UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: G-Unit on March 08, 2020, 11:09:28 AM
-
There are two possibilities here. Either Nevill was forced at gunpoint to go down to the kitchen or he ran away from the person with the gun.
-
So if the person with the gun forced Nevill to go to the kitchen what was the purpose?
If Nevill fled to the kitchen of his own accord, again, what was the purpose?
-
A. He was hoping to distract the shooter/prevent them from shooting?
B. The kitchen afforded a possible escape route/access to something with which to counter the shooter?
-
So if the person with the gun forced Nevill to go to the kitchen what was the purpose?
If Nevill fled to the kitchen of his own accord, again, what was the purpose?
I imagine to get out of the house and raise the alarm. All Bamber had to d was remove the key from the door. Interestingly, the upstairs door leading to a second staircase was locked - this meant Nevill only had one option for escape.
-
There is no way Bamber would attempt to force Nevill to go downstairs to the kitchen. The 4 upstairs shots were meant to kill.
There is no way Nevill would allow Sheila to march him down to the kitchen.
Nevill fled to the kitchen because a man with a gun was shooting at him.
-
There is no way Bamber would attempt to force Nevill to go downstairs to the kitchen. The 4 upstairs shots were meant to kill.
There is no way Nevill would allow Sheila to march him down to the kitchen.
Nevill fled to the kitchen because a man with a gun was shooting at him.
Did he go down the main staircase, do you think?
-
Did he go down the main staircase, do you think?
The Main Hall staircase was the quickest and most used route. As Caroline said, the way to the Office staircase S3 was blocked by a jammed door, and the Kitchen staircase S2 was filled with household junk...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg25947#msg25947 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg25947#msg25947)
-
The Main Hall staircase was the quickest and most used route. As Caroline said, the way to the Office staircase S3 was blocked by a jammed door, and the Kitchen staircase S2 was filled with household junk...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg25947#msg25947 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=633.msg25947#msg25947)
Thank you Myster. So if he was running away he ignored the front door straight in front of him and headed for the kitchen?
-
Thank you Myster. So if he was running away he ignored the front door straight in front of him and headed for the kitchen?
He may not have, the key may have been removed. It was also bolted so not a lot of time o open it with Bamber close behind.
-
It does make sense, that Jeremy would take some straightforward measure to ensure nobody comes bolting down the stairs and straight out of the front door in the event of a mishap.
So Nevill would have diverted to the kitchen for a number of reasons. Phone, weapon, back door.
-
He may not have, the key may have been removed. It was also bolted so not a lot of time o open it with Bamber close behind.
I take there's no evidence to confirm that the key had been removed, or that he was being closely chased.
-
I take there's no evidence to confirm that the key had been removed, or that he was being closely chased.
Do you believe Nevill was shot 4 times upstairs, then was not chased downstairs?
-
I take there's no evidence to confirm that the key had been removed, or that he was being closely chased.
None that he used the phone either.
-
None that he used the phone either.
A witness said he phoned him and the phone's receiver was off the hook.
-
Thank you Myster. So if he was running away he ignored the front door straight in front of him and headed for the kitchen?
It maybe worth mentioning that, like many such farmhouses, the front door was mainly for decoration. What I mean is, other than for special occasions, it was never used. It's presence overlooked. In the many farmhouses I've visited, the front doors have bolts at the top and bottom, and frequently an antique, large, and somewhat strange main locking device. These doors are kept locked because they're so rarely used, and, in part, because they take too long to unlock.
-
A witness said he phoned him and the phone's receiver was off the hook.
Which witness? Do you mean the guy who was found guilty of his murder?
-
A witness said he phoned him and the phone's receiver was off the hook.
Eh? The only witness to a call from Nevill would be Nevill and he certainly won't be talking.
-
Eh? The only witness to a call from Nevill would be Nevill and he certainly won't be talking.
The witness was his son.
-
The witness was his son.
JEREMY? SERIOUSLY? @)(++(*
-
JEREMY? SERIOUSLY? @)(++(*
I suppose the joke is on us for humouring these cranks. It says it all really, they don’t deserve the oxygen we lend them by politely answering their questions and taking the time out to help them.
It goes to show how dead in the water the case for Jeremy is. That we are reduced to this.
-
There are two possibilities here. Either Nevill was forced at gunpoint to go down to the kitchen or he ran away from the person with the gun.
You’re wrong on both — and there’s a third scenario you’ve conveniently forgotten
Nevill ran downstairs after being shot upstairs to try and either raise the alarm and call 999 or/and pick up a poker or try and get another gun to prevent Jeremy from killing everyone.
It’s so obvious, yet you’re determined to try and come up with nonsensical scenarios because for some strange reason you don’t want to believe the fact that Jeremy killed them all
-
I do not believe Nevill ran downstairs to dial 999. Bamber would be a few feet behind him.
Was it possible for Bamber to disable the front door. Take the key out etc?
Nevill would have then gone for the same door the raid team broke down.
-
You’re wrong on both — and there’s a third scenario you’ve conveniently forgotten
Nevill ran downstairs after being shot upstairs to try and either raise the alarm and call 999 or/and pick up a poker or try and get another gun to prevent Jeremy from killing everyone.
It’s so obvious, yet you’re determined to try and come up with nonsensical scenarios because for some strange reason you don’t want to believe the fact that Jeremy killed them all
Isn't that much the same as running away from the person with the gun?
-
Isn't that much the same as running away from the person with the gun?
No it isn’t.
You’re trying to imply Nevill cowardly tried to escape leaving Sheila free to kill June and the twins.
Nevill was a fit, healthy, very strong man of 6”4”, ex-RAF, and he could have easily overpowered & disarmed Sheila in seconds.
But the reality is, it was Jeremy who was upstairs with the gun, and it was Jeremy who shot Nevill four times upstairs. Jeremy had possibly already shot June dead, and the only chance Nevill had of survival and disarming Jeremy was by rushing downstairs in an attempt to arm himself too.
I doubt he’d have even thought of phoning 999 at that moment — he had to take action immediately.
If you can’t grasp that, then that’s another problem you have besides your deluded belief that Jeremy is innocent l
-
No it isn’t.
You’re trying to imply Nevill cowardly tried to escape leaving Sheila free to kill June and the twins.
Nevill was a fit, healthy, very strong man of 6”4”, ex-RAF, and he could have easily overpowered & disarmed Sheila in seconds.
But the reality is, it was Jeremy who was upstairs with the gun, and it was Jeremy who shot Nevill four times upstairs. Jeremy had possibly already shot June dead, and the only chance Nevill had of survival and disarming Jeremy was by rushing downstairs in an attempt to arm himself too.
I doubt he’d have even thought of phoning 999 at that moment — he had to take action immediately.
If you can’t grasp that, then that’s another problem you have besides your deluded belief that Jeremy is innocent l
Whichever way you slice it Nevill left the person with the gun in the main bedroom with his wife. You don't know why and neither do I. Perhaps he made to disarm that person and got shot four times in return. Do you think he would have kept on going in the face of that regardless of who was holding the gun? It was the gun stopping him, not the size or sex of the person holding it, surely? He probably did go to find a weapon, but he didn't mamage it.
-
Whichever way you slice it Nevill left the person with the gun in the main bedroom with his wife. You don't know why and neither do I. Perhaps he made to disarm that person and got shot four times in return. Do you think he would have kept on going in the face of that regardless of who was holding the gun? It was the gun stopping him, not the size or sex of the person holding it, surely? He probably did go to find a weapon, but he didn't mamage it.
I've always thought his intention was to try and resume conversation with JB even if only an inaudible groan. Blood stains were found on the worktop near the phone.
-
I've always thought his intention was to try and resume conversation with JB even if only an inaudible groan. Blood stains were found on the worktop near the phone.
A desperate attempt at alerting the emergency services whilst receiving a right shellacking.
-
I've always thought his intention was to try and resume conversation with JB even if only an inaudible groan. Blood stains were found on the worktop near the phone.
But not on tbe phone?
-
Whichever way you slice it Nevill left the person with the gun in the main bedroom with his wife. You don't know why and neither do I. Perhaps he made to disarm that person and got shot four times in return. Do you think he would have kept on going in the face of that regardless of who was holding the gun? It was the gun stopping him, not the size or sex of the person holding it, surely? He probably did go to find a weapon, but he didn't mamage it.
Jeremy had probably already shot June dead at that stage, or so he thought, and as the last four bullets didn’t kill Nevill that rendered Jeremy unarmed.
So that’s THAT theory of yours blown out the water, because if Jeremy had more bullets in the gun he’d have fired even more into Nevill as he raced down the stairs...
You also seem to think Nevill couldn’t have disarmed Sheila, but that too is ridiculous
Nevill was huge in comparison to Sheila, and the gun was so long — which means he’d have easily been able to disarm her by simply heaving it away and out of her grasp
She was as weak as a kitten; found it hard to focus; was unable to even stir coffee without spilling it — and more crucially, had absolutely no experience of using that rifle which Nevill had bought just months previously. In fact, Sheila had no experience of guns at all. So your argument is of no value whatsoever
-
I've always thought his intention was to try and resume conversation with JB even if only an inaudible groan. Blood stains were found on the worktop near the phone.
I believe there was just one tiny spot of blood on the worktop, which is to be expected given the huge violent struggle that took place between Nevill and Jeremy
Nevill was literally covered in blood, which had squirted in in all different directions
I can’t see why Nevill would want to resume a conversation with the son he supposedly called for help when:
1. He couldn’t speak due to his throat injuries
2. He needed urgent medical help
3. What would be the point of groaning down the phone to Jeremy, when he supposedly wanted him to rush over?
4. As he’d supposedly already alerted Jeremy, he’d have thought he was already on his way, surely?
-
Jeremy had probably already shot June dead at that stage, or so he thought, and as the last four bullets didn’t kill Nevill that rendered Jeremy unarmed.
So that’s THAT theory of yours blown out the water, because if Jeremy had more bullets in the gun he’d have fired even more into Nevill as he raced down the stairs...
You also seem to think Nevill couldn’t have disarmed Sheila, but that too is ridiculous
Nevill was huge in comparison to Sheila, and the gun was so long — which means he’d have easily been able to disarm her by simply heaving it away and out of her grasp
She was as weak as a kitten; found it hard to focus; was unable to even stir coffee without spilling it — and more crucially, had absolutely no experience of using that rifle which Nevill had bought just months previously. In fact, Sheila had no experience of guns at all. So your argument is of no value whatsoever
Although it's known how many times each person was shot it's not known in what order the shots were fired so it's not possible imo to say when the bullets ran out.
I have no theory about who did it so far; I'm exploring possibilities, that's all. I think it's possible that Nevill made one or even two phone calls before he was injured.
By the way for those mentioning door keys; according to CAL's book the front door was barred and the back door was secured with a key in a mortice lock. The door leading out from the scullery was also bolted (with three bolts).
-
Although it's known how many times each person was shot it's not known in what order the shots were fired so it's not possible imo to say when the bullets ran out.
I have no theory about who did it so far; I'm exploring possibilities, that's all. I think it's possible that Nevill made one or even two phone calls before he was injured.
By the way for those mentioning door keys; according to CAL's book the front door was barred and the back door was secured with a key in a mortice lock. The door leading out from the scullery was also bolted (with three bolts).
And?
-
It is possible to deduce a number of pointers:
- The magazine holds a max of 10 cartridges plus a bullet in the breach ie total of 11.
- The pathologist was of the opinion the gsw's sustained by the twins were inflicted in quick succession. The same applies to the gsw's inflicted to NB's head in the kitchen where any one immobilised him immediately.
- The 6 gsw's sustained by June allowed her to move around the bed and back before she sustained the two gunshot wounds to the head where either immobilised her immediately.
The only really contentious aspect and/or aspect that can support the defence and undermine the prosecution is NB/perp location when NB sustained his upstairs gsw's.
Did JB enter the main bedroom and inflict the 6 gsw's to June and 4 to NB meaning NB was incapable of purposeful speech thereafter? Or did NB tel JB from the kitchen with SC going upstairs opening fire on June, NB hearing the shots dropping the phone, running upstairs and sustaining the two facial gunshot wounds on the landing stairs whilst SC was stood just inside the entrance with the barrel extending outside onto the landing?
I believe its the latter supported by all the physical evidence at soc. I am not interested in what others think NB would or wouldn't have done. Or what others think SC was or wasn't capable of. I'm only interested in the physical evidence and my interpretation of it is that NB sustained the facials shots on the landing whilst SC was firing out from the bedroom.
-
It is possible to deduce a number of pointers:
- The magazine holds a max of 10 cartridges plus a bullet in the breach ie total of 11.
- The pathologist was of the opinion the gsw's sustained by the twins were inflicted in quick succession. The same applies to the gsw's inflicted to NB's head in the kitchen where any one immobilised him immediately.
- The 6 gsw's sustained by June allowed her to move around the bed and back before she sustained the two gunshot wounds to the head where either immobilised her immediately.
The only really contentious aspect and/or aspect that can support the defence and undermine the prosecution is NB/perp location when NB sustained his upstairs gsw's.
Did JB enter the main bedroom and inflict the 6 gsw's to June and 4 to NB meaning NB was incapable of purposeful speech thereafter? Or did NB tel JB from the kitchen with SC going upstairs opening fire on June, NB hearing the shots dropping the phone, running upstairs and sustaining the two facial gunshot wounds on the landing stairs whilst SC was stood just inside the entrance with the barrel extending outside onto the landing?
I believe its the latter supported by all the physical evidence at soc. I am not interested in what others think NB would or wouldn't have done. Or what others think SC was or wasn't capable of. I'm only interested in the physical evidence and my interpretation of it is that NB sustained the facials shots on the landing whilst SC was firing out from the bedroom.
You're only interested in the physical evidence if it fits with what you want it to mean. You have ignored the dried blood on SC face which proved her head was flat to the floor.
-
Jeremy had probably already shot June dead at that stage, or so he thought, and as the last four bullets didn’t kill Nevill that rendered Jeremy unarmed.
So that’s THAT theory of yours blown out the water, because if Jeremy had more bullets in the gun he’d have fired even more into Nevill as he raced down the stairs...
You also seem to think Nevill couldn’t have disarmed Sheila, but that too is ridiculous
Nevill was huge in comparison to Sheila, and the gun was so long — which means he’d have easily been able to disarm her by simply heaving it away and out of her grasp
She was as weak as a kitten; found it hard to focus; was unable to even stir coffee without spilling it — and more crucially, had absolutely no experience of using that rifle which Nevill had bought just months previously. In fact, Sheila had no experience of guns at all. So your argument is of no value whatsoever
With regard to your claim SC was unable to stir coffee without spilling it I have pointed out previously the high standard of her manicured and polished nails. I have not seen any evidence that others completed this task for her whether professionals or otherwise. You said someone in Maida Vale did them and I've asked you who and to provide evidence/cite/source but to date nothing has been forthcoming.
-
You're only interested in the physical evidence if it fits with what you want it to mean. You have ignored the dried blood on SC face which proved her head was flat to the floor.
The blood on SC's face has nothing to do with where NB sustained his facial wounds.
I believe after SC inflicted the second gsw her head fell back and was raised against the bedside cabinet. Blood then pooled in the back of her throat/mouth and when officers pulled her down by her feet her head fell to the floor and dislodged the blood which leaked from orifices as depicted on soc images. It also explains:
- Why those first at soc only saw one gsw (and possibly one casing)
- Why the large blood stain on the carpet doesn't follow the blood stain from her armpit
-
The blood on SC's face has nothing to do with where NB sustained his facial wounds.
I believe after SC inflicted the second gsw her head fell back and was raised against the bedside cabinet. Blood then pooled in the back of her throat/mouth and when officers pulled her down by her feet her head fell to the floor and dislodged the blood which leaked from orifices as depicted on soc images. It also explains:
- Why those first at soc only saw one gsw (and possibly one casing)
- Why the large blood stain on the carpet doesn't follow the blood stain from her armpit
Could I please shoot you in the throat with a .22 rifle at point blank range Holly and see if you get up?
-
With regard to your claim SC was unable to stir coffee without spilling it I have pointed out previously the high standard of her manicured and polished nails. I have not seen any evidence that others completed this task for her whether professionals or otherwise. You said someone in Maida Vale did them and I've asked you who and to provide evidence/cite/source but to date nothing has been forthcoming.
Nor have you seen any evidence that they didn't.
-
The blood on SC's face has nothing to do with where NB sustained his facial wounds.
I believe after SC inflicted the second gsw her head fell back and was raised against the bedside cabinet. Blood then pooled in the back of her throat/mouth and when officers pulled her down by her feet her head fell to the floor and dislodged the blood which leaked from orifices as depicted on soc images. It also explains:
- Why those first at soc only saw one gsw (and possibly one casing)
- Why the large blood stain on the carpet doesn't follow the blood stain from her armpit
So how does that go with (your star witness) Woodcock describing the blood on her face when he entered the bedroom?
Again, your preferred witness 'Woodcock' reported TWO bullet holes under her chin and he was one of the first to enter the bedroom.
The bloodstain on the carpet is consistent with Bamber moving the body. However, blood tested on the carpet was found to be June's - can't see why they wouldn't have tested the large patch.
-
So how does that go with (your star witness) Woodcock describing the blood on her face when he entered the bedroom?
He states blood was leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks. Which supports the idea blood had pooled in her throat/mouth and when SC was pulled by her feet her head was dislodged from the bedside cabinet falling flat to the floor and blood started to leak:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251
Again, your preferred witness 'Woodcock' reported TWO bullet holes under her chin and he was one of the first to enter the bedroom.
He was also one of the last to leave too!
The bloodstain on the carpet is consistent with Bamber moving the body. However, blood tested on the carpet was found to be June's - can't see why they wouldn't have tested the large patch.
How is the blood stain consistent with JB moving body?
Two carpet samples were taken for testing from around the areas where SC's and June's feet were found. The large stain under the bible was not tested.
-
He states blood was leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks. Which supports the idea blood had pooled in her throat/mouth and when SC was pulled by her feet her head was dislodged from the bedside cabinet falling flat to the floor and blood started to leak:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251
He was also one of the last to leave too!
How is the blood stain consistent with JB moving body?
Two carpet samples were taken for testing from around the areas where SC's and June's feet were found. The large stain under the bible was not tested.
It doesn't matter how much you try and twist this Holly, Woodcock is describing what he saw when he initially saw
Sheila, not when he left. If anyone had pulled her feet at that juncture, it was Bamber but her head couldn't have been raised or the blood would have run down the sides of her chin and there would ne none in her eye socket.
-
Whichever way you slice it Nevill left the person with the gun in the main bedroom with his wife. You don't know why and neither do I. Perhaps he made to disarm that person and got shot four times in return. Do you think he would have kept on going in the face of that regardless of who was holding the gun? It was the gun stopping him, not the size or sex of the person holding it, surely? He probably did go to find a weapon, but he didn't mamage it.
You’re simply assuming Nevill left the person with the gun in the bedroom with June, which means if he did, then he knew he had no chance of overpowering that person — which completely rules out Sheila...
Thank you for highlighting that possibility.
The more you analyse it the more evident it is that it couldn't possibly have been Sheila with that gun.
It looks very much like after Jeremy shot June in the bed she managed to get up and make her way towards the door to try and help Nevill, who would have been struggling with Jeremy and it was at that point Jeremy shot her between her eyes killing her immediately as she approached the door. He then shot Nevill with the last four bullets he had in the gun as he approached the stairs.
It’s very simple to work out, actually...I don’t know why you have difficulty with it.
-
Although it's known how many times each person was shot it's not known in what order the shots were fired so it's not possible imo to say when the bullets ran out.
I have no theory about who did it so far; I'm exploring possibilities, that's all. I think it's possible that Nevill made one or even two phone calls before he was injured.
By the way for those mentioning door keys; according to CAL's book the front door was barred and the back door was secured with a key in a mortice lock. The door leading out from the scullery was also bolted (with three bolts).
Well, in that case then, as the front door was barred and the back door secured with a key in the mortice lock; plus the door leading out from the scullery being secured with three big bolts — how did Nevill expect Jeremy to get not house and save them?
Or are you suggesting he shouted to Sheila upstairs saying: “Don't shoot anyone else yet, darling, I need to go and unbolt the doors as Jeremy is coming over in about 20 minutes to disarm you”.
For goodness sake, this was a dire emergency!
Nevill would have no more phoned Jeremy than he would have poured a G&T, lit a cigarette, then calmly sat down to think about the situation while Sheila was going “berserk” upstairs.
-
With regard to your claim SC was unable to stir coffee without spilling it I have pointed out previously the high standard of her manicured and polished nails. I have not seen any evidence that others completed this task for her whether professionals or otherwise. You said someone in Maida Vale did them and I've asked you who and to provide evidence/cite/source but to date nothing has been forthcoming.
I’d forgotten all about that, Holly...
I have seen the evidence that Sheila used both a manicurist, including a hairdresser — I shall find it
As you rightly say, the high standard of her perfectly manicured & polished nails would be difficult to achieve by anyone, even if they didn’t suffer from shaky/trembling hands. You’re a woman — you must know that, surely?
Nail bars sprung up everywhere in the early 1980’s and almost all fashion conscious women who enjoyed having their hair done; nails done; wearing make-up etc took pride in having long, glamorous fingernails — just as Sheila did. She was very conscious of her looks and liked to look nice, and except for her low times when she lost interest in her appearance, she always made sure her hair and nails looked lovely.
She was a beautiful girl, so why wouldn’t she take pride in her looks?
-
The blood on SC's face has nothing to do with where NB sustained his facial wounds.
I believe after SC inflicted the second gsw her head fell back and was raised against the bedside cabinet. Blood then pooled in the back of her throat/mouth and when officers pulled her down by her feet her head fell to the floor and dislodged the blood which leaked from orifices as depicted on soc images. It also explains:
- Why those first at soc only saw one gsw (and possibly one casing)
- Why the large blood stain on the carpet doesn't follow the blood stain from her armpit
You seem to forget that Sheila’s arms were too short to reach the trigger — have you forgotten that?
As for suggesting the police pulled her down — why on Earth would they have done that? There was no point. Besides which, police keep victims in situ until photographs are taken. Your theory is completely skewed.
Not only is it skewed, but how could the pool of blood in her throat pour out underneath the Bible?
You’re defying physics now.
-
You’re simply assuming Nevill left the person with the gun in the bedroom with June, which means if he did, then he knew he had no chance of overpowering that person — which completely rules out Sheila...
Thank you for highlighting that possibility.
The more you analyse it the more evident it is that it couldn't possibly have been Sheila with that gun.
It looks very much like after Jeremy shot June in the bed she managed to get up and make her way towards the door to try and help Nevill, who would have been struggling with Jeremy and it was at that point Jeremy shot her between her eyes killing her immediately as she approached the door. He then shot Nevill with the last four bullets he had in the gun as he approached the stairs.
It’s very simple to work out, actually...I don’t know why you have difficulty with it.
Perhaps Nevill chased the shooter downstairs rather than the shooter chasing him. The shooter had a motive for heading downstairs; to reload.
-
Perhaps Nevill chased the shooter downstairs rather than the shooter chasing him. The shooter had a motive for heading downstairs; to reload.
What was NEvill doing while the shooter reloaded then? Waiting and watching as his daughter fumbled with the cartridges?
-
Perhaps Nevill chased the shooter downstairs rather than the shooter chasing him. The shooter had a motive for heading downstairs; to reload.
Perhaps! Perhaps!! Perhaps!!! No doubt there were some of those in the jury room -although nowhere near as many as you've put to us- before someone put forward the suggestion that all the "Perhaps" being suggested were simply excuses and delay tactics. 'Perhaps' it was that which eventually caused them to see reason and find him guilty.
-
Perhaps! Perhaps!! Perhaps!!! No doubt there were some of those in the jury room -although nowhere near as many as you've put to us- before someone put forward the suggestion that all the "Perhaps" being suggested were simply excuses and delay tactics. 'Perhaps' it was that which eventually caused them to see reason and find him guilty.
The prosecution went to court with a story. It was plausible enough to convince a jury to convict. That doesn't mean the story was an accurate description of what happened.
-
The prosecution went to court with a story. It was plausible enough to convince a jury to convict. That doesn't mean the story was an accurate description of what happened.
That's true of most cases.
-
The prosecution went to court with a story. It was plausible enough to convince a jury to convict. That doesn't mean the story was an accurate description of what happened.
The challenge for Bamber supporters is to paint a more plausible story. They can’t.
-
That's true of most cases.
So it's acceptable to question the stories and explore other possibilities.
-
So it's acceptable to question the stories and explore other possibilities.
In all cases? Ad infinitum? Do you ever accept a verdict or do you always believe it is quite possibly incorrect?
-
In all cases? Ad infinitum? Do you ever accept a verdict or do you always believe it is quite possibly incorrect?
I realise this question was not directed at me, but when I follow a case, I will always question the verdict too. To be perfectly honest, I would think my reputation precedes me!
Many convicted criminals are, IMO, unquestionably guilty , but I don't find a clear answer in this case. It may, of course, be because I don't know the case well enough, but I do think there is reasonable doubt.
-
The prosecution went to court with a story. It was plausible enough to convince a jury to convict. That doesn't mean the story was an accurate description of what happened.
Is it the verdict of this case in particular you seem hell bent on demolishing, or is it most cases where someone is found guilty? You could apply your theory to many others. Why have you not? What's so special about Jeremy Bamber?
-
I realise this question was not directed at me, but when I follow a case, I will always question the verdict too. To be perfectly honest, I would think my reputation precedes me!
Many convicted criminals are, IMO, unquestionably guilty , but I don't find a clear answer in this case. It may, of course, be because I don't know the case well enough, but I do think there is reasonable doubt.
What do you think of Bamber’s latest claim that he has the ultimate alibi, ie the police and he were together outside the property while someone was still alive with a gun inside?
-
I realise this question was not directed at me, but when I follow a case, I will always question the verdict too. To be perfectly honest, I would think my reputation precedes me!
Many convicted criminals are, IMO, unquestionably guilty , but I don't find a clear answer in this case. It may, of course, be because I don't know the case well enough, but I do think there is reasonable doubt.
I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.
-
Is it the verdict of this case in particular you seem hell bent on demolishing, or is it most cases where someone is found guilty? You could apply your theory to many others. Why have you not? What's so special about Jeremy Bamber?
As a member of the forum I reserve the right to post on any subject I wish.
-
I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.
Under our judicial system the prosecution is required to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That means juries are quite rightly allowed/expected to consider it. You obviously don't agree with that staple of legal thinking, Blackstone's ratio.
-
As a member of the forum I reserve the right to post on any subject I wish.
Mmm. However, posting on "any subject you wish", if the intention is simply to disagree with everyone who has an opposite view is very different from having an interest in it.
-
What do you think of Bamber’s latest claim that he has the ultimate alibi, ie the police and he were together outside the property while someone was still alive with a gun inside?
Actually, that's am old claim being repeated. He seems to be dragging all the stuff that Simon McKay refused to include in submissions to the CCRC and trying it on with his new solicitor. It's all bollox.
-
Actually, that's am old claim being repeated. He seems to be dragging all the stuff that Simon McKay refused to include in submissions to the CCRC and trying it on with his new solicitor. It's all bollox.
Yes, that’s why I was curious to know what those who think Bamber may be innocent make of his quite illogical claim.
-
Yes, that’s why I was curious to know what those who think Bamber may be innocent make of his quite illogical claim.
Many are conveniently forgetting that it's old stuff which has been tweaked and those who have only recently joined the fray won't know it's old stuff anyway. It's quite possible that when I first showed interest in around 2011, old stuff was being rehashed.
-
What do you think of Bamber’s latest claim that he has the ultimate alibi, ie the police and he were together outside the property while someone was still alive with a gun inside?
I have heard about this before, and I don't think it gives him an alibi. If there really was someone alive with a gun inside WHF at the time when Jeremy was outside with the police, this indicates, to me, that he planned the murders but got someone else to carry them out, and it was that person who was inside the farmhouse.
I have seen photos of police logs which indicate that someone was alive inside the house,and that the police were in contact with someone inside the house. and have also heard that these may have be faked. I cannot say whether they are faked or not.
It is possible that Sheila was still alive inside the house, but I doubt it somehow.
-
The challenge for Bamber supporters is to paint a more plausible story. They can’t.
The challenge is for Bamber himself to paint a plausible story!!
-
I have heard about this before, and I don't think it gives him an alibi. If there really was someone alive with a gun inside WHF at the time when Jeremy was outside with the police, this indicates, to me, that he planned the murders but got someone else to carry them out, and it was that person who was inside the farmhouse.
I have seen photos of police logs which indicate that someone was alive inside the house,and that the police were in contact with someone inside the house. and have also heard that these may have be faked. I cannot say whether they are faked or not.
It is possible that Sheila was still alive inside the house, but I doubt it somehow.
Police "speak" isn't like regular "speak". They may understand it fully and that's all that matters. The was their words get interpreted may not be what they meant. Without going back and looking, I think the report was worded that they were "in conversation with someone from the farm". They were. They were talking with Jeremy. He was "from the farm" but he was standing outside with them. They used a loud hailer to try to make contact with anyone inside the house, from where, according to them, there was "No response".
-
I have heard about this before, and I don't think it gives him an alibi. If there really was someone alive with a gun inside WHF at the time when Jeremy was outside with the police, this indicates, to me, that he planned the murders but got someone else to carry them out, and it was that person who was inside the farmhouse.
I have seen photos of police logs which indicate that someone was alive inside the house,and that the police were in contact with someone inside the house. and have also heard that these may have be faked. I cannot say whether they are faked or not.
It is possible that Sheila was still alive inside the house, but I doubt it somehow.
That doesn't make any sense - unless the 'someone' else had the power of invisibility, they would have been caught given the place was crawling with police.
By the way, they aren't faked and they don't indicate anyone was alive inside the house.
-
The challenge is for Bamber himself to paint a plausible story!!
He tries.
-
Police "speak" isn't like regular "speak". They may understand it fully and that's all that matters. The was their words get interpreted may not be what they meant. Without going back and looking, I think the report was worded that they were "in conversation with someone from the farm". They were. They were talking with Jeremy. He was "from the farm" but he was standing outside with them. They used a loud hailer to try to make contact with anyone inside the house, from where, according to them, there was "No response".
The log states "in conversation with 'a person' inside the 'farm'" "challenge to 'persons' inside the 'house' met with no response". There is a clear distinction between person and persons and farm and house. The person is Jeremy and the persons are those inside the house. Easily to manipulate because of the way it was written.
-
The log states "in conversation with 'a person' inside the 'farm'" "challenge to 'persons' inside the 'house' met with no response". There is a clear distinction between person and persons and farm and house. The person is Jeremy and the persons are those inside the house. Easily to manipulate because of the way it was written.
Rather like the two phone logs: easy to read them however one wants to, two calls or one. The "guilters" say one, the supporters say two. I say we can't be sure, as with the above.
-
That doesn't make any sense - unless the 'someone' else had the power of invisibility, they would have been caught given the place was crawling with police.
By the way, they aren't faked and they don't indicate anyone was alive inside the house.
Not sure they would have necessarily been caught. There were plenty of places to hide within that farmhouse, and the general consensus seems to be that the police were hopeless! Not sure they were, but that's what people say.
-
Rather like the two phone logs: easy to read them however one wants to, two calls or one. The "guilters" say one, the supporters say two. I say we can't be sure, as with the above.
We can be sure because of the information catined on them and the fact that the two individuals that wrote them confirm they were from one call.
-
Not sure they would have necessarily been caught. There were plenty of places to hide within that farmhouse, and the general consensus seems to be that the police were hopeless! Not sure they were, but that's what people say.
You think you've heard everything and then .......... @)(++(*
-
So it's acceptable to question the stories and explore other possibilities.
Which they were
And all other possibilities e.g. Sheila being the killer were proven to be impossible
Which meant Jeremy lied about Nevill’s phone call
And with all the other overwhelming evidence proved it was him who killed them all
-
Under our judicial system the prosecution is required to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That means juries are quite rightly allowed/expected to consider it. You obviously don't agree with that staple of legal thinking, Blackstone's ratio.
What don’t you understand about the fact that the jury did indeed find Jeremy Bamber GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt?
-
Rather like the two phone logs: easy to read them however one wants to, two calls or one. The "guilters" say one, the supporters say two. I say we can't be sure, as with the above.
The police were sure, though
And they said NO-ONE responded to them from within the HOUSE
Why is that hard for you to understand?
-
The police were sure, though
And they said NO-ONE responded to them from within the HOUSE
Why is that hard for you to understand?
People don't read that log properly.
-
What don’t you understand about the fact that the jury did indeed find Jeremy Bamber GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt?
If you read the post I was replying to you might understand why I made it.
-
If you read the post I was replying to you might understand why I made it.
I did, and that’s how I was able to reply to it
You can’t reply to mine because you can’t think of a logical answer...
-
I did, and that’s how I was able to reply to it
You can’t reply to mine because you can’t think of a logical answer...
The discussion was about whether juries should consider 'reasonable doubt'. Obviously they must, because they need to be convinced of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The jury did, indeed, do that in the Bamber trial. In my understanding APRIL wants juries to ignore matters of reasonable doubt. Do you agree with that?
Quote from: APRIL on March 11, 2020, 06:24:31 PM
I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.
My reply;
Under our judicial system the prosecution is required to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That means juries are quite rightly allowed/expected to consider it. You obviously don't agree with that staple of legal thinking, Blackstone's ratio.
-
The discussion was about whether juries should consider 'reasonable doubt'. Obviously they must, because they need to be convinced of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The jury did, indeed, do that in the Bamber trial. In my understanding APRIL wants juries to ignore matters of reasonable doubt. Do you agree with that?
Quote from: APRIL on March 11, 2020, 06:24:31 PM
I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.
My reply;
Under our judicial system the prosecution is required to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That means juries are quite rightly allowed/expected to consider it. You obviously don't agree with that staple of legal thinking, Blackstone's ratio.
Not wholly. A guilty person on the outside is free to repeat/escalate their crime. An innocent person on the inside has the chance to prove it. We, quite rightly, did away with the death sentence. Life, for the guilty, should mean life.
-
The discussion was about whether juries should consider 'reasonable doubt'. Obviously they must, because they need to be convinced of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The jury did, indeed, do that in the Bamber trial. In my understanding APRIL wants juries to ignore matters of reasonable doubt. Do you agree with that?
Quote from: APRIL on March 11, 2020, 06:24:31 PM
I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.
My reply;
Under our judicial system the prosecution is required to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That means juries are quite rightly allowed/expected to consider it. You obviously don't agree with that staple of legal thinking, Blackstone's ratio.
What exactly about this case would cause you to have 'reasonable doubt'?
-
The discussion was about whether juries should consider 'reasonable doubt'. Obviously they must, because they need to be convinced of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The jury did, indeed, do that in the Bamber trial. In my understanding APRIL wants juries to ignore matters of reasonable doubt. Do you agree with that?
Quote from: APRIL on March 11, 2020, 06:24:31 PM
I'm convinced that allowing what you call "reasonable doubt" to colour the jury's thinking, there will be many more guilty people walking free, to commit further heinous crimes. Are we to risk that for the few of those inside who are innocent? Nothing -NOTHING- in this world can ever be 100% fail safe.
My reply;
Under our judicial system the prosecution is required to demonstrate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That means juries are quite rightly allowed/expected to consider it. You obviously don't agree with that staple of legal thinking, Blackstone's ratio.
How else can a jury convict, G-Unit?
Are you seriously suggesting the whole juridical system should be changed, just because you don’t like to accept the fact Jeremy Bamber was found guilty?
You’re also forgetting that Jeremy Bamber has already lost TWO appeals, plus his appeal at the European Court of Human Rights. Isn’t that enough to convince you that of his guilt? Isn’t that enough to convince you that he has absolutely no evidence at all to even suggest he may be innocent?
What motivates you to keep banging on with same old broken record that’s been dismissed by the court of appeal as utter nonsense?
-
How else can a jury convict, G-Unit?
Are you seriously suggesting the whole juridical system should be changed, just because you don’t like to accept the fact Jeremy Bamber was found guilty?
You’re also forgetting that Jeremy Bamber has already lost TWO appeals, plus his appeal at the European Court of Human Rights. Isn’t that enough to convince you that of his guilt? Isn’t that enough to convince you that he has absolutely no evidence at all to even suggest he may be innocent?
What motivates you to keep banging on with same old broken record that’s been dismissed by the court of appeal as utter nonsense?
Arrogance and sheer self-belief in one’s ability to know better than everyone else, experts included. Not just G-Unit but all conspiracy theorists. IMO.
-
Arrogance and sheer self-belief in one’s ability to know better than everyone else, experts included. Not just G-Unit but all conspiracy theorists. IMO.
One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to question the conviction of Jeremy Bamber. Somebody who does so is not arrogant, nor are they saying they know better than everyone else. They are just questioning-----IMO.
-
One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to question the conviction of Jeremy Bamber. Somebody who does so is not arrogant, nor are they saying they know better than everyone else. They are just questioning-----IMO.
Obviously one does have to be a conspiracy theorist if one is to dismiss crucial evidence on the basis that it was planted and that evidence was falsified, by more than one person, with more than one reason for doing so. IMO.
ETA. also I get the distinct impression that certain people here DO think they know better than everyone else.
-
Not wholly. A guilty person on the outside is free to repeat/escalate their crime. An innocent person on the inside has the chance to prove it. We, quite rightly, did away with the death sentence. Life, for the guilty, should mean life.
I think you might change your mind if you or a relative was the innocent trapped in prison.
-
I think you might change your mind if you or a relative was the innocent trapped in prison.
And you might change yours if you saw the person walk free who was guilty of a heinous crime against one of your family. Or perhaps you'd just accept that the jury was right.
-
I think you might change your mind if you or a relative was the innocent trapped in prison.
His relatives were the very people who were/are convinced of his guilty!
-
And you might change yours if you saw the person walk free who was guilty of a heinous crime against one of your family. Or perhaps you'd just accept that the jury was right.
It's not up to anyone except a jury to pronounce guilt. That's how the law works.
-
It's not up to anyone except a jury to pronounce guilt. That's how the law works.
What are you playing at then?
-
It's not up to anyone except a jury to pronounce guilt. That's how the law works.
And they did and you're questioning the verdict!
-
And they did and you're questioning the verdict!
I was speaking of how the law operates. A jury can only judge on the evidence it's given.
-
I was speaking of how the law operates. A jury can only judge on the evidence it's given.
Do you have more and better evidence than was presented to the juries?
-
Do you have more and better evidence than was presented to the juries?
I don't know yet. 8(0(*
-
I was speaking of how the law operates. A jury can only judge on the evidence it's given.
And they did and you're still questioning the verdict
-
I don't know yet. 8(0(*
So that's a big fat no then.
-
And they did and you're still questioning the verdict
I'm questioning the evidence not the verdict. The fact that Nevill Bamber was unable to speak, for example, doesn't mean he didn't phone his son because he could have done that before he was injured. The fact that a wetsuit was found doesn't mean it was worn. The fact that people thought Nevill Bamber was careful with his guns doesn't mean that he complied with the law, he didn't. Even if Jeremy Bamber knew he could put 11 cartridges in the gun that doesn't mean he did.
-
I'm questioning the evidence not the verdict. The fact that Nevill Bamber was unable to speak, for example, doesn't mean he didn't phone his son because he could have done that before he was injured. The fact that a wetsuit was found doesn't mean it was worn. The fact that people thought Nevill Bamber was careful with his guns doesn't mean that he complied with the law, he didn't. Even if Jeremy Bamber knew he could put 11 cartridges in the gun that doesn't mean he did.
Nor does it indicate that any such call happened. The wetsuit didn't convict him. in fact I'm not sure it was even mentioned at trial. Only one gun formed part of the evidence and that's the one Bamber left out (or so he said). The 11 cartridges remains a possibility because he knew it could be done. I
-
I'm questioning the evidence not the verdict. The fact that Nevill Bamber was unable to speak, for example, doesn't mean he didn't phone his son because he could have done that before he was injured. The fact that a wetsuit was found doesn't mean it was worn. The fact that people thought Nevill Bamber was careful with his guns doesn't mean that he complied with the law, he didn't. Even if Jeremy Bamber knew he could put 11 cartridges in the gun that doesn't mean he did.
I can see where you're coming from on the evidence side,but a jury convicted on what they were shown and told.There's been two unsuccessful appeals another not getting past the ones who decide if it should go to the appeal court,This tells me that the powers to be are happy that the conviction is sound,any one who thinks otherwise needs to show that there is evidence not already disclosed to the relevant bodies.JBamber is a convicted child killer and should die in prison.
-
I'm questioning the evidence not the verdict. The fact that Nevill Bamber was unable to speak, for example, doesn't mean he didn't phone his son because he could have done that before he was injured. The fact that a wetsuit was found doesn't mean it was worn. The fact that people thought Nevill Bamber was careful with his guns doesn't mean that he complied with the law, he didn't. Even if Jeremy Bamber knew he could put 11 cartridges in the gun that doesn't mean he did.
There are over 60 pieces of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. From an independent body - Court of Appeal.
-
It's not up to anyone except a jury to pronounce guilt. That's how the law works.
So you'd accept without question, a not guilty verdict on the person you were convinced was responsible for robbing you of a family member?
-
I don't know yet. 8(0(*
Oh how very cryptic. You ACT as if you do but as you’ve only had an interest in the case for a few weeks on the internet I very much doubt you know better than everyone else including the jury and judges that presided over Bamber’s appeals.
-
I'm questioning the evidence not the verdict. The fact that Nevill Bamber was unable to speak, for example, doesn't mean he didn't phone his son because he could have done that before he was injured. The fact that a wetsuit was found doesn't mean it was worn. The fact that people thought Nevill Bamber was careful with his guns doesn't mean that he complied with the law, he didn't. Even if Jeremy Bamber knew he could put 11 cartridges in the gun that doesn't mean he did.
And even if there was no grease or gunpowder found on Sheila doesn’t mean she didn’t do it and just because human blood (probably hers) was found in the (hidden) silencer doesn’t mean it was used in the killings, etc etc etc
-
Oh how very cryptic. You ACT as if you do but as you’ve only had an interest in the case for a few weeks on the internet I very much doubt you know better than everyone else including the jury and judges that presided over Bamber’s appeals.
Three words spring to mind: miscarriage of justice. It does happen you know and of course until convictions are overturned the majority believe the conviction safe; if they didn't we wouldn't have long running miscarriages of justice. It's the nature of the beast I'm afraid!
-
I'm questioning the evidence not the verdict. The fact that Nevill Bamber was unable to speak, for example, doesn't mean he didn't phone his son because he could have done that before he was injured. The fact that a wetsuit was found doesn't mean it was worn. The fact that people thought Nevill Bamber was careful with his guns doesn't mean that he complied with the law, he didn't. Even if Jeremy Bamber knew he could put 11 cartridges in the gun that doesn't mean he did.
You're right in tat it doesn't -(necessarily)- mean he didn't phone Jeremy. The question though, is WOULD he? Evidence exists to suggest he didn't think Jeremy could be trusted. It's very likely that there'd been some sort of contretemps between them that evening regarding a trailer Jeremy was to have bought back. It ended with Jeremy leaving and Nevill doing it himself. I feel it's highly UNlikely, that Nevill, knowing he couldn't be trusted to do his job, would have trusted him to even answer his phone, let alone get out of bed to do a rescue job.
-
I can see where you're coming from on the evidence side,but a jury convicted on what they were shown and told.There's been two unsuccessful appeals another not getting past the ones who decide if it should go to the appeal court,This tells me that the powers to be are happy that the conviction is sound,any one who thinks otherwise needs to show that there is evidence not already disclosed to the relevant bodies.JBamber is a convicted child killer and should die in prison.
Stefan Kiszko was also a convicted child killer whose case bounced to and fro CoA until he was acquitted.
Do you honestly think if we were discussing his case post acquittal you would have seen him as anything other than a child killer Barrier?
-
Stefan Kiszko was also a convicted child killer whose case bounced to and fro CoA until he was acquitted.
Do you honestly think if we were discussing his case post acquittal you would have seen him as anything other than a child killer Barrier?
How many failed appeals did Kiszko have? Has Jeremy reached out to Justice who helped Stefan? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JUSTICE
-
What’s that got to do with G-Unit coming over all mysterious trying to imply she knows more about the evidence than everyone else? Is this a bit like you having solved the Madeleine case, only this time G-Unit had solved the Bamber one? Do me a favour!
If you think the likes of G-Unit and myself can't make a difference how would you explain what Joe Karam achieved for David Bain?
-
How many failed appeals did Kiszko have? Has Jeremy reached out to Justice who helped Stefan? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JUSTICE
Why does JB need to reach out to JUSTICE when he might have G-Unit in his corner! ? ?>)()< 8(>((
-
You're right in tat it doesn't -(necessarily)- mean he didn't phone Jeremy. The question though, is WOULD he? Evidence exists to suggest he didn't think Jeremy could be trusted. It's very likely that there'd been some sort of contretemps between them that evening regarding a trailer Jeremy was to have bought back. It ended with Jeremy leaving and Nevill doing it himself. I feel it's highly UNlikely, that Nevill, knowing he couldn't be trusted to do his job, would have trusted him to even answer his phone, let alone get out of bed to do a rescue job.
I don't know whether he would phone Jeremy or not, but what I do know is that no one else knows either.
-
Why does JB need to reach out to JUSTICE when he might have G-Unit in his corner! ? ?>)()< 8(>((
LOL, you really are a fan girl aren’t you?
-
If you think the likes of G-Unit and myself can't make a difference how would you explain what Joe Karam achieved for David Bain?
Oh I see. G-Unit has already immersed herself in the minutiae of the case, gained access to all the evidence presented in court, met with Bamber and all surviving protagonists and managed to uncover vital new evidence, and all since the new year. How very impressive!!
-
Oh I see. G-Unit has already immersed herself in the minutiae of the case, gained access to all the evidence presented in court, met with Bamber and all surviving protagonists and managed to uncover vital new evidence, and all since the new year. How very impressive!!
I don't recall saying that or even alluding to it.
-
I don't know whether he would phone Jeremy or not, but what I do know is that no one else knows either.
On that point, you're correct, but it's not a point in isolation. When their relationship is bought into the equation, the balance falls in favour of him NOT.
-
On that point, you're correct, but it's not a point in isolation. When their relationship is bought into the equation, the balance falls in favour of him NOT.
Relationships can be toxic. They can also appear toxic to onlookers when they aren't. Some families have stand-up rows, some don't. That doesn't mean those who don't have rows don't have problems, it just means they deal with them differently. Only those involved in these relationships know the truth in my opinion.
-
Relationships can be toxic. They can also appear toxic to onlookers when they aren't. Some families have stand-up rows, some don't. That doesn't mean those who don't have rows don't have problems, it just means they deal with them differently. Only those involved in these relationships know the truth in my opinion.
When a son's obnoxious and disrespectful behaviour reduces a father to tears, there's more than just a hint that problems exist.
-
Just a reminder: no goading, personal remarks, thank you.
-
When a son's obnoxious and disrespectful behaviour reduces a father to tears, there's more than just a hint that problems exist.
As reported by a relative who clearly had no time for Jeremy? Others felt differently.
-
As reported by a relative who clearly had no time for Jeremy? Others felt differently.
Actually, the only reason this person had no time for Jeremy was because he'd witnessed the way he humiliated Nevill. I have no idea who are the "others" you speak of, but living close to where it happened, I've only found ONE person who knew him, pre massacre -a vicar- who has "time" for him.
-
Actually, the only reason this person had no time for Jeremy was because he'd witnessed the way he humiliated Nevill. I have no idea who are the "others" you speak of, but living close to where it happened, I've only found ONE person who knew him, pre massacre -a vicar- who has "time" for him.
CAL's book page 103; Pamela Boutflour, Len Foulkes, Michael Deckers and Thomas Howie thought Jeremy was settling into the life his father wanted for him. Colin Caffell said father and son were very close.
-
CAL's book page 103; Pamela Boutflour, Len Foulkes, Michael Deckers and Thomas Howie thought Jeremy was settling into the life his father wanted for him. Colin Caffell said father and son were very close.
Of course, I would need to know how many days/weeks prior to the massacre this change in Jeremy was noted. The fact that it WAS noted indicates that there had previously been problems. It also wouldn't have been prudent for him to alow outsiders to witness problems. It would have caused suspicion to fall on him. Whilst Colin may have believed that "father and son were close", one has to question how, given he was such an infrequent visitor, he came to such a conclusion. Maybe he was manipulated by Jeremy more than once?
-
Of course, I would need to know how many days/weeks prior to the massacre this change in Jeremy was noted. The fact that it WAS noted indicates that there had previously been problems. It also wouldn't have been prudent for him to alow outsiders to witness problems. It would have caused suspicion to fall on him. Whilst Colin may have believed that "father and son were close", one has to question how, given he was such an infrequent visitor, he came to such a conclusion. Maybe he was manipulated by Jeremy more than once?
How many days/weeks prior to the massacre was Nevill reported to have been reduced to tears?
-
How many days/weeks prior to the massacre was Nevill reported to have been reduced to tears?
It wasn't a question I thought to ask because it wasn't necessary for me to know.
-
CAL's book page 103; Pamela Boutflour, Len Foulkes, Michael Deckers and Thomas Howie thought Jeremy was settling into the life his father wanted for him. Colin Caffell said father and son were very close.
Is CAL's book your only source? Although it is a great overview there are plenty of statements and documents available that provide more in-depth information.
-
It wasn't a question I thought to ask because it wasn't necessary for me to know.
Me neither. It seems to have been around the time Nevill asked the trustees to add Jeremy's name to the tenancy of the farm.
-
I don't recall saying that or even alluding to it.
you compared your collective efforts with someone who had done years of research including first hand knowledge of the key protagonists in a MoJ case didn’t you?
-
Me neither. It seems to have been around the time Nevill asked the trustees to add Jeremy's name to the tenancy of the farm.
COULD coincide with the codicil that Jeremy would have to be seen, by the trustees, to be working satisfactorily on the farm at the time of his death before he could come into his inheritance.
-
Stefan Kiszko was also a convicted child killer whose case bounced to and fro CoA until he was acquitted.
Do you honestly think if we were discussing his case post acquittal you would have seen him as anything other than a child killer Barrier?
Apples and pears holly,Stefan was done up like a kipper.
There was no DNA technology available in 1975, but police still had samples taken from Lesley's clothing examined and which showed the killer had a sperm count and could father a child. A police doctor who also examined Kiszko, saw that he was sexually immature and sent a sample for examination that showed Stefan had a zero sperm count.
The crucial evidence was never put before the court and when police reinvestigated the case in the 1990s, they found that Kiszko's samples had mysteriously vanished.
-
Stefan Kiszko was also a convicted child killer whose case bounced to and fro CoA until he was acquitted.
Do you honestly think if we were discussing his case post acquittal you would have seen him as anything other than a child killer Barrier?
When did a reconstruction take place to acquit him? I think they proved he was innocent due to physical evidence?
-
When did a reconstruction take place to acquit him? I think they proved he was innocent due to physical evidence?
The case didn't involve firearms so of course no shooting reconstruction.
-
The case didn't involve firearms so of course no shooting reconstruction.
I was being filliant but there won't be one in this case either.
-
I was being filliant but there won't be one in this case either.
And what makes you think that?
-
And what makes you think that?
Because the CCRC won't grant one.
-
Because the CCRC won't grant one.
Caroline how can you possibly know this? Those who believe JB guilty are hardly likely to be in the loop.
-
Caroline how can you possibly know this? Those who believe JB guilty are hardly likely to be in the loop.
Just. as you can say you're in some sort of loop that the rest of us aren't, I can say that your loop is wasting its time. In order for the CCRC to bend, there would have to be something completely compelling and nothing you have posted goes anywhere near that - it can all be battered right back to you.
-
I don't know whether he would phone Jeremy or not, but what I do know is that no one else knows either.
Wrong!
Jeremy knows...and Jeremy knows Nevill phoned him
-
Oh I see. G-Unit has already immersed herself in the minutiae of the case, gained access to all the evidence presented in court, met with Bamber and all surviving protagonists and managed to uncover vital new evidence, and all since the new year. How very impressive!!
Hahaha!
And G-Unit trips herself up over and over again...what a scream she is (&^&
-
Relationships can be toxic. They can also appear toxic to onlookers when they aren't. Some families have stand-up rows, some don't. That doesn't mean those who don't have rows don't have problems, it just means they deal with them differently. Only those involved in these relationships know the truth in my opinion.
Which means you’re totally clueless about Nevill’s relationship with Jeremy...
-
Me neither. It seems to have been around the time Nevill asked the trustees to add Jeremy's name to the tenancy of the farm.
Nevill asked the trustees to do that in the hope it would motivate Jeremy into taking more interest on the farm.
The trustees refused as they didn’t trust Jeremy.
And in the event, it would’ve made no difference, anyway...proof of that is how Jeremy planned to sell the farm as soon as he’d shot them all dead!
-
Nevill asked them trustees to do that in the hope it would motivate Jeremy into taking more interest on the farm.
The trustees refused as they trust Jeremy.
And in the event, it would’ve made no difference, anyway...proof of that is how Jeremy planned to sell the farm as soon as he’d shot them all dead!
To be fair, I think it was more to do with his age and inexperience.
-
Nevill asked them trustees to do that in the hope it would motivate Jeremy into taking more interest on the farm.
The trustees refused as they trust Jeremy.
And in the event, it would’ve made no difference, anyway...proof of that is how Jeremy planned to sell the farm as soon as he’d shot them all dead!
Could Jeremy sell the farm? The Bambers were tenants, not owners.
-
Could Jeremy sell the farm? The Bambers were tenants, not owners.
There must have been the possibility. Why else would the family have been so concerned?
-
There must have been the possibility. Why else would the family have been so concerned?
He couldn't have sold the farmhouse, as it didn't belong to the family, but (I believe) the land did.
-
He couldn't have sold the farmhouse, as it didn't belong to the family, but (I believe) the land did.
Nevill was a shrewd businessman. There are numerous incidences of him acquiring land/property. The half million inheritance didn't include the farmhouse.
-
Could Jeremy sell the farm? The Bambers were tenants, not owners.
They could sell the land they owned, not the house.
-
CAL's book page 103; Pamela Boutflour, Len Foulkes, Michael Deckers and Thomas Howie thought Jeremy was settling into the life his father wanted for him. Colin Caffell said father and son were very close.
No, Colin “thought” Jeremy and Nevill were close because Jeremy put on an act in front of him. Colin was kind-hearted, decent and caring, and because he had no evil in him it didn’t occur to him that Jeremy was a manipulative psychopath.
When Jeremy suddenly appeared to show an interest in the farm, Nevill was thrilled and told people Jeremy had “turned a corner “. But everyone said they were suspicious of Jeremy’s motives, and they had good reason to be. Jeremy had secretly read the wills and knew he had to show interest in the farm in order to inherit it.
His sudden spurt of interest only lasted for so many months...until he shot them all dead...and then said he was going to sell the farm
That doesn’t add up does it?!
-
To be fair, I think it was more to do with his age and inexperience.
Yes, that would have come into it, for sure
But I suspect there was more to it than just his age; after all, he’d grown up on the farm and ar 24 he was a man
-
There must have been the possibility. Why else would the family have been so concerned?
The Eatons stood to lose half the land they farmed and the Boutflours were faced with Jeremy owning a 58% share in Osea Road. He also stood to inherit half of his grandmother's estate, which included Robert and Pamela Boutflour's home, for which they paid a nominal rent to Mrs Speakman.
-
The Eatons stood to lose half the land they farmed and the Boutflours were faced with Jeremy owning a 58% share in Osea Road. He also stood to inherit half of his grandmother's estate, which included Robert and Pamela Boutflour's home, for which they paid a nominal rent to Mrs Speakman.
58% or 50%?
PB = 42%, AE = 8%
June = 42%, JB = 8%
Either way very unpalatable for them.
Did you know AE moved into WHF some time after the murders and still lives there to this day? 8(8-))
The place should have been demolished imo. How anyone could even consider living in such a place is beyond me whether relatives or not.
And you might think the relatives who were wealthy in their own right might have considered making a charitable donation from the Bamber estate but apart from a lantern in the local church, nothing. In fact I believe the Eatons and Pargeters went to battle in court over the estate.
-
And a jolly nice job she's made of it too! Amazing what a lick of new paint and wallpaper can do. Well done AE, I say!
(https://i.imgur.com/I9hjBzf.jpg)
-
58% or 50%?
PB = 42%, AE = 8%
June = 42%, JB = 8%
Either way very unpalatable for them.
Did you know AE moved into WHF some time after the murders and still lives there to this day? 8(8-))
The place should have been demolished imo. How anyone could even consider living in such a place is beyond me whether relatives or not.
And you might think the relatives who were wealthy in their own right might have considered making a charitable donation from the Bamber estate but apart from a lantern in the local church, nothing. In fact I believe the Eatons and Pargeters went to battle in court over the estate.
According to the cutting I was given on Friday, Anthony Pargeter was awarded £150,000.
-
And a jolly nice job she's made of it too! Amazing what a lick of new paint and wallpaper can do. Well done AE, I say!
(https://i.imgur.com/I9hjBzf.jpg)
Looks like a much loved family home. She's done a fine job.
-
58% or 50%?
PB = 42%, AE = 8%
June = 42%, JB = 8%
Either way very unpalatable for them.
Did you know AE moved into WHF some time after the murders and still lives there to this day? 8(8-))
The place should have been demolished imo. How anyone could even consider living in such a place is beyond me whether relatives or not.
And you might think the relatives who were wealthy in their own right might have considered making a charitable donation from the Bamber estate but apart from a lantern in the local church, nothing. In fact I believe the Eatons and Pargeters went to battle in court over the estate.
It was four years before the Eaton's moved into WHF and why should they have given money to charity? Do you think Jeremy had those plans?
-
Just as a matter of interest, where did the photos of the interior of WHF come from?
-
Just as a matter of interest, where did the photos of the interior of WHF come from?
In what respect?
-
Just as a matter of interest, where did the photos of the interior of WHF come from?
From my HDD. 8(0(*
-
From my HDD. 8(0(*
I think most are either family snaps before the murders, crime scene pictures and there are some still's from a TV programme about the murders?
-
I think most are either family snaps before the murders, crime scene pictures and there are some still's from a TV programme about the murders?
The B&W ones such as that above (from Wilkes, if I remember) are usually post-murders when the house was reoccupied.
-
It was four years before the Eaton's moved into WHF and why should they have given money to charity? Do you think Jeremy had those plans?
So the farm had no tenant for four years?
-
So the farm had no tenant for four years?
No, the farm was being farmed, the rent was being paid - just no one lived in the house.
-
The B&W ones such as that above (from Wilkes, if I remember) are usually post-murders when the house was reoccupied.
Ah, it's a long time since I read Wilkes. Just wondered how anyone had obtained photos taken after Ann and Peter Eaton had taken over the tenancy of the farm. Thanks!
-
Ah, it's a long time since I read Wilkes. Just wondered how anyone had obtained photos taken after Ann and Peter Eaton had taken over the tenancy of the farm. Thanks!
The preamble in 'Blood Relations' acknowledges the Eaton family for permission to reproduce their uncopyrighted family photos.
His book is going to be republished in early June...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Relations-Jeremy-Bamber-Murders-ebook/dp/B083TC69N9/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Relations-Jeremy-Bamber-Murders-ebook/dp/B083TC69N9/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=)
-
It was four years before the Eaton's moved into WHF and why should they have given money to charity? Do you think Jeremy had those plans?
Why not give the money to charity? They gained financially from the tragedy whoever the perp was. Ordinarily they would not have benefitted eg June left AE £100 in her will.
-
Why not give the money to charity? They gained financially from the tragedy whoever the perp was. Ordinarily they would not have benefitted eg June left AE £100 in her will.
The same would be said about Jeremy - he wouldn't have got the lot unless the family all died together. Perhaps Ann gave £100.00 to charity - or even more - we/you have no idea.
-
No, the farm was being farmed, the rent was being paid - just no one lived in the house.
Some people think that White House Farm was part of the Bamber`s estate and that the cousins inherited it but that wasn't the case, the Eatons merely rent it from the actual owners. I don't think that fact was made very clear in the last TV documentary.
-
Some people think that White House Farm was part of the Bamber`s estate and that the cousins inherited it but that wasn't the case, the Eatons merely rent it from the actual owners. I don't think that fact was made very clear in the last TV documentary.
That's right - some newspapers have even reported that he inherited the house.
-
That's right - some newspapers have even reported that he inherited the house.
They rented the house and land and N & J Bamber Ltd farmed it. There are details of the Bamber's holdings and where they went here, in between the complaining;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHAnLJOIw7k
-
They rented the house and land and N & J Bamber Ltd farmed it. There are details of the Bamber's holdings and where they went here, in between the complaining;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHAnLJOIw7k
I know.
-
The preamble in 'Blood Relations' acknowledges the Eaton family for permission to reproduce their uncopyrighted family photos.
His book is going to be republished in early June...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Relations-Jeremy-Bamber-Murders-ebook/dp/B083TC69N9/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Relations-Jeremy-Bamber-Murders-ebook/dp/B083TC69N9/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=)
Yes, I heard that---I will be buying myself a copy.
I read it years ago, and thought it was very good. Had completely forgotten about the photos.
-
The preamble in 'Blood Relations' acknowledges the Eaton family for permission to reproduce their uncopyrighted family photos.
His book is going to be republished in early June...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Relations-Jeremy-Bamber-Murders-ebook/dp/B083TC69N9/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Relations-Jeremy-Bamber-Murders-ebook/dp/B083TC69N9/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=)
Only survivor of what?
A year later it was Jeremy Bamber, the only survivor, who was convicted of the callous murders of his entire family.
-
Why not give the money to charity? They gained financially from the tragedy whoever the perp was. Ordinarily they would not have benefitted eg June left AE £100 in her will.
The way you bang on about the money, Holly (just as G-Unit does) anyone would thinks it was YOURS!
It’s got sweet Fanny Adams to do with you or anyone else.
As it happens, and as you take such a huge interest in money that isn’t yours, the farmhouse could not be sold as it was held in a trust and tenanted out. I do believe that the house itself was originally built in the 1800s and owned by June Bamber’s great-grandfather or G-G-grandfather. It was left in a trust so the family could live there, but they weren’t able to sell it, obviously.
My understanding is that June owned many acres of land and the farmland, including 50% of the caravan park. She also owned other properties and was due to inherit 50% of her mother’s house.
Nevill too owned many acres of the land, plus several properties and business ventures, including his mother’s house in Guildford, of which I should imagine 50% would go to his late sister’s children.
So both June and Nevill were relatively wealthy in their own right, despite not owning the actual farmhouse. June’s sister, Pamela was relatively wealthy too and was also in line to receive 50% of her mother’s estate.
So, given how much money was involved, it’s a ridiculous suggestion to say that the rightful heirs should give all that money away to a charity — that money that their family had grafted for over hundreds of years — and go against the wishes of all their parents/grandparents. Why would anyone give away their rightful inheritance and leave themselves underprivileged with few assets and little money?!
Furthermore, if you were in their shoes and you knew the perp Jeremy Bamber had KILLED your close family to get his greedy grubby paws on all the money that your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents had grafted so hard for, wouldn’t you be determined to make sure he didn’t get ONE penny? I certainly would! How could you sit back and watch an evil murderer not just take the lives of FIVE of your family members (two of whom were just six-years-old), but effectively steal the inheritance too?
I’d move heaven and earth to make sure that evil psychopath didn’t benefit for shooting dead his mother, his father, his sister, and his two little nephews. And everyone would do that too — including you.
-
The way you bang on about the money, Holly (just as G-Unit does) anyone would thinks it was YOURS!
It’s got sweet Fanny Adams to do with you or anyone else.
As it happens, and as you take such a huge interest in money that isn’t yours, the farmhouse could not be sold as it was held in a trust and tenanted out. I do believe that the house itself was originally built in the 1800s and owned by June Bamber’s great-grandfather or G-G-grandfather. It was left in a trust so the family could live there, but they weren’t able to sell it, obviously.
My understanding is that June owned many acres of land and the farmland, including 50% of the caravan park. She also owned other properties and was due to inherit 50% of her mother’s house.
Nevill too owned many acres of the land, plus several properties and business ventures, including his mother’s house in Guildford, of which I should imagine 50% would go to his late sister’s children.
So both June and Nevill were relatively wealthy in their own right, despite not owning the actual farmhouse. June’s sister, Pamela was relatively wealthy too and was also in line to receive 50% of her mother’s estate.
So, given how much money was involved, it’s a ridiculous suggestion to say that the rightful heirs should give all that money away to a charity — that money that their family had grafted for over hundreds of years — and go against the wishes of all their parents/grandparents. Why would anyone give away their rightful inheritance and leave themselves underprivileged with few assets and little money?!
Furthermore, if you were in their shoes and you knew the perp Jeremy Bamber had KILLED your close family to get his greedy grubby paws on all the money that your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents had grafted so hard for, wouldn’t you be determined to make sure he didn’t get ONE penny? I certainly would! How could you sit back and watch an evil murderer not just take the lives of FIVE of your family members (two of whom were just six-years-old), but effectively steal the inheritance too?
I’d move heaven and earth to make sure that evil psychopath didn’t benefit for shooting dead his mother, his father, his sister, and his two little nephews. And everyone would do that too — including you.
I've raised that exact point on several occasions. The same situation often changes exponentially if we can place ourselves in the shoes of those who felt that along with their family being torn from them, their life's work was about to be taken from them and enjoyed by the person responsible for it.
-
I've raised that exact point on several occasions. The same situation often changes exponentially if we can place ourselves in the shoes of those who felt that along with their family being torn from them, their life's work was about to be taken from them and enjoyed by the person responsible for it.
Personally, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the family inheriting the money-----so long as it is really true that Jeremy is guilty.
-
Personally, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with the family inheriting the money-----so long as it is really true that Jeremy is guilty.
Nothing wrong? It was their absolute right to receive that inheritance — it was theirs.
And the grandmother made certain it went to her daughter, Pamela, after she had the horror of knowing her other daughter, June had been shot dead — along with all her family!
The convicted murderer, Jeremy Bamber, who was found guilty of slaying all his family to get his grubby paws on ALL the inheritance, rightly lost any right to the money as it was proven beyond reasonable doubt he killed them all for it.
-
The way you bang on about the money, Holly (just as G-Unit does) anyone would thinks it was YOURS!
It’s got sweet Fanny Adams to do with you or anyone else.
As it happens, and as you take such a huge interest in money that isn’t yours, the farmhouse could not be sold as it was held in a trust and tenanted out. I do believe that the house itself was originally built in the 1800s and owned by June Bamber’s great-grandfather or G-G-grandfather. It was left in a trust so the family could live there, but they weren’t able to sell it, obviously.
My understanding is that June owned many acres of land and the farmland, including 50% of the caravan park. She also owned other properties and was due to inherit 50% of her mother’s house.
Nevill too owned many acres of the land, plus several properties and business ventures, including his mother’s house in Guildford, of which I should imagine 50% would go to his late sister’s children.
So both June and Nevill were relatively wealthy in their own right, despite not owning the actual farmhouse. June’s sister, Pamela was relatively wealthy too and was also in line to receive 50% of her mother’s estate.
So, given how much money was involved, it’s a ridiculous suggestion to say that the rightful heirs should give all that money away to a charity — that money that their family had grafted for over hundreds of years — and go against the wishes of all their parents/grandparents. Why would anyone give away their rightful inheritance and leave themselves underprivileged with few assets and little money?!
Furthermore, if you were in their shoes and you knew the perp Jeremy Bamber had KILLED your close family to get his greedy grubby paws on all the money that your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents had grafted so hard for, wouldn’t you be determined to make sure he didn’t get ONE penny? I certainly would! How could you sit back and watch an evil murderer not just take the lives of FIVE of your family members (two of whom were just six-years-old), but effectively steal the inheritance too?
I’d move heaven and earth to make sure that evil psychopath didn’t benefit for shooting dead his mother, his father, his sister, and his two little nephews. And everyone would do that too — including you.
Upon Jeremy’s conviction the entire Bamber Estate was awarded to Pamela Boutflour. Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood brought a civil litigation for their share of the estate, namely Nevill’s assets, against Peter and Ann Eaton, Solicitor Basil Cock, Robert and Pamela Boutflour and David Boutflour in the High Court Chancery Division in 1991.[3] Pargeter and Wood settled out of court after it was agreed they would receive Nevill Bamber’s estate, while Robert and Pamela Boutflour, Peter and Ann Eaton and David and Karen Boutflour would in turn retain June Bamber’s estate.[4]
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/jackie-pargeter
-
Upon Jeremy’s conviction the entire Bamber Estate was awarded to Pamela Boutflour. Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood brought a civil litigation for their share of the estate, namely Nevill’s assets, against Peter and Ann Eaton, Solicitor Basil Cock, Robert and Pamela Boutflour and David Boutflour in the High Court Chancery Division in 1991.[3] Pargeter and Wood settled out of court after it was agreed they would receive Nevill Bamber’s estate, while Robert and Pamela Boutflour, Peter and Ann Eaton and David and Karen Boutflour would in turn retain June Bamber’s estate.[4]
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/jackie-pargeter
So what?
Many families squabble over wills and inheritance, but that’s between them — but they didn’t start shooting each other
Whatever disputes they had afterwards doesn’t alter the fact Jeremy Bamber murdered all his family
-
Upon Jeremy’s conviction the entire Bamber Estate was awarded to Pamela Boutflour. Anthony Pargeter and Jacqueline Wood brought a civil litigation for their share of the estate, namely Nevill’s assets, against Peter and Ann Eaton, Solicitor Basil Cock, Robert and Pamela Boutflour and David Boutflour in the High Court Chancery Division in 1991.[3] Pargeter and Wood settled out of court after it was agreed they would receive Nevill Bamber’s estate, while Robert and Pamela Boutflour, Peter and Ann Eaton and David and Karen Boutflour would in turn retain June Bamber’s estate.[4]
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/jackie-pargeter
There are few families, when money, land, and property come into the equation, who don't end up in conflict with each other, often causing generational break-ups to the point where none of them can remember what was the original cause.....................and that's without a vicious massacre being at the heart of it.
-
There are few families, when money, land, and property come into the equation, who don't end up in conflict with each other, often causing generational break-ups to the point where none of them can remember what was the original cause.....................and that's without a vicious massacre being at the heart of it.
It seems the more you have the more you want. Interestingly Basil Cock suggested that the presumption when the order of death can't be determined is that the younger survives the elder. That seems to have been applied to Nevill and June, but what about Sheila and the twins? Sheila inherited from June, and I would have thought that would have gone to the twins had they survived. It seems Colin Caffell refrained, as their next of kin, from getting involved.
-
It seems the more you have the more you want. Interestingly Basil Cock suggested that the presumption when the order of death can't be determined is that the younger survives the elder. That seems to have been applied to Nevill and June, but what about Sheila and the twins? Sheila inherited from June, and I would have thought that would have gone to the twins had they survived. It seems Colin Caffell refrained, as their next of kin, from getting involved.
I imagine the change from murder/suicide to murder may, re inheritance, have thrown a spanner in the works/made it easier to apply? Not sure how easy it would have been for Colin to make a claim -nothing to stop him trying if he'd been of a mind to, though- it would be interesting to hear what others have to say.
-
It seems the more you have the more you want. Interestingly Basil Cock suggested that the presumption when the order of death can't be determined is that the younger survives the elder. That seems to have been applied to Nevill and June, but what about Sheila and the twins? Sheila inherited from June, and I would have thought that would have gone to the twins had they survived. It seems Colin Caffell refrained, as their next of kin, from getting involved.
Once JB was convicted he forfeited his right to inherit. Effectively June and NB died intestate as those named in their wills as main benefactors were either deceased or had to forfeit. Therefore the laws of intestacy kick in based on next of kin. But given the age, wealth and tax position of some its clear they exercised their right to forego and pass to others via a deed of variation. Eg June's next of kin was her mother but what would be the point in an elderly woman bed ridden already wealthy in her own right and possibly liable to inheritance tax taking on more? It would then fall to PB but I understand she said she didn't want to gain financially from the murders so it seems a deed of variation was effected to override the normal course of events eg June's mother to June's niece and nephew.
With regard to NB his next of kin was his niece and nephew: Jackie Wood and Anthony Pargeter.
-
Once JB was convicted he forfeited his right to inherit. Effectively June and NB died intestate as those named in their wills as main benefactors were either deceased or had to forfeit. Therefore the laws of intestacy kick in based on next of kin. But given the age, wealth and tax position of some its clear they exercised their right to forego and pass to others via a deed of variation. Eg June's next of kin was her mother but what would be the point in an elderly woman bed ridden already wealthy in her own right and possibly liable to inheritance tax taking on more? It would then fall to PB but I understand she said she didn't want to gain financially from the murders so it seems a deed of variation was effected to override the normal course of events eg June's mother to June's niece and nephew.
With regard to NB his next of kin was his niece and nephew: Jackie Wood and Anthony Pargeter.
It’s quite simple, actually
After Jeremy Bamber killed June and all the family, June’s mother’s estate went to her next of kin (who she’d already named in her will) which was her other daughter, Pamela (June’s sister) and her other grandchildren, Ann and Peter. Sheila was dead, as were her great grandchildren the twins, and her grandson, Jeremy being the murderer had lost all legal right to any of the estate.
Nevill’s estate was the same: his wife, daughter and grandchildren had been murdered, and his son, being the murderer, automatically lost all right to any monies from Nevill’s estate.
-
It seems the more you have the more you want. Interestingly Basil Cock suggested that the presumption when the order of death can't be determined is that the younger survives the elder. That seems to have been applied to Nevill and June, but what about Sheila and the twins? Sheila inherited from June, and I would have thought that would have gone to the twins had they survived. It seems Colin Caffell refrained, as their next of kin, from getting involved.
Yes that is an interesting Point G. Colin would have been entitled to claim on behalf of his children's' inheritance- Perhaps he didn't want involved with family politics after losing his children money wouldn't have been foremost on his mind.
-
Yes that is an interesting Point G. Colin would have been entitled to claim on behalf of his children's' inheritance- Perhaps he didn't want involved with family politics after losing his children money wouldn't have been foremost on his mind.
Unlike Jeremy who immediately went to the accountant, lawyer and the bank to transfer everything into his name, and called Sotheby’s to come and value items in WHF, plus placed adverts in the local paper to flog June and Nevill’s cars — and all before the funerals!
And that’s without trying to sell the nude photos of Sheila to The Sun, clearing her flat out, searching both properties for cash, and getting his friend (possibly P/T boyfriend) Brett to flog his parent’s goods on his behalf.
The twisted evil murderer thought he was being clever when he said to one policeman before they raided WHF “Oh, Im a simple type. I’m not interested in money. A little two-bed house, a runaround car, and some cash in my pocket for a few drinks at the weekend is all I need”
He’s actually thick, IMO
-
Unlike Jeremy who immediately went to the accountant, lawyer and the bank to transfer everything into his name, and called Sotheby’s to come and value items in WHF, plus placed adverts in the local paper to flog June and Nevill’s cars — and all before the funerals!
And that’s without trying to sell the nude photos of Sheila to The Sun, clearing her flat out, searching both properties for cash, and getting his friend (possibly P/T boyfriend) Brett to flog his parent’s goods on his behalf.
The twisted evil murderer thought he was being clever when he said to one policeman before they raided WHF “Oh, Im a simple type. I’m not interested in money. A little two-bed house, a runaround car, and some cash in my pocket for a few drinks at the weekend is all I need”
He’s actually thick, IMO
Thee is no doubt he is a despicable character.
-
Unlike Jeremy who immediately went to the accountant, lawyer and the bank to transfer everything into his name, and called Sotheby’s to come and value items in WHF, plus placed adverts in the local paper to flog June and Nevill’s cars — and all before the funerals!
And that’s without trying to sell the nude photos of Sheila to The Sun, clearing her flat out, searching both properties for cash, and getting his friend (possibly P/T boyfriend) Brett to flog his parent’s goods on his behalf.
The twisted evil murderer thought he was being clever when he said to one policeman before they raided WHF “Oh, Im a simple type. I’m not interested in money. A little two-bed house, a runaround car, and some cash in my pocket for a few drinks at the weekend is all I need”
He’s actually thick, IMO
Not sure whether he's a murderer, but definitely not a nice bloke, IMO.
How did he manage to sell his parents' cars and get things put into his own name before probate was granted?
-
Not sure whether he's a murderer, but definitely not a nice bloke, IMO.
How did he manage to sell his parents' cars and get things put into his own name before probate was granted?
He didn't bother with a little thing like probate.
-
He didn't bother with a little thing like probate.
Seriously?
Wasn't Basil Cocks dealing with the "official" stuff? Surely, he wouldn't have let Jeremy get away with not going through the proper channels to obtain probate? Is there anything recorded anywhere about this?
-
Seriously?
Wasn't Basil Cocks dealing with the "official" stuff? Surely, he wouldn't have let Jeremy get away with not going through the proper channels to obtain probate? Is there anything recorded anywhere about this?
He could only record it, if he knew about it.
-
Seriously?
Wasn't Basil Cocks dealing with the "official" stuff? Surely, he wouldn't have let Jeremy get away with not going through the proper channels to obtain probate? Is there anything recorded anywhere about this?
Next of kin can get permission to access and run the bank accounts of the deceased before probate has gone through.
-
Next of kin can get permission to access and run the bank accounts of the deceased before probate has gone through.
Permission from whom?
I understood that when someone dies, their bank accounts are frozen until probate is obtained.
-
Permission from whom?
I understood that when someone dies, their bank accounts are frozen until probate is obtained.
No one freezes the antiques scattered around the house, someone needs to do an inventory of those. The family started to do that, list the items for the BC - that's why Jeremy didn't want them there.
-
Permission from whom?
I understood that when someone dies, their bank accounts are frozen until probate is obtained.
That’s true, but in certain cases banks will relax the rules. For example, before Jeremy was discovered to be the murderer he’d have been the executor and he could have (probably did) applied for a grant of representation prior to probate. That’s why he rushed off to a solicitor for advice.
Don’t forget, probate can take months, sometimes longer, and the executor needs to run the finances of the deceased. Indeed, Jeremy DID withdraw money from Nevill’s account, but that could have been because both Nevill and Jeremy co-owned one of Nevill’s businesses. He also needed money for the funerals, flowers, his new suit which cost £180 — that would be about £600 now?
And he also needed to access Nevill’s business account as he had to pay staff their wages: Nevill’s secretary made up the wages the next week, and Jeremy stole £100 cash out of Len’s wage packet. Len had to tell Barbara he was £100 short and she knew Jeremy must have stolen it as he’d asked for the wage packets and said he’d drop them off to staff. Even THEN he was scheming and stealing — and you don’t become a thief overnight. I bet he was always stealing cash out of June’s purse and Nevill’s wallet...
To think he even thought of stealing some of Len’s wages just days after killing everyone demonstrates what a twisted, sick, evil thing he is.
-
That’s true, but in certain cases banks will relax the rules. For example, before Jeremy was discovered to be the murderer he’d have been the executor and he could have (probably did) applied a grant of representation prior to probate. That’s why he rushed off to a solicitor for advice.
Don’t forget, probate can take months, sometimes longer, and the executor needs to run the finances of the deceased. Indeed, Jeremy DID withdraw money from Nevill’s account, but that could have been because both Nevill and Jeremy co-owned one Nevill’s businesses. He also needed money for the funerals, flowers, his new suit which cost £180 — that would be about £600 now?
And he also needed to access Nevill’s business account as he had to pay staff their wages: Nevill’s secretary made up the wages the next week, and Jeremy stole £100 cash out of Len’s wage packet. Len had to tell Barbara’s he was £100 short and she knew Jeremy must have stolen it as he’d asked for the wage packets and said he’d drop them off to staff. Even THEN he was scheming and stealing — and you don’t become a thief overnight. I bet he was always stealing cash out of June’s purse and Nevill’s wallet...
To think he even thought if stealing some of Len’s wages just days after killing everyone demonstrates what a twisted, sick, evil thing he is.
I can hear the “Just Because” Posse firing up their cylinders:
“Just because he threw stones at water fowl and beat animals doesn’t mean he’s a murderer”
“Just because he was a thief who though nothing of stealing from his nearest and dearest doesn’t mean he’s a murderer”
“Just because he tried to sell topless photos of his dead sister to the press in the wake of her death doesn’t mean he’s a murderer”
etc etc etc
-
I can hear the “Just Because” Posse firing up their cylinders:
“Just because he threw stones at water fowl and beat animals doesn’t mean he’s a murderer”
“Just because he was a thief who though nothing of stealing from his nearest and dearest doesn’t mean he’s a murderer”
“Just because he tried to sell topless photos of his dead sister to the press in the wake of her death doesn’t mean he’s a murderer”
etc etc etc
His vile attempt at trying to humiliate his own sister after HE’D killed her proves what a vile s..mbag he is.
He hasn’t been able to worm himself out of that one, though he did try and make out it was Colin who tried to sell them! He soon kept his trap shut when THAT lie was ridiculed.
It’s also telling that for someone who’s SO money orientated, greedy, grasping and litigious never tried to sue The Sun for publishing, what he claimed, was a lie. He tries to sue everyone, from the family to the police, prison...anyone he can. Yet not only did he not attempt to sue The Sun, but he scurried off and they never heard a peep from him again.
He’s absolutely putrid.
-
That’s true, but in certain cases banks will relax the rules. For example, before Jeremy was discovered to be the murderer he’d have been the executor and he could have (probably did) applied for a grant of representation prior to probate. That’s why he rushed off to a solicitor for advice.
Don’t forget, probate can take months, sometimes longer, and the executor needs to run the finances of the deceased. Indeed, Jeremy DID withdraw money from Nevill’s account, but that could have been because both Nevill and Jeremy co-owned one of Nevill’s businesses. He also needed money for the funerals, flowers, his new suit which cost £180 — that would be about £600 now?
And he also needed to access Nevill’s business account as he had to pay staff their wages: Nevill’s secretary made up the wages the next week, and Jeremy stole £100 cash out of Len’s wage packet. Len had to tell Barbara he was £100 short and she knew Jeremy must have stolen it as he’d asked for the wage packets and said he’d drop them off to staff. Even THEN he was scheming and stealing — and you don’t become a thief overnight. I bet he was always stealing cash out of June’s purse and Nevill’s wallet...
To think he even thought of stealing some of Len’s wages just days after killing everyone demonstrates what a twisted, sick, evil thing he is.
Basil Cock was the executor.
He did steal some of Len's wages.
-
Bamber that is... not Basil. 8((()*/
-
Bamber that is... not Basil. 8((()*/
Yes @)(++(*
-
Basil Cock was the executor.
He did steal some of Len's wages.
Thank you, Caroline
I should have realised that 8((()*/