...
(This is just one example of how this list of facts are not contradicted by any of the possible evidence in this case ...)
-
One thing which is 100% certain is that Jeremy Bamber was not present inside the farmhouse when any members of his family got shot, or killed...
He did not shoot his father or his mother, and he did not shoot or kill the two children...
The cops know with 100% accuracy that Sheila, had an accomplice to help her to overpower, subdue, manipulate, shoot and kill the others. The hunched man seen leaving the grounds of whf at just before 5am walked off in the general direction of Prentice farm. He was spotted by PC Myall, the facts detailing this are basically recorded in a police document which was entitled, ' MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT', and reference to the identity of this 'unknown male person' is the first entry, numbered 001 in that document. We know that this man was seen by PC Myall and quite possibly by PS Bews, originally upon arrival at the scene before Jeremy's astra arrived in pages lane with Jeremy inside it. That police saw this hunched man walking into the driveway of the farmhouse from the location where pages lane and the farm entrance commences. As the cops pulled up opposite the farm cottages in their patrol car, the cops got a very brief glimpse of the hunched man retreating into the driveway of the farmhouse. Minutes later, after Jeremy turned up in his car, and Myall, Bews and Jeremy went into the grounds of the farmhouse, Myall was convinced that figure seen at the upstairs window was the same hunched man they had seen outside some 15 minutes or so earlier. This fact caucaused Myall, Bews and Jeremy, to hurry back to the patrol car (CA07) that was parked up in pages lane, where PS Bews then passed a 'situation report' to the control room making mention of the aforementioned sightings, adding a request for the firearm team to be deployed because of the possibility that the incident could by now have escalated into a siege situation. Once this was done, Bews and Myall returned to the grounds of the farmhouse, leaving Jeremy at the patrol car parked in Pages lane in the company of PS Saxby. Between then, and the arrival of PS Adams and his firearm crew arrived (5am), the only other thing worthy of note, what was seen and reported on, was the fact that Myall saw the hunched man walking out of the grounds of the farmhouse in the general direction of Prentice Farm...
This is all true...
At one stage or other during the later investigation into these shootings, cops have tried relentlessly to identify the hunched man, so that he can be eliminated from police enquiries, or provide them with information about what might have happened, or gone wrong inside the farmhouse before police arrived? At one time, or another, cops suspected the hunched man might have been, Freddie Emani, Mathew McDonald, and one of two local farmers, cops knew had been in dispute with Ralph Neville Bamber in the not too distant past. Additionally, cops turned their attention to a list of Campers who had been renting a field nearby at the time of the shootings...
-
One thing which is 100% certain is that Jeremy Bamber was not present inside the farmhouse when any members of his family got shot, or killed...
He did not shoot his father or his mother, and he did not shoot or kill the two children...
The cops know with 100% accuracy that Sheila, had an accomplice to help her to overpower, subdue, manipulate, shoot and kill the others. The hunched man seen leaving the grounds of whf at just before 5am walked off in the general direction of Prentice farm. He was spotted by PC Myall, the facts detailing this are basically recorded in a police document which was entitled, ' MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT', and reference to the identity of this 'unknown male person' is the first entry, numbered 001 in that document. We know that this man was seen by PC Myall and quite possibly by PS Bews, originally upon arrival at the scene before Jeremy's astra arrived in pages lane with Jeremy inside it. That police saw this hunched man walking into the driveway of the farmhouse from the location where pages lane and the farm entrance commences. As the cops pulled up opposite the farm cottages in their patrol car, the cops got a very brief glimpse of the hunched man retreating into the driveway of the farmhouse. Minutes later, after Jeremy turned up in his car, and Myall, Bews and Jeremy went into the grounds of the farmhouse, Myall was convinced that figure seen at the upstairs window was the same hunched man they had seen outside some 15 minutes or so earlier. This fact caucaused Myall, Bews and Jeremy, to hurry back to the patrol car (CA07) that was parked up in pages lane, where PS Bews then passed a 'situation report' to the control room making mention of the aforementioned sightings, adding a request for the firearm team to be deployed because of the possibility that the incident could by now have escalated into a siege situation. Once this was done, Bews and Myall returned to the grounds of the farmhouse, leaving Jeremy at the patrol car parked in Pages lane in the company of PS Saxby. Between then, and the arrival of PS Adams and his firearm crew arrived (5am), the only other thing worthy of note, what was seen and reported on, was the fact that Myall saw the hunched man walking out of the grounds of the farmhouse in the general direction of Prentice Farm...
This is all true...
At one stage or other during the later investigation into these shootings, cops have tried relentlessly to identify the hunched man, so that he can be eliminated from police enquiries, or provide them with information about what might have happened, or gone wrong inside the farmhouse before police arrived? At one time, or another, cops suspected the hunched man might have been, Freddie Emani, Mathew McDonald, and one of two local farmers, cops knew had been in dispute with Ralph Neville Bamber in the not too distant past. Additionally, cops turned their attention to a list of Campers who had been renting a field nearby at the time of the shootings...
The mystery was added too, by two further incidents worthy of note, the first being the discovery of a makeshift den hidden in undergrowth in a nearby copse of woodland, and the second, was the handing over to police of two guns by a neighbouring farmer (I beleive the farmers name, was BUNTING) of the Bambers. The neighbour who handed over these weapons refused to identify the 'two men' who had given them to him. But added that both of the guns might be related to the shooting incident at the farmhouse...
-
A further matter, worthy of some consideration, is that in one of her witness statements that she made to cops, Ann Eaton let slip that it was a well known fact to 'all the relatives' that a spare key to the door of the farmhouse was always kept in a shed, at the scene...
-
The mystery was added too, by two further incidents worthy of note, the first being the discovery of a makeshift den hidden in undergrowth in a nearby copse of woodland, and the second, was the handing over to police of two guns by a neighbouring farmer (I beleive the farmers name, was BUNTING) of the Bambers. The neighbour who handed over these weapons refused to identify the 'two men' who had given them to him. But added that both of the guns might be related to the shooting incident at the farmhouse...
Upon speaking to Jeremy several years ago, regarding these two guns, that Bunting handed over to cops, he suggested that these may have belonged to his father at some stage, or that they belonged to one or other of his relatives, but which obstencibly had been kept at the farmhouse, in the same way Anthony Pargeter kept his rifle and shotguns there...
-
I remember seeing somewhere some information about the features of the burn marks on the back of Ralph Neville Bambers neck, and Jeremy and me discussing what had been the cause of those injuries?
-
I remember seeing somewhere some information about the features of the burn marks on the back of Ralph Neville Bambers neck, and Jeremy and me discussing what had been the cause of those injuries?
I was satisfied at 'that' stage that one of these three marks had been caused by the muzzle of the anshuzt rifle barrel, with its end cap fitted (not the parker hale silencer). But the other two marks puzzled me, and Jeremy...
-
Since then, I have come to the conclusion that these other two marks in the equation, were made by the muzzle of a completely different type of weapon. The weapon in question was not found at the scene, or recovered from the scene, it was one of the two weapons handed into cops much later by Bunting - I believe the make of the weapon in question was manufactured by 'SAVAGE'. It was a combination weapon, .22 caliber, over a .410 shotgun...
-
Since then, I have come to the conclusion that these other two marks in the equation, were made by the muzzle of a completely different type of weapon. The weapon in question was not found at the scene, or recovered from the scene, it was one of the two weapons handed into cops much later by Bunting - I believe the make of the weapon in question was manufactured by 'SAVAGE'. It was a combination weapon, .22 caliber, over a .410 shotgun...
The circumference and diameter of one of the marks found on the back of Mr Bamber seniors neck corresponds with the design of the top and bottom measurements of the barrels of a Savage type weapon...
-
The marks from the end of this combination of barrels made two out of the three marks on the back of Ralph Neville Bambers neck...
The diameter of the upper barrels outer circumference, and the diameter of the upper barrels nner circumference, are duplicated exactly upon the back of Mr Bamber seniors neck. The diameter of the lower barrel is also duplicated alongside the former. The muzzle end circumferences of both of these barrels are completely different when compared to one another. The presence of both upon Ralph Bambers neck is a compelling reason for suggesting that the killer, or killers left the scene of the murders in possession of such a distinctive gun. The 'Savag' weapon handed to cops by Bunting, is probably the very same weapon that made the marks on the back of Ralph Banners neck. If true, then Bunting was either one of the killers, he is the killer, or he knows the true identity of the two killers he refused to name to cops... This provides confirmation that an additional weapon was used in the shootings, killings, and that one of the killers took the gun away with them from the scene
-
A further matter, worthy of some consideration, is that in one of her witness statements that she made to cops, Ann Eaton let slip that it was a well known fact to 'all the relatives' that a spare key to the door of the farmhouse was always kept in a shed, at the scene...
Irrelevant since the farmhouse was barred from the inside. Only Jeremy Bamber knew how to gain entry without being detected. You will never be able to overcome that fact and the fact that Shiela died with virtually a hair out of place.
-
Irrelevant since the farmhouse was barred from the inside. Only Jeremy Bamber knew how to gain entry without being detected. You will never be able to overcome that fact and the fact that Shiela died with virtually a hair out of place.
No, you are wrong again, firstly because Ann Eaton told cops that it was a well known fact to all the family that a spare key to the farmhouse door was always kept in the shed, and secondly it was the relatives themselves who first suggested that the killer had entered and exited the farmhouse via the window route. And in any event, Jeremy has never been linked with the 'Savage' combination weapon that made the marks on the back of Ralph Bambers neck. But, the relatives (Boutflors and Eatons) were close friends of Bunting who handed the gun in question over to cops...
-
No, you are wrong again, firstly because Ann Eaton told cops that it was a well known fact to all the family that a spare key to the farmhouse door was always kept in the shed, and secondly it was the relatives themselves who first suggested that the killer had entered and exited the farmhouse via the window route. And in any event, Jeremy has never been linked with the 'Savage' combination weapon that made the marks on the back of Ralph Bambers neck. But, the relatives (Boutflors and Eatons) were close friends of Bunting who handed the gun in question over to cops...
You cannot answer that point can you? Only Jeremy Bamber had the Motive, the Means and the Opportunity to carry out the murders. You got nowhere by blaming Sherila as the evidence contradicts your claims so now you invent this huge conspiracy involving the extended family and the police. Laughable really!
-
You cannot answer that point can you? Only Jeremy Bamber had the Motive, the Means and the Opportunity to carry out the murders. You got nowhere by blaming Sherila as the evidence contradicts your claims so now you invent this huge conspiracy involving the extended family and the police. Laughable really!
There's only you laughing...
-
A weapon with the combination of two different barrel features, made the distinctive marks on the back of Ralph Bambers neck. Bunting handed over such a weapon to the cops. He refused to name the two people who had given the gun to him, claiming that this was privileged information. Now, one of the two people who gave Bunting these guns could not have been Sheila Caffell, because she was dead...
-
Cops took possession of this gun from Bunting...
-
Cops took possession of this gun from Bunting...
Cops would have been fully aware of the significance of the muzzle design of this 'combination' Savage weapon, and similar marks on the back of MR Bamber seniors neck...
-
There's only you laughing...
But you can't answer the question. ;D
-
As you all know i am working on many theories ...
But on the balance of probabilities these are the most likely facts ...
Sheila did not do it -it is possible but not so likely - lack of forensics ...
Jeremy did not do it himself - zero evidence to suggest he did - not even Julie claimed this - no previous incidents of violence - no marks etc on him - bike ride unlikely ...
WPC Jeaves was not mistaken about the rifle in the window - unlikely she was mistaken ...
Therefore most likely a third party was in the property when Jeremy was outside ...
More likely there were 2 shooters than 1 - how was Neville at 6 foot 4 and a physically fit farmer overcome and battered - more likely by 2 than 1 ...
More likely Neville was forced to phone Jeremy - the 3 burn marks - he waited 2 or 3 minutes for Jeremy to answer the phone and then only had time for a very few words ...
More likely that David Boutflour and at least one other set Jeremy up with the silencer - he made a slip of the tongue in a video which tells me this is more likely than not ...
Because of all of the above it is more likely than not the Julies "confession" was false ...
More likely than not that whoever the 2 shooters were they were also conneced with the set up of the silencer and forcing Julie to make her false confession ...
More likely than not that Essex Police were not involved in fitting Jeremy up - based on the statistics of how often they do and do not do this in criminal cases ...
Of course some or all of the above could well be wrong ...
But these are the most likely facts in my opinion after studying this case at length ...
One more thing - it is more likely than not that Adanm is going to dispute this with a very long list - more likely than not that Stephanie is going to attemp to sarcasticly rubbish this post whilst accusing me of being Mike - more likely than not that Caroline is going to back her up albeit in a slightly more intelligent way - and more likely than not that Maggie is going to be kept busy moderating this thread should it develop ...
I hope it is also more likely than not that one or two of you may find it interesting ... :))
I know I keep harping on, but I will keep on harping. The twins had been executed by more than one magazine load.
How could one person keep three adults at bay by themselves? There had to have been two imo.
-
You cannot answer that point can you? Only Jeremy Bamber had the Motive, the Means and the Opportunity to carry out the murders. You got nowhere by blaming Sherila as the evidence contradicts your claims so now you invent this huge conspiracy involving the extended family and the police. Laughable really!
No, others had the motive, and the means, and the knowledge of how to draw Jeremy into the fray. If they couldn't get him to come to the farm on his own so that they could kill him as well, they still left Sheila alive but deranged, to take the rap. There were several people who knew how to get into and out of whf and making it look like an inside job. There were several people who stood to benefit financially by Jeremy either (a) being shot dead, or (b) being convicted for 'all' the murders. Those same people are behind the presentation of the key silencer, blood and paint evidence, which everyone can see was 'dishonest' in its presentation. I have more answers to anything that a person like you with a shallow mind, and virtually no experience of being the victim of police corruption and witness dishonesty tactics, could ever raise about this case. I have always sought to maintain that Sheila was in some way responsible for, or in some other way responsible for the deaths of the others, but that she did not kill herself, and that Jeremy did not shoot her either...
This is a forum, and I can say what I want, providing that at the time I say it, or at the time I said it, that I believed it to be true when I said it. It is irrellevant that on some other occasion I may have said something which appears to contradict or to be at odds with something else I have said elsewhere. This is a forum, not a witness box, I set it up for the purpose of debate, not for anyone to simply make one statement about any topic without having a number of different views or opinions about the same matter. Now, if your not happy with that, run along back to red and tell everybody what a great job you did in putting me in my place...
-
I know I keep harping on, but I will keep on harping. The twins had been executed by more than one magazine load.
How could one person keep three adults at bay by themselves? There had to have been two imo.
I take it you are basing the above on the order in which you believe the murders occurred?
-
I take it you are basing the above on the order in which you believe the murders occurred?
I am assuming this because one of the twins was still sucking his thumb, meaning to me he was not disturbed. If three adults were screaming for there lives they would have woken.
-
I am assuming this because one of the twins was still sucking his thumb, meaning to me he was not disturbed. If three adults were screaming for there lives they would have woken.
Not necessarily, some children that age can sleep through a hurricane. As can some adults.
-
Not necessarily, some children that age can sleep through a hurricane. As can some adults.
So you think they could have been the last to be killed then?
-
I think they were probably killed first, shocking as it is to contemplate that evil visitant creeping into this room to practise whether the rifle was in working order.
-
I think they were probably killed first, shocking as it is to contemplate that evil visitant creeping into this room to practise whether the rifle was in working order.
Steve I think the twins were killed after Ralph and June but not sure about them and Sheila :(
-
Steve I think the twins were killed after Ralph and June but not sure about them and Sheila :(
No ralph was downstairs making a racket, June was upstairs.
-
No, others had the motive, and the means, and the knowledge of how to draw Jeremy into the fray. If they couldn't get him to come to the farm on his own so that they could kill him as well, they still left Sheila alive but deranged, to take the rap. There were several people who knew how to get into and out of whf and making it look like an inside job. There were several people who stood to benefit financially by Jeremy either (a) being shot dead, or (b) being convicted for 'all' the murders. Those same people are behind the presentation of the key silencer, blood and paint evidence, which everyone can see was 'dishonest' in its presentation. I have more answers to anything that a person like you with a shallow mind, and virtually no experience of being the victim of police corruption and witness dishonesty tactics, could ever raise about this case. I have always sought to maintain that Sheila was in some way responsible for, or in some other way responsible for the deaths of the others, but that she did not kill herself, and that Jeremy did not shoot her either...
This is a forum, and I can say what I want, providing that at the time I say it, or at the time I said it, that I believed it to be true when I said it. It is irrellevant that on some other occasion I may have said something which appears to contradict or to be at odds with something else I have said elsewhere. This is a forum, not a witness box, I set it up for the purpose of debate, not for anyone to simply make one statement about any topic without having a number of different views or opinions about the same matter. Now, if your not happy with that, run along back to red and tell everybody what a great job you did in putting me in my place...
Mike, surely if the phone call was to lure Jeremy to WHF, they would have said different to what was suggested that had been said, anyone who had planned this would have told Ralph to tell Jeremy, Get over here son your mothers had a heart attack, not come quick your sister has a gun for fear of Jeremy phoning the police? The last thing they would have wanted was the police? What about the phone call to the police that Ralph was supposed to have made, did the attacker allow him this?
-
Sheila,s bed had not been slept in. What was she doing/
-
Sheila,s bed had not been slept in. What was she doing/
It doesn't take long to make a bed and fluff up cushions.
-
So you think they could have been the last to be killed then?
My theory would only be a speculative guess
-
No, others had the motive, and the means, and the knowledge of how to draw Jeremy into the fray. If they couldn't get him to come to the farm on his own so that they could kill him as well, they still left Sheila alive but deranged, to take the rap. There were several people who knew how to get into and out of whf and making it look like an inside job. There were several people who stood to benefit financially by Jeremy either (a) being shot dead, or (b) being convicted for 'all' the murders. Those same people are behind the presentation of the key silencer, blood and paint evidence, which everyone can see was 'dishonest' in its presentation. I have more answers to anything that a person like you with a shallow mind, and virtually no experience of being the victim of police corruption and witness dishonesty tactics, could ever raise about this case. I have always sought to maintain that Sheila was in some way responsible for, or in some other way responsible for the deaths of the others, but that she did not kill herself, and that Jeremy did not shoot her either...
This is a forum, and I can say what I want, providing that at the time I say it, or at the time I said it, that I believed it to be true when I said it. It is irrellevant that on some other occasion I may have said something which appears to contradict or to be at odds with something else I have said elsewhere. This is a forum, not a witness box, I set it up for the purpose of debate, not for anyone to simply make one statement about any topic without having a number of different views or opinions about the same matter. Now, if your not happy with that, run along back to red and tell everybody what a great job you did in putting me in my place...
Your beliefs are baseless, it is evidence which counts. The evidence implicates Jeremy and exonerates Sheila, it's as simple as that. Blaming the family or attempting to introduce a nobel cause conspiracy by police are supported by neither loigic nor evidence I'm afraid.
You notion of libel is flawed, could I suggest you consult the resident barrister before you fall into the huge hole you have dug for yourself.
One could be forgiven for thinking you had some ulterior motive for trying to get Bamber released?
-
No, others had the motive, and the means, and the knowledge of how to draw Jeremy into the fray. If they couldn't get him to come to the farm on his own so that they could kill him as well, they still left Sheila alive but deranged, to take the rap. There were several people who knew how to get into and out of whf and making it look like an inside job. There were several people who stood to benefit financially by Jeremy either (a) being shot dead, or (b) being convicted for 'all' the murders. Those same people are behind the presentation of the key silencer, blood and paint evidence, which everyone can see was 'dishonest' in its presentation. I have more answers to anything that a person like you with a shallow mind, and virtually no experience of being the victim of police corruption and witness dishonesty tactics, could ever raise about this case. I have always sought to maintain that Sheila was in some way responsible for, or in some other way responsible for the deaths of the others, but that she did not kill herself, and that Jeremy did not shoot her either...
This is a forum, and I can say what I want, providing that at the time I say it, or at the time I said it, that I believed it to be true when I said it. It is irrellevant that on some other occasion I may have said something which appears to contradict or to be at odds with something else I have said elsewhere. This is a forum, not a witness box, I set it up for the purpose of debate, not for anyone to simply make one statement about any topic without having a number of different views or opinions about the same matter. Now, if your not happy with that, run along back to red and tell everybody what a great job you did in putting me in my place...
One has to admit this is a very well written piece.
-
the possible "facts" listed above do not cover who the murderer might have been ,,,
and the list does not make a complete theory ...
it's just a list of facts to debate - and there is already a lot of points to debate without taking it off topic ...
So i will go no comment on who it might have been at this stage ...
But feel free to say you opinion on any of the possibilities listed above please ...
With regards the possibilities above and now taking into consideration David1819 new claims that Sheila was culpable. What are your thoughts Sherlock?
-
more likely than not because :
The Police told the nations most senior journalists at a major Press conference in september 1985 that there had been a report of a hunched up man being seen leaving the area - he was seen and not stopped - this is what the Police told the Press - and this is where the hunched up man theory originated ...
(This is just one example of how this list of facts are not contradicted by any of the possible evidence in this case ...)
It blows this theory right out the window for starters..
And this :-\
Sheila did not do it -it is possible but not so likely - lack of forensics ...
Lack of forensics?!
-
Your beliefs are baseless, it is evidence which counts. The evidence implicates Jeremy and exonerates Sheila, it's as simple as that. Blaming the family or attempting to introduce a nobel cause conspiracy by police are supported by neither loigic nor evidence I'm afraid.
You notion of libel is flawed, could I suggest you consult the resident barrister before you fall into the huge hole you have dug for yourself.
One could be forgiven for thinking you had some ulterior motive for trying to get Bamber released?
You are obviously a fruit cake, you do not gave any concept of what constitutes evidence, unless of course, it suits your purpose. Run back to red and practice your nonsense there. There's an abundance of evidence pointing to Sheila's involvement, you can't see it, and you can't recognise it because you don't want to see it, and you don't want to recognise it. Your brain dead...
-
You are obviously a fruit cake, you do not gave any concept of what constitutes evidence, unless of course, it suits your purpose. Run back to red and practice your nonsense there. There's an abundance of evidence pointing to Sheila's involvement, you can't see it, and you can't recognise it because you don't want to see it, and you don't want to recognise it. Your brain dead...
As to being a fruitcake I'm not the one who posts to himself constantly day after day... ;D
There is no evidence whatsoever pointing to Sheila's involvement and mores to the point you can't produce any so dream on!
I deal in FACTS, not FICTION!!
-
As to being a fruitcake I'm not the one who posts to himself constantly day after day... ;D
There is no evidence whatsoever pointing to Sheila's involvement and mores to the point you can't produce any so dream on!
I deal in FACTS, not FICTION!!
I can talk to myself as much as I want to, anyway what you say can't even be true because if your reading everything I' m posting then I can't be writing everything just to myself, because your reading everything, unless your not, then its a case of how do you know I'm writing all these things to myself, if your not reading them?
-
I can talk to myself as much as I want to, anyway what you say can't even be true because if your reading everything I' m posting then I can't be writing everything just to myself, because your reading everything, unless your not, then its a case of how do you know I'm writing all these things to myself, if your not reading them?
I felt sorry for you so I answered your posts. Night night
-
One thing which is 100% certain is that Jeremy Bamber was not present inside the farmhouse when any members of his family got shot, or killed...
He did not shoot his father or his mother, and he did not shoot or kill the two children...
The cops know with 100% accuracy that Sheila, had an accomplice to help her to overpower, subdue, manipulate, shoot and kill the others. The hunched man seen leaving the grounds of whf at just before 5am walked off in the general direction of Prentice farm. He was spotted by PC Myall, the facts detailing this are basically recorded in a police document which was entitled, ' MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT', and reference to the identity of this 'unknown male person' is the first entry, numbered 001 in that document. We know that this man was seen by PC Myall and quite possibly by PS Bews, originally upon arrival at the scene before Jeremy's astra arrived in pages lane with Jeremy inside it. That police saw this hunched man walking into the driveway of the farmhouse from the location where pages lane and the farm entrance commences. As the cops pulled up opposite the farm cottages in their patrol car, the cops got a very brief glimpse of the hunched man retreating into the driveway of the farmhouse. Minutes later, after Jeremy turned up in his car, and Myall, Bews and Jeremy went into the grounds of the farmhouse, Myall was convinced that figure seen at the upstairs window was the same hunched man they had seen outside some 15 minutes or so earlier. This fact caucaused Myall, Bews and Jeremy, to hurry back to the patrol car (CA07) that was parked up in pages lane, where PS Bews then passed a 'situation report' to the control room making mention of the aforementioned sightings, adding a request for the firearm team to be deployed because of the possibility that the incident could by now have escalated into a siege situation. Once this was done, Bews and Myall returned to the grounds of the farmhouse, leaving Jeremy at the patrol car parked in Pages lane in the company of PS Saxby. Between then, and the arrival of PS Adams and his firearm crew arrived (5am), the only other thing worthy of note, what was seen and reported on, was the fact that Myall saw the hunched man walking out of the grounds of the farmhouse in the general direction of Prentice Farm...
This is all true...
At one stage or other during the later investigation into these shootings, cops have tried relentlessly to identify the hunched man, so that he can be eliminated from police enquiries, or provide them with information about what might have happened, or gone wrong inside the farmhouse before police arrived? At one time, or another, cops suspected the hunched man might have been, Freddie Emani, Mathew McDonald, and one of two local farmers, cops knew had been in dispute with Ralph Neville Bamber in the not too distant past. Additionally, cops turned their attention to a list of Campers who had been renting a field nearby at the time of the shootings...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3200;image
Strange it doesn't mention in the communication logs, 0402, they approach house on foot with Jeremy, 0409 No sign of life in the house, all lights on in the house and dogs going berserk, Jeremy says dogs are normally quite? So they have radioed back no sign of life? They then back off from house. If at this stage they had seen anything they would have said figure seen in driveway earlier, all they said was no sign of life, nothing to hide at this stage. It was quite obvious there was no sign of life, they did not stop long and the dogs were going berserk at this stage, normally quite and Bamber has said his Dad would have been out if he smelt a fox in the garden. 0411 request for firearms team from CA7, this would have been normal given the fact it was reported by Jeremy, sister going berserk with a gun, no sign of life in the house and the dogs which were normally quite going berserk. So in the space of 9 mins they had walked to the farm, done a observation, did not like the fact (with Bambers presence) that there was lights on, dogs going berserk and no sign of life, then backed of and radioed for assistance.
-
Mike, how do believe Sheila committed the massacre ?
-
I felt sorry for you so I answered your posts. Night night
Feel sorry for yourself, I don't need any sympathy from you or anyone...
-
Mike, how do believe Sheila committed the massacre ?
By shooting them all dead ??
-
One thing which is 100% certain is that Jeremy Bamber was not present inside the farmhouse when any members of his family got shot, or killed...
He did not shoot his father or his mother, and he did not shoot or kill the two children...
The cops know with 100% accuracy that Sheila, had an accomplice to help her to overpower, subdue, manipulate, shoot and kill the others. The hunched man seen leaving the grounds of whf at just before 5am walked off in the general direction of Prentice farm. He was spotted by PC Myall, the facts detailing this are basically recorded in a police document which was entitled, ' MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT', and reference to the identity of this 'unknown male person' is the first entry, numbered 001 in that document. We know that this man was seen by PC Myall and quite possibly by PS Bews, originally upon arrival at the scene before Jeremy's astra arrived in pages lane with Jeremy inside it. That police saw this hunched man walking into the driveway of the farmhouse from the location where pages lane and the farm entrance commences. As the cops pulled up opposite the farm cottages in their patrol car, the cops got a very brief glimpse of the hunched man retreating into the driveway of the farmhouse. Minutes later, after Jeremy turned up in his car, and Myall, Bews and Jeremy went into the grounds of the farmhouse, Myall was convinced that figure seen at the upstairs window was the same hunched man they had seen outside some 15 minutes or so earlier. This fact caucaused Myall, Bews and Jeremy, to hurry back to the patrol car (CA07) that was parked up in pages lane, where PS Bews then passed a 'situation report' to the control room making mention of the aforementioned sightings, adding a request for the firearm team to be deployed because of the possibility that the incident could by now have escalated into a siege situation. Once this was done, Bews and Myall returned to the grounds of the farmhouse, leaving Jeremy at the patrol car parked in Pages lane in the company of PS Saxby. Between then, and the arrival of PS Adams and his firearm crew arrived (5am), the only other thing worthy of note, what was seen and reported on, was the fact that Myall saw the hunched man walking out of the grounds of the farmhouse in the general direction of Prentice Farm...
This is all true...
At one stage or other during the later investigation into these shootings, cops have tried relentlessly to identify the hunched man, so that he can be eliminated from police enquiries, or provide them with information about what might have happened, or gone wrong inside the farmhouse before police arrived? At one time, or another, cops suspected the hunched man might have been, Freddie Emani, Mathew McDonald, and one of two local farmers, cops knew had been in dispute with Ralph Neville Bamber in the not too distant past. Additionally, cops turned their attention to a list of Campers who had been renting a field nearby at the time of the shootings...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4535
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33705.html#msg33705
Not once in his statements does Bamber ever mention seeing something as important as, he saw a figure at the window. Even when he is told all his family are dead does he ever mention WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIGURE WE SEEN AT THE WINDOW?
Not once at court does Jeremy or his legal team use this evidence at trial. This is one of the most important things to show someone was alive in the house while Jeremy was outside.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4535
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg33705.html#msg33705
Not once in his statements does Bamber ever mention seeing something as important as, he saw a figure at the window. Even when he is told all his family are dead does he ever mention WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FIGURE WE SEEN AT THE WINDOW?
Not once at court does Jeremy or his legal team use this evidence at trial. This is one of the most important things to show someone was alive in the house while Jeremy was outside.
And the fact that he has, decades later I might add, now introduced this alleged piece of 'key' evidence, we are expected to make excuses for why he failed to mention this during his trial. And there are still people suggesting that there are no similarities in Bambers case and the SH case? Of course there are but it appears easier for some people to dismiss this crucial fact.
Bambers accounts should remain the same. They haven't! Why is that I wonder ::)
-
And the fact that he has, decades later I might add, now introduced this alleged piece of 'key' evidence, we are expected to make excuses for why he failed to mention this during his trial. And there are still people suggesting that there are no similarities in Bambers case and the SH case? Of course there are but it appears easier for some people to dismiss this crucial fact.
Bambers accounts should remain the same. They haven't! Why is that I wonder ::)
Why would they have made a decision for armed back up (after 9 mins) if they had seen someone at the window? That could have been Ralph as far as they know checking to see what the dogs were barking at? The conversation would have been "hang on a minute there is someone at the window", "everything looks ok at this moment lets get their attention".
-
Why would they have made a decision for armed back up (after 9 mins) if they had seen someone at the window? That could have been Ralph as far as they know checking to see what the dogs were barking at? The conversation would have been hang on a minute there is someone at the window, everything looks ok at this moment lets get their attention.
Good point Justice. Seems Bambers charm worked a treat.
-
i think shiela doing it is probely the most likely scenrio but then agian the most likely scenrio isnt allways the correct one.
-
By shooting them all dead ??
Thank you Mike.
Do you think Neville rang the police and Jeremy before or after Sheila started shooting ?
If it was before and Sheila had the rifle but was not shooting it, I wonder what Neville meant by ' gone crazy and got the gun'.
-
I think they were probably killed first, shocking as it is to contemplate that evil visitant creeping into this room to practise whether the rifle was in working order.
If twins were killed first, then first 8 rounds were expended, leaving only two or three other rounds available for immediate use thereafter, providing (a) the ammunition magazine was full, at the outset without an additional round already in the breech, or (b) the ammunition magazine was full, with an additional round in the breech...
-
If twins were killed first, then first 8 rounds were expended, leaving only two or three other rounds available for immediate use thereafter, providing (a) the ammunition magazine was full, at the outset without an additional round already in the breech, or (b) the ammunition magazine was full, with an additional round in the breech...
I take the view, having had the benefit of reading all of Jeremy's witness statements, and interview notes, and having regard to what police at the scene say Jeremy told them about how he loaded the rifle, and disengaged the ammunition magazine, and removal of the bullet in the breech, as well as having had the benefit of personally discussing this issue with Jeremy on multiple occasions face to face, questioned him through the format of letter writing, and spoken conversation during telephone calls, that there was 7 rounds inside the ammunition magazine when Jeremy disengaged it, plus the round he took from the breech and added to the magazine. He then placed the rifle, together with its disengaged magazine on a wooden settle next to the kitchen door in the back hallway...
I am satisfied that the person responsible for using the rifle with the reattached ammunition magazine fired those 8 rounds in one sequence...
I know with 100% certainty, that Jeremy Bamber was not present inside the farmhouse when any of the shootings began, were being undertaken, or concluded. I am also sure, that nobody reloaded that rifle with any further bullets. I believe that Sheila had an accomplice, or as many as two accomplice's, who helped her dispose of her parents and her two children. I also know that when police entered the farmhouse, that Sheila was still very much alive..
-
Makes you wonder why, when Bamber was just outside in one of the farm buildings with PC DERMOTT at just after 5.00am, he never mentioned seeing a figure at the window, this figure not holding a rifle and staring into the garden. All he said to him was (well after telling him that Sheila was a paranoid Shcizophrenic) it made him feel terrible seeing all these police with guns and he couldn't help knowing what they would find in the house? Makes you wonder if he knew? Then he blamed the police for killing his family.
-
And the fact that he has, decades later I might add, now introduced this alleged piece of 'key' evidence, we are expected to make excuses for why he failed to mention this during his trial. And there are still people suggesting that there are no similarities in Bambers case and the SH case? Of course there are but it appears easier for some people to dismiss this crucial fact.
Bambers accounts should remain the same. They haven't! Why is that I wonder ::)
Let's put things into a proper petspective. A defendant cannot say whatever he wants to say during his own trial. He can only answer questions that are put to him by defence counsel, prosecution counsel, or the trial judge. When you are on trial you cannot say whatever you have got on your mind, or in your mind, so that puts that idea to bed. Just to correct everybody, it has always been Jeremy's case that they saw someone at the bedroom window. It is not accurate to say that he failed to mention this sighting in any of his witness statements. Since, in the hand written version of his witness statement Jeremy did make mention of the aforementioned sighting, it was not repeated in the typed version. In other words, the cops, and CPS edited that part out. Something they do on a regular basis. So people should not jump the gun declaring they know everything, when they don't...
-
Let's put things into a proper petspective. A defendant cannot say whatever he wants to say during his own trial. He can only answer questions that are put to him by defence counsel, prosecution counsel, or the trial judge. When you are on trial you cannot say whatever you have got on your mind, or in your mind, so that puts that idea to bed. Just to correct everybody, it has always been Jeremy's case that they saw someone at the bedroom window. It is not accurate to say that he failed to mention this sighting in any of his witness statements. Since, in the hand written version of his witness statement Jeremy did make mention of the aforementioned sighting, it was not repeated in the typed version. In other words, the cops, and CPS edited that part out. Something they do on a regular basis. So people should not jump the gun declaring they know everything, when they don't...
Pretty sure they talk to each other at break time?
If you leave out important information it could affect your ‘credibility’ (whether the court believes that you are a truthful person). The court needs to know the whole story.
-
Pretty sure they talk to each other at break time?
If you leave out important information it could affect your ‘credibility’ (whether the court believes that you are a truthful person). The court needs to know the whole story.
In hindsight Jeremy's defence could have done things very differently. One observation I find interesting is that Jeremy takes the advice of his defence council to instruct his QC to agree that the silencer was attached during the killings at some point. Had Jeremy committed the crime with the silencer and put it away I cannot imagine why on earth he would make that decision.
-
Pretty sure they talk to each other at break time?
If you leave out important information it could affect your ‘credibility’ (whether the court believes that you are a truthful person). The court needs to know the whole story.
You know, not everything is clear cut when your in the 'shoes of a defendant'. Sometimes, the person representing your interests in court will advise you that the 'best way forward', or your best chance of getting found 'not guilty', is by doing this, ignoring that. In Jeremy's case, his counsel, and those representing him advised him that the best way forward was to accept that the silencer was fitted at some stage in the proceedings, but 'not when Sheila was shot and killed'...
It's very easy for 'anyone here' to say with the 'benefit of hindsight', that he shouldn't have done this, or that, but in the 'cold light of day', Jeremy acted on the advice given to him, and it did not work...
-
You know, not everything is clear cut when your in the 'shoes of a defendant'. Sometimes, the person representing your interests in court will advise you that the 'best way forward', or your best chance of getting found 'not guilty', is by doing this, ignoring that. In Jeremy's case, his counsel, and those representing him advised him that the best way forward was to accept that the silencer was fitted at some stage in the proceedings, but 'not when Sheila was shot and killed'...
It's very easy for 'anyone here' to say with the 'benefit of hindsight', that he shouldn't have done this, or that, but in the 'cold light of day', Jeremy acted on the advice given to him, and it did not work...
From the benefit of my experience in matters like this, just because 'it went wrong' does not necessarily mean that Jeremy Bamber 'had killed anyone'...
-
In hindsight Jeremy's defence could have done things very differently. One observation I find interesting is that Jeremy takes the advice of his defence council to instruct his QC to agree that the silencer was attached during the killings at some point. Had Jeremy committed the crime with the silencer and put it away I cannot imagine why on earth he would make that decision.
I'm not sure what point you're making David. Is it that Jeremy should admit he perpetrated the crimes minus the silencer in order to make some criminal conviction stick to the relatives?
-
This came about as a result of Jeremys' counsel feeling confident that he could persuade the jury that the blood found in the silencer came from an intimate mixture of his parents bloods. Since, as the trial judge. DRAKE told the jury in his summing up address, it was for the jury to decide whether or not the blood in question was a mixture of two or more type of blood, possibly originating from both parents. It was open to the jury to conclude that the silencer was fitted to the gun at the time the other victims were shot and killed, but that Sheila removed it before turning the unsilenced gun upon herself...
-
Not once at court does Jeremy or his legal team use this evidence at trial.
The sighting of something in the window was mentioned at trial when Ps Bews was questioned by the defence. For some reason, the defence asked whether it was just a trick of the light, and Ps Bews agreed.
-
Former Essex Police Sergeant Chris Bews explains to interviewer Mark Williams-Thomas how Jeremy Bamber told him as they walked around the perimeter of the farmhouse that he had seen movement at an upstairs window.
Bews stated that he thought it was merely a reflection from a window pane on one of the upper floors. He was quite satisfied that there was no movement.
(http://i.imgur.com/ffhna.jpg)
Clearly Bamber was setting the scene as follow up to his "Sheila had the gun" story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
-
Former Essex Police Sergeant Chris Bews explains to interviewer Mark Williams-Thomas how Jeremy Bamber told him as they walked around the perimeter of the farmhouse that he had seen movement at an upstairs window.
Bews stated that he thought it was merely a reflection from a window pane on one of the upper floors. He was quite satisfied that there was no movement.
(http://i.imgur.com/ffhna.jpg)
Clearly Bamber was setting the scene as follow up to his "Sheila had the gun" story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
good work john.ive been looking for this clip to show jackie p.
-
Former Essex Police Sergeant Chris Bews explains to interviewer Mark Williams-Thomas how Jeremy Bamber told him as they walked around the perimeter of the farmhouse that he had seen movement at an upstairs window.
Bews stated that he thought it was merely a reflection from a window pane on one of the upper floors. He was quite satisfied that there was no movement.
(http://i.imgur.com/ffhna.jpg)
Clearly Bamber was setting the scene as follow up to his "Sheila had the gun" story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
This is true but (and I can't believe I am agreeing with Jackie) he has also said that it was Myall who noticed the movement. Such inconsistencies allow the conspiracy theorists to flourish.
-
This is true but (and I can't believe I am agreeing with Jackie) he has also said that it was Myall who noticed the movement. Such inconsistencies allow the conspiracy theorists to flourish.
caroline i feel he was one of the officers that were completly fooled by jb.and now tries to make it look like he wasnt and suspected jb all along.only ds jones and di miller were not fooled by jb.imo
-
That guy is showing what he believed in ( a figure ) then surreptitiously disbelieved what he KNOWS what he saw.
With him---------it's a" trick of the mind".He knows full well what he saw !!
-
That guy is showing what he believed in ( a figure ) then surreptitiously disbelieved what he KNOWS what he saw.
With him---------it's a" trick of the mind".He knows full well what he saw !!
I do agree his behaviour is very unconvincing and his body language ... all that face stroking suggests he's telling porkies. Could never see him as a reliable witness. ;D
-
iam sure ive heard him say in a documentary that when he approached the house it was in darkness,but we know thats not true because several lights were on upstairs.so its a case of a country cop who was fooled ,now portraying he wasnt
-
I do agree his behaviour is very unconvincing and his body language ... all that face stroking suggests he's telling porkies. Could never see him as a reliable witness. ;D
I was going to add that he's an out and out liar. You can see it a mile off and that alone makes uncomfortable viewing when you know that someone's lying through their teeth.
-
i think his lies are only to make himself look smart.but i still feel when he says he saw no one at the.. window hes telling the truth.imo
-
I do agree his behaviour is very unconvincing and his body language ... all that face stroking suggests he's telling porkies. Could never see him as a reliable witness. ;D
I agree 100%. I've always considered him to be most unimpressive.
-
caroline i feel he was one of the officers that were completly fooled by jb.and now tries to make it look like he wasnt and suspected jb all along.only ds jones and di miller were not fooled by jb.imo
He is VERY nervous and can't look anyone in the eye when he talks about certain things (like the movement at the window). Saying one thing then another makes him look like an idiot - but also calls into question the validity of what he says/said.
-
Movement of the eyes denotes lying.
-
Movement of the eyes denotes lying.
Hmmmmmm - http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2012/07/24/busting-5-body-language-myths/#42757347546b
-
Hmmmmmm - http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2012/07/24/busting-5-body-language-myths/#42757347546b
I can't get into that as I've just been warned of something by Mozilla about activity in my IP address ? So I'll have to sort whatever it is.
-
I can't get into that as I've just been warned of something by Mozilla about activity in my IP address ? So I'll have to sort whatever it is.
I'll just copy and paste the relevant text. It seems eye movement or eyes in general are subjective and have to be taken into consideration with the rest of the body language. Interesting.
2. Liars don’t make eye contact.
The biggest body language myth about liars is that they avoid eye contact. While some liars (especially children) find it difficult to lie while looking you in the eyes, most liars, especial the most brazen, actually overcompensate to “prove” that they are not lying by making too much eye contact and holding it too long.
There is, however, one nonverbal signal that I’ve noticed often follows a less-than-truthful response, and it does require breaking eye contact: After speaking, some liars immediately look down and away, then back at you again in a brief glimpse to see if you bought the falsehood.
-
I'll just copy and paste the relevant text. It seems eye movement or eyes in general are subjective and have to be taken into consideration with the rest of the body language. Interesting.
2. Liars don’t make eye contact.
The biggest body language myth about liars is that they avoid eye contact. While some liars (especially children) find it difficult to lie while looking you in the eyes, most liars, especial the most brazen, actually overcompensate to “prove” that they are not lying by making too much eye contact and holding it too long.
There is, however, one nonverbal signal that I’ve noticed often follows a less-than-truthful response, and it does require breaking eye contact: After speaking, some liars immediately look down and away, then back at you again in a brief glimpse to see if you bought the falsehood.
That last point is the one certain thing which has always caused alarm bells to ring. It's often the moment when a liar wonders if the listener has sussed them and it makes maintaining eye contact uncomfortable so they have to avert their glance.
-
I would think that anyone with half an eye could see whether a person is lying or not. It's not a gift,it's a psychological reaction of the person who's being lied to,such as " built-in " interpretation,in an adult. It depends how alert one is too.
It's easier to lie if there are distractions such as flicking pages over of documents you're handling, as police do while still talking.
Prisoners, as well as police,when being questioned,should both be made to put the palms of their hands flat to the table,to prevent fiddling or gesticulating as both actions are tantamount to avoiding the truth as a way of diverting from it. There's no need for physical actions when telling the truth. Eyes transfixed to your opponent and no raised voices. Above all,no tears,that's play-acting. There's no need for tears when you're telling the truth.
Eyes going all over the place is a bad sign,but if eyes are force-fixed,they'll start to water and that's when you get a hint that all isn't as it seems. It's caused by tension which is another giveaway. People should be at their more relaxed stage when telling the truth as they've literally nothing to worry about so no build-up of tension. In fact,the more laid-back the better.It annoys everyone because of your confidence and surety of innocence.
I think an air of pomposity and arrogance covers that. ;D ;D
-
I would think that anyone with half an eye could see whether a person is lying or not. It's not a gift,it's a psychological reaction of the person who's being lied to,such as " built-in " interpretation,in an adult. It depends how alert one is too.
It's easier to lie if there are distractions such as flicking pages over of documents you're handling, as police do while still talking.
Prisoners, as well as police,when being questioned,should both be made to put the palms of their hands flat to the table,to prevent fiddling or gesticulating as both actions are tantamount to avoiding the truth as a way of diverting from it. There's no need for physical actions when telling the truth. Eyes transfixed to your opponent and no raised voices. Above all,no tears,that's play-acting. There's no need for tears when you're telling the truth.
Eyes going all over the place is a bad sign,but if eyes are force-fixed,they'll start to water and that's when you get a hint that all isn't as it seems. It's caused by tension which is another giveaway. People should be at their more relaxed stage when telling the truth as they've literally nothing to worry about so no build-up of tension. In fact,the more laid-back the better.It annoys everyone because of your confidence and surety of innocence.
I think an air of pomposity and arrogance covers that. ;D ;D
If it was as easy as this Lookout, no one would get away with lying. It's far more complex ::)
-
I would think that anyone with half an eye could see whether a person is lying or not. It's not a gift,it's a psychological reaction of the person who's being lied to,such as " built-in " interpretation,in an adult. It depends how alert one is too.
It's easier to lie if there are distractions such as flicking pages over of documents you're handling, as police do while still talking.
Prisoners, as well as police,when being questioned,should both be made to put the palms of their hands flat to the table,to prevent fiddling or gesticulating as both actions are tantamount to avoiding the truth as a way of diverting from it. There's no need for physical actions when telling the truth. Eyes transfixed to your opponent and no raised voices. Above all,no tears,that's play-acting. There's no need for tears when you're telling the truth.
Eyes going all over the place is a bad sign,but if eyes are force-fixed,they'll start to water and that's when you get a hint that all isn't as it seems. It's caused by tension which is another giveaway. People should be at their more relaxed stage when telling the truth as they've literally nothing to worry about so no build-up of tension. In fact,the more laid-back the better.It annoys everyone because of your confidence and surety of innocence.
I think an air of pomposity and arrogance covers that. ;D ;D
Palms on the table would certainly have put paid to Jeremy playing with/chewing a loose thread from his sweater. However, tears aren't as easily controlled if one is sincere, NOR should it be necessary to APPEAR relaxed. That could denote a cover for a build up of tension.
-
If it was as easy as this Lookout, no one would get away with lying. It's far more complex ::)
It shouldn't be complex though,should it ? ???
-
Palms on the table would certainly have put paid to Jeremy playing with/chewing a loose thread from his sweater. However, tears aren't as easily controlled if one is sincere, NOR should it be necessary to APPEAR relaxed. That could denote a cover for a build up of tension.
This goes for anyone,JB too,except that he was noted for his arrogance ?,of being sure of himself ( without the usual swagger )
When I'm sure of myself,I'm at my most relaxed. It's when you're not sure that tension plays a part.
-
It shouldn't be complex though,should it ? ???
There ARE no should's or shouldn'ts, Lookout -THEY are about fantasy- and yearning for them to have their place won't make it so. Life is about is and is nots, which constitute FACT.
-
This goes for anyone,JB too,except that he was noted for his arrogance ?,of being sure of himself ( without the usual swagger )
When I'm sure of myself,I'm at my most relaxed. It's when you're not sure that tension plays a part.
I would think that anyone with half an eye could see whether a person is lying or not. It's not a gift,it's a psychological reaction of the person who's being lied to,such as " built-in " interpretation,in an adult. It depends how alert one is too.
It's easier to lie if there are distractions such as flicking pages over of documents you're handling, as police do while still talking.
Prisoners, as well as police,when being questioned,should both be made to put the palms of their hands flat to the table,to prevent fiddling or gesticulating as both actions are tantamount to avoiding the truth as a way of diverting from it. There's no need for physical actions when telling the truth. Eyes transfixed to your opponent and no raised voices. Above all,no tears,that's play-acting. There's no need for tears when you're telling the truth.
Eyes going all over the place is a bad sign,but if eyes are force-fixed,they'll start to water and that's when you get a hint that all isn't as it seems. It's caused by tension which is another giveaway. People should be at their more relaxed stage when telling the truth as they've literally nothing to worry about so no build-up of tension. In fact,the more laid-back the better.It annoys everyone because of your confidence and surety of innocence.
I think an air of pomposity and arrogance covers that. ;D ;D
So having laid down the above code, are you now exempting Jeremy from it because of.....................?
-
Was he ever known to panic in any given situation? His birth parents seem to have demonstrated the same equanimity..
-
There ARE no should's or shouldn'ts, Lookout -THEY are about fantasy- and yearning for them to have their place won't make it so. Life is about is and is nots, which constitute FACT.
As well as the haves and have-nots,eh ?
-
As well as the haves and have-nots,eh ?
It will always be thus, Lookout. Utopia like communism only works in theory. We are free to spend what we have as we see fit. Some, because they have little, will be careful. Others will gamble on getting more. For VERY few, it may pay off. For the rest, the majority, they'll be left in debt.
-
Was he ever known to panic in any given situation? His birth parents seem to have demonstrated the same equanimity..
They certainly appear to have had their lives under control. Of course, we have know way of knowing how it affected them.
-
So having laid down the above code, are you now exempting Jeremy from it because of.....................?
Well,in view of the list of undisclosed evidence,etc etc and JB's " behaviour " and general so-called attitude,I'd have said he was innocent of any charges of murder because he simply had no idea what happened that night and made no preparation to defend himself as a criminal would have done.
-
Was he ever known to panic in any given situation? His birth parents seem to have demonstrated the same equanimity..
true steve plus some people are far more talented at staying cool under pressure
-
Well,in view of the list of undisclosed evidence,etc etc and JB's " behaviour " and general so-called attitude,I'd have said he was innocent of any charges of murder because he simply had no idea what happened that night and made no preparation to defend himself as a criminal would have done.
Well, perhaps we should endeavour to look at his attitude from a perspective of anyone rather than him.
I reckon, that because I see everything as being a grey area, that I'd be far more likely, than you, for whom things are only black or white, to make allowances for someone's behaviours. However, had I been questioning Jeremy and experiencing the behaviours he exhibited, I most definitely would have doubted his innocence. It appears to me that he was (deliberately?) discourteous in the extreme. That he appeared, with his thread pulling, tuneless humming and frequent "No comments" to be sticking his fingers up at those who were doing their job. As an entirely innocent person, he could have AFFORDED them courtesy and his full attention. You may believe JEREMY is innocent but if ANY other person had responded in the way he did when being questioned, I wonder if you'd have given them the same benefit of doubt.
-
i know if it were me ,every time i see a camera or reporter i would be screaming iam innocent and didnt do it ,not smiling.he really thought the police could prove nothing against him.as for being prapeard he didnt see any need for it ,as he thought he had gotaway with it
-
i know if it were me ,every time i see a camera or reporter i would be screaming iam innocent and didnt do it ,not smiling.he really thought the police could prove nothing against him.as for being prapeard he didnt see any need for it ,as he thought he had gotaway with it
That is certainly the impression he conveyed. A profiler MAY have observed something other but policemen are neither trained psychologists nor capable of looking any deeper that what's presented.
-
As you all know i am working on many theories ...
But on the balance of probabilities these are the most likely facts ...
Sheila did not do it -it is possible but not so likely - lack of forensics ...
Jeremy did not do it himself - zero evidence to suggest he did - not even Julie claimed this - no previous incidents of violence - no marks etc on him - bike ride unlikely ...
WPC Jeaves was not mistaken about the rifle in the window - unlikely she was mistaken ...
Therefore most likely a third party was in the property when Jeremy was outside ...
More likely there were 2 shooters than 1 - how was Neville at 6 foot 4 and a physically fit farmer overcome and battered - more likely by 2 than 1 ...
More likely Neville was forced to phone Jeremy - the 3 burn marks - he waited 2 or 3 minutes for Jeremy to answer the phone and then only had time for a very few words ...
More likely that David Boutflour and at least one other set Jeremy up with the silencer - he made a slip of the tongue in a video which tells me this is more likely than not ...
Because of all of the above it is more likely than not the Julies "confession" was false ...
More likely than not that whoever the 2 shooters were they were also conneced with the set up of the silencer and forcing Julie to make her false confession ...
More likely than not that Essex Police were not involved in fitting Jeremy up - based on the statistics of how often they do and do not do this in criminal cases ...
Of course some or all of the above could well be wrong ...
But these are the most likely facts in my opinion after studying this case at length ...
One more thing - it is more likely than not that Adanm is going to dispute this with a very long list - more likely than not that Stephanie is going to attemp to sarcasticly rubbish this post whilst accusing me of being Mike - more likely than not that Caroline is going to back her up albeit in a slightly more intelligent way - and more likely than not that Maggie is going to be kept busy moderating this thread should it develop ...
I hope it is also more likely than not that one or two of you may find it interesting ... :))
theres no need for any 3rd party and i doubt there was any 3rd party.why make a weak link by involving another person .i dont think jb was that stupid plus he didnt need any help .he planned to catch them fast asleep.nb didnt make any calls afer the first shots he took upstairs he would not be able to talk correctly so he could be understood.also no blood is on the phone or that part of the kitchen ,just a couple of smudged prints which they could not identify who they belonged to .i totally agree with caroline that he stayed the night a whf.why make things more complicated and risky by making 2 trips far safer to make 1.and jb is cunning enough to work that out
-
i also believe there was a violent fight in the kitchen which involved the rifle,thats the only way the lampshade could have been broken.i fully believe if that fight was between nb and sc than nb would be alive today,even with the shots he took upstairs he could have still contained sc
-
Well,in view of the list of undisclosed evidence,etc etc and JB's " behaviour " and general so-called attitude,I'd have said he was innocent of any charges of murder because he simply had no idea what happened that night and made no preparation to defend himself as a criminal would have done.
His attitude was 'unhelpful' - surely anyone who was a true victim, would want to do all they could to help in the investigation. Jeremy just took the piss.
-
His attitude was 'unhelpful' - surely anyone who was a true victim, would want to do all they could to help in the investigation. Jeremy just took the piss.
i wonder if his cockyness came from the fact he thought police could never convict him of this crime
-
His attitude was 'unhelpful' - surely anyone who was a true victim, would want to do all they could to help in the investigation. Jeremy just took the piss.
Absolutely, Caroline. Much as I dislike the word "normal", a more appropriate reaction from a victim would have one of total compliancy.
-
Absolutely, Caroline. Much as I dislike the word "normal", a more appropriate reaction from a victim would have one of total compliancy.
And complacency as you ponder on what you're supposed to have done.
-
And complacency as you ponder on what you're supposed to have done.
Complacency had no place in that particular scene. We're not talking about an attempted break-in here. It was the slaughter of an entire family-HIS family. I wonder just how "complacent" I'd have been under those circumstances. I would, however, have remained courteous.
-
Former Essex Police Sergeant Chris Bews explains to interviewer Mark Williams-Thomas how Jeremy Bamber told him as they walked around the perimeter of the farmhouse that he had seen movement at an upstairs window.
Bews stated that he thought it was merely a reflection from a window pane on one of the upper floors. He was quite satisfied that there was no movement.
(http://i.imgur.com/ffhna.jpg)
Clearly Bamber was setting the scene as follow up to his "Sheila had the gun" story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
In this interview he explains it was PC Myall that spotted the movement.
https://youtu.be/ohcCMvLrFm0 (https://youtu.be/ohcCMvLrFm0)
Why is Bews in almost every video, documentary and news report?
-
Complacency had no place in that particular scene. We're not talking about an attempted break-in here. It was the slaughter of an entire family-HIS family. I wonder just how "complacent" I'd have been under those circumstances. I would, however, have remained courteous.
I know 5 family members were murdered.I also know that it wasn't Jeremy, who may have felt/been complacent/self-satisfied in the fact that it WASN'T him,after all it had been alleged that he'd said.
-
I know 5 family members were murdered.I also know that it wasn't Jeremy, who may have felt/been complacent/self-satisfied in the fact that it WASN'T him,after all it had been alleged that he'd said.
Lookout, what POSSIBLE reason would he have had to to be/feel complacent/self satisfied that it wasn't him??? It wasn't about HIM. It was about his 5 slaughtered family members. I've never suffered such terrible loss, but I can't imagine, had I, that "I" would have been at the forefront. It would all have been about what had happened to them.
-
Lookout, what POSSIBLE reason would he have had to to be/feel complacent/self satisfied that it wasn't him??? It wasn't about HIM. It was about his 5 slaughtered family members. I've never suffered such terrible loss, but I can't imagine, had I, that "I" would have been at the forefront. It would all have been about what had happened to them.
Mixed Emotions.
As I'd said,he'd been blamed for everything else,but this time he'd had no place in the situation. I can bet that the shock took him ages to get over and to help him get over that shock and trauma he's put his hand to writing down his feelings as well as studying the case. Whether he's grieved,we don't know as it's nigh on impossible to within the confines of a prison cell. However,the writing that he's done has been therapeutic as well as fruitful.
-
Mixed Emotions.
As I'd said,he'd been blamed for everything else,but this time he'd had no place in the situation. I can bet that the shock took him ages to get over and to help him get over that shock and trauma he's put his hand to writing down his feelings as well as studying the case. Whether he's grieved,we don't know as it's nigh on impossible to within the confines of a prison cell. However,the writing that he's done has been therapeutic as well as fruitful.
Well, if he's only just started doing it, it taken an inordinately long time for him to get started. I'm not certain what it is you're suggesting is the "everything else" he's been blamed for.
-
Well, if he's only just started doing it, it taken an inordinately long time for him to get started. I'm not certain what it is you're suggesting is the "everything else" he's been blamed for.
Behaviour,dress,spending,homosexual--------to blame but a few.
-
Behaviour,dress,spending,homosexual--------to blame but a few.
None of those things alone being chargeable offences but in the light of 5 murders, they become part of his CV. If the cap fits, Lookout.
-
None of those things alone being chargeable offences but in the light of 5 murders, they become part of his CV. If the cap fits, Lookout.
It's still not right Jane and smacks of nit-picking and finding fault.
-
It's still not right Jane and smacks of nit-picking and finding fault.
Would you be as censorious of things said of those you believe to have committed murders? The West's, for instance or Hindley and Brady, OR is this just about your own belief in Jeremy's innocence?
-
Would you be as censorious of things said of those you believe to have committed murders? The West's, for instance or Hindley and Brady, OR is this just about your own belief in Jeremy's innocence?
As for The West's, Hindley and Brady their guilt is beyond question. You don't have to "Believe"
-
As for The West's, Hindley and Brady their guilt is beyond question. You don't have to "Believe"
For many, so is Jeremy's.
-
As for The West's, Hindley and Brady their guilt is beyond question. You don't have to "Believe"
Like Jane says, so is Jeremy's. The fact that you don't want to believe it, doesn't make him any less guilty and don't post the usual "PROVE IT" - not unless you can prove he didn't.
-
jb planned it that way so no forencis could tie him in but he didnt plan on people discovering that sheila could not have done it.outcome of trying to be too clever
-
Against those characters there's no comparison,murderer or not. The evil Philpott's too. Study them hard.
By saying that JB is imprisoned,proves nothing. Neither does the fact that he was found guilty.
-
For many, so is Jeremy's.
How is the case against Jeremy compararible to the Brady Hindley and the Wests?
Lets review the case against Brady and Hindley
1. A friend of his witnessed him kill someone with an axe.
2. There is an audio tape of him torturing and murdering a child.
3. They admit to their crimes.
4. Brady wrote a book on his crimes.
5. They were able to locate several bodies (because they buried them)
-
How is the case against Jeremy compararible to the Brady Hindley and the Wests?
Lets review the case against Brady and Hindley
1. A friend of his witnessed him kill someone with an axe.
2. There is an audio tape of him torturing and murdering a child.
3. They admit to their crimes.
4. Brady wrote a book on his crimes.
5. They were able to locate several bodies (because they buried them)
David, you're splitting hairs. Bottom line is that they -and Jeremy- were convicted of murder.
-
I bet there was heaps of forensic proof though----------unlike in JB's case.
-
I bet there was heaps of forensic proof though----------unlike in JB's case.
And what would have been your reaction if all those guilty murders had walked because of lack of forensic proof?
-
David, you're splitting hairs. Bottom line is that they -and Jeremy- were convicted of murder.
A conviction (specially in those days) does not nessisarily prove they did what they where convicted of.
-
Like Jane says, so is Jeremy's. The fact that you don't want to believe it, doesn't make him any less guilty and don't post the usual "PROVE IT" - not unless you can prove he didn't.
What do you mean I don't want to believe it? I ask you time and time again for you to prove it and you come back with nothing substantial, then leave the responsibility with the accused. Shifting the burden of proof. That in itself speaks volumes
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. —Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953),
The latin semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"
The philosophical burden of proof lies with the accuser(You). All I have to do show doubt on the evidence that the accusers produce. And so far you make that an easy Job, claims such as "Shelia would not have chosen that spot to shoot herself" or "Julie Mugford said so" is not just weak its worthy of ridicule
-
And what would have been your reaction if all those guilty murders had walked because of lack of forensic proof?
But they wouldn't have walked. The police got it right that time.
Sadly not with JB's case where stuff was destroyed and ALL they had was a silencer with rabbit blood in it. I say rabbit blood because it wasn't DNA'd ,just tested for grouping only, and compares to human blood. Perhaps they should have hired a vetinary surgeon.
-
A conviction (specially in those days) does not nessisarily prove they did what they where convicted of.
OK so lets forget the judicial system and let all those out who were convicted "in those days". You and Mike seem to have much in common.
-
What do you mean I don't want to believe it? I ask you time and time again for you to prove it and you come back with nothing substantial, then leave the responsibility with the accused. Shifting the burden of proof. That in itself speaks volumes
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. —Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953),
The latin semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"
The philosophical burden of proof lies with the accuser(You). All I have to do show doubt on the evidence that the accusers produce. And so far you make that an easy Job, claims such as "Shelia would not have chosen that spot to shoot herself" or "Julie Mugford said so" is not just weak its worthy of ridicule
it did lie with the prosicution who successfully showed jb was the killer not on a forum but in a court of law and 10 people believed them.that speaks for itself
-
But they wouldn't have walked. The police got it right that time.
Sadly not with JB's case where stuff was destroyed and ALL they had was a silencer with rabbit blood in it. I say rabbit blood because it wasn't DNA'd ,just tested for grouping only, and compares to human blood. Perhaps they should have hired a vetinary surgeon.
It wasn't destroyed immediately. They took those pieces they believed related to what they thought the crime had been before destroying anything.
-
It wasn't destroyed immediately. They took those pieces they believed related to what they thought the crime had been before destroying anything.
" Thought's " no good,Jane. The verdict had to be beyond reasonable doubt,and it wasn't because of thoughts,maybe's and probably's.
-
i still say jb will never get another day in court the public are not interested in the case ,no high profile people champianing his cause no one chaining themselfs to no 10 saying bamber is innocent or miscarrige of justice
-
10 people were happy beyond resonable doubt thats why jb is where he is
-
" Thought's " no good,Jane. The verdict had to be beyond reasonable doubt,and it wasn't because of thoughts,maybe's and probably's.
And it was. 10 out of 12 people agreed. You say "Thought's" no good. You're right. They THOUGHT it was Sheila.
-
And it was. 10 out of 12 people agreed. You say "Thought's" no good. You're right. They THOUGHT it was Sheila.
Yes,and even they are wrong in my estimation as there were THREE adults inside that farmhouse,mother,father and daughter. Two of those adults peppered in bullets-------one clean.
-
Yes,and even they are wrong in my estimation as there were THREE adults inside that farmhouse,mother,father and daughter. Two of those adults peppered in bullets-------one clean.
Well, that's you're opinion and you're entitled to it but the jury didn't agree with you.
-
Well, that's you're opinion and you're entitled to it but the jury didn't agree with you.
A two-bit jury doesn't bother me. They have to be wrong sometime,they're not infallible.
-
A two-bit jury doesn't bother me. They have to be wrong sometime,they're not infallible.
Whether or not that "two bit jury" bothers you, they still convicted him.
-
Whether or not that "two bit jury" bothers you, they still convicted him.
How would you have viewed the situation if Sheila had been sprayed with bullets like her parents were and either of one parent remained clean ?
-
How would you have viewed the situation if Sheila had been sprayed with bullets like her parents were and either of one parent remained clean ?
But her parents weren't supposed to look as if they'd committed suicide so it didn't matter that they were bloodied and peppered with bullets.
-
What do you mean I don't want to believe it? I ask you time and time again for you to prove it and you come back with nothing substantial, then leave the responsibility with the accused. Shifting the burden of proof. That in itself speaks volumes
In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. —Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953),
The latin semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"
The philosophical burden of proof lies with the accuser(You). All I have to do show doubt on the evidence that the accusers produce. And so far you make that an easy Job, claims such as "Shelia would not have chosen that spot to shoot herself" or "Julie Mugford said so" is not just weak its worthy of ridicule
Not in this case as Jeremy has been CONVICTED - the innocent side need to PROVE the court were wrong. It's not longer innocent until proven guilty and you have come up with absolute ziltch that shows Jeremy innocent and Sheila guilty. You want to believe he is innocent because you have doffed your cap towards freedom. The charges are from your side - the charges from Jeremy are that he was wrongly convicted, he (and you as a supporter) need to PROVE it. I'm happy with the status quo (not the band, they're crap). Now, jump to it - but you'll need more than a cake and file though! ;)
-
Not in this case as Jeremy has been CONVICTED - the innocent side need to PROVE the court were wrong. It's not longer innocent until proven guilty and you have come up with absolute ziltch that shows Jeremy innocent and Sheila guilty. You want to believe he is innocent because you have doffed your cap towards freedom. The charges are from your side - the charges from Jeremy are that he was wrongly convicted, he (and you as a supporter) need to PROVE it. I'm happy with the status quo (not the band, they're crap). Now, jump to it - but you'll need more than a cake and file though! ;)
they havent got a chance in hell of showing that sheila did it so its turned around to try and show jb didnt do it .but they dont do a very good job.what do we have to prove its allready been proved in a court of law.says it all
-
The scientific methods of investigation back in 1985 left a lot to be desired and because of these outdated methods,easily led to errors being made and to my mind this is where most of the errors lies. Forensic science was relied upon far more then than it is present day,so the margin for error was much greater.
-
these days a micoscopic hair ,skin cell,and siliava can get a person a life sentence forencis is relied on far more than in the past
-
Not in this case as Jeremy has been CONVICTED - the innocent side need to PROVE the court were wrong. It's not longer innocent until proven guilty and you have come up with absolute ziltch that shows Jeremy innocent and Sheila guilty.
You want to believe he is innocent because you have doffed your cap towards freedom. The charges are from your side - the charges from Jeremy are that he was wrongly convicted, he (and you as a supporter) need to PROVE it. I'm happy with the status quo (not the band, they're crap). Now, jump to it - but you'll need more than a cake and file though! ;)
That's incorrect, Post guilty verdict the Defence just needs to prove reasonable doubt so the prosecution cant make their case, examples David Bain, Sion Jenkins and Marty Tankleff.
As I have said before I don't believe he is innocent nor do I believe he guilty, Belief requires a leap of faith. Being a rational person I don't take leaps of faith if evidence is not satisfactory I embrace the uncertainty.
The burden of proof falls on the accuser (YOU) if the accuser cannot prove guilt then the presumption of innocence applies (Innocent until proven guilty)
The state (according to its own standards) has denied Jeremy a fair trial thus I reject the verdict of that trial. But since you are so eager to point out he has been convicted and using that a basis for believing him guilty. Tell me what evidence did the crown present to secure this conviction? ::)
-
But her parents weren't supposed to look as if they'd committed suicide so it didn't matter that they were bloodied and peppered with bullets.
Like " Taff " first said------------" a domestic ".
-
Like " Taff " first said------------" a domestic ".
OR, what Jeremy was convicted on, 5 murders, one made to look like suicide.
-
That's incorrect, Post guilty verdict the Defence just needs to prove reasonable doubt so the prosecution cant make their case, examples David Bain, Sion Jenkins and Marty Tankleff.
As I have said before I don't believe he is innocent nor do I believe he guilty, Belief requires a leap of faith. Being a rational person I don't take leaps of faith if evidence is not satisfactory I embrace the uncertainty.
The burden of proof falls on the accuser (YOU) if the accuser cannot prove guilt then the presumption of innocence applies (Innocent until proven guilty)
The state (according to its own standards) has denied Jeremy a fair trial thus I reject the verdict of that trial. But since you are so eager to point out he has been convicted and using that a basis for believing him guilty. Tell me what evidence did the crown present to secure this conviction? ::)
well the defence couldnt even prove reasonable doubt.the crown showed sheila could not have done it .and how many more times must i say 10 out of 12 people accepted it
-
That's incorrect, Post guilty verdict the Defence just needs to prove reasonable doubt so the prosecution cant make their case, examples David Bain, Sion Jenkins and Marty Tankleff.
As I have said before I don't believe he is innocent nor do I believe he guilty, Belief requires a leap of faith. Being a rational person I don't take leaps of faith if evidence is not satisfactory I embrace the uncertainty.
The burden of proof falls on the accuser (YOU) if the accuser cannot prove guilt then the presumption of innocence applies (Innocent until proven guilty)
The state (according to its own standards) has denied Jeremy a fair trial thus I reject the verdict of that trial. But since you are so eager to point out he has been convicted and using that a basis for believing him guilty. Tell me what evidence did the crown present to secure this conviction? ::)
The burden on proof doesn't fall on me at all just like YOU rejecting the verdict means ziltch! I think you already know the evidence that convicted him so that's a pretty dumb question. Whether or not you believe that circumstantial evidence is good enough mean squat - there was certainly enough of it to make Bamber the only option. Singularly, such circumstantial evidence means nothing but when you add it together and apply common sense - it can ONLY be Jeremy. It doesn't take a leap of faith, just a little logic.
He has had more chances than any other prisoner to show he is innocent - NOTHING he has presented so far goes to show that there is even a remote chance that he is.
.
-
i also believe there was a violent fight in the kitchen which involved the rifle,thats the only way the lampshade could have been broken.i fully believe if that fight was between nb and sc than nb would be alive today,even with the shots he took upstairs he could have still contained sc
Absolutely, Sheila could never have got the better of Nevill.
-
The burden on proof doesn't fall on me at all just like YOU rejecting the verdict means ziltch! I think you already know the evidence that convicted him so that's a pretty dumb question. Whether or not you believe that circumstantial evidence is good enough mean squat - there was certainly enough of it to make Bamber the only option. Singularly, such circumstantial evidence means nothing but when you add it together and apply common sense - it can ONLY be Jeremy. It doesn't take a leap of faith, just a little logic.
He has had more chances than any other prisoner to show he is innocent - NOTHING he has presented so far goes to show that there is even a remote chance that he is.
.
and there never will be any proof he is innocent
-
Absolutely, Sheila could never have got the better of Nevill.
What ? With a rifle poking at him ? Move or I shoot ?
-
The burden on proof doesn't fall on me at all just like YOU rejecting the verdict means ziltch! I think you already know the evidence that convicted him so that's a pretty dumb question. Whether or not you believe that circumstantial evidence is good enough mean squat - there was certainly enough of it to make Bamber the only option. Singularly, such circumstantial evidence means nothing but when you add it together and apply common sense - it can ONLY be Jeremy. It doesn't take a leap of faith, just a little logic.
He has had more chances than any other prisoner to show he is innocent - NOTHING he has presented so far goes to show that there is even a remote chance that he is.
.
There is no cicumstancial evidence to add together in the first place. All you have is tainted words of Julie Mugford and The Relatives that wanted him convicted. To claim that is logical proof of guilt is beyond laughable
-
There is no cicumstancial evidence to add together in the first place. All you have is tainted words of Julie Mugford and The Relatives that wanted him convicted. To claim that is logical proof of guilt is beyond laughable
Wanting him convicted doesn't indicate innocence.
-
the rifle was empty when the fight in the kitchen took place thats how the lampshade broke in the kitchen
-
There is no cicumstancial evidence to add together in the first place. All you have is tainted words of Julie Mugford and The Relatives that wanted him convicted. To claim that is logical proof of guilt is beyond laughable
You saying it is beyond laughable is beyond laughable. You have tried to say Julie could have gotten her story from the relatives and or police but that doesn't fit with the hit man story. To suggest the police would add this into the mix is also laughable. There is no reason whatsoever, why the police would drag MM into it - it obviously came from Jeremy.
-
It's strange when you can sense that someone's straining at the leash.
-
There is no cicumstancial evidence to add together in the first place. All you have is tainted words of Julie Mugford and The Relatives that wanted him convicted. To claim that is logical proof of guilt is beyond laughable
how about what 10 members of the jury believed that no forencis or other evidence could show sc didnt do it.you banging on about prove jb did it we dont need to nor did the prosacution .they clearly showed sc didnt do it.what more proof do you want
-
It's strange when you can sense that someone's straining at the leash.
What you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business Lookout. :o :o
-
What you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business Lookout. :o :o
Mmmm,now that was funny. :))
-
You saying it is beyond laughable is beyond laughable. You have tried to say Julie could have gotten her story from the relatives and or police but that doesn't fit with the hit man story. To suggest the police would add this into the mix is also laughable. There is no reason whatsoever, why the police would drag MM into it - it obviously came from Jeremy.
Sigh..... Here we go again
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html)
-
how about what 10 members of the jury believed that no forencis or other evidence could show sc didnt do it.you banging on about prove jb did it we dont need to nor did the prosacution .they clearly showed sc didnt do it.what more proof do you want
What jury heard was not the whole story at all. The evidence used by prosecutors to convince the jury has been proven unreliable and in somecases totally false
-
Sigh..... Here we go again
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html)
Why are you posting your BIG conspiracy theory post as proof? Big arrogant David! And you can't explain with ANY credibility why the police would add MM into the mix.
-
What jury heard was not the whole story at all. The evidence used by prosecutors to convince the jury has been proven unreliable and in somecases totally false
by who bamber supporters certainly not jb lawers or he would be out
-
Why are you posting your BIG conspiracy theory post as proof? Big arrogant David! And you can't explain with ANY credibility why the police would add MM into the mix.
Its not a conspiracy theory its a conspiracy fact. Jeremy's alleged confession does not corroborate the facts of the crime its the same false information police gave AE and RB. Had Jeremy confessed in detail it would match the facts of the crime scene and it does not.
MM went around telling people he was a hitman and RB speculates JB had an accomplice. My theory is since MM and JB were friends police and RB joined the dots (In their minds) That's far more credible than your theory that JB implicated himself and MM because he slept with Sue! That sounds like a storyline out of Eastenders
-
Its not a conspiracy theory its a conspiracy fact. Jeremy's alleged confession does not corroborate the facts of the crime its the same false information police gave AE and RB. Had Jeremy confessed in detail it would match the facts of the crime scene and it does not.
MM went around telling people he was a hitman and RB speculates JB had an accomplice. My theory is since MM and JB were friends police and RB joined the dots (In their minds) That's far more credible than your theory that JB implicated himself and MM because he slept with Sue! That sounds like a storyline out of Eastenders
Of course his confession to Julie doesn't corroborate the facts, he's not stupid. He told her some truths and some lies.
They weren't friends and there is no credible reason why RB would know anything about MM because he and Jeremy were related only in so much as they shared a similar habit. I doubt he'd be telling RB about his latest dope deals and MM and RB didn't mix in the same circles. Your theory isn't credible at all. Also for all we know, Julie might have mentioned to AE that Sheila was found on the bed, not the other way around. By the way, I don't watch Eastenders, it's shite!
-
Of course his confession to Julie doesn't corroborate the facts, he's not stupid. He told her some truths and some lies.
No, the information she gave is the same erroneous information that police gave AE and RB. its not difficult to work out were she got it from.
Agreed Jeremy is not stupid, therefor he would not be stupid enough to implicate himself to Julie because MM slept with sue
-
No, the information she gave is the same erroneous information that police gave AE and RB. its not difficult to work out were she got it from.
Jeremy is not stupid therefor he would not be stupid enough to implicate himself to Julie because MM slept with sue
No, that's where YOU want her to have got it from.
He implicated himself in the plot LONG before he thought of adding MM into the mix. I SAID he added MM so that if Julie went to the police she would de discredited and he CHOSE MM because he had a grudge. If if don't understand what I mean, then ask but don't write some half arsed rendition.
-
No, that's where YOU want her to have got it from.
No. That's where I KNOW she got it from. The probability that Jeremy confesses to Julie and deliberately gives her false information about the crime scene that just so happens to be the same false information police gave EA and RB goes against astronomical odds.
-
No. That's where I KNOW she got it from. The probability that Jeremy confesses to Julie and deliberately gives her false information about the crime scene that just so happens to be the same false information police gave EA and RB goes against astronomical odds.
No you don't.
-
No you don't.
Yes I do.
There is a reason why forensic science is used, its because what people say is not reliable.
I am not going to believe JB is guilty based on the dubious word of an ex-girlfriend.
Ever wondered why police never tried putting an audio recorder on Julie or recording a telephone conversation while instructing Julie to bring up a conversation with JB about his "confession"? That would have got them undeniable proof! but they didn't I wonder why? ::)
-
Yes I do.
There is a reason why forensic science is used, its because what people say is not reliable.
I am not going to believe JB is guilty based on the dubious word of an ex-girlfriend.
Ever wondered why police never tried putting an audio recorder on Julie or recording a telephone conversation while instructing Julie to bring up a conversation with JB about his "confession"? That would have got them undeniable proof! but they didn't I wonder why? ::)
hind sight is a good thing but maybe ep werent as smart as you to think of setting him up .what would putting a audio recorder on julie be used for.you can understand what she has said by reading her statement.why all the effort and expense of setting jb up when they could easily have stuck with the original findings 4 murders an 1 suiside.case closed.all this talk of fitting up with absolutly no proof he was fitted up
-
hind sight is a good thing but maybe ep werent as smart as you to think of setting him up .what would putting a audio recorder on julie be used for.you can unstand what she has said by reading her statement.why all the effort and expense of setting jb up when they could easily have stuck with the original findings 4 murders an 1 suiside.case closed.all this talk of fitting up with absolutly no proof he was fitted up
Why would they want to stick with 4 murders and 1 suicide when the relatives convinced the police otherwise? Most of the case against Jeremy was put together by the relatives. The windows, bike, route to the farm, wetsuit, Sheila not using guns, Sheila having poor coordination, and the jewel in the crown the silencer!
-
Yes I do.
There is a reason why forensic science is used, its because what people say is not reliable.
I am not going to believe JB is guilty based on the dubious word of an ex-girlfriend.
Ever wondered why police never tried putting an audio recorder on Julie or recording a telephone conversation while instructing Julie to bring up a conversation with JB about his "confession"? That would have got them undeniable proof! but they didn't I wonder why? ::)
Great post David. The police put Jeremy under surveillance so why not wire Julie up?
I remember the Colin Stagg case where the police tried to get a taped confession by setting a honeytrap and failed miserably. Reason they failed Colin Stagg was innocent. Robert Napper a paranoid schizophrenic was latter charged and found guilty.
-
Why are you posting your BIG conspiracy theory post as proof? Big arrogant David! And you can't explain with ANY credibility why the police would add MM into the mix.
Now now,don't get shirty,Gertie.
-
Why would they want to stick with 4 murders and 1 suicide when the relatives convinced the police otherwise? Most of the case against Jeremy was put together by the relatives. The windows, bike, route to the farm, wetsuit, Sheila not using guns, Sheila having poor coordination, and the jewel in the crown the silencer!
jb best friend taff jones was happy to say it was the above .the relatives put the thought in the minds of the police but it was them that showed sheila did not do it .you know sheila not using guns is true apart jb only one other person says saw her handle a gun not fire it nor load it just handle it so its open to interpitation.you keep forgetting that 10 of 12 jury memmbers believed it
-
jb best friend taff jones was happy to say it was the above .the relatives put the thought in the minds of the police but it was them that showed sheila did not do it .you know sheila not using guns is true apart jb only one other person says saw here handle a gun not fire it nor load it just handle it so its open to interpitation.you keep forgetting that 10 of 12 jury memmbers believed it
That's a valid point, Sami. It seems that there were no more persons willing to come forward to say Sheila had herself a ball at every shooting party/shot with the best of the guns, than there were those prepared to come forward to give Jeremy a character reference.
-
jackie you caption under your posts .are sure it was churchill that said that.because i find it hard to believe any horse in the world could take winstons weight not even half a dozen shires
-
Why are you posting your BIG conspiracy theory post as proof? Big arrogant David! And you can't explain with ANY credibility why the police would add MM into the mix.
Can you explain with ANY credibility why Paul Harrison had Sheila as Jeremy's accomplice?
-
Can you explain with ANY credibility why Paul Harrison had Sheila as Jeremy's accomplice?
was paul at the scene or is he just like us the only difference being he has wrote a book and made some money out of it
-
Neither Sheila nor Jeremy were keen on shooting parties because of the end product-------dead animals and birds. Why on earth they went,God knows. You've got to have nerves of steel to watch animals die in this way. I don't call it a sport at all,but that's another point of view.
No wonder neither sibling weren't interested in that way of life. Target practice with a row of tin cans was probably what Jeremy enjoyed more,earning him his " crack-shot " title.
-
Neither Sheila nor Jeremy were keen on shooting parties because of the end product-------dead animals and birds. Why on earth they went,God knows. You've got to have nerves of steel to watch animals die in this way. I don't call it a sport at all,but that's another point of view.
No wonder neither sibling weren't interested in that way of life. Target practice with a row of tin cans was probably what Jeremy enjoyed more,earning him his " crack-shot " title.
I think you're missing the point, lookout.
-
I think you're missing the point, lookout.
Not really, it's only because you don't agree.
-
I think you're missing the point, lookout.
theres a photo of a young jb about 8 or 10 with a rifle under his arm .his interest in guns is deep after all vermin control would be something that jb would have injoyed thats why he won a medal for shooting in his school days.he was bought up around firearms he also went with nb to pick that rifle from the shop.so he was very interested in guns .oh and the auto shotgun he wanted to buy for pegion shooting so he claims.i think it was for the murders he wanted that
-
Not really, it's only because you don't agree.
No, the point was about Sheila's alleged competency with guns, NOT the ethics of such.
-
was paul at the scene or is he just like us the only difference being he has wrote a book and made some money out of it
Were the police and relatives there?
Yes Paul wrote a book but I doubt he made any money out of it judging by the appalling sales figures.
-
Were the police and relatives there?
Yes Paul wrote a book but I doubt he made any money out of it judging by the appalling sales figures.
he did get your money cause you know whats in his book.youre right police and relatives werent there.but they knew jb alot better than most ,family,
-
jb best friend taff jones was happy to say it was the above .the relatives put the thought in the minds of the police but it was them that showed sheila did not do it .you know sheila not using guns is true apart jb only one other person says saw her handle a gun not fire it nor load it just handle it so its open to interpitation.you keep forgetting that 10 of 12 jury memmbers believed it
Sheila didn't have learning difficulties. She grew up on a farm surrounded by guns. All shots were close. If she had a go when she walked round fields with her dad and brother who would know? The person who could most reliably say whether Sheila ever used guns was probably her dad. I was very close to my dad and I find it difficult to see I wouldn't have gone round the fields with him and said let's have a go dad. The relatives couldn't even tell the twins apart or knew about her illness but know Sheila couldn't use a gun?
The jury were putty for the prosecution with Jeremy's rubbish defence.
-
he did get your money cause you know whats in his book.youre right police and relatives werent there.but they knew jb alot better than most ,family,
You have to cover the up front costs before you get a profit. Doubt he managed that.
The relatives statements say they had little to do with Sheila and Jeremy.
-
Sheila didn't have learning difficulties. She grew up on a farm surrounded by guns. All shots were close. If she had a go when she walked round fields with her dad and brother who would know? The person who could most reliably say whether Sheila ever used guns was probably her dad. I was very close to my dad and I find it difficult to see I wouldn't have gone round the fields with him and said let's have a go dad. The relatives couldn't even tell the twins apart or knew about her illness but know Sheila couldn't use a gun?
The jury were putty for the prosecution with Jeremy's rubbish defence.
thats hindsight.sheila may not have been like you she might have said iam not killing animals dad you and jeramy go into the fields everyone is defferent.would family members not know if sheila was a shooter or just a looker if she had shot something in front of someone it would soon get about the family ,how good a shot she having killed an animal from this distance.familys do talk to each other
-
thats hindsight.sheila may not have been like you she might have said iam not killing animals dad you and jeramy go into the fields everyone is defferent.would family members not know if sheila was a shooter or just a looker if she had shot something in front of someone it would soon get about the family ,how good a shot she having killed an animal from this distance.familys do talk to each other
Hindsight?
I don't kill animals. I love my two horses. I've always been kind to animals. I'm a vegetarian.
There's loads of things you can shoot round farms without killing living creatures including vermin. Nevill probably set up shooting games/competitions when the children were young using non living creatures. They could shoot at fruit on trees and scarecrows that sort of thing.
-
Hindsight?
I don't kill animals. I love my two horses. I've always been kind to animals. I'm a vegetarian.
There's loads of things you can shoot round farms without killing living creatures including vermin. Nevill probably set up shooting games/competitions when the children were young using non living creatures. They could shoot at fruit on trees and scarecrows that sort of thing.
no proof of that
-
Sheila didn't have learning difficulties. She grew up on a farm surrounded by guns. All shots were close. If she had a go when she walked round fields with her dad and brother who would know? The person who could most reliably say whether Sheila ever used guns was probably her dad. I was very close to my dad and I find it difficult to see I wouldn't have gone round the fields with him and said let's have a go dad. The relatives couldn't even tell the twins apart or knew about her illness but know Sheila couldn't use a gun?
The jury were putty for the prosecution with Jeremy's rubbish defence.
Possibly they knew, by default, that Sheila wasn't into guns ie none had ever seen her in out with her father with a gun.
-
Possibly they knew, by default, that Sheila wasn't into guns ie none had ever seen her in out with her father with a gun.
Who's "they"?
-
Possibly they knew, by default, that Sheila wasn't into guns ie none had ever seen her in out with her father with a gun.
Apart from DB and PE,who both spluttered when that subject was broached.
-
Yes I do.
There is a reason why forensic science is used, its because what people say is not reliable.
I am not going to believe JB is guilty based on the dubious word of an ex-girlfriend.
Ever wondered why police never tried putting an audio recorder on Julie or recording a telephone conversation while instructing Julie to bring up a conversation with JB about his "confession"? That would have got them undeniable proof! but they didn't I wonder why? ::)
No you don't, there is nothing forensic about YOUR OPINION.
It doesn't matter what YOU believe and you don't want to believe he's guilty because that would mean you were trying to help the murderer of five people get back to the COA.
Yes, I have wondered that and have written about it on the forum. However, the recording would have been inadmissible in court so what would be the point? Also, by the time Julie went to police, they had split up.
If the police were involved in coaching Julie, they wouldn't have let her cherry pick between what the family thought and what they knew.
-
Now now,don't get shirty,Gertie.
And you accuse other people of goading! ::)
-
no proof of that
No proof they didn't either.
Sheila was much closer to her dad than her mum so it stands to reason she would want to be with him and do what he was doing that's what kids do Sami.
-
And you accuse other people of goading! ::)
I don't goad. I answer-back the goaders in my own way which is straight and not underhand.
-
Neither Sheila nor Jeremy were keen on shooting parties because of the end product-------dead animals and birds. Why on earth they went,God knows. You've got to have nerves of steel to watch animals die in this way. I don't call it a sport at all,but that's another point of view.
No wonder neither sibling weren't interested in that way of life. Target practice with a row of tin cans was probably what Jeremy enjoyed more,earning him his " crack-shot " title.
And yet he said he was going out to 'shoot rabbits' on the eve of the murders!
-
Who's "they"?
Anyone living/working in the vicinity of WHF who may have been asked.
-
No you don't, there is nothing forensic about YOUR OPINION.
It doesn't matter what YOU believe and you don't want to believe he's guilty because that would mean you were trying to help the murderer of five people get back to the COA.
Yes, I have wondered that and have written about it on the forum. However, the recording would have been inadmissible in court so what would be the point? Also, by the time Julie went to police, they had split up.
If the police were involved in coaching Julie, they wouldn't have let her cherry pick between what the family thought and what they knew.
Julie's statement said they parted on good terms. Jeremy and Brett helped her move her stuff to her new place. The police could easily have arranged for Julie to phone Jeremy and get the hitman story involving MM ::) ::)
-
Anyone living/working in the vicinity of WHF who may have been asked.
They would hear gunshot but unlikely to see unless they were spying with binoculars ::)
-
I don't goad. I answer-back the goaders in my own way which is straight and not underhand.
Yes, and so do I and I don't throw my toys out of the pram while doing so. ;) After your little outburst yesterday, you're a fine one to talk about 'getting shirty' ::)
-
Julie's statement said they parted on good terms. Jeremy and Brett helped her move her stuff to her new place. The police could easily have arranged for Julie to phone Jeremy and get the hitman story involving MM ::) ::)
Recordings were inadmissible in court!
-
No proof they didn't either.
Sheila was much closer to her dad than her mum so it stands to reason she would want to be with him and do what he was doing that's what kids do Sami.
i disagree sheila would be indoors watching june cooking cleaning and doing house work while jb would be out with his dad doing boys things. everyone is different.just because she had a good relations with nb doesnt means she went out hunting with him
-
Julie's statement said they parted on good terms. Jeremy and Brett helped her move her stuff to her new place. The police could easily have arranged for Julie to phone Jeremy and get the hitman story involving MM ::) ::)
"Parting on good terms" MAY mean no more than that they were civil to each other. Why would they not be? He was glad to be shot of her. She was grateful for his help...............providing this wasn't the occasion on which he was heard to be arranging to see another woman.
-
Neither Sheila nor Jeremy were keen on shooting parties because of the end product-------dead animals and birds. Why on earth they went,God knows. You've got to have nerves of steel to watch animals die in this way. I don't call it a sport at all,but that's another point of view.
No wonder neither sibling weren't interested in that way of life. Target practice with a row of tin cans was probably what Jeremy enjoyed more,earning him his " crack-shot " title.
Lookout Jeremy said he didn't like shooting game but realised vermin had to be controlled. It's in his statement. Jeremy told me this when we spoke on the phone and he always asked about my horses. Anthony Pargotter said him and Jeremy did some practice shooting using a block of wood.
-
"Parting on good terms" MAY mean no more than that they were civil to each other. Why would they not be? He was glad to be shot of her. She was grateful for his help...............providing this wasn't the occasion on which he was heard to be arranging to see another woman.
No moving the furniture was after his new girlfriend. He was supposed to drop June's bike off to but forgot so this could be a reason to phone and throw MM in while the police listened in. Taff Jones didn't believe Julie others obviously did so why not say ok let's get her wired up and a confession?
-
Lookout Jeremy said he didn't like shooting game but realised vermin had to be controlled. It's in his statement. Jeremy told me this when we spoke on the phone and he always asked about my horses. Anthony Pargotter said him and Jeremy did some practice shooting using a block of wood.
what was the automatic shotgun he wanted to buy going to be used for decoration over the mantelpiece .he was going to shoot pegions and bird lovers will tell you pegions are not vermin.he is a killer of living things be it human or animal.dont kid yourself
-
what was the automatic shotgun he wanted to buy going to be used for decoration over the mantelpiece .he was going to shoot pegions and bird lovers will tell you pegions are not vermin.he is a killer of living things be it human or animal.dont kid yourself
Ti hit more tin cans in a shorter time? ;D ;D
-
No moving the furniture was after his new girlfriend. He was supposed to drop June's bike off to but forgot so this could be a reason to phone and throw MM in while the police listened in. Taff Jones didn't believe Julie others obviously did so why not say ok let's get her wired up and a confession?
because later when it came to court a clever lawer will show it was a honey trap and intrapment and get it thrown out of court.you must use your common sense more
-
And yet he said he was going out to 'shoot rabbits' on the eve of the murders!
So far as we can gather,he didn't shoot any. I just think he stepped out mid-argument that was happening around the table,for a breather before leaving and had no intention of shooting anything but felt less awkward leaving the family by using his excuse of hearing rabbits. He may well have heard them,but I would doubt very much,as I said,it was an excuse to get away from the heated debate before leaving. It's embarrassing standing there when others are intense in conversation so he made his excuses,as you would,to get out of that situation.
-
what was the automatic shotgun he wanted to buy going to be used for decoration over the mantelpiece .he was going to shoot pegions and bird lovers will tell you pegions are not vermin.he is a killer of living things be it human or animal.dont kid yourself
A farmer will kill anything he/she legally can to preserve the farms profitability usually vermin. Shooting for recreational purposes is a different thing.
Did Nevill and the relatives attend shoots purely for recreation? Aren't the royals fond of this? ::)
The shotgun Jeremy was going to buy was for shooting pigeons with the landlord from his local pub. Checked out by the police.
-
i should rephrase the above post he wanted that autoshotgun to use on his family and not on pegions
-
A farmer will kill anything he/she legally can to preserve the farms profitability usually vermin. Shooting for recreational purposes is a different thing.
Did Nevill and the relatives attend shoots purely for recreation? Aren't the royals fond of this? ::)
The shotgun Jeremy was going to buy was for shooting pigeons with the landlord from his local pub. Checked out by the police.
so why say he wasnt into killing things pigeons are living arent they.he injoyed guns and shooting wether it was sport or not living things died after jb shot them.
-
So far as we can gather,he didn't shoot any. I just think he stepped out mid-argument that was happening around the table,for a breather before leaving and had no intention of shooting anything but felt less awkward leaving the family by using his excuse of hearing rabbits. He may well have heard them,but I would doubt very much,as I said,it was an excuse to get away from the heated debate before leaving. It's embarrassing standing there when others are intense in conversation so he made his excuses,as you would,to get out of that situation.
So he took the trouble to FULLY load the magazine but didn't intend to shoot any rabbits? Actually Lookout, he said they were gone when he went back out. No wonder really, given the time it would have taken him to get the rifle and bullets and load the thing. It's quite funny reading all the excuses for inexcusable behaviour. I used to do it myself when I thought he was innocent.
-
Lookout Jeremy said he didn't like shooting game but realised vermin had to be controlled. It's in his statement. Jeremy told me this when we spoke on the phone and he always asked about my horses. Anthony Pargotter said him and Jeremy did some practice shooting using a block of wood.
Oh,okay Jackie. The rats of course.Nobody minds killing those menaces which if you got a bite from one would cause life-long illness/disability,even death. I'd forgotten about that type of vermin.
-
Oh,okay Jackie. The rats of course.Nobody minds killing those menaces which if you got a bite from one would cause life-long illness/disability,even death. I'd forgotten about that type of vermin.
Jeremy only killed nasty things, he did everyone a favour. Wadda guy! Oh hang on, what about Crispy? :o
-
A farmer will kill anything he/she legally can to preserve the farms profitability usually vermin. Shooting for recreational purposes is a different thing.
Did Nevill and the relatives attend shoots purely for recreation? Aren't the royals fond of this? ::)
The shotgun Jeremy was going to buy was for shooting pigeons with the landlord from his local pub. Checked out by the police.
what was the pupurse of police checking that.pigeons dont bite do they and are not vermin pigeon fanciers will tell you some are worth thousands of pounds.people also eat pigeons ,do they eat rats
-
because later when it came to court a clever lawer will show it was a honey trap and intrapment and get it thrown out of court.you must use your common sense more
There's no evidence Jeremy had a clever defence far from it I would say. If they couldnt get the silencer thrown out given it's handling I'm sure they wouldn't be able to get a taped confession thrown out. Lol and you talk about my common sense ::)
Julie said Jeremy talked constantly about killing his family. She said he then arranged to get MM to do it so it would be a normal conversation for the police to record.
The court threw the entrapment about Colin Stagg out because he was innocent ::)
-
So far as we can gather,he didn't shoot any. I just think he stepped out mid-argument that was happening around the table,for a breather before leaving and had no intention of shooting anything but felt less awkward leaving the family by using his excuse of hearing rabbits. He may well have heard them,but I would doubt very much,as I said,it was an excuse to get away from the heated debate before leaving. It's embarrassing standing there when others are intense in conversation so he made his excuses,as you would,to get out of that situation.
Are you suggesting he lied to Police, when he told them he was going to shoot rabbits?
If what you say above is true, why didn't he give the Police that version of events?
-
Yes, and so do I and I don't throw my toys out of the pram while doing so. ;) After your little outburst yesterday, you're a fine one to talk about 'getting shirty' ::)
You're touchy too. I don't expect you to understand my humour ALL the time,but it was said in a humerous way. My dad used to say it to me if I lost at " Snap " and threw a hissy fit as dad always won. He used to laugh when he said it too.
-
what was the pupurse of police checking that.pigeons dont bite do they and are not vermin pigeon fanciers will tell you some are worth thousands of pounds
What? The relatives told the police Jeremy had asked them about purchasing a shotgun. This was to go pigeon shooting with landlord of the pub. Police checked this out and found it wad true.
-
There's no evidence Jeremy had a clever defence far from it I would say. If they couldnt get the silencer thrown out given it's handling I'm sure they wouldn't be able to get a taped confession thrown out. Lol and you talk about my common sense ::)
Julie said Jeremy talked constantly about killing his family. She said he then arranged to get MM to do it so it would be a normal conversation for the police to record.
The court threw the entrapment about Colin Stagg out because he was innocent ::)
how do you know jb is innocent.the police did not know at the time what lawer jb would have nor if their honytrap would be succesful .they summized it which is why they never took that course
-
You're touchy too. I don't expect you to understand my humour ALL the time,but it was said in a humerous way. My dad used to say it to me if I lost at " Snap " and threw a hissy fit as dad always won. He used to laugh when he said it too.
Yeah right ::)
-
So he took the trouble to FULLY load the magazine but didn't intend to shoot any rabbits? Actually Lookout, he said they were gone when he went back out. No wonder really, given the time it would have taken him to get the rifle and bullets and load the thing. It's quite funny reading all the excuses for inexcusable behaviour. I used to do it myself when I thought he was innocent.
My explanations are how I'd feel in the same situation,they're not,as you say,excuses. Though he himself used the excuse of fiddling about loading ( he's obviously not too adept at loading by the sound of things either ? )it was all done to kill time before he could get a word in to say his goodnights.
I wouldn't dream of making excuses for a REAL killer.
-
Oh,okay Jackie. The rats of course.Nobody minds killing those menaces which if you got a bite from one would cause life-long illness/disability,even death. I'd forgotten about that type of vermin.
Yes Lookout anything that damages crops or live stock. A fox will wipe out hens overnight. If you read Myalls/Bews statements they said Jeremy commented on the dogs barking and wondered why his dad wasn't out with a gun as this would normally signal a fox.
When I used to talk to Jeremy he used to tell me loads about farming it was really interesting. It got me into watching programmes like Countryfile.
-
My explanations are how I'd feel in the same situation,they're not,as you say,excuses. Though he himself used the excuse of fiddling about loading ( he's obviously not too adept at loading by the sound of things either ? )it was all done to kill time before he could get a word in to say his goodnights.
I wouldn't dream of making excuses for a REAL killer.
He loaded a gun to kill 'time' not rabbits? ;D ;D ;D ;D Like Neil says, IF that were the case, then he lied to the police. No one loads a gun to kill time Lookout - he had work to do, he could have gone off to do the work, that would have killed time.
-
Yes Lookout anything that damages crops or live stock. A fox will wipe out hens overnight. If you read Myalls/Bews statements they said Jeremy commented on the dogs barking and wondered why his dad wasn't out with a gun as this would normally signal a fox.
When I used to talk to Jeremy he used to tell me loads about farming it was really interesting. It got me into watching programmes like Countryfile.
did he ever tell you he hated it and would love the life of a playboy .if not then he wasnt truthful with you.he fully knew why his dad was not out.because he had earlier beat and shot his dad dead
-
how do you know jb is innocent.the police did not know at the time what lawer jb would have nor if their honytrap would be succesful .they summized it which is why they never took that course
I dont know Jeremy is innocent anymore than you know he's guilty.
If they had a taped confession the verdict would probably have been unanimous and I would probably be riding one of my two horses right now ::)
-
I dont know Jeremy is innocent anymore than you know he's guilty.
If they had a taped confession the verdict would probably have been unanimous and I would probably be riding one of my two horses right now ::)
2 doubters out of 12 i think that says alot
-
Are you suggesting he lied to Police, when he told them he was going to shoot rabbits?
If what you say above is true, why didn't he give the Police that version of events?
You just don't understand my logic do you ? I won't begin to explain,it'll be futile.
-
Yes Lookout anything that damages crops or live stock. A fox will wipe out hens overnight. If you read Myalls/Bews statements they said Jeremy commented on the dogs barking and wondered why his dad wasn't out with a gun as this would normally signal a fox.
When I used to talk to Jeremy he used to tell me loads about farming it was really interesting. It got me into watching programmes like Countryfile.
Was there anyone who added credence to Jeremy's claim, that he loved farming?
None of his actions post murders, suggest that this was true. I would accept that in his current position, farming must seem totally iddilic.
-
You just don't understand my logic do you ? I won't begin to explain,it'll be futile.
There is no logic. That's why.
What a kop out!
-
Was there anyone who added credence to Jeremy's claim, that he loved farming?
None of his actions post murders, suggest that this was true. I would accept that in his current position, farming must seem totally iddilic.
There is already a thread on this.
-
So far as we can gather,he didn't shoot any. I just think he stepped out mid-argument that was happening around the table,for a breather before leaving and had no intention of shooting anything but felt less awkward leaving the family by using his excuse of hearing rabbits. He may well have heard them,but I would doubt very much,as I said,it was an excuse to get away from the heated debate before leaving. It's embarrassing standing there when others are intense in conversation so he made his excuses,as you would,to get out of that situation.
Then why did he not tell police that the only reason he went outside was because of the family barney going on inside?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5838.msg259617.html#msg259617
-
There is already a thread on this.
......and?
-
You just don't understand my logic do you ? I won't begin to explain,it'll be futile.
Neither do you and you won't explain it because you can't.
-
Then why did he not tell police that the only reason he went outside was because of the family barney going on inside?
This could be explained, but you wouldn't understand. ;)
-
There is no logic. That's why.
What a kop out!
It's not a kop-out at all. You're just one of those individuals who wouldn't understand my way of thinking. Maybe if you'd studied the psychology of the human,you'd have an inkling of what I was on about. But not to worry,it's not your fault,but please don't have me down as stupid.
-
This could be explained, but you wouldn't understand. ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Was there anyone who added credence to Jeremy's claim, that he loved farming?
None of his actions post murders, suggest that this was true. I would accept that in his current position, farming must seem totally iddilic.
Has Jeremy ever said he "loved" farming? If he did maybe it was figuratively speaking. Like I might say I love Supervet when I what I really mean is I would love Prof Noel Fitzpatrick to shag me ;D
Is there any evidence Jeremy hated farming? He wasn't just a farmer he was a director at the caravan park.
Yes I think Jeremy was interested in farming from a biological perspective in terms of crops. He did biology a level with this in mind and Colin said they both liked growing things and visited Kew Gardens together.
-
It's not a kop-out at all. You're just one of those individuals who wouldn't understand my way of thinking. Maybe if you'd studied the psychology of the human,you'd have an inkling of what I was on about. But not to worry,it's not your fault,but please don't have me down as stupid.
You have made a whole lot of assumptions there!
-
2 doubters out of 12 i think that says alot
About the same as most well known miscarriages of justice.
-
You have made a whole lot of assumptions there!
Oh well,I probably have,but when I get an answer such as you posted,what am I supposed to think ?
-
Has Jeremy ever said he "loved" farming? If he did maybe it was figuratively speaking. Like I might say I love Supervet when I what I really mean is I would love Prof Noel Fitzpatrick to shag me ;D
Is there any evidence Jeremy hated farming? He wasn't just a farmer he was a director at the caravan park.
Yes I think Jeremy was interested in farming from a biological perspective in terms of crops. He did biology a level with this in mind and Colin said they both liked growing things and visited Kew Gardens together.
Good grief! That's it, I can't take anymore. I'm off to mow the lawns.
And to think that just the other day, you were pulling me up on my coarse language.
I should add that I did find the rest of your post interesting.
-
This could be explained, but you wouldn't understand. ;)
Perhaps when I've got my Phd, eh Neil ;)
-
That's incorrect, Post guilty verdict the Defence just needs to prove reasonable doubt so the prosecution cant make their case, examples David Bain, Sion Jenkins and Marty Tankleff.
As I have said before I don't believe he is innocent nor do I believe he guilty, Belief requires a leap of faith. Being a rational person I don't take leaps of faith if evidence is not satisfactory I embrace the uncertainty.
The burden of proof falls on the accuser (YOU) if the accuser cannot prove guilt then the presumption of innocence applies (Innocent until proven guilty)
The state (according to its own standards) has denied Jeremy a fair trial thus I reject the verdict of that trial. But since you are so eager to point out he has been convicted and using that a basis for believing him guilty. Tell me what evidence did the crown present to secure this conviction? ::)
All got away with murder, along with Sheila Bowler, Lisa and Marie Taylor and many others. Maybe your verdict is akin to the Scottish "not proven": not guilty, but don't do it again..
-
A kop-out or what,Neil ? ;D
-
Oh well,I probably have,but when I get an answer such as you posted,what am I supposed to think ?
I thought I'd asked two straight forward questions. Perhaps my wording was poor.
I'll try once more.
Do you believe that Jeremy was preparing to shoot rabbits?
Or;
Do you believe that he was making an excuse to leave the room?
-
A kop-out or what,Neil ? ;D
;D
-
No moving the furniture was after his new girlfriend. He was supposed to drop June's bike off to but forgot so this could be a reason to phone and throw MM in while the police listened in. Taff Jones didn't believe Julie others obviously did so why not say ok let's get her wired up and a confession?
There was almost a confession at Blazer's restaurant, Blackheath, where over the plat principal and the Chablis he told her he didn't feel anything post-murders, and "don't blame yourself..I would have gone ahead with it anyway.."
-
I thought I'd asked two straight forward questions. Perhaps my wording was poor.
I'll try once more.
Do you believe that Jeremy was preparing to shoot rabbits?
Or;
Do you believe that he was making an excuse to leave the room?
I've already explained elsewhere that he was making his excuses to leave the room,rather than butt-in on the on-going conversation/debate/argument that was going on.
-
Has Jeremy ever said he "loved" farming? If he did maybe it was figuratively speaking. Like I might say I love Supervet when I what I really mean is I would love Prof Noel Fitzpatrick to shag me ;D
Is there any evidence Jeremy hated farming? He wasn't just a farmer he was a director at the caravan park.
Yes I think Jeremy was interested in farming from a biological perspective in terms of crops. He did biology a level with this in mind and Colin said they both liked growing things and visited Kew Gardens together.
You'd have to join the queue!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Good grief! That's it, I can't take anymore. I'm off to mow the lawns.
And to think that just the other day, you were pulling me up on my coarse language.
I should add that I did find the rest of your post interesting.
Hahaha Neil I knew that would get you going! ;)
-
I've already explained elsewhere that he was making his excuses to leave the room,rather than butt-in on the on-going conversation/debate/argument that was going on.
He should have stayed put to get a gist of what it was all about rather than the " snippets " he produced. Though even then,he wasn't believed so I doubt that being present and listening in wouldn't have made a scrap of difference.
-
You'd have to join the queue!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really? ???
He is a genius but ........
-
Really? ???
He is a genius but ........
Apparently lots of women think he's hot. Me? WAY to complex for me :)) :)) :))
-
There was almost a confession at Blazer's restaurant, Blackheath, where over the plat principal and the Chablis he told her he didn't feel anything post-murders, and "don't blame yourself..I would have gone ahead with it anyway.."
So she said yes but why not get a taped confession? I think Taff Jones said something like that Julies full of S**t so why didnt he suggest to the others who believed Julie to wire her up and get a taped confession about MM, hating his family blah, blah? Great at trial. I can hear the gasps now
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jt130z91J1A
-
Eeeuuww no thanks. He looks as though he needs a good wash,so I won't be joining any queue.
-
Eeeuuww no thanks. He looks as though he needs a good wash,so I won't be joining any queue.
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) Well, that means Jackie can jump -pun intended- three places in the queue.
-
There's no accounting for taste is there ?. If I was Jackie I'd be looking at one of her horses instead.
-
I will not deny my sexual fantasies are dominated by thoughts of finding Noel in the stables tending to one of my two horses :P
-
There's no accounting for taste is there ?. If I was Jackie I'd be looking at one of her horses instead.
We'll have no sexual deviancy here, thank-you, Lookout :)) :)) :)) :))
-
I will not deny my sexual fantasies are dominated by thoughts of finding Noel in the stables tending to one of my two horses :P
wow not before 9pm jackie lets get back to the topic
-
We'll have no sexual deviancy here, thank-you, Lookout :)) :)) :)) :))
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)). Yes,it did look that way,didn't it ?
-
every womans tastes are different .but from a mans point of view he was handsome when younger but now looks like his dad with the big hooter.also he had some carissima and made 2 female juriers cry.having said that still an evil and cunning man .not a sycopath
-
every womans tastes are different .but from a mans point of view he was handsome when younger but now looks like his dad with the big hooter.also he had some carissima and made 2 female juriers cry.having said that still an evil and cunning man .not a sycopath
For a moment there I thought you were talking about the Super Vet :)) :)) :))
-
It's nothing to do with the big " hooter ",it's his face that's far back.-----bum bum.
Even so,I prefer a decent sized nose to a thin weasley one with thin lips to match.
-
every womans tastes are different .but from a mans point of view he was handsome when younger but now looks like his dad with the big hooter.also he had some carissima and made 2 female juriers cry.having said that still an evil and cunning man .not a sycopath
Sorry who are we depicting here? I've lost track..
-
Sorry who are we depicting here? I've lost track..
jb steve
-
jackie you caption under your posts .are sure it was churchill that said that.because i find it hard to believe any horse in the world could take winstons weight not even half a dozen shires
The great war hero on horseback
-
i disagree sheila would be indoors watching june cooking cleaning and doing house work while jb would be out with his dad doing boys things. everyone is different.just because she had a good relations with nb doesnt means she went out hunting with him
Why did June ask Anny Eaton then to find Sheila some house chores and teach her to cook?
Daughters are often closer to their dads and sons their mums.
I didn;t say she went hunting I said its almost impossible that a girl that grew up on a farm that only had a brother to play with and was close to her dad never fired a gun.
-
Why did June ask Anny Eaton then to find Sheila some house chores and teach her to cook?
Daughters are often closer to their dads and sons their mums.
I didn;t say she went hunting I said its almost impossible that a girl that grew up on a farm that only had a brother to play with and was close to her dad never fired a gun.
its not immpossiable at all its logical thats boys will do boyish things and girls girlie things did sheila do any driving of farm vecheils or mucking out in barns or go shooting vermin.from your previous post about not wanting to kill but understanding vermin had to be controlled.barbra wilson knew him better than you and she said he injoyed torchring animals
-
Well there's something new-------------" torching animals ". In over 4 years of being on the forum I haven't yet seen that written anywhere.
-
its not immpossiable at all its logical thats boys will do boyish things and girls girlie things did sheila do any driving of farm vecheils or mucking out in barns or go shooting vermin.from your previous post about not wanting to kill but understanding vermin had to be controlled.barbra wilson knew him better than you and she said he injoyed torchring animals
That's just stereotyping. I muck my stables and I have my nails done every week in Brentwood home of Essex girls 8)
Where did Barbara Wilson say he enjoyed torching animals? She only worked for Neivill for 7 years but has a lot to say. Jean Boutell worked for June for 20 years. Sheila was about 8 and Jeremy about 4 when Jean started to work for June. She knew everyone better than Barbara ever did.
We always have the same old faces in these programmes and books Barbara and Bews ::) ::)
-
That's just stereotyping. I muck my stables and I have my nails done every week in Brentwood home of Essex girls 8)
Where did Barbara Wilson say he enjoyed torching animals? She only worked for Neivill for 7 years but has a lot to say. Jean Boutell worked for June for 20 years. Sheila was about 8 and Jeremy about 4 when Jean started to work for June. She knew everyone better than Barbara ever did.
We always have the same old faces in these programmes and books Barbara and Bews ::) ::)
no thats not true jb had his fair share of idiots backing him was there not an mp.dci miller and ds jones have also appeared in these programs as you put it.and what has jean said