Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Jane on July 28, 2018, 11:52:AM
-
As it's differences of opinion that are at the heart of debates, it has caused me to wonder what factor(s) is (are) at the heart of the differences. I've arrived at the following.
Supporters -bearing in mind I believe there to be differences of belief between males and females- ALL appear to have agendas, although females are more inclined to come from a place of a mix of sentimentality and blind faith, akin to religious fervour, possibly(?) more altruistic than are males from whom it's difficult to get totally away from the suspicion of an element of "What might be in it for me", albeit, such would require them to put more intellectual effort into planning a course of action which they hope will pay off/fit. ALL -male and female- put the responsibility for the crime at the feet of any, OTHER than Jeremy.
Detractors, for the most part, appear to have put effort and reason into arriving at their decision, some having changed their minds to reach it. They're not constrained by agenda. It's unnecessary for them to have one. There is nothing for them to prove. There is nothing for them to gain. They ALL -male and female- put the responsibility for the crime squarely at the feet of only ONE person, Jeremy Bamber.
-
Usted va en-- :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Usted va en-- :)) :)) :)) :))
Apres vous :))
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>Siempre un partidario ! No hay otra razon que no sea inocente.
-
Apres vous :))
Descarado. ;D ;D
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>Siempre un partidario ! No hay otra razon que no sea inocente.
No mas inocente en espanol que englais...................however much you wish it :)) :))
-
No mas inocente en espanol que englais...................however much you wish it :)) :))
Bragas.
-
Bragas.
Los abandono
-
Los abandono
Never.
-
Never.
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Back to your opening post--------I don't have an agenda other than to see fair play by rooting out all the documents that weren't displayed to the defence during the trial. Not only for this case in particular but for all cases which arrive in court, to give a balanced and unbiased view for the benefit of the jury as it's their final decision on the outcome of any case.
We've all seen wrong decisions made purely by the withholding of certain evidence which in the end creates many too many, miscarriages of justice which has the knock-on effect of an unnecessary financial catastrophe in trying to right the wrongs.
I certainly wouldn't be happy paying for someone else's mistake.
-
As it's differences of opinion that are at the heart of debates, it has caused me to wonder what factor(s) is (are) at the heart of the differences. I've arrived at the following.
Supporters -bearing in mind I believe there to be differences of belief between males and females- ALL appear to have agendas, although females are more inclined to come from a place of a mix of sentimentality and blind faith, akin to religious fervour, possibly(?) more altruistic than are males from whom it's difficult to get totally away from the suspicion of an element of "What might be in it for me", albeit, such would require them to put more intellectual effort into planning a course of action which they hope will pay off/fit. ALL -male and female- put the responsibility for the crime at the feet of any, OTHER than Jeremy.
Detractors, for the most part, appear to have put effort and reason into arriving at their decision, some having changed their minds to reach it. They're not constrained by agenda. It's unnecessary for them to have one. There is nothing for them to prove. There is nothing for them to gain. They ALL -male and female- put the responsibility for the crime squarely at the feet of only ONE person, Jeremy Bamber.
I think there could be subliminal influences at work here. For example during the recent story on the carbon dioxide shortage I found myself having bought a different brand of mineral water than usual, though it only happened once and I didn't buy it again. Life experiences do count: former prison inmates are more likely to side with Jeremy Bamber initially as they have either had personal or heard anecdotal experiences of miscarriages of justice, healthcare workers who have had particularly difficult customers to deal with at A&E of a weekend or who have had to restrain patients personally may have a bias against Sheila, even if it is unconscious, as might a woman who has had to scrimp and save all her life and who is not particularly prepossessing. An adoptee who has had familial difficulties may side with either Sheila or Jeremy, whereas the parent may sympathize more with Nevill and June's situation, and again a former public school pupil may have memories which tally with those wretched experiences suffered by both Sheila and Jeremy.
-
Back to your opening post--------I don't have an agenda other than to see fair play by rooting out all the documents that weren't displayed to the defence during the trial. Not only for this case in particular but for all cases which arrive in court, to give a balanced and unbiased view for the benefit of the jury as it's their final decision on the outcome of any case.
We've all seen wrong decisions made purely by the withholding of certain evidence which in the end creates many too many, miscarriages of justice which has the knock-on effect of an unnecessary financial catastrophe in trying to right the wrongs.
I certainly wouldn't be happy paying for someone else's mistake.
Mmm. I hear you, Lookout, but when that famous and oft mentioned "gut feeling" of yours kicked in, none of that was known. We've all, well, MOST of us, supporters and detractors alike, learned as we've gone along. Surely, even you won't deny that? What concerns me dreadfully, is that it seems to have become necessary to falsify/manipulate by playing on people's emotions, making it easy for them believe that this is another miscarriage of justice. I'm fully convinced they happen. I'm not convinced that this is one of them.
-
I think there could be subliminal influences at work here. For example during the recent story on the carbon dioxide shortage I found myself having bought a different brand of mineral water than usual, though it only happened once and I didn't buy it again. Life experiences do count: former prison inmates are more likely to side with Jeremy Bamber initially as they have either had personal or heard anecdotal experiences of miscarriages of justice, healthcare workers who have had particularly difficult customers to deal with at A&E of a weekend or who have had to restrain patients personally may have a bias against Sheila, even if it is unconscious, as might a woman who has had to scrimp and save all her life and who is not particularly prepossessing. An adoptee who has had familial difficulties may side with either Sheila or Jeremy, whereas the parent may sympathize more with Nevill and June's situation, and again a former public school pupil may have memories which tally with those wretched experiences suffered by both Sheila and Jeremy.
Oh! Absolutely, Steve. It's certainly not our recent experiences that colour our deeper feelings, even though our recent ones are likely to have their foundations there.
-
Mmm. I hear you, Lookout, but when that famous and oft mentioned "gut feeling" of yours kicked in, none of that was known. We've all, well, MOST of us, supporters and detractors alike, learned as we've gone along. Surely, even you won't deny that? What concerns me dreadfully, is that it seems to have become necessary to falsify/manipulate by playing on people's emotions, making it easy for them believe that this is another miscarriage of justice. I'm fully convinced they happen. I'm not convinced that this is one of them.
Indeed I've learned a lot as I've gone along particularly of the implications and problems that non-disclosure of evidence brings as to me personally the case is never finalised or ever will be without the full details.
While we all know how to " prosecute " often done when there's a clash of personalities to throw in the mix but when it comes to defence there's a complete barrier because deep down nobody likes a winner so to deter from this happening certain testimonies as well as statements are withheld so as not to show that person in a true light because it wouldn't look good.
This is not the way to operate by any means but in this case people went all out to convict even barring that which should have lent itself to a fair trial namely unedited/unaltered draft statements which should have been typed up as was. Instead there were series of crossed-out and over-written papers in which to copy as wasn't originally written showing that all wasn't as it seemed.
Why after all these years has it been decided to further look into this case if everyone didn't think there'd been anything untoward in October 1986 ?
-
Indeed I've learned a lot as I've gone along particularly of the implications and problems that non-disclosure of evidence brings as to me personally the case is never finalised or ever will be without the full details.
While we all know how to " prosecute " often done when there's a clash of personalities to throw in the mix but when it comes to defence there's a complete barrier because deep down nobody likes a winner so to deter from this happening certain testimonies as well as statements are withheld so as not to show that person in a true light because it wouldn't look good.
This is not the way to operate by any means but in this case people went all out to convict even barring that which should have lent itself to a fair trial namely unedited/unaltered draft statements which should have been typed up as was. Instead there were series of crossed-out and over-written papers in which to copy as wasn't originally written showing that all wasn't as it seemed.
Why after all these years has it been decided to further look into this case if everyone didn't think there'd been anything untoward in October 1986 ?
I do have a problem with this alleged non disclosure. I watch the suggestion of such being drip fed to supporters in a "Let's rally the troops" way.
What, exactly HASN'T been disclosed? I'm convinced that each supporter is likely to be certain that it's their particular pet piece of allegedly withheld information which will be responsible for Jeremy's release, but what constitutes full disclosure for one, will probably have no interest for another. It also needs to be realized that there COULD be information which is of no interest to anyone -other than those who want to know for knowing's sake- be it judiciary or jury and wouldn't have made a scrap of difference to the outcome of the trial, other than to lengthen it. There is NO concrete proof of what HASN'T been revealed. Thus far, it's all been suggestion.
There have been too many high profile cases to mention in which it's come to light that information HAS been withheld. These cases, in the main have involved huge swathes of public bodies. The reasons for them wanting to keep things under wraps have become obvious. The Bamber case was not one of them. It was big in Essex for a long time. The lead characters all ripe for having their story told. Police HAD a culprit. The murdered father allegedly phoning his son to say his mentally ill daughter had gone mad and got hold of a gun. The son phones police and fills in the missing details such as he gun competency. Police break in to find the whole family dead. End of. There was never any necessity for them to back pedal or hide things under wraps. Now what we have are increasingly ugly, sick, and grotesque claims being made to convince us that such is the case.
Every prisoner has the right to appeal. That Jeremy won't let it go is his right. It's all being funded by private donation. Those involved in carrying out tests are simply being paid for their time and expertise. It has nothing to do with a particular official body or agency deciding to "look into it". Such, to the best of my knowledge, would have to come from higher office.
-
Indeed I've learned a lot as I've gone along particularly of the implications and problems that non-disclosure of evidence brings as to me personally the case is never finalised or ever will be without the full details.
While we all know how to " prosecute " often done when there's a clash of personalities to throw in the mix but when it comes to defence there's a complete barrier because deep down nobody likes a winner so to deter from this happening certain testimonies as well as statements are withheld so as not to show that person in a true light because it wouldn't look good.
This is not the way to operate by any means but in this case people went all out to convict even barring that which should have lent itself to a fair trial namely unedited/unaltered draft statements which should have been typed up as was. Instead there were series of crossed-out and over-written papers in which to copy as wasn't originally written showing that all wasn't as it seemed.
Why after all these years has it been decided to further look into this case if everyone didn't think there'd been anything untoward in October 1986 ?
I guess that's a point you can make, however a good counter point to that is why have so many people who have worked on his case previously - walked away.
-
I do have a problem with this alleged non disclosure. I watch the suggestion of such being drip fed to supporters in a "Let's rally the troops" way.
What, exactly HASN'T been disclosed? I'm convinced that each supporter is likely to be certain that it's their particular pet piece of allegedly withheld information which will be responsible for Jeremy's release, but what constitutes full disclosure for one, will probably have no interest for another. It also needs to be realized that there COULD be information which is of no interest to anyone -other than those who want to know for knowing's sake- be it judiciary or jury and wouldn't have made a scrap of difference to the outcome of the trial, other than to lengthen it. There is NO concrete proof of what HASN'T been revealed. Thus far, it's all been suggestion.
There have been too many high profile cases to mention in which it's come to light that information HAS been withheld. These cases, in the main have involved huge swathes of public bodies. The reasons for them wanting to keep things under wraps have become obvious. The Bamber case was not one of them. It was big in Essex for a long time. The lead characters all ripe for having their story told. Police HAD a culprit. The murdered father allegedly phoning his son to say his mentally ill daughter had gone mad and got hold of a gun. The son phones police and fills in the missing details such as he gun competency. Police break in to find the whole family dead. End of. There was never any necessity for them to back pedal or hide things under wraps. Now what we have are increasingly ugly, sick, and grotesque claims being made to convince us that such is the case.
Every prisoner has the right to appeal. That Jeremy won't let it go is his right. It's all being funded by private donation. Those involved in carrying out tests are simply being paid for their time and expertise. It has nothing to do with a particular official body or agency deciding to "look into it". Such, to the best of my knowledge, would have to come from higher office.
It's not about the paperwork etc that we've seen in this case but that which we haven't seen.
For instance we haven't seen all the rooms in the farmhouse which we know to have been photographed. Or as I've mentioned, the original drafts/handwritten logs before they were cobbled along with GP/Psychiatric notes etc------all as you must agree seems strange considering they're all part of the case. What we have really are the bones but no flesh which is why we keep going round in circles.
Okay, so if there was no reason in hanging on to old material then why don't EP have the good manners to say so after having ignored requests and court orders ? It's easy enough to answer. The more they're ignoring everyone the more suspicion grows as to why they won't release these documents , it's a fact.
By all means if you disagree about anything being withheld then contact the legal team and tell them that they're wasting their time because if my thoughts were as strong as yours it's something that I'd be doing because I hate seeing folk conned. It really is one of my pet hates as it riles me.
-
I guess that's a point you can make, however a good counter point to that is why have so many people who have worked on his case previously - walked away.
..or been sacked or ostracized by Jeremy Bamber.
-
It's not about the paperwork etc that we've seen in this case but that which we haven't seen.
For instance we haven't seen all the rooms in the farmhouse which we know to have been photographed. Or as I've mentioned, the original drafts/handwritten logs before they were cobbled along with GP/Psychiatric notes etc------all as you must agree seems strange considering they're all part of the case. What we have really are the bones but no flesh which is why we keep going round in circles.
Okay, so if there was no reason in hanging on to old material then why don't EP have the good manners to say so after having ignored requests and court orders ? It's easy enough to answer. The more they're ignoring everyone the more suspicion grows as to why they won't release these documents , it's a fact.
By all means if you disagree about anything being withheld then contact the legal team and tell them that they're wasting their time because if my thoughts were as strong as yours it's something that I'd be doing because I hate seeing folk conned. It really is one of my pet hates as it riles me.
But how can anyone possibly say that stuff actually exists that they haven't seen? That sounds very much like a branch to cling to.
Have you never considered that showing all the rooms in WHF which were photographed might have served no purpose, other than to give people an idea of how it was decorated? As Sheila was never on trial, I can't see how divulging her psych history -other than that which already has been and was deemed relevant- would be helpful, however, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so a trade COULD be made with Jeremy's psych reports, which I believe he's so far refused.
I have no idea why there's this current impasse but it occurs to me that A) such material no longer exists -I mean WHY would incriminating stuff be kept? B) maybe the request hasn't been ignored and EP have actually responded to the request but it serves a better purpose not to reveal that.
You clearly set the legal team on a far higher pedestal than do I. I believe this country's legal profession is as good as it gets bar none. I DON'T believe they're altruistic. The don't practice sentiment. They deal with facts and reason. They're certainly NOT wasting time. They won't allow themselves to be conned, and I'm willing to put money on YOU having much greater belief and being far more loyal to Jeremy being innocent than all of them put together. It won't do damage to any of their careers when another appeal get turned down. It's something barristers have to learn to live with. They take it in their stride. Jeremy's freedom might be personal to you. To them, it's just another job.
-
But how can anyone possibly say that stuff actually exists that they haven't seen? That sounds very much like a branch to cling to.
We know things exist because they are documented.
For example - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87045.html#msg87045 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87045.html#msg87045)
-
We know things exist because they are documented.
For example - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87045.html#msg87045 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87045.html#msg87045)
Dated 16 years ago. Jeremy has said, far more recently, that he now has everything he needs.
-
But how can anyone possibly say that stuff actually exists that they haven't seen? That sounds very much like a branch to cling to.
Have you never considered that showing all the rooms in WHF which were photographed might have served no purpose, other than to give people an idea of how it was decorated? As Sheila was never on trial, I can't see how divulging her psych history -other than that which already has been and was deemed relevant- would be helpful, however, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so a trade COULD be made with Jeremy's psych reports, which I believe he's so far refused.
I have no idea why there's this current impasse but it occurs to me that A) such material no longer exists -I mean WHY would incriminating stuff be kept? B) maybe the request hasn't been ignored and EP have actually responded to the request but it serves a better purpose not to reveal that.
You clearly set the legal team on a far higher pedestal than do I. I believe this country's legal profession is as good as it gets bar none. I DON'T believe they're altruistic. The don't practice sentiment. They deal with facts and reason. They're certainly NOT wasting time. They won't allow themselves to be conned, and I'm willing to put money on YOU having much greater belief and being far more loyal to Jeremy being innocent than all of them put together. It won't do damage to any of their careers when another appeal get turned down. It's something barristers have to learn to live with. They take it in their stride. Jeremy's freedom might be personal to you. To them, it's just another job.
" Just another job " in righting all the wrongs from a previous trial will probably be the biggest job they will ever encounter. They're going over myriads of documents that constituted one of the biggest murder trials of its day and to me that's some feat. Doesn't it beg the question as to why it was necessary in bothering doing this ? What it tells me is that there had to be something radically wrong in the first place to even consider going over someone else's work ? Not that half those involved will be bothered since they're deceased but there are one or two who are still breathing and one who contacts the CT team. I do hold the legal team in high regard as they're trained and clever people so why wouldn't I ? I respect anyone with brains.
Since we've discussed the bathroom and office, we haven't seen these areas to get any further ideas since both places have been regularly mentioned. Also the room where the toy gun was found. I've got no desire to see furnishings/décor etc just the layout of the place in picture form to get more of an idea of things that were mentioned as a full picture would have been more interesting.
Did we ever see a pic of the broken light/lamp ?
As for Sheila's records and because she's no longer alive EP should be obliged to hand them over. With Jeremy it's different because he's living. I doubt his contain anything more than a UTI or similar which he obviously wouldn't want broadcast and by this I'm going by what JM had said in her " January " page of her diary.
It wouldn't be in the interest of EP to have burned anything incriminating because they must have known for a long time that the case has been on-going and that past solicitors/lawyers have certain material which matches up along with the realisation that there are " gaps " in some of the work. These " gaps " are what's missing which EP will have known that the legals were aware of and if anything was destroyed it would highlight the guilt of EP. ( difficult to explain but I know what I mean )
-
We know things exist because they are documented.
For example - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87045.html#msg87045 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87045.html#msg87045)
There is no point guessing what this evidence is. Its easy to come up with a theory and just hope/guess that the evidence to prove your theory is within what ever is withheld. But thats not a reliable method of solving anything.
-
I'm not guessing, just saying that there are documents missing/withheld. Nobody can know the contents if they're under lock and key.
-
We know things exist because they are documented.
For example - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87045.html#msg87045 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2689.msg87045.html#msg87045)
That document is from 2002 and Jeremy told me he now has most of the PII stuff, he told CAL the same thing.
-
I'm not guessing, just saying that there are documents missing/withheld. Nobody can know the contents if they're under lock and key.
What about Sheila's diaries? What do you imagine they will tell us?
-
That document is from 2002 and Jeremy told me he now has most of the PII stuff, he told CAL the same thing.
Most is not all.
-
What about Sheila's diaries? What do you imagine they will tell us?
Sheila's diaries were destroyed.
-
" Just another job " in righting all the wrongs from a previous trial will probably be the biggest job they will ever encounter. They're going over myriads of documents that constituted one of the biggest murder trials of its day and to me that's some feat. Doesn't it beg the question as to why it was necessary in bothering doing this ? What it tells me is that there had to be something radically wrong in the first place to even consider going over someone else's work ? Not that half those involved will be bothered since they're deceased but there are one or two who are still breathing and one who contacts the CT team. I do hold the legal team in high regard as they're trained and clever people so why wouldn't I ? I respect anyone with brains.
Since we've discussed the bathroom and office, we haven't seen these areas to get any further ideas since both places have been regularly mentioned. Also the room where the toy gun was found. I've got no desire to see furnishings/décor etc just the layout of the place in picture form to get more of an idea of things that were mentioned as a full picture would have been more interesting.
Did we ever see a pic of the broken light/lamp ?
As for Sheila's records and because she's no longer alive EP should be obliged to hand them over. With Jeremy it's different because he's living. I doubt his contain anything more than a UTI or similar which he obviously wouldn't want broadcast and by this I'm going by what JM had said in her " January " page of her diary.
It wouldn't be in the interest of EP to have burned anything incriminating because they must have known for a long time that the case has been on-going and that past solicitors/lawyers have certain material which matches up along with the realisation that there are " gaps " in some of the work. These " gaps " are what's missing which EP will have known that the legals were aware of and if anything was destroyed it would highlight the guilt of EP. ( difficult to explain but I know what I mean )
"Righting all the wrongs" does rather smack of the mass conspiracy that Adam is so fond of mentioning. It's also one of the main reasons that the whole "Jeremy is innocent" claim has become unbelievable. It's grown both legs AND wings. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that, many of the suggestions put forward as fact, almost makes your gut feeling sound reasoned!!!
The legal team are unlikely to be doing more than previous legal teams have done in this, and other cases. Whilst it maybe laborious work, it won't require brainpower above and beyond what they're trained for. When it comes to "something being radically wrong", this will be their client's view. They take instructions from the client. I fully see why you seem to hold them in higher regard than any other body you've ever mentioned, but really, they're no MORE "trained and clever" than professionals in other disciplines.
There does seem to be a certain desperation behind the desire to see a room in which a toy gun was found. I don't know if there are pictures of the broken light. I MAY have seen a naked light bulb suspended from the ceiling but I can't swear to it. It does appear to me that we have pictures of all the rooms that the crime was acted out in.
If Sheila had been on trial, I'd have concurred with you about her records, but to demand them now would be tantamount to saying she was under suspicion. Jeremy, as a convicted prisoner has no fear of suspicion falling on him. One can only think there MAY be something which might further incriminate him.
Re the reasons you believe EP have for holding onto evidence. Once it's gone, it's gone, whether it be lost, mislaid or destroyed. Seems to me that they're in a position of being damned if they do and damned if they don't. I remain convinced that had there been SERIOUS attempts to recover what they're still said to be holding, it COULD have been recovered. There remains the strong possibility that, as Jeremy has said, he now has everything he needs, but as it hasn't proved to yield what he'd hoped for, he's not admitting it?
-
What about Sheila's diaries? What do you imagine they will tell us?
They'd have been interesting I imagine.
-
They'd have been interesting I imagine.
Would it surprise you to know that they weren't held under PII - Basil Cock had them. In 2001 they were give to the Met and copies were also given to Ewan Smith. Clearly nothing of importance was found, not even in the one written in 1985.
-
Would it surprise you to know that they weren't held under PII - Basil Cock had them. In 2001 they were give to the Met and copies were also given to Ewan Smith. Clearly nothing of importance was found, not even in the one written in 1985.
Now how do you know that ?
-
Now how do you know that ?
Why? Is it an eye opener given that there has been many a hoohah about what might be in those 'undisclosed diaries'? ;D ;D ;)
-
Why? Is it an eye opener given that there has been many a hoohah about what might be in those 'undisclosed diaries'? ;D ;D ;)
And all along, they were freely available to the defence ;D ;D
-
Why? Is it an eye opener given that there has been many a hoohah about what might be in those 'undisclosed diaries'? ;D ;D ;)
So you didn't know then.
-
Would it surprise you to know that they weren't held under PII - Basil Cock had them. In 2001 they were give to the Met and copies were also given to Ewan Smith. Clearly nothing of importance was found, not even in the one written in 1985.
What ever was given to Ewen Smith in 2001 cannot be the same diary that was destroyed in 1995.
In Barlows handrwitten notes its mentions getting a statement from Colin to prove the handwriting in the diaries. Clearly there was something of importance to prompt the police to verify the handwritting then subsequently destroy the contents at a laterdate.
-
What ever was given to Ewen Smith in 2001 cannot be the same diary that was destroyed in 1995.
In Barlows handrwitten notes its mentions getting a statement from Colin to prove the handwriting in the diaries. Clearly there was something of importance to prompt the police to verify the handwritting then subsequently destroy the contents at a laterdate.
Where did you get this from?
-
What ever was given to Ewen Smith in 2001 cannot be the same diary that was destroyed in 1995.
In Barlows handrwitten notes its mentions getting a statement from Colin to prove the handwriting in the diaries. Clearly there was something of importance to prompt the police to verify the handwritting then subsequently destroy the contents at a laterdate.
"In April 2001, the Metropolitan Police took possession of eleven of Sheila’s diaries from the family’s solicitor Basil Cock. They dated from 1969 until 1985, although 1980–83 were missing. Jeremy’s then solicitor Ewan Smith viewed the diaries and was provided with copies which he collected from the CPS. 7 James Carr, letter, 15 August"
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 419). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
-
What ever was given to Ewen Smith in 2001 cannot be the same diary that was destroyed in 1995.
In Barlows handrwitten notes its mentions getting a statement from Colin to prove the handwriting in the diaries. Clearly there was something of importance to prompt the police to verify the handwritting then subsequently destroy the contents at a laterdate.
It only states an INTENTION.
-
Diaries containing such content were also held from the trial of Eddie Gilfoyle, for 16 years during his sentence-----it took another two years before Merseyside police decided his release.
At least the police in Eddie's case kept hold of the diaries while no doubt knowing of their content, whereas EP couldn't get rid of them quick enough------particularly as Sheila's latter part of life had become a lot worse than at previous times.
This could well have become Jeremy's saving grace as proof that not all was well with Sheila.
Their destruction was criminal !! A very important aspect of the case as Sheila had felt more comfortable writing down her thoughts etc. than speaking them as lots of people, particularly victims of suicide are with their families left in disbelief that they'd been feeling as they had done when they'd thought that everything was fine.
How many families have been left in utter shock after realising the TRUE feelings of a suicide victim ??
-
Diaries containing such content were also held from the trial of Eddie Gilfoyle, for 16 years during his sentence-----it took another two years before Merseyside police decided his release.
At least the police in Eddie's case kept hold of the diaries while no doubt knowing of their content, whereas EP couldn't get rid of them quick enough------particularly as Sheila's latter part of life had become a lot worse than at previous times.
This could well have become Jeremy's saving grace as proof that not all was well with Sheila.
Their destruction was criminal !! A very important aspect of the case as Sheila had felt more comfortable writing down her thoughts etc. than speaking them as lots of people, particularly victims of suicide are with their families left in disbelief that they'd been feeling as they had done when they'd thought that everything was fine.
How many families have been left in utter shock after realising the TRUE feelings of a suicide victim ??
Lookout, I can't believe you're suggesting, had there been the remotest hint, in her diaries, Sheila might be contemplating suicide, that EP would have gone down the road of "not getting rid of them quick enough".
I don't know how much of Sheila's writing you've read to form the opinion that she was more comfortable consigning her thoughts to paper, but I can quite see that it might be something you'd grasp as a possible Jeremy saver, and to that end I'm sure you'll always be convinced that they'd have revealed previously hidden secrets.
-
Lookout, I can't believe you're suggesting, had there been the remotest hint, in her diaries, Sheila might be contemplating suicide, that EP would have gone down the road of "not getting rid of them quick enough".
I don't know how much of Sheila's writing you've read to form the opinion that she was more comfortable consigning her thoughts to paper, but I can quite see that it might be something you'd grasp as a possible Jeremy saver, and to that end I'm sure you'll always be convinced that they'd have revealed previously hidden secrets.
Colin in his book stated that Sheila expressed her thoughts by writing and drawing as she hadn't been blessed like most who would have expressed verbally with a good rant now and again to get it off their chests.
The diaries in this case would have been vital but obviously EP didn't want/wish to promote them in any way and neither did the relatives who I believe had taken charge of them,being " private and personal "!!
-
It wasn't until the Gilfoyle diaries had been made public that I'd realised I'd known a person who his late wife spoke about or I'd have gone to the police a lot sooner than the 16 years it took for them to be " discovered ". I still feel very strongly about this as to whether I could help him in any way to clear his name.
-
Colin in his book stated that Sheila expressed her thoughts by writing and drawing as she hadn't been blessed like most who would have expressed verbally with a good rant now and again to get it off their chests.
The diaries in this case would have been vital but obviously EP didn't want/wish to promote them in any way and neither did the relatives who I believe had taken charge of them,being " private and personal "!!
But surely, Lookout, they were Colin's memories of when they were together. They hadn't been together for years. From what you've told us, countless times, Sheila had been BRILLIANT at expressing herself verbally -I guess she felt she had to resort to throwing things because she didn't feel heard- it seems to me that it may have been Colin who shied away from confrontation.
I have no idea where the diaries were located -I don't imagine she took them everywhere but I'll allow for the possibility of a lockable 5 year diary- but if the police found them/it at WHF, HAD they contained suicidal thoughts, they'd have been a perfect counter-balance to the family's claims. If Jeremy had found them, for certain sure, he'd have handed them to the police. If they said what you're hoping, he very probably wouldn't be in prison now. However, if the relatives -according to you, nasty conniving people determined to do Jeremy out of his birthright- had found it/them, do you REALLY believe they'd have handed the police ANYTHING which suggested that Sheila MAY have committed such a crime, ESPECIALLY after allegedly going to all that trouble to frame Jeremy?
-
But surely, Lookout, they were Colin's memories of when they were together. They hadn't been together for years. From what you've told us, countless times, Sheila had been BRILLIANT at expressing herself verbally -I guess she felt she had to resort to throwing things because she didn't feel heard- it seems to me that it may have been Colin who shied away from confrontation.
I have no idea where the diaries were located -I don't imagine she took them everywhere but I'll allow for the possibility of a lockable 5 year diary- but if the police found them/it at WHF, HAD they contained suicidal thoughts, they'd have been a perfect counter-balance to the family's claims. If Jeremy had found them, for certain sure, he'd have handed them to the police. If they said what you're hoping, he very probably wouldn't be in prison now. However, if the relatives -according to you, nasty conniving people determined to do Jeremy out of his birthright- had found it/them, do you REALLY believe they'd have handed the police ANYTHING which suggested that Sheila MAY have committed such a crime, ESPECIALLY after allegedly going to all that trouble to frame Jeremy?
Let's not hide away from the fact that although certain memories etc had been shared by both Colin and Sheila as a couple, in the background were the damaging effects of June which Colin spoke quite frankly about in his book " if Sheila hadn't have killed her he would " not exactly words that you'd expect of a mild-mannered man. Which proves that if a mild Colin spoke in this way how Sheila would have done behind closed doors-------or inside a diary !!
Sheila, for once n her life would have felt empowered while brandishing a rifle and no doubt WOULD have been expressing her thoughts loudly that night.
NO amount of diaries would have influenced EP more than the relatives did. Because of their " knowledge " of " knowing Jeremy inside out " was far more plausible than a few scrawled-on pieces of paper in a diary EP gladly went along with them with SJ looking towards a promotion in doing so.
And a definite NO to the relatives handing in what they KNEW of the contents of the diaries.NEVER !!
-
BTW it was no trouble framing Jeremy------he was your typical " fall guy ".
-
Let's not hide away from the fact that although certain memories etc had been shared by both Colin and Sheila as a couple, in the background were the damaging effects of June which Colin spoke quite frankly about in his book " if Sheila hadn't have killed her he would " not exactly words that you'd expect of a mild-mannered man. Which proves that if a mild Colin spoke in this way how Sheila would have done behind closed doors-------or inside a diary !!
Sheila, for once n her life would have felt empowered while brandishing a rifle and no doubt WOULD have been expressing her thoughts loudly that night.
NO amount of diaries would have influenced EP more than the relatives did. Because of their " knowledge " of " knowing Jeremy inside out " was far more plausible than a few scrawled-on pieces of paper in a diary EP gladly went along with them with SJ looking towards a promotion in doing so.
And a definite NO to the relatives handing in what they KNEW of the contents of the diaries.NEVER !!
Lookout, as God is my witness, I've NEVER ,in my life, raised more than my voice, in anger, at anyone, yet there have been times without number that I've sworn I could/I'd like to kill someone. Please don't tell me you never have. You have created a Sheila -a Sheila you want her to be- that, I imagine few would recognize.
First, it would be good to know who first found the diaries? Did they read them prior to handing them in. In this case, I'm fairly certain I would have. Then, I think you must make up your mind about the importance of these diaries. There seems to be some confusion. You now appear to be saying that whatever were the contents -even if they were irrefutable proof that Sheila was capable of murder/suicide- they handed them to the relatives at a time when they had no reason to believe she hadn't. Does that make any sense? What might make more sense is if the diaries said nothing of any consequence. Because of what seems to be a strong desire to point a finger EP/SJ/the relatives, you don't appear to have thought this through very clearly
-
Diaries containing such content were also held from the trial of Eddie Gilfoyle, for 16 years during his sentence-----it took another two years before Merseyside police decided his release.
At least the police in Eddie's case kept hold of the diaries while no doubt knowing of their content, whereas EP couldn't get rid of them quick enough------particularly as Sheila's latter part of life had become a lot worse than at previous times.
This could well have become Jeremy's saving grace as proof that not all was well with Sheila.
Their destruction was criminal !! A very important aspect of the case as Sheila had felt more comfortable writing down her thoughts etc. than speaking them as lots of people, particularly victims of suicide are with their families left in disbelief that they'd been feeling as they had done when they'd thought that everything was fine.
How many families have been left in utter shock after realising the TRUE feelings of a suicide victim ??
The diaries haven't been withheld and Jeremy's legal team had copies.
-
The diaries haven't been withheld and Jeremy's legal team had copies.
Mmm. I think that when all the wished for possibilities are stripped away, however unacceptable, what remains is truth.
-
Lookout, as God is my witness, I've NEVER ,in my life, raised more than my voice, in anger, at anyone, yet there have been times without number that I've sworn I could/I'd like to kill someone. Please don't tell me you never have. You have created a Sheila -a Sheila you want her to be- that, I imagine few would recognize.
First, it would be good to know who first found the diaries? Did they read them prior to handing them in. In this case, I'm fairly certain I would have. Then, I think you must make up your mind about the importance of these diaries. There seems to be some confusion. You now appear to be saying that whatever were the contents -even if they were irrefutable proof that Sheila was capable of murder/suicide- they handed them to the relatives at a time when they had no reason to believe she hadn't. Does that make any sense? What might make more sense is if the diaries said nothing of any consequence. Because of what seems to be a strong desire to point a finger EP/SJ/the relatives, you don't appear to have thought this through very clearly
Sheila was her own worst enemy. I've never written Sheila into " how I wanted her to be " ( what a strange suggestion ) she was a product of what this life is all about unless you hadn't noticed that nobody is cloned.
Whatever the girl did was overshadowed by her mother and so wasn't allowed to " be herself " . So many restrictions and put-downs during her times at WHF it was stifling.
I admit to raising my voice in the past------but NEVER EVER with a view to " murdering someone " That thought NEVER crossed my mind at any time. Killing/murdering wasn't in my vocabulary at all. Might have had something to do with the career I followed about saving lives, from the age of 16 onwards.
I don't know who found the diaries or where they were found but I can guess that the relatives would have been hunting high and low for them hoping they'd find them first----just in case !
The contents probably mirrored the notes which were found in Sheila's bedroom with perhaps more damning connotations of what went on between her mother and herself as deep down Sheila was a very angry person inside and to release her anger she wrote.
Perhaps someone else can elaborate on the diaries--------where/who found them.
-
My money would have gone on the " cold " relatives finding the diaries as they " found " everything else !!
They were probably in the bureau which they removed shortly after the murders------for" safe-keeping ". ::)
-
Sheila was her own worst enemy. I've never written Sheila into " how I wanted her to be " ( what a strange suggestion ) she was a product of what this life is all about unless you hadn't noticed that nobody is cloned.
Whatever the girl did was overshadowed by her mother and so wasn't allowed to " be herself " . So many restrictions and put-downs during her times at WHF it was stifling.
I admit to raising my voice in the past------but NEVER EVER with a view to " murdering someone " That thought NEVER crossed my mind at any time. Killing/murdering wasn't in my vocabulary at all. Might have had something to do with the career I followed about saving lives, from the age of 16 onwards.
I don't know who found the diaries or where they were found but I can guess that the relatives would have been hunting high and low for them hoping they'd find them first----just in case !
The contents probably mirrored the notes which were found in Sheila's bedroom with perhaps more damning connotations of what went on between her mother and herself as deep down Sheila was a very angry person inside and to release her anger she wrote.
Perhaps someone else can elaborate on the diaries--------where/who found them.
I can't see a Sheila who "was her own worst enemy"- she wasn't IN ANY WAY responsible for what was ingrained in her from her childhood- perhaps I should have extended "how you wanted her to be..........." to include ".............in relationship to Jeremy".
"NEVER EVER with a view to murdering some" is a very strange claim from one who'd bring back the death penalty, don't you think? I've confessed to have SAID, in the heat of the moment, that I could kill. They were simply words. Truth be told, I wouldn't know how. I guess it requires a rage I've, thus far, never been possessed of.
It's very necessary to know the truth of where, and by whom, the diaries were found, if only to eliminate fantasy hypotheses. Only when ALL such are eliminated -and there's a plethora of them- can it be said that what remains is truth.
-
My money would have gone on the " cold " relatives finding the diaries as they " found " everything else !!
They were probably in the bureau which they removed shortly after the murders------for" safe-keeping ". ::)
It matters not a jot that the relatives don't come over as warm and nurturing. Any more than it matters that Jeremy was arrogant and supercilious. All it does is reveal something of their characters. If we hold that against one person we must treat others the same, surely?
So, if you're going to put money on the relatives finding the diaries, what do you think are the chances of them handing them over to the police without reading them? And if they revealed, as you hope they did, Sheila's suicidal proclivities and a desire to be rid of her family, do you truly believe, after all the effort you believe they put into framing Jeremy, they'd have presented the police with probable evidence of Sheila's culpability?
-
My money would have gone on the " cold " relatives finding the diaries as they " found " everything else !!
They were probably in the bureau which they removed shortly after the murders------for" safe-keeping ". ::)
They were in Sheila's flat - so wrong again!
-
They were in Sheila's flat - so wrong again!
So I guess that leaves Jeremy, Brett or the police, maybe Julie? to find them. If they said what supporters hope they did, Jeremy, Brett and Julie, who I'm certain would have read them, would surely have been falling over each other to get them to the police as fast as possible. However, ONE thing springs to my notice. Sheila clearly wasn't such an avid diary writer as we're led to believe, or she wouldn't have gone away for 4 nights without them.
-
I can't see a Sheila who "was her own worst enemy"- she wasn't IN ANY WAY responsible for what was ingrained in her from her childhood- perhaps I should have extended "how you wanted her to be..........." to include ".............in relationship to Jeremy".
"NEVER EVER with a view to murdering some" is a very strange claim from one who'd bring back the death penalty, don't you think? I've confessed to have SAID, in the heat of the moment, that I could kill. They were simply words. Truth be told, I wouldn't know how. I guess it requires a rage I've, thus far, never been possessed of.
It's very necessary to know the truth of where, and by whom, the diaries were found, if only to eliminate fantasy hypotheses. Only when ALL such are eliminated -and there's a plethora of them- can it be said that what remains is truth.
Brother and sister relationship is dictated by how the parents interact with their children. I would have said that Sheila and Jeremy had a good relationship so far as brotherly/sisterly love is concerned.
I was anticipating the death-penalty scenario------which is an entirely DIFFERENT mindset to that of whom one is familiar with, family friends etc. " Killing " as in above is for someone who doesn't want this normal way of life and who is out to destroy it. Most of those who are put to death have NO place in society and mean nothing to those victims families whose lives have been shattered and torn apart by a monster who doesn't want a normal life.
I DON'T class my remark as having any relevancy in my beliefs and those whose intentions are to kill will suffer the consequences. It's got NOTHING to do with how I view the word murder spoken in anger.
As for the diaries I've already surmised who found them simply because I have no trust in how the case as a whole was conducted from start to finish.
-
Brother and sister relationship is dictated by how the parents interact with their children. I would have said that Sheila and Jeremy had a good relationship so far as brotherly/sisterly love is concerned.
I was anticipating the death-penalty scenario------which is an entirely DIFFERENT mindset to that of whom one is familiar with, family friends etc. " Killing " as in above is for someone who doesn't want this normal way of life and who is out to destroy it. Most of those who are put to death have NO place in society and mean nothing to those victims families whose lives have been shattered and torn apart by a monster who doesn't want a normal life.
I DON'T class my remark as having any relevancy in my beliefs and those whose intentions are to kill will suffer the consequences. It's got NOTHING to do with how I view the word murder spoken in anger.
As for the diaries I've already surmised who found them simply because I have no trust in how the case as a whole was conducted from start to finish.
Totally off topic, but as it's my thread ;D...................... I have said I couldn't kill. I goes right across the board. It saddens me to say it, but I don't believe I'm capable of taking the life of someone terminally ill -I have been asked- so it's fitting that I can't condone the death penalty either. But I DO believe that life has to mean life.
Back to siblings, as in Sheila and Jeremy. You're quite correct in that it was dictated by their parents. NOT however by how they interacted with them, but how each child perceived that interaction and how they perceived their own place in it ie if one child perceived the other as getting more/better attention, it would become a breeding ground for sibling rivalry.
You've mentioned your lack of trust in the proceedings many times. Is this your fall-back? Caroline has told you where the diaries were located but from how you put it -"I've already surmised who found them because I have no trust...................from start to finish" it sounds very much like whatever is laid before you as truth -and there's no reason to think this isn't- if it doesn't fit with your stringent belief, you'll reject it, OR are you accepting that they were found in Sheila's flat?
-
Totally off topic, but as it's my thread ;D...................... I have said I couldn't kill. I goes right across the board. It saddens me to say it, but I don't believe I'm capable of taking the life of someone terminally ill -I have been asked- so it's fitting that I can't condone the death penalty either. But I DO believe that life has to mean life.
Back to siblings, as in Sheila and Jeremy. You're quite correct in that it was dictated by their parents. NOT however by how they interacted with them, but how each child perceived that interaction and how they perceived their own place in it ie if one child perceived the other as getting more/better attention, it would become a breeding ground for sibling rivalry.
You've mentioned your lack of trust in the proceedings many times. Is this your fall-back? Caroline has told you where the diaries were located but from how you put it -"I've already surmised who found them because I have no trust...................from start to finish" it sounds very much like whatever is laid before you as truth -and there's no reason to think this isn't- if it doesn't fit with your stringent belief, you'll reject it, OR are you accepting that they were found in Sheila's flat?
Your " life to mean life " is of no consolation to the families of victims of murder. It's THEY who suffer the life sentence !!
As for " taking the life of someone terminally ill " is an entirely different approach as their life is already taken by whatever ails them. It's a case of freeing the patient from the chronic pain they're suffering, or would you rather them be left screaming and dying in agony in front of you ?
The lack of trust falls within the visibly shoddy work of EP and forensics alike plus refusals of anything that showed Jeremy in a good light, such as the many testimonials by those who knew/know him. Handwritten statements which were altered or edited out. All documented.
-
Above all, that which remains hidden. Why the secrecy ? Is this justice and democracy ? I think not.
-
The diaries haven't been withheld and Jeremy's legal team had copies.
Sh! You're spoiling the conspiracy!
-
Your " life to mean life " is of no consolation to the families of victims of murder. It's THEY who suffer the life sentence !!
As for " taking the life of someone terminally ill " is an entirely different approach as their life is already taken by whatever ails them. It's a case of freeing the patient from the chronic pain they're suffering, or would you rather them be left screaming and dying in agony in front of you ?
The lack of trust falls within the visibly shoddy work of EP and forensics alike plus refusals of anything that showed Jeremy in a good light, such as the many testimonials by those who knew/know him. Handwritten statements which were altered or edited out. All documented.
I'm not sure it's the reasons for our thinking that's in question. One of us thinks they COULD kill. The other is convinced they couldn't. I suspect there are thing to be said, both for and against, each mindset.
I agree that EP didn't do their finest work but for the first few hours they were working under Jeremy's sole direction and he was directing them towards what he wanted them to see. IF they later chose to show him as something less that a bereft son, I'd have felt inclined to call it pay-back for wasting their time and making idiots of them, BUT, things had become revealed about his character, within a month, which they hadn't been aware of at the time. Believe me, the didn't HAVE to show him in a bad light. He did every bit of it for himself. I have no idea of who are these miyiads who believe him innocent. Of the numerous -although diminishing numbers- that surround me there is ONE who's unsure. The other -my cousin's co-in law, a vicar- thinks he's probably innocent. I find it strange that there are no others -when you say there are SO many- who think him innocent. In fact my own, but very poor- calculations have the ratio now as being comparable to that of the jury. As for the almost incalculable amount of statements "which were altered or edited out".................? There are alleged to be way too many to make conspiracy believable.
-
Sh! You're spoiling the conspiracy!
So now the diaries have be explained and ruled out, another point must be found.
-
They were in Sheila's flat - so wrong again!
So where are they now ?
-
So I guess that leaves Jeremy, Brett or the police, maybe Julie? to find them. If they said what supporters hope they did, Jeremy, Brett and Julie, who I'm certain would have read them, would surely have been falling over each other to get them to the police as fast as possible. However, ONE thing springs to my notice. Sheila clearly wasn't such an avid diary writer as we're led to believe, or she wouldn't have gone away for 4 nights without them.
I'd already said that the police handed them over to the relatives ::)
-
I'm not sure it's the reasons for our thinking that's in question. One of us thinks they COULD kill. The other is convinced they couldn't. I suspect there are thing to be said, both for and against, each mindset.
I agree that EP didn't do their finest work but for the first few hours they were working under Jeremy's sole direction and he was directing them towards what he wanted them to see. IF they later chose to show him as something less that a bereft son, I'd have felt inclined to call it pay-back for wasting their time and making idiots of them, BUT, things had become revealed about his character, within a month, which they hadn't been aware of at the time. Believe me, the didn't HAVE to show him in a bad light. He did every bit of it for himself. I have no idea of who are these miyiads who believe him innocent. Of the numerous -although diminishing numbers- that surround me there is ONE who's unsure. The other -my cousin's co-in law, a vicar- thinks he's probably innocent. I find it strange that there are no others -when you say there are SO many- who think him innocent. In fact my own, but very poor- calculations have the ratio now as being comparable to that of the jury. As for the almost incalculable amount of statements "which were altered or edited out".................? There are alleged to be way too many to make conspiracy believable.
There would be no need for conspiracies if EP had used their brains.
-
Sh! You're spoiling the conspiracy!
Where's your input then ?
-
Where's your input then ?
What more is there to add? If they were available to the defence then they were available to the defence and anything you're saying can't be true - it MUST be wrong. If you want to continue promoting your "truth" feel free but's it's shady.
-
So now the diaries have be explained and ruled out, another point must be found.
You'd think. But I think the diaries will still be used and the fact that the defence had them available to them will be ignored and Caroline will keep having to point it out month after month.
-
You'd think. But I think the diaries will still be used and the fact that the defence had them available to them will be ignored and Caroline will keep having to point it out month after month.
The only way to keep this story going and to keep it in the public domain is to push conspiracy theories. When one gets debunked, another must be found or a new slant put on old ones. It's far and away more interesting to believe information vital to Jeremy's freedom has been squirreled away than to believe that what we have is all there is.
-
There would be no need for conspiracies if EP had used their brains.
What do you suppose they might have done differently, Lookout? Supposing -tough guys that they were- they'd dismissed what Jeremy was telling them, broken in, only to cause WHAT? I think Jeremy played it brilliantly between urging them to break in alternated with Sheila's gun competency, her madness and her children. It was Jeremy's show. He, and he alone, had control until anyone chose to go against it. Given what was at stake, would YOU have been the person willing to take responsibility for -POSSIBLY- an entire family, most certainly for the lives of your comrades?
-
So where are they now ?
Is that relevant? They've clearly been read. Their contents deemed unnecessary to the case.
-
Is that relevant? They've clearly been read. Their contents deemed unnecessary to the case.
And you think the diaries are of no use ? When clearly such a small item in the Glfoyle case led to his release ? You should study these cases more.
You'd have had a different slant on the diaries if they'd contained accusations against Jeremy------that would have been different diaries or not.
-
And you think the diaries are of no use ? When clearly such a small item in the Glfoyle case led to his release ? You should study these cases more.
You'd have had a different slant on the diaries if they'd contained accusations against Jeremy------that would have been different diaries or not.
What are you suggesting here, Lookout. Do you think the police employed a cat burglar to break into Sheila's flat to retrieve an item they didn't know existed? THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GILFOYLE CASE. Now, thus far, you've had them found by relatives, handled by relatives, presumably read by relatives. I'll ask you again what you believe were the chances of them giving ANYTHING to the police which might have made Sheila culpable having, according to you, done their damdest to incriminate Jeremy. You don't know what was in them, you appear determined, though, that they HAD to have incriminated Sheila, who hadn't made an entry for at least 4 days.
-
So where are they now ?
Who knows but Jeremy's legal team WILL have copies. Which goes to show that there is nothing in these diaries that support Sheila being the killer. People keep diaries to record their life and killing yourself and your kids is a pretty big event and yet it didn't make an entry. The last one was that she shouldn't have been nasty to Jeremy. Seems he had his revenge!
-
What are you suggesting here, Lookout. Do you think the police employed a cat burglar to break into Sheila's flat to retrieve an item they didn't know existed? THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GILFOYLE CASE. Now, thus far, you've had them found by relatives, handled by relatives, presumably read by relatives. I'll ask you again what you believe were the chances of them giving ANYTHING to the police which might have made Sheila culpable having, according to you, done their damdest to incriminate Jeremy. You don't know what was in them, you appear determined, though, that they HAD to have incriminated Sheila, who hadn't made an entry for at least 4 days.
You don't half talk some bilge at times. What's all that about " cat burglars ?" I didn't even mention it nor did I say how police got the diaries. Just like making something out of nothing methinks.
Yes,it obviously disturbs you when I make reference using someone else's situation------not that you've ever included irrelevant persons in your posts have you ?
A 4 day gap in a diary is hardly the crime which you make it sound,is it ? t's not a given that one must write something every single day is it ? What exactly are you getting at ?
-
You don't half talk some bilge at times. What's all that about " cat burglars ?" I didn't even mention it nor did I say how police got the diaries. Just like making something out of nothing methinks.
Yes,it obviously disturbs you when I make reference using someone else's situation------not that you've ever included irrelevant persons in your posts have you ?
A 4 day gap in a diary is hardly the crime which you make it sound,is it ? t's not a given that one must write something every single day is it ? What exactly are you getting at ?
You certainly didn't. Despite my having asked you several times. I also note that you're beginning to be rude. Something which, as noted by others than myself, happens when you can't give an answer, other than saying the relatives gave it to them without giving any thought to how the relatives might have got into Sheila's flat...............enter a cat-burglar? Tongue in cheek. Get it? No, Probably not.
I'm truly not interested in case other than this and I won't comment on things I know nothing about. I don't recall that I've included irrelevancies. I don't believe it to be something I| make a habit of. I'm more interested in immediacy.
I agree that a 4 day gap isn't a crime. It simply suggests that Sheila wasn't the prolific diarist you seem to believe she was, nor does she have to be. That's it. End of. I'm getting at nothing.
-
You certainly didn't. Despite my having asked you several times. I also note that you're beginning to be rude. Something which, as noted by others than myself, happens when you can't give an answer, other than saying the relatives gave it to them without giving any thought to how the relatives might have got into Sheila's flat...............enter a cat-burglar? Tongue in cheek. Get it? No, Probably not.
I'm truly not interested in case other than this and I won't comment on things I know nothing about. I don't recall that I've included irrelevancies. I don't believe it to be something I| make a habit of. I'm more interested in immediacy.
I agree that a 4 day gap isn't a crime. It simply suggests that Sheila wasn't the prolific diarist you seem to believe she was, nor does she have to be. That's it. End of. I'm getting at nothing.
Once again I find myself repeating what I've previously said about the police handing over the diaries to the relatives ! I'm by no means rude, just answering your tedious drawn-out posts to which when you don't get the answer you want-----throw your dummy out and start blaming me for being rude ?? You do the exact same performance every time that 've come to expect the pattern of your posts complete with reinforcements every now and again putting in his sixpenn'orth. Laughable really as it's sooooo predictable.
Instead of writing in her diaries while at WHF Sheila went on to greater things with her continued and prolific writings--------the pages of notes in the team's possession at the moment. The ones that EP put to one side,for years because they weren't " legible ". So Sheila hadn't missed out on her daily reports after all.
-
Once again I find myself repeating what I've previously said about the police handing over the diaries to the relatives ! I'm by no means rude, just answering your tedious drawn-out posts to which when you don't get the answer you want-----throw your dummy out and start blaming me for being rude ?? You do the exact same performance every time that 've come to expect the pattern of your posts complete with reinforcements every now and again putting in his sixpenn'orth. Laughable really as it's sooooo predictable.
Instead of writing in her diaries while at WHF Sheila went on to greater things with her continued and prolific writings--------the pages of notes in the team's possession at the moment. The ones that EP put to one side,for years because they weren't " legible ". So Sheila hadn't missed out on her daily reports after all.
You know, don't you, that you make yourself look very foolish every time you try to 'out psychology' me? However, I congratulate myself that you've obviously picked up something of it from me. You've yet to take on board that YOUR pattern amounts to nothing more than projection. It usually occurs when you wish to avoid. It's then that you take the conversation completely off track by involving other posters. Please don't take my word for it, though. I feel certain they'll back up what I say, but PLEASE lets not descend to the level of a few days ago. And you call me predictable? Tsk Tsk.
Anyway, back to the topic in hand, eh? You have, indeed -and incidentally, I've never denied it- said that the police gave the diaries to the family. You've never given an opinion, though, on how you think the police came to have them in their possession. I'm truly interested to hear your opinion on this.
I'll tell you up front, before I go further. I don't believe there are ANY new and continued prolific notes currently in the teams' hands, OTHER than those we've already pored over here. NOR do I believe, as you imply, that Sheila dropped her diary writings in favour of them.
-
You know, don't you, that you make yourself look very foolish every time you try to 'out psychology' me? However, I congratulate myself that you've obviously picked up something of it from me. You've yet to take on board that YOUR pattern amounts to nothing more than projection. It usually occurs when you wish to avoid. It's then that you take the conversation completely off track by involving other posters. Please don't take my word for it, though. I feel certain they'll back up what I say, but PLEASE lets not descend to the level of a few days ago. And you call me predictable? Tsk Tsk.
Anyway, back to the topic in hand, eh? You have, indeed -and incidentally, I've never denied it- said that the police gave the diaries to the family. You've never given an opinion, though, on how you think the police came to have them in their possession. I'm truly interested to hear your opinion on this.
I'll tell you up front, before I go further. I don't believe there are ANY new and continued prolific notes currently in the teams' hands, OTHER than those we've already pored over here. NOR do I believe, as you imply, that Sheila dropped her diary writings in favour of them.
Other than JB handing in the diaries to the police, being that he could get into Sheila's apartment, I can think of no other way that the police would/could have obtained them.
What else could Sheila have done at WHF but continue to write her feelings ? If she couldn't speak frankly to her mother and her father and brother were in the fields what else was there for her ? The boys could well have been with grannie or watching tv.
-
Once again I find myself repeating what I've previously said about the police handing over the diaries to the relatives ! I'm by no means rude, just answering your tedious drawn-out posts to which when you don't get the answer you want-----throw your dummy out and start blaming me for being rude ?? You do the exact same performance every time that 've come to expect the pattern of your posts complete with reinforcements every now and again putting in his sixpenn'orth. Laughable really as it's sooooo predictable.
Instead of writing in her diaries while at WHF Sheila went on to greater things with her continued and prolific writings--------the pages of notes in the team's possession at the moment. The ones that EP put to one side,for years because they weren't " legible ". So Sheila hadn't missed out on her daily reports after all.
She did write in her diary while at WHF - it was perfectly legible too. 'THE TEAM'? Who would they be? The 'illegible' note IS (as I have told you on numerous occasions), the one made up of letters and numbers. The legal TEAM will know this the Campaign TEAM may not!
-
Other than JB handing in the diaries to the police, being that he could get into Sheila's apartment, I can think of no other way that the police would/could have obtained them.
What else could Sheila have done at WHF but continue to write her feelings ? If she couldn't speak frankly to her mother and her father and brother were in the fields what else was there for her ? The boys could well have been with grannie or watching tv.
I think that's a fair assumption. I guess we can also gather that A) he read them -which of us wouldn't? B) there couldn't have been anything which incriminated him but there MAY have been much which incriminated her. So Jeremy knew what was in the diaries. WHY, if that's the case, do you think he's never mentioned the contents?
Sheila had two lively and inquisitive boys to care for, and children's television not being, in 1985- what it is now, I think they may have spent more time outside than inside. I imagine there was plenty there for her to do had she chosen. If we're to believe all we're told, she spent more time out and away from the farm than she spent there. However, I'm more inclined to go with those who experienced her and say she was listless and lethargic, in which case she may have been too numbed -by medication?- to do very much of anything.
-
Other than JB handing in the diaries to the police, being that he could get into Sheila's apartment, I can think of no other way that the police would/could have obtained them.
What else could Sheila have done at WHF but continue to write her feelings ? If she couldn't speak frankly to her mother and her father and brother were in the fields what else was there for her ? The boys could well have been with grannie or watching tv.
The police got them from the family solicitor. Whatever so wrote in them, it wasn't about killing her kids, herself or the family. JUST that she wished she hadn't been nasty to Jeremy and Jeremy wouldn't answer what they discussed that afternoon!
-
The police got them from the family solicitor. Whatever so wrote in them, it wasn't about killing her kids, herself or the family. JUST that she wished she hadn't been nasty to Jeremy and Jeremy wouldn't answer what they discussed that afternoon!
You might have thought he'd make some innocuous story up under police interrogation. The ten-minute meeting in the fields does remain something of a mystery. Why admit to it at all? And how did the diary get into police hands if that last entry was made on Tuesday 6 August? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3760.0.html
-
The police got them from the family solicitor. Whatever so wrote in them, it wasn't about killing her kids, herself or the family. JUST that she wished she hadn't been nasty to Jeremy and Jeremy wouldn't answer what they discussed that afternoon!
Sounds to me like a lament prior to ending her life.
-
Who knows but Jeremy's legal team WILL have copies. Which goes to show that there is nothing in these diaries that support Sheila being the killer. People keep diaries to record their life and killing yourself and your kids is a pretty big event and yet it didn't make an entry. The last one was that she shouldn't have been nasty to Jeremy. Seems he had his revenge!
Where are you getting this from?
-
She did write in her diary while at WHF - it was perfectly legible too. 'THE TEAM'? Who would they be? The 'illegible' note IS (as I have told you on numerous occasions), the one made up of letters and numbers. The legal TEAM will know this the Campaign TEAM may not!
do you have anything to back that up
-
Just add it to the list of fake news nugs.
-
Just add it to the list of fake news nugs.
I wont automatically judge it as that.
-
I wont automatically judge it as that.
This particular list looked as though it had been written by one of the twins,that's why and not to the " illegible " letters which I was referring to of which there are about 6 pages of notes.
-
Just add it to the list of fake news nugs.
Even if contained within the diaries, Sheila wrote about killing the family or suicide. Several hypothetical concoctions will emerge on here.
Jeremy got Sheila to write it.
Jeremy read the diary and that's how he got the whole idea.
Its proof that Sheila was involved alongside Jeremy.
So what's the point? :-\
-
Even if contained within the diaries, Sheila wrote about killing the family or suicide. Several hypothetical concoctions will emerge on here.
Jeremy got Sheila to write it.
Jeremy read the diary and that's how he got the whole idea.
Its proof that Sheila was involved alongside Jeremy.
So what's the point? :-\
Well this is a discussion forum David. You're beginning to sound like Luminous Wanderer, setting the parameters for what we can and cannot say.
-
Even if contained within the diaries, Sheila wrote about killing the family or suicide. Several hypothetical concoctions will emerge on here.
Jeremy got Sheila to write it.
Jeremy read the diary and that's how he got the whole idea.
Its proof that Sheila was involved alongside Jeremy.
So what's the point? :-\
im just wndering how caroline would jeremysdefence team do and do not have.
-
im just wndering how caroline would jeremysdefence team do and do not have.
Can you explain the above, please.
-
Sounds to me like a lament prior to ending her life.
It's just as well she didn't say goodnight to Auntie Pam then as you'd have said that was another sign.
-
Well this is a discussion forum David. You're beginning to sound like Luminous Wanderer, setting the parameters for what we can and cannot say.
Indeed. Unfortunately for me its not a rational discussion forum.
-
im just wndering how caroline would jeremysdefence team do and do not have.
In English?
-
I think it's: "I'm just wondering how Caroline would know what Jeremy's defence team do and do not have."
-
im just wndering how caroline would jeremysdefence team do and do not have.
Its mentioned in CALs book but no source is given. First of all Basil Cock was not a solictor. Secondly
you cant have eleven diaries from 1969 to 1985 with just 1980-83 missing. 1969 to 1985 with 1980-83 missing would be a total 13 diaries. If he only received 11 diaries then there are another two years missing.
I wonder what they mean by "rationalized"? Did they read through them all?
-
Its mentioned in CALs book but no source is given. First of all Basil Cock was not a solictor. Secondly
you cant have eleven diaries from 1969 to 1985 with just 1980-83 missing. 1969 to 1985 with 1980-83 missing would be a total 13 diaries. If he only received 11 diaries then there are another two years missing.
I wonder what they mean by "rationalized"? Did they read through them all?
The ones that mattered were there and it would seem that they weren't destroyed as many here believed.
-
I think it's: "I'm just wondering how Caroline would know what Jeremy's defence team do and do not have."
That's simply, I read about it myself and didn't expect someone to find out the information for me.
-
Its mentioned in CALs book but no source is given. First of all Basil Cock was not a solictor. Secondly
you cant have eleven diaries from 1969 to 1985 with just 1980-83 missing. 1969 to 1985 with 1980-83 missing would be a total 13 diaries. If he only received 11 diaries then there are another two years missing.
I wonder what they mean by "rationalized"? Did they read through them all?
wich begs the question how would carol ann lee know that.
-
wich begs the question how would carol ann lee know that.
A good example of a rhetorical question, Nugs
-
Its mentioned in CALs book but no source is given. First of all Basil Cock was not a solictor. Secondly
you cant have eleven diaries from 1969 to 1985 with just 1980-83 missing. 1969 to 1985 with 1980-83 missing would be a total 13 diaries. If he only received 11 diaries then there are another two years missing.
I wonder what they mean by "rationalized"? Did they read through them all?
So Jeremy is innocent after all.
-
A good example of a rhetorical question, Nugs
well coral ann lee is not part of jeremys capaghn team or his efence how would she know what documents they had they wouldent of told her.
-
wich begs the question how would carol ann lee know that.
Because she researched the subject matter and spoke to those concerned. Of course that won''t be good enough for you or for those intent on being wrapped in a conspiracy. The diaries weren't destroyed and they obviously held nothing to implicate Sheila in the murders. Yet another avenue bites the dust!
You could always write to Ewen Smith and ask him yourself!
-
well coral ann lee is not part of jeremys capaghn team or his efence how would she know what documents they had they wouldent of told her.
The truth being that CAL would not have seen any " on-going " documents as even at present they're not for public viewing.
-
The truth being that CAL would not have seen any " on-going " documents as even at present they're not for public viewing.
She doesn't have to have SEEN them to know what happened to them but y'all can deny that they still exsist if you like but they haven't! ;D
-
She doesn't have to have SEEN them to know what happened to them but y'all can deny that they still exsist if you like but they haven't! ;D
I'll soon find out. ;D
-
well coral ann lee is not part of jeremys capaghn team or his efence how would she know what documents they had they wouldent of told her.
CAL didn't write a long acclaimed book, just using the defence & CT as sources.
It's called being an investigative author.
-
Meaning that you make up your own story around selected information that's presented-----which ever your preference might be.
-
CAL didn't write a long acclaimed book, just using the defence & CT as sources.
It's called being an investigative author.
theres no way you could find that out that unless the defence told you theres no other way of finding out.
and theres no way they would of told her.
-
Because she researched the subject matter and spoke to those concerned. Of course that won''t be good enough for you or for those intent on being wrapped in a conspiracy. The diaries weren't destroyed and they obviously held nothing to implicate Sheila in the murders. Yet another avenue bites the dust!
You could always write to Ewen Smith and ask him yourself!
theres abslutly no way to find out what the defence has unless they tell you.
and i very much doubt they would of done.
-
well coral ann lee is not part of jeremys capaghn team or his efence how would she know what documents they had they wouldent of told her.
And you know that, HOW?
-
theres no way you could find that out that unless the defence told you theres no other way of finding out.
and theres no way they would of told her.
And you know that, HOW?
-
And you know that, HOW?
erm simple logic logic only the defence would know what documents they did or did not have.
-
erm simple logic logic only the defence would know what documents they did or did not have.
Ans is your logic up to speed, Nugs?
-
erm simple logic logic only the defence would know what documents they did or did not have.
She interviewed many people and clearly was given the information and I have yet to see you apply ANY logic.
-
She interviewed many people and clearly was given the information and I have yet to see you apply ANY logic.
Possibly Nugs believes that applying logic means trying to whip up conspiracy theories?
-
She interviewed many people and clearly was given the information and I have yet to see you apply ANY logic.
none of the people she interviwed could possbly know that the only people who could know would be the defence team.
so they could not of iven her that information.
-
theres abslutly no way to find out what the defence has unless they tell you.
and i very much doubt they would of done.
Defence team ?
Bamber had a defence team in 1985/6. Why wouldn't people from that defence team speak to CAL 30 years later ?
-
CAL interviewed Bamber. Who will be the most knowledgable of everyone. CAL may have also interviewed current members of the CT. Certainly former members.
Nugs is having one of his conspiracy theories.
-
Defence team ?
Bamber had a defence team in 1985/6. Why wouldn't people from that defence team speak to CAL 30 years later ?
erm becouse its ilgal.
client confidentailety.
-
erm becouse its ilgal.
client confidentailety.
Really ? Every lawyer in the OJ Simpson case has written a book. Complete with extensive promotional work.
What wouldn't a defence lawyer tell CAL 30 years later ?
-
Really ? Every lawyer in the OJ Simpson case has written a book. Complete with extensive promotional work.
What wouldn't a defence lawyer tell CAL 30 years later ?
Exactly.
He's had numerous people work with him over the years, she could have spoken to anyone - even spoken to Bamber himself.
-
Really ? Every lawyer in the OJ Simpson case has written a book. Complete with extensive promotional work.
What wouldn't a defence lawyer tell CAL 30 years later ?
thats amerca you idiot.
-
thats amerca you idiot.
Show me the source that says it's different here.
Oh I forgot, you don't supply sources to your new pieces of information.
-
Exactly.
He's had numerous people work with him over the years, she could have spoken to anyone - even spoken to Bamber himself.
I think that Nugs, who rarely gets it QUITE right, just likes having a point to argue..................and if there isn't one to argue, he'll pull one out of the ether, which could be why they make sense so infrequently?
-
Exactly.
He's had numerous people work with him over the years, she could have spoken to anyone - even spoken to Bamber himself.
Nugs is ranting about something again, this time about what CAL wrote in her book. I have no idea what.
He obviously knows how experienced investigative authors get their information over several years when researching.
-
erm becouse its ilgal.
client confidentailety.
The info about the diaries wasn't told to Ewen Smith by Bamber, it was Basil Cock who passed them on so there is no client confidentiality. Of course he'd be allowed to say he'd seen them but the info may not have originated from him anyway. The FACT is, he was given copies.
I wouldn't be so quick to call others an 'idiot' if I were YOU!
-
The info about the diaries wasn't told to Ewen Smith by Bamber, it was Basil Cock who passed them on so there is no client confidentiality. Of course he'd be allowed to say he'd seen them but the info may not have originated from him anyway. The FACT is, he was given copies.
I wouldn't be so quick to call others an 'idiot' if I were YOU!
what he passed them on to the defence team personally not the police.
-
what he passed them on to the defence team personally not the police.
Dog. Bone.
-
The info about the diaries wasn't told to Ewen Smith by Bamber, it was Basil Cock who passed them on so there is no client confidentiality. Of course he'd be allowed to say he'd seen them but the info may not have originated from him anyway. The FACT is, he was given copies.
I wouldn't be so quick to call others an 'idiot' if I were YOU!
Nugs is lucky he is allowed to call posters names, but posters cannot respond. Former moderator Patti confirming this is the case. Most posters will know why.
I believe all posters should be treated equally, but that will never happen until forums are controlled by robots.
-
To be fair to Nugs, creating threads on his unsourced visions is no worse than David, Roch, Bill & JackieD saying they have new information which they won't reveal.
It is a clever but sneeky tactic by Nugs. Supporters won't dispute his thread & guilters will join in the discussion. A forum discussion on his unsourced vision then validates it in his mind.
The only problem is if a source is requested from his thread post. Usually by me. Stone walling & every other trick in the book will then be tried by Nugs.
-
Shutup yer moaning Adam. How old are you, 90 ?
-
Shutup yer moaning Adam. How old are you, 90 ?
My age is on my profile.
-
Dog. Bone.
i asked a qustioon thats all.
-
erm becouse its ilgal.
client confidentailety.
They can use their discretion and speak to third parties if they feel its in their clients best interest.
You might then say Ed Lawson telling Paul Harrison in 2002 that "Bamber was a horrible man" and "In hindsight he was guilty" was not in Jeremys best interest. But this author has a habit of recalling interesting conversations with people who just so happen to be dead and therefore are unable to confirm or deny if they took place. ;)
Regardless. If we assume Ewen Smith did receive 11 diaries from 1969 to 1985 he still has five diaries unnaccounted for.
Depending on the situation in 1986 there would have to be a good reason why they were not used at trial in order to be an admissible gound of appeal.
-
i asked a qustioon thats all.
If only.
-
They can use their discretion and speak to third parties if they feel its in their clients best interest.
You might then say Ed Lawson telling Paul Harrison in 2002 that "Bamber was a horrible man" and "In hindsight he was guilty" was not in Jeremys best interest. But this author has a habit of recalling interesting conversations with people who just so happen to be dead and therefore are unable to confirm or deny if they took place. ;)
Regardless. If we assume Ewen Smith did receive 11 diaries from 1969 to 1985 he still has five diaries unnaccounted for.
Depending on the situation in 1986 there would have to be a good reason why they were not used at trial in order to be an admissible gound of appeal.
Maybe because they were illegible, or could they possibly be forgeries?
-
They can use their discretion and speak to third parties if they feel its in their clients best interest.
You might then say Ed Lawson telling Paul Harrison in 2002 that "Bamber was a horrible man" and "In hindsight he was guilty" was not in Jeremys best interest. But this author has a habit of recalling interesting conversations with people who just so happen to be dead and therefore are unable to confirm or deny if they took place. ;)
Regardless. If we assume Ewen Smith did receive 11 diaries from 1969 to 1985 he still has five diaries unnaccounted for.
Depending on the situation in 1986 there would have to be a good reason why they were not used at trial in order to be an admissible gound of appeal.
and why would they not hand over the other 5
-
They can use their discretion and speak to third parties if they feel its in their clients best interest.
You might then say Ed Lawson telling Paul Harrison in 2002 that "Bamber was a horrible man" and "In hindsight he was guilty" was not in Jeremys best interest. But this author has a habit of recalling interesting conversations with people who just so happen to be dead and therefore are unable to confirm or deny if they took place. ;)
Regardless. If we assume Ewen Smith did receive 11 diaries from 1969 to 1985 he still has five diaries unnaccounted for.
Depending on the situation in 1986 there would have to be a good reason why they were not used at trial in order to be an admissible gound of appeal.
Some people will just hold on rather than admit it's a dead end! Who said the police or anyone else ever had the diaries were missing? Or perhaps Sheila even stopped writing for a while? Either way the dates were long enough before the murders as not to matter.
-
and why would they not hand over the other 5
Who are they? Who said anyone had another 5?
-
Who are they? Who said anyone had another 5?
Nugs has had a vision.
-
Nugs has had a vision.
I suggest he gets glasses then.
-
Maybe because they were illegible, or could they possibly be forgeries?
Forgeries? Well I guess you could claim Jeremy studied Sheila's handwriting and convincingly assembled a false sixteen years of Sheila's life into a whole saga of diary books as part of his plan. This hypothetical event is not constrained by laws of physics.
The fact you have suggested this only goes to show how futile the debate will get.
-
Who are they? Who said anyone had another 5?
david did read the thread.
-
Forgeries? Well I guess you could claim Jeremy studied Sheila's handwriting and convincingly assembled a false sixteen years of Sheila's life into a whole saga of diary books as part of his plan. This hypothetical event is not constrained by laws of physics.
The fact you have suggested this only goes to show how futile the debate will get.
I've lost track now of which diaries we're talking about.
-
I've lost track now of which diaries we're talking about.
Well, there are the ones that exist and which the defence have seen (no implications that Sheila killed anyone) and there are the 'missing ones' that must say Sheila planned to killed the family. Of course they may simply never have been written in the first place but that doesn't implicate Sheila does it?
-
Well, there are the ones that exist and which the defence have seen (no implications that Sheila killed anyone) and there are the 'missing ones' that must say Sheila planned to killed the family. Of course they may simply never have been written in the first place but that doesn't implicate Sheila does it?
well I suppose she could of stopped writing dairy's for a while and then started again
how come I never hear of these dairy's quoted.
-
well I suppose she could of stopped writing dairy's for a while and then started again
how come I never hear of these dairy's quoted.
I guess because they are private.
-
I guess because they are private.
so how come the campaign team seem to think they haven't been disclosed.
how come none of the authors have ever managed to get hold of them.
how come mikes been able to get hold of nearly evry other document but not them.
-
silence
-
I'm off out for lunch so that's my excuse nugs ;D
-
so how come the campaign team seem to think they haven't been disclosed.
how come none of the authors have ever managed to get hold of them.
how come mikes been able to get hold of nearly evry other document but not them.
I don't believe anything the CT says
Why would authors be given access to them? CAL found out that they do exist and that the defence have access.
There is lots of stuff that Mike doesn't have - why would Ewen Smith give them to Mike?
-
silence
WOW! That's certainly RICH coming from you. I have only just come on line and to be honest, your benarl silly questions don't deserve an answer. You never accept any facts, you simpy go on and on in a child like manner asking 'But why'? FFS! Instead of asking others for informstion why don't you start researching stuff yourself - write to Ewen Smith and ask him yourself!
-
I don't believe anything the CT says
Why would authors be given access to them? CAL found out that they do exist and that the defence have access.
There is lots of stuff that Mike doesn't have - why would Ewen Smith give them to Mike?
why would te campaghn team lie they have nothing to gain from it.
and you basing on one unsourced cliam in a book how cme she dosent say who told her.
-
why would te campaghn team lie they have nothing to gain from it.
and you basing on one unsourced cliam in a book how cme she dosent say who told her.
What have they got to gain for it? To suck in saps like you and make a conspiracy seem more likely.
I'd believe CAL before ANY of the CT - why would she lie? She has nothing to gain from it and if she lied, why hasn't Ewen Smith denied having had access - why don't you contact him and ask him?
-
WOW! That's certainly RICH coming from you. I have only just come on line and to be honest, your benarl silly questions don't deserve an answer. You never accept any facts, you simpy go on and on in a child like manner asking 'But why'? FFS! Instead of asking others for informstion why don't you start researching stuff yourself - write to Ewen Smith and ask him yourself!
what an unsourced cliam in a book is fact is it you a very strange defintion of word fact.
why doesnt the auther say who told her this.
and if they contain theat could help jeremy why havent they been made public to prove this.
-
why would te campaghn team lie they have nothing to gain from it.
and you basing on one unsourced cliam in a book how cme she dosent say who told her.
The CT are trying to get donations, support and Bamber (finally) released. So are more likely to lie than CAL.
Why would an investigative author lie ? Has anyone sued her or Wilkes since their books came out ?
-
what an unsourced cliam in a book is fact is it you a very strange defintion of word fact.
why doesnt the auther say who told her this.
and if they contain theat could help jeremy why havent they been made public to prove this.
You NEVER source any claims!
Why would she mention 'who specifically' told her or just make it up? The information can be checked if someone has the nounce! Crack on!
They clearly contain bugger all to help Jeremy!
-
what an unsourced cliam in a book is fact is it you a very strange defintion of word fact.
why doesnt the auther say who told her this.
and if they contain theat could help jeremy why havent they been made public to prove this.
Not everything in a book will have a source. Otherwise books will be twice as big.
In such a high profile case, if a counter source existed, I am sure it would be online.
Maybe you should contact CAL & say she should annonce where she got the information from. I doubt anyone has or will.
-
Not everything in a book will have a source. Otherwise books will be twice as big.
In such a high profile case, if a counter source existed, I am sure it would be online.
Maybe you should contact CAL & say she should annonce where she got the information from. I doubt anyone has or will.
shes only got to say who tld her that requires one line.
most aunthers manage to do it.
-
shes only got to say who tld her that requires one line.
most aunthers manage to do it.
WHY has she "got" to say? Whether or not we believe her is OUR choice. It's no skin off her nose one way or the other.
-
WHY has she "got" to say? Whether or not we believe her is OUR choice. It's no skin off her nose one way or the other.
well most authers do who are any good.
-
well most authers do who are any good.
Are you suggesting CAL is a liar?
-
Are you suggesting CAL is a liar?
im suggesting she may of got it wrong.
if we dont know who her source is we have no way of knowing weather its a credible source.
-
well most authers do who are any good.
Most readers don't require that authors set their work out in words of one syllable before they understand.
-
im suggesting she may of got it wrong.
if we dont know who her source is we have no way of knowing weather its a credible source.
Course you are. She's not an overt Jeremy supporter.
-
Course you are. She's not an overt Jeremy supporter.
what im supposed to just belive her without qustion am i.
-
what im supposed to just belive her without qustion am i.
]
You believe Bamber!
To be honest, that's up to you - if you want to believe that she lied for no good reason then get on with it but that doesn't mean the diaries are being withheld!
-
]
You believe Bamber!
To be honest, that's up to you - if you want to believe that she lied for no good reason then get on with it but that doesn't mean the diaries are being withheld!
i never said she was lying I just questioned who her source could of been
a forum is for asking questions.
-
i never said she was lying I just questioned who her source could of been
a forum is for asking questions.
Well, you're best off asking her being as no one here can answer WHY she did or didn't do something.
-
Barry George with Mark Williams-Thomas Thursday 2nd August @ 10.30am. Ruth and Eamon ITV.
-
Well, you're best off asking her being as no one here can answer WHY she did or didn't do something.
you knw i think i might do that i doubt if she will answered mr obrien but you never know.
-
Barry George with Mark Williams-Thomas Thursday 2nd August @ 10.30am. Ruth and Eamon ITV.
i think you have the wrong thread lookout
-
i think you have the wrong thread lookout
I know nugs-------just thought I'd throw it in as a reminder. ;D
-
i never said she was lying I just questioned who her source could of been
a forum is for asking questions.
No one on the forum will know the answer.
CAL did interview Bamber and she would have got a lot of other people giving her information.
CAL may be contactable via social media. I am sure she would answer your question.
-
Nugs asking questions no one has the answer to, enhances his conspiracy theories.
No one knowing where the photos of Sheila were, enhanced his theory that Bamber's free offer of his life story was turned down by The Sun, who chose to risk libel proceedings and write a false story instead.
This week it is an impossible question on where CAL got a source.
These questions together with being able to create discussion threads on quotes/facts he has no source for, will mean Nugs will always be a committed conspiracy theorist.
-
No one on the forum will know the answer.
CAL did interview Bamber and she would have got a lot of other people giving her information.
CAL may be contactable via social media. I am sure she would answer your question.
yes they will calis on this forum.
-
Nugs asking questions no one has the answer to, enhances his conspiracy theories.
No one knowing where the photos of Sheila were, enhanced his theory that Bamber's free offer of his life story was turned down by The Sun, who chose to risk libel proceedings and write a false story instead.
This week it is an impossible question on where CAL got a source.
These questions together with being able to create discussion threads on quotes/facts he has no source for, will mean Nugs will always be a committed conspiracy theorist.
I said hat I am going to o adam I'm going to ask her for her soure if she replys I will say on here if she dosent I will also say on here.
-
I said hat I am going to o adam I'm going to ask her for her soure if she replys I will say on here if she dosent I will also say on here.
That is good. Let me know if you locate her. I might want to ask something on the case.