Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Jackiepreece on May 10, 2011, 05:33:PM
-
When the investigation changed to murder I take it they looked at other suspects as well as JB especially in light of the attack to Neville and goods being removed from the farm illegally by relatives?
Does anyone have any more information about alibis etc because in my mind there is always a possibility someone else was there when Neville made the phone call
-
Yes it seems as though the police only looked at Jeremy because they were directed there by the other relatives? Perhaps it was the phone call that Jeremy said he got from his father that caused them to look upon him as the more likely suspect? It all seems to hinge upon that alleged phone call.
-
+1!
Very good question Jackie. I can think of a few who definitely need eliminating from enquiries. I Can't think of the last time I punched a 61 year old man in the face ................ and then there's the 2 "mystery" firearms handed in by Mr Bunting who sadly couldn't name the TWO people who had handed them to him. I would really like answers to some of these mysteries in the case.
-
+1!
Very good question Jackie. I can think of a few who definitely need eliminating from enquiries. I Can't think of the last time I punched a 61 year old man in the face ................ and then there's the 2 "mystery" firearms handed in by Mr Bunting who sadly couldn't name the TWO people who had handed them to him. I would really like answers to some of these mysteries in the case.
I can't understand why Eaton was not prosecuted over this assault, what a nasty individual he must have been. But then maybe Ralph didn't want the fact broadcast (i.e. protect family name etc). However, other family members would have been aware of it, surely? Maybe Ralph's fears were due to his extended family, not immediate.
-
Vortex, I share your view, those mystery weapons were linked to the family and they had a lot to gain from a JB guilty verdict - the silencer was discovered by the family and then taken back to their home before being handed to the Police..... I read somewhere that Ralph was scared of the Eaton's or a person with a similar name, was it the secretary who stated that ?...... They also stole a lot of property, switched the motors in the tractors etc...
-
So Julie mugford and her friend got off the cheque fraud that was a very large amount of money and the caravan robbery and perverting the course of justice
Eaton wasn't charged with the attack on Neville or stealing goods
As I understand it Pargeter should have been charged re guns
Jeremy got charged with robbery at the caravan park and murder
As I understand it the police were given gifts and one a job at the caravan park
It is a absolute joke am I to understand that nobody else was investigated and people on here have the front to say they think JB is guilty.
If there is any justice now I hope it comes back to bite everyone involved in this cover up
JB has only recently found out about the secret land deal because it was under PII
Someone explain that to me what possible reason was there to do that ?
-
Might explain why the Boutflours/Eatons were so intent on setting up Jeremy - keep the 'heat' away from them to stop them being investigated, with Robert Boutflour protecting his immediate family and keeping focus away from his daughter and son-in-law.
-
So Julie mugford and her friend got off the cheque fraud that was a very large amount of money and the caravan robbery and perverting the course of justice
Eaton wasn't charged with the attack on Neville or stealing goods
As I understand it Pargeter should have been charged re guns
Jeremy got charged with robbery at the caravan park and murder
As I understand it the police were given gifts and one a job at the caravan park
It is a absolute joke am I to understand that nobody else was investigated and people on here have the front to say they think JB is guilty.
If there is any justice now I hope it comes back to bite everyone involved in this cover up
JB has only recently found out about the secret land deal because it was under PII
Someone explain that to me what possible reason was there to do that ?
According to David Shaw´s, An Innocent Man, Julie was even paid directly by the police:
Julie said she wasn’t interested in matters financial; yet the police fully supported the expense claims she made while she was being interviewed by Essex police. Most people that spend time helping police inquiries don’t receive any compensation: Julie did.
-
My biggest problem with all of this I can believe. JM stitched JB up and I can believe the relatives stitched JB up because they obviously hated him cuckoo in the nest and all that and I can believe the police stitched JB up after seeing him on tv but I just can't get my head around how anyone could put someone in prison for the rest of someones life.
I can't imagine ever ever hating someone that much but when I look at mugford and her behaviour and the relatives behaviour and that Miller that they could well be capable
If JB gets our of prison soon he probably may never have children and if you read of people who have been in prison for years when they are innocent they are never really happy
JB s live is spoilt forever
-
So Julie mugford and her friend got off the cheque fraud that was a very large amount of money and the caravan robbery and perverting the course of justice
Eaton wasn't charged with the attack on Neville or stealing goods
As I understand it Pargeter should have been charged re guns
Jeremy got charged with robbery at the caravan park and murder
As I understand it the police were given gifts and one a job at the caravan park
It is a absolute joke am I to understand that nobody else was investigated and people on here have the front to say they think JB is guilty.
If there is any justice now I hope it comes back to bite everyone involved in this cover up
JB has only recently found out about the secret land deal because it was under PII
Someone explain that to me what possible reason was there to do that ?
In my mind the family are rotten to the core. How can they be allowed to get away with this.
The people who gained from JBs incarceration were boutflours, Easton. Pargeter,and obviously the rozer who got a job at the caravan park..
-
My biggest problem with all of this I can believe. JM stitched JB up and I can believe the relatives stitched JB up because they obviously hated him cuckoo in the nest and all that and I can believe the police stitched JB up after seeing him on tv but I just can't get my head around how anyone could put someone in prison for the rest of someones life.
I can't imagine ever ever hating someone that much but when I look at mugford and her behaviour and the relatives behaviour and that Miller that they could well be capable
If JB gets our of prison soon he probably may never have children and if you read of people who have been in prison for years when they are innocent they are never really happy
JB s live is spoilt forever
You're so right there Jackie. Absolutely horrendous.
-
this case and the "goings on" just get worse and worse, its unreal the way its been handled.
the family and jm are a disgrace imo.
ive said this before and i will say it again, even if jb is guilty and its a big if, i dont believe jb told jm a thing. as for the family, well, perhaps disgrace is too mild a description.
-
So Julie mugford and her friend got off the cheque fraud that was a very large amount of money and the caravan robbery and perverting the course of justice
Eaton wasn't charged with the attack on Neville or stealing goods
As I understand it Pargeter should have been charged re guns
Jeremy got charged with robbery at the caravan park and murder
As I understand it the police were given gifts and one a job at the caravan park
It is a absolute joke am I to understand that nobody else was investigated and people on here have the front to say they think JB is guilty.
If there is any justice now I hope it comes back to bite everyone involved in this cover up
JB has only recently found out about the secret land deal because it was under PII
Someone explain that to me what possible reason was there to do that ?
In my mind the family are rotten to the core. How can they be allowed to get away with this.
The people who gained from JBs incarceration were boutflours, Easton. Pargeter,and obviously the rozer who got a job at the caravan park..
I agree Cliff. What made them so bloomin' powerful though?!
-
I have this feeling that the police are still feeding stuff to the relatives because everytime something positive happens for JB like the documentary or last week when the students handed in a petition to the ccrc it all kicks of on here people with strange names saying vile things. The things that were said about mike were said by horseydave. Just that behaviour they know something's going. JB will be getting out and at the moment I am just doing everything I can on Twitter it's so good you can talk to anyone direct barristers journalists, film producers in the next few months everyone will know this story
-
I have this feeling that the police are still feeding stuff to the relatives because everytime something positive happens for JB like the documentary or last week when the students handed in a petition to the ccrc it all kicks of on here people with strange names saying vile things. The things that were said about mike were said by horseydave. Just that behaviour they know something's going. JB will be getting out and at the moment I am just doing everything I can on Twitter it's so good you can talk to anyone direct barristers journalists, film producers in the next few months everyone will know this story
Keep up the good work, jackie.
-
I have this feeling that the police are still feeding stuff to the relatives because everytime something positive happens for JB like the documentary or last week when the students handed in a petition to the ccrc it all kicks of on here people with strange names saying vile things. The things that were said about mike were said by horseydave. Just that behaviour they know something's going. JB will be getting out and at the moment I am just doing everything I can on Twitter it's so good you can talk to anyone direct barristers journalists, film producers in the next few months everyone will know this story
Keep up the good work, jackie.
hear hear. You are doing a great job Jackie. You are very knowledgeable about the case and have mentioned things that I haven't heard of.
-
Thanks Grahame I think everyone is doing their bit to uncover the truth about what went on in that family :)
-
Well it would need to be something really good given what we already know about Jeremy and his antics.
-
When the investigation changed to murder I take it they looked at other suspects as well as JB especially in light of the attack to Neville and goods being removed from the farm illegally by relatives?
Does anyone have any more information about alibis etc because in my mind there is always a possibility someone else was there when Neville made the phone call
Hello, Jackie, good to see you back - I've missed you!
Totally agree with your points regarding alibis and a possible third party murderer/s. +1
-
So Julie mugford and her friend got off the cheque fraud that was a very large amount of money and the caravan robbery and perverting the course of justice
Eaton wasn't charged with the attack on Neville or stealing goods
As I understand it Pargeter should have been charged re guns
Jeremy got charged with robbery at the caravan park and murder
As I understand it the police were given gifts and one a job at the caravan park
It is a absolute joke am I to understand that nobody else was investigated and people on here have the front to say they think JB is guilty.
If there is any justice now I hope it comes back to bite everyone involved in this cover up
JB has only recently found out about the secret land deal because it was under PII
Someone explain that to me what possible reason was there to do that ?
I think that's a very important point, Jackie. The whole question of why the PII gagging order was applied is a key issue, in particular when it's was so clearly misapplied in respect of data such as that detailing the land deal - and in a manner which predjudiced Jeremy Bamber's defence.
-
So Julie mugford and her friend got off the cheque fraud that was a very large amount of money and the caravan robbery and perverting the course of justice
Eaton wasn't charged with the attack on Neville or stealing goods
As I understand it Pargeter should have been charged re guns
Jeremy got charged with robbery at the caravan park and murder
As I understand it the police were given gifts and one a job at the caravan park
It is a absolute joke am I to understand that nobody else was investigated and people on here have the front to say they think JB is guilty.
If there is any justice now I hope it comes back to bite everyone involved in this cover up
JB has only recently found out about the secret land deal because it was under PII
Someone explain that to me what possible reason was there to do that ?
According to David Shaw´s, An Innocent Man, Julie was even paid directly by the police:
Julie said she wasn’t interested in matters financial; yet the police fully supported the expense claims she made while she was being interviewed by Essex police. Most people that spend time helping police inquiries don’t receive any compensation: Julie did.
I wasn't aware of this, abs, and I'm shocked to learn it. Where did you learn this? How much was she paid, do you know? The police must have been absolutely desperate for JM to do those 30 odd coaching sessions to pay her to do them. +1
-
So Julie mugford and her friend got off the cheque fraud that was a very large amount of money and the caravan robbery and perverting the course of justice
Eaton wasn't charged with the attack on Neville or stealing goods
As I understand it Pargeter should have been charged re guns
Jeremy got charged with robbery at the caravan park and murder
As I understand it the police were given gifts and one a job at the caravan park
It is a absolute joke am I to understand that nobody else was investigated and people on here have the front to say they think JB is guilty.
If there is any justice now I hope it comes back to bite everyone involved in this cover up
JB has only recently found out about the secret land deal because it was under PII
Someone explain that to me what possible reason was there to do that ?
According to David Shaw´s, An Innocent Man, Julie was even paid directly by the police:
Julie said she wasn’t interested in matters financial; yet the police fully supported the expense claims she made while she was being interviewed by Essex police. Most people that spend time helping police inquiries don’t receive any compensation: Julie did.
Sorry, abs, I know you said the information came from David Shaw, what I meant to ask was whether or not he provided any verifiable proof of this.
-
So Julie mugford and her friend got off the cheque fraud that was a very large amount of money and the caravan robbery and perverting the course of justice
Eaton wasn't charged with the attack on Neville or stealing goods
As I understand it Pargeter should have been charged re guns
Jeremy got charged with robbery at the caravan park and murder
As I understand it the police were given gifts and one a job at the caravan park
It is a absolute joke am I to understand that nobody else was investigated and people on here have the front to say they think JB is guilty.
If there is any justice now I hope it comes back to bite everyone involved in this cover up
JB has only recently found out about the secret land deal because it was under PII
Someone explain that to me what possible reason was there to do that ?
According to David Shaw´s, An Innocent Man, Julie was even paid directly by the police:
Julie said she wasn’t interested in matters financial; yet the police fully supported the expense claims she made while she was being interviewed by Essex police. Most people that spend time helping police inquiries don’t receive any compensation: Julie did.
I wasn't aware of this, abs, and I'm shocked to learn it. Where did you learn this? How much was she paid, do you know? The police must have been absolutely desperate for JM to do those 30 odd coaching sessions to pay her to do them. +1
Thanks chocho. I am reading David Shaw´s, An Innocent Man - Jeremy Bamber.
That is where I have that bit of information from. I know nothing more about it. I wish DS had elaborated on that point, because it is an interesting little detail.
-
Our posts crossed each other...
-
Thanks Chochokeira I have had a few problems to sort out and then someone made a nasty personal comment the usual like I am only helping JB because I fancy him so I thought I would just do stuff behind the scenes then I read the rubbish from 'the queen head' Sunday and I hat to say something.
Why don't they just admit who they are really and why they seem so desperately worried?
Anyway missed you Chocho
I am a bit worried though where's Kaldin
He's like my guilty pleasure I don't even mind when he tells me off
-
Thanks Chochokeira I have had a few problems to sort out and then someone made a nasty personal comment the usual like I am only helping JB because I fancy him so I thought I would just do stuff behind the scenes then I read the rubbish from 'the queen head' Sunday and I hat to say something.
Why don't they just admit who they are really and why they seem so desperately worried?
Anyway missed you Chocho
I am a bit worried though where's Kaldin
He's like my guilty pleasure I don't even mind when he tells me off
Who are they Jackie? ???
-
So Julie mugford and her friend got off the cheque fraud that was a very large amount of money and the caravan robbery and perverting the course of justice
Eaton wasn't charged with the attack on Neville or stealing goods
As I understand it Pargeter should have been charged re guns
Jeremy got charged with robbery at the caravan park and murder
As I understand it the police were given gifts and one a job at the caravan park
It is a absolute joke am I to understand that nobody else was investigated and people on here have the front to say they think JB is guilty.
If there is any justice now I hope it comes back to bite everyone involved in this cover up
JB has only recently found out about the secret land deal because it was under PII
Someone explain that to me what possible reason was there to do that ?
According to David Shaw´s, An Innocent Man, Julie was even paid directly by the police:
Julie said she wasn’t interested in matters financial; yet the police fully supported the expense claims she made while she was being interviewed by Essex police. Most people that spend time helping police inquiries don’t receive any compensation: Julie did.
I wasn't aware of this, abs, and I'm shocked to learn it. Where did you learn this? How much was she paid, do you know? The police must have been absolutely desperate for JM to do those 30 odd coaching sessions to pay her to do them. +1
Thanks chocho. I am reading David Shaw´s, An Innocent Man - Jeremy Bamber.
That is where I have that bit of information from. I know nothing more about it. I wish DS had elaborated on that point, because it is an interesting little detail.
Thanks, abs, I wonder if it's possible to contact DS to ask him about issues like this one? I suspect he knows a lot more than he reveals.
-
So Julie mugford and her friend got off the cheque fraud that was a very large amount of money and the caravan robbery and perverting the course of justice
Eaton wasn't charged with the attack on Neville or stealing goods
As I understand it Pargeter should have been charged re guns
Jeremy got charged with robbery at the caravan park and murder
As I understand it the police were given gifts and one a job at the caravan park
It is a absolute joke am I to understand that nobody else was investigated and people on here have the front to say they think JB is guilty.
If there is any justice now I hope it comes back to bite everyone involved in this cover up
JB has only recently found out about the secret land deal because it was under PII
Someone explain that to me what possible reason was there to do that ?
In my mind the family are rotten to the core. How can they be allowed to get away with this.
The people who gained from JBs incarceration were boutflours, Easton. Pargeter,and obviously the rozer who got a job at the caravan park..
I agree Cliff. What made them so bloomin' powerful though?!
Rural landowners always have been powerful. Groups of old families living in small villages tended to intermarry over the centuries, combining their land holdings and consolidating their family ties and power. These were the families in every village that, for centuries, almost everyone doffed their caps to. The police and people of the villages still do tend to doff their caps to them.
-
Thanks Chochokeira I have had a few problems to sort out and then someone made a nasty personal comment the usual like I am only helping JB because I fancy him so I thought I would just do stuff behind the scenes then I read the rubbish from 'the queen head' Sunday and I hat to say something.
Why don't they just admit who they are really and why they seem so desperately worried?
Anyway missed you Chocho
I am a bit worried though where's Kaldin
He's like my guilty pleasure I don't even mind when he tells me off
Kaldin will be back, you can bet on it. He's probably on his hols.
-
Whoever started this thread................well done!!! Its about time somebody questioned the behaviour of the slippery,greedy relatives.My hubby will be really pleased.He doesnt come on here but obviously we discuss the case alot,and he really does believe that PE knows alot more than the rest of us - if you know what I mean? ;)
-
Whoever started this thread................well done!!! Its about time somebody questioned the behaviour of the slippery,greedy relatives.My hubby will be really pleased.He doesnt come on here but obviously we discuss the case alot,and he really does believe that PE knows alot more than the rest of us - if you know what I mean? ;)
Jackiepreece started the thread.
-
The Bamber's, Boutflour's and Eaton's are respected members of the local community. Arrogance and greed may be one thing but murder of an entire family including two young children is a completely different issue. It takes a special type of character to do such a thing...do we know anyone that fits the bill? :o
-
Peter Eaton attacked Neville are there any other acts of violence recorded against the Bambers or is it just violence by the relatives.
Who are you suggesting John?
-
Bloody hell John, you might have something. So someone with a record of prior violence against the family and with an interest in the estate. ... Harold Shipman was well respected aswell if I recall correctly...
-
Bloody hell John, you might have something. So someone with a record of prior violence against the family and with an interest in the estate. ... Harold Shipman was well respected aswell if I recall correctly...
Did you know Shipman used to be a boxer? .....
They recokon he had a lethal jab ;D
-
Bloody hell John, you might have something. So someone with a record of prior violence against the family and with an interest in the estate. ... Harold Shipman was well respected aswell if I recall correctly...
Did you know Shipman used to be a boxer? .....
They recokon he had a lethal jab ;D
;D ;D ;D Nicely defused.
-
Bloody hell John, you might have something. So someone with a record of prior violence against the family and with an interest in the estate. ... Harold Shipman was well respected aswell if I recall correctly...
I don't recall him murdering any children though...wasn't it a form of euthanasia he practised?
-
They also said Jeremy was a good catch....especially EP. ;D
-
Bloody hell John, you might have something. So someone with a record of prior violence against the family and with an interest in the estate. ... Harold Shipman was well respected aswell if I recall correctly...
I don't recall him murdering any children though...wasn't it a form of euthanasia he practised?
I thought it was Labours way of dealing with the pension deficit. :-\
-
The Bamber's, Boutflour's and Eaton's are respected members of the local community. Arrogance and greed may be one thing but murder of an entire family including two young children is a completely different issue. It takes a special type of character to do such a thing...do we know anyone that fits the bill? :o
I know a few people who don't like them.
-
The Bamber's, Boutflour's and Eaton's are respected members of the local community. Arrogance and greed may be one thing but murder of an entire family including two young children is a completely different issue. It takes a special type of character to do such a thing...do we know anyone that fits the bill? :o
I know a few people who don't like them.
I know lot's of people who do like them, but it doesn't matter, this isn't a popularity contest. ;)
-
Bloody hell John, you might have something. So someone with a record of prior violence against the family and with an interest in the estate. ... Harold Shipman was well respected as well if I recall correctly...
I don't recall him murdering any children though...wasn't it a form of euthanasia he practised?
but he also benefited from estates of his recently deceased... and i doubt the relatives in his case agreed with the euthanasia he practised
-
John answer my question please who fits the bill?
-
The Bamber's, Boutflour's and Eaton's are respected members of the local community. Arrogance and greed may be one thing but murder of an entire family including two young children is a completely different issue. It takes a special type of character to do such a thing...do we know anyone that fits the bill? :o
I know a few people who don't like them.
I know lot's of people who do like them, but it doesn't matter, this isn't a popularity contest. ;)
Well it is isn't it? Because there are many people judging JB by the same rod of popularity, saying things like he was a nasty selfish money grubbing guy so he fits the bill of a murderer. Also it is why Jackie posted the question isn't it?
-
Grahame it's the same old story John making flippant stupid remarks he can't back up and once again I have asked him 2 questions and he cannot answer.
John loses all credibility.
Hartley you seem to have a lot to say for yourself tonight so do you accept it could have been one of the relatives who carried out the murders?
The were backed into a corner desperate for money desperate times call for desperate measures
-
I think you're mistaken Jackie, I haven't said very much at all. ???
You keep trying to drag me in to discussions, of which I have no interest in.
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
What about the other two? One more and he would have been aquitted under British law. Anyway, how do you know they were men? ;)
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we? ;)
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
What about the other two? One more and he would have been aquitted under British law. Anyway, how do you know they were men? ;)
Actually no it wouldn't, 9-3 would have still convicted in this case.
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we? ;)
I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself, I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.
Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.
Come on guys get a grip.
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we? ;)
I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself, I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.
Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.
Come on guys get a grip.
;D ;D Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
What about the other two? One more and he would have been aquitted under British law. Anyway, how do you know they were men? ;)
Actually no it wouldn't, 9-3 would have still convicted in this case.
Actually I think I'm telling lies here (move over JM ;D ) a 9-3 would mean a retrial - I think anyway.
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we? ;)
I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself, I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.
Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.
Come on guys get a grip.
;D ;D Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.
Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. :-\
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we? ;)
I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself, I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.
Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.
Come on guys get a grip.
;D ;D Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.
Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. :-\
I bet if any of us actually met we wouldn't say half the things we do say. The internet is a bit like driving a car. We can say all manner of things that in a personal confrontation we would not say. Just think of it for a second. It will make no difference to us personally whatever may be decided by the authorities. We would still go on in our own lives speculating about this and that. But we are not actually fighting for our own lives, only our opinions. As my friend always says, "Opinions are like ar****ls, everybody has one". ;D
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we? ;)
I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself, I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.
Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.
Come on guys get a grip.
;D ;D Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.
Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. :-\
I bet if any of us actually met we wouldn't say half the things we do say. The internet is a bit like driving a car. We can say all manner of things that in a personal confrontation we would not say. Just think of it for a second. It will make no difference to us personally whatever may be decided by the authorities. We would still go on in our own lives speculating about this and that. But we are not actually fighting for our own lives, only our opinions. As my friend always says, "Opinions are like ar****ls, everybody has one". ;D
And some people fart louder than others.
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we? ;)
I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself, I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.
Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.
Come on guys get a grip.
;D ;D Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.
Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. :-\
-----------
You could be right, but they sure as hell made sure that Jeremy was put in the frame...
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we? ;)
I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself, I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.
Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.
Come on guys get a grip.
;D ;D Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.
Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. :-\
-----------
You could be right, but they sure as hell made sure that Jeremy was put in the frame...
Yes I agree Mike. But I think Jackie was asking if they all had alibis? Not sure if their movements that night was ever investigated or established? Although it is usually a logical question the police would ask at any interview? "Where were you at such and such a time" etc.
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we? ;)
I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself, I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.
Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.
Come on guys get a grip.
;D ;D Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.
Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. :-\
-----------
You could be right, but they sure as hell made sure that Jeremy was put in the frame...
Yes I agree Mike. But I think Jackie was asking if they all had alibis? Not sure if their movements that night was ever investigated or established? Although it is usually a logical question the police would ask at any interview? "Where were you at such and such a time" etc.
Yes, and if we could put differences of opinions aside for just a moment and stand in the neutral corner.
If they thought JB did it and it was looking like he was going to get away with it, then how else would you expect them to behave? Yes of course we can pick out inappropriate behaviour, from the relatives and from JB.
Perhaps they were desperate, but desperate to ensure JB didn't get away with it rather than desperate to have the inheritance themselves.
Perhaps the relatives did indeed plant evidence to frame JB; perhaps they framed JB, but in actual fact he was also guilty; or maybe they didn't frame him at all?
Either way as Grahame says, it doesn't make any difference to my life whatever happens, but we've all got an a*****e.
-
Yes, and if we could put differences of opinions aside for just a moment and stand in the neutral corner.
If they thought JB did it and it was looking like he was going to get away with it, then how else would you expect them to behave? Yes of course we can pick out inappropriate behaviour, from the relatives and from JB.
Perhaps they were desperate, but desperate to ensure JB didn't get away with it rather than desperate to have the inheritance themselves.
Perhaps the relatives did indeed plant evidence to frame JB; perhaps they framed JB, but in actual fact he was also guilty; or maybe they didn't frame him at all?
Either way as Grahame says, it doesn't make any difference to my life whatever happens, but we've all got an a*****e.
Yes I agree. We must stand neutral sometimes and even examine our own theries at times. Because we can become so involved with our own opinions that there is always the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. So I find it useful sometimes to put myself in the shoes of those who have a different opinion than mine to try and see where they are coming from. Yes I agree also that the thoughts of the relatives was not primarily that of getting an inheritance. I should think the shock of such an event would have been overwhelming to any ordinary person, let alone those who were directly related to them?
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we? ;)
I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself, I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.
Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.
Come on guys get a grip.
;D ;D Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.
Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. :-\
-----------
You could be right, but they sure as hell made sure that Jeremy was put in the frame...
I think some relatives genuinely believed Jeremy had done it. And you would expect them to go hell for leather on a miss marple witchhunt, which is what they appeared to actually do. If you commit your heart and soul to a cause, it can become a blinkered obsession.
I think the reaction of Taff Jones to the relatives is very interesting. He may have snubbed them because he actually knew what had really took place, as is suggested by the defence etc. However, he was not around to defend his stance when it was later portrayed that he had held such a stance, precisely because he was too stubborn to admit he had got it wrong on Jeremy Bamber having no involvement.
If he had still been around, there may have been big problems securing and then maintaining for any length of time, a murder conviction for Jeremy Bamber.
-
Actually, not everyone does have an a******e. Like Cliff Richard and the Queen Mum. Allegedly.
I'll get my coat, again.
-
Actually, not everyone does have an a******e. Like Cliff Richard and the Queen Mum. Allegedly.
I'll get my coat, again.
And some people are described as a******es. ;D
-
Actually, not everyone does have an a******e. Like Cliff Richard and the Queen Mum. Allegedly.
I'll get my coat, again.
And some people are described as a******es. ;D
What are you trying to say!!! >:( >:( >:( ;D
-
Yes, and if we could put differences of opinions aside for just a moment and stand in the neutral corner.
If they thought JB did it and it was looking like he was going to get away with it, then how else would you expect them to behave? Yes of course we can pick out inappropriate behaviour, from the relatives and from JB.
Perhaps they were desperate, but desperate to ensure JB didn't get away with it rather than desperate to have the inheritance themselves.
Perhaps the relatives did indeed plant evidence to frame JB; perhaps they framed JB, but in actual fact he was also guilty; or maybe they didn't frame him at all?
Either way as Grahame says, it doesn't make any difference to my life whatever happens, but we've all got an a*****e.
Yes I agree. We must stand neutral sometimes and even examine our own theries at times. Because we can become so involved with our own opinions that there is always the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. So I find it useful sometimes to put myself in the shoes of those who have a different opinion than mine to try and see where they are coming from. Yes I agree also that the thoughts of the relatives was not primarily that of getting an inheritance. I should think the shock of such an event would have been overwhelming to any ordinary person, let alone those who were directly related to them?
I thought about that - it must have been a traumatic experience for the relatives as well; but we only hear about their sleuthing antics, stripping the house of valuables etc. And their behaviour WAS strange, it just was. Jeremy's too.
The impression you have of the lot is that their family members are slaughtered and they immediately go into fighting-over-the-possessions-mode. Some of them must have grieved - surely?? Its just that we haven't really heard much about that.
Are there any indications that any of them were actually mourning apart from Jeremy obviously at the funerals?
-
I thought about that - it must have been a traumatic experience for the relatives as well; but we only hear about their sleuthing antics, stripping the house of valuables etc. And their behaviour WAS strange, it just was. Jeremy's too.
The impression you have of the lot is that their family members are slaughtered and they immediately go into fighting-over-the-possessions-mode. Some of them must have grieved - surely?? Its just that we haven't really heard much about that.
Are there any indications that any of them were actually mourning apart from Jeremy obviously at the funerals?
Blinks ~rubs eyes~ blinks again. :o
Wow I'm stunned, a thought about the relatives which doesn't involve painting them blacker than a black thing in a very dark room in the dead of night whilst wearing sunglasses!!!
-
Unfortunately for you John I am back and I don't agree with a lot of what has just been said
A major factor for me was this very hidden factor of land deals and death duties!
I want anyone to tell me if there was any reason for this to be held under PII
As far as I can see the relatives were in dire straights
Neville had tried to help them and ended up with a punch in the face
Who hid this under PII
Why has Jeremy only just found out this after 26 years
Does anyone on here not believe it would have made a difference to the verdict if that information had it been available because I don't believe Jeremy would have been convicted
I asked John the question yesterday about the statement who fits the bill
If you are looking who fits the bill it's definately not Jeremy
Why not try looking closer to home
And these wonderful caring relatives what measures did they go to get Julie mugford charged with anything after she could have prevented there cherished family being wiped out including 2 beautiful children
In fact going by posts from the queens head she is welcomed back with open arms
It's obvious who doesn't fit the bill to me
-
I thought about that - it must have been a traumatic experience for the relatives as well; but we only hear about their sleuthing antics, stripping the house of valuables etc. And their behaviour WAS strange, it just was. Jeremy's too.
The impression you have of the lot is that their family members are slaughtered and they immediately go into fighting-over-the-possessions-mode. Some of them must have grieved - surely?? Its just that we haven't really heard much about that.
Are there any indications that any of them were actually mourning apart from Jeremy obviously at the funerals?
Blinks ~rubs eyes~ blinks again. :o
Wow I'm stunned, a thought about the relatives which doesn't involve painting them blacker than a black thing in a very dark room in the dead of night whilst wearing sunglasses!!!
The relatives. I tend to be cautious regarding criticism of the relatives. But I have a couple of queries. The first one relates to the recent Titlerole drama documentary which I have not seen. Were the relatives opinions aired in any detail, in this or in any other previous television representation of the crime?
-
Unfortunately for you John I am back and I don't agree with a lot of what has just been said
A major factor for me was this very hidden factor of land deals and death duties!
I want anyone to tell me if there was any reason for this to be held under PII
As far as I can see the relatives were in dire straights
Neville had tried to help them and ended up with a punch in the face
Who hid this under PII
Why has Jeremy only just found out this after 26 years
Does anyone on here not believe it would have made a difference to the verdict if that information had it been available because I don't believe Jeremy would have been convicted
I asked John the question yesterday about the statement who fits the bill
If you are looking who fits the bill it's definately not Jeremy
Why not try looking closer to home
And these wonderful caring relatives what measures did they go to get Julie mugford charged with anything after she could have prevented there cherished family being wiped out including 2 beautiful children
In fact going by posts from the queens head she is welcomed back with open arms
It's obvious who doesn't fit the bill to me
Aaaaaah, there we go, that's better, normal service resumed, thought I'd stepped into an alternate reality for a second then, I was getting quite concerned. :P
Blinks ~rubs eyes~ blinks again. :o
Wow I'm stunned, a thought about the relatives which doesn't involve painting them blacker than a black thing in a very dark room in the dead of night whilst wearing sunglasses!!!
-
Unfortunately for you John I am back and I don't agree with a lot of what has just been said
A major factor for me was this very hidden factor of land deals and death duties!
I want anyone to tell me if there was any reason for this to be held under PII
As far as I can see the relatives were in dire straights
Neville had tried to help them and ended up with a punch in the face
Who hid this under PII
Why has Jeremy only just found out this after 26 years
Does anyone on here not believe it would have made a difference to the verdict if that information had it been available because I don't believe Jeremy would have been convicted
I asked John the question yesterday about the statement who fits the bill
If you are looking who fits the bill it's definately not Jeremy
Why not try looking closer to home
And these wonderful caring relatives what measures did they go to get Julie mugford charged with anything after she could have prevented there cherished family being wiped out including 2 beautiful children
In fact going by posts from the queens head she is welcomed back with open arms
It's obvious who doesn't fit the bill to me
Unfortunately for you Jackie you don't have to agree with me but the fact is you are in a minority.
Neville undoubtedly saw an opportunity to expand his empire, that is why he got the punch in the gob from Peter.
Oh Jeremy very much fits the bill after what he told Muggy and several others...what an idiot!
-
Unfortunately for you John I am back and I don't agree with a lot of what has just been said
A major factor for me was this very hidden factor of land deals and death duties!
I want anyone to tell me if there was any reason for this to be held under PII
As far as I can see the relatives were in dire straights
Neville had tried to help them and ended up with a punch in the face
Who hid this under PII
Why has Jeremy only just found out this after 26 years
Does anyone on here not believe it would have made a difference to the verdict if that information had it been available because I don't believe Jeremy would have been convicted
I asked John the question yesterday about the statement who fits the bill
If you are looking who fits the bill it's definately not Jeremy
Why not try looking closer to home
And these wonderful caring relatives what measures did they go to get Julie mugford charged with anything after she could have prevented there cherished family being wiped out including 2 beautiful children
In fact going by posts from the queens head she is welcomed back with open arms
It's obvious who doesn't fit the bill to me
Aaaaaah, there we go, that's better, normal service resumed, thought I'd stepped into an alternate reality for a second then, I was getting quite concerned. :P
Blinks ~rubs eyes~ blinks again. :o
Wow I'm stunned, a thought about the relatives which doesn't involve painting them blacker than a black thing in a very dark room in the dead of night whilst wearing sunglasses!!!
Go on admit it Hartley....you just like a good old scowl!! ;D ;D ;D
-
I thought about that - it must have been a traumatic experience for the relatives as well; but we only hear about their sleuthing antics, stripping the house of valuables etc. And their behaviour WAS strange, it just was. Jeremy's too.
The impression you have of the lot is that their family members are slaughtered and they immediately go into fighting-over-the-possessions-mode. Some of them must have grieved - surely?? Its just that we haven't really heard much about that.
Are there any indications that any of them were actually mourning apart from Jeremy obviously at the funerals?
Blinks ~rubs eyes~ blinks again. :o
Wow I'm stunned, a thought about the relatives which doesn't involve painting them blacker than a black thing in a very dark room in the dead of night whilst wearing sunglasses!!!
The relatives. I tend to be cautious regarding criticism of the relatives. But I have a couple of queries. The first one relates to the recent Titlerole drama documentary which I have not seen. Were the relatives opinions aired in any detail, in this or in any other previous television representation of the crime?
I'm not sure, David seems to make the odd press statement etc, but the Eatons keep themselves to themselves, they are quite private.
So if anybody did offer their opinion I expect it would have been David, but I doubt any of them did.
-
Go on admit it Hartley....you just like a good old scowl!! ;D ;D ;D
Guilty as charged. ;D
-
Some people on here are as thick as the relatives shouldn't someone on here point out to the relatives that it's not a good thing protecting and being friends with someone who had knowledge of the murders
People might think they colluded together in getting Jeremy convicted
Hartley a bit of good news for you to pass on to your friends the relatives and everyone at the queens head there is going to be a leaflet drop in the area saying 'let's Get Jeremy Bamber back home where he belongs'
(I designed them) there is going to be a yellow ribbon around all the trees and posters on every available space. It's a mammoth task so it gets in all the newspapers you can help if you want.
It will be like Christmas morning when you wake up your village will be well and truly back in the headlines so everyone is up to date on the hidden PII find about relatives finances
More publicity is a good idea Hartley so everyone knows what's going on
-
Some people on here are as thick as the relatives shouldn't someone on here point out to the relatives that it's not a good thing protecting and being friends with someone who had knowledge of the murders
People might think they colluded together in getting Jeremy convicted
Hartley a bit of good news for you to pass on to your friends the relatives and everyone at the queens head there is going to be a leaflet drop in the area saying 'let's Get Jeremy Bamber back home where he belongs'
(I designed them) there is going to be a yellow ribbon around all the trees and posters on every available space. It's a mammoth task so it gets in all the newspapers you can help if you want.
It will be like Christmas morning when you wake up your village will be well and truly back in the headlines so everyone is up to date on the hidden PII find about relatives finances
More publicity is a good idea Hartley so everyone knows what's going on
You crack on love, good luck to ya.
-
Some people on here are as thick as the relatives shouldn't someone on here point out to the relatives that it's not a good thing protecting and being friends with someone who had knowledge of the murders
People might think they colluded together in getting Jeremy convicted
Hartley a bit of good news for you to pass on to your friends the relatives and everyone at the queens head there is going to be a leaflet drop in the area saying 'let's Get Jeremy Bamber back home where he belongs'
(I designed them) there is going to be a yellow ribbon around all the trees and posters on every available space. It's a mammoth task so it gets in all the newspapers you can help if you want.
It will be like Christmas morning when you wake up your village will be well and truly back in the headlines so everyone is up to date on the hidden PII find about relatives finances
More publicity is a good idea Hartley so everyone knows what's going on
I can't see them lasting two minutes Jackie given the strength of hate in the village.
-
Some people on here are as thick as the relatives shouldn't someone on here point out to the relatives that it's not a good thing protecting and being friends with someone who had knowledge of the murders
People might think they colluded together in getting Jeremy convicted
Hartley a bit of good news for you to pass on to your friends the relatives and everyone at the queens head there is going to be a leaflet drop in the area saying 'let's Get Jeremy Bamber back home where he belongs'
(I designed them) there is going to be a yellow ribbon around all the trees and posters on every available space. It's a mammoth task so it gets in all the newspapers you can help if you want.
It will be like Christmas morning when you wake up your village will be well and truly back in the headlines so everyone is up to date on the hidden PII find about relatives finances
More publicity is a good idea Hartley so everyone knows what's going on
Jackie... sorry for being thick... :P but can you explain a bit further your above comment?
-
Rochford Sheilds talking about Hartley and John put yourself in your place you are the relatives then one month after the murders you find out this mugford character had known before the murders after the murders (viewing the bodies) going on holiday with the murders. How would you feel about her because I would have been after her blood.
I am talking about thick people not realising how bad the behaviour is when they big up Mugford
I am convinced in my opinion they worked together to convict Jeremy for there own personal separate reasons
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
-
Rochford Sheilds talking about Hartley and John put yourself in your place you are the relatives then one month after the murders you find out this mugford character had known before the murders after the murders (viewing the bodies) going on holiday with the murders. How would you feel about her because I would have been after her blood.
I am talking about thick people not realising how bad the behaviour is when they big up Mugford
I am convinced in my opinion they worked together to convict Jeremy for there own personal separate reasons
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
Had you read my earlier post Jackie you would have noted that i strongly believe that Muggy thought Jeremy was pulling her leg about the intended murders.
Julie Mugford didn't murder anyone Jackie but she put a murderer behind bars by using his very own words against him. How smart was that?
-
Rochford Sheilds talking about Hartley and John put yourself in your place you are the relatives then one month after the murders you find out this mugford character had known before the murders after the murders (viewing the bodies) going on holiday with the murders. How would you feel about her because I would have been after her blood.
I am talking about thick people not realising how bad the behaviour is when they big up Mugford
I am convinced in my opinion they worked together to convict Jeremy for there own personal separate reasons
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
Well I'm not sure what I've got to do with anything. :-\
But thanks for calling me thick, much appreciated. It's probably a good job that I don't help you tie yellow ribbons around trees, being thick I'd probably get the wrong colour and confuse trees with lamp posts, and that just wouldn't do at all now would it? :P
-
Rochford shields if you were one of the relatives would you have wanted mugford charged with something
Would you be welcoming mugford back to the queens head pub
-
Rochford shields if you were one of the relatives would you have wanted mugford charged with something
Would you be welcoming mugford back to the queens head pub
What on earth are you on about, who has welcomed JM back to the Head?
-
Rochford shields if you were one of the relatives would you have wanted mugford charged with something
Would you be welcoming mugford back to the queens head pub
What on earth are you on about, who has welcomed JM back to the Head?
After all, it was Muggy who completed the jigsaw, wasn't it?
-
Hartley do you drink in the queens head and are you one of the people welcoming mugford back with open arms
Are you not aware of the impression that gives
-
Rochford Sheilds talking about Hartley and John put yourself in your place you are the relatives then one month after the murders you find out this mugford character had known before the murders after the murders (viewing the bodies) going on holiday with the murders. How would you feel about her because I would have been after her blood.
I am talking about thick people not realising how bad the behaviour is when they big up Mugford
I am convinced in my opinion they worked together to convict Jeremy for there own personal separate reasons
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
Thanks. I see what you mean. It's as if Mugford has immunity from hatred by the relatives as well as immunity from prosecution by the authorities. I can see that now. Perhaps you are pointing out that the relatives don't even seem to care... that in a way... Julie also made serious money out of not speaking out in time to save the twins, June and Neville?
-
Hartley do you drink in the queens head and are you one of the people welcoming mugford back with open arms
Are you not aware of the impression that gives
Jackie seriously I have no idea what on earth you are talking about. If you are referring to a poster on this forum who chose to use the Queenshead as a user name, then to be be as polite as I possibly can, I think you can join me in the thickies club.
Welcome, but I don't have members cards left unfortunately.
-
Rochford Sheilds talking about Hartley and John put yourself in your place you are the relatives then one month after the murders you find out this mugford character had known before the murders after the murders (viewing the bodies) going on holiday with the murders. How would you feel about her because I would have been after her blood.
I am talking about thick people not realising how bad the behaviour is when they big up Mugford
I am convinced in my opinion they worked together to convict Jeremy for there own personal separate reasons
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
Thanks. I see what you mean. It's as if Mugford has immunity from hatred by the relatives as well as immunity from prosecution by the authorities. I can see that now. Perhaps you are pointing out that the relatives don't even seem to care... that in a way... Julie also made serious money out of not speaking out in time to save the twins, June and Neville?
You cannot blame Julie for Jeremy's actions!
-
Hartley do you drink in the queens head and are you one of the people welcoming mugford back with open arms
Are you not aware of the impression that gives
Jackie seriously I have no idea what on earth you are talking about. If you are referring to a poster on this forum who chose to use the Queenshead as a user name, then to be be as polite as I possibly can, I think you can join me in the thickies club.
Welcome, but I don't have members cards left unfortunately.
Jackie likes to call posters thick...maybe if the cap fits! ::)
-
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.
-
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.
Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.
Nice own goal Jacks! ;D ;D
-
your not thick are you john lamberton...you being an ex policeman..
you are a dishonest nasty liar though ...frame innocent people did you?
is it that people take no real interest in your own claimed miscarriage of justice claims and that it riles you so much you launch attacks on supporters of quite obvious miscarriages of justice.
I think it is.....and you have no real support john lamberton because people can see through your lies.
mugford is a nasty liar..full stop.. chip on her shoulder..and she made money from it...blood money...whatever way you want to look at it.
-
Rochford Sheilds talking about Hartley and John put yourself in your place you are the relatives then one month after the murders you find out this mugford character had known before the murders after the murders (viewing the bodies) going on holiday with the murders. How would you feel about her because I would have been after her blood.
I am talking about thick people not realising how bad the behaviour is when they big up Mugford
I am convinced in my opinion they worked together to convict Jeremy for there own personal separate reasons
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
Thanks. I see what you mean. It's as if Mugford has immunity from hatred by the relatives as well as immunity from prosecution by the authorities. I can see that now. Perhaps you are pointing out that the relatives don't even seem to care... that in a way... Julie also made serious money out of not speaking out in time to save the twins, June and Neville?
Good post.
I would like to add, volunteered to identify the bodies to "prevent Jeremy from giving himself away". Visited Colin Caffell, the grieving father. Attended both funerals, comforting the murderer. Went on vacation with him. Slept with him. Accepted gifts from him. Her actions were outrageous, if you assume Jeremy did it - and she would have KNOWN by then. For more than a month. And she kept her mouth shut until he dumped her.
Isn´t she just a doll?! Everybody has to love her...
-
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.
Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.
Nice own goal Jacks! ;D ;D
Yes I saw that. ;D There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!
-
Rochford Sheilds talking about Hartley and John put yourself in your place you are the relatives then one month after the murders you find out this mugford character had known before the murders after the murders (viewing the bodies) going on holiday with the murders. How would you feel about her because I would have been after her blood.
I am talking about thick people not realising how bad the behaviour is when they big up Mugford
I am convinced in my opinion they worked together to convict Jeremy for there own personal separate reasons
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
Thanks. I see what you mean. It's as if Mugford has immunity from hatred by the relatives as well as immunity from prosecution by the authorities. I can see that now. Perhaps you are pointing out that the relatives don't even seem to care... that in a way... Julie also made serious money out of not speaking out in time to save the twins, June and Neville?
Good post.
I would like to add, volunteered to identify the bodies to "prevent Jeremy from giving himself away". Visited Colin Caffell, the grieving father. Attended both funerals, comforting the murderer. Went on vacation with him. Slept with him. Accepted gifts from him. Her actions were outrageous, if you assume Jeremy did it - and she would have KNOWN by then. For more than a month. And she kept her mouth shut until he dumped her.
Isn´t she just a doll?! Everybody has to love her...
Yes I'd agree if that was true, but I'd like to know why people think the relatives like or are friendly towards Julie?
It's not the case at all.
-
Hartley you are backing yourself into a corner again and you will soon have to run away again with your tail between your legs like you did a few weeks ago.
I don't believe Julie mucked was telling the truth about knowing about the murders and that is why the relatives didn't push to have her charged not an own goal at all
If mugford was telling the truth the relatives would have gone to any lengths to have had her charged
John you are a liar
Answer my 2 questions
-
Hartley it will be interesting if an appeal is granted and the newly found information on the relatives financial situation is bought up if the defence could ask for copies of any phone calls between Canada and the relatives especially at certain times like the 2002 appeal
-
Hartley you are backing yourself into a corner again and you will soon have to run away again with your tail between your legs like you did a few weeks ago.
Yes dear of course.
I'm very sorry and I'm sure you're a really nice person in the flesh, but you really do not come across as a particularly pleasant person on these forums, you seem to be full of angst and bitterness, appear to enjoy dishing out the insults and trying to bait people into personal feuds.
To add to all that I'm not sure that you actually come up with too much that is constructive, you don't discuss evidence posted by Mike or enter into discussions about possible theories, all you do is aim your venom towards the relatives, Julie and any poster who has a different opinion to your good self.
With all that in mind, and to avoid further confrontation of the nature you seem to so enjoy, may I suggest we add each other to our ignore lists in the profile setting and then carry on about our business, but separately?
As I said I'm sure you're a lovely person, but we just seem to clash. :) Have a good one Jackie.
-
your not thick are you john lamberton...you being an ex policeman..
you are a dishonest nasty liar though ...frame innocent people did you?
is it that people take no real interest in your own claimed miscarriage of justice claims and that it riles you so much you launch attacks on supporters of quite obvious miscarriages of justice.
I think it is.....and you have no real support john lamberton because people can see through your lies.
mugford is a nasty liar..full stop.. chip on her shoulder..and she made money from it...blood money...whatever way you want to look at it.
What support have you low-life...even your own son was taken away from you, now that must say it all.,..we won't even mention the perversions! ;D ;D
...and as for your scamming/spamming and pyramid selling to innocent people , now that is yet another low for such a worm!
-
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.
Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.
Nice own goal Jacks! ;D ;D
Yes I saw that. ;D There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!
I like it Hartley!! +1
Have you ever noticed how the abuse comes out when they are on the defensive Hartley...sooooo amusing! :)
-
Hartley you are backing yourself into a corner again and you will soon have to run away again with your tail between your legs like you did a few weeks ago.
I don't believe Julie mucked was telling the truth about knowing about the murders and that is why the relatives didn't push to have her charged not an own goal at all
If mugford was telling the truth the relatives would have gone to any lengths to have had her charged
John you are a liar
Answer my 2 questions
If anyone runs away it is you Jackie, you never did come back about those Jeremy instructions...could it be that you imagine all this since your infatuation is all consuming?
No I ain't the liar Jackie but you saying as much leads me to believe you just don't know as much as you think you do about this case. Muggy did a brilliant job and I am quite sure she would be welcomed with open arms should she ever decide to visit the village pub! ;D
-
Rochford Sheilds talking about Hartley and John put yourself in your place you are the relatives then one month after the murders you find out this mugford character had known before the murders after the murders (viewing the bodies) going on holiday with the murders. How would you feel about her because I would have been after her blood.
I am talking about thick people not realising how bad the behaviour is when they big up Mugford
I am convinced in my opinion they worked together to convict Jeremy for there own personal separate reasons
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
Thanks. I see what you mean. It's as if Mugford has immunity from hatred by the relatives as well as immunity from prosecution by the authorities. I can see that now. Perhaps you are pointing out that the relatives don't even seem to care... that in a way... Julie also made serious money out of not speaking out in time to save the twins, June and Neville?
Good post.
I would like to add, volunteered to identify the bodies to "prevent Jeremy from giving himself away". Visited Colin Caffell, the grieving father. Attended both funerals, comforting the murderer. Went on vacation with him. Slept with him. Accepted gifts from him. Her actions were outrageous, if you assume Jeremy did it - and she would have KNOWN by then. For more than a month. And she kept her mouth shut until he dumped her.
Isn´t she just a doll?! Everybody has to love her...
Yes I'd agree if that was true, but I'd like to know why people think the relatives like or are friendly towards Julie?
It's not the case at all.
That's sort of the way I meant it. You might expect some venom from relatives towards her. Though it seems neutral instead. If that does not signify anything suspicious, then maybe any anger they had towards her was kept private. Maybe they offset other factors also, such as her vital testimony in sending him down. Just speculation.
-
I like it Hartley!! +1
Have you ever noticed how the abuse comes out when they are on the defensive Hartley...sooooo amusing! :)
Well I wouldn't mind if I deserve it, except I've been quite restrained and generally polite to all just lately. :-\
-
Yes, I think the locals owe her a round or two don't you Jackie?
(http://deadpubs.co.uk/EssexPubs/TolleshuntDarcy/qhead.jpg)
-
That's sort of the way I meant it. You might expect some venom from relatives towards her. Though it seems neutral instead. If that does not signify anything suspicious, then maybe any anger they had towards her was kept private. Maybe they offset other factors also, such as her vital testimony in sending him down. Just speculation.
That's possible, they have pretty much kept themselves to themselves, so who knows what their thoughts are.
I don't think their views can be taken from the various witness statements, diaries etc, sure it gives an incite, but how often do you hear about someone and then meet them and they are completely different to how you thought they were.
All this defamation of character business doesn't do much for me, whether it's the relatives, JB, Julie or any of the witnesses. In lieu of good hard concrete evidence I can only go along with the interpretations of the cross examiners and the jury.
If new evidence emerges to the contrary then fine, but until that happens, slagging different people off and calling them liars without evidence or justification isn't going to persuade me otherwise.
-
Yes, and if we could put differences of opinions aside for just a moment and stand in the neutral corner.
If they thought JB did it and it was looking like he was going to get away with it, then how else would you expect them to behave? Yes of course we can pick out inappropriate behaviour, from the relatives and from JB.
Perhaps they were desperate, but desperate to ensure JB didn't get away with it rather than desperate to have the inheritance themselves.
Perhaps the relatives did indeed plant evidence to frame JB; perhaps they framed JB, but in actual fact he was also guilty; or maybe they didn't frame him at all?
Either way as Grahame says, it doesn't make any difference to my life whatever happens, but we've all got an a*****e.
Yes I agree. We must stand neutral sometimes and even examine our own theries at times. Because we can become so involved with our own opinions that there is always the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. So I find it useful sometimes to put myself in the shoes of those who have a different opinion than mine to try and see where they are coming from. Yes I agree also that the thoughts of the relatives was not primarily that of getting an inheritance. I should think the shock of such an event would have been overwhelming to any ordinary person, let alone those who were directly related to them?
I thought about that - it must have been a traumatic experience for the relatives as well; but we only hear about their sleuthing antics, stripping the house of valuables etc. And their behaviour WAS strange, it just was. Jeremy's too.
The impression you have of the lot is that their family members are slaughtered and they immediately go into fighting-over-the-possessions-mode. Some of them must have grieved - surely?? Its just that we haven't really heard much about that.
Are there any indications that any of them were actually mourning apart from Jeremy obviously at the funerals?
Believe me abs, the farming community around these parts are strange. I deal with a lot of them. There was one bloke he wanted a bit "IF" Painted on his transporter unit. When I asked him what it stoof for he said "Well it made YOU ask didn't it?". I gathered it was his way of getting people to look. But some of them are very odd.
-
Empty cans and all that comes to mind....
Bottom line is that there is no evidence which will ever clear Jeremy and after some 26 years I for one am not in the least surprised.
-
Yes, and if we could put differences of opinions aside for just a moment and stand in the neutral corner.
If they thought JB did it and it was looking like he was going to get away with it, then how else would you expect them to behave? Yes of course we can pick out inappropriate behaviour, from the relatives and from JB.
Perhaps they were desperate, but desperate to ensure JB didn't get away with it rather than desperate to have the inheritance themselves.
Perhaps the relatives did indeed plant evidence to frame JB; perhaps they framed JB, but in actual fact he was also guilty; or maybe they didn't frame him at all?
Either way as Grahame says, it doesn't make any difference to my life whatever happens, but we've all got an a*****e.
Yes I agree. We must stand neutral sometimes and even examine our own theries at times. Because we can become so involved with our own opinions that there is always the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. So I find it useful sometimes to put myself in the shoes of those who have a different opinion than mine to try and see where they are coming from. Yes I agree also that the thoughts of the relatives was not primarily that of getting an inheritance. I should think the shock of such an event would have been overwhelming to any ordinary person, let alone those who were directly related to them?
I thought about that - it must have been a traumatic experience for the relatives as well; but we only hear about their sleuthing antics, stripping the house of valuables etc. And their behaviour WAS strange, it just was. Jeremy's too.
The impression you have of the lot is that their family members are slaughtered and they immediately go into fighting-over-the-possessions-mode. Some of them must have grieved - surely?? Its just that we haven't really heard much about that.
Are there any indications that any of them were actually mourning apart from Jeremy obviously at the funerals?
Believe me abs, the farming community around these parts are strange. I deal with a lot of them. There was one bloke he wanted a bit "IF" Painted on his transporter unit. When I asked him what it stoof for he said "Well it made YOU ask didn't it?". I gathered it was his way of getting people to look. But some of them are very odd.
Reminds me of the guy who phoned his son to say that everyone was driving the wrong way up the M1.
Could it possibly be that it is you that are odd grahame?? :P
-
Unfortunately for you John I am back and I don't agree with a lot of what has just been said
A major factor for me was this very hidden factor of land deals and death duties!
I want anyone to tell me if there was any reason for this to be held under PII
As far as I can see the relatives were in dire straights
Neville had tried to help them and ended up with a punch in the face
Who hid this under PII
Why has Jeremy only just found out this after 26 years
Does anyone on here not believe it would have made a difference to the verdict if that information had it been available because I don't believe Jeremy would have been convicted
I asked John the question yesterday about the statement who fits the bill
If you are looking who fits the bill it's definately not Jeremy
Why not try looking closer to home
And these wonderful caring relatives what measures did they go to get Julie mugford charged with anything after she could have prevented there cherished family being wiped out including 2 beautiful children
In fact going by posts from the queens head she is welcomed back with open arms
It's obvious who doesn't fit the bill to me
Very relevant points Jackie. Yes rather than trying to get her charged as an accessory after the fact, they seemed to be sucking up to her?
-
Unfortunately for you John I am back and I don't agree with a lot of what has just been said
A major factor for me was this very hidden factor of land deals and death duties!
I want anyone to tell me if there was any reason for this to be held under PII
As far as I can see the relatives were in dire straights
Neville had tried to help them and ended up with a punch in the face
Who hid this under PII
Why has Jeremy only just found out this after 26 years
Does anyone on here not believe it would have made a difference to the verdict if that information had it been available because I don't believe Jeremy would have been convicted
I asked John the question yesterday about the statement who fits the bill
If you are looking who fits the bill it's definately not Jeremy
Why not try looking closer to home
And these wonderful caring relatives what measures did they go to get Julie mugford charged with anything after she could have prevented there cherished family being wiped out including 2 beautiful children
In fact going by posts from the queens head she is welcomed back with open arms
It's obvious who doesn't fit the bill to me
Unfortunately for you Jackie you don't have to agree with me but the fact is you are in a minority.
Oh I don't know John. She has a following on Twitter of over a 1000. Where is your majority?
-
Unfortunately for you John I am back and I don't agree with a lot of what has just been said
A major factor for me was this very hidden factor of land deals and death duties!
I want anyone to tell me if there was any reason for this to be held under PII
As far as I can see the relatives were in dire straights
Neville had tried to help them and ended up with a punch in the face
Who hid this under PII
Why has Jeremy only just found out this after 26 years
Does anyone on here not believe it would have made a difference to the verdict if that information had it been available because I don't believe Jeremy would have been convicted
I asked John the question yesterday about the statement who fits the bill
If you are looking who fits the bill it's definately not Jeremy
Why not try looking closer to home
And these wonderful caring relatives what measures did they go to get Julie mugford charged with anything after she could have prevented there cherished family being wiped out including 2 beautiful children
In fact going by posts from the queens head she is welcomed back with open arms
It's obvious who doesn't fit the bill to me
Unfortunately for you Jackie you don't have to agree with me but the fact is you are in a minority.
Oh I don't know John. She has a following on Twitter of over a 1000. Where is your majority?
I wonder how many of them even know what it all about? 1000 twits...says it all!
In fact if Jackie is filling their heads with the nonsense she spouts here, I am not in the least surprised. :)
-
Rochford Sheilds talking about Hartley and John put yourself in your place you are the relatives then one month after the murders you find out this mugford character had known before the murders after the murders (viewing the bodies) going on holiday with the murders. How would you feel about her because I would have been after her blood.
I am talking about thick people not realising how bad the behaviour is when they big up Mugford
I am convinced in my opinion they worked together to convict Jeremy for there own personal separate reasons
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
If she didn't realise she was in bed with a murderer after a very short time perioid she must be one of the thickest in the world?
-
Rochford shields if you were one of the relatives would you have wanted mugford charged with something
Would you be welcoming mugford back to the queens head pub
What on earth are you on about, who has welcomed JM back to the Head?
After all, it was Muggy who completed the jigsaw, wasn't it?
Yes, with a hammer and a monkey wrench.
-
Rochford shields if you were one of the relatives would you have wanted mugford charged with something
Would you be welcoming mugford back to the queens head pub
What on earth are you on about, who has welcomed JM back to the Head?
After all, it was Muggy who completed the jigsaw, wasn't it?
Yes, with a hammer and a monkey wrench.
26 years on I think it was money well spent...don't you?
-
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.
Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.
Nice own goal Jacks! ;D ;D
Yes I saw that. ;D There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!
Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.
-
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.
Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.
Nice own goal Jacks! ;D ;D
Yes I saw that. ;D There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!
Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.
But she came forward and that's what makes the difference.
-
Yes, and if we could put differences of opinions aside for just a moment and stand in the neutral corner.
If they thought JB did it and it was looking like he was going to get away with it, then how else would you expect them to behave? Yes of course we can pick out inappropriate behaviour, from the relatives and from JB.
Perhaps they were desperate, but desperate to ensure JB didn't get away with it rather than desperate to have the inheritance themselves.
Perhaps the relatives did indeed plant evidence to frame JB; perhaps they framed JB, but in actual fact he was also guilty; or maybe they didn't frame him at all?
Either way as Grahame says, it doesn't make any difference to my life whatever happens, but we've all got an a*****e.
Yes I agree. We must stand neutral sometimes and even examine our own theries at times. Because we can become so involved with our own opinions that there is always the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. So I find it useful sometimes to put myself in the shoes of those who have a different opinion than mine to try and see where they are coming from. Yes I agree also that the thoughts of the relatives was not primarily that of getting an inheritance. I should think the shock of such an event would have been overwhelming to any ordinary person, let alone those who were directly related to them?
I thought about that - it must have been a traumatic experience for the relatives as well; but we only hear about their sleuthing antics, stripping the house of valuables etc. And their behaviour WAS strange, it just was. Jeremy's too.
The impression you have of the lot is that their family members are slaughtered and they immediately go into fighting-over-the-possessions-mode. Some of them must have grieved - surely?? Its just that we haven't really heard much about that.
Are there any indications that any of them were actually mourning apart from Jeremy obviously at the funerals?
Believe me abs, the farming community around these parts are strange. I deal with a lot of them. There was one bloke he wanted a bit "IF" Painted on his transporter unit. When I asked him what it stoof for he said "Well it made YOU ask didn't it?". I gathered it was his way of getting people to look. But some of them are very odd.
Reminds me of the guy who phoned his son to say that everyone was driving the wrong way up the M1.
Could it possibly be that it is you that are odd grahame?? :P
Probably John probably ;D :P
-
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.
Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.
Nice own goal Jacks! ;D ;D
Yes I saw that. ;D There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!
Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.
But she came forward and that's what makes the difference.
So a person will be let off a serious crime if they dob someone else in. Is that how the police work John?
-
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.
Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.
Nice own goal Jacks! ;D ;D
Yes I saw that. ;D There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!
Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.
But she came forward and that's what makes the difference.
So a person will be let off a serious crime if they dob someone else in. Is that how the police work John?
Believe it or not that is exactly how it works mate. I am surprised that you haven't grasped this yet.
In one example I can give, a girl murdered a guy in Edinburgh some years ago and later blamed her boyfriend who was sleeping in the flat at the time. The COPFS gave her immunity and prosecuted the boyfriend who is now doing 20 years in the same prison as Luke Mitchell.
How's that??
It's referred to as 'Turning Queen's Evidence'.
-
So once again John remind me of what evidence there was that Jeremy was buying a porche you definately know that is a lie
Remind me again John what bit of information was it that Jeremy agreed to that mugford told the police
I am timing you now john see how long it takes you to answer
Hartley you have stated on numerous occasions you are friends with the relatives can you confirm or deny if the relatives (and we know how much they were in contact with the police)tried to get Mugford charged with something
Hartley are you saying in their disgust of mugfords behaviour they have had no contact with her since the trial
-
Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders.
Yes I know, that's why I responded somewhat flippantly.
She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.
I have no idea, I wasn't there.
But let's just, for the sake of discussion only, say that JM was telling the truth, she had asked JB several times after the murders if it was him, he said no.
So before and after the murders JM was not sure, she perhaps put JB's previous comments down to him being a bit fantastical, story telling.
Then afterwards she started having more doubts, not wanting to believe that the man she loved was capable of such an act she didn't act on her doubts.
As time passed the doubts increased, then others (them pesky, greedy good for nothing relatives) started to consider JB was responsible, the doubts increased further and she went to the police.
(Yes I know there's other bits in there about being jilted etc.)
If something like the above occurred, then perhaps the relatives would be grateful towards JM rather than going hammer and tongs to get her banged up as well. After all she was also the star witness and ultimately her statements were responsible in part for allowing EP to charge JB and then secure conviction against him. Something the relatives were clearly happy about as they were convinced he was responsible.
So why would they hate her?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't black and white and just because somebody doesn't think or act the way in which you would expect, it doesn't mean that the assumptions that you make and the conclusions you draw are the only realistic possibility.
Likewise you could apply that to JB and some of his actions, but that's why were all here discussing the case and going round in circles.
-
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.
Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.
Nice own goal Jacks! ;D ;D
Yes I saw that. ;D There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!
Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.
But she came forward and that's what makes the difference.
So a person will be let off a serious crime if they dob someone else in. Is that how the police work John?
Yes it is unfortunately. There are many innocent people imprisoned because of this practice.
-
Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders.
Yes I know, that's why I responded somewhat flippantly.
She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.
I have no idea, I wasn't there.
But let's just, for the sake of discussion only, say that JM was telling the truth, she had asked JB several times after the murders if it was him, he said no.
So before and after the murders JM was not sure, she perhaps put JB's previous comments down to him being a bit fantastical, story telling.
Then afterwards she started having more doubts, not wanting to believe that the man she loved was capable of such an act she didn't act on her doubts.
As time passed the doubts increased, then others (them pesky, greedy good for nothing relatives) started to consider JB was responsible, the doubts increased further and she went to the police.
(Yes I know there's other bits in there about being jilted etc.)
If something like the above occurred, then perhaps the relatives would be grateful towards JM rather than going hammer and tongs to get her banged up as well. After all she was also the star witness and ultimately her statements were responsible in part for allowing EP to charge JB and then secure conviction against him. Something the relatives were clearly happy about as they were convinced he was responsible.
So why would they hate her?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't black and white and just because somebody doesn't think or act the way in which you would expect, it doesn't mean that the assumptions that you make and the conclusions you draw are the only realistic possibility.
Likewise you could apply that to JB and some of his actions, but that's why were all here discussing the case and going round in circles.
I agree with your analysis of Muggy's position, I think she honestly thought he was making it all up as some sort of bravo.
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
What about the other two? One more and he would have been aquitted under British law. Anyway, how do you know they were men? ;)
Actually no it wouldn't, 9-3 would have still convicted in this case.
"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."
Andrew Hunter MP
-
In my opinion in any murder trial it should be a unanimous decision by the jury. But unfortunatel it isn't.
-
Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual. How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?
In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer. I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one! ;D
What about the other two? One more and he would have been aquitted under British law. Anyway, how do you know they were men? ;)
Actually no it wouldn't, 9-3 would have still convicted in this case.
"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."
Andrew Hunter MP
Pure semantics yet again....point is, they didn't waver.
Had they though, it would have been a retrial just like Siôn Jenkins' case.
-
Hartley you are backing yourself into a corner again and you will soon have to run away again with your tail between your legs like you did a few weeks ago.
I don't believe Julie mucked was telling the truth about knowing about the murders and that is why the relatives didn't push to have her charged not an own goal at all
If mugford was telling the truth the relatives would have gone to any lengths to have had her charged
John you are a liar
Answer my 2 questions
Jackie +1
John 0
-
Hartley you are backing yourself into a corner again and you will soon have to run away again with your tail between your legs like you did a few weeks ago.
I don't believe Julie mucked was telling the truth about knowing about the murders and that is why the relatives didn't push to have her charged not an own goal at all
If mugford was telling the truth the relatives would have gone to any lengths to have had her charged
John you are a liar
Answer my 2 questions
Jackie +1
John 0
So childish Keira! ;D ;D ;D
ps name calling won't promote your lost cause one iota!
-
Some people on here are as thick as the relatives shouldn't someone on here point out to the relatives that it's not a good thing protecting and being friends with someone who had knowledge of the murders
People might think they colluded together in getting Jeremy convicted
Hartley a bit of good news for you to pass on to your friends the relatives and everyone at the queens head there is going to be a leaflet drop in the area saying 'let's Get Jeremy Bamber back home where he belongs'
(I designed them) there is going to be a yellow ribbon around all the trees and posters on every available space. It's a mammoth task so it gets in all the newspapers you can help if you want.
It will be like Christmas morning when you wake up your village will be well and truly back in the headlines so everyone is up to date on the hidden PII find about relatives finances
More publicity is a good idea Hartley so everyone knows what's going on
I can't see them lasting two minutes Jackie given the strength of hate in the village.
When were you last in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, John...if ever?
-
"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."
Andrew Hunter MP
He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.
In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.
Hunters statement is premature.
-
Colchester is the nearest I have been, what about you?
-
"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."
Andrew Hunter MP
He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.
In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.
Hunters statement is premature.
In fact reading up a bit more, if a retrial took place and a majority verdict failed a second time, it is even conceivable that the prosecution would seek a second retrial.
-
Colchester is the nearest I have been, what about you?
I've posted here photographs of D'Arcy and Goldhanger taken over many years, does that give you a clue?
-
Chochokeira I don't think we are dealing with a normal person here and I don't think he ever really reads the posts or he wouldn't keep posting his lies and fantasies.
I do question if he is even safe to be around such hate and venom for someone he doesn't even know god knows what he's capable of
Imagine if JB was released he might try to harm him
It's a real worry
-
"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."
Andrew Hunter MP
He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.
In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.
Hunters statement is premature.
In fact reading up a bit more, if a retrial took place and a majority verdict failed a second time, it is even conceivable that the prosecution would seek a second retrial.
That is extremely unlikely. The legal convention is that the prosecution agree that it is not in the public interest for there to be a third trial following two trials with a hung jury.
-
Chochokeira I don't think we are dealing with a normal person here and I don't think he ever really reads the posts or he wouldn't keep posting his lies and fantasies.
I do question if he is even safe to be around such hate and venom for someone he doesn't even know god knows what he's capable of
Imagine if JB was released he might try to harm him
It's a real worry
not a worry Jackie. He is an ex rozer, and does,nt like the shit thrown in his direction.
-
"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."
Andrew Hunter MP
He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.
In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.
Hunters statement is premature.
In fact reading up a bit more, if a retrial took place and a majority verdict failed a second time, it is even conceivable that the prosecution would seek a second retrial.
That is extremely unlikely. The legal convention is that the prosecution agree that it is not in the public interest for there to be a third trial following two trials with a hung jury.
Yes I didn't say it was likely, but it is conceivable.
-
"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."
Andrew Hunter MP
He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.
In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.
Hunters statement is premature.
In fact reading up a bit more, if a retrial took place and a majority verdict failed a second time, it is even conceivable that the prosecution would seek a second retrial.
That is extremely unlikely. The legal convention is that the prosecution agree that it is not in the public interest for there to be a third trial following two trials with a hung jury.
Yes I didn't say it was likely, but it is conceivable.
It is a theoretical possibility but I am not aware of any case where that has happened. I suspect the only situation in which a further trial would take place following two trials resulting in a hung jury would be if compelling new evidence came to light immediately after the last trial which assisted the prosecution and had not previously been available.
-
Okay, the book I read talked about nobbled juries as well, and it did say it would be rare.
But as a direct response to comments stating that if just one more juror swung the other way, JB would walk free, that's not the case. A 9-3 verdict would have, from what I understand resulted in a retrial.
-
If ifs and ands were pots and pans.
If the 2 not guilties were borderline, it could have been a 12-0 whitewash with a bit more jury discussion. :)
How long did the jury retire for, does anyone know?
-
That's just what we need on here this afternoon Ngb someone who knows exactly what they are talking about!
-
That's just what we need on here this afternoon Ngb someone who knows exactly what they are talking about!
Lol, +1 Jackie
-
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.
Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.
Nice own goal Jacks! ;D ;D
Yes I saw that. ;D There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!
Jackie was playing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.
But she came forward and that's what makes the difference.
So a person will be let off a serious crime if they dob someone else in. Is that how the police work John?
Believe it or not that is exactly how it works mate. I am surprised that you haven't grasped this yet.
In one example I can give, a girl murdered a guy in Edinburgh some years ago and later blamed her boyfriend who was sleeping in the flat at the time. The COPFS gave her immunity and prosecuted the boyfriend who is now doing 20 years in the same prison as Luke Mitchell.
How's that??
It's referred to as 'Turning Queen's Evidence'.
Oh I grasped it ages ago John. I also knew a few in the force and the police corruption that goes on. Not saying they're all corrupt. That would be stupid. I've known some good coppers and some bad coppers. And it ain't all the uniformed either. I think it's disgraceful that people can be let off very serious crimes just because they turn Queen's evidence. What kind of message does that put out to people like Julie Mugford.
-
Any normal person would absolutely hate Julie mugford for her involvement in the murder
Why don't they?
What makes you think that they don't? Enlighten me please.
Lets be clear about this, Muggy wasn't involved as Jackie likes to put it but by alleging such she has just admitted that Jeremy did murder his family.
Nice own goal Jacks! ;D ;D
Yes I saw that. ;D There's a wood around here somewhere but I can't see it because of all these god damn trees!!!
Jackie was plaing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders. She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.
But she came forward and that's what makes the difference.
So a person will be let off a serious crime if they dob someone else in. Is that how the police work John?
Believe it or not that is exactly how it works mate. I am surprised that you haven't grasped this yet.
In one example I can give, a girl murdered a guy in Edinburgh some years ago and later blamed her boyfriend who was sleeping in the flat at the time. The COPFS gave her immunity and prosecuted the boyfriend who is now doing 20 years in the same prison as Luke Mitchell.
How's that??
It's referred to as 'Turning Queen's Evidence'.
I think that John is a very revealing story John and one that should cast doubts in your mind about the Jeremy Bamber case.
-
"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."
Andrew Hunter MP
He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.
In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.
Hunters statement is premature.
In fact reading up a bit more, if a retrial took place and a majority verdict failed a second time, it is even conceivable that the prosecution would seek a second retrial.
That is extremely unlikely. The legal convention is that the prosecution agree that it is not in the public interest for there to be a third trial following two trials with a hung jury.
Yes I didn't say it was likely, but it is conceivable.
It is a theoretical possibility but I am not aware of any case where that has happened. I suspect the only situation in which a further trial would take place following two trials resulting in a hung jury would be if compelling new evidence came to light immediately after the last trial which assisted the prosecution and had not previously been available.
+1 nbg
-
Jackie was playing on your own prejudices there. She wasn't admitting that Jeremy had committed the murders.
Yes I know, that's why I responded somewhat flippantly.
She was saying that if the relatives believed that Jeremy had committed the murders then why did they not act accordingly with Julie Mugford and make sure she was done as well for accessory after the fact. As far as I can see that is all Jackie is saying here.
I have no idea, I wasn't there.
But let's just, for the sake of discussion only, say that JM was telling the truth, she had asked JB several times after the murders if it was him, he said no.
So before and after the murders JM was not sure, she perhaps put JB's previous comments down to him being a bit fantastical, story telling.
Then afterwards she started having more doubts, not wanting to believe that the man she loved was capable of such an act she didn't act on her doubts.
As time passed the doubts increased, then others (them pesky, greedy good for nothing relatives) started to consider JB was responsible, the doubts increased further and she went to the police.
(Yes I know there's other bits in there about being jilted etc.)
If something like the above occurred, then perhaps the relatives would be grateful towards JM rather than going hammer and tongs to get her banged up as well. After all she was also the star witness and ultimately her statements were responsible in part for allowing EP to charge JB and then secure conviction against him. Something the relatives were clearly happy about as they were convinced he was responsible.
So why would they hate her?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't black and white and just because somebody doesn't think or act the way in which you would expect, it doesn't mean that the assumptions that you make and the conclusions you draw are the only realistic possibility.
Likewise you could apply that to JB and some of his actions, but that's why were all here discussing the case and going round in circles.
I know you said the other bits like being jilted, as if they were not important. But in my opinion that was the key to her whole confession. That it seems was the driving force behind her going to the police. As she only went to the police after they broke up.
-
Colchester is the nearest I have been, what about you?
WHF
-
Chochokeira I don't think we are dealing with a normal person here and I don't think he ever really reads the posts or he wouldn't keep posting his lies and fantasies.
I do question if he is even safe to be around such hate and venom for someone he doesn't even know god knows what he's capable of
Imagine if JB was released he might try to harm him
It's a real worry
You don't like the truth do you Jackie about your wonderfully innocent Jeremy. Maybe I should post every single rotten episode that he was involved in...little wonder Nevill broke down and cried over such an idiot!
Your penultimate comment just shows your own state of mind Jackie and why on earth would I want to know a child killer exactly? :)
-
"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."
Andrew Hunter MP
He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.
In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.
Hunters statement is premature.
In fact reading up a bit more, if a retrial took place and a majority verdict failed a second time, it is even conceivable that the prosecution would seek a second retrial.
That is extremely unlikely. The legal convention is that the prosecution agree that it is not in the public interest for there to be a third trial following two trials with a hung jury.
Tell Sion Jenkins that then.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article728984.ece
-
Chochokeira I don't think we are dealing with a normal person here and I don't think he ever really reads the posts or he wouldn't keep posting his lies and fantasies.
I do question if he is even safe to be around such hate and venom for someone he doesn't even know god knows what he's capable of
Imagine if JB was released he might try to harm him
It's a real worry
You don't like the truth do you Jackie about your wonderfully innocent Jeremy. Maybe I should post every single rotten episode that he was involved in...little wonder Nevill broke down and cried over such an idiot!
Your penultimate comment just shows your own state of mind Jackie and why on earth would I want to know a child killer exactly? :)
Yes he was involved in a lot of stuff and he wasn't that lilly white. But John, haven't you changed over the years and grown up a lot? People do change and get older and wiser. Would you like it if people kept dragging up all the mistakes you made when you were young?
ps: I don't think Jackie would want to know a child killer. She thinks he's innocent. I for one wouldn't be defending him if I thought he was guilty. This is the kind of remark I seem to get from most of those who think he is guilty. That all those who think he isn't are all fools?
-
I accept that grahame but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Whether he is a nice chappie now is totally irrelevant to his conviction.
We are not all on here to accrue brownie points like besotted Jackie.
-
I accept that grahame but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Whether he is a nice chappie now is totally irrelevant to his conviction.
We are not all on here to accrue brownie points like besotted Jackie.
Well neither am I John. I'm totally independent on what I think. Why should you even begin to assume that I am here for that? There you are again. Is it just your way, or do you like to write snyde remarks all the time just for the sake of it. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't think like you is stupid. Then when someone picks you up on it you cry, "There, don't they get abusive when they are opposed". Or words to that effect.,
-
I accept that grahame but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Whether he is a nice chappie now is totally irrelevant to his conviction.
We are not all on here to accrue brownie points like besotted Jackie.
Well neither am I John. I'm totally independent on what I think. Why should you even begin to assume that I am here for that? There you are again. Is it just your way, or do you like to write snyde remarks all the time just for the sake of it. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't think like you is stupid. Then when someone picks you up on it you cry, "There, don't they get abusive when they are opposed". Or words to that effect.,
I don't think he assumed that you was here for that, why have you assumed that?
-
I accept that grahame but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Whether he is a nice chappie now is totally irrelevant to his conviction.
We are not all on here to accrue brownie points like besotted Jackie.
Well neither am I John. I'm totally independent on what I think. Why should you even begin to assume that I am here for that? There you are again. Is it just your way, or do you like to write snyde remarks all the time just for the sake of it. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't think like you is stupid. Then when someone picks you up on it you cry, "There, don't they get abusive when they are opposed". Or words to that effect.,
I didn't mean that was your objective Grahame, just pointing out what that some pro Jeremy posters are obsessed and cannot see the wood for the trees as Hartley posted earlier today.
But they do get abusive, I never abuse anyone but will retaliate when attacked, that is the difference.
Today alone Jackie has called posters thick, liars, and god knows what else. Just goes to highlight her own insecurities.
I am still quite open minded as to the Bamber case and welcome others views. What I cannot stand is misinformation and obvious deceptions aimed at making Jeremy look like some Saint when from all we know he most certainly wasn't that.
-
John you are off again questioning Ngb posts as well I look forward to expert opinion on here and we are lucky that such knowledgable people post on this forum Ngb + 1 and Grahame you always amaze me how level headed you are with Johns insults I just cannot stand it when people posts lies as if they were facts
-
What are you on about Jackie? He said he didn't know any case and I have pointed to Sion Jenkins who had a trial and two retrials....simples!!
Look, I will even repeat it for you...
...I am not aware of any case where that has happened. I suspect the only situation in which a further trial would take place following two trials resulting in a hung jury would be if compelling new evidence came to light immediately after the last trial which assisted the prosecution and had not previously been available.
You shouldn't posts lies as facts then Jackie.
Everything I have stated has already been given in evidence, maybe you should do a bit of reading up on the facts Jackie?
-
What are you on about Jackie? He said he didn't know any case and I have pointed to Sion Jenkins who had a trial and two retrials....simples!!
You shouldn't posts lies as facts then Jackie.
Everything I have stated has already been given in evidence, maybe you should do a bit of reading up on the facts Jackie?
He had a trial , conviction squashed , then two retrials , didnt he ?
-
So does anyone honestly believe that that could happen in Jeremy's case?
-
So does anyone honestly believe that that could happen in Jeremy's case?
I think the point what was being made , was that after two hung juries , you wouldnt get a third trial , NGB was a barrister i believe so i do think he would know !!
-
Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.
And btw, a Barrister is not an expert...try QC.
-
Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.
And btw, a Barrister is not an expert...try QC.
How is a QC an expert , i could show you many barristers better advocates than some QC'S !!
-
Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.
I don't know either. I only mentioned that it was a possibility, a system is in place to allow it. A hung jury would not have proven JB's innocence, he would not have "walked free" without having to go through at least one retrial.
It doesn't matter anyway, he was actually convicted.
-
I accept that grahame but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Whether he is a nice chappie now is totally irrelevant to his conviction.
No I wasn't commenting on his conviction John. I was just saying that everyone is still judging his character on how he was in 1985 and before. Come to think of it we all tend to think the same about the rest of the family. The only ones who haven't changed are those who are dead, poor souls. But we all change and if Jeremy was innocent (as I personally believe he is) then he has probably grown up a great deal. It is his character that people seem to judge and because his character was bad they seem to think he must have done it. His character is brought up regularly here. But whatever he was like back then it has no bearing on what he is now.
I find this a worrying thing about the police as well. That they assume, once a crook always a crook and every time theres a crime in that area they go round that persons house to question them.
People change, you've changed I've changed. Why do we still assume JB hasn't changed? Excepting his conviction of course.
-
So does anyone honestly believe that that could happen in Jeremy's case?
I think the point what was being made , was that after two hung juries , you wouldnt get a third trial , NGB was a barrister i believe so i do think he would know !!
I didn't know he was a barrister?
-
Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.
I don't know either. I only mentioned that it was a possibility, a system is in place to allow it. A hung jury would not have proven JB's innocence, he would not have "walked free" without having to go through at least one retrial.
It doesn't matter anyway, he was actually convicted.
Even if he is successful in an appeal it won't prove his innocence.
-
So does anyone honestly believe that that could happen in Jeremy's case?
I think the point what was being made , was that after two hung juries , you wouldnt get a third trial , NGB was a barrister i believe so i do think he would know !!
I didn't know he was a barrister?
He said so on here once , the jury in Sion Jenkins first retrial were 9 - 3 guilty !!
-
I accept that grahame but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Whether he is a nice chappie now is totally irrelevant to his conviction.
No I wasn't commenting on his conviction John. I was just saying that everyone is still judging his character on how he was in 1985 and before. Come to think of it we all tend to think the same about the rest of the family. The only ones who haven't changed are those who are dead, poor souls. But we all change and if Jeremy was innocent (as I personally believe he is) then he has probably grown up a great deal. It is his character that people seem to judge and because his character was bad they seem to think he must have done it. His character is brought up regularly here. But whatever he was like back then it has no bearing on what he is now.
I find this a worrying thing about the police as well. That they assume, once a crook always a crook and every time theres a crime in that area they go round that persons house to question them.
People change, you've changed I've changed. Why do we still assume JB hasn't changed? Excepting his conviction of course.
I agree with that grahame but it is the conviction in 1985 we are concerned with here...at least i think that is the whole point of this forum...I may be wrong??
It could be a matter of giving a dog a bad name...one has to rise above this but sometimes it is very difficult.
I have no doubt that Jeremy has changed, he is now for better or for worse institutionalised. You have to have spent time in prison to understand how it fucks up your mind.
-
Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.
I don't know either. I only mentioned that it was a possibility, a system is in place to allow it. A hung jury would not have proven JB's innocence, he would not have "walked free" without having to go through at least one retrial.
It doesn't matter anyway, he was actually convicted.
Even if he is successful in an appeal it won't prove his innocence.
That is interesting because as it stands in Scotland, appeal judges will not quash a conviction on appeal unless they are convinced that the appellant is innocent.
This is the basis that the SCCRC make referrals on.
-
Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.
And btw, a Barrister is not an expert...try QC.
How is a QC an expert , i could show you many barristers better advocates than some QC'S !!
true! ;D ;D
...and I know a dozen of them that are plonkers! ::)
-
Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.
And btw, a Barrister is not an expert...try QC.
How is a QC an expert , i could show you many barristers better advocates than some QC'S !!
true! ;D ;D
...and I know a dozen of them that are plonkers! ::)
I know more than a dozen !!
-
Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.
And btw, a Barrister is not an expert...try QC.
How is a QC an expert , i could show you many barristers better advocates than some QC'S !!
true! ;D ;D
...and I know a dozen of them that are plonkers! ::)
I know more than a dozen !!
Mine are all Scottish so by population density I win!! ;)
-
John any time any place a reasonable distance from where I live I will have this argument with you face to face and we can find out who you really are I will even have the whole thing filmed.
You are actually saying that Jeremy was going to be caught re the caravan park robbery so he murdered his whole family ha ha
More like the experienced theif Mugford said to Jeremy do you want something that will give you a real buzz let's rob the caravan park. She probably said it's easy I have just nicked £4000 of stuff on a cheque fraud
How he must rue the day he set eyes on her
John remind me the facts again of the new porche JB was buying
John filmmakers documentary makers writers they all watch this forum and every website I am sure they will find a slot for you somewhere
Can't wait to put a face to the posts
You won't be able to dodge anything if your sat right in front of me
-
John any time any place a reasonable distance from where I live I will have this argument with you face to face and we can find out who you really are I will even have the whole thing filmed.
You are actually saying that Jeremy was going to be caught re the caravan park robbery so he murdered his whole family ha ha
More like the experienced theif Mugford said to Jeremy do you want something that will give you a real buzz let's rob the caravan park. She probably said it's easy I have just nicked £4000 of stuff on a cheque fraud
How he must rue the day he set eyes on her
John remind me the facts again of the new porche JB was buying
John filmmakers documentary makers writers they all watch this forum and every website I am sure they will find a slot for you somewhere
Can't wait to put a face to the posts
You won't be able to dodge anything if your sat right in front of me
Hello Jackie...are you going to be civil now? :P
I look forward to it, I have another investigation in which I am involved in nearby Capel St Mary so might just take you up on that.
What I am saying is that if Nev found out for sure that Jeremy was responsible for the break-in, the arson and the robbery at the caravan park, he would have been out in his ear....no inheritance then!
No matter how you paint it Jackie, Jeremy was the instigator, not poor Julie.
You know all about the Porsche that Jeremy talked to the cops about as his family were going into rigor mortis. How about the new restaurant too?
You're the dodge expert Jackie, you never did come back with Jeremy's instructions did you?? ::)
-
I think everyone knows by now this Porsche was a replica kit car.
-
hmessex John knows the porche was a replica too that's why I pulled him
So johns involved in another investigation poor sod whoever that is getting stitched up
John I don't think you will gain any fans with the poor Julie comment (experienced
thief)
I take it from your post you are a copper then
-
hmessex John knows the porche was a replica too that's why I pulled him
So johns involved in another investigation poor sod whoever that is getting stitched up
John I don't think you will gain any fans with the poor Julie comment (experienced
thief)
I take it from your post you are a copper then
Hopefully not in the Essex Police, it won't do their reputation much good. 'Involved with' could mean many things though.
-
I think everyone knows by now this Porsche was a replica kit car.
Maybe to begin with but with what he was about to inherit he could have bought the entire franchise. ;)
-
I think everyone knows by now this Porsche was a replica kit car.
Maybe to begin with but with what he was about to inherit he could have bought the entire franchise. ;)
Oh, come oooon!
-
hmessex John knows the porche was a replica too that's why I pulled him
So johns involved in another investigation poor sod whoever that is getting stitched up
John I don't think you will gain any fans with the poor Julie comment (experienced
thief)
I take it from your post you are a copper then
The kit car was only a humble start, Jeremy had eyes on bigger fish cars.
The stitching up as you put it has already happened, I am trying to secure their release and exoneration.
I don't want any fans, is that what you seek Jackie? self gratification?
-
I think everyone knows by now this Porsche was a replica kit car.
Maybe to begin with but with what he was about to inherit he could have bought the entire franchise. ;)
Oh, come oooon!
Is this not fact? Do you have any idea how much both Nev and June were worth?
-
I think everyone knows by now this Porsche was a replica kit car.
Maybe to begin with but with what he was about to inherit he could have bought the entire franchise. ;)
Oh, come oooon!
Is this not fact? Do you have any idea how much both Nev and June were worth?
No, but the relatives did...
-
I think everyone knows by now this Porsche was a replica kit car.
Maybe to begin with but with what he was about to inherit he could have bought the entire franchise. ;)
Oh, come oooon!
Is this not fact? Do you have any idea how much both Nev and June were worth?
This isn´t about what Nevill and June were "worth". It is about you making things up about Jeremy.
-
I think everyone knows by now this Porsche was a replica kit car.
Maybe to begin with but with what he was about to inherit he could have bought the entire franchise. ;)
Oh, come oooon!
Is this not fact? Do you have any idea how much both Nev and June were worth?
This isn´t about what Nevill and June were "worth". It is about you making things up about Jeremy.
Everything I have stated is easily verifiable, but be sure I have only touched the tip of the iceberg.
-
I think everyone knows by now this Porsche was a replica kit car.
Maybe to begin with but with what he was about to inherit he could have bought the entire franchise. ;)
Oh, come oooon!
Is this not fact? Do you have any idea how much both Nev and June were worth?
No, but the relatives did...
;) ...and so did Jerry boy!
-
I think everyone knows by now this Porsche was a replica kit car.
Maybe to begin with but with what he was about to inherit he could have bought the entire franchise. ;)
Oh, come oooon!
Is this not fact? Do you have any idea how much both Nev and June were worth?
This isn´t about what Nevill and June were "worth". It is about you making things up about Jeremy.
Everything I have stated is easily verifiable, but be sure I have only touched the tip of the iceberg.
You are making a lot of unsubstantiated claims. This is getting silly.
-
I think everyone knows by now this Porsche was a replica kit car.
Maybe to begin with but with what he was about to inherit he could have bought the entire franchise. ;)
Oh, come oooon!
Is this not fact? Do you have any idea how much both Nev and June were worth?
This isn´t about what Nevill and June were "worth". It is about you making things up about Jeremy.
Everything I have stated is easily verifiable, but be sure I have only touched the tip of the iceberg.
You are making a lot of unsubstantiated claims. This is getting silly.
Like what? ... now its your chance to impress! :-*
-
Please John post everything up here then about the genuine porche Jeremy was buying plus anything else on Jeremys shopping list we love finding out the truth about Jeremy
I am sitting here in anticipation
-
Abs I am getting excited now waiting for verification I might open a bottle of wine I might agree Jeremys guilty after I see this
-
Abs I am getting excited now waiting for verification I might open a bottle of wine I might agree Jeremys guilty after I see this
Yeah - and now John is trying to wipe it all off on me! HE is making those wild assumptions, not me.
John, I am not here to impress you - not at all!! :P Good grief! Hahaha
-
Don't crack open the Tudor Rose just yet, Jack.......................................
-
Please John post everything up here then about the genuine porche Jeremy was buying plus anything else on Jeremys shopping list we love finding out the truth about Jeremy
I am sitting here in anticipation
Do you mean to tell me Jackie that Jeremy hasn't confided this in you?
Maybe you will get a run in it when he gets out Jackie. Oh forgot, you aren't allowed to drive over 80.
-
Probably not relevant here, but has anyone else wondered why Matthew McDonald didn't react more strongly to the accusation that he was an assasin? Could he have sued for defamation of character?
-
Abs I am getting excited now waiting for verification I might open a bottle of wine I might agree Jeremys guilty after I see this
Yeah - and now John is trying to wipe it all off on me! HE is making those wild assumptions, not me.
John, I am not here to impress you - not at all!! :P Good grief! Hahaha
You did say that it wasn't true abs. What exactly isn't true?
-
Probably not relevant here, but has anyone else wondered why Matthew McDonald didn't react more strongly to the accusation that he was an assasin? Could he have sued for defamation of character?
He probably could have done that. Maybe he just wanted the whole thing to go away and keep living his life in peace and quiet.
It is a bit odd with a named hitman though - I have to admit that. But the man did have an alibi and was quickly cleared.
-
Probably not relevant here, but has anyone else wondered why Matthew McDonald didn't react more strongly to the accusation that he was an assasin? Could he have sued for defamation of character?
He probably could have done that. Maybe he just wanted the whole thing to go away and keep living his life in peace and quiet.
It is a bit odd with a named hitman though - I have to admit that. But the man did have an alibi and was quickly cleared.
Did you see him trying to hide his face when he came out of court Shona....a clear sign of guilt.
-
Abs I am getting excited now waiting for verification I might open a bottle of wine I might agree Jeremys guilty after I see this
Yeah - and now John is trying to wipe it all off on me! HE is making those wild assumptions, not me.
John, I am not here to impress you - not at all!! :P Good grief! Hahaha
You did say that it wasn't true abs. What exactly isn't true?
That Jeremy was going to buy a Porche. You don´t know that - you are making it up.
OK, I am done with your games for now.
-
Abs I am getting excited now waiting for verification I might open a bottle of wine I might agree Jeremys guilty after I see this
Yeah - and now John is trying to wipe it all off on me! HE is making those wild assumptions, not me.
John, I am not here to impress you - not at all!! :P Good grief! Hahaha
You did say that it wasn't true abs. What exactly isn't true?
That Jeremy was going to buy a Porche. You don´t know that - you are making it up.
OK, I am done with your games for now.
No it is true, the kit car thing was only his pipe dream before the murders.
Why settle for bronze when you can have platinum?
Between:
Regina
Respondent
- and -
JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER
Appellant
Ground 11 – the proposed purchase of a Porsche by the appellant
This ground was abandoned before the hearing and nothing further need be said about it.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
-
Probably not relevant here, but has anyone else wondered why Matthew McDonald didn't react more strongly to the accusation that he was an assasin? Could he have sued for defamation of character?
Wonder what he's doing now, and what he's done since 1985.
Others: I wouldn't have gone for a Porsche if i was JB, in 85 and now, i'd have gone for an e-type Jag.
I used walk home from school in the 70's, and pass this royal blue pristine model. I'd stand and look at it for hours. One day i'll own one, one day.
-
Probably not relevant here, but has anyone else wondered why Matthew McDonald didn't react more strongly to the accusation that he was an assasin? Could he have sued for defamation of character?
Wonder what he's doing now, and what he's done since 1985.
Others: I wouldn't have gone for a Porsche if i was JB, in 85 and now, i'd have gone for an e-type Jag.
I used walk home from school in the 70's, and pass this royal blue pristine model. I'd stand and look at it for hours. One day i'll own one, one day.
Maybe he went back to Libya as a mercenary? ;D
-
Probably not relevant here, but has anyone else wondered why Matthew McDonald didn't react more strongly to the accusation that he was an assasin? Could he have sued for defamation of character?
Wonder what he's doing now, and what he's done since 1985.
Others: I wouldn't have gone for a Porsche if i was JB, in 85 and now, i'd have gone for an e-type Jag.
I used walk home from school in the 70's, and pass this royal blue pristine model. I'd stand and look at it for hours. One day i'll own one, one day.
Maybe he went back to Libya as a mercenary? ;D
He'll get good money out there now. :)
-
Shona your right no celebration I thought I was going to see the evidence to convince me JB was guilty
-
Abs I am getting excited now waiting for verification I might open a bottle of wine I might agree Jeremys guilty after I see this
Yeah - and now John is trying to wipe it all off on me! HE is making those wild assumptions, not me.
John, I am not here to impress you - not at all!! :P Good grief! Hahaha
You did say that it wasn't true abs. What exactly isn't true?
That Jeremy was going to buy a Porche. You don´t know that - you are making it up.
OK, I am done with your games for now.
No it is true, the kit car thing was only his pipe dream before the murders.
Why settle for bronze when you can have platinum?
What do you mean it's 'true'? Perhaps you're fantasizing about what you would do if you were in his position. Abs is right, you're game playing.
-
God, Paulg, I'd kill for a midnight blue e-type. And I don't even like cars.
I really wish that I hadn't said that I'd kill for one.
-
I wonder what the details and reason for ground 11 was?
It seems we're running out of things to discuss if the hottest topic at the moment is kit car or porche. I mean let's face it, even if JB was mouthing off about a porche, what would that prove? Not much.
-
God, Paulg, I'd kill for a midnight blue e-type. And I don't even like cars.
I really wish that I hadn't said that I'd kill for one.
Remind me not to go with you to a Jag showroom for a test drive. ;D
-
Careful Shona let's hope there's no murders in your area tonight if they are rich you've had it!
-
Oh, shush, Hartley, you'd love it!! And Jackie, even if Derek Acorah (possibly dodgy choice of mediums, there) came round to your house with one of them there weedgy boards, you still wouldn't believe any evidence that doesn't suit you. Hartley, you're right. We're winding down here.
-
Who cares about brands anyway? It's the colour that's most important :)
-
God, Paulg, I'd kill for a midnight blue e-type. And I don't even like cars.
I really wish that I hadn't said that I'd kill for one.
My 11 year old says they're ugly, and sooooo old fashioned, no taste these youngsters. :)
When i get one Shona (and i will), i'll pick you up and we'll take it for a spin. ;)
-
TA!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I think in regard to the topic of the thread it's pretty obvious although there was no definitive proof JB carried out the murders Essex couldn't be bothered to investigate if someone else could have been responsible.
As for the information regarding the relatives money problems being witheld for 26 years I take it the police are the people who have been withholding the information
I wonder why?
Why would they do that?
-
Jack, Jack, Jack, I love ya, you're my best friend.............Sorry. I opened the tudor rose. Honestly, though, Jackie, is there more proof that JB did it, or Sheila did it, or an outsider did it, or a relative........... or are we all just surmising, and trying to analyse ancient, badly-kept (and possibly doctored) evidence and getting nowhere? I'm impressed with the work that Mike's put in, but I still hold with my original theory. I remember asking you, moons ago, just what makes you so sure of JB's innocence. I don't remember getting an answer, though..................
-
You have to have spent time in prison to understand how it fucks up your mind.
No, John, we do not need personal experience of imprisonment when we have your example before us. We have all the proof we need of what prison can do to a person's mind right here.
What we don't have is hard proof to substantiate the wild claims you make. Nor will that proof be forthcoming, because you are simply playing your same old boring and disruptive games.
Many people do manage to lead happy lives after being in prison, by the way. Some former prisoners have established happy marriages and good careers for themselves. Off the top of my head I recall one former prisoner who became a psychologist and another who became an author. So it's entirely wrong to generalise.
-
Well, the silencer makes it impossible for Sheila to have done it. The silencer had blood and paint on it. Jeremy knew something was going down at the farm, via a phone call from his father. Jeremy said his sister was going mad with a gun, via info from his father, but evidence says this is not true. Other forensic stuff regarding Sheila, also makes it extremely unlikely it was her, unless its a conspiracy.
Thats the evidence Jackie.
-
It would be very scarey if the silencer thing was a total load of rubbish, and unimportant from the start, and planted by a spiteful family member. Sheila (imo) wouldn't have bothered with a silencer. She would have just grabbed whatever gun came her way, and hope that it was loaded, and efficient enough to a) cleanly kill the boys b) kill June before June could stop her (she nearly made a mess of that) c) kill Ralph (another horrible mess) and d) kill herself before anyone could stop her. She must have known that Ralph was downstairs, calling the police, an ambulance, or JB. Does any of this scenario make sense?
-
And as to bloodied footsteps by another killer, he could have just stepped round the blood. He/she didn't have to wade through it.
-
And which image of Sheila is the true, original one? The one with her thumb on the trigger, or the one with her hand uselessly lying on the gun?
-
Abs I am getting excited now waiting for verification I might open a bottle of wine I might agree Jeremys guilty after I see this
Yeah - and now John is trying to wipe it all off on me! HE is making those wild assumptions, not me.
John, I am not here to impress you - not at all!! :P Good grief! Hahaha
You did say that it wasn't true abs. What exactly isn't true?
That Jeremy was going to buy a Porche. You don´t know that - you are making it up.
OK, I am done with your games for now.
No it is true, the kit car thing was only his pipe dream before the murders.
Why settle for bronze when you can have platinum?
Between:
Regina
Respondent
- and -
JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER
Appellant
Ground 11 – the proposed purchase of a Porsche by the appellant
This ground was abandoned before the hearing and nothing further need be said about it.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
From same report:
"140. He admitted enjoying the good things in life – restaurants, wine bars, travelling, fast cars etc. In respect of the conversation with PC Myall about the Porsche car, the appellant said he was in fact referring to a kit model car made by a company called Covan Turbo who produced vehicles looking very similar to Porsche vehicles but at a cost of between £1-2,000."
-
Jack, Jack, Jack, I love ya, you're my best friend.............Sorry. I opened the tudor rose. Honestly, though, Jackie, is there more proof that JB did it, or Sheila did it, or an outsider did it, or a relative........... or are we all just surmising, and trying to analyse ancient, badly-kept (and possibly doctored) evidence and getting nowhere? I'm impressed with the work that Mike's put in, but I still hold with my original theory. I remember asking you, moons ago, just what makes you so sure of JB's innocence. I don't remember getting an answer, though..................
The butler did it.
-
It would be very scarey if the silencer thing was a total load of rubbish, and unimportant from the start, and planted by a spiteful family member. Sheila (imo) wouldn't have bothered with a silencer. She would have just grabbed whatever gun came her way, and hope that it was loaded, and efficient enough to a) cleanly kill the boys b) kill June before June could stop her (she nearly made a mess of that) c) kill Ralph (another horrible mess) and d) kill herself before anyone could stop her. She must have known that Ralph was downstairs, calling the police, an ambulance, or JB. Does any of this scenario make sense?
It may well have been planted by the police and family.
My scenario is this:
Murderer waits outside WHF, then enters when confident that everyone is asleep. Gets loaded and ready gun, plus some spare ammo thats lying placed conveiniently in kitchen. Makes way upstairs, but is disturbed by the awake Sheila.
She's led into parents bedroom, with gun placed under chin. Parents wake, as light is turned on. Sheila is shot in neck, followed by parents. Neville manages to get downstairs followed by killer. Is bludgeoned, then finished off after reloading. Killer goes back upstairs, finishes off June, and puts another bullet into Sheila. Followed by the kids,but they could have been first.
Sheilas right hand and arm has blood on it, as she used this to try to plug first non fatal shot(why plug it if you want to die?).I picture in my mind something similar to the scene in "saving private Ryan", where the guy is shot in the neck, and the American and German fight around him on the floor with a knife.I'd be amazed if she was able to put another bullet in her own neck after the first.
If she did do the killings, why did she choose to take her own life next to the person she disliked the most, i think she'd prefer to do it next to the kids.
Why did she put it under chin, when she showns clinical shooting to the head? Surely in the mouth, or forehead would be a suicide choice?
Anyway people, these are just my thoughts, not really open to debate.
-
Jack, Jack, Jack, I love ya, you're my best friend.............Sorry. I opened the tudor rose. Honestly, though, Jackie, is there more proof that JB did it, or Sheila did it, or an outsider did it, or a relative........... or are we all just surmising, and trying to analyse ancient, badly-kept (and possibly doctored) evidence and getting nowhere? I'm impressed with the work that Mike's put in, but I still hold with my original theory. I remember asking you, moons ago, just what makes you so sure of JB's innocence. I don't remember getting an answer, though..................
The butler did it.
Hmmm it's Miss Peacock with the candle stick for me :o
-
And as to bloodied footsteps by another killer, he could have just stepped round the blood. He/she didn't have to wade through it.
If that is so then it is just as reasonable to say that Sheila did the same.
-
Doesn't this tell you something?? His entire family is inside that farmhouse, Christ only knows what is happening in there, and JB is sitting in a police car discussing silly nonsense like that? Why isn't he begging for someone to go in there and save his parents and the poor boys? Why isn't he running up to the door and trying to help? Apparently, his dad has begged him for help. And he sits outside making inane conversation?
-
Doesn't this tell you something?? His entire family is inside that farmhouse, Christ only knows what is happening in there, and JB is sitting in a police car discussing silly nonsense like that? Why isn't he begging for someone to go in there and save his parents and the poor boys? Why isn't he running up to the door and trying to help? Apparently, his dad has begged him for help. And he sits outside making inane conversation?
Why make the phone call to the police in the first place?
-
Sorry I can't do quotes - this is in response to HMEssex.
-
And grahame - he had to cover his arse. He was silly and smug, but not stupid.
-
So when the police go in to whf and then come out and tell JB all the family are dead the first words he says are the police must have killed them
If this was a plan why come out with something stupid like that you would have said something like I knew she would do something like that
If JB was innocent he was probably thinking this was one of her rages she has had before he was probably tired and pissed of being woken at that time and bear in mind this was the first time she had gone in a rage with a gun and then he saw the supposed shadow light he thought was someone so I can totally understand why he thought everyone was alive and thought the police had killed the family.
Shona regarding your comment why I think jeremy was innocent there is nothing that I have seen or read or any motive that makes me believe Jeremy could carry out these murders and I believe it was either Sheila or the relatives and I still believe there is something being witheld that would solve this case.
Unless everything is released Jeremy will be out of prison very soon because the general public won't put up with this witholding of evidence anymore. The ccrc have had it on that one the public will turn against them.
This isn't just about Jeremy it's about the whole system and the police
-
So when the police go in to whf and then come out and tell JB all the family are dead the first words he says are the police must have killed them
If this was a plan why come out with something stupid like that you would have said something like I knew she would do something like that
If JB was innocent he was probably thinking this was one of her rages she has had before he was probably tired and pissed of being woken at that time and bear in mind this was the first time she had gone in a rage with a gun and then he saw the supposed shadow light he thought was someone so I can totally understand why he thought everyone was alive and thought the police had killed the family.
Shona regarding your comment why I think jeremy was innocent there is nothing that I have seen or read or any motive that makes me believe Jeremy could carry out these murders and I believe it was either Sheila or the relatives and I still believe there is something being witheld that would solve this case.
Unless everything is released Jeremy will be out of prison very soon because the general public won't put up with this witholding of evidence anymore. The ccrc have had it on that one the public will turn against them.
This isn't just about Jeremy it's about the whole system and the police
Why Jackie do you think something is being withheld? Jeremys pretty insignificant to most people.
I remember the murders and the case, but before my brother asked me to do a drive from Witham to WHF, i wouldn't know who Jeremy Bamber was if someone had asked me, and TBH, i think most people are the same.The revolution is not coming.
-
Jackie, maybe the general public saw what I saw - a lovely, ill, confused young woman who didn't have the wherwithall to murder an entire family (including a fit, 6ft 4ins healthy farmer) and a silly, smug, greedy cuckoo who wore a "poor me" expression at the funeral, gripping the arm of his dodgy girlfriend, who went on to enjoy himself, make some very inappropriate remarks and holiday. Then blatantly sell anything sellable from the farm and his ("beloved sis's) flat. And, oh yes, sell images of her that she would never have wanted to be released.
-
There is no way in the world that Ralph and June would have gone to bed, leaving loaded guns all around the house, if Sheila was showing signs of her illness and the boys were staying over.
-
What an unbelievable post Shona I will reply to that tomorrow cuckoo you say right I know where you are coming from
And Paul
Jeremy is about as insignificant as the Guildford four and Birmingham six
Remind me Paul why were they in prison how many appeals did they have
Shona I wonder why so many people support jeremy why is that Shona I think we look at the world through different eyes
Night
-
What an unbelievable post Shona I will reply to that tomorrow cuckoo you say right I know where you are coming from
And Paul
Jeremy is about as insignificant as the Guildford four and Birmingham six
Remind me Paul why were they in prison how many appeals did they have
Shona I wonder why so many people support jeremy why is that Shona I think we look at the world through different eyes
Night
Aaah, political prisoners v murderer, different gravy.
And in comparrison, he's very insignificant.
The public will not rise up, it will not march on Downing street in support of JB, but a few fanatics might. The legal system is not shaking in fear, but if it can proved a cover up has taken place, it will release JB just like the B6 and G4.
-
So when the police go in to whf and then come out and tell JB all the family are dead the first words he says are the police must have killed them
If this was a plan why come out with something stupid like that you would have said something like I knew she would do something like that
If JB was innocent he was probably thinking this was one of her rages she has had before he was probably tired and pissed of being woken at that time and bear in mind this was the first time she had gone in a rage with a gun and then he saw the supposed shadow light he thought was someone so I can totally understand why he thought everyone was alive and thought the police had killed the family.
Shona regarding your comment why I think jeremy was innocent there is nothing that I have seen or read or any motive that makes me believe Jeremy could carry out these murders and I believe it was either Sheila or the relatives and I still believe there is something being witheld that would solve this case.
Unless everything is released Jeremy will be out of prison very soon because the general public won't put up with this witholding of evidence anymore. The ccrc have had it on that one the public will turn against them.
This isn't just about Jeremy it's about the whole system and the police
Why Jackie do you think something is being withheld? Jeremys pretty insignificant to most people.
I remember the murders and the case, but before my brother asked me to do a drive from Witham to WHF, i wouldn't know who Jeremy Bamber was if someone had asked me, and TBH, i think most people are the same.The revolution is not coming.
"Debate in Parliament"
9 Feb 2005 : 4 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter MP (Basingstoke
"With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence..."
"...Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report. All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs.
In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:
"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".
Unfortunately, the chief constable has made his position clear: he will not co-operate. One wonders why not.
...Subsequent developments, particularly during the past 12 months, have given rise to grave concern that Bamber's conviction may be another of the great miscarriages of justice, to be bracketed with the Bridgewater Three, the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and others."
That's why, paul
-
You have to have spent time in prison to understand how it fucks up your mind.
No, John, we do not need personal experience of imprisonment when we have your example before us. We have all the proof we need of what prison can do to a person's mind right here.
What we don't have is hard proof to substantiate the wild claims you make. Nor will that proof be forthcoming, because you are simply playing your same old boring and disruptive games.
Many people do manage to lead happy lives after being in prison, by the way. Some former prisoners have established happy marriages and good careers for themselves. Off the top of my head I recall one former prisoner who became a psychologist and another who became an author. So it's entirely wrong to generalise.
As you have never been there Keira I don't think you have much to say about it. Keep watching the soaps because that is the closest you will probably ever get....if you're lucky!!
-
Abs I am getting excited now waiting for verification I might open a bottle of wine I might agree Jeremys guilty after I see this
Yeah - and now John is trying to wipe it all off on me! HE is making those wild assumptions, not me.
John, I am not here to impress you - not at all!! :P Good grief! Hahaha
You did say that it wasn't true abs. What exactly isn't true?
That Jeremy was going to buy a Porche. You don´t know that - you are making it up.
OK, I am done with your games for now.
No it is true, the kit car thing was only his pipe dream before the murders.
Why settle for bronze when you can have platinum?
Between:
Regina
Respondent
- and -
JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER
Appellant
Ground 11 – the proposed purchase of a Porsche by the appellant
This ground was abandoned before the hearing and nothing further need be said about it.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
From same report:
"140. He admitted enjoying the good things in life – restaurants, wine bars, travelling, fast cars etc. In respect of the conversation with PC Myall about the Porsche car, the appellant said he was in fact referring to a kit model car made by a company called Covan Turbo who produced vehicles looking very similar to Porsche vehicles but at a cost of between £1-2,000."
That's not what he told the copper though...easy to change the story after the event. ;)
-
Doesn't this tell you something?? His entire family is inside that farmhouse, Christ only knows what is happening in there, and JB is sitting in a police car discussing silly nonsense like that? Why isn't he begging for someone to go in there and save his parents and the poor boys? Why isn't he running up to the door and trying to help? Apparently, his dad has begged him for help. And he sits outside making inane conversation?
Exactly Shona, truth be known he couldn't care less.
-
So when the police go in to whf and then come out and tell JB all the family are dead the first words he says are the police must have killed them
If this was a plan why come out with something stupid like that you would have said something like I knew she would do something like that
If JB was innocent he was probably thinking this was one of her rages she has had before he was probably tired and pissed of being woken at that time and bear in mind this was the first time she had gone in a rage with a gun and then he saw the supposed shadow light he thought was someone so I can totally understand why he thought everyone was alive and thought the police had killed the family.
Shona regarding your comment why I think jeremy was innocent there is nothing that I have seen or read or any motive that makes me believe Jeremy could carry out these murders and I believe it was either Sheila or the relatives and I still believe there is something being witheld that would solve this case.
Unless everything is released Jeremy will be out of prison very soon because the general public won't put up with this witholding of evidence anymore. The ccrc have had it on that one the public will turn against them.
This isn't just about Jeremy it's about the whole system and the police
You really make me laugh Jackie, you haven't a bloody clue what passes for real life and justice lovey.
On the basis of your reasoning, Jeremy has as much chance of being freed as a worm has of being made President of the United States of America...sorry Obama! ;D ;D
-
Jackie, maybe the general public saw what I saw - a lovely, ill, confused young woman who didn't have the wherwithall to murder an entire family (including a fit, 6ft 4ins healthy farmer) and a silly, smug, greedy cuckoo who wore a "poor me" expression at the funeral, gripping the arm of his dodgy girlfriend, who went on to enjoy himself, make some very inappropriate remarks and holiday. Then blatantly sell anything sellable from the farm and his ("beloved sis's) flat. And, oh yes, sell images of her that she would never have wanted to be released.
That's certainly the image I have for him and the rest.....
-
What an unbelievable post Shona I will reply to that tomorrow cuckoo you say right I know where you are coming from
And Paul
Jeremy is about as insignificant as the Guildford four and Birmingham six
Remind me Paul why were they in prison how many appeals did they have
Shona I wonder why so many people support jeremy why is that Shona I think we look at the world through different eyes
Night
There she goes with the name calling again....quite a list now Jackie.
Thick...liar...stupid...cuckoo...
-
"Debate in Parliament"
9 Feb 2005 : 4 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter MP (Basingstoke
"With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence..."
"...Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report. All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs.
In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:
"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".
Seems you have your answer then Keira.
-
"Debate in Parliament"
9 Feb 2005 : 4 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter MP (Basingstoke
"With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence..."
"...Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report. All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs.
In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:
"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".
Seems you have your answer then Keira.
John, Your claimed agenda is to reveal the truth. Yet it's all too apparent that your real agenda is to distort the truth by whatever means. Here's a prime example of this. You have totally distorted the Hansard record of a section of a parliamentary debate by taking a distorted, selective quotation from this without even indicating that you have cut this section short. Your quotation states:
"In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:
"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".
Yet the Hansard record for this section of the debate actually states:
In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:
"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".
Unfortunately, the chief constable has made his position clear: he will not co-operate. One wonders why not.
-
What an unbelievable post Shona I will reply to that tomorrow cuckoo you say right I know where you are coming from
And Paul
Jeremy is about as insignificant as the Guildford four and Birmingham six
Remind me Paul why were they in prison how many appeals did they have
Shona I wonder why so many people support jeremy why is that Shona I think we look at the world through different eyes
Night
There she goes with the name calling again....quite a list now Jackie.
Thick...liar...stupid...cuckoo...
And here you are distorting the truth once again.
Jackie did not, as I recall, call anyone a cuckoo, she was refering to someone else's use of the term.
But, why allow inconvenient facts like the truth to get in the way of your smear campaigns, eh, John?
-
Hartley you are backing yourself into a corner again and you will soon have to run away again with your tail between your legs like you did a few weeks ago.
I don't believe Julie mucked was telling the truth about knowing about the murders and that is why the relatives didn't push to have her charged not an own goal at all
If mugford was telling the truth the relatives would have gone to any lengths to have had her charged
John you are a liar
Answer my 2 questions
Jackie +1
John 0
So childish Keira! ;D ;D ;D
ps name calling won't promote your lost cause one iota!
John, please post a quote from me verifying this absurd claim that I was name calling. The fact is, you can't because I did nothing of the kind. This is simply one more example of how eagerly you misquote, refuse to provide sources for your wild claims and distort facts in order to misrepresent the case for and against Jeremy Bamber.
-
What an unbelievable post Shona I will reply to that tomorrow cuckoo you say right I know where you are coming from
And Paul
Jeremy is about as insignificant as the Guildford four and Birmingham six
Remind me Paul why were they in prison how many appeals did they have
Shona I wonder why so many people support jeremy why is that Shona I think we look at the world through different eyes
Night
There she goes with the name calling again....quite a list now Jackie.
Thick...liar...stupid...cuckoo...
And here you are distorting the truth once again.
Jackie did not, as I recall, call anyone a cuckoo, she was refering to someone else's use of the term.
But, why allow inconvenient facts like the truth to get in the way of your smear campaigns, eh, John?
Are you for real? Distorting the truth? It's no different from 75% of other peoples posts though is it, unless other people saying things like JM lied, PC plod 1 falsified that, pc plod 2 is corrupt, the relatives murdered everyone not JB, etc, etc.
But of course you don't see those types of posts as lying because they reinforce your view.
Jackie is just rude, perhaps if she was a little more polite to people and respected that people have different views, and perhaps if she wasn't so preachy, the a few more people might be willing to listen to what she has to say.
Take a leaf out of Grahams, Rochfords, Abs or Cliffs or Andreas book maybe, they all appear to have similar views that JB is innocent, but they are generally quite civil to folk with opposing views.
-
What an unbelievable post Shona I will reply to that tomorrow cuckoo you say right I know where you are coming from
And Paul
Jeremy is about as insignificant as the Guildford four and Birmingham six
Remind me Paul why were they in prison how many appeals did they have
Shona I wonder why so many people support jeremy why is that Shona I think we look at the world through different eyes
Night
There she goes with the name calling again....quite a list now Jackie.
Thick...liar...stupid...cuckoo...
And here you are distorting the truth once again.
Jackie did not, as I recall, call anyone a cuckoo, she was refering to someone else's use of the term.
But, why allow inconvenient facts like the truth to get in the way of your smear campaigns, eh, John?
Are you for real? Distorting the truth? It's no different from 75% of other peoples posts though is it, unless other people saying things like JM lied, PC plod 1 falsified that, pc plod 2 is corrupt, the relatives murdered everyone not JB, etc, etc.
But of course you don't see those types of posts as lying because they reinforce your view.
Jackie is just rude, perhaps if she was a little more polite to people and respected that people have different views, and perhaps if she wasn't so preachy, the a few more people might be willing to listen to what she has to say.
Take a leaf out of Grahams, Rochfords, Abs or Cliffs or Andreas book maybe, they all appear to have similar views that JB is innocent, but they are generally quite civil to folk with opposing views.
Hartley, Jackie is a fanatic, the extreme far left of the JB is innocent party. When i right winger like Shona,myself or John posts, you've got to accept she'll get a little bit volatile. Grahame, Rochford,Abs and Cliff are moderate left wingers, so far less volatile, and Andrea's just a babe..that hat does it for me. ;)
Keira's a rights person, and only interested in justice, tinged with a little " i think he's innocent".
Don't bite people, its just a wind up.
-
Okay. Nicely put, you diplomat you. ;)
-
"If just one of the ten jurors had wavered, Bamber would have walked away a free man."
Andrew Hunter MP
He may well have said that, but unfortunately it is not the case.
In a Crown Court case if the jury are unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict in a case which involves significant public interest then there is an assumption in law that the prosecution will seek a re-trial.
Hunters statement is premature.
In fact reading up a bit more, if a retrial took place and a majority verdict failed a second time, it is even conceivable that the prosecution would seek a second retrial.
That is extremely unlikely. The legal convention is that the prosecution agree that it is not in the public interest for there to be a third trial following two trials with a hung jury.
Tell Sion Jenkins that then.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article728984.ece
The Sion Jenkins case makes my point. He had three trials. After the first, at which he was convicted (i.e. there was no hung jury), the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial. There then followed two trials, each resulting in a hung jury. The prosecution then followed standard practice in saying it would not be in the public interest for there to be a further trial.
-
......and Andrea's just a babe..that hat does it for me. ;)
sexist :P ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
......and Andrea's just a babe..that hat does it for me. ;)
sexist :P ;D ;D ;D ;D
Nah, just an honest red blooded male. :)
-
I do love to provoke a reaction lets now have a list of any lies I have told on here John.
Hartley you are a friend of the relatives as you have pointed out on numerous times so you are not independant
Shona used the word cuckoo which I believe is used when someone is adopted they are not really true members of a family
That's what she thinks of Jeremy he should be in line for the inheritance
Paul tell us your past any problems with the police or has anyone in your family been accused of murder is their any personal reason you would like to keep Jeremy locked up
Do you think Donal Macintyre would be a good person to investigate this case
-
Yes, I used the word cuckoo, as in a greedy, ungrateful youngster, watching the poor, hard-working parents doing their best to rear him. Did JB, or did he not, say that he would have no problem in killing his parents? Did he not steal from them? And here come the smites - does a cuckoo not throw out all the other young from the nest so that he can get all the grub? I am beginning to sound like I am ranting, I'd better have a nice sit down and a look at the Daily Mail...........
-
I do love to provoke a reaction lets now have a list of any lies I have told on here John.
Hartley you are a friend of the relatives as you have pointed out on numerous times so you are not independant
Shona used the word cuckoo which I believe is used when someone is adopted they are not really true members of a family
That's what she thinks of Jeremy he should be in line for the inheritance
Paul tell us your past any problems with the police or has anyone in your family been accused of murder is their any personal reason you would like to keep Jeremy locked up
Do you think Donal Macintyre would be a good person to investigate this case
Its not a case having personal reasons Jackie, i've never met the bloke. If he's guilty, then he can stay in prison. If there's evidence to show the jury was wrong, then he'll be released.
I've been falsely set up on an assault charge, wrongly arrested for attempted murder (later released without charge), caught and found guilty of theft of petrol (i was guilty).Guilty for drunk and disorderly (was guilty), and i couple of others involving fights, was guilty.
What i've got away with far outweighs the assault charge, so i consider myself in credit. I've been a good boy for the last 23 years though.
-
Hartley you are a friend of the relatives as you have pointed out on numerous times so you are not independant
Aaaaagh I'm biting again!!! ::)
Jackie you sweetie, your challenge should your choose to accept is go and find somewhere that I have said that I am a friend of the relatives, it shouldn't be too difficult as there are numerous occasions are there not?
And to drag me in hook line and sinker, should we apply the same theory to your relationship with Jeremy as to your independence? Surely on that basis we should discount anything you say should we not?
I actually haven't made any accusations or sweeping statements or anything else really, well not lately none that I recall anyway, so I'm not really sure what your beef is. :-\
-
Hartley what is my relationship with Jeremy?
Shona the only thing I will agree with you is the caravan robbery the other things you are talking about are still under debate at the ccrc. As I have said before Shona if you have the proof that JB please share or get in touch with the ccrc it would save so much time and money
-
Hartley what is my relationship with Jeremy?
Jackie I have no idea. I would expect that's something you should know for yourself though, so I'm not sure why you're asking me. :-\
Any joy on finding out where I said I was friends with the 'relatives' yet?
-
Hartley what is my relationship with Jeremy?
Jackie I have no idea. I would expect that's something you should know for yourself though, so I'm not sure why you're asking me. :-\
Any joy on finding out where I said I was friends with the 'relatives' yet?
Oh okay Jackie you lovely person, I shall try and assist you as best I can.
Would it be the post below that you decided I was friends with the relatives by any chance? And shall we put the 'numerous occasions' statement down to a lie of yours, or a simple mistake perhaps? :-\
I'm not sure really because you keep running around telling people to stop lying, so for the benefit of doubt we'll record this as a simple mistake I think, and mistakes are fine, that's what we learn from.
Thanks Hartley.........Just a couple of questions to kick off with then:
1) What is your view on JB guilty or innocent? (maybe best expressed as 2 percentages i.e 60/40)
2) What are the key things that have made you form this view?
3) Have you any connection with EP.
4) Have you had any contact with key family members? (RBW, DB, AE, PE) social, work or other
5) Your age in 1985? (approx)
6) Current proximity to the area?
7) Do you hope for a positive CCRC result or would rather it was turned down?
I'm interested in your views opinions and will not shoot anything down in flames as I believe considering all options could be the key to solving this long term. I also understand that the worst Police investigation in modern history doesn't mean a man is definitely innocent. This investigation was shocking whatever way you look at it and even EP aren't proud of it.
Okay let's see, I'm replying on the premise that I have no interest of getting into a point scoring contest, I have my views and other people have theirs. That's fine.
1)
Difficult to quantify but if I had to I would say somewhere in the region of 85/15 guilty, it was probably something like 65/35 before participating in this particular forum.
2)
I generally find the prosecutions presented case to be sound and I’ve seen no evidence from any of the appeals or indeed presented on this and other forums which lead me believe an alternative chain of events occurred.
I have tried to keep an open mind and look at new evidence and theories as they arise, and I’ll continue to do so, but I haven’t seen any of sufficient weight to cause me to change my view.
In addition I have a few personal opinions/speculation in different areas, these are just my own views so feel free to disagree, I’m not ramming it down anybodies throat.
It’s not an exhaustive list but it will suffice as a response to the question I’m sure.
SHIELA-
Regardless of her illness, I don’t believe she had the ability to overcome Nevill (whether already injured or not), or the ability to strike a blow with the butt of the anshulz rifle with such force that the butt splintered.
I don’t believe that she was so proficient with the firearm in a normal frame of mind let alone a frenzied/crazy/berserk frame of mind to have 100% accuracy with every single shot fired, not a single miss.
I don’t believe that she would have shot herself twice in order to commit suicide and the two shots are quite different from each other, the first being from within 3 inches and at a shallow angle just off horizontal, the second being a contact shot right under the chin and into her brain. Having failed with the first shot, I don’t believe that she would have had the presence of mind to understand why the first shot failed and change the approach when it came to the second shot.
JEREMY-
To me, his behaviour after the horrific murders is very odd, and that doesn’t necessarily make him guilty, but when combined with the huge number of odd coincidences that occurred, it does push me towards thinking that he is responsible.
Some of the coincidences if he was innocent include: the handling of the murder weapon on the prior evening and thus his fingerprints being present; the admission of the alleged break in, which gave an alibi of sorts, saying that he broke in after and not on the night of the murders; the alleged phone call from Nevill to Jeremy; Julie Mugford’s statement against him.
He’s either the most unlucky chap on the planet, or he’s guilty.
JULIE MUGFORD-
I know some people have a view that she lied to sell the story to the papers, or lied because she was a scorned woman with a grudge, or that she completely hoodwinked the defences cross examiner by pretending to be a crocodile.
But without witnessing her body language and in lieu of anything more concrete I’m inclined to trust in the judgement of the jury, judges and interviewing police officers that she was telling the truth.
THE SILENCER EVIDENCE-
Again I’m quite happy with the chain of events regarding the discovery of the silencer put forward by the prosecution. Whilst the relatives actions in taking the silencer to Oak Farm and the closer examination of it, was ill advised indeed, I still believe the evidence and it’s credibility is sound.
I’ve heard the various theories of multiple and merged silencers and differing discovery dates etc, which I don’t believe.
A POLICE FIT UP:
I’m not so naïve to think that police corruption is a myth, but I personally deem it to be absolutely impossible that a cover up of this scale involving this many people over more than 25 years could have occurred.
3)
No I have no connection with EP, I was in the MET for a mere 12 months in 2002/2003 but it didn't suit me, my sister is in the MET and has been for around 12 years. Nothing to do with this particular case.
4)
Yes, but I'm not willing to divulge anything more than that on this forum which has such close ties to JB and his associates.
5)
I was just a kid back then, only in my thirties now.
6)
I live just West of Tollesbury.
7)
On a personal level, the only result I wish for from the CCRC is one which reflects the evidence, they have access to much more evidence than that which is cherry picked and presented on these forums.
Hopefully that answers your questions?
-
John, Your claimed agenda is to reveal the truth. Yet it's all too apparent that your real agenda is to distort the truth by whatever means. Here's a prime example of this. You have totally distorted the Hansard record of a section of a parliamentary debate by taking a distorted, selective quotation from this without even indicating that you have cut this section short. Your quotation states:
Maybe you haven't noticed Keira that it was selective in that it answered your earlier question but then again you don't like answers to your questions do you? ;D
-
What an unbelievable post Shona I will reply to that tomorrow cuckoo you say right I know where you are coming from
And Paul
Jeremy is about as insignificant as the Guildford four and Birmingham six
Remind me Paul why were they in prison how many appeals did they have
Shona I wonder why so many people support jeremy why is that Shona I think we look at the world through different eyes
Night
There she goes with the name calling again....quite a list now Jackie.
Thick...liar...stupid...cuckoo...
And here you are distorting the truth once again.
Jackie did not, as I recall, call anyone a cuckoo, she was refering to someone else's use of the term.
But, why allow inconvenient facts like the truth to get in the way of your smear campaigns, eh, John?
She made a disingenuous reference to the name 'cuckoo' when replying to Shona as Shona herself has previously used the term to describe someone who is adopted within a family.
As far as I am aware Shona is not adopted...maybe Shona will tell us?
-
Perhaps if punctuation was used such misunderstandings (if it is one cuckoo) wouldn't occur.
I'd take that I phone back to the shop if it can't even punctuate a sentence, mine can, so maybe it's just user error?
-
What an unbelievable post Shona I will reply to that tomorrow cuckoo you say right I know where you are coming from
And Paul
Jeremy is about as insignificant as the Guildford four and Birmingham six
Remind me Paul why were they in prison how many appeals did they have
Shona I wonder why so many people support jeremy why is that Shona I think we look at the world through different eyes
Night
There she goes with the name calling again....quite a list now Jackie.
Thick...liar...stupid...cuckoo...
And here you are distorting the truth once again.
Jackie did not, as I recall, call anyone a cuckoo, she was refering to someone else's use of the term.
But, why allow inconvenient facts like the truth to get in the way of your smear campaigns, eh, John?
Are you for real? Distorting the truth? It's no different from 75% of other peoples posts though is it, unless other people saying things like JM lied, PC plod 1 falsified that, pc plod 2 is corrupt, the relatives murdered everyone not JB, etc, etc.
But of course you don't see those types of posts as lying because they reinforce your view.
Jackie is just rude, perhaps if she was a little more polite to people and respected that people have different views, and perhaps if she wasn't so preachy, the a few more people might be willing to listen to what she has to say.
Take a leaf out of Grahams, Rochfords, Abs or Cliffs or Andreas book maybe, they all appear to have similar views that JB is innocent, but they are generally quite civil to folk with opposing views.
I will second that Hartley, I will also take the opportunity to apologise to Keira whom I accused of name calling. I accept that that was wrong, however, her comment about you running away with your tail between your legs was totally uncalled for. Shame on her! :-*
-
Hartley are you saying you have never made a comment regarding the fact you think I have some kind of close relationship with JB it's constant you belong to the little click of people who believe that I would only help someone because I am in a relationship with them and infact because of work and research I have done on this case a lot of people have contacted me about other miscarriages of justice and I would support anyone I beleived to be innocent.
Hopefully a new television series will be broadcast on tv that will focus on miscarriages of justice.
Shona one of your main reasons to believe Sheila did not commit the murders you have stated on numerous occasions you do not believe Sheila would murder her children do you accept now that mothers do sometimes murder their own children
-
I will second that Hartley, I will also take the opportunity to apologise to Keira whom I accused of name calling. I accept that that was wrong, however, her comment about you running away with your tail between your legs was totally uncalled for. Shame on her! :-*
Haven't even got a tale, so dat's a false accusation that is right der dat is. :D
-
Hartley are you saying you have never made a comment regarding the fact you think I have some kind of close relationship with JB it's constant you belong to the little click of people who believe that I would only help someone because I am in a relationship with them and infact because of work and research I have done on this case a lot of people have contacted me about other miscarriages of justice and I would support anyone I beleived to be innocent.
Erm yes I absolutely will say I have made no such comment, there's challenge number two for you, go find a post to prove me wrong please!
Plus you say you support someone, that's fine, but please don't accuse me of being anti-Bamber or anti-anyone either, unless again you can point to anything that I have posted which would support that.
I am pretty fair in what I say for the most part, you obviously never finish reading my posts.
How do you breathe, eat or drink with all these bitter accusations and allegations flowing out of every orifice 24 hours a day?
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
-
Yes, I used the word cuckoo, as in a greedy, ungrateful youngster, watching the poor, hard-working parents doing their best to rear him. Did JB, or did he not, say that he would have no problem in killing his parents? Did he not steal from them? And here come the smites - does a cuckoo not throw out all the other young from the nest so that he can get all the grub? I am beginning to sound like I am ranting, I'd better have a nice sit down and a look at the Daily Mail...........
Jackie doesn't like her hero being portrayed in such a bad light Shona, it ruins whatever false image she and others are trying to spin on his behalf with all these media followers. Sorry Jacksie but its true and when we are on the subject you know very well the lies you promote, the biggest one being off course that Jeremy is innocent of his crimes.
-
John have you decided on us meeting up yet?
John where have I said that JB was my hero and if you knew me you might think very famous footballers are my thing
Hartley are all your old posts on here from when you couldn't take it anymore and disappeared for a few weeks
-
Hartley are all your old posts on here from when you couldn't take it anymore and disappeared for a few weeks
Couldn't take it any more? ??? You are priceless dear.
My old posts such as this one you mean? :
Back for a one time parting shot ;D But then I'll be gone again. :(
Just wanted to say that I was kinda getting fed up with some of the personal vibes going back and forth (for which I'm sure I'm just as guilty).
I was also getting fed up with peoples preconceptions, what's the point in joining in if the only thing your going to do is preach and of course he/she who preaches loudest wins?
I'll also take the opportunity to apologise to the hordes of people I've no doubt offended, seriously no offence intended, as I've said in the past it would be mighty boring if everyone agreed all the time.
Anyway, it seems like most of this has been debated to death, I don't have as much time as I used to and I don't feel I've got anything left to contribute anyway (other than poking fun at the cheerleaders :D ) so I'll leave you to it, I may rejoin if something new emerges, or when the CCRC verdict comes in, but until then happy debating chaps and chap-esses, take care x.
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
What would that imply then?
When was that, in 1996 wasn't it (I'm not sure) ?
-
John have you decided on us meeting up yet?
John where have I said that JB was my hero and if you knew me you might think very famous footballers are my thing
Hartley are all your old posts on here from when you couldn't take it anymore and disappeared for a few weeks
I believe I already posted that I will be in the area again in the near future with my involvement in another high profile case nearby. Maybe you would like to join our demonstration in London in July which seeks to highlight miscarriages of justice within the UK. You and Keira would be most welcome.
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
What would that imply then?
When was that, in 1996 wasn't it (I'm not sure) ?
Make of it what you will !! Myself if i nothing to hide i would give mine willingly , hoping i could put this all to bed once and for all .
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
You don't give DNA, it is extracted from blood etc... which are probably still being retained from the original samples given.
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
Really Jon, where would i find that information? Thats interesting.
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
What would that imply then?
When was that, in 1996 wasn't it (I'm not sure) ?
Make of it what you will !! Myself if i nothing to hide i would give mine willingly , hoping i could put this all to bed once and for all .
Maybe, or maybe they just wanted to get on with their lives. Maybe they thought that giving DNA would not put this to bed at all, maybe they thought giving DNA would prove that they were involved in framing JB, maybe they didn't want to give his defence any more ammunition. Maybe, maybe maybe.
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
What would that imply then?
When was that, in 1996 wasn't it (I'm not sure) ?
Make of it what you will !! Myself if i nothing to hide i would give mine willingly , hoping i could put this all to bed once and for all .
Maybe, or maybe they just wanted to get on with their lives. Maybe they thought that giving DNA would not put this to bed at all, maybe they thought giving DNA would prove that they were involved in framing JB, maybe they didn't want to give his defence any more ammunition. Maybe, maybe maybe.
Maybe they know he is guilty, after all, they are best placed to know what the guy was capable of. If I were in their boots I would tell the authorities to get lost too. ;D
-
Jon
+1 Jon nothing to hide hmmm
Let's hope they are forced to in the future
John what organisation would that be then?
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
You don't give DNA, it is extracted from blood etc... which are probably still being retained from the original samples given.
Didn't one of the relatives have the same blood group as Sheila? I seem to remember reading something about it somewhere.
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
You don't give DNA, it is extracted from blood etc... which are probably still being retained from the original samples given.
I think your DNA can be taken from anything? I think what they do when someone gives their consent is that they take a swab from inside the mouth? Can't be sure though?
-
thats right grahame, or they take hair samples
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
You don't give DNA, it is extracted from blood etc... which are probably still being retained from the original samples given.
Didn't one of the relatives have the same blood group as Sheila? I seem to remember reading something about it somewhere.
The prosecution later conceded that Sheila's blood group (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) matched that of Robert Boutflour, Jeremy's uncle, who was present when the silencer was found.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-455875/Is-Bambis-killer-innocent.html#ixzz1MEjFF1cN
-
Hartley are you saying you have never made a comment regarding the fact you think I have some kind of close relationship with JB it's constant you belong to the little click of people who believe that I would only help someone because I am in a relationship with them and infact because of work and research I have done on this case a lot of people have contacted me about other miscarriages of justice and I would support anyone I beleived to be innocent.
Erm yes I absolutely will say I have made no such comment, there's challenge number two for you, go find a post to prove me wrong please!
Plus you say you support someone, that's fine, but please don't accuse me of being anti-Bamber or anti-anyone either, unless again you can point to anything that I have posted which would support that.
I am pretty fair in what I say for the most part, you obviously never finish reading my posts.
How do you breathe, eat or drink with all these bitter accusations and allegations flowing out of every orifice 24 hours a day?
Let's do some Jackie badgering :o (that doesn't sound right), can you find anything which would achieve your challenges that I've set you? Or will you admit that you are wrong? Talking bollocks perhaps?
And the 'I'm a friend of the relatives trophy' evidence is still up for grabs if you want it?
-
Not so much badgering but getting right up her nose. :P
I look forward to the encounter in the Queens Head.
-
Jon
+1 Jon nothing to hide hmmm
Let's hope they are forced to in the future
John what organisation would that be then?
Why hope?
Just for purely speculation and discussion purposes, let's say we just got the DNA results of the relatives, you decide what the results are, for the purpose of this argument. What would any result prove, matter, insinuate?
-
I am working in-between having fun reading your posts I need to be sitting in front of my computer to go back over old posts but I will be doing it don't worry about that
John what was the organisation you have invited Chochokeira and myself to come to we are both always interested in miscarriages of justice
-
I am working in-between having fun reading your posts I need to be sitting in front of my computer to go back over old posts but I will be doing it don't worry about that
Really I'm not.
But I can post some new ones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29) if you like, that way you would have something to quote? The quote button is in the top right hand corner by the way, if your I-phone can go far right?
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
Really Jon, where would i find that information? Thats interesting.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/blood-2002-appeal
-
Another point, referring to the title of this thread, didn't the relatives have blood samples taken to eliminate them from their inquiries into the silencer discovery?
I have no doubt whatsoever that they were questioned with sufficient attention to detail to eliminate them from being a suspect.
No amount of ranting or slanderous utter piffle ( ;D ) will change that.
They refused to give DNA samples , upon the discovery of DNA !!
Really Jon, where would i find that information? Thats interesting.
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/blood-2002-appeal
Right, so the source is JB's website, I actually don't doubt that they refused (I would also), but as a source to quote this is meaningless.
The swapping of the SBJ/1 and DRB/1 must be believed then as well?
-
Thanks Jon.
"The male DNA was shown not to match Jeremy’s DNA. The prosecution team attempted to find out whose DNA this was but David Boutflour, Peter Eaton, Robert Boutflour and Anthony Pargeter all refused to give a DNA sample to be checked against this male DNA found inside the sound moderator even though some of them had definitely handled the moderator, including David Bouflour who found DRB/1."
It doesn´t hurt to have a DNA sample taken - not at all. You have to wonder why they refused to cooperate.
-
I am working in-between having fun reading your posts I need to be sitting in front of my computer to go back over old posts but I will be doing it don't worry about that
John what was the organisation you have invited Chochokeira and myself to come to we are both always interested in miscarriages of justice
I never mentioned any organisation Jackie, at least I don't think I did as none as such yet exists. I have already posted to another thread about this but will repost just for your benefit....are you watching??
I genuinely hope you will consider bringing your enthusiasm to bear as everyone with an interest in miscarriages of justice is heartily invited to participate.
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
-
Thanks Jon.
"The male DNA was shown not to match Jeremy’s DNA. The prosecution team attempted to find out whose DNA this was but David Boutflour, Peter Eaton, Robert Boutflour and Anthony Pargeter all refused to give a DNA sample to be checked against this male DNA found inside the sound moderator even though some of them had definitely handled the moderator, including David Bouflour who found DRB/1."
It doesn´t hurt to have a DNA sample taken - not at all. You have to wonder why they refused to cooperate.
I don't, not believe it, but where does that information come from? Apart from JB's site.
-
Yep John I am watching
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
or in conclusion...
In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
or in conclusion...
In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
or in conclusion...
In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.
The judges are dodgy now then?
-
They probably took over the baton from the 18 appeal judges who made judgements on the case of the Birmingham 6
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
or in conclusion...
In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.
The judges are dodgy now then?
Typical response....nothing much changes? ;)
-
They probably took over the baton from the 18 appeal judges who made judgements on the case of the Birmingham 6
As someone correctly posted yesterday, the Birmingham 6 was a politically inspired case whereas Jeremy Bamber's is not.
-
They probably took over the baton from the 18 appeal judges who made judgements on the case of the Birmingham 6
As someone correctly posted yesterday, the Birmingham 6 was a politically inspired case whereas Jeremy Bamber's is not.
Who was responsible for ' The politically inspired case ' against the Birmingham Six ?
-
John it had absolutely nothing to do with the Birmingham six being political prisoners they were innocent 18 appeal court judges got it wrong
Appeal court judges do get it wrong don't they John and hartley
-
They probably took over the baton from the 18 appeal judges who made judgements on the case of the Birmingham 6
As someone correctly posted yesterday, the Birmingham 6 was a politically inspired case whereas Jeremy Bamber's is not.
With respect, that makes no difference to the question whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
or in conclusion...
In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.
The judges are dodgy now then?
Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
or in conclusion...
In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.
The judges are dodgy now then?
Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.
No, if you excuse my French but that is ******** (I decided not to use French ;) ). A Judge presides over a case and nothing more. Are you suggesting that the judge in this case was dodgy? What evidence is there of that, what gain would he have accrued?
We are getting into fantasy land here.
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
or in conclusion...
In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.
The judges are dodgy now then?
Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.
No, if you excuse my French but that is ******** (I decided not to use French ;) ). A Judge presides over a case and nothing more. Are you suggesting that the judge in this case was dodgy? What evidence is there of that, what gain would he have accrued?
We are getting into fantasy land here.
No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.
-
Hartley the question I asked was Appeal Judges get it wrong sometimes don't they?
-
They probably took over the baton from the 18 appeal judges who made judgements on the case of the Birmingham 6
As someone correctly posted yesterday, the Birmingham 6 was a politically inspired case whereas Jeremy Bamber's is not.
With respect, that makes no difference to the question whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.
There is no comparison between the cases and to intimate that there is incorrect.
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
or in conclusion...
In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.
The judges are dodgy now then?
Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.
Judges are human...at least I am told so. :P
There will always be rogues in every station in life, judges are no different.
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
or in conclusion...
In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.
The judges are dodgy now then?
Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.
Judges are human...at least I am told so. :P
There will always be rogues in every station in life, judges are no different.
Here, Here.
-
Hartley the question I asked was Appeal Judges get it wrong sometimes don't they?
No I don't think so, I don't think they get it wrong.
I think they pass judgement on what is presented before them, if something is wrong in terms of successful appellants, then it is the evidence presented which is 'wrong' or insufficient.
-
They probably took over the baton from the 18 appeal judges who made judgements on the case of the Birmingham 6
As someone correctly posted yesterday, the Birmingham 6 was a politically inspired case whereas Jeremy Bamber's is not.
With respect, that makes no difference to the question whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.
There is no comparison between the cases and to intimate that there is incorrect.
Of course the cases are different - almost every case if different from another even if the charges are the same. The key point however is that it does not matter what was the original inspiration or motivation for the prosecution. Following a conviction which is taken to appeal judges of the Court of Appeal can and do get it wrong on occasions.
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
or in conclusion...
In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.
The judges are dodgy now then?
Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.
No, if you excuse my French but that is ******** (I decided not to use French ;) ). A Judge presides over a case and nothing more. Are you suggesting that the judge in this case was dodgy? What evidence is there of that, what gain would he have accrued?
We are getting into fantasy land here.
No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.
They do this routinely Cliff, it is a fact of life. Many Most of these judges start out as prosecutors and are fundamentally against allowing convictions to be quashed. I don't like it, you don't like it but that is the rotten system we are stuck with. I don't think it is just as bad in England but try looking at a small place like Scotland where just about every judge previously worked for the Crown Office. I think judges should be elected in any event like they were in olden times or as in the US, they would then be accountable to the people as a whole. As it stands they are accountable to only their immediate superior who himself is ultimately only accountable to the Home Secretary.
Judges are not impartial, they are biased and are so towards the Crown. It is a fact of life.
-
They probably took over the baton from the 18 appeal judges who made judgements on the case of the Birmingham 6
As someone correctly posted yesterday, the Birmingham 6 was a politically inspired case whereas Jeremy Bamber's is not.
With respect, that makes no difference to the question whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.
There is no comparison between the cases and to intimate that there is incorrect.
Of course the cases are different - almost every case if different from another even if the charges are the same. The key point however is that it does not matter what was the original inspiration or motivation for the prosecution. Following a conviction which is taken to appeal judges of the Court of Appeal can and do get it wrong on occasions.
That is why they have 3, 5 or 7 on the bench. They cannot all be wrong being the theory!
-
Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement. (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=bamber&method=all)
Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.
or in conclusion...
In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June Bamber and Nevill Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.
Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.
The judges are dodgy now then?
Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.
No, if you excuse my French but that is ******** (I decided not to use French ;) ). A Judge presides over a case and nothing more. Are you suggesting that the judge in this case was dodgy? What evidence is there of that, what gain would he have accrued?
We are getting into fantasy land here.
No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.
They do this routinely Cliff, it is a fact of life. Many Most of these judges start out as prosecutors and are fundamentally against allowing convictions to be quashed. I don't like it, you don't like it but that is the rotten system we are stuck with. I don't think it is just as bad in England but try looking at a small place like Scotland where just about every judge previously worked for the Crown Office. I think judges should be elected in any event like they were in olden times or as in the US, they would then be accountable to the people as a whole. As it stands they are accountable to only their immediate superior who himself is ultimately only accountable to the Home Secretary.
Judges are not impartial, they are biased and are so towards the Crown. It is a fact of life.
That was quite refreshing from you John.
-
Just the truth...I have no problem with that.
-
No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.
I don't really have an opinion about it.
Do you think if he summed it up differently the juries verdict would be different?
-
Absolutely
-
No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.
I don't really have an opinion about it.
Do you think if he summed it up differently the juries verdict would be different?
Maybe. Don,t know though. He certainly did,nt help JB.
-
No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.
I don't really have an opinion about it.
Do you think if he summed it up differently the juries verdict would be different?
Maybe. Don,t know though. He certainly did,nt help JB.
I'm afraid there is an unhappy history of judges directing juries on how to vote in their summing up.
-
No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.
I don't really have an opinion about it.
Do you think if he summed it up differently the juries verdict would be different?
Maybe. Don,t know though. He certainly did,nt help JB.
No I guess not.
-
No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.
I don't really have an opinion about it.
Do you think if he summed it up differently the juries verdict would be different?
Maybe. Don,t know though. He certainly did,nt help JB.
I'm afraid there is an unhappy history of judges directing juries on how to vote in their summing up.
I know a few have let peodofiles off. Scuse the spelling.
-
No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.
I don't really have an opinion about it.
Do you think if he summed it up differently the juries verdict would be different?
Maybe. Don,t know though. He certainly did,nt help JB.
I'm afraid there is an unhappy history of judges directing juries on how to vote in their summing up.
I know a few have let peodofiles off. Scuse the spelling.
I don't know about the individual cases, but I wonder how much of it is about letting them off as opposed to simply judging the evidence put before them, if the evidence presented is poor then what choice do they have?
-
No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.
I don't really have an opinion about it.
Do you think if he summed it up differently the juries verdict would be different?
Maybe. Don,t know though. He certainly did,nt help JB.
I'm afraid there is an unhappy history of judges directing juries on how to vote in their summing up.
I know a few have let peodofiles off. Scuse the spelling.
I don't know about the individual cases, but I wonder how much of it is about letting them off as opposed to simply judging the evidence put before them, if the evidence presented is poor then what choice do they have?
I have several judges in my family going back a long time. My dad was a Justice of the Peace just like Nevill and sat on judgement on many tribunals. He used to show me the paperwork relating to the cases beforehand and I would give my opinion. I always wondered if he acted on them?? :P
-
The Bamber's, Boutflour's and Eaton's are respected members of the local community. Arrogance and greed may be one thing but murder of an entire family including two young children is a completely different issue. It takes a special type of character to do such a thing...do we know anyone that fits the bill? :o
I know a few people who don't like them.
I know lot's of people who do like them, but it doesn't matter, this isn't a popularity contest. ;)
Well it is isn't it? Because there are many people judging JB by the same rod of popularity, saying things like he was a nasty selfish money grubbing guy so he fits the bill of a murderer. Also it is why Jackie posted the question isn't it?
Good point, Grahame, a popularity contest is how some treat this case and that's so wrong in my view. +1
Good point, Harters, a family have died, a young man has lost his freedom for 25 years. This case involves serious issues, it should not be misrepresented as some sort of beauty contest.
G
-
Yes, and if we could put differences of opinions aside for just a moment and stand in the neutral corner.
If they thought JB did it and it was looking like he was going to get away with it, then how else would you expect them to behave? Yes of course we can pick out inappropriate behaviour, from the relatives and from JB.
Perhaps they were desperate, but desperate to ensure JB didn't get away with it rather than desperate to have the inheritance themselves.
Perhaps the relatives did indeed plant evidence to frame JB; perhaps they framed JB, but in actual fact he was also guilty; or maybe they didn't frame him at all?
Either way as Grahame says, it doesn't make any difference to my life whatever happens, but we've all got an a*****e.
Yes I agree. We must stand neutral sometimes and even examine our own theries at times. Because we can become so involved with our own opinions that there is always the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. So I find it useful sometimes to put myself in the shoes of those who have a different opinion than mine to try and see where they are coming from. Yes I agree also that the thoughts of the relatives was not primarily that of getting an inheritance. I should think the shock of such an event would have been overwhelming to any ordinary person, let alone those who were directly related to them?
"You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view - until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."
Atticus's dictum (To Kill A Mockingbird)
-
The Bamber's, Boutflour's and Eaton's are respected members of the local community. Arrogance and greed may be one thing but murder of an entire family including two young children is a completely different issue. It takes a special type of character to do such a thing...do we know anyone that fits the bill? :o
I know a few people who don't like them.
I know lot's of people who do like them, but it doesn't matter, this isn't a popularity contest. ;)
Well it is isn't it? Because there are many people judging JB by the same rod of popularity, saying things like he was a nasty selfish money grubbing guy so he fits the bill of a murderer. Also it is why Jackie posted the question isn't it?
Good point, Grahame, a popularity contest is how some treat this case and that's so wrong in my view. +1
Good point, Harters, a family have died, a young man has lost his freedom for 25 years. This case involves serious issues, it should not be misrepresented as some sort of beauty contest.
G
John...........you are quite right.Arrogance and greed does not make someone a murderer! So why is JB incacerated? Because he was well and truly stitched up,that is why! Why would someone murder their entire family for an inheritance that was going to be theirs anyway? I will believe totally in JBs guilt when I am shown some hard evidence.Because testimonys from people who stood to gain financially from JBs conviction and a "magically appearing" bloodied sound moderator,just dont do it for me!
-
John...........you are quite right.Arrogance and greed does not make someone a murderer! So why is JB incacerated? Because he was well and truly stitched up,that is why! Why would someone murder their entire family for an inheritance that was going to be theirs anyway? I will believe totally in JBs guilt when I am shown some hard evidence.Because testimonys from people who stood to gain financially from JBs conviction and a "magically appearing" bloodied sound moderator,just dont do it for me!
Well said, Lady C. I couldn't agree with you more. +1
-
The Bamber's, Boutflour's and Eaton's are respected members of the local community. Arrogance and greed may be one thing but murder of an entire family including two young children is a completely different issue. It takes a special type of character to do such a thing...do we know anyone that fits the bill? :o
I know a few people who don't like them.
I know lot's of people who do like them, but it doesn't matter, this isn't a popularity contest. ;)
Well it is isn't it? Because there are many people judging JB by the same rod of popularity, saying things like he was a nasty selfish money grubbing guy so he fits the bill of a murderer. Also it is why Jackie posted the question isn't it?
Good point, Grahame, a popularity contest is how some treat this case and that's so wrong in my view. +1
Good point, Harters, a family have died, a young man has lost his freedom for 25 years. This case involves serious issues, it should not be misrepresented as some sort of beauty contest.
G
John...........you are quite right.Arrogance and greed does not make someone a murderer! So why is JB incacerated? Because he was well and truly stitched up,that is why! Why would someone murder their entire family for an inheritance that was going to be theirs anyway? I will believe totally in JBs guilt when I am shown some hard evidence.Because testimonys from people who stood to gain financially from JBs conviction and a "magically appearing" bloodied sound moderator,just dont do it for me!
Exactly, Lady C, where is this hard evidence of JB's guilt? The police could find nothing to link him to the murder scene: no forensics, no blood, no injuries on JB, no mud on the bicycle.
What was the motive for Bamber to brutally slaughter all of the members of his entire immediate family? Doesn't the alleged greed motive break down in the light of the share of his frail and elderly grandmother's substantial estate that Bamber would have inherited within months had he not been charged with these murders?
The most damning allegations against Bamber were only made by his girlfriend after he'd cuckolded her: this key witness, given immunity from prosecution for her crimes, sold her story to the News Of The World for an astonishingly high sum, sufficient to purchase a flat (and a good time overseas?). She had, on her own admission, attempted to smother Jeremy to prevent him leaving her and seeing someone else.
Most of the remaining allegations were made by an extended family who stood to lose substantial shares in their homes, farms and business if Jeremy was found to be innocent.
All the while, vital evidence which supported Bamber's innocence never saw the light of day in the courtroom because it was suppressed. Jeremy Bamber's conviction was secured beneath the veil of secrecy of a PII gagging order. The substantial amount of evidence witheld from the defence and court, thanks to the misapplication of this shadowy instrument of suppression, meant that the truth of what really happened at White House Farm on 7th August 1985 could never be determined. Bamber was convicted of five murders and condemned to die in prison without Bamber, his defence or the jury ever knowing what the case against him really was or what evidence existed in support of his innocence or guilt.
This to me is the most damning evidence of this entire case: that which was suppressed. This suppression of evidence under the auspices of PII has thrown a veil of secrecy around this case which predjudiced and precluded a just outcome. It precluded Bamber and his defence team properly understanding the case against JB. It prevented Bamber properly defending himself. It thereby denied Jeremy Bamber a fair trial
-
Do you think the DPP were/are corrupt?
-
Do you think the DPP were/are corrupt?
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61993453.html Never !!
-
Do you think the DPP were/are corrupt?
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61993453.html Never !!
Yes very good, have a gold star.
Anyway, I'll rephrase my question: In the case of Jeremy Neville Bamber Vs Regina do you yhink the DPP actively sought to harm the defences case by withholding vital evidence?
-
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/dpp-calls-law-disclosure
-
Do you think the DPP were/are corrupt?
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61993453.html Never !!
Yes very good, have a gold star.
Anyway, I'll rephrase my question: In the case of Jeremy Neville Bamber Vs Regina do you yhink the DPP actively sought to harm the defences case by withholding vital evidence?
One Hundred per cent did and are doing now !! Why withhold ONE piece of evidence ?
-
Chocokeira...........so very well put. Am thinking that you should have been his barrister ;)
The sad fact is,that I dont believe that JB will ever be set free all the while the relatives still inhabit this earth.I dont believe that it is because JB is a danger to the public,more that the relatives and JM (rightly or wrongly)are doing a good job convincing the powers that be,that JB would be a danger to them if released.What bothers me is that if JB (according to JM),hired a hit-man to wipe out his immediate family for financial gain,then why not take the same route and have the relatives "done away with" too.He has had the money and surely the contacts whilst in prison.And what a perfect alibi he would have! Could you imagine? Most of his problems would be solved.The truth is,at the end of the day,JB is no cunning gangster.He was just very unfortunate and unluckly to be adopted into a emotionally devoid and money driven family.
-
Do you think the DPP were/are corrupt?
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61993453.html Never !!
Yes very good, have a gold star.
Anyway, I'll rephrase my question: In the case of Jeremy Neville Bamber Vs Regina do you yhink the DPP actively sought to harm the defences case by withholding vital evidence?
One Hundred per cent did and are doing now !! Why withhold ONE piece of evidence ?
Yes I understand what you. are saying, but I'm questioning whether people think they withheld evidence just to make it difficult, or whether they actively and criminally with premeditation sought to frame an innocent man?
-
Do you think the DPP were/are corrupt?
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61993453.html Never !!
Yes very good, have a gold star.
Anyway, I'll rephrase my question: In the case of Jeremy Neville Bamber Vs Regina do you yhink the DPP actively sought to harm the defences case by withholding vital evidence?
One Hundred per cent did and are doing now !! Why withhold ONE piece of evidence ?
Yes I understand what you. are saying, but I'm questioning whether people think they withheld evidence just to make it difficult, or whether they actively and criminally with premeditation sought to frame an innocent man? The courts were a different place then than they are now , the DPP did what they had to do to win , they may call it Noble Cause .
-
Okay, well if you put it across in that way the it sounds much more feasible.
It's difficult for me to take seriously the scenario that the relatives, the police, the DPP, several different judges, the CCRC and a partridge in a pear tree, all conspired to secure a conviction of an innocent man and continued to conspire to keep the conviction safe.
But I guess stranger things have happened.
-
Okay, well if you put it across in that way the it sounds much more feasible.
It's difficult for me to take seriously the scenario that the relatives, the police, the DPP, several different judges, the CCRC and a partridge in a pear tree, all conspired to secure a conviction of an innocent man and continued to conspire to keep the conviction safe.
But I guess stranger things have happened.
Its happened before , but thats not the point , did you read them pages out of David Shaw's book , they gave a good insight how it all worked .
-
Okay, well if you put it across in that way the it sounds much more feasible.
It's difficult for me to take seriously the scenario that the relatives, the police, the DPP, several different judges, the CCRC and a partridge in a pear tree, all conspired to secure a conviction of an innocent man and continued to conspire to keep the conviction safe.
But I guess stranger things have happened.
Its happened before , but thats not the point , did you read them pages out of David Shaw's book , they gave a good insight how it all worked .
No not yet, I've got his book but haven't started it yet.
-
Okay, well if you put it across in that way the it sounds much more feasible.
It's difficult for me to take seriously the scenario that the relatives, the police, the DPP, several different judges, the CCRC and a partridge in a pear tree, all conspired to secure a conviction of an innocent man and continued to conspire to keep the conviction safe.
But I guess stranger things have happened.
Its happened before , but thats not the point , did you read them pages out of David Shaw's book , they gave a good insight how it all worked .
No not yet, I've got his book but haven't started it yet.
Do put up your view's when you have , if you start it with an open mind !!
-
Okay, well if you put it across in that way the it sounds much more feasible.
It's difficult for me to take seriously the scenario that the relatives, the police, the DPP, several different judges, the CCRC and a partridge in a pear tree, all conspired to secure a conviction of an innocent man and continued to conspire to keep the conviction safe.
But I guess stranger things have happened.
Its happened before , but thats not the point , did you read them pages out of David Shaw's book , they gave a good insight how it all worked .
No not yet, I've got his book but haven't started it yet.
Do put up your view's when you have , if you start it with an open mind !!
Will do.
-
i didnt know that shaws innocent man had actually been made into a book, thought he was still looking for a publisher, where can i buy it?
-
i didnt know that shaws innocent man had actually been made into a book, thought he was still looking for a publisher, where can i buy it?
It's called 'Over the edge' I don't think it's published anymore. You might be able to find a second hand copy somewhere on the net.
-
i didnt know that shaws innocent man had actually been made into a book, thought he was still looking for a publisher, where can i buy it?
It's called 'Over the edge' I don't think it's published anymore. You might be able to find a second hand copy somewhere on the net.
ISBN Number: 0646330470.
-
just looked on the net, is the book about athletes and steroid abuse or is it about the bamber case?
-
Hartley.. Do you think the some bamber supporters seem to be pointing at these two variations for a conspiracy theory?
Member/s of raid team make a f*** up. After some argument, everyone agrees it was a bad day at the office... move on.. . tow the line and we can sort this etc. We need to look after each other etc.
The training thing with informatives is at the moment, neither here nor there. But it becomes a bloody nightmare much further down the line.
The relatives, possibly for mixed reasons / motives, go hell for leather to force the police to investigate Jeremy.
Something... causes the police to buckle. This is the crucial missing link in the conspiracy chain. What could be of such magnitude as to cause the police to buckle?
Bamber gets framed in a sophisticated and ruthless manipulation of evidence that would make even the West Midlands Crime Squad look like amateurs.
Somebody in authority notices that there is a bad smell emanating from this investigation / trial and conviction.
They look in to it and become quite shocked at what they find. They decide that the best course of action is to back up their cousins from over the way... because the public would cause merry hell if certain things got out... and there may be reputations and pensions at stake etc.... including quite far up their cousin's hiearchy. Not good at all.
Other more senior people get to find out and decide that the situation is even worse now because the first lot of senior people have also tarnished themselves by also substituting the real truth for a plastic immitation one.
Here we reach a vortex. From here, every layer of seniority that comes in to contact with the case also becomes implicated in the wrongdoing by default.. i.e. they fall in to the trap that it's not in the public interest... as a consequence they also implicate themslves in the cover up.
The further up the line the smell goes ... the further the smell cements itself as being 'not in the public interest'.
In other words the conspiracy theory is that COLP had the opportunity to blow the case wide open and right a serious wrong, but at a great cost to their cousins. They didn't have the bottle to do it. By bottling, they effectively locked everyone else above them in the chain of command, in to a similar pattern of response. In this model... the corruption is institutionalized.
The variation on this conspiracy theory is that the further up the line it goes, the further the truth is manipulated to those in positions of seniority. In this model, those in positions of seniority are fooled rather than tarnishing themsleves by default.
-
One thing i do know about different area forces, is that they couldn't give a shit if they dropped the other force in it. COLP would have dropped EP in it, if they found the evidence to...thats not to say EP didn't manage to cover up the evidence COLP needed.
-
Chocokeira...........so very well put. Am thinking that you should have been his barrister ;)
The sad fact is,that I dont believe that JB will ever be set free all the while the relatives still inhabit this earth.I dont believe that it is because JB is a danger to the public,more that the relatives and JM (rightly or wrongly)are doing a good job convincing the powers that be,that JB would be a danger to them if released.What bothers me is that if JB (according to JM),hired a hit-man to wipe out his immediate family for financial gain,then why not take the same route and have the relatives "done away with" too.He has had the money and surely the contacts whilst in prison.And what a perfect alibi he would have! Could you imagine? Most of his problems would be solved.The truth is,at the end of the day,JB is no cunning gangster.He was just very unfortunate and unluckly to be adopted into a emotionally devoid and money driven family.
I do not think that RN was money driven. He was a very shrewd man who wanted children. Not for his sake, but the sake of his wife who must have been devistated that she could not bear children. It is no coincidence they adopted a girl and a boy. They both must have thought thier family was complete.
I can imagine the scorn that the rest of the family had to these children [cuckoos].
The family could see at this early stage that the children would inherit the Bamber fortune. The seed had been set.
When the family was wiped out the remaining cuckoo stood to gain everything. The family then decided that this could not happen, or they would lose what they had left.[ which was,nt much] Nevill had already bailed them out, and now the cuckoo was in charge. It is not a secret that they were not close, so JB was not going to do them any favours.
They needed to put JB in the frame, but how.
Harrass the cops, and find a silencer.Need some blood now. Aah, the knickers.
What person would wash out some knickers for a dead person, you would bin them, unless you needed a bit of blood, Oh yes she binned them after washing them, along with the twins clothes.
Seems to me that the family were wasted as farmers, the sweeny would have signed them up like a shot, they were as good as Sherlock Holmse. Talk about missing thier vocation, they could of found Jack the Ripper, but would probably needed to plant something.
Take a look on Youtube of their latest on JB. Bewes is all at sea. Senior Officers from other forces are bewildered ,Sutherst is convinced the photographic evidence is flawed. Bewes was not aware the body had been moved. Says it all really.
Smite all you like, I could,nt give a toss.
-
Cliff, the knickers bit bothers me a lot. There was no logical reason for Ann Eaton to bring them from WHF to her home. There just isn´t.
-
Cliff, the knickers bit bothers me a lot. There was no logical reason for Ann Eaton to bring them from WHF to her home. There just isn´t.
Needed some blood. Part of the grand plan.
Without trying to be crude, I am led to believe that menstrual blood is thicker than normal blood. I don,t know though, I am not a gynacologist, would,nt mind the job though.
-
Cliff, the knickers bit bothers me a lot. There was no logical reason for Ann Eaton to bring them from WHF to her home. There just isn´t.
Needed some blood. Part of the grand plan.
Without trying to be crude, I am led to believe that menstrual blood is thicker than normal blood. I don,t know though, I am not a gynacologist, would,nt mind the job though.
must be better than a printer.
-
Cliff, the knickers bit bothers me a lot. There was no logical reason for Ann Eaton to bring them from WHF to her home. There just isn´t.
Needed some blood. Part of the grand plan.
Without trying to be crude, I am led to believe that menstrual blood is thicker than normal blood. I don,t know though, I am not a gynacologist, would,nt mind the job though.
It's all gone a bit quiet Cliff... ;D
-
Cliff, the knickers bit bothers me a lot. There was no logical reason for Ann Eaton to bring them from WHF to her home. There just isn´t.
Needed some blood. Part of the grand plan.
Without trying to be crude, I am led to believe that menstrual blood is thicker than normal blood. I don,t know though, I am not a gynacologist, would,nt mind the job though.
It's all gone a bit quiet Cliff... ;D
I must of pissed them all off.
-
Cliff, the knickers bit bothers me a lot. There was no logical reason for Ann Eaton to bring them from WHF to her home. There just isn´t.
Needed some blood. Part of the grand plan.
Without trying to be crude, I am led to believe that menstrual blood is thicker than normal blood. I don,t know though, I am not a gynacologist, would,nt mind the job though.
It's all gone a bit quiet Cliff... ;D
I must of pissed them all off.
Nah... it made me laugh anyway.
-
Cliff, the knickers bit bothers me a lot. There was no logical reason for Ann Eaton to bring them from WHF to her home. There just isn´t.
Needed some blood. Part of the grand plan.
Without trying to be crude, I am led to believe that menstrual blood is thicker than normal blood. I don,t know though, I am not a gynacologist, would,nt mind the job though.
It's all gone a bit quiet Cliff... ;D
I must of pissed them all off.
I really meant what I said though.
-
Cliff, the knickers bit bothers me a lot. There was no logical reason for Ann Eaton to bring them from WHF to her home. There just isn´t.
Needed some blood. Part of the grand plan.
Without trying to be crude, I am led to believe that menstrual blood is thicker than normal blood. I don,t know though, I am not a gynacologist, would,nt mind the job though.
It's all gone a bit quiet Cliff... ;D
I must of pissed them all off.
Nah... it made me laugh anyway.
Oh bollocks Rochy I was trying to be serious. Thanks anyway.
-
Cliff, the knickers bit bothers me a lot. There was no logical reason for Ann Eaton to bring them from WHF to her home. There just isn´t.
Needed some blood. Part of the grand plan.
Without trying to be crude, I am led to believe that menstrual blood is thicker than normal blood. I don,t know though, I am not a gynacologist, would,nt mind the job though.
It's all gone a bit quiet Cliff... ;D
I must of pissed them all off.
Nah... it made me laugh anyway.
Oh bollocks Rochy I was trying to be serious. Thanks anyway.
[/quote
I will take my smites on the chin from the wankers who have not got the b******* to face me.
-
What is up with all the sunglasses ads?? ::)
-
John...........you are quite right.Arrogance and greed does not make someone a murderer! So why is JB incacerated? Because he was well and truly stitched up,that is why! Why would someone murder their entire family for an inheritance that was going to be theirs anyway? I will believe totally in JBs guilt when I am shown some hard evidence.Because testimonys from people who stood to gain financially from JBs conviction and a "magically appearing" bloodied sound moderator,just dont do it for me!
I don't understand how you can possibly come to the conclusion he was stitched up your ladyship. If anything occurred he stitched himself up with his big mouth.
He wasn't going to get the inheritance so that is your first wrongful assumption. June had made it quite clear that her estate was going to go to Nicholas and Daniel and I have my suspicions that Nevill was on the verge of doing the same thing. Jeremy was as they say, about to get his marching orders!
-
John...........you are quite right.Arrogance and greed does not make someone a murderer! So why is JB incacerated? Because he was well and truly stitched up,that is why! Why would someone murder their entire family for an inheritance that was going to be theirs anyway? I will believe totally in JBs guilt when I am shown some hard evidence.Because testimonys from people who stood to gain financially from JBs conviction and a "magically appearing" bloodied sound moderator,just dont do it for me!
I don't understand how you can possibly come to the conclusion he was stitched up your ladyship. If anything occurred he stitched himself up with his big mouth.
He wasn't going to get the inheritance so that is your first wrongful assumption. June had made it quite clear that her estate was going to go to Nicholas and Daniel and I have my suspicions that Nevill was on the verge of doing the same thing. Jeremy was as they say, about to get his marching orders!
What did Jeremy do that was so terrible that they were about to disinherit him? Is this true at all? Where is that information from?
In any case I think it is a terrible way to treat your child. I don´t think the Bambers can have been particularly good parents. Both their children had drug problems. June called her daughter "the Devil´s child" - that lingered with poor Sheila and she projected this to her own sons. It is an awful thing to say to your child - especially an adopted child!
-
John...........you are quite right.Arrogance and greed does not make someone a murderer! So why is JB incacerated? Because he was well and truly stitched up,that is why! Why would someone murder their entire family for an inheritance that was going to be theirs anyway? I will believe totally in JBs guilt when I am shown some hard evidence.Because testimonys from people who stood to gain financially from JBs conviction and a "magically appearing" bloodied sound moderator,just dont do it for me!
I don't understand how you can possibly come to the conclusion he was stitched up your ladyship. If anything occurred he stitched himself up with his big mouth.
He wasn't going to get the inheritance so that is your first wrongful assumption. June had made it quite clear that her estate was going to go to Nicholas and Daniel and I have my suspicions that Nevill was on the verge of doing the same thing. Jeremy was as they say, about to get his marching orders!
John, the last time you made this entirely unsustantiated claim I asked you for proof. You couldn't provide proof because you clearly don't have any.
Now I'm asking you again: put up, or shut up!
-
John...........you are quite right.Arrogance and greed does not make someone a murderer! So why is JB incacerated? Because he was well and truly stitched up,that is why! Why would someone murder their entire family for an inheritance that was going to be theirs anyway? I will believe totally in JBs guilt when I am shown some hard evidence.Because testimonys from people who stood to gain financially from JBs conviction and a "magically appearing" bloodied sound moderator,just dont do it for me!
I don't understand how you can possibly come to the conclusion he was stitched up your ladyship. If anything occurred he stitched himself up with his big mouth.
He wasn't going to get the inheritance so that is your first wrongful assumption. June had made it quite clear that her estate was going to go to Nicholas and Daniel and I have my suspicions that Nevill was on the verge of doing the same thing. Jeremy was as they say, about to get his marching orders!
What did Jeremy do that was so terrible that they were about to disinherit him? Is this true at all? Where is that information from?
In any case I think it is a terrible way to treat your child. I don´t think the Bambers can have been particularly good parents. Both their children had drug problems. June called her daughter "the Devil´s child" - that lingered with poor Sheila and she projected this to her own sons. It is an awful thing to say to your child - especially an adopted child!
The only place this disinheritance threat ever existed, abs, is as a figment of John's imagination. I asked him for proof some time ago but he was unable to provide any.
-
Exactly, Lady C, where is this hard evidence of JB's guilt? The police could find nothing to link him to the murder scene: no forensics, no blood, no injuries on JB, no mud on the bicycle.
What was the motive for Bamber to brutally slaughter all of the members of his entire immediate family? Doesn't the alleged greed motive break down in the light of the share of his frail and elderly grandmother's substantial estate that Bamber would have inherited within months had he not been charged with these murders?
The most damning allegations against Bamber were only made by his girlfriend after he'd cuckolded her: this key witness, given immunity from prosecution for her crimes, sold her story to the News Of The World for an astonishingly high sum, sufficient to purchase a flat (and a good time overseas?). She had, on her own admission, attempted to smother Jeremy to prevent him leaving her and seeing someone else.
Most of the remaining allegations were made by an extended family who stood to lose substantial shares in their homes, farms and business if Jeremy was found to be innocent.
All the while, vital evidence which supported Bamber's innocence never saw the light of day in the courtroom because it was suppressed. Jeremy Bamber's conviction was secured beneath the veil of secrecy of a PII gagging order. The substantial amount of evidence witheld from the defence and court, thanks to the misapplication of this shadowy instrument of suppression, meant that the truth of what really happened at White House Farm on 7th August 1985 could never be determined. Bamber was convicted of five murders and condemned to die in prison without Bamber, his defence or the jury ever knowing what the case against him really was or what evidence existed in support of his innocence or guilt.
This to me is the most damning evidence of this entire case: that which was suppressed. This suppression of evidence under the auspices of PII has thrown a veil of secrecy around this case which predjudiced and precluded a just outcome. It precluded Bamber and his defence team properly understanding the case against JB. It prevented Bamber properly defending himself. It thereby denied Jeremy Bamber a fair trial
Wrong Keira, why do you continue to invent facts which fit with your fantasy?
The bicycle wheels were caked in mud along the tyre walls evidencing that they had been through fields.
The motive was pure greed for money Keira, money and power! Didn't his frail grandmother disinherit him Keira...I wonder why? ;)
It was Julie Mugford who left him actually after she overheard him speaking on the phone with an old flame. Didn't he force her arm up her back in a fit of rage...nice chap!
No matter what you try to say about the other facts about him they are corroborated in many instances by outsiders. I am afraid your portrayal of Jeremy as the loving honourable son leaves much to be desired Keira...the truth is patently different I am afraid! :P
Your assumption that the documents or photos can and will in some way give effect to Jeremy's exoneration is pure fantasy. Just because information is withheld in the public interest doesn't in any stretch of the imagination mean that they could support Jeremy in some way. Balderdash!
We know what happened at White House farm that night and no amount of silly theories will ever change that!
-
John...........you are quite right.Arrogance and greed does not make someone a murderer! So why is JB incacerated? Because he was well and truly stitched up,that is why! Why would someone murder their entire family for an inheritance that was going to be theirs anyway? I will believe totally in JBs guilt when I am shown some hard evidence.Because testimonys from people who stood to gain financially from JBs conviction and a "magically appearing" bloodied sound moderator,just dont do it for me!
I don't understand how you can possibly come to the conclusion he was stitched up your ladyship. If anything occurred he stitched himself up with his big mouth.
He wasn't going to get the inheritance so that is your first wrongful assumption. June had made it quite clear that her estate was going to go to Nicholas and Daniel and I have my suspicions that Nevill was on the verge of doing the same thing. Jeremy was as they say, about to get his marching orders!
John, the last time you made this entirely unsustantiated claim I asked you for proof. You couldn't provide proof because you clearly don't have any.
Now I'm asking you again: put up, or shut up!
The evidence is all there, June was about to change her will and Nevill was seen in tears, wringing his hands with trepidation over Jeremy's antics. Inheritance...what inheritance...he was going to be out on his lughole in a very short time.
-
John...........you are quite right.Arrogance and greed does not make someone a murderer! So why is JB incacerated? Because he was well and truly stitched up,that is why! Why would someone murder their entire family for an inheritance that was going to be theirs anyway? I will believe totally in JBs guilt when I am shown some hard evidence.Because testimonys from people who stood to gain financially from JBs conviction and a "magically appearing" bloodied sound moderator,just dont do it for me!
I don't understand how you can possibly come to the conclusion he was stitched up your ladyship. If anything occurred he stitched himself up with his big mouth.
He wasn't going to get the inheritance so that is your first wrongful assumption. June had made it quite clear that her estate was going to go to Nicholas and Daniel and I have my suspicions that Nevill was on the verge of doing the same thing. Jeremy was as they say, about to get his marching orders!
What did Jeremy do that was so terrible that they were about to disinherit him? Is this true at all? Where is that information from?
In any case I think it is a terrible way to treat your child. I don´t think the Bambers can have been particularly good parents. Both their children had drug problems. June called her daughter "the Devil´s child" - that lingered with poor Sheila and she projected this to her own sons. It is an awful thing to say to your child - especially an adopted child!
The only place this disinheritance threat ever existed, abs, is as a figment of John's imagination. I asked him for proof some time ago but he was unable to provide any.
More gossip...
-
What did Jeremy do that was so terrible that they were about to disinherit him? Is this true at all? Where is that information from?
In any case I think it is a terrible way to treat your child. I don´t think the Bambers can have been particularly good parents. Both their children had drug problems. June called her daughter "the Devil´s child" - that lingered with poor Sheila and she projected this to her own sons. It is an awful thing to say to your child - especially an adopted child!
How about trash the caravan site, set fire to parts of it and rob money from it? Not normal behaviour exactly is it from a dear loving son?
June undoubtedly had mental health problems too, are you going to hold that against her?
June and Nevill were excellent parents, it seems that Sheila and Jeremy changed after they had been out in the big wide world. I am quite sure the Bamber's were horrified by Jeremy's association with a married woman before he came into contact with Muggy.
-
John...........you are quite right.Arrogance and greed does not make someone a murderer! So why is JB incacerated? Because he was well and truly stitched up,that is why! Why would someone murder their entire family for an inheritance that was going to be theirs anyway? I will believe totally in JBs guilt when I am shown some hard evidence.Because testimonys from people who stood to gain financially from JBs conviction and a "magically appearing" bloodied sound moderator,just dont do it for me!
I don't understand how you can possibly come to the conclusion he was stitched up your ladyship. If anything occurred he stitched himself up with his big mouth.
He wasn't going to get the inheritance so that is your first wrongful assumption. June had made it quite clear that her estate was going to go to Nicholas and Daniel and I have my suspicions that Nevill was on the verge of doing the same thing. Jeremy was as they say, about to get his marching orders!
What did Jeremy do that was so terrible that they were about to disinherit him? Is this true at all? Where is that information from?
In any case I think it is a terrible way to treat your child. I don´t think the Bambers can have been particularly good parents. Both their children had drug problems. June called her daughter "the Devil´s child" - that lingered with poor Sheila and she projected this to her own sons. It is an awful thing to say to your child - especially an adopted child!
The only place this disinheritance threat ever existed, abs, is as a figment of John's imagination. I asked him for proof some time ago but he was unable to provide any.
More gossip...
You would like to think so but you are sorely mistaken lovey! ;D ;D
-
Cliff...........I was not refering to Ralph when I stated that they are a money driven family.I meant the relatives who are still alive!
And John.......How can you state that June was a great parent? If you ever take time to read the book by Colin Caffell (who had first hand experience of Junes parenting skills)you will actually learn that she was the cause of her adopted childrens personality problems!
-
Cliff...........I was not refering to Ralph when I stated that they are a money driven family.I meant the relatives who are still alive!
And John.......How can you state that June was a great parent? If you ever take time to read the book by Colin Caffell (who had first hand experience of Junes parenting skills)you will actually learn that she was the cause of her adopted childrens personality problems!
So Colin Caffell was around when the children (Sheila and Jeremy) were being raised? A simple yes or no will suffice! :-*
-
Cliff...........I was not refering to Ralph when I stated that they are a money driven family.I meant the relatives who are still alive!
And John.......How can you state that June was a great parent? If you ever take time to read the book by Colin Caffell (who had first hand experience of Junes parenting skills)you will actually learn that she was the cause of her adopted childrens personality problems!
So Colin Caffell was around when the children (Sheila and Jeremy) were being raised? A simple yes or no will suffice! :-*
Yes regarding Jeremy and also Colins own children (the bambers grandchildren).It seems June did not stop treating Sheila like a child even once she became an adult.
-
Cliff...........I was not refering to Ralph when I stated that they are a money driven family.I meant the relatives who are still alive!
And John.......How can you state that June was a great parent? If you ever take time to read the book by Colin Caffell (who had first hand experience of Junes parenting skills)you will actually learn that she was the cause of her adopted childrens personality problems!
So Colin Caffell was around when the children (Sheila and Jeremy) were being raised? A simple yes or no will suffice! :-*
Yes regarding Jeremy and also Colins own children (the bambers grandchildren).It seems June did not stop treating Sheila like a child even once she became an adult.
That's not what you stated, you stated that June and Nevill were bad parents. Please answer yes or no if Colin Caffell was around when they were growing up?
-
Cliff...........I was not refering to Ralph when I stated that they are a money driven family.I meant the relatives who are still alive!
And John.......How can you state that June was a great parent? If you ever take time to read the book by Colin Caffell (who had first hand experience of Junes parenting skills)you will actually learn that she was the cause of her adopted childrens personality problems!
So Colin Caffell was around when the children (Sheila and Jeremy) were being raised? A simple yes or no will suffice! :-*
Yes regarding Jeremy and also Colins own children (the bambers grandchildren).It seems June did not stop treating Sheila like a child even once she became an adult.
That's not what you stated, you stated that June and Nevill were bad parents. Please answer yes or no if Colin Caffell was around when they were growing up?
WHERE do I state that they were BOTH bad parents?
-
Cliff...........I was not refering to Ralph when I stated that they are a money driven family.I meant the relatives who are still alive!
And John.......How can you state that June was a great parent? If you ever take time to read the book by Colin Caffell (who had first hand experience of Junes parenting skills)you will actually learn that she was the cause of her adopted childrens personality problems!
So Colin Caffell was around when the children (Sheila and Jeremy) were being raised? A simple yes or no will suffice! :-*
Yes regarding Jeremy and also Colins own children (the bambers grandchildren).It seems June did not stop treating Sheila like a child even once she became an adult.
That's not what you stated, you stated that June and Nevill were bad parents. Please answer yes or no if Colin Caffell was around when they were growing up?
WHERE do I state that they were BOTH bad parents?
Was Colin Caffell around when Sheila and Jeremy were growing up?
I believe June caught Colin shagging her daughter in the hay field...what does that say about him?
-
I stated that CC alledges that June was the cause of her childrens personality problems.And yes,Colin was around when Jeremy was a teenager and with regards to Sheila ............they were married! Do you think that they did not discuss such things? Of course they did! And they both knew that Junes religious ramblings sowed the seed for Sheilas subsequent mental problems.
-
I stated that CC alledges that June was the cause of her childrens personality problems.And yes,Colin was around when Jeremy was a teenager and with regards to Sheila ............they were married! Do you think that they did not discuss such things? Of course they did! And they both knew that Junes religious ramblings sowed the seed for Sheilas subsequent mental problems.
So he wasn't around when they were grow up, all hearsay as usual. Now why does that surprise me, Colin Caffell making money out of his family's misfortune.
-
They were not "shagging" in the hayfield John. Sheila had just had a termination for goodness sake!
-
They were not "shagging" in the hayfield John. Sheila had just had a termination for goodness sake!
Well a witness gave evidence to that effect that June caught Caffell and Sheila naked in the hayfield.
I am quite sure that Sheila's problems had little to do with how June interpreted the Bible. Sheila was very much dependent on Nevill who seemed to be her knight in shining armour...just another reason why the allegation that Sheila shot him is totally preposterous!!
-
How is it hearsay when he often witnessed Junes behaviour?
-
They were not "shagging" in the hayfield John. Sheila had just had a termination for goodness sake!
Well a witness gave evidence to that effect that June caught Caffell and Sheila naked in the hayfield.
So what? That is no big crime in my book!
-
They were not "shagging" in the hayfield John. Sheila had just had a termination for goodness sake!
Well a witness gave evidence to that effect that June caught Caffell and Sheila naked in the hayfield.
What witness?The only witness is brown bread!
-
They were not "shagging" in the hayfield John. Sheila had just had a termination for goodness sake!
Well a witness gave evidence to that effect that June caught Caffell and Sheila naked in the hayfield.
I am quite sure that Sheila's problems had little to do with how June interpreted the Bible. Sheila was very much dependent on Nevill who seemed to be her knight in shining armour...just another reason why the allegation that Sheila shot him is totally preposterous!!
For the record John,I dont believe that Sheila murdered anyone either,but whether you like it or not - June was a wrong-un!
-
They were not "shagging" in the hayfield John. Sheila had just had a termination for goodness sake!
Well a witness gave evidence to that effect that June caught Caffell and Sheila naked in the hayfield.
What witness?The only witness is brown bread!
It's all in the statements, maybe andrea knows where...
sheila had had an abortion and miscarriages before giving birth to the twins, this had an effect on her mental well being.Also when june caught colinb and sheila sunbathing naked in the fields around WHF, june called sheila the devils child, that also had a massive effect on her.It has been said that her mental health got worse from that day.
-
They were not "shagging" in the hayfield John. Sheila had just had a termination for goodness sake!
Well a witness gave evidence to that effect that June caught Caffell and Sheila naked in the hayfield.
I am quite sure that Sheila's problems had little to do with how June interpreted the Bible. Sheila was very much dependent on Nevill who seemed to be her knight in shining armour...just another reason why the allegation that Sheila shot him is totally preposterous!!
For the record John,I dont believe that Sheila murdered anyone either,but whether you like it or not - June was a wrong-un!
I think she had mental health problems too. Could there be a clue in why she was unable to have any children of her own? Nature has a wonderful way of sorting such issues.
-
They were not "shagging" in the hayfield John. Sheila had just had a termination for goodness sake!
Well a witness gave evidence to that effect that June caught Caffell and Sheila naked in the hayfield.
I am quite sure that Sheila's problems had little to do with how June interpreted the Bible. Sheila was very much dependent on Nevill who seemed to be her knight in shining armour...just another reason why the allegation that Sheila shot him is totally preposterous!!
For the record John,I dont believe that Sheila murdered anyone either,but whether you like it or not - June was a wrong-un!
I think she had mental health problems too. Could there be a clue in why she was unable to have any children of her own? Nature has a wonderful way of sorting such issues.
So you claim to know the problem was with June. Or are you just guessing? It could as well have been Nevill.
-
Yes it is true that June caught Sheila and Colin sunbathing naked in a field.Junes "over the top" reaction to this accellerated Sheilas illness.It did not cause it because Sheila was already having problems mentally before this incident.I do not know why June was infertile.Maybe it was something like endometrisis,but back in her day they may not have had the tests that they have nowadays.
-
Abs..........it is stated somewhere that they both had tests and the problem was with June.That was when they decided to adopt.
-
Abs..........it is stated somewhere that they both had tests and the problem was with June.That was when they decided to adopt.
OK
-
I have no problem in agreeing with you that June wasn't an ideal parent, look at what her son did.
It is well documented in the statements that Jeremy was driving his poor dad to distraction. I find it difficult to believe that Nevill actually telephoned Jeremy for help that morning. I personally think it was Jeremy who made that call himself while he was at the farmhouse and after he had murdered them all.
-
John.......I cant quite work you out! One minute you are defending June and the next you are admitting that she too had mental health problems and that nature was wonderful in not allowing her to have children of her own ???
-
sheila had suffered mental health problems before the twins were even born, when she was on a modelling assignment in hong kong she wrote a letter to colin asking him to book her an appointment with a psychiatrist for when she arrived back in england.
the day june caught them sunbbathing in the fields surrounding WHF sheila had recently had a termination, but she still had her pregnancy shape and liked it, so colin took photos of her with sheilas consent of course.
when june caught them she was furious and called sheila the devils child, colin said himself that from that day sheilas mental condition became worse.
-
John.......I cant quite work you out! One minute you are defending June and the next you are admitting that she too had mental health problems and that nature was wonderful in not allowing her to have children of her own ???
One cannot help having mental health problems, it cannot be held against June. Nobody wishes for such an ailment!
-
I have no problem in agreeing with you that June wasn't an ideal parent, look at what her son did.
It is well documented in the statements that Jeremy was driving his poor dad to distraction. I find it difficult to believe that Nevill actually telephoned Jeremy for help that morning. I personally think it was Jeremy who made that call himself while he was at the farmhouse and after he had murdered them all.
Jeremy was driving his poor old dad to distaction.It is well documented in the statements.And WHOSE statements might that be John?
-
John.......I cant quite work you out! One minute you are defending June and the next you are admitting that she too had mental health problems and that nature was wonderful in not allowing her to have children of her own ???
One cannot help having mental health problems, it cannot be held against June. Nobody wishes for such an ailment!
I suffer with depression due to my mothers treatment of me.I didnt wish for such an ailment either!
-
ive had it bad, mania, depression and psychosis, its horrible but we have to learn to deal with it, not easy i know. im on a level at the moment so i feel ok, but just one thing is really bothering me at the minute. IVE RAN OUT OF FAGS ggggrrr
-
ive had it bad, mania, depression and psychosis, its horrible but we have to learn to deal with it, not easy i know. im on a level at the moment so i feel ok, but just one thing is really bothering me at the minute. IVE RAN OUT OF FAGS ggggrrr
Oh dear,poor you :( I would let you have a pack of mine but am thinking you are a bit too far away for me to help x
-
ive got some now, so im happy again ;D cant do without my ciggies ;)
-
Does anyone know what the weather is going to be like next week?
-
Sun, sun, sun here apparently.....oops I forgot, you live in the UK....rain, rain, rain... ;D ;D
-
Does anyone know what the weather is going to be like next week?
For what part of the country Jackie?
-
When did this discussion start? I wish that I hadn't said that I was a bhuddist vegan....I'm not. But I did have a horrendous childhood, with an autistic mother and a violent, alcoholic stepfather, who beat me regularly, like a gong. Life can be so shit, sometimes, and it depends what you do with it.
-
I wonder if this is why I'm so anti JB? I was supposed to be adopted, but at the last minute my birth mother wouldn't sign me away, and I spent the next 15 years being blamed for everything that went wrong in her life. She hated me. Perhaps I do have an agenda, after all.
-
Paulg
Essex area
-
You seem to have a bad time of it Shona.
-
Not so much badgering but getting right up her nose. :P
I look forward to the encounter in the Queens Head.
You never did confirm this Jackie? Maybe a more neutral vista would be better?
-
Yes, it was grim, lovely John, but I'm not alone. Sheila had a bad time, too, but not enough to shoot her beloved children while they slept, then shoot her mum, again and again, then chase Ralph into the kitchen and beat him with a gun, and place his poor, damaged head in a coal scuttle. Get real.
-
Sorry, John.
-
Yes, it was grim, lovely John, but I'm not alone. Sheila had a bad time, too, but not enough to shoot her beloved children while they slept, then shoot her mum, again and again, then chase Ralph into the kitchen and beat him with a gun, and place his poor, damaged head in a coal scuttle. Get real.
I read something similar the other day by her auntie when she says that Sheila didn't have the know-how to shoot everyone in such a way. Maybe if it had been a shotgun but not a rifle. The whole idea that she could have taken on Nevill is simply preposterous....
-
Thanks Chochokeira
It's a brilliant video I will send you a copy he looks a lot younger than 50 and don't forget question time next week it's coming from Wormwood Scrubs.
-
Paulg
Essex area
http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/2604?area=Witham (http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/2604?area=Witham)
Not as good as it has been.
Could do with some rain really, my gardens in a right old state.
-
Thanks Chochokeira
It's a brilliant video I will send you a copy he looks a lot younger than 50 and don't forget question time next week it's coming from Wormwood Scrubs.
Am I missing something here... What video? Also... Question Time.... I've been thinking recently... imagine having someone like Andrew Hunter on the panel? Now that would be worth viewing... if the right question came fom the audience.... 8)
-
hi Rochford Sheilds
Question time is from wormwood scrubs this week I am not sure if Andrew hunter is going to be there but at least ten prisoners will be and I hope they ask Eric Allison ex offender now guardian reporter and a bonus would be Scott Lomax
-
hi Rochford Sheilds
Question time is from wormwood scrubs this week I am not sure if Andrew hunter is going to be there but at least ten prisoners will be and I hope they ask Eric Allison ex offender now guardian reporter and a bonus would be Scott Lomax
I've pm'd you ;)
-
eric allison also believes jb is innocent
-
I don't think a biased reporter would be of any help at all.
-
the guests on there are biased (obviousley) be it lab, green or con/dem
-
I'm talking about being biased towards Jeremy Bamber.
-
I think a question time coming from a prison Eric Allison must be there what a shining example of someone who has turned his life around from many years in prison
He is a very good writer I enjoy anything he has written
He should be in the programme and I hope he brings up the subject of innocent people in prison and prisoners access to the media in prison
-
When did this discussion start? I wish that I hadn't said that I was a bhuddist vegan....I'm not. But I did have a horrendous childhood, with an autistic mother and a violent, alcoholic stepfather, who beat me regularly, like a gong. Life can be so shit, sometimes, and it depends what you do with it.
Shona this post put a lump in my throught...........ditto regarding the violent alcoholic step-father :(
Some parents have alot to answer for dont they? x
-
Thanks, lovely..............the old fucker's dead now, so hey ho!!
-
Thanks, lovely..............the old fucker's dead now, so hey ho!!
It always saddens me to hear about grown-ups hurting little kids! How can they?!
You have every right to be angry at him, shonapugs!!