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: starryian on June 02, 2012, 07:56:34 AM
-
As we all know, over the years a certain supporter and ex-felon named Mike Tesko has submitted some pretty obscure ideas on how he believes Jeremy Bamber is innocence and/or has been framed for the murders of his entire family in August of 1985.
We will start with the most basic and probably the most ludicrous theory conjured up by Tesko in order to add weight to the notion that it was Sheila Caffell and not Jeremy Bamber who committed the gruesome murders on the night in question - that the Tactical Firearms Team (TFT) shot the deranged Sheila. Soon after they entered the farmhouse and upon discovering Sheila's presence in the kitchen chased the mortally wounded woman up to her parents bedroom, whereupon a member of the team calmly shot her under the chin and then staged her body to make it look like suicide.
This clearly ridiculous, and defamatory assertion can be debunked right here and right now.
Having researched this aspect of the case thoroughly and reading all the statements given by police officers that were present at the scene at all times, I noticed that not a single policeman ever mentions in their sworn statement that they smelt or detected any odour of gunpowder whatsoever. Absolutely impossible if a high powered weapon had just been discharged as Tesko claims. Not a single police officer ever mentions having heard a gunshot either. Now unless we have a TFT that were all congenital liars that can miraculously change the laws of physics and what is known about human anatomy coupled with the fact that all the police present must have been suffering from complete deafness, Tesko's theory has one or two gaping flaws in it. 8-)(--)
The truth is, is that Sheila had been dead in her parents bedroom for hours. There is absolutely no evidence to contradict this.
As regards to the gunpowder (cordite) in the air; the air would undoubtedly been thick with it in that locked, stale house on a humid August morning. Moreover, the lunacy of Tesko's assertion that Sheila had somehow managed to 'run up the stairs' despite the fact that she was mortally wounded and not a trace of blood was found on her nightdress to indicate she was ever in a standing postion nor was any of her blood ever found in the kitchen or in the hall or on the stairs after suffering such a injury is a moot point.
Please feel free to add other exciting episodes from Tesko's Twilight Zone to the ever-growing list put forward by him and Bamber apologists.
-
Mike also claims that Neville fathered the twins and that Sheila barked like a dog to confuse the police when they were outside WHF. I kid you not Ian.
At one point June had also fired the gun, according to Mike. There are others but far too many to list here for the moment.
welcome to the forum by the way ?{)(**
-
Thank you Andrea,
It doesnt suprise me. I have heard of some really wacky suggestions put forward by Tesko and the Bamberettes.
The more nuttier they get, the more you sense his desparation in fighting a very lost cause. I think it dawned on Tesko that Bamber was actually guilty probably some time ago, I think these screwball theories are, in some way, a desparate effort to save face. It is not every morning that one wakes up to discover that you are literally the last turkey in the shop.
8-)(--)
-
He's now changed tack and claims that the shootings were done by June and Sheila. Even though Bamber himself still stands by the story that it was Sheila on her own. And if Mike after all these years suddenly accepts that the relative lack of blood on Sheila leads one to doubt she committed all of the murders, then what credibility could he possibly have left? And if he has proof of itemised bills proving what phone calls were made from WHF and photos proving that Sheila was originally found somewhere different with only one gunshot wound then why sit on crucial evidence that could free his hero? The only conclusion we are left with is that he clearly has no evidence, but he loves the drama of it and the fact that people are hanging on his every word. He's a "Walter Mitty" alright.
-
Preece is in BIG trouble for her posts, keeping the mods on their toes, and for blowing the whistle on Saint Keira for supplying her with people's personal details.
-
More threats Preece? Aren't you in enough trouble, dropping your mate Keira in it? And for what you did to Weety?
-
He's now changed tack and claims that the shootings were done by June and Sheila. Even though Bamber himself still stands by the story that it was Sheila on her own. And if Mike after all these years suddenly accepts that the relative lack of blood on Sheila leads one to doubt she committed all of the murders, then what credibility could he possibly have left? And if he has proof of itemised bills proving what phone calls were made from WHF and photos proving that Sheila was originally found somewhere different with only one gunshot wound then why sit on crucial evidence that could free his hero? The only conclusion we are left with is that he clearly has no evidence, but he loves the drama of it and the fact that people are hanging on his every word. He's a "Walter Mitty" alright.
Yes good point Goatboy, and welcome. Tesko I believe is a legend in his own bedtime. He must go to bed early especially to dream up such utter nonsense. I think it is very telling that Tesko brags about the sheer numbers of documents relating to the case that are in his possession - literally in the thousands - yet this is the best he can come up with, even with his fertile imagination. It also highlights the very clear point that Bamber's efforts to squirm out of the punishment he so richly deserves are now completely and entirely exhausted.
Thanks again Goatboy 8@??)(
-
Preece's good friend Poppy Miller calls her "unbalanced and vicious!"
As Mingham would say "You go girl!"
-
Preece's good friend Poppy Miller calls her "unbalanced and vicious!"
As Mingham would say "You go girl!"
It's time that the Jeremy Bamber forum stopped being the place for a blatantly mentally unstable Jackie Preece to air her personal grievances. It just underlines Bamber's guilt, it is so telling that his most vocal supporter is an elderly, lonely spinster whose only contact with the outside world is when she goes to her local garage for bread. She makes a mockery of both Bamber and his forum. No doubt she will read these comments and presume that they are because she is being successful in her persecutions. The rest of the world see her for what she is. And just how much damage has she caused to Simon McKay and Neil Bellis?
-
Belton is fantasisng about being made an admin, he cant wait to don the jack boots and start the goose step. The delete button will be worn out, that guy is such a prick. He must think hes really important!
As for Preece, you did a bang job on keira didnt you Preece? So, whos the mole over there Jackie, ya know the one that let slip NGB's name, or shall we guess? Keira, tyler or jack, could be all 3, but its one of them thats for SURE.
Whos the next one we can expose? hmmmmmm, i know, this will be fun!!! Already been given a name to start with and its confirmed.
more later.
-
Belton is fantasisng about being made an admin, he cant wait to don the jack boots and start the goose step. The delete button will be worn out, that guy is such a prick. He must think hes really important!
As for Preece, you did a bang job on keira didnt you Preece? So, whos the mole over there Jackie, ya know the one that let slip NGB's name, or shall we guess? Keira, tyler or jack, could be all 3, but its one of them thats for SURE.
Whos the next one we can expose? hmmmmmm, i know, this will be fun!!! Already been given a name to start with and its confirmed.
more later.
Jackie confirmed to me last night at 7.22 that it was keira
-
He's now changed tack and claims that the shootings were done by June and Sheila. Even though Bamber himself still stands by the story that it was Sheila on her own. And if Mike after all these years suddenly accepts that the relative lack of blood on Sheila leads one to doubt she committed all of the murders, then what credibility could he possibly have left? And if he has proof of itemised bills proving what phone calls were made from WHF and photos proving that Sheila was originally found somewhere different with only one gunshot wound then why sit on crucial evidence that could free his hero? The only conclusion we are left with is that he clearly has no evidence, but he loves the drama of it and the fact that people are hanging on his every word. He's a "Walter Mitty" alright.
Yes good point Goatboy, and welcome. Tesko I believe is a legend in his own bedtime. He must go to bed early especially to dream up such utter nonsense. I think it is very telling that Tesko brags about the sheer numbers of documents relating to the case that are in his possession - literally in the thousands - yet this is the best he can come up with, even with his fertile imagination. It also highlights the very clear point that Bamber's efforts to squirm out of the punishment he so richly deserves are now completely and entirely exhausted.
Thanks again Goatboy 8@??)(
You're welcome. Brilliant post on Hanratty and psycopaths fooling people on the other thread by the way, good to have you on board.
-
FAo Essexboy.
Are you a member of the other forum? How did jackie confirm this? 8(0(*
-
Edited again Preece?
Grow up you jealous bitch.
-
Edited again Preece?
Grow up you jealous bitch.
She's like a 12 year old, taking the piss out of Tim's wife. And Chocho Keira apologises for having to edit the comment. Disgusting. Especially since Preece told everyone Keira supplied her with everyone's personal details.
-
FAo Essexboy.
Are you a member of the other forum? How did jackie confirm this? 8(0(*
Hey Andrea ?>)()<
Yep, I've been a member over there for a few weeks. It's rubbish. I asked Jackie about Keira. She told me. She couldn't care less.
-
Was it Keira who leaked my childrens names, ages and address?
-
Was it Keira who leaked my childrens names, ages and address?
Jackie already knew you Andrea.
-
But its Keira thats done the research on shona and others?
-
But its Keira thats done the research on shona and others?
8(0(*
-
But its Keira thats done the research on shona and others?
8(0(*
Why? What did Pugsy ever do to Keira?
-
I've just seen his posts on the Maddie thread. My God, he's turned into Derek Acorah....
-
But its Keira thats done the research on shona and others?
She's sent me numerous PM's of her research on Vidvic and Hartley - but never talked about any of the girls here with me, had no reason to though.
-
While I commend everyone's stance here on the Bamber case can we please not let it degenerate into childish name-calling and petty tit-for-tat nonsense directed towards people from the opposite forum. It really is getting out of hand. It will serve absolutely no purpose other than to make them feel more important than they actually are. I know first hand that these supporters are a rag-tag collection of social misfits, bored unemployed layabouts and middle-aged, female sycophants, but I feel it gives them the attention they so crave - good or bad.
These people are desparately seeking attention or attempting to boost their importance far beyond their abilities. They are complete cyber non-entities. Most would not even recognise them if they bumped into them on the street. If not for the Bamber case they would have almost certainly hitched their star to another equally unworthy and entirely lost cause such as trying to prove Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe is innocent. Please, dont waste you time on such people. 8(0(*
-
I understand what you're saying Ian, but some members here have had phone calls, their kids have also been insulted by a certain member of the other forum. I personally, had my details, personal details, including the names and ages of my children not to mention our address sent in an email to people on the other forum.
So, yes, we get a bit tetchy! Sat what they like about me its when the kids are brought into it that it goes too far.
Back to the case, I saw your explanation for the blood on Sheilas arm, how do you think the blood on her lower arm got there?
-
I understand what you're saying Ian, but some members here have had phone calls, their kids have also been insulted by a certain member of the other forum. I personally, had my details, personal details, including the names and ages of my children not to mention our address sent in an email to people on the other forum.
So, yes, we get a bit tetchy! Sat what they like about me its when the kids are brought into it that it goes too far.
Back to the case, I saw your explanation for the blood on Sheilas arm, how do you think the blood on her lower arm got there?
I understand Andrea. As an ICT technician this is blatant cyber bullying by those people and it is a criminal offense to post details that are clearly designed to cause harm or distress. It is also a direct contravention of the Data Protection Act 1998. The law courts take a dim view of this. I therefore suggest that you keep the evidence and submit it to your local police station.
Andrea I very much understand your anger. I would also be livid if they did this to me. This person/s is obviously mentally unstable with some serious issues relating to vidictivness and twisted notions of revenge. They have immersed themselves into someone else's life as so often happens with these people, it is the only way they can feel important.
I think the best way to deal with these people is to ignore them, otherwise it just becomes a silly battle of words between two sides, point scoring and endless accusations and recriminations going back and forth with no foreseeable conclusion. Virtually half on this entire thread is taken up with it. Moreover, it very well maybe a strategy of theirs in order to distract us away from mature conversation and in-depth analysis concerning the case. It is noticable and perhaps maybe no accident that when Bamber makes yet another effort to squirm out of his just punishment that the other forum starts mud-slinging.
Andrea keep the evidence and be sure to hand any such bile over to the police and let them deal with it. It is time that they were stopped dead in their tracks. They know that the Bamber case is now history. They are sniffing around like homeless dogs looking for a cause, but they still have this forum to keep them occupied and in a pack mentality way, united.
On another theme Andrea, it is a good point that you highlight. How did Sheila get marks on her lower arm? There has been speculation about this. I favour the notion that when Bamber shot Sheila the first time she raised her right hand to the wound - as anyone would. It was painful and losing consciousness she immediately put her hand to the site of the wound. Blood spurted from the fresh wound onto her lower arm, wrist and fingers.
-
Excellent post Ian, thanks for that. 8((()*/
Do you think it possible that Bamber could have had an accomplice?
-
Well said Andrea. I wonder how these cyber bullies will feel when the tables are turned. When their nearest and dearest read all about their exploits in the national media ! I personally have been involved with miscarriages since 2004 and cant believe the hate campaigns on here.
-
How would you like the details of your children sent out in emails Rat Catcher? or people saying nasty things about them on a forum, like has happened to a members daughter on here?
Try looking at the people/person responsible for that.
-
How would you like the details of your children sent out in emails Rat Catcher? or people saying nasty things about them on a forum, like has happened to a members daughter on here?
Try looking at the people/person responsible for that.
jackie Preece started it all when she commenced posting maliciously edited images all over the internet while mike and grahame sat back and allowed it. They condoned everything she got up to as long as they weren't effected but now that the tables are turning and more of them are being unmasked they are beginning to squirm like the slimy worms they are. Who will be next? Roach or Keira???
-
I know for a fact who leaked NGB's details. But it wasn't leaked to Jackie. Choc leaked them to Grahame and then of course Grahame told Jackie. So don't think that Choc meant for Jackie to find out but in the end she did.
-
I suggest this site be renamed "The Vipers Pit". It has nothing to do with miscarriages of justice.
Wotcher Mr Rochford! @)(++(*
-
The membership of this site has dwindled. Reason being those who have a real interest in this topic dont want to be associated with it. That be a fact.
Whatevs! What do you think of old Preecey writing to herself about a fun day that didn't happen? Hee hee hee!
-
The membership of this site has dwindled. Reason being those who have a real interest in this topic dont want to be associated with it. That be a fact.
Whatevs! What do you think of old Preecey writing to herself about a fun day that didn't happen? Hee hee hee!
bless her, what a shame. fancy having to invent your life. then ask yourself questions so it looks like you've got a boyfriend! you couldn't make it up!
-
Excellent post Ian, thanks for that. 8((()*/
Do you think it possible that Bamber could have had an accomplice?
To be honest with you Andrea I do not think so. Like all narcissistic psychopaths Bamber probably congratulated himself on his own abilities on carrying out this crime. I strongly suspect that he revelled in his own ingenuity. The closest we are ever going to get to an accomplice is Julie Mugford. I realise that this is not a popular idea, but I have to state it. I believe that Mugford was an accessory before the fact. She had knowledge of Bambers intentions some 8 months before the actual killings.
She has openly stated that he used her as a 'sounding board' for ideas on killing his family. On one such occasion she stated that Bamber had asked her to obtain some powerful tranquilisers from her own doctor so that he could drug his family and burn down the house with them inside it. Alarm bells should have started ringing here! I know she was probably blindly in love with this man and was somewhat taken by surprise that he has actually gone through with his threats, but when you analyse the whole thing, Mugford had the power to have prevented this appalling massacre from ever happening simply by picking up the phone. I believe that this formed a great part of her guilt later when she finally came forward and told her story to the police. She could may well have prevented it. She defends herself from this notion that she claims 'it was just idle talk' I beg to differ. A person who constantly and continually talks about murdering his family and then tries out different ideas and methods to accomplish that should have set the alarm bells ringing, and ringing loudly. I am not in any way suggesting Mugfords complicity in the actual murders themselves but I am suggesting that she had prior knowledge and this was overlooked in order to obtain a conviction. This is also not to say that her evidence was in any way faulty, untruthful or misleading. I think she told the truth in court. I believe that she was very lucky that she was not charged with being an accessory before the fact. We must take it into consideration and remember that before we heap gushing praise on this lady.
-
The membership of this site has dwindled. Reason being those who have a real interest in this topic dont want to be associated with it. That be a fact.
It is nice of you to pop in Jackie or should that be Susan? Actually the membership has doubled and so have the number of twitter responses, most of which are supportive. We don't need trolls to hide behind.
It was nice of you to breach a confidence re ngb1066. We are quite sure Keira won't go down that road again. ?>)()<
-
For all you amateur sleuths out there, just take a while to read this statement put on the Jeremy Bamber Website in regards to Bambers psychopathy. You may have noticed as I did with some alarm, that a person needs to be tested 27 times by 27 psychologists to 'prove' that he was, in fact, not a psychopath.
However, no-one to my knowledge has ever seen these reports nor verified their accuracy or validity. So we only have Bamber's word for this. Further, it seem to run in direct disagreement to the report of a senior, eminent psychologist called actually in by the defense, in an attempt to show that Bamber was, in fact a man with a perfectly normal personality, with no significant psychopathic traits, at Bamber's original trial in 1986. However, it backfired spectacularly when on lengthy examination the psychologist announced to a stunned defense team that Bamber WAS in fact a psychopath. He went further by stating.........'if ever there was a psychopath, Jeremy Bamber is it'. Please read the statement and draw your own conclusions.
Jeremy says:
“As a high profile case, a category ‘A’ prisoner, and a whole life tariff prisoner I have undergone a number of psychological assessments by twenty seven different psychologists. Each carried out numerous tests on me and some interviewed me for twenty hours or more over many weeks.
The most recent assessment of me was carried out last in 2009 by Professor Vincent Egan a Chartered Clinical psychologist and senior lecturer in forensic psychology at Leicester University. He was provided with my complete psychological file and all my medical records. He also interviewed me, and I completed various psychological tests before he wrote his report on me.
His conclusion is that I am not a psychopath. During the last quarter of a century and twenty seven different psychologists, not a single one of these experts has concluded that I show any traits consistent with psychopathy.
On the ‘Hare’ psychopathy test it was concluded that 95% of the population show more psychopathic traits than I do. I have also had 3 P.C.L.R tests that are designed specifically to reveal psychopathy and all 3 concluded the same, I am not a psychopath. Nor do I have any personality disorder.
If you, like I did almost fall off the chair laughing at Bamber's stunning accusation that ‘Hare’ psychopathy test it was concluded that 95% of the population show more psychopathic traits than I do. @)(++(*
We are all doomed.................doomed I tell you! 8)><(
-
I have just been having a quick flip through the latest weird and wonderful theorising on Mr Teskowski's forum. Sadly, he is awaiting a review scan because of a brain tumour and seems to be describing vaious bizarre illusions.
It is possible that these may be minor epileptic attacks and he may be at risk of a major one which could lead to loss of control if he was driving. So it is very alarming indeed to hear that he is driving around the country meeting his mysterious informants etc. He should stop driving and notify the Medical Branch at DVLA. Otherwise he could be breaking the law and his insurance is likely to be invalid. I am not keen to contact him personally but perhaps one of his adherents who I guess also follow this forum could advise him of this in his own and other people's interests.
-
A good point Dillon,
As much as Mike and this forum disagree I think it fitting that we all wish Mike a speedy and complete recovery.
I am saddened by the news that Mike is unwell. He is, if anything, a ardent fight for what he believes in and as bizarre as his theories appear to be, he is consistent and determined. I would have him fight in my corner any day.
Speedy recovery Mike and best wishes. 8((()*/
-
I'll second that, Ian.
I just wish he would stop letting himself down with some of his theories. They cant be doing any good?
-
A good point Dillon,
As much as Mike and this forum disagree I think it fitting that we all wish Mike a speedy and complete recovery.
I am saddened by the news that Mike is unwell. He is, if anything, a ardent fight for what he believes in and as bizarre as his theories appear to be, he is consistent and determined. I would have him fight in my corner any day.
Speedy recovery Mike and best wishes. 8((()*/
I agree completely. I really hope he's OK and that the news from his scan is good. I do wonder if some of the visual phenomena he's experiencing might be related to stress from worrying about his condition. Either way, I wish him well.
-
I thoroughly agree with your sentiments that we should all wish Mike well. It is a pretty horrible thing to be awaiting the results of a scan for a brain tumour and I sincerely hope that this does not show progression. Whilst Mike's theories are completely off the wall, I agree that he he has been an extraordinarily determined and loyal supporter of Mr Bamber.
-
susan ingham states that Bamber's campaign team are "brain washing" him.
Now susan. You admit yourself that you know very little about all this. Why would you share Jackie Preece's opinion on the campaign team? Hmmm?
-
susan ingham states that Bamber's campaign team are "brain washing" him.
Now susan. You admit yourself that you know very little about all this. Why would you share Jackie Preece's opinion on the campaign team? Hmmm?
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* 8@??)(
She's kept it up for longer than we expected! She must be knackered, all that googling Yorkshire!
-
susan ingham states that Bamber's campaign team are "brain washing" him.
Now susan. You admit yourself that you know very little about all this. Why would you share Jackie Preece's opinion on the campaign team? Hmmm?
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* 8@??)(
She's kept it up for longer than we expected! She must be knackered, all that googling Yorkshire!
Not to mention sucking up to weety! She posted up her personal details a couple of weeks ago.
-
Debunking the main arguments of Bambers' supporters - that the police were in 'conversation' with someone inside the house and Sheila was 'spotted by police in the kitchen'
The Tactical Firearms Group arrived close to 05:00, and, giving the farm house itself a wide berth, everyone repositioned themselves inside a barn at the rear, which allowed them to scan the back of the property and prepare their next move. With the sun due to rise in barely half an hour, the logical thing for the armed response team to do was to bide their time.
Shortly before 05.25, a challenge was issued using a loudhailer to anyone inside the property.
The wireless operator pre-empted events and recorded “Firearms team are in conversation with a person inside the farm”. However, the call to persons inside met only with silence. The wireless operator updated the log at 05.29 – “From CA7 – Challenge to persons inside house met with no response.
Additional firearms officers arrived at 06.45 and were greeted by Sergeant Bews. Fresh on the scene, PC Woodcock from the Firearms Training Department was told by his colleagues that a siege was underway and a young woman with mental health issues was presumed either to have killed everyone or to be holding them hostage. Whatever had taken place, there had been no response from anyone in the farm at any time, and because of this the group were preparing to force entry into the property.
Inspector Montgomery and Police Sergeant Adams put together the raid team, consisting of PCs Collins, Delgado, Woodcock, Hall, Alexander-Smart and acting Sergeant Manners. The team, working from a plan of the building sketched by Jeremy, divided the property into “White”, “Green” and “Black” zones. Woodcock was nominated to break down the rear door using a sledgehammer. Collins and Delgado lined up on one side of the door. To their right was the kitchen window. Collins peered inside and reported seeing the body of a woman.
The door gave way when Woodcock pounded it several times with the sledgehammer. As the armed officer led the others into the property, he turned into the kitchen and saw the same person witnessed by Collins, obviously dead. In fact it was not a woman but 61-year old Nevill Bamber. A chair was on its side to the left of an Aga oven, and Nevill’s corpse was sat awkwardly on one edge of the backrest. He was slumped forward with arms at his side and his head fully inside a silver-topped bucket – in fact a coal scuttle. Blood had run thickly down the sides of this hod. The body was facing the window Collins had looked through, and all that was visible of Nevill’s head was a dishevelled shock of grey hair. This was why Collins had mistaken farmer Bamber for an old woman.
With Collins having stated over his police radio that he’d seen a woman in the kitchen, and Woodcock now reporting the body of a man, the wireless operator made the following entry at 07.37:
“one dead male and one dead female in kitchen”.
The error was insignificant in itself, but when Bamber obtained a copy of the log in 2005, he quickly sought out anything that could be represented as an inconsistency and manipulated to support his claim that he’d been framed for the crime.
Anomaly explained and a psychopaths lies exposed. 8((()*/
-
Ian, I may have deleted your last post for which I do apologise. Spammer Craigie was being naughty at the time and I selected the wrong post to remove.
(http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/c023.gif)
-
Theyre saying on the other forum that sheila suffered tardive dyskinesia, a side effect of anti psychotics.
I dont recall seeing that documented anywhere, are they just making things up again?
-
Theyre saying on the other forum that sheila suffered tardive dyskinesia, a side effect of anti psychotics.
I dont recall seeing that documented anywhere, are they just making things up again?
They know that the only way Bamber will ever be cleared is to desecrate Sheila's memory. Implicating Sheila is his only hope now.
Tardive dyskinesia...Sheila had no such disorder Andrea.
-
Debunking the main arguments of Bambers' supporters - that the police were in 'conversation' with someone inside the house and Sheila was 'spotted by police in the kitchen'
The Tactical Firearms Group arrived close to 05:00, and, giving the farm house itself a wide berth, everyone repositioned themselves inside a barn at the rear, which allowed them to scan the back of the property and prepare their next move. With the sun due to rise in barely half an hour, the logical thing for the armed response team to do was to bide their time.
Shortly before 05.25, a challenge was issued using a loudhailer to anyone inside the property.
The wireless operator pre-empted events and recorded “Firearms team are in conversation with a person inside the farm”. However, the call to persons inside met only with silence. The wireless operator updated the log at 05.29 – “From CA7 – Challenge to persons inside house met with no response.
Additional firearms officers arrived at 06.45 and were greeted by Sergeant Bews. Fresh on the scene, PC Woodcock from the Firearms Training Department was told by his colleagues that a siege was underway and a young woman with mental health issues was presumed either to have killed everyone or to be holding them hostage. Whatever had taken place, there had been no response from anyone in the farm at any time, and because of this the group were preparing to force entry into the property.
Inspector Montgomery and Police Sergeant Adams put together the raid team, consisting of PCs Collins, Delgado, Woodcock, Hall, Alexander-Smart and acting Sergeant Manners. The team, working from a plan of the building sketched by Jeremy, divided the property into “White”, “Green” and “Black” zones. Woodcock was nominated to break down the rear door using a sledgehammer. Collins and Delgado lined up on one side of the door. To their right was the kitchen window. Collins peered inside and reported seeing the body of a woman.
The door gave way when Woodcock pounded it several times with the sledgehammer. As the armed officer led the others into the property, he turned into the kitchen and saw the same person witnessed by Collins, obviously dead. In fact it was not a woman but 61-year old Nevill Bamber. A chair was on its side to the left of an Aga oven, and Nevill’s corpse was sat awkwardly on one edge of the backrest. He was slumped forward with arms at his side and his head fully inside a silver-topped bucket – in fact a coal scuttle. Blood had run thickly down the sides of this hod. The body was facing the window Collins had looked through, and all that was visible of Nevill’s head was a dishevelled shock of grey hair. This was why Collins had mistaken farmer Bamber for an old woman.
With Collins having stated over his police radio that he’d seen a woman in the kitchen, and Woodcock now reporting the body of a man, the wireless operator made the following entry at 07.37:
“one dead male and one dead female in kitchen”.
The error was insignificant in itself, but when Bamber obtained a copy of the log in 2005, he quickly sought out anything that could be represented as an inconsistency and manipulated to support his claim that he’d been framed for the crime.
Anomaly explained and a psychopaths lies exposed. 8((()*/
Excellent post Ian...well worth reposting!
I think we will give that post a tweet all of its own tomorrow. 8@??)(
-
They describe on the otber forum as gurning! Tardive dyskinesia isnt like gurning!
Its basically involuntary muscle spasms due to taking large amounts of anti psychotics over a long period of time. Sheila was given procyclidine to combat the effects of haloperidol, but i suspect that would have counteracted the drowsiness. There is no cure for tardive dyskinesia.
Also, where did this cuckoo thing come from? That isnt documented either!
-
Ian, I may have deleted your last post for which I do apologise. Spammer Craigie was being naughty at the time and I selected the wrong post to remove.
(http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/c023.gif)
No problem John. Reposted it. It is nice to have a vigilant moderator there are a lot of crazies out there 8@??)(
-
They describe on the otber forum as gurning! Tardive dyskinesia isnt like gurning!
Its basically involuntary muscle spasms due to taking large amounts of anti psychotics over a long period of time. Sheila was given procyclidine to combat the effects of haloperidol, but i suspect that would have counteracted the drowsiness. There is no cure for tardive dyskinesia.
Also, where did this cuckoo thing come from? That isnt documented either!
Andrea, I found this. I hope this explains this disorder.
Regardless of the variety of the disease, tardive dyskinesia is characterized by sudden, uncontrollable movements of voluntary muscle groups. Signs of classic tardive dyskinesia normally consist of coordinated, constant movements of the mouth, tongue, jaw and cheeks. The patient may move their jaw laterally or up and down, as if chewing. The tongue may suddenly protrude or move about in a squirming, twisting manner. Repeated lip smacking and puffing of the cheeks may also be present. Severity of the condition is indicated by the frequency of these movements or spasms. In extreme cases, the tongue may move well over 60 times a minute.
In some cases, tardive dyskinesia patients may experience movement in the limbs and digits. Interestingly, these involuntary movements are more pronounced when the patient attempts to relax. Any emotional arousal or agitation tends to cause these movements to decrease. Symptoms may disappear completely when the patient is asleep.
Andrea I fail to see the link between this disorder and the murders? Are they trying to suggest that these involuntary muscle spasms could have been reponsible or partly reponsible for Sheila's supposed rampage?
I think the blue forum are absolutely dredging the bottom of the barrel. Tesko must be really desparate. I have read many documents pertaining to Sheila and her condition and not once was this disorder ever mentioned.
-
"Police were in conversation with someone inside the farm" - debunked.
Shortly before 05.25, a challenge was issued using a loudhailer to anyone inside the property.
The wireless operator pre-empted events and recorded “Firearms team are in conversation with a person inside the farm”. However, the call to persons inside met only with silence. The wireless operator updated the log at 05.29 – “From CA7 – Challenge to persons inside house met with no response”
For all Bamber supporters please note the last four words 'met with no response' Something that is noticably absent from all your windy rhetoric and fanciful theories on this particular topic. 8-)(--)
-
Ian, I look forward to reading more of your excellent posts.
-
Im not sure Ian, it appears thats what they're trying to say. But to say tardive dyskinesia is like gurning is laughable. You need to be toothless to be a good gurner!!
Its is scraping the bottom of the barrell i agree. What will they think of next?
Check your inbox ian. ?{)(**
-
Ian, I look forward to reading more of your excellent posts.
Hi Sika, what are your views on the case?
-
Ian, I look forward to reading more of your excellent posts.
Hi Sika, what are your views on the case?
Hello Andrea, I find it very difficult to understand how anyone could believe in Jeremy. I have read through all the arguments raised by his supporters and can find absolutely nothing that points to his innocence.
Still, after 27 years of Working on his defence, Bamber is still unable to offer up a plausible explanation to demonstrate his innocence.
Despite Bamber clouding some of the issues in this case (silencer, phone calls etc), the hard facts are still just that. HARD FACTS!
On the 'blue forum' people seem to have disregarded common sense, when I suggested this to them I was labelled as a moron and a troll. I closed my account a while ago but do have a look quite regularly, just for a cheap laugh, certainly not for informed debate. I used to ask specific questions like, why was Shelia unmarked? If she did shower, where are the clothes she wore at the time of the murders? Nobody seemed willing to discuss such matters.
Bamber must be devastated that that forum exists. Tesko is nothing more than a bitter and twisted, self serving, attention seeker.
Well, as far as I can make out, the CCRC have bent over backwards to appease Bamber and his team. He has been afforded the privilege of having his case reviewed over and over again. He is guilty, end of!
-
Good post Sika.
Why didnt jeremy give the money back when he robbed the office at the cravan park? if he wanted to highlight a problem with security then he sould have gave the money back, but he didnt he kept it. the blue forum say that this doesnt make him a murderer, true, but it does show that he wasnt happy with his lot and wanted more, hence the murders.
Also, if sheila was afraid her children were to be taken away, sheila would have killed her children then herself at her own house in morshead mansions, she wouldnt have done it at WHF.
There is no evidence that sheila was seen through the window by the police at WHF, the blood would have ran down her nightie had she got up and ran upstairs. She was shot both times where she was photographed imo.
There would have been other peoples blood found on her also, the crime scene was very bloody and the only blood on her was her own.
His behaviour afte the murders? yes we all respond to grief differently, but had my family been murdered in a most brutal way, including 2 kids, i wouldnt have been laughing and joking and making sexual remarks to my partner on the day of the funerals. Bamber put himself and his sister in the frame beacuse of the alledged phone call from neville. It wasnt sheila, so who are we keft with?
Bamber is looking for any slight anomalie in the paper work to use as proof of his innocence, and yes the CCRC have bent over backwards giving him extensions etc. He has all the time in the world to keep pestering the CCRC to refer his case, hes nothing else to do has he.
-
If Tesko did possess 'that' photograph, he would know for sure that Jeremy couldn't have committed the murders. So why, when armed with this vital piece of evidence does Tesko continue to post all these other wild theories? Show everyone the photo and it's all over!
The man is an absolute joke. Why does anyone waste their time conversing with this prat? His latest thread invites questions from members, to which he will reply yes or no. Now, if that's not a desperate appeal for attention, I don't know what is!
-
We all react to grief in different ways no doubt. However, no remotely sane person would react to the murder of all his family in cold blood ( including two little boys) in the way that Bamber did. The housekeeper said that he was wandering around the farmhouse days after the murder as if nothing had happened. He then went off on holiday and was seen drinking and splashing cash. A genuinely grieving relative simply wouldnt react that way - the crimes were too serious and shocking. His post-murder behaviour was his downfall and the main reason why the Court of Appeal (if the case ever gets there again which I doubt) will never free him. They deal with miscarriages cases all the time and are extremelly experienced. I am sure they will have a gut feling about this one as the previous Court of Appeal did ten years ago.
-
They describe on the otber forum as gurning! Tardive dyskinesia isnt like gurning!
Its basically involuntary muscle spasms due to taking large amounts of anti psychotics over a long period of time. Sheila was given procyclidine to combat the effects of haloperidol, but i suspect that would have counteracted the drowsiness. There is no cure for tardive dyskinesia.
Also, where did this cuckoo thing come from? That isnt documented either!
Andrea, I found this. I hope this explains this disorder.
Regardless of the variety of the disease, tardive dyskinesia is characterized by sudden, uncontrollable movements of voluntary muscle groups. Signs of classic tardive dyskinesia normally consist of coordinated, constant movements of the mouth, tongue, jaw and cheeks. The patient may move their jaw laterally or up and down, as if chewing. The tongue may suddenly protrude or move about in a squirming, twisting manner. Repeated lip smacking and puffing of the cheeks may also be present. Severity of the condition is indicated by the frequency of these movements or spasms. In extreme cases, the tongue may move well over 60 times a minute.
In some cases, tardive dyskinesia patients may experience movement in the limbs and digits. Interestingly, these involuntary movements are more pronounced when the patient attempts to relax. Any emotional arousal or agitation tends to cause these movements to decrease. Symptoms may disappear completely when the patient is asleep.
Andrea I fail to see the link between this disorder and the murders? Are they trying to suggest that these involuntary muscle spasms could have been reponsible or partly reponsible for Sheila's supposed rampage?
I think the blue forum are absolutely dredging the bottom of the barrel. Tesko must be really desparate. I have read many documents pertaining to Sheila and her condition and not once was this disorder ever mentioned.
I believe this condition is more likely to happen in older people than in a young woman like Sheila. Ian, is correct, Tesko and his cronies are dredging the bottom of the sea for the scraps that are left in this sorry story.
Discrediting Sheila is all that is left to them.
Does anyone know if the Laws that currently pertain to libel extend to the dead in some form or manner?
-
"Police were in conversation with someone inside the farm" - debunked.
Shortly before 05.25, a challenge was issued using a loudhailer to anyone inside the property.
The wireless operator pre-empted events and recorded “Firearms team are in conversation with a person inside the farm”. However, the call to persons inside met only with silence. The wireless operator updated the log at 05.29 – “From CA7 – Challenge to persons inside house met with no response”
For all Bamber supporters please note the last four words 'met with no response' Something that is noticably absent from all your windy rhetoric and fanciful theories on this particular topic. 8-)(--)
it is all fanciful wishful thinking but then again why are we surprised? 8**8:/:
-
Ian, I look forward to reading more of your excellent posts.
Hi Sika, what are your views on the case?
Hello Andrea, I find it very difficult to understand how anyone could believe in Jeremy. I have read through all the arguments raised by his supporters and can find absolutely nothing that points to his innocence.
Still, after 27 years of Working on his defence, Bamber is still unable to offer up a plausible explanation to demonstrate his innocence.
Despite Bamber clouding some of the issues in this case (silencer, phone calls etc), the hard facts are still just that. HARD FACTS!
On the 'blue forum' people seem to have disregarded common sense, when I suggested this to them I was labelled as a moron and a troll. I closed my account a while ago but do have a look quite regularly, just for a cheap laugh, certainly not for informed debate. I used to ask specific questions like, why was Shelia unmarked? If she did shower, where are the clothes she wore at the time of the murders? Nobody seemed willing to discuss such matters.
Bamber must be devastated that that forum exists. Tesko is nothing more than a bitter and twisted, self serving, attention seeker.
Well, as far as I can make out, the CCRC have bent over backwards to appease Bamber and his team. He has been afforded the privilege of having his case reviewed over and over again. He is guilty, end of!
You only have to look at the hierarchy of the blue forum to understand what is going on there. Career criminals, career activists, saddos..... @)(++(*
-
We all react to grief in different ways no doubt. However, no remotely sane person would react to the murder of all his family in cold blood ( including two little boys) in the way that Bamber did. The housekeeper said that he was wandering around the farmhouse days after the murder as if nothing had happened. He then went off on holiday and was seen drinking and splashing cash. A genuinely grieving relative simply wouldnt react that way - the crimes were too serious and shocking. His post-murder behaviour was his downfall and the main reason why the Court of Appeal (if the case ever gets there again which I doubt) will never free him. They deal with miscarriages cases all the time and are extremelly experienced. I am sure they will have a gut feling about this one as the previous Court of Appeal did ten years ago.
Good to hear from you again Frank. You are quite correct in what you post, the Court of Appeal is only concerned with one question and that is if there is a real possibility that there has been a miscarriage. They will look at the whole scenario as we have done and weigh up everything in their own minds.
I don't think that there is a hope in hell that he will ever be released on any technicality but a release on compassionate grounds may be considered if he were to admit to his guilt.
-
If Tesko did possess 'that' photograph, he would know for sure that Jeremy couldn't have committed the murders. So why, when armed with this vital piece of evidence does Tesko continue to post all these other wild theories? Show everyone the photo and it's all over!
The man is an absolute joke. Why does anyone waste their time conversing with this prat? His latest thread invites questions from members, to which he will reply yes or no. Now, if that's not a desperate appeal for attention, I don't know what is!
This amused me as well. I would like to ask him "have you ever told a lie on this forum?".
-
If Tesko did possess 'that' photograph, he would know for sure that Jeremy couldn't have committed the murders. So why, when armed with this vital piece of evidence does Tesko continue to post all these other wild theories? Show everyone the photo and it's all over!
The man is an absolute joke. Why does anyone waste their time conversing with this prat? His latest thread invites questions from members, to which he will reply yes or no. Now, if that's not a desperate appeal for attention, I don't know what is!
This amused me as well. I would like to ask him "have you ever told a lie on this forum?".
I'd like to ask....
Do you believe that Sheila was lying on the kitchen floor, with a wound in her throat, then moved upstairs to the bedroom?
Do you believe that Ralph was the twins' father?
Have you been in possession of at least 3 copies of the image of Sheila on the bed?
Will you ever provide proof that Ralph made a phone call?
Have you ever been tempted to claim JB's reward?
Have you informed the McCanns that Maddie speaks to you?
-
Will you ever provide proof that Ralph made a phone call?
Have you ever been tempted to claim JB's reward?
These are good questions, Shona. I shall ask them for toy.
-
Oh yes, i keep forgetting about jb's million pound reward. Where would the money have come from?
-
Compensation/money he intends on earning from book rights etc when he is released.
-
Will you ever provide proof that Ralph made a phone call?
Have you ever been tempted to claim JB's reward?
These are good questions, Shona. I shall ask them for toy.
Cheers, Mat!! You could perhaps also ask....
Has JB ever considered a hunger strike?
Do you believe that June used a gun that night?
Do you know who placed Ralph's body, and put his head in a coal scuttle?
-
Compensation/money he intends on earning from book rights etc when he is released.
Theres a bit of a snag though, mat. JB isnt getting released!
-
Shona!! hows you this eve? 8)--))
-
Compensation/money he intends on earning from book rights etc when he is released.
Theres a bit of a snag though, mat. JB isnt getting released!
Haha, Well obviously. :)
-
Shona!! hows you this eve? 8)--))
Jelly!! Good, ta. Busy day, chilling now!! How's Scarlet getting on?
-
She's ok, Shon, farting lots and stinking the dining room out.
she's asleep at the minute with her backside resting against the door. ?{)(**
-
She's ok, Shon, farting lots and stinking the dining room out.
she's asleep at the minute with her backside resting against the door. ?{)(**
Ho ho HO!! Try giving her cooked chicken, she's only little and her plumbing is new!! Are you feeding her Bakers, Jell? It's like feeding her semtex.
-
Bakers complete, yes.
tinned meat gives her the runs, what do you suggest Shona?
-
Bakers complete, yes.
tinned meat gives her the runs, what do you suggest Shona?
Karen and Eileen will change his nappy then he can spend another 18 hours sharing more verbal diarrhea with us five.
-
Bakers complete, yes.
tinned meat gives her the runs, what do you suggest Shona?
Karen and Eileen will change his nappy then he can spend another 18 hours sharing more verbal diarrhea with us five.
Huh??
-
Bakers complete, yes.
tinned meat gives her the runs, what do you suggest Shona?
Burns Biscuits, and raw beef mince. And an egg. Back to the plot!!
-
Well at least i am prepared to meet for a coffee. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*.
-
Badger is only Craigie, hiding behind a false name again. Boy i would love to meet this Imbecile 8)--)) 8)--)) 8)--))
-
Mike Tesko has got irrefutable proof that JB is innocent. But for some freaky, weird reason, he chooses not to use it. I would use it. I would sell my soul to use it, if it would help. But, no. Mike's entire existence is to free JB. So. Do it. According to you, an innocent man languishes in jail. And YOU have the power to free him.
Why are you f..king about, Mike??
-
Because he's talking bollocks about this so called picture on the bed. He has to keep up the pretence or admit to people that he's lying and make a tw.. of him self.
-
Because he's talking bollocks about this so called picture on the bed. He has to keep up the pretence or admit to people that he's lying and make a tw.. of him self.
All he has to do is provide the picture of Sheila on the bed, and the phone log that proves that Ralph made a phone call. He insists that he has both. It's not such a big ask. Just do it. Seriously, Mike, just do it. You have it, so provide it. Prove us wrong.
-
Why wont he post myalls and Bewes satements?
As for the pic on the bed and the itemised phone bill, mike doesnt have either. If he did he would have posted them and proved us wrong. They dont exist Shona, mike knows it and everyone else on that forum knows it too, but wont say owt out of loyalty.
-
Why wont he post myalls and Bewes satements?
As for the pic on the bed and the itemised phone bill, mike doesnt have either. If he did he would have posted them and proved us wrong. They dont exist Shona, mike knows it and everyone else on that forum knows it too, but wont say owt out of loyalty.
Andrea, PC Myall's statement is on the forum here already.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=167.0
-
Why wont he post myalls and Bewes satements?
As for the pic on the bed and the itemised phone bill, mike doesnt have either. If he did he would have posted them and proved us wrong. They dont exist Shona, mike knows it and everyone else on that forum knows it too, but wont say owt out of loyalty.
Good point Andrea. I have it on good authority that itemised billing (itemised billing will tell you the numbers, times and duration of all ingoing/outgoing calls and messages) was not available in 1985. In fact the old 'switch' exchanges had no way of recording such information. It was not until the the switches were changed and replaced by digital switches and fibre-optic cables that such information could be passed on to the customer. If anyone states otherwise, then it is an outright lie and to attempt to say this when it can be proven otherwise is folly in the extreme. I feel sorry for Mike Tesko if he is puttting forward this story.
-
The fact that no police officer involved in the "conspiracy" has ever come forward proving Jeremy was not guilty to claim the £1 million reward is proof enough to me that there cannot possibly have been any cover up. Remember, any police officer involved in the raid/investigation would probably be retired by now and surely have nothing to fear in terms of ending their career. The police pension may be generous but I doubt it is worth more than £1 million.
-
The fact that no police officer involved in the "conspiracy" has ever come forward proving Jeremy was not guilty to claim the £1 million reward is proof enough to me that there cannot possibly have been any cover up. Remember, any police officer involved in the raid/investigation would probably be retired by now and surely have nothing to fear in terms of ending their career. The police pension may be generous but I doubt it is worth more than £1 million.
Quite agree. If there was indeed a 'cover up', two questions.... Why? and how many people would have to be in on it?
If Somebody did come along and help Bamber get out on a technicality, can you really see him handing over any money?
We all know what lengths he will go to for a few quid.
-
If Tesko did possess 'that' photograph, he would know for sure that Jeremy couldn't have committed the murders. So why, when armed with this vital piece of evidence does Tesko continue to post all these other wild theories? Show everyone the photo and it's all over!
The man is an absolute joke. Why does anyone waste
their time conversing with this prat? His latest thread invites questions from members, to which he will reply yes or no. Now, if that's not a desperate appeal for attention, I don't know what is!
This amused me as well. I would like to ask him "have you ever told a lie on this forum?".
Somebody did indeed ask that very question, his answer was............yes/no!
What a prick.
-
Sika,
This ia all part of Tesko's ploy. He invite's people to put forward theories which he can then mull over later and use himself as reasons to argue Bamber's innocence. After years of appeals and attempted appeals the half-baked 'reasons why Bamber didn't do it' excuses have run completely dry. It is merely a simplistic ploy in order to garnish fresh ideas. Bamber and his supporters know the game is up and we are now playing the last vestiges of the endgame, which, true-to-form, Bamber is milking for all it's worth. Some of his supporters have gone so far down the road now they have lost their way back.
-
Morning folks.
The other forum suggest there is a massive cover up, now for this "cover up" to be sustained for the time it has, how many people would that take?
-
Andrea,
there was no cover up, no secret agent bent on revenge, no third man, no conspiracy except in Tesko's own furtile imagination. Fart alight! they must be getting so desparate over there!
@)(++(*
-
Having read a transcript of Bamber's police interview, I noted that when asked how Shelia could have shot herself for a second time, he suggested it could have been the dog!!!!!!!!!
I wonder if Tesko has considered this line of defence! As daft as it sounds, it's more plausible than most of his other theories!
-
He suggested the dog!! Oh dear @)(++(*
But as you say Sika, its more plausible then some of the theories we have seen.
Especially, the sheila barking like a dog to confuse the police.
-
Andrea,
there was no cover up, no secret agent bent on revenge, no third man, no conspiracy except in Tesko's own furtile imagination. Fart alight! they must be getting so desparate over there!
@)(++(*
I agree ian, no cover up. For a cover up to have taken place it would have had to start at the crime scene, Bamber wasnt officially in the frame for a month after the murders.
-
Andrea,
there was no cover up, no secret agent bent on revenge, no third man, no conspiracy except in Tesko's own furtile imagination. Fart alight! they must be getting so desparate over there!
@)(++(*
I agree ian, no cover up. For a cover up to have taken place it would have had to start at the crime scene, Bamber wasnt officially in the frame for a month after the murders.
Exactly the point I have always made. There was nothing to cover up at the beginning as most police officers took Jeremy's word for it that it was Sheila who did it. Only Sgt Stan Jones had doubts initially, I have no doubt that if this officer had not followed his suspicions and been a big enough character to be able to challenge a superior officer like Insp Taff Jones then Bamber could have got away with it completely. Full marks Stan Jones!!
Andrea. Myall's statement is on this forum but Bews has never been available because it is damming of Jeremy Bamber. You can always have a look at Bews video interview.
-
I have read Myalls evidence from the trial, and have seen Bewes on the guardian videos.
The police did a shite job on this case, no doubt about that. But it doesnt take away the fact that JB was responsible imo.
-
Hi Andrea. You are right in what you say the police did a crap job but they were led by a muppet who was only interested in golf. Taff Jones wasnted to put the murders down to a domestic for some reason, could it have been to cover his own bad judgement??? 8-)(--) 8**8:/:
-
JP is pally with KT they are all doomed @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
He suggested the dog!! Oh dear @)(++(*
But as you say Sika, its more plausible then some of the theories we have seen.
Especially, the sheila barking like a dog to confuse the police.
Leading on from that Andrea, according to Tesko's unusual brand of logic I am surprised that Bamber didn't shoot the dog on account that the dog may have gone straight to the police and 'grassed him up' This would probably be used as an excuse as to why Bamber could not have committed the murders by virtue of the dog still being left alive and could possibly testify against the perpetrator. Any self-respecting mass murderer would be sure to eliminate any possible witnesses. Ergo - it could not have been Jeremy Bamber @)(++(*
Alas, the poor dog's luck didn't last. Bamber had the creature (which I understand was given the name 'Crispy') put down a few weeks after the killings because 'he might chew the wires of my stereo system'
Bamber had eliminated the only living thing to emerge from White House Farm on the morning of August 7th 1985.
-
Were there two dogs, Ian? Was there a Labrador too?
Yes every living thing from WHF all gone.
Had a good day ian? I have until my dog chewed my trainers!!
-
Were there two dogs, Ian? Was there a Labrador too?
Yes every living thing from WHF all gone.
Had a good day ian? I have until my dog chewed my trainers!!
Yes I think there were two dogs Andrea. I really dont know what happened to the labrador. Maybe it was adopted by one of the relatives or farm workers. In any event, let us hope it had a better fate than poor Crispy.
Yes Andrea, dogs and trainers a very bad combination. Have a good day Andrea. 8((()*/
-
Thanks, Ian.
Weather seems decent here today, it wont last 8(8-))
Catch you later xx
-
I hope it lasts Andrea, I am due to go to Cornwall in a weeks time 8)><(
(I hope you got your message that I sent?)
Take care
xxx
-
I got your message, Ian, thankyou. I did reply, didnt you get it?
-
Andrea, I saw in some post here that you are back at the blue forum. Have you said anything - and if, how were you received? Just super-curious! ?>)()<
-
Yes, im back there, abs.
I have had some lovely pm's from some members. The mods have been fine, but there are a few who dont want me there, its to be expected i suppose.
England-Ukraine tomorrow, abs. are you watching it?
-
Yes, im back there, abs.
I have had some lovely pm's from some members. The mods have been fine, but there are a few who dont want me there, its to be expected i suppose.
England-Ukraine tomorrow, abs. are you watching it?
Grahame doesn´t want any of us there... but nice that you got some PMs!
MAYbe I will watch. Will be exciting for ya´lls!
-
hoho!
Whats the weather like where you are, abs?
Been nice here today, was red hot around tea time.
-
Strange weather - the first half was a nice summer´s day - the second, there were thunderstorms and loads of rain! Tomorrow will be a decent day with sun all day. Not that it means too much to me at the moment - inside all day working! 8()(((@# All in all, so far, it has been a lousy summer!
-
Our "summer" so far has been a washout.
We had a nice week in March, then another before the jubilee, since then its just rained and hasnt stopped 8(8-))
-
Our "summer" so far has been a washout.
We had a nice week in March, then another before the jubilee, since then its just rained and hasnt stopped 8(8-))
Guess we´d better get used to it - or move! Global warming will make our humid countries even more rainy! 8)><(
-
we could move to the moon!!
-
we could move to the moon!!
Rain-free, guaranteed! LOL
-
Im having trouble posting again. This is the third attempt at a post now ?8)@)-)
-
Oh, b....r! OK, Andy, going to watch a movie - hubby is waiting.... See ya
-
Ok, abs.
Enjoy!! Hope its not horror?
-
Andrea, I saw in some post here that you are back at the blue forum. Have you said anything - and if, how were you received? Just super-curious! ?>)()<
Hi Andrea...........no did not get your reply? 8(8-))
-
I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and rightly so. However there are some theories out there on the blue forum that begger belief. What is more disturbing is that this opinion got plenty of support and congratualtions.
I will let you read for yourselves as I did with mounting bewilderment at how such a bizarre account could even be dreamt up much less accepted as possible. I quote
'After pummelling her father with the rifle butt,Sheila then pumped the bullets into him,then one for herself before taking the silencer off the rifle and putting it into the cupboard. at this stage,her injury had hit her jawbone where the bullet shattered ( PV20 ) and not entered an artery.
While Sheila was downstairs,,she'd have washed her hands and prepared herself something to eat before going upstairs. But prior to her going upstairs,she'd have heard the police outside,so stayed put and played dead until she made her escape upstairs.
During the time when Sheila was downstairs,she was " looked at " and declared dead too,but managed to get back up the stairs where the final ( 2nd ) shot to herself would prove fatal.
When Sheila was downstairs though,,I'm not sure how,or where the rifle would have been at this point,,,nor why it wasn't removed at this juncture,and made secure there and then. ?
It was during the search of the farmhouse that Sheila was back upstairs,,this time on the floor with a " fresh " wound to her neck.
Unbelievable.......... 8-)(--)
-
I know everyone is entitled to their opinion and rightly so. However there are some theories out there on the blue forum that begger belief. What is more disturbing is that this opinion got plenty of support and congratualtions.
I will let you read for yourselves as I did with mounting bewilderment at how such a bizarre account could even be dreamt up much less accepted as possible. I quote
'After pummelling her father with the rifle butt,Sheila then pumped the bullets into him,then one for herself before taking the silencer off the rifle and putting it into the cupboard. at this stage,her injury had hit her jawbone where the bullet shattered ( PV20 ) and not entered an artery.
While Sheila was downstairs,,she'd have washed her hands and prepared herself something to eat before going upstairs. But prior to her going upstairs,she'd have heard the police outside,so stayed put and played dead until she made her escape upstairs.
During the time when Sheila was downstairs,she was " looked at " and declared dead too,but managed to get back up the stairs where the final ( 2nd ) shot to herself would prove fatal.
When Sheila was downstairs though,,I'm not sure how,or where the rifle would have been at this point,,,nor why it wasn't removed at this juncture,and made secure there and then. ?
It was during the search of the farmhouse that Sheila was back upstairs,,this time on the floor with a " fresh " wound to her neck.
Unbelievable.......... 8-)(--)
Ian, have you copied and pasted this quote?
If so, who posted it on the blue forum?
-
Hi John,
The quote is from a person calling themselves 'Lookout' A 'hero member' of the blue forum.
-
So, did lookout mean that after the first shot, she made something to eat? i read the post quickly!
I probably read it wrong.
-
So, did lookout mean that after the first shot, she made something to eat? i read the post quickly!
I probably read it wrong.
No, that's what it looks like. Sheila shot herself in the throat, somehow managed not to bleed or go into shock or choke on her own blood, and made herself a sandwich.
-
I was going to say!!
-
So, did lookout mean that after the first shot, she made something to eat? i read the post quickly!
I probably read it wrong.
I think Lookout mean't that Sheila prepared something to eat Andrea after she had shot herself in the neck. Despite the fact that no blood whatsoever seemed to leak onto the front of her her nightdress. This ill-thought out statement presumably had forgotten that the first bullet shattered her jaw and she would be incapable of eating? This whole scenario is quite astonishing in it's ridiculous assumptions that completely defy common sense.
I think this whole lucricrous idea that Sheila shot herself in the kitchen and then replaced the silencer back into the cupboard was the brain child intially of Mike Tesko. It is positive proof of how seemingly intelligent people can adopt such ludricrous scenarios when there are enough people to believe them as reinforce them. They seem to feed off of each other or try to outdo each other in the 'who can make the most implausible and ridiculous diatribe up' competition.
-
So, did lookout mean that after the first shot, she made something to eat? i read the post quickly!
I probably read it wrong.
No, that's what it looks like. Sheila shot herself in the throat, somehow managed not to bleed or go into shock or choke on her own blood, and made herself a sandwich.
So at what point did she have a bath and read the bible?
-
As you say Ian, it would have been impossible to eat with that type of injury, i didnt realise her jaw had been shattered, i know nevilles had. But still, with a neck wound you couldnt eat. Its silly beyond words .
-
So, did lookout mean that after the first shot, she made something to eat? i read the post quickly!
I probably read it wrong.
No, that's what it looks like. Sheila shot herself in the throat, somehow managed not to bleed or go into shock or choke on her own blood, and made herself a sandwich.
Presumably she had a nice bath just after she shot herself the first time and just before the police bust in to spoil the snack she was about to consume. :-)
So at what point did she have a bath and read the bible?
Presumably she had a nice bath just after she shot herself the first time and just before the police bust in to spoil the snack she was about to consume. :-)
-
Trust those bleeding coppers eh!!
-
So, did lookout mean that after the first shot, she made something to eat? i read the post quickly!
I probably read it wrong.
No, that's what it looks like. Sheila shot herself in the throat, somehow managed not to bleed or go into shock or choke on her own blood, and made herself a sandwich.
So at what point did she have a bath and read the bible?
Just after she ran around the house, shouting and barking like a dog.
Can you imagine how much blood there would have been after the first shot, from the damage to the soft tissue? All that blood collected in a pouch in her neck, because she didn't move after that shot.
-
Trust those bleeding coppers eh!!
Absolutely how bloody inconsiderate of them!
-
She died where she was photographed. She was shot where she was found IMO.
-
So, did lookout mean that after the first shot, she made something to eat? i read the post quickly!
I probably read it wrong.
No, that's what it looks like. Sheila shot herself in the throat, somehow managed not to bleed or go into shock or choke on her own blood, and made herself a sandwich.
So at what point did she have a bath and read the bible?
Just after she ran around the house, shouting and barking like a dog.
Can you imagine how much blood there would have been after the first shot, from the damage to the soft tissue? All that blood collected in a pouch in her neck, because she didn't move after that shot.
Sorry to interupt - are there any members left on the blue forum who do not exist?? A in are they all real people now?
-
So, did lookout mean that after the first shot, she made something to eat? i read the post quickly!
I probably read it wrong.
No, that's what it looks like. Sheila shot herself in the throat, somehow managed not to bleed or go into shock or choke on her own blood, and made herself a sandwich.
So at what point did she have a bath and read the bible?
Just after she ran around the house, shouting and barking like a dog.
Can you imagine how much blood there would have been after the first shot, from the damage to the soft tissue? All that blood collected in a pouch in her neck, because she didn't move after that shot.
A wound like that would have bled profusely. It's lunacy to suggest otherwise. Incidently this first wound, I strongly believe that this would have knocked her totally unconscious. A friend of mine who does some amateur boxing said that it only takes 50 pounds of pressure to the chin to knock a boxer out cold. The force of sub-sonic bullet smashing into the jaw bone and soft tissue from a short distance away and at that speed doesn't bare thinking about. Sheila would not have been able to move much less go walking around the house and make herself a sandwich!
-
Why don't they make an effort to read the Vanezis' pathology reports!
The first bullet wound penetrated the neck muscle, severed the jugular vein, shattered a cervical vertebra and would have caused her to fall to the ground in an instant. In his opinion she had not got up or moved prior to receiving the second wound which would have been instantly fatal.
All the misinformation for the gullible stems from Teskowski's four dreary monologues on Youtube which continue to perpetuate the myth of Sheila being found in the kitchen and making her own way upstairs.
-
Why don't they make an effort to read the Vanezis' pathology reports!
The first bullet wound penetrated the neck muscle, severed the jugular vein, shattered a cervical vertebra and would have caused her to fall to the ground in an instant. In his opinion she had not got up or moved prior to receiving the second wound which would have been instantly fatal.
All the misinformation for the gullible stems from Teskowski's four dreary monologues on Youtube which continue to perpetuate the myth of Sheila being found in the kitchen and making her own way upstairs.
Quite right Myster,
Vanezis pathology report makes it quite clear that Sheila would havce been incapable of getting up after the first shot was fired. The shot would probably have been fatal given time.
This theory has now been completely debunked and seen for what it really is; complete hogwash. I think it also says a lot about Bamber's supporters - they are either completely blinded by Tesko's diatribes or they are incredibly naive and just do not read or take in anything that conflicts with it. This in itself, no big deal, but these people have the vote!
-
Why don't they make an effort to read the Vanezis' pathology reports!
The first bullet wound penetrated the neck muscle, severed the jugular vein, shattered a cervical vertebra and would have caused her to fall to the ground in an instant. In his opinion she had not got up or moved prior to receiving the second wound which would have been instantly fatal.
All the misinformation for the gullible stems from Teskowski's four dreary monologues on Youtube which continue to perpetuate the myth of Sheila being found in the kitchen and making her own way upstairs.
Quite right Myster,
Vanezis pathology report makes it quite clear that Sheila would havce been incapable of getting up after the first shot was fired. The shot would probably have been fatal given time.
This theory has now been completely debunked and seen for what it really is; complete hogwash. I think it also says a lot about Bamber's supporters - they are either completely blinded by Tesko's diatribes or they are incredibly naive and just do not read or take in anything that conflicts with it. This in itself, no big deal, but these people have the vote!
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 8(0(*
-
I've always thought that the idea Sheila could have wounded herself with the first shot then ran upstairs sounds like something out of a bad horror film. The fact that there was no blood having run down her chest proves this could not have happened. And do people on the Tesko forum think she had a shower after wounding herself in the throat non fatally?
Incidentally if Mike was on the same wing in jail as Bamber surely he must have been in prison for a pretty serious offence. Do we know what Mike was actually in prison for?
What particularly fascinates me about Bamber is that he spent a lot of time with people like Mike and Aunt Agatha convincing them of his innocence. When he felt they had outlived their usefulness he cut off all ties with them, however, Mike and Aunt Agatha still remain fiercely loyal to someone who has not exactly been particularly nice to them. Why is this? Is he someone who is adept at charming people and being able to manipulate and control them? With this in mind I have no problem with the thought that he could have persuaded Julie to keep quiet about what she knew for so long, and even that he could have persuaded Sheila to lie down while he shot her.
-
I too believe that Sheila received both shots relatively close to one another in time AND in location. I don´t see her running around for any length of time. That would have been impossible in my opinion.
-
I too believe that Sheila received both shots relatively close to one another in time AND in location. I don´t see her running around for any length of time. That would have been impossible in my opinion.
Absolutely Abs. There is simply no way that after receiving the first shot that Sheila went anywhere.
What is suprising is just how many on the blue forum actually fell for this cock n bull story. It is often said, that within a crowd conformity becomes everything. I believe that is what is happening on that site. There seems to be very few people willing to challenge these ludicrous and non-sensical ideas. Then again it was Adolf Hitler that once said 'The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it'
..............Pause for thought 8-)(--)
-
I too believe that Sheila received both shots relatively close to one another in time AND in location. I don´t see her running around for any length of time. That would have been impossible in my opinion.
Absolutely Abs. There is simply no way that after receiving the first shot that Sheila went anywhere.
What is suprising is just how many on the blue forum actually fell for this cock n bull story. It is often said, that within a crowd conformity becomes everything. I believe that is what is happening on that site. There seems to be very few people willing to challenge these ludicrous and non-sensical ideas. Then again it was Adolf Hitler that once said 'The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it'
..............Pause for thought 8-)(--)
It's amazing when you sit down and look at who is involved now after so many have come across to us.
Who's left on the guilty side? Mike, Neil, Grahame, Keira, Roch and the trolls (sounds like the name of a band!) @)(++(*
-
I too believe that Sheila received both shots relatively close to one another in time AND in location. I don´t see her running around for any length of time. That would have been impossible in my opinion.
Absolutely Abs. There is simply no way that after receiving the first shot that Sheila went anywhere.
What is suprising is just how many on the blue forum actually fell for this cock n bull story. It is often said, that within a crowd conformity becomes everything. I believe that is what is happening on that site. There seems to be very few people willing to challenge these ludicrous and non-sensical ideas. Then again it was Adolf Hitler that once said 'The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it'
..............Pause for thought 8-)(--)
It's amazing when you sit down and look at who is involved now after so many have come across to us.
Who's left on the guilty side? Mike, Neil, Grahame, Keira, Roch and the trolls (sounds like the name of a band!) @)(++(*
Neil is a troll I believe!!! 8(0(* Has anyone ever spoken to Roch?
-
You mean left the innocent side, right John?
Just to clarify, personally I am undecided as I have been from get go, with a slant towards Jeremy being innocent. Call me stupid all you want!! ?>)()<
-
Youre certainly not stupid, abs.
I did, once upon a time lean towards innocence.
-
You mean left the innocent side, right John?
Just to clarify, personally I am undecided as I have been from get go, with a slant towards Jeremy being innocent. Call me stupid all you want!! ?>)()<
I know you are undecided abs but you must admit that the evidence which renders Sheila innocent is rather strong.
-
You mean left the innocent side, right John?
Just to clarify, personally I am undecided as I have been from get go, with a slant towards Jeremy being innocent. Call me stupid all you want!! ?>)()<
I know you are undecided abs but you must admit that the evidence which renders Sheila innocent is rather strong.
I am not convinced - obviously. If I had been on that jury, I probably would not have found the evidence strong enough and would have had to go for an acquittal - as two of the jurors did.
P.S. I would not be able to write to Jeremy - I am not that convinced of his innocence either. In that sense, I couldn't write anything like, "So sorry you are incarcerated for something you did not do." So a letter from me is unthinkable - I wouldn't know what to write, and I wouldn't REALLY know whether I was writing to a murderer!
-
You mean left the innocent side, right John?
Just to clarify, personally I am undecided as I have been from get go, with a slant towards Jeremy being innocent. Call me stupid all you want!! ?>)()<
I know you are undecided abs but you must admit that the evidence which renders Sheila innocent is rather strong.
I am not convinced - obviously. If I had been on that jury, I probably would not have found the evidence strong enough and would have had to go for an acquittal - as two of the jurors did.
P.S. I would not be able to write to Jeremy - I am not that convinced of his innocence either. In that sense, I couldn't write anything like, "So sorry you are incarcerated for something you did not do." So a letter from me is unthinkable - I wouldn't know what to write, and I wouldn't REALLY know whether I was writing to a murderer!
You do realise that it had to be Jeremy or Sheila? Jeremy had to be involved after what he said about the alleged telephone conversation with his father.
What makes you think Sheila could have done it given the amount of evidence which supports her?
-
I do realize that it has to be either Sheila or Jeremy. Jeremy MIGHT have painted himself into a corner with that phonecall.
I think that Sheila was more ill than people here generally think. I think it is highly disturbing that a mother says that her children are the devil´s children and that they are capable of having sex with her. In my min that raises red flags galore!
There are so many things that make me think that Sheila could have done it. She was up that night - her bed was not properly slept in, she had eaten. It indicates some restlessness. I am not sure it would have been good for Sheila to be alone with her thoughts with everyone else asleep.
Of course a lot more, but I don´t want to write a novel.
-
Sheila just doesnt look like she caused all that carnage. Not a mark on her, there would have been some tell tale signs that she was involved, abs.
-
Sheila just doesnt look like she caused all that carnage. Not a mark on her, there would have been some tell tale signs that she was involved, abs.
Maybe. Were there any marks on Jeremy?
I think this has nothing to do with that night, but Sheila had a gouged wound on her stomach. I don´t know that much about it, does anyone?
-
The mark on her stomach was described as a graze, abs.
I believe bamber would have worn gloves, well it would have been common sense i suppose.
He would have been fully clothed, abs. All sheila had on was a flimsy short sleeved nightie.
The police did say he was over dressed for the time of year. a few layers of clothing. if he recieved that call from ralph, why did he take the time to put several layers on?
I would have slung on what would have been quickest, not arsed around putting several layers on.
-
I have never had a graze (which can be large - or small, we don´t know in this case. My guess is rather large, since it was gouged) on my stomach - that doesn´t prove anything, I know; and the fact that Jeremy wore layers of clothes doesn´t prove anything either.
-
No, it doesnt, but why did he take the time to put several layers on? i believe he had several layers on when he carried out the killings, less chance of him being marked that way. IMO
-
No, it doesnt, but why did he take the time to put several layers on? i believe he had several layers on when he carried out the killings, less chance of him being marked that way. IMO
So you think he risked wearing the same clothes to go to WHF for the second time? Or do you mean that he changed into several layers twice?
I guess it sounds perfectly normal to me to wear several layers of clothes, since I do that myself a lot - get cold easily.
It could also have been to stretch the time. People see it as sinister that he drove his car slowly to WHF. I think he was scared to go there alone who wouldn´t be?! - That is, if he´s innocent.
-
For me,Dillon's earlier post re Sheila's mental health issues seems to put to bed all the fantastical tales of her rampaging psychosis,her tardive dyskensia,gurning,strength of an ox/10 men,et al as peddled by the pro-bamber bods.I really think that those who are so quick on there to purport to be so deeply traumatised by the so called 'vile posts' on here should stop and have a long think about the hideous,unsubstantiated claims they have made about a vulnerable woman,who was murdered and whose children were murdered
on another issue -- I have always wondered why,if Sheila beat Neville into submission in the kitchen with the wooden handle of the gun,which she could only have done by firmly gripping the barrell end,why there were no finger prints on this part of the gun,as well as the trigger from when she shot everybody?Were gloves found that Sheila had been wearing.Surely the lack of finger prints from S is inexplicable,whereas easily explained in JB's case -- he was wearing gloves
-
He could have removed the top layer abs. His house wasnt searched until over a month after the murders, he had plenty of time to get rid of any incriminating evidence. he could have been wearing several layers at the time of the murders, or he could have put several layers on before he set off for whf, after he had called the police.
But sheila only had a flimsy nightie on, had she been responsible there would have been marks on her abs, or at least someone elses blood, there were neither.
-
It could have been a hot August night abs.
Many people sleep on top of the bed, or underneath the top cover, but that doesn't make them restless. 8(>((
-
For me,Dillon's earlier post re Sheila's mental health issues seems to put to bed all the fantastical tales of her rampaging psychosis,her tardive dyskensia,gurning,strength of an ox/10 men,et al as peddled by the pro-bamber bods.I really think that those who are so quick on there to purport to be so deeply traumatised by the so called 'vile posts' on here should stop and have a long think about the hideous,unsubstantiated claims they have made about a vulnerable woman,who was murdered and whose children were murdered
on another issue -- I have always wondered why,if Sheila beat Neville into submission in the kitchen with the wooden handle of the gun,which she could only have done by firmly gripping the barrell end,why there were no finger prints on this part of the gun,as well as the trigger from when she shot everybody?Were gloves found that Sheila had been wearing.Surely the lack of finger prints from S is inexplicable,whereas easily explained in JB's case -- he was wearing gloves
As far as I remember, there was one fingerprint from Jeremy and one from Sheila - and none else??? I think the firearm had been shifted around so much by police officers that the fingerfrint evidence was destroyed. Like so much else in this case.
-
It could have been a hot August night abs.
Many people sleep on top of the bed, or underneath the top cover, but that doesn't make them restless. 8(>((
As far as I can tell, it is all speculation - from both sides.
-
It is abs, but some speculation is more plausible than others.
Not long now, abs!! for the football. Jeez i havent stopped banging on about it today.
-
Didn't he say to Julie Mugford that he was worried that a glove or gloves the hitman wore might have come off in the kitchen confrontation and that her fingerprints might have been brushed off.
-
Totally agree -- some speculation is infinitely more plausible than others!
I don't think Sheila's fingerprints were somehow 'lost',I don't think they were there in the first place
-
Totally agree -- some speculation is infinitely more plausible than others!
I don't think Sheila's fingerprints were somehow 'lost',I don't think they were there in the first place
There was one. In any case that is not strange, she was close to the rifle.
-
Sheila was not strongly built. My wife always says that she did not have muscles in her arms. " Those were the days before people went to gyms . " Perhaps a little bit of an exageration but clearly a beautiful but slightly built woman.
She was also regarded as poorly coordinated and had not managed to learn to drive, as far as I know, in an age when most people, particularly in rural environments did. Sheila disliked guns and it is a myth to think that people brought up on farms naturally became competent or even familiar with handling weapons. As a farmer's daughter, my wife hasn't a clue how to shoot either. Let alone the forensic evidence, in my opinion it really does defy belief to think that Sheila could have shot her family and very brutally battered her tall, strong father in the way consistent with the very severe injuries which he sustained. She lacked the strength, coordination and competence to have been responsible.
-
For me,Dillon's earlier post re Sheila's mental health issues seems to put to bed all the fantastical tales of her rampaging psychosis,her tardive dyskensia,gurning,strength of an ox/10 men,et al as peddled by the pro-bamber bods.I really think that those who are so quick on there to purport to be so deeply traumatised by the so called 'vile posts' on here should stop and have a long think about the hideous,unsubstantiated claims they have made about a vulnerable woman,who was murdered and whose children were murdered
on another issue -- I have always wondered why,if Sheila beat Neville into submission in the kitchen with the wooden handle of the gun,which she could only have done by firmly gripping the barrell end,why there were no finger prints on this part of the gun,as well as the trigger from when she shot everybody?Were gloves found that Sheila had been wearing.Surely the lack of finger prints from S is inexplicable,whereas easily explained in JB's case -- he was wearing gloves
As far as I remember, there was one fingerprint from Jeremy and one from Sheila - and none else??? I think the firearm had been shifted around so much by police officers that the fingerfrint evidence was destroyed. Like so much else in this case.
That was all that was found on the gun. It is highly probable that the gun was wiped clean by Bamber. Julie Mugford had stated that Bamber was really worried about fingerprints when he was 'hypothesising' about killing his family some weeks before the murders. I am almost positive that Bamber wiped the prints from the gun. He tried to put Sheila's prints on it by dabbing her hand against the gun. Therefore it is hardly surprising that none of Nevil's were found, despite the wound to the 'web' between his forefinger and thumb of his right hand which indicted that something had been pulled from his grasp.
In short, the rifle was handled by Nevil, Sheila, Bamber and possible others and the police could only find two partial prints? No way. The rifle had been wiped clean. The only person to have cause to wipe the gun clean of prints was Jeremy Bamber.
-
Yes,I agree,it would have been very easy for JB to have got 1 print from S onto the trigger,and forgotten to put others at the other end,from when she had been using it to smash up Neville's head in her 'psychotic frenzy'
I seem to remember that the lack of Sheila's finger prints was something JB told JM that he had got wrong in his staging of the scene
-
Sheila was not strongly built. My wife always says that she did not have muscles in her arms. " Those were the days before people went to gyms . " Perhaps a little bit of an exageration but clearly a beautiful but slightly built woman.
She was also regarded as poorly coordinated and had not managed to learn to drive, as far as I know, in an age when most people, particularly in rural environments did. Sheila disliked guns and it is a myth to think that people brought up on farms naturally became competent or even familiar with handling weapons. As a farmer's daughter, my wife hasn't a clue how to shoot either. Let alone the forensic evidence, in my opinion it really does defy belief to think that Sheila could have shot her family and very brutally battered her tall, strong father in the way consistent with the very severe injuries which he sustained. She lacked the strength, coordination and competence to have been responsible.
Excellent points Dillon. A very sound piece of reasoning. Yes Sheila by all accounts was a slightly built, waif-like lady who was extrememly uncoordinated, shaky and ungainly. Her aunt Ann Eaton described this aspect of Sheila's physical abilities thus; 'She couldnt put beans on toasts, without missing the toast'
Nevil however, weighed a good 14 stone plus and stood 6ft 4" tall. There is no way on this earth that Sheila Caffell could have physically overpowered him - injured or not, all he had to do to stop her was to fall on her. I am a little tired of the argument that Sheila possessed some kind of 'super human' strength' in her demented state. I have no doubt that in some cases this may be true, but there is not a shred of evidence to ever show that she was ever in this state at all! But Bamber apologists are quick enough to believe something this absurd without a shred of evidence.
For me, this kind of excuse or reason given by Bamber supporters is a cop-out in the extreme and it dodges the a very real issue. Sheila would have been physically unable to overcome Nevil in a fight. I have even heard an absurd suggestion that Sheila was young and Nevil was old! This totally misses the point. This man could throw hay bales that weigh as much as Sheila onto a tractor trailer without difficulty. This is the crux of the case. If Sheila did not beat her father into unconsciousness so viciously that the butt of the gun broke - and I strongly suspect - for obvious reasons - that she didn't, then there is only one other...The real murderer, psychopath and disseminator. Jeremy Bamber.
-
absolutely agree Dillon
for me the 3 main implausibles which render all the myriard other implausibles obsolete are:
1) Sheila being able to brandish that rifle for more than 10 seconds without Neville wrestling out of her hands
2)An uninjured N phoning JB before getting the gun off S,or an injured N not mentioning to JB that he had already been shot ,or that the others had
3)If we do suspend utter disbelief and accept that N did make that call - the window of opportunity for S to kill everybody,have a shower,wash her hair,maybe do her nails and put all her blood-stained clothes to soak is imo,totally iompossible -- 40 mins at most,between the phone call and the arrival of the cops
-
Sheila was not strongly built. My wife always says that she did not have muscles in her arms. " Those were the days before people went to gyms . " Perhaps a little bit of an exageration but clearly a beautiful but slightly built woman.
She was also regarded as poorly coordinated and had not managed to learn to drive, as far as I know, in an age when most people, particularly in rural environments did. Sheila disliked guns and it is a myth to think that people brought up on farms naturally became competent or even familiar with handling weapons. As a farmer's daughter, my wife hasn't a clue how to shoot either. Let alone the forensic evidence, in my opinion it really does defy belief to think that Sheila could have shot her family and very brutally battered her tall, strong father in the way consistent with the very severe injuries which he sustained. She lacked the strength, coordination and competence to have been responsible.
Excellent points Dillon. A very sound piece of reasoning. Yes Sheila by all accounts was a slightly built, waif-like lady who was extrememly uncoordinated, shaky and ungainly. Her aunt Ann Eaton described this aspect of Sheila's physical abilities thus; 'She couldnt put beans on toasts, without missing the toast'
Nevil however, weighed a good 14 stone plus and stood 6ft 4" tall. There is no way on this earth that Sheila Caffell could have physically overpowered him - injured or not, all he had to do to stop her was to fall on her. I am a little tired of the argument that Sheila possessed some kind of 'super human' strength' in her demented state. I have no doubt that in some cases this may be true, but there is not a shred of evidence to ever show that she was ever in this state at all! But Bamber apologists are quick enough to believe something this absurd without a shred of evidence.
For me, this kind of excuse or reason given by Bamber supporters is a cop-out in the extreme and it dodges the a very real issue. Sheila would have been physically unable to overcome Nevil in a fight. I have even heard an absurd suggestion that Sheila was young and Nevil was old! This totally misses the point. This man could throw hay bales that weigh as much as Sheila onto a tractor trailer without difficulty. This is the crux of the case. If Sheila did not beat her father into unconsciousness so viciously that the butt of the gun broke - and I strongly suspect - for obvious reasons - that she didn't, then there is only one other...The real murderer, psychopath and disseminator. Jeremy Bamber.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 8(0(*
-
If Sheila was so coordinated, I take it that she had someone else apply her nail-polish; that takes some coordination, ask me, I know! 8(0(*
-
I doubt if I will ever be able to convince you ABS that Sheila could not have been the murderer. But you do present your case calmly and courteously in contrast to some of the posters on the other site and that is to be respected.
It is healthier in a forum anyway that we are not all singing from the same hymn sheet and discuss these issues without resorting to abuse. Actually, I have no experience of painting my fingernails so cannot comment on that as a valid indicator of coordination in relation to say operating machinery or loading and firing a rifle.
-
Nice post again, Dillon! Thank you. ?{)(**
You have to be coordinated on both right and left hand - it does take some skill and coordination to apply nail-varnish
-
Quite so,thats why i don't think she did any of that - she was dead she wasn't doing her nails,sadly
-
Quite so,thats why i don't think she did any of that - she was dead she wasn't doing her nails,sadly
Well, people often say that Sheila had poor coordination and therefore could not have handled a rifle. I say it takes quite some coordination to apply nail-polish so well. Somebody else must have put it on her nails then.
-
I have just had a snoop at Mr Teskowski's site and the poor man's blood pressure seems to be hitting the roof.
Chill ! Your use of the "F" word does you no favours. In fact they all seem to be getting very agitated in between discussing the merits and demerits of cheap and nasty sweet wine.
-
If she hadn't had any need to re-do her nails as a result of her life and death fight with Neville - which imo did not take place - then perhaps they had been done earlier in the day - may be by June? On the rare occasion that I bother with that sort of thing my daughter does mine and I do hers
btw,for what its worth,I agree with dillon,abs -- your posts are extremely courteous and you have agreat sense of humour,which I have enjoyed many times esp on the other forum,before you got banned.I have never posted on there,but I used to read the very intelligent and quality debate there was on there last year - before it all went so horribly wrong
-
If she hadn't had any need to redo her nails as a result of her life and death fight with Neville - which IMO did not take place - then perhaps they had been done earlier in the day - may be by June? On the rare occasion that I bother with that sort of thing my daughter does mine and I do hers
BTW,for what its worth,I agree with Dillon,abs -- your posts are extremely courteous and you have great sense of humour,which I have enjoyed many times esp on the other forum,before you got banned.I have never posted on there,but I used to read the very intelligent and quality debate there was on there last year - before it all went so horribly wrong
Thank you so much!
For the record, I was not banned, I left. And THEN I was banned - weeks later, but that's a whole ´nother strange little story! 8(0(*
-
oops sorry --didn't realise that you had left of your own accord I'm not massively surprised,altho' there are some lovely people on there,one or two seem to go absolutely ballistic if you even dare to question some of their more outlandish theories,and all this accusing people of being trolls or of being Ann Eatonis very depressing -- I wouldn't be able to put up with it,so I have never posted there,even when I used to think it was possible/probable that JBwas innocent
-
What I, in particular, couldn´t take was that people´s personal information or PMs were not respected as personal, but spread all over the place. That, and then all the lies about the case. I am not an idiot!
Now you mention it, I haven´t had the honour of being accused of being Ann Eaton! What did I do wrong?! LOL
-
Yes,all the lies and the massive teetering construction of mutually incompatible 'facts',along with the insults to,and vilification of highly intelligent and very respectful posters whose only crime was to politely ask for evidence to support some of Mike's and others claims made me completely change my mind about JB's innocence and I am now utterly convinced of his guilt.I am not the only one to switch opinions in this way --I was 30 at the time of the crimes and I can't think of a single contemporary of mine who still thinks he is innocent.This is despite the fact that nearly everybody i'm friends with is hugely sceptical of the police and the criminal justice system in this country.
There are a shameful number of MOJs in the UK as opposed to say,France,where they are unheard of BUT JB ain't one of them IMO
-
I do realize that it has to be either Sheila or Jeremy. Jeremy MIGHT have painted himself into a corner with that phonecall.
I think that Sheila was more ill than people here generally think. I think it is highly disturbing that a mother says that her children are the devil´s children and that they are capable of having sex with her. In my min that raises red flags galore!
There are so many things that make me think that Sheila could have done it. She was up that night - her bed was not properly slept in, she had eaten. It indicates some restlessness. I am not sure it would have been good for Sheila to be alone with her thoughts with everyone else asleep.
Of course a lot more, but I don´t want to write a novel.
Where is the blood spatter on Sheila and her clothing abs. Where is the glass on her feet or shoes from the smashed light shade in the kitchen? Where are her wounds from fighting with Nevill abs...not even a single fingernail out of place??
How does someone with little firearms experience load and fire a rifle 22 times abs without leaving some traces on her or the rifle? How did she manage to fire and hit her target nearly every time?
FACT> When Nevill reached the kitchen we know he had been shot several times in the face and shoulder. How was he able to reach the phone, dial Jeremy and speak to him with blood running out of him and virtually unable to speak?
No blood on the kitchen floor or the telephone belonging to Nevill abs...no blood at all on the phone or anywhere near it?
Why did he not scream at jeremy that he had been shot? Could it be because this was just a lie?
You have to look at the evidence abs which is there and not blank this out because of some empathy with a killer. Sheila may have been ill but she was superwoman or the invisible woman...follow the evidence!
-
Yes,all the lies and the massive teetering construction of mutually incompatible 'facts',along with the insults to,and vilification of highly intelligent and very respectful posters whose only crime was to politely ask for evidence to support some of Mike's and others claims made me completely change my mind about JB's innocence and I am now utterly convinced of his guilt.I am not the only one to switch opinions in this way --I was 30 at the time of the crimes and I can't think of a single contemporary of mine who still thinks he is innocent.This is despite the fact that nearly everybody i'm friends with is hugely sceptical of the police and the criminal justice system in this country.
There are a shameful number of MOJs in the UK as opposed to say,France,where they are unheard of BUT JB ain't one of them IMO
Would you mind telling us more about your interests with France Cath is it the booze you like most or the cheese 8(0(*
-
Yes,all the lies and the massive teetering construction of mutually incompatible 'facts',along with the insults to,and vilification of highly intelligent and very respectful posters whose only crime was to politely ask for evidence to support some of Mike's and others claims made me completely change my mind about JB's innocence and I am now utterly convinced of his guilt.I am not the only one to switch opinions in this way --I was 30 at the time of the crimes and I can't think of a single contemporary of mine who still thinks he is innocent.This is despite the fact that nearly everybody i'm friends with is hugely sceptical of the police and the criminal justice system in this country.
There are a shameful number of MOJs in the UK as opposed to say,France,where they are unheard of BUT JB ain't one of them IMO
You write so eliquently Cath please keep posting 8(0(*
-
Quite so,thats why i don't think she did any of that - she was dead she wasn't doing her nails,sadly
have you read the kevin craigie case cath?
do you think mr rothwell (rip) was left by the hands kevin craigie to die?
why didn't he help that poor man?
-
It could have been a hot August night abs.
Many people sleep on top of the bed, or underneath the top cover, but that doesn't make them restless. 8(>((
It was described as a warm muggy August night. All the more reason why an Aga would not have been fired up at the time of the murders.
-
For me,Dillon's earlier post re Sheila's mental health issues seems to put to bed all the fantastical tales of her rampaging psychosis,her tardive dyskensia,gurning,strength of an ox/10 men,et al as peddled by the pro-bamber bods.I really think that those who are so quick on there to purport to be so deeply traumatised by the so called 'vile posts' on here should stop and have a long think about the hideous,unsubstantiated claims they have made about a vulnerable woman,who was murdered and whose children were murdered
on another issue -- I have always wondered why,if Sheila beat Neville into submission in the kitchen with the wooden handle of the gun,which she could only have done by firmly gripping the barrell end,why there were no finger prints on this part of the gun,as well as the trigger from when she shot everybody?Were gloves found that Sheila had been wearing.Surely the lack of finger prints from S is inexplicable,whereas easily explained in JB's case -- he was wearing gloves
As far as I remember, there was one fingerprint from Jeremy and one from Sheila - and none else??? I think the firearm had been shifted around so much by police officers that the fingerfrint evidence was destroyed. Like so much else in this case.
The rifle was moved by its strap abs. There was no contamination of the rifle as you suggest.
-
Nice post again, Dillon! Thank you. ?{)(**
You have to be coordinated on both right and left hand - it does take some skill and coordination to apply nail-varnish
abs think dillon already knows about hand co-ordination and skill and painting nails 8(0(*
-
Quite so,thats why i don't think she did any of that - she was dead she wasn't doing her nails,sadly
Well, people often say that Sheila had poor coordination and therefore could not have handled a rifle. I say it takes quite some coordination to apply nail-polish so well. Somebody else must have put it on her nails then.
The logic is quite simple abs. Sheila was well practised and rehearsed at putting on her make up and nail varnish. She was not well rehearsed in the use of a .22 semi automatic rifle. She hated guns, she wouldn't even allow the twins to play with toy guns. That says it all for me! 8(0(*
-
If Sheila was so coordinated, I take it that she had someone else apply her nail-polish; that takes some coordination, ask me, I know! 8(0(*
Abs, lets be real here OK?. There is a world of difference between applying nail polish - something Sheila probably did without even thinking about it, on a daily basis - and massacring five human beings.
Sheila Cafell was an ex-model. The simple act of applying nail polish or any other beauty treatment would have been second nature to her.
Using this as an example to show how coordinated she may have been and therefore could have committed the killings is utterly absurd.
8-)(--)
-
It could have been a hot August night abs.
Many people sleep on top of the bed, or underneath the top cover, but that doesn't make them restless. 8(>((
It was described as a warm muggy August night. All the more reason why an Aga would not have been fired up at the time of the murders.
A very good point John.
Yes it was a muggy night. Why would anyone put the Aga on ? It makes no sense. Morover, I have checked the statements by police officers. None mentioned that the room was hot. No mention of the Aga being on at all.
I believe it is just another misleading theory by the blue forum to explain another misleading theory.
-
I do realize that it has to be either Sheila or Jeremy. Jeremy MIGHT have painted himself into a corner with that phonecall.
I think that Sheila was more ill than people here generally think. I think it is highly disturbing that a mother says that her children are the devil´s children and that they are capable of having sex with her. In my min that raises red flags galore!
There are so many things that make me think that Sheila could have done it. She was up that night - her bed was not properly slept in, she had eaten. It indicates some restlessness. I am not sure it would have been good for Sheila to be alone with her thoughts with everyone else asleep.
Of course a lot more, but I don´t want to write a novel.
Where is the blood spatter on Sheila and her clothing abs. Where is the glass on her feet or shoes from the smashed light shade in the kitchen? Where are her wounds from fighting with Nevill abs...not even a single fingernail out of place??
How does someone with little firearms experience load and fire a rifle 22 times abs without leaving some traces on her or the rifle? How did she manage to fire and hit her target nearly every time?
FACT> When Nevill reached the kitchen we know he had been shot several times in the face and shoulder. How was he able to reach the phone, dial Jeremy and speak to him with blood running out of him and virtually unable to speak?
No blood on the kitchen floor or the telephone belonging to Nevill abs...no blood at all on the phone or anywhere near it?
Why did he not scream at jeremy that he had been shot? Could it be because this was just a lie?
You have to look at the evidence abs which is there and not blank this out because of some empathy with a killer. Sheila may have been ill but she was superwoman or the invisible woman...follow the evidence!
Abs, some interesting information. You do seem to place alot of emphasis on Sheila Caffell's mental condition and extrapolate ideas from it as reasons why she could have committed the murders. True enough, nothing is impossible, but do you not think that to take this line you have to completely ignore all the other evidence that points to her being completely innocent of the murders?
Abs, psychology is not a precise science. It is a discipline that studies the complexities and abnomalies of the human mind. Psycologists will look for traits and patterns in order to find a diagnosis - somewhere in between lies a very grey area. This is an area that belongs to the individual and often fits no pattern or trait and any diagnosis here is very subjective and open to debate. How then, one wonders, can some theorists come up with a whole chapter and verse scenario trying desparately to paint a woman - who no longer has a voice with which to defend herself - as the culprit? What are you basing it on? What evidence other than 'it is possible due to her mental condition' can you possibly have for suggesting what you do? Yes Sheila made some bizzare statements often due to her illness, but this is a world away from committing mass-murder.
The truth is Abs, that there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever, that Sheila Cafell murdered her family. If you know of any, please feel free to put it forward rather than suppositions based on a highly subjective area.
-
Some very good points are being made here but I hope that this forum is not going down the route of the blue lot and getting aggressive with the perceived opposition. I do not agree with ABS but she has a point of view and she does not indulge in the sort of immature abuse which seems to have become an increasing feature of the other forum. I know the people who spoke to Sheila on the telephone during the evening prior to the murders and they are people of great integrity who also knew Seila very well. She was reported to be in a normal mental state and enthusiastic about planned outings with the twins for the succeeding two days.
-
I think that Sheila's 'mental issues' for want of a better expression have been done to death on the pro bamber forum and it is really a waste of time interms of trying to deflect away from jb's guilt, and is ,imo,rather disrespectful to her memory - she was murdered and her children were murdered.If there had been anything,anything at all in her medical record to give weight to a diagnosis of the kind of psychosis that may have made her a killer,I'm certain this would have been exploited to the hilt by jb's barristers at his trial -- this is the sort of thing barristers normally expoit to the hilt.If new info. re her own condition or,re 'mothers who kill,due to their medication being halved and this leading to murderous psychosis in all cases' had emerged since,then,with the appropriate expert testimony this could have been part of jb's 2002 appeal or formed a key part of his CCRC submissions BUT it hasn't,as far as I'm aware.Therefore I would say it's abit of a non-starter,which doesn't seem to stop some of the ladies on the other forum from making some startling diagnostic assertions!
However,Abs,I do think has been very measured in what she has said and has never said anything less than respectful about Sheila,and this remains a very nice forum to have a proper discussion on,whatever one's views on jb's guilt or innocence
-
Abs, point of view is welcome on here, always will be. She is measured in her posts. even if i disagree with them!
-
I agree, Cathy. I think the facts as they stand exonerate Sheila - attempting to recreate her diagnosis after quarter of a century without the benefit of qualifications or having met her is can only ever be speculation. I mean that completely respectfully to all concerned, but even a qualified Psychiatrist would usually balk at offering a diagnosis on a patient he had never met.
I'm afraid that until someone can offer me a logical explanation as to why Sheila was found in the relatively clean state she was, I just can't believe that she was responsible. Her psychiatric history matters not to me.
-
Some very good points are being made here but I hope that this forum is not going down the route of the blue lot and getting aggressive with the perceived opposition. I do not agree with ABS but she has a point of view and she does not indulge in the sort of immature abuse which seems to have become an increasing feature of the other forum. I know the people who spoke to Sheila on the telephone during the evening prior to the murders and they are people of great integrity who also knew Seila very well. She was reported to be in a normal mental state and enthusiastic about planned outings with the twins for the succeeding two days.
I am with you on that one Dillon. I think the tolerence of the opinions of others is what separates this forum from the other. I have spoken to people on there that seem to lose the plot if they are challenged. Grahame Belton is a particularly severe case and just cannot see the hypocrisy in what he is saying. As much as I disagree with their opinions on this case I would defend their rights to express them openly and without prejudice, to the hilt.
Winston Churchill once wrote 'The truth emerges from the clash of adverse opinions' Long may it remain so.
-
Oh Gosh, sorry I didn't mean to sound aggressive -- if I came over that way,I apologize
Perhaps its the authoritarian ex-teacher in me,really don't mean to cause offence
-
.
-
I found this little beaut on Bambers 'Campaign For Freedom' website.
If readers could read it long enough and resist the urge to projectile vomit, you would immediately appreciate the uncanny ability of the writer to twist of the truth to such an extent as to make it appear to be a completely different case and completely different people being discussed. I quote
'Other officers detail in their statements that Jeremy was crying and was visibly upset and distressed. When the doctor arrived he gave him a sip of whiskey from a hip flask. This made Jeremy sick. When they took Jeremy to his home, police insisted he eat something to stop him from retching. He had little food in the house and went to the fridge, the only thing he could find was bacon which he put into the microwave and then into two pieces of bread, he ate this with the encouragement of the police officers and so is the kernel of the myth of the jolly Jeremy Bamber sitting at this kitchen table eating a hearty cooked breakfast with police officers'[/i]
It gets worse............much worse..
In regards to his inappropriate nights out and partying after the murders, the writer comes up with this little gem....
'Brett Collins, Julie and Jeremy went out drinking together a lot after the tragedy, Jeremy Bamber recently said in an interview with the Mirror Newspaper “I am certainly not alone in turning to alcohol in sorrow – nor in seeking the company of others who cared about me.” Brett tried to keep Jeremy’s spirits high with good humour and Jeremy even joined his friend, the twins father, Colin Caffell on the 9th of August where he, Jeremy, Julie, Brett and three others went for Chinese meal and then on to a concert as both Jeremy and Colin tried to put a brave face on their grief'
Thoughts anyone?................... @)(++(*
-
I found this little beaut on Bambers 'Campaign For Freedom' website.
If readers could read it long enough and resist the urge to projectile vomit, you would immediately appreciate the uncanny ability of the writer to twist of the truth to such an extent as to make it appear to be a completely different case and completely different people being discussed. I quote
'Other officers detail in their statements that Jeremy was crying and was visibly upset and distressed. When the doctor arrived he gave him a sip of whiskey from a hip flask. This made Jeremy sick. When they took Jeremy to his home, police insisted he eat something to stop him from retching. He had little food in the house and went to the fridge, the only thing he could find was bacon which he put into the microwave and then into two pieces of bread, he ate this with the encouragement of the police officers and so is the kernel of the myth of the jolly Jeremy Bamber sitting at this kitchen table eating a hearty cooked breakfast with police officers'[/i]
It gets worse............much worse..
In regards to his inappropriate nights out and partying after the murders, the writer comes up with this little gem....
'Brett Collins, Julie and Jeremy went out drinking together a lot after the tragedy, Jeremy Bamber recently said in an interview with the Mirror Newspaper “I am certainly not alone in turning to alcohol in sorrow – nor in seeking the company of others who cared about me.” Brett tried to keep Jeremy’s spirits high with good humour and Jeremy even joined his friend, the twins father, Colin Caffell on the 9th of August where he, Jeremy, Julie, Brett and three others went for Chinese meal and then on to a concert as both Jeremy and Colin tried to put a brave face on their grief'
Thoughts anyone?................... @)(++(*
Too right, Starryian. Bamber has one suspects a pretty small band of obsessed supporters who will go to any lengths to manipulate the truth. Grief .... expressed in grabbing as much of his deceased family's assets as possible, as quickly as possible, foreign holidays, indulgent boozing, expensive meals, drug buying expedition etc. !!! Come off it guys. You are living on a different planet. This is grossly abnormal behaviour.... very sick and evil. Having come across grief at close quarters in people who have suffered loss in some dreadful traumatic event such as a road accident, I have never come across this sort of so called " grief " reaction.
I also find the continuous raking over of Sheila's past, family and mental health history nauseating by another little group of posters on the Bamber forum, " April 1", " Egap1", the not very bright " Lookout " etc very weird and obsessional. All backed up with pseudo sociological and psychological mumbo jumbo. They seem desperate to prove that Sheila could have been capable of the murders completely in the face of the evidence so well outlined by you and others on this forum. They go on an on and on and on , round and round the same loop., just reinforcing each others distorted perceptions. Fair debate and discussion is one thing but the behaviour of this little clique on the Bamber forum imo is indicative of mental health issues on their part. And where do they find the time ? The only good thing is that they are killing off that forum.... it is just so tedious. Some of the more reasonable posters there must find it very depressing and the good Mr Bellis ? He must think, how on earth did I get mixed up with this crowd of cranks ? Is it really worth it and how can I bale out without losing face ?
-
I found this little beaut on Bambers 'Campaign For Freedom' website.
If readers could read it long enough and resist the urge to projectile vomit, you would immediately appreciate the uncanny ability of the writer to twist of the truth to such an extent as to make it appear to be a completely different case and completely different people being discussed. I quote
'Other officers detail in their statements that Jeremy was crying and was visibly upset and distressed. When the doctor arrived he gave him a sip of whiskey from a hip flask. This made Jeremy sick. When they took Jeremy to his home, police insisted he eat something to stop him from retching. He had little food in the house and went to the fridge, the only thing he could find was bacon which he put into the microwave and then into two pieces of bread, he ate this with the encouragement of the police officers and so is the kernel of the myth of the jolly Jeremy Bamber sitting at this kitchen table eating a hearty cooked breakfast with police officers'[/i]
It gets worse............much worse..
In regards to his inappropriate nights out and partying after the murders, the writer comes up with this little gem....
'Brett Collins, Julie and Jeremy went out drinking together a lot after the tragedy, Jeremy Bamber recently said in an interview with the Mirror Newspaper “I am certainly not alone in turning to alcohol in sorrow – nor in seeking the company of others who cared about me.” Brett tried to keep Jeremy’s spirits high with good humour and Jeremy even joined his friend, the twins father, Colin Caffell on the 9th of August where he, Jeremy, Julie, Brett and three others went for Chinese meal and then on to a concert as both Jeremy and Colin tried to put a brave face on their grief'
Thoughts anyone?................... @)(++(*
Too right, Starryian. Bamber has one suspects a pretty small band of obsessed supporters who will go to any lengths to manipulate the truth. Grief .... expressed in grabbing as much of his deceased family's assets as possible, as quickly as possible, foreign holidays, indulgent boozing, expensive meals, drug buying expedition etc. !!! Come off it guys. You are living on a different planet. This is grossly abnormal behaviour.... very sick and evil. Having come across grief at close quarters in people who have suffered loss in some dreadful traumatic event such as a road accident, I have never come across this sort of so called " grief " reaction.
I also find the continuous raking over of Sheila's past, family and mental health history nauseating by another little group of posters on the Bamber forum, " April 1", " Egap1", the not very bright " Lookout " etc very weird and obsessional. All backed up with pseudo sociological and psychological mumbo jumbo. They seem desperate to prove that Sheila could have been capable of the murders completely in the face of the evidence so well outlined by you and others on this forum. They go on an on and on and on , round and round the same loop., just reinforcing each others distorted perceptions. Fair debate and discussion is one thing but the behaviour of this little clique on the Bamber forum imo is indicative of mental health issues on their part. And where do they find the time ? The only good thing is that they are killing off that forum.... it is just so tedious. Some of the more reasonable posters there must find it very depressing and the good Mr Bellis ? He must think, how on earth did I get mixed up with this crowd of cranks ? Is it really worth it and how can I bale out without losing face ?
Good points Dillon,
I agree they are very misguided. If people read what they write very carefully, they seem to have developed the ability to completely ignore any points that clearly point in other directions. I believe that some of it has to do with the chance to show their mettle: they align themselves against the world in a heated defense of their idol. This may appear to be a very strange psychological phenomenon, but it is common amongst supporters where the object of their affections is clearly guilty. The more guilty they are, the more vociferous the supporter becomes in their efferts to defend them, and the theories become increasingly ad absurdum . An ever-increasing spiral of dependence and delusion is soon in place. Often the last people to recognise this is the supporter themselves.
However, most of them are well-meaning and truly want to believe that this person is not what they appear. Unfortunately, Jeremy Bamber is a highly manipulative psychopath and convincing these people that he is innocent is child's play to him. Bamber is a very skilled liar and is adept at painting himself as the victim (a very common trait amongst psychopaths) in order to elicit sympathy. He has the ability to decompartmentalise whole sections of his life. He is able to 'lock away' the memories of what he had done in the reccesses of his mind and act as though they never occurred. This is one of the reasons why a psychopath so can easily defeat a polygraph test. Many psychopaths have this ability. Their mind is akin to a computer; they are able to simply switch hard drives or use 'System Restore' when it suits them. They can 'decompartmentalise' different areas of their life according to the situation they are in at any given moment. Bamber, it has to be said, is a master of this.
-
I found this little beaut on Bambers 'Campaign For Freedom' website.
If readers could read it long enough and resist the urge to projectile vomit, you would immediately appreciate the uncanny ability of the writer to twist of the truth to such an extent as to make it appear to be a completely different case and completely different people being discussed. I quote
'Other officers detail in their statements that Jeremy was crying and was visibly upset and distressed. When the doctor arrived he gave him a sip of whiskey from a hip flask. This made Jeremy sick. When they took Jeremy to his home, police insisted he eat something to stop him from retching. He had little food in the house and went to the fridge, the only thing he could find was bacon which he put into the microwave and then into two pieces of bread, he ate this with the encouragement of the police officers and so is the kernel of the myth of the jolly Jeremy Bamber sitting at this kitchen table eating a hearty cooked breakfast with police officers'[/i]
It gets worse............much worse..
In regards to his inappropriate nights out and partying after the murders, the writer comes up with this little gem....
'Brett Collins, Julie and Jeremy went out drinking together a lot after the tragedy, Jeremy Bamber recently said in an interview with the Mirror Newspaper ?I am certainly not alone in turning to alcohol in sorrow ? nor in seeking the company of others who cared about me.? Brett tried to keep Jeremy?s spirits high with good humour and Jeremy even joined his friend, the twins father, Colin Caffell on the 9th of August where he, Jeremy, Julie, Brett and three others went for Chinese meal and then on to a concert as both Jeremy and Colin tried to put a brave face on their grief'
Thoughts anyone?................... @)(++(*
Too right, Starryian. Bamber has one suspects a pretty small band of obsessed supporters who will go to any lengths to manipulate the truth. Grief .... expressed in grabbing as much of his deceased family's assets as possible, as quickly as possible, foreign holidays, indulgent boozing, expensive meals, drug buying expedition etc. !!! Come off it guys. You are living on a different planet. This is grossly abnormal behaviour.... very sick and evil. Having come across grief at close quarters in people who have suffered loss in some dreadful traumatic event such as a road accident, I have never come across this sort of so called " grief " reaction.
I also find the continuous raking over of Sheila's past, family and mental health history nauseating by another little group of posters on the Bamber forum, " April 1", " Egap1", the not very bright " Lookout " etc very weird and obsessional. All backed up with pseudo sociological and psychological mumbo jumbo. They seem desperate to prove that Sheila could have been capable of the murders completely in the face of the evidence so well outlined by you and others on this forum. They go on an on and on and on , round and round the same loop., just reinforcing each others distorted perceptions. Fair debate and discussion is one thing but the behaviour of this little clique on the Bamber forum imo is indicative of mental health issues on their part. And where do they find the time ? The only good thing is that they are killing off that forum.... it is just so tedious. Some of the more reasonable posters there must find it very depressing and the good Mr Bellis ? He must think, how on earth did I get mixed up with this crowd of cranks ? Is it really worth it and how can I bale out without losing face ?
They are obviously desperate to paint Bamber as whiter than white. Stan Jones and Julie Mugford both confirmed independently that when Bamber first met up with Mugford at his house in Goldhanger he was caught smirking inappropriately when Jones entered the room unexpectedly. I would love to see them explain that one!
-
About the partying, I have done that myself when I was 22 and my fiance suddenly died. I was devastated, but I partied more than I had ever done before, it was my way of reacting to his death. I couldn´t be alone at all.
To me those things do not prove anything about the murders. You don´t stop eating when there is a death/deaths in your family, you just don´t.
-
About the partying, I have done that myself when I was 22 and my fiance suddenly died. I was devastated, but I partied more than I had ever done before, it was my way of reacting to his death. I couldn´t be alone at all.
To me those things do not prove anything about the murders. You don´t stop eating when there is a death/deaths in your family, you just don´t.
I am afraid Abs that this is not what the point was about. 'Partying' as you call it (an American phrase meaning to 'enjoy oneself in the company of one or more people - totally different to the British meaning)
Bamber didn't 'party' he went out and enjoyed himself, spent lavishly went on holiday trips, just about everything a person can do to prove that are are not grieving. I know people grieve in different ways, but I am now a little tired of hearing this argument applied in extremis and ad infinitum when making excuses for his callous behaviour. Of course , no it doesn't make him a murderer - but it makes it a whole lot more likely doesnt it? It is standard behaviour and is usually a dead giveaway that some simply doesn't care. This is how other human being know that things are not right Abs. We can talk forever what his lack of grieving may mean - to most, it was an good indicator of his utter contempt for his family. Bamber was enjoying himself not grieving, there is a distinct difference. Most of those that knew him said so and testified to that fact. Thats is evidence enough.
Incidently yous tated that you dont stop eating.............On that point you are completely incorrect. On the death of my friends mother she was so grief-stricken that she didn't eat. It took a trip to the hospital and presciption drugs to help her regain her appetite.
Abs I am intrigued as to why you are constantly making unlikely excuses for Bamber's acts but never seem to add weight or comment on those that support his guilt? I understand that you are not convinced of his guilt. I respect that and support anyone's stance, but you seem to be arguing from a standpoint of his innocence or at least give that impression. Nothing wrong with that, but please be clear. 8((()*/
-
I know the difference between partying and enjoying yourself.
-
About the partying, I have done that myself when I was 22 and my fiance suddenly died. I was devastated, but I partied more than I had ever done before, it was my way of reacting to his death. I couldn´t be alone at all.
To me those things do not prove anything about the murders. You don´t stop eating when there is a death/deaths in your family, you just don´t.
I agree with Starryian about your statement about not eating. I have had lots of experience of grief reactions in a professional capacity, as well as in the context of family and friends. Some people do stop eating or at least eat very little under these circumstances so with respect your categorical statement is incorrect. Bamber's behaviour for a considerable time after the murders may not prove his guilt but is imo highly abnormal .
-
Abs, I agree with you.
I'm probably one of the abnormal one's that people keep refering too. I didn't break down and/or particularly change anything when I've lost 3 out of 4 Grandparents. I loved them and I thought of myself very lucky to have had a full set of grandparents up to the age of 34. I was however devestated that my Granddad suffered at the end because no-one deserves to die like he did. I suppose they were old and they'd had a mainly good and long life.
I was devestated whe I lost my neighbour last year at 37 years old, my best friend when she was 40 and a number of other friends young but again, I can't say I really did anything I wouldn't normally do from day to day and it was fairly much from an outsiders view 'business as usual' but thats not to say people who show no outward signs of grief aren't suffering, all it means is it's not on public display.
I don't know if it's wise to judge a book by it's cover, just go where the evidence takes you.
-
Is this not a bit different ? You are a young man of 24 and ( assuming his innocence ) suddenly find that your family has been brutally butchered in the house where you were brought up. Not long after, you are selling the contents of the house ( all illegally incidently as probate had not been granted ), trying to sell photos of your late adopted sister to the tabloid press, besides the holidaying and general junketing. This surely is not just putting on a brave face, business as normal etc ?
-
Is this not a bit different ? You are a young man of 24 and ( assuming his innocence ) suddenly find that your family has been brutally butchered in the house where you were brought up. Not long after, you are selling the contents of the house ( all illegally incidently as probate had not been granted ), trying to sell photos of your late adopted sister to the tabloid press, besides the holidaying and general junketing. This surely is not just putting on a brave face, business as normal etc ?
You are correct Dillon. This was certainly not normal activity by any means in the face of a bereavement.
This was pure greed and desperation to get money and get it at any cost. I still think we don't have the whole truth behind these events. Why did he need that money in such a rush and why the trips abroad in swift succession so soon after the murders. It can take weeks and months for probate to be received and especially in a case where there have been 5 murders of people who all stood to benefit.
I definitely smell a rat.
-
Abs, I agree with you.
I'm probably one of the abnormal one's that people keep refering too. I didn't break down and/or particularly change anything when I've lost 3 out of 4 Grandparents. I loved them and I thought of myself very lucky to have had a full set of grandparents up to the age of 34. I was however devestated that my Granddad suffered at the end because no-one deserves to die like he did. I suppose they were old and they'd had a mainly good and long life.
I was devestated whe I lost my neighbour last year at 37 years old, my best friend when she was 40 and a number of other friends young but again, I can't say I really did anything I wouldn't normally do from day to day and it was fairly much from an outsiders view 'business as usual' but thats not to say people who show no outward signs of grief aren't suffering, all it means is it's not on public display.
I don't know if it's wise to judge a book by it's cover, just go where the evidence takes you.
I agree Joanne, but I think what you are referring to is a little different to this; these people did not die a natural death or by accident but were murdered in the most brutal way imaginable. Your ENTIRE family including two 6 year old boys. Admittedly you can go in to some kind of shock or do odd things, but this does not in any way explain Bamber callous actions after the murders - he tried to sell his dead sisters photos to a journalist, he behaved with callous indifference and told Julie Mugford that 'I did everyone a favour' He smirked, giggled and claimed that he 'should have been an actor' the morning after the murders.
I do not call this 'grief' even by the supporters standards and not by any stretch of my imagination.
Bamber has relied on just the excuses given to explain away his behaviour. Callousness and the very human emotion of grief are two very different things - Bamber's supporters have tried to convince everyone that the two can be confused.
-
I also agree with Abs. Again, in a semi-professional capacity, I've seen some really peculiar reactions to loss and grief, and if I'm honest I haven't always reacted to grief in a classical way myself. I've learned over the years that you can never judge someone by their response in an extreme situation, so I don't judge JB's case by the way he reacted after the murders - it isn't the deciding factor for me.
I just don't see any physical evidence that Sheila committed the murders. That's the beginning and the end of it for me, really.
-
I also agree with Abs. Again, in a semi-professional capacity, I've seen some really peculiar reactions to loss and grief, and if I'm honest I haven't always reacted to grief in a classical way myself. I've learned over the years that you can never judge someone by their response in an extreme situation, so I don't judge JB's case by the way he reacted after the murders - it isn't the deciding factor for me.
I just don't see any physical evidence that Sheila committed the murders. That's the beginning and the end of it for me, really.
Does this include trying to sell his dead sisters photos to a Sun reporter? You dont blame him??
I am utterly flabberghasted by that statement. No matter what there is NO excuse for the behaviour he displayed...........NONE. As in most things there are limits and this was WAY beyond the pale.
For me this spoke volumes about Bamber.
-
For me his behaviour after the murders is by no means indicative of his guilt. However, put together with all of the other factors (having the means, motive and opportunity to commit murder; the fact that Sheila could not have murdered those four people in this way; Sheila's blood in the silencer; Julie's confession) his behaviour is merely the icing on the cake. I agree people can grieve in different ways, but it is a matter of fact that he attempted to sell nude photos of Sheila to the press very soon afterwards, he visited his solicitor the day after to talk about getting his inheritance. A grief stricken person would not do these things.
-
I'm sorry if you don't believe me Ian, but I've seen families almost break down because one persons response to loss has been what was considered abnormal. There's one particular episode that's sticking in my mind, but I don't particularly want to put it on a public forum, because the events were very specific, and were also quite public. I'll have a chat with my conscience, and I may PM you the details.
I'd just like to reaffirm that I believe that JB is guilty as sin - but it's the physical evidence that leads me to that conclusion.
-
I also agree with Abs. Again, in a semi-professional capacity, I've seen some really peculiar reactions to loss and grief, and if I'm honest I haven't always reacted to grief in a classical way myself. I've learned over the years that you can never judge someone by their response in an extreme situation, so I don't judge JB's case by the way he reacted after the murders - it isn't the deciding factor for me.
I just don't see any physical evidence that Sheila committed the murders. That's the beginning and the end of it for me, really.
Does this include trying to sell his dead sisters photos to a Sun reporter? You dont blame him??
I am utterly flabberghasted by that statement. No matter what there is NO excuse for the behaviour he displayed...........NONE. As in most things there are limits and this was WAY beyond the pale.
For me this spoke volumes about Bamber.
I can accept some strange behaviour after a bereavement but you are right, trying to sell nude or semi-nude photos of your murdered sister to the Press just doesn't cut it.
He wasn't grieving, he was bloody milking it for all he could get.
-
I think Jeremy Bamber having killed his family, who he probably had no feelings at all for and he might have even hated them, probably thought his chickens had come home to roost, especially because he thought he was in line for a ton of money, was never going to act grief stricken and I think he probably only cried at the funeral for 'obligatory' reasons or in his mind it was the right thing to do.
He probably did cry for real when he got his sentence.
-
I'm sorry if you don't believe me Ian, but I've seen families almost break down because one persons response to loss has been what was considered abnormal. There's one particular episode that's sticking in my mind, but I don't particularly want to put it on a public forum, because the events were very specific, and were also quite public. I'll have a chat with my conscience, and I may PM you the details.
I'd just like to reaffirm that I believe that JB is guilty as sin - but it's the physical evidence that leads me to that conclusion.
I think we have got crossed wires somewhat. It is not because of his lack of grief but rather it is the callous manner he behaved. I also have seen people grieve in all sorts of ways and it is totally normal. What I consider abnormal is the sheer callousness and inappropriate behaviour that he displayed. No-one has to grieve in a certain way but I do consider some actions to be way beyond the pale and highly insensitive. These were deliberate acts nothing to do with grief at all. Let us not confuse the two.
I will give you some examples; Bamber in church; Looks at his watch, yawns and states to his friends 'times up, lets get out of here!'
Outside when entering the church and out of earshot of the press ' Look at these vultures (referring to his relatives) If they think they are going to get a penny, they are very much mistaken! '
I do not consider this to be to some form of 'grief' in any means shape or form. It is acts such as these that alert the police in the first place. It indicates that there is usually something wrong or something is not quite right.
DS Stan Jones sensed Bamber was 'putting it on' outside the farm when told of the death of his family. Bamber was clearly acting. Acted out grief and real grief can be detected.
If I had witenessed this first hand I would have been extremely offended. So, too I imagine would alot of other people.
-
I think Jeremy Bamber having killed his family, who he probably had no feelings at all for and he might have even hated them, probably thought his chickens had come home to roost, especially because he thought he was in line for a ton of money, was never going to act grief stricken and I think he probably only cried at the funeral for 'obligatory' reasons or in his mind it was the right thing to do.
He probably did cry for real when he got his sentence.
I agree Joanne. Bamber had no way of knowing whether or not he was acting appropriately. At one stage he looked to be copying David Boutflour and using his grief as a template.
According to a court official at Chelmsford Crown Court, when Bamber was sentenced and led down to his cell with the judges condeming words still ringing in his ears. Bamber sat down and began to read a book. Only later as they were waiting for the prison van to collect Bamber the official looked through the spyhole in the cell door he saw Bamber crouched on his bed slowly punching his hand repeating the words 'no, no, no, no'
Being found guilty was absolutely the last thing he was expecting. Earlier he worried even his defense council by his haughty, arrogant manner who told him to 'calm it down a little' He was confident tot he point of arrogance as if totally unaware of his circumstances. The defense reminded him that 'the decision may not come back in his favour' This seems to have made no difference to his behaviour.
-
I think Jeremy Bamber having killed his family, who he probably had no feelings at all for and he might have even hated them, probably thought his chickens had come home to roost, especially because he thought he was in line for a ton of money, was never going to act grief stricken and I think he probably only cried at the funeral for 'obligatory' reasons or in his mind it was the right thing to do.
He probably did cry for real when he got his sentence.
The only time he showed any emotion was when the jury foreman returned the five guilty verdicts.
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1986/10/28/AS281086001/?s=jeremy+bamber&st=0&pn=1
-
It sounds like the judge has his measure of JB.
-
I find your posts most informative Ian. You have included a lot of details which could have been lost for all sorts of reason.
I was thinking about Julie's statement and the "I should have been an actor" comment made by Jeremy bamber. Julie had no reason to make up such a silly comment which for me makes it all the more believable.
-
JB certainly has given oscar winning performances 8(8-))
-
JB certainly has given oscar winning performances 8(8-))
He craves the publicity.
-
I find your posts most informative Ian. You have included a lot of details which could have been lost for all sorts of reason.
I was thinking about Julie's statement and the "I should have been an actor" comment made by Jeremy bamber. Julie had no reason to make up such a silly comment which for me makes it all the more believable.
Good point John. Yes that comment was alluded and confirmed to by none other than DS Stan Jones who was present when this took place. Bamber took Julie into an upstairs bedroom after her arrival at his cottage in Goldhanger. It was then that Jones says he heard a noise that sounded like a chuckle. Julie Mugford confirmed this in her statement that Jeremy hugged me and whispered into my ear "I should have been an actor" and he let out a giggle.
This was the noise that Jones overheard. It was Bamber callously bragging about his own 'ingenuity.'
-
It would be boring if all those who are convinced that Bamber is guilty sang from the same hymn sheet when trying to understand his personality and behaviour. There is a lot that we really do notunderstand. To me it is a mystery that he became an apparently psychopathic killer and I accept that I do not have insight into the process which in his case led to his developing a personality disorder with such lethal consequences. Yes, there are a variety of grief reactions, some of them culturally mediated. Arguably someone socialised in a public school or military background might be better at submerging their emotions and putting on the traditional stiff upper lip. West African friends, in contrast, tend to display a much more overt expression of grief. However, it is the greed and disregard for the memory of his dead sister which in my eyes is most inappropriate. In another context, where there was clear evidence that Bamber could not have been guilty, such inappropriate behaviour might have been explicable in another way, for example that his personality fitted with a degree of Asberger's Syndrome.
-
It would be boring if all those who are convinced that Bamber is guilty sang from the same hymn sheet when trying to understand his personality and behaviour. There is a lot that we really do notunderstand. To me it is a mystery that he became an apparently psychopathic killer and I accept that I do not have insight into the process which in his case led to his developing a personality disorder with such lethal consequences. Yes, there are a variety of grief reactions, some of them culturally mediated. Arguably someone socialised in a public school or military background might be better at submerging their emotions and putting on the traditional stiff upper lip. West African friends, in contrast, tend to display a much more overt expression of grief. However, it is the greed and disregard for the memory of his dead sister which in my eyes is most inappropriate. In another context, where there was clear evidence that Bamber could not have been guilty, such inappropriate behaviour might have been explicable in another way, for example that his personality fitted with a degree of Asberger's Syndrome.
Dillon I agree with your analysis. It is, of course, a mystery how any psychopath develops let alone one as murderous as Bamber. Personally and looking at the evidence I believe Bamber was not 'born bad' but developed psychopathy. Here are some thoughts of mine. I am certainly no psychologist but I have had some psychological training.
They are just ideas that I have according to the evidence.The key moment in his life appears to have been him being sent away to boarding school. This traumatic severence from his mother may have forced him to shut down emotionally in order to protect himself from the emotions that would may otherwise have overwhelmed him. Boarding school can be a very tough, unyielding place where one has to be tough to survive. The shutting down was a way of coping with his surroundings. The problem is, is that the shutting down becomes deeply ingrained and irreversible. Normal emotional development would be stunted and attachments to others become more difficult. At this time a sense of self-reliance and insular arrogance would have developed. The overwhelming belief that whatever he did would be right. This insularity becomes more pronounced as he grew into adulthood where he tries to rationalise himself and his situation. He comes to the conclusion that his parents dont love him and adopted him, shuned him in his hour of need and now use him as a slave simply to work on the farm. This develops later into a full blown hatred of his family and soon develops a distorted view of his own importance and entitlement. His parents are now nothing to him but an ongoing nuisance. The rest of his family -Sheila and her boys also fall into this category. He withdraws completely and treats his family with the contempt he thinks they deserve. It was probably (according to Julie Mugford) around the winter of 1984 when he first entertained thoughts of killing his family. Bamber would have seen every action by his parents in a very negative way. He would have interpreted for example, the incidence when he was a child of his mother accidently dropping him on his head. This would now be seen by Bamber as evidence of her utter neglect and further proof of her distain for him. He would only interpret events that would reinforce the reasons why he must kill them. By early spring 1985 Bamber was probably at the point of no return. He burgled the caravan site because he knew that the family would be dead soon and it wouldn't matter anyway. It was also his way of saying 'I can do whatever I like and I hate you' to his parents. It was also that summer that Bamber has begun to ask Sheila when she would be coming to stay with the twins - something he had never done before. A deadly, concerted plan was clearly underway.
Bamber was now committed to killing them all. The greed was, I believe a secondary issue to the first. The first being to brake free of the control that he felt he parents exerted over him. The inheritance would provide him with the independence he so craved and buy him the lifestyle which he believed to be his by right.
A murderous psychopath was now, in all intents and purposes stalking the family, silently watching, waiting for the opportunity to strike. Bamber got the opportunity on the night of 6/7th August 1985 and he grabbed it with both hands. He had Planned it out very carefully, thinking he'd left no clues. He probably obtained a high degree of satisfaction from the knowledge that he'd committed the 'perfect murder'. A set of murders that he assumed would never be uncovered.
These are my thoughts on the twisted development of Jeremy Bamber. Please feel free to add any.
-
I got a nasty message from Poppymeze tonight she must have heard I was on here
-
I got a nasty message from Poppymeze tonight she must have heard I was on here
It took her long enough Jackie. @)(++(*
-
That's what I thought Jerry but it will probably be a relentless onslaught now 8(8-))
-
Who's that, Jackie?
-
Who's that, Jackie?
Poppy Ann Miller the twitter gal. @)(++(*
http://twitter.com/PoppyMeze
-
It would be boring if all those who are convinced that Bamber is guilty sang from the same hymn sheet when trying to understand his personality and behaviour. There is a lot that we really do notunderstand. To me it is a mystery that he became an apparently psychopathic killer and I accept that I do not have insight into the process which in his case led to his developing a personality disorder with such lethal consequences. Yes, there are a variety of grief reactions, some of them culturally mediated. Arguably someone socialised in a public school or military background might be better at submerging their emotions and putting on the traditional stiff upper lip. West African friends, in contrast, tend to display a much more overt expression of grief. However, it is the greed and disregard for the memory of his dead sister which in my eyes is most inappropriate. In another context, where there was clear evidence that Bamber could not have been guilty, such inappropriate behaviour might have been explicable in another way, for example that his personality fitted with a degree of Asberger's Syndrome.
Dillon I agree with your analysis. It is, of course, a mystery how any psychopath develops let alone one as murderous as Bamber. Personally and looking at the evidence I believe Bamber was not 'born bad' but developed psychopathy. Here are some thoughts of mine. I am certainly no psychologist but I have had some psychological training.
They are just ideas that I have according to the evidence.The key moment in his life appears to have been him being sent away to boarding school. This traumatic severence from his mother may have forced him to shut down emotionally in order to protect himself from the emotions that would may otherwise have overwhelmed him. Boarding school can be a very tough, unyielding place where one has to be tough to survive. The shutting down was a way of coping with his surroundings. The problem is, is that the shutting down becomes deeply ingrained and irreversible. Normal emotional development would be stunted and attachments to others become more difficult. At this time a sense of self-reliance and insular arrogance would have developed. The overwhelming belief that whatever he did would be right. This insularity becomes more pronounced as he grew into adulthood where he tries to rationalise himself and his situation. He comes to the conclusion that his parents dont love him and adopted him, shuned him in his hour of need and now use him as a slave simply to work on the farm. This develops later into a full blown hatred of his family and soon develops a distorted view of his own importance and entitlement. His parents are now nothing to him but an ongoing nuisance. The rest of his family -Sheila and her boys also fall into this category. He withdraws completely and treats his family with the contempt he thinks they deserve. It was probably (according to Julie Mugford) around the winter of 1984 when he first entertained thoughts of killing his family. Bamber would have seen every action by his parents in a very negative way. He would have interpreted for example, the incidence when he was a child of his mother accidently dropping him on his head. This would now be seen by Bamber as evidence of her utter neglect and further proof of her distain for him. He would only interpret events that would reinforce the reasons why he must kill them. By early spring 1985 Bamber was probably at the point of no return. He burgled the caravan site because he knew that the family would be dead soon and it wouldn't matter anyway. It was also his way of saying 'I can do whatever I like and I hate you' to his parents. It was also that summer that Bamber has begun to ask Sheila when she would be coming to stay with the twins - something he had never done before. A deadly, concerted plan was clearly underway.
Bamber was now committed to killing them all. The greed was, I believe a secondary issue to the first. The first being to brake free of the control that he felt he parents exerted over him. The inheritance would provide him with the independence he so craved and buy him the lifestyle which he believed to be his by right.
A murderous psychopath was now, in all intents and purposes stalking the family, silently watching, waiting for the opportunity to strike. Bamber got the opportunity on the night of 6/7th August 1985 and he grabbed it with both hands. He had Planned it out very carefully, thinking he'd left no clues. He probably obtained a high degree of satisfaction from the knowledge that he'd committed the 'perfect murder'. A set of murders that he assumed would never be uncovered.
These are my thoughts on the twisted development of Jeremy Bamber. Please feel free to add any.
I think that you make some very interesting points. I wonder whether the seeds of insecurity and a sense of rejection may be sown even in the first few weeks and months of life. Some children put up for adoption in that era of unmarried mothers homes and adoption societies run by the churches may have been deprived of the love, bonding and stimulation that I feel is so important . These could be harsh, moralistic establishments run to strict routines where it must have been difficult for natural mothers who were going to lose their babies anyway to provide the emotional input that is imo needed at this critical stage of a child's development. And probably no fathers or grandparents etc on the scene either.
Everything that I have heard about June and Nevill confirms that they were loving, caring adoptive parents. Sheila and Jeremy appear to have had happy early childhoods in idyllic surroundings, attending kindly, soft local schools.
Then, wham ! Boarding school, and having been through that mill Iknow it can be tough, but how much more so for adopted children. A well intentioned move but possibly very harmful on top of much earlier rejection as infants.
Children in these establishments can be very cruel and it is said that Jeremy acquired the nickname " The b........ " at Greshams having confided in a " friend" that he had been adopted.
Later on Jeremy may have come to feel more and more trapped in the farming life. Hardworking, achieving farmers like Nevill are often desperately keen to see at least one son maintain the dynasty. Farmers often have this huge emotional attachment to their land. So Jeremy would have felt a lot of pressure. It may not have been in his genetics. These farming families go on generation after generation. Then he was being introduced to the joys of the big city with trips to see his sister and perhaps the hippyish, artistic influence of her partner, Colin. and others.
I have mentioned before, that he told someone I knew well at a shoot not long before the murders that his ambition was to work in London in something like the music business and made it clear that he was not interested in farming. Nevill would have probably found it very difficult to understand this sort of ambition.
Speculative, I know, but maybe part way to understanding how he became such a damaged personality. Nevertheless, other people survive backgrounds with such pressures and feelings of rejection so maybe there were also " nature" as well as " nurture " factors involved.
-
I believe there is much truth in what you post Dillon. Jeremy's wanderlust seems to have started after he left boarding school. He had two trips down under so there must have been some sort of attraction for him there. I know that he was supposed to have been on a diver training course but he could have undertaken the same thing in the UK and most probably been better trained as well.
It is strange that June had to send him £2000 to get him home in what looked like a bit of a hurry. What was he so desperate to get away from I wonder?
There was talk of criminally activity in association with Collins when they were in New Zealand and Collins did appear to have been known to the New Zealand Police. They even managed to send his fingerprints to Essex Police so they could compare them with what they had lifted from the crime scene.
Now an interesting point, why would Essex Police need to have done that if they had Collins in the flesh and could have taken his fingerprints at any time?
Could it have been that they were suspicious of Collins' real identity given what Robert Boutflour had found out about him and Jeremy??
-
I believe there is much truth in what you post Dillon. Jeremy's wanderlust seems to have started after he left boarding school. He had two trips down under so there must have been some sort of attraction for him there. I know that he was supposed to have been on a diver training course but he could have undertaken the same thing in the UK and most probably been better trained as well.
It is strange that June had to send him £2000 to get him home in what looked like a bit of a hurry. What was he so desperate to get away from I wonder?
There was talk of criminally activity in association with Collins when they were in New Zealand and Collins did appear to have been known to the New Zealand Police. They even managed to send his fingerprints to Essex Police so they could compare them with what they had lifted from the crime scene.
Now an interesting point, why would Essex Police need to have done that if they had Collins in the flesh and could have taken his fingerprints at any time?
Could it have been that they were suspicious of Collins' real identity given what Robert Boutflour had found out about him and Jeremy??
Very interesting points John,
The diving point is very interesting. I have discovered that he was in fact advised that a career in diving may have been out of the question due to an injury he received to his skull when he was a baby (the water pressure would have aggrivated it). The incidently referred to in my earlier post when June accidently dropped Jeremy. June was understandably mortified and felt guilty about it for a very long time afterwards. It took soothing words from Nevil to help put the incident finally behind her. Jeremy, true-to-form blamed June for the loss of his 'dream career' Julie Mugford later stated that Jeremy never forgave her.
It highlights very clearly the utter inability of a psychopath to empathise with another human being and understand very human frailties and faults. Bamber was totally incapable of this.
-
I believe there is much truth in what you post Dillon. Jeremy's wanderlust seems to have started after he left boarding school. He had two trips down under so there must have been some sort of attraction for him there. I know that he was supposed to have been on a diver training course but he could have undertaken the same thing in the UK and most probably been better trained as well.
It is strange that June had to send him £2000 to get him home in what looked like a bit of a hurry. What was he so desperate to get away from I wonder?
There was talk of criminally activity in association with Collins when they were in New Zealand and Collins did appear to have been known to the New Zealand Police. They even managed to send his fingerprints to Essex Police so they could compare them with what they had lifted from the crime scene.
Now an interesting point, why would Essex Police need to have done that if they had Collins in the flesh and could have taken his fingerprints at any time?
Could it have been that they were suspicious of Collins' real identity given what Robert Boutflour had found out about him and Jeremy??
Very interesting points John,
The diving point is very interesting. I have discovered that he was in fact advised that a career in diving may have been out of the question due to an injury he received to his skull when he was a baby (the water pressure would have aggrivated it). The incidently referred to in my earlier post when June accidently dropped Jeremy. June was understandably mortified and felt guilty about it for a very long time afterwards. It took soothing words from Nevil to help put the incident finally behind her. Jeremy, true-to-form blamed June for the loss of his 'dream career' Julie Mugford later stated that Jeremy never forgave her.
It highlights very clearly the utter inability of a psychopath to empathise with another human being and understand very human frailties and faults. Bamber was totally incapable of this.
I forgot to add the most important point to my post earlier and the whole reason for making it.
You are correct when you say it was his 'dream job' because farming certainly wasn't. Your point about farmers having to be born farmers is quite correct Dillon and it goes back many generations with most farming families.
Jeremy would never have been a farmer. Had he had the slightest interest he would have been more concerned with the farm and saving the business than he was with running around like a headless chicken. Barbara Wilson and Peter Eaton were left to do the needful at a time when they needed leadership and not stupidity. No wonder Peter did what he did, he could see the whole lot being sold off just like the family silver.
Nevill knew that mummy's boy Bamber would never make the grain as far as farming was concerned and it is not too far fetched to realise that Nevill had high hopes for Daniel and Nicholas, hopes which Jeremy Bamber came to see and which he was jealous of.
-
Jeremy Bamber is like the Lord Lucan of his day, wants the money but doesn't want to work for it. The main difference is Lord Lucan pulled a fast one when he clobbered Sandra Rivett, JB stayed.
-
Jeremy Bamber is like the Lord Lucan of his day, wants the money but doesn't want to work for it. The main difference is Lord Lucan pulled a fast one when he clobbered Sandra Rivett, JB stayed.
Do you think Lord Lucan is alive and well and living it up somewhere?
What we do know is before vanishing off the face of the earth, Lord Lucan drove 45 miles south to seek refuge with friends in Uckfield, East Sussex. Peter and Susan Maxwell-Scott were loyal members of Lord Lucan's inner circle, people he could trust with his life. They lived in Grants Hill House, a large manor house set in acres of gardens, with a swimming pool and several tennis courts. After being let into the house, Lucan was never seen again - he simply vanished into thin air.
Neil Bellis also resides near Uckfield...isn't it a small world?
-
Nothing would suprise me, he didn't really behave like a not-guilty person, he hot foots it to the Maxwell-Scotts and borrows a car and then disappears, he had mates who could have hid him and no body has been found unlike the John Stonehouse case (I think thats his name) and a lot of criminals from that era hot footed it to country's without extradition orders, so I don't know. I'm open to any ideas. He might be with Jimmy Hoffa as we speak, although he'd be about 150 of something @)(++(*
-
Jeremy Bamber is like the Lord Lucan of his day, wants the money but doesn't want to work for it. The main difference is Lord Lucan pulled a fast one when he clobbered Sandra Rivett, JB stayed.
Do you think Lord Lucan is alive and well and living it up somewhere?
What we do know is before vanishing off the face of the earth, Lord Lucan drove 45 miles south to seek refuge with friends in Uckfield, East Sussex. Peter and Susan Maxwell-Scott were loyal members of Lord Lucan's inner circle, people he could trust with his life. They lived in Grants Hill House, a large manor house set in acres of gardens, with a swimming pool and several tennis courts. After being let into the house, Lucan was never seen again - he simply vanished into thin air.
Neil Bellis also resides near Uckfield...isn't it a small world?
do you think there is a connection???? 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
-
Jeremy Bamber is like the Lord Lucan of his day, wants the money but doesn't want to work for it. The main difference is Lord Lucan pulled a fast one when he clobbered Sandra Rivett, JB stayed.
Do you think Lord Lucan is alive and well and living it up somewhere?
What we do know is before vanishing off the face of the earth, Lord Lucan drove 45 miles south to seek refuge with friends in Uckfield, East Sussex. Peter and Susan Maxwell-Scott were loyal members of Lord Lucan's inner circle, people he could trust with his life. They lived in Grants Hill House, a large manor house set in acres of gardens, with a swimming pool and several tennis courts. After being let into the house, Lucan was never seen again - he simply vanished into thin air.
Neil Bellis also resides near Uckfield...isn't it a small world?
do you think there is a connection???? 8-)(--) 8-)(--)
If Lucan is still alive he would be 77 now.
-
Who's Neil Bellis?
-
Who's Neil Bellis?
Ngb1066 (Global Moderator) on the blue forum. Sorry Joanne, thought you knew.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=122.msg8541#msg8541
-
I'm still trying to sort (in my mind) who everyone is and how they fit into things, I keep hearing names and trying to place them! The blue forum-brick by brick they're building a mad house really and the lunatics alreay run the asylum. I don't tend to go on because not a great deal makes any sense to me.
-
The Lucan case has always interested me greatly. Lucan I think disappeared with the help of his powerful, rich connections. Personally I think it unlikely that he is still alive today, but he may well be.
His friends could have helped to whisk him off abroad where he would assume a new identity and a new life.
I think as a person the man was a wastrel and a jerk with little or no common sense. It is a pity that he eluded justice and never faced the consequences of his appalling actions.
-
The Lucan case has always interested me greatly. Lucan I think disappeared with the help of his powerful, rich connections. Personally I think it unlikely that he is still alive today, but he may well be.
His friends could have helped to whisk him off abroad where he would assume a new identity and a new life.
I think as a person the man was a wastrel and a jerk with little or no common sense. It is a pity that he eluded justice and never faced the consequences of his appalling actions.
Even Ronnie Biggs came back to face justice and he was released on compassionate ground in 2009.
-
The Lucan case has always interested me greatly. Lucan I think disappeared with the help of his powerful, rich connections. Personally I think it unlikely that he is still alive today, but he may well be.
His friends could have helped to whisk him off abroad where he would assume a new identity and a new life.
I think as a person the man was a wastrel and a jerk with little or no common sense. It is a pity that he eluded justice and never faced the consequences of his appalling actions.
Even Ronnie Biggs came back to face justice and he was released on compassionate ground in 2009.
they do say crime doesn't pay??
-
The Lucan case has always interested me greatly. Lucan I think disappeared with the help of his powerful, rich connections. Personally I think it unlikely that he is still alive today, but he may well be.
His friends could have helped to whisk him off abroad where he would assume a new identity and a new life.
I think as a person the man was a wastrel and a jerk with little or no common sense. It is a pity that he eluded justice and never faced the consequences of his appalling actions.
I agree, he was whisked away by his worldwide network of associates. There were reports that he ended up in some African state some years back but as long as he is alive his whereabouts will remain a secret.
-
The Lucan case has always interested me greatly. Lucan I think disappeared with the help of his powerful, rich connections. Personally I think it unlikely that he is still alive today, but he may well be.
His friends could have helped to whisk him off abroad where he would assume a new identity and a new life.
I think as a person the man was a wastrel and a jerk with little or no common sense. It is a pity that he eluded justice and never faced the consequences of his appalling actions.
Even Ronnie Biggs came back to face justice and he was released on compassionate ground in 2009.
they do say crime doesn't pay??
I really dont think he benefitted by it. He was probably isolated, broke and reliant on hand-outs from friends for most of his life. Hunted, haunted and paranoid, forever looking over his shoulder. I really dont see any advantage to that existence.
-
I think handouts might be a better option than jail?
-
The Lucan case has always interested me greatly. Lucan I think disappeared with the help of his powerful, rich connections. Personally I think it unlikely that he is still alive today, but he may well be.
His friends could have helped to whisk him off abroad where he would assume a new identity and a new life.
I think as a person the man was a wastrel and a jerk with little or no common sense. It is a pity that he eluded justice and never faced the consequences of his appalling actions.
Even Ronnie Biggs came back to face justice and he was released on compassionate ground in 2009.
they do say crime doesn't pay??
I really dont think he benefitted by it. He was probably isolated, broke and reliant on hand-outs from friends for most of his life. Hunted, haunted and paranoid, forever looking over his shoulder. I really dont see any advantage to that existence.
Very true, his father provided a welcome bounty for him prior to his marriage but that was soon squandered as well. Was it ever established why he killed the nanny? We know that the nanny didn't normally work on a Thursday night so it is quite possible that she disturbed Lucan doing something in the basement and so had to be killed to silence her?
Or could it have been that he thought it was his wife Veronica who was coming down the stairs and killed the wrong woman?
He killed the nanny on the evening of Friday 7 November 1974 and the Ford Corsair which he had borrowed was seen parked in the port of Newhaven the following morning around 5am. Not much time to make arrangements.
-
I'm still trying to sort (in my mind) who everyone is and how they fit into things, I keep hearing names and trying to place them! The blue forum-brick by brick they're building a mad house really and the lunatics alreay run the asylum. I don't tend to go on because not a great deal makes any sense to me.
Nicely put Joanne. I find it very confusing too. Poor old Grahame keeps repeating that there is no evidence to convict Jeremy and he is innocent like some sort of strange mantra. Early onset Alzheimers ?
-
The Lucan case has always interested me greatly. Lucan I think disappeared with the help of his powerful, rich connections. Personally I think it unlikely that he is still alive today, but he may well be.
His friends could have helped to whisk him off abroad where he would assume a new identity and a new life.
I think as a person the man was a wastrel and a jerk with little or no common sense. It is a pity that he eluded justice and never faced the consequences of his appalling actions.
Even Ronnie Biggs came back to face justice and he was released on compassionate ground in 2009.
Do you think that Biggs would have returned had he not been terminally ill? I don't.
-
No, my theory is he thought he wouldn't go back to prison if he was dying and the mediacl care was probably better. I wonder if he had the medical costs to pay for in the country he left? It might be Brazil but I don't know.
I completely agree. I found it rather outrageous that once he returned and was sent to prison, there was a campaign by some for him to be released! They claimed that it was inhumane to keep a dying man locked up! His was a classic example of the glamorisation of crime. He was regarded as a celebrity and a bit of a hero. Outrageous .
-
No, my theory is he thought he wouldn't go back to prison if he was dying and the mediacl care was probably better. I wonder if he had the medical costs to pay for in the country he left? It might be Brazil but I don't know.
He was down to his last Brazilian Real more or less and as we all know there is little or no social security in these Latin American hide aways. I don't think he had much choice once his health failed so it was either die or return to Blighty.
-
The Lucan case has always interested me greatly. Lucan I think disappeared with the help of his powerful, rich connections. Personally I think it unlikely that he is still alive today, but he may well be.
His friends could have helped to whisk him off abroad where he would assume a new identity and a new life.
I think as a person the man was a wastrel and a jerk with little or no common sense. It is a pity that he eluded justice and never faced the consequences of his appalling actions.
Even Ronnie Biggs came back to face justice and he was released on compassionate ground in 2009.
Do you think that Biggs would have returned had he not been terminally ill? I don't.
Definitely not. He only returned for medical help.
-
Anyone seen Tesko's latest? Apparently he has the itemised phone listing of calls made from WHF and 9 Head Street on the night of the murders. Obviously he won't show them for some reason. He says there was a call from WHF to Jeremy and the phone records show the panic button (connected to the phone line) was activated hence the police car sent by Whitham at 3:35am. So at a stroke he admits that Neville didn't call the police as well as Jeremy (which he thought the phone logs proved) thereby admitting he has been talking b*llocks about this for years. He also states that there are records of a phone call from Jeremy to Julie the night before and early in the morning of the murders. Which we already know though he won't specify the times which would have helped. Don't the blue forum allege that the independent witnesses in Julie's house changed their stories so the time of Jeremy's call fitted the prosecution's case better? If he really had these records why not confirm the exact times of the calls? Also he mentioned a lengthy conversation between June and Pam Boutflour. However, isn't it on record that it was Pam who called June, so why would an inbound call show on the telephone records? I may have missed something but isn't Tesko's latest revelation based on stuff we already know, and not entirely accurate based on what we do know? And wild speculation about the panic button which cannot be proved, and if it could have been surely the police would have known that someone pressed the panic button while Jeremy would still have been in his house, therefore there would have been no grounds to suspect Jeremy. I wonder if anyone else has seen his latest crazy theories and what they think of them?
-
What I think of them? I haven´t seen them, never read them anymore and haven´t for a long time.
All the lies, half-truths and wild theories and other shenanigans do nothing but harm to Jeremy´s case. It reminds me of a crossword puzzle you cannot solve and start making up weird words to try to move on.
That is what I think.
-
What I think of them? I haven´t seen them, never read them anymore and haven´t for a long time.
All the lies, half-truths and wild theories and other shenanigans do nothing but harm to Jeremy´s case. It reminds me of a crossword puzzle you cannot solve and start making up weird words to try to move on.
That is what I think.
I agree with ABS. IMO it is a waste of time trying to understand what he is banging on about in his rambling and contradictory posts. I do not beleive that Bamber is innocent, but if I did I would find Tesko's contribution pretty unhelpful. He keeps on claiming the existence of evidence, photos etc and mysterious informants which if real might help Bamber's defence, but then never produces the them. It is no wonder if Bamber and his lawyers consider Tesko a cranky waste of space. But, then, another paradox is why on earth does a guy like Bellis continue to play a leading role in the Bamber Forum ? Whatever you may think of Bellis' business career, he is a qualified barrister and does not come over as stupid like some other posters on the blue forum.
-
Anyone seen Tesko's latest? Apparently he has the itemised phone listing of calls made from WHF and 9 Head Street on the night of the murders. Obviously he won't show them for some reason. He says there was a call from WHF to Jeremy and the phone records show the panic button (connected to the phone line) was activated hence the police car sent by Whitham at 3:35am. So at a stroke he admits that Neville didn't call the police as well as Jeremy (which he thought the phone logs proved) thereby admitting he has been talking b*llocks about this for years. He also states that there are records of a phone call from Jeremy to Julie the night before and early in the morning of the murders. Which we already know though he won't specify the times which would have helped. Don't the blue forum allege that the independent witnesses in Julie's house changed their stories so the time of Jeremy's call fitted the prosecution's case better? If he really had these records why not confirm the exact times of the calls? Also he mentioned a lengthy conversation between June and Pam Boutflour. However, isn't it on record that it was Pam who called June, so why would an inbound call show on the telephone records? I may have missed something but isn't Tesko's latest revelation based on stuff we already know, and not entirely accurate based on what we do know? And wild speculation about the panic button which cannot be proved, and if it could have been surely the police would have known that someone pressed the panic button while Jeremy would still have been in his house, therefore there would have been no grounds to suspect Jeremy. I wonder if anyone else has seen his latest crazy theories and what they think of them?
Well I can confirm that there is no such itemised accounts for either of the two telephone accounts. I have spoken with the person who dealt with all these matters and they confirm that the telephone account was paid by units logging. There is no record of what calls were made at what time from any of the phones.
Mike Tesko is a liar who will do or say just about anything to free Bamber. Fortunately we have all got wise to him now.
-
Anyone seen Tesko's latest? Apparently he has the itemised phone listing of calls made from WHF and 9 Head Street on the night of the murders. Obviously he won't show them for some reason. He says there was a call from WHF to Jeremy and the phone records show the panic button (connected to the phone line) was activated hence the police car sent by Whitham at 3:35am. So at a stroke he admits that Neville didn't call the police as well as Jeremy (which he thought the phone logs proved) thereby admitting he has been talking b*llocks about this for years. He also states that there are records of a phone call from Jeremy to Julie the night before and early in the morning of the murders. Which we already know though he won't specify the times which would have helped. Don't the blue forum allege that the independent witnesses in Julie's house changed their stories so the time of Jeremy's call fitted the prosecution's case better? If he really had these records why not confirm the exact times of the calls? Also he mentioned a lengthy conversation between June and Pam Boutflour. However, isn't it on record that it was Pam who called June, so why would an inbound call show on the telephone records? I may have missed something but isn't Tesko's latest revelation based on stuff we already know, and not entirely accurate based on what we do know? And wild speculation about the panic button which cannot be proved, and if it could have been surely the police would have known that someone pressed the panic button while Jeremy would still have been in his house, therefore there would have been no grounds to suspect Jeremy. I wonder if anyone else has seen his latest crazy theories and what they think of them?
Well I can confirm that there is no such itemised accounts for either of the two telephone accounts. I have spoken with the person who dealt with all these matters and they confirm that the telephone account was paid by units logging. There is no record of what calls were made at what time from any of the phones.
Mike Tesko is a liar who will do or say just about anything to free Bamber. Fortunately we have all got wise to him now.
Well you may be able to confim this, but I have viewed the itemised bills, from 1982.
-
What I think of them? I haven´t seen them, never read them anymore and haven´t for a long time.
All the lies, half-truths and wild theories and other shenanigans do nothing but harm to Jeremy´s case. It reminds me of a crossword puzzle you cannot solve and start making up weird words to try to move on.
That is what I think.
I agree with ABS. IMO it is a waste of time trying to understand what he is banging on about in his rambling and contradictory posts. I do not beleive that Bamber is innocent, but if I did I would find Tesko's contribution pretty unhelpful. He keeps on claiming the existence of evidence, photos etc and mysterious informants which if real might help Bamber's defence, but then never produces the them. It is no wonder if Bamber and his lawyers consider Tesko a cranky waste of space. But, then, another paradox is why on earth does a guy like Bellis continue to play a leading role in the Bamber Forum ? Whatever you may think of Bellis' business career, he is a qualified barrister and does not come over as stupid like some other posters on the blue forum.
Bellis obviously needs the approbation.
-
Yes, I totally agree. However, there are plenty of people on that forum who will take Tesko's every word as gospel truth (though fortunately a few dissenting voices among the innocent camp who do take Mike to task if he is being a bit odd). What it all boils down to is this: if Mike Teskowski really had hard evidence that would vindicate Bamber's version of events in any way, and given that Bamber has already been in prison for 27 years why not make it public?
-
I'm sorry for the following foul language.
Mike Tesko went on the 'f..king silly b........' list this afternoon, he moved from the crazy horse list. Its a pity some of the blue forum can't see him for what he is but as I've said before, people aren't going to change their minds until thr read all the evidence for themselves and also see the theories put forward by the sensible people. I decided he was bound for the list when I read some theory earlier on today and decided enough was enough and I can't even remember what it was, it was so crazy.
I can't get the image of those twin boys from my mind when they were babies and then at possibley just before they died on the picture with Sheila. I hope I NEVER EVER see a picture of them after the incident, it would be too much for me. RIP Nicholas and Daniel.
I have always presumed that Ralph died in his chair, behind the kitchen door. His body, stiff with rigor mortis, would have been pitched forward when the police broke in, causing his head to hit the floor and his head wounds to bleed. At least 2 officers would have picked his body up and perched him on the edge of the chair, placing his head in the Aga scuttle to contain the blood, and laying the clothes and cushions on the floor to prevent further spread. But when I put this to Mike, months ago, he replied (as smiffy) that Ralph's body was already in this position when the police looked through the window, before they broke in, because "his upended, skinny old man's arse was clearly visible."
So which theory is he going with tonight?
-
Anyone seen Tesko's latest? Apparently he has the itemised phone listing of calls made from WHF and 9 Head Street on the night of the murders. Obviously he won't show them for some reason. He says there was a call from WHF to Jeremy and the phone records show the panic button (connected to the phone line) was activated hence the police car sent by Whitham at 3:35am. So at a stroke he admits that Neville didn't call the police as well as Jeremy (which he thought the phone logs proved) thereby admitting he has been talking b*llocks about this for years. He also states that there are records of a phone call from Jeremy to Julie the night before and early in the morning of the murders. Which we already know though he won't specify the times which would have helped. Don't the blue forum allege that the independent witnesses in Julie's house changed their stories so the time of Jeremy's call fitted the prosecution's case better? If he really had these records why not confirm the exact times of the calls? Also he mentioned a lengthy conversation between June and Pam Boutflour. However, isn't it on record that it was Pam who called June, so why would an inbound call show on the telephone records? I may have missed something but isn't Tesko's latest revelation based on stuff we already know, and not entirely accurate based on what we do know? And wild speculation about the panic button which cannot be proved, and if it could have been surely the police would have known that someone pressed the panic button while Jeremy would still have been in his house, therefore there would have been no grounds to suspect Jeremy. I wonder if anyone else has seen his latest crazy theories and what they think of them?
Thank you for that Goatboy. It is yet more ridiculous, windy rhetoric by Tesko. Completely groundless and without any foundation whatsoever. If he says he has a log of the calls made - not available in 1985 - then he is a simply not telling the truth. Analogue Switch exchanges in 1985 only measured the amount of units used and not the location of the recipient of the call. Only special devices used by police could track the location and recipents location of a call in those days. These days, more technical digital exchanges can record all necessary information.
If Tesko has claimed that he has records that show he phoned Julie on the morning of the murders, then that is also a lie. Bamber actually phoned Julie Mugford on the morning of the killings from a public telephone box. In fact he had to borrow the necessary standard 10p call charge from a policeman present.
There was no call from Nevil. He did not try to call straight back and received 'an engaged tone' (another impossibility). Even if you could prove a call from White House Farm was, indeed made to Jeremy's cottage, it does NOT prove that Nevil made the call. It could be easily argued that Bamber himself made the call to his own telephone answering machine. It therefore proves nothing.
-
There are no itemised bills from WHF for the relevant period, there is no photo of Sheila on the bed.
Those two pieces of evidence would get JB out of the slammer, yet Mike chooses to keep them under wraps? They dont exist, simples ?>)()<
-
There are no itemised bills from WHF for the relevant period, there is no photo of Sheila on the bed.
Those two pieces of evidence would get JB out of the slammer, yet Mike chooses to keep them under wraps? They dont exist, simples ?>)()<
Hallo, Andy. I'm sure you're right. Mike reckons that there are at least 3 copies of "Sheila on the bed" and Bob told him how to access the one, weeks ago, but still nothing. It would seem that it suits Mike to keep JB in prison.
-
It seems that way doesnt it.
What do you think will happen with the request for a JR?
-
There is nothing to stop JB applying to the CCRC again is there? He's going to be a very old man when they keep turning him down.
They wont look at his case with any urgency, they have seen it all and been there too many times. Oh, and worn the t-shirt!
-
There is nothing to stop JB applying to the CCRC again is there? He's going to be a very old man when they keep turning him down.
They wont look at his case with any urgency, they have seen it all and been there too many times. Oh, and worn the t-shirt!
Technically Andrea he can apply to the CCRC ad infinitum. However, the evidence that is presented before them must be substantial, fresh and new. This means that it cannot be a re-hash of old evidence or interpretation of evidence that has previously been submitted and has already been dealt with.
It would take a miracle for him to get substantial fresh evidence 27 years later. What he will do however, is probably keep on and on with the same old tired arguments, theories, plots and cronies. None of which will lead him to the Appeal Court ever again. That last attempt was for all intents and purposes his last chance. I would hazzard a guess and say that the CCRC have now reached the point where they will probably now refuse to review his case again. Bamber is now in a quandary. He knows that he will never see the light of day again in his lifetime. The ONE remaining hope will be for him to admit the crimes in the hope that one day when he is of great age and/or infirmity lay him waste they may let him out. I very much doubt that will happen - his own arrogance led him to commit these horrific murders and it will be his own arrogance that will ensure that he will be kept locked away for the rest of his unnatural life.
-
Good post, Ian. One i agree with.
He did challenge the natural life sentence at the ECHR, he lost.
Even if he does come up with new evidence, the CCRC wont rush to deal with it. They have spent hours and hours on his case.
-
Anyone seen Tesko's latest? Apparently he has the itemised phone listing of calls made from WHF and 9 Head Street on the night of the murders. Obviously he won't show them for some reason. He says there was a call from WHF to Jeremy and the phone records show the panic button (connected to the phone line) was activated hence the police car sent by Whitham at 3:35am. So at a stroke he admits that Neville didn't call the police as well as Jeremy (which he thought the phone logs proved) thereby admitting he has been talking b*llocks about this for years. He also states that there are records of a phone call from Jeremy to Julie the night before and early in the morning of the murders. Which we already know though he won't specify the times which would have helped. Don't the blue forum allege that the independent witnesses in Julie's house changed their stories so the time of Jeremy's call fitted the prosecution's case better? If he really had these records why not confirm the exact times of the calls? Also he mentioned a lengthy conversation between June and Pam Boutflour. However, isn't it on record that it was Pam who called June, so why would an inbound call show on the telephone records? I may have missed something but isn't Tesko's latest revelation based on stuff we already know, and not entirely accurate based on what we do know? And wild speculation about the panic button which cannot be proved, and if it could have been surely the police would have known that someone pressed the panic button while Jeremy would still have been in his house, therefore there would have been no grounds to suspect Jeremy. I wonder if anyone else has seen his latest crazy theories and what they think of them?
Well I can confirm that there is no such itemised accounts for either of the two telephone accounts. I have spoken with the person who dealt with all these matters and they confirm that the telephone account was paid by units logging. There is no record of what calls were made at what time from any of the phones.
Mike Tesko is a liar who will do or say just about anything to free Bamber. Fortunately we have all got wise to him now.
Well you may be able to confirm this, but I have viewed the itemised bills, from 1982.
There is no such thing and in any event what relevance has a bill from 1982 to do with the murders?
-
I have researched the question of itemised billing thoroughly. I have now got the answer. Itemised billing was NOT available until February 1991 and only then on the new digital exchanges.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/about/history.htm
Itemised billing was NOT available in 1985.
-
I have researched the question of itemised billing thoroughly. I have now got the answer. Itemised billing was NOT available until February 1991 and only then on the new digital exchanges.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/about/history.htm
Itemised billing was NOT available in 1985.
So yet again Mike Tesko is found to be "bending the truth." Putting it politely.
-
I have researched the question of itemised billing thoroughly. I have now got the answer. Itemised billing was NOT available until February 1991 and only then on the new digital exchanges.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/about/history.htm
Itemised billing was NOT available in 1985.
So yet again Mike Tesko is found to be "bending the truth." Putting it politely.
Absolutely Gordon. Tesko has bent the truth so often that now resembles a demolition derby track. I really don't see what he gains from this at all. Most of what he says does not even stand up to the merest of scrutiny.
All this means that he is trying to hide from the fact that Bamber is guilty and no amount of truth-bending will ever alter that.
-
I have researched the question of itemised billing thoroughly. I have now got the answer. Itemised billing was NOT available until February 1991 and only then on the new digital exchanges.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/about/history.htm
Itemised billing was NOT available in 1985.
So yet again Mike Tesko is found to be "bending the truth." Putting it politely.
Absolutely Gordon. Tesko has bent the truth so often that now resembles a demolition derby track. I really don't see what he gains from this at all. Most of what he says does not even stand up to the merest of scrutiny.
All this means that he is trying to hide from the fact that Bamber is guilty and no amount of truth-bending will ever alter that.
Indeed guys. First it was Ali Bongo and the elusive 'z' fairy tales, then the lies about seeing a photo of Sheila lying on a bed with one wound to her neck when he allegedly visited the offices of former Bamber lawyer and now CCRC Commissioner Ewan Smith and now the latest crap about non existent itemised phone bills supposedly related to White House Farm and the cottage at Goldhanger when such were not available at the time.
We mustn't forget the downright sick and twisted malicious allegations he has also made that Jeremy was actually fathered by Prince Philip and that Nevill was the father of Sheila's twins.
Does Mike Teskowski not realise that he is a laughing stock now and even amomg those who once worshipped him and his crazy theories.
-
'Itemised billing was first introduced on a trial basis in parts of Bristol and Bath in 1983', so if they were capable of doing it in Bristol and Bath, they must have had technology to do it even if it wasn't offered to the customer, I'd have thought it would be if the police needed it for a trail-unless it didn't exist (the phone calls to match the evidence).
http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2011/02/telephones-from-numbering-to-call-costs-and-codes/?lang=cy
Two points in relation to all this:
Firstly, we know that there was no itemised billing in August 1985 for the Maldon exchange because the police went to so much bother to try to nail down the time of the call that Jeremy made to Julie around 3am. Had such information been available from the GPO then the police would not have had to have done all the interviews they did.
Secondly, we can be very certain that if itemised billing had been avaiable that Jeremy Bambers original lawyer would have had it as a matter of some priority. Barbara Wilson knew that no such billing existed at the time and would have had this bill if it existed. Bottom line is it didn't.
-
Of course they didn't, if they did, they'd have been out at the original trial. Tesko is saying it in the hope it would majestically come out now after 25 years. he needs to get in touch with Kevin Craigie and MI5 @)(++(*
Don't know about MI5 but he certainly posts on the blue forum with impunity. You can tell his atrocious spelling and punctuation anywhere.
-
I thought entwistle was already in an American prison
-
'Itemised billing was first introduced on a trial basis in parts of Bristol and Bath in 1983', so if they were capable of doing it in Bristol and Bath, they must have had technology to do it even if it wasn't offered to the customer, I'd have thought it would be if the police needed it for a trail-unless it didn't exist (the phone calls to match the evidence).
http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2011/02/telephones-from-numbering-to-call-costs-and-codes/?lang=cy
Joanne the itemised billing could only have been in effect of the exchanges were digital not the analogue variety. Highly unlikely if it were an area as rural as southern Essex. Trials did begin in 1983 but in some very selected cities where the new digital exchanges were being set up. In took the better part of 8 years to switch over the majority of UK telephone exchanges from analogue to digital. A little bit like the conversion of TV signals in recent years. In short there was no itemised billing available for most people until February 1991.
-
I've just broken my own rules and been on the blue forum and now I'm in a bad mood.
Raise your glasses to the biggest **** on the internet-Mike Tesko.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2969.0.html?PHPSESSID=b92f2e8413032142efac3525b6d85654
I hope karma comes to you soon son.
Dont worry Joanne. Tesko has lost any credibility he did have when he started coming up with crackpot theories in an ever-increasing, desperate effort to try to get Bamber off.
His weird statements don't count. Yours do. We all love ya 8(0(*
-
I've just broken my own rules and been on the blue forum and now I'm in a bad mood.
Raise your glasses to the biggest **** on the internet-Mike Tesko.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2969.0.html?PHPSESSID=b92f2e8413032142efac3525b6d85654
I hope karma comes to you soon son.
Then I guess you have seen his " She was on a mission etc " thread ! Locked , I think, so he is just posting to himself. Bit like talking to yourself, I suppose; said to be a sign of lunacy . By the way, when is it the full moon ? Too dark and cloudy here to know. I wonder if our Mike howls like a wolf when the moon is full. Pretty sick really.
-
That whole thread is very unfortunate. If Mike has anyone over there who counts themself as a real friend, they really need to talk to him.
-
Once again he is harming Jeremy´s case. I hope this is not because of his illness. I bear no grudge against Mike - I kind of like him actually, so I hope the best for him.
-
Once again he is harming Jeremy´s case. I hope this is not because of his illness. I bear no grudge against Mike - I kind of like him actually, so I hope the best for him.
I am probably not being very charitable to Mike but I do find his latest Sheila defamation extremely offensive. I have said before that I am sorry that he is ill with a brain tumour. That may be affecting his judgement. I respect his loyality and tenacity in continuing to support Bamber even if that is not reciprocated. There are other people, in particular Mr Neil Bellis, who have a leading role in the running of his forum and IMO they have a duty to try and ensure a modicum of good taste. I have no time for racist or sexist abuse which they rightly criticise, but they are applying double standards in not tackling this sort of foul abuse on the blue forum .
-
Once again he is harming Jeremy´s case. I hope this is not because of his illness. I bear no grudge against Mike - I kind of like him actually, so I hope the best for him.
I concur Abs. As much as I disagree with Mike, I wish him a safe and speedy recovery.
-
Once again he is harming Jeremy´s case. I hope this is not because of his illness. I bear no grudge against Mike - I kind of like him actually, so I hope the best for him.
I concur Abs. As much as I disagree with Mike, I wish him a safe and speedy recovery.
If my memory serves me correctly Mike went to great pains to inform everyone that the condition was inoperable and consequently the diagnosis was terminal. He also went as far as to ask the question as to what would become of the forum in his absence and it was then that he started appointing moderators.
If he is now moving the goalposts then that is not at all surprising given his ability to spin a yarn?
-
Abs I think the way Mike is behaving is because of his illness and it's very upsetting but no such excuse for Ngb
-
Abs I think the way Mike is behaving is because of his illness and it's very upsetting but no such excuse for Ngb
Jackie: Have you ever met Bellis??
-
Mike might also just be taking the p***, you never know with him, he seems to like doing that.
-
Mike might also just be taking the p***, you never know with him, he seems to like doing that.
Wouldn't be surprised abs. Why is Keira or Colleen Morrison as we all now know her posting under a false name? Is she embarrassed by the latest revelations and the damage it could do her with Harlow Council Watch??
@)(++(*
-
I read this comment from a person calling themselves 'Lookout' on the blue forum He was discussing a minor incident that took place at a local pub, some time before the murders occurred, between Nevill Bamber and in-law John Eaton in a land dispute. The dispute was quickly setlled and no more was ever mentioned about it. However, 'Lookout' wants to capitalise on it as much as he can and is clearly using this incident to cast aspirsions on the reputation of the relatives. A common theme over there and clearly driven by none other than Jeremy Bamber's warped hatred of them. These sycophants are clearly paraphrasing Bamber's own views - no surprise there!
Please prepare yourselves by keeping a large bucket handy and smear yourself liberally with hypocrisy repellent.
'So I gather that John Eaton was a younger man than Nevill. Yet he flung a punch at an elderly man.?
Drunkenness is no excuse either. There has to exist an element of violence for someone to even contemplate such an action,,besides a total lack of respect. The Bambers weren't that sort of a family,,,but the relatives certainly were. '
Now where did I put that bucket?.......... >@@(*&)
-
I read this comment from a person calling themselves 'Lookout' on the blue forum He was discussing a minor incident that took place at a local pub, some time before the murders occurred, between Nevill Bamber and in-law John Eaton in a land dispute. The dispute was quickly setlled and no more was ever mentioned about it. However, 'Lookout' wants to capitalise on it as much as he can and is clearly using this incident to cast aspirsions on the reputation of the relatives. A common theme over there and clearly driven by none other than Jeremy Bamber's warped hatred of them. These sycophants are clearly paraphrasing Bamber's own views - no surprise there!
Please prepare yourselves by keeping a large bucket handy and smear yourself liberally with hypocrisy repellent.
'So I gather that John Eaton was a younger man than Nevill. Yet he flung a punch at an elderly man.?
Drunkenness is no excuse either. There has to exist an element of violence for someone to even contemplate such an action,,besides a total lack of respect. The Bambers weren't that sort of a family,,,but the relatives certainly were. '
Now where did I put that bucket?.......... >@@(*&)
I don't bother looking at the blue forum anymore as it is mostly rubbish but I recall that " Lookout " ( male/female ? ) stands out as being particularly lacking in brainpower competing with Grahame for sycophantic devotion to the cause of Jeremy. Comes out with statements like it is a good thing that our Jerry is not vindictive by nature in the context of his impending release so no one need fear retribution. Ha, ha. He has conducted a campaign of hate aimed at all those who stood in his way for the past 27 years.
-
I read this comment from a person calling themselves 'Lookout' on the blue forum He was discussing a minor incident that took place at a local pub, some time before the murders occurred, between Nevill Bamber and in-law John Eaton in a land dispute. The dispute was quickly setlled and no more was ever mentioned about it. However, 'Lookout' wants to capitalise on it as much as he can and is clearly using this incident to cast aspirsions on the reputation of the relatives. A common theme over there and clearly driven by none other than Jeremy Bamber's warped hatred of them. These sycophants are clearly paraphrasing Bamber's own views - no surprise there!
Please prepare yourselves by keeping a large bucket handy and smear yourself liberally with hypocrisy repellent.
'So I gather that John Eaton was a younger man than Nevill. Yet he flung a punch at an elderly man.?
Drunkenness is no excuse either. There has to exist an element of violence for someone to even contemplate such an action,,besides a total lack of respect. The Bambers weren't that sort of a family,,,but the relatives certainly were. '
Now where did I put that bucket?.......... >@@(*&)
I don't bother looking at the blue forum anymore as it is mostly rubbish but I recall that " Lookout " ( male/female ? ) stands out as being particularly lacking in brainpower competing with Grahame for sycophantic devotion to the cause of Jeremy. Comes out with statements like it is a good thing that our Jerry is not vindictive by nature in the context of his impending release so no one need fear retribution. Ha, ha. He has conducted a campaign of hate aimed at all those who stood in his way for the past 27 years.
Yes I agree Dillon,
He/she? seem to invent an inordinate amount of completely implausible nonsense to explain aspects of the case which he cannot explain away in a logical manner. I noticed a port this evening that truly beggared belief in it's utter stupidity and spoke volumes about the intelligence and balanced opinion its author.
I quote......clears throat........
'don't think for one minute that I'm " blinkered " about this case,,because I'm not. You see,,I remember this case on television and also the newspapers back in 1985. I had made up my mind then that Jeremy wasn't the killer,,,and thinking how easy it was for the police to blame him because he was the only one left out of that immediate family.
I was of the same belief as " Taff " Jones,,the officer leading the enquiry,,that it was a case of 4 murders and a suicide and that was that.
What followed was a complete conspiracy and a means to justify the fact that this case wasn't going to " slip through their fingers " like the Diane Jones murder,which had happened a couple of years before and which the police bungled.
However,,if Jeremy had pleaded guilty,,he'd have been out of prison now,,,so why do you think,,after all these years,he hasn't wanted to.? He knows himself,,that he could possibly have been free,,,but on principle,,because of his continued pleas of innocence,he's chosen to be honest to the point of risking further sentencing. Does this sound like a murderer.?
8-)(--)
There is one born every minute
-
Ian the outlook of "Lookout" is completely lacking in capacity for logical thinking. Probably thought Jeremy was innocent in 1985 because he was good looking and had nice eyes so did not meet Lookout's perception of a brutal killer. There is really no way that you can debate the issues in the case with this sort of idiot ! I can at least understand, for example, those who challenge the veracity of all of Julie Mugford's evidence but although strongly corroborative her evidence is not crucial in determining Bamber's guilt. The no brainer as we all know is the alleged phone call to Jeremy from Nevill and the sheer improbability that Sheila could have been the culprit. Jeremy can be a very deceptive character. I remember way back in late 1985 or maybe early 1986 hearing comments from a prison chaplain who had seen Jeremy in Norwich Prison, thought he was a charming nice guy and could not beleive that he could have been the murderer. In contrast, an experienced prison visitor who also saw him in that period thought that he was the most evil person he had ever met .
Lookout mentions Taff Jones who sadly died falling off a ladder. I do not know much about this detective but I have come across quite a few senior detectives of that era who enjoyed a quick solution to a case so that they could get on with their social life, golf etc. There was a culture of hard drinking in the CID's of many forces at that time . However, I would emphasise that I am not accusing the late Taff Jones of being of that ilk. Simply that this was a culture in which ambitious younger detectives did not challenge the boss and where pragmatic conclusions on guilt were sometimes made and the evidence manipulated to fit.
-
Ian the outlook of "Lookout" is completely lacking in capacity for logical thinking. Probably thought Jeremy was innocent in 1985 because he was good looking and had nice eyes so did not meet Lookout's perception of a brutal killer. There is really no way that you can debate the issues in the case with this sort of idiot ! I can at least understand, for example, those who challenge the veracity of all of Julie Mugford's evidence but although strongly corroborative her evidence is not crucial in determining Bamber's guilt. The no brainer as we all know is the alleged phone call to Jeremy from Nevill and the sheer improbability that Sheila could have been the culprit. Jeremy can be a very deceptive character. I remember way back in late 1985 or maybe early 1986 hearing comments from a prison chaplain who had seen Jeremy in Norwich Prison, thought he was a charming nice guy and could not beleive that he could have been the murderer. In contrast, an experienced prison visitor who also saw him in that period thought that he was the most evil person he had ever met .
Lookout mentions Taff Jones who sadly died falling off a ladder. I do not know much about this detective but I have come across quite a few senior detectives of that era who enjoyed a quick solution to a case so that they could get on with their social life, golf etc. There was a culture of hard drinking in the CID's of many forces at that time . However, I would emphasise that I am not accusing the late Taff Jones of being of that ilk. Simply that this was a culture in which ambitious younger detectives did not challenge the boss and where pragmatic conclusions on guilt were sometimes made and the evidence manipulated to fit.
A very good post Dillon,
Yes I agree that 'Lookout' has lost any sense of reasoning or capacity for logical thought. I am quite staggered at what I found on the blue forum in terms of sheer ignorance and naive vulnerability. Most of the pro-Bamber posters seemed to have one thing in common - the ability to easily conjure-up excuses for Jeremy Bamber's actions or behaviour combined with an innate ability to denigrate or blame the relatives. The party line at TT seems to be just that. Your point about the police is a good one. There was a culture of drinking and general sloppiness in the police at that time. Taff Jones wasn't the most understanding and open of detectives. He was described by Stan Jones as 'a good copper, but an arrogant one'.
This man's actions often bordered on the darnright negligent. During a police conference to take a fresh look at the evidence and after they arrested Bamber for the first time, Taff Jones listened to the evidence and all the policeman present - apart from him - agreed that Bamber was probably the culprit. Despite the fact that all the evidence now pointed at Bamber being the killer he haughtily announced that 'No, my original theory still stands' Much to the incredulity of the other police present including the CID top brass. He was completely incapable of admitting that he was wrong and would knowingly have let a man get away with mass murder and let an innocent woman be framed in order for him to simply save face.
Stan Jones later said of his namesake ' his hunches were seldom wrong' But he was wrong on this one.
It was through Taff Jones' obduracy and the general ineptitude of the initial police investigation of the case that sweeping changes came into force in the aftermath of the Bamber case in regards to investigating murder cases.
-
Peter Tobin who killed Angelika Kluck, Vicky Hamilton and Dinah Mcnicol and attacked many people was said to be charming, even by his ex-wife Margaret. In a way it's their 'job', thats why they're so hard to convict and 'work out', I've heard it said about Harold Shipman too and a lot of people couldn't believe he's mass murdered, so I have no doubt Jeremy Bamber is the same.
-
Peter Tobin who killed Angelika Kluck, Vicky Hamilton and Dinah Mcnicol and attacked many people was said to be charming, even by his ex-wife Margaret. In a way it's their 'job', thats why they're so hard to convict and 'work out', I've heard it said about Harold Shipman too and a lot of people couldn't believe he's mass murdered, so I have no doubt Jeremy Bamber is the same.
Indeed Joanne,
Jeremy Bamber is, without doubt, a psychopath. These people are often charming and very charismatic. This is why they are so effective in what they do. They lack empathy, sympathy and have absolutely no conscience. They do not have 'sleepless nights' worrying as we often do about our lives. They are devoid of nervous emotions such as anxiety or fretting and can be quite fearless. However, they are also reckless and irresponsible and are highly prone to stimulation and are easily bored. They are incapable of accepting any form of responsibility for their actions and often see other people as 'objects' that they can use and dispose of when they are no longer needed. They are able to do by using superficial charm, glibness and are often highly manipulative. Jeremy Bamber displays many of the keys signs of having a psychopathic disorder. It is estimated that 1 in 22 of the population display some form of psychopathic tendency, but 1 in 100 have full-blown psychopathy. Notable examples of this personality disorder are; Peter Sutcliffe, Dennis Neilsen and Robert Napper to name but a few. I suspect Jeremy Bamber is of this type.
-
Ian the outlook of "Lookout" is completely lacking in capacity for logical thinking. Probably thought Jeremy was innocent in 1985 because he was good looking and had nice eyes so did not meet Lookout's perception of a brutal killer. There is really no way that you can debate the issues in the case with this sort of idiot ! I can at least understand, for example, those who challenge the veracity of all of Julie Mugford's evidence but although strongly corroborative her evidence is not crucial in determining Bamber's guilt. The no brainer as we all know is the alleged phone call to Jeremy from Nevill and the sheer improbability that Sheila could have been the culprit. Jeremy can be a very deceptive character. I remember way back in late 1985 or maybe early 1986 hearing comments from a prison chaplain who had seen Jeremy in Norwich Prison, thought he was a charming nice guy and could not beleive that he could have been the murderer. In contrast, an experienced prison visitor who also saw him in that period thought that he was the most evil person he had ever met .
Lookout mentions Taff Jones who sadly died falling off a ladder. I do not know much about this detective but I have come across quite a few senior detectives of that era who enjoyed a quick solution to a case so that they could get on with their social life, golf etc. There was a culture of hard drinking in the CID's of many forces at that time . However, I would emphasise that I am not accusing the late Taff Jones of being of that ilk. Simply that this was a culture in which ambitious younger detectives did not challenge the boss and where pragmatic conclusions on guilt were sometimes made and the evidence manipulated to fit.
A very good post Dillon,
Yes I agree that 'Lookout' has lost any sense of reasoning or capacity for logical thought. I am quite staggered at what I found on the blue forum in terms of sheer ignorance and naive vulnerability. Most of the pro-Bamber posters seemed to have one thing in common - the ability to easily conjure-up excuses for Jeremy Bamber's actions or behaviour combined with an innate ability to denigrate or blame the relatives. The party line at TT seems to be just that. Your point about the police is a good one. There was a culture of drinking and general sloppiness in the police at that time. Taff Jones wasn't the most understanding and open of detectives. He was described by Stan Jones as 'a good copper, but an arrogant one'.
This man's actions often bordered on the darnright negligent. During a police conference to take a fresh look at the evidence and after they arrested Bamber for the first time, Taff Jones listened to the evidence and all the policeman present - apart from him - agreed that Bamber was probably the culprit. Despite the fact that all the evidence now pointed at Bamber being the killer he haughtily announced that 'No, my original theory still stands' Much to the incredulity of the other police present including the CID top brass. He was completely incapable of admitting that he was wrong and would knowingly have let a man get away with mass murder and let an innocent woman be framed in order for him to simply save face.
Stan Jones later said of his namesake ' his hunches were seldom wrong' But he was wrong on this one.
It was through Taff Jones' obduracy and the general ineptitude of the initial police investigation of the case that sweeping changes came into force in the aftermath of the Bamber case in regards to investigating murder cases.
Taff Jones knew that to go with the flow and to blame Sheila would be the path of least resistance. Blaming Jeremy Bamber would have opened up a huge can of worms within the Establishment as far as he was concerned and would have impacted on his chances of becoming a Chief Inspector. Little did he know then that a strategically misplaced ladder would sign his death warrant.
Stan Jones on the other hand was a coppers copper. He had a nose for pretty boys with brains to spare like Jeremy Bamber. Stan could see right through him from the off. If he hadn't seen what he did when he entered the room at Jeremy's house in Goldhanger and if Julie hadn't spoken out I fear this case would have been so different. It would have been put down to four murders and a suicide and Jeremy would have been laughing all the way to the bank.
Stan Jones cracked the case wide open, he must have realised all his worst fears had been realised when he spoke with Julie Mugford. Taff must have been horrified at her evidence because it sounded the end for him and his future career prospects. He must have been devastated to have been removed from the enquiry. He would have lost all his credibility at one fail swoop.
-
Seriously? Debunking Tesko doesn't take much. He has told so many lies on his forum that even I began to question him. And that is the point at which he banned me. Challenged him and he doesn't like it. All that bullcrap about a photograph of Sheila on the bed, with one bullet whole or two, who cares. Because at the end of the day he lied about it ever existing. He said he sent a copy to Bamber in the post. Lies. He said he went with an informant to Birmingham and the offices of the CCRC to deliver an envelope which contained a photograph of Sheila on the bed. More lies. He says he has an old hard drive in storage which contains the image of Sheila on the bed. When questioned he says the hard drive is obsolete and he can no longer access the image. More lies. A real supporter of Bamber who had real proof of his innocence, of the kind claimed by Tesko, would have gone public with it by now or at least made sure that it made its way into the hands of his current legal team. Why hasn't he done this? Because none of it exists. Simple, end of and good night.
-
Seriously? Debunking Tesko doesn't take much. He has told so many lies on his forum that even I began to question him. And that is the point at which he banned me. Challenged him and he doesn't like it. All that bullcrap about a photograph of Sheila on the bed, with one bullet whole or two, who cares. Because at the end of the day he lied about it ever existing. He said he sent a copy to Bamber in the post. Lies. He said he went with an informant to Birmingham and the offices of the CCRC to deliver an envelope which contained a photograph of Sheila on the bed. More lies. He says he has an old hard drive in storage which contains the image of Sheila on the bed. When questioned he says the hard drive is obsolete and he can no longer access the image. More lies. A real supporter of Bamber who had real proof of his innocence, of the kind claimed by Tesko, would have gone public with it by now or at least made sure that it made its way into the hands of his current legal team. Why hasn't he done this? Because none of it exists. Simple, end of and good night.
An excellent post takeshi and very much to the point. Mike Tesko hasn't got any evidence in support of Jeremy Bamber and he is kidding nobody. It's all hogwash just like the Ali Bongo and the agent 'Z' rubbish, totally nuts!
What a brilliant opening ceremony at the Olympic Games tonight...the very best of British! 8@??)(
(http://www.sevenoaksart.co.uk/images/olympicflag2012.gif)
-
The whole sites nutty, I did have a good time merrily leading one member up the garden path. Unfortunately, it backfired (badly) and caused a shed load of problems for someone else which I am sorry about. It seems to be 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest' the internet version. Its a pitty they're doing it at someone elses expense, even if he is a murderous, slandering monkey 8(8-))
-
The whole sites nutty, I did have a good time merrily leading one member up the garden path. Unfortunately, it backfired (badly) and caused a shed load of problems for someone else which I am sorry about. It seems to be 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest' the internet version. Its a pitty they're doing it at someone elses expense, even if he is a murderous, slandering monkey 8(8-))
The bit I fail to understand is how any of what Mike Tesko says will help Jeremy Bamber in any way shape or form. The sad truth is that JB has spent the last 25 years planning his big exit but it will never happen. You can only fool so many of the people so much of the time.
-
The whole sites nutty, I did have a good time merrily leading one member up the garden path. Unfortunately, it backfired (badly) and caused a shed load of problems for someone else which I am sorry about. It seems to be 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest' the internet version. Its a pitty they're doing it at someone elses expense, even if he is a murderous, slandering monkey 8(8-))
NAUGHTY NAUGHTY @)(++(*
They are paranoid enough across the way which I suppose is Karma given their leaders recent conduct. Who is Grahame pretending to be now? Is he cross-dressing again?
-
Seriously? Debunking Tesko doesn't take much. He has told so many lies on his forum that even I began to question him. And that is the point at which he banned me. Challenged him and he doesn't like it. All that bullcrap about a photograph of Sheila on the bed, with one bullet whole or two, who cares. Because at the end of the day he lied about it ever existing. He said he sent a copy to Bamber in the post. Lies. He said he went with an informant to Birmingham and the offices of the CCRC to deliver an envelope which contained a photograph of Sheila on the bed. More lies. He says he has an old hard drive in storage which contains the image of Sheila on the bed. When questioned he says the hard drive is obsolete and he can no longer access the image. More lies. A real supporter of Bamber who had real proof of his innocence, of the kind claimed by Tesko, would have gone public with it by now or at least made sure that it made its way into the hands of his current legal team. Why hasn't he done this? Because none of it exists. Simple, end of and good night.
Crazy thing is that they are quite vitriolic about Julie Mugford saying she is a proven liar. Yet they revere people like Tesko and Grahame who do very little else other than lie through their teeth.
-
I don't know about Grahame, I know the infamous kevin Craigie is Margot and Chelsea, he hasn't got the gist of who I am, he thinks I'm John 8(0(*
I think there's so much playing each other off on there, nobody really knows who anyone one is anymore.
I will ask though-who is Grahame and whats his motives?
-
The whole sites nutty, I did have a good time merrily leading one member up the garden path. Unfortunately, it backfired (badly) and caused a shed load of problems for someone else which I am sorry about. It seems to be 'one flew over the cuckoo's nest' the internet version. Its a pitty they're doing it at someone elses expense, even if he is a murderous, slandering monkey 8(8-))
NAUGHTY NAUGHTY @)(++(*
They are paranoid enough across the way which I suppose is Karma given their leaders recent conduct. Who is Grahame pretending to be now? Is he cross-dressing again?
No 8(8-)) . Mrs B says "that side of things has got to stop" and she's hidden her bras. So I'm staying out of trouble, eating a Vesta paella and watching my favourite film, Back Passage To India.
-
Seriously? Debunking Tesko doesn't take much. He has told so many lies on his forum that even I began to question him. And that is the point at which he banned me. Challenged him and he doesn't like it. All that bullcrap about a photograph of Sheila on the bed, with one bullet whole or two, who cares. Because at the end of the day he lied about it ever existing. He said he sent a copy to Bamber in the post. Lies. He said he went with an informant to Birmingham and the offices of the CCRC to deliver an envelope which contained a photograph of Sheila on the bed. More lies. He says he has an old hard drive in storage which contains the image of Sheila on the bed. When questioned he says the hard drive is obsolete and he can no longer access the image. More lies. A real supporter of Bamber who had real proof of his innocence, of the kind claimed by Tesko, would have gone public with it by now or at least made sure that it made its way into the hands of his current legal team. Why hasn't he done this? Because none of it exists. Simple, end of and good night.
Crazy thing is that they are quite vitriolic about Julie Mugford say she is a proven liar. Yet they revere people like Tesko and Grahame who do very little else other than lie through their teeth.
Give me Julie Mugford and a little white lie any day rather than Jeremy Bamber and his mega black lies. Not that Bellis and Morrison have anything to crow about in any event as they are both liars.
Julie is there nemesis unfortunately and there is nothing they can do about it. Show me a person who says they have never lied and I will show you a liar!
-
I don't know about Grahame, I know the infamous kevin Craigie is Margot and Chelsea, he hasn't got the gist of who I am, he thinks I'm John 8(0(*
I think there's so much playing each other off on there, nobody really knows who anyone one is anymore.
I will ask though-who is Grahame and whats his motives?
Isn"t it strange how you can smell Craigie anywhere? That stench of murder must follow him wherever he dares to tread. I also find it amusing how a gay troll likes to use womens names. Wake up blue forum you are being taken over by clown Craigie.
-
Its the only forum I've posted on, not in my own name.
KC's amoungst his own on there I think-deluded souls who need to be amoung others 8(8-))
At least it's civil on here and proper debate takes place.
-
Its the only forum I've posted on, not in my own name.
KC's amoungst his own on there I think-deluded souls who need to be amoung others 8(8-))
At least it's civil on here and proper debate takes place.
Mike Tesko has taken his eye of the ball in order to play silly b....rs and in doing so has allowed the monkeys to take over the zoo. @)(++(*
-
I must say guys, I don't usually look at the blue forum any more but I did have a read earlier and it strikes me that they are totally bonkers. Apparently I am to blame for all their troubles of late which I find hilarious. Get a grip blue forum as you are becoming quite the laughing stock. @)(++(*
On a more serious note, Teskowski is still promoting the rubbish about how Sheila was killed. He insists that she was shot once downstairs and then again upstairs with a different rifle. This goes totally against all the evidence so no surprise there then. Mike Teskowski doesn't do evidence or logic, everything is a conspiracy and sinister to him. A bit like his arrest and conviction for his thieving and burglary activities, you know, the activities which weren't any of his doing yet he was nabbed red handed.
Back to Sheila. We know where the rifle which killed Sheila was found. We know where the two empty shell casings belonging to the two bullets which killed her were found. We know how many shell casings were found elsewhere in the house and the fact that each and every one of them can be back traced to injuries sustained by the other victims. We also have the two bullets which killed Sheila, one of which fragmented according to the X-rays but a large enough piece was still recovered and examined.
The conclusion from all of this can only point to one scenario and that is that Sheila was shot and killed where she stood in the master bedroom. The same rifle was used to fire both shots and at least one of those shots was made with a silencer fitted to the rifle.
Mike Teskowski's deluded theories and wild interpretations of the evidence will never amount to anything which can in any way point to suicide.
-
Mike really won't let the "police killed Sheila" idea drop. However, even Jeremy stands by the theory that Sheila murdered everybody and then committed suicide, so how does Mike's mad idea help Jeremy?
Anyway, none of the blue forum seem to have pointed out that on the night of the murders all of the people who died were people who would bequeath money to Bamber or were due to inherit money following the Bambers' deaths. What an odd coincidence that all the people who stood in the way of Jeremy's inheritance died? What are the odds?
-
Mike really won't let the "police killed Sheila" idea drop. However, even Jeremy stands by the theory that Sheila murdered everybody and then committed suicide, so how does Mike's mad idea help Jeremy?
Anyway, none of the blue forum seem to have pointed out that on the night of the murders all of the people who died were people who would bequeath money to Bamber or were due to inherit money following the Bambers' deaths. What an odd coincidence that all the people who stood in the way of Jeremy's inheritance died? What are the odds?
Exactly goatboy. Sheila and the boys were only there for a few days so the chances of a third party choosing that particular day must be less than that of winning the Lottery. One must remember too that there was no sign of a forced entry so whoever did it knew how to get in and out of the farmhouse and also knew how to get to and fro from the farm unseen.
Now who could that have been? 8-)(--)
-
I must say guys, I don't usually look at the blue forum any more but I did have a read earlier and it strikes me that they are totally bonkers. Apparently I am to blame for all their troubles of late which I find hilarious. Get a grip blue forum as you are becoming quite the laughing stock. @)(++(*
On a more serious note, Teskowski is still promoting the rubbish about how Sheila was killed. He insists that she was shot once downstairs and then again upstairs with a different rifle. This goes totally against all the evidence so no surprise there then. Mike Teskowski doesn't do evidence or logic, everything is a conspiracy and sinister to him. A bit like his arrest and conviction for his thieving and burglary activities, you know, the activities which weren't any of his doing yet he was nabbed red handed.
Back to Sheila. We know where the rifle which killed Sheila was found. We know where the two empty shell casings belonging to the two bullets which killed her were found. We know how many shell casings were found elsewhere in the house and the fact that each and every one of them can be back traced to injuries sustained by the other victims. We also have the two bullets which killed Sheila, one of which fragmented according to the X-rays but a large enough piece was still recovered and examined.
The conclusion from all of this can only point to one scenario and that is that Sheila was shot and killed where she stood in the master bedroom. The same rifle was used to fire both shots and at least one of those shots was made with a silencer fitted to the rifle.
Mike Teskowski's deluded theories and wild interpretations of the evidence will never amount to anything which can in any way point to suicide.
Hello one and all 8((()*/ Haven't been about lately but I see not much has changed and good old Mike is pushing the same nonsense even though the facts dont bear any of it out. >@@(*&)
I do feel sorry for Jeremy with such a waste of space speaking for him. Aw well suppose birds of a feather and all that garbo. cheers @)(++(*
-
Its the only forum I've posted on, not in my own name.
KC's amoungst his own on there I think-deluded souls who need to be amoung others 8(8-))
At least it's civil on here and proper debate takes place.
Mike Tesko has taken his eye of the ball in order to play silly b....rs and in doing so has allowed the monkeys to take over the zoo. @)(++(*
Or in other words that is all that is left in the zoo @)(++(*
They do say you feed monkeys peanuts but I think the blue forum doesn't even get them from Jerry Bamber any more @)(++(*
-
Its the only forum I've posted on, not in my own name.
KC's amoungst his own on there I think-deluded souls who need to be amoung others 8(8-))
At least it's civil on here and proper debate takes place.
Mike Tesko has taken his eye of the ball in order to play silly b....rs and in doing so has allowed the monkeys to take over the zoo. @)(++(*
Or in other words that is all that is left in the zoo @)(++(*
They do say you feed monkeys peanuts but I think the blue forum doesn't even get them from Jerry Bamber any more @)(++(*
Doesn't justice work in some wonderful ways. Jeremy Bamber has dumped his friends and stephanie Hall has done the same??? 8-)(--)
There must be some deep seated psychological reason for this occurrence because it happens time and time again. Has anybody got any ideas on this subject? >@@(*&)
-
Evenin all 8(0(*
Somebody's getting it tight on the blue forum tonight 8)-)))
-
Evenin all 8(0(*
Somebody's getting it tight on the blue forum tonight 8)-)))
Hi Centaur we haven't had the pleasure of your company for a while. What you been up to?
-
Hey Mike, you little short-arsed tw... How did Sheila run about with no expirated blood and no swallowed blood? Give it your best shot, Jimmy Clitheroe.
-
Hey Mike, you little short-ar..d tw... How did Sheila run about with no expirated blood and no swallowed blood? Give it your best shot, Jimmy Clitheroe.
Evenng Shona. He does come out with some rubbish doesn't he? @)(++(*
-
hey guys. i didn't manage to get back but i was banned from the other place the next day. i wasn't even on there at the time.
i was getting hassled anyway so it was only a matter of time. they do have some cranky theories over there though. >@@(*&)
-
Hey Mike, you little short-ar..d tw... How did Sheila run about with no expirated blood and no swallowed blood? Give it your best shot, Jimmy Clitheroe.
Evenng Shona. He does come out with some rubbish doesn't he? @)(++(*
He surely does. What a tw... Shame on you, Tesko. You are so full of crap.
-
Its the only forum I've posted on, not in my own name.
KC's amoungst his own on there I think-deluded souls who need to be amoung others 8(8-))
At least it's civil on here and proper debate takes place.
Mike Tesko has taken his eye of the ball in order to play silly b....rs and in doing so has allowed the monkeys to take over the zoo. @)(++(*
Or in other words that is all that is left in the zoo @)(++(*
They do say you feed monkeys peanuts but I think the blue forum doesn't even get them from Jerry Bamber any more @)(++(*
i was told that jeremy bamber doesnt even talk with him any more or discuss his case with him because he doesnt trust him. is that true???
-
Hey Mike, you little short-ar..d tw... How did Sheila run about with no expirated blood and no swallowed blood? Give it your best shot, Jimmy Clitheroe.
Evenng Shona. He does come out with some rubbish doesn't he? @)(++(*
He surely does. What a tw... Shame on you, Tesko. You are so full of crap.
What I don't understand is why he makes so much of it up and the rest...well he twists to suit. 8-)(--)
-
Also, a massive big-up to "Yorkshire lass susan ingham" (ho ho ho!!) for putting the tin hat on any credibility left on the blue forum, after Gladys pretended to be Gav. Talk about one flew over the cuckoo's nest!!
Poor Rochy. 8(8-)) .
-
I never cease to be amazed by Mike Tesko's ability to make something out of completely nothing.
Take for example his latest craze; that of the fragmented bullet; and I quote;
The circumstances of how Sheila came to be wounded by infliction of the first shot (Bullet PV/20), what happened to that bullet once it entered into her neck, and which was X-rayed with the fragments of bullet still insitu inside her throat, and its recovery during autopsy, and how it later came to be transformed into a whole bullet so that the prosecutions case could turn this into a one gun crime, needs to be looked into more deeply. Only when these events are scrutinised fully will it be possible to say with a degree of certainty that somebody substituted the original fragmented bullet (PV/20) and replaced it with a whole control bullet which was fired from rifle "Y", during unreported test firings of rifle and control ammunition, so as to present a false case to the jury that the same rifle (Y) had fired both bullets that wounded and killed Sheila Caffell, when in fact two different ones had been used...
The forensic pathlogist Peter Vanezis clearly has stated that the bullet was fragmented and has x-ray evidence. Forensic scientist Malcolm Fletcher has clearly made a mistake and labelled it a 'whole bullet' Looking at the plethora of forms that each pathologist has to fill in it is hardly a surprising mistake.
However, to Mike, this is a whole different world. It means a conspiracy, it means pathologists, the police, the relatives are lying. This inconsistency is positive proof to him of a huge conspiracy involving the Essex Police, the relatives, the CCRC and just about anyone else that dares to think that a greedy, narcissistic psychopath could possibly have committed murder.
Hmm......maybe we have got it all wrong. Maybe because this man has written a wrong word............all the evidence that supports Bamber's guilt is competely wrong. The relatives have committed gross purgery, the police and forensic sciences have constructed a conspiracy so complex that JFK conspiracy theorists would be put to shame. Everything prosecution witnesses have said are nothing more than complete lies...............Of course! we have all seen the light now Mike........... We must be all so darn stupid 8-)(--)
>@@(*&)
-
Also, a massive big-up to "Yorkshire lass susan ingham" (ho ho ho!!) for putting the tin hat on any credibility left on the blue forum, after Gladys pretended to be Gav. Talk about one flew over the cuckoo's nest!!
Poor Rochy. 8(8-)) .
Tesko's theories are becoming ever more erratic. I also notice he is unable to debate issues on his discredited forum and resorts to name calling when it all goes wrong. His latest crap about the first bullet which struck Sheila is typical of the nonsense he is posting. The pathologist was quite specific about the bullet even though parts of it fragmented. The major remnant of this bullet was recovered from beside the fourth vertebra where it had caused fracturing. Tesko's continued babble to the effect that no bullet was recovered and that the fractured remnants were replaced by another test bullet is total garbage.
I will add that there isn't a shred of evidence which supports any of his deluded accusations about the police and in particular his claim that an officer fired the second shot at Sheila. Nor is there any evidence that Sheila was ever downstairs after the killings began. Claiming that she could have walked upstairs after having been shot in the neck is just silly talk. Just goes to show how desperate he is to post such spoofs!
There are saner people in the funny farm wearing straight-jackets!.
-
And the get certificates when they get out!
-
And the get certificates when they get out!
LOL....... @)(++(*
Good one Joanne 8((()*/
-
I never cease to be amazed by Mike Tesko's ability to make something out of completely nothing.
Take for example his latest craze; that of the fragmented bullet; and I quote;
The circumstances of how Sheila came to be wounded by infliction of the first shot (Bullet PV/20), what happened to that bullet once it entered into her neck, and which was X-rayed with the fragments of bullet still insitu inside her throat, and its recovery during autopsy, and how it later came to be transformed into a whole bullet so that the prosecutions case could turn this into a one gun crime, needs to be looked into more deeply. Only when these events are scrutinised fully will it be possible to say with a degree of certainty that somebody substituted the original fragmented bullet (PV/20) and replaced it with a whole control bullet which was fired from rifle "Y", during unreported test firings of rifle and control ammunition, so as to present a false case to the jury that the same rifle (Y) had fired both bullets that wounded and killed Sheila Caffell, when in fact two different ones had been used...
The forensic pathlogist Peter Vanezis clearly has stated that the bullet was fragmented and has x-ray evidence. Another pathologist Malcolm Fletcher has clearly made a mistake and labelled it a 'whole bullet' Looking at the plethora of forms that each pathologist has to fill in it is hardly a surprising mistake.
However, to Mike, this is a whole different world. It means a conspiracy, it means pathologists, the police, the relatives are lying. This inconsistency is positive proof to him of a huge conspiracy involving the Essex Police, the relatives, the CCRC and just about anyone else that dares to think that a greedy, narcissistic psychopath could possibly have committed murder.
Hmm......maybe we have got it all wrong. Maybe because this man has written a wrong word............all the evidence that supports Bamber's guilt is competely wrong. The relatives have committed gross purgery, the police and forensic sciences have constructed a conspiracy so complex that JFK conspiracy theorists would be put to shame. Everything prosecution witnesses have said are nothing more than complete lies...............Of course! we have all seen the light now Mike........... We must be all so darn stupid 8-)(--)
>@@(*&)
I can see that we are interpreting this issue in a similar way albeit independently Ian.
I haven't gone into the subject of the first bullet which impacted Sheila in great depth but two facts seem to be beyond dispute.
Firstly, the pathologist, Dr Vanezis, did the autopsy and he alone is the expert in this case irrespective of later observations of data by other experts. Dr Vanezis was therefore master of the facts. He found that the bullet was fragmented but that there was a discernible remnant big enough to be called a bullet which lodged by Sheila's 4th vertebra shattering the adjacent structures (see pathologists report of 30 September 1985).
Secondly, we have the X-ray image of Sheila's neck showing the remnant bullet and the shattered particles. It is no secret that for this bullet to shatter it had to have impacted on bone causing substantial damage to that structure. The only bone in the neck is the vertebra or spinal column otherwise or commonly known as the spine or back bone.
We are therefore left in no doubt that a bullet existed which could be examined so the introduction of a false control bullet was not necessary. Does Mike Tesko think that he is smarter than Bambers lawyers who had access to all this information from day one? If he does he is sadly deluded!
-
I'm trying to find info on Mike Tesko-it keeps coming up with 'sleuthing for justice' but the site isn't accesable, does anyone know anything about this site?
-
Ian, for the sake of clarity and completeness can I just clear up something you posted earlier when you referred to Malcolm Fletcher as a Pathologist. He is in fact a Forensic Scientist. 8(0(*
OK Thanks John. 8((()*/
-
I never cease to be amazed by Mike Tesko's ability to make something out of completely nothing.
Take for example his latest craze; that of the fragmented bullet; and I quote;
The circumstances of how Sheila came to be wounded by infliction of the first shot (Bullet PV/20), what happened to that bullet once it entered into her neck, and which was X-rayed with the fragments of bullet still insitu inside her throat, and its recovery during autopsy, and how it later came to be transformed into a whole bullet so that the prosecutions case could turn this into a one gun crime, needs to be looked into more deeply. Only when these events are scrutinised fully will it be possible to say with a degree of certainty that somebody substituted the original fragmented bullet (PV/20) and replaced it with a whole control bullet which was fired from rifle "Y", during unreported test firings of rifle and control ammunition, so as to present a false case to the jury that the same rifle (Y) had fired both bullets that wounded and killed Sheila Caffell, when in fact two different ones had been used...
The forensic pathlogist Peter Vanezis clearly has stated that the bullet was fragmented and has x-ray evidence. Another pathologist Malcolm Fletcher has clearly made a mistake and labelled it a 'whole bullet' Looking at the plethora of forms that each pathologist has to fill in it is hardly a surprising mistake.
However, to Mike, this is a whole different world. It means a conspiracy, it means pathologists, the police, the relatives are lying. This inconsistency is positive proof to him of a huge conspiracy involving the Essex Police, the relatives, the CCRC and just about anyone else that dares to think that a greedy, narcissistic psychopath could possibly have committed murder.
Hmm......maybe we have got it all wrong. Maybe because this man has written a wrong word............all the evidence that supports Bamber's guilt is competely wrong. The relatives have committed gross purgery, the police and forensic sciences have constructed a conspiracy so complex that JFK conspiracy theorists would be put to shame. Everything prosecution witnesses have said are nothing more than complete lies...............Of course! we have all seen the light now Mike........... We must be all so darn stupid 8-)(--)
>@@(*&)
I can see that we are interpreting this issue in a similar way albeit independently Ian.
I haven't gone into the subject of the first bullet which impacted Sheila in great depth but two facts seem to be beyond dispute.
Firstly, the pathologist, Dr Vanezis, did the autopsy and he alone is the expert in this case irrespective of later observations of data by other experts. Dr Vanezis was therefore master of the facts. He found that the bullet was fragmented but that there was a discernible remnant big enough to be called a bullet which lodged by Sheila's 4th vertebra shattering the adjacent structures (see pathologists report of 30 September 1985).
Secondly, we have the X-ray image of Sheila's neck showing the remnant bullet and the shattered particles. It is no secret that for this bullet to shatter it had to have impacted on bone causing substantial damage to that structure. The only bone in the neck is the vertebra or spinal column otherwise or commonly known as the spine or back bone.
We are therefore left in no doubt that a bullet existed which could be examined so the introduction of a false control bullet was not necessary. Does Mike Tesko think that he is smarter than Bambers lawyers who had access to all this information from day one? If he does he is sadly deluded!
Indeed John
A very astute comment. Moreover a shattered vertebrae would exclude Sheila from straightening her head to receive that all-important fatal shot. I have spoken at length to an orthepaedic surgeon about this and she states that a fracture to that vertebra would almost certainly exclude the possibility that the head could be even moved, much less, supported from a lying position. In short Sheila could NOT have shot herself a second time with a shattered neck vertebra. It is also probable that she could not have got up and walked with such an injury either.
This is why Bamber had to pull her into a straighter position so that he could administer the coup de grace.
-
I'm trying to find info on Mike Tesko-it keeps coming up with 'sleuthing for justice' but the site isn't accesable, does anyone know anything about this site?
hi joanne have you found the porn sites yet. he,s certainly been busy ha ha 8((()*/
-
I've seen LOADS and then some, listed but I haven't clicked on any, they look a bit 'Debbie does Dallas'. I think I'll give it a miss. He needs to be wary of repeatative strain injury.
All the typing and uploading he does as well as crime solving is bound to strain something. He seems to be able to solve the mystery of Jeremy Bamber, madeleine Mccann and set websites up all at the same time, the guy's a genius.
-
I've seen LOADS and then some, listed but I haven't clicked on any, they look a bit 'Debbie does Dallas'. I think I'll give it a miss. He needs to be wary of repeatative strain injury.
All the typing and uploading he does as well as crime solving is bound to strain something. He seems to be able to solve the mystery of Jeremy Bamber, madeleine Mccann and set websites up all at the same time, the guy's a genius.
hi again joanne. yes he does seem to enjoy a good j arthur rank as we say in Yorkshire 8)-)))
-
My Granddad used to use that phrase! @)(++(*
That was under the same breathe as 'Not that I do anything like that-these days'-too much information!
-
My Granddad used to use that phrase! @)(++(*
That was under the same breathe as 'Not that I do anything like that-these days'-too much information!
joanne my husband is always at it it,s made him as blind as a bat ha ha. anyway must go I drive the local fire engine speak later my dear
-
Can I give you a little help here Joanne. Why do you think he doesn't use his real name on the forum? Try putting Mike Teskowski and porn into your search engine and Bobs your uncle.
You could also try his proper name and the word INFORMER or GRASS or REVOLVER and watch what comes up! 8(0(*
-
All that came up was porn when I put his name into the search engine!
-
All that came up was porn when I put his name into the search engine!
joanne just one more thing before I put on my helmet have you seen the little films he,s made in his kitchen they,re lovely just like kenny baker doing jackanory ?{)(**
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* 8@??)(
-
Good evening, everybody. Jeremy here. Can I just say how over the bloody moon I am that a forum dedicated to getting me out of prison is being used to discuss the merits of jumbo sauages? I really, really couldn't be more delighted. Keep up the good work, susan ingham from Yorkshire. I can almost taste that pot noodle. 8((()*/
-
If people keep ignoring Kevin Craigie won't he just go away he has clearly got issues
-
I think they've tried that on other sites, it doesn't work 8(8-))
-
I can't believe how Roch hasn't seen through Craigie's ventriloquist act. >@@(*&)
-
I have just told him in a pm. I swore down I wouldn't post on the boards but I will not sit and watch my friends being torn to bits on a forum. What KC fails to remember is that the person he is venting at stuck his neck out to help him when he first joined here, Kevin is the liar and nobody else and now he has been brought down by his lies, I will not tolerate him being nasty to someone else because of hid own actions.
-
How can ANYONE look at the close-up image of Sheila's throat and still support the preposterous idea that she was ever upright after the first shot, moving from the kitchen to the bedroom? Her body was obviously moved very, very slightly between shots, just enough to expose under her chin for a more efficient second shot. And both blood tracks exhibit the same sheen, so the wet blood theory is rubbish, too. No wonder Mike tries to distract the last few supporters with his conspiracy theories. He'd have to get a new hobby if one of them found the courage to challenge him as to why there is no downward blood flow.
-
Ssssshhhh, Mike.
We ALL know that you don't know what you're talking about. Because if you had a single shred of evidence that would help JB, you'd use it. Why wouldn't you? All that bluster, all that bullshit. All the smoke screens.
I suppose it keeps you off the streets.
-
How can ANYONE look at the close-up image of Sheila's throat and still support the preposterous idea that she was ever upright after the first shot, moving from the kitchen to the bedroom? Her body was obviously moved very, very slightly between shots, just enough to expose under her chin for a more efficient second shot. And both blood tracks exhibit the same sheen, so the wet blood theory is rubbish, too. No wonder Mike tries to distract the last few supporters with his conspiracy theories. He'd have to get a new hobby if one of them found the courage to challenge him as to why there is no downward blood flow.
I see he has moved on to the polygraph testing again and Mullins expert opinion. @)(++(*
-
Ssssshhhh, Mike.
We ALL know that you don't know what you're talking about. Because if you had a single shred of evidence that would help JB, you'd use it. Why wouldn't you? All that bluster, all that bullshit. All the smoke screens.
I suppose it keeps you off the streets.
I have one of those ENIGMA computer hard-drives as well with thousands of documents and photos on it. Bet mine is bigger than his!! @)(++(*
I also bet Mike Teskowski has an abundance of porn on it as well...poor sod.
-
How can ANYONE look at the close-up image of Sheila's throat and still support the preposterous idea that she was ever upright after the first shot, moving from the kitchen to the bedroom? Her body was obviously moved very, very slightly between shots, just enough to expose under her chin for a more efficient second shot. And both blood tracks exhibit the same sheen, so the wet blood theory is rubbish, too. No wonder Mike tries to distract the last few supporters with his conspiracy theories. He'd have to get a new hobby if one of them found the courage to challenge him as to why there is no downward blood flow.
Good points Shona,
Moreover, the first bullet shattered the 4th vertebra in her neck making it virtually impossible for her to move her head. In short she could not have fired the second, fatal shot.
The pathologist Peter Venezis actually stated that the first shot didn't exclude the possiblity of Sheila being about to move around. This overtly non-comittal phrase opened the proverbial floodgates for people like Bamber and Tesko to come up with all manner of ever-increasingly ridiculous scenarios. We all know that Sheila didn't move after that first shot - Venezis was, as most pathologists are - being over-cautious in their reports. DS Stan Jones shrewdly commented that 'pathologists shouldn't be told anything by the police. They should figure it out for themselves'
Sheila was shot by Bamber in the hope that it would kill her. It didn't. As she fell backwards from the first shot, her head hit the bedside cabinet immediately placed behind her, leaving her head at an angle which covered the wound and allowing the blood to flow, seen on her nightdress; downwards and at an angle - if Sheila was the killer and wanted to shoot herself, her shattered vertebrae would have made it impossible for her to move her head for the second shot - It is possible to deduce that Bamber pulled her by the ankles in order to straighten her and to expose her chin and fired a second, fatal shot. She could NOT have placed herself in that position.
The conclusion is; is that Sheila Caffell did NOT shoot herself and if she did not, someone else MUST have, that someone else can ONLY be Jeremy Bamber to the exclusion of ALL others.
-
Ssssshhhh, Mike.
We ALL know that you don't know what you're talking about. Because if you had a single shred of evidence that would help JB, you'd use it. Why wouldn't you? All that bluster, all that bullshit. All the smoke screens.
I suppose it keeps you off the streets.
I have one of those ENIGMA computer hard-drives as well with thousands of documents and photos on it. Bet mine is bigger than his!! @)(++(*
I also bet Mike Teskowski has an abundance of porn on it as well...poor sod.
Is Tesko into porn then???
-
How can ANYONE look at the close-up image of Sheila's throat and still support the preposterous idea that she was ever upright after the first shot, moving from the kitchen to the bedroom? Her body was obviously moved very, very slightly between shots, just enough to expose under her chin for a more efficient second shot. And both blood tracks exhibit the same sheen, so the wet blood theory is rubbish, too. No wonder Mike tries to distract the last few supporters with his conspiracy theories. He'd have to get a new hobby if one of them found the courage to challenge him as to why there is no downward blood flow.
I see he has moved on to the polygraph testing again and Mullins expert opinion. @)(++(*
Rochy hates when I say this, but it is a PIECE OF PISS to pass a lie detector. All you need is a drawing pin in your shoe.
-
How can ANYONE look at the close-up image of Sheila's throat and still support the preposterous idea that she was ever upright after the first shot, moving from the kitchen to the bedroom? Her body was obviously moved very, very slightly between shots, just enough to expose under her chin for a more efficient second shot. And both blood tracks exhibit the same sheen, so the wet blood theory is rubbish, too. No wonder Mike tries to distract the last few supporters with his conspiracy theories. He'd have to get a new hobby if one of them found the courage to challenge him as to why there is no downward blood flow.
I see he has moved on to the polygraph testing again and Mullins expert opinion. @)(++(*
Rochy hates when I say this, but it is a PIECE OF PISS to pass a lie detector. All you need is a drawing pin in your shoe.
...or are institutionalised and don't know what the truth is any more.
-
How can ANYONE look at the close-up image of Sheila's throat and still support the preposterous idea that she was ever upright after the first shot, moving from the kitchen to the bedroom? Her body was obviously moved very, very slightly between shots, just enough to expose under her chin for a more efficient second shot. And both blood tracks exhibit the same sheen, so the wet blood theory is rubbish, too. No wonder Mike tries to distract the last few supporters with his conspiracy theories. He'd have to get a new hobby if one of them found the courage to challenge him as to why there is no downward blood flow.
I see he has moved on to the polygraph testing again and Mullins expert opinion. @)(++(*
Rochy hates when I say this, but it is a PIECE OF PISS to pass a lie detector. All you need is a drawing pin in your shoe.
...or are institutionalised and don't know what the truth is any more.
Or a cold hearted psychopath who has openly bragged about wiping out his family for a year before he did it. And the disgusting behaviour afterwards. He really isn't the blue eyed boy, is he? Sniggering over the images of Sheila, when the poor girl wasn't even cold. What was he doing in her flat anyway? Horrible.
-
How can ANYONE look at the close-up image of Sheila's throat and still support the preposterous idea that she was ever upright after the first shot, moving from the kitchen to the bedroom? Her body was obviously moved very, very slightly between shots, just enough to expose under her chin for a more efficient second shot. And both blood tracks exhibit the same sheen, so the wet blood theory is rubbish, too. No wonder Mike tries to distract the last few supporters with his conspiracy theories. He'd have to get a new hobby if one of them found the courage to challenge him as to why there is no downward blood flow.
Good points Shona,
Moreover, the first bullet shattered the 4th vertebra in her neck making it virtually impossible for her to move her head. In short she could not have fired the second, fatal shot.
The pathologist Peter Venezis actually stated that the first shot didn't exclude the possiblity of Sheila being about to move around. This overtly non-comittal phrase opened the proverbial floodgates for people like Bamber and Tesko to come up with all manner of ever-increasingly ridiculous scenarios. We all know that Sheila didn't move after that first shot - Venezis was, as most pathologists are - being over-cautious in their reports. DS Stan Jones shrewdly commented that 'pathologists shouldn't be told anything by the police. They should figure it out for themselves'
Sheila was shot by Bamber in the hope that it would kill her. It didn't. As she fell backwards from the first shot, her head hit the bedside cabinet immediately placed behind her, leaving her head at an angle which covered the wound and allowing the blood to flow, seen on her nightdress; downwards and at an angle - if Sheila was the killer and wanted to shoot herself, her shattered vertebrae would have made it impossible for her to move her head for the second shot - It is possible to deduce that Bamber pulled her by the ankles in order to straighten her and to expose her chin and fired a second, fatal shot. She could NOT have placed herself in that position.
The conclusion is; is that Sheila Caffell did NOT shoot herself and if she did not, someone else MUST have, that someone else can ONLY be Jeremy Bamber to the exclusion of ALL others.
I know we have touched on this previously but something which has always bothered me is the total lack of emotion on Sheila's face. No pain, no shock, no sign of any fear and not a tear. This is certainly very odd.
I read a comment yesterday where it has been suggested that Jeremy Bamber applied a mild undetectable anaesthetic to Sheila in order to incapacitate her while he murdered the others. I know there was no sign of such a compound in her bloodstream but it may not have shown up if used in small quantities.
Any views on this one? >@@(*&)
-
I don't understand this lie detector stuff because they do take it very seriously in America don't they and then they are using them in this country to do with sex offenders and parole.
There must be some real statistics somewhere because if they are letting sex offenders out on the results of a lie detector and they are not accurate enough it's wrong
-
How can ANYONE look at the close-up image of Sheila's throat and still support the preposterous idea that she was ever upright after the first shot, moving from the kitchen to the bedroom? Her body was obviously moved very, very slightly between shots, just enough to expose under her chin for a more efficient second shot. And both blood tracks exhibit the same sheen, so the wet blood theory is rubbish, too. No wonder Mike tries to distract the last few supporters with his conspiracy theories. He'd have to get a new hobby if one of them found the courage to challenge him as to why there is no downward blood flow.
Good points Shona,
Moreover, the first bullet shattered the 4th vertebra in her neck making it virtually impossible for her to move her head. In short she could not have fired the second, fatal shot.
The pathologist Peter Venezis actually stated that the first shot didn't exclude the possiblity of Sheila being about to move around. This overtly non-comittal phrase opened the proverbial floodgates for people like Bamber and Tesko to come up with all manner of ever-increasingly ridiculous scenarios. We all know that Sheila didn't move after that first shot - Venezis was, as most pathologists are - being over-cautious in their reports. DS Stan Jones shrewdly commented that 'pathologists shouldn't be told anything by the police. They should figure it out for themselves'
Sheila was shot by Bamber in the hope that it would kill her. It didn't. As she fell backwards from the first shot, her head hit the bedside cabinet immediately placed behind her, leaving her head at an angle which covered the wound and allowing the blood to flow, seen on her nightdress; downwards and at an angle - if Sheila was the killer and wanted to shoot herself, her shattered vertebrae would have made it impossible for her to move her head for the second shot - It is possible to deduce that Bamber pulled her by the ankles in order to straighten her and to expose her chin and fired a second, fatal shot. She could NOT have placed herself in that position.
The conclusion is; is that Sheila Caffell did NOT shoot herself and if she did not, someone else MUST have, that someone else can ONLY be Jeremy Bamber to the exclusion of ALL others.
I know we have touched on this previously but something which has always bothered me is the total lack of emotion on Sheila's face. No pain, no shock, no sign of any fear and not a tear. This is certainly very odd.
I read a comment yesterday where it has been suggested that Jeremy Bamber applied a mild undetectable anaesthetic to Sheila in order to incapacitate her while he murdered the others. I know there was no sign of such a compound in her bloodstream but it may not have shown up if used in small quantities.
Any views on this one? >@@(*&)
Yes. If you go onto the History channel, and see all sorts of madness going on, you will witness the faces of innocent people who were murdered, suicides, torture, terrible crimes. And hanging. But when they die, the muscles relax. No signs of truama.
-
John
That's what I think when I see that photo of Sheila she looks like an actress pretending to be dead. She still looks stunningly beautiful
-
I don't understand this lie detector stuff because they do take it very seriously in America don't they and then they are using them in this country to do with sex offenders and parole.
There must be some real statistics somewhere because if they are letting sex offenders out on the results of a lie detector and they are not accurate enough it's wrong
It's been suggested that lie detectors work. They don't. Google David Pates Powick. I allowed him to take my girls on holiday. I have to live with that.
-
I don't understand this lie detector stuff because they do take it very seriously in America don't they and then they are using them in this country to do with sex offenders and parole.
There must be some real statistics somewhere because if they are letting sex offenders out on the results of a lie detector and they are not accurate enough it's wrong
The Polygraph test can be affected by so many variables Jackie. I guarantee if someone were to take the same test three times over the course of three weeks that it would come up with at least one rogue result. The bottom line is that is just cannot be trusted. Technology has not yet advanced so far that we can trust such a test.
The recent news that the Government is to use the test routinely when evaluating sex offenders is very worrying. They are using the threat of the test to get offenders to own up to things. That bluff won't last for long as the word will soo get around. If anyone is damaging the credibility of the polygraph it is the Government..
-
Shona did he look normal? He must have been cunning to take you in?
Next Sunday there is a sad programme about Jessica and Holly, it's ten years since Soham
-
John
That's what I think when I see that photo of Sheila she looks like an actress pretending to be dead. She still looks stunningly beautiful
She looks like a stunned, terrified woman, mute and full of fear, who couldn't fight. Did she have a choice?
Killed. She was never on the bed, or in the kitchen.
-
John
That's what I think when I see that photo of Sheila she looks like an actress pretending to be dead. She still looks stunningly beautiful
She looks like a stunned, terrified woman, mute and full of fear, who couldn't fight. Did she have a choice?
Killed. She was never on the bed, or in the kitchen.
Sheila didn't deserve to die like that. She may have had mental health problems but from all accounts she was a loving daughter and mother who was on the mend and looking forward to a better future.
-
John
That's what I think when I see that photo of Sheila she looks like an actress pretending to be dead. She still looks stunningly beautiful
She looks like a stunned, terrified woman, mute and full of fear, who couldn't fight. Did she have a choice?
Killed. She was never on the bed, or in the kitchen.
Sheila didn't deserve to die like that. She may have had mental health problems but from all accounts she was a loving daughter and mother who was on the mend and looking forward to a better future.
-
Personally I think Sheila was threatened by Bamber - her or her kids. A mother would die to protect her children. Tragically Sheila did just that.
She could not have failed to see the body of poor June lying by the entrance. It was probably all the example she needed. I think he made her sit down next to the bed under pain of death, and pray for June, and as she closed her eyes Bamber stuck the gun under her chin and fired.
The poor woman must have been absolutely terrified, not just for herself, but for her dear little boys.
The body of brave Sheila is a grim and stark reminder of why the psychopathic animal Bamber must NEVER be released.
-
I have often wonder about why some people think an obviously guilty Jeremy Bamber is 'innocent'
Of course I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and expression. Each to their own. However, I have yet to see a single scrap of credible evidence that shows this man is anything but guilty. Strip away the crap and the half-baked theories and you are left with little but wishful thinking, half-truths or nonsense based on yet more nonsense.
I have read the blue forum's arguments with great attention to detail and cannot for the life of me understand exactly why they have come to the conclusion that they have.
Most -if not all -of the arguments about his innocence are incredibly spurious, tentative, stretched fabrications or strained elements of the evidence designed to give the impression that he is innocent of a crime he clearly committed. We are all aware of the simple immutable fact - if Sheila Cafell did not kill herself then Jeremy Bamber MUST have. The silencer, the circumstantial evidence and the numerous witnesses combined infer guilt greater than the sum of it's parts. However, inconsistencies and sloppy detective work let the floodgates open for them. These anomalies; dissected in the right manner and in the right hands and you can easily leave the case open to abuse and misinterpretation and facilitates the spread of misinformation by unscrupulous individuals none more so that the culprit himself.
However, I do believe that most of his supporters are good, well-meaning people. So what may you ask, are these people doing supporting a psychopathic child-killer? I have come to the conclusion that other elements are at play here. Some of them may bring the personal element, 'I just know he is innocent' nonsense. Or some may just enjoy the mental gymnastics in trying to prove something that doesn't exist - his innocence. Whereas some are just too arrogant to ever admit they are wrong and will continue to go along with anything that salves their own egos - however ridiculous it may appear.
However, there is a final layer that I have given some thought to and it is very real. Using elements from some or all of the above, some supporters have unknowingly or otherwise built their beliefs on a complete fabrication.
For example, a supporter that I spoke with recently is actually adamant that Sheila walked around the house and 'was in conversation with someone' before she shot herself again. Or 'someone was seen in the window' This is despite there being absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever to back these statement up. This is what first led them to believe that Bamber was innocent and have based their entire campaign from that start point. Therefore, there whole philosophy surrounding Bamber was built upon a total lie or misconception.
Moreover the saturation of the internet by Tesko and his cronies have led many to come to the wrong conclusions without delving too deeply into the case. Take his videos on youtube for example; most, if not all of them, are easily disproved and are complete nonsense which are predominantely based upon a lie of his own making. But at first glance and judging by the comments left by viewers you wouldn't be blamed for thinking him wholly innocent.
The saturation of the internet may or may not be apart of a strategy to confuse the public. To prove this all you need to do it to type Bambers' name into Google and see what happens - the first thing you notice is that virtually all the entries centre around his 'innocence' A researcher will he hard-pushed to find articles relating to his guilt.
It is on these points that we need to focus and educate the public to what is really going on _ a very cunning and manipulative psychopath and a few cronies have carefully and deliberately set out their stall.
My advice - don't buy from it. 8(0(*
-
I have often wonder about why some people think an obviously guilty Jeremy Bamber is 'innocent'
Of course I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and expression. Each to their own. However, I have yet to see a single scrap of credible evidence that shows this man is anything but guilty. Strip away the crap and the half-baked theories and you are left with little but wishful thinking, half-truths or nonsense based on yet more nonsense.
I have read the blue forum's arguments with great attention to detail and cannot for the life of me understand exactly why they have come to the conclusion that they have.
Most -if not all -of the arguments about his innocence are incredibly spurious, tentative, stretched fabrications or strained elements of the evidence designed to give the impression that he is innocent of a crime he clearly committed.
I have come to the conclusion that other elements are at play here. Some of them may bring the personal element, 'I just know he is innocent' nonsense. Or some may just enjoy the mental gymnastics in trying to prove something that doesn't exist - his innocence. Whereas some are just too arrogant to ever admit they are wrong and will continue to go along with anything that salves their own egos - however ridiculous it may appear.
However, there is a final layer that I have given some thought to and it is very real. Using elements from some or all of the above, some supporters have unknowingly or otherwise built their beliefs on a complete fabrication.
For example one that I spoke with is actually adamant that Sheila walked around the house and 'was in conversation with someone' Or 'someone was seen in the window' This is despite there being absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever to back these statement up. This is what first led them to believe that Bamber was innocent and have based their entire campaign from that start point. Therefore, there whole philosophy surrounding Bamber was built upon a total lie or misconception.
Moreover the saturation of the internet by Tesko and his cronies have led many to come to the wrong conclusions without delving too deeply into the case. Take his videos on youtube for example; most, if not all of them, are easily disproved and are complete nonsense which are predominantely based upon a lie of his own making. But at first glance and judging by the comments left by viewers you wouldn't be blamed for thinking him wholly innocent.
The saturation of the internet may or may not be apart of a strategy to confuse the public. To prove this all you need to do it to type Bambers' name into Google and see what happens - the first thing you notice is that virtually all the entries centre around his 'innocence' A researcher will he hard-pushed to find articles relating to his guilt.
It is on these points that we need to focus and educate the public to what is really going on _ a very cunning and manipulative psychopath and a few cronies have carefully and deliberately set out their stall.
My advice - don't buy from it. 8(0(*
Ian, you make some valid points - well executed.
However, there are also one or two other people, like me, who have known Jeremy for a very long time......and have sat for many hours during visits, questioning him whilst at the same time taking note of his body language.
I gave up trying to convince people of his innocence years ago. The information I worked with was 'old' information. All this new stuff is beyond me, however, I would like to state that Jeremy told me almost 20 years ago now exactly what happened that night as far as he was aware. Hardly anything he told me was available in statements to support his story. However, I repeat, almost 20 years later these documents have appeared/come to light, and they support fully everything Jeremy told me.
In saying this I would also like to add that there was much that he did not know, for example his father's phone call to the police station being just one thing. Much about the silencer was unknown too.
Jeremy and I spent 'years' trawling through 'old' documents, trying to piece together the events of that night. Jeremy told me his side of events (which did not fit in with the old documentation as he refuted much of it), and our combined efforts at solving this crime continued to baffle us for years. Jeremy was as perplexed as I was!!
Knowing Jeremy very well, I do feel that had he committed these crimes, or was involved in any way at all, I genuinely feel he would have directed my attentions somewhere else, so support his innocence. Without question, I honestly do believe he had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrible events of that night.
A lot of what has been posted in the media and copied here, is incorrect or has been taken out of context, therefore, to begin to judge him on his reactions after that terrible night is wrong.
I would like to add that Jeremy does lie......but not that much. However, I could tell when Jeremy was lying to me over the phone.....for all that you may believe, he is not that good a liar!!
-
I have often wonder about why some people think an obviously guilty Jeremy Bamber is 'innocent'
Of course I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and expression. Each to their own. However, I have yet to see a single scrap of credible evidence that shows this man is anything but guilty. Strip away the crap and the half-baked theories and you are left with little but wishful thinking, half-truths or nonsense based on yet more nonsense.
I have read the blue forum's arguments with great attention to detail and cannot for the life of me understand exactly why they have come to the conclusion that they have.
Most -if not all -of the arguments about his innocence are incredibly spurious, tentative, stretched fabrications or strained elements of the evidence designed to give the impression that he is innocent of a crime he clearly committed.
I have come to the conclusion that other elements are at play here. Some of them may bring the personal element, 'I just know he is innocent' nonsense. Or some may just enjoy the mental gymnastics in trying to prove something that doesn't exist - his innocence. Whereas some are just too arrogant to ever admit they are wrong and will continue to go along with anything that salves their own egos - however ridiculous it may appear.
However, there is a final layer that I have given some thought to and it is very real. Using elements from some or all of the above, some supporters have unknowingly or otherwise built their beliefs on a complete fabrication.
For example one that I spoke with is actually adamant that Sheila walked around the house and 'was in conversation with someone' Or 'someone was seen in the window' This is despite there being absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever to back these statement up. This is what first led them to believe that Bamber was innocent and have based their entire campaign from that start point. Therefore, there whole philosophy surrounding Bamber was built upon a total lie or misconception.
Moreover the saturation of the internet by Tesko and his cronies have led many to come to the wrong conclusions without delving too deeply into the case. Take his videos on youtube for example; most, if not all of them, are easily disproved and are complete nonsense which are predominantely based upon a lie of his own making. But at first glance and judging by the comments left by viewers you wouldn't be blamed for thinking him wholly innocent.
The saturation of the internet may or may not be apart of a strategy to confuse the public. To prove this all you need to do it to type Bambers' name into Google and see what happens - the first thing you notice is that virtually all the entries centre around his 'innocence' A researcher will he hard-pushed to find articles relating to his guilt.
It is on these points that we need to focus and educate the public to what is really going on _ a very cunning and manipulative psychopath and a few cronies have carefully and deliberately set out their stall.
My advice - don't buy from it. 8(0(*
Ian, you make some valid points - well executed.
However, there are also one or two other people, like me, who have known Jeremy for a very long time......and have sat for many hours during visits, questioning him whilst at the same time taking note of his body language.
I gave up trying to convince people of his innocence years ago. The information I worked with was 'old' information. All this new stuff is beyond me, however, I would like to state that Jeremy told me almost 20 years ago now exactly what happened that night as far as he was aware. Hardly anything he told me was available in statements to support his story. However, I repeat, almost 20 years later these documents have appeared/come to light, and they support fully everything Jeremy told me.
In saying this I would also like to add that there was much that he did not know, for example his father's phone call to the police station being just one thing. Much about the silencer was unknown too.
Jeremy and I spent 'years' trawling through 'old' documents, trying to piece together the events of that night. Jeremy told me his side of events (which did not fit in with the old documentation as he refuted much of it), and our combined efforts at solving this crime continued to baffle us for years. Jeremy was as perplexed as I was!!
Knowing Jeremy very well, I do feel that had he committed these crimes, or was involved in any way at all, I genuinely feel he would have directed my attentions somewhere else, so support his innocence. Without question, I honestly do believe he had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrible events of that night.
A lot of what has been posted in the media and copied here, is incorrect or has been taken out of context, therefore, to begin to judge him on his reactions after that terrible night is wrong.
I would like to add that Jeremy does lie......but not that much. However, I could tell when Jeremy was lying to me over the phone.....for all that you may believe, he is not that good a liar!!
Thank you for your honest and frank reply.
Although I have not the benefit, like you do, of actually knowing Jeremy Bamber I believe that after much research into him and his case it does give me some insight into his crimes and indeed his character, but this is all most people will know of him and must base a valued judgement around that fact.
While I admire your stance I do believe quite strongly that you are very much mistaken in your belief that this man is in any way innocent. I have heard many times from people who have known him and say exactly the same thing that you have in your reply - almost verbatim.
Take for example your statement about his father phone call. I am sorry to have to tell you this but this simply did not happen. It has been explained time and time again that this was a simple communication error where a message was repeated to another dispatcher, and it can be proven as such. Why have you accepted this is fact?
Further, why would Jeremy be 'perplexed'? what is there to be perplexed about? Perplexed because he cannot account for the evidence against him?
This 'perplexed' manner is nothing more than a ruse in order to make his case appear more genuine. It is called 'reverse psychology' Playing the poor 'clueless victim' adds weight to his plea of inncence. A psychopath is well-versed in the use of this and will use it to great effect.
Your point about him not being a good liar? Well, I simply cannot agree with you on that one. He is a very skilled and accomplished liar. Ask Colin Caffell, ask Julie Mugford, ask David Boutflour and I suggest you read his police statements that stands as a mute witness to Bamber's innate ability to lie as naturally as if he were breathing.
As for his character..........who was it that stole money from his own family and tried to make it look like someone else had done it? Who was it that tried to hawk his own dead sisters pictures to a Sun reporter? Who was it that sold drugs via mail order? Who was it that tormented his own family in the run-up to the killings? ALL without so much as a shred of remorse or guilt.
You say you spent years piecing together 'the events that night' Jeremy knew EXACTLY what happened that night. Are you sure it was not a 'let us pore over these documents to try to find any discrepancy or inconsistency, anomaly or plain mistake in order to make a bid for freedom'?
If he told you what happened that night it would have been his own edited version, with himself of course a totally innocent victim. I say .......absolute nonsense. If you know him you need to tell him it is time that he grew a pair and accepted responsibility for what he has done instead of being the despicable coward that he has been for the last 27 years. One thing is absolutely certain.........he will never be released. He is as guilty as sin and he knows it, despite what he tells you.
Thank you for sharing your beliefs. It is clear that you are a decent and dedicated person, although I disagree with what you believe I admire your commitment nonetheless.
-
I cannot add much more to Ian's concise response but I will add that AA is genuine and is who she says she is. The bit that is missing though is that she is a 'former' girlfriend having exited the inner circle as many have done before her and have done so more recently like Giovanni di Stefano, Ewan Smith and the one and only Mike Teskowski have found to their cost.
There is a pattern here and one which in itself tells a tale. Why does Jeremy Bamber suddenly drop those people who were once his most stalwart supporters? The common thread comment which I have noted is that Jeremy will do it his way and will not be counselled. He knows best!
-
I cannot add much more to Ian's concise response but I will add that AA is genuine and is who she says she is. The bit that is missing though is that she is a 'former' girlfriend having exited the inner circle as many have been before her and have done so more recently like Giovanni di Stefano, Ewan Smith and the one and only Mike Teskowski have found to their cost.
There is a pattern here and one which in itself tells a tale. Why does Jeremy Bamber suddenly drop those people who were once his most stalwart supporters?
Thanks for the info John. I think Bamber drops them like a hot potato once he feels they are no longer of any use to him. Typical psychopathic behaviour.
The authorities should have stepped in by now and put a stop to this kind of thing.
-
I cannot add much more to Ian's concise response but I will add that AA is genuine and is who she says she is. The bit that is missing though is that she is a 'former' girlfriend having exited the inner circle as many have been before her and have done so more recently like Giovanni di Stefano, Ewan Smith and the one and only Mike Teskowski have found to their cost.
There is a pattern here and one which in itself tells a tale. Why does Jeremy Bamber suddenly drop those people who were once his most stalwart supporters?
Thanks for the info John. I think Bamber drops them like a hot potato once he feels they are no longer of any use to him. Typical psychopathic behaviour.
The authorities should have stepped in by now and put a stop to this kind of thing.
It should not be forgotten of course that Jeremy did the exacyt same thing with Julie not long after the killings when Brett Collins became favourable. Leopard and spots comes to mind?
-
I cannot add much more to Ian's concise response but I will add that AA is genuine and is who she says she is. The bit that is missing though is that she is a 'former' girlfriend having exited the inner circle as many have been before her and have done so more recently like Giovanni di Stefano, Ewan Smith and the one and only Mike Teskowski have found to their cost.
There is a pattern here and one which in itself tells a tale. Why does Jeremy Bamber suddenly drop those people who were once his most stalwart supporters?
Thanks for the info John. I think Bamber drops them like a hot potato once he feels they are no longer of any use to him. Typical psychopathic behaviour.
The authorities should have stepped in by now and put a stop to this kind of thing.
It should not be forgotten of course that Jeremy did the exacyt same thing with Julie not long after the killings when Brett Collins became favourable. Leopard and spots comes to mind?
Absolutely John,
Bamber dropped her as soon as the thought he'd got away with it. I believe he may have been with her in those last months before the murders solely to to make him look like he was in a stable relationship and was a 'decent person' Soon after the murders he started seeing other women.
As soon as he thought he had gotten away with it.........bye bye Julie. I would not put that past him.
-
So, he never thought if he upset Julie (by dumping her), she wouldn't want the last word bearing in mind she'd tried to smother him when she found out he was sharing his love about!?
-
Anyone recognise someone like this?
Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callousness; lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Lack of realistic long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
These are the key personality traits of a psychopath. Scientists have described them as 'intra-species predators'
While others have described them as intensely selfish individuals who are the centre of their own universe and who lack any form of humanity.
-
Morning campers.....sorry make that after noon @)(++(*
Been a bit tied up lately what with the Olympics et all. I particularly like the beach volleyball down at the Admiralty if you know what I mean 8(0(*
While I am up in town I was thinking about taking a stroll down to Troutbeck CAB office tomorrow to ask about crime prevention and whether it is tax deductible. I do hope some kind person will be able to assist me.
-
So, he never thought if he upset Julie (by dumping her), she wouldn't want the last word bearing in mind she'd tried to smother him when she found out he was sharing his love about!?
Yes Joanne,
He thought that he's got clean away with it and obviously saw no reason to keep Julie around. According to Julie, Bamber had made an indirect threat to her, warning her that she was 'as implicated as he was' In his infinite arrogance he believed that this would ensure her silence. He was very much mistaken.
-
So, he never thought if he upset Julie (by dumping her), she wouldn't want the last word bearing in mind she'd tried to smother him when she found out he was sharing his love about!?
Yes Joanne,
He thought that he's got clean away with it and obviously saw no reason to keep Julie around. According to Julie, Bamber had made an indirect threat to her, warning her that she was 'as implicated as he was' In his infinite arrogance he believed that this would ensure her silence. He was very much mistaken.
He certainly was. @)(++(*
-
It's not just that Bamber drops these people once they outlive their usefulness. Even when he does drop them there is no resentment or anger among the people he dumps. They are still every bit as supportive of him and passionate even though they have seen a nasty side to him, as if they are under some kind of spell. I read a little about Ted Bundy and though I wouldn't suggest Bamber's crimes were on a par I could see lots of similarities between them. Charismatic, charming and manipulative both of them. Both seemingly incapable of empathising with the victims of their crimes.
-
I have often wonder about why some people think an obviously guilty Jeremy Bamber is 'innocent'
Of course I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and expression. Each to their own. However, I have yet to see a single scrap of credible evidence that shows this man is anything but guilty. Strip away the crap and the half-baked theories and you are left with little but wishful thinking, half-truths or nonsense based on yet more nonsense.
I have read the blue forum's arguments with great attention to detail and cannot for the life of me understand exactly why they have come to the conclusion that they have.
Most -if not all -of the arguments about his innocence are incredibly spurious, tentative, stretched fabrications or strained elements of the evidence designed to give the impression that he is innocent of a crime he clearly committed.
I have come to the conclusion that other elements are at play here. Some of them may bring the personal element, 'I just know he is innocent' nonsense. Or some may just enjoy the mental gymnastics in trying to prove something that doesn't exist - his innocence. Whereas some are just too arrogant to ever admit they are wrong and will continue to go along with anything that salves their own egos - however ridiculous it may appear.
However, there is a final layer that I have given some thought to and it is very real. Using elements from some or all of the above, some supporters have unknowingly or otherwise built their beliefs on a complete fabrication.
For example one that I spoke with is actually adamant that Sheila walked around the house and 'was in conversation with someone' Or 'someone was seen in the window' This is despite there being absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever to back these statement up. This is what first led them to believe that Bamber was innocent and have based their entire campaign from that start point. Therefore, there whole philosophy surrounding Bamber was built upon a total lie or misconception.
Moreover the saturation of the internet by Tesko and his cronies have led many to come to the wrong conclusions without delving too deeply into the case. Take his videos on youtube for example; most, if not all of them, are easily disproved and are complete nonsense which are predominantely based upon a lie of his own making. But at first glance and judging by the comments left by viewers you wouldn't be blamed for thinking him wholly innocent.
The saturation of the internet may or may not be apart of a strategy to confuse the public. To prove this all you need to do it to type Bambers' name into Google and see what happens - the first thing you notice is that virtually all the entries centre around his 'innocence' A researcher will he hard-pushed to find articles relating to his guilt.
It is on these points that we need to focus and educate the public to what is really going on _ a very cunning and manipulative psychopath and a few cronies have carefully and deliberately set out their stall.
My advice - don't buy from it. 8(0(*
Ian, you make some valid points - well executed.
However, there are also one or two other people, like me, who have known Jeremy for a very long time......and have sat for many hours during visits, questioning him whilst at the same time taking note of his body language.
I gave up trying to convince people of his innocence years ago. The information I worked with was 'old' information. All this new stuff is beyond me, however, I would like to state that Jeremy told me almost 20 years ago now exactly what happened that night as far as he was aware. Hardly anything he told me was available in statements to support his story. However, I repeat, almost 20 years later these documents have appeared/come to light, and they support fully everything Jeremy told me.
In saying this I would also like to add that there was much that he did not know, for example his father's phone call to the police station being just one thing. Much about the silencer was unknown too.
Jeremy and I spent 'years' trawling through 'old' documents, trying to piece together the events of that night. Jeremy told me his side of events (which did not fit in with the old documentation as he refuted much of it), and our combined efforts at solving this crime continued to baffle us for years. Jeremy was as perplexed as I was!!
Knowing Jeremy very well, I do feel that had he committed these crimes, or was involved in any way at all, I genuinely feel he would have directed my attentions somewhere else, so support his innocence. Without question, I honestly do believe he had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrible events of that night.
A lot of what has been posted in the media and copied here, is incorrect or has been taken out of context, therefore, to begin to judge him on his reactions after that terrible night is wrong.
I would like to add that Jeremy does lie......but not that much. However, I could tell when Jeremy was lying to me over the phone.....for all that you may believe, he is not that good a liar!!
I have seen a few of Aunt Agatha's posts on the blue forum and she does come over as a dignified, sincere and kind person. So, regardless of her views on Jeremy's innocence, I hope that that she has had fulfilling relationships and happiness. It is all very sad and poignant .
I am sorry that she has been rejected by Jeremy.
-
It's not just that Bamber drops these people once they outlive their usefulness. Even when he does drop them there is no resentment or anger among the people he dumps. They are still every bit as supportive of him and passionate even though they have seen a nasty side to him, as if they are under some kind of spell. I read a little about Ted Bundy and though I wouldn't suggest Bamber's crimes were on a par I could see lots of similarities between them. Charismatic, charming and manipulative both of them. Both seemingly incapable of empathising with the victims of their crimes.
An excellent point Goatboy,
Yes there are remarkable similarities between Ted Bundy's manipulative and charismatic persona and that of Bamber. Both were primary psychopaths adept at getting others to do their bidding. Psychopaths learn very early which buttons to push, which to nurse and which to exploit. It is a game to them. When speaking to others they secretly discover their weak points, their fears and insecurities. It is this which they willlater exploit. Someone that is weak - they wil suggest they will protect; someone who is unsure about their appearence - they will flatter; someone who has doubts about their intelligence; they will praise for their ingenuity. People who lack social status they will show them a good time and how great it is to be in their company. Equally so, these are the very qualities that they will then turn against them, if and when necessary.
It is hardly surprising then that people are drawn to these individuals and will keep supporting them long after they have dispensed with them.
This is part of what makes a psychopath so successful and I do feel very sorry for those that are caught up in their web. However, it is not all gloom and doom. The psychopath has been exposed and we are learning new and sophisticated ways to spot them and their methods before they cause untold damage. Their methods are often predictable and therefore detectable.
There are now psychologists which can be called in who are specially trained to spot corporate psychopaths which have previously ridden roughshod over workmates and caused untold damage to both the company and the other employees. Jeremy Bamber is one such psychopath. He has no feelings one way or the other about using other people to do his bidding. When they are no longer of any use to him, they are duly discarded.
I urge people that have any form of contact with him or his ilk, to exercise extreme caution.
-
I don't even think it's a game, it's a way of life!
-
It's not just that Bamber drops these people once they outlive their usefulness. Even when he does drop them there is no resentment or anger among the people he dumps. They are still every bit as supportive of him and passionate even though they have seen a nasty side to him, as if they are under some kind of spell. I read a little about Ted Bundy and though I wouldn't suggest Bamber's crimes were on a par I could see lots of similarities between them. Charismatic, charming and manipulative both of them. Both seemingly incapable of empathising with the victims of their crimes.
An excellent point Goatboy,
Yes there are remarkable similarities between Ted Bundy's manipulative and charismatic persona and that of Bamber. Both were primary psychopaths adept at getting others to do their bidding. Psychopaths learn very early which buttons to push, which to nurse and which to exploit. It is a game to them. When speaking to others they secretly discover their weak points, their fears and insecurities. It is this which they willlater exploit. Someone that is weak - they wil suggest they will protect; someone who is unsure about their appearence - they will flatter; someone who has doubts about their intelligence; they will praise for their ingenuity. People who lack social status they will show them a good time and how great it is to be in their company. Equally so, these are the very qualities that they will then turn against them, if and when necessary.
It is hardly surprising then that people are drawn to these individuals and will keep supporting them long after they have dispensed with them.
This is part of what makes a psychopath so successful and I do feel very sorry for those that are caught up in their web. However, it is not all gloom and doom. The psychopath has been exposed and we are learning new and sophisticated ways to spot them and their methods before they cause untold damage. Their methods are often predictable and therefore detectable.
There are now psychologists which can be called in who are specially trained to spot corporate psychopaths which have previously ridden roughshod over workmates and caused untold damage to both the company and the other employees. Jeremy Bamber is one such psychopath. He has no feelings one way or the other about using other people to do his bidding. When they are no longer of any use to him, they are duly discarded.
I urge people that have any form of contact with him or his ilk, to exercise extreme caution.
I have seen that comment about being extremely cautious with such people and it is very valid in Bambers case. He manipulates everyone he comes into contact with and grooms them to his way of thinking. It is like a subtle form of mind control.
It is worth remembering that Jeremy Bamber's real father referred to him as a psychopath after his trial. It must be difficult for his real parents and siblings knowing that they are related to such an infamous person.
-
I note with interest your views, beliefs and understandings regarding the relationship between Jeremy and myself.
I would like to add that our 'friendship' ended solely due to the lies and self seeking antics of Tracy Brazier from the Innocent Group. Her behaviour I found to be unsettling and most disturbing - I found myself on unfamiliar territory when having to defend myself against her lies in order to discredit me in the eyes of Jeremy and the Campaign.
Jeremy chose to question me regarding the false accusations made against me and when I felt him lying to me down the phone I chose to walk away from him. He did not drop me - I dropped him!!
He was someone for whom I strongly believed was wrongly imprisoned, he was alone and the nation had turned their back on this 'child killer'. I did what I could at the time, for many years, but I should honestly add it is nothing compared to what others have done recently using the web and new technology.
When our 'friendship' ended I was deeply saddened......and I was concerned for his own well being having become more aware of the 'new' people surrounding him. Liars, self seeking and deluded bamberettes and clever manipulators.....but I could do nothing more to help him. Whenever I informed him of 'their' antics he tried to assure me he knew exactly what these people were like and described alot of them just as I have here.
However, after almost 20 years of befriending this man, it came as somewhat of a relief to let others take over. I felt responsible for him for many years and it was a weight lifted the day we parted. Today, I only hope that those around him stay, as I did, when all else is lost.
I hold no resentment against Jeremy and will not attempt to make him out to be someone he is not. I don't feel it necessary to post his letters, our photo's etc......it was a strange relationship at the time, as he was in prison, but during our time together he was a most decent and respectable man.
I have come to believe and understand that Jeremy makes decisions based solely upon the information he receives from other in the outside world. If the information he receives comes from somebody who dislikes me or feels threatened by my position, then the information about me will be most negative. And, if that person can have Group members support her lies, by also writing to Jeremy, then I don't stand a chance. I refused to play the game and walked away. Quite happily.
Should he ever be released, then he will have to come and see me as I still hold his most valuable possessions from his family.....and his own. The truth comes out in the end.....one may just have to wait many years, but I'm in no rush at all!
I hope this gives some insight into those 20 years and gives answers to questions so far unanswered.
-
I note with interest your views, beliefs and understandings regarding the relationship between Jeremy and myself.
I would like to add that our 'friendship' ended solely due to the lies and self seeking antics of Tracy Brazier from the Innocent Group. Her behaviour I found to be unsettling and most disturbing - I found myself on unfamiliar territory when having to defend myself against her lies in order to discredit me in the eyes of Jeremy and the Campaign.
Jeremy chose to question me regarding the false accusations made against me and when I felt him lying to me down the phone I chose to walk away from him. He did not drop me - I dropped him!!
He was someone for whom I strongly believed was wrongly imprisoned, he was alone and the nation had turned their back on this 'child killer'. I did what I could at the time, for many years, but I should honestly add it is nothing compared to what others have done recently using the web and new technology.
When our 'friendship' ended I was deeply saddened......and I was concerned for his own well being having become more aware of the 'new' people surrounding him. Liars, self seeking and deluded bamberettes and clever manipulators.....but I could do nothing more to help him. Whenever I informed him of 'their' antics he tried to assure me he knew exactly what these people were like and described alot of them just as I have here.
However, after almost 20 years of befriending this man, it came as somewhat of a relief to let others take over. I felt responsible for him for many years and it was a weight lifted the day we parted. Today, I only hope that those around him stay, as I did, when all else is lost.
I hold no resentment against Jeremy and will not attempt to make him out to be someone he is not. I don't feel it necessary to post his letters, our photo's etc......it was a strange relationship at the time, as he was in prison, but during our time together he was a most decent and respectable man.
I have come to believe and understand that Jeremy makes decisions based solely upon the information he receives from other in the outside world. If the information he receives comes from somebody who dislikes me or feels threatened by my position, then the information about me will be most negative. And, if that person can have Group members support her lies, by also writing to Jeremy, then I don't stand a chance. I refused to play the game and walked away. Quite happily.
Should he ever be released, then he will have to come and see me as I still hold his most valuable possessions from his family.....and his own. The truth comes out in the end.....one may just have to wait many years, but I'm in no rush at all!
I hope this gives some insight into those 20 years and gives answers to questions so far unanswered.
It says much about Bamber that he could be influenced by the common dollop "Tramp Juice Trace".
He has the supporters he deserves, criminals and misfits.
-
I note with interest your views, beliefs and understandings regarding the relationship between Jeremy and myself.
I would like to add that our 'friendship' ended solely due to the lies and self seeking antics of Tracy Brazier from the Innocent Group. Her behaviour I found to be unsettling and most disturbing - I found myself on unfamiliar territory when having to defend myself against her lies in order to discredit me in the eyes of Jeremy and the Campaign.
Jeremy chose to question me regarding the false accusations made against me and when I felt him lying to me down the phone I chose to walk away from him. He did not drop me - I dropped him!!
He was someone for whom I strongly believed was wrongly imprisoned, he was alone and the nation had turned their back on this 'child killer'. I did what I could at the time, for many years, but I should honestly add it is nothing compared to what others have done recently using the web and new technology.
When our 'friendship' ended I was deeply saddened......and I was concerned for his own well being having become more aware of the 'new' people surrounding him. Liars, self seeking and deluded bamberettes and clever manipulators.....but I could do nothing more to help him. Whenever I informed him of 'their' antics he tried to assure me he knew exactly what these people were like and described alot of them just as I have here.
However, after almost 20 years of befriending this man, it came as somewhat of a relief to let others take over. I felt responsible for him for many years and it was a weight lifted the day we parted. Today, I only hope that those around him stay, as I did, when all else is lost.
I hold no resentment against Jeremy and will not attempt to make him out to be someone he is not. I don't feel it necessary to post his letters, our photo's etc......it was a strange relationship at the time, as he was in prison, but during our time together he was a most decent and respectable man.
I have come to believe and understand that Jeremy makes decisions based solely upon the information he receives from other in the outside world. If the information he receives comes from somebody who dislikes me or feels threatened by my position, then the information about me will be most negative. And, if that person can have Group members support her lies, by also writing to Jeremy, then I don't stand a chance. I refused to play the game and walked away. Quite happily.
Should he ever be released, then he will have to come and see me as I still hold his most valuable possessions from his family.....and his own. The truth comes out in the end.....one may just have to wait many years, but I'm in no rush at all!
I hope this gives some insight into those 20 years and gives answers to questions so far unanswered.
Thank you kindly for that Aunt Agatha,
You are obviously a very decent woman and you have moral scruples, more than I can say many others who know Bamber actually posess. But you see AA that the evidence excludes Sheila being the culprit. This cannot be ignored or got around. Jeremy Bamber is the ONLY person that could have murdered the family. Whether you choose to believe that is up to you and I respect your views. I know from experience that when we think we know someone so well as to belive they are not capable of certain things, it gives us a kind of warm security. But we must also take on board the fact that we do not walk in that person's shoes. We will never know what Bamber was thinking.
As you know, I believe him to be guilty as do many others. I base that on the evidence which I have read and interpreted. So too did the court and later the appeal court (twice) and the CCRC. AA there is only so much we can ignore when it comes to supporting someone before the there can be no alternative explanation. One is faced with one immutable fact - his guilt. One too many inconsistencies, ceases to become an inconsistency.
Take for example the simple fact; A man that hated his family (there is overwhelming evidence to prove this) a man that spoke of killing his family (there is also evidence of this also) and some weeks later they are all dead. Shot in very suspicious circumstances. The person that made the threats is the only one still alive.............that AA is a no-brainer. This is just for starters.
I do hope that you find a person worthy of your dedication. There are many Miscarriages of Justice out there that really need the help of someone as dedicated and as committed as you. The case of Jeremy Bamber, I would urge, is not one of them. 8((()*/
-
Thank you Ian for respecting my views - as I do yours.
Today I do not Campaign or work in any way for Jeremy's release. I gave that up years ago!
Neither am I concerned regarding his release or continued imprisonment.
Any feelings or desires I had then with regard to helping him further have now dissipated - the day he chose to believe a bunch of complete strangers over me was the day I turned my back on him.
I do however remain of the view that Sheila did have the time and know-how, to kill her immediate family.
It is not that I believe that Jeremy 'could not do it'....that would be quite pathetic, but I do believe in what he told me all those years ago......and only recently did facts to prove the statements he made to me become public.
Jeremy never changed his story - not once!!
He did not 'hate' his family....that is far from true in IMO.
He did not try to sell photo's to the Sun newspaper.......the paper got in touch with him asking he bring modelling photo's of Sheila. Jeremy took a bunch of photo's. They wanted to buy some - Jeremy refused to sell them!
As for making a breakfast the following morning: Many officers had worked through the night and continued to stay well past their shift ending. Jeremy was in a confused and very upset state. He was told to go and rest by the officers. He could not and wanted to keep busy - just doing something in order to help in some small way. He was told to eat but could not, however he set about cooking something for the officers on duty that morning.
I have questioned Jeremy many, many times about his actions before and after the sad events of that night. In the back of my mind there has always been an element of doubt - 'did he do it?' That doubt has remained with me to this day........however the doubt is there only because I was not there myself that night and I genuinely do not know exactly what happened either. Though I will add, that during our discussions, nothing he said ever had me believe for a second that he definitely did it.
I could be wrong..........I have no qualifications or experience in defining whether a person be guilty or not guilty of anything.........all I have are my instincts, and with all the information I received from Jeremy, my instincts tell me he is innocent.
-
Thank you Ian for respecting my views - as I do yours.
Today I do not Campaign or work in any way for Jeremy's release. I gave that up years ago!
Neither am I concerned regarding his release or continued imprisonment.
Any feelings or desires I had then with regard to helping him further have now dissipated - the day he chose to believe a bunch of complete strangers over me was the day I turned my back on him.
I do however remain of the view that Sheila did have the time and know-how, to kill her immediate family.
It is not that I believe that Jeremy 'could not do it'....that would be quite pathetic, but I do believe in what he told me all those years ago......and only recently did facts to prove the statements he made to me become public.
Jeremy never changed his story - not once!!
He did not 'hate' his family....that is far from true in IMO.
He did not try to sell photo's to the Sun newspaper.......the paper got in touch with him asking he bring modelling photo's of Sheila. Jeremy took a bunch of photo's. They wanted to buy some - Jeremy refused to sell them!
As for making a breakfast the following morning: Many officers had worked through the night and continued to stay well past their shift ending. Jeremy was in a confused and very upset state. He was told to go and rest by the officers. He could not and wanted to keep busy - just doing something in order to help in some small way. He was told to eat but could not, however he set about cooking something for the officers on duty that morning.
I have questioned Jeremy many, many times about his actions before and after the sad events of that night. In the back of my mind there has always been an element of doubt - 'did he do it?' That doubt has remained with me to this day........however the doubt is there only because I was not there myself that night and I genuinely do not know exactly what happened either. Though I will add, that during our discussions, nothing he said ever had me believe for a second that he definitely did it.
I could be wrong..........I have no qualifications or experience in defining whether a person be guilty or not guilty of anything.........all I have are my instincts, and with all the information I received from Jeremy, my instincts tell me he is innocent.
Dear AA,
Thank you kindly for your reply. An interesting account. It strike me immediately that Bamber has obviously given his account to you as to what happened before, during and after the murders. Of course no-one but the killer was there that night. However, like 98% of all murder cases we must judge it according to the evidence that we have because there were no witnesses. Murder by it's very odiousness is a crime that will be surreptitious and secretive by nature. The purpetrators are mostly aware of what punishment will be meted out to them should they be exposed. It is obviously in their best interests to conceal evidence and deceive those who investigate it.
With this in mind, it is therefore necessary to look at the evidence - both physical and circumstantial.
In Bamber's case the doubt that he was the culprit arises almost exclusively from the fact that the police investigation was second rate and 'perfunctory' (to use the trial judge's words) This gave rise to doubt and also afforded the perpetrator the opportunity to cast themselves into a light of innocence using the very mistakes that the police at the crime originally made. In short Bamber found a way to cast doubt on his conviction by using the shoddy police investigation as a template.
However, the physical evidence that was gathered was quite compelling; Bamber cannot - although he has tried all manner of methods - explain why Sheila's blood was found on the silencer.
A hacksaw blade found outside the kitchen window matches the marks found on the newly painted window catch.
The compete lack of forensic evidence found on the body of Sheila Caffell - disproving that she was the purpetrator.
The numerous witness statements. This all points very clearly towards one purpetrator and one alone - Jeremy Bamber.
I think you are on the right track when you said that you have doubts in the back of your mind. It is very difficult to believe that somebody you know could actually have committed such a barbaric crime as this. However, it does happen. Bamber has all the hallmarks of a psychopath - just like the pschiatrist (brought in by the defense) believed at his orginal trial. He believed Bamber was a textbook case. Psychopaths are so adept at lying and manipulation that an ordinary person would not know. Most of us, no matter how savvy we are, would almost certainly in the past in one way or another have fallen prey to a psychopath. Whether it be down the market shopping for a bargain and find ourselves getting ripped off to more far grandious schemes. There is no disgrace in this. We are all human.
What is clear is the reason you gave for the 'photo incident' with Sheila's photos. Mike Fielder the Sun newspaper's crime reporter never wavered from his story either about Bamber. Fielder's story had the ring of truth to it for several key reasons. The sun would NOT be interested in 'ordinary photos' That simply is not their policy. Being a tabloid newspaper and knowing full well that 'sex sells' they would have expressed an interest in only photos of sexual nature. Mike Fielder was asked for a 'large sum of money' by Bamber. A tabloid newspaper does NOT pay a large sum of money for 'family photos' Bamber and his friend Brett Collins were 'gigling and being highly suggestive'
Put plainly AA, he was offering nude photos of Sheila to the highest bidder. 'with such calm and ease as though, he were selling sweeties' said Fielder. If Bamber has told you otherwise he is certainly lying. AA you must ask yourself WHY this man is lying. Moreover, Fielder was aghast not to be called by the prosecution at the trial and offered to put this in a sworn statement to be read out in court. (in the event, it wasnt needed)
This is just a small sample of the web of lies told by Jeremy Bamber after the murders. AA Bamber is certainly guilty of the murders and is now, without doubt a callous mass-murdering psychoipath who will dump anyone in a heartbeat that can no longer assist his 'innocence' campaign. He will listen to and take on board anyone that can provide a lie better than he can. Please do not be surprised by his callous rejection of you on the word of another. This is par for the course in his life. AA, it may not be 'gut instinct' that will show the way in this case, but circumstantial evidence and practical common sense. I say because we are dealing with a very cunning, deceiptful individual that will stop at nothing to squirm out of his just punishment.
Aunt Agatha, you are a humane, kind and decent person. Something that Bamber, definitely is not. Thank you for your points. If there is anything I can help you with please let me know.
8((()*/
-
Thank you Ian for respecting my views - as I do yours.
Today I do not Campaign or work in any way for Jeremy's release. I gave that up years ago!
Neither am I concerned regarding his release or continued imprisonment.
Any feelings or desires I had then with regard to helping him further have now dissipated - the day he chose to believe a bunch of complete strangers over me was the day I turned my back on him.
I do however remain of the view that Sheila did have the time and know-how, to kill her immediate family.
It is not that I believe that Jeremy 'could not do it'....that would be quite pathetic, but I do believe in what he told me all those years ago......and only recently did facts to prove the statements he made to me become public.
Jeremy never changed his story - not once!!
He did not 'hate' his family....that is far from true in IMO.
He did not try to sell photo's to the Sun newspaper.......the paper got in touch with him asking he bring modelling photo's of Sheila. Jeremy took a bunch of photo's. They wanted to buy some - Jeremy refused to sell them!
As for making a breakfast the following morning: Many officers had worked through the night and continued to stay well past their shift ending. Jeremy was in a confused and very upset state. He was told to go and rest by the officers. He could not and wanted to keep busy - just doing something in order to help in some small way. He was told to eat but could not, however he set about cooking something for the officers on duty that morning.
I have questioned Jeremy many, many times about his actions before and after the sad events of that night. In the back of my mind there has always been an element of doubt - 'did he do it?' That doubt has remained with me to this day........however the doubt is there only because I was not there myself that night and I genuinely do not know exactly what happened either. Though I will add, that during our discussions, nothing he said ever had me believe for a second that he definitely did it.
I could be wrong..........I have no qualifications or experience in defining whether a person be guilty or not guilty of anything.........all I have are my instincts, and with all the information I received from Jeremy, my instincts tell me he is innocent.
You wouldn't be the first or indeed the last to be taken in by a master manipulator AA. You only need to look at the Adrian Prout case last year where he convinced Debbie Garlick that he wasn't a cold blooded murderer. She even got engaged to him, moved in with him and had a baby girl to him. And all the time Prouts strangled wife Kate lay in an unmarked grave on the family farm where he had earlier buried her.
Prout bottled out though and confessed all, how long will it be before Jeremy does the same?
-
Would there have been any 'benefit' to JB confessing to the crime when it happened?
Obviously, he thought he was going to get away with it and thought it the perfect crime and still maintains his innocence.
Is there any benefit to him confessing now his options are none?
I think a few people have admitted guilt, I think Myra Hindley did so (but only because she thought it might help her get out) and Tracie Andrews did the same. I think they probably do it for their own ends.
-
Thank you Ian for respecting my views - as I do yours.
Today I do not Campaign or work in any way for Jeremy's release. I gave that up years ago!
Neither am I concerned regarding his release or continued imprisonment.
Any feelings or desires I had then with regard to helping him further have now dissipated - the day he chose to believe a bunch of complete strangers over me was the day I turned my back on him.
I do however remain of the view that Sheila did have the time and know-how, to kill her immediate family.
It is not that I believe that Jeremy 'could not do it'....that would be quite pathetic, but I do believe in what he told me all those years ago......and only recently did facts to prove the statements he made to me become public.
Jeremy never changed his story - not once!!
He did not 'hate' his family....that is far from true in IMO.
He did not try to sell photo's to the Sun newspaper.......the paper got in touch with him asking he bring modelling photo's of Sheila. Jeremy took a bunch of photo's. They wanted to buy some - Jeremy refused to sell them!
As for making a breakfast the following morning: Many officers had worked through the night and continued to stay well past their shift ending. Jeremy was in a confused and very upset state. He was told to go and rest by the officers. He could not and wanted to keep busy - just doing something in order to help in some small way. He was told to eat but could not, however he set about cooking something for the officers on duty that morning.
I have questioned Jeremy many, many times about his actions before and after the sad events of that night. In the back of my mind there has always been an element of doubt - 'did he do it?' That doubt has remained with me to this day........however the doubt is there only because I was not there myself that night and I genuinely do not know exactly what happened either. Though I will add, that during our discussions, nothing he said ever had me believe for a second that he definitely did it.
I could be wrong..........I have no qualifications or experience in defining whether a person be guilty or not guilty of anything.........all I have are my instincts, and with all the information I received from Jeremy, my instincts tell me he is innocent.
You wouldn't be the first or indeed the last to be taken in by a master manipulator AA. You only need to look at the Adrian Prout case last year where he convinced Debbie Garlick that he wasn't a cold blooded murderer. She even got engaged to him, moved in with him and had a baby girl to him. And all the time Prouts strangled wife Kate lay in an unmarked grave on the family farm where he had earlier buried her.
Prout bottled out though and confessed all, how long will it be before Jeremy does the same?
Well said David,
A very good example to use. Bamber has little choice now but to confess otherwise he will spend the rest of his life in a cell. I suspect he has thought about it following the defeat of his last CCRC attempt. He knows now that he has overplayed his hand. He also knows that he will not be released unless he shows some kind of remorse (something is is utterly incapable of) or at least the impression of it, and even then it will not be until he is a very old man.
I also believe that when he hit 50 it dawned on him that his life is ebbing away inside prison and the authorities will not release him. He is also aware of the knowledge that the judiciary system knows full well what his game is.
He is heading into the 'reconsider zone', a stage where the persistent denials of clearly guilty prisoners start to fade away and are replaced by silence while they are contemplating their next move. Myra Hindley, Nannie Doss and Ted Bundy are all famous examples of murderers that made confessions when they neared either death or the prospect of spending the rest of their lives behind bars.
-
Would there have been any 'benefit' to JB confessing to the crime when it happened?
Obviously, he thought he was going to get away with it and thought it the perfect crime and still maintains his innocence.
Is there any benefit to him confessing now his options are none?
I think a few people have admitted guilt, I think Myra Hindley did so (but only because she thought it might help her get out) and Tracie Andrews did the same. I think they probably do it for their own ends.
To be honest Joanne,
I think that had he confessed immediately after the crime and shown some remorse he may, with a very good lawyer and a lot of luck, he have been released after his original sentence of 25 years........just maybe.
However, I think they will deny Bamber any form of parole until he is a very old man. Even then he can consider himself incredibly lucky that they release him at all. The very nature of his evil and odious crime and the persistent denials, the lying the cheating the manipulating of others will all be taken into account. The despicable blaming of his sister and the desicration of his family's memory may lead the judges to steadfastly refuse any attempt at releasing him - no matter what age he is. Justice Drake also stated at his trial 'I find it difficult to forsee a time when it will ever be safe to release someone who could shoot two liitle boys while they slept in their beds'
In an appeal against his whole life tariff, an appeal judge stated that 'these murders were exceptionally serious,"
In a written decision to be communicated to Bamber, who had asked for a specific minimum term to be set to give him some hope of parole, Mr Justice Tugendhat stated that: "In my judgment, you ought to spend the whole of the rest of your life in prison, and I so order."
The chances of him ever being released are vitually non-existent.
-
Would there have been any 'benefit' to JB confessing to the crime when it happened?
Obviously, he thought he was going to get away with it and thought it the perfect crime and still maintains his innocence.
Is there any benefit to him confessing now his options are none?
I think a few people have admitted guilt, I think Myra Hindley did so (but only because she thought it might help her get out) and Tracie Andrews did the same. I think they probably do it for their own ends.
To be honest Joanne,
I think that had he confessed immediately after the crime and shown some remorse he may, with a very good lawyer and a lot of luck, he have been released after his original sentence of 25 years........just maybe.
However, I think they will deny Bamber any form of parole until he is a very old man. Even then he can consider himself incredibly lucky that they release him at all. The very nature of his evil and odious crime and the persistent denials, the lying the cheating the manipulating of others will all be taken into account. The despicable blaming of his sister and the desicration of his family's memory may lead the judges to steadfastly refuse any attempt at releasing him - no matter what age he is. Justice Drake also stated at his trial 'I find it difficult to forsee a time when it will ever be safe to release someone who could shoot two liitle boys while they slept in their beds'
In an appeal against his whole life tariff, an appeal judge stated that 'these murders were exceptionally serious,"
In a written decision to be communicated to Bamber, who had asked for a specific minimum term to be set to give him some hope of parole, Mr Justice Tugendhat stated that: "In my judgment, you ought to spend the whole of the rest of your life in prison, and I so order."
The chances of him ever being released are vitually non-existent.
I read an internal police memo a while back where it was stated that is was Mike Teskowski who put the idea into Bambers head to fight the case to the bitter end using every devious angle he could come up with.
Well done Mike! As Ian has stated, Jeremy would have been on parole by now had he admitted his guilt at an early stage and not attempted to defect blame to his murdered sister.
-
Would there have been any 'benefit' to JB confessing to the crime when it happened?
Obviously, he thought he was going to get away with it and thought it the perfect crime and still maintains his innocence.
Is there any benefit to him confessing now his options are none?
I think a few people have admitted guilt, I think Myra Hindley did so (but only because she thought it might help her get out) and Tracie Andrews did the same. I think they probably do it for their own ends.
To be honest Joanne,
I think that had he confessed immediately after the crime and shown some remorse he may, with a very good lawyer and a lot of luck, he have been released after his original sentence of 25 years........just maybe.
However, I think they will deny Bamber any form of parole until he is a very old man. Even then he can consider himself incredibly lucky that they release him at all. The very nature of his evil and odious crime and the persistent denials, the lying the cheating the manipulating of others will all be taken into account. The despicable blaming of his sister and the desicration of his family's memory may lead the judges to steadfastly refuse any attempt at releasing him - no matter what age he is. Justice Drake also stated at his trial 'I find it difficult to forsee a time when it will ever be safe to release someone who could shoot two liitle boys while they slept in their beds'
In an appeal against his whole life tariff, an appeal judge stated that 'these murders were exceptionally serious,"
In a written decision to be communicated to Bamber, who had asked for a specific minimum term to be set to give him some hope of parole, Mr Justice Tugendhat stated that: "In my judgment, you ought to spend the whole of the rest of your life in prison, and I so order."
The chances of him ever being released are vitually non-existent.
I read an internal police memo a while back where it was stated that is was Mike Teskowski who put the idea into Bambers head to fight the case to the bitter end using every devious angle he could come up with.
Well done Mike! As Ian has stated, Jeremy would have been on parole by now had he admitted his guilt at an early stage and not attempted to defect blame to his murdered sister.
A very interesting point John,
Mike and Jeremy used to share the same prison landing I believe. I am sure the two plotted this as well. Bamber knew Tesko would be released and obviously knew that is the best place to be to get his case heard. Sadly for them none of it worked and Bamber is exactly where he belongs.
8@??)(
-
A very interesting point John,
Mike and Jeremy used to share a cell I believe. I am sure the two plotted this as well. Bamber knew Tesko would be released and obviously knew that is the best place to be to get his case heard. Sadly for them none of it worked and Bamber is exactly where he belongs.
8@??)(
In Mike Tesco's own words:
For the record, I have never shared a cell with Jeremy Bamber, I was merely in the same maximum security prison as he was, on the same wing, in the cell next door to him.
Although, I did spend Christmas dinner (December 1989) in his cell with him for a period of about four hours.
In the main I spoke to Jeremy a lot about his case whenever we had the opportunity, both during the day when we were studying on university courses and evening in our recreation time.
-
A very interesting point John,
Mike and Jeremy used to share a cell I believe. I am sure the two plotted this as well. Bamber knew Tesko would be released and obviously knew that is the best place to be to get his case heard. Sadly for them none of it worked and Bamber is exactly where he belongs.
8@??)(
Mike and Jeremy used to share a cell??? Do not know where you get your info from but Full Sutton is ''Single Cell Occupancy'' Moron ...more bullshit methinks 8-)(--)
In Mike Tesco's own words:
For the record, I have never shared a cell with Jeremy Bamber, I was merely in the same maximum security prison as he was, on the same wing, in the cell next door to him.
Although, I did spend Christmas dinner (December 1989) in his cell with him for a period of about four hours.
In the main I spoke to Jeremy a lot about his case whenever we had the opportunity, both during the day when we were studying on university courses and evening in our recreation time.
So there you have it. The question has always been asked as to why a petty burglar like Tesko was in a maximum security prison in the first place? Was it for his own protection? >@@(*&)
-
Thank you Ian for respecting my views - as I do yours.
Today I do not Campaign or work in any way for Jeremy's release. I gave that up years ago!
Neither am I concerned regarding his release or continued imprisonment.
Any feelings or desires I had then with regard to helping him further have now dissipated - the day he chose to believe a bunch of complete strangers over me was the day I turned my back on him.
I do however remain of the view that Sheila did have the time and know-how, to kill her immediate family.
It is not that I believe that Jeremy 'could not do it'....that would be quite pathetic, but I do believe in what he told me all those years ago......and only recently did facts to prove the statements he made to me become public.
Jeremy never changed his story - not once!!
He did not 'hate' his family....that is far from true in IMO.
He did not try to sell photo's to the Sun newspaper.......the paper got in touch with him asking he bring modelling photo's of Sheila. Jeremy took a bunch of photo's. They wanted to buy some - Jeremy refused to sell them!
As for making a breakfast the following morning: Many officers had worked through the night and continued to stay well past their shift ending. Jeremy was in a confused and very upset state. He was told to go and rest by the officers. He could not and wanted to keep busy - just doing something in order to help in some small way. He was told to eat but could not, however he set about cooking something for the officers on duty that morning.
I have questioned Jeremy many, many times about his actions before and after the sad events of that night. In the back of my mind there has always been an element of doubt - 'did he do it?' That doubt has remained with me to this day........however the doubt is there only because I was not there myself that night and I genuinely do not know exactly what happened either. Though I will add, that during our discussions, nothing he said ever had me believe for a second that he definitely did it.
I could be wrong..........I have no qualifications or experience in defining whether a person be guilty or not guilty of anything.........all I have are my instincts, and with all the information I received from Jeremy, my instincts tell me he is innocent.
Of course we respect your views. It's actually quite refreshing to have someone from the innocent camp who actually has read the facts and interprets them without resorting to mindless speculation and unfounded conspiracy theories. You've met Bamber and we haven't so of course you may have insider knowledge that we don't. However, the conclusion we can reach from what you say is that either Bamber is 100% innocent or he is a psychopath, adept at telling lies and able to manipulate people. I know which I believe.
-
Of course we respect your views. It's actually quite refreshing to have someone from the innocent camp who actually has read the facts and interprets them without resorting to mindless speculation and unfounded conspiracy theories. You've met Bamber and we haven't so of course you may have insider knowledge that we don't. However, the conclusion we can reach from what you say is that either Bamber is 100% innocent or he is a psychopath, adept at telling lies and able to manipulate people. I know which I believe.
AA has known Jeremy for a long time and you would think that after a while she would get to know when he was being genuine and when he was being elusive. Could it be that she was beginning to get to the truth and that wasn't sitting too well with the master planner?
AA admits that she has her own nagging doubts and one has to remember that just about everything she knows about the case has come from Jeremy Bamber himself.
In reality though there isn't much he could tell anyone in any event because according to him he went home to his cottage and the first thing he knew about anything was a telephone call from his dad before 3am. I hasten to add there is no record of any such telephone call nor is there any record of a call being received by the police from a Nevill or Ralph Bamber. One would have thought in hindsight that if you were going to lie about such a call you would at least ensure that it could be traced. My own suspicion is that Jeremy placed more than one call to the police that night. He made one call from White House Farm to a police station which he knew was unmanned at that time of night and one from the farm to his own house in Goldhanger. He had thus covered the two possible calls which he later spoke of.
Jeremy said that his father telephoned him and that it was a result of that call that he telephoned Maldon police only to get no reply. He then telephoned Chelmsford Police Station and spoke to a constable who arranged for cars to attend White House Farm.
Jeremy spoke of telephoning Julie Mugford after having received the call from his father although he got the sequence of these calls mixed up at one stage which is quite interesting. We know Julie received a call at around 3am from Jeremy, corroborated by several witnesses at her flat. Yet it took him another 26 minutes to telephone the police at Chelmsford. Assuming then that he was able to telephone Julie at 3am with news of a problem at the farm then the unproven and mysterious call from Nevill had to have been received around 2.50am ish. Why phone Julie Mugford at all in the middle of the night? Why not just phone the police straight away if it was such a big deal? Why not dial 999? Why the big delay?
Further more, the police car despatched from Maldon had to cover some 5 miles before it got to Jeremy's village and was actually able to overtake him near Tolleshunt D'Arcy as he was travelling so slow. Why was he travelling so slow and making such a positive effort not to arrive at the farm before the police? He even had time to stop and put on another jumper. Why was this? Was there something on the jumper he chose to hide, something that would have given him away if noticed? Had the master-plan come within a hairs breadth of being discovered?
For me there are far too many whys, ifs and buts. I believe Jeremy simply telephoned Julie Mugford in order to provide him with an alibi at 3am. He assumed that the GPO could have traced his call.
-
I know I stand alone here.....there is nobody else on here who is/has been in my position....however, I thank you all for treating me with the up most respect...and you all make valid points. Points I cannot argue with, because, I agree with almost all that you have said.
I'll be honest!! Having read your replies.....I have to ask myself, 'Was I so gullible? Have I been taken in for years by this man?'
'I honestly don't know!'. I'd be mighty surprised if I had. For some years I would spend 12 hours most weekends with him.
When I was not visiting, he would be phoning me many times a day. We shared a lot and I know he took me into his confidence. I knew things that nobody else knew.
I was beside him through two Appeals....the second one bringing him to his knees where he was on suicide watch.
I cannot recall him blaming anyone. He was not a person to look outside himself and blame others for his downfall - he looked within himself at his own failings and was not slow in admitting his shortcomings.
Am I deluded?
I question it all.
-
I know I stand alone here.....there is nobody else on here who is/has been in my position....however, I thank you all for treating me with the up most respect...and you all make valid points. Points I cannot argue with, because, I agree with almost all that you have said.
I'll be honest!! Having read your replies.....I have to ask myself, 'Was I so gullible? Have I been taken in for years by this man?'
'I honestly don't know!'. I'd be mighty surprised if I had. For some years I would spend 12 hours most weekends with him.
When I was not visiting, he would be phoning me many times a day. We shared a lot and I know he took me into his confidence. I knew things that nobody else knew.
I was beside him through two Appeals....the second one bringing him to his knees where he was on suicide watch.
I cannot recall him blaming anyone. He was not a person to look outside himself and blame others for his downfall - he looked within himself at his own failings and was not slow in admitting his shortcomings.
Am I deluded?
I question it all.
Aggy, can I ask how you became so involved with JB? He obviously found you to be a credible and trustworthy person - what on earth made him swap allegiance to TJB?
-
I know I stand alone here.....there is nobody else on here who is/has been in my position....however, I thank you all for treating me with the up most respect...and you all make valid points. Points I cannot argue with, because, I agree with almost all that you have said.
I'll be honest!! Having read your replies.....I have to ask myself, 'Was I so gullible? Have I been taken in for years by this man?'
'I honestly don't know!'. I'd be mighty surprised if I had. For some years I would spend 12 hours most weekends with him.
When I was not visiting, he would be phoning me many times a day. We shared a lot and I know he took me into his confidence. I knew things that nobody else knew.
I was beside him through two Appeals....the second one bringing him to his knees where he was on suicide watch.
I cannot recall him blaming anyone. He was not a person to look outside himself and blame others for his downfall - he looked within himself at his own failings and was not slow in admitting his shortcomings.
Am I deluded?
I question it all.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you were deluded AA. It does seem to be common territory however that many who have befriended Jeremy later go on to depart from him. Some continue to believe in him while others have changed their minds.
Jeremy has implicated Sheila by default by stating that his father said that she had the gun, a reference to the .22 rifle. That and the fact that there was no break-in at the farm sort of places the blame at Sheila's feet according to Jeremy yet you say he does not blame anyone?
Has he out and out told you that Sheila did it?
...or did he blame a third party?
-
Gee 20 years is a long time to visit someone in prison Aggy. You must have been devastated when he failed ti win his appeals and then when that tracy came along stirring it up as she does regularly. >@@(*&)
Do you think Tesko was good or bad for Jeremy. Err I mean it has been suggested earlier tonight that it was Tesko who put the whole idea of fighting the conviction in his head otherwise he would have been out on parole by now probably?
-
Gee 20 years is a long time to visit someone in prison Aggy. You must have been devastated when he failed ti win his appeals and then when that tracy came along stirring it up as she does regularly. >@@(*&)
Do you think Tesko was good or bad for Jeremy. Err I mean it has been suggested earlier tonight that it was Tesko who put the whole idea of fighting the conviction in his head otherwise he would have been out on parole by now probably?
It does make you wonder why/when Mike decided to scupper any chance of freedom for JB with Ali Bongo, Z, grainy sunlight, Sheila's arm, Sheila barking like a dog, unattainable images and phone logs.....
-
I know I stand alone here.....there is nobody else on here who is/has been in my position....however, I thank you all for treating me with the up most respect...and you all make valid points. Points I cannot argue with, because, I agree with almost all that you have said.
I'll be honest!! Having read your replies.....I have to ask myself, 'Was I so gullible? Have I been taken in for years by this man?'
'I honestly don't know!'. I'd be mighty surprised if I had. For some years I would spend 12 hours most weekends with him.
When I was not visiting, he would be phoning me many times a day. We shared a lot and I know he took me into his confidence. I knew things that nobody else knew.
I was beside him through two Appeals....the second one bringing him to his knees where he was on suicide watch.
I cannot recall him blaming anyone. He was not a person to look outside himself and blame others for his downfall - he looked within himself at his own failings and was not slow in admitting his shortcomings.
Am I deluded?
I question it all.
No you are certainly not deluded AA. You were a person that believed in another. We have all been there at some point in our lives. We have all probably had experiences with people who whom we believed a great deal in and trusted - whether they be best friends, wives, husbands, lawyers, business partners etc etc. It is very difficult for anyone to believe that they have been lie to or deceived in any way especially someone with whom we have placed so much trust. You had the double-whammy as it were because the person you trusted made a life for himself abusing such trust and betraying others. There is no disgrace in this AA. You are a decent human being who just happened to believe in the wrong person. This is OK because it will make you stronger and wiser for the experience. No-one will judge you and no-one will ever cast aspersions because of who Bamber was. He was and remains a manipulative, lying psychopath. These people deceive others for a living.
I suspect that the face and the voice you experienced in Bamber was a very diiferent one to the one he portrayed elsewhere. Bamber is adept at showing the appropriate 'face' to those present or those that matter at any given moment. Believe you me, Bamber does indeed blame others - consistently and often, for his predicament. He blamed the relatives, he blamed Julie Mugford and - during an interview recorded for a book about the crime called Murder At White House Farm by Claire Powell he persistently stated that his relatives would 'pay for it' when he got out. He included Colin Caffell, Robert and David Boutflour. He blamed them endlessly.
Remember, AA a psychopath is totally incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions. They are emotional mimics in that they cannot experience emotion like ordinary people........they have to copy it. Often they get this wrong and get noticed by others who understandably think they are simply over-reacting. This happened at his parents funerals where it was noticeable to shrewd observers that Bamber was faking it. He was actually mimicking the grief of Colin Caffell but over did it somewhat dramatically. Bamber is an excellent actor and able to display an array of 'faces' to different people depending on who they were and what their usefulness to him actually was at that particular time.
I am sure AA you know what I am talking about here. You may have seen this actually happen but may have dismissed it at the time. There was an example of Jeremy visiting Colin Caffell after the funeral of the twins in London. when Bamber was clearly conning Colin by cosying-up to him, when just hours before he was railling against him. Julie Mugford saw it and was appalled by it. She also stated that Jeremy's behaviour at Colin's flat was little short of reprehensible. He was caught by Colin Caffell running up the stairs in a towel with Brett Collins covered in soap foam laughing like a drain. A totally inappropriate and disgustingly callous thing to do in a flat of a man that has just lost two of his own sons. Other examples include DS Stan Jones unexpectedly walking into the front room at Bourtree Cottage and catching Bamber inappropriately smirking just hours after the killings and who can ever forget the infamous 'I should have been an actor' line laughing whispered to Julie Mugford? Bamber is indeed the master of deceipt. So please place no trust in what he did or what he said. It is all an illusion and you are far too good of a person to waste 1 minute of your precious time on such a callous individual as him.
AA your points of view are well received and respected. If you need any advice there are some very knowledgable people on here who, I am sure will be only too happy to help - myself humbly included.
8((()*/ 8@??)(
-
Maybe Aggy can tell us a little of how Jeremy reacted when his civils cases against the family were losts and he ended up having to sell his worldly good to pay their costs thereby effectively leaving him penniless? 8-)(--)
-
I know I stand alone here.....there is nobody else on here who is/has been in my position....however, I thank you all for treating me with the up most respect...and you all make valid points. Points I cannot argue with, because, I agree with almost all that you have said.
I'll be honest!! Having read your replies.....I have to ask myself, 'Was I so gullible? Have I been taken in for years by this man?'
'I honestly don't know!'. I'd be mighty surprised if I had. For some years I would spend 12 hours most weekends with him.
When I was not visiting, he would be phoning me many times a day. We shared a lot and I know he took me into his confidence. I knew things that nobody else knew.
I was beside him through two Appeals....the second one bringing him to his knees where he was on suicide watch.
I cannot recall him blaming anyone. He was not a person to look outside himself and blame others for his downfall - he looked within himself at his own failings and was not slow in admitting his shortcomings.
Am I deluded?
I question it all.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you were deluded AA. It does seem to be common territory however that many who have befriended Jeremy later go on to depart from him. Some continue to believe in him while others have changed their minds.
Jeremy has implicated Sheila by default by stating that his father said that she had the gun, a reference to the .22 rifle. That and the fact that there was no break-in at the farm sort of places the blame at Sheila's feet according to Jeremy yet you say he does not blame anyone?
Has he out and out told you that Sheila did it?
...or did he blame a third party?
Hello John,
The idea of a third party was scuppered by Jeremy.
He could think of no-one else other than Sheila.
-
I know I stand alone here.....there is nobody else on here who is/has been in my position....however, I thank you all for treating me with the up most respect...and you all make valid points. Points I cannot argue with, because, I agree with almost all that you have said.
I'll be honest!! Having read your replies.....I have to ask myself, 'Was I so gullible? Have I been taken in for years by this man?'
'I honestly don't know!'. I'd be mighty surprised if I had. For some years I would spend 12 hours most weekends with him.
When I was not visiting, he would be phoning me many times a day. We shared a lot and I know he took me into his confidence. I knew things that nobody else knew.
I was beside him through two Appeals....the second one bringing him to his knees where he was on suicide watch.
I cannot recall him blaming anyone. He was not a person to look outside himself and blame others for his downfall - he looked within himself at his own failings and was not slow in admitting his shortcomings.
Am I deluded?
I question it all.
No you are certainly not deluded AA. You were a person that believed in another. We have all been there at some point in our lives. We have all probably had experiences with people who whom we believed a great deal in and trusted - whether they be best friends, wives, husbands, lawyers, business partners etc etc. It is very difficult for anyone to believe that they have been lie to or deceived in any way especially someone with whom we have placed so much trust. You had the double-whammy as it were because the person you trusted made a life for himself abusing such trust and betraying others. There is no disgrace in this AA. You are a decent human being who just happened to believe in the wrong person. This is OK because it will make you stronger and wiser for the experience. No-one will judge you and no-one will ever cast aspersions because of who Bamber was. He was and remains a manipulative, lying psychopath. These people deceive others for a living.
I suspect that the face and the voice you experienced in Bamber was a very diiferent one to the one he portrayed elsewhere. Bamber is adept at showing the appropriate 'face' to those present or those that matter at any given moment. Believe you me, Bamber does indeed blame others - consistently and often, for his predicament. He blamed the relatives, he blamed Julie Mugford and - during an interview recorded for a book about the crime called Murder At White House Farm by Claire Powell he persistently stated that his relatives would 'pay for it' when he got out. He included Colin Caffell, Robert and David Boutflour. He blamed them endlessly.
Remember, AA a psychopath is totally incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions. They are emotional mimics in that they cannot experience emotion like ordinary people........they have to copy it. Often they get this wrong and get noticed by others who understandably think they are simply over-reacting. This happened at his parents funerals where it was noticeable to shrewd observers that Bamber was faking it. He was actually mimicking the grief of Colin Caffell but over did it somewhat dramatically. Bamber is an excellent actor and able to display an array of 'faces' to different people depending on who they were and what their usefulness to him actually was at that particular time.
I am sure AA you know what I am talking about here. You may have seen this actually happen but may have dismissed it at the time. There was an example of Jeremy visiting Colin Caffell after the funeral of the twins in London. when Bamber was clearly conning Colin by cosying-up to him, when just hours before he was railling against him. Julie Mugford saw it and was appalled by it. She also stated that Jeremy's behaviour at Colin's flat was little short of reprehensible. He was caught by Colin Caffell running up the stairs in a towel with Brett Collins covered in soap foam laughing like a drain. A totally inappropriate and disgustingly callous thing to do in a flat of a man that has just lost two of his own sons. Other examples include DS Stan Jones unexpectedly walking into the front room at Bourtree Cottage and catching Bamber inappropriately smirking just hours after the killings and who can ever forget the infamous 'I should have been an actor' line laughing whispered to Julie Mugford? Bamber is indeed the master of deceipt. So please place no trust in what he did or what he said. It is all an illusion and you are far too good of a person to waste 1 minute of your precious time on such a callous individual as him.
AA your points of view are well received and respected. If you need any advice there are some very knowledgable people on here who, I am sure will be only too happy to help - myself humbly included.
8((()*/ 8@??)(
Hello Ian,
Your description of a psycho I would agree with.....applying that to Jeremy, I would find most difficult.
Over the years our meetings or conversations were not all pleasant, we argued and disagreed about some things. I did see many sides to Jeremy, sides to which we all have, and yet I still could not describe him as a psychopath.
He is a very well spoken articulate man who seeks pleasure from helping others. He has taught many to read and write in prison, he has been an ear for those who need to speak. I used to deliver parcels to the prison and I do recall him sharing the contents with another young man who had no family.
Please do not think for one moment I think the sun shines out of his backside...that is far from true and he has many failings.....especially when he wants his own way. He will do whatever is necessary to get what he wants.......but he is not a murderer.
His own arrogance can be quite detrimental......and had he committed these crimes then we would certainly know about it...because he would have told someone or given some indication.
-
Gee 20 years is a long time to visit someone in prison Aggy. You must have been devastated when he failed ti win his appeals and then when that tracy came along stirring it up as she does regularly. >@@(*&)
Do you think Tesko was good or bad for Jeremy. Err I mean it has been suggested earlier tonight that it was Tesko who put the whole idea of fighting the conviction in his head otherwise he would have been out on parole by now probably?
Hello Jerry,
Mike has done some good, what with the site, his tenacity and strength to see things through.
Yet, he can, IMO, bring everything around him crashing down when he mentions the likes of Ali Bong etc, or continues to feed the forum about supposed photo's of Sheila on the bed etc.
Why he does this I have no idea..........I just don't read it!!
I have nothing to add about him and his families civil case.........it's not something I have played a part in and therefore cannot give any insight into his feelings or beliefs. Sorry Jerry.
-
Hello Ian,
Your description of a psycho I would agree with.....applying that to Jeremy, I would find most difficult.
Over the years our meetings or conversations were not all pleasant, we argued and disagreed about some things. I did see many sides to Jeremy, sides to which we all have, and yet I still could not describe him as a psychopath.
He is a very well spoken articulate man who seeks pleasure from helping others. He has taught many to read and write in prison, he has been an ear for those who need to speak. I used to deliver parcels to the prison and I do recall him sharing the contents with another young man who had no family.
Please do not think for one moment I think the sun shines out of his backside...that is far from true and he has many failings.....especially when he wants his own way. He will do whatever is necessary to get what he wants.......but he is not a murderer.
His own arrogance can be quite detrimental......and had he committed these crimes then we would certainly know about it...because he would have told someone or given some indication.
But he did Aggy....he boasted about it to Julie Mugford didn't he??
-
I know I stand alone here.....there is nobody else on here who is/has been in my position....however, I thank you all for treating me with the up most respect...and you all make valid points. Points I cannot argue with, because, I agree with almost all that you have said.
I'll be honest!! Having read your replies.....I have to ask myself, 'Was I so gullible? Have I been taken in for years by this man?'
'I honestly don't know!'. I'd be mighty surprised if I had. For some years I would spend 12 hours most weekends with him.
When I was not visiting, he would be phoning me many times a day. We shared a lot and I know he took me into his confidence. I knew things that nobody else knew.
I was beside him through two Appeals....the second one bringing him to his knees where he was on suicide watch.
I cannot recall him blaming anyone. He was not a person to look outside himself and blame others for his downfall - he looked within himself at his own failings and was not slow in admitting his shortcomings.
Am I deluded?
I question it all.
Aggy, can I ask how you became so involved with JB? He obviously found you to be a credible and trustworthy person - what on earth made him swap allegiance to TJB?
Hello Shona,
Many moons ago I wanted to be a lawyer and during my studies I followed the odd case, but Jeremy's stood out.
At an award ceremony in Central London I was seated near someone from his solicitors office. We spoke and the following day I posted a card to Jeremy. That was about 1992/93.
Quite unexpectedly, I found myself visiting him some months later (with my lawyers hat on), lol.
I did not go to visit Jeremy with the sincere belief he was innocent!!
I was wary. The many inconsistencies during the trial where enough to get my attention. Someone was lying. Was it the Police/fFamily/Julie or Jeremy?
Having never spoken to the Police, Family or Julie.......yet going through all the statements and evidence I concluded that if anybody was covering up something..........Jeremy's covering up was far, far less than what the others where hiding.
Only as time went by did I come to believe that Jeremy was a MOJ.
-
Hello Ian,
Your description of a psycho I would agree with.....applying that to Jeremy, I would find most difficult.
Over the years our meetings or conversations were not all pleasant, we argued and disagreed about some things. I did see many sides to Jeremy, sides to which we all have, and yet I still could not describe him as a psychopath.
He is a very well spoken articulate man who seeks pleasure from helping others. He has taught many to read and write in prison, he has been an ear for those who need to speak. I used to deliver parcels to the prison and I do recall him sharing the contents with another young man who had no family.
Please do not think for one moment I think the sun shines out of his backside...that is far from true and he has many failings.....especially when he wants his own way. He will do whatever is necessary to get what he wants.......but he is not a murderer.
His own arrogance can be quite detrimental......and had he committed these crimes then we would certainly know about it...because he would have told someone or given some indication.
But he did Aggy....he boasted about it to Julie Mugford didn't he??
I don't believe he did Jerry - No!!
-
Hello John,
The idea of a third party was scuppered by Jeremy.
He could think of no-one else other than Sheila.
Jeremy's plan had one huge flaw AA. He forgot to put Nevill's blood on the telephone handset and dialer.
-
But he did Aggy....he boasted about it to Julie Mugford didn't he??
I don't believe he did Jerry - No!!
You have no way of knowing this Aggy....this is merely your opinion which is not based on any evidence. You have to remember that much of Julies statement is corroborated by others.
You will have heard all about the break-in at Osea caravans and how jeremy lied about that. Can you not see that he is a prolific liar? 8(8-))
-
Hello John,
The idea of a third party was scuppered by Jeremy.
He could think of no-one else other than Sheila.
Jeremy's plan had one huge flaw AA. He forgot to put Nevill's blood on the telephone handset and dialer.
John, if Jeremy did do it, then he made a several mistakes, the first one being contacting the police himself.
Also, the wet suit was mentioned, it being used. Why did he give it to me to hold on to, along with the air rifle, that was also supposedly used (according to Mike and friends).
I have many things of his here......I wonder if any of these things where also used.........
-
Hello John,
The idea of a third party was scuppered by Jeremy.
He could think of no-one else other than Sheila.
Jeremy's plan had one huge flaw AA. He forgot to put Nevill's blood on the telephone handset and dialer.
Thats right. Neville was shot in the master bedroom and came downstiars bleeding profusely from head and neck wounds. There would have been blood on the phone and the sideboard if he had made that call.
-
But he did Aggy....he boasted about it to Julie Mugford didn't he??
I don't believe he did Jerry - No!!
You have no way of knowing this Aggy....this is merely your opinion which is not based on any evidence. You have to remember that much of Julies statement is corroborated by others.
You will have heard all about the break-in at Osea caravans and how jeremy lied about that. Can you not see that he is a prolific liar? 8(8-))
Jerry I do understand where you are coming from.....yes.
I only stated that I do not believe he said that to Julie......as you say rightly, it is only my opinion. Sure, I could be wrong.
And yes, the caravan park can be seen as him telling lies. Maybe the break in and theft were Julie's idea? It was his caravan park after all.....(by shares).....he could do what he wished, so he thought at the time.
We have all made mistakes, surely, and tried to cover it up. He got found out though and that mistake has blown up in his face and has been used against him.
He can lie, yes....and he does.....still does not make him a murderer though Jerry.
-
I know I stand alone here.....there is nobody else on here who is/has been in my position....however, I thank you all for treating me with the up most respect...and you all make valid points. Points I cannot argue with, because, I agree with almost all that you have said.
I'll be honest!! Having read your replies.....I have to ask myself, 'Was I so gullible? Have I been taken in for years by this man?'
'I honestly don't know!'. I'd be mighty surprised if I had. For some years I would spend 12 hours most weekends with him.
When I was not visiting, he would be phoning me many times a day. We shared a lot and I know he took me into his confidence. I knew things that nobody else knew.
I was beside him through two Appeals....the second one bringing him to his knees where he was on suicide watch.
I cannot recall him blaming anyone. He was not a person to look outside himself and blame others for his downfall - he looked within himself at his own failings and was not slow in admitting his shortcomings.
Am I deluded?
I question it all.
No you are certainly not deluded AA. You were a person that believed in another. We have all been there at some point in our lives. We have all probably had experiences with people who whom we believed a great deal in and trusted - whether they be best friends, wives, husbands, lawyers, business partners etc etc. It is very difficult for anyone to believe that they have been lie to or deceived in any way especially someone with whom we have placed so much trust. You had the double-whammy as it were because the person you trusted made a life for himself abusing such trust and betraying others. There is no disgrace in this AA. You are a decent human being who just happened to believe in the wrong person. This is OK because it will make you stronger and wiser for the experience. No-one will judge you and no-one will ever cast aspersions because of who Bamber was. He was and remains a manipulative, lying psychopath. These people deceive others for a living.
I suspect that the face and the voice you experienced in Bamber was a very diiferent one to the one he portrayed elsewhere. Bamber is adept at showing the appropriate 'face' to those present or those that matter at any given moment. Believe you me, Bamber does indeed blame others - consistently and often, for his predicament. He blamed the relatives, he blamed Julie Mugford and - during an interview recorded for a book about the crime called Murder At White House Farm by Claire Powell he persistently stated that his relatives would 'pay for it' when he got out. He included Colin Caffell, Robert and David Boutflour. He blamed them endlessly.
Remember, AA a psychopath is totally incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions. They are emotional mimics in that they cannot experience emotion like ordinary people........they have to copy it. Often they get this wrong and get noticed by others who understandably think they are simply over-reacting. This happened at his parents funerals where it was noticeable to shrewd observers that Bamber was faking it. He was actually mimicking the grief of Colin Caffell but over did it somewhat dramatically. Bamber is an excellent actor and able to display an array of 'faces' to different people depending on who they were and what their usefulness to him actually was at that particular time.
I am sure AA you know what I am talking about here. You may have seen this actually happen but may have dismissed it at the time. There was an example of Jeremy visiting Colin Caffell after the funeral of the twins in London. when Bamber was clearly conning Colin by cosying-up to him, when just hours before he was railling against him. Julie Mugford saw it and was appalled by it. She also stated that Jeremy's behaviour at Colin's flat was little short of reprehensible. He was caught by Colin Caffell running up the stairs in a towel with Brett Collins covered in soap foam laughing like a drain. A totally inappropriate and disgustingly callous thing to do in a flat of a man that has just lost two of his own sons. Other examples include DS Stan Jones unexpectedly walking into the front room at Bourtree Cottage and catching Bamber inappropriately smirking just hours after the killings and who can ever forget the infamous 'I should have been an actor' line laughing whispered to Julie Mugford? Bamber is indeed the master of deceipt. So please place no trust in what he did or what he said. It is all an illusion and you are far too good of a person to waste 1 minute of your precious time on such a callous individual as him.
AA your points of view are well received and respected. If you need any advice there are some very knowledgable people on here who, I am sure will be only too happy to help - myself humbly included.
8((()*/ 8@??)(
Hello Ian,
Your description of a psycho I would agree with.....applying that to Jeremy, I would find most difficult.
Over the years our meetings or conversations were not all pleasant, we argued and disagreed about some things. I did see many sides to Jeremy, sides to which we all have, and yet I still could not describe him as a psychopath.
He is a very well spoken articulate man who seeks pleasure from helping others. He has taught many to read and write in prison, he has been an ear for those who need to speak. I used to deliver parcels to the prison and I do recall him sharing the contents with another young man who had no family.
Please do not think for one moment I think the sun shines out of his backside...that is far from true and he has many failings.....especially when he wants his own way. He will do whatever is necessary to get what he wants.......but he is not a murderer.
His own arrogance can be quite detrimental......and had he committed these crimes then we would certainly know about it...because he would have told someone or given some indication.
I am sorry AA but a psychopath he is. I really dont think you would have known anyway. He is highly adept at concealing it. I cannot speak for the examples you cite but I know one thing; psychopaths will show their 'caring' side to whomever they want and can turn it on like a tap.
I really dont understand your point that he didnt tell anyone?? He certainly told Julie Mugford.
Moreover dangerous prisoners are famous for either trying to show they are 'helping others' (at least being seen to) or getting religion. Im think it is all part and parcel of Bamber's game to try to raise the prisons authorities perception of him. I would place too much value in that.
I am sorry, I totally disagree with you but I think he is a murderer. He murdered his sister, nephews and parents in cold blood. If you do not believe this of him, I have no problems with that at all, that is your opinion and you are very much entitled to it. However, the courts, the judiciary, the witnesses and many, many others think otherwise. I think he plotted, planned and executed his odious crime to rid himself of a family he absolutely loathed. He gave them absolutely no chance that night when he broke into the house and brutally murdered them all. I also think that he is, without doubt a manipulative psychopath. True-to-form, since imprisonment he has plotted, planned and schemed his way to two appeals. The judges have seen throught them for what they were. Again, if you think otherwise........no problem here.
There is only ONE person that murdered those poor, innocent people and he is unlikely to ever be released.
-
When you spoke of religion, it brought a smile to this old face Ian.
I recall the time Jeremy told me he had converted to being a Muslim.
He went for daily prayers etc..........
This action was solely to meet his own needs - but he was not alone!!
-
Jerry I do understand where you are coming from.....yes.
I only stated that I do not believe he said that to Julie......as you say rightly, it is only my opinion. Sure, I could be wrong.
And yes, the caravan park can be seen as him telling lies. Maybe the break in and theft were Julie's idea? It was his caravan park after all.....(by shares).....he could do what he wished, so he thought at the time.
We have all made mistakes, surely, and tried to cover it up. He got found out though and that mistake has blown up in his face and has been used against him.
He can lie, yes....and he does.....still does not make him a murderer though Jerry.
If I may answer some of these points.
Maybe the break-in and theft was Julie's idea. The point is though that Jeremy said it was his idea and attempted to shrug it off by making the excuse that it was to test security. Another lie as he just forgot to tell anyone this after the event.
As for ownership Jeremy didn't own it, he was a minority shareholder. I agree he thought he could do what he wished AA, that was the problem.
I agree, being a thief and a drug dealer doesn't necessarily make him a mass murderer.
-
Jerry I do understand where you are coming from.....yes.
I only stated that I do not believe he said that to Julie......as you say rightly, it is only my opinion. Sure, I could be wrong.
And yes, the caravan park can be seen as him telling lies. Maybe the break in and theft were Julie's idea? It was his caravan park after all.....(by shares).....he could do what he wished, so he thought at the time.
We have all made mistakes, surely, and tried to cover it up. He got found out though and that mistake has blown up in his face and has been used against him.
He can lie, yes....and he does.....still does not make him a murderer though Jerry.
If I may answer some of these points.
Maybe the break-in and theft was Julie's idea. The point is though that Jeremy said it was his idea and attempted to shrug it off by making the excuse that it was to test security. Another lie as he just forgot to tell anyone this after the event.
As for ownership Jeremy didn't own it, he was a minority shareholder. I agree he thought he could do what he wished AA, that was the problem.
I agree, being a thief and a drug dealer doesn't necessarily make him a mass murderer.
John if I may add a few points of my own. I think that the break in was almost certainly Bamber's idea. Only Bamber knew how much money was in the safe that night. He made sure that customers paid (ground rents for the caravans) in cash and dismissed one of the directors earlier suggestions that the week's money - some £980 - be deposited in the bank as was usual. Bamber planned that burglary with cunning and foresight. It is also a significant event - true it doesn't make him a murderer, but.........and this is a BIG but.......he staged it very carefully to make it look like the work of others.........now that is highly significant in light of events some four months later.
-
I wonder if AA can answer his one. Did you notice a marked change in Jeremy over the 20 or so years you visited him in prison?
-
Anyone noticed how the new "Hartley" uses the word "twerp"? And finishes his sentence with a question mark? And signs off with the little smart-ass face?
@)(++(*
-
Anyone noticed how the new "Hartley" uses the word "twerp"? And finishes his sentence with a question mark? And signs off with the little smart-ass face?
@)(++(*
He's running true to form, attacking someone he can't compete with. What a loser.
-
Anyone noticed how the new "Hartley" uses the word "twerp"? And finishes his sentence with a question mark? And signs off with the little smart-ass face?
@)(++(*
He's running true to form, attacking someone he can't compete with. What a loser.
He must have lost interest again given his absence for so long. I suppose you can only blow warm air for so long as Mike has found to his peril.
On a separate note, it looks like we won't have closure in the JB case until September when their Lordships come back from their summer hols suitably refreshed and raring to go. I have a feeling the Judicial Review will be final.
-
I wonder if AA can answer his one. Did you notice a marked change in Jeremy over the 20 or so years you visited him in prison?
John, I don't know how you will interpret this but it did amaze me how, through thick and thin, the highs and lows, his attitude and demeanour remained the same throughout.
There is exception of course, when his second Appeal failed. For a short while he was on suicide watch (I'm not stating that he was suicidal though, that could be normal procedure).....but he hit a dark place and it took some effort to bring him back....and once back, he remained there - until he began to control the Groups and the campaign. He had never tried to control me before....and I feel he found me difficult to deal with, so yes, he changed again. He began to lie to me and become more aggressive towards me......however, Tracey Brazier was the main cause behind that. Her lies upset and confused him.....wasted his time chasing flying pigs whilst he should have been concentrating on his campaign.
Sorry guys, but a cycle ride calls........0-0"............
-
Jerry I do understand where you are coming from.....yes.
I only stated that I do not believe he said that to Julie......as you say rightly, it is only my opinion. Sure, I could be wrong.
And yes, the caravan park can be seen as him telling lies. Maybe the break in and theft were Julie's idea? It was his caravan park after all.....(by shares).....he could do what he wished, so he thought at the time.
We have all made mistakes, surely, and tried to cover it up. He got found out though and that mistake has blown up in his face and has been used against him.
He can lie, yes....and he does.....still does not make him a murderer though Jerry.
If I may answer some of these points.
Maybe the break-in and theft was Julie's idea. The point is though that Jeremy said it was his idea and attempted to shrug it off by making the excuse that it was to test security. Another lie as he just forgot to tell anyone this after the event.
As for ownership Jeremy didn't own it, he was a minority shareholder. I agree he thought he could do what he wished AA, that was the problem.
I agree, being a thief and a drug dealer doesn't necessarily make him a mass murderer.
I don't know for certain as to whether he or Julie conspired to rob the park.
Briefly, I do recall him mentioning that it was Julie's initial thought.......mind you, he could say that to clear himself I know.
It also does not remove the idea that once the seed was sown to steal from the park, he devised and executed a plan to do so.
We did not really discuss it.......it was a brief passing comment he made, nothing more.
-
Anyone noticed how the new "Hartley" uses the word "twerp"? And finishes his sentence with a question mark? And signs off with the little smart-ass face?
@)(++(*
He's running true to form, attacking someone he can't compete with. What a loser.
He must have lost interest again given his absence for so long. I suppose you can only blow warm air for so long as Mike has found to his peril.
On a separate note, it looks like we won't have closure in the JB case until September when their Lordships come back from their summer hols suitably refreshed and raring to go. I have a feeling the Judicial Review will be final.
Yes I think so too John,
I very much think that this is the end of the road for him should it be rejected. There will be nowhere else to turn.
-
Hey......seems I have my own thread on the blue forum put there by someone called 'Hartley' but get this; it is NOT the usual Hartley......it is someone that has stolen his name 8)-)))
He then launches into a vitriolic rant.
Shame this person is a dedicated fly-poster that hides behind a succession of names. Please Mr...erm 'Hartley' try to debate with people.....and not post childish, misleading comments and run away.
You could not make this up @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
It's very naughty of Hartley 1 and Hartley 2 to confuse poor Buddy. He is never at his best in the afternoons.
-
Having read back, I see all the warnings issued to you for lecturing people about psychopaths -not!
I don't think I've ever come accross ANY members lecturing other members, in fact it's the fist site I've been on where everyone respect each others posts and when/if (on the few occasions) it goes to hell in a hand basket, it's quickly stopped and we generally know who it is 8(0(*
-
It's very naughty of Hartley 1 and Hartley 2 to confuse poor Buddy. He is never at his best in the afternoons.
I hope NGB 1066 is pming the poor chap!
-
Having read back, I see all the warnings issued to you for lecturing people about psychopaths -not!
I don't think I've ever come accross ANY members lecturing other members, in fact it's the fist site I've been on where everyone respect each others posts and when/if (on the few occasions) it goes to hell in a hand basket, it's quickly stopped and we generally know who it is 8(0(*
Well said Joanne,
The person who posted that comment on the blue forum is clearly seeking attention. It is a little bit like a child making a noise to get everyone to notice them. I know my comments rile some of the supporters, but I try to be as honest as I can with the evidence that is available to me. If some of them cant deal with that........I am sorry but that's the way it is.
-
It's very naughty of Hartley 1 and Hartley 2 to confuse poor Buddy. He is never at his best in the afternoons.
I hope NGB 1066 is pming the poor chap!
That blue forum! It's like listening in to an old folk's home!
-
Its like a kids playground, "You said you were my friend, not his, you can't be friends with both of us, chose one" with what they're posting on the said thread.
-
Its like a kids playground, "You said you were my friend, not his, you can't be friends with both of us, chose one" with what they're posting on the said thread.
It's hilarious (though I don't think it's intended to be.) But this is what comes from being encouraged to use multiple aliases to up the membership, now half of them are terminally paranoid and the other half can't remember who they're supposed to be!!!!
-
Its like a kids playground, "You said you were my friend, not his, you can't be friends with both of us, chose one" with what they're posting on the said thread.
Absolutely Joanne,
It is like a playground in a primary school. 8()-000(
-
Its like a kids playground, "You said you were my friend, not his, you can't be friends with both of us, chose one" with what they're posting on the said thread.
Absolutely Joanne,
It is like a playground in a primary school. 8()-000(
Bamber's supporters are a cerebral bunch! I've learnt so much about perfume and cake lately!
-
Its like a kids playground, "You said you were my friend, not his, you can't be friends with both of us, chose one" with what they're posting on the said thread.
Absolutely Joanne,
It is like a playground in a primary school. 8()-000(
Bamber's supporters are a cerebral bunch! I've learnt so much about perfume and cake lately!
Poor David Rochford!
-
Wow! I can't believe you've got your own thread at Tesko towers Ian! You seem to have them riled over there. I don't think they like it when people use logic, evidence and coherent arguments to make a point. It confuses them.
They don't like you calling Bamber a psychopath that's for sure. They protest too much I think.
-
Wow! I can't believe you've got your own thread at Tesko towers Ian! You seem to have them riled over there. I don't think they like it when people use logic, evidence and coherent arguments to make a point. It confuses them.
They don't like you calling Bamber a psychopath that's for sure. They protest too much I think.
Absolutely Goatboy,
They appear to have gone completely bonkers. Some of them also got a little nasty when challenged over their assumptions of Bamber's innocence. Some of the posts on there truly beggars belief. I think they must just get carried away.
8-)(--)
-
Hey......seems I have my own thread on the blue forum put there by someone called 'Hartley' but get this; it is NOT the usual Hartley......it is someone that has stolen his name 8)-)))
He then launches into a vitriolic rant.
Shame this person is a dedicated fly-poster that hides behind a succession of names. Please Mr...erm 'Hartley' try to debate with people.....and not post childish, misleading comments and run away.
You could not make this up @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Welcome to the club Ian, you must be getting them all riled up with your very informed posts. 8@??)(
-
I wonder if AA can answer his one. Did you notice a marked change in Jeremy over the 20 or so years you visited him in prison?
John, I don't know how you will interpret this but it did amaze me how, through thick and thin, the highs and lows, his attitude and demeanour remained the same throughout.
There is exception of course, when his second Appeal failed. For a short while he was on suicide watch (I'm not stating that he was suicidal though, that could be normal procedure).....but he hit a dark place and it took some effort to bring him back....and once back, he remained there - until he began to control the Groups and the campaign. He had never tried to control me before....and I feel he found me difficult to deal with, so yes, he changed again. He began to lie to me and become more aggressive towards me......however, Tracey Brazier was the main cause behind that. Her lies upset and confused him.....wasted his time chasing flying pigs whilst he should have been concentrating on his campaign.
Sorry guys, but a cycle ride calls........0-0"............
I could nearly be sorry for him Aunt Agatha. I can certainly empathise with him over his failed appeals though to a lesser degree. I remember packing my stuff up on two occasions when I was sure that I would be going home only to be knocked back. Once at the end of my trial when the Sheriff said that he was going to take the weekend to consider if there was even a case to answer and then later when my lawyers applied for Interim Liberation pending my main appeal.
My appeals took so long to organise that they had to hear my appeal against sentence even before my main appeal, something which doesn't usually occur. Even then I had been told by the Parole Board that I was going to be released in any event some weeks later. I was so used to knock backs that I didn't pack anything but the appeal succeeded and I was kicked out at 7pm just in time to miss the last plane home.
-
Hey......seems I have my own thread on the blue forum put there by someone called 'Hartley' but get this; it is NOT the usual Hartley......it is someone that has stolen his name 8)-)))
He then launches into a vitriolic rant.
Shame this person is a dedicated fly-poster that hides behind a succession of names. Please Mr...erm 'Hartley' try to debate with people.....and not post childish, misleading comments and run away.
You could not make this up @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Hi everyone. Just back from my hols and ready to go. @)(++(*
Good on you Ian you must be getting to them at last. 8@??)(
-
Where have all the regulars gone to on the blue forum???
Grahame, keira, ngb1066 all seem to have disappeared and the rest are hiding behind fake names?? >@@(*&)
Jeremy must be so pleased that his forum is beginning to look like a session from the women's institute by all accounts. @)(++(*
-
Where have all the regulars gone to on the blue forum???
Grahame, keira, ngb1066 all seem to have disappeared and the rest are hiding behind fake names?? >@@(*&)
Jeremy must be so pleased that his forum is beginning to look like a session from the women's institute by all accounts. @)(++(*
Most definitely and the subjects under discussion could well be taken from an episode of the Darling Buds of May or even The Archers. 8-)(--)
I am sure Jeremy will be most heartened by their efforts on his behalf.
-
Well done Ian ! Fame at last. YOUR VERY OWN thread on the famous blue forum . Broke my new rule and had a look. The sad folk regurgitating the same old crap again and again and again ad nauseum. Oh dear " Maggie ", how many times can you repeat the same ill informed, malicious and overstated nonsense about Sheila's mental health . And you guys complain about Ian describing Jeremy as a psychopath. Your hypocrisy has no limits. And Buddy the fountain of all wisdom on the case seems to be losing it too. A really cross old chap. Shame as I thought that he was one of the more thoughtful posters on the blue forum. Chill mate before you make yourself ill.
-
Well done Ian ! Fame at last. YOUR VERY OWN thread on the famous blue forum . Broke my new rule and had a look. The sad folk regurgitating the same old crap again and again and again ad nauseum. Oh dear " Maggie ", how many times can you repeat the same ill informed, malicious and overstated nonsense about Sheila's mental health . And you guys complain about Ian describing Jeremy as a psychopath. Your hypocrisy has no limits. And Buddy the fountain of all wisdom on the case seems to be losing it too. A really cross old chap. Shame as I thought that he was one of the more thoughtful posters on the blue forum. Chill mate before you make yourself ill.
Well said Dillon, 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8((()*/
-
I do enjoy a little read of the latest fantasies over on the blue forum and tonight I see that Mike Teskowski is suggesting that Sheila was given CPR while she had been dead for many hours. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Has he lost the plot completely or do you think he just makes up this nonsense as he goes along to give the impression that he is informed?
As for the thousands of documents he hasn't managed to get through yet, another delusion. He hasn't introduced a single novel idea in the Jeremy Bamber case in months and in fact does nothing but rehash old arguments which he can never win.
All in all a sorry state of affairs. @)(++(*
-
I do enjoy a little read of the latest fantasies over on the blue forum and tonight I see that Mike Teskowski is suggesting that Sheila was given CPR while she had been dead for many hours. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Has he lost the plot completely or do you think he just makes up this nonsense as he goes along to give the impression that he is informed?
As for the thousands of documents he hasn't managed to get through yet, another delusion. He hasn't introduced a single novel idea in the Jeremy Bamber case in months and in fact does nothing but rehash old arguments which he can never win.
All in all a sorry state of affairs. @)(++(*
8-)(--) Talk about ever decreasing circles. Jeremy should confess now and put the poor sods out of their agony. No doubt if he did confess Tesko would say he was forced to do so and it is all one big conspiracy. @)(++(*
-
I do enjoy a little read of the latest fantasies over on the blue forum and tonight I see that Mike Teskowski is suggesting that Sheila was given CPR while she had been dead for many hours. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Has he lost the plot completely or do you think he just makes up this nonsense as he goes along to give the impression that he is informed?
As for the thousands of documents he hasn't managed to get through yet, another delusion. He hasn't introduced a single novel idea in the Jeremy Bamber case in months and in fact does nothing but rehash old arguments which he can never win.
All in all a sorry state of affairs. @)(++(*
Yes John,
I was aghast that such nonsense could be bandied about by seemingly literate individuals. What is even more suprising is how quickly it is taken as 'fact' and becomes part of the myth. I am staggered by the sheer stupidity of it all. I saw one post which tried to explain away the phone call from his father;
" Jeremy waking from a deep sleep accepted that it was his father who rang him in a state of anxiety asking for help. There is a possibility that Jeremy heard words from a voice which was like his father saying words he recognised would only come from his father convincing him it was Ralph on the phone...it may not have been, the power of suggestion is very strong. Lots of people as witnesses swear they saw things that they couldn't have possibly seen"
It is frightening.......... these people have the vote! 8()-000(
That particular post has all the hallmarks of an attempt to move the goalposts. The telephone call which Jeremy claims was made by his father was his undoing...THE FATAL ERROR> I bet he lies in his cell at night and curses the moment he decided to invent that telephone call.
Things didn't go too well for him that morning at White House Farm. He totally overestimated the damage that a .22 rifle bullet could do to the human body. This wasn't little bunny rabbits that he was shooting now!
He didn't have any way to prejudge the effectiveness of the rounds which was a big mistake. He found to his cost that one bullet was not going to kill anyone so he must have been in a state of panic. When it came to Sheila he probably thought that one round in the neck would do it but he was mistaken. The bullet missed the jugular vein and partially shattered leaving Sheila unconscious but alive. What was he to do now? Would he leave her and risk her surviving until the morning or would he have to shoot her again which was certainly not ideal in his suicide plan?
I wonder at what stage did he decide to introduce the fake telephone call? Was it because he had to shoot Sheila twice and so had to add some meat to his unlikely tale? Whatever the reason it has been his undoing.
-
Maybe he imagined the whole thing...just saying like??? >@@(*&)
-
I noticed another posts on the Bamber forum tonight which claimed that Jeremy didn't respond too quickly to Nevill's phantom telephone call simply because Sheila was in the habit of going berserk around the house.
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!
There is no evidence that Sheila ever did any such thing. It is also the case that Sheila was hardly ever at the farm never mind being in the habit of running around like a wild woman. Where do these deluded people get this garbage from I ask myself? >@@(*&)
-
I noticed another posts on the Bamber forum tonight which claimed that Jeremy didn't respond too quickly to Nevill's phantom telephone call simply because Sheila was in the habit of going berserk around the house.
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!
There is no evidence that Sheila ever did any such thing. It is also the case that Sheila was hardly ever at the farm never mind being in the habit of running around like a wild woman. Where do these deluded people get this garbage from I ask myself? >@@(*&)
John I have also seen a post over there which states that maybe the phone call from Nevill was a dream or Bamber mistook someone else for his father after being awoken so suddenly his mind played tricks on him.
I am staggered that people would even entertain such clearly absurd notions. It highlights the lengths that some of them will go to to try to invent excuses for finding him innocent. It must be some kind of delusional process that some seem to go through? They either have such poor self-awareness that they cant tell when they are spouting something that is clearly ludicrous or they are telling lies and inventing highly implausible scenarios in an attempt to find him innocent by any means necessary. I shake my head in dismay.
-
I noticed another posts on the Bamber forum tonight which claimed that Jeremy didn't respond too quickly to Nevill's phantom telephone call simply because Sheila was in the habit of going berserk around the house.
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!
There is no evidence that Sheila ever did any such thing. It is also the case that Sheila was hardly ever at the farm never mind being in the habit of running around like a wild woman. Where do these deluded people get this garbage from I ask myself? >@@(*&)
John I have also seen a post over there which states that maybe the phone call from Nevill was a dream or Bamber mistook someone else for his father after being awoken so suddenly his mind played tricks on him.
I am staggered that people would even entertain such clearly absurd notions. It highlights the lengths that some of them will go to to try to invent excuses for finding him innocent. It must be some kind of delusional process that some seem to go through? They either have such poor self-awareness that they cant tell when they are spouting something that is clearly ludicrous or they are telling lies and inventing highly implausible scenarios in an attempt to find him innocent by any means necessary. I shake my head in dismay.
To be honest I think they are fast running out of options as is Jeremy Bamber. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. 8(0(*
-
I do enjoy a little read of the latest fantasies over on the blue forum and tonight I see that Mike Teskowski is suggesting that Sheila was given CPR while she had been dead for many hours. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Has he lost the plot completely or do you think he just makes up this nonsense as he goes along to give the impression that he is informed?
As for the thousands of documents he hasn't managed to get through yet, another delusion. He hasn't introduced a single novel idea in the Jeremy Bamber case in months and in fact does nothing but rehash old arguments which he can never win.
All in all a sorry state of affairs. @)(++(*
Yes John,
I was aghast that such nonsense could be bandied about by seemingly literate individuals. What is even more suprising is how quickly it is taken as 'fact' and becomes part of the myth. I am staggered by the sheer stupidity of it all. I saw one post which tried to explain away the phone call from his father;
" Jeremy waking from a deep sleep accepted that it was his father who rang him in a state of anxiety asking for help. There is a possibility that Jeremy heard words from a voice which was like his father saying words he recognised would only come from his father convincing him it was Ralph on the phone...it may not have been, the power of suggestion is very strong. Lots of people as witnesses swear they saw things that they couldn't have possibly seen"
It is frightening.......... these people have the vote! 8()-000(
That particular post has all the hallmarks of an attempt to move the goalposts. The telephone call which Jeremy claims was made by his father was his undoing...THE FATAL ERROR> I bet he lies in his cell at night and curses the moment he decided to invent that telephone call.
Things didn't go too well for him that morning at White House Farm. He totally overestimated the damage that a .22 rifle bullet could do to the human body. This wasn't little bunny rabbits that he was shooting now!
He didn't have any way to prejudge the effectiveness of the rounds which was a big mistake. He found to his cost that one bullet was not going to kill anyone so he must have been in a state of panic. When it came to Sheila he probably thought that one round in the neck would do it but he was mistaken. The bullet missed the jugular vein and partially shattered leaving Sheila unconscious but alive. What was he to do now? Would he leave her and risk her surviving until the morning or would he have to shoot her again which was certainly not ideal in his suicide plan?
I wonder at what stage did he decide to introduce the fake telephone call? Was it because he had to shoot Sheila twice and so had to add some meat to his unlikely tale? Whatever the reason it has been his undoing.
A really interesting set of points John,
I agree I think he messed up a large part of his plan. The first of which is your point John; that he totally misjudged the amount of bullets needed to kill a human being. The whole crime scene smacks of desperation - these people had to die, otherwise he was in deep trouble. Therefore he had to shoot ALL of them more times than he had originally bargained for. This of course led him to make some very glaring mistakes. Nevill was able to slip past him when the bullets ran out. The blood trail leads to the kitchen counter, but not to the phone. This is where Nevil was accosted once again and attacked, this time Bamber used the rifle as a club. Nevel managed to get hold of the barrel and a fight ensued for control of the rifle (it was here that the scratchmarks were made in the kitchen mantlepiece)- The fight was yet another thing Bamber hadn't planned on. However, he was able to redeem the situtation briefly by gaining control of the rifle from the injured man and then battering him into unconsciousness with the butt so viciously that the wooden stock broke. The fight was so vicious that Nevill's wristw..ch came off his wrist and was later found covered in blood under the kitchen rug. Bamber now had time to re-loaded the rifle and fire further shots into his father. Here too, was left ominous clues to the killers identity. I have discovered that the shots where not point blank. It is possible from the distribution of the shell cartridges to ascertain that one of the the shots were fired from other other side of the kitchen into Nevill's head with the other two being fired at a slightly closer range. Sheila Cafell? Absolutely not. Sheila had no skill whatsoever with a firearm much less shoot it with that kind of accuracy into a small target area. We must also remember that this was AFTER the fight when sugar, lots of glass and copious amounts of blood were all over the floor. Sheila had not a trace of ANY of these on the soles of her feet.
Bamber's second error was shooting Sheila TWICE. I do not believe for one minute that Sheila Cafell was even conscious after the first shot. This would have hit her neck at sub-sonic speed and would have undoubtedly knocked her unconscious. Let us consider that for one moment. A male boxer requires the equivalent of 50 pounds of force (yes just 50 pounds) to the chin to render him completely unconscious. The waif-like Sheila Cafell took a bullet travelling ar sub-sonic speed to her neck that tore into her soft tissue and patially shattered the fourth vertebrae in her neck and she is supposed to have got up and walked around? Again; absolutely no way. It was this very condition that Bamber used to shoot her prostrate body again but found that his sister's head was at the wrong angle to administer the shot. He therefore pulled her body down by the ankles so that enough of her neck was exposed for second shot. He could not risk leaving her and the possibility that she survive would have meant exposure. Pulling Sheila in a downward angle Bamber unknowingly bunched up her nightdress at the back - something that Sheila could not have done herself in her natural angle of fall. It clearly showed her body had been staged.
Bamber knew police may have had a hard time believing that a person who was going to kill themselves would be able to shoot themselves twice, so he dreamt up the idea of the telephone call from his father. He wanted to ensure that the police accepted his version of events. He wanted to prime them with the idea of a crazy woman inside the farm, armed with a rifle that was capable of anything. This was clearly his plan when he spoke to the police outside the farmhouse that night.
The mistakes he made spoke volumes as to who the real culprit was. The phone call was, I believe his biggest mistake. He effectively made it a two-horse race by naming the probable culprit. This automatically excluded any third party involvement. In short, it was him or Sheila and all investigators had to do was to show that Sheila could not have committed the murders and in so doing exposed and convicted Bamber as the real killer.
-
I've heard it said many times that there is no such think as a perfect murder and every murderer makes a mistake.
-
"Lookout" is sounding increasingly like the ignorant and unlamented Grahame. >@@(*&)
-
I dont think he will ever confess. I just cant see it.
I do enjoy a little read of the latest fantasies over on the blue forum and tonight I see that Mike Teskowski is suggesting that Sheila was given CPR while she had been dead for many hours. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Has he lost the plot completely or do you think he just makes up this nonsense as he goes along to give the impression that he is informed?
As for the thousands of documents he hasn't managed to get through yet, another delusion. He hasn't introduced a single novel idea in the Jeremy Bamber case in months and in fact does nothing but rehash old arguments which he can never win.
All in all a sorry state of affairs. @)(++(*
8-)(--) Talk about ever decreasing circles. Jeremy should confess now and put the poor sods out of their agony. No doubt if he did confess Tesko would say he was forced to do so and it is all one big conspiracy. @)(++(*
-
I dont think he will ever confess. I just cant see it.
I do enjoy a little read of the latest fantasies over on the blue forum and tonight I see that Mike Teskowski is suggesting that Sheila was given CPR while she had been dead for many hours. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Has he lost the plot completely or do you think he just makes up this nonsense as he goes along to give the impression that he is informed?
As for the thousands of documents he hasn't managed to get through yet, another delusion. He hasn't introduced a single novel idea in the Jeremy Bamber case in months and in fact does nothing but rehash old arguments which he can never win.
All in all a sorry state of affairs. @)(++(*
8-)(--) Talk about ever decreasing circles. Jeremy should confess now and put the poor sods out of their agony. No doubt if he did confess Tesko would say he was forced to do so and it is all one big conspiracy. @)(++(*
To be honest Frank neither can I,
I think his ego is bigger than his desire to be free. He is also head-to-toe arrogant and he wouldnt be able to admit to anyone that he committed the murders much less himself. I would be very surprised if he put his hands up, but we live in hope.
-
Yeh I noticed that on the other pathetic forum they reckon Mike has some killer eveidence in his garage. Is that what you think they are going to produce? Looks like his Waterloo has come at last but then again there is another sift to come possibly. I will get a chance to post more about this later on.
No, I think what was meant was the photo of Sheila that Mike supposedly has on an old hard drive.
Am I being thick, or is Mike now saying that the scratches under the mantelpiece WERE there on the morning of the 7th? So they weren't done by the relatives?
Can anyone help me on this one, because the silence is deafening. Hasn't Mike always said that the scratches under the mantelpiece were NOT done on the night of the murders, but at a later date by one of the relatives? But for some reason, he's now changed his mind. I know this is how he rolls, but doesn't this undermine a huge point?
-
Yeh I noticed that on the other pathetic forum they reckon Mike has some killer eveidence in his garage. Is that what you think they are going to produce? Looks like his Waterloo has come at last but then again there is another sift to come possibly. I will get a chance to post more about this later on.
No, I think what was meant was the photo of Sheila that Mike supposedly has on an old hard drive.
Am I being thick, or is Mike now saying that the scratches under the mantelpiece WERE there on the morning of the 7th? So they weren't done by the relatives?
Can anyone help me on this one, because the silence is deafening. Hasn't Mike always said that the scratches under the mantelpiece were NOT done on the night of the murders, but at a later date by one of the relatives? But for some reason, he's now changed his mind. I know this is how he rolls, but doesn't this undermine a huge point?
Yes he did Shona, he made a big issue about it on a number of occasions. Is he now saying that it was Sheila who made the marks with the tip of the rifle barrel??
That photo expert (cant remember his name) said that the scratches weren't in the scene of crimes photos.
-
Yeh I noticed that on the other pathetic forum they reckon Mike has some killer eveidence in his garage. Is that what you think they are going to produce? Looks like his Waterloo has come at last but then again there is another sift to come possibly. I will get a chance to post more about this later on.
No, I think what was meant was the photo of Sheila that Mike supposedly has on an old hard drive.
Am I being thick, or is Mike now saying that the scratches under the mantelpiece WERE there on the morning of the 7th? So they weren't done by the relatives?
Can anyone help me on this one, because the silence is deafening. Hasn't Mike always said that the scratches under the mantelpiece were NOT done on the night of the murders, but at a later date by one of the relatives? But for some reason, he's now changed his mind. I know this is how he rolls, but doesn't this undermine a huge point?
Yes he did Shona, he made a big issue about it on a number of occasions. Is he now saying that it was Sheila who made the marks with the rifle butt??
That photo expert (cant remember his name) said that the scratches weren't in the scene of crimes photos.
I think so, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to decipher exactly what he's trying to say. I presume "Z" told him this, when they were on their scenic tour of the Highlands (via Scandinavia).
-
Yeh I noticed that on the other pathetic forum they reckon Mike has some killer eveidence in his garage. Is that what you think they are going to produce? Looks like his Waterloo has come at last but then again there is another sift to come possibly. I will get a chance to post more about this later on.
No, I think what was meant was the photo of Sheila that Mike supposedly has on an old hard drive.
Am I being thick, or is Mike now saying that the scratches under the mantelpiece WERE there on the morning of the 7th? So they weren't done by the relatives?
Can anyone help me on this one, because the silence is deafening. Hasn't Mike always said that the scratches under the mantelpiece were NOT done on the night of the murders, but at a later date by one of the relatives? But for some reason, he's now changed his mind. I know this is how he rolls, but doesn't this undermine a huge point?
Yes he did Shona, he made a big issue about it on a number of occasions. Is he now saying that it was Sheila who made the marks with the rifle butt??
That photo expert (cant remember his name) said that the scratches weren't in the scene of crimes photos.
I think so, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to decipher exactly what he's trying to say. I presume "Z" told him this, when they were on their scenic tour of the Highlands (via Scandinavia).
The "photo expert" was Peter Sutherst. Hmmm. Mr Kodak!!!
-
Yeh I noticed that on the other pathetic forum they reckon Mike has some killer eveidence in his garage. Is that what you think they are going to produce? Looks like his Waterloo has come at last but then again there is another sift to come possibly. I will get a chance to post more about this later on.
No, I think what was meant was the photo of Sheila that Mike supposedly has on an old hard drive.
Am I being thick, or is Mike now saying that the scratches under the mantelpiece WERE there on the morning of the 7th? So they weren't done by the relatives?
Can anyone help me on this one, because the silence is deafening. Hasn't Mike always said that the scratches under the mantelpiece were NOT done on the night of the murders, but at a later date by one of the relatives? But for some reason, he's now changed his mind. I know this is how he rolls, but doesn't this undermine a huge point?
Yes he did Shona, he made a big issue about it on a number of occasions. Is he now saying that it was Sheila who made the marks with the tip of the rifle barrel??
That photo expert (cant remember his name) said that the scratches weren't in the scene of crimes photos.
I'd love to know what Hartley and Vic make of this latest rubbish.
-
Well i dont know the case as well as others on here but this stuff about the logs is surely nonsense. If Mike had logs which could assist Bamber he would have provided them to the CCRC. You dont hold back information like that for some future application. I dont think there is anything else material to come out. If Bamber loses the JR its the end of the road ( although Im sure hell plod on as he has nothing else to do).
Yeh I noticed that on the other pathetic forum they reckon Mike has some killer eveidence in his garage. Is that what you think they are going to produce? Looks like his Waterloo has come at last but then again there is another sift to come possibly. I will get a chance to post more about this later on.
No, I think what was meant was the photo of Sheila that Mike supposedly has on an old hard drive.
Am I being thick, or is Mike now saying that the scratches under the mantelpiece WERE there on the morning of the 7th? So they weren't done by the relatives?
Can anyone help me on this one, because the silence is deafening. Hasn't Mike always said that the scratches under the mantelpiece were NOT done on the night of the murders, but at a later date by one of the relatives? But for some reason, he's now changed his mind. I know this is how he rolls, but doesn't this undermine a huge point?
Yes he did Shona, he made a big issue about it on a number of occasions. Is he now saying that it was Sheila who made the marks with the tip of the rifle barrel??
That photo expert (cant remember his name) said that the scratches weren't in the scene of crimes photos.
I'd love to know what Hartley and Vic make of this latest rubbish.
-
Wow the old con Tesco has a new theory (I think!). He now states the scratch marks in the kitchen were afterall made by the rifle but that this happened accidental, sometime prior to the murders!
Nice of Tesco to finally confirm that he does not believe Bamber's photographic 'expert' who tried to say the scratch marks were not present in the crime scene photos but were made sometime later. Thus suggesting fabrication by the relatives.
Now that Tesco does no longer believe that perhaps he will issue an apology to the various relatives who he has many times accused of falsifying the paint scratches!
Tesco you old crank, your life has been at least as wasted as your hero Jeremy's! It will be a good day for the human race when you finally stop sucking up benefits ........ and oxygen!
-
Wow the old con Tesco has a new theory (I think!). He now states the scratch marks in the kitchen were afterall made by the rifle but that this happened accidental, sometime prior to the murders!
Nice of Tesco to finally confirm that he does not believe Bamber's photographic 'expert' who tried to say the scratch marks were not present in the crime scene photos but were made sometime later. Thus suggesting fabrication by the relatives.
Now that Tesco does no longer believe that perhaps he will issue an apology to the various relatives who he has many times accused of falsifying the paint scratches!
Tesco you old crank, your life has been at least as wasted as your hero Jeremy's! It will be a good day for the human race when you finally stop sucking up benefits ........ and oxygen!
So is Mike Teskowski saying that their photographic expert Peter Sutherst is now wrong in his determination? A determination which they made such a song and dance about at the time.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_wbtF1s65OM/0.jpg)
Photographic Expert Peter Sutherst.
If I recall correctly, this expert determined that there were no scratch marks on the photographs taken immediately after the murders. How can someone get something like this so wrong?
-
Cheers John. I couldn't remember Peter Sutherst's name and couldn't be arsed to look it up! 8((()*/
-
Cheers John. I couldn't remember Peter Sutherst's name and couldn't be ar..d to look it up! 8((()*/
?
I had to google it too as it has been a while since his input into this case has been discussed. This whole argument about the scratch marks on the aga is academic as far as I can see. The CCRC found it to have no substance and I totally agree. The family knew that photos of the crime scene had been taken so attempting to perpetrate a fraud by creating them after the fact was a ridiculous notion. But then again what do we really expect from a burglar who hid in an attic?
Just when I'm on the point, why was Mike Teskowski hiding in a friends attic anyway? It"s not the sort of thing normal law abiding people do is it?
-
Have you seen his latest? He reckons that his latest contact (not Z) told him Sheila used the telephone while Jeremy was outside the house with the police and furthermore Sheila spoke to the police on the phone. Let us assume that this is not complete and utter b*llocks for a second (difficult, I know). If we also assume that Tesko's other theories are correct, then the police knew that Sheila was the killer and not Jeremy, yet they still went out of their way to convict Jeremy of the murders even though they knew he couldn't have done it? Including if you believe them coaching Julie Mugford to give a convincing testimony? Surely if they knew what had happened wouldn't it have been easier to close the case as Sheila was obviously the murderer? Who deliberately goes out of their way to make their job as difficult as it could possibly be? Especially the police, whose job is already very difficult? And why? Just because the relatives applied a bit of pressure and got angry? Relatives will always do that and who can blame them? It appears Mike must have lost it. Even Roach thinks he's talking out of his a*se. I'm not sure if Mike really believes this stuff or if it is just an opportunity for him to make "hilarious" dog jokes (he is still standing by the "Sheila barked like a dog" story). Finally, if Sheila really did use the phone then it was a good job she did such a good job of cleaning herself up after her murderous killing spree and left not a trace of blood on the phone...
-
Have you seen his latest? He reckons that his latest contact (not Z) told him Sheila used the telephone while Jeremy was outside the house with the police and furthermore Sheila spoke to the police on the phone. Let us assume that this is not complete and utter b*llocks for a second (difficult, I know). If we also assume that Tesko's other theories are correct, then the police knew that Sheila was the killer and not Jeremy, yet they still went out of their way to convict Jeremy of the murders even though they knew he couldn't have done it? Including if you believe them coaching Julie Mugford to give a convincing testimony? Surely if they knew what had happened wouldn't it have been easier to close the case as Sheila was obviously the murderer? Who deliberately goes out of their way to make their job as difficult as it could possibly be? Especially the police, whose job is already very difficult? And why? Just because the relatives applied a bit of pressure and got angry? Relatives will always do that and who can blame them? It appears Mike must have lost it. Even Roach thinks he's talking out of his a*se. I'm not sure if Mike really believes this stuff or if it is just an opportunity for him to make "hilarious" dog jokes (he is still standing by the "Sheila barked like a dog" story). Finally, if Sheila really did use the phone then it was a good job she did such a good job of cleaning herself up after her murderous killing spree and left not a trace of blood on the phone...
It's called post and run goatboy. He learned that trick from Craigie and Hall. He posts something controversial and then watches in glee as everyone fights over it like a pack of rabid bamberette's. 8(0(*
-
Tesko is the one who has wasted his sad life on his Bamber infatuation. OCD takes many forms and truth and decency play no part in his pathetic little theories. He should be just laughed at especially when he gets so angry every other day!
Justice has been done in the Bamber case and nothing the cranks and glory hunter 'solicitor advocats' say or do will change that fact. No new Nelly The Helicopter or 'I Freed Bamber' books for that sorry bunch!
Sometimes the truth does win!
-
It looks like Mike Tesko has cracked the Bamber case (again) and is about to reveal some amazing new photographic evidence (yawn) and no doubt Bamber will be home (what home?) for Christmas!
No doubt Maddie McCann is about to be found too using Mike's 'Enigma' machine then it's on to finding Lord Lucan and Shergar. If he gets time he can obviously expose the real Jack The Ripper and let us know is the JFK assassination was a one man job or a conspiracy? What a man!
I feel sorry for NGB; Roch, Patti etc. having to work for such a bizarre fantasist like Tesko! Or rather I wonder how they keep a straight face!
-
The AMAZING new Tesko evidence .... some Venezis notes revealed in a 1991 interview with the COLP! The games up folks ... Bamber is clearly innocent and all those judges were wrong! I expect Bamber out by the weekend ... he can even come skiing with me as a sorry for calling him a sick, child murdering s..mbag! Sorry Jezza! 8(8-))
Mike will be finding Keith Bennett's body tomorrow morning while he waits for his pop tarts to toast! Careful there Mike those things get damn hot ... don't burn ya lips off!
Great work Mike ... I am clearly convinced!! 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
The AMAZING new Tesko evidence .... some Venezis notes revealed in a 1991 interview with the COLP! The games up folks ... Bamber is clearly innocent and all those judges were wrong! I expect Bamber out by the weekend ... he can even come skiing with me as a sorry for calling him a sick, child murdering s..mbag! Sorry Jezza! 8(8-))
Mike will be finding Keith Bennett's body tomorrow morning while he waits for his pop tarts to toast! Careful there Mike those things get damn hot ... don't burn ya lips off!
Great work Mike ... I am clearly convinced!! 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Gee whiz.........this man tesko sound like quite a geezer...a miracle worker! ??
What does he do for an encore guys?? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
It looks like Mike Tesko has cracked the Bamber case (again) and is about to reveal some amazing new photographic evidence (yawn) and no doubt Bamber will be home (what home?) for Christmas!
No doubt Maddie McCann is about to be found too using Mike's 'Enigma' machine then it's on to finding Lord Lucan and Shergar. If he gets time he can obviously expose the real Jack The Ripper and let us know is the JFK assassination was a one man job or a conspiracy? What a man!
I feel sorry for NGB; Roch, Patti etc. having to work for such a bizarre fantasist like Tesko! Or rather I wonder how they keep a straight face!
Have you noticed that none of them ever have a conversation with him on the forum? Quite bizarre really.
Noticed this post by Tesko a few minutes ago...
Let us also not forget, that when the pathologist cvartied out these examinations that sopecific police offiocers wdere present during the autopsy, so they would have been fully aware that the marks on Ralphs arm were made by the barrel of the gun minus a silencer, so that later when the relatives sought to intrioduce the silencer into the evidence, the police can't rely upon the excuse that they didn't know one way ior the other that a silencer had been used or not...
Looks like somebody is a bit worse for wear. @)(++(* The bad English aside, who cares if the rifle had or hadn't a silencer fitted when Nevill was attacked, it makes not one iota of difference. If this is the magic new evidence which McKay is attempting to persuade a panel of judges to consider I fear he is wasting his train fare to London and back.
-
I really shouldn't waste my time reading Mike 'what the Dickens' Teskowski's latest pretentious 'A Christmas Carol' garbage.
I'm sure he could be doing more productive things with his life, now that the Bamber case is over.
-
I really shouldn't waste my time reading Mike 'what the Dickens' Teskowski's latest pretentious 'A Christmas Carol' garbage.
I'm sure he could be doing more productive things with his life, now that the Bamber case is over.
He's bloody lucky that no one takes him seriously. Says I.
-
I do find it interesting the way they still debate the case on the other forum, notwithstanding that to all intents and purposes its all over. Its almost like they are amateur sleuths in an imaginary game of Cluedo or something. Meanwhilst Bamber rots in prison which is the best place for him.
I really shouldn't waste my time reading Mike 'what the Dickens' Teskowski's latest pretentious 'A Christmas Carol' garbage.
I'm sure he could be doing more productive things with his life, now that the Bamber case is over.
He's bloody lucky that no one takes him seriously. Says I.
-
I do find it interesting the way they still debate the case on the other forum, notwithstanding that to all intents and purposes its all over. Its almost like they are amateur sleuths in an imaginary game of Cluedo or something. Meanwhilst Bamber rots in prison which is the best place for him.
They must have such empty and mundane lives to spend all their time deliberating such a despicable evil character.
At least he will have had time to put his Christmas lunch order in this year. No jam on toast for Jeremy this year.
-
I must admit to being a bit new to all this but can I ask why Bamber supporters continue to flog a dead horse? Wasn't he found guilty and hasn't he had several appeals all of which were unsuccessful? You would think that after all this time some closure would have been brought to this ridiculous waste of time and enerygy when he is so obviously a guilty man.
-
I must admit to being a bit new to all this but can I ask why Bamber supporters continue to flog a dead horse? Wasn't he found guilty and hasn't he had several appeals all of which were unsuccessful? You would think that after all this time some closure would have been brought to this ridiculous waste of time and enerygy when he is so obviously a guilty man.
Perfectly correct trevor. I believe it is referred to as smoke and mirrors in certain circles. 8(0(*
-
Has anyone read Mike's latest theorising called So and so, said so...?
Another classic Sheila done it scenario this time with a twist. Apparently she leant the rifle on the 'hot' Aga oven while reloading and before shooting Nevill again. According to Mike this is how Nevill got the burn marks on the back of his neck.
Lets see >@@(*&) Hot Aga? ...at 3am in a balmy August morning? I know a lot of people who have kitchen stoves and not one of them runs a stove 24/7 in the months of July and August. Even if the Aga was on and warm at 3am in the morning it would not have been hot and most certainly never hot enough to super heat the tip of a rifle for any length of time.
Then we have the time of the shootings. According to Mikes calculations they took place after 3.45am in the morning which puts them occurring after Sgt Bews and PC Myall arrived on the scene. Did Bews and his colleagues hear any gunfire after arriving at the farmhouse? Did Jeremy Bamber hear any for that matter as he was standing with them at this juncture? The answer is an emphatic NO!
Mike also takes the opportunity to introduce the notion of June standing at the bedroom door after 3.45am and suggests that it was her movement which spooked the trio standing outside. So yet again again we have unsubstantiated theories which have little credibility. Was June speechless, had she lost the power to call for help?
He conveniently forgets to make the slightest reference to the non dishevelled state in which Sheila was found. David Boutflour put it most succinctly some time back when he referred to her having "...not a hair out of place". For someone who had just supposedly murdered four people with a rifle and at very close range and fought a pitch battle with her tall fit father she certainly came out of it rather unscathed. This is one piece of evidence Mike will never be able to overcome irrespective of how many balmy theories he comes up with.
-
Has anyone read Mike's latest theorising called So and so, said so...?
Another classic Sheila done it scenario this time with a twist. Apparently she leant the rifle on the 'hot' Aga oven while reloading and before shooting Nevill again. According to Mike this is how Nevill got the burn marks on the back of his neck.
Lets see >@@(*&) Hot Aga? ...at 3am in a balmy August morning? I know a lot of people who have kitchen stoves and not one of them runs a stove 24/7 in the months of July and August. Even if the Aga was on and warm at 3am in the morning it would not have been hot and most certainly never hot enough to super heat the tip of a rifle for any length of time.
Then we have the time of the shootings. According to Mikes calculations they took place after 3.45am in the morning which puts them occurring after Sgt Bews and PC Myall arrived on the scene. Did Bews and his colleagues hear any gunfire after arriving at the farmhouse? Did Jeremy Bamber hear any for that matter as he was standing with them at this juncture? The answer is an emphatic NO!
Mike also takes the opportunity to introduce the notion of June standing at the bedroom door after 3.45am and suggests that it was her movement which spooked the trio standing outside. So yet again again we have unsubstantiated theories which have little credibility. Was June speechless, had she lost the power to call for help?
He conveniently forgets to make the slightest reference to the non dishevelled state in which Sheila was found. David Boutflour put it most succinctly some time back when he referred to her having "...not a hair out of place". For someone who had just supposedly murdered four people with a rifle and at very close range and fought a pitch battle with her tall fit father she certainly came out of it rather unscathed. This is one piece of evidence Mike will never be able to overcome irrespective of how many balmy theories he come up with.
There is no way to prove how fresh those marks on Ralph were (they don't look very fresh.) They were harvesting at the time, it's quite possible that Ralph had accidentally leant on a piece of machinery.
-
I must admit to being a bit new to all this but can I ask why Bamber supporters continue to flog a dead horse? Wasn't he found guilty and hasn't he had several appeals all of which were unsuccessful? You would think that after all this time some closure would have been brought to this ridiculous waste of time and enerygy when he is so obviously a guilty man.
The blue forum would argue that there is a big conspiracy against Bamber (though oddly they have never produced a credible or plausible reason why they would seek to frame him when the crime scene evidence pointed to someone else) and that there is a multitude of evidence withheld under PII which will prove his innocence. Obviously the establishment will not want to overturn such a conviction. Yet the establishment has time and time again bent over backwards to accommodate his appeals and CCRC referrals. However, you get the idea that they have been so accommodating in the past that they are fed up with continually having to read through "new" evidence which gives no reason at all to reconsider the guilty verdict. How much money has this cost the state? How many man hours has it taken up which could be spent considering genuine miscarriages of justice? The idea that there is some kind of conspiracy when in fact the state has been very generous in considering appeal after appeal by Bamber's lawyers is kind of laughable. Some on the blue forum to be fair to them do admit that the future for Jeremy does look bleak though others seem ridiculously optimistic and seem genuinely certain that a key piece of evidence which will prove his innocence will miraculously appear soon.
The facts are that Bamber had the means, the motive and the opportunity to commit the murders. For many reasons Sheila could not possibly have been responsible. It's a hell of a coincidence that everyone who stood in Bamber's way of inheriting a fortune just happened to be murdered in one go. They can labour over the fine details of the evidence all they like but the fact is with the alleged phone call from Bamber senior this meant either Bamber was telling the truth about the phone call and Sheila committed the murders or Bamber lied about the phone call to give him an alibi. There are NO other possibilities regardless of what nonsense they spout over there about drugs gangs, or a criminal who was anxious to get revenge on Nevill who in his position as a magistrate may have put someone in prison for 6 months (which in practice probably would not exceed 3 months, they don't seem to realise that magistrates are not judges and their powers of sentencing very small, they would never deliberate over a serious crime as this would be an instant referral to Crown Court).
Though I did see an interesting theory on the Blue forum today stating that the twins could have been killed last as why would someone risk wasting so many bullets on two sleeping children when there were bigger adversaries to face and risk delay by reloading? A good point but in my opinion I think the first shots were clinical and effective and whoever did the murders went back after everyone else was dead to make the shootings look a bit more frenzied, as if to make it look like they were done by someone a bit unhinged. And who would possibly have a reason to do that?
-
I notice Tesko has locked down the topic and is chirping away to himself like a demented budgerigar. He's also back to the old 'Woodcock shot Sheila' bollocks which if I am not wrong is a gross defamation of the officer.
I personally find this quite distasteful coming as it is from a career criminal like Teskowski, I wonder if any of the blue forum members feel the same or are they too scared to say so?
It is interesting to note from PC Woodstock's statement that he refers to the soles of Sheila's feet being 'spotlessly clean' and that there were finger marks in blood on June's throat.
-
Has anyone read Mike's latest theorising called So and so, said so...?
Another classic Sheila done it scenario this time with a twist. Apparently she leant the rifle on the 'hot' Aga oven while reloading and before shooting Nevill again. According to Mike this is how Nevill got the burn marks on the back of his neck.
Lets see >@@(*&) Hot Aga? ...at 3am in a balmy August morning? I know a lot of people who have kitchen stoves and not one of them runs a stove 24/7 in the months of July and August. Even if the Aga was on and warm at 3am in the morning it would not have been hot and most certainly never hot enough to super heat the tip of a rifle for any length of time.
Only the police, possibly Barbara Wilson or Jean Bouttell and Jeremy Bamber himself would have known if the AGA was lit that morning. (vidvic may know through his contact with the family)
But assuming it was coke-fired and alight on idle, even if the rifle end wasn't used, another implement such as one hung up on the right could have been used to remove the filler plug in the boiling plate and then inserted in the combustion chamber or inserted through the lower fire door. It wouldn't have taken very long to bring it up to branding temperature and used to inflict the marks, to test if he was still alive or simply for malicious intent.
If it was for the first reason it begs the question as to why he didn't feel for a wrist pulse. Maybe he didn't know how..., or it didn't cross his mind..., or he was mindful of leaving blooded fingerprint evidence.
(http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2867/agacutawaylarge.jpg)
Perhaps Shona could be on the right tack with them being caused by contact with hot farm machinery... who knows?
Even if it is eventually proved that the rifle end was responsible it doesn't necessarily follow that the moderator wasn't fitted at all that morning.
-
The evidence aside, I personally don't believe for a moment that Sheila could have murdered her father or hurt him in any way. She certainly wasn't capable of taking him on in a scrap as Nevill could have taken her down with a single swipe.
I read a post by Patti yesterday where she refers to the lack of marks on both Sheila and Jeremy. As usual Patti is wrong as jeremy did have marks on his arm. In addition, there is a very big difference between a scantily clad and barefoot Sheila and a fully clothed booted Jeremy. I must say Patti, your belief in an outsider being responsible just underlines the fact that you still fail to understand the facts in this case.
-
In addition, Nevill would not have telephoned Jeremy at 3am if Sheila was acting strangely. He would have dealt with her as he did in the past, he was well capable of dealing with her. Also, Nevill would never have permitted a rifle and ammunition to lie around the kitchen with two young boys in the farmhouse. Jeremy's story that he left the weapon on the settle is garbage. He made that tale up simply to give some credibility to his story that Sheila had the gun.
-
It cannot be realistically argued that Jeremy was examined and showed no signs of a struggle. Jeremy was not a suspect for a long time so he had plenty of time for any marks to heal before his eventual arrest. It's interesting that in his police interviews they pointed out to him that he appeared overdressed when he went to WHF, was he trying to hide anything by wearing so many clothes? I do wonder what he did with all of his bloodstained clothing etc. I know he had plenty of time to dispose of it in the aftermath of the crime while he was not a suspect but he couldn't have relied on the fact the police would be less than thorough in their investigations. He certainly couldn't have left anything incriminating in his house immediately after the murders just in case the police wanted to rule out other scenarios than the murder/suicide it appeared to be.
-
Goatboy - the over-dressed/hiding marks is something I've never thought of before.
-
Goatboy - the over-dressed/hiding marks is something I've never thought of before.
On his way to a potential shooting didn't he stop his car to put on another cardigan? Why was there another cardigan in the car in the first place 8-)(--)
....and all this on a warm August morning???
-
Goatboy - the over-dressed/hiding marks is something I've never thought of before.
On his way to a potential shooting didn't he stop his car to put on another cardigan? Why was there another cardigan in the car in the first place 8-)(--)
....and all this on a warm August morning???
He tried to get the police to pick him up at his house in Goldhanger and when that failed he made a point of being overtaken by them. All part of his plan to set up an alibi.
-
Goatboy - the over-dressed/hiding marks is something I've never thought of before.
On his way to a potential shooting didn't he stop his car to put on another cardigan? Why was there another cardigan in the car in the first place 8-)(--)
....and all this on a warm August morning???
He tried to get the police to pick him up at his house in Goldhanger and when that failed he made a point of being overtaken by them. All part of his plan to set up an alibi.
It is obvious that he set the whole thing up. The bit that astonishes me is that when he telephoned the police to report the invented call from his father that he was perturbed that the police were taking so long to come back to him yet he was able to telephone Julie at 3am and have a yarn with her before even attempting to summon the police. For me this is all too suspicious.
-
Goatboy - the over-dressed/hiding marks is something I've never thought of before.
To be honest when I read the police interview the first time I couldn't quite get what Stan Jones was doing by asking Jeremy about stopping to put clothing on. I think it was probably someone posting on here that proposed the potential significance of whether or not Bamber was "overdressed". Again, it is another piece of behaviour that would otherwise be considered bizarre which is not proof of guilt of course, though it does add to the overall picture of his guilt.
I would urge anyone with an interest in the Bamber case to read the police interviews (they're in the case documents part on this forum). The number of times he says "no comment" in response to simple questions to avoid incriminating himself is pretty telling (plus other times when he asks to speak to his solicitor privately or say something off the record). On the blue forum I read someone point out that the police were being so nasty to Jeremy in the interview. FFS, he was a murder suspect!! Why would they be nice to him??
-
Lithium's off over on the blue, he totally cracks me up @)(++(*
-
Goatboy - the over-dressed/hiding marks is something I've never thought of before.
To be honest when I read the police interview the first time I couldn't quite get what Stan Jones was doing by asking Jeremy about stopping to put clothing on. I think it was probably someone posting on here that proposed the potential significance of whether or not Bamber was "overdressed". Again, it is another piece of behaviour that would otherwise be considered bizarre which is not proof of guilt of course, though it does add to the overall picture of his guilt.
I would urge anyone with an interest in the Bamber case to read the police interviews (they're in the case documents part on this forum). The number of times he says "no comment" in response to simple questions to avoid incriminating himself is pretty telling (plus other times when he asks to speak to his solicitor privately or say something off the record). On the blue forum I read someone point out that the police were being so nasty to Jeremy in the interview. FFS, he was a murder suspect!! Why would they be nice to him??
Merry Christmas everyone.
A good point goatboy. If he was wanting to genuinely help the police solve the murder of his family then he wasn't exactly being cooperative. The only reason why someone would not cooperate was if they had something to hide. I agree, it is very telling.
-
Message to the blue forum. Please stop using Sheila for your weird entertainment. It's disgusting and wrong. Show some respect for a young woman who was obviously murdered. Bamber's had 27 years and many, many opportunities to prove his innocence. And he still can't explain why he rang Julie before he called the police although, by his own admission, Ralph pleaded "come quick, your sister has gone crazy with a gun."
-
And, it might be Christmas, goodwill to all men and all that, but as far as I'm concerned you can stick any truce up your arse. I will not sit back and sanction bullshit. Bamber is a murderer, and deserves his shitty life. But feel free to chat about the family, and Julie, and the police suddenly being responsible for both shots. It's all bollocks, and you all know it.
-
And, it might be Christmas, goodwill to all men and all that, but as far as I'm concerned you can stick any truce up your ar... I will not sit back and sanction bullshit. Bamber is a murderer, and deserves his shitty life. But feel free to chat about the family, and Julie, and the police suddenly being responsible for both shots. It's all bollocks, and you all know it.
I totally agree Shona, Mike Teskowski has lost the battle and the slightest bit of credibility he ever had but you have to remember that he is fighting a lost cause now and has absolutely nothing to lose by spouting nonsense at this stage.
It's pitiful really watching a once credible forum dying on its feet. 8@??)(
-
And, it might be Christmas, goodwill to all men and all that, but as far as I'm concerned you can stick any truce up your ar... I will not sit back and sanction bullshit. Bamber is a murderer, and deserves his shitty life. But feel free to chat about the family, and Julie, and the police suddenly being responsible for both shots. It's all bollocks, and you all know it.
I totally agree Shona, Mike Teskowski has lost any teeny weeny bit of credibility he ever had but you have to remember that he is fighting a lost cause now and has absolutely nothing to lose by spouting nonsense at this stage.
It's pitiful really watching a once credible forum dying on its feet. 8@??)(
What is incredible is believing that a rifle shot to a young woman's throat can heal and not bleed while she runs upstairs. Has Mike never heard of blood pressure? I'll do this one more time. If Sheila was conscious after the first shot, she would have panicked, coughed and gagged. Her chin and neck would have been flecked with blood. Nothing.
-
And, it might be Christmas, goodwill to all men and all that, but as far as I'm concerned you can stick any truce up your ar... I will not sit back and sanction bullshit. Bamber is a murderer, and deserves his shitty life. But feel free to chat about the family, and Julie, and the police suddenly being responsible for both shots. It's all bollocks, and you all know it.
I totally agree Shona, Mike Teskowski has lost any teeny weeny bit of credibility he ever had but you have to remember that he is fighting a lost cause now and has absolutely nothing to lose by spouting nonsense at this stage.
It's pitiful really watching a once credible forum dying on its feet. 8@??)(
What is incredible is believing that a rifle shot to a young woman's throat can heal and not bleed while she runs upstairs. Has Mike never heard of blood pressure? I'll do this one more time. If Sheila was conscious after the first shot, she would have panicked, coughed and gagged. Her chin and neck would have been flecked with blood. Nothing.
And she would have grasped the gun at the end of the barrel if she'd shot herself. To balance the gun. Where are those prints? When the police lifted the gun from Sheila's body, they used the trigger surround. Mike posted that.
Mike, you can he says, I says....it's all bollocks. And so f..king boring.
-
I am so happy that Bamber, the mass murderer, will never see the light of day. His arrogance has stood him in such good stead. Good luck with the bike shit, and the wet suit. Sorry you f..ked up the phone call. If only you hadn't ripped off the caravan park and hadn't planned the fire. You horrible loser.
-
And, it might be Christmas, goodwill to all men and all that, but as far as I'm concerned you can stick any truce up your ar... I will not sit back and sanction bullshit. Bamber is a murderer, and deserves his shitty life. But feel free to chat about the family, and Julie, and the police suddenly being responsible for both shots. It's all bollocks, and you all know it.
I totally agree Shona, Mike Teskowski has lost any teeny weeny bit of credibility he ever had but you have to remember that he is fighting a lost cause now and has absolutely nothing to lose by spouting nonsense at this stage.
It's pitiful really watching a once credible forum dying on its feet. 8@??)(
What is incredible is believing that a rifle shot to a young woman's throat can heal and not bleed while she runs upstairs. Has Mike never heard of blood pressure? I'll do this one more time. If Sheila was conscious after the first shot, she would have panicked, coughed and gagged. Her chin and neck would have been flecked with blood. Nothing.
We all know that she never moved after that first shot. She didn't even have sufficient consciousness to apply her fingers to the neck wound. The forensics don't lie, we can leave that to Tesko and the disillusioned bamberettes. @)(++(*
-
And, it might be Christmas, goodwill to all men and all that, but as far as I'm concerned you can stick any truce up your ar... I will not sit back and sanction bullshit. Bamber is a murderer, and deserves his shitty life. But feel free to chat about the family, and Julie, and the police suddenly being responsible for both shots. It's all bollocks, and you all know it.
I totally agree Shona, Mike Teskowski has lost any teeny weeny bit of credibility he ever had but you have to remember that he is fighting a lost cause now and has absolutely nothing to lose by spouting nonsense at this stage.
It's pitiful really watching a once credible forum dying on its feet. 8@??)(
What is incredible is believing that a rifle shot to a young woman's throat can heal and not bleed while she runs upstairs. Has Mike never heard of blood pressure? I'll do this one more time. If Sheila was conscious after the first shot, she would have panicked, coughed and gagged. Her chin and neck would have been flecked with blood. Nothing.
And she would have grasped the gun at the end of the barrel if she'd shot herself. To balance the gun. Where are those prints? When the police lifted the gun from Sheila's body, they used the trigger surround. Mike posted that.
Mike, you can he says, I says....it's all bollocks. And so f..king boring.
It is well documented in statements that a police officer lifted the rifle by its strap before making it safe.
-
Dr Vanezis in his statement seemed to think it would have been possible for Sheila to move and even walk around after the first shot. Unfortunately for the blue forum, regardless of what Vanezis says the photos show no evidence whatsoever that she did.
Also what the blue forum don't seem to get is that whoever did the murders went to a lot of effort to cover their tracks and make sure they were forensically clean. It makes no sense that Sheila would have gone out of her way to clean up after herself even if she could, given that she just planned to do herself in anyway. So even if Sheila could have actually committed the murders it is very unlikely she would have cleaned herself up. It is very unlikely she would have been so anxious to stop Nevill reaching the phone, knowing that even if he did call the police the response time would not have been particularly rapid so she would have had enough time to do whatever it was she planned to do. So if we accept it was either Sheila or Jeremy, who had the motive to stop Nevill getting to the phone by any means necesary in case it meant the game was up? Who had the motive to cover their tracks to make themselves forensically clean? The answer in both cases is not Sheila, so that only leaves one suspect.
-
Wittering away Christmas Eve...., Christmas Day...., Boxing Day... 24/7... 365... the man's totally obsessed with getting one up on the police!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extracts from "TESKOSPEAK: Was/is'ms"
RULE 1.
I says
you says
he,she,it says
we says
you says
they says
Says I
Says you
Says he,she,it
Says we
Says you
Says they
NB:- Use profusely in any FAIRYTALE! (at Christmastime preferably)
RULE 2.
Always spell correctly, eg. Anschütz (http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/9686/crosswq.png)<-----(this is clearly wrong).... it should be anshulz. (http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6135/ticko.png)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Dr Vanezis in his statement seemed to think it would have been possible for Sheila to move and even walk around after the first shot. Unfortunately for the blue forum, regardless of what Vanezis says the photos show no evidence whatsoever that she did.
Also what the blue forum don't seem to get is that whoever did the murders went to a lot of effort to cover their tracks and make sure they were forensically clean. It makes no sense that Sheila would have gone out of her way to clean up after herself even if she could, given that she just planned to do herself in anyway. So even if Sheila could have actually committed the murders it is very unlikely she would have cleaned herself up. It is very unlikely she would have been so anxious to stop Nevill reaching the phone, knowing that even if he did call the police the response time would not have been particularly rapid so she would have had enough time to do whatever it was she planned to do. So if we accept it was either Sheila or Jeremy, who had the motive to stop Nevill getting to the phone by any means necessary in case it meant the game was up? Who had the motive to cover their tracks to make themselves forensically clean? The answer in both cases is not Sheila, so that only leaves one suspect.
Where did you read that comment goatboy?
According to Dr Vanezis' Report dated 30 September 1985, "The palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood." (page 275) (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=199.0) Dr Vanezis makes no reference to her lower limbs or feet in his report but the first police responders stated that they were spotlessly clean.
In Dr Vanezis' Report dated 7 May 1986 he stated, "In my view with regards to the mobility of the victim in regards to the first wound it is my opinion, taking into account the blood distribution internal and external from the first wound that the deceased had not got up and moved prior to receiving the second wound which would have been instantaneously fatal." (page 409) (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=205.0)
The blood trails on Sheila's neck evidenced her inability to walk or even move to any great extent after the first shot.
In his later Report dated 12 November 1986 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=206.0) Dr Vanezis was scathing of the police actions. He clearly indicates that he was given a bum steer by the police into thinking it was four murders and a suicide. He states that had he seen the crime scene photos at an earlier stage his intial views would have changed. Specially he states,
Had I attended the scene I would without doubt have been concerned,
(a) at the cleanliness of Sheila. (Far more dramatic than seeing body at mortuary).
(b) Position of rifle - appears too obvious.
(c) Position of Bible - on top of arm.
I have no doubt I would have insisted on the attendance of ballistics and biology experts at the scene prior to removal of the body.
Or to put this into simple language, Dr Vanezis was shocked when he saw the crime scene photos after he had conducted the autopsy in the mortuary. It is crystal clear that he was concerned that he had not been asked to attend the murder scene at an early stage. Had he done so he would have insisted on these experts being called as the scene as existed was extremely suspicious. Essex Police made a complete pigs ear of the initial investigation and were completely misled by Jeremy Bamber as to what had occurred. The blame lay firmly at the feet of the then DI's Cook and Miller who told Dr Vanezis that the case was 'straightforward' and that no ballistics were required. What a couple of prize nuggets!
-
I hadn't read too much into this before but it is clear that Dr Vanezis was extremely critical of the initial police responses and especially their inaction in relation to such a dreadful murder scene. Jeremy Bamber seems to have sold them such a plausible lie that experienced police officers fell for it hook line and sinker. It was only after the very experienced DS Jones became involved that the true extent of the lie began to unravel and whole story was revealed.
I have no doubt that if it hadn't been for Jones a mass murderer would have escaped justice.
-
I hadn't read too much into this before but it is clear that Dr Vanezis was extremely critical of the initial police responses and especially their inaction in relation to such a dreadful murder scene. Jeremy Bamber seems to have sold them such a plausible lie that experienced police officers fell for it hook line and sinker. It was only after the very experienced DS Jones became involved that the true extent of the lie began to unravel and whole story was revealed.
I have no doubt that if it hadn't been for Jones a mass murderer would have escaped justice.
Dr Vanezis sums this up quite nicely when he states in one of his Reports that the scene which met police officers that morning was quite simply unbelievable and the thought that Jeremy Bamber could have done it simply didn't register with them. For Jeremy to have done it he would have had to have been a 'nutter'!
-
I hadn't read too much into this before but it is clear that Dr Vanezis was extremely critical of the initial police responses and especially their inaction in relation to such a dreadful murder scene. Jeremy Bamber seems to have sold them such a plausible lie that experienced police officers fell for it hook line and sinker. It was only after the very experienced DS Jones became involved that the true extent of the lie began to unravel and whole story was revealed.
I have no doubt that if it hadn't been for Jones a mass murderer would have escaped justice.
Dr Vanezis sums this up quite nicely when he states in one of his Reports that the scene which met police officers that morning was quite simply unbelievable and the thought that Jeremy Bamber could have done it simply didn't register with them. For Jeremy to have done it he would have had to have been a 'nutter'!
This is so important that it should have its own thread possibly entitled Dr Vanezis thought the police inept?
-
Who is Simon Jones on the blue forum? Ray someone but I don't know who but he's obviously 'well up' on Jeremy's case and also Simons.
-
Who is Simon Jones on the blue forum? Ray someone but I don't know who but he's obviously 'well up' on Jeremy's case and also Simons.
If you read the full thread ngb identified him...,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_9346000/9346058.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/suffolk/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_9346000/9346058.stm)
-
8((()*/ Thank you.
I think I saw a documentary with him on a while ago or a news report talking about the book he wrote about Steve wright.
-
Who is Simon Jones on the blue forum? Ray someone but I don't know who but he's obviously 'well up' on Jeremy's case and also Simons.
His name is Ray Hollingsworth. He wrote a book about the Ipswich murders as he was a paying client and knew many of the girls personally. He has little involvement in the Bamber case and spent a mere few months looking into the Hall case. I would take anything he says with a very big pinch of salt. @)(++(*
Other than the fact that he now "thinks Jeremy Bamber did kill his 'family'."
-
Who is Simon Jones on the blue forum? Ray someone but I don't know who but he's obviously 'well up' on Jeremy's case and also Simons.
His name is Ray Hollingsworth. He wrote a book about the Ipswich murders as he was a paying client and knew many of the girls personally. He has little involvement in the Bamber case and spent a mere few months looking into the Hall case. I would take anything he says with a very big pinch of salt. @)(++(*
Other than the fact that he now "thinks Jeremy Bamber did kill his 'family'."
Has he made his mind up? I thought he was undecided last time he posted. I take it all back then. 8@??)( @)(++(*
-
According to Ray, Jeremy is guilty as charged, Simon innocent because the prison screws said so. The only time I heard them say it was about Edward Earl Johnson but they still executed him.
-
Who is Simon Jones on the blue forum? Ray someone but I don't know who but he's obviously 'well up' on Jeremy's case and also Simons.
His name is Ray Hollingsworth. He wrote a book about the Ipswich murders as he was a paying client and knew many of the girls personally. He has little involvement in the Bamber case and spent a mere few months looking into the Hall case. I would take anything he says with a very big pinch of salt. @)(++(*
Other than the fact that he now "thinks Jeremy Bamber did kill his 'family'."
Has he made his mind up? I thought he was undecided last time he posted. I take it all back then. 8@??)( @)(++(*
That's what you've got a mind for David... so you can change it! @)(++(*
-
Miss Marple eat your heart out!
-
Has Ray Hollingsworth been a member here before, John..... I seem to remember him either posting or your good self referring to/conversing with him a while ago?
-
Has Ray Hollingsworth been a member here before, John..... I seem to remember him either posting or your good self referring to/conversing with him a while ago?
He is still a member here.
-
Who is Simon Jones on the blue forum? Ray someone but I don't know who but he's obviously 'well up' on Jeremy's case and also Simons.
His name is Ray Hollingsworth. He wrote a book about the Ipswich murders as he was a paying client and knew many of the girls personally. He has little involvement in the Bamber case and spent a mere few months looking into the Hall case. I would take anything he says with a very big pinch of salt. @)(++(*
He'll be at home then over there>>>>>>>
It's like fantasiesRus.
Ray is very familiar with what is going on in the Ipswich area and has a lot of contacts which he was able to make use of. He did a lot of work on behalf of Simon Hall in a short period of time and ended up having to speak to the Press because her indoors was in one of her [ censored word]ocial phases. He also wrote a report on the murder of Joan Albert which was submitted as part of the application to the CCRC. I think Ray was of the opinion that the case had been cracked but it hasn't turned out that way.
-
Has Ray Hollingsworth been a member here before, John..... I seem to remember him either posting or your good self referring to/conversing with him a while ago?
He used to post as a guest before SH and others starting messing with the facility resulting in it being suspended. I don't think Ray is aware of or appreciates the damage SH has done recently by her conduct.
-
Who is Simon Jones on the blue forum? Ray someone but I don't know who but he's obviously 'well up' on Jeremy's case and also Simons.
His name is Ray Hollingsworth. He wrote a book about the Ipswich murders as he was a paying client and knew many of the girls personally. He has little involvement in the Bamber case and spent a mere few months looking into the Hall case. I would take anything he says with a very big pinch of salt. @)(++(*
He'll be at home then over there>>>>>>>
It's like fantasiesRus.
Ray is very familiar with what is going on in the Ipswich area and has a lot of contacts which he was able to make use of. He did a lot of work on behalf of Simon Hall in a short period of time and ended up having to speak to the Press because her indoors was in one of her [ censored word]ocial phases. He also wrote a report on the murder of Joan Albert which was submitted as part of the application to the CCRC. I think Ray was of the opinion that the case had been cracked but it hasn't turned out that way.
It would be interesting to know if Ray concurs with the general consensus of opinion that Mrs Hall did the wrong thing in sacking Stephensons and at such a crucial time in Simon's case?
-
Who is Simon Jones on the blue forum? Ray someone but I don't know who but he's obviously 'well up' on Jeremy's case and also Simons.
His name is Ray Hollingsworth. He wrote a book about the Ipswich murders as he was a paying client and knew many of the girls personally. He has little involvement in the Bamber case and spent a mere few months looking into the Hall case. I would take anything he says with a very big pinch of salt. @)(++(*
He'll be at home then over there>>>>>>>
It's like fantasiesRus.
Ray is very familiar with what is going on in the Ipswich area and has a lot of contacts which he was able to make use of. He did a lot of work on behalf of Simon Hall in a short period of time and ended up having to speak to the Press because her indoors was in one of her [ censored word]ocial phases. He also wrote a report on the murder of Joan Albert which was submitted as part of the application to the CCRC. I think Ray was of the opinion that the case had been cracked but it hasn't turned out that way.
It would be interesting to know if Ray concurs with the general consensus of opinion that Mrs Hall did the wrong thing in sacking Stephensons and at such a crucial time in Simon's case?
Why did she sack them??? >>>Does anyone know the full story???? >@@(*&)
-
Dr Vanezis in his statement seemed to think it would have been possible for Sheila to move and even walk around after the first shot. Unfortunately for the blue forum, regardless of what Vanezis says the photos show no evidence whatsoever that she did.
Also what the blue forum don't seem to get is that whoever did the murders went to a lot of effort to cover their tracks and make sure they were forensically clean. It makes no sense that Sheila would have gone out of her way to clean up after herself even if she could, given that she just planned to do herself in anyway. So even if Sheila could have actually committed the murders it is very unlikely she would have cleaned herself up. It is very unlikely she would have been so anxious to stop Nevill reaching the phone, knowing that even if he did call the police the response time would not have been particularly rapid so she would have had enough time to do whatever it was she planned to do. So if we accept it was either Sheila or Jeremy, who had the motive to stop Nevill getting to the phone by any means necessary in case it meant the game was up? Who had the motive to cover their tracks to make themselves forensically clean? The answer in both cases is not Sheila, so that only leaves one suspect.
Where did you read that comment goatboy?
According to Dr Vanezis' Report dated 30 September 1985, "The palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood." (page 275) (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=199.0) Dr Vanezis makes no reference to her lower limbs or feet in his report but the first police responders stated that they were spotlessly clean.
In Dr Vanezis' Report dated 7 May 1986 he stated, "In my view with regards to the mobility of the victim in regards to the first wound it is my opinion, taking into account the blood distribution internal and external from the first wound that the deceased had not got up and moved prior to receiving the second wound which would have been instantaneously fatal." (page 409) (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=205.0)
The blood trails on Sheila's neck evidenced her inability to walk or even move to any great extent after the first shot.
In his later Report dated 12 November 1986 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=206.0) Dr Vanezis was scathing of the police actions. He clearly indicates that he was given a bum steer by the police into thinking it was four murders and a suicide. He states that had he seen the crime scene photos at an earlier stage his intial views would have changed. Specially he states,
Had I attended the scene I would without doubt have been concerned,
(a) at the cleanliness of Sheila. (Far more dramatic than seeing body at mortuary).
(b) Position of rifle - appears too obvious.
(c) Position of Bible - on top of arm.
I have no doubt I would have insisted on the attendance of ballistics and biology experts at the scene prior to removal of the body.
Or to put this into simple language, Dr Vanezis was shocked when he saw the crime scene photos after he had conducted the autopsy in the mortuary. It is crystal clear that he was concerned that he had not been asked to attend the murder scene at an early stage. Had he done so he would have insisted on these experts being called as the scene as existed was extremely suspicious. Essex Police made a complete pigs ear of the initial investigation and were completely misled by Jeremy Bamber as to what had occurred. The blame lay firmly at the feet of the then DI's Cook and Miller who told Dr Vanezis that the case was 'straightforward' and that no ballistics were required. What a couple of prize nuggets!
Thanks for putting me straight Admin-I just assumed that because the blue forum were quoting Vanezis this was somehow true. I can't believe I made that mistake! All he says is that the first shot would not have been fatal. There is quite a leap of imagination involved in accepting this and then accepting the possibility that she went upstairs and shot herself again. Yet Jeremy and his defence would have us all believe that Sheila shot herself again despite the strong likelihood that she would have been still unconscious after the first shot. Mike in particular is clutching at straws in introducing the theory that the police somehow accidentally, very cleanly and fatally shot Sheila afterwards, because it is just too incredible to believe that she could have shot herself twice (with or without a silencer).
-
Absolutely no problem, we have seen how the blue forum attempt to manipulate the facts and twist every little inconsistency or minor flaw in the series of events to suit their own agenda. We all have been taken in by them at one time or another but by careful research and reading we always come back to the truth. 8(0(*
By and by, we hope everyone has had a lovely Christmas and Boxing Day and are looking forward to the New Year with renewed vigour. ?>)()<
-
Patti, if you're watching, look at the pathology report (26th. Nov. '85... first page). Eight bullets in total were fired into Nevill, not 6 or 7.
-
CRITICS CORNER - The weeks reviews of "CHRISTMAS FAIRYTALE" or "How to Fool Some of the People All of the Time".
**********************************************************************************************
AGAINST -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMONJONES:
Am I alone in finding Mike's 'So and so' thread a very long haul? I am taking from this thread that this is Mike's definitive account of how Shelia Caffell was shot ( not once ), but twice by Essex Police.
It would certainly help me ( I can't speak for other readers ) if the entire thread could be captured in just a few hundred words and the key moments listed - names / times etc.
Dare I call it 'bullet point' style of text.
buddy:
This is boring the arse off me. I says he says what a load of codswallop.who's HE.
Mike has chosen to lock down this thread. I trulely hope he has a knockout punch, or I will put this in the same catagory as Z, and Bongo. Helicopters does not do it for me either.
I am a marginal Bamber supporter, but this nonsense is driving me away.
Lugg:
I can't understand it either. So I don't read it. I never read anything that doesn't interest me.
tonyb:
It always concerns me a locked thread,particularly one this long.i honestly haven't bothered to read it,it looks like the ramblings of a madman.
( please note i do not insinuate the author is mad,I just use the phrase to give reason why I haven't bothered to read it ).
**********************************************
NEUTRAL -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve_uk:
I like a good yarn,whether fictional or not. Let Mike tell the story in his own way. I found it one of his better threads,just it's a pity it's a locked thread.
**********************************************
FOR -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS SPACE TO BE LEFT BLANK
**********************************************
-
Did Patti really say she thinks Simon Mckay doesn't care about whether or not a client is innocent? Must be why he has refused to say for definite that he thinks Bamber innocent. This says a lot, there is no prospect of proving Bamber's innocence, the only chance is getting him out on a technicality.
Can anyone explain what is left for Bamber? Are there any hearings scheduled for any appeal of his against the decision made by the Judicial Review?
Agree about the "Says I, says he" thread. Mike seems to be losing every bit of credibility he still may have had with this. Not even Lookout has rushed to defend him. When I first found the site I was impressed with him. Whereas now you know that any "new" thread he starts was probably originally posted a couple of years ago. Why on earth does he still persist with this? I could understand if he was still friends with Jeremy or if what he was doing was endorsed by his legal team but as we know neither of these things are true. It seems people who have spent a lot of time with Bamber remain intensely loyal even when he has cast them aside. What sort of hold does he have on people to still influence them in this way (I would include AA in this as well)? Maybe he really is the master manipulator people would have us think.
-
Patti, if you're watching, look at the pathology report (26th. Nov. '85... first page). Eight bullets in total were fired into Nevill, not 6 or 7.
Well spotted Myster 8((()*/ This is just one of those little details which the blue forum are a bit rusty on. What's a couple of bullets here or there to them when their whole purpose in life has turned to dust? @)(++(*
-
CRITICS CORNER - The weeks reviews of "CHRISTMAS FAIRYTALE" or "How to Fool Some of the People All of the Time".
**********************************************************************************************
AGAINST -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMONJONES:
Am I alone in finding Mike's 'So and so' thread a very long haul? I am taking from this thread that this is Mike's definitive account of how Shelia Caffell was shot ( not once ), but twice by Essex Police.
It would certainly help me ( I can't speak for other readers ) if the entire thread could be captured in just a few hundred words and the key moments listed - names / times etc.
Dare I call it 'bullet point' style of text.
buddy:
This is boring the ar.. off me. I says he says what a load of codswallop.who's HE.
Mike has chosen to lock down this thread. I trulely hope he has a knockout punch, or I will put this in the same catagory as Z, and Bongo. Helicopters does not do it for me either.
I am a marginal Bamber supporter, but this nonsense is driving me away.
Lugg:
I can't understand it either. So I don't read it. I never read anything that doesn't interest me.
tonyb:
It always concerns me a locked thread,particularly one this long.i honestly haven't bothered to read it,it looks like the ramblings of a madman.
( please note i do not insinuate the author is mad,I just use the phrase to give reason why I haven't bothered to read it ).
**********************************************
NEUTRAL -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve_uk:
I like a good yarn,whether fictional or not. Let Mike tell the story in his own way. I found it one of his better threads,just it's a pity it's a locked thread.
**********************************************
FOR -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS SPACE TO BE LEFT BLANK
**********************************************
Well said buddy. 8@??)( I must say I haven't laughed as much since the day Mrs Blumpkin revealed where she last had sex with her gorgeous husband. @)(++(*
I got through three pages of the I says....he says nonsense before I fell asleep and dreamt of Mike Tesko talking to himself in the bathroom mirror. They do say that the first sign of madness is speaking to oneself but the second sign is answering back? @)(++(*
-
Did Patti really say she thinks Simon Mckay doesn't care about whether or not a client is innocent? Must be why he has refused to say for definite that he thinks Bamber innocent. This says a lot, there is no prospect of proving Bamber's innocence, the only chance is getting him out on a technicality.
Can anyone explain what is left for Bamber? Are there any hearings scheduled for any appeal of his against the decision made by the Judicial Review?
Agree about the "Says I, says he" thread. Mike seems to be losing every bit of credibility he still may have had with this. Not even Lookout has rushed to defend him. When I first found the site I was impressed with him. Whereas now you know that any "new" thread he starts was probably originally posted a couple of years ago. Why on earth does he still persist with this? I could understand if he was still friends with Jeremy or if what he was doing was endorsed by his legal team but as we know neither of these things are true. It seems people who have spent a lot of time with Bamber remain intensely loyal even when he has cast them aside. What sort of hold does he have on people to still influence them in this way (I would include AA in this as well)? Maybe he really is the master manipulator people would have us think.
Once Daniele gets the boot you might find AA returning to the fold. After all isn't Jeremy for better or for worse the Godfather to her twin boys? That must be something to tell their pals at school. 8(0(*
-
Did Patti really say she thinks Simon Mckay doesn't care about whether or not a client is innocent? Must be why he has refused to say for definite that he thinks Bamber innocent. This says a lot, there is no prospect of proving Bamber's innocence, the only chance is getting him out on a technicality.
Can anyone explain what is left for Bamber? Are there any hearings scheduled for any appeal of his against the decision made by the Judicial Review?
Agree about the "Says I, says he" thread. Mike seems to be losing every bit of credibility he still may have had with this. Not even Lookout has rushed to defend him. When I first found the site I was impressed with him. Whereas now you know that any "new" thread he starts was probably originally posted a couple of years ago. Why on earth does he still persist with this? I could understand if he was still friends with Jeremy or if what he was doing was endorsed by his legal team but as we know neither of these things are true. It seems people who have spent a lot of time with Bamber remain intensely loyal even when he has cast them aside. What sort of hold does he have on people to still influence them in this way (I would include AA in this as well)? Maybe he really is the master manipulator people would have us think.
Once Daniele gets the boot you might find AA returning to the fold. After all isn't Jeremy for better or for worse the Godfather to her twin boys? That must be something to tell their pals at school. 8(0(*
I did hear that but really hoped it wasn't true. What possible negative connotations could there be to a man who murdered two twin boys being godfather to two other twin boys? 8(0(*
-
Did Patti really say she thinks Simon Mckay doesn't care about whether or not a client is innocent? Must be why he has refused to say for definite that he thinks Bamber innocent. This says a lot, there is no prospect of proving Bamber's innocence, the only chance is getting him out on a technicality.
Can anyone explain what is left for Bamber? Are there any hearings scheduled for any appeal of his against the decision made by the Judicial Review?
Agree about the "Says I, says he" thread. Mike seems to be losing every bit of credibility he still may have had with this. Not even Lookout has rushed to defend him. When I first found the site I was impressed with him. Whereas now you know that any "new" thread he starts was probably originally posted a couple of years ago. Why on earth does he still persist with this? I could understand if he was still friends with Jeremy or if what he was doing was endorsed by his legal team but as we know neither of these things are true. It seems people who have spent a lot of time with Bamber remain intensely loyal even when he has cast them aside. What sort of hold does he have on people to still influence them in this way (I would include AA in this as well)? Maybe he really is the master manipulator people would have us think.
Once Daniele gets the boot you might find AA returning to the fold. After all isn't Jeremy for better or for worse the Godfather to her twin boys? That must be something to tell their pals at school. 8(0(*
I did hear that but really hoped it wasn't true. What possible negative connotations could there be to a man who murdered two twin boys being godfather to two other twin boys? 8(0(*
To be fair to AA she has stated this in the past and also stated that she still retains some of Jeremy's belongings including part of a wetsuit (not that one) which he has never asked to be returned to him. Not that he would have much need for it in HMP Full Sutton. You get the feeling he hopes to revist AA some day.
AA does believe him to be innocent. She spent many days talking with him in prison some years back and she feels he was incapable of doing such a thing. I think we all would wish to share those sentiments with AA but unfortunately the evidence does not bear this out no matter how much his latest crankie follower Heidi posts on twitter.
-
This is exactly why the Bamber campaigners always use photographs of him which are 27 years old and not as he is today. They are in love with a mirage, a ghost from the past which is gone forever. Isn't it strange that not a single man will canvass for him publicly now?
-
This is exactly why the Bamber campaigners always use photographs of him which are 27 years old and not as he is today. They are in love with a mirage, a ghost from the past which is gone forever. Isn't it strange that not a single man will canvass for him publicly now?
I agree, its an image of Bamber that dissapeared long ago. He's now a fat grey headed old bloke. He wasnt all that when he was younger, he was too pretty boy, with a uni-brow. Not handsome at all.
In the grande scheme of things, of all the people who live in England, how many have ac tually heard of Bamber? never mind study the case. His support just isnt as big as some would like you to believe.
-
I agree, its an image of Bamber that dissapeared long ago. He's now a fat grey headed old bloke. He wasnt all that when he was younger, he was too pretty boy, with a uni-brow. Not handsome at all.
A Warning to Women Everywhere:- Never trust a man who's eyebrows meet in the middle.
(just a minute... that rules me out then... I'll take that statement back)
-
Another thing about the photo to me is that he looks like you would imagine a murderer to look- he seems to have a cold, steely glare in his eyes. I think if they were to try to get the public to campaign for him they would have to steer clear of using such a photo. On a related matter I don't agree with AA, I think there have been plenty of pro-Bamber pieces in the press, Eric Allison regularly promotes this in the Guardian and there was also a piece in the Sunday Mirror this year. Also, what with the Hillsborough Inquiry surely if there was evidence of police corruption from the mid-80s don't you think the public would accept this now? There's nothing for the establishment to lose in letting a provincial police force from 30 years ago to take the rap for letting an innocent man go to jail surely? Remember few if any of the serving officers at the time would still be working for the force today.
It certainly seems to me that you can generalise about the blue forum supporters. The women do seem to take the view that he is a lovely, almost saintlike man, and coincidentally they seem to be the most vitriolic Mugford [ censored word ]s. While the men tend to agree that he behaved in appalling and inappropriate ways but feel that this is irrelevant in establishing his guilt.
-
We were asked when negotiating the truce not to use real names but the names used by people on the forum they're on, I think.
-
We were asked when negotiating the truce not to use real names but the names used by people on the forum they're on, I think.
I get it... nicknames allowed, real names not.. but all you need to do is separate the letters! 8((()*/
-
We were asked when negotiating the truce not to use real names but the names used by people on the forum they're on, I think.
I get it... nicknames allowed, real names not.. but all you need to do is separate the letters! 8((()*/
Joanne is right about ngb1066 and his real name. The system simply abbreviates his surname in order to save the moderators having to do it. The same rule applies to most of the blue forum who prefer to keep their real names anonymous at this time.
-
Traditional Western Predictive Astrology.... another candidate for the crackpot theory brigade?
She lost me in the penultimate paragraph.....,
"The radical 11th has feminine Taurus on its cusp ruled by Venus in feminine Cancer lurking in the 12th house". >@@(*&)
Of course, you have to make sure the accidental significators align with the natural significators, otherwise you get a dumb result... 8-)(--) I think!
Does anybody really believe in this mumbo-jumbo?
http://sue-ward.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murders.html (http://sue-ward.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murders.html)
-
Me thinks it's biggest load of 'who shot John!' I've read for agers. This astrological bit makes me think a twelfth (If the populations birthdays are evenly split!) of the population would be doing the same and I don't recall mass shootings on that particular day. What disturbs me more are the comments underneath! I can't believe people buy into this (awaits the masses telling me they follow this 'who shot John' and it actually works!).
Best not tell JB, he'll be using it in his next appeal.
-
Traditional Western Predictive Astrology.... another candidate for the crackpot theory brigade?
She lost me in the penultimate paragraph.....,
"The radical 11th has feminine Taurus on its cusp ruled by Venus in feminine Cancer lurking in the 12th house". >@@(*&)
Of course, you have to make sure the accidental significators align with the natural significators, otherwise you get a dumb result... 8-)(--) I think!
Does anybody really believe in this mumbo-jumbo?
http://sue-ward.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murders.html (http://sue-ward.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murders.html)
Mumbo jumbo is right Joanne, the moment she shed some doubt over the correct spelling of Nevill's name and introduced Bambers the fairy tale about the discussion at the table the previous evening I ceased to take her seriously any more.
-
Traditional Western Predictive Astrology.... another candidate for the crackpot theory brigade?
She lost me in the penultimate paragraph.....,
"The radical 11th has feminine Taurus on its cusp ruled by Venus in feminine Cancer lurking in the 12th house". >@@(*&)
Of course, you have to make sure the accidental significators align with the natural significators, otherwise you get a dumb result... 8-)(--) I think!
Does anybody really believe in this mumbo-jumbo?
http://sue-ward.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murders.html (http://sue-ward.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murders.html)
I did read that piece of nonsense some years back and had a right chuckle as to the significance of such an opportunistic piece of reasoning. Then I remembered commercialism and money and it al feel nicely into place.
Bamber appears to attract crackpots and opportunists from every sphere and this includes the several who have made money by selling books on the subject.
-
Traditional Western Predictive Astrology.... another candidate for the crackpot theory brigade?
She lost me in the penultimate paragraph.....,
"The radical 11th has feminine Taurus on its cusp ruled by Venus in feminine Cancer lurking in the 12th house". >@@(*&)
Of course, you have to make sure the accidental significators align with the natural significators, otherwise you get a dumb result... 8-)(--) I think!
Does anybody really believe in this mumbo-jumbo?
http://sue-ward.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murders.html (http://sue-ward.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/jeremy-bamber-white-house-farm-murders.html)
I did read that piece of nonsense some years back and had a right chuckle as to the significance of such an opportunistic piece of reasoning. Then I remembered commercialism and money and it al feel nicely into place.
Bamber appears to attract crackpots and opportunists from every sphere and this includes the several who have made money by selling books on the subject.
Indeed and books which are as reliable as some of Bambers own fairy-tales too. @)(++(*
-
Happy holidays and a great New Year dudes from me. 8((()*/
Heres to the next 12 months 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Happy holidays and a great New Year dudes from me. 8((()*/
Heres to the next 12 months 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Best wishes Bounty Hunter.....keep on getting those runaways mate. @)(++(*
Why is the Seasons Greetings thread locked ?
-
I just unlocked it! Im using my phone so i could have locked it by accident...sorry.
-
I just unlocked it! Im using my phone so i could have locked it by accident...sorry.
Blimey, I thought Big Brother was monitoring us!
Get him to lay off the cigs Andrea.... seriously !!!
-
Its hard to get a headstrong 20 yr old to listen to mummy! All his friends smoke too.
-
H*llfire!.... Christmas/New Year over and he's still at it..... "Jeremy Potter and the Coven of Essex Police"
-
H*llfire!.... Christmas/New Year over and he's still at it..... "Jeremy Potter and the Coven of Essex Police"
Stephanie Potter and the cistern of wobbly sex.
-
H*llfire!.... Christmas/New Year over and he's still at it..... "Jeremy Potter and the Coven of Essex Police"
Do you have a link, Myster?
-
H*llfire!.... Christmas/New Year over and he's still at it..... "Jeremy Potter and the Coven of Essex Police"
Do you have a link, Myster?
(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5404/yuckyuck.gif)
-
H*llfire!.... Christmas/New Year over and he's still at it..... "Jeremy Potter and the Coven of Essex Police"
Stephanie Potter and the cistern of wobbly sex.
I really hope you haven't got a link.
-
I have heard worse passed off as truth myster!
-
Maybe they were witches that happened to be Masons too!
-
Maybe they were witches that happened to be Masons too!
And in MI6.
-
MI6, no doubt. Even CIA and KGB could have had a hand in this.
Seriously, wouldnt it have been easier to stick with sheila being the shooter, rather than blame bamber and dig a hole?
-
MI6, no doubt. Even CIA and KGB could have had a hand in this.
Seriously, wouldnt it have been easier to stick with sheila being the shooter, rather than blame bamber and dig a hole?
I see you got tired of arguing with Lugg over there. That's the trouble.... they go round and round in ever decreasing circles.... god knows how they keep it up. And what's worse, the proposed fresh application is going to give them more wind in their sails... that's another ten years churning out the same old rubbish. What did David Boutflour say.... "It's about time it stopped!"
-
Its gets long winded, in the end icouldnt remember what we were debating.
Instead of simple answers you get long winded posts of irrelevent crap, then i lose the will to live.
You never get a straight answer.
-
And before i get accused, i didnt mean lugg with long winded posts, just that forum in general.
-
Its gets long winded, in the end icouldnt remember what we were debating.
Instead of simple answers you get long winded posts of irrelevent crap, then i lose the will to live.
You never get a straight answer.
Could that be because they haven't got any? 8(0(*
-
Probably!
-
What is the point of a fresh application? They'll need some proper good hard evidence which past experience has showed they just don't have. If they didn't have this already why is it going to miraculously appear now 28 years later? I can kind of see why Jeremy will continue as what else can he do? Plus he probably enjoys being a thorn in the side of the legal system. A new application just seems like a complete waste of time not to mention public money. For an establishment which conspired to frame him they have gone out of their way to accommodate his never ending legal campaigns.
-
What can possibly go into a new application? Have bambers legal team ever mentioned PII in their applications to the ccrc?
-
What is the point of a fresh application? They'll need some proper good hard evidence which past experience has showed they just don't have. If they didn't have this already why is it going to miraculously appear now 28 years later? I can kind of see why Jeremy will continue as what else can he do? Plus he probably enjoys being a thorn in the side of the legal system. A new application just seems like a complete waste of time not to mention public money. For an establishment which conspired to frame him they have gone out of their way to accommodate his never ending legal campaigns.
Maybe its time we started complaining to the CCRC about this woeful waste of public funds on a case which is most obviously well by its sell by date?
Then again a new story might suddenly reveal itself as in the Hall case? @)(++(*
-
As you say Goatboy, Bamber has nothing else to do. He will enjoy being a thorn in the side of the legal system and the remaining members of his family. Can there ever come a time when the system can say enough is enough? How much does all this cost the tax payer?
-
What can possibly go into a new application? Have bambers legal team ever mentioned PII in their applications to the ccrc?
Its all hot air with much smoke and mirrors thrown in Andy. I had a long chat with a London journalist recently and it was patently obvious that he had been brainwashed by their ridiculous propaganda. The public are so gullible it is unbelievable. All I can say is that it is a good job we have a sister site which is doing a really fine job setting the record straight.
-
The CCRC arent falling for it, John.
Much is made of the police witholding evidence etc, so i just wondered if the legal team use that particular point in their arguments.
-
The CCRC arent falling for it, John.
Much is made of the police witholding evidence etc, so i just wondered if the legal team use that particular point in their arguments.
I totally agree Andy, they aren't stupid and can see what is being attempted as does the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
-
The CCRC won't spend years investigating unless they believe their could be a miscarriage of justice. I think the money spent by the CCRC is scrutinised more than ever lately
-
The CCRC won't spend years investigating unless they believe their could be a miscarriage of justice. I think the money spent by the CCRC is scrutinised more than ever lately
It looks like you have scared Ray off the blue forum Jackie? 8(0(*
I also notice SH posting not so nice innuendos about you this morning?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3761.msg151356.html#msg151356
-
And before i get accused, i didnt mean lugg with long winded posts, just that forum in general.
He was about 2 posts away from a Beltdown this afternoon!! And now he's woken up all grumpy, put his teeth in, and he's having a pop at me!! @)(++(*
Oh dear. WHAT a bellend!!
-
And before i get accused, i didnt mean lugg with long winded posts, just that forum in general.
He was about 2 posts away from a Beltdown this afternoon!! And now he's woken up all grumpy, put his teeth in, and he's having a pop at me!! @)(++(*
Oh dear. WHAT a bellend!!
Dont worry about it! I best not debate with him again, im of low intelligence you see, Hoho!
-
And before i get accused, i didnt mean lugg with long winded posts, just that forum in general.
He was about 2 posts away from a Beltdown this afternoon!! And now he's woken up all grumpy, put his teeth in, and he's having a pop at me!! @)(++(*
Oh dear. WHAT a bellend!!
Dont worry about it! I best not debate with him again, im of low intelligence you see, Hoho!
Yes indeed Andrea? I noticed that you were unable to see his reasoned argument? In my humble opinion?
I wonder how his ar$e is? >@@(*&)
-
I must go back to school. 8(8-))
-
I get bored of discussing the Bamber case sometimes. Theres nothing left to say.
I get fed up with hearing the we are going to hear some exciting news that will prove bambers innocence and nowt happens.
Its like chasing your own tail, speaking of tails, Scarletts f..king farted again, gosh! she stinks.
-
I get bored of discussing the Bamber case sometimes. Theres nothing left to say.
I get fed up with hearing the we are going to hear some exciting news that will prove bambers innocence and nowt happens.
Its like chasing your own tail, speaking of tails, Scarletts f..king farted again, gosh! she stinks.
Good grief, haven't you got that dog's plumbing sorted yet??!!
I know there's nothing left to say, and I'd be very suprised if McKay doesn't bow out soon. You can't get past the fact that Sheila didn't do it, and the police certainly didn't.
-
I get bored of discussing the Bamber case sometimes. Theres nothing left to say.
I get fed up with hearing the we are going to hear some exciting news that will prove bambers innocence and nowt happens.
Its like chasing your own tail, speaking of tails, Scarletts f..king farted again, gosh! she stinks.
Good grief, haven't you got that dog's plumbing sorted yet??!!
I know there's nothing left to say, and I'd be very suprised if McKay doesn't bow out soon. You can't get past the fact that Sheila didn't do it, and the police certainly didn't.
This is what i mean Shona. Why dont supporters support what his legal team are doing instead of saying the police shot sheila? Do his legal team believe that the world and his wife have sought to conspire and frame Bamber?
-
Andrea do you think the Guildford 4 case was dead and buried when Gareth pierce uncovered the folder that said 'do not show to the defence'
That sort of thing sticks in my mind
John I did see those innuendos and I am happy to answer any questions anyone might ask but I might have to reply by pm because of something that's going on right now
I would like to point out I have NEVER asked Stephanie about why she has fallen out with her or Simons family I guess it's a touchy subject
I have never asked Stephanie about the Spiller case she told me who Annie was and I don't even know if the man in question is appealing
-
Thats the Guildford 4 case, im talking about Bamber.
You were the worse one for it Jackie, telling ua about the exciting news, and that Jeremy will be free by Christmas, it was all bollocks. Who paid for the test done in America? and why did they choose America? Do we not have enough ballistic experts here?
-
Andrea do you think the Guildford 4 case was dead and buried when Gareth pierce uncovered the folder that said 'do not show to the defence'
That sort of thing sticks in my mind
John I did see those innuendos and I am happy to answer any questions anyone might ask but I might have to reply by pm because of something that's going on right now
I would like to point out I have NEVER asked Stephanie about why she has fallen out with her or Simons family I guess it's a touchy subject
I have never asked Stephanie about the Spiller case she told me who Annie was and I don't even know if the man in question is appealing
Gosh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you back again Jackie??? 8)--))
-
Andrea do you think the Guildford 4 case was dead and buried when Gareth pierce uncovered the folder that said 'do not show to the defence'
That sort of thing sticks in my mind
John I did see those innuendos and I am happy to answer any questions anyone might ask but I might have to reply by pm because of something that's going on right now
I would like to point out I have NEVER asked Stephanie about why she has fallen out with her or Simons family I guess it's a touchy subject
I have never asked Stephanie about the Spiller case she told me who Annie was and I don't even know if the man in question is appealing
Those innuendos (and the constant attacks against Pete) make a mockery of any "truce", imo.
-
Sorry to go off topic, just watching a documentary about the Kursk, the Russian sub that exploded, killing all on submariners on board.
I havent watched it all yet, did the Russians eventually accept the help that was offerd to them?
-
Andrea do you think the Guildford 4 case was dead and buried when Gareth pierce uncovered the folder that said 'do not show to the defence'
That sort of thing sticks in my mind
John I did see those innuendos and I am happy to answer any questions anyone might ask but I might have to reply by pm because of something that's going on right now
I would like to point out I have NEVER asked Stephanie about why she has fallen out with her or Simons family I guess it's a touchy subject
I have never asked Stephanie about the Spiller case she told me who Annie was and I don't even know if the man in question is appealing
Those innuendos (and the constant attacks against Pete) make a mockery of any "truce", imo.
Who's Pete?
-
Petey.
What is funny is that even though Hall is constantly attacking Petey, he responds in such an informed, intelligent and sarcastic way that Hall can't even understand the replies, doesn't see the point being amde AGAINST her and she still thinks she's winning.
-
Sorry to go off topic, just watching a documentary about the Kursk, the Russian sub that exploded, killing all on submariners on board.
I havent watched it all yet, did the Russians eventually accept the help that was offerd to them?
Yes but after it was too late to help anyone.
-
Petey.
What is funny is that even though Hall is constantly attacking Petey, he responds in such an informed, intelligent and sarcastic way that Hall can't even understand the replies, doesn't see the point being amde AGAINST her and she still thinks she's winning.
She still thinks that Petey is John. @)(++(*
-
Petey.
What is funny is that even though Hall is constantly attacking Petey, he responds in such an informed, intelligent and sarcastic way that Hall can't even understand the replies, doesn't see the point being amde AGAINST her and she still thinks she's winning.
She still thinks that Petey is John. @)(++(*
Everyone is John. @)(++(*
-
Andrea do you think the Guildford 4 case was dead and buried when Gareth pierce uncovered the folder that said 'do not show to the defence'
That sort of thing sticks in my mind
John I did see those innuendos and I am happy to answer any questions anyone might ask but I might have to reply by pm because of something that's going on right now
I would like to point out I have NEVER asked Stephanie about why she has fallen out with her or Simons family I guess it's a touchy subject
I have never asked Stephanie about the Spiller case she told me who Annie was and I don't even know if the man in question is appealing
Those innuendos (and the constant attacks against Pete) make a mockery of any "truce", imo.
Who's Pete?
Petey. Your mate the lawyer!!
-
Petey.
What is funny is that even though Hall is constantly attacking Petey, he responds in such an informed, intelligent and sarcastic way that Hall can't even understand the replies, doesn't see the point being amde AGAINST her and she still thinks she's winning.
Ho ho!! Pete's a good bloke, but he gets shed loads of abuse. He's far too intelligent to let it affect him, though.
-
Good job he never reads over here!! @)(++(*
I think that a certain someone should sit down with a nice cup of tea and a hobnob, take a deep breath, and remember just who started any "abuse." Certainly as far as Tim and I are concerned, it began with posts about having sex with dogs. Didn't it, Grahame? Oh, sorry, you never read over here. Right.
-
Andrea do you think the Guildford 4 case was dead and buried when Gareth pierce uncovered the folder that said 'do not show to the defence'
That sort of thing sticks in my mind
John I did see those innuendos and I am happy to answer any questions anyone might ask but I might have to reply by pm because of something that's going on right now
I would like to point out I have NEVER asked Stephanie about why she has fallen out with her or Simons family I guess it's a touchy subject
I have never asked Stephanie about the Spiller case she told me who Annie was and I don't even know if the man in question is appealing
Those innuendos (and the constant attacks against Pete) make a mockery of any "truce", imo.
I should add that one of my best friends (from school) did the sex/chat/phone thing for a while, and did very well from it. And if I didn't have a voice like Kenneth Williams on helium, I'd do it too.
-
Patti/Wicked...no one dislikes you. I actually think that you are totally undislikeable. If that's a word. You just need to know that some disputes go back a long way, and have never been resolved. But you're a sweetie.
-
Andrea do you think the Guildford 4 case was dead and buried when Gareth pierce uncovered the folder that said 'do not show to the defence'
That sort of thing sticks in my mind
John I did see those innuendos and I am happy to answer any questions anyone might ask but I might have to reply by pm because of something that's going on right now
I would like to point out I have NEVER asked Stephanie about why she has fallen out with her or Simons family I guess it's a touchy subject
I have never asked Stephanie about the Spiller case she told me who Annie was and I don't even know if the man in question is appealing
Just when you mention it Jackie, who is the 23-year-old Chloe that we have been hearing so much about?
-
Good job he never reads over here!! @)(++(*
I think that a certain someone should sit down with a nice cup of tea and a hobnob, take a deep breath, and remember just who started any "abuse." Certainly as far as Tim and I are concerned, it began with posts about having sex with dogs. Didn't it, Grahame? Oh, sorry, you never read over here. Right.
Didn't Grahame Lugg threaten to send his pal Gav round to Tim and myself to sort us out not so long ago?
-
Jack, you dont have to answer this if you dont want to, but, are you a phone sex worker? if so, how much do you make? And could you give me some tips for the next time i talk to paulg (joking) 8)--))
-
John who is 23 year old Chloe, anyone would be mad to do a job like that wouldn't they?
-
John who is 23 year old Chloe, anyone would be mad to do a job like that wouldn't they?
mad to be a phone sex worker? i say not, good money i hear.
-
John who is 23 year old Chloe, anyone would be mad to do a job like that wouldn't they?
mad to be a phone sex worker? i say not, good money i hear.
Too right. I'd be a prozzie, if my poor old flange wasn't so battered by popping out the sprogs. And BT's constant demands. 8(8-))
-
Andrea that's what's coming across like Mrs Hall is trying to do some exposé and on the whole I believe chat lines are exactly that. Lonely people wanting to chat to someone.
-
John who is 23 year old Chloe, anyone would be mad to do a job like that wouldn't they?
mad to be a phone sex worker? i say not, good money i hear.
Too right. I'd be a prozzie, if my poor old flange wasn't so battered by popping out the sprogs. And BT's constant demands. 8(8-))
*laughs* My smilies have dissapeared
-
Andrea that's what's coming across like Mrs Hall is trying to do some exposé and on the whole I believe chat lines are exactly that. Lonely people wanting to chat to someone.
They probably are lonely, and loaded. How did you get into it?
Do you feel sorry for some of them?
-
What's all this about 23 year old Chloe John?
It sounds like you have been cruising chat lines?
You have heard my voice do you think I could pass for 23?
-
What's all this about 23 year old Chloe John?
It sounds like you have been cruising chat lines?
You have heard my voice do you think I could pass for 23?
On the phone i could pass for a bloke! I should work for a Gay chatline perhaps.
-
Andrea that's what's coming across like Mrs Hall is trying to do some exposé and on the whole I believe chat lines are exactly that. Lonely people wanting to chat to someone.
She did that to me, Jac. "Oooh, I'm doing a reveal on you, late at night, know what I mean?"
I actually didn't know what she meant. I racked my brains. Wondered if she'd hacked into my pms, when I proposed to bob.
And if there were more sex workers, there would be less rape. Discuss.
-
Andrea that's what's coming across like Mrs Hall is trying to do some exposé and on the whole I believe chat lines are exactly that. Lonely people wanting to chat to someone.
They probably are lonely, and loaded. How did you get into it?
Do you feel sorry for some of them?
OMG. Lonely and loaded. My ideal man.
-
What's all this about 23 year old Chloe John?
It sounds like you have been cruising chat lines?
You have heard my voice do you think I could pass for 23?
Well actually yes Jackie, I think you have a lovely voice. (http://images.zaazu.com/img/Zany-zany-comic-joker-smiley-emoticon-000598-medium.gif)
-
Just reading the Wiki article on bamber.
It states that while in New Zealand he reportedly broke into a jewellers, stealing two expensive watches, one of which he gave to his girlfiend back in England. He also boasted according to Powell that he had been involved in smuggling Heroin overseas.
-
Thank you John
Andrea if you would like to meet a lonely rich single man working on a chat line would probably be a good place for you to work.
If a man becomes single at 40 plus they don't generally want to go out clubbing, I would think you would be asked out all the time
-
What's all this about 23 year old Chloe John?
It sounds like you have been cruising chat lines?
You have heard my voice do you think I could pass for 23?
Well actually yes Jackie, I think you have a lovely voice. (http://images.zaazu.com/img/Zany-zany-comic-joker-smiley-emoticon-000598-medium.gif)
A bit like Celine Dion.
Sorry. I nicked that from Father Ted.
-
Just reading the Wiki article on bamber.
It states that while in New Zealand he reportedly broke into a jewellers, stealing two expensive watches, one of which he gave to his girlfiend back in England. He also boasted according to Powell that he had been involved in smuggling Heroin overseas.
I read somewhere that he ran out of the shop with them? 8-)(--)
-
Where has Tim disappeared to?? Has Gav got him? >@@(*&)
-
Where has Tim disappeared to?? Has Gav got him? >@@(*&)
He's been very quiet over Christmas and New Year too.
I have just noticed we have over 100 guests watching and reading the forum tonight which is strange for this hour. Could be the facebook effect.
Shona. Please refrain from self criticism. 8(0(* @)(++(*
-
Where has Tim disappeared to?? Has Gav got him? >@@(*&)
Ooh er. Gav's a scary person. I crumbled when he called me a small-dicked gaylord.
I think Tim might be up an Alp.
-
Where has Tim disappeared to?? Has Gav got him? >@@(*&)
Ooh er. Gav's a scary person. I crumbled when he called me a small-dicked gaylord.
I think Tim might be up an Alp.
He may not have internet at his new place yet.
-
Where has Tim disappeared to?? Has Gav got him? >@@(*&)
He's been very quiet over Christmas and New Year too.
I have just noticed we have over 100 guests watching and reading the forum tonight which is strange for this hour. Could be the facebook effect.
Shona. Please refrain from self criticism. 8(0(* @)(++(*
I have absolutely no idea what you're on about, but you made me laugh!! I like this forum. It's like getting into bed when the hot blanket is on. The blue forum is like stubbing your toe, then treading in pug poo. Which can actually happen.
-
Just reading the Wiki article on bamber.
It states that while in New Zealand he reportedly broke into a jewellers, stealing two expensive watches, one of which he gave to his girlfiend back in England. He also boasted according to Powell that he had been involved in smuggling Heroin overseas.
I read somewhere that he ran out of the shop with them? 8-)(--)
He also told Claire Powell who wrote a book on the WHF murders that he had been involved in shipping Heroin overseas.
-
Everytime i look at who's onliine, it says there are members posting on the Kevin Craigie thread, none ever seem to appear?
-
Thought we had guest posting back again?
-
Everytime i look at who's onliine, it says there are members posting on the Kevin Craigie thread, none ever seem to appear?
Guests can't post, Jell. It's some weird thing. A bit like Lugg saying that he never looks over here.
Hallo, Grahame!!! How's your ar$e for spots???
It is automated bots trying to get into the system and post adverts. Fortunately most of them are now blocked.
We had Andy but the adverts were relentless.
-
Thought we had guest posting back again?
I can't see how guest posting can work. We'll just have endless Blumpkin crap, and Gladys' ar.. problems. I don't need those bad dreams. 8(8-))
The guests posting was a f..king nightmare.
-
Thought we had guest posting back again?
I can't see how guest posting can work. We'll just have endless Blumpkin crap, and Gladys' ar.. problems. I don't need those bad dreams. 8(8-))
The guests posting was a f..king nightmare.
Yes.It was. Because of stupid, crazy Blumpkin, who once had sex in a disabled toilet, then stalked a sad man. Not really life as we know it, is it?
Go Heidi!!
-
Who's Heidi?
-
I loved it when someone asked Lugg if he knew someone who could sort out some signwriting? Bless him, he pretended he didn't know and suggested they try Yell.com.
When someone suggested that Campion and Lugg were men of integrity I was pretty impressed with Mat for stating on the blue forum that he believed that their integrity was questionable. Why has no one over there openly acknowledged that Lugg is Grahame yet?
-
Guys, I've had to remove some posts. We still have the truce in place. The truce has been beneficial to me, so I'd like it to stay in place. Remember before the truce when Hall was allowed to post her internet abuse on the blue forum? Well because most of that is taken down when she puts it up now it means she resorted to posting it on the Simon Hall website and we all know what happened there. @)(++(* 8@??)(
I won't edit the Hall posts, no one truly gives a damn what's said about her. But the Lugg posts can't stay if we have the truce - we've had complaints from the blue side. If I have missed any Lugg posts then please can the other mods delete? Or if they are your posts, edit them?
-
I give up.
The mad one is still at it and they are supporting her and blaming other people. If things continue as they are I will leave both forums. The truce isn't sustainable. They're basically saying they do everything right and I beg to differ.
I'm glad they're complaining to you, I might get a break from it.
-
I give up.
The mad one is still at it and they are supporting her and blaming other people. If things continue as they are I will leave both forums. The truce isn't sustainable. They're basically saying they do everything right and I beg to differ.
I remember when Hall posted her nasty links to the letter she posted from 'Simon'........Caroline deleted it but then Hall edited the post again and it was left.
Hall continues to abuse you Joanne, that much is very clear.
-
I don't mind that, what I object to is them saying they continue to abide by the truce when clearly they don't. They can't pick and chose as to which members it applies to. If she's allowed to dish it out, so will I. She went on and on 'write to Simon, send pictures in' when I did she didn't like being bluffed did she?
People have short memories and even if you go back through Simon's thread, not so long ago she wasn't popular and all of a sudden she can do no wrong. Well, I wish everyone luck on that because when she starts websites up about you and posts what is written on his website out of context in a bid to make someone look bad, they won't like it.
This will be my last word on it. I've had enough.
-
I give up.
The mad one is still at it and they are supporting her and blaming other people. If things continue as they are I will leave both forums. The truce isn't sustainable. They're basically saying they do everything right and I beg to differ.
I'm glad they're complaining to you, I might get a break from it.
Don't go, Jo. If it helps, I'll behave myself. You and Andy worked hard for the truce.
-
I give up.
The mad one is still at it and they are supporting her and blaming other people. If things continue as they are I will leave both forums. The truce isn't sustainable. They're basically saying they do everything right and I beg to differ.
I'm glad they're complaining to you, I might get a break from it.
Don't go, Jo. If it helps, I'll behave myself. You and Andy worked hard for the truce.
8((()*/ Will help, Shona.
-
I give up.
The mad one is still at it and they are supporting her and blaming other people. If things continue as they are I will leave both forums. The truce isn't sustainable. They're basically saying they do everything right and I beg to differ.
I'm glad they're complaining to you, I might get a break from it.
Don't go, Jo. If it helps, I'll behave myself. You and Andy worked hard for the truce.
8((()*/ Will help, Shona.
Bloody hell, I'm bored already. JOKE!!!
-
I know what youi mean jo, ive had enough myself.
-
I know what youi mean jo, ive had enough myself.
8(8-))
If you and Jo leave, when Tim comes back he'll have my tits for earmuffs.
-
I think I'm probably just in a bad mood and should have turned the computer off earlier but I have had enough now with this 'truce'. I just know I'm going to be in so much trouble when John and admin log on. It'd be better if one of their admin talked direct to our admin and cut the 'middle' people of if I'm honest. They could probably do it via e-mail if they didn't want to join either forum and then just put an announcement out as to things.
-
Why will you be in trouble Jo? What have you done?
-
I think I'm probably just in a bad mood and should have turned the computer off earlier but I have had enough now with this 'truce'. I just know I'm going to be in so much trouble when John and admin log on. It'd be better if one of their admin talked direct to our admin and cut the 'middle' people of if I'm honest. They could probably do it via e-mail if they didn't want to join either forum and then just put an announcement out as to things.
Of course you are not in any trouble Joanne. I used to post on the blue forum too but found that I was just feeding the trolls. Best to completely ignore them and do your own thing on here. Stick to the truth and the facts and you cannot go wrong.
As for the comments earlier about the truce, well the truce is as strong as ever. Mrs Hall by her actions is fair game and deserves everything she gets. Lugg is a character and I have no problem discussing him. Even referring to him as Grahame is acceptable as he has chosen to confirm his identity. What we shouldn't do is refer to his surname or identify him in such as way that any new reader could immediately identify him. If Lugg/Grahame is now embarrassed by his comments and wishes to remain anonymous so be it.
-
Re: Question for Joanne
Well answered Joanne !!!
The following is typical of the bullshit written over there.... "everyone in the family climbed through the window when they didn't have a key"
I'd like to have seen June do that!
Was that gleaned from another of the pied piper's mad theories?
-
I think they have given up and the forum has reverted to something akin to the womens institute not that I have anything aganist the womens institute. Lugg shouldfeel well at home though. @)(++(*
-
I think they have given up and the forum has reverted to something akin to the womens institute not that I have anything aganist the womens institute. Lugg shouldfeel well at home though. @)(++(*
For the Castleford Ladies.
Bamber shoots a petrified, disorientated Sheila, with the silencer on (the 2 wounds are clearly different.) She has flinched/moved her head away slightly and the shot enters the side of her throat, knocking her out cold. Bruising begins to form around this wound. Bamber moves her arms and hands to make it look like suicide, realises with a shock that the silencer makes the gun too long, unscrews it, wipes it on the carpet (the circular marks partly hidden by the bible), knows he can't "lose" it because it would eventually be missed so dashes downstairs and stashes it away. Comes back to again arrange Sheila's hands and arms, realises that she still has a pulse, has to load another "final" bullet (that must have REALLY pissed him off, it was all going so well), pulls her down slightly by her ankles to expose under her chin (note hair, necklace, back of nightie), and shoots her again.
Evening, all.
-
I think they have given up and the forum has reverted to something akin to the womens institute not that I have anything aganist the womens institute. Lugg shouldfeel well at home though. @)(++(*
For the Castleford Ladies.
Bamber shoots a petrified, disorientated Sheila, with the silencer on (the 2 wounds are clearly different.) She has flinched/moved her head away slightly and the shot enters the side of her throat, knocking her out cold. Bruising begins to form around this wound. Bamber moves her arms and hands to make it look like suicide, realises with a shock that the silencer makes the gun too long, unscrews it, wipes it on the carpet (the circular marks partly hidden by the bible), knows he can't "lose" it because it would eventually be missed so dashes downstairs and stashes it away. Comes back to again arrange Sheila's hands and arms, realises that she still has a pulse, has to load another "final" bullet (that must have REALLY pissed him off, it was all going so well), pulls her down slightly by her ankles to expose under her chin (note hair, necklace, back of nightie), and shoots her again.
Evening, all.
Hold your breath while Patti experiments by dragging her nails on a pear and a banana.... well, it certainly beats dead pigskin and might produce some accurate results, don't you think? @)(++(* .... then again it might not. 8(8-))
-
I think they have given up and the forum has reverted to something akin to the womens institute not that I have anything aganist the womens institute. Lugg shouldfeel well at home though. @)(++(*
For the Castleford Ladies.
Bamber shoots a petrified, disorientated Sheila, with the silencer on (the 2 wounds are clearly different.) She has flinched/moved her head away slightly and the shot enters the side of her throat, knocking her out cold. Bruising begins to form around this wound. Bamber moves her arms and hands to make it look like suicide, realises with a shock that the silencer makes the gun too long, unscrews it, wipes it on the carpet (the circular marks partly hidden by the bible), knows he can't "lose" it because it would eventually be missed so dashes downstairs and stashes it away. Comes back to again arrange Sheila's hands and arms, realises that she still has a pulse, has to load another "final" bullet (that must have REALLY pissed him off, it was all going so well), pulls her down slightly by her ankles to expose under her chin (note hair, necklace, back of nightie), and shoots her again.
Evening, all.
Hold your breath while Patti experiments by dragging her nails on a pear and a banana.... well, it certainly beats dead pigskin and might produce some accurate results, don't you think? @)(++(* .... then again it might not. 8(8-))
What must it be like to have so much time (and fruit) on your hands? 8)-)))
-
Is it true that McChancer has resigned from the case? 8-)(--)
-
Not heard that, but he'd be mad to continue as he will get nowhere and more pertinently for a lawyer he's not being paid. He's already raised his profile further and gained a reputation as a maverick all of which will have done him great favours in getting more lucrative work I expect.
-
Not heard that, but he'd be mad to continue as he will get nowhere and more pertinently for a lawyer he's not being paid. He's already raised his profile further and gained a reputation as a maverick all of which will have done him great favours in getting more lucrative work I expect.
I said a while ago that he would probably bow out soon. I'm sure he'd love to appear as a maverick. Sadly, supporting a convicted killer of two six year old boys, shot through their heads as they slept at their grandparents' house, makes him look like a dodgy tilter at windmills. If, God forbid, I needed legal assistance, I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole.
-
I think they have given up and the forum has reverted to something akin to the womens institute not that I have anything aganist the womens institute. Lugg shouldfeel well at home though. @)(++(*
For the Castleford Ladies.
Bamber shoots a petrified, disorientated Sheila, with the silencer on (the 2 wounds are clearly different.) She has flinched/moved her head away slightly and the shot enters the side of her throat, knocking her out cold. Bruising begins to form around this wound. Bamber moves her arms and hands to make it look like suicide, realises with a shock that the silencer makes the gun too long, unscrews it, wipes it on the carpet (the circular marks partly hidden by the bible), knows he can't "lose" it because it would eventually be missed so dashes downstairs and stashes it away. Comes back to again arrange Sheila's hands and arms, realises that she still has a pulse, has to load another "final" bullet (that must have REALLY pissed him off, it was all going so well), pulls her down slightly by her ankles to expose under her chin (note hair, necklace, back of nightie), and shoots her again.
Evening, all.
Hold your breath while Patti experiments by dragging her nails on a pear and a banana.... well, it certainly beats dead pigskin and might produce some accurate results, don't you think? @)(++(* .... then again it might not. 8(8-))
What must it be like to have so much time (and fruit) on your hands? 8)-)))
No specific offence intended, but it's so representative that Bamber supporters fanny about in the fruit bowl. Why don't they ever try to explain the lack of blood in Sheila's airways and stomach, and on her face? Just the blood forced out by the second shot. And those tiny, black marks on Ralph's back look old. They could be from a day, a week, 2 weeks before. He wouldn't have wanted the fuss of having them dressed, imo.
-
Farmers, horsey folk, smallholders, have to be tough and suck it up. They have to be able to get up in the morning and get on with stuff, they don't sweat the small stuff. Remember French and Saunders, when one chops off her finger and feeds it to the dog? Well, there you go. At what point would Ralph have left a manic, crazed Sheila, waving a loaded rifle about, and run downstairs to call a lazy, harvest-exhausted Jeremy for help, bearing in mind that he might have slept through the phone ringing? Bit of a gamble, when he could have just called the police himself (no proof of that, even after 27 years) or run outside and shouted for help. Blood on the cupboard, and blood on the surface. But no blood on the phone. It doesn't really work, does it? And, of course, when the situation was so desperate, why did Jeremy call Julie first? It was a shared phone, in the hall. Anyone in that house could have answered, wasting more valuable minutes.
-
Strange how a crazy, frantic Sheila, with her meds failing her, in a world of her own, never wasted a single bullet into a wall, or a window, or the ceiling...but managed to get out of bed, forensically shoot the boys, shoot Ralph, shoot June (then come back to her), stand above Ralph in the kitchen and batter his face without a single spot of backspatter on her nightie, then lie down on the far side of the bed ( why not with the boys?) and shoot herself. And miss. And shoot hereslf again. No wonder that the CCRC has put this to bed. You'd have to be seven kinds of stupid to believe that scenario.
-
It's a bit of a shame that I'm banned from the blue, because I'd love to put this to susan (5000 thousand, fantastically insightful posts and counting) but there you go. We fight our battles, with truth on our side, and they stick their fingers in a banana. Sums up Bamber's cause, really. 20 years down the line, they'll still be saying that he was once too good looking to be a mass murderer. But "that is what they'll have to prove."Ho ho!!
-
Hope this is within the realm of the "truce".....Lookout. You reckon that it was a "cat fight, pure and simple." So....June and Sheila fought and shot each other. I'm giving you a let-out clause, here. How the f..k did that happen? Have you thought this through? Or are you just an angry old woman from Wallesey? With the hots for Mike? Hmmm?
-
Hope this is within the realm of the "truce".....Lookout. You reckon that it was a "cat fight, pure and simple." So....June and Sheila fought and shot each other. I'm giving you a let-out clause, here. How the f..k did that happen? Have you thought this through? Or are you just an angry old woman from Wallesey? With the hots for Mike? Hmmm?
And Jeremy. A distraught, lost orphan. Demolished. He loved his dad.
So, why did he have everything valued? 3 days after the tragedy?
Why did he try to sell pictures of Sheila?
-
Hope this is within the realm of the "truce".....Lookout. You reckon that it was a "cat fight, pure and simple." So....June and Sheila fought and shot each other. I'm giving you a let-out clause, here. How the f..k did that happen? Have you thought this through? Or are you just an angry old woman from Wallesey? With the hots for Mike? Hmmm?
And Jeremy. A distraught, lost orphan. Demolished. He loved his dad.
So, why did he have everything valued? 3 days after the tragedy?
Why did he try to sell pictures of Sheila?
So, Mike. We've battled. Apparently, you've got an image of Sheila on the bed, and the phone log. I'm calling you out. You haven't got either. You are full of shit. Bring it on. Be real, for once.
-
Strange how a crazy, frantic Sheila, with her meds failing her, in a world of her own, never wasted a single bullet into a wall, or a window, or the ceiling...but managed to get out of bed, forensically shoot the boys, shoot Ralph, shoot June (then come back to her), stand above Ralph in the kitchen and batter his face without a single spot of backspatter on her nightie, then lie down on the far side of the bed ( why not with the boys?) and shoot herself. And miss. And shoot hereslf again. No wonder that the CCRC has put this to bed. You'd have to be seven kinds of stupid to believe that scenario.
Something else which has never been noted. Not only did the shooter only miss once in all the 25 or so shots but they never dropped a single bullet on the floor.
-
It's a bit of a shame that I'm banned from the blue, because I'd love to put this to susan (5000 thousand, fantastically insightful posts and counting) but there you go. We fight our battles, with truth on our side, and they stick their fingers in a banana. Sums up Bamber's cause, really. 20 years down the line, they'll still be saying that he was once too good looking to be a mass murderer. But "that is what they'll have to prove."Ho ho!!
It's all psychology Shona. That's why his supporters always post a 27-year-old photo of him when they are trying to impress the public. I'm afraid a photo of a bloated 52-year-old just wouldn't get the same reaction...poor boy! @)(++(*
-
Hope this is within the realm of the "truce".....Lookout. You reckon that it was a "cat fight, pure and simple." So....June and Sheila fought and shot each other. I'm giving you a let-out clause, here. How the f..k did that happen? Have you thought this through? Or are you just an angry old woman from Wallesey? With the hots for Mike? Hmmm?
Had there been an altercation with Sheila, cat fight or otherwise, then Sheila's nightie would have suffered damage and/or had blood staining on it. Yet again...no evidence...no case to answer.
-
Hope this is within the realm of the "truce".....Lookout. You reckon that it was a "cat fight, pure and simple." So....June and Sheila fought and shot each other. I'm giving you a let-out clause, here. How the f..k did that happen? Have you thought this through? Or are you just an angry old woman from Wallesey? With the hots for Mike? Hmmm?
And Jeremy. A distraught, lost orphan. Demolished. He loved his dad.
So, why did he have everything valued? 3 days after the tragedy?
Why did he try to sell pictures of Sheila?
So, Mike. We've battled. Apparently, you've got an image of Sheila on the bed, and the phone log. I'm calling you out. You haven't got either. You are full of shit. Bring it on. Be real, for once.
He's a liar Shona, pure and simple! 8@??)(
-
All I can say is Simon McKay believes Jeremy Bamber to be innocent after everything he has seen and he obviously didn't have long enough to prepare what he would have liked for the CCRC.
Ngb has already said there will be a new application to the CCRC.
Mark Williams Thomas also believes Jeremy Bamber to be innocent and I think he has a few more 'police connections' than Simon Jones.
He did a first class job highlighting the Saville case and his profile will be higher than ever now.
I believe there will be a full length documentary which could hopefully show a FULL reconstruction of events that night.
I believe if Simon McKay gets his way and gets the majority of the PII evidence released and a new documentary is released and the general public start to question how safe this conviction is we will get a clear picture of what happened that night.
There needs to be an open and transparent closure to this case one way or another
-
Sorry Jackie, but I don't recall McKay ever clearly stating he believes Jeremy to be innocent. He has only ever said he thinks the conviction is unsafe which is not the same thing. He refused to answer a tweet asking him to confirm that he thought Jeremy innocent. Says it all IMO.
-
All I can say is Simon McKay believes Jeremy Bamber to be innocent after everything he has seen and he obviously didn't have long enough to prepare what he would have liked for the CCRC.
Ngb has already said there will be a new application to the CCRC.
Mark Williams Thomas also believes Jeremy Bamber to be innocent and I think he has a few more 'police connections' than Simon Jones.
He did a first class job highlighting the Saville case and his profile will be higher than ever now.
I believe there will be a full length documentary which could hopefully show a FULL reconstruction of events that night.
I believe if Simon McKay gets his way and gets the majority of the PII evidence released and a new documentary is released and the general public start to question how safe this conviction is we will get a clear picture of what happened that night.
There needs to be an open and transparent closure to this case one way or another
Morning, Jac!! I couldn't agree more, there does indeed need to be a transparent representation of this case, once and for all, instead of all the bullshit. Fancy Sheila running round the house, barking like a dog!! Who knew!! And fancy blowing Bamber's last chance with the CCRC with an unfinished, ill-prepared pile of old tosh. 8)><(
@)(++(* Catch you later!! xx
-
All I can say is Simon McKay believes Jeremy Bamber to be innocent after everything he has seen and he obviously didn't have long enough to prepare what he would have liked for the CCRC.
Ngb has already said there will be a new application to the CCRC.
Mark Williams Thomas also believes Jeremy Bamber to be innocent and I think he has a few more 'police connections' than Simon Jones.
He did a first class job highlighting the Saville case and his profile will be higher than ever now.
I believe there will be a full length documentary which could hopefully show a FULL reconstruction of events that night.
I believe if Simon McKay gets his way and gets the majority of the PII evidence released and a new documentary is released and the general public start to question how safe this conviction is we will get a clear picture of what happened that night.
There needs to be an open and transparent closure to this case one way or another
We all know what happened at White House Farm that morning and nothing Simon McKay, Mark Williams-Thomas or anyone else for that matter can do will ever change that no matter what wishful thinking a handful of deluded women believe. As far as a new application to the CCRC is concerned that's a no brainer. McKay will want to stay involved beacause it is all good publicity and let's face it he needs all he can get these days. @)(++(*
-
What is it with cases like this that they get a new team and they don't achieve much? Is it that some 'hotshot' thinks they can solve it then realises it's like flogging a dead horse and leaves?
-
What is it with cases like this that they get a new team and they don't achieve much? Is it that some 'hotshot' thinks they can solve it then realises it's like flogging a dead horse and leaves?
Reminds me of a Tesco burger....all dead horse and leaves. @)(++(*
-
All I can say is Simon McKay believes Jeremy Bamber to be innocent after everything he has seen and he obviously didn't have long enough to prepare what he would have liked for the CCRC.
Ngb has already said there will be a new application to the CCRC.
Mark Williams Thomas also believes Jeremy Bamber to be innocent and I think he has a few more 'police connections' than Simon Jones.
He did a first class job highlighting the Saville case and his profile will be higher than ever now.
I believe there will be a full length documentary which could hopefully show a FULL reconstruction of events that night.
I believe if Simon McKay gets his way and gets the majority of the PII evidence released and a new documentary is released and the general public start to question how safe this conviction is we will get a clear picture of what happened that night.
There needs to be an open and transparent closure to this case one way or another
Both of them may be saying that he is innocent privately but they won't say so publicly in case it comes back to bite them on the bum. 8)--))
The difference between Simon Jones and MWT is that the former knows more coppers and has many more associates in the Ipswich and Colchester areas.
-
Strange how a crazy, frantic Sheila, with her meds failing her, in a world of her own, never wasted a single bullet into a wall, or a window, or the ceiling...but managed to get out of bed, forensically shoot the boys, shoot Ralph, shoot June (then come back to her), stand above Ralph in the kitchen and batter his face without a single spot of backspatter on her nightie, then lie down on the far side of the bed ( why not with the boys?) and shoot herself. And miss. And shoot hereslf again. No wonder that the CCRC has put this to bed. You'd have to be seven kinds of stupid to believe that scenario.
I sense that I'm not the only one who finds the pro Bambers inability to get a grip on reality, very frustrating.
How bloody stupid are these people?
-
Tesko has tried to rally flagging support for his lost cause. On the deluded forum he writes;
'I know lots of things I have been banging on (as you put it for years), that I have been banging on about for years, have you ever owned a forum, and have you got any idea how to try and keep everyone interested, or how to motivate members or other people to contribute to a debate?'
Unquote...
Mike we know how you try to keep people 'interested'. You just make up another crackpot theory or fairytale to keep the Bamberettes smug and happy and give yourself and the sychopthantic, bovine excrement spreaders something more to write about.
@)(++(*
-
Tesko has tried to rally flagging support for his lost cause. On the deluded forum he writes;
'I know lots of things I have been banging on (as you put it for years), that I have been banging on about for years, have you ever owned a forum, and have you got any idea how to try and keep everyone interested, or how to motivate members or other people to contribute to a debate?'
Unquote...
Mike we know how you try to keep people 'interested'. You just make up another crackpot theory or fairytale to keep the Bamberettes smug and happy and give yourself and the sychopthantic, bovine excrement spreaders something more to write about.
@)(++(*
Of course the best way to run a forum is to start a nonsensical rambling fantasy thread that runs for the best part of a 1000 posts and makes as much sense as a Korean Soap Opera and you don't allow anyone else to post!
Then you accuse all your members of being lying s..mbags and paedophiles especially anyone who does not worship you. It always helps to have a couple of deranged supporters who set up lots of socket-puppet accounts and post endless fantasies about how they would have done things. You then fantasize of finding long dead murder victims which churns the stomachs of even your closest supporters and then gaze at clouds and trees for guidance and generally make yourself a complete laughing stock so that people delete their browser cache rather than run the risk of clicking on your forum accidentally.
It is very difficult to run such a forum so badly and I commend Mike for doing more to keep Jeremy locked up for life than an army of lawyers. In the remote circumstance that he is innocent you could not convince anyone now after 20,000 posts of bile, hatred and lies. He could not have done better if he had beaten JB to death with a shovel ten years ago.
Well done Mike 8((()*/ 8((()*/ 8((()*/ You are the man that finally nailed JBs coffin shut.
-
Tesko has tried to rally flagging support for his lost cause. On the deluded forum he writes;
'I know lots of things I have been banging on (as you put it for years), that I have been banging on about for years, have you ever owned a forum, and have you got any idea how to try and keep everyone interested, or how to motivate members or other people to contribute to a debate?'
Unquote...
Mike we know how you try to keep people 'interested'. You just make up another crackpot theory or fairytale to keep the Bamberettes smug and happy and give yourself and the sychopthantic, bovine excrement spreaders something more to write about.
@)(++(*
Of course the best way to run a forum is to start a nonsensical rambling fantasy thread that runs for the best part of a 1000 posts and makes as much sense as a Korean Soap Opera and you don't allow anyone else to post!
Then you accuse all your members of being lying s..mbags and paedophiles especially anyone who does not worship you. It always helps to have a couple of deranged supporters who set up lots of socket-puppet accounts and post endless fantasies about how they would have done things. You then fantasize of finding long dead murder victims which churns the stomachs of even your closest supporters and then gaze at clouds and trees for guidance and generally make yourself a complete laughing stock so that people delete their browser cache rather than run the risk of clicking on your forum accidentally.
It is very difficult to run such a forum so badly and I commend Mike for doing more to keep Jeremy locked up for life than an army of lawyers. In the remote circumstance that he is innocent you could not convince anyone now after 20,000 posts of bile, hatred and lies. He could not have done better if he had beaten JB to death with a shovel ten years ago.
Well done Mike 8((()*/ 8((()*/ 8((()*/ You are the man that finally nailed JBs coffin shut.
Spot on. I came to the Blue strongly believing innocence. The way MT subsequently unveiled his theories and his unswerving belief in himself even in the face of obvious errors in his "research & proof" It took a few years but Mike finally convinced me of JBs guilt. I mean,the blokes barking mad 8-)(--)
-
Tesko has tried to rally flagging support for his lost cause. On the deluded forum he writes;
'I know lots of things I have been banging on (as you put it for years), that I have been banging on about for years, have you ever owned a forum, and have you got any idea how to try and keep everyone interested, or how to motivate members or other people to contribute to a debate?'
Unquote...
Mike we know how you try to keep people 'interested'. You just make up another crackpot theory or fairytale to keep the Bamberettes smug and happy and give yourself and the sychopthantic, bovine excrement spreaders something more to write about.
@)(++(*
Of course the best way to run a forum is to start a nonsensical rambling fantasy thread that runs for the best part of a 1000 posts and makes as much sense as a Korean Soap Opera and you don't allow anyone else to post!
Then you accuse all your members of being lying s..mbags and paedophiles especially anyone who does not worship you. It always helps to have a couple of deranged supporters who set up lots of socket-puppet accounts and post endless fantasies about how they would have done things. You then fantasize of finding long dead murder victims which churns the stomachs of even your closest supporters and then gaze at clouds and trees for guidance and generally make yourself a complete laughing stock so that people delete their browser cache rather than run the risk of clicking on your forum accidentally.
It is very difficult to run such a forum so badly and I commend Mike for doing more to keep Jeremy locked up for life than an army of lawyers. In the remote circumstance that he is innocent you could not convince anyone now after 20,000 posts of bile, hatred and lies. He could not have done better if he had beaten JB to death with a shovel ten years ago.
Well done Mike 8((()*/ 8((()*/ 8((()*/ You are the man that finally nailed JBs coffin shut.
Spot on. I came to the Blue strongly believing innocence. The way MT subsequently unveiled his theories and his unswerving belief in himself even in the face of obvious errors in his "research & proof" It took a few years but Mike finally convinced me of JBs guilt. I mean,the blokes barking mad 8-)(--)
The Last Days Of Rome starring Tiberius Tesko.
-
I suppose now that it's finally over Mike will become even more cranky and resort to ever-more desperate measures to convince the gullible of JBs innocence. They may follow this path;
The dog actually shot Sheila dead (Erm.... twice).
Sheila and June had a fight and shot everyone before each shooting the other.
Sheila was, in fact shot by the police.
A shady hitman hired by the government shot the family.
One of the relatives shot the family - or they planned it jointly.
Drug dealers shot them all over a drug deal gone bad.
Sheila shot everyone including herself in the kitchen and, whilst mortally wounded walked upstairs and shot herself
again. (and took the silencer off and replaced it in the cupboard downstairs)
A farm worker with a grudge shot them.
They all shot each other.
Members of the red forum did it so they have something to discuss 26 years later.
Never mind Mike Maybe you could now turn your attention to a real miscarriage of justice and stop defending a a lying, manipulative child-murdering psychopath who is clearly guilty.
-
I suppose now that it's finally over Mike will become even more cranky and resort to ever-more desperate measures to convince the gullible of JBs innocence. They may follow this path;
The dog actually shot Sheila dead (Erm.... twice).
Sheila and June had a fight and shot everyone before each shooting the other.
Sheila was, in fact shot by the police.
A shady hitman hired by the government shot the family.
One of the relatives shot the family - or they planned it jointly.
Drug dealers shot them all over a drug deal gone bad.
Sheila shot everyone including herself in the kitchen and, whilst mortally wounded walked upstairs and shot herself
again. (and took the silencer off and replaced it in the cupboard downstairs)
A farm worker with a grudge shot them.
They all shot each other.
Members of the red forum did it so they have something to discuss 26 years later.
Never mind Mike Maybe you could now turn your attention to a real miscarriage of justice and stop defending a a lying, manipulative child-murdering psychopath who is clearly guilty.
Have you noticed how they have tried to emulate us and revive the McCann case again. Didn't Mike Teskowski claim that her body was buried in the corner of a yard beside some old barn? @)(++(*
-
I suppose now that it's finally over Mike will become even more cranky and resort to ever-more desperate measures to convince the gullible of JBs innocence. They may follow this path;
The dog actually shot Sheila dead (Erm.... twice).
Sheila and June had a fight and shot everyone before each shooting the other.
Sheila was, in fact shot by the police.
A shady hitman hired by the government shot the family.
One of the relatives shot the family - or they planned it jointly.
Drug dealers shot them all over a drug deal gone bad.
Sheila shot everyone including herself in the kitchen and, whilst mortally wounded walked upstairs and shot herself
again. (and took the silencer off and replaced it in the cupboard downstairs)
A farm worker with a grudge shot them.
They all shot each other.
Members of the red forum did it so they have something to discuss 26 years later.
Never mind Mike Maybe you could now turn your attention to a real miscarriage of justice and stop defending a a lying, manipulative child-murdering psychopath who is clearly guilty.
Have you noticed how they have tried to emulate us and revive the McCann case again. Didn't Mike Teskowski claim that her body was buried in the corner of a yard beside some old barn? @)(++(*
Yes I think it is time for mad, old Mike to start looking at clouds and trees again for inspiration.
I wonder if he will start that thread again with the footers: "Please Mr Mike come and find me!"
Then he will go bonkers again and start calling everyone paedophiles because they question his interest in dead bodies and why he keeps hanging around childrens grave sites. Even Gladys thought that was revolting.
-
Bamber appears to be really quite these days 8)-)))
-
Bamber appears to be really quite these days 8)-)))
Yeah. Shame.
He should watch ITV, 10.40!! 8((()*/
-
Tesko has tried to rally flagging support for his lost cause. On the deluded forum he writes;
'I know lots of things I have been banging on (as you put it for years), that I have been banging on about for years, have you ever owned a forum, and have you got any idea how to try and keep everyone interested, or how to motivate members or other people to contribute to a debate?'
Unquote...
Mike we know how you try to keep people 'interested'. You just make up another crackpot theory or fairytale to keep the Bamberettes smug and happy and give yourself and the sychopthantic, bovine excrement spreaders something more to write about.
@)(++(*
i showed motivation on his site and got banned >@@(*&)
-
Bamber appears to be really quite these days 8)-)))
Absolutely Centaur,
He knows the game is up and he is thinking of his next move. Bamber is in his fifties now and is contemplating a whole life tariff spent behind bars - possibly another 30-40 years. Each way you slice it, Bamber has lived a lot longer than most of his victims. A fact that saddens me greatly. However, I know that this inhuman animal will die behind bars without ever being a free man again. He will have plenty of time to contemplate that night he took four innocent lives from this earth for his own twisted greed and vastly inflated sense of self-importance. Maybe also the few deluded supporters he has left will stop indulging the beasts whims and let him rot behind bars. A punishment he so richly deserves.
-
If Bamber fessed up to his crimes do you think he would eventually get parole?
-
If Bamber fessed up to his crimes do you think he would eventually get parole?
No never.
-
He may confess to try to squirm out of his prison sentence because there is no other way he can try for parole. However, I seriously doubt whether he will ever see the light of day again, regardless whether he confesses or not. This is a game where he has seriously over-played his hand. It is something he probably broods over every day. He probably realises his own stupidity in not confessing much earlier. He could have claimed that he snapped and blamed the tensions in the house, mental illness, blah, blah, blah. Parent murderer Brian Blackwell will, in future, be offered the chance of parole despite the appalling nature of them. Bamber would have been locked up for 25-30 years but he may well have got out. His own boundless arrogance led him to commit this appalling crime and his arrogance wll keep him behind bars for the rest of his unnatural life.
-
If he confessed and was allowed out on parole it would do him no good-he wanted and still wants money and lots of it, he will only get that if he managed to overturn the conviction. Even then there is no guarantee (Barry George was a genuine MOJ who will not be compensated).
-
If he confessed and was allowed out on parole it would do him no good-he wanted and still wants money and lots of it, he will only get that if he managed to overturn the conviction. Even then there is no guarantee (Barry George was a genuine MOJ who will not be compensated).
He's too arrogant to fess up to his crimes imo goatboy. We wouldn't have even known about the break in and robbery if it hadn't been for Julie and we wouldn't have known about the jewelery heist if it hadn't been for Suzie and others. Can you see a pattern here? @)(++(*
-
I see that Tesko's "carers" are still having to mop up his filth.
How unutterably vile that man is.
-
If he confessed and was allowed out on parole it would do him no good-he wanted and still wants money and lots of it, he will only get that if he managed to overturn the conviction. Even then there is no guarantee (Barry George was a genuine MOJ who will not be compensated).
He's too arrogant to fess up to his crimes imo goatboy. We wouldn't have even known about the break in and robbery if it hadn't been for Julie and we wouldn't have known about the jewelery heist if it hadn't been for Suzie and others. Can you see a pattern here? @)(++(*
A very good point Angelo,
Bamber's pattern of behaviour is clear. When he decided to go on a world jaunt and through irresponsible spending, found himself without funds, he resorted to what we all know him capable of - crime. Although details remain unclear he certainly had to leave New Zealand in a hurry. He was a petty criminal for whom the law meant nothing. On his return to the UK he established a mail order drug business from his home and later - the same year as the murders - burglarised his family's caravan park business. He was known for his callousness and after being formerly arrested for the burglary walked out of the court covering his head with a sweater that had belonged to Sheila - a woman he had just brutally murdered. The very same woman whom he had tried unsuccessfully to sell her pornographic pictures to a tabloid newspaper and then shamelessly point the finger of suspicion to for murders he knew full well that he himself committed. The morning he was told the awful news of the murders Bamber was caught inappropriately smirking in his front room. After Bamber's arrest Sheila's Maida Vale flat police found photographs of the twin boys torn to pieces and thrown in the bin.
This is a truly despicable and unsavoury individual that really only cared for two things in this world - money and himself.
-
I have to laugh. Your Mike Tesco and The Blue Forum is so much like Pro McCanns and The Anti McCann Forums. Which is probably why The McCann Forum on this Site is being managed so well.
-
John, I don't know how you will interpret this but it did amaze me how, through thick and thin, the highs and lows, his attitude and demeanour remained the same throughout.
There is exception of course, when his second Appeal failed. For a short while he was on suicide watch (I'm not stating that he was suicidal though, that could be normal procedure).....but he hit a dark place and it took some effort to bring him back....and once back, he remained there - until he began to control the Groups and the campaign. He had never tried to control me before....and I feel he found me difficult to deal with, so yes, he changed again. He began to lie to me and become more aggressive towards me......however, Tracey Brazier was the main cause behind that. Her lies upset and confused him.....wasted his time chasing flying pigs whilst he should have been concentrating on his campaign.
Sorry guys, but a cycle ride calls........0-0"............
This whole thread is worth a read imho
-
Should he ever be released, then he will have to come and see me as I still hold his most valuable possessions from his family.....and his own. The truth comes out in the end.....one may just have to wait many years, but I'm in no rush at all!
*&^^&