Author Topic: Was the twins' future up for discussion?  (Read 8581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #45 on: April 29, 2020, 02:42:23 PM »
Anyway back to the OP, CC was taking the twins to see SC but it seems they were in effect supervised visits with CC present.

According to CC he was told by Dr F SC was likely to suffer with her illness at increasing intervals and Dr F inferred a poor outlook. The twins were only just 6 yoa so needed taking care of for at least the next 12 years.  The Bamber's were not getting younger.

CC certainly realised SC was no longer able to care for the twins and that wasn't going to change.  He had no intention in letting SC becoming main carer again.

We know from CC's mother wit stat June expressed her concerns that through SC's illness the twins might be fostered.  Maybe June was simply sounding out CC's mother

I don't see why anyone doubts the Bamber's were initiating conversations about the twins future?
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.

Offline John

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #46 on: May 02, 2020, 11:58:56 AM »
Please note that the original thread has been separated into three new threads given the frequency of off-topic posts.

Please post according to the thread title. Thank you!
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposť of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Caroline

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #47 on: May 02, 2020, 12:02:58 PM »
Anyway back to the OP, CC was taking the twins to see SC but it seems they were in effect supervised visits with CC present.

According to CC he was told by Dr F SC was likely to suffer with her illness at increasing intervals and Dr F inferred a poor outlook. The twins were only just 6 yoa so needed taking care of for at least the next 12 years.  The Bamber's were not getting younger.

CC certainly realised SC was no longer able to care for the twins and that wasn't going to change.  He had no intention in letting SC becoming main carer again.

We know from CC's mother wit stat June expressed her concerns that through SC's illness the twins might be fostered.  Maybe June was simply sounding out CC's mother

I don't see why anyone doubts the Bamber's were initiating conversations about the twins future?

They may have been but certainly NOT about then being fostered out.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #48 on: May 02, 2020, 12:18:26 PM »
I know we shouldn't draw attention to grammatical mistakes but setting aside the fact that I think the title of this thread is in very bad taste could we at least have the decency to recognise that TWO little boys' future were denied them by repositioning the apostrophe in the appropriate place?
Ignoring me won't make me go away.

Offline Common sense

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #49 on: May 02, 2020, 12:18:53 PM »

I don't see why anyone doubts the Bamber's were initiating conversations about the twins future?

They may have been but certainly NOT about then being fostered out.

Spot on Caroline. 8((()*/

Let's not forget that JB lied about NBs phone call, lied about calling Julie first and lied to police about Sheila being proficient with guns, making everything he says suspect.


Offline Caroline

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #50 on: May 02, 2020, 12:22:32 PM »
Spot on Caroline. 8((()*/

Let's not forget that JB lied about NBs phone call, lied about calling Julie first and lied to police about Sheila being proficient with guns, making everything he says suspect.

He had to make the supposed conversation sound negative from Sheila's side. He's quite clever in the fact that he didn't over-egg it. I think there was an argument that night but it wasn't with the entire family, it was between him and Nevill. I think that's why Nevill sustained such a brutal attack and arrange in a position of humiliation.

Offline The General

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #51 on: May 02, 2020, 12:29:22 PM »
I know we shouldn't draw attention to grammatical mistakes but setting aside the fact that I think the title of this thread is in very bad taste could we at least have the decency to recognise that TWO little boys' future were denied them by repositioning the apostrophe in the appropriate place?
We could insert the missing commata in your post while we're at it.
Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline The General

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #52 on: May 02, 2020, 12:36:12 PM »
He had to make the supposed conversation sound negative from Sheila's side. He's quite clever in the fact that he didn't over-egg it. I think there was an argument that night but it wasn't with the entire family, it was between him and Nevill. I think that's why Nevill sustained such a brutal attack and arrange in a position of humiliation.
I don't believe that. I think Nevill's kecks simply fell down during the violent struggle. He got the most punishment because he put up the most resistance. It was a fight to the death essentially.
Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline Caroline

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #53 on: May 02, 2020, 12:43:43 PM »
I don't believe that. I think Nevill's kecks simply fell down during the violent struggle. He got the most punishment because he put up the most resistance. It was a fight to the death essentially.

And that's you privilege.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #54 on: May 02, 2020, 01:01:28 PM »
We could insert the missing commata in your post while we're at it.
Do it then, I always love being educated by your good self.  Show me my error and I will be eternally grateful.
Ignoring me won't make me go away.

Offline Common sense

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #55 on: May 02, 2020, 01:06:42 PM »
I don't believe that. I think Nevill's kecks simply fell down during the violent struggle. He got the most punishment because he put up the most resistance. It was a fight to the death essentially.

We shall never know if they fell down or not but the evidence no more supports a violent struggle than a one sided brutal attack against an already badly wounded man.

Offline The General

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #56 on: May 02, 2020, 01:29:30 PM »
We shall never know if they fell down or not but the evidence no more supports a violent struggle than a one sided brutal attack against an already badly wounded man.
OK, so the violent beating of a mortally wounded man, attempting to fight off an armed assailant.
Point being, I think his kecks just fell down.
Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline APRIL

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #57 on: May 02, 2020, 01:33:54 PM »
OK, so the violent beating of a mortally wounded man, attempting to fight off an armed assailant.
Point being, I think his kecks just fell down.

likely if he reached up in attempt to disarm Jeremy.

Offline Common sense

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #58 on: May 02, 2020, 02:21:53 PM »
OK, so the violent beating of a mortally wounded man, attempting to fight off an armed assailant.
Point being, I think his kecks just fell down.

I've always tended to believe they just fell down but assuming they did, the brutality of the attack suggests more than just an immediate need to subdue NB while the gun was reloaded but something more personal. There is little doubt that he was lifted into his bizarre final position either.

Then there is the unsolved mystery of the burns on his back. CAL posits the theory that he may have been tortured to reveal the whereabouts of hidden valuables or cash. 

Offline APRIL

Re: Was the twins' future up for discussion?
« Reply #59 on: May 02, 2020, 02:27:03 PM »
I've always tended to believe they just fell down but assuming they did, the brutality of the attack suggests more than just an immediate need to subdue NB while the gun was reloaded but something more personal. There is little doubt that he was lifted into his bizarre final position either.

Then there is the unsolved mystery of the burns on his back. CAL posits the theory that he may have been tortured to reveal the whereabouts of hidden valuables or cash.


Was it established that they were recently acquired, or was the pathologist unsure?