Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on May 07, 2011, 08:29:PM
-
Private Communications, between "David Shaw" and "Mike Tesko" (2006)
-
why did the situation have to change once jm came forward?
the police sent the family packing on several occasions, why didnt they just do the same with jm?
-
why did the situation have to change once jm came forward?
the police sent the family packing on several occasions, why didnt they just do the same with jm?
MAYBE pressure from the family. Don,t know though.
-
well, yes i was thinking that myself...so if thats the case then carr had already made the family privy to information they shouldnt have been, and on finding out the jb had dumped jm they could have "had a little word" with julie.
-
well, yes i was thinking that myself...so if thats the case then carr had already made the family privy to information they shouldnt have been, and on finding out the jb had dumped jm they could have "had a little word" with julie.
Andrea that is why I posted the new thread about Hard Evidence, Basically there is none IMO
-
i agree, there isnt, but a lot of evidence that may have proved innocence has been destroyed, edited or with held.
-
Mike, I read every word of your private communication
with David Shaw.
Whoever he is, what an articulate and straight to the point man
he is!
Thank you for posting it.
Did his book ever get completed?
Any chance of publication?
Facinating.
-
Wow. Thats pretty damning. I just don't understand why EP would rather go down the route of framing an innocent man than saying, yeah we screwed up and unfortunatley Sheila died. After all, its not unthinkable for something like that to occur in a firearm incident. Yes, they'd have been in the shit but it would have passed. If it does come to pass that Jeremy is freed and EP are shown to be corrupt beyond belief, how much damage will that do??
-
i agree, there isnt, but a lot of evidence that may have proved innocence has been destroyed, edited or with held.
Trouble is Andrea most of the world think JB is guilty. He who laughs last ect.
-
Wow. Thats pretty damning. I just don't understand why EP would rather go down the route of framing an innocent man than saying, yeah we screwed up and unfortunatley Sheila died. After all, its not unthinkable for something like that to occur in a firearm incident. Yes, they'd have been in the shit but it would have passed. If it does come to pass that Jeremy is freed and EP are shown to be corrupt beyond belief, how much damage will that do??
yes it would have been easier considering how things have turned out, for EP just to admit the mistakes they made, than to start digging their way out of trouble because in doing that they have dug to deep a hole.
if the truth ever comes out (the whole truth) look at the shit they will be in, they will regret deeply the decisions they made in the early days. thats if david shaw is to be believed. but i see no reason to disbelieve him personally.
-
But who the f*** is David Shaw ... and how did he come to know the case so deeply? Why is it, that David Shaw, in particular, has come across this info? And who has spilled their guts? I know these questions wont be answered on here... but they should be asked.
-
David Shaw said that Sheila left a gun leaning against the window after she shot June. Was that the Anschutz rifle? He also said that she went downstairs to wait for Jeremy. Which gun did she plan to kill him with?
He goes on to say that Sheila shot herself with the Anschutz in the kitchen. If that's the gun she left upstairs, why did she go and get it again instead of using a different one?
-
David Shaw said that Sheila left a gun leaning against the window after she shot June. Was that the Anschutz rifle? He also said that she went downstairs to wait for Jeremy. Which gun did she plan to kill him with?
He goes on to say that Sheila shot herself with the Anschutz in the kitchen. If that's the gun she left upstairs, why did she go and get it again instead of using a different one?
-----------------
The gun bit has always puzzled me, I think what this matter may turn on, is which rifle was seen at the bedroom window by Julia Jeapes at about 7:15am, that morning, and which rifle was photographed by PC Bird (SOC) at the bedroom window? It is also a bit confusing as to why the non fatal bullet is referred to by the exhibit reference, PV/20 and the fatal bullet by PV/19, its as though the pathologist may have some idea that Sheila was shot twice in quick succession whilst in the bedroom, where the second non fatal shot had gone off accidentally, once the fatal shot had been fired?
I have other communications with David Shaw that I may consider posting out of interest...
-
So Mike, have these communications been forwarded to JB's legal team?
-
So Mike, have these communications been forwarded to JB's legal team?
------------
No...
-
mike could you repsot fiona wilkinsons statment again please?
-
Theory or factual...it makes for an interesting read.
For those who believe in Jeremy's innocence, David Shaw's manuscript seems to offer as much of a template as anything else around...at least from all the stuff I've read through.
The manuscript might have been too much of a legal problem for any publisher.
Did David Shaw ( or whoever his aka may be ) get this from EP crime scene officers I wonder?
Was David Shaw a crime scene officer himself even?
Maybe this is a fiction based account for possible financial gain?
-
Theory or factual...it makes for an interesting read.
For those who believe in Jeremy's innocence, David Shaw's manuscript seems to offer as much of a template as anything else around...at least from all the stuff I've read through.
The manuscript might have been too much of a legal problem for any publisher.
Did David Shaw ( or whoever his aka may be ) get this from EP crime scene officers I wonder?
Was David Shaw a crime scene officer himself even?
Maybe this is a fiction based account for possible financial gain?
I've really wondered about this ever since this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,319.msg3851.html#msg3851
If he is indeed a real person, how could he know such things, i.e. receive clarification on certain specific points? It's a puzzler alright. Perhaps someone couldn't carry the guilt and had to talk?
-
A Further communication with David Shaw:-
Re: An Innocent Man VIII
Add to Contacts
To: michael teskowski <[email protected]>
Cc: michael teskowski <[email protected]>
Dear Mike,
Thanks very much for the recent messages and efforts made on behalf of the manuscript. I'm happy for you to share any of our communications with people you trust and who support Jeremy finding the justice he deserves. As I have said to you throughout our correspondence Mike, those closest to his cause - including yourself and Jeremy - will have full access to this manuscript before any publication takes place. I intend to wake up the sleeping British populace good and proper, and any views, criticisms, suggestions or questions you have regarding the manuscript or strategy I have devised will be dealt with at the appropriate time. I assure you that I won't duck or weave any questions at that point. You have my word, and you now have it in writing, that I will not proceed to publication until the Jeremy Bamber 'inner circle' has sanctioned the manuscript. All of this, of course, depends upon finding the right publisher with the right motivation and faith in the project to ensure the book succeeds and achieves its set purpose.
I will shortly make contact with Shelley Power and gauge her professional opinion on the work my team has compiled. I will keep you abreast of developments every step of the way, but I know from experience that these matters can drag on for long periods of time; patience and faith is required. Lee was kind enough to offer her email address and to also put forward the offer for me to contact Jeremy directly; I don't need to do that until we know Shelley is interested in undertaking the role of agent etc. and then we will speak in greater detail. I am more than happy to keep you as the link man.
Thanks again & best regards,
David Shaw
-
Another communication with David Shaw:-
An Innocent Man (XIX)
To: michael teskowski <[email protected]>
Cc: michael teskowski <[email protected]>
Dear Mike,
Thanks very much for the offer to run questions past Jeremy. I’m not sure that system will work though Mike, as I was hoping for reasonably detailed answers, but I will send through the questions to you anyhow (you may look at them and think the task is too awkward under the circumstances/visiting rules. Just let me know either way.) I think that it would take several lengthy meetings to cover the ground required! You may have covered many of the questions yourself over the years and can pencil in answers and then get Jeremy to simply confirm or add detail?
As Lee told me she was quite constantly seeing/talking with Jeremy, and as she had read the pilot draft at least twice, I thought she would be well-positioned to go through each question in depth, but it hasn’t happened. As I explained to Lee, what I was hoping for was to let Jeremy’s ‘voice’ reach out to the reader at certain key parts; I wanted to then place that material into an updated draft before coming to the U.K and laying some cards on the table. The Lee/Shelley alliance, I must admit, has struck me as a little odd in many ways. Anyhow, I have edited the below list of questions and left them under their relevant chapter headings for reasons of simplicity.
At the moment Mike I’m quite flat out, but I’m working to a schedule that over the next twelve months or so should see the work-load diminish significantly to the point where I can take a lot more interest in writing/investigating material free of time/financial commitments; while I can’t actively help you on the U.S case you mentioned in your email, I am certainly interested in any details/information you have or are willing to send down the line, and am happy to give any thoughts, opinions I have on it. Sounds very intriguing.
(Questions for JB)
CHAPTER ONE: Genesis
(i) Does Jeremy have any personal recollection of the night/morning in question (August 6/7 1985) that could help readers to see the incident from his viewpoint?
a/ For example, how he felt driving to the scene, his thoughts?
b/ The attitude of the officers upon his arrival and the hours before the raid team entered the house?
(ii) What did Jeremy – at the time – believe had happened inside the farmhouse?
(iii) Looking back after all these years, what is Jeremy’s most potent memory of that tragic morning?
CHAPTER TWO: You Can Never Tell
(i) Prior to the murders, Jeremy appeared to have settled down somewhat to life at WHF; is there any personal memory to show a growing bond between Jeremy and Nevill, which counters the public perception he had no interest in his family/farm?
(ii) Did Jeremy notice any change (fear/worry) come over Nevill in the days/weeks preceding the murders, or the source of such troubles? Were there any signs of trouble/tension between Bambers and other members of the family clan (Boutflours, Eatons) leading up to the murders?
(iii) I know efforts were made to keep the facts surrounding June & Sheila’s mental illnesses private, but were they ever discussed? Did Sheila ever share anything with Jeremy regarding her situation? In the lead up to the killings, did Sheila, June or Nevill ever share with Jeremy any concerns about themselves or other family members?
(iv) Can Jeremy recall the final words he said to any of his family members?
CHAPTER THREE: Scene of the Crime
(i) Jeremy has been portrayed as extremely cold in his reactions to the massacre. Can he give one or two inner thoughts/reactions to the whole experience; the waiting for news, the revelation that his family was dead, the words and actions of police officers around him, to dispel this notion?
(ii) Can Jeremy give any (brief) recollection/description of the key characters involved in that morning’s dramatic events (when he first encountered them), eg: how they approached Jeremy, spoke with him, first impressions:
Stan Jones:
Mick Clark:
Tom Jones:
Dr Craig:
DI Miller:
(Mick Ainsley – even though he didn’t become involved until much later)
CHAPTER FOUR: Adherence to a Paradigm
(i) Stan Jones was pivotal to the falsified case against Jeremy.
When did it filter into Jeremy’s mind that Stan believed he was involved in the WHF murders?
How did Jeremy react to this? Were there any testy/memorable early clashes between Jeremy and Stan behind the scenes? At the time, and looking back, does Jeremy have any view on why Stan went to such extremes: was it because Stan genuinely thought he was guilty? That Stan felt extreme dislike for Jeremy? That Stan also had an ulterior motive for crossing so many lines?
(ii) Again, any personal recollection of the first few days following the massacre which argues against the public perception that Jeremy was ultra-cold and detached from the tragedy?
(iii) Jeremy later made the comment that Essex police at this time were like ‘open books’ when it came to discussing what had occurred inside WHF, supporting the view that the crime was nothing more than a murder-suicide pact. Can he give any specific examples of this?
CHAPTER FIVE: Happy Families
(i)The MS is clear regarding the dissent between Jeremy and the extended family. Was Jeremy aware at the time (at what stage?) that the family believed he was responsible for the killings? How, in this awkward situation, were relations between the key parties? Did anyone openly accuse him of the murders?
(ii) Was Jeremy aware of the family attempts to stitch him for the crime? Was he aware, for instance, of the family communications with Essex police, and their trips to the station?
(iii) Did Jeremy, after the tragedy, share with his family members, or Julie, what he intended to do with his inheritance, the farm, land, assets?
CHAPTER SIX: Hell Hath No Fury
(i) Can Jeremy highlight any personal occasions, conversations, in the four-five week period between the murders and Julie’s denouement to the police where Julie’s actions indicated a woman who wasn’t hiding guilty secrets, who felt no guilt, and had no fear of Evil Jeremy, etc?
(These can be acts of buying gifts, any witnessed words/acts that contradict her later allegations of being scared and confused in his company; anything to discredit Julie’s testimony and to support the manuscript’s claim she is nothing more than a bare-faced liar.) Any examples of Julie’s unbalanced state of mind/emotions prior to her accusations to Essex police?
(ii) Does Jeremy have any explanation for what Julie did, other than scorned love? Does he perceive active ‘encouragement’ from the police, other family members?
(iii) I presume no contact has been made between Jeremy and Julie in the last two decades?
CHAPTER SEVEN: Face-to-Face
(i) Can Jeremy recall his reaction to the moment police knocked on the door to arrest him on suspicion of murdering his entire family? What was he feeling and thinking at the time?
(ii) Was there any interaction between Jeremy and officers present, either at the flat or on the journey to the nick? For instance, did Jeremy protest his innocence or ask the police any pertinent questions?
(iii) What are the key memories of the days Jeremy spent under interrogation?
(iv) Does Jeremy have any comments to make on the way Stan Jones, Mick Clark, and other officers conducted themselves?
CHAPTER EIGHT: Between Two Evils
(i) Can Jeremy give any examples of being harassed by the Press, any offers or extremes the Press went to in order to sensationalise the situation/profit from Jeremy’s predicament?
(ii) The ms suggests that in the 12-18 months or so preceding the murders, Jeremy settled down at the farm and was playing a more responsible role in the family business/operations. Can I ask what Jeremy was thinking/planning at that point in time regarding his own life; did he envisage a future at WHF or in some other direction, was he living ‘day-by-day’?
(iii) It was observed that while Jeremy settled down, Sheila was anything but settled. Did Jeremy notice any change come over his sister in the months leading up to the killings; did he overhear June or Nevill, or anyone else, discussing Sheila’s state of mind/health?
CHAPTER NINE: Preparing the Defence
(i) The Press did a good job of painting a detached, cold Jeremy pre-post trial. Does Jeremy have any anecdotes re: remand, preparing to go on trial for his life for a crime he didn’t commit? (Any recollections of fear, anxiety, day-to-day turmoil, etc, that can put the reader in the shoes of a guy hauled out of the river of ordinary life and put in such a terrible situation?)
(ii) My opinion is that, despite the non-disclosure & police tactics, Jeremy’s original defence team was weak and too trusting of surface truths. I believe Jeremy wanted a full-frontal assault on the Crown case. Can Jeremy recall any specific conversation with Terzeon/Rivlin prior to trial, during trial, when he urged for a more concerted push against the police evidence?
(iii) Can Jeremy recall Tom Jones death, if it meant anything to him at the time, and any subsequent inquiry the defence wanted to pursue regarding the old DCI’s ‘accident’?
CHAPTER TEN, ELEVEN, TWELVE: Trial, Trial Continued, Verdict
(i) Any personal recollections of entire trial that could help Jeremy’s cause would be appreciated. It’s important that people be given the chance to see/feel the reality of what Jeremy was put through, rather than always hearing the other/official side of the story. Eg: had he coached his mind to display no emotion during the trial? To not contest Julie’s lies? To match stares with the relatives who had betrayed him?
(ii) I believe the trial started well for the defence. Was that Jeremy’s impression? Did Jeremy’s defence team convey that feeling to him?
(iii) Can Jeremy explain how he was feeling while listening to Julie’s outrageous testimony?
(iv) What was the key moment/turning point in the trial in Jeremy’s opinion? The blood-silencer evidence? How confident was Jeremy prior to the summing up by Justice Drake that he would be found not-guilty? And after the summing up? Did Jeremy comprehend the full implications of the judge’s biased and misleading summing up at the time?
(v) Any personal recollections of being on the stand, confronted by Anthony Arlidge QC?
(vi) Can Jeremy recollect the moment the jury returned to court and gave its verdict, and how he felt on hearing that verdict?
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: A Tale of Two Guns
(i) Can Jeremy confirm or refute that Anthony Pargeter regularly removed his bolt and took it home with him, as claimed? Was Jeremy ever asked this question by police?
(ii) When was Jeremy first aware that a silencer had been removed from the gun cupboard? Or that a silencer was suspected of being used in the murders?
CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Among the Damned
(i) Can Jeremy pass any comment on:
a) being taken to prison
b) that first night in prison
c) the battle inside his own mind to come to terms with the wrongs perpetrated against him
(ii) Can I ask for a brief recounting of two or three of the scariest/lowest/most haunting moments Jeremy has faced behind bars?
CHAPTER FIFTEEN: Secrets of the Files
(i) Has Jeremy ever reconstructed – in his own mind - how the murders themselves took place? How Sheila committed the murders, controlled Nevill, order of killings etc.
(ii) Also, the distress phone call by Nevill. Does Jeremy believe this took place before the killings began, during the killings, or under gun-point duress?
(iii) (Mike, I’m sure this one is a wild goose). I’ve been told that no telephone records existed at all for the phones at WHF during August 1985. However, I’ve heard that records did exist covering the period May, June and July 1985 and that individual telephone numbers dialled from WHF at that time were recorded. If records existed of course, they would have established whether someone had indeed called Jeremy’s phone number from WHF at 3 a.m. August 7 1985. Do you have any knowledge of this matter?
(iv) Do you know how thorough the toxicology tests conducted on Sheila Caffell in fact were? My understanding is that blood and urine tests were performed; obviously no type of sleeping draught or sedative was present, but was the Essex scanning procedure so lackadaisical to render the screening tests for all intents and purposes meaningless?
CHAPTER SIXTEEN: Thou Shalt Follow Me
(i) Does Jeremy have any recollection of the last time he saw the bible that was adjacent to Sheila’s body? Any memory of Sheila studying Bible, making notes, in the last days she spent at WHF? When did he first learn of the Bible’s relevance to the crime?
(ii) Mike, does photographic evidence exist that Sheila’s feet were bloodied – and not perfectly clean as the prosecution claimed?
(iii)When did it become apparent to yourself/Jeremy that Essex police may have toyed (stage-managed) aspects of the various crime scenes?
(iv) Mike, SOCO leader Ron Cook made a WS dated 21 March 1986: ‘On 25th September 1985, the bible (DRH/44) was received at the fingerprint department, police headquarters, Chelmsford. It was subsequently subjected to chemical fingerprint treatment resulting in the development of a large number of impressions…’ Yet I’m led to believe that document 64/349 which accounted for all of DI Cook's fingerprint tests on items found at WHF shows that the bible was never submitted for fingerprint analysis or forensic examination? Do you have any clarification on this matter?
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: In the Blood
No questions
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: 7436 Days
(i) At this point, how does Jeremy perceive the CCRC/Appeal travelling.
(ii) If the current CCRC review/appeal is successful, what life does Jeremy want to lead? Does he allow himself to look that far ahead? (I presume WHF and working the land would not be on the agenda?) I have to ask, if this attempt at freedom fails, how will Jeremy handle it?
(iii) Mike, could you provide me with a brief/basic rundown of the daily routine of Jeremy’s current life?
(iv) Has Jeremy or yourself kept a track of any of the key characters in the case, or attempted to make contact with them? (Eg, Drake, Robert & Pamela Boutflour, Stan Jones, DI Miller, or any other point of interest regarding the key protagonists.)
(v) Mike, just checking I am right in thinking the ‘whole life tariff’ no longer applies in Jeremy’s case, that this was changed some years ago? If so, what do you/Jeremy think is the likely parole situation presuming the worst case scenario comes about & all attempts to help free Jeremy fail?
(iv) Mike, do you know what the legal/financial repercussions would be if Jeremy’s appeal was successful, re: the inheritance that was taken by the relatives, the massive loss of income, etc. How would this be reconciled? (Clearly it’s not Jeremy’s prime concern, but it may be the family’s.)
(v) I understand the polygraph tests is off the cards? How would Jeremy feel about a brain-fingerprinting test?
CHAPTER NINETEEN: Truth Will Out
(i) Mike, has it been established when the key pics showing ‘fresh blood’ seen on Sheila were taken? The recent Press reports indicate a time well in advance of the time SOCO arrived at the scene and started to take pictures – I presume that is a research error. I believe the pics were taken by PC Bird within half-hour either side of 10.30 a.m.?
(There’s also a rumour, I assume patently false, that a journalist/independent photographer was used in the early stages of the police scouring of the scene, and that the police first arrived without the necessary photographic equipment?)
* Any message or last word Jeremy has to make, any point he would like inserted in the final product?
*******
I know this is a large amount of work Mike, so like I said, if it’s too awkward, just let me know. There’s no time pressure involved. There were one or two pics I was desperately hoping to see – but I don’t know if you have access to them; they regard the discrepancy between victims re: rigor, lividity, hypostasis. Any crime scene/autopsy pics supporting the case of the victims dying at different times would be very useful.
Much Appreciated,
Best Regards,
David
-
Another communication with David Shaw:-
An Innocent Man (XIX)
To: michael teskowski <[email protected]>
Cc: michael teskowski <[email protected]>
Dear Mike,
Thanks very much for the offer to run questions past Jeremy. I’m not sure that system will work though Mike, as I was hoping for reasonably detailed answers, but I will send through the questions to you anyhow (you may look at them and think the task is too awkward under the circumstances/visiting rules. Just let me know either way.) I think that it would take several lengthy meetings to cover the ground required! You may have covered many of the questions yourself over the years and can pencil in answers and then get Jeremy to simply confirm or add detail?
As Lee told me she was quite constantly seeing/talking with Jeremy, and as she had read the pilot draft at least twice, I thought she would be well-positioned to go through each question in depth, but it hasn’t happened. As I explained to Lee, what I was hoping for was to let Jeremy’s ‘voice’ reach out to the reader at certain key parts; I wanted to then place that material into an updated draft before coming to the U.K and laying some cards on the table. The Lee/Shelley alliance, I must admit, has struck me as a little odd in many ways. Anyhow, I have edited the below list of questions and left them under their relevant chapter headings for reasons of simplicity.
At the moment Mike I’m quite flat out, but I’m working to a schedule that over the next twelve months or so should see the work-load diminish significantly to the point where I can take a lot more interest in writing/investigating material free of time/financial commitments; while I can’t actively help you on the U.S case you mentioned in your email, I am certainly interested in any details/information you have or are willing to send down the line, and am happy to give any thoughts, opinions I have on it. Sounds very intriguing.
(Questions for JB)
CHAPTER ONE: Genesis
(i) Does Jeremy have any personal recollection of the night/morning in question (August 6/7 1985) that could help readers to see the incident from his viewpoint?
a/ For example, how he felt driving to the scene, his thoughts?
b/ The attitude of the officers upon his arrival and the hours before the raid team entered the house?
(ii) What did Jeremy – at the time – believe had happened inside the farmhouse?
(iii) Looking back after all these years, what is Jeremy’s most potent memory of that tragic morning?
CHAPTER TWO: You Can Never Tell
(i) Prior to the murders, Jeremy appeared to have settled down somewhat to life at WHF; is there any personal memory to show a growing bond between Jeremy and Nevill, which counters the public perception he had no interest in his family/farm?
(ii) Did Jeremy notice any change (fear/worry) come over Nevill in the days/weeks preceding the murders, or the source of such troubles? Were there any signs of trouble/tension between Bambers and other members of the family clan (Boutflours, Eatons) leading up to the murders?
(iii) I know efforts were made to keep the facts surrounding June & Sheila’s mental illnesses private, but were they ever discussed? Did Sheila ever share anything with Jeremy regarding her situation? In the lead up to the killings, did Sheila, June or Nevill ever share with Jeremy any concerns about themselves or other family members?
(iv) Can Jeremy recall the final words he said to any of his family members?
CHAPTER THREE: Scene of the Crime
(i) Jeremy has been portrayed as extremely cold in his reactions to the massacre. Can he give one or two inner thoughts/reactions to the whole experience; the waiting for news, the revelation that his family was dead, the words and actions of police officers around him, to dispel this notion?
(ii) Can Jeremy give any (brief) recollection/description of the key characters involved in that morning’s dramatic events (when he first encountered them), eg: how they approached Jeremy, spoke with him, first impressions:
Stan Jones:
Mick Clark:
Tom Jones:
Dr Craig:
DI Miller:
(Mick Ainsley – even though he didn’t become involved until much later)
CHAPTER FOUR: Adherence to a Paradigm
(i) Stan Jones was pivotal to the falsified case against Jeremy.
When did it filter into Jeremy’s mind that Stan believed he was involved in the WHF murders?
How did Jeremy react to this? Were there any testy/memorable early clashes between Jeremy and Stan behind the scenes? At the time, and looking back, does Jeremy have any view on why Stan went to such extremes: was it because Stan genuinely thought he was guilty? That Stan felt extreme dislike for Jeremy? That Stan also had an ulterior motive for crossing so many lines?
(ii) Again, any personal recollection of the first few days following the massacre which argues against the public perception that Jeremy was ultra-cold and detached from the tragedy?
(iii) Jeremy later made the comment that Essex police at this time were like ‘open books’ when it came to discussing what had occurred inside WHF, supporting the view that the crime was nothing more than a murder-suicide pact. Can he give any specific examples of this?
CHAPTER FIVE: Happy Families
(i)The MS is clear regarding the dissent between Jeremy and the extended family. Was Jeremy aware at the time (at what stage?) that the family believed he was responsible for the killings? How, in this awkward situation, were relations between the key parties? Did anyone openly accuse him of the murders?
(ii) Was Jeremy aware of the family attempts to stitch him for the crime? Was he aware, for instance, of the family communications with Essex police, and their trips to the station?
(iii) Did Jeremy, after the tragedy, share with his family members, or Julie, what he intended to do with his inheritance, the farm, land, assets?
CHAPTER SIX: Hell Hath No Fury
(i) Can Jeremy highlight any personal occasions, conversations, in the four-five week period between the murders and Julie’s denouement to the police where Julie’s actions indicated a woman who wasn’t hiding guilty secrets, who felt no guilt, and had no fear of Evil Jeremy, etc?
(These can be acts of buying gifts, any witnessed words/acts that contradict her later allegations of being scared and confused in his company; anything to discredit Julie’s testimony and to support the manuscript’s claim she is nothing more than a bare-faced liar.) Any examples of Julie’s unbalanced state of mind/emotions prior to her accusations to Essex police?
(ii) Does Jeremy have any explanation for what Julie did, other than scorned love? Does he perceive active ‘encouragement’ from the police, other family members?
(iii) I presume no contact has been made between Jeremy and Julie in the last two decades?
CHAPTER SEVEN: Face-to-Face
(i) Can Jeremy recall his reaction to the moment police knocked on the door to arrest him on suspicion of murdering his entire family? What was he feeling and thinking at the time?
(ii) Was there any interaction between Jeremy and officers present, either at the flat or on the journey to the nick? For instance, did Jeremy protest his innocence or ask the police any pertinent questions?
(iii) What are the key memories of the days Jeremy spent under interrogation?
(iv) Does Jeremy have any comments to make on the way Stan Jones, Mick Clark, and other officers conducted themselves?
CHAPTER EIGHT: Between Two Evils
(i) Can Jeremy give any examples of being harassed by the Press, any offers or extremes the Press went to in order to sensationalise the situation/profit from Jeremy’s predicament?
(ii) The ms suggests that in the 12-18 months or so preceding the murders, Jeremy settled down at the farm and was playing a more responsible role in the family business/operations. Can I ask what Jeremy was thinking/planning at that point in time regarding his own life; did he envisage a future at WHF or in some other direction, was he living ‘day-by-day’?
(iii) It was observed that while Jeremy settled down, Sheila was anything but settled. Did Jeremy notice any change come over his sister in the months leading up to the killings; did he overhear June or Nevill, or anyone else, discussing Sheila’s state of mind/health?
CHAPTER NINE: Preparing the Defence
(i) The Press did a good job of painting a detached, cold Jeremy pre-post trial. Does Jeremy have any anecdotes re: remand, preparing to go on trial for his life for a crime he didn’t commit? (Any recollections of fear, anxiety, day-to-day turmoil, etc, that can put the reader in the shoes of a guy hauled out of the river of ordinary life and put in such a terrible situation?)
(ii) My opinion is that, despite the non-disclosure & police tactics, Jeremy’s original defence team was weak and too trusting of surface truths. I believe Jeremy wanted a full-frontal assault on the Crown case. Can Jeremy recall any specific conversation with Terzeon/Rivlin prior to trial, during trial, when he urged for a more concerted push against the police evidence?
(iii) Can Jeremy recall Tom Jones death, if it meant anything to him at the time, and any subsequent inquiry the defence wanted to pursue regarding the old DCI’s ‘accident’?
CHAPTER TEN, ELEVEN, TWELVE: Trial, Trial Continued, Verdict
(i) Any personal recollections of entire trial that could help Jeremy’s cause would be appreciated. It’s important that people be given the chance to see/feel the reality of what Jeremy was put through, rather than always hearing the other/official side of the story. Eg: had he coached his mind to display no emotion during the trial? To not contest Julie’s lies? To match stares with the relatives who had betrayed him?
(ii) I believe the trial started well for the defence. Was that Jeremy’s impression? Did Jeremy’s defence team convey that feeling to him?
(iii) Can Jeremy explain how he was feeling while listening to Julie’s outrageous testimony?
(iv) What was the key moment/turning point in the trial in Jeremy’s opinion? The blood-silencer evidence? How confident was Jeremy prior to the summing up by Justice Drake that he would be found not-guilty? And after the summing up? Did Jeremy comprehend the full implications of the judge’s biased and misleading summing up at the time?
(v) Any personal recollections of being on the stand, confronted by Anthony Arlidge QC?
(vi) Can Jeremy recollect the moment the jury returned to court and gave its verdict, and how he felt on hearing that verdict?
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: A Tale of Two Guns
(i) Can Jeremy confirm or refute that Anthony Pargeter regularly removed his bolt and took it home with him, as claimed? Was Jeremy ever asked this question by police?
(ii) When was Jeremy first aware that a silencer had been removed from the gun cupboard? Or that a silencer was suspected of being used in the murders?
CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Among the Damned
(i) Can Jeremy pass any comment on:
a) being taken to prison
b) that first night in prison
c) the battle inside his own mind to come to terms with the wrongs perpetrated against him
(ii) Can I ask for a brief recounting of two or three of the scariest/lowest/most haunting moments Jeremy has faced behind bars?
CHAPTER FIFTEEN: Secrets of the Files
(i) Has Jeremy ever reconstructed – in his own mind - how the murders themselves took place? How Sheila committed the murders, controlled Nevill, order of killings etc.
(ii) Also, the distress phone call by Nevill. Does Jeremy believe this took place before the killings began, during the killings, or under gun-point duress?
(iii) (Mike, I’m sure this one is a wild goose). I’ve been told that no telephone records existed at all for the phones at WHF during August 1985. However, I’ve heard that records did exist covering the period May, June and July 1985 and that individual telephone numbers dialled from WHF at that time were recorded. If records existed of course, they would have established whether someone had indeed called Jeremy’s phone number from WHF at 3 a.m. August 7 1985. Do you have any knowledge of this matter?
(iv) Do you know how thorough the toxicology tests conducted on Sheila Caffell in fact were? My understanding is that blood and urine tests were performed; obviously no type of sleeping draught or sedative was present, but was the Essex scanning procedure so lackadaisical to render the screening tests for all intents and purposes meaningless?
CHAPTER SIXTEEN: Thou Shalt Follow Me
(i) Does Jeremy have any recollection of the last time he saw the bible that was adjacent to Sheila’s body? Any memory of Sheila studying Bible, making notes, in the last days she spent at WHF? When did he first learn of the Bible’s relevance to the crime?
(ii) Mike, does photographic evidence exist that Sheila’s feet were bloodied – and not perfectly clean as the prosecution claimed?
(iii)When did it become apparent to yourself/Jeremy that Essex police may have toyed (stage-managed) aspects of the various crime scenes?
(iv) Mike, SOCO leader Ron Cook made a WS dated 21 March 1986: ‘On 25th September 1985, the bible (DRH/44) was received at the fingerprint department, police headquarters, Chelmsford. It was subsequently subjected to chemical fingerprint treatment resulting in the development of a large number of impressions…’ Yet I’m led to believe that document 64/349 which accounted for all of DI Cook's fingerprint tests on items found at WHF shows that the bible was never submitted for fingerprint analysis or forensic examination? Do you have any clarification on this matter?
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: In the Blood
No questions
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: 7436 Days
(i) At this point, how does Jeremy perceive the CCRC/Appeal travelling.
(ii) If the current CCRC review/appeal is successful, what life does Jeremy want to lead? Does he allow himself to look that far ahead? (I presume WHF and working the land would not be on the agenda?) I have to ask, if this attempt at freedom fails, how will Jeremy handle it?
(iii) Mike, could you provide me with a brief/basic rundown of the daily routine of Jeremy’s current life?
(iv) Has Jeremy or yourself kept a track of any of the key characters in the case, or attempted to make contact with them? (Eg, Drake, Robert & Pamela Boutflour, Stan Jones, DI Miller, or any other point of interest regarding the key protagonists.)
(v) Mike, just checking I am right in thinking the ‘whole life tariff’ no longer applies in Jeremy’s case, that this was changed some years ago? If so, what do you/Jeremy think is the likely parole situation presuming the worst case scenario comes about & all attempts to help free Jeremy fail?
(iv) Mike, do you know what the legal/financial repercussions would be if Jeremy’s appeal was successful, re: the inheritance that was taken by the relatives, the massive loss of income, etc. How would this be reconciled? (Clearly it’s not Jeremy’s prime concern, but it may be the family’s.)
(v) I understand the polygraph tests is off the cards? How would Jeremy feel about a brain-fingerprinting test?
CHAPTER NINETEEN: Truth Will Out
(i) Mike, has it been established when the key pics showing ‘fresh blood’ seen on Sheila were taken? The recent Press reports indicate a time well in advance of the time SOCO arrived at the scene and started to take pictures – I presume that is a research error. I believe the pics were taken by PC Bird within half-hour either side of 10.30 a.m.?
(There’s also a rumour, I assume patently false, that a journalist/independent photographer was used in the early stages of the police scouring of the scene, and that the police first arrived without the necessary photographic equipment?)
* Any message or last word Jeremy has to make, any point he would like inserted in the final product?
*******
I know this is a large amount of work Mike, so like I said, if it’s too awkward, just let me know. There’s no time pressure involved. There were one or two pics I was desperately hoping to see – but I don’t know if you have access to them; they regard the discrepancy between victims re: rigor, lividity, hypostasis. Any crime scene/autopsy pics supporting the case of the victims dying at different times would be very useful.
Much Appreciated,
Best Regards,
David
[/quote
A whole lot of good questions there Mike. Did Jeremy answer any of them.]
-
He actually does state that he spoke to one of the police officers. Didn't spot that first time around.
-
Mike,
recently in the 'you can chill here' thread... the topic of Davey Shaw came up again. You stated you were considering posting the rest of the communications and were also considering my request re some background on Shaw's involvement plus sources. I had it in my mind that there may be a COLP link but that was just a general feeling. Have you had a chance to mull over my request?
-
Why didn't the video and audio tapes come under under the PII banner? (2nd third of page 2)
Why doesn't he identify the weapon in question (bottom of page 2)
Julie Mugford (2nd para page 3): I cant buy this. It's too much of a coincidence that Mugford came forward and the family genuinely suspected JB from the off. Either Julie Mugford came to agree with the relatives by natural means or her coming forward looks contrived and the means of her 'conversion' were not natural.
The point he makes at the top of page 7 re 'ugly questions' looks obvious, yet the official defence line is to run with one weapon? Bamber must have read Shaw but he dimisses the two gun theory?
Bottom of page 7 is written well 'creating a lie to tell the truth'. Miller could be well and truly up to his neck in shit, given that he has fronted the continued 'cover up' in CTSB. It's almost as if he has both the most to lose and the least to lose. He is after all, in his golden years.
Top of page 8 'and there is ample evidence'. The Arizona tests have subsequently proved him right.
-
Mike,
recently in the 'you can chill here' thread... the topic of Davey Shaw came up again. You stated you were considering posting the rest of the communications and were also considering my request re some background on Shaw's involvement plus sources. I had it in my mind that there may be a COLP link but that was just a general feeling. Have you had a chance to mull over my request?
Of course, yes...
I can confirm that there was/is some link with COLP and Shaw, but I can't say at the moment what that relates to...
On a brighter note, I am considering posting the missing communications between Shaw and myself in the coming days to give everyone a better insight as to what was going on behind the scenes
-
Of course, yes...
I can confirm that there was/is some link with COLP and Shaw, but I can't say at the moment what that relates to...
On a brighter note, I am considering posting the missing communications between Shaw and myself in the coming days to give everyone a better insight as to what was going on behind the scenes
Thanks Mike. Any response to post 23?
-
Wow. Thats pretty damning. I just don't understand why EP would rather go down the route of framing an innocent man than saying, yeah we screwed up and unfortunatley Sheila died. After all, its not unthinkable for something like that to occur in a firearm incident. Yes, they'd have been in the shit but it would have passed. If it does come to pass that Jeremy is freed and EP are shown to be corrupt beyond belief, how much damage will that do??
thats what the police allways do.
-
thats what the police allways do.
A perfect sign of your irraitonal bias and why you are willing to believe the most stupid claims imaginable despite no evidence at all...
Police looked inside the kitchen windows before they broke in- any sign of Sheila? Nope.
Police broken down the door any log messages to suggest she was alive in the kitchen at all let alone that they had to open fire because she was there holding a gun? No
Any physical evidence to suggest she was shot int he kitchen? No
Any reason why if they did shoot her in the kitchen because she was there with a gun that they would need to conceal it? No, that is a good shooting.
Any reason they would need to concela police shot her then? No
If they wanted less paperwork so to claim she killed herself any need to move her body to stage it upstairs? No.
Who believes this kind of tripe then?
People totally lacking in any common sense or critical thinking skills and totally consumed by irraitonal bias.
-
My theory is that David Shaw is a pseudonym for Michael Teskowski.
I.e. This is just made up fantasy by Mike, like Ali Bongo, Agent Z, his secret meetings in bmw's, his forged statement to COLP and pretty much everything he posts on this forum.
Just my opinion though. :P
-
My theory is that David Shaw is a pseudonym for Michael Teskowski.
I.e. This is just made up fantasy by Mike, like Ali Bongo, Agent Z, his secret meetings in bmw's, his forged statement to COLP and pretty much everything he posts on this forum.
Just my opinion though. :P
I actually thought that too for a while. My only doubt is that the writing style seems more than he is capable of but maybe he deteriorated before I came on the scene.
-
I actually thought that too for a while. My only doubt is that the writing style seems more than he is capable of but maybe he deteriorated before I came on the scene.
So when did you start deteriorating ?
-
I see they're up to their regular bit of Tesko bashing again. ::)
-
A perfect sign of your irraitonal bias and why you are willing to believe the most stupid claims imaginable despite no evidence at all...
Police looked inside the kitchen windows before they broke in- any sign of Sheila? Nope.
Police broken down the door any log messages to suggest she was alive in the kitchen at all let alone that they had to open fire because she was there holding a gun? No
Any physical evidence to suggest she was shot int he kitchen? No
Any reason why if they did shoot her in the kitchen because she was there with a gun that they would need to conceal it? No, that is a good shooting.
Any reason they would need to concela police shot her then? No
If they wanted less paperwork so to claim she killed herself any need to move her body to stage it upstairs? No.
Who believes this kind of tripe then?
People totally lacking in any common sense or critical thinking skills and totally consumed by irraitonal bias.
people who actully how the police actually work rather.
rather than the fantasy you see on telly.
-
;D Me thinks he doth protest too much ;D
now what is that a sign of?
-
So when did you start deteriorating ?
I haven't which is why I can run circles around you all day long.
-
I haven't which is why I can run circles around you all day long.
you can run round in circles until you disappear up your own backside for all I care - your posts just convince me more and more he is innocent - strange that !
-
I haven't which is why I can run circles around you all day long.
Unfortunately it is you who are running in circles by chasing your own tail.
wake up Dinozzo!.
-
;D Me thinks he doth protest too much ;D
now what is that a sign of?
Uncertainty. Trying to convince yourself.
-
Now as I have not finished reading I can not comment on this - but this is on the link
": The Innocent Man..for anyone who may be interested in this fascinating case I am up to chapter twelve of the transcript by David Shaw (pseudo). There is not a doubt in my mind that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of these five murders but I do believe he had an accomplice...he can never betray 'the third party' without also betraying himself..The irony , had Bamber pleaded guilty he would now be a free man.
Now Scipio does that sound like Mike? Perhaps you would like to retract your implied accusations?
-
Now as I have not finished reading I can not comment on this - but this is on the link
": The Innocent Man..for anyone who may be interested in this fascinating case I am up to chapter twelve of the transcript by David Shaw (pseudo). There is not a doubt in my mind that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of these five murders but I do believe he had an accomplice...he can never betray 'the third party' without also betraying himself..The irony , had Bamber pleaded guilty he would now be a free man.
Now Scipio does that sound like Mike? Perhaps you would like to retract your implied accusations?
Of course it isn't Mike. It is scipio's way of rubbishing everything he doesn't like. He's always doing it.
-
Now as I have not finished reading I can not comment on this - but this is on the link
": The Innocent Man..for anyone who may be interested in this fascinating case I am up to chapter twelve of the transcript by David Shaw (pseudo). There is not a doubt in my mind that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of these five murders but I do believe he had an accomplice...he can never betray 'the third party' without also betraying himself..The irony , had Bamber pleaded guilty he would now be a free man.
Now Scipio does that sound like Mike? Perhaps you would like to retract your implied accusations?
mike would never say that.
-
mike would never say that.
I will let you know when I finish reading if that is the conclusion or not.
-
I will let you know when I finish reading if that is the conclusion or not.
Of course its not Mike Jan. It's only their way of trying to discredit everything.
-
Of course its not Mike Jan. It's only their way of trying to discredit everything.
Huh, would it be that bad if it was Mike who wrote it? It appears you are claiming that the tales of Mike are not credible. :-\
-
Huh, would it be that bad if it was Mike who wrote it? It appears you are claiming that the tales of Mike are not credible. :-\
I don't suppose it would? But then again it would be another "lie" to level at him wouldn't it?
-
Huh, would it be that bad if it was Mike who wrote it? It appears you are claiming that the tales of Mike are not credible. :-\
I would think from the sarcastic and personal way the comment was made it was being as critical of the Draft as they are of Mike.
-
Now as I have not finished reading I can not comment on this - but this is on the link
": The Innocent Man..for anyone who may be interested in this fascinating case I am up to chapter twelve of the transcript by David Shaw (pseudo). There is not a doubt in my mind that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of these five murders but I do believe he had an accomplice...he can never betray 'the third party' without also betraying himself..The irony , had Bamber pleaded guilty he would now be a free man.
Now Scipio does that sound like Mike? Perhaps you would like to retract your implied accusations?
Could be me who wrote this! It is so rare that I come across someone who also believes there might have been an accomplice. ;D ;)
-
Could be me who wrote this! It is so rare that I come across someone who also believes there might have been an accomplice. ;D ;)
I will let you know when I get to that bit.
there was a major incident recorded apparently for the man seen leaving the back of the farm one hour after the police got there. Allegedly :)
-
I will let you know when I get to that bit.
there was a major incident recorded apparently for the man seen leaving the back of the farm one hour after the police got there. Allegedly :)
Please do - will have to read it myself one day though.
-
I would think from the sarcastic and personal way the comment was made it was being as critical of the Draft as they are of Mike.
It is a joke but still beyond what I think Mike is capable of.
-
It is a joke but still beyond what I think Mike is capable of.
don't think so - you have never shown much evidence of a sense of humour - you were having a dig.
You cant help it , it just comes naturally to you.
-
don't think so - you have never shown much evidence of a sense of humour - you were having a dig.
You cant help it , it just comes naturally to you.
I have one of the most wicked senses of humor around. It doesn't come out in typing much unless one pays careful attention but if you actually spoke ot peopel who knew me in person you would know it.
In any event In Innocent Man is little more than worthless propaganda nonsense.
-
I have one of the most wicked senses of humor around. It doesn't come out in typing much unless one pays careful attention but if you actually spoke ot peopel who knew me in person you would know it.
In any event In Innocent Man is little more than worthless propaganda nonsense.
As I said on several occasions I prefer statements and documents I think they are more revealing
However So far from what I have read there is only one or two things that are wrong according to documents I have seen . Also as there is not much reporting here on the court hearing itself and the judges summing up - that part I have found interesting .
when I get to the end I might say its rubbish . Who knows
-
don't think so - you have never shown much evidence of a sense of humour - you were having a dig.
You cant help it , it just comes naturally to you.
He's an American Jan. I suspect that his sense of humour doesn't extend beyond the pie in face sort? ;D
-
I have one of the most wicked senses of humor around. It doesn't come out in typing much unless one pays careful attention but if you actually spoke ot peopel who knew me in prison you would know it.
In any event In Innocent Man is little more than worthless propaganda nonsense.
::)
-
Morning jansus
some of scipio's posts are really funny and I love reading them they do not relate to the case but his personal life and he has a dry sort of humour can be a "wind up" merchant but let that go over your head ;D
-
Morning jansus
some of scipio's posts are really funny and I love reading them they do not relate to the case but his personal life and he has a dry sort of humour can be a "wind up" merchant but let that go over your head ;D
sorry ,but he could post quite adequately without rudeness or personal comments.He choses not to .
-
sorry ,but he could post quite adequately without rudeness or personal comments.He choses not to .
Perhaps because he has to be the centre of everyones' attention?
-
I call those sort of people spoilt brats.
-
Morning april
I quite agree because underneath his attitude is a really nice guy :) and IMO some of his posts are pretty good.
-
Morning april
I quite agree because underneath his attitude is a really nice guy :) and IMO some of his posts are pretty good.
The ability to write the occasional good post doesn't make him a nice person, Susan. However, I live in hope that, lurking somewhere beneath the **** he regularly presents himself as being, there is something which resembles a really nice guy.
-
Morning april
I quite agree because underneath his attitude is a really nice guy :) and IMO some of his posts are pretty good.
Who are you referring to Susan? Are you feeling well? If you are referring to our American friend, then I rather think your judgment is a bit impaired regarding him? In my opinion he is one of the most arrogant, bullish and rude individuals I've ever come across. He needs to be picked up on his constant insulting behaviour in almost every post.
-
Grahame I really take no notice of his rudeness or indeed arrogance it is just his way he dishes it out but he can certainly take it back on the chin. He can be very funny in a serious sort of way and does make some good points .
-
Grahame I really take no notice of his rudeness or indeed arrogance it is just his way he dishes it out but he can certainly take it back on the chin. He can be very funny in a serious sort of way and does make some good points .
I find in funny. But in a weired way. I'd rather call it, "Laughable". ;)
-
Grahame I really take no notice of his rudeness or indeed arrogance it is just his way he dishes it out but he can certainly take it back on the chin. He can be very funny in a serious sort of way and does make some good points .
so why does he just not make them without the personal insults. ?
Before he arrived on the whole ::) most of the time ::) we could have different opinions on here and agree to disagree without too much mud slinging ( just the odd mud pie every now and then)
I think he has lowered the tone of the forum a lot.
-
Agreed,Jansus. There's absolutely no need for it and it's not clever.
-
Grahame it is strange but when I came to live in these parts many many years ago I was surprised at the language the males used in front of females I had never heard words like it before. After time I got use to it did not get offended as it is their way in these parts and I accept it without taking offence. Think scipio is behaving as he would in his own Country and does not realise he is being offensive it is so matter of fact to him. If he called me thick and stupid I would not get offended because I know I am not those things and they are just words to him.
-
jansus it is a pity you feel he has lowered the tone of the forum we have in my short time on here had worse than scipio :'( he gets insulted back and never complains it is common place to him.I think he is a "wind up" merchant.
-
I think he does know he is being offensive , because lots of us have told him .
-
Grahame it is strange but when I came to live in these parts many many years ago I was surprised at the language the males used in front of females I had never heard words like it before. After time I got use to it did not get offended as it is their way in these parts and I accept it without taking offence. Think scipio is behaving as he would in his own Country and does not realise he is being offensive it is so matter of fact to him. If he called me thick and stupid I would not get offended because I know I am not those things and they are just words to him.
Susan he does it quite simply to belittle other members of the forum and to insult them in order to try and wear them down. He knows very well that he is being offensive. I notice that you use the word "IF" he called you thick and stupid. Let us hope that you are not tested by him the way that Jan and lookout are then shall we? :(
-
Susan, I know for a fact that scipio knows very well how to behave like a civilized and actually quite pleasant human being.
He just chooses not to on the board. He must have his reasons...
-
Alias I cannot give you an answer all I know is I take people as they are with me and he has always been very pleasant and respectful and humorous.
-
Alias I cannot give you an answer all I know is I take people as they are with me and he has always been very pleasant and respectful and humorous.
Have you read the posts he hurls at other people than you?
-
Susan, I know for a fact that scipio knows very well how to behave like a civilized and actually quite pleasant human being.
He just chooses not to on the board. He must have his reasons...
His tactic is a psychological one. It is to mock, belittle and deride the supporters and those he considers to be supporters. This if you had been as long as I have is exactly the same tactics used by the Jock Lambhead and Tiny Tim little dick man on the other board. And were also the very same tactics used by the gangsters who set up the facebook page dedicated to the abuse of JB supporters.
I've come across these obnoxious brain dead characters the whole time I have been on both facebook and this forum. These numbskulls are all the same and they always use these same tactics of belittling, mocking everyone who disagrees with them and a constant drip drip drip of abuse.
But of course if members on here think he is witty and wonderful and wise then be my guest I will let his so be.
-
Alias I cannot give you an answer all I know is I take people as they are with me and he has always been very pleasant and respectful and humorous.
Then it is obvious that you care not for the others who do receive constant abuse. This is another tactic used by these trolls of the internet. To divide friends. ;)
-
Alias I have read some of them and I think if posters. took no notice he would stop doing it. He maybe provoking a reaction and he is getting it. That is all I can say really as I am comfortable on the forum and it is sad some posters are not and should not allow one poster to upset them.
-
Alias I have read some of them and I think if posters. took no notice he would stop doing it. He maybe provoking a reaction and he is getting it. That is all I can say really as I am comfortable on the forum and it is sad some posters are not and should not allow one poster to upset them.
He's a troll.
-
jansus it is a pity you feel he has lowered the tone of the forum we have in my short time on here had worse than scipio :'( he gets insulted back and never complains it is common place to him.I think he is a "wind up" merchant.
The nature of the insults is why I am so threatening.
Most of the ones lobbed against me don't really matter. Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.
My "insults" are posts that take apart their positions and revela they have no evidentiary foundation for the things they assert. In some instances I demonstrate they are being dishonest. I don't simply say you are being dishonest I explain why they are being dishonest and evidence to support my position.
Grahame posts so many things demonstrating he is a Jeremy supporter including today claiming it is a fact that Jeremy, "DID talk to his father half an hour before police arrived on the scene". Yet he dishonestly suggests he is neutral and not a Jeremy supporter and attacks anyone who dares to call him out and with rare exception that usually is me.
There is a saying "ignorance is bliss". But tha tis not the full saying the rest is typically forgotten. The full saying is actually, "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise". What it means is that if you disturb the willfull ignorance of others you are putting yourself in the danger zone.
So suffering through attacks goes with the territory. I have to expect such attacks and simply roll with the punches.
For me this is not personal because I follow the evidence and facts. People living in willful ignorance choose their position for personal reasons and thus the whole debate is personal to them.
While you have asserted you thought Jeremy is innocent in the past you admitted that you are unsure what to think for certain at the moment because many of the things your rthought to be the case ende dup not being so. Your position is not set in stone you are willing to change your position if evidence demonstrates you should.
While I changed your mind about some things I have not changed them about everything. Some of the things I changed your mind about were nonthreatening to you because you are not dead set on Jeremy being innocent. Those same things undermined what some people want to believe and that to them is a very personal affront.
I basically taunt them to prove me wrong but they can't and that angers and frustrates them. They don't want to change their minds though so attack me and then still repeat the same disproved claims.
Of course I am generalizing because on certain issues some Jeremy supporters are willing to budge. It varies which issue they won't budge on and which ones won't budge at all. The 2 with the least knowledge of the facts are Mike's strongest supporters. Mike takes his knowledge and tries to twist it instead of being upfront and honest. He does this especially with the COLP investigation pretending they found wrongdowing though they did not. Since that has stopped working for him I don't really understand why he doesn't stop and join in the conversations with the rest of us but only he knows his motives...
The rapport I have is usually set by how others act and the nature of what they post. You have not posted anything redicilous or biased so that is why we have not engaged in any squabbles and you don't make things personal like some others do. So even though we don't agree on everything it doesn't matter.
But if you ever so post something totally outrageous and silly I promise to ask you what the heck were you thinking.
-
Don´t fool yourself, scipio. Calling people stupid, fools, pathetic, liars, Bamberettes, ignorant and on and on, doesn´t equal refuting claims in a knowledgable way.
You are undermining your own mission here - I gladly skip your long posts if I am not in the mood for your shitloads of infantile insults. I know that others do too.
-
Ha Ha Scipio if you attack me I will just kick your ass ;D Having been on the forum some 2 years I was always of the mind that Jeremy Bamber was innocent but of late I read posts from the opposing sides and I am now of a mind he is infact guilty. For the first time I now look at matters in a realistic way and see so many issues I am not comfortable with and I am now convinced all is not what I thought it was. Many of my friends on here are guilty supporters and many are innocent but a difference of opinion should not change a friendship if it does the friendship was not worth having. I rest my case,
-
Scipio, you are very mistaken if you believe that words don't wound. Hurtful words leave much deeper scars than physical wounds as many on this forum can attest.
You can't say it isn't personal because you follow evidence and facts. If that's all you do there is no need for the personal insults you resort to whenever someone posts something which in your opinion is wrong. If some people choose to live in what you call blissful ignorance, so be it. It's no skin off your nose.
"The rapport I have is usually set by what others say and the nature of their post" If that statement isn't responsible for making your insults personal, I don't know what is.
-
Scipio, you are very mistaken if you believe that words don't wound. Hurtful words leave much deeper scars than physical wounds as many on this forum can attest.
You can't say it isn't personal because you follow evidence and facts. If that's all you do there is no need for the personal insults you resort to whenever someone posts something which in your opinion is wrong. If some people choose to live in what you call blissful ignorance, so be it. It's no skin off your nose.
"The rapport I have is usually set by what others say and the nature of their post" If that statement isn't responsible for making your insults personal, I don't know what is.
Words wound when people let them wound and take them to heart and people take them to heart when they hit too close to home and cause them to face something they would rather not face otherwise when they are overly sensitive and take anything and everything to hear because of insecurity and ego issues.
Those who do so for the latter reason would benefit from counseling because it is not healthy to be that way. The former are like a horse that has been led to water they can either take advantage and drink or chose not to drink and be angry they have been led there.
-
Words wound when people let them wound and take them to heart and people take them to heart when they hit too close to home and cause them to face something they would rather not face otherwise when they are overly sensitive and take anything and everything to hear because of insecurity and ego issues.
Those who do so for the latter reason would benefit from counseling because it is not healthy to be that way. The former are like a horse that has been led to water they can either take advantage and drink or chose not to drink and be angry they have been led there.
So are you saying that all those years I spent training were wasted and all I needed to tell all those poor damaged souls, who were crippled by word which had been said in their childhood, was that it was their own fault for being over sensitive and taking it to heart. My belief is, Scipio, that nothing is said for nothing, ergo, wounding words are said with the intention of wounding.
-
Thing about cyber bullying is this: you don´t know who is at the other end. If you saw the person eye to eye, you would get an impression of the state of mind of that individual. You can´t here. The person you call stupid just might have been through horrendous let-downs in real life, and you mocking him/her was the last straw....
Cyber bullying has resulted in suicides: just words. You have no idea how vulnerable the person on the receiving end is.
Cyber feuds have resulted in murders.
You can´t just dismiss it as "words". Shows your immaturity and lack of insight.
-
He's an uneducated lout !
-
Thing about cyber bullying is this: you don´t know who is at the other end. If you saw the person eye to eye, you would get an impression of the state of mind of that individual. You can´t here. The person you call stupid just might have been through horrendous let-downs in real life, and you mocking him/her was the last straw....
Cyber bullying has resulted in suicides: just words. You have no idea how vulnerable the person on the receiving end is.
Cyber feuds have resulted in murders.
You can´t just dismiss it as "words". Shows your immaturity and lack of insight.
Very good post Alias.
-
Don´t fool yourself, scipio. Calling people stupid, fools, pathetic, liars, Bamberettes, ignorant and on and on, doesn´t equal refuting claims in a knowledgable way.
You are undermining your own mission here - I gladly skip your long posts if I am not in the mood for your shitloads of infantile insults. I know that others do too.
Alias as you can see his post is littered with half truths of what I have actually said or have ever acknowledged. A half truth is more damaging that a downright lie.
eg: I have never said that Jeremy actually did say he phoned his father. What I said was that "according to Jeremy" he received a phone call.
See how it works Alias. Look for half truths from him rather than downright lies. Let him be the one who claims everyone else is a liar and a hypocrite and not any of us.
-
Scipio, you are very mistaken if you believe that words don't wound. Hurtful words leave much deeper scars than physical wounds as many on this forum can attest.
You can't say it isn't personal because you follow evidence and facts. If that's all you do there is no need for the personal insults you resort to whenever someone posts something which in your opinion is wrong. If some people choose to live in what you call blissful ignorance, so be it. It's no skin off your nose.
"The rapport I have is usually set by what others say and the nature of their post" If that statement isn't responsible for making your insults personal, I don't know what is.
Words are more damaging to reputations and the careers of people than any gun or missile. Sticks and stones may break your nones. But words can actually kill people. Just look at the recent suicides by those who have been the victims of bullies on the internet.
So scipio is wrong. Words can kill. That is why I am concerned about the members of this forum even though susan doesn't seem to be? And this is the one reason I speak to this excuse for a man the way I do. Not because I can't prove his arguments are wrong. Quite frankly I'm never embarassed by such things. It's a forum for goodness sake.
I treat him the way I do because I know who he is and what he is. He says he isn't worried about being insulted. But the very reason he objects to it shows he does. He is also terrified that people will even dare to contradict him. Now I don't know about anyone else? But that to me is an indication of paranoia?
-
back to the book.
Well it is a bit weird it just disappears after a while - after comments about mike and Jeremys falling out.
So really I can come to no conclusion at all .
-
Alias as you can see his post is littered with half truths of what I have actually said or have ever acknowledged. A half truth is more damaging that a downright lie.
eg: I have never said that Jeremy actually did say he phoned his father. What I said was that "according to Jeremy" he received a phone call.
See how it works Alias. Look for half truths from him rather than downright lies. Let him be the one who claims everyone else is a liar and a hypocrite and not any of us.
You are distorting again how funny and sad you are at the same time. You didn't say anything about according to Jeremy he received a call you wrote:
"Erm.....He DID talk to his father half an hour before police arrived on the scene."
If you mean he claimed he talked to his father then you messed up big time and should have admitted it after people called your post out. I saw it well after you posted it and you had not retracted it. Now you are apparently trying to revise the meaning.
If that was your intended meaning your post makes little sense and I don't know why you told Caroline she was wrong.
-
You are distorting again how funny and sad you are at the same time. You didn't say anything about according to Jeremy he received a call you wrote:
"Erm.....He DID talk to his father half an hour before police arrived on the scene."
If you mean he claimed he talked to his father then you messed up big time and should have admitted it after people called your post out. I saw it well after you posted it and you had not retracted it. Now you are apparently trying to revise the meaning.
If that was your intended meaning your post makes little sense and I don't know why you told Caroline she was wrong.
please link to that post so I can also show what I said afterwards.
-
But who the f*** is David Shaw ... and how did he come to know the case so deeply? Why is it, that David Shaw, in particular, has come across this info? And who has spilled their guts? I know these questions wont be answered on here... but they should be asked.
According to the link you posted David Shaw is body builder John JT Terilli. He owns this gym http://www.broadwaygym.com.au/about-broadway-gym/ - if anyone wants to waste their time asking if he is THEE David Shaw who wrote the Bamber manuscript then you have a head start. Personally, I can't see someone who deicates their life to body building, have the time, or inclination to write such a thing. Good luck!
-
According to the link you posted David Shaw is body builder John JT Terilli. He owns this gym http://www.broadwaygym.com.au/about-broadway-gym/ - if anyone wants to waste their time asking if he is THEE David Shaw who wrote the Bamber manuscript then you have a head start. Personally, I can't see someone who deicates their life to body building, have the time, or inclination to write such a thing. Good luck!
Which link in particular?
-
Which link in particular?
This one
https://carvedouttastone.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/over-the-edge-david-shaw/
-
This one
https://carvedouttastone.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/over-the-edge-david-shaw/
Yeah I see it now. It suggests it may be his alter ego. Bit tenuous. The only lead I ever got was from Mike who sent me an Aus/NZ email address for Tony&Val. I think it was old when he sent me it and it didn't work.
-
Found the original Shaw Thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,319.0.html
-
Yeah I see it now. It suggests it may be his alter ego. Bit tenuous. The only lead I ever got was from Mike who sent me an Aus/NZ email address for Tony&Val. I think it was old when he sent me it and it didn't work.
Only one way to find out.