Author Topic: Trudie being vague again:  (Read 8980 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #60 on: November 13, 2015, 09:19:PM »
There is nothing new there Steve.

if you still think the moderator is a red herring , then how do you know that EP are not keeping back documents in respect of this most vital bit of evidence? After all if it is not a genuine bit of evidence they are not going to hand it to Jeremy on a plate are they ?


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #61 on: November 13, 2015, 09:57:PM »
if you still think the moderator is a red herring , then how do you know that EP are not keeping back documents in respect of this most vital bit of evidence? After all if it is not a genuine bit of evidence they are not going to hand it to Jeremy on a plate are they ?

What, you think they wrote down that the moderator is s red herring? If it is a RH, they didn't write about it.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33764
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #62 on: November 13, 2015, 10:07:PM »
What, you think they wrote down that the moderator is s red herring? If it is a RH, they didn't write about it.


Even supposing for a moment that it was a RH, HOW does it explain why Jeremy, after allegedly getting a call, circa 3am, telling him his sister had gone mad and had a gun, failed to dial 999, on the grounds that he didn't think it would make any difference to how quickly they got there, instead choosing to idle his way through the phone book, phone Julie, then telling the police his father sounded terrified and saying later that his father sounded "panicked."  With this as a backdrop, it rather makes an hypocrisy of trying to introduce RH's.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #63 on: November 13, 2015, 10:56:PM »
What, you think they wrote down that the moderator is s red herring? If it is a RH, they didn't write about it.

that's not what I said - you know that I am asking a genuine question .

If you think the moderator is a red herring that must mean the blood evidence was planted or false . IF that is the case then the police are not going to admit to that are they? So it is possible they would keep back some evidence? Or do you think the family are responsible and EP took the moderator at face value?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #64 on: November 13, 2015, 11:01:PM »
that's not what I said - you know that I am asking a genuine question .

If you think the moderator is a red herring that must mean the blood evidence was planted or false . IF that is the case then the police are not going to admit to that are they? So it is possible they would keep back some evidence? Or do you think the family are responsible and EP took the moderator at face value?

6 of one and half a dozen of the other. I don't think EP (as a whole) 'helped the evidence along'. I think it was a select few, I believe the family may have gone along with it because if the police are telling you something is OK - it would help legitimise it. I don't think they kept back any evidence though, I think they simply added to it to secure a conviction.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #65 on: November 13, 2015, 11:03:PM »

Even supposing for a moment that it was a RH, HOW does it explain why Jeremy, after allegedly getting a call, circa 3am, telling him his sister had gone mad and had a gun, failed to dial 999, on the grounds that he didn't think it would make any difference to how quickly they got there, instead choosing to idle his way through the phone book, phone Julie, then telling the police his father sounded terrified and saying later that his father sounded "panicked."  With this as a backdrop, it rather makes an hypocrisy of trying to introduce RH's.

Jane - you know me by now - I am still looking at all angles and yes it is possible to say that is unlikely - but the thing is  he did tell the truth about is that his family were very private and so he would , half asleep , hesitate about what to do - after all nothing was said about a shot being fired etc etc.

It is unlikely - but not impossible .

As I have said I am reading the CAL book at the moment as it does refer to actual documents.  And perhaps I am at the stage you and Caroline were a few months ago - but don't insult my intelligence because you were in exactly the same position and then "saw the light" - perhaps I will too. But it will be in my own time .

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #66 on: November 13, 2015, 11:09:PM »
6 of one and half a dozen of the other. I don't think EP (as a whole) 'helped the evidence along'. I think it was a select few, I believe the family may have gone along with it because if the police are telling you something is OK - it would help legitimise it. I don't think they kept back any evidence though, I think they simply added to it to secure a conviction.

I said a few posts ago that I had changed my mind about a few things . this is only my opinion nothing else. I don't think JB was framed by EP as such , but I do get the feeling that EP were under more pressure than we think because of the mistakes they made . And genuinely I don't think they knew who was responsible. So if they were seen to let JB off after he became a suspect it would have looked even worse. So I do think the family and EP did everything to get him convicted . I don't think they were above "buying" testimony . And I think they could "coach " witnesses . I have a feeling Sheilas body was moved during before the photos so the jury may not have seen the correct crime scene.

Does this make JB guilty or innocent ? I don't know.


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #67 on: November 13, 2015, 11:18:PM »
Jane - you know me by now - I am still looking at all angles and yes it is possible to say that is unlikely - but the thing is  he did tell the truth about is that his family were very private and so he would , half asleep , hesitate about what to do - after all nothing was said about a shot being fired etc etc.

It is unlikely - but not impossible .

As I have said I am reading the CAL book at the moment as it does refer to actual documents.  And perhaps I am at the stage you and Caroline were a few months ago - but don't insult my intelligence because you were in exactly the same position and then "saw the light" - perhaps I will too. But it will be in my own time .

That's true, I once thought he could be innocent. However, I have said many times that I was never happy with the phone call and him not calling 999 and I know I made excuses for that at the time and know that others are also doing it now (not saying you are). I get what you say about them being private people but his actions don't support his claims. His father supposedly asked him to go over; he didn't. His father sounded frightened; he didn't call the police for 26 minutes and when he did. he meandered around looking for the number of a local station?? Before this though, he called Julie - some say he called her for advice on what to do and yet, he didn't ask her anything nor tell her that "Sheila had gone crazy, she's got the gun'. If he called the police before calling Julie, he didn't tell Julie he'd called the police. It all sounds a bit rooster and male cow to me.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #68 on: November 13, 2015, 11:24:PM »
That's true, I once thought he could be innocent. However, I have said many times that I was never happy with the phone call and him not calling 999 and I know I made excuses for that at the time and know that others are also doing it now (not saying you are). I get what you say about them being private people but his actions don't support his claims. His father supposedly asked him to go over; he didn't. His father sounded frightened; he didn't call the police for 26 minutes and when he did. he meandered around looking for the number of a local station?? Before this though, he called Julie - some say he called her for advice on what to do and yet, he didn't ask her anything nor tell her that "Sheila had gone crazy, she's got the gun'. If he called the police before calling Julie, he didn't tell Julie he'd called the police. It all sounds a bit rooster and male cow to me.

I agree - but if you were setting the phone call as your alibi why on earth would you make it sound so ridiculous?



Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #69 on: November 13, 2015, 11:27:PM »
I agree - but if you were setting the phone call as your alibi why on earth would you make it sound so ridiculous?

It only becomes ridiculous when he tries to defend it later and muddled. He never intended to be a suspect and obviously couldn't anticipate what questions he would be asked so clearly couldn't make a story for every eventuality.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #70 on: November 13, 2015, 11:42:PM »
It seems a bit far fetched that someone who had never been really physically violent to another human being ( to the extent they had been reported) would be so confident that their alibi could be so flaky an be acceptable? 

It is difficult I admit because after the recent Bristol murder ( which no one would imagine would happen) ones conceptions of human behaviour is tested. But it was obvious from his  behaviour he had a mental problem and he cracked under questioning immediately . But then again the girlfriend did not .


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #71 on: November 14, 2015, 01:33:AM »
It seems a bit far fetched that someone who had never been really physically violent to another human being ( to the extent they had been reported) would be so confident that their alibi could be so flaky an be acceptable? 

It is difficult I admit because after the recent Bristol murder ( which no one would imagine would happen) ones conceptions of human behaviour is tested. But it was obvious from his  behaviour he had a mental problem and he cracked under questioning immediately . But then again the girlfriend did not .

The motives are different, Jeremy didn't murder anyone for the thrill of the kill or the violence - the murders were simply a means to an end and he has previous history of that. Robbing his own family for financial gain, he risked getting caught then too - he didn't care. Selling drugs is also risky - but again, he didn't care. Every time he got away with something, his confidence grew. the risk was worth taking because the prize was worth having.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33764
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #72 on: November 14, 2015, 10:15:AM »
Jane - you know me by now - I am still looking at all angles and yes it is possible to say that is unlikely - but the thing is  he did tell the truth about is that his family were very private and so he would , half asleep , hesitate about what to do - after all nothing was said about a shot being fired etc etc.

It is unlikely - but not impossible .

As I have said I am reading the CAL book at the moment as it does refer to actual documents.  And perhaps I am at the stage you and Caroline were a few months ago - but don't insult my intelligence because you were in exactly the same position and then "saw the light" - perhaps I will too. But it will be in my own time .

Jan, I'm sorry if you feel that I've insulted your intelligence.

 Back when I thought he was innocent, I DID accept the phone call. THAT was the problem. I didn't LOOK at it. It was when I started to, and broke it down -to humanize- it that I realized that something was missing. I know it's been said that the Bambers were very private -I concur- and Nevill was old school, stiff upper lip, but Jeremy eventually told police that his father had sounded panicked - terrified. That fact alone, hearing, maybe for the first time EVER, real fear in his father's voice, would SURELY have galvanized Jeremy into immediate action, but it didn't.

It's also been said that he was half asleep. Having, sadly, received numerous calls at that time of morning, all I can say is, however tired I may have been, the moment the phone rang, my senses were on high alert. It MAY turn out to be a hoax or wrong number but it's far more likely to be a problem -and a serious one- for the phone to ring at that hour.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #73 on: November 14, 2015, 10:25:AM »
I have nearly finished the CAL book - and strangely enough - and I promise I did not know this apparently there is a bit about Jeremy accusing an officer of finding a silencer under the bed. But of course it was denied.


But that still would be strange because it would have meant Sheila would have put the silencer on the gun before the shooting - which does seem unlikely ( not impossible ) but unlikely . I was trying to remember where Jeremy said where he thought his father would have put the rifle if he had tidied it away? I think he said the den?

I have got to say I have found the book interesting and on the whole I don't think she has tried to force a conclusion on the reader .


Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20877
Re: Trudie being vague again:
« Reply #74 on: November 14, 2015, 01:19:PM »
I agree - but if you were setting the phone call as your alibi why on earth would you make it sound so ridiculous?
Because he realized that Julie was on a shared line. As it was he saved his chuckling for when he thought he had Julie alone at Bourtree Cottage,but DS Jones was listening at the door and overheard it.