Other Forums and Organisations => Jeremy Bamber forum => Topic started by: Tim Invictus on September 19, 2012, 08:32:02 PM
Title: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on September 19, 2012, 08:32:02 PM
I try not to read the few morons that post at Tesco Towers or the Yorkshire knitting circle but I inadvertently caught that blank plank called Lookout posting this:
Steve,Jeremy would be in Ashworth security if he was a psychopath. Or somewhere similar,,and would certainly not have had the " freedom " that he's been allowed over the years,particularly the internet in which to communicate with his legal team.
What sort of 'freedom' do you think whole life tarrif Cat. A murderers have Lookout? And Bamber has no access to the internet you thick spanner! Lookout is like Mertol without the innocence and charm!
8-)(--)
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on September 19, 2012, 08:41:43 PM
I try not to read the few morons that post at Tesco Towers or the Yorkshire knitting circle but I inadvertently caught that blank plank called Lookout posting this:
Steve,Jeremy would be in Ashworth security if he was a psychopath. Or somewhere similar,,and would certainly not have had the " freedom " that he's been allowed over the years,particularly the internet in which to communicate with his legal team.
What sort of 'freedom' do you think whole life tarrif Cat. A murderers have Lookout? And Bamber has no access to the internet you thick spanner! Lookout is like Mertol without the innocence and charm!
8-)(--)
INTERNET?? What planet is Lookout on exactly? @)(++(*
No prisoners have any access to the internet whilst in jail you clot.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on September 19, 2012, 09:20:56 PM
You see this is Mertol from planet Mertol attempting communications this evening:
His trial was not fair and on that i dont believe he is guilty, my post dealt with his image in that van starting his long sentence , whatever he was or was like all that is about to change instantly no part of my post means i take the view of the jury 2 did not even today i would like to know why in the face of those who did believe him guilty.
Mindless, harmless crap true but he doesn't have the nasty edge that Lookout displays. As long as you don't mention nuns or dead bodies Mertol is just a moron and it can even be quite amusing trying to decypher what he is trying to say!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Joanne on September 19, 2012, 09:27:13 PM
'His trial was not fair and on that i dont believe he is guilty' made me chuckle, it sounds like one of the little boys down the road who says "I'm never coming here again" when there's no sweets!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on September 19, 2012, 09:37:12 PM
'His trial was not fair and on that i dont believe he is guilty' made me chuckle, it sounds like one of the little boys down the road who says "I'm never coming here again" when there's no sweets!
It's a shame about his nun and dead body fetishes because normally Mertol seems like a harmless little crossbreed puppy looking for a home! A couple of weeks ago he admitted he is a virgin in his 40's then last night he admitted he has no mates! Poor lad! 8(8-))
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: goatboy on September 19, 2012, 10:09:24 PM
A recent Lookout classic was when he denied that Bamber was a convicted murderer. Then someone found a previous post where he said anyone who harms children should be given the death penalty. He completely failed to see the contradictions in being a Bamber supporter and that by his own admission he would have seen Bamber executed. This is the calibre of supporter you get on the Blue forum.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on September 19, 2012, 10:48:58 PM
A recent Lookout classic was when he denied that Bamber was a convicted murderer. Then someone found a previous post where he said anyone who harms children should be given the death penalty. He completely failed to see the contradictions in being a Bamber supporter and that by his own admission he would have seen Bamber executed. This is the calibre of supporter you get on the Blue forum.
There are a plethora of mindless idiots on that forum and knitting circle ladies who all judge the Bamber case by how cute he looked 27 years ago! How Bob and hartley debates with them is quite beyond me!
You will notice that NGB 1006 never argues that Bamber is actually innocent; he fakes support for McKay because he wants to cash in but he knows Bamber is as guilty as sin!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Joanne on September 20, 2012, 08:18:16 AM
I'm really quite annoyed at the 2 threads aimed at 2 people on here which have no foundation whatsoever and if I find out that a certain person is giving personal stuff out that they know is confidential, then it won't be pleasent.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: me again on September 20, 2012, 08:45:59 AM
I'm really quite annoyed at the 2 threads aimed at 2 people on here which have no foundation whatsoever and if I find out that a certain person is giving personal stuff out that they know is confidential, then it won't be pleasent.
Don't you go all cryptic on us Joanne? Tis bad enogh that Mrs Preace does it all the time without you doing it to. Why don't posters just say what is on their mind any more. Has the Mrs Hall effect got on everyones nerves again and brought sensible debate to the gutter.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Joanne on September 20, 2012, 08:51:46 AM
Sorry- didn't think it was cryptic. The threads are on John and Tim.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: jackiepreece on September 20, 2012, 09:55:29 AM
What confidential stuff Joanne?
The only confidential stuff I have seen seems to have come from someone close to Ngb on the blue forum and posted on here
Maybe Tim would let us know who it is because they must be quite proud of themselves to get an exclusive like that !!!
If it is true ?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Joanne on September 20, 2012, 10:13:23 AM
I don't know, it hasn't been posted yet, there was a threat of it being posted yesterday but it hasn't been as yet.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on September 20, 2012, 10:47:44 AM
The only confidential stuff I have seen seems to have come from someone close to Ngb on the blue forum and posted on here
Maybe Tim would let us know who it is because they must be quite proud of themselves to get an exclusive like that !!!
If it is true ?
You would be surprised Jackie! A regualr from Tesco Towers who is sick to death of Steph being allowed to attack mods and have whole threads to attack other people just because she is now errmmm 'friendly' with Nelly 1006! A bit like how you used to be able to get away with saying anything and stalking anyone over there Jackie!
Nelly seems to have a soft spot for feisty women. It's on the top of his head under the combover!
8)-)))
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: goatboy on September 20, 2012, 06:38:42 PM
A recent Lookout classic was when he denied that Bamber was a convicted murderer. Then someone found a previous post where he said anyone who harms children should be given the death penalty. He completely failed to see the contradictions in being a Bamber supporter and that by his own admission he would have seen Bamber executed. This is the calibre of supporter you get on the Blue forum.
There are a plethora of mindless idiots on that forum and knitting circle ladies who all judge the Bamber case by how cute he looked 27 years ago! How Bob and hartley debates with them is quite beyond me!
You will notice that NGB 1006 never argues that Bamber is actually innocent; he fakes support for McKay because he wants to cash in but he knows Bamber is as guilty as sin!
Interesting point, I know John asked Simon McKay on Twitter outright if he thought Bamber was innocent. McChancer didn't reply, that says it all. The only way Jeremy is going anywhere is if they can cast doubt over the conviction. So the central planks of his defence now are rubbishing the evidence that put him away (the silencer, JM etc). This is the way they plan to get him out of jail, not proving his innocence.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on September 20, 2012, 06:40:58 PM
A recent Lookout classic was when he denied that Bamber was a convicted murderer. Then someone found a previous post where he said anyone who harms children should be given the death penalty. He completely failed to see the contradictions in being a Bamber supporter and that by his own admission he would have seen Bamber executed. This is the calibre of supporter you get on the Blue forum.
There are a plethora of mindless idiots on that forum and knitting circle ladies who all judge the Bamber case by how cute he looked 27 years ago! How Bob and hartley debates with them is quite beyond me!
You will notice that NGB 1006 never argues that Bamber is actually innocent; he fakes support for McKay because he wants to cash in but he knows Bamber is as guilty as sin!
Interesting point, I know John asked Simon McKay on Twitter outright if he thought Bamber was innocent. McChancer didn't reply, that says it all. The only way Jeremy is going anywhere is if they can cast doubt over the conviction. So the central planks of his defence now are rubbishing the evidence that put him away (the silencer, JM etc). This is the way they plan to get him out of jail, not proving his innocence.
In that case he won't get a cent in compensation just like Sion Jenkins didn't and the helicopter that Nelly hopes for will be a distant dream.
On second thoughts we could always get him one of these...
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: goatboy on September 20, 2012, 09:27:49 PM
That's true, but although he couldn't claim compensation or pursue his family for his share of the inheritance, would there be anything legally to stop him from selling his story to whoever wanted to publish it? Or selling film rights and the like? If not then he would still stand to be a wealthy man.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Claudia on September 21, 2012, 11:41:33 AM
That's true, but although he couldn't claim compensation or pursue his family for his share of the inheritance, would there be anything legally to stop him from selling his story to whoever wanted to publish it? Or selling film rights and the like? If not then he would still stand to be a wealthy man.
Do you think anyone other than his faithful hangers on would be in any way interested? Its not as if he has done anything special in the last 26 years is it? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on September 21, 2012, 04:29:13 PM
Old Belton putting the boot into me now that I've left the forum. Listen, fella - I'd back off if I were you.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on September 21, 2012, 05:02:38 PM
I for one remain sure and steadfast that Jeremy is innocent and no amount of swaying nor persuasion of any sort would make me think otherwise.
Mike has been a marvellous " ambassador " for this particular MOJ,,,and to be quite honest,I don't think things would have moved if it hadn't been for his work on this case.I admire him,and his sheer determination and it's a pity there weren't more like him. Those who've put the man down,,,,shame on you,,yet Mike has nothing to worry about on that score because it very likely goes over his head. It would mine too.
Keep up the good work,Mike,as what you've achieved will come to fruition sooner,rather than later.
Lookout you really are a prize moron! You're right about one thing idiot, commonsense and evidence do go right over your head.
8-)(--)
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: abs on September 21, 2012, 07:18:20 PM
That's true, but although he couldn't claim compensation or pursue his family for his share of the inheritance, would there be anything legally to stop him from selling his story to whoever wanted to publish it? Or selling film rights and the like? If not then he would still stand to be a wealthy man.
Do you think anyone other than his faithful hangers on would be in any way interested? Its not as if he has done anything special in the last 26 years is it? >@@(*&)
Yes, I do actually think plenty of people with only a passing knowledge of the case would be interested, particularly in his absolute conviction in his innocence which is unique among the current life tarrif prisoners. However, just because this makes him unique it sure as hell doesn't make him innocent!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Dillon on October 05, 2012, 09:49:53 AM
" You appear to hate Jeremy with an unhealthy passion . The man hasn't once spoken ill of anyone, nor has appeared bitter in any way. "
Quoted from Lookout posting on the blue forum yesterday in a sort of more in sorrow then anger , patronising riposte to Steve UK.
IMO it is not unhealthy to have a passionate hatred of child killers. Sick to support them, though.
Not bitter in any way ? How about Bamber's years of sending malicious letters and instigating civil court action against the relatives ? His fury when forced to sell his shares in the caravan park to pay legal costs.
Then later in the same post. " Little did you know that Jeremy was a great help to his father... " Oh yeah, like sloping off back to Australasia without notice at the beginning of harvest, the busiest time of year on any arable farm. Lookout is actually not all well informed . For example, I have heard at first hand from an entirely reliable source that Jeremy openly stated that he hated farming and his ambition was to live and work in London. Fair enough, but Lookout is posting crap when putting out that Jeremy was keen on the agricultural life. I find it hard to comprehend why this ageing Lookout living on Merseyside ( ? ) has such a love affair with Jeremy. Nowt as strange, as folks, I guess. But please stop spreading misinformation about Jeremy, the family and your garbled interpretation of Sheila and June's mental health status . Supposedly you have previous work knowledge relating to mental illness. ( Ex psychiatric nurse ? ) Little knowledge though.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on October 22, 2012, 12:34:43 AM
Lookout is a woman! I knew 'he' was a thick c**t but didn't know 'he' had one too! She misses her dead husband and quote his "intelligence" and his insights like how the pyramids were built 'from above by other beings'! She also thinks Bamber is highly intelligent and ran rings around the coppers who arrested him!
Stupid bitch!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on October 22, 2012, 11:02:32 AM
Stupid bitch (the proof!)
Mike,,marks couldn't have been made with a silencer fitted because the end of it would have just slithered along without such marks. The shorter something is,the more weight and impact behind it,so therefore it was done without the silencer fitted . The shorter an implement,the more of an impact it has. The handling of a rifle complete with silencer could be likened to trying to write,using the end of a pencil.You can't,because you haven't got full control and end up making little or no impression to what you're trying to write. Logged
Trying hitting a golf ball with a 6 inch golf club then Lookout you strange moron! She must be related to Mertol somehow; from the same gene pool puddle at least!
8-)(--)
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Dillon on October 22, 2012, 09:31:02 PM
Lookout is a woman! I knew 'he' was a thick c**t but didn't know 'he' had one too! She misses her dead husband and quote his "intelligence" and his insights like how the pyramids were built 'from above by other beings'! She also thinks Bamber is highly intelligent and ran rings around the coppers who arrested him!
Stupid bitch!
Oh, another member of the knitting circle. She certainly scores as one of the silliest and most prejudiced of the Bamberettes .
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on October 23, 2012, 06:30:43 PM
Lookout is a woman! I knew 'he' was a thick c**t but didn't know 'he' had one too! She misses her dead husband and quote his "intelligence" and his insights like how the pyramids were built 'from above by other beings'! She also thinks Bamber is highly intelligent and ran rings around the coppers who arrested him!
Stupid bitch!
Oh, another member of the knitting circle. She certainly scores as one of the silliest and most prejudiced of the Bamberettes .
I can't believe that forum anymore. I have honestly never read so much puerile crapola in my entire life.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on October 23, 2012, 07:18:32 PM
I totally agree Shona; Tesco Towers is either swamped with infantile 'naughty step' type syrupy babytalk or uneducated and ill informed bile aimed at the living victims of their hero Bamber. And every page is interspersed with Gladys Lugg being 'humerous' in his own not so humble opinion!
And they all let Tesko himself feed them lies and bullsh*t without a word of challenge!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on October 23, 2012, 07:36:54 PM
I totally agree Shona; Tesco Towers is either swamped with infantile 'naughty step' type syrupy babytalk or uneducated and ill informed bile aimed at the living victims of their hero Bamber. And every page is interspersed with Gladys Lugg being 'humerous' in his own not so humble opinion!
And they all let Tesko himself feed them lies and bullsh*t without a word of challenge!
One thing's for sure, I'm VERY glad that they're for JB and not against him!!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on October 30, 2012, 11:27:01 PM
More 'Lookout' pearls of wisdom:
I've come to the conclusion that everyone must wear blinkers if they think that this man was/is capable of murder. Believe me,there are more evil people walking the streets. I feel so strongly about this mans' innocence.
Yes,,I'm okay thanks,,but get steamed-up over injustices like this. It's inhumane. Hope you're okay too.
No need to get steamed up Lookout, Bamber is as guilty as sin and anyone who looks at the case objectively has to see that. Sheila could not have killed anyone period ergo Bamber is guilty. Simples.
8-)(--)
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: goldengrahames on November 08, 2012, 08:31:44 PM
A couple more blinders today:
"He's a dark horse,,,a very clever one at that" (talking about "Lugg")
Hi Susan.I'd like a whole album of Mikes photos.They've been fantastic. (just before Mike posts a close-up out-of-focus picture of a luminous Tesco Extra sign.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on November 08, 2012, 09:48:06 PM
It the spirit of the agreement this thread should be removed ... please! I have Lookout, Mertol and Oncesaid make some strange comments at times and we should be able to comment on them in General Chat maybe. But this is an attacking thread and has to go.
I am assured Lookout is actually a really nice person although I must say it doesn't show in some of her posts! John can this thread go please?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Aunt Agatha on November 08, 2012, 09:55:40 PM
Well said Tim, I totally agree.
This is in contravention to our/your new agreement.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: goldengrahames on November 08, 2012, 09:55:51 PM
It the spirit of the agreement this thread should be removed ... please! I have Lookout, Mertol and Oncesaid make some strange comments at times and we should be able to comment on them in General Chat maybe. But this is an attacking thread and has to go.
I am assured Lookout is actually a really nice person although I must say it doesn't show in some of her posts! John can this thread go please?
So what's the point of a section of the forum called "Jeremy Bamber Forum" if you're going to delete every thread in it that comments on the activities of the Jeremy Bamber Forum? May as well just delete the entire "Jeremy Bamber Forum" section and have done with it.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on November 08, 2012, 11:40:25 PM
It the spirit of the agreement this thread should be removed ... please! I have Lookout, Mertol and Oncesaid make some strange comments at times and we should be able to comment on them in General Chat maybe. But this is an attacking thread and has to go.
I am assured Lookout is actually a really nice person although I must say it doesn't show in some of her posts! John can this thread go please?
So what's the point of a section of the forum called "Jeremy Bamber Forum" if you're going to delete every thread in it that comments on the activities of the Jeremy Bamber Forum? May as well just delete the entire "Jeremy Bamber Forum" section and have done with it.
We can still comment in the General Chat area on any posts or members of the Blue Forum just not have threads specifically attacking one person. I actually started the 'Lookout' thread and obviously have not been happy with some of her comments.
We are doing things differently now ... we can ask for offensive comments and/or ones that contain personal references to be removed on the Bamber Forum. A very respected member of that forum has asked for the 'Lookout' thread to be removed and in the present climate it should be expunged. In my opinion.
For example GG I think your post on this thread earlier today would be fine in the General Chat aea. Anyone commenting that Grahame Lugg is a "dark horse ... a very one clever at that" deserves commenting on!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on November 09, 2012, 12:03:57 AM
It the spirit of the agreement this thread should be removed ... please! I have Lookout, Mertol and Oncesaid make some strange comments at times and we should be able to comment on them in General Chat maybe. But this is an attacking thread and has to go.
I am assured Lookout is actually a really nice person although I must say it doesn't show in some of her posts! John can this thread go please?
So what's the point of a section of the forum called "Jeremy Bamber Forum" if you're going to delete every thread in it that comments on the activities of the Jeremy Bamber Forum? May as well just delete the entire "Jeremy Bamber Forum" section and have done with it.
Exactly GG. There is no point in removing threads which relate to anonymous individuals. If Lookout wants to 'come out' we can then remove the thread. Until then it stays.
We might as well say Tom, Dick and f..king Harry are off limits too along with Ali Bongo and Z.
It has already been pointed out that the majority of posters on the blue forum are using false names for obvious reasons (who really wants to be known for supporting a child murderer) while the opposite is true about the users on this forum.
Susan Ingham was the exception because Patti assured us she was a real person and not JP as some had suspected.
I also suspect ngb1066 and roch would also be excluded had it not been for the fact that their real identities were revealed by JP and SH respectively.
False user names by the very nature of the beast allows posters to post comments which they would never do if they were using their real names. That in my opinion opens them up to constructive criticism irrespective of whether they have their own thread here or not. Keeping such criticisms in the one thread is simply a tool to keep a record of such comments.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 09, 2012, 12:17:05 AM
It the spirit of the agreement this thread should be removed ... please! I have Lookout, Mertol and Oncesaid make some strange comments at times and we should be able to comment on them in General Chat maybe. But this is an attacking thread and has to go.
I am assured Lookout is actually a really nice person although I must say it doesn't show in some of her posts! John can this thread go please?
So what's the point of a section of the forum called "Jeremy Bamber Forum" if you're going to delete every thread in it that comments on the activities of the Jeremy Bamber Forum? May as well just delete the entire "Jeremy Bamber Forum" section and have done with it.
Exactly GG. There is no point in removing threads which relate to anonymous individuals. If Lookout wants to 'come out' we can then remove the thread. Until then it stays.
We might as well say Tom, Dick and f..king Harry are off limits too along with Ali Bongo and Z.
It has already been pointed out that the majority of posters on the blue forum are using false names for obvious reasons (who really wants to be known for supporting a child murderer) while the opposite is true about the users on this forum.
Susan Ingham was the exception because Patti assured us she was a real person and not JP as some had suspected.
I also suspect ngb1066 and roch would also be excluded had it not been for the fact that their real identity was revealed by JP and SH respectively.
I seem to remember that "lookout" was outed on the blue forum (P.H. of W.) in very unkind terms. Not on here, though. 8**8:/:
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on November 09, 2012, 12:19:18 AM
It the spirit of the agreement this thread should be removed ... please! I have Lookout, Mertol and Oncesaid make some strange comments at times and we should be able to comment on them in General Chat maybe. But this is an attacking thread and has to go.
I am assured Lookout is actually a really nice person although I must say it doesn't show in some of her posts! John can this thread go please?
So what's the point of a section of the forum called "Jeremy Bamber Forum" if you're going to delete every thread in it that comments on the activities of the Jeremy Bamber Forum? May as well just delete the entire "Jeremy Bamber Forum" section and have done with it.
Exactly GG. There is no point in removing threads which relate to anonymous individuals. If Lookout wants to 'come out' we can then remove the thread. Until then it stays.
We might as well say Tom, Dick and f..king Harry are off limits too along with Ali Bongo and Z.
It has already been pointed out that the majority of posters on the blue forum are using false names for obvious reasons (who really wants to be known for supporting a child murderer) while the opposite is true about the users on this forum.
What does 'come out' mean John ... you know who the reliable source is and that person tells us Lookout is a mature woman not another poster in disguise. So what further information do you require?
If we reserve the right to comment on peoples posts but have agreed not to openly attack people then surely a thread called (by me) Lookout-Idiot should be removed. No damge done if it's not here!
I have expressed my opinion John .. enough said by me!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on November 09, 2012, 12:22:58 AM
I certainly agree that the headers should not be abusive and where this is the case they will be changed.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Matthew Wyse on November 09, 2012, 12:29:03 AM
It the spirit of the agreement this thread should be removed ... please! I have Lookout, Mertol and Oncesaid make some strange comments at times and we should be able to comment on them in General Chat maybe. But this is an attacking thread and has to go.
I am assured Lookout is actually a really nice person although I must say it doesn't show in some of her posts! John can this thread go please?
So what's the point of a section of the forum called "Jeremy Bamber Forum" if you're going to delete every thread in it that comments on the activities of the Jeremy Bamber Forum? May as well just delete the entire "Jeremy Bamber Forum" section and have done with it.
Exactly GG. There is no point in removing threads which relate to anonymous individuals. If Lookout wants to 'come out' we can then remove the thread. Until then it stays.
We might as well say Tom, Dick and f..king Harry are off limits too along with Ali Bongo and Z.
It has already been pointed out that the majority of posters on the blue forum are using false names for obvious reasons (who really wants to be known for supporting a child murderer) while the opposite is true about the users on this forum.
What does 'come out' mean John ... you know who the reliable source is and that person tells us Lookout is a mature woman not another poster in disguise. So what further information do you require?
If we reserve the right to comment on peoples posts but have agreed not to openly attack people then surely a thread called (by me) Lookout-Idiot should be removed. No damge done if it's not here!
I have expressed my opinion John .. enough said by me!
8((()*/ yea agree that Lookout - Idiot is inappropriate. Better just Lookout. 8@??)(
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 09, 2012, 12:37:41 AM
I certainly agree that the headers should not be abusive and where this is the case they will be changed.
It's a shame, sometimes, that the 2 forums can't amalgamate. Roch has made a point tonight that has always puzzled me. When the police looked through the window they saw Ralph, slumped forward in his chair, with his hair flopped forward, and presumed it was a female body. But, eventually, Ralph's body ended up with his head in the Aga scuttle, and cushions and garments on the floor, soaking up the blood. Someone, presumably a police officer, placed him so. It certainly wasn't Sheila. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 09, 2012, 12:53:23 AM
I certainly agree that the headers should not be abusive and where this is the case they will be changed.
It's a shame, sometimes, that the 2 forums can't amalgamate. Roch has made a point tonight that has always puzzled me. When the police looked through the window they saw Ralph, slumped forward in his chair, with his hair flopped forward, and presumed it was a female body. But, eventually, Ralph's body ended up with his head in the Aga scuttle, and cushions and garments on the floor, soaking up the blood. Someone, presumably a police officer, placed him so. It certainly wasn't Sheila. Any thoughts?
And it's absolute bloody madness to think that Sheila shot herself WITH A GUN and ran upstairs while hiding from the police. Even to the side of her throat. Can you imagine how much that would bleed? And the shock and pain she would be in? Can you imagine how much blood would pour down her front, and from her mouth? Just take a minute, and think about a bullet going into your neck.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on November 09, 2012, 01:04:58 AM
I certainly agree that the headers should not be abusive and where this is the case they will be changed.
It's a shame, sometimes, that the 2 forums can't amalgamate. Roch has made a point tonight that has always puzzled me. When the police looked through the window they saw Ralph, slumped forward in his chair, with his hair flopped forward, and presumed it was a female body. But, eventually, Ralph's body ended up with his head in the Aga scuttle, and cushions and garments on the floor, soaking up the blood. Someone, presumably a police officer, placed him so. It certainly wasn't Sheila. Any thoughts?
And it's absolute bloody madness to think that Sheila shot herself WITH A GUN and ran upstairs while hiding from the police. Even to the side of her throat. Can you imagine how much that would bleed? And the shock and pain she would be in? Can you imagine how much blood would pour down her front, and from her mouth? Just take a minute, and think about a bullet going into your neck.
That was the fatal flaw in Bambers plan Shona, he really didn't think it through but then again, he didn't think he would have to shoot her twice.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 09, 2012, 01:05:54 AM
I'm tired of getting tangled up with the semantics, and the silencer, and Z, the photo and the logs. If you look at the image of Sheila, she didn't move after the first shot. The second shot forced some blood from her nose and mouth. JB (or whoever) must have crapped theselves when they checked her body and realised that the first shot hadn't worked.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Admin on November 09, 2012, 01:07:14 AM
It's a shame, sometimes, that the 2 forums can't amalgamate. Roch has made a point tonight that has always puzzled me. When the police looked through the window they saw Ralph, slumped forward in his chair, with his hair flopped forward, and presumed it was a female body. But, eventually, Ralph's body ended up with his head in the Aga scuttle, and cushions and garments on the floor, soaking up the blood. Someone, presumably a police officer, placed him so. It certainly wasn't Sheila. Any thoughts?
From time to time we need to think back to why this forum was set up in the first instance. Was it because many of us were booted off the Jeremy Bamber forum for refusing to swallow their fantasy tales and so came into conflict with Tesko and others? This forum afforded everyone expelled from the Bamber forum a voice when Tesko and his pals saw fit to exclude us.
This forum now supports our sister site on twitter which is growing constantly. This forum allows twitter followers to read up on various subjects without having to register or post. This is an extremely valuable resource and is promoted weekly by several on-line publications. As a result of this our sister site has become an extremely well known and respected source of information and tweets to nearly 11,000 people every day. The daily feedback we receive is warmly welcomed and just goes to prove that we are doing something right.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 09, 2012, 01:09:27 AM
Strange how Sheila kept a last bullet for herself, in case the first one didn't work.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Admin on November 09, 2012, 01:16:46 AM
I'm tired of getting tangled up with the semantics, and the silencer, and Z, the photo and the logs. If you look at the image of Sheila, she didn't move after the first shot. The second shot forced some blood from her nose and mouth. JB (or whoever) must have crapped theselves when they checked her body and realised that the first shot hadn't worked.
Absolutely Shona.
When the rifle and magazine were examined by the police both were found to be empty so Bamber must have fired every single round he had on him into the dying Nevill. It is speculation we agree but he would have had to load a single round before shooting Sheila in the neck. Can you imagine the sheer horror which must have swept over him when he realised that she wasn't dead after the first bullet hit her. He would then have had to load another bullet into the breach of the rifle before shooting Sheila again and this time with her head slightly raised so that the bullet would be directed into her cerebral lobe. He knew then that a 2-shot suicide would be suspicious but a 3-shot suicide was an impossibility.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Admin on November 09, 2012, 01:17:16 AM
Strange how Sheila kept a last bullet for herself, in case the first one didn't work.
And how ridiculous to consider that a gun would be placed on Sheila, without checking that it was loaded. And then, fiddling with it.
I give up.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 09, 2012, 01:31:38 AM
Sad to say, but if Sheila wanted to kill herself and the boys, she would have done it at her home, when Ralph couldn't intervene. How stupid, to do it at WHF, surrounded by people?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Dillon on November 09, 2012, 08:42:31 AM
I am getting fairly sick of all this hypocrisy . It is apparently out of order to attack " Lookout " who is said to be a nice person, but ok for this retired psychiatric nurse to continue posting non evidence based insulting defamation of Sheila on the blue forum. Now there is talk of cosying up to a forum which has a long history of promulgating defamation of victims of this crime, surviving family members and witnesses. Anyway, there is very little scope now for meaningful discussion of the Bamber case. It has all been said time and time again. The man is likely to remain in prison for the duration and that is it.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Angelo222 on November 09, 2012, 10:12:46 AM
I am getting fairly sick of all this hypocrisy . It is apparently out of order to attack " Lookout " who is said to be a nice person, but ok for this retired psychiatric nurse to continue posting non evidence based insulting defamation of Sheila on the blue forum. Now there is talk of cosying up to a forum which has a long history of promulgating defamation of victims of this crime, surviving family members and witnesses. Anyway, there is very little scope now for meaningful discussion of the Bamber case. It has all been said time and time again. The man is likely to remain in prison for the duration and that is it.
Rock on Dillon....nicely put. If think we have bent over backwards to accommodate the blue forum lot. What I see as a problem is some members cosying up to them over there and then coming back here and dictating to us. I have no intention of cosying up to anybody who supports the killer of children and old ladies no matter how nice they seem.
Nice to see you back Joanne. Awesome.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 09, 2012, 10:16:15 AM
I am getting fairly sick of all this hypocrisy . It is apparently out of order to attack " Lookout " who is said to be a nice person, but ok for this retired psychiatric nurse to continue posting non evidence based insulting defamation of Sheila on the blue forum. Now there is talk of cosying up to a forum which has a long history of promulgating defamation of victims of this crime, surviving family members and witnesses. Anyway, there is very little scope now for meaningful discussion of the Bamber case. It has all been said time and time again. The man is likely to remain in prison for the duration and that is it.
Rock on Dillon....nicely put. If think we have bent over backwards to accommodate the blue forum lot. What I see as a problem is some members cosying up to them over there and then coming back here and dictating to us. I have no intention of cosying up to anybody who supports the killer of children and old ladies no matter how nice they seem.
Nice to see you back Joanne. Awesome.
And rock on, David!! But that wasn't my post. Dillon writes much better than wot i do, and I can't spell sykihatrick.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Angelo222 on November 09, 2012, 10:41:04 AM
Oh dear...silly me...I answered the wrong post. @)(++(*
Its been a long morning all said so my apologies. The neighbours cows got out last night and have been tramping around in my garden and munching on my hydrangeas. Dam mess.
I have altered my post...ta for pointing it out. 8((()*/
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on November 09, 2012, 10:59:45 AM
I am getting fairly sick of all this hypocrisy . It is apparently out of order to attack " Lookout " who is said to be a nice person, but ok for this retired psychiatric nurse to continue posting non evidence based insulting defamation of Sheila on the blue forum. Now there is talk of cosying up to a forum which has a long history of promulgating defamation of victims of this crime, surviving family members and witnesses. Anyway, there is very little scope now for meaningful discussion of the Bamber case. It has all been said time and time again. The man is likely to remain in prison for the duration and that is it.
I am inclined to agree Dillon and Dave. Its time we got back to business and stopped getting involved with these distractions which is what the troublemakers want. As far as I am concerned anonymous posters are not part of any agreement.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on November 09, 2012, 04:16:45 PM
And a message to lookout. We don't think/say he's guilty we know* it duckey!
* 99% anyway.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: goldengrahames on November 09, 2012, 11:19:30 PM
And a message to lookout. We don't think/say he's guilty we know* it duckey!
* 99% anyway.
I think we need to knock this unnatural sycophancy on the head John.
What's the rationale for the agreement anyway, beyond a bit of inconvenience for a member's "partner"? Surely worth taking that on the chin?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on November 10, 2012, 12:28:10 AM
Quite agree...we have dropped a lot of threads some of which were unflattering towards real persons, some deserved it while others possibly didn't. I have a real problem with having to drop threads which only reveal the truth however but for the sake of the truce I agreed to do so. That's not to say they cannot be reinstated at some later date if necessary.
I think we are feeling our way at the moment but credit where credit is due and the girls in particular have done a lot of great work. 8@??)(
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Tim Invictus on November 10, 2012, 02:25:07 AM
And a message to lookout. We don't think/say he's guilty we know* it duckey! * 99% anyway.
I think we need to knock this unnatural sycophancy on the head John.
What's the rationale for the agreement anyway, beyond a bit of inconvenience for a member's "partner"? Surely worth taking that on the chin?
Nice of you to volunteer some other member and some other member's partner to "take it on the chin" GG!! Just so long as it's not your chin or your partner eh?
Unbelievable!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Angelo222 on November 10, 2012, 12:14:19 PM
It is quite clear that this truce with the blue forum has done nothing but stifle debate and is now causing friction within the forum which imo is unacceptable. I suggest we run a poll immediately to determine if it should continue.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Admin on November 10, 2012, 12:43:57 PM
The only trouble being caused is when we debate what is being posted on the blue forum. If we don't debate what they're posting there endeth the trouble as far as I can see. I think we're debating two sides of the coin, they widely (ie mostly) think Sheila did it, we widely believe jeremy did it. Unfortunately we have a general lack of people who say Sheila didn't do it which makes it not good from a debate point. Maybe if we had some different cases elsewhere to debate we'd have something else to go at rather than debating the same old same old, however when I have tried, nobody seems that interested.
The difficulty is that most of the founder members came here in the first place in order to counter the nonsense being posted on the Jeremy Bamber forum and rightly so. Over time this has morphed into personal attacks which have become part and parcel of the forum for many. The forum members will have to decide this so a poll is the best way forward.
You can vote here > http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=795.msg24860#msg24860
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Jerry on November 18, 2012, 01:24:33 PM
Lookout is having a moan over on the other place but they are quite content to slate the Eaton/Boutflour family. Under those circumstances they become fair game in my opinion and this threrad should remain. These people must realise that they cannot hide behind their computers and hope that nobody takes notice of their defamatory comments. The sooner coward lookout is outed the better as far as I am concerned. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Milly on November 18, 2012, 01:26:43 PM
Lookout is having a moan over on the other place but they are quite content to slate the Eaton/Boutflour family. Under those circumstances they become fair game in my opinion and this threrad should remain. These people must realise that they cannot hide behind their computers and hope that nobody takes notice of their defamatory comments. The sooner coward lookout is outed the better as far as I am concerned. @)(++(*
8@??)( 8((()*/
Who cares about a fake name anyway???
If they feel so insecure about it get another fake name....simples. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 18, 2012, 01:39:58 PM
Lookout is having a moan over on the other place but they are quite content to slate the Eaton/Boutflour family. Under those circumstances they become fair game in my opinion and this threrad should remain. These people must realise that they cannot hide behind their computers and hope that nobody takes notice of their defamatory comments. The sooner coward lookout is outed the better as far as I am concerned. @)(++(*
"Lookout" was named (and shamed, sadly 8)><( ) on the blue forum, by someone called Quackers, I think. Dreadful behaviour. I was shocked. ?8)@)-)
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on November 18, 2012, 01:49:02 PM
Lookout is having a moan over on the other place but they are quite content to slate the Eaton/Boutflour family. Under those circumstances they become fair game in my opinion and this threrad should remain. These people must realise that they cannot hide behind their computers and hope that nobody takes notice of their defamatory comments. The sooner coward lookout is outed the better as far as I am concerned. @)(++(*
I tend to agree, if we were to allow every Tom Dick and Blumpkin to post whatever they wanted anonymously and didn't respond to them we would be failing in our task. Lookout stays because the name means nothing to me and most posters on here. If they are so concerned they should use a different name as suggested. This applies to every other anonymous name which appears over on the blue forum, they will be responded to in the strongest of terms whenever they post anything which smears the integrity of real people whether they be alive or since deceased.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 18, 2012, 01:58:26 PM
Lookout is having a moan over on the other place but they are quite content to slate the Eaton/Boutflour family. Under those circumstances they become fair game in my opinion and this threrad should remain. These people must realise that they cannot hide behind their computers and hope that nobody takes notice of their defamatory comments. The sooner coward lookout is outed the better as far as I am concerned. @)(++(*
I tend to agree, if we were to allow every Tom Dick and Blumpkin to post whatever they wanted anonymously and didn't respond to them we would be failing in our task. Lookout stays because the name means nothing to me and most posters on here. If they are so concerned they should use a different name as suggested. This applies to every other anonymous name which appears over on the blue forum, they will be responded to in the strongest of terms whenever they post anything which smears the integrity of real people whether they be alive or since deceased.
Tom Dick and Blumpkin!! Oh dear, that did make me laugh!! @)(++(*
But it's sad to see Jo still being attacked. I'm not sure if that is adhering to our truce.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Mervyn on November 18, 2012, 05:15:15 PM
Lookout is having a moan over on the other place but they are quite content to slate the Eaton/Boutflour family. Under those circumstances they become fair game in my opinion and this threrad should remain. These people must realise that they cannot hide behind their computers and hope that nobody takes notice of their defamatory comments. The sooner coward lookout is outed the better as far as I am concerned. @)(++(*
I tend to agree, if we were to allow every Tom Dick and Blumpkin to post whatever they wanted anonymously and didn't respond to them we would be failing in our task. Lookout stays because the name means nothing to me and most posters on here. If they are so concerned they should use a different name as suggested. This applies to every other anonymous name which appears over on the blue forum, they will be responded to in the strongest of terms whenever they post anything which smears the integrity of real people whether they be alive or since deceased.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
I completely concur with that mate as there is no room for apathy here. 8((()*/
If this lookout wants to abuse the family at white house farm then so be it but she will not be let off to any extent as far as I am concerned anyway. ?8)@)-)
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 20, 2017, 10:26:57 AM
Lookout may I suggest you try engaging your brain before you post.
Where were Sheila's morals to have allowed pics like that to be taken ? Sickening !!
1. Have you seen the said photos? No 2. Is there a reliable source detailing the photos? No 3. Even if the photographs are very revealing, and there's no proof they were other than claims JB made smutty comments, it isn't illegal if the woman consents. 4. Whatever the exact nature of the photos SC realised she had made an error in judgement and asked the photographer for the negs. 5. SC was short of cash and according to CC's mother's WS (Mrs Doris Brencher) SC was trying hard to find paid work. 6. At the time SC was the main carer to the twins and obviously trying to manage/cope with her mental illness. 7. If SC turned to burglary for monetary gain as JB did when he broke into OCP would that be ok in your eyes?
You claim to have a background in mental health and nursing and yet you show a complete lack of empathy and understanding of a deceased woman who suffered serious mental health issues.
The only sickening thing I see are your comments.
If you want to say something constructive in JB's favour in this regard you could highlight the nonsense claims that JB was supposedly jealous SC was leading some sort of enviable lifestyle in London. She wasn't. She was struggling all round.
You bang away all day at your keyboard without thinking through what you're saying. Try asking yourself:
- Is it offensive to the victims of WHF? - Is it relevant? - Does it assist JB? - Does it further understanding of the case? - Is it accurate? - Do you have a reliable source for your assertions?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on September 21, 2017, 10:55:45 AM
Where were Sheila's morals to have allowed pics like that to be taken ? Sickening !!
1. Have you seen the said photos? No 2. Is there a reliable source detailing the photos? No 3. Even if the photographs are very revealing, and there's no proof they were other than claims JB made smutty comments, it isn't illegal if the woman consents. 4. Whatever the exact nature of the photos SC realised she had made an error in judgement and asked the photographer for the negs. 5. SC was short of cash and according to CC's mother's WS (Mrs Doris Brencher) SC was trying hard to find paid work. 6. At the time SC was the main carer to the twins and obviously trying to manage/cope with her mental illness. 7. If SC turned to burglary for monetary gain as JB did when he broke into OCP would that be ok in your eyes?
You claim to have a background in mental health and nursing and yet you show a complete lack of empathy and understanding of a deceased woman who suffered serious mental health issues.
The only sickening thing I see are your comments.
If you want to say something constructive in JB's favour in this regard you could highlight the nonsense claims that JB was supposedly jealous SC was leading some sort of enviable lifestyle in London. She wasn't. She was struggling all round.
You bang away all day at your keyboard without thinking through what you're saying. Try asking yourself:
- Is it offensive to the victims of WHF? - Is it relevant? - Does it assist JB? - Does it further understanding of the case? - Is it accurate? - Do you have a reliable source for your assertions?
It's absolutely terrifying to even IMAGINE her being allowed anywhere near a poorly person, she makes Nurse Ratched look like Winnie the Pooh. Thank goodness that we live in more enlightened times - no more leeches and Bedlam. 8((()*/
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on September 21, 2017, 11:51:18 PM
In answer to Adam on blue.....yes, I do think that Bamber is the unluckiest man ever. With the exception of Holly, Jackie and Aunt Ags, he really has got the unbelievably crappest, dodgiest, inneffectual bunch of supporters imaginable. Randy, dumpy women and ancient, angry old women, chippy little men who get a mard on instead of a hard-on, and computer cavaliers who should know better and get a life. Bamber gets his rocks off by playing all of those misfits like a kipper purely because it pleases him and he's got nothing else to do. A tatty little Christmas card from him is like winning the lottery when your entire family has moved to the other side of the world and hope you haven't done the equity release thing on a damp old house in Liverpool.
?{)(**
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on September 22, 2017, 12:03:12 AM
And can you believe it's almost Christmas again? I can feel another sprout and bacardi-fuelled ode in the offing......
8(*(
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on September 22, 2017, 12:27:36 AM
Holl, I meant to say that Bamber expected that his prints would be found on the bible because he "might have threatened Crispy with it." Really? Was he covering his arse? And doesn't that sound like the lamest excuse ever? He's basically saying that he regularly spent time in his parents' bedroom, waving a bible at Crispy, and possibly hitting her with it. For reasons known only to himself.
Oh Holl. Come on.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on September 22, 2017, 01:15:45 AM
Holl, I meant to say that Bamber expected that his prints would be found on the bible because he "might have threatened Crispy with it." Really? Was he covering his arse? And doesn't that sound like the lamest excuse ever? He's basically saying that he regularly spent time in his parents' bedroom, waving a bible at Crispy, and possibly hitting her with it. For reasons known only to himself.
Oh Holl. Come on.
Anyhoo. I'll leave you in peace, but you need to know this. If you look at Sheila, she had no muscle tone on her upper arms. BT gave me a gun to scare off the magpies that were stealing the swallow babies. It was the exact same gun involved in the WHF murders. It's not huge, but it's cumbersome. And long, without a silencer. My arms are strong, but when I tried to aim, I waved the gun all over the place. It seriously isn't something you can just pick up and be precise with. If you don't know what you're doing, and if you're not used to the weight and length, you would be all over the place. It's almost double the length of your arm. And I had no idea how to reload.
Holl, the gun involved is heavy and long. I know you've done your homework, but I doubt if you've handled said gun. Sorry to preach, but I doubt that anyone (much less Sheila) would find a loaded gun left on the settle and execute the family without having knowledge of previous shootings and re-loadings. And a loaded gun wouldn't have been left out, anyway. Sheila (even if she was tired and poorly), June, or Nevill would have made the gun, that didn't exist, safe.
Bamber is such a flake. And you are far too bright to fall for his crap. Are you still going with Sheila shooting herself twice?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 24, 2017, 09:29:53 PM
It's absolutely terrifying to even IMAGINE her being allowed anywhere near a poorly person, she makes Nurse Ratched look like Winnie the Pooh. Thank goodness that we live in more enlightened times - no more leeches and Bedlam. 8((()*/
I bet even 50 years ago folk would only ever pay Lookout to keep her kit ON! 8((()*/
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 24, 2017, 10:03:09 PM
Holl, I meant to say that Bamber expected that his prints would be found on the bible because he "might have threatened Crispy with it." Really? Was he covering his arse? And doesn't that sound like the lamest excuse ever? He's basically saying that he regularly spent time in his parents' bedroom, waving a bible at Crispy, and possibly hitting her with it. For reasons known only to himself.
Oh Holl. Come on.
Well according to June's housekeeper, Jean Boutell, June had several bibles. The one in question June often carried with her to refer to and make notes in.
I don't see anything untoward in JB's responses re the bible:
In answer to Adam on blue.....yes, I do think that Bamber is the unluckiest man ever. With the exception of Holly, Jackie and Aunt Ags, he really has got the unbelievably crappest, dodgiest, inneffectual bunch of supporters imaginable. Randy, dumpy women and ancient, angry old women, chippy little men who get a mard on instead of a hard-on, and computer cavaliers who should know better and get a life. Bamber gets his rocks off by playing all of those misfits like a kipper purely because it pleases him and he's got nothing else to do. A tatty little Christmas card from him is like winning the lottery when your entire family has moved to the other side of the world and hope you haven't done the equity release thing on a damp old house in Liverpool.
?{)(**
I've never received a Christmas card from JB 8)><(
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 24, 2017, 10:33:45 PM
Anyhoo. I'll leave you in peace, but you need to know this. If you look at Sheila, she had no muscle tone on her upper arms. BT gave me a gun to scare off the magpies that were stealing the swallow babies. It was the exact same gun involved in the WHF murders. It's not huge, but it's cumbersome. And long, without a silencer. My arms are strong, but when I tried to aim, I waved the gun all over the place. It seriously isn't something you can just pick up and be precise with. If you don't know what you're doing, and if you're not used to the weight and length, you would be all over the place. It's almost double the length of your arm. And I had no idea how to reload.
Holl, the gun involved is heavy and long. I know you've done your homework, but I doubt if you've handled said gun. Sorry to preach, but I doubt that anyone (much less Sheila) would find a loaded gun left on the settle and execute the family without having knowledge of previous shootings and re-loadings. And a loaded gun wouldn't have been left out, anyway. Sheila (even if she was tired and poorly), June, or Nevill would have made the gun, that didn't exist, safe.
Bamber is such a flake. And you are far too bright to fall for his crap. Are you still going with Sheila shooting herself twice?
According to the following the rifle weighs 6llbs 5oz. I will try and find something more reliable from the manufacturers.
Assuming the above is accurate, or there about, it isn't heavy. The length is 43". All shots were point blank. How far away were the magpies?
No I haven't handled the same gun. The only gun I've ever handled and fired was my brother's air rifle and I've no idea of make/model. I don't recall any difficulty. I was just frightened it might backfire!
I agree the chances are June or most likely NB put the rifle away, assuming JB left it where he said he did, but given the weapons/ammo were readily accessible I don't see how this would prevent SC accessing it if she was of a mind to do so.
15 mins in ballistics expert Philip Boyce seems to think even a small child child could handle the rifle. Dessert Fox and Charlie Wilkes on IA were of the same opinion having experienced numerous cases in US involving children as perps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo
https://www.forensicequity.com/philip-boyce
The pathological evidence states it was possible SC fired a second shot. It seems from Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight there was a gap of at least a few second between the shots but can some sort of involuntary spasm be ruled out if SC didn't make a conscious effort to pull the trigger a second time?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on September 29, 2017, 11:20:59 AM
Ooh er. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to tell a BURGLAR that you're going to be out all day on Saturday. 8(8-))
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on September 29, 2017, 01:24:41 PM
I hear that she recently returned from one of her regular sulks, immediately upset the forum and had to have another ton of posts deleted. &%&£(+
If only she spent less time abusing the family, crowing about her own personality flaws and insulting June and Sheila, and actually bothered to read up on the case, she might not embarrass herself so much. And so often.
(And I know that you CAN teach an old dog new tricks. There is hope for Clappedout. But it takes a shit-load of sausages).
8((()*/
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 01, 2017, 10:38:34 AM
I hear that she recently returned from one of her regular sulks, immediately upset the forum and had to have another ton of posts deleted. &%&£(+
If only she spent less time abusing the family, crowing about her own personality flaws and insulting June and Sheila, and actually bothered to read up on the case, she might not embarrass herself so much. And so often.
(And I know that you CAN teach an old dog new tricks. There is hope for Clappedout. But it takes a shit-load of sausages).
8((()*/
Couldn't agree more. Lookout's posts are like an almost healed scab which should be avoided and ignored but give perverse pleasure when picked off and examined 8(8-))
NGB spent all yesterday afternoon sorting out spats amongst the ladies of the knitting circle. Unsurprisingly Lookout was at the centre of it all. Anyway apparently Mrs NGB has given Mr NGB one helluva an ear bashing as he has totally neglected the list of chores she drew up for him earlier in the day including hoovering up leaves and tightening up taps.
8)-)))
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on October 16, 2017, 02:53:28 PM
Lookout, it's quite simple. You can hardly complain about abuse when YOU abuse decent people, who you have NEVER met, systematically, 7 days a week.
Maybe you should think about that.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 16, 2017, 05:01:18 PM
I'm sure mental health charities will be very interested in seeing my screen shots showing a former mental health nurse denigrating SC and not a word from NGB.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 17, 2017, 10:13:03 AM
Lookout/NGB
Before your start casting aspersions here about cyberbullying or such like perhaps the pair of you would like to reflect on some of Lookout's historic posts about the late Sheila Caffell:
"Sheila, we know,, was sexually active at 17, (promiscuous I'd have said) we've no information before then."
"The poor woman wouldn't/didn't know how to deal with Sheilas monstrous behaviour as a teen,,, as I would have said then the girl was on a downward spiral".
"Where did Sheila get her promiscuity from? It certainly wasn't June or Nevill".
"Where were Sheila's morals to have allowed pics like that to be taken ? Sickening !!"
Lookout has no evidence whatsoever to support any of the above. She constantly denigrates the late Sheila Caffell and you NGB (and Maggie) do nothing to rein her in. The pair of you then have the audacity to complain because puglove attempts to do what the pair of you should be doing.
Lookouts comments amount to cyberbullying ie denigration of character, spreading falsehoods etc.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on October 17, 2017, 11:38:18 AM
Before your start casting aspersions here about cyberbullying or such like perhaps the pair of you would like to reflect on some of Lookout's historic posts about the late Sheila Caffell:
"Sheila, we know,, was sexually active at 17, (promiscuous I'd have said) we've no information before then."
"The poor woman wouldn't/didn't know how to deal with Sheilas monstrous behaviour as a teen,,, as I would have said then the girl was on a downward spiral".
"Where did Sheila get her promiscuity from? It certainly wasn't June or Nevill".
"Where were Sheila's morals to have allowed pics like that to be taken ? Sickening !!"
Lookout has no evidence whatsoever to support any of the above. She constantly denigrates the late Sheila Caffell and you NGB (and Maggie) do nothing to rein her in. The pair of you then have the audacity to complain because puglove attempts to do what the pair of you should be doing.
Lookouts comments amount to cyberbullying ie denigration of character, spreading falsehoods etc.
It IS cyberbullying, the relentless, spiteful bullying of a murdered young woman. It's good to know that someone has been alerted to it. One has to question who is financing this bigotry....not to mention Mike's jaw-dropping filth. Because it certainly isn't Mike.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 17, 2017, 02:10:30 PM
It IS cyberbullying, the relentless, spiteful bullying of a murdered young woman. It's good to know that someone has been alerted to it. One has to question who is financing this bigotry....not to mention Mike's jaw-dropping filth. Because it certainly isn't Mike.
As the trial judge said, the case was unusual in that the perp was 1 of 2. JB was found guilty. I believe JB is the victim of a MoJ so by definition SC was the perp. This in itself is bad enough ie laying the blame on someone who was absolved of all responsibility in a court of law. To then add to this by making unfounded and unnecessary posts denigrating SC's character is appalling.
CC has said in the past how upset his young daughter was to find SoC images of SC online. Imagine how CC and SC's birth family might well feel reading Lookouts posts.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 17, 2017, 02:18:27 PM
As the trial judge said, the case was unusual in that the perp was 1 of 2. JB was found guilty. I believe JB is the victim of a MoJ so by definition SC was the perp. This in itself is bad enough ie laying the blame on someone who was absolved of all responsibility in a court of law. To then add to this by making unfounded and unnecessary posts denigrating SC's character is appalling.
CC has said in the past how upset his young daughter was to find SoC images of SC online. Imagine how CC and SC's birth family might well feel reading Lookouts posts.
It's really very simple, if you don't want to read something online then don't go searching for it.
As for the perp, how can you possibly think SC did it Holly when there isn't a scrap of evidence to support such a view and a mountain of evidence against Bamber. With respect, are you not ignoring logic and the evidence in favour of wishful thinking?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on October 17, 2017, 02:39:49 PM
It's really very simple, if you don't want to read something online then don't go searching for it.
As for the perp, how can you possibly think SC did it Holly when there isn't a scrap of evidence to support such a view and a mountain of evidence against Bamber. With respect, are you not ignoring logic and the evidence in favour of wishful thinking?
I think that lookout's laptop must be possessed because apparently, completely unbidden, it showed her a poem some idiot had written about her. That is just freaky. &%+((£
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on October 17, 2017, 03:19:05 PM
It's really very simple, if you don't want to read something online then don't go searching for it.
As for the perp, how can you possibly think SC did it Holly when there isn't a scrap of evidence to support such a view and a mountain of evidence against Bamber. With respect, are you not ignoring logic and the evidence in favour of wishful thinking?
We interpret the case differently and place different weights on the various aspects and arrive at different conclusions.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on October 19, 2017, 12:05:02 AM
Out of interest Holly, can you point to one piece of irrefutable evidence which supports the 'Sheila did it' scenario?
No!
Is there any irrefutable evidence which supports the 'JB did it' scenario?
From reading posts it seems to me most 'guilters' place a lot of weight on the following aspects of the case:
- Don't believe the phone call from NB to JB. - Don't believe SC was able to load and handle firearm. - Don't believe SC was able to overpower NB. - Believe JM over JB. - Believe various lay witness testimony and general media portrayal of JB's behaviour and character which tends to portray him in a poor light.
For those that place a lot of weight on the above aspects of the case then it's high likely they will view JB as guilty.
My beliefs enable me to overcome the above and place more weight on the following aspects:
- SC's early development and disrutpive start to life due in part to June's poor mental health and having a variety of primary caregivers: birth mother, children's home, June, NB/foster carers, June/Nanny resulting in an 'attachment disorder'. The science underpinning 'attachment' has moved on considerably over the last 30 years. - My own research provides some support that the forensic evidence provided to court/jurors is flawed: silencer/blood, hand swabs, SC's nightdress, reconstruction, explanation re fingerprints on rifle. - The UK Gov has confirmed FSS failed quality measures in 1980's. - MF appeared to lack the necessary experience and qualifications to provide the court with reliable testimony. His testimony contradicts world experts from the US such as Dr Vincent DiMaio and Dr Herbert MacDonell who obviously have far more experience with gun crime/ballistics than MF. - JB's defence at trial and 2002 appeal was very poor. - Blood stain test results on the bible appear to have been withheld from the defence. - I don't place any weight on JB's behaviour/character pre or post tragedy. - I don't place any weight on lay witness testimony eg Barbara Wilson, JM, SB, relatives, James Richard, Doris Foakes, Charles Marsden etc, etc. - I don't place any weight on low budget docu/dramas that also portray JB in a poor light eg armchair psychologists who have never met and formally assessed JB. I understand in US such assessments by accredited psychologists are illegal. - I don't place any weight on contributions from tabloid journalists eg Michael Fielder claimed JB was promiscious. Firstly there's no evidence JB was promiscious. Secondly even if he was so long as any partners consented then surely it is a private matter for the couple concerned? Has anyone ever come forward and said he behaved inappropriately in this regard? I'm surprised by people's attitude in this regard. Are the likes of Michael Fielder chaste or jealous that JB was regarded by many as good looking, sexually desirable and potentially had more success with members of the opposite sex? Many celebs are on record saying they've had sex with hundreds/thousands of women eg Mick Hucknall and Russell Brand spring to mind. Maybe this is just wishful thinking on their part but assuming they have bedded a fair number of the opposite sex does it suggest such men are more capable of violence than men who have 1 or a small number of sexual partners? I find people who judge people on how many sexual partners they've had or haven't had really weird. I would only condemn someone if it was illegal eg non-consensual, underage, child porn.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on October 20, 2017, 07:25:18 PM
Seems lookout has been caught out red handed making things up again - the little devil @)(++(*
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on October 20, 2017, 09:12:36 PM
And here's my response to Lookout, which was also removed:
"From what I've seen on red there were only a few posts made about you. Plus the fact you do not use your real name affords you the protection myself and other members who choose to use their real names do not have. Think yourself lucky Lookout, during the time I campaigned for SH, I believed the real killers were at large. So when my personal details were posted online I genuinely feared for my life. "Imagine my horror" Lookout.
There were websites, twitters accounts and all sort made about me with the sole purpose of abusing, harassing and assassinating my character. What did you do about any of it Lookout. I'll tell you what you did, you joined in and never once have you had the good grace to apologise. You just carry on regardless.
I was recently falsely accused of stealing a laptop. I reported the post and requested a public apology be made. The post was eventually removed but my request for an apology to clear the matter up in order to put a stop to the rumour mill, was ignored. Instead the poster is allowed to carry on regardless, not unlike yourself.
Maybe when your daughter learns that your hands aren't clean she will give you some sound advice that for once you might listen to.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on October 20, 2017, 09:19:40 PM
"From what I've seen on red there were only a few posts made about you. Plus the fact you do not use your real name affords you the protection myself and other members who choose to use their real names do not have. Think yourself lucky Lookout, during the time I campaigned for SH, I believed the real killers were at large. So when my personal details were posted online I genuinely feared for my life. "Imagine my horror" Lookout.
There were websites, twitters accounts and all sort made about me with the sole purpose of abusing, harassing and assassinating my character. What did you do about any of it Lookout. I'll tell you what you did, you joined in and never once have you had the good grace to apologise. You just carry on regardless.
I was recently falsely accused of stealing a laptop. I reported the post and requested a public apology be made. The post was eventually removed but my request for an apology to clear the matter up in order to put a stop to the rumour mill, was ignored. Instead the poster is allowed to carry on regardless, not unlike yourself.
Maybe when your daughter learns that your hands aren't clean she will give you some sound advice that for once you might listen to.
What I want to know is why NGB didn't appear to offer Lookout any advice and appeared to use it as an opportunity to disrupt and goad.
Maybe he did behind the scenes, who knows, but if Lookout was distressed of the opinions of others, why didn't NGB contact her privately and nip it in the bud? Why did he appear to encourage the negative behaviour? Especially given the fact it was he who moaned about the "almost tribal atmosphere" of the forum just a few days earlier.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on October 21, 2017, 02:17:08 PM
An insight from Lookout today;
"It certainly looked bad on EP that outsiders were doing the investigations for them. The end result being that it was the family who'd set out to convict him,nobody else. It couldn't be more obvious.
How many people here would go out of their way in seeing a " hated " family member who meant nothing to you, being put away under false pretences in order to receive a fortune for the rest of your life ? Tempting,isn't it ?
No guessing for who would be the prime suspect if one of her family members were ever found murdered
Seems Lookout and Jeremy Bamber do indeed have a lot in common http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8753.msg421175.html#msg421175
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on October 21, 2017, 03:22:15 PM
"It certainly looked bad on EP that outsiders were doing the investigations for them. The end result being that it was the family who'd set out to convict him,nobody else. It couldn't be more obvious.
How many people here would go out of their way in seeing a " hated " family member who meant nothing to you, being put away under false pretences in order to receive a fortune for the rest of your life ? Tempting,isn't it ?
No guessing for who would be the prime suspect if one of her family members were ever found murdered
Seems Lookout and Jeremy Bamber do indeed have a lot in common http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8753.msg421175.html#msg421175
And she's back and just carries on regardless as though she thinks we will be oblivious to what she first stated
Where is her reasoning &%&£(+ and why are some people choosing to ignore or dismiss and pass it off as normal behaviour and what does it tell us about those people who are choosing to ignore it and carry on regardless
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on October 26, 2017, 03:20:19 PM
Lookouts apparent projections today re the Emille Cilliers trial - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8856.msg422544.html#msg422544
"Another case of a woman scorned ?"
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on October 27, 2017, 04:59:54 PM
Lookout projected again today at numerous times, though I can't be bothered to copy more than one of her posts
"FGS,there you go again ::) " Up close and personal is miles away from a nodding acquaintance-------do stop exaggerating,it's tedious,tiresome and predictable."
What people like her forget, is for people like myself and JM and anyone else who has been conned by a extremely dangerous, manipulative and quite apparent disordered individual - this is real life for us!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Angelo222 on October 28, 2017, 03:11:51 PM
The topic is lookout, not David, Maggie or NGB.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2017, 03:25:49 PM
Maybe I should transfer my recent posts from here to my blog? Including Lookouts public posts &%+((£
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on October 28, 2017, 06:07:56 PM
Lookout today
"I'm no longer posting on this forum because of the danger of libellous claims made against me.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 05, 2017, 12:59:39 PM
Oh good grief.
"Homosexuality was a crime in 1985." *&^^&
"I'm free, Captain Peacock!"
"I'm afraid you're not, Mr. Humphries, you're under arrest. You big bender."
I think someone should be LOOKing OUT for signs of dementia. 8)-)))
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on November 05, 2017, 08:50:44 PM
"I'm no longer posting on this forum because of the danger of libellous claims made against me.
Lookout today:
"I'm far from being a tactless person. You only think that because of the way you vote.
We're talking about 32 years ago,not last week.
What I find tactless are those like JM who say the first thing that comes out of their mouth without thought that it could land an innocent person in jail----------there are a lot of them about !! *&^^&
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on November 09, 2017, 01:51:36 PM
I think it's shameful that people like her and Whittingdale,both of who blackened JB's name,without knowing anything about him,should be allowed to keep their highly paid jobs ! Whittingdale having had a fling with a porn star as well as having told " secrets " of his position and Patel with her rank lies. Why are they still in a job ?? Those who support the woman have something to hide themselves.
Those who talk/speak about others ALWAYS hide a dark secret themselves and they think that by opening up about others it justifies their own shortcomings. EVIL !
Lookout pray tell how JB's name can be "blackened" when he has been found guilty in a court of law of mass murder and has been a cat A prisoner for some 31 years where he reamains to this day?
Over the years you have repeatedly accused a mentally ill deceased woman of all sorts: monstrous behaviour, promiscuity and lacking morals. Can we assume then based on your post above you are hiding "dark secrets" about yourself to justify your shortcomings?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on November 09, 2017, 02:40:42 PM
Lookout I think you will find you share many of Pretty Patel's views: the death penalty being one:
Hmmm. That's rich, coming from you, mistress of the pass-ag. But yes, lookout is disordered. If ever I reach my dotage, I hope to god I'm not lonely enough to waste my final months sitting in front of a computer, shouting at the world, insulting a decent woman who wouldn't have pissed on me if I was on fire, whilst my children lived on the other side of the world. Yes, we all know that you used to be a nurse. In Crimea.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on November 26, 2017, 11:57:29 AM
Hmmm. That's rich, coming from you, mistress of the pass-ag
Your predictability never lets you down does it *&^^&
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on November 26, 2017, 05:15:35 PM
Lookout today: "JB's never shown self-pity. He's been too engrossed and knee-deep in paperwork for the past years to even think about himself.
Pity a few posters didn't look to themselves before accusing others from suffering -----bi-polar,schizophrenia,personality disorder,mental unbalance,disorder,depression and other disabilities.
I kid you not,it's been said that I have all these disorders. No prizes for guessing who the poster of such nonsense is ::) Seriously sick !! http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8973.msg425674.html#msg425674
Remind us all Lookout what you've said about Sheila, June et al....
For all any of us know, YOU INCLUDED, Sheila could have been mis-diagnosed and not suffered from schizophrenia at all?
What we do know however is she no longer has a voice - her brother, Jeremy Bamber made sure of that.
However even IF you are of the honest and genuine belief Bamber is innocent (he isn't!) it gives you no right to say what you have about Sheila, nor others - especially given your alleged back ground in mental health nursing. Which you appear to think makes you superior to others or indeed more knowledgable?
IF you were practising today I'm of the opinion you'd have been struck off for your very PUBLIC, derogatory and at times, down right bigoted views/opinions.
Lookout today: "Ralph Bulger is all for removing the anonymity and hidden whereabouts of the likes of Venables,which I'm in favour of for the sake of other parents. So what, if he got bumped-off,it's only what he deserves and I doubt his death this way would stir up any anger. Not for the first time,Venables had been found with child porn again,so the urge for a life of crime is there and would be only a matter of time before he injured another child. I feel so sorry for Denise Bulger as every crime one of those monsters commits,is a step backward for Denise who can't move forward with her life knowing that those who killed her beautiful little boy are still alive. What a truly brave woman.
A bit more re-training is needed by some psychiatrists who fail to spot certain signs. There has always been the " good behaviour " card being played when releasing prisoners,even those who've committed ugly crimes and the huge mistakes made by freeing them only to re-offend Dale Cregan,another monster who's been housed in Ashworth is now being transferred to a prison after it's taken 2 years at least to realise that the man is insane. He'll never change.
The 15 year old who murdered her half sister of 7 years of age is only going to serve 4 years ? Mark my words the same one will inflict her jealous evil ways onto someone else,when free. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8979.msg425703.html?PHPSESSID=jn0hejef4qo3a30v69dgl2s814#msg425703
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on November 26, 2017, 05:55:10 PM
Lookout today: "JB's never shown self-pity. He's been too engrossed and knee-deep in paperwork for the past years to even think about himself.
Pity a few posters didn't look to themselves before accusing others from suffering -----bi-polar,schizophrenia,personality disorder,mental unbalance,disorder,depression and other disabilities.
I kid you not,it's been said that I have all these disorders. No prizes for guessing who the poster of such nonsense is ::) Seriously sick !!.
And do stop making things up; you sound like Jeremy Bamber!
Based on your posts, you appear disordered.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on November 27, 2017, 04:25:06 PM
Please refrain from comments of a personal nature directed at fellow members of UKJF. I tend to ignore those where there's little/no common ground.
At least it seems we are all in agreement with the thread topic.
IMO Lookout lacks emotional intelligence. Her know-it-all attitude where she refuses to countenance opposing views is very off-putting.
Perhaps worth considering why Lookout might be the person she appears to be today. I recall her posting about her mother who was a member of the Quaker faith and banned pop/rock music from the family home believing it to be the "devil's" music. It appears even the subject of menstruation was taboo. Lookout portrayed a severe matriarch who favoured her brother, considered intellectually brighter with an easier temperament. As we know Lookout was a mental health nurse in the 50's/60's plus. I doubt there was much by way of empathy and talking therapies; more padded cells, restraining, straitjackets and syringes. I have a vision of Lookout in her capacity as a 1950's/60's mental health nurse and it's quite frightening! When she met her late husband he was separated from his wife and Lookout took on his 2 children from his first marriage. Then there's the harshness of her geographic location by way of cold climate, deprivation and social problems. Latterly she was widowed. All these things combined have IMO created extremes and voids. Sadly Lookout appears to lack the ability for any sort of self-reflection. Or maybe she doesn't care that she appears so dogmatic? Maybe she enjoys the attention her style of posting brings? Is she capable of change? Does she want to change? Does she have any idea how extreme and offensive some of her views are?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 27, 2017, 06:15:04 PM
Please refrain from comments of a personal nature directed at fellow members of UKJF. I tend to ignore those where there's little/no common ground.
At least it seems we are all in agreement with the thread topic.
IMO Lookout lacks emotional intelligence. Her know-it-all attitude where she refuses to countenance opposing views is very off-putting.
Perhaps worth considering why Lookout might be the person she appears to be today. I recall her posting about her mother who was a member of the Quaker faith and banned pop/rock music from the family home believing it to be the "devil's" music. It appears even the subject of menstruation was taboo. Lookout portrayed a severe matriarch who favoured her brother, considered intellectually brighter with an easier temperament. As we know Lookout was a mental health nurse in the 50's/60's plus. I doubt there was much by way of empathy and talking therapies; more padded cells, restraining, straitjackets and syringes. I have a vision of Lookout in her capacity as a 1950's/60's mental health nurse and it's quite frightening! When she met her late husband he was separated from his wife and Lookout took on his 2 children from his first marriage. Then there's the harshness of her geographic location by way of cold climate, deprivation and social problems. Latterly she was widowed. All these things combined have IMO created extremes and voids. Sadly Lookout appears to lack the ability for any sort of self-reflection. Or maybe she doesn't care that she appears so dogmatic? Maybe she enjoys the attention her style of posting brings? Is she capable of change? Does she want to change? Does she have any idea how extreme and offensive some of her views are?
I imagine a sort of cross between Peggy Mount and Irma Grese.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 28, 2017, 11:15:13 AM
&%%6
Her infallible "gut feeling" is now telling her that the Rettendon murders were actually two murders and a SUICIDE!!
If ignorance is bliss, she must be permanently ecstatic.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on November 28, 2017, 04:23:28 PM
Her infallible "gut feeling" is now telling her that the Rettendon murders were actually two murders and a SUICIDE!!
If ignorance is bliss, she must be permanently ecstatic.
Someone on Blue was kind enough to point out the absence of a firearm in the vehicle suggests her "gut feeling" is wrong.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on November 28, 2017, 04:34:25 PM
Holly was another who'd made a whole thread accusing me of something back in 2013. It turned out it HADN'T been me at all but to this day still harps on.
Lookout, don't flatter yourself we only have the one thread dedicated to discussing your posts so the first part of your post is wrong for a start. Now what have I accused you of without foundation?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 28, 2017, 05:48:00 PM
Holly was another who'd made a whole thread accusing me of something back in 2013. It turned out it HADN'T been me at all but to this day still harps on.
Lookout, don't flatter yourself we only have the one thread dedicated to discussing your posts so the first part of your post is wrong for a start. Now what have I accused you of without foundation?
It's no good her getting all humpy and rude with people, she gets almost EVERYTHING wrong but is never honest or gracious enough to admit it. That, and her constant hateful posts about June and Sheila, are why she is so disliked.
I hope she wasn't such a woolly old "airhead" when she was sticking leeches all over those poor soldiers. 8(8-))
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on November 28, 2017, 07:02:30 PM
And the moderators on blue see Lookout as a victim of bullying. Go figure.. *&^^&
Then she posts: "I'm having my sacrilegious dinner-------fillet steak made into a delicious stew."
Reminds me of Silence of the lambs *&^^&
Lookout - « on: October 16, 2017, 01:31:PM » "Imagine my horror when I just happened to see,not one remark,but a full 6 page thread of abuse and bullying aimed at myself. This had been made on September 29th 2012 !! to October 1st. 2017, 5 years of CYBERBULLYING !! If it wasn't enough that some idiot thought it clever to write a " poem ",EVERYONE joined in with some form of personal abuse.
I'm not letting this go and WILL report this !! I'm surprised at you John,a once upholder of the law,well we'll see where the law stands with this shall we ??
There's no evidence SC had a sexual relationship with anyone other than CC. We have no knowledge of the exact nature of SC's relationship with Freddie Emami and actor Don Hawkins or anyone else for that matter. Even if her relationships with FE and DH were sexual how would that make SC promiscuous unless she was a f*****g nun, which she wasn't.
Lookout I wonder what JB would think if he knew you were referring to his deceased adopted sister as promiscuous?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on November 29, 2017, 10:53:24 AM
The CT have released some audios which apparently contain verbatim transcripts from various witnesses spoken by actors. I will upload them later to the appropriate thread. Anyway one contains a sentence from a social worker involved with SC and the twins who tells that SC gave an old man a weekly massage. No idea of the accuracy of the claim. Even if it is accurate it could mean anything. Perhaps unsurprisingly Lookout has taken the claim at face value and applied her own interpretation adamant the massage had a sexual connotation. There can be little doubt Lookout has an unhealthy obsession with SC and sex. I'm beginning to think Lookout might be sexually repressed and/or frustrated. She has acknowledged anything connected to sex/reproduction was regarded as taboo by her mother. I've no idea when Lookout's husband passed away or whether she has had any sexual partners since. Sexual frustration and/or repression might explain her angry themed posts and unhealthy obsession with SC and sex. I've read a number of articles recently suggesting women in their 70's/80's maintain their sex drives:
The CT have released some audios which apparently contain verbatim transcripts from various witnesses spoken by actors. I will upload them later to the appropriate thread. Anyway one contains a sentence from a social worker involved with SC and the twins who tells that SC gave an old man a weekly massage. No idea of the accuracy of the claim. Even if it is accurate it could mean anything. Perhaps unsurprisingly Lookout has taken the claim at face value and applied her own interpretation adamant the massage had a sexual connotation. There can be little doubt Lookout has an unhealthy obsession with SC and sex. I'm beginning to think Lookout might be sexually repressed and/or frustrated. She has acknowledged anything connected to sex/reproduction was regarded as taboo by her mother. I've no idea when Lookout's husband passed away or whether she has had any sexual partners since. Sexual frustration and/or repression might explain her angry themed posts and unhealthy obsession with SC and sex. I've read a number of articles recently suggesting women in their 70's/80's maintain their sex drives:
And do stop making things up; you sound like Jeremy Bamber!
Based on your posts, you appear disordered.
Lookout today: "Sam you've got to believe it. They ARE like a bunch of bullying school-kids that you read about every day as their bullying leads to suicides in the children on the end of it. They're despicable,believe me. And an ex-cop in charge of he forum says it all really for allowing it to go on. Lowest of the low.
I feel sorry for those kids who have to battle their way through abuse by others.It must be horrendous for them as it's truly wicked. Because I'm ADULT and have an understanding of the misfits ( bullies ) of society,it doesn't bother me as I look at them like something nasty underneath my shoe and the fact that I'm better than they are. It always works with me. What clowns like that haven't realised is that I could have mental health problems and could be affected badly----------but people like that are completely devoid of sympathy/empathy as all they think about are themselves.
If it makes them feel good,they can carry on because they're sick themselves without realising.
You can't expect anything else from " Dodgy Dave " as he socialises with the leader of the rat pack !
oh the irony... *&^^&
I generally believe she is unaware of her projections due to her lack of self judgement and insight
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2017, 01:44:31 PM
Even when she FINALLY almost admits to making a mistake, she cannot take full responsibility - preferring to attempt to blame someone else for why she made the mistake in the first place. It's never her fault.
Lookout today: "As for your constant use of the word " promiscuity ",this was bandied around by various other posters to which I'd FOOLISHLY copied from but am the ONLY one who is supposed to have said it ?? Do a search !!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2017, 01:48:18 PM
Mat today: "Your comments regarding Sheila/massage/old man yesterday were disgusting Lookout. You're the worst offender when it comes to degrading Sheila and in the past June on a daily basis with your posts. You insult the dead who aren't here to defend themselves. That's the lowest of the low, you deserve all you get. Shame on you for those massage posts.
Then in response to Mat:
Lookout: "Sod off you ! You're like a pox-doctors clerk with your presence. Always telling tales you big fairy.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on November 29, 2017, 05:17:17 PM
Mat today: "Your comments regarding Sheila/massage/old man yesterday were disgusting Lookout. You're the worst offender when it comes to degrading Sheila and in the past June on a daily basis with your posts. You insult the dead who aren't here to defend themselves. That's the lowest of the low, you deserve all you get. Shame on you for those massage posts.
Then in response to Mat:
Lookout: "Sod off you ! You're like a pox-doctors clerk with your presence. Always telling tales you big fairy.
What a s..mbag comment to make. Thankfully deleted. I've asked NGB/Maggie if they are going to warn her or anything or just delete the post.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2017, 05:59:19 PM
What a s..mbag comment to make. Thankfully deleted. I've asked NGB/Maggie if they are going to warn her or anything or just delete the post.
I agree Mat and have often wondered if this is how she behaved when she nursed?
It's long been my opinion the mods on blue use Lookout to do their dirty work so to speak. As I've mentioned before; they see her as the bullied as opposed to the bully/abuser.
I bet you won't get an apology for her homophobic slur.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on November 29, 2017, 11:01:33 PM
Lookout says: "My whole argument is that I hate the fact that schizophrenia is given as an excuse in this case. One in which EVERYONE has used just because a psychiatrist said so. Did Sheila have ALL the symptoms of this illness ? We DON'T know,do we ? Her records are still being withheld. These people,like anyone else,aren't infallible .
Take your argument to Jeremy Bamber you moronic women *&^^& It was Bamber who started this EXCUSE 30 plus years ago after he annihilated his family!!
SC is dead. She was murdered by her brother!
The FACT that HE has refused to disclose his medical records tells us everything we need to know. An innocent man would have NOTHING to hide!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on November 30, 2017, 11:33:02 AM
Here's what she has to say today: "Many many years a nurse ( SRN ) who worked alongside consultants. Enjoyed every minute of it too. As for the " free speech " that was taught/learned many years ago when being honest with our patients was key if/when they wished to have their questions answered,depending on the mental attitude of the patient. I don't now feel that diplomacy is called for in certain cases where a person/people have consistently berated me in some way and continue doing so,especially when peddling their tales elsewhere. Anyone's patience would be stretched/tested in such circumstances and because you've never experienced such dross on a daily basis,you can't be the judge of it can you ?
Values in life have changed dramatically as has the so-called democracy that was once present when we didn't have the nonsense of being " politically correct " ,which is miles away from free speech. " Free speech " seems to have a different meaning in your world ? There's that ( filth ) which is on red aimed at ME,then there's the free speech which I use on here ? So kindly tell me the difference.
Maybe the moderators on blue, or someone, would point out to Lookout why it is many of her posts are considered "filth" as opposed to " free speech" to which she refers and what the difference is. As the ADULT she claims she is, I'd have expected her to know the difference.
It is YOU who "peddles tales" Lookout and it is YOU who appears incapable of being civilised towards others, nevermind "politically correct"
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on November 30, 2017, 02:28:03 PM
She doesn't consider what she said to you, or others, appalling Mat
Lookout: "Appalling behaviour ?? Please elaborate as I don't make excuses at all but seemingly you do ! As you said " That's Life " and when you're driven you can't hold back like Caroline the other day to David,except that all I said was sod off ?? Rules for one ??
It's a shame she doesn't have the insight in relation to Jeremy Bamber in order to see how and why he mirdered his family.
Instead she prefers to deflect and attempt to bully Caroline et al.
I guess she sees herself as being redeemed for the following: "I also make regular donations to the local hospice and air ambulance. And will be supporting the sick children in Yemen *&^^&
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on December 01, 2017, 02:53:39 PM
"It certainly looked bad on EP that outsiders were doing the investigations for them. The end result being that it was the family who'd set out to convict him,nobody else. It couldn't be more obvious.
How many people here would go out of their way in seeing a " hated " family member who meant nothing to you, being put away under false pretences in order to receive a fortune for the rest of your life ? Tempting,isn't it ?
No guessing for who would be the prime suspect if one of her family members were ever found murdered
Seems Lookout and Jeremy Bamber do indeed have a lot in common http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8753.msg421175.html#msg421175
Lookout today: "One should never think out loud,eh ? Except that Stone is mentally ill,so would say it
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 04, 2017, 10:50:27 AM
Lookout if you want to accuse me of something you need supporting evidence. Now where have I used the word "hate" against you? I don't think I've ever hated anyone in my life so why you think some anonymous poster on an Internet forum could rouse me to such extreme emotion I've no idea.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 04, 2017, 02:34:16 PM
Oh Lookout do stop playing the victim.
You level the most ghastly accusations at the late SC without any evidence whatsoever. And even if the accusations were true, and there's not a scrap of evidence suggesting they are, they have no bearing on JB's case and /or appeal prospects so why would you even consider going there? Your problem is that you just don't think do you? You're too fond of the sound of your own voice as evidenced by your 37,000 + post count! You've said numerous times words to the effect you're outspoken and simply don't care about the effect your words have on others so please don't start bleating when others respond to your controversial posts. If you post on a public forum then others are entitled to comment. It isn't illegal to pass comment on your posts Lookout; to criticise and disagree. We don't condone cyberbullying at UKJF which isn't actually illegal but we set the bar high. Conversley defamation is illegal.
Did you recently state on the open forum to another poster that you could never take to the girl ie me? Have you recently referred to me as having the brain of amoeba? You can give it out Lookout but when it's returned you 8)><(
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on December 04, 2017, 03:20:52 PM
You level the most ghastly accusations at the late SC without any evidence whatsoever. And even if the accusations were true, and there's not a scrap of evidence suggesting they are, they have no bearing on JB's case and /or appeal prospects so why would you even consider going there? Your problem is that you just don't think do you? You're too fond of the sound of your own voice as evidenced by your 37,000 + post count! You've said numerous times words to the effect you're outspoken and simply don't care about the effect your words have on others so please don't start bleating when others respond to your controversial posts. If you post on a public forum then others are entitled to comment. It isn't illegal to pass comment on your posts Lookout; to criticise and disagree. We don't condone cyberbullying at UKJF which isn't actually illegal but we set the bar high. Conversley defamation is illegal.
Did you recently state on the open forum to another poster that you could never take to the girl ie me? Have you recently referred to me as having the brain of amoeba? You can give it out Lookout but when it's returned you 8)><(
She's always bragging about how strong-willed she is, so why doesn't she just give this forum a swerve? She can be sure that it's never going to be the lookout Appreciation Society! She's the most ignorant, unpopular, deleted member the blue forum has ever known, she puts in a 14 hour shift, 7 days a week, her lack of humanity makes Rose West look like Judi Dench, and all for the sake of a cheap Christmas card from a child murderer. Truly grim.
And btw.....I HATE her filthy, abusive posts about June and Sheila, HATE them. Hope that's nice and clear! 8((()*/
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 04, 2017, 07:54:20 PM
She's always bragging about how strong-willed she is, so why doesn't she just give this forum a swerve? She can be sure that it's never going to be the lookout Appreciation Society! She's the most ignorant, unpopular, deleted member the blue forum has ever known, she puts in a 14 hour shift, 7 days a week, her lack of humanity makes Rose West look like Judi Dench, and all for the sake of a cheap Christmas card from a child murderer. Truly grim.
And btw.....I HATE her filthy, abusive posts about June and Sheila, HATE them. Hope that's nice and clear! 8((()*/
Excellent idea.
We await your company Lookout and assure you of a warm welcome!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 06, 2017, 10:29:08 AM
I try not to read the few morons that post at Tesco Towers or the Yorkshire knitting circle but I inadvertently caught that blank plank called Lookout posting this:
Steve,Jeremy would be in Ashworth security if he was a psychopath. Or somewhere similar,,and would certainly not have had the " freedom " that he's been allowed over the years,particularly the internet in which to communicate with his legal team.
What sort of 'freedom' do you think whole life tarrif Cat. A murderers have Lookout? And Bamber has no access to the internet you thick spanner! Lookout is like Mertol without the innocence and charm!
8-)(--)
I just spit out my drink reading this...
I had many spirited debates with lookout- enough said
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on December 17, 2017, 12:25:48 AM
Ugh. She's actually proud of the fact that she writes to him. Good grief. I suppose even Hitler had Eva Braun.
Why would you pretend to worry about the homeless, but support a child-killer? If Sheila was as hopeless and ill as you keep banging on about, Pat, how did she manage to fight, re-load, and tuck that silencer away in a box, in the deepest corner of the cupboard?
And what will you do when Bamber realises that you've only got your pension and a pissy heating allowance? You'll be out of the side door, just like every other mug who was lonely and angry and lost. Pat, I promise you, Bamber wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
And that goes for ngb Nelly, too. If you honestly think that Sheila knew how to re-load that gun, you must be as daft as you look. And you do look very daft. And a bit constipated.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on December 17, 2017, 12:45:53 AM
Ugh. She's actually proud of the fact that she writes to him. Good grief. I suppose even Hitler had Eva Braun.
Why would you pretend to worry about the homeless, but support a child-killer? If Sheila was as hopeless and ill as you keep banging on about, Pat, how did she manage to fight, re-load, and tuck that silencer away in a box, in the deepest corner of the cupboard?
And what will you do when Bamber realises that you've only got your pension and a pissy heating allowance? You'll be out of the side door, just like every other mug who was lonely and angry and lost. Pat, I promise you, Bamber wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
And that goes for ngb Nelly, too. If you honestly think that Sheila knew how to re-load that gun, you must be as daft as you look. And you do look very daft. And a bit constipated.
And your hair looks like it's made of nylon.
Gosh!! I like this feeling!! You're not so scary after all, are you, Nelly? Is your little paradise crumbling? Have you sacrificed your integrity so that you can own your own planet Nelly? Even though you know for sure that Bamber's guilty? Well done you, when you've always known that Sheila didn't have the first idea how to use a gun that Bamber had just made his dad buy. I'm not sure what your game is, but it's very dodgy.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on December 17, 2017, 01:05:04 AM
Gosh!! I like this feeling!! You're not so scary after all, are you, Nelly? Is your little paradise crumbling? Have you sacrificed your integrity so that you can own your own planet Nelly? Even though you know for sure that Bamber's guilty? Well done you, when you've always known that Sheila didn't have the first idea how to use a gun that Bamber had just made his dad buy. I'm not sure what your game is, but it's very dodgy.
The sad fact is....June and Sheila are blamed for a terrible crime that they didn't commit. Bamber, with his greed and spite, nearly got away with it. But he didn't, and thank goodness, he will rot in a shithole of a prison until he dies. It won't bring those 2 sweet boys back, but at least we can all rest assured that Bamber has to think of what he did, every minute of every day.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on December 17, 2017, 10:48:26 AM
Oh lookout. I genuinely didn't think that you could disgust me any more than you already do, but you've managed it this morning. %56&
I will continue to critcise your ignorant bigotry, which is on the internet for all to see, WHENEVER I choose to. So watch this space, you absolute disgrace.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 17, 2017, 10:55:41 AM
Ugh. She's actually proud of the fact that she writes to him. Good grief. I suppose even Hitler had Eva Braun.
Why would you pretend to worry about the homeless, but support a child-killer? If Sheila was as hopeless and ill as you keep banging on about, Pat, how did she manage to fight, re-load, and tuck that silencer away in a box, in the deepest corner of the cupboard?
And what will you do when Bamber realises that you've only got your pension and a pissy heating allowance? You'll be out of the side door, just like every other mug who was lonely and angry and lost. Pat, I promise you, Bamber wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
And that goes for ngb Nelly, too. If you honestly think that Sheila knew how to re-load that gun, you must be as daft as you look. And you do look very daft. And a bit constipated.
PRETEND being the operative word!
Lookout you might fool the champagne socialists on Blue but you don't fool us...
May I remind you of your post dated 2nd May 2016 where you label all homeless migrants as "robbers" and tell us how you would "kick-off" if you had to step over bodies to get to work.
How can it be right and proper for these immigrants to sleep in the streets,airports,and underground tunnel areas ? Hard working people have to use these facilities daily and pass the heaps of bodies,while risking being robbed at the same time. What on earth were politicians thinking about ? I would definitely kick-off if I had to step over bodies to get to work. This country's a joke.!!
Oh lookout. I genuinely didn't think that you could disgust me any more than you already do, but you've managed it this morning. %56&
I will continue to critcise your ignorant bigotry, which is on the internet for all to see, WHENEVER I choose to. So watch this space, you absolute disgrace.
Totally agree puglove. How low can she stoop to bring family members into forum debates and disagreements.
Lookout I would strongly recommend you leave your family out of this.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 17, 2017, 11:07:25 AM
Lookout we will continue to expose your bigotry and hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on December 17, 2017, 11:24:03 AM
Lookout you might fool the champagne socialists on Blue but you don't fool us...
May I remind you of your post dated 2nd May 2016 where you label all homeless migrants as "robbers" and tell us how you would "kick-off" if you had to step over bodies to get to work.
How can it be right and proper for these immigrants to sleep in the streets,airports,and underground tunnel areas ? Hard working people have to use these facilities daily and pass the heaps of bodies,while risking being robbed at the same time. What on earth were politicians thinking about ? I would definitely kick-off if I had to step over bodies to get to work. This country's a joke.!!
Totally agree. Perhaps says a lot when you consider NGB pm'd asking me to cease using the phrase 'knitting circle' aimed at Lookout and others and yet day after day we witness Lookout's aggressively themed posts which at best are highly offensive to most and in many instances are homophobic and racist.
Lookout isn't some elderly misguided woman lost in the 21st century. She's an aggressive, bigotted, bitter, devious, hate filled, hypocritical, insincere, mean, nasty and spiteful woman.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on December 18, 2017, 12:24:27 PM
Lookout we will continue to expose your bigotry and hypocrisy.
Do you really think it's fair to keep commenting on Lookout when she can't respond? Yes, I have my run-ins with Lookout but they generally case related and at least she can answer is she chooses. This is just really a free for all and a bit much now. Lookout thinks Bamber is innocent (as you do Holly) so she's not happy to write to a 'child killer' as her opinion is - that he isn't.
You could say that she could join the red forum and respond to these comments but would you?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 18, 2017, 01:55:43 PM
Do you really think it's fair to keep commenting on Lookout when she can't respond? Yes, I have my run-ins with Lookout but they generally case related and at least she can answer is she chooses. This is just really a free for all and a bit much now. Lookout thinks Bamber is innocent (as you do Holly) so she's not happy to write to a 'child killer' as her opinion is - that he isn't.
You could say that she could join the red forum and respond to these comments but would you?
Caroline firstly John, admin and the mods decide what is and isn't appropriate in terms of posts/threads on the UKJF but thanks for your feedback which I will discuss with John.
In terms of whether or not it is fair to comment on Lookout's posts I don't really think fair comes into it. If someone chooses to post on a public forum or such like then they need to be prepared to have their posts debated and disagreed with. Lookout is quite welcome to join UKJF where she will be treated no differently to any other member but it seems to me that it isn't necessary for Lookout to join simply to repond to posts on this thread as she is afforded a platform on Blue on which to do so eg her recent claim that I have the brain of amoeba @)(++(*. Many are unable to respond to Lookout's posts eg the deceased victims and various witnesses.
Yes Lookout and I share the same view in terms of JB being the victim of a MoJ but the difference is that I mainly stick to the facts of the case and tend to steer clear of making personal comments about the victims and witnesses. I am always mindful of the fact that JB has been found in guilty in a court of law and try to find the balance between respecting this view along with prosecution witnesses and the fact I believe JB is the victim of a MoJ but I could be wrong.
I would suggest some gentle guidance for Lookout from admin/mods on Blue wouldn't go amiss.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on December 18, 2017, 02:28:59 PM
Do you really think it's fair to keep commenting on Lookout when she can't respond? Yes, I have my run-ins with Lookout but they generally case related and at least she can answer is she chooses. This is just really a free for all and a bit much now. Lookout thinks Bamber is innocent (as you do Holly) so she's not happy to write to a 'child killer' as her opinion is - that he isn't.
You could say that she could join the red forum and respond to these comments but would you?
Caroline, I feel very strongly about the disgusting, unfounded comments she makes about June and Sheila, which always go unchallenged on blue. And I hear that yesterday she told the gentlest poster that she hopes she gets "attacked by Romanians." How can you defend someone so bigoted and ignorant? Her age is no excuse. She's just a bloody awful woman.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on December 18, 2017, 03:05:46 PM
Caroline, I feel very strongly about the disgusting, unfounded comments she makes about June and Sheila, which always go unchallenged on blue. And I hear that yesterday she told the gentlest poster that she hopes she gets "attacked by Romanians." How can you defend someone so bigoted and ignorant? Her age is no excuse. She's just a bloody awful woman.
But they don't go unchallenged, Jane and I are usually in constant debate with Lookout but I do try not to be personal. I didn't see the post about Romanians so can't comment. However, I just don't think that a whole thread dedicated to Lookout (or anyone for that matter) is right- it just doesn't sit well with me. We all say things here that we might not elsewhere and sometimes I think Lookout says things without thinking when she feels her back is against the wall - of course that's no excuse, neither is her age but I don't recall her ever using that as an excuse? This thread just feels as though she is being constantly poked with a stick rather than objecting to to comments she might make as a when.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on December 18, 2017, 03:12:10 PM
Caroline firstly John, admin and the mods decide what is and isn't appropriate in terms of posts/threads on the UKJF but thanks for your feedback which I will discuss with John.
In terms of whether or not it is fair to comment on Lookout's posts I don't really think fair comes into it. If someone chooses to post on a public forum or such like then they need to be prepared to have their posts debated and disagreed with. Lookout is quite welcome to join UKJF where she will be treated no differently to any other member but it seems to me that it isn't necessary for Lookout to join simply to repond to posts on this thread as she is afforded a platform on Blue on which to do so eg her recent claim that I have the brain of amoeba @)(++(*. Many are unable to respond to Lookout's posts eg the deceased victims and various witnesses.
Yes Lookout and I share the same view in terms of JB being the victim of a MoJ but the difference is that I mainly stick to the facts of the case and tend to steer clear of making personal comments about the victims and witnesses. I am always mindful of the fact that JB has been found in guilty in a court of law and try to find the balance between respecting this view along with prosecution witnesses and the fact I believe JB is the victim of a MoJ but I could be wrong.
I would suggest some gentle guidance for Lookout from admin/mods on Blue wouldn't go amiss.
Whoever 'decides' makes no odds - that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it and that's what I have given!
I think you know Lookout would never join the red forum and I think we know what would happen if she did. Like I have just said, this feel more like she is being continually poked with a stick instead of tackling a particular issue.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on December 18, 2017, 03:23:14 PM
Whoever 'decides' makes no odds - that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it and that's what I have given!
I think you know Lookout would never join the red forum and I think we know what would happen if she did. Like I have just said, this feel more like she is being continually poked with a stick instead of tackling a particular issue.
I guess that because we're not banned, it bothers us less what is posted on the blue because we can openly challenge it. Even if that leads to be being called Big Fairy White Trash and you being accused of attempting to hack her.
I'm always gonig to defend myself but thankfully I can do it on the blue forum.
Holly seems a little bitter, I don't know what happened with her on the blue but it certainly left a mark and it still shows in her posts, she seems a bit hurt.
I do understand that. There's a certain bitch on the blue who I'll make a topic about the day I am banned and expose the two facedness. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on December 18, 2017, 03:41:32 PM
I guess that because we're not banned, it bothers us less what is posted on the blue because we can openly challenge it. Even if that leads to be being called Big Fairy White Trash and you being accused of attempting to hack her.
I'm always gonig to defend myself but thankfully I can do it on the blue forum.
Holly seems a little bitter, I don't know what happened with her on the blue but it certainly left a mark and it still shows in her posts, she seems a bit hurt.
I do understand that. I mean trust me theres a certain one on the blue who I'll make a topic about the day I am banned and expose the two facedness. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 18, 2017, 04:08:40 PM
Whoever 'decides' makes no odds - that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it and that's what I have given!
I think you know Lookout would never join the red forum and I think we know what would happen if she did. Like I have just said, this feel more like she is being continually poked with a stick instead of tackling a particular issue.
Caroline do you have any reason to question my impartiality and/or integrity as a senior moderator? I can assure you 100% if Lookout chooses to post here she will be treated no differently from any other poster but she will not be making posts containing homophobic and/or racist content and/or relentlessly denigrating victims and prosecution witnesses.
Your views seem to reflect that of NGB's and Maggie's which I disagree with entirely and I believe others here share my views.
I think we will have to agree to disagree. Imo comments on this thread directed at Lookout are proportionate and a result of admin/mods on Blue giving Lookout free rein.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 18, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
I guess that because we're not banned, it bothers us less what is posted on the blue because we can openly challenge it. Even if that leads to be being called Big Fairy White Trash and you being accused of attempting to hack her.
I'm always gonig to defend myself but thankfully I can do it on the blue forum.
Holly seems a little bitter, I don't know what happened with her on the blue but it certainly left a mark and it still shows in her posts, she seems a bit hurt.
I do understand that. There's a certain bitch on the blue who I'll make a topic about the day I am banned and expose the two facedness. @)(++(*
I think you're mistaken Mat. I joined this forum before I was banned on Blue. In fact I recall pming NGB when Maggie was appointed mod and advising him I was going to leave and post on Red as I knew Maggie's appointment was the end of the road for me. NGB's response was 'good luck'!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on December 18, 2017, 05:18:11 PM
I think you're mistaken Mat. I joined this forum before I was banned on Blue. In fact I recall pming NGB when Maggie was appointed mod and advising him I was going to leave and post on Red as I knew Maggie's appointment was the end of the road for me. NGB's response was 'good luck'!
I hope you didn't take it as an insult, I didn't mean it that way. I just seem to remember you were expecting quite a hard time once Maggie was a mod - and you were right. If I was in your position, I'd take shots too.
But with Lookout, there is enough in her posts to rip apart doesn't have to be personal although she's been extremely personal with me to be honest - so I'm of two minds.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 18, 2017, 05:24:39 PM
The following is an example of where imo Lookout gets completely carried away in an unacceptable manner:
Sherlock starts off a thread about Freddie claiming he was 'probably' a bad sort. Lookout knows nothing about the man but claims he was a bad lot and the children were scared of him. Is there any evidence for this ie that he was a bad lot and/or the children were scared of him? Not content to leave it at that she then claims he was probably a con-man and full of bluff. Is there any evidence for this?
Yes when SC was unwell she saw Freddie as the 'devil' but at the same time she also thought the doctors called to treat her were trying to harm her.
Caroline do you have any reason to question my impartiality and/or integrity as a senior moderator? I can assure you 100% if Lookout chooses to post here she will be treated no differently from any other poster but she will not be making posts containing homophobic and/or racist content and/or relentlessly denigrating victims and prosecution witnesses.
Your views seem to reflect that of NGB's and Maggie's which I disagree with entirely and I believe others here share my views.
I think we will have to agree to disagree. Imo comments on this thread directed at Lookout are proportionate and a result of admin/mods on Blue giving Lookout free rein.
My views have nothing to do with NGB or Maggie - if you're implying my post here is in some way due to collusion with either or both of them - you couldn't be MORE wrong. But being as you have asked, I think you get carried away sometimes. Perhaps as a mod you should 'tone it down a bit? That's just my opinion and the last time I looked - I was free to give it? It's up to you how you post here - the thread was here long before you arrived and I don't for one minute imagine it will be taken down. This is simply MY opinion, people either agree or they don't.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on December 18, 2017, 05:32:09 PM
Sherlock starts off a thread about Freddie claiming he was 'probably' a bad sort. Lookout knows nothing about the man but claims he was a bad lot and the children were scared of him. Is there any evidence for this ie that he was a bad lot and/or the children were scared of him? Not content to leave it at that she then claims he was probably a con-man and full of bluff. Is there any evidence for this?
Yes when SC was unwell she saw Freddie as the 'devil' but at the same time she also thought the doctors called to treat her were trying to harm her.
I don't need reminding of Lookout's claims but she isn't given free reign - Jane, Mat, Myself and Justice challenge her claims but to dedicate a thread? %56&
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 18, 2017, 05:34:03 PM
I hope you didn't take it as an insult, I didn't mean it that way. I just seem to remember you were expecting quite a hard time once Maggie was a mod - and you were right. If I was in your position, I'd take shots too.
No, of course I didn't take it as an insult from you 8(0(*
I can assure you I could take a lot more than 'shots' if I wanted to. Maggie should be grateful I'm a decent person and haven't spilled the beans instead of taking side swipes.
But with Lookout, there is enough in her posts to rip apart doesn't have to be personal although she's been extremely personal with me to be honest - so I'm of two minds.
Lookout was extremely personal with me too when I posted on Blue and not a word from NGB/Maggie.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 18, 2017, 05:43:31 PM
I don't need reminding of Lookout's claims but she isn't given free reign - Jane, Mat, Myself and Justice challenge her claims but to dedicate a thread? %56&
Lookout makes many posts which go unchallenged such as those I've highlighted above. Lookout's posts are extremely controversial and offensive to many and imo worthy of a dedicated thread. I've pm'd John about the matter and if he sees fit to remove it and/or make some alternative arrangement that's up to him.
Maggie even appears to be attemting to explain away Lookout's racist comments and then takes a side swipe at this forum:
My views have nothing to do with NGB or Maggie - if you're implying my post here is in some way due to collusion with either or both of them - you couldn't be MORE wrong. But being as you have asked, I think you get carried away sometimes. Perhaps as a mod you should 'tone it down a bit? That's just my opinion and the last time I looked - I was free to give it? It's up to you how you post here - the thread was here long before you arrived and I don't for one minute imagine it will be taken down. This is simply MY opinion, people either agree or they don't.
Please provide some examples ie posts where you consider I get carried away.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on December 18, 2017, 08:28:45 PM
Please provide some examples ie posts where you consider I get carried away.
What is the difference between the thread on Lookout here and the one below which you are asking to be removed? You don't find your post below at odds with what you have said above in this thread? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1033.msg310221#msg310221
As I said earlier a thread has been removed from this board which related to a poster on the Blue forum. I assume at the posters request. As a consequence of this I asked Daisy to refrain from posting about posters on the Blue forum. However I now see a thread has been created about Daisy which includes a number of posts about myself/my ban.
Daisy do you want this thread to remain on the Blue forum or do you want it removed?
NGB can I ask that all the posts regarding myself are removed.
Jackie I have no desire to post on the Blue forum.
Caroline if you wish to communicate with Daisy re Jackie can I ask that you do so via pm. To do otherwise has the potential to cause trouble and is not in keeping with the "forum truce".
Any further posts re members here or elsewhere will be removed.
Ty for your co-operation.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 18, 2017, 09:06:42 PM
What is the difference between the thread on Lookout here and the one below which you are asking to be removed? You don't find your post below at odds with what you have said above in this thread? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1033.msg310221#msg310221
The difference being is that afaik Daisy hasn't:
- made derogatory comments about victims - made derogatory comments about witnesses - made racist comments - made homophobic comments
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on December 18, 2017, 09:15:54 PM
I 'fink' you know it's the same 8(0(* but it's not my call.
No I am sorry I do not 'fink' it is the same. I don't believe there's any comparison between Daisy's posts and Lookout's. A thread was started by Tim to discuss Lookout's controversial posts long before I joined UKJF and I understand and support the reasons why. Many consider Lookout's posts highly offensive including myself. Maybe those that disagree should ask themselves why Lookout?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on December 19, 2017, 12:17:38 AM
No I am sorry I do not 'fink' it is the same. I don't believe there's any comparison between Daisy's posts and Lookout's. A thread was started by Tim to discuss Lookout's controversial posts long before I joined UKJF and I understand and support the reasons why. Many consider Lookout's posts highly offensive including myself. Maybe those that disagree should ask themselves why Lookout?
Hang on! I didn't compare Daisy to Lookout I compared what you said then, to now.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 19, 2017, 01:22:12 PM
Hang on! I didn't compare Daisy to Lookout I compared what you said then, to now.
I thought you were commenting on the fact that I asked for a thread on Blue about Daisy to be removed? You see this as inconsistent in that UKJF has a thread about Lookout? Have I misunderstood?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on December 19, 2017, 06:47:57 PM
I thought you were commenting on the fact that I asked for a thread on Blue about Daisy to be removed? You see this as inconsistent in that UKJF has a thread about Lookout? Have I misunderstood?
Yes, you have - you asked for all posts regarding yourself be removed as people were discussing you and your ban.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 19, 2017, 09:07:48 PM
Caroline this thread was created long before I joined UKJF. I understand and support the reasons why it exists. Lookout is afforded a platform on Blue on which she is able to make vitriolic posts about the victims and witnesses of WHF along with homophobic and racist posts. This thread allows those that disagree with Lookout's posts to air their views. I don't find the thread unreasonable but have fedback your comments to John and if he sees fit to remove it or change it in some way then I am sure he will do so but given this time of year is busy for most I doubt it's top of his agenda.
Unlikely I will be on the forum much now until well into the New Year so I will take this opportunity to thank you for your contribution to the debate, along with other Blue contributors, Adam, April and David, and wish you all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. x
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on December 19, 2017, 09:17:12 PM
Caroline this thread was created long before I joined UKJF. I understand and support the reasons why it exists. Lookout is afforded a platform on Blue on which she is able to make vitriolic posts about the victims and witnesses of WHF along with homophobic and racist posts. This thread allows those that disagree with Lookout's posts to air their views. I don't find the thread unreasonable but have fedback your comments to John and if he sees fit to remove it or change it in some way then I am sure he will do so but given this time of year is busy for most I doubt it's top of his agenda.
Unlikely I will be on the forum much now until well into the New Year so I will take this opportunity to thank you for your contribution to the debate, along with other Blue contributors, Adam, April and David, and wish you all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. x
I don't want to talk about your ban! You asked for posts to be removed about YOU but are happy to contribute to posts about someone else. THAT was my point. Thanks for sending my comments to John - we won't agree on the thread so best just agree to disagree.
All the best to you too X
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on December 20, 2017, 02:47:56 AM
Wait, ya'll are members of another forum too??
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 20, 2017, 12:44:48 PM
I don't want to talk about your ban! You asked for posts to be removed about YOU but are happy to contribute to posts about someone else. THAT was my point. Thanks for sending my comments to John - we won't agree on the thread so best just agree to disagree.
All the best to you too X
Even I'm not that much of a hypocrite! The posts removed at my request were not in any way derogatory. If I remember correctly they were posts from JackieD(elicious) and full of adulation. I'm not the sort of person that would make a fuss if someone on an internet forum said something negative about me unless it was something really extreme. A poster on IA referred to me as an intellectual midget. A poster from Blue and Red (different poster) said I had mental health issues simply on the basis I talked about adoption, June's mental illness, SC and attachment. I never reported the posts and afaik the posts still remain.
I'm sure all regular posters, including myself, overstep the mark at times. The problem Lookout has is that she makes a large quantity of posts on a daily basis where many of her posts overstep the mark. Consequently Lookout and her posts don't fall under the radar and are singled out for criticism.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on December 20, 2017, 12:48:10 PM
Awww sorry I overlooked you Mat. I guess as you haven't been posting much lately it was a case of outta sight outta mind 8(8-)) Anyway Merry Christmas and a very happy New Year 8((()*/ x
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on December 30, 2017, 12:16:49 AM
Well, I'm stunned. Another Christmas has been and gone, but still Jeremy Bamber is in prison. *&^^&
Think of all the support he's got. Mike. A dumpy blonde bird. An elderly lady totally off her tits on sherry. Lookout. And......oh, right. That's about it.
?{)(**
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 04, 2018, 02:08:12 PM
Well, I'm stunned. Another Christmas has been and gone, but still Jeremy Bamber is in prison. *&^^&
Think of all the support he's got. Mike. A dumpy blonde bird. An elderly lady totally off her tits on sherry. Lookout. And......oh, right. That's about it.
?{)(**
Lookout is currently the odd one out in that she has yet to produce a video which hopefully she will work on during 2018. Lets remind ourselves of contributions from the others:
Lady Waterlow (can just make out a sherry decanter in the background)
Mike:
Trudi Benjamin
- one of my favourites!
Amazing that JB is still behind bars on the back of these vids. As Roch says it must be political! *%87
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on January 04, 2018, 02:46:33 PM
You forgot Lorna Lake, another 'Sheila dun it' protagonist.
Here she is offering her tuppence worth claiming Sheila had defence injuries and that Dr Vanezis was wrong or lied.
Timestamp 24.00
Unfortunately for Mss Lake, two witnesses spoke by telephone with Sheila and June on the evening prior to the killings and Sheila was NOT exhibiting any irrational or psychotic behaviour.
I think these lonely old dears should stick to their roses and knitting and leave the justice system to the professionals.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on January 04, 2018, 03:11:49 PM
Lookout is currently the odd one out in that she has yet to produce a video which hopefully she will work on during 2018. Lets remind ourselves of contributions from the others:
I wouldn't be too sure about that Holly, one of those named above could very well be the infamous lookout.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on January 05, 2018, 12:39:49 PM
You forgot Lorna Lake, another 'Sheila dun it' protagonist.
Here she is offering her tuppence worth claiming Sheila had defence injuries and that Dr Vanezis was wrong or lied.
Timestamp 24.00
Unfortunately for Mss Lake, two witnesses spoke by telephone with Sheila and June on the evening prior to the killings and Sheila was NOT exhibiting any irrational or psychotic behaviour.
I think these lonely old dears should stick to their roses and knitting and leave the justice system to the professionals.
Don't 'defense wounds' normally indicate that such an individual is a victim?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on January 07, 2018, 11:43:33 PM
Lookout is currently the odd one out in that she has yet to produce a video which hopefully she will work on during 2018. Lets remind ourselves of contributions from the others:
Lady Waterlow (can just make out a sherry decanter in the background)
Mike:
Trudi Benjamin
- one of my favourites!
Amazing that JB is still behind bars on the back of these vids. As Roch says it must be political! *%87
Blimey. Lady McWatersquirter. Poor old ... Mike, with his ankle tag, sitting on his sister's toilet. And Troods, the incredible inflatable woman.
I'm no Mystic Meg, but I predict that Lord Lucan and Shergar will win the under 12's gymkhana egg and spoon before Bamber gets another sniff at an appeal. Not a hope in hell.
8(8-))
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on January 08, 2018, 12:28:25 AM
Holl, I haven't Bambered for a while, I might be out of the loop.
Are you pinning your hopes on June's blood being on the bible? And the bible ending up on Sheila's arm because it was moved by the door?
Is that what you've got?
Even if Sheila was crazy, angry, mental, strong enough to bite the bullet (no pun intended) and find a gun that she knew nothing about, and wave it about, ........actually, this is bollox. There is NO WAY that Sheila could have been in charge of a loaded gun, and Ralph would have let her be mental while he rang Jeremy. No way.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: abs on January 12, 2018, 09:57:59 PM
Hi, everyone and HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Haven´t bambered either for ages - just thought I´d pop in to see if there were any changes. There don´t seem to be.
Hope you are all well!
Does Mike´s forum still exist?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 13, 2018, 01:11:25 PM
Holl, I haven't Bambered for a while, I might be out of the loop.
Are you pinning your hopes on June's blood being on the bible? And the bible ending up on Sheila's arm because it was moved by the door?
Is that what you've got?
Even if Sheila was crazy, angry, mental, strong enough to bite the bullet (no pun intended) and find a gun that she knew nothing about, and wave it about, ........actually, this is bollox. There is NO WAY that Sheila could have been in charge of a loaded gun, and Ralph would have let her be mental while he rang Jeremy. No way.
God know! It's a possible add-on but that's all the bible will ever be.
It does epitomise the case though IMO.
- Shows the police/lab as incompetent or underhanded in not disclosing the bloodstain test results and then destroying the bible - Shows the trial lawyers as grossly incompetent/negligent in not chasing down the results thus allowing the MM/JB staging to take hold - Shows the lawyers at appeal 2002 as grossly incompetent/negligent in overlooking the results thus allowing the MM/JB staging to take hold and the appeal court judges to have a field day - Shows many supporters as extremists with their theories of SC reading the bible and enclosing a suicide note to others convinced they can see SC's palm print
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on January 13, 2018, 01:21:16 PM
In answer to your q does Mike's forum exist, yes for those who wish to partake in cranky theories about EP shooting NB and planet earth being flat!
Hehehe - nah, sounds too, how to put it, arduous! gah I remember the photos from a documentary, which he claimed were actual photos of Sheila and June. I don´t think Mike is stupid, he isn´t, but he thinks other people are, and that is a big problem.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on January 13, 2018, 07:55:57 PM
Hehehe - nah, sounds too, how to put it, arduous! gah I remember the photos from a documentary, which he claimed were actual photos of Sheila and June. I don´t think Mike is stupid, he isn´t, but he thinks other people are, and that is a big problem.
Mike has an extraordinarily high opinion of himself, when in reality he's just Compo with an Asbo. I worry about Misty. 8(8-))
(Happy New Year, Abs! (ty6e[ )
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on January 14, 2018, 01:24:13 PM
Having recently read a few posts on blue I noticed David is doing his usual - gas lighting. *&^^&
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-42460315
He's behaved this way ever since he joined the blue forum.
Jeremy Bamber is a gas lighter - he gaslights at every given opportunity
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on February 04, 2018, 12:06:04 AM
Having recently read a few posts on blue I noticed David is doing his usual - gas lighting. *&^^&
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-42460315
He's behaved this way ever since he joined the blue forum.
Jeremy Bamber is a gas lighter - he gaslights at every given opportunity
And. lookout. You are lazy and offensive. You so want Bamber to be innocent, but you can't be arsed to read and do your homework. You just can't admit that you might have got it wrong. Get off your lazy arse and read what really happened. You were once a nurse. You must realise that Sheila didn't batter Ralph into submission, then shoot herself twice.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on February 04, 2018, 12:24:56 AM
And. lookout. You are lazy and offensive. You so want Bamber to be innocent, but you can't be arsed to read and do your homework. You just can't admit that you might have got it wrong. Get off your lazy arse and read what really happened. You were once a nurse. You must realise that Sheila didn't batter Ralph into submission, then shoot herself twice.
8(8-)) 8(8-)) 8(8-))
A small, tired, frail girl, sad and lost. Jeremy Bamber, greedy, angry, spiteful, mean. And the owner of the gun.
Blimey. It's not exactly rocket science.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on February 04, 2018, 12:35:19 AM
And. lookout. You are lazy and offensive. You so want Bamber to be innocent, but you can't be arsed to read and do your homework. You just can't admit that you might have got it wrong. Get off your lazy arse and read what really happened. You were once a nurse. You must realise that Sheila didn't batter Ralph into submission, then shoot herself twice.
Lookout is offensive, calling me racist and homophobic names (Lookout has called me WHITE TRASH and a BIG FAIRY) @)(++(* @)(++(*.... and then telling me to man up over it. But when someone stands up to the trolling, they are labelled a bully.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on February 05, 2018, 07:13:52 PM
Have you any idea how hard it is to load that gun, and how much grease is on your fingers? I did this, and my fingers were slimy and greasy.
Oh, Holl. You seriously haven't got a clue.
The manufactures describe the cartridges as:
"The non-greasy lubricant provides smooth operation in semi-automatic rifles and improves functioning in all weather conditions".
http://www.eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow
I think I have got a clue based on my visit to the gun shop and Fletcher's trial testimony.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: adam on February 17, 2018, 09:36:43 AM
I prasied Lookout earlier this week. After she nearly provided me a source for the first time. Giving the year & thread title. I actually had to find the 2011 thread.
This was after I had asked David 3 times about his claim a footprint showed Sheila committed the massacre.
The 2011 thread showed nothing. David eventually provided one document with around 50 different items on. One saying 'photograph of footprint'. Another breakthrough ?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 01, 2018, 11:28:14 AM
Lookout I hope you will accept the following graciously and not launch into an angry tirade telling me you're old enough to be my great granny and therefore know best.
I would suggest what you/CC are referring to is a spent casing and somehow the message has got lost in translation. CC wasn't familiar with firearms and the terms can be confusing:
Cartridge = casing that contains primer and propellant with bullet attached to end.
Upon firearm discharge it becomes two separate pieces:
Casing aka case = ejects out of port. Scipio advised it is technically known as casing. Bullet = ejects out of barrel. As we know all bullets entered victims except one which may have just grazed June and landed in bedroom. Some entered and exited victims.
The term 'case' to anyone unfamiliar with ammo/firearms might well be interpreted as something akin to a case for containing something.
I'm not aware of any case or magazine found in main bedroom other than the spent casings (cases) and magazine attached to rifle.
Here's a diagram showing the components. Please ensure you study this carefully today and I will test your understanding tomorrow.
http://www.eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on March 02, 2018, 12:59:08 PM
Lookout I hope you will accept the following graciously and not launch into an angry tirade telling me you're old enough to be my great granny and therefore know best.
I would suggest what you/CC are referring to is a spent casing and somehow the message has got lost in translation. CC wasn't familiar with firearms and the terms can be confusing:
Cartridge = casing that contains primer and propellant with bullet attached to end.
Upon firearm discharge it becomes two separate pieces:
Casing aka case = ejects out of port. Scipio advised it is technically known as casing. Bullet = ejects out of barrel. As we know all bullets entered victims except one which may have just grazed June and landed in bedroom. Some entered and exited victims.
The term 'case' to anyone unfamiliar with ammo/firearms might well be interpreted as something akin to a case for containing something.
I'm not aware of any case or magazine found in main bedroom other than the spent casings (cases) and magazine attached to rifle.
Here's a diagram showing the components. Please ensure you study this carefully today and I will test your understanding tomorrow.
http://www.eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow
I think he was talking about the magazine Holly but he was certainly confused when he wrote his book. As you say, being unfamiliar with the ins and outs of firearms, it's obvious that he made a mistake. I think you're the ONLY supporter who doesn't drag every uncrossed T into the realms of conspiracy!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 03, 2018, 09:38:07 PM
I think he was talking about the magazine Holly but he was certainly confused when he wrote his book. As you say, being unfamiliar with the ins and outs of firearms, it's obvious that he made a mistake. I think you're the ONLY supporter who doesn't drag every uncrossed T into the realms of conspiracy!
I no longer have the book to check Lookout's claims but I'm sure there will be an innocent explanation and IMO it's most likely to be crossed wires.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on March 04, 2018, 11:01:35 PM
I no longer have the book to check Lookout's claims but I'm sure there will be an innocent explanation and IMO it's most likely to be crossed wires.
Gordon Bennett, not this again? It's like Groundhag Day. I've lost count of the times it's been explained to her that the "case" was a magazine - I wonder why she struggles so, to process and retain information? Instead of constantly bragging about how "unique" she is (there is NOTHING unique about being an angry, lonely old woman) she should spend her time actually doing some groundwork.
Unless she's worried about what she might find......... 8)-)))
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on March 04, 2018, 11:27:23 PM
"The non-greasy lubricant provides smooth operation in semi-automatic rifles and improves functioning in all weather conditions".
http://www.eley.co.uk/eley-subsonic-hollow
I think I have got a clue based on my visit to the gun shop and Fletcher's trial testimony.
Sorry, Holl, I missed this, and you do have a point. But if Nevill looked after his guns like BT does (and apparently he did, it was his thing) there would have been a certain amount of grease and oil, it's just what happens. And it was proven (if you believe it) that the magazine became increasingly difficult to load, so it's less likely that Sheila could have reloaded. Even if she knew how to reload, which apparently she didn't. Just living amongst guns doesn't give you an insight into a new gun, that Bamber had bought for himself, against all advice. I've spent 35 years living with BT, who mends cars and does manly stuff. To my shame, I don't know where the oil goes in my car, and I certainly couldn't change a tyre. And BT, who has suffered my pug and horse crap for all that time, still pats a horse on it's face (they hate that) and couldn't tell a pug from a poodle.
If you're not into something (and we know that Sheila wasn't into guns) you don't just learn something by osmosis. Don't dismiss chambering, Holl.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on March 04, 2018, 11:48:51 PM
Lookout is offensive, calling me racist and homophobic names (Lookout has called me WHITE TRASH and a BIG FAIRY) @)(++(* @)(++(*.... and then telling me to man up over it. But when someone stands up to the trolling, they are labelled a bully.
Blimey!! White Trash and a big fairy!! She'd by lynched if she lived in Brighton!
She's more to be pitied than scolded, I suppose. She's old and set in her ways, and she's on a hiding to nothing with the WHF case, because she puts so much trust in Troods instead of actually looking at the case. She's convinced that Bamber is innocent because......he looked innocent. Just like Huntley and Bridger. And, according to some, Philpott and Brady. I guess that Liverpool has had an irony by-pass, because if it was up to her, Bamber would have swung, years ago.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on March 05, 2018, 12:36:06 AM
I just wish that "lookout" could be a little more kind and gracious about June, instead of attacking her. I hate the continuous cheap shots. June did her best, and turned to God for comfort. June was kind and hard-working, spun all the plates, kept the farm going, worried and broke her heart about her adopted children, supported Nevill, adored the twins. And when Bamber did what he did, that awful night, June, though horribly injured, tried to get to the phone, then tried to help the twins.
And idiots like Mike and lookout blame the police, or Sheila.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 05, 2018, 02:51:23 PM
Gordon Bennett, not this again? It's like Groundhag Day. I've lost count of the times it's been explained to her that the "case" was a magazine - I wonder why she struggles so, to process and retain information? Instead of constantly bragging about how "unique" she is (there is NOTHING unique about being an angry, lonely old woman) she should spend her time actually doing some groundwork.
Unless she's worried about what she might find......... 8)-)))
I think Lookout's problem is that she has exceptionally poor listening skills and I don't mean in the audible sense!
She operates off her gut feeling and to hell with everyone and everything else.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 05, 2018, 03:05:31 PM
Sorry, Holl, I missed this, and you do have a point. But if Nevill looked after his guns like BT does (and apparently he did, it was his thing) there would have been a certain amount of grease and oil, it's just what happens. And it was proven (if you believe it) that the magazine became increasingly difficult to load, so it's less likely that Sheila could have reloaded. Even if she knew how to reload, which apparently she didn't. Just living amongst guns doesn't give you an insight into a new gun, that Bamber had bought for himself, against all advice. I've spent 35 years living with BT, who mends cars and does manly stuff. To my shame, I don't know where the oil goes in my car, and I certainly couldn't change a tyre. And BT, who has suffered my pug and horse crap for all that time, still pats a horse on it's face (they hate that) and couldn't tell a pug from a poodle.
If you're not into something (and we know that Sheila wasn't into guns) you don't just learn something by osmosis. Don't dismiss chambering, Holl.
The rifle was found resting on SC's person/nightdress so if it had traces of grease oil on then why didn't they transfer?
I pretend I can't do things like change a tyre or put air in as I don't want to get hands/clothes dirty or stand about in cold/wet but I know if I wanted to I would figure it out.
To my mind inserting cartridges into mag and chambering a round doesn't seem remotely complicated. My only sibling is a brother and you do tend to get dragged into to doing boy things even if you're not particularly interested. It's always fun to try new things: shooting an air rifle, fishing, learning to ride a motorbike etc. SC and JB grew up in a fairly isolated location at WHF so I find it almost inconceivable they wouldn't have hung out together some of the time.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on March 05, 2018, 05:26:20 PM
"Drunken slob" eh, Lookout? Ho ho!! Guilty as charged!! (Ooh, JUST like Jeremy Bamber!)
And yes, you're right, I did have a lousy start in life, worse than anyone else I knew. Pretty cushty now, though!!
8((()*/
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 05, 2018, 05:43:50 PM
First of all,,I don't refer to any information through links,,,it's purely lifes experiences coupled with my own views and not those of any" Doctor Spock "type gobbledegook.
How are your life experiences going to help JB?
You were instantly dismissive of the links I provided about adoption and developmental psychology. Instead telling me I had issues and wanting to tell me that step families are akin to families created by closed adoption when they are most definitely not.
No one is disliked for nothing Lookout. You need to take a step back and consider the views of others along with how you come over to others and engage your brain before you post.
I even offered to show you how to copy and paste (as did Patty) but you refuse to learn anything new.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 05, 2018, 05:52:44 PM
And Roch if you have a pair why not wander over and pugs and I will check you out for any unusual growths. We promise to be ever so gentle 8(0(*
"Drunken slob" eh, Lookout? Ho ho!! Guilty as charged!! (Ooh, JUST like Jeremy Bamber!)
And yes, you're right, I did have a lousy start in life, worse than anyone else I knew. Pretty cushty now, though!!
8((()*/
And according to Lookout I have mental health issues and need help simply on the basis I posted about adoption and developmental psychology.
Lazy, loopy or losing it? It's another 'L' but imo poor listening skills are Lookout's problem which probably stem from her Quaker mother who according to Lookout was fearsome.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 05, 2018, 06:29:53 PM
And according to Lookout I have mental health issues and need help simply on the basis I posted about adoption and developmental psychology.
Lazy, loopy or losing it? It's another 'L' but imo poor listening skills are Lookout's problem which probably stem from her Quaker mother who according to Lookout was fearsome.
And loved her son (Lookout's brother) more than Lookout, according to Lookout.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 05, 2018, 06:44:36 PM
Lookout maybe you have a lot of repressed emotions linked to your relationship with your mother and mental health nursing during the 1950's? Maybe this is the reason you found it difficult to grieve your husband when he passed away?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on March 05, 2018, 07:10:19 PM
Did you tell Lookout about your early life? For her to now be posting about it on the blue forum. Bit of a cheap shot isn't it.
Funnily enough, I don't recall she and I ever having any cosy chats!
But I'm incredibly touched that she cares.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 06, 2018, 09:24:01 AM
Lookout's idea of an appeal hearing and justice:
Judge: What evidence do you bring before the court?
Ms H: Evidence? No M'lud what I bring far outweighs evidence. It's my gut instinct.
Judge: Court adjourned. Ms H this court has a duty to see that justice is delivered based on evidence not gut instinct.
Ms H: Wait, wait. The boy is innocent. I knew the moment I heard about the case.
Judge: Ms H please leave the court in an orderly manner. Failure to do so will result in you being in contempt of court.
Ms H: Wild horses will not see me leave until I've had my say. You see my life experiences are all encompassing. I grew up on the Mersey. Mother was a Quaker. Father was a kindly man who lived in mother's shadow. Brother was intellectually brighter than me and mother's favourite. Worked in the NHS all my working life. Started as a trainee nurse and ended up in mental health. I saw women the size of Thumbelina requiring 6 adults to restrain them. Married a divorcee. Have 2 step children and 2 of my own but they are all treated the same. Daughter lives in Australia and have over the years visited several times. I am never wrong. My gut instinct serves me well. Jeremy Bamber is innocent and should be released immediately. I am not a woolly minded liberal. Far from it. If I had my way the death penalty would be introduced forthwith. I would gladly carry out the deed. Unpaid at that.
Judge: You will be sentenced later for contempt of court. Take her away.
Ms H: (Removed from court. Kicking and screaming protesting her plight and Jeremy Bamber is innocent).
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on March 07, 2018, 11:35:32 AM
Judge: What evidence do you bring before the court?
Ms H: Evidence? No M'lud what I bring far outweighs evidence. It's my gut instinct.
Judge: Court adjourned. Ms H this court has a duty to see that justice is delivered based on evidence not gut instinct.
Ms H: Wait, wait. The boy is innocent. I knew the moment I heard about the case.
Judge: Ms H please leave the court in an orderly manner. Failure to do so will result in you being in contempt of court.
Ms H: Wild horses will not see me leave until I've had my say. You see my life experiences are all encompassing. I grew up on the Mersey. Mother was a Quaker. Father was a kindly man who lived in mother's shadow. Brother was intellectually brighter than me and mother's favourite. Worked in the NHS all my working life. Started as a trainee nurse and ended up in mental health. I saw women the size of Thumbelina requiring 6 adults to restrain them. Married a divorcee. Have 2 step children and 2 of my own but they are all treated the same. Daughter lives in Australia and have over the years visited several times. I am never wrong. My gut instinct serves me well. Jeremy Bamber is innocent and should be released immediately. I am not a woolly minded liberal. Far from it. If I had my way the death penalty would be introduced forthwith. I would gladly carry out the deed. Unpaid at that.
Judge: You will be sentenced later for contempt of court. Take her away.
Ms H: (Removed from court. Kicking and screaming protesting her plight and Jeremy Bamber is innocent).
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
8@??)(
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on March 07, 2018, 04:46:00 PM
And according to Lookout I have mental health issues and need help simply on the basis I posted about adoption and developmental psychology.
Lazy, loopy or losing it? It's another 'L' but imo poor listening skills are Lookout's problem which probably stem from her Quaker mother who according to Lookout was fearsome.
And according to her I'm a big fairy and white trash. @)(++(* Disgusting really but you've got to laugh. LiarLookout is more suitable.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 12, 2018, 01:26:23 PM
Maggie and NGB effectively condone Lookout's posts which many find unacceptable and in some instances are illegal.
Yes, they do. Although she's the one who posts the unacceptable and illegal rubbish, so at the end of the day if anything ever comes of it - it'll be her that faces the music and not them.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on March 12, 2018, 06:30:07 PM
Yes, they do. Although she's the one who posts the unacceptable and illegal rubbish, so at the end of the day if anything ever comes of it - it'll be her that faces the music and not them.
You'd think that Nelly might warn her, him knowing about the law and all.
Mean old Nelly. ?8)@)-)
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 12, 2018, 07:42:04 PM
According to NGB the publisher of a forum carries overall responsibility ie Mike:
That's not the case, members are solely responsible for the material they post.
A few Google searches seem to suggest first and foremost "authors" are responsible ie individual members but moderators known legally as "secondary publishers" can also be held responsible. This apparently falls under defamation law: libel (written word) and slander (spoken word).
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 13, 2018, 10:14:19 AM
Maybe KNGB would like to pop over to discuss the matter. Stranger things have happened eg a proposed meet between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump. Both of whom have dodgy hairstyles. Ooops have I defamed anyone *%87
Must remember to look out the nerve agent detection kit.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Angelo222 on March 13, 2018, 10:14:34 AM
In the first instance a complaint must be made to the site owner giving them the opportunity to remove the material. What you previously stated about NGB is true though, he does his own credibility no favours by allowing libellous comments to be posted on the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on March 13, 2018, 09:37:06 PM
A few Google searches seem to suggest first and foremost "authors" are responsible ie individual members but moderators known legally as "secondary publishers" can also be held responsible. This apparently falls under defamation law: libel (written word) and slander (spoken word).
It'd be a waste of time for anyone to try and go after NGB or ModMaggie for Lookouts posts, it's murky at best to try and tie them into anything Lookouts posted - although Lookout herself has posted far more than enough to be in hot water. I know she's been been reported before, once ages ago but also very recently, he age stops it being in the public interest to pursure. Sadly.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: sika on March 13, 2018, 11:19:36 PM
Who really gives a f..k?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on March 14, 2018, 10:44:39 AM
What really bugs me is the likes of NGB, Maggie, Lookout and Gladys bleating about others when they do exactly the same either directly or indirectly by effectively condoning the posts of others.
At least Mike doesn't get all big girls blousy.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 07, 2018, 12:31:12 PM
Lookout has recovered from her meltdown complete with 37,953 posts:
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on April 07, 2018, 12:43:42 PM
Lookout thanks for sharing your pearls of wisdom but what you need to bear in mind, assuming you want to assist JB, is whether they are capable of forming appeal points? I would suggest not. "Trajectories" I would suggest could.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on May 24, 2018, 11:40:59 AM
Nelly. Moderate your forum. It is now beyond disgraceful.
%56&
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on May 24, 2018, 12:28:41 PM
Nelly. Moderate your forum. It is now beyond disgraceful.
%56&
And as if by magic..........
8)-)))
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on May 24, 2018, 06:23:33 PM
A pity those on Blue who were quick to judge and voice opinions over Stephanie's threads/posts remain silent over Mike's.
Stephanie by and large was posting about JB and personality disorders. Not a view I share. However not outlandish given professionals have said as much on docu/dramas. During the last 24 hours Mike has claimed Prince Philip fathered JB and NB fathered the twins and yet not a word from the regulars. That's what I call breathtaking hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on May 25, 2018, 12:28:24 PM
A pity those on Blue who were quick to judge and voice opinions over Stephanie's threads/posts remain silent over Mike's.
Stephanie by and large was posting about JB and personality disorders. Not a view I share. However not outlandish given professionals have said as much on docu/dramas. During the last 24 hours Mike has claimed Prince Philip fathered JB and NB fathered the twins and yet not a word from the regulars. That's what I call breathtaking hypocrisy.
Even by Tesko's "standards" it was horrible - less "clever b........", more dodgy little pervert.
I don't understand why anyone continues to support him, unless they share his views.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: APRIL on May 25, 2018, 02:01:35 PM
A pity those on Blue who were quick to judge and voice opinions over Stephanie's threads/posts remain silent over Mike's.
Stephanie by and large was posting about JB and personality disorders. Not a view I share. However not outlandish given professionals have said as much on docu/dramas. During the last 24 hours Mike has claimed Prince Philip fathered JB and NB fathered the twins and yet not a word from the regulars. That's what I call breathtaking hypocrisy.
Perhaps their silence speaks far more eloquently and louder than any words regarding what's recently being claimed..................in fact, no one's saying anything about anything, really.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on May 25, 2018, 03:04:01 PM
Even by Tesko's "standards" it was horrible - less "clever b........", more dodgy little pervert.
I don't understand why anyone continues to support him, unless they share his views.
It just shows what goes through the horrible man’s mind, how he gets away with being the owner of a forum and given the platform to spew such false and vile accusations I will never understand. NGB and Maggie both know what he is like and to moderate for such a vile corrupted forum owner I would not want. The man has ruined a once good forum, his lies and unpredictable behaviour is not worth such good peoples time and efforts.
The family will be quite happy at the moment, Tesko trying to promote any injustice for Bamber having the opposite effect. ^*&&
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on May 27, 2018, 12:27:51 AM
It just shows what goes through the horrible man’s mind, how he gets away with being the owner of a forum and given the platform to spew such false and vile accusations I will never understand. NGB and Maggie both know what he is like and to moderate for such a vile corrupted forum owner I would not want. The man has ruined a once good forum, his lies and unpredictable behaviour is not worth such good peoples time and efforts.
The family will be quite happy at the moment, Tesko trying to promote any injustice for Bamber having the opposite effect. ^*&&
Justice, it has been many, many moons since the blue forum has been informative, credible or fun. Gladys Beltdown was the kiss of death for anyone who doubted Bamber, and Nelly's strange agendum encourages Tesko to become more depraved and damaging by the day. And lookout, with her ignorance and bile, would have been banned when discussion was intelligent and interesting. The blue forum is now a horrible husk, where disturbed weirdos like Nigel can write whatever pops into their head when the cider runs out. And nugnug can take the piss, when he writes perfectly clearly on other forums. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: APRIL on May 27, 2018, 08:39:05 AM
Justice, it has been many, many moons since the blue forum has been informative, credible or fun. Gladys Beltdown was the kiss of death for anyone who doubted Bamber, and Nelly's strange agendum encourages Tesko to become more depraved and damaging by the day. And lookout, with her ignorance and bile, would have been banned when discussion was intelligent and interesting. The blue forum is now a horrible husk, where disturbed weirdos like Nigel can write whatever pops into their head when the cider runs out. And nugnug can take the piss, when he writes perfectly clearly on other forums. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.
And even they, over the last couple of days, have been noted by their absence................and to think that it was once said, that certain members, no longer posting there, because of their anti Bamber stance, were preventing decent people from posting. Hmm! I think that person is beginning to find that the only merit in talking to themselves is that they get the answers they want...................but where's the fun in that when they could be spitting venom and insults at someone?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on May 30, 2018, 10:40:39 AM
Our Panorama on the CCRC and cases it rejected won’t broadcast tonight. It’s postponed temporarily whilst we consider a late injunction threat. Should have been showed tonight on BBC
Doesn’t seem as though Bamber was one of those cases to be investigated, the CCRC didn’t reject his case in 2002.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: APRIL on May 30, 2018, 10:52:24 AM
Our Panorama on the CCRC and cases it rejected won’t broadcast tonight. It’s postponed temporarily whilst we consider a late injunction threat. Should have been showed tonight on BBC
Doesn’t seem as though Bamber was one of those cases to be investigated, the CCRC didn’t reject his case in 2002.
Interesting RJ. Not the first time it's happened. Guess it won't be the last.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on May 30, 2018, 11:09:47 AM
Interesting RJ. Not the first time it's happened. Guess it won't be the last.
Your right April, Panarama is notorious for being bias to the Left anyway, it had a five year study so anything it says take with a pinch of salt. It’s all right for Anti Establishment brigade, but it’s lost a lot of viewers over the years.
THE BBC current affairs programme Panorama has a deep-seated left-wing bias, according to a five-year audit on the eve of the programme’s 50th anniversary.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on June 21, 2018, 08:32:36 PM
Lookout comes across as a cold and callous individual
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on June 22, 2018, 01:27:27 PM
Freddie Fox is to play "monster" Bamber in a 6 part TV drama. Filming starts next month.
And Jeremy Bamber will be portrayed as the psychopath he is.
"There are a number of activists on social media who still believe in Bamber’s innocence, and he courts them to help plead that he is, in fact, the victim of a massive miscarriage of justice"
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Nicholas on June 22, 2018, 08:55:04 PM
Freddie Fox is to play "monster" Bamber in a 6 part TV drama. Filming starts next month.
"Fox 29, brilliant as an aristocrat in Oscar Wilde’s An Ideal Husband at the Vaudeville Theatre, which has just a couple of weeks left to run, has signed on to portray the narcissistic psychopath."
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on June 26, 2018, 02:34:00 PM
Lookout how long do you think PC Collins spent looking through the window having been told JB received a tel call from his father saying "Sheila's gone crazy shes got the gun"? PC Collins was also told the farmhouse contained a number of firearms including a rifle and shotgun and thousands of rounds of ammo.
Do you think he pressed his face against the window cupping his hands at the sides of his face to get a good look when he was led to believe, rightly or wrongly, that a 'mad woman' with a shotgun might blast his face off?!
In all probability his observation of the kitchen was based on a fleeting glance from a safe distance.
I haven't seen an explanation from PC Collins as to why he initially thought NB was female. NB's hair has been given as a reason but I haven't seen anything from PC Collins about this. NB's pyjama bottoms had fallen down so it might be he saw bare legs and associated this with a female.
The bottom line is there's not a shred of evidence SC died significantly later than the other victims or that she moved significantly between sustaining the 2 gsw's.
The fact you and the CT keep peddling these old myths does nothing other than harm JB's case.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 01, 2018, 01:40:51 PM
Lookout have you read A/PS Woodcock's wit stat? He states SC's head was slightly raised against NB's bedside cabinet. This corroborates with testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail who said SC's head would have fallen back and ended up propped up against NB's bedside cabinet. He also said SC had been pulled down by her feet based on the way her nightdress was rucked up. In other words clear irrefutable evidence SC was moved between A/PS Woodcock first observing SC and soc images taken. Meaning when Dr Craig first observed SC her head may well have been in her neck concealing the fatal upper gunshot wound.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 02, 2018, 09:16:05 PM
Lookout have you read A/PS Woodcock's wit stat? He states SC's head was slightly raised against NB's bedside cabinet. This corroborates with testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail who said SC's head would have fallen back and ended up propped up against NB's bedside cabinet. He also said SC had been pulled down by her feet based on the way her nightdress was rucked up. In other words clear irrefutable evidence SC was moved between A/PS Woodcock first observing SC and soc images taken. Meaning when Dr Craig first observed SC her head may well have been in her neck concealing the fatal upper gunshot wound.
If Sheila's head was slightly raised the blood couldn't have ran down the sides of her mouth and into her eye socket, it would have ran down her chin. I think Woodcock was mistaken.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 03, 2018, 01:56:35 PM
If Sheila's head was slightly raised the blood couldn't have ran down the sides of her mouth and into her eye socket, it would have ran down her chin. I think Woodcock was mistaken.
CW on IA seems to think the blood on SC's face originated from her left eye. The images I have seen don't show enough of the left eye and even if they did I could only offer up a lay person's opinion. Then there's blood from the nostrils? Anyway I might agree that A/PS Woodcock was mistaken but given his testimony corroborates with testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail for the prosecution I think it is safe to assume SC was moved between A/PS Woodcock's observation and SoC images taken. Clearly JB was not responsible for this. The appeal court judges were certainly impressed with Martyn Ismail's testimony. Lets hope the appeal judges are as impressed when it forms part of the defence case at what will be a third historic appeal.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 03, 2018, 06:51:22 PM
CW on IA seems to think the blood on SC's face originated from her left eye. The images I have seen don't show enough of the left eye and even if they did I could only offer up a lay person's opinion. Then there's blood from the nostrils? Anyway I might agree that A/PS Woodcock was mistaken but given his testimony corroborates with testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail for the prosecution I think it is safe to assume SC was moved between A/PS Woodcock's observation and SoC images taken. Clearly JB was not responsible for this. The appeal court judges were certainly impressed with Martyn Ismail's testimony. Lets hope the appeal judges are as impressed when it forms part of the defence case at what will be a third historic appeal.
It's clearly not from her left eye Holly and the blood from her mouth would have ran down her chin, try it with some water. The blood has ran from her moth and nose and pooled under her eye, it's not coming from her eye and as such, she must have been laying flat.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 04, 2018, 02:11:19 PM
It's clearly not from her left eye Holly and the blood from her mouth would have ran down her chin, try it with some water. The blood has ran from her moth and nose and pooled under her eye, it's not coming from her eye and as such, she must have been laying flat.
But water is a Newtonian fluid and blood non-Newtonian and this determines flow behavior.
My overall view is that where we have highly qualified experts of long experience they are unlikely to call it wrong. I place Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and Dr Ismail in this category.
A/PS Woodcock's testimony states SC's head was slightly raised against NB's bedside cabinet. Fast forward to the 2002 appeal and forensic scientist for the prosecution Dr Ismail with a degree in biochemistry states SC's head would have ended up propped on NB's bedside cabinet. I believe Dr Ismail was more than capable of accurately determining SC's position following the second fatal gsw by way of bloodstains.
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 04, 2018, 03:35:32 PM
But water is a Newtonian fluid and blood non-Newtonian and this determines flow behavior.
My overall view is that where we have highly qualified experts of long experience they are unlikely to call it wrong. I place Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and Dr Ismail in this category.
A/PS Woodcock's testimony states SC's head was slightly raised against NB's bedside cabinet. Fast forward to the 2002 appeal and forensic scientist for the prosecution Dr Ismail with a degree in biochemistry states SC's head would have ended up propped on NB's bedside cabinet. I believe Dr Ismail was more than capable of accurately determining SC's position following the second fatal gsw by way of bloodstains.
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.
Regardless or whether it is a Newtonian fluid or not, the blood would have ran down her chin - not to the sides of her mouth and it would have been impossible for it to have run UP her face and reach her eye if she was sitting up - regardless of what 'experts' say. Explain how it is possible for blood to run up and I'll concede the issue?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 04, 2018, 08:53:12 PM
But there's no reliable information as to SC's found position. A/PS Woodcock describes SC's head as slightly raised against the bedside cabinet. This was based on his visual perception and recollection. Dr Ismail concluded from the bloodstains that SC was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet after the second fatal gsw.
From my lay person's perspective I don't have a clear image of SC's found position based on the above and it's not clear where the blood is originating from. Blood appears to run from her nostrils and then backwards up the outer sides of her nostrils. Blood appears to run from the corner of her left eye backwards and forwards. Blood appears to run from her mouth and run to the sides over her cheeks with a greater distribution to the left than the right.
Blood is a non-Newtonian fluid and doesn't follow Newton's law of viscosity so no I don't think it follows blood would necessarily run down her chin. It's all to do with viscous forces in blood over surface and shear rates. I only have an awareness of it through something I did many years ago. It's way beyond me. I don't know why you doubt Martyn Ismail? He has a degree in biochemistry which would cover this sort of thing. He no doubt underwent further study/training in interpretations of bloodstains.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 04, 2018, 09:58:43 PM
But there's no reliable information as to SC's found position. A/PS Woodcock describes SC's head as slightly raised against the bedside cabinet. This was based on his visual perception and recollection. Dr Ismail concluded from the bloodstains that SC was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet after the second fatal gsw.
From my lay person's perspective I don't have a clear image of SC's found position based on the above and it's not clear where the blood is originating from. Blood appears to run from her nostrils and then backwards up the outer sides of her nostrils. Blood appears to run from the corner of her left eye backwards and forwards. Blood appears to run from her mouth and run to the sides over her cheeks with a greater distribution to the left than the right.
Blood is a non-Newtonian fluid and doesn't follow Newton's law of viscosity so no I don't think it follows blood would necessarily run down her chin. It's all to do with viscous forces in blood over surface and shear rates. I only have an awareness of it through something I did many years ago. It's way beyond me. I don't know why you doubt Martyn Ismail? He has a degree in biochemistry which would cover this sort of thing. He no doubt underwent further study/training in interpretations of bloodstains.
The reliable information is the picture - blood doesn't run up. Woodcock clearly made a mistake. There is a trail of blood that has run from her mouth, up to the eye and from her left nostril up to the eye (a bleeding nose would also run DOWN her face, not up), the blood has then pooled under the eye which has then run down past the outer corner of her eye. This couldn't happen if she had been sitting up. You don't need to study to degree level to know that blood can't run UP - the only forces that would make it do so have to be supernatural. You can see that the blood has run up as opposed to down because of the small amount of blood that is running from the right nostril - see below. You must have had a nose bleed before - I bet it never ran up your face?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 05, 2018, 03:33:47 PM
The reliable information is the picture - blood doesn't run up. Woodcock clearly made a mistake. There is a trail of blood that has run from her mouth, up to the eye and from her left nostril up to the eye (a bleeding nose would also run DOWN her face, not up), the blood has then pooled under the eye which has then run down past the outer corner of her eye. This couldn't happen if she had been sitting up. You don't need to study to degree level to know that blood can't run UP - the only forces that would make it do so have to be supernatural. You can see that the blood has run up as opposed to down because of the small amount of blood that is running from the right nostril - see below. You must have had a nose bleed before - I bet it never ran up your face?
The picture is at odds with testimony from a first respondent and forensic scientist so no I don't find it reliable at all. I find the picture highly controversial!
Your interpretation of the blood trails above is that blood run from her mouth to her eye. Dr Vanezis' autopsy report contradicts your interpretation. He states:
"There was blood around her mouth which had run down her face in a vertical direction. In addition there was also a small amount of blood around her nose":
So it seems CW on IA was correct in that the blood on SC's face originated from her left eye.
If SC's head was flat to the floor following the 2nd fatal gsw then surely the blood we see from her nostrils would have pooled in the bridge of her nose or that area?
Based on info from first respondent, pathologist and forensic scientist it seems the blood trails on SC's face were entirely consistent with her head slightly raised/propped up against NB's bedside cabinet with blood running down vertically run from her left eye and nostrils.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 05, 2018, 06:47:59 PM
The picture is at odds with testimony from a first respondent and forensic scientist so no I don't find it reliable at all. I find the picture highly controversial!
Your interpretation of the blood trails above is that blood run from her mouth to her eye. Dr Vanezis' autopsy report contradicts your interpretation. He states:
"There was blood around her mouth which had run down her face in a vertical direction. In addition there was also a small amount of blood around her nose":
So it seems CW on IA was correct in that the blood on SC's face originated from her left eye.
If SC's head was flat to the floor following the 2nd fatal gsw then surely the blood we see from her nostrils would have pooled in the bridge of her nose or that area?
Based on info from first respondent, pathologist and forensic scientist it seems the blood trails on SC's face were entirely consistent with her head slightly raised/propped up against NB's bedside cabinet with blood running down vertically run from her left eye and nostrils.
I see from the pathology report Dr Vanezis describes the blood trails on SC's arm as running vertical. These trails are running in the same direction as the blood on SC's face so I'm not sure what he means when he states running vertically down her face.
Why didn't he mention the blood around her eye?
The blood trails from eye, nostrils and mouth seem to contradict each other with the description of SC's head raised against the bedside cabinet and the soc image of her head flat on the ground:
Trail eyeTrail nostrilsTrail mouth
Head raised against BSC Consistent Consistent Inconsistent
Head flat to floor Inconsistent* Inconsistent Consistent
I think SC's head was raised against BSC and blood pooled in her mouth which was then dislodged upon being pulled down by her feet.
*On the assumption the blood originated from the eye as opposed to the mouth
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 05, 2018, 07:38:34 PM
The picture is at odds with testimony from a first respondent and forensic scientist so no I don't find it reliable at all. I find the picture highly controversial!
Your interpretation of the blood trails above is that blood run from her mouth to her eye. Dr Vanezis' autopsy report contradicts your interpretation. He states:
"There was blood around her mouth which had run down her face in a vertical direction. In addition there was also a small amount of blood around her nose":
So it seems CW on IA was correct in that the blood on SC's face originated from her left eye.
If SC's head was flat to the floor following the 2nd fatal gsw then surely the blood we see from her nostrils would have pooled in the bridge of her nose or that area?
Based on info from first respondent, pathologist and forensic scientist it seems the blood trails on SC's face were entirely consistent with her head slightly raised/propped up against NB's bedside cabinet with blood running down vertically run from her left eye and nostrils.
How does what you have posted suggest that blood originated from her left eye? Where in Venezis's statement does he even HINT at blood originating from her left eye? How can you not find a crime scene picture reliable? This is the body of Sheila Cafell, the blood flow tells a story. The trails are not MY interpretation you can see from the blood flow on her face that she couldn't been sat up at least certainly not when the blood flowed. Her head MAY have been raised slightly when shot but she didn't remain like that and Woodcock must have been wrong. Venezis said her head was slightly raised when shot, not that she had to have remained like that and clearly she didn't because as I think you know, blood can't run up in the position.
You can see on this picture that blood has ran from her nose slightly on the right side and I have highlighted the blood running from her mouth to her eye on the left side in yellow. The blood is dry on her face so has been like that for some time - Woodcock was just mistaken as it CW.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 05, 2018, 07:39:40 PM
I see from the pathology report Dr Vanezis describes the blood trails on SC's arm as running vertical. These trails are running in the same direction as the blood on SC's face so I'm not sure what he means when he states running vertically down her face. Why didn't he mention the blood around her eye?
The blood trails from eye, nostrils and mouth seem to contradict each other with the description of SC's head raised against the bedside cabinet and the soc image of her head flat on the ground:
Trail eyeTrail nostrilsTrail mouth
Head raised against BSC Consistent Consistent Inconsistent
Head flat to floor Inconsistent* Inconsistent Consistent
I think SC's head was raised against BSC and blood pooled in her mouth which was then dislodged upon being pulled down by her feet.
*On the assumption the blood originated from the eye as opposed to the mouth
Because it came from her nose and mouth - which he did mention.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 05, 2018, 07:41:26 PM
Here Dr V describes blood running down the length of June's leg as vertical so I'm confused as as these trails run in the opposite direction of the trail on SC's arm which he also describes as vertical *%87
I see from the pathology report Dr Vanezis describes the blood trails on SC's arm as running vertical. These trails are running in the same direction as the blood on SC's face so I'm not sure what he means when he states running vertically down her face.
Why didn't he mention the blood around her eye?
The blood trails from eye, nostrils and mouth seem to contradict each other with the description of SC's head raised against the bedside cabinet and the soc image of her head flat on the ground:
Trail eyeTrail nostrilsTrail mouth
Head raised against BSC Consistent Consistent Inconsistent
Head flat to floor Inconsistent* Inconsistent Consistent
I think SC's head was raised against BSC and blood pooled in her mouth which was then dislodged upon being pulled down by her feet. *On the assumption the blood originated from the eye as opposed to the mouth
It didn't
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 05, 2018, 07:44:32 PM
Here Dr V describes blood running down the length of June's leg as vertical so I'm confused as as these trails run in the opposite direction of the trail on SC's arm which he also describes as vertical *%87
Here Dr V describes blood running down the length of June's leg as vertical so I'm confused as as these trails run in the opposite direction of the trail on SC's arm which he also describes as vertical *%87
The blood did run vertical (ie North to South, up/down)
He describes the blood on SC's face as running vertically:
"There was blood around her mouth which had run down her face in a vertical direction. In addition there was also a small amount of blood around her nose".
I would describe the blood running from SC's mouth as horizontal. The only blood I see on SC's face running vertically is the blood running from her eye.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 05, 2018, 11:35:00 PM
He describes the blood on SC's face as running vertically:
"There was blood around her mouth which had run down her face in a vertical direction. In addition there was also a small amount of blood around her nose".
I would describe the blood running from SC's mouth as horizontal. The only blood I see on SC's face running vertically is the blood running from her eye.
I think you are getting bogged down in interpretations and there is no blood running FROM her eye. When he talks about 'vertical' he means it's running down. He didn't mention blood running FROM her eye because no blood ran from her eye, it ran TO her eye from her nose and mouth.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 06, 2018, 01:02:19 PM
I think you are getting bogged down in interpretations and there is no blood running FROM her eye. When he talks about 'vertical' he means it's running down. He didn't mention blood running FROM her eye because no blood ran from her eye, it ran TO her eye from her nose and mouth.
If I'm getting bogged down in interpretation it's because it isn't clear to me what Dr Vanezis means:
"There was blood around her mouth which had run down her face in a vertical direction. In addition there was also a small amount of blood around her nose".
But the blood running down SC's cheeks towards her ears is the complete opposite direction of blood running down the length of June's leg and he refers to both as vertical.
The blood trails from or to the eye and from or to the mouth connect so one might have caused the other or not. The blood trials from the nostrils do not connect.
In any event like most aspects of the case I don't believe it is straightforward because we know SC sustained 2 gsw's and the pathological evidence suggests she was in a slightly upright position for both meaning some of the blood trails might have originated from the 1st gsw and others may have originated from the 2nd gsw when it is said she would have fallen back instantly. There's also the possibility blood may have pooled and then been released if she was moved.
Upshot is the most senior first respondent said her head was slightly raised against the bsc. Forensic scientist Dr Ismail said the exact thing based on blood stains and nightdress.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 06, 2018, 01:08:39 PM
David did you Caroline or Myster have the benefit of observing SC first hand? No but A/PS Woodcock did.
Do any of you have any qualifications or experience in forensic science, bsa etc? No not afaik but Dr Ismail does.
Sorry to disappoint but I'm going with A/PS Woodcock and Dr Ismail. &^&*%
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 06, 2018, 01:56:18 PM
If I'm getting bogged down in interpretation it's because it isn't clear to me what Dr Vanezis means:
"There was blood around her mouth which had run down her face in a vertical direction. In addition there was also a small amount of blood around her nose".
But the blood running down SC's cheeks towards her ears is the complete opposite direction of blood running down the length of June's leg and he refers to both as vertical.
The blood trails from or to the eye and from or to the mouth connect so one might have caused the other or not. The blood trials from the nostrils do not connect.
In any event like most aspects of the case I don't believe it is straightforward because we know SC sustained 2 gsw's and the pathological evidence suggests she was in a slightly upright position for both meaning some of the blood trails might have originated from the 1st gsw and others may have originated from the 2nd gsw when it is said she would have fallen back instantly. There's also the possibility blood may have pooled and then been released if she was moved.
Upshot is the most senior first respondent said her head was slightly raised against the bsc. Forensic scientist Dr Ismail said the exact thing based on blood stains and nightdress.
How can it have been released? It's bone dry and cracking.
The picture shows that her head wasn't raised so I have no confidence in what Woodcock or Ismail states and Venezis only said her head was raised slightly when shot.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 06, 2018, 02:25:19 PM
How can it have been released? It's bone dry and cracking.
A/PS Woodcock observed SC at approx 7.30am and noted her head sightly raised against the bsc. The soc images were taken at approx 10.30am so there's a 3 hour window during which the expert evidence suggests SC was moved. Dr Ismail claims following the 2nd gsw SC's head would have been propped up against the bsc and she was subsequently pulled down by her feet. If this is the case and blood pooled internally it may have emitted through orifices when her head fell to the floor.
The picture shows that her head wasn't raised so I have no confidence in what Woodcock or Ismail states and Venezis only said her head was raised slightly when shot.
But the picture was taken 3 hours after A/PS Woodcock observed SC at 7.30am.
Blood has clearly run down her nostrils so when and how do you think this came about?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 06, 2018, 06:59:31 PM
A/PS Woodcock observed SC at approx 7.30am and noted her head sightly raised against the bsc. The soc images were taken at approx 10.30am so there's a 3 hour window during which the expert evidence suggests SC was moved. Dr Ismail claims following the 2nd gsw SC's head would have been propped up against the bsc and she was subsequently pulled down by her feet. If this is the case and blood pooled internally it may have emitted through orifices when her head fell to the floor.
But the picture was taken 3 hours after A/PS Woodcock observed SC at 7.30am.
Blood has clearly run down her nostrils so when and how do you think this came about?
Not sure what you mean? The head contains a lot of blood. The first shot hit the right jugular and the second went through the hard palate into the brain, blood would have leaked from these injuries - she wouldn't have had to be sat up for it to find a way down her nose and mouth and clearly she wasn't because as the blood exited her nose, it ran up her face - to a greater extent on the left side but there is still evidence of it on the right.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 06, 2018, 08:30:35 PM
Not sure what you mean? The head contains a lot of blood. The first shot hit the right jugular and the second went through the hard palate into the brain, blood would have leaked from these injuries - she wouldn't have had to be sat up for it to find a way down her nose and mouth and clearly she wasn't because as the blood exited her nose, it ran up her face - to a greater extent on the left side but there is still evidence of it on the right.
Yes blood emitted via her orifices from her injuries but you try lying prone on the floor with your chin in the same direction as SC's and then insert your little finger into your nostril and you wil find the angle is 90 degrees from the horizontal meaning blood could not have emitted from her nostrils had she been lying prone.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 06, 2018, 08:50:19 PM
Yes blood emitted via her orifices from her injuries but you try lying prone on the floor with your chin in the same direction as SC's and then insert your little finger into your nostril and you wil find the angle is 90 degrees from the horizontal meaning blood could not have emitted from her nostrils had she been lying prone.
Of course it could. Once her heart stopped her blood didn't hang in suspended animation, it would have started to drain down and if there was an outlet on the way, some of it would have found it's way through.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 06, 2018, 08:54:12 PM
Of course it could. Once her heart stopped her blood didn't hang in suspended animation, it would have started to drain down and if there was an outlet on the way, some of it would have found it's way through.
Regardless of whether her heart was beating or not if her head was positioned as per soc image blood could not have travelled UP her nostril.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 06, 2018, 08:59:53 PM
David if officers interfere with soc/victims and don't declare it it is a very serious offence. You can listen to former det sup Mick Gradwell confirm such in 1 of the Guardian vids or might be the Tonight prog.
David if officers interfere with soc/victims and don't declare it it is a very serious offence. You can listen to former det sup Mick Gradwell confirm such in 1 of the Guardian vids or might be the Tonight prog.
I don't think MG was so specific about that Holly, only something about the investigation being below standard on the finding of the silencer about 13:00 minutes in...
Also note that SM who was so gushing about a potential miscarriage has now parted company with JB and the campaign team... nuff said!
And don't you knock Sweden, or ABBA (they wrote some good toons and had two hotties), or IKEA (I have a few items although I got lost trying to find my way out), or Saab (nearly bought one once because it had a revolutionary heated driver's seat... you know what they say - "Warm goolies, Warm heart"... or I think that's how the saying goes). As for pickled herring, I guess it's a favourite dish of the the residents of HMP Wakefield...
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Myster on July 07, 2018, 06:26:52 AM
What is it with England pretending to be hipsters with their whispy beards?!!!!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on July 08, 2018, 12:44:46 AM
Jeremy Bamber support group.
Mike Tesko….horrible little sex pest.
NGB. Big bag of wind.
Lookout. Angry old woman.
Maggie. Keeps her head down.
That's about it, really.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on July 08, 2018, 12:46:05 AM
And you wonder why he's still in prison?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 09, 2018, 02:19:59 PM
I don't think MG was so specific about that Holly, only something about the investigation being below standard on the finding of the silencer about 13:00 minutes in...
Also note that SM who was so gushing about a potential miscarriage has now parted company with JB and the campaign team... nuff said!
And don't you knock Sweden, or ABBA (they wrote some good toons and had two hotties), or IKEA (I have a few items although I got lost trying to find my way out), or Saab (nearly bought one once because it had a revolutionary heated driver's seat... you know what they say - "Warm goolies, Warm heart"... or I think that's how the saying goes). As for pickled herring, I guess it's a favourite dish of the the residents of HMP Wakefield...
Yes MG was very clear that if officers alter a soc and don't disclose it is "Really, really serious". At 8 min in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPRd912xv9M
I would point out though that this is with regard to SC's hand being moved which was actually disclosed at trial. I have no idea why Rivlin (and Turner at 2002 appeal) didn't raise SC's head slightly raised against NB's bedside cabinet as per A/PS Woodcock's WS (and 2002 testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail). I'm assuming the defence at trial and appeal had access to the raid team WS's? Puglove raised SC's position looking contrived and as a result I went and reread the raid team WS's again to see if their verbal testimonies re soc were compatible with soc image.
Funnily enough I had pickled herring the other day. I read an article in the DM saying sauerkraut is good for you. (I live by the DM). Apparently it's the fermenting process. Anyway I thought what am I going to eat with sauerkraut...didn't fancy a German sausage... so went for pickled herrings instead. Quite a tasty little snack.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 09, 2018, 06:32:02 PM
I don't think MG was so specific about that Holly, only something about the investigation being below standard on the finding of the silencer about 13:00 minutes in...
Also note that SM who was so gushing about a potential miscarriage has now parted company with JB and the campaign team... nuff said!
And don't you knock Sweden, or ABBA (they wrote some good toons and had two hotties), or IKEA (I have a few items although I got lost trying to find my way out), or Saab (nearly bought one once because it had a revolutionary heated driver's seat... you know what they say - "Warm goolies, Warm heart"... or I think that's how the saying goes). As for pickled herring, I guess it's a favourite dish of the the residents of HMP Wakefield...
I don't believe there was any big fall out between SM and JB. He has since qualified as a barrister and if I had my way he would be back representing JB again.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 11, 2018, 10:13:32 AM
I don't believe there was any big fall out between SM and JB. He has since qualified as a barrister and if I had my way he would be back representing JB again.
They clearly had difference over where the case should go.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on July 11, 2018, 12:10:33 PM
They clearly had difference over where the case should go.
I don't have any evidence to support the above but you may well be right. When I was communicating regularly with JB I found his ideas about his case seemed to follow the same themes we hear from the likes of Mike, CT et al all of which would be enough to drive the most patient lawyer stir crazy!
As can be evidenced by debates on the forums its a time consuming business ironing out all the details and no matter how skilled a lawyer is there are no shortcuts. JB has no income/capital and isn't eligible for any sort of legal aid until such time as his case is referred to CoA. SM and any lawyer who agrees to take on JB's case will need to do so pro bono unless individual(s) can fund privately.
I understand when SM was representing JB his children were still very much dependent and he has obviously had to take time out to qualify as a barrister in addition to earning a living so it doesn't leave much time to act pro bono for JB. Maybe it was just a personal/commercial decision he had to make.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on July 12, 2018, 05:36:29 AM
I don't have any evidence to support the above but you may well be right. When I was communicating regularly with JB I found his ideas about his case seemed to follow the same themes we hear from the likes of Mike, CT et al all of which would be enough to drive the most patient lawyer stir crazy!
As can be evidenced by debates on the forums its a time consuming business ironing out all the details and no matter how skilled a lawyer is there are no shortcuts. JB has no income/capital and isn't eligible for any sort of legal aid until such time as his case is referred to CoA. SM and any lawyer who agrees to take on JB's case will need to do so pro bono unless individual(s) can fund privately.
I understand when SM was representing JB his children were still very much dependent and he has obviously had to take time out to qualify as a barrister in addition to earning a living so it doesn't leave much time to act pro bono for JB. Maybe it was just a personal/commercial decision he had to make.
This was also my experience and I am sure it's still happening. Reading the documentation from the last submissions, there would seem to be lots that SM didn't use - no doubt that was the stuff that Jeremy (and the CT) wanted to have included which would have just not made the grade.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on July 27, 2018, 03:53:38 PM
LiarLookout is on a good rant today on the blue.
She recently called me a "Big Fairy" for the second time - and has the cheek to complain I replied saying "And I think you're a vile old c..t."
The issue with bigots is they don't like being called on their hate and will try and turn the tables once people object to them.
Poor Jane's now getting a lashing.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on July 27, 2018, 04:42:11 PM
She recently called me a "Big Fairy" for the second time - and has the cheek to complain I replied saying "And I think you're a vile old c..t."
The issue with bigots is they don't like being called on their hate and will try and turn the tables once people object to them.
Poor Jane's now getting a lashing.
"O why do you walk through the fields in gloves, Missing so much and so much? Angry old woman whom nobody loves, When the grass is as soft as the breast of doves....."
With apologies to Frances Cornford! 8(0(*
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 01, 2018, 01:55:53 PM
She recently called me a "Big Fairy" for the second time - and has the cheek to complain I replied saying "And I think you're a vile old c..t."
The issue with bigots is they don't like being called on their hate and will try and turn the tables once people object to them.
Poor Jane's now getting a lashing.
I think the problem with Supporters Matt, they never do any research it’s all hear say, shame really they spends their life on the forum but gets so much wrong. last posts about Colin and Sheila couldn’t be more wrong, yes they did split up but Bamber says Sheila split up with Colin, she got herself another boyfriend and Colin got himself another girlfriend. Colin still took an active part in the boys having them every other weekend and also on one day in the week, who says so, why Bamber himself.
A post from blue forum Something caught my eye just half an hour ago while going through old posts. One " recognised " poster had said that Colin had walked out on Sheila and the twins when they were about 4/5 months old then never visited them for a year or so. Hard hearted was the poster's description.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on August 01, 2018, 04:10:47 PM
I think the problem with Supporters Matt, they never do any research it’s all hear say, shame really they spends their life on the forum but gets so much wrong. last posts about Colin and Sheila couldn’t be more wrong, yes they did split up but Bamber says Sheila split up with Colin, she got herself another boyfriend and Colin got himself another girlfriend. Colin still took an active part in the boys having them every other weekend and also on one day in the week, who says so, why Bamber himself.
A post from blue forum Something caught my eye just half an hour ago while going through old posts. One " recognised " poster had said that Colin had walked out on Sheila and the twins when they were about 4/5 months old then never visited them for a year or so. Hard hearted was the poster's description.
She hasn't got much time left on this planet yet she squanders every waking moment obsessing about a child murderer who, I guarantee, wouldn't p*** on her if she was on fire. And when she gets called out on the ignorant, spiteful crap that she posts she bleats and grizzles and tells outright whoppers!
*&^^& %56&
And why can't she bloody punctuate? 8()(((@#
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 01, 2018, 08:58:18 PM
She hasn't got much time left on this planet yet she squanders every waking moment obsessing about a child murderer who, I guarantee, wouldn't p*** on her if she was on fire. And when she gets called out on the ignorant, spiteful crap that she posts she bleats and grizzles and tells outright whoppers!
*&^^& %56&
And why can't she bloody punctuate? 8()(((@#
I think the penny finally dropped with Jackie, so who knows Puglove maybe some day.
I think the problem with Supporters Matt, they never do any research it’s all hear say, shame really they spends their life on the forum but gets so much wrong. last posts about Colin and Sheila couldn’t be more wrong, yes they did split up but Bamber says Sheila split up with Colin, she got herself another boyfriend and Colin got himself another girlfriend. Colin still took an active part in the boys having them every other weekend and also on one day in the week, who says so, why Bamber himself.
A post from blue forum Something caught my eye just half an hour ago while going through old posts. One " recognised " poster had said that Colin had walked out on Sheila and the twins when they were about 4/5 months old then never visited them for a year or so. Hard hearted was the poster's description.
At times it really is like she is talking about a different case - and what she doesn't know she makes up.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 01, 2018, 09:31:21 PM
At times it really is like she is talking about a different case - and what she doesn't know she makes up.
Like David said, “One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest” springs to mind, good job they have you, Caroline and Jane to put them straight. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 10, 2018, 07:24:32 AM
She hasn't got much time left on this planet yet she squanders every waking moment obsessing about a child murderer who, I guarantee, wouldn't p*** on her if she was on fire. And when she gets called out on the ignorant, spiteful crap that she posts she bleats and grizzles and tells outright whoppers!
*&^^& %56&
And why can't she bloody punctuate? 8()(((@#
Its a crazy world over on the blue forum, Lookout has a friend, would you believe it? David finally admits he stalks Caroline and winds her up and Jackie is all over NGB’s backside, “BUT” forgets what she posted about him on here about his past? I bet Indigoj wonders what the hell they let themselves in for. Sorry that’s what you get in an out of control forum.
From Lookout. Because you're one miserable so and so ! Not a bit like the ones that I know ! I have a damn good laugh with the gays that I know, one in particular I've known and see, since the 80's. Another guy likes to wear his wife's dresses and I do his nails, again,we have a laugh.
From David, the only one who reads Mikes posts
I have also manually gone through over twenty thousand of Mike attachments. And I must say having to go though over 5000 attachments having nothing to do with the case such as photos of mike dressed up as batman was not a big deal at all since I found the other 15,000 documents very interesting ;D
With the exception of a few of Caroline's old contradictory posts brought to my attention by the person mentioned above. I can remember on at least three occasions were I have used the search facilities on this forum to find some old contradictory posts from Caroline for sake of winding her up.
From Jackie
jackiepreece Guest
Re: Message to NGB 1006 « Reply #3 on: September 18, 2012, 05:41:34 PM » Quote
I am pretty sure I have enough screenshots and messages to have the blue forum closed down
The forum is a joke now and is just there allowing people to get abused
I want to know more about Neil Bellis and the stuff printed below
IVE MISSED THE LAST SENTENCE OFF, IT DISGUSTS ME THAT SOMEONE COULD BE SO VILE ON A FORUM “SHAME ON YOU”
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on August 10, 2018, 09:59:01 AM
Well I've no idea who on this forum would send David pm's about Caroline's old posts but it certainly wasn't me. When David posted here I exchanged about half a dozen pm's with him and not one mentions Caroline. I've kept all my pm's: sent and received for audit purposes.
Everyone will know I rarely pm. I got caught out on Blue when Maggie initiated contact and I was kind enough to respond only to have it all thrown back in my face. I could say an awful lot more but will not reduce myself to Maggie's level. CageyB received copies of the pm's in question.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 10, 2018, 01:00:59 PM
Well I've no idea who on this forum would send David pm's about Caroline's old posts but it certainly wasn't me. When David posted here I exchanged about half a dozen pm's with him and not one mentions Caroline. I've kept all my pm's: sent and received for audit purposes.
Everyone will know I rarely pm. I got caught out on Blue when Maggie initiated contact and I was kind enough to respond only to have it all thrown back in my face. I could say an awful lot more but will not reduce myself to Maggie's level. CageyB received copies of the pm's in question.
Come on Holly, how can anyone take him serious, a guy that claims he read 20000 attachments of Tesko’s, has to have something missing and a shit life. *%^^&
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on August 10, 2018, 01:16:24 PM
Well I've no idea who on this forum would send David pm's about Caroline's old posts but it certainly wasn't me. When David posted here I exchanged about half a dozen pm's with him and not one mentions Caroline. I've kept all my pm's: sent and received for audit purposes.
Everyone will know I rarely pm. I got caught out on Blue when Maggie initiated contact and I was kind enough to respond only to have it all thrown back in my face. I could say an awful lot more but will not reduce myself to Maggie's level. CageyB received copies of the pm's in question.
Holly, you never even came to mind but no one contacted David - David searches for the posts himself. I've had enough of him and will no longer keep his confidence.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on August 10, 2018, 01:20:57 PM
Its a crazy world over on the blue forum, Lookout has a friend, would you believe it? David finally admits he stalks Caroline and winds her up and Jackie is all over NGB’s backside, “BUT” forgets what she posted about him on here about his past? I bet Indigoj wonders what the hell they let themselves in for. Sorry that’s what you get in an out of control forum.
From Lookout. Because you're one miserable so and so ! Not a bit like the ones that I know ! I have a damn good laugh with the gays that I know, one in particular I've known and see, since the 80's. Another guy likes to wear his wife's dresses and I do his nails, again,we have a laugh.
From David, the only one who reads Mikes posts
I have also manually gone through over twenty thousand of Mike attachments. And I must say having to go though over 5000 attachments having nothing to do with the case such as photos of mike dressed up as batman was not a big deal at all since I found the other 15,000 documents very interesting ;D
With the exception of a few of Caroline's old contradictory posts brought to my attention by the person mentioned above. I can remember on at least three occasions were I have used the search facilities on this forum to find some old contradictory posts from Caroline for sake of winding her up.
From Jackie
jackiepreece Guest
Re: Message to NGB 1006 « Reply #3 on: September 18, 2012, 05:41:34 PM » Quote
I am pretty sure I have enough screenshots and messages to have the blue forum closed down
The forum is a joke now and is just there allowing people to get abused
I want to know more about Neil Bellis and the stuff printed below
IVE MISSED THE LAST SENTENCE OFF, IT DISGUSTS ME THAT SOMEONE COULD BE SO VILE ON A FORUM “SHAME ON YOU”
Lookout was an absolute disgrace yesterday. Her family need to take her computer from her.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: John on August 10, 2018, 01:35:58 PM
Lookout was an absolute disgrace yesterday. Her family need to take her computer from her.
The blue forum became a joke the moment Mike went off cloud gazing or was that tree gazing...somehow I don't think it matters. Jeremy Bamber must be so proud of it...not!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on August 10, 2018, 01:39:56 PM
Holly, you never even came to mind but no one contacted David - David searches for the posts himself. I've had enough of him and will no longer keep his confidence.
He dislikes Holly. I think it's clear the intention was that he hoped people would think it was her who had apparently PM'd him, two birds with one stone.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on August 10, 2018, 02:54:35 PM
Come on Holly, how can anyone take him serious, a guy that claims he read 20000 attachments of Tesko’s, has to have something missing and a shit life. *%^^&
It wouldn't surprise me if he has trawled through all Mad Mikey's posts. When we met I asked him if he suffered Asperger's Syndrome as this is how he came across. Mind you sometimes I think the same about my Pete and say as much. 8)><( He says its just a male way of thinking *%87
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on August 10, 2018, 03:08:07 PM
Holly, you never even came to mind but no one contacted David - David searches for the posts himself. I've had enough of him and will no longer keep his confidence.
I thought David was ok when he first joined here but before I met up with him I was starting to have doubts. He seemed to take great offence when I didn't buy into his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' and further offence when I didn't buy into his various case related theories. He goes all silly saying I have Alzheimers and drink related problems which I only have at week-ends @)(++(*.
When we met I didn't tell him anything I wouldn't want repeated as I knew he wasn't to be trusted and lo and behold I was right in that I told him I emailed Michael Turner QC which he announced on the forum. He then referred to me as "catty" and "horrible" as I criticised MT. It seems David is the only one allowed to criticise experts eg Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on August 10, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
He dislikes Holly. I think it's clear the intention was that he hoped people would think it was her who had apparently PM'd him, two birds with one stone.
David dislikes anyone who disagrees with him. He's nearly 30 now and it's about time he grew up.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on August 10, 2018, 03:47:02 PM
I thought David was ok when he first joined here but before I met up with him I was starting to have doubts. He seemed to take great offence when I didn't buy into his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' and further offence when I didn't buy into his various case related theories. He goes all silly saying I have Alzheimers and drink related problems which I only have at week-ends @)(++(*.
When we met I didn't tell him anything I wouldn't want repeated as I knew he wasn't to be trusted and lo and behold I was right in that I told him I emailed Michael Turner QC which he announced on the forum. He then referred to me as "catty" and "horrible" as I criticised MT. It seems David is the only one allowed to criticise experts eg Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight.
I too used to think he was OK but I think we both know exactly what he is %56&
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on August 10, 2018, 06:15:02 PM
This is my first post and I just want to add that I very much believe Jeremy committed this crime. But I acknowledge there is a very slim possibility he could be innocent. that is where I stand
So what evidence proves Shelia could not have done this? I believe it is possible, paranoid schizophrenics have committed such acts before see the link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist
Please share your thoughts
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 10, 2018, 06:56:35 PM
This is my first post and I just want to add that I very much believe Jeremy committed this crime. But I acknowledge there is a very slim possibility he could be innocent. that is where I stand
So what evidence proves Shelia could not have done this? I believe it is possible, paranoid schizophrenics have committed such acts before see the link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist
Please share your thoughts
It was reading Tesko’s 20000 posts that did it @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
His last post is a classic, he’s been posting but forgot what it was about *%87
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on August 10, 2018, 07:08:37 PM
This is my first post and I just want to add that I very much believe Jeremy committed this crime. But I acknowledge there is a very slim possibility he could be innocent. that is where I stand
So what evidence proves Shelia could not have done this? I believe it is possible, paranoid schizophrenics have committed such acts before see the link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist
Please share your thoughts
I'm not sure why he thinks's it weird that old posts and new post would be conflicting - when you change your mind, you tend to have the opposite view. That's kind of a basic understanding!
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Myster on August 10, 2018, 08:07:11 PM
So this tryst between milf and toyboy proved fruitless, eh? Charlie will be pleased!
Yep no common ground despite arriving at the same conclusion!
Luckily for David, or unluckily depending on his point of view, it was a very cold day so I kept my full length coat on and didn't feel very playful otherwise I might have been tempted to toy with him for effect! We sat side by side on a leather sofa. As it was near Christmas the micro brewery/bar had gluwhein and mince pies which I offered to treat him to but he declined my offer preferring to stick to his coffee. Had he accepted and had it not been so cold I might have accidentally dropped a crumb of mincepie on his thigh and then insisted on brushing it off! 8)--))
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 12, 2018, 07:40:05 AM
I too used to think he was OK but I think we both know exactly what he is %56&
I can remember that picture you put on the blue forum Caroline, the battle of Orgreave, I think they found something like 800 unreleased files from South Yorkshire Police alone, they have also identified unreleased files from another four police forces.
Must be nice to have a discussion with a sensible poster on blue again (Roch) and know Full well your not going to get the abuse and stalking you have had recently, but beware the Zombies haven’t gone away and are waiting to creep back in again. (Why why why, me me me) &^^&*
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on August 12, 2018, 11:34:09 AM
I can remember that picture you put on the blue forum Caroline, the battle of Orgreave, I think they found something like 800 unreleased files from South Yorkshire Police alone, they have also identified unreleased files from another four police forces. This was my favourite picture from the same Orgreave plant, Eric Hudson Ha Ha inspecting the police
Must be nice to have a discussion with a sensible poster on blue again (Roch) and know Full well your not going to get the abuse and stalking you have had recently, but beware the Zombies haven’t gone away and are waiting to creep back in again. (Why why why, me me me) &^^&*
Thanks Justice - still waiting for David to reveal whose been messaging him about me - nothing yet.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 12, 2018, 12:23:32 PM
She recently called me a "Big Fairy" for the second time - and has the cheek to complain I replied saying "And I think you're a vile old c..t."
The issue with bigots is they don't like being called on their hate and will try and turn the tables once people object to them.
Poor Jane's now getting a lashing.
I don't think she's "clueless" Mat, she presents as personality disorderd IMO.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Myster on August 17, 2018, 05:28:28 AM
There are none so blind as those who will not see... and admit that they're wrong. Caroline (and Mat) must have endless patience to deal with such stubbornness and idiocy.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on August 17, 2018, 11:04:14 AM
There are none so blind as those who will not see... and admit that they're wrong. Caroline (and Mat) must have endless patience to deal with such stubbornness and idiocy.
Being in love with a child murderer has clearly sent her gaga, you can see the steady deterioration. It's a pity that her daughter is so busy working for Special Branch, or she could take the old boiler to a nice garden centre, or a charity shop. Give her something to live for.
8((()*/
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on August 17, 2018, 12:24:46 PM
Being in love with a child murderer has clearly sent her gaga, you can see the steady deterioration. It's a pity that her daughter is so busy working for Special Branch, or she could take the old boiler to a nice garden centre, or a charity shop. Give her something to live for.
There are none so blind as those who will not see... and admit that they're wrong. Caroline (and Mat) must have endless patience to deal with such stubbornness and idiocy.
I am forever telling Caroline she deserves a medal for what she puts up with from Lookout..
Jackie is the worst of all time though and she gets away with it, my posts get deleted but Jackie's trolling gets kept. Each time Jackie logs on now and is allowed by Maggie to troll Jane, Caroline and myself I'm going to post on here one fo the hundreds of Emails to Jackie from NGB and Maggie... that Jackie leaked to people like Susan and Keira etc.
Must warn you. It's creepy stuff. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on August 18, 2018, 11:20:20 PM
O....HO!! Lookout, have you been casting aspersions about the cleanliness of my sweet pugs?
Unlike SOME I could mention they have regular baths, as do all of our other dogs, AND our horses. What my pugs DON'T do is sit on a commode in front of a computer screen for 15 hours a day, hoping against hope that someone, ANYONE, might send them a message. Even if that message is disparaging and crushing, from someone who clearly despises them! My pugs actually have lives!!
Maybe you should try it sometime, lookout. But I fear it might be 30 years too late. 8(8-))
And seriously, I'm sure that your daughter must have warned you about this. Stop telling the world that your house will be empty. Especially considering where you live.
?{)(**
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: puglove on August 18, 2018, 11:38:38 PM
O....HO!! Lookout, have you been casting aspersions about the cleanliness of my sweet pugs?
Unlike SOME I could mention they have regular baths, as do all of our other dogs, AND our horses. What my pugs DON'T do is sit on a commode in front of a computer screen for 15 hours a day, hoping against hope that someone, ANYONE, might send them a message. Even if that message is disparaging and crushing, from someone who clearly despises them! My pugs actually have lives!!
Maybe you should try it sometime, lookout. But I fear it might be 30 years too late. 8(8-))
And seriously, I'm sure that your daughter must have warned you about this. Stop telling the world that your house will be empty. Especially considering where you live.
?{)(**
And I await your usual angry, ungrammatical, badly punctuated dinosaur comeback. Which will, as usual, make you look like the horrible, bigoted, ignorant, inhumane old baggage that you are. You almost make me feel sorry for Bamber. But not quite.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on August 19, 2018, 01:21:12 PM
Lookout, you don't need a ready supply of TENA-Lady as you never go anywhere to need them and have your "wet room" to hand! But unless you want to irritate the hell our of your fellow passengers on your long-haul flight to Oz with umpteen trips to the loo every hour I suggest you consider some incontinence pants of the high absorbency type with odor lock technology!
And I bet puglove's pugs are a darn sight sweeter smelling than your rancid pussy!
No doubt you will now start bleating about being "bullied". I've given up trying to explain to you why you're singled out, but for the benefit of anyone who thinks we're being unreasonable here are a couple of your recent posts which most reasonable minded people find extremely offensive:
Something caught my eye just half an hour ago while going through old posts. One " recognised " poster had said that Colin had walked out on Sheila and the twins when they were about 4/5 months old then never visited them for a year or so. Hard hearted was the poster's description.
What are your thoughts on this and what damage would you have envisaged to Sheila and the twins?
No one knows what goes on behind closed doors. The relationship between SC and CC is none of your business. Is there any record of SC complaining about CC as a husband or father? No there isn't on the contrary SC appreciated CC was a support. The relationship was over years before the tragedy and has no bearing on JB's case.
CAL's book tells us SC was an excellent cook based on people who actually knew her: Freddie and Tora. Your posts are based on bigotry and ignorance. There's no evidence SC partied hard but even if she did it's none of your business and has no bearing on JB's case.
Is this the best you can do, slag off a mentally ill woman and a loving father who lost his twin 6 year old sons in the most awful circumstances?
And Lookout don't you dare try and pass this off on the basis you were just repeating what a.n.other said. You're fond of telling us you don't follow the crowd. Gossip from faceless entities on Internet forums isn't evidence of anything.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Holly Goodhead on August 19, 2018, 01:32:46 PM
Oh I say looks like KNGB has removed a post by JaneJ challenging Lookout's post to our puglove. Shame he doesn't see fit to remove some of Lookout's posts slagging off the victim's of WHF. %56&
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 23, 2018, 01:54:22 PM
And I await your usual angry, ungrammatical, badly punctuated dinosaur comeback. Which will, as usual, make you look like the horrible, bigoted, ignorant, inhumane old baggage that you are. You almost make me feel sorry for Bamber. But not quite.
It gets better on the blue forum, Mike is concerned that Julie only saw one bullet entry in the morgue on identification, could the police have shot Sheila again in the morgue just to make sure after she left? 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( But wait, Lookout has the answer, the wound itself, it was superimposed on Sheila @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* Wonder if this is the sort of trash he feeds her in their corresponding letters, cross my palm with silver, Love Jezza ($^6 ($^6
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on August 23, 2018, 10:34:56 PM
I uploaded a new topic on here this morning, but the mods haven't yet had the chance to approve it. It's a happy birthday topic to Jackie Internet Troll Preece.
I'm worried the topic won't be approved until after midnight tonight, and no one would see it on her actual birthday. So I will say it here.
Happy Birthday to Jackie Preece - the worst creature I've ever met on these forums.
65 years old today.
Maybe we could share our memories of her ? Instead of a greatest hits, it'll be more of a "Worst hits" but - that's her failure.
(Btw, genuinely is her 65th birthday today.)
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Caroline on August 23, 2018, 11:20:30 PM
I uploaded a new topic on here this morning, but the mods haven't yet had the chance to approve it. It's a happy birthday topic to Jackie Internet Troll Preece.
I'm worried the topic won't be approved until after midnight tonight, and no one would see it on her actual birthday. So I will say it here.
Happy Birthday to Jackie Preece - the worst creature I've ever met on these forums.
65 years old today.
Maybe we could share our memories of her ? Instead of a greatest hits, it'll be more of a "Worst hits" but - that's her failure.
(Btw, genuinely is her 65th birthday today.)
Ha, ha! Yeah happy birthday Jackie - I believe we have an exclusive vid of her party @)(++(* @)(++(*
I uploaded a new topic on here this morning, but the mods haven't yet had the chance to approve it. It's a happy birthday topic to Jackie Internet Troll Preece.
I'm worried the topic won't be approved until after midnight tonight, and no one would see it on her actual birthday. So I will say it here.
Happy Birthday to Jackie Preece - the worst creature I've ever met on these forums.
65 years old today.
Maybe we could share our memories of her ? Instead of a greatest hits, it'll be more of a "Worst hits" but - that's her failure.
(Btw, genuinely is her 65th birthday today.)
Tsk. Tsk. A Virgo. Nuff said.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 24, 2018, 06:58:18 AM
Seriously, every time you post a video in relation to ol' preece - I'm expecting it to the THAT other video. @)(++(* @)(++(*
On to the actual topic title- LiarLookout. Yesterday on blue Lookout claimed she personally knows a member of Bambers current LEGAL team. Not CAMPAIGN but the actual LEGAL team.
Caroline asked her - if she knows one personally, she must know the name of the solicitors.
Lookout hasn't posted since. @)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: ActualMat on August 24, 2018, 03:56:39 PM
But I notice the post Caroline posted asking Lookout the name of the solicitors has been deleted. And they say that LiarLookout isn't protected?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 24, 2018, 06:03:54 PM
But I notice the post Caroline posted asking Lookout the name of the solicitors has been deleted. And they say that LiarLookout isn't protected?
To be honest Matt, if Lookout didn’t post they wouldn’t have anyone else, so they have to bullshit her, besides it gives everyone a laugh when reading her posts. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Myster on August 24, 2018, 06:32:10 PM
You forgot about the chief loo pontificator / copy & paste expert extraordinaire / McCann hoax visionary and lousy B&Q greeter. I'm in awe of his incredible awesomeness.
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: APRIL on August 24, 2018, 06:42:31 PM
You forgot about the chief loo pontificator / copy & paste expert extraordinaire / McCann hoax visionary and lousy B&Q greeter. I'm in awe of his incredible awesomeness.
At first, all I saw was pontif(f) and I thought you were talking about His Holiness *%87 Were you?
Title: Re: Lookout from the Jeremy Bamber forum.
Post by: Real justice on August 24, 2018, 07:15:21 PM
You forgot about the chief loo pontificator / copy & paste expert extraordinaire / McCann hoax visionary and lousy B&Q greeter. I'm in awe of his incredible awesomeness.
Ha Ha well him as well, but no one bothers to read his posts @)(++(*