Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: sherlock on October 04, 2017, 11:07:AM
-
After a very long time considering this case I have now worked out exactly what happened ...
I have considered every possibility with a very open mind indeed ....
There is only one scenario that stands up to scrutiny ....
Here it is .....
Sheila was reading Psalm 51 because she had just murdered her family ....
She wanted to be forgiven by God for the murders ...
That is why she had washed herself ....
It was Sheila that moved the gun that WPC Jeaves saw in the window ....
It was Sheila that was seen moving in the other window ...
Sheila killed herself after the Police were outside the farm - that is why her blood was still wet ...
David Boutflour (and possibly others) planted the silencer ....
The relatives put Julie up to the false confession - which is why she wrongly repeats things AE told her ...
DC Jones was more than happy to coach Julie - he was up for noble cause corruption ....
The relatives did it because they thought Jeremy was guilty and to avoid impending financial ruin ...
This is why Robert Boutflour lied to the jury about the inheritance ....
I have no doubt all the relatives and Sheila and DC Jones were convinced that Jeremy did it ....
But he did not - he is 100% innocent of any involvement in this crime .....
Now I have satisfied myself without any doubt what happened it is time for stage 2 ....
Stage 2 is I am going to prove to the world exactly what happened ....
Jeremy Bamber needs to be released right now .....
-
David Boutflour (and possibly others) planted the silencer ....
Could you explain that a bit more? Are you suggesting that they found the silencer in the cupboard, and came up with a way to implicate Jeremy by making the police believe the silencer had been used? That would actually involve quite a lot of duplicity and a lot of imagination. I doubt anyone would have thought of it, especially the part about putting paint on it.
-
Sherlock - 2nd June 2017.
Excellent post Adam ...
Like Mike said it is arguably possible that she could have cleaned herself up after 4 murders ...
But it is obvious she could not have cleaned herself up after shooting herself ...
Is there any explanation anyone why her hands and night dress had no traces ?
I would love to hear anybodies theories on how this is possible ...
But for me it looks like it was either Jeremy and / or a hitman or one or more of the relatives ...
Even though Sheila discussed killing her children with her doctor the lack of hand and clothing traces from the last 2 shots cannot be explained by her cleaning herself up - so i agree Adam - it does not look at all likely (or even possible) that Sheila shot herself ...
But why didn't this lack of hand or clothing marks ring alarm bells with Essex Police ?
Or did it ? were they working on this when Julie and the silencer turned up ?
Any ideas on this Adam or anybody else ?
Once again - excellent post Adam ...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8414.msg401682.html#msg401682
--------------------
I wish Sherlock would make up his mind. One minute Nevill rang the police, the next minute he didn't. One minute Bamber is guilty. The next he isn't.
One minute it's AE, AP, a hit man, or RB. The next it isn't.
Hopefully now he's worked out Bamber is the unluckiest man ever he won't disappear from the forum for the next 3 months.
-
Could you explain that a bit more? Are you suggesting that they found the silencer in the cupboard, and came up with a way to implicate Jeremy by making the police believe the silencer had been used? That would actually involve quite a lot of duplicity and a lot of imagination. I doubt anyone would have thought of it, especially the part about putting paint on it.
Imagine this :
The relatives think Jeremy did it ...
They are in the farmhouse frantically looking for evidence that he did ...
They find the unmarked silencer (who knows where they found it)
They realise Sheila could not have shot herself with it on the rifle ....
Remember this is before DNA was in use ....
They put a little bit of blood in it / on it ....
They scratched the fireplace with it - leaving red paint on the silencer ...
They placed a grey hair similar to Neville Bambers on it ....
They gave it to Police ....
It now looks like it was used in the murders ...
It was impossible for Sheila to have shot herself with it on ...
It therefore looked like it was Jeremy that did it ....
Even many firm believers in Jeremy's guilt believe the silencer was set up by the relatives ...
Robert Boutflour was devious enough for this ...
-
Sherlock - 2nd June 2017.
Excellent post Adam ...
Like Mike said it is arguably possible that she could have cleaned herself up after 4 murders ...
But it is obvious she could not have cleaned herself up after shooting herself ...
Is there any explanation anyone why her hands and night dress had no traces ?
I would love to hear anybodies theories on how this is possible ...
But for me it looks like it was either Jeremy and / or a hitman or one or more of the relatives ...
Even though Sheila discussed killing her children with her doctor the lack of hand and clothing traces from the last 2 shots cannot be explained by her cleaning herself up - so i agree Adam - it does not look at all likely (or even possible) that Sheila shot herself ...
But why didn't this lack of hand or clothing marks ring alarm bells with Essex Police ?
Or did it ? were they working on this when Julie and the silencer turned up ?
Any ideas on this Adam or anybody else ?
Once again - excellent post Adam ...
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8414.msg401682.html#msg401682
--------------------
I wish Sherlock would make up his mind. One minute Nevill rang the police, the next minute he didn't. One minute Bamber is guilty. The next he isn't.
One minute it's AE, AP, a hit man, or RB. The next it isn't.
Hopefully now he's worked out Bamber is the unluckiest man ever he won't disappear from the forum for the next 3 months.
I have considered this case from every possible angle ...
In the post you refer to I posed 4 unanswered questions ....
Now I am sure the last 2 shots left very little if any residue on Sheila ....
Sheila had told her Pyschiatrist she wanted to kill her "Devil" children ...
And that is exactly what she did in a psychotic religious breakdown ...
You will be glad Adam that I have finally made my mind up ...
I will not be disappearing from the forum anytime soon ....
You have ALL helped me to work this case out ...
I will be staying on the forum so you can all help me prove what happened to the Appeal Court ....
-
Imagine this :
The relatives think Jeremy did it ...
They are in the farmhouse frantically looking for evidence that he did ...
They find the unmarked silencer (who knows where they found it)
They realise Sheila could not have shot herself with it on the rifle ....
Remember this is before DNA was in use ....
They put a little bit of blood in it / on it ....
They scratched the fireplace with it - leaving red paint on the silencer ...
They placed a grey hair similar to Neville Bambers on it ....
They gave it to Police ....
It now looks like it was used in the murders ...
It was impossible for Sheila to have shot herself with it on ...
It therefore looked like it was Jeremy that did it ....
Even many firm believers in Jeremy's guilt believe the silencer was set up by the relatives ...
Robert Boutflour was devious enough for this ...
This is the sticking point. How did they know Sheila could not have shot herself with it on? They would have known that she didn't of course, but they couldn't have known that she couldn't have.
How did they get the blood into the silencer?
-
I have considered this case from every possible angle ...
In the post you refer to I posed 4 unanswered questions ....
Now I am sure the last 2 shots left very little if any residue on Sheila ....
Sheila had told her Pyschiatrist she wanted to kill her "Devil" children ...
And that is exactly what she did in a psychotic religious breakdown ...
You will be glad Adam that I have finally made my mind up ...
I will not be disappearing from the forum anytime soon ....
You have ALL helped me to work this case out ...
I will be staying on the forum so you can all help me prove what happened to the Appeal Court ....
I understand your feelings about it. Sometimes, someone will say something to convince you either way, and it seems that's happened to you. Do you know what it was in particular which convinced you?
-
This is the sticking point. How did they know Sheila could not have shot herself with it on? They would have known that she didn't of course, but they couldn't have known that she couldn't have.
How did they get the blood into the silencer?
They were all very familiar with guns and rifles ...
The rifle with silencer is very long indeed ...
It would have been obvious to them ....
Anthony's identical rifle and silencer might well have still been at the Farm at the time ...
It might have ben looking at Anthonys rifle and silencer when they realised it was impossible ....
-
I have considered this case from every possible angle ...
In the post you refer to I posed 4 unanswered questions ....
Now I am sure the last 2 shots left very little if any residue on Sheila ....
Sheila had told her Pyschiatrist she wanted to kill her "Devil" children ...
And that is exactly what she did in a psychotic religious breakdown ...
You will be glad Adam that I have finally made my mind up ...
I will not be disappearing from the forum anytime soon ....
You have ALL helped me to work this case out ...
I will be staying on the forum so you can all help me prove what happened to the Appeal Court ....
I am pleased you believe it was an industrial frame.
Do you believe the police only created another 32 pieces of evidence that it wasn't Sheila, after the silencer results came back ?
-
This is why it had been said by the judge " that it was either Sheila or Jeremy ",which is not the right and proper verdict to reach when you have one dead and the other sentenced to full life ( on no specific evidence ) just because he was the last one standing and nobody liked the man.
The prisons would be well overstretched if full of those who were " greedy,drank champagne,wore Boss suts,womanised,and generally enjoyed the high-liife " !!
-
I understand your feelings about it. Sometimes, someone will say something to convince you either way, and it seems that's happened to you. Do you know what it was in particular which convinced you?
1) WPC Jeaves statement - There was someone moving in the house when Jeremy was outside ...
2) David Boutflours obvious guilty conscience about the silencer in interviews he has given
3) Psalm 51 was relevant - the relevance of washing could only have been known by Sheila - no one else ...
I have considered every single possible possibility and ruled them all out one by one ...
There is only one scenario that fits ALL the evidence.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
Sherlock Holmes
-
I am pleased you believe it was an industrial frame.
Do you believe the police only created another 32 pieces of evidence that it wasn't Sheila, after the silencer results came back ?
I also believed that Hillsborough was an industrial frame ...
You know what Adam - it was ...
The Boutflours, Julie and DC Jones do not actually amount to an industrial frame ...
Just a small tight knit group of financially desperate and wrong people ...
There is not 1 piece of evidence it was not Sheila that is not explained by her having a wash ...
If you think there is then please list even one ...
-
1) WPC Jeaves statement - There was someone moving in the house when Jeremy was outside ...
2) David Boutflours obvious guilty conscience about the silencer in interviews he has given
3) Psalm 51 was relevant - the relevance of washing could only have been known by Sheila - no one else ...
I have considered every single possible possibility and ruled them all out one by one ...
There is only one scenario that fits ALL the evidence.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
Sherlock Holmes
Can I just point out that it's "Jeapes", not "Jeaves"? Sorry. ^-^
I agree that Sheila could have washed her hands before killing herself. Whether she did so is unknown.
-
This is why it had been said by the judge " that it was either Sheila or Jeremy ",which is not the right and proper verdict to reach when you have one dead and the other sentenced to full life ( on no specific evidence ) just because he was the last one standing and nobody liked the man.
The prisons would be well overstretched if full of those who were " greedy,drank champagne,wore Boss suts,womanised,and generally enjoyed the high-liife " !!
The relatives did not like Jeremy at all for the reasons you say ...
DC Jones did not like Jeremy for the reasons you say ...
Julie hated Jeremy for different reasons ...
They got together and convinced themselves that Jeremy had done it ...
It was all too easy - they all wanted to believe it ...
Confirmation bias can be a very misleading thing - they all suffered from it because they really did not like him at all ...
People tend to believe what they want to believe - it is even easier if you are going to become rich instead of poor if your hunch is right - which is the position the relatives were in ...
-
I also believed that Hillsborough was an industrial frame ...
You know what Adam - it was ...
The Boutflours, Julie and DC Jones do not actually amount to an industrial frame ...
Just a small tight knit group of financially desperate and wrong people ...
There is not 1 piece of evidence it was not Sheila that is not explained by her having a wash ...
If you think there is then please list even one ...
Or one financially desperate wrong ' en
-
The relatives did not like Jeremy at all for the reasons you say ...
DC Jones did not like Jeremy for the reasons you say ...
Julie hated Jeremy for different reasons ...
They got together and convinced themselves that Jeremy had done it ...
It was all too easy - they all wanted to believe it ...
Confirmation bias can be a very misleading thing - they all suffered from it because they really did not like him at all ...
People tend to believe what they want to believe - it is even easier if you are going to become rich instead of poor if your hunch is right - which is the position the relatives were in ...
Sounds to me like these are Jeremy's and indeed your own projections
-
Or one financially desperate wrong ' en
What did WPC Jeapes see in the window then ?
For your theory to be right then a highly trained firearms INSTRUCTOR must have been very wrong ...
She was not wrong Stephanie - people like her do not make mistakes like that ...
That is also why there was also movement seen in another window by another Police Officer ...
This is why Sheilas blood was still wet ...
Psalm 51 puts it 100% on Sheila ...
-
I also believed that Hillsborough was an industrial frame ...
You know what Adam - it was ...
The Boutflours, Julie and DC Jones do not actually amount to an industrial frame ...
Just a small tight knit group of financially desperate and wrong people ...
There is not 1 piece of evidence it was not Sheila that is not explained by her having a wash ...
If you think there is then please list even one ...
Obviously it will involve hundreds of people if Bamber was framed. Thread already created.
You believe Sheila had a shower after the massacre. Then changed into the extact same attire she would have gone to bed in at 10pm. There is no evidence she had a shower.
Sheila having a shower would not have removed a lot of evidence. Some of the evidence Sheila didn't commit the massacre is nothing to do with a shower -
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Sheila being found bare footed in a nightdress suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
-
Sounds to me like these are Jeremy's and indeed your own projections
Could you define what you mean by projections please ?
-
1) WPC Jeaves statement - There was someone moving in the house when Jeremy was outside ...
2) David Boutflours obvious guilty conscience about the silencer in interviews he has given
3) Psalm 51 was relevant - the relevance of washing could only have been known by Sheila - no one else ...
I have considered every single possible possibility and ruled them all out one by one ...
There is only one scenario that fits ALL the evidence.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
Sherlock Holmes
When did you rule out John Sweeney? And why?
And can you point me to where you have ever considered Jeremy Bamber to be the sole perpetrator and applied Sherlock Holmes theory to him
-
What did WPC Jeapes see in the window then ?
For your theory to be right then a highly trained firearms INSTRUCTOR must have been very wrong ...
She was not wrong Stephanie - people like her do not make mistakes like that ...
That is also why there was also movement seen in another window by another Police Officer ...
This is why Sheilas blood was still wet ...
Psalm 51 puts it 100% on Sheila ...
Why couldn't Bamber leave the bible on a good page ? He spent a year planning the massacre. I'm sure he could have investigated this.
It's called framing someone.
-
Obviously it will involve hundreds of people if Bamber was framed. Thread already created.
You believe Sheila had a shower after the massacre. Then changed into the extact same attire she would have gone to bed in at 10pm. There is no evidence she had a shower.
Sheila having a shower would not have removed a lot of evidence. Some of the evidence Sheila didn't commit the massacre is nothing to do with a shower -
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Sheila being found bare footed in a nightdress suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
We obviously have a lot of work to do to reach agreement Adam - so lets get started
We will need to discuss your points one by one ...
First of all you say :
"Obviously it will involve hundreds of people if Bamber was framed. Thread already created. "
My scenario only involves one or two relatives, Julie and DC Jones
So why do you say it must have involved hundreds of people for it to happen ?
-
What did WPC Jeapes see in the window then ?
For your theory to be right then a highly trained firearms INSTRUCTOR must have been very wrong ...
She was not wrong Stephanie - people like her do not make mistakes like that ...
That is also why there was also movement seen in another window by another Police Officer ...
This is why Sheilas blood was still wet ...
Psalm 51 puts it 100% on Sheila ...
Maybe you should read back some of your recent posts and apply the same logic to your own theories as you suggests others do.
Surely you can see your own contradictions?
Maybe it is you who suffers from what you claim others suffer from? Maybe you watch too much TV, for example?
-
Maybe you should read back some of your recent posts and apply the same logic to your own theories as you suggests others do.
Surely you can see your own contradictions?
Maybe it is you who suffers from what you claim others suffer from? Maybe you watch too much TV, for example?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8583.msg409293.html#msg409293
-
Could you define what you mean by projections please ?
What do you think I mean?
-
Obviously it will involve hundreds of people if Bamber was framed. Thread already created.
You believe Sheila had a shower after the massacre. Then changed into the extact same attire she would have gone to bed in at 10pm. There is no evidence she had a shower.
Sheila having a shower would not have removed a lot of evidence. Some of the evidence Sheila didn't commit the massacre is nothing to do with a shower -
"A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:
1.Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate
2.Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man)
-
When did you rule out John Sweeney? And why?
And can you point me to where you have ever considered Jeremy Bamber to be the sole perpetrator and applied Sherlock Holmes theory to him
Murder squad detectives assured me the woman in the John Sweeney painting has been traced and is alive and is therefore not Sheila.
WPC Jeapes seeing a rifle in the window rules Jeremy out as being the sole perpetrator ...
-
EP had a lot to answer for at that time. Just because someone appeared to have been intelligent and no " underdog " ,they immediately disliked JB. As well,JB wasn't afraid to speak out either and stand his ground,which was something else that police don't like as they're used to putting words into the mouths of those who are easily brainwashed.
Wouldn't anyone stand firm and stand up to the law if they knew themselves they were right ? Oh,I see,you wouldn't ! You'd take the psychological abuse and hope for the best ?
Police don't like being beaten at their game. The fact that JB didn't have a solicitor,nor was offered one ? with his initial interview tells me that he'd felt sure ( naively ) that his story would have been believed and that he'd had nothing to worry about. So far as I can recollect,JB hadn't even " broken down " as many guilty persons do,unless they're macho hardened criminals,of which he wasn't in that category.
-
What did WPC Jeapes see in the window then ? Nothing - trick of the light
For your theory to be right then a highly trained firearms INSTRUCTOR must have been very wrong ... Human error
She was not wrong Stephanie - people like her do not make mistakes like that ... Yes they do
That is also why there was also movement seen in another window by another Police Officer ... who?
This is why Sheilas blood was still wet ... No it wasn't
Psalm 51 puts it 100% on Sheila ... No it doesn't
-
Why couldn't Bamber leave the bible on a good page ? He spent a year planning the massacre. I'm sure he could have investigated this.
It's called framing someone.
Jeremy might have realised the significance of the bloodshed part of Psalm 51 - but only Sheila would have realised the significance of the washing part ...
Therefore it was Sheila ...
Sheila had spoken of killing her Devil children - Jeremy had not ...
-
What do you think I mean?
Psychobabble! ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychobabble (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychobabble)
-
Maybe you should read back some of your recent posts and apply the same logic to your own theories as you suggests others do.
Surely you can see your own contradictions?
Maybe it is you who suffers from what you claim others suffer from? Maybe you watch too much TV, for example?
I can see no contradictions ...
I have looked at it from all angles to finally see the truth ...
Please feel free to point out any apparent contradiction and I will explain ...
I watch remarkably little television Stephanie - but I am highly experienced in life and people ...
-
Jeremy might have realised the significance of the bloodshed part of Psalm 51 - but only Sheila would have realised the significance of the washing part ...
Therefore it was Sheila ...
Sheila had spoken of killing her Devil children - Jeremy had not ...
Bamber had spoken about killing his family.
The bible had blood over it. Although Sheila's hands were clean.
Do you think Sheila killed 4 people in a psychotic rage. Then calmed down enough to read the bible. Then had a shower ?
Have you got evidence Sheila read the bible ?
-
EP had a lot to answer for at that time. Just because someone appeared to have been intelligent and no " underdog " ,they immediately disliked JB. As well,JB wasn't afraid to speak out either and stand his ground,which was something else that police don't like as they're used to putting words into the mouths of those who are easily brainwashed.
Wouldn't anyone stand firm and stand up to the law if they knew themselves they were right ? Oh,I see,you wouldn't ! You'd take the psychological abuse and hope for the best ?
Police don't like being beaten at their game. The fact that JB didn't have a solicitor,nor was offered one ? with his initial interview tells me that he'd felt sure ( naively ) that his story would have been believed and that he'd had nothing to worry about. So far as I can recollect,JB hadn't even " broken down " as many guilty persons do,unless they're macho hardened criminals,of which he wasn't in that category.
Your observations are 100% accurate - I agree with every word of your post 100%
-
We obviously have a lot of work to do to reach agreement Adam - so lets get started
We will need to discuss your points one by one ...
First of all you say :
"Obviously it will involve hundreds of people if Bamber was framed. Thread already created. "
My scenario only involves one or two relatives, Julie and DC Jones
So why do you say it must have involved hundreds of people for it to happen ?
Surely you can see this is self explanatory?
-
Your observations are 100% accurate - I agree with every word of your post 100%
Then you are CLEARLY bias! ::)
-
Your observations are 100% accurate - I agree with every word of your post 100%
It's only through personal experience that you know and can safely write about this,as if not,you're no wiser towards the workings of the law and end up like JB has done.
-
EP had a lot to answer for at that time. Just because someone appeared to have been intelligent and no " underdog " ,they immediately disliked JB. As well,JB wasn't afraid to speak out either and stand his ground,which was something else that police don't like as they're used to putting words into the mouths of those who are easily brainwashed.
Wouldn't anyone stand firm and stand up to the law if they knew themselves they were right ? Oh,I see,you wouldn't ! You'd take the psychological abuse and hope for the best ?
Police don't like being beaten at their game. The fact that JB didn't have a solicitor,nor was offered one ? with his initial interview tells me that he'd felt sure ( naively ) that his story would have been believed and that he'd had nothing to worry about. So far as I can recollect,JB hadn't even " broken down " as many guilty persons do,unless they're macho hardened criminals,of which he wasn't in that category.
Whilst I see nothing resembling psychological abuse on the part of the police, I see much pxxx taking and arrogance in Jeremy's responses, along with numerous "no comments". I feel perfectly certain it wouldn't have gone unnoticed -it may have been a contributory factor in why my friend's late husband believed him guilty- and it wouldn't have gone in his favour. Naturally, I can't say what I'd have done in that position, but I'm very certain I wouldn't have acted the way Jeremy did.
-
Then you are CLEARLY bias! ::)
Because I happen to agree 100% with another poster ?
Lookout is obviously experienced in how people are ...
So am I ...
That is why I can see Lookout is 100% right on this one ...
I will agree or disagree with anyone based on my personal experience knowledge and beliefs ...
Look at what Lookout has said and you might learn something about people and life ...
-
It's only through personal experience that you know and can safely write about this,as if not,you're no wiser towards the workings of the law and end up like JB has done.
So how many times have you been taken into custody and questioned?
-
Surely you can see this is self explanatory?
No I cannot - please explain ...
Why would hundreds of people be needed for a frame that only took a very few people ?
-
Whilst I see nothing resembling psychological abuse on the part of the police, I see much pxxx taking and arrogance in Jeremy's responses, along with numerous "no comments". I feel perfectly certain it wouldn't have gone unnoticed -it may have been a contributory factor in why my friend's late husband believed him guilty- and it wouldn't have gone in his favour. Naturally, I can't say what I'd have done in that position, but I'm very certain I wouldn't have acted the way Jeremy did.
Many people would not behave like he did ..
I would have done - if I was innocent ...
We are all different and react differently ...
I understand 100% every one of his reactions ...
-
No I cannot - please explain ...
Why would hundreds of people be needed for a frame that only took a very few people ?
You are just referring to one piece of evidence. Which may have needed several police. Unless Jones had access to -
Sheila's blood in the fridge
Equipment to correctly insert the blood into the silencer.
The kitchen crime scene photos.
Evidence on the rifle nozzle.
Evidence on who received contact shots.
-
No I cannot - please explain ...
Why would hundreds of people be needed for a frame that only took a very few people ?
Mike Tesko would most probably be able to explain this for you, you're best to ask him.
Or you could always refer to your own theory posted here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8685.msg415474.html#msg415474
-
Bamber had spoken about killing his family.
The bible had blood over it. Although Sheila's hands were clean.
Do you think Sheila killed 4 people in a psychotic rage. Then calmed down enough to read the bible. Then had a shower ?
Have you got evidence Sheila read the bible ?
According to a relative who set him up with the silencer and who we know lied to the Jury about the inheritance money ...
The Bible fell on the blood on the floor ...
Yes I do - this is 100% consistent with psychotic breakdown ...
Sheila was a self confessed white witch and spoke with her psychiatrist in a way that showed a huge interest in religion ...
-
Because I happen to agree 100% with another poster ?
Lookout is obviously experienced in how people are ...
So am I ...
That is why I can see Lookout is 100% right on this one ...
I will agree or disagree with anyone based on my personal experience knowledge and beliefs ...
Look at what Lookout has said and you might learn something about people and life ...
Referred to as "confirmation bias"
-
Re the possibility of Sheila washing, I'm sure I read that the shower head in the downstairs shower was hanging loose, or something like that. I can't remember where I saw it though.
-
EP had a lot to answer for at that time. Just because someone appeared to have been intelligent and no " underdog " ,they immediately disliked JB.
Where are your examples of this or is this your own interpretation?
-
Murder squad detectives assured me the woman in the John Sweeney painting has been traced and is alive and is therefore not Sheila.
WPC Jeapes seeing a rifle in the window rules Jeremy out as being the sole perpetrator ...
I think we have to establish at which window she saw the rifle, or where she thought she saw it.
-
According to a relative who set him up with the silencer and who we know lied to the Jury about the inheritance money ...
The Bible fell on the blood on the floor ...
Yes I do - this is 100% consistent with psychotic breakdown ...
Sheila was a self confessed white witch and spoke with her psychiatrist in a way that showed a huge interest in religion ...
According to Julie.
The bibles pages were wet. As if someone with bloodied hands had been flicking through it.
Please provide a source that -
Sheila was a passionate reader of the bible.
That people who go on murderous psychotic rages, then read the bible & shower.
-
Because I happen to agree 100% with another poster ?
Lookout is obviously experienced in how people are ...
So am I ...
That is why I can see Lookout is 100% right on this one ...
I will agree or disagree with anyone based on my personal experience knowledge and beliefs ...
Look at what Lookout has said and you might learn something about people and life ...
Then it's very likely you and Lookout are psychically bonded. It certainly means you're blinkered. I GUESS it means you think you can read minds and know exactly what anyone would do/say at any given time in any circumstance? I GUESS it means you have no empathy or understanding of anyone who doesn't believe it's your way or no way? It certainly means you think you know more than anyone else.
-
Where are your examples of this or is this your own interpretation?
Common sense and experience.
-
Common sense and experience.
In other words your personal opinion
-
According to Julie.
The bibles pages were wet. As if someone with bloodied hands had been flicking through it.
Please provide a source that -
Sheila was a passionate reader of the bible.
That people who go on murderous psychotic rages, then read the bible & shower.
If someone with bloodied hands was flicking through the Bible, they certainly did so without actually picking it up, otherwise there would have been blood on the cover.
-
It's only through personal experience that you know and can safely write about this,as if not,you're no wiser towards the workings of the law and end up like JB has done.
You mean YOUR personal experience, no ne else's
-
As well,JB wasn't afraid to speak out either and stand his ground,which was something else that police don't like as they're used to putting words into the mouths of those who are easily brainwashed.
Are you suggesting police put words into the mouths of criminals ?
And are you suggestions, for example, career criminals are brainwashed?
Or are you referring to yourself or your own perception?
-
Common sense and experience.
For example...?
Or are you suggesting your common sense and experience is superior to others?
-
Then it's very likely you and Lookout are psychically bonded. It certainly means you're blinkered. I GUESS it means you think you can read minds and know exactly what anyone would do/say at any given time in any circumstance? I GUESS it means you have no empathy or understanding of anyone who doesn't believe it's your way or no way? It certainly means you think you know more than anyone else.
Nothing " blinkered " about me. I've had MANY more years of experience than you have to enable me to help/ explain situations such as this particular crime.
It's no use going on about the usual " lack of empathy ",etc etc,it doesn't wash.It's only your way of getting out of replying with a more sensible answer.
-
Where are your examples of this or is this your own interpretation?
Do you think in 1985 that DC Jones would have liked the make up wearing "queer" local drug dealer who was better educated than him, better looking than him and was about to by a car that DC jones could only dream of and was about to inherit massively and who probably had zero respect for him because he was a policeman ?
Let me give you a clue - he probably did not ...
-
I think we have to establish at which window she saw the rifle, or where she thought she saw it.
Her statement is in the forum library ...
It is entirely separate from the "trick of the light" sighting of movement in the window seen by the 2 Police officers walking around outside the farm with Jeremy.
Not only is a separate sighting it was a totally different window in a different part of the house ...
Those 2 officers statements are also in the forum library ...
-
If someone with bloodied hands was flicking through the Bible, they certainly did so without actually picking it up, otherwise there would have been blood on the cover.
I just had another look.
It seems just the page it was open at had a blood mark. There is also what could be a finger print, which was David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
As Sheila's fingers had no blood on, she must have read the bible before having her shower.
-
I just had another look.
It seems just the page it was open at had a blood mark. There is also what could be a finger print, which was David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
As Sheila's fingers had no blood on, she must have read the bible before having her shower.
She didn't necessarily have a whole shower. Also, the blood on the Bible didn't necessarily come from Sheila's hands.
If she had no blood on her hands, where did the marks on her nightdress come from - the ones which have been described as finger marks?
-
Nothing " blinkered " about me. I've had MANY more years of experience than you have to enable me to help/ explain situations such as this particular crime.
It's no use going on about the usual " lack of empathy ",etc etc,it doesn't wash.It's only your way of getting out of replying with a more sensible answer.
I should have added conceited, but you've just proved that you, too, believe you know more than anyone else. I'd be interested to hear why you believe you have the right to compare your own experience with mine, and what qualifies you to claim that your "help" and explanations are of benefit to other than your ego.
-
I just had another look.
It seems just the page it was open at had a blood mark. There is also what could be a finger print, which was David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
As Sheila's fingers had no blood on, she must have read the bible before having her shower.
[/b]
It is likely she read Psalm 51 before having a shower and went back to reading it after her shower ...
There were no bloodied fingerprints found on the Bible or this would have been disclosed at Trial ...
-
EP had a lot to answer for at that time. Just because someone appeared to have been intelligent and no " underdog " ,they immediately disliked JB. As well,JB wasn't afraid to speak out either and stand his ground,which was something else that police don't like as they're used to putting words into the mouths of those who are easily brainwashed.
The police are used to dealing with all types of people, most especially the cocky and arrogant types, are they not?
How have you come to the conclusion they "immediately disliked JB?"
Are you suggesting JB was brainwashed before he was arrested? If so, by who was he brainwashed and what evidence do you have to support these claims?
-
She didn't necessarily have a whole shower. Also, the blood on the Bible didn't necessarily come from Sheila's hands.
If she had no blood on her hands, where did the marks on her nightdress come from - the ones which have been described as finger marks?
My opinion is she would have had a complete extremely thorough shower before putting very clean clothes on ...
This is because of Psalm 51 - she was attempting to physically wash away her sin as well as spiritually - it is what people who believe Psalm 51 would do in that situation after murdering someone ...
-
The police are used to dealing with all types of people, most especially the cocky and arrogant types, are they not?
How have you come to the conclusion they "immediately disliked JB?"
Are you suggesting JB was brainwashed before he was arrested? If so, by who was he brainwashed and what evidence do you have to support these claims?
It is normally the cocky arrogant ones who get the worst outcomes - Police are only too human like the rest of us - that is why it pays to be polite to Police - and every body you deal with in life as far as you can ...
And some of you forget Jeremy had just been through an unbelievably heavy trauma - how do you thinkthate the already heavily traumatised Jeremy felt and therefore reacted to be treated as a suspect ?
A lot of the questions in the interviews were idiotically stupid - DC Jones was not the cleverest of coppers - no surprise Jeremy refused to engage with some of his idiotic questions ...
-
Wouldn't anyone stand firm and stand up to the law if they knew themselves they were right ? Oh,I see,you wouldn't ! You'd take the psychological abuse and hope for the best ?
You don't appear to be considering those people who are guilty who stand up to the police in order to try and fool them?
How do/would they behave?
To what psychological abuse are you referring?
The police didn't psychologically abuse Bamber. If you read his police interviews they were actually quite accommodating; unless you can give an example of what you perceive to be otherwise?
-
[/b]
It is likely she read Psalm 51 before having a shower and went back to reading it after her shower ...
There were no bloodied fingerprints found on the Bible or this would have been disclosed at Trial ...
Thanks for clearing that up.
So Sheila murdered 4 people, got her mothers bible, read it, showered, changed, then killed herself.
-
Police don't like being beaten at their game. The fact that JB didn't have a solicitor,nor was offered one ? with his initial interview tells me that he'd felt sure ( naively ) that his story would have been believed and that he'd had nothing to worry about. So far as I can recollect,JB hadn't even " broken down " as many guilty persons do,unless they're macho hardened criminals,of which he wasn't in that category.
Can you give examples of what games you are referring the police played?
When JB was first I viewed the police believed it was a murder/suicide.
Bamber did have a solicitor present during his police interviews. Read the transcripts.
Where does is show he was "naive?"
What about the caravan burglary? Did he behave naively then?
The growing of can ibis on the farm; was that come out of nativity?
Why do you think he didn't " break down?" If someone doesn't "break down" was do you interpret from this?
What is your definition of a Macho hardened criminal?
-
Thanks for clearing that up.
So Sheila murdered 4 people, got her mothers bible, read it, showered, changed, then killed herself.
Exactly - it really is that simple ...
She probably looked at Psalm 51 again after her shower though ...
It happened exactly how the Police immediately thought it had happened ...
Until the silencer and Julie turned up ....
That is a different story ...
One put together by Robert Boutflour for financial reasons ...
He also did not want to see his make up wearing "queer" adopted drug dealing nephew take all the familys money ...
Give him credit though - he probably really did believe it was Jeremy ...
Jeremy asked him to confess to what he had done before he died - he did not ...
Let us hope that Julie or David do though ...
-
I can see no contradictions ...
I have looked at it from all angles to finally see the truth ...
Please feel free to point out any apparent contradiction and I will explain ...
I watch remarkably little television Stephanie - but I am highly experienced in life and people ...
You can see no contradictions even though I've pointed you to one?
You clearly haven't looked at it from all angles, you've looked at it from your angle of bias as your posts confirm.
What do you mean by you are highly experienced in life and people? Please give an example how you are better placed to understand this case over and above anyone else.
-
Exactly - it really is that simple ...
It is exactly what the Police realised it was immediately ...
Until the silencer and Julie turned up ....
That is a different story ...
One put together by Robert Boutflour for financial reasons ...
He also did not want to see his make up wearing "queer" adopted drug dealing nephew take all the familys money ...
Give him credit though - he probably really did believe it was Jeremy ...
Jeremy asked him to confess to what he had done before he died - he did not ...
Let us hope that Julie or David do though ...
Sheila must have been a passionate bible reader.
To seek out her mothers bible, be committed enough to calm herself down & then read it. After killing 4 people.
Have you got a source she was a passionate bible reader ?
-
Are you suggesting police put words into the mouths of criminals ?
And are you suggestions, for example, career criminals are brainwashed?
Or are you referring to yourself or your own perception?
Police do put words in the mouths of those who've been arrested especially when it's put to them,the arrested person, " that I suggest you carried out the said crime ",to which that person will first obviously say " no ",until this auto-suggestion continues to the suspect until he/she breaks ,which at that stage doesn't indicate guilt or innocence. Someone with their head held high won't falter but somewhere along the line you can bet that the police will make that possible and because JB was determined to " fight his corner " it didn't go down well because the law always wants to appear to be right.
Ask yourself why there are so many MOJ's,when in YOUR reality/argument there shouldn't be because the law is ALWAYS right ?
P.S. The law aren't averse to carrying out the odd murder themselves------yet they're in positions of upholding the law ? A disgusting example of what they should stand for. Shouldn't they be crime-free to set an example ?
Do as I say and not as I do would be their motto.!
-
Do you think in 1985 that DC Jones would have liked the make up wearing "queer" local drug dealer who was better educated than him, better looking than him and was about to by a car that DC jones could only dream of and was about to inherit massively and who probably had zero respect for him because he was a policeman ?
Let me give you a clue - he probably did not ...
You are showing bias.
Why would DC Jones be concerned by JB's make up or by his sexual persuasions?
Why do you perceive JB to be better educated than DC Jones? What is your interpretation of intelligence? There are many intelligent and unintelligent drug dealers. Just like those people who are privately educated are no more or less intelligent than those who aren't.
I do not think Bamber was good looking, but that's my own perception of him.
Are you referring to the kit car?
and are you suggesting the police treated Bamber differently because he may or may not have owned or brought a flash motor?
Are you sure you are living in the real world? You accuse others of not living in reality but your posts suggest it is you who has a screwed perception of reality.
-
Many people would not behave like he did ..
I would have done - if I was innocent ...
We are all different and react differently ...
I understand 100% every one of his reactions ...
Simply because you understand every one of his reactions doesn't make him innocent.
Amyway I thought you said you were keeping an open mind and looking at all angles. Clearly you aren't!
-
It is normally the cocky arrogant ones who get the worst outcomes - Police are only too human like the rest of us - that is why it pays to be polite to Police - and every body you deal with in life as far as you can ...
And some of you forget Jeremy had just been through an unbelievably heavy trauma - how do you thinkthate the already heavily traumatised Jeremy felt and therefore reacted to be treated as a suspect ?
A lot of the questions in the interviews were idiotically stupid - DC Jones was not the cleverest of coppers - no surprise Jeremy refused to engage with some of his idiotic questions ...
If there had been anything in his demeanour, approaching trauma, I might feel inclined to agree. He certainly didn't appear too 'traumatized' to recognize and take the pxxs out of what, in you're opinion, were "idiotically stupid" questions.
-
So how many times have you been taken into custody and questioned?
And how many times have you been directly linked to someone accused of murder Or indeed have murdered Lookout?
-
After a very long time considering this case I have now worked out exactly what happened ...
I have considered every possibility with a very open mind indeed ....
There is only one scenario that stands up to scrutiny ....
Here it is .....
Sheila was reading Psalm 51 because she had just murdered her family ....
She wanted to be forgiven by God for the murders ...
That is why she had washed herself ....
It was Sheila that moved the gun that WPC Jeaves saw in the window ....
It was Sheila that was seen moving in the other window ...
Sheila killed herself after the Police were outside the farm - that is why her blood was still wet ...
David Boutflour (and possibly others) planted the silencer ....
The relatives put Julie up to the false confession - which is why she wrongly repeats things AE told her ...
DC Jones was more than happy to coach Julie - he was up for noble cause corruption ....
The relatives did it because they thought Jeremy was guilty and to avoid impending financial ruin ...
This is why Robert Boutflour lied to the jury about the inheritance ....
I have no doubt all the relatives and Sheila and DC Jones were convinced that Jeremy did it ....
But he did not - he is 100% innocent of any involvement in this crime .....
Now I have satisfied myself without any doubt what happened it is time for stage 2 ....
Stage 2 is I am going to prove to the world exactly what happened ....
Jeremy Bamber needs to be released right now .....
Well as long as you have satisfied yourself ;D ;D ;D ;D Warder! Fetch the key to Bambers cell, Sherlock has cracked the case! .............. Wake up Sherlock ........ Sherlock! You're dreaming WAKE UP! Ah! Back to reality! ;D ;D
-
My opinion is she would have had a complete extremely thorough shower before putting very clean clothes on ...
This is because of Psalm 51 - she was attempting to physically wash away her sin as well as spiritually - it is what people who believe Psalm 51 would do in that situation after murdering someone ...
Have you surveyed people who believe in Psalm 51? Especially those with murder in mind?
-
I can see no contradictions ...
I have looked at it from all angles to finally see the truth ...
Please feel free to point out any apparent contradiction and I will explain ...
I watch remarkably little television Stephanie - but I am highly experienced in life and people ...
What did WPC Jeapes see in the window then ?
For your theory to be right then a highly trained firearms INSTRUCTOR must have been very wrong ...
She was not wrong Stephanie - people like her do not make mistakes like that ...
That is also why there was also movement seen in another window by another Police Officer ...
This is why Sheilas blood was still wet ...
Psalm 51 puts it 100% on Sheila ...
It is normally the cocky arrogant ones who get the worst outcomes - Police are only too human like the rest of us - that is why it pays to be polite to Police - and every body you deal with in life as far as you can ...
Here is one example
Please explain why you have contradicted yourself in order to suit any given argument you come up with at that moment. Lookout does the exact same thing over and over. And like you appears to not see it, ignore it and not recognise its relevance.
-
Many people would not behave like he did ..
I would have done - if I was innocent ...
We are all different and react differently ...
I understand 100% every one of his reactions ...
That maybe one of the differences between us. Understanding -even 100%- doesn't mean condoning, doesn't mean sympathizing with, doesn't mean believing in innocence.
-
I'm still waiting for Sherlock's source that Sheila was a passionate reader of the bible. Requested twice on this thread.
-
And how many times have you been directly linked to someone accused of murder Or indeed have murdered Lookout?
NONE,but you've only to look at live reports on those who have. Though not all police behaviours are televised.
-
Quote today from Sherlock -
'Now I have satisfied myself without any doubt what happened it is time for stage 2 ....
Stage 2 is I am going to prove to the world exactly what happened ....
Jeremy Bamber needs to be released right now .....'
-----------------
The best way to 'prove to the world' is off the forum.
-
Do you think in 1985 that DC Jones would have liked the make up wearing "queer" local drug dealer who was better educated than him, better looking than him and was about to by a car that DC jones could only dream of and was about to inherit massively and who probably had zero respect for him because he was a policeman ?
Let me give you a clue - he probably did not ...
Why would Jeremy Bamber have no respect for him because he was a policeman? Or are you suggesting you thought this, so JB must have also.
Or has JB told you he has no repeat for policemen?
-
Quote today from Sherlock -
'Now I have satisfied myself without any doubt what happened it is time for stage 2 ....
Stage 2 is I am going to prove to the world exactly what happened ....
Jeremy Bamber needs to be released right now .....'
-----------------
The best way to 'prove to the world' is off the forum.
;D ;D ;D ;D Adam lol
I wonder if Sherlock smokes a pipe?
-
Do you think in 1985 that DC Jones would have liked the make up wearing "queer" local drug dealer who was better educated than him, better looking than him and was about to by a car that DC jones could only dream of and was about to inherit massively and who probably had zero respect for him because he was a policeman ?
Let me give you a clue - he probably did not ...
Might that not be a reflection of your own views, rather than another's?
-
Her statement is in the forum library ...
It is entirely separate from the "trick of the light" sighting of movement in the window seen by the 2 Police officers walking around outside the farm with Jeremy.
Not only is a separate sighting it was a totally different window in a different part of the house ...
Those 2 officers statements are also in the forum library ...
Which you now know yourself could be human error!
What point are you trying to make?
-
;D ;D ;D ;D Adam lol
I wonder if Sherlock smokes a pipe?
Or opium.................OR plays the violin?
-
NONE,but you've only to look at live reports on those who have. Though not all police behaviours are televised.
You are losing me now lookout. What do you mean by live reports? The newspapers? TV etc?
And what police behaviours are you referring to?
More importantly what is the relevance to your answer in response to mine?
Thought we were referring to life experiences and you had suggested you life experiences put you in a better position to understand this case than anyone else. As though you were on par with Sherlock.
-
How pathetic.
To Sherlock-------don't let the childish baiting beat you. Stand strong like Jeremy's doing.
-
Your observations are 100% accurate - I agree with every word of your post 100%
I disagree 100% Yours and indeed Lookouts observations are 100% bias!
And your silence to questions posed since, supports this further.
Neither of you have posted anything credible and youve contradicted yourselves left right and centre.
-
Here is one example
Please explain why you have contradicted yourself in order to suit any given argument you come up with at that moment. Lookout does the exact same thing over and over. And like you appears to not see it, ignore it and not recognise its relevance.
Yes I can explain the difference ...
A trained firearms INSTRUCTOR responding to an armed situation rarely makes mistakes ...
They are hand picked to be highly accurate (in every sense) and reliable Officers ...
They are trained to be HIGHLY observant ....
Your average 1985 copper on the other hand was - lets just say- not so capable ....
This is why I used the phrase "an Officer like her" ...
-
I disagree 100% Yours and indeed Lookouts observations are 100% bias!
And your silence to questions posed since, supports this further.
Neither of you have posted anything credible and youve contradicted yourselves left right and centre.
100% Biased-----like your posts ? Your posts are bordering on the ridiculous as well as the neurotic.
-
Yes I can explain the difference ...
A trained firearms INSTRUCTOR responding to an armed situation rarely makes mistakes ...
They are hand picked to be highly accurate (in every sense) and reliable Officers ...
They are trained to be HIGHLY observant ....
Your average 1985 copper on the other hand was - lets just say- not so capable ....
This is why I used the phrase "an Officer like her" ...
Maybe you should look at cases involving armed police. They are. Regular occurrence in the states. Alternatively speak to Mike T - he'll most probably be able to give you some good examples.
Psychopaths are wired to be highly observant just as non psychopaths can be highly observant. A bird watcher is highly observant. Doesn't mean they don't make mistakes.
Not sure what point you are trying to make other than you are avoiding explaining your quite apparent contradiction.
-
100% Biased-----like your posts ? Your posts are bordering on the ridiculous as well as the neurotic.
Why do you always revert to the same behaviour Lookout?
Instead of attacking me why don't you attack my posts.
Point me to my bias. Explain how and why I am bias.
And STOP projecting your character flaws onto me!
-
How pathetic.
Stand strong like Jeremy's doing.
Jeremy Bamber is a coward. There is nothing strong in his behaviours unless of course you can give an example of one?
-
Why do you always revert to the same behaviour Lookout?
Instead of attacking me why don't you attack my posts.
Point me to my bias. Explain how and why I am bias.
Because you leave your post,which ARE aimed at me personally,open to criticism of them and you !
If you can't see your own bias then you most certainly have a problem. You are saying that JB's guilty,right ? Well in that case you're biased towards his guilt.Right ?
-
A trained firearms INSTRUCTOR responding to an armed situation rarely makes mistakes ...
They are hand picked to be highly accurate (in every sense) and reliable Officers ...
Sounds like a quote from an action movie
-
Because you leave your post,which ARE aimed at me personally,open to criticism of them and you !
Please provide an example of where I have critisised you personally.
-
Please provide an example of where I have critisised you personally.
In all your posts. Critisise my posts and you're automatically criticising me as well as me being the author of the said posts.
-
If you can't see your own bias then you most certainly have a problem. You are saying that JB's guilty,right ? Well in that case you're biased towards his guilt.Right ?
I have looked at this case from both sides. I am yet to see anything which suggests Bamber to be innocent.
Point me to where you have ever considered him to be guilty? Maybe it is you who has the problem to which you refer I have? Have you considered this?
-
Maybe you should look at cases involving armed police. They are. Regular occurrence in the states. Alternatively speak to Mike T - he'll most probably be able to give you some good examples.
Psychopaths are wired to be highly observant just as non psychopaths can be highly observant. A bird watcher is highly observant. Doesn't mean they don't make mistakes.
Not sure what point you are trying to make other than you are avoiding explaining your quite apparent contradiction.
All Police are armed in USA - so mistakes will be common ...
Only hand picked highly trained Officers are issued with guns in the UK
To become a Police firearms INSTRUCTOR in UK you have to be in the top 1% of Officers ...
There was no contradiction - I said "an Officer like her" - big difference to an average Officer - especially in 1985 ....
If you are sure beyond doubt that WPC Jeapes was wrong then I wonder what logic helped you arrive at that definite conclusion ?
Or do you know she was wrong because it contradicts your gut instinct about this case ?
-
How pathetic.
To Sherlock-------don't let the childish baiting beat you. Stand strong like Jeremy's doing.
;D I will be going strong long after they have crumbled ;)
-
Sounds like a quote from an action movie
It is straight out of actual reality )
-
In all your posts. Critisise my posts and you're automatically criticising me as well as me being the author of the said posts.
This is NOT personal Lookout!
-
I have looked at this case from both sides. I am yet to see anything which suggests Bamber to be innocent.
Point me to where you have ever considered him to be guilty? Maybe it is you who has the problem to which you refer I have? Have you considered this?
Point me in the direction of your non-biased posts.
Though what your argument has to do with anything I don't know. I don't question your personal opinion of the case because,like others,your mind's made up,so why tell me that I have the problem just because I say he's innocent ?
-
I have looked at this case from both sides. I am yet to see anything which suggests Bamber to be innocent.
Point me to where you have ever considered him to be guilty? Maybe it is you who has the problem to which you refer I have? Have you considered this?
I have spent about 50% of my time considering whether he is guilty ...
I have concluded that he is not for the reasons given in this thread ..
-
There would never have been a case to answer to had the times of death been recorded.
-
Have you surveyed people who believe in Psalm 51? Especially those with murder in mind?
The purpose of Psalm 51 is to receive forgiveness after the sin of murder ...
Traditionally physical washing is done by Christians whilst praying for spiritual forgiveness ...
I have "surveyed" a Church of England vicar on this exact point of the relevance of Psalm 51 ...
He agrees with me 100% ....
I am not wrong on this point ...
-
The purpose of Psalm 51 is to receive forgiveness after the sin of murder ...
T
The bible gives us 13 passages on killing -probably the most famous being, quite explicitly and without compromise "Thou shalt not kill". As only God has the right to take life, there is no forgiveness.
-
The bible gives us 13 passages on killing -probably the most famous being, quite explicitly and without compromise "Thou shalt not kill". As only God has the right to take life, there is no forgiveness.
But only one passage has any relevance to someone seeking God's forgiveness after murder - Psalm 51
Sheila would have believed she was doing the right thing when she killed them ...
But she still wanted to be close to God before she died ..
-
But only one passage has any relevance to someone seeking God's forgiveness after murder - Psalm 51
Sheila would have believed she was doing the right thing when she killed them ...
But she still wanted to be close to God before she died ..
I asked the vicar which passage of the Bible a Christian would turn to after committing murder ...
He said what I already knew - Psalm 51
And physical cleaning is often a part of spiritual cleaning ...
-
But only one passage has any relevance to someone seeking God's forgiveness after murder - Psalm 51
Sheila would have believed she was doing the right thing when she killed them ...
But she still wanted to be close to God before she died ..
The bible makes it very clear that there can be NO forgiveness for taking a life. The Psalms are only a series of poems, NOT the word of God as handed down.
-
I asked the vicar which passage of the Bible a Christian would turn to after committing murder ...
He said what I already knew - Psalm 51
And physical cleaning is often a part of spiritual cleaning ...
Then perhaps you should ask him whose word has greater worth to a committed Christian, the word of God, or the words of a poet. You could also try asking him if any committed Christian would consider taking ONE life, let alone FIVE.
-
Her statement is in the forum library ...
It is entirely separate from the "trick of the light" sighting of movement in the window seen by the 2 Police officers walking around outside the farm with Jeremy.
Not only is a separate sighting it was a totally different window in a different part of the house ...
Those 2 officers statements are also in the forum library ...
I've already read her statement but it makes no sense to me. She talks about being on the right side of the building, then talks about the front door and about the room to the right of the front door being the kitchen.
-
The bible makes it very clear that there can be NO forgiveness for taking a life. The Psalms are only a series of poems, NOT the word of God as handed down.
It is not clear
It is much debated whether murder is the so called unforgivable sin or not ...
Here is one translation of line 14 of Psalm 51
"Rescue me from the guilt of murder, O God, the God who delivers me! Then my tongue will shout for joy because of your deliverance."
You can find this particular translation here :
http://biblehub.com/net/psalms/51.htm
It is a modern translation which is why it uses the word murder and not the old fashioned blood guilt
It is clear that Psalm 51 is a call for forgiveness after murder ...
Whether or not God does actually forgive murderers is a whole different debate ...
The meaning of line 14 of Psalm 51 is however beyond debate - it is crystal clear ...
-
I'm still waiting for Sherlocks source that Sheila was a passionate reader of the bible & lived her life accordingly. Third request.
He slso only very briefly addressed one of the points I gave him in reply 17. Altbough said he was going to address them all.
-
I've already read her statement but it makes no sense to me. She talks about being on the right side of the building, then talks about the front door and about the room to the right of the front door being the kitchen.
I think we should start a separate thread about WPC Jeapes statement to clarify it ...
But for now I am sure you will agree this is her words from that statement :
" I could also see a window on the first floor of white/red side where the building is clad in grey brick in which was what appeared to be a rifle leaning against the window. "
This was shortly after she saw Jeremy and the 2 officers towards the farmhouse - so about the time they initially reported seeing movement in a totally different window ...
-
It is not clear
It is much debated whether murder is the so called unforgivable sin or not ...
Here is one translation of line 14 of Psalm 51
"Rescue me from the guilt of murder, O God, the God who delivers me! Then my tongue will shout for joy because of your deliverance."
You can find this particular translation here :
http://biblehub.com/net/psalms/51.htm
It is a modern translation which is why it uses the word murder and not the old fashioned blood guilt
It is clear that Psalm 51 is a call for forgiveness after murder ...
Whether or not God does actually forgive murderers is a whole different debate ...
The meaning of line 14 of Psalm 51 is however beyond debate - it is crystal clear ...
It matters NOT A JOT what are the translations. The Psalms, beautifully worded though some are, are, in reality, no more than Biblical 'pop' songs. They are not the 'Word' of God. There is nothing specifically written -which is God's word- which proclaim that he will forgive murder committed by one of his followers. That you say "Whether or not God does actually forgive murderers is a whole different debate..." suggests you may have have asked 'your' vicar a question in isolation to get the answer you were seeking.
-
I'm still waiting for Sherlocks source that Sheila was a passionate reader of the bible & lived her life accordingly. Third request.
He slso only briefly addressed one of the points I gave him in reply 17. Altbough said he was going to address them all.
You are the only forum member who has tried to put up detailed logical reasons why I am wrong about Sheila doing it .
So out of respect I will take time to fully analysis all of your detailed reasons before responding ...
But I also agree with some of Davids points about your debating style Adam ;D
-
Then perhaps you should ask him whose word has greater worth to a committed Christian, the word of God, or the words of a poet. You could also try asking him if any committed Christian would consider taking ONE life, let alone FIVE.
Cain murdered Abel Jane ...
All Christians commit sin - even murder ...
A Christian having a psychotic breakdown is as likely to murder as anyone else having a psychotic breakdown ...
I would agree that a Christian not having a psychotic breakdown is less likely to consider or commit murder than a non believer ....
-
You are the only forum member who has tried to put up detailed logical reasons why I am wrong about Sheila doing it .
So out of respect I will take time to fully analysis all of your detailed reasons before responding ...
But I also agree with some of Davids points about your debating style Adam ;D
It's evidence reasons. A lot from the 'court of appeal'. Evidence needs to be addressed.
Obviously a source needs to be supplied that Sheila was a passionate bible reader & lived her life according to the bible. Perhaps she went to bible classes in London, like June did near to WHF.
Anyway. I look forward to you're source.
-
It matters NOT A JOT what are the translations. The Psalms, beautifully worded though some are, are, in reality, no more than Biblical 'pop' songs. They are not the 'Word' of God. There is nothing specifically written -which is God's word- which proclaim that he will forgive murder committed by one of his followers. That you say "Whether or not God does actually forgive murderers is a whole different debate..." suggests you may have have asked 'your' vicar a question in isolation to get the answer you were seeking.
I think you misunderstand me Jane
I am not saying that God does or does not forgive murder ...
I am saying that many Christians believe that he does ...
And they believe that Psalm 51 is relevant ...
Because of line 14 " Rescue me from the guilt of murder, O God, the God who delivers me!
Then my tongue will shout for joy because of your deliverance."
It might not be what you and many other Christians believe but it is what very many Christians believe ...
I already knew this - the Vicar confirmed it ...
And the particular translation does have relevance to this case ...
The Court of Appeal looked at whether Psalm 51 was relevant ...
The expert Dr Gillingham does not accept line 14 relates to murder because her translation that she believes in is worded differently ...
This was a very bad mistake ...
She should have told the Court of Appeal that different Christians interpret line 14 of Psalm 51 differently ...
As you can see from the link I gave you many Christians translate it as murder ...
She should have told the Court there are different translations and interpretations - she did not ...
She should have shown them the modern translation I have shown you ...
Had the Court been shown this version of the Bible they would have viewed this point differently ...
Psalm 51 is famous for being one of the most differently translated passages in the Bible ...
Jeremys lawyers should have employed a different expert ...
If they get back to the Court of Appeal then they should do exactly this ...
There are plenty of religious experts who could show and explain this to the Court of Appeal properly ...
-
Because you leave your post,which ARE aimed at me personally,open to criticism of them and you !
If you can't see your own bias then you most certainly have a problem. You are saying that JB's guilty,right ? Well in that case you're biased towards his guilt.Right ?
No, my posts are NOT aimed at you personally. They are made in response to your posts. I am NOT critising YOU merely what you post. There is a difference.
You are project g your bias onto me.
-
All Police are armed in USA - so mistakes will be common ...
Only hand picked highly trained Officers are issued with guns in the UK
To become a Police firearms INSTRUCTOR in UK you have to be in the top 1% of Officers ...
There was no contradiction - I said "an Officer like her" - big difference to an average Officer - especially in 1985 ....
If you are sure beyond doubt that WPC Jeapes was wrong then I wonder what logic helped you arrive at that definite conclusion ?
Or do you know she was wrong because it contradicts your gut instinct about this case ?
You contradiction was when you referred to humans making mistakes in another post
There are numerous others
-
I think you misunderstand me Jane
I am not saying that God does or does not forgive murder ...
I am saying that many Christians believe that he does ...
And they believe that Psalm 51 is relevant ...
Because of line 14 " Rescue me from the guilt of murder, O God, the God who delivers me!
Then my tongue will shout for joy because of your deliverance."
It might not be what you and many other Christians believe but it is what very many Christians believe ...
I already knew this - the Vicar confirmed it ...
And the particular translation does have relevance to this case ...
The Court of Appeal looked at whether Psalm 51 was relevant ...
The expert Dr Gillingham does not accept line 14 relates to murder because her translation that she believes in is worded differently ...
This was a very bad mistake ...
She should have told the Court of Appeal that different Christians interpret line 14 of Psalm 51 differently ...
As you can see from the link I gave you many Christians translate it as murder ...
She should have told the Court there are different translations and interpretations - she did not ...
She should have shown them the modern translation I have shown you ...
Had the Court been shown this version of the Bible they would have viewed this point differently ...
Psalm 51 is famous for being one of the most differently translated passages in the Bible ...
Jeremys lawyers should have employed a different expert ...
If they get back to the Court of Appeal then they should do exactly this ...
There are plenty of religious experts who could show and explain this to the Court of Appeal properly ...
I don't believe any more Christians believe the 'murder' translation than believe the 1 Corinthians 13:13 quotation " And now there remains these three. Faith hope and charity and the greatest of these is charity" It is accepted, now that for "charity" we can read Love.
-
Though what your argument has to do with anything I don't know.
Why are my arguments not valid?
-
Have you surveyed people who believe in Psalm 51? Especially those with murder in mind?
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/what-s-the-deal-with-psalms-and-in-the-sabrina/article_dd261378-9ccc-11e7-9f6b-33eb8e407a96.html (http://www.bakersfield.com/news/what-s-the-deal-with-psalms-and-in-the-sabrina/article_dd261378-9ccc-11e7-9f6b-33eb8e407a96.html)
-
I have spent about 50% of my time considering whether he is guilty ...
I have concluded that he is not for the reasons given in this thread ..
It doesn't matter how long you've spent considering each option. It's how you've considered it. And as pointed out you reasons are clearly bias and indeed contradictory.
-
It is straight out of actual reality )
Do you mean your reality?
-
I think you misunderstand me Jane
I am not saying that God does or does not forgive murder ...
I am saying that many Christians believe that he does ...
And they believe that Psalm 51 is relevant ...
Because of line 14 " Rescue me from the guilt of murder, O God, the God who delivers me!
Then my tongue will shout for joy because of your deliverance."
It might not be what you and many other Christians believe but it is what very many Christians believe ...
I already knew this - the Vicar confirmed it ...
And the particular translation does have relevance to this case ...
The Court of Appeal looked at whether Psalm 51 was relevant ...
The expert Dr Gillingham does not accept line 14 relates to murder because her translation that she believes in is worded differently ...
This was a very bad mistake ...
She should have told the Court of Appeal that different Christians interpret line 14 of Psalm 51 differently ...
As you can see from the link I gave you many Christians translate it as murder ...
She should have told the Court there are different translations and interpretations - she did not ...
She should have shown them the modern translation I have shown you ...
Had the Court been shown this version of the Bible they would have viewed this point differently ...
Psalm 51 is famous for being one of the most differently translated passages in the Bible ...
Jeremys lawyers should have employed a different expert ...
If they get back to the Court of Appeal then they should do exactly this ...
There are plenty of religious experts who could show and explain this to the Court of Appeal properly ...
.......and as many who would explain it differently.
-
You are the only forum member who has tried to put up detailed logical reasons why I am wrong about Sheila doing it .
So out of respect I will take time to fully analysis all of your detailed reasons before responding ...
But I also agree with some of Davids points about your debating style Adam ;D
Here's an example of your bias ::)
-
I don't believe any more Christians believe the 'murder' translation than believe the 1 Corinthians 13:13 quotation " And now there remains these three. Faith hope and charity and the greatest of these is charity" It is accepted, now that for "charity" we can read Love.
The link I sent you was from the New English Testament ...
"The NET Bible (New English Translation) is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars "
It is used and believed by millions of Christians ...
Line 14 of Psalm 51 could not be any clearer it says "MURDER" ...
You can believe what you want Jane ...
But millions of Christians believe the correct translation of line 14 Psalm 51 is "MURDER" ...
That is a fact Jane ...
-
Cain murdered Abel Jane ...
All Christians commit sin - even murder ...
A Christian having a psychotic breakdown is as likely to murder as anyone else having a psychotic breakdown ...
I would agree that a Christian not having a psychotic breakdown is less likely to consider or commit murder than a non believer ....
Any yet more bias
-
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/what-s-the-deal-with-psalms-and-in-the-sabrina/article_dd261378-9ccc-11e7-9f6b-33eb8e407a96.html (http://www.bakersfield.com/news/what-s-the-deal-with-psalms-and-in-the-sabrina/article_dd261378-9ccc-11e7-9f6b-33eb8e407a96.html)
10 out of 10 David ...
Why are other forum members having trouble accepting what Psalm 51 is about ?
It could not be clearer especially if they use a more modern translation ...
-
The link I sent you was from the New English Testament ...
"The NET Bible (New English Translation) is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars "
It is used and believed by millions of Christians ...
Line 14 of Psalm 51 could not be any clearer it says "MURDER" ...
You can believe what you want Jane ...
But millions of Christians believe the correct translation of line 14 Psalm 51 is "MURDER" ...
That is a fact Jane ...
And millions don't, and millions have never heard that psalm because they've never A) learned all the psalms B) have never thought of murder C) would never have considered that the bible might hold a 'get out of jail free" card for them IF they'd considered it...................however, IF we look at why they MAY, it would take a very controlled and clear mind to A) consider murdering five people B) trawl through the bible to see if there was any forgiveness offered after having done such. NOT the action of a psychotic, wouldn't you agree.
-
10 out of 10 David ...
Why are other forum members having trouble accepting what Psalm 51 is about ?
It could not be clearer especially if they use a more modern translation ...
a prime example of confirmation bias
By "others" you clearly mean those of us who believe Bamber to be guilty
-
10 out of 10 David ...
Why are other forum members having trouble accepting what Psalm 51 is about ?
It could not be clearer especially if they use a more modern translation ...
Caroline's post was clear
Have you surveyed people who believe in Psalm 51? Especially those with murder in mind?
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/what-s-the-deal-with-psalms-and-in-the-sabrina/article_dd261378-9ccc-11e7-9f6b-33eb8e407a96.html (http://www.bakersfield.com/news/what-s-the-deal-with-psalms-and-in-the-sabrina/article_dd261378-9ccc-11e7-9f6b-33eb8e407a96.html)
But David replied with one link - showing his confirmation bias
What is clear is you are looking for people to agree with you and your biased opinion
-
The link I sent you was from the New English Testament ...
"The NET Bible (New English Translation) is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars "
It is used and believed by millions of Christians ...
Line 14 of Psalm 51 could not be any clearer it says "MURDER" ...
You can believe what you want Jane ...
But millions of Christians believe the correct translation of line 14 Psalm 51 is "MURDER" ...
That is a fact Jane ...
If you are referring to it being "a fact" in relation to SC then you would need to provide her (Shiela"s) evidence to back that up.
You can't therefore is is merely your opinion NOT a fact Sherlock
-
Biased towards innocence.
Biased towards guilt.
What IS the problem exactly ??
-
Biased towards innocence.
Biased towards guilt.
What IS the problem exactly ??
Instead of ignoring my posts in response to your own, maybe if you were to read them and consider them in relation to your arguments and reply to them, you may then understand what is meant by bias.
Alternatively you could google confirmation bias
What do you think the problem is?
-
What IS the problem exactly ??
Your arguments aren't objective
-
And millions don't, and millions have never heard that psalm because they've never A) learned all the psalms B) have never thought of murder C) would never have considered that the bible might hold a 'get out of jail free" card for them IF they'd considered it...................however, IF we look at why they MAY, it would take a very controlled and clear mind to A) consider murdering five people B) trawl through the bible to see if there was any forgiveness offered after having done such. NOT the action of a psychotic, wouldn't you agree.
Why then do you think the bloodstains are on Psalm 51 then ?
Just a huge massive coincidence ?
Not even remotely possible Jane ..
The bloodstains were on Psalm 51 for a very good reason ...
-
10 out of 10 David ...
Why are other forum members having trouble accepting what Psalm 51 is about ?
It could not be clearer especially if they use a more modern translation ...
It's not a case of accepting anything - it's irrelevant
-
Caroline's post was clear
But David replied with one link - showing his confirmation bias
What is clear is you are looking for people to agree with you and your biased opinion
What is clear is Psalm 51 is about seeking forgiveness after murder ...
The bloodstains were on Psalm 51 ...
I can see the relevance - David can and Steve can ...
I am puzzled why some of you others are struggling with seeing it ?
It really is not that hard to grasp ....
Davids link explains how a murderer gets comfort from Psalm 51 ...
Where is the bias in that ?
-
Why then do you think the bloodstains are on Psalm 51 then ?
Just a huge massive coincidence ?
Not even remotely possible Jane ..
The bloodstains were on Psalm 51 for a very good reason ...
Clearly not........................with your mindset. The only way I can see that it's feasible is if Sheila had preplanned the whole thing. I wonder just how many theologians she had to approach to find out if there was any passage in the bible which might suggest that God forgives murder. I wonder if she could have found it on the spur of the moment if she'd made a sudden decision? Oh! and what about the psychosis? SURELY, a clear and lucid mother isn't going to murder her parents AND her beloved children, then shoot herself for the fun of it? You appear to have taken something in isolation and run with it. You haven't looked a the whole story, and from what I can ascertain, you're not actually bothered about it as long as you think your 'bit' fits.
-
Instead of ignoring my posts in response to your own, maybe if you were to read them and consider them in relation to your arguments and reply to them, you may then understand what is meant by bias.
Alternatively you could google confirmation bias
What do you think the problem is?
It's you who's telling supporters that they're bias,not me. As usual,it's your over-use of the word,like projection and psychopath.
-
What is clear is Psalm 51 is about seeking forgiveness after murder ...
The bloodstains were on Psalm 51 ...
I can see the relevance - David can and Steve can ...
I am puzzled why some of you others are struggling with seeing it ?
It really is not that hard to grasp ....
Davids link explains how a murderer gets comfort from Psalm 51 ...
Where is the bias in that ?
It's not so much that I'm "struggling with seeing it" -it IS an explanation of the text, though whether it's generally accepted or relevant is up for grabs- it's more that I can't build an acceptable and believable story round it, and there HAS to be one. it didn't just happen out of the blue.
-
Obviously Sheila was a very passionate & knowledgable bible reader.
She also lived her life according to the bible. As even in a psychotic & murderous rage she was determined enough to seek it out to read. Prior to her shower & killing herself.
Sheila even knew what page to go to as apparently the page relates to murder & suicide. No one who is not a passionate & knowledgable bible reader would have known this.
Bit surprised Sheila hadn't brought her own bible to WHF.
Anyway, hopefully Sherlock will provide the sources for the above which I have been asking for all of today.
-
Clearly not........................with your mindset. The only way I can see that it's feasible is if Sheila had preplanned the whole thing. I wonder just how many theologians she had to approach to find out if there was any passage in the bible which might suggest that God forgives murder. I wonder if she could have found it on the spur of the moment if she'd made a sudden decision? Oh! and what about the psychosis? SURELY, a clear and lucid mother isn't going to murder her parents AND her beloved children, then shoot herself for the fun of it? You appear to have taken something in isolation and run with it. You haven't looked a the whole story, and from what I can ascertain, you're not actually bothered about it as long as you think your 'bit' fits.
We know that Sheila had murder on her mind for a long time ...
She had told her psychiatrist that she was thinking of murdering her children because they were possessed by the Devil a long time before the murders happened ...
So it was in her mind for a long time ...
I am sure in that time she had somehow become aware of Psalm 51 ...
When she has cracked up and actually done it she turned to Psalm 51 ...
That is why the blood is on Psalm 51
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-bloodied-bible
Psalm 51 is about washing away the sin ...
So she washed herself thoroughly ...
And then she shot herself ....
-
Obviously Sheila was a very passionate & knowledgable bible reader.
She also lived her life according to the bible. As even in a psychotic & murderous rage she was determined enough to seek it out to read. Prior to her shower & killing herself.
Sheila even knew what page to go to as apparently the page relates to murder & suicide. No one who is not a passionate & knowledgable bible reader would have known this.
Bit surprised Sheila hadn't brought her own bible to WHF.
Anyway, hopefully Sherlock will provide the sources for the above which I have been asking for all of today.
Do you believe with a mother like June that Sheila had never read the Bible ?
In 1985 most people were educated about the Bible and religion ...
Sheila was a self confessed white witch - are you aware what that means Adam ?
She believed her children were possessed by the Devil - you think she was not interested in religion ?
Her previous breakdowns were based around religion Adam ...
-
We know that Sheila had murder on her mind for a long time ...
She had told her psychiatrist that she was thinking of murdering her children because they were possessed by the Devil a long time before the murders happened ...
So it was in her mind for a long time ...
I am sure in that time she had somehow become aware of Psalm 51 ...
When she has cracked up and actually done it she turned to Psalm 51 ...
That is why the blood is on Psalm 51
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-bloodied-bible
Psalm 51 is about washing away the sin ...
So she washed herself thoroughly ...
And then she shot herself ....
Haha! You've tied it all up very neatly into you're own tiny ball, haven't you? You throw out sweeping statements like murder had been on her mind for a long time. She never spoke of "murdering" her boys. she spoke of fearing she might hurt them -and they, her- and just to remind you, that was during her first breakdown in 1983 -it also occurs to me that had she STILL been convinced of a link they may have had to Old Nick, she wouldn't have been as keen as she was to have them back in her life permanently- during which, even since when, she'd have been hard pushed to plough through the bible to find the passage you're pushing hopefully. I say, hopefully because you can't even prove that she was a regular bible reader.
-
Sheila wasn't the religious one !
-
Do you believe with a mother like June that Sheila had never read the Bible ?
In 1985 most people were educated about the Bible and religion ...
Sheila was a self confessed white witch - are you aware what that means Adam ?
She believed her children were possessed by the Devil - you think she was not interested in religion ?
Her previous breakdowns were based around religion Adam ...
Such very twisted knots we weave
When we're so des'pret to deceive.
We have to fudge a little bit
And tweak the facts to make'm fit.
-
Do you believe with a mother like June that Sheila had never read the Bible ?
In 1985 most people were educated about the Bible and religion ...
Sheila was a self confessed white witch - are you aware what that means Adam ?
She believed her children were possessed by the Devil - you think she was not interested in religion ?
Her previous breakdowns were based around religion Adam ...
Have you got a source that most people were very educated about the bible in 1985 ?
Sheila wouldn't do what June had maybe told her years earlier. She had just killed her in a psychotic rage.
Can you provide a source that Sheila was very passionate & knowledgeable about the bible. And that she lived her life according to the bible.
Obviously if there is no source, it means Miller was right that Bamber left the bible for the police's benefit.
-
We know that Sheila had murder on her mind for a long time ...
She had told her psychiatrist that she was thinking of murdering her children because they were possessed by the Devil a long time before the murders happened ... Exactly! A LONG time before the murders
So it was in her mind for a long time ... No, it was on her mind then, prior to being given anti-psychotic drugs
I am sure in that time she had somehow become aware of Psalm 51 ... Why?
When she has cracked up and actually done it she turned to Psalm 51 ... Did she?
That is why the blood is on Psalm 51 because someone put it there doesn't have to be Sheila
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-bloodied-bible
Psalm 51 is about washing away the sin ... So she washed away sin to commit sin again by committing suicide?
So she washed herself thoroughly ... Did she change her nightdress?
And then she shot herself .... Nah!
-
Haha! You've tied it all up very neatly into you're own tiny ball, haven't you? You throw out sweeping statements like murder had been on her mind for a long time. She never spoke of "murdering" her boys. she spoke of fearing she might hurt them -and they, her- and just to remind you, that was during her first breakdown in 1983 -it also occurs to me that had she STILL been convinced of a link they may have had to Old Nick, she wouldn't have been as keen as she was to have them back in her life permanently- during which, even since when, she'd have been hard pushed to plough through the bible to find the passage you're pushing hopefully. I say, hopefully because you can't even prove that she was a regular bible reader.
Must be me and Wikipedia that have got that one wrong Jane - you better write and tell them of their mistake quickly ...
wickipedia says ;
"Ferguson wrote that Sheila believed the devil had given her the power to project evil onto others, and that she could make her sons have sex and cause violence with her. She called them the "devil's children", the phrase June had used of Sheila, and said she believed she was capable of murdering them or of getting them to kill others. She spoke about suicide, although the court heard that Ferguson did not regard her as a suicide risk. She was discharged in September 1983"
That was what he said at trial ...
The wickipedia link is :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Farm_murders
Being serious - if you did not know she had told Dr Ferguson she had had thought about killing her children then maybe you should start re thinking your thoughts on this case in light of that piece of news ?
-
'I am sure in that time she had somehow become aware of Psalm 51'
Errr, no. Nobody has made me aware of psalm 51 so far in my life.
I am not sure anyone telling me about it would relate it to murder & suicide. If they did I wouldn't be searching for someone else's bible in a psychotic rage years or decades later.
-
Do you believe with a mother like June that Sheila had never read the Bible ?
In 1985 most people were educated about the Bible and religion ...
Sheila was a self confessed white witch - are you aware what that means Adam ?
She believed her children were possessed by the Devil - you think she was not interested in religion ?
Her previous breakdowns were based around religion Adam ...
I'm sure Sheila would have read the bible -or had it read TO her- at some point.
SOME were bible educated long before 1985.
You seem not to know what a white which is. White witches are esoterics involved with nature, herbal healing, astrology, numerology. They aren't involved in mainstream religion.
The "Devil" thing with the children, when she was ill, was probably a throwback to when June called her "Devil's child". It was probably, at he most vulnerable, her greatest fear.
It's reasonable to assume that fear would play a dominant part in mental illness.
This particular fear seems not to have been a major part of her 1985 breakdown.
-
Caroline - it is understandable to claim maybe Jeremy put the bloodstains on Psalm 51 ...
I can understand people thinking that ...
I can not understand people continuing to argue that Psalm 51 is not relevant to what took place ...
On it's own maybe the bloodstains on Psalm 51 do not indicate who was responsible ...
But I hope in time we can all agree that the bloodstains on Psalm 51 are relevant ...
Because they are ...
-
Such very twisted knots we weave
When we're so des'pret to deceive.
We have to fudge a little bit
And tweak the facts to make'm fit.
If you think I have a fact wrong then please be specific
That way I can explain or learn ...
-
Must be me and Wikipedia that have got that one wrong Jane - you better write and tell them of their mistake quickly ...
wickipedia says ;
"Ferguson wrote that Sheila believed the devil had given her the power to project evil onto others, and that she could make her sons have sex and cause violence with her. She called them the "devil's children", the phrase June had used of Sheila, and said she believed she was capable of murdering them or of getting them to kill others. She spoke about suicide, although the court heard that Ferguson did not regard her as a suicide risk. She was discharged in September 1983"
That was what he said at trial ...
The wickipedia link is :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Farm_murders
Being serious - if you did not know she had told Dr Ferguson she had had thought about killing her children then maybe you should start re thinking your thoughts on this case in light of that piece of news ?
Perhaps you should contact Dr Ferguson and tell him he got it wrong as 'Wiki' says differently from his WS and 'Wiki', according to you, has to be correct.
-
I'm sure Sheila would have read the bible -or had it read TO her- at some point.
SOME were bible educated long before 1985.
You seem not to know what a white which is. White witches are esoterics involved with nature, herbal healing, astrology, numerology. They aren't involved in mainstream religion.
The "Devil" thing with the children, when she was ill, was probably a throwback to when June called her "Devil's child". It was probably, at he most vulnerable, her greatest fear.
It's reasonable to assume that fear would play a dominant part in mental illness.
This particular fear seems not to have been a major part of her 1985 breakdown.
By any definition of white witch it means someone who believes in and is very interested in the spiritual side of life ...
-
Sheila was so knowledgeable about the bible, she even knew the exact page to go to. In another persons bible. While in a psychotic rage.
Unlike Bamber who had to spend 26 minutes flicking through 'Yellow Pages'.
-
Perhaps you should contact Dr Ferguson and tell him he got it wrong as 'Wiki' says differently from his WS and 'Wiki', according to you, has to be correct.
Wiki is not based on his witness statement - it is based on what he said at trial ...
-
Sheila was so knowledgeable about the bible, she even knew the exact page to go to. In another persons bible. While in a psychotic rage.
Unlike Bamber who had to spend 26 minutes flicking through 'Yellow Pages'.
Yes exactly ...
I SUSPECT Jeremy made and smoked a joint when he was woken up ...
Cannabis addicts probably would ...
That would take about 26 minutes in total ...
-
Yes exactly ...
I SUSPECT Jeremy made and smoked a joint when he was woken up ...
Cannabis addicts probably would ...
That would take about 26 minutes in total ...
Smoke a joint.
As you do when you're father says 'Sheila's gone crazy & she's got the gun' & then hangs up.
-
Wiki is not based on his witness statement - it is based on what he said at trial ...
Which was that she barely mentioned her children and family during her second stay in hospital. Nor had she mentioned suicide. I believe he also said he didn't consider her to be a danger to herself or others? Why would he if she'd said nothing to make him think otherwise?
-
It's been established that -
Sheila had to be very knowledgable about the bible. She even knew exactly what page to go to in someone else's bible.
Sheila had to have calmed down sufficiently from her psychotic rage. When she had just killed 4 people. Brutally beating one.
Sheila had to have been very passionate about the bible & lived her life according to the bible. She seeked out someone else's bible & read it. Prior to her shower & killing herself.
All that's needed now are specific sources from Sherlock. Saying about 1985 & what June could have told Sheila is too vague.
-
Sheila wasn't religious.
-
Sheila wasn't religious.
I agree Lookout - this is all very silly.
-
Sheila wasn't religious.
I agree. It was an obvious plant by Bamber.
-
It seems Sheila went from -
Quiet & unresponsive - 10pm.
Psychotic & murdering - 3am.
Reading the bible & having a shower - 3.30am.
I suppose we all have mood swings.
-
Sheila wasn't religious.
Read Dr Fergusons 4 witness statements - they are in the forum library ...
Then come back and tell me Sheila was not obsessed by religion ....
Dr Fergusons 4 statements make it very clear that she was indeed obsessed by religion ...
His fourth handwritten statement makes clear Sheila had thoughts about harming her children ....
Bear in mind Dr Ferguson stood to be held liable for releasing a patient when he should not have done ...
This could easily have finished his career ...
He could have been sued for it as well ...
His social standing would also have been ruined in those days ...
His pension would have been badly affected ....
If Sheila did do it then Dr Ferguson had a lot of very serious questions to answer ...
This is why his first statements claim she was not a threat to her family ...
In his fourth hand written statement he clearly admits Sheila had thoughts about harming her children ...
-
It seems Sheila went from -
Quiet & unresponsive - 10pm.
Psychotic & murdering - 3am.
Reading the bible & having a shower - 3.30am.
I suppose we all have mood swings.
That is a psychotic attack for you Adam ...
And we know from Dr Ferguson that she entered a psychotic state every now and again don't we Adam ?
-
Smoke a joint.
As you do when you're father says 'Sheila's gone crazy & she's got the gun' & then hangs up.
Cannabis addicts are like a heavy cigarette addict ...
Having their morning smoke is more important than anything ...
Especially if they are stressed ...
-
That is a psychotic attack for you Adam ...
And we know from Dr Ferguson that she entered a psychotic state every now and again don't we Adam ?
Yeah. One minute you're asleep. The next minute you're murdering 4 people. The next minute you're reading the bible & having a shower.
I get it.
-
Yeah. One minute you're asleep. The next minute you're murdering 4 people. The next minute you're reading the bible & having a shower.
I get it.
There is nothing to suggest she had slept that night is there Adam ?
More like going from a quite paranoid withdrawn state ...
To a full blown Psychotic state ...
To then killing herself ...
Religious psychotic states make people behave and react in non standard ways Adam ...
Ways completely consistent with what Sheila did that night ...
-
There is nothing to suggest she had slept that night is there Adam ?
More like going from a quite paranoid withdrawn state ...
To a full blown Psychotic state ...
To then killing herself ...
Religious psychotic states make people behave and react in non standard ways Adam ...
Ways completely consistent with what Sheila did that night ...
As Dr Ferguson explains - when Sheila was having a bad day she believed June was part of a coven of evil attempting to draw Sheila into the coven of evil ...
Sheila believed June was out to do evil to her and her children ...
Maybe just maybe June talking about fostering her children out is what led Sheila to - as Dr Ferguson said - do whatever it took to stop June ...
He was clear on that point ...
Sheila had these ideas in her head for a long time and very strongly ...
And as Dr Ferguson said - smoking cannabis and smoking cocaine as she did would have made her even more confused about reality than she already was ...
-
There is nothing to suggest she had slept that night is there Adam ?
More like going from a quite paranoid withdrawn state ...
To a full blown Psychotic state ...
To then killing herself ...
Religious psychotic states make people behave and react in non standard ways Adam ...
Ways completely consistent with what Sheila did that night ...
June did tell PB on the phone that Sheila was going to bed.
She was in a nightdress & bare footed. Although as you said, she put this on after her shower.
-
Read Dr Fergusons 4 witness statements - they are in the forum library ...
Then come back and tell me Sheila was not obsessed by religion ....
Dr Fergusons 4 statements make it very clear that she was indeed obsessed by religion ...
His fourth handwritten statement makes clear Sheila had thoughts about harming her children ....
Bear in mind Dr Ferguson stood to be held liable for releasing a patient when he should not have done ...
This could easily have finished his career ...
He could have been sued for it as well ...
His social standing would also have been ruined in those days ...
His pension would have been badly affected ....
If Sheila did do it then Dr Ferguson had a lot of very serious questions to answer ...
This is why his first statements claim she was not a threat to her family ...
In his fourth hand written statement he clearly admits Sheila had thoughts about harming her children ...
Quite possibly, during her FIRST breakdown, Sheila was obsessed with religion and during THIS time spoke of the fear of harming her children or they, her.
Sheila was in a private hospital. The section rules may not be the same as NHS sections where she'd have been under a 2 or 3, but had Dr Ferguson had any fears for her safety or the safety of others, I feel certain he'd not have allowed this. Effectively, Sheila was able to discharge herself, Dr Ferguson saying simply that he'd have preferred her to stay another week.
-
June did tell PB on the phone that Sheila was going to bed.
She was in a nightdress & bare footed. Although as you said, she put this on after her shower.
The evidence was that her bed looked like no one had slept in it - that is right is it not Adam ?
She might have gone to her bedroom ...
I do not think she slept ...
Even if she had dozed off I am sure she woke up again ...
-
The evidence was that her bed looked like no one had slept in it - that is right is it not Adam ?
She might have gone to her bedroom ...
I do not think she slept ...
Even if she had dozed off I am sure she woke up again ...
How can anyone tell her bed had not been slept in ? Scott Lomax has claimed it.
I'm sure Sheila fell asleep shortly after going to bed at 10pm. Just as June & Nevill did.
-
That is a psychotic attack for you Adam ...
And we know from Dr Ferguson that she entered a psychotic state every now and again don't we Adam ?
Twice. The first time she was undiagnozed and unmedicated. She may have remained well after her release but failed to take her prescribed medication or attend follow up appointments, subsequently suffering a second episode, during which she was given medication by injection.
-
Quite possibly, during her FIRST breakdown, Sheila was obsessed with religion and during THIS time spoke of the fear of harming her children or they, her.
Sheila was in a private hospital. The section rules may not be the same as NHS sections where she'd have been under a 2 or 3, but had Dr Ferguson had any fears for her safety or the safety of others, I feel certain he'd not have allowed this. Effectively, Sheila was able to discharge herself, Dr Ferguson saying simply that he'd have preferred her to stay another week.
Not "quite possibly" Jane - read the 4 statements - the rest of the sentence is accurate once "quite possibly" is removed from the beginning of the sentence ...
"during her FIRST breakdown, Sheila was obsessed with religion and during THIS time spoke of the fear of harming her children or they, her."
Dr Ferguson obviously thought Sheila was not a danger - that is why she was released ...
But she had said she had thoughts of harming her children etc ...
Big mistake releasing her too early by Dr Ferguson in my opinion ...
It happens all the time ...
-
As Dr Ferguson explains - when Sheila was having a bad day she believed June was part of a coven of evil attempting to draw Sheila into the coven of evil ...
Sheila believed June was out to do evil to her and her children ...
Maybe just maybe June talking about fostering her children out is what led Sheila to - as Dr Ferguson said - do whatever it took to stop June ...
He was clear on that point ...
Sheila had these ideas in her head for a long time and very strongly ...
And as Dr Ferguson said - smoking cannabis and smoking cocaine as she did would have made her even more confused about reality than she already was ...
All of which is a description of Sheila during her first breakdown. The smidgeon referring to recreational drugs pertains to her second.
-
Twice. The first time she was undiagnozed and unmedicated. She may have remained well after her release but failed to take her prescribed medication or attend follow up appointments, subsequently suffering a second episode, during which she was given medication by injection.
Let us just agree that Sheila had been know to slip into into psychotic states previously shall we ?
It reminds me of the state she was in when Freddie felt threatened by her and Neville was called to sort her out ...
-
Her " religion " was intermittent along with her state of health and had appeared to worsen when she was at WHF with her mother------------which is what Colin had said. I would suppose that Sheila,being controlled by her mother,became a " different person " in her company having to conform to whatever June read out from " the good book ". Sheila had to endure some of the horror stories from within the Bible as a young child so would have subconsciously learned certain passages,Psalms and chapters only for them to come back and haunt her later on.
When this sort of abuse is drilled into you from early on it's very damaging to people who are vulnerable like Sheila was as it would have festered inside her mind,especially when her mood had been low as Sheila would have thought that she herself was to blame for her failures in life and put it down to " God's will ".
Everything that Sheila did went against what her mother wished.
One thing that has stuck in my mind was when Sheila was made to have an abortion. Neither Sheila nor Colin wanted that,but neither had any say in the matter. To grow up thinking that of your mother,a supposed Christian and regular church goer beggars all understanding.Sheila was 17,not a child, and Colin slightly older. I just find it very disturbing.
It's no wonder Sheila suffered after that. I don't know anyone who wouldn't have. It just fills me with horror.
-
All of which is a description of Sheila during her first breakdown. The smidgeon referring to recreational drugs pertains to her second.
We know from all accounts that her mental health was very far from being good whilst she was visiting the farm that weekend - do we not ?
I hope we can agree on that at least ...
-
Not "quite possibly" Jane - read the 4 statements - the rest of the sentence is accurate once "quite possibly" is removed from the beginning of the sentence ...
"during her FIRST breakdown, Sheila was obsessed with religion and during THIS time spoke of the fear of harming her children or they, her."
Dr Ferguson obviously thought Sheila was not a danger - that is why she was released ...
But she had said she had thoughts of harming her children etc ...
Big mistake releasing her too early by Dr Ferguson in my opinion ...
It happens all the time ...
It's clearly NOT accidental that you're blurring descriptions of her during her first breakdown into her second, nearly 18 months later, when she didn't voice the same fears .
-
Her " religion " was intermittent along with her state of health and had appeared to worsen when she was at WHF with her mother------------which is what Colin had said. I would suppose that Sheila,being controlled by her mother,became a " different person " in her company having to conform to whatever June read out from " the good book ". Sheila had to endure some of the horror stories from within the Bible as a young child so would have subconsciously learned certain passages,Psalms and chapters only for them to come back and haunt her later on.
When this sort of abuse is drilled into you from early on it's very damaging to people who are vulnerable like Sheila was as it would have festered inside her mind,especially when her mood had been low as Sheila would have thought that she herself was to blame for her failures in life and put it down to " God's will ".
Everything that Sheila did went against what her mother wished.
One thing that has stuck in my mind was when Sheila was made to have an abortion. Neither Sheila nor Colin wanted that,but neither had any say in the matter. To grow up thinking that of your mother,a supposed Christian and regular church goer beggars all understanding.Sheila was 17,not a child, and Colin slightly older. I just find it very disturbing.
It's no wonder Sheila suffered after that. I don't know anyone who wouldn't have. It just fills me with horror.
Possibly that is where her delusions about June and a coven of evil started ?
-
Let us just agree that Sheila had been know to slip into into psychotic states previously shall we ?
It reminds me of the state she was in when Freddie felt threatened by her and Neville was called to sort her out ...
No! We damn well WON'T agree! You find me evidence of any other than the TWO psychotic episodes -both resulting in her being hospitalized- we know of, the second one described by Freddie.
-
As Dr Ferguson explains - when Sheila was having a bad day she believed June was part of a coven of evil attempting to draw Sheila into the coven of evil ...
Sheila believed June was out to do evil to her and her children ...
Maybe just maybe June talking about fostering her children out is what led Sheila to - as Dr Ferguson said - do whatever it took to stop June ...
He was clear on that point ...
Sheila had these ideas in her head for a long time and very strongly ...
And as Dr Ferguson said - smoking cannabis and smoking cocaine as she did would have made her even more confused about reality than she already was ...
But she had never stood up to June in the past, though was not the sort of person to let things wash over her as happens in many families. She really did come to see herself as the Devil's child, an unfortunate remark which may have exacerbated but did not cause her schizophrenia.
I do agree about the drugs though. Haven't we got enough problems with alcohol and tobacco without a free for all in the cannabis market?
-
It's clearly NOT accidental that you're blurring descriptions of her during her first breakdown into her second, nearly 18 months later, when she didn't voice the same fears .
You are right - it is not accidental ...
My opinion is that whatever disturbed patterns of thought she had would reappear the next time she was having a psychotic attack ...
Why would those thoughts not reappear ?
Why would a whole new set of delusions completely replace her old delusions ?
It seems logical that those thoughts or similar would reappear next time round ...
Why not ?
-
No! We damn well WON'T agree! You find me evidence of any other than the TWO psychotic episodes -both resulting in her being hospitalized- we know of, the second one described by Freddie.
Two psychotic episodes can be accurately described by my sentence
"Let us just agree that Sheila had been know to slip into into psychotic states previously shall we ?"
Whats not too agree with there ?
-
There is nothing to suggest she had slept that night is there Adam ?
More like going from a quite paranoid withdrawn state ...
To a full blown Psychotic state ...
To then killing herself ...
Religious psychotic states make people behave and react in non standard ways Adam ...
Ways completely consistent with what Sheila did that night ...
That's true as far as it goes, though there is ample evidence that she was tired that week, and her fresh face suggests to me she did get some sleep before being awoken.
-
We know from all accounts that her mental health was very far from being good whilst she was visiting the farm that weekend - do we not ?
I hope we can agree on that at least ...
We actually know very little about her mental health -from mental health experts- but we have some pretty good descriptions from those who saw her during her last fortnight. There are supporters who would like everyone to believe she was working up to another psychotic episode -if she was it was clearly different from symptoms she'd previously exhibited- I'm inclined to believe she was deeply depressed.
-
It's you who's telling supporters that they're bias,not me. As usual,it's your over-use of the word,like projection and psychopath.
As I said Lookout, instead of ignoring my posts in response to your own, maybe if you were to read them and consider them in relation to your arguments and reply to them, you may then understand what is meant by bias.
::)
What have your peceived idea of my "over use of the words like psychopath and projection" got to do with your previous posts and my replies?
Unless of course this is your attempt at diversion
-
We actually know very little about her mental health -from mental health experts- but we have some pretty good descriptions from those who saw her during her last fortnight. There are supporters who would like everyone to believe she was working up to another psychotic episode -if she was it was clearly different from symptoms she'd previously exhibited- I'm inclined to believe she was deeply depressed.
I agree she appeared withdrawn and depressed ...
My personal opinion is that depression is anger turned in on one self ...
Maybe she was supressing a growing amount of anger ?
In my opinion anger often comes from fear ...
Maybe her delusional thinking was ramping up her fear levels too much for her to cope ...
And that caused a full blown psychotic attack ?
-
That's true as far as it goes, though her fresh face suggests to me she did get some sleep before being awoken.
10pm - 2am. That's 4 hours.
Do you agree with Sherlock that Sheila read the bible, had a shower & changed into her sleep clothes. After her psychotic murder ?
-
That's true as far as it goes, though her fresh face suggests to me she did get some sleep before being awoken.
If she did fall asleep for a time she could easily have woken up herself ...
-
You are right - it is not accidental ...
My opinion is that whatever disturbed patterns of thought she had would reappear the next time she was having a psychotic attack ...
Why would those thoughts not reappear ?
Why would a whole new set of delusions completely replace her old delusions ?
It seems logical that those thoughts or similar would reappear next time round ...
Why not ?
And you have proof, do you, that a psychotic holds onto thoughts they have during one attack and keeps them in reserve until the next? I see nothing logical in that, especially when the patient is on medication.
-
10pm - 2am. That's 4 hours.
Do you agree with Sherlock that Sheila read the bible, had a shower & changed into her sleep clothes. After her psychotic murder ?
Why not rephrase that slightly ?
"Do you think it possible that Sheila read the bible, had a shower & changed into her sleep clothes. After her psychotic murder ?
-
10pm - 2am. That's 4 hours.
Do you agree with Sherlock that Sheila read the bible, had a shower & changed into her sleep clothes. After her psychotic murder ?
No some of the blood on her was cracked. I'd like to know how long it takes to assume the characteristic of cracked blood.
-
And you have proof, do you, that a psychotic holds onto thoughts they have during one attack and keeps them in reserve until the next? I see nothing logical in that, especially when the patient is on medication.
I would assume that to be the case very often ...
Do any other forum members know how this type of thing works ?
-
If she did fall asleep for a time she could easily have woken up herself ...
Considering she spent half her life in bed due to the side effects of her medication it's hardly likely.
-
I agree she appeared withdrawn and depressed ...
My personal opinion is that depression is anger turned in on one self ...
Maybe she was supressing a growing amount of anger ?
In my opinion anger often comes from fear ...
Maybe her delusional thinking was ramping up her fear levels too much for her to cope ...
And that caused a full blown psychotic attack ?
You really are floundering now, aren't you. You brag about having found the answer, but you seem to have no idea what the question is. You make up stories about biblical texts being the key, without having a door in which to insert it, then you do a mix and match with her two periods of illness and present them as being one. NOW after absolute certainty, you've resorted to "Maybe's" in the above post. At least that's more honest.
-
After a very long time considering this case I have now worked out exactly what happened ...
I have considered every possibility with a very open mind indeed ....
There is only one scenario that stands up to scrutiny ....
Here it is .....
Sheila was reading Psalm 51 because she had just murdered her family ....
She wanted to be forgiven by God for the murders ...
That is why she had washed herself ....
What is the evidence that she washed herself?
It was Sheila that moved the gun that WPC Jeaves saw in the window ....
It was Sheila that was seen moving in the other window ...
Sheila killed herself after the Police were outside the farm - that is why her blood was still wet ...
If she fired both of her own shots, why would police be fiddling with her crime scene prior to photography; moving bible and rifle etc?
David Boutflour (and possibly others) planted the silencer ....
The relatives put Julie up to the false confession - which is why she wrongly repeats things AE told her ...
Could DS Jones have been the medium for this - i.e. he was somewhat forearmed by the relatives, when pursuing Mugford?
DCS Jones was more than happy to coach Julie - he was up for noble cause corruption ....
Likewise DCS Ainsley was more than happy to appease 'Bobby'. The fact he (Ainsley) already had a junior officer in place (Jones) who hated Jeremy must have been a godsend.
The relatives did it because they thought Jeremy was guilty and to avoid impending financial ruin ...
Led by Robert and Ann, they created such belief because it was what they wanted to believe. They fed off their own fears and arrogant interpretations.
This is why Robert Boutflour lied to the jury about the inheritance ....
I have no doubt all the relatives and Sheila?and DCS Jones were convinced that Jeremy did it ....
I think Ann was more concerned that he was sent down, regardless of whether he did it or not.
But he did not - he is 100% innocent of any involvement in this crime .....
Now I have satisfied myself without any doubt what happened it is time for stage 2 ....
Stage 2 is I am going to prove to the world exactly what happened ....
Jeremy Bamber needs to be released right now .....
-
You really are floundering now, aren't you. You brag about having found the answer, but you seem to have no idea what the question is. You make up stories about biblical texts being the key, without having a door in which to insert it, then you do a mix and match with her two periods of illness and present them as being one. NOW after absolute certainty, you've resorted to "Maybe's" in the above post. At least that's more honest.
The question is who killed the Bamber family is it not Jane ? - so no confusion there ;D
I did not make up Psalm 51 - or put the blood stains on it ...
Read the link Steve put up again if you still have not got Psalm 51's relevance to murder - it really is beyond debate ...
I maintain her delusional thoughts of harming her children and her other delusions are very relevant - it is bizzare you suggest otherwise in my opinion ...
My "maybe" does not relate to my opinion that Sheila did it ...
It was a theory on the underlying emotions of psychosis - but it does not bit my opinion that Sheila did it in any doubt whatsoever ... ;D
-
It was all too easy - they all wanted to believe it ...
Confirmation bias can be a very misleading thing - they all suffered from it because they really did not like him at all ...
People tend to believe what they want to believe - it is even easier if you are going to become rich instead of poor if your hunch is right - which is the position the relatives were in ...
Very well put.
-
After a very long time considering this case I have now worked out exactly what happened ...
I have considered every possibility with a very open mind indeed ....
There is only one scenario that stands up to scrutiny ....
Here it is .....
Sheila was reading Psalm 51 because she had just murdered her family ....
She wanted to be forgiven by God for the murders ...
That is why she had washed herself ....
It was Sheila that moved the gun that WPC Jeaves saw in the window ....
It was Sheila that was seen moving in the other window ...
Sheila killed herself after the Police were outside the farm - that is why her blood was still wet ...
David Boutflour (and possibly others) planted the silencer ....
The relatives put Julie up to the false confession - which is why she wrongly repeats things AE told her ...
DC Jones was more than happy to coach Julie - he was up for noble cause corruption ....
The relatives did it because they thought Jeremy was guilty and to avoid impending financial ruin ...
This is why Robert Boutflour lied to the jury about the inheritance ....
I have no doubt all the relatives and Sheila and DC Jones were convinced that Jeremy did it ....
But he did not - he is 100% innocent of any involvement in this crime .....
Now I have satisfied myself without any doubt what happened it is time for stage 2 ....
Stage 2 is I am going to prove to the world exactly what happened ....
Jeremy Bamber needs to be released right now .....
What is the evidence that she washed herself?
If she fired both of her own shots, why would police be fiddling with her crime scene prior to photography; moving bible and rifle etc?
Could DS Jones have been the medium for this - i.e. he was somewhat forearmed by the relatives, when pursuing Mugford?
Likewise DCS Ainsley was more than happy to appease 'Bobby'. The fact he (Ainsley) already had a junior officer in place (Jones) who hated Jeremy must have been a godsend
Led by Robert and Ann, they created such belief because it was what they wanted to believe. They fed off their own fears and arrogant interpretations.
I think Ann was more concerned that he was sent down, regardless of whether he did it or not.
Why did the police change tact from murder/suicide to murder?
Are you suggesting Jones, Ainsley, Robert and Ann all conspired to fit up an innocent man so that the family could benefit from the inheritance and the CCRC, COA and all others involved over the years have conspired along with them for all this time? You'll next be claiming they were given back handlers to keep up the facade ::)
Surely you can see how far fetched this theory is?
I don't believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty based on Robert and Ann's fears, beliefs or arrogance. There's a wealth of other material pointing to Bambers guilt and in turn SC innocence.
-
I have no evidence Sheila washed herself ...
But it explains why she was clean ...
And it fits with the blood stains on Psalm 51 and the washing away of sin ...
I can see no reason for the Police altering the crime scene - but whatever they did for whatever reason I think that it is irrelevant to the case ...
It is possible DC Jones was the one to turn Julie initially on the suggestion of the relatives ...
I do not know much about DCS Ainsley's involvement - but it is very possible ...
I think you are right about Robert and Anne - I think she is very likely psychopathic - how could she have moved in the farm with her children ? - it is very far from normal behaviour and suggests psychopathy heavily to me - Robert convinced himself through fear, prejudice, greed and arrogance
Great post Roch - you have certainly given me food for thought :)
-
The relatives did not like Jeremy at all for the reasons you say ...
DC Jones did not like Jeremy for the reasons you say ...
Julie hated Jeremy for different reasons ...
They got together and convinced themselves that Jeremy had done it ...
It was all too easy - they all wanted to believe it ...
Confirmation bias can be a very misleading thing - they all suffered from it because they really did not like him at all ...
People tend to believe what they want to believe - it is even easier if you are going to become rich instead of poor if your hunch is right - which is the position the relatives were in ...
Very well put.
Utter rubbish!
There was nothing easy about it at all! If there was, the investigation would have remained a murder/suicide. The police had everything to lose and nothing to gain by admitting they had made a mistake.
A jury convicted Bamber not the relatives. He had ample time to mount his defence and make the claims you and Sherlock have. He didn't! Why not?
People tend to believe what they want to believe.. Especially if it means they save face and do not have to admit they have been wrong for years on end, been duped by a con man and made a public spectacle of themselves in the process..
-
I have no evidence Sheila washed herself ...
But it explains why she was clean ...
And it fits with the blood stains on Psalm 51 and the washing away of sin ...
I can see no reason for the Police altering the crime scene - but whatever they did for whatever reason I think that it is irrelevant to the case ...
And as scipio pointed out "dead people don't move"
I do deal in facts.
Fact Sheila could not have killed herself she was murdered.
Fact after Sheila was dead the killer opened and closed the Bible in Sheila's blood and ultimately stuck it in a pool of blood that formed after she died. I don't believe Sheila was playing with the Bible as someone shot her and more importantly I don't believe that after she was dead, after the killer moved her flat and stuck the gun on her and then her blood flow changed and a pool of blood formed on the floor that she could have been the one who then placed the Bible in such pool of blood because dead people don't move.
-
I have no evidence Sheila washed herself ...
But it explains why she was clean ...
And it fits with the blood stains on Psalm 51 and the washing away of sin ...
Aren't you forgetting this?
I am not trying to "lay the massacre at Sheilas feet".
I quote from my first post in this thread :
"Either Sheila picked the Bible up after killing someone and was using Psalm 51 to help her pray for God's forgiveness - OR
Someone wanted it to look like that is what happened ...
That person would have to have a VERY good religous understanding"
I am saying that maybe Sheila did it - if not then WHOEVER framed her for the murders had a very good knowledge of the Bible ...
Or it was nothing more than coincidence, and holds no relevance - as Caroline pointed out
-
Aren't you forgetting this?
Or it was nothing more than coincidence, and holds no relevance - as Caroline pointed out
No I remember ;D
Can you not work out what happened ?
I reached my conclusion that it was definitely Sheila today !!!
It happened since the post you quoted ;)
-
When did you rule AE out and why?
I am amazed that none of you have actually considered Anne Eaton a serious suspect for having committed the murders herself ...
The Police statements said that just before they entered the kitchen they saw a female body and a male body - if the female body was not Sheila (which I do no believe it was) then who was it ?
To me one of the few certain facts in this case is that David Boutflour (and at least one other) set Jeremy Bamber up with the silencer ....
What his motives were I cannot be sure ...
If Anne did it she could have simply convinced David and Julie Mugford that Jeremy had done it and persuaded them both not to let him get away with it ...
You need to realise that some respectable appearing people would definitely shoot a few people if their lifestyle was threatened to the point that they were going to slip into poverty themselves - a lot of people simply cant handle that prospect and actually don't care what they have to do to avoid it ....
The same questions apply to Bamber
Jane - I do not have a "desire to find a conspiracy at all costs" - I in fact have a desire to "find the truth at all ceosts".
As stated to you before I think the theory that Jeremy Bamber is guilty as charged is very likely - in fact it is probably the most likely theory.
I am however to some extent researching or at least considering every theory that anyone has posted on these forums (those that I have read anyway) ...
You say that long term members can recognise BS - It is a shame not one of you challenged the lady WHEN she posted about being threatened by the Essex monastery lot - it might have saved me believing it had you done so at the time - when I myself was new to the forum ...
You use the word veracity in relation to myself.
Like many words the word veracity has 2 meanings.
One is honesty and if you are challenging my personal honesty in this case then all I can say is you are mistaken.
The second meaning of veracity is accuracy - and I fully admit that in relation to the monastery theory my posts and comments should have been checked more thoroughly before I commented on them and I should have been more careful that the words I used were more accurate - I fully admit it I have not been up to my normal standards of accuracy on this theory and for that I apologise to everybody ...
In mitigation I can only say that apart from briefly years ago I have never believed there is any possible truth in the monastery theory so I have not researched or dealt with it properly - again I apologise ...
And the way I have posted on the monastery theory recently probably does leave a lot to be desired - once again I apologise - but please believe my error in this regard may have been for whatever reasons (did I find myself in a hole because I had taken a post on here as fact and then I had to keep digging ?) - but would I deliberately post something dishonest on these forums ? that is something I could not do - it is too serious a matter as we all know to do that.
I know most people agree with most facts in this case and look forward to a day when we can all agree on all the facts - I hope we can help each other in that regard ...
I like many others have always felt that there is more to this case that meets the eye - but I perfectly accept that we may well be mistaken about this - maybe the truth was exposed in full by the jury ...
But if it was not then that bothers me A LOT ...
-
No I remember ;D
Can you not work out what happened ?
I reached my conclusion that it was definitely Sheila today !!!
It happened since the post you quoted ;)
Actually I personally don't consider Essex Police having framed Jeremy as a possibility ...
Why would they ?
What happened?
How and why did you rule the others out and Sheila in?
Will you be changing your conclusion re Sheila in the near future because let's face it, you do appear to do this often.
-
I would assume that to be the case very often ...
Do any other forum members know how this type of thing works ?
So your flaky theory is built on a bible text that you have no proof of Sheila being cognisant of and the belief -with nothing to back it up- that psychotics 'store' their delusions/hallucinations until their next episode? Hmm!
-
Quote from: scipio_usmc on July 30, 2015, 07:05:PM
Fact after Sheila was dead the killer opened and closed the Bible in Sheila's blood and ultimately stuck it in a pool of blood that formed after she died. I don't believe Sheila was playing with the Bible as someone shot her and more importantly I don't believe that after she was dead, after the killer moved her flat and stuck the gun on her and then her blood flow changed and a pool of blood formed on the floor that she could have been the one who then placed the Bible in such pool of blood because dead people don't move.
How was the Bible placed on that blood stain we see in the photos when the blood was still wet and leave no corresponding stain on the Bible?
We also don't know if it was Sheila's blood on the Bible, and we don't know if it was Sheila's blood on the floor.
-
Quote from: scipio_usmc on July 30, 2015, 07:05:PM
How was the Bible placed on that blood stain we see in the photos when the blood was still wet and leave no corresponding stain on the Bible?
We also don't know if it was Sheila's blood on the Bible, and we don't know if it was Sheila's blood on the floor.
The police placed the bible over the stain, after it had dried, in an attempt to conceal the stain during crime scene photography. This led to members of the raid team questioning the position of the bible - when later shown crime scene images at a briefing. We dont even know if the TFG knew there was a stain on the carpet (i.e. if the second shot was accidental while SOCO were handling the rifle - TFG may not have been present). Nobody was probably meant to see that stain on the carpet. It has come to light because of the tenacity and rule bending of people like Mike Tesko.
-
The police placed the bible over the stain, after it had dried, in an attempt to conceal the stain during crime scene photography. This led to members of the raid team questioning the position of the bible - when later shown crime scene images at a briefing. We dont even know if the TFG knew there was a stain on the carpet (i.e. if the second shot was accidental while SOCO were handling the rifle - TFG may not have been present). Nobody was probably meant to see that stain on the carpet. It has come to light because of the tenacity and rule bending of people like Mike Tesko.
It wasn't concealed very well though - we can all see it. Do you mean that they found Sheila in that position and accidentally fired the gun into her chin?
-
It wasn't concealed very well though - we can all see it.
You and I were never meant to see any images that show the stain under the bible. For all intents and purposes - it didn't exist in theory (and it ceased to exist in real terms when the carpets were hastily burned outside by police).
Do you mean that they found Sheila in that position and accidentally fired the gun into her chin?
I don't think we will ever know what happened in entirety. It's possible and it's been suggested. Sheila being rolled over in to recovery position has been suggested - hence the bloodstain on the carpet. Imagine being a mamber of the TFG? You leave the scene and the next time you are shown the scene - it doesn't look anything like the scene you vacated before SOCO and detectives took over.
-
And you have proof, do you, that a psychotic holds onto thoughts they have during one attack and keeps them in reserve until the next? I see nothing logical in that, especially when the patient is on medication.
A psychotic does hold on to their thoughts,that's what " drives " them in their next and other future attacks. June's description of Sheila being the " Devils child ", then Sheila emulating her mother concerning her twins,was something that had been deep-seated in Sheila's mind/thoughts. This,whether on medication or not.
-
You and I were never meant to see any images that show the stain under the bible. For all intents and purposes - it didn't exist in theory (and it ceased to exist in real terms when the carpets were hastily burned outside by police).
I don't think we will ever know what happened in entirety. It's possible and it's been suggested. Sheila being rolled over in to recovery position has been suggested - hence the bloodstain on the carpet. Imagine being a mamber of the TFG? You leave the scene and the next time you are shown the scene - it doesn't look anything like the scene you vacated before SOCO and detectives took over.
But how could an officer manage to fire the gun under her chin by mistake?
-
Quote from: scipio_usmc on July 30, 2015, 07:05:PM
How was the Bible placed on that blood stain we see in the photos when the blood was still wet and leave no corresponding stain on the Bible?
We also don't know if it was Sheila's blood on the Bible, and we don't know if it was Sheila's blood on the floor.
I rather think it was June's blood on the Bible,the same as they were her droplets of blood on the carpet. I thought it had been established that it had been June's blood anyway.
Clearly,the " battle " that had gone on that night had been between the two women looking at the state of June's body.
-
You and I were never meant to see any images that show the stain under the bible. For all intents and purposes - it didn't exist in theory (and it ceased to exist in real terms when the carpets were hastily burned outside by police).
I don't think we will ever know what happened in entirety. It's possible and it's been suggested. Sheila being rolled over in to recovery position has been suggested - hence the bloodstain on the carpet. Imagine being a mamber of the TFG? You leave the scene and the next time you are shown the scene - it doesn't look anything like the scene you vacated before SOCO and detectives took over.
And why is that? It didn't exist in theory? Not sure what you mean by that - we can see the stain on pictures released to the public domain or we wouldn't be talking about it now. Carpets were taken for analysis - they weren't all burned!
Two people wondered about the crime scene - TWO! And with all that was going on, that's not unusual.
-
Did we ever get the final analysis on the many pieces of carpet ( which AE had complained about having been cut out ) ?
-
A psychotic does hold on to their thoughts,that's what " drives " them in their next and other future attacks. June's description of Sheila being the " Devils child ", then Sheila emulating her mother concerning her twins,was something that had been deep-seated in Sheila's mind/thoughts. This,whether on medication or not.
I will concur that deep rooted thoughts never disappear, but "next" episodes aren't guaranteed and there's no proof of Sheila suffering a third.
-
Did we ever get the final analysis on the many pieces of carpet ( which AE had complained about having been cut out ) ?
They all seemed to contain June's blood I think. I don't remember any where Nevill's blood had been found, and I don't know if they included the bit with the large stain under the Bible.
-
The police placed the bible over the stain, after it had dried, in an attempt to conceal the stain during crime scene photography. This led to members of the raid team questioning the position of the bible - when later shown crime scene images at a briefing. We dont even know if the TFG knew there was a stain on the carpet (i.e. if the second shot was accidental while SOCO were handling the rifle - TFG may not have been present). Nobody was probably meant to see that stain on the carpet. It has come to light because of the tenacity and rule bending of people like Mike Tesko.
The police placed the bible over the stain, after it had dried, in an attempt to conceal the stain during crime scene photography. This led to members of the raid team questioning the position of the bible - when later shown crime scene images at a briefing. We dont even know if the TFG knew there was a stain on the carpet (i.e. if the second shot was accidental while SOCO were handling the rifle - TFG may not have been present). Nobody was probably meant to see that stain on the carpet. It has come to light because of the tenacity and rule bending of people like Mike Tesko.
What people like Mike have shown us is how they have allowed themselves the uncomfortable luxury of changing their minds regardless of the trail of contradictions left behind. You call it "tenacity and rule bending" I call it self delusion.
Will be interesting to see what Sherlock has to say regarding your conspiracy theory Roch ;D
-
And why is that? It didn't exist in theory? Not sure what you mean by that - we can see the stain on pictures released to the public domain or we wouldn't be talking about it now. Carpets were taken for analysis - they weren't all burned!
Two people wondered about the crime scene - TWO! And with all that was going on, that's not unusual.
It most certainly isn't Caroline - SH's case files showed the same/similar inconsistencies and irregularities as Bambers.
-
And why is that? It didn't exist in theory? Not sure what you mean by that - we can see the stain on pictures released to the public domain or we wouldn't be talking about it now. Carpets were taken for analysis - they weren't all burned!
Two people wondered about the crime scene - TWO! And with all that was going on, that's not unusual.
Two is enough surely. Was it the two who the first into that room? Later on, I daresay nobody knew exactly how the crime scene looked when it was first seen.
-
I have no evidence Sheila washed herself ...
But it explains why she was clean ...
And it fits with the blood stains on Psalm 51 and the washing away of sin ...
I can see no reason for the Police altering the crime scene - but whatever they did for whatever reason I think that it is irrelevant to the case ...
It is possible DC Jones was the one to turn Julie initially on the suggestion of the relatives ...
I do not know much about DCS Ainsley's involvement - but it is very possible ...
I think you are right about Robert and Anne - I think she is very likely psychopathic - how could she have moved in the farm with her children ? - it is very far from normal behaviour and suggests psychopathy heavily to me - Robert convinced himself through fear, prejudice, greed and arrogance
Great post Roch - you have certainly given me food for thought :)
Many people move into houses where people have been murderered or died; doesn't make them psychopathic for doing so.
At least if you are going to make these claims about AE, back them up with evidence.
There's nothing great about Roch's post or indeed posts; just yet more conspiracy theories.
-
Many people move into houses where people have been murderered or died; doesn't make them psychopathic for doing so.
At least if you are going to make these claims about AE, back them up with evidence.
There's nothing great about Roch's post or indeed posts; just yet more conspiracy theories.
It doesn't make her a psychopath, I agree, but I would say that she possible lacked sensitivity. She went to the farmhouse on her own after the murders, which a lot of people wouldn't do, and she was rather puzzled that Jeremy didn't want to go there or live in the house after his family had been murdered there. I don't think that would be surprising to anyone usually.
-
The relatives did not like Jeremy at all for the reasons you say ...
DC Jones did not like Jeremy for the reasons you say ...
Julie hated Jeremy for different reasons ...
They got together and convinced themselves that Jeremy had done it ...
It was all too easy - they all wanted to believe it ...
Confirmation bias can be a very misleading thing - they all suffered from it because they really did not like him at all ...
People tend to believe what they want to believe - it is even easier if you are going to become rich instead of poor if your hunch is right - which is the position the relatives were in ...
Very well put.
You should read up on the backfire effect
"The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking. The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
-
It doesn't make her a psychopath, I agree, but I would say that she possible lacked sensitivity. She went to the farmhouse on her own after the murders, which a lot of people wouldn't do, and she was rather puzzled that Jeremy didn't want to go there or live in the house after his family had been murdered there. I don't think that would be surprising to anyone usually.
Hah! There are plenty who lack sensitivity. They call themselves realists. I'd say Ann was one such. I don't know much about Pam, but from what I've been told about Grannie Speakman and RWB, Ann is likely to be a chip off two very insensitive blocks. In fairness to her, it was several years before she moved into WHF.
-
Hah! There are plenty who lack sensitivity. They call themselves realists. I'd say Ann was one such. I don't know much about Pam, but from what I've been told about Grannie Speakman and RWB, Ann is likely to be a chip off two very insensitive blocks. In fairness to her, it was several years before she moved into WHF.
Yes, but it was odd how she was surprised that Jeremy didn't want to live at the farm, and how she went there on her own a few days after the murders. As you say though, plenty of people lack sensitivity and are not squeamish.
-
When a person isn't close to a family it makes a difference.There were no emotional ties to speak of.
-
Yes, but it was odd how she was surprised that Jeremy didn't want to live at the farm, and how she went there on her own a few days after the murders. As you say though, plenty of people lack sensitivity and are not squeamish.
Odd to you, Kaldin. Clearly not to Ann who may have thought it odd that he didn't want to live in, what she may have thought of as being, a beautiful house.
-
Odd to you, Kaldin. Clearly not to Ann who may have thought it odd that he didn't want to live in, what she may have thought of as being, a beautiful house.
Where five people had died in a shooting, and there was a lot of blood. Yeah, right. If it didn't seem odd to her, then she must have lacked sensitivity, as I said.
-
I for one couldn't have contemplated living there. No way.
-
Where five people had died in a shooting, and there was a lot of blood. Yeah, right. If it didn't seem odd to her, then she must have lacked sensitivity, as I said.
And I've not offered anything to the contrary. As I said previously, understanding doesn't mean agreeing with or condoning.
-
You should read up on the backfire effect
"The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking. The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
You mean like when closer definition images were placed up showing wounds on the back of Sheila's hand and side of her index finger? The hardcore guilters reacted as if the martians had landed First there was shock / silence and then denial / meltdown / insults etc. :))
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You mean like when closer definition images were placed up showing wounds on the back of Sheila's hand and side of her index finger? The hardcore guilters reacted as if the martians had landed First there was shock / silence and then denial / meltdown / insults etc. :))
Actually, it was a modern day version of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
-
You mean like when closer definition images were placed up showing wounds on the back of Sheila's hand and side of her index finger? The hardcore guilters reacted as if the martians had landed First there was shock / silence and then denial / meltdown / insults etc. :))
And of course your behaviour has always been impeccable ::)
-
Actually, it was a modern day version of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
You've just beautifully demonstrated Stephanie's point.
-
You mean like when closer definition images were placed up showing wounds on the back of Sheila's hand and side of her index finger? The hardcore guilters reacted as if the martians had landed First there was shock / silence and then denial / meltdown / insults etc. :))
That's not what they showed and there was no shock silence either - certainly not from me.
-
I got caught stealing my mums home made apple crumble from the fridge when I was 7.
My reaction was 'shock, silence, denial, meltdown, insults'.
I don't recall having the same reaction when seeing Roch's pictures.
-
That's not what they showed and there was no shock silence either - certainly not from me.
As I said, a modern day "Emperor's New Clothes". Some says "Wounds on hand" and supporters all join in with "Wounds on hand".
-
That's not what they showed
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8686.msg415797.html#msg415797
and there was no shock silence either - certainly not from me.
You were probably the first with the obligatory dismissal, out of the 6 members who hide their identity mulled around, wondering how to respond.
-
As I said, a modern day "Emperor's New Clothes". Some says "Wounds on hand" and supporters all join in with "Wounds on hand".
I don't agree with that. To me they look like wounds, not because Roch or anyone else told me that's what they were but because I think that's what they were.
Many 'supporters' did not particularly believe they were wounds.
-
"A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:
1.Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate
2.Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man)
Some of David's 'straw man' tactics -
Change stance because of one post from Scipio.
Say it takes 100 minutes to walk 3 miles.
Say it takes 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark.
Make up something & believe putting up a picture of Ricky Gervaise will mean the other poster won't bother checking.
Say there are sources that the police moved the bible onto Sheila's arm before photos were taken. But not provide them.
Say the relatives could get Sheila's blood from wet clothes in a bucket.
Say the police didn't tell Bamber about Nevill's call to the police so they could frame him.
Dispute 6 out of 62 pieces of sourced forensic evidence & forget about the other 56 pieces.
Argue that a 999 call was made from WHF at 6.09am.
Say the conviction was due to 'forgery & perjury'. Then say it wasn't.
-
You've just beautifully demonstrated Stephanie's point.
Actually this was the point I was attempting to make Roch;
"Growing and changing our beliefs over time by the honing of life experience, success and failure gives one a unique perspective. When we get with our social groups, there is quite a bit of discomfort when our beliefs contradict with other members of our social group. It is so uncomfortable that many of us will go to extraordinary efforts to disguise, deny or change our beliefs for a short time so that we fit into the in-group
One of my favorite bloggers, Maria Popova at brainpickings.com spoke to this awkwardness by saying, “It’s a conundrum most of us grapple with?—?on the one hand, the awareness that personal growth means transcending our smaller selves as we reach for a more dimensional, intelligent, and enlightened understanding of the world, and on the other hand, the excruciating growing pains of evolving or completely abandoning our former, more inferior beliefs as we integrate new knowledge and insight into our comprehension of how life works."
Nonetheless, this discomfort of change and entertaining new ideas that challenge old ideas is necessary for human emotional and social growth. Many folks opt to stay stuck. Many just decide not to incorporate new information and insight which can lead to a state of self-delusion and dangerous self-righteousness.
This human tendency and cognitive bias is called the backfire effect. Most of us think we are rational beings making rational decisions with all the necessary information to do so....
Read more here: https://medium.com/homeland-security/the-social-psychology-of-the-backfire-effect-locking-up-the-gears-of-your-mind-a79d4e6e8061
-
I don't agree with that. To me they look like wounds, not because Roch or anyone else told me that's what they were but because I think that's what they were.
Many 'supporters' did not particularly believe they were wounds.
Did you always believe they were wounds, Maggie?
-
Actually this was the point I was attempting to make Roch;
"Growing and changing our beliefs over time by the honing of life experience, success and failure gives one a unique perspective. When we get with our social groups, there is quite a bit of discomfort when our beliefs contradict with other members of our social group. It is so uncomfortable that many of us will go to extraordinary efforts to disguise, deny or change our beliefs for a short time so that we fit into the in-group
One of my favorite bloggers, Maria Popova at brainpickings.com spoke to this awkwardness by saying, “It’s a conundrum most of us grapple with?—?on the one hand, the awareness that personal growth means transcending our smaller selves as we reach for a more dimensional, intelligent, and enlightened understanding of the world, and on the other hand, the excruciating growing pains of evolving or completely abandoning our former, more inferior beliefs as we integrate new knowledge and insight into our comprehension of how life works."
Nonetheless, this discomfort of change and entertaining new ideas that challenge old ideas is necessary for human emotional and social growth. Many folks opt to stay stuck. Many just decide not to incorporate new information and insight which can lead to a state of self-delusion and dangerous self-righteousness.
This human tendency and cognitive bias is called the backfire effect. Most of us think we are rational beings making rational decisions with all the necessary information to do so....
Read more here:https://medium.com/homeland-security/the-social-psychology-of-the-backfire-effect-locking-up-the-gears-of-your-mind-a79d4e6e8061
Can't disagree with that, our experiences and learning are vital input and assist us when forming opinions. As we never stop experiencing and learning all through our lives we should always be open to and not ashamed of change in our beliefs.
-
Did you always believe they were wounds, Maggie?
No because I had never seen those clearer pics but when I did, I do assure you I was not told they were wounds, I formed that opinion myself.
-
Some of David's 'straw man' tactics -
This is what I perceive Adam:
"That discomfort, in fact, can be so intolerable that we often go to great lengths to disguise or deny our changing beliefs by paying less attention to information that contradicts our present convictions and more to that which confirms them. In other words, we fail the fifth tenet of Carl Sagan’s timelessly brilliant and necessary Baloney Detection Kit for critical thinking: “Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.”
"Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do this instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens those misconceptions instead. Over time, the backfire effect makes you less skeptical of those things that allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.
Read more here:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/
-
This is what I perceive Adam:
"That discomfort, in fact, can be so intolerable that we often go to great lengths to disguise or deny our changing beliefs by paying less attention to information that contradicts our present convictions and more to that which confirms them. In other words, we fail the fifth tenet of Carl Sagan’s timelessly brilliant and necessary Baloney Detection Kit for critical thinking: “Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.”
Very true.
-
Some of David's 'straw man' tactics -
Change stance because of one post from Scipio.
Say it takes 100 minutes to walk 3 miles.
Say it takes 30 minutes longer to walk 3 miles in the dark.
Make up something & believe putting up a picture of Ricky Gervaise will mean the other poster won't bother checking.
Say there are sources that the police moved the bible onto Sheila's arm before photos were taken. But not provide them.
Say the relatives could get Sheila's blood from wet clothes in a bucket.
Say the police didn't tell Bamber about Nevill's call to the police so they could frame him.
Dispute 6 out of 62 pieces of sourced forensic evidence & forget about the other 56 pieces.
Argue that a 999 call was made from WHF at 6.09am.
Say the conviction was due to 'forgery & perjury'. Then say it wasn't.
The last 6 of those are not true at all. Your accusation of me producing strawmam arguments is in fact a straw man argument in itself.
-
This is what I perceive Adam:
"That discomfort, in fact, can be so intolerable that we often go to great lengths to disguise or deny our changing beliefs by paying less attention to information that contradicts our present convictions and more to that which confirms them. In other words, we fail the fifth tenet of Carl Sagan’s timelessly brilliant and necessary Baloney Detection Kit for critical thinking: “Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.”
"Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do this instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens those misconceptions instead. Over time, the backfire effect makes you less skeptical of those things that allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.
Read more here:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/
More Psychobabble.
-
Can Adam and David please stop squabbling on the forum. It's becoming really boring for other posters.
Imo you're both as bad as each other.
Thanks
-
More Psychobabble.
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2484510/spitball-o.gif)
-
After a very long time considering this case I have now worked out exactly what happened ...
I have considered every possibility with a very open mind indeed ....
There is only one scenario that stands up to scrutiny ....
Here it is .....
Sheila was reading Psalm 51 because she had just murdered her family ....
There is little doubt about who shot and killed the other four victims, it is correct to say that it was Sheila, she shot dead her two small children after they fell to sleep!
She wanted to be forgiven by God for the murders ...
I agree with this...
That is why she had washed herself ....
I believe she did cleanse herself after killing the other victims..
It was Sheila that moved the gun that WPC Jeaves saw in the window ....
No, it remained at the box room window until after 9am during 'informatives' when it was brought into the main bedroom for the purpose of a gauging exercise, whereby senior detectives we're trying to establish whether it was feasible to suggest that the solitary wound to Sheila's neck could be presented as having been inflicted with use of 'that' rifle, rather than it be admitted Sheila had been shot downstairs in the kitchen by way of a police issue weapon..
It was Sheila that was seen moving in the other window ...It was Sheila who was observed by PS Bews, PC Myall and Jeremy moving at the main bedroom window..
Sheila killed herself after the Police were outside the farm - No she did not! She did not shoot herself at all! She was shot twice by the police, shot once downstairs in the kitchen when police entered, and she was shot a second time when police mishandled the rifle that had been brought to her body from the box room window during the aforementioned 'informatives'that is why her blood was still wet.Her blood was wet because both shots were recently inflicted after police entered the farmhouse.In particular, Sheila got shot across the neck during a struggle involving an armed police officer who came awkwardly around the opening edge of an internal door which was situated between the kitchen and the back passage! From Sheila's vantage point, the door in question was hinged on the right, and the opening edge of that door swung open from the left to the right! From the vantage point of the armed officer who was proceeding to enter into the kitchen, the door was hinged on the left! The opening edge of the same door swung open from right to left! This became problematic because as the armed officer proceeded to try and enter the kitchen, the muzzle of his weapon was effectively always pointing toward the outside wall of the kitchen! It was at this very point that Sheila made a grab for the barrel of the officers gun which protruded beyond the opening edge of the internal door! This turned into a general struggle which spilled over toward the kitchen aga ! I can confirm that there exists an 'officers Report' concerning this shooting incident which did occur in the kitchen at the time armed police entered! Boutflour (and possibly others) planted the silencer ....the correct interpretation was that the silencer was introduced dishonestly!
The relatives put Julie up to the false confession - which is why she wrongly repeats things AE told her ...I believe that Julie Mugford went along with what the relatives believed! It's too much of a coincidence that Robert Boutflour should go to see ACC Simpson on more or less the same day that Julie Mugford fessed up to 'Stan' Jones by claiming Jeremy hired a hitman to murder his family!
DC Jones was more than happy to coach Julie - he was up for noble cause corruption ....Julie Mugford was seen and coached on over thirty separate occasions..
The relatives did it because they thought Jeremy was guilty and to avoid impending financial ruin ...that is true, the relatives were convinced that Jeremy had some knowlege and involvement in all five deaths! But he didn't shoot anybody!
This is why Robert Boutflour lied to the jury about the inheritance ....
I have no doubt all the relatives and Sheila and DC Jones were convinced that Jeremy did it ....Yes,
it's what motivated the police and the relatives to frame Jeremy as the killer!
But he did not - he is 100% innocent of any involvement in this crime .....He is, infact, an innocent man!
Now I have satisfied myself without any doubt what happened it is time for stage 2 ....
Stage 2 is I am going to prove to the world exactly what happened ....
Jeremy Bamber needs to be released right now .....
I agree!
-
Jeremy should be acquitted as soon as is humanely possible.
If you can call it humane keeping an innocent man in prison. I see no reason for him to remain locked up any longer,as he's already gone well beyond his time for a life sentence for a start. It's the most disgusting and horrendous way to treat anyone,especially someone who's clearly innocent.
We've had top cops who've received manslaughter charges and have been free to carry on with their lives and probably with the guarantee that they can carry on enjoying their freedom and people talk about justice.
-
No because I had never seen those clearer pics but when I did, I do assure you I was not told they were wounds, I formed that opinion myself.
Tip of the iceberg Maggie.
-
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2484510/spitball-o.gif)
(http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/jon-stewart-confused-what.gif)
-
i cant take this thread seriously just becouse of its title.
-
i cant take this thread seriously just becouse of its title.
I really don't think you're alone in that!
-
Jeremy should be acquitted as soon as is humanely possible.
If you can call it humane keeping an innocent man in prison. I see no reason for him to remain locked up any longer,as he's already gone well beyond his time for a life sentence for a start. It's the most disgusting and horrendous way to treat anyone,especially someone who's clearly innocent.
We've had top cops who've received manslaughter charges and have been free to carry on with their lives and probably with the guarantee that they can carry on enjoying their freedom and people talk about justice.
The sentence he received was a MINIMUM of 25 years with the rider that it remained to be seen whether it would ever be considered that it was safe to release him.
-
i cant take this thread seriously just becouse of its title.
His stab at 'solving' the case was far better than the official version that's proscribed on here by those who favour guilt.
-
Can't disagree with that, our experiences and learning are vital input and assist us when forming opinions. As we never stop experiencing and learning all through our lives we should always be open to and not ashamed of change in our beliefs.
Think I was editing my post when you replied Maggie:
The point was -
"Nonetheless, this discomfort of change and entertaining new ideas that challenge old ideas is necessary for human emotional and social growth. Many folks opt to stay stuck. Many just decide not to incorporate new information and insight which can lead to a state of self-delusion and dangerous self-righteousness.
This human tendency and cognitive bias is called the backfire effect. Most of us think we are rational beings making rational decisions with all the necessary information to do so....
-
Jeremy should be acquitted as soon as is humanely possible.
If you can call it humane keeping an innocent man in prison. I see no reason for him to remain locked up any longer,as he's already gone well beyond his time for a life sentence for a start. It's the most disgusting and horrendous way to treat anyone,especially someone who's clearly innocent.
We've had top cops who've received manslaughter charges and have been free to carry on with their lives and probably with the guarantee that they can carry on enjoying their freedom and people talk about justice.
"As soon as humanely possible?"
Yet aren't you all for the death penalty?
Do you see people as "all good" or "all bad?"
Do you not see both good and bad simultaneously in people?
JB did NOT initially blame Sheila because he had no idea of the extent of her mental issues. What he understood later was that which had been " fed " to him by those whose limited knowledge,blamed schizophrenia,instead of its cause. One doesn't suddenly develop schizophrenia.
I would hazard a guess that JB got the shock of his life after reading about the traumatic and tumultuous life that Sheila had endured that brought about her mental illness. Sheila was on a downward spiral. Anyone with half an eye could have seen that. Her friends,particularly when they'd remarked on how different she'd looked,scary and staring,since her final hospital visit.
JB has never seen himself as the victim,it's others who've added that " he too is a victim ". He certainly hasn't come across as a " feel sorry for me " person,of which there are many,but I wouldn't class them ALL as being psychopaths. I can't be doing with these sort of people either ( sympathy seekers )
He blamed Sheila from the get go. It was all part of his plan. There was no conversation that night about "fostering" - As Colin pointed out in his evidence; he and Sheila had joint custody.
Jeremy didn't " get the shock of his life" to learn of Sheila's mental illness nor indeed how she may or may not have been treated. He'd lived it with her. He was her brother and he looked up to her - allegedly. He didn't get on with his mother! Though he attempts to suggest he did in his blogs. He knew all he needed to know in order to spin his web of lies. Thankfully it wasn't long before the police saw straight through him!
Clearly you are one of the "others" to which you refer above - "He too is a victim"
Victim of his own making. He chose to murder his family!
He has spent over 30 years seeking sympathy and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker. Preferring to see his victims (and everyone else) as the aggressors, as though they deserved what was coming to them?!
-
His stab at 'solving' the case was far better than the official version that's proscribed on here by those who favour guilt.
If only he'd been able to cast aside his bias. He just couldn't ever contemplate he had been duped. His conclusion was predictable. He never considered ALL the possibilities. He just couldn't quite bring himself to consider all the arguments of the opposition.
-
Think I was editing my post when you replied Maggie:
The point was -
"Nonetheless, this discomfort of change and entertaining new ideas that challenge old ideas is necessary for human emotional and social growth. Many folks opt to stay stuck. Many just decide not to incorporate new information and insight which can lead to a state of self-delusion and dangerous self-righteousness.
This human tendency and cognitive bias is called the backfire effect. Most of us think we are rational beings making rational decisions with all the necessary information to do so....
Think I read all of it Stephanie. I couldn't agree more, imo it is the only way. Nothing is constant, not even our reality.The problem is that even when we believe we are fluid, we may not be. It's a huge subject....
The extreme result of human ego when it becomes too strong and inflexible is clear to see in the wars and misery in the world.
-
"As soon as humanely possible?"
Yet aren't you all for the death penalty?
Do you see people as "all good" or "all bad?"
Do you not see both good and bad simultaneously in people?
He blamed Sheila from the get go. It was all part of his plan. There was no conversation that night about "fostering" - As Colin pointed out in his evidence; he and Sheila had joint custody.
Jeremy didn't " get the shock of his life" to learn of Sheila's mental illness nor indeed how she may or may not have been treated. He'd lived it with her. He was her brother and he looked up to her - allegedly. He didn't get on with his mother! Though he attempts to suggest he did in his blogs. He knew all he needed to know in order to spin his web of lies. Thankfully it wasn't long before the police saw straight through him!
Clearly you are one of the "others" to which you refer above - "He too is a victim"
Victim of his own making. He chose to murder his family!
He has spent over 30 years seeking sympathy and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker. Preferring to see his victims (and everyone else) as the aggressors, as though they deserved what was coming to them?!
Says you ::) Would you mind very much if I also had my say in this without you thinking that what you say is the 100% correct version of events ? I don't rubbish your posts,but I may start to change tack !
-
His stab at 'solving' the case was far better than the official version that's proscribed on here by those who favour guilt.
I don't even think you really believe that!
-
I don't even think you really believe that!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.msg243191.html#msg243191 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.msg243191.html#msg243191)
::)
-
I was going to mention that before along with the wallet but thought better of it. ;D ;D ;D
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.msg243191.html#msg243191 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.msg243191.html#msg243191)
::)
Would you like me to start posting your old posts? You Hypocrite!
I posted that when I believed the bullshit you now believe! When I though there might have been two bodies in the kitchen, that the police were 'in conversation' with someone in the farm 'house', when I thought there MIGHT be a possibility that Nevil may have called the police. In order to TRY and make sense of Sheila being guilty, you have to try and justify it. I did the same as you lot or doing - running around looking for little anomalies and adding weight to any and every little think that MIGHT point to Sheila. Then I wrote to Jeremy .....
-
I was going to mention that before along with the wallet but thought better of it. ;D ;D ;D
What about the wallet? You can make as many aspersions as you like but I KNOW FOR A FACT that he avoided the question. So you and David (who has stabbed you in the back more than once) can go f - ish!
-
Would you like me to start posting your old posts? You Hypocrite!
I posted that when I believed the bullshit you now believe! When I though there might have been two bodies in the kitchen, that the police were 'in conversation' with someone in the farm 'house', when I thought there MIGHT be a possibility that Nevil may have called the police. In order to TRY and make sense of Sheila being guilty, you have to try and justify it. I did the same as you lot or doing - running around looking for little anomalies and adding weight to any and every little think that MIGHT point to Sheila. Then I wrote to Jeremy .....
Like I said--------it's done to me,but somehow it's different when done to somebody else.Why's that ??
-
Like I said--------it's done to me,but somehow it's different when done to somebody else.Why's that ??
What is? You haven't changed your opinion on Bamber! David has - he posts old post from other when his own were in opposition to his current position. He's a hypocrite and seems to think he's the only person who has a right to change their mind and justifies himself with silly excuses that he thinks people will buy. Some will, but most can see through him.
-
What is? You haven't changed your opinion on Bamber! David has - he posts old post from other when his own were in opposition to his current position. He's a hypocrite and seems to think he's the only person who has a right to change their mind and justifies himself with silly excuses that he thinks people will buy. Some will, but most can see through him.
[/quote
No,I haven't changed my opinion but it seems to make no difference-------------just because I've stayed steadfast,people don't like that either so neither can win.
I can pretty well see through everyone on here,including David,so no worries there. I'm no daft old bat.
-
What is? You haven't changed your opinion on Bamber! David has - he posts old post from other when his own were in opposition to his current position. He's a hypocrite and seems to think he's the only person who has a right to change their mind and justifies himself with silly excuses that he thinks people will buy. Some will, but most can see through him.
No,I haven't changed my opinion but it seems to make no difference-------------just because I've stayed steadfast,people don't like that either so neither can win.
I can pretty well see through everyone on here,including David,so no worries there. I'm no daft old bat.
Lookout, no one has a problem with you believing Jeremy is innocent.
-
I'm sure not many people think you're a 'daft old bat' Lookout.
-
What is? You haven't changed your opinion on Bamber! David has - he posts old post from other when his own were in opposition to his current position. He's a hypocrite and seems to think he's the only person who has a right to change their mind and justifies himself with silly excuses that he thinks people will buy. Some will, but most can see through him.
David previously said 'all the forensics point to Jeremy'.
Then changed stance because he believed it was possible for several people to fabricate one piece of evidence. In other words, a non evidence reason.
All the other 'forensics pointing to Jeremy' instantly being dismissed.
-
I'd be truly interested -and probably rather sad- to " pretty well see through everyone on here" through YOUR eyes. I'd like to understand why you seem to view the world with suspicion and disillusionment. However, you can rest assured that I don't believe anyone will think you -or any another person- a daft old bat unless we give them cause to by acting like one.
-
David previously said 'all the forensics point to Jeremy'.
Then changed stance because he believed it was possible for several people to fabricate one piece of evidence. In other words, a non evidence reason.
All the other 'forensics pointing to Jeremy' instantly being dismissed.
Indeed
There is only one piece of "evidence" the silencer. That is "all the forensics point to Jeremy" Take the silencer out you don't have anything.
-
Indeed
There is only one piece of "evidence" the silencer. That is "all the forensics point to Jeremy" Take the silencer out you don't have anything.
Do you agree with Sherlock that Sheila had a shower & changed into her nightdress after the 4x murder ?
-
I'm sure not many people think you're a 'daft old bat' Lookout.
Adam
nobody thinks Lookout is a daft old bat if they do they sadly underestimate her.
-
Lookout does actually discuss the case rather than get sarcastic or arsy with other posters.
-
I'd be truly interested -and probably rather sad- to " pretty well see through everyone on here" through YOUR eyes. I'd like to understand why you seem to view the world with suspicion and disillusionment. However, you can rest assured that I don't believe anyone will think you -or any another person- a daft old bat unless we give them cause to by acting like one.
You'll never understand how I and over 11 million others from my era viewed the world as it used to be. A lifelong friend and next-door neighbour in our younger years who wrote to me recently had added in her letter that " people were kinder and more considerate " as she'd tried to fight her way out of a shopping mall without getting crushed. My friend was a school teacher who retired earlier when she saw what was afoot in the name of education.
This world is alien to a lot of people who'd experienced a slower pace of life before being thrust into an age of consumerism and greed,and people shopping as though the world's coming to an end.
-
Do you agree with Sherlock that Sheila had a shower & changed into her nightdress after the 4x murder ?
Strawman argument mixed into a loaded question.
-
Strawman argument mixed into a loaded question.
What's that supposed to mean ?
Just give a 'yes' or 'no' answer. Don't be scared. It's a discussion forum. Opinions allowed.
-
You'll never understand how I and over 11 million others from my era viewed the world as it used to be. A lifelong friend and next-door neighbour in our younger years who wrote to me recently had added in her letter that " people were kinder and more considerate " as she'd tried to fight her way out of a shopping mall without getting crushed. My friend was a school teacher who retired earlier when she saw what was afoot in the name of education.
This world is alien to a lot of people who'd experienced a slower pace of life before being thrust into an age of consumerism and greed,and people shopping as though the world's coming to an end.
You're right, Lookout. I've never experienced it, but it's hardly my fault, and I don't see why that makes it necessary for you, and those who did, to view, with suspicion, me and my world. Many of my friends are in their 80's and 90's. They don't view the world the way you do. The world was slower when I was young. It certainly wasn't always better. Those who've never experienced other than NOW, have nothing to compare it with so it's hardly fair that their lack of knowledge should be shoved down their throats.
Our worlds appear to be radically different. I give consideration and kindness. MOST of the time it's what I get back. I can't give you my opinion on the many who lead different lives from mine because I don't have experience of them, any more than you have experience of all those you appear to be tarring with the same brush. Thankfully I DO have experience of SOME of the 11 million from your era and I can assure you that they don't all share your view of the world. But each to their own, eh?
-
It had been noted that large areas of blood had been found on the back of Sheila,or her nightdress ? Where had this come from ? If she'd showered,these areas wouldn't be there unless she'd received an injury to her back after ? Which couldn't/wouldn't have been possible after having killed everyone then herself.
A strange place for blood to have been.
-
It had been noted that large areas of blood had been found on the back of Sheila,or her nightdress ? Where had this come from ? If she'd showered,these areas wouldn't be there unless she'd received an injury to her back after ? Which couldn't/wouldn't have been possible after having killed everyone then herself.
A strange place for blood to have been.
Yes, it's been noted, however, all I saw was a patch in the region of/just beneath her shoulder. It was NOT a "large area".
-
There is only one piece of "evidence" the silencer. That is "all the forensics point to Jeremy" Take the silencer out you don't have anything.
Oh but there is David, only you are choosing to ignore and dismiss it in a blinkered fashion due to the fact it doesn't support your theory
The silencer is circumstantial evidence but there is a wealth of other circumstantial evidence which Adam (and others) keep pointing out to you
-
Oh but there is David, only you are choosing to ignore and dismiss it in a blinkered fashion due to the fact it doesn't support your theory
The silencer is circumstantial evidence but there is a wealth of other circumstantial evidence which Adam (and others) keep pointing out to you
I would have said that the silencer was actually not circumstantial evidence, although much of the other evidence definitely is circumstantial.
-
I would have said that the silencer was actually not circumstantial evidence, although much of the other evidence definitely is circumstantial.
What is it then
-
It's indirect evidence
Circumstantial indirect evidence
-
What is it then
I would say it was direct evidence that the moderator had been used. It's only indirect evidence in that it depends if you believe that Sheila put it back in the cupboard or not.
-
I would have said that the silencer was actually not circumstantial evidence, although much of the other evidence definitely is circumstantial.
I suppose it's both.
It's direct evidence in the sense that human blood was identified in the silencer, but it's circumstantial to say that Sheila couldn't have returned it to the cupboard containing her blood.
-
Oh but there is David, only you are choosing to ignore and dismiss it in a blinkered fashion due to the fact it doesn't support your theory
The silencer is circumstantial evidence but there is a wealth of other circumstantial evidence which Adam (and others) keep pointing out to you
Of course, circumstantial does not mean 'weak'.
-
I suppose it's both.
It's direct evidence in the sense that human blood was identified in the silencer, but it's circumstantial to say that Sheila couldn't have returned it to the cupboard containing her blood.
Yes to both. However, it's the best bit of forensic evidence the prosecution had at the time.
-
Yes to both. However, it's the best bit of forensic evidence the prosecution had at the time.
Perhaps that's why the Judge referred to it in his summing up.
-
Then there's the behavioural evidence
-
Perhaps that's why the Judge referred to it in his summing up.
And also why the defence has tried to attack the circumstantial aspect over the years.
-
And also why the defence has tried to attack the circumstantial aspect over the years.
Why not,it doesn't always follow as hard evidence in a murder case ?
-
It was June's fault the way Sheila had ended up. Nobody else's. Psychological abuse at its worst from a controlling mother.
How do you think Jeremy faired with his mother Lookout? Do you think he was damaged in anyway, like you say Sheila was?
-
Then there's the behavioural evidence
That's very circumstantial and very open to interpretation.
-
And what evidence do you have Lookout to state Bamber was honest and trusting?
He would have also been permanently on edge and it would have shown. The handing over of the keys to the place spelled honesty towards his relatives because he himself was honest and trusting. Would a mass murderer have done the same
The fact is you didn't know him
-
That's very circumstantial and very open to interpretation.
Well 10 members of the jury didn't trust him
-
Well 10 members of the jury didn't trust him
You don't know that they went on his "behaviour" though. The jury never said what pursuaded them. It could have been the silencer or Julie's story, or anything.
-
And what evidence do you have Lookout to state Bamber was honest and trusting?
The fact is you didn't know him
Neither did you but you've said enough about him.
-
Stealing some money and growing a bit of cannabis is different to shooting five people dead, don't you think?.
What behaviour can be inferred from Bambers criminal activities?
Btw he WAS arrested for committing the burglary and he stole money FROM HiS FAMILiES caravan park "to teach them a lesson."
-
People are in prison for strings of crimes,but it doesn't necessarily include murder.
-
Neither did you but you've said enough about him.
It was June's fault the way Sheila had ended up. Nobody else's. Psychological abuse at its worst from a controlling mother.
How do you think Jeremy faired with his mother Lookout? Do you think he was damaged in anyway, like you say Sheila was?
-
People are in prison for strings of crimes,but it doesn't necessarily include murder.
No idea what you mean
-
What behaviour can be inferred from Bambers criminal activities?
Btw he WAS arrested for committing the burglary and he stole money FROM HiS FAMILiES caravan park "to teach them a lesson."
And let's not forget his Infidelity. He seems to have been stringing JM along.
-
How do you think Jeremy faired with his mother Lookout? Do you think he was damaged in anyway, like you say Sheila was?
No,Jeremy wasn't psychologically damaged by his mother at all. He was more of a laid-back character who obviously let things go over his head,whereas Sheila took everything to heart which made her more vulnerable and a target for her mother to control.
-
No,Jeremy wasn't psychologically damaged by his mother at all. He was more of a laid-back character who obviously let things go over his head,whereas Sheila took everything to heart which made her more vulnerable and a target for her mother to control.
What proof do you have of this?
-
No,Jeremy wasn't psychologically damaged by his mother at all. He was more of a laid-back character who obviously let things go over his head,whereas Sheila took everything to heart which made her more vulnerable and a target for her mother to control.
So you don't think his adoption affected him or his time at boarding school?
Jeremy said he didn't like his mother didn't he?
-
What proof do you have of this?
He used to help his mother when she was baking--------no mention of Sheila joining in. Nor was there any mention of Jeremy being scared witless as June read Bible passages to Sheila who'd be left with nightmares.
He didn't get anyone into trouble,as in pregnant.
-
He used to help his mother when she was baking--------no mention of Sheila joining in. Nor was there any mention of Jeremy being scared witless as June read Bible passages to Sheila who'd be left with nightmares.
He didn't get anyone into trouble,as in pregnant.
Said who? Oh that's right - Bamber said it about himself and as she is no longer here to corroborate it ....... it's hardly relevant.
-
And what evidence do you have Lookout to state Bamber was honest and trusting?
The fact is you didn't know him
Couldn't find the post you quoted but it seems to me that Lookout, as she doesn't know Jeremy, is talking about how SHE would feel when she says Jeremy would have been permanently on edge.
-
What behaviour can be inferred from Bambers criminal activities?
Btw he WAS arrested for committing the burglary and he stole money FROM HiS FAMILiES caravan park "to teach them a lesson."
Julie Mugford also stole money, dealt in cannabis, and committed cheque fraud, but that doesn't mean she's capable of murdering someone. As I said, Jeremy's crimes were a far cry from murdering five people in cold blood.
-
He used to help his mother when she was baking--------no mention of Sheila joining in. Nor was there any mention of Jeremy being scared witless as June read Bible passages to Sheila who'd be left with nightmares.
He didn't get anyone into trouble,as in pregnant.
Are you sure he didn't get anyone pregnant? Thought he did?
And how do we know if he got anyone else pregnant or not? Have you not heard of abortion?
-
Julie Mugford also stole money, dealt in cannabis, and committed cheque fraud, but that doesn't mean she's capable of murdering someone. As I said, Jeremy's crimes were a far cry from murdering five people in cold blood.
I am asking about Jeremy not JM amd you haven't answered the question I asked you!
-
Said who? Oh that's right - Bamber said it about himself and as she is no longer here to corroborate it ....... it's hardly relevant.
[/quote
You'll find the source in one of the books,if you believe their sources of information. It had been rubbed in enough from the CT team.
-
I am asking about Jeremy not JM amd you haven't answered the question I asked you!
I think I have. You appear to be implying that someone who stole money is perfectly capable of murdering five people in cold blood. If that's not what you meant, please explain further.
-
Are you sure he didn't get anyone pregnant? Thought he did?
And how do we know if he got anyone else pregnant or not? Have you not heard of abortion?
Mike once produced a 'daughter' by him in Colchester, but it soon went in the bin along with a lot of other stuff. There were pregnancies by Suzette Ford.
-
I think I have. You appear to be implying that someone who stole money is perfectly capable of murdering five people in cold blood. If that's not you meant, please explain further.
That isn't what she is implying, but having a deviant history is a typical factor for individuals capable of murder.
-
I think I have. You appear to be implying that someone who stole money is perfectly capable of murdering five people in cold blood. If that's not what you meant, please explain further.
No you haven't!
Stealing some money and growing a bit of cannabis is different to shooting five people dead, don't you think?.
What behaviour can be inferred from Bambers criminal activities?
Btw he WAS arrested for committing the burglary and he stole money FROM HiS FAMILiES caravan park "to teach them a lesson."
-
Are you sure he didn't get anyone pregnant? Thought he did?
And how do we know if he got anyone else pregnant or not? Have you not heard of abortion?
Don't worry,the like of you would have known this information,and before long it would have been in the media. Every last thing about JB has been written about----except pregnancy and abortion.
I used to work on and off in an abortion clinic so I should know what abortion is ::)
-
No you haven't!
What behaviour can be inferred from Bambers criminal activities?
Btw he WAS arrested for committing the burglary and he stole money FROM HiS FAMILiES caravan park "to teach them a lesson."
What do you mean what behaviour can be inferred from his criminal activities? The behaviour that can be inferred is that he's capable of committing criminal activities. However, that doesn't necessarily include murdering his entire family, which is a little more than a "criminal activity".
-
Don't worry,the like of you would have known this information,and before long it would have been in the media. Every last thing about JB has been written about----except pregnancy and abortion.
I used to work on and off in an abortion clinic so I should know what abortion is ::)
There isn't anything you don't know Lookout - nothing you would admit to not knowing anyway!
-
That isn't what she is implying, but having a deviant history is a typical factor for individuals capable of murder.
And he took great pleasure thinking he had got away with the burglary.
He even attempted to minimise this by saying it was £820 and not £1000 then manipulated this fact to suggest one of his relative was a liar because they had the amount wrong?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4209.0.html
I wonder what Kaldin will infer from this with regards his behaviour?
-
What is this anyway------the Spanish Inquisition ? Answer your own bloody questions !
-
And he took great pleasure thinking he had got away with the burglary.
He even attempted to minimise this by saying it was £820 and not £1000 then manipulated this fact to suggest one of his relative was a liar because they had the amount wrong?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4209.0.html
I wonder what Kaldin will infer from this with regards his behaviour?
What a con artist!
This is how a pathological liar twists events and plays them to their advantage
Referring to 'Woody' Bamber states, "he exaggerates even the simplest of facts"
-
Oh but there is David, only you are choosing to ignore and dismiss it in a blinkered fashion due to the fact it doesn't support your theory
The silencer is circumstantial evidence but there is a wealth of other circumstantial evidence which Adam (and others) keep pointing out to you
I have refuted all points given to me Ad nauseam.
-
What a con artist!
This is how a pathological liar twists events and plays them to their advantage
Referring to 'Woody' Bamber states, "he exaggerates even the simplest of facts"
Oh crap! I've accused people of exaggerating facts before :o
How many members of my family does that mean I've massacred?
-
What do you mean what behaviour can be inferred from his criminal activities? The behaviour that can be inferred is that he's capable of committing criminal activities. However, that doesn't necessarily include murdering his entire family, which is a little more than a "criminal activity".
Why did he smoke cannabis? Anxiety? Depression? To calm him down?
-
No,Jeremy wasn't psychologically damaged by his mother at all. He was more of a laid-back character who obviously let things go over his head,whereas Sheila took everything to heart which made her more vulnerable and a target for her mother to control.
Laid back? What from smoking so much weed?
What about the cocaine? How did that make him feel I wonder?
-
Julie Mugford also stole money, dealt in cannabis, and committed cheque fraud, but that doesn't mean she's capable of murdering someone. As I said, Jeremy's crimes were a far cry from murdering five people in cold blood.
Julie Mugford had no motive, had a solid alibi and murdered no one! Nor is she accused or cmvicted of doing so!
-
Why did he smoke cannabis? Anxiety? Depression? To calm him down?
I don't know. Lots of people smoke it for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's because they think it's "trendy".
-
Don't worry,the like of you would have known this information,and before long it would have been in the media. Every last thing about JB has been written about----except pregnancy and abortion.
I used to work on and off in an abortion clinic so I should know what abortion is ::)
What on earth are you on about now?
You said Jeremy Bamber never got anyone pregnant but you were WRONG!
Why do you have to make everything about you lookout? Where you used to work is not relevant.
-
That isn't what she is implying, but having a deviant history is a typical factor for individuals capable of murder.
She just doesn't want to admit it ;D
-
Couldn't find the post you quoted but it seems to me that Lookout, as she doesn't know Jeremy, is talking about how SHE would feel when she says Jeremy would have been permanently on edge.
Well if he was permanently on edge as she implies that's probably why he needed to smoke
so much weed; which obviously wasn't strong enough
Why does Lookout always bring the debate back round to her?
-
Laid back? What from smoking so much weed?
What about the cocaine? How did that make him feel I wonder?
Not half as bad as what the cocaine did to Sheila. You're forgetting about weight difference between a male and a female. Drinking alcohol has the same effect on women as their assimilation of it is different.
-
He used to help his mother when she was baking--------no mention of Sheila joining in. Nor was there any mention of Jeremy being scared witless as June read Bible passages to Sheila who'd be left with nightmares.
He didn't get anyone into trouble,as in pregnant.
Jeremy said he didn't like his mother
-
Not half as bad as what the cocaine did to Sheila. You're forgetting about weight difference between a male and a female. Drinking alcohol has the same effect on women as their assimilation of it is different.
No we're not forgetting anything Lookout - you're just squirming again!
-
Jeremy said he didn't like his mother
Who said ?
-
Who said ?
Jeremy
-
Who said ?
JEREMY!!!
-
Not half as bad as what the cocaine did to Sheila. You're forgetting about weight difference between a male and a female. Drinking alcohol has the same effect on women as their assimilation of it is different.
I haven't forgotten about the weight differences, YOU HAVE! Sheila was far too frail to fight with her father.
-
What on earth are you on about now?
You said Jeremy Bamber never got anyone pregnant but you were WRONG!
Why do you have to make everything about you lookout? Where you used to work is not relevant.
The girlfriend at the time lost her pregnancies.It wasn't exactly broadcast but nevertheless it was something we all knew about.
It's not all about me at all. It's what your mind perceives because it's that way inclined.Not my fault if that's how you feel--------it's your problem.
-
The girlfriend at the time lost her pregnancies.It wasn't exactly broadcast but nevertheless it was something we all knew about.
It's not all about me at all. It's what your mind perceives because it's that way inclined.Not my fault if that's how you feel--------it's your problem.
You can't toss aside lost pregnancies as if they don't count. You said that Jeremy never made anyone pregnant. Pregnant is pregnant, even if it's only a little bit. It's comforting that I'm not alone in recognizing that you turn everything round to you.
-
I haven't forgotten about the weight differences, YOU HAVE! Sheila was far too frail to fight with her father.
She was very slim certainly, but she was young and fit enough. In fact, I find it more believable that she would have had to fight with him than Jeremy. If Nevill had already been shot several times, surely Jeremy would have found it easy to overpower him.
-
You can't toss aside lost pregnancies as if they don't count. You said that Jeremy never made anyone pregnant. Pregnant is pregnant, even if it's only a little bit. It's comforting that I'm not alone in recognizing that you turn everything round to you.
I wonder how he behaved after the two pregnancies? Does anyone know how long he was with that partner for and did he cheat on her?
Where's her witness statement, any idea, I can't find it?
-
You can't toss aside lost pregnancies as if they don't count. You said that Jeremy never made anyone pregnant. Pregnant is pregnant, even if it's only a little bit. It's comforting that I'm not alone in recognizing that you turn everything round to you.
[/quote
I did NOT " toss around the pregnancies as if they were nothing "----YOU said that,again zzzzzzzzzzz
How do I turn everything into me ??
-
I wonder how he behaved after the two pregnancies? Does anyone know how long he was with that partner for and did he cheat on her?
Where's her witness statement, any idea, I can't find it?
Now who's talking about " me me me " ? Double standards,or don't you know you're doing it ?
-
You can't toss aside lost pregnancies as if they don't count. You said that Jeremy never made anyone pregnant. Pregnant is pregnant, even if it's only a little bit. It's comforting that I'm not alone in recognizing that you turn everything round to you.
I did NOT " toss around the pregnancies as if they were nothing "----YOU said that,again zzzzzzzzzzz
How do I turn everything into me ??
We all now know you used to work on and off in an abortion clinic
What's that got to do with the case?
-
We all now know you used to work on and off in an abortion clinic
Yes,and ?
-
She was very slim certainly, but she was young and fit enough. In fact, I find it more believable that she would have had to fight with him than Jeremy. If Nevill had already been shot several times, surely Jeremy would have found it easy to overpower him.
She spent most of her time in bed! Didn't you read Colin's letter? Her boys used to have to wake her up and they were late for school because she would oversleep! She was exhausted!
-
The girlfriend at the time lost her pregnancies.It wasn't exactly broadcast but nevertheless it was something we all knew about.
It's not all about me at all. It's what your mind perceives because it's that way inclined.Not my fault if that's how you feel--------it's your problem.
How did we all hear about it then? Jeremy no doubt.
I could list off numerous things I know about you because most of your posts revert back to something you've done, or someone you know..
How I feel? What are you on about now? Problem? What problem?
-
Now who's talking about " me me me " ? Double standards,or don't you know you're doing it ?
Huh? Where have I talked about me?
-
Now who's talking about " me me me " ? Double standards,or don't you know you're doing it ?
Where did she talk about herself?
-
You can't toss aside lost pregnancies as if they don't count. You said that Jeremy never made anyone pregnant. Pregnant is pregnant, even if it's only a little bit. It's comforting that I'm not alone in recognizing that you turn everything round to you.
[/quote
I did NOT " toss around the pregnancies as if they were nothing "----YOU said that,again zzzzzzzzzzz
How do I turn everything into me ??
How do you keep dropping the last quote bracket?
-
I wonder how he behaved after the two pregnancies? Does anyone know how long he was with that partner for and did he cheat on her?
Where's her witness statement, any idea, I can't find it?
Suzette made a witness statement on 12 September 1985 but we don't have it on this site. She blames her three miscarriages for the eventual break-up of their relationship, and although that was possibly a factor I also believe when Jeremy discovered the terms of Nevill's will he started to put long hours in the farm and they began to drift apart. He also at that point (early 1983) was trying to keep in with June, who threatened to disinherit him if he continued the relationship with her.
-
Suzette made a witness statement on 12 September 1985 but we don't have it on this site. She blames her three miscarriages for the eventual break-up of their relationship, and although that was possibly a factor I also believe when Jeremy discovered the terms of Nevill's will he started to put long hours in the farm and they began to drift apart. He also at that point (early 1983) was trying to keep in with June, who threatened to disinherit him if he continued the relationship with her.
It seems that at this time Jeremy was attempting to keep both parents on board following his return from the trips abroad. From Julie's interview we learn that by Christmas 1984 he was expressing the wish that both Nevill and June would die..
-
Suzette made a witness statement on 12 September 1985 but we don't have it on this site. She blames her three miscarriages for the eventual break-up of their relationship, and although that was possibly a factor I also believe when Jeremy discovered the terms of Nevill's will he started to put long hours in the farm and they began to drift apart. He also at that point (early 1983) was trying to keep in with June, who threatened to disinherit him if he continued the relationship with her.
Maybe Mike T will post it for us?
So Jeremy was being controlled by his mother?! Maybe that's why he took so many drugs?
-
Suzette made a witness statement on 12 September 1985 but we don't have it on this site. She blames her three miscarriages for the eventual break-up of their relationship, and although that was possibly a factor I also believe when Jeremy discovered the terms of Nevill's will he started to put long hours in the farm and they began to drift apart. He also at that point (early 1983) was trying to keep in with June, who threatened to disinherit him if he continued the relationship with her.
Three? Were they deliberately trying to have a baby? If so, Jeremy doesn't sound like a womaniser. I can see why June would disapprove - Suzette was a lot older than him, and he would have been only 20 or so?
-
Maybe Mike T will post it for us?
So Jeremy was being controlled by his mother?! Maybe that's why he took so many drugs?
I believe it was Nevill who issued the ultimatum to his son to give up Suzette, possibly at his wife's behest, who confided in a friend she though she was a gold digger. There are references in the books that Jeremy thought his mother was going to change her will in favour of the church, but she had at her time of death not done so.
-
It seems that at this time Jeremy was attempting to keep both parents on board following his return from the trips abroad. From Julie's interview we learn that by Christmas 1984 he was expressing the wish that both Nevill and June would die..
But of course Bambers supporters dismiss the fact that Jeremy said he wished his parents would die because they probably see this as normal behaviour?
-
Three? Were they deliberately trying to have a baby? If so, Jeremy doesn't sound like a womaniser. I can see why June would disapprove - Suzette was a lot older than him, and he would have been only 20 or so?
Well, they weren't deliberately trying NOT to. I believe Suzette already had children by her husband.
-
Three? Were they deliberately trying to have a baby? If so, Jeremy doesn't sound like a womaniser. I can see why June would disapprove - Suzette was a lot older than him, and he would have been only 20 or so?
Oh he was a womaniser all right, even Jackie will tell you that he loved the women AND men apparently. Any hole a goal :o
-
Three? Were they deliberately trying to have a baby? If so, Jeremy doesn't sound like a womaniser. I can see why June would disapprove - Suzette was a lot older than him, and he would have been only 20 or so?
According to Suzette they were both desperate to have a child together. I think his bout of promiscuity followed their break-up. It really is a tragic case, not to excuse him of the killings at all, but to understand a little more, if that is possible.
-
Three? Were they deliberately trying to have a baby? If so, Jeremy doesn't sound like a womaniser. I can see why June would disapprove - Suzette was a lot older than him, and he would have been only 20 or so?
Imagine what June's disapproval would have done to his ego
-
Did anyone watch that series murderers and their mothers?
"Everyone is someone's child, even a serial killer. This series looks at the complex stories of serial killers' family relationships and on a case by case basis looks into the vital role played by their mothers. Do they in fact turn them into psychopathic murderers? In this unnerving and shocking series each episode explores a different killer's disturbing childhood, their unnatural maternal relationship and the devastating impact of 'Mother'.
Presented by Donal MacIntyre, crime journalist and Professor of Criminology in conversation with Dr. Elizabeth Yardley, Director of the Centre for Applied Criminology at Birmingham City University, MacIntyre and Yardley will piece together the biographical, psychological and criminal evidence to build a careful but frightening picture of the killers. 'Murderers and their Mothers' will reveal startling new evidence and opinion about the relationships of each killer and their mother from around the world. This is a rarefied field of criminology and psychology and each unique programme will bring new theories and insights to the table.
-
According to Suzette they were both desperate to have a child together. I think his bout of promiscuity followed their break-up. It really is a tragic case, not to excuse him of the killings at all, but to understand a little more, if that is possible.
Was he that promiscuous? I've only read about Suzette, Julie, and possibly Virginia Greaves.
-
I've learned that most violent killers are created from trauma
-
Was he that promiscuous? I've only read about Suzette, Julie, and possibly Virginia Greaves.
You are probably best to go away and read about it for yourself. It's unlikely you'll take our word for it
-
Was he that promiscuous? I've only read about Suzette, Julie, and possibly Virginia Greaves.
Well from memory there was an incident involving a girl at Bourtree Cottage leaving in tears witnessed by Michael Deckers, there was Jane before Suzette, Liz Rimington, then there was the reference to Julie buying him medication for venereal disease..maybe it wasn't promiscuity strictly speaking after all.
-
I've learned that most violent killers are created from trauma
From what I have read from Mike here and Michael O' Brien I'm not sure at all that Bamber was born to kill. I think he just saw an opportunity arise and thought he was being clever. From the books I see him as a petty criminal, as attested by Liz Rimington, who said he wanted to break into large houses, and of course there was the Osea Road burglary, which makes me think that in normal circumstances this would have been his modus operandi.
-
From what I have read from Mike here and Michael O' Brien I'm not sure at all that Bamber was born to kill. I think he just saw an opportunity arise and thought he was being clever. From the books I see him as a petty criminal, as attested by Liz Rimington, who said he wanted to break into large houses, and of course there was the Osea Road burglary, which makes me think that in normal circumstances this would have been his modus operandi.
Research suggests there's a link between traumatic life experience and criminal behaviour
-
Research suggests there's a link between traumatic life experience and criminal behaviour
Michael O' Brien said he stuck out like a sore thumb in prison. I'm sure there are many people who have some trauma in life and don't go on to kill.
-
But of course Bambers supporters dismiss the fact that Jeremy said he wished his parents would die because they probably see this as normal behaviour?
Err... that is not a fact to dismiss in the first place.
-
Err... that is not a fact to dismiss in the first place.
That may not be a proven fact, but you can't escape from Bamber not admitting he hated his parents, as attested by Brett Collins and James Richards.
-
That may not be a fact, but you can't escape from Bamber not admitting he hated his parents, as attested by Brett Collins and James Richards.
Since the evidence can establish Sheila hated June, believed her children were possessed by the devil and that she believed she was capable of murdering them. Who needs an escape?
-
You are probably best to go away and read about it for yourself. It's unlikely you'll take our word for it
I wasn't asking you anyway.
-
Since the evidence can establish Sheila hated June, believed her children were possessed by the devil and that she believed she was capable of murdering them. Who needs an escape?
And what does the evidence suggest in relation to her father?
-
Sheila must have felt let down and also " betrayed " by her father as in past times he'd been her rock and only trusted support,but because of Junes latest illness when she was visiting her GP up to the tragedy,Nevill had focussed his concern,naturally,on his wife which Sheila in her mind would have seen as an act of betrayal.
-
Sheila must have felt let down and also " betrayed " by her father as in past times he'd been her rock and only trusted support,but because of Junes latest illness when she was visiting her GP up to the tragedy,Nevill had focussed his concern,naturally,on his wife which Sheila in her mind would have seen as an act of betrayal.
But that is pure supposition. From what's been said, much of the time she was at WHF she seemed barely to be aware of her surroundings,. Then, of course, we must remember it was Harvest so Nevill's time, indoors, was going to be limited, and all we know of any family conversation comes from Jeremy so it can't be given credence.
-
But that is pure supposition. From what's been said, much of the time she was at WHF she seemed barely to be aware of her surroundings,. Then, of course, we must remember it was Harvest so Nevill's time, indoors, was going to be limited, and all we know of any family conversation comes from Jeremy so it can't be given credence.
Some of it is actually written.
-
Some of it is actually written.
Written as fact or simply authorial supposition?
-
Written as fact or simply authorial supposition?
Usual source-----a book.
-
Usual source-----a book.
So given that there wouldn't have been anyone -all, sadly being killed- to verify the claims, I guess it has to be authorial supposition/licence.
-
So given that there wouldn't have been anyone -all, sadly being killed- to verify the claims, I guess it has to be authorial supposition/licence.
How am I supposed to know how/where these people get their information from ? It's more than likely on this forum too----------I haven't just plucked it out of thin air.
-
Since the evidence can establish Sheila hated June, believed her children were possessed by the devil and that she believed she was capable of murdering them. Who needs an escape?
This is another popular misconception. Sheila was reticent on this matter to her Maida Vale set, to Colin, Nevill, and Jeremy. It might be instructive to look at the graffiti left on the wardrobe in her former bedroom: "I hate this place": note the message is not "I hate June" or "I hate my mother." We will never know her true thoughts on the matter, but I think she felt restricted by her, she could never truly reveal her true feelings towards her, but at the end of her life she did say to friends that she was grateful for what she had done for her as regards buying her the flat, and there seemed to me to be some kind of rapprochement.
Of course this is the last thing Jeremy wanted, his sole intention being to sow discord amongst the family in a vain attempt to divide and rule. He also thought that any intimacy between mother and daughter might lead to further expenditure on her, as it did with the planned allowance, and also possible school fees for the twins.
-
This is another popular misconception. Sheila was reticent on this matter to her Maida Vale set, to Colin, Nevill, and Jeremy. It might be instructive to look at the graffiti left on the wardrobe in her former bedroom: "I hate this place": note the message is not "I hate June" or "I hate my mother." We will never know her true thoughts on the matter, but I think she felt restricted by her, she could never truly reveal her true feelings towards her, but at the end of her life she did say to friends that she was grateful for what she had done for her as regards buying her the flat, and there seemed to me to be some kind of rapprochement.
Of course this is the last thing Jeremy wanted, his sole intention being to sow discord amongst the family in a vain attempt to divide and rule. He also thought that any intimacy between mother and daughter might lead to further expenditure on her, as it did with the planned allowance, and also possible school fees for the twins.
Sheila certainly wasn't indifferent to June or it wouldn't have been so important for her to gain June's approval, which she was still doing prior to her death. She'd only "found" God as a means of understanding her better. She didn't have to try with Nevill. His affection for her appeared unconditional.
-
This is another popular misconception. Sheila was reticent on this matter to her Maida Vale set, to Colin, Nevill, and Jeremy. It might be instructive to look at the graffiti left on the wardrobe in her former bedroom: "I hate this place": note the message is not "I hate June" or "I hate my mother." We will never know her true thoughts on the matter, but I think she felt restricted by her, she could never truly reveal her true feelings towards her, but at the end of her life she did say to friends that she was grateful for what she had done for her as regards buying her the flat, and there seemed to me to be some kind of rapprochement.
Of course this is the last thing Jeremy wanted, his sole intention being to sow discord amongst the family in a vain attempt to divide and rule. He also thought that any intimacy between mother and daughter might lead to further expenditure on her, as it did with the planned allowance, and also possible school fees for the twins.
Its in Freddies statement that Sheila had a deep dislike for June.
-
Its in Freddies statement that Sheila had a deep dislike for June.
Exam question:
"In the final analysis Farhad Emani inflicted more damage on Sheila than June. Discuss."
-
Exam question:
"In the final analysis Farhad Emani inflicted more damage on Sheila than June. Discuss."
Well said Steve!
-
Exam question:
"In the final analysis Farhad Emani inflicted more damage on Sheila than June. Discuss."
It would be interesting to know what was his agenda. I'm inclined to feel the level of damage inflicted was similar but polarized. Between the two of them, Sheila's mental confusion is hardly surprising.............neither is her belief that Freddie was the devil.
Did Sheila feel she'd escaped from being pulled in one direction by one powerful force in her life, only to find herself pulled in quite an opposite direction by an equally powerful force? What exactly was Freddie's place in her life? Was he exempted from prosecution for any reason, and why? Because he wasn't a British national? It appears that he may have been known to the Bambers, but how? Was he her lover, friend, confidente, drug dealer? Why was he so concerned? Did he feel responsible for her? Hardly a trait found in most drug dealers. Without knowing his place in her life, it's not possible to know what was his influence on her.
-
Why would Freddie have been prosecuted? I thought he was just her friend or boyfriend.
-
Its in Freddies statement that Sheila had a deep dislike for June.
The twins were terrified of him ? Personally I thought he was a horrible character. Children aren't stupid and are very good at picking up vibes of certain people. A child can sense whether a person is " child-friendly " or not.
-
The twins were terrified of him ? Personally I thought he was a horrible character. Children aren't stupid and are very good at picking up vibes of certain people. A child can sense whether a person is " child-friendly " or not.
Were they? Who said so? They couldn't have been in his company too often as they didn't live with Sheila permanently.
-
Were they? Who said so? They couldn't have been in his company too often as they didn't live with Sheila permanently.
Colin's book I think.
-
Colin's book I think.
Don't remember that.
-
Did anyone watch that series murderers and their mothers?
"Everyone is someone's child, even a serial killer. This series looks at the complex stories of serial killers' family relationships and on a case by case basis looks into the vital role played by their mothers. Do they in fact turn them into psychopathic murderers? In this unnerving and shocking series each episode explores a different killer's disturbing childhood, their unnatural maternal relationship and the devastating impact of 'Mother'.
Presented by Donal MacIntyre, crime journalist and Professor of Criminology in conversation with Dr. Elizabeth Yardley, Director of the Centre for Applied Criminology at Birmingham City University, MacIntyre and Yardley will piece together the biographical, psychological and criminal evidence to build a careful but frightening picture of the killers. 'Murderers and their Mothers' will reveal startling new evidence and opinion about the relationships of each killer and their mother from around the world. This is a rarefied field of criminology and psychology and each unique programme will bring new theories and insights to the table.
During Bambers police interview he's asked about his relationship with his mother:
Police - What was your relationship like with your mother?
JB - Rough and smooth
Police: Did you antagonise your mother by speaking to her about religion?
JB: it's not really fair the way you angle your question. Around 18 months ago we would have had heated arguments which was through a lack of understanding or each other's views and due in part to mothers strong character and my immurturity
I found this telling; especially given the way in which he blogs about her now. Clearly a load of made up bs!
-
During Bambers police interview he's asked about his relationship with his mother:
Police - What was your relationship like with your mother?
JB - Rough and smooth
Police: Did you antagonise your mother by speaking to her about religion?
JB: it's not really fair the way you angle your question. Around 18 months ago we would have had heated arguments which was through a lack of understanding or each other's views and due in part to mothers strong character and my immurturity
I found this telling; especially given the way in which he blogs about her now. Clearly a load of made up bs!
We never get told what the heated arguments were. Even in Roger Wilkes book the furthest he goes is that he got on with her until he was 18, so 1979. Of course we can hazard a guess from the books that the rows were over money, and June's final refusal not to write out personal cheques in his favour, which led to her death warrant.
-
We never get told what the heated arguments were. Even in Roger Wilkes book the furthest he goes is that he got on with her until he was 18, so 1979. Of course we can hazard a guess from the books that the rows were over money, and June's final refusal not to write out personal cheques in his favour, which led to her death warrant.
Or it could have been due to Jeremys immaturity and his mothers strong personality with a lack of understanding on each others part - why not ?
-
Or it could have been due to Jeremys immaturity and his mothers strong personality with a lack of understanding on each others part - why not ?
Why didn't he talk about Suzette? Why not discuss his relationship with Julie? Why not rebuff Brett Collins' assertion that he hated June, as corroborated by Jim Richards?
-
Exam question:
"In the final analysis Farhad Emani inflicted more damage on Sheila than June. Discuss."
Which is probably why the twins were scared of him. They'd have seen the different persona in their mother when she'd been in his company,i.e.----------drugged ! He was a bad influence.
-
Did anyone watch that series murderers and their mothers?
"Everyone is someone's child, even a serial killer. This series looks at the complex stories of serial killers' family relationships and on a case by case basis looks into the vital role played by their mothers. Do they in fact turn them into psychopathic murderers? In this unnerving and shocking series each episode explores a different killer's disturbing childhood, their unnatural maternal relationship and the devastating impact of 'Mother'.
Presented by Donal MacIntyre, crime journalist and Professor of Criminology in conversation with Dr. Elizabeth Yardley, Director of the Centre for Applied Criminology at Birmingham City University, MacIntyre and Yardley will piece together the biographical, psychological and criminal evidence to build a careful but frightening picture of the killers. 'Murderers and their Mothers' will reveal startling new evidence and opinion about the relationships of each killer and their mother from around the world. This is a rarefied field of criminology and psychology and each unique programme will bring new theories and insights to the table.
I didn't see it although it is on my list to watch. However, it doesn't surprise me at all that mother's have a huge influence on the development of a child in their care.
If they are disordered and abusive the child is likely to develop into an angry and disordered individual.
Imo it is more surprising how some children from seriously abusive and cruel homes manage to break the pattern and give love and care to their children. I am aware there are also much more subtle forms of abuse from being over demanding mothers trying to make their son into their 'real' man etc.
The responsibility to be a mother is huge and the success of mothering is very often due to the mother's own mothering....
-
I didn't see it although it is on my list to watch. However, it doesn't surprise me at all that mother's have a huge influence on the development of a child in their care.
If they are disordered and abusive the child is likely to develop into an angry and disordered individual.
Imo it is more surprising how some children from seriously abusive and cruel homes manage to break the pattern and give love and care to their children. I am aware there are also much more subtle forms of abuse from being over demanding mothers trying to make their son into their 'real' man etc.
The responsibility to be a mother is huge and the success of mothering is very often due to the mother's own mothering....
Agreed Maggie and I've seen no evidence to suggest Bamber wasn't "disordered"
He was adopted at a young age. And his adoptive mother suffered from mental health issues.