The Devil's Children. What was the need for this?

[Robittybob1]

The defence and prosecution at trial agreed the perp was either JB or SC.

IMO you are wasting everyone's time and flooding the board with material that doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

Well, that was a serious strategic error on Jeremy's part for he could have no idea what happened if his story is correct for he wasn't there.

[Robittybob1]

Butt CAL is working from the premise that such a conversation occurred. I'm saying, as we only have Jeremy's word for everything that transpired, and every word which was spoken, there's a strong likelihood that it didn't.

That is biased in your opinion on the case.

[Robittybob1]

I don't believe it is. Or at least, not in the same format that Jeremy implied. The Bambers would have been fully aware of the legal boundaries -tighter then, than now- and they had no legal jurisdiction over the children, ergo, there wouldn't have been a conversation about taking them out of Colin's care, which was what placing them in another's care would have amounted to. Jeremy just needed there to have been the sort of conversation which would stir Sheila into action.

That is the question.  How better to stir things up other than to ring Colin and bring him into the deadly mix.

[Robittybob1]

But is it against the rules?

I did get a warning so some part of what I wrote a couple of days ago was against the rules.  But that part was edited out of my post so I take it what remains is OK.

[Robittybob1]

They would have been fully aware of the legal position, yes, but Colin wasn't there to argue back/speak up for Sheila, who may  not have been able to cope with her parents on her own.

I can well imagine it happening, but, of course, it's also possible that it didn't, and Jeremy made the whole thing up. We'll never know, because there are no witnesses except Jeremy, and he isn't going to be believed, even if, on this occasion, he was telling the truth!

Others who rang the house could tell there was at least an argument going on.

[The General]

That is the question.  How better to stir things up other than to ring Colin and bring him into the deadly mix.

Rob, you are reminiscent of an antipodean, innocuous Sancho Panza character. People may consider that your naive ramblings are faux. No, I know you to be different.
Never change.

[The General]

I did get a warning so some part of what I wrote a couple of days ago was against the rules.  But that part was edited out of my post so I take it what remains is OK.

You should wield your power and rescind that shit on yourself. Stick it to the man.

[Robittybob1]

you really could do with a different occupation then, you’re not doing a very good job in this one, imo.

It isn't an easy case.

Rob, you are reminiscent of an antipodean, innocuous Sancho Panza character. People may consider that your naive ramblings are faux. No, I know you to be different.
Never change.

Thanks General.

You should wield your power and rescind that shit on yourself. Stick it to the man.

I probably did overstep the boundary.  Colin has a child and she may be following the forum.  She struggles enough with it, according to Colin.

[Robittybob1]

Especially as he’s a pathological liar

Remind me of one proven lie then please?

As I said above it maybe Jeremy's lawyer who came up with this one: "The defense and prosecution at trial agreed the perp was either JB or SC."

I've never seen Jeremy say those words or has he?

[G-Unit]

Barbara Wilson has not LOTS of conflicting statements. Like you do frequently, I am dismissing anything she has said. Pretty much of it anyway.

The point being what she said, not whether you believe her or not. Evidence is evidence. It seems the Bambers were aware of how ill their daughter was and what might happen; "Sheila wasn't well and she wasn't getting any better. There was a possibility that she would have to go into hospital again and might lose regular access to the children."

It was clear they were concerned; June was even opening up to her sister. She planned to take Sheila to see her on
the following day so Pamela could 'form an opinion' about her health. Pamela got the impression from June that Sheila was behaving oddly. [w/s 12/8/85]

[Caroline]

The point being what she said, not whether you believe her or not. Evidence is evidence. It seems the Bambers were aware of how ill their daughter was and what might happen; "Sheila wasn't well and she wasn't getting any better. There was a possibility that she would have to go into hospital again and might lose regular access to the children."

It was clear they were concerned; June was even opening up to her sister. She planned to take Sheila to see her on
the following day so Pamela could 'form an opinion' about her health. Pamela got the impression from June that Sheila was behaving oddly. [w/s 12/8/85]

WOW! I could say the same to you about Michael Fielder, it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not - but it doesn't stop you denying the incident took place when we know Bamber did meet Fielder and we have Colin's verification on the words spoken to him and also seen in print!

June had spoken to Colin's mother about a fear of the children being fostered, it was something she didn't want and she had no power to organise such a thing even if she were in favour. You're trying to suggest that Shila was on the edge of psychosis and there is no evidence of that - quite the opposite!

[G-Unit]

WOW! I could say the same to you about Michael Fielder, it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not - but it doesn't stop you denying the incident took place when we know Bamber did meet Fielder and we have Colin's verification on the words spoken to him and also seen in print!

June had spoken to Colin's mother about a fear of the children being fostered, it was something she didn't want and she had no power to organise such a thing even if she were in favour. You're trying to suggest that Shila was on the edge of psychosis and there is no evidence of that - quite the opposite!

That's the point about evidence; to test it's reliability. Barbara Wilson offers some support to Jeremy's account of his parent's feelings about Sheila and the children.

[Holly Goodhead]

WOW! I could say the same to you about Michael Fielder, it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not - but it doesn't stop you denying the incident took place when we know Bamber did meet Fielder and we have Colin's verification on the words spoken to him and also seen in print!

June had spoken to Colin's mother about a fear of the children being fostered, it was something she didn't want and she had no power to organise such a thing even if she were in favour. You're trying to suggest that Shila was on the edge of psychosis and there is no evidence of that - quite the opposite!

June and SC suffered long histories of mental illness which may well have made communication difficult. 

[Robittybob1]

June and SC suffered long histories of mental illness which may well have made communication difficult.

June Bamber suffered from mental illness too, I didn't know that.   She looks like she was tortured before being killed outright.  There seems to be real hate expressed in the manner of her death. Just my opinion at this stage after looking at that crime scene photo.

[APRIL]

June Bamber suffered from mental illness too, I didn't know that.   She looks like she was tortured before being killed outright.  There seems to be real hate expressed in the manner of her death. Just my opinion at this stage after looking at that crime scene photo.

Forgive the observation, but with such limited knowledge of the case, it surprising that you feel able to expound on it with such authority.