Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Gillian on March 27, 2017, 09:24:AM
-
Apologies if this has already been discussed.
I watched the above last night. Has anyone else seen this and if so what did you think and did you learn anything you didn't already know?
Old interviews with Anne Eaton, David Boutflour, Judge Drake, Julie Mugford, Barbara Wilson, Stan Jones and Peter Vanezis as well as news clips and new interviews with various psychologists. X
-
Apologies if this has already been discussed.
I watched the above last night. Has anyone else seen this and if so what did you think and did you learn anything you didn't already know?
Old interviews with Anne Eaton, David Boutflour, Judge Drake, Julie Mugford, Barbara Wilson, Stan Jones and Peter Vanezis as well as news clips and new interviews with various psychologists. X
Hello Gillian. I didn't see it. Was there anything new or was new stuff old stuff said differently?
-
I really want to see this. Has anyone recorded this yet? :-\
All the interviews are from the 2003 ITV true crime episode. It's basically a rehash of an old documentary. Nevertheless I would like to see it.
-
You can pick this programme up by googling it.
-
You can pick this programme up by googling it.
I cannot find it anywhere :(
can you post the link?
-
I cannot find it anywhere :(
can you post the link?
It's Picalt-EditPic which you can sign in with Twitter.
-
I cannot find it anywhere :(
can you post the link?
Have tried Googling. It tells me the programme was aired last night but doesn't give any details of how to watch it. Looks like a case of 'wot's gorn's gorn'.
-
It's Picalt-EditPic which you can sign in with Twitter.
Sorry David------they're just pics of everyone. ::)
-
You could try catch up if ugly have it on sky
-
You could try catch up if ugly have it on sky
Who are you calling ugly >:( ;D ;D ;D
-
Who are you calling ugly >:( ;D ;D ;D
lol wasn't watching what I was typing
-
It's repeated on Sunday.
-
It's repeated on Sunday.
Ta, Caroline. Will have to tie a knot in something to remind me ::)
-
Ta, Caroline. Will have to tie a knot in something to remind me ::)
Thanks for acknowledging Jane, guess it would choke the others to say thanks and we couldn't have that - could we? ;D ;)
-
Thanks Caroline, I was looking for it last night but couldn't see it. I thought that was second episode showing other crimes x
-
Thanks Caroline, I was looking for it last night but couldn't see it. I thought that was second episode showing other crimes x
The description mentions Jeremy - I will double check but did a search on Sky and it's in the listings for midnight on Sunday.
-
Just checked again and it is definitely on this coming Sunday at midnight.
-
I really want to see this. Has anyone recorded this yet? :-\
All the interviews are from the 2003 ITV true crime episode. It's basically a rehash of an old documentary. Nevertheless I would like to see it.
David and Roch
This is a must see
If ever there was evidence of a stitch up its watching Ann Eaton and David Boutflour
Absolute lies throughout
There were only three people showing jealousy
The three that lied the whole way Anne , Robert and Mugford
What a vile creature Anne Eaton is for everyone to see
-
The woman had vile and spite written all over her face,Jackie. One of her pics,I can't even stand looking at. Then there's her husband with a fixed supercilious grin. Rogues Gallery springs to mind.!
-
What time is it on today? Is anyone going to record it?
-
The woman had vile and spite written all over her face,Jackie. One of her pics,I can't even stand looking at. Then there's her husband with a fixed supercilious grin. Rogues Gallery springs to mind.!
Strange, is it not, that whilst Ann's face marks her out as guilty, Jeremy's supercilious arrogance isn't a sign of guilt.
-
I have a suspicion that the biggest error they made - was to not sufficiently question the validity of their own opinions. Instead, they appear to have been unbridled in pursuing their suspicions and theories. Perhaps they fed off each other in this. I can't help feeling that underneath any justifiable suspicions, they harboured selfish motives regarding inheritance. The ends justified the means and sadly, there was no restraint.
-
I have a suspicion that the biggest error they made - was to not sufficiently question the validity of their own opinions. Instead, they appear to have been unbridled in pursuing their suspicions and theories. Perhaps they fed off each other in this. I can't help feeling that underneath any justifiable suspicions, they harboured selfish motives regarding inheritance. The ends justified the means and sadly, there was no restraint.
Whilst the above is hardly altruistic -Christian?- it doesn't make Jeremy innocent.
-
Talking of Julie Mugford I have been reading her diaries on the Red Forum. No doubt they are here also.
I am trying to get my head around them.
If programs are really interesting, videoing them on a smart phone then posting to youtube would work.
-
Whilst the above is hardly altruistic -Christian?- it doesn't make Jeremy innocent.
Well, given that they provided the main physical exhibit in the case - and pursued the window, bike theories etc. etc., personally, I think you might be applying the wrong reasoning to the case. It's a bit like saying, 'no matter what the relatives did, provided, lied about, theorised... it doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent'.
-
Well, given that they provided the main physical exhibit in the case - and pursued the window, bike theories etc. etc., personally, I think you might be applying the wrong reasoning to the case. It's a bit like saying, 'no matter what the relatives did, provided, lied about, theorised... it doesn't mean Jeremy is innocent'.
You can call it which ever way you choose to see it, Roch, but I'm getting the very strong impression here that it's not innocence that trying to be proved -although there are one or two who believe it- as much as a get out clause being looked for, and ONE that offers possibilities is the stance of the relatives.
-
Talking of Julie Mugford I have been reading her diaries on the Red Forum. No doubt they are here also.
I am trying to get my head around them.
If programs are really interesting, videoing them on a smart phone then posting to youtube would work.
The "diary" is not written how one would typically write a diary. The "diary" contains false details about the crime that originated from Robert Boutflour's theories.
It's a retrospective diary with BS mixed into it. For what purpose it was created I do not know. It builds an even bigger paper trail of information back to the relatives and away from Jeremy.
-
Strange, is it not, that whilst Ann's face marks her out as guilty, Jeremy's supercilious arrogance isn't a sign of guilt.
First of all I hadn't said " guilt " when referring to AE's face.
Secondly,Jeremy's arrogance doesn't point towards guilt.I knew a LOT of arrogant people in my profession,but murderers they weren't,they were life-savers ! Sure of themselves and confident !!
A broad grin/smile,such as Jeremy displayed,was a long way from being supercilious.
-
The "diary" is not written how one would typically write a diary. The "diary" contains false details about the crime that originated from Robert Boutflour's theories.
It's a retrospective diary with BS mixed into it. For what purpose it was created I do not know. It builds an even bigger paper trail of information back to the relatives and away from Jeremy.
I have seen the pdfs of her writing which look genuine.
Is there some proof/common knowledge they are retrospective?
I come from the position it is scientifically impossible for JB to be at the crime scene in every way to Rome, settled.
Therefore I am trying to understand Mugford as a case study.
-
First of all I hadn't said " guilt " when referring to AE's face.
Secondly,Jeremy's arrogance doesn't point towards guilt.I knew a LOT of arrogant people in my profession,but murderers they weren't,they were life-savers ! Sure of themselves and confident !!
A broad grin/smile,such as Jeremy displayed,was a long way from being supercilious.
You may not have used the word "guilty", Lookout, but every time you mention Ann, GUILT is strongly implied.
The arrogant of your acquaintance had not, presumably, been involved in horrendous multiple murders?
I agree that Jeremy's broad grin suggested that he was sure of himself and confident. Wasn't he EVER!!! It was a smirk of the "Up yours. You think I've done it but you can't prove it" variety.
-
You can call it which ever way you choose to see it, Roch, but I'm getting the very strong impression here that it's not innocence that trying to be proved -although there are one or two who believe it- as much as a get out clause being looked for, and ONE that offers possibilities is the stance of the relatives.
There it is for everyone to see in the programme the absolute obsession with Jeremy and what he had
He wasn't a farm hand and he wasn't a farm labourer, he was the son of Neville and worked for Neville
Anne description of Jeremy's eyes ffs
Maybe we should skip back to the other documentary where apparently there was still blood on the lampshade from the murders and Ann hadn't cleaned up
Jelousy on another level from these relatives and Mugford and an easy target like Jeremy who obviously didn't have a clue what was going on around
-
I have seen the pdfs of her writing which look genuine.
Is there some proof/common knowledge they are retrospective?
I come from the position it is scientifically impossible for JB to be at the crime scene in every way to Rome, settled.
Therefore I am trying to understand Mugford as a case study.
You mean to say that you understood all 32 pages of that drivel,Samson ? It was illegible.On purpose probably !
-
Well someone was guilty of planting the silencer in the cupboard, now who could that be.
That person needs to go to prison for a very long time
-
There it is for everyone to see in the programme the absolute obsession with Jeremy and what he had
He wasn't a farm hand and he wasn't a farm labourer, he was the son of Neville and worked for Neville
Anne description of Jeremy's eyes ffs
Maybe we should skip back to the other documentary where apparently there was still blood on the lampshade from the murders and Ann hadn't cleaned up
Jelousy on another level from these relatives and Mugford and an easy target like Jeremy who obviously didn't have a clue what was going on around
There only needs to be one good reconstructions and maybe a series of 6 tv shows about this case and heads will roll all over the place
-
You may not have used the word "guilty", Lookout, but every time you mention Ann, GUILT is strongly implied.
The arrogant of your acquaintance had not, presumably, been involved in horrendous multiple murders?
I agree that Jeremy's broad grin suggested that he was sure of himself and confident. Wasn't he EVER!!! It was a smirk of the "Up yours. You think I've done it but you can't prove it" variety.
Which is a ridiculous proposition. There were are many ways the best laid plans crap out, often unforeseen. That is why Bamber and Bain are appalling suspects when there are alternative and much MUCH simpler theories. The fact there is no proof they are guilty PROVES the converse for all practical purposes.
-
Which is a ridiculous proposition. There were are many ways the best laid plans crap out, often unforeseen. That is why Bamber and Bain are appalling suspects when there are alternative and much MUCH simpler theories. The fact there is no proof they are guilty PROVES the converse for all practical purposes.
Funny that, because there's no proof that the relatives are guilty either, yet there are those here who'd throw them all in prison and throw away the key.
-
You may not have used the word "guilty", Lookout, but every time you mention Ann, GUILT is strongly implied.
The arrogant of your acquaintance had not, presumably, been involved in horrendous multiple murders?
I agree that Jeremy's broad grin suggested that he was sure of himself and confident. Wasn't he EVER!!! It was a smirk of the "Up yours. You think I've done it but you can't prove it" variety.
At no point will Jeremy have known that his lousy relatives had been plotting against him behind his back so naturally because he KNEW HIMSELF that he hadn't committed the murders,his attitude would have been to stand proud-------------and NOBODY liked it,not even EP who didn't want to be beaten by a young,wealthy up-start. God help the lot of them !! Jealousy,hatred are evil traits.
-
At no point will Jeremy have known that his lousy relatives had been plotting against him behind his back so naturally because he KNEW HIMSELF that he hadn't committed the murders,his attitude would have been to stand proud...
Exactly.
-
There only needs to be one good reconstructions and maybe a series of 6 tv shows about this case and heads will roll all over the place
As soon as i understand copyright issues we will do a thread on Red, analysing fragrant CAL's reconstruction inspired by "best of Essex Police" album.
It is absolutely vital to do reconstructions in great detail, two competing and get them televised.
For example some people suggest that JB stupified Sheila with a mystery chemical to help her to her suicide pose.
That is serious band aid at work.
A film showing that would get Teresa May into guilt by sin of omission mode.
-
At no point will Jeremy have known that his lousy relatives had been plotting against him behind his back so naturally because he KNEW HIMSELF that he hadn't committed the murders,his attitude would have been to stand proud-------------and NOBODY liked it,not even EP who didn't want to be beaten by a young,wealthy up-start. God help the lot of them !! Jealousy,hatred are evil traits.
I don't think he cared. I believe he saw himself as untouchable. "Standing proud" -accompanied by holidays, parties and turning one's back on one's family- isn't the usual stance for someone who's just lost their entire near family.
-
I don't think he cared. I believe he saw himself as untouchable. "Standing proud" -accompanied by holidays, parties and turning one's back on one's family- isn't the usual stance for someone who's just lost their entire near family.
He was NEVER that close to his relatives that he should have cared about them or bothered about how they should have felt just because he was continuing with HIS life. It had NOTHING whatsoever to do with them what he did or how he did it. They were JEALOUS of his life-style and THEIR futures against his,so they had to do something about it.
NONE of the relatives showed grief at the funerals----------because they were that busy scrutinising Jeremy's reactions,to add to their lists of suspicions,with RWB accusing him of putting " whitener " on his face to make him look paler.
How people react to grief is their own way of coping.You should know that !!
-
At no point will Jeremy have known that his lousy relatives had been plotting against him behind his back so naturally because he KNEW HIMSELF that he hadn't committed the murders,his attitude would have been to stand proud-------------and NOBODY liked it,not even EP who didn't want to be beaten by a young,wealthy up-start. God help the lot of them !! Jealousy,hatred are evil traits.
Great post Lookout
-
I don't think he cared. I believe he saw himself as untouchable. "Standing proud" -accompanied by holidays, parties and turning one's back on one's family- isn't the usual stance for someone who's just lost their entire near family.
Trouble is Jane you 'think' all the time instead of looking at facts. You are so desperate that Jeremy is guilty
Maybe you will get accused of a serious crime one day that you haven't committed
It happens all the time
-
He was NEVER that close to his relatives that he should have cared about them or bothered about how they should have felt just because he was continuing with HIS life. It had NOTHING whatsoever to do with them what he did or how he did it. They were JEALOUS of his life-style and THEIR futures against his,so they had to do something about it.
NONE of the relatives showed grief at the funerals----------because they were that busy scrutinising Jeremy's reactions,to add to their lists of suspicions,with RWB accusing him of putting " whitener " on his face to make him look paler.
How people react to grief is their own way of coping.You should know that !!
Love them or loathe them, his behaviour -towards his wider family- was dispicable. His relationship with his parents wasn't their fault. He could at least, have tried to show some respect for the parents who bought him up. It was the last thing he'd ever have to do for them.
-
Love them or loathe them, his behaviour -towards his wider family- was dispicable. His relationship with his parents wasn't their fault. He could at least, have tried to show some respect for the parents who bought him up. It was the last thing he'd ever have to do for them.
Rather it was Sheila who hadn't shown respect by shooting them all !!
-
Rather it was Sheila who hadn't shown respect by shooting them all !!
But Sheila didn't coz Sheila couldn't coz whilst I don't believe her to have been as 'coshed' as Adam would have us believe, I don't believe her to have been possessed of the mental energy necessary.
-
I have seen the pdfs of her writing which look genuine.
Is there some proof/common knowledge they are retrospective?
I come from the position it is scientifically impossible for JB to be at the crime scene in every way to Rome, settled.
Therefore I am trying to understand Mugford as a case study.
The "Diary" is written by Julie. I am not disputing that.
It is written in retrospect (as to look back on what has happened) combined with all the false information given to her by either the relatives or Stan Jones. We know this because not only is that information wrong and inconsistent with the crime scene. It can be traced back to those individuals.
Overall its an attempt to make Julie seem a more credible witness. But under close scrutiny it backfires.
-
But Sheila didn't coz Sheila couldn't coz whilst I don't believe her to have been as 'coshed' as Adam would have us believe, I don't believe her to have been possessed of the mental energy necessary.
Adam was correct in saying that she hadn't been as " coshed " as others make out,therefore her mental energy/physical would have been beyond high. Severe enough to have carried out the killings.Sheila had SNAPPED ! People DO snap,but aren't necessarily mentally impaired,drugged and certainly not suffering the effects of over-dosing.
-
Adam was correct in saying that she hadn't been as " coshed " as others make out,therefore her mental energy/physical would have been beyond high. Severe enough to have carried out the killings.Sheila had SNAPPED ! People DO snap,but aren't necessarily mentally impaired,drugged and certainly not suffering the effects of over-dosing.
GET REAL, Lookout!! You're making this up as you go. Someone who's OVERsedated, ISN'T going to be mentally alert. I suggest you go take a nursing refresher course, OR take a course on mental nursing.
-
GET REAL, Lookout!! You're making this up as you go. Someone who's OVERsedated, ISN'T going to be mentally alert. I suggest you go take a nursing refresher course, OR take a course on mental nursing.
Funny how I'm suddenly " making things up " when I give out facts. What would you have if it wasn't for " over-sedated " ? Dear me,whatever next ?
I certainly don't need more training/exams thank you very much,but perhaps you should attend a day centre for your aggression !!
-
Funny how I'm suddenly " making things up " when I give out facts. What would you have if it wasn't for " over-sedated " ? Dear me,whatever next ?
I certainly don't need more training/exams thank you very much,but perhaps you should attend a day centre for your aggression !!
Remind us of the year you trained, Lookout. As for the "facts" you allege you "give out", I don't see ANY of what you've just given out as being factual as you weren't there. What IS real is that people DO snap. NONE of Sheila's behaviours suggest that she did.
-
Remind us of the year you trained, Lookout. As for the "facts" you allege you "give out", I don't see ANY of what you've just given out as being factual as you weren't there. What IS real is that people DO snap. NONE of Sheila's behaviours suggest that she did.
Sheila's behaviour latterly was " all over the place "-------unpredictable,one minute okay,then such as with Freddie,manic. That's how Sheila was !! I maintain that she had snapped !
-
The "Diary" is written by Julie. I am not disputing that.
It is written in retrospect (as to look back on what has happened) combined with all the false information given to her by either the relatives or Stan Jones. We know this because not only is that information wrong and inconsistent with the crime scene. It can be traced back to those individuals.
Overall its an attempt to make Julie seem a more credible witness. But under close scrutiny it backfires.
This seems plausible. However is there evidence other than inferred evidence she wrote these entries retrospectively? If there is simple proof, you can go directly to the media with this. Maurice Drake relied in Mugford and/or the silencer to instruct the jury to a guilty verdict. If these diaries are fake in this manner it is the worst deception in the case that I have seen outside the obvious issue with the scratched mantlepiece happening after the killings.
-
Sheila's behaviour latterly was " all over the place "-------unpredictable,one minute okay,then such as with Freddie,manic. That's how Sheila was !! I maintain that she had snapped !
As I say, Lookout. Remind us of the year you trained.
-
Sheila's behaviour latterly was " all over the place "-------unpredictable,one minute okay,then such as with Freddie,manic. That's how Sheila was !! I maintain that she had snapped !
I'm glad you mention Freddie. Consider how this passage from CAL shines clear light.
"With detectives at Witham leading the investigation, Freddie Emami was driven to the police station there for an interview. He acknowledged that Sheila had had ‘a very quick and violent temper which she would lose over the simplest of things’ but had never seen her use physical violence towards anyone. He ended his statement: ‘Had it just been her [adoptive] mother who had been killed I could accept it, as she disliked her intensely"
June was the one she shot first, then everything followed like dominos toppling. Nevill. Then the kids. Then Sheila. This I believe, no grand plan at all.
-
This seems plausible. However is there evidence other than inferred evidence she wrote these entries retrospectively? If there is simple proof, you can go directly to the media with this. Maurice Drake relied in Mugford and/or the silencer to instruct the jury to a guilty verdict. If these diaries are fake in this manner it is the worst deception in the case that I have seen outside the obvious issue with the scratched mantlepiece happening after the killings.
God, this has been discussed sooo many times!! YES, I, too, believed they were real until I saw that the first entry, about something which took place in August was written on January 2nd!!! She didn't use it as a diary. She used it -possibly it was suggested to her- to keep notes. As it was never meant to BE a diary -rather a notebook- it can't be said to be fake. Julie wasn't stupid. No way would she have written about an August occurrance as happening in January.....................unless you wish to say she was psychic?
-
I'm glad you mention Freddie. Consider how this passage from CAL shines clear light.
With detectives at Witham leading the investigation, Freddie Emami was driven to the police station there for an interview. He acknowledged that Sheila had had ‘a very quick and violent temper which she would lose over the simplest of things’ but had never seen her use physical violence towards anyone. He ended his statement: ‘Had it just been her [adoptive] mother who had been killed I could accept it, as she disliked her intensely
EXACTLY!!! She'd NEVER, despite Lookout saying that she broke her husband's sculpture which makes her violent, directed violence to anyone save her own person.
-
As I say, Lookout. Remind us of the year you trained.
I trained in the late50's/ 60's and 70's,but never stopped training in the 80's and into the 90's. So a life-time of learning to both make comparisons and to also bring me up to date.
Whiston hospital--Rainhill hospital ( asylum ), (Mill lane medical and Highfield maternity combined ),then Arrowe park hospital. Experience counts for a lot.
-
God, this has been discussed sooo many times!! YES, I, too, believed they were real until I saw that the first entry, about something which took place in August was written on January 2nd!!! She didn't use it as a diary. She used it -possibly it was suggested to her- to keep notes. As it was never meant to BE a diary -rather a notebook- it can't be said to be fake. Julie wasn't stupid. No way would she have written about an August occurrance as happening in January.....................unless you wish to say she was psychic?
I did expect an explanation I must say, thank you for confirming it. So Mugford is far worse than I thought, thank you. I can't believe you are taken in by this whole hoax Jane.
-
EXACTLY!!! She'd NEVER, despite Lookout saying that she broke her husband's sculpture which makes her violent, directed violence to anyone save her own person.
She had a motive and opportunity that evening. JB had neither, he was in Goldhanger. He remains a complete stranger to violence to this day according to the official record either side of this crime.
-
I did expect an explanation I must say, thank you for confirming it. So Mugford is far worse than I thought, thank you. I can't believe you are taken in by this whole hoax Jane.
Are you saying that this clever girl would have handed something in that could so easily have been pulled apart had there been anything duplicitous about it. Can't you see, it was never meant to be a diary so it can't be a fake one. I do worry about your mind set.
-
She had a motive and opportunity that evening. JB had neither, he was in Goldhanger. He remains a complete stranger to violence to this day according to the official record either side of this crime.
WHAT evening? What motive and opportunity did Julie have? She was nowhere NEAR Essex. Jeremy was only minutes away from WHF with access from any number of directions.
-
WHAT evening? What motive and opportunity did Julie have? She was nowhere NEAR Essex. Jeremy was only minutes away from WHF with access from any number of directions.
You misread. I was referring to Sheila of course, with motive - mother is trying to foster out MY children - and opportunity - a fully loaded gun to hand, enough bullets to despatch mum and dad even if I don't know how to reload.
-
You misread. I was referring to Sheila of course, with motive - mother is trying to foster out MY children - and opportunity - a fully loaded gun to hand, enough bullets to despatch mum and dad even if I don't know how to reload.
But she wasn't, the only time June mentioned fostering of the children was to Colin's mother and it was to say that she FEARED the children might be fostered not that she WANTED them to be fostered. The only person who said that was JEREMY!
-
Love them or loathe them, his behaviour -towards his wider family- was dispicable. His relationship with his parents wasn't their fault. He could at least, have tried to show some respect for the parents who bought him up. It was the last thing he'd ever have to do for them.
Absolute rubbish
-
Love them or loathe them, his behaviour -towards his wider family- was dispicable. His relationship with his parents wasn't their fault. He could at least, have tried to show some respect for the parents who bought him up. It was the last thing he'd ever have to do for them.
Respect for his parents?
What respect did Eaton and her cabal show to Jeremy's parents by framing their son?
-
Respect for his parents?
What respect did Eaton and her cabal show to Jeremy's parents by framing their son?
Thank-you for pointing that out, Roch. It's unreasonable of me to expect, from Jeremy, that which may not have been forthcoming from others. I have had conversations with those closer, than here, to understanding the family dynamic. I've often felt that there may have been resentment on RWB's part, towards Nevill. Much of what Ann has to say re Jeremy and Sheila, will, I suspect, have been learned from her father. However, this isn't tantamount to Jeremy being innocent.
-
She had a motive and opportunity that evening. JB had neither, he was in Goldhanger. He remains a complete stranger to violence to this day according to the official record either side of this crime.
But you have to provide an explanation for the sights being removed from the gun, and the rotary dial telephone which was in full working order removed from the bedroom and hidden amongst a pile of magazines in the kitchen. Both suggest premeditation, which rules out Sheila in a psychotic state committing the massacre.
-
But you have to provide an explanation for the sights being removed from the gun, and the rotary dial telephone which was in full working order removed from the bedroom and hidden amongst a pile of magazines in the kitchen. Both suggest premeditation, which rules out Sheila in a psychotic state committing the massacre.
My own opinion about the phone being among the magazines isn't as sinister as it having been hidden. It would possibly have already been on top of magazines when more of them had inadvertantly been stacked again upon them.
Movement of magazines had been evident because of those which had been placed on the breakfast table.
-
According to the TV guide. Tonight's episode is about Jeffrey Dhalmer :(
-
According to the TV guide. Tonight's episode is about Jeffrey Dhalmer :(
It was on at midnight until 1am this morning - I recorded it.
-
It was on at midnight until 1am this morning - I recorded it.
Oh dear! Not only did I miss it AGAIN!!! have just discovered -with some satisfaction- that it was on Sky. I've got Freeview ::) ::) ::)
-
It was on at midnight until 1am this morning - I recorded it.
Any good?
can you upload it to mega.nz for us all. Please ;D
-
Oh dear! Not only did I miss it AGAIN!!! have just discovered -with some satisfaction- that it was on Sky. I've got Freeview ::) ::) ::)
It was in Freeview last night I recorded the whole rubbish
-
Any good?
can you upload it to mega.nz for us all. Please ;D
Difficult to watch David
Lie after lie after lie
-
Difficult to watch David
Lie after lie after lie
Can you upload it for us? Please ;D
-
Can you upload it for us? Please ;D
From Sky?
-
From Sky?
Sky plus recording? yes its possible but not easy.
I assumed you recorded from freeview via the web browser :-\
-
Sky plus recording? yes its possible but not easy.
I assumed you recorded from freeview via the web browser :-\
No, don't think CBS Reality had a catch up - won't be long before it's on Youtube. It was actually quite good - one of the better ones that I have seen.
-
Sky plus recording? yes its possible but not easy.
I assumed you recorded from freeview via the web browser :-\
Hi David I am at my caravan as the weather is good. I only have sky at home.
At the caravan I have a freeview box in the lounge and another in the bedroom
So I can't upload can I ???
-
No, don't think CBS Reality had a catch up - won't be long before it's on Youtube. It was actually quite good - one of the better ones that I have seen.
How did you record it?
-
Hi David I am at my caravan as the weather is good. I only have sky at home.
At the caravan I have a freeview box in the lounge and another in the bedroom
So I can't upload can I ???
Depends how you recorded it. :-\
-
FilmOn.com CBS Reality + 1 ( catch-up ) will let you record/watch but you have to join.
-
This seems plausible. However is there evidence other than inferred evidence she wrote these entries retrospectively? If there is simple proof, you can go directly to the media with this. Maurice Drake relied in Mugford and/or the silencer to instruct the jury to a guilty verdict. If these diaries are fake in this manner it is the worst deception in the case that I have seen outside the obvious issue with the scratched mantlepiece happening after the killings.
There is no simple proof. Only tiresome and perplexing proof that the general public don't have the attention span for. The only "simple proof" that the media could take interest in, would be a confession on her part. That's not going to happen IMO.
-
There is no simple proof. Only tiresome and perplexing proof that the general public don't have the attention span for. The only "simple proof" that the media could take interest in, would be a confession on her part. That's not going to happen IMO.
The diaries become part of the video narrative, the dialogue is there for the actors to use. This video also shows how Nevill was in the bedroom and JB shot June first then shot two rear shots to Neville as he swivelled from bed, and how Nevill lowered his head forward to get the trajectory to his mouth. The video shows a one armed Nevill fighting under the mantle piece and reconstructs the scratches being delivered to the underside in that even fashion.
The video shows Sheila in a drowsy state lying down to be shot.
Then it shows him exit by the kitchen window, and pulling the latch down with the Myster nylon cord. It shows him cycling home and getting rid of all the forensic evidence.
This is not difficult to make, but not a living soul will believe what they watch. There will be an uproar.
-
The diaries become part of the video narrative, the dialogue is there for the actors to use. This video also shows how Nevill was in the bedroom and JB shot June first then shot two rear shots to Neville as he swivelled from bed, and how Nevill lowered his head forward to get the trajectory to his mouth. The video shows a one armed Nevill fighting under the mantle piece and reconstructs the scratches being delivered to the underside in that even fashion.
The video shows Sheila in a drowsy state lying down to be shot.
Then it shows him exit by the kitchen window, and pulling the latch down with the Myster nylon cord. It shows him cycling home and getting rid of all the forensic evidence.
This is not difficult to make, but not a living soul will believe what they watch. There will be an uproar.
Why will people not believe it if a video reconstructs the massacre based on the crime scene evidence ?
-
Why will people not believe it if a video reconstructs the massacre based on the crime scene evidence ?
I am saying that it is an ungainly and unbelievable scenario to get the conversations and trajectories to match up. And the fight under the mantlepiece with Nevill down to one arm will look ridiculous. On the other hand we can do a video of Sheila where she never touches Nevill, and never walks in blood or glass. And she just lays down and shoots herself when the house is surrounded and the police are about to break in.
-
Blooming heck I missed it, only just catching up on this thread. Any ideas
-
I am saying that it is an ungainly and unbelievable scenario to get the conversations and trajectories to match up. And the fight under the mantlepiece with Nevill down to one arm will look ridiculous. On the other hand we can do a video of Sheila where she never touches Nevill, and never walks in blood or glass. And she just lays down and shoots herself when the house is surrounded and the police are about to break in.
As it's true that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, it must surely follow that BS by any other name would smell as putrid.
-
Why will people not believe it if a video reconstructs the massacre based on the crime scene evidence ?
If the video had been reconstructed on the actual and original crime evidence, I imagine people would have no problem in believing it. Sadly this is not the case.
What a tremendous insult to Nevill, June and their two wonderful grandchildren.
-
How did you record it?
I recorded it on Sky
-
If the video had been reconstructed on the actual and original crime evidence, I imagine people would have no problem in believing it. Sadly this is not the case.
What a tremendous insult to Nevill, June and their two wonderful grandchildren.
There are lots of those right here!
-
I recorded it on Sky
do you have a DVD recorder?
-
do you have a DVD recorder?
Nope.
-
Nope.
VCR?
-
VCR?
Might be one in the loft but - it will be on Youtube shortly. Why didn't you search for it on Sky and record it?
-
Might be one in the loft but - it will be on Youtube shortly. Why didn't you search for it on Sky and record it?
I don't have Sky.
-
Doesn't your TV record ?
-
Doesn't your TV record ?
I have a "smart TV" but I never watch TV channels now. everything I now watch is streamed on demand.
-
I have a "smart TV" but I never watch TV channels now. everything I now watch is streamed on demand.
Be cautious. Sometimes things happen in real time, don't miss them.