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: Andrea on June 05, 2012, 01:21:24 PM
-
Bamber and his mate Brett collins had been rooting round Sheila flat loking for money and valuables to tide Bamber over until the wills were sorted out, they found nothing..except the nude pictures of sheila.
Jeremy and Brett discussed what they should do with their find, Bamber was certain the photographs would prove to be a little gold mine he needed to carry him over the next few months.
They decided the quickest and easiest way to make money from them would be to sell thm to a newspaper, Brett suggested the Sun. Brett already had dealings with one of its reporters. collins rang The sun and asked to speak to Michael Fielder, Fielder had folloewd the WHF story closely.
They arranged a meeting in the Nags Head Pub in Chelmsford.
The three met up and Fielder was amazed at the attitude of the young men "Collins and Bamber turned up and we had a few drinks and a snack" remembered Fielder. "They were sniggering and giggling together like a couple of schoolboys. i asked them about the photographs and Bamber said "oh, they are really good pictures of bambi-with the biggest vibrator you ever saw"
Fielder said "they gave me the impression that the pictures showed bambi doing things to herself with the vibrator, the two men were laughing and sharing in jokes".
But Bamber and Collins went further with their scandalous hints, according to the reporter. "They were trying to give me the impression that Bambi and jereny had been with each other. there was was loads of innuendo about Bamber and his involvment with her. it was all crude suggestiveness and snigger snigger.
the trio discussed the proposed sale for an hour. bamber was asking a price of £20,000 for about twenty topless and nude colour transparencies. "they show everything, right down to the last detail. Tehy are really good pictures" said jeremy. bamber also discussed the possibility of selling unpublished pictures of his parents and murdered nephews, Bamber said he would be looking for a substantial sum and would be prepared to sell his own life story.
Fielder said he was amazed at the complete callousness displayed by bamberand was keen to follow up this incredible turn of events to see where it led. bamber had not brought the photos with him so they made arrangments to meet at Sheilas Morshead mansions flat.
Fielder phoned the Sun and the Editor was of the opinion that Bamber trying to sell nude pictures of his dead sister appalling. he said "tell the b........ to stick his pictures". Editor told fielder to write a story of what bamber had tried to do, Filder id as the editor asked but thinks it was a mistake.Fielder wanted to go along with the pretence of buying them so that he could check they actually existed.
Fielders story on the attempted sale of the pictures by bamber appeared in the next edition of the sun. Discouraged by the failed attempt the pair never got intouch with the sun again.
Michael Fielder reflected on the episode " i have been in this job for 20 yrs and i have seen a lot of terrible crimes, but this one sent chills down my spine. it was really incredibly bad and bamber himself sent a shiver through me when i was talking to him. of course i knew the police wre sure he had done it so i went to the meeting with a certain view of him. i found it amazing that he could be so self assured, arrogant, not caring at all about what had happened.
By the way Fielder DID make a statement to the police about the episode, the police even asked Fielder if he would give evidence in court should he be needed.
Would be great to get hold of that statement. So anyone who says there is no evidence that bamber tried to sell his dead sisters private pictures, well now we know !!!
-
What an excellent post Andrea. Yet more evidence that Bamber is a psychopath.
-
Thankyou Richmond, its all in the the book Murder at Whitehouse Farm.
Fielder gave a statement to the police and said he would give evidence in court if needed. So its true bamber did try sell!
-
Jackie, to say you never look at this forum you know alot about what gets posted!! dont you?
Wassup, furious that bamber has tried to sell pics of one of his victims? yes, jackie i changed my mind on Bamber. get over it babes!!
So did bob Woffinden.!!
Bamber tried to sell pics of sheila, accept that Bamber isnt mr wonderful you may be then less bitter to those who disagree with you. Have a great day jackie. ?>)()<
-
Oh, Jackie, Mike may have Fielders statement, he might post it along with the picture on the bed. Bews, Myalls statement might be posted EVENTUALLY also!!
-
Great stuff, I also was going to ask what the source was. On the other forum they accepted that nude photos were offered to the Sun but they seemed to think Brett Collins was behind it and this was nothing to do with Jeremy. The version of events above confirms Collins made the initial approach which could explain why they think that (there is no way he could have acted alone without any involvement with Jeremy at all). Odd that the Sun appeared to develop a conscience about buying the photos, I suppose this was because of the fact that she was the mother of two children who were murdered and even the Sun wouldn't stoop so low to sell papers.
I'm sure this has been asked before but it would be interesting to find out what became of Brett Collins. Does anyone know? Was he ever interviewed by police at the time? I bet he has/had some stories to tell.
-
Collins was already running to the Sun with stories, he told them that bamber had been arrested for the burglary and that he was being questioned about the shootings.
-
The simple truth is that both Jeremy and Brett Collins were involved in it. Collins could not have done it without Jeremy's say so. Both men met the Press together when they tried to flog his story eventually managing to get a deal for £40k, a sum quite substantially more than the measly £25k that Julie eventually got. Bamber wanted £100k though such was his greed for money. In relation to the semi nude photos which Jeremy wanted to flog, he sent Brett round Fleet St with them.
-
Jackie, to say you never look at this forum you know alot about what gets posted!! dont you?
Wassup, furious that bamber has tried to sell pics of one of his victims? yes, jackie i changed my mind on Bamber. get over it babes!!
So did bob Woffinden.!!
Bamber tried to sell pics of sheila, accept that Bamber isnt mr wonderful you may be then less bitter to those who disagree with you. Have a great day jackie. ?>)()<
Andrea you should be flattered, she's spending all day reading your old posts! She must be a big fan of yours!
-
Collins was already running to the Sun with stories, he told them that bamber had been arrested for the burglary and that he was being questioned about the shootings.
Well done on finding all this, it's fascinating. Bamber really is the most unsavoury character, turning on good, kind people who had given him the very best start in life. And stealing the lives of two young children. Foul.
-
Tobes, she's just bored and stupid.
-
Tobes, she's just bored and stupid.
@)(++(*
She seems a very unhappy and negative person. Can't help thinking she could do with a good sh*g!
-
Hoho!!
-
Collins was already running to the Sun with stories, he told them that bamber had been arrested for the burglary and that he was being questioned about the shootings.
Well done on finding all this, it's fascinating. Bamber really is the most unsavoury character, turning on good, kind people who had given him the very best start in life. And stealing the lives of two young children. Foul.
This the real Jeremy Bamber, wholly disgusting behaviour while the only family he ever knew lie dead. Small wonder that the only people he can still manage to fool have obvious porblems of their own. They probably have sympathy for Huntley too.
-
Bamber has always thought that everyone is stupid except for himself, especially the creepy freaks who support him. What a bunch. Crooks, randy old ladies and liars. His arrogance brought him to justice and we have to thank his "supporters" for reminding us daily of his glaring character flaws.
He will never get out.
-
Great thread Andy. I remember the front page headlines when Bamber tried to sell those pics and the utter contempt and revulsion everyone had for him from then on.
Colin wrote in his book that Bamber showed him the photos with a sniggering nasty tone trying to embarrass him with explicit photos of his ex-wife and the mother of his children. Bamber kept the photos and Colin actually wrote to Bamber asking for all the photos because he was scared Jeremy might try to sell them to the tabloids. Within days The Sun story broke and Colin wasn't surprised in the slightest.
Bamber showed what an utter s..mbag he really is and I tell you something; if by some freak of chance Bamber is actually innocent and his case is a MoJ it could not have happened to a more deserving degenerate ...... not that there's a snowballs chance in hell that he isn't guilty of course!
Rot on Jeremy! 8@??)(
-
Whatever way you look at it Tim, his behaviour regarding the pictures was, as Fielder said, apalling. Then to suggest that Shiela and himself had been together, its disgusting.
-
Whatever way you look at it Tim, his behaviour regarding the pictures was, as Fielder said, apalling. Then to suggest that Shiela and himself had been together, its disgusting.
And this was at a time when any NORMAL person would be in deep shock, grieving for their family. He couldn't have cared less.
-
Whatever way you look at it Tim, his behaviour regarding the pictures was, as Fielder said, apalling. Then to suggest that Shiela and himself had been together, its disgusting.
And this was at a time when any NORMAL person would be in deep shock, grieving for their family. He couldn't have cared less.
Let's face it, he never was exactly grief stricken.
"Fancy a fry-up, lads?"
-
Whatever way you look at it Tim, his behaviour regarding the pictures was, as Fielder said, apalling. Then to suggest that Shiela and himself had been together, its disgusting.
And this was at a time when any NORMAL person would be in deep shock, grieving for their family. He couldn't have cared less.
Let's face it, he never was exactly grief stricken.
"Fancy a fry-up, lads?"
Well said Nick .... bacon and eggs within just a few hours of your whole family being murdered! Inconceivable. These examples show Bamber as a true sociopath ...
Profile of the Sociopath
Some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.
Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
That's Bamber!
-
Does Belton have any idea of the definition of libel?
Does anyone fancy contacting Kelvin McKenzie? I would imagine he would eat old Gladys for breakfast.
-
Does Belton have any idea of the definition of libel?
Does anyone fancy contacting Kelvin McKenzie? I would imagine he would eat old Gladys for breakfast.
Admin, with your contacts, would it be possible to speak to Kelvin McKenzie?
-
Does Belton have any idea of the definition of libel?
Does anyone fancy contacting Kelvin McKenzie? I would imagine he would eat old Gladys for breakfast.
Admin, with your contacts, would it be possible to speak to Kelvin McKenzie?
And possibly grab the comment - 6.33 on the Michael Fielder thread.
-
Does Belton have any idea of the definition of libel?
Does anyone fancy contacting Kelvin McKenzie? I would imagine he would eat old Gladys for breakfast.
Unbelievable. Grahame dismisses any private conversations incriminating Bamber as hearsay. Then believes another private conversation which there is no evidence of ever happening to be gospel truth. Having had 27 years to come up with a host of crackpot theories they have now come up with another one (which strangely Tesko doesn't seem to be involved in at all) about a gangland killing. I hope someone does inform Kelvin Mackenzie about this, I'm sure he knows a thing or two about libel laws.
-
I wonder if the former editor of the Sun Kelvin Mackenzie will also deny partying with the actual chief police officers at a certain pub in 1986 celebrating the successful conviction of Jeremy Bamber. Where a contact of mine has sworn that Kelvin Mackenzie had a conversation with him where my contact said to KM "You know he didn't do it don't you?" KM, replied, "Of course we know the little shit didn't do it. It was the drugs gang he was associating with".
Now whether you do or do not believe what Kelvin Mackenzie said. The fact is he said it and he was partying with the coppers who were celebrating JB's conviction. Why would KM say those words? and why was he in close association with the police? Why was he saying something quite different to the official line. This contact of mine has sworn that this meeting took place.
This is what Grahame has to say. Then:
My contact swears that it is the truth. He was even scared to tell me. At the time he didn't even know who Jeremy Bamber was. I sent his signed statement to Simon McKay. What Simon McKay is going to do with it I don't know?
Have I missed something? Grahame's "contact" at first tells Kelvin that Bamber is obviously innocent then told Grahame he did not know who Jeremy was at the time!
-
Belton's talking bollocks as usual. A convenient "contact" who had never even heard of Bamber, yet was convinced that he was innocent?
Idiot. I hope McKenzie sues him.
-
I wonder if the former editor of the Sun Kelvin Mackenzie will also deny partying with the actual chief police officers at a certain pub in 1986 celebrating the successful conviction of Jeremy Bamber. Where a contact of mine has sworn that Kelvin Mackenzie had a conversation with him where my contact said to KM "You know he didn't do it don't you?" KM, replied, "Of course we know the little shit didn't do it. It was the drugs gang he was associating with".
Now whether you do or do not believe what Kelvin Mackenzie said. The fact is he said it and he was partying with the coppers who were celebrating JB's conviction. Why would KM say those words? and why was he in close association with the police? Why was he saying something quite different to the official line. This contact of mine has sworn that this meeting took place.
This is what Grahame has to say. Then:
My contact swears that it is the truth. He was even scared to tell me. At the time he didn't even know who Jeremy Bamber was. I sent his signed statement to Simon McKay. What Simon McKay is going to do with it I don't know?
Have I missed something? Grahame's "contact" at first tells Kelvin that Bamber is obviously innocent then told Grahame he did not know who Jeremy was at the time!
I haven't been following the blue forum lately, do you think Grahame is slightly confussed? @)(++(*
-
It's a good job he's not Pinocchio, he wouldn't be able to get near his computer.
-
Is Gladys bigging himself up yet again ... I remember a while back he personally "solved the Bamber case. Prove positive." It sounds like his goats have broken into his allotment again and ravaged his precious peas .... Gladys on the warpath with his famed Hammer Of Wrath or as Ken Dodd calls it his tickling stick!
Even his goats don't take him seriously!
-
Never forget that Jeremy Bamber is a psychopathic liar who can look you in the eye and convince you that he is innocent, because he has convinced himself.
-
Why didnt Bamber sue the sun when they ran the story about him trying to sell the pictures?
Is it because he knows damn well he DID try to sell? Bamber doesnt give a shit that his family are dead, hes a liar and a murderer. Thankfully he will DIE in a stinking cell.
-
Is Gladys bigging himself up yet again ... I remember a while back he personally "solved the Bamber case. Prove positive." It sounds like his goats have broken into his allotment again and ravaged his precious peas .... Gladys on the warpath with his famed Hammer Of Wrath or as Ken Dodd calls it his tickling stick!
Even his goats don't take him seriously!
Bullshitting backtracking Belton.
Not very credible, is he? @)(++(*
-
Never forget that Jeremy Bamber is a psychopathic liar who can look you in the eye and convince you that he is innocent, because he has convinced himself.
By returning to the cottage and phoning the police from there, Bamber gave himself an alibi and less reason for the police to suspect and investigate him.
-
Why didnt Bamber sue the sun when they ran the story about him trying to sell the pictures?
Is it because he knows damn well he DID try to sell? Bamber doesnt give a shit that his family are dead, hes a liar and a murderer. Thankfully he will DIE in a stinking cell.
The Sun wouldn't publish the pictures of Bambi for the same reason as no paper dared touch the last photos of Diana.
-
Why didnt Bamber sue the sun when they ran the story about him trying to sell the pictures?
Is it because he knows damn well he DID try to sell? Bamber doesnt give a shit that his family are dead, hes a liar and a murderer. Thankfully he will DIE in a stinking cell.
Bamber has had ample time to sue many people that have, according to him, lied and/or published against him. Not a squeak.
-
Why didnt Bamber sue the sun when they ran the story about him trying to sell the pictures?
Is it because he knows damn well he DID try to sell? Bamber doesnt give a shit that his family are dead, hes a liar and a murderer. Thankfully he will DIE in a stinking cell.
You have answered your own question PMSL. Jeremy knew that he and Collins had offered the photo's of Sheila to various Fleet St newspapers and each and every editor had declined them. The papers concerned also knew that there would be more public interest in the fact that Jeremy Bamber was hocking these photos than there would be in the actual photos.
The bottom line is he couldn't sue anyone for telling the truth.
-
Is Gladys bigging himself up yet again ... I remember a while back he personally "solved the Bamber case. Prove positive." It sounds like his goats have broken into his allotment again and ravaged his precious peas .... Gladys on the warpath with his famed Hammer Of Wrath or as Ken Dodd calls it his tickling stick!
Even his goats don't take him seriously!
It is noticeable that he invents stories when he is put in a corner. A bit like a spoilt 2 year old who has been naughty. Go sit in the naughty chair Grahame.
-
Never forget that Jeremy Bamber is a psychopathic liar who can look you in the eye and convince you that he is innocent, because he has convinced himself.
If he reads Tesko's forum, what must he think of comments made by the likes of "mertol" and "susan ingham"? How terrifying to be represented by such morons?
-
Never forget that Jeremy Bamber is a psychopathic liar who can look you in the eye and convince you that he is innocent, because he has convinced himself.
If he reads Tesko's forum, what must he think of comments made by the likes of "mertol" and "susan ingham"? How terrifying to be represented by such morons?
Not to mention the Desperate Housewives!
-
They're all expert psychologists over as well as detectives, experts on the Bamber and Eaton families to boot.
They now question if Fielder ever worked for the Sun, erm....yes he did, hence his statement to the cops. You couldnt make it up, but we know a forum that can 8(>((
-
Were JB and his friends heavily into drugs?
-
They did take drugs Abs, i think Bamber dealt aswell but dont quote me on that one because im not sure.
-
From what I have read Bamber used cannabis although his use was quite infrequent. He was also selling cannabis; incredibly his sold it by mail order, although not on any notably large scale.
In short, he seems to have had no compunction about using and selling drugs. Although financially, he received little benefit, he seems to have derived satisfaction in being considered a 'rogue' and the notion that he was getting away with it. ........................Speak volumes doesn't it?
-
Bamber also grew cannabis at WHF ... again not on a large scale. He smuggled drugs into the UK he bought in Amsterdam ... hiding them in toothpaste tubes. Also two of his friends stated he used cocaine.
I agree with the poster who said Bamber liked to be a rogue and buck the system and piss his family off at the sametime. He would work the tractor at WHF dressed in full New Romantic clothes and make up/nail varnish. I believe that's why Bamber worked at a Little Chef ... hardly an occupation expected of a privately educated son of wealthy, upper middleclass pillars of their community like Neville and June.
Bamber was and still is a narcissistic sociopath and I haven't a shadow of doubt he executed his whole family in cold blood. He loved all the attention afterwards including the trial because he never thought anyone could nail him for his crimes. How wrong he was! @)(++(*
If Bamber had been found not guilty I am sure he would have hinted and almost admitted his crimes knowing that (at that time) he could never have been tried again for the same crimes. No way would he have kept his 'evil genius' opinion of himself to himself!
If Simon McChancer's judicial review application fails I do wonder if Bamber will consider admitting his guilt? If he doesn't get a referal through the JR (some hope!) Bamber knows he is going to be dead and buried. It wouldn't shock me if he did finally admit to the murders just like Myra Hindley was forced to do after 20 plus years.
No doubt Tesco, Preece et al would find a myriad of excuses for their darling even if he did admit executing those poor kiddies!
-
I don´t consider cannabis use being heavily into drugs.
Just wondering about whether he and his friends were into something heavier. The behaviour might suggest that.
-
I've thought about this and though what I'd do in this position.
My first though would be anger/upset, why is my beautiful sisiter dead and want to rip them up or set fire to them.
My next thought was to keep them but cut them up but keep the 'head' bits, it's not really very right to keep nude pictures of your sister, I suppose you could keep them in a box or something just so you know you've got them.
Then I thought about photoshopping them somehow and put clothes on them but that wasn't available then.
To sell them make my stomach churn. Not only has he made his siter out to be a mentally deranged killer, now he wants to sell pictures of her with nothing on. This man gets sicker and then some.
-
Very perceptive Joanne. However much his apologists attempt to rationalise his behaviour these are the actions of a very deranged and sick personality.
-
I've thought about this and though what I'd do in this position.
My first though would be anger/upset, why is my beautiful sisiter dead and want to rip them up or set fire to them.
My next thought was to keep them but cut them up but keep the 'head' bits, it's not really very right to keep nude pictures of your sister, I suppose you could keep them in a box or something just so you know you've got them.
Then I thought about photoshopping them somehow and put clothes on them but that wasn't available then.
To sell them make my stomach churn. Not only has he made his siter out to be a mentally deranged killer, now he wants to sell pictures of her with nothing on. This man gets sicker and then some.
Absolutely. I think most people, in that situation, would very likely get rid of them.
I've known situations where people have cleaned an entire house before calling paramedics when they've found a relative dead through suicide, because they don't want them to turn up and think their relative is slovenly. They're desperate to preserve the memory of them as a good person.
-
I've thought about this and though what I'd do in this position.
My first though would be anger/upset, why is my beautiful sisiter dead and want to rip them up or set fire to them.
My next thought was to keep them but cut them up but keep the 'head' bits, it's not really very right to keep nude pictures of your sister, I suppose you could keep them in a box or something just so you know you've got them.
Then I thought about photoshopping them somehow and put clothes on them but that wasn't available then.
To sell them make my stomach churn. Not only has he made his siter out to be a mentally deranged killer, now he wants to sell pictures of her with nothing on. This man gets sicker and then some.
You may not know this Joanne but something happened between Jeremy and Sheila when he was a teenager, something so terrible that Jeremy told Julie Mugford of the event but couldn't bring himself to divulge what it was. Remember that Sheila was some years older than Jeremy and was parading him around her girlfriends at an impressionable age.
-
I can imagine Jeremy being a bit of a womanizer and I can imagine he could have had plenty of girfriends, he was good looking, had his own house, car and income, so he would be quite a catch but I get the impression he could be a bit of a git, probably having one girl in the front door while another leaves via the back. I hope this wasn't the case but I can't help feeling it'd be hard to resists for a young man.
-
I've thought about this and though what I'd do in this position.
My first though would be anger/upset, why is my beautiful sisiter dead and want to rip them up or set fire to them.
My next thought was to keep them but cut them up but keep the 'head' bits, it's not really very right to keep nude pictures of your sister, I suppose you could keep them in a box or something just so you know you've got them.
Then I thought about photoshopping them somehow and put clothes on them but that wasn't available then.
To sell them make my stomach churn. Not only has he made his siter out to be a mentally deranged killer, now he wants to sell pictures of her with nothing on. This man gets sicker and then some.
You may not know this Joanne but something happened between Jeremy and Sheila when he was a teenager, something so terrible that Jeremy told Julie Mugford of the event but couldn't bring himself to divulge what it was. Remember that Sheila was some years older than Jeremy and was parading him around her girlfriends at an impressionable age.
Do you believe that, John? I think that's the kind of thing that a very manipulative person would tell someone to get the pity vote. Saying that "something" happened, then leaving the other person to fill in the details in their head...
-
I've thought about this and though what I'd do in this position.
My first though would be anger/upset, why is my beautiful sisiter dead and want to rip them up or set fire to them.
My next thought was to keep them but cut them up but keep the 'head' bits, it's not really very right to keep nude pictures of your sister, I suppose you could keep them in a box or something just so you know you've got them.
Then I thought about photoshopping them somehow and put clothes on them but that wasn't available then.
To sell them make my stomach churn. Not only has he made his siter out to be a mentally deranged killer, now he wants to sell pictures of her with nothing on. This man gets sicker and then some.
You may not know this Joanne but something happened between Jeremy and Sheila when he was a teenager, something so terrible that Jeremy told Julie Mugford of the event but couldn't bring himself to divulge what it was. Remember that Sheila was some years older than Jeremy and was parading him around her girlfriends at an impressionable age.
Do you believe that, John? I think that's the kind of thing that a very manipulative person would tell someone to get the pity vote. Saying that "something" happened, then leaving the other person to fill in the details in their head...
I'm just pointing out that it is her statement. 8)--))
-
Gotcha. 8**8:/:
-
Gotcha. 8**8:/:
Gotcha back. 8)--))
-
A great thread. Many congratulations to Andrea on some sterling and very searching comments.
This aspect of the case is a strange one. It is quite damning for Bamber and his statements on how he related to his family. It shows Bamber at his callous and greedy best. This, I think next to the murders themselves really highlight what Jeremy Bamber was all about - selfishness, callousness and fathomless greed.
Thanks for highlighting this Andrea. It really puts into perspective the utter inhumanity that lay within this reptile of a man. 8@??)( 8((()*/
-
Bamber's silence on this subject speaks volumes in my humble opinion. He has pissed and moaned and tried to sue all his relatives at evry turn. He has condemned the Police, CPS, CCRC, the trial and appeal court judges and yet never mentioned a word about The Sun article and his quite disgusting attempt to sell those photos.
You can be damn sure if that was untrue he would have screamed it from the rooftops! Sicko!
-
What did happen to the pictures?
-
What did happen to the pictures?
Well, that's a damn good question! I seem to remember Colin Caffell ended up with them, but I might be making that up to be fair. Anyone know for sure?
-
What did happen to the pictures?
Well, that's a damn good question! I seem to remember Colin Caffell ended up with them, but I might be making that up to be fair. Anyone know for sure?
I have also heard that Colin got them - can´t be 100% sure though. I think he destroyed them.
-
What did happen to the pictures?
Well, that's a damn good question! I seem to remember Colin Caffell ended up with them, but I might be making that up to be fair. Anyone know for sure?
If you have Colin's book..., pages 93/94.
If you don't, in short Colin took most of of them from Sheila's flat, although Jeremy Bamber told him that the "famous ones" in her portfolio he held back at his Head Street house, Goldhanger.
Whether Colin got those back after Bamber's conviction, I've no idea.
-
8((()*/ Thank you
-
What did happen to the pictures?
Well, that's a damn good question! I seem to remember Colin Caffell ended up with them, but I might be making that up to be fair. Anyone know for sure?
If you have Colin's book..., pages 93/94.
If you don't, in short Colin took most of of them from Sheila's flat, although Jeremy Bamber told him that the "famous ones" in her portfolio he held back at his Head Street house, Goldhanger.
Whether Colin got those back after Bamber's conviction, I've no idea.
Thanks Myster. I hope he did get them back.
-
Thanks Adam, on blue. Bamber did try sell pictures of Sheila.
Fielder was willing to give evidence at the trial and tell the whole court that JB tried flogging pictures to The Sun.
-
The Sun's reputation along with its journos is almost as dodgy as JB's @)(++(*
- sister paper NoW closed down due to hacking
- senior bods at NoW currently on trial over hacking
- Hillsborough
and that's just what has come to light in the last year or so!!
Put it this way if, and its a bloody big if, JB's case ever gets back to CoA I don't think it will feature as new grounds for the prosecution. Well actually I'm not sure it could ever figure as new grounds anyway as I think it was known about at trial and my understanding is that its a use it or lose it situation?
-
Don't forget that it was Collins who tried to flog them to Fleet Street on behalf of Jeremy. 8(0(* The same Collins who disappeared just as quickly as he appeared the day after the murders. The perfect alibi but just close enough to return at a minutes notice to give support and ......
-
I thought EP checked out his alibi and he was able to prove by way of passport checks I guess that he was on holiday in Greece at the time of the murders.
He supported JB throughout his trial so must have either hung around until then or returned for the trial.
-
Bamber and his mate Brett collins had been rooting round Sheila flat loking for money and valuables to tide Bamber over until the wills were sorted out, they found nothing..except the nude pictures of sheila.
Jeremy and Brett discussed what they should do with their find, Bamber was certain the photographs would prove to be a little gold mine he needed to carry him over the next few months.
They decided the quickest and easiest way to make money from them would be to sell thm to a newspaper, Brett suggested the Sun. Brett already had dealings with one of its reporters. collins rang The sun and asked to speak to Michael Fielder, Fielder had folloewd the WHF story closely.
They arranged a meeting in the Nags Head Pub in Chelmsford.
The three met up and Fielder was amazed at the attitude of the young men "Collins and Bamber turned up and we had a few drinks and a snack" remembered Fielder. "They were sniggering and giggling together like a couple of schoolboys. i asked them about the photographs and Bamber said "oh, they are really good pictures of bambi-with the biggest vibrator you ever saw"
Fielder said "they gave me the impression that the pictures showed bambi doing things to herself with the vibrator, the two men were laughing and sharing in jokes".
But Bamber and Collins went further with their scandalous hints, according to the reporter. "They were trying to give me the impression that Bambi and jereny had been with each other. there was was loads of innuendo about Bamber and his involvment with her. it was all crude suggestiveness and snigger snigger.
the trio discussed the proposed sale for an hour. bamber was asking a price of £20,000 for about twenty topless and nude colour transparencies. "they show everything, right down to the last detail. Tehy are really good pictures" said jeremy. bamber also discussed the possibility of selling unpublished pictures of his parents and murdered nephews, Bamber said he would be looking for a substantial sum and would be prepared to sell his own life story.
Fielder said he was amazed at the complete callousness displayed by bamberand was keen to follow up this incredible turn of events to see where it led. bamber had not brought the photos with him so they made arrangments to meet at Sheilas Morshead mansions flat.
Fielder phoned the Sun and the Editor was of the opinion that Bamber trying to sell nude pictures of his dead sister appalling. he said "tell the b........ to stick his pictures". Editor told fielder to write a story of what bamber had tried to do, Filder id as the editor asked but thinks it was a mistake.Fielder wanted to go along with the pretence of buying them so that he could check they actually existed.
Fielders story on the attempted sale of the pictures by bamber appeared in the next edition of the sun. Discouraged by the failed attempt the pair never got intouch with the sun again.
Michael Fielder reflected on the episode " i have been in this job for 20 yrs and i have seen a lot of terrible crimes, but this one sent chills down my spine. it was really incredibly bad and bamber himself sent a shiver through me when i was talking to him. of course i knew the police wre sure he had done it so i went to the meeting with a certain view of him. i found it amazing that he could be so self assured, arrogant, not caring at all about what had happened.
By the way Fielder DID make a statement to the police about the episode, the police even asked Fielder if he would give evidence in court should he be needed.
Would be great to get hold of that statement. So anyone who says there is no evidence that bamber tried to sell his dead sisters private pictures, well now we know !!!
For a reporter of a national newspaper who’s dealt with the dregs if society to say what he did about jeremy Bamber should be a wake-up call to his bamberloons
He’s utterly disgusting
“Bamber and his mate Brett collins had been rooting round Sheila flat loking for money and valuables to tide Bamber over until the wills were sorted out, they found nothing..except the nude pictures of sheila.
Jeremy and Brett discussed what they should do with their find, Bamber was certain the photographs would prove to be a little gold mine he needed to carry him over the next few months.
They decided the quickest and easiest way to make money from them would be to sell thm to a newspaper, Brett suggested the Sun. Brett already had dealings with one of its reporters. collins rang The sun and asked to speak to Michael Fielder, Fielder had folloewd the WHF story closely.
They arranged a meeting in the Nags Head Pub in Chelmsford.
The three met up and Fielder was amazed at the attitude of the young men "Collins and Bamber turned up and we had a few drinks and a snack" remembered Fielder. "They were sniggering and giggling together like a couple of schoolboys. i asked them about the photographs and Bamber said "oh, they are really good pictures of bambi-with the biggest vibrator you ever saw"
Fielder said "they gave me the impression that the pictures showed bambi doing things to herself with the vibrator, the two men were laughing and sharing in jokes".
But Bamber and Collins went further with their scandalous hints, according to the reporter. "They were trying to give me the impression that Bambi and jereny had been with each other. there was was loads of innuendo about Bamber and his involvment with her. it was all crude suggestiveness and snigger snigger.
the trio discussed the proposed sale for an hour. bamber was asking a price of £20,000 for about twenty topless and nude colour transparencies. "they show everything, right down to the last detail. Tehy are really good pictures" said jeremy. bamber also discussed the possibility of selling unpublished pictures of his parents and murdered nephews, Bamber said he would be looking for a substantial sum and would be prepared to sell his own life story.
Fielder said he was amazed at the complete callousness displayed by bamberand was keen to follow up this incredible turn of events to see where it led. bamber had not brought the photos with him so they made arrangments to meet at Sheilas Morshead mansions flat.
Fielder phoned the Sun and the Editor was of the opinion that Bamber trying to sell nude pictures of his dead sister appalling. he said "tell the b........ to stick his pictures". Editor told fielder to write a story of what bamber had tried to do, Filder id as the editor asked but thinks it was a mistake.Fielder wanted to go along with the pretence of buying them so that he could check they actually existed.
Fielders story on the attempted sale of the pictures by bamber appeared in the next edition of the sun. Discouraged by the failed attempt the pair never got intouch with the sun again.
Michael Fielder reflected on the episode " i have been in this job for 20 yrs and i have seen a lot of terrible crimes, but this one sent chills down my spine. it was really incredibly bad and bamber himself sent a shiver through me when i was talking to him. of course i knew the police wre sure he had done it so i went to the meeting with a certain view of him. i found it amazing that he could be so self assured, arrogant, not caring at all about what had happened.“
-
Would be great to get hold of that statement. So anyone who says there is no evidence that bamber tried to sell his dead sisters private pictures, well now we know !!!
Michael Fielders statement doesn’t appear to be on the list of statements Bamber’s supporters are saying they’ve not had - so it must have been disclosed
-
Michael Fielders statement doesn’t appear to be on the list of statements Bamber’s supporters are saying they’ve not had - so it must have been disclosed
Michael Fielder was prepared to go to court to testify
There’s also a video of him on YouTube where he speaks about meeting the pair in a pub, and how weird Jeremy was; giggling, sniggering, being course...going into great detail about the photos.
MF took notes of what Jeremy and Brett, its all there in black and white
JB’s supporters can’t bear to mention it, so they pretend it never happened. There has to be something amiss with them to not accept what’s there in front of their eyes.
-
Michael Fielders statement doesn’t appear to be on the list of statements Bamber’s supporters are saying they’ve not had - so it must have been disclosed
Fancy questioning a story printed by the Guardian but believing a story put about by the Sun. Fielder wrote 'The tart of Gib' headline following Operation Flavius as I recall, which cost the Sun dear.
http://www.dmiller.info/images/docs/miller-media%20on%20the%20rock-1991_ed.pdf
-
Fancy questioning a story printed by the Guardian but believing a story put about by the Sun. Fielder wrote 'The tart of Gib' headline following Operation Flavius as I recall, which cost the Sun dear.
http://www.dmiller.info/images/docs/miller-media%20on%20the%20rock-1991_ed.pdf
How much did it cost the Sun over their stories of Bamber and the photos of his sister?
-
How much did it cost the Sun over their stories of Bamber and the photos of his sister?
Was he sued or was Bamber tied up with other matters?
-
How much did it cost the Sun over their stories of Bamber and the photos of his sister?
You’ve been told....this did not happen!
We’re going over things that have been made up to discredit and destroy any credibility or compassion for this man.
He NEVER took naked photos of Sheila to the paper and he was disgusted to hear them even suggesting they wanted some.
He sold no naked photos of her at all and would not have.
-
You’ve been told....this did not happen!
We’re going over things that have been made up to discredit and destroy any credibility or compassion for this man.
He NEVER took naked photos of Sheila to the paper and he was disgusted to hear them even suggesting they wanted some.
He sold no naked photos of her at all and would not have.
No YOU have been told it didn’t happen
Based on the entirety of the evidence and Bamber’s character I believe it did happen
-
You’ve been told....this did not happen!
We’re going over things that have been made up to discredit and destroy any credibility or compassion for this man.
He NEVER took naked photos of Sheila to the paper and he was disgusted to hear them even suggesting they wanted some.
He sold no naked photos of her at all and would not have.
If he told you he didn't do this AA, he lied - Colin backs up this story and I believe Colin. He even used the same words to Colin as he did to Fielder.
-
Was he sued or was Bamber tied up with other matters?
Don’t make me laugh
He’d have JUMPED on that in a flash!
He hid himself away, and you know it
-
You’ve been told....this did not happen!
We’re going over things that have been made up to discredit and destroy any credibility or compassion for this man.
He NEVER took naked photos of Sheila to the paper and he was disgusted to hear them even suggesting they wanted some.
He sold no naked photos of her at all and would not have.
You’ve been brainwashed
I find it scary, to be honest
-
No YOU have been told it didn’t happen
Based on the entirety of the evidence and Bamber’s character I believe it did happen
The evidence it happened is in black and white 😳
-
If he told you he didn't do this AA, he lied - Colin backs up this story and I believe Colin. He even used the same words to Colin as he did to Fielder.
Fielder didn’t lie, either
This is ridiculous
-
No YOU have been told it didn’t happen
Based on the entirety of the evidence and Bamber’s character I believe it did happen
Yes, I was told first hand by Bamber it did not happen. He was disgusted and upset by the suggestion.
You however, heard yours from Brett Collins, a proven liar for which I have evidence, then spouted out by the media, another proven liar for which we ALL have evidence...that lies consistently. Coronavirus being one huge example..but I digress.
Your beliefs and suggestions are based solely upon Chinese whispers and you know how they work.
-
Yes, I was told first hand by Bamber it did not happen. He was disgusted and upset by the suggestion.
You however, heard yours from Brett Collins, a proven liar for which I have evidence, then spouted out by the media, another proven liar for which we ALL have evidence...that lies consistently. Coronavirus being one huge example..but I digress.
Your beliefs and suggestions are based solely upon Chinese whispers and you know how they work.
No Aunt Agatha
As I already stated
Based on the entirety of the evidence and Bamber’s character I believe it did happen
It is you who appears to have been taken in by ‘Chinese whispers’ and Bamber’s lies
-
Yes, I was told first hand by Bamber it did not happen. He was disgusted and upset by the suggestion.
You however, heard yours from Brett Collins, a proven liar for which I have evidence, then spouted out by the media, another proven liar for which we ALL have evidence...that lies consistently. Coronavirus being one huge example..but I digress.
Your beliefs and suggestions are based solely upon Chinese whispers and you know how they work.
Actually, Colin backs up this story, Jeremy gloated to him about the photographs.
-
You’ve been brainwashed
I find it scary, to be honest
Have you thought of speaking to someone about it?
You’re the scary one on here.
You have gleaned information first hand, like I have. And I can see that in your posts quite clearly.
You’ve been told the truth about the cover up haven’t you Ispy....and you’ve also been told the lies, which you have stated here (I think you slipped Up) .
The others cannot see it, well one Other person in particular now can, and you’re part of the continued cover up.
I recognise first hand information Ispy....everyone else on here is working from statements and heresay....you’re not are you?
I don’t think you were on the jury, even though you have stated you were on jury service in Chelmsford, I don’t think it’s regarding this case.
No, your posts are emotionally connected to this case, as are mine, and I can see you and your tactics very clearly.
If what I’m stating is true, you’re in deep waters if ever you’re unmasked Ispy. May I suggest you be very careful in the game you’re playing....maybe it’s not a game to you. You are rather serious about this aren’t you?
I notice you’ve reined yourself in...I don’t know whether that’s because you’ve received a warning from admin, as I have, or because you need to take stock of yourself and ensure you don’t blow your cover.
You know what happened don’t you?
A man is rotting away in prison, he’s being left there to die and you know there was a cover up.
God help you when your days of judgement come.
You can do the right thing Ispy....not yet maybe.
Think about it? Please.
-
Yes, I was told first hand by Bamber it did not happen. He was disgusted and upset by the suggestion.
Was this over the phone or face to face?
-
No, your posts are emotionally connected to this case, as are mine, and I can see you and your tactics very clearly.
Many of your posts appear emotionally unconnected AA
-
You’re the scary one on here.
You have gleaned information first hand, like I have. And I can see that in your posts quite clearly.
You’ve been told the truth about the cover up haven’t you Ispy....and you’ve also been told the lies, which you have stated here (I think you slipped Up) .
The others cannot see it, well one Other person in particular now can, and you’re part of the continued cover up.
I recognise first hand information Ispy....everyone else on here is working from statements and heresay....you’re not are you?
I don’t think you were on the jury, even though you have stated you were on jury service in Chelmsford, I don’t think it’s regarding this case.
No, your posts are emotionally connected to this case, as are mine, and I can see you and your tactics very clearly.
If what I’m stating is true, you’re in deep waters if ever you’re unmasked Ispy. May I suggest you be very careful in the game you’re playing....maybe it’s not a game to you. You are rather serious about this aren’t you?
I notice you’ve reined yourself in...I don’t know whether that’s because you’ve received a warning from admin, as I have, or because you need to take stock of yourself and ensure you don’t blow your cover.
You know what happened don’t you?
A man is rotting away in prison, he’s being left there to die and you know there was a cover up.
God help you when your days of judgement come.
You can do the right thing Ispy....not yet maybe.
Think about it? Please.
You don’t AA - you see what you want to see
Just as don’t don’t recognise Bamber’s abusive nature
-
Did Bamber ever talk to you about the ‘spots’ on his genitals AA ?
I'm trying to figure out Julie's diary entry for Jan. 2nd (yes, I know it wasn't written then) where she refers to Jeremy having Thrush in the mouth, spots on his middle wicket, lumps etc., cancers.... arrrgh!, and then a side reference to Sue Ford.
What was that all about.... was she having a dig at Suzette for giving him all those infections ?
-
You’re the scary one on here.
You have gleaned information first hand, like I have. And I can see that in your posts quite clearly.
You’ve been told the truth about the cover up haven’t you Ispy....and you’ve also been told the lies, which you have stated here (I think you slipped Up) .
The others cannot see it, well one Other person in particular now can, and you’re part of the continued cover up.
I recognise first hand information Ispy....everyone else on here is working from statements and heresay....you’re not are you?
I don’t think you were on the jury, even though you have stated you were on jury service in Chelmsford, I don’t think it’s regarding this case.
No, your posts are emotionally connected to this case, as are mine, and I can see you and your tactics very clearly.
If what I’m stating is true, you’re in deep waters if ever you’re unmasked Ispy. May I suggest you be very careful in the game you’re playing....maybe it’s not a game to you. You are rather serious about this aren’t you?
I notice you’ve reined yourself in...I don’t know whether that’s because you’ve received a warning from admin, as I have, or because you need to take stock of yourself and ensure you don’t blow your cover.
You know what happened don’t you?
A man is rotting away in prison, he’s being left there to die and you know there was a cover up.
God help you when your days of judgement come.
You can do the right thing Ispy....not yet maybe.
Think about it? Please.
In the event it was missed. This was in reply to Ispy showing concern that I may be strange, with my views and beliefs.
Nicholas, this is not directed at you. Don’t waste your time or mine expecting me to reply to you.
-
You’re the scary one on here.
You have gleaned information first hand, like I have. And I can see that in your posts quite clearly.
You’ve been told the truth about the cover up haven’t you Ispy....and you’ve also been told the lies, which you have stated here (I think you slipped Up) .
The others cannot see it, well one Other person in particular now can, and you’re part of the continued cover up.
I recognise first hand information Ispy....everyone else on here is working from statements and heresay....you’re not are you?
I don’t think you were on the jury, even though you have stated you were on jury service in Chelmsford, I don’t think it’s regarding this case.
No, your posts are emotionally connected to this case, as are mine, and I can see you and your tactics very clearly.
If what I’m stating is true, you’re in deep waters if ever you’re unmasked Ispy. May I suggest you be very careful in the game you’re playing....maybe it’s not a game to you. You are rather serious about this aren’t you?
I notice you’ve reined yourself in...I don’t know whether that’s because you’ve received a warning from admin, as I have, or because you need to take stock of yourself and ensure you don’t blow your cover.
You know what happened don’t you?
A man is rotting away in prison, he’s being left there to die and you know there was a cover up.
God help you when your days of judgement come.
You can do the right thing Ispy....not yet maybe.
Think about it? Please.
You don’t appear to have ‘gleaned‘ any information firsthand AA
It all comes across as one-sided bias
You’ve even stated you won’t read Julies witness statements
-
For you Aunt Agatha
Did Bamber ever talk to you about the ‘spots’ on his genitals AA ?
I'm trying to figure out Julie's diary entry for Jan. 2nd (yes, I know it wasn't written then) where she refers to Jeremy having Thrush in the mouth, spots on his middle wicket, lumps etc., cancers.... arrrgh!, and then a side reference to Sue Ford.
What was that all about.... was she having a dig at Suzette for giving him all those infections ?
In case it was missed
-
This was in reply to Ispy showing concern that I may be strange, with my views and beliefs.
Did Bamber still have spots on his genitals when you started seeing him AA ?
Do you think it was a wise choice to make Bamber godfather to your sons ?
-
If what I’m stating is true, you’re in deep waters if ever you’re unmasked Ispy. May I suggest you be very careful in the game you’re playing....
Why are you making these threats AA ?
Is this what happened to you and why you ‘unmasked’ yourself and went to the police - twice ?
-
Why are you making these threats AA ?
Is this what happened to you and why you ‘unmasked’ yourself and went to the police - twice ?
It’s Ispywithmybigeye choice to use a pseudonym on the forum Aunt Agatha and they are entitled to the right of a private life
Threatening them as you appear to be doing won’t help your cause
you’re in deep waters if ever you’re unmasked Ispy. May I suggest you be very careful in the game you’re playing....
-
Talking of The Sun and nudity I'm going to get some rays on my prized assets (&^&
Back when it clouds over. Caio.
-
Don’t make me laugh
He’d have JUMPED on that in a flash!
He hid himself away, and you know it
You seem to think you know everything, which I find unconvincing. Especially as you have misread me so completely.
-
Bamber and his mate Brett collins had been rooting round Sheila flat loking for money and valuables to tide Bamber over until the wills were sorted out, they found nothing..except the nude pictures of sheila.
Jeremy and Brett discussed what they should do with their find, Bamber was certain the photographs would prove to be a little gold mine he needed to carry him over the next few months.
They decided the quickest and easiest way to make money from them would be to sell thm to a newspaper, Brett suggested the Sun. Brett already had dealings with one of its reporters. collins rang The sun and asked to speak to Michael Fielder, Fielder had folloewd the WHF story closely.
They arranged a meeting in the Nags Head Pub in Chelmsford.
The three met up and Fielder was amazed at the attitude of the young men "Collins and Bamber turned up and we had a few drinks and a snack" remembered Fielder. "They were sniggering and giggling together like a couple of schoolboys. i asked them about the photographs and Bamber said "oh, they are really good pictures of bambi-with the biggest vibrator you ever saw"
Fielder said "they gave me the impression that the pictures showed bambi doing things to herself with the vibrator, the two men were laughing and sharing in jokes".
But Bamber and Collins went further with their scandalous hints, according to the reporter. "They were trying to give me the impression that Bambi and jereny had been with each other. there was was loads of innuendo about Bamber and his involvment with her. it was all crude suggestiveness and snigger snigger.
the trio discussed the proposed sale for an hour. bamber was asking a price of £20,000 for about twenty topless and nude colour transparencies. "they show everything, right down to the last detail. Tehy are really good pictures" said jeremy. bamber also discussed the possibility of selling unpublished pictures of his parents and murdered nephews, Bamber said he would be looking for a substantial sum and would be prepared to sell his own life story.
Fielder said he was amazed at the complete callousness displayed by bamberand was keen to follow up this incredible turn of events to see where it led. bamber had not brought the photos with him so they made arrangments to meet at Sheilas Morshead mansions flat.
Fielder phoned the Sun and the Editor was of the opinion that Bamber trying to sell nude pictures of his dead sister appalling. he said "tell the b........ to stick his pictures". Editor told fielder to write a story of what bamber had tried to do, Filder id as the editor asked but thinks it was a mistake.Fielder wanted to go along with the pretence of buying them so that he could check they actually existed.
Fielders story on the attempted sale of the pictures by bamber appeared in the next edition of the sun. Discouraged by the failed attempt the pair never got intouch with the sun again.
Michael Fielder reflected on the episode " i have been in this job for 20 yrs and i have seen a lot of terrible crimes, but this one sent chills down my spine. it was really incredibly bad and bamber himself sent a shiver through me when i was talking to him. of course i knew the police wre sure he had done it so i went to the meeting with a certain view of him. i found it amazing that he could be so self assured, arrogant, not caring at all about what had happened.
By the way Fielder DID make a statement to the police about the episode, the police even asked Fielder if he would give evidence in court should he be needed.
Would be great to get hold of that statement. So anyone who says there is no evidence that bamber tried to sell his dead sisters private pictures, well now we know !!!
I think you need to read the opening post AA before making a fool of yourself by posting untruths.
Bamber has obviously played you for one!
-
It is disappointing to note that despite numerous warnings, some members continue to use crude and totally uncalled-for language when responding to other members. This will no longer be allowed to continue.
I have instructed the moderation team to clamp down heavily on rule breakers from now on.
There will be no exceptions!
-
I think you need to read the opening post AA before making a fool of yourself by posting untruths.
Bamber has obviously played you for one!
Please! This is by reporters looking for a scoop!
Give people some credit.
-
Please! This is by reporters looking for a scoop!
Give people some credit.
AA, the photographs existed and were show to Colin BY Jeremy. If you don't believe The Sun, that's find but it's Colin who said that the words reported by Michael Fielder were the SAME as was used to him by Bamber when he showed him (Colin) the nude pictures of Sheila - "You can see everything right down to the last detail".
-
Please! This is by reporters looking for a scoop!
Give people some credit.
Who told the Sun these photos even existed?
-
AA, the photographs existed and were show to Colin BY Jeremy. If you don't believe The Sun, that's find but it's Colin who said that the words reported by Michael Fielder were the SAME as was used to him by Bamber when he showed him (Colin) the nude pictures of Sheila - "You can see everything right down to the last detail".
Photos existed, I do not dispute that.
I’m stating that Jeremy did not offer to sell the photos to the newspaper.
They requested photos, he refused.
Had he not refused, the pictures would be in the public domain somewhere...but I haven’t seen any yet, but I could be wrong.
-
Photos existed, I do not dispute that.
How do you know ?
-
How do you know ?
I don’t know, I’m saying I don’t dispute it if you guys are saying there def is.
-
Photos existed, I do not dispute that.
I’m stating that Jeremy did not offer to sell the photos to the newspaper.
They requested photos, he refused.
Had he not refused, the pictures would be in the public domain somewhere...but I haven’t seen any yet, but I could be wrong.
how did the Sun know nude photos existed?
-
You’re all telling me about the photos and Colin ‘s seen them or something...or Brett whatever,
I’m stating Jeremy denied ever trying to sell any nude photos to a newspaper. They asked for some. He said no.
Now if you are telling me that photos do exist, I cannot say otherwise, because I haven’t seen them nor was I told that any did exist.
I hope that clears that up.
-
how did the Sun know nude photos existed?
I have no idea....people do a lot of guessing on here.
I’m guessing right now...I guess with her being a model they might have asked him if there were any. All I know is they asked for them, he said no!
-
You’re all telling me about the photos and Colin ‘s seen them or something...or Brett whatever,
I’m stating Jeremy denied ever trying to sell any nude photos to a newspaper. They asked for some. He said no.
Now if you are telling me that photos do exist, I cannot say otherwise, because I haven’t seen them nor was I told that any did exist.
I hope that clears that up.
It seems that your Jeremy denies many things, including the one most sane people believe in... that he killed his entire close family...
From "Murders at White House Farm" by Carol Ann Lee...
"On Monday 16 September, Jeremy and Brett lunched in a Chelmsford pub with Sun journalist Michael Fielder. Brett had met Fielder the previous week, when he rang the newspaper to offer them a story on Jeremy in return for a lift back to Chelmsford. ‘Bambi Police Blaming My Pal Jeremy’ had appeared in Friday’s paper. Fielder later gave a detailed account of their Monday meeting, stating that Jeremy wanted £20,000 for twenty nude photographs of Sheila and a large fee for his life story. Fielder agreed to view the photographs at Morshead Mansions but his editor vetoed it, sensing that a story about Jeremy’s attempts to sell the photographs would make for more explosive headlines than explicit shots they couldn’t publish anyway. The Sun ran the piece the following day, telling its readers: ‘The brother of farmhouse massacre model Bambi Caffell was trying to cash in on the horror yesterday – by peddling soft-porn pictures of her. Smiling Jeremy Bamber, 24, offered topless and full frontal nude pictures of Bambi for “a substantial sum.”’ Jeremy was quoted as saying, ‘Unless the offer is really good, I’m not interested.’
An affiliate website to Jeremy’s campaign pages today denounces Fielder’s account, insisting that Jeremy met the Sun reporter against his better judgment and that Fielder repeatedly pressed for any nude shots of Sheila which were ‘never obtained’ because ‘they didn’t exist’. But Sheila’s friend has spoken at length about helping her prepare for the photo session, and Colin saw the resulting slides for himself, discussing them both in his witness statements and his memoir. He recalls that Jeremy’s description of the photographs to Fielder – ‘They show everything, right down to the last detail’ – was identical to the words Jeremy had used to him.
The Evening Standard ran a follow up story that day, after one of their journalists spoke to Jeremy at Sheila’s flat. Peter Gruner recalled that Jeremy hadn’t denied the Sun’s claims, responding, ‘That is interesting, but I have yet to read the papers today,’ although he did confirm, ‘I want a lot of money for my story, about £100,000. I think newspapers tend to make up stories about me.’ Colin saw the headlines in Cornwall only moments after posting a letter to Jeremy in which he expressed concern about the photographs. He immediately wrote a second letter expressing anger that Jeremy had tried to sell the images. He then regretted it, fearing he had placed himself in danger."
-
It seems that your Jeremy denies many things, including the one most sane people believe in... that he killed his entire close family...
From "Murders at White House Farm" by Carol Ann Lee...
"On Monday 16 September, Jeremy and Brett lunched in a Chelmsford pub with Sun journalist Michael Fielder. Brett had met Fielder the previous week, when he rang the newspaper to offer them a story on Jeremy in return for a lift back to Chelmsford. ‘Bambi Police Blaming My Pal Jeremy’ had appeared in Friday’s paper. Fielder later gave a detailed account of their Monday meeting, stating that Jeremy wanted £20,000 for twenty nude photographs of Sheila and a large fee for his life story. Fielder agreed to view the photographs at Morshead Mansions but his editor vetoed it, sensing that a story about Jeremy’s attempts to sell the photographs would make for more explosive headlines than explicit shots they couldn’t publish anyway. The Sun ran the piece the following day, telling its readers: ‘The brother of farmhouse massacre model Bambi Caffell was trying to cash in on the horror yesterday – by peddling soft-porn pictures of her. Smiling Jeremy Bamber, 24, offered topless and full frontal nude pictures of Bambi for “a substantial sum.”’ Jeremy was quoted as saying, ‘Unless the offer is really good, I’m not interested.’
An affiliate website to Jeremy’s campaign pages today denounces Fielder’s account, insisting that Jeremy met the Sun reporter against his better judgment and that Fielder repeatedly pressed for any nude shots of Sheila which were ‘never obtained’ because ‘they didn’t exist’. But Sheila’s friend has spoken at length about helping her prepare for the photo session, and Colin saw the resulting slides for himself, discussing them both in his witness statements and his memoir. He recalls that Jeremy’s description of the photographs to Fielder – ‘They show everything, right down to the last detail’ – was identical to the words Jeremy had used to him.
The Evening Standard ran a follow up story that day, after one of their journalists spoke to Jeremy at Sheila’s flat. Peter Gruner recalled that Jeremy hadn’t denied the Sun’s claims, responding, ‘That is interesting, but I have yet to read the papers today,’ although he did confirm, ‘I want a lot of money for my story, about £100,000. I think newspapers tend to make up stories about me.’ Colin saw the headlines in Cornwall only moments after posting a letter to Jeremy in which he expressed concern about the photographs. He immediately wrote a second letter expressing anger that Jeremy had tried to sell the images. He then regretted it, fearing he had placed himself in danger."
Hm---excuse me, Myster. I am a perfectly sane person, and I am not sure that Jeremy Bamber murdered his family!
-
I have no idea....people do a lot of guessing on here.
I’m guessing right now...I guess with her being a model they might have asked him if there were any. All I know is they asked for them, he said no!
They wouldn't know he had then AA and it's too much of a coinicidence that just days before the article, he told Colin he had the pictures and used the same words that appeared in The Sun.
-
I thought EP checked out his alibi and he was able to prove by way of passport checks I guess that he was on holiday in Greece at the time of the murders.
He supported JB throughout his trial so must have either hung around until then or returned for the trial.
Brett Colin’s only went to Greece for a fortnight — and was back well before time for the funerals.
You also know full well he went to live with Jeremy in Sheila’s flat in Maida Vale just days after Jeremy killed them all.
And you also know that Brett and Jeremy tried to hawk Sheila’s photos around Fleet Street.
So why are you making “inferences” Brett wasn’t around when you know he was?
Oh, and Brett DID leave the UK before the trial, so he was hardly supporting him!
In later interviews Brett said he knew deep down Jeremy had murdered them, but didn’t “want” to believe it. Once Brett accepted Jeremy was a mass murderer he cleared off back to NZ — he realised what Jeremy was and still hates him to this day,
-
I have no idea....people do a lot of guessing on here.
I’m guessing right now...I guess with her being a model they might have asked him if there were any. All I know is they asked for them, he said no!
So they didn’t know there were any nude photos, and asked Jeremy on the off chance that there were some and Jeremy said “yes coincidentally there are but you’re not having them?”. And you believe this simply because you believe everything Jeremy tells you is the God’s Honest Truth?
-
Photos existed, I do not dispute that.
I’m stating that Jeremy did not offer to sell the photos to the newspaper.
They requested photos, he refused.
Had he not refused, the pictures would be in the public domain somewhere...but I haven’t seen any yet, but I could be wrong.
He did offer to sell them, why do you think he agreed to meet Fielder in the pub? Fielder didn't buy them, instead they wrote the article about Jeremy trying to sell them. The Sun wouldn't have been able to print them anyway, and that's possibly why they turned them down but that aside, the fact remains that Jeremy DID try to sell them.
-
You’re the scary one on here.
You have gleaned information first hand, like I have. And I can see that in your posts quite clearly.
You’ve been told the truth about the cover up haven’t you Ispy....and you’ve also been told the lies, which you have stated here (I think you slipped Up) .
The others cannot see it, well one Other person in particular now can, and you’re part of the continued cover up.
I recognise first hand information Ispy....everyone else on here is working from statements and heresay....you’re not are you?
I don’t think you were on the jury, even though you have stated you were on jury service in Chelmsford, I don’t think it’s regarding this case.
No, your posts are emotionally connected to this case, as are mine, and I can see you and your tactics very clearly.
If what I’m stating is true, you’re in deep waters if ever you’re unmasked Ispy. May I suggest you be very careful in the game you’re playing....maybe it’s not a game to you. You are rather serious about this aren’t you?
I notice you’ve reined yourself in...I don’t know whether that’s because you’ve received a warning from admin, as I have, or because you need to take stock of yourself and ensure you don’t blow your cover.
You know what happened don’t you?
A man is rotting away in prison, he’s being left there to die and you know there was a cover up.
God help you when your days of judgement come.
You can do the right thing Ispy....not yet maybe.
Think about it? Please.
I must have sunstroke, because I don’t understand a word you’re saying 😂
I’ve never been on jury service in Chelmsford — whatever put THAT thought into your head?
I have NO connection with Jeremy Bamber and never have. Nor the family, and neither EP.
I don’t know what your problem is, but you sound terribly confused ...I don’t think you’re well, Agatha. You should see your GP if you’re having delusions and becoming paranoid. I don’t mean that rudely, I’m concerned for you.
-
It seems that your Jeremy denies many things, including the one most sane people believe in... that he killed his entire close family...
From "Murders at White House Farm" by Carol Ann Lee...
"On Monday 16 September, Jeremy and Brett lunched in a Chelmsford pub with Sun journalist Michael Fielder. Brett had met Fielder the previous week, when he rang the newspaper to offer them a story on Jeremy in return for a lift back to Chelmsford. ‘Bambi Police Blaming My Pal Jeremy’ had appeared in Friday’s paper. Fielder later gave a detailed account of their Monday meeting, stating that Jeremy wanted £20,000 for twenty nude photographs of Sheila and a large fee for his life story. Fielder agreed to view the photographs at Morshead Mansions but his editor vetoed it, sensing that a story about Jeremy’s attempts to sell the photographs would make for more explosive headlines than explicit shots they couldn’t publish anyway. The Sun ran the piece the following day, telling its readers: ‘The brother of farmhouse massacre model Bambi Caffell was trying to cash in on the horror yesterday – by peddling soft-porn pictures of her. Smiling Jeremy Bamber, 24, offered topless and full frontal nude pictures of Bambi for “a substantial sum.”’ Jeremy was quoted as saying, ‘Unless the offer is really good, I’m not interested.’
An affiliate website to Jeremy’s campaign pages today denounces Fielder’s account, insisting that Jeremy met the Sun reporter against his better judgment and that Fielder repeatedly pressed for any nude shots of Sheila which were ‘never obtained’ because ‘they didn’t exist’. But Sheila’s friend has spoken at length about helping her prepare for the photo session, and Colin saw the resulting slides for himself, discussing them both in his witness statements and his memoir. He recalls that Jeremy’s description of the photographs to Fielder – ‘They show everything, right down to the last detail’ – was identical to the words Jeremy had used to him.
The Evening Standard ran a follow up story that day, after one of their journalists spoke to Jeremy at Sheila’s flat. Peter Gruner recalled that Jeremy hadn’t denied the Sun’s claims, responding, ‘That is interesting, but I have yet to read the papers today,’ although he did confirm, ‘I want a lot of money for my story, about £100,000. I think newspapers tend to make up stories about me.’ Colin saw the headlines in Cornwall only moments after posting a letter to Jeremy in which he expressed concern about the photographs. He immediately wrote a second letter expressing anger that Jeremy had tried to sell the images. He then regretted it, fearing he had placed himself in danger."
He’s not ‘my Jeremy’.
-
Hm---excuse me, Myster. I am a perfectly sane person, and I am not sure that Jeremy Bamber murdered his family!
Remind me to sharpen the points on that picket fence you're still sitting on!
-
They wouldn't know he had then AA and it's too much of a coinicidence that just days before the article, he told Colin he had the pictures and used the same words that appeared in The Sun.
I have no idea. Was anybody else around at the time to witness these conversations?
-
To be perfectly correct I suppose one could argue that Jeremy didn't sell any of the semi nude photos of Sheila to the Sun or any other newspaper but it didn't stop him trying while using Brett Collins as a go-between.
Bamber and his pal Brett Collins tried to flog nude pictures of his murdered sister Sheila Caffell around Fleet Street in London for a substantial sum before he was arrested. His friend Brett Collins approached several newspapers on his behalf but every one declined the offer. The Evening Times printed an article shortly thereafter referring to the offer which they felt was in rather poor taste and certainly newsworthy in itself given the circumstances.
Evening Times Article - Tuesday 28 October 1986
(http://i.imgur.com/HqBg3.jpg)
To read full article click here (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cd1AAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6qYMAAAAIBAJ&dq=brett%20collins%20bamber&pg=5839%2C6644530)
-
So they didn’t know there were any nude photos, and asked Jeremy on the off chance that there were some and Jeremy said “yes coincidentally there are but you’re not having them?”. And you believe this simply because you believe everything Jeremy tells you is the God’s Honest Truth?
Wasn’t Brett around?
-
Brett Colin’s only went to Greece for a fortnight — and was back well before time for the funerals.
You also know full well he went to live with Jeremy in Sheila’s flat in Maida Vale just days after Jeremy killed them all.
And you also know that Brett and Jeremy tried to hawk Sheila’s photos around Fleet Street.
So why are you making “inferences” Brett wasn’t around when you know he was?
Oh, and Brett DID leave the UK before the trial, so he was hardly supporting him!
In later interviews Brett said he knew deep down Jeremy had murdered them, but didn’t “want” to believe it. Once Brett accepted Jeremy was a mass murderer he cleared off back to NZ — he realised what Jeremy was and still hates him to this day,
Why has Holly posted what she has
I thought EP checked out his alibi and he was able to prove by way of passport checks I guess that he was on holiday in Greece at the time of the murders.
He supported JB throughout his trial so must have either hung around until then or returned for the trial.
Brett Collins went back to NZ in November 1985
The photos of Angela Greaves and Brett Collins are from October 1985 NOT 86
https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/mr-brett-collins-and-angela-greaves-the-29-year-old-news-photo/830974720
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/angela-greaves-a-former-girlfriend-of-farmer-jeremy-bamber-news-photo/808134644
-
I have no idea. Was anybody else around at the time to witness these conversations?
AA, why would Colin lie? Colin is a true victim in this and he supported Jeremy after the murders until he began to see the mask slip. Colin had no time for the family and even he realised that something was wrong with the way Jeremy was behaving - in the end. Between the two, I would believe Colin every time.
-
He did offer to sell them, why do you think he agreed to meet Fielder in the pub? Fielder didn't buy them, instead they wrote the article about Jeremy trying to sell them. The Sun wouldn't have been able to print them anyway, and that's possibly why they turned them down but that aside, the fact remains that Jeremy DID try to sell them.
Then it’s jeremys word, who was to be the one who supposedly tried to sell them, or yours.....which you read in a newspaper.
Caroline, I asked him about the photos, he refused to sell any nude, or half nude or that kind of photo to the newspapers.
I cannot recall now if he did try to give family photos, but I know they weren’t interested in anything he had and did not purchase anything from him.
Now, on the other hand if Brett was privy to all these conversations and knew about nude photos why would it be inconceivable for Brett to inform the newspapers of such photos, but on attendance Jeremy blankly refused to sell any.
If that’s the case, you’re pointing your finger at the wrong man.
The meeting did go ahead, but what Brett told the paper before they turned up, I have no idea....and I didn’t ask him tbh.
-
Then it’s jeremys word, who was to be the one who supposedly tried to sell them, or yours.....which you read in a newspaper.
Caroline, I asked him about the photos, he refused to sell any nude, or half nude or that kind of photo to the newspapers.
I cannot recall now if he did try to give family photos, but I know they weren’t interested in anything he had and did not purchase anything from him.
Now, on the other hand if Brett was privy to all these conversations and knew about nude photos why would it be inconceivable for Brett to inform the newspapers of such photos, but on attendance Jeremy blankly refused to sell any.
If that’s the case, you’re pointing your finger at the wrong man.
The meeting did go ahead, but what Brett told the paper before they turned up, I have no idea....and I didn’t ask him tbh.
How do you know the meeting went ahead AA ?
-
AA, why would Colin lie? Colin is a true victim in this and he supported Jeremy after the murders until he began to see the mask slip. Colin had no time for the family and even he realised that something was wrong with the way Jeremy was behaving - in the end. Between the two, I would believe Colin every time.
I cannot answer this as I never asked him about a conversation with Colin, regarding the photos.
Was he joking about, playing about, I don’t know....I could guess a few things of young men that age but it’s only guessing. Nothing more.
-
Wasn’t Brett around?
Anji Greaves was around for Bamber’s murder trial, Brett Collins had gone home
-
Then it’s jeremys word, who was to be the one who supposedly tried to sell them, or yours.....which you read in a newspaper.
Caroline, I asked him about the photos, he refused to sell any nude, or half nude or that kind of photo to the newspapers.
I cannot recall now if he did try to give family photos, but I know they weren’t interested in anything he had and did not purchase anything from him.
Now, on the other hand if Brett was privy to all these conversations and knew about nude photos why would it be inconceivable for Brett to inform the newspapers of such photos, but on attendance Jeremy blankly refused to sell any.
If that’s the case, you’re pointing your finger at the wrong man.
The meeting did go ahead, but what Brett told the paper before they turned up, I have no idea....and I didn’t ask him tbh.
I don't think there is any doubt that Jeremy Bamber attempted to sell the pictures to Fleet Street but they all refused and the Evening Standard saw an opportunity to publish a story about him at no cost.
-
I cannot answer this as I never asked him about a conversation with Colin, regarding the photos.
Was he joking about, playing about, I don’t know....I could guess a few things of young men that age but it’s only guessing. Nothing more.
You claims to have met Bamber in 1990 - 5 years after he’d murdered and most of those he’d spent in jail - do you suppose he’d grown up much from then to when you met up with him?
-
Wasn’t Brett around?
yes, and what does he have to say on the matter?
-
Then it’s jeremys word, who was to be the one who supposedly tried to sell them, or yours.....which you read in a newspaper.
Caroline, I asked him about the photos, he refused to sell any nude, or half nude or that kind of photo to the newspapers.
I cannot recall now if he did try to give family photos, but I know they weren’t interested in anything he had and did not purchase anything from him.
Now, on the other hand if Brett was privy to all these conversations and knew about nude photos why would it be inconceivable for Brett to inform the newspapers of such photos, but on attendance Jeremy blankly refused to sell any.
If that’s the case, you’re pointing your finger at the wrong man.
The meeting did go ahead, but what Brett told the paper before they turned up, I have no idea....and I didn’t ask him tbh.
Auntie A, I suspect the only reason you 'know' what you believe you know is because Jeremy has told you? Am I right in thinking you weren't there/didn't know him when the murders happened? I can only think that having, perhaps, asked him if what he was telling you was the truth, on being told that every word of it was, you accepted it. Not for a moment will I suggest that everything he told you was a lie. He, himself is reputed to have said that it's always best to tell ads much of the truth as possible. He may have satisfied himself that he had.
-
Jeremy has probably succeeded in convincing himself that he never tried to sell the photographs but unfortunately for him there are at least three independent people who are well placed to say otherwise.
-
I cannot answer this as I never asked him about a conversation with Colin, regarding the photos.
Was he joking about, playing about, I don’t know....I could guess a few things of young men that age but it’s only guessing. Nothing more.
Which, if he was, shows what an appalling lack of empathy he had. Joking about nude pictures to the one time husband of a murdered victim, and father to her murdered twins, was in poor taste, to say the least.
-
yes, and what does he have to say on the matter?
He didn’t tell me, I didn’t ask about Brett and he never mentioned him.
-
How do you know the meeting went ahead AA ?
Didn’t it go ahead? Are you playing with me?
Stop asking ridiculous questions Nicholas, you’ve all stated to me you know he had a meeting.
-
Photos existed, I do not dispute that.
I’m stating that Jeremy did not offer to sell the photos to the newspaper.
They requested photos, he refused.
Had he not refused, the pictures would be in the public domain somewhere...but I haven’t seen any yet, but I could be wrong.
How did The Sun know he had nude photos of Sheila, AA?
Sexual ones of her alone posing with toys?
And why would they offer to buy them when they don’t publish explicit photos? Those photos were worthless to them so why would they offer Jeremy money for them when they couldn’t publish them?
By the way, what did Jeremy say to you about your twin sons? Was he taken aback you had twin boys like Sheila did? Did he ever meet them? What about their father — was he OK with Jeremy being their Godfather ?
-
Jeremy has probably succeeded in convincing himself that he never tried to sell the photographs but unfortunately for him there are at least three independent people who are well placed to say otherwise.
Am unsure why you think he’s convinced himself he didn’t - he must relive his crimes daily given the length of time he’s claimed he’s innocent
-
Anji Greaves was around for Bamber’s murder trial, Brett Collins had gone home
I’m talking at the time of the photos. If you’re saying he wasn’t around I’m not going to argue with you about it.
-
I don't think there is any doubt that Jeremy Bamber attempted to sell the pictures to Fleet Street but they all refused and the Evening Standard saw an opportunity to publish a story about him at no cost.
But not nude ones John.
-
You claims to have met Bamber in 1990 - 5 years after he’d murdered and most of those he’d spent in jail - do you suppose he’d grown up much from then to when you met up with him?
I don’t know, I was t there beforehand to compare.
-
Didn’t it go ahead? Are you playing with me?
Stop asking ridiculous questions Nicholas, you’ve all stated to me you know he had a meeting.
I’m not playing with you AA and I’m unsure why you may think that
You stated the meeting went ahead
The meeting did go ahead,
And I asked how do you know this
How do you know the meeting went ahead AA ?
-
yes, and what does he have to say on the matter?
Nothing to me.
-
Didn’t it go ahead? Are you playing with me?
Stop asking ridiculous questions Nicholas, you’ve all stated to me you know he had a meeting.
Are you finding the questions ‘ridiculous’ because you don’t know the answers Aunt Agatha ?
-
I don’t know, I was t there beforehand to compare.
What does your common sense tell you ?
-
Auntie A, I suspect the only reason you 'know' what you believe you know is because Jeremy has told you? Am I right in thinking you weren't there/didn't know him when the murders happened? I can only think that having, perhaps, asked him if what he was telling you was the truth, on being told that every word of it was, you accepted it. Not for a moment will I suggest that everything he told you was a lie. He, himself is reputed to have said that it's always best to tell ads much of the truth as possible. He may have satisfied himself that he had.
Hi April,
Your assumptions are correct. I heard it from Jeremy himself when I questioned him about the photos.
Sometimes I cross examined him as we tried to piece this all together, how it happened. He never changed position once as much as I may have tried to catch him out, or come at it from another angle or brought in other scenarios.
The truth was very simple. And yes, I believe him.
-
But not nude ones John.
Then why did he say "YOu can see everything right down to the last detail"? He used the same words to Colin also.
-
What does your common sense tell you ?
It doesn’t matter what I think.
That’s not the issue, we’re looking at facts.
-
Hi April,
Your assumptions are correct. I heard it from Jeremy himself when I questioned him about the photos.
Sometimes I cross examined him as we tried to piece this all together, how it happened. He never changed position once as much as I may have tried to catch him out, or come at it from another angle or brought in other scenarios.
The truth was very simple. And yes, I believe him.
He is well rehersed AA.
-
I’m talking at the time of the photos. If you’re saying he wasn’t around I’m not going to argue with you about it.
A few days after the murders and Bamber moved himself into his sisters flat and helped himself to her things
Did you ever find out who the Chinese trick box belonged to originally and if Bamber took one to Sheilas flat or did it belong to her and he claimed it as his ?
-
It doesn’t matter what I think.
That’s not the issue, we’re looking at facts.
We are looking at facts - am not sure what you’re doing AA
You’ve claimed today Bamber was threatened because he wanted Julie to take a lie detector test
Why has this never come up before?
If someone like Jackie Preece knew about this I suspect it would have been all over the WWW ?
Same with someone like Poppy Ann Miller.
Maybe even Eric Allison would have reported it in the Guardian ? ?
-
I don’t know, I’m saying I don’t dispute it if you guys are saying there def is.
What sort of age are you, Agatha?
You’ve suggested you’re a similar age to Jeremy Bamber, but I’ve noticed how your words and writing style alters.
For example: the term “you guys” is usually (though not always) but usually used by people who are relatively younger people, or middle-aged people who grew up in that kind of funky “cool” era back in the 1990s
What sticks out is how you also come out with terms used by mainly by elderly people. For example: you’ve sometimes written “Oh My!”
Can you see how the two phrases don’t FIT?
I’m just curious, because I’ve noticed many phrases/words you use which makes you sound like two different people.
-
Then why did he say "YOu can see everything right down to the last detail"? He used the same words to Colin also.
i didnt ask him. Maybe CC book had not been written by then. I never resorted to books by others.
-
i didnt ask him. Maybe CC book had not been written by then. I never resorted to books by others.
Unless they were nude pictures, the comment makes no sense. The book was piblished in 1994
-
What sort of age are you, Agatha?
You’ve suggested you’re a similar age to Jeremy Bamber, but I’ve noticed how your words and writing style alters.
For example: the term “you guys” is usually (though not always) but usually used by people who are relatively younger people, or middle-aged people who grew up in that kind of funky “cool” era back in the 1990s
What sticks out is how you also come out with terms used by mainly by elderly people. For example: you’ve sometimes written “Oh My!”
Can you see how the two phrases don’t FIT?
I’m just curious, because I’ve noticed many phrases/words you use which makes you sound like two different people.
How do define 'growing up'? Chronologically, emotionally, mentally, physically?
-
CAL refers to NB and JB playing practical jokes on sales reps by placing large orders and then cancelling them. It's entirely feasible JB/Brett did similar with Fielder/The Sun.
-
A few days after the murders and Bamber moved himself into his sisters flat and helped himself to her things
Did you ever find out who the Chinese trick box belonged to originally and if Bamber took one to Sheilas flat or did it belong to her and he claimed it as his ?
Ive no idea.
-
Unless they were nude pictures, the comment makes no sense. The book was piblished in 1994
Thanks, there's your answer.
-
It seems that your Jeremy denies many things, including the one most sane people believe in... that he killed his entire close family...
From "Murders at White House Farm" by Carol Ann Lee...
"On Monday 16 September, Jeremy and Brett lunched in a Chelmsford pub with Sun journalist Michael Fielder. Brett had met Fielder the previous week, when he rang the newspaper to offer them a story on Jeremy in return for a lift back to Chelmsford. ‘Bambi Police Blaming My Pal Jeremy’ had appeared in Friday’s paper. Fielder later gave a detailed account of their Monday meeting, stating that Jeremy wanted £20,000 for twenty nude photographs of Sheila and a large fee for his life story. Fielder agreed to view the photographs at Morshead Mansions but his editor vetoed it, sensing that a story about Jeremy’s attempts to sell the photographs would make for more explosive headlines than explicit shots they couldn’t publish anyway. The Sun ran the piece the following day, telling its readers: ‘The brother of farmhouse massacre model Bambi Caffell was trying to cash in on the horror yesterday – by peddling soft-porn pictures of her. Smiling Jeremy Bamber, 24, offered topless and full frontal nude pictures of Bambi for “a substantial sum.”’ Jeremy was quoted as saying, ‘Unless the offer is really good, I’m not interested.’
An affiliate website to Jeremy’s campaign pages today denounces Fielder’s account, insisting that Jeremy met the Sun reporter against his better judgment and that Fielder repeatedly pressed for any nude shots of Sheila which were ‘never obtained’ because ‘they didn’t exist’. But Sheila’s friend has spoken at length about helping her prepare for the photo session, and Colin saw the resulting slides for himself, discussing them both in his witness statements and his memoir. He recalls that Jeremy’s description of the photographs to Fielder – ‘They show everything, right down to the last detail’ – was identical to the words Jeremy had used to him.
The Evening Standard ran a follow up story that day, after one of their journalists spoke to Jeremy at Sheila’s flat. Peter Gruner recalled that Jeremy hadn’t denied the Sun’s claims, responding, ‘That is interesting, but I have yet to read the papers today,’ although he did confirm, ‘I want a lot of money for my story, about £100,000. I think newspapers tend to make up stories about me.’ Colin saw the headlines in Cornwall only moments after posting a letter to Jeremy in which he expressed concern about the photographs. He immediately wrote a second letter expressing anger that Jeremy had tried to sell the images. He then regretted it, fearing he had placed himself in danger."
Thank you for posting that, Myster.... I was about to try and find in CAL’s book as I vividly remember reading it
Everything is true, of course, but I’d forgotten how he’d lied to the reporter from the Evening Standard and made out he hadn’t read that day’s Sun. he was headlines news. Brett Collins came back to the flat in Maida Vale after going to buy food for them to cook for breakfast, and solemnly told Jeremy as he handed him The Sun: “Shit. Read this”
Jeremy was gutted, by all accounts...and it was around then he and Brett decided to “get out of it” and go to St Tropez....
-
Thank you for posting that, Myster.... I was about to try and find in CAL’s book as I vividly remember reading it
Everything is true, of course, but I’d forgotten how he’d lied to the reporter from the Evening Standard and made out he hadn’t read that day’s Sun. he was headlines news. Brett Collins came back to the flat in Maida Vale after going to buy food for them to cook for breakfast, and solemnly told Jeremy as he handed him The Sun: “Shit. Read this”
Jeremy was gutted, by all accounts...and it was around then he and Brett decided to “get out of it” and go to St Tropez....
I thought EP had him under surveillance. Surprised he was allowed to retain his passport.
-
Thanks, there's your answer.
No, that is you dismissing what others have said in favour of Jeremy and you're ignoring that the words were corroborated by Colin. I understand that it would be hard for you to accept that the man you know would do something like this but I believe it's exactly what he did.
You say he did try to sell some pictures (although not nude) - why would he? What would inspire him to sell everyday run of the mill pictures at a time like that?
-
CAL refers to NB and JB playing practical jokes on sales reps by placing large orders and then cancelling them. It's entirely feasible JB/Brett did similar with Fielder/The Sun.
It's one thing to play jokes on unsuspecting sales reps, but quite another to make a joke of a mentally fragile, murdered sister by trying to flog of revealing pictures of her to a s..mmy newspaper.
-
Are you playing with me?
Maybe it is you playing with us - it certainly seems that way to me AA
-
But not nude ones John.
But why did he think they'd pay him such an extortionate amount for pictures in which she was fully clothed, when there had been any number of them posted previously?
-
It's one thing to play jokes on unsuspecting sales reps, but quite another to make a joke of a mentally fragile, murdered sister by trying to flog of revealing pictures of her to a s..mmy newspaper.
If such a situation arose how would the joke be on SC?
-
To be perfectly correct I suppose one could argue that Jeremy didn't sell any of the semi nude photos of Sheila to the Sun or any other newspaper but it didn't stop him trying while using Brett Collins as a go-between.
Bamber and his pal Brett Collins tried to flog nude pictures of his murdered sister Sheila Caffell around Fleet Street in London for a substantial sum before he was arrested. His friend Brett Collins approached several newspapers on his behalf but every one declined the offer. The Evening Times printed an article shortly thereafter referring to the offer which they felt was in rather poor taste and certainly newsworthy in itself given the circumstances.
Evening Times Article - Tuesday 28 October 1986
(http://i.imgur.com/HqBg3.jpg)
To read full article click here (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cd1AAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6qYMAAAAIBAJ&dq=brett%20collins%20bamber&pg=5839%2C6644530)
What do you make of John’s post, AA, where he’s posted the newspaper article?
Is that a figment of everyone’s imagination?
-
It's one thing to play jokes on unsuspecting sales reps, but quite another to make a joke of a mentally fragile, murdered sister by trying to flog of revealing pictures of her to a s..mmy newspaper.
The 'joke' -if it can ever be called such- would be about how funny he believed it would be in seeing her nudity displayed nation wide.
-
The 'joke' -if it can ever be called such- would be about how funny he believed it would be in seeing her nudity displayed nation wide.
Assuming he had such in his possession where's the evidence he intended to handover?
-
Assuming he had such in his possession where's the evidence he intended to handover?
You're seriously going with that? *&^^&
-
No, that is you dismissing what others have said in favour of Jeremy and you're ignoring that the words were corroborated by Colin. I understand that it would be hard for you to accept that the man you know would do something like this but I believe it's exactly what he did.
You say he did try to sell some pictures (although not nude) - why would he? What would inspire him to sell everyday run of the mill pictures at a time like that?
No i never stated he tried to sell photos.
what I said was he MAY have tried to sell some family photo's, I dont know, but any photos he may or may not have wanted to sell were not nude one Caroline.
-
We are looking at facts - am not sure what you’re doing AA
You’ve claimed today Bamber was threatened because he wanted Julie to take a lie detector test
Why has this never come up before?
If someone like Jackie Preece knew about this I suspect it would have been all over the WWW ?
Same with someone like Poppy Ann Miller.
Maybe even Eric Allison would have reported it in the Guardian ? ?
Have you a link to that, Nicholas?
How strange that when the proposition of Julie being asked to take a lie detector test just DAYS ago (by myself, so I know for fact), suddenly, out of the blue — Agatha has popped up with a cock and bull story that he already did ask!
Jesus, they're sooooooooooo transparent!
-
Assuming he had such in his possession where's the evidence he intended to handover?
He'd need to have the mentality of a turd to be THAT puerile. But I guess you'd sooner believe him certifiable than guilty.
-
No i never stated he tried to sell photos.
what I said was he MAY have tried to sell some family photo's, I dont know, but any photos he may or may not have wanted to sell were not nude one Caroline.
Im telling you, I could not ask him about words corroborated by Colin or anybody else as I didn't know what anybody else was saying at the time.
-
No i never stated he tried to sell photos.
what I said was he MAY have tried to sell some family photo's, I dont know, but any photos he may or may not have wanted to sell were not nude one Caroline.
How can you be 100% certain? If they were regular pictures, why be so surreptitious? Why not simply visit the Sun's offices and GIVE them?
-
He'd need to have the mentality of a turd to be THAT puerile. But I guess you'd sooner believe him certifiable than guilty.
I form beliefs based on evidence.
-
How can you be 100% certain? If they were regular pictures, why be so surreptitious? Why not simply visit the Sun's offices and GIVE them?
April, I have no idea. I never asked about Brett, about Colin.
The only people I asked about was Julie and the family.....and himself of course. oh, and solicitors and counsel.
-
I form beliefs based on evidence.
That wonderful cloak, again? The weather's getting warmer.
-
How do define 'growing up'? Chronologically, emotionally, mentally, physically?
I’ll ask the audience
-
April, I have no idea. I never asked about Brett, about Colin.
The only people I asked about was Julie and the family.....and himself of course. oh, and solicitors and counsel.
Would it, then, be fair to say you only knew parts of the story, relying totally on what he chose to tell you?
-
Have you a link to that, Nicholas?
How strange that when the proposition of Julie being asked to take a lie detector test just DAYS ago (by myself, so I know for fact), suddenly, out of the blue — Agatha has popped up with a cock and bull story that he already did ask!
Jesus, they're sooooooooooo transparent!
No - Aunt Agatha has made claim Bamber was ‘threatened’
Here
One of them is lying...that’s for sure.
I cannot question JM, but I could certainly question Jeremy and I did....consistently!
I’m of the opinion he IS NOT lying...os therefore, it must be Julie.
And no, I would not waste my time on reading through her statements again, she is a liar and we’re not talking once or twice here....once she started it was lie upon lie upon lie.....
That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened.
We’ll leave it there.
And you don’t have,to believe me, I do not have that letter in my possession and never did.
The link is here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11490.msg591588#msg591588
-
Im telling you, I could not ask him about words corroborated by Colin or anybody else as I didn't know what anybody else was saying at the time.
It was in the newspapers before you met him
To be perfectly correct I suppose one could argue that Jeremy didn't sell any of the semi nude photos of Sheila to the Sun or any other newspaper but it didn't stop him trying while using Brett Collins as a go-between.
Bamber and his pal Brett Collins tried to flog nude pictures of his murdered sister Sheila Caffell around Fleet Street in London for a substantial sum before he was arrested. His friend Brett Collins approached several newspapers on his behalf but every one declined the offer. The Evening Times printed an article shortly thereafter referring to the offer which they felt was in rather poor taste and certainly newsworthy in itself given the circumstances.
Evening Times Article - Tuesday 28 October 1986
(http://i.imgur.com/HqBg3.jpg)
To read full article click here (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cd1AAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6qYMAAAAIBAJ&dq=brett%20collins%20bamber&pg=5839%2C6644530)
-
That wonderful cloak, again? The weather's getting warmer.
What actual evidence exists re the meeting/photos?
Why didn't it feature at trial?
-
Would it, then, be fair to say you only knew parts of the story, relying totally on what he chose to tell you?
Absolutely. Our knowledge of the events of that night were limited.
He could not offer me anything near what you have available...he just never knew it.
Not once did he try to direct me in another direction as the road he was on was the only road he had.
We worked on the absolute basics!
-
CAL refers to NB and JB playing practical jokes on sales reps by placing large orders and then cancelling them. It's entirely feasible JB/Brett did similar with Fielder/The Sun.
FGS...
Don’t embarrass yourself
The repulsive gruesome monster you are obsessed with MET the Sun journalist in a pub in Chelmsford when trying to flog the photos
I can easily find the youtube link for you where the reporter discusses it...but you’ve seen it already, haven’t you...
You avoided my previous question, by the way...what did your husband who you “claim” was a lawyer specialise in?😌
-
I’ll ask the audience
You made the claim not the audience.
-
It was in the newspapers before you met him
Thats family and newspapers.
Thats exactly what I stated. Thanks for the confirmation.
-
FGS...
Don’t embarrass yourself
The repulsive gruesome monster you are obsessed with MET the Sun journalist in a pub in Chelmsford when trying to flog the photos
I can easily find the youtube link for you where the reporter discusses it...but you’ve seen it already, haven’t you...
You avoided my previous question, by the way...what did your husband who you “claim” was a lawyer specialise in?😌
Why would I believe a grubby hack over JB?
-
FGS...
Don’t embarrass yourself
The repulsive gruesome monster you are obsessed with MET the Sun journalist in a pub in Chelmsford when trying to flog the photos
I can easily find the youtube link for you where the reporter discusses it...but you’ve seen it already, haven’t you...
You avoided my previous question, by the way...what did your husband who you “claim” was a lawyer specialise in?😌
8((()*/
-
Why would I believe a grubby hack?
-
I thought EP had him under surveillance. Surprised he was allowed to retain his passport.
You thought right
He WAS under surveillance
They couldn’t seize his passport as at that stage he hadn’t been charged — doesn’t Pete help you out on these minor details?
When he shot off to St Tropez the police followed him there and had him under surveillance
So what?
And ask your Pete (the ex-lawyer😌) about Interpol...he’ll enlighten you
-
Why would I believe a grubby hack over JB?
Lets see - grubby hack v's mass killer? *%87 neither! - Colin? 100% 8((()*/
-
Why would I believe a grubby hack over JB?
Don’t know, why would you ?
-
Hacks. Yes the people who put the Dowlers through hell by hacking into MD's mobile giving her parents false hope she was still alive.
-
Hacks. Yes the people who put the Dowlers through hell by hacking into MD's mobile giving her parents false hope she was still alive.
Different era different case
-
You thought right
He WAS under surveillance
They couldn’t seize his passport as at that stage he hadn’t been charged — doesn’t Pete help you out on these minor details?
When he shot off to St Tropez the police followed him there and had him under surveillance
So what?
And ask your Pete (the ex-lawyer😌) about Interpol...he’ll enlighten you
When does a qualified lawyer become an ex lawyer?
-
When does a qualified lawyer become an ex lawyer?
When they cease to practice.
-
Different era different case
Case? You mean a scandal that resulted in a criminal trial?
-
Case? You mean a scandal that resulted in a criminal trial?
And thankfully - a conviction.
-
When they cease to practice.
Well he's still practising and when he ceases to do so he'll be a non-practising lawyer.
You could always send him a pm to clarify.
-
What actual evidence exists re the hack at The Sun and nude images of SC?
-
And thankfully - a conviction.
And a deduct rag.
-
Well he's still practising and when he ceases to do so he'll be a non-practising lawyer.
You could always send him a pm to clarify.
Or an ex lawyer - either or. Why would I send him a PM? I don't know him.
-
Or an ex lawyer - either or. Why would I send him a PM? I don't know him.
Ask NGB then if the correct terminology is non-practising or ex.
-
I form beliefs based on evidence.
Evidence you’ve made up in your head
-
Back on topic otherwise I'll give you both a warning!
-
Evidence you’ve made up in your head
Such as?
-
What actual evidence exists re the meeting/photos?
Why didn't it feature at trial?
YouTube
And the front page of The Sun
-
What actual evidence exists re the hack at The Sun and nude images of SC?
There's a thing called defamation Holly, I quite sure the Evening Standard wouldn't have published such a high profile story if they didn't have the witnesses to back it up?
-
YouTube
And the front page of The Sun
Not everybody!
You need to get your facts right.
-
There's a thing called defamation Holly, I quite sure the Evening Standard wouldn't have published such a high profile story if they didn't have the witnesses to back it up?
What witnesses?
-
What witnesses?
Everyone at Fleet Street whom Collins approached.
-
YouTube
And the front page of The Sun
Why don’t get some dignity instead of constantly trying to worm yourself out of holes? It’s humiliating for you when everyone knows it’s 100% true and you’re desperately trying to deny it happened
Makes you look sad and laughable
What evidence?
A grubby hack and rag.
Why didn't any of this feature at trial?
-
Everyone at Fleet Street whom Collins approached.
Who?
Why didn't any of this feature at trial?
-
You made the claim not the audience.
I never made a claim
I asked Agatha a question: how old she is
How old are you, Holly? From what you’ve said over the years you sound like you’re mid 70s?
Would you call yourself a “ mature OAP” or an “immature OAP”?
Proof that wisdom doesn’t always come with old age...
-
I never made a claim
I asked Agatha a question: how old she is
How old are you, Holly? From what you’ve said over the years you sound like you’re mid 70s?
Would you call yourself a “ mature OAP” or an “immature OAP”?
Proof that wisdom doesn’t always come with old age...
Mid 70's. I'm flattered (&^&
-
I never made a claim
I asked Agatha a question: how old she is
How old are you, Holly? From what you’ve said over the years you sound like you’re mid 70s?
Would you call yourself a “ mature OAP” or an “immature OAP”?
Proof that wisdom doesn’t always come with old age...
Please stay on topic. Thank you.
-
Ask NGB then if the correct terminology is non-practising or ex.
It doesn't really matter does it?
-
It doesn't really matter does it?
Not at all.
-
I form beliefs based on evidence.
The evidence strongly supports the contention that he tried to sell nude photos of Sheila to the Sun for a large sum of money.
-
Absolutely. Our knowledge of the events of that night were limited.
Your knowledge was and is
His wasn’t and isn’t
-
Jackie Preece once told us that she asked Jeremy Bamber about the meeting and he told her that he wished that he had never gone to meet the Sun reporter.
-
The evidence strongly supports the contention that he tried to sell nude photos of Sheila to the Sun for a large sum of money.
It wasn't something that was adjudicated on at trial.
-
It wasn't something that was adjudicated on at trial.
So? Are you telling me the reporter, CC and Brett Collins all conspired to make up this story?
-
Jackie Preece once told us that she asked Jeremy Bamber about the meeting and he told her that he wished that he had never gone to meet the Sun reporter.
I bet he does!
-
The evidence strongly supports the contention that he tried to sell nude photos of Sheila to the Sun for a large sum of money.
It's all there in black and white so anyone who tries to claim otherwise must be desperate but then again one would have to be desperate to support a double child murderer.
-
It's all there in black and white so anyone who tries to claim otherwise must be desperate but then again one would have to be desperate to support a double child murderer.
It was a good story though. The Sun claimed the high moral ground (is that a first?) and at the same time it was able to put the boot into the 'baddie' with an exclusive story.
-
When does a qualified lawyer become an ex lawyer?
Be pedantic if you want...while you avoid answering the question
It was you, Holly, who said, and I quote: “He WAS a lawyer”
That’s PAST tense
So, ex, past, phrase it as you wish...but he isn’t a lawyer now. Though I’m not sure he ever was...people come up with all sorts of fairytales on the Internet 😌
-
Well he's still practising and when he ceases to do so he'll be a non-practising lawyer.
You could always send him a pm to clarify.
Oh, is Pete on here, Holly?
-
Or an ex lawyer - either or. Why would I send him a PM? I don't know him.
He must be on this forum, then...
Why’s Holly hiding him?
Seems strange he’s never come to her assistance when her arguments have been torn to shreds by REAL lawyers on here...
I guarantee Holly won’t produce the proof she’s always so insistent on herself...and we all know why
-
What evidence?
A grubby hack and rag.
Why didn't any of this feature at trial?
Because it had already been published in the national newspapers so the jury possibly already knew it, but in case they didn’t, the QC’s wouldn’t bring it up as it would have prejudiced the case
Doesn’t Pete give you and legal advice, Holly?😌
-
Back on topic otherwise I'll give you both a warning!
I didn’t know you were a moderator, Ag
When did you receive this privilege?
-
It doesn't really matter does it?
It does if you’re being pedantic
And avoiding answering the question
Holly claimed her husband had been a lawyer...she never said he IS a lawyer...
I have family members in law, and the solicitor always refers to himself as such: he never uses the word “lawyer” as that’s an American term.
-
Jackie Preece once told us that she asked Jeremy Bamber about the meeting and he told her that he wished that he had never gone to meet the Sun reporter.
Do you think his supporters are aware their statements help cement Bamber’s guilt ?
-
It was a good story though. The Sun claimed the high moral ground (is that a first?) and at the same time it was able to put the boot into the 'baddie' with an exclusive story.
Yes, a rare occasion when the paper did good! 8((()*/
-
Then it’s jeremys word, who was to be the one who supposedly tried to sell them, or yours.....which you read in a newspaper.
Caroline, I asked him about the photos, he refused to sell any nude, or half nude or that kind of photo to the newspapers.
I cannot recall now if he did try to give family photos, but I know they weren’t interested in anything he had and did not purchase anything from him.
Now, on the other hand if Brett was privy to all these conversations and knew about nude photos why would it be inconceivable for Brett to inform the newspapers of such photos, but on attendance Jeremy blankly refused to sell any.
If that’s the case, you’re pointing your finger at the wrong man.
The meeting did go ahead, but what Brett told the paper before they turned up, I have no idea....and I didn’t ask him tbh.
So you know he’d contacted the papers
Was it around 2009 when you split with Bamber ?
Also in his letter here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=212.msg573829#msg573829 to Mike Tesko he mentions Tracey Jayne and her ‘Free Jeremy Bamber’ Facebook page - he refers to it as a ‘site’
‘How come you’ve not joined the face book site free Jeremy Bamber I thought you’d have loved all that as you can have a right gossip on there - I don’t have anything to do with it I’ve only written to Tracey Jayne a few times and the prison won’t let me write to her now because she’s got the face book site - I’ve got a court action in motion to allow me to write on my face book site - but it’s not going to be ruled on until I’m out
-
So you know he’d contacted the papers
Was it around 2009 when you split with Bamber ?
Also in his letter here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=212.msg573829#msg573829 to Mike Tesko he mentions Tracey Jayne and her ‘Free Jeremy Bamber’ Facebook page - he refers to it as a ‘site’
‘How come you’ve not joined the face book site free Jeremy Bamber I thought you’d have loved all that as you can have a right gossip on there - I don’t have anything to do with it I’ve only written to Tracey Jayne a few times and the prison won’t let me write to her now because she’s got the face book site - I’ve got a court action in motion to allow me to write on my face book site - but it’s not going to be ruled on until I’m out
But The Sun stated that it was Jeremy Bamber who tried to sell the photos
They said how they met both him and Brett in a pub and how Jeremy sat there, giggling, making crude references, and said he was he wanted £20k for Sheila’s photos, and also offered them his life story for £100k.
The reporter was sat in front of them both in the pub: that can’t be disputed
-
So you know he’d contacted the papers
Was it around 2009 when you split with Bamber ?
Also in his letter here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=212.msg573829#msg573829 to Mike Tesko he mentions Tracey Jayne and her ‘Free Jeremy Bamber’ Facebook page - he refers to it as a ‘site’
‘How come you’ve not joined the face book site free Jeremy Bamber I thought you’d have loved all that as you can have a right gossip on there - I don’t have anything to do with it I’ve only written to Tracey Jayne a few times and the prison won’t let me write to her now because she’s got the face book site - I’ve got a court action in motion to allow me to write on my face book site - but it’s not going to be ruled on until I’m out
There's nothing in any of this. Clutching at straws Nicholas.
-
But The Sun stated that it was Jeremy Bamber who tried to sell the photos
They said how they met both him and Brett in a pub and how Jeremy sat there, giggling, making crude references, and said he was he wanted £20k for Sheila’s photos, and also offered them his life story for £100k.
The reporter was sat in front of them both in the pub: that can’t be disputed
Oh it must be true... The Sun said so!
-
Oh it must be true... The Sun said so!
Is every story in The Sun untrue?
-
But The Sun stated that it was Jeremy Bamber who tried to sell the photos
They said how they met both him and Brett in a pub and how Jeremy sat there, giggling, making crude references, and said he was he wanted £20k for Sheila’s photos, and also offered them his life story for £100k.
The reporter was sat in front of them both in the pub: that can’t be disputed
Apparently Collins made the first contact but both of them met the reporter.
-
But The Sun stated that it was Jeremy Bamber who tried to sell the photos
They said how they met both him and Brett in a pub and how Jeremy sat there, giggling, making crude references, and said he was he wanted £20k for Sheila’s photos, and also offered them his life story for £100k.
The reporter was sat in front of them both in the pub: that can’t be disputed
We know what the reporter said. That's his story. Did you know that reporter's stories aren't always the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Especially tabloid journalists.
-
We know what the reporter said. That's his story. Did you know that reporter's stories aren't always the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Especially tabloid journalists.
If the story is untrue then how did the Sun reporter know of the existence of the nude pics? Lucky guess?
-
We know what the reporter said. That's his story. Did you know that reporter's stories aren't always the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Especially tabloid journalists.
And did you know reporters aren’t mind readers?
Jeremy said the exact same words to Colin about Sheila’s photos: “You can see everything in them — right down to the last little detail...”
Guess he’s psychic, eh?
Guess the reporter hallucinated that he was sat in a pub in Essex opposite Jeremy and Brett as they giggled about the nude pictures, and asked him for £20K? Guess he hallucinated when Jeremy said he’d like to sell his life story for £100K?
Guess he hallucinated when his Editor said “turn the b........ in” and printed the headlines on the front page the next day saying basically what a low piece of shit Jeremy was.
Guess Jeremy decided not to sue The Sun for libel because he didn’t mind being called a lump of shit trying to flog his murdered sister’s nude photographs
-
JM's wit stat mentions bugging.
It's officially documented that officers went to her shared house ostensibly to check the alarm clocks.
Police searched SC's flat for diaries etc.
Plenty of opportunity for bugging. Plus JB was under surveillance for a period of time.
It's well known hacks and the police work hand in glove feeding off one another.
Those from the MM board will have knowledge of dodgy cops, leaks, tabloids, grubby hacks.
-
When did the meeting between the hack and JB take place?
-
JM's wit stat mentions bugging.
It's officially documented that officers went to her shared house ostensibly to check the alarm clocks.
Police searched SC's flat for diaries etc.
Plenty of opportunity for bugging. Plus JB was under surveillance for a period of time.
It's well known hacks and the police work hand in glove feeding off one another.
Those from the MM board will have knowledge of dodgy cops, leaks, tabloids, grubby hacks.
Then there's loose lips. There were nude photos of Sheila at the farm in her mother's bureau. [CC's book] Someone could have told the hack they existed.
-
JM's wit stat mentions bugging.
It's officially documented that officers went to her shared house ostensibly to check the alarm clocks.
Police searched SC's flat for diaries etc.
Plenty of opportunity for bugging. Plus JB was under surveillance for a period of time.
It's well known hacks and the police work hand in glove feeding off one another.
Those from the MM board will have knowledge of dodgy cops, leaks, tabloids, grubby hacks.
Right. So it was a conspiracy to stitch Jeremy up engineered between the police and the Sun newspaper. Jesus H.
-
Then there's loose lips. There were nude photos of Sheila at the farm in her mother's bureau. [CC's book] Someone could have told the hack they existed.
I thought you didn't do speculation of the "someone could have" variety? Any evidence for this claim?
-
Right. So it was a conspiracy to stitch Jeremy up engineered between the police and the Sun newspaper. Jesus H.
According to blue, it involves every conspiracy known to man, and then some. Starting with West and Bonnett colluding to withhold the information that Nevill had already called them, in case it was decided to charge Jeremy!!!
-
Right. So it was a conspiracy to stitch Jeremy up engineered between the police and the Sun newspaper. Jesus H.
You seem to be doing what you accuse G-Unit of doing with McCanns ie you believe the McCanns over the tabloids and dodgy cops and yet with JB you hold tight!
If MM went missing in 1985 instead of 2007 do you think the McCanns would have escaped an injustice if it wasn't for team McCann?
I have no such problem as I don't believe the McCanns were involved with MM's disappearance and I don't believe JB was involved with the murders.
-
You seem to be doing what you accuse G-Unit of doing with McCanns ie you believe the McCanns over the tabloids and dodgy cops and yet with JB you hold tight!
If MM went missing in 1985 instead of 2007 do you think the McCanns would have escaped an injustice if it wasn't for team McCann?
I have no such problem as I don't believe the McCanns were involved with MM's disappearance and I don't believe JB was involved with the murders.
a) The McCanns are not convicted mass murderers and b) where have I ever said I believe the McCanns over the tabloids, except where it has been proven that the tabloids by their own admission invented stories? Over to you.
-
a) The McCanns are not convicted mass murderers and b) where have I ever said I believe the McCanns over the tabloids, except where it has been proven that the tabloids by their own admission invented stories? Over to you.
a) Forget the fact the McCanns were not involved in any wrongdoing in terms of direct involvement with MM's disappearance. They were not charged with any crime because they managed to engineer the most amazing support network ever. Had they been left pretty much to their own devices as JB was I doubt they would ever have left Portugal.
b) Similar to above. Without the support network the tabloids would have had a field day.
-
a) Forget the fact the McCanns were not involved in any wrongdoing in terms of direct involvement with MM's disappearance. They were not charged with any crime because they managed to engineer the most amazing support network ever. Had they been left pretty much to their own devices as JB was I doubt they would ever have left Portugal.
b) Similar to above. Without the support network the tabloids would have had a field day.
a) absolute tosh, there was scant evidence against them as the PT authorities admitted in their report and b) the tabloids DID have an absolute field day, so again absolute tosh.
-
a) absolute tosh, there was scant evidence against them as the PT authorities admitted in their report and b) the tabloids DID have an absolute field day, so again absolute tosh.
a) when you drill down there's zero evidence against JB. b) yes the tabloids did have a field day and it cost them some 500k as the McCanns were able to instruct the best libel lawyers in the land. Conversely JB's defence at trial was funded by legal aid.
-
a) when you drill down there's zero evidence against JB. b) yes the tabloids did have a field day and it cost them some 500k as the McCanns were able to instruct the best libel lawyers in the land. Conversely JB's defence at trial was funded by legal aid.
a) to say there is zero evidence against JB is absolute tosh. It was either him or Sheila. If there is zero evidence against JB, then there is less than zero evidence against Sheila, so perhaps neither of them did it, and AA is right, it was Mossad. b) you've just moved the goalposts, claiming first that the tabloids having a field day was conditional on the McCanns having support up front, which they did have, and it still didn't stop the tabloids having a field day.
-
a) to say there is zero evidence against JB is absolute tosh. It was either him or Sheila. If there is zero evidence against JB, then there is less than zero evidence against Sheila, so perhaps neither of them did it, and AA is right, it was Mossad. b) you've just moved the goalposts, claiming first that the tabloids having a field day was conditional on the McCanns having support up front, which they did have, and it still didn't stop the tabloids having a field day.
a)there is evidence against SC its the reason senior officers at soc and the police surgeon considered the soc murder/suicide. Its the reason the pathologist found no evidence to contradict murder/suicide when carrying out the pm's. Its the reason the only dissenter was a low ranking officer who offered nothing of evidential value. Its the reason why an independent review said all the evidence pointed to SC.
b) the tabloids had a field day until it was stopped in its tracks by the McCanns legal team which resulted in a 500k settlement and a front page apology.
-
a)there is evidence against SC its the reason senior officers at soc and the police surgeon considered the soc murder/suicide. Its the reason the pathologist found no evidence to contradict murder/suicide when carrying out the pm's. Its the reason the only dissenter was a low ranking officer who offered nothing of evidential value until. Its the reason why an independent review said all the evidence pointed to SC.
b) the tabloids had a field day until it was stopped in its tracks by the McCanns legal team which resulted in a 500k settlement and a front page apology.
a) there is also an abundance of evidence against Bamber, all of which you choose to scorn because you believe he is a decent, honest individual and that all his relatives are money-grabbing connivers who collaborated with the police and media to stitch him up. This is a conspiracy theory and it's one you and like-minded individuals have spent years weaving on JB's behalf.
b) So what? What has the McCanns' libel action got to do with Jeremy Bamber selling photos to the Sun?
-
a) to say there is zero evidence against JB is absolute tosh. It was either him or Sheila. If there is zero evidence against JB, then there is less than zero evidence against Sheila, so perhaps neither of them did it, and AA is right, it was Mossad. b) you've just moved the goalposts, claiming first that the tabloids having a field day was conditional on the McCanns having support up front, which they did have, and it still didn't stop the tabloids having a field day.
Why does everyone say "it was either him or Sheila"? Why do you say that?
-
Why does everyone say "it was either him or Sheila"? Why do you say that?
Because it is self-evident.
-
Because it is self-evident.
No it isn't. It is about time someone really explained this "self-evidence".
-
Why does everyone say "it was either him or Sheila"? Why do you say that?
Ask the Judge.
-
a) there is also an abundance of evidence against Bamber, all of which you choose to scorn because you believe he is a decent, honest individual and that all his relatives are money-grabbing connivers who collaborated with the police and media to stitch him up. This is a conspiracy theory and it's one you and like-minded individuals have spent years weaving on JB's behalf.
b) So what? What has the McCanns' libel action got to do with Jeremy Bamber selling photos to the Sun?
a) there's no more reliable evidence against JB than there was for any of the other high profile long-running MOJ's. There's no conpiracy. JB's MoJ contains the same features as all moj's: poor defence, unreliable witness testimony, over reliance on expert testimony, wrongdoing/incompetence by the police and experts, unfair summing up by trial judge, character assassination by tabloids.
b) was JB in a position to challenge the tabloids in the way the McCanns did? When it was thought SC was responsible the tabloids had a field day with her.
-
a) there's no more reliable evidence against JB than there was for any of the other high profile long-running MOJ's. There's no conpiracy. JB's MoJ contains the same features as all moj's: poor defence, unreliable witness testimony, over reliance on expert testimony, wrongdoing/incompetence by the police and experts, unfair summing up by trial judge, character assassination by tabloids.
b) was JB in a position to challenge the tabloids in the way the McCanns did? When it was thought SC was responsible the tabloids had a field day with her.
If the amount of money was calculated which he spent, post murders and pre arrest, had he NOT spent it, he may have been.
-
No it isn't. It is about time someone really explained this "self-evidence".
Read the books, watch the documentaries and TV series, then you'll see why it is.
-
a) there's no more reliable evidence against JB than there was for any of the other high profile long-running MOJ's. There's no conpiracy. JB's MoJ contains the same features as all moj's: poor defence, unreliable witness testimony, over reliance on expert testimony, wrongdoing/incompetence by the police and experts, unfair summing up by trial judge, character assassination by tabloids.
b) was JB in a position to challenge the tabloids in the way the McCanns did? When it was thought SC was responsible the tabloids had a field day with her.
No conspiracy??
What's this then?
"JM's wit stat mentions bugging.
It's officially documented that officers went to her shared house ostensibly to check the alarm clocks.
Police searched SC's flat for diaries etc.
Plenty of opportunity for bugging. Plus JB was under surveillance for a period of time.
It's well known hacks and the police work hand in glove feeding off one another.
Those from the MM board will have knowledge of dodgy cops, leaks, tabloids, grubby hacks".
What EXACTLY are you suggesting happened wrt to the nude photos story?l
-
No it isn't. It is about time someone really explained this "self-evidence".
I have done several times - it's because of the phone call but you keep making up a fantasy caller to explain it away. There was no such thing.Either Nevill called and the killer was Sheila or he didn't and it was Bamber.
-
a) there's no more reliable evidence against JB than there was for any of the other high profile long-running MOJ's. There's no conpiracy. JB's MoJ contains the same features as all moj's: poor defence, unreliable witness testimony, over reliance on expert testimony, wrongdoing/incompetence by the police and experts, unfair summing up by trial judge, character assassination by tabloids.
b) was JB in a position to challenge the tabloids in the way the McCanns did? When it was thought SC was responsible the tabloids had a field day with her.
Where is the evidence against Sheila?
-
I have done several times - it's because of the phone call but you keep making up a fantasy caller to explain it away. There was no such thing.Either Nevill called and the killer was Sheila or he didn't and it was Bamber.
A point also upheld by the judge.
-
No conspiracy??
What's this then?
"JM's wit stat mentions bugging.
It's officially documented that officers went to her shared house ostensibly to check the alarm clocks.
Police searched SC's flat for diaries etc.
Plenty of opportunity for bugging. Plus JB was under surveillance for a period of time.
It's well known hacks and the police work hand in glove feeding off one another.
Those from the MM board will have knowledge of dodgy cops, leaks, tabloids, grubby hacks".
What EXACTLY are you suggesting happened wrt to the nude photos story?l
Julie Mugfords reference to bugging was a comment made by Bamber when she was talking about the murders. The idea that The Sun bugged the flat is just ridiculous - anything other than it being Bambers fault. It doesn't even make him the killer but it makes him the type of person who might be.
-
No it isn't. It is about time someone really explained this "self-evidence".
I will try---but I don't know the case as well as the others do.
Jeremy claimed to have received a call from his father, Nevill, in which the latter asked Jeremy to get round to the farm quickly, because Sheila had "gone crazy" and had got hold of a gun. Jeremy then rang the police and recounted the call from Nevill, saying that the phone had then "gone dead", he had tried to call Nevill back, but couldn't get through. The police asked Jeremy to meet them at the farm.
As a result, it has been reasoned that only Jeremy or Sheila could have committed the murders. If Jeremy really did receive a call from Nevill , then Sheila was the killer. In this scenario, it can't have been Jeremy, as we know that he wasn't at the farm at the time, and we also know that he was outside with the police until they and the firearms officers broke in. By then, everyone was dead.
However, if Jeremy invented the phone call from his father, Nevill not having called him at all, then he (Jeremy) must have been the murderer. In this scenario, he must have made up the story about Sheila and the gun in order to frame her.
You will have to make up your own mind as to whether you believe Jeremy did or did not receive a call from Nevill.
-
I now see Caroline has already explained it-----apologies, Caroline, you must have posted while I was typing (took me a while to get my words together!)
-
I now see Caroline has already explained it-----apologies, Caroline, you must have posted while I was typing (took me a while to get my words together!)
Several of us have, Mrswah, several of us have..........but I need to thank you for reminding me of what a fine job he made of convincing police not to go in, guns blazing, by reminding them of how competent Sheila was with guns.
-
a)there is evidence against SC its the reason senior officers at soc and the police surgeon considered the soc murder/suicide.
Bamber had spent several hours planting a seed of doubt into the minds of Essex police prior to them gaining entry to WHF Holly
And as a ‘master manipulator’ his version of events were believed until Julie started to come to her senses and recognised she ‘couldn’t allow him to hurt anyone else‘
-
Several of us have, Mrswah, several of us have..........but I need to thank you for reminding me of what a fine job he made of convincing police not to go in, guns blazing, by reminding them of how competent Sheila was with guns.
It was Jeremy who convinced the police not to go in? Surely, the police and firearms experts would have made their own assessment of the situation and their own decision?
-
Bamber had spent several hours planting a seed of doubt into the minds of Essex police prior to them gaining entry to WHF Holly
And as a ‘master manipulator’ his version of events were believed until Julie started to come to her senses and recognised she ‘couldn’t allow him to hurt anyone else‘
Yes and how did the officers gain entry? They had to take a sledgehammer to the back door because all the doors were locked from within and all ground floor windows secured from within. Meaning the perp was inside.
The relatives later concluded it was possible to exit and leave a window secured from within but no one knows how this worked in practice because unusually judge and jurors were not taken to WHF to see for themselves.
-
It was Jeremy who convinced the police not to go in? Surely, the police and firearms experts would have made their own assessment of the situation and their own decision?
Not quite that blatantly, Mrswah. More covertly with his suggestions of Sheila's insanity and her gun skills. It was probably rather like telling ghost stories, in the dark, to children. Over time, it plays on their subconscious. They're now faced with a distraught relative whose only family may be held at gunpoint in the house. A wrong move on their part could see them all dead.
-
Yes and how did the officers gain entry? They had to take a sledgehammer to the back door because all the doors were locked from within and all ground floor windows secured from within. Meaning the perp was inside.
The relatives later concluded it was possible to exit and leave a window secured from within but no one knows how this worked in practice because unusually judge and jurors were not taken to WHF to see for themselves.
Why would they need to see how it worked. Jeremy had told them it could be done because he'd done it.
-
Why would they need to see how it worked. Jeremy had told them it could be done because he'd done it.
No. He said he knew of ways to enter but not ways of exiting leaving windows secured from within.
-
No. He said he knew of ways to enter but not ways of exiting leaving windows secured from within.
So when he broke in to get his passport, he didn't leave by his chosen method of entry?
-
No. He said he knew of ways to enter but not ways of exiting leaving windows secured from within.
Even if he had to use a window to enter, what was stopping him exiting via a door?
-
So when he broke in to get his passport, he didn't leave by his chosen method of entry?
I assume he did leave the same way he entered but I also assume he left the window unsecured.
-
Even if he had to use a window to enter, what was stopping him exiting via a door?
I believe all the doors were bolted from within or had a key in the lock.
-
I assume he did leave the same way he entered but I also assume he left the window unsecured.
Can your assumption be relied upon as a definite?
-
a) to say there is zero evidence against JB is absolute tosh. It was either him or Sheila. If there is zero evidence against JB, then there is less than zero evidence against Sheila, so perhaps neither of them did it, and AA is right, it was Mossad. b) you've just moved the goalposts, claiming first that the tabloids having a field day was conditional on the McCanns having support up front, which they did have, and it still didn't stop the tabloids having a field day.
Well there is zero evidence for abduction - but that doesn't stop you thinking there was an abduction.
So how come your stance has changed with this crime- or do you just go with the flow VS.
J B after all it seems was convicted on circumstantial evidence - quite a few changed their view after watching WHF and questioned if he was guilty.
-
No conspiracy??
What's this then?
"JM's wit stat mentions bugging.
It's officially documented that officers went to her shared house ostensibly to check the alarm clocks.
Police searched SC's flat for diaries etc.
Plenty of opportunity for bugging. Plus JB was under surveillance for a period of time.
It's well known hacks and the police work hand in glove feeding off one another.
Those from the MM board will have knowledge of dodgy cops, leaks, tabloids, grubby hacks".
What EXACTLY are you suggesting happened wrt to the nude photos story?l
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6705.msg281476#msg281476
-
Well there is zero evidence for abduction - but that doesn't stop you thinking there was an abduction.
So how come your stance has changed with this crime- or do you just go with the flow VS.
J B after all it seems was convicted on circumstantial evidence - quite a few changed their view after watching WHF and questioned if he was guilty.
It is Holly claiming there is zero evidence against Bamber, and Holly who also claims that Madeleine was abducted by a middle aged English woman visiting her aunt, perhaps you should address your question to her, or are you only interested in attacking me?
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6705.msg281476#msg281476
just answer the question, don’t link to long dead threads.
-
It is Holly claiming there is zero evidence against Bamber, and Holly who also claims that Madeleine was abducted by a middle aged English woman visiting her aunt, perhaps you should address your question to her, or are you only interested in attacking me?
How was I attacking you VS - I'm sorry you think that.
It was more just asking you how you can feel so strongly for JB being guilty of just circumstantial evidence.
Yet zero evidence of abduction in MM case - just think if he had all the backup/money and legal team the mccs had he may have not even gone to court in the first place. IMO
But JB only had legal aid.
There's obviously something not right for most intelligent posters on here not sure if he is guilty.
-
How was I attacking you VS - I'm sorry you think that.
It was more just asking you how you can feel so strongly for JB being guilty of just circumstantial evidence.
Yet zero evidence of abduction in MM case - just think if he had all the backup/money and legal team the mccs had he may have not even gone to court in the first place. IMO
But JB only had legal aid.
There's obviously something not right for most intelligent posters on here not sure if he is guilty.
I think there is a good discussion to be had but somewhere where it is completely on topic. It is certainly something that would merit a thread on the Madeleine Board where not a lot is happening at the moment.
-
Yes and how did the officers gain entry? They had to take a sledgehammer to the back door because all the doors were locked from within and all ground floor windows secured from within. Meaning the perp was inside.
The relatives later concluded it was possible to exit and leave a window secured from within but no one knows how this worked in practice because unusually judge and jurors were not taken to WHF to see for themselves.
The bathroom window was found to be unsecured.
-
How was I attacking you VS - I'm sorry you think that.
It was more just asking you how you can feel so strongly for JB being guilty of just circumstantial evidence.
Yet zero evidence of abduction in MM case - just think if he had all the backup/money and legal team the mccs had he may have not even gone to court in the first place. IMO
But JB only had legal aid.
There's obviously something not right for most intelligent posters on here not sure if he is guilty.
In the Bamber case there could only have been one of two scenarios. Based on all the evidence I concur with not only the jury in the original court case but also the numerous judges in subsequent appeals that the correct scenario was that Bamber dunnit. In order for me to believe otherwise would require for me to excuse Bamber for a long series behaviours and actions, and to blame anything else that I wasn’t able to explain or excuse on malevolent relatives or bent cops. That’s just far too many hoops to ask me to jump through. The McCann case is far more open ended than that, parental involvement is one (remote imo) possibility but the evidence against the parents is (as the PT officials admitted) just not there.
-
No. He said he knew of ways to enter but not ways of exiting leaving windows secured from within.
And why would he admit that?
-
Well there is zero evidence for abduction - but that doesn't stop you thinking there was an abduction.
So how come your stance has changed with this crime- or do you just go with the flow VS.
J B after all it seems was convicted on circumstantial evidence - quite a few changed their view after watching WHF and questioned if he was guilty.
Most cases are fought on circumstantial evidence and I haven't heard anyone changing to innocent after watching WHF.
-
How was I attacking you VS - I'm sorry you think that.
It was more just asking you how you can feel so strongly for JB being guilty of just circumstantial evidence.
Yet zero evidence of abduction in MM case - just think if he had all the backup/money and legal team the mccs had he may have not even gone to court in the first place. IMO
But JB only had legal aid.
There's obviously something not right for most intelligent posters on here not sure if he is guilty.
I certainly don't agree that it wouldn't have gone to court.
-
The bathroom window was found to be unsecured.
Not according to DCI Jones' testimony.
-
And why would he admit that?
Indeed.
-
Not according to DCI Jones' testimony.
He wasn't there long enough to everything he said he did. I don't believe he checked the window properly.
-
Read the books, watch the documentaries and TV series, then you'll see why it is.
Look I've watched many documentaries and yes this claim is repeated time and time again but I don't see the reason why.
-
I have done several times - it's because of the phone call but you keep making up a fantasy caller to explain it away. There was no such thing.Either Nevill called and the killer was Sheila or he didn't and it was Bamber.
What about this version: " it's because of the phone call but you keep making up a fantasy caller to explain it away. There was no such thing. Either Nevill called and the killer was Sheila and someone else or he didn't and it was Sheila and someone else.
-
What about this version: " it's because of the phone call but you keep making up a fantasy caller to explain it away. There was no such thing. Either Nevill called and the killer was Sheila and someone else or he didn't and it was Sheila and someone else.
What about it?
-
What about it?
There could be alternatives.
-
There could be alternatives.
There couldn't.
-
There could be alternatives.
Little green men on moon.
-
Little green men on moon.
The butler?
-
The butler?
So MANY alternatives................in one's fantasies!!
-
Does anyone know if Bamber has a secret twin brother who used to go around chucking stones at water fowl and murdering people? I think we should consider the possibility.
-
Does anyone know if Bamber has a secret twin brother who used to go around chucking stones at water fowl and murdering people? I think we should consider the possibility.
Absolutely, VS. We should root out those stones and make certain none remain unturned.
-
Straight from the horses mouth: Sun journo who met with BC and JB to discuss the photos of SC confirms he had no idea if the images existed as he wasn't presented with any.
I accept it was in poor taste to say the least but they talked about SC with a cucumber and a vibrator which I doubt ever existed.
https://youtu.be/bcTvqLk0MWU
@ 33 mins in
-
Straight from the horses mouth: Sun journo who met with BC and JB to discuss the photos of SC confirms he had no idea if the images existed as he wasn't presented with any.
I accept it was in poor taste to say the least but they talked about SC with a cucumber and a vibrator which I doubt ever existed.
https://youtu.be/bcTvqLk0MWU
@ 33 mins in
What does this prove in your view?
Is it your view that the journo is blatantly lying in this interview?
-
Does anyone know if Bamber has a secret twin brother who used to go around chucking stones at water fowl and murdering people? I think we should consider the possibility.
Or even that AE used to dress up as Bamber? It's a possibility! [AE = Anna Eaton]
-
Straight from the horses mouth: Sun journo who met with BC and JB to discuss the photos of SC confirms he had no idea if the images existed as he wasn't presented with any.
I accept it was in poor taste to say the least but they talked about SC with a cucumber and a vibrator which I doubt ever existed.
https://youtu.be/bcTvqLk0MWU
@ 33 mins in
Asking again -
What does this prove in your view?
Is it your view that the journo is blatantly lying in this interview?
-
Asking again -
What does this prove in your view?
Is it your view that the journo is blatantly lying in this interview?
Exactly what it says: The Sun hack had no idea if what he was being offered actually existed because he never saw any of the images.
-
Exactly what it says: The Sun hack had no idea if what he was being offered actually existed because he never saw any of the images.
What does that matter - we know they did exist? However, the very notion that he would meet with the guy and talk about his dead sister that way is creepy beyond belief!
-
Exactly what it says: The Sun hack had no idea if what he was being offered actually existed because he never saw any of the images.
Who here has ever said otherwise? What does this prove wrt to whether or not Bamber contacted the Sun trying to sell pornographic photos of his recently murdered sister? You failed to answer my second question: do you consider this journo to be telling bare-faced lies?
-
Who here has ever said otherwise? What does this prove wrt to whether or not Bamber contacted the Sun trying to sell pornographic photos of his recently murdered sister? You failed to answer my second question: do you consider this journo to be telling bare-faced lies?
Bumping for Holly.
-
Well there is zero evidence for abduction - but that doesn't stop you thinking there was an abduction.
So how come your stance has changed with this crime- or do you just go with the flow VS.
J B after all it seems was convicted on circumstantial evidence - quite a few changed their view after watching WHF and questioned if he was guilty.
Rubbish.
They did a poll on Twitter after WHF was shown and 89% said he was GUILTY
And that was out of thousands of people😳
-
Rubbish.
They did a poll on Twitter after WHF was shown and 89% said he was GUILTY
And that was out of thousands of people😳
Have you got proof of that poll - or is it just what you say you saw.
Possibility though the other 11% - could have thought him guilty till they saw WHF.
If you say thousands - 11% of that would be hundreds- and that is quite a few.
Not rubish at all. 8((()*/
-
Have you got proof of that poll - or is it just what you say you saw.
Possibility though the other 11% - could have thought him guilty till they saw WHF.
If you say thousands - 11% of that would be hundreds- and that is quite a few.
Not rubish at all. 8((()*/
The poll is fatally flawed, if it exists. Whodathunkit, 89% of the demographic that watched the series thought him guilty? The series casts him in a terrible light, although probably understandably given the heinous crimes he committed - so this apparent 11% is interesting.
How many knew who he was or about the murders and are only getting their information from a (somewhat disappointing) dramatisation?
-
Have you got proof of that poll - or is it just what you say you saw.
Possibility though the other 11% - could have thought him guilty till they saw WHF.
If you say thousands - 11% of that would be hundreds- and that is quite a few.
Not rubish at all. 8((()*/
Have you got proof that "quite a few changed their view after watching WHF and questioned if he was guilty"?
-
a) when you drill down there's zero evidence against JB. b) yes the tabloids did have a field day and it cost them some 500k as the McCanns were able to instruct the best libel lawyers in the land. Conversely JB's defence at trial was funded by legal aid.
Jeremy Bamber still managed to get one of the top QC’s in the land, though!
Barristers don’t care if they’re paid privately or through Legal Aid...
So, what you’re saying, Holly, is that the McCann’s weren’t charged because they had THE BEST legal team money could buy. So in that case, as Jeremy had THE BEST legal team too — how comes he wasn’t found innocent?
-
JM's wit stat mentions bugging.
It's officially documented that officers went to her shared house ostensibly to check the alarm clocks.
Police searched SC's flat for diaries etc.
Plenty of opportunity for bugging. Plus JB was under surveillance for a period of time.
It's well known hacks and the police work hand in glove feeding off one another.
Those from the MM board will have knowledge of dodgy cops, leaks, tabloids, grubby hacks.
The police did the bugging, Holly, because they were rightly suspicious of Jeremy and had him under surveillance to collect intelligence in him. If you think the police would blab to the press whilst collecting evidence — for the papers to ALERT Jeremy — you’re devoid of all logic and knowledge.
Incidentally, someone mentioned that June had photos of Sheila in her bureau. Yes, she did. Harmless topless photos, the type seen on Page 3 every day in The Sun, which Colin had taken. So what?
-
a)there is evidence against SC its the reason senior officers at soc and the police surgeon considered the soc murder/suicide. Its the reason the pathologist found no evidence to contradict murder/suicide when carrying out the pm's. Its the reason the only dissenter was a low ranking officer who offered nothing of evidential value. Its the reason why an independent review said all the evidence pointed to SC.
b) the tabloids had a field day until it was stopped in its tracks by the McCanns legal team which resulted in a 500k settlement and a front page apology.
Cite please for this “evidence” against Sheila...
^*&&
-
Yes and how did the officers gain entry? They had to take a sledgehammer to the back door because all the doors were locked from within and all ground floor windows secured from within. Meaning the perp was inside.
The relatives later concluded it was possible to exit and leave a window secured from within but no one knows how this worked in practice because unusually judge and jurors were not taken to WHF to see for themselves.
And how did you expect a raid team of armed officers to gain entry?
Jeremy thought he was being clever by keeping door bolted on the inside, but we all know he left via the kitchen window, gave it a quick bang, which made the loose handle drop down so it appeared locked.
-
No. He said he knew of ways to enter but not ways of exiting leaving windows secured from within.
Rubbish
He even admitted to doing it when he claimed he went to WHF after being arrested to pick up paperwork! *%87
-
I assume he did leave the same way he entered but I also assume he left the window unsecured.
Your ASSUMPTION is wrong.
He claimed he used a hack blade to get into the bathroom window, which is all reported.... to collect papers (all BS)
He only said that because the police found that blade from the night he entered when he murdererEd them all
He HAD to leave via the kitchen window as that was the one he could make appear to look locked by banging it from outside, forcing the handle to drop down into the locked position. He couldn’t do that with the bathroom window, hence why he left through the kitchen
-
How was I attacking you VS - I'm sorry you think that.
It was more just asking you how you can feel so strongly for JB being guilty of just circumstantial evidence.
Yet zero evidence of abduction in MM case - just think if he had all the backup/money and legal team the mccs had he may have not even gone to court in the first place. IMO
But JB only had legal aid.
There's obviously something not right for most intelligent posters on here not sure if he is guilty.
Sorry to jump in — but doesn’t the fact VS looks at each case in an unbiased fashion prove that she takes all the facts into consideration? Just because she believes MM was abducted, why dies that mean she should think Jeremy Bamber is innocent? Your thinking strategy is all skewed.
Each and every case is different. Some people are clearly guilty, whilst some are clearly innocent.
The legal aid factor makes no difference whatsoever
Jeremy Bamber had one of the top QC’s in the country representing him; his fees were paid for by Legal Aid. Those days are gone now, though...
So as he had the very best representation and STILL gor found guilty — what does that tell you? You’re claiming the McCann’s weren’t charged due to having the best legal team, so they same should apply to Jeremy, no?
Rivlin actually told JB they had “difficulties”; the evidence against him was overwhelming, both the circumstantial evidence & the forensic evidence from the silencer; and the fact he’d told several lies and contradictions in his statements. He was also the only one who had a motive, and he didn’t even try to hide his lust for money as soon as he killed them all. He also had no alibi; he lived almost on the doorstep; and he made out Nevill phoned him when it would have been impossible as Nevill couldn’t have spoken after first being shot in the mouth upstairs . Nevill’s blood from those wounds were discovered on the wall going INTO the kitchen — which proves he was already shot as he went in there. And he never came out again. That’s a fact backed-up by forensics and ballistics.
So which ever QC Jeremy had, they wouldn’t have been able to get him off as there was nothing to work with.
-
Not according to DCI Jones' testimony.
He was inept.
Everyone knows that.
Another officer said the bathroom window wasn’t secured. But it’s irrelevant — that’s the window Jeremy git through when he broke in — so he could have secured it. He probably did, but having loosened it with the hacksaw, maybe he didn’t realise he hadn’t closed it properly if the catch had become loose.
And he exited through the kitchen window, remember.
-
Straight from the horses mouth: Sun journo who met with BC and JB to discuss the photos of SC confirms he had no idea if the images existed as he wasn't presented with any.
I accept it was in poor taste to say the least but they talked about SC with a cucumber and a vibrator which I doubt ever existed.
https://youtu.be/bcTvqLk0MWU
@ 33 mins in
We know that 🙄
Vile Jeremy told Colin the same too.
And do you think Jeremy and Brett were going to give the images to the journalist without paying up first?!
They were HAWKING them. They said they wanted £20K for them.
Sheila had been part tricked into having those photos taken, and she deeply regretted it. But in the grand scheme of things, they were just stupid photos of her, alone, posing with a sex toy...so whilst they were embarrassing for her (though Jeremy found them “very, very interesting”...) she wasn’t pictured having sex with people or in an orgy. Sheila wasn’t having sex with anyone, and I guarantee she wouldn’t have ever found a psychopathic mass murderer festering in jail, who smeared his whole body in his own faeces desirable 🤢
She wasn’t hard up for a man.
-
Have you got proof of that poll - or is it just what you say you saw.
Possibility though the other 11% - could have thought him guilty till they saw WHF.
If you say thousands - 11% of that would be hundreds- and that is quite a few.
Not rubish at all. 8((()*/
Look on Twitter and scroll back
-
The poll is fatally flawed, if it exists. Whodathunkit, 89% of the demographic that watched the series thought him guilty? The series casts him in a terrible light, although probably understandably given the heinous crimes he committed - so this apparent 11% is interesting.
How many knew who he was or about the murders and are only getting their information from a (somewhat disappointing) dramatisation?
How else could they cast an evil mass murderer who killed all his family for GREED?
-
Been through this before....how often can you keep repeating yourself?
And how did you expect a raid team of armed officers to gain entry? Stop making yourself look desperate.
Jeremy thought he was being clever by keeping door bolted on the inside, but we all know he left via the kitchen window, gave it a quick bang, which made the loose handle drop down so it appeared locked.
Your desperation is going off the Richter scale now...
We know that Bamber's relatives hypothesised that he exited via the kitchen window, but we don't know that he actually did that.
-
We know that Bamber's relatives hypothesised that he exited via the kitchen window, but we don't know that he actually did that.
DCI Jones found all windows secured from within.
Why didn't the trial include a trip to WHF, soc, to see for themselves whether it was possible for windows to be secured from outside?
-
Who here has ever said otherwise? What does this prove wrt to whether or not Bamber contacted the Sun trying to sell pornographic photos of his recently murdered sister? You failed to answer my second question: do you consider this journo to be telling bare-faced lies?
Bumping for Holly (again).
-
We know that Bamber's relatives hypothesised that he exited via the kitchen window, but we don't know that he actually did that.
It wasn't about whether did did A,B, and C individually. THAT, as another thread makes clear, doesn't make him a murderer. However, when the whole A through Z of his actions and behaviours is examined, the conclusion looks somewhat different.
-
Bumping for Holly (again).
I posted up the link to the 'Killing mum and dad' vid to hear from the horse's mouth!
-
Look on Twitter and scroll back
Nah - you mentioned twitter not me.
-
Sorry to jump in — but doesn’t the fact VS looks at each case in an unbiased fashion prove that she takes all the facts into consideration? Just because she believes MM was abducted, why dies that mean she should think Jeremy Bamber is innocent? Your thinking strategy is all skewed.
Each and every case is different. Some people are clearly guilty, whilst some are clearly innocent.
The legal aid factor makes no difference whatsoever
Jeremy Bamber had one of the top QC’s in the country representing him; his fees were paid for by Legal Aid. Those days are gone now, though...
So as he had the very best representation and STILL gor found guilty — what does that tell you? You’re claiming the McCann’s weren’t charged due to having the best legal team, so they same should apply to Jeremy, no?
Rivlin actually told JB they had “difficulties”; the evidence against him was overwhelming, both the circumstantial evidence & the forensic evidence from the silencer; and the fact he’d told several lies and contradictions in his statements. He was also the only one who had a motive, and he didn’t even try to hide his lust for money as soon as he killed them all. He also had no alibi; he lived almost on the doorstep; and he made out Nevill phoned him when it would have been impossible as Nevill couldn’t have spoken after first being shot in the mouth upstairs . Nevill’s blood from those wounds were discovered on the wall going INTO the kitchen — which proves he was already shot as he went in there. And he never came out again. That’s a fact backed-up by forensics and ballistics.
So which ever QC Jeremy had, they wouldn’t have been able to get him off as there was nothing to work with.
If anybody's strategy is skewed ISWMBE it yours.
What is your strategy on here - i mean JB is in prison found guilty in for life. so what is it you want?
If people think the conviction is not safe - it is no threat to you whatsoever.so why spend endless hours defending
-
We know that Bamber's relatives hypothesised that he exited via the kitchen window, but we don't know that he actually did that.
He exited the same way he did when he admitted breaking in to get papers for his trip to St Tropez...
But that was a lie too...he was under surveillance and was in London when he claimed he broke in
People must be incredibly thick to believe a pathological liar who’s a psychopathic mass murderer...
-
DCI Jones found all windows secured from within.
Why didn't the trial include a trip to WHF, soc, to see for themselves whether it was possible for windows to be secured from outside?
He was incompetent and he didn’t check at all — he just barked orders
It was actually a PC who discovered the bathroom window wasn’t secure...
Considering you’ve spent seven years of your life desperately trying to find a tiny needle in a haystack that just might help Jeremy Bamber’s pathetic lies, disproven hypothesis, and laughable suggestions — you’re still stuck in the exact same spot as you were on day one.
Don’t you feel despondent?
Tired?
Bored?
Weary?
Or do you intend to sentence yourself to another term and do another seven year stretch, robbing yourself of living a normal like by devoting all your time to try and find a Get Out Of Jail for Free Card, which ain’t in Jeremy’s pack of cards..😳
-
I’m doing my part for Care in the Community and am trying to help you understand your thought processes are wrong. I’m kind like that 😊
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I’m doing my part for Care in the Community and am trying to help you understand your thought processes are wrong. I’m kind like that 😊
So am I - You don't know what my thought process is.
-
If people think the conviction is not safe - it is no threat to you whatsoever.so why spend endless hours defending
It kind of is important in this case to police the forums and nip all the lies and disinformation in the bud.
Because the bottom line from our point of view, is your trying to free a child killer (albeit unwittingly)
That is a cause worth fighting against.
-
It kind of is important in this case to police the forums and nip all the lies and disinformation in the bud.
Because the bottom line from our point of view, is your trying to free a child killer (albeit unwittingly)
That is a cause worth fighting against.
Very commendable so long as these corrections are demonstrably correct. If not they add to the lies and disinformation.
-
I posted up the link to the 'Killing mum and dad' vid to hear from the horse's mouth!
I know you did, You have once again avoided answering my questions. Why? Here they are again
1) what does the video prove in your opinion?
2) Is the journo telling bare faced lies, in your opinion?
-
Very commendable so long as these corrections are demonstrably correct. If not they add to the lies and disinformation.
Define “demonstrably correct”.
-
It kind of is important in this case to police the forums and nip all the lies and disinformation in the bud.
Because the bottom line from our point of view, is your trying to free a child killer (albeit unwittingly)
That is a cause worth fighting against.
That is a cause worth fighting against.
Couldn't agree more - but he is not going to be freed is he, JB is in prison till he dies.
What I think is wrong is fairly intelligent posters being branded and targeted because of there belief.
If they think conviction or whatever not safe its a discussion forum that's all - not a free JB statement or cause.
So why feel a need to fight - views on a forum.
-
That is a cause worth fighting against.
Couldn't agree more - but he is not going to be freed is he, JB is in prison till he dies.
What I think is wrong is fairly intelligent posters being branded and targeted because of there belief.
If they think conviction or whatever not safe its a discussion forum that's all - not a free JB statement or cause.
So why feel a need to fight - views on a forum.
I think we all tend to become louder when we're speaking of things we feel passionately about.
-
That is a cause worth fighting against.
Couldn't agree more - but he is not going to be freed is he, JB is in prison till he dies.
What I think is wrong is fairly intelligent posters being branded and targeted because of there belief.
If they think conviction or whatever not safe its a discussion forum that's all - not a free JB statement or cause.
So why feel a need to fight - views on a forum.
The people on here supporting JB are actively working to secure his release. it’s therefore not surprising if other people, those who can see that he is as guilty as sin, object to their efforts and are keen to explain why.
-
Define “demonstrably correct”.
With cites.
-
With cites.
but you don’t accept all cites, such as CAL’s book.
-
The people on here supporting JB are actively working to secure his release. it’s therefore not surprising if other people, those who can see that he is as guilty as sin, object to their efforts and are keen to explain why.
Oh VS really @)(++(* Bless
-
Oh VS really @)(++(* Bless
Can you please explain what is so funny about what I wrote that it required that patronising response and emoticon?
-
Can you please explain what is so funny about what I wrote that it required that patronising response and emoticon?
Nothing funny about it - tell you waht is hilarious though, some of the excuses made for Bamber on here @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
That is a cause worth fighting against.
Couldn't agree more - but he is not going to be freed is he, JB is in prison till he dies.
What I think is wrong is fairly intelligent posters being branded and targeted because of there belief.
If they think conviction or whatever not safe its a discussion forum that's all - not a free JB statement or cause.
So why feel a need to fight - views on a forum.
You obviously haven’t read through the posts
Some members on here, albeit few, are actively seeking ways to try and get this evil psycho free.
Do you not think that strange? Do you not think they need a wake-up call?
You’ve said yourself he’s guilty, so why should it bother you what I post, when I post, and how frequently? You’re not obliged to read my posts.
Likewise, if you truly belive he’s guilty, which I’m not sure you do as I’ve not read your posts, but if you do indeed think he’s guilty why are you vexed that I absolutely belive he’s guilty and am prepared to say so?
Why aren’t you having a go at his supporters if you think he’s guilty?
-
How did Jeremy get hold of these photos of Sheila?
-
She’s just another member of the G-Unit fan club.
@)(++(* You want an autograph? @)(++(*
-
@)(++(* You want an autograph? @)(++(*
I’m not a member of your fan club, so thanks but no thanks.
-
I’m not a member of your fan club, so thanks but no thanks.
I actually find that quite comforting.
-
I’m not a member of your fan club, so thanks but no thanks.
'I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member'. Barry Manilow, Club Tropicana 7" single - 1983 - CBS Recordings.
-
'I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member'. Barry Manilow, Club Tropicana 7" single - 1983 - CBS Recordings.
I wouldn't wish to be a member of any club that he had membership of, either, but are you certain it was he who said it, originally?
-
I wouldn't wish to be a member of any club that he had membership of, either, but are you certain it was he who said it, originally?
No, now I think of it, it was one of the Marx Brothers - Karl I think.
-
How did Jeremy get hold of these photos of Sheila?
Does anyone know the answer?
-
Does anyone know the answer?
Clearing her flat?
-
Clearing her flat?
Forgot about that. Idiot!
-
You obviously haven’t read through the posts
Some members on here, albeit few, are actively seeking ways to try and get this evil psycho free.
Do you not think that strange? Do you not think they need a wake-up call?
You’ve said yourself he’s guilty, so why should it bother you what I post, when I post, and how frequently? You’re not obliged to read my posts.
Likewise, if you truly belive he’s guilty, which I’m not sure you do as I’ve not read your posts, but if you do indeed think he’s guilty why are you vexed that I absolutely belive he’s guilty and am prepared to say so?
Why aren’t you having a go at his supporters if you think he’s guilty?
You do read my posts or else why reply to them - but do read them properly.
I'm certainly not vexed at your posts - I'm just not getting why you are so passionate in your quest to nothing.
JB is serving life a life sentence he will be in prison till he dies - as you said just a couple of don't agree with you
The reason I would not have a go at those who sit on the fence etc that's all it is a differing opinion to yours
Because they are entitled to have their opinion on the case - it's not all about you sorry.
Do you go on the other forums I think its the blue on - with a similar passion or is it just this one
Everyone knows what happened reading this forum - if they didn't they do now.
-
Can you please explain what is so funny about what I wrote that it required that patronising response and emoticon?
Its the fact that you actually believe a few posters with differing opinions to yours.
Are actively seeking to secure JB release - you think a few posts on here are going to stop it.
Something that isn't happening anyway - I'm not being patronizing you should think about what you said.
-
Does anyone know the answer?
He moved into her flat and stayed there regularly.
-
'I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member'. Barry Manilow, Club Tropicana 7" single - 1983 - CBS Recordings.
I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that had you as a member either - WHAM! @)(++(*
-
I actually find that quite comforting.
How sad.
-
Its the fact that you actually believe a few posters with differing opinions to yours.
Are actively seeking to secure JB release - you think a few posts on here are going to stop it.
Something that isn't happening anyway - I'm not being patronizing you should think about what you said.
I should think about what I said?? More patronising from you, many thanks. I have thought about what I wrote and I am absolutely correct. There ARE people here actively working towards getting JB freed from prison. I don’t consider it very likely that they will succeed but that doesn’t mean I have to stay silent about their efforts. Perhaps you should direct your scorn at them instead, assuming you believe they are on a hiding to nothing (except of course you won’t, because of your past allegiances on a different part of the forum).
-
I should think about what I said?? More patronising from you thanks. I have thought about what I wrote and I am absolutely correct. There ARE people here actively working towards getting JB freed from prison. I don’t consider it very likely that they will succeed but that doesn’t mean I have to stay silent about their efforts. Perhaps you should direct your scorn at them instead, assuming you believe they are on a hiding to nothing (except of course you won’t, because of your past allegiances on a different part of the forum).
Holly regularly writes about her attempts to spring him.
-
I know you did, You have once again avoided answering my questions. Why? Here they are again
1) what does the video prove in your opinion?
2) Is the journo telling bare faced lies, in your opinion?
Holly, are you ever going to answer these questions or should I just give up?
-
I should think about what I said?? More patronising from you, many thanks. I have thought about what I wrote and I am absolutely correct. There ARE people here actively working towards getting JB freed from prison. I don’t consider it very likely that they will succeed but that doesn’t mean I have to stay silent about their efforts. Perhaps you should direct your scorn at them instead, assuming you believe they are on a hiding to nothing (except of course you won’t, because of your past allegiances on a different part of the forum).
Who ARE you talking about VS What past alliances - what are you talking about.
They are not posters on the other part of the forum [as you call it] anyway.
By the way, I'm not directing scorn - another one that thinks the best form of defense is attack.
You should no by now I am in alliance whith no one.
-
Who ARE you talking about VS What past alliances - what are you talking about.
They are not posters on the other part of the forum [as you call it] anyway.
By the way, I'm not directing scorn - another one that thinks the best form of defense is attack.
You should no by now I am in alliance whith no one.
There are only two people in this part of the forum working hard to get JB released from prison - one of them is G-Unit and one of them is Holly. You and G-Unit certainly bat for the same side on the Madeleine forum and that perhaps is why you would never challenge her views on here, out of politeness or respect, or deep seated admiration, who knows? I however am someone whose views you have poo-poo'ed on the Madeleine forum and whose views you do continue to scorn with the dismissive comments and silly emojis that you have used in all your posts directed at me ("bless! @)(++(*" "think about what you've written" etc), even though apparently you believe JB is guilty as do I. Why do you feel the need to make these silly comments if not to try and put me in my place?
-
There are only two people in this part of the forum working hard to get JB released from prison - one of them is G-Unit and one of them is Holly. You and G-Unit certainly bat for the same side on the Madeleine forum and that perhaps is why you would never challenge her views on here, out of politeness or respect, or deep seated admiration, who knows? I however am someone whose views you have poo-poo'ed on the Madeleine forum and whose views you do continue to scorn with the dismissive comments and silly emojis that you have used in all your posts directed at me ("bless! @)(++(*" "think about what you've written" etc), even though apparently you believe JB is guilty as do I. Why do you feel the need to make these silly comments if not to try and put me in my place?
Jesus, there's two of us now.
-
Could we please stay on topic, rather than make comments about other posters. Thanks!
-
Could we please stay on topic, rather than make comments about other posters. Thanks!
Roger that.
-
Roger that.
Are you satisfied that Jeremy Bamber tried to sell nude photos of his murdered sister to the Sun, or do you reckon the Sun just printed a pack of lies as Holly and G-Unit seem to be suggesting?
-
Are you satisfied that Jeremy Bamber tried to sell nude photos of his murdered sister to the Sun, or do you reckon the Sun just printed a pack of lies as Holly and G-Unit seem to be suggesting?
Well I'm hopelessly biased being from Liverpool, where you don't even mention that rag. But obviously they didn't pull the story out of their arses, as the MO is to use the nucleus of the story and turn it in to sensationalist, lying, hateful bile and attempt to create a new truth. ****s
In short, it probably happened.
-
I wonder who gave the press the other family photos?
-
I wonder who gave the press the other family photos?
Why don’t you start a new thread about it? This one is about the nude photos Bamber tried to sell to the Sun, something which you dispute ever happened for some reason.
-
Well I'm hopelessly biased being from Liverpool, where you don't even mention that rag. But obviously they didn't pull the story out of their arses, as the MO is to use the nucleus of the story and turn it in to sensationalist, lying, hateful bile and attempt to create a new truth. ****s
In short, it probably happened.
That's a well thought through conclusion you've arrived at, General. However, once it's accepted that Jeremy and Brett met two of the Sun's finest, the question arises, "Why?". There had to be a reason and it's doubtful that they were interested in journalism. I think it must remain that they believed they had something the Sun would be interested in, and it was unlikely to be Sheila, showing to best advantage, those outfits chosen for her to wear by which ever house was paying for the shoot.
-
Why don’t you start a new thread about it? This one is about the nude photos Bamber tried to sell to the Sun, something which you dispute ever happened for some reason.
I'm sure something happened, just not sure what. All I know is that the Sun isn't the best source to rely on about anything imo.
-
I'm sure something happened, just not sure what. All I know is that the Sun isn't the best source to rely on about anything imo.
Did you not watch the interview withthe journalist Holly posted? Now either he is telling the truth or he is telling bare-faced lies to the camera. Which do you believe is more likely?
-
I'm sure something happened, just not sure what. All I know is that the Sun isn't the best source to rely on about anything imo.
There was every opportunity for Jeremy and Brett to deny they'd ever had a meeting with anyone connected to the Sun.
-
I'm sure something happened, just not sure what. All I know is that the Sun isn't the best source to rely on about anything imo.
If you don't like what is being said, you just rubbish the source. What's the point in peole supplying a source if you're never going to be happy with it?
-
Are you satisfied that Jeremy Bamber tried to sell nude photos of his murdered sister to the Sun, or do you reckon the Sun just printed a pack of lies as Holly and G-Unit seem to be suggesting?
Would you kindly, again, just remind us how that proves he is a murderer?
Please hear me out....
Before you say "It's part of a pattern of behaviour", the problem is that it isn't suspicious. Applying a pattern to this sort of behaviour is just an expression of bias. Some of what Jeremy did was nasty, I agree, and also I agree the attempt to sell the nude pictures probably happened and that Jeremy was a nasty piece of work, but again, it doesn't make him murderer.
Likewise:
Having a hearty breakfast - normal behaviour.
Carrying on as if nothing has happened - normal behaviour, especially for an English male. Being socially reserved and taciturn in this sense was still a pronounced quirk of English men back then and Jeremy was brought up this way.
Putting the dog down quickly just because you don't want to keep it - perfectly normal behaviour, especially during that era. Jeremy was an Essex farmer, not a touchy-feely metropolitan type. I am a dog lover and I have put down dogs in similar situations on a similar pretext.
Faking emotional reactions at the crime scene, faking grief and faking it at the funeral - normal behaviour. Emotionally-normative people do this. People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand, and as a result, they sometimes feel pressured to fake it. Not being upset at the death of a close relative is quite common. Not everybody likes their relatives. It's not a crime.
Grinning at the funeral after faking it - normal behaviour, as above.
Talking dirty to your girlfriend at the funeral and saying inappropriate things in front of Colin on the way to the crematorium - again, normal behaviour, albeit callous, immature and inappropriate.
Selling off personal effects - perfectly normal behaviour in that situation, and the relatives behaved similarly.
Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back.
Trying to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a s..mmy tabloid - DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR, but not suspicious. Sheila was not his biological sister and maybe he just didn't care about her? It's not nice to dislike and not care about close relatives, but it's not a crime.
Other behavioural quirks I picked up from Colin Caffell's book, such as Jeremy aping Colin's behaviour - all normal. Why does Colin take issue with Jeremy taking cues from him? Maybe because Colin is looking at it in retrospect and judging Jeremy's behaviour by what he now knows. But I can imagine myself doing just the same as Jeremy in that situation. Some people are 'socially autistic/unaware'. I would not know how to behave at a funeral and would look for cues from somebody more sensitive like Colin and I would probably copy his behaviour. Maybe Jeremy should have confided in Colin about his disabilities/insecurities? But is Jeremy the type to do that?
Burning clothes - SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR. On this point, I agree with you and disagree with Holly and the other pro-innocent people. Holly, I think, has tried to explain this by saying that Jeremy would not want to see people in his dead relatives' clothes. That's a cogent surface explanation, but I'm not entirely satisfied on this point. Frankly, most people don't care about other people wearing their dead relatives' clothes, assuming they would even stop to notice. How would you even tell or know? I am wondering what Jeremy was burning and why.
Jeremy Bamber was a nasty character. But I didn't like my parents either. I hated my mother and I disliked my father. I helped myself to cocoa-pops, jam on toast and a large mug of coffee after hearing about my schizophrenic father's death, after faking being upset about it, then being genuinely upset for a bit, then going back to work and forgetting about it. In two days, I'd forgotten my father completely and didn't care.
Am I a murderer? A rhetorical question, but most of Jeremy's behaviour you are highlighting isn't suspicious. Whether you think there is a pattern or not, if the behaviour isn't suspicious, then it's just an exercise in biasing.
Reminder - I say all this as somebody who thinks he probably did it.
-
Would you kindly, again, just remind us how that proves he is a murderer?
Please hear me out....
Before you say "It's part of a pattern of behaviour", the problem is that it isn't suspicious. Applying a pattern to this sort of behaviour is just an expression of bias. Some of what Jeremy did was nasty, I agree, and also I agree the attempt to sell the nude pictures probably happened and that Jeremy was a nasty piece of work, but again, it doesn't make him murderer.
Likewise:
Having a hearty breakfast - normal behaviour.
Carrying on as if nothing has happened - normal behaviour, especially for an English male. Being socially reserved and taciturn in this sense was still a pronounced quirk of English men back then and Jeremy was brought up this way.
Putting the dog down quickly just because you don't want to keep it - perfectly normal behaviour, especially during that era. Jeremy was an Essex farmer, not a touchy-feely metropolitan type. I am a dog lover and I have put down dogs in similar situations on a similar pretext.
Faking emotional reactions at the crime scene, faking grief and faking it at the funeral - normal behaviour. Emotionally-normative people do this. People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand, and as a result, they sometimes feel pressured to fake it. Not being upset at the death of a close relative is quite common. Not everybody likes their relatives. It's not a crime.
Grinning at the funeral after faking it - normal behaviour, as above.
Talking dirty to your girlfriend at the funeral and saying inappropriate things in front of Colin on the way to the crematorium - again, normal behaviour, albeit callous, immature and inappropriate.
Selling off personal effects - perfectly normal behaviour in that situation, and the relatives behaved similarly.
Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back.
Trying to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a s..mmy tabloid - DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR, but not suspicious. Sheila was not his biological sister and maybe he just didn't care about her? It's not nice to dislike and not care about close relatives, but it's not a crime.
Other behavioural quirks I picked up from Colin Caffell's book, such as Jeremy aping Colin's behaviour - all normal. Why does Colin take issue with Jeremy taking cues from him? Maybe because Colin is looking at it in retrospect and judging Jeremy's behaviour by what he now knows. But I can imagine myself doing just the same as Jeremy in that situation. Some people are 'socially autistic/unaware'. I would not know how to behave at a funeral and would look for cues from somebody more sensitive like Colin and I would probably copy his behaviour. Maybe Jeremy should have confided in Colin about his disabilities/insecurities? But is Jeremy the type to do that?
Burning clothes - SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR. On this point, I agree with you and disagree with Holly and the other pro-innocent people. Holly, I think, has tried to explain this by saying that Jeremy would not want to see people in his dead relatives' clothes. That's a cogent surface explanation, but I'm not entirely satisfied on this point. Frankly, most people don't care about other people wearing their dead relatives' clothes, assuming they would even stop to notice. How would you even tell or know? I am wondering what Jeremy was burning and why.
Jeremy Bamber was a nasty character. But I didn't like my parents either. I hated my mother and I disliked my father. I helped myself to cocoa-pops, jam on toast and a large mug of coffee after hearing about my schizophrenic father's death, after faking being upset about it, then being genuinely upset for a bit, then going back to work and forgetting about it. In two days, I'd forgotten my father completely and didn't care.
Am I a murderer? A rhetorical question, but most of Jeremy's behaviour you are highlighting isn't suspicious. Whether you think there is a pattern or not, if the behaviour isn't suspicious, then it's just an exercise in biasing.
Reminder - I say all this as somebody who thinks he probably did it.
Much of what you have dismissed as normal behaviour isn't normal to me but with respect to how you felt about your parents, they weren't murdered so that fact that you hated them is neither here nor there. His were. You think he probably did it? Why?
-
Would you kindly, again, just remind us how that proves he is a murderer?
Please hear me out....
Before you say "It's part of a pattern of behaviour", the problem is that it isn't suspicious. Applying a pattern to this sort of behaviour is just an expression of bias. Some of what Jeremy did was nasty, I agree, and also I agree the attempt to sell the nude pictures probably happened and that Jeremy was a nasty piece of work, but again, it doesn't make him murderer.
Likewise:
Having a hearty breakfast - normal behaviour.
Carrying on as if nothing has happened - normal behaviour, especially for an English male. Being socially reserved and taciturn in this sense was still a pronounced quirk of English men back then and Jeremy was brought up this way.
Putting the dog down quickly just because you don't want to keep it - perfectly normal behaviour, especially during that era. Jeremy was an Essex farmer, not a touchy-feely metropolitan type. I am a dog lover and I have put down dogs in similar situations on a similar pretext.
Faking emotional reactions at the crime scene, faking grief and faking it at the funeral - normal behaviour. Emotionally-normative people do this. People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand, and as a result, they sometimes feel pressured to fake it. Not being upset at the death of a close relative is quite common. Not everybody likes their relatives. It's not a crime.
Grinning at the funeral after faking it - normal behaviour, as above.
Talking dirty to your girlfriend at the funeral and saying inappropriate things in front of Colin on the way to the crematorium - again, normal behaviour, albeit callous, immature and inappropriate.
Selling off personal effects - perfectly normal behaviour in that situation, and the relatives behaved similarly.
Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back.
Trying to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a s..mmy tabloid - DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR, but not suspicious. Sheila was not his biological sister and maybe he just didn't care about her? It's not nice to dislike and not care about close relatives, but it's not a crime.
Other behavioural quirks I picked up from Colin Caffell's book, such as Jeremy aping Colin's behaviour - all normal. Why does Colin take issue with Jeremy taking cues from him? Maybe because Colin is looking at it in retrospect and judging Jeremy's behaviour by what he now knows. But I can imagine myself doing just the same as Jeremy in that situation. Some people are 'socially autistic/unaware'. I would not know how to behave at a funeral and would look for cues from somebody more sensitive like Colin and I would probably copy his behaviour. Maybe Jeremy should have confided in Colin about his disabilities/insecurities? But is Jeremy the type to do that?
Burning clothes - SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR. On this point, I agree with you and disagree with Holly and the other pro-innocent people. Holly, I think, has tried to explain this by saying that Jeremy would not want to see people in his dead relatives' clothes. That's a cogent surface explanation, but I'm not entirely satisfied on this point. Frankly, most people don't care about other people wearing their dead relatives' clothes, assuming they would even stop to notice. How would you even tell or know? I am wondering what Jeremy was burning and why.
Jeremy Bamber was a nasty character. But I didn't like my parents either. I hated my mother and I disliked my father. I helped myself to cocoa-pops, jam on toast and a large mug of coffee after hearing about my schizophrenic father's death, after faking being upset about it, then being genuinely upset for a bit, then going back to work and forgetting about it. In two days, I'd forgotten my father completely and didn't care.
Am I a murderer? A rhetorical question, but most of Jeremy's behaviour you are highlighting isn't suspicious. Whether you think there is a pattern or not, if the behaviour isn't suspicious, then it's just an exercise in biasing.
Reminder - I say all this as somebody who thinks he probably did it.
You had a big breakfast on learning of your father’s death? Good for you. You were probably ravenous. If that was all we had to go on with Jeremy, I agree, it’s not suspicious. Add in ALL the other stuff you are excusing as perfectly normal and it paints a picture of someone who is callous, greedy, selfish, money orientated, deceitful, fake. Were you all of those things as well as a bit hungry? I’m not the only person who sees Jeremy’s behaviour as suspicious. Experienced police offices did too right from the start. If you’re saying character traits and behaviour has no bearing on whether or not a person has a propensity to commit a crime, then that is your opinion. Personally I think it’s relevant.
-
Much of what you have dismissed as normal behaviour isn't normal to me but with respect to how you felt about your parents, they weren't murdered so that fact that you hated them is neither here nor there. His were. You think he probably did it? Why?
Thanks. I do accept that a police officer would make a note of what he regarded to be 'odd' behaviour - that's his duty and his training - but my point is that none of it proves Jeremy Bamber to be a murderer and it does not form a helpful pattern because it is, in each case, non-suspicious. I maintain that in most cases, the behaviour highlighted is normal. Moreover, all of it is susceptible to context and interpretation. I am allowed to make this point, and I am being reasonable because I accept you are right about at least one of the points made, and I am open to reasonable arguments that show I am wrong.
If I had been investigating those killings, I would like to think that I would have suspected Jeremy from the start and I would noted that he's a bit of merchant tanker. However, I would have also weighed it all up and, for the purposes of the investigation, I would have dismissed all of the above points except one of them due to a need to focus on the evidence - play the ball, not the man, so to speak. That's not because I like his behaviour, but in virtually all cases, his behaviour is within the bounds of normalcy. Acting inappropriately is not good, but it is not abnormal either.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
-
Would you kindly, again, just remind us how that proves he is a murderer?
Please hear me out....
Before you say "It's part of a pattern of behaviour", the problem is that it isn't suspicious. Applying a pattern to this sort of behaviour is just an expression of bias. Some of what Jeremy did was nasty, I agree, and also I agree the attempt to sell the nude pictures probably happened and that Jeremy was a nasty piece of work, but again, it doesn't make him murderer.
Likewise:
Having a hearty breakfast - normal behaviour.
Carrying on as if nothing has happened - normal behaviour, especially for an English male. Being socially reserved and taciturn in this sense was still a pronounced quirk of English men back then and Jeremy was brought up this way.
Putting the dog down quickly just because you don't want to keep it - perfectly normal behaviour, especially during that era. Jeremy was an Essex farmer, not a touchy-feely metropolitan type. I am a dog lover and I have put down dogs in similar situations on a similar pretext.
Faking emotional reactions at the crime scene, faking grief and faking it at the funeral - normal behaviour. Emotionally-normative people do this. People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand, and as a result, they sometimes feel pressured to fake it. Not being upset at the death of a close relative is quite common. Not everybody likes their relatives. It's not a crime.
Grinning at the funeral after faking it - normal behaviour, as above.
Talking dirty to your girlfriend at the funeral and saying inappropriate things in front of Colin on the way to the crematorium - again, normal behaviour, albeit callous, immature and inappropriate.
Selling off personal effects - perfectly normal behaviour in that situation, and the relatives behaved similarly.
Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back.
Trying to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a s..mmy tabloid - DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR, but not suspicious. Sheila was not his biological sister and maybe he just didn't care about her? It's not nice to dislike and not care about close relatives, but it's not a crime.
Other behavioural quirks I picked up from Colin Caffell's book, such as Jeremy aping Colin's behaviour - all normal. Why does Colin take issue with Jeremy taking cues from him? Maybe because Colin is looking at it in retrospect and judging Jeremy's behaviour by what he now knows. But I can imagine myself doing just the same as Jeremy in that situation. Some people are 'socially autistic/unaware'. I would not know how to behave at a funeral and would look for cues from somebody more sensitive like Colin and I would probably copy his behaviour. Maybe Jeremy should have confided in Colin about his disabilities/insecurities? But is Jeremy the type to do that?
Burning clothes - SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR. On this point, I agree with you and disagree with Holly and the other pro-innocent people. Holly, I think, has tried to explain this by saying that Jeremy would not want to see people in his dead relatives' clothes. That's a cogent surface explanation, but I'm not entirely satisfied on this point. Frankly, most people don't care about other people wearing their dead relatives' clothes, assuming they would even stop to notice. How would you even tell or know? I am wondering what Jeremy was burning and why.
Jeremy Bamber was a nasty character. But I didn't like my parents either. I hated my mother and I disliked my father. I helped myself to cocoa-pops, jam on toast and a large mug of coffee after hearing about my schizophrenic father's death, after faking being upset about it, then being genuinely upset for a bit, then going back to work and forgetting about it. In two days, I'd forgotten my father completely and didn't care.
Am I a murderer? A rhetorical question, but most of Jeremy's behaviour you are highlighting isn't suspicious. Whether you think there is a pattern or not, if the behaviour isn't suspicious, then it's just an exercise in biasing.
Reminder - I say all this as somebody who thinks he probably did it.
I don't think the above is normal behaviour-------and I'm not even sure Jeremy is guilty!
I think Jeremy's behaviour at the funeral was peculiar, and also very disrespectful, particularly grinning, and joking with his girlfriend. I have heard people argue that he might have been on the autistic spectrum, but , being on the spectrum myself, he doesn't come over that way to me----at all. (And, I know how to behave at funerals!). I do wonder whether Jeremy had downed his cocktail of Valium and booze beforehand-----that little mixture does not lend itself to appropriate behaviour.
Can't really comment re his "hearty breakfast", because I'm not sure how true this is: I heard somewhere that he made breakfast for the police officers who were with him, and decided to have some himself. Who knows what is true.
Trying to sell pictures of Sheila to a tabloid is, IMO, appalling------unless he, Brett and the chap from the Sun had been drinking together beforehand. Then, I'll partly blame the drink!
I was interested in what Colin says in his book re Jeremy copying his responses: Colin, being an artist, is probably very observant, so I would tend to believe him. I would like to know, however, whether this was apparent to Colin at the time, or whether he realised it retrospectively.
Burning of clothes? No, not normal as far as I'm concerned, but if you were to tell me that , out in the sticks, having a bonfire is the most convenient way to get rid of stuff one no longer wants, then it doesn't seem quite so abnormal----particularly as we suspect Jeremy didn't like his parents. In any event, disliking his parents doesn't necessarily mean he killed them.
The dog? No, I could never have done it. Jeremy, by all accounts, disliked Crispy, but he didn't dislike dogs: I'm sure I read that he had a dog of his own at one time, and was heartbroken when it died. Perhaps he thought Crispy wouldn't settle with anyone other than June, so would be better off being put down. Perhaps Jeremy is guilty, and knew Crispy would always be a reminder of the night he killed his family.
Who knows!
-
You had a big breakfast on learning of your father’s death? Good for you. You were probably ravenous. If that was all we had to go on with Jeremy, I agree, it’s not suspicious. Add in ALL the other stuff you are excusing as perfectly normal and it paints a picture of someone who is callous, greedy, selfish, money orientated, deceitful, fake. Were you all of those things as well as a bit hungry? I’m not the only person who sees Jeremy’s behaviour as suspicious. Experienced police offices did too right from the start. If you’re saying character traits and behaviour has no bearing on whether or not a person has a propensity to commit a crime, then that is your opinion. Personally I think it’s relevant.
Yes....and I appreciate the point. Nothing in what follows is aimed at you and this is just my opinion. I think this is a good discussion.
The thing is - I have been callous, greedy, money-oriented, deceitful and fake at points in my life.
I've done terrible, terrible things. I hated my mother. I disliked my father. I didn't care when they died. On the day of my father's death, after hearing of his demise, I faked being upset and had an extra helping of cocoa-pops with whole milk.
I'm still not a murderer or a psychopath of any sort.
Of course, there hadn't been a murder, nevertheless the point I am highlighting is the danger of inferring things from patterns of behaviour that are susceptible to context and interpretation and which may not be very important in proving anything.
You are right when you say character traits can have a bearing on proving a criminal case, but there are rules about bad character evidence. It's dangerous to significantly base a criminal conviction on it because it's often essentially subjective and it doesn't actually prove the criminal act.
Virtually all (with one exception) of the 'behavioural' points highlighted in this and other threads are, to me, non-suspicious, so they don’t form a pattern except in your own head. It’s one notch above, “He looks a bit funny”. You can call it evidence, but it can’t be taken seriously because it proves nothing of importance.
And much of it also depends on interpretation of wording and context. A lot of it is ‘verballing’ by relatives and Stan Jones, and other officers, a routine police practice back then prior to the full implementation of PACE, but something ordinary coppers still do to this day. Have you much experience with the police? Some of it, especially from Colin Caffell, is presented as ‘being wiser after the event’, but may in fact be confirmatory biasing of inappropriate but innocent behaviour in order to fit a retrospective narrative. That doesn’t mean Colin Caffell is lying. Far from it. I would never call Colin Caffell a liar. He's a lovely man. But if Jeremy, still a young man, takes his cues from Colin about how to behave so that he can fake grieving (if that’s how you want to put it), is that suspicious?
Don't worry, I do 'get' the point you're all making here and possibly I'm being a but 'autistic' about it, but at the same time, what I'm trying to do is focus on the evidence. I'm not very interested in the 'gossipy' angle on Jeremy because I know that it's unreliable. I have experience of the legal system - from both sides of it - and I have extensive experience of the police and the courts, and I know the dangers involved in adopting these views, which I do think are indicative of bias and can lead you to wrong conclusions.
But I accept he was a proper tanker, a nasty character. You're pushing at an open door with me on that point.
-
Thanks. I do accept that a police officer would make a note of what he regarded to be 'odd' behaviour - that's his duty and his training - but my point is that none of it proves Jeremy Bamber to be a murderer and it does not form a helpful pattern because it is, in each case, non-suspicious. I maintain that in most cases, the behaviour highlighted is normal. Moreover, all of it is susceptible to context and interpretation. I am allowed to make this point, and I am being reasonable because I accept you are right about at least one of the points made, and I am open to reasonable arguments that show I am wrong.
If I had been investigating those killings, I would like to think that I would have suspected Jeremy from the start and I would noted that he's a bit of merchant tanker. However, I would have also weighed it all up and, for the purposes of the investigation, I would have dismissed all of the above points except one of them due to a need to focus on the evidence - play the ball, not the man, so to speak. That's not because I like his behaviour, but in virtually all cases, his behaviour is within the bounds of normalcy. Acting inappropriately is not good, but it is not abnormal either.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
"Normal" is a word I try to stay well clear of. It's different for every one of us. Whilst Jeremy's behaviours -combined- maybe within the parameters of whatever your idea of normality is, it falls outside what many see as being acceptable.
-
I don't think the above is normal behaviour-------and I'm not even sure Jeremy is guilty!
I think you raise a good point about the possibility of Asperger's syndrome. Possibly if the case were re-tried today, there may be a basis for arguing that he has diminished responsibility due to a personality disorder. I have wondered whether we should regard him as just as ill as Sheila.
But....
Situational inappropriateness, such as laughing and sniggering at funerals or during the solemn parts of religious weddings, is common behaviour, therefore it is 'normal'.
Normal people do behave like that. Surely you must have done, at least once?
If we adopt the hypothetical that Jeremy is innocent, then he had just lost his entire family in a shooting incident. What template of behaviour should we apply to him?
Faking emotion and 'acting up' is normal, is it not? People do it because there is a social pressure to act in a certain way on certain important occasions.
-
Thanks. I do accept that a police officer would make a note of what he regarded to be 'odd' behaviour - that's his duty and his training - but my point is that none of it proves Jeremy Bamber to be a murderer and it does not form a helpful pattern because it is, in each case, non-suspicious. I maintain that in most cases, the behaviour highlighted is normal. Moreover, all of it is susceptible to context and interpretation. I am allowed to make this point, and I am being reasonable because I accept you are right about at least one of the points made, and I am open to reasonable arguments that show I am wrong.
If I had been investigating those killings, I would like to think that I would have suspected Jeremy from the start and I would noted that he's a bit of merchant tanker. However, I would have also weighed it all up and, for the purposes of the investigation, I would have dismissed all of the above points except one of them due to a need to focus on the evidence - play the ball, not the man, so to speak. That's not because I like his behaviour, but in virtually all cases, his behaviour is within the bounds of normalcy. Acting inappropriately is not good, but it is not abnormal either.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Like I said previously, in isolation most of those things may not be suspicious and you're right inappropriateness isn't abnormal, I'm sure we are all guilty of it at some time or another. However, being consistently inappropriate is anothing thing altogether and Jeremy has a history of inappropriate behaviour which, iniself, doesn't make him a murderer but it does make him a prime candidate. The fact that he is also economical with the truth and a manipulator also adds weight.
-
"Normal" is a word I try to stay well clear of. It's different for every one of us. Whilst Jeremy's behaviours -combined- maybe within the parameters of whatever your idea of normality is, it falls outside what many see as being acceptable.
I think it's fashionable in the psychology and therapeutic professions to steer clear of the word 'normal', but I differ on the point, and it seems most people on this Forum do too, or why else would we be having this discussion?
I think we can define normal. Normal reflects the norm. It's the behaviour expected of ordinary people in general.
Ordinary people have hearty breakfasts, put dogs down on slim pretexts, behave inappropriately at funerals, and go on foreign holidays to relieve stress.
The burden is on you to tell me that such behaviour is not normal. Or to put it another way,you bear the heavy burden of telling me that such behaviour is so abnormal that I should even grant it consideration when deciding - for whatever is my own purpose - whether Jeremy Bamber really is guilty.
Thanks.
-
Like I said previously, in isolation most of those things may not be suspicious and you're right inappropriateness isn't abnormal, I'm sure we are all guilty of it at some time or another. However, being consistently inappropriate is anothing thing altogether and Jeremy has a history of inappropriate behaviour which, iniself, doesn't make him a murderer but it does make him a prime candidate. The fact that he is also economical with the truth and a manipulator also adds weight.
Isn't consistent inappropriateness in itself normal?
It just seems to me that your approach to this is a bit circular.
-
Yes....and I appreciate the point. Nothing in what follows is aimed at you and this is just my opinion. I think this is a good discussion.
The thing is - I have been callous, greedy, money-oriented, deceitful and fake at points in my life.
I've done terrible, terrible things. I hated my mother. I disliked my father. I didn't care when they died. On the day of my father's death, after hearing of his demise, I faked being upset and had an extra helping of cocoa-pops with whole milk.
I'm still not a murderer or a psychopath of any sort.
Of course, there hadn't been a murder, nevertheless the point I am highlighting is the danger of inferring things from patterns of behaviour that are susceptible to context and interpretation and which may not be very important in proving anything.
You are right when you say character traits can have a bearing on proving a criminal case, but there are rules about bad character evidence. It's dangerous to significantly base a criminal conviction on it because it's often essentially subjective and it doesn't actually prove the criminal act.
Virtually all (with one exception) of the 'behavioural' points highlighted in this and other threads are, to me, non-suspicious, so they don’t form a pattern except in your own head. It’s one notch above, “He looks a bit funny”. You can call it evidence, but it can’t be taken seriously because it proves nothing of importance.
And much of it also depends on interpretation of wording and context. A lot of it is ‘verballing’ by relatives and Stan Jones, and other officers, a routine police practice back then prior to the full implementation of PACE, but something ordinary coppers still do to this day. Have you much experience with the police? Some of it, especially from Colin Caffell, is presented as ‘being wiser after the event’, but may in fact be confirmatory biasing of inappropriate but innocent behaviour in order to fit a retrospective narrative. That doesn’t mean Colin Caffell is lying. Far from it. I would never call Colin Caffell a liar. He's a lovely man. But if Jeremy, still a young man, takes his cues from Colin about how to behave so that he can fake grieving (if that’s how you want to put it), is that suspicious?
Don't worry, I do 'get' the point you're all making here and possibly I'm being a but 'autistic' about it, but at the same time, what I'm trying to do is focus on the evidence. I'm not very interested in the 'gossipy' angle on Jeremy because I know that it's unreliable. I have experience of the legal system - from both sides of it - and I have extensive experience of the police and the courts, and I know the dangers involved in adopting these views, which I do think are indicative of bias and can lead you to wrong conclusions.
But I accept he was a proper tanker, a nasty character. You're pushing at an open door with me on that point.
So upon what do you base your opinion that he is probably guilty?
-
Isn't consistent inappropriateness in itself normal?
It just seems to me that your approach to this is a bit circular.
How is it normal? Also, As I have hasked and VS has asked, what are you basing his guilty on?
-
Isn't consistent inappropriateness in itself normal?
It just seems to me that your approach to this is a bit circular.
How is consistent inapproprateness normal? How about if you consistently masturbated in public, would you consider that normal?
-
How is consistent inapproprateness normal? How about if you consistently masturbated in public, would you consider that normal?
I must admit, I am somewhat perplexed at the comment. The word 'inappropriate' kind of suggests it's not normal and if you're inappropriate all of the time - there is something amiss.
-
Let's start with the points on which we are on the same page...
Assuming it's true, I am bothered by him burning clothes shortly after the killings. What exactly was he burning?
Was it just clothes or was that a pretext for destroying other things more incriminating, like clothes of his own he was trying to hide? I am given to understand that the police were not searching him at this point.
Another one that bothers me and may not yet have been mentioned is his decision to have his parents and Sheila cremated. Why would he do that? I expect cost of burials may be advanced as a reason, but would it really have been much of an imposition?
Cremation is burning, and burning implies destruction and disposal, and bodies are key evidence, and Jeremy would be at least vaguely cognisant of this and would realise that if the investigation ever turned course, the police would want to exhume the corpses.
So there's another one for you, if it's not on your list already. "Just because Jeremy insisted on cremation, doesn't mean he is a murderer." It doesn't, but it IS suspicious.
Now, turning to where we disagree...
The word 'normal', to me, has a firmer meaning than the word 'inappropriate', which seems more in the eye of the beholder.
But let's move away from semantics.
If I was a detective and saw a family member grinning at a funeral, I wouldn't be suspicious about that in and of itself, but depending on the context, it could be viewed as inappropriate, so I would make a note of it.
Now, this may mark the beginnings of a veritable dossier of such behaviour, recurrent across varied situations, in which Jeremy is seen laughing and joking in the face of mourners, telling smutty jokes at funerals, selling antiques, ruthlessly having dogs put down, enjoying hearty breakfasts and indulging in sex and travel in the sun, but that would not necessarily amount to a 'pattern'. A pattern suggests structured or planned behaviour (behind which may or may not be criminality).
I would want to avoid templating patterns in retrospect on to innocent behaviour. It would be an understandable mistake to fall into, especially since Jeremy Bamber probably is a mass murderer. But the 'pattern' you infer from various facts is not what makes him a mass murderer, and I think my whole objection arises because most of the points raised seem quite airy-fairy and subjective. It's stuff that a detective should note, but it's not evidence.
-
I actually find that quite comforting.
I bet your friend’s little dog who you kicked in its nose finds it comforting when you don’t turn up, smirking to yourself when your friends says hiw odd it is he steers clearly of you...
-
'I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member'. Barry Manilow, Club Tropicana 7" single - 1983 - CBS Recordings.
Barry Manilow is nearing an Octogenarian too, but the original creator of that quote was Groucho Marx...just a little before your time
-
You do read my posts or else why reply to them - but do read them properly.
I'm certainly not vexed at your posts - I'm just not getting why you are so passionate in your quest to nothing.
JB is serving life a life sentence he will be in prison till he dies - as you said just a couple of don't agree with you
The reason I would not have a go at those who sit on the fence etc that's all it is a differing opinion to yours
Because they are entitled to have their opinion on the case - it's not all about you sorry.
Do you go on the other forums I think its the blue on - with a similar passion or is it just this one
Everyone knows what happened reading this forum - if they didn't they do now.
Your assumptions are wrong — again
I do not read all your posts — I skip them usually — but when you’ve quoted me I do give them a quick scan...
If you’re not vexed, then you must be be in a constant state of simmering annoyance — because that’s how you come across. Annoyed.
You don’t need to “get” why I post, or why you think I’m passionate — it’s not your business. I’ve never considered why you post, dear...you’re of no interest to me, and I don’t care why you do.
I suggest you skip mine like I do yours, or have you a condition that forces you to read every single post on a forum?
-
I'm sure something happened, just not sure what. All I know is that the Sun isn't the best source to rely on about anything imo.
You obviously read The Sun, then...
You’re ridiculing yourself talking about reliable sources
You believe a convicted mass murderer who’s a pathological liar and a diagnosed psychopath; whose psychiatrist called him an “irreverent liar”...and you try to say you only believe reliable sources @)(++(*
-
Would you kindly, again, just remind us how that proves he is a murderer?
Please hear me out....
Before you say "It's part of a pattern of behaviour", the problem is that it isn't suspicious. Applying a pattern to this sort of behaviour is just an expression of bias. Some of what Jeremy did was nasty, I agree, and also I agree the attempt to sell the nude pictures probably happened and that Jeremy was a nasty piece of work, but again, it doesn't make him murderer.
Likewise:
Having a hearty breakfast - normal behaviour.
Carrying on as if nothing has happened - normal behaviour, especially for an English male. Being socially reserved and taciturn in this sense was still a pronounced quirk of English men back then and Jeremy was brought up this way.
Putting the dog down quickly just because you don't want to keep it - perfectly normal behaviour, especially during that era. Jeremy was an Essex farmer, not a touchy-feely metropolitan type. I am a dog lover and I have put down dogs in similar situations on a similar pretext.
Faking emotional reactions at the crime scene, faking grief and faking it at the funeral - normal behaviour. Emotionally-normative people do this. People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand, and as a result, they sometimes feel pressured to fake it. Not being upset at the death of a close relative is quite common. Not everybody likes their relatives. It's not a crime.
Grinning at the funeral after faking it - normal behaviour, as above.
Talking dirty to your girlfriend at the funeral and saying inappropriate things in front of Colin on the way to the crematorium - again, normal behaviour, albeit callous, immature and inappropriate.
Selling off personal effects - perfectly normal behaviour in that situation, and the relatives behaved similarly.
Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back.
Trying to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a s..mmy tabloid - DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR, but not suspicious. Sheila was not his biological sister and maybe he just didn't care about her? It's not nice to dislike and not care about close relatives, but it's not a crime.
Other behavioural quirks I picked up from Colin Caffell's book, such as Jeremy aping Colin's behaviour - all normal. Why does Colin take issue with Jeremy taking cues from him? Maybe because Colin is looking at it in retrospect and judging Jeremy's behaviour by what he now knows. But I can imagine myself doing just the same as Jeremy in that situation. Some people are 'socially autistic/unaware'. I would not know how to behave at a funeral and would look for cues from somebody more sensitive like Colin and I would probably copy his behaviour. Maybe Jeremy should have confided in Colin about his disabilities/insecurities? But is Jeremy the type to do that?
Burning clothes - SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR. On this point, I agree with you and disagree with Holly and the other pro-innocent people. Holly, I think, has tried to explain this by saying that Jeremy would not want to see people in his dead relatives' clothes. That's a cogent surface explanation, but I'm not entirely satisfied on this point. Frankly, most people don't care about other people wearing their dead relatives' clothes, assuming they would even stop to notice. How would you even tell or know? I am wondering what Jeremy was burning and why.
Jeremy Bamber was a nasty character. But I didn't like my parents either. I hated my mother and I disliked my father. I helped myself to cocoa-pops, jam on toast and a large mug of coffee after hearing about my schizophrenic father's death, after faking being upset about it, then being genuinely upset for a bit, then going back to work and forgetting about it. In two days, I'd forgotten my father completely and didn't care.
Am I a murderer? A rhetorical question, but most of Jeremy's behaviour you are highlighting isn't suspicious. Whether you think there is a pattern or not, if the behaviour isn't suspicious, then it's just an exercise in biasing.
Reminder - I say all this as somebody who thinks he probably did it.
None of what you’ve described is normal behaviour.
You come out with warped ideas, IMO, and you contradict yourself too. You said: “People can't summon up crying and grieving on demand”, yet in your previous long-winded post you said when told your father was dead you laughed, then realising that looked wrong you “immediately burst into tears”. Must be hard for an English man with a stiff upper lip, as you try to suggest Jeremy Bamber is, to force tears out!
Jeremy was no more a stereotypical English gentleman farmer with a stiff upper lip, than he was a caring, compassionate, well-liked, honest, respectable soul who treated all humans and animals with the respect and kindness they deserve. He was a lying, nasty, thieving, dishonest, evil piece of s..m . He shot dead all his family, including two little children for GREED: and you suggest he was a “fine English gentleman”.
And no, none of what Jeremy Bamber did was normal...
-
Thanks. I do accept that a police officer would make a note of what he regarded to be 'odd' behaviour - that's his duty and his training - but my point is that none of it proves Jeremy Bamber to be a murderer and it does not form a helpful pattern because it is, in each case, non-suspicious. I maintain that in most cases, the behaviour highlighted is normal. Moreover, all of it is susceptible to context and interpretation. I am allowed to make this point, and I am being reasonable because I accept you are right about at least one of the points made, and I am open to reasonable arguments that show I am wrong.
If I had been investigating those killings, I would like to think that I would have suspected Jeremy from the start and I would noted that he's a bit of merchant tanker. However, I would have also weighed it all up and, for the purposes of the investigation, I would have dismissed all of the above points except one of them due to a need to focus on the evidence - play the ball, not the man, so to speak. That's not because I like his behaviour, but in virtually all cases, his behaviour is within the bounds of normalcy. Acting inappropriately is not good, but it is not abnormal either.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
You think his behaviour is normal because it’s how YOU behave.
Well, that behaviour is not normal at all. Besides, comparing your own circumstances with his is ludicrous. You said you either hated your father, or disliked him (can’t be bothered to look back), that he was mentally ill and I think you may have said you’d only seen him a few times...not sure
Whatever, you had NO love for him, so it’s no surprise you ate coco-pops when hearing he’d died. You weren’t affected by the news, were you...
Perhaps counselling might help you with your unresolved issues you appear to have. You come across deeply bitter and angry, which must be awful for you.
Incidentally, you’re almost right when you said:
“A pattern suggests structured or planned behaviour (behind which may or may not be criminality).”
Jeremy Bamber did indeed show a pattern of planned behaviour: he told four people that he planned to kill his family.
-
I don't think the above is normal behaviour-------and I'm not even sure Jeremy is guilty!
I think Jeremy's behaviour at the funeral was peculiar, and also very disrespectful, particularly grinning, and joking with his girlfriend. I have heard people argue that he might have been on the autistic spectrum, but , being on the spectrum myself, he doesn't come over that way to me----at all. (And, I know how to behave at funerals!). I do wonder whether Jeremy had downed his cocktail of Valium and booze beforehand-----that little mixture does not lend itself to appropriate behaviour.
Can't really comment re his "hearty breakfast", because I'm not sure how true this is: I heard somewhere that he made breakfast for the police officers who were with him, and decided to have some himself. Who knows what is true.
Trying to sell pictures of Sheila to a tabloid is, IMO, appalling------unless he, Brett and the chap from the Sun had been drinking together beforehand. Then, I'll partly blame the drink!
I was interested in what Colin says in his book re Jeremy copying his responses: Colin, being an artist, is probably very observant, so I would tend to believe him. I would like to know, however, whether this was apparent to Colin at the time, or whether he realised it retrospectively.
Burning of clothes? No, not normal as far as I'm concerned, but if you were to tell me that , out in the sticks, having a bonfire is the most convenient way to get rid of stuff one no longer wants, then it doesn't seem quite so abnormal----particularly as we suspect Jeremy didn't like his parents. In any event, disliking his parents doesn't necessarily mean he killed them.
The dog? No, I could never have done it. Jeremy, by all accounts, disliked Crispy, but he didn't dislike dogs: I'm sure I read that he had a dog of his own at one time, and was heartbroken when it died. Perhaps he thought Crispy wouldn't settle with anyone other than June, so would be better off being put down. Perhaps Jeremy is guilty, and knew Crispy would always be a reminder of the night he killed his family.
Who knows!
You’re always trying to make excuses for him, aren’t you? Why’s that?
For you to to say:
“Trying to sell pictures of Sheila to a tabloid is, IMO, appalling------unless he, Brett and the chap from the Sun had been drinking together beforehand. Then, I'll partly blame the drink”
Trying to make out a busy Sun reporter would travel all the way to a pub in Essex to meet JB and BC, for no reason at all than have a booze up, is absolutely pathetic.
Listen, even Jeremy HIMSELF hasn’t denied THIS one!
FGS!
-
Yes....and I appreciate the point. Nothing in what follows is aimed at you and this is just my opinion. I think this is a good discussion.
The thing is - I have been callous, greedy, money-oriented, deceitful and fake at points in my life.
I've done terrible, terrible things. I hated my mother. I disliked my father. I didn't care when they died. On the day of my father's death, after hearing of his demise, I faked being upset and had an extra helping of cocoa-pops with whole milk.
I'm still not a murderer or a psychopath of any sort.
Of course, there hadn't been a murder, nevertheless the point I am highlighting is the danger of inferring things from patterns of behaviour that are susceptible to context and interpretation and which may not be very important in proving anything.
You are right when you say character traits can have a bearing on proving a criminal case, but there are rules about bad character evidence. It's dangerous to significantly base a criminal conviction on it because it's often essentially subjective and it doesn't actually prove the criminal act.
Virtually all (with one exception) of the 'behavioural' points highlighted in this and other threads are, to me, non-suspicious, so they don’t form a pattern except in your own head. It’s one notch above, “He looks a bit funny”. You can call it evidence, but it can’t be taken seriously because it proves nothing of importance.
And much of it also depends on interpretation of wording and context. A lot of it is ‘verballing’ by relatives and Stan Jones, and other officers, a routine police practice back then prior to the full implementation of PACE, but something ordinary coppers still do to this day. Have you much experience with the police? Some of it, especially from Colin Caffell, is presented as ‘being wiser after the event’, but may in fact be confirmatory biasing of inappropriate but innocent behaviour in order to fit a retrospective narrative. That doesn’t mean Colin Caffell is lying. Far from it. I would never call Colin Caffell a liar. He's a lovely man. But if Jeremy, still a young man, takes his cues from Colin about how to behave so that he can fake grieving (if that’s how you want to put it), is that suspicious?
Don't worry, I do 'get' the point you're all making here and possibly I'm being a but 'autistic' about it, but at the same time, what I'm trying to do is focus on the evidence. I'm not very interested in the 'gossipy' angle on Jeremy because I know that it's unreliable. I have experience of the legal system - from both sides of it - and I have extensive experience of the police and the courts, and I know the dangers involved in adopting these views, which I do think are indicative of bias and can lead you to wrong conclusions.
But I accept he was a proper tanker, a nasty character. You're pushing at an open door with me on that point.
Why don’t you start a forum to speak about YOU?
No-one’s interested in your life; what milk you had with your coco-pops...even that’s weird to go into such unnecessary detail.
You seem to forget, Jeremy Bamber wasn’t convicted of mass murder for cooking himself breakfast (and no, the police refused any — they felt sick), Jeremy was convicted on a whole HOST of irrefutable evidence. Some of which were:
Forensic evidence
His lies about the phone calls; rifle; silencer etc, etc, etc, etc...
Giving information to Julie that ONLY the killer could have known
Telling Julie and others how he planned to kill them
Being caught out that he’d broken in through the bathroom window when they found the hacksaw he hid
The thick mud on June’s new bike
His wetsuit mysteriously being at WHF
He snooped at the wills and had a HUGE MOTIVE
He was greedy
He was a thief
He behaved like he’d won the lottery when they were dead
He didn’t just eat out of hunger — he dined out that expensive restaurants, drank Champagne all night, roared with laughter, went on two holidays (one a drug run)
Had sex with anyone he could
Tried to sell his life story almost immediately
Tried to sell Sheila’s nude photographs
Told lie, after lie, after lie
Lied about Nevill phoning him
Lied about the rabbit
Liked about the rifle not having the scope/silencer attached when it ALWAYS did
Lied about timings if the phone calls that night
Never called 999
He had no alibi
He made two separate statements under caution in which he changed his story
And there’s a whole lot more too...
Littered in your posts are frequent suggestions, despite you making out you're “on the fence” nasty little digs, and what you probably think are clever observations. Such as when Jeremy went on holiday soon after he was buckling at the knees and acting distraught at the funerals: “Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back” of course he came back — he needed to get his inheritance! I know EXACTLY what you’re trying to infer...and you make yourself look stupid.
You talk about lies and contradictions, but you do them yourself, don’t you, eh?
You said you dint like Colin (and said it in a sickly sneaky way, pretending you felt bad saying it). YOU said words to the effect “I just don’t like him. I won’t say why, for reasons I can’t go into. Something about him Ii can’t put my finger on. I don’t like him at all and cannot take to him”
You said all that.
Then in your post above you said:
“ I would never call Colin Caffell a liar. He's a lovely man.”
-
I think it's fashionable in the psychology and therapeutic professions to steer clear of the word 'normal', but I differ on the point, and it seems most people on this Forum do too, or why else would we be having this discussion?
I think we can define normal. Normal reflects the norm. It's the behaviour expected of ordinary people in general.
Ordinary people have hearty breakfasts, put dogs down on slim pretexts, behave inappropriately at funerals, and go on foreign holidays to relieve stress.
The burden is on you to tell me that such behaviour is not normal. Or to put it another way,you bear the heavy burden of telling me that such behaviour is so abnormal that I should even grant it consideration when deciding - for whatever is my own purpose - whether Jeremy Bamber really is guilty.
Thanks.
Trust me, there’s no burden on ANYONE to convince YOU of anything
-
You obviously read The Sun, then...
You’re ridiculing yourself talking about reliable sources
You believe a convicted mass murderer who’s a pathological liar and a diagnosed psychopath; whose psychiatrist called him an “irreverent liar”...and you try to say you only believe reliable sources @)(++(*
He actually said "inveterate liar" but I don't doubt that he was also irreverent @)(++(*
-
Let's start with the points on which we are on the same page...
Assuming it's true, I am bothered by him burning clothes shortly after the killings. What exactly was he burning?
Was it just clothes or was that a pretext for destroying other things more incriminating, like clothes of his own he was trying to hide? I am given to understand that the police were not searching him at this point.
Another one that bothers me and may not yet have been mentioned is his decision to have his parents and Sheila cremated. Why would he do that? I expect cost of burials may be advanced as a reason, but would it really have been much of an imposition?
Cremation is burning, and burning implies destruction and disposal, and bodies are key evidence, and Jeremy would be at least vaguely cognisant of this and would realise that if the investigation ever turned course, the police would want to exhume the corpses.
So there's another one for you, if it's not on your list already. "Just because Jeremy insisted on cremation, doesn't mean he is a murderer." It doesn't, but it IS suspicious.
Now, turning to where we disagree...
The word 'normal', to me, has a firmer meaning than the word 'inappropriate', which seems more in the eye of the beholder.
But let's move away from semantics.
If I was a detective and saw a family member grinning at a funeral, I wouldn't be suspicious about that in and of itself, but depending on the context, it could be viewed as inappropriate, so I would make a note of it.
Now, this may mark the beginnings of a veritable dossier of such behaviour, recurrent across varied situations, in which Jeremy is seen laughing and joking in the face of mourners, telling smutty jokes at funerals, selling antiques, ruthlessly having dogs put down, enjoying hearty breakfasts and indulging in sex and travel in the sun, but that would not necessarily amount to a 'pattern'. A pattern suggests structured or planned behaviour (behind which may or may not be criminality).
I would want to avoid templating patterns in retrospect on to innocent behaviour. It would be an understandable mistake to fall into, especially since Jeremy Bamber probably is a mass murderer. But the 'pattern' you infer from various facts is not what makes him a mass murderer, and I think my whole objection arises because most of the points raised seem quite airy-fairy and subjective. It's stuff that a detective should note, but it's not evidence.
Surely the burning of the clothes and the having the parents cremated are not your only grounds for believing JB probably did the murders?!
-
That's a well thought through conclusion you've arrived at, General. However, once it's accepted that Jeremy and Brett met two of the Sun's finest, the question arises, "Why?". There had to be a reason and it's doubtful that they were interested in journalism. I think it must remain that they believed they had something the Sun would be interested in, and it was unlikely to be Sheila, showing to best advantage, those outfits chosen for her to wear by which ever house was paying for the shoot.
Yeh, the reason was pure greed, that's apparent.
But they picked the right target as that's the sort of vile sh1t they've been peddling for decades; to the point where they actually printed the story without the pictures, ffs!
-
Yeh, the reason was pure greed, that's apparent.
But they picked the right target as that's the sort of vile sh1t they've been peddling for decades; to the point where they actually printed the story without the pictures, ffs!
Which is surely to their credit?
-
Trust me, there’s no burden on ANYONE to convince YOU of anything
Who on earth do you think you are?
For Gawd's sake, don't call him a sossij - he'll have your leg off.
-
He actually said "inveterate liar" but I don't doubt that he was also irreverent @)(++(*
Thank you, April... I always get those two words mixed up for some reason
And yes, you’re right — he’s definitely both!🤣
-
Which is surely to their credit?
I'm sure Colin was delighted.
-
I'm sure Colin was delighted.
Not half as delighted as Jeremy who scurried off to France without as much as whimper...
-
Your assumptions are wrong — again
I do not read all your posts — I skip them usually — but when you’ve quoted me I do give them a quick scan...
If you’re not vexed, then you must be be in a constant state of simmering annoyance — because that’s how you come across. Annoyed.
You don’t need to “get” why I post, or why you think I’m passionate — it’s not your business. I’ve never considered why you post, dear...you’re of no interest to me, and I don’t care why you do.
I suggest you skip mine like I do yours, or have you a condition that forces you to read every single post on a forum?
Well considering you have no interest - you took the time to analyze what you think I am.
But my dear you are wrong - wouldn't be on here at all if it wasn't for lockdown and being intrigued at what your real motive must be.
Again all that's really in your post is the best form of defense is an attack.
-
You had a big breakfast on learning of your father’s death? Good for you. You were probably ravenous. If that was all we had to go on with Jeremy, I agree, it’s not suspicious. Add in ALL the other stuff you are excusing as perfectly normal and it paints a picture of someone who is callous, greedy, selfish, money orientated, deceitful, fake. Were you all of those things as well as a bit hungry? I’m not the only person who sees Jeremy’s behaviour as suspicious. Experienced police offices did too right from the start. If you’re saying character traits and behaviour has no bearing on whether or not a person has a propensity to commit a crime, then that is your opinion. Personally I think it’s relevant.
I’m not the only person who sees Jeremy’s behaviour as suspicious. Experienced police offices did too right from the start. If you’re saying character traits and behaviour has no bearing on whether or not a person has a propensity to commit a crime, then that is your opinion. Personally I think it’s relevant.
yet on another case, you think it irrelevant VS - wich is it normal or not normal.
-
Well considering you have no interest - you took the time to analyze what you think I am.
But my dear you are wrong - wouldn't be on here at all if it wasn't for lockdown and being intrigued at what your real motive must be.
Again all that's really in your post is the best form of defense is an attack.
You’re flattering yourself.
I’ve no more interest in analysing you than I have in dissecting a slug
-
Surely the burning of the clothes and the having the parents cremated are not your only grounds for believing JB probably did the murders?!
Of course not.
-
Why don’t you start a forum to speak about YOU?
No-one’s interested in your life; what milk you had with your coco-pops...even that’s weird to go into such unnecessary detail.
You seem to forget, Jeremy Bamber wasn’t convicted of mass murder for cooking himself breakfast (and no, the police refused any — they felt sick), Jeremy was convicted on a whole HOST of irrefutable evidence. Some of which were:
Forensic evidence
His lies about the phone calls; rifle; silencer etc, etc, etc, etc...
Giving information to Julie that ONLY the killer could have known
Telling Julie and others how he planned to kill them
Being caught out that he’d broken in through the bathroom window when they found the hacksaw he hid
The thick mud on June’s new bike
His wetsuit mysteriously being at WHF
He snooped at the wills and had a HUGE MOTIVE
He was greedy
He was a thief
He behaved like he’d won the lottery when they were dead
He didn’t just eat out of hunger — he dined out that expensive restaurants, drank Champagne all night, roared with laughter, went on two holidays (one a drug run)
Had sex with anyone he could
Tried to sell his life story almost immediately
Tried to sell Sheila’s nude photographs
Told lie, after lie, after lie
Lied about Nevill phoning him
Lied about the rabbit
Liked about the rifle not having the scope/silencer attached when it ALWAYS did
Lied about timings if the phone calls that night
Never called 999
He had no alibi
He made two separate statements under caution in which he changed his story
And there’s a whole lot more too...
Littered in your posts are frequent suggestions, despite you making out you're “on the fence” nasty little digs, and what you probably think are clever observations. Such as when Jeremy went on holiday soon after he was buckling at the knees and acting distraught at the funerals: “Going on holiday abroad - normal behaviour, and he came back” of course he came back — he needed to get his inheritance! I know EXACTLY what you’re trying to infer...and you make yourself look stupid.
You talk about lies and contradictions, but you do them yourself, don’t you, eh?
You said you dint like Colin (and said it in a sickly sneaky way, pretending you felt bad saying it). YOU said words to the effect “I just don’t like him. I won’t say why, for reasons I can’t go into. Something about him Ii can’t put my finger on. I don’t like him at all and cannot take to him”
You said all that.
Then in your post above you said:
“ I would never call Colin Caffell a liar. He's a lovely man.”
But most of these are points I was not discussing or addressing. I've never denied that there is evidence against him. In fact, I've stated the opposite, repeatedly. You're just strawmanning and being theatrical.
-
For Gawd's sake, don't call him a sossij - he'll have your leg off.
You know, the interesting thing is that you once believed Jeremy Bamber to be innocent, before changing your stance.
I have NEVER believed him to be innocent.
Which one of us is the "sossij"? It's not stupid to question evidence. That's what this Forum is supposed to be for.
-
Of course not.
So again, what makes you think he's guilty?
-
You’re flattering yourself.
I’ve no more interest in analysing you than I have in dissecting a slug
well, I wouldn't know about that Iv never dissected a slug.
You do come across as angry though
-
I'm sure Colin was delighted.
I’m sure he would have been a lot less delighted had he learned that the Sun paid money for the photos and then published them. In fact, they used the story to highlight JB’s lack of morals and greedy, grasping nature so what would Colin have had to feel aggrieved by, specifically?
-
I’m not the only person who sees Jeremy’s behaviour as suspicious. Experienced police offices did too right from the start. If you’re saying character traits and behaviour has no bearing on whether or not a person has a propensity to commit a crime, then that is your opinion. Personally I think it’s relevant.
yet on another case, you think it irrelevant VS - wich is it normal or not normal.
Perhaps you could provide a cite for this allegation? I shan’t hold my breath.
-
Of course not.
For the third time of asking, what then?
-
I know you did, You have once again avoided answering my questions. Why? Here they are again
1) what does the video prove in your opinion?
2) Is the journo telling bare faced lies, in your opinion?
Bumping for Holly again, in the vain hope of an answer...
-
I’m sure he would have been a lot less delighted had he learned that the Sun paid money for the photos and then published them. In fact, they used the story to highlight JB’s lack of morals and greedy, grasping nature so what would Colin have had to feel aggrieved by, specifically?
What a crock! If they could've settled on a price they'd have published them in a heartbeat. Because they're ****s.
-
What a crock! If they could've settled on a price they'd have published them in a heartbeat. Because they're ****s.
No they wouldn't, they couldn't because they were pornographic in nature so the better story was Bamber trying to sell them.
-
No they wouldn't, they couldn't because they were pornographic in nature so the better story was Bamber trying to sell them.
They'd publish a few teasers, of that I am sure. Literally anything to hawk their shitty rag.
-
They'd publish a few teasers, of that I am sure. Literally anything to hawk their shitty rag.
Ordinarily yes, I agree BUT the better story was him selling them and that came free.
-
Ordinarily yes, I agree BUT the better story was him selling them and that came free.
Ought's better than nought, true enough.
-
What a crock! If they could've settled on a price they'd have published them in a heartbeat. Because they're ****s.
How rude.
-
How rude.
I know, but that's the depths they will plumb.
-
They'd publish a few teasers, of that I am sure. Literally anything to hawk their shitty rag.
Do you have some evidence of the haggling that went on? How much was Jeremy demanding for them? Surely a man as money grabbing as Jeremy would have gone to the Sun knowing they of all the tabs was likely to pay out the most so why do you think he turned down their offer? Who do you think he was hoping would pay more and is there evidence of him approaching other papers?
-
Ought's better than nought, true enough.
They also got to take the moral high ground - for a change.
-
I know, but that's the depths they will plumb.
No, haha very funny, but I was referring to your rude dismissal of my post, Mr Crock Pot.
-
Do you have some evidence of the haggling that went on? How much was Jeremy demanding for them? Surely a man as money grabbing as Jeremy would have gone to the Sun knowing they of all the tabs was likely to pay out the most so why do you think he turned down their offer? Who do you think he was hoping would pay more and is there evidence of him approaching other papers?
Wow, questions.
OK.
1. No, hence the reference to my opinion 'I am sure'.
2. According to the crap TV series £20k (Steve Graham was good though with his Welsh accent, boyo)
3. I think Brett the knobhead did the contact bit with a friend of a friend.
4. No idea. But the two idiots probably thought it would be a piece of p1ss extracting money off a renowned moral vacuum of a rag.
5. Sirhan Sirhan was a CIA plant as part of a wider 'mind-control' experiment.
-
Ordinarily yes, I agree BUT the better story was him selling them and that came free.
Bet he was FUMING 8()(((@#
Funny he didn’t sue them...😌
-
Wow, questions.
OK.
1. No, hence the reference to my opinion 'I am sure'.
2. According to the crap TV series £20k (Steve Graham was good though with his Welsh accent, boyo)
3. I think Brett the knobhead did the contact bit with a friend of a friend.
4. No idea. But the two idiots probably thought it would be a piece of p1ss extracting money off a renowned moral vacuum of a rag.
5. Sirhan Sirhan was a CIA plant as part of a wider 'mind-control' experiment.
I thought Steve Graham’s performance was the weakest link in the series, especially the accent. That is all.
-
I thought Steve Graham’s performance was the weakest link in the series, especially the accent. That is all.
Most of the reviews I read "slammed" Steve Graham's Welsh accent.
Personally, I thought it was ok----but then, I'm no expert on Welsh accents.
-
Bumping for Holly again, in the vain hope of an answer...
Your questions:
1) what does the video prove in your opinion?
2) Is the journo telling bare faced lies, in your opinion?
1). A meeting took place between Sun hack, JB and BC to discuss some media coverage. No images were presented.
2). Sun hack claims the images under discussion involved a cucumber and vibrator. Surely JB would know such images, if existed and made available, would be off limit for a family rag?
Maybe it was a wind up and JB was intending to offer up SC's professional modelling portfolio?
SC had some explicit images taken which she regretted. Why then retain such images? Surely she would dispose of ASAP?
All these things portray JB in a poor light but imo he was an immature guy, 24 yoa, out of his depth with it all.
-
Your questions:
1) what does the video prove in your opinion?
2) Is the journo telling bare faced lies, in your opinion?
1). A meeting took place between Sun hack, JB and BC to discuss some media coverage. No images were presented.
2). Sun hack claims the images under discussion involved a cucumber and vibrator. Surely JB would know such images, if existed and made available, would be off limit for a family rag?
Maybe it was a wind up and JB was intending to offer up SC's professional modelling portfolio?
SC had some explicit images taken which she regretted. Why then retain such images? Surely she would dispose of ASAP?
All these things portray JB in a poor light but imo he was an immature guy, 24 yoa, out of his depth with it all.
Wasn't Jeremy supposed to be under surveillance in London on the day he was lunching with the journalist? Or did it end at 1.30am? Wasn't that the same day he went to WHF for his car docs too?
-
Your questions:
1) what does the video prove in your opinion?
2) Is the journo telling bare faced lies, in your opinion?
1). A meeting took place between Sun hack, JB and BC to discuss some media coverage. No images were presented.
2). Sun hack claims the images under discussion involved a cucumber and vibrator. Surely JB would know such images, if existed and made available, would be off limit for a family rag?
Maybe it was a wind up and JB was intending to offer up SC's professional modelling portfolio?
SC had some explicit images taken which she regretted. Why then retain such images? Surely she would dispose of ASAP?
All these things portray JB in a poor light but imo he was an immature guy, 24 yoa, out of his depth with it all.
Thank you. So unlike your investigative partner G-Unit you do at least accept that the meeting occurred and that the journo did not fabricate the story.
-
Your questions:
1) what does the video prove in your opinion?
2) Is the journo telling bare faced lies, in your opinion?
1). A meeting took place between Sun hack, JB and BC to discuss some media coverage. No images were presented.
2). Sun hack claims the images under discussion involved a cucumber and vibrator. Surely JB would know such images, if existed and made available, would be off limit for a family rag?
Maybe it was a wind up and JB was intending to offer up SC's professional modelling portfolio?
SC had some explicit images taken which she regretted. Why then retain such images? Surely she would dispose of ASAP?
All these things portray JB in a poor light but imo he was an immature guy, 24 yoa, out of his depth with it all.
“Maybe it was a wind up and JB was intending to offer up SC's professional modelling portfolio”
So are you saying Jeremy was trying to deceive the journalist and get £20K off The Sun under false pretences?
Besides being dishonest and lying, would he really be inclined to do a wind up when he was grief stricken?
-
Perhaps you could provide a cite for this allegation? I shan’t hold my breath.
Good job you weren't holding your breath but just wondered why your opinion changed with JB.
On whats relevant and irrelevant.
SNIP VS
I’m not the only person who sees Jeremy’s behaviour as suspicious. Experienced police offices did too right from the start. If you’re saying character traits and behaviour has no bearing on whether or not a person has a propensity to commit a crime, then that is your opinion. Personally I think it’s relevant.
-
Good job you weren't holding your breath but just wondered why your opinion changed with JB.
On whats relevant and irrelevant.
SNIP VS
I’m not the only person who sees Jeremy’s behaviour as suspicious. Experienced police offices did too right from the start. If you’re saying character traits and behaviour has no bearing on whether or not a person has a propensity to commit a crime, then that is your opinion. Personally I think it’s relevant.
Are you trying to argue that character traits and inappropriate behaviour are or are not relevant in criminal cases? I argued that they are, do you disagree? If so why? You’ve listed a bunch of behaviours you view as suspicious in the McCann case so presumably you agree with my argument, but who knows.
-
Please stay On Topic. Thank you
-
Good job you weren't holding your breath but just wondered why your opinion changed with JB.
On whats relevant and irrelevant.
SNIP VS
I’m not the only person who sees Jeremy’s behaviour as suspicious. Experienced police offices did too right from the start. If you’re saying character traits and behaviour has no bearing on whether or not a person has a propensity to commit a crime, then that is your opinion. Personally I think it’s relevant.
It’s a good job Jeremy Bamber hasn’t been holding his breath for his umpteenth appeal...
-
Are you trying to argue that character traits and inappropriate behaviour are or are not relevant in criminal cases? I argued that they are, do you disagree? If so why? You’ve listed a bunch of behaviours you view as suspicious in the McCann case so presumably you agree with my argument, but who knows.
It was VS I do believe them relevant - but it's you that doesn't in the M case but do in JB case
Anyway it was off topic - probably best discussed on the appropriate forum another time
It was a bit incompetent really for B to not delete the full post. as its a bit garbled as it stands.
-
It was VS I do believe them relevant - but it's you that doesn't in the M case but do in JB case
Anyway it was off topic - probably best discussed on the appropriate forum another time
It was a bit incompetent really for B to not delete the full post. as its a bit garbled as it stands.
I can start a thread here to discuss as it's relevant imo both in terms of how the press distort and how members here knowingly or unknowingly discriminate negatively and positively? Thread title? Maybe discrimination/prejudice?
JB sgl 24 yoa farmer - supposedly attempting to sell sexual images of SC - Brie/VS consider appalling and voice opinion of such. Another black mark for JB.
McCanns married late 30's medi docs - leave 3 children 3 yoa and under alone in unlocked holiday apartment night after night whilst on a jolly up with medi friends - Brie/VS play down: suffered enough, wasn't really that far away/could see apartment/it wasn't their fault/perps fault. No black mark.
I believe JB innocent and I don't believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance so I'm not conflicted 8(>(( ?>)()<
-
I can start a thread here to discuss as it's relevant imo both in terms of how the press distort and how members here knowingly or unknowingly discriminate negatively and positively? Thread title? Maybe discrimination/prejudice?
JB sgl 24 yoa farmer - supposedly attempting to sell sexual images of SC - Brie/VS consider appalling and voice opinion of such. Another black mark for JB.
McCanns married late 30's medi docs - leave 3 children 3 yoa and under alone in unlocked holiday apartment night after night whilst on a jolly up with medi friends - Brie/VS play down: suffered enough, wasn't really that far away/could see apartment/it wasn't their fault/perps fault. No black mark.
I believe JB innocent and I don't believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance so I'm not conflicted 8(>(( ?>)()<
Spot on.
Different morals in different cases. imo. seems a bit hypocritical to me.
-
Spot on.
Different morals in different cases. imo. seems a bit hypocritical to me.
But each case must be looked at individually. One can't compare the ethics of the M's with those of JB. The circumstances are entirely different.
-
I can start a thread here to discuss as it's relevant imo both in terms of how the press distort and how members here knowingly or unknowingly discriminate negatively and positively? Thread title? Maybe discrimination/prejudice?
JB sgl 24 yoa farmer - supposedly attempting to sell sexual images of SC - Brie/VS consider appalling and voice opinion of such. Another black mark for JB.
McCanns married late 30's medi docs - leave 3 children 3 yoa and under alone in unlocked holiday apartment night after night whilst on a jolly up with medi friends - Brie/VS play down: suffered enough, wasn't really that far away/could see apartment/it wasn't their fault/perps fault. No black mark.
I believe JB innocent and I don't believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance so I'm not conflicted 8(>(( ?>)()<
Pity you're afraid to defend your stance on this case by not answering important on ON TOPIC questions.
-
But each case must be looked at individually. One can't compare the ethics of the M's with those of JB. The circumstances are entirely different.
We're talking about behaviour in both cases that most find unacceptable:
- JB engaging with a tabloid hack supposedly to sell sexual images of SC.
- M's leaving 3 children, all 3 yoa and under, in an unlocked holiday apartment for 5 consecutive nights whilst they had a jolly up with medi friends in a nearby tapas bar.
-
We're talking about behaviour in both cases that most find unacceptable:
- JB engaging with a tabloid hack supposedly to sell sexual images of SC.
- M's leaving 3 children, all 3 yoa and under, in an unlocked holiday apartment for 5 consecutive nights whilst they had a jolly up with medi friends in a nearby tapas bar.
As usual, you have an inability to match like for like.
-
We're talking about behaviour in both cases that most find unacceptable:
- JB engaging with a tabloid hack supposedly to sell sexual images of SC.
- M's leaving 3 children, all 3 yoa and under, in an unlocked holiday apartment for 5 consecutive nights whilst they had a jolly up with medi friends in a nearby tapas bar.
Well, quite obviously, BOTH are entirely unacceptable, but they can't be compared. One is neither better nor worse than the other, only differently unacceptable.
-
Well, quite obviously, BOTH are entirely unacceptable, but they can't be compared. One is neither better nor worse than the other, only differently unacceptable.
We came to the same conclusion, Holly can't compare like for like and it's something you need to know how to do in scientific experiments. I think that's why she won't answer my question.
-
We came to the same conclusion, Holly can't compare like for like and it's something you need to know how to do in scientific experiments. I think that's why she won't answer my question.
Experiments carried out on less than like for like can't be compared, which makes them void.
-
Experiments carried out on less than like for like can't be compared, which makes them void.
I know that and you know that - I found someone else who knows that and I think Holly kind of guessed that @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Well, quite obviously, BOTH are entirely unacceptable, but they can't be compared. One is neither better nor worse than the other, only differently unacceptable.
Not saying they can be compared just saying they both need condemning but some try to excuse the M's poor behaviour whilst happy to chastise JB.
-
Not sure what experiments have got to do with thread topic?
-
Not saying they can be compared just saying they both need condemning but some try to excuse the M's poor behaviour whilst happy to chastise JB.
This board is nothing to do the the M's and you can believe that someone is innocent while someone else is guilty! Selling pictures of your dead sister is nothing like leaving your child in circs where you thought they were safe. It's incompetent but it happens all of the time - then there's Bamber! No comparison.
-
Not saying they can be compared just saying they both need condemning but some try to excuse the M's poor behaviour whilst happy to chastise JB.
As we're all informed by our past experiences, I can't offer more than the suggestion that they may have left their own children alone and nothing untoward happened, whilst very few have ever tried, or can ever contemplate selling porny pics of a recently dead relative.
-
This board is nothing to do the the M's and you can believe that someone is innocent while someone else is guilty! Selling pictures of your dead sister is nothing like leaving your child in circs where you thought they were safe. It's incompetent but it happens all of the time - then there's Bamber! No comparison.
We are talking about behaviour that most find unacceptable and the fact that some will condemn some individuals and their poor behaviour but not others. The M's behaviour amounts to neglect as far as nspcc is concerned.
I will set up a new thread as suggested by Kizzy.
-
We are talking about behaviour that most find unacceptable and the fact that some will condemn some individuals and their poor behaviour but not others. The M's behaviour amounts to neglect as far as nspcc is concerned.
I will set up a new thread as suggested by Kizzy.
Absolutely. THIS thread is about JB trying to flog porny pics of Sheila, who he was convicted of murdering, to a s..mmy publication. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the MM case, however much some, who are interested in it, choose to support the parents' behaviour but condemn JB's.
-
We are talking about behaviour that most find unacceptable and the fact that some will condemn some individuals and their poor behaviour but not others. The M's behaviour amounts to neglect as far as nspcc is concerned.
I will set up a new thread as suggested by Kizzy.
Not murder though eh? 8((()*/
-
It was VS I do believe them relevant - but it's you that doesn't in the M case but do in JB case
Anyway it was off topic - probably best discussed on the appropriate forum another time
It was a bit incompetent really for B to not delete the full post. as its a bit garbled as it stands.
So you do accept that trying to sell nude photos of your recently murdered sister to the tabloids for your own financial gain is relevant to the case. It’s not something I recall the McCanns ever doing, but thanks for attempto draw parallels between Bamber and the McCanns, it makes a change from people comparing them to Hindley and Brady and the Wests I suppose.
-
Not saying they can be compared just saying they both need condemning but some try to excuse the M's poor behaviour whilst happy to chastise JB.
I don’t try to excuse their behaviour, I think they were extremely foolish to do what they did. I don’t think Bamber’s actions were foolish, I think they were calculated and based entirely on a desire for money. Next?
-
So you do accept that trying to sell nude photos of your recently murdered sister to the tabloids for your own financial gain is relevant to the case. It’s not something I recall the McCanns ever doing, but thanks for attempto draw parallels between Bamber and the McCanns, it makes a change from people comparing them to Hindley and Brady and the Wests I suppose.
Your twisting here - it wasn't about the pictures it was about his behavior afterward like eating a breakfast ect ect you found that relevant, yet the m case you accepted all the odd behavior from them as irrelevant.
-
Your twisting here - it wasn't about the pictures it was about his behavior afterward like eating a breakfast ect ect you found that relevant, yet the m case you accepted all the odd behavior from them as irrelevant.
This isn't relevant to the Jeremy Bamber case, this seems like a person issue?
-
Your twisting here - it wasn't about the pictures it was about his behavior afterward like eating a breakfast ect ect you found that relevant, yet the m case you accepted all the odd behavior from them as irrelevant.
Read this post again, the one you jumped on first, and try and understand what I am saying
"You had a big breakfast on learning of your father’s death? Good for you. You were probably ravenous. If that was all we had to go on with Jeremy, I agree, it’s not suspicious. Add in ALL the other stuff you are excusing as perfectly normal and it paints a picture of someone who is callous, greedy, selfish, money orientated, deceitful, fake. Were you all of those things as well as a bit hungry? I’m not the only person who sees Jeremy’s behaviour as suspicious. Experienced police offices did too right from the start. If you’re saying character traits and behaviour has no bearing on whether or not a person has a propensity to commit a crime, then that is your opinion. Personally I think it’s relevant".
Now I think that if the McCanns behaved in a way that was generally considered suspicious before and after Madeleine's disappearance then that is relevant. Where opinion may differ is on what constitutes "suspicious behaviour". Some people believe that leaving the kids alone was suspicious (suspicious of what I'm not entirely sure, apart perhaps from gross stupidity and carelessness), personally I don't think it points to them committing the crime of hiding a body. If the McCanns had gone off to breakfast by the pool on the morning of the 4th and had a great big fry up, were seen cracking inappropriate jokes about her and then went back to the apartment and bundled up all Madeleine's clothes, Cuddlecat and other possessions and chucked them in a bin then yes I would view those actions as extremely relevant. As it was they did not behave in a way that I personally (or the FLOs that were there for them) found in any way out of character for deeply traumatised parents to behave. I hope that's clear now, or do you want to keep on arguing the toss?
-
Please may we return to the thread topic ... which is
Bamber tries to sell nude pictures of Sheila to The Sun newspaper Thank you
-
Pity you're afraid to defend your stance on this case by not answering important on ON TOPIC questions.
And she snuck in the word “supposedly”
Quote:
“supposedly attempting to sell sexual images of Sheila”
Jeremy Bamber didn’t “supposedly “ try to flog nude shots of Sheila, Holly — he DID try to flog them to The Sun. for £20K.
You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it
Don’t try and make out it didn’t happen; you make yourself look desperate
-
I can start a thread here to discuss as it's relevant imo both in terms of how the press distort and how members here knowingly or unknowingly discriminate negatively and positively? Thread title? Maybe discrimination/prejudice?
JB sgl 24 yoa farmer - supposedly attempting to sell sexual images of SC - Brie/VS consider appalling and voice opinion of such. Another black mark for JB.
McCanns married late 30's medi docs - leave 3 children 3 yoa and under alone in unlocked holiday apartment night after night whilst on a jolly up with medi friends - Brie/VS play down: suffered enough, wasn't really that far away/could see apartment/it wasn't their fault/perps fault. No black mark.
I believe JB innocent and I don't believe the McCanns were involved in MM's disappearance so I'm not conflicted 8(>(( ?>)()<
If you’re trying to make a fair comparison, Holly — wouldn’t it be better to ask something like:
Do you not think it’s disgraceful and shows warped distorted thinking for a 24-year-old man to try and sell nude photographs of his murdered sister just weeks after she’d been killed?
If the McCann’s, just weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance tried to sell photos of Madeleine bending over naked in the bath, and asked £20K for them, what would you make of that?
-
And she snuck in the word “supposedly”
Quote:
“supposedly attempting to sell sexual images of Sheila”
Jeremy Bamber didn’t “supposedly “ try to flog nude shots of Sheila, Holly — he DID try to flog them to The Sun. for £20K.
You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it
Don’t try and make out it didn’t happen; you make yourself look desperate
By the hacks own admission he didn't see the images. Why didn't JB/BC present them at the meeting?
-
If you’re trying to make a fair comparison, Holly — wouldn’t it be better to ask something like:
Do you not think it’s disgraceful and shows warped distorted thinking for a 24-year-old man to try and sell nude photographs of his murdered sister just weeks after she’d been killed?
If the McCann’s, just weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance tried to sell photos of Madeleine bending over naked in the bath, and asked £20K for them, what would you make of that?
It's not about the images per se. It's about how individuals and groups make judgements about others. It's for another thread.
-
This board is nothing to do the the M's and you can believe that someone is innocent while someone else is guilty! Selling pictures of your dead sister is nothing like leaving your child in circs where you thought they were safe. It's incompetent but it happens all of the time - then there's Bamber! No comparison.
Slightly off topic, and I don’t follow the M case...but I thought I read the McCann’s apartment was in view of where they were sat in the Tapas Bar? Not sure how true that is, and if they had baby listening device with them or not, but whatever...their case is completely different to Bamber’s
-
By the hacks own admission he didn't see the images. Why didn't JB/BC present them at the meeting?
But Jeremy Bamber TOLD the reporter he had nude photographs of Sheila where you could see “everything “, right down to “the last detail” and said how she was posing with toys and phallic symbols. He giggled about it.
You think that’s normal, do you?
And of course he wasn’t going to hand them over: he wanted the money first.
He’s a greedy psychopath.
-
It's not about the images per se. It's about how individuals and groups make judgements about others. It's for another thread.
Maybe not...
But answer the question, anyway
Had the McCann’s tried to hawk naked pictures of Maddie bending over in the bath for £20K just weeks after her disappearance, what would you have thought of them?
-
But Jeremy Bamber TOLD the reporter he had nude photographs of Sheila where you could see “everything “, right down to “the last detail” and said how she was posing with toys and phallic symbols. He giggled about it.
You think that’s normal, do you?
And of course he wasn’t going to hand them over: he wanted the money first.
He’s a greedy psychopath.
The hack said JB claimed to have images of SC with a cucumber and sex toy. The Sun was/is a tabloid newspaper not a porn mag.
-
The hack said JB claimed to have images of SC with a cucumber and sex toy. The Sun was/is a tabloid newspaper not a porn mag.
You avoid questions you can’t answer
It’s tedious
And that’s why you’ve been failing for a decade. If I were you I’d give up...
-
This is not a discussion I join in often but I have just read a passage with information on the topic.
"The tabloids crucified him, particularly with the story that he had approached them with soft porn pictures of the semi-nude Sheila (‘Bambi’) from her modelling days for which he wanted tens of thousands of pounds. (The Sun Reporter who was offered the photographs of Sheila admitted later that Brett Collins had initiated the deal.)"
From http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/innocent-man-part-10.html
Has it been discussed that Brett Collins had initiated the deal?