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: david1819 on November 12, 2014, 01:42:28 AM
-
This is my first post and I just want to add that I very much believe Jeremy committed this crime. But I acknowledge there is a very slim possibility he could be innocent. that is where I stand
So what evidence proves Shelia could not have done this? I believe it is possible, paranoid schizophrenics have committed such acts before see the link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist)
Please share your thoughts
-
A Schizophrenic is more likely to be a victim of crime than commit one.
I get sick to the back teeth of people judging others because they have a mental illness.
No wonder there is such a stigma attached to it.
Sheila showed NO signs of causing all that mayhem, a flimsy sleeve less nightie, not a mark on her.
Only her own blood, no GSR.
Bamber was a psychopath, even the defence shrink said so.
He planned it, primed the police into thinking it was Sheila, had over a month to get rid of incriminating evidence.
Hes guilty. FACT
He will DIE in prison, a guilty man who has shown no remorse for the vile crime he committed and tried to push on his sister.
He will NEVER be released.
-
Also, how many 'normal' people have committed crimes?
-
This is my first post and I just want to add that I very much believe Jeremy committed this crime. But I acknowledge there is a very slim possibility he could be innocent. that is where I stand
So what evidence proves Shelia could not have done this? I believe it is possible, paranoid schizophrenics have committed such acts before see the link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist)
Please share your thoughts
Hi David. Welcome to the forum.
I am not convinced that the root of SC's mental health issues was paranoid schizophrenia:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034
As far as I can see there's no conclusive evidence to show SC could or couldn't be responsible. Whether a multi-disciplinary by PROFESSIONALS using up-to-date methods and technologies could shed new light on the case I have no idea.
I think all see SC as a victim, but some see SC as responsible for the tragedy albeit on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Others see JB callously using SC and her vulnerabilities with mental illness as a cover for his personal involvement and responsibility for 5 murders.
It is not just lay people such as myself that believe JB is the victim of a MoJ. The likes of Michael Turner QC is on record as saying he believes JB is innocent:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html
In the absence of any stand out conclusive evidence either way I guess it comes down to how beliefs are formed:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jun/30/psychology.neuroscience
Perhaps the best analogy is religion: non-believers v believers. No conclusive evidence showing God(s) exist or don't exist but most of us hold one view or the other.
&%+((£
-
A Schizophrenic is more likely to be a victim of crime than commit one.
I get sick to the back teeth of people judging others because they have a mental illness.
No wonder there is such a stigma attached to it.
Sheila showed NO signs of causing all that mayhem, a flimsy sleeve less nightie, not a mark on her.
Only her own blood, no GSR.
Bamber was a psychopath, even the defence shrink said so.
Well there is a huge contradiction in what you have written. Your don't like people judging others because of mental illness yet you judge JB because he is a psychopath? Psychopathy is a mental illness
-
Well there is a huge contradiction in what you have written. Your don't like people judging others because of mental illness yet you judge JB because he is a psychopath? Psychopathy is a mental illness
I think psychopathy is deemed a personality disorder as opposed to mental illness?
As far as I am aware no evidence exists showing JB has ever been diagnosed as a psychopath. I think the incident Andrea is referring to comes from Roger Wilkes book where apparently just prior to the trial JB's defence called a psychiatrist into chambers to seek his opinion on JB. He said something along the lines of JB showing all the classic signs of psychopathy in that he was able to push things to the back of his mind and forget. I don't believe a psychiatrist could/should arrive at such a conclusion without assessing the individual face-to-face using proper diagnostic tools in the right setting.
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
Psychopathy is basically a lack of empathy and lack of empathy is a feature of an 'attachment disorder'.
-
If psychopathy was judged by our ability to put disagreeable happenings to the back of our minds there are very few of us who wouldn't fit the criteria. For a psychiatrist to make such an on the spot assessment was out of order. Nevertheless as his opinion has carried enough weight for it to be quoted after 30 years, one wonders what would be said had his view been different.
-
I think psychopathy is deemed a personality disorder as opposed to mental illness?
As far as I am aware no evidence exists showing JB has ever been diagnosed as a psychopath. I think the incident Andrea is referring to comes from Roger Wilkes book where apparently just prior to the trial JB's defence called a psychiatrist into chambers to seek his opinion on JB. He said something along the lines of JB showing all the classic signs of psychopathy in that he was able to push things to the back of his mind and forget. I don't believe a psychiatrist could/should arrive at such a conclusion without assessing the individual face-to-face using proper diagnostic tools in the right setting.
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
Psychopathy is basically a lack of empathy and lack of empathy is a feature of an 'attachment disorder'.
It is certainly an abnormality of the mind and our culture has created a stigma attached to it. If no less than 1% of the population has psychopathy how many kill their entire family?
Besides psychopathy can be in the favour of JBs defence. I believe Jeremy does have psychopathy however if he did not commit this crime it would explain his behaviour after the murders took place.
If he did or didn't commit the crime his behaviour at the funeral for example would be no different as people with psychopathy only act emotions not actually feel them. If he does have psychopathy it would explain why he did not seem that emotional after the murders? Police and investigators felt his behaviour was unusual in the weeks after the crime, psychopathy would explain his emotionally detached behaviour in all instances.
There is a paradox here psychopathy can go for or against him
-
It is certainly an abnormality of the mind and our culture has created a stigma attached to it. If no less than 1% of the population has psychopathy how many kill their entire family?
Besides psychopathy can be in the favour of JBs defence. I believe Jeremy does have psychopathy however if he did not commit this crime it would explain his behaviour after the murders took place.
If he did or didn't commit the crime his behaviour at the funeral for example would be no different as people with psychopathy only act emotions not actually feel them. If he does have psychopathy it would explain why he did not seem that emotional after the murders? Police and investigators felt his behaviour was unusual in the weeks after the crime, psychopathy would explain his emotionally detached behaviour in all instances.
There is a paradox here psychopathy can go for or against him
People are not robots. Some people wear their hearts on their sleeves and can easily become emotional. Others are more contained and less demonstrative. Remember how composed the young princes, William and Harry, were as they mingled with crowds prior to their beloved mother's funeral and during? There is absolutely no correlation between psychopathy and an inability to arouse quickly and become visibly emotional. In many societies, especially with males, it is seen as bad manners to become overly emotional in the presence of others.
If you have been following the case of Shrien Dewani case you will see a lack of grief is something that has been levelled at him.
You believe JB is a psychopath fine but that is not the view of those who have formerly assessed JB.
-
It is certainly an abnormality of the mind and our culture has created a stigma attached to it. If no less than 1% of the population has psychopathy how many kill their entire family?
Besides psychopathy can be in the favour of JBs defence. I believe Jeremy does have psychopathy however if he did not commit this crime it would explain his behaviour after the murders took place.
If he did or didn't commit the crime his behaviour at the funeral for example would be no different as people with psychopathy only act emotions not actually feel them. If he does have psychopathy it would explain why he did not seem that emotional after the murders? Police and investigators felt his behaviour was unusual in the weeks after the crime, psychopathy would explain his emotionally detached behaviour in all instances.
There is a paradox here psychopathy can go for or against him
The majority of psychopaths aren't killers which is a relief given that statistically -and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong- I believe one in eight of us is one. They are certainly risk takers which probably explains why they get the top jobs. Think about politicians................or perhaps NOT!!!! or perhaps surgeons who are clever -BRAVE- enough to perform surgical miracles. I don't imagine either could do their job without the emotional detachment attributed to psychopaths. Could psychopathy be attributed to paedophiles? Is it an irony that possible emotional attachment can be so closely aligned to emotional detachment?
-
It is certainly an abnormality of the mind and our culture has created a stigma attached to it. If no less than 1% of the population has psychopathy how many kill their entire family?
Besides psychopathy can be in the favour of JBs defence. I believe Jeremy does have psychopathy however if he did not commit this crime it would explain his behaviour after the murders took place.
If he did or didn't commit the crime his behaviour at the funeral for example would be no different as people with psychopathy only act emotions not actually feel them. If he does have psychopathy it would explain why he did not seem that emotional after the murders? Police and investigators felt his behaviour was unusual in the weeks after the crime, psychopathy would explain his emotionally detached behaviour in all instances.
There is a paradox here psychopathy can go for or against him
David you may or may not be aware that The Jeremy Bamber forum contains a lot of testimony by way of witness statements. One such statement from Colin Caffell's mother (Colin father of the twins) Mrs Brencher states the following:
"I saw Sheila again in the middle of June at her flat. Whilst I was there she broke down in my arms crying. This was the first time I had ever seen Sheila show any emotion. She was very upset and miserable about her life and she wanted her children to live with her again. She stayed with me for a few hours and was obviously unhappy and distressed".
-
The difficulty with any 'Sheila done it' theory is that Sheila had no reason to want to do it. However, the only other person who could have 'done it' and as far as most of the evidence suggests did in fact 'do it', was Jeremy Bamber. Hope that covers it?
-
The difficulty with any 'Sheila done it' theory is that Sheila had no reason to want to do it. However, the only other person who could have 'done it' and as far as most of the evidence suggests did in fact 'do it', was Jeremy Bamber. Hope that covers it?
The difficulty there is that whilst WE may say "Sheila had no reason to want to do it" we're looking in from the outside. Only Sheila -and possibly her therapist, if she had one- really knew how Sheila felt. Speaking personally, I'd have been in no hurry to trade places.
-
The difficulty with any 'Sheila done it' theory is that Sheila had no reason to want to do it. However, the only other person who could have 'done it' and as far as most of the evidence suggests did in fact 'do it', was Jeremy Bamber. Hope that covers it?
That's wishful thinking, John! The lady's not for turning... LOL!
-
That's wishful thinking, John! The lady's not for turning... LOL!
There's always hope! 8(0(* I'm sure even a stalwart like Holly can see the evidence is heavily stacked against Bamber.
-
The difficulty with any 'Sheila done it' theory is that Sheila had no reason to want to do it. However, the only other person who could have 'done it' and as far as most of the evidence suggests did in fact 'do it', was Jeremy Bamber. Hope that covers it?
Not really - if she was ill - then she would not have a "reason" to want to do it. Why would she even consider suicide ( which is documented) when she had two beautiful children? Why would she think Freddie Emani was the devil or that she was being stalked by the CIA? There is no logical reason is there?. Whether guilty or innocent I think you are ignoring that her treatment was not adequate. Even Colin her ex admitted that her treatment was inadequate and he was not happy with the doctor that june was using for Sheila. Whatever the truth I don't think you can use the argument of a lack of motive.
-
Also out of interest I was reading about an American case where the alleged murderer had no marks on them or any evidence of getting rid of clothes with forensic evidence - the prosecution were allowed to use the argument that the accused was the aggressor in possession of the weapon - so there is no reason why they would be injured at all . Also the fact that there was no forensics in the car or on clothes - well they could have got rid of the clothes before they got in the car - it did not have to be proved - because it was a possibility. Also there was a huge character assassination and relatives persuaded to "embellish" their testimony and oh yes evidence that was with held by the prosecution - ring any bells?
I have always maintained that Jeremy would have HAD to on the night get rid of any clothes shoes and forensic evidence on him or the "bike" ( of which there was No evidence what so ever that it was used ) On that night. Because there was NO WAY he would know that the police would " fall for his story" and they could have been all over him like a rash the very next day . And the evidence was NEVER discovered . All this rubbish about him having a month to clean everything up ( he was under the microscope by his family from day one anyway) to me is rubbish.
-
To get back to the title of the thread then I can only see one thing that makes it impossible for Sheila to do the murders and that is the silencer - Because she would not have taken it off and put it in the cupboard - other that I have seen contrasting expert views on every thing else - So that to me is the crux of the whole case .
And no I don't have a theory on that except I don't think that something that was handled by several people , removed from the crime scene and of which the descriptions about its appearance wnen it was found vary a lot - is not acceptable.
-
Not really - if she was ill - then she would not have a "reason" to want to do it. Why would she even consider suicide ( which is documented) when she had two beautiful children? Why would she think Freddie Emani was the devil or that she was being stalked by the CIA? There is no logical reason is there?. Whether guilty or innocent I think you are ignoring that her treatment was not adequate. Even Colin her ex admitted that her treatment was inadequate and he was not happy with the doctor that june was using for Sheila. Whatever the truth I don't think you can use the argument of a lack of motive.
Guinness, I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I feel as if people want to forget Sheila and labour Jeremy's guilt in order to do so. It has even been said that she was only mildly schizophrenic!!! It has been said that her medication was entirely adequate -although given that her consultant hadn't seen her for 18 weeks prior to her death and she wasn't monitored- I don't know how that can possibly be known. A friend, who is a psychiatrist didn't agree that it was adequate. Personally I believe psychotherapy should have been used along side her medication because medication alone OR the once favoured ECT, have never yet been known to fix dysfunctional relationships or problems bought about by life circumstances.
-
Guinness, I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I feel as if people want to forget Sheila and labour Jeremy's guilt in order to do so. It has even been said that she was only mildly schizophrenic!!! It has been said that her medication was entirely adequate -although given that her consultant hadn't seen her for 18 weeks prior to her death and she wasn't monitored- I don't know how that can possibly be known. A friend, who is a psychiatrist didn't agree that it was adequate. Personally I believe psychotherapy should have been used along side her medication because medication alone OR the once favoured ECT, have never yet been known to fix dysfunctional relationships or problems bought about by life circumstances.
We also must also consider that this was in the mid 1980s. Schizophrenia back then would not be as understood/treated as much as it is today and the medications and methods would be obsolete. Her treatment by todays standards would probably be considered poor by people today but probably got fairly good treatment by the standards of those days.
-
We also must also consider that this was in the mid 1980s. Schizophrenia back then would not be as understood/treated as much as it is today and the medications and methods would be obsolete. Her treatment by todays standards would probably be considered poor by people today but probably got fairly good treatment by the standards of those days.
Does that not mean, if we compare her treatment to some of those released, unsupervised, from psychiatric care today, that she may have been more, rather than less likely to have done it.
-
Another point that makes me ponder is the amount of gun fire. 5 shots to one child's head and 3 shots to the other twin brothers head, It seems extremely sloppy and poorly executed. Would a rational calculating JB fire that many shots at point blank range when only 1 shot to the head was needed? plus he was allegedly using the silencer at the time so he would have no reason to fire more shots as he didn't want people to wake up/hear ect. Same goes for the parents far to many shots where fired to kill them. If you have a 22. calibre rifle with targets at point blank range you don't need 23 shots to kill 4 people.
People say Shelia did not know anything about guns, I am pretty sure anyone above the age of 5 understands the concept of point and pull the trigger you only need to watch movies to find that out. Also the weapon was a semi automatic you don't need to be taught how to use it as the weapon reloads by itself. If it was manual rifle needing to be re-cocked and re-loaded every shot then the argument that Shelia new nothing about guns would be a valid point but in this case it is not.
-
Another point that makes me ponder is the amount of gun fire. 5 shots to one child's head and 3 shots to the other twin brothers head, It seems extremely sloppy and poorly executed. Would a rational calculating JB fire that many shots at point blank range when only 1 shot to the head was needed? plus he was allegedly using the silencer at the time so he would have no reason to fire more shots as he didn't want people to wake up/hear ect. Same goes for the parents far to many shots where fired to kill them. If you have a 22. calibre rifle with targets at point blank range you don't need 23 shots to kill 4 people.
People say Shelia did not know anything about guns, I am pretty sure anyone above the age of 5 understands the concept of point and pull the trigger you only need to watch movies to find that out. Also the weapon was a semi automatic you don't need to be taught how to use it as the weapon reloads by itself. If it was manual rifle needing to be re-cocked and re-loaded every shot then the argument that Shelia new nothing about guns would be a valid point but in this case it is not.
"A rational, calculating Jeremy" wouldn't.............but a devious, cynical Jeremy wanting the deed to look like an amateurish Sheila was responsible, MAY have done.
-
Also out of interest I was reading about an American case where the alleged murderer had no marks on them or any evidence of getting rid of clothes with forensic evidence - the prosecution were allowed to use the argument that the accused was the aggressor in possession of the weapon - so there is no reason why they would be injured at all . Also the fact that there was no forensics in the car or on clothes - well they could have got rid of the clothes before they got in the car - it did not have to be proved - because it was a possibility. Also there was a huge character assassination and relatives persuaded to "embellish" their testimony and oh yes evidence that was with held by the prosecution - ring any bells?
I have always maintained that Jeremy would have HAD to on the night get rid of any clothes shoes and forensic evidence on him or the "bike" ( of which there was No evidence what so ever that it was used ) On that night. Because there was NO WAY he would know that the police would " fall for his story" and they could have been all over him like a rash the very next day . And the evidence was NEVER discovered . All this rubbish about him having a month to clean everything up ( he was under the microscope by his family from day one anyway) to me is rubbish.
Guinness you make a good point above; AE was making meticulous notes from the off with JB rightly or wrongly under suspicion. I have not read anywhere that JB's normal weekly rubbish at Goldhanger was gone through, although I am sure it was given that AE took the rubbish from WHF:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3568
-
Whichever way you want to spin it, there is a mountain of evidence which proves Sheila never handled any rifle or fought with Nevill before he died but you just go on believing the opposite if it makes you feel happy. Bamber did it so get over it!
-
Whichever way you want to spin it, there is a mountain of evidence which proves Sheila never handled any rifle or fought with Nevill before he died but you just go on believing the opposite if it makes you feel happy. Bamber did it so get over it!
I think your comment above is a little flippant John.
A feature of any case under discussion claiming to be a MoJ has to be by its very nature a minority taking a different view.
If we were discussing the Stefan Kiszko case prior to his conviction being quashed there would no doubt be a similar minority/majority view.
-
I think your comment above is a little flippant John.
A feature of any case under discussion claiming to be a MoJ has to be by its very nature a minority taking a different view.
If we were discussing the Stefan Kiszko case prior to his conviction being quashed there would no doubt be a similar minority/majority view.
IMO, no one has ever explained....
The lack of Ralph's blood on the phone (considering that Bamber was "sure" that Ralph was injured before the supposed call.
The lack of Sheila's blood on her face, in her lungs and in her stomach, considering that she must have been conscious long enough to cope with the shock and pain of the first shot, re-position the gun, and shoot again (fortunately, there were 2 bullets left).
The almost TOTAL lack of prints on the gun.
-
I have never seen anything that said that Jeremy was sure that Neville was injured before he made the call?
Personally I think Sheila was waving the gun about and ranting and although Neville thought he was having problems calming her down he never thought she would fire the gun.
It was a semi automatic rifle - the second shot could have happened almost immediately after the first
[edited: automatic > semi automatic]
-
lack of prints on the gun
there was one of sheilas one of jeremys and some other partials - but guess what the police handled the rifle with no gloves on - so you would have thought it would have had their prints on it - wouldn't you? ?8)@)-)
-
IMO, no one has ever explained....
The lack of Ralph's blood on the phone (considering that Bamber was "sure" that Ralph was injured before the supposed call.
The lack of Sheila's blood on her face, in her lungs and in her stomach, considering that she must have been conscious long enough to cope with the shock and pain of the first shot, re-position the gun, and shoot again (fortunately, there were 2 bullets left).
The almost TOTAL lack of prints on the gun.
I've read posts claiming that JB was "sure" NB was injured before the supposed call but nothing official. I've had a look back on the WS's of JB and AE and the COA doc and can see nothing to this effect. Grab your sick bucket and hear it from the horse's mouth:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151 (Clip 1)
CC makes ref to it in his book below. We don't have his WS here to see what he says in that.
There's no way NB could have made a call after the facial shots received upstairs:
Unable to engage in purposeful conversation only inaudible groans as per Dr V
Heavy bleeding from facial wounds would have resulted in blood on the handset
The lack of SC's blood on her face I have no idea. I assume if it was something that stood out and/or was considered abnormal in such a situation then Dr Craig, the pathologist and EP would have observed?
Lack of prints overall and the fact that one from each of JB and SC was found is somewhat of a mystery. I could speculate all night but would really rather tootle off down the local now.
I wonder how quickly I could clear the local if I started up conversations about JB. Could be a strategy to get to the bar when its busy &%+((£
-
lack of prints on the gun
there was one of sheilas one of jeremys and some other partials - but guess what the police handled the rifle with no gloves on - so you would have thought it would have had their prints on it - wouldn't you? ?8)@)-)
I wish I could remember which officers admitted to handling/moving the gun and how they handled it - hopefully correctly, but I suppose they could have rubbed their hands all over it (as Sheila surely must have done) then panicked and wiped it almost completely clean. I'll have to plough through some statements, but not tonight!
-
I wish I could remember which officers admitted to handling/moving the gun and how they handled it - hopefully correctly, but I suppose they could have rubbed their hands all over it (as Sheila surely must have done) then panicked and wiped it almost completely clean. I'll have to plough through some statements, but not tonight!
If I remember correctly it was Ron Cook who said he handled the rifle by the two strap lugs at either end albeit without gloves, and placed it out of reach. The Anschutz was probably the one photographed from the stairs propped up by the side of the bedroom window.
-
Whichever way you want to spin it, there is a mountain of evidence which proves Sheila never handled any rifle or fought with Nevill before he died but you just go on believing the opposite if it makes you feel happy. Bamber did it so get over it!
If you read my first post. I did say I believe JB committed the crime. You can't say 100% Bamber did it or 100% Shelia did because non of us where there that night and we can only speculated given the evidence we have which is in some cases mishandled contaminated/destroyed or not released.
-
Bamber was found guilty in court, we arent speculating when we say he did it, its fact.
-
Sheila had limited gun experience, Jeremy testified. Although there is a case to argue that she had 'no' gun experience.
With limited/no gun experience, Sheila put the silencer on while in a crazy rage. Without being seen. ?
Sheila obviously wanted to commit a silent execution.
Neville woke during the silent execution attempt ?
Sheila had limited/no experience with guns, was uncordinated, weak and holding a weak rifle.
Neville did not try to restrain Sheila for several minutes or hours. Although she was now 'going crazy'.
Neville did not wake June, who was shot with her head on the pillow.
June did not wake.
Neville rings Chelmsford police (according to Jeremy). Deciding against ringing Witham, nearby relatives, farm workers or the Foakes's. It is unsure what Sheila was doing at this time.
Neville then rings Jeremy, which is an amazing decision. There are dozens of reasons not to. Jeremy later telling the police that Sheila would 'not be pleased to see him'. It is uncertain what Sheila was doing during this phone call.
The twins did not wake or are woken.
Neville was not able to predict that Sheila was about to fire off the rifle. Or did know it was coming but did not try to prevent this. Sheila starts firing upstairs.
Neville runs downstairs after getting four bullets. Either before June was shot, or he watched June get shot, waiting his turn. It is unsure why he abandoned everyone. He had already phoned the police and Jeremy.
Sheila brutally beat Neville downstairs without getting a mark on her.
Sheila reloads twice. To fire bullets into people who were either already dead, seriously injured or sleeping.
Sheila shoots herself upstairs with the silencer on although it was not possible to reach the trigger.
With a bullet in her head, the silencer taken downstairs & is put in a box. Then at the back of the gun cupboard underneath other boxes dartboards and guns. There is no reasonable explanation for doing this.
Sheila wipes any vertical blood lines . Then shoots herself again upstairs away from everyone. Colin Caffell saying Sheila would have shot herself with the twins.
-
Here you go, this is Jeremy's first WS, I'll have to search for the other reference (re: his father may have been injured). Reading this, it just also struck me as strange that he offers up info on which TV programs he'd been watching - a suspicious mind might think that this was also an attempt to bolster up his alibi. &%+((£
-
Here you go, this is Jeremy's first WS, I'll have to search for the other reference (re: his father may have been injured). Reading this, it just also struck me as strange that he offers up info on which TV programs he'd been watching - a suspicious mind might think that this was also an attempt to bolster up his alibi. &%+((£
*&(+(+ for JB's WS's
He offers up loads of info in his WS. Sounds a bit old womanish? He's just someone who provides loads of detail. Look how I ramble on in my posts? The fact he identified the three tv progs he watched I find insignificant. I might find it significant if he wasn't big on detail in other areas but that's not the case is it? Interestingly I remember when I read it the first time I thought how spooky he watched a program re miscarriages as in MoJ. Then months later Saggie posted and made ref to it in terms of miscarrying babies. See how minds interpret the same info differently? Unless we asked JB we would have no idea who is correct: miscarriages of justice or miscarrying babies.
I find it interesting/sad that he states when he left everyone was happy. If he wanted to set the scene why not lie/embellish that there was a tense atmosphere, arguing, SC was upset etc?
No mention of the movement at the window.
Also note he states they left Colin's party at midnight to take SC home. And JM states in her WS 11.45pm Obviously nothing sinister here just shows how estimated times of historical events can easily be out. Don't forget it was a month until EP started drilling down with JB.
JB - Midnight
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5576.0;attach=4541
JM - 11.45pm
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=282.0;attach=1010
3.10am is a funny time. Normally you would say approx to the nearest 15 mins on the hour? I thought he relied on others for the times of his call. I thought JM phoned her friend from Goldhager on the 7th to ascertain a time for JB/his WS? I can't get all hung up on the phone calls. I can see how they could look suspicious if you're that way inclined but when I look at the bigger picture it stacks up in my mind.
My advice form your own opinions from your own research. You sound like you've been looking for answers from JB and the little island man and gone off the rails/got confused. 8(0(*
-
As with the jury, posters attribute different weight to various aspects of the case. The phone calls have never been a biggie for me.
You say why call JM? And why not just go over there or phone the police? The fact is you could present such a scenario to a cross section of society, remove the WHF case, and ask them what they would do and I think you would be surprised by all the variations.
We're not JB. We don't have the intimate knowledge of NB and SC that JB had. I put a lot of weight on NB's low opinion of the police and possibly state run services in general. And his desire to keep family matters private. Along with JB's understanding of these facts. To my mind JB was very concerned about following NB's orders. Not that I think NB was the authoritarian type - on the contrary - but I think JB held him in high esteem and wouldn't want to call it wrong by having police cars turn up sirens sounding, lights flashing at WHF only to find it was a manageable domestic and NB ends up feeling embarrassed especially being a local magistrate.
If you didn't notice my post count then it shows you dont notice details and nuances which is unhelpful when trying to work out the WHF case &%+((£
Sensible not letting your doggy on the sofa. After all we wouldn't want you with a hairy bottom would we? 8(0(* @)(++(*
No, we don't have intimate knowledge of SC or NB but neither do we have such knowledge about JB. But as you believe he held NB in high regard, I don't and I think he resented not being able to do the things he wanted. There was a clause in the will which stipulated that Jeremy would need to stay in farming IF he was to inherit the bulk of the estate - why would such a clause need to be included if all was hunky dory and if he was bothered about following NB's orders, why didn't he rush over there as requested, instead of wasting 26 mins (the time it would have taken him to call police if today's claims are to be believed) b....ring about looking up phone numbers?
I didn't notice your post count because it has nothing to do with the Bamber case and I'm not concerned with how many posts you made - it made no difference to me - now or then 8(0(*
-
No, we don't have intimate knowledge of SC or NB but neither do we have such knowledge about JB. But as you believe he held NB in high regard, I don't and I think he resented not being able to do the things he wanted. There was a clause in the will which stipulated that Jeremy would need to stay in farming IF he was to inherit the bulk of the estate - why would such a clause need to be included if all was hunky dory and if he was bothered about following NB's orders, why didn't he rush over there as requested, instead of wasting 26 mins (the time it would have taken him to call police if today's claims are to be believed) b....ring about looking up phone numbers?
I didn't notice your post count because it has nothing to do with the Bamber case and I'm not concerned with how many posts you made - it made no difference to me - now or then 8(0(*
Caroline the very points you quite forcibly argued over for some 2 years you have now done a 360 turn on. Are you able to create threads for discussion on the points that caused you to change your mind eg the wallet and trailer?
What was JB unable to do? How did NB restrict him? JB was able to travel, with the full support of his parents, and I believe chose to work in farming while doing so? NB and June did not go straight into farming. NB was a pilot in the RAF. June trained as a secretary and worked in local offices as a secretary. She then joined the Army and Navy Yeomanry and was posted to Calcutta. There's no evidence JB wanted any other career apart from diving which was a no goer due to his head injury. Even when he worked at Little Chef and Sloppy Joes I think he was still working at WHF too?
The same could be said of SC ie I'm sure it was hoped she would marry a local farmer/landowner etc, etc. June paid SC's modelling course. They accepted CC a mostly out of work artist. Adopted or not most parents allow their children to choose their own path regardless of whether ideally they want their sons/daughters to join the family firm.
Are you able to post copies of the wills please? I guess to some degree it was out of NB and June's hands as they were tenants at WHF. The trustees probably applied various standard restrictions about sons/daughters taking over a tenanted farm when the parents pass on? These are no doubt complex legal issues connected to covenants?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(law)
I'm not wasting time going round in circles covering the same ground. I've given my reasons for believing why JB called the local police and didn't dial 999.
JB would no doubt have gone over had NB provided clear instructions. He didn't. The call ended abruptly and ominously. When JB called back to ascertain what was required of him he received the engaged tone TWICE.
-
Caroline the very points you quite forcibly argued over for some 2 years you have now done a 360 turn on. Are you able to create threads for discussion on the points that caused you to change your mind eg the wallet and trailer?
What was JB unable to do? How did NB restrict him? JB was able to travel, with the full support of his parents, and I believe chose to work in farming while doing so? NB and June did not go straight into farming. NB was a pilot in the RAF. June trained as a secretary and worked in local offices as a secretary. She then joined the Army and Navy Yeomanry and was posted to Calcutta. There's no evidence JB wanted any other career apart from diving which was a no goer due to his head injury. Even when he worked at Little Chef and Sloppy Joes I think he was still working at WHF too?
The same could be said of SC ie I'm sure it was hoped she would marry a local farmer/landowner etc, etc. June paid SC's modelling course. They accepted CC a mostly out of work artist. Adopted or not most parents allow their children to choose their own path regardless of whether ideally they want their sons/daughters to join the family firm.
Are you able to post copies of the wills please? I guess to some degree it was out of NB and June's hands as they were tenants at WHF. The trustees probably applied various standard restrictions about sons/daughters taking over a tenanted farm when the parents pass on? These are no doubt complex legal issues connected to covenants?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(law)
I'm not wasting time going round in circles covering the same ground. I've given my reasons for believing why JB called the local police and didn't dial 999.
JB would no doubt have gone over had NB provided clear instructions. He didn't. The call ended abruptly and ominously. When JB called back to ascertain what was required of him he received the engaged tone TWICE.
Of course it's a 360 turn around because I now think he's guilty. I don't mind sharing why I changed my mind but I don't have time to write out the whole thing now, maybe during the week I can write something down.
He was restricted in that he was expected to work at the farm and the proof of this is in the clause of the will. The Bambers left £436,000 and 300 acres of land, I repeat that if Jeremy had free reign to do as he wished (with his parents blessing), there would have beem no clause. To be fair, you are assuming they had no choice in applying the restriction, but feel to post any evidence you have.
Of course Jeremy was free to chose his own path, but NOT with the benefits he shared by working on the farm and I wouldn't call picking fruit 'farming'. Lots of people fund extended trips abroad by doing work that it easy to find, which includes fruit picking although we have no evidence to suggest this is all the work he did.
I also have made it clear why I don't believe there was any call and can't believe after what was said, that he didn't call 999. You can't get any clearer than 'Come quickly' (a request for his help and for Jeremy to come over to WHF - 'quickly') 'Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun' (the reason he needs help). I'd say with those instructions, it's pretty hard to argue hat Jeremy didn't understand.
-
Of course it's a 360 turn around because I now think he's guilty. I don't mind sharing why I changed my mind but I don't have time to write out the whole thing now, maybe during the week I can write something down.
He was restricted in that he was expected to work at the farm and the proof of this is in the clause of the will. The Bambers left £436,000 and 300 acres of land, I repeat that if Jeremy had free reign to do as he wished (with his parents blessing), there would have beem no clause. To be fair, you are assuming they had no choice in applying the restriction, but feel to post any evidence you have.
Of course Jeremy was free to chose his own path, but NOT with the benefits he shared by working on the farm and I wouldn't call picking fruit 'farming'. Lots of people fund extended trips abroad by doing work that it easy to find, which includes fruit picking although we have no evidence to suggest this is all the work he did.
I also have made it clear why I don't believe there was any call and can't believe after what was said, that he didn't call 999. You can't get any clearer than 'Come quickly' (a request for his help and for Jeremy to come over to WHF - 'quickly') 'Sheila has gone crazy, she's got the gun' (the reason he needs help). I'd say with those instructions, it's pretty hard to argue hat Jeremy didn't understand.
Fruit picking... that's the first I've heard of that! Learn something new everyday! I believe he also did some bar work. I don't see the big deal. Each year thousands of young Brits take off on gap years etc and take up casual work. I did similar myself many 8()-000( years ago.
The wills are on Blue I believe so I would be grateful if you could post them along with the clauses. We only have a fraction of the docs you have on Blue. I don't think I really made any assumptions about the wills just generalisations:
"Are you able to post copies of the wills please? I guess to some degree it was out of NB and June's hands as they were tenants at WHF. The trustees probably applied various standard restrictions about sons/daughters taking over a tenanted farm when the parents pass on? These are no doubt complex legal issues connected to covenants?"
You have been able to argue, quite forcibly I might add for some 2 years, that the phone calls were made as JB claimed. Now you are able to argue the exact opposite. How are you able to do this? Imo because they are highly subjective with absolutely no reliable evidence to prove whether they were made as JB claimed or not.
-
I wish I could remember which officers admitted to handling/moving the gun and how they handled it - hopefully correctly, but I suppose they could have rubbed their hands all over it (as Sheila surely must have done) then panicked and wiped it almost completely clean. I'll have to plough through some statements, but not tonight!
The first armed response police officers who entered the master bedroom were required to lift the weapon and make it safe. No doubt it was later returned to its position on Sheila so crimescene photos could be taken. Safety takes priority over preserving a crime scene in such a situation.
-
If I remember correctly it was Ron Cook who said he handled the rifle by the two strap lugs at either end albeit without gloves, and placed it out of reach. The Anschutz was probably the one photographed from the stairs propped up by the side of the bedroom window.
Yes, that was the second move to allow Sheila's remains to be removed from the bedroom.
(http://i.imgur.com/zFDOA06.jpg?2)