Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: buddy on May 05, 2017, 03:50:PM
-
Who found incriminating evidence against JB?
Police a big fat zero.
The family.
1. The silencer.
2. Scratch marks on the mantle.
3. Blood and hair [missing] on the silencer.
4. Method of entry, and exit from the farm
5. Bicycle.
This list is not exhaustive, and I think others will remember more.
Are we to believe that the family were better than seasoned cops?
-
Who found incriminating evidence against JB?
Police a big fat zero.
The family.
1. The silencer.
2. Scratch marks on the mantle.
3. Blood and hair [missing] on the silencer.
4. Method of entry, and exit from the farm
5. Bicycle.
This list is not exhaustive, and I think others will remember more.
Are we to believe that the family were better than seasoned cops?
You're listing undisputed facts. Silencer, bike, window.
It does not matter who found them, it incriminates Bamber.
The police working with witnesses to solve a crime. Hold the front page.
-
You're listing undisputed facts. Silencer, bike, window.
It does not matter who found them, it incriminates Bamber.
The police working with witnesses to solve a crime. Hold the front page.
Adam, I have you on ignore as I have no desire to read your biased posts.
You do not debate but like Caroline you DICTATE.
Kindly ignore my posts.
-
Adam, I have you on ignore as I have no desire to read your biased posts.
You do not debate but like Caroline you DICTATE.
Kindly ignore my posts.
Thought you had me on ignore ? Roch said he was putting me on ignore, but was scared I would be crucifying his posts, so took me off & responds to me. Sometimes after 4 requests.
You mean you can't answer my post ? That's alright, you walked into highlighting incriminating Bamber evidence. Found by witnesses who were also relatives. So what ?
I will be responding to you're posts and finding numerous faults as usual. You won't be defending yourself so you're weak posts & threads will look even worse. Clever move.
What should Bamber have done with Julie? Oh yes 'lob her overboard'.
-
This is linked to what I've been trying implore my fellow forum members about. It doesn't really matter which side of the divide you are on. When new evidence is made public, relatives will do what they have always done from day one. They will strive to protect their own interests. They will blame police and claim they were kept in the dark. Yet the relatives were not only told Sheila was responsible, they also grafted and schemed to cook up evidence that convicted Jeremy.
-
This is linked to what I've been trying implore my fellow forum members about. It doesn't really matter which side of the divide you are on. When new evidence is made public, relatives will do what they have always done from day one. They will strive to protect their own interests. They will blame police and claim they were kept in the dark. Yet the relatives were not only told Sheila was responsible, they also grafted and schemed to cook up evidence that convicted Jeremy.
What new evidence will be made public ? I thought the police were withholding documents.
-
This is linked to what I've been trying implore my fellow forum members about. It doesn't really matter which side of the divide you are on. When new evidence is made public, relatives will do what they have always done from day one. They will strive to protect their own interests. They will blame police and claim they were kept in the dark. Yet the relatives were not only told Sheila was responsible, they also grafted and schemed to cook up evidence that convicted Jeremy.
RWB saw the writing on the wall. He knew JB had no interest in farming, and would sell up.
The family would have been in deep crap.
-
RWB saw the writing on the wall. He knew JB had no interest in farming, and would sell up.
The family would have been in deep crap.
The relatives were already rich. Source supplied.
I agree Bamber had no interest in farming. Which is a reason he committed the massacre.
Witnessses who were relatives supplying the police with information is nothing new. The relatives are usually the closest people to the deceased & in this case, suspect.
Julie was not a relative & also brought up the bike & window. Together with loads of other things.
-
Adam, I have you on ignore as I have no desire to read your biased posts.
You do not debate but like Caroline you DICTATE.
Kindly ignore my posts.
Wee rattled your cage? ::) :P
-
This is linked to what I've been trying implore my fellow forum members about. It doesn't really matter which side of the divide you are on. When new evidence is made public, relatives will do what they have always done from day one. They will strive to protect their own interests. They will blame police and claim they were kept in the dark. Yet the relatives were not only told Sheila was responsible, they also grafted and schemed to cook up evidence that convicted Jeremy.
But the police had no motive to go along with them.
-
But the police had no motive to go along with them.
RB had something on Peter Simpson. Although what that was & how RB obtained it, has not been said.
-
RB had something on Peter Simpson. Although what that was & how RB obtained it, has not been said.
That magic 'something'?
-
I am not so narrow minded as some here.
-
That magic 'something'?
Manipulation ?
-
This is linked to what I've been trying implore my fellow forum members about. It doesn't really matter which side of the divide you are on. When new evidence is made public, relatives will do what they have always done from day one. They will strive to protect their own interests. They will blame police and claim they were kept in the dark. Yet the relatives were not only told Sheila was responsible, they also grafted and schemed to cook up evidence that convicted Jeremy.
The thing is Roch people do take notice. There are many forum members who also believe Jeremy is innocent but do not post because of the attacks. I really do not care who proves this conviction is unsafe the official campaign team or the very experienced journolists who are digging for the truth or the documentary makers looking for some important award as long as the truth comes out
-
Manipulation ?
Motive.
-
Any one of the things the "family" found Is easily fabricated
-
Any one of the things the "family" found Is easily fabricated
Of course
-
You're listing undisputed facts. Silencer, bike, window.
It does not matter who found them, it incriminates Bamber.
The police working with witnesses to solve a crime. Hold the front page.
these facts are disputed adam, the silencer wasn't used imo, not shielas blood in it imo, bike no evidence at all, windows locked.
It does matter who brought these things up as the relatives had a motive to frame him.
-
The relatives were already rich. Source supplied.
I agree Bamber had no interest in farming. Which is a reason he committed the massacre.
Witnessses who were relatives supplying the police with information is nothing new. The relatives are usually the closest people to the deceased & in this case, suspect.
Julie was not a relative & also brought up the bike & window. Together with loads of other things.
the family were not rich, he didn't comits the massacre and certainly not because he didn't like farming. He had already done what he wanted to do and it was his decision to go back to it. He was always going to inherit and although he had had struggles with his family ( nothing new in any famiky) it doesn't poin't to him wanting to kill them all.
If you believe the bike theory ! Well that's as nuts as the person who brought that theory into play in the first place no evidence
-
Who found incriminating evidence against JB?
Police a big fat zero.
The family.
1. The silencer.
2. Scratch marks on the mantle.
3. Blood and hair [missing] on the silencer.
4. Method of entry, and exit from the farm
5. Bicycle.
This list is not exhaustive, and I think others will remember more.
Are we to believe that the family were better than seasoned cops?
well you dont have to be sherlock holmes to search a cupboard 4 times and find a silencer if its actully there the only conclusion i come to about that is ethere the police were lying about searching the cupboard or the silencer wasnt there.
-
Motive.
Protecting the integrity of the force with regard to the decisions made in the farmhouse and the resulting consequences.
The desire and a sense of urgency to get relatives off their back.
Greed and alarm on the part of the relatives.
Openness to being corrupted by a relative.
Power: the fact that it was doable.
Lack of morals.
A combination of ignorance about Sheila and disdain towards Jeremy.
-
Protecting the integrity of the force with regard to the decisions made in the farmhouse and the resulting consequences.
The desire and a sense of urgency to get relatives off their back.
Greed and alarm on the part of the relatives.
Openness to being corrupted by a relative.
Power: the fact that it was doable.
Money talks
And I don't think the relatives ever thought of Jeremy as "blood" they wanted what they thought they were entitled to and went to great lengths to get it in my opinion.
Lack of morals.
A combination of ignorance about Sheila and disdain towards Jeremy.
-
Protecting the integrity of the force with regard to the decisions made in the farmhouse and the resulting consequences.
The desire and a sense of urgency to get relatives off their back.
Greed and alarm on the part of the relatives.
Openness to being corrupted by a relative.
Power: the fact that it was doable.
Lack of morals.
A combination of ignorance about Sheila and disdain towards Jeremy.
Protecting integrity by knowingly framing an innocent man thus putting the force in a worse position?
According to you, they had proof that Sheila was responsible - that would have gotten the relatives off their back.
The relatives had no power, especially if there was evidence of Sheila's guilt.
There is no motive for such openness.
Just because they could isn't really a convincing argument.
There wouldn't need to be ignorance towards Sheila if there was proof.
-
internal polce poltics prove the boss is wrong and you were right and yor carertakes off.
and whos to say that jones dident belive the relatives and think jeremy was guilty he wouldent of been the first copper to manfacture angianst somone he thought did it.
-
Protecting integrity by knowingly framing an innocent man thus putting the force in a worse position?
How would members of the public know that Jeremy was an innocent man? Most people wouldn't necessarily know this (though some may have felt that he was). I'm not referring to the inner consciousness of individual police officers. I'm referring to perceptions among the public, the integrity of the force.
According to you, they had proof that Sheila was responsible - that would have gotten the relatives off their back.
But it didn't though did it? Two relatives accpeted Sheila could have been the killer, after DCI Jones explained to them in no uncertain terms. But that didn't stop the mission of the relatives. Jeremy's uncle Bobby was prepared to incorporate anything in to a Jeremy scenario.
The relatives had no power, especially if there was evidence of Sheila's guilt.
They had police officers carrying out 'experiments' on the kitchen window behind DCI Jones' back. They had another leading officer (who just happened to be the direct persecutor of Jeremy and the leading coach of Julie) drinking whiskey at the farm - before driving away with the main exhibit - which they introduced to the case. They employed the head of the second investigation after he retired early. They got the original head of the investigation sidelined and had him replaced with a future consultant employee. They had power in spades.
There is no motive for such openness.
Early retirement is a motive. A nice fat police pension and some consultancy work.
Just because they could isn't really a convincing argument.
Power corrupts. People get cocky and start acting like 'God'.
There wouldn't need to be ignorance towards Sheila if there was proof.
Not sure what this means.
-
But it didn't though did it? Two relatives accpeted Sheila could have been the killer, after DCI Jones explained to them in no uncertain terms. But that didn't stop the mission of the relatives. Jeremy's uncle Bobby was prepared to incorporate anything in to a Jeremy scenario.
RWB was told about Sheila's prints being on the shell casings. Despite that he still tried to invent a way to explain it.
-
It's strange that people can quote reams on the relatives not knowing anything about the Bambers and yet when it suits their case claim that they were experts on whether Sheila could have committed the massacre or not. DC Barlow conducted his own experiment on the windows and his assertion that a window could be banged shut tallies with Julie's statement of what Jeremy told her.
The biggest flaw in the Defence argument is why on earth would Police risk their careers by concocting a story that Jeremy was responsible when they could just have said that Sheila turned a gun on them and they had to shoot, though why a bullet in those circumstances would end up in her neck remains a mystery.
-
RWB was told about Sheila's prints being on the shell casings. Despite that he still tried to invent a way to explain it.
Jeremy had access to Sheila's body and could have staged the scene exactly as he wished.
-
Jeremy had access to Sheila's body and could have staged the scene exactly as he wished.
hell could well of done just at the relatives could of planted the evidence when they had acese to the house.
-
hell could well of done just at the relatives could of planted the evidence when they had acese to the house.
That's true but they didn't have access those first hours when the Raid Team entered.
-
Protecting integrity by knowingly framing an innocent man thus putting the force in a worse position?
How would members of the public know that Jeremy was an innocent man? Most people wouldn't necessarily know this (though some may have felt that he was). I'm not referring to the inner consciousness of individual police officers. I'm referring to perceptions among the public, the integrity of the force.
According to you, they had proof that Sheila was responsible - that would have gotten the relatives off their back.
But it didn't though did it? Two relatives accpeted Sheila could have been the killer, after DCI Jones explained to them in no uncertain terms. But that didn't stop the mission of the relatives. Jeremy's uncle Bobby was prepared to incorporate anything in to a Jeremy scenario.
The relatives had no power, especially if there was evidence of Sheila's guilt.
They had police officers carrying out 'experiments' on the kitchen window behind DCI Jones' back. They had another leading officer (who just happened to be the direct persecutor of Jeremy and the leading coach of Julie) drinking whiskey at the farm - before driving away with the main exhibit - which they introduced to the case. They employed the head of the second investigation after he retired early. They got the original head of the investigation sidelined and had him replaced with a future consultant employee. They had power in spades.
There is no motive for such openness.
Early retirement is a motive. A nice fat police pension and some consultancy work.
Just because they could isn't really a convincing argument.
Power corrupts. People get cocky and start acting like 'God'.
There wouldn't need to be ignorance towards Sheila if there was proof.
Not sure what this means.
I wasn't talking about members of the public. People don't generally want to incarcerate an innocent man - even police officers and certainly not on the say so of greedy relatives. Sure I can accept that he was fitted up because everyone thought he was guilty but NOT when they had evidence to the contrary.
You keep saying that David and Anthony were persuaded by Jones that Sheila could have been responsible but haven't posted anything to back that up. It was also early days and I am sure even the relatives weren't sure what was what. When they found out more details, they realised it couldn't have been Sheila.
On you third point, so what? They thought he was guilty Taff didn't - I wouldn't be happy to let a 5 times murderer get away with it either. Had their back door investigation come to nothing - no harm done. But why should they investigate behind Taff's back if there was evidence of Sheila being guilty. Surely they would know they were wasting their time?
Early retirement? I wouldn't say that was a motive.
People can get cocky but unless they're a complete psychopath, they generally don't take away someone's freedom i the full knowledge that they innocent.
It wouldn't matter how much the relatives knew of Sheila's illness if they had been shown evidence of her guilt.
-
Why would the police framing Bamber result in an early retirement ?
There is no reason the relatives would persist in getting Bamber put in jail if they were given evidence Sheila was the culprit. Roch has said twice this week the relatives were given such evidence but they still persisted. What this evidence was & how Roch knows this has not been said. No sources have been supplied either.
Other policemen don't have to tell Taff Jones there every move. A policeman checked a window & had a drink with the relatives when collecting a silencer. So what ?
The relatives got Peter Simpson to re investigate the case because there was so much evidence against Bamber. Not because RB had something on Simpson as Roch has also suggested this week.
-
That's true but they didn't have access those first hours when the Raid Team entered.
Maybe that's why the police thought murder/suicide before all the incriminating evidence was "found" by the relatives
-
these facts are disputed adam, the silencer wasn't used imo, not shielas blood in it imo, bike no evidence at all, windows locked.
It does matter who brought these things up as the relatives had a motive to frame him.
Why is Sheila's blood in the silencer then ? Just saying in you're opinion it's not Sheila's blood doesn't negate the evidence that it is. It's human blood via back splatter. So the silencer was used.
Do you think it was a coincidence Bamber brought June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre ?
The kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. This is evidence.
The relatives were already rich farmers with no criminal record. Framing an innocent relative of murdering his family. Total rubbish.
-
the family were not rich, he didn't comits the massacre and certainly not because he didn't like farming. He had already done what he wanted to do and it was his decision to go back to it. He was always going to inherit and although he had had struggles with his family ( nothing new in any famiky) it doesn't poin't to him wanting to kill them all.
If you believe the bike theory ! Well that's as nuts as the person who brought that theory into play in the first place no evidence
The relatives were rich. Source supplied. With no criminal records.
Bamber didn't like farming & testified the wills stated he had to continue to work on the farm in order to inherit.
Do you think it was a coincidence that Bamber brought the bike to his cottage just before the massacre ?
-
hell could well of done just at the relatives could of planted the evidence when they had acese to the house.
What evidence could the relatives have planted ? The police had finished with WHF as a crime scene. Photos had been taken.
It was impossible for them to put Sheila's blood into the silencer via a contact shot back splatter as they did not have access to Sheila's body.
-
Maybe that's why the police thought murder/suicide before all the incriminating evidence was "found" by the relatives
Do you think it was a coincidence that Bamber brought June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre ?
-
Maybe that's why the police thought murder/suicide before all the incriminating evidence was "found" by the relatives
Lucy,there must have been some indication for the police to have concluded that it was murder/suicide,as they're not stupid,especially those who are higher-up with years of service and experience of such scenes. There wasn't even a mention of a re-enactment initially, because they'd been so sure of the verdict.
Then a month later it went pear-shaped when the relatives undermined the police,by talking about a woman who they'd known nothing whatsoever about.Enough to convince the police that it hadn't been Sheila.No mention of EP checking medical records----nothing.
-
Do you think it was a coincidence that Bamber brought June's bike to his cottage just before the massacre ?
Not at all I think he bought it for Julie like she asked
-
Lucy,there must have been some indication for the police to have concluded that it was murder/suicide,as they're not stupid,especially those who are higher-up with years of service and experience of such scenes. There wasn't even a mention of a re-enactment initially, because they'd been so sure of the verdict.
Then a month later it went pear-shaped when the relatives undermined the police,by talking about a woman who they'd known nothing whatsoever about.Enough to convince the police that it hadn't been Sheila.No mention of EP checking medical records----nothing.
I know, surely of all those officers that went through that house and not one said murder? Until a month later?
-
Not at all I think he bought it for Julie like she asked
Do you think it was a coincidence he brought June's bike for Julie just before the massacre ?
-
Do you think it was a coincidence he brought June's bike for Julie just before the massacre ?
No, I'm sure if he used it as a getaway vehicle he wouldn't be that stupid to leave it outside his house?? Nothing was found on that bike at all no mud, blood prints anything, yet it was used to cycle to and from a massacre in the middle of the night across fields, really?
-
I know, surely of all those officers that went through that house and not one said murder? Until a month later?
Really and truthfully,it was still a murder scene which should have been treated as such,but never was.
-
Caroline made an interesting comment when the said that, at the beginning, the relatives "wouldn't have known what was what". I think it should be looked at more closely.
The relatives would have been given the information BY the police, that Jeremy had given TO the police. There was no other source of information at that point. What would their initial reaction have been? Shock? Horror? Disbelief? Yes, all of those. Sheila had gone mad? She'd got hold of a gun and killed everyone? That's an awful lot to take on board when they didn't actually know, save from a letter she'd written Ann from hospital in March in which it said something about her being stressed, that she'd been ill. Certainly not MENTALLY ill. Still, I imagine that, at this point they accepted it because they couldn't get their heads round what had happened. I think it likely that the only words which passed between them were those of disbelief.
I believe it likely, that, at the start, any differences they had with Jeremy, would have been put aside. as we ALL would join ranks and pull together in a family crisis. We have Ann being supportive. Offering the hand of friendship. Being there for him. I remain totally convinced that had Jeremy conveyed himself to them as being 100% innocent -indeed, had he BEEN 100% innocent, they'd have believed it. I don't think they doubted what they'd been told until glimpses of Jeremy's behaviours began to suggest that everything may NOT be as it seemed.
For a start, Jeremy rejects offers of help. Did he consult the family over the funeral arrangements -which took place with unseemly haste. Was Colin consulted about what he'd like to happen to Sheila? OK, as her divorced husband he had no legal rights, but as the mother of his children, he arguably had the right to say he wanted them to be together. Jeremy, it seems, did all the arranging as if there were no other family. I think they'd have felt rejected by what he was doing.
I fully accept that everyone grieves differently. Some may appear not to grieve at all. I imagine this may have been how the relatives started to view Jeremy's behaviour. They may have seen their rejected offers of help as meaning that he didn't want them to know what he was planning. That he was deliberately keeping them out of the loop. Effectively, I think they'd have started to feel like the outsiders in their own family. It probably would have been at that point when they started to ask questions. Make comparisons. Notice that Jeremy wasn't telling the truth. In fact, it's very likely that, in the beginning, they over compensated and made allowances for him because of the circumstances, but as 'outsiders, looking in, hearing, watching, I think there would have been a gradual dawning that it wasn't Sheila who'd been responsible. I don't believe there was ever a unanimous blinding flash of revelation such as Saul experienced on the road to Damascus.
-
Caroline made an interesting comment when the said that, at the beginning, the relatives "wouldn't have known what was what". I think it should be looked at more closely.
The relatives would have been given the information BY the police, that Jeremy had given TO the police. There was no other source of information at that point. What would their initial reaction have been? Shock? Horror? Disbelief? Yes, all of those. Sheila had gone mad? She'd got hold of a gun and killed everyone? That's an awful lot to take on board when they didn't actually know, save from a letter she'd written Ann from hospital in March in which it said something about her being stressed, that she'd been ill. Certainly not MENTALLY ill. Still, I imagine that, at this point they accepted it because they couldn't get their heads round what had happened. I think it likely that the only words which passed between them were those of disbelief.
I believe it likely, that, at the start, any differences they had with Jeremy, would have been put aside. as we ALL would join ranks and pull together in a family crisis. We have Ann being supportive. Offering the hand of friendship. Being there for him. I remain totally convinced that had Jeremy conveyed himself to them as being 100% innocent -indeed, had he BEEN 100% innocent, they'd have believed it. I don't think they doubted what they'd been told until glimpses of Jeremy's behaviours began to suggest that everything may NOT be as it seemed.
For a start, Jeremy rejects offers of help. Did he consult the family over the funeral arrangements -which took place with unseemly haste. Was Colin consulted about what he'd like to happen to Sheila? OK, as her divorced husband he had no legal rights, but as the mother of his children, he arguably had the right to say he wanted them to be together. Jeremy, it seems, did all the arranging as if there were no other family. I think they'd have felt rejected by what he was doing.
I fully accept that everyone grieves differently. Some may appear not to grieve at all. I imagine this may have been how the relatives started to view Jeremy's behaviour. They may have seen their rejected offers of help as meaning that he didn't want them to know what he was planning. That he was deliberately keeping them out of the loop. Effectively, I think they'd have started to feel like the outsiders in their own family. It probably would have been at that point when they started to ask questions. Make comparisons. Notice that Jeremy wasn't telling the truth. In fact, it's very likely that, in the beginning, they over compensated and made allowances for him because of the circumstances, but as 'outsiders, looking in, hearing, watching, I think there would have been a gradual dawning that it wasn't Sheila who'd been responsible. I don't believe there was ever a unanimous blinding flash of revelation such as Saul experienced on the road to Damascus.
Morning Jane, maybe he didn't ask for help as they hadn't really been around, I think Jeremy would of started to feel aggrieved that the relatives who'd really played no big part in the families lives for a while were going into his parents home and taking what they wanted, it all sounds like a big hug of war ignited by greed on both parts.
-
No, I'm sure if he used it as a getaway vehicle he wouldn't be that stupid to leave it outside his house?? Nothing was found on that bike at all no mud, blood prints anything, yet it was used to cycle to and from a massacre in the middle of the night across fields, really?
So it's not a coincidence. The police didn't think it was a coincidence either.
Bamber had no chances to put the bike back. He travelled straight back to WHF after returning from the massacre. The police, Julie & the relatives were then at his cottage hours later. He didn't think he would be a suspect, so the bike location was not important.
What evidence would be found on the bike ? It wasn't tested for a long time anyway.
-
Morning Jane, maybe he didn't ask for help as they hadn't really been around, I think Jeremy would of started to feel aggrieved that the relatives who'd really played no big part in the families lives for a while were going into his parents home and taking what they wanted, it all sounds like a big hug of war ignited by greed on both parts.
What did the relatives take from WHF ?
-
No it's not a coincidence it's not even relevant, Julie herself said she'd asked for a bike! You think bamber would risk riding home on a pedal cycle? Then leaving it outside his back door? It was there before the murders,
And evidence on the bike, tyre tracks, mud to match the fields, blood? But didn't one of the relatives spend days searching for tyre tracks to link the bike as a getaway vehicle "absolutely laughable" oh yes and found nothing
-
What did the relatives take from WHF ?
June's jewellery for a start and hid it in a wardrobe! They wanted her engagement ring which luckily they didn't get, Jeremy wanted the locket and Ann wouldn't give it to him they even took his and Sheila baby teeth that June had kept
-
No it's not a coincidence it's not even relevant, Julie herself said she'd asked for a bike! You think bamber would risk riding home on a pedal cycle? Then leaving it outside his back door? It was there before the murders,
And evidence on the bike, tyre tracks, mud to match the fields, blood? But didn't one of the relatives spend days searching for tyre tracks to link the bike as a getaway vehicle "absolutely laughable" oh yes and found nothing
Julie thinks she may have suggested a bike may be useful months earlier.
Bamber cycled to and from WHF. You know this as you can't explain how Sheila committed the massacre.
There were three easy cycle routes that passed no dwellings. The evidence of June's bike being brought over just before the massacre shows this.
There is no reason why June would give Bamber her bike. They didn't like each other. So he took it just before the massacre.
-
June's jewellery for a start and hid it in a wardrobe! They wanted her engagement ring which luckily they didn't get, Jeremy wanted the locket and Ann wouldn't give it to him they even took his and Sheila baby teeth that June had kept
Sheila's & Bamber's baby teeth ? A locket ? They must have been valuble.
What wardrobe ? Why not take it rather than hide it in a wardrobe.
-
Julie thinks she may have suggested a bike may be useful months earlier.
Bamber cycled to and from WHF. You know this as you can't explain how Sheila committed the massacre.
There were three easy cycle routes that passed no dwellings. The evidence of June's bike being brought over just before the massacre shows this.
There is no reason why June would give Bamber her bike. They didn't like each other. So he took it just before the massacre.
So Julie had asked for a bike and June had bought one a short while previous that she didn't get on with.
You don't know he cycled to and from whf there's no evidence to prove that apart from hearsay which is inadmissible
And I'm pretty sure June didn't dislike her child, maybe they had a difficult relationship but more than one person said it had got better, if they hated each other that much why was he having supper with her that night?
-
Morning Jane, maybe he didn't ask for help as they hadn't really been around, I think Jeremy would of started to feel aggrieved that the relatives who'd really played no big part in the families lives for a while were going into his parents home and taking what they wanted, it all sounds like a big hug of war ignited by greed on both parts.
As I said, Lucy, however many grievances there may be withing families, they're generally put to one side in a crisis. Robert and Pam were brother in law and sister to Nevill and June. Any closeness was MORE likely to have been between Pam and June, and for their sakes I believe the family would have done everything they could to help Jeremy, at least, to get him through the funeral arrangements.
-
Sheila's & Bamber's baby teeth ? A locket ? They must have been valuble.
What wardrobe ? Why not take it rather than hide it in a wardrobe.
It's in one of the books they hid it in a wardrobe as the grandmother hadn't been told yet, can't remember which one, can anyone remember this? It was covered with a sheet
-
So Julie had asked for a bike and June had bought one a short while previous that she didn't get on with.
You don't know he cycled to and from whf there's no evidence to prove that apart from hearsay which is inadmissible
And I'm pretty sure June didn't dislike her child, maybe they had a difficult relationship but more than one person said it had got better, if they hated each other that much why was he having supper with her that night?
You know why Bamber went to supper.
Bamber cycled to and from WHF. He didn't drive or walk. The bike was brought to his cottage just before the massacre.
Bamber & June had a terrible relationship. Threads created.
-
June's jewellery for a start and hid it in a wardrobe! They wanted her engagement ring which luckily they didn't get, Jeremy wanted the locket and Ann wouldn't give it to him they even took his and Sheila baby teeth that June had kept
Whether or not it's apocryphal, it's been said that Jeremy gave instructions for June's jewellery to be cremated with her, but it was removed and given to Basil Cock. I believe that Jeremy did end up keeping the baby teeth. What he may have done with them is anyone's guess.
-
June didn't like Julie or approve with her relationship with Bamber. She also didn't speak to Bamber.
So there is no chance June would have given Bamber the bike. Bamber had no choice but to take it just before the massacre.
-
June didn't like Julie or approve with her relationship with Bamber. She also didn't speak to Bamber.
So there is no chance June would have given Bamber the bike. Bamber had no choice but to take it just before the massacre.
Interesting. Do we have any record of a conversation Jeremy may -or not?- have had with June regarding him 'borrowing' the bike for Julie?
-
What did the relatives take from WHF ?
Jeremy's freedom !
-
Whether or not it's apocryphal, it's been said that Jeremy gave instructions for June's jewellery to be cremated with her, but it was removed and given to Basil Cock. I believe that Jeremy did end up keeping the baby teeth. What he may have done with them is anyone's guess.
Yes,he was so greedy/grasping that he'd wished gold to be disposed of. ::)
Those teeth are probably all he's got from the home he remembered so well,but not,unfortunately,its whole contents. More fool him for being so trusting !
I can imagine the relatives thinking that they'd entered an Aladdin's Cave. Their faces say it all !!
-
Interesting. Do we have any record of a conversation Jeremy may -or not?- have had with June regarding him 'borrowing' the bike for Julie?
Jane June and Jeremy didn't not speak at all, if that were the case I'm sure it would of been brought up they ignored each other,
There's something in one of his statements and a book about the bike and how he got it because June didn't get on with it, and if June hated Julie so much why was she allowed into their home at Christmas time?
-
It's strange that people can quote reams on the relatives not knowing anything about the Bambers and yet when it suits their case claim that they were experts on whether Sheila could have committed the massacre or not. DC Barlow conducted his own experiment on the windows and his assertion that a window could be banged shut tallies with Julie's statement of what Jeremy told her.
The biggest flaw in the Defence argument is why on earth would Police risk their careers by concocting a story that Jeremy was responsible when they could just have said that Sheila turned a gun on them and they had to shoot, though why a bullet in those circumstances would end up in her neck remains a mystery.
Why do you think Police Officers risked their careers in the case of the Guilford Four
Calls to 'end secrecy' over Guildford IRA pub bombings
It was a case that shattered confidence in the British legal system, sparked an Oscar-winning film and eventually an apology from a prime minister.
Some thought when Tony Blair apologised to Gerry Conlon, Paddy Armstrong, Paul Hill and Carole Richardson, it drew a line under one of the most scarring episodes of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
But supporters of the group, known as the Guildford Four, believe the fight for justice continues.
Campaigners have fought to see secret documents relating to the case and now a lawyer has claimed a 30-year embargo on their release has "magically" been changed to 75 years.
The Guildford Four were jailed for life after the IRA detonated bombs at two pubs in Guildford on 5 October 1974, killing five and injuring scores more.
But, the four always protested their innocence and in 1989 the Court of Appeal quashed their sentences, amid doubts raised about the police evidence against them.
The case became considered one of the worst miscarriages of justices in British legal history.
Forty years on from the bombings, and 25 years after the Guildford Four were freed, fresh calls for the results of a public inquiry into the scandal to be published in full have come from solicitor Alastair Logan, who represented the group.
He wants evidence received in private during Sir John May's inquiry - held from 1989 to 1994 - to be made public.
Mr Logan, who sits on The Law Society's Human Rights Committee, said part of the inquiry was held in secret because three Surrey Police officers - who were later cleared - were facing trial on charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
"The consequence of that was neither the defendants nor their legal representatives were entitled to be present or to know what evidence May had given to him," he said.
He asked to see the evidence at the time of the inquiry but was told it was embargoed for 30 years.
But this year, it emerged in news reports on Gerry Conlon's death the embargo had changed to 75 years, he said.
'Conlon's dying wish'
Mr Logan said: "I suspect that that's the probable reason why 75 years has been substituted for 30 - just to make sure that everybody in any connection with the case is long dead before the papers ever come out."
He said the damage done to the Guildford Four and their families had been enormous - with what he described as conspiracies to keep young, innocent people in jail for 15 years.
"I don't feel that justice is seen to be done if there are secret deals going on, secret parts of Sir John May's inquiry [and] secret documents held by the government," he said.
Mr Logan sought clarification from The National Archives, which holds the papers at Kew, but has not yet received an answer.
But a spokeswoman for The National Archives told the BBC the closed records for the inquiry had a "review date" of 2019, which had not changed. But, she did not make clear whether that meant the papers could be made public at that point.
'Police culture not violent'
Mr Conlon demanded the release of the papers before he died, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) revealed this year.
The SDLP, which draws most of its support from the nationalist community, told David Cameron at prime minister's questions that Mr Conlon and accompanying people had been promised access to the archives and asked for the "dying wish of an innocent man" to be honoured.
The Northern Ireland Office, when asked whether any action would be taken, told the BBC it was seeking more information from the SDLP about what had been said to Mr Conlon - but the SDLP said it was waiting to hear from the government.
When the BBC contacted the government to seek confirmation of the embargo and an explanation about why the papers were kept secret, it was passed from the Northern Ireland Office, to the Home Office, and then to the Cabinet Office, and then back to the Home Office.
Calls to place the papers in the public domain have also come from former police officer Robert Bartlett, who was on duty on the night of the bomb attacks.
Mr Bartlett remembers arriving at the scene to find a dead body in a gutter, injured people sitting lined up against a wall, and dozens of hysterical, angry, upset people.
As the first officer entered the Horse and Groom pub, the floor gave way and the injured, dying and dead fell into the pub cellar, he said.
A second bomb exploded half an hour later in the nearby Seven Stars pub. But, as a result of evacuations following the first blast, there were few further casualties.
He said police dealt with the aftermath professionally, but as accusations against the force emerged over the years he was left with no idea what had happened.
'Policing improved'
Calling for the release of Sir John May's findings, Mr Bartlett said: "I would like to see all the background, because what I know at the moment is the police officers that were prosecuted were found not guilty and that the alleged offence they committed was marginal."
He also said he had never believed the Guildford Four were subjected to violence by officers. Gerry Conlon had always claimed he was stripped, beaten and tortured.
Mr Bartlett said: "It was not the culture."
After the Guildford Four were released, an investigation into the case by Avon and Somerset Police found serious flaws in the way the Surrey force handled the case.
In a statement, Surrey Police said discrepancies in police records were discovered during the Avon and Somerset inquiry, and when the convictions were quashed the force accepted that decision
It said the conduct of individuals in relation to their recording of interview notes and evidence given at trial became the subject of exhaustive enquiries, which led to three officers standing trial and being acquitted in 1993.
The statement said: "Surrey Police has never sought to underestimate the importance of this aspect of the case which was dealt with in detail by the May inquiry report."
"[But] policing has evolved significantly in the past 40 years and it is difficult to make comparisons to how the investigation was undertaken in 1974 when compared with today.
"Custody and prisoner processes have greatly improved and are closely regulated and there is a dedicated counter-terrorism policing structure in place nationally."
The perpetrators of the attacks were never prosecuted.
The "Balcombe Street Gang", a four-man IRA unit, later claimed responsibility but were not charged.
They had been given life sentences after a bombing campaign in the 1970s, but were released under the Good Friday Agreement.
Prof Marie Breen-Smyth, from the University of Surrey, has called for a full, open inquiry.
She said people needed "the clear light of day shone on all of the dark corners".
The Guildford attacks were among the IRA's first attacks on the mainland, and she said the organisation's political motives were to give people in the Home Counties a taste of what life was like in Northern Ireland, and to increase pressure on the British Government.
Guildford was known as a "garrison town", with several barracks nearby, at Stoughton and Pirbright and Aldershot in Hampshire, and a night-life that was popular with the 6,000 military personnel then in the area.
Prof Breen-Smyth, a politics expert from Belfast, said there had been two wrongs - the pub bombings themselves and the miscarriage of justice.
She said: "We know who did the bombings.
"We don't know who did the miscarriage of justice, because the miscarriage of justice was perpetrated by people within the justice system."
'Shameful episode'
And she said: "I would welcome the opportunity for the files to be put into the public domain so we can actually see what went on. That's not happened.
"Apologies are fine and well and they're certainly help, but they do not reinstate justice.
"They do not give people back lost decades of their lives."
Prof Breen-Smyth said after the attacks and subsequent arrests, no Irish person visiting the mainland felt entirely safe, and another of the casualties of the bombings was justice.
"It really needs to be seen by those who are watching and regarding it as a shameful episode that people have left no stone unturned to reinstate the good name of the British justice system," she said.
-
Jane June and Jeremy didn't not speak at all, if that were the case I'm sure it would of been brought up they ignored each other,
There's something in one of his statements and a book about the bike and how he got it because June didn't get on with it, and if June hated Julie so much why was she allowed into their home at Christmas time?
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
Yes I'm sure Julie mugfords mother had spent a lot of time in the presence of June and Jeremy, the woman who's daughter could of gone down for perjury and called her daughter a harlot and apparently hated her, Julie mugfords mother had nothing to lose did she
-
Yes,he was so greedy/grasping that he'd wished gold to be disposed of. ::)
Those teeth are probably all he's got from the home he remembered so well,but not,unfortunately,its whole contents. More fool him for being so trusting !
I can imagine the relatives thinking that they'd entered an Aladdin's Cave. Their faces say it all !!
Rather like some of those seen on Jeremy's face, then?
-
Yes I'm sure Julie mugfords mother had spent a lot of time in the presence of June and Jeremy, the woman who's daughter could of gone down for perjury and called her daughter a harlot and apparently hated her, Julie mugfords mother had nothing to lose did she
So Mary Mugford lied under oath as well.
Why did Bamber testify he had a poor relationship with June ?
-
Rather like some of those seen on Jeremy's face, then?
Taken at inopportune moments for effect as in some of JB's is different from those taken face-on showing their normal looks !
-
Jane June and Jeremy didn't not speak at all, if that were the case I'm sure it would of been brought up they ignored each other,
There's something in one of his statements and a book about the bike and how he got it because June didn't get on with it, and if June hated Julie so much why was she allowed into their home at Christmas time?
Lucy, I don't know to which Christmas you're referring, but there were, to my knowledge, only two Christmases in Jeremy and Julie's relationship. To the best of my knowledge, Jeremy took her to WHF on Boxing Day when the first met, at which time it would have been her first meeting with his parents. I don't recall that she spent the following -and LAST- of their together Christmases with Nevill and June at WHF. Might it be that you are getting a bit mixed up about when certain things happened?
-
I wasn't talking about members of the public. People don't generally want to incarcerate an innocent man - even police officers and certainly not on the say so of greedy relatives. Sure I can accept that he was fitted up because everyone thought he was guilty but NOT when they had evidence to the contrary.
You keep saying that David and Anthony were persuaded by Jones that Sheila could have been responsible but haven't posted anything to back that up. It was also early days and I am sure even the relatives weren't sure what was what. When they found out more details, they realised it couldn't have been Sheila.
On you third point, so what? They thought he was guilty Taff didn't - I wouldn't be happy to let a 5 times murderer get away with it either. Had their back door investigation come to nothing - no harm done. But why should they investigate behind Taff's back if there was evidence of Sheila being guilty. Surely they would know they were wasting their time?
Early retirement? I wouldn't say that was a motive.
People can get cocky but unless they're a complete psychopath, they generally don't take away someone's freedom i the full knowledge that they innocent.
It wouldn't matter how much the relatives knew of Sheila's illness if they had been shown evidence of her guilt.
“All I can remember now was David and Anthony talking to them and I do remember the police saying, “Now do you believe Sheila could have done it?” “Anthony or David or both agreed (in front of Jones) there and then that perhaps Sheila could have been capable of carrying out the shootings.”
14th Aug '91. COLP.
The relatives were told information by police regarding how / why Sheila was the killer. They couldn't accept this information beause of the financial implications involved.
From day one there was both phyisical and circumstantial evidence that Sheila was the killer. It probably could have been accessed for every single review of the case that there has ever been - if police bothered to look for it hard enough. Many of the police officers who were interviewed in these reviews also knew of its' existence.
You have to try and understand how the authorities are in a difficult position here. This does not look good for the British justice system. It really is 'political'.
I have tried to explain how I think the relatives will blame police as a last ditch attempt at self preservation. A final throw of the dice. It wouldn't suprise me if they all attempted to blame DCI Jones. How ironic would that be? Beyond the grave, DCI Jones who wouldn't back down and didn't agree with Jeremy being framed - takes the blame for the wrongful conviction - because the relatives can get away with saying evidence wasn't disclosed to them and conveniently, they cant remember which evidence about Sheila was disclosed to them at the outset.
-
Taken at inopportune moments for effect as in some of JB's is different from those taken face-on showing their normal looks !
'CAUSE it was Lookout ::) ::) ::)
-
So Mary Mugford lied under oath as well.
Why did Bamber testify he had a poor relationship with June ?
A poor relationship with his mum doesn't mean they hated each other , he didn't understand her religious mania there's a difference, where's the witness statements to say they hated each other? That's not true
And Mary mugford couldn't exactly go in the witness box and undermine her daughter could she? Why was she even called as a witness all hearsay again, you can't go into a court and spout he said she said evidence otherwise it would only take the word of one person to go down for murder, much like what happened here, do you think if Julie hadn't of said what she did he'd of been convicted?, taking her testimony and that of her mother out of the equation completely?? No
-
Jeremy had access to Sheila's body and could have staged the scene exactly as he wished.
Steve your posts are full of 'could have'
You are trying so hard to fit Jeremy into the role of murderer
Why don't you change the way you look at how Sheila 'could have' carried out the murderers
-
Lucy, I don't know to which Christmas you're referring, but there were, to my knowledge, only two Christmases in Jeremy and Julie's relationship. To the best of my knowledge, Jeremy took her to WHF on Boxing Day when the first met, at which time it would have been her first meeting with his parents. I don't recall that she spent the following -and LAST- of their together Christmases with Nevill and June at WHF. Might it be that you are getting a bit mixed up about when certain things happened?
Maybe but Julie herself said she'd been more accepted by June she got on well with Sheila and the boys and went to the farm doesn't sound like she was hated at all,
-
'CAUSE it was Lookout ::) ::) ::)
Will that be Coarse,Cause or Course ???
-
“All I can remember now was David and Anthony talking to them and I do remember the police saying, “Now do you believe Sheila could have done it?” “Anthony or David or both agreed (in front of Jones) there and then that perhaps Sheila could have been capable of carrying out the shootings.”
14th Aug '91. COLP.
The relatives were told information by police regarding how / why Sheila was the killer. They couldn't accept this information beause of the financial implications involved.
From day one there was both phyisical and circumstantial evidence that Sheila was the killer. It probably could have been accessed for every single review of the case that there has ever been - if police bothered to look for it hard enough. Many of the police officers who were interviewed in these reviews also knew of its' existence.
You have to try and understand how the authorities are in a difficult position here. This does not look good for the British justice system. It really is 'political'.
I have tried to explain how I think the relatives will blame police as a last ditch attempt at self preservation. A final throw of the dice. It wouldn't suprise me if they all attempted to blame DCI Jones. How ironic would that be? Beyond the grave, DCI Jones who wouldn't back down and didn't agree with Jeremy being framed - takes the blame for the wrongful conviction - because the relatives can get away with saying evidence wasn't disclosed to them and conveniently, they cant remember which evidence about Sheila was disclosed to them at the outset.
Please forgive the observation, Roch, but prior to it being revealed that much of what you say has come from the CT, it had occurred to me that you were starting to speak with the fervency of a newly converted cult member. It bought to mind something I did about cults when I was at college, namely that the newly converted to -well, anything one can name, really,- are always more strident and emphatic in their beliefs than those bought up with them.
-
A poor relationship with his mum doesn't mean they hated each other , he didn't understand her religious mania there's a difference, where's the witness statements to say they hated each other? That's not true
And Mary mugford couldn't exactly go in the witness box and undermine her daughter could she? Why was she even called as a witness all hearsay again, you can't go into a court and spout he said she said evidence otherwise it would only take the word of one person to go down for murder, much like what happened here, do you think if Julie hadn't of said what she did he'd of been convicted?, taking her testimony and that of her mother out of the equation completely?? No
Bamber's court testimony: Where he agrees with MM.
----------
He said he was experienced with guns. And had no difficulty using the murder weapon.
Sheila had limited experience with guns.
There were fostering conversations on the night. Sheila was silent and not paying attention.
He denied cycling to WHF to commit the massacre.
He had been unfair in using Julie for emotional support and bringing her to WHF on the massacre morning.
His relationship with June was poor. They would antagonise each other. There was a lack of understanding.
When his phone was answered 'it was dad'. Jeremy started crying.
He said the call to Chelmsford police station lasted 5 minutes.
He said he rang Julie at 3am for 'a friendly ear'.
He drove so slowly to WHF as he did not want to arrive before the police.
He said he knew how to get in and out of the bathroom window at WHF.
He said he saw Sheila punch the twins. Once.
He robbed the caravan site to show security problems. But admitted he should not have spent the money. He did so out of greed.
He agreed with Mary Mugfords testimony about his poor relationship with June.
He said James Richards and everyone lied about him. Because of the way the media had portrayed him.
He liked the good things in life. And had read the wills which tied him to the farm to inherit.
He should not have left the gun lying around and it would have taken seconds to put away. He had been 'lackadaisical' saying 'I didn't know what was going to happen, did I ?'.
Accused of lying he said 'that is what you have to establish'.
As more pressure was put on, his answers became shorter - don't know, can't pin myself, I can't answer.
It did not enter his head to dial 999.
The relationship with Julie had been in decline since Xmas 84. He had been unfaithful before, which Julie knew about. He ended the relationship in a restaraunt.
He had spent freely after the massacre and drank champagne on the funeral evening.
-
I spent freely and drank champagne after my husband died.Is it a hanging offence ??
-
Will that be Coarse,Cause or Course ???
Apologies. COURSE. Strange how, whilst you're quick -smug?- enough to point out others' errors, you're rather more reticent to recognize your own. ^-^
-
I spent freely and drank champagne after my husband died.Is it a hanging offence ??
Why MUST you bring YOU into it at every opportunity. It's as if you think you and Jeremy have something in common.
-
Didn't DB say that he'd " spent it ?" Or words to that effect ?
-
I wasn't talking about members of the public. People don't generally want to incarcerate an innocent man - even police officers and certainly not on the say so of greedy relatives. Sure I can accept that he was fitted up because everyone thought he was guilty but NOT when they had evidence to the contrary.
You keep saying that David and Anthony were persuaded by Jones that Sheila could have been responsible but haven't posted anything to back that up. It was also early days and I am sure even the relatives weren't sure what was what. When they found out more details, they realised it couldn't have been Sheila.
On you third point, so what? They thought he was guilty Taff didn't - I wouldn't be happy to let a 5 times murderer get away with it either. Had their back door investigation come to nothing - no harm done. But why should they investigate behind Taff's back if there was evidence of Sheila being guilty. Surely they would know they were wasting their time?
Early retirement? I wouldn't say that was a motive.
People can get cocky but unless they're a complete psychopath, they generally don't take away someone's freedom i the full knowledge that they innocent.
It wouldn't matter how much the relatives knew of Sheila's illness if they had been shown evidence of her guilt.
[/b][/color]
Absolutely ridiculous post
There have been numerous cases of police putting innocent people in prison
It is absolutely clear in this case how much the relatives would gain financially if Jeremy was held responsible for the murders
-
I spent freely and drank champagne after my husband died.Is it a hanging offence ??
Hi lookout
I understand the point you are making we all act differently in times of sadness.
-
Why MUST you bring YOU into it at every opportunity. It's as if you think you and Jeremy have something in common.
It's NOT a case of bringing just ME into it. What's been said by Adam is what MOST members of the public do NOT just Jeremy. ::) ::) I have NOTHING in common with Jeremy whatsoever,how ridiculous.
As if spending and drinking champagne has anything to do with the case ::) It's irrelevant---again !!
-
He lived on a farm and had shooting experience no surprise there and no need to lie
Sheila grew up on the farm and was privy to being around weapons her whole life
You said the fostering conversation was a lie
I don't think Jeremy did ride the bike there there is no evidence to prove this
Why was it unfair? If my family had been murdered I'd want my husband/partner there for emotional support
A lack of understanding generally doesn't lead to mass murder of one's family
The call probably did they were taking notes and organising a car
He rang Julie because perhaps he was unsure of what course of action to take and was panicking
He didn't want to arrive before the police as he didn't know what he was walking into and was probably scared
He knew how to get in and out of a window at a house he grew up in , irrelevant! I know how to get in and out of my parents house
I wouldn't be surprised if Sheila punched one of the twins, colin said it wasn't unusual for her to not even talk to them
He robbed the caravan site because he was greedy, I'll let you have that one, greed and murder are 2 very different things
A poor relationship and wanting to murder someone is not the same
He did like good things in life he was an arrogant immature spoilt 24 year old man, again that doesn't make him a murderer
Yes he left the gun out, even more careless no one put it away with 2 small children in the house after he left
The whole point of a trial is to establish the truth
He didn't call 999 as was unsure as to what was happening and they were a private family and didn't like outsiders involved
If Julie's self worth was so low she stayed with him after knowing all that, that's her problem not his
He spent money like he did on his house etc
And drank alcohol at a wake? God forbid!!! He must be guilty!
-
Jane June and Jeremy didn't not speak at all, if that were the case I'm sure it would of been brought up they ignored each other,
There's something in one of his statements and a book about the bike and how he got it because June didn't get on with it, and if June hated Julie so much why was she allowed into their home at Christmas time?
Lucy, if that were true Barbara Wilson would have known and said
-
Lucy, if that were true Barbara Wilson would have known and said
Exactly
-
He lived on a farm and had shooting experience no surprise there and no need to lie
Sheila grew up on the farm and was privy to being around weapons her whole life
You said the fostering conversation was a lie
I don't think Jeremy did ride the bike there there is no evidence to prove this
Why was it unfair? If my family had been murdered I'd want my husband/partner there for emotional support
A lack of understanding generally doesn't lead to mass murder of one's family
The call probably did they were taking notes and organising a car
He rang Julie because perhaps he was unsure of what course of action to take and was panicking
He didn't want to arrive before the police as he didn't know what he was walking into and was probably scared
He knew how to get in and out of a window at a house he grew up in , irrelevant! I know how to get in and out of my parents house
I wouldn't be surprised if Sheila punched one of the twins, colin said it wasn't unusual for her to not even talk to them
He robbed the caravan site because he was greedy, I'll let you have that one, greed and murder are 2 very different things
A poor relationship and wanting to murder someone is not the same
He did like good things in life he was an arrogant immature spoilt 24 year old man, again that doesn't make him a murderer
Yes he left the gun out, even more careless no one put it away with 2 small children in the house after he left
The whole point of a trial is to establish the truth
He didn't call 999 as was unsure as to what was happening and they were a private family and didn't like outsiders involved
If Julie's self worth was so low she stayed with him after knowing all that, that's her problem not his
He spent money like he did on his house etc
And drank alcohol at a wake? God forbid!!! He must be guilty!
You're going to make excuses for everything which shows Bamber is guilty. Although you can't explain how Sheila committed the massacre.
Bamber's court testimony was posted by me as he agrees with MM. After you accused her of lying.
-
It's NOT a case of bringing just ME into it. What's been said by Adam is what MOST members of the public do NOT just Jeremy. ::) ::) I have NOTHING in common with Jeremy whatsoever,how ridiculous.
As if spending and drinking champagne has anything to do with the case ::) It's irrelevant---again !!
But I didn't actually say that spending money and drinking champagne DID have anything to do with the case, although I not that it's another instance in which his and your actions coincide. I simply said that, when a point is raised -usually about Jeremy- you seek to justify it by saying you've done similar. NONE of this is about what you -or ANY of us, for that matter- would have done. It's all -and ONLY- about Jeremy.
-
He lived on a farm and had shooting experience no surprise there and no need to lie
Sheila grew up on the farm and was privy to being around weapons her whole life
You said the fostering conversation was a lie
I don't think Jeremy did ride the bike there there is no evidence to prove this
Why was it unfair? If my family had been murdered I'd want my husband/partner there for emotional support
A lack of understanding generally doesn't lead to mass murder of one's family
The call probably did they were taking notes and organising a car
He rang Julie because perhaps he was unsure of what course of action to take and was panicking
He didn't want to arrive before the police as he didn't know what he was walking into and was probably scared
He knew how to get in and out of a window at a house he grew up in , irrelevant! I know how to get in and out of my parents house
I wouldn't be surprised if Sheila punched one of the twins, colin said it wasn't unusual for her to not even talk to them
He robbed the caravan site because he was greedy, I'll let you have that one, greed and murder are 2 very different things
A poor relationship and wanting to murder someone is not the same
He did like good things in life he was an arrogant immature spoilt 24 year old man, again that doesn't make him a murderer
Yes he left the gun out, even more careless no one put it away with 2 small children in the house after he left
The whole point of a trial is to establish the truth
He didn't call 999 as was unsure as to what was happening and they were a private family and didn't like outsiders involved
If Julie's self worth was so low she stayed with him after knowing all that, that's her problem not his
He spent money like he did on his house etc
And drank alcohol at a wake? God forbid!!! He must be guilty!
Champagne to boot too,tut tut ::)-------in his Boss suit,with hair dyed,flour on his face ( for effect,you see ) and not forgetting his dilated pupils.
-
You're going to make excuses for everything which shows Bamber is guilty. Although you can't explain how Sheila committed the massacre.
Bamber's court testimony was posted by me as he agrees with MM. After you accused her of lying.
And your going to make an excuse for everything that may prove his innocence
-
Adam must be ex-EP ! It all ties in with the excuses.
-
And your going to make an excuse for everything that may prove his innocence
You're the one fire fighting. After I posted MM & Bamber's court testimony.
Although I have fire fighted AE giving the police Nevill's wallet. Which proves nothing.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
It's obvious Mary Mugford is as much of a liar as her money grabbing daughter
We have here in the forum the letter from June who makes it clear how much she adores her children
Interesting the twins are mentioned and I wonder why the defence didn't question Mugford on why she volunteered to view the victims bodies when she knew her boyfriend was responsible
-
You're the one fire fighting. After I put MM & Bamber's court testimony.
Although I have fire fighted AE giving the police Nevill's wallet. Which proves nothing.
[/quote
I'm not fighting at all Adam just saying a fact but you excuse the lies
-
It's obvious Mary Mugford is as much of a liar as her money grabbing daughter
We have here in the forum the letter from June who makes it clear how much she adores her children
Interesting the twins are mentioned and I wonder why the defence didn't question Mugford on why she volunteered to view the victims bodies when she knew her boyfriend was responsible
As Lucy said, MM lied. Although Bamber agreed with MM when testifying.
-
Maybe but Julie herself said she'd been more accepted by June she got on well with Sheila and the boys and went to the farm doesn't sound like she was hated at all,
It's not a question of whether she was or wasn't hated. It's about how she felt. It's very possible that June accepted Julie as no more than fait accomplis and Julie would have known this..............as women do.
-
As Lucy said, MM lied. Although Bamber agreed with MM when testifying.
.
He totally agreed with every word did he?
-
As Lucy said, MM lied. Although Bamber agreed with MM when testifying.
Poor Jeremy believed,and was taken-in by everyone until it dawned on him that he'd been " swimming with sharks ". Have you never encountered people like that ? If not,you've never lived and therefore will NEVER believe nor understand that such people exist !
-
It's not a question of whether she was or wasn't hated. It's about how she felt. It's very possible that June accepted Julie as no more than fait accomplis and Julie would have known this..............as women do.
We do, my father in law hates me lol
-
.
He totally agreed with every word did he?
I've just given you MM & Bamber's court testimonies.
Are you saying MM lied & then Bamber lied by agreeing with her lies ?
-
Why MUST you bring YOU into it at every opportunity. It's as if you think you and Jeremy have something in common.
Personal attack as per normal
-
We do, my father in law hates me lol
So Lucy, you DO understand what these people would have felt like. NONE of them were robots, and there was no special psychology for them that is any different from those we have.
-
Please forgive the observation, Roch, but prior to it being revealed that much of what you say has come from the CT, it had occurred to me that you were starting to speak with the fervency of a newly converted cult member. It bought to mind something I did about cults when I was at college, namely that the newly converted to -well, anything one can name, really,- are always more strident and emphatic in their beliefs than those bought up with them.
Hi Jane - you are forgiven :))
Honestly - I can say hand on heart - with regard to the case itself I have had no involvement with the CT or from the CT. I signed up to the Change.Org campaign about disclosure and that's as far as it goes.
I think Lorna Lake is genuine and nice person and Trudi has been friendly in the past - for example acknowledging if I have signed up to a campaign or shared something on social media etc. But that's as far as it goes. If members find it difficult to trust what I'm saying regarding physical evidence that was recorded but concealed then fair enough. Perhaps all I can urge is that they at least consider a position of neutrality on the case 50/50 until such time as disclosures can be made.
I do feel that a desperate need to dismiss the significance of evidence not yet made public, is the wrong motivation for wanting it to be made public! People / members should approach this issue with an open mind.
-
Hi Jane - you are forgiven :))
Honestly - I can say hand on heart - with regard to the case itself I have had no involvement with the CT or from the CT. I signed up to the Change.Org campaign about disclosure and that's as far as it goes.
I think Lorna Lake is genuine and nice person and Trudi has been friendly in the past - for example acknowledging if I have signed up to a campaign or shared something on social media etc. But that's as far as it goes. If members find it difficult to trust what I'm saying regarding physical evidence that was recorded but concealed then fair enough. Perhaps all I can urge is that they at least consider a position of neutrality on the case 50/50 until such time as disclosures can be made.
I do feel that a desperate need to dismiss the significance of evidence not yet made public, is the wrong motivation for wanting it to be made public! People / members should approach this issue with an open mind.
How can someone have an open mind about something that hasn't been revealed?
I posted letters here a short time ago that PROVES what I said about my attempt to find out how Jeremy knew what was in his fathers wallet. The evidence was there to read and yet STILL a few have used it to try and discredit me. An open mind? People are defending their stance NOT trying to get to the truth. If you are right, I would be the first to admit being wrong - I really don't care one way or the other.
-
How can someone have an open mind about something that hasn't been revealed?
I posted letters here a short time ago that PROVES what I said about my attempt to find out how Jeremy knew what was in his fathers wallet. The evidence was there to read and yet STILL a few have used it to try and discredit me. An open mind? People are defending their stance NOT trying to get to the truth. If you are right, I would be the first to admit being wrong - I really don't care one way or the other.
And the raison d'etre for some is their desperation to have others believe that they had a more 'special' ;) relationship with Jeremy, than did you.
-
How can someone have an open mind about something that hasn't been revealed?
I posted letters here a short time ago that PROVES what I said about my attempt to find out how Jeremy knew what was in his fathers wallet. The evidence was there to read and yet STILL a few have used it to try and discredit me. An open mind? People are defending their stance NOT trying to get to the truth. If you are right, I would be the first to admit being wrong - I really don't care one way or the other.
Then dont be neutral and carry on as you are. It really makes no odds in the grand scheme of things. When it comes down to it, you will either change your stance accordingly - or - your current entrenched stance will force you, to attempt to incorporate the evidence in to a Jeremy scenario.
I cannot really express things any different than I already have. If the defence had been made aware of this evidence at the outset - the trial would never have come to fruition. If it had come to light during trial - the case against Jeremy would have been dismissed. That doesn't mean that RWB and Ann would have left satisfied.
They were not interested in anything that pointed towards Sheila. They had made a decision that they couldn't afford to be. If you want to ally yourself with their kind of stance - nobody can stop you.
-
Then dont be neutral and carry on as you are. It really makes no odds in the grand scheme of things. When it comes down to it, you will either change your stance accordingly - or - your current entrenched stance will force you, to attempt to incorporate the evidence in to a Jeremy scenario.
I cannot really express things any different than I already have. If the defence had been made aware of this evidence at the outset - the trial would never have come to fruition. If it had come to light during trial - the case against Jeremy would have been dismissed. That doesn't mean that RWB and Ann would have left satisfied.
They were not interested in anything that pointed towards Sheila. They had made a decision that they couldn't afford to be. If you want to ally yourself with their kind of stance - nobody can stop you.
You have your reasons to be 'entrenched' and I have mine.
-
Then dont be neutral and carry on as you are. It really makes no odds in the grand scheme of things. When it comes down to it, you will either change your stance accordingly - or - your current entrenched stance will force you, to attempt to incorporate the evidence in to a Jeremy scenario.
I cannot really express things any different than I already have. If the defence had been made aware of this evidence at the outset - the trial would never have come to fruition. If it had come to light during trial - the case against Jeremy would have been dismissed. That doesn't mean that RWB and Ann would have left satisfied.
They were not interested in anything that pointed towards Sheila. They had made a decision that they couldn't afford to be. If you want to ally yourself with their kind of stance - nobody can stop you.
Roch, I'm afraid, that in your current stance, you're in no position to label others as being "entrenched". :)
-
And the raison d'etre for some is their desperation to have others believe that they had a more 'special' ;) relationship with Jeremy, than did you.
I didn't have a 'special relationship' nor would I have wanted one. I asked him about the case - nothing more.
-
I didn't have a 'special relationship' nor would I have wanted one. I asked him about the case - nothing more.
Women scorned, Caroline. Women scorned ;) ;D
-
Roch, I'm afraid, that in your current stance, you're in no position to label others as being "entrenched". :)
Yes well that's a relatively recent development. I think my time is almost done here for now. If I spend my time arguing on here from my current circs, I will never get off the forum to get anything done in life.
-
Well I'm sure that I don't have any " special relationship " with the man,apart from me being a lot older and wiser like a few other of his CT supporters who've also had their own experiences in life and past work experiences,I just add to his support,nothing else.
-
Yes well that's a relatviely recent development. I think my time is almost done here for now. If I spend my time arguing on here from my current circs, I will never get off the forum to get anything done in life.
You're probably right.
-
Yes well that's a relatively recent development. I think my time is almost done here for now. If I spend my time arguing on here from my current circs, I will never get off the forum to get anything done in life.
A break does you good Roch, put them headphones on and listen to music mate
-
A break does you good Roch, put them headphones on and listen to music mate
There are a few things I would like to look in to. I never do, as I am either on here or playing Shogun Total War 2.
Reading the posts on here is fatal. It just makes me want to dive in. I think I might make a couple of final threads as a parting gesture ;)
-
There are a few things I would like to look in to. I never do, as I am either on here or playing Shogun Total War 2.
Reading the posts on here is fatal. It just makes me want to dive in. I think I might make a couple of final threads as a parting gesture ;)
I just KNEW you wouldn't give up without a fight, Roch ;D ;D ;D
-
Because I don't know for what reason a court order is issued,I certainly know that if you don't comply you'll be arrested and charged with contempt of court,that's the procedure if you don't happen to be in the police force.So what is it that makes them immune,or is it because there are all kinds of " Acts " at their disposal ?
-
There are a few things I would like to look in to. I never do, as I am either on here or playing Shogun Total War 2.
Reading the posts on here is fatal. It just makes me want to dive in. I think I might make a couple of final threads as a parting gesture ;)
Speaking of threads Roch I have noticed some in the Relatives statements.
"I forget" " I do not recollect" " I can't remember" .
-
Speaking of threads Roch I have noticed some in the Relatives statements.
"I forget" " I do not recollect" " I can't remember" .
Bamber's police interviews -
Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 -don't knows' & 'can't say'.
Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so' & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'
The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer. He initially said he phoned Julie before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Julie was phoned after the police phone call.
He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila and Nevill said 'She', not 'Sheila' !
These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Bamber was recovering well & enjoying several jolly up's so could not use grief/shock as a reason for his poor evasiveness.
-
Bamber's police interviews -
Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 -don't knows' & 'can't say'.
Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so' & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'
The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer. He initially said he phoned Julie before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Julie was phoned after the police phone call.
He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila and Nevill said 'She', not 'Sheila' !
These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Bamber was recovering well & enjoying several jolly up's so could not use grief/shock as a reason for his poor evasiveness.
It's a Hell of a lot harder when you've done NOTHING.!!
-
Speaking of threads Roch I have noticed some in the Relatives statements.
"I forget" " I do not recollect" " I can't remember" .
I'm surprised the defence weren't more forceful . There are at least 6 of those very phrases in AE's statement alone.
-
I've just given you MM & Bamber's court testimonies.
Are you saying MM lied & then Bamber lied by agreeing with her lies ?
Hopefully Lucy will answer my question.
Either Mary Mugford lied in court as accused by Lucy. Meaning Bamber then also lied by agreeing with MM's lies in court.
Or MM told the truth. Meaning Bamber told the truth in agreeing with her.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
-
Speaking of threads Roch I have noticed some in the Relatives statements.
"I forget" " I do not recollect" " I can't remember" .
Yeah, they wont remember what was explained to them regarding how Sheila was the killer. They will attempt to blame police regarding the evidence I am referring to. They will say it was not disclosed to them.
What they wont say is that their dad / uncle or whatever, managed to install as head of the investigation, the very detective who oversaw the concealment the evidence in question.
BTW some of it is on the forum and is actually very obvious :))
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
..
Where's Jeremy's testimony agreeing with this?
-
..
Where's Jeremy's testimony agreeing with this?
I've already posted Bamber's testimony on here today. You responded to each point. Keep up.
-
I've already posted Bamber's testimony on here today. You responded to each point. Keep up.
No you posted points not the transcript that's what I want to read and I can't find it
-
No you posted points not the transcript that's what I want to read and I can't find it
You will notice Adam never posts the actual transcripts/papers. I wonder why ^-^
-
You will notice Adam never posts the actual transcripts/papers. I wonder why ^-^
I know that's all I want to see David I can't find it in the library either
-
No you posted points not the transcript that's what I want to read and I can't find it
You should know as you've read Wilkes's book this month. Mind you, you hadn't remembered Bamber said 'only I know what really happened that night'. Something you said you 'can't explain'.
Page 234.
-
I know that's all I want to see David I can't find it in the library either
You mean Adams forensic library of incriminating evidence?
(https://davidbcapes.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/empty-shelves-at-princess-marina-library.jpg)
-
You will notice Adam never posts the actual transcripts/papers. I wonder why ^-^
There are no transcripts for Bamber or MM. However a lot of testimony in Wilkes's book. But then again you've never read any books on the subject. Have you ?
-
You mean Adams forensic library of incriminating evidence?
(https://davidbcapes.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/empty-shelves-at-princess-marina-library.jpg)
I know the 50+ pieces of incriminating forensic evidence in the library can't compete with you're hush hush 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
Wait there, the secret came out. You're breakthrough was a palm print on the bible. Ohhh.
-
You should know as you've read Wilkes's book this month. Mind you, you hadn't remembered Bamber said 'only I know what really happened that night'. Something you said you 'can't explain'.
Page 234.
Don't be so rude Adam,
-
Don't be so rude Adam,
Don't be rude yourself.
I've had to look for a source in a book you have which you said you have read this month. And you never thanked me.
-
Don't be rude yourself. I've had to look for a source for a book you said you have read this month. And you never thanked me.
Adam I found Ann eaton statement about the wallet and you didn't thank me, I'm out this is pathetic
-
Anyway the question remains.
Did Mary Mugford lie in court. Meaning Bamber also lied in court when agreeing with her ?
Or did MM tell the truth, meaning Bamber also told the truth in court when agreeing ?
-
Bamber has never mentioned Mary Mugford since the trial. Although most other people involved in framing him either have there own Youtube video or chapter on the OS.
In my view MM's testimony will be quite influential to a jury.
-
Blimey,is anyone that bothered ?
-
Blimey,is anyone that bothered ?
About a testimony being influential to the jury ? Thought you would be.
-
Anyway I don't think I am going to get an answer to my question from several hours ago.
Bamber in court agreeing with MM's testimony can only mean MM told the truth.
Her testimony makes it certain that Bamber had no emotional attachment or warm feelings towards June. Just feelings of resentment, blame & contempt.
-
Anyway I don't think I am going to get an answer.
Bamber in court agreeing with MM's testimony can only mean MM told the truth.
Her testimony makes it certain that Bamber had no emotional attachment or warm feelings towards June. Just feelings of resentment & blame.
You haven't seen the trial transcript and neither have I so you can't make judgement on something you've only seem snippets of
-
You haven't seen the trial transcript and neither have I so you can't make judgement on something you've only seem snippets of
Are you saying information in books should not be used as a source ?
So why have you read three books ?
-
Are you saying information in books should not be used ? So why have you read three books ?
That's not what I said is it? We've seen a tiny bit of a weeks trial, anyone can take a few sentences of a conversation and twist it to fit
-
That's not what I said is it? We've seen a tiny bit of a weeks trial, anyone can take a few sentences of a conversation and twist it to fit
It's ten pages on Bamber's testimony.
Anyway you're not going to retract on not believing MM's court testimony. Or explain why Bamber agreed in court with MM.
-
It seems extracts from books can be used as a source. Sometimes.
Although there are no separate trial transcripts of most of the main people.
-
It seems extracts from books can be used as a source. Sometimes.
No.! Snippets can be open to questioning and also fabrication when you don't see the REAL document.
-
No.! Snippets can be open to questioning and also fabrication when you don't see the REAL document.
To be fair it's was a no win question for any supporter.
Either Bamber lied in court in agreeing with MM's lies.
Or Bamber told the truth in court in agreeing with MM's truthful & damning testimony.
So the only option is to say the 11 pages on MM's & Bambers testimonies in Wilkes's book is not a good enough source. Although the person I asked the question to considered the book worthy of reading.
-
There are a few things I would like to look in to. I never do, as I am either on here or playing Shogun Total War 2.
Reading the posts on here is fatal. It just makes me want to dive in. I think I might make a couple of final threads as a parting gesture ;)
Hi Roch please don't take a break many of us are really enjoying your posts and look forward daily to see your name on the forum you will miss us if you go and start listening to music hehehe
-
The family had so much to gain from a JB conviction.
Not least the land that Neville had bought for JB.
-
Yes well that's a relatively recent development. I think my time is almost done here for now. If I spend my time arguing on here from my current circs, I will never get off the forum to get anything done in life.
You must be a lot happier today Roch? ;)
-
The family had so much to gain from a JB conviction.
Not least the land that Neville had bought for JB.
Of course they had a lot to gain.This is why I could never understand the quip of DB's when he said " there were no winners ??"
-
Of course they had a lot to gain.This is why I could never understand the quip of DB's when he said " there were no winners ??"
I imagine he was alluding to the fact that nothing would restore life to those who'd been murdered.
-
I imagine he was alluding to the fact that nothing would restore life to those who'd been murdered.
I don't think so. I think he was deflecting the fact that he, and his family were going to be rich, and own land they never thought possible.
Ann.s farm was sold beneath her feet, and JB owned the land they wanted.
-
I imagine he was alluding to the fact that nothing would restore life to those who'd been murdered.
Only in your world/imagination----and his.
-
I don't think so. I think he was deflecting the fact that he, and his family were going to be rich, and own land they never thought possible.
Ann.s farm was sold beneath her feet, and JB owned the land they wanted.
I don't think this is true. Didn't Ann and Peter own Oak Farm, with Nevill buying a portion of the land which formed Little Rentners Farm?
-
I don't think so. I think he was deflecting the fact that he, and his family were going to be rich, and own land they never thought possible.
Ann.s farm was sold beneath her feet, and JB owned the land they wanted.
I'm truly amazed by the number here who believe themselves to be mind readers :o
-
I don't think this is true. Didn't Ann and Peter own Oak Farm, with Nevill buying a portion of the land which formed Little Rentners Farm?
Steve,I had read that it had been re-rented out while AE and PE were on holiday.It was PE's brother who told them on their return. This was what prompted Neville to purchase the land so that they could farm it or they'd have been in the mire.
-
Steve,I had read that it had been re-rented out while AE and PE were on holiday.It was PE's brother who told them on their return. This was what prompted Neville to purchase the land so that they could farm it or they'd have been in the mire.
That's possible lookout, but to suggest that Ann Eaton is somehow going to be destitute upon the demise of Nevill and June is to over-egg the pudding rather.
-
That's possible lookout, but to suggest that Ann Eaton is somehow going to be destitute upon the demise of Nevill and June is to over-egg the pudding rather.
I still think they'd have looked a bit sick without Neville's contribution Steve. To what they have now !
-
I don't think this is true. Didn't Ann and Peter own Oak Farm, with Nevill buying a portion of the land which formed Little Rentners Farm?
Ann & Peter had Oak Farm designed and built.
-
Who found incriminating evidence against JB?
Police a big fat zero.
The family.
1. The silencer.
2. Scratch marks on the mantle.
3. Blood and hair [missing] on the silencer.
4. Method of entry, and exit from the farm
5. Bicycle.
This list is not exhaustive, and I think others will remember more.
Are we to believe that the family were better than seasoned cops?
The silencer was first found by the police and planted by the police, According to Mike with Sheila's blood in it?
The grey hair was found by Jones and Anne according to Court testimony?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,211.msg592.html#msg592
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=417.0;attach=1265
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=211.0;attach=492
Unsure who actually found the scratch marks?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=417.0;attach=1267
-
Ann & Peter had Oak Farm designed and built.
So they weren't tenants like Nevill and June?
-
You must be a lot happier today Roch? ;)
Do you mean the football? :)) Better not go off topic.
-
Do you mean the football? :)) Better not go off topic.
:)
-
Do you mean the football? :)) Better not go off topic.
:-* :-* :)
-
Hi Jane - you are forgiven :))
Honestly - I can say hand on heart - with regard to the case itself I have had no involvement with the CT or from the CT. I signed up to the Change.Org campaign about disclosure and that's as far as it goes.
I think Lorna Lake is genuine and nice person and Trudi has been friendly in the past - for example acknowledging if I have signed up to a campaign or shared something on social media etc. But that's as far as it goes. If members find it difficult to trust what I'm saying regarding physical evidence that was recorded but concealed then fair enough. Perhaps all I can urge is that they at least consider a position of neutrality on the case 50/50 until such time as disclosures can be made.
I do feel that a desperate need to dismiss the significance of evidence not yet made public, is the wrong motivation for wanting it to be made public! People / members should approach this issue with an open mind.
I think you are way off the mark when you comment on the official campaign team. You have obviously not had the same bad experience as Ngb and myself. I would go so far as to say JB might have had his conviction overturned by now if the campaign was led by a legal expert. The video by the graveside was unforgiveable
-
The family had so much to gain from a JB conviction.
Not least the land that Neville had bought for JB.
And a lot to lose. Such as being put in prison & knowing they framed an innocent relative. Bamber would have sued them as well.
The relatives were already rich and had no criminal record. To suggest they tried and succeeded in framing an innocent man of killing five people is disgraceful.
-
To be fair it's was a no win question for any supporter.
Either Bamber lied in court in agreeing with MM's lies.
Or Bamber told the truth in court in agreeing with MM's truthful & damning testimony.
So the only option is to say the 11 pages on MM's & Bambers testimonies in Wilkes's book is not a good enough source. Although the person I asked the question to considered the book worthy of reading.
It seems no one is going to answer the straight forward question on why Bamber agreed with MM in court. Despite Lucy today saying MM lied.
The only explanation is MM told the truth and Bamber agreed. Although Bamber contradicted himself somewhat by saying James Richards lied when testifying that Bamber had told him two or three times he "hated his parents".
I must admit if I was a juror & heard MM's testimony which wasn't challenged, it would influence me.
-
I think you are way off the mark when you comment on the official campaign team. You have obviously not had the same bad experience as Ngb and myself. I would go so far as to say JB might have had his conviction overturned by now if the campaign was led by a legal expert. The video by the graveside was unforgiveable
I admit they all need a good kick up the backside,Jackie.
-
I posted letters here a short time ago that PROVES what I said about my attempt to find out how Jeremy knew what was in his fathers wallet. The evidence was there to read and yet STILL a few have used it to try and discredit me. An open mind? People are defending their stance NOT trying to get to the truth. If you are right, I would be the first to admit being wrong - I really don't care one way or the other.
No. You decided his original answer was not good enough. After some mental gymnastics and hamstering you decided this didn't count as an answer at all. This was then stretched to him avoiding the question. Then further stretched and twisted into him knowing the contents of Nevills wallet and then used to insinuate to members on the forum that he murdered his family. Its a myth.
A myth just like that allusive and mysterious "other Mcdoanld" who is just a fictional entity you created. To avoid linking MM to RWB before Julie 'came forward'
(https://s11.postimg.org/6gqs93ulv/lying2.jpg)
Seriously Caroline. You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
No. You decided his original answer was not good enough. After some mental gymnastics and hamstering you decided this didn't count as an answer at all. This was then stretched to him avoiding the question. Then further stretched and twisted into him knowing the contents of Nevills wallet and then used to insinuate to members on the forum that he murdered his family. Its a myth.
A myth just like that allusive and mysterious "other Mcdoanld" who is just a fictional entity you created. To avoid linking MM to RWB before Julie 'came forward'
(https://s11.postimg.org/6gqs93ulv/lying2.jpg)
Seriously Caroline. You should be ashamed of yourself.
OK, so if you ask me a question and I provide you with the answer 'I know you asked a particular question but I can't remember it, however, I think the answer was 'I didn't or No' - that should be enough for you? When I could quite simply have re-read your post?
You should have read the letters properly the first time XXXXX! When I first asked the question he didn't answer it at all - he answered ALL questions and left the wallet question out! He initially said he didn't have the letter with him but would answer some of the questions when he got back to his cell - which he did EXCEPT the wallet question. I had to ask again and that is when he said he couldn't remember the question.
In the queue to be ashamed, I'm a LONG way behind you. You really need to quit this obsession - you're making me feel nauseous!
He dodged the question whether you like it or not!
-
Who found incriminating evidence against JB?
Police a big fat zero.
The family.
1. The silencer.
2. Scratch marks on the mantle.
3. Blood and hair [missing] on the silencer.
4. Method of entry, and exit from the farm
5. Bicycle.
This list is not exhaustive, and I think others will remember more.
Are we to believe that the family were better than seasoned cops?
Your saying the bycycle was incriminating evidence, I would have thought anyone police/relatives could easily have planted evidence on the bike i.e. Blood, soil, they could easily say someone spotted him cycling. As it was they didn't, but they could have if they were dishonest?
The hair on the silencer went missing, again would have been quite easy to replace with one of Sheila's or Nevilles or June's, again they didn't But could have if they were dishonest ?
-
My own personal opinion on the evidence, if top ranking officers careers and a lot of reputations were on the line, I honestly think they would have done a better job in planting incriminating evidence, they had the power and means to do this with top brass backing and family assistance according to some?
-
OK, so if you ask me a question and I provide you with the answer 'I know you asked a particular question but I can't remember it, however, I think the answer was 'I didn't or No' - that should be enough for you? When I could quite simply have re-read your post?
You should have read the letters properly the first time XXXXX! When I first asked the question he didn't answer it at all - he answered ALL questions and left the wallet question out! He initially said he didn't have the letter with him but would answer some of the questions when he got back to his cell - which he did EXCEPT the wallet question. I had to ask again and that is when he said he couldn't remember the question.
In the queue to be ashamed, I'm a LONG way behind you. You really need to quit this obsession - you're making me feel nauseous!
He dodged the question whether you like it or not!
Any posts about the wallet or the phone calls are irrelevant as there is no proof either way
-
Any posts about the wallet or the phone calls are irrelevant as there is no proof either way
Ugh huh!
-
I think you are way off the mark when you comment on the official campaign team. You have obviously not had the same bad experience as Ngb and myself. I would go so far as to say JB might have had his conviction overturned by now if the campaign was led by a legal expert. The video by the graveside was unforgiveable
I don't condone all of their activities.
-
OK, so if you ask me a question and I provide you with the answer 'I know you asked a particular question but I can't remember it, however, I think the answer was 'I didn't or No' - that should be enough for you? When I could quite simply have re-read your post?
You should have read the letters properly the first time XXXXX! When I first asked the question he didn't answer it at all - he answered ALL questions and left the wallet question out! He initially said he didn't have the letter with him but would answer some of the questions when he got back to his cell - which he did EXCEPT the wallet question. I had to ask again and that is when he said he couldn't remember the question.
In the queue to be ashamed, I'm a LONG way behind you. You really need to quit this obsession - you're making me feel nauseous!
He dodged the question whether you like it or not!
So Jeremy forgot what the question was, but remembered that the answer was "No". His explanation of why he forgot sounds reasonable enough to me.
(https://scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/index_011.png?w=450)
Hardly damning evidence of guilt!
-
So Jeremy forgot what the question was, but remembered that the answer was "No". His explanation of why he forgot sounds reasonable enough to me.
(https://scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/index_011.png?w=450)
Hardly damning evidence of guilt!
Both supporters & guilters have found it puzzling that a 360 degree stance change was made on this basis. But Caroline is not going to budge.
As the 6 posters who changed stance to guilty will tell you, there is no easy way to do it.
-
Jeremy is delighted by the MOUNTAINS of mail he receives each week from supporters.
-
" Jim " a poster who pops onto the forum now and again gave his sixpenn'orth on Twitter about EP ignoring all the requests and he suggested "making an application to commit the Chief Constable to prison " Not a bad idea--------if it were to work.
-
I don't condone all of their activities.
But you have chosen to quote certain OCT members who I personally have found to be dishonest
-
Both supporters & guilters have found it puzzling that a 360 degree stance change was made on this basis. But Caroline is not going to budge.
As the 6 posters who changed stance to guilty will tell you, there is no easy way to do it.
In the grand scheme of things Caroline changing stance has made no difference to Jeremys case being referred to the court of appeal or not
She made no difference when she thought Jeremy was innocent and has not put forward any argument that proves Jeremy is guilty
Would you like to name the people who you believe have changed their stance
-
But you have chosen to quote certain OCT members who I personally have found to be dishonest
I haven't quoted anything they have said. I just referred to two people. I can only speak as I find. I think many people in life use that kind of approach to gauge other people.
-
I haven't quoted anything they have said. I just referred to two people. I can only speak as I find. I think many people in life use that kind of approach to gauge other people.
Same
-
In the grand scheme of things Caroline changing stance has made no difference to Jeremys case being referred to the court of appeal or not
She made no difference when she thought Jeremy was innocent and has not put forward any argument that proves Jeremy is guilty
Would you like to name the people who you believe have changed their stance
::)
-
OK, so if you ask me a question and I provide you with the answer 'I know you asked a particular question but I can't remember it, however, I think the answer was 'I didn't or No' - that should be enough for you? When I could quite simply have re-read your post?
You should have read the letters properly the first time XXXXX! When I first asked the question he didn't answer it at all - he answered ALL questions and left the wallet question out! He initially said he didn't have the letter with him but would answer some of the questions when he got back to his cell - which he did EXCEPT the wallet question. I had to ask again and that is when he said he couldn't remember the question.
In the queue to be ashamed, I'm a LONG way behind you. You really need to quit this obsession - you're making me feel nauseous!
He dodged the question whether you like it or not!
Nice try. But its going in the myth trash with all the other stuff you've made up.
he avoided answering the question about the wallet
(https://thrivethemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/myth-busted.png)
(https://s11.postimg.org/6gqs93ulv/lying2.jpg)
(https://thrivethemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/myth-busted.png)
The list on this is massive
No, I will be making a list
(https://thrivethemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/myth-busted.png)
it is an impossibility to shoot yourself with a rifle at a 45 degree angle
(https://thrivethemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/myth-busted.png)
defo June's foot but Andrew Hunter claimed it was Sheila's.
I know who was responsible for the article that claimed the feet were Sheila's - I think he is wrong and I think the police are just letting the supporters hang themselves. Why should they deny it when it's obvious if you're not wearing blinkers!
(https://thrivethemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/myth-busted.png)
(http://replygif.net/i/1126.gif)
-
In the grand scheme of things Caroline changing stance has made no difference to Jeremys case being referred to the court of appeal or not
She made no difference when she thought Jeremy was innocent and has not put forward any argument that proves Jeremy is guilty
Would you like to name the people who you believe have changed their stance
Caroline, Jane J, Susan, Maggie, Grahame, Alias, Harters/Hartley.
Alias changed to 'undecided' as she believes Bamber would have let Sheila live rather than shoot her twice.
Grahame left the forum saying he 'has to give in to his betters' before returning claiming the police framed Bamber.
-
David changed to innocent due to a palm print on the bible which went on to become his mysterious 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
This evidence is so strong he's apparently had meetings with Bamber's lawyers.
-
Caroline, Jane J, Susan, Maggie, Grahame, Alias, Harters/Hartley.
Alias changed to 'undecided' as she believes Bamber would have let Sheila live rather than shoot her twice.
Grahame left the forum saying he 'has to give in to his betters' before returning claiming the police framed Bamber.
Adam Grahame is very much on the Jeremy innocent side and left the forum as he found it was all getting him down and making him ill. I myself am 50/50 and I seem to think Maggie is the same but she will need to confirm this. I think it is always better to look at the case from both sides and to leave your mind open to new evidence being found don't rush to knock posts than cannot be proved either way as we have plenty of those from guilty and innocent posters lets see what David comes up with and of course Roch who has been posting on here longer than you or I and his knowledge on the case is far greater than mine.
-
Yiiippppeeeee.
-
Roch who has been posting on here longer than you or I and his knowledge on the case is far greater than mine.
Technically, I do not think that my knowledge on the case is better than many other long term posters - including your self. There are some members who pour over statements and transcripts etc. and are technically proficient regarding that type of evidence on this forum.
-
Nice try. But its going in the myth trash with all the other stuff you've made up.
Did I make up that your report was about the palm print 8)? The myth bin is where most of your BS lives, that is the stuff you haven't piggy backed from others. You're a regular culprit of only posting a section of a document that you think backs up your argument and never post links to the original - totally dishonest and sneaky individual. The avoidance of the wallet question is FACT - live with it!
-
Technically, I do not think that my knowledge on the case is better than many other long term posters - including your self. There are some members who pour over statements and transcripts etc. and are technically proficient regarding that type of evidence on this forum.
Hahaha Roch you are too modest my friend I never pour over statements and transcripts due to my snail like internet connection I think we all perceive posts as fits our way of thinking.
-
The avoidance of the wallet question is FACT - live with it!
He did fail to respond to the question. Personally I felt his reasoning regarding this was to some extent understandable. When he conceded that he had been flippant (in taking the line that it was an 'unimportant' question) and suggested that it had indeed been an important question from your perspective, I detect that was respecting you (as a person who had taken the time to write to him and shown an interest in the case). He seemed contrite about the omission.
Either he is a liar or Ann Eaton is a liar. If they are both liars then that makes it even more difficult to discern the truth.
-
He did fail to respond to the question. Personally I felt his reasoning regarding this was to some extent understandable. When he conceded that he had been flippant (in taking the line that it was an 'unimportant' question) and suggested that it had indeed been an important question from your perspective, I detect that he did some respect to you as person who had taken the time to write to him and shown an interest in the case. He seemed contrite about the omission.
Either he is a liar or Ann Eaton is a liar. If they are both liars then that makes it even more diffuclt to discern the truth.
He only gave reasoning after 2 years - that I don't find understandable or reasonable - again, thanks for posting.
-
He only gave reasoning after 2 years - that I don't find understandable or reasonable - again, thanks for posting.
No problem.
-
Caroline, Jane J, Susan, Maggie, Grahame, Alias, Harters/Hartley.
Alias changed to 'undecided' as she believes Bamber would have let Sheila live rather than shoot her twice.
Grahame left the forum saying he 'has to give in to his betters' before returning claiming the police framed Bamber.
I just cannot take you seriously Hartley is close to the family, Jane J, and Caroline
Maggie is Not 100% guilty and Justice
Can you count Adam add that up
-
Adam
One thing that makes me happy is you are on the same side as Hartley, Caroline and Jane J.
As you seem to spend so much time on the case why don't you take a trip to the caravan park and meet everyone
-
I just cannot take you seriously Hartley is close to the family, Jane J, and Caroline
Maggie is Not 100% guilty and Justice
Can you count Adam add that up
It must be Harters. I always get them mixed up. I can't count, it's 7, not 6.
-
RWB was told about Sheila's prints being on the shell casings. Despite that he still tried to invent a way to explain it.
Were Sheila's prints on the casings ? If so surely it's game over ?
-
Were Sheila's prints on the casings ? If so surely it's game over ?
Surely, if it was intended to look as if Sheila was responsible it would have been sensible to make sure her prints were on the gun and things gun related.
-
Surely, if it was intended to look as if Sheila was responsible it would have been sensible to make sure her prints were on the gun and things gun related.
Oh so after the shooting he pressed the cases into her hands ? And then put them back where they fell but did not succeed it's the gun?
-
Oh so after the shooting he pressed the cases into her hands ? And then put them back where they fell but did not succeed it's the gun?
Why not? She was hardly going to stop him, was she, besides which, if she HAD been responsible for shooting her entire family, how would she have managed without leaving her fingerprints on the weapon?
-
Why not? She was hardly going to stop him, was she, besides which, if she HAD been responsible for shooting her entire family, how would she have managed without leaving her fingerprints on the weapon?
How would he not leave prints ? And as I said no need to clean them off as he has set the scene ?
Also if he put her prints on the casings then his footprints would be on top of the blood on the floor?
-
How would he not leave prints ? And as I said no need to clean them off as he has set the scene ?
Also if he put her prints on the casings then his footprints would be on top of the blood on the floor?
Not if was in stockinged feet like David Bain.
-
Not if was in stockinged feet like David Bain.
So walking on carpet on socks on top of blood spots won't squash them or distort? And no blood will be picked up on the stockinged feet . Then I guess he took them off , before climbing out of the window.
He must be a lot brighter than I thought.
It's amazing how all these theories arise when my answer about the prints has not even been answered ?
-
How would he not leave prints ? And as I said no need to clean them off as he has set the scene ?
Also if he put her prints on the casings then his footprints would be on top of the blood on the floor?
You've got it sorted and planned from your own perspective AND with the benefit of hindsight, PLUS you're determined that Jeremy is innocent so you can't have him doing anything which might suggest otherwise. I think Jeremy was probably steps ahead of you. He'd worked out the best way for him to do it.
-
You've got it sorted and planned from your own perspective AND with the benefit of hindsight, PLUS you're determined that Jeremy is innocent so you can't have him doing anything which might suggest otherwise. I think Jeremy was probably steps ahead of you. He'd worked out the best way for him to do it.
Yes of course that will be it . Not the fact that it was a crime that would have been very difficult to predict and plan every aspect . And then cover up so successfully .
-
Yes of course that will be it . Not the fact that it was a crime that would have been very difficult to predict and plan every aspect . And then cover up so successfully .
He expected them all to be in bed, as did David Bain. His parents were elderly, the twins were sitting ducks. The key was Sheila and her mental and physical state, which Jeremy had witnessed from the party in Kilburn on the Saturday night.
-
He expected them all to be in bed, as did David Bain. His parents were elderly, the twins were sitting ducks. The key was Sheila and her mental and physical state, which Jeremy had witnessed from the party in Kilburn on the Saturday night.
Other witnesses gave different opinions about her mental and physical state in the days before so it seems it was not quite as black and white as you make out.
-
Other witnesses gave different opinions about her mental and physical state in the days before so it seems it was not quite as black and white as you make out.
I guess her mental state comes down to a consensus of what the majority say of it. Her doctors had no idea. They weren't there. It comes down to what those who were with her/knew her/saw her said. It sounds as if more said she appeared to be withdrawn/odd/unwashed/etc than those who said she appeared 'normal'...............whatever it is they mean by that.
-
Other witnesses gave different opinions about her mental and physical state in the days before so it seems it was not quite as black and white as you make out.
They didn't really though Jan. Most locals didn't know Sheila well anyway. Painter Michael Horsnell in the afternoon described her as a "zombie" at Vaulty Manor, as did Pamela during that final conversation at 10:00pm.
-
So you are saying Jeremy saw her in a zombie state and thought that would help with his plan ?
-
He expected them all to be in bed, as did David Bain. His parents were elderly, the twins were sitting ducks. The key was Sheila and her mental and physical state, which Jeremy had witnessed from the party in Kilburn on the Saturday night.
Bamber saw Sheila just before the massacre. Saying in his WS she didn't engage at all & 'just appeared vacant'.
-
So you are saying Jeremy saw her in a zombie state and thought that would help with his plan ?
Absolutely. It's backed up by Colin, who said his ex-wife didn't speak a word on the drive down to White House Farm. In that state is it any wonder she had no idea in the few seconds it took for him to wake his sister from her slumber and lead her across the landing to her demise?
-
Absolutely. It's backed up by Colin, who said his ex-wife didn't speak a word on the drive down to White House Farm. In that state is it any wonder she had no idea in the few seconds it took for him to wake his sister from her slumber and lead her across the landing to her demise?
Maybe she was angry with Colin?
So if she was that bad why leave her with the children ?
It was in one of the last books , which I am sure you have read , about different witnesses at the party and the preceding days giving different accounts of her behaviour.
Or perhaps she was heading for an episode ? Perhaps just depressed rather than zombie like ?
To say it is why Jeremy chose that day is no different to saying that is why she could have committed the murders.
-
Maybe she was angry with Colin?
So if she was that bad why leave her with the children ?
It was in one of the last books , which I am sure you have read , about different witnesses at the party and the preceding days giving different accounts of her behaviour.
Or perhaps she was heading for an episode ? Perhaps just depressed rather than zombie like ?
To say it is why Jeremy chose that day is no different to saying that is why she could have committed the murders.
There weren't really different accounts of her behaviour. Didn't a nurse notice her hiding behind dark glasses, nervously smoking, averting eye contact, and guessed she was suffering from schizophrenia?
I think you could do with Lookout's help at this point, but alas she is absent. I do hope she is on holiday somewhere convivial and not fallen prey to a Brian Blackwell copycat killer..
-
Maybe she was angry with Colin?
So if she was that bad why leave her with the children ?
It was in one of the last books , which I am sure you have read , about different witnesses at the party and the preceding days giving different accounts of her behaviour.
Or perhaps she was heading for an episode ? Perhaps just depressed rather than zombie like ?
To say it is why Jeremy chose that day is no different to saying that is why she could have committed the murders.
Jan, it sounds as if you want definitive answers to everything. Supposing she was angry with Colin. It's hypothetical. We can't have convicted killers walking free on hypotheticals. If she was so bad why leave her with the children? The children were visiting their grandparents. What do you think he was going to say? Sheila hasn't spoken for the whole journey so I'm taking the children back? One has to think that Colin had possibly seen her heading for an episode, although it appears she may only have experienced the two we know of, but he doesn't make any comment suggesting this. I've always thought she was deeply depressed...................but perhaps she was just sulking?
-
So walking on carpet on socks on top of blood spots won't squash them or distort? And no blood will be picked up on the stockinged feet . Then I guess he took them off , before climbing out of the window.
He must be a lot brighter than I thought.
It's amazing how all these theories arise when my answer about the prints has not even been answered ?
:) :) :)
-
You've got it sorted and planned from your own perspective AND with the benefit of hindsight, PLUS you're determined that Jeremy is innocent so you can't have him doing anything which might suggest otherwise. I think Jeremy was probably steps ahead of you. He'd worked out the best way for him to do it.
She's running rings around you Jane
You either need to step up or give up
-
Jan, it sounds as if you want definitive answers to everything. Supposing she was angry with Colin. It's hypothetical. We can't have convicted killers walking free on hypotheticals. If she was so bad why leave her with the children? The children were visiting their grandparents. What do you think he was going to say? Sheila hasn't spoken for the whole journey so I'm taking the children back? One has to think that Colin had possibly seen her heading for an episode, although it appears she may only have experienced the two we know of, but he doesn't make any comment suggesting this. I've always thought she was deeply depressed...................but perhaps she was just sulking?
I'm just reading Chapter 19 from Carol Ann Lee again and it' s all I can do to face it: it's almost unbearable. I'm trying to find something for the Defence to latch onto, but all I can find is June being in a different mood than the happy one she was in before she went into Vaulty Manor. Maybe it was something Pamela or her mother said, or was Sheila the cause for concern? House painter Michael Horsnell noticed Sheila again on exit and commented:
"Sheila definitely did not look normal..she was walking stiffly like a zombie from a horror movie."
Now I'm no doctor, but surely even if all her medication is out of her system she cannot transform in such a short period of time from such a helpless, static individual to one that overpowers Nevill along with all the other details including reloading a rifle attributed to her.
-
She's running rings around you Jane
You either need to step up or give up
No the Defence is in denial or you are not cognizant of all the facts leading up to the tragedy.
-
Maybe she was angry with Colin?
So if she was that bad why leave her with the children ?
It was in one of the last books , which I am sure you have read , about different witnesses at the party and the preceding days giving different accounts of her behaviour.
Or perhaps she was heading for an episode ? Perhaps just depressed rather than zombie like ?
To say it is why Jeremy chose that day is no different to saying that is why she could have committed the murders.
Thank you Jan
-
No the Defence is in denial or you are not cognizant of all the facts leading up to the tragedy.
I have all the facts I need Steve for me to know Jeremy was set up by the relatives, the police and Mugford
It is absolutely crystal clear if you look at the evidence and when Julie is shown in a documentary to be a the greedy prolific liar she is she will have a chance to tell the truth or hideaway from the public forever
She is the key to the truth eventually coming out
-
I'm just reading Chapter 19 from Carol Ann Lee again and it' s all I can do to face it: it's almost unbearable. I'm trying to find something for the Defence to latch onto, but all I can find is June being in a different mood than the happy one she was in before she went into Vaulty Manor. Maybe it was something Pamela or her mother said, or was Sheila the cause for concern? House painter Michael Horsnell noticed Sheila again on exit and commented:
"Sheila definitely did not look normal..she was walking stiffly like a zombie from a horror movie."
Now I'm no doctor, but surely even if all her medication is out of her system she cannot transform in such a short period of time from such a helpless, static individual to one that overpowers Nevill along with all the other details including reloading a rifle attributed to her.
Steve, possibly you mean Sheila "was in a different mood..............."? Obviously I haven't witnessed what Lookout has, but I have heard some hair raising stories. My own mother in law, when she worked in a care home, was attacked by a lovely benign old lady. Her watch was smashed and one eye was clawed -thankfully it was her glass eye!!!- but there was no warning. I have no idea of this poor lady's medication ie WAS she medicated? Had she hidden her medication? In Sheila's case she COULDN'T avoid her medication. It was in her blood stream.
-
Jan, it sounds as if you want definitive answers to everything. Supposing she was angry with Colin. It's hypothetical. We can't have convicted killers walking free on hypotheticals. If she was so bad why leave her with the children? The children were visiting their grandparents. What do you think he was going to say? Sheila hasn't spoken for the whole journey so I'm taking the children back? One has to think that Colin had possibly seen her heading for an episode, although it appears she may only have experienced the two we know of, but he doesn't make any comment suggesting this. I've always thought she was deeply depressed...................but perhaps she was just sulking?
No I am not supposing at all , just giving alternative possibilities .
-
I have all the facts I need Steve for me to know Jeremy was set up by the relatives, the police and Mugford
It is absolutely crystal clear if you look at the evidence and when Julie is shown in a documentary to be a the greedy prolific liar she is she will have a chance to tell the truth or hideaway from the public forever
She is the key to the truth eventually coming out
Such a shame you don't know the difference between personal opinion and fact. You don't even know the difference between fantasy and fact. "When Julie is shown in a documentary.................."!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN YOUR DREAMS! I wonder if anyone has told her yet, about your intentions? I can't imagine she'll be shaking in her shoes.
-
I have all the facts I need Steve for me to know Jeremy was set up by the relatives, the police and Mugford
It is absolutely crystal clear if you look at the evidence and when Julie is shown in a documentary to be a the greedy prolific liar she is she will have a chance to tell the truth or hideaway from the public forever
She is the key to the truth eventually coming out
She is one of the keys you need to unlock Jeremy's cell door, along with an admission from the relatives of falsifying evidence and Police to confess to a cover up. But we're 32 years along the line now. How much longer are you prepared to wait..
-
Were Sheila's prints on the casings ? If so surely it's game over ?
As you have already discovered, Some are prepared to argue that Jeremy placed the prints on them. ::)
There is always an absurd argument for guiltards to fall back on.
-
As you have already discovered, Some are prepared to argue that Jeremy placed the prints on them. ::)
There is always an absurd argument for guiltards to fall back on.
I guess that's why it's harder to prove a guilty man innocent than the other way round .
-
There weren't really different accounts of her behaviour. Didn't a nurse notice her hiding behind dark glasses, nervously smoking, averting eye contact, and guessed she was suffering from schizophrenia?
I think you could do with Lookout's help at this point, but alas she is absent. I do hope she is on holiday somewhere convivial and not fallen prey to a Brian Blackwell copycat killer..
Steve Lookout is fine just taking some time off the forum but she will be back when she is ready :)
-
As you have already discovered, Some are prepared to argue that Jeremy placed the prints on them. ::)
There is always an absurd argument for guiltards to fall back on.
But you are prepared to acknowledge that he had access to his sister's hands after death?
-
Steve Lookout is fine just taking some time off the forum but she will be back when she is ready :)
Hope so .
-
There weren't really different accounts of her behaviour. Didn't a nurse notice her hiding behind dark glasses, nervously smoking, averting eye contact, and guessed she was suffering from schizophrenia?
I think you could do with Lookout's help at this point, but alas she is absent. I do hope she is on holiday somewhere convivial and not fallen prey to a Brian Blackwell copycat killer..
I think the fact Sheila was quiet and withdrawn is not a reason to dismiss any chance she had a psychotic attack but is rather a reason to suspect she may have done. Such behaviour is recognised as a precursor to a psychotic attack.
-
I think the fact Sheila was quiet and withdrawn is not a reason to dismiss any chance she had a psychotic attack but is rather a reason to suspect she may have done. Such behaviour is recognised as a precursor to a psychotic attack.
But Sheila was medicated in such a way as to prevent psychotic attacks, therefore the "quiet and withdrawn" could have been depression.
-
But Sheila was medicated in such a way as to prevent psychotic attacks, therefore the "quiet and withdrawn" could have been depression.
Or just a side effect of the drug.
-
Or just a side effect of the drug.
Yup.
-
But Sheila was medicated in such a way as to prevent psychotic attacks, therefore the "quiet and withdrawn" could have been depression.
I know that was obviously the aim but we are all individuals with our own physiology. There can never be absolute certainty that a drug like Haloperidol will have the same effect on every person. There is always a margin of error and exceptions to the rule and Sheila had not been taking it for very long, maybe not long enough to be sure of its effectiveness for her. Therefore there has to be a possibility that the Haloperidol didn't control her psychosis efficiently. Psychiatric side effect of Haloperidol... Common ... 1% to 10% ... psychosis. Hallucinations.
Or I agree an alternative reason may be that she was still been over medicated causing depression, drowsiness and lack of interest.
-
I know that was obviously the aim but we are all individuals with our own physiology. There can never be absolute certainty that a drug like Haloperidol will have the same effect on every person. There is always a margin of error and exceptions to the rule and Sheila had not been taking it for very long, maybe not long enough to be sure of its effectiveness for her. Therefore there has to be a possibility that the Haloperidol didn't control her psychosis efficiently.
Or I agree an alternative reason ma be that she was still been over medicated causing depression, drowsiness and lack of interest.
Whatever her condition I wonder if the coordination issues she was experiencing for weeks at least can suddenly disappear upon medication of all description leaving her system?
-
Just to show I do consider both sides
Haldol (haloperidol): "I've been on Haldol for 5 years. I have schizophrenia. This is the only drug that has worked over the period of having this illness. I don't feel I will ever be symptom free there's no magic pill, but since being on this I've been able to manage things much better than before. Really great. I don't like the possibility of the involuntary muscle disease (can't remember what it's called) but I will take that risk to have this benefit."
9.0
LCD7888 (taken for 5 to 10 years) September 16, 2015
26 users found this comment helpful.
Did you? Yes No | Report inappropriate
Haldol (haloperidol): "This was the worst experience I had in my life. I had hallucinations and my b/p was 206/126. It was given IM in the hospital and then at again at the treatment facility. I wrote a letter in my room in case they found me dead. I fought the nurse not to give me another one."
1.0
Anonymous September 13, 2015
-
Such a shame you don't know the difference between personal opinion and fact. You don't even know the difference between fantasy and fact. "When Julie is shown in a documentary.................."!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN YOUR DREAMS! I wonder if anyone has told her yet, about your intentions? I can't imagine she'll be shaking in her shoes.
She wanted to be famous so let's help her out, let's give her more exposure than she could ever dream off
She just couldn't go quietly could she
-
Researcher Theodore Van Putten reported that nearly half of the 110 persons in the study had experienced akathisia. "[One woman] started to bang her head against the wall three days after an injection of [a major tranquilizer]. Her only utterance was: 'I just want to get rid of this whole body."' A woman who had been given these drugs for five days experienced "an upsurge in hallucinations, screaming, even more bizarre thinking, aggressive and also self-destructive outbursts, and agitated pacing or dancing." A third woman stated that, while on the tranquilizer, she felt hostile and hated everybody, and heard voices taunting her. Others complained of an "abject fear or terror" that was difficult for them to explain.
-
Steve Lookout is fine just taking some time off the forum but she will be back when she is ready :)
She is a warrior for sure. I am so proud of the way she handles the personal attacks on a daily basis
-
Such a shame you don't know the difference between personal opinion and fact. You don't even know the difference between fantasy and fact. "When Julie is shown in a documentary.................."!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN YOUR DREAMS! I wonder if anyone has told her yet, about your intentions? I can't imagine she'll be shaking in her shoes.
I hope she reads every single post I make
Her behaviour if she knew Jeremy was guilty was inexcusable
If she knows Jeremy is innocent I cannot think of any punishment bad enough expend spending 30 odd years in prison like Jeremy
-
Whatever her condition I wonder if the coordination issues she was experiencing for weeks at least can suddenly disappear upon medication of all description leaving her system?
I have read that Tardive Diskinesia does not always disappear after discontinuance of Haloperidol. Also read it takes about a year to develop however I know Colin said she suffered from it earlier in her illness. Think she was on Stelazine not Haloperidol at that time. If my memory is correct she was prescribed drugs to deal with side effects such as muscle disturbances but nothing showed in her body at autopsy except Haloperidol and trace of cannabis so she clearly hadn't been taking them before she died.. It was stated by many people that Sheila was very conscious of her appearance, as though she believed that was all she was worth. If she suffered from such a life changing affliction surely she would be begging for anything to mask such side effects? This is one reason I question if she suffered from such side effects?
-
Researcher Theodore Van Putten reported that nearly half of the 110 persons in the study had experienced akathisia. "[One woman] started to bang her head against the wall three days after an injection of [a major tranquilizer]. Her only utterance was: 'I just want to get rid of this whole body."' A woman who had been given these drugs for five days experienced "an upsurge in hallucinations, screaming, even more bizarre thinking, aggressive and also self-destructive outbursts, and agitated pacing or dancing." A third woman stated that, while on the tranquilizer, she felt hostile and hated everybody, and heard voices taunting her. Others complained of an "abject fear or terror" that was difficult for them to explain.
There are many cases of Haloperidol causing people to become violent, committing homicide while under the influence of Haloperidol. The myth that her meds preclude her from the massacre was put in the trash not long ago.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8439.msg401967.html#msg401967
-
Researcher Theodore Van Putten reported that nearly half of the 110 persons in the study had experienced akathisia. "[One woman] started to bang her head against the wall three days after an injection of [a major tranquilizer]. Her only utterance was: 'I just want to get rid of this whole body."' A woman who had been given these drugs for five days experienced "an upsurge in hallucinations, screaming, even more bizarre thinking, aggressive and also self-destructive outbursts, and agitated pacing or dancing." A third woman stated that, while on the tranquilizer, she felt hostile and hated everybody, and heard voices taunting her. Others complained of an "abject fear or terror" that was difficult for them to explain.
Every time I read about these horrible drugs I thank God I've been spared that dreadful illness. They are used to subdue people and render them harmless to the general population but the side effects are as dreadful as the illness for many sufferers. Poor Sheila, what a nightmare she had to live.
-
There are many cases of Haloperidol causing people to become violent, committing homicide while under the influence of Haloperidol. The myth that her meds preclude her from the massacre was put in the trash not long ago.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8439.msg401967.html#msg401967
I also don't see any evidence that Jeremy actually understood her illness or her midication which is why I don't think really he would have any idea of the right time to assume she would be at her least resistance .
He might have been told of past episodes but would he understand or have a cover story of why she would kill the twins?
I don't really recall anyone discussing that with him after the murders?
-
I have read that Tardive Diskinesia does not always disappear after discontinuance of Haloperidol. Also read it takes about a year to develop however I know Colin said she suffered from it earlier in her illness. Think she was on Stelazine not Haloperidol at that time. If my memory is correct she was prescribed drugs to deal with side effects such as muscle disturbances but nothing showed in her body at autopsy except Haloperidol and trace of cannabis so she clearly hadn't been taking them before she died.. It was stated by many people that Sheila was very conscious of her appearance, as though she believed that was all she was worth. If she suffered from such a life changing affliction surely she would be begging for anything to mask such side effects? This is one reason I question if she suffered from such side effects?
I thought we had agreed Sheila didn't have Tardive Dyskinesia, at least at the time of the tragedy. https://youtu.be/t_NKRS8lLWA
-
I also don't see any evidence that Jeremy actually understood her illness or her midication which is why I don't think really he would have any idea of the right time to assume she would be at her least resistance .
He might have been told of past episodes but would he understand or have a cover story of why she would kill the twins?
I don't really recall anyone discussing that with him after the murders?
She was in bed most of the time at Moreshead Mansions. When she had some responsibility for the twins at White House Farm I think it was too much for her. I'm prepared to accept Jeremy, Nevill and June didn't understand her illness, neither did Colin nor the doctors fully for that matter.
-
I thought we had agreed Sheila didn't have Tardive Dyskinesia, at least at the time of the tragedy. https://youtu.be/t_NKRS8lLWA
I don't believe she did have but thought you believed she had? No probs, my mistake. :)
-
I don't believe she did have but thought you believed she had? No probs, my mistake. :)
Yes I did until I read up on the illness. Of course I can't vouch for Colin's experiences with her, the person who knew her best.
-
She was in bed most of the time at Moreshead Mansions. When she had some responsibility for the twins at White House Farm I think it was too much for her. I'm prepared to accept Jeremy, Nevill and June didn't understand her illness, neither did Colin nor the doctors fully for that matter.
We need to remember all this happened over 30 years ago. They're still using the same drugs, same horrible side effects. Not much seems to have changed.
-
She was in bed most of the time at Moreshead Mansions. When she had some responsibility for the twins at White House Farm I think it was too much for her. I'm prepared to accept Jeremy, Nevill and June didn't understand her illness, neither did Colin nor the doctors fully for that matter.
So why did Jeremy think that everybody would immediately accept she was capable of the murders ?
After all that was his plan ?
-
So why did Jeremy think that everybody would immediately accept she was capable of the murders ?
After all that was his plan ?
The Boutflours and the Eatons never did accept it.
He presented everyone with a fait accompli. He told Julie it was the "perfect crime". He has some of you on this site duped, but that's because of the con man he is.
-
I know that was obviously the aim but we are all individuals with our own physiology. There can never be absolute certainty that a drug like Haloperidol will have the same effect on every person. There is always a margin of error and exceptions to the rule and Sheila had not been taking it for very long, maybe not long enough to be sure of its effectiveness for her. Therefore there has to be a possibility that the Haloperidol didn't control her psychosis efficiently. Psychiatric side effect of Haloperidol... Common ... 1% to 10% ... psychosis. Hallucinations.
Or I agree an alternative reason may be that she was still been over medicated causing depression, drowsiness and lack of interest.
Maggie, I agree that there will always be SOME(one) who will have a bad reaction to a drug -we hear it on a daily basis- but those drugs which reach the market are tested within an inch of their lives before they're considered safe. The drugs companies will have allowed for variances/tolerances to fall a few degrees either side of a mean average. Those who react badly are likely to show their intolerance fairly soon. Sheila's only reaction appears to be not so much about intolerance, her symptoms were those of receiving too high a dose for her to function. There must be thousands of people who take Haloperidol -most I imagine, very successfully- but for those who react badly, it may STILL be a better alternative than NOT taking it.
-
She wanted to be famous so let's help her out, let's give her more exposure than she could ever dream off
She just couldn't go quietly could she
What makes think that you have the experience or expertise to assist that? Julie has managed her life very successfully -without your input- until now. I doubt she'll be requiring it in future. As for "she couldn't just go quietly could she", as it you who's shouting your mouth off -not a peep from Julie- surely the expression is more applicable to you.
-
Just to show I do consider both sides
Haldol (haloperidol): "I've been on Haldol for 5 years. I have schizophrenia. This is the only drug that has worked over the period of having this illness. I don't feel I will ever be symptom free there's no magic pill, but since being on this I've been able to manage things much better than before. Really great. I don't like the possibility of the involuntary muscle disease (can't remember what it's called) but I will take that risk to have this benefit."
9.0
LCD7888 (taken for 5 to 10 years) September 16, 2015
26 users found this comment helpful.
Did you? Yes No | Report inappropriate
Haldol (haloperidol): "This was the worst experience I had in my life. I had hallucinations and my b/p was 206/126. It was given IM in the hospital and then at again at the treatment facility. I wrote a letter in my room in case they found me dead. I fought the nurse not to give me another one."
1.0
Anonymous September 13, 2015
I suspect that if the majority of those taking Haloperidol had similar reactions to "Anonymous" it would have been withdrawn.
-
I hope she reads every single post I make
Her behaviour if she knew Jeremy was guilty was inexcusable
If she knows Jeremy is innocent I cannot think of any punishment bad enough expend spending 30 odd years in prison like Jeremy
You "hope she reads every single post I make"!!!!!!!!!!! Does your arrogance and overblown sense of you own importance in the scheme of things know NO bounds. Just how/where do you imagine you figure in her life? Do you REALLY believe you're so important and up there that Julie wakes up quaking with fear? You'd really like to believe it, wouldn't you? The curious thing is, you say "IF she knew/knows........" but even that's not enough for you to give her the benefit of doubt, is it? It seems you prefer to heap hatred and venom on her. THAT makes it sound personal.
-
So why did Jeremy think that everybody would immediately accept she was capable of the murders ?
After all that was his plan ?
Because Bamber told the police she was a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally', 'psychotic depressive', 'should be locked up', 'could use all the weapons at WHF', 'had committed child abuse' & had gone crazy & got the gun'.
He also volunteered to Bews that Sheila may have shot everyone. Bews saying 'that bumped things up a bit'.
-
Because Bamber told the police she was a 'nutter', 'looney', 'do lally', 'psychotic depressive', 'should be locked up', 'could use all the weapons at WHF', 'had committed child abuse' & had gone crazy & got the gun'.
He also volunteered to Bews that Sheila may have shot everyone. Bews saying 'that bumped things up a bit'.
source of Jeremy telling the officers she had committed child abuse ?
And although I dislike the slang descriptions he was correct was he not?
-
source of Jeremy telling the officers she had committed child abuse ?
And although I dislike the slang descriptions he was correct was he not?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7004.msg328586.html#msg328586
Bamber was correct. Do you think he was correct when he told Liz Rimmington 'I'm the only one who knew Sheila was going back to the nuthouse' ?
-
source of Jeremy telling the officers she had committed child abuse ?
And although I dislike the slang descriptions he was correct was he not?
By today's understanding of the word, he probably was, although abuse is a blanket term for many things, but I think the most she could have been accused of then was child neglect. I believe it's been implied that she allowed one of the twins to fall from a taxi but that may be apocryphal.
-
So why did Jeremy think that everybody would immediately accept she was capable of the murders ?
After all that was his plan ?
Even today, mental health can be stigmatising - the fact that she has schizophrenia must have been a golden ticket (people also use it to bolster their argument here - even though she was taking medication), that along with his staging of the scene helped enormously.
-
What makes think that you have the experience or expertise to assist that? Julie has managed her life very successfully -without your input- until now. I doubt she'll be requiring it in future. As for "she couldn't just go quietly could she", as it you who's shouting your mouth off -not a peep from Julie- surely the expression is more applicable to you.
She's already made a video Jane, she posted a link to it a few weeks back. It was errrrrr 'interesting' ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Even today, mental health can be stigmatising - the fact that she has schizophrenia must have been a golden ticket (people also use that argument here - even though she was taking medication), that along with his staging of the scene helped enormously.
I seem to recall that, when it first happened and papers were FULL of that she'd walked straight out of a mental hospital, the general feeling was "'Nuff said. Case solved" It was, as you say, a golden gift.
-
She's already made a video Jane, she posted a link to it a few weeks back. It was errrrrr 'interesting' ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Oh right :o So You're recommending it?
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7004.msg328586.html#msg328586
Bamber was correct. Do you think he was correct when he told Liz Rimmington 'I'm the only one who knew Sheila was going back to the nuthouse' ?
Adam most of what you and I post is just hearsay none of us have hard evidence Jeremy murdered his family lets forget the silencer and Julie's statement and all your forensic items we have nothing.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7004.msg328586.html#msg328586
Bamber was correct. Do you think he was correct when he told Liz Rimmington 'I'm the only one who knew Sheila was going back to the nuthouse' ?
That's weird because someone else said the other day that dr Craig hardly went near Jeremy , and anyway your post suggests dr Craig suggested it was child abuse After the bodies were discovered , that is not Jeremy telling the police. She was guilty of child abuse , is it?
.
-
That's weird because someone else said the other day that dr Craig hardly went near Jeremy , and anyway your post suggests dr Craig suggested it was child abuse After the bodies were discovered , that is not Jeremy telling the police. She was guilty of child abuse , is it?
.
But he made the most of any slight failing of Sheila as a mother. For example he invented a story that she had punched one of the boys in the face when they had been in the car together as a family. Colin doubts this incident ever happened. There were the documented incidents of Nicholas falling out of a black cab and Nicholas having an ear infection, which went untreated until his mother took him to the doctor at a teacher's behest, but the Westminster social workers had been aware of them and felt that Sheila was not at fault.
-
But he made the most of any slight failing of Sheila as a mother. For example he invented a story that she had punched one of the boys in the face when they had been in the car together as a family. Colin doubts this incident ever happened. There were the documented incidents of Nicholas falling out of a black cab and Nicholas having an ear infection, which went untreated until his mother took him to the doctor at a teacher's behest, but the Westminster social workers had been aware of them and felt that Sheila was not at fault.
Well I think there probably some reason for Colin wanting the twins living with him and the school reporting they were worried . The letter he wrote to Neville was more of an indication than anything Jeremy said .
-
Well I think there probably some reason for Colin wanting the twins living with him and the school reporting they were worried . The letter he wrote to Neville was more of an indication than anything Jeremy said .
Well it was the same conclusion the social workers reached, namely that because of Sheila's injections making her drowsy she couldn't get the children fed, dressed and ready for school, being guilty of neglect by default than any wilful intent. Colin doesn't criticize Sheila in the letter, but lambastes June.
-
Well I think there probably some reason for Colin wanting the twins living with him and the school reporting they were worried . The letter he wrote to Neville was more of an indication than anything Jeremy said .
Yes. Guilt for walking out on a new mother who wasn't coping was probably one of them. Colin, as his letter clearly outlines, clearly had no more liking for the Bambers -OK, mostly June, as a Christian- than she had for him, as an out of work? atheist/agnostic?
-
Well it was the same conclusion the social workers reached, namely that because of Sheila's injections making her drowsy she couldn't get the children fed, dressed and ready for school, being guilty of neglect by default than any wilful intent. Colin doesn't criticize Sheila in the letter, but lambastes June.
Steve can you direct me please to where this information is documented I remember reading about it on the forum but not sure where I did read it. I agree Colin criticized June and said Sheila did not want to go and stay and neither did the twins he never said one wrong about Jeremy they were quite close at one time.
-
Well it was the same conclusion the social workers reached, namely that because of Sheila's injections making her drowsy she couldn't get the children fed, dressed and ready for school, being guilty of neglect by default than any wilful intent. Colin doesn't criticize Sheila in the letter, but lambastes June.
I didn't know that.
-
Steve can you direct me please to where this information is documented I remember reading about it on the forum but not sure where I did read it. I agree Colin criticized June and said Sheila did not want to go and stay and neither did the twins he never said one wrong about Jeremy they were quite close at one time.
The part about the children put in day fostering to enable Sheila to look for work is in Chapter 25 of Blood Relations. Colin's letter is here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2762.0/nowap.html
-
The part about the children put in day fostering to enable Sheila to look for work is in Chapter 25 of Blood Relations. Colin's letter is here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2762.0/nowap.html
Steve manythanks for that never read the letter before very sad indeed
-
Well it was the same conclusion the social workers reached, namely that because of Sheila's injections making her drowsy she couldn't get the children fed, dressed and ready for school, being guilty of neglect by default than any wilful intent. Colin doesn't criticize Sheila in the letter, but lambastes June.
Where does the conclusion come from that the injections are the cause?
She could have been just very depressed or worse ? I can't see tha Colin had come to a conclusion except that her mental health was affecting the children very badly .
-
Where does the conclusion come from that the injections are the cause?
She could have been just very depressed or worse ? I can't see tha Colin had come to a conclusion except that her mental health was affecting the children very badly .
Jan I have been trying to figure that out too
-
Where does the conclusion come from that the injections are the cause?
She could have been just very depressed or worse ? I can't see tha Colin had come to a conclusion except that her mental health was affecting the children very badly .
I think she had postpartum psychosis if I recall Lookout's posts. That wouldn't help. I'm going off someone I knew with the illness who was often lying in bed, not because this person was lazy but because of the drugs injected to prevent the hearing of voices.
-
I think she had postpartum psychosis if I recall Lookout's posts. That wouldn't help. I'm going off someone I knew with the illness who was often lying in bed, not because this person was lazy but because of the drugs injected to prevent the hearing of voices.
Before you all wonder I'm not going to divulge. I will just say, however, that it wasn't me.
But everyone reacts differently and don't forget she was warned off raking recreational drugs as well because the two did not mix.
I wonder if she was ever under her own gp or just private? Seemed to me her parents wanted to keep her illness as quiet as possible. And I am not sure Colin really helped her , he did not treat her fantastically did he?
-
I think she had postpartum psychosis if I recall Lookout's posts. That wouldn't help. I'm going off someone I knew with the illness who was often lying in bed, not because this person was lazy but because of the drugs injected to prevent the hearing of voices.
Before you all wonder I'm not going to divulge. I will just say, however, that it wasn't me.
I know Lookout will disagree, but there's nothing I can find which says that PP (after CHILDBIRTH)P lasts for 6 years. It normally, according to my information, lasts between 6-12 weeks. Although I knew nothing more about it than it was depression, a neighbour developed it during her labour -allegedly a very dangerous time because it takes a stronger hold?- and the baby subsequently spent much of his first year with me. I don't believe -I find it highly unlikely- that anyone is suffering an after childbirth illness when the child/children reach 6 years of age.
-
But everyone reacts differently and don't forget she was warned off raking recreational drugs as well because the two did not mix.
I wonder if she was ever under her own gp or just private? Seemed to me her parents wanted to keep her illness as quiet as possible. And I am not sure Colin really helped her , he did not treat her fantastically did he?
I think it was only the psych treatment she received privately, just as June had. I believe their local doctor was in Tiptree. Part of the reason the 'package' broke down may have been the transfer from Private to NHS care. The doctors who were responsible for her daily care were NHS. Colin seemed to be advocating psychoanalytic counselling -a talking therapy- I'd have agreed.
-
But he made the most of any slight failing of Sheila as a mother. For example he invented a story that she had punched one of the boys in the face when they had been in the car together as a family. Colin doubts this incident ever happened. There were the documented incidents of Nicholas falling out of a black cab and Nicholas having an ear infection, which went untreated until his mother took him to the doctor at a teacher's behest, but the Westminster social workers had been aware of them and felt that Sheila was not at fault.
Actually there were remarks about burns and scalds to the boys as well .
-
But everyone reacts differently and don't forget she was warned off raking recreational drugs as well because the two did not mix.
I wonder if she was ever under her own gp or just private? Seemed to me her parents wanted to keep her illness as quiet as possible. And I am not sure Colin really helped her , he did not treat her fantastically did he?
No but he was provoked and withstood far more than the average male would. Sheila was ill, she was immature, she judged men by the standard of her father, whom very few were likely to live up to. She regretted her treatment of him as the years passed, partly possibly through the twins' remarks about why mummy and daddy weren't together. I was reading a man's account of the birth of his twins today, and wondered whether Colin had read it too and what effect such articles might have on him even after all this time.
-
Actually there were remarks about burns and scalds to the boys as well .
It was one scald singular, and again the social workers thought it was not deliberate or due to systematic neglect.
-
No but he was provoked and withstood far more than the average male would. Sheila was ill, she was immature, she judged men by the standard of her father, whom very few were likely to live up to. She regretted her treatment of him as the years passed, partly possibly through the twins' remarks about why mummy and daddy weren't together. I was reading a man's account of the birth of his twins today, and wondered whether Colin had read it too and what effect such articles might have on him even after all this time.
I think even Colin would think you let him off too lightly, Steve. Colin has traveled a long way since his marriage to Sheila and I am full of admiration for his courage after the murders. I accept that Sheila must have been very difficult to cope with, she was probably showing signs of her illness and he was selfish and immature, not a great mix.
-
Actually there were remarks about burns and scalds to the boys as well .
From who?
-
Where does the conclusion come from that the injections are the cause?
She could have been just very depressed or worse ? I can't see tha Colin had come to a conclusion except that her mental health was affecting the children very badly .
Her doctor, who described her as 'over medicated'.
-
I think she had postpartum psychosis if I recall Lookout's posts. That wouldn't help. I'm going off someone I knew with the illness who was often lying in bed, not because this person was lazy but because of the drugs injected to prevent the hearing of voices.
That's Lookout's opinion Steve, not a fact.
-
87. Thereafter Sheila Caffell received monthly injections of Haloperidol, a drug used to treat agitated states which had anti-psychotic and tranquillising properties. It also has sedative side effects at the levels prescribed.
148. Sheila Caffell, probably in a sedated state from her medication, was also shot in the bedroom.
-
She's already made a video Jane, she posted a link to it a few weeks back. It was errrrrr 'interesting' ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Your opinion means nothing Caroline but you know that anyway
This was the message Simon McKay (previously a solicitor now a barrister) sent me after watching my video
Just watched your animation Jackie; very powerful. If JB's lawyers would like me to look at the PII issue (or anything else)
It was such a lovely message
-
Your opinion means nothing Caroline but you know that anyway
This was the message Simon McKay (previously a solicitor now a barrister) sent me after watching my video
Just watched your animation Jackie; very powerful. If JB's lawyers would like me to look at the PII issue (or anything else)
It was such a lovely message
Yes. Very kind.
-
My video made Simon interested in the case
-
My video made Simon interested in the case
'Course it did
-
From who?
Scalds and burns to torso . Source statements from Michael Abel social worker .
-
'Course it did
Are you saying it didn't???
-
Are you saying it didn't???
Are you suggesting that I'm saying it didn't?
-
My video made Simon interested in the case
Jackie I am led to believe that you got Simon MacKay on board and NGB. You have put so much into this case hope all your hard work pays off.
-
I am sure you are all lovely people when not on the forum .
Well not really sure . But it is a possibility.
-
Jackie I am led to believe that you got Simon MacKay on board and NGB. You have put so much into this case hope all your hard work pays off.
Yes Susan and Mark Williams Thomas and they all got abused on the red forum
-
Yes Susan and Mark Williams Thomas and they all got abused on the red forum
Jackie that is so sad that people have to be abusive to people with different opinions .
-
I am sure you are all lovely people when not on the forum .
Well not really sure . But it is a possibility.
Jan I wonder :)
-
Yes Susan and Mark Williams Thomas and they all got abused on the red forum
Wondered when you'd drop his name into it ........ AGAIN! ::) ::)
-
I am sure you are all lovely people when not on the forum .
Well not really sure . But it is a possibility.
Some maybe, others not so.
-
Wondered when you'd drop his name into it ........ AGAIN! ::) ::)
And I will drop his name as many times as I like as I have the greatest respect for him
-
And I will drop his name as many times as I like as I have the greatest respect for him
::)
-
87. Thereafter Sheila Caffell received monthly injections of Haloperidol, a drug used to treat agitated states which had anti-psychotic and tranquillising properties. It also has sedative side effects at the levels prescribed.
148. Sheila Caffell, probably in a sedated state from her medication, was also shot in the bedroom.
So you are chosing to ignore some other possible side affects of the drug ?
-
Side effects would have been noticed because she wasn't taking her other meds to counteract the effects of Haldol. ALL anti-psychotic meds have the most severe side effects with some having the opposite effect to that which would normally treat the illness.
-
Side effects would have been noticed because she wasn't taking her other meds to counteract the effects of Haldol. ALL anti-psychotic meds have the most severe side effects with some having the opposite effect to that which would normally treat the illness.
She probably felt she no longer needed to. She'd complained about certain side effects and the dose had been halved. She didn't go back and complain that she was STILL experiencing side effects. Any side effects would be unlikely to take 18 weeks to manifest themselves.
-
She probably felt she no longer needed to. She'd complained about certain side effects and the dose had been halved. She didn't go back and complain that she was STILL experiencing side effects. Any side effects would be unlikely to take 18 weeks to manifest themselves.
We don't know for how long she'd not been taking her other medication. Haldol alone would have done nothing for her except to exacerbate a problem that she already had.
-
We don't know for how long she'd not been taking her other medication. Haldol alone would have done nothing for her except to exacerbate a problem that she already had.
To quote Jeremy "Isn't that for you to prove?" I was given medication to counteract the side effects of another medication. When I stopped taking it I no longer required medication to stop the side effects. In all likelihood, if Sheila was no longer experiencing difficult side effects, it's reasonable to assume she wouldn't need medication to counteract them. It's only YOUR opinion that Haloperidol was the wrong medication for her. I feel certain Dr Ferguson -unless world thinking has now banned it from being prescribed- would argue against your belief. would
-
To quote Jeremy "Isn't that for you to prove?" I was given medication to counteract the side effects of another medication. When I stopped taking it I no longer required medication to stop the side effects. In all likelihood, if Sheila was no longer experiencing difficult side effects, it's reasonable to assume she wouldn't need medication to counteract them. It's only YOUR opinion that Haloperidol was the wrong medication for her. I feel certain Dr Ferguson -unless world thinking has now banned it from being prescribed- would argue against your belief. would
It all depends on what the medication is and what it's treating. Some work quite well without the need for anything else to counteract side-effects,though my philosophy is that there's no need for " extra " meds if the right medication works in the first place.
-
It all depends on what the medication is and what it's treating. Some work quite well without the need for anything else to counteract side-effects,though my philosophy is that there's no need for " extra " meds if the right medication works in the first place.
Oh, for a perfect world.
-
She was not warned off taking recreational drugs with the medication for no reason either .
-
Going back to the title of the thread it is interesting to reread the family statements especially the blatant homophobic comments . Quite shocking really especially as it was only the 80s
Not the 50s
-
I thought it shocking too. I'd like to see those involved getting away with their remarks today.
-
Going back to the title of the thread it is interesting to reread the family statements especially the blatant homophobic comments . Quite shocking really especially as it was only the 80s
Not the 50s
Before you condemn, I imagine we ALL contributed to whatever were the mores of the time. Unless we had a personal distaste for something, we went along with it. So did our children. Patterns repeat.
-
Some of us have learned through our ignorance.
-
Some of us have learned through our ignorance.
We have -hopefully- learned NOW, those things we were ignorant of/accepted as being correct, at the time.
-
Before you condemn, I imagine we ALL contributed to whatever were the mores of the time. Unless we had a personal distaste for something, we went along with it. So did our children. Patterns repeat.
Actually my parents were not like that but my in laws were , and they are the same age so I don't think that necessarily follows