Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: sherlock on October 21, 2017, 11:29:AM
-
In my opinion it must have all started in the kitchen.
We can be sure Sheila had fired no shots before Nevill rang Jeremy.
We can be sure Nevill would not have phoned Jeremy like that if Sheila was going crazy with a gun upstairs.
Sheila must have been downstairs when Nevill phoned Jeremy.
The abruptness of the call suggests something bought it to a sudden end.
The call triggered Sheila to either :
a) cut the phone call off (maybe using the end of the rifle) and march Nevill upstairs to the bedroom at gunpoint ....
b) start walking upstairs meaning Nevill had to quickly end the call to follow her upstairs to the bedroom ...
Either way when they get to the bedroom Sheila started shooting Nevill and June ...
An injured Nevill made his way back downstairs to get out of Sheila's way.
Sheila easily finished off a badly injured and weakened Nevill in the kitchen ...
Sheila finished off the murders and shot herself ...
-
In my opinion it must have all started in the kitchen.
We can be sure Sheila had fired no shots before Nevill rang Jeremy.
We can be sure Nevill would not have phoned Jeremy like that if Sheila was going crazy with a gun upstairs.
Sheila must have been downstairs when Nevill phoned Jeremy.
The abruptness of the call suggests something bought it to a sudden end.
The call triggered Sheila to either :
a) cut the phone call off (maybe using the end of the rifle) and march Nevill upstairs to the bedroom at gunpoint ....
b) start walking upstairs meaning Nevill had to quickly end the call to follow her upstairs to the bedroom ...
Either way when they get to the bedroom Sheila started shooting Nevill and June ...
An injured Nevill made his way back downstairs to get out of Sheila's way.
Sheila easily finished off a badly injured and weakened Nevill in the kitchen ...
Sheila finished off the murders and shot herself ...
If, and only if, Sheila is the perpetrator, I agree with a lot of your post Sherlock. I think that no shooting had occurred when Nevill rang Nevill, and that Sheila was downstairs. I don't know why Nevill didn't get the gun off her, but perhaps she was pointing the gun at herself so he didn't want to risk it.
-
If, and only if, Sheila is the perpetrator, I agree with a lot of your post Sherlock. I think that no shooting had occurred when Nevill rang Nevill, and that Sheila was downstairs. I don't know why Nevill didn't get the gun off her, but perhaps she was pointing the gun at herself so he didn't want to risk it.
I find it easy to picture Sheila keeping Nevill away from her by pointing a gun at him ...
But it is a good point - she may have been threatening herself with the gun ....
Maybe Nevill did not think it would escalate ....
He thought it was obviously time for Sheila to be sectioned back to hospital ...
He thought that by phoning Jeremy that Jeremy would phone the hospital to come and collect her ...
He probably did not want Sheila realising that the hospital would be on it's way to take her back ...
But even the call to Jeremy was enough to trigger Sheila to escalate things ...
-
I find it easy to picture Sheila keeping Nevill away from her by pointing a gun at him ...
But it is a good point - she may have been threatening herself with the gun ....
Maybe Nevill did not think it would escalate ....
He thought it was obviously time for Sheila to be sectioned back to hospital ...
He thought that by phoning Jeremy that Jeremy would phone the hospital to come and collect her ...
He probably did not want Sheila realising that the hospital would be on it's way to take her back ...
But even the call to Jeremy was enough to trigger Sheila to escalate things ...
If Nevill really did phone Jeremy, I think he must have assumed that it would not escalate into Sheila shooting everyone. I think Jeremy said his father sounded afraid, but was he afraid of Sheila or afraid for Sheila?
I'll just clarify that I'm not certain the phone call took place at all though.
-
Firsr 11 bullets:
Daniel - 1 bullet.
Nicholas - 1 bullet
June - 5 bullets.
Nevill - 4 bullets.
Kitchen fight/reload.
Second 11 bullets
Nevill 4 bullets.
Sheila 1 bullet.
Daniel 4 bullets.
Nicolas 2 bullets.
Reload of 3 bullets.
Final 3 bullets:
Sheila 1 bullet.
June 2 bullets.
The final 3 bullets were after Bamber realised Sheila was still alive & June had moved.
- ------------------
This was of course after Bamber had -
Rang Julie at 10pm
Cycled to WHF on June's bike he had just taken.
Climbed through the bathroom using the hacksaw blade found by the window.
Picked up a rifle he said he had loaded 5 hours earlier.
-
Another option is -
First 8 bullets
Nicholas & Daniel.
Reload.
Next 9 bullets
June 5 bullets
Nevill 4 bullets
Kitchen fight.
Next 8 bullets
Nevill 4 bullets.
Sheila 2 bullets.
June 2 bullets.
-
These 2 scenarios are on the assumption Bamber was telling the truth when he told Julie the twins were shot first.
Otherwise he entered the main bedroom first with 9 bullets.
-
Adam, you've said all this on your own thread.
-
So in the time between Nevill had rang Jeremy,Nevill would have still been alive when EP arrived at WHF ?
-
So in the time between Nevill had rang Jeremy,Nevill would have still been alive when EP arrived at WHF ?
The police arrived at about 3.48, so there was a window of around 35-40 minutes when the shooting took place.
-
Adam, you've said all this on your own thread.
I know. Now I am responding to Sherlock's thread.
-
In my opinion it must have all started in the kitchen.
We can be sure Sheila had fired no shots before Nevill rang Jeremy.
We can be sure Nevill would not have phoned Jeremy like that if Sheila was going crazy with a gun upstairs.
Sheila must have been downstairs when Nevill phoned Jeremy.
The abruptness of the call suggests something bought it to a sudden end.
The call triggered Sheila to either :
a) cut the phone call off (maybe using the end of the rifle) and march Nevill upstairs to the bedroom at gunpoint ....
b) start walking upstairs meaning Nevill had to quickly end the call to follow her upstairs to the bedroom ...
Either way when they get to the bedroom Sheila started shooting Nevill and June ...
An injured Nevill made his way back downstairs to get out of Sheila's way.
Sheila easily finished off a badly injured and weakened Nevill in the kitchen ...
Sheila finished off the murders and shot herself ...
'March Nevill upstairs'. I don't think so.
Sheila was in the kitchen when Nevill phoned Bamber. What was she doing in the kitchen that was 'crazy' ?
I agree Nevill's phone call was abrupt - 8 or 11 words & 2 or 4 seconds.
Sheila cut Nevill's phone call off. And still he did nothing although she came within inches of him.
If Nevill was right behind Sheila as she entered the main bedroom, please explain the 9 bullets prior to Nevill running downstairs.
-
I don't think Nevill was marched upstairs, and I don't think that Sheila cut off the phone call - the phone line was still open. If it happened, I think that Sheila went upstairs and Nevill quickly put the phone on the side and went upstairs himself.
-
But why telephone Jeremy at all, when he had been the source of grief for the preceding months (if not years) of Nevill's life?
-
But why telephone Jeremy at all, when he had been the source of grief for the preceding months (if not years) of Nevill's life?
Without first hand knowledge of the family dynamics and relationships involved, then it's difficult to know whether Neville would choose to contact JB to come and solve the crisis.
It 'sounds' dubious to me though, I can't make much sense of it.
-
But why telephone Jeremy at all, when he had been the source of grief for the preceding months (if not years) of Nevill's life?
Had he really been? Some people have said so, but everyone is wise after the event. There's no reason to think that they didn't have a normal father/son relationship.
-
If the call happened, it's important that Nevill didn't alert June. That would indicate either that Sheila was downstairs at the time, so he didn't want to leave her, or that he really didn't think that Sheila would do anything drastic so there was no need to wake June.
-
I don't think Nevill was marched upstairs, and I don't think that Sheila cut off the phone call - the phone line was still open. If it happened, I think that Sheila went upstairs and Nevill quickly put the phone on the side and went upstairs himself.
Under those circumstances, surely he'd have been more likely to have dropped the receiver which Jeremy might have heard/expressed concern,shock/given SOME other indication of what was happening.............................which is academic, because I don't believe the phone call happened.
-
Under those circumstances, surely he'd have been more likely to have dropped the receiver which Jeremy might have heard/expressed concern,shock/given SOME other indication of what was happening.............................which is academic, because I don't believe the phone call happened.
Not necessarily. If he just went straight from the kitchen and up the stairs Jeremy wouldn't have heard anything.
-
Without first hand knowledge of the family dynamics and relationships involved, then it's difficult to know whether Neville would choose to contact JB to come and solve the crisis.
It 'sounds' dubious to me though, I can't make much sense of it.
'Come & solve the crisis'. He did that alright & ended up in prison for 32 years.
-
Is it significant that the phone receiver was placed on the left-hand side of the base?
-
Not necessarily. If he just went straight from the kitchen and up the stairs Jeremy wouldn't have heard anything.
Nothing is necessary, but where human activity under pressure is concerned it's down to a balance of probabilities.
-
Is it significant that the phone receiver was placed on the left-hand side of the base?
If the receiver was placed on the work surface, unless nevill was at pains to prevent Jeremy from knowing what was happening -in which case, why bother to make the call- Jeremy would likely have heard it.
-
Is it significant that the phone receiver was placed on the left-hand side of the base?
In what sense? Are you thinking left/right handed user?
I'm not sure what you mean?
-
Is it significant that the phone receiver was placed on the left-hand side of the base?
The bloodied fingerprints on the base were also on the left of the phone
-
The bloodied fingerprints on the base were also on the left of the phone
They aren't blood.
-
The bloodied fingerprints on the base were also on the left of the phone
But then why no blood on the telephone lookout?
-
In what sense? Are you thinking left/right handed user?
I'm not sure what you mean?
Yes I am thinking about that Hartley.
-
Yes I am thinking about that Hartley.
There's a children's book under the phone also. I'm not sure I've noticed that before. :-\
-
They aren't blood.
Jam ?
-
Jam ?
General wear from closing the draw lots of times over the years.
-
There's a close-up pic somewhere which shows what looks to be bloodied prints.
-
There's a close-up pic somewhere which shows what looks to be bloodied prints.
Whatever it may look like to you, it is not.
-
But then why no blood on the telephone lookout?
There wouldn't have been if the blood was on the left hand of a right handed telephone user.
-
General wear from closing the draw lots of times over the years.
Sack the cleaner, eh?
-
Whatever it may look like to you, it is not.
That's close to being spot on, H ;D
-
Whatever it may look like to you, it is not.
I suppose we're ALL to blame for either seeing things that aren't there,or are.
-
I suppose we're ALL to blame for either seeing things that aren't there,or are.
We certainly ALL can rely on things either being there, or not ;D
-
But then why no blood on the telephone lookout?
The call was made before he was shot.
-
That's close to being spot on, H ;D
If Lookout said that it was just dirt, then I might be inclined to point out her error in mistaking bloodied finger prints for dirt. :))
-
The call was made before he was shot.
It hasn't even been established that there was a call.
-
If Lookout said that it was just dirt, then I might be inclined to point out her error in mistaking bloodied finger prints for dirt. :))
Hmm. Don't think Lookout has ever moved from her original stance, H :))
-
There's a close-up pic somewhere which shows what looks to be bloodied prints.
You are getting mixed up. You are referring to the edge of the kitchen work surface.
-
The call was made before he was shot.
I agree, if there was a call it had to be made before Nevill was shot and before he was aware anyone else had been shot.
-
You are getting mixed up. You are referring to the edge of the kitchen work surface.
I thought this is what was being discussed,the worktop when I'd said to the left of the phone ?
I don't have to be as eagle-eyed as the guilters.
-
I thought this is what was being discussed,the worktop when I'd said to the left of the phone ?
I don't have to be as eagle-eyed as the guilters.
I knew what you meant Lookout, I think David is probably the one who has got mixed up.
-
I knew what you meant Lookout, I think David is probably the one who has got mixed up.
I'm glad somebody understood me ;D
-
I thought this is what was being discussed,the worktop when I'd said to the left of the phone ?
I don't have to be as eagle-eyed as the guilters.
Unless the name of the game is causing lines to be blurred, it always helps when we're ALL talking about the same thing, else confusion reigns.
-
I knew what you meant Lookout, I think David is probably the one who has got mixed up.
You're not a bad old stick deep down,Hartley.
-
I thought this is what was being discussed,the worktop when I'd said to the left of the phone ?
I don't have to be as eagle-eyed as the guilters.
Oh. I thought you were saying there was bloody fingerprints on the phone.
-
Oh. I thought you were saying there was bloody fingerprints on the phone.
Specsavers for you me lad.
-
You're not a bad old stick deep down,Hartley.
That's a vicious LIE, take it back immediately!!! >:( ;D
-
That's a vicious LIE, take it back immediately!!! >:( ;D
You're NOT old, are you? :o ;D
-
Is it significant that the phone receiver was placed on the left-hand side of the base?
I hadn’t ever thought of that is anyone left hAnded do we know
-
I hadn’t ever thought of that is anyone left hAnded do we know
It was a dial telephone so I suppose a right-handed person might pick up the receiver in their left hand and dial with their right hand. I don't know if that's significant or not.
-
It was a dial telephone so I suppose a right-handed person might pick up the receiver in their left hand and dial with their right hand. I don't know if that's significant or not.
Yeah but the natural instinct for a right handed person would be to then start talking and transfer the reciever to his right hand , I was trying to remember what I used to do and it wouldn’t have get right holding the receiver in my left hand ...... well I don’t think it would anyway
-
Yeah but the natural instinct for a right handed person would be to then start talking and transfer the reciever to his right hand , I was trying to remember what I used to do and it wouldn’t have get right holding the receiver in my left hand ...... well I don’t think it would anyway
I'm right handed but always hold a phone in my left hand. :-\
-
Yeah but the natural instinct for a right handed person would be to then start talking and transfer the reciever to his right hand , I was trying to remember what I used to do and it wouldn’t have get right holding the receiver in my left hand ...... well I don’t think it would anyway
Yes, I think I would do that too, and I'm right handed.
-
The call was made before he was shot.
Which begs my previous question: why telephone Jeremy at all?
-
Yes, I think I would do that too, and I'm right handed.
Would you?
Don't you keep your right hand free? To write with perhaps?
-
Which begs my previous question: why telephone Jeremy at all?
So he could resolve everything.
-
Would you?
Don't you keep your right hand free? To write with perhaps?
If I was planning to write something, yes. Maybe it depends on which ear is the best one. :))
-
If I was planning to write something, yes. Maybe it depends on which ear is the best one. :))
I guess so. :))
-
So he could resolve everything.
Quoting my own post.
To be honest, in 1985 I doubt that Bamber could resolve a tin of tuna.
-
Would you?
Don't you keep your right hand free? To write with perhaps?
I have a table either side of my settee. It depends which table the phone happens to be on, as to which hand I pick it up with.
-
Would you?
Don't you keep your right hand free? To write with perhaps?
I’m a receptionist so I answer with my right hand then hold in with my neck and write with my right hand . Am I mad
-
Which way is the receiver put down? Left facing or right? Or straight down? I can't find the picture :/
-
I’m a receptionist so I answer with my right hand then hold in with my neck and write with my right hand . Am I mad
Yes. :))
-
Which way is the receiver put down? Left facing or right? Or straight down? I can't find the picture :/
Not sure what you mean. Here's a photo.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4079;image)
-
Not sure what you mean. Here's a photo.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4079;image)
Thanks Hartley, I think it looks like a right handed person has out it down? But then why not just out it back on the cradle?
-
Not sure what you mean. Here's a photo.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4079;image)
If that's how it was found, surely Jeremy would have heard it being put down?
-
Thanks Hartley, I think it looks like a right handed person has out it down? But then why not just out it back on the cradle?
I can't remember old phones like that, is there a button to disconnect the call? Or is it automatically disconnected when the hand piece gets put back on the cradle?
-
I can't remember old phones like that, is there a button to disconnect the call? Or is it automatically disconnected when the hand piece gets put back on the cradle?
Do you see that bit in the front of the phone that sticks slightly up ? If that's depressed it will cut the call.
-
I can't remember old phones like that, is there a button to disconnect the call? Or is it automatically disconnected when the hand piece gets put back on the cradle?
Yes, there's an automatic cut off when the receiver is replaced on the cradle.
-
It would be just as easy to replace it, or it's been thrown down by someone?
-
Do you see that bit in the front of the phone that sticks slightly up ? If that's depressed it will cut the call.
Then there are two ways of cutting off a call.
-
There also used to be a metal button which when the handset was replaced it also cut out the call,but I don't see a metal button. It depends on the age/style/make of the phone probably.
-
Do you see that bit in the front of the phone that sticks slightly up ? If that's depressed it will cut the call.
Yes, there's an automatic cut off when the receiver is replaced on the cradle.
Okay, so not too different to a normal modern telephone, the call could have been disconnected by depressing the button before the hand set was put down on the counter?
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
But the line would still be open until the other end cut it off?
-
I can't remember old phones like that, is there a button to disconnect the call? Or is it automatically disconnected when the hand piece gets put back on the cradle?
I think you have to press those black things on the top of the phone. When the receiver is put back it presses the black things down and disconnects the call.
-
But the line would still be open until the other end cut it off?
It would, but didn't Jeremy say the line went dead. I seem to remember thinking that the call had been cut off, rather than someone had just put the receiver down.
-
I think you have to press those black things on the top of the phone. When the receiver is put back it presses the black things down and disconnects the call.
Which is a bit awkward to do it without using the hand set?
-
Which is a bit awkward to do it without using the hand set?
You got used to it.
-
It would, but didn't Jeremy say the line went dead. I seem to remember thinking that the call had been cut off, rather than someone had just put the receiver down.
The line was still open wasn't it? An operator was listening in to see if anything could be heard.
-
I think you have to press those black things on the top of the phone. When the receiver is put back it presses the black things down and disconnects the call.
Yes, exactly right.
-
So if it was still off the cradle how did he phone the police? Wouldn't it of still been open his end?
Or was this when Neville could of got off the phone to Jeremy and called the police?
-
Actually, you only had to press one of the black things down to disconnect it. I have one of those old phones and I just tried it.
-
The line was still open wasn't it? An operator was listening in to see if anything could be heard.
In which case the receiver had simply been left off the cradle without the call being terminated.
-
You got used to it.
If you were say ending a call and then immediately making another, you just press down those two black bits.
-
So if it was still off the cradle how did he phone the police? Wouldn't it of still been open his end?
Or was this when Neville could of got off the phone to Jeremy and called the police?
If the phone at the farm was left open, Jeremy would be able to phone the police after a certain amount of time. There's a statement somewhere about it.
-
But the line would still be open until the other end cut it off?
Yes.If you didn't replace the receiver from your end of course.
-
Actually, you only had to press one of the black things down to disconnect it. I have one of those old phones and I just tried it.
Okay, that seems easier.
-
If you were say ending a call and then immediately making another, you just press down those two black bits.
Yes, but just pressing one of them would do it.
-
Actually, you only had to press one of the black things down to disconnect it. I have one of those old phones and I just tried it.
From memory, they both go down, as they would if the receiver was put down on them.
-
Yes, but just pressing one of them would do it.
I didn't think people had three hands in the 80's. ;D
-
If the phone at the farm was left open, Jeremy would be able to phone the police after a certain amount of time. There's a statement somewhere about it.
Thanks kaldin I wasn't around when these phones were.lol
-
From memory, they both go down, as they would if the receiver was put down on them.
That's right - they do.
-
Thanks kaldin I wasn't around when these phones were.lol
Here's the statement Lucy.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4993.0.html
-
If the phone at the farm was left open, Jeremy would be able to phone the police after a certain amount of time. There's a statement somewhere about it.
Yes----nothing to do with JB's phone not being operable no matter how long the phone had been off the hook at WHF.
-
I think it's safe to say the phone was used BEFORE any blood was shed?
-
If you were say ending a call and then immediately making another, you just press down those two black bits.
Yup, that was how it went.
-
I think it's safe to say the phone was used BEFORE any blood was shed?
Yes.
-
I think it's safe to say the phone was used BEFORE any blood was shed?
No there was no telephone call emanating from any of the occupants of White House Farm that August morning.
-
Kaldin just read the statement thankyou, so if the phone was not back on the cradle Jeremy would of been unable to dial out for 8-16 minutes,?
-
No there was no telephone call emanating from any of the occupants of White House Farm that August morning.
But we don't know that as we have no phone records.
-
Kaldin just read the statement thankyou, so if the phone was not back on the cradle Jeremy would of been unable to dial out for 8-16 minutes,?
That's what Mr Adcock said at first, but he changed it to between one and two minutes.
-
And because there were 4 phones running off the same main socket the strength would be weaker than if there had been individual sockets.
What I don't understand is when the thunderstorm knocked out one of the phones,why just one if they were all on the same circuit ?
-
That's what Mr Adcock said at first, but he changed it to between one and two minutes.
So then Jeremy if hed picked the phone straight back up, could of heard what was going on In whf?
-
Kaldin just read the statement thankyou, so if the phone was not back on the cradle Jeremy would of been unable to dial out for 8-16 minutes,?
-
But we don't know that as we have no phone records.
Its the absence of this kind of evidence that enables Steve to maintain his fairy tale. :(
-
So then Jeremy if hed picked the phone straight back up, could of heard what was going on In whf?
I would have thought so, but he said he tried to ring back and he got the engaged tone.
-
I would have thought so, but he said he tried to ring back and he got the engaged tone.
If that's the case another call was made directly after then?
-
Thanks David.
-
But we don't know that as we have no phone records.
Neither are there any of an alleged call from Nevill to Chelmsford police.
-
Which begs my previous question: why telephone Jeremy at all?
I have not seen the following idea discussed before.
If Sheila was going crazy with the gun but had not actually shot anyone then what was Nevill thinking ?
I doubt very much indeed that he wanted Sheila arrested for all sorts of reasons.
If Nevill had phoned the police then Sheila would most likely have been arrested.
So maybe Nevill was simply thinking that it was time for Sheila to be sectioned ...
Logically this is probably what Nevill was actually thinking ...
Nevill may have realised that if Sheila knew he was going to have her sectioned then she might resist and react badly.
This could explain his call to Jeremy and not the police.
Nevill maybe wanted Jeremy to contact the hospital and/or help Sheila be sectioned.
Does anyone know who you call if some one needs sectioning ? How is it arranged ?
I guess sometimes the police or G.P's arrange it - but who does a family phone when it needs doing ?
Are families of discharged patients given a number to call 24/7 if they have concerns about the ex patient ?
I hope every one can at least agree that it might have crossed Nevills mind that Sheila would need sectioning in the mental hospital when she first picked the gun up and started acting crazy ?
Was this why he called Jeremy ?
-
Neither are there any of an alleged call from Nevill to Chelmsford police.
So neither scenario can be successfully dismissed
-
If that's the case another call was made directly after then?
What do you mean Lucy?
-
So neither scenario can be successfully dismissed
How does one prove something which never happened?
-
I have not seen the following idea discussed before.
If Sheila was going crazy with the gun but had not actually shot anyone then what was Nevill thinking ?
I doubt very much indeed that he wanted Sheila arrested for all sorts of reasons.
If Nevill had phoned the police then Sheila would most likely have been arrested.
So maybe Nevill was simply thinking that it was time for Sheila to be sectioned ...
Logically this is probably what Nevill was actually thinking ...
Nevill may have realised that if Sheila knew he was going to have her sectioned then she might resist and react badly.
This could explain his call to Jeremy and not the police.
Nevill maybe wanted Jeremy to contact the hospital and/or help Sheila be sectioned.
Does anyone know who you call if some one needs sectioning ? How is it arranged ?
I guess sometimes the police or G.P's arrange it - but who does a family phone when it needs doing ?
Are families of discharged patients given a number to call 24/7 if they have concerns about the ex patient ?
I hope every one can at least agree that it might have crossed Nevills mind that Sheila would need sectioning in the mental hospital when she first picked the gun up and started acting crazy ?
Was this why he called Jeremy ?
Hi Sherlock, I believe you need 3 people to have someone sectioned, police officers can be one of them, and now you need an amp worker as well I think, which is often a social worker, definitely a gp or medical professional of some sort plus 2 others to prove the person proves a risk to themselves or others, it may be different now, the police now have mental health officers.
-
A further call would have cancelled out the previous call to Jeremy. A call made after JB.
-
How does one prove something which never happened?
What never happened?
-
If Jeremy's phone needed to be replaced for one minute, how come he got the engaged tone when he tried to ring his father back? Did he really wait for a minute before ringing back?
-
What do you mean Lucy?
If Jeremy phoned straight back and the line was engaged, it must of been on another call or when he picked up the phone it would still be connected to whf?
-
If Jeremy's phone needed to be replaced for one minute, how come he got the engaged tone when he tried to ring his father back? Did he really wait for a minute before ringing back?
Yes that's what I mean kaldin
-
Yes that's what I mean kaldin
Oh right. :)) Yes, I'm puzzled about that too.
-
If Jeremy's phone needed to be replaced for one minute, how come he got the engaged tone when he tried to ring his father back? Did he really wait for a minute before ringing back?
Yes. You don't know how long an engaged call lasts so you just keep waiting,then re- dialling until the line's clear.
-
Yes. You don't know how long an engaged call lasts so you just keep waiting,then re- dialling until the line's clear.
I read somewhere that Jeremy's phone would have to be disconnected for one full minute, so if he kept redialling, it wouldn't be disconnected. I'll see if I can find that info.
-
I read somewhere that Jeremy's phone would have to be disconnected for one full minute, so if he kept redialling, it wouldn't be disconnected. I'll see if I can find that info.
All very confusing
-
Here is the statement from Robert Cox.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.msg209643.html#msg209643
He's basically saying that if Jeremy had picked up the receiver and tried to call out, that minute (or two) would have to start all over again.
-
I have not seen the following idea discussed before.
If Sheila was going crazy with the gun but had not actually shot anyone then what was Nevill thinking ?
I doubt very much indeed that he wanted Sheila arrested for all sorts of reasons.
If Nevill had phoned the police then Sheila would most likely have been arrested.
So maybe Nevill was simply thinking that it was time for Sheila to be sectioned ...
Logically this is probably what Nevill was actually thinking ...
Nevill may have realised that if Sheila knew he was going to have her sectioned then she might resist and react badly.
This could explain his call to Jeremy and not the police.
Nevill maybe wanted Jeremy to contact the hospital and/or help Sheila be sectioned.
Does anyone know who you call if some one needs sectioning ? How is it arranged ?
I guess sometimes the police or G.P's arrange it - but who does a family phone when it needs doing ?
Are families of discharged patients given a number to call 24/7 if they have concerns about the ex patient ?
I hope every one can at least agree that it might have crossed Nevills mind that Sheila would need sectioning in the mental hospital when she first picked the gun up and started acting crazy ?
Was this why he called Jeremy ?
To fully comprehend the nature of the crimes one has to understand the relationship between Nevill and Jeremy: less father and son than employer and employee. Jeremy arrived at work from Bourtree Cottage, a situation about which he felt bitter because of its crampedness and inability to impress guests, and which he had to furbish out of his own pocket. He would then be given orders for the day like any other worker and expect to muck in. He rebelled at this initially in mild and innocuous ways, wearing skin tight trousers and make-up, though becoming emboldened as time progressed with the Osea Road break-in.
Why not kill the goose which laid the golden egg? His inheritance was at its zenith, with past hospital charges for June and Sheila, and possible private school fees for the boys. June was also arranging an annual allowance for Sheila, and Jeremy felt he was losing control.
Nevill brought up Jeremy as he himself had been reared: packed off to school at an early age, no favouritism expressed, never any emotion face to face, though there were tears to close friend John Seward. June realized early in the marriage her duty was to produce an heir, though both parents must have despaired at how Jeremy had evolved, his late conversion to any interest in farming due to the ulterior motive of inheritance, as farm secretary Barbara Wilson had guessed.
It's within the context of this environment that one assesses the likelihood of a call to Jeremy emanating from Nevill. Why not call Len Foakes first, or indeed Colin? What could his son possibly achieve that Nevill himself could not?
The reason for the alleged telephone call is to give Jeremy as excuse to approach the Farm, and loiter he did, though in the presence of Police, who were to form his alibi. With all occupants inside deceased and therefore unable to corroborate any story it was Jeremy who gained the upper hand, and almost did legally abscond, but for his amateurish mistakes and a story which under scrutiny began to fall apart.
-
I read somewhere that Jeremy's phone would have to be disconnected for one full minute, so if he kept redialling, it wouldn't be disconnected. I'll see if I can find that info.
I've never heard that before.There's no need to disconnect any phone ?
-
I read somewhere that Jeremy's phone would have to be disconnected for one full minute, so if he kept redialling, it wouldn't be disconnected. I'll see if I can find that info.
I've never heard of that before.Phones don't need to be disconnected.
-
Here is the statement from Robert Cox.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.msg209643.html#msg209643
He's basically saying that if Jeremy had picked up the receiver and tried to call out, that minute (or two) would have to start all over again.
If I remember correctly. Jeremy had a rather funky digital type phone. How will the base unit respond to the handset in such circumstance?
-
I've never heard that before.There's no need to disconnect any phone ?
Sorry - not disconnected. I mean Jeremy's phone would have to be on the hook for a continuous period of 1-2 minutes before he could use his phone to call anyone.
-
To fully comprehend the nature of the crimes one has to understand the relationship between Nevill and Jeremy: less father and son than employer and employee. Jeremy arrived at work from Bourtree Cottage, a situation about which he felt bitter because of its crampedness and inability to impress guests. He would then be given orders for the day like any other worker and expect to muck in. He rebelled at this initially in mild and innocuous ways, wearing skin tight trousers and make-up, though becoming emboldened as time progressed with the Osea Road break-in.
Why not kill the goose which laid the golden egg? His inheritance was at its zenith, with past hospital charges for June and Sheila, and possible private school fees for the boys. June was also arranging an annual allowance for Sheila, and Jeremy felt he was losing control.
Nevill brought up Jeremy as he himself had been reared: packed off to school at an early age, no favouritism expressed, never any emotion face to face, though there were tears to close friend John Seward. June realized early in the marriage her duty was to produce an heir, though both parents must have despaired at how Jeremy had evolved, his late conversion to any interest in farming due to the ulterior motive of inheritance, as farm secretary Barbara Wilson had guessed.
It's within the context of this environment that one assesses the likelihood of a call to Jeremy emanating from Nevill. Why not call Len Foakes first, or indeed Colin? What could his son possibly achieve that Nevill himself could not?
The reason for the alleged telephone call is to give Jeremy as excuse to approach the Farm, and loiter he did, though in the presence of Police, who were to form his alibi. With all occupants inside deceased and therefore unable to corroborate any story it was Jeremy who gained the upper hand, and almost did legally abscond, but for his amateurish mistakes and a story which under scrutiny began to fall apart.
Hi Steve,
I'd tend to believe IF Neville did pho e Jeremy it would of been more of a case of him not wanting others to know about the extent of Sheilas illness, did he kno len foakes or colins number off by heart? He knew Jeremy was close, I don't believe their relationship was as tempestuous as some would like us to believe in my opinion.
-
It seemed pretty archaic to me. Obviously not the same as the exchange was 250 miles away where I am.
-
What never happened?
A phone call.
-
Hi Steve,
I'd tend to believe IF Neville did pho e Jeremy it would of been more of a case of him not wanting others to know about the extent of Sheilas illness, did he kno len foakes or colins number off by heart? He knew Jeremy was close, I don't believe their relationship was as tempestuous as some would like us to believe in my opinion.
But by the end he was in fear of his life, to which the remark about the putative shooting accident to Barbara Wilson attests. Jeremy had enjoyed two foreign jaunts at his parents' expense and the bills were adding up, June herself refusing to write any more cheques in his favour since Easter.
It's under these circumstances that the crimes must be evaluated: the separation from the birth mother, the bonding with June only to be sent away for eight long years, June's illness again followed by Sheila, then Sheila's illness two years later. It's no wonder Jeremy began to feel he was the only sane one amongst them ,especially after Nevill's moroseness and infirmity at the end.
-
A phone call.
And you know that how?
-
Hi Steve,
I'd tend to believe IF Neville did pho e Jeremy it would of been more of a case of him not wanting others to know about the extent of Sheilas illness, did he kno len foakes or colins number off by heart? He knew Jeremy was close, I don't believe their relationship was as tempestuous as some would like us to believe in my opinion.
Exactly how worried was he if he allegedly looked up the number of a police station rather than calling 999, which of course, WOULD have been registered. I wonder why you believe his relationship with Jeremy was a comfortable one.
-
A phone call.
So Jeremy has led everyone up the garden path all these years ? Don't you think you'd better get in touch with the legal team to save them any more bother ?
-
And you know that how?
Coz if you don't call my number and have a conversation with me, how can I prove you didn't?
-
But by the end he was in fear of his life, to which the remark about the putative shooting accident to Barbara Wilson attests. Jeremy had enjoyed two foreign jaunts at his parents' expense and the bills were adding up, June herself refusing to write any more cheques in his favour since Easter.
It's under these circumstances that the crimes must be evaluated: the separation from the birth mother, the bonding with June only to be sent away for eight long years, June's illness again followed by Sheila, then Sheila's illness two years later. It's no wonder Jeremy began to feel he was the only sane one amongst them ,especially after Nevill's moroseness and infirmity at the end.
I just can't see how, if Neville was in fear for his life why on earth they'd continue to employ Jeremy, pay for his house etc and other perks; and let him go around unsupervised on a farm full of firearms, I agree Jeremy and some of the things he did were totally uncouth but the only person in the household who had a history of being delusional and psychotic was Sheila,
-
Coz if you don't call my number and have a conversation with me, how can I prove you didn't?
How can you disprove it if you have no evidence to back you up?
-
But by the end he was in fear of his life, to which the remark about the putative shooting accident to Barbara Wilson attests. Jeremy had enjoyed two foreign jaunts at his parents' expense and the bills were adding up, June herself refusing to write any more cheques in his favour since Easter.
It's under these circumstances that the crimes must be evaluated: the separation from the birth mother, the bonding with June only to be sent away for eight long years, June's illness again followed by Sheila, then Sheila's illness two years later. It's no wonder Jeremy began to feel he was the only sane one amongst them ,especially after Nevill's moroseness and infirmity at the end.
Now that's just plain stupid.
-
So Jeremy has led everyone up the garden path all these years ? Don't you think you'd better get in touch with the legal team to save them any more bother ?
Yeah, you're dead right I believe Jeremy has lead everyone up the garden path. It's entirely up to his legal team what they choose to believe, At the end of the day, it's about who's prepared to swallow the story.
-
So Jeremy has led everyone up the garden path all these years ? Don't you think you'd better get in touch with the legal team to save them any more bother ?
Sort of, yeah. That's why the Campaign team aren't the legal team. They're used to drum up awareness and public support, although quite poor at both. That's why much of these breakthroughs that the CT come up with and promote... don't actually get used by the legal team.
-
I just can't see how, if Neville was in fear for his life why on earth they'd continue to employ Jeremy, pay for his house etc and other perks; and let him go around unsupervised on a farm full of firearms, I agree Jeremy and some of the things he did were totally uncouth but the only person in the household who had a history of being delusional and psychotic was Sheila,
Ha! If he was to 'reserved' to allow outside agencies to know about his daughter's mental history, I'm perfectly certain he wouldn't want anyone to know how scared of Jeremy he was. I imagine it took a lot to reduce him to tears.
-
Yeah, you're dead right I believe Jeremy has lead everyone up the garden path. It's entirely up to his legal team what they choose to believe, At the end of the day, it's about who's prepared to swallow the story.
And you get onto me when I talk about the incompetency of professionals,yet here you are doubting a QC,lawyer/solicitor and many others who are attached to the law ?
-
How can you disprove it if you have no evidence to back you up?
OK, so you can lie through your teeth and insist that you phoned me and we had a conversation, coz I can't prove you didn't. It gets worse, if -God forbid- you should die and your family insist you phoned me and had a conversation with me, I'm in an even more difficult situation because you haven't got the opportunity of telling the truth.
-
Ha! If he was to 'reserved' to allow outside agencies to know about his daughter's mental history, I'm perfectly certain he wouldn't want anyone to know how scared of Jeremy he was. I imagine it took a lot to reduce him to tears.
Where have i said that? I'm pretty sure it was Neville who paid for Sheilas treatment at st Andrews? Id say that's an outside agency? Maybe the closer community, funny how even the family never even knew of Sheilas hospitilisation? Yet they were so close?
-
And you get onto me when I talk about the incompetency of professionals,yet here you are doubting a QC,lawyer/solicitor and many others who are attached to the law ?
Oh, c'mon! That's cheesy to say the least. I seem to recall that 10 out of 12 jury members didn't believe his 'professionals', either.
-
Where have i said that? I'm pretty sure it was Neville who paid for Sheilas treatment at st Andrews? Id say that's an outside agency? Maybe the closer community, funny how even the family never even knew of Sheilas hospitilisation? Yet they were so close?
Indeed, but far enough away that neither family nor employees got a whiff of what was happening. Extreme measures given that Sheila lived in London so her absences didn't have to be explained away.
-
Now that's just plain stupid.
David we're dealing with multiple homicide, which rarely appears from a vacuum.
-
I just can't see how, if Neville was in fear for his life why on earth they'd continue to employ Jeremy, pay for his house etc and other perks; and let him go around unsupervised on a farm full of firearms, I agree Jeremy and some of the things he did were totally uncouth but the only person in the household who had a history of being delusional and psychotic was Sheila,
Well he told John Seward June wouldn't let him throw him out (to use Seward's expression). Barbara Wilson said post-mortems that he believed he was the target but not the whole family.
-
OK, so you can lie through your teeth and insist that you phoned me and we had a conversation, coz I can't prove you didn't. It gets worse, if -God forbid- you should die and your family insist you phoned me and had a conversation with me, I'm in an even more difficult situation because you haven't got the opportunity of telling the truth.
Yep that's exactly how it works, but no one would ever know if I we're telling the truth either would They? So your argument is pointless, it can't be proved either way,
-
Yep that's exactly how it works, but no one would ever know if I we're telling the truth either would They? So your argument is pointless, it can't be proved either way,
So in this case, those on your (Jeremy's) side would be prepared to call me (Police) a liar despite that I'm telling the truth?
-
So in this case, those on your (Jeremy's) side would be prepared to call me (Police) a liar despite that I'm telling the truth?
You can't call anyone a liar unless you have concrete evidence,
What you WANT to believe and what you can prove are 2 different things,
You seem to be missing the point, there are no phone records to disprove or prove any phone calls, which is why it's debated so much as there is a valid argument on both sides,
Unless you know something everyone else doesn't? Which i.doubt very much
-
Despite that you're saying that one can't label anyone as a liar without proof -and I TOTALLY agree- that's exactly what'd being said of the police. Not that it really matters. It's down to those who accuse to prove THEIR point. I don't believe I'm missing ANY point.
-
Despite that you're saying that one can't label anyone as a liar without proof -and I TOTALLY agree- that's exactly what'd being said of the police. Not that it really matters. It's down to those who accuse to prove THEIR point. I don't believe I'm missing ANY point.
Cool, glad that's cleared up
-
Well he told John Seward June wouldn't let him throw him out (to use Seward's expression). Barbara Wilson said post-mortems that he believed he was the target but not the whole family.
I don't u understand why Barbara changed stance so much, wanting to kill one person and committing mass murder on 2 innocent children? He had plenty of opportunity to kill Neville without taking them all out.
-
I don't u understand why Barbara changed stance so much, wanting to kill one person and committing mass murder on 2 innocent children? He had plenty of opportunity to kill Neville without taking them all out.
I presume because he was an inheritance killer, as Adam has persuasively argued.
-
I don't u understand why Barbara changed stance so much, wanting to kill one person and committing mass murder on 2 innocent children? He had plenty of opportunity to kill Neville without taking them all out.
I don't imagine Nevill thought the bad feelings went anywhere beyond himself.
-
I presume because he was an inheritance killer, as Adam has persuasively argued.
That's wearing a bit thin now Steve.
-
I don't u understand why Barbara changed stance so much, wanting to kill one person and committing mass murder on 2 innocent children? He had plenty of opportunity to kill Neville without taking them all out.
How would killing just Neville achieve what Jeremy wanted?
-
How would killing just Neville achieve what Jeremy wanted?
We don't know it was him though,? IF it was an inheritance killing which I personally don't believe; then what you've said is correct,
He never expressed any wish for Sheila and the twins or his mother to be dead, but Sheila expressed concern by talking of killing her children? She was psychotic with a mass history of mental illness, Jeremy wasnt, i.cant see anyone planning and committing mass murder with no history of violence or mental outbursts,
-
We don't know it was him though,? IF it was an inheritance killing which I personally don't believe; then what you've said is correct,
He never expressed any wish for Sheila and the twins or his mother to be dead, but Sheila expressed concern by talking of killing her children? She was psychotic with a mass history of mental illness, Jeremy wasnt, i.cant see anyone planning and committing mass murder with no history of violence or mental outbursts,
Have you never heard of someone with no convictions planning and going through with murder?
-
Well the planning didn't work did it ?
Unpredictability in a person with mental health issues is ALWAYS happening.
-
We don't know it was him though,? IF it was an inheritance killing which I personally don't believe; then what you've said is correct,
He never expressed any wish for Sheila and the twins or his mother to be dead, but Sheila expressed concern by talking of killing her children? She was psychotic with a mass history of mental illness, Jeremy wasnt, i.cant see anyone planning and committing mass murder with no history of violence or mental outbursts,
Well who was first in line to inherit the money..
-
Have you never heard of someone with no convictions planning and going through with murder?
Mass murder with no history of mental issues either, no but I'm happy to look if you send me some links
-
It does seem a bit drastic to kill your entire family just to get all the money. If he'd killed Nevill he would have got quite a lot. OK, he would have to share it with Sheila, unless he carried on farming, but he would still have got enough.
-
Well who was first in line to inherit the money..
I know Steve, I just don't believe this was the case, but I respect your opinion.
-
It does seem a bit drastic to kill your entire family just to get all the money. If he'd killed Nevill he would have got quite a lot. OK, he would have to share it with Sheila, unless he carried on farming, but he would still have got enough.
I suppose the temptation to inherit a double whack of money plus a posh pad in a fashionable area of London proved too much.
-
I am in no way excusing; just trying to understand.
-
I suppose the temptation to inherit a double whack of money plus a posh pad in a fashionable area of London proved too much.
Perhaps Jeremy would have liked farming if he'd been the boss, so he'd only have to kill Nevill.
-
Mass murder with no history of mental issues either, no but I'm happy to look if you send me some links
http://behavioralscientist.org/myth-mental-illness-causes-mass-shootings/
I don't believe that every mass murder you've ever read has been comitted by someone with a mental illness.
-
Perhaps Jeremy would have liked farming if he'd been the boss, so he'd only have to kill Nevill.
But he was a city boy like his birth father. Tilling the soil was alien to him, and spending eight years in a cloistered rural educational environment must have been anathema as well.
-
Well who was first in line to inherit the money..
It would have appeared that nobody cared about inheritance so long as they copped for the lot.
-
http://behavioralscientist.org/myth-mental-illness-causes-mass-shootings/
I don't believe that every mass murder you've ever read has been comitted by someone with a mental illness.
You have to be mentally unstable In some way to kill innocent children while they sleep, people of a sane mind don't do that, especially pre empted.
-
But he was a city boy like his birth father. Tilling the soil was alien to him, and spending eight years in a cloistered rural educational environment must have been anathema as well.
Tilling the soil was all he was used to, he's been brought up in a farming environment, he never even knew his birth father
-
But he was a city boy like his birth father. Tilling the soil was alien to him, and spending eight years in a cloistered rural educational environment must have been anathema as well.
How do you know that? If he'd been in charge he could have made others do all the work and just gone off for jaunts whenever he felt like it.
-
http://behavioralscientist.org/myth-mental-illness-causes-mass-shootings/
I don't believe that every mass murder you've ever read has been comitted by someone with a mental illness.
I think that article is one for David to read..
-
You have to be mentally unstable In some way to kill innocent children while they sleep, people of a sane mind don't do that, especially pre empted.
A psychopath would see anyone -no matter how young- as an impediment to them getting what they want.
-
How do you know that? If he'd been in charge he could have made others do all the work and just gone off for jaunts whenever he felt like it.
I'm not sure farm work is like that. He might have got away with putting his feet up on the desk at Osea Road, but that business seemed to be the prerogative of the Speakman Boutflour dynasty. In any case he was attracted to the bright lights of London.
-
It does seem a bit drastic to kill your entire family just to get all the money. If he'd killed Nevill he would have got quite a lot. OK, he would have to share it with Sheila, unless he carried on farming, but he would still have got enough.
I'm just not buying it, why kill ommocemt children while they slept for a pay cheque? He had plenty of opportunity to kill Neville if he wanted, could of even made it look like an accident, why go to the trouble of massacreing everyone?
-
I think that article is one for David to read..
I read it a few days ago, but didn't think there was much point in posting it here because I thought that it was beyond obvious that everyone who kills isn't mentally ill and everyone who is mentally ill doesn't kill.
I'm just not buying it, why kill ommocemt children while they slept for a pay cheque? He had plenty of opportunity to kill Neville if he wanted, could of even made it look like an accident, why go to the trouble of massacreing everyone?
People kill for money. People do sick things for money. It happens.
-
I think that article is one for David to read..
I'm going to read it just putting the little one to bed
-
I'm just not buying it, why kill ommocemt children while they slept for a pay cheque? He had plenty of opportunity to kill Neville if he wanted, could of even made it look like an accident, why go to the trouble of massacreing everyone?
Your thinking seems to be framed in a similar vein to Julie's, but as has just been said: how do you possibly put yourself into the mind of a psychopath?
-
I read it a few days ago, but didn't think there was much point in posting it here because I thought that it was beyond obvious that everyone who kills isn't mentally ill and everyone who is mentally ill doesn't kill.
People kill for money. People do sick things for money. It happens.
I accept what you've said, but surely you can agree that people of sane mind dont pre olan and committ mass murder?
-
Your thinking seems to be framed in a similar vein to Julie's, but as has just been said: how do you possibly put yourself into the mind of a psychopath?
You dont, because I'm a functioning adult, therefore I know what is right and wrong and have enough restraint not to kill people.
-
I accept what you've said, but surely you can agree that people of sane mind dont pre olan and committ mass murder?
Someone who is sane can be evil. Yes.
-
Someone who is sane can be evil. Yes.
I agree, and also that sane people sometimes just snap, I don't agree someone who is of sound mind can plan and commit the mass murder of his whole family in a massive overkill attack
-
I agree, and also that sane people sometimes just snap, I don't agree someone who is of sound mind can plan and commit the mass murder of his whole family in a massive overkill attack
Nor do I. Most people have the intelligence to hold back from any urge to inflict harm.
-
I'm just not buying it, why kill ommocemt children while they slept for a pay cheque? He had plenty of opportunity to kill Neville if he wanted, could of even made it look like an accident, why go to the trouble of massacreing everyone?
But according to the terms of Nevill's will, Jeremy would have to satisfy the trustees that he was capable of running the farm before he inherited. There's also the fact that on Nevill's death, everything he had would have been June's. There would have to have been another murder.
-
But according to the terms of Nevill's will, Jeremy would have to satisfy the trustees that he was capable of running the farm before he inherited. There's also the fact that on Nevill's death, everything he had would have been June's. There would have to have been another murder.
No, if he didn't stay in farming, half of Nevill's estate would go to Sheila (bar a house and personal stuff he left to June). Jeremy would still have got a fair amount.
-
It doesn't mean that he should go and kill his family because the trustees state that he has to pull his socks up.On the contrary,it's meant as a word of advice and encouragement which is the way JB would have taken it.
-
It doesn't mean that he should go and kill his family because the trustees state that he has to pull his socks up.On the contrary,it's meant as a word of advice and encouragement which is the way JB would have taken it.
And wouldn't he have loved that, doing a job he didn't want to do, anyway? He didn't want to farm, Lookout.
-
And wouldn't he have loved that, doing a job he didn't want to do, anyway? He didn't want to farm, Lookout.
zero evidence that he dident want to farm and even if he dident that's hardly evidence of guilt how many people do a job they don't really like very few of them kill to get out of it.
-
zero evidence that he dident want to farm and even if he dident that's hardly evidence of guilt how many people do a job they don't really like very few of them kill to get out of it.
Actions speak louder than words here nugs -or should I say, as far a putting his nose to the farm grindstone goes, LACK of action. As for people doing jobs they don't like but not killing, there are few who stand to get a fortune by sticking with it.
-
Actions speak louder than words here nugs -or should I say, as far a putting his nose to the farm grindstone goes, LACK of action. As for people doing jobs they don't like but not killing, there are few who stand to get a fortune by sticking with it.
It seems to me that he worked quite hard on the farm for quite long hours.
-
It seems to me that he worked quite hard on the farm for quite long hours.
Yes that was after his two round the world trips, his bout at Little Chef and his stints at the Frog and Beans and Sloppy Joe's. It was the balance between working and social life which is often so difficult to juggle for the best of us that his parents objected to and which led in part to the tragedy as Jeremy, cognizant of his parents' wills felt bound to fulfil, though for a short time only.
-
Yes that was after his two round the world trips, his bout at Little Chef and his stints at the Frog and Beans and Sloppy Joe's. It was the balance between working and social life which is often so difficult to juggle for the best of us that his parents objected to and which led in part to the tragedy as Jeremy, cognizant of his parents' wills felt bound to fulfil, though for a short time only.
I cannot see how any of the above has any bearing on whether he murdered.
Many young adults take gap years and travel, some work abroad for quite a few years. He was able to do it because his parents could afford it just as more parents can afford it these days. Many in their late teens early twenties also work at different jobs before settling down its part of growing up in the western world for those lucky enough to have the opportunity.
-
I cannot see how any of the above has any bearing on whether he murdered.
Many young adults take gap years and travel, some work abroad for quite a few years. He was able to do it because his parents could afford it just as more parents can afford it these days. Many in their late teens early twenties also work at different jobs before settling down its part of growing up in the western world for those lucky enough to have the opportunity.
Yes and the raison d'être behind these gap years surely is that you sow your wild oats whilst you're young, get whatever it is you needed out of your system and then settle down to hard work and domestic bliss. We will never know for sure how Jeremy's life might have evolved had he not taken his short cut to madness, but the sad fact was the relationship he most wanted to succeed, namely that with Suzette, failed, leading to an uncertainty and crisis of confidence, exacerbated by his parents' lack of empathy and criticism. The tragedy was that they were moving in his direction, albeit slowly, the rumours that they were thinking of selling up may well have been true, but by that stage Jeremy had been inculcated by his idee fixe, and whatever his parents' plans for him was set on his murderous course.
-
Yes and the raison d'être behind these gap years surely is that you sow your wild oats whilst you're young, get whatever it is you needed out of your system and then settle down to hard work and domestic bliss. We will never know for sure how Jeremy's life might have evolved had he not taken his short cut to madness, but the sad fact was the relationship he most wanted to succeed, namely that with Suzette, failed, leading to an uncertainty and crisis of confidence, exacerbated by his parents' lack of empathy and criticism. The tragedy was that they were moving in his direction, albeit slowly, the rumours that they were thinking of selling up may well have been true, but by that stage Jeremy had been inculcated by his idee fixe, and whatever his parents' plans for him was set on his murderous course.
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/f0/f2/00/f0f20036fac2fc7fd865e2953b07bb62.jpg)
-
Moderators can you do something about David's posters.
No one else posts them. They are goading & not contributing to the discussion.
Thank you.
-
Moderators can you do something about David's posters.
No one else posts them. They are goading & not contributing to the discussion.
Thank you.
Goading & not contributing to the discussion is what you do all the time. So why complain?
-
Goading & not contributing to the discussion is what you do all the time. So why complain?
I discuss the case.
If Maggie doesn't like what I have posted she will be all over me on the main board.
Just posting pictures, cartoons, 'Gish gash' & pictures of Ricky Gervaise is just goading.
No one else does it. So I have asked the moderators to ensure this is never done in the future.
-
Yes that was after his two round the world trips, his bout at Little Chef and his stints at the Frog and Beans and Sloppy Joe's. It was the balance between working and social life which is often so difficult to juggle for the best of us that his parents objected to and which led in part to the tragedy as Jeremy, cognizant of his parents' wills felt bound to fulfil, though for a short time only.
What have trips got to do with anything ?
-
What have trips got to do with anything ?
They're part of Jeremy's "Get out of working on the farm. Free for as long as possible" card.
-
It all sounds absurd to me. If Jeremy really didn't want to be a farmer, why was Nevill persisting with the idea that he must do it? Jeremy of course could have walked away, but why did his parents not discuss with him what he'd like to do instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? I know that June's family in particular were all into farming - don't know about Nevill's relatives - but there are other things besides farming. Instead of buying land because Ann wanted them to, why didn't they talk about their own children's future and try to sort things out?
Is it possible that Jeremy actually liked farming, and that all this stuff about him hating it is nonsense?
-
It all sounds absurd to me. If Jeremy really didn't want to be a farmer, why was Nevill persisting with the idea that he must do it? Jeremy of course could have walked away, but why did his parents not discuss with him what he'd like to do instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? I know that June's family in particular were all into farming - don't know about Nevill's relatives - but there are other things besides farming. Instead of buying land because Ann wanted them to, why didn't they talk about their own children's future and try to sort things out?
Is it possible that Jeremy actually liked farming, and that all this stuff about him hating it is nonsense?
I think it’s been blown up out of all proportion .
-
I think it’s been blown up out of all proportion .
I don't recall Jeremy saying that he hated farming or anything like that, so where has this stuff come from?
-
It all sounds absurd to me. If Jeremy really didn't want to be a farmer, why was Nevill persisting with the idea that he must do it? Jeremy of course could have walked away, but why did his parents not discuss with him what he'd like to do instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? I know that June's family in particular were all into farming - don't know about Nevill's relatives - but there are other things besides farming. Instead of buying land because Ann wanted them to, why didn't they talk about their own children's future and try to sort things out?
Is it possible that Jeremy actually liked farming, and that all this stuff about him hating it is nonsense?
I don't see it like that.
I think NB realised that in order to be a 'successful farmer', then JB would have needed the land and funds to accommodate that career.
If he did not want to take up farming, then Sheila and JB would get the same.
-
I don't see it like that.
I think NB realised that in order to be a 'successful farmer', then JB would have needed the land and funds to accommodate that career.
If he did not want to take up farming, then Sheila and JB would get the same.
Are you referring to the Will? I agree with you. There are two ways to look at that Will. The first is that Nevill was saying he'd reduce Jeremy's inheritance if he refused to be a farmer. The second is that Jeremy needed more than Sheila if he was going to carry on farming, but if he didn't carry on then they might as well have half each.
What I'm questioning is this assumption that Jeremy hated farming and killed them all so he could get out of it and get to keep all the money.
-
It all sounds absurd to me. If Jeremy really didn't want to be a farmer, why was Nevill persisting with the idea that he must do it? Jeremy of course could have walked away, but why did his parents not discuss with him what he'd like to do instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? I know that June's family in particular were all into farming - don't know about Nevill's relatives - but there are other things besides farming. Instead of buying land because Ann wanted them to, why didn't they talk about their own children's future and try to sort things out?
Is it possible that Jeremy actually liked farming, and that all this stuff about him hating it is nonsense?
I think this is a good example of needing to stand in another's shoes before they can be understood. You seem to have little understanding of what effect controlling parents can have on the lives of their children -even through to adulthood. They didn't discuss Jeremy's future because there'd have been no point. Jeremy's future was mapped out for him.
-
I don't recall Jeremy saying that he hated farming or anything like that, so where has this stuff come from?
Something which JM had said he'd told her.
-
I don't recall Jeremy saying that he hated farming or anything like that, so where has this stuff come from?
Actions speak rather louder than words. Try weighing up the amount of time -since leaving school and NOT going to ag college- Jeremy had spent working on the farm, against the time he'd spent at college, doing various menial jobs, moving away from home to facilitate these jobs, and trips to Australasia.
-
Are you referring to the Will? I agree with you. There are two ways to look at that Will. The first is that Nevill was saying he'd reduce Jeremy's inheritance if he refused to be a farmer. The second is that Jeremy needed more than Sheila if he was going to carry on farming, but if he didn't carry on then they might as well have half each.
What I'm questioning is this assumption that Jeremy hated farming and killed them all so he could get out of it and get to keep all the money.
I don't know whether he hated farming, or hard work, but his employment history isn't necessarily in keeping with a typical 'young farmer'. There was no agricultural college courses etc.
He wasn't that young, he was 24. I think he played the part of a spoilt brat being funded by wealthy parents very well.
I can see why some people might think farming wasn't his chosen way of life.
-
I don't know ANY 24 year olds who work their fingers to the bone !
Half of them couldn't work in convulsions ::)
-
I don't know whether he hated farming, or hard work, but his employment history isn't necessarily in keeping with a typical 'young farmer'. There was no agricultural college courses etc.
He wasn't that young, he was 24. I think he played the part of a spoilt brat being funded by wealthy parents very well.
I can see why some people might think farming wasn't his chosen way of life.
I, and now you, have both picked up on that Jeremy avoided ag college. Hardly indicative of someone eager to take up farming. OK Royal Cheltenham may have been out of the question, but Writtle Ag. wasn't much further than NEETC in Colchester. I've said he hated farming, perhaps it was work, per se that he hated.
-
I think this is a good example of needing to stand in another's shoes before they can be understood. You seem to have little understanding of what effect controlling parents can have on the lives of their children -even through to adulthood. They didn't discuss Jeremy's future because there'd have been no point. Jeremy's future was mapped out for him.
This is what I'm questioning. Was it actually mapped out for him? Maybe he did want to go into farming - it's only others who have said he didn't. Where is the evidence that he didn't want to?
-
Actions speak rather louder than words. Try weighing up the amount of time -since leaving school and NOT going to ag college- Jeremy had spent working on the farm, against the time he'd spent at college, doing various menial jobs, moving away from home to facilitate these jobs, and trips to Australasia.
So maybe he wanted to try other things first, but that doesn't mean that he didn't like farming.
-
This is what I'm questioning. Was it actually mapped out for him? Maybe he did want to go into farming - it's only others who have said he didn't. Where is the evidence that he didn't want to?
JM's witness statement.
-
I, and now you, have both picked up on that Jeremy avoided ag college. Hardly indicative of someone eager to take up farming. OK Royal Cheltenham may have been out of the question, but Writtle Ag. wasn't much further than NEETC in Colchester. I've said he hated farming, perhaps it was work, per se that he hated.
There is certainly a perception that he wanted things handed to him on a plate.
-
I don't know ANY 24 year olds who work their fingers to the bone !
Half of them couldn't work in convulsions ::)
RUBBISH!! You're making excuses for the "poor boy". Sure, there'll always be some who prefer to doss, but the majority -even after degrees- are working. Go back 30+ years and I think there was a stronger work ethic than there now is.
-
JM's witness statement.
Perhaps he said it once - like most people get fed up with the jobs from time to time.
-
This is what I'm questioning. Was it actually mapped out for him? Maybe he did want to go into farming - it's only others who have said he didn't. Where is the evidence that he didn't want to?
Perhaps the evidence is, that there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he DID want to go in to farming.
-
This is what I'm questioning. Was it actually mapped out for him? Maybe he did want to go into farming - it's only others who have said he didn't. Where is the evidence that he didn't want to?
What do you think they adopted a son for, Kaldin? They COULD have had another girl. His track record of avoiding farm work, his lack of interest in furthering his knowledge by going to ag college, is it's own evidence.
-
RUBBISH!! You're making excuses for the "poor boy". Sure, there'll always be some who prefer to doss, but the majority -even after degrees- are working. Go back 30+ years and I think there was a stronger work ethic than there now is.
I'm not so sure about that. The Tories had got into power in 1979 - I don't know how it was down south but in the north jobs were fairly scarce.
-
RUBBISH!! You're making excuses for the "poor boy". Sure, there'll always be some who prefer to doss, but the majority -even after degrees- are working. Go back 30+ years and I think there was a stronger work ethic than there now is.
Who were working 17 hours a day harvesting ? I doubt it.
So cobblers to you too.
-
What do you think they adopted a son for, Kaldin? They COULD have had another girl. His track record of avoiding farm work, his lack of interest in furthering his knowledge by going to ag college, is it's own evidence.
What? If they were desperate for a son, why didn't they adopt a baby boy instead of Sheila? Maybe they wanted a boy and girl, like people do, or maybe they just took a baby which was available. Girls can go into farming too, but there was no pressure on Sheila to do so.
None of that is evidence that he hated farming so much that he wanted to get out of it and run off with all the money - to the extent that he would murder five people, including two small boys.
-
Who were working 17 hours a day harvesting ? I doubt it.
So cobblers to you too.
Yeah, and how often does harvesting last? A tiny window of time out of the working year.
-
What? If they were desperate for a son, why didn't they adopt a baby boy instead of Sheila? Maybe they wanted a boy and girl, like people do, or maybe they just took a baby which was available. Girls can go into farming too, but there was no pressure on Sheila to do so.
None of that is evidence that he hated farming so much that he wanted to get out of it and run off with all the money - to the extent that he would murder five people, including two small boys.
How do you know that there was any pressure for JB to go in to farming?
I still think it was just an opportunity for him to take or leave.
-
I'm not so sure about that. The Tories had got into power in 1979 - I don't know how it was down south but in the north jobs were fairly scarce.
Not as bad in the south.
-
How do you know that there was any pressure for JB to go in to farming?
I still think it was just an opportunity for him to take or leave.
I didn't say there was pressure - it was Jane who claimed that.
-
Not as bad in the south.
I'm pleased to hear that. :)) However, I'm not sure that the work ethnic was stronger back then. In any case, Jeremy did work. I don't know why people imply that he didn't.
-
I didn't say there was pressure - it was Jane who claimed that.
Oh okay, you mentioned a lack of pressure on Sheila, I thought you were saying that was different with JB.
-
Oh okay, you mentioned a lack of pressure on Sheila, I thought you were saying that was different with JB.
I just meant that if they pressurised Jeremy, as Jane claims, why didn't they pressurise Sheila as well?
-
What? If they were desperate for a son, why didn't they adopt a baby boy instead of Sheila? Maybe they wanted a boy and girl, like people do, or maybe they just took a baby which was available. Girls can go into farming too, but there was no pressure on Sheila to do so.
None of that is evidence that he hated farming so much that he wanted to get out of it and run off with all the money - to the extent that he would murder five people, including two small boys.
Maybe the girl was to appease June for what she'd suffered. Maybe June thought she'd cope better with a girl. They were people with old fashioned values so perhaps -even had Sheila shown the remotest interest- it wouldn't have been acceptable. You keep saying that there's no evidence of him hating farming. There's even less -by his own actions- that he loved it.
-
I'm pleased to hear that. :)) However, I'm not sure that the work ethnic was stronger back then. In any case, Jeremy did work. I don't know why people imply that he didn't.
If he's being described as lazy, work shy and a bit of a playboy, then perhaps that's exactly what he was?
It's not my description, but it was the media's take on him at the time.
Where is the evidence that he had a good work ethic?
-
Maybe the girl was to appease June for what she'd suffered. Maybe June thought she'd cope better with a girl. They were people with old fashioned values so perhaps -even had Sheila shown the remotest interest- it wouldn't have been acceptable. You keep saying that there's no evidence of him hating farming. There's even less -by his own actions- that he loved it.
Like what? He liked going to London? So what? Lots of people like to do different things at weekends.
-
I just meant that if they pressurised Jeremy, as Jane claims, why didn't they pressurise Sheila as well?
I don't think that they did pressure JB.
-
If he's being described as lazy, work shy and a bit of a playboy, then perhaps that's exactly what he was?
It's not my description, but it was the media's take on him at the time.
Where is the evidence that he had a good work ethic?
Who described him that way? The media say lots of things, but that doesn't make it true.
How do you know how hard he worked on the farm?
-
I don't think that they did pressure JB.
Perhaps you should tell Jane that.
-
It used to be more important for the man to have secure employment as girls were seen as " home-makers " years ago.It would have seemed that this ideology had been alive and kicking at WHF as it didn't seem as important for Sheila to be pushed into employment as Jeremy,who,in future years would have been seen as the breadwinner.
Somehow,girls education was never seen as being as important as the boys.
-
Who described him that way? The media say lots of things, but that doesn't make it true.
How do you know how hard he worked on the farm?
I think I covered that with my second sentence above.
I think he'd run out of options and farming was all that was left for him.
-
It used to be more important for the man to have secure employment as girls were seen as " home-makers " years ago.It would have seemed that this ideology had been alive and kicking at WHF as it didn't seem as important for Sheila to be pushed into employment as Jeremy,who,in future years would have been seen as the breadwinner.
Somehow,girls education was never seen as being as important as the boys.
That was possibly the case in the Bamber family and their relatives' families, but not really the case generally in the '80s.
-
I think I covered that with my second sentence above.
I think he'd run out of options and farming was all that was left for him.
Well this is what some people assume. They have to say that in order to justify the motive for the murders because money alone wouldn't be a great motive.
-
Well this is what some people assume. They have to say that in order to justify the motive for the murders because money alone wouldn't be a great motive.
I'm not really on board with that statement.
I think it's quite understandable for people to think that JB wanted more than he had.
-
That was possibly the case in the Bamber family and their relatives' families, but not really the case generally in the '80s.
June lived in the past though didn't she and what she said,went ?
-
I'm not really on board with that statement.
I think it's quite understandable for people to think that JB wanted more than he had.
Indeed the argument that the relatives used a similar motive to frame JB is alive and well, yet seemingly easier to swallow.
-
I'm not really on board with that statement.
I think it's quite understandable for people to think that JB wanted more than he had.
It's not enough for people to say that he killed his family for money, they say that he also hated them. That's why he was able to kill them in cold blood, beat his father, and shoot his own mother between the eyes.
-
It's not enough for people to say that he killed his family for money, they say that he also hated them. That's why he was able to kill them in cold blood, beat his father, and shoot his own mother between the eyes.
Perhaps they are right?
Maybe it's a conclusion that he surely couldn't have murdered them if he didn't hate them.
-
Well this is what some people assume. They have to say that in order to justify the motive for the murders because money alone wouldn't be a great motive.
Why isn't money a great motive? It's been motive in the past and will continue to be motive in the future.
-
June lived in the past though didn't she and what she said,went ?
I don't know lookout, but it does seem Pamela at least just thought of herself as a "housewife", so maybe June had a similar outlook.
-
Why isn't money a great motive? It's been motive in the past and will continue to be motive in the future.
There needs to be more for someone to shoot five people, including two young children, and to fight with their father, and to see their mother suffering.
-
If there doesn't need to be more motive than money, why are "guilters" so concerned about whether Jeremy hated his family or not?
-
I don't know lookout, but it does seem Pamela at least just thought of herself as a "housewife", so maybe June had a similar outlook.
She was a director of their company, but maybe that was for tax purposes.
-
If there doesn't need to be more motive than money, why are "guilters" so concerned about whether Jeremy hated his family or not?
I'm not sure that they are concerned.
How about the posters saying that the relatives hated Jeremy? Isn't it the same, yet doesn't stick in the throat as much?
-
I'm not sure that they are concerned.
How about the posters saying that the relatives hated Jeremy? Isn't it the same, yet doesn't stick in the throat as much?
They're looking for a motive for the relatives to point the finger at Jeremy. Also, the relatives were actually very negative about him - whilst being nice to his face of course.
-
There needs to be more for someone to shoot five people, including two young children, and to fight with their father, and to see their mother suffering.
So if he killed them, then perhaps he did indeed hate them?
-
So if he killed them, then perhaps he did indeed hate them?
I don't think he hated them, just didn't care one way or the other.
-
So if he killed them, then perhaps he did indeed hate them?
And perhaps he didn't. Perhaps he liked farming and he liked his parents, sister, and nephews. Perhaps he was indifferent to them. He might have hated them, but I don't think anyone can assume that.
-
They're looking for a motive for the relatives to point the finger at Jeremy. Also, the relatives were actually very negative about him - whilst being nice to his face of course.
I don't think that they are looking for a motive. I think the money and perceived freedom that JB would enjoy was the motive.
The 'hate' conclusion is secondary and is a conclusion born out of his actions, rather than necessarily being the cause of his actions.
-
I don't think that they are looking for a motive. I think the money and perceived freedom that JB would enjoy was the motive.
The 'hate' conclusion is secondary and is a conclusion born out of his actions, rather than necessarily being the cause of his actions.
A lot of people would like money and freedom, but they don't murder five people to get it. That requires some kind of negative emotion towards those people.
What are these actions which had led some people to conclude that Jeremy hated his family and hated farming?
-
I don't know lookout, but it does seem Pamela at least just thought of herself as a "housewife", so maybe June had a similar outlook.
Yes,I think so. Circumstances didn't really force either into employment.
-
I don't think he hated them, just didn't care one way or the other.
I could go along with that.
-
A lot of people would like money and freedom, but they don't murder five people to get it. That requires some kind of negative emotion towards those people.
What are these actions which had led some people to conclude that Jeremy hated his family and hated farming?
Again, the act of murder, is in itself, a likely reason why some people may think that JB hated his victims.
-
Again, the act of murder, is in itself, a likely reason why some people may think that JB hated his victims.
Yes, if they think he's guilty. They have to think that don't they because money in itself wouldn't be a good enough motive.
-
The point is that before the murders, what is the evidence that Jeremy hated farming and hated his family? We have some vague notion that he told RB that he could kill his parent, some vague accusation that Nevill was afraid of him, and some very negative comments from the relatives generally - after the event of course.
-
Usually violence goes with hatred or vice-versa,but because there's no sign of either,where would anyone get the " oomph " to go ahead and slaughter 5 people ? If you weren't that way inclined ? And the man isn't insane either.
Those are three driving forces towards any act of murder.
-
Yes, if they think he's guilty. They have to think that don't they because money in itself wouldn't be a good enough motive.
I don't agree. I don't think the two are connected.
I think some posters may lay it on thick, as a character assassination, but the reality is, the act of murder is bad enough.
-
I don't agree. I don't think the two are connected.
I think some posters may lay it on thick, as a character assassination, but the reality is, the act of murder is bad enough.
Do you think that someone who cares for his family would shoot them in cold blood, fight with his father and bludgeon him, etc, just to get money?
You see, I think that those who think Jeremy is guilty have to come up with another explanation - ie, that he hated his family and he hated farming.
-
The point is that before the murders, what is the evidence that Jeremy hated farming and hated his family? We have some vague notion that he told RB that he could kill his parent, some vague accusation that Nevill was afraid of him, and some very negative comments from the relatives generally - after the event of course.
Were's the evidence that he cared for either?
-
Do you think that someone who cares for his family would shoot them in cold blood, fight with his father and bludgeon him, etc, just to get money?
You see, I think that those who think Jeremy is guilty have to come up with another explanation - ie, that he hated his family and he hated farming.
I think it's a chicken and egg situation.
I think people who believe JB to have committed mass murder, likely believe that JB had not particularly love for the lives which he ended. Whether that manifested itself in the form of hatred, or as suggested by Caroline that he simply didn't care for them either way, I do not know.
I think it's quite reasonable for people to think that a premeditated murderer didn't care for his victims.
I don't believe hatred was the motive, but if present, it didn't act as a voice of reason.
-
Do you think that someone who cares for his family would shoot them in cold blood, fight with his father and bludgeon him, etc, just to get money?
I think the act of murder shows that he DIDN'T care for his family.
-
Were's the evidence that he cared for either?
Where is the evidence that he didn't, other than what Julie said?
-
I think the act of murder shows that he DIDN'T care for his family.
So you're working backwards. You have no evidence that there were problems before the murders, you're just assuming that he hated his family because he killed them.
-
The point is that before the murders, what is the evidence that Jeremy hated farming and hated his family? We have some vague notion that he told RB that he could kill his parent, some vague accusation that Nevill was afraid of him, and some very negative comments from the relatives generally - after the event of course.
James Richards.
Mary Mugford.
Julie Mugford.
Ann Eaton.
Barbara Wilson.
You know he hated farming. He went travelling & preferred to work in Little Chef & Sloppy Joes before reluctantly working on the farm.
-
I think it's a chicken and egg situation.
I think people who believe JB to have committed mass murder, likely believe that JB had not particularly love for the lives which he ended. Whether that manifested itself in the form of hatred, or as suggested by Caroline that he simply didn't care for them either way, I do not know.
I think it's quite reasonable for people to think that a premeditated murderer didn't care for his victims.
I don't believe hatred was the motive, but if present, it didn't act as a voice of reason.
I think what he hated was that each represented an impediment to him getting his hands on what he wanted.
-
James Richards.
Mary Mugford.
Julie Mugford.
Ann Eaton.
Barbara Wilson.
You know he hated farming. He went travelling & preferred to work in Little Chef & Sloppy Joes before reluctantly working on the farm.
If he hated it, why did he not approach his parents and talk to them about an alternative? He knew about the land they bought - with a view to selling it to Ann Eaton later. Why did he not ask if they would give him money to start a wine bar or something? He knew people in London - why did he not go there and try to find a job?
-
So you're working backwards. You have no evidence that there were problems before the murders, you're just assuming that he hated his family because he killed them.
I'm not making any assumptions and have not indicated that I know or believe JB hated his family.
There is clearly a great deal of hearsay which suggests he didn't care for them.
What I am saying, is that a person doesn't usually commit premeditated mass murder whilst caring greatly for their victims.
It is a conclusion formed by his actions, not necessarily the cause of his actions.
-
I think that what he might not have liked was all this business about relatives being joined at the hip, so to speak. It was all very involved with shares in this and shares in that, probably resulting in squabbles between them and attempts at oneupmanship. He could maybe have got involved in Nevill's interests in Guildford instead?
-
If he hated it, why did he not approach his parents and talk to them about an alternative? He knew about the land they bought - with a view to selling it to Ann Eaton later. Why did he not ask if they would give him money to start a wine bar or something? He knew people in London - why did he not go there and try to find a job?
Nevill give him money to start a wine bar ? Nevill would know where that money would quickly go.
He did get other jobs. In Little Chef & Sloppy Joes.
-
Nevill give him money to start a wine bar ? Nevill would know where that money would quickly go.
He did get other jobs. In Little Chef & Sloppy Joes.
It was just an example - it could have been anything.
I know he got other jobs, so I don't know why he's being described as lazy and workshy by some people. They're the sort of jobs which someone would probably get tired of quite quickly though.
The point is - he knew that Nevill/June were buying land just because Ann asked them to, but he talked about that land in a way which suggested that he was interested in the caravan park, so maybe he might have preferred to get involved in that. I just don't see how he was being "forced" by Nevill to be a farm worker.
-
It was just an example - it could have been anything.
I know he got other jobs, so I don't know why he's being described as lazy and workshy by some people. They're the sort of jobs which someone would probably get tired of quite quickly though.
The point is - he knew that Nevill/June were buying land just because Ann asked them to, but he talked about that land in a way which suggested that he was interested in the caravan park, so maybe he might have preferred to get involved in that. I just don't see how he was being "forced" by Nevill to be a farm worker.
Nevill's will stated Bamber had to continue working on the farm in order to inherit.
Bamber testified he knew this. He also told Julie he had 'too much to lose' by walking away.
-
Nevill's will stated Bamber had to continue working on the farm in order to inherit.
Bamber testified he knew this. He also told Julie he had 'too much to lose' by walking away.
Not exactly. It stated that he had to continue in farming in order to inherit more than Sheila. If he stopped farming, he got half - he wasn't disinherited.
-
Nevill's will stated Bamber had to continue working on the farm in order to inherit.
Bamber testified he knew this. He also told Julie he had 'too much to lose' by walking away.
That's a good point.
So not forced to, but there was an incentive for him to stay with the farming career.
Perhaps he did get fed up with it all and wanted an immediate payday. He never worked after the murders did he?
-
It was just an example - it could have been anything.
I know he got other jobs, so I don't know why he's being described as lazy and workshy by some people. They're the sort of jobs which someone would probably get tired of quite quickly though.
The point is - he knew that Nevill/June were buying land just because Ann asked them to, but he talked about that land in a way which suggested that he was interested in the caravan park, so maybe he might have preferred to get involved in that. I just don't see how he was being "forced" by Nevill to be a farm worker.
He could have followed in Rolands footsteps.
-
Where is the evidence that he didn't, other than what Julie said?
Others have said the same as Julie. Relatives, Barbara Wilson, farm workers etc.
-
That's a good point.
So not forced to, but there was an incentive for him to stay with the farming career.
Perhaps he did get fed up with it all and wanted an immediate payday. He never worked after the murders did he?
As I said, he didn't lose his inheritance if he left farming, he still got half of the residual estate.
-
Others have said the same as Julie. Relatives, Barbara Wilson, farm workers etc.
After the event no doubt.
-
JB mightn't have worked,but PE being in charge did ! A regular " Del boy " he was.Even BW reported his " work " to the police.
-
As I said, he didn't lose his inheritance if he left farming, he still got half of the residual estate.
Maybe half wasn't enough for him. Surely he deserved more, and why should he have to wait?
-
Maybe half wasn't enough for him. Surely he deserved more, and why should he have to wait?
There were alternatives. He owned 20% of N&J Bamber, and he owned 7.5% of the caravan park. He could have sold those shares and done something else. He could have got involved in the project in Guildford. He could have asked his parents to fund some other kind of business instead of buying land for Ann Eaton.
-
After the event no doubt.
I don't think any interviews took place before the murders. :-\
-
'If my son, Jeremy Bamber is, in the opinion of the trustees, farming with me at the date of my death, or the date of the death of my wife, whichever is the later, and are resonably satisfied that he intends to carry on farming thereafter, then the remainder of my residuary estate should go to my son'.
-
I don't think any interviews took place before the murders. :-\
So it was all comments with hindsight. That's not evidence.
-
After the event no doubt.
Why only after the event?
-
There were alternatives. He owned 20% of N&J Bamber, and he owned 7.5% of the caravan park. He could have sold those shares and done something else. He could have got involved in the project in Guildford. He could have asked his parents to fund some other kind of business instead of buying land for Ann Eaton.
It depends how shares are set up. Shares don't always have a sale value.
-
'If my son, Jeremy Bamber is, in the opinion of the trustees, farming with me at the date of my death, or the date of the death of my wife, whichever is the later, and are resonably satisfied that he intends to carry on farming thereafter, then the remainder of my residuary estate should go to my son'.
The problem here is that any inheritance could be over 20 years away.
There is no way Bamber could have lasted that long without being disinherited totally or the twins increasing their share.
-
It depends how shares are set up. Shares don't always have a sale value.
They can have a really low value - as little as 1p
-
'If my son, Jeremy Bamber is, in the opinion of the trustees, farming with me at the date of my death, or the date of the death of my wife, whichever is the later, and are resonably satisfied that he intends to carry on farming thereafter, then the remainder of my residuary estate should go to my son'.
Don't forget the rest Adam, otherwise some might think you're withholding information. Also, you need to quote it properly. You missed out the bit about Sheila getting £10,000.
"If the Trustees are not satisfied that my son will continue in farming as aforesaid (the decision being in their absolute discretion) then my residuary estate shall be divided between my children in equal shares."
As you can see, Sheila would have got only £10,000 if Jeremy continued to farm, but if he did not, she would half and he would get half - he wouldn't be disinherited.
It's an interesting Will. How would the Trustees make that judgment? What if Nevill died naturally and Jeremy carried on farming until it had all been settled and then stopped? There was no time limit imposed.
-
If he hated it, why did he not approach his parents and talk to them about an alternative? He knew about the land they bought - with a view to selling it to Ann Eaton later. Why did he not ask if they would give him money to start a wine bar or something? He knew people in London - why did he not go there and try to find a job?
Well only he would know that but being 'given some money' isn't the same as getting the lot.
-
It depends how shares are set up. Shares don't always have a sale value.
The relatives managed to buy his shares in the caravan park later, so clearly they did.
-
So it was all comments with hindsight. That's not evidence.
Nobody is putting it in the evidence box, nevertheless, such comments were made.
He was also described as a "cold fish", by one of his friends, Deckers maybe. Okay not exactly conviction worthy in itself, but all of these little bits and pieces form a picture. No other picture exists.
-
The relatives managed to buy his shares in the caravan park later, so clearly they did.
How does that mean they were worth anything?
-
Nobody is putting it in the evidence box, nevertheless, such comments were made.
He was also described as a "cold fish", by one of his friends, Deckers maybe. Okay not exactly conviction worthy in itself, but all of these little bits and pieces form a picture. No other picture exists.
Such comments go back as far as his school days
-
Don't forget the rest Adam, otherwise some might think you're withholding information. Also, you need to quote it properly. You missed out the bit about Sheila getting £10,000.
"If the Trustees are not satisfied that my son will continue in farming as aforesaid (the decision being in their absolute discretion) then my residuary estate shall be divided between my children in equal shares."
As you can see, Sheila would have got only £10,000 if Jeremy continued to farm, but if he did not, she would half and he would get half - he wouldn't be disinherited.
It's an interesting Will. How would the Trustees make that judgment? What if Nevill died naturally and Jeremy carried on farming until it had all been settled and then stopped? There was no time limit imposed.
I have just copied the only section on this from page 235 of Wilkes's book.
Can you provide you're source. Rather than withhold information.
-
How does that mean they were worth anything?
He used the money didn't he? They must have been worth something.
Anyway, the point is that if he was given shares in N&Bamber and the caravan site, he could have asked for shares in other things which interested him more if he hated farming.
-
Don't forget the rest Adam, otherwise some might think you're withholding information. Also, you need to quote it properly. You missed out the bit about Sheila getting £10,000.
"If the Trustees are not satisfied that my son will continue in farming as aforesaid (the decision being in their absolute discretion) then my residuary estate shall be divided between my children in equal shares."
As you can see, Sheila would have got only £10,000 if Jeremy continued to farm, but if he did not, she would half and he would get half - he wouldn't be disinherited.
It's an interesting Will. How would the Trustees make that judgment? What if Nevill died naturally and Jeremy carried on farming until it had all been settled and then stopped? There was no time limit imposed.
As I said & which you have ignored, Bamber was not going to wait 20 years or more for anything.
He would have been disinherited by then or lost most of it to the twins, who June was planning to give more to.
-
I have just copied the only section on this from page 235 of Wilkes's book.
Can you provide you're source. Rather than withhold information.
You got it from a book? Oh dear. That book clearly doesn't contain all the information.
Here you go.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3773.0;attach=28056;image
-
As I said & which you have ignored, Bamber was not going to wait 20 years or more for anything.
He would have been disinherited by then or lost most of it to the twins, who June was planning to give more to.
Where did you get that from?
-
He used the money didn't he? They must have been worth something.
Anyway, the point is that if he was given shares in N&Bamber and the caravan site, he could have asked for shares in other things which interested him more if he hated farming.
Bamber could use his wages to invest in other things. As people do. Why should Nevill give him extra money ?
Use you're loaf.
-
He used the money didn't he? They must have been worth something.
They were taken from him in court when he couldn't pay the relatives court fees. The relatives requested them as an alternative so that ties could be severed.
I don't know it they had an inherent value. The fact that they hadn't been sold previously suggests that they did not, although I do not know.
-
Bamber could use his wages to invest in other things. As people do. Why should Nevill give him extra money ?
Use you're loaf.
Yes, he could have done that. I just don't think that money itself was enough motive to murder five people in cold blood.
-
Where did you get that from?
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
---------------
The 'Countdown to Murder' also said June wanted to disinherit him after the caravan robbery.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
---------------
The 'Countdown to Murder' also said June wanted to disinherit him after the caravan robbery.
Did June live long enough to find out about the caravan burglary?
-
He used the money didn't he? They must have been worth something.
Anyway, the point is that if he was given shares in N&Bamber and the caravan site, he could have asked for shares in other things which interested him more if he hated farming.
Bamber already owed Nevill £2,000.
Nevill knew any money he loaned Bamber would just be spent on jolly ups.
-
Did June live long enough to find out about the caravan burglary?
They all did. According to Barbara Wilson in 'Countdown to Murder'.
As RB said the day after the burglary, 'we all know who that was'.
-
They all did. According to Barbara Wilson in 'Countdown to Murder'.
As RB said the day after the burglary, 'we all know who that was'.
Oh okay, I thought it didn't come out until JM went to the police. Perhaps I am mistaken.
-
Bamber already owed Nevill £2,000.
Nevill knew any money he loaned Bamber would just be spent on jolly ups.
That loan interests me - more specifically, the relatives interest in that loan interests me. I think that both Jackie Wood and Ann discussed it, and Robert B referred to it. Why was it their business anyway? I just get this feeling that the relatives felt that everything the Bambers did was their business, but I don't know why.
Nevill could have bought a business, or shares in one, and then Jeremy could have run it - he didn't need to give him money directly. I would have thought that if your son hates the family business so much, you'd want them to do something they enjoyed.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
---------------
The 'Countdown to Murder' also said June wanted to disinherit him after the caravan robbery.
Do we have Mary Mugford's testimony? I don't really trust books.
-
Oh okay, I thought it didn't come out until JM went to the police. Perhaps I am mistaken.
The caravan break in was in March. They didn't report it to the police between March & August.
It was resolved privately. BW is on tape saying this.
-
That loan interests me - more specifically, the relatives interest in that loan interests me. I think that both Jackie Wood and Ann discussed it, and Robert B referred to it. Why was it their business anyway? I just get this feeling that the relatives felt that everything the Bambers did was their business, but I don't know why.
Nevill could have bought a business, or shares in one, and then Jeremy could have run it - he didn't need to give him money directly. I would have thought that if your son hates the family business so much, you'd want them to do something they enjoyed.
Bamber could have started making Nevill & June breakfast in bed every morning.
And/or driven June to & attended bible classes with her.
That would at least start paying back the £2,000 he owed.
-
Bamber could have started making Nevill & June breakfast in bed every morning.
And/or driven June to & attended bible classes with her.
That would at least start paying back the £2,000 he owed.
Why is anyone so concerned about it? Sheila was also loaned money for the flat, and nobody complained about that. Perhaps Nevill wasn't that bothered - it seems the relatives were though, and now you are.
-
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) ::) A 24 year old ? There's a flying pig going past.
-
Maybe Nevill had told Bamber he had to drive June to & attend bible classes with her. For the next 6 months.
Bamber couldn't face this & committed the massacre.
-
Maybe Nevill had told Bamber he had to drive June to & attend bible classes with her. For the next 6 months.
Bamber couldn't face this & committed the massacre.
Naughty Adam! 8)
-
Don't forget the rest Adam, otherwise some might think you're withholding information. Also, you need to quote it properly. You missed out the bit about Sheila getting £10,000.
"If the Trustees are not satisfied that my son will continue in farming as aforesaid (the decision being in their absolute discretion) then my residuary estate shall be divided between my children in equal shares."
As you can see, Sheila would have got only £10,000 if Jeremy continued to farm, but if he did not, she would half and he would get half - he wouldn't be disinherited.
It's an interesting Will. How would the Trustees make that judgment? What if Nevill died naturally and Jeremy carried on farming until it had all been settled and then stopped? There was no time limit imposed.
But you're missing the bigger picture here Kaldin of how Jeremy glorified in perversity. This manifested itself not only in his working garb or his refusal to work the crop sprayer, but spread insidiously into financial affairs with the Osea Road break-in and finally the ultimate transgression: the act of overturning the wishes of his parents with the wills.
-
But you're missing the bigger picture here Kaldin of how Jeremy glorified in perversity. This manifested itself not only in his working garb or his refusal to work the crop sprayer, but spread insidiously into financial affairs with the Osea Road break-in and finally the ultimate transgression: the act of overturning the wishes of his parents with the wills.
I think others are missing the bigger picture actually. There's been talk of Jeremy not inheriting unless he stayed in farming, and that is not true.
-
That loan interests me - more specifically, the relatives interest in that loan interests me. I think that both Jackie Wood and Ann discussed it, and Robert B referred to it. Why was it their business anyway? I just get this feeling that the relatives felt that everything the Bambers did was their business, but I don't know why.
Nevill could have bought a business, or shares in one, and then Jeremy could have run it - he didn't need to give him money directly. I would have thought that if your son hates the family business so much, you'd want them to do something they enjoyed.
This more or less did happen with the purchase of land adjacent to Little Rentners Farm, though it was June's money which bought it. The loan was discussed by the relatives post-mortem and why shouldn't it have been after such a tragic event, as they attempted to make sense of the whole affair.
-
This more or less did happen with the purchase of land adjacent to Little Rentners Farm, though it was June's money which bought it. The loan was discussed by the relatives post-mortem and why shouldn't it have been after such a tragic event, as they attempted to make sense of the whole affair.
Huh? That land was bought in order to be sold to Ann Eaton later - allegedly. Jeremy didn't have a business there. Of course Pamela acquired that land later, so Ann perhaps didn't have to buy it.
-
'If my son, Jeremy Bamber is, in the opinion of the trustees, farming with me at the date of my death, or the date of the death of my wife, whichever is the later, and are resonably satisfied that he intends to carry on farming thereafter, then the remainder of my residuary estate should go to my son'.
If he had done it for the money then why did he walk away from farming straight after the deaths ?
Why did he not make more of a show of wanting to carry on farming ?
If he was motivated by that clause in the will why did he give zero indication of continuing farming ?
Surely he would have been keen to give that impression if that was his motive ?
I am expecting a no comment from you on this one Adam
But I don't blame you - it is a very hard question indeed for the believers in his guilt to answer ...
-
I think others are missing the bigger picture actually. There's been talk of Jeremy not inheriting unless he stayed in farming, and that is not true.
But he wanted the whole loaf not half, because Sheila had contributed nothing to the Bamber bank balances. The temptation of owning the Maida Vale flat also became too much, a dwelling which would impress the opposite sex far more than the cramped conditions of Bourtree Cottage.
I have been reading about Mark Lundy again (prostitute need or alibi?), Scott Peterson(age 30 and Viagra tablets) and Jeremy Bamber (one track mind, crude sexual remarks abound) and I'm wondering whether overwork is the source of their randiness and the cause of their many vicissitudes.
-
'March Nevill upstairs'. I don't think so.
Sheila was in the kitchen when Nevill phoned Bamber. What was she doing in the kitchen that was 'crazy' ?
I agree Nevill's phone call was abrupt - 8 or 11 words & 2 or 4 seconds.
Sheila cut Nevill's phone call off. And still he did nothing although she came within inches of him.
If Nevill was right behind Sheila as she entered the main bedroom, please explain the 9 bullets prior to Nevill running downstairs.
And I am hopeing you answer my post for you from yesterday.
-
If he had done it for the money then why did he walk away from farming straight after the deaths ?
Why did he not make more of a show of wanting to carry on farming ?
If he was motivated by that clause in the will why did he give zero indication of continuing farming ?
Surely he would have been keen to give that impression if that was his motive ?
I am expecting a no comment from you on this one Adam
But I don't blame you - it is a very hard question indeed for the believers in his guilt to answer ...
Because he thought he had done enough. Talking to the police. Giving a statement. Meeting the relatives. Going to the funeral.
There were expensive hotels waiting for him in St Tropez, Pevensey, Eastbourne, Burnham & Amsterdam. As well as Sheila's London flat. Besides which, Brett had come over expecting some jolly ups.
-
If he had done it for the money then why did he walk away from farming straight after the deaths ?
Why did he not make more of a show of wanting to carry on farming ?
If he was motivated by that clause in the will why did he give zero indication of continuing farming ?
Surely he would have been keen to give that impression if that was his motive ?
I am expecting a no comment from you on this one Adam
But I don't blame you - it is a very hard question indeed for the believers in his guilt to answer ...
There was no need to satisfy any clause in the event that Sheila was not alive.
-
Huh? That land was bought in order to be sold to Ann Eaton later - allegedly. Jeremy didn't have a business there. Of course Pamela acquired that land later, so Ann perhaps didn't have to buy it.
Well there may have been more than one reason behind the land's purchase but in Chapter 17 of CAL's book it specifically states that the land was registered in Jeremy's name.
-
Well there may have been more than one reason behind the land's purchase but in Chapter 17 of CAL's book it specifically states that the land was registered in Jeremy's name.
I'm not sure I believe that to be true, it doesn't make any sense.
-
If he had done it for the money then why did he walk away from farming straight after the deaths ?
Why did he not make more of a show of wanting to carry on farming ?
If he was motivated by that clause in the will why did he give zero indication of continuing farming ?
Surely he would have been keen to give that impression if that was his motive ?
I am expecting a no comment from you on this one Adam
But I don't blame you - it is a very hard question indeed for the believers in his guilt to answer ...
No in the scheme of things in this case it's quite straightforward: Jeremy had planned and executed the murders, the hard work had been done and he relaxed, too much as it turned out as DS Stan Jones heard a chuckle behind closed doors emanating from his quarter at Bourtree Cottage. He had stuffed his parents' intentions, he had cocked a snook at the relatives, who were supposedly in no position to influence events, and he became the major beneficiary of land, money and property of which he had the most tenuous connection and as it transpired was going to inherit illegally in any case.
-
Well there may have been more than one reason behind the land's purchase but in Chapter 17 of CAL's book it specifically states that the land was registered in Jeremy's name.
Ann Eaton said that too, but it was just land - more farming. If he didn't like farming, he wouldn't like that land.
-
It's not enough for people to say that he killed his family for money, they say that he also hated them. That's why he was able to kill them in cold blood, beat his father, and shoot his own mother between the eyes.
Not enough to say of Jeremy, but perfectly acceptable to say of Sheila. perhaps?
-
Ann Eaton said that too, but it was just land - more farming. If he didn't like farming, he wouldn't like that land.
But he feigned interest in farming for the last two years of the victims' lives, to allow time for the murder preparations.
-
So you're working backwards. You have no evidence that there were problems before the murders, you're just assuming that he hated his family because he killed them.
What do you want as evidence? Presumably the testimony of Nevill's friend that an argument with Jeremy had reduced Nevill to tears isn't enough. The stories Jeremy told others isn't enough. How much more evidence is there of his scant regard for them than his shooting them?
-
But he feigned interest in farming for the last two years of the victims' lives, to allow time for the murder preparations.
So how did anyone know that he disliked farming then if he put on a good act?
-
What do you want as evidence? Presumably the testimony of Nevill's friend that an argument with Jeremy had reduced Nevill to tears isn't enough. The stories Jeremy told others isn't enough. How much more evidence is there of his scant regard for them than his shooting them?
No, it's not enough. There could be many reasons why Nevill was in tears - if it happened. What stories that he told others? Where are the statements?
-
It was just an example - it could have been anything.
I know he got other jobs, so I don't know why he's being described as lazy and workshy by some people. They're the sort of jobs which someone would probably get tired of quite quickly though.
The point is - he knew that Nevill/June were buying land just because Ann asked them to, but he talked about that land in a way which suggested that he was interested in the caravan park, so maybe he might have preferred to get involved in that. I just don't see how he was being "forced" by Nevill to be a farm worker.
That's the whole point of working on a temporary basis. My friends children, before going to university, all worked at the same Little Chef on the A12 that Jeremy worked at. They were all offered managerial training if they chose to stay on. I think Jeremy liked jobs he could walk away from when he'd had enough or earned enough.
-
That's the whole point of working on a temporary basis. My friends children, before going to university, all worked at the same Little Chef on the A12 that Jeremy worked at. They were all offered managerial training if they chose to stay on. I think Jeremy liked jobs he could walk away from when he'd had enough or earned enough.
Possibly, and that's not abnormal. Lots of people do a bit of job hopping.
-
No, it's not enough. There could be many reasons why Nevill was in tears - if it happened. What stories that he told others? Where are the statements?
Whilst I'm certain you'll argue this point black and blue, it most certainly DID happen. I've explained the circumstances several times.
-
That's another bit of proof he was a " killer "-------job-hopping. The list is getting longer.
-
Possibly, and that's not abnormal. Lots of people do a bit of job hopping.
Why would he, Kaldin? He had a job lined up for him?
-
So how did anyone know that he disliked farming then if he put on a good act?
I'm sure Bamber loved farming. After all he left 'Little Chef' & 'Sloppy Joes' so he could farm.
-
Pre massacre, Bamber would have been happy continuing his jolly ups abroad for the rest of his life.
However Nevill & June stopped financing this.
-
What happened about Clifton House? I mean, how much was it worth when Nevill made his Will?
-
So how did anyone know that he disliked farming then if he put on a good act?
Because he blabbed to others out of earshot of those in the driving seat. Adam gave you a list already.
-
Because he blabbed to others out of earshot of those in the driving seat. Adam gave you a list already.
This list? I hope he backs it up with statements.
James Richards.
Mary Mugford.
Julie Mugford.
Ann Eaton.
Barbara Wilson.
-
A list of gutless individuals who all had to rely on each other to " get it right ".
-
This list? I hope he backs it up with statements.
You'll find them in archives.
-
You'll find them in archives.
There's nothing for James Richards and Mary Mugford for a start.
-
Tbh, I'm absolutely fed up of trawling through the archives to find stuff that others should have posted in support of their claims.
-
Tbh, I'm absolutely fed up of trawling through the archives to find stuff that others should have posted in support of their claims.
It used to be worse, before somebody put the transcripts library together.
-
It used to be worse, before somebody put the transcripts library together.
They did a great job. It's just that it's quite long.
-
Tbh, I'm absolutely fed up of trawling through the archives to find stuff that others should have posted in support of their claims.
I think others may feel the same. You'll find that, at some point, they probably have been posted.
-
They did a great job. It's just that it's quite long.
There were a lot of witnesses.
-
They did a great job. It's just that it's quite long.
It probably took the person a long time then.
-
It probably took the person a long time then.
I imagine it to have been painstaking work, H. A labour of love.
-
I imagine it to have been painstaking work, H. A labour of love.
:)
-
That smile/smirk will soon be wiped off your clock :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac'.
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
---------------
The 'Countdown to Murder' also said June wanted to disinherit him after the caravan robbery.
How well did this woman really know Jeremy. She hardly saw him as far as I can make out so I’m not sure I would have believed much of what she said
-
How well did this woman really know Jeremy. She hardly saw him as far as I can make out so I’m not sure I would have believed much of what she said
I call bullxxxt on this,
"Jeremy never spoke.to his mother"
Jesus desperate or What? Don't you think more would of been made of that by the relatives afterwards? Mary mugford is the only person who's ever said this.
-
I call bullxxxt on this,
"Jeremy never spoke.to his mother"
Jesus desperate or What? Don't you think more would of been made of that by the relatives afterwards? Mary mugford is the only person who's ever said this.
The relatives only met them for board meetings and a sherry on Boxing Day. They knew very little of what occurred behind the scenes at White House Farm.
-
The relatives only met them for board meetings and a sherry on Boxing Day. They knew very little of what occurred behind the scenes at White House Farm.
I think that for many it's true that they're closer to their friends than their relatives.
-
They seem to have an awful lot to say on the setup when this is the case, even down to telling police stuff on the windowsill was moved, very bizarre.
-
They seem to have an awful lot to say on the setup when this is the case, even down to telling police stuff on the windowsill was moved, very bizarre.
June probably was a creature of habit, so things may have been moved since Ann was last in the house to see them.
-
They seem to have an awful lot to say on the setup when this is the case, even down to telling police stuff on the windowsill was moved, very bizarre.
Well that was housekeeper Jean Boutell, not the relatives.
-
Well that was housekeeper Jean Boutell, not the relatives.
I always thought it was Ann, my mistake
-
I always thought it was the police who'd moved items from the sill to test the window . Which seems more likely since it had been a day or two before the tragedy that the cleaner had been there.
-
Well that was housekeeper Jean Boutell, not the relatives.
Obviously Bamber moved items from around the kitchen window sill, just prior to exiting.
The only other explanation is the items had been moved during the kitchen fight. However there is nothing about these items being toppled over.
-
Obviously Bamber moved items from around the kitchen window sill, just prior to exiting.
The only other explanation is the items had been moved during the kitchen fight. However there is nothing about these items being toppled over.
Oh dear.
Photos taken on the day show many items on the Kitchen window sill. :-\
-
Oh dear.
Photos taken on the day show many items on the Kitchen window sill. :-\
Oh dear.
The crime scene pictures will be inside the kitchen.
Are you accusing Jean Boutell of lying under oath ?
Yesterday Lucy accused Mary Mugford of lying under oath. All supporters accuse Julie of spending hours in court lying under oath. Nugs accuses RB of lying under oath.
Everyone's lying under oath to get Bamber convicted.
-
Oh dear.
The crime scene pictures will be inside the kitchen.
Are you accusing Jean Boutell of lying under oath ?
Yesterday Lucy accused Mary Mugford of lying under oath. All supporters accuse Julie of spending hours in court lying under oath. Nugs accuses RB of lying under oath.
Everyone's lying under oath to get Bamber convicted.
I think the police moved things around when cleaning up.
-
Oh dear.
The crime scene pictures will be inside the kitchen.
Are you accusing Jean Boutell of lying under oath ?
Yesterday Lucy accused Mary Mugford of lying under oath. All supporters accuse Julie of spending hours in court lying under oath. Nugs accuses RB of lying under oath.
Everyone's lying under oath to get Bamber convicted.
Do you not believe that people do lie under oath sometimes?
-
I think the police moved things around when cleaning up.
I agree Hartley, think that is generally accepted as the explanation.
-
Do you not believe that people do lie under oath sometimes?
Do you believe that most of the whole group of disparate witnesses will be in accord enough to lie?
-
I think the police moved things around when cleaning up.
After crime scene photos were taken. Which is standard protocol.
-
Do you not believe that people do lie under oath sometimes?
Everyone lied under oath in this case. Except Bamber.
Even the pathologist didn't say Sheila had any cuts on her. Roch & Bill kindly correcting him.
-
After crime scene photos were taken. Which is standard protocol.
When did Bouttell mention that things had been moved?
-
When did Bouttell mention that things had been moved?
At trial.
-
At trial.
Also on page 8 her first statement which doesn't appear to be dated.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.0.html)
She is shown a crime scene photograph of the sink area and states that the plastic yellow tray and washing up liquid were not in their usual place, she then describes other items out of place.
In which case, Adam is correct, it couldn't have been from the police clean-up.
-
Everyone lied under oath in this case. Except Bamber.
Even the pathologist didn't say Sheila had any cuts on her. Roch & Bill kindly correcting him.
I haven't ever said any specific person lied but it is a fact of life that people lie under oath. Some people lie all the time anyway, they can't seem to help themselves and some others lie to save their own skin.
-
I haven't ever said any specific person lied but it is a fact of life that people lie under oath. Some people lie all the time anyway, they can't seem to help themselves and some others lie to save their own skin.
What reason would the disparate group, said to have lied, all have, to save their respective skins?
-
Also on page 8 her first statement which doesn't appear to be dated.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.0.html)
She is shown a crime scene photograph of the sink area and states that the plastic yellow tray and washing up liquid were not in their usual place, she then describes other items out of place.
In which case, Adam is correct, it couldn't have been from the police clean-up.
If not from that think there is a theory that Sheila ha possibly moved things after washing up. :-\ Or JB had moved them before climbing out of the window.
-
Also on page 8 her first statement which doesn't appear to be dated.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4949.0.html)
She is shown a crime scene photograph of the sink area and states that the plastic yellow tray and washing up liquid were not in their usual place, she then describes other items out of place.
In which case, Adam is correct, it couldn't have been from the police clean-up.
My source was from Wilkes's book.
Her WS is now another source.
David's photo of the window from outside has been dismissed.
-
What reason would the disparate group, said to have lied, all have, to save their respective skins?
I am not saying any of them lied, Jane. Simply saying to Adam that people do lie under oath, possibly quite often.
-
If not from that think there is a theory that Sheila ha possibly moved things after washing up. :-\ Or JB had moved them before climbing out of the window.
Yeah I guess so, I'm sure people will pick the one that coincides with their belief of a guilty or innocent JB.
For example, I think he moved items in front of the window to make it appear that nobody has climbed out of the window. ;D
(Actually I don't really have a view on it)
-
My source was from Wilkes's book.
Her WS is now another source.
David's photo of the window from outside has been dismissed.
Photos do not lie, People do. To continue to believe people in the face of photographic records showing their accounts to be incorrect or bogus is an act of desperation and appalling ignorance on your part.
-
Photos do not lie, People do. To continue to believe people in the face of photographic records showing their accounts to be incorrect or bogus is an act of desperation and appalling ignorance on your part.
I'm not really following this, who is telling lies? And why? ???
-
Yeah I guess so, I'm sure people will pick the one that coincides with their belief of a guilty or innocent JB.
For example, I think he moved items in front of the window to make it appear that nobody has climbed out of the window. ;D
(Actually I don't really have a view on it)
That is a possibility. In that case David's photo backs up Bamber climbing through the kitchen window when leaving.
Either way, the housekeeper had no reason to commit perjury.
-
Yeah I guess so, I'm sure people will pick the one that coincides with their belief of a guilty or innocent JB.
For example, I think he moved items in front of the window to make it appear that nobody has climbed out of the window. ;D
(Actually I don't really have a view on it)
Nor me Harters.
-
The best thing is for everyone to accept the housekeepers WS & testimony.
Guilters can say Bamber moved items when exiting the window.
Supporters can say Sheila did some washing up before reading the bible and having her shower.
-
That is a possibility. In that case David's photo backs up Bamber climbing through the kitchen window when leaving.
Either way, the housekeeper had no reason to commit perjury.
I don't believe for one minute that June Boutell committed perjury. I don't think there is any question of that.
-
I don't believe for one minute that June Boutell committed perjury. I don't think there is any question of that.
Maybe a blank memory rather than perjury Maggie,as looking at the place I wouldn't have said " everything was in its place " if you understand.
-
Maybe a blank memory rather than perjury Maggie,as looking at the place I wouldn't have said " everything was in its place " if you understand.
I suppose some people keep everything in exactly the same place year in, year out but even so anyone could have moved things or not imo
-
I don't believe for one minute that June Boutell committed perjury. I don't think there is any question of that.
Really? Do you not consider the possibility that she was persuaded into believing Jeremy was guilty. Then said what she said because an aquital would mean she ends up working for someone she believes is a mass murderer.
-
The housekeeper also says June kept her bible on her side of the bed. Which was the opposite side to where Sheila was found.
This refutes the suggestion that the bible fell onto Sheila's arm.
The housekeeper says she last saw Sheila on the 5th August when she seemed her normal self.
-
The housekeeper said she has seen June make notes & put them into her bible.
So much for the suicide note in the bible theory.
-
Hundreds of " normal selfs " have been found dead this year !!
-
It doesn't refute the suggestion that Sheila had hold of the bible before killing herself, who's to say June wasn't in bed reading it and threw it to the floor as she got shot and moved?? Also id like to know what the crocheted item was inside or underneath It,
The police officers cleaned up, they would of probably used the washing up liquid whilst doing so, I'm not sure they would of put it back in the "correct" place afterwards.
-
Really? Do you not consider the possibility that she was persuaded into believing Jeremy was guilty. Then said what she said because an aquital would mean she ends up working for someone she believes is a mass murderer.
The housekeeper committed perjury & helped convict an innocent man.
Because she didn't want to work for Bamber in the future.
Mmm.
-
It doesn't refute the suggestion that Sheila had hold of the bible before killing herself, who's to say June wasn't in bed reading it and threw it to the floor as she got shot and moved?? Also id like to know what the crocheted item was inside or underneath It,
The police officers cleaned up, they would of probably used the washing up liquid whilst doing so, I'm not sure they would of put it back in the "correct" place afterwards.
Given the size of it, it COULD have been one of those crocheted items, so loved by Victorians, which were placed between a heavy object and a polished surface, OR I recall that my great aunts used these delicate little items as dish/jug covers for sugar, butter, jams, honey and milk.
-
Hundreds of " normal selfs " have been found dead this year !!
Depends how one reads "normal", doesn't it?
-
The housekeeper says during the course of her employment, she had never seen the sink tidy in that position.
As I said, Bamber either moved it prior to exiting out of the window.
Or Sheila did some washing up after the massacre.
-
Really? Do you not consider the possibility that she was persuaded into believing Jeremy was guilty. Then said what she said because an aquital would mean she ends up working for someone she believes is a mass murderer.
What has she said that vexed you so?
All I can see is that she said a plastic tray was out of place and that the washing up liquid was in the middle of the window rather than its usual place in the corner.
You post a photo which showed the washing up liquid in the window and claim it shows she was lying?
-
Depends how one reads "normal", doesn't it?
It was in answer to Adam's description of Sheila having appeared normal. Was she ??
-
The housekeeper says during the course of her employment, she had never seen the sink tidy in that position.
As I said, Bamber either moved it prior to exiting out of the window.
Or Sheila did some washing up after the massacre.
OR the police moved it whilst cleaning up
Do you really believe that that could never of happened?
-
Really? Do you not consider the possibility that she was persuaded into believing Jeremy was guilty. Then said what she said because an aquital would mean she ends up working for someone she believes is a mass murderer.
I accept there are various possibilities and one of them could be that she was got at but imo there are more important points.
-
OR the police moved it whilst cleaning up
Do you really believe that that could never of happened?
After the crime scene photos had been taken.
-
It appeared that quite a number of things had been moved prior and after photographing the crime scenes.
-
The housekeeper says during the course of her employment, she had never seen the sink tidy in that position.
As I said, Bamber either moved it prior to exiting out of the window.
Or Sheila did some washing up after the massacre.
If that's a dig at me I wasn't saying Sheila washed up after the massacre. I was thinking she may have washed up earlier in the evening. Two people washing up one who was visiting. Stuff gets moved.
-
The housekeeper says during the course of her employment, she had never seen the sink tidy in that position.
As I said, Bamber either moved it prior to exiting out of the window.
Or Sheila did some washing up after the massacre.
The housekeeper also remarked that the phones were always in different places around the farmhouse too !! " Musical phones ",remember ?
-
If that's a dig at me I wasn't saying Sheila washed up after the massacre. I was thinking she may have washed up earlier in the evening. Two people washing up one who was visiting. Stuff gets moved.
Sheila washing up before the massacre, the sink tidy & fairy liquid will still be put back in there usual places.
As the housekeeper said, Nevill & June always put things back where they came (rifles included ?) & she had never seen the sink tidy in a different location.
-
Blinkin' 'eck now a moved sink tidy becomes a clue to a mass murder,whatever next ? A misplaced toilet brush ?
-
There is no harm saying Sheila did some washing up after killing 4 people. She did a lot of other things in those 22 or 38 minutes.
Otherwise Bamber moved items prior to exiting the kitchen window.
-
Sheila washing up before the massacre, the sink tidy & fairy liquid will still be put back in there usual places.
As the housekeeper said, Nevill & June always put things back where they came (rifles included ?) & she had never seen the sink tidy in a different location.
Even the word 'sink tidy' makes me feel bored.
-
Obviously Bamber moved items from around the kitchen window sill, just prior to exiting.
The only other explanation is the items had been moved during the kitchen fight. However there is nothing about these items being toppled over.
Did he lean back in the window and replace some things then?
-
Even the word 'sink tidy' makes me feel bored.
;D ;D
-
Did he lean back in the window and replace some things then?
Must of kaldin :o
-
And at what point was the shower-room tidied up putting AP's rifle ( which he kept in the bathroom at WHF ) upstairs on the window-sill in the sewing room ?
-
Did he lean back in the window and replace some things then?
That's what Mythster over on red suggested. After he climbed out he then leaned over from outside and re arraigned the items.
And if that fails there is always the absurd ladder theory.
-
That's what Mythster over on red suggested. After he climbed out he then leaned over from outside and re arraigned the items.
David enlighten me please i've never hear the ladder theory
And if that fails there is always the absurd ladder theory.
-
That's what Mythster over on red suggested. After he climbed out he then leaned over from outside and re arraigned the items.
And if that fails there is always the absurd ladder theory.
So he moved the "sink tidy" in order to climb out of the window, and then leaned back in and replaced it in an upright position? He also cleaned up any footprints from the draining board and window sill.
-
So he moved the "sink tidy" in order to climb out of the window, and then leaned back in and replaced it in an upright position? He also cleaned up any footprints from the draining board and window sill.
Was this the window that DC Barlow banged to on his lone visit some days later or was that somewhere else?
-
Was this the window that DC Barlow banged to on his lone visit some days later or was that somewhere else?
The same window I think. I thought he said that the latch stuck so it wouldn't go into the locked position.
-
In any case, what about the bottom latch? There's no photo of that, but I don't see how that could close on it's own no matter how much a window was banged.
-
It won't " lock " into its lugs.It has to be physically done on the inside for that to happen.
-
It won't " lock " into its lugs.It has to be physically done on the inside for that to happen.
Yes. Unfortunately, there's no photo of it on the day the bodies were found.
-
In any case, what about the bottom latch? There's no photo of that, but I don't see how that could close on it's own no matter how much a window was banged.
Gravity causes it to fall into place.
-
Gravity causes it to fall into place.
The bottom latch would be horizontal so nothing to do with gravity.
-
The bottom latch would be horizontal so nothing to do with gravity.
Kaldin, when we lived in our old house with sash windows we had to push over like a semi circle catch to lock them, are there any pictures of the lock in question?
-
The bottom latch would be horizontal so nothing to do with gravity.
Which part of the window do we think could be locked from outside?
The side hung casement? Or the top hung fanlight?
-
Gravity causes it to fall into place.
Not if it had been newly painted.
-
None of those windows were modern. Even the fanlight would have had a " screw-down " lock. The system then seemed to have been more foolproof than now.
Windows would have to be broken in order to get to the locking system.
Very few windows are broken today to gain entry as thieves have got the modern way off to a fine art.
-
None of those windows were modern. Even the fanlight would have had a " screw-down " lock. The system then seemed to have been more foolproof than now.
Windows would have to be broken in order to get to the locking system.
Very few windows are broken today to gain entry as thieves have got the modern way off to a fine art.
I agree about those windows lookout, I grew up in a house with casement windows, it was impossible to let the bottom lever fall into place. It would land anywhere except where you wanted it and if it did land in the right place it still needed to be pushed down to lock.
If the top window was large enough you could stand on the outside sill and lean in and lock the side lever but it was impossible to reach the bottom without falling head first.
With an implement shaped the right way you could lift the arm up but cannot imagine anything which would be able to pick up the lever and push it into place.
The only way would be to use some kind of implement, however, it would be very difficult if at all possible to fashion. For all that such a thing may exist and could have been used. That small fan light window was so narrow no one could have leant very far in to lock anything without an aid.
-
I agree about those windows lookout, I grew up in a house with casement windows, it was impossible to let the bottom lever fall into place. It would land anywhere except where you wanted it and if it did land in the right place it still needed to be pushed down to lock.
If the top window was large enough you could stand on the outside sill and lean in and lock the side lever but it was impossible to reach the bottom without falling head first.
With an implement shaped the right way you could lift the arm up but cannot imagine anything which would be able to pick up the lever and push it into place.
The only way would be to use some kind of implement, however, it would be very difficult if at all possible to fashion. For all that such a thing may exist and could have been used. That small fan light window was so narrow no one could have leant very far in to lock anything without an aid.
That's right Maggie,those of us who lived in old houses can appreciate the locking system which was readily integrated. About two or three bolts on the front door and a failsafe Yale lock was sufficient. No burglar alarms to advertise the fact that valuables existed inside the property.
-
One of the officers found that the bathroom window was open, it was closed but not secured.
-
No prints,either foot or finger were recorded------only those of the robin.
-
EP had their " smoking gun " but chose not to arrest JB until a year later. ( blood in silencer ? )
-
No prints,either foot or finger were recorded------only those of the robin.
Why would they have been looking for any? It wasn't as if Sheila was trying to leave by a window.
-
EP had their " smoking gun " but chose not to arrest JB until a year later. ( blood in silencer ? )
Jeremy wasn't arrested a YEAR later, it was a month later!
-
Why would they have been looking for any? It wasn't as if Sheila was trying to leave by a window.
How do you know ? She could have been wanting to escape ? Or her parents for that matter.
-
How do you know ? She could have been wanting to escape ? Or her parents for that matter.
Think she might have just tried the door? ;D
-
Jeremy wasn't arrested a YEAR later, it was a month later!
And released on bail--free to go abroad ?? They had the " proof " under their noses for God's sake,then blow me,decided a year later that it was him ??
Passports are confiscated for arrested " murderers ) for obvious reasons !
-
And released on bail--free to go abroad ?? They had the " proof " under their noses for God's sake,then blow me,decided a year later that it was him ??
Passports are confiscated for arrested " murderers ) for obvious reasons !
He wasn't arrested for murder until AFTER he returned from the holiday. Where did you get that he was arrested a year later?
-
Lookout gets carried away & has said more than once that Bamber was arrested a year after the massacre.
His conviction was around a year later.
-
Timeline says Bamber was found guilty at court on the 14th October 1986.
-
Bamber's arrest & charge was in September 1985. The month after the massacre.
It would have been sooner but Bamber was on holiday in St Tropez.
-
He wasn't arrested for murder until AFTER he returned from the holiday. Where did you get that he was arrested a year later?
I'd read some time ago that his arrest at Dover was to do with " previous offences " than the actual murder. When someone has previously offended they're drawn in for questioning on those offences by way of " getting their man " should there be a more present day offence.
This happens when there are so many MOJ's when a person already holds a record for an offence/s that it's " assumed " they're top of the list for further crimes committed.
-
Commonly known as giving a dog a bad name.
-
I think it's damn lousy of EP not to hand over the documents that are needed. This is not justice nor democracy.
-
I'd read some time ago that his arrest at Dover was to do with " previous offences " than the actual murder. When someone has previously offended they're drawn in for questioning on those offences by way of " getting their man " should there be a more present day offence.
This happens when there are so many MOJ's when a person already holds a record for an offence/s that it's " assumed " they're top of the list for further crimes committed.
Sunday 8 September 7:45am
Jeremy Bamber arrested at Moreshead Mansions on suspicion of the five murders. Questioned for three days. DCI Taff Jones has first crack and messes up. DS Jones realizes Jones's mistake and whilst escorting him to the interview room for his turn remarks:
"You did it, didn't you. I know you did it from the second day. You won't get away with this. You're sick, you need help."
Friday 13 September
Bamber is arrested for the Osea Road break-in and granted bail until 16 October by Chelmsford Magistrates Court.
Monday 16 September
The Michael Fielder photographs scandal. Jeremy and Brett flee to St. Tropez by car.
Sunday 29 September
Jeremy returns from France and is arrested at Dover for the murder of five members of his family.
-
So all suspected murderers are allowed to hang on to their passports ? Well that's something worth knowing !
Everything said by SJ was autosuggestion,as questioned to JB,until he,Jones,had convinced HIMSELF !
-
Monday 16 September
The Michael Fielder photographs scandal. Jeremy and Brett flee to St. Tropez by car.
How did they manage that ???
With one of these? ;D
(https://cdn.thisiswhyimbroke.com/images/007-lotus-submarine.jpg)
-
Which part of the window do we think could be locked from outside?
The side hung casement? Or the top hung fanlight?
The side casement window. However, there was a bottom horizontal catch which couldn't be put back on the peg from the outside.
-
Kaldin, when we lived in our old house with sash windows we had to push over like a semi circle catch to lock them, are there any pictures of the lock in question?
It wasn't a sash window Lucy, but I can't find a photo of it.
-
The side casement window. However, there was a bottom horizontal catch which couldn't be put back on the peg from the outside.
I thought it was the top hung window that could be locked rather than the larger side hung casement. :-\
-
I thought it was the top hung window that could be locked rather than the larger side hung casement. :-\
How would anyone be able to climb through that one?
-
How would anyone be able to climb through that one?
Not climb through, but reach through to close the side hung casement.
That's what I recall anyway, I'll have a look.
-
Not sure how anyone is disputing Bamber could climb through the kitchen window.
He said himself he could do this.
-
Not sure how anyone is disputing Bamber could climb through the kitchen window.
He said himself he could do this.
It's the locking of the window from the outside which is being discussed, I think.
-
Not sure how anyone is disputing Bamber could climb through the kitchen window.
He said himself he could do this.
Did he also say he could secure both the latches and leave no mess behind?
-
Not climb through, but reach through to close the side hung casement.
That's what I recall anyway, I'll have a look.
I thought the point was that it could be shut by banging the window - allegedly.
-
It's the locking of the window from the outside which is being discussed, I think.
There are 20 sources he could. Intially Jan asked for 10.
-
We could do with PC Barlow's statement really.
-
I thought the point was that it could be shut by banging the window - allegedly.
Yes, the small top hung part could.
I'm trying to recall where it's described.
-
I thought the point was that it could be shut by banging the window - allegedly.
That is correct. The handle falls into place. So it is shut.
-
Yes, the small top hung part could.
I'm trying to recall where it's described.
I thought it was the side window, but I'm not certain.
-
That is correct. The handle falls into place. So it is shut.
The side-opening window or the top window?
-
How did they manage that ???
With one of these? ;D
(https://cdn.thisiswhyimbroke.com/images/007-lotus-submarine.jpg)
Do I have to spell everything out for you David? https://youtu.be/_dgynC710IM
Jeremy and Brett departed for the south of France after the story broke, travelling to Dover in the silver Astra. They enjoyed a week of sun, sea and relaxation during a caravan holiday in St. Tropez. In a 1986 interview with the Star, Brett declared that Jeremy "fell in love with a millionaires. She fell for him. There weren't many girls he couldn't pull. He was an absolute charmer. He had a great time making love to her, sunbathing and drinking. I warned him he was suspect number one on the police list for the killings, but he wasn't bothered. He just wanted to enjoy himself while he could. But I knew a storm was brewing for him at home."
-
I thought it was the side window, but I'm not certain.
I'm certain it's the top. I think. :))
-
I can't find much info about it either way.
-
I'm certain it's the top. I think. :))
I concur. It's typical of all large Georgian houses. The windows opening horizontally, rather than vertically.
-
In the appeal document I found this:
263. Police Sergeant Golding gave evidence that at 2.30 p.m. on 7 August he commenced to secure the ground floor and found all windows to be secure and fastened with the exception of two windows. One was in the ground floor bathroom, which was in a closed position with the catch open. He secured the window by closing the latch. The other was a transom window, which formed part of a casement type window in the kitchen. The transom window was open approximately halfway. He secured the window.
Is a transom window the top window rather than the side-opening one?
-
I concur. It's typical of all large Georgian houses. The windows opening horizontally, rather than vertically.
The kitchen window was a casement type. It had a window which opened horizontally, and another one which opened vertically.
-
(https://crowdjustice.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/uploads/froala_editor/images/Picture%20shown%20to%20Jury%20Window.jpg)
-
In the appeal document I found this:
Is a transom window the top window rather than the side-opening one?
To the best of my knowledge, a transom window forms a fixed horizontal paned bar.
-
I can't find much info about it either way.
I'm still looking.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5539.0;attach=36961;image)
-
To the best of my knowledge, a transom window forms a fixed horizontal paned bar.
PS Golding said that was open halfway, but DS Jones said it was not, so we're no further forward.
In any case, there's another side-opening window in the kitchen casement.
-
I have enlarged the photos. This should help.
-
PS Golding said that was open halfway, but DS Jones said it was not, so we're no further forward.
In any case, there's another side-opening window in the kitchen casement.
"Open halfway" suggests horizontal opening. It would be a strange window which also had a vertical opening.
-
I have enlarged the photos. This should help.
This shows the yellow plastic sink tidy. Which the housekeeper said had been moved for the first time since she had been working there.
Either Bamber moved it as he got onto the sink area to exit the kitchen window.
Or Sheila did some post massacre & pre suicide washing up & moved it.
-
This shows the yellow plastic sink tidy. Which the housekeeper said had been moved for the first time since she had been working there.
Either Bamber moved it as he got onto the sink area to exit the kitchen window.
Or Sheila did some post massacre & pre suicide washing up & moved it.
It does look like it could be placed to block the window.
-
If Sheila committed the massacre & then did some washing up, why didn't she put the items in the sink tidy. It is what it is for.
The most logical explanation is Bamber moved the sink tidy prior to climbing onto the sink area where the window is. Which he had to do so he could exit through the kitchen window.
-
It does look like it could be placed to block the window.
If that portion of window had vertical opening, it would have been easy enough for him to climb through, the placing of the sink tidy, when he left, conveying the message that everything was in it's place.
-
The sink tidy in that position is not obstructing Bamber from exiting on either side of the window.
He could climb onto either side of the sink.
If the sink tidy was laying flat, it would cover all of one side. Either to the left or right of the sink.
Bamber moved it to ensure an easy climb onto the sink area & easy kitchen window exit.
The theory that Sheila committed the massacre & then moved the sink tidy while doing some washing up has been dismissed.
-
If that portion of window had vertical opening, it would have been easy enough for him to climb through, the placing of the sink tidy, when he left, conveying the message that everything was in it's place.
The sink tidy was not in it's usual place. It had been moved for the first time in years.
-
The sink tidy was not in it's usual place. It had been moved for the first time in years.
Given the general mayhem and carnage in the kitchen, would the position of the sink tidy be very high on their list of "things to be immediately suspicious of"? After all, courtesy of Jeremy's helpfulness, they were only looking for Sheila.
-
The housekeeper had worked for the Bambers for 20 years.
She had never left the sink tidy in another position, and never returned to work to see it in a different position - her WS.
The moved sink tidy is in the exact location where Bamber is said to have exited WHF.
The only credible explanation is Bamber moved it moments before his exit.
-
Given the general mayhem and carnage in the kitchen, would the position of the sink tidy be very high on their list of "things to be immediately suspicious of"? After all, courtesy of Jeremy's helpfulness, they were only looking for Sheila.
It was important enough for PB to testify in court.
David suggested PB lied as she didn't want to work for Bamber in the future.
Davids theory is not worthy of discussion but shows supporters don't believe Sheila did some washing up & moved the sink tidy after killing 4 people.
-
It was important enough for PB to testify in court.
David suggested PB lied as she didn't want to work for Bamber in the future.
Davids theory is not worthy of discussion but shows supporters don't believe Sheila did some washing up & moved the sink tidy after killing 4 people.
Sheila had made two cups of tea though,probably for her father and herself so could have rinsed them and left them draining, as two cups had been mentioned as being left out.
It's what you do when you can't sleep--------make a cup of tea.
-
Sheila had made two cups of tea though,probably for her father and herself so could have rinsed them and left them draining, as two cups had been mentioned as being left out.
It's what you do when you can't sleep--------make a cup of tea.
Source please.
For the first time in up to 20 years, the sink tidy & fairy liquid had been moved.
They had been moved on the massacre night.
Prior to the massacre, they were in the exact same & only location Bamber could exit WHF from.
The only logical explanation is Bamber moved them as he exited WHF.
A logical alternative explanation must be given. Othersise Bamber is guilty & it will be added to the forensic evidence list.
-
Sheila had made two cups of tea though,probably for her father and herself so could have rinsed them and left them draining, as two cups had been mentioned as being left out.
It's what you do when you can't sleep--------make a cup of tea.
As you were obviously there, what happened to your cup? Did you wash it up yourself? ;) ;D ;D
-
"Open halfway" suggests horizontal opening. It would be a strange window which also had a vertical opening.
Yes, he meant the window at the top. If that was open when the police went in, it can hardly have been banged shut by Jeremy or anyone else. However PS Jones denied that it had been open when he checked.
-
Unfortunately, we can't see the bottom catch in those photos. If it was in place then clearly nobody got out of that window.
-
Source please.
For the first time in up to 20 years, the sink tidy & fairy liquid had been moved.
They had been moved on the massacre night.
Prior to the massacre, they were in the exact same & only location Bamber could exit WHF from.
The only logical explanation is Bamber moved them as he exited WHF.
A logical alternative explanation must be given. Othersise Bamber is guilty & it will be added to the forensic evidence list.
Jean Bouttell said the Fairy Liquid was always kept in the left hand corner of the window sill, but there are other items there. Are you suggesting that Jeremy moved the Fairy liquid in order to get out of the window but left all the other items on the window sill where they were?
-
The sink tidy in that position is not obstructing Bamber from exiting on either side of the window.
He could climb onto either side of the sink.
If the sink tidy was laying flat, it would cover all of one side. Either to the left or right of the sink.
Bamber moved it to ensure an easy climb onto the sink area & easy kitchen window exit.
The theory that Sheila committed the massacre & then moved the sink tidy while doing some washing up has been dismissed.
Are you really suggesting that Jeremy put the sink tidy in an upright position in order to move around it to exit the window? He did this whilst leaving everything else on the window sill, except that he moved one bottle? Why would he not just move the sink tidy out of the way and then lean through the window and put it back?
-
Unfortunately the sink tidy being moved for the first time in up to 20 years, on the massacre night, in the exact same & only location where Bamber could exit WHF, confirms what everyone knows.
Bamber exited the kitchen window & banged it shut from outside.
-
Unfortunately, we can't see the bottom catch in those photos. If it was in place then clearly nobody got out of that window.
There doesn't appear to be a bottom catch. Just one in the middle.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8844.0;attach=50039;image)
-
Are you really suggesting that Jeremy put the sink tidy in an upright position in order to move around it to exit the window? He did this whilst leaving everything else on the window sill, except that he moved one bottle? Why would he not just move the sink tidy out of the way and then lean through the window and put it back?
And he says my arguments are not worthy of discussion.
-
There doesn't appear to be a bottom catch. Just one in the middle.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8844.0;attach=50039;image)
There is a bottom catch. It just cannot be seen on those photos because there is stuff in-front of it.
-
As previously stated, the bathroom window was found to be closed but not secured. I believe this is the window Jeremy used later to gain entry. The family thought he used the kitchen window but that doesn't mean he did.
-
As previously stated, the bathroom window was found to be closed but not secured. I believe this is the window Jeremy used later to gain entry. The family thought he used the kitchen window but that doesn't mean he did.
The prosecution case was that he entered through the bathroom window.
Then exited through the kitchen window & banged it from outside until the catch fell into place. Which could be done.
The kitchen sink tidy & fairy liquid by the kitchen window were moved by Bamber as he climbed onto the surface board to exit the kitchen window.
-
No one has supported the possibility that Sheila massacured 4 people, then did some washing up & moved the sink tidy & fairy liquid.
No one has supported David's suggestion that the house keeper committed perjury because she didn't want to work under Bamber at WHF.
Lookout has not provided a source that Sheila made Nevill & June a cup of tea on the massacre night. Although that is no alternative reason why these 2 items would be moved for the first time in up to 20 years.
-
The prosecution case was that he entered through the bathroom window.
Then exited through the kitchen window & banged it from outside until the catch fell into place. Which could be done.
How does he secure the lower catch?
-
Items were moved for the first time in up to 20 years -
From a fixed position.
On the massacre night.
At the exact location which Bamber had to climb onto.
To exit the only possible exit window.
This information was important enough for the housekeeper to testify. There is no record of Bamber or the CT disputing this.
It will have to be added to the forensic evidence list.
-
How does he secure the lower catch?
Don't ask me. Ask the prosecution.
They wouldn't say Bamber exited through the kitchen window & banged it shut from outside unless it could be done. Otherwise the defence would dismiss this & the prosecution case falls apart. The defence didn't.
What side of the window did Bamber exit from ?
Once the window is shut the bottom just automatically falls to the floor.
-
Bamber just needed to ensure the bottom latch was in the air, probably at a 12 o'clock position, as he shut the window.
If he shut the window quickly, the bottom catch is still in the air. It will travel downwards and then hit the bottom of the window in the position the photo shows it in.
That is if he exited from that side of the window.
-
There is a bottom catch. It just cannot be seen on those photos because there is stuff in-front of it.
The crime scene picture is the one with the sink tidy on it's edge. This is the photo the housekeeper was shown.
As you said, you can't see the bottom latch in that photo.
You putting up another photo not taken at the crime scene is of no use.
The important thing for Bamber was that the window's middle handle fell into place after he banged the window from outside a few times.
-
There's a small raised block in the centre of the sill which will have a couple of spaced lugs so that when the hasp/catch is down two holes have to fit in a secure position-------which can't be down from the outside as it has to be accurate.
-
Older windows and their fitments tend to stiffen over the years as well as a slight warping of the wood surrounding the windows making moving parts sluggish.
It's an impossibility to secure these windows from the outside.
The centre catch has to be fully " home " or the window won't even lock from the inside. They are manual catches and aren't designed to bang shut to lock.
-
This is a modern window anyway; I thought that the windows which could be banged to were more likely to be the old sash windows?
-
Anyway I have answered David's question with 3 replies.
The photo he put up of the bottom lock wasn't even a crime scene photo. I also don't know if he exited from that side.
Lookout you need to revert to you're gut feeling theories. Focusing on the window & PB's WS will just make Bamber look more guilty.
-
This is a modern window anyway; I thought that the windows which could be banged to were more likely to be the old sash windows?
No,you don't bang sash windows,they're lifted to close or by using a pane to pull down.They're operated by weights on either side of the casement.
-
No,you don't bang sash windows,they're lifted to close or by using a pane to pull down.They're operated by weights on either side of the casement.
But as you say the wood may have become warped over time and the catches may have become pliable over that period.
-
But as you say the wood may have become warped over time and the catches may have become pliable over that period.
No Steve,you get misalignment with warping not ease of closing/opening.
-
But as you say the wood may have become warped over time and the catches may have become pliable over that period.
The building wasn't listed until 1987.
The kitchen window is not historic and appears to be a fairly modern replacement.
-
Unless wood is treated annually it will rot in time.This is why we have the horrible,tacky PVC windows/doors. Of course for those wanting to keep to wooden window frames and doors the cost of hard wood is enormous,but will last a lifetime and for looks is unbeatable.
-
The building wasn't listed until 1987.
The kitchen window is not historic and appears to be a fairly modern replacement.
I wonder if the window has been changed since ? Grade II doesn't do modern with ancient if it isn't in keeping.
-
The building wasn't listed until 1987.
The kitchen window is not historic and appears to be a fairly modern replacement.
I was thinking more this type of window and whether an old catch could fall back into position? https://youtu.be/xbvNvG4l3zw
-
I was thinking more this type of window and whether an old catch could fall back into position? https://youtu.be/xbvNvG4l3zw
No Steve,these windows can only be locked from the inside as with ALL old windows of this age.
The catch in the centre has to be physically moved across and under the bottom lip.
-
The prosecution case was that he entered through the bathroom window.
Then exited through the kitchen window & banged it from outside until the catch fell into place. Which could be done.
The kitchen sink tidy & fairy liquid by the kitchen window were moved by Bamber as he climbed onto the surface board to exit the kitchen window.
That is simply a suggestion but doesn't mean he did. The bathroom window was secured - so why wouldn't he just use the same window?
-
No one has supported the possibility that Sheila massacured 4 people, then did some washing up & moved the sink tidy & fairy liquid.
No one has supported David's suggestion that the house keeper committed perjury because she didn't want to work under Bamber at WHF.
Lookout has not provided a source that Sheila made Nevill & June a cup of tea on the massacre night. Although that is no alternative reason why these 2 items would be moved for the first time in up to 20 years.
Adam this is absurd, I doubt some shitty old bit of plastic would even last 20 years
-
That is simply a suggestion but doesn't mean he did. The bathroom window was secured - so why wouldn't he just use the same window?
Could he bang shut the bathroom window from outside ?
-
Adam this is absurd, I doubt some shitty old bit of plastic would even last 20 years
A sink tidy would last a long time. If it got old they would replace it with an exact same sink tidy. They are still available to buy 32 years later.
The housekeeper had worked there for 20 years. She had never seen the sink tidy in a different location. Until seeing the crime scene photos.
No one has supported Lookout's & David's suggestions. No one has said Sheila did some washing up & moved the sink tidy after killing 4 people.
Bamber had to exit out of the kitchen window. That is the window that could be banged shut from outside.
The sink tidy was infront of this window. Covering a large area which Bamber had to climb onto.
Bamber moved the sink tidy as he got onto the sink & exited the window.
-
Could he bang shut the bathroom window from outside ?
No, that was a sliding sash window.
-
No, that was a sliding sash window.
So he exited out of the kitchen window. Hence the moved items around this window.
This has always been the prosecution case. They just had to prove it was possible to do. Which they did.
So not sure why Caroline is suggesting he exited out of the bathroom window.
-
Could he bang shut the bathroom window from outside ?
He didn't need to, it was open - shut but not secure.
-
And not a trace of blood or footprints.
-
And not a trace of blood or footprints.
What footprints did Sheila leave?
-
How does he secure the lower catch?
He couldn't. It fits onto a "peg" or "pegs", as DC Barlow said.
-
262. It was the Crown's case that the appellant entered White House Farm, for the purpose of carrying out the murders, by the downstairs bathroom window and left the premises by the kitchen window.
-
He couldn't. It fits onto a "peg" or "pegs", as DC Barlow said.
I answered this in reply 516, 517 & 518.
David didn't even supply the crime scene picture.
-
A sink tidy would last a long time. If it got old they would replace it with an exact same sink tidy. They are still available to buy 32 years later.
The housekeeper had worked there for 20 years. She had never seen the sink tidy in a different location. Until seeing the crime scene photos.
No one has supported Lookout's & David's suggestions. No one has said Sheila did some washing up & moved the sink tidy after killing 4 people.
Bamber had to exit out of the kitchen window. That is the window that could be banged shut from outside.
The sink tidy was infront of this window. Covering a large area which Bamber had to climb onto.
Bamber moved the sink tidy as he got onto the sink & exited the window.
Jean B wasn't there all the time. Clearly, someone in the family washed up after dinner and left the sink very clean. Perhaps they were in the habit of leaving the sink tidy upright to wipe the draining board and/or to let the sink tidy dry. Then perhaps after the breakfast things had been washed up, they left it flat.
I think it's quite unlikely that Jeremy would move the sink tidy, then lean in and carefully stand it on end.
-
I answered this in reply 516, 517 & 518.
David didn't even supply the crime scene picture.
The bottom catch is hidden in the crime scene photo, but you can see the type of catch it is. DC Barlow also described it.
-
Jean B wasn't there all the time. Clearly, someone in the family washed up after dinner and left the sink very clean. Perhaps they were in the habit of leaving the sink tidy upright to wipe the draining board and/or to let the sink tidy dry. Then perhaps after the breakfast things had been washed up, they left it flat.
I think it's quite unlikely that Jeremy would move the sink tidy, then lean in and carefully stand it on end.
Kaldin were these photos taken on the day?
-
Kaldin were these photos taken on the day?
I believe so, yes - the one where you can't see the bottom catch anyway.
-
135. He told the police that there were occasions when he gained entry to his parents' home by way of a number of the downstairs windows including those in the kitchen and the bathroom. He explained that he used a knife to move the catches in order that the window could be opened from the outside.
-
June would have washed up after supper so anything which appeared out of place would indeed have been tidied up by herself.
Though how anyone here would know where everything went or was supposed to be,I fail to see.
-
149. The appellant returned the moderator to the gun cupboard and before leaving the address called his home at Goldhanger, leaving the receiver off the hook, thus lending support to the alibi he would later rely upon.
He then left the premises, one available route being to climb out of the kitchen window, banging it from the outside to drop the catch back into position and then cycled home.
-
I believe so, yes - the one where you can't see the bottom catch anyway.
Thanks kaldin, I'm just not buying that a sink tidy Is proof of murder,
-
If the phone was left off the hook it would be engaged surely? So how was the line open?
-
iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window.
His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;
-
Thanks kaldin, I'm just not buying that a sink tidy Is proof of murder,
Well it's not proof that Jeremy left the house that way. In fact, I think it would be difficult to do so and leave it all so tidy with no footprints or debris on the draining board.
-
263. Police Sergeant Golding gave evidence that at 2.30 p.m. on 7 August he commenced to secure the ground floor and found all windows to be secure and fastened with the exception of two windows.
One was in the ground floor bathroom, which was in a closed position with the catch open. He secured the window by closing the latch.
The other was a transom window, which formed part of a casement type window in the kitchen. The transom window was open approximately halfway. He secured the window.
-
Yes exactly or did he polish it all down as he left?? Do you not think he would of been worried someone close could of overheard the shots/fight and come to see what was happening, surely no mass murderer would be cleaning up before leaving the scene???
-
268. The examination of the Farm for entry and exit marks became particularly significant. On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.
269. He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted.
There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.
-
263. Police Sergeant Golding gave evidence that at 2.30 p.m. on 7 August he commenced to secure the ground floor and found all windows to be secure and fastened with the exception of two windows.
One was in the ground floor bathroom, which was in a closed position with the catch open. He secured the window by closing the latch.
The other was a transom window, which formed part of a casement type window in the kitchen. The transom window was open approximately halfway. He secured the window.
Followed by this:
264. In contrast with Sergeant Golding, DCI Jones made a statement dated 7 October 1985 in which he reported that he had attended at the farm at approximately 9.15 a.m. on 7 August and he had proceeded to check every room on the ground floor of the house and found that on the ground floor all the windows in the house were secure and locked except the window to the dairy. That statement was read to the Jury as part of the Defence case.
-
268. The examination of the Farm for entry and exit marks became particularly significant. On the 1 October 1985 Brian Elliott a forensic scientist examined the window catch and surrounding area of the downstairs bathroom/toilet sash window. He noticed that the brass catch had been scratched on the inner edge and that there was damage to the white paintwork on the adjacent faces of the top of the bottom sash and the bottom of the top sash. The white paint on the outside of the window including the outer face of the top of the bottom sash appeared clean and fresh.
269. He concluded that the damage to the sash window and catch was consistent with a thin blade having been inserted between the closely fitting sashes of the window in an effort to force the catch open. Furthermore this attack occurred after the outside of the window had last been painted.
There was evidence that the windows had been painted in June and July.
Jeremy said he got in that window in September didn't he?
-
135. He told the police that there were occasions when he gained entry to his parents' home by way of a number of the downstairs windows including those in the kitchen and the bathroom. He explained that he used a knife to move the catches in order that the window could be opened from the outside.
I mean can't the Bamber defence admit for once that this is at the very least suspicious..
-
Maybe someone wanted to open the shower room window after they had a shower and couldn't because the paint had stuck. It could have happened any time.
-
Maybe someone wanted to open the shower room window after they had a shower and couldn't because the paint had stuck. It could have happened any time.
Maybe Sheila had her shower after killing 4 people. Before doing some washing up & moving the sink tidy.
-
Jeremy said he got in that window in September didn't he?
Yes, so it wasn't painted shut.
-
Well it's not proof that Jeremy left the house that way. In fact, I think it would be difficult to do so and leave it all so tidy with no footprints or debris on the draining board.
If you needed to get into the house without a key, would you not usually use the same method?
I do find it a bit odd that JB said he had previously got in and out using a number of different Windows. Kitchen, Scullery, bathroom.
-
Maybe Sheila had her shower after killing 4 people. Before doing some washing up & moving the sink tidy.
That is a possibility.
-
That is a possibility.
The suggestion at court was that Bamber moved the sink tidy as he exited the kitchen window. PB said it had never been moved prior to the massacre.
Do you believe that is a possibility as well ?
-
Maybe Sheila had her shower after killing 4 people. Before doing some washing up & moving the sink tidy.
I think you're entering the realms of fantasy now Adam. 8)
-
I think Adam's going bonkers. Look how many times he's mentioned the " sink tidy ".
-
I think Adam's going bonkers. Look how many times he's mentioned the " sink tidy ".
Think he's trying to bore me to death, lookout. There's something about a 'sink tidy' which makes me want to go to sleep. ;D
-
Think he's trying to bore me to death, lookout. There's something about a 'sink tidy' which makes me want to go to sleep. ;D
You may prefer Roch's discovered evidence he can't reveal. Or Bill's & Mike's photos they can't post.
I prefer to discuss published witness statements & court testimonies.
The sink tidy evidence shows 100% that Bamber exited the kitchen window.
No one believes Sheila did some washing up & moved the sink tidy after killing 4 people
-
Think he's trying to bore me to death, lookout. There's something about a 'sink tidy' which makes me want to go to sleep. ;D
I'd call it a dish drainer really. A sink tidy is that thing you put sponges and brushes in.
-
You may prefer Roch's discovered evidence he can't reveal. Or Bill's & Mike's photos they can't post.
I prefer to discuss published witness statements & court testimonies.
The sink tidy evidence shows 100% that Bamber exited the kitchen window.
No one believes Sheila did some washing up & moved the sink tidy after killing 4 people
It shows nothing of the sort. Why on earth would Jeremy put the sink tidy upright and then try to step around it through the window?
-
You may prefer Roch's discovered evidence he can't reveal. Or Bill's & Mike's photos they can't post.
I prefer to discuss witness statements & court testimonies.
The sink tidy evidence shows 100% that Bamber exited the kitchen window.
No one believes Sheila did some washing up & moved it after killing 4 people
You are putting words in my mouth, I did not say Sheila did any such thing as I told you before.
I am quite happy for you to discuss court testimonies and witness statements as we all have on here many times.
I thought that yellow thing on the draining board was a plate rack/drainer rather than a 'sink tidy' Fortunately I have never owned a 'sink tidy' . :)
-
You are putting words in my mouth, I did not say Sheila did any such thing as I told you before.
I am quite happy for you to discuss court testimonies and witness statements as we all have on here many times.
I thought that yellow thing on the draining board was a plate rack/drainer rather than a 'sink tidy' Fortunately I have never owned a 'sink tidy' . :)
Jean Bouttell called it a sink tidy, but I agree with you. :))
-
I'd call it a dish drainer really. A sink tidy is that thing you put sponges and brushes in.
Think our posts crossed Kaldin ;D definitely some kind of drainer in my book.
-
It shows nothing of the sort. Why on earth would Jeremy put the sink tidy upright and then try to step around it through the window?
Of course it shows Bamber excited the kitchen window. It had not been moved for years prior to the massacre night.
The prosecution got the housekeeper to testify on this which helped ensure a guilty verdict.
-
Of course it shows Bamber excited the kitchen window. It had not been moved for years prior to the massacre night.
The prosecution got the housekeeper to testify on this which helped ensure a guilty verdict.
Jean B had not seen it in that position before, but that doesn't mean it hadn't been moved for years. It wasn't glued to the draining board you know. She wasn't there all the time - she didn't do the washing up after dinner.
-
Jean Bouttell called it a sink tidy, but I agree with you. :))
PB called it a yellow sink tidy. It can also be called a drainer.
Either way it covered a large surface area which Bamber had to climb onto. The sink area didn't have much room in the first place.
-
Jean B had not seen it in that position before, but that doesn't mean it hadn't been moved for years. It wasn't glued to the draining board you know. She wasn't there all the time - she didn't do the washing up after dinner.
PB had worked for the Bamber's for 20 years.
She had never entered WHF & seen it in a different location. Or seen it in a different location while inside WHF.
Do you believe Bamber was unlucky & Sheila did some washing up after killing 4 people. Moving the sink tidy ?
-
PB had worked for the Bamber's for 20 years.
She had never entered WHF & seen it in a different location. Or seen it in a different location while inside WHF.
Do you believe Bamber was unlucky & Sheila did some washing up after killing 4 people. Moving the sink tidy ?
It doesn't matter how long she'd worked there, she wasn't there all the time. Maybe someone moved it to use the draining board to clean something. It might have been nothing to do with washing up. As I said, maybe they put it upright at night to dry it off, and put it flat before JB got there in the morning.
Why on earth would Jeremy move it to an upright position? You keep avoiding that question.
-
It doesn't matter how long she'd worked there, she wasn't there all the time. Maybe someone moved it to use the draining board to clean something. It might have been nothing to do with washing up. As I said, maybe they put it upright at night to dry it off, and put it flat before JB got there in the morning.
Why on earth would Jeremy move it to an upright position? You keep avoiding that question.
When did you ask me ?
You say 'maybe' & 'if' a lot.
He put it on it's side so it took up less surface area. He can't stand on the sink tidy.
Bamber had no choice but to exit the kitchen window. So he could bang it shut. He had to get onto the sink area during the exiting via the kitchen window.
Not sure what the problem is.
-
When did you ask me ?
You say 'maybe' & 'if' a lot.
He put it on it's side so it took up less surface area. He can't stand on the sink tidy.
Bamber had no choice but to exit the kitchen window. So he could bang it shut. He had to get onto the sink area during the exiting via the kitchen window.
Not sure what the problem is.
So how did he climb over it without knocking it over? I mean, he'd move it, he wouldn't put it upright.
-
So how did he climb over it without knocking it over? I mean, he'd move it, he wouldn't put it upright.
Easy. If I was going to climb through that window I would move the sink tidy. So I had a surface area to climb onto.
-
I can't cope with this bloody sink tidy any more :P
-
Easy. If I was going to climb through that window I would move the sink tidy. So I had a surface area to climb onto.
You wouldn't move it in front of the window though would you?
-
I can't cope with this bloody sink tidy any more :P
;D
-
Losing the will to live, Lucy :'(
Maggie I'm going to have nightmares about it tonight :)
-
;D
I am losing the will to live Lucy :'(
-
Maggie I'm going to have nightmares about it tonight :)
You'll dream the yellow monster thing is attacking you.
-
You wouldn't move it in front of the window though would you?
Maybe he moved it, climbed through the window, then moved it in front of the window to make it look like he hadn't climbed through the window. :))
-
Maybe he moved it, climbed through the window, then moved it in front of the window to make it look like he hadn't climbed through the window. :))
In an upright position? 8)
-
In an upright position? 8)
It wouldn't balance on a corner. ;D
-
If you needed to get into the house without a key, would you not usually use the same method?
I do find it a bit odd that JB said he had previously got in and out using a number of different Windows. Kitchen, Scullery, bathroom.
Nobody commented on this. :(
I wasn't suggesting it made him guilty, but I do find it odd.
-
Nobody commented on this. :(
I wasn't suggesting it made him guilty, but I do find it odd.
I don't know what to say to that. :))
-
I don't know what to say to that. :))
>:( ;D
-
Nobody commented on this. :(
I wasn't suggesting it made him guilty, but I do find it odd.
Why does he know so many points of entry, and why has he used them all.
I need to get in, I think I'll use the bathroom window, actually I used that last time, I'll go for the scullery,I'll save the kitchen for next time.
I think that's unusual.
-
Why does he know so many points of entry, and why has he used them all.
To my knowledge he has never said that. Show me where he says he has used every point of entry.
-
To my knowledge he has never said that. Show me where he says he has used every point of entry.
In a manner of speaking he did: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=jeremy+bamber+secure+windows+insecure+windows&source=bl&ots=h8HoPINfVj&sig=QzLGZOOfb86Co0wLCsexvGhkaoA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2l9Xz54zXAhUDVhoKHTHUDIMQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20secure%20windows%20insecure%20windows&f=false
-
Why does he know so many points of entry, and why has he used them all.
I need to get in, I think I'll use the bathroom window, actually I used that last time, I'll go for the scullery,I'll save the kitchen for next time.
I think that's unusual.
Perhaps just saying ONE window, would in his mind be giving too big of a piece of information away as to how he actually got in.
-
In a manner of speaking he did: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=jeremy+bamber+secure+windows+insecure+windows&source=bl&ots=h8HoPINfVj&sig=QzLGZOOfb86Co0wLCsexvGhkaoA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2l9Xz54zXAhUDVhoKHTHUDIMQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20secure%20windows%20insecure%20windows&f=false
Nope.
-
To my knowledge he has never said that. Show me where he says he has used every point of entry.
Oh I missed out Sitting Room window as well. Very odd!
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5869;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5870;image)
-
Any of you well-offs in Essex going to rent a room out to the NHS ? Don't all shout at once !
-
Oh I missed out Sitting Room window as well. Very odd!
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5869;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5870;image)
David is having a laugh again, but at whose expense I'm not quite sure..
-
Didn't EP state that no entry had been gained ? That everywhere had been locked from inside ? That night.
-
David is having a laugh again, but at whose expense I'm not quite sure..
He has become ensnared in a tissue of lies, a web of deceit, which to be fair has fooled more intelligent than him, as his letters arrive at the doorstep from Monster Mansions with clockwork regularity, their block capitals marching unashamedly across the page with strident flourish, clamouring as they do for attention to those vulnerable and gullible enough to fall for them..
-
He has become ensnared in a tissue of lies, a web of deceit, which to be fair has fooled more intelligent than him, as his letters arrive at the doorstep from Monster Mansions with clockwork regularity, their block capitals marching across the page with strident flourish, clamouring as they do for attention to those vulnerable and gullible enough to fall for them..
David changed stance for one 'non evidence' reason. After previously saying 'all the forensics point to Bamber's guilt'.
Obviously he now works hard alongside Mike, Lookout & Nugs to firefight all the 'forensics' pointing to Bamber's guilt.
-
So ?
-
Oh I missed out Sitting Room window as well. Very odd!
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5869;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5870;image)
Basically, he could gain access by just about any window on the ground floor and doesn't deny it.
-
But it so happens------he didn't gain entry that night of the murders.
-
But it so happens------he didn't gain entry that night of the murders.
yeah ::)
-
David changed stance for one 'non evidence' reason. After previously saying 'all the forensics point to Bamber's guilt'.
Obviously he now works hard alongside Mike, Lookout & Nugs to firefight all the 'forensics' pointing to Bamber's guilt.
Not true.
-
Not true.
'The forensics point to him in all directions despite the police errors and inconsistencies. Therefore you must find the only potential evidence that could free him (if it exists)'.
-
David changed stance for one 'non evidence' reason. After previously saying 'all the forensics point to Bamber's guilt'.
Obviously he now works hard alongside Mike, Lookout & Nugs to firefight all the 'forensics' pointing to Bamber's guilt.
I don't work alongside anyone. My thoughts are my own,as they were when I first came onto the forum.
-
He has become ensnared in a tissue of lies, a web of deceit, which to be fair has fooled more intelligent than him, as his letters arrive at the doorstep from Monster Mansions with clockwork regularity, their block capitals marching unashamedly across the page with strident flourish, clamouring as they do for attention to those vulnerable and gullible enough to fall for them..
I haven't sent or received any letters from JB for almost a year now. But if you want "clockwork regularity" correspondence in your crime fiction novel be my guest.
-
You mean you didn't use your drone for receiving information ? What a waste.
-
I haven't sent or received any letters from JB for almost a year now. But if you want "clockwork regularity" correspondence in your crime fiction novel be my guest.
Thought you would have been writing to him with questions & updates from him. As Caroline did.
-
Why not write to him yourself.? I'm sure he'd be delighted with your lengthy Epistles. Better than a sleeping draught.