Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on August 14, 2019, 06:40:PM
-
That's a ten fold increase since I last checked 4 years ago. :o
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7043.msg331885.html#msg331885 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7043.msg331885.html#msg331885)
-
It must be due to your 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
-
It must be due to your 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
Whatever their reasons may be, your "200 pieces of incriminating evidence" doesn't appear to have stopped them. :-\
-
Whatever their reasons may be, your "200 pieces of incriminating evidence" doesn't appear to have stopped them. :-\
Believe it was around 70 pieces of forensic evidence. No time to start on the circumstantial.
Some people have said they got a 'gut feeling' in 1985. Little things such as evidence is not going to change that.
-
Believe it was around 70 pieces of forensic evidence. No time to start on the circumstantial.
Some people have said they got a 'gut feeling' in 1985. Little things such as evidence is not going to change that.
As for evidence and gut feeling. Do you still believe that Brett Collins rang Paul Harrison out the blue?
I don't mean to sound condescending here, but you must have realised now that claims in a book is not "evidence". So perhaps you ought to re-consider everything and go by the primary sources of information as the evidence.
-
Some people will sign anything put in front of them..
-
Some people will sign anything put in front of them..
Actually Steve, I signed it and quite a few guilty supporters also did. Reason being that if EP acted on it or made a statement, it would put to bed the notion that there are documents hidden in a file somewhere that prove Bamber innocent so it's not just supporters/fans.
-
I just wish that there was some kind of a breakthrough if only to begin a discussion.
I must congratulate Trudi on her honours degree in law while I'm here. Well done.
-
I just wish that there was some kind of a breakthrough if only to begin a discussion.
We had the PH scandal unfold last month. That got some discussion going.
There are not many members that visit here often anymore unfortunately.
It might be an idea to only allow forum members to see the forum once they login. That might encourage some of the many guest visitors to sign up and get involved?
-
We had the PH scandal unfold last month. That got some discussion going.
There are not many members that visit here often anymore unfortunately.
It might be an idea to only allow forum members to see the forum once they login. That might encourage some of the many guest visitors to sign up and get involved?
That would be consistent with keeping evidence favourable to the defence a secret, until it has already been rejected by the CCRC.
Ultimately I suppose, Jeremy himself is responsible for his defence always keeping the public in the dark, so that people who are aware of the case at all, just believe what they read in the papers. The effect is that the CCRC don't feel the need to justify their decisions and know that they can get away with rejecting any evidence, because the case hardly gets a mention in the news.
I have noticed something going on when it comes to search results. The results, these days, are sketchy, whereas it used to be possible to find what you were looking for by remembering an exact phrase. I wonder if this is due to the site not having been properly registered.
If you make logging in a requirement to see the forum, it will remove search result altogether, which I suppose would make perfect sense, if the owner of the forum were a fifth columnist.
-
That would be consistent with keeping evidence favourable to the defence a secret, until it has already been rejected by the CCRC.
Ultimately I suppose, Jeremy himself is responsible for his defence always keeping the public in the dark, so that people who are aware of the case at all, just believe what they read in the papers. The effect is that the CCRC don't feel the need to justify their decisions and know that they can get away with rejecting any evidence, because the case hardly gets a mention in the news.
I have noticed something going on when it comes to search results. The results, these days, are sketchy, whereas it used to be possible to find what you were looking for by remembering an exact phrase. I wonder if this is due to the site not having been properly registered.
If you make logging in a requirement to see the forum, it will remove search result altogether, which I suppose would make perfect sense, if the owner of the forum were a fifth columnist.
ive noticed the search results are not what they used to but I don't think that's deliberate.
making th forum privte would it fall in the search rankings and only people knew correct address would be able to find it.
-
ive noticed the search results are not what they used to but I don't think that's deliberate.
making th forum privte would it fall in the search rankings and only people knew correct address would be able to find it.
I used to log in with "Daniel and Nicholas Caffell", but even that now seems to have been removed.
-
I used to log in with "Daniel and Nicholas Caffell", but even that now seems to have been removed.
It would have been their 40th birthdays this year. Perhaps it was deemed an appropriate time to remove the thread?
-
I used to log in with "Daniel and Nicholas Caffell", but even that now seems to have been removed.
Nothing has been removed, your web browser was remembering the search for you, at some point your history must have been cleared and so was removed from your history.
No one here has made changes to the search facility.
-
Nothing has been removed, your web browser was remembering the search for you, at some point your history must have been cleared and so was removed from your history.
No one here has made changes to the search facility.
Thank God -and Caroline!!!- for the computer savvy!!! ;D
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4405.0.html
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4405.0.html
Thank you Caroline. It's good to remember why we are here.
-
ive noticed the search results are not what they used to but I don't think that's deliberate.
making th forum privte would it fall in the search rankings and only people knew correct address would be able to find it.
You can still allow google to index the site. But since the SSL certificate has not been setup properly, we are not doing well in the search rankings regardless. :(
-
ive noticed the search results are not what they used to but I don't think that's deliberate.
making th forum privte would it fall in the search rankings and only people knew correct address would be able to find it.
The person responsible for this state of affairs is Ngb1066. It's obvious why hindering research on the case would suit a supporter of the relatives, who for obvious reasons would like to block the easy availability of information highlighting their roll in framing Bamber. But why should it suit an administrator of this forum?
-
I have just noticed that the site's own search tool is not working very well either. I just typed in "Robert Boutflour" and was told
"Sorry, no matches were found"
From the standpoint of the relatives and their concerns this is a very favourable state of affairs, though not for some guy writing a book on the case.
-
I have just noticed that the site's own search tool is not working very well either. I just typed in "Robert Boutflour" and was told
"Sorry, no matches were found"
From the standpoint of the relatives and their concerns this is a very favourable state of affairs, though not for some guy writing a book on the case.
I just searched "Robert Boutflour" and got over 700 results :-\
-
The person responsible for this state of affairs is Nbg1066. It's obvious why hindering research on the case would suit a supporter of the relatives, who for obvious reasons would like to block the easy availability of information highlighting their roll in framing Bamber. But why should it suit an administrator of this forum?
What on earth are you talking about?
-
The person responsible for this state of affairs is Nbg1066. It's obvious why hindering research on the case would suit a supporter of the relatives, who for obvious reasons would like to block the easy availability of information highlighting their roll in framing Bamber. But why should it suit an administrator of this forum?
That's not true,Harry.
I can understand your frustration as I had this same blank reception when I tried to search certain posts pertaining to RWB, though when you just type his name, you'll find the majority of which Mike has posted and a few 2018/19 posts but certainly not the volume that once was.
-
I have just noticed that the site's own search tool is not working very well either. I just typed in "Robert Boutflour" and was told
"Sorry, no matches were found"
From the standpoint of the relatives and their concerns this is a very favourable state of affairs, though not for some guy writing a book on the case.
Just did the same search and got 26 pages! You have be (and have ALWAYS had to be) on the main (index) page to do a complete search of the forum. If you do a search from inside a thread, it will only search the thread! It has nothing to do with NGB and more to do with your own knowledge (or lack there of). I am sick of people making stupid paranoid assumptions about how we have somehow manipulated the forum for whatever ends. The forum hasn't changed and if people have an issue in future have the manners and decency to ASK, then you won't end up looking silly! >:(
-
The person responsible for this state of affairs is Nbg1066. It's obvious why hindering research on the case would suit a supporter of the relatives, who for obvious reasons would like to block the easy availability of information highlighting their roll in framing Bamber. But why should it suit an administrator of this forum?
Then again, the problem might be between the end users computer screen and the back of their chair! ::)
-
That's not true,Harry.
I can understand your frustration as I had this same blank reception when I tried to search certain posts pertaining to RWB, though when you just type his name, you'll find the majority of which Mike has posted and a few 2018/19 posts but certainly not the volume that once was.
There are 26 pages of information in respect to RB. Nothing has changed that would hinder a search but you HAVE to be on the index page to capture ALL references. No point searching in a thread unless you know that there is something specific in that thread you want to find!
-
To capture ALL references on a subject - search from THIS page http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php and if you want to be even more specific encase your search in quotation marks ...................... "search criteria goes in between here"
-
There might be room for discussion soon when we hear what the CPS has to say re. the reply about the non-disclosure of some key evidence.
-
There might be room for discussion soon when we hear what the CPS has to say re. the reply about the non-disclosure of some key evidence.
I guess it will depend on whether they view it as having been "key".
-
I guess it will depend on whether they view it as having been "key".
If it's not been seen before it will be key.
-
If it's not been seen before it will be key.
If they deem it as having been relevant, surely?
-
If they deem it as having been relevant, surely?
They're bound to, I'm pretty confident.
Unless of course their brains are still in 1985 mode too, though I would doubt that being the case.
-
Just did the same search and got 26 pages! You have be (and have ALWAYS had to be) on the main (index) page to do a complete search of the forum. If you do a search from inside a thread, it will only search the thread! It has nothing to do with NGB and more to do with your own knowledge (or lack there of). I am sick of people making stupid paranoid assumptions about how we have somehow manipulated the forum for whatever ends. The forum hasn't changed and if people have an issue in future have the manners and decency to ASK, then you won't end up looking silly! >:(
OK, I didn't know that about needing to do an internal search from the main page, but you have not given any explanation for the obvious degradation when it comes to google results. This is a major inconvienience to some people and it is something you are fully aware of, since it has been confirmed by other members.
If you are going to pretend there is no difference, or admit that there is, but say that it is outside your control, there is no point in arguing.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg421597.html#msg421597
"Liar - that's the picture I saved and it was saved exactly the way you posted it. If anyone cropped it YOU DID!"
You are in a bad position to be making snarky comments concerning other people's mental health. When you denied cropping David's photograph of Sheila's foot and accused him of lying, I thought you must have flipped, since what he was saying was obviously true and it was equally obvious that you were lying.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9904.msg453087.html#msg453087
"Funny how those who believe Bamber to be innocent are willing to believe that Jones lied about everything else, but find it hard to believe that me might just have missed checking this window properly and not come clean. He framed an innocent man but wouldn't ever not admit to the window? Hmmmmm - dubious behaviour!."
Your behaviour just keeps getting worse. You recently pretended to confuse DS Stan Jones with DCI Taff Jones for the purpose of smearing Taff. There is no way that that was an honest mistake
The reason you can get away with this stuff is that Ngb tolerates it and basically lets you do anything you like.
I have asked the opinion of an administrator of another site and she said that any moderator who removed quotes from other people's posts for personal reasons would be sacked immediately.
-
What on earth are you talking about?
You know what I'm talking about. Tell us that the poor google results are down to the fact that the site has not been registered properly, or deny that that is case and give us another explanation.
David1819 says it would only cost a tenner to sort out the registration problem, so why is nothing being done?
-
You know what I'm talking about. Tell us that the poor google results are down to the fact that the site has not been registered properly, or deny that that is case and give us another explanation.
David1819 says it would only cost a tenner to sort out the registration problem, so why is nothing being done?
I have no idea why google search results are poor (if indeed they are). I will ask Caroline as she is the tech admin for the site. If there is a problem and an easy fix no doubt it can be dealt with. I am not sure what you are suggesting might be the ulterior motive of the admin team here.
-
OK, I didn't know that about needing to do an internal search from the main page, but you have not given any explanation for the obvious degradation when it comes to google results. This is a major inconvienience to some people and it is something you are fully aware of, since it has been confirmed by other members.
If you are going to pretend there is no difference, or admit that there is, but say that it is outside your control, there is no point in arguing.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg421597.html#msg421597
"Liar - that's the picture I saved and it was saved exactly the way you posted it. If anyone cropped it YOU DID!"
You are in a bad position to be making snarky comments concerning other people's mental health. When you denied cropping David's photograph of Sheila's foot and accused him of lying, I thought you must have flipped, since what he was saying was obviously true and it was equally obvious that you were lying.
When confronted with the EXIF data that proved beyond question that she did indeed edit the photo. She admitted to doing it but denied the reasons for why she did. Neither did she apologise for calling me a liar.
For someone that is apparently "tech savy" It was a very foolish thing of her to do. The fact she didn't know her actions would be logged in a files metadata only shows her aptitude in computers does not exceed that of a 1st line helpdesk.
-
When confronted with the EXIF data that proved beyond question that she did indeed edit the photo. She admitted to doing it but denied the reasons for why she did. Neither did she apologise for calling me a liar.
For someone that is apparently "tech savy" It was a very foolish thing of her to do. The fact she didn't know her actions would be logged in a files metadata only shows her aptitude in computers does not exceed that of a 1st line helpdesk.
Not for one moment do I expect you will accept anything I say regarding Caroline's technical abilities -and, indeed qualifications- but I suggest, rather than taking every opportunity to further any agenda you might have, and to mitigate your own sly dealings, to slag her off, you have a word with NGB who knows exactly what her capabilities are.
-
Not for one moment do I expect you will accept anything I say regarding Caroline's technical abilities -and, indeed qualifications- but I suggest, rather than taking every opportunity to further any agenda you might have, and to mitigate your own sly dealings, to slag her off, you have a word with NGB who knows exactly what her capabilities are.
I used to work as an IT coordinator for a medium sized company. Doing 1st,2nd and 3rd line. On the odd occasion I would interview job applicants for IT roles as well as fire people in my department.
I think I can ascertain someone's level of technical Know-how. I don't need to ask NGB. However he is welcome to ask me.
-
I used to work as an IT coordinator for a medium sized company. Doing 1st,2nd and 3rd line. On the odd occasion I would interview job applicants for IT roles as well as fire people in my department.
I think I can ascertain someone's level of technical Know-how. I don't need to ask NGB. However he is welcome to ask me.
I guess "used to work" is relevant? Your ability to "ascertain" THUS far, and most certainly so, in this case, has often been, shall we say, flawed. As it's you who are attempting to cast doubts on Caroline's competency -not the first time you've done this, if I recall?- and NGB has, and HAS had every reason to have complete faith in her abilities and competency, I can't imagine what it might be that you believe "he's welcome to ask".....................unless, of course, you're seeking -not for the first time- to use underhand means to undermine her in the hope that NGB will ask you to replace her. From your behaviours, past and current, towards her, you appear to have set yourself up as A) being in contest with her, and B) as being superior to her
-
When confronted with the EXIF data that proved beyond question that she did indeed edit the photo. She admitted to doing it but denied the reasons for why she did. Neither did she apologise for calling me a liar.
For someone that is apparently "tech savy" It was a very foolish thing of her to do. The fact she didn't know her actions would be logged in a files metadata only shows her aptitude in computers does not exceed that of a 1st line helpdesk.
I did crop it you bag full of nutty slack - I cropped it to make the point in the post that went with it! Crack pot!
-
I used to work as an IT coordinator for a medium sized company. Doing 1st,2nd and 3rd line. On the odd occasion I would interview job applicants for IT roles as well as fire people in my department.
I think I can ascertain someone's level of technical Know-how. I don't need to ask NGB. However he is welcome to ask me.
You're full of shit and live in a dream world David. It's clear that you would like to get your hands on an admin role - one has to wonder why?
-
I used to work as an IT coordinator for a medium sized company. Doing 1st,2nd and 3rd line. On the odd occasion I would interview job applicants for IT roles as well as fire people in my department.
I think I can ascertain someone's level of technical Know-how. I don't need to ask NGB. However he is welcome to ask me.
I was part of a team of seven that took on the role of taking over the WHOLE of the DWP upgrade from dumb terminals to networked PC's using windows. I can also ascertain someone's level of technical Know-how because it was my job! I was also a navigator on a seismic survey vessel - not only installing the high tech equipment on board the ship but using the high tech steer technology to drive the ship over the survey grid! You're a little man with big ideas but most of them are dream't up and and live within the confines of your bedroom - dream on little man!
-
When confronted with the EXIF data that proved beyond question that she did indeed edit the photo. She admitted to doing it but denied the reasons for why she did. Neither did she apologise for calling me a liar.
For someone that is apparently "tech savy" It was a very foolish thing of her to do. The fact she didn't know her actions would be logged in a files metadata only shows her aptitude in computers does not exceed that of a 1st line helpdesk.
Tell me again, what was the reason for me editing a photograph of toe nails that were freely available on the forum? Idiot! More paranoid tales from the forum freak!
-
OK, I didn't know that about needing to do an internal search from the main page, but you have not given any explanation for the obvious degradation when it comes to google results. This is a major inconvienience to some people and it is something you are fully aware of, since it has been confirmed by other members.
If you are going to pretend there is no difference, or admit that there is, but say that it is outside your control, there is no point in arguing.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg421597.html#msg421597
"Liar - that's the picture I saved and it was saved exactly the way you posted it. If anyone cropped it YOU DID!"
You are in a bad position to be making snarky comments concerning other people's mental health. When you denied cropping David's photograph of Sheila's foot and accused him of lying, I thought you must have flipped, since what he was saying was obviously true and it was equally obvious that you were lying.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9904.msg453087.html#msg453087
"Funny how those who believe Bamber to be innocent are willing to believe that Jones lied about everything else, but find it hard to believe that me might just have missed checking this window properly and not come clean. He framed an innocent man but wouldn't ever not admit to the window? Hmmmmm - dubious behaviour!."
Your behaviour just keeps getting worse. You recently pretended to confuse DS Stan Jones with DCI Taff Jones for the purpose of smearing Taff. There is no way that that was an honest mistake
The reason you can get away with this stuff is that Nbg tolerates it and basically lets you do anything you like.
I have asked the opinion of an administrator of another site and she said that any moderator who removed quotes from other people's posts for personal reasons would be sacked immediately.
So, because you don't have the ability to use the search facility correctly, you drag up some nonsense from David who had a grudge because i called him out on his so called 'forensic breakthrough'? Really Harry, learn to be more humble and apologise when you have made incorrect accusations that are down to your own ineptitude.
-
I have no idea why google search results are poor (if indeed they are). I will ask Caroline as she is the tech admin for the site. If there is a problem and an easy fix no doubt it can be dealt with. I am not sure what you are suggesting might be the ulterior motive of the admin team here.
Google has nothing to do with the forum. Some people are just to paranoid and shouldn't use the internet. ;D ;D
-
I guess "used to work" is relevant? Your ability to "ascertain" THUS far, and most certainly so, in this case, has often been, shall we say, flawed. As it's you who are attempting to cast doubts on Caroline's competency -not the first time you've done this, if I recall?- and NGB has, and HAS had every reason to have complete faith in her abilities and competency, I can't imagine what it might be that you believe "he's welcome to ask".....................unless, of course, you're seeking -not for the first time- to use underhand means to undermine her in the hope that NGB will ask you to replace her. From your behaviours, past and current, towards her, you appear to have set yourself up as A) being in contest with her, and B) as being superior to her
(https://i.ibb.co/7rFXk6Q/1531011138laughing-emoji-png-1.png)
Seriously? Use underhanded means to obtain an unpaid position nobody else will volunteer for? Makes perfect sense not!
I still do freelance IT consultancy on the odd occasion for friends if they ask me to but I don't do it for free.
Besides any technical assistance for this site is covered by our hosting provider contract they are obliged to ensure up-time and technical assistance. 99% of what Caroline does is call the hosting providers helpdesk and ask whats wrong once in a blue moon when something is wrong. Anyone can do that. The whole Zoso thing seems to be a position that was invented for Caroline and reduntant from its inception. So if there is anything underhanded going on here its the whole Zoso business.
-
You know what I'm talking about. Tell us that the poor google results are down to the fact that the site has not been registered properly, or deny that that is case and give us another explanation.
David1819 says it would only cost a tenner to sort out the registration problem, so why is nothing being done?
It can actually be resolved for free. However the amount of time it would take to implement the free solution does not justify saving £10.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/7rFXk6Q/1531011138laughing-emoji-png-1.png)
Seriously? Use underhanded means to obtain an unpaid position nobody else will volunteer for? Makes perfect sense not!
I still do freelance IT consultancy on the odd occasion for friends if they ask me to but I don't do it for free.
Besides any technical assistance for this site is covered by our hosting provider contract they are obliged to ensure up-time and technical assistance. 99% of what Caroline does is call the hosting providers helpdesk and ask whats wrong once in a blue moon when something is wrong. Anyone can do that. The whole Zoso thing seems to be a position that was invented for Caroline and reduntant from its inception. So if there is anything underhanded going on her its the whole Zoso business.
How do you know and what's more? Why do you know? Why have you looked into what goes on behind the scenes? There is more to it than you have stated but Yes, quite a lot of things are remedied by the help desk because we don't have the ability to correct server failures etc. Please point out where I have denied we have a help desk?
Perhaps while we're trying to play Mr True blue, you can address these conflicting posts? Given that you failed to answer last time it was posted!
That article was one of the first things I ever read about the case after I watched a documentary on JB in late 2014. Still ignorant on the subject I just took it all at face value. I still remember joining this forum a few month later naively thinking you were Jeremy’s "protector". Looking back I cant help but laugh.
The Series of issues you put forward are constructed with innumerable guesses and speculations on your part. Your portraying a prosecuting version of events rather than solid unbiased facts.
I appreciate the effort you make but at the end of the day not you or anyone else can solve the White House Farm murders I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case being swayed one way or another by flimsy circumstantial evidence and opinion I soon realised you would have to have been there that night to be certain of what happened.
I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty. That got me thinking and the more I looked into things the more cracks and holes I found in the prosecution. At the end of the day only Jeremy knows. So if he is innocent there will always be guesses rumors and doubt. If he is guilty he is only one that can effectively solve the case by providing a detailed confession.
-
You know what I'm talking about. Tell us that the poor google results are down to the fact that the site has not been registered properly, or deny that that is case and give us another explanation.
David1819 says it would only cost a tenner to sort out the registration problem, so why is nothing being done?
Given that NGB wasn't the initial person to register the forum but pays for the bloody thing out of the goodness of his heart - you should be ashamed of your attitude! If you want to demand improvements then you pay for it! Some people here make me SICK! David is a shit stirrer who can't answer his own discrepancies such as this one .........
That article was one of the first things I ever read about the case after I watched a documentary on JB in late 2014. Still ignorant on the subject I just took it all at face value. I still remember joining this forum a few month later naively thinking you were Jeremy’s "protector". Looking back I cant help but laugh.
That isn't true is it David? According to this post from Feb 2015, you were well informed on the case - even speaking to TWO lawyers about Jeremy's guilt. Hardly the green horn you're portraying above.
The Series of issues you put forward are constructed with innumerable guesses and speculations on your part. Your portraying a prosecuting version of events rather than solid unbiased facts.
I appreciate the effort you make but at the end of the day not you or anyone else can solve the White House Farm murders I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case being swayed one way or another by flimsy circumstantial evidence and opinion I soon realised you would have to have been there that night to be certain of what happened.
I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty. That got me thinking and the more I looked into things the more cracks and holes I found in the prosecution. At the end of the day only Jeremy knows. So if he is innocent there will always be guesses rumors and doubt. If he is guilty he is only one that can effectively solve the case by providing a detailed confession.
If you want to pin your colours to this idiot, then go ahead but make sure you can explain why he has given two different reasons for his initial interest in the case?
-
I guess "used to work" is relevant? Your ability to "ascertain" THUS far, and most certainly so, in this case, has often been, shall we say, flawed. As it's you who are attempting to cast doubts on Caroline's competency -not the first time you've done this, if I recall?- and NGB has, and HAS had every reason to have complete faith in her abilities and competency, I can't imagine what it might be that you believe "he's welcome to ask".....................unless, of course, you're seeking -not for the first time- to use underhand means to undermine her in the hope that NGB will ask you to replace her. From your behaviours, past and current, towards her, you appear to have set yourself up as A) being in contest with her, and B) as being superior to her
You really do reveal a lot about yourself with these assumptions you make about people Jane. Just because you are from an area famous for family members murdering and framing each other for money does not mean the rest of the country has the same Machiavellian mentality.
-
You really do reveal a lot about yourself with these assumptions you make about people Jane. Just because you are from an area famous for family members murdering and framing each other for money does not mean the rest of the country has the same Machiavellian mentality.
Do you mean Cheetham Hill..
-
You really do reveal a lot about yourself with these assumptions you make about people Jane. Just because you are from an area famous for family members murdering and framing each other for money does not mean the rest of the country has the same Machiavellian mentality.
And you reveal so MUCH more about yourself. The recent posts have NOTHING to do with family -but I can see how you're attempting yet another segway to shift the focus away from your own devious machinations- in fact the thread itself does nothing to suggest otherwise. HOWEVER, as you insist on bringing 'family' into the equation, this 'family' is simply a microcosm of what goes on in families everywhere. There's always one who will sneak on the others and lie through their teeth to worm their way into favour with the family hierarchy in hopes of obtaining the lion's share.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg421597.html#msg421597
"Liar - that's the picture I saved and it was saved exactly the way you posted it. If anyone cropped it YOU DID!"
You are in a bad position to be making snarky comments concerning other people's mental health. When you denied cropping David's photograph of Sheila's foot and accused him of lying, I thought you must have flipped, since what he was saying was obviously true and it was equally obvious that you were lying.
What has this got to do with our search engine rankings? Bit unnecessary and random to bring up unless you fancied stirring the spoon a bit. :-\
-
What has this got to do with our search engine rankings? Bit unnecessary and random to bring up unless you fancied stirring the spoon a bit. :-\
What has the search engine rankings got to do with this thread? A thread YOU initiated! You can't even keep on the topic of your own thread!
-
What has this got to do with our search engine rankings? Bit unnecessary and random to bring up unless you fancied stirring the spoon a bit. :-\
You're in a very bad place to be throwing around accusations like that at others, David. Perhaps they took permissions from your own behaviours?
-
What has this got to do with our search engine rankings? Bit unnecessary and random to bring up unless you fancied stirring the spoon a bit. :-\
What's the point of asking the above when you had already answered it .....
When confronted with the EXIF data that proved beyond question that she did indeed edit the photo. She admitted to doing it but denied the reasons for why she did. Neither did she apologise for calling me a liar.
For someone that is apparently "tech savy" It was a very foolish thing of her to do. The fact she didn't know her actions would be logged in a files metadata only shows her aptitude in computers does not exceed that of a 1st line helpdesk.
Denied reasons why I did? That doesn't even make sense! What you mean is I didn't agree with YOUR reasons. Bit late to accuse someone else of stirring the pot - unless you think it's your role exclusively?
You may bot have seen this so I will ask again!
Why the discrepancy?
That article was one of the first things I ever read about the case after I watched a documentary on JB in late 2014. Still ignorant on the subject I just took it all at face value. I still remember joining this forum a few month later naively thinking you were Jeremy’s "protector". Looking back I cant help but laugh.
The Series of issues you put forward are constructed with innumerable guesses and speculations on your part. Your portraying a prosecuting version of events rather than solid unbiased facts.
I appreciate the effort you make but at the end of the day not you or anyone else can solve the White House Farm murders I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case being swayed one way or another by flimsy circumstantial evidence and opinion I soon realised you would have to have been there that night to be certain of what happened.
I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty. That got me thinking and the more I looked into things the more cracks and holes I found in the prosecution. At the end of the day only Jeremy knows. So if he is innocent there will always be guesses rumors and doubt. If he is guilty he is only one that can effectively solve the case by providing a detailed confession.
-
You're in a very bad place to be throwing around accusations like that at others, David. Perhaps they took permissions from your own behaviours?
Since its a subject that involves me, I am entitled to a say. And since I have now already exacerbated the issue by replying to his post without realising it had no relevance to anything I should redress the issue.
It was a brief squabble two years ago that was quickly resolved. That being Caroline was not going to apologise for calling me a liar over claims she cropped the photo. And I was not going to give her the benefit of the doubt over the explanation she then later gave for cropping the photo.
I think we were both OK leaving it like that. Why someone other than myself or Caroline would bring it up out the blue two years later is any ones guess.
-
I have no idea why google search results are poor (if indeed they are). I will ask Caroline as she is the tech admin for the site. If there is a problem and an easy fix no doubt it can be dealt with. I am not sure what you are suggesting might be the ulterior motive of the admin team here.
There is a huge difference in the results of a google search and it must be down to some significant change for which administrators at this site are responsible whether intentionally or through an oversight.
Before, if I typed in something like "Robert Boutflour Basil Cock fingerprint dust" I would get links to all of Mike Tesko's old threads on the subject. But now I get hardly anything from this site.
Generally speaking, the effect of an action is a good indication of the intention behind it, although sometimes people don't foresee the consequences of what they do.
-
There is a huge difference in the results of a google search and it must be down to some significant change for which administrators at this site are responsible whether intentionally or through an oversight.
Before, if I typed in something like "Robert Boutflour Basil Cock fingerprint dust" I would get links to all of Mike Tesko's old threads on the subject. But now I get hardly anything from this site.
Generally speaking, the effect of an action is a good indication of the intention behind it, although sometimes people don't foresee the consequences of what they do.
Why must we be responsible? You don't know anything about what happens behind the scenes but I can assure you - no one has changed any of the search settings - we simply don't touch it. There may be an issue as a result of a server migration which occurred over a year ago. I will look into it for the sake of other members but I must say, you attitude from start to finish doesn't inspire anyone to want to help you specifically. I think you should apply your last sentence to yourself and stop being so paranoid!
-
Your behaviour just keeps getting worse. You recently pretended to confuse DS Stan Jones with DCI Taff Jones for the purpose of smearing Taff. There is no way that that was an honest mistake
The reason you can get away with this stuff is that Nbg tolerates it and basically lets you do anything you like.
I have asked the opinion of an administrator of another site and she said that any moderator who removed quotes from other people's posts for personal reasons would be sacked immediately.
I've just read this bit, skimmed over your full rant because quite frankly, I couldn't be bothered to read it. However, why could I not have made an honest mistake about which Jones checked the windows? I did think it was Stan Jones - so shoot me - I got something WRONG! Not for the first time and certainly not for the last! I actually think it's more likely that Taff didn't check them properly because he wasn't there long enough - which is probably why I thought it was Stan Jones who checked!
For the record, I removed my OWN quotes, at the time it was probably in temper due to the constant reposting of things I said when I believed Bamber innocent. I wounder if your Administrator mate has had to put up with some of the BS that we have had to put up with over the years - from people like you who think it's OK to hurl accusations around, make assumptions about things they aren't involved in - rather than to simply ASK! You seem to be implying that we have altered the search facility in order to stop you from reading certain material - that is completely absurd and frankly laughable. Like I said, I will make some inquiries IN MY SPARE TIME (WE DON'T GET PAID FOR THIS!) and will let you know. Have a nice bank holiday won't you! :P
-
(https://i.ibb.co/7rFXk6Q/1531011138laughing-emoji-png-1.png)
Seriously? Use underhanded means to obtain an unpaid position nobody else will volunteer for? Makes perfect sense not!
I still do freelance IT consultancy on the odd occasion for friends if they ask me to but I don't do it for free.
Besides any technical assistance for this site is covered by our hosting provider contract they are obliged to ensure up-time and technical assistance. 99% of what Caroline does is call the hosting providers helpdesk and ask whats wrong once in a blue moon when something is wrong. Anyone can do that. The whole Zoso thing seems to be a position that was invented for Caroline and reduntant from its inception. So if there is anything underhanded going on here its the whole Zoso business.
Actually David, it makes PERFECT sense given your predilection for digging into peoples' past posts to see if you can find some dirt to smear them with. EXACTLY what you've spent weeks doing -and given the chance, if you though you could get away with it, would probably still do- remind me, can you, of how many hours you must have spent digging through Caroline's posts. The Zosa "thing" was simply the means by which the administrator could be separate from the poster. That you claim it to have been something "invented" for her, suggests it to be something you begrudge her having? It most certainly IS, like so many other voluntary and unpaid positions, one which relies heavily on a person's integrity. By your deviousness you have proved that, as this is an area in which you are sadly lacking, you cannot be trusted.
-
Since its a subject that involves me, I am entitled to a say. And since I have now already exacerbated the issue by replying to his post without realising it had no relevance to anything I should redress the issue.
It was a brief squabble two years ago that was quickly resolved. That being Caroline was not going to apologise for calling me a liar over claims she cropped the photo. And I was not going to give her the benefit of the doubt over the explanation she then later gave for cropping the photo.
I think we were both OK leaving it like that. Why someone other than myself or Caroline would bring it up out the blue two years later is any ones guess.
Actually, David, what you refer to as "a brief squabble" and "quickly resolved" appears to have been rather more -in fact, MUCH more- and given that you appear to have taken every opportunity since to undermine her, suggests, for you, it wasn't. I fully see WHY she wouldn't apologize for calling you a liar. I also see why you'd refuse to give her the benefit of doubt.
-
Whatever JaneJ
If you have nothing better to do on a Sunday morning than stir up crap, fine. But I am not taking any notice of it.
-
Whatever JaneJ
If you have nothing better to do on a Sunday morning than stir up crap, fine. But I am not taking any notice of it.
Stirring up crap is your own particular talent, David. However, I appear to have touched a nerve.
-
I am not the one who mysteriously changed my mind about everything along with Caroline and conman Paul Harrison and been dishonest ever since.
The one who did is in no position to accuse me of questionable behaviour. ::)
-
I am not the one who mysteriously changed my mind about everything along with Caroline and conman Paul Harrison and been dishonest ever since.
The one who did is in no position to accuse me of questionable behaviour. ::)
Well actually David, yes you are - you like to be all things to all people which is evident from how you have described your initial interests in the case. To Scipio, (who you were trying to score points against), you had studied the case in detail, coming to conclusions after a long while
The Series of issues you put forward are constructed with innumerable guesses and speculations on your part. Your portraying a prosecuting version of events rather than solid unbiased facts.
I appreciate the effort you make but at the end of the day not you or anyone else can solve the White House Farm murders I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case being swayed one way or another by flimsy circumstantial evidence and opinion I soon realised you would have to have been there that night to be certain of what happened.
I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty. That got me thinking and the more I looked into things the more cracks and holes I found in the prosecution. At the end of the day only Jeremy knows. So if he is innocent there will always be guesses rumors and doubt. If he is guilty he is only one that can effectively solve the case by providing a detailed confession.
And then this recent entry while trying to suck up to NGB in order to get him to reveal his issues with PH - complete opposite of the above statements ......
That article was one of the first things I ever read about the case after I watched a documentary on JB in late 2014. Still ignorant on the subject I just took it all at face value. I still remember joining this forum a few month later naively thinking you were Jeremy’s "protector". Looking back I cant help but laugh.
This has revealed your dishonestly and how you try and manipulate members for your own ends. This and comments such as 'others here agree with me' 'others have sent me PM's about you' (me) 'Others sent me links to your posts'. Also, how you conspired to have Scipio banned and tracked him down on Youtube. Calling Holly and alcoholic because she didn't think much of your 'forensic breakthrough' and then insinuation she had mental health issues. Something you also did to me when I PROVED that someone I know was taking haloperidol - it was my mum by the way, she has vascular dementia but thanks for staying true to form - and that's NOT a compliment!
Still waiting for you to address the above discrepancy - ignoring it doesn't make it go away!
-
I am not the one who mysteriously changed my mind about everything along with Caroline and conman Paul Harrison and been dishonest ever since.
The one who did is in no position to accuse me of questionable behaviour. ::)
And here, for all to see, is yet another of your dubious talents. Seeking to hide what you've done by redirecting that for which you have responsibility. Not only did you change direction, you kept it hidden by pointing the finger at Caroline and me when we both openly admitted to having done so. From how you write, you considered US to be dishonest then, and "dishonest ever since". It's interesting that it's YOU who have dragged this up. Could it be, having gone through your repertoire of concocted lies about us, you're having to scrape the bottom of the barrel? You've gone WAY too far to try to claim innocence for yourself.
-
And here, for all to see, is yet another of your dubious talents. Seeking to hide what you've done by redirecting that for which you have responsibility. Not only did you change direction, you kept it hidden by pointing the finger at Caroline and me when we both openly admitted to having done so. From how you write, you considered US to be dishonest then, and "dishonest ever since". It's interesting that it's YOU who have dragged this up. Could it be, having gone through your repertoire of concocted lies about us, you're having to scrape the bottom of the barrel? You've gone WAY too far to try to claim innocence for yourself.
Eh iv'e explained what ever change of mind I had in this case -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855)
You and Caroline never have explained yourselves because you are both too embarrassed to admit you got duped by Paul Harrison. Keeping up the facade five years later does not achieve anything since its obvious to all what happened..
-
Eh iv'e explained what ever change of mind I had in this case -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855)
You and Caroline never have explained yourselves because you are both too embarrassed to admit you got duped by Paul Harrison. Keeping up the facade five years later does not achieve anything since its obvious to all what happened..
I've posted loads of times why I changed my mind but you trying to turn the tables after your pathetic excuse the other day is laughable. You try to be all things to all people like your reply to Scipio and later NGB. You've been caught out - DEAL WITH IT!
-
Eh iv'e explained what ever change of mind I had in this case -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855)
You and Caroline never have explained yourselves because you are both too embarrassed to admit you got duped by Paul Harrison. Keeping up the facade five years later does not achieve anything since its obvious to all what happened..
Oh, I know what you've said, but I've not had any cause to believe that any of what you say resembles truth. I see you're projecting here, your penchant for 'brown nosing' onto Caroline and me -I suppose you're going to say next -given that it takes one to know one- that you knew right from the beginning, that PH was up to no good? It's probably fair to say that Caroline and I were no more "duped" by him than any other poster who may have been hoping for great things from him. As for my own involvement, I believe I posted to him once. I had no other involvement with him than most other posters. I certainly didn't send him an email telling him I could do things for him!!! But, given your predilection for poking your nose into past posts, you probably already know that. You recently accused me of "shit stirring". BIG projection going on here, isn't there? Here's you, trying to worm your way out of your own cheating, lying duplicity by dumping onto Caroline and me. Have you never heard that when you're in a hole you should stop digging/
-
Eh iv'e explained what ever change of mind I had in this case -
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855)
You and Caroline never have explained yourselves because you are both too embarrassed to admit you got duped by Paul Harrison. Keeping up the facade five years later does not achieve anything since its obvious to all what happened..
Of course, it never occurred to Caroline and Jane that they would have to justify or explains themselves because they thought Paul Harrison's book was going to do all the talking for them. However once the book was released it quickly became obvious it was all a pack of lies.
With dumb and dumber now left to their own devices. The sensible thing to do would be to admit to being bamboozled like everyone else who's done dealings with this disgraceful man. But not these two, they then decide to waste five years of their lives selling the same dead horse PH sold them.
-
Did you buy his book David ?
-
Did you buy his book David ?
No. Fortunately the feedback from people on here prevented me from ever doing so. :)
-
Of course, it never occurred to Caroline and Jane that they would have to justify or explains themselves because they thought Paul Harrison's book was going to do all the talking for them. However once the book was released it quickly became obvious it was all a pack of lies.
With dumb and dumber now left to their own devices. The sensible thing to do would be to admit to being bamboozled like everyone else who's done dealings with this disgraceful man. But not these two, they then decide to waste five years of their lives selling the same dead horse PH sold them.
See, here you go again. Offloading your own VERY wrongdoings and pointing your own guilty fingers at those who made a very human mistake. After all, we gave you the benefit of doubt when you first joined and you've turned out to be as as big a disgrace as the person you're accusing. Let's look at the list -thus far and that which is known of:-
You've rifled through past posts purely to use that information against the poster.
You managed by very devious means to rid the forum of one of the best posters it's ever had and then proceeded with a smear campaign against him.
You stole someone else's research and put it out as your own.
You've implied -by omission- that it will possibly be used in a new submission.
You, wrongly, accused a senior member of another forum an alcoholic, MORE! you claimed she had dementia.
You claimed that I and Caroline were involved in a sexual relationship.........................
.........................These are just the things I know about, David. I have NO doubts that someone who would stoop SO low to try to make himself top of a forum pile, will stop at NOTHING to put elsewhere the blame for their own DISGRACEFUL behaviour. After all your hard work, you certainly deserve to be at the top of the heap.......................of the pile of shit of your own making.
-
Of course, it never occurred to Caroline and Jane that they would have to justify or explains themselves because they thought Paul Harrison's book was going to do all the talking for them. However once the book was released it quickly became obvious it was all a pack of lies.
With dumb and dumber now left to their own devices. The sensible thing to do would be to admit to being bamboozled like everyone else who's done dealings with this disgraceful man. But not these two, they then decide to waste five years of their lives selling the same dead horse PH sold them.
The sensible thing for you to do is admit you lied to NGB in order to get him to write about PH. Instead, you're doing what you usually do and are trying to turn the tables.
You have been told by Maggie that I changed my mind about Bamber long before I revealed it on the forum but your nasty narcissistic little self is trying to seek some revenge for being outed and you have been OUTED! ;D ;D ;D ;D.
In a post to Scipio when he is trying to sound like a Bamber authority David write the following;
The Series of issues you put forward are constructed with innumerable guesses and speculations on your part. Your portraying a prosecuting version of events rather than solid unbiased facts.
I appreciate the effort you make but at the end of the day not you or anyone else can solve the White House Farm murders I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case being swayed one way or another by flimsy circumstantial evidence and opinion I soon realised you would have to have been there that night to be certain of what happened.
I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty. That got me thinking and the more I looked into things the more cracks and holes I found in the prosecution. At the end of the day only Jeremy knows. So if he is innocent there will always be guesses rumors and doubt. If he is guilty he is only one that can effectively solve the case by providing a detailed confession.
In a post replying to NGB 4 years LATER, David writes;
That article was one of the first things I ever read about the case after I watched a documentary on JB in late 2014. Still ignorant on the subject I just took it all at face value. I still remember joining this forum a few month later naively thinking you were Jeremy’s "protector". Looking back I cant help but laugh.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The sensible thing for you to do is admit you lied to NGB in order to get him to write about PH. Instead, you're doing what you usually do and are trying to turn the tables.
You have been told by Maggie that I changed my mind about Bamber long before I revealed it on the forum but your nasty narcissistic little self is trying to seek some revenge for being outed and you have been OUTED! ;D ;D ;D ;D.
In a post to Scipio when he is trying to sound like a Bamber authority David write the following;
In a post replying to NGB 4 years LATER, David writes;
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Amusing that the Narcissist in him just can't grasp that the more he tries to lay guilt on others, the more they'll be aware of his guilt. I wonder if he's ever heard of the guy who wrote his mother, from the front, that when it came to drill time, everyone but he, was out of step? I wonder if they're related?
-
Of course, it never occurred to Caroline and Jane that they would have to justify or explains themselves because they thought Paul Harrison's book was going to do all the talking for them. However once the book was released it quickly became obvious it was all a pack of lies.
With dumb and dumber now left to their own devices. The sensible thing to do would be to admit to being bamboozled like everyone else who's done dealings with this disgraceful man. But not these two, they then decide to waste five years of their lives selling the same dead horse PH sold them.
Of course It's never too late to admit you were wrong, Better late than never. Caroline and Jane do not have to subject themselves to being Paul Harrison residue forever.
-
Of course It's never too late to admit you were wrong, Better late than never. Caroline and Jane do not have to subject themselves to being Paul Harrison residue forever.
More switcheroo tactics from the forum bullshitter - by the way, I realised that your report isn't unique. Alias did something quite similar long before you joined the forum - You must have seen it? ;D ;D ;D ;D
What are you today David? A novice or an expert? ::) People are become wise to you!
-
Of course It's never too late to admit you were wrong, Better late than never. Caroline and Jane do not have to subject themselves to being Paul Harrison residue forever.
You don't HAVE to brown-nose your way through life, but if that's what you enjoy?.....................
-
You don't HAVE to brown-nose your way through life, but if that's what you enjoy?.....................
The stupidity of his post is only out done by the pathetic excuse he posted yesterday in explanation for the two quotes below ;D ;D ;D
The Series of issues you put forward are constructed with innumerable guesses and speculations on your part. Your portraying a prosecuting version of events rather than solid unbiased facts.
I appreciate the effort you make but at the end of the day not you or anyone else can solve the White House Farm murders I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case being swayed one way or another by flimsy circumstantial evidence and opinion I soon realised you would have to have been there that night to be certain of what happened.
I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty. That got me thinking and the more I looked into things the more cracks and holes I found in the prosecution. At the end of the day only Jeremy knows. So if he is innocent there will always be guesses rumors and doubt. If he is guilty he is only one that can effectively solve the case by providing a detailed confession.
That article was one of the first things I ever read about the case after I watched a documentary on JB in late 2014. Still ignorant on the subject I just took it all at face value. I still remember joining this forum a few month later naively thinking you were Jeremy’s "protector". Looking back I cant help but laugh.
-
The stupidity of his post is only out done by the pathetic excuse he posted yesterday in explanation for the two quotes below ;D ;D ;D
Perhaps he imagines he's so clever, that rather than back down, he thinks no one will notice what a conniving liar he is if he directs inflammatory posts against us. Actually, when one thinks how trivial is the 'crime' he accuses us of -forming the wrong opinion of someone (he overlooks that we've admitted it)- compared to the whole CATALOGUE of his own dishonest behaviours, it's really hardly worth a mention.
-
Of course It's never too late to admit you were wrong, Better late than never. Caroline and Jane do not have to subject themselves to being Paul Harrison residue forever.
Less than two month after Paul Harrison began to confide in people that his book was changing narrative, Caroline and Jane begin to change their tune also. What then followed was the walletgate charade and the last trailer travesty.
While Paul Harrison was saying this -
"Mr Harrison said his book will "finally bring closure" and prove Bamber's guilt beyond doubt when it is published ahead of the 30th anniversary of the slayings next August."
Caroline was saying this about him -
My dealings with MD have simply been an exchange of ideas and I have ALWAYS found him to be an honest and honorable man.
What exchange of ideas was this? Its no coincidence they both advance a guilt narrative with no silencer and both prepared to argue for Sheila being an accomplice.
There is no question as to what made Caroline and Jane change their minds, the truth here explains why we never get a straight answer from them as to what did. I know it, they know it and anyone that was on the forum during that period could work that out. I must emphasize that PH being a seasoned con man he is to blame here nobody else.
The question that remains is how much longer will they keep up the facade? What can it possibly achieve? Maggie and Susan reluctantly went along and purchased the dead horse for a while and that's about all it ever did achieve. Some 30,000 contradictory and toxic forum posts is not an achievement.
Will they go on for yet another five years all because they cant admit they got duped? ;D
-
The " freelibrary " online told/tells a different story as the heading shows " Book cop I'll show Bamber Innocent " .
A controversial new book claims that Jeremy Bamber was wrongly convicted of murdering his family.
" His conviction is unsound " " There has been a miscarriage of Justice of that I'm sure ".
Strange words coming from someone who'd thought him guilty as sin ?
-
Less than two month after Paul Harrison began to confide in people that his book was changing narrative, Caroline and Jane begin to change their tune also. What then followed was the walletgate charade and the last trailer travesty.
While Paul Harrison was saying this -
"Mr Harrison said his book will "finally bring closure" and prove Bamber's guilt beyond doubt when it is published ahead of the 30th anniversary of the slayings next August."
Caroline was saying this about him -
What exchange of ideas was this? Its no coincidence they both advance a guilt narrative with no silencer and both prepared to argue for Sheila being an accomplice.
There is no question as to what made Caroline and Jane change their minds, the truth here explains why we never get a straight answer from them as to what did. I know it, they know it and anyone that was on the forum during that period could work that out. I must emphasize that PH being a seasoned con man he is to blame here nobody else.
The question that remains is how much longer will they keep up the facade? What can it possibly achieve? Maggie and Susan reluctantly went along and purchased the dead horse for a while and that's about all it ever did achieve. Some 30,000 contradictory and toxic forum posts is not an achievement.
Will they go on for yet another five years all because they cant admit they got duped? ;D
You are so transparent it's unbelievable ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D - caught banged to rights in a lie David tries to turn the tables with his obsession with PH. Instead of wasting your time trying to be a detective (because you ave shown you have zero abilities with that), perhaps you might come up with a better explanation of why you lied to NGB?
The Series of issues you put forward are constructed with innumerable guesses and speculations on your part. Your portraying a prosecuting version of events rather than solid unbiased facts.
I appreciate the effort you make but at the end of the day not you or anyone else can solve the White House Farm murders I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case being swayed one way or another by flimsy circumstantial evidence and opinion I soon realised you would have to have been there that night to be certain of what happened.
I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty. That got me thinking and the more I looked into things the more cracks and holes I found in the prosecution. At the end of the day only Jeremy knows. So if he is innocent there will always be guesses rumors and doubt. If he is guilty he is only one that can effectively solve the case by providing a detailed confession.
That article was one of the first things I ever read about the case after I watched a documentary on JB in late 2014. Still ignorant on the subject I just took it all at face value. I still remember joining this forum a few month later naively thinking you were Jeremy’s "protector". Looking back I cant help but laugh.
-
The " freelibrary " online told/tells a different story as the heading shows " Book cop I'll show Bamber Innocent " .
A controversial new book claims that Jeremy Bamber was wrongly convicted of murdering his family.
" His conviction is unsound " " There has been a miscarriage of Justice of that I'm sure ".
Strange words coming from someone who'd thought him guilty as sin ?
His book was from the outset was going to be strongly from an innocent perspective. He said that he had attended the trial and always knew that there was something dodgy about EP's handling of the case.
He said that Taff Jones had been very badly treated. This all changed at the beginning of February 2014.
He had a big bust up with the CT and no longer had access to case materials. At the same time he claimed that two months earlier he had received the letter from an ex con who had known JB in prison. However, during the two months following the alleged receipt of this letter he had continued his original stance on the case. It was only the row with the CT that caused him to reverse his position.
-
His book was from the outset was going to be strongly from an innocent perspective. He said that he had attended the trial and always knew that there was something dodgy about EP's handling of the case.
He said that Taff Jones had been very badly treated. This all changed at the beginning of February 2014.
He had a big bust up with the CT and no longer had access to case materials. At the same time he claimed that two months earlier he had received the letter from an ex con who had known JB in prison. However, during the two months following the alleged receipt of this letter he had continued his original stance on the case. It was only the row with the CT that caused him to reverse his position.
He also announced in December of 2013 that his book was now being delayed due to "legal reasons".
We cannot even know for sure if his original intentions for the book was ever true or not. It could have all been a facade to get info from this forum and the CT for all we know. Its unlikely he ever held a personal opinion on the case. And that he was just going by whatever narrative was most convenient to him and any change of narrative was down to what suited him best.
I have said before that If he did intend on publish a pro innocent book, Its actually a blessing that he never did. Because undoubtedly it would have backfired on Jeremy. The situation with PH now actually does Jeremy a favour ironically.
-
Less than two month after Paul Harrison began to confide in people that his book was changing narrative, Caroline and Jane begin to change their tune also. What then followed was the walletgate charade and the last trailer travesty.
While Paul Harrison was saying this -
"Mr Harrison said his book will "finally bring closure" and prove Bamber's guilt beyond doubt when it is published ahead of the 30th anniversary of the slayings next August."
Caroline was saying this about him -
What exchange of ideas was this? Its no coincidence they both advance a guilt narrative with no silencer and both prepared to argue for Sheila being an accomplice.
There is no question as to what made Caroline and Jane change their minds, the truth here explains why we never get a straight answer from them as to what did. I know it, they know it and anyone that was on the forum during that period could work that out. I must emphasize that PH being a seasoned con man he is to blame here nobody else.
The question that remains is how much longer will they keep up the facade? What can it possibly achieve? Maggie and Susan reluctantly went along and purchased the dead horse for a while and that's about all it ever did achieve. Some 30,000 contradictory and toxic forum posts is not an achievement.
Will they go on for yet another five years all because they cant admit they got duped? ;D
You know, the ability to bear grudges is a particularly ugly trait, David -how totally pathetic that you have to drag into this a poster who hasn't been on the forum for years. More digging through past posts?- I find it amusing that you fail to see the close similarities between yourself and PH. What Caroline once said of HIM -"honest and honorable"- was something, at one time, we gave you the benefit of being. We were as incorrect about you as we were about PH. Whatever you may think you know about how WE may have thought can only be within your own frame of reference, fueled by your own deviousness and lies, as are those toxic post to which you refer.
You have yet to make it known what it is you believe we should confess to that we haven't already. We -and MANY others- were fooled by PH......................but in all likelihood, were also fooled by you.
-
You know, the ability to bear grudges is a particularly ugly trait, David -how totally pathetic that you have to drag into this a poster who hasn't been on the forum for years. More digging through past posts?- I find it amusing that you fail to see the close similarities between yourself and PH. What Caroline once said of HIM -"honest and honorable"- was something, at one time, we gave you the benefit of being. We were as incorrect about you as we were about PH. Whatever you may think you know about how WE may have thought can only be within your own frame of reference, fueled by your own deviousness and lies, as are those toxic post to which you refer.
You have yet to make it known what it is you believe we should confess to that we haven't already. We -and MANY others- were fooled by PH......................but in all likelihood, were also fooled by you.
Totally hold my hand to to being fooled by PH but I have never been fooled by David.
-
He also announced in December of 2013 that his book was now being delayed due to "legal reasons".
We cannot even know for sure if his original intentions for the book was ever true or not. It could have all been a facade to get info from this forum and the CT for all we know. Its unlikely he ever held a personal opinion on the case. And that he was just going by whatever narrative was most convenient to him and any change of narrative was down to what suited him best.
I have said before that If he did intend on publish a pro innocent book, Its actually a blessing that he never did. Because undoubtedly it would have backfired on Jeremy. The situation with PH now actually does Jeremy a favour ironically.
The book has no impact on Bamber at all and CAL’S book had him banged to rights. A book that is as good as if not better than Wilkes. Weren’t you bragging about writing a book? That being the case, the PH book can at least move from the Worst position to make room for yours but like your great breakthrough I’m sure it will only ever have influence in your own imagination ;D.
-
Didn't Paul Harrison say Sheila was an accomplice?
As stated Sheila almost certainly slept through the shootings of Daniel, Nicholas, June & Nevill. The only evidenced noise was a brief but brutal fight in the downstairs kitchen.
It is claimed June would have screamed after being shot 5 times. There is no evidence she did or that this woke Sheila.
If Sheila did wake & get out of bed after Daniel, Nicholas, Nevill and June had been shot/killed, there was nothing she could do.
-
His book was from the outset was going to be strongly from an innocent perspective. He said that he had attended the trial and always knew that there was something dodgy about EP's handling of the case.
He said that Taff Jones had been very badly treated. This all changed at the beginning of February 2014.
He had a big bust up with the CT and no longer had access to case materials. At the same time he claimed that two months earlier he had received the letter from an ex con who had known JB in prison. However, during the two months following the alleged receipt of this letter he had continued his original stance on the case. It was only the row with the CT that caused him to reverse his position.
To be honest, I’m not sure he even had started the book when he first arrived here, nor any idea of where to go with it. I think it ended up being what it is because he ran out of time with the publisher. Who knows though what motivated him - arrogance? The need to make a living? Whatever his motives, he’s been caught out and his career is over. He angered a lot of people here but as David wasn’t even a member then, his interest seems more like muck raking and he must have some sneck because it’s into everything! Pity he doesn’t understand when he himself has been caught out.
-
Didn't Paul Harrison say Sheila was an accomplice?
As stated Sheila almost certainly slept through the shootings of Daniel, Nicholas, June & Nevill. The only evidenced noise was a brief but brutal fight in the downstairs kitchen.
It is claimed June would have screamed after being shot 5 times. There is no evidence she did or that this woke Sheila.
If Sheila did wake & get out of bed after Daniel, Nicholas, Nevill and June had been shot/killed, there was nothing she could do.
Yes, he did claim that, which is rubbish - Bamber acted alone.
-
Obviously Nevill would not have stood for any nonsense at 1am. He had just had a long day.on the farm & had another long day coming up. Ditto Bamber who is last person he would phone.
Sheila being bare footed in a nightie at 1am, holding a rifle for shooting rabbits, would instantly be negated.
-
Obviously Nevill would not have stood for any nonsense at 1am. He had just had a long day.on the farm & had another long day coming up. Ditto Bamber who is last person he would phone.
Sheila being bare footed in a nightie at 1am, holding a rifle for shooting rabbits, would instantly be negated.
Mmm. Well, I expect, in a perfect world, IF Sheila had been standing in front of Nevill with a loaded gun pointed at him, Nevill would have said "Put the gun down, darling" and Sheila would have said All right, Daddy" and complied. However, in reality, I wonder if anyone would take the risk of trying to take a loaded gun from someone who was intent on shooting them? Their only chance may be to push the barrel to one side but fingers on triggers could pre-empt that movement and bullets move remarkably fast.
-
Yes, he did claim that, which is rubbish - Bamber acted alone.
Do you believe Sheila woke & got out of bed mid massacre?
-
Mmm. Well, I expect, in a perfect world, IF Sheila had been standing in front of Nevill with a loaded gun pointed at him, Nevill would have said "Put the gun down, darling" and Sheila would have said All right, Daddy" and complied. However, in reality, I wonder if anyone would take the risk of trying to take a loaded gun from someone who was intent on shooting them? Their only chance may be to push the barrel to one side but fingers on triggers could pre-empt that movement and bullets move remarkably fast.
Sheila holding a shot gun, one bullet going off accidentially could be fatal.
But a rifle for shooting rabbits, Nevill would have no hesitation in quickly resolving things himself.
-
Sheila holding a shot gun, one bullet going off accidentially could be fatal.
But a rifle for shooting rabbits, Nevill would have no hesitation in quickly resolving things himself.
Perhaps you'd better tell us how (you believe) he'd have handled it?
-
Do you believe Sheila woke & got out of bed mid massacre?
Whether she did or didn't, she's equally dead either way, isn't she?
-
Perhaps you'd better tell us how (you believe) he'd have handled it?
Gained control of the rifle. Nevill was 9 inches taller & 8 stone heavier than Sheila. Would only take a few seconds.
-
Sheila holding a shot gun, one bullet going off accidentially could be fatal.
But a rifle for shooting rabbits, Nevill would have no hesitation in quickly resolving things himself.
Why would a trigger finger work any slower on a rifle if one was intent on shooting someone and felt they had a reason for doing so?
-
Gained control of the rifle. Nevill was 9 inches taller & 8 stone heavier than Sheila. Would only take a few seconds.
And how are you explaining he'd do that with, at least, the barrel of the rifle between them? From across a room, every step he took towards the barrel may have been his last....................which may, in fact, have been the beginning of his eventual demise, just the shooter being different.
-
Whether she did or didn't, she's equally dead either way, isn't she?
Some supporters say an awake Sheila would have fought back, but had no injuries. Although fail to say how Sheila avoided getting injuries during the kitchen fight.
-
And how are you explaining he'd do that with, at least, the barrel of the rifle between them? From across a room, every step he took towards the barrel may have been his last....................which may, in fact, have been the beginning of his eventual demise, just the shooter being different.
Nevill would do it at the right time. Unlikely Sheila would get a shot away. If she did, it may miss or just hit Nevill in the torso. Either way, Nevill's got the rifle back & has no or a small injury. It was a rifle for shooting rabbits.
Nevill will protect himself, his wife, grand children & Sheila. He also needed to get some sleep.
-
Some supporters say an awake Sheila would have fought back, but had no injuries. Although fail to say how Sheila avoided getting injuries during the kitchen fight.
Not if Bamber threatened to kill her kids (who were likely to be already dead).
-
His book was from the outset was going to be strongly from an innocent perspective. He said that he had attended the trial and always knew that there was something dodgy about EP's handling of the case.
He said that Taff Jones had been very badly treated. This all changed at the beginning of February 2014.
He had a big bust up with the CT and no longer had access to case materials. At the same time he claimed that two months earlier he had received the letter from an ex con who had known JB in prison. However, during the two months following the alleged receipt of this letter he had continued his original stance on the case. It was only the row with the CT that caused him to reverse his position.
Thankyou for that NGB, I hadn't known about his row with the CT----I wonder what that was all about ?
-
Thankyou for that NGB, I hadn't known about his row with the CT----I wonder what that was all about ?
I believe it was about access to case papers.
-
If I was in Nevill's situation, I would just gain control of the rifle. At what I thought was the appropriate moment. I like my sleep & being kept awake would make me grumpy. The only thing that would worry me was if Sheila was holding a shot gun.
There would be less than a 1% chance of failing to gain control of the rifle. That would result in Sheila being free to committ the massacre. However Bamber would know nothing about this until he arrived for work the following morning, as there is no reason he would be phoned.
-
Nevill would do it at the right time. Unlikely Sheila would get a shot away. If she did, it may miss or just hit Nevill in the torso. Either way, Nevill's got the rifle back & has no or a small injury. It was a rifle for shooting rabbits.
Nevill will protect himself, his wife, grand children & Sheila. He also needed to get some sleep.
So I wonder how such an ineffective fire arm could have been competent enough to kill 5 people? In your make believe scenario, Nevill may well have thought to protect his wife and grandchildren (so we needn't concern ourselves with the technicalities of how he'd have managed to wrest the gun away from Sheila, presumably using both hands in some grim tug of war, before she pulled the trigger ...................and ended up getting killed in the process. Still, in fairy stories anything and everything becomes possible.
-
So I wonder how such an ineffective fire arm could have been competent enough to kill 5 people? In your make believe scenario, Nevill may well have thought to protect his wife and grandchildren (so we needn't concern ourselves with the technicalities of how he'd have managed to wrest the gun away from Sheila, presumably using both hands in some grim tug of war, before she pulled the trigger ...................and ended up getting killed in the process. Still, in fairy stories anything and everything becomes possible.
Well it took 8 bullets & a severe beating to kill Nevill. Six bullets in the head from close range.
Nevill would not be concerned if Sheila was holding a rifle used for shooting rabbits. He would have taken it back. Then perhaps offerred to make a cup of coffee.
-
If I was in Nevill's situation, I would just gain control of the rifle. At what I thought was the appropriate moment. I like my sleep & being kept awake would make me grumpy. The only thing that would worry me was if Sheila was holding a shot gun.
There would be less than a 1% chance of failing to gain control of the rifle. That would result in Sheila being free to committ the massacre. However Bamber would know nothing about this until he arrived for work the following morning, as there is no reason he would be phoned.
Well, you know what they say, Adam. You need to walk a mile in another's shoes to know what it's like to be them, so I guess you'd need to be in a room with someone intent on your death pointing a loaded gun at you. I somehow think you might have a little more than sleep on your mind and I can't be totally certain that you'd show disregard for the fact that the fire arm was a rifle not a shotgun. The situation sounds -FEELS- like the stuff of nightmares to me...................and poor Nevill did actually have to go through it, albeit, the shooter was different.
-
So I wonder how such an ineffective fire arm could have been competent enough to kill 5 people? In your make believe scenario, Nevill may well have thought to protect his wife and grandchildren (so we needn't concern ourselves with the technicalities of how he'd have managed to wrest the gun away from Sheila, presumably using both hands in some grim tug of war, before she pulled the trigger ...................and ended up getting killed in the process. Still, in fairy stories anything and everything becomes possible.
Not sure why there would be a 'tug of war'. Nevill was 9 inches taller & 8 stone heavier than Sheila. He was also a man & fully fit. A few seconds should do it.
-
Well it took 8 bullets & a severe beating to kill Nevill. Six bullets in the head from close range.
Nevill would not be concerned if Sheila was holding a rifle used for shooting rabbits. He would have taken it back. Then perhaps offerred to make a cup of coffee.
Then I guess the best we can hope for him is that he was equally sanguine when faced with Jeremy holding the same firearm, fit for no purpose other than shooting rabbits.
-
Not sure why there would be a 'tug of war'. Nevill was 9 inches taller & 8 stone heavier than Sheila. He was also a man & fully fit. A few seconds should do it.
It would have taken less that "a few seconds" for a bullet to fell him enough to make him vulnerable. He may not have been close enough to the barrel to have had contact with it, by the time he was, if, in your imaginary scenario, he did, it's possible that another bullet would have found it's mark.
-
A fully fit Nevill had no option but to tackle Sheila. To protect himself, his family and Sheila.
Sheila being very weak, un cordinated & with no rifle experience would have made Nevill confident of quickly negating her, so he can go back to bed. Sheila also had a rifle for shooting rabbits, rather than a shot gun.
At that time of night Nevill was never going ring someone 3 miles away to leave a message on his answering machine.
-
You know, the ability to bear grudges is a particularly ugly trait, David (snip)
I don't bear any grudges against anyone. I just find the behaviour of you two utterly pointless and noxious. The root cause of it being PH only means his deceit is still reverberating on the forum FIVE years later. Enough is enough it has to end. It does not achieve anything.
What was the spirit of the forum like before PH joined and left? They say psychopaths leave a trail of devastation and chaos and he has done just that. Having retrospectively read the posts by "Mason Doyle" I must admit he came across as very affable nice guy to everyone. Yet in private communications it was very different story, threatening and abusing at least half a dozen members here. He sounds like the classic psychopath/narcissist we all hear about.
Just for the record I have had Caroline on ignore for the past 20 days (partly for the sake of my sanity) . Any replies I have given her since then is a result of me browsing the forum without logging in and unfortunately seeing what ever she decided to dish up on me for that moment. If she still insists on me lying to NGB for what ever reason then NGB can always summon me to explain myself if he feels lied to. ::)
-
PH was obnoxious and did great harm to the forum. We now know what he was and as Caroline has pointed out his career is now over. That is very good, he was odious and he lied constantly. We will not see him again.
-
I don't bear any grudges against anyone. I just find the behaviour of you two utterly pointless and noxious. The root cause of it being PH only means his deceit is still reverberating on the forum FIVE years later. Enough is enough it has to end. It does not achieve anything.
What was the spirit of the forum like before PH joined and left? They say psychopaths leave a trail of devastation and chaos and he has done just that. Having retrospectively read the posts by "Mason Doyle" I must admit he came across as very affable nice guy to everyone. Yet in private communications it was very different story, threatening and abusing at least half a dozen members here. He sounds like the classic psychopath/narcissist we all hear about.
Just for the record I have had Caroline on ignore for the past 20 days (partly for the sake of my sanity) . Any replies I have given her since then is a result of me browsing the forum without logging in and unfortunately seeing what ever she decided to dish up on me for that moment. If she still insists on me lying to NGB for what ever reason then NGB can always summon me to explain myself if he feels lied to. ::)
The deceit is from you and keep banging on about PH isn't taking the heat off you. You most certainly do bear grudges which is evident from your childish method of posting - PH has nothing to do with myself or April and you have been told there were doubts behind the scenes long before PH decided to write from a guilty perspective or are you calling Maggie a liar? You weren't even a member then so know nothing about it! You sound like a complete fool David, especially your recent pathetic excuse for your conflicting posts.
PH was banned as a member here before you even joined and as such, what went on has sweet FA to do with you. You're one of those people who like to know the far end of a fart. Collecting various bits of info to use on someone later down the line. Don't concern yourself with him his impact didn't involve you so your attempts to sound affronted are incredulous. Lets face it, you only really mention him to stir the shit.
Of course you have had me on ignore David, you ignored the fact that you made a HUGE gaff and I called you out on it, you took days to think of an excuse and when you finally provided one, it was laughable! I certainly believe that you lied, that's evident from the two conflicting accounts - you either lied to NGB or you lied to Scipio - I know which on I believe. I think you thought it might inspire NGB to tell you more about PH but he's probably got you sussed out and has better things to do than quench your thirst for gossip.
-
The root cause of it being PH only means his deceit is still reverberating on the forum FIVE years later. Enough is enough it has to end. It does not achieve anything.
And yet here you are, posting regularly about the man and mentioning his at the drop of a hat!! ;D ;D ;D ;D. Thing is, if YOU didn't keep bringing him up, no one would give him a second thought. Twit!
-
PH was obnoxious and did great harm to the forum. We now know what he was and as Caroline has pointed out his career is now over. That is very good, he was odious and he lied constantly. We will not see him again.
And hopefully he wont be doing this again either. (I hope she got her money back) :-\
(https://i.ibb.co/6vtzv7F/gleeglub.png)
-
I don't bear any grudges against anyone. I just find the behaviour of you two utterly pointless and noxious. The root cause of it being PH only means his deceit is still reverberating on the forum FIVE years later. Enough is enough it has to end. It does not achieve anything.
What was the spirit of the forum like before PH joined and left? They say psychopaths leave a trail of devastation and chaos and he has done just that. Having retrospectively read the posts by "Mason Doyle" I must admit he came across as very affable nice guy to everyone. Yet in private communications it was very different story, threatening and abusing at least half a dozen members here. He sounds like the classic psychopath/narcissist we all hear about.
Just for the record I have had Caroline on ignore for the past 20 days (partly for the sake of my sanity) . Any replies I have given her since then is a result of me browsing the forum without logging in and unfortunately seeing what ever she decided to dish up on me for that moment. If she still insists on me lying to NGB for what ever reason then NGB can always summon me to explain myself if he feels lied to. ::)
So it has to end, does it, David? Then bloody well end it!! ALL of this is down to you. You'd lost your sanity -at the very least, all sense of perspective, well before "the past 20 days", which have been about you trying to twist your way out of a situation of your own making and at each turn revealing yourself as the sneaky, lying rat you are, and just for the record, there's probably no point in NGB "summoning" you to explain yourself because chances are it would be yet another tissue of lies, probably in attempt to put the blame on Caroline and me.
Exactly WHAT is with your obsession with PH? You drag up his name on a daily basis -perhaps it's the only stick you have to poke Caroline with?- but now it appears you weren't even here when it happened!! I'd actually forgotten that he turned up as "Mason Doyle". As for the "trail of devastation and chaos" you accuse him of leaving -and interesting that only NOW do you recognize that "he came across as a very affable and nice guy to everyone"- you're certainly doing your level best to continue it -because, basically, you've involved yourself in a situation which has SOD ALL to do with you in order to take spiteful digs at Caroline, whose knowledge of this case way outstrips your own and I'll hazard a guess that knowing it gnaws away at you on a daily basis, and yet you have the temerity to claim you don't bear grudges! Mmm? All of which suggests that, in your mind -no one else's- PH has become HUGE, the obsession is yours. It's beginning, as you admit to needing to save your sanity, to sound as if it would be a good idea for you to take a break to sort yourself out. Whatever YOU may feel has been "dished out" to you, is no more than your just desserts.
-
A fully fit Nevill had no option but to tackle Sheila. To protect himself, his family and Sheila.
Sheila being very weak, un cordinated & with no rifle experience would have made Nevill confident of quickly negating her, so he can go back to bed. Sheila also had a rifle for shooting rabbits, rather than a shot gun.
At that time of night Nevill was never going ring someone 3 miles away to leave a message on his answering machine.
Okay Adam, if you insist on playing this pointless game, I'll play along with you because it amuses me. Firstly, it IS pointless because neither you nor I believe Sheila confronted Nevill. Secondly, it's pointless because bullets -even those from fire arms ONLY designed, as you insist, for dispatching rabbits- move faster than people, and whilst Jeremy MAY have taken time out to taunt Nevill, Sheila undoubtedly would not have. NOT that it matters, because she wasn't there. As I've previously said, faced with a loaded gun and someone intent on using it, bed would have been the last thing on Nevill's mind, however, I DO agree with you that he most certainly wouldn't have made a phone call to a number which was serviced by an answering machine.
-
So it has to end, does it, David? Then bloody well end it!! ALL of this is down to you. You'd lost your sanity -at the very least, all sense of perspective, well before "the past 20 days", which have been about you trying to twist your way out of a situation of your own making and at each turn revealing yourself as the sneaky, lying rat you are, and just for the record, there's probably no point in NGB "summoning" you to explain yourself because chances are it would be yet another tissue of lies, probably in attempt to put the blame on Caroline and me.
Exactly WHAT is with your obsession with PH? You drag up his name on a daily basis -perhaps it's the only stick you have to poke Caroline with?- but now it appears you weren't even here when it happened!! I'd actually forgotten that he turned up as "Mason Doyle". As for the "trail of devastation and chaos" you accuse him of leaving -and interesting that only NOW do you recognize that "he came across as a very affable and nice guy to everyone"- you're certainly doing your level best to continue it -because, basically, you've involved yourself in a situation which has SOD ALL to do with you in order to take spiteful digs at Caroline, whose knowledge of this case way outstrips your own and I'll hazard a guess that knowing it gnaws away at you on a daily basis, and yet you have the temerity to claim you don't bear grudges! Mmm? All of which suggests that, in your mind -no one else's- PH has become HUGE, the obsession is yours. It's beginning, as you admit to needing to save your sanity, to sound as if it would be a good idea for you to take a break to sort yourself out. Whatever YOU may feel has been "dished out" to you, is no more than your just desserts.
To cut a long story short. If Paul Harrison (Mason Doyle) never came to this forum and never got involved with this case, you and Caroline would still be here arguing for Jeremy's innocence.
Let that sink in.
-
To cut a long story short. If Paul Harrison (Mason Doyle) never came to this forum and never got involved with this case, you and Caroline would still be here arguing for Jeremy's innocence.
Let that sink in.
You certainly have the knack -down to a fine art- of making two and two make five. How, in God's name, given that you weren't even there, can you presume to know what we, or anyone else, for that matter, thought, mulled over privately, or discussed? Why is the fact that Caroline and I changed our minds, and owning it, SO much more comment-worthy, than you changing yours and trying to keep it hidden? MORE! wtf has it to do with you, anyway, if we were still arguing innocence?
-
This place is like a time capsule. You could probably come back in five years time and tune in to the latest instalment of Caroline & Jane vs David. :))
-
You certainly have the knack -down to a fine art- of making two and two make five. How, in God's name, given that you weren't even there, can you presume to know what we, or anyone else, for that matter, thought, mulled over privately, or discussed? Why is the fact that Caroline and I changed our minds, and owning it, SO much more comment-worthy, than you changing yours and trying to keep it hidden? MORE! wtf has it to do with you, anyway, if we were still arguing innocence?
I have already explained how the events transpired yesterday. Indeed I was not even there when it happened and yet even I can figure it out. So imagine how obvious it was to those who where around.
What has this got to do with me you ask? Well I come here to debate the case, in doing so you and Caroline give me a hard time and its all because Paul Harrison duped Caroline, and you followed suit.
So I am now getting straight to the point as to what the root cause of your pointless arguments are instead of arguing directly on the subject at hand because I can no longer see the point.
Not only do you both cause trouble for myself and others here, you also both make yourselves look stupid. All because someone is too proud to admit they got duped by Paul Harrison. How much longer will the facade last?
-
I have already explained how the events transpired yesterday. Indeed I was not even there when it happened and yet even I can figure it out. So imagine how obvious it was to those who where around.
What has this got to do with me you ask? Well I come here to debate the case, in doing so you and Caroline give me a hard time and its all because Paul Harrison duped Caroline, and you followed suit.
So I am now getting straight to the point as to what the root cause of your pointless arguments are instead of arguing directly on the subject at hand because I can no longer see the point.
Not only do you both cause trouble for myself and others here, you also both make yourselves look stupid. All because someone is too proud to admit they got duped by Paul Harrison. How much longer will the facade last?
Yes, you may well have explained. That you were actually telling the truth is debatable and very doubtful. You've clearly spent many hours pawing over past posts in order to form any opinion. As you may be able to ascertain, "those who were around" can't give a toss. You're the only one who seems bothered -but, of course, there's the FACT that the longer you can keep a focus on what you claim to be Caroline's and my not worth a mention misdoings, you're keeping the focus away from your own, considerable and worth looking into, devious and cheating behaviours.
You say you "come here to debate the case". Seems to me you went out of your way to eliminate -whether or not one agreed with him- one of the best debaters on the forum. You claim that Caroline and I gave you a hard time because of PH when he's gone before you arrived on the scene!!!!! Grow up and take some responsibility for yourself -have you never noticed that nothing is ever your fault?- the only reason we'd have had to "give you a hard time" is for what you present yourself as being.
Re your last paragraph. It's not Caroline and I who have told lies to get people banned. It's not Caroline and I who have made untrue character assassinations on a member of another forum. It's not Caroline and I who've made untrue claims about other members' sexuality. The list goes on................yet you appear to think you have a God-given right to do these things. WHY? What pleasure does it give you?
WHY do you keep repeating that we "are too proud to admit they got duped by Paul Harrison". How many times must we repeat ourselves? How many times do you need to be told? Are you too thick to take it on board or is it that you choose to ignore it so you always have a stick to poke us with. When it comes to causing trouble, you're a past master. When it comes to stupidity, you take the crown.
-
Okay Adam, if you insist on playing this pointless game, I'll play along with you because it amuses me. Firstly, it IS pointless because neither you nor I believe Sheila confronted Nevill. Secondly, it's pointless because bullets -even those from fire arms ONLY designed, as you insist, for dispatching rabbits- move faster than people, and whilst Jeremy MAY have taken time out to taunt Nevill, Sheila undoubtedly would not have. NOT that it matters, because she wasn't there. As I've previously said, faced with a loaded gun and someone intent on using it, bed would have been the last thing on Nevill's mind, however, I DO agree with you that he most certainly wouldn't have made a phone call to a number which was serviced by an answering machine.
Well we both agree that Sheila & Nevill were not awake & downstairs. We also both agree that Nevill did not phone Bamber.
If Nevill and Sheila were downstairs bare footed in nightclothes, Sheila holding the rifle, what do you believe Nevill would have done?
-
Yes, you may well have explained. That you were actually telling the truth is debatable and very doubtful. You've clearly spent many hours pawing over past posts in order to form any opinion. As you may be able to ascertain, "those who were around" can't give a toss. You're the only one who seems bothered -but, of course, there's the FACT that the longer you can keep a focus on what you claim to be Caroline's and my not worth a mention misdoings, you're keeping the focus away from your own, considerable and worth looking into, devious and cheating behaviours.
You say you "come here to debate the case". Seems to me you went out of your way to eliminate -whether or not one agreed with him- one of the best debaters on the forum. You claim that Caroline and I gave you a hard time because of PH when he's gone before you arrived on the scene!!!!! Grow up and take some responsibility for yourself -have you never noticed that nothing is ever your fault?- the only reason we'd have had to "give you a hard time" is for what you present yourself as being.
Re your last paragraph. It's not Caroline and I who have told lies to get people banned. It's not Caroline and I who have made untrue character assassinations on a member of another forum. It's not Caroline and I who've made untrue claims about other members' sexuality. The list goes on................yet you appear to think you have a God-given right to do these things. WHY? What pleasure does it give you?
WHY do you keep repeating that we "are too proud to admit they got duped by Paul Harrison". How many times must we repeat ourselves? How many times do you need to be told? Are you too thick to take it on board or is it that you choose to ignore it so you always have a stick to poke us with. When it comes to causing trouble, you're a past master. When it comes to stupidity, you take the crown.
You can attempt to rationalise and scrape the bottom of the barrel all you like. But it does not stop the fact that Paul Harrison is the reason for your antics on this forum to this day and its an indefensible position to have. Should Caroline ever do the right thing and publicly come to her senses. We shall see how long it takes you to do the same.
-
You can attempt rationalise and scrape the bottom of the barrel all you like. But it does not stop the fact that Paul Harrison is the reason for your antics on this forum to this day and its an indefensible position to have. Should Caroline ever do the right thing and publicly come to her senses. We shall see how long it takes you to do the same.
The only "antics" going on here are your own in seeking to disassociate yourself from your spectacularly bad track record which places you a VERY long way down at the bottom of this particular barrel. Perhaps you'd care to put into words exactly what "right thing" it is that you'd have Caroline and I do further to that which we've already done. Once you've got that out of the way -and off your chest because it clearly disturbs you- perhaps you'll "come to your senses" and confess to what you've done. On a scale of 1-10 your duplicity far and away exceeds anything you think we haven't done.
-
This place is like a time capsule. You could probably come back in five years time and tune in to the latest instalment of Caroline & Jane vs David. :))
You're probably right because you can't make any sense out of someone like David. He doesn't really believe I changed my mind because of PH, he's saying that because I caught him out lying to NGB and his excuse for doing so, just made it more clear. I won't back down, people like him do this in order to have the last word and try to bury their own sneaky behaviour by trying to turn the tables and put a mass of posts between the past and the present. David wasn't even around when PH was a member here - he apparently wants the forum to forget about PH and yet contributes on a regular basis to a thread that HE started on PH and mentions him on a regular basis.
By the way, Maggie has confirmed several times about when I changed my mind about Bamber - so in essence, he's calling her a liar. There is really only one liar here - as the posts below confirm.
David made this post in reply to Scipio after just joining the forum.
The Series of issues you put forward are constructed with innumerable guesses and speculations on your part. Your portraying a prosecuting version of events rather than solid unbiased facts.
I appreciate the effort you make but at the end of the day not you or anyone else can solve the White House Farm murders I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case being swayed one way or another by flimsy circumstantial evidence and opinion I soon realised you would have to have been there that night to be certain of what happened.
I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty. That got me thinking and the more I looked into things the more cracks and holes I found in the prosecution. At the end of the day only Jeremy knows. So if he is innocent there will always be guesses rumors and doubt. If he is guilty he is only one that can effectively solve the case by providing a detailed confession.
He made this post in reply to NGB only a few weeks ago.
That article was one of the first things I ever read about the case after I watched a documentary on JB in late 2014. Still ignorant on the subject I just took it all at face value. I still remember joining this forum a few month later naively thinking you were Jeremy’s "protector". Looking back I cant help but laugh.
David likes to be all things to all people but don't disagree with him or make him look like a chump (although he does this himself on a regular basis) or he will send members PM's trying to destroy your reputation (not sure if he's done that here but wouldn't put it passed him but he did this to me on another forum), try and track down your real identity such as with Scipio - he sent me a Youtube video of Scipio at work. He conspired to have Scipio banned because he couldn't win him in a debate and then tried to blame another poster for his ban. belittle and degrade people such as Holly (who he called an alcoholic) and has made several references to Jane and I being involved in some kind of lesbian relationship. There is a word for people who do the above - I'll leave you to decide what that is!
-
I have already explained how the events transpired yesterday. Indeed I was not even there when it happened and yet even I can figure it out. So imagine how obvious it was to those who where around.
What has this got to do with me you ask? Well I come here to debate the case, in doing so you and Caroline give me a hard time and its all because Paul Harrison duped Caroline, and you followed suit.
So I am now getting straight to the point as to what the root cause of your pointless arguments are instead of arguing directly on the subject at hand because I can no longer see the point.
Not only do you both cause trouble for myself and others here, you also both make yourselves look stupid. All because someone is too proud to admit they got duped by Paul Harrison. How much longer will the facade last?
This post is the BIGGEST laugh of ALL! Not only do you troll the Bamber posts and it's members but you have started on other threads - turning on Nugs because he doesn't agree with you. You're one BIG joke! and now people will see that. Debate the case? HA!
Just recently you said you were leaving and had asked NGB to delete your account - however, you turn up again trying to suggest that NGB hadn't deleted it (presumably because you were a valued contributor), turns out, he asked you to confirm and you didn't - yet another one of your wool pulling exercises. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.
You don't debate anything, you give your OPINION and pass it off as fact then try and ridicule anyone that doesn't agree with you. You're an immature idiot!
-
As a forum member I'm not interested one way or the other in anyone other than the purpose of the forum.
What date did the alarm system get fitted at WHF ?
-
As a forum member I'm not interested one way or the other in anyone other than the purpose of the forum.
What date did the alarm system get fitted at WHF ?
Me either Lookout but if you were being trolled, you wouldn't let them get away with it?
The alarm was fitted on 9th August (I believe)
-
Me either Lookout but if you were being trolled, you wouldn't let them get away with it?
The alarm was fitted on 9th August (I believe)
Ah right, thanks Caroline. It was just a niggle I had re. AE's COLP statement.
When trolling is done about you from another forum there's very little that can be done----I should know ! I've been there ! It's a pathetic practice and one which I've learned to ignore. They're just trash.
-
Ah right, thanks Caroline. It was just a niggle I had re. AE's COLP statement.
When trolling is done about you from another forum there's very little that can be done----I should know ! I've been there ! It's a pathetic practice and one which I've learned to ignore. They're just trash.
You're welcome.
As for trolling on another forum, I'm not bothered about that - the person who received the PM's realised that anyone who would send those kind of PM's couldn't be trusted.
I am more bothered about the disruptions here. I even told David not to respond to my posts (in the interests of forum harmony) weeks ago, however, because it's always an argument that he's looking for, he chose to ignore. The PH stuff is a smoke screen.
-
If Nevill and Sheila were downstairs bare footed in nightclothes, Sheila holding the rifle, what do you believe Nevill would have done?
There are only three things he could do.
A) Leave the building
B) Call for help
C) Try and disarm her.
I believe he done option B and then attempted option C once he heard the shots being fired upstairs.
Option C can only succeed if he can close the distance between himself and the shooter and not get shot in the process.
-
You're welcome.
As for trolling on another forum, I'm not bothered about that - the person who received the PM's realised that anyone who would send those kind of PM's couldn't be trusted.
I am more bothered about the disruptions here. I even told David not to respond to my posts (in the interests of forum harmony) weeks ago, however, because it's always an argument that he's looking for, he chose to ignore. The PH stuff is a smoke screen.
Well, I've invited him to come clean. Thus far, he's chosen to ignore what he's been read to have said -it can't be denied when it's in writing- so we have no reasons given for his pathetic and immature behaviours. From these writings, one can only assume that we're dealing with a character that gets some sort of deviant pleasure in causing disruption.
-
There are only three things he could do.
A) Leave the building
B) Call for help
C) Try and disarm her.
I believe he done option B and then attempted option C once he heard the shots being fired upstairs.
Option C can only succeed if he can close the distance between himself and the shooter and not get shot in the process.
Leave the building. He would not leave the building bare footed in his pyjamas. He would not leave Sheila and his family. If Sheila was going let to him leave or knew nothing about it, Nevill would disarm her instead.
Call for help. No time to either make the call or wait for a visit. He may need to disarm her before anyone arrived anyway. If he was able to call for help, he would have the opportunity to disarm her & do that instead.
His only option was to disarm her. It would be a routine and easy disarm. Nevill would not stand for such nonsense at that time.
-
Well, I've invited him to come clean. Thus far, he's chosen to ignore what he's been read to have said -it can't be denied when it's in writing- so we have no reasons given for his pathetic and immature behaviours. From these writings, one can only assume that we're dealing with a character that gets some sort of deviant pleasure in causing disruption.
No need for psychological projections Jane.
-
FOR DAVID:-
Well, I've invited him to come clean. Thus far, he's chosen to ignore what he's been read to have said -it can't be denied when it's in writing- so we have no reasons given for his pathetic and immature behaviours. From these writings, one can only assume that we're dealing with a character that gets some sort of deviant pleasure in causing disruption.
-
Leave the building. He would not leave the building bare footed in his pyjamas. He would not leave Sheila and his family. If Sheila was going let to him leave or knew nothing about iy, Nevill would disarm her instead.
Its still an option.
Call for help. No time to either make the call or wait for a visit. He may need to disarm her before anyone arrived anyway. If he was able to call for help, he would have the opportunity to disarm her & do that instead.
If June was intended to be the first target (and I believe she was) he does have time.
His only option was to disarm her. It would be a routine and easy disarm. Nevill would not stand for such nonsense at that time.
Like I said. I believe he attempted to disarm her. Unfortunately the distance was too wide for him to do so without getting shot himself.
-
Its still an option.
If June was intended to be the first target (and I believe she was) he does have time.
Like I said. I believe he attempted to disarm her. Unfortunately the distance was too wide for him to do so without getting shot himself.
The rooms in WHF are standard rooms. How do you know the distance was too big? He could use objects such as stools or chairs to protect himself.
Sheila in her nightie bare footed holding a rifle for shooting rabbits, would not deter a fully fit Nevill in the slightest. He would still use his massive weight, height & strenght advantage to overpower Sheila. Even if she did actually fire a bullet which hit his torso.
-
The rooms in WHF are standard rooms. How do you know the distance was too big? He could use objects such as stools or chairs to protect himself.
Since Nevill was found dead and I believe Sheila then shot herself. That is enough for me to deduce that Nevill failed to disarm her.
You cannot take a gun off someone without being close to them. If someone threatend you with a gun, are you going to then advance towards them and just take it off them? You would have to be very lucky not to get shoot you on your way towards them. In such situation you would have to negotiate with the person holding the gun and hope to persuade them to put it down.
Sheila in her nightie bare footed holding a rifle for shooting rabbits, would not deter a fully fit Nevill in the slightest. He would still use his massive weight, height & strenght advantage to overpower Sheila. Even if she did actually fire a bullet which hit his torso.
Nevill was not fully fit. He was in his 60s. The fact a gun used to kill rabbits broke the bone in his arm in half, makes me suspect he had some bone problems caused by old age.
-
I'm afraid a 60 year old man would have been fit for nothing having worked a field for most of the day, then finishing off after supper, no matter how big and strong he was supposed to have been.
Try it sometime when you're 60 !!
-
Since Nevill was found dead and I believe Sheila then shot herself. That is enough for me to deduce that Nevill failed to disarm her.
You cannot take a gun off someone without being close to them. If someone threatend you with a gun, are you going to then advance towards them and just take it off them? You would have to be very lucky not to get shoot you on your way towards them. In such situation you would have to negotiate with the person holding the gun and hope to persuade them to put it down.
Nevill was not fully fit. He was in his 60s. The fact a gun used to kill rabbits broke the bone in his arm in half, makes me suspect he had some bone problems caused by old age.
Nevill was a fit farmer, 6.4 and 15 stone. He would over power Sheila easily. It's common sense that he would attempt this. Sooner rather than later as he needed some sleep.
He had no option but to do this. To negate the minimal danger of a light un uncordinated woman with no rifle experience, bare footed in a nightie holding a rifle for shooting rabbits.
Nevill would have easily disarmed Sheila. Either getting close enough to her while talking, or charging her in a small room. Maybe using an object to protect him while charging.
-
Nevill was a fit farmer, 6.4 and 15 stone. He would over power Sheila easily. It's common sense that he would attempt this. Sooner rather than later as he needed some sleep.
He had no option but to do this. To negate the minimal danger of a light un uncordinated woman with no rifle experience, bare footed in a nightie holding a rifle for shooting rabbits.
Nevill would have easily disarmed Sheila. Either getting close enough to her while talking, or charging her in a small room. Maybe using an object to protect him while charging.
Bullets move faster than people.
-
Why wouldn't Nevill have overpowered Jeremy then ? This strapping 15 stone 6ft 4 farmer with arms like hams against a puny milksop such as Jeremy was at 24.?
-
Bullets move faster than people.
Did you see my question to you in reply 126?
-
Why wouldn't Nevill have overpowered Jeremy then ? This strapping 15 stone 6ft 4 farmer with arms like hams against a puny milksop such as Jeremy was at 24.?
Bamber shot him 4 times. Twice in the head. Then brutally beat him. Bamber was a young fit male.
You know Nevill would not stand for any nonsense of a bare footed woman in a nightie holding a rifle for shooting rabbits. Not that it would ever happen.
-
Bamber shot him 4 times. Twice in the head. Then brutally beat him. Bamber was a young fit male.
You know Nevill would not stand for any nonsense of a bare footed woman in a nightie holding a rifle for shooting rabbits. Not that it would ever happen.
The same would have applied to Sheila, disabling her father before he had chance to fight back ?
-
The same would have applied to Sheila, disabling her father before he had chance to fight back ?
Two head shots from inches away? That must have been when Nevill was ringing Bamber.
-
The same would have applied to Sheila, disabling her father before he had chance to fight back ?
Yes, JB was young and fit, but full of wind and certainly not used to fisticuffs.It was his sister who stood up to the bullies, not him.
-
Nevill was a fit farmer, 6.4 and 15 stone. He would over power Sheila easily. It's common sense that he would attempt this. Sooner rather than later as he needed some sleep.
He had no option but to do this. To negate the minimal danger of a light un uncordinated woman with no rifle experience, bare footed in a nightie holding a rifle for shooting rabbits.
Nevill would have easily disarmed Sheila. Either getting close enough to her while talking, or charging her in a small room. Maybe using an object to protect him while charging.
Making things up to make the Sheila senario sound implausible does not achieve anything. You need to draw inference from fact. Not compound assumptions on top of each other.
-
Making things up to make the Sheila senario sound implausible does not achieve anything. You need to draw inference from fact. Not compound assumptions on top of each other.
It is common sense that a fully fit Nevill had no option but to disarm Sheila.
He would have done so with minimal effort sooner rather than later. He needed his sleep & would not want June or the twins waking.
-
I was searching through some old emails today and found some PM notifications from back in 2013. One of those was a PM from Maggie (dated 6th August 2013) and in it she stated the following (I am sure she won't mind me posting this) - "I kept forgetting to ask you. Did Jeremy ever answer your question about the wallet?? xx" thus PROVING that I had discussed my concerns way before PH revealed his book was about a guilty Bamber! I have sent the email to NGB who I am sure will authenticate it?
-
Two head shots from inches away? That must have been when Nevill was ringing Bamber.
Correction, the shots came after Nevill had rang JB.
-
Correction, the shots came after Nevill had rang JB.
And EP with a 999 call !
-
It is common sense that a fully fit Nevill had no option but to disarm Sheila.
He would have done so with minimal effort sooner rather than later. He needed his sleep & would not want June or the twins waking.
Its common sense that if attempting to disarm someone you run a high risk of getting shot yourself.
-
And EP with a 999 call !
Nevill never rang EP.
-
Nevill never rang EP.
I say he did. I always have done.
-
Its common sense that if attempting to disarm someone you run a high risk of getting shot yourself.
Nevill would not be deterred by Sheila holding a gun for shooting rabbits. He would have no hesitation in getting the rifle back. He had no choice. As head of the family he had to protect himself and the other 4 people in the house.
He would disarm Sheila when close enough. Or use an object to charge her. Either way very unlikely to get shot.
Nevill would then lock the rifle away, make sure Sheila was calm and join an asleep June in bed. Him & Bamber had an early start.
-
Nevill would not be deterred by Sheila holding a gun for shooting rabbits. He would have no hesitation in getting the rifle back. He had no choice. As head of the family he had to protect himself and the other 4 people in the house.
Like I said I believe he tried to disarm her, unfortunately he got shot trying. (as expected)
-
Nevill would definitely have rang the police with all that going on even if he did once call them Dad's Army.
-
Nevill would definitely have rang the police with all that going on even if he did once call them Dad's Army.
Nobody at the emergency services received a call from Nevill.
-
Nobody at the emergency services received a call from Nevill.
How do you know ?
-
I believe we've been her before?
-
Did you see my question to you in reply 126?
[qote]
I can only reiterate that regardless of their footwear, even if they'd had a polite tete a tete prior to the shooting, bullets move faster than people.
-
Like I said I believe he tried to disarm her, unfortunately he got shot trying. (as expected)
Obviously there is 0% chance of Nevill ringing Bamber, at 3am. As head of the family he would want the issue resolved quickly. Preferably without June & the twins being disturbed.
Nevill needed to get back to bed as quickly as possible. He had just had a long day & had another one coming up. Ditto Bamber.
A fully fit Nevill would disarm Sheila quickly. This is 100%. As the only awake adult he had no choice.
-
How do you know ?
Because nobody in the police telephone rooms ever reported receiving a call from Nevill. That’s how I know.
-
Because nobody in the police telephone rooms ever reported receiving a call from Nevill. That’s how I know.
They got it wrong------there was a call.
-
They got it wrong------there was a call.
How can they get anything wrong by not receiving a call?
-
David you've only to see/read about the many mistakes that EP made. The whole investigation was abysmal and the fact that they made a pig's ear over the phone-calls, reporting and entering them in their usual tin-pot way just adds to their incompetences.
-
David you've only to see/read about the many mistakes that EP made. The whole investigation was abysmal and the fact that they made a pig's ear over the phone-calls, reporting and entering them in their usual tin-pot way just adds to their incompetences.
EPs handling of the case has nothing to do with the emergency telephone operators.
-
David you've only to see/read about the many mistakes that EP made. The whole investigation was abysmal and the fact that they made a pig's ear over the phone-calls, reporting and entering them in their usual tin-pot way just adds to their incompetences.
There is actually nothing wrong with the logs other than they have been taken out of context.
-
A fully fit Nevill would disarm Sheila quickly. This is 100%. As the only awake adult he had no choice.
He tried, he failed.
-
Neither Nevill or Sheila would have received any injuries. Nevill would quickly negate the situation. Either when getting close enough to her, or using an object to charge her. Sheila would offer no resistance if trying to hold onto the rifle.
As head of the family Nevill had no choice but to quickly negate the situation & there is zero chance he would want to leave a message on his sons answering machine at 3am.
He was twice as big strong, fit and alert as Sheila & would not be pleased at being kept awake. The rifle was used for shooting rabbits.
Nevill would have to decide whether to tell June & anyone else the following day. Although it is likely June would have also been awake and out of bed.
-
Neither Nevill or Sheila would have received any injuries. Nevill would quickly negate the situation. Either when getting close enough to her, or using an object to charge her. Sheila would offer no resistance if trying to hold onto the rifle.
As head of the family Nevill had no choice but to quickly negate the situation & there is zero chance he would want to leave a message on his sons answering machine at 3am.
He was twice as big strong, fit and alert as Sheila & would not be pleased at being kept awake. The rifle was used for shooting rabbits.
Nevill would have to decide whether to tell June & anyone else the following day. Although it is likely June would have also been
awake and out of bed.
Neither Sheiala nor any other shooter needed to put up resistance. They had then gun. All they had to do was pull the trigger and whether it was a gun only suitable for dispatching rabbits is irrelevant, it was still capable of rendering dead five people. That could be because bullets move faster than people and they don't need thinking time.
-
I was searching through some old emails today and found some PM notifications from back in 2013. One of those was a PM from Maggie (dated 6th August 2013) and in it she stated the following (I am sure she won't mind me posting this) - "I kept forgetting to ask you. Did Jeremy ever answer your question about the wallet?? xx" thus PROVING that I had discussed my concerns way before PH revealed his book was about a guilty Bamber! I have sent the email to NGB who I am sure will authenticate it?
I can confirm that Caroline has sent me the email, which is a notification of a forum PM dated 6th August 2013 from Maggie. It is clear that Caroline was having doubts about the case at a time when Paul Harrison was still stating in emails and PMs that his book was firmly pro Bamber and anti Essex Police. As I have already posted at the beginning of 2014 PH was still sticking to that position and only told me of the change in early February 2014.
-
I can confirm that Caroline has sent me the email, which is a notification of a forum PM dated 6th August 2013 from Maggie. It is clear that Caroline was having doubts about the case at a time when Paul Harrison was still stating in emails and PMs that his book was firmly pro Bamber and anti Essex Police. As I have already posted at the beginning of 2014 PH was still sticking to that position and only told me of the change in early February 2014.
Thank you NGB - much appreciated.
-
EPs handling of the case has nothing to do with the emergency telephone operators.
It has because a member of EP knew that a 999 call had been taken.
-
It has because a member of EP knew that a 999 call had been taken.
Watch this space !
-
I can confirm that Caroline has sent me the email, which is a notification of a forum PM dated 6th August 2013 from Maggie. It is clear that Caroline was having doubts about the case at a time when Paul Harrison was still stating in emails and PMs that his book was firmly pro Bamber and anti Essex Police. As I have already posted at the beginning of 2014 PH was still sticking to that position and only told me of the change in early February 2014.
Simply having doubts and being a hardcore guilter are two different things entirely.
Caroline became a hardcore guilter shortly after PH did. Caroline believed and endorsed the incriminating fiction that PH wrote in his book once it got released until it became indefensible.
Someone showing healthy scepticism and being open minded prior to being duped is nothing unexpected.
-
Much to everyone's chagrin I've remained to be on the side of the innocent----hooray ;D
-
It has because a member of EP knew that a 999 call had been taken.
Who are you referring to? He couldn't have known that Lookout because there was no 999 call,
-
Simply having doubts and being a hardcore guilter are two different things entirely.
Caroline became a hardcore guilter shorty after PH did. Caroline believed and endorsed the incriminating fiction that PH wrote in his book when once it got released until it became indefensible.
Someone showing healthy scepticism and being open minded prior to being duped is nothing unexpected.
You need to stop this now - you're twisting again in order to take away from the fact that you have been caught lying. I have given NGB proof that I was discussing my doubts in Bamber's innocence long before PH even thought about it. Your accusation has once again fallen on it's arse and you are now trying to save face. Learn when you have been beaten and learn to to take it like a man - silly little boy!
Please back up your accusation that I believed and endorsed PH's book?
-
Who are you referring to? He couldn't have known that Lookout because there was no 999 call,
There was such a call from Nevill. EP failed to admit/acknowledge lots of things. This will be highlighted pretty soon I imagine.
-
There was such a call from Nevill. EP failed to admit/acknowledge lots of things. This will be highlighted pretty soon I imagine.
I wouldn't bet on that Lookout.
-
The call was made on the back of his call to Jeremy.
-
The call was made on the back of his call to Jeremy.
There was no call to either Jeremy or the police - from Neville.
-
You need to stop this now - you're twisting again in order to take away from the fact that you have been caught lying. I have given NGB proof that I was discussing my doubts in Bamber's innocence long before PH even thought about it. Your accusation has once again fallen on it's arse and you are now trying to save face. Learn when you have been beaten and learn to to take it like a man - silly little boy!
Please back up your accusation that I believed and endorsed PH's book?
-
Who are you referring to? He couldn't have known that Lookout because there was no 999 call,
How on earth can it be proved that an 'occurrence' never occurred if someone is hellbent on saying it did?
-
It has because a member of EP knew that a 999 call had been taken.
No member of EP has ever divulged in a 999 call from Nevill. Thus the above claim is unsubstantiated.
-
You need to stop this now - you're twisting again in order to take away from the fact that you have been caught lying. I have given NGB proof that I was discussing my doubts in Bamber's innocence long before PH even thought about it. Your accusation has once again fallen on it's arse and you are now trying to save face. Learn when you have been beaten and learn to to take it like a man - silly little boy!
Please back up your accusation that I believed and endorsed PH's book?
It seems that David -rather than hold up his hands to his own guilt- is more than willing to back up his original lies with even bigger lies to try to make you appear guilty in the eyes of the forum.
-
No member of EP has ever divulged in a 999 call from Nevill. Thus the above claim is unsubstantiated.
C'mon David, they're not likely to divulge anything with an ounce of truth in it are they---did they ?
-
'Please come over. Sheila's gone crazy and she's got the gun'.
---------
Strangest call I have ever heard about. And the only 4 second call I know of as well as the only 3am call.
-
C'mon David, they're not likely to divulge anything with an ounce of truth in it are they---did they ?
Yours is a position almost as secure as Jeremy's present one, isn't it? You can't be unaware that negatives can't be proved -you KNOW Essex Police can't prove that a phone WASN'T received from Nevill so you cover that by saying "they're not likely to divulge" it- however, can you prove that Nevill made a call to them?
-
Yours is a position almost as secure as Jeremy's present one, isn't it? You can't be unaware that negatives can't be proved -you KNOW Essex Police can't prove that a phone WASN'T received from Nevill so you cover that by saying "they're not likely to divulge" it- however, can you prove that Nevill made a call to them?
Like I said, it will be proven----by those whose brains match their careers.
-
It seems that David -rather than hold up his hands to his own guilt- is more than willing to back up his original lies with even bigger lies to try to make you appear guilty in the eyes of the forum.
Well, lets hear how I 'endorsed' and 'believed' PH's book. I have ALWAYS maintained that I changed my mind about Bamber because of my own communications with him - namely, how he knew what was in his fathers wallet. The PM from Maggie PROVES we were discussing this behind the scenes and that I went so far as to ask him about it (which I have also proved with letters). Maggie's response "I keep meaning to ask you' PROVES I had discussed my doubts even before Aug 6th 2013 and the first time I posted about my doubts was about (and ONLY ABOUT) the wallet. We discussed my change of heart behind the scenes and I decided to post about it to encourage debate.
As for PH's book, if numb nuts is suggesting I 'endorsed' and 'believed' it because he mentioned my name - then he would have to explain why a hard care innocent supporter is also mentioned and IF he is suggesting I 'endorsed' and 'believed' it because he used some of what I had written on the forum, he would have to explain why the passage isn't about the wallet and is the bible, the hand print and the stain on the carpet - ALL of which argues from an innocent standpoint and seems out of place in his book. I had my own reasons for believing Bamber guilty and I have posted abut them. A subject close to David's own heart. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Not even sure why I am fueling this discussion with a gas lighter such as David, he's been banged to rights lying, NGB has supported my stance in respect to discussions behind the scene that went on for some time so obviously when I posted about it, I was pretty sure that Bamber was guilty (although rejecting the silencer). His silly, immature arguments made him look like a fool before, carrying on with this will really set that in stone.
-
Simply having doubts and being a hardcore guilter are two different things entirely.
Caroline became a hardcore guilter shorty after PH did. Caroline believed and endorsed the incriminating fiction that PH wrote in his book when once it got released until it became indefensible.
Someone showing healthy scepticism and being open minded prior to being duped is nothing unexpected.
Moreover, making things up in order to make things fit the guilt narrative, even going as far as saying "Sheila being involved doesn't point to an innocent Jeremy". Are not the actions of someone simply doubtful or someone who is genuinely interested in the truth. They are the actions of someone who is snowed in and cannot swallow their pride.
-
'Please come over. Sheila's gone crazy and she's got the gun'.
---------
Strangest call I have ever heard about. And the only 4 second call I know of as well as the only 3am call.
If you heard/saw someone coming down the stairs brandishing a rifle, you'd cut the call too. :o
-
C'mon David, they're not likely to divulge anything with an ounce of truth in it are they---did they ?
If they never divulged on the subject, how can anyone know that EP know of the call in the first place ???
If such call took place, DCI Jones and ACC Simpson would have told Robert Boutflour about it. Not that it would have prevented Robert Boutflour from claiming it was Jeremy impersonating his father.
-
Moreover, making things up in order to make things fit the guilt narrative, even going as far as saying "Sheila being involved doesn't point to an innocent Jeremy". Are not the actions of someone simply doubtful or someone who is genuinely interested in the truth. They are the actions of someone who is snowed in and cannot swallow their pride.
As you appear to be referring to yourself, I guess this might be the closest we get to getting an explanation and admission of your own guilt.
-
If they never divulged on the subject, how can anyone know that EP know of the call in the first place ???
If such call took place, DCI Jones and ACC Simpson would have told Robert Boutflour about it. Not that it would have prevented Robert Boutflour from claiming it was Jeremy impersonating his father.
Nevill's call simply wasn't mentioned but I'm sure you'll understand why when it's explained by those who've studied the legalities of the case.
Common sense tells you that JB got an engaged tone when he tried to ring his father back----which was the time that Nevill was ringing EP.
-
As you appear to be referring to yourself, I guess this might be the closest we get to getting an explanation and admission of your own guilt.
I'm referring to your significant other (obviously).
-
Moreover, making things up in order to make things fit the guilt narrative, even going as far as saying "Sheila being involved doesn't point to an innocent Jeremy". Are not the actions of someone simply doubtful or someone who is genuinely interested in the truth. They are the actions of someone who is snowed in and cannot swallow their pride.
Making things up David? That's your dept. Lying to NGB and insinuating that your report may be used in CCRC submissions. But Sheila being involved doesn't point to an innocent Jeremy. Personally, I don;t believe she was but the statement still stands!
You have no interest in the truth, you're bothered about trying to make yourself top detective - which just shows what an immature little twerp you really are!
-
I'm referring to your significant other (obviously).
Which would be nothing compared to the number backsides you've had your tongue in to try to gain ascendancy.
-
Nevill's call simply wasn't mentioned but I'm sure you'll understand why when it's explained by those who've studied the legalities of the case.
Common sense tells you that JB got an engaged tone when he tried to ring his father back----which was the time that Nevill was ringing EP.
Common sense tells you that only one emergency call being received shows only it was only Jeremy that contacted the police.
I have studied the legalities of the case. So has NGB, MTQC and Scott Lomax. They all think the idea is absurd, and so do I.
I have been told by one of the names above. That once Jeremy had swallowed this misconception of Nevills 999 call. JB then became completely "obsessed" with it and wasted years going through everything in the case files hoping to find proof of it. Yet nothing was ever found. What does that tell you?
-
Nevill's call simply wasn't mentioned but I'm sure you'll understand why when it's explained by those who've studied the legalities of the case.
Common sense tells you that JB got an engaged tone when he tried to ring his father back----which was the time that Nevill was ringing EP.
It sounds as if you're saying that Essex Police , at a 'group hug' meeting, simply decided that a call, which they knew to have come from Nevill was simply erased from group memory. I'm guessing that they then took steps to obliterate all physical traces of it -JUST in case! Such being the case -incriminating call wiped off the face of the earth- the most that may be said by"those who've studied the legalities of the case" is that such a call MAY have been made. It fits with anything being possible. Not quite so much as it being probable, though, if it can't be proved to have happened.
-
Which would be nothing compared to the number backsides you've had your tongue in to try to gain ascendancy.
Well, he's descended now and ALL of his own making!
-
If you heard/saw someone coming down the stairs brandishing a rifle, you'd cut the call too. :o
Mmm, but unless he had a good view of the hall and stairs from where the phone was in the kitchen, as they were carpeted, he wouldn't have known anyone (with a gun) was coming -creeping?- down them until they were in the kitchen. If the shooter, hellbent on killing him anyway, had seen him with the phone in his hand they'd have taken the opportunity to shoot him there and then. Had Jeremy been on the other end he'd have heard the shot(s).
-
Which would be nothing compared to the number backsides you've had your tongue in to try to gain ascendancy.
Would you care to name those in this alleged number of people?
-
Would you care to name those in this alleged number of people?
Would you?
-
Would you?
You are the one making this claim against me. I have no idea who you are talking about, hence why I am asking you.
-
You are the one making this claim against me. I have no idea who you are talking about, hence why I am asking you.
It seems you have no ideas about any of what's been claimed about you, but appear to feel justified in making unsubstantiated claims about others. You're in no position to take a high moral stand.
-
You are the one making this claim against me. I have no idea who you are talking about, hence why I am asking you.
Anyone you believe carries a little influence and people who you back peddle with when you realise they too, might be turning against you.
By the way, I have asked you to provide evidence of me both believing and endorsing PH's book?
-
It seems you have no ideas about any of what's been claimed about you, but appear to feel justified in making unsubstantiated claims about others. You're in no position to take a high moral stand.
Why don't you answer the question? If you don't produce any names or any rationale for what you have said about me. An adverse inference can be drawn that it is you making the unsubstantiated claim here.
-
Common sense tells you that only one emergency call being received shows only it was only Jeremy that contacted the police.
I have studied the legalities of the case. So has NGB, MTQC and Scott Lomax. They all think the idea is absurd, and so do I.
I have been told by one of the names above. That once Jeremy had swallowed this misconception of Nevills 999 call. JB then became completely "obsessed" with it and wasted years going through everything in the case files hoping to find proof of it. Yet nothing was ever found. What does that tell you?
-
Jeremy's call wasn't an emergency call. It's Nevill's that was.
-
Ooops, wouldn't you know----another new laptop on the go ::)
-
Why don't you answer the question? If you don't produce any names or any rationale for what you have said about me. An adverse inference can be drawn that it is you making the unsubstantiated claim here.
Why have you refused to answer those questions put to you regarding your own devious behaviours? Names and rationale have been produced, ergo, it can only be assumed that what you've about them claimed is unsubstantiated.
-
Common sense tells you that only one emergency call being received shows only it was only Jeremy that contacted the police.
I have studied the legalities of the case. So has NGB, MTQC and Scott Lomax. They all think the idea is absurd, and so do I.
I have been told by one of the names above. That once Jeremy had swallowed this misconception of Nevills 999 call. JB then became completely "obsessed" with it and wasted years going through everything in the case files hoping to find proof of it. Yet nothing was ever found. What does that tell you?
It tells me that any relevant paperwork which was discovered in the aftermath is well and truly destroyed along with other much needed evidence at the time, 1996, was it ? Though for some reason there still exists to be proof of phone-calls for it to count as NEW evidence----forthcoming.
-
Why have you refused to answer those questions put to you regarding your own devious behaviours? Names and rationale have been produced, ergo, it can only be assumed that what you've about them claimed is unsubstantiated.
Its not me refusing to answer questions. You claimed that I licked peoples backsides to "gain ascendancy". Making such a claim against someone without any names and rationale for saying it, is in itself devious behaviour from you.
Names and rationale have not been produced. I only asked an hour ago. Yet still not answer from you.
-
Its not me refusing to answer questions. You claimed that I licked peoples backsides to "gain ascendancy". Making such a claim against someone without any names and rationale for saying it, is in itself devious behaviour from you.
Names and rationale have not been produced. I only asked an hour ago. Yet still not answer from you.
Devious. Use of underhand tactics to attain goals. Says more of you than me. You have repeatedly been asked questions you're still refusing to answer.
-
Devious. Use of underhand tactics to attain goals. Says more of you than me. You have repeatedly been asked questions you're still refusing to answer.
When will you produce the list of names of the people backsides I allegedly licked to "gain ascendancy"? If you are still writing all the names out and not yet finished, then I must have got a very sore tongue in doing all this. ::) ;D
-
Its not me refusing to answer questions. You claimed that I licked peoples backsides to "gain ascendancy". Making such a claim against someone without any names and rationale for saying it, is in itself devious behaviour from you.
Names and rationale have not been produced. I only asked an hour ago. Yet still not answer from you.
Yes, it is - you're pretending not to see posts but everyone know you have .......
Answer the question you were asked instead on trying to twist, by providing evidence of me both believing and endorsing PH's book?
-
When will you produce the list of names of the people backsides I allegedly licked to "gain ascendancy"? If you are still writing all the names out and not yet finished, then I must have got a very sore tongue in doing all this. ::) ;D
NGB
Mike
Scipio
Hartley
Andrew Hunter
to name but a few
I doubt you would have a sore tongue, you're well practiced.
Answer the question you were asked instead on trying to twist, by providing evidence of me both believing and endorsing PH's book?
-
When will you produce the list of names of the people backsides I allegedly licked to "gain ascendancy"? If you are still writing all the names out and not yet finished, then I must have got a very sore tongue in doing all this. ::) ;D
I'm not playing your diversion games. You've done enough xxxx licking on this, and other forums to know exactly what I'm talking about. I appreciate you tongue must be sore. Go use some mouthwash.
-
I'm not playing your diversion games. You've done enough xxxx licking on this, and other forums to know exactly what I'm talking about. I appreciate you tongue must be sore. Go use some mouthwash.
Still waiting to hear where I endorsed and believed PH's book?
-
Still waiting to hear where I endorsed and believed PH's book?
"Endorse"? Mmm? What do you imagine that twisted mind is suggesting? Is he simply saying you approved it, OR, going on the knowledge we have of how he works, is he slyly implying there's something more. It seems perfectly clear that his life mission is to throw shit at anyone he can stick it to and that he seems to get a perverse thrill out of doing it.
-
I'm not playing your diversion games. You've done enough xxxx licking on this, and other forums to know exactly what I'm talking about. I appreciate you tongue must be sore. Go use some mouthwash.
How is asking you to elaborate on your own claim a diversion game? You wont name anyone because it's not true. Its a jibe you just made up on the spot.
Just for the record I don't try to please anyone. I discredit and reject claims from both sides of the fence regardless of who they come from as most here already know. If anyone has the impression of me being in a position of "ascendancy" on this subject then its simply because iv done my homework.
-
"Endorse"? Mmm? What do you imagine that twisted mind is suggesting? Is he simply saying you approved it, OR, going on the knowledge we have of how he works, is he slyly implying there's something more. It seems perfectly clear that his life mission is to throw shit at anyone he can stick it to and that he seems to get a perverse thrill out of doing it.
She did not just endorse claims in the book. She went one step further by claiming to be vindicated by certain claims made inside it.
Well, I feel vindicated about the number of times I have said he avoided answering some of my questions. CAL said the same thing.
That was a reply to Mat quoting from PH's book whereby PH in his fictional interview with Taff Jone's claimed Bamber "avoided answering questions". And PH used this to imply guilt. Exactly the same thing Caroline done with Walletgate a few month after PH changed his mind also. ::)
I remember this topic/thread that Mat created back in 2015 and anyone can read it for themselves. Most people (including myself) heavily criticised PHs claims yet Caroline was defending him (along with Mat and Adam). You don't do that unless you believe the claims being made.
PS: The only person that's got a "perverse thrill" out of this is PH. I don't find it amusing.
-
She did not just endorse claims in the book. She went one step further by claiming to be vindicated by certain claims made inside it.
That was a reply to Mat quoting from PH's book whereby PH in his fictional interview with Taff Jone's claimed Bamber "avoided answering questions". And PH used this to imply guilt. Exactly the same thing Caroline done with Walletgate a few month after PH changed his mind also. ::)
I remember this topic/thread that Mat created back in 2015 and anyone can read it for themselves. Most people (including myself) heavily criticised PHs claims yet Caroline was defending him (along with Mat and Adam). You don't do that unless you believe the claims being made.
PS: The only person that's got a "perverse thrill" out of this is PH. I don't find it amusing.
WOW! You are really scrapping the barrel here - where did I endorse claims made in the book? A comment made to Mat is NOT an endorsement of the book - it's agreeing with a point he made about Bamber avoiding questions and given that he DID correspond with Jeremy, it's a vaild point!
I have provided proof of why I changed my mind and when but this isn't about PH or me or the reasons why Jane and I changed out mind about Bamber. This is about YOU trying to wriggle out of the fact that you LIED to NGB. You keep trying to change the subject, but I am not going to let you. You lied in order to try and manipulate NGB into writing about PH and you also tried to insinuate that your report may be used in the next submissions. By the way, have you seen Alias's picture I posted in another thread? I'm sure you have ;)
You remember the thread that Mat started? That's a laugh, how log did it take you to find something where you could twist things to fit. Post a link to the thread - I'm sure if there was something to back up what you're saying, you'd have done that already. Crawl back under your stone - or are you under a bridge now?
-
Mat's thread is very interesting but there is NO endorsement from me about the book because I make it clear that I hadn't even read the bloody thing at that point! Like the others in the thread we discussed the points that Mat posted. More deceit from the resident fool!
One thing that does become clear though, is that near the end of the thread there is a discussion between David and I were I explain why I changed my mind! So much for never answering that question - another lie David!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6891.msg321878.html#msg321878
-
As David has brought this thread up - here is an interesting insight into the way he thinks and possibly explains why he makes such conflicting statements to people over time. Out of the horses mouth (no disrespect to horses!)
Talking about writing to Bamber - this is what he would need to do in order to determine guilt or innocence if he wrote to him.
Its not that simple. I would have to built allot of rapport with him over many letters and use many mind game tactics to get anything useful out of him without him working it out. Not easy
-
I am now going to put Jane on ignore. Since it’s rather apparent now that I can’t talk to her without Caroline coming into the subject. Not very fair or appropriate when the person of the subject is on ignore.
I doubt Jane would have any objections. :-\
-
I am now going to put Jane on ignore. Since it’s rather apparent now that I can’t talk to her without Caroline coming into the subject. Not very fair or appropriate when the person of the subject is on ignore.
I doubt Jane would have any objections. :-\
No one cares David but I know you have read ALL of my posts!
-
As David has brought this thread up - here is an interesting insight into the way he thinks and possibly explains why he makes such conflicting statements to people over time. Out of the horses mouth (no disrespect to horses!)
Talking about writing to Bamber - this is what he would need to do in order to determine guilt or innocence if he wrote to him.
Interesting. I wonder what it says of a character who is prepared to "use many mindgame tactics to get anything useful out of him (her?) without him (her?) working it out"? Devious is what instantly comes to mind. Manipulative. Then there's a grandiose sense of self importance. Narcissistic. Not a character who'd do anything without first working out what the benefit for him would be. Always seeking to turn situations to his own advantage. Not to be trusted. To be avoided at all costs.
-
She did not just endorse claims in the book. She went one step further by claiming to be vindicated by certain claims made inside it.
That was a reply to Mat quoting from PH's book whereby PH in his fictional interview with Taff Jone's claimed Bamber "avoided answering questions". And PH used this to imply guilt. Exactly the same thing Caroline done with Walletgate a few month after PH changed his mind also. ::)
I remember this topic/thread that Mat created back in 2015 and anyone can read it for themselves. Most people (including myself) heavily criticised PHs claims yet Caroline was defending him (along with Mat and Adam). You don't do that unless you believe the claims being made.
PS: The only person that's got a "perverse thrill" out of this is PH. I don't find it amusing.
All I know about PH is that he said Sheila committed the massacre with Bamber. Which I disagree with.
Have always said I believe Sheila slept through the shots of the other four. Although there was a slim chance she had got out of bed herself a few moments before her first shot if the kitchen fight woke her.
-
All I know about PH is that he said Sheila committed the massacre with Bamber. Which I disagree with.
Have always said I believe Sheila slept through the shots of the other four. Although there was a slim chance she had got out of bed herself a few moments before her first shot if the kitchen fight woke her.
IIRC You did believe Brett Collins had called PH. Then again you have pointed out long ago that the book lost any respect or credibility.
As for his senario. It was a fabricated cellmate confession letter that PH created to justify his version of events. I personally believe the reason he did this was to cover his arse in case of any future appeals or developments. By implicating both Sheila and Jeremy, nobody can say he was right or wrong and thus he can claim to have been correct all along regardless. It was all for nothing now thou since he has been exposed as a fraud.
-
Up to now, none of the books that have been written are altogether credible. So much information has come to light since, for starters and what exists is only what others have written except worded differently. Whichever way you look at it none of them paint a true picture of what did happen, it's been mainly guesswork.
-
I'm delighted that two members of the CT team visited Jeremy yesterday, leaving him with much hope for the future.
-
That's made my day. Many thanks to both Yvonne and Philip.
-
Up to now, none of the books that have been written are altogether credible. So much information has come to light since, for starters and what exists is only what others have written except worded differently. Whichever way you look at it none of them paint a true picture of what did happen, it's been mainly guesswork.
CALs book was OK.
She wasted the first third of the book on Jeremy's and Sheila's lives before the massacre. (I skipped this part). She left little room for the appeals or reviews.
She did not press Vanezis or Fletcher hard enough in her interviews either. She was too passive and didn't bring up the thorny issues. Which is probably a good thing anyway. Had I done the interviews I would probably be soon thrown out and have nothing to report back ;D
-
CALs book was OK.
She wasted the first third of the book on Jeremy's and Sheila's lives before the massacre. (I skipped this part). She left little room for the appeals or reviews.
She did not press Vanezis or Fletcher hard enough in her interviews either. She was too passive and didn't bring up the thorny issues. Which is probably a good thing anyway. Had I done the interviews I would probably be soon thrown out and have nothing to report back ;D
Yes, this is exactly what I mean about this book-writing lark. None of them get down to the nitty gritty of the crime in hand. Investigative areas are abysmal and as you say, too many " flowery " bits at the start just to fill a few pages.
I too would be the worlds worst at both interviews and also at believing some people's versions of events.
I wouldn't take anyone's word for anything, I'd have done things my way and not off the backs of others just because they thought they were right.
-
CALs book was OK.
She wasted the first third of the book on Jeremy's and Sheila's lives before the massacre. (I skipped this part). She left little room for the appeals or reviews.
She did not press Vanezis or Fletcher hard enough in her interviews either. She was too passive and didn't bring up the thorny issues. Which is probably a good thing anyway. Had I done the interviews I would probably be soon thrown out and have nothing to report back ;D
I presume you won't be buying her new book then: Somebody's Mother, Somebody's Daughter..
-
It can take years to reach a conclusion for this type of murder ( when it's done properly )----and not just 19 days !!
Look how long it's taken just sifting through thousands of files/documents to get everything in sequence and in fitting with the crime. It has been a thorough and painstaking task but will be worth it in the end to clear JB's guilt once and for all. Freedom isn't too far away.
-
I presume you won't be buying her new book then: Somebody's Mother, Somebody's Daughter..
CAL had vowed she'd never see/speak to this monster, so did this ever happen when she wrote this book ?
-
Up to now, none of the books that have been written are altogether credible. So much information has come to light since, for starters and what exists is only what others have written except worded differently. Whichever way you look at it none of them paint a true picture of what did happen, it's been mainly guesswork.
The books that simply relay the facts as know (Wilkes and Carol Ann Lee) and an excellent starting point. Even when I thought that Bamber was innocent, Wilkes was still a good reference and CAL had certainly built on that and exceeded it IMO.
-
I presume you won't be buying her new book then: Somebody's Mother, Somebody's Daughter..
No I wont. I remember somebody one here describing her work as "murder porn". I think that's an apt description.
-
Yes, this is exactly what I mean about this book-writing lark. None of them get down to the nitty gritty of the crime in hand. Investigative areas are abysmal and as you say, too many " flowery " bits at the start just to fill a few pages.
I too would be the worlds worst at both interviews and also at believing some people's versions of events.
I wouldn't take anyone's word for anything, I'd have done things my way and not off the backs of others just because they thought they were right.
The victims have aright to be remembered as people and I was certainly fascinated to learn of June's role during the war etc.
You have you taken the word of someone - Jeremy Bamber.
I heard on the grape vine that David is thinking of writing a book least Lomax and PH's won't be the worst version on the shelves should it ever reach publication ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
IIRC You did believe Brett Collins had called PH. Then again you have pointed out long ago that the book lost any respect or credibility.
As for his senario. It was a fabricated cellmate confession letter that PH created to justify his version of events. I personally believe the reason he did this was to cover his arse in case of any future appeals or developments. By implicating both Sheila and Jeremy, nobody can say he was right or wrong and thus he can claim to have been correct all along regardless. It was all for nothing now thou since he has been exposed as a fraud.
Did I? It was years ago.
If PH said BC was a source for his book, then I assumed it could be true. Not really important, his book has been dismissed.
-
Yes, this is exactly what I mean about this book-writing lark. None of them get down to the nitty gritty of the crime in hand. Investigative areas are abysmal and as you say, too many " flowery " bits at the start just to fill a few pages.
I too would be the worlds worst at both interviews and also at believing some people's versions of events.
I wouldn't take anyone's word for anything, I'd have done things my way and not off the backs of others just because they thought they were right.
I did once consider writing a book on this case. But there is no way any reputable publisher would go ahead with what I would write in it. I also feel I would need help from a co-author that can write well. I don't have much confidence in my ability to write. I don't fancy myself as a writer either. :-\
-
The victims have aright to be remembered as people and I was certainly fascinated to learn of June's role during the war etc.
You have you taken the word of someone - Jeremy Bamber.
I heard on the grape vine that David is thinking of writing a book least Lomax and PH's won't be the worst version on the shelves should it ever reach publication ;D ;D ;D ;D
No Caroline, even JB didn't know everything to my mind.
-
I did once consider writing a book on this case. But there is no way any reputable publisher would go ahead with what I would write in it. I also feel I would need help from a co-author that can write well. I don't have much confidence in my ability to write. I don't fancy myself as a writer either. :-\
I could write one, though it wouldn't be to everyone's tastes in this world of PC, but nevertheless it would be truthful and I wouldn't skirt around anything.
-
CAL had vowed she'd never see/speak to this monster, so did this ever happen when she wrote this book ?
No I don't think she did. She's answering this author's book to some extent. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Somebodys-Husband-Son-Yorkshire-Ripper/dp/0571222838
-
Did I? It was years ago.
If PH said BC was a source for his book, then I assumed it could be true. Not really important, his book has been dismissed.
Indeed it’s no longer important. But it was obvious something fishy was going on from the beginning. How could he have randomly got this call when he never publicly gave out his telephone number? Much like the threat letter when nobody knew his address.
Then his claim he randomly bumped into Ed Lawson over “refreshments” at the COA. Ed then supposedly revealed all these incriminating things to him. Not only is such drivel an insult to the readers intelligence, even if it was true how could he have believed in JBs innocence in the first place?
Question everything assume nothing learn the truth.
-
No I don't think she did. She's answering this author's book to some extent. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Somebodys-Husband-Son-Yorkshire-Ripper/dp/0571222838
Yes,I saw that. It's always someone else's account of a story----only the wording is different. How about an author coming up with their own account of the truth, simply using their own research etc and not someone else's ?
Every JB book has been made up of another's account of how things happened or were alleged to have happened. They probably couldn't be any further from the truth.
-
Yes,I saw that. It's always someone else's account of a story----only the wording is different. How about an author coming up with their own account of the truth, simply using their own research etc and not someone else's ?
Every JB book has been made up of another's account of how things happened or were alleged to have happened. They probably couldn't be any further from the truth.
If you are writing non-fiction, you are confined to the accounts/claims of other people. Anything new has to be either discovered or experimental.
-
Message to David and Harry - if you want to troll the board about why I changed my mind about Bamber, then do so via PM. This forum is NOT about me or any other member! Post about Bamber and debate the case NOT other members!
-
Administrators are not supposed to remove posts to help one side win the argument or to protect the position of a particular individual who who is favoured and allowed to do what they like. I have noticed that on this thread all the posts have been deleted since August 31st.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9945.0.html
It's obvious from the date that Caroline was not interested in selecting particular posts to delete, but in anger, simply chose the start of September as the cut off point. I don't make many posts and I always save pages, so I have all my stuff still available, but I am thinking now of other members who have made posts in good faith and who have had some very well thought out material destroyed by the person in question.
No but they can and WILL remove posts from people who are intent on causing disruption which YOU clearly are. You would do well to start debating the case and not referring to me as it is obvious that I am the focus of your interest here. That's a free one, mention me again and I will remove it.
-
Message to David and Harry - if you want to troll the board about why I changed my mind about Bamber, then do so via PM. This forum is NOT about me or any other member! Post about Bamber and debate the case NOT other members!
Hi David and Harry, I have posted this before but am happy to do so again. I remember Caroline discussing with me that she had doubts about Jeremy Bamber's innocence long before Paul Harrison changed his line from innocent to guity. She found the fact that JB knew what was in Nevil' s wallet highly suspicious and I know she spent a long time coming to terms with changing her belief. I know she didn't change her mind simply because PH did.
-
David and Harry, the forum is for discussion of the Jeremy Bamber etc miscarriages of justice, not for discussing other members opinions or behaviour. If you have any complaints please inform Admin or moderators by pm. Thanks.
-
Hi David and Harry, I have posted this before but am happy to do so again. I remember Caroline discussing with me that she had doubts about Jeremy Bamber's innocence long before Paul Harrison changed his line from innocent to guity. She found the fact that JB knew what was in Nevil' s wallet highly suspicious and I know she spent a long time coming to terms with changing her belief. I know she didn't change her mind simply because PH did.
Except its not a fact Maggie. Neither do I agree with the rest of what you have posted. That's not to say you are lying, but you have simply come to the wrong conclusion.
David and Harry, the forum is for discussion of the Jeremy Bamber etc miscarriages of justice, not for discussing other members opinions or behaviour.
Then why have you just discussed another members opinions and behaviour above thus bringing the subject up yet again? ???
-
Except its not a fact Maggie. Neither do I agree with the rest of what you have posted. That's not to say you are lying, but you have simply come to the wrong conclusion.
Then why have you just discussed another members opinions and behaviour above thus bringing the subject up yet again? ???
Because Maggie was HERE when this was discussed, whereas you were NOT and neither was Harry. Any conclusion that doesn;t agree with yours, is the wrong one. You can post as much as you like about Paul Harrison as can your new found mate Harry but the pair of you weren't party to behind the scenes discussions and it is your conclusion that is flawed. I won't post about this again. The topic is closed.
-
Because Maggie was HERE when this was discussed, whereas you were NOT and neither was Harry. Any conclusion that doesn;t agree with yours, is the wrong one. You can post as much as you like about Paul Harrison as can your new found mate Harry but the pair of you weren't party to behind the scenes discussions and it is your conclusion that is flawed. I won't post about this again. The topic is closed.
I have arrived at my own conclusions, and justified that position. End of.
Believe it or not Caroline I am actually bored of this subject now. If its become a hot topic for Maggie and Harry all of a sudden they can talk about it without bringing me into it. Even better they can have tea party between them via PM.
-
I have arrived at my own conclusions, and justified that position. End of.
Believe it or not Caroline I am actually bored of this subject now. If its become a hot topic for Maggie and Harry all of a sudden they can talk about it without bringing me into it. Even better they can have tea party between them via PM.
You are entitled to do that - however, they are the wrong conclusions - end off.
I doubt Maggie will be entertaining any PM's from Harry but she may get a laugh at his somewhat 'out there' accusations!
-
David and Harry, the forum is for discussion of the Jeremy Bamber etc miscarriages of justice, not for discussing other members opinions or behaviour. If you have any complaints please inform Admin or moderators by pm. Thanks.
What you are trying to do is to make an issue which is a legitimate subject for discussion off limits, because one member wants it that way.
If I were to write a piece about Paul Harrison and his influence on this forum, then people such as Mat and Caroline can't be left out of the discussion. Harrison tried to frame Jackie Preece and when he was criticised, Mat and Caroline came to his defence. Mat even openly accused Jackie of sending that letter from Essex.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg268237.html#msg268237
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg268998.html#msg268998
Harrison would hardly have thought of trying to get Jackie into trouble without the influence of somebody at one of the forums who happens to have great antipathy towards Jackie.
The writing style of the letter is just like that of the letter Harrison said he got from a prison inmate to whom Bamber allegedly confessed. Same second rate melodrama!
Here is an excellent post from Patti
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg269000.html#msg269000
If the letter is genuine, then it must have come from a forum who knows JP and NGB and is holding a grudge. I doubt the campaign team are even aware of it and I honestly do not think it is anyone from that there.
It appears to me very likely that Harrison himself wrote the letter and communicated it online to a supporter of his who would type it out and post it for him. But who could that be?
In a police investigation, the first people to interview would be members of the blue and the red forums. But unlike Mat, I am not accusing anybody.
-
Hahahahaha, look at the plank who started the thread !?
Doesn't feel like 5 years ago, how time flies when you're having fun ;D ;D
-
What you are trying to do is to make an issue which is a legitimate subject for discussion off limits, because one member wants it that way.
If I were to write a piece about Paul Harrison and his influence on this forum, then people such as Mat and Caroline can't be left out of the discussion. Harrison tried to frame Jackie Preece and when he was criticised, Mat and Caroline came to his defence. Mat even openly accused Jackie of sending that letter from Essex.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg268237.html#msg268237
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg268998.html#msg268998
Harrison would hardly have thought of trying to get Jackie into trouble without the influence of somebody at one of the forums who happens to have great antipathy towards Jackie.
The writing style of the letter is just like that of the letter Harrison said he got from a prison inmate to whom Bamber allegedly confessed. Same second rate melodrama!
Here is an excellent post from Patti
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg269000.html#msg269000
If the letter is genuine, then it must have come from a forum who knows JP and NGB and is holding a grudge. I doubt the campaign team are even aware of it and I honestly do not think it is anyone from that there.
It appears to me very likely that Harrison himself wrote the letter and communicated it online to a supporter of his who would type it out and post it for him. But who could that be?
In a police investigation, the first people to interview would be members of the blue and the red forums. But unlike Mat, I am not accusing anybody.
You are correct in saying that PH would hardly have thought of getting Jackie into trouble because the chances are he never knew her.
It seems to me that Jackie created her own shit and then jumped right in it up to her neck. She claimed that PH approached her. Ever asked yourself WHY would he? Was JP -who could hardly string a cohesive sentence together- some celebrity in the literary world? I think not!!! She appears to have sent him a letter, introducing herself, and telling him she could, through her company, point him in all sorts of directions, and introduce him to those who would benefit him. NOW, unless you're claiming that PH was responsible for THAT letter, the letter he sent her was unequivocally NOT a first letter, but one in response to one previously sent. I can only believe that Jackie's ONLY plan was to brag to the rest of the forum that she was tight with a 'big time' author who was supporting Jeremy.
-
Hahahahaha, look at the plank who started the thread !?
Doesn't feel like 5 years ago, how time flies when you're having fun ;D ;D
Well done, Lookout ;D ;D ;D
-
Well done, Lookout ;D ;D ;D
It is said that Satan always finds work for idle hands. I must have needed a rest after being busy that day--koff koff. That's my excuse anyway !
-
It is said that Satan always finds work for idle hands. I must have needed a rest after being busy that day--koff koff. That's my excuse anyway !
You aaaare naughty, but I like you!!!................well I did!!! ;D ;D
-
You aaaare naughty, but I like you!!!................well I did!!! ;D ;D
Tsk------did ?? :o
-
Tsk------did ?? :o
:) :) :)
-
What you are trying to do is to make an issue which is a legitimate subject for discussion off limits, because one member wants it that way.
If I were to write a piece about Paul Harrison and his influence on this forum, then people such as Mat and Caroline can't be left out of the discussion. Harrison tried to frame Jackie Preece and when he was criticised, Mat and Caroline came to his defence. Mat even openly accused Jackie of sending that letter from Essex.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg268237.html#msg268237
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg268998.html#msg268998
Harrison would hardly have thought of trying to get Jackie into trouble without the influence of somebody at one of the forums who happens to have great antipathy towards Jackie.
The writing style of the letter is just like that of the letter Harrison said he got from a prison inmate to whom Bamber allegedly confessed. Same second rate melodrama!
Here is an excellent post from Patti
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg269000.html#msg269000
If the letter is genuine, then it must have come from a forum who knows JP and NGB and is holding a grudge. I doubt the campaign team are even aware of it and I honestly do not think it is anyone from that there.
It appears to me very likely that Harrison himself wrote the letter and communicated it online to a supporter of his who would type it out and post it for him. But who could that be?
In a police investigation, the first people to interview would be members of the blue and the red forums. But unlike Mat, I am not accusing anybody.
This is an example of an idiot who wasn't here at the time who doesn't know the back story. This is also a prime example of a troll. I would be happy for any police office to interview me as I have saved an email actually asking PH if the letter was genuine and his angry response to me.
Not sure what your intention are but I think from your post you are clearly raking up the past in order to cause disruption and you are indeed accusing people. I would like NGB to comment on this as these are serous accusations and I have about had enough of this bullshit! He knows why PH involved Jackie - you don't because you weren't a member here. You with all your 'logic' training you need to go back to the drawing board and take the course again - your posts are 'bollox' (said in true working class style).
If the police did interview me, I might have to pass on that you have been doing quite a number on me for some time - behind the scenes!
-
This is an example of an idiot who wasn't here at the time who doesn't know the back story. This is also a prime example of a troll. I would be happy for any police office to interview me as I have saved an email actually asking PH if the letter was genuine and his angry response to me.
Why did he get angry? Did he think you suspected him of making it up?
-
Why did he get angry? Did he think you suspected him of making it up?
I did suspect it wasn't genuine, so that is what I asked him. Just because I don't post things on here, people shouldn't assume. I am only having to say it now in order to defend myself from accusations made by Harry et al!
-
What you are trying to do is to make an issue which is a legitimate subject for discussion off limits, because one member wants it that way.
If I were to write a piece about Paul Harrison and his influence on this forum, then people such as Mat and Caroline can't be left out of the discussion. Harrison tried to frame Jackie Preece and when he was criticised, Mat and Caroline came to his defence. Mat even openly accused Jackie of sending that letter from Essex.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg268237.html#msg268237
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg268998.html#msg268998
Harrison would hardly have thought of trying to get Jackie into trouble without the influence of somebody at one of the forums who happens to have great antipathy towards Jackie.
The writing style of the letter is just like that of the letter Harrison said he got from a prison inmate to whom Bamber allegedly confessed. Same second rate melodrama!
Here is an excellent post from Patti
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6023.msg269000.html#msg269000
If the letter is genuine, then it must have come from a forum who knows JP and NGB and is holding a grudge. I doubt the campaign team are even aware of it and I honestly do not think it is anyone from that there.
It appears to me very likely that Harrison himself wrote the letter and communicated it online to a supporter of his who would type it out and post it for him. But who could that be?
In a police investigation, the first people to interview would be members of the blue and the red forums. But unlike Mat, I am not accusing anybody.
Although some of the points you make are valid, you are wide of the mark in the areas I have highlighted above in blue.
The reason Harrison had a strong motive to implicate Jackie had nothing to do with any influence brought to bear by a forum member. You can be forgiven for not being aware of this because you were not a forum member at the time. Jackie and Harrison had a very public falling out in a thread here which was subsequently removed. I may restore the thread in order that members can see the context but I would prefer not to do that because it would probably result in further argument and accusations. I will summarise what happened very briefly. Jackie started a thread stating that she had been contacted by Harrison. Harrison replied saying that he had been contacted by Jackie but had not wanted to engage with her. Jackie insisted that she was correct and gave me her password in order that I could review the relevant PMs. I did review them and I then posted a lengthy and completely factual account of the exchanges between Harrison and Jackie. This showed that contact was in fact instigated by Jackie, some time before. However Harrison had replied in a very friendly and encouraging way, inviting her to contact him again and exhorting her to "keep up the good work". Thus although Jackie did not come out of this well Harrison also came out of it badly, which was commented on in the thread. For what it is worth, and I may be wrong, I believe Jackie had genuinely forgotten that it was she who had initially instigated contact. She expressed great surprise in messages to me and of course had given me full access to her PMs. Harrison was outraged by what I had posted. He threatened me and the forum in very strong terms. As a result I banned him permanently. Harrison then tried to cause me problems by making a professional complaint against me, citing my appalling behaviour on the forum. He even got his wife involved and tried to broaden his complaint to include my wife! Naturally his complaint went nowhere. Thus by this time Harrison harboured strong resentment against Jackie, me and Jeremy Bamber (Harrison had fallen out with the CT). Shortly after his complaint against me failed I was contacted by the editor of the Scottish Sunday Express and the "threatening letter" story was run. The letter of course implicated the three people against whom he bore a grudge, namely Bamber, Jackie and me. The full letter was read to me and it was worse than reported in the paper.
I trust this makes clear that Harrison's animosity, leading to the alleged threatening letter, was not caused or influenced as you suggest by someone on one of the forums with strong animosity to Jackie. In addition I disagree with the suggestion that Harrison was assisted by a member of one of the forums in sending the letter. I hope you are not hinting that you think Caroline was involved, because that would be a very offensive and totally baseless suggestion. Although in common with a number of forum members Caroline initially accepted the truth of what Harrison alleged (you have linked to a post), she very quickly began to have doubts. I have known that for a long time from private exchanges with Caroline and today I have seen an email exchange between Caroline and Harrison shortly after the Express article in which she directly challenged him on it. She received a very aggressive response. A further minor point - the letter bore an Essex postmark and Caroline lives a long way from Essex.
I think we all now realise the truth about the "threatening letter" saga. Harrison's reputation is now in tatters and it is clear he does not like being crossed and has quite a temper. However it is important not to try to implicate others in Harrison's antics.
-
Although some of the points you make are valid, you are wide of the mark in the areas I have highlighted above in blue.
The reason Harrison had a strong motive to implicate Jackie had nothing to do with any influence brought to bear by a forum member. You can be forgiven for not being aware of this because you were not a forum member at the time. Jackie and Harrison had a very public falling out in a thread here which was subsequently removed. I may restore the thread in order that members can see the context but I would prefer not to do that because it would probably result in further argument and accusations. I will summarise what happened very briefly. Jackie started a thread stating that she had been contacted by Harrison. Harrison replied saying that he had been contacted by Jackie but had not wanted to engage with her. Jackie insisted that she was correct and gave me her password in order that I could review the relevant PMs. I did review them and I then posted a lengthy and completely factual account of the exchanges between Harrison and Jackie. This showed that contact was in fact instigated by Jackie, some time before. However Harrison had replied in a very friendly and encouraging way, inviting her to contact him again and exhorting her to "keep up the good work". Thus although Jackie did not come out of this well Harrison also came out of it badly, which was commented on in the thread. For what it is worth, and I may be wrong, I believe Jackie had genuinely forgotten that it was she who had initially instigated contact. She expressed great surprise in messages to me and of course had given me full access to her PMs. Harrison was outraged by what I had posted. He threatened me and the forum in very strong terms. As a result I banned him permanently. Harrison then tried to cause me problems by making a professional complaint against me, citing my appalling behaviour on the forum. He even got his wife involved and tried to broaden his complaint to include my wife! Naturally his complaint went nowhere. Thus by this time Harrison harboured strong resentment against Jackie, me and Jeremy Bamber (Harrison had fallen out with the CT). Shortly after his complaint against me failed I was contacted by the editor of the Scottish Sunday Express and the "threatening letter" story was run. The letter of course implicated the three people against whom he bore a grudge, namely Bamber, Jackie and me. The full letter was read to me and it was worse than reported in the paper.
I trust this makes clear that Harrison's animosity, leading to the alleged threatening letter, was not caused or influenced as you suggest by someone on one of the forums with strong animosity to Jackie. In addition I disagree with the suggestion that Harrison was assisted by a member of one of the forums in sending the letter. I hope you are not hinting that you think Caroline was involved, because that would be a very offensive and totally baseless suggestion. Although in common with a number of forum members Caroline initially accepted the truth of what Harrison alleged (you have linked to a post), she very quickly began to have doubts. I have known that for a long time from private exchanges with Caroline and today I have seen an email exchange between Caroline and Harrison shortly after the Express article in which she directly challenged him on it. She received a very aggressive response. A further minor point - the letter bore an Essex postmark and Caroline lives a long way from Essex.
I think we all now realise the truth about the "threatening letter" saga. Harrison's reputation is now in tatters and it is clear he does not like being crossed and has quite a temper. However it is important not to try to implicate others in Harrison's antics.
Thanks NGB.
-
I did suspect it wasn't genuine, so that is what I asked him. Just because I don't post things on here, people shouldn't assume. I am only having to say it now in order to defend myself from accusations made by Harry et al!
Harry et al?
The idea of you being behind the letter is something only he could have thought up. :))
-
Every success for the CT's application to the CCRC. Best wishes to the Team.
-
This is an example of an idiot who wasn't here at the time who doesn't know the back story. This is also a prime example of a troll. I would be happy for any police office to interview me as I have saved an email actually asking PH if the letter was genuine and his angry response to me.
Not sure what your intention are but I think from your post you are clearly raking up the past in order to cause disruption and you are indeed accusing people. I would like NGB to comment on this as these are serous accusations and I have about had enough of this bullshit! He knows why PH involved Jackie - you don't because you weren't a member here. You with all your 'logic' training you need to go back to the drawing board and take the course again - your posts are 'bollox' (said in true working class style).
If the police did interview me, I might have to pass on that you have been doing quite a number on me for some time - behind the scenes!
I don't need to know the full story to figure out that Harrison himself was behind the letter, just as he was behind the phoney letter from a prison inmate who alleged that Jeremy confessed to him, to come to the conclusion that there is someone else involved in his antics.
It's possible I suppose, that he made the journey to Essex to post the letter himself. Both of those letters were fake. By now, everyone should have figured that out.
If you read the last sentence of my post, you will see that it says I am not accusing anyone. Jackie has plenty of enemies. I don't know why you should think I believe that you personally sent the letter.
Maybe some of you people are so involved in suggestion and innuendo that you assume everyone else is the same. The idea of you driving your car from Geordieland all the way down to Essex to post a letter for Paul Harrison is to me just absurd.
I know you have played the harassment card with other members. You have accused Gringo of harassing you. To me, Gringo's posts have always seemed honest and fair.
The real trouble is that you tell blatant lies like saying that Nevill Bamber's skull was smashed in with blows from the rifle butt. If someone objects and accuses you of lying, that's harassment. The intended effect is that people stop confronting you and it works.
-
Every success for the CT's application to the CCRC. Best wishes to the Team.
Has a fresh application been submitted?
-
Harry et al?
The idea of you being behind the letter is something only he could have thought up. :))
As theories go, it is at least no worse than your belief that Ann Eaton made the scratches on the the
aga and fooled both the police and the other relatives.
Incidentally I now have the proof that the relatives did not find the silencer on August 10th. It's basically simple and unassailable.
I would like to see if anybody can figure out what it is.
-
I don't need to know the full story to figure out that Harrison himself was behind the letter, just as he was behind the phoney letter from a prison inmate who alleged that Jeremy confessed to him, to come to the conclusion that there is someone else involved in his antics.
It's possible I suppose, that he made the journey to Essex to post the letter himself. Both of those letters were fake. By now, everyone should have figured that out.
If you read the last sentence of my post, you will see that it says I am not accusing anyone. Jackie has plenty of enemies. I don't know why you should think I believe that you personally sent the letter.
Maybe some of you people are so involved in suggestion and innuendo that you assume everyone else is the same. The idea of you driving your car from Geordieland all the way down to Essex to post a letter for Paul Harrison is to me just absurd.
I know you have played the harassment card with other members. You have accused Gringo of harassing you. To me, Gringo's posts have always seemed honest and fair.
The real trouble is that you tell blatant lies like saying that Nevill Bamber's skull was smashed in with blows from the rifle butt. If someone objects and accuses you of lying, that's harassment. The intended effect is that people stop confronting you and it works.
I really don't care what you think and I don't tell lies. I'll leave that for the lies of you who seem more interested in posters than the actual topic of the forum.
By the way, I don't live in 'Geordie Land' I live in Durham and I don't drive! You can have that info for free to add to your dossier. Prat!
-
As theories go, it is at least no worse than your belief that Ann Eaton made the scratches on the the
aga and fooled both the police and the other relatives.
Incidentally I now have the proof that the relatives did not find the silencer on August 10th. It's basically simple and unassailable.
I would like to see if anybody can figure out what it is.
Won't even bother to try but if it's anything like your other attempts at logic ....
Take it to the police!
-
Has a fresh application been submitted?
Not quite https://twitter.com/Bambertweets?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
-
Has a fresh application been submitted?
" Preparations are under way " as we speak, NGB.
-
___________Looking forward to a successful outcome.
-
" Preparations are under way " as we speak, NGB.
The CT have been saying that was quite some time Lookout - the point of their Twitter post was to ask for more donations.
-
" Preparations are under way " as we speak, NGB.
How soon do you think it will be before the application is submitted?
-
How soon do you think it will be before the application is submitted?
It doesn't indicate when but they are asking for more donations for forensic work. If the submissions were anywhere near ready, I can't see why they would be seeking more donations for further work?
-
As theories go, it is at least no worse than your belief that Ann Eaton made the scratches on the the
aga and fooled both the police and the other relatives.
Incidentally I now have the proof that the relatives did not find the silencer on August 10th. It's basically simple and unassailable.
I would like to see if anybody can figure out what it is.
You have claimed such “proof” before, such as -
- An empty box that the silencer was once found in, handed to Oakley in September.
- An excel spread sheet made in 1999 were someone in Ewen Smiths office thought the silencer in the box was referred to in the present tense when it was actually reffered to in the past tense.
- A telephone call David Boutflour made in September talking about what he had found in August.
- A local newspaper article that reports something that ACC Simpson never actually said.
- An old man with Alzheimer's remembering the police fingerprinting the house a month prior to when it actually happened.
I won’t hold my breath for what else you now have. But I will be happy to consider it.
-
As theories go, it is at least no worse than your belief that Ann Eaton made the scratches on the the
aga and fooled both the police and the other relatives.
Incidentally, I have never made such a claim that Ann Eaton fooled the police. To say that I claim that is a strawman argument.
It was not the polices job to scrutinise and pass judgement on forensic evidence. Its their Job to secure the scene, collect and pass on any forensic evidence to the forensic staff at the lab.
We don't know what the police involved personally think of the silencer. With the exception of Stan Jones and Miller as they have made their views known to us on TV shows.
Stan Jones and Miller both express the view the silencer is genuine. Stan Jones comes across as a right cretin so that answers why he thinks its genuine. Miller on the other hand expresses the view that the silencer is genuine because the lab told him so.
As far as the lab is concerned, we know that they did not understand the dubious circumstances it was found in since DI Cook handed it to them under the pretence that Stan Jones had found it. We know from Mark Webster that Hayward had never seen backspatter in a silencer before. We know from Fletcher's testimony that he does not understand the subject of backspatter very well. And neither has he seen backspatter in a silencer before either. Thus the lab fooled themselves. Millers belief is based purely on circular reasoning.
There probably are members of EP that think what I think. But they wont dare express that in public would they? I wonder who Bill Robertson thinks planted the blood?
-
What could Harry's "unassailable" proof be? I've given it some thoughts and I am now taking bets.
1/30 - A baseless assumption.
1/20 - Something taken out of context.
1/10 - Someone got a date wrong.
1/5 - Someone's distorted recollection of something unrelated.
1/1 (evens) Informant Z
10/1 - Questionable document with such allegations.
50/1 - Authentic document with such allegations.
300/1 - Drunken admission from David Boutflour.
1000/1 - Sober and detailed admission from David Boutflour.
2000/1 - DCI Ainsley's top secret diary spilling the beans.
-
What could Harry's "unassailable" proof be? I've given it some thoughts and I am now taking bets.
1/30 - A baseless assumption.
1/20 - Something taken out of context.
1/10 - Someone got a date wrong.
1/5 - Someone's distorted recollection of something unrelated.
1/1 (evens) Informant Z
10/1 - Questionable document with such allegations.
50/1 - Authentic document with such allegations.
300/1 - Drunken admission from David Boutflour.
1000/1 - Sober and detailed admission from David Boutflour.
2000/1 - DCI Ainsley's top secret diary spilling the beans.
If it is indeed 'unassailable', why wouldn't he just post it? Sounds like carrot dangling!
-
If it is indeed 'unassailable', why wouldn't he just post it? Sounds like carrot dangling!
Its not the first time he claimed to have conclusive proof of something -
You have made no attempt to explain how the fingerprint dust could have been all around the house on August 10th even though the house not not fingerprinted until later than September 6th 1985 when the case became a murder investigation.
The basic point is that an "anomaly" such as this provides conclusive proof that a whole bunch of witness statements are fraudulent, unless you have evidence that the house was fingerprinted before then.
An "anomaly" such as this is a case of erroneous recollection by an elderly witness, six years after the event. Because it contradicts everything and everyone else.
To make matters worse, this "anomaly" was from police documents that Harry insists are forgeries because they contradict his conspiracy theory. Yet in these very forgeries he finds "conclusive proof" of it.
(https://vectorskey.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/rolling-eyes-emoji-icon.png)
-
Caroline, if you don't mind me asking. Why didn't you tell the forum you challenged PH on the letter, since you expressed a view on here it was genuine? Were you worried he'd get more angry at you if you did?
-
Caroline, if you don't mind me asking. Why didn't you tell the forum you challenged PH on the letter, since you expressed a view on here it was genuine? Were you worried he'd get more angry at you if you did?
Initially, I thought it might be genuine, but there were expressions in it that just didn't seem right - like someone referring to PH as 'Mr Super Cop'. No one here would have referred to him as that. But why would I tell the forum that I had challenged him? There is lots i don't tell the forum. I did think his reply was a complete over reaction but I had no proof that it wasn't genuine and me writing on here would have only inflamed the situation.
The man clearly has issues and demons and whatever trouble he caused, he caused the worst for himself. Lost of people were conned - even Jeremy who told me that 'he was one of the good guys'.
-
Initially, I thought it might be genuine, but there were expressions in it that just didn't seem right - like someone referring to PH as 'Mr Super Cop'. No one here would have referred to him as that. But why would I tell the forum that I had challenged him? There is lots i don't tell the forum. I did think his reply was a complete over reaction but I had no proof that it wasn't genuine and me writing on here would have only inflamed the situation.
Why wouldn't you tell the forum that you had challenged him? It was a hot topic (at one point). I can only assume his angry reply was to intimidate you into taking it no further? But I could be wrong.
Someone left a bad review for one of his talk events on Funzing. That person ended up being contacted by PH on facebook and got quiet abusive. It sounds like a similar experience you had. :-\
-
Why wouldn't you tell the forum that you had challenged him? It was a hot topic (at one point). I can only assume his angry reply was to intimidate you into taking it no further? But I could be wrong.
Someone left a bad review for one of his talk events on Funzing. That person ended up being contacted by PH on facebook and got quiet abusive. It sounds like a similar experience you had. :-\
Nah! I wasn't intimidated by PH. But the fact that it was hot topic is probably why I didn't mention it. Things spiral on here and I don't like that. Some people had already tried to drag me into the whole mess so I was better off staying out of it.
-
Nah! I wasn't intimidated by PH. But the fact that it was hot topic is probably why I didn't mention it. Things spiral on here and I don't like that. Some people had already tried to drag me into the whole mess so I was better off staying out of it.
Intimidated might be an exaggeration. But it would make sense that you didn't want to be on the receiving end of more nasty e-mails from PH if he found out you mentioned it.
Did his e-mail give you any more confidence in the letter or did it give you even more doubts?
-
Intimidated might be an exaggeration. But it would make sense that you didn't want to be on the receiving end of more nasty e-mails from PH if he found out you mentioned it.
Did his e-mail give you any more confidence in the letter or did it give you even more doubts?
I didn't think about nasty emails as I didn't think about posting about it here.
I didn't know what to make of his reply but no, it didn't instill confidence and together with a few other things, I parked it for future reference.
-
This is an example of an idiot who wasn't here at the time who doesn't know the back story. This is also a prime example of a troll. I would be happy for any police office to interview me as I have saved an email actually asking PH if the letter was genuine and his angry response to me.
Not sure what your intention are but I think from your post you are clearly raking up the past in order to cause disruption and you are indeed accusing people. I would like NGB to comment on this as these are serous accusations and I have about had enough of this bullshit! He knows why PH involved Jackie - you don't because you weren't a member here. You with all your 'logic' training you need to go back to the drawing board and take the course again - your posts are 'bollox' (said in true working class style).
If the police did interview me, I might have to pass on that you have been doing quite a number on me for some time - behind the scenes!
If there was a prize for the biggest idiot in the Paul Harrison saga there could only be one winner. You supported him for months after everyone else figured out he was a fraud.
I take it that David has shown you my private messages. Should have know better than to trust a creep like that.
-
If there was a prize for the biggest idiot in the Paul Harrison saga there could only be one winner. You supported him for months after everyone else figured out he was a fraud.
I take it that David has shown you my private messages. Should have know better than to trust a creep like that.
Well, haven't you just admitted yourself into the same hall of fame as you accuse me of. For all your logic training, I bet you can't even see the irony! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 8)
You shouldn't go around whispering in corners, because to be honest, although I have my fights with David, in this instance, it's YOU who is the sneaky little creep and that's one unhealthy obsession you have!
-
Harry’s name no longer appears in the members list. Has he been banned?
-
Harry’s name no longer appears in the members list. Has he been banned?
No, but he has applied to delete his account. That results in him no longer appearing in the members list and he can no longer send or receive PMs. He can withdraw his application to delete his account at any time until it has actually been deleted.
-
No, but he has applied to delete his account. That results in him no longer appearing in the members list and he can no longer send or receive PMs. He can withdraw his application to delete his account at any time until it has actually been deleted.
Awwww, that's sad - I guess we will never find out the definite proof of two silencers ::)
-
Awwww, that's sad - I guess we will never find out the definite proof of two silencers ::)
Actually, It was "unassailable" proof that the relatives never found the silencer in August. Instead the police planted the silencer in September then told the relatives to go and find it, but pretend they found it in August. ;D
-
Actually, It was "unassailable" proof that the relatives never found the silencer in August. Instead the police planted the silencer in September then told the relatives to go and find it, but pretend they found it in August. ;D
Ah yes, that was it. Perfect logic ;D
-
Ah yes, that was it. Perfect logic ;D
He probably thought that doing a weekend course in it would make him a logician.
-
It's common knowledge that there were two silencers but now with the proof it'll be part of the submission.
-
It's common knowledge that there were two silencers but now with the proof it'll be part of the submission.
It's a common claim, it isn't knowledge until it's been proven.
-
Two silencers :))
-
Mind you there were two calls from Nevill.
-
It's a common claim, it isn't knowledge until it's been proven.
Don't worry, it will be proven. I'm not sure but I think it may have been the poster " Martin " that also wrote about this in 2011 ?
-
Don't worry, it will be proven. I'm not sure but I think it may have been the poster " Martin " that also wrote about this in 2011 ?
Don't count your chickens Lookout.
-
Don't worry, it will be proven. I'm not sure but I think it may have been the poster " Martin " that also wrote about this in 2011 ?
I'm not entirely convinced that anything, so far on from a crime committed in 1985, can be "proven". However, I am convinced that there's as much rumour and speculation surrounding it as there was regarding Diana's death in 1997.
-
Don't worry, it will be proven. I'm not sure but I think it may have been the poster " Martin " that also wrote about this in 2011 ?
The only way to prove the existence of it would be crime scene photos showing the Pargheter rifle on the premises.
Since 11 crime scene photos of the office and gun cupboard have been cut out from the film strips. Its probably impossible to confirm one way or the other.
If it was proven to be there, all it would prove is that the relatives have told yet more lies. So I don't really concern myself with it if that's all it can establish.
-
In the Essex County Standard of 2010 it had been stated that 2 moderators had been found ? I'd imagine that news such as this would have been retained by the legal team along with the fact that it had been later than the actual murders that paint had been found on one when it was discovered that the surround of the Aga had been scratched.
-
In the Essex County Standard of 2010 it had been stated that 2 moderators had been found ? I'd imagine that news such as this would have been retained by the legal team along with the fact that it had been later than the actual murders that paint had been found on one when it was discovered that the surround of the Aga had been scratched.
But diverse publications carried equally diverse and, probably, incorrect information, ie Sheila was a "top model"!! When was she ever that? I'm not suggesting that they made it up as they went -the Essex County Standard got that information from somewhere but it doesn't make it correct- but I think it must go without saying that what was printed first was probably based on information given to the police by Jeremy. Remember all the different things which were printed after Diana's death? It's STILL happening, but now it's called "Fake News".
-
But diverse publications carried equally diverse and, probably, incorrect information, ie Sheila was a "top model"!! When was she ever that? I'm not suggesting that they made it up as they went -the Essex County Standard got that information from somewhere but it doesn't make it correct- but I think it must go without saying that what was printed first was probably based on information given to the police by Jeremy. Remember all the different things which were printed after Diana's death? It's STILL happening, but now it's called "Fake News".
Plenty of " fake news " about JB from those who didn't know him but had professed that they had so it works both ways.
-
Plenty of " fake news " about JB from those who didn't know him but had professed that they had so it works both ways.
Another word for " Whoppers " really !
-
Plenty of " fake news " about JB from those who didn't know him but had professed that they had so it works both ways.
But you're making judgement calls on those you know nothing about. They at least had dealings with Jeremy prior to the murders and probably spoke their experience of how he was. Since then he's had plenty of time to reinvent himself and present an entirely different persona.
-
Plenty of " fake news " about JB from those who didn't know him but had professed that they had so it works both ways.
Those are people who knew him better than you and yet you feel justified in giving your opinion having never met him.
-
Those are people who knew him better than you and yet you feel justified in giving your opinion having never met him.
You've never met him either have you ?
-
You've never met him either have you ?
You're right, I haven't. Then again, I'm not suggesting that those who knew him for most of his life - don't know him.
-
Drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds ;D ;D ;D ;D
I know, until something positive crops up hopefully. ;)
-
I know, until something positive crops up hopefully. ;)
Just something would be ......... well, 'something' ;D ;D
-
Just something would be ......... well, 'something' ;D ;D
Something has cropped up. The truth about the phone calls. I've always believed that Nevill rang Jeremy.
-
Something has cropped up. The truth about the phone calls. I've always believed that Nevill rang Jeremy.
You mean the 'truth' according to the CT? ;D ;D ;D
He didn't call the police Lookout - there is absolutely zero evidence to support that claim and solid evidence to disprove it.
-
Something has cropped up. The truth about the phone calls. I've always believed that Nevill rang Jeremy.
Are you referring to this from Bambertweets? ;D ;D
Further fresh evidence
In addition, evidence provided in the witness statement of PC Saxby dated 23 September 1985 states[1]:
“About 03:30am on Wednesday the 7th August 1985 I was on duty at Witham Police Station in company Police Sergeant 36 Bews and Police Constable 1509 Myall, [sic] when I received a message over my personal radio, from Chelmsford Police Station”
PC Saxby is clear he received information via his police personal radio at about 03:30am. This can only have related to the telephone call that had been received at 03:26am made by Nevill Bamber. PC Myall gave evidence that PC Saxby spoke to PC West over the internal telephone at 03:37am. This can only have related to the telephone call that had been received at 03:36am made by Jeremy Bamber. This evidence reveals that PC West contacted Witham Police station on two occasions using a different means of doing so each time, because he received two different calls at different times.
-
Are you referring to this from Bambertweets? ;D ;D
Further fresh evidence
In addition, evidence provided in the witness statement of PC Saxby dated 23 September 1985 states[1]:
“About 03:30am on Wednesday the 7th August 1985 I was on duty at Witham Police Station in company Police Sergeant 36 Bews and Police Constable 1509 Myall, [sic] when I received a message over my personal radio, from Chelmsford Police Station”
PC Saxby is clear he received information via his police personal radio at about 03:30am. This can only have related to the telephone call that had been received at 03:26am made by Nevill Bamber. PC Myall gave evidence that PC Saxby spoke to PC West over the internal telephone at 03:37am. This can only have related to the telephone call that had been received at 03:36am made by Jeremy Bamber. This evidence reveals that PC West contacted Witham Police station on two occasions using a different means of doing so each time, because he received two different calls at different times.
Yes,that's right.
-
You mean the 'truth' according to the CT? ;D ;D ;D
He didn't call the police Lookout - there is absolutely zero evidence to support that claim and solid evidence to disprove it.
How do you know there's " zero evidence ?"
-
If there's written proof of evidence, where's your proof that there wasn't ?
-
If there's written proof of evidence, where's your proof that there wasn't ?
Where, after all this time, has the alleged "written proof" been hidden? It seems to be no more than a continuation of the log debacle.
-
Where, after all this time, has the alleged "written proof" been hidden? It seems to be no more than a continuation of the log debacle.
That's as maybe, but when it's explained in full the question has to arise as to why the judge had persuaded the jury to take the first time that was mentioned and not query the misdirection. 10 mins ?
-
That's as maybe, but when it's explained in full the question has to arise as to why the judge had persuaded the jury to take the first time that was mentioned and not query the misdirection. 10 mins ?
I can only suggest that it came from a place of it being as obvious to the judge as it is to some of us, and that being the case there's have been nothing else to answer. IF I can bring myself to believe that there HAD been a call from Nevill to the police, unless the person who took it admits that such a call had been received, it can't possibly be proved, and as it's not possible to prove a negative, it can't be proved that no such call was received. It seems to me that it's no less speculative now than it ever was. To give credence to what you suggest can only be seen as going down the technicality route.
-
I can only suggest that it came from a place of it being as obvious to the judge as it is to some of us, and that being the case there's have been nothing else to answer. IF I can bring myself to believe that there HAD been a call from Nevill to the police, unless the person who took it admits that such a call had been received, it can't possibly be proved, and as it's not possible to prove a negative, it can't be proved that no such call was received. It seems to me that it's no less speculative now than it ever was. To give credence to what you suggest can only be seen as going down the technicality route.
Certainly not a technicality, it was a deliberate mistake because all involved wanted a conviction.
-
Certainly not a technicality, it was a deliberate mistake because all involved wanted a conviction.
Well, to suggest that an act was "deliberate" is to suggest that there was some personal involvement between perpetrator and victim. How, on the back of a random phone call, can that be? A mistake could only be called "deliberate" if it could be proved that the true story was known in advance. So IF a phone call was received from Nevill and accidentally overlooked, there'd have been NO reason not to rectify it WELL before "all involved wanted a conviction" allegedly, and WELL before it was decided they had enough on Jeremy to prosecute him. SO much of what happened is being seen with the luxury of hindsight and at some point has been blurred to suit.
-
Well, to suggest that an act was "deliberate" is to suggest that there was some personal involvement between perpetrator and victim. How, on the back of a random phone call, can that be? A mistake could only be called "deliberate" if it could be proved that the true story was known in advance. So IF a phone call was received from Nevill and accidentally overlooked, there'd have been NO reason not to rectify it WELL before "all involved wanted a conviction" allegedly, and WELL before it was decided they had enough on Jeremy to prosecute him. SO much of what happened is being seen with the luxury of hindsight and at some point has been blurred to suit.
So far as I've always seen there are two recorded phone-calls, one from Nevill the other from Jeremy and I've always believed that they were separate calls from each individual so why couldn't anyone else also see that two separate calls were made to the police ? Why did those at Witham never own up to receiving two calls at different times ?
Nevill's call to the police was after he'd spoken to Jeremy which is why Jeremy couldn't get back to his father because the phone was engaged-------Nevill was phoning the police.
-
So far as I've always seen there are two recorded phone-calls, one from Nevill the other from Jeremy and I've always believed that they were separate calls from each individual so why couldn't anyone else also see that two separate calls were made to the police ? Why did those at Witham never own up to receiving two calls at different times ?
Nevill's call to the police was after he'd spoken to Jeremy which is why Jeremy couldn't get back to his father because the phone was engaged-------Nevill was phoning the police.
No, there are two logs, one written by West and one by Bonnet. Bonnet's log was formatted by a call from West to relay information of the victim - victim being Nevill Bambe - information which originated from Jeremy Bamber.
-
No, there are two logs, one written by West and one by Bonnet. Bonnet's log was formatted by a call from West to relay information of the victim - victim being Nevill Bambe - information which originated from Jeremy Bamber.
Could you argue this against the legal team ?
-
Could you argue this against the legal team ?
If, for instance they have a witness who was at the scene ? ;)
-
Could you argue this against the legal team ?
Absolutely!
-
If, for instance they have a witness who was at the scene ? ;)
At what scene?
-
At what scene?
Was this 'person' standing behind Nevill when he made the supposed call?
When you talk about a 'legal team' I suspect you are talking about the Campaign Team?
Perhaps the CT would like to explain why Jeremy denied calling the police as late as 03:36 UNTIL the silly story appeared about a supposed call from Nevill? Not only did he deny it, he wanted to being a prosecution against West, accusing him of lying.
Also, perhaps they might also like to explain why Bonnett (a civilian employee) would lie about who he spoke to that night?
-
At what scene?
At WHF in the aftermath.
-
At WHF in the aftermath.
So how on earth does that prove a cal from Nevill?
-
The CT are suggesting that Saxby's statement proves a call from Nevill, it proves nothing of the sort. What it does prove, is that West wrote the wrong time on the log and nothing more.
-
If, for instance they have a witness who was at the scene ? ;)
At the scene? THAT early on? So now it's being suggested that for no valid reason a call from Nevill was withheld? Didn't Jeremy change his mind about the time of his call? Wasn't he put on hold for several minutes when he got through. You -and whoever THEY are- may take it as the absolute and irrefutable truth that if Jeremy didn't make that call until 3.36 and was put on hold for several minutes, there's no way on earth that he could have got dressed, got in his car and driven it at 30 miles an hour, stop to put a sweater on, and reach WHF by 3.50.
-
Aren't you making an assumption as to when he got dressed? I don't recall that Jeremy ever gave details about that.
-
Aren't you making an assumption as to when he got dressed? I don't recall that Jeremy ever gave details about that.
Dear god!
-
Dear god!
Be fair Caroline.You always want to know the ins and outs of why a poster said what they did.The dog with a bone effect ?
-
No need for hostilities, eh ?
-
Be fair Caroline.You always want to know the ins and outs of why a poster said what they did.The dog with a bone effect ?
Only if they make empty claims and won’t back them up.
-
Only if they make empty claims and won’t back them up.
It was a question that Reader asked, not a claim. The claim belonged to Jane.
-
It was a question that Reader asked, not a claim. The claim belonged to Jane.
One which Reader seems obsessed with instead of just asking she/he goes off half cocked as usual.
-
One which Reader seems obsessed with instead of just asking she/he goes off half cocked as usual.
I didn't see any " obsession " , well certainly nothing that goes beyond your own obsession with the hand on the nightdress debacle. Reader's only been here 5 minutes, not what I'd call an obsession either.
-
It was a good question which was posed by Reader which would have required an equally good answer but sadly didn't come forthwith. Instead it was the usual frosty reply when you find yourself browbeaten.
-
It was a good question which was posed by Reader which would have required an equally good answer but sadly didn't come forthwith. Instead it was the usual frosty reply when you find yourself browbeaten.
Reader didn't ask a question, he/she did the usual arse about face critique, made wrong assumptions and certainly would never have the good grace to make an apology. So yes, frosty is as frosty does. My past experiences of this poster have allowed me to form certain opinions.
By the way, they had a go at you also! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It was a good question which was posed by Reader which would have required an equally good answer but sadly didn't come forthwith. Instead it was the usual frosty reply when you find yourself browbeaten.
Oh you mean this little gem?
Aren't you making an assumption as to when he got dressed? I don't recall that Jeremy ever gave details about that.
It is possible to make certain assumptions - if you believe Jeremy is innocent then he had to get dressed after the supposed call from his father and before leaving the house (common sense). Personally, I don't think he did get dressed but as Reader does, when does he/she think it happened? Not that it makes any difference but Reader is making a meal of it so lets have their opinion! Or is no one allowed an 'opinion'? If that is the case no one should be posting.
-
Let's face it, in your books no-one IS allowed an opinion if it differs from yours !
-
Let's face it, in your books no-one IS allowed an opinion if it differs from yours !
Lets face it, you never stop giving yours so that makes that comments obsolete!
-
Lets face it, you never stop giving yours so that makes that comments obsolete!
Blimey, you can talk. You don't even give people a chance to voice their opinion.
-
Blimey, you can talk. You don't even give people a chance to voice their opinion.
When have you ever been stopped from voicing yours?
-
When have you ever been stopped from voicing yours?
I'm not talking about me I'm talking about those who've disappeared off the scene. I'd like to meet the person who stops me from having my say.
There was no need whatsoever to have spoken to Reader as you did was there ?
-
I'm not talking about me I'm talking about those who've disappeared off the scene. I'd like to meet the person who stops me from having my say.
There was no need whatsoever to have spoken to Reader as you did was there ?
People leaving the forum is NOTHING to do with me - and if Reader wasn't so RUDE she/he might receive a better response. These are adults Lookout and I am not here to pacify ANYONE!
-
Aren't you making an assumption as to when he got dressed? I don't recall that Jeremy ever gave details about that.
Can you give me one good reason why I should not have? We have been led to believe that Jeremy was in bed when he allegedly received a call from his father at silly o'clock. Now I have no idea whether he slept in pj's, underpants, nightshirt, or nude, but it's reasonable to ASSUME it may have been one of those. It also seems reasonable to ASSUME that as he arrived at the murder scene dressed in day clothes, he had, at some point, dressed, however, I can't tell you the exact moment he did that. I can only ASSUME it was at some point between being woken from sleep -if that's what you care to believe happened- and leaving the house.
The call -the time of which I wrongly gave as being 11 minutes (although as I wasn't certain I seem to think I added a question mark?)- that I experienced you as being hell bent on putting me in the wrong over, was the earlier one.
Perhaps next time you could drop the hostile bull in a china shop attitude.
-
Reader isn't a rude person. None of her posts have ever upset anyone.
-
well how would it have taken him to dtrss not long.
-
I suppose this particular argument lets JB off the hook that he was at his own home getting dressed instead of allegedly in hiding at WHF before the murders, suggesting that he didn't go home at all.
-
Reader isn't a rude person. None of her posts have ever upset anyone.
Perhaps you should try asking "anyone" instead of "knowing" what is their experience of Reader.
-
well how would it have taken him to dtrss not long.
I don't know, nugs. I wasn't there, but the length of time it would have taken him to dress isn't what's being discussed here. It appears to be about what right did I have to assume he dressed. Actually, I never believed he UNdressed.
-
Perhaps you should try asking "anyone" instead of "knowing" what is their experience of Reader.
I've been here long enough to know that nobody objected to her posts ! She was never a prolific poster but what was posted by no means upset anyone------apart from yourselves,that is !
-
I've been here long enough to know that nobody objected to her posts ! She was never a prolific poster but what was posted by no means upset anyone------apart from yourselves,that is !
I've been here long enough to know that you would stick up for anyone who was rude to either me or Jane so I'm not concerned with what you think.
Why don't you answer her criticism of your own post?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg456749.html#msg456749
-
I've been here long enough to know that nobody objected to her posts ! She was never a prolific poster but what was posted by no means upset anyone------apart from yourselves,that is !
Well actually, and not for the first time, YOU'RE WRONG!! -but you do so love sweeping and all encompassing statements- this isn't the first time I've had cause to complain about her/his attitude.
-
Well actually, and not for the first time, YOU'RE WRONG!! -but you do so love sweeping and all encompassing statements- this isn't the first time I've had cause to complain about her/his attitude.
Ha, and you haven't got an attitude ???
-
Ha, and you haven't got an attitude ???
Apparently not. Nothing I've ever said has caused adverse/objectionable comments elsewhere.
-
Apparently not. Nothing I've ever said has caused adverse/objectionable comments elsewhere.
Mine neither.
-
Mine neither.
According to you. That being said why the complaints, and you have certainly raised some. but as I said, it's more about others' opinions of us, than our own.
-
According to you. That being said why the complaints, and you have certainly raised some. but as I said, it's more about others' opinions of us, than our own.
Where are my complaints ?
-
Where are my complaints ?
Oh c'mon, Lookout. You've used that trick too may times for me to fall for that one. I suppose you're now going to say you've never, ever mentioned what's been said about you on another forum? I always thought it strange that you knew so much when you vowed never to venture over there, but seemed to know your way around it better than I. I also seem to remember that you were advised not to look if you found offensive what was said.
PS. I guess your complaints will be stored along with all the other stuff you swore you never said.
-
Oh c'mon, Lookout. You've used that trick too may times for me to fall for that one. I suppose you're now going to say you've never, ever mentioned what's been said about you on another forum? I always thought it strange that you knew so much when you vowed never to venture over there, but seemed to know your way around it better than I. I also seem to remember that you were advised not to look if you found offensive what was said.
PS. I guess your complaints will be stored along with all the other stuff you swore you never said.
No more tricks than you have as avoiding/evading/denying being what you fall back on. I no longer visit other forums as I don't see the point apart from the fact I'm no longer interested.
-
No more tricks than you have as avoiding/evading/denying being what you fall back on. I no longer visit other forums as I don't see the point apart from the fact I'm no longer interested.
But I'm not talking about what you claim not to do now, Lookout. I'm talking about your past denials which have been plentiful and vociferous. The very silly thing is, the louder you deny them, the more ammunition you provide to refute you.
-
But I'm not talking about what you claim not to do now, Lookout. I'm talking about your past denials which have been plentiful and vociferous. The very silly thing is, the louder you deny them, the more ammunition you provide to refute you.
What would you do if you didn't have the past to refer to ? ::)
Double standards though I do believe as you don't like your past looming if David happens to be proving a point by showing an earlier post of yours. Nobody likes being reminded and you're no exception.
-
What would you do if you didn't have the past to refer to ? ::)
Double standards though I do believe as you don't like your past looming if David happens to be proving a point by showing an earlier post of yours. Nobody likes being reminded and you're no exception.
But I don't recall denying anything that David has found. What is there to deny? I was once a Jeremy supporter. At one moment I probably made the same, embarrassingly crass claims that you're still making, ie a 24 year old being too worn out to kill for half a million pounds. It does actually make me cringe to be reminded of it. How's that for honesty, Lookout? You, on the other hand, appear to need to hold onto the past to fuel the grudges you like to cling to. You swear black was blue denying your guilt and even when it's proved, you STILL cling to denial. To what end, Lookout? We ALL get it wrong. Denial doesn't help. Get over it
-
But I don't recall denying anything that David has found. What is there to deny? I was once a Jeremy supporter. At one moment I probably made the same, embarrassingly crass claims that you're still making, ie a 24 year old being too worn out to kill for half a million pounds. It does actually make me cringe to be reminded of it. How's that for honesty, Lookout? You, on the other hand, appear to need to hold onto the past to fuel the grudges you like to cling to. You swear black was blue denying your guilt and even when it's proved, you STILL cling to denial. To what end, Lookout? We ALL get it wrong. Denial doesn't help. Get over it
I've got news for you-----I " got over " everything and everybody when I was away from here ! So I'd tell you to get over it and get a life !
-
I've got news for you-----I " got over " everything and everybody when I was away from here ! So I'd tell you to get over it and get a life !
You may believe so, but from where I'm sitting you appear to have returned with a mind set no different from how it was when you left.
-
You may believe so, but from where I'm sitting you appear to have returned with a mind set no different from how it was when you left.
Yes, it is different,it's better that's why !
-
Yes, it is different,it's better that's why !
I rejoice for you and look forward to experiencing evidence of it.