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: Alice on June 13, 2018, 04:33:45 PM
-
I cant find an answer to this one anywhere, but is there a record of whether or not Nevill's watch stopped when it came off and if so what time it showed?
342
-
That is a good question.
It would show the time of the kitchen fight. If it was before 3.10am, then Nevill did not phone Jeremy.
Watches can crack and break, but still continue working. It's doubtful the watch was totally smashed up prior to falling off Nevill's wrist.
-
The watch was bloodstained and damaged.
34.
Subsequent searches of this room revealed Nevill Bamber's blood stained wristw..ch under a rug and a piece of broken butt from the rifle on the floor.
249.
We have considered the potential impact that Action 94 might have had on the jury. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the jury might have been persuaded by it that there had not been a violent struggle in the kitchen. Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle. Mr Bamber's body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, the light fitting was broken, there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Mr Bamber, there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle, and there was Mr Bamber's watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.
----------
-
I cant find an answer to this one anywhere, but is there a record of whether or not Nevill's watch stopped when it came off and if so what time it showed?
It was still working according to Ann Eaton. I think the pin in the strap had broken?
-
Just to think one stopping of the hands might have answered it all.
-
Just to think one stopping of the hands might have answered it all.
Was it a Rolex or a Cartier?
-
Was it a Rolex or a Cartier?
Neither - I don't think the make was mentioned.
-
Neither - I don't think the make was mentioned.
I was just wondering what sort of up market time piece would have kept ticking under all that stress.
-
Was it a Rolex or a Cartier?
Rotary I believe.
-
Rotary I believe.
Seiko with its metal strap broken off, according to you know who.
-
Seiko with its metal strap broken off, according to you know who.
Who?
-
Who?
... according to Cocker! 8((()*/
-
... or in other words CAL!
-
... according to Cocker! 8((()*/
On the list of exhibits, there is mention of an Omega watch and a seiko watch guarantee? (Still none the wise on the 'who' @)(++(*)
-
On the list of exhibits, there is mention of an Omega watch and a seiko watch guarantee? (Still none the wise on the 'who' @)(++(* )
Maybe the Omega belonged to Sheila?
-
Maybe the Omega belonged to Sheila?
Dunno but there ya no Seiko watch mentioned just the guarantee.
-
Maybe the Omega belonged to Sheila?
I have the Omega watch.
-
I have the Omega watch.
How? Why?
-
How? Why?
He gave it to me to look after
-
He gave it to me to look after
Who did?
-
Who did?
Jeremy
-
I have the Omega watch.
It has no strap, only the face. Dark blue with gold surround.
-
Jeremy
Oh ok. Are you his aunt Agatha?
-
Oh ok. Are you his aunt Agatha?
Yes, I suppose I am. 😊
-
Yes, I suppose I am. 😊
I recall you saying that you had one or both or the Cartier's?
-
I recall you saying that you had one or both or the Cartier's?
One of each. Both very old now, not even sure exactly where they are tbh.
-
One of each. Both very old now, not even sure exactly where they are tbh.
Unless they'd been previously owned, I wouldn't have said 35 constituted "very old" for Cartier's and Omega's. More retro.
-
Unless they'd been previously owned, I wouldn't have said 35 constituted "very old" for Cartier's and Omega's. More retro.
Yes, you're right.
-
One of each. Both very old now, not even sure exactly where they are tbh.
Wasn't one of the Cartier watches sold by Sue Ford?
-
Some people go to sleep with their watches on.
Nevill put his forearms up to protect his face from rifle blows from Jeremy. Resulting in the arm bruises and watch falling off.
-
One of each. Both very old now, not even sure exactly where they are tbh.
Is the Cartier genuine?
-
Is the Cartier genuine?
Hmm? His parents sent him money. He requested more. Said he'd 'lent' the money to a friend who hadn't repaid it. Enough being enough, they sent him a ticket. Funny how he managed the 'purchase', not just of A watch. but more than one of the creme de la creme of luxury watches. Fakes, perhaps, that he picked up for rather less than the tens of thousands the real things could have set him back?
-
Hmm? His parents sent him money. He requested more. Said he'd 'lent' the money to a friend who hadn't repaid it. Enough being enough, they sent him a ticket. Funny how he managed the 'purchase', not just of A watch. but more than one of the creme de la creme of luxury watches. Fakes, perhaps, that he picked up for rather less than the tens of thousands the real things could have set him back?
Well, having Aunt Agatha here is a perfect opportunity to settle this particular point once and for all.
-
Well, having Aunt Agatha here is a perfect opportunity to settle this particular point once and for all.
It would certainly be good to get some clarification.
-
She'll have to find them first... probably somewhere hidden at the back of her fridge-freezer.
-
She'll have to find them first... probably somewhere hidden at the back of her fridge-freezer.
Time frozen to a standstill, perhaps?
-
She'll have to find them first... probably somewhere hidden at the back of her fridge-freezer.
She might just remember.
-
Seiko with its metal strap broken off, according to you know who.
That's what I read---the trouble is, I cant recall where.
-
Hmm? His parents sent him money. He requested more. Said he'd 'lent' the money to a friend who hadn't repaid it. Enough being enough, they sent him a ticket. Funny how he managed the 'purchase', not just of A watch. but more than one of the creme de la creme of luxury watches. Fakes, perhaps, that he picked up for rather less than the tens of thousands the real things could have set him back?
Where was his stop off, Singapore? Some of the best snides available came from Singers.
-
That's what I read---the trouble is, I cant recall where.
CAL is fairly reliable. Hardback, Chapter 22, page 187. epub, page 423.5... or type Seiko in the search box.
The watch must have received a hefty blow for the strap to separate from the body. Perhaps that could be what caused the scratch on the moderator when Nevill was defending himself with his right arm.
-
Is the Cartier genuine?
Both are genuine.
-
CAL is fairly reliable. Hardback, Chapter 22, page 187. epub, page 423.5... or type Seiko in the search box.
The watch must have received a hefty blow for the strap to separate from the body. Perhaps that could be what caused the scratch on the moderator when Nevill was defending himself with his right arm.
There is no damage to face of watches.
I thought the role was real, I've never had it looked at.
His omega was a present from his family if I recall rightly... It was so long ago I cannot recall.
-
Both are genuine.
Thanks AA 8((()*/
-
There is no damage to face of watches.
I thought the role was real, I've never had it looked at.
His omega was a present from his family if I recall rightly... It was so long ago I cannot recall.
Rolex or Cartier?
-
Seiko with its metal strap broken off, according to you know who.
Oh, Seiko are excellent watches and such good quality. They’re likened to Rolex for their accuracy, but as they don’t have the “cool” brand of Rolex people don’t pay stupid amounts for them, despite them being equally good as Rolex.
They have some amazing watches, and whilst some models are less expensive than Rolex they’re certainly not cheap. Depends on the model, of course...but they’re highly valued watches, and usually worn by people who have no desire to flaunt their wealth but want a good quality watch.
-
Oh, Seiko are excellent watches and such good quality. They’re likened to Rolex for their accuracy, but as they don’t have the “cool” brand of Rolex people don’t pay stupid amounts for them, despite them being equally good as Rolex.
They have some amazing watches, and whilst some models are less expensive than Rolex they’re certainly not cheap. Depends on the model, of course...but they’re highly valued watches, and usually worn by people who have no desire to flaunt their wealth but want a good quality watch.
How very gratifying!!! I bought mine, half price, from a jeweller who was closing down. It wasn't exactly peanuts, but neither was it squillions. The jeweller said it was an excellent choice because Seiko was a reputable and sought after brand. I thought he probably said that of all the watches he sold.
-
When I replied to your post last night Caroline I was half asleep and didn't recognise you wrote Cartier.
I do not have a Cartier watch of Jeremy's, I have a genuine omega and what could be a fake role.
I have two seiko watches of his also, which I purchased for him some 25yrs ago.
I apologise for the confusion.
-
When I replied to your post last night Caroline I was half asleep and didn't recognise you wrote Cartier.
I do not have a Cartier watch of Jeremy's, I have a genuine omega and what could be a fake role.
I have two seiko watches of his also, which I purchased for him some 25yrs ago.
I apologise for the confusion.
Ok thanks AA 8((()*/
-
When I replied to your post last night Caroline I was half asleep and didn't recognise you wrote Cartier.
I do not have a Cartier watch of Jeremy's, I have a genuine omega and what could be a fake role.
I have two seiko watches of his also, which I purchased for him some 25yrs ago.
I apologise for the confusion.
It's just that you mentioned having the Cartier watch in the past?
-
When I replied to your post last night Caroline I was half asleep and didn't recognise you wrote Cartier.
I do not have a Cartier watch of Jeremy's, I have a genuine omega and what could be a fake role.
I have two seiko watches of his also, which I purchased for him some 25yrs ago.
I apologise for the confusion.
So how was it possible for him to pay for them? I didn't think he would be allowed to have that much cash in prison. Or did you mean you'd bought them FOR him, in which case, would not one have been enough?
-
So how was it possible for him to pay for them? I didn't think he would be allowed to have that much cash in prison. Or did you mean you'd bought them FOR him, in which case, would not one have been enough?
More to the point, why?
-
More to the point, why?
Well, yes!!!
-
Hi,
I've never stated, except on here by mistake) that I had a Cartier watch. It's an omega which as stated was given as a gidt by his family. My memory is not that good these days so I wouldn't question it if anybody else has proof otherwise, as I say, I've forgotten exactly.
I purchased two watches on separate occasions watched for him be it for Christmas or birthday I cannot recall exactly either.
He liked watches and he liked Seiko. They were very modern and quite advanced in those days for the cost.
-
This is one of the seikos.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Caroline, you are so right!!
I apologise. Sincerely.
I haven't looked at the watch for twenty years or so and here it is. I DO NOT have an omega of Jeremy's.
I was mistaken.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I do have an omega somewhere too, without a strap. I'll try and hunt that down too. Therefore, I DO NOT have a role.
These are items along with many items of his I don't look at or have taken an interest in in many years.
They're his and all I've done is stored them for him until he requests their return.
So I apologise for my confusion, this was not deliberate of course, just a lapse in memory or confusion over watches.
-
Caroline, you are so right!!
I apologise. Sincerely.
I haven't looked at the watch for twenty years or so and here it is. I DO NOT have an omega of Jeremy's.
I was mistaken.
That's excellent! Thanks for posting, part of the case history that! 8((()*/
-
This is one of the seikos.
This is quite the collector piece now. Aunt Agatha, did you buy it new for him?
-
Caroline, you are so right!!
I apologise. Sincerely.
I haven't looked at the watch for twenty years or so and here it is. I DO NOT have an omega of Jeremy's.
I was mistaken.
That looks like a cheap copy to me.
-
This is quite the collector piece now. Aunt Agatha, did you buy it new for him?
Yes I bought it new about 22 yrs ago.
-
That looks like a cheap copy to me.
I can assure you it is GENUINE.
I'm not posting the back of it incase anybody shows the photo to Jeremy and he thinks I've sold it.
It's upto you to believe what you want.
-
Yes I bought it new about 22 yrs ago.
Thanks for that.
-
Caroline, you are so right!!
I apologise. Sincerely.
I haven't looked at the watch for twenty years or so and here it is. I DO NOT have an omega of Jeremy's.
I was mistaken.
Better flog the blue ladies', he won't be needing it now and his campaign team could do with some ready cash...
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/de-cartier-ronde-18k-gold-silver-24mm-463503175 (https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/de-cartier-ronde-18k-gold-silver-24mm-463503175)
https://www.collectorsquare.com/en/watches/cartier/must-de-cartier/cartier-must-de-cartier-watch-in-vermeil-circa-1990-351884.html (https://www.collectorsquare.com/en/watches/cartier/must-de-cartier/cartier-must-de-cartier-watch-in-vermeil-circa-1990-351884.html)
-
Caroline, you are so right!!
I apologise. Sincerely.
I haven't looked at the watch for twenty years or so and here it is. I DO NOT have an omega of Jeremy's.
I was mistaken.
Hi AA - I think I have found the same one online but in a different colour - would you be able to take a picture of the back? Sorry to be a pain X
-
This is one of the seikos.
It states it came out in 1984, I purchased it not too long after its release. That's how old it is...
-
Hi AA - I think I have found the same one online but in a different colour - would you be able to take a picture of the back? Sorry to be a pain X
I cannot Caroline, it doesn't matter anyway. I'm not selling nor am I giving it to the campaign team. Its stayi g with me until Jeremy collects it himself.
-
I can assure you it is GENUINE.
I'm not posting the back of it incase anybody shows the photo to Jeremy and he thinks I've sold it.
It's upto you to believe what you want.
Why would he think that? Does Jeremy have access to the internet then? It’s terribly tarnished for a £1000+ watch. I’d want my money back if that was mine.
-
It states it came out in 1984, I purchased it not too long after its release. That's how old it is...
The liquid crystal display might have perished by now, I know my digital watches of a similar vintage have. Try it with a new battery...
https://www.ebay.co.uk/c/840047513 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/c/840047513)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubKAsbH4qjk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubKAsbH4qjk)
-
The liquid crystal display might have perished by now, I know my digital watches of a similar vintage have. Try it with a new battery...
https://www.ebay.co.uk/c/840047513 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/c/840047513)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubKAsbH4qjk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubKAsbH4qjk)
Thank you
-
Why would he think that? Does Jeremy have access to the internet then? It’s terribly tarnished for a £1000+ watch. I’d want my money back if that was mine.
It's been in a box for thirty years!
-
Anyway, now we know the Cartier is genuine - where did Bamber get the money to buy not one but two?
-
Anyway, now we know the Cartier is genuine - where did Bamber get the money to buy not one but two?
Sorry, but how do we know this? I know we’ve been told it’s genuine by someone who obviously believes that is the case but that doesn’t actually mean that it is.
-
Sorry, but how do we know this? I know we’ve been told it’s genuine by someone who obviously believes that is the case but that doesn’t actually mean that it is.
Well, I've always thought they were genuine anyway because Bamber isn't someone who would be happy with a copy.
-
(ty6e[ AA. Hope you're well.
-
()678%
(ty6e[ AA. Hope you're well.
()678% Holly, all is well thank you.
Trusting this finds you in fine form also.
Thank you for your continued support, I may no longer be on the front line but I'm with you all in spirit.
8((()*/
-
Well, I've always thought they were genuine anyway because Bamber isn't someone who would be happy with a copy.
Sue Ford sold one for £150, which is less than £500 today.
-
How very gratifying!!! I bought mine, half price, from a jeweller who was closing down. It wasn't exactly peanuts, but neither was it squillions. The jeweller said it was an excellent choice because Seiko was a reputable and sought after brand. I thought he probably said that of all the watches he sold.
Oh yes, Seiko are exquisite watches.
My ex BIL owned two jewellery shops he’d inherited from his father, and by trade was a diamond cutter, so grew up in the jewellery business. He said Seiko watches were far superior to many of the known designer watches, but people pay for brand names. He also said the reason people aspired to brands like Rolex etc, was they cost a lot, while Seiko kept their price tags at a fair price.
Interestingly, Seiko have brought out a model that does indeed cost squillions, and everyone aspires to that one now...people are so easily seduced. Put a super high price tag on it and people will queue overnight for two weeks to buy one...
-
Sue Ford sold one for £150, which is less than £500 today.
And? Who would pay £150 quid for a fake watch and how does that prove it's fake?
-
And? Who would pay £150 quid for a fake watch and how does that prove it's fake?
A genuine Cartier watch circa 1995 would have cost around £6,500 ....so for anyone to say it was sold for £150 is laughable.
-
If it wasn’t so tragic it would be laughable....
Who is this Aunt Agatha?
She doesn’t seem very well
Other than her claims of having once been a close friend to Jeremy, I have no idea where, or how, she fits into the story. I'd assumed her to have been a pre murders friend -how else could she have become the recipient of all those crime related artifacts and personal stuff belonging to Jeremy? It now looks as if she may only got to know him after his conviction.
-
Other than her claims of having once been a close friend to Jeremy, I have no idea where, or how, she fits into the story. I'd assumed her to have been a pre murders friend -how else could she have become the recipient of all those crime related artifacts and personal stuff belonging to Jeremy? It now looks as if she may only got to know him after his conviction.
They were once ‘very close’ according to a statement she made here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358326.html#msg358326
“We were very close at the time - maybe he wanted to give me a piece of 'himself' to take home”
Aunt Agatha told me she suffered a great deal of abuse - however best she tells her own story
-
A genuine Cartier watch circa 1995 would have cost around £6,500 ....so for anyone to say it was sold for £150 is laughable.
Sue Ford sold a Cartier watch given to her by Jeremy Bamber for £150 in the mid 1980's, according to Julie Mugford. Surely Julie didn't tell lies?
-
Sue Ford sold a Cartier watch given to her by Jeremy Bamber for £150 in the mid 1980's, according to Julie Mugford. Surely Julie didn't tell lies?
JM or Bamber ?
-
Sue Ford sold a Cartier watch given to her by Jeremy Bamber for £150 in the mid 1980's, according to Julie Mugford. Surely Julie didn't tell lies?
You're assuming Julie to have seen and handled said watch, possibly to have been with her when it was sold. Other than that, we really only have Suzette Ford's word for it.
-
I've removed many posts and edited a couple as they contained personal comments about fellow members.
-
There's also been talk of the police handing June's blood stained bible found at soc to the relatives which I've never understood?
-
she only “met” him in 1993 after she’d sent him a letter and they began corresponding. It seems she began visiting him in prison
This is correct
-
Sue Ford sold a Cartier watch given to her by Jeremy Bamber for £150 in the mid 1980's, according to Julie Mugford. Surely Julie didn't tell lies?
Maybe Sue Ford lied?
-
There's also been talk of the police handing June's blood stained bible found at soc to the relatives which I've never understood?
Define ‘talk of’
-
So it's not the murder weapon, if all of this is true.
The Seiko from yesterday? Looked pretty careworn for something that hadn't been used apparently.
Where did I state he hadn't worn the seiko.?
Please read my posts carefully. He used the watch in prison, I gave it to him.
-
OK, I'm going to post the things we have just spoken about and I hope thats the end of it!
Here is granny speakmans secret box which her husband made for her and she gave to Jeremy as a child. There are many negatives never before seen... Which I will not put out there and have nothing whatsoever to do with the case!
Here's Jeremy's ponytail and here's the Cartier. That is all your seeing and from here on in you can say what you like.
I have never (knowingly) lied to you and if I've made a mistake I'm hoping that I will have notice and corrected it as I did with Caroline's recent posts about regarding the watches.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The back of the Cartier. Genuine??
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
He cut his hair in prison and he gave me the ponytail which is still in the box. Do you know, it started to grey?
How strange is that?
As a one time hairdresser and college tutor who taught hairdressing to City and Guilds level I find it SO strange I dispute what you say 100%. Firstly, there's the very minor point that there's no such thing a GREY hair. It's an illusion created by the colourless -unpigmented- hair mixing with hair which is still pigmented. Of far greater importance is that hair, once cut, retains it's colour because the colour is created in the papilla beneath the scalp.
As an example, a client in her 80's showed me the pony tail of hair she'd had cut when she was 16. It retained the glorious chestnut colour it had been when it was cut.
PS Have just looked at the close up of the pony tail. Can clearly see unpigmented hair which you may be certain were there at the time the hair was cut. They haven't just appeared.
-
As a one time hairdresser and college tutor who taught hairdressing to City and Guilds level I find it SO strange I dispute what you say 100%. Firstly, there's the very minor point that there's no such thing a GREY hair. It's an illusion created by the colourless -unpigmented- hair mixing with hair which is still pigmented. Of far greater importance is that hair, once cut, retains it's colour because the colour is created in the papilla beneath the scalp.
As an example, a client in her 80's showed me the pony tail of hair she'd had cut when she was 16. It retained the glorious chestnut colour it had been when it was cut.
That throws your expertise out the window doesn't it!
-
The back of the Cartier. Genuine??
Thanks AA - looks genuine to me.
-
Thanks AA - looks genuine to me.
I concur, it does look genuine. The strap should have Cartier on the reverse though, but maybe it’s a replacement. Certainly the stitching is a bit off.
-
Thanks AA - looks genuine to me.
Thank you Caroline... I agree!
-
I concur, it does look genuine. The strap should have Cartier on the reverse though, but maybe it’s a replacement. Certainly the stitching is a bit off.
You are correct, the strap is a replacement.
-
As a one time hairdresser and college tutor who taught hairdressing to City and Guilds level I find it SO strange I dispute what you say 100%. Firstly, there's the very minor point that there's no such thing a GREY hair. It's an illusion created by the colourless -unpigmented- hair mixing with hair which is still pigmented. Of far greater importance is that hair, once cut, retains it's colour because the colour is created in the papilla beneath the scalp.
As an example, a client in her 80's showed me the pony tail of hair she'd had cut when she was 16. It retained the glorious chestnut colour it had been when it was cut.
PS Have just looked at the close up of the pony tail. Can clearly see unpigmented hair which you may be certain were there at the time the hair was cut. They haven't just appeared.
[/quote]
I can assure you his hair was not grey at the time and wasn't grey for many years later.
-
That throws your expertise out the window doesn't it!
It's an unalterable given that hair, having cleared the scalp, doesn't change colour.
-
You are correct, the strap is a replacement.
Do you know who wore the watch (presuming not Jeremy as it's a ladies)?
-
I have no idea Caroline.. It was handed to me along with all his other possessions.
-
If we allowed posters to get all shouty and name call, the forum would potentially descend into chaos.
I come here for a form of r&r and don't want to be in a hostile, unfriendly and unpleasant environment and I'm sure most here feel the same.
-
Do you know who wore the watch (presuming not Jeremy as it's a ladies)?
Could it have been his grandmother's? He was close to his grandmother.
-
If we allowed posters to get all shouty and name call, the forum would potentially descend into chaos.
I come here for a form of r&r and don't want to be in a hostile, unfriendly and unpleasant environment and I'm sure most here feel the same.
Thank you Holly for your support.
-
Could it have been his grandmother's? He was close to his grandmother.
Possibly - so you don't think its one of those that he brought back from NZ?
-
As a one time hairdresser and college tutor who taught hairdressing to City and Guilds level I find it SO strange I dispute what you say 100%. Firstly, there's the very minor point that there's no such thing a GREY hair. It's an illusion created by the colourless -unpigmented- hair mixing with hair which is still pigmented. Of far greater importance is that hair, once cut, retains it's colour because the colour is created in the papilla beneath the scalp.
As an example, a client in her 80's showed me the pony tail of hair she'd had cut when she was 16. It retained the glorious chestnut colour it had been when it was cut.
PS Have just looked at the close up of the pony tail. Can clearly see unpigmented hair which you may be certain were there at the time the hair was cut. They haven't just appeared.
I can assure you his hair was not grey at the time and wasn't grey for many years later.
As I said, there is no such thing as GREY hair. It's an illusion created by a mix of pigmented and unpigmented hair. It doesn't just 'turn'. It's entirely possible to see the point at which the pigment dies because the hair shaft will be dual coloured. The hair shafts which are colourless in the pony tail grew that way from his scalp at a time when there were too few of them to cause it to look 'grey'. It's perfectly possible you may have missed them because of the way the hair was laying at the time, and as you say, you haven't looked at it for a long time.
-
Possibly - so you don't think its one of those that he brought back from NZ?
I have no idea. I didn't even know it was a ladies watch until yesterday. I've paid not attention to it since I received it.
-
OK, I'm going to post the things we have just spoken about and I hope thats the end of it!
Here is granny speakmans secret box which her husband made for her and she gave to Jeremy as a child. There are many negatives never before seen... Which I will not put out there and have nothing whatsoever to do with the case!
Here's Jeremy's ponytail and here's the Cartier. That is all your seeing and from here on in you can say what you like.
I have never (knowingly) lied to you and if I've made a mistake I'm hoping that I will have notice and corrected it as I did with Caroline's recent posts about regarding the watches.
That box could be the Chinese trick box where Bamber stashed his £980 ill-gotten gains from the Osea burglary.
-
That box could be the Chinese trick box where Bamber stashed his £980 ill-gotten gains from the Osea burglary.
Similar design here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abzfp_HbniM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abzfp_HbniM)
-
Similar design here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abzfp_HbniM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abzfp_HbniM)
Based on the same principle but not as sophisticated. Another great find. Thank you.
-
Possibly - so you don't think its one of those that he brought back from NZ?
I'm not saying he didn't obtain 2 Cartier watches in NZ but where does the evidence come from that he did?
-
It's a musical japanese puzzle box, more similar to this.
https://youtu.be/XWs3btgreqY
-
Based on the same principle but not as sophisticated. Another great find. Thank you.
It's a musical japanese puzzle box, more similar to this.
https://youtu.be/XWs3btgreqY (https://youtu.be/XWs3btgreqY)
My own from childhood isn't that complicated either, just a 3" cube with sliding sides, decorated with marquetry to resemble a dice, although the inside has never held so much illicit wonga.
-
I'm not saying he didn't obtain 2 Cartier watches in NZ but where does the evidence come from that he did?
Sue Ford - she was offered one of them. Seems Bamber was wearing a Cartier when he was arrested the first time.
-
I have no idea Caroline.. It was handed to me along with all his other possessions.
He was wearing a Cartier when arrested the first time, he likely had the same watch on when arrested later. He may have worn it himself,
-
That box could be the Chinese trick box where Bamber stashed his £980 ill-gotten gains from the Osea burglary.
Apparently it contained £1,460 in notes and a cheque for £589.
-
Just to be clear everyone, Aunt Agatha has been known to me for many years, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt what she states about her involvement with Jeremy Bamber and the personal possessions he left with her for safe keeping.
-
Apparently it contained £1,460 in notes and a cheque for £589.
I'm certain there's no money in there now lol.
-
Amusing. And I’m confused over this ponytail, is it the clip-on variety that delboy had ten thousand of or is it Jeremys actual ponytail snipped off?
-
It seems none of these watches are Nevill Bamber's Seiko watch then?
-
It seems none of these watches are Nevill Bamber's Seiko watch then?
No, none of the seikos were nevill's
-
Amusing. And I’m confused over this ponytail, is it the clip-on variety that delboy had ten thousand of or is it Jeremys actual ponytail snipped off?
I certainly wouldn't hang on to it... unless it was made into a toupee.
-
OK, I'm going to post the things we have just spoken about and I hope thats the end of it!
Here is granny speakmans secret box which her husband made for her and she gave to Jeremy as a child. There are many negatives never before seen... Which I will not put out there and have nothing whatsoever to do with the case!
Here's Jeremy's ponytail and here's the Cartier. That is all your seeing and from here on in you can say what you like.
I have never (knowingly) lied to you and if I've made a mistake I'm hoping that I will have notice and corrected it as I did with Caroline's recent posts about regarding the watches.
Those pictures prove nothing, Agatha
That hair could be yours, or your son’s...anyone’s.
The length of that ponytail suggests it came from someone whose hair was down their back, and all the annual mugshots of Jeremy show him with very short hair....
And fake watches do indeed have fake ingravings on the back: how else do you think people would be fooled into buying them? *%87
I’ve been to Thailand/Malaysia/Turkey...all the places where they make fake watches and sell them for a tenner a piece. It’s run by drug traffickers and sex traffickers, but that’s going off-topic...
Nothing there supports your claims that any of that tat was given to you by Jeremy; not forgetting as a prisoner he’s not allowed to send ANY items through the post, nor give people anything, either. Neither would the police act as his couriers delivering a GUN to you!
This is a fairytale.
No wonder most of the sensible posters I’ve seen from way back have left this forum...
-
When I replied to your post last night Caroline I was half asleep and didn't recognise you wrote Cartier.
I do not have a Cartier watch of Jeremy's, I have a genuine omega and what could be a fake role.
I have two seiko watches of his also, which I purchased for him some 25yrs ago.
I apologise for the confusion.
Here you’re saying you do NOT have a Cartier watch of Jeremy Bamber’s, then hours later you post pictures of a tatty Cartier watch you claim he gave to you ....
-
Those pictures prove nothing, Agatha
That hair could be yours, or your son’s...anyone’s.
The length of that ponytail suggests it came from someone whose hair was down their back, and all the annual mugshots of Jeremy show him with very short hair....
And fake watches do indeed have fake ingravings on the back: how else do you think people would be fooled into buying them? *%87
I’ve been to Thailand/Malaysia/Turkey...all the places where they make fake watches and sell them for a tenner a piece. It’s run by drug traffickers and sex traffickers, but that’s going off-topic...
Nothing there supports your claims that any of that tat was given to you by Jeremy; not forgetting as a prisoner he’s not allowed to send ANY items through the post, nor give people anything, either. Neither would the police act as his couriers delivering a GUN to you!
This is a fairytale.
No wonder most of the sensible posters I’ve seen from way back have left this forum...
And how does any of this advance the case?
-
Sue Ford - she was offered one of them. Seems Bamber was wearing a Cartier when he was arrested the first time.
Thanks but is this direct evidence from SF or indirect from others? I think SB and JM made ref to?
-
I concur, it does look genuine. The strap should have Cartier on the reverse though, but maybe it’s a replacement. Certainly the stitching is a bit off.
It doesn’t look genuine to me at all — I’ve seen fakes better than that.
You get certification with a genuine Cartier, too...
But what Agatha is forgetting is that prisoners cannot pass on any gifts at all whilst they’re in jail.
For example, Reggie Kray was only given Ronnie Kray’s watch when he died. Prisoners aren’t allowed to give/send gifts.
-
If we allowed posters to get all shouty and name call, the forum would potentially descend into chaos.
I come here for a form of r&r and don't want to be in a hostile, unfriendly and unpleasant environment and I'm sure most here feel the same.
And I come on here to discuss things
I’m not interested in trolls or fantasists or liars
-
Similar design here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abzfp_HbniM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abzfp_HbniM)
Amazon and eBay sell them
About a tenner
Agatha’s one looks in excellent condition....😌
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
And I come on here to discuss things
I’m not interested in trolls or fantasists or liars
I don't believe we have any trolls, fantasists or liars here but if you think otherwise you either respond respecfully or ignore them.
You make many claims which are often shown to be wrong or you are unable to support.
-
Could it have been his grandmother's? He was close to his grandmother.
Didn’t he tell you, Agatha?
I’m sorry, but I’m astonished at this thread!🤣
-
OK, I'm going to post the things we have just spoken about and I hope thats the end of it!
Here is granny speakmans secret box which her husband made for her and she gave to Jeremy as a child. There are many negatives never before seen... Which I will not put out there and have nothing whatsoever to do with the case!
Here's Jeremy's ponytail and here's the Cartier. That is all your seeing and from here on in you can say what you like.
I have never (knowingly) lied to you and if I've made a mistake I'm hoping that I will have notice and corrected it as I did with Caroline's recent posts about regarding the watches.
So, you’re saying that box is a minimum of almost 60 years, possibly 100 years old...yet it looks brand spanking new!
🤣
-
I'm not saying he didn't obtain 2 Cartier watches in NZ but where does the evidence come from that he did?
Well, you’ve seen the photos of the Cartier watch has posted up and she said Jeremy gave it to her, and she insists it’s genuine...so where did he get the grand sum of £6,500 in 1986, which would now be three times that, say, around £20k
Lot of dosh, that...and he had TWO!
He obviously got them from SOMEWHERE, Holly
-
Just to be clear everyone, Aunt Agatha has been known to me for many years, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt what she states about her involvement with Jeremy Bamber and the personal possessions he left with her for safe keeping.
With all due respect, John, I know you say you don’t doubt Aunt Agatha, but do you have proof she’s telling the truth?
Because I know for fact, that police would never drive to someone’s home at the request of a prisoner — a mass murderer at that — and hand over a rifle (whether it was the murder weapon or not) to an unknown woman who was a mere associate of said prisoner; who didn’t have a firearms licence; and the prisoner himself had no firearms licence, either, nor owned a gun.
I also know that prisoners aren’t allowed to send gifts, even to their closest relatives.
As an aside, Aunt Agatha claims the police also gave her Jeremy Bamber’s wetsuit. I personally don’t believe it for a second, but let’s suppose they did: why would Jeremy Bamber want her to have his wetsuit? She claims he had all these items sent for their safekeeping, but then says she handed the gun into the police, and gave the wetsuit to a charity shop. Why would she do that if she was keeping them for safekeeping?
Her story doesn’t add up, and that’s without her contradictions, so excuse me for not agreeing with you on this.
-
If the box has had little use and not been mistreated since 1985 or before, then I would expect it to appear new, though I doubt that it was made specifically by Granny Speakman's husband. Trick boxes were imported from China and Japan in the 1960's and earlier, which is where mine originated and it still looks recently made.
(https://i.imgur.com/WMr4awE.jpg)
-
I don't believe we have any trolls, fantasists or liars here but if you think otherwise you either respond respecfully or ignore them.
You make many claims which are often shown to be wrong or you are unable to support.
I certainly do NOT make many claims that are wrong! And you KNOW that!
I’ve only ever made a couple of minor mistakes over a name or time or something..
You know full well that I’ve researched this case, and I have no need to lie...I’m not a nut.
When I’ve sometimes quoted things, you especially, jump on it knowing that it will take me ages to find the source! You’ve even asked me to find sources when you’ve known what I’ve put is true!
You don’t like the fact that I’m not gullible and I refuse to be spoken down to by ANYONE. If someone s disrespectful to me I will pull them up on it, which I’m entitled to do. Likewise, I will apologise if I’ve said something that was either misinterpreted or in the heat if the moment retaliation.
I just don’t “get” how some people can be taken in by obvious liars/fantasists.
If I’m wrong, I’ll apologise...but to expect people to believe things that are impossible, unlawful, illegal, is simply an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
-
If the box has had little use and not been mistreated since 1985 or before, then I would expect it to appear new, though I doubt that it was made specifically by Granny Speakman's husband. Trick boxes were imported from China and Japan in the 1960's and earlier, which is where mine originated and it still looks recently made.
(https://i.imgur.com/WMr4awE.jpg)
Agatha claims the box is a minimum of 60 years old, and if it was made for her by her husband, it could be 100 years old...maybe more. Seems strange for a man to make a bos with Japanese characters, and so well-made too! It certainly doesn’t look handmade: it looks factory made.
To my eyes it looks brand new, and if Granny Speakman’s husband made it for her, it would have been hugely sentimental to her and she most certainly would have used it as some time. That doesn’t look like it’s ever been used at all. And over time all things deteriorate if they’re left just sitting there...
-
Agatha claims the box is a minimum of 60 years old, and if it was made for her by her husband, it could be 100 years old...maybe more. Seems strange for a man to make a bos with Japanese characters, and so well-made too! It certainly doesn’t look handmade: it looks factory made.
To my eyes it looks brand new, and if Granny Speakman’s husband made it for her, it would have been hugely sentimental to her and she most certainly would have used it as some time. That doesn’t look like it’s ever been used at all. And over time all things deteriorate if they’re left just sitting there...
No, they do not deteriorate if they've been kept in a safe place untouched for years! The story that it was made by GS's husband might well be an apocryphal Chinese whisper orginating from Bamber himself.
-
Amusing. And I’m confused over this ponytail, is it the clip-on variety that delboy had ten thousand of or is it Jeremys actual ponytail snipped off?
Well, it's certainly someones's hair and by it's length, I'm guessing around 18 inches, equates to 36 months of growth prior to being chopped. If it was removed from someones in their mid twenties, judging by the pigment loss, they could certainly have expected to have lost around 50% pigmentation by early 40's.
-
No, they do not deteriorate if they've been kept in a safe place untouched for years! The story that it was made by GS's husband might well be an apocryphal Chinese whisper orginating from Bamber himself.
Sounds about right; a typical JB lie.
The intricacy in the patterns are remarkable for it to have been homemade, unless GS’s husband was a trained/talented artist and carpenter...
It’s all very odd, all the same.
-
No, they do not deteriorate if they've been kept in a safe place untouched for years! The story that it was made by GS's husband might well be an apocryphal Chinese whisper orginating from Bamber himself.
It may also have been a belief he'd held onto from when he received it. Believing it had been made specially for him might have made him feel important.
-
Well, it's certainly someones's hair and by it's length, I'm guessing around 18 inches, equates to 36 months of growth prior to being chopped. If it was removed from someones in their mid twenties, judging by the pigment loss, they could certainly have expected to have lost around 50% pigmentation by early 40's.
So when did JB have hair halfway down his back?😳
The hair’s obviously been cut no higher than the neck, and I believe I read he’s quite slightly built (no dea how true that is), so it could have almost been down to his waist!
When he was sentenced his hair was short and brown, and I think there’s a photo of him in/around 2002 going to appeal, where he looked almost grey. So you’re right, April, he looked grey-haired 18 years ago, which would put him in his early 40s. And as you say, it only looks grey due to the white hairs mixing with the once natural colour. He must have Snow White hair now.
So going by this ponytail, if it is his, that must have been cut in his late 20s — am I right?
-
I certainly do NOT make many claims that are wrong! And you KNOW that!
I’ve only ever made a couple of minor mistakes over a name or time or something..
You know full well that I’ve researched this case, and I have no need to lie...I’m not a nut.
When I’ve sometimes quoted things, you especially, jump on it knowing that it will take me ages to find the source! You’ve even asked me to find sources when you’ve known what I’ve put is true!
You don’t like the fact that I’m not gullible and I refuse to be spoken down to by ANYONE. If someone s disrespectful to me I will pull them up on it, which I’m entitled to do. Likewise, I will apologise if I’ve said something that was either misinterpreted or in the heat if the moment retaliation.
I just don’t “get” how some people can be taken in by obvious liars/fantasists.
If I’m wrong, I’ll apologise...but to expect people to believe things that are impossible, unlawful, illegal, is simply an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
You've made countless assertions that are wrong and/or that you've been unable to substantiate eg:
- JB arranged for carpets to be burned - wrong
- SC had her nails professionally manicured and polished -
Unsubstantiated
The above are just two examples.
-
It may also have been a belief he'd held onto from when he received it. Believing it had been made specially for him might have made him feel important.
Aunt Agatha claims it was made for her by her husband, and she gave it to Jeremy when he was a child.
I agree with you, he wouldn’t feel any sentimental attachment to the box: he’d just like it because it would make him feel important.
-
Sounds about right; a typical JB lie.
The intricacy in the patterns are remarkable for it to have been homemade, unless GS’s husband was a trained/talented artist and carpenter...
It’s all very odd, all the same.
It may also have been a belief he'd held onto from when he received it. Believing it had been made specially for him might have made him feel important.
The rebates which accept the sliding parts are just a little too cleanly cut, imo, as if they were machined repetitively in a small back street Chinese workshop, rather than as a one-off by an English part-time joiner.
-
The rebates which accept the sliding parts are just a little too cleanly cut, imo, as if they were machined repetitively in a small back street Chinese workshop, rather than as a one-off by an English part-time joiner.
Oh! I'm absolutely not doubting you, Myster. But as a child, Jeremy would have accepted whatever was told him regarding the gift's provenance. Unless he later examined it and, by so doing, arrived at your conclusion, would have repeated whatever story he'd been told.
-
You've made countless assertions that are wrong and/or that you've been unable to substantiate eg:
- JB arranged for carpets to be burned - wrong
- SC had her nails professionally manicured and polished -
Unsubstantiated
The above are just two examples.
Jeremy DID ask the police to burn the carpets and mattresses etc; he said he couldn’t look at them or go inside WHF unless they did.
It’s documented somewhere, and I will find it.
Likewise, Sheila’s nails.p: I did indeed read (and hear) she had her nails manicured and polished near where she lived in Maida Vale, and near to the hairdressers she used.
-
The rebates which accept the sliding parts are just a little too cleanly cut, imo, as if they were machined repetitively in a small back street Chinese workshop, rather than as a one-off by an English part-time joiner.
Yes, the precision and detail is too accurate and intricate for it to be homemade, even by a fabulous artist/carpenter.
It’s clearly lies.
Either XX.
Or Jeremy’s.
Very strange, indeed
-
Yes, the precision and detail is too accurate and intricate for it to be homemade, even by a fabulous artist/carpenter.
It’s clearly lies.
Either XX
Or Jeremy’s.
Very strange, indeed
You throw out "LIES" with the frequency of a purist who sticks to the letter of it's meaning, ie an untruth, but I think some consideration must be given to whether the lie was intended to deceive, or whether it was a long held belief having it's roots somewhere other, further, of what benefit would deliberately lying about trivia be?
-
Yes, the precision and detail is too accurate and intricate for it to be homemade, even by a fabulous artist/carpenter.
It’s clearly lies.
Either XX
Or Jeremy’s.
Very strange, indeed
I'm surprised your giving JB the benefit of the doubt!
-
Jeremy DID ask the police to burn the carpets and mattresses etc; he said he couldn’t look at them or go inside WHF unless they did.
It’s documented somewhere, and I will find it — in my time. Not yours. I don’t work for you. You’re not my boss, so stop giving orders.
Likewise, Sheila’s nails.p: I did indeed read (and hear) she had her nails manicured and polished near where she lived in Maida Vale, and near to the hairdressers she used.
I put it to you that not a single person here has read or seen anything about SC having her nails professionally manicured and polished in MV. If I'm wrong others here will prove it.
Re destroyed items it was DS Jones who initiated this and asked JB to authorise but these items had no evidential value. If you disagree please explain what evidence you think was lost.
-
I put it to you that not a single person here has read or seen anything about SC having her nails professionally manicured and polished in MV. If I'm wrong others here will prove it.
Re destroyed items it was DS Jones who initiated this and asked JB to authorise but these items had no evidential value. If you disagree please explain what evidence you think was lost.
The most I can provide is the possibility of a friend doing them for her. It needs to be considered how she'd have afforded to get them done professionally.
-
I put it to you that not a single person here has read or seen anything about SC having her nails professionally manicured and polished in MV. If I'm wrong others here will prove it.
Re destroyed items it was DS Jones who initiated this and asked JB to authorise but these items had no evidential value. If you disagree please explain what evidence you think was lost.
I haven't a clue who manicured Sheila's nails, or whether she did it herself. However, I do agree that it wasn't JB's initiative to destroy items from the farm.
-
Agatha claims the box is a minimum of 60 years old, and if it was made for her by her husband, it could be 100 years old...maybe more. Seems strange for a man to make a bos with Japanese characters, and so well-made too! It certainly doesn’t look handmade: it looks factory made.
To my eyes it looks brand new, and if Granny Speakman’s husband made it for her, it would have been hugely sentimental to her and she most certainly would have used it as some time. That doesn’t look like it’s ever been used at all. And over time all things deteriorate if they’re left just sitting there...
Jeremy was given the box...
There was no Internet or anything at the time so he could do research like people do today.
If I was going to deliberately lie (as you're suggesting) I have access to the internet and certainly would have done my research. Therefore, I have accepted everything upon which it was received... Based only on the info Jeremy knew at the time.
I never spent time asking about the box, where it came from, was it handmade or a purchased gift. It looks very similar too the ones online and apart from the inside where the wires are attached for its musicality, that looks a bit rough.
So if Jeremy thought or believed as a child it's was made, then so be it.
-
It may also have been a belief he'd held onto from when he received it. Believing it had been made specially for him might have made him feel important.
It was never made for him! Where do you get your info from?
-
I agree Myster, now I've viewed the ones online I think it has been purchased, I had wondered that however I could not verify that and I know Jeremy couldn't either, he believed it was made. It's a very basic box, it's not a puzzle and opens quite easily.
The box has never been used, it retains the negatives inside and was put away like everything else he gave me.
I ve taken care of the items, as I would if anybody had asked me to care for something.
-
Those pictures prove nothing, Agatha
That hair could be yours, or your son’s...anyone’s.
The length of that ponytail suggests it came from someone whose hair was down their back, and all the annual mugshots of Jeremy show him with very short hair....
And fake watches do indeed have fake ingravings on the back: how else do you think people would be fooled into buying them? *%87
I’ve been to Thailand/Malaysia/Turkey...all the places where they make fake watches and sell them for a tenner a piece. It’s run by drug traffickers and sex traffickers, but that’s going off-topic...
Nothing there supports your claims that any of that tat was given to you by Jeremy; not forgetting as a prisoner he’s not allowed to send ANY items through the post, nor give people anything, either. Neither would the police act as his couriers delivering a GUN to you!
This is a fairytale.
No wonder most of the sensible posters I’ve seen from way back have left this forum...
The hair is Jeremy's!
He had long hair at one time, halfway down his back.
Of course you're not going to see photos of this, he was in prison and we couldn't take cameras in without permission.
-
The hair is Jeremy's!
He had long hair at one time, halfway down his back.
Of course you're not going to see photos of this, he was in prison and we couldn't take cameras in without permission.
When the police handed you the ‘previously seized’ items did you have to sign a receipt to show you’d received them & if so do you still have a copy or did you throw it away?
-
The hair is Jeremy's!
He had long hair at one time, halfway down his back.
Of course you're not going to see photos of this, he was in prison and we couldn't take cameras in without permission.
Of course you could verify all of this and put the naysayers in their place by simply posting a picture of one of the negatives from the box.
-
I ve taken care of the items, as I would if anybody had asked me to care for something.
I believe you are genuine in what you state Aunt Agatha but not sure if you are aware you’ve potentially (I say ‘potentially’ as I don’t believe Bamber’s case is going anywhere) created a problem for Bamber & his representatives as I’ve pointed out here
This creates problems for Bamber and his solicitor Mark Newby, especially given the fact he’s publicly claimed Bamber’s narrative has stayed the same. Aunt Agatha clearly states Bamber claimed to once believe ‘the silencer was used.’
And given Bamber is allegedly godparent to her children the problems get bigger - there will be a record of this
You know Bamber’s narrative has changed and I don’t believe you would lie about this fact
You stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358367.html#msg358367
“Based on what we knew at the beginning we believed the silencer was used........upon revelations he changed his mind. When we last spoke he believed the silencer was not used”
-
When the police handed you the ‘previously seized’ items did you have to sign a receipt to show you’d received them & if so do you still have a copy or did you throw it away?
I cannot recall.
-
Of course you could verify all of this and put the naysayers in their place by simply posting a picture of one of the negatives from the box.
No chance!
-
I cannot recall.
It doesn’t matter. The police will have the records.
Though you did allude to there being paperwork in one of your previous posts - the post where you claimed Mike T publicised your home address (that post appears to have been removed?)
Mike tesco knows exactly what rifle was given to me. He found out on paperwork. I suggest you ask him to clarify.
Again, if Mike T has ‘paperwork’ so will the police etc
-
No chance!
Go on, use a benign one; maybe of rabbits in farmland, or something.
-
I believe you are genuine in what you state Aunt Agatha but not sure if you are aware you’ve potentially (I say ‘potentially’ as I don’t believe Bamber’s case is going anywhere) created a problem for Bamber & his representatives as I’ve pointed out here
You know Bamber’s narrative has changed and I don’t believe you would lie about this fact
You stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358367.html#msg358367
“Based on what we knew at the beginning we believed the silencer was used........upon revelations he changed his mind. When we last spoke he believed the silencer was not used”
I have always stated this!
In the beginning we had absolutely no idea what happened that evening... We were given the pieces of the jigsaw and we always questioned it but it was stated at court that the silencer was used. FACT!
Over the years information and paperwork that Jeremy had not seen before the trial came to light... Based on this new information he would try again to get the pieces of the jigsaw to fit together.
We are all the same, we conclude things based on the information we are given. Once further information is received we review our previous findings and may now come to a different conclusion.
He is innocent!!
-
I cannot recall.
When you and I communicated previously, you talked of a ‘smear campaign’ against you.
I’m of the opinion this was started by Bamber because of your ‘knowledge’ of him
-
It doesn’t matter. The police will have the records.
Though you did allude to there being paperwork in one of your previous posts - the post where you claimed Mike T publicised your home address (that post appears to have been removed?)
Again, if Mike T has ‘paperwork’ so will the police etc
Yes, as stated here I requested he remove the post and he did.
I never saw the paperwork, I cannot recall him posting a copy of the receipt however I have not forgotten how he posted my address. It was not my full address, but it was enough.
-
When you and I communicated previously, you talked of a ‘smear campaign’ against you.
I’m of the opinion this was started by Bamber because of your ‘knowledge’ of him
It was not started by Jeremy.
-
It was not started by Jeremy.
It centred around him
-
I have always stated this!
In the beginning we had absolutely no idea what happened that evening... We were given the pieces of the jigsaw and we always questioned it but it was stated at court that the silencer was used. FACT!
Over the years information and paperwork that Jeremy had not seen before the trial came to light... Based on this new information he would try again to get the pieces of the jigsaw to fit together.
We are all the same, we conclude things based on the information we are given. Once further information is received we review our previous findings and may now come to a different conclusion.
He is innocent!!
I know you have as will many others know
-
I have always stated this!
In the beginning we had absolutely no idea what happened that evening... We were given the pieces of the jigsaw and we always questioned it but it was stated at court that the silencer was used. FACT!
Over the years information and paperwork that Jeremy had not seen before the trial came to light... Based on this new information he would try again to get the pieces of the jigsaw to fit together.
We are all the same, we conclude things based on the information we are given. Once further information is received we review our previous findings and may now come to a different conclusion.
He is innocent!!
I believe you Aunt Agatha
-
I have always stated this!
In the beginning we had absolutely no idea what happened that evening... We were given the pieces of the jigsaw and we always questioned it but it was stated at court that the silencer was used. FACT!
Over the years information and paperwork that Jeremy had not seen before the trial came to light... Based on this new information he would try again to get the pieces of the jigsaw to fit together.
We are all the same, we conclude things based on the information we are given. Once further information is received we review our previous findings and may now come to a different conclusion.
He is innocent!!
If you believe this to be true,
how can his legal team now claim his narrative has remained the same when you know it hasn’t?
-
Yes, as stated here I requested he remove the post and he did.
I never saw the paperwork, I cannot recall him posting a copy of the receipt however I have not forgotten how he posted my address. It was not my full address, but it was enough.
Did this happen around the time Bamber made the decision he did about you two?
You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to btw just thought it might help newcomers to the forum understand your current position so to speak
-
If you believe this to be true,
how can his legal team now claim his narrative has remained the same when you know it hasn’t?
His narrative has always been that he is innocent and did not kill his family.
One could only stick to the exact same narrative if one knew beforehand exactly what did happen that night.
Therefore, his views or understanding of what really happened are based solely upon the information he has at any given time.
However, I would like to point out that evidence and findings undertaken by experts and those in the community have Never proven him guilty, instead they have raised more questions about his imprisonment and possible miscarriage of justice.
-
It centred around him
Of course it did
-
Did this happen around the time Bamber made the decision he did about you two?
You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to btw just thought it might help newcomers to the forum understand your current position so to speak
It was I that made the decision!
-
Hid narrative has always been that he is innocent and did not kill his family.
One could only stick to the exact same narrative if one knew beforehand exactly what did happen that night.
Therefore, his views or understanding of what really happened are based solely upon the information he has at any given time.
However, I would like to point out that evidence and findings undertaken by experts and those in the community have Never proven him guilty, instead they have raised more questions about his imprisonment and possible miscarriage of justice.
Fair enough
But you did say he used to say the silencer was attached to the gun but then he changed his mind
How many years was it before he changed his mind about the silencer evidence, can you remember?
-
Of course it did
Thought so
-
Of course it did
Weren’t people arrested or something or other?
-
It was I that made the decision!
Ah okay
-
Fair enough
But you did say he used to say the silencer was attached to the gun but then he changed his mind
How many years was it before he changed his mind about the silencer evidence, can you remember?
Please, do not spread misinformation Nicholas.
He was told, and supposedly proven at court, that the silencer was used. He had no evidence, proof or paperwork at that time to suggest otherwise.
I'd have to look through my paperwork to find this out and that something I'm not prepared to do.
However, it was years later.... Mike Tesco would be a more valuable source than I regarding that.
-
Weren’t people arrested or something or other?
I had to go to the police and reported it. Arrests where not made at the time. I decided to remove myself completely and closed any social media links I had. I was not prepared to battle this out amongst obsessive Bamberettes.
I'd done my bit now it was time for others to take the reins and be there for him. I bowed out with dignity.
Let's leave it there!
-
Please, do not spread misinformation Nicholas.
He was told, and supposedly proven at court, that the silencer was used. He had no evidence, proof or paperwork at that time to suggest otherwise.
I'd have to look through my paperwork to find this out and that something I'm not prepared to do.
However, it was years later.... Mike Tesco would be a more valuable source than I regarding that.
I’m not sure what ‘misinformation’ you are suggesting I’m ‘spreading’ ?
Nor am I sure why you appear to be showing animosity towards me ?
However and to be clear,
You stated on the blue forum here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358356.html#msg358356
“I've said this so many times on here.....I remember the early days - before the revelations.
I'm certain he had absolutely no idea of what exactly happened that night.
The lies we had been fed by the police did not make sense.....nothing fitted into place.
Together we went over and over the same things, hoping that one of us could (as there was only two of us then), might pick up on something we'd overlooked previously.
I was there when the new revelations came about also - he would phone me upon reading the new evidence .... We would then try to piece that new information together and then he would find further information and again we would try to form anther picture of what happened.
That picture changed many times as more information was being revealed.
You also stated - as per a previous post in blue below
I believe you are genuine in what you state Aunt Agatha but not sure if you are aware you’ve potentially (I say ‘potentially’ as I don’t believe Bamber’s case is going anywhere) created a problem for Bamber & his representatives as I’ve pointed out here
You know Bamber’s narrative has changed and I don’t believe you would lie about this fact
You stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358367.html#msg358367
“ Based on what we knew at the beginning we believed the silencer was used........upon revelations he changed his mind. When we last spoke he believed the silencer was not used” [/color]
-
I had to go to the police and reported it. Arrests where not made at the time. I decided to remove myself completely and closed any social media links I had. I was not prepared to battle this out amongst obsessive Bamberettes.
I'd done my bit now it was time for others to take the reins and be there for him. I bowed out with dignity.
Let's leave it there!
8((()*/
-
I’m not sure what ‘misinformation’ you are suggesting I’m ‘spreading’ ?
Nor am I sure why you appear to be showing animosity towards me ?
However and to be clear,
You stated on the blue forum here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358356.html#msg358356
“I've said this so many times on here.....I remember the early days - before the revelations.
I'm certain he had absolutely no idea of what exactly happened that night.
The lies we had been fed by the police did not make sense.....nothing fitted into place.
Together we went over and over the same things, hoping that one of us could (as there was only two of us then), might pick up on something we'd overlooked previously.
I was there when the new revelations came about also - he would phone me upon reading the new evidence .... We would then try to piece that new information together and then he would find further information and again we would try to form anther picture of what happened.
That picture changed many times as more information was being revealed.
You also stated - as per a previous post in blue below
Yes. These are my words, my views, my understanding. These words are not Jeremy's. I'm only relaying what I believe to be the truth.
Dont take it personally and don't try to twist my words Nicholas. You can go back as far as you want, print as much as you want, my views regarding the period I spent with Jeremy remain the same.
-
It was I that made the decision!
You did say here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358331.html#msg358331 Bamber made the decision ?
“He made a decision years ago and I respect that decision and do not look back.
Maybe you were referring to a different decision ?
-
I have always stated this!
In the beginning we had absolutely no idea what happened that evening... We were given the pieces of the jigsaw and we always questioned it but it was stated at court that the silencer was used. FACT!
Over the years information and paperwork that Jeremy had not seen before the trial came to light... Based on this new information he would try again to get the pieces of the jigsaw to fit together.
We are all the same, we conclude things based on the information we are given. Once further information is received we review our previous findings and may now come to a different conclusion.
He is innocent!!
We are not!
-
Yes. These are my words, my views, my understanding. These words are not Jeremy's. I'm only relaying what I believe to be the truth.
Dont take it personally and don't try to twist my words Nicholas. You can go back as far as you want, print as much as you want, my views regarding the period I spent with Jeremy remain the same.
*%87
-
Yes. These are my words, my views, my understanding. These words are not Jeremy's. I'm only relaying what I believe to be the truth.
Dont take it personally and don't try to twist my words Nicholas. You can go back as far as you want, print as much as you want, my views regarding the period I spent with Jeremy remain the same.
And create problems for Bamber as I’ve already stated
-
Nicholas. You're entitled to your opinion of course.
To tell you the truth, I don't think my views or my knowledge is of any real interest to anybody.
Books have been written, stories relayed to the media etc, fortunately I have never been approached and have never had the desire to disclose private conversations between Jeremy and I.
I know nothing than what you guys already know, in fact, you all know far more than me.
My views are quite irrelevant and hold no weight as has been clearly pointed out on here as of late.
Therefore I have little to add to what is already a very debatable and concerning miscarriage of justice.
-
You did say here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358331.html#msg358331 Bamber made the decision ?
“He made a decision years ago and I respect that decision and do not look back.
Maybe you were referring to a different decision ?
He made a decision and I made a decision upon his decision. I trust that clears that up.
-
He made a decision and I made a decision upon his decision. I trust that clears that up.
Your first reply was,
‘Yes I am’
Now you’ve changed it so it’s confusing and hasn’t cleared much up
-
He made a decision and I made a decision upon his decision. I trust that clears that up.
To end your relationship you mean?
-
Your first reply was,
‘Yes I am’
Now you’ve changed it so it’s confusing and hasn’t cleared much up
Pls show me where, then I can respond
-
To end your relationship you mean?
Yes
-
Pls show me where, then I can respond
That’s very crafty of you Aunt Agatha
-
Yes
So was your break up a mutual decision or did he tell you he didn’t want to see you anymore?
-
Pls show me where, then I can respond
This is exactly what you wrote and how you wrote it. You left off the S
Ye I am.
-
This is exactly what you wrote and how you wrote it. You left off the S
Ye I am.
Because I modified the post as I missed the letter 's' off 'yes', which is the very first word in the sentence and rewrote it.
Nothing unusual if I've deleted the whole thing for correction. Seriously!!
-
I had to go to the police and reported it. Arrests where not made at the time. I decided to remove myself completely and closed any social media links I had. I was not prepared to battle this out amongst obsessive Bamberettes.
I remember you telling me you’d apparently suffered a great deal of abuse and the police were involved somehow
-
So was your break up a mutual decision or did he tell you he didn’t want to see you anymore?
That is not relevant, that's as far as I go. I've answered all your questions and now you're going into my private life. The line is drawn here!
I'm sure you understand.
-
Because I modified the post as I missed the letter 's' off 'yes', which is the very first word in the sentence and rewrote it.
Nothing unusual if I've deleted the whole thing for correction. Seriously!!
Why “seriously!”
Pls show me where, then I can respond
How could I respond to something you have just admitted to deleting ‘for correction’?
-
I remember you telling me you’d apparently suffered a great deal of abuse and the police were involved somehow
A line has been drawn and this is not part of the case and has no interest other than to those who wish to pry.
I've been very open and honest and the line has been drawn now.
Thank you for your understanding.
-
A line has been drawn and this is not part of the case and has no interest other than to those who wish to pry.
I've been very open and honest and the line has been drawn now.
Thank you for your understanding.
No probs Aunt Agatha
I had to go to the police and reported it. Arrests where not made at the time. I decided to remove myself completely and closed any social media links I had.
You did make contact with me via an anonymous social media account around this time
-
No probs Aunt Agatha
You did make contact with me via an anonymous social media account around this time
As you have blocked me, I'm unable to dm you,
Would you like to contact me with those details and we can discuss this in a private setting?
Thank you.
-
I had to go to the police and reported it. Arrests where not made at the time. I decided to remove myself completely and closed any social media links I had. I was not prepared to battle this out amongst obsessive Bamberettes.
I'd done my bit now it was time for others to take the reins and be there for him. I bowed out with dignity.
Let's leave it there!
Why do you use the words ‘obsessive Bamberettes’?
-
As you have blocked me, I'm unable to dm you,
Would you like to contact me with those details and we can discuss this in a private setting?
Thank you.
I’m not aware of having blocked anyone
What details are you referring to?
-
As you have blocked me, I'm unable to dm you,
My account was set to receiving messages from administrators only
-
That is not relevant, that's as far as I go. I've answered all your questions and now you're going into my private life. The line is drawn here!
I'm sure you understand.
Why do you keep changing your posts?
The above initially read,
“A line has been drawn and this is not part of the case and has no interest other than to those who wish to pry
I’ve been very open and honest and the line has been drawn now
Thank you for your understanding”
-
Enough. Let's get back on topic. Thank you!
-
There are a couple of posts with similar wording.
Keep trying!!
-
Why do you keep changing your posts?
The above initially read,
“A line has been drawn and this is not part of the case and has no interest other than to those who wish to pry
I’ve been very open and honest and the line has been drawn now
Thank you for your understanding”
There were two very similar posts.
-
There are a couple of posts with similar wording.
Keep trying!!
Was distracted elsewhere - but recognise I was mistaken, so apologies for that.
I’m unsure why you’ve posted ‘keep trying’
-
There were two very similar posts.
8((()*/
Was distracted elsewhere - but recognise I was mistaken, so apologies for that.
-
You throw out "LIES" with the frequency of a purist who sticks to the letter of it's meaning, ie an untruth, but I think some consideration must be given to whether the lie was intended to deceive, or whether it was a long held belief having it's roots somewhere other, further, of what benefit would deliberately lying about trivia be?
Well, as Jeremy Bamber is a proven pathological liar, it’s fair to say that not anyone can believe a word he says.
It could be that this box belonged to his grandmother, but I can’t see why she’d lie to him and say her husband made it for her...
The detail in it is too intricate to be homemade, and I’m sure, even though people who knew Jeremy well said he wasn’t particularly bright, he’d have realised it was factory made.
I don’t really care, in truth, it doesn’t detract from the fact he murdered all his family
-
I put it to you that not a single person here has read or seen anything about SC having her nails professionally manicured and polished in MV. If I'm wrong others here will prove it.
Re destroyed items it was DS Jones who initiated this and asked JB to authorise but these items had no evidential value. If you disagree please explain what evidence you think was lost.
Holly, please stop adopting the tone of a QC cross examining. You’re not legally trained, and I’m posting on a forum, I’m not in court.
I’ve TOLD you previously, more than once, that I’ve both read and heard that Sheila had her nails manicured. She probably did them herself too, when she was well, but she also had them manicured.
You seem hellbent on her fingernails, but don’t you think the EXPERTS, the LEGAL TEAM, and everyone else involved in the court case would combed through all this evidence in 1985? They clearly thought it irrelevant, as like you yourself claimed yesterday — your nails “never chip”😌, so maybe Sheila wore the same polish as you. Maybe she’d had her nails painted just days before...you have no idea what she was doing in Maida Vale.
-
You throw out "LIES" with the frequency of a purist who sticks to the letter of it's meaning, ie an untruth, but I think some consideration must be given to whether the lie was intended to deceive, or whether it was a long held belief having it's roots somewhere other, further, of what benefit would deliberately lying about trivia be?
Actually, rereading your post, April, I realise I’d missed your point.
It’s highly likely that Jeremy would have lied and made out the box was a “precious, sentimental, handmade gift” that had belonged to his “beloved grandmother” — the same grandmother who cut him out his will and which he tried get overturned...
Devious psychopaths will indeed make out to naive women that they’re giving them something precious in order to make the woman feel special and important. He actually told Daisy when his mask fell, that he’d never even LIKED her, and the truth always comes out when one is angry...
-
Actually, rereading your post, April, I realise I’d missed your point.
It’s highly likely that Jeremy would have lied and made out the box was a “precious, sentimental, handmade gift” that had belonged to his “beloved grandmother) — the same grandmother who cut him out his will and which he tried get overturned...
Devious psychopaths will indeed make out to naive women that they’re giving them something precious in order to to make the woman feel special and important. He actually told Agatha when his mask fell, that he’d never even LIKED her, and the truth always comes out when one is angry...
I concur. However, when an adult resorts to telling an adult friend that they'd never liked them, it sounds to me more like an angry/hurt child having a hissy fit, maybe as a result of feeling their self to be rejected?
-
Actually, rereading your post, April, I realise I’d missed your point.
It’s highly likely that Jeremy would have lied and made out the box was a “precious, sentimental, handmade gift” that had belonged to his “beloved grandmother) — the same grandmother who cut him out his will and which he tried get overturned...
Devious psychopaths will indeed make out to naive women that they’re giving them something precious in order to to make the woman feel special and important. He actually told Agatha when his mask fell, that he’d never even LIKED her, and the truth always comes out when one is angry...
Hold on!
Where does it state that I said he didn't like his grandmother?
-
Hold on!
Where does it state that I said he didn't like his grandmother?
The post doesn't make that claim. Well, it's not how I read it.
-
Holly, please stop adopting the tone of a QC cross examining. You’re not legally trained, and I’m posting on a forum, I’m not in court.
I’ve TOLD you previously, more than once, that I’ve both read and heard that Sheila had her nails manicured. She probably did them herself too, when she was well, but she also had them manicured.
You seem hellbent on her fingernails, but don’t you think the EXPERTS, the LEGAL TEAM, and everyone else involved in the court case would combed through all this evidence in 1985? They clearly thought it irrelevant, as like you yourself claimed yesterday — your nails “never chip”😌, so maybe Sheila wore the same polish as you. Maybe she’d had her nails painted just days before...you have no idea what she was doing in Maida Vale.
Much of what is discussed here would not make it to court but as you said we're not at court we're here on a forum. So since you keep telling us SC had her nails professionally manicured in MV it shouldn't be difficult for you to tell us where and by whom.
-
I believe you are genuine in what you state Aunt Agatha but not sure if you are aware you’ve potentially (I say ‘potentially’ as I don’t believe Bamber’s case is going anywhere) created a problem for Bamber & his representatives as I’ve pointed out here
You know Bamber’s narrative has changed and I don’t believe you would lie about this fact
You stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358367.html#msg358367
“Based on what we knew at the beginning we believed the silencer was used........upon revelations he changed his mind. When we last spoke he believed the silencer was not used”
Oooh, Jeremy Bamber changed his story, again? What a surprise!
So he told Agatha in 1993 that he believed the silencer WAS used. He seems to have forgotten that lie, or changed his tune, and then said he believed it wasn’t....no wonder the courts are sick to the teeth of his BS.
Can I ask who he’s supposed to be Godfather to? I think you’re referring to Agatha, but she didn’t know him and had never met him until 1993, so how could he be Godfather to her children?! Did he go to the Christening in handcuffs?
This is becoming extremely distasteful.
The evil psychopath who shot dead his two six-year-old nephews was invited to be GODFATHER to “Aunt Agatha’s” children?! This is insanity at its worst.
-
The post doesn't make that claim. Well, it's not how I read it.
Yes it does!!
-
Then come back and say how he managed to give you his belongings when even he doesn’t have access to them?
Think the confusion may lie in the telling of how the items came to be in Aunt Ags possession
More likely,
They’ll be items given to her by police
And items given to her by prison staff
Prisoners can and do hand out property - the cut off pony tail would have come from Bamber in prison, handed to a prison officer then handed to Aunt Agatha
If Aunt Agatha hasn’t thrown anything away, as she claims, she may well have the paperwork somewhere? Who knows?
Some of her original posts here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358271.html#msg358271 were removed so it can be confusing
“Here are some items, still looking for Cartier. I've put it somewhere safe and cannot find it. :))
Here we have;
His hair,
His Seiko watch/computer ( which he was able to use in those days),
His camera, with original film still inside. Have never had it processed.
She originally posted photographs but then removed them. Not sure if they are the same photos she’s posted on this forum without seeing what she posted originally
-
With all due respect, John, I know you say you don’t doubt Aunt Agatha, but do you have proof she’s telling the truth?
Because I know for fact, that police would never drive to someone’s home at the request of a prisoner — a mass murderer at that — and hand over a rifle (whether it was the murder weapon or not) to an unknown woman who was a mere associate of said prisoner; who didn’t have a firearms licence; and the prisoner himself had no firearms licence, either, nor owned a gun.
I also know that prisoners aren’t allowed to send gifts, even to their closest relatives.
As an aside, Aunt Agatha claims the police also gave her Jeremy Bamber’s wetsuit. I personally don’t believe it for a second, but let’s suppose they did: why would Jeremy Bamber want her to have his wetsuit? She claims he had all these items sent for their safekeeping, but then says she handed the gun into the police, and gave the wetsuit to a charity shop. Why would she do that if she was keeping them for safekeeping?
Her story doesn’t add up, and that’s without her contradictions, so excuse me for not agreeing with you on this.
Actually the police would hand over items to a third party if they had taken them into their control as evidence and then decided to return them. If the property belonged to Jeremy as in the air rifle and the wet suit then they were duty bound to return them to Jeremy regardless of his conviction and as he was in prison, effectively homeless and without family, the police would have asked him to designate a keeper for his property. Enter Aunt Agatha.
-
It doesn’t matter. The police will have the records.
Though you did allude to there being paperwork in one of your previous posts - the post where you claimed Mike T publicised your home address (that post appears to have been removed?)
Again, if Mike T has ‘paperwork’ so will the police etc
But Mike Tesco was a pathological liar too...
-
Yes it does!!
Where? All I read is that Jeremy may have lied...............It would be ridiculous to suggest that you didn't like his grandmother when/if you'd never met her.
-
Think the confusion may lie in the telling of how the items came to be in Aunt Ags possession
More likely,
They’ll be items given to her by police
And items given to her by prison staff
Prisoners can and do hand out property - the cut off pony tail would have come from Bamber in prison, handed to a prison officer then handed to Aunt Agatha
If Aunt Agatha hasn’t thrown anything away, as she claims, she may well have the paperwork somewhere? Who knows?
Some of her original posts here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358271.html#msg358271 were removed so it can be confusing
“Here are some items, still looking for Cartier. I've put it somewhere safe and cannot find it. :))
Here we have;
His hair,
His Seiko watch/computer ( which he was able to use in those days),
His camera, with original film still inside. Have never had it processed.
She originally posted photographs but then removed them. Not sure if they are the same photos she’s posted on this forum without seeing what she posted originally
I have never, Ever, posted photos of Jeremy's belongings until the other day.
-
Aunt Agatha stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358280.html#msg358280
“This was all a very long time ago - he gave me loads of things.
The police arrived with rifle, wetsuit, camera, all granny's paperwork and granny's handmade box, and over the years he's made many things for me.
Paintings (numerous), books, cassette tapes...and more.
Must find that watch! It's not where I thought it would be. Hmm!
-
I have never, Ever, posted photos of Jeremy's belongings until the other day.
You did
-
Just as well one of us remembers
Jane/April saw it too http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358278.html#msg358278
She commented
”That hair looks very long Presumably it was cut well before the massacre happened.
.
-
His narrative has always been that he is innocent and did not kill his family.
One could only stick to the exact same narrative if one knew beforehand exactly what did happen that night.
Therefore, his views or understanding of what really happened are based solely upon the information he has at any given time.
However, I would like to point out that evidence and findings undertaken by experts and those in the community have Never proven him guilty, instead they have raised more questions about his imprisonment and possible miscarriage of justice.
Do you suffer amnesia, Agatha?
You see, I distinctly remember the jury finding him GUILTY of five counts of murder.
The finding and evidence undertaken by the EXPERTS proved that.
Yet you’re saying he’s innocent, when there isn’t one scrap of flimsy evidence to even suggest he is.
No wonder the press have a field day with his bunch of supporters...
-
Where? All I read is that Jeremy may have lied...............It would be ridiculous to suggest that you didn't like his grandmother when/if you'd never met her.
Must I really explain?
Spy stated in the post that Jeremy had told me he didn't like his grandmother and that I had posted as such.
Again, I have never stated such a thing and would like her to show us all we're that information came from.
-
You did
I know I haven't as they haven't been out the box to photograph.
Anybody else seen these so called photos I was supposed to have uploaded.?
-
Oh, what a dull retort “opened the wine too early”🙄 Typical from those who have dug a hole from themselves...
Those boxes have been in production since before Jeremy Bamber was born, Agatha. Do you think no-one had any knowledge about anything at all before the Internet? Don’t be silly, dear.
Your biggest problem is, prisoners are not allowed to send/give gifts to ANYONE. Now, pop opp and look on your internet and you’ll see what I’m saying is correct.
Then come back and say how he managed to give you his belongings when even he doesn’t have access to them?
I too can smell a fish. It has not been adequately explained how this person came to be in the possession of these items, and when pressed is unwilling to back their claims up.
Perhaps at this point we should bear in mind that this kind of memorabilia has a market, the value of which may be negligible now but who knows what could happen once Bamber shuffles off. He is after all amongst our most notorious child killers.
-
Aunt Agatha stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358280.html#msg358280
“This was all a very long time ago - he gave me loads of things.
The police arrived with rifle, wetsuit, camera, all granny's paperwork and granny's handmade box, and over the years he's made many things for me.
Paintings (numerous), books, cassette tapes...and more.
Must find that watch! It's not where I thought it would be. Hmm!
Aunt Agatha never specified which items came from where.
Reading it does give the impression the police gave her all these items but clearly they didn’t
-
Yes, as stated here I requested he remove the post and he did.
I never saw the paperwork, I cannot recall him posting a copy of the receipt however I have not forgotten how he posted my address. It was not my full address, but it was enough.
So Jeremy Bamber gave Mike Tesko your address? That wasn’t nice of him, Agatha.
Of course, JB would have had your address as you’d first written to him in prison in 1993...
Back to the items you claim Jeremy gave you/had the police deliver to you — I know for a fact that prisoners can’t send/give gifts, and police will never deliver a prisoner’s items to anyone’s home, whoever they are, unless the prisoner has died.
So there is NO receipt. You know it, and I know it.
But as you refuse to accept this, all you need do is phone Essex Police and ask them to send you a copy of said receipt including list of items you allege they delivered to you.
It’s very simple.
In fact, absolutely anyone could phone EP and ask them if the hand deliver items of prisoners to acquaintances...they’ll tell you :)
-
I know I haven't as they haven't been out the box to photograph.
Anybody else seen these so called photos I was supposed to have uploaded.?
You aren’t being honest with yourself
-
I know I haven't as they haven't been out the box to photograph.
Anybody else seen these so called photos I was supposed to have uploaded.?
You are mistaken
-
Just as well one of us remembers
Jane/April saw it too http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358278.html#msg358278
She commented
”That hair looks very long Presumably it was cut well before the massacre happened.
.
I've just read that and you're right. I must have posted it briefly then deleted it immediately afterwards.
I know for certain, unless you've copied it Nicholas, that no photos other than what I put on here recently, exist.
I apologise for my error.
-
Just as well one of us remembers
Jane/April saw it too http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358278.html#msg358278
She commented
”That hair looks very long Presumably it was cut well before the massacre happened.
.
Why did Jane/April exclaim ”That hair looks very long ?
-
Aunt Agatha never specified which items came from where.
Reading it does give the impression the police gave her all these items but clearly they didn’t
You're correct, the police did not deliver everything listed.
Jeremy did over the years gave me items through the post or during visits.
-
I've just read that and you're right. I must have posted it briefly then deleted it immediately afterwards.
I know for certain, unless you've copied it Nicholas, that no photos other than what I put on here recently, exist.
I apologise for my error.
But you chose to reinforce your error by stating
I know I haven't as they haven't been out the box to photograph.
Anybody else seen these so called photos I was supposed to have uploaded.?
Why did you then invite others to support your wrongful claims?
-
I’m not sure what ‘misinformation’ you are suggesting I’m ‘spreading’ ?
Nor am I sure why you appear to be showing animosity towards me ?
However and to be clear,
You stated on the blue forum here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358356.html#msg358356
“I've said this so many times on here.....I remember the early days - before the revelations.
I'm certain he had absolutely no idea of what exactly happened that night.
The lies we had been fed by the police did not make sense.....nothing fitted into place.
Together we went over and over the same things, hoping that one of us could (as there was only two of us then), might pick up on something we'd overlooked previously.
I was there when the new revelations came about also - he would phone me upon reading the new evidence .... We would then try to piece that new information together and then he would find further information and again we would try to form anther picture of what happened.
That picture changed many times as more information was being revealed.
You also stated - as per a previous post in blue below
Is Auntie Agatha saying the police fear HER lies?
She didn’t even know JB in 1985. She only got to “know” him when she wrote to him in 1993, so why would the police talk to her....
-
So Jeremy Bamber gave Mike Tesko your address? That wasn’t nice of him, Agatha.
Of course, JB would have had your address as you’d first written to him in prison in 1993...
Back to the items you claim Jeremy gave you/had the police deliver to you — I know for a fact that prisoners can’t send/give gifts, and police will never deliver a prisoner’s items to anyone’s home, whoever they are, unless the prisoner has died.
So there is NO receipt. You know it, and I know it.
But as you refuse to accept this, all you need do is phone Essex Police and ask them to send you a copy of said receipt including list of items you allege they delivered to you.
It’s very simple.
In fact, absolutely anyone could phone EP and ask them if the hand deliver items of prisoners to acquaintances...they’ll tell you :)
You really do not read what is put before you do you?
Jeremy never gave my address to Tesco, Mike found the paper trail of the items amongst all the paperwork he has got.
He found it himself. Neither Jeremy or I told him anything.
-
So Jeremy Bamber gave Mike Tesko your address? That wasn’t nice of him, Agatha.
Of course, JB would have had your address as you’d first written to him in prison in 1993...
Back to the items you claim Jeremy gave you/had the police deliver to you — I know for a fact that prisoners can’t send/give gifts, and police will never deliver a prisoner’s items to anyone’s home, whoever they are, unless the prisoner has died.
So there is NO receipt. You know it, and I know it.
But as you refuse to accept this, all you need do is phone Essex Police and ask them to send you a copy of said receipt including list of items you allege they delivered to you.
It’s very simple.
In fact, absolutely anyone could phone EP and ask them if the hand deliver items of prisoners to acquaintances...they’ll tell you :)
In addition, Mike never even knew I existed until he found the paperwork!
-
So Jeremy Bamber gave Mike Tesko your address? That wasn’t nice of him, Agatha.
If Mike T had Aunt Agathas address then he got this/Bamber paperwork after the seized items were handed out to her? What year would that have been?
-
In addition, Mike never even knew I existed until he found the paperwork!
Why is this relevant ?
-
So Jeremy Bamber gave Mike Tesko your address? That wasn’t nice of him, Agatha.
The paperwork must have originated from Bamber
-
But you chose to reinforce your error by stating
Why did you then invite others to support your wrongful claims?
Because until you posted proof I had genuinely forgotten I had showed anybody anything at all.
As you correctly stated, it was removed also thereby confirming I'm not in the habit of displaying personal. Items.
Yesterday was an exception in that the photos remain.
-
You really do not read what is put before you do you?
Jeremy never gave my address to Tesco, Mike found the paper trail of the items amongst all the paperwork he has got.
He found it himself. Neither Jeremy or I told him anything.
It appears he did
-
Because until you posted proof I had genuinely forgotten I had showed anybody anything at all.
As you correctly stated, it was removed also thereby confirming I'm not in the habit of displaying personal. Items.
Yesterday was an exception in that the photos remain.
No it wasn’t
-
Is Auntie Agatha saying the police fear HER lies?
She didn’t even know JB in 1985. She only got to “know” him when she wrote to him in 1993, so why would the police talk to her....
I have no idea what you're alluding too
-
Because until you posted proof I had genuinely forgotten I had showed anybody anything at all.
As you correctly stated, it was removed also thereby confirming I'm not in the habit of displaying personal. Items.
Yesterday was an exception in that the photos remain.
I want to believe this Aunt Agatha but I have doubts you ‘genuinely’ forgot
-
It appears he did
Inadvertently it seems
-
Yes. These are my words, my views, my understanding. These words are not Jeremy's. I'm only relaying what I believe to be the truth.
Dont take it personally and don't try to twist my words Nicholas. You can go back as far as you want, print as much as you want, my views regarding the period I spent with Jeremy remain the same.
I’m sorry to say this, Agatha, but even your remark “my views regarding the period I spent with Jeremy remain the same”, deeply suggests you believe you were in a relationship with him.
You never had a relationship, Agatha. You didn’t spend time together, alone. You didn’t share things together — go out together. All you did was write to him, and he you, had some hurried phone calls, and visited him in prison.
That isn’t a relationship, Agatha.
I don’t know your history, but for some reason you chose to make contact with him when the rest of the world are getting on with their lives, and I wonder if you were drawn to him for some particular reason? Most women (admittedly, I don’t know your age/circumstances), but most women don’t want anything to do with a convicted mass murderer. They don’t want to put their lives on hold, while doing donkey work for this prisoner they’ve become fascinated by. They don’t want to wait excitedly for the postman to deliver the latest letter from the man they DON’T truly know, or wait for a rushed phone call, a one-off visit travelling miles to sit in a gloomy visiting hall opposite a man who is actually a stranger to them.
It isn’t normal, it isn’t healthy, and that’s why he uses all these women who do this...evil and mad as he is, he realises he can easily bamboozle them, get money, gifts, and get them to do his donkey work.
-
I've just read that and you're right. I must have posted it briefly then deleted it immediately afterwards.
I know for certain, unless you've copied it Nicholas, that no photos other than what I put on here recently, exist.
In this post you say you ‘must have posted it briefly then deleted it immediately afterwards’
then you say ‘I know for certain that no photos other than what I put on here recently exists’
Do you see the mixed message here and where the confusion comes from?
-
I want to believe this Aunt Agatha but I have doubts you ‘genuinely’ forgot
I do not frequent these sites, I pop in just now and again... As you very well know SH.
I have a life outside of this and during lockdown I thought I'd pop in again. I've stayed longer than I usually do.
I feel I'm on trial here... Maybe it's time for me to go!
Seems some think I'm only Muddying waters.
-
His narrative has always been that he is innocent and did not kill his family.
One could only stick to the exact same narrative if one knew beforehand exactly what did happen that night.
Therefore, his views or understanding of what really happened are based solely upon the information he has at any given time.
However, I would like to point out that evidence and findings undertaken by experts and those in the community have Never proven him guilty, instead they have raised more questions about his imprisonment and possible miscarriage of justice.
I'm afraid the evidence tells a different story.
-
I do not frequent these sites, I pop in just now and again... As you very well know SH.
I have a life outside of this and during lockdown I thought I'd pop in again. I've stayed longer than I usually do.
I feel I'm on trial here... Maybe it's time for me to go!
Seems some think I'm only Muddying waters.
I have no idea what you do or don’t do JL
And I cannot help the way you feel
-
I'm afraid the evidence tells a different story.
Hello John,
That does remain a difference of opinion, however, saying that, I have absolutely no idea what what recent evidence has shown to prove his guilt.
-
I have no idea what you do or don’t do JL
And I cannot help the way you feel
I feel nothing, only but a distraction to your investigations.
Oh, and a source of amusement 8)-)))
-
I feel nothing, only but a distraction to your investigations.
Oh, and a source of amusement 8)-)))
No, I don’t suppose you do
-
Because until you posted proof I had genuinely forgotten I had showed anybody anything at all.
As you correctly stated, it was removed also thereby confirming I'm not in the habit of displaying personal. Items.
Yesterday was an exception in that the photos remain.
You also stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358290.html#msg358290
“I can look back with hindsight which is why I have disclosed what he gave me.
-
Hello John,
That does remain a difference of opinion, however, saying that, I have absolutely no idea what what recent evidence has shown to prove his guilt.
The recent evidence needs to show his innocence,thats what appeals are about.
-
The recent evidence needs to show his innocence,thats what appeals are about.
No they're not. JB needs to produce some evidence that undermines his conviction to the extent that 3 appeal court judges will take the view that had jurors heard it they may have returned a different verdict.
-
No they're not. JB needs to produce some evidence that undermines his conviction to the extent that 3 appeal court judges will take the view that had jurors heard it they may have returned a different verdict.
Which hasn't happened,worked out why? yet.
-
Which hasn't happened,worked out why? yet.
I thought you knew the wheels of justice grind slowly?
-
I've just read that and you're right. I must have posted it briefly then deleted it immediately afterwards.
I know for certain, unless you've copied it Nicholas, that no photos other than what I put on here recently, exist.
I apologise for my error.
”Thank you for showing the photo Aunt A, it looks like a lot of hair.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358270.html#msg358270
-
Hello John,
That does remain a difference of opinion, however, saying that, I have absolutely no idea what what recent evidence has shown to prove his guilt.
I know we disagree on this point AA, imo the original evidence was more than sufficient to justify the guilty verdict. When I came to this at the beginning I was sceptical too that this young farmer had done such a dreadful deed but over time the evidence does tell a story. If you believe Jeremy innocent then by default you have to attribute the blame to Sheila and we all know that is impossible. The only unanswered question for me is whether Jeremy did the deed himself or paid someone else to do it. Either way, he is still guilty.
-
Think the confusion may lie in the telling of how the items came to be in Aunt Ags possession
More likely,
They’ll be items given to her by police
And items given to her by prison staff
Prisoners can and do hand out property - the cut off pony tail would have come from Bamber in prison, handed to a prison officer then handed to Aunt Agatha
If Aunt Agatha hasn’t thrown anything away, as she claims, she may well have the paperwork somewhere? Who knows?
Some of her original posts here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358271.html#msg358271 were removed so it can be confusing
“Here are some items, still looking for Cartier. I've put it somewhere safe and cannot find it. :))
Here we have;
His hair,
His Seiko watch/computer ( which he was able to use in those days),
His camera, with original film still inside. Have never had it processed.
She originally posted photographs but then removed them. Not sure if they are the same photos she’s posted on this forum without seeing what she posted originally
Wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn Aunt Agatha brought Bamber the camera & film too!?
-
I know we disagree on this point AA, imo the original evidence was more than sufficient to justify the guilty verdict. When I came to this at the beginning I was sceptical too that this young farmer had done such a dreadful deed but over time the evidence does tell a story. If you believe Jeremy innocent then by default you have to attribute the blame to Sheila and we all know that is impossible.
... And if by default it wasn't Sheila it had to be jeremy....
It was not Jeremy's guilt that was proven in so much as Sheila's innocence and inability to shoot her own family.
-
Wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn Aunt Agatha brought Bamber the camera & film too!?
You stoop low sometimes.
The police delivered the camera.
-
I concur. However, when an adult resorts to telling an adult friend that they'd never liked them, it sounds to me more like an angry/hurt child having a hissy fit, maybe as a result of feeling their self to be rejected?
Possibly. But it’s incredibly immature, and taking into account the very short periods they were allowed visits it seems strange he’d be angry and spitting venom. Had he truly liked her he’d have been excited to see her, regardless of what orders of his she hadn’t carried out.
I think he’s so evil that he planned to abuse her to her face. He knew she was travelling all that distance...and he knew what he intended to say to her face. He got a kick out of seeing her reaction. He could have easily written to her and told her not to come...But he wanted her to spend time and money to travel, just so he could humiliate and hurt face to face.
In truth, he doesn’t really know any of these people who’ve contacted him. He only knows the parts they show him, as they do him. They can’t see inside his head. Nor do they foresee how he will callously discard them when they’re no longer of use to him.
Psychopaths don’t care about people. In just the same way he had Crispy put down, he feels the same about humans. If they get in his way, become problematic — or are if no use — he kills them or discards them.
-
It was not Jeremy's guilt that was proven in so much as Sheila's innocence and inability to shoot her own family.
8((()*/
-
You stoop low sometimes.
@)(++(*
-
The police delivered the camera.
Prove it
-
Possibly. But it’s incredibly immature, and taking into account the very short periods they were allowed visits it seems strange he’d be angry and spitting venom. Had he truly liked her he’d have been excited to see her, regardless of what orders of his she hadn’t carried out.
I think he’s so evil that he planned to abuse her to her face. He knew she was travelling all that distance...and he knew what he intended to say to her face. He got a kick out of seeing her reaction. He could have easily written to her and told her not to come...But he wanted her to spend time and money to travel, just so he could humiliate and hurt face to face.
In truth, he doesn’t really know any of these people who’ve contacted him. He only knows the parts they show him, as they do him. They can’t see inside his head. Nor do they foresee how he will callously discard them when they’re no longer of use to him.
Psychopaths don’t care about people. In just the same way he had Crispy put down, he feels the same about humans. If they get in his way, become problematic — or are if no use — he kills them or discards them.
Who are you relating this stuff too?
It's certainly not me!!
-
Its always good to hear from you Aunt Agatha, I'm quite sure you are well used to sceptics by now but that is to be expected. I recall that we have been through all this previously on probably more than one occasion so I understand your reluctance to give too much away even now. Hope you are well!
To All Members:
This thread has now been edited and all inappropriate comments removed. Posters are reminded that politeness costs nothing so please abide by the rules. TY
-
Possibly. But it’s incredibly immature, and taking into account the very short periods they were allowed visits it seems strange he’d be angry and spitting venom. Had he truly liked her he’d have been excited to see her, regardless of what orders of his she hadn’t carried out.
I think he’s so evil that he planned to abuse her to her face. He knew she was travelling all that distance...and he knew what he intended to say to her face. He got a kick out of seeing her reaction. He could have easily written to her and told her not to come...But he wanted her to spend time and money to travel, just so he could humiliate and hurt face to face.
In truth, he doesn’t really know any of these people who’ve contacted him. He only knows the parts they show him, as they do him. They can’t see inside his head. Nor do they foresee how he will callously discard them when they’re no longer of use to him.
Psychopaths don’t care about people. In just the same way he had Crispy put down, he feels the same about humans. If they get in his way, become problematic — or are if no use — he kills them or discards them.
Some of ‘these people’ will no doubt be of similar ilk to him, albeit not convicted mass murderers
-
Hold on!
Where does it state that I said he didn't like his grandmother?
Agatha, I apologise for that.
I momentarily mistook you for Daisy, another lady who Jeremy used, and then told her he’d never like her anyway.
He’s never said he disliked his grandmother, and he most certainly wouldn’t. Just like he pretends he adores his parents’...he has to say that, doesn’t he...
Regardless, whatever he thought of his grandmother, it didn’t stop him trying to protest her will when she disinherited him after he’d shot dead her daughter, son-in-law, granddaughter and great-grandchildren.
Thankfully, he failed in his greedy attempt to get his paws on the money of the mother of the woman who he’d shot between the eyes, but what he did achieve was showing his total lack of compassion, shame & regret, and highlighted his greed for money, and disrespect for his grandmother’s wishes.
-
Hi John, it’s interesting that you don’t rule out a hitman. Do you think Jeremy could have entrusted such a terrible nights work to a 3rd party? It’s certainly no ordinary hit with 5 people including 2 children as the targets. Where would he have sourced such a hitman from, is my question.
-
Some of ‘these people’ will no doubt be of similar ilk to him, albeit not convicted mass murderers
There is a pattern with Jeremy Bamber involving his female admirers which started with Julie Mugford.
-
Hi John, it’s interesting that you don’t rule out a hitman. Do you think Jeremy could have entrusted such a terrible nights work to a 3rd party? It’s certainly no ordinary hit with 5 people including 2 children as the targets. Where would he have sourced such a hitman from, is my question.
If I'm honest, it was a possibility given the evidence but unlikely for the reasons you state. Most criminals would be rightly appalled and disgusted by the murders, it would take a very deranged individual to undertake such a monstrous task for money.
-
Much of what is discussed here would not make it to court but as you said we're not at court we're here on a forum. So since you keep telling us SC had her nails professionally manicured in MV it shouldn't be difficult for you to tell us where and by whom.
Holly, what don’t you understand about “you’ll need to wait”
I’m under no obligation to prove anything to you, and I’ve told you I have read thousands and thousands of words, documents etc...so until I find time to search you need to wait.
Be patient.
There’s no rush...Jeremy Bamber isn’t going anywhere 😌
-
There is a pattern with Jeremy Bamber involving his female admirers which started with Julie Mugford.
I agree re the pattern but not so sure about JM - who did he date before her?
He does seem drawn to a certain type of ‘female admirer’
-
If I'm honest, it was a possibility given the evidence but unlikely for the reasons you state.
I know what you mean, Bamber must have regretted his own-goal narrative of Nevills SOS phone call. It would have been handy to have a 3rd party to bring into the MoJ equation.
-
Think the confusion may lie in the telling of how the items came to be in Aunt Ags possession
More likely,
They’ll be items given to her by police
And items given to her by prison staff
Prisoners can and do hand out property - the cut off pony tail would have come from Bamber in prison, handed to a prison officer then handed to Aunt Agatha
If Aunt Agatha hasn’t thrown anything away, as she claims, she may well have the paperwork somewhere? Who knows?
Some of her original posts here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358271.html#msg358271 were removed so it can be confusing
“Here are some items, still looking for Cartier. I've put it somewhere safe and cannot find it. :))
Here we have;
His hair,
His Seiko watch/computer ( which he was able to use in those days),
His camera, with original film still inside. Have never had it processed.
She originally posted photographs but then removed them. Not sure if they are the same photos she’s posted on this forum without seeing what she posted originally
Thank you, Nicholas
But I still don’t believe the police gave her any items, including a gun.
That isn’t how the police operate.
-
Holly, what don’t you understand about “you’ll need to wait”
I’m under no obligation to prove anything to you, and I’ve told you I have read thousands and thousands of words, documents etc...so until I find time to search you need to wait.
Be patient.
There’s no rush...Jeremy Bamber isn’t going anywhere 😌
But the advantage of the forum is that we have numerous pairs of eyes, many of whom have devoured the case, and no one has turned anything up.
-
Thank you, Nicholas
But I still don’t believe the police gave her any items, including a gun.
That isn’t how the police operate.
And quite rightly
-
Actually the police would hand over items to a third party if they had taken them into their control as evidence and then decided to return them. If the property belonged to Jeremy as in the air rifle and the wet suit then they were duty bound to return them to Jeremy regardless of his conviction and as he was in prison, effectively homeless and without family, the police would have asked him to designate a keeper for his property. Enter Aunt Agatha.
I trust your judgement and knowledge, John, but I still find it hard to believe that the police would hand deliver a prisoner’s property to a designated person, when it’s kept in custody until the prisoner is released or dies.
Maybe I’m wrong, in which case I’ll apologise, but out of curiosity I will find out as I’m 99% certain the police don’t operate like that.
-
Aunt Agatha stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358280.html#msg358280
“This was all a very long time ago - he gave me loads of things.
The police arrived with rifle, wetsuit, camera, all granny's paperwork and granny's handmade box, and over the years he's made many things for me.
Paintings (numerous), books, cassette tapes...and more.
Must find that watch! It's not where I thought it would be. Hmm!
The police gave Granny Speakman’s paperwork to an acquaintance of Jeremy’s?!
-
I too can smell a fish. It has not been adequately explained how this person came to be in the possession of these items, and when pressed is unwilling to back their claims up.
Perhaps at this point we should bear in mind that this kind of memorabilia has a market, the value of which may be negligible now but who knows what could happen once Bamber shuffles off. He is after all amongst our most notorious child killers.
I absolutely agree.
The whole thing smells extremely fishy, and as Agatha hasn’t been able to provide any evidence, I’m dismissing everything she says.
-
I trust your judgement and knowledge, John, but I still find it hard to believe that the police would hand deliver a prisoner’s property to a designated person, when it’s kept in custody until the prisoner is released or dies.
Maybe I’m wrong, in which case I’ll apologise, but out of curiosity I will find out as I’m 99% certain the police don’t operate like that.
I can assure you the police do return property when it is no longer needed. If the items are bulky or such that they might attract undue attention they will deliver them to a designated keeper if asked. Can you really imagine AA walking down Chelmsford High Street with twins in a pram, a wetsuit and an air rifle slung over her shoulder?
-
In addition, Mike never even knew I existed until he found the paperwork!
Does Jeremy Bamber know you exist, Agatha?
-
Before you jump to that conclusion, I feel that I must add that I have NO idea of when Jeremy's hair was that long. I see pictures of him as a child who clearly had a penchant for longer hair, but pictures of him around the time of the murders show a well groomed look which he had at the time he was arrested. It appeared to still be well groomed when he went to court. Hair grows at approximately half an inch per month. He went to trial around a year post murders, nowhere near enough time to grow a ponytail some 18 inches in length. This leads me to believe he A) grew it after he was convicted -which would have taken some 3 years- or it was long prior to the pictures of him pre murders. Because of the inclusion of unpigmented hairs, I'm inclined to think it was the former.
-
I'm only going to say this one more time. Any further references to anyone being a liar will attract a severe sanction.
-
April wasn’t that kind of look briefly fashionable around 1988-89, during the yuppie era. The offending article could date from that time.
-
I can assure you the police do return property when it is no longer needed. If the items are bulky or such that they might attract undue attention they will deliver them to a designated keeper if asked. Can you really imagine AA walking down Chelmsford High Street with twins in a pram, a wetsuit and an air rifle slung over her shoulder?
Twins in a pram?!!! Please don't tell me they were Bamber's sprogs!
-
No they're not. JB needs to produce some evidence that undermines his conviction to the extent that 3 appeal court judges will take the view that had jurors heard it they may have returned a different verdict.
He’s already tried that, twice — and failed both times
In fact, not only did the appeal court reinforce the jury’s decision that Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but FURTHER evidence has come to light SINCE the original court case, that further proves his guilt.
At the original court hearing forensics established 13 out of a possible 20 markers which was enough to convince the court that the blood flake in the silencer could have only come from Sheila, as no-one else had those same markers .
In or around 2002 (I need to check) they retested that blood flake and found SEVENTEEN of Sheila’s blood markers, meaning it was a trillion to one that the blood was anyone else’s.
So if it DID ever get to appeal again, which it won’t, it would be thrown out again. And if there was ever a retrial, which again won’t happen imi, he will simply be found guilty again imo.
-
I too can smell a fish. It has not been adequately explained how this person came to be in the possession of these items, and when pressed is unwilling to back their claims up.
Perhaps at this point we should bear in mind that this kind of memorabilia has a market, the value of which may be negligible now but who knows what could happen once Bamber shuffles off. He is after all amongst our most notorious child killers.
Jeremy must have elected AA to receive the items. I'm satisfied that she is telling the truth and she has gone out of her way to provide pictures to back up what she says. Some questions have been a bit personal and from past experience of these forums, it's always best not to say too much.
-
April wasn’t that kind of look briefly fashionable around 1988-89, during the yuppie era. The offending article could date from that time.
I have an idea that may have been second time around, Steve -I can remember cropping actor friends' long hair back in the mid/late 70's when they landed parts demanding short hair- but it doesn't mean it couldn't have been then. I don't think the "Hooray Henry" look would have done him too many favours inside.
-
Jeremy must have elected AA to receive the items. I'm satisfied that she is telling the truth and she has gone out of her way to provide pictures to back up what she says. Some questions have been a bit personal and from past experience of these forums, it's always best not to say too much.
Thank you Caroline
-
Some of ‘these people’ will no doubt be of similar ilk to him, albeit not convicted mass murderers
You’re not kidding!
I’ve only looked at the blue forum twice, once after you gave a link to Aunt Agatha’s posts on there.
I saw a comment from one man which actually made my body flinch!
David1819....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You’re not kidding!
I’ve only looked at the blue forum twice, once after you gave a link to Aunt Agatha’s posts on there.
I saw a comment from one man which actually made my body flinch!
David1819....
Oh yes ....... him %56&
-
Jeremy must have elected AA to receive the items. I'm satisfied that she is telling the truth and she has gone out of her way to provide pictures to back up what she says. Some questions have been a bit personal and from past experience of these forums, it's always best not to say too much.
Well, if you and John are satisfied thats something to think about and perhaps I was harsh. Sorry.
I chuckled it off as a practical joke when I saw a pony tail that supposedly belonged to Jeremy.
-
I have an idea that may have been second time around, Steve -I can remember cropping actor friends' long hair back in the mid/late 70's when they landed parts demanding short hair- but it doesn't mean it couldn't have been then. I don't think the "Hooray Henry" look would have done him too many favours inside.
Maybe, before he hooked up with Aunt Agatha, his intention to grow his hair long was in order to attract the attention of his fellow inmates ?
-
But the advantage of the forum is that we have numerous pairs of eyes, many of whom have devoured the case, and no one has turned anything up.
And none of these pairs of eyes have turned up any evidence that Jeremy Bamber isn’t guilty...and you’ve been at it for years.
I can’t speak for others as I don’t know what they read, and as I’m new to this case I’ve been surprised when I’ve occasionally posted something that veteran members seemed unaware of — they hadn’t even READ it — and I’m including you, Holly
I’ve told you repeatedly that I will search for what bothers you so much, in MY time.
You like to doubt me all the time, but that’s because you don’t like the fact Jeremy Bamber is guilty as hell
-
I have an idea that may have been second time around, Steve -I can remember cropping actor friends' long hair back in the mid/late 70's when they landed parts demanding short hair- but it doesn't mean it couldn't have been then.I don't think the "Hooray Henry" look would have done him too many favours inside.
Your right it wouldn’t have gone down well, trying to be some kind of dandy inside. He’s been attacked a couple of times that we know of.
-
Well, if you and John are satisfied thats something to think about and perhaps I was harsh. Sorry.
I chuckled it off as a practical joke when I saw a pony tail that supposedly belonged to Jeremy.
I know he did have long hair at some point, didn't realise it was that long though. To be honest, I'd have lost that on purpose some years ago. There is something about disconnected hair that gives me the creeps 8(8-))
-
I can assure you the police do return property when it is no longer needed. If the items are bulky or such that they might attract undue attention they will deliver them to a designated keeper if asked. Can you really imagine AA walking down Chelmsford High Street with twins in a pram, a wetsuit and an air rifle slung over her shoulder?
Of course not.
But all property is sealed in bags, and has to be signed for.
I’ve always believed property has to be collected in person from the station where it’s kept.
I also can’t understand why they’d give someone a gun; supposedly belonging to the very man who’d been convicted of shooting five people dead.
-
But all property is sealed in bags, and has to be signed for.
I’ve always believed property has to be collected in person from the station where it’s kept.
I also can’t understand why they’d give someone a gun; supposedly belonging to the very man who’d been convicted of shooting five people dead.
All property is sealed in bags and usually has to be signed for when removing from HM prisons
Police do deliver property in person i.e. previously seized items
The gun is a strange one for me also ?
-
I know he did have long hair at some point, didn't realise it was that long though. To be honest, I'd have lost that on purpose some years ago. There is something about disconnected hair that gives me the creeps 8(8-))
I've kept it for DNA purposes if it's ever needed in the future to clear his name
-
I've kept it for DNA purposes if it's ever needed in the future to clear his name
@)(++(*
Don’t believe you
Where would the DNA be extracted from exactly?
Plus the police already have Bamber’s DNA
-
I've kept it for DNA purposes if it's ever needed in the future to clear his name
Why keep the hair and supposedly donate the wetsuit to charity?
-
I've kept it for DNA purposes if it's ever needed in the future to clear his name
Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be yielded DNA wise without the root.
https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2012/06/03/dna-and-the-locks-of-hair/
-
I've kept it for DNA purposes if it's ever needed in the future to clear his name
“We were very close at the time - maybe he wanted to give me a piece of 'himself' to take home.
He just requested I did not throw it....
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358326.html#msg358326
-
I've kept it for DNA purposes if it's ever needed in the future to clear his name
Come on, we’re all human when all is said and done.. That hair could be worth a tidy sum one day.
This is hair from the man who stood grinning as he pumped multiple bullets into his 6 year old nephews, we know there are some warped individuals out there.
-
I've kept it for DNA purposes if it's ever needed in the future to clear his name
As Nicholas told you, Agatha, the police have his DNA
Besides, if they needed his DNA again they would just take a mouth swab from him
I’d feel repelled even touching that hair, and certainly wouldn’t have it in my house
-
Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be yielded DNA wise without the root.
https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2012/06/03/dna-and-the-locks-of-hair/
I thought it better than nothing.
-
Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be yielded DNA wise without the root.
https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2012/06/03/dna-and-the-locks-of-hair/
Aye, and it’s mitochondrial DNA which works slightly differently as I understand it. One would also need to prove that it did without shadow of a doubt come from Jeremy.
-
I thought it better than nothing.
In case no one else could ‘save’ him ?
.
-
“We were very close at the time - maybe he wanted to give me a piece of 'himself' to take home.
He just requested I did not throw it....
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358326.html#msg358326
Maybe. But I've kept it for the purpose I've just stated, nothing more.
I do not trust the CCRC or the Police where Jeremy is concerned. Who knows what could be extracted from it in time to come.
-
Come on, we’re all human when all is said and done.. That hair could be worth a tidy sum one day.
This is hair from the man who stood grinning as he pumped multiple bullets into his 6 year old nephews, we know there are some warped individuals out there.
I absolutely agree, there’s some terribly warped individuals out there; ghouls; oddballs...
I can’t imagine many of those types paying much money for his hair....what would they do with it? Maybe devil worship or something 8(8-)) 8(8-))
-
Come on, we’re all human when all is said and done.. That hair could be worth a tidy sum one day.
This is hair from the man who stood grinning as he pumped multiple bullets into his 6 year old nephews, we know there are some warped individuals out there.
In my view he's innocent and a miscarriage of justice remains.
-
Aye, and it’s mitochondrial DNA which works slightly differently as I understand it. One would also need to prove that it did without shadow of a doubt come from Jeremy.
Good luck with that
-
In case no one else could ‘save’ him ?
.
If everything else disappears, it remains. Maybe he gave it to me for that, to clear his name should anything happen to him in prison.
Are you telling me you would not have done the same for your husband when he claimed his innocence... Only to later to declare he was a murderer?
-
In my view he's innocent and a miscarriage of justice remains.
Think your subconscious betrays you sometimes
-
Aunt Agatha you stated:
If everything else disappears, it remains. Maybe he gave it to me for that, to clear his name should anything happen to him in prison.
This sounds like it’s conceived by an unrestrained imagination
-
If everything else disappears, it remains. Maybe he gave it to me for that, to clear his name should anything happen to him in prison.
This sounds like it’s conceived by an unrestrained imagination
You, of all people, are in no position to judge me.
-
Think your subconscious betrays you sometimes
Hanging on to a conviction of someone's innocence gives a sense of worth and meaning to a relationship with them.
-
Maybe. But I've kept it for the purpose I've just stated, nothing more.
Originally you stated Bamber told you not to throw it away
You’ve since changed the goal posts and are now claiming to have kept it for DNA purposes
-
I am not 'hanging on' as you describe it.
-
This sounds like it’s conceived by an unrestrained imagination
You, of all people, are in no position to judge me.
@)(++(*
-
Originally you stated Bamber told you not to throw it away
You’ve since changed the goal posts and are now claiming to have kept it for DNA purposes
That does not change a thing. He gave me other items as I've disclosed here that I got rid of. I'm not compelled to keep anything of his. I have chosen to keep them safe.
-
Think your subconscious betrays you sometimes
As do your projections Aunt Agatha
-
Hanging on to a conviction of someone's innocence gives a sense of worth and meaning to a relationship with them.
And to the ‘self’ it would appear
-
“We were very close at the time - maybe he wanted to give me a piece of 'himself' to take home.
....
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358326.html#msg358326
Maybe this is what you think ‘he wanted’ by giving you his hair
-
That does not change a thing. He gave me other items as I've disclosed here that I got rid of. I'm not compelled to keep anything of his. I have chosen to keep them safe.
I’ve no idea what you’ve ‘got rid of’ other than a jewellery box, which I’ve also no idea who it belonged to?
-
You, of all people, are in no position to judge me.
Aunt Agatha you stated,
“Are you telling me you would not have done the same for your husband when he claimed his innocence... ”
Were you secretly married to Jeremy Bamber?
-
Maybe. But I've kept it for the purpose I've just stated, nothing more.
I do not trust the CCRC or the Police where Jeremy is concerned. Who knows what could be extracted from it in time to come.
This is fanciful
-
Jeremy must have elected AA to receive the items. I'm satisfied that she is telling the truth and she has gone out of her way to provide pictures to back up what she says. Some questions have been a bit personal and from past experience of these forums, it's always best not to say too much.
Posters can come across very aggressively sometimes when people with real life involvement in cases come to visit the forum. I recall several individuals from the Madeleine McCann case joining us and being driven off by unnecessarily aggressive questioning.
Some restraint please and note the topic thanx.
-
This is like an episode of The Archers - keep going guys - so who's husband did what now?
-
Posters can come across very aggressively sometimes when people with real life involvement in cases come to visit the forum. I recall several individuals from the Madeleine McCann case joining us and being driven off by unnecessarily aggressive questioning.
Some restraint please and note the topic thanx.
But John, Aunt Agatha’s only “real life” involvement with Jeremy Bamber is that she wrote to him in prison in 1993 and became a pen pal, with some phone calls and visits.
She had no real life involvement in the case at all.
And everything she says is just her opinion based on whatever the pathological liar, Jeremy Bamber has told her. There’s several people on here who have had direct contact with him by way of written letters, and possibly more, but they don’t claim to have real life involvement in the case. Even the people who DID have real life involvement with him back in 1985 have said how deceptive and eerie he was, and the two people who probably DID know him better than anyone else, and certainly anyone on here — Brett Collins and Julie Mugford — have both said he’s guilty.
I know nothing about Agatha at all, but she has contradicted herself so may times; and in my view she’s come out with claims that I find hard to believe because they seem so implausible. I’m sure she’s a sweet person, which begs the question: why did Jeremy Bamber force her out? He either grew bored or realised she was of no use to him anymore. But either way, if he really did give her these items (and I still find the whole thing strange, especially the gun), but if he gave her that ponytail of his, which is something a lover or loved one would do, and she also claims he’s the Godfather to her children (how that happened hasn’t been explained...I’ve never been to a Christening & seen a Godparent turn up in a prison van & hold the baby whilst wearing handcuffs), it sounds like they were very close. Yet he’s frozen her out...given her details to Mike Tesko...and hasn’t been in contact with her for years.
So the huge lock of hair, Godfather story, the wetsuit, gun, watches, box etc...all these (if it’s true) clearly meant nothing to him, and he used the hair and box to manipulate her.
-
Maybe this is what you think ‘he wanted’ by giving you his hair
Manipulation springs to mind...
-
So the huge lock of hair, Godfather story, the wetsuit, gun, watches, box etc...all these (if it’s true) clearly meant nothing to him, and he used the hair and box to manipulate her.
Has it been established if Aunt Agatha has a Cartier watch?
(2016) ”Jeremy's Cartier watches were real. I have one here! Will try and find and post pic.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358257.html#msg358257
I have never, Ever, posted photos of Jeremy's belongings until the other day.
?
-
But John, Aunt Agatha’s only “real life” involvement with Jeremy Bamber is that she wrote to him in prison in 1993 and became a pen pal, with some phone calls and visits.
She had no real life involvement in the case at all.
And everything she says is just her opinion based on whatever the pathological liar, Jeremy Bamber has told her. There’s several people on here who have had direct contact with him by way of written letters, and possibly more, but they don’t claim to have real life involvement in the case. Even the people who DID have real life involvement with him back in 1985 have said how deceptive and eerie he was, and the two people who probably DID know him better than anyone else, and certainly anyone on here — Brett Collins and Julie Mugford — have both said he’s guilty.
I know nothing about Agatha at all, but she has contradicted herself so may times; and in my view she’s come out with claims that I find hard to believe because they seem so implausible. I’m sure she’s a sweet person, which begs the question: why did Jeremy Bamber force her out? He either grew bored or realised she was of no use to him anymore. But either way, if he really did give her these items (and I still find the whole thing strange, especially the gun), but if he gave her that ponytail of his, which is something a lover or loved one would do, and she also claims he’s the Godfather to her children (how that happened hasn’t been explained...I’ve never been to a Christening & seen a Godparent turn up in a prison van & hold the baby whilst wearing handcuffs), it sounds like they were very close. Yet he’s frozen her out...given her details to Mike Tesko...and hasn’t been in contact with her for years.
So the huge lock of hair, Godfather story, the wetsuit, gun, watches, box etc...all these (if it’s true) clearly meant nothing to him, and he used the hair and box to manipulate her.
The giving of hair is certainly an intimate gesture associated with love, be it platonic or erotic. The Victorians kept hair from deceased family members and made it into intricate pieces of jewellery and artwork.
-
Almost as spooky as stuffed animals...
https://www.google.com/search?q=victorian+hair+art&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ClPkQ_D5JUw6pM%253A%252CPl621o1ohGqAiM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRSIHEG74b5LUgg5brFKA3YhpE2-g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNspe6-enoAhXdURUIHbX6AskQ9QEwB3oECAoQMg#imgrc=-cpj1BOqakLi9M (https://www.google.com/search?q=victorian+hair+art&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ClPkQ_D5JUw6pM%253A%252CPl621o1ohGqAiM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRSIHEG74b5LUgg5brFKA3YhpE2-g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNspe6-enoAhXdURUIHbX6AskQ9QEwB3oECAoQMg#imgrc=-cpj1BOqakLi9M)
-
The giving of hair is certainly an intimate gesture associated with love, be it platonic or erotic. The Victorians kept hair from deceased family members and made it into intricate pieces of jewellery and artwork.
Bamber’s not the sentimental type
“Locks of hair carry symbolic value and have been utilized throughout history in various religious, superstitious, and sentimental roles.
A primitive belief maintains that owning a lock of hair from another's head gives one power over that individual, in the same manner that owning a piece of clothing or image of an individual grants the owner such powers.
Historically, giving a lock of one's hair to someone has been considered a sign of love and devotion, especially before an impending separation. It is still a popular trope in fiction, particularly the romance genre.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_of_hair
-
No they're not. JB needs to produce some evidence that undermines his conviction to the extent that 3 appeal court judges will take the view that had jurors heard it they may have returned a different verdict.
Which kind of suggests your not sure of his innocence, merely the trial never showed enough to convict?
-
The giving of hair is certainly an intimate gesture associated with love, be it platonic or erotic. The Victorians kept hair from deceased family members and made it into intricate pieces of jewellery and artwork.
Indeed.
I myself have locks of hair of loved ones who’ve died, and both my siblings and myself placed locks of our hair into my mother’s hands when she was in her coffin, having died far too young.
It’s very comforting to have a lock of their hair to look at, touch...
I also keep some in a locket I always wear.
It’s very personal, very special, and not something you’d give to just anyone
I’ve never seen anyone give a loved one a pony tail, though...that goes with his signature...the huge J and B written with a big flourish. Egotistical. It would have actually meant more had it been a small lock of hair IMO
-
Almost as spooky as stuffed animals...
https://www.google.com/search?q=victorian+hair+art&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ClPkQ_D5JUw6pM%253A%252CPl621o1ohGqAiM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRSIHEG74b5LUgg5brFKA3YhpE2-g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNspe6-enoAhXdURUIHbX6AskQ9QEwB3oECAoQMg#imgrc=-cpj1BOqakLi9M (https://www.google.com/search?q=victorian+hair+art&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ClPkQ_D5JUw6pM%253A%252CPl621o1ohGqAiM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRSIHEG74b5LUgg5brFKA3YhpE2-g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNspe6-enoAhXdURUIHbX6AskQ9QEwB3oECAoQMg#imgrc=-cpj1BOqakLi9M)
Oh, that’s far too much! Eerie too.
But a small lock of hair kept in a box in a drawer, or piece of jewellery can be very comforting.
-
Indeed.
I myself have locks of hair of loved ones who’ve died, and both my siblings and myself placed locks of our hair into my mother’s hands when she was in her coffin, having died far too young.
It’s very comforting to have a lock of their hair to look at, touch...
I also keep some in a locket I always wear.
It’s very personal, very special, and something you’d give to just anyone
I’ve never seen anyone give a loved one a pony tail, though...that goes with his signature...the huge J and B written with a big flourish. Egotistical. It would have actually meant more had it been a small lock of hair IMO
Bamber’s all about power and control
A primitive belief maintains that owning a lock of hair from another's head gives one power over that individual, in the same manner that owning a piece of clothing or image of an individual grants the owner such powers.
-
Almost as spooky as stuffed animals...
https://www.google.com/search?q=victorian+hair+art&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ClPkQ_D5JUw6pM%253A%252CPl621o1ohGqAiM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRSIHEG74b5LUgg5brFKA3YhpE2-g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNspe6-enoAhXdURUIHbX6AskQ9QEwB3oECAoQMg#imgrc=-cpj1BOqakLi9M (https://www.google.com/search?q=victorian+hair+art&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ClPkQ_D5JUw6pM%253A%252CPl621o1ohGqAiM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRSIHEG74b5LUgg5brFKA3YhpE2-g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNspe6-enoAhXdURUIHbX6AskQ9QEwB3oECAoQMg#imgrc=-cpj1BOqakLi9M)
Thank-you for that, Myster. Such intricacy and artistry makes my wig-making look easy by comparison, but weaving 3 hairs at a time requires rather more patience and dexterity than working with bundles, perhaps.
-
Thank-you for that, Myster. Such intricacy and artistry makes my wig-making look easy by comparison, but weaving 3 hairs at a time requires rather more patience and dexterity than working with bundles, perhaps.
Maybe Aunt Agatha will donate her lock of hair ?
-
Maybe Aunt Agatha will donate her lock of hair ?
There's certainly enough to do things with. Maybe, one day, it will become an exhibit in The Black Museum?
-
Actually the police would hand over items to a third party if they had taken them into their control as evidence and then decided to return them. If the property belonged to Jeremy as in the air rifle and the wet suit then they were duty bound to return them to Jeremy regardless of his conviction and as he was in prison, effectively homeless and without family, the police would have asked him to designate a keeper for his property. Enter Aunt Agatha.
John, I came upon this (Damn, it won’t paste....I shall get it again)
But here’s a snippet about prisoners possessions and what happens.
According to this, if they’re no longer needed they’re sent to the prison where the prisoner is interred.
IF they’re kept a police station (in the case of people who aren’t convicted etc) the police will write and give you 28 days to collect your property, and if you don’t collect them they auction them off
I shall find the link again
-
There's certainly enough to do things with. Maybe, one day, it will become an exhibit in The Black Museum?
Where is this ‘black museum’?
Is it this one https://the-line-up.com/crime-museum-london
And has anyone ever seen Bambers murder weapon in there?
The headline of the article reads, ”Murder Weapons, Death Masks, and Severed Arms”
Who’s ‘severed arm’ is it and why keep it and what’s the theory of ‘attachment’ on that, or doesn’t it apply to ‘black museum’ artefacts and those who curate them?
-
Where is this ‘black museum’?
Off the top of my head, Nicholas, I'm honestly not sure, but I believe there to be a very famous one somewhere in London? I've certainly seen shots of people examining the artifacts kept there.
-
Off the top of my head, Nicholas, I'm honestly not sure, but I believe there to be a very famous one somewhere in London? I've certainly seen shots of people examining the artifacts kept there.
Is ‘the gun’ in London or Essex or somewhere else?
-
In my view he's innocent and a miscarriage of justice remains.
He’s guilty and has also been committing ‘innocence fraud’ since he was given the opportunity to do so way back when
-
In my view he's innocent and a miscarriage of justice remains.
Hi AA - previously you have said you simply don't know one way or the other - do you still feel like that?
-
I can assure you it is GENUINE.
I'm not posting the back of it incase anybody shows the photo to Jeremy and he thinks I've sold it.
It's upto you to believe what you want.
Agatha, I’m afraid that watch is a fake.
You can tell it is just by looking at it; it’s so cheap and tatty looking. But I verified it first before telling you, otherwise I’ll be jumped on.
Firstly, besides looking so bad, faded, tatty and cheap there’s huge errors.
ALL Cartier watches are made to perfection; they’re crisp, clear; don’t fade; don’t tarnish; and last a lifetime. They also have the words SWISS MADE both on the bottom of the face and on the back: this watch just has the word SWISS
ALL Cartier watches have serial numbers consisting of six digits and two letters: this watch has no letters
ALL Cartier watches have a four digit model number on the back: this one doesn’t
ALL Cartier watches are beautifully engraved with deep perfectly clear, spaced lettering: this one is poorly etched
ALL Cartier watches have the word Cartier inside the leather straps: this one doesn’t.
ALL Cartier watches have identical symbols: the symbols etched on this one are not identical to Cartier’s
If you don’t believe me take it to a jewellery shop, or contact Cartier yourself — they will tell you exactly what I’ve told you. This just proves Jeremy Bamber lied to you, but that shouldn’t be a surprise....he is a pathological liar and very manipulative. I suspect he may have started asking you for money, probably thousands, and with you believing you had his watch worth thousands in your keeping, it would have led you into a false sense of security. It’s obviously one of his MO’s.
By the way, how coincidental that you have twin boys — just like Sheila did. Did he ever flinch when talking about your twin sons’?
-
Agatha, I’m afraid that watch is a fake.
You can tell it is just by looking at it; it’s so cheap and tatty looking. But I verified it first before telling you, otherwise I’ll be jumped on.
Firstly, besides looking so bad, faded, tatty and cheap there’s huge errors.
ALL Cartier watches are made to perfection; they’re crisp, clear; don’t fade; don’t tarnish; and last a lifetime. They also have the words SWISS MADE both on the bottom of the face and on the back: this watch just has the word SWISS
ALL Cartier watches have serial numbers consisting of six digits and two letters: this watch has no letters
ALL Cartier watches have a four digit model number on the back: this one doesn’t
ALL Cartier watches are beautifully engraved with deep perfectly clear, spaced lettering: this one is poorly etched
ALL Cartier watches have the word Cartier inside the leather straps: this one doesn’t.
ALL Cartier watches have identical symbols: the symbols etched on this one are not identical to Cartier’s
If you don’t believe me take it to a jewellery shop, or contact Cartier yourself — they will tell you exactly what I’ve told you. This just proves Jeremy Bamber lied to you, but that shouldn’t be a surprise....he is a pathological liar and very manipulative. I suspect he may have started asking you for money, probably thousands, and with you believing you had his watch worth thousands in your keeping, it would have led you into a false sense of security. It’s obviously one of his MO’s.
By the way, how coincidental that you have twin boys — just like Sheila did. Did he ever flinch when talking about your twin sons’?
The Cartier is most likely genuine. It's just had a lot of wear, that's all. Aunt Agatha's watch...
(https://i.imgur.com/Vgk2Ezd.jpg)
The back of a similar Cartier from a reputable jeweller...
(https://i.imgur.com/XvD54kS.png)
https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/watches/wrist-watches/cartier-vermeil-vendome-large-blue-dial-quartz-wristw..ch/id-j_2676793/ (https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/watches/wrist-watches/cartier-vermeil-vendome-large-blue-dial-quartz-wristw..ch/id-j_2676793/)
-
The Cartier is most likely genuine. It's just had a lot of wear, that's all. Aunt Agatha's watch...
(https://i.imgur.com/Vgk2Ezd.jpg)
The back of a similar Cartier from a reputable jeweller...
(https://i.imgur.com/XvD54kS.png)
https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/watches/wrist-watches/cartier-vermeil-vendome-large-blue-dial-quartz-wristw..ch/id-j_2676793/ (https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/watches/wrist-watches/cartier-vermeil-vendome-large-blue-dial-quartz-wristw..ch/id-j_2676793/)
Good close ups, Myster. Just a thought, though. The plating(vermeil) on the case of AA's watch looks particularly worn -I would have expected plating on a Cartier to be of a quality and thickness more hard wearing- conversely, the strap leather which is doubled back, despite that it would have been subjected to to the same conditions as the case, shows no sign of wear.
-
Good close ups, Myster. Just a thought, though. The plating(vermeil) on the case of AA's watch looks particularly worn -I would have expected plating on a Cartier to be of a quality and thickness more hard wearing- conversely, the strap leather which is doubled back, despite that it would have been subjected to to the same conditions as the case, shows no sign of wear.
The plating might have been subjected to acidity from sweat/perspiration or discoloured by perfume/deodorant. Unsure about the strap though. Unless AA has already had it assessed, I think it would be best to confirm authenticity or otherwise with a jeweller.
-
The plating might have been subjected to acidity from sweat/perspiration or discoloured by perfume/deodorant. Unsure about the strap though. Unless AA has already had it assessed, I think it would be best to confirm authenticity or otherwise with a jeweller.
I absolutely get that, Myster -and I'm only making an observation, not making claims about authenticity- but I would have thought that leather, being more porous, might have shown signs of being subjected to those things you mention, before good quality plating.
-
You're assuming Julie to have seen and handled said watch, possibly to have been with her when it was sold. Other than that, we really only have Suzette Ford's word for it.
Isn’t Bamber meant to have told Suzette Ford SC punched her boys in the face?
If this were true why didn’t he raise the alarm with CC or his parents - why choose to tell SF?
His nephews are allegedly being assaulted and yet he appears to have displayed no genuine concerns?
What did he expect SF to do?
-
Agatha, I’m afraid that watch is a fake.
You can tell it is just by looking at it; it’s so cheap and tatty looking. But I verified it first before telling you, otherwise I’ll be jumped on.
Firstly, besides looking so bad, faded, tatty and cheap there’s huge errors.
ALL Cartier watches are made to perfection; they’re crisp, clear; don’t fade; don’t tarnish; and last a lifetime. They also have the words SWISS MADE both on the bottom of the face and on the back: this watch just has the word SWISS
ALL Cartier watches have serial numbers consisting of six digits and two letters: this watch has no letters
ALL Cartier watches have a four digit model number on the back: this one doesn’t
ALL Cartier watches are beautifully engraved with deep perfectly clear, spaced lettering: this one is poorly etched
ALL Cartier watches have the word Cartier inside the leather straps: this one doesn’t.
ALL Cartier watches have identical symbols: the symbols etched on this one are not identical to Cartier’s
If you don’t believe me take it to a jewellery shop, or contact Cartier yourself — they will tell you exactly what I’ve told you. This just proves Jeremy Bamber lied to you, but that shouldn’t be a surprise....he is a pathological liar and very manipulative. I suspect he may have started asking you for money, probably thousands, and with you believing you had his watch worth thousands in your keeping, it would have led you into a false sense of security. It’s obviously one of his MO’s.
By the way, how coincidental that you have twin boys — just like Sheila did. Did he ever flinch when talking about your twin sons’?
Appears it is
-
Sue Ford sold a Cartier watch given to her by Jeremy Bamber for £150 in the mid 1980's, according to Julie Mugford. Surely Julie didn't tell lies?
Did JM & SF talk with each other & is this how she found out the watch had been sold?
or
Did Bamber tell JM SF had sold the watch for £150?
-
That does not change a thing. He gave me other items as I've disclosed here that I got rid of. I'm not compelled to keep anything of his. I have chosen to keep them safe.
But you didn’t keep the wetsuit ‘safe’?
-
I do not trust the CCRC or the Police where Jeremy is concerned.
Why not?
-
Posters are again reminded to stay on topic.
Admin
-
There is a pattern with Jeremy Bamber involving his female admirers which started with Julie Mugford.
What about the pattern of his male ‘admirers’ ?
-
What about the pattern of his male ‘admirers’ ?
Brett Collins doesn't admire him any more, in fact he too realises now that Bamber is guilty.
Now can we revert to topic please.
-
Did JM & SF talk with each other & is this how she found out the watch had been sold?
or
Did Bamber tell JM SF had sold the watch for £150?
I don't know. According to CAL (page 99 Kindle ed) Jeremy didn't know she sold it to a 'mutual friend'.
-
I don't know. According to CAL (page 99 Kindle ed) Jeremy didn't know she sold it to a 'mutual friend'.
We’re JM & SF ‘mutual’ friends?
-
Brett Collins doesn't admire him any more, in fact he too realises now that Bamber is guilty.
Aren’t there male ‘admirers’ on his CT?
-
We’re JM & SF ‘mutual’ friends?
I don't know that either.
-
We’re JM & SF ‘mutual’ friends?
No.
-
Aren’t there male ‘admirers’ on his CT?
I believe many individuals support him from all walks of life. Of course he has many detractors too.
-
Brett Collins doesn't admire him any more, in fact he too realises now that Bamber is guilty.
Now can we revert to topic please.
Do you really believe that DE article?
-
No.
Source
-
Where is this ‘black museum’?
Is it this one https://the-line-up.com/crime-museum-london
And has anyone ever seen Bambers murder weapon in there?
The headline of the article reads, ”Murder Weapons, Death Masks, and Severed Arms”
Who’s ‘severed arm’ is it and why keep it and what’s the theory of ‘attachment’ on that, or doesn’t it apply to ‘black museum’ artefacts and those who curate them?
It’s in New Scotland Yard, Nicholas.
I’ve never been there, myself
The Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's is creepy & I’ve been to MT a handful of times when visitors from abroad have come to stay.
I think, unless my memory is playing tricks, but I’m sure they had Dennis Nielsen in there, along with the actual saucepan he boiled heads in. They did a mock-up of his poky, scruffy kitchen too...
-
The Cartier is most likely genuine. It's just had a lot of wear, that's all. Aunt Agatha's watch...
(https://i.imgur.com/Vgk2Ezd.jpg)
The back of a similar Cartier from a reputable jeweller...
(https://i.imgur.com/XvD54kS.png)
https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/watches/wrist-watches/cartier-vermeil-vendome-large-blue-dial-quartz-wristw..ch/id-j_2676793/ (https://www.1stdibs.com/jewelry/watches/wrist-watches/cartier-vermeil-vendome-large-blue-dial-quartz-wristw..ch/id-j_2676793/)
That’s definitely a fake.
Phone Carter and send them a photo.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You really do not read what I post.
I've already told you the strap was replaced. It's not an original.
Yes, phone Cartier and see what they have to say.
I'm not interested in proving its genuine to you - you have more information than you know.
I'm out of here!
-
It’s in New Scotland Yard, Nicholas.
DONT THINK ITS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ISPY,JUST RESEARCHERS ETC.. THERES QUITE FEW DOCUMENTARIES ON YOU TUBE, apologies for the caps, couldn't highlight your statement.
I’ve never been there, myself
The Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's is creepy & I’ve been to MT a handful of times when visitors from abroad have come to stay.
I think, unless my memory is playing tricks, but I’m sure they had Dennis Nielsen in there, along with the actual saucepan he boiled heads in. They did a mock-up of his poky, scruffy kitchen too...
-
The plating might have been subjected to acidity from sweat/perspiration or discoloured by perfume/deodorant. Unsure about the strap though. Unless AA has already had it assessed, I think it would be best to confirm authenticity or otherwise with a jeweller.
Quality watches don’t perish, Myster.
I personally don’t care if it’s a fake or genuine, but having checked the Cartier site and how to distinguish between a genuine and fake one, I’m believing them.
They insist there’s always a model number on the back, including a serial number containing six digits and two letters.
Besides all that, I’ve never seen such a dreadful looking watch, ever. And if it’s been sat in a box for 30 years it would be exactly as it was back then.
If it was genuine, JB would have a lot of explaining to do where he got the money from to buy not one, but two — the one he gave to his ex. But unless I saw certification and definite proof I’m choosing to believe Cartier that this piece of tat is a bad fake
-
Isn’t Bamber meant to have told Suzette Ford SC punched her boys in the face?
If this were true why didn’t he raise the alarm with CC or his parents - why choose to tell SF?
His nephews are allegedly being assaulted and yet he appears to have displayed no genuine concerns?
What did he expect SF to do?
He claimed Sheila punched one of the twins when the whole family were in the car!
He’s an evil rotten liar.
-
Quality watches don’t perish, Myster.
I personally don’t care if it’s a fake or genuine, but having checked the Carrie site and hw to distinguish between a genuine and fake one, I’m believing them.
They insist there’s always a model number on the back, including a serial number containing six digits and two letters.
Besides all that, I’ve never seen such a dreadful looking watch, ever. And if it’s been sat in a box for 30 years it would be exactly as it was back then.
If it was genuine, JB would have a lot of explaining to do where he got the money from to but not one, but two — the one he gave to his ex. But unless I saw certification and definite proof I’m choosing to believe Cartier that this pice off tat is a bad fake
When I say a box, neither a watch box or granny's box, just a box along with other stuff. I never wrapped it, covered it etc, I put it away in the loft and it stayed there for years.
You already have all this info. Read posts carefully and you might come to the correct conclusion. Fake info will give a fake result!!
-
I believe many individuals support him from all walks of life. Of course he has many detractors too.
On Twitter he only has Trudie Benjamin regularly posting and she seldom gets any responses, not even likes.
She and her “team” regularly tag Priti Patel for help, and she never acknowledges the little group....
They certainly have thick skin to be constantly rejected, ignored, and derided for supporting the mass murderer, Jeremy Bamber, but keep banging on. Gosh, he’s spending his fifth decade in prison now...you'd think they’d know they’re flogging a dead horse by now. The evidence against him was overwhelming, and nothing’s changed. They certainly have a lot of steel!
-
Do you really believe that DE article?
He said it live on camera from New Zealand in February just gone.
He was talking to GMTV standing by a bridge where one of the presenter’s, I think it was Kate said how he’d be interviewed the next day to say why he believed Jeremy Bamber was guilty. He said a few words in agreement, but I missed the interview the next day so never saw it.
However, he’s adamant JB is guilty.
-
Quality watches don’t perish, Myster.
I personally don’t care if it’s a fake or genuine, but having checked the Cartier site and how to distinguish between a genuine and fake one, I’m believing them.
They insist there’s always a model number on the back, including a serial number containing six digits and two letters.
Besides all that, I’ve never seen such a dreadful looking watch, ever. And if it’s been sat in a box for 30 years it would be exactly as it was back then.
If it was genuine, JB would have a lot of explaining to do where he got the money from to buy not one, but two — the one he gave to his ex. But unless I saw certification and definite proof I’m choosing to believe Cartier that this piece of tat is a bad fake
Agreed
-
He claimed Sheila punched one of the twins when the whole family were in the car!
He’s an evil rotten liar.
Appears he did so to smear her name
-
When I say a box, neither a watch box or granny's box, just a box along with other stuff. I never wrapped it, covered it etc, I put it away in the loft and it stayed there for years.
You already have all this info. Read posts carefully and you might come to the correct conclusion. Fake info will give a fake result!!
e author=Aunt Agatha link=topic=9666.msg583876#msg583876 date=1587047939]
When I say a box, neither a watch box or granny's box, just a box along with other stuff. I never wrapped it, covered it etc, I put it away in the loft and it stayed there for years.
You already have all this info. Read posts carefully and you might come to the correct conclusion. Fake info will give a fake result!!
[/quote]
So you must have put the Cartier in a box then, Agatha? You’ve posted it up inside a watch box.
You’re right, fake information throws up fake results.
You said more than once before posting the picture of the Cartier watch that you DIDN’T have a Cartier watch belonging to Jeremy. So you’re both right and wrong. You’re right in that I read posts carefully, and you’re wrong that I come to incorrect conclusions: I went by what YOU said. You said “I do not have a Cartier watch of Jeremy’s”, despite previously — and SINCE — claiming you do.
-
When I replied to your post last night Caroline I was half asleep and didn't recognise you wrote Cartier.
I do not have a Cartier watch of Jeremy's, I have a genuine omega and what could be a fake role.
I have two seiko watches of his also, which I purchased for him some 25yrs ago.
I apologise for the confusion.
I can’t post pictures — again
No idea why...
So I’ve pulled this down, Agatha
In your post you state: “I do not have a Cartier watch of Jeremy’s “
-
Appears he did so to smear her name
Of course he did, he’s utterly vile.
Sheila never, ever laid one finger on her boys. And as if she’d PUNCH one in their face with June & Nevill sat in the front of the car & Jeremy sat next to her! He’s mad.
He’s trying to make her out to have been a beefy, aggressive maniac. A child batterer. He’s absolutely putrid.
What’s more, if a small six-year-old was punched in the face by an adult they’d possibly have a broken nose or/and black eye. Sheila must have had a very weak punch, eh?!
Honestly, the evil lies that piece of dirt spouts is sickening. No wonder they increased his sentenced to Life with no Parole.
-
e author=Aunt Agatha link=topic=9666.msg583876#msg583876 date=1587047939]
When I say a box, neither a watch box or granny's box, just a box along with other stuff. I never wrapped it, covered it etc, I put it away in the loft and it stayed there for years.
You already have all this info. Read posts carefully and you might come to the correct conclusion. Fake info will give a fake result!!
So you must have put the Cartier in a box then, Agatha? You’ve posted it up inside a watch box.
You’re right, fake information throws up fake results.
You said more than once before posting the picture of the Cartier watch that you DIDN’T have a Cartier watch belonging to Jeremy. So you’re both right and wrong. You’re right in that I read posts carefully, and you’re wrong that I come to incorrect conclusions: I went by what YOU said. You said “I do not have a Cartier watch of Jeremy’s”, despite previously — and SINCE — claiming you do.
You really do read what you want, perceive it how you want then deliberately misguide readers on here.
You are aware, having looked at the watch for the first time in years (having forgot all about it) I read the post on here and decided to look for it, remember, that I said I had mistakenly stated I had an omega.... It was not an omega it was a Cartier!
I apologised for my error and posted pictures of the watch as you suggested I had taken a photo from the Internet.
I put the watch into a box only a few days ago.... Its not a Cartier box, I never stated I had a Cartier box. Just a Cartier watch.
-
In addition, Mike never even knew I existed until he found the paperwork!
Why didn’t Bamber want Mike to know about your existence?
-
Must I really explain?
Spy stated in the post that Jeremy had told me he didn't like his grandmother and that I had posted as such.
Again, I have never stated such a thing and would like her to show us all we're that information came from.
Could you have made the alleged comment years ago & have forgotten?
-
When I say a box, neither a watch box or granny's box, just a box along with other stuff. I never wrapped it, covered it etc, I put it away in the loft and it stayed there for years.
You already have all this info. Read posts carefully and you might come to the correct conclusion. Fake info will give a fake result!!
It’s in a watch box in one of your pictures, Agatha...
-
I've just stated, I found the watch, put it in a watch box and photo'd it! What part of that do you not understand?
-
You really do read what you want, perceive it how you want then deliberately misguide readers on here.
You are aware, having looked at the watch for the first time in years (having forgot all about it) I read the post on here and decided to look for it, remember, that I said I had mistakenly stated I had an omega.... It was not an omega it was a Cartier!
I apologised for my error and posted pictures of the watch as you suggested I had taken a photo from the Internet.
I put the watch into a box only a few days ago.... Its not a Cartier box, I never stated I had a Cartier box. Just a Cartier watch.
I’m more confused now, Agatha
I do apologise
Are you saying the photo you posted was from the internet?
I’ve made bold your sentence, but in case it doesn’t work this is what you wrote:
“I apologised for my error and posted pictures of the watch as you suggested I had taken from the internet”
I don’t recall suggesting you take photos from the internet?
-
Why didn’t Bamber want Mike to know about your existence?
I've never suggested that Jeremy DIDN'T WANT MIKE TO KNOW ABOUT ME!
Jeremy has a private life and not everything is for the public domain.
-
I’m more confused now, Agatha
I do apologise
Are you saying the photo you posted was from the internet?
I’ve made bold your sentence, but in case it doesn’t work this is what you wrote:
“I apologised for my error and posted pictures of the watch as you suggested I had taken from the internet”
I don’t recall suggesting you take photos from the internet?
You suggested the photo I posted was a fake and could have been taken from the Internet.
Im not prepared to amuse you during your boredom.
-
Could you have made the alleged comment years ago & have forgotten?
Agatha,
Your post here:
“ Quote from: Aunt Agatha on April 14, 2020, 04:34:45 PM
Must I really explain?
Spy stated in the post that Jeremy had told me he didn't like his grandmother and that I had posted as such.
Again, I have never stated such a thing and would like her to show us all we're that information came from.”
I certainly don’t recall saying to you that Jeremy told you he didn’t like his grandmother?
I’ve never heard of him saying he disliked her.
Maybe the confusion has come from when I (in one post) mistook you for Daisy, for which I later apologised. Daisy said that he’d told her he’d never, ever liked her — meaning Daisy. He wasn’t talking about his grandmother.
I did say that after he shot dead all his family, including Granny Speakman’s daughter, June, she’d disinherited him from her will, and he had the outrageous nerve to contest it despite murdering her daughter and going against her wishes that he was not entitled to one penny.
-
Agatha,
Your post here:
“ Quote from: Aunt Agatha on April 14, 2020, 04:34:45 PM
Must I really explain?
Spy stated in the post that Jeremy had told me he didn't like his grandmother and that I had posted as such.
Again, I have never stated such a thing and would like her to show us all we're that information came from.”
I certainly don’t recall saying to you that Jeremy told you he didn’t like his grandmother?
I’ve never heard of him saying he disliked her.
Maybe the confusion has come from when I (in one post) mistook you for Daisy, for which I later apologised. Daisy said that he’d told her he’d never, ever liked her — meaning Daisy. He wasn’t talking about his grandmother.
I did say that after he shot dead all his family, including Granny Speakman’s daughter, June, she’d disinherited him from her will, and he had the outrageous nerve to contest it despite murdering her daughter and going against her wishes that he was not entitled to one penny.
Now you're mixing posts from different contributors.
Misleading again.
-
Why didn’t Bamber want Mike to know about your existence?
Is Mike Tesko gay?
-
Is Mike Tesko gay?
Howay Spy - that's an inappropriate question - this is all getting a bit personal - lefts rain it back a bit. Mike isn't gay but that really shouldn't matter to anyone.
-
I've never suggested that Jeremy DIDN'T WANT MIKE TO KNOW ABOUT ME!
Jeremy has a private life and not everything is for the public domain.
Agatha, I can assure you no-one is remotely interested in the convicted murderer, Jeremy Bamber. In fact, very few people under 40 have even heard about his heinous crimes — let alone him. He doesn’t really have a life stuck in prison — and no-one cares what he does in his cell. He’s not a celebrity, dear — he’s a mass murderer who also shot dead two six-year-old boys...
We’re just discussing him murdering all his family and the crime he committed — that’s all.
-
Agatha, I can assure you no-one is remotely interested in the convicted murderer, Jeremy Bamber. In fact, very few people under 40 have even heard about his heinous crimes — let alone him. He doesn’t really have a life stuck in prison — and no-one cares what he does in his cell. He’s not a celebrity, dear — he’s a mass murderer who also shot dead two six-year-old boys...
We’re just discussing him murdering all his family and the crime he committed — that’s all.
In my opinion you're obsessed with Jeremy Bamber.
-
In my opinion you're obsessed with Jeremy Bamber.
I thought you didn’t “do” personal?
-
In my opinion you're obsessed with Jeremy Bamber.
But she isn't the one sticking up for him and making excuses for his behaviour.
-
In my opinion you're obsessed with Jeremy Bamber.
That just proves how wrong you are about everything, G-Unit.
That’s a ludicrous thing to say, or even think, which just shows how your brain works...
-
But she isn't the one sticking up for him and making excuses for his behaviour.
There's an awful lot of speculation about him, his life, his sexuality and his personality though, isn't there?
-
There's an awful lot of speculation about him, his life, his sexuality and his personality though, isn't there?
We are all here speculating not so much about him because we know what he did which most of us find abhorrent. Does the fact we are posting mean we are obsessed. Do you think you are? I most certainly am not ... the very thought of him makes my flesh creep.
-
There's an awful lot of speculation about him, his life, his sexuality and his personality though, isn't there?
But he’s the subject of this thread?
Of course he, his life, character is going to be discussed — what do you expect people to discuss?
I suspect that you have some weird fascination with him (which I suspected anyway) and so you presume other people would too! Fortunately, most of the human race are repelled by mass murderers who shoot dead children; who are evil, psychopathic and vile. But you carry on in your little world believing he’s innocent, kind, caring, nice...and if he were to ever get out (he won’t, though) you’d have two things in common: you’re both cruel to dogs, and you’re both totally deluded.
-
There's an awful lot of speculation about him, his life, his sexuality and his personality though, isn't there?
But none at all about Sheila or about June of course, no none at all.
-
We are all here speculating not so much about him because we know what he did which most of us find abhorrent. Does the fact we are posting mean we are obsessed. Do you think you are? I most certainly am not ... the very thought of him makes my flesh creep.
I've never been sure whether or not he's guilty, but, from what I've heard and read about him, I don't think I would like him, whether innocent or guilty. What is fascinating, is the case.
A young woman with a serious mental illness, who seems (unlike her brother) very likeable, and who COULD have done it, even if none of us want her to have done it-----because, very sadly, mentally ill people sometimes do dreadful things like killing their own children.
A rather dislikeable, greedy, possibly jealous brother, with a very believable motive,and some "form", who, at first, was not thought to have done it, but who was eventually found guilty, and who, 35 years later, is still protesting his innocence.
Two children killed----and the murder of children is always heartbreaking.
An adoptive mother, also with mental health problems, who appears not to have had good relationships with either of her children.
People in the background, who seem to have had a lot of influence, one way or another, but who also seem (IMO), to be either "dodgy", dislikeable, or both.
A "goodie " and a "baddie" policeman, both called Jones.
Police logs indicating two phone calls, and an indication that someone was alive inside the farm while JB was outside with the police-----------------but then, they are probably faked (??)
A firearms massacre in rural Essex----that, in itself, is probably unheard of.
You couldn't make it up. it sounds like fiction------but, very sadly, it isn't.
To be honest, at the end of the day, it was an appalling crime, but a very interesting one. I suspect Jeremy, himself, is not very interesting at all.
-
But he’s the subject of this thread?
Of course he, his life, character is going to be discussed — what do you expect people to discuss?
I suspect that you have some weird fascination with him (which I suspected anyway) and so you presume other people would too! Fortunately, most of the human race are repelled by mass murderers who shoot dead children; who are evil, psychopathic and vile. But you carry on in your little world believing he’s innocent, kind, caring, nice...and if he were to ever get out (he won’t, though) you’d have two things in common: you’re both cruel to dogs, and you’re both totally deluded.
I thought Nevill's watch was the subject of this thread.
-
I thought Nevill's watch was the subject of this thread.
Well, it was back in 2018 until Aunt Agatha suddenly popped up a week ago & the conversation progressed to fake watches, Cartiers that Jeremy was rumoured to have stolen, Granny Speakman’s wooden box, and an exhibit of a cut ponytail which JB had possibly stuffed up his anus to present to Aunt Agatha on one of her visits to him. I can’t think of anywhere else he’d hidden it, considering inmates are searched before seeing their visitors...can you?
-
Well, it was back in 2018 until Aunt Agatha suddenly popped up a week ago & the conversation progressed to fake watches, Cartiers that Jeremy was rumoured to have stolen, Granny Speakman’s wooden box, and an exhibit of a cut ponytail which JB had possibly stuffed up his anus to present to Aunt Agatha on one of her visits to him. I can’t think of anywhere else he’d hidden it, considering inmates are searched before seeing their visitors...can you?
Sorry, but Aunt Agatha's claims don't interest me at all. I have wondered how and why the mat was on top of Nevill's watch in the kitchen though.
-
Sorry, but Aunt Agatha's claims don't interest me at all. I have wondered how and why the mat was on top of Nevill's watch in the kitchen though.
It’s hardly rocket science to work out Nevill’s watch flew off across the kitchen during the violent struggle & then the mat slid some time after that & simply covered it.
It’s simple.
-
Fair enough
But you did say he used to say the silencer was attached to the gun but then he changed his mind
How many years was it before he changed his mind about the silencer evidence, can you remember?
Please, do not spread misinformation Nicholas.
He was told, and supposedly proven at court, that the silencer was used. He had no evidence, proof or paperwork at that time to suggest otherwise.
I'd have to look through my paperwork to find this out and that something I'm not prepared to do.
However, it was years later.... Mike Tesco would be a more valuable source than I regarding that.
What paperwork are you referring to?
-
Caroline, you are so right!!
I apologise. Sincerely.
I haven't looked at the watch for twenty years or so and here it is. I DO NOT have an omega of Jeremy's.
I was mistaken.
Did Bamber tell you this was real?
-
Aunt Agatha I asked you here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358336.html#msg358336
”What makes you believe in his innocence?”
you replied,
That's a really tough question to answer, coming from you”
Why was it a ‘tough question’ coming from me?
What did you mean?
You then stated,
”You've been in my situation - I remember you standing up for Simon, alone at times.
You were steadfast in your view.....and your feelings only confirmed what you thought.
I felt that way about Jeremy too”
Why didn’t you acknowledge the exposure of Simon Halls guilt and subsequent suicide?
And you appear to be doing the same now?
What’s that all about?
-
You then stated,
”You've been in my situation - I remember you standing up for Simon, alone at times.
You were steadfast in your view.....and your feelings only confirmed what you thought.
I felt that way about Jeremy too”
You used the past tense when referring to Bamber, why?
Why did you write/type
felt and not feel ? I feel that way...
You stated you felt that way ?
It read to me at the time like you had doubts
Did you have doubts?
-
You then stated,
”You've been in my situation - I remember you standing up for Simon, alone at times.
You were steadfast in your view.....and your feelings only confirmed what you thought.
And in reality what would you know about my feelings Aunt Agatha?
It might be worthwhile for you go back and look at what you posted so you can see with you own eyes what you wrote exactly and the context in which you wrote it
Here’s the direct link again http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358336.html#msg358336
Prior to the above you wrote,
‘You know how it is Stephanie - we move on! I don't hear from him, I don't contact him and I would never betray him either.
As you know Simon Hall’s guilt had been exposed and he’d been dead for over two years
And just the other day you made reference to Simon Hall and apparently of how you perceive my position to be?
You stated,
”Are you telling me you would not have done the same for your husband when he claimed his innocence... Only to later to declare he was a murderer?”
&
“You, of all people, are in no position to judge me”
Simon Hall was a murderer Aunt Agatha.
&
He’s dead ergo we are no longer married and he’s no longer my husband
Of Bamber you stated, “I would never betray him”
I found it strange how back then you appeared unable to recognise how Simon Hall betrayed me?
Maybe it was because you were too busy thinking about yourself?
Or is there another reason?
When you stated,
“You know how it is Stephanie - we move on! I don't hear from him, I don't contact him”
No Aunt Agatha, I didn’t ’know how it is’ nor did I hear from him or contact him because he was dead!
-
I wonder if the two Cartiers were rifled from Granny Speakman's safe?
-
I wonder if the two Cartiers were rifled from Granny Speakman's safe?
Aunt Agatha doesn’t seem to care where they came from or who they may have belonged to ?
-
I wonder if the two Cartiers were rifled from Granny Speakman's safe?
Had the “Cartier” that Agatha posted up looked genuine, I’d say that’s a big possibility — especially as Jeremy contested Granny Speakman’s will as she’d disinherited him after he killed her daughter...
But that cheap, tatty-looking watch would never have adorned the wrist of a woman who was elegant.
And had it been genuine, the grasping, thieving Jeremy wouldn’t have given it away...he’d give a fake away, though...
-
There's an element of truth in what Collins is now saying about where those diamonds came from, and after blowing his $5,000 (£2,500) on a crooked heroin dealer, Bamber was hawking them around Auckland jewellers for some ready cash.
-
There's an element of truth in what Collins is now saying about where those diamonds came from, and after blowing his $5,000 (£2,500) on a crooked heroin dealer, Bamber was hawking them around Auckland jewellers for some ready cash.
Yes, Myster. Whilst I dismissed some of what BC said as effect value, I had an "Aha" moment when it came to the diamonds. My only rider is that having once, by accident, managed to remove a diamond from it setting, it occurs to me that it must have taken some time to get a bag full of stones worth selling, and I wonder, too, when their loss was discovered and what was done regarding it. I very much doubt that there were any tiara's in the haul, though.
-
Yes, Myster. Whilst I dismissed some of what BC said as effect value, I had an "Aha" moment when it came to the diamonds. My only rider is that having once, by accident, managed to remove a diamond from it setting, it occurs to me that it must have taken some time to get a bag full of stones worth selling, and I wonder, too, when their loss was discovered and what was done regarding it. I very much doubt that there were any tiara's in the haul, though.
Bamber's parents hushed up the Osea burglary. Maybe this was the first occasion they let him off the hook.
-
Bamber's parents hushed up the Osea burglary. Maybe this was the first occasion they let him off the hook.
Perhaps it comes under the heading of being one of those "Jeremy did other things" incidents?
-
I had to go to the police and reported it. Arrests where not made at the time. I decided to remove myself completely and closed any social media links I had. I was not prepared to battle this out amongst obsessive Bamberettes.
I'd done my bit now it was time for others to take the reins and be there for him. I bowed out with dignity.
Let's leave it there!
You were ‘battling this out’ indirectly with Bamber
He was playing each of you off against the other
You were no longer useful to him
And I’m guessing if you read back through some of his letters/paperwork you’ll start to recognise this - if you choose to that is
-
There's an element of truth in what Collins is now saying about where those diamonds came from, and after blowing his $5,000 (£2,500) on a crooked heroin dealer, Bamber was hawking them around Auckland jewellers for some ready cash.
What makes Brett Collins revelations so reliable is that he couldn’t have known many of things that were being said about the diamonds etc, as he went back to NZ shortly afterwards.
He wouldn’t have heard all the talk/gossip...nor read about it in the NZ press except for snippets.
The diamonds make sense now. And when they talk about a bag of diamonds they’re probably meaning half a dozen/maybe 10...That’s how diamond merchants sell them loose...I’ve seen small bags of them with my own eyes. It’s more than possible Granny Speakman was given loose diamonds by her husband or relatives; possibly brought back from Africa
Doubt she had a tiara (that’s a JB grandiose lie)...she may have had jewelled hair ornaments from when she was young, but maybe she did have a small wedding tiara...who knows?
If he managed to prise diamonds out, it wouldn’t have been traditional settings as they need special tools. Without knowing what she had it’s hard to know, but I think it’s possible she had loose diamonds: maybe he stole half of them and thought she wouldn’t notice.
I bet he stole SO MUCH over the years
-
Yes, Myster. Whilst I dismissed some of what BC said as effect value, I had an "Aha" moment when it came to the diamonds. My only rider is that having once, by accident, managed to remove a diamond from it setting, it occurs to me that it must have taken some time to get a bag full of stones worth selling, and I wonder, too, when their loss was discovered and what was done regarding it. I very much doubt that there were any tiara's in the haul, though.
Why?
-
You were ‘battling this out’ indirectly with Bamber
He was playing each of you off against the other
You were no longer useful to him
And I’m guessing if you read back through some of his letters/paperwork you’ll start to recognise this - if you choose to that is
He played SF off against JM.
Here’s an extract, again from her 10th Sept 1985 statement;
Whilst in New Zealand Jeremy has told me he stole two Cartier watches. He did it by walking into a jewellers, asking to see them, then when the assistant got them out he snatched them and ran off. He changed his hair colour and style by having it permed and dyed blonde. He told me he stole them because he had run out of money and had wanted to bring something nice back for Sue the women he was living with. She would apparently have been upset if he had not brought her something nice back as she is materialistic.
Why did Bamber tell JM that SF was apparently materialistic - to make her jealous maybe or to make her think by telling her this she wasn’t to have the same expectations of him?
And is that why he spent a couple of hundred pounds on a suit for himself and brought her a £20 dress ?
-
I had to go to the police and reported it. Arrests where not made at the time. I decided to remove myself completely and closed any social media links I had. I was not prepared to battle this out amongst obsessive Bamberettes.
I'd done my bit now it was time for others to take the reins and be there for him. I bowed out with dignity.
Let's leave it there!
Are you scared Aunt Agatha?
Are you scared if you repeat things that are meant to stay between you and Bamber you might suffer abuse by the ‘obsessive Bamberettes’ ?
You don’t need to be - if you are
-
He played SF off against JM.
Here’s an extract, again from her 10th Sept 1985 statement;
Whilst in New Zealand Jeremy has told me he stole two Cartier watches. He did it by walking into a jewellers, asking to see them, then when the assistant got them out he snatched them and ran off. He changed his hair colour and style by having it permed and dyed blonde. He told me he stole them because he had run out of money and had wanted to bring something nice back for Sue the women he was living with. She would apparently have been upset if he had not brought her something nice back as she is materialistic.
I believe Julie’s account of what she said JB told her, but he was lying to her. Julie did seem very gullible when interviewed on TV.
I don’t think JB would have had the guts to steal watches from a jeweller’s in that way. It was too risky. And only high class jewellers sell Cartier watches — not some little jewellery’s shop tucked down a dingy High Street.
And if he DID steal them as he’d run out of money, why give one away? His story doesn’t add up.
I say that Cartier watch Agatha posted is a fake: a poor fake at that. And Jeremy picked it up in Bangkok or wherever for a fiver.
He just wanted to make himself look like a fearless wide boy...
He was just a snivelling lazy coward.
Why did Bamber tell JM that SF was apparently materialistic - to make her jealous maybe or to make her think by telling her this she wasn’t to have the same expectations of him?
And is that why he spent a couple of hundred pounds on a suit for himself and brought her a £20 dress ?
-
“I don’t think JB would have had the guts to steal watches from a jeweller’s in that way. It was too risky. And only high class jewellers sell Cartier watches — not some little jewellery’s shop tucked down a dingy High Street. I agree
And if he DID steal them as he’d run out of money, why give one away? His story doesn’t add up. Of course it doesn’t
I say that Cartier watch Agatha posted is a fake: a poor fake at that. And Jeremy picked it up in Bangkok or wherever for a fiver. I agree”
The rumour is SF apparently sold her watch for £150, is that right?
Where did this rumour originate?
JM’s witness statement refers to 2 alleged stolen Cartier watches ?
So what did SF tell the police when she was interviewed and asked about the watch?
When Bamber’s questioned by police he says,
“I’ve told a lot of people a lot of different stories to make me seem a bit of a jack the lad.”
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=suzette+ford+cartier+watch+bamber&source=bl&ots=h8PnKDNhSn&sig=ACfU3U1YGVCyRbbFBpeeiJ5NoAHRpdjm9A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjepc[Name removed]gfjoAhVXQ0EAHYZ9Ad4Q6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=suzette%20ford%20cartier%20watch%20bamber&f=false
Was there only ever the one watch ?
-
“I don’t think JB would have had the guts to steal watches from a jeweller’s in that way. It was too risky. And only high class jewellers sell Cartier watches — not some little jewellery’s shop tucked down a dingy High Street. I agree
And if he DID steal them as he’d run out of money, why give one away? His story doesn’t add up. Of course it doesn’t
I say that Cartier watch Agatha posted is a fake: a poor fake at that. And Jeremy picked it up in Bangkok or wherever for a fiver. I agree”
The rumour is SF apparently sold her watch for £150, is that right?
Where did this rumour originate?
JM’s witness statement refers to 2 alleged stolen Cartier watches ?
So what did SF tell the police when she was interviewed and asked about the watch?
When Bamber’s questioned by police he says,
“I’ve told a lot of people a lot of different stories to make me seem a bit of a jack the lad.”
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=suzette+ford+cartier+watch+bamber&source=bl&ots=h8PnKDNhSn&sig=ACfU3U1YGVCyRbbFBpeeiJ5NoAHRpdjm9A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjepc[Name removed]gfjoAhVXQ0EAHYZ9Ad4Q6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=suzette%20ford%20cartier%20watch%20bamber&f=false
Was there only ever the one watch ?
I agree — he wanted to appear like some Jack the Lad daredevil. Hard, cool and tough instead of the sneaky sly coward he truly was.
None of his story adds up, and having seen that picture it’s obviously a fake. A real one would have cost about £6k back then, and as it was a ladies watch — and he claims the police wanted to stitch him up — they’d have seized that and asked him where he’d got it. Had it been genuine and he couldn’t prove how he’d acquired it, they’d have probably added that to his lesser charges, just like they did the Osea CP burglary. They’d have thrown everything they had at him. The only reason they didn’t pursue it was they saw it was a cheap fake, and that’s why they let him have it back.
And why would SF sell a £6k watch for £150? It’s ridiculous. She probably slung it because it stopped working after a few weeks and it went all discoloured!
I still don’t understand how Agatha acquired these items, unless he’d left them with with someone to look after and told Agatha she could pick them up. The police wouldn’t travel miles to hand deliver a fake watch, gun, Granny Speakman’s papers (which didn’t belong to him & he probably stole from her safe), and that ponytail. FGS...
-
Why?
The Speakmans were more "Country Squire" than "Landed Gentry" and definitely not "Society" and it's unlikely that their forbears had been. They'd have been more likely to buy up land than acquire pieces of jewellery which couldn't be worn. They wouldn't have moved in those circles which required tiaras to be worn to certain occasions.
-
I agree — he wanted to appear like some Jack the Lad daredevil. Hard, cool and tough instead of the sneaky sly coward he truly was.
“If self-serving or self-aggrandizing information is repeatedly recycled, the individual is likely using a script, one that he’s forgotten that he’s already deployed with you. Psychopaths in particular are glib, and mendacity is their lingua franca. Sometimes they lie for no reason other than their own amusement. But they also lie to further specific agendas, and that is when they are most likely to go on auto-pilot in the delivery of false, scripted stories. Because people are interchangeable in the eyes of a psychopath or a narcissist—one-dimensional beings in whom they have no genuine interest—it can be hard for them to remember what they’ve said, and to whom.”
(5 Things Psychopaths and Narcissists Will Do in Conversation by Kaja Perina 2017)
-
I agree — he wanted to appear like some Jack the Lad daredevil. Hard, cool and tough instead of the sneaky sly coward he truly was.
None of his story adds up, and having seen that picture it’s obviously a fake. A real one would have cost about £6k back then, and as it was a ladies watch — and he claims the police wanted to stitch him up — they’d have seized that and asked him where he’d got it. Had it been genuine and he couldn’t prove how he’d acquired it, they’d have probably added that to his lesser charges, just like they did the Osea CP burglary. They’d have thrown everything they had at him. The only reason they didn’t pursue it was they saw it was a cheap fake, and that’s why they let him have it back.
And why would SF sell a £6k watch for £150? It’s ridiculous. She probably slung it because it stopped working after a few weeks and it went all discoloured!
I still don’t understand how Agatha acquired these items, unless he’d left them with with someone to look after and told Agatha she could pick them up. The police wouldn’t travel miles to hand deliver a fake watch, gun, Granny Speakman’s papers (which didn’t belong to him & he probably stole from her safe), and that ponytail. FGS...
Was SF ever given a watch by Bamber?
-
I agree — he wanted to appear like some Jack the Lad daredevil. Hard, cool and tough instead of the sneaky sly coward he truly was.
None of his story adds up, and having seen that picture it’s obviously a fake. A real one would have cost about £6k back then, and as it was a ladies watch — and he claims the police wanted to stitch him up — they’d have seized that and asked him where he’d got it. Had it been genuine and he couldn’t prove how he’d acquired it, they’d have probably added that to his lesser charges, just like they did the Osea CP burglary. They’d have thrown everything they had at him. The only reason they didn’t pursue it was they saw it was a cheap fake, and that’s why they let him have it back.
And why would SF sell a £6k watch for £150? It’s ridiculous. She probably slung it because it stopped working after a few weeks and it went all discoloured!
I still don’t understand how Agatha acquired these items, unless he’d left them with with someone to look after and told Agatha she could pick them up. The police wouldn’t travel miles to hand deliver a fake watch, gun, Granny Speakman’s papers (which didn’t belong to him & he probably stole from her safe), and that ponytail. FGS...
Suspect the police gave her paperwork of some description and she’d have had to sign for the items
They most certainly wouldn’t have just dropped off these items without paperwork to back it up. It doesn’t work like that.
-
Was SF ever given a watch by Bamber?
Yes, he gave her a Cartier watch, even though they’d split up and he was with Julie...all weird.
But it would have been a fake like the one he kept.
All that nonsense he made out about stealing them as he needed cash was lies, he came back to the UK with them. He’s not bright at all.
I think he could be wearing that cheap fake one when he was arrested....it looks the same to me. He liked to create an impression...
-
Yes, he gave her a Cartier watch, even though they’d split up and he was with Julie...all weird.
But it would have been a fake like the one he kept.
All that nonsense he made out about stealing them as he needed cash was lies, he came back to the UK with them. He’s not bright at all.
I think he could be wearing that cheap fake one when he was arrested....it looks the same to me. He liked to create an impression...
Why don’t his supporters question this behaviour?
So he gave one watch to SF & kept & wore the other one - why didn’t he give it to JM?
Excerpts courtesy of Carol Ann Lee - ‘The Murders at White House Farm’
“Essex police confirmed that detectives in New Zealand suspected him of a scam, but he fled the country before they caught up with him. Jeremy’s cousin Jaqueline recalled him arriving home much earlier than expected; Neville told her that ‘something’ had occurred in New Zealand, but didn’t explain further. David Bouflour heard from someone that Jeremy ‘was implicated in an armed robbery and killing’ but police investigations uncovered no evidence of either.
While Jeremy was away, Sue Ford had sold her house. She was staying at a Colchester hotel when he suddenly turned up, handing her a kangaroo skin purse and telling her to open it. Inside were two Cartier watches. As Sue chose the watch she liked best, Jeremy told her he brought them at Orly airport.
“He acquired the Cartier watches in dubious circumstances and put in a false claim for stolen travellers checks, leaving the country before the police could catch up with him.”
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rj14BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=sue+ford+cartier+watch+bamber&source=bl&ots=h8PnKGWhTr&sig=ACfU3U339haExxZNCJiVyGANjamd-psPhw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiYp-30kvnoAhWDnVwKHfiGClAQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=sue%20ford%20cartier%20watch%20bamber&f=false
-
Suspect the police gave her paperwork of some description and she’d have had to sign for the items
They most certainly wouldn’t have just dropped off these items without paperwork to back it up. It doesn’t work like that.
The police wouldn’t drive and deliver a convicted prisoner’s seized property to anyone. It would have been sent to the prison he was sent to in 1986, and when he was transferred to other prisons all his sealed belongings would have been taken too and held in the property office. The prisoner gets it back when they leave. If they die in prison it will be sent to the nearest police station of their next of kin, or the person the prisoner has stated they wish to have it and they have 28 days to come and collect it or it’s auctioned off.
They don’t do delivery services.
It has to be collected with the NOK’s ID and all sealed bags have to be signed for at the front desk in the police station, where it’s held at. They collect it from the property store once you’ve shown your ID (Passport/Driving Licence) including the letter/email from police saying it can be collected by yourself xxx xxxx and giving them the document and reference number. They’re very tight on making sure it’s all done to the book.
So how Agatha got these items is strange...
-
As you have blocked me, I'm unable to dm you,
Would you like to contact me with those details and we can discuss this in a private setting?
Thank you.
I haven’t blocked anyone as I’ve previously explained.
I‘m sure if you choose to disclose stuff on the board you’d have the support of members here.
-
The police wouldn’t drive and deliver a convicted prisoner’s seized property to anyone. It would have been sent to the prison he was sent to in 1986, and when he was transferred to other prisons all his sealed belongings would have been taken too and held in the property office. The prisoner gets it back when they leave. If they die in prison it will be sent to the nearest police station of their next of kin, or the person the prisoner has stated they wish to have it and they have 28 days to come and collect it or it’s auctioned off.
They don’t do delivery services.
It has to be collected with the NOK’s ID and all sealed bags have to be signed for at the front desk in the police station, where it’s held at. They collect it from the property store once you’ve shown your ID (Passport/Driving Licence) including the letter/email from police saying it can be collected by yourself xxx xxxx and giving them the document and reference number. They’re very tight on making sure it’s all done to the book.
So how Agatha got these items is strange...
I agree with this
Aunt Agatha would have been given a receipt, the prison/police would have had one as would Bamber.
Otherwise he could make claim his property had been stolen and sue the police/prison. This didn’t happen.
-
I agree with this
Aunt Agatha would have been given a receipt, the prison/police would have had one as would Bamber.
Otherwise he could make claim his property had been stolen and sue the police/prison. This didn’t happen.
I think you need to give it a rest and take it to PM.
We get it, you've got issues with Aggie. It's turning in to a vendetta.
-
Due to the current activity levels on the board we need to maintain the following rule set out on the homepage:
* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
Going forward I will be removing all posts that are off topic.
Thanks.
-
The police wouldn’t drive and deliver a convicted prisoner’s seized property to anyone. It would have been sent to the prison he was sent to in 1986, and when he was transferred to other prisons all his sealed belongings would have been taken too and held in the property office. The prisoner gets it back when they leave. If they die in prison it will be sent to the nearest police station of their next of kin, or the person the prisoner has stated they wish to have it and they have 28 days to come and collect it or it’s auctioned off.
They don’t do delivery services.
It has to be collected with the NOK’s ID and all sealed bags have to be signed for at the front desk in the police station, where it’s held at. They collect it from the property store once you’ve shown your ID (Passport/Driving Licence) including the letter/email from police saying it can be collected by yourself xxx xxxx and giving them the document and reference number. They’re very tight on making sure it’s all done to the book.
So how Agatha got these items is strange...
I have to step in here Spy because the police do bring evidence back - won't go into detail about how I know but 100% they do. However, you do have to sign for it.
-
I think you need to give it a rest and take it to PM.
We get it, you've got issues with Aggie. It's turning in to a vendetta.
I don’t have issues with Agatha — I feel sorry for her
-
I have to step in here Spy because the police do bring evidence back - won't go into detail about how I know but 100% they do. However, you do have to sign for it.
I trust what you say, Caroline, but I still don’t ‘get’ how or why the police would have driven to Agatha’s and given such a strange selection of property over a decade or more after he was jailed for life for mass murder?
Whatever, it’s all very strange, and very weird...
-
Had the “Cartier” that Agatha posted up looked genuine, I’d say that’s a big possibility — especially as Jeremy contested Granny Speakman’s will as she’d disinherited him after he killed her daughter...
But that cheap, tatty-looking watch would never have adorned the wrist of a woman who was elegant.
And had it been genuine, the grasping, thieving Jeremy wouldn’t have given it away...he’d give a fake away, though...
It may have done ?
-
It may have done ?
No rich elegant woman would wear a fake ostentatious watch like that, Nicholas
I don’t know ONE woman who would wear that, even if it was a brand new fake
-
No rich elegant woman would wear a fake ostentatious watch like that, Nicholas
I don’t know ONE woman who would wear that, even if it was a brand new fake
That's a very sweeping statement, Spy.
-
The police wouldn’t drive and deliver a convicted prisoner’s seized property to anyone. It would have been sent to the prison he was sent to in 1986, and when he was transferred to other prisons all his sealed belongings would have been taken too and held in the property office. The prisoner gets it back when they leave. If they die in prison it will be sent to the nearest police station of their next of kin, or the person the prisoner has stated they wish to have it and they have 28 days to come and collect it or it’s auctioned off.
They don’t do delivery services.
It has to be collected with the NOK’s ID and all sealed bags have to be signed for at the front desk in the police station, where it’s held at. They collect it from the property store once you’ve shown your ID (Passport/Driving Licence) including the letter/email from police saying it can be collected by yourself xxx xxxx and giving them the document and reference number. They’re very tight on making sure it’s all done to the book.
So how Agatha got these items is strange...
The above might be the process today but what about decades ago when AA claims she took receipt of said items?
-
That's a very sweeping statement, Spy.
No, I don’t agree
I come from an affluent family and know/mix with some hugely rich people
I don’t know ONE who would wear a tacky fake watch, certainly not an ostentatious one
A young teenager might (but it wouldn’t be fake tat), but any woman over 30 would not wear cheap looking crap. I myself wouldn’t, either.
-
No, I don’t agree
I come from an affluent family and know/mix with some hugely rich people
I don’t know ONE who would wear a tacky fake watch, certainly not an ostentatious one
A young teenager might (but it wouldn’t be fake tat), but any woman over 30 would not wear cheap looking crap. I myself wouldn’t, either.
Without going into how vulgar and tacky is the boast of affluence, a close friend substituted the family pearls with an identical triple strand of -popular at the time- popper beads. The family solicitor 'recognized' them and commented on their "magnificence". The trick enjoyed is the subterfuge.
-
I can assure you his hair was not grey at the time and wasn't grey for many years later.
Bamber said it was Aunt Agatha
“I have very long hair Bon Jovi style. I’ll send you a Polaroid of it 6 months ago - it’s mostly worn in a pony tail as I work in a welding shop and I’d set it alight if I wasn’t careful. I’ve not receded or lost any hair which I’m very thankful about - I do have some grey but it’s all over and only a few and looks fine.
-
Without going into how vulgar and tacky is the boast of affluence, a close friend substituted the family pearls with an identical triple strand of -popular at the time- popper beads. The family solicitor 'recognized' them and commented on their "magnificence". The trick enjoyed is the subterfuge.
I have heard of people who wear "fakes" when they are travelling, in case they lose the real thing, or get mugged.
-
Had the “Cartier” that Agatha posted up looked genuine, I’d say that’s a big possibility — especially as Jeremy contested Granny Speakman’s will as she’d disinherited him after he killed her daughter...
But that cheap, tatty-looking watch would never have adorned the wrist of a woman who was elegant.
And had it been genuine, the grasping, thieving Jeremy wouldn’t have given it away...he’d give a fake away, though...
I believe the watch that AA posted is genuine. If you look online you can find the same one with similar details on the back (obviously the serial n umber is different). The watch is a basic looking Cartier and if someone like Bamber was going to purchase a fake, he's have gotten a fancier version. I have no doubt that it is the real thing.
-
I believe the watch that AA posted is genuine. If you look online you can find the same one with similar details on the back (obviously the serial n umber is different). The watch is a basic looking Cartier and if someone like Bamber was going to purchase a fake, he's have gotten a fancier version. I have no doubt that it is the real thing.
I agree. It looked way too jaded at first glance, but actually, apart from the strap which may be a replacement, it looked pretty kosher to me.
-
I have heard of people who wear "fakes" when they are travelling, in case they lose the real thing, or get mugged.
No, that’s not true
They don’t wear fakes, ever. But if travelling to a country known for its crime they’ll wear one of their cheaper everyday watches. What would be the point of wearing a fake and possibly getting mugged by a knife man?
Rich people don’t feel the need to flaunt their wealth, which is why they wouldn’t wear a fake Cartier
They also wear their cheaper everyday watch when going skiing or on a beach holiday so their good watches don’t get damaged or they lose it when skiing down black runs and possibly falling.
I never wear my good watches when travelling. I do wear two diamond rings which I never take off, and I have gold bands beneath them, which makes them even safer. On the very rare occasion when I’ve had to pass somewhere I’ve thought high risk I turn my rings around hiding the diamonds at the back of my finger so they’re not seen.
Likewise with my purse. When I’ve been to Venice which is renowned for pickpockets, I’ve taken an old purse with me and kept my cards/cash elsewhere.
-
No, that’s not true
They don’t wear fakes, ever. But if travelling to a country known for its crime they’ll wear one of their cheaper everyday watches. What would be the point of wearing a fake and possibly getting mugged by a knife man?
Rich people don’t feel the need to flaunt their wealth, which is why they wouldn’t wear a fake Cartier
They also wear their cheaper everyday watch when going skiing or on a beach holiday so their good watches don’t get damaged or they lose it when skiing down black runs and possibly falling.
I never wear my good watches when travelling. I do wear two diamond rings which I never take off, and I have gold bands beneath them, which makes them even safer. On the very rare occasion when I’ve had to pass somewhere I’ve thought high risk I turn my rings around hiding the diamonds at the back of my finger so they’re not seen.
Likewise with my purse. When I’ve been to Venice which is renowned for pickpockets, I’ve taken an old purse with me and kept my cards/cash elsewhere.
Bully for you.
So you're speaking for all posh knobs now? None of them wear fake jewellery? None? You know them all personally, so can verify this?
-
My Dad has a real Rolex and a fake Rolex (a high quality fake). The real Rolex mostly stays in his bedside cabinet as it’s worth thousands of pounds. My husband also has a contact in China that can supply high quality fake watches for a couple of hundred quid. These have authentic looking boxes, tags, engravings, the lot, which is why they are relatively expensive (not the tat you pick up in street markets). They are still fakes though, of watches that are worth tens of thousands of pounds when genuine.
-
The above might be the process today but what about decades ago when AA claims she took receipt of said items?
I thought AA said it was about 15 years or so ago — not decades ago like, say, 30 years back.
Whatever, I’m not really interested what/how/why he managed to get police to drive to her home and hand deliver such bizarre unimportant items, including a gun. From what AA suggested, it sounded like the gun wasn’t a water pistol as she said she handed it into the police station years later when they were doing a gun amnesty — no questions asked. Which also seems odd when the police had actually given it to her.
It’s not my business and I’m not particularly interested: I was more curious why police would do that, and how they got hold of his ponytail. Did they drive up to Yorkshire and collect it from the prison?😳
It’s all strange and odd, but I’m bowing out of this topic as it’s not relevant to anything really
-
My Dad has a real Rolex and a fake Rolex (a high quality fake). The real Rolex mostly stays in his bedside cabinet as it’s worth thousands of pounds. My husband also has a contact in China that can supply high quality fake watches for a couple of hundred quid. These have authentic looking boxes, tags, engravings, the lot, which is why they are relatively expensive (not the tat you pick up in street markets). They are still fakes though, of watches that are worth tens of thousands of pounds when genuine.
Exactly. ISpy won't see this because she's got me blocked as she still thinks I'm leading a bizarre parallel life as Holly. That's your self-proclaimed, rich, popular, social media queen genius for you.
-
Without going into how vulgar and tacky is the boast of affluence, a close friend substituted the family pearls with an identical triple strand of -popular at the time- popper beads. The family solicitor 'recognized' them and commented on their "magnificence". The trick enjoyed is the subterfuge.
I don’t see anything vulgar in saying one comes from an affluent family, not when it’s said to explain a point that’s on topic and how you’d know why rich people wouldn’t wear tatty fake watches. Your comment about your friend wearing popper beads...are you sure the family solicitor wasn’t just humouring her, or dishing out a compliment — you know how men can sometimes be clueless about women’s jewellery — and he may have been toady and keeping her sweet due to making money out of them. To be honest, to mistake popper beads for pearls is actually hilarious!😂
He wasn’t a p*sstaker, was he! ^*&& ^*&&
-
Bamber said it was Aunt Agatha
“I have very long hair Bon Jovi style. I’ll send you a Polaroid of it 6 months ago - it’s mostly worn in a pony tail as I work in a welding shop and I’d set it alight if I wasn’t careful. I’ve not receded or lost any hair which I’m very thankful about - I do have some grey but it’s all over and only a few and looks fine.
Him, him, him....all the time
Same old pattern
I don’t know why he’s bothered what his hair looks like — it’s not like he’s going out on the pull any time soon @)(++(*
-
I don’t see anything vulgar in saying one comes from an affluent family, not when it’s said to explain a point that’s on topic and how you’d know why rich people wouldn’t wear tatty fake watches. Your comment about your friend wearing popper beads...are you sure the family solicitor wasn’t just humouring her, or dishing out a compliment — you know how men can sometimes be clueless about women’s jewellery — and he may have been toady and keeping her sweet due to making money out of them. To be honest, to mistake popper beads for pearls is actually hilarious!😂
He wasn’t a p*sstaker, was he! ^*&& ^*&&
Does one? One certainly knows one's pearls from one's poppers, that's obvious.
-
No, that’s not true
They don’t wear fakes, ever. But if travelling to a country known for its crime they’ll wear one of their cheaper everyday watches. What would be the point of wearing a fake and possibly getting mugged by a knife man?
Rich people don’t feel the need to flaunt their wealth, which is why they wouldn’t wear a fake Cartier
They also wear their cheaper everyday watch when going skiing or on a beach holiday so their good watches don’t get damaged or they lose it when skiing down black runs and possibly falling.
I never wear my good watches when travelling. I do wear two diamond rings which I never take off, and I have gold bands beneath them, which makes them even safer. On the very rare occasion when I’ve had to pass somewhere I’ve thought high risk I turn my rings around hiding the diamonds at the back of my finger so they’re not seen.
Likewise with my purse. When I’ve been to Venice which is renowned for pickpockets, I’ve taken an old purse with me and kept my cards/cash elsewhere.
Spy, simply because you and your coterie do, or don't do, it doesn't mean the rest of the world follows suit. Whether or not one chooses to sport 'good' jewellery in places where they're advised not to, is entirely down to personal choice. The sweeping claim that all those of a 'certain' social type follow the same rules -and to include yourself as one of their number- renders them both mindless and ignorant. As is the distasteful claim that true wealth is denoted by the monetary value of the jewellery one chooses to wear. I can give you any number of anecdotes/facts which counter what you say, but to do so would be to lower myself to the level you've chosen to adopt, ie vulgar, vulgar, VULGAR!!!
-
I believe the watch that AA posted is genuine. If you look online you can find the same one with similar details on the back (obviously the serial n umber is different). The watch is a basic looking Cartier and if someone like Bamber was going to purchase a fake, he's have gotten a fancier version. I have no doubt that it is the real thing.
I beg to differ, Caroline. Don’t get me wrong; I trust what you say and totally believe you, and I know you’re certainly no fool, but unless you go to the Cartier site itself — where they also explain how to spot a fake — the Internet is flooded with fake watches for sale, and they’re getting better all the time. Even some jewellers have difficulty spotting some of the fakes they’ve started producing in China, which is where they’re usually made.
But to me it looks fake, and from memory it didn’t have the the correct serial number which always has two letters and six digits (something like that, anyway)
The watch itself looks so tatty too. Genuine designer watches last a lifetime — they don’t tarnish and look like tat.
Maybe AA should have it valued. I certainly would for insurance purposes alone — and Jeremy was hot on insurance policies — so I’m surprised he hasn’t advised AA to get it covered.
Actually, I think he may have been wearing that same one when he was arrested. There’s a picture in black & white, but it looks the same style. If it IS genuine, where did he get the money from to but TWO, I wonder? Or maybe, like he claimed, he did steal them...
-
Bully for you.
So you're speaking for all posh knobs now? None of them wear fake jewellery? None? You know them all personally, so can verify this?
What do you mean “posh knobs”?
Why are you insulting people who have money? Does it annoy you?
Stop coming out with ludicrous requests. Do you seriously think I can ask my family and friends to come onto this site to prove something to a stranger? That’s an insane thing to ask.
Go and have a coffee and take your vitamins — you’ll feel chirpier then 😊
-
I beg to differ, Caroline. Don’t get me wrong; I trust what you say and totally believe you, and I know you’re certainly no fool, but unless you go to the Cartier site itself — where they also explain how to spot a fake — the Internet is flooded with fake watches for sale, and they’re getting better all the time. Even some jewellers have difficulty spotting some of the fakes they’ve started producing in China, which is where they’re usually made.
But to me it looks fake, and from memory it didn’t have the the correct serial number which always has two letters and six digits (something like that, anyway)
The watch itself looks so tatty too. Genuine designer watches last a lifetime — they don’t tarnish and look like tat.
Maybe AA should have it valued. I certainly would for insurance purposes alone — and Jeremy was hot on insurance policies — so I’m surprised he hasn’t advised AA to get it covered.
Actually, I think he may have been wearing that same one when he was arrested. There’s a picture in black & white, but it looks the same style. If it IS genuine, where did he get the money from to but TWO, I wonder? Or maybe, like he claimed, he did steal them...
Piffle!!! You only have to watch Antiques Roadshow to know that the genuine article, when kept in it's case and never worn, remains as pristine as the day it was made. A similar item, worn and used as had been intended, will carry all the hallmarks of such. It has nothing to do with the crass vulgarity of being 'designer'.
-
What do you mean “posh knobs”?
Why are you insulting people who have money? Does it annoy you?
Stop coming out with ludicrous requests. Do you seriously think I can ask my family and friends to come onto this site to prove something to a stranger? That’s an insane thing to ask.
Go and have a coffee and take your vitamins — you’ll feel chirpier then 😊
Really Spy!! Do the vulgar depths know NO bounds you're prepared to plunder, in order to flaunt the status of your 'set'?
-
My Dad has a real Rolex and a fake Rolex (a high quality fake). The real Rolex mostly stays in his bedside cabinet as it’s worth thousands of pounds. My husband also has a contact in China that can supply high quality fake watches for a couple of hundred quid. These have authentic looking boxes, tags, engravings, the lot, which is why they are relatively expensive (not the tat you pick up in street markets). They are still fakes though, of watches that are worth tens of thousands of pounds when genuine.
Oh yes, China now produces incredibly authentic looking fakes — it’s a huge worry for designers. I’m sure your dad doesn’t know this, but the proceeds made from producing fake watches go towards heroin smuggling, child slavery, and sex trafficking of very young girls. That’s another reason many people won’t buy them.
What model Rolex does your dad have, VS? You can buy a genuine one for just a few thousand pounds, but they also do hugely expensive ones too, sometimes studded with diamonds etc. Usually, people keep them in their safe even with their tight security. Don’t reveal too much...you never know who reads these forums.
-
Oh yes, China now produces incredibly authentic looking fakes — it’s a huge worry for designers. I’m sure your dad doesn’t know this, but the proceeds made from producing fake watches go towards heroin smuggling, child slavery, and sex trafficking of very young girls. That’s another reason many people won’t buy them.
What model Rolex does your dad have, VS? You can buy a genuine one for just a few thousand pounds, but they also do hugely expensive ones too, sometimes studded with diamonds etc. Usually, people keep them in their safe even with their tight security. Don’t reveal too much...you never know who reads these forums.
A Submariner.
-
What do you mean “posh knobs”?
Why are you insulting people who have money? Does it annoy you?
Stop coming out with ludicrous requests. Do you seriously think I can ask my family and friends to come onto this site to prove something to a stranger? That’s an insane thing to ask.
Go and have a coffee and take your vitamins — you’ll feel chirpier then
At least you seem to have belatedly realised that I'm not Holly.
And if you read back you will find I made no request of you, I asked if you could verify your sweeping generalisation. I don't want you to, I was curious to find out if you thought you could.
-
Exactly. ISpy won't see this because she's got me blocked as she still thinks I'm leading a bizarre parallel life as Holly. That's your self-proclaimed, rich, popular, social media queen genius for you.
Why are you asking me questions if you think I can’t see them? *%87
I’m not interested in your view of me: and I’m not interested in you one iota. You clearly have a problem, and I’m glad it’s not my problem.
I couldn’t care less what you think about anything. I know how such people live because I would do, wouldn’t I? Just as you know council estates have 100 drug dealers living on them...
VS’s dad may have his reasons for having both a genuine and fake Rolex, but generally, rich people don’t buy fake designer watches, not just because they don’t need to, nor want to (especially as the money goes to criminals), but rich people don’t feel the need to flaunt their wealth — they’ve nothing to prove. You may think rich people adorn themselves with diamonds galore every day just to pop to the local artisan bakery, but they don’t do that, either. Some of the very richest people I know look and dress extreme ordinarily and like to blend in. They don’t have a desire to draw attention to themselves — quite the opposite.
-
Why are you asking me questions if you think I can’t see them? *%87
I’m not interested in your view of me: and I’m not interested in you one iota. You clearly have a problem, and I’m glad it’s not my problem.
I couldn’t care less what you think about anything. I know how such people live because I would do, wouldn’t I? Just as you know council estates have 100 drug dealers living on them...
VS’s dad may have his reasons for having both a genuine and fake Rolex, but generally, rich people don’t buy fake designer watches, not just because they don’t need to, nor want to (especially as the money goes to criminals), but rich people don’t feel the need to flaunt their wealth — they’ve nothing to prove. You may think rich people adorn themselves with diamonds galore every day just to pop to the local artisan bakery, but they don’t do that, either. Some of the very richest people I know look and dress extreme ordinarily and like to blend in. They don’t have a desire to draw attention to themselves — quite the opposite.
Do they brag like you?
-
Spy, simply because you and your coterie do, or don't do, it doesn't mean the rest of the world follows suit. Whether or not one chooses to sport 'good' jewellery in places where they're advised not to, is entirely down to personal choice. The sweeping claim that all those of a 'certain' social type follow the same rules -and to include yourself as one of their number- renders them both mindless and ignorant. As is the distasteful claim that true wealth is denoted by the monetary value of the jewellery one chooses to wear. I can give you any number of anecdotes/facts which counter what you say, but to do so would be to lower myself to the level you've chosen to adopt, ie vulgar, vulgar, VULGAR!!!
April, I remember you being most impressed when I told you how good Seiko watches are: you were positively thrilled that you have one. I never said you were vulgar because of that — so why are you insulting me?
You’re right that it’s “personal choice” for someone to wear a watch costing many thousands in a high risk area; which is why all normal, sensible people don’t take that risk. I don’t know ONE person who does or would even contemplate it. It’s inviting theft. You’d have to be mad to such a thing. It’s exactly the same when friends have gone to South Africa for holidays: they NEVER take their valuables with them when driving through various towns — car-jacking is rife.
Do you SERIOUSLY think a normal person is going to advertise they’re a walking bank and risk getting shot?!
And don’t tell ME who I am: you don’t even know me
If you actually READ my post further back I SAID how rich people do NOT flaunt their wealth. They have no need to. For some reason you seem to dislike monied people, which suggests you resent them. How can you dislike certain people depending on what they’re worth? How can you call them ignorant and vulgar because they are rich — despite them not flaunting it? How do you know your local GP, dentist, solicitor doesn’t come from an immensely rich family? They may be absolutely lovely, decent, kind, caring...and you may think the sun shines out their backside. But if you discovered they were seriously rich due to being born into a privileged family, would you decide you don’t like them? Call them ignorant and vulgar?
-
Piffle!!! You only have to watch Antiques Roadshow to know that the genuine article, when kept in it's case and never worn, remains as pristine as the day it was made. A similar item, worn and used as had been intended, will carry all the hallmarks of such. It has nothing to do with the crass vulgarity of being 'designer'.
According to Aunt Agatha the watch HAS been inside a box for over THIRTY YEARS!
So how do you account for it being tarnished and tatty? You can even see where the cheap fake gold has disintegrated.
Incidentally, one shouldn’t keep a watch sitting in its box doing nothing. They need regular servicing, some come with a special winder to keep them absolutely accurate, and they’re meant to be worn. Depending on the make and model they can devaluate too.
Good quality watches, whether designer or otherwise, are made so as not to fade in colour, and should be resistant to general knocks. The reason quality watches are made with the best materials are precisely because they’re bound to occasionally get knocked, dropped, worn in extreme weather conditions, hence why they’re made to withstand that and still look in excellent condition.
-
Really Spy!! Do the vulgar depths know NO bounds you're prepared to plunder, in order to flaunt the status of your 'set'?
Stop insulting me, April. It’s vulgar.
-
Why are you asking me questions if you think I can’t see them? *%87
I’m not interested in your view of me: and I’m not interested in you one iota. You clearly have a problem, and I’m glad it’s not my problem.
I couldn’t care less what you think about anything. I know how such people live because I would do, wouldn’t I? Just as you know council estates have 100 drug dealers living on them...
VS’s dad may have his reasons for having both a genuine and fake Rolex, but generally, rich people don’t buy fake designer watches, not just because they don’t need to, nor want to (especially as the money goes to criminals), but rich people don’t feel the need to flaunt their wealth — they’ve nothing to prove. You may think rich people adorn themselves with diamonds galore every day just to pop to the local artisan bakery, but they don’t do that, either. Some of the very richest people I know look and dress extreme ordinarily and like to blend in. They don’t have a desire to draw attention to themselves — quite the opposite.
Wait, what? Rich people don't pop out to artisan bakeries adorned with diamonds? I've literally assumed that to be the case ever since I was aware that an artisan bakery was a thing. I can remember specifically thinking 'artisan bakers? Pffft, I bet all those rich people adorn themselves with diamonds every day just to pop out to one of these artisan bakers'.
-
According to Aunt Agatha the watch HAS been inside a box for over THIRTY YEARS!
So how do you account for it being tarnished and tatty? You can even see where the cheap fake gold has disintegrated.
Incidentally, one shouldn’t keep a watch sitting in its box doing nothing. They need regular servicing, some come with a special winder to keep them absolutely accurate, and they’re meant to be worn. Depending on the make and model they can devaluate too.
Good quality watches, whether designer or otherwise, are made so as not to fade in colour, and should be resistant to general knocks. The reason quality watches are made with the best materials are precisely because they’re bound to occasionally get knocked, dropped, worn in extreme weather conditions, hence why they’re made to withstand that and still look in excellent condition.
I've got one of these: https://omegaforums.net/threads/incoming-omega-constellation-2648.67136/ (https://omegaforums.net/threads/incoming-omega-constellation-2648.67136/)
Literally the first one I came across on the internet to serve as an example.
I inherited mine. It's in a slightly worse state than this. Tarnished. Needs a refurb, but I wouldn't have it done due to sentimental value is worth more than the value of the watch.
-
Do they brag like you?
Oh, I knew YOU’D pop up ()678%
By the way, when you kicked your friends little dog hard on its nose, did it mark your Louboutins?
Or are you more of a brogue woman?
-
I've got one of these: https://omegaforums.net/threads/incoming-omega-constellation-2648.67136/ (https://omegaforums.net/threads/incoming-omega-constellation-2648.67136/)
Literally the first one I came across on the internet to serve as an example.
I inherited mine. It's in a slightly worse state than this. Tarnished. Needs a refurb, but I wouldn't have it done due to sentimental value is worth more than the value of the watch.
Take a picture of yours, General — then we can compare 😊
Omegas are good watches: why’s it tarnished? If it’s sentimental to you I’d definitely have it serviced at least!
Do you wear it?
I’ve just found a Patek Phillippe which I think is rather beautiful, but alas, it’s far too expensive — even for my grand taste 😌
But PP’s are what I call real quality watches, and they’re beautiful too...which is important to me. 😊
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Take a picture of yours, General — then we can compare 😊
Omegas are good watches: why’s it tarnished? If it’s sentimental to you I’d definitely have it serviced at least!
Do you wear it?
I’ve just found a Patek Phillippe which I think is rather beautiful, but alas, it’s far too expensive — even for my grand taste 😌
But PP’s are what I call real quality watches, and they’re beautiful too...which is important to me. 😊
It's tarnished due to continued use. Which is my point. They tarnish over time.
I originally thought the Cartier was a cheap knock off, until Myster posted a side by side. It's pretty apparent that it's a real Cartier, in my opinion. The strap looks to have been replaced, but replaced with a (probably more modern) Cartier strap.
-
Wait, what? Rich people don't pop out to artisan bakeries adorned with diamonds? I've literally assumed that to be the case ever since I was aware that an artisan bakery was a thing. I can remember specifically thinking 'artisan bakers? Pffft, I bet all those rich people adorn themselves with diamonds every day just to pop out to one of these artisan bakers'.
Also when they're dealing with their other artisans, no doubt. The wheelwrights, blacksmiths, cheesemakers, furriers, farriers, goldsmiths, gunsmiths, stonemakers and tailors must be very impressed.
-
April, I remember you being most impressed when I told you how good Seiko watches are: you were positively thrilled that you have one. I never said you were vulgar because of that — so why are you insulting me?
You’re right that it’s “personal choice” for someone to wear a watch costing many thousands in a high risk area; which is why all normal, sensible people don’t take that risk. I don’t know ONE person who does or would even contemplate it. It’s inviting theft. You’d have to be mad to such a thing. It’s exactly the same when friends have gone to South Africa for holidays: they NEVER take their valuables with them when driving through various towns — car-jacking is rife.
Do you SERIOUSLY think a normal person is going to advertise they’re a walking bank and risk getting shot?!
And don’t tell ME who I am: you don’t even know me
If you actually READ my post further back I SAID how rich people do NOT flaunt their wealth. They have no need to. For some reason you seem to dislike monied people, which suggests you resent them. How can you dislike certain people depending on what they’re worth? How can you call them ignorant and vulgar because they are rich — despite them not flaunting it? How do you know your local GP, dentist, solicitor doesn’t come from an immensely rich family? They may be absolutely lovely, decent, kind, caring...and you may think the sun shines out their backside. But if you discovered they were seriously rich due to being born into a privileged family, would you decide you don’t like them? Call them ignorant and vulgar?
You will, of course, note that said watch wasn't an item I acquired because of it's 'Name'. It was irrelevant. Only bought to my notice by the person selling it. Yes, I was pleased to have my good tasted validated, so thank-you. I don't do designer. I don't do bling.
As for the social backgrounds of my doctor, dentist, and solicitor, my prime requisite is that I like them as people, my second being that they capable of executing the work they qualified to do in a way acceptable to me. I prefer NOT to know about the financial status of people. I'd rather judge them on their own merit.
Both upbringing and education advised me that speaking about wealth is vulgar. As is making the wild and extravagant claims you're so fond of. If such results in inverted snobbery, so be it.
-
It's tarnished due to continued use. Which is my point. They tarnish over time.
I originally thought the Cartier was a cheap knock off, until Myster posted a side by side. It's pretty apparent that it's a real Cartier, in my opinion. The strap looks to have been replaced, but replaced with a (probably more modern) Cartier strap.
Gold doesn’t tarnish, though...
-
Gold doesn’t tarnish, though...
Gold plate does. But you wouldn't have come across mere plate.
-
No, that’s not true
They don’t wear fakes, ever. But if travelling to a country known for its crime they’ll wear one of their cheaper everyday watches. What would be the point of wearing a fake and possibly getting mugged by a knife man?
Rich people don’t feel the need to flaunt their wealth, which is why they wouldn’t wear a fake Cartier
They also wear their cheaper everyday watch when going skiing or on a beach holiday so their good watches don’t get damaged or they lose it when skiing down black runs and possibly falling.
I never wear my good watches when travelling. I do wear two diamond rings which I never take off, and I have gold bands beneath them, which makes them even safer. On the very rare occasion when I’ve had to pass somewhere I’ve thought high risk I turn my rings around hiding the diamonds at the back of my finger so they’re not seen.
Likewise with my purse. When I’ve been to Venice which is renowned for pickpockets, I’ve taken an old purse with me and kept my cards/cash elsewhere.
Ok, my mistake-----what I really meant was cheaper alternatives, not fakes!
-
Posters are again reminded to refrain from making vulgar personal insults or name calling towards any members as this goes against the spirit of open and frank debate.
Admin
-
You will, of course, note that said watch wasn't an item I acquired because of it's 'Name'. It was irrelevant. Only bought to my notice by the person selling it. Yes, I was pleased to have my good tasted validated, so thank-you. I don't do designer. I don't do bling.
As for the social backgrounds of my doctor, dentist, and solicitor, my prime requisite is that I like them as people, my second being that they capable of executing the work they qualified to do in a way acceptable to me. I prefer NOT to know about the financial status of people. I'd rather judge them on their own merit.
Both upbringing and education advised me that speaking about wealth is vulgar. As is making the wild and extravagant claims you're so fond of. If such results in inverted snobbery, so be it.
You do exaggerate, April
I post on here about the psychopath Jeremy Bamber. I don’t discuss myself. I don’t reveal any information at all — so as for you saying I’m “so fond of making wild extravagant claims” is in your imagination. And you clearly DO have a vivid imagination: you even accused me of once being a supporter of Jeremy’s! Whatever put THAT idea into your head? And as it was actually YOU who was once a supporter of his, and now you’re not, you’ve proved you misjudge people...badly.
Quite why you’ve started picking on me for no reason I’ve no idea.
And if you were brought up well, you’d have also been taught to be civil and not insult people when they’ve never done anything to upset you. As for upbringing and education, I was also taught the same values, and yes, I went to public school — so if you see that as bragging (which Im sure you will) that’s your problem, not mine.
Incidentally, rich people don’t talk about riches and money. And they don’t describe it as wealth....😌
-
Posters are again reminded to refrain from making vulgar personal insults or name calling towards any members as this goes against the spirit of open and frank debate.
Admin
Thank you for reminding everyone, Admin
For some reason almost everyone on this topic seems to be insulting me today...it’s very strange!
-
Him, him, him....all the time
Same old pattern
I don’t know why he’s bothered what his hair looks like — it’s not like he’s going out on the pull any time soon @)(++(*
Would have thought it would be more hygienic to have kept his hair short in prison?
His letter states:
“I have very long hair Bon Jovi style. I’ll send you a Polaroid of it 6 months ago - it’s mostly worn in a pony tail as I work in a welding shop and I’d set it alight if I wasn’t careful. I’ve not receded or lost any hair which I’m very thankful about - I do have some grey but it’s all over and only a few and looks fine.
Was he without prison visits for several years?
Interesting how he doesn’t mention hygiene as a reason for tying it in a ‘pony tail’ but does refer to the danger of having long hair
That photo Aunt Agatha posted didn’t look anything like ‘Bon Jovi style’ hair to me https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/bon-jovi-s-hair-through-the-ages-in-pictures-1.127557#2
Did he grow a full beard at the same time ?
-
Bon Jovi style hair?
It's still 1986 for him then @)(++(*
-
Bon Jovi style hair?
It's still 1986 for him then @)(++(*
Well he's certainly living on a prayer if he thinks he's getting out any time soon.
I'll get me coat.
-
Well he's certainly living on a prayer if he thinks he's getting out any time soon.
I'll get me coat.
‘An angel's smile is what you sell
You promise me heaven, then put me through hell
Chains of love got a hold on me
When passion's a prison, you can't break free
‘You Give Love A Bad Name’
-
‘An angel's smile is what you sell
You promise me heaven, then put me through hell
Chains of love got a hold on me
When passion's a prison, you can't break free
‘You Give Love A Bad Name’
....and when on soap patrol, the showers will be Slippery When Wet.
I'll get me overcoat.
-
Gold doesn’t tarnish, though...
It doesn't have to be gold Spy. I have a Gucci watch and it's not precious metal - it has a diamond set in the face. but the metal is stainless steel.
-
It doesn't have to be gold Spy. I have a Gucci watch and it's not precious metal - it has a diamond set in the face. but the metal is stainless steel.
Unless Seiko watches have a hallmark they are not gold. Many of them are coated with titanium nitride.
-
Unless Seiko watches have a hallmark they are not gold. Many of them are coated with titanium nitride.
I wouldn't know, bought mine on Ebay for less than a fiver - it keeps perfect time and people always ask where I bought it. 8((()*/
-
I wouldn't know, bought mine on Ebay for less than a fiver - it keeps perfect time and people always ask where I bought it. 8((()*/
I just look at my phone. I never got on with watches anyway.
-
It doesn't have to be gold Spy. I have a Gucci watch and it's not precious metal - it has a diamond set in the face. but the metal is stainless steel.
True, and stainless steel doesn’t tarnish either :)
-
True, and stainless steel doesn’t tarnish either :)
Mine is made of stainless steel, obviously I have no idea what the Cartier is made of.
-
Unless Seiko watches have a hallmark they are not gold. Many of them are coated with titanium nitride.
Who’d have guessed that?😳🤣
Depends which model you buy, Gunit, but Seiko do some beautiful gold watches , with diamonds too...like this one:
https://www.grand-seiko.com/uk-en/collections/stgk006j
-
Mine is made of stainless steel, obviously I have no idea what the Cartier is made of.
Aunt Agatha's watch, if a genuine Cartier Vermeil, consists of a 925 sterling silver base, as engraved/stamped on the rear (i.e. 92.5% silver + other metals, such as copper and zinc) with a 20M electroplated gold coating (i.e. a 20 micron or 20/1000 of a millimetre thick layer). Unlike solid gold which resists discolouration, Vermeil coatings are of lesser quality, liable to tarnish and can wear through over time.
Gold vermeil is similar to gold-plated jewelry but the difference is that the layer of gold is thicker and the metal underneath is sterling silver. It will last longer than gold-plated jewelry, but can still tarnish if exposed to water, sweat, or perfume, or the gold may eventually scratch and rub off with wear.
Two similar Must de Cartier watches for sale on eBay...
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-ladies-Must-de-Cartier-Argent-925-gold-Plated-Quartz-watch/174192121415?hash=item288ea8d647:g:5TEAAOSw8bteR8EM (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-ladies-Must-de-Cartier-Argent-925-gold-Plated-Quartz-watch/174192121415?hash=item288ea8d647:g:5TEAAOSw8bteR8EM)
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ladies-Large-Gold-Plated-Solid-Silver-Must-de-Cartier-Quartz-Wrist-Watch-Ex-Con/202858538689?_trkparms=aid%3D1110001%26algo%3DSPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131231084308%26meid%3D087e1fbeb9024775bf626ecf448cdb45%26pid%3D100010%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D174192121415%26itm%3D202858538689%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2047675&_trksid=p2047675.c100010.m2109 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ladies-Large-Gold-Plated-Solid-Silver-Must-de-Cartier-Quartz-Wrist-Watch-Ex-Con/202858538689?_trkparms=aid%3D1110001%26algo%3DSPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131231084308%26meid%3D087e1fbeb9024775bf626ecf448cdb45%26pid%3D100010%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D174192121415%26itm%3D202858538689%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2047675&_trksid=p2047675.c100010.m2109)
-
AA's Cartier Back and Front...
(https://i.imgur.com/Vgk2Ezd.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/piC1YD8.jpg)
-
AA's Cartier Back and Front...
It's genuine in my opinion.
-
It's genuine in my opinion.
Aunt Agatha thinks the same. The eBay watches, being quartz, are most likely of later manufacture.
I tried to link to a site with more info but the censorship on this forum reaked havoc with my post.
-
AA's Cartier Back and Front...
(https://i.imgur.com/Vgk2Ezd.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/piC1YD8.jpg)
I’m convinced it’s a fake, not just because he’s the type to wear a fake to impress, but the inscription on the back of the watch is appalling. It’s worn away in parts, it isn’t crisp, and the lettering is different to genuine Cartier.
The O is shaped differently and is wonky; the S is different; the word PLAQUE isn’t perfectly straight and uniform; the M isn’t fine and crisp — it’s thicker; and it doesn’t have SWISS MADE engraved on the back. ALL genuine Cartier’s do: his just has the word SWISS — and the symbol next to it isn’t a genuine Cartier symbol.
Besides the dreadful tarnishing, which it shouldn’t have — especially as it’s been sitting in a box for 35 years, a genuine new Cartier bought (or according to him — stolen) wouldn’t need a new strap in just a couple of years.
Comparing the back of his to the genuine vintage one you gave link to shows what a bad fake it is 😳
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I’m convinced it’s a fake, not just because he’s the type to wear a fake to impress, but the inscription on the back of the watch is appalling. It’s worn away in parts, it isn’t crisp, and the lettering is different to genuine Cartier.
The O is shaped differently and is wonky; the S is different; the word PLAQUE isn’t perfectly straight and uniform; the M isn’t fine and crisp — it’s thicker; and it doesn’t have SWISS MADE engraved on the back. ALL genuine Cartier’s do: his just has the word SWISS — and the symbol next to it isn’t a genuine Cartier symbol.
Besides the dreadful tarnishing, which it shouldn’t have — especially as it’s been sitting in a box for 35 years, a genuine new Cartier bought (or according to him — stolen) wouldn’t need a new strap in just a couple of years.
Comparing the back of his to the genuine vintage one you gave link to shows what a bad fake it is 😳
It's genuine. In case you didn't read what I wrote, gold-plated Cartiers like any other watches which have been used and worn do tarnish and discolour, otherwise there wouldn't be speciality cleaning services available for them. Bamber's watch is a case in point having been around the world and back with him and perhaps worn by a previous owner.
https://luxurywatchrepairs.com/pages/cartier?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIoc3m_IuI6QIVxu7tCh2GIA64EAAYASAAEgKc3PD_BwE (https://luxurywatchrepairs.com/pages/cartier?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIoc3m_IuI6QIVxu7tCh2GIA64EAAYASAAEgKc3PD_BwE)
And as l've said before, all Cartiers do not have the full SWISS MADE on the back!
This is a genuine blue Must de Cartier from a reputable online jeweller. Now tell me where on the back or front it says SWISS MADE?!
(https://i.imgur.com/XvD54kS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/W4yb2oN.png)
-
It's genuine. In case you didn't read what I wrote, gold-plated Cartiers like any other watches which have been used and worn do tarnish and discolour, otherwise there wouldn't be speciality cleaning services available for them. Bamber's watch is a case in point having been around the world and back with him and perhaps worn by a previous owner.
https://luxurywatchrepairs.com/pages/cartier?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIoc3m_IuI6QIVxu7tCh2GIA64EAAYASAAEgKc3PD_BwE (https://luxurywatchrepairs.com/pages/cartier?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIoc3m_IuI6QIVxu7tCh2GIA64EAAYASAAEgKc3PD_BwE)
And as l've said before, all Cartiers do not have the full SWISS MADE on the back!
This is a genuine blue Must de Cartier from a reputable online jeweller. Now tell me where on the back or front it says SWISS MADE?!
(https://i.imgur.com/XvD54kS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/W4yb2oN.png)
Myster, according to Jeremy he stole them from a jewellery shop and that model came out in the early to mid 1980s — I need to check. Jeremy could have only worn it for a couple of years, and it doesn’t matter if you’re travelling on planes — that’s not going to turn a quality watch into a pile of crap.
According to Cartier themselves they always have SWISS MADE on the back, but what would they know?
Aside from that, you can SEE the lettering is appalling! You can see it isn’t even uniform, it looks terrible.
I’m not even that interested if it’s a fake or genuine, it makes no odds to me at all, but I certainly wouldn’t wear a piece of rubbish like that. Genuine or not — it looks terrible. Oh, and incidentally, when they talk about tarnishing, they don’t mean something that looks like it’s been laying on a river bed for a century.
-
I’m convinced it’s a fake, not just because he’s the type to wear a fake to impress, but the inscription on the back of the watch is appalling. It’s worn away in parts, it isn’t crisp, and the lettering is different to genuine Cartier.
The O is shaped differently and is wonky; the S is different; the word PLAQUE isn’t perfectly straight and uniform; the M isn’t fine and crisp — it’s thicker; and it doesn’t have SWISS MADE engraved on the back. ALL genuine Cartier’s do: his just has the word SWISS — and the symbol next to it isn’t a genuine Cartier symbol.
Besides the dreadful tarnishing, which it shouldn’t have — especially as it’s been sitting in a box for 35 years, a genuine new Cartier bought (or according to him — stolen) wouldn’t need a new strap in just a couple of years.
Comparing the back of his to the genuine vintage one you gave link to shows what a bad fake it is 😳
Me too
-
It's totally genuine. Another genuine gold-plated Must de Cartier with scratches, discolouration and misprinted letters. Look at misplaced T in ARGENT, wobbly drunken duck and no sign of a SWISS MADE...
(https://i.imgur.com/ZA8A8BN.jpg)
-
It's totally genuine. Another genuine gold-plated Must de Cartier with scratches, discolouration and misprinted letters. Look at misplaced T in ARGENT, wobbly drunken duck and no sign of a SWISS MADE...
(https://i.imgur.com/ZA8A8BN.jpg)
Apparently, the fakes didn't have the cabouchon on the wider.
-
It's totally genuine. Another genuine gold-plated Must de Cartier with scratches, discolouration and misprinted letters. Look at misplaced T in ARGENT, wobbly drunken duck and no sign of a SWISS MADE...
(https://i.imgur.com/ZA8A8BN.jpg)
How do you know that’s genuine?
It doesn’t look genuine to me, because no designer house would put that through QC with such misplaced font. They take pride in producing perfect watches and that isn’t perfect by a mile.
Don’t know where you got that or saw it, but places like eBay are flooded with fakes. It’s a massive problem and has been going on for decades.
-
Apparently, the fakes didn't have the cabouchon on the wider.
They do, Caroline. They glue them on, which is another giveaway.
The font too is always perfect aligned on a genuine watch, even cheap makes have perfect fronting.
I’m bowing out of this topic now as it isn’t relevant whether it’s fake or not: we all know he either did steal two genuine ones, or he bought fakes in Asia. And I’m sure SF wasn’t stupid enough to sell hers for £150 when at the time it was worth about £5k: why didn’t she take it to a jewellers and sell it for a couple of grand? None of it makes sense.
Anyway, I’m out of this topic now 8((()*/
-
OK, I'm going to post the things we have just spoken about and I hope thats the end of it!
Here is granny speakmans secret box which her husband made for her and she gave to Jeremy as a child. There are many negatives never before seen... Which I will not put out there and have nothing whatsoever to do with the case!
Here's Jeremy's ponytail and here's the Cartier. That is all your seeing and from here on in you can say what you like.
I have never (knowingly) lied to you and if I've made a mistake I'm hoping that I will have notice and corrected it as I did with Caroline's recent posts about regarding the watches.
Does anyone know the exhibit number of the ‘Chinese trick box’ ?
The exhibit number may have been on the paperwork Aunt Agatha received along with the rifle & wetsuit
-
OK, I'm going to post the things we have just spoken about and I hope thats the end of it!
Here is granny speakmans secret box which her husband made for her and she gave to Jeremy as a child. There are many negatives never before seen... Which I will not put out there and have nothing whatsoever to do with the case!
Here's Jeremy's ponytail and here's the Cartier. That is all your seeing and from here on in you can say what you like.
I have never (knowingly) lied to you and if I've made a mistake I'm hoping that I will have notice and corrected it as I did with Caroline's recent posts about regarding the watches.
Has CC ever seen a photo of the ‘Chinese trick box’ ?
-
Has CC ever seen a photo of the ‘Chinese trick box’ ?
If CC tunes in here, god forbid, then he has now.
-
Does anyone know the exhibit number of the ‘Chinese trick box’ ?
The exhibit number may have been on the paperwork Aunt Agatha received along with the rifle & wetsuit
Has Aunt Agatha shown any concrete proof these items came from JB?
-
Has Aunt Agatha shown any concrete proof these items came from JB?
Mike Tesko has apparently posted the details in the past
But Aunt Agathas address details were also posted in the process so it was removed - according to her anyway
-
Mike Tesko has apparently posted the details in the past
But Aunt Agathas address details were also posted in the process so it was removed - according to her anyway
Why were AA’s address details posted?
She said the police brought the items round to her...
Besides, it’s easy to hide an address with mark-up.
Has Agatha posted any letters written to her from JB, Nicholas?
-
Why were AA’s address details posted?
No idea - maybe AA will explain?
-
She said the police brought the items round to her...
It sounds like police brought some of the items to her house and some of the other items were given to her by Bamber from prison
-
Has Agatha posted any letters written to her from JB, Nicholas?
Don’t know?
-
It sounds like police brought some of the items to her house and some of the other items were given to her by Bamber from prison
He wouldn’t be allowed to give anyone anything, Nicholas — so until she proves how she allegedly received these items I’m not convinced. You only need to look up prison rules and you’ll see that prisoners aren’t allowed to take anything with them from their cell when they’re escorted to the visitors area: they’re searched before leaving their cell and searched after their visit.
I really can’t see the police driving hundreds of miles to deliver his cut pony tail to Agatha...plus a gun! Oh, and the wetsuit 😌
It clearly states that all personal belongings are bagged up and logged, and when a prisoner is transported from prison to prison their belongings go with them to the new prison. The items are released once the prisoner is set free, or they’re given to next of kin upon their death in prison. If they’ve no next of kin they’ll be released to whoever the prisoner has asked them to go to.
It’s all weird, to me...
I’m also curious why the police seized that Chinese box?
-
I’m also curious why the police seized that Chinese box?
JM was alleged to have thrown a ‘Chinese trick box’ at a mirror whilst at SC’s London flat
Not read or seen any w/s of what either sister said. Only CAL's interpretation of what occured...
'Brett called at the cafe to remind Jeremy that the antiques dealer was due, so they all returned to the flat.
While the dealer was looking through the items from the farm, the telephone rang.Jeremy answered, speaking ‘in a friendly manner’ to the caller.
‘Who is it?’ Julie asked, growing suspicious.
‘Virginia,’ he said.
Julie knew at once that he meant Virginia Greaves, and asked him to put the phone down.When he carried on talking, she cut the call herself.
They then began to argue and Jeremy admitted he was seeing Virginia.
When the telephone rang again and he answered it, Julie stormed through to Sheila’s bedroom.
‘I was so angry,’ she remembered. ‘I picked up a Chinese box of Jeremy’s and threw it against a mirror, which smashed.’
Still on the line, Virginia heard the splintering glass. ‘What’s that?’ she asked.
Jeremy replied, ‘Oh, Julie just smashing some plates up.’
There was another crash.
‘What’s that?’ asked Virginia again.
‘Julie’s just put her wrists through the window.’
Shocked, Virginia told him definitely, ‘I don’t want anything to do with that and I’ll speak to you some time.’
‘We put all the money on the floor and looked at it,’ Julie remembered. ‘I said that I had never seen that much money before. He put all the money in his little Chinese trick box.’
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=jeremy+bamber+chinese+trick+box&source=bl&ots=jQH-J5AeC1&sig=ACfU3U0BryXpogrDnkw5Ikx_1Yk1kH8qaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZ6q_iy6vpAhWTilwKHc-SDNQQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20chinese%20trick%20box&f=false
Aunt Agatha claimed the following
Here is granny speakmans secret box which her husband made for her and she gave to Jeremy as a child.
Presumably this is what Bamber told her
If the Chinese trick box belonged to Bamber what was it doing in SC’s bedroom in London?
Were there more than one Chinese trick box?
-
Scott Lomax wrote the following:
‘On 4 September 1985, Mugford was present when Bamber received a telephone call from one of his ex-lovers. This enraged his girlfriend who admitted, "I was annoyed with him about the call … I walked out of the room, went into the bedroom, as I was angry. I picked up a Chinese box of Jeremy's and threw it against a mirror, which smashed."
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan042.htm
-
Scott Lomax wrote the following:
‘On 4 September 1985, Mugford was present when Bamber received a telephone call from one of his ex-lovers. This enraged his girlfriend who admitted, "I was annoyed with him about the call … I walked out of the room, went into the bedroom, as I was angry. I picked up a Chinese box of Jeremy's and threw it against a mirror, which smashed."
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan042.htm
Still not convinced this was Virginia Greaves.
And if Bamber was in the habit of keeping his girlfriends ‘private’ as Aunt Agatha has claimed it’s possible this was Anji and Virginia could have lied to cover for them both?
What reason did Virginia have to phone Bamber around that time?
-
Has Agatha posted any letters written to her from JB, Nicholas?
Daisy claimed
I have dozens of letters from Jeremy bur would never dream of selling them. How low some people stoop. I know that Aunt Agatha also has boxfulls of them as well but they will always remain private.
-
If Aunt Agatha ever comes back After how rude everyone has been to her then I shall be most surprised.
-
Mike Tesko has apparently posted the details in the past
But Aunt Agathas address details were also posted in the process so it was removed - according to her anyway
But isn’t Mike Tesco an ex-convict and another pathological liar?
I read somewhere that even JB got shot of him because he thought he was “nuts”
-
JM was alleged to have thrown a ‘Chinese trick box’ at a mirror whilst at SC’s London flat
‘We put all the money on the floor and looked at it,’ Julie remembered. ‘I said that I had never seen that much money before. He put all the money in his little Chinese trick box.’
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zV3WCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=jeremy+bamber+chinese+trick+box&source=bl&ots=jQH-J5AeC1&sig=ACfU3U0BryXpogrDnkw5Ikx_1Yk1kH8qaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZ6q_iy6vpAhWTilwKHc-SDNQQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=jeremy%20bamber%20chinese%20trick%20box&f=false
Aunt Agatha claimed the following
Presumably this is what Bamber told her
If the Chinese trick box belonged to Bamber what was it doing in SC’s bedroom in London?
Were there more than one Chinese trick box?
The police were obviously interested in that box, which is why they seized it.
Maybe they were looking for Sheila’s fingerprints?
Seems a strange thing for a grown man to take to Sheila’s flat...
-
Daisy claimed
Who’d want to buy HIS letters?
Daisy, bless her sweet heart, still sounds slightly naive despite him being vile to her and spouting to her face: “I never liked you anyway!”
I can’t grasp how some people seem to think ANYTHING of that evil murderer’s is worth even pennies. He’s not a famous celebrity; he’s a mass murderer. And when they showed WHF most people under the age of 50 didn’t even know who he was or what actually happened...the people on Twitter didn’t have a clue.
-
The police were obviously interested in that box, which is why they seized it.
Maybe they were looking for Sheila’s fingerprints?
Seems a strange thing for a grown man to take to Sheila’s flat...
What did he used to keep in the box does anyone know?
And why take it to SC’s flat - presuming he did?
-
Those negatives Aunt Agatha referred to may be the negatives from the camera she said she brought him to take photos of her and Bamber
Don’t believe they were related to the case in anyway
She mentions them here
I agree Myster, now I've viewed the ones online I think it has been purchased, I had wondered that however I could not verify that and I know Jeremy couldn't either, he believed it was made. It's a very basic box, it's not a puzzle and opens quite easily.
The box has never been used, it retains the negatives inside and was put away like everything else he gave me.
I ve taken care of the items, as I would if anybody had asked me to care for something.
-
I’m also curious why the police seized that Chinese box?
According to Aunt Agatha
Jeremy was given the box...
There was no Internet or anything at the time so he could do research like people do today.
If I was going to deliberately lie (as you're suggesting) I have access to the internet and certainly would have done my research. Therefore, I have accepted everything upon which it was received... Based only on the info Jeremy knew at the time.
I never spent time asking about the box, where it came from, was it handmade or a purchased gift. It looks very similar too the ones online and apart from the inside where the wires are attached for its musicality, that looks a bit rough.
So if Jeremy thought or believed as a child it's was made, then so be it.
But was he and could he have stolen it ?
-
The hair is Jeremy's!
He had long hair at one time, halfway down his back.
Of course you're not going to see photos of this, he was in prison and we couldn't take cameras in without permission.
Bamber referred to a ‘Polaroid’ photograph of him with long hair and of sending it to someone
-
I’m also curious why the police seized that Chinese box?
Jeremy was given the box..
But was he and could he have stolen it ?
Aunt Agatha initially posted here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358280.html#msg358280
The police arrived with rifle, wetsuit, camera, all granny's paperwork and granny's handmade box”
-
Those negatives Aunt Agatha referred to may be the negatives from the camera she said she brought him to take photos of her and Bamber
Don’t believe they were related to the case in anyway
She mentions them here
Here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358271.html#msg358271
Aunt Agatha stated,
Here we have;
His hair,
His Seiko watch/computer ( which he was able to use in those days),
His camera, with original film still inside. Have never had it processed.
Unless there are ‘negatives’ and a ‘film’ ?
What’s on these negatives and could they have also have belonged to SC ?
-
Here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358271.html#msg358271
Aunt Agatha stated,
Here we have;
His hair,
His Seiko watch/computer ( which he was able to use in those days),
His camera, with original film still inside. Have never had it processed.
Unless there are ‘negatives’ and a ‘film’ ?
What’s on these negatives and could they have also have belonged to SC ?
When asked ‘why didn’t the police process the film in the camera’,
Aunt Agatha stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358309.html#msg358309
”No. We were stunned that they even agreed to give them in the first place. Once I had received them we never mentioned them in writing (I don't think). Maybe they overlooked it....I really don't know and I was not going to ask.
Did the police seize the ‘negatives’ from SC’s flat - the same place where the Chinese trick box was seized from ?
-
When asked ‘why didn’t the police process the film in the camera’,
Aunt Agatha stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358309.html#msg358309
”No. We were stunned that they even agreed to give them in the first place. Once I had received them we never mentioned them in writing (I don't think). Maybe they overlooked it....I really don't know and I was not going to ask.
Did the police seize the ‘negatives’ from SC’s flat - the same place where the Chinese trick box was seized from ?
And when asked ‘Have you never been curious to find out what's on the film?‘
Aunt Agatha replied here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358314.html#msg358314
Yes, many times. I even took it to the shop but changed my mind. I just couldn't get them processed.
Maybe now I could - I'd forgotten I had it until I went searching for the Cartier.....which I still haven't found.
What if Aunt Agatha were to have the ‘negatives’ processed and they were found to be photos belonging to SC - would she tell anyone ?
-
How any of you have got the nerve to ask questions of Aunt Agatha is completely beyond me.
-
When Steve posted here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358359.html#msg358359
I don't know which side of the argument has been duped by propaganda, but Jeremy long ago learned to conceal and control his emotions after his craving for hugs as a young child went unanswered from June and Nevill alike.
Aunt Agatha replied,
....and I was just gullible! Possibly. Nothing can be ruled out.
That reads to me as though Aunt Agatha was beginning to think she’d been duped
When David stated,
Yes that is a major aspect that worries me. He does not know what he should know if he is a guilty man.
Aunt Agatha wrote,
Precisely!!!
Wonder what she’d think to finding the negatives in her possession belonged to SC and not Bamber?
-
And when asked ‘Have you never been curious to find out what's on the film?‘
Aunt Agatha replied here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358314.html#msg358314
Yes, many times. I even took it to the shop but changed my mind. I just couldn't get them processed.
Maybe now I could - I'd forgotten I had it until I went searching for the Cartier.....which I still haven't found.
If the ‘film’ came with the camera and neither were used it could of course just be blank - had Aunt Agatha ever considered this?
What if Aunt Agatha were to have the ‘negatives’ processed and they were found to be photos belonging to SC - would she tell anyone ?
-
OK, I'm going to post the things we have just spoken about and I hope thats the end of it!
Here is granny speakmans secret box which her husband made for her and she gave to Jeremy as a child. There are many negatives never before seen... Which I will not put out there and have nothing whatsoever to do with the case!
Here's Jeremy's ponytail and here's the Cartier. That is all your seeing and from here on in you can say what you like.
I have never (knowingly) lied to you and if I've made a mistake I'm hoping that I will have notice and corrected it as I did with Caroline's recent posts about regarding the watches.
Didn’t Bamber give SF a teddy he’d allegedly had since he was a child ?
Was this before or after he murdered ?
-
Aunt Agatha states here ‘the box has never been used’
I agree Myster, now I've viewed the ones online I think it has been purchased, I had wondered that however I could not verify that and I know Jeremy couldn't either, he believed it was made. It's a very basic box, it's not a puzzle and opens quite easily.
The box has never been used, it retains the negatives inside and was put away like everything else he gave me.
I ve taken care of the items, as I would if anybody had asked me to care for something.
But Bamber’s box was used - he stashed money in it
-
I agree Myster, now I've viewed the ones online I think it has been purchased, I had wondered that however I could not verify that and I know Jeremy couldn't either, he believed it was made. It's a very basic box, it's not a puzzle and opens quite easily.
The box has never been used, it retains the negatives inside and was put away like everything else he gave me.
I ve taken care of the items, as I would if anybody had asked me to care for something.
And Aunt Agatha states, ‘the’ negatives not some negatives
What does she mean by THE negatives ?
‘The negatives’ to what exactly ?
Why did she state ‘the negatives’ ?
Was she referring to ‘the negatives’ Bamber attempted to sell to the Sun?
‘Jeremy Bamber's final act of evil towards sister Sheila after pinning murders on her
‘However, it was weeks later when Bamber appear to cross a line when he tried to sell topless pictures of Sheila to a national newspaper.He is said to have demanded £20,000 for the snaps, which taken during Sheila's modelling career.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/jeremy-bambers-final-act-evil-21284544
-
Of course you could verify all of this and put the naysayers in their place by simply posting a picture of one of the negatives from the box.
Doubt she’ll bother but the police would know what’s on them 8((()*/
-
And Aunt Agatha states, ‘the’ negatives not some negatives
What does she mean by THE negatives ?
‘The negatives’ to what exactly ?
Why did she state ‘the negatives’ ?
Was she referring to ‘the negatives’ Bamber attempted to sell to the Sun?
‘Jeremy Bamber's final act of evil towards sister Sheila after pinning murders on her
‘However, it was weeks later when Bamber appear to cross a line when he tried to sell topless pictures of Sheila to a national newspaper.He is said to have demanded £20,000 for the snaps, which taken during Sheila's modelling career.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/jeremy-bambers-final-act-evil-21284544
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)
-
Those negatives Aunt Agatha referred to may be the negatives from the camera she said she brought him to take photos of her and Bamber
Don’t believe they were related to the case in anyway
She mentions them here
So if this handmade box was allegedly lovingly made by Mr Speakman for his wife, why would she have never used it?
According to AA it looked brand new 😳
The design on it certainly didn’t look handmade...
It’s all “smoke and mirrors “ as AA like to quote...
-
Good heavens, I didn’t know Jeremy Bamber and Brett Collins had tried to hawk his story all around Fleet Street! No wonder when The Sun outed him he cowardly hid! Then scurried off to to France...
And he wanted £100,000 for Sheila’s photos!!! Plus £100,000 for his boring life story! What an evil, disgusting, greedy lump of s..m he is.
And no wonder he hid his mug coming out of court after being convicted of burglary and theft...what a VILE cowardly sickening monster he is
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358271.html#msg358271
Aunt Agatha stated,
Here we have;
His hair,
His Seiko watch/computer ( which he was able to use in those days),
His camera, with original film still inside. Have never had it processed.
Suspect Aunt Agatha didn’t get it processed because she knew/knows the films blank
-
“Here are some items, still looking for Cartier. I've put it somewhere safe and cannot find it. :))
Here we have;
His hair,
His Seiko watch/computer ( which he was able to use in those days),
His camera, with original film still inside. Have never had it processed.
Wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn Aunt Agatha brought Bamber the camera & film too!?
You stoop low sometimes.
The police delivered the camera.
Which you claimed to have brought him
-
As a quick aside, during my searches tonight I had a look at Jeremy Bummer’s Instagram and noticed it’s more of a selfie page of him putting throwback photos up of himself taken almost 40 years ago. Only a narcissist would post lots of his “favourite “ snaps going back decades: I thought the purpose of his SM platforms was to try and prove he’s a lovely, caring man 😳. Instead, he’s grinning away, posing, trying to get fans 🙈
Besides his bake-off and appeals for CASH, he’s taken a close-up photo of his latest watch 😤 A Breitling, no less. He made sure people could see the make. He didn’t get sent down with that watch — I’m sure he was wearing his Cartier to impress the court.
So which daft dopey woman sent him a watch worth anything between £6k and £15k for him to wear in his minimalist pad?🤑
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Which you claimed to have brought him
AA claims there’s negatives in there as she knows no-one can ask to see the photos — which I truly doubt exist.
Had that camera been in his possession in prison, or been seized by the police, the first thing they would have done was to have had those processed! They wouldn’t let go of those photographs he’d possibly and slyly taken of inmates/officers in prison ! And the police would have looked to see if Jeremy had photographed his family when dead, drugs he grew, piles of money, stolen items...oh, it would have been dynamite for them.
-
Actually the police would hand over items to a third party if they had taken them into their control as evidence and then decided to return them. If the property belonged to Jeremy as in the air rifle and the wet suit then they were duty bound to return them to Jeremy regardless of his conviction and as he was in prison, effectively homeless and without family, the police would have asked him to designate a keeper for his property. Enter Aunt Agatha.
According to Bamber's Campaign here https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-rifle
‘Jeremy on the other hand did not own a gun or a license’
-
Thought I'd post this on here too. The rifle was handed to me in 1996 by EP as I've always stated. Here's the evidence which is taken from the blue forum.
Everything I have stated on here, regarding the receipt of Jeremy's possessions is true. It was all out there for you to find for yourselves.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thought I'd post this on here too. The rifle was handed to me in 1996 by EP as I've always stated. Here's the evidence which is taken from the blue forum.
Everything I have stated on here, regarding the receipt of Jeremy's possessions is true. It was all out there for you to find for yourselves.
Have just found the thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1614.0.html
-
Have just found the thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1614.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1614.0.html)
That's just the usual Teskowski BS. No air rifle was used in the shootings whatsoever.
-
That's just the usual Teskowski BS. No air rifle was used in the shootings whatsoever.
That claim has Never been made from me or by anybody until Mike said something about it. I've only stated I received possessions of his and was indirectly called a liar regarding receipt of the rifle.
-
That's just the usual Teskowski BS. No air rifle was used in the shootings whatsoever.
Yes I realised
-
That claim has Never been made from me or by anybody until Mike said something about it. I've only stated I received possessions of his and was indirectly called a liar regarding receipt of the rifle.
Yes, one or two people have jumped the gun, ho-ho... but I believe you AA, and also about other items such as the (genuine) Cartier, Chinese trick box and pony tail (Eewww!) which JB gave you for safekeeping.
-
Thank you. I have absolutely no reason to lie, I've nothing to gain. I've never spoken to anybody who has written about him, I've never co-operated with anybody and I've never divulged personal conversations I had with him.
Anything I have had to say, has been on here or the blue and I stand by that.
Trust you have a good day.
-
Thank you. I have absolutely no reason to lie, I've nothing to gain. I've never spoken to anybody who has written about him, I've never co-operated with anybody and I've never divulged personal conversations I had with him.
Anything I have had to say, has been on here or the blue and I stand by that.
Trust you have a good day.
Aunt Agatha did you meet Bamber through this person or did they meet him through you?
K L Ross
I feel we could all take a leaf out of Jeremy Bamber's book
Jeremy and I were born in the same year and I believe it is this common link which has heightened my interest in his incarceration. I'm sure I’m not alone in saying I have often pondered the highlights, landmarks and even lowlights of life which have forged my path and shaped me into the character I am today, and at the same time wondered what Jeremy Bamber would have achieved if his life in the outside world hadn't been so cruelly taken from him. How many of us who have read or been involved in miscarriages of justice have felt utterly saddened for the innocent victims of circumstance. How many of us have shed a tear for the 'lost years' which can never be replaced, I have and I do. As a mother myself, I know for a fact I would be crippled if this had happened to my son and would consider my life well and truly over. Trust me when I say I am not a weak woman in any shape or form, quite the opposite as I am about to explain.
Jeremy had served three years in prison when I moved to London and joined the Crown Prosecution Service as a Legal Secretary to the Head of Branch. During 7 years service I have attended meetings with officers from New Scotland Yard and heard accounts of crimes so heinous they would shock and sicken most people. I have prepared case files for court and trawled through endless reports from psychologists and psychiatrists and have completely understood the traits, characteristics and personality disorders which make criminals, murderers and rapists carry out such horrific, appalling crimes. I have studied photographs of dismembered bodies, dug up or dragged out of rivers. I’ve seen photographs of bodies which have been battered and tortured and old ladies who had been raped and murdered. I’ve had to look at sickening photographs of a child swung by her feet and smashed off every wall in her bedroom. I have attended Crown Courts and have had murderers and hardened criminals stare me in the eye. Imagine being 'eyeballed' at the same time as listening to the gory details about how 'he' strangled his girlfriend and propped her up in the passenger seat of his car and drove her around London whilst revelling at the shocked reaction from passersby. Drawing on all this experience and knowledge, if you were to ask me "does anything you have seen or read lead you to believe Jeremy Bamber fits the description of (a) a cold blooded murderer or (b) a psychopath?" then my answer would be emphatically "NO. Jeremy Bamber is nothing like the people I’ve come across."
Scott Lomax has recently written a piece about the internet and how it has aided prisoners with their fight for justice, I have found the internet has certainly been the most informative tool to keep abreast of such high profile cases such as Jeremy’s' and which has strengthened my interest in criminology. It was through the internet which allowed me to become more involved in my support to join the campaign to free Jeremy for the crime I believe he did not and would not commit. Only recently I took the plunge and started to correspond with Jeremy (as do two members of my family). Who can relate to the excitement of reading a great compelling book which has gripped you so much you can’t wait to jump into bed at night to pick it up. Well, Jeremy writes with the same qualities which can make you laugh and cry all on the same page! From this correspondence I am gathering together jigsaw pieces which form the picture of a man with great resolve and honesty. It is a true testament of his strength of character how he can fight tirelessly to see justice prevail and that through his darkness he still maintains a great sense of humour. I feel we could all take a leaf out of Jeremy Bamber’s book which would make us all better people. If you asked me "Is Jeremy Bamber your friend?" I would reply "No, I haven’t earned that privilege!"
https://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/k-l-ross
And did you help or provide information to Roger Wilkes for his book ?
[quote author=APRIL link=topic=11490.msg592668#msg592668 date=159013551
Everybody's different and my relationship with Jeremy was not the same as yours and your partners.
I threw away 'paperwork'. It was old and all came fro Justice for All. I threw away Roger Wilkes' Blood Relations transcript that I had received before it was published. To me, it wasn't Jeremy and I had no reason to keep them any longer.
We all have to let go at some point.
I have however kept all his personal items which I cannot see me throwing away. So there's a difference... I was not talking about personal possession as as it was not a personal possession that Ispy was interested in.
Therefore, in contradiction to myself, i never disposed of his personal letters either or his gifts.
Hope it clears that up. I don't think I'm as ruthless as you think April.... Or I hope I'm not.