Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackieD on December 02, 2017, 09:37:AM
-
Verbatim Project
What is a verbatim audio? It's where we've had the help of professional actors who have kindly read key witness statements which support Jeremy's case for innocence. Some of them are quite long, so pop your headphones on, when you're getting the bus to work, blue tooth them to your car stereo on a long drive or simply grab a coffee relax and find out more about the evidence which goes to the heart of the case.
Judith Jackson - Foster Carer to Nicholas and Daniel Caffell
In August 1985, Judith lived with her husband Anthony and their two daughters at Glenhurst Avenue London, NW5. From 1980 to 1982 Judith was employed as a day foster care mother by Camden Social Services, and from the outset looked after Sheila Caffell’s twin sons Nicholas and Daniel who were just a year old. Fostering was carried out five days a week and if there was an emergency. At that time Judith lived in the NW3 area of London, and Sheila would take the boys to Judith’s home each day by taxi which was paid for by social services.
Judith noted that the twins were not thriving as they should have been, and her role was to ensure their wellbeing and to support Sheila. Judith would make sure she gave Sheila time to chat and the two became friends, and as they were the same age, Sheila found that she could confide in Judith. Jeremy remembers collecting the twins from Judith’s home and recalls that she was a very nice person. This period of day foster care stopped when Sheila moved to Maida Vale as Camden Social Services did not cover that area. This statement, and the fact that the children had been fostered previously was unknown to the jury and was not disclosed to the defence until after 2002.
Michael Abel, Camden Social Services
Michael was 34 at the time of the tragedies. Since 1981 he had been employed as a social worker for Westminster Social Services as a team leader in charge of 6 other social workers. From 1982, following Sheila’s move to Maida Vale, her case was passed to Westminster Social Services and case conferences were held regarding Sheila and her children. Concerns were raised regarding Sheila’s inability to care for her children adequately, which included failing to seek medical advice promptly for Nicholas and Daniel with recent injuries, which included scalds and ear infections.
Roger Carruthers, one of the social workers under Michael Abel’s charge, did find a nursery school placement for the twins and Sheila was seen by social workers if she needed to speak to them. However, even though Sheila had serious ongoing problems, the case files were closed in 1983. Statement undisclosed at trial.
Farhad 'Freddie' Emami, Sheila's friend
Iranian born Farhad arrived in the UK between 1968 and 1970. After 6 months, he went to Exeter to study English at an international school which he continued for a year, before becoming a full time student at Exeter College in order to study catering. Freddie remained at college for three years, obtaining a diploma in catering. In 1974 he met Joyce Mary Beaumont and moved back to London with her to live. Freddie then attended Mendoza Training College to study hotel management, obtaining a diploma, and he and Joyce were then married. During this time Freddie took part in occupational training at the Savoy Hotel. He and his wife returned to Iran in 1974, where they stayed for 5 years, returning to the UK only for a short holiday. In 1978 they returned to live in London with their daughter.
Once back in London, Freddie ran a market stall in Kings Road for approximately 5 months, and following that he had various jobs working as sales assistant in retail. Freddie also worked casually at the Fred and Ginger Club near Berkley Square, London. However, Freddie had various spells of unemployment and was unemployed from January 1984. By August 1985 Freddie and Joyce now had two children, a boy and a girl, although he had separated from his wife the previous year, but by August 1985 he was living with his wife and children at White City Estate, W12. Rumours circulated that Freddie drove a Rolls Royce, something he denied, and was in fact driving 1978 Fiat.
He first met Sheila three and a half years before the events at White House Farm and claimed he didn’t know that she took drugs. The Police believed Freddie wasn’t just Sheila’s ‘confidante’ but her lover though Freddie did not admit to this. Freddie would help Sheila by babysitting the twins when Sheila went out and became known as: ‘Freddie the babysitter’. He gave evidence that Sheila had no trouble with co-ordination or picking things up and holding on to them after coming out of hospital which was contrary to what the relatives had told the police.
Although Julie Mugford and other witnesses told the police that Freddie supplied drugs to Sheila Caffell, Freddie denied ever-selling drugs to anyone, additionally, he informed the police that he had never been in trouble with police in the UK or any other country. Freddie had also associated with Jeremy and his ex-girlfriend Sue Ford, and saw them and others at parties with Sheila, and about in London. Jeremy got on with Freddie and thought that he was good for Sheila.
Before the trial, Freddie left the UK and returned to Iran. Jeremy’s solicitor tried to find him so that he could testify in court, but a friend of his reported back to the solicitor that Freddie would not testify in court against Jeremy, and if he had done it would be as a defence witness. Freddie was 41 years old at the time of the tragedies at White House Farm.
Helen Grimster, Family Relative
Helen was just 15 at the time of the tragedies at White House Farm. Helen’s mother was a cousin of Junes. Helen’s grandfather, Wilfred Speakman, was Leslie Speakman’s brother and she would visit June and Nevill twice a year. During one of these visits in March 1985, Sheila struck up a conversation with Helen. In the course of this conversation, which Helen described to her mother as "strange", Sheila talked about her school life and the fact that she had not enjoyed school days. Sheila also asked Helen about suicide, and the topic of conversation became very dark, with Sheila baring her soul to the young girl. Sheila was rolling cigarettes as she spoke to Helen, insisting that the teenager have one. It is suspected that these cigarettes contained drugs as Helen stated they “smelt a bit strange”. The conversation between Helen and Sheila lasted for around an hour and frightened Helen.
On the 3rd of October 1986, just prior to the start of the trial, Helen’s mother requested that Helen be excused from appearing to give evidence for the defence at the trial as she was studying for 9 ‘O’ level subjects with the mock exams taking place in the near future. Helen was excused from giving evidence.
Dr Hugh Ferguson, Sheila's Consultant Psychiatrist
Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson was a Consultant Psychiatrist at St. Andrews Hospital Northampton and had been qualified since 1959. In late 1982 he treated June Bamber who was suffering from psychosis and had distorted religious beliefs. She responded well to treatment, although still maintained her religious beliefs, according to Dr Ferguson.
Dr Ferguson first saw Sheila in his Harley Street clinic on 2nd August 1983 following a request to Sheila’s GP by Nevill and June Bamber for him to treat her. On the 4th August 1983 Dr Ferguson admitted Sheila to the private hospital for treatment for acute psychosis. After responding to treatment, she was discharged five weeks later, and Dr Ferguson arranged to see her as an outpatient. On the 3rd March 1985 Sheila was re-admitted to St. Andrews Hospital at Nevill’s urgent request because of deterioration in her mental health and remained there until 29 March 1985 when she was discharged. Dr Ferguson recommended that a community psychiatric nurse should see her, however, he failed to follow up on this to ensure it was organised and this care was never arranged.
This was not the first time Dr Ferguson had failed his patients, as in 1988 Paul Pagett Lewis, who also suffered from serious mental health problems, went on to shoot 2 adults and 2 children. Sadly, one adult and one child died as a result. Watch our video on this here.
Dr Ferguson became a medical director of St Andrews Hospital in 1991 and continued in full time practice as both a psychiatrist and medical director until December 1995 when he retired. Dr Ferguson continued to work part time as a consultant at St Andrews and was still in practice in 2002. It is not known how long he maintained this for.
-
Just a reminder to everyone who hasn't read this or listened to this
Posted all over twitter
-
There is already a thread on this!
-
theres a lot more rubbish on youtube about jb's innocence :)
-
Verbatim Project
What is a verbatim audio? It's where we've had the help of professional actors who have kindly read key witness statements which support Jeremy's case for innocence. Some of them are quite long, so pop your headphones on, when you're getting the bus to work, blue tooth them to your car stereo on a long drive or simply grab a coffee relax and find out more about the evidence which goes to the heart of the case.
Judith Jackson - Foster Carer to Nicholas and Daniel Caffell
In August 1985, Judith lived with her husband Anthony and their two daughters at Glenhurst Avenue London, NW5. From 1980 to 1982 Judith was employed as a day foster care mother by Camden Social Services, and from the outset looked after Sheila Caffell’s twin sons Nicholas and Daniel who were just a year old. Fostering was carried out five days a week and if there was an emergency. At that time Judith lived in the NW3 area of London, and Sheila would take the boys to Judith’s home each day by taxi which was paid for by social services.
Judith noted that the twins were not thriving as they should have been, and her role was to ensure their wellbeing and to support Sheila. Judith would make sure she gave Sheila time to chat and the two became friends, and as they were the same age, Sheila found that she could confide in Judith. Jeremy remembers collecting the twins from Judith’s home and recalls that she was a very nice person. This period of day foster care stopped when Sheila moved to Maida Vale as Camden Social Services did not cover that area. This statement, and the fact that the children had been fostered previously was unknown to the jury and was not disclosed to the defence until after 2002.
Michael Abel, Camden Social Services
Michael was 34 at the time of the tragedies. Since 1981 he had been employed as a social worker for Westminster Social Services as a team leader in charge of 6 other social workers. From 1982, following Sheila’s move to Maida Vale, her case was passed to Westminster Social Services and case conferences were held regarding Sheila and her children. Concerns were raised regarding Sheila’s inability to care for her children adequately, which included failing to seek medical advice promptly for Nicholas and Daniel with recent injuries, which included scalds and ear infections.
Roger Carruthers, one of the social workers under Michael Abel’s charge, did find a nursery school placement for the twins and Sheila was seen by social workers if she needed to speak to them. However, even though Sheila had serious ongoing problems, the case files were closed in 1983. Statement undisclosed at trial.
Farhad 'Freddie' Emami, Sheila's friend
Iranian born Farhad arrived in the UK between 1968 and 1970. After 6 months, he went to Exeter to study English at an international school which he continued for a year, before becoming a full time student at Exeter College in order to study catering. Freddie remained at college for three years, obtaining a diploma in catering. In 1974 he met Joyce Mary Beaumont and moved back to London with her to live. Freddie then attended Mendoza Training College to study hotel management, obtaining a diploma, and he and Joyce were then married. During this time Freddie took part in occupational training at the Savoy Hotel. He and his wife returned to Iran in 1974, where they stayed for 5 years, returning to the UK only for a short holiday. In 1978 they returned to live in London with their daughter.
Once back in London, Freddie ran a market stall in Kings Road for approximately 5 months, and following that he had various jobs working as sales assistant in retail. Freddie also worked casually at the Fred and Ginger Club near Berkley Square, London. However, Freddie had various spells of unemployment and was unemployed from January 1984. By August 1985 Freddie and Joyce now had two children, a boy and a girl, although he had separated from his wife the previous year, but by August 1985 he was living with his wife and children at White City Estate, W12. Rumours circulated that Freddie drove a Rolls Royce, something he denied, and was in fact driving 1978 Fiat.
He first met Sheila three and a half years before the events at White House Farm and claimed he didn’t know that she took drugs. The Police believed Freddie wasn’t just Sheila’s ‘confidante’ but her lover though Freddie did not admit to this. Freddie would help Sheila by babysitting the twins when Sheila went out and became known as: ‘Freddie the babysitter’. He gave evidence that Sheila had no trouble with co-ordination or picking things up and holding on to them after coming out of hospital which was contrary to what the relatives had told the police.
Although Julie Mugford and other witnesses told the police that Freddie supplied drugs to Sheila Caffell, Freddie denied ever-selling drugs to anyone, additionally, he informed the police that he had never been in trouble with police in the UK or any other country. Freddie had also associated with Jeremy and his ex-girlfriend Sue Ford, and saw them and others at parties with Sheila, and about in London. Jeremy got on with Freddie and thought that he was good for Sheila.
Before the trial, Freddie left the UK and returned to Iran. Jeremy’s solicitor tried to find him so that he could testify in court, but a friend of his reported back to the solicitor that Freddie would not testify in court against Jeremy, and if he had done it would be as a defence witness. Freddie was 41 years old at the time of the tragedies at White House Farm.
Helen Grimster, Family Relative
Helen was just 15 at the time of the tragedies at White House Farm. Helen’s mother was a cousin of Junes. Helen’s grandfather, Wilfred Speakman, was Leslie Speakman’s brother and she would visit June and Nevill twice a year. During one of these visits in March 1985, Sheila struck up a conversation with Helen. In the course of this conversation, which Helen described to her mother as "strange", Sheila talked about her school life and the fact that she had not enjoyed school days. Sheila also asked Helen about suicide, and the topic of conversation became very dark, with Sheila baring her soul to the young girl. Sheila was rolling cigarettes as she spoke to Helen, insisting that the teenager have one. It is suspected that these cigarettes contained drugs as Helen stated they “smelt a bit strange”. The conversation between Helen and Sheila lasted for around an hour and frightened Helen.
On the 3rd of October 1986, just prior to the start of the trial, Helen’s mother requested that Helen be excused from appearing to give evidence for the defence at the trial as she was studying for 9 ‘O’ level subjects with the mock exams taking place in the near future. Helen was excused from giving evidence.
Dr Hugh Ferguson, Sheila's Consultant Psychiatrist
Doctor Hugh Cameron Ferguson was a Consultant Psychiatrist at St. Andrews Hospital Northampton and had been qualified since 1959. In late 1982 he treated June Bamber who was suffering from psychosis and had distorted religious beliefs. She responded well to treatment, although still maintained her religious beliefs, according to Dr Ferguson.
Dr Ferguson first saw Sheila in his Harley Street clinic on 2nd August 1983 following a request to Sheila’s GP by Nevill and June Bamber for him to treat her. On the 4th August 1983 Dr Ferguson admitted Sheila to the private hospital for treatment for acute psychosis. After responding to treatment, she was discharged five weeks later, and Dr Ferguson arranged to see her as an outpatient. On the 3rd March 1985 Sheila was re-admitted to St. Andrews Hospital at Nevill’s urgent request because of deterioration in her mental health and remained there until 29 March 1985 when she was discharged. Dr Ferguson recommended that a community psychiatric nurse should see her, however, he failed to follow up on this to ensure it was organised and this care was never arranged.
This was not the first time Dr Ferguson had failed his patients, as in 1988 Paul Pagett Lewis, who also suffered from serious mental health problems, went on to shoot 2 adults and 2 children. Sadly, one adult and one child died as a result. Watch our video on this here.
Dr Ferguson became a medical director of St Andrews Hospital in 1991 and continued in full time practice as both a psychiatrist and medical director until December 1995 when he retired. Dr Ferguson continued to work part time as a consultant at St Andrews and was still in practice in 2002. It is not known how long he maintained this for.
Excellent post JackieD !
Out of interest Dr Ferguson said in his witness statement that Sheila had told him that Freddie had supplied her with cocaine - so it looks like Freddie lied to the Police at least once.
Paragraph 24 of the Dickinson report confirms that the Police believed Freddie was Sheila's boyfriend - so it looks like Freddie most likely lied to the Police at least twice.
Paragraph 24 also confirms that Sheila used to smoke cocaine - an incredibly expensive way of consuming cocaine - basically the same cost and effects as smoking crack cocaine ...
-
Excellent post JackieD !
Out of interest Dr Ferguson said in his witness statement that Sheila had told him that Freddie had supplied her with cocaine - so it looks like Freddie lied to the Police at least once.
Paragraph 24 of the Dickinson report confirms that the Police believed Freddie was Sheila's boyfriend - so it looks like Freddie most likely lied to the Police at least twice.
Paragraph 24 also confirms that Sheila used to smoke cocaine - an incredibly expensive way of consuming cocaine - basically the same cost and effects as smoking crack cocaine ...
Oh, c'mon. You don't really believe it came out of her head, do you? The most effort it took her was learning how to do a cut'n paste job!!
-
so freddie is a lair.i doubt if anyone in the early 80's was smoking powdered coke.the buzz lasts the same length of time wether its smoked or snooted.has anyone on the forum tryed it.the smoking of powdered coke only came on the scene after crack was invented by mixing coke with ammonia or baking soda
-
Excellent post JackieD !
Out of interest Dr Ferguson said in his witness statement that Sheila had told him that Freddie had supplied her with cocaine - so it looks like Freddie lied to the Police at least once.
Paragraph 24 of the Dickinson report confirms that the Police believed Freddie was Sheila's boyfriend - so it looks like Freddie most likely lied to the Police at least twice.
Paragraph 24 also confirms that Sheila used to smoke cocaine - an incredibly expensive way of consuming cocaine - basically the same cost and effects as smoking crack cocaine ...
Paragraph 30 of the Dickinson report says that Jeremy Bamber was only 18 or 19 years old when he went to New Zealand and "fell in with homosexual and criminal company" ie he fell under the spell of the much older criminal Brett.
In my opinion Sheila living alone in London and a teenage Jeremy alone in New Zealand were both vulnerable to Freddie and Brett and each of them were led into bad habits and allowed their lives to come under a bad influence.
Neither Sheila or Jeremy had done much wrong in life until they met Brett and Freddie ...
Coming from a very sheltered upbringing they were both very vulnerable ...
Both were young,physically attractive,very naive and had rich parents ...
Freddie and Brett were older,much more experienced in life - and they were both criminal drug dealers ...
It looks like Freddie was Sheila's "boyfriend" and that Brett wanted to become Jeremy's "boyfriend" - but did either Freddie or Brett also have desires for the Bamber family money ?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1168.0.html
-
Oh, c'mon. You don't really believe it came out of her head, do you? The most effort it took her was learning how to do a cut'n paste job!!
I find factual posts whether they be documents,witness statements or cut and paste factual posts much more interesting than all the point scoring between fellow forum members ;D
-
Paragraph 30 of the Dickinson report says that Jeremy Bamber was only 18 or 19 years old when he went to New Zealand and "fell in with homosexual and criminal company" ie he fell under the spell of the much older criminal Brett.
In my opinion Sheila living alone in London and a teenage Jeremy alone in New Zealand were both vulnerable to Freddie and Brett and each of them were led into bad habits and allowed their lives to come under a bad influence.
Neither Sheila or Jeremy had done much wrong in life until they met Brett and Freddie ...
Coming from a very sheltered upbringing they were both very vulnerable ...
Both were young,physically attractive,very naive and had rich parents ...
Freddie and Brett were older,much more experienced in life - and they were both criminal drug dealers ...
It looks like Freddie was Sheila's "boyfriend" and that Brett wanted to become Jeremy's "boyfriend" - but did either Freddie or Brett also have desires for the Bamber family money ?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1168.0.html
yea freddie n brett did it for the bamber family wealth
-
so freddie is a lair.i doubt if anyone in the early 80's was smoking powdered coke.the buzz lasts the same length of time wether its smoked or snooted.has anyone on the forum tryed it.the smoking of powdered coke only came on the scene after crack was invented by mixing coke with ammonia or baking soda
Paragraph 24 of the Dickinson report confirms that Sheila told Dr Ferguson that she smoked cocaine.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1168.0.html
Dr Ferguson's witness statement also confirms this.
In 1985 in Essex it was a habit of some users to smoke cocaine through a bong.
This was well before crack had been heard of in England.
By smoking cocaine through a bong users could smoke thousands of pounds worth in a night.
Smoking through a bong creates a much more intense high ...
It was the sort of thing armed robbers and big dealers did - a bit too expensive for the average cocaine addict.
-
I find factual posts whether they be documents,witness statements or cut and paste factual posts much more interesting than all the point scoring between fellow forum members ;D
Then why didn't you congratulate the CT? It was THEIR work.
-
i disagree nether in essex or anywhere else in the britain was powdered coke smoked. people only started smoking it after crack was introduced .if one wanted a high from smoking it would be cannabis or smack.imo
-
yea freddie n brett did it for the bamber family wealth
I think Freddie was more interested in sex with Sheila - worst case scenario is he wanted to or was prostituting her out for money - maybe he was getting her in drug debts and her parents were paying the debts off every now and again - but i don't seriously suspect Freddie of being involved in the murders ...
Brett however is a much more serious suspect ...
Susan Battersby's witness statement said that Brett had been involved in a previous robbery/murder - he lived at Goldhanger with Jeremy for 2 months before the murders - he worked at the farm with Jeremy for that 2 months - he returned 4 days after the murders to begin spending the money - Brett was the much older man who introduced the naive teenage Jeremy into crime and drug dealing in New Zealand - that was after "borrowing" the £2,000 Neville Bamber had lent Jeremy - and you don't even think he is a possible suspect for at least some sort of prior knowledge of the murders ? ;D ;D ;D
-
I think Freddie was more interested in sex with Sheila - worst case scenario is he wanted to or was prostituting her out for money - maybe he was getting her in drug debts and her parents were paying the debts off every now and again - but i don't seriously suspect Freddie of being involved in the murders ...
Brett however is a much more serious suspect ...
Susan Battersby's witness statement said that Brett had been involved in a previous robbery/murder - he lived at Goldhanger with Jeremy for 2 months before the murders - he worked at the farm with Jeremy for that 2 months - he returned 4 days after the murders to begin spending the money - Brett was the much older man who introduced the naive teenage Jeremy into crime and drug dealing in New Zealand - that was after "borrowing" the £2,000 Neville Bamber had lent Jeremy - and you don't even think he is a possible suspect for at least some sort of prior knowledge of the murders ? ;D ;D ;D
so what if he did prior knowledge .charge him with whatever you think you can .doesnt alter much for jb :)
-
i disagree nether in essex or anywhere else in the britain was powdered coke smoked. people only started smoking it after crack was introduced .if one wanted a high from smoking it would be cannabis or smack.imo
Sheila told Dr Ferguson she had been smoking it - it is in Dr Ferguson's witness statement - so of course it was being smoked in 1985 !
I personally witnessed it being smoked through bongs in Essex in 1985 and had detailed discussions with the people smoking it about their habit of smoking it - it is an incredibly expensive way of taking it.
I of course personally like a good pipe myself - but not with cocaine in it :)
-
Sheila told Dr Ferguson she had been smoking it - it is in Dr Ferguson's witness statement - so of course it was being smoked in 1985 !
I personally witnessed it being smoked through bongs in Essex in 1985 and had detailed discussions with the people smoking it about their habit of smoking it - it is an incredibly expensive way of taking it.
I of course personally like a good pipe myself - but not with cocaine in it :)
once again i disagree but will have to accept a stalemate.now youve got the name,the pipe,have you also got dr watson :)
-
so what if he did prior knowledge .charge him with whatever you think you can .doesnt alter much for jb :)
The only thing that has the slightest chance of ever setting Jeremy free is the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If Jeremy had said a couple of things to Brett about killing his parents and Brett had thought Jeremy wasn't serious - then Brett would hardly be to blame for the actual murders ...
But what if Brett had killed someone before in a robbery like Susan Battersby says in her statement - and then he met a naive teenage Jeremy with rich parents - and then encouraged or persuaded Jeremy to do it so he could spend the inheritance money with Jeremy - that would make Brett a child killer.
If it ever turned out that Jeremy had been seriously manipulated or seriously threatened by an older criminal to commit the murders then it would create a very slight possibility for Jeremy to seek reconsideration of his whole life tarrif.
Only the truth has a chance of ever setting Jeremy Bamber free.
What is the truth in this case ?
-
The only thing that has the slightest chance of ever setting Jeremy free is the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If Jeremy had said a couple of things to Brett about killing his parents and Brett had thought Jeremy wasn't serious - then Brett would hardly be to blame for the actual murders ...
But what if Brett had killed someone before in a robbery like Susan Battersby says in her statement - and then he met a naive teenage Jeremy with rich parents - and then encouraged or persuaded Jeremy to do it so he could spend the inheritance money with Jeremy - that would make Brett a child killer.
If it ever turned out that Jeremy had been seriously manipulated or seriously threatened by an older criminal to commit the murders then it would create a very slight possibility for Jeremy to seek reconsideration of his whole life tarrif.
Only the truth has a chance of ever setting Jeremy Bamber free.
What is the truth in this case ?
so its best to bang him up with jb keep each other company
-
once again i disagree but will have to accept a stalemate.now youve got the name,the pipe,have you also got dr watson :)
Just so you know Dr Watson suspected Freddie and Brett from the very start - they are the only 2 he has suspected - and believe me Dr Watson is an exceedingly excellent judge of character ...
So i wasn't too surprised to read in Susan Battersby's statements that Brett had been involved in a previous robbery/murder - nor was i surprised to read in Dr Ferguson's statement that Freddie gave cocaine to Sheila which she smoked :)
-
so its best to bang him up with jb keep each other company
If they were both responsible for the planning of the murders then that would be a very good idea ...
-
Just so you know Dr Watson suspected Freddie and Brett from the very start - they are the only 2 he has suspected - and believe me Dr Watson is an exceedingly excellent judge of character ...
So i wasn't too surprised to read in Susan Battersby's statements that Brett had been involved in a previous robbery/murder - nor was i surprised to read in Dr Ferguson's statement that Freddie gave cocaine to Sheila which she smoked :)
i meant dr watson the sidekick of holmes
-
The only thing that has the slightest chance of ever setting Jeremy free is the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If Jeremy had said a couple of things to Brett about killing his parents and Brett had thought Jeremy wasn't serious - then Brett would hardly be to blame for the actual murders ...
But what if Brett had killed someone before in a robbery like Susan Battersby says in her statement - and then he met a naive teenage Jeremy with rich parents - and then encouraged or persuaded Jeremy to do it so he could spend the inheritance money with Jeremy - that would make Brett a child killer.
If it ever turned out that Jeremy had been seriously manipulated or seriously threatened by an older criminal to commit the murders then it would create a very slight possibility for Jeremy to seek reconsideration of his whole life tarrif.
Only the truth has a chance of ever setting Jeremy Bamber free.
What is the truth in this case ?
Y'know, it's been thrown at those of us who believe Jeremy is guilty, that it was never proved conclusively that he did it. It was enough that it was shown he COULD have done it, ie he had the means. It was certainly enough for supporters to say he was convicted unfairly. NOW though, it appears that supporters might be preparing to try to use exactly the same tactic. It seems that it really won't really matter that no one other than Jeremy committed the murders as long as it can be made to look as if it was possible that they may have. I imagine many might say he'd been released unfairly.
-
iam sure that had either freddie or brett we involved jb would have implicated them long ago to save his own bacon.he didnt do this cause they have got nothing to do with the murders :)
-
iam sure that had either freddie or brett we involved jb would have implicated them long ago to save his own bacon.he didnt do this cause they have got nothing to do with the murders :)
How could he implicate Brett without confessing himself ?
If he is guilty and ever decides to confess then he may well implicate Brett.
-
Y'know, it's been thrown at those of us who believe Jeremy is guilty, that it was never proved conclusively that he did it. It was enough that it was shown he COULD have done it, ie he had the means. It was certainly enough for supporters to say he was convicted unfairly. NOW though, it appears that supporters might be preparing to try to use exactly the same tactic. It seems that it really won't really matter that no one other than Jeremy committed the murders as long as it can be made to look as if it was possible that they may have. I imagine many might say he'd been released unfairly.
If Brett was involved in the murders - then so was Jeremy ...
-
How could he implicate Brett without confessing himself ?
If he is guilty and ever decides to confess then he may well implicate Brett.
how would he implicate himself by blaming brett
-
If Brett was involved in the murders - then so was Jeremy ...
Which leaves Jeremy in exactly the same position as he'd be if Julie was more involved than she claims, ie, exactly where he now is. He can't admit to others being involved without admitting his own involvement.
-
Nobody can tell me that if others had been implicated that JB would still be where he is after 32 years serving time to save others ? You must be joking ! Even if he was severely mentally impaired he'd have said something before now.
It's absolute rot to even suggest that it could have been him let alone those he'd befriended.
As " Taff " rightly said,it was a domestic ( shit happens ) and Sheila had a meltdown.
-
Nobody can tell me that if others had been implicated that JB would still be where he is after 32 years serving time to save others ? You must be joking ! Even if he was severely mentally impaired he'd have said something before now.
It's absolute rot to even suggest that it could have been him let alone those he'd befriended.
As " Taff " rightly said,it was a domestic ( shit happens ) and Sheila had a meltdown.
Well naturally, it's hypothetic but there's a certain irony in it.
-
Well naturally, it's hypothetic but there's a certain irony in it.
Where's the irony ??
-
Where's the irony ??
Oh dear ::) Well, try to imagine that you've been convicted committed an horrendous crime that another person had been part of. Whilst you languish in prison they're off free, enjoying their life. You can't implicate them, though, because you've always claimed innocence. Hmm?
-
Oh dear ::) Well, try to imagine that you've been convicted committed an horrendous crime that another person had been part of. Whilst you languish in prison they're off free, enjoying their life. You can't implicate them, though, because you've always claimed innocence. Hmm?
Well that's because he is innocent !! I don't see it any other way.
-
Jeremy was never caught up in the whys and wherefores of Sheila's hospital care,nor the ongoing situation between his parents and Sheila's welfare.All he'd been privy to was her stay in hospital but with no in-depth reason why,only that which was the sparse information he'd gathered. It wasn't until his incarceration did he know the full extent of her moods and behaviour and how smoking cannabis had affected her mental state. It only takes a twice a week habit over a certain period to alter a brains way of thinking which eventually leads to a bi-polar situation------FACT !
-
Jeremy was never caught up in the whys and wherefores of Sheila's hospital care,nor the ongoing situation between his parents and Sheila's welfare.All he'd been privy to was her stay in hospital but with no in-depth reason why,only that which was the sparse information he'd gathered. It wasn't until his incarceration did he know the full extent of her moods and behaviour and how smoking cannabis had affected her mental state. It only takes a twice a week habit over a certain period to alter a brains way of thinking which eventually leads to a bi-polar situation------FACT !
Do you believe that if you keep peddling it, it will make it true? Go right back to the start. It was JEREMY who fed police every single piece of information about Sheila. It was all they had to work on -if he really didn't know, he made a damn good job of making it up as he went. We know he'd spoken with Colin, about her and the boys, at the party. It's highly likely that his ears pricked up when she was being discussed at WHF. He clearly was NOT ignorant. He was able to tell police, quite comprehensively, about her condition and name it. He went into it in detail. It matters not that he probably embellished the information, I doubt that any police present were experts on mental health. Just to be clear, I reiterate. EVERY scrap of information the police had about Sheila was given them by Jeremy.
-
Do you believe that if you keep peddling it, it will make it true? Go right back to the start. It was JEREMY who fed police every single piece of information about Sheila. It was all they had to work on -if he really didn't know, he made a damn good job of making it up as he went. We know he'd spoken with Colin, about her and the boys, at the party. It's highly likely that his ears pricked up when she was being discussed at WHF. He clearly was NOT ignorant. He was able to tell police, quite comprehensively, about her condition and name it. He went into it in detail. It matters not that he probably embellished the information, I doubt that any police present were experts on mental health. Just to be clear, I reiterate. EVERY scrap of information the police had about Sheila was given them by Jeremy.
Telling the police that your sister is " nutty " isn't exactly a full diagnosis is it ? This is where a little knowledge was a dangerous thing.
The first contact that EP should have made was the psychiatric hospital where Sheila had previously been.
-
Telling the police that your sister is " nutty " isn't exactly a full diagnosis is it ? This is where a little knowledge was a dangerous thing.
The first contact that EP should have made was the psychiatric hospital where Sheila had previously been.
Oh! so he didn't tell them that she was a "paranoid depressive" OR that she'd just come out of hospital and was going back, OR that she'd previously attempted suicide? As for the police contacting St Andrews, I imagine they had more than enough on their hands at that hour of the morning.
-
Jeremy was never caught up in the whys and wherefores of Sheila's hospital care,nor the ongoing situation between his parents and Sheila's welfare.All he'd been privy to was her stay in hospital but with no in-depth reason why,only that which was the sparse information he'd gathered. It wasn't until his incarceration did he know the full extent of her moods and behaviour and how smoking cannabis had affected her mental state. It only takes a twice a week habit over a certain period to alter a brains way of thinking which eventually leads to a bi-polar situation------FACT !
Certain period? How long is that? Also, that is a generalisation and Sheila wasn't bi-polar - FACT!
-
Oh! so he didn't tell them that she was a "paranoid depressive" OR that she'd just come out of hospital and was going back, OR that she'd previously attempted suicide? As for the police contacting St Andrews, I imagine they had more than enough on their hands at that hour of the morning.
It's the job of the police to gather as much information as they can from the proper sources,hospitals,GP's etc and being as there was an army of police officers marching in and out of WHF,they could easily have spared two in which to carry out the said investigations and not leave everything to the relatives ( who hadn't known the family ) Even the overseer,Gradwell complained about the investigation and how it went.
-
It's the job of the police to gather as much information as they can from the proper sources,hospitals,GP's etc and being as there was an army of police officers marching in and out of WHF,they could easily have spared two in which to carry out the said investigations and not leave everything to the relatives ( who hadn't known the family ) Even the overseer,Gradwell complained about the investigation and how it went.
I think Jeremy was able to speak eloquently enough on the subject for them to believe that he'd given them enough facts to be going on with. Just for the record, what records/information do you imagine the hospital likely to provide at 4am?
-
Certain period? How long is that? Also, that is a generalisation and Sheila wasn't bi-polar - FACT!
Its a Myth Caroline, lots of studies are now coming out that Canabbis has Know effect of the brain, even daily use, they used me as an example Caroline ;D ;D ;D
-
It's the job of the police to gather as much information as they can from the proper sources,hospitals,GP's etc and being as there was an army of police officers marching in and out of WHF,they could easily have spared two in which to carry out the said investigations and not leave everything to the relatives ( who hadn't known the family ) Even the overseer,Gradwell complained about the investigation and how it went.
They did investigate her illness - what are you one about? The FACT that YOU have taken it upon yourself to reclassify her illness (out of the blue) just deflects from the facts. On the day of any murder, the focus in on the crime SCENE. And what do you mean the relatives didn't know the family? How well did YOU know them?
-
Its a Myth Caroline, lots of studies are now coming out that Canabbis has Know effect of the brain, even daily use, they used me as an example Caroline ;D ;D ;D
They could use some of my friends ;D. Not one of them is bi-polar and they smoked quite regulary in their late teens and early twenties.
-
They could use some of my friends ;D. Not one of them is bi-polar and they smoked quite regulary in their late teens and early twenties.
Sooner or later they'll end up barmy.
-
Sooner or later they'll end up barmy.
And that proclamation has been proved irrefutable, has it, taking in the variables of what constitutes "barmy", how much any given person uses, under what circumstances it's used, the quality of what's used, for how long a period it's used..................
-
Sooner or later they'll end up barmy.
Wow! How many splifts have you smoked Lookout? ;)
-
Wow! How many splifts have you smoked Lookout? ;)
Not as many as you it would appear.
-
. . . they smoked quite regulary in their late teens and early twenties.
Were you under the influence of something when you typed "regulary" instead of "regularly"?
-
Were you under the influence of something when you typed "regulary" instead of "regularly"?
Good one.
-
Were you under the influence of something when you typed "regulary" instead of "regularly"?
I think you have to be under the influence of something everytime you post! Never met anyone as pedantic as you - to the point where it becomes a complete SNOOZE fest!
-
I think you have to be under the influence of something everytime you post! Never met anyone as pedantic as you - to the point where it becomes a complete SNOOZE fest!
To quote Lookout, GOOD ONE!
-
Good one.
Yes, always the old favourite of the 'lost argument' - becoming a fully paid up member (member being the operative word) of the spelling police!
-
Yes, always the old favourite of the 'lost argument' - becoming a fully paid up member (member being the operative word) of the spelling police!
Plus your remarks about it which carry on ad-infinitum for weeks/months to follow.
-
Yes, always the old favourite of the 'lost argument' - becoming a fully paid up member (member being the operative word) of the spelling police!
Hmm. Would that be belonging to a particular group, OR a constituent piece of a complex structure? There is a "structure" which comes to mind which is certainly complex"""
-
Your lost arguments are exactly this ! Keeping on about it-----an archaeological dig. Gives you something to beatch about.
-
Your lost arguments are exactly this ! Keeping on about it-----an archaeological dig. Gives you something to beatch about.
That'd be just like you dragging up past posts, wouldn't it?
-
That'd be just like you dragging up past posts, wouldn't it?
Yes,of YOUR untruthful artifacts !! And why not ? The best treasure is always buried.
-
Yes,of YOUR untruthful artifacts !! And why not ? The best treasure is always buried.
OH! I seeee. It's ok for you to go on archaeological digs. All you need is someone else to put the blame on.
-
OH! I seeee. It's ok for you to go on archaeological digs. All you need is someone else to put the blame on.
Oh do shut your whingeing. I don't know what you'd all do or who you'd blame if I wasn't here.
-
I think you have to be under the influence of something everytime you post! Never met anyone as pedantic as you - to the point where it becomes a complete SNOOZE fest!
:)) :)) :)) :)) that about sums it caroline :)) :))
-
OH! I seeee. It's ok for you to go on archaeological digs. All you need is someone else to put the blame on.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He smiled and that was all he said ::)
-
Or was it an attack of very bad wind ?
-
Oh do shut your whingeing. I don't know what you'd all do or who you'd blame if I wasn't here.
But it isn't I who whinges, Lookout. NOR do I frequently inject examples of my own life into my posts, NOR do I repeatedly give the cry that if I'D said whatever, I'd have been abused/attacked for saying it. I'm NOT a victim.....................however, as you provide a huge amount of amusement to me, I would miss you if you weren't here -I have a sneaky suspicion that works both ways but you' would probably never be honest enough to admit it- but I feel I should mention that it's you who does the blaming, not I.
-
3 people had been made aware of" murder ",yet not one of them went to the police.Why was this ?
1) Dr Ferguson. After Sheila had told him of " killing her children ".
2) RBW. After Jeremy allegedy told him he " could easily kill his parents ".
3) JM. When she'd known in advance of Jeremy's " plans ".
-
But it isn't I who whinges, Lookout. NOR do I frequently inject examples of my own life into my posts, NOR do I repeatedly give the cry that if I'D said whatever, I'd have been abused/attacked for saying it. I'm NOT a victim.....................however, as you provide a huge amount of amusement to me, I would miss you if you weren't here -I have a sneaky suspicion that works both ways but you' would probably never be honest enough to admit it- but I feel I should mention that it's you who does the blaming, not I.
Good post Jane, I think she loves us all, does our Lookout, I used to think she was indecisive, now I’m not sure ;D ;D ;D
-
3 people had been made aware of" murder ",yet not one of them went to the police.Why was this ?
1) Dr Ferguson. After Sheila had told him of " killing her children ".
2) RBW. After Jeremy allegedy told him he " could easily kill his parents ".
3) JM. When she'd known in advance of Jeremy's " plans ".
A) Dr Ferguson clearly saw it as being part of her illness at the time -in 1983- it wasn't mentioned in 1985.
Besides which, there's patient confidentiality to be taken into consideration. The fact are probably that
whilst it was believed that she was responsible, her records weren't required to confirm it. When she
was no longer a suspect, she wasn't on trial so there was no occasion for them to be revealed.
B) I'd like a £ for every time someone has said those words. Are you really saying you'd report it to the
police if you heard the words said? RWB did what MOST of us would have done ie reported it after the
event. I wonder how many times we've all said of someone that we think they might be capable of......
but we don't do anything about it until/unless they do what we suspect them to have been capable of.
C) Ditto Julie. We might have a niggling concern about someone, but until we know our fears are
founded, most of us would refuse to believe them to be true.
-
But it isn't I who whinges, Lookout. NOR do I frequently inject examples of my own life into my posts, NOR do I repeatedly give the cry that if I'D said whatever, I'd have been abused/attacked for saying it. I'm NOT a victim.....................however, as you provide a huge amount of amusement to me, I would miss you if you weren't here -I have a sneaky suspicion that works both ways but you' would probably never be honest enough to admit it- but I feel I should mention that it's you who does the blaming, not I.
Well,for the first time I'm stuck for words ( if that's possible ) I would be honest in saying that I CAN tell the difference in banter and downright meaningful nastiness of which you don't display towards me ( unlike others ) and that feeling of banter is indeed mutual.
To be missed says it all for me. Thankyou.
-
Well,for the first time I'm stuck for words ( if that's possible ) I would be honest in saying that I CAN tell the difference in banter and downright meaningful nastiness of which you don't display towards me ( unlike others ) and that feeling of banter is indeed mutual.
To be missed says it all for me. Thankyou.
I, too, am somewhat bereft of words, Lookout :).....................Normal service should be resumed as soon as possible, don't you think? ;) ;D
-
Well,for the first time I'm stuck for words ( if that's possible ) I would be honest in saying that I CAN tell the difference in banter and downright meaningful nastiness of which you don't display towards me ( unlike others ) and that feeling of banter is indeed mutual.
To be missed says it all for me. Thankyou.
:-* :-* From me as well Lookout,
-
I, too, am somewhat bereft of words, Lookout :).....................Normal service should be resumed as soon as possible, don't you think? ;) ;D
Undoubtedly.
-
I, too, am somewhat bereft of words, Lookout :).....................Normal service should be resumed as soon as possible, don't you think? ;) ;D
(https://m.popkey.co/95943b/oZ59L_s-200x150.gif)
-
:-* :-* From me as well Lookout,
That doesn't surprise me justice ;D :-*
-
(https://m.popkey.co/95943b/oZ59L_s-200x150.gif)
Now now.
-
Now now.
;D ;)
-
;D ;)
Awww :'( :'( ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I started reading the other verbatim thead but got sick of it with the bickering, had a look at this one and thought oh good some great posts by Jackie and Sherlock debating the actual thread topic then bam Jane make a snide remark and so it how’s on and on. Honestly it really has spoilt this whole site and now we have Sami joining in. As soon as Jackie or lookout open their mouths it turns into a personal point scoring debate. For gods sake can’t we just debate e the bloomin case. What is wrong with you.
-
I started reading the other verbatim thead but got sick of it with the bickering, had a look at this one and thought oh good some great posts by Jackie and Sherlock debating the actual thread topic then bam Jane make a snide remark and so it how’s on and on. Honestly it really has spoilt this whole site and now we have Sami joining in. As soon as Jackie or lookout open their mouths it turns into a personal point scoring debate. For gods sake can’t we just debate e the bloomin case. What is wrong with you.
Oh come on Notsure - you can't be backing Jackie? Seriously?
-
I started reading the other verbatim thead but got sick of it with the bickering, had a look at this one and thought oh good some great posts by Jackie and Sherlock debating the actual thread topic then bam Jane make a snide remark and so it how’s on and on. Honestly it really has spoilt this whole site and now we have Sami joining in. As soon as Jackie or lookout open their mouths it turns into a personal point scoring debate. For gods sake can’t we just debate e the bloomin case. What is wrong with you.
Oh dear! I HATE to tell tales, but I'm not about to let your post go without defending my position. Let me be clear. Jackie doesn't do "great posts", she pinches other people's posts by cutting and pasting. NOR does she debate. What she does say -other than once having been on Jeremy's phone list- can in no way be relied on. Further more, it isn't I who've been given life bans from various forums for threatening, accusing and abusive behaviour to posters. If you don't believe me, feel free to look at her history. It's all there.
My relationship with Lookout is very definitely NOT what you claim it to be, nonetheless, I feel certain that whilst she'll be touched by your concern, she'll verify what I've said. Perhaps you should read thoroughly my conversation with her yesterday. Of course we disagree -we're on polarized sides of the debate- but very occasionally there comes a point on which we're in complete agreement and whilst I think it's misplaced, I actually admire the tenacity of her support for Jeremy against the odds.
You seem to have overlooked that dialogue is a two way affair. If either Lookout or Jackie find what I say to be so objectionable, they have the choice of A) not responding, B) putting me on ignore (as I have Jackie, but her posts provide me with enormous amusement). Whatever are their reasons, they have chosen not to. You have the same choice, notsure.
-
I started reading the other verbatim thead but got sick of it with the bickering, had a look at this one and thought oh good some great posts by Jackie and Sherlock debating the actual thread topic then bam Jane make a snide remark and so it how’s on and on. Honestly it really has spoilt this whole site and now we have Sami joining in. As soon as Jackie or lookout open their mouths it turns into a personal point scoring debate. For gods sake can’t we just debate e the bloomin case. What is wrong with you.
Hi notsure,I can hold my own most of the time,fortunately,which I put down to my staunch support of Jeremy,which will never waver.
Also I can give what I get,though I've known and realised for a long time that Jane's posts toward me aren't as prickly as they appear. I can tell the difference in those posts which are " meaningful " and those which are not ,with the " hate-filled " ones coming from another direction,to which it matters not to most of us here.
-
Hi notsure,I can hold my own most of the time,fortunately,which I put down to my staunch support of Jeremy,which will never waver.
Also I can give what I get,though I've known and realised for a long time that Jane's posts toward me aren't as prickly as they appear. I can tell the difference in those posts which are " meaningful " and those which are not ,with the " hate-filled " ones coming from another direction,to which it matters not to most of us here.
I don't think anyone here 'hates' you Lookout - why would they? The don't know you.
-
I don't think anyone here 'hates' you Lookout - why would they? The don't know you.
Caroline,if you read the trash on red ( home, and scroll down ) you'll see hate with a capital " H ".I kid you not as holly even mentions the word against me. I don't expect anything else from someone like her !
-
Everything I damn well post here,ends up "over there".What's up with them,apart from loose screws ? ::)
-
Caroline,if you read the trash on red ( home, and scroll down ) you'll see hate with a capital " H ".I kid you not as holly even mentions the word against me. I don't expect anything else from someone like her !
It all gets far too personal at times and certainly don't think it's fair to have such a thread dedicated to one poster where members seem to just have a free for all. However, I doubt Holly or anyone on the red forum really hates you - it's all just a bit silly but can imagine that it's hurtful for you. I think they should remove it.
-
It all gets far too personal at times and certainly don't think it's fair to have such a thread dedicated to one poster where members seem to just have a free for all. However, I doubt Holly or anyone on the red forum really hates you - it's all just a bit silly but can imagine that it's hurtful for you. I think they should remove it.
Thankyou for having read it Caroline---------it beggars belief really,especially when the forum is run by an ex-cop whose supposed to uphold law and order ? Or is it an example of what they're really like ??Mm
-
I started reading the other verbatim thead but got sick of it with the bickering, had a look at this one and thought oh good some great posts by Jackie and Sherlock debating the actual thread topic then bam Jane make a snide remark and so it how’s on and on. Honestly it really has spoilt this whole site and now we have Sami joining in. As soon as Jackie or lookout open their mouths it turns into a personal point scoring debate. For gods sake can’t we just debate e the bloomin case. What is wrong with you.
This is just a disguised shot at jane.
-
This is just a disguised shot at jane.
It didn't go unnoticed, Mat, that she used Jackie's descriptive words of me ;)
-
I started reading the other verbatim thead but got sick of it with the bickering, had a look at this one and thought oh good some great posts by Jackie and Sherlock debating the actual thread topic then bam Jane make a snide remark and so it how’s on and on. Honestly it really has spoilt this whole site and now we have Sami joining in. As soon as Jackie or lookout open their mouths it turns into a personal point scoring debate. For gods sake can’t we just debate e the bloomin case. What is wrong with you.
show me one thread which hasnt got bickering in it.its a forum so you will have bickering.you failed to mention the snide remarks aimed at jane, caroline, myself.as i said before we all do name calling now and then,but once its all done we get together and share our opinions.stop whining and start posting best way to keep your mind occupied
-
show me one thread which hasnt got bickering in it.its a forum so you will have bickering.you failed to mention the snide remarks aimed at jane, caroline, myself.as i said before we all do name calling now and then,but once its all done we get together and share our opinions.stop whining and start posting best way to keep your mind occupied
Well said Sami ;)
-
Well said Sami ;)
thank you ,justice :)
-
It all gets far too personal at times and certainly don't think it's fair to have such a thread dedicated to one poster where members seem to just have a free for all. However, I doubt Holly or anyone on the red forum really hates you - it's all just a bit silly but can imagine that it's hurtful for you. I think they should remove it.
Good post Caroline, Lookout does so well, I know we all bicker but at the end of the day we’re bickering the post not the poster most of the time, I bet Lookout along with Jane and yourself would be a laugh to share a drink or too with, with me and Sami along side ;D ;D ;D
-
Good post Caroline, Lookout does so well, I know we all bicker but at the end of the day we’re bickering the post not the poster, I bet Lookout along with Jane and yourself would be a laugh to share a drink or too with, with me and Sami along side ;D ;D ;D
absolutely,justice