Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: buddy on May 09, 2016, 04:18:PM
-
IF Jeremy committed the murders [which I still think was a two person crime] who put the idea into his head?
There are a few people including Julie. For obvious reasons Jeremy cannot say.
It is quite plausible that Julie was in on it.
Some one had to have Influenced JB as he had plenty of times he could done away with Ralph in some sort of farm accident, which are common.
It would of been a huge risk to attack the whole family, as Ralph was a strong man.
-
This is why I say that Jeremy didn't carry out the killings because if he'd have threatened his father with a rifle,Neville would have planted one on him. Less likely to do that if it was a woman. Jeremy would have been no match against his father,rifle or not as I'm sure Neville would have held his own against another man. Jeremy was a squirt against his father
Besides,it wouldn't/didn't enter Jeremy's head to carry out such a massacre. My views,anyway.
-
But Nevill was a shadow of his former self those past few months, so much so that Barbara Wilson inquired if he had cancer. There was no point just doing away with Nevill as with him only out of the way his estate would pass to June.
-
This is why I say that Jeremy didn't carry out the killings because if he'd have threatened his father with a rifle,Neville would have planted one on him. Less likely to do that if it was a woman. Jeremy would have been no match against his father,rifle or not as I'm sure Neville would have held his own against another man. Jeremy was a squirt against his father
Besides,it wouldn't/didn't enter Jeremy's head to carry out such a massacre. My views,anyway.
"Planted one on him", HOW, Lookout? Jeremy standing at least the loaded rifle's length away from him and Nevill already injured? Hm. What do you think Nevill would -COULD- have done?
-
IF Jeremy committed the murders [which I still think was a two person crime] who put the idea into his head?
There are a few people including Julie. For obvious reasons Jeremy cannot say.
It is quite plausible that Julie was in on it.
Some one had to have Influenced JB as he had plenty of times he could done away with Ralph in some sort of farm accident, which are common.
It would of been a huge risk to attack the whole family, as Ralph was a strong man.
Why does someone have to have influences him? There are lost of people who have killed their family for money and they have done so because of greed. THAT is the only influence they need.
-
"Planted one on him", HOW, Lookout? Jeremy standing at least the loaded rifle's length away from him and Nevill already injured? Hm. What do you think Nevill would -COULD- have done?
So he could stand up to Jeremy - but not to Sheila? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
"Planted one on him", HOW, Lookout? Jeremy standing at least the loaded rifle's length away from him and Nevill already injured? Hm. What do you think Nevill would -COULD- have done?
Right---so change that scenario to Sheila !!
-
IF Jeremy committed the murders [which I still think was a two person crime] who put the idea into his head?
There are a few people including Julie. For obvious reasons Jeremy cannot say.
It is quite plausible that Julie was in on it.
Some one had to have Influenced JB as he had plenty of times he could done away with Ralph in some sort of farm accident, which are common.
It would of been a huge risk to attack the whole family, as Ralph was a strong man.
If Bamber needed help, that rules out Sheila as a loan killer.
Who do you think helped Bamber ? A friend, relative or someone he met in the pub ?
How would the accomplice help him ? Only one rifle was needed. One window was needed and everyone was asleep. Bamber would be throwing away a large chunk of his inheritance on someone he didn't need.
-
Neville, June and Sheila sowed the seeds for Bamber.
He didn't like his situation and knew it was only going to get worse. He wanted to be the man he was for one month after the massacre, a popular travelling play boy.
-
Right---so change that scenario to Sheila !!
But what is there to suggest that Sheila knew how to handle a gun?
-
Jeremy wasn't even aware of another " large chuck of inheritance " at the time------in the form of the land deal,so why would he throw all that away for a prison sentence ? The relatives all knew about that ! Strange isn't it ? Neither Jeremy nor June knew.
-
Jeremy wasn't even aware of another " large chuck of inheritance " at the time------in the form of the land deal,so why would he throw all that away for a prison sentence ? The relatives all knew about that ! Strange isn't it ? Neither Jeremy nor June knew.
Why are you SO certain that Jeremy "wasn't even aware..........." or that "Neither Jeremy nor June knew"? Jeremy -nor ANY other person considering committing a crime- think about prison. If they did, they wouldn't do it.
-
But what is there to suggest that Sheila knew how to handle a gun?
In the statements of DB and AP. Oh,and PE when he could make up his mind properly and before what he'd said was edited/typed out when re-written.
-
In the statements of DB and AP.
Where?
-
Where?
Bambertweets.
-
You've been reading all the wrong links etc !
-
Bambertweets.
Ha. ha!! As I thought, it says they had seen her HOLD a gun, no one mentions that she knew how to handle a gun or that she had ever fired one.
-
You've been reading all the wrong links etc !
I've read all that BS before - it says HOLDING but in your haste to have Sheila be the killer, you have misunderstood - holding doesn't not mean she was proficient with firearms!
-
Ha. ha!! As I thought, it says they had seen her HOLD a gun, no one mentions that she knew how to handle a gun or that she had ever fired one.
Holding a gun is the first step to firing one. You must have had Sheila down as a right idiot. She was brought up amongst the things,used to join in on shoots ( by even attending them in the first place ) .
Anyway,wasn't it DB who'd " recalled " that Sheila had,indeed,fired a shotgun on one of the trips to Scotland ? Tut tut,what a short memory.
-
Holding a gun is the first step to firing one. You must have had Sheila down as a right idiot. She was brought up amongst the things,used to join in on shoots ( by even attending them in the first place ) .
Anyway,wasn't it DB who'd " recalled " that Sheila had,indeed,fired a shotgun on one of the trips to Scotland ? Tut tut,what a short memory.
I don't have Sheila down as an idiot at all - you're the one who talks abut Jeremy as though he were just out of short pants! Being present at ONE shoot doesn't make her Annie Oakley no matter how you would desperately like to portray the image. Lookout, courts aren't stupid, they can see through all of the this stuff and if DB had his statement altered without his knowledge, don't you think he's have said something? The very people you are talking about, helped to convict Jeremy because they believe he is guilty - you won't be getting any help from them!
-
Who needs help ? What a strange thing to say.
Anyway,back to the recollection of DB being witness to Sheila using/firing a shotgun.Any advance on this,or don't you believe DB ?
-
Who needs help ? What a strange thing to say.
Anyway,back to the recollection of DB being witness to Sheila using/firing a shotgun.Any advance on this,or don't you believe DB ?
Did he actually specify using/firing as opposed to holding? It must have been quite hard to recall what one person -amongst many others- did at a shoot several years earlier.
-
Did he actually specify using/firing as opposed to holding? It must have been quite hard to recall what one person -amongst many others- did at a shoot several years earlier.
He'd told CAL anyway ? " More recently " it would have seemed, but " hadn't remembered at the trial ?".
Funny how he forgot a lot of things at trial------------that mattered !!
-
The book also stated that both Colin and Sheila used to fool about with the guns,so yes,I'd have said that Sheila was no stranger when it came to using them------------in temper !
-
The book also stated that both Colin and Sheila used to fool about with the guns,so yes,I'd have said that Sheila was no stranger when it came to using them------------in temper !
So just because a "soundbite" you've picked out of a book, sans background, says "Colin and Sheila used to fool about with the guns", you regard it as evidence that Sheila was an ace shot?
-
So just because a "soundbite" you've picked out of a book, sans background, says "Colin and Sheila used to fool about with the guns", you regard it as evidence that Sheila was an ace shot?
And just because you've conveniently omitted the small fact of DB's sudden memory spurt---------I don't count the tom-foolery of Sheila and Colin as important.
-
And just because you've conveniently omitted the small fact of DB's sudden memory spurt---------I don't count the tom-foolery of Sheila and Colin as important.
It sounds as if Julie Mugford might be the only one to stick to her story then.
-
I think the motive, or influence, Buddy - was financial.
-
Who needs help ? What a strange thing to say.
Anyway,back to the recollection of DB being witness to Sheila using/firing a shotgun.Any advance on this,or don't you believe DB ?
Your argument needs help! The WS refers to holding a gun - you're once again distorting what was actually said in favour of what you want it to say!
-
And just because you've conveniently omitted the small fact of DB's sudden memory spurt---------I don't count the tom-foolery of Sheila and Colin as important.
If you don't count it as being important, why bother to mention it?
-
He'd told CAL anyway ? " More recently " it would have seemed, but " hadn't remembered at the trial ?".
Funny how he forgot a lot of things at trial------------that mattered !!
Just like Jeremy - forgetting all of the times. Funny how he remembers now though eh?
-
Just like Jeremy - forgetting all of the times. Funny how he remembers now though eh?
It's funnier still that once Jeremy's locked up,everyones memory returns.Convenient or what ?
-
I think the motive, or influence, Buddy - was financial.
I see where you are coming from Mat, but Jeremy was about to inherit a chunk of money from the will of granny Speakman.
-
I see where you are coming from Mat, but Jeremy was about to inherit a chunk of money from the will of granny Speakman.
Said who?
-
Said who?
Hi Caroline, the Boutflours talked Granny Speakman out of leaving Jeremy of her will.
I think it was in one of tgere statements.
-
If Bamber needed help, that rules out Sheila as a loan killer.
Who do you think helped Bamber ? A friend, relative or someone he met in the pub ?
How would the accomplice help him ? Only one rifle was needed. One window was needed and everyone was asleep. Bamber would be throwing away a large chunk of his inheritance on someone he didn't need.
I don't think I have ever said that Shiela was the killer
-
Hi Caroline, the Boutflours talked Granny Speakman out of leaving Jeremy of her will.
I think it was in one of tgere statements.
He would only have inherited from Mrs Speakman if his mother were dead. Jeremy would have inherited what was left to June.
-
I don't think I have ever said that Shiela was the killer
Good. I always got the impression from you're posts that you believed Bamber may be innocent.
Who do you believe assisted Bamber with the massacre ?
-
IF Jeremy committed the murders [which I still think was a two person crime] who put the idea into his head?
There are a few people including Julie. For obvious reasons Jeremy cannot say.
It is quite plausible that Julie was in on it.
Some one had to have Influenced JB as he had plenty of times he could done away with Ralph in some sort of farm accident, which are common.
It would of been a huge risk to attack the whole family, as Ralph was a strong man.
jb hoped to catch them all in bed fastasleep.they were in bed but awake hence the outcome without doubt after shooting nb in the face he focused on a screaming jb allowing nb to escape downstairs
-
IF Jeremy committed the murders [which I still think was a two person crime] who put the idea into his head?
There are a few people including Julie. For obvious reasons Jeremy cannot say.
It is quite plausible that Julie was in on it.
Some one had to have Influenced JB as he had plenty of times he could done away with Ralph in some sort of farm accident, which are common.
It would of been a huge risk to attack the whole family, as Ralph was a strong man.
So you still think it was a two man job Buddy? I think these theories are far fetched imo and I suggest you have been listening to too many rumours.
It's clear Jeremy committed these murders on his own just as SH committed his crimes alone. No one else was involved. Once you are able to get to this point I think you'll finally crack it.
-
But Nevill was a shadow of his former self those past few months, so much so that Barbara Wilson inquired if he had cancer. There was no point just doing away with Nevill as with him only out of the way his estate would pass to June.
Steve,Neville had all the worries of the world on his shoulders at that time. His wife had been seeing her GP for a long time leading up to the tragedy.There was the worry of Sheila's failing health. The futures of the twins. The " secret " of the land sale which he hadn't told to his immediate family. The fight outside the pub where he'd received a bash from his relative ( we don't know why but it must have been an intense situation for that to have happened )
He didn't need a busy body like BW questioning him either. There must have been a thousand and one things going on in the man's mind which does tend to cloud and also sap any strength that you could ever muster.
It wouldn't have made any difference if Neville had been at full strength because when you have a gun pointed at you,there's little you can do,except sit tight and hope it's not used,but by then it had been, and was too late against someone who had obviously been in a frenzy.
-
Steve,Neville had all the worries of the world on his shoulders at that time. His wife had been seeing her GP for a long time leading up to the tragedy.There was the worry of Sheila's failing health. The futures of the twins. The " secret " of the land sale which he hadn't told to his immediate family. The fight outside the pub where he'd received a bash from his relative ( we don't know why but it must have been an intense situation for that to have happened )
He didn't need a busy body like BW questioning him either. There must have been a thousand and one things going on in the man's mind which does tend to cloud and also sap any strength that you could ever muster.
It wouldn't have made any difference if Neville had been at full strength because when you have a gun pointed at you,there's little you can do,except sit tight and hope it's not used,but by then it had been, and was too late against someone who had obviously been in a frenzy.
Well we'll have to disagree on who the perpetrator was but they certainly had the element of surprise. I think Barbara Wilson was an occasional confidante for Nevill and probably knew more than she let on. He did ask her why she hadn't come that day to help(it was her day off) so I don't think there was any animosity generally between them.
-
Well we'll have to disagree on who the perpetrator was but they certainly had the element of surprise. I think Barbara Wilson was an occasional confidante for Nevill and probably knew more than she let on. He did ask her why she hadn't come that day to help(it was her day off) so I don't think there was any animosity generally between them.
That's okay by me Steve. We've pretty well always agreed to disagree----------without "animosity ",which is good.
If Neville hadn't remembered that it was BW's day off,then it proves the extent of his worried life. Afterall,he wasn't an old man who was " losing it ".
-
That's okay by me Steve. We've pretty well always agreed to disagree----------without "animosity ",which is good.
If Neville hadn't remembered that it was BW's day off,then it proves the extent of his worried life. Afterall,he wasn't an old man who was " losing it ".
You may be right, but I was pointing out that whatever was going on inside the house at the time it was not the act of ringing by Barbara which had put Nevill in such a foul mood.
-
You may be right, but I was pointing out that whatever was going on inside the house at the time it was not the act of ringing by Barbara which had put Nevill in such a foul mood.
Something had certainly got to Neville,that's for sure. He was probably thinking what a waste of money he'd splashed out on his kids-----------and for what. One was a lazy lump and the other had caused a lot of heartache. He'd have been within his rights to have felt like that.
Then the time when he thought he was helping the relatives out and got bashed in the process.
-
Maybe Neville WAS unwell.Which would have accounted for his lack of fight against his assailant. The old " war-wounds " maybe which would eventually catch up with him after his hard work on the farm----who knows ? He was no youngster flogging himself like he did and he hadn't appeared to ease-up on his work.
Maybe more should have been made about BW's remark ? Pathologist's report was NAD,but one thing he couldn't do was look inside the mind.
-
So if we believed BW about the state of Neville's health-------she'd asked him if his problem was cancer and anyone asking a person a question like that obviously sees how unwell a person appears.
Although we know it wasn't cancer,the man must have appeared and looked unwell. ?
My question is, on that tragic night,was BW right in her observations-------or not ?
If not,how does the rest of what she's said,hold water ?
Or was Neville still the big strapping farmer that he'd always been ?
-
Maybe Neville WAS unwell.Which would have accounted for his lack of fight against his assailant. The old " war-wounds " maybe which would eventually catch up with him after his hard work on the farm----who knows ? He was no youngster flogging himself like he did and he hadn't appeared to ease-up on his work.
Maybe more should have been made about BW's remark ? Pathologist's report was NAD,but one thing he couldn't do was look inside the mind.
How could he ease up when Jeremy couldn't be arsed to finish his days work? He had a bad back but his autopsy showed he had no other health problems. Worry can make you ill and the man had much to worry about.
-
How could he ease up when Jeremy couldn't be arsed to finish his days work? He had a bad back but his autopsy showed he had no other health problems. Worry can make you ill and the man had much to worry about.
I've already said he had a lot to worry about-----------it wasn't all about JB either,if at all.
-
I've already said he had a lot to worry about-----------it wasn't all about JB either,if at all.
Don't think anyone would argue with that.
-
Don't think anyone would argue with that.
They would if they went along with what BW had to say about him looking ill. Too ill in fact to have been able to have put up a fight against Sheila.
-
They would if they went along with what BW had to say about him looking ill. Too ill in fact to have been able to have put up a fight against Sheila.
Even less able to put up one against Jeremy.
-
Even less able to put up one against Jeremy.
The difference being that Jeremy wouldn't and didn't do it. It would have been plain sailing for Sheila taking advantage of a sick man.
-
The difference being that Jeremy wouldn't and didn't do it. It would have been plain sailing for Sheila taking advantage of a sick man.
And even easier for Jeremy to have taken advantage of a sick man.
-
And even easier for Jeremy to have taken advantage of a sick man.
As I said,he wouldn't,but Sheila would-and did. Her father was a sitting duck.
-
As I said,he wouldn't,but Sheila would-and did. Her father was a sitting duck.
Sheila wouldn't and couldn't. Jeremy could and did.
-
Sheila wouldn't and couldn't. Jeremy could and did.
Whatever. ::)
-
Whatever. ::)
Exactemente ;D
-
As I said,he wouldn't,but Sheila would-and did. Her father was a sitting duck.
Didn't you just have a pop at someone the other day, telling them they didn't know what JB would or wouldn't do? A case of following your own advice on this!
-
Didn't you just have a pop at someone the other day, telling them they didn't know what JB would or wouldn't do? A case of following your own advice on this!
And ?
-
And ?
And it makes this statement of yours
As I said,he wouldn't,but Sheila would-and did. Her father was a sitting duck.
Hypocritical BS!
-
Nope--------just clever spin ! Which seemingly you can't/don't understand.
-
Nope--------just clever spin ! Which seemingly you can't/don't understand.
There is nothing clever about pretending you grandstander how Jeremy's mind works, whilst criticising others for making similar suggestions. It just shows your bias and a need to be right above all else.
-
There is nothing clever about pretending you grandstander how Jeremy's mind works, whilst criticising others for making similar suggestions. It just shows your bias and a need to be right above all else.
You and your cohorts have got a cheek talking about bias---------sheesh !! Who's the one who pushes your bias and floods threads showing your need to be right ?
It ain't me !!
-
I don't need to write/post reams of repeats to get my point across !!
-
You and your cohorts have got a cheek talking about bias---------sheesh !! Who's the one who pushes your bias and floods threads showing your need to be right ?
It ain't me !!
Errrr, think you'll find that I have looked at both sides where you have not and you NEVER admit to being wrong. You don't have a clue about Jeremy's character but it doesn't stop you dronnig on about what a lovely boy he is, little wet behind the ears but nothing that a good clip wouldn't have rectified (Jesus!) ;D ;)
-
Errrr, think you'll find that I have looked at both sides where you have not and you NEVER admit to being wrong. You don't have a clue about Jeremy's character but it doesn't stop you dronnig on about what a lovely boy he is, little wet behind the ears but nothing that a good clip wouldn't have rectified (Jesus!) ;D ;)
If I'd looked at both sides it would have taken me longer than 6 months before I drew any conclusion over the killing of 5 people. Even police can take years in deciding/changing their minds as to who the real killer is/was.
How it was that two people suddenly changed their minds TOGETHER almost simultaneously, seemed " unreal ".
I've remained steadfast because I hadn't believed him to be guilty from day one------so no contest.
-
If I'd looked at both sides it would have taken me longer than 6 months before I drew any conclusion over the killing of 5 people. Even police can take years in deciding/changing their minds as to who the real killer is/was.
How it was that two people suddenly changed their minds TOGETHER almost simultaneously, seemed " unreal ".
I've remained steadfast because I hadn't believed him to be guilty from day one------so no contest.
Yes, it would have taj=ken you longer than six months and you might have had a better understanding rater than shutting your mind down. What two people are you talking about?
-
Yes, it would have taj=ken you longer than six months and you might have had a better understanding rater than shutting your mind down. What two people are you talking about?
My mind is never shut down-------except when I go to bed,then everything is wiped out !
Oh I think you know who those two people are------yourself and Jane. ( joined at the hip )
-
You and your cohorts have got a cheek talking about bias---------sheesh !! Who's the one who pushes your bias and floods threads showing your need to be right ?
It ain't me !!
That's ironic coming from someone who claims never to be wrong.
-
That's ironic coming from someone who claims never to be wrong.
Why,then,don't you admit that I'm not the only one ?? You're not averse in telling ME ?
-
If I'd looked at both sides it would have taken me longer than 6 months before I drew any conclusion over the killing of 5 people. Even police can take years in deciding/changing their minds as to who the real killer is/was.
How it was that two people suddenly changed their minds TOGETHER almost simultaneously, seemed " unreal ".
I've remained steadfast because I hadn't believed him to be guilty from day one------so no contest.
You're absolutely correct, Lookout. It probably WOULD have taken you longer than 6 months to draw a final conclusion, during which time you may well have changed your mind a few times, but at least you'd have had the satisfaction of knowing why you came to the conclusion you did. As it stands, you appear to be relying on nothing more than gut feeling and your belief that all Jeremy needed was a cuddle and/or a clipped ear to put him on the straight and narrow, however, your refusal to look at this in any other light smacks of fear of what you may be forced to see. Heaven forbid you should ever be placed in a position from which you have to admit you were wrong. Crowing about "remaining steadfast" is nothing to be proud of when you've never bothered to look at the entire picture and have deliberately closed your eyes to anything other than what you CHOOSE to believe. It DOESN'T make you right.
As for your concerns about how it was that two people -and I imaging you're speaking of Caroline and me- "TOGETHER almost simultaneously" changed their minds. Why does it bother you?
-
You're absolutely correct, Lookout. It probably WOULD have taken you longer than 6 months to draw a final conclusion, during which time you may well have changed your mind a few times, but at least you'd have had the satisfaction of knowing why you came to the conclusion you did. As it stands, you appear to be relying on nothing more than gut feeling and your belief that all Jeremy needed was a cuddle and/or a clipped ear to put him on the straight and narrow, however, your refusal to look at this in any other light smacks of fear of what you may be forced to see. Heaven forbid you should ever be placed in a position from which you have to admit you were wrong. Crowing about "remaining steadfast" is nothing to be proud of when you've never bothered to look at the entire picture and have deliberately closed your eyes to anything other than what you CHOOSE to believe. It DOESN'T make you right.
As for your concerns about how it was that two people -and I imaging you're speaking of Caroline and me- "TOGETHER almost simultaneously" changed their minds. Why does it bother you?
I came onto this forum with my mind already made up and I wasn't going to let/allow posters change it for me in any way. There is no earthly reason why I should change my mind and the more that posters go on about the guilt of the man the more it strengthens my resolve in believing his innocence.
Those who find him guilty are an entirely different set of people in my mind,to the ones who say he's innocent as apart from myself most of the innocent posters were calm and collected as opposed to those who find him guilty. I know by how rotten some of the guilty posters were towards me and others whereas,not the same can be said for the innocents ? Why's this ?
I'm not a bit bothered about the decision you chose to change tack,but just wondered why both together as opposed to forwardly/openly discussing it,with justified reasons.
-
I came onto this forum with my mind already made up and I wasn't going to let/allow posters change it for me in any way. There is no earthly reason why I should change my mind and the more that posters go on about the guilt of the man the more it strengthens my resolve in believing his innocence.
Those who find him guilty are an entirely different set of people in my mind,to the ones who say he's innocent as apart from myself most of the innocent posters were calm and collected as opposed to those who find him guilty. I know by how rotten some of the guilty posters were towards me and others whereas,not the same can be said for the innocents ? Why's this ?
I'm not a bit bothered about the decision you chose to change tack,but just wondered why both together as opposed to forwardly/openly discussing it,with justified reasons.
You came onto the forum with your mind already made up and dug your heels in/blocked your ears/closed your eyes to anything which might sway you in another direction? WHY? What would have been so terrible about changing your mind?
You see no valid reason to change your mind and the fact that you think others are trying to persuade/coerce you "strengthens your resolve in believing his innocence"? You make it sound as if you sometimes find it difficult to hang on to your "resolve" and that it's more about fighting others than your belief.
I don't actually experience as "calm and collected" (m)any of Jeremy's supporters. There's certainly much self aggrandisement amongst their number, much making it up as you go, MUCH spitefulness, anger, histrionics,goading, threats and blatant lies. As a woman who prides herself on her honesty, and claims to know lies when she's faced with them, are you going to tell me that any part is wrong, of those observations? I will add the rider that this DOESN'T apply to everyone who believes Jeremy is innocent.
Regarding my own change of mind -naturally, I can't/won't speak for Caroline- you must be aware of how ardent a supporter I was, certainly triggered by the adoption issue, and how vitriolic against Julie I was -although I've yet to change my mind about her appalling dress sense. There was no blinding flash, as experienced by St Paul on the road to Damascus, it was a gradual dawning, rather like acknowledging I was trying to hold onto a relationship which had ceased to work, with someone I'd ceased to know and no longer trusted. I felt as if I was, too loudly, defending the indefensible to drown out the voice of doubt. Believe me, it wasn't easy admitting I'd been wrong -yes, I received the derision I'd been expecting- which is maybe why I kept it to myself for a while. It was a relief when I did reveal. It would have achieved nothing to discuss it openly -I'll bet you wouldn't have, either- I needed to get it straight in MY head, first.
-
My mind is never shut down-------except when I go to bed,then everything is wiped out !
Oh I think you know who those two people are------yourself and Jane. ( joined at the hip )
Maggie will back me up on this Lookout - just so you know once and for all. When we ALL moderated, we talked extensively behind the scenes. For almost a year, I kept my feelings that Bamber might have been guilty from the rest of the board - truth is, we all had little niggles that we discussed between ourselves and for Jane and I, it became a niggle too many. However, I came to a guilty conclusion on the open forum before Jane did.
You're the first to jump on someone's band wagon as long as they support an innocent stance - the above is just typical of you. ::)
-
Innocents on the forum are as rare as hens teeth so it's only natural that I welcome them.You're also in your element that you've got the easiest option,though any fool would be with the man charged and imprisoned.Who wouldn't be ?
-
Innocents on the forum are as rare as hens teeth so it's only natural that I welcome them.You're also in your element that you've got the easiest option,though any fool would be with the man charged and imprisoned.Who wouldn't be ?
I can understand that you like to feel supported. I see no reason for you to call us fools. It maybe that when it comes to being reasonable, some of those in the guilty camp have the edge.
-
I can understand that you like to feel supported. I see no reason for you to call us fools. It maybe that when it comes to being reasonable, some of those in the guilty camp have the edge.
Of course you've got the edge as well as the advantage.He's already in prison, the work has been done for you,so why the need to go further ? I wouldn't have thought that the guilters would have been left with so much to say,with not even " an unfair trial " amongst you,except to snipe at those of us whose views differ.
-
Of course you've got the edge as well as the advantage.He's already in prison, the work has been done for you,so why the need to go further ? I wouldn't have thought that the guilters would have been left with so much to say,with not even " an unfair trial " amongst you,except to snipe at those of us whose views differ.
I don't think it's ever just a case of someone being guilty so we put them in prison. It's very doubtful that "being guilty" simply happened. It's the reasons/explanations for why someone is guilty which interest me. It would be an over simplification to use greed as THE motive. I'm interested in what may have caused the greed.
-
I don't think it's ever just a case of someone being guilty so we put them in prison. It's very doubtful that "being guilty" simply happened. It's the reasons/explanations for why someone is guilty which interest me. It would be an over simplification to use greed as THE motive. I'm interested in what may have caused the greed.
Greed represents them all I'd have said,even rumbling on years after the tragedy when AP took those who were responsible,to court, in order to retrieve what was his.
-
Greed represents them all I'd have said,even rumbling on years after the tragedy when AP took those who were responsible,to court, in order to retrieve what was his.
And what would you have done if you believed a member of your family had done you out of something you believed to be rightfully yours, Lookout.
-
And what would you have done if you believed a member of your family had done you out of something you believed to be rightfully yours, Lookout.
I wouldn't have waited years that's for sure. Plus I'd have questioned as to why it hadn't been pointed out to me after or during probate when matters were sorted.
-
Innocents on the forum are as rare as hens teeth so it's only natural that I welcome them.You're also in your element that you've got the easiest option,though any fool would be with the man charged and imprisoned.Who wouldn't be ?
Just a thought,Lookout, but those who DO support you -and there are many- in the innocent camp, from WAY back, are vociferous enough to drown out ANY number of us in the guilty camp. It's not OUR fault is it, that it seems none of them agree with each other -or you?
-
I wouldn't have waited years that's for sure. Plus I'd have questioned as to why it hadn't been pointed out to me after or during probate when matters were sorted.
But, nevertheless, forget the timing, like AP, you'd have done something...........YOUR way. HE did it HIS way.
-
But, nevertheless, forget the timing, like AP, you'd have done something...........YOUR way. HE did it HIS way.
He wouldn't have waited if he'd been told straightaway. Probably a court case wouldn't have ensued if they'd been up-front with what they owed him.This was his own flesh and blood trying to fleece him !!
A sure sign of greed wanting everything for themselves-------even that which wasn't even theirs.
-
He wouldn't have waited if he'd been told straightaway. Probably a court case wouldn't have ensued if they'd been up-front with what they owed him.This was his own flesh and blood trying to fleece him !!
A sure sign of greed wanting everything for themselves-------even that which wasn't even theirs.
I'm not going to allow you to steer this off course, Lookout. This was about what you perceived as other's greed and it turns out, that under similar circumstances, you'd probably have take the same course of action, albeit at a different stage of the game. It matters little what processes you'd have employed to get to the ultimate goal, OR who you think rightfully owned what.
-
A sure sign of greed wanting everything for themselves-------even that which wasn't even theirs.
You keep using the word greed, yet appear to have missed the fact Jeremy stated to police the reason he robbed the family caravan park was GREED.
Jeremy had form for greed.
The relatives didn't!
Jeremy had showed he was work shy, he wanted an easy life. Never mind what Julie or anyone else said; his history shows this. Even when he did work on the farm he was topping up his salary from the productions and supply of weed and from the bank of Mum & Dad.
-
Maggie will back me up on this Lookout - just so you know once and for all. When we ALL moderated, we talked extensively behind the scenes. For almost a year, I kept my feelings that Bamber might have been guilty from the rest of the board - truth is, we all had little niggles that we discussed between ourselves and for Jane and I, it became a niggle too many. However, I came to a guilty conclusion on the open forum before Jane did.
You're the first to jump on someone's band wagon as long as they support an innocent stance - the above is just typical of you. ::)
I certainly do back up Caroline on this, I remember she was becoming more and more unsure about JB's innocence in her own mind. I remember her pming me about it and it was quite a surprise to me at that time as it was for so many others later. Then I became ill and I wasn't really on the forum for quite a long time. It was during this time that Caroline and April both became convinced that he was guilty. Over time without any persuasion or input from anyone else, I too started to believe in his guilt.
It was a slow process for me as well, I had believed he was innocent since back in 1985 and was shocked when he went to prison but my own life took over. I found the forum in about 2012 and was a definite 'innocent' supporter for at least another 2 years.
It was really hard for me to admit that he may be guilty because I had argued so hard and made so many friends on the forum who still believed in his innocence but eventually I had to let go and accept that Jeremy Bamber probably is guilty.
As a mod I have to read every post written on the forum, I have never read anything recently which can convince me again that he is innocent, some supporters write excellent posts but imo there's nothing new, some do make me question for a short while but I always revert to guilt.
I hope I'm not mistaken and Jeremy Bamber is innocent because for an innocent man to spend over 30 years in prison is horrendous and unforgivable but I can't believe in conspiracy theories which don't hold water. I don't understand why the police would frame him in the first place, what reason could there be?
I don't believe any poster changes sides from innocent to guilty without real thought, it was fun back in the day when we were all on the same side but you can't just pretend to make other posters happy. 8)
-
I certainly do back up Caroline on this, I remember she was becoming more and more unsure about JB's innocence in her own mind. I remember her pming me about it and it was quite a surprise to me at that time as it was for so many others later. Then I became ill and I wasn't really on the forum for quite a long time. It was during this time that Caroline and April both became convinced that he was guilty. Over time without any persuasion or input from anyone else, I too started to believe in his guilt.
It was a slow process for me as well, I had believed he was innocent since back in 1985 and was shocked when he went to prison but my own life took over. I found the forum in about 2012 and was a definite 'innocent' supporter for at least another 2 years.
It was really hard for me to admit that he may be guilty because I had argued so hard and made so many friends on the forum who still believed in his innocence but eventually I had to let go and accept that Jeremy Bamber probably is guilty.
As a mod I have to read every post written on the forum, I have never read anything recently which can convince me again that he is innocent, some supporters write excellent posts but imo there's nothing new, some do make me question for a short while but I always revert to guilt.
I hope I'm not mistaken and Jeremy Bamber is innocent because for an innocent man to spend over 30 years in prison is horrendous and unforgivable but I can't believe in conspiracy theories which don't hold water. I don't understand why the police would frame him in the first place, what reason could there be?
I don't believe any poster changes sides from innocent to guilty without real thought, it was fun back in the day when we were all on the same side but you can't just pretend to make other posters happy. 8)
CRACKING post, Maggie. Well done.
-
Lol. Caroline, Susan, Alias, Jane J and Grahane put up a feroucious long term fights against my guilty posts and threads. Which was good fun.
Caroline changing stance after Bamber didn't answer her question on the last harvest. Jane J changing stance a few hours later but has always refused to give a reason.
Susan said mine & Harters posts made her change her mind.
Grahame said he 'has to give in to his betters'. Before returning to the forum 7 weeks later claiming the police framed Bamber.
Alias went from innocent and said she was now 'not sure'. Saying Bamber would not have shot Sheila twice.
David has changed from guilty to innocent after his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
-
I certainly do back up Caroline on this, I remember she was becoming more and more unsure about JB's innocence in her own mind. I remember her pming me about it and it was quite a surprise to me at that time as it was for so many others later. Then I became ill and I wasn't really on the forum for quite a long time. It was during this time that Caroline and April both became convinced that he was guilty. Over time without any persuasion or input from anyone else, I too started to believe in his guilt.
It was a slow process for me as well, I had believed he was innocent since back in 1985 and was shocked when he went to prison but my own life took over. I found the forum in about 2012 and was a definite 'innocent' supporter for at least another 2 years.
It was really hard for me to admit that he may be guilty because I had argued so hard and made so many friends on the forum who still believed in his innocence but eventually I had to let go and accept that Jeremy Bamber probably is guilty.
As a mod I have to read every post written on the forum, I have never read anything recently which can convince me again that he is innocent, some supporters write excellent posts but imo there's nothing new, some do make me question for a short while but I always revert to guilt.
I hope I'm not mistaken and Jeremy Bamber is innocent because for an innocent man to spend over 30 years in prison is horrendous and unforgivable but I can't believe in conspiracy theories which don't hold water. I don't understand why the police would frame him in the first place, what reason could there be?
I don't believe any poster changes sides from innocent to guilty without real thought, it was fun back in the day when we were all on the same side but you can't just pretend to make other posters happy. 8)
Thank you Maggie :) - we thrashed a lot of ideas out between ourselves so anyone who thought it was a quick, snap decision or that anyone was bullied into a change is MUCH mistaken. I initially felt a little foolish at having believed he was innocent but like you say, you can't pretend to make others happy.
-
I certainly do back up Caroline on this, I remember she was becoming more and more unsure about JB's innocence in her own mind. I remember her pming me about it and it was quite a surprise to me at that time as it was for so many others later. Then I became ill and I wasn't really on the forum for quite a long time. It was during this time that Caroline and April both became convinced that he was guilty. Over time without any persuasion or input from anyone else, I too started to believe in his guilt.
It was a slow process for me as well, I had believed he was innocent since back in 1985 and was shocked when he went to prison but my own life took over. I found the forum in about 2012 and was a definite 'innocent' supporter for at least another 2 years.
It was really hard for me to admit that he may be guilty because I had argued so hard and made so many friends on the forum who still believed in his innocence but eventually I had to let go and accept that Jeremy Bamber probably is guilty.
As a mod I have to read every post written on the forum, I have never read anything recently which can convince me again that he is innocent, some supporters write excellent posts but imo there's nothing new, some do make me question for a short while but I always revert to guilt.
I hope I'm not mistaken and Jeremy Bamber is innocent because for an innocent man to spend over 30 years in prison is horrendous and unforgivable but I can't believe in conspiracy theories which don't hold water. I don't understand why the police would frame him in the first place, what reason could there be?
I don't believe any poster changes sides from innocent to guilty without real thought, it was fun back in the day when we were all on the same side but you can't just pretend to make other posters happy. 8)
Yet you give no reasons publicly on the forum to justify this position. I was not around when this collective apostasy took place. Nevertheless whatever caused it has taken place behind the cloaks of private messaging with no justisifiable reason given to date. It also seems to coincide with the exact same time Paul Harrison claimed Jeremy was guilty. ::)
Anyone with a shade of sense can smell a rat. ::)
-
Yet you give no reasons publicly on the forum to justify this position. I was not around when this collective apostasy took place. Nevertheless whatever caused it has taken place behind the cloaks of private messaging with no justisifiable reason given to date. It also seems to coincide with the exact same time Paul Harrison claimed Jeremy was guilty. ::)
Anyone with a shade of sense can smell a rat. ::)
I clearly said I came to my conclusions by myself, David. I was not even in touch with Caroline or April when I made the decision. I had absolutely nothing to do with Paul Harrison. When I said I was ill and not on the forum I would have thought it would therefore be obvious to eeveryone that I wasn't in any discussions with anyone behind closed doors.
I was trying to be honest but I should have known my explanation would not be accepted. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else why my beliefs changed except to say, gradually the arguments for innocence stopped sounding convincing to me. :-\
-
Yet you give no reasons publicly on the forum to justify this position. I was not around when this collective apostasy took place. Nevertheless whatever caused it has taken place behind the cloaks of private messaging with no justisifiable reason given to date. It also seems to coincide with the exact same time Paul Harrison claimed Jeremy was guilty. ::)
Anyone with a shade of sense can smell a rat. ::)
There is no rat, are you accusing me of lying? Paul Harrison is irrelevant to me, I had nothing to do with him and don't want anything to do with him.
I'm not commenting anymore.
-
I clearly said I came to my conclusions by myself, David. I was not even in touch with Caroline or April when I made the decision. I had absolutely nothing to do with Paul Harrison. When I said I was ill and not on the forum I would have thought it would therefore be obvious to eeveryone that I wasn't in any discussions with anyone behind closed doors.
I was trying to be honest but I should have known my explanation would not be accepted. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else why my beliefs changed except to say, gradually the arguments for innocence stopped sounding convincing to me. :-\
Maggie, you got lumbered with it because, as I have it on ignore, I can't see it unless it's quoted. I fail to see that it's anyone's duty to give public explanations for decisions they arrive at. Perhaps vermin have the ability to xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx.
-
It's always fascinating who people put on ignore.
I find David's posts a lot more interesting and challenging than Lookout's.
Jan put me on ignore once. And spent the whole time annoncing she had done this. And responding to my posts whenever someone else quoted them.
-
I clearly said I came to my conclusions by myself, David. I was not even in touch with Caroline or April when I made the decision. I had absolutely nothing to do with Paul Harrison. When I said I was ill and not on the forum I would have thought it would therefore be obvious to eeveryone that I wasn't in any discussions with anyone behind closed doors.
I was trying to be honest but I should have known my explanation would not be accepted. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else why my beliefs changed except to say, gradually the arguments for innocence stopped sounding convincing to me. :-\
Hello Maggie
I can confirm to David and others if they are in doubt that you really only started to doubt Jeremy's innocence lately we have discussed it in depth and innocent/guilty we both gave each other reasons for why we felt as we did that day. I changed my stance to one of Guilty much sooner than you and since then you know I still have doubts about his guilt but although you accept my views I think you are still in the guilty camp.
-
CRACKING post, Maggie. Well done.
I second that!
-
Hello Maggie
I can confirm to David and others if they are in doubt that you really only started to doubt Jeremy's innocence lately we have discussed it in depth and innocent/guilty we both gave each other reasons for why we felt as we did that day. I changed my stance to one of Guilty much sooner than you and since then you know I still have doubts about his guilt but although you accept my views I think you are still in the guilty camp.
Hello Susie x
-
Hello Maggie
I can confirm to David and others if they are in doubt that you really only started to doubt Jeremy's innocence lately we have discussed it in depth and innocent/guilty we both gave each other reasons for why we felt as we did that day. I changed my stance to one of Guilty much sooner than you and since then you know I still have doubts about his guilt but although you accept my views I think you are still in the guilty camp.
Thanks susan, we have both veered at times but it is true you believed in the guilty stance before me, I took much longer to come to terms with it than you.
I think now I am more definite about his guilt than you are but we both believe everyone has a right to believe what seems right to them.
I don't think anyone has changed stance due to a conspiracy of any kind. :)
-
There is no rat, are you accusing me of lying? Paul Harrison is irrelevant to me, I had nothing to do with him and don't want anything to do with him.
I'm not commenting anymore.
Well sad Maggie, the only rat on here is xxx when he grassed xxxxxx up.
-
Hello Susie x
Hello Friend X
-
Hello Friend X
I must confess it was either you or Adam that changed my view Susie, hope everything is ok will catch up sometime x
-
Thanks susan, we have both veered at times but it is true you believed in the guilty stance before me, I took much longer to come to terms with it than you.
I think now I am more definite about his guilt than you are but we both believe everyone has a right to believe what seems right to them.
I don't think anyone has changed stance due to a conspiracy of any kind. :)
Maggie I know the two shots to Sheila has been the hardest thing for you to accept and is perhaps the strongest reason why you think JB Guilty. As you have said everyone should be allowed to their own beliefs without being attacked I must add David does post some great stuff and Roch does too and all makes me think have I got it right then Hartley comes on and makes me think yes.
-
I must confess it was either you or Adam that changed my view Susie, hope everything is ok will catch up sometime x
Justice I remember when we became friends we discussed the case and I think we both convinced each other of his guilt X
-
I clearly said I came to my conclusions by myself, David. I was not even in touch with Caroline or April when I made the decision. I had absolutely nothing to do with Paul Harrison. When I said I was ill and not on the forum I would have thought it would therefore be obvious to eeveryone that I wasn't in any discussions with anyone behind closed doors.
I was trying to be honest but I should have known my explanation would not be accepted. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else why my beliefs changed except to say, gradually the arguments for innocence stopped sounding convincing to me. :-\
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7169.msg338787.html#msg338787
"...I really struggle to believe someone could be in prison for 30 years with all the attention he has received, his continual assertion of innocence and all of his public support over those years without an appeal being granted if there was the slightest chance he may be an MOJ.
The fact this hasn't happened but rather his sentence has been increased is hardly convincing of innocence I'm afraid..."
The reason his sentence was increased was probably to try to give the message to people that he's obviously guilty. You did not use to show such faith in politicians.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7169.msg338787.html#msg338787
"...I really struggle to believe someone could be in prison for 30 years with all the attention he has received, his continual assertion of innocence and all of his public support over those years without an appeal being granted if there was the slightest chance he may be an MOJ.
The fact this hasn't happened but rather his sentence has been increased is hardly convincing of innocence I'm afraid..."
The reason his sentence was increased was probably to try to give the message to people that he's obviously guilty. You did not use to show such faith in politicians.
The more likely reason is that the trial judge handed him a MINIMUM of 25 years with the rider that it remained to be seen whether it was ever considered safe to allow him his freedom.
-
The more likely reason is that the trial judge handed him a MINIMUM of 25 years with the rider that it remained to be seen whether it was ever considered safe to allow him his freedom.
And his tendency toward violent outbursts. A reminder being the violent attack where Jeremy maimed another fellow prisoner.
-
I must confess it was either you or Adam that changed my view Susie, hope everything is ok will catch up sometime x
Thanks. Always felt my posts and threads highlighted Bamber's guilt.
-
Thanks. Always felt my posts and threads highlighted Bamber's guilt.
As did Mat's Adam
-
There is no rat, are you accusing me of lying? Paul Harrison is irrelevant to me, I had nothing to do with him and don't want anything to do with him.
I'm not commenting anymore.
I was not implicating you Maggie :)
-
I clearly said I came to my conclusions by myself, David. I was not even in touch with Caroline or April when I made the decision. I had absolutely nothing to do with Paul Harrison. When I said I was ill and not on the forum I would have thought it would therefore be obvious to eeveryone that I wasn't in any discussions with anyone behind closed doors.
I was trying to be honest but I should have known my explanation would not be accepted. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else why my beliefs changed except to say, gradually the arguments for innocence stopped sounding convincing to me. :-\
Let people believe what what they like Maggie - they have no idea and never will. It seems strange to me that some people are obsessed with people on the forum and spend more times concentrating on them rather than the subject matter. The world is full of odd balls - best ignored.
-
Thanks. Always felt my posts and threads highlighted Bamber's guilt.
Ha Ha I was joking Adam, because you always take credit for turning posters towards guilty, but you do put up some good arguments and you help keep the forum going.
-
Ha Ha I was joking Adam, because you always take credit for turning posters towards innocence, but you do put up some good arguments and you help keep the forum going.
Hi Justice
you really will have deflated poor Adam he will need to be pumped up again but you are right he puts alot of work into his posts and does post some informative information at times and he is convinced he converted me X
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7169.msg338787.html#msg338787
"...I really struggle to believe someone could be in prison for 30 years with all the attention he has received, his continual assertion of innocence and all of his public support over those years without an appeal being granted if there was the slightest chance he may be an MOJ.
The fact this hasn't happened but rather his sentence has been increased is hardly convincing of innocence I'm afraid..."
The reason his sentence was increased was probably to try to give the message to people that he's obviously guilty. You did not use to show such faith in politicians.
I agree, excellent post, Harry
-
And his tendency toward violent outbursts. A reminder being the violent attack where Jeremy maimed another fellow prisoner.
Again because it doesn't seem to sink in
From Wikipedia
He formed several close relationships with women while inside, and has a large number of friends and supporters. He has rarely been involved in trouble, but on one occasion defended himself from a knife attack by another prisoner by using a broken bottle, and he received 28 stitches on his neck when he was attacked from behind by another inmate while making a telephone call.[20] In 1994 he called a radio station from Long Lartin prison to protest his innocence.[2]
He has NEVER scalped anyone
-
And his tendency toward violent outbursts. A reminder being the violent attack where Jeremy maimed another fellow prisoner.
Do not compare JB to Why do young men rape elderly women? And why does nobody care?: A special report by Linda Grant on a shocking crime which it seems we all prefer to ignore
LINDA GRANT Sunday 23 January 19940 comments
LATE last November, an 84-year-old widow was asleep in an armchair in her house in Camden, north London, when a man broke in. He threatened her with a carving knife, then beat and raped her. He left her trapped in a wardrobe which he turned door-side down on to the floor, piling furniture on top of it; she was only freed when a neighbour became suspicious about a smashed window and called the police. A 17-year-old has been charged and will be tried in the summer.
Exactly a week later, a 71-year-old woman in Daventry, Northamptonshire, was woken up and raped at knifepoint by an intruder. Two weeks after that, on Christmas Eve, a man visiting his 83-year-old spinster aunt on a council estate in Southwark, south London, became concerned when there was no reply to his knock on the door. He called the police who broke in and found the woman also trapped in a wardrobe, having been sexually assaulted.
There are no figures for the numbers of sexual attacks on the elderly because the Home Office does not categorise its rape statistics by age. We may imagine that the rape of elderly women is a rare, horrible and peculiarly unnatural crime, but it is not. Looking at newspaper cuttings covering the past two or three years, it becomes clear that the rape of older women is not only commonplace but that the number of reported incidents are increasing.
On Christmas Day 1991 a severely disabled 70-year-old woman was raped in Sussex. In January 1992 a man was jailed for nine years for raping the 66-year-old housekeeper of a Catholic priest. The following month a Worcester man was jailed for life after sexually assaulting an 88-year-old, punching her in the eye and mouth and slitting her clothes from the chest down. He had already served an eight-year sentence for raping a 50-year-old woman. In April 1992, Manchester Police investigated what the police authority's chairman Stephen Murphy called 'the worst case of its kind I have ever heard of'. An 88-year-old widow was left with a fractured skull, two broken ribs and other injuries after a four-hour attack in which she was kicked, battered and bitten by two men who raped her three times, forcing her to carry out what newspapers called 'a series of perverted sex acts'. In June of that year, a 16-year-old was convicted at Norwich Crown Court of the rape of a woman aged 100.
What are we to make of it? Here are women not young, not sexually desirable by society's norms, beyond the menopause, still being considered fair game by rapists. What do the experts say - the psychologists, the specialists in the treatment of sex offenders, rape counsellors, Victim Support, national charities that promote the interests of older people?
Nothing. The Prison Service could find no psychiatrists in their own sexual offender treatment programmes who could offer any opinion on the subject. Victim Support and Age Concern can offer no insight into the crime. There is no research, there are no studies of the after-effects of rape among elderly women. Despite the large amount of literature on date rape, there is almost nothing on the rape of older women. As one American study on the treatment of rape victims, published in 1991, admits: 'The sexual assault of older women has received little attention in the rape literature. As a result there is paucity of information on the incidence and characteristics of sexual victimisation of the elderly and of the resulting psychological effects.'
ON the face of it, the rape of the elderly should have merited more attention because it is a particularly violent crime. Between 60 and 70 per cent of all reported rapes are acquaintance rape, where the attacker is known to the victim. But the rapes of elderly women usually follow a scenario where a young man forcibly enters the woman's home, threatens or carries out physical violence, steals money or jewellery and leaves her where she may not be found for hours, or even days if she lives alone. For the victim, the physical assault can be especially devastating. Many women now in their seventies and eighties are likely to have had only one sexual partner throughout their lives, and those who are widowed may not have had any sexual contact for many years. (For women past the menopause, penetrative sex, even when desired, is often painful.) All in all, rape for an elderly woman should be particularly traumatic and therefore worthy of specialised attention.
So why isn't it? Several years ago, Ginny Jenkins, director of Action on Elder Abuse (an independent organisation set up to monitor abuse of the elderly), worked in a day hospital where five elderly women reported having been raped over the course of one winter in their homes. She believes that the lack of interest in this crime reflects society's attitudes to old people and sex. 'We can't cope with old people having sex, so we can't cope with abusive sex,' she says. 'But the woman's own embarrassment also makes it greatly under-reported. If you can't tell your daughter that you're sleeping with your husband, how can you say that you've been raped?'
The police point out that when rape is reported, elderly women make bad witnesses. 'It's very difficult to converse with an 88-year-old woman who has been raped three times,' says Chief Inspector John Dunn, who investigated the Manchester case. Poor eyesight may make identification difficult and there is a tendency for anyone under the age of 40 to be described as 'young'.
Crimes need human faces to touch the public imagination. In the mid-Eighties, Maggie Foggarty, then a researcher for Getting On, Central Television's series for older viewers, tried to make a programme on the subject. While a number of viewers wrote in with their experiences of rape, none was willing to be interviewed. 'What came over was the sense of shame. One woman had lost her husband during the First World War and that was the only man she had ever known. This area was such a taboo, even within the team. We decided it was too sensitive a subject for television.'
ONLY one older victim of rape has recently agreed to be interviewed by the press. Just over a year ago, on Christmas Eve, Muriel Harvey, a 68-year-old church warden and former magistrate in Ludlow, Shropshire, was walking home after midnight mass when a man grabbed her from behind and forced her into some nearby grounds where he raped her. Mrs Harvey spoke out about her experience at the time, and her memories are still vivid.
'He was probably 40, fortunately reasonably clean, in a leather jacket. He said, 'Shut up you bitch or I'll kill you.' I don't think he realised at first that I was a much older woman but it didn't seem to deter him. I tried saying, 'I'm going to have a heart attack' and all those things but it didn't do any good. He didn't have a weapon but a very strong grip, a good clinch round my neck. I didn't try to fight. I thought, I'm not going to be able to run fast enough so that's it: let's hope for the best.
'The worst thing was wondering whether I was going to survive. Very quickly I went into a state of high adrenalin and I thought, I've got to think and escape even if it means going through the actual sexual act. I didn't have time to think about whether he might have HIV until afterwards when I had to go through the checks in hospital. And then I thought, well, I'm alive and I'll meet that one when it happens.
'My reactions afterwards were, thank God it wasn't a younger woman who would be much more vulnerable. I've had so many knocks in life. I've had break-ins in my family business last year, and I felt far more violated by that. I've been widowed twice, my first husband died when he was 52 and I was 48, leaving me with three children, the youngest seven. I remarried and then my second husband died. So within three years I had two body-blows and I don't think anything can affect me after that. Thank God it wasn't a very much more fragile old lady.'
Muriel Harvey's philosophical approach to her own rape may be partly explained by her intelligence and strength of character; she studied sociology at London University and still runs her own business. The lack of any research, the silence and invisibility of other elderly victims and their sense of shame, makes it possible only to speculate about the nature and extent of their trauma. One woman's aunt was raped several years ago and died shortly afterwards: the incident is still not discussed in the family. But one former policewoman who has interviewed many rape victims recognises Mrs Harvey's response: she observes that the older women she has talked to have often cited, as Mrs Harvey does, previous traumatic events - such as living through world wars or losing spouses - as worse experiences.
It is also possible that some older women may be better equipped than younger ones to cope with the guilt that follows rape. Two years ago Dr Gill Mezey, consultant forensic psychiatrist at St George's Hospital, Tooting, tried to research the long-term effects, but no money was available for the study. Dr Mezey has talked to a large number of older women who have been raped and, although she makes no scientific claims for what is only anecdotal evidence, she believes that the stage of life at which a woman is raped will effect her recovery.
'While not minimising the trauma of the rape itself, what is also important is the secondary victimisation, the way a woman is treated by her partner, family, police and the criminal justice system which may be critical and blaming' she argues. 'Young, fit women are expected to put up some kind of fight.' It is difficult to convict someone of rape unless there has been physical resistance. But people do not expect women in their seventies to put up a fight. Nor will older women be accused of being complicit in their assault, of 'asking for it', by being sexually provocative or wearing sexy clothes.
'The older a woman is the more stable is her personal development, her position in the family and life. A rape may be less likely to throw her into disarray,' Dr Mezey says. Such speculations may or may not prove helpful: without research, we do not know.
WHAT of the rapists themselves? Little if any work has been done on men who rape elderly women. Dr Mezey says her interviews indicate that they are very hostile to women and feel belittled by them. Since Susan Brownmiller's landmark study of the mid-Seventies, Against Our Will, it has been understood that rape is not about sex but power. One theory put forward in an American study holds that older women symbolise an authority figure over whom the offender wants control or an actual woman against whom he wants to avenge himself. The desire, in such rapes, is not for sex but for the degradation, hurt and humiliation of the victim. 'How did he get an erection?', we guiltily wonder. The arousal may come from rage, nervous excitement or fear, as is suggested by the evidence of rapes in wartime. Others argue that these rapists are simply woman haters, and older women may just be easier to attack because of their vulnerability.
The extent of sexual violence against older women may be far greater than press reports suggest. Earlier this year a report appeared in an American social work journal on sexual abuse of the elderly in Britain. Its author, Malcolm Holt, a Northumberland social worker, wrote to all the medical and social work journals in this country for cases of sexual abuse of the elderly by carers. By the time he wrote the report a year ago, he had 90 cases of sexual abuse by family members. The numbers have now grown to the hundreds. The most frequently reported abusers, 55 per cent, were sons. 'Frail, dependent elderly people, who suffer mental impairment, are very attractive as potential abuse victims' Holt wrote. Who will believe what they say? he asks.
When Holt began his research, there was scepticism about the need for such a study. One GP questioned what harm could be done to a victim who had been raped by her son, since she was old and confused. It was colleagues who remembered the early days of uncovering the extent of child sexual abuse who encouraged Holt to continue with his research.
Why does it happen? 'The issues are the same, whether it's abuse in the home or rape by a stranger,' Holt argues. 'It's about wielding power, leaving the victim totally shocked and humiliated and not willing to give evidence because they are confused and the evidence is unreliable. An American study says that sex offenders can move from children to old people. If their source of victim is denied, they find another.'
The real shame is not the kind that elderly women feel who have been raped, but our ignorance of the subject. A study of sexual assaults on elderly women would throw light on the nature of rape itself, perhaps finally removing any lingering doubt that rape is about power rather than sex. Child sexual abuse, sexual abuse of frail, elderly women, is there so much difference? At the beginning and at the end of life, the weakest, the least likely to be believed, are the rapist's most vulnerable victims.
-
Why do young men rape elderly women?
Don't ask us Jackie, ask yourself. It's you who is unable to understand why young men commit the crimes they do.
-
Again because it doesn't seem to sink in
He has NEVER scalped anyone
It's you who is unable to let anything sink in Jackie. It's is you who is unable to see what is staring you in the face.
I notice you've ignored my posts about Jeremy's robbery and him being a liar. ::)
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7169.msg338787.html#msg338787
"...I really struggle to believe someone could be in prison for 30 years with all the attention he has received, his continual assertion of innocence and all of his public support over those years without an appeal being granted if there was the slightest chance he may be an MOJ.
The fact this hasn't happened but rather his sentence has been increased is hardly convincing of innocence I'm afraid..."
The reason his sentence was increased was probably to try to give the message to people that he's obviously guilty. You did not use to show such faith in politicians.
Excellent post Harry.
-
I certainly do back up Caroline on this, I remember she was becoming more and more unsure about JB's innocence in her own mind. I remember her pming me about it and it was quite a surprise to me at that time as it was for so many others later. Then I became ill and I wasn't really on the forum for quite a long time. It was during this time that Caroline and April both became convinced that he was guilty. Over time without any persuasion or input from anyone else, I too started to believe in his guilt.
It was a slow process for me as well, I had believed he was innocent since back in 1985 and was shocked when he went to prison but my own life took over. I found the forum in about 2012 and was a definite 'innocent' supporter for at least another 2 years.
It was really hard for me to admit that he may be guilty because I had argued so hard and made so many friends on the forum who still believed in his innocence but eventually I had to let go and accept that Jeremy Bamber probably is guilty.
As a mod I have to read every post written on the forum, I have never read anything recently which can convince me again that he is innocent, some supporters write excellent posts but imo there's nothing new, some do make me question for a short while but I always revert to guilt.
I hope I'm not mistaken and Jeremy Bamber is innocent because for an innocent man to spend over 30 years in prison is horrendous and unforgivable but I can't believe in conspiracy theories which don't hold water. I don't understand why the police would frame him in the first place, what reason could there be?
Exactly Maggie you don't know do you???????
-
I certainly do back up Caroline on this, I remember she was becoming more and more unsure about JB's innocence in her own mind. I remember her pming me about it and it was quite a surprise to me at that time as it was for so many others later. Then I became ill and I wasn't really on the forum for quite a long time. It was during this time that Caroline and April both became convinced that he was guilty. Over time without any persuasion or input from anyone else, I too started to believe in his guilt.
It was a slow process for me as well, I had believed he was innocent since back in 1985 and was shocked when he went to prison but my own life took over. I found the forum in about 2012 and was a definite 'innocent' supporter for at least another 2 years.
It was really hard for me to admit that he may be guilty because I had argued so hard and made so many friends on the forum who still believed in his innocence but eventually I had to let go and accept that Jeremy Bamber probably is guilty.
As a mod I have to read every post written on the forum, I have never read anything recently which can convince me again that he is innocent, some supporters write excellent posts but imo there's nothing new, some do make me question for a short while but I always revert to guilt.
I hope I'm not mistaken and Jeremy Bamber is innocent because for an innocent man to spend over 30 years in prison is horrendous and unforgivable but I can't believe in conspiracy theories which don't hold water. I don't understand why the police would frame him in the first place, what reason could there be?
Exactly Maggie you don't know do you???????
I have never said I am absolutely certain Jackie, I am open to persuasion but I haven't found anything yet to persuade me. As far as I can see and from all I have read I have come to believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty but all things are possible, I am aware of that.
-
As I said you don't know
-
As I said you don't know
That's fine Jackie, it's not a competition and I have nothing to gain from JB being guilty, no point to prove.
I cannot help the fact that I am no longer convinced by the arguments I used to believe but I believe everyone has a right to their own opinions and have never fallen out with anyone because they had a different point of view to me.
Let's just say I am neutral because that is the way I think when I'm modding the forum.
-
As I said you don't know
I think we can be pretty sure!
-
Ha Ha I was joking Adam, because you always take credit for turning posters towards guilty, but you do put up some good arguments and you help keep the forum going.
Not sure how Susan changed you from innocent to guilty. She was a supporter when posting.
As I said in reply 89, everyone has given different reasons for stance changes. Or refused to give a reason at all.
-
I have never said I am absolutely certain Jackie, I am open to persuasion but I haven't found anything yet to persuade me. As far as I can see and from all I have read I have come to believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty but all things are possible, I am aware of that.
I don't understand why the police would frame him in the first place, what reason could there be?
Maggie I am sure you have seen the film In the name of the Father and if not I urge you to watch it
In the Guildford Four Case the police witheld a file (the file had written on DO NOT SHOW TO THE DEFENCE) which showed numerous people in this case were innocent
Why do you think the police framed these innocent people and ruined there lives
What justification could there have been
I am really interested in your answer
-
The Guildford Four were falsely convicted of the bombings in October 1975
The Guildford Four spent 15 years in prison
During this time the WHF murders happened
-
The Guildford Four were falsely convicted of the bombings in October 1975
The Guildford Four spent 15 years in prison
During this time the WHF murders happened
The WHF murders had no links to what was going on in Ireland at the time Jackie. There are not connected.
-
I don't understand why the police would frame him in the first place, what reason could there be?
Maggie I am sure you have seen the film In the name of the Father and if not I urge you to watch it
In the Guildford Four Case the police witheld a file (the file had written on DO NOT SHOW TO THE DEFENCE) which showed numerous people in this case were innocent
Why do you think the police framed these innocent people and ruined there lives
What justification could there have been
I am really interested in your answer
Instead of asking Maggie, or others. Why don't you read up about the Guildford 4 case and see the reasons why they were fitted up for yourself. It's unlikely you will listen to Maggie or indeed anyone for that matter. It's best you see it with your own eyes Jackie.
You are wasting your time making posts like this, as any response you receive wont be good enough for you. You need to find out for yourself. Read about what was going on in Ireland at the time.
-
Instead of asking Maggie, or others. Why don't you read up about the Guildford 4 case and see the reasons why they were fitted up for yourself. It's unlikely you will listen to Maggie or indeed anyone for that matter. It's best you see it with your own eyes Jackie.
You are wasting your time making posts like this, as any response you receive wont be good enough for you. You need to find out for yourself. Read about what was going on in Ireland at the time.
It sounds to me as if supporters are throwing at us every MoJ (real and 'technicalities') they can scrape up as justification of Jeremy's innocence.
-
It sounds to me as if supporters are throwing at us every MoJ (real and 'technicalities') they can scrape up as justification of Jeremy's innocence.
It's an eye opener isn't it Jane!
-
The WHF murders had no links to what was going on in Ireland at the time Jackie. There are not connected.
Much like the SH case. They are not connected ::)
-
The Guildford Four were falsely convicted of the bombings in October 1975
The Guildford Four spent 15 years in prison
During this time the WHF murders happened
So? What has that got to do with Bamber?
-
Much like the SH case. They are not connected ::)
I connect the SH case because Bamber displays the same behaviour patterns both before and after the murders.
I am still waiting for the source of the alleged letter you posted from SH!
-
So? What has that got to do with Bamber?
Would depend upon whether there is any commonality with regard to underhand police tactics across the two cases. Also whether or not any kind of political agenda influenced both convictions being upheld. For example, not wanting to bring the justice system in to disrepute etc. I'm afraid I don't know much about Guildford Four.
-
Instead of asking Maggie, or others. Why don't you read up about the Guildford 4 case and see the reasons why they were fitted up for yourself. It's unlikely you will listen to Maggie or indeed anyone for that matter. It's best you see it with your own eyes Jackie.
You are wasting your time making posts like this, as any response you receive wont be good enough for you. You need to find out for yourself. Read about what was going on in Ireland at the time.
The Guildford 4 were fitted up because the police needed to appease the public. The were arrested and convicted because they had northern Irish connections and made a confession under duress. The G4 were genuine MOJ and suffered as political prisoners - whereas Jeremy Bamber isn't. The police had no one in mind for the Guildford bombings and any northern Irish suspects would do - EP had a ready made culprit in Sheila but realised it couldn't have been her. They changed tack and in doing so, made themselves look incompetent - they certainly wouldn't have done that unless they were sure of their initial mistake.
The Guildford 4 and Bamber are poles apart!
-
The Guildford 4 were fitted up because the police needed to appease the public. The were arrested and convicted because they had northern Irish connections and made a confession under duress. The G4 were genuine MOJ and suffered as political prisoners - whereas Jeremy Bamber isn't. The police had no one in mind for the Guildford bombings and any northern Irish suspects would do - EP had a ready made culprit in Sheila but realised it couldn't have been her. They changed tack and in doing so, made themselves look incompetent - they certainly wouldn't have done that unless they were sure of their initial mistake.
The Guildford 4 and Bamber are poles apart!
Seconded!
-
Would depend upon whether there is any commonality with regard to underhand police tactics across the two cases. Also whether or not any kind of political agenda influenced both convictions being upheld. For example, not wanting to bring the justice system in to disrepute etc. I'm afraid I don't know much about Guildford Four.
As stated above, at the time when the G4 were convicted, the police were under enormous pressure from both the public and the establishment. to round up IRA terror cells operating in this country. I imagine that Irish people were looked at with suspicion and prejudice. The G4 were (apart from Carol Richardson) all from NI, they were working class young men and an easy scapegoat. The police needed a conviction and these 4 just fit the bill.
Jeremy Bamber was a middle class farmers son - if the police knew he was innocent, why would they fit him up?
-
As stated above, at the time when the G4 were convicted, the police were under enormous pressure from both the public and the establishment. to round up IRA terror cells operating in this country. I imagine that Irish people were looked at with suspicion and prejudice. The G4 were (apart from Carol Richardson) all from NI, they were working class young men and an easy scapegoat. The police needed a conviction and these 4 just fit the bill.
Jeremy Bamber was a middle class farmers son - if the police knew he was innocent, why would they fit him up?
Doesn't being a farmers son make him working class?
I think he uses the middle class BS to hide behind.
Anyway, he wasn't even working when he was arrested! Surely that makes him a bum or a scrounger. Jackie will know. She's good on subjects like this.
-
Doesn't being a farmers son make him working class?
No, if he had been a farm hand (not the farmers son), he'd have been working class. He attened private school and they were land owners. Defo not working class.
-
if the police knew he was innocent, why would they fit him up?
That's the six million dollar question Caroline. But fit him up they did. Why did they lie about Hillsborough? Personally I don't have a problem with the concept of police trying to cover mistakes and in doing so, unwittingly digging a large hole for themselves. Where I do have a problem is why the police couldn't just tell the relatives if Nevill had phoned the police. But then we don't know what Taff Jones discussed with the relatives that made two of them concede Sheila could have killed everyone. Conveniently, Ann can't remember. I've tried to work out whether there might be a reason as to why police didn't tell them (i.e. in a scenario where a call did take place). I've wondered whether more mistakes where made that morning - as yet not touched upon.
-
No, if he had been a farm hand (not the farmers son), he'd have been working class. He attened private school and they were land owners. Defo not working class.
I think he uses the middle class BS to hide behind.
Anyway, he wasn't even working when he was arrested! Surely that makes him a bum or a scrounger. Jackie will know. She's good on subjects like this.
-
That's the six million dollar question Caroline. But fit him up they did. Why did they lie about Hillsborough? Personally I don't have a problem with the concept of police trying to cover mistakes and in doing so, unwittingly digging a large hole for themselves. Where I do have a problem is why the police couldn't just tell the relatives if Nevill had phoned the police. But then we don't know what Taff Jones discussed with the relatives that made two of them concede Sheila could have killed everyone. Conveniently, Ann can't remember. I've tried to work out whether there might be a reason as to why police didn't tell them (i.e. in a scenario where a call did take place). I've wondered whether more mistakes where made that morning - as yet not touched upon.
Six million dollars? Bit OTT Roch. No one will be getting a penny not least of all Jeremy.
He wasn't fitted up though. He was guilty as sin. If you read all the docs in this case you will see that the Crown don't believe the call from Nevill existed.
The relatives knew Jeremy was guilty, as, like many of us now, they'd figured him out long before.
Normal people don't go around repeatedly stating they want to kill their parents. That's the sign of deep seated hatred; not based on genuine love.
Nothing Jeremy has ever said about his family is based on real love.
-
That's the six million dollar question Caroline. But fit him up they did. Why did they lie about Hillsborough? Personally I don't have a problem with the concept of police trying to cover mistakes and in doing so, unwittingly digging a large hole for themselves. Where I do have a problem is why the police couldn't just tell the relatives if Nevill had phoned the police. But then we don't know what Taff Jones discussed with the relatives that made two of them concede Sheila could have killed everyone. Conveniently, Ann can't remember. I've tried to work out whether there might be a reason as to why police didn't tell them (i.e. in a scenario where a call did take place). I've wondered whether more mistakes where made that morning - as yet not touched upon.
The difference between the G4, B6, Hillsborough and Jeremy Bamber are monumental. The first three cases affect the establishment - Jeremy Bamber didn't. He wasn't that important Roch. If Nevill called the police, Taff would have told the relatives. If Nevill had called West before Jeremy did, he'd have told Jeremy that the incident was being dealt with - there would have been no reason for him not to. The whole keeping of this secret would involve too many to have kept quiet for all these years and every single one of them would know an innocent man was framed - someone would have broken their silence by now. It doesn't add up, Jeremy Bamber wasn't that important to risk so many careers.
-
The difference between the G4, B6, Hillsborough and Jeremy Bamber are monumental. The first three cases affect the establishment - Jeremy Bamber didn't. He wasn't that important Roch. If Nevill called the police, Taff would have told the relatives. If Nevill had called West before Jeremy did, he'd have told Jeremy that the incident was being dealt with - there would have been no reason for him not to. The whole keeping of this secret would involve too many to have kept quiet for all these years and every single one of them would know an innocent man was framed - someone would have broken their silence by now. It doesn't add up, Jeremy Bamber wasn't that important to risk so many careers.
But he likes to think he is as do some of his ardent supporters. ::)
-
But he likes to think he is as do some of his ardent supporters. ::)
But in the grand scheme of things, he wasn't/isn't. The G4 and B6 were political prisoners and Hillsborough was a MASSIVE blunder that had repercussions for the establishment Bamber was just ....... a bloke. Who would risk all for 'a bloke'? Especially when they had a ready made culprit in Sheila.
-
But in the grand scheme of things, he wasn't/isn't. The G4 and B6 were political prisoners and Hillsborough was a MASSIVE blunder that had repercussions for the establishment Bamber was just ....... a bloke. Who would risk all for 'a bloke'? Especially when they had a ready made culprit in Sheila.
He was quite clearly a free loader!
Not only did he accept handouts from the bank of mum and dad, he robbed them blind - stage managing the crime scene until he was arrested a month after the murders and finally admitted he's done it to prove a point and staged the scene as he knew he would be number one suspect. What's middle class about this? These are the acts of a criminal!
His weed growing and selling isn't the behavior of any middle class person I know of. It's criminal!
Julie nearly risked all for a 'bloke.' But recognised the error of her ways.
-
That's the six million dollar question Caroline. But fit him up they did. Why did they lie about Hillsborough? Personally I don't have a problem with the concept of police trying to cover mistakes and in doing so, unwittingly digging a large hole for themselves. Where I do have a problem is why the police couldn't just tell the relatives if Nevill had phoned the police. But then we don't know what Taff Jones discussed with the relatives that made two of them concede Sheila could have killed everyone. Conveniently, Ann can't remember. I've tried to work out whether there might be a reason as to why police didn't tell them (i.e. in a scenario where a call did take place). I've wondered whether more mistakes where made that morning - as yet not touched upon.
They could hardly have told relatives Nevill HADN'T phoned them. Why would they? Some people just like to make conspiracies where none exist. It seems to me that even if relatives/any other persons know someone is capable of committing/has committed a crime, they not been permitted to voice such an opinion in case they wrongly incriminate.
-
He was quite clearly a free loader!
Not only did he accept handouts from the bank of mum and dad, he robbed them blind - stage managing the crime scene until he was arrested a month after the murders and finally admitted he's done it to prove a point and staged the scene as he knew he would be number one suspect. What's middle class about this? These are the acts of a criminal!
His weed growing and selling isn't the behavior of any middle class person I know of. It's criminal!
Julie nearly risked all for a 'bloke.' But recognised the error of her ways.
I thought I'd share this with you.
My very elderly and infirm mother would fall asleep leaving he back door unlocked. I warned her frequently that a thief could get in and out without her knowledge but she took no notice. One day I decided to prove my point. I walked into her bedroom, picked up all her jewellery -at which point, I could have walked out with it!!- I then went into the sitting room, where she was dozing, woke her up and showed her the jewellery in my hands. I DIDN'T flog it and spend the money. Did Jeremy recompense his family?........................... (Rather than acknowledging that I may have had a point, she told me it was none of my business. 3 weeks later, all the bungalows in her complex were broken into and her jewellery and other items were stolen!!!!!!!!)
-
I don't understand why the police would frame him in the first place, what reason could there be?
Maggie I am sure you have seen the film In the name of the Father and if not I urge you to watch it
In the Guildford Four Case the police witheld a file (the file had written on DO NOT SHOW TO THE DEFENCE) which showed numerous people in this case were innocent
Why do you think the police framed these innocent people and ruined there lives
What justification could there have been
I am really interested in your answer
Hi Jackie, as far as I can see there is no connection between the G4 and the JB case.
I was living in London at the time of the IRA bombings and remember very clearly the fear generated by the threat of IRA bombs. An unaccompanied parcel or bag on a tube or train was enough to cause panic among passengers. There was a general atmosphere of anxiety so it was not surprising that many people were desperate to have the culprits of the Guilford bombings and other atrocities locked up.
Although it was unforgivable I do understand that in such an atmosphere the police wanted a culprit and it seems anyone who was was Irish and fitted the frame would do....... the rest is shameful history.
In the Bamber case there was no atmosphere of fear among the public, OK you could say the relatives may have been fearful but it was hardly the same scenario.
I cannot imagine what could have occurred behind closed doors that morning which would have convinced those in charge to withdraw their announcement that Sheila Bamber had killed all her family and then killed herself and replace it with the charge that Jeremy Bamber was guilty of all 5 murders.
If you could give a convincing answer to this then I would be open to consider it.
I don't believe for one moment that if Sheila was shot by mistake it would have been a feasible reason to withhold evidence and condemn JB to a life in prison. The police could have covered their mistake up well enough without going to such ridiculous lengths. I know there is police corruption, I am well aware of that, in fact our country generally is no less corrupt than most others, we are just better at hiding it than most others. but why? ... why? would they accuse an innocent man when they had the dead body of a guilty woman? They had to publicly admit they had made a mistake, that must have been pretty humiliating for those in charge and I think if they were open to corruption, it would be more likely for them to have stuck with the murder suicide verdict even though they knew JB was guilty rather than do a massive public somersault and admit their failings to the world??
-
Maggie
There is no excuse for police corruption and cover ups in any case
What happened to the Guildford Four could happen and has happened to many families
No excuse what so ever
-
Hi Jackie, as far as I can see there is no connection between the G4 and the JB case.
I was living in London at the time of the IRA bombings and remember very clearly the fear generated by the threat of IRA bombs. An unaccompanied parcel or bag on a tube or train was enough to cause panic among passengers. There was a general atmosphere of anxiety so it was not surprising that many people were desperate to have the culprits of the Guilford bombings and other atrocities locked up.
Although it was unforgivable I do understand that in such an atmosphere the police wanted a culprit and it seems anyone who was was Irish and fitted the frame would do....... the rest is shameful history.
In the Bamber case there was no atmosphere of fear among the public, OK you could say the relatives may have been fearful but it was hardly the same scenario.
I cannot imagine what could have occurred behind closed doors that morning which would have convinced those in charge to withdraw their announcement that Sheila Bamber had killed all her family and then killed herself and replace it with the charge that Jeremy Bamber was guilty of all 5 murders.
If you could give a convincing answer to this then I would be open to consider it.
I don't believe for one moment that if Sheila was shot by mistake it would have been a feasible reason to withhold evidence and condemn JB to a life in prison. The police could have covered their mistake up well enough without going to such ridiculous lengths. I know there is police corruption, I am well aware of that, in fact our country generally is no less corrupt than most others, we are just better at hiding it than most others. but why? ... why? would they accuse an innocent man when they had the dead body of a guilty woman? They had to publicly admit they had made a mistake, that must have been pretty humiliating for those in charge and I think if they were open to corruption, it would be more likely for them to have stuck with the murder suicide verdict even though they knew JB was guilty rather than do a massive public somersault and admit their failings to the world??
LOVE it! Bloody BRILLIANT, Maggie. I just LOVE it when the voice of reason and sanity drowns out the idiotic 'facts' which get presented here, as truth.
-
Maggie
There is no excuse for police corruption and cover ups in any case
What happened to the Guildford Four could happen and has happened to many families
No excuse what so ever
I wasn't making any excuses Jackie, I am always on the side of the underdog to the irritation of many but don't believe JB is the underdog in this case.
-
LOVE it! Bloody BRILLIANT, Maggie. I just LOVE it when the voice of reason and sanity drowns out the idiotic 'facts' which get presented here, as truth.
:) :) :)
-
:) :) :)
haven't we completely missed the point though here Jane and maggie. There is no excuse not one single excuse that should allow the police to frame anyone. Not one single person. To say that any irish man would do makes it even worse doesn't it.
This isn't made up as fact Jane it is fact, police framed the Birmingham six and Guildford 4 , that was just awful.
-
I think some 'guilters' seem to be working themselves up in to a frenzy.
Every dog has his day...
-
I note that supporters of Jeremy frequently resort to telling us about those injustices which happened to, for example G4, and to others, the implication being that if it happened to them, ergo, it HAD to have happened to Jeremy. NEWS FLASH. It may have happened to any number of others -and if they were innocent it's indefensible- but it doesn't automatically mean that Jeremy is one of their number...............because he isn't.
-
I note that supporters of Jeremy frequently resort to telling us about those injustices which happened to, for example G4, and to others, the implication being that if it happened to them, ergo, it HAD to have happened to Jeremy. NEWS FLASH. It may have happened to any number of others -and if they were innocent it's indefensible- but it doesn't automatically mean that Jeremy is one of their number...............because he isn't.
well I agree it is indefensible, but it's a sad fact that if police weren't corrupt in the first place we wouldn't b able to use those injustices as examples.
-
haven't we completely missed the point though here Jane and maggie. There is no excuse not one single excuse that should allow the police to frame anyone. Not one single person. To say that any irish man would do makes it even worse doesn't it.
This isn't made up as fact Jane it is fact, police framed the Birmingham six and Guildford 4 , that was just awful.
Notsure, there was no excuse for what the Nazi's did to Jews and others during the war, but we don't now treat all Germans as racist and we don't expect them to keep doing abeyance for it. The way we imported slaves was hardly a time we can be proud of but we can't go on apologizing. OK it's FACT that police framed B6 and G4 but it was during a time of political unrest -NOT an excuse, I know- you appear to be saying that the police have to make restitution for these acts -despite that there probably aren't any in the force now, who were then- by absolving all criminals SOME believe innocent. Problem is there are always going to be differences of opinion so it COULD mean that ALL the guilty go free. This isn't a perfect world -if it was, there'd be no crimes- mistakes WILL be made. Mistakes were made in the investigation at WHF -primarily because of how Jeremy mislead the initial investigation- but the eventual outcome was the correct one.
-
I think some 'guilters' seem to be working themselves up in to a frenzy.
Every dog has his day...
And Jeremy certainly made the most of his.
-
well I agree it is indefensible, but it's a sad fact that if police weren't corrupt in the first place we wouldn't b able to use those injustices as examples.
Are you labeling as corrupt every member of the force, Notsure?
-
I note that supporters of Jeremy frequently resort to telling us about those injustices which happened to, for example G4, and to others, the implication being that if it happened to them, ergo, it HAD to have happened to Jeremy. NEWS FLASH. It may have happened to any number of others -and if they were innocent it's indefensible- but it doesn't automatically mean that Jeremy is one of their number...............because he isn't.
You don't know Jeremy is guilty
Unless you were there
Fact
-
haven't we completely missed the point though here Jane and maggie. There is no excuse not one single excuse that should allow the police to frame anyone. Not one single person. To say that any irish man would do makes it even worse doesn't it.
This isn't made up as fact Jane it is fact, police framed the Birmingham six and Guildford 4 , that was just awful.
Thank you Notsure
Some members here seem to be suggesting police corruption is ok in different cases
-
You don't know Jeremy is guilty
Unless you were there
Fact
You don't know he's innocent unless you were there! Of course, using this silly frame of reference, no one would EVER be convicted ::)
-
haven't we completely missed the point though here Jane and maggie. There is no excuse not one single excuse that should allow the police to frame anyone. Not one single person. To say that any irish man would do makes it even worse doesn't it.
This isn't made up as fact Jane it is fact, police framed the Birmingham six and Guildford 4 , that was just awful.
Who said that framing 'any Irishman' was right? That was simply the way it was.
-
haven't we completely missed the point though here Jane and maggie. There is no excuse not one single excuse that should allow the police to frame anyone. Not one single person. To say that any irish man would do makes it even worse doesn't it.
This isn't made up as fact Jane it is fact, police framed the Birmingham six and Guildford 4 , that was just awful.
Hi notsure
I didn't say that I believed 'any Irishman would do', I was saying that was the belief by the police at the time.
In no way do I agree with any kind of corruption by the police or anybody else.
The fact is the post was about comparisons between the G4 and JB cases. I was trying to highlight the excuses the police used for their corruption and appalling abuse of those men. I can still see the photos in the paper showing their injuries inflicted by the police who also used public fear as an excuse to beat them up.
In this particular instant my reply to Jackie was not about the proven police corruption, brutality etc towards the G4 but about whether there is any plausible possible reason why the police would have framed Jeremy Bamber.
-
Thank you Notsure
Some members here seem to be suggesting police corruption is ok in different cases
I think you are misrepresenting what I said, Jackie.
-
Notsure, there was no excuse for what the Nazi's did to Jews and others during the war, but we don't now treat all Germans as racist and we don't expect them to keep doing abeyance for it. The way we imported slaves was hardly a time we can be proud of but we can't go on apologizing. OK it's FACT that police framed B6 and G4 but it was during a time of political unrest -NOT an excuse, I know- you appear to be saying that the police have to make restitution for these acts -despite that there probably aren't any in the force now, who were then- by absolving all criminals SOME believe innocent. Problem is there are always going to be differences of opinion so it COULD mean that ALL the guilty go free. This isn't a perfect world -if it was, there'd be no crimes- mistakes WILL be made. Mistakes were made in the investigation at WHF -primarily because of how Jeremy mislead the initial investigation- but the eventual outcome was the correct one.
I agree why would we expect the Germans to keep doing obey an enemy that's a ridiculous suggestion. And isn't a fair comparison, however if it were why do some police still do it.
-
Who said that framing 'any Irishman' was right? That was simply the way it was.
No it wasn't Caroline.
-
I think you are misrepresenting what I said, Jackie.
I think my own posts are sometimes misinterpreted too. There seems to be a lot of knee-jerk reactions to posts at the moment.
-
I think my own posts are sometimes misinterpreted too. There seems to be a lot of knee-jerk reactions to posts at the moment.
Think some people see what they want to see Roch. :)
-
Think some people see what they want to see Roch. :)
There doesn't seem to be much restraint or measured posting going on. This is what I mean by frenzy. There's a strange atmosphere on here at the moment.
-
Hi notsure
I didn't say that I believed 'any Irishman would do', I was saying that was the belief by the police at the time.
In no way do I agree with any kind of corruption by the police or anybody else.
The fact is the post was about comparisons between the G4 and JB cases. I was trying to highlight the excuses the police used for their corruption and appalling abuse of those men. I can still see the photos in the paper showing their injuries inflicted by the police who also used public fear as an excuse to beat them up.
In this particular instant my reply to Jackie was not about the proven police corruption, brutality etc towards the G4 but about whether there is any plausible possible reason why the police would have framed Jeremy Bamber.
I do get what you were saying Maggie, it's difficult to for anyone to see how or why the police would frame jb. However the case was handled very badly and there imo opinion has to be a possibility that they got it wrong. The same principles would apply in the G4 or b6 don't you agree. The evidence just wasn't there but they made it stick didn't they. What does that say about our police force . Then or now it still happens and there really isn't any excuse. Same applies they were obviously under a lot of pressure from the family. I think there is a possibility they were hoodwinked into believing he had killed his family, and they had to stick to it.
-
Hi notsure
I didn't say that I believed 'any Irishman would do', I was saying that was the belief by the police at the time.
In no way do I agree with any kind of corruption by the police or anybody else.
The fact is the post was about comparisons between the G4 and JB cases. I was trying to highlight the excuses the police used for their corruption and appalling abuse of those men. I can still see the photos in the paper showing their injuries inflicted by the police who also used public fear as an excuse to beat them up.
In this particular instant my reply to Jackie was not about the proven police corruption, brutality etc towards the G4 but about whether there is any plausible possible reason why the police would have framed Jeremy Bamber.
Maggie the Birmingham 6 and Guildford fitted the bill at that time due to certain circumstances. As far as JB is concerned I think the police did frame him they felt he was guilty but they had no concrete evidence OR they were so incompetent they covered up their mishandling of the case by twisting the evidence, I do think EP always thought he was guilty
-
There doesn't seem to be much restraint or measured posting going on. This is what I mean by frenzy. There's a strange atmosphere on here at the moment.
The dynamic has changed, as is always the case when a member of a group/family is missing.
-
Think some people see what they want to see Roch. :)
I made my own mind up about the JB case being a moj
As you pointed out yesterday you do no know JB is guilty
That's a factual comment
You KNOW Maggie by reading other MOJ cases that the police lie numerous times in numerous cases
We don't know what went on in WHF that night but we do know the silencer should not have been used as a credible piece of evidence
Police destroy and have destroyed important evidence in cases and change statements when it suits them
There should be no room for errors and certainly never noble cause corruption
If we knew when the police were truthfull in the JB case and when they were covering evidence up we would not all be hear now
-
I do get what you were saying Maggie, it's difficult to for anyone to see how or why the police would frame jb. However the case was handled very badly and there imo opinion has to be a possibility that they got it wrong. The same principles would apply in the G4 or b6 don't you agree. The evidence just wasn't there but they made it stick didn't they. What does that say about our police force . Then or now it still happens and there really isn't any excuse. Same applies they were obviously under a lot of pressure from the family. I think there is a possibility they were hoodwinked into believing he had killed his family, and they had to stick to it.
I don't completely rule out the fact that after police changed tack and announced their initial belief of murder suicide was wrong and Jeremy not Sheila was responsible there was a discovery of evidence which proved that JB didn't do it after all and it had to be Sheila.
I can see in such a situation it would have been compelling for them to avoid another U turn so to save their own skins they let JB guilty proceed and destroyed said evidence but that is a massive long shot imo.
I have been on here since Jan/Feb 2012, maybe I'm jaded but I just can't go with any of the explanations for a frame up. :-\
-
Maggie
You must have seen it a million times on TV
How good for a policeman to 'solve' one of the biggest murder/suicides in Essex ever
That's a good starting point along with massive pressure from the family in regards the family jackpot
I know Jeremy and he is plain stupid. He would be one of the easiest people to stitch up
He is not clever and certainly not cunning and definately not streetwise
-
I don't completely rule out the fact that after police changed tack and announced their initial belief of murder suicide was wrong and Jeremy not Sheila was responsible there was a discovery of evidence which proved that JB didn't do it after all and it had to be Sheila.
I can see in such a situation it would have been compelling for them to avoid another U turn so to save their own skins they let JB guilty proceed and destroyed said evidence but that is a massive long shot imo.
I have been on here since Jan/Feb 2012, maybe I'm jaded but I just can't go with any of the explanations for a frame up. :-\
Maggie you must have doubts about the silencer evidence (the blob of jam grey hair) and Julie's evidence is very suspect to me would anyone tell their girlfriend they were going to murder their family then carry out the murders then dump her for another. Don't think JB was that stupid.
-
The dynamic has changed, as is always the case when a member of a group/family is missing.
I think it's been going on a lot longer than just since Lookout left.
-
I think it's been going on a lot longer than just since Lookout left.
Roch I agree with you the forum is a different place since I joined it was a much happier place to be I think it has changed due to innocent posters changing to guilty that seems to have divided the group :(
-
Roch I agree with you the forum is a different place since I joined it was a much happier place to be I think it has changed due to innocent posters changing to guilty that seems to have divided the group :(
I'm hoping lookout will come back. I like her and miss her posting.i don't think I will have the stamina that she had in posting or debating against the guilters. Oh well
It
Looks like it's going to b very one sided now.
-
I'm hoping lookout will come back. I like her and miss her posting.i don't think I will have the stamina that she had in posting or debating against the guilters. Oh well
It
Looks like it's going to b very one sided now.
Hi notsure
I hope lookout comes back she was this forum. Some of her posts were not factual but then again many of the posts on here are somebody's opinion and not based on fact. The JB case was never convicted on actual fact IMO not in a conclusive way anyway. Notsure you post well and will do so against or with anyone.
-
Hi notsure
I hope lookout comes back she was this forum. Some of her posts were not factual but then again many of the posts on here are somebody's opinion and not based on fact. The JB case was never convicted on actual fact IMO not in a conclusive way anyway. Notsure you post well and will do so against or with anyone.
I am pretty sure Lookout will be back after she's had a break for a while. I hope so anyway.
I do agree the forum isn't the same without her. :'(
-
Hi notsure
I hope lookout comes back she was this forum. Some of her posts were not factual but then again many of the posts on here are somebody's opinion and not based on fact. The JB case was never convicted on actual fact IMO not in a conclusive way anyway. Notsure you post well and will do so against or with anyone.
Thanks Susan, it is difficult sometimes isn't it, especially as I'm not as knowledgeable as bout the case as a lot on here. Thanks for the support x
-
David, I have removed your post, it was far too personal and sexist. :o
Post it again if you want to but I am sure you can phrase it without the sexist stuff. Thanks :)
-
There doesn't seem to be much restraint or measured posting going on. This is what I mean by frenzy. There's a strange atmosphere on here at the moment.
There are a few individuals who have been on a lengthy and ulterior campaign to manipulate the forum towards guilt. Their reasons for why I do not know. But it has been obvious to myself and a few others for along time now. The forum is finally starting to catch up.
This 'frenzy' and 'strange atmosphere' are all manifestations of their campaign falling apart and losing their malevolent grip on the forum.
-
I'm hoping lookout will come back. I like her and miss her posting.i don't think I will have the stamina that she had in posting or debating against the guilters. Oh well
It
Looks like it's going to b very one sided now.
Anyone who has the courage of their convictions shouldn't have a problem debating and be able to stick to the topic without getting personal.
-
Yes but we are all human and have feelings, some cope better than others.
I've had an unpleasant experience of being called a liar etc and it's blooming difficult to ignore all that stuff. Different personalities and all that eh !
-
Yes but we are all human and have feelings, some cope better than others.
I've had an unpleasant experience of being called a liar etc and it's blooming difficult to ignore all that stuff. Different personalities and all that eh !
I agree it can be really hard to take and hurt a lot but I think over time we all get hardened to it or leave. It's certainly not worth getting upset about although that is easy to say and hard to carry out..
These days I have conditioned myself and I don't take anything personally, makes life much easier. :)
-
Yes but we are all human and have feelings, some cope better than others.
I've had an unpleasant experience of being called a liar etc and it's blooming difficult to ignore all that stuff. Different personalities and all that eh !
Notsure, believe me, you'll develop a thicker skin when you've been here for a while. If you don't, you may seriously need to consider your options. When I first joined, I was threatened by a poster, to the point of fearing my qualifications would be revoked. I've since seen that person do exactly the same to others. When all else fails, doubt is cast on posters' integrity. People here can tell you anything because we're all hiding behind a screen. The more devoted posters are to their cause, the more likely are they to lie through their teeth about their own connection to it. It becomes a game of point scoring. There are multitudes of personalities and agendas here. None of us knows you, personally. Don't take as personal any attack on you. We've ALL experienced them. The problem is theirs, NOT yours.
-
Notsure, believe me, you'll develop a thicker skin when you've been here for a while. If you don't, you may seriously need to consider your options. When I first joined, I was threatened by a poster, to the point of fearing my qualifications would be revoked. I've since seen that person do exactly the same to others. When all else fails, doubt is cast on posters' integrity. People here can tell you anything because we're all hiding behind a screen. The more devoted posters are to their cause, the more likely are they to lie through their teeth about their own connection to it. It becomes a game of point scoring. There are multitudes of personalities and agendas here. None of us knows you, personally. Don't take as personal any attack on you. We've ALL experienced them. The problem is theirs, NOT yours.
Well said Jane.
A certain someone threatened me with the police the first week I was on here. He continued to send threatening posts all through the night, I was terrified and didn't sleep a wink but of course it was rubbish.
He's not on here anymore. ;D
-
There are a few individuals who have been on a lengthy and ulterior campaign to manipulate the forum towards guilt. Their reasons for why I do not know. But it has been obvious to myself and a few others for along time now. The forum is finally starting to catch up.
This 'frenzy' and 'strange atmosphere' are all manifestations of their campaign falling apart and losing their malevolent grip on the forum.
I completely agree David
-
haven't we completely missed the point though here Jane and maggie. There is no excuse not one single excuse that should allow the police to frame anyone. Not one single person. To say that any irish man would do makes it even worse doesn't it.
This isn't made up as fact Jane it is fact, police framed the Birmingham six and Guildford 4 , that was just awful.
The police didn't frame anyone in the Bamber case.
They didn't even change stance.
They just spent a month processing the wealth of forensic & circumstantial evidence and waited for witnesses to come forward. They also interviewed Bamber & other people.
Then after only a month, charged Bamber. He's still in prison.
Only the media ran with the Sheila being guilty story. And Taff Jones.
Thread already created.
-
Yes but we are all human and have feelings, some cope better than others.
I've had an unpleasant experience of being called a liar etc and it's blooming difficult to ignore all that stuff. Different personalities and all that eh !
Notsure you are a very good poster, please don't take things personal, your contribution is very good, look its a computer you can easy switch off whenever you want or you can block whoever you want, Maggie does such a great job she will edit remove unwanted posts. How can anyone attack your person when they don't know you? It always has been argumentive on here, I have been here since 2010, the ones that survive are thick skinned like Maggie said. Trust me Notsure there has been plenty of abuse aimed at people who think he is guilty, nasty vicious words have been said over the years, but you either take it personal or you think xxxxxxxx
-
The police didn't frame anyone in the Bamber case.
They didn't even change stance.
Wrong.
They just spent a month processing the wealth of forensic & circumstantial evidence
Indeed. And who did it implicate? ::)
-
Wrong.
Indeed. And who did it implicate? ::)
None of the forensic evidence implicated Sheila. Which is why Bamber is in prison.
-
Yes but we are all human and have feelings, some cope better than others.
I've had an unpleasant experience of being called a liar etc and it's blooming difficult to ignore all that stuff. Different personalities and all that eh !
Then perhaps forums aren't for all of us? I came here to debate he case and didn't expect the amount of personal crap that would be hurled at me over the years. I came to a point where I just didn't care any more and if someone was personal to me, then I was personal back. I have helped Lookout quite a few times on this forum and even tried to make sure she didn't get scammed off the forum. I have never received the same respect in return but I'd never lose sleep over it. I'm simply a person with an opinion - no more no less and I don't expect anyone to make allowances for me, by the same token, I make none for anyone else.
-
Notsure you are a very good poster, please don't take things personal, your contribution is very good, look its a computer you can easy switch off whenever you want or you can block whoever you want, Maggie does such a great job she will edit remove unwanted posts. How can anyone attack your person when they don't know you? It always has been argumentive on here, I have been here since 2010, the ones that survive are thick skinned like Maggie said. Trust me Notsure there has been plenty of abuse aimed at people who think he is guilty, nasty vicious words have been said over the years, but you either take it personal or you think xxxxxxxx
thanks you guys, just recovering from an operation so probably feeling a bit sorry for myself lol.
-
thanks you guys, just recovering from an operation so probably feeling a bit sorry for myself lol.
Ha Ha that's better Notsure.
heres a song for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7RPCFfudmU
It's my favourite when I feel a little down
-
thanks you guys, just recovering from an operation so probably feeling a bit sorry for myself lol.
Am sure you'll be back to yourself in no time, convalescing on the Bamber forum is a good healer!
-
Maggie
You must have seen it a million times on TV
How good for a policeman to 'solve' one of the biggest murder/suicides in Essex ever
That's a good starting point along with massive pressure from the family in regards the family jackpot
I know Jeremy and he is plain stupid. He would be one of the easiest people to stitch up
He is not clever and certainly not cunning and definately not streetwise
I've told you before Jackie, people like Bamber mirror people ::) that's why there are so many different descriptions about him.
-
Notsure dishes out as much as he/she takes.
The most abusive posters since I've been here have been xxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx
-
I'm hoping lookout will come back. I like her and miss her posting.i don't think I will have the stamina that she had in posting or debating against the guilters. Oh well
It
Looks like it's going to b very one sided now.
;D
Of course Lookout will be back. In about a day. You can't go from spending all you're awake time on here, to suddenly none at all.
Again Lookout dishes out as much as she receives.
-
Ha Ha that's better Notsure.
heres a song for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7RPCFfudmU
It's my favourite when I feel a little down
oh justice that is one of my favourites too..... Thanks xx
-
Notsure dishes out as much as he/she takes.
The most abusive posters since I've been here have been xxxxxxxx, xxxxxx & xxxxxxx
[/quote,
yeah well adam you are a pain at times !,,, only joking. and I only ever retaliate when someone is being a bully or being downright nasty. Most seem to be able to hold there own but it really shouldn't be like that should it.
lookouts bark was definately worse than her bite and those that can't see that are a pretty bad judge of her character imo.
-
Notsure dishes out as much as he/she takes.
The most abusive posters since I've been here have been xxxxxxxx, xxxx x & xxxxxxx.
yeah well adam you are a pain at times !,,, only joking. and I only ever retaliate when someone is being a bully or being downright nasty. Most seem to be able to hold there own but it really shouldn't be like that should it
lookouts bark was definately worse than her bite and those that can't see that are a pretty bad judge of her character imo. .
Only just seen the above post because you quoted it Notsure. How amusing and interesting that someone can hold a grudge for so long. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I certainly know that Lookout's bark is worse than her bite but if people are criticised for being prickly at times, I don't see why Lookout should be exempt from such criticisms where necessary?
-
Only just seen the above post because you quoted it Notsure. How amusing and interesting that someone can hold a grudge for so long. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I certainly know that Lookout's bark is worse than her bite but if people are criticised for being prickly at times, I don't see why Lookout should be exempt from such criticisms where necessary?
It seems that both sides have their children. Perhaps they should play with each other. It may encourage them to play nicely.
-
It seems that both sides have their children. Perhaps they should play with each other. It may encourage them to play nicely.
I agree, I'm certainly not below being personal at times but it's usually a response to a goad. No one is perfect!
-
Only just seen the above post because you quoted it Notsure. How amusing and interesting that someone can hold a grudge for so long. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I certainly know that Lookout's bark is worse than her bite but if people are criticised for being prickly at times, I don't see why Lookout should be exempt from such criticisms where necessary?
haha I know it tickled me too, hey Ho
I agree with your second paragraph too but she was a loan wolf sometimes and it was a bit of a bom ardent which why her retaliation were some what prickly at times.
anyway let's hope she returns 22??????
-
haha I know it tickled me too, hey Ho
I agree with your second paragraph too but she was a loan wolf sometimes and it was a bit of a bom ardent which why her retaliation were some what prickly at times.
anyway let's hope she returns 22??????
She's the only one who's keeping her away, Notsure.
-
I've told you before Jackie, people like Bamber mirror people ::) that's why there are so many different descriptions about him.
You are the last person I would go to advice on Jeremy
-
haha I know it tickled me too, hey Ho
I agree with your second paragraph too but she was a loan wolf sometimes and it was a bit of a bom ardent which why her retaliation were some what prickly at times.
anyway let's hope she returns 22??????
I suspect Lookout would like the accolade of 'lone wolf' but there are times when the prickliness wasn't/isn't warranted. We're on different sides so we see Jeremy differently.
-
oh justice that is one of my favourites too..... Thanks xx
Listen to Lady Gaga sing it Notsure.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cAJPS_IC-A0
-
Listen to Lady Gaga sing it Notsure.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cAJPS_IC-A0
she is amazing but I prefer the original?....... her glasses put me off lol.
I like cat Stevens, dire straights, rod Stewart do we have the same taste in music?
-
she is amazing but I prefer the original?....... her glasses put me off lol.
I like cat Stevens, dire straights, rod Stewart do we have the same taste in music?
Cat Stevens is my all time favourite, got all his tracks.
-
Cat Stevens is my all time favourite, got all his tracks.
Justice/notsure
Rod Stewart is my all time favourite X
-
I don't need to explain to you or anyone else why my beliefs changed except to say, gradually the arguments for innocence stopped sounding convincing to me.
Why hasn't Det Supt Kenneally's review of the case been disclosed?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2158.0;attach=30609;image)
-
Why hasn't Det Supt Kenneally's review of the case been disclosed?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2158.0;attach=30609;image)
Well, according to the CT it hasn't but that doesn't mean it hasn't. Also this was written BEFORE Julie came forward and Bambers arrest and subsequent interrogation etc. He also liaised with Taff Jones to write it so couldn't help be be influenced.
-
At that meeting, Kenneally presented his conclusion(s) in the presence of the Chief Constable and ACC Simpson, and he said the evidence indicated that Sheila was responsible. Clearly, his review wasn't made available to the defence prior to the trial. Even the fact of his involvement didn't seem to be known until much later. It's hardly likely that the review was limited to just saying "DCI Jones told me that Sheila did it", as DCI Jones had just been removed and replaced with Det. Supt Ainsley.
-
At that meeting, Kenneally presented his conclusion(s) in the presence of the Chief Constable and ACC Simpson, and he said the evidence indicated that Sheila was responsible. Clearly, his review wasn't made available to the defence prior to the trial. Even the fact of his involvement didn't seem to be known until much later. It's hardly likely that the review was limited to just saying "DCI Jones told me that Sheila did it", as DCI Jones had just been removed and replaced with Det. Supt Ainsley.
It's hardly groundbreaking news though. As Peter Vanezis said: "Jeremy must have been a nutter to do this.."
-
At that meeting, Kenneally presented his conclusion(s) in the presence of the Chief Constable and ACC Simpson, and he said the evidence indicated that Sheila was responsible. Clearly, his review wasn't made available to the defence prior to the trial. Even the fact of his involvement didn't seem to be known until much later. It's hardly likely that the review was limited to just saying "DCI Jones told me that Sheila did it", as DCI Jones had just been removed and replaced with Det. Supt Ainsley.
They went through statements and some of the forensic evidence. Obviously NOT any evidence looked at after Jeremy was arrested nor Julie's input.
-
Maggie I know the two shots to Sheila has been the hardest thing for you to accept and is perhaps the strongest reason why you think JB Guilty. As you have said everyone should be allowed to their own beliefs without being attacked I must add David does post some great stuff and Roch does too and all makes me think have I got it right then Hartley comes on and makes me think yes.
Sorry about that. :-[
-
Why hasn't Det Supt Kenneally's review of the case been disclosed?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2158.0;attach=30609;image)
Surely it has, you posted it didn't you?
Presumably you've decided that his 'review' took the form of some sort of written report? Why does that have to be the case?
It seems quite clear that he reviewed the case and then participated in a meeting where he voiced his conclusions.
-
Well that's agreed then. The case was properly reviewed by a senior officer and Sheila was found to be responsible. Jeremy's conviction should be promptly returned to the appeal court and overturned.
-
Surely it has, you posted it didn't you?
Presumably you've decided that his 'review' took the form of some sort of written report? Why does that have to be the case?
It seems quite clear that he reviewed the case and then participated in a meeting where he voiced his conclusions.
Taff Jones clearly had some influence of his finding as he worked with him on the review.
-
Well that's agreed then. The case was properly reviewed by a senior officer and Sheila was found to be responsible. Jeremy's conviction should be promptly returned to the appeal court and overturned.
Agreed with who?
-
I was replying to Hartley.
-
I was replying to Hartley.
Well H would certainly not agree with that statement ;D
-
Well that's agreed then. The case was properly reviewed by a senior officer and Sheila was found to be responsible. Jeremy's conviction should be promptly returned to the appeal court and overturned.
I don't agree with that.
-
All joking aside, it's well known that at certain stages of the investigation, Sheila was thought to have been responsible for the murders.
It is also well known that the investigation progressed further and concluded that it was actually JB who carried out the murders.
I don't believe the referencing of earlier held opinions, undermines the latter findings.
-
Sheila was reported dead in the kitchen alongside or in close proximity to the body of Neville Bamber from 7.37am, onward. However, her body was displaced from the kitchen downstairs, to the main bedroom upstairs by 8.44am! The occupants of CA07 relayed this information from the scene at the farmhouse, back to the control room in Chelmsford! This being true, Jeremy Bamber could not have had anything whatsoever to do with his sister's death on the bedroom floor, in possession of the only rifle found upstairs which at around 7.15am was seen by at least two police officers to be resting against a first floor window! How that rifle had made the transition from first floor window onto the body of Sheila Caffell by 10am, still remains a mystery despite there already having been over three decades having elapsed in the meantime!!!
-
The occupants of CA07 are at the very heart of this miscarriage of justice!
-
It would certainly be interesting to see the log that Pc Saxby says he made.
-
It would certainly be interesting to see the log that Pc Saxby says he made.
Or not.
-
I don't believe the referencing of earlier held opinions, undermines the latter findings.
So you think that Kenneally didn't believe JM and conducted such a shallow review that he never compiled a written report?
-
So you think that Kenneally didn't believe JM and conducted such a shallow review that he never compiled a written report?
If Mr Kenneally wrote a report that proved Sheila guilty - where is he? If his report is so damming - why hasn't he come forward? Or is thing another one told to keep quiet?
-
If Mr Kenneally wrote a report that proved Sheila guilty - where is he? If his report is so damming - why hasn't he come forward? Or is thing another one told to keep quiet?
How many police officers do we see or hear of coming forward in controversial cases such as suspected MOJ's? It's obviously 'not the done thing' within the UK policing fraternity.
-
So you think that Kenneally didn't believe JM and conducted such a shallow review that he never compiled a written report?
What was the date of the review?
-
What was the date of the review?
Prior to Jeremy's arrest.
-
Prior to Jeremy's arrest.
So probably prior to JM coming forward?
-
So probably prior to JM coming forward?
He presented his findings on 6th September, later that day, Julie came forward.
-
He presented his findings on 6th September, later that day, Julie came forward.
So rather than dismissing JM's input (as suggested by R), he didn't actually have the opportunity to consider it?
So it's probably a bit daft to give it much weight, either way, isn't it?
-
So rather than dismissing JM's input (as suggested by R), he didn't actually have the opportunity to consider it?
So it's probably a bit daft to give it much weight, either way, isn't it?
I would certainly say s. Another one bites the dust? ;)
-
So rather than dismissing JM's input (as suggested by R), he didn't actually have the opportunity to consider it?
So it's probably a bit daft to give it much weight, either way, isn't it?
He didn't miss anything important 8)
-
I would certainly say s. Another one bites the dust? ;)
So sensational. :-\
-
He presented his findings on 6th September, later that day, Julie came forward.
Is this right then...
On the very same day that Jeremy's Uncle Bobby has his meeting with ACC Peter Simpson; DCS Jim Kenneally presented his findings to DCS Ainsley, ACC Simpson and his boss CC Bunyard; and Julie also came forward with evidence (that tied in with information from the relatives and press but not the crime scene)?
-
Is this right then...
On the very same day that Jeremy's Uncle Bobby has his meeting with ACC Peter Simpson; DCS Jim Kenneally presented his findings to DCS Ainsley, ACC Simpson and his boss CC Bunyard; and Julie also came forward with evidence (that tied in with information from the relatives and press but not the crime scene)?
Bam, bam Baaaaaaa! ;D Yes Roch, on that very same day!
-
Bam, bam Baaaaaaa! ;D Yes Roch, on that very same day!
:))
Seems to be a pivotal 24 hours that mind? Can I tell you what I think? :))
-
:))
Seems to be a pivotal 24 hours that mind? Can I tell you what I think? :))
Of course but I think I can guess ;) ;D
-
with regards to the title of this topic,(who sowed the seeds) good question iam not sure if it was neville,jb,or a farmhand ,i guess whoever was driving the tractor at the time of seed sowing :)
-
with regards to the title of this topic,(who sowed the seeds) good question iam not sure if it was neville,jb,or a farmhand ,i guess whoever was driving the tractor at the time of seed sowing :)
😂😂😂🙈🙈