The Lies of Jeremy Bamber

[LuminousWanderer]

And, Luminous doo-dah, you made the classic rookie mistake (except you're not a rookie, are you?) of asking why Bamber didn't just dump the silencer. It would have been missed.

Actually, I have asked that very question, on the first thread I started!  LOL.  Again, this is further proof that you don't read my posts.  What you , Stephanie and one or two others have done is pick up on a few words and sentences in my posts, sometimes quoting me out of context, and then launching into all sorts of erroneous assumptions about my motives. 

You don't seem able to wrap your head round the notion that not everybody's thinking fits into a box.

The Bamber case is fascinating, but it's all getting a bit thin. There isn't much left to pick over. All that is left is a bit of entertainment when there's nothing else to do. Smarter people than you have realised that Nevill didn't make a phone call, and whoever handled the gun knew what they were doing. Everything, from the angle of the first shot to Sheila, to the lack of prints on the gun, has been done to death.

I'm sorry, but as somebody who is not very familiar with the case, I have a perfect right to ask questions about the case.  There is nothing wrong with this.  It doesn't imply anything one way or the other about my intelligence or intellect or cognitive abilities or morality, or otherwise about my character or motives or anything else.

With due respect, the tensions that have arisen on this Forum could have been avoided if you, Stephanie and Adam, etc. would just have taken the time to read my posts properly.  That's why I was so keen in my very first thread to make my intentions clear, which you've ignored.

I'm not taking sides.  People who are trying to understand the case, don't take sides.  You've read too much into my posts.  I did make myself clear right from the start.

[APRIL]

Actually, I have asked that very question, on the first thread I started!  LOL.  Again, this is further proof that you don't read my posts.  What you , Stephanie and one or two others have done is pick up on a few words and sentences in my posts, sometimes quoting me out of context, and then launching into all sorts of erroneous assumptions about my motives. 

You don't seem able to wrap your head round the notion that not everybody's thinking fits into a box.

I'm sorry, but as somebody who is not very familiar with the case, I have a perfect right to ask questions about the case.  There is nothing wrong with this.  It doesn't imply anything one way or the other about my intelligence or intellect or cognitive abilities or morality, or otherwise about my character or motives or anything else.

With due respect, the tensions that have arisen on this Forum could have been avoided if you, Stephanie and Adam, etc. would just have taken the time to read my posts properly.  That's why I was so keen in my very first thread to make my intentions clear, which you've ignored.

I'm not taking sides.  People who are trying to understand the case, don't take sides.  You've read too much into my posts.  I did make myself clear right from the start.

Indeed. You make yourself abundantly clear. I don't think there's a poster here who is unaware that YOU DON'T CARE. You appear impervious to the fact that two of those five he shot were children -this usually arouses some sort of emotion- and disdainful and dismissive of those who DO care.

[Nicholas]

Actually, I have asked that very question, on the first thread I started!  LOL.  .

Go back and read puglove's post!

It wasn't that you hadn't asked the question. The "rookie mistake" was that the silencer would have been missed if Bamber had dumped it.

[Nicholas]

Actually, I have asked that very question, on the first thread I started!  LOL.  Again, this is further proof that you don't read my posts.  What you , Stephanie and one or two others have done is pick up on a few words and sentences in my posts, sometimes quoting me out of context, and then launching into all sorts of erroneous assumptions about my motives. 

You don't seem able to wrap your head round the notion that not everybody's thinking fits into a box.

I'm sorry, but as somebody who is not very familiar with the case, I have a perfect right to ask questions about the case.  There is nothing wrong with this.  It doesn't imply anything one way or the other about my intelligence or intellect or cognitive abilities or morality, or otherwise about my character or motives or anything else.

With due respect, the tensions that have arisen on this Forum could have been avoided if you, Stephanie and Adam, etc. would just have taken the time to read my posts properly. That's why I was so keen in my very first thread to make my intentions clear, which you've ignored.

I'm not taking sides.  People who are trying to understand the case, don't take sides.  You've read too much into my posts.  I did make myself clear right from the start.

The "tensions" to which you refer are of your own making!

I've just highlighted the fact if you'd bothered to read puglove's post properly and put your confirmation bias to one side you wouldn't have responded as you did and got ahead of yourself.

YOU misread Pugloves post! Not the other way round!

[Nicholas]

Actually, I have asked that very question, on the first thread I started!  LOL.  Again, this is further proof that you don't read my posts.  What you , Stephanie and one or two others have done is pick up on a few words and sentences in my posts, sometimes quoting me out of context, and then launching into all sorts of erroneous assumptions about my motives. 

You don't seem able to wrap your head round the notion that not everybody's thinking fits into a box.

I'm sorry, but as somebody who is not very familiar with the case, I have a perfect right to ask questions about the case.  There is nothing wrong with this.  It doesn't imply anything one way or the other about my intelligence or intellect or cognitive abilities or morality, or otherwise about my character or motives or anything else.

With due respect, the tensions that have arisen on this Forum could have been avoided if you, Stephanie and Adam, etc. would just have taken the time to read my posts properly.  That's why I was so keen in my very first thread to make my intentions clear, which you've ignored.

I'm not taking sides.  People who are trying to understand the case, don't take sides.  You've read too much into my posts.  I did make myself clear right from the start.

Again, it is YOU who has this notion that not everybody's thinking fits in to a box; NOT those you are accusing.

You have repeatedly suggested if we aren't fence sitters we are ridged in our thinking processes.

It's not a case of "taking sides" - that's your projection.

You may be without conscience therefore that may be why you "don't care" one way or another. The fact that you MAY BE without conscience could also be WHY your posts appear as they do ie: irrational, nonsensical...

[Nicholas]

Actually, I have asked that very question, on the first thread I started!  LOL.  Again, this is further proof that you don't read my posts.  What you , Stephanie and one or two others have done is pick up on a few words and sentences in my posts, sometimes quoting me out of context, and then launching into all sorts of erroneous assumptions about my motives. 

You don't seem able to wrap your head round the notion that not everybody's thinking fits into a box.

I'm sorry, but as somebody who is not very familiar with the case, I have a perfect right to ask questions about the case.  There is nothing wrong with this.  It doesn't imply anything one way or the other about my intelligence or intellect or cognitive abilities or morality, or otherwise about my character or motives or anything else.

With due respect, the tensions that have arisen on this Forum could have been avoided if you, Stephanie and Adam, etc. would just have taken the time to read my posts properly.  That's why I was so keen in my very first thread to make my intentions clear, which you've ignored.

I'm not taking sides.  People who are trying to understand the case, don't take sides.  You've read too much into my posts.  I did make myself clear right from the start.

How could you possibly know that?

You see this is a classic example of you contradicting yourself.

You've talked about people's notions fitting into boxes and that's EXACTLY what you've done; put all those who don't take sides into a box; they must think like you if they don't take sides?!

[Nicholas]

Actually, I have asked that very question, on the first thread I started!  LOL.  Again, this is further proof that you don't read my posts.  What you , Stephanie and one or two others have done is pick up on a few words and sentences in my posts, sometimes quoting me out of context, and then launching into all sorts of erroneous assumptions about my motives. 

You don't seem able to wrap your head round the notion that not everybody's thinking fits into a box.

I'm sorry, but as somebody who is not very familiar with the case, I have a perfect right to ask questions about the case.  There is nothing wrong with this.  It doesn't imply anything one way or the other about my intelligence or intellect or cognitive abilities or morality, or otherwise about my character or motives or anything else.

With due respect, the tensions that have arisen on this Forum could have been avoided if you, Stephanie and Adam, etc. would just have taken the time to read my posts properly.  That's why I was so keen in my very first thread to make my intentions clear, which you've ignored.

I'm not taking sides.  People who are trying to understand the case, don't take sides.  You've read too much into my posts.  I did make myself clear right from the start.

That's EXACTLY what you do - only you appear too focused on the rest of us to see what's starring you in the face!?

[adam]

Possibly because the campaign team are purely focused on cadging as much dosh as possible, hence the inappropriate images of piles of cash and Easter eggs. Classy, Troods.

I can't believe that Mike hasn't been challenged on his latest allegation, that Nevill wasn't even in WHF when the shootings began. At what point did he change into the pyjamas that he was found wearing?

 

Mike, Nugs, David & Nigel do come up with a lot of crazy theories.

Mike does provide a lot of good documents. Nugs refuses point blank to provide sources. David posts isolated sentances within documents rather than links, or posts his own diagrams as sources.  At present Nigel is relying on Mike's sources to support his theories.

[Nicholas]

Bambers memory may appear poor to his handful of supporters but the rest of us, including the police and Courts, don't forget how he lied said he'd loaded the gun to go back and murder shoot the rabbits

https://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/easter-message-from-jeremy-new.html

2018 - We always loved this time of year at the farm mum and me, as it was a time of new beginnings. The new growth of plants in the garden, peony, crocus and snowdrop and many more wild varieties out in the hedgerows alongside our fields of crops.

On our frequent walks together, either mum and I or dad and I, we would have fun picking out all of the new things that had grown, plants that had flowered and birds that were nesting like Jenny Wren’s and Hedge Sparrows. There was also the joy of seeing the baby rabbits hopping about tinged with the knowledge that they would be feasting on our crops if we didn’t keep an eye on them.

So, Easter has always been about new beginnings, and I feel that this is true for me this year. Chelmsford Crown Court has just made new disclosures and the CPS are due to fulfil their disclosure obligations before the end of March, and a CCRC decision on my case will be requested very soon.

New beginnings because new truths have finally come to light after years of being buried beneath layer upon layer of nonsense and misinformation. New chicks emerging from their eggs, all just waiting for the right Easter time to emerge.

I would like to say a big thank you to all those new people who have pushed our team along that little bit further. The big question is, are we there yet? I think we very nearly are.


Happy Easter
Jeremy
Posted by Jeremy Bamber at Friday, March 23, 2018

[Nicholas]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=c1NMk5tKFHM

According to this video all other timelines are incorrect 

And "the rabbits had scattered" 

[Nicholas]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=c1NMk5tKFHM

According to this video all other timelines are incorrect 

And "the rabbits had scattered" 

Interestingly rabbits are most active in the early morning and late afternoon, but will emerge in daylight where undisturbed and they are rarely seen far from a burrow or dense cover.

[Nicholas]

An excellent post Dillon. Lucid, well written and clear.
I agree that psychopaths, by their very nature are often charming, confident, and often on the surface, fun to be around. However, just beneath this surface lies a very calculating and manipulative individual. Psychopaths are masters at mimicry. They can often switch on the charm and imitate the actions of people that others are drawn to. This is why leaders of cults appear to hold great deal of influence over their followers and can easily manipulate them into doing things that they might otherwise have thought preposterous or out of character - Charles Manson and the Reverend Jim Jones are two good examples of this.
Psychopaths are also incorrigible and untreatable. It is now thought that offering the psychopath counselling or any other form of therapy is futile. The psychopath will only learn new methods of manipulation and deceipt by listening carefully to their therapist and mimic their actions or methods. In short, they will often tell the therapist exactly what they want to hear. 'I have changed, I have reformed, I can help others, I have seen the error of my ways'
It will often sound incredibly sincere and plausible to the listener and all too often too many psychotherapists have been taken in by these people. I believe that Jeremy Bamber is just such a person. A highly dangerous, manipulative psychopath.

 

[LuminousWanderer]

Go back and read puglove's post!

It wasn't that you hadn't asked the question. The "rookie mistake" was that the silencer would have been missed if Bamber had dumped it.

No, I understand that perfectly, I just don't agree. 

First, it was a sound moderator.  If we're going to be strict about it, I'm not sure there is technically even such a thing as a 'silencer'.  The use of the term 'silencer' is, to my understanding, a colloquialism and misleading.

Yes, it could have been missed, but the point is proof.  You assume that the relevant family members would have come to the realisation that the moderator was missing, but how would they have known that?  All the immediate family who might have known about the moderator were now dead.  And surely Bamber would have known this intuitively?  He had lived there, he was a member of the immediate family, and he worked there, and he will have used the gun itself. 

Surely Bamber would also have been able to figure out that even if subsequently the extended family had noticed that the moderator was missing and said: 'Oh look, there's a missing silencer', it could have been missing for any one of a number of plausible reasons completely unconnected with the killings.  Somebody might have lost it before the killings for unrelated causes.  The police might, somewhere down the line, have decided that the absence of the moderator was a telling indicator of Bamber's guilt, but unless it could be found, its absence was not evidence of his guilt.

And wasn't there more than one moderator/silencer anyway? 

I still maintain that Bamber would have been better-served taking the moderator away - assuming he did it - and I also maintain my bafflement that Bamber would calmly return the moderator to its proper place after killing five people, all immediate family.  Maybe that's what prompts your objection here?  Subconsciously you share my concern about Bamber's supposed actions.

No moderator, no forensic evidence. But if he did do it, then I'm glad he didn't remove the moderator and he was caught.

So, I did understand the post that was directed at me, it's just that I had covered that ground already. If I responded inappropriately, that was because of the way the information was provided.  A vicious circle has been created on this Forum, and I would contend it is due to the attitude that anybody who asks questions should be treated rudely and attacked.  You will deny this, but your other posts are a case in point, and they have been highlighted to the Moderator on the Announcement thread.   

[Nicholas]

Yes, it could have been missed, but the point is proof.  You assume that the relevant family members would have come to the realisation that the moderator was missing, but how would they have known that?  All the immediate family who might have known about the moderator were now dead.  And surely Bamber would have known this intuitively?  He had lived there, he was a member of the immediate family, and he worked there, and he will have used the gun itself.  P

Surely Bamber would also have been able to figure out that even if subsequently the extended family had noticed that the moderator was missing and said: 'Oh look, there's a missing silencer', it could have been missing for any one of a number of plausible reasons completely unconnected with the killings.  Somebody might have lost it before the killings for unrelated causes.  The police might, somewhere down the line, have decided that the absence of the moderator was a telling indicator of Bamber's guilt, but unless it could be found, its absence was not evidence of his guilt.

And wasn't there more than one moderator/silencer anyway? 

I still maintain that Bamber would have been better-served taking the moderator away - assuming he did it - and I also maintain my bafflement that Bamber would calmly return the moderator to its proper place after killing five people, all immediate family.  Maybe that's what prompts your objection here?  Subconsciously you share my concern about Bamber's supposed actions.

No moderator, no forensic evidence. But if he did do it, then I'm glad he didn't remove the moderator and he was caught.

Why has Bamber never addressed and objected to the sound moderator (SM) element in a similar vein to you - above? You've clearly applied common sense - why hasn't he?

Many murder convictions have been obtained on circumstantial evidence alone. Here's a link to one such conviction with comments from jury members - worth a read IMO https://www.thoughtco.com/circumstantial-evidence-the-scott-peterson-trial-971080

Did you see the Mark Williams Thomas documentary re the sound moderator and have you read all the threads here, on blue, the "official" site and the available letters by Bamber on the SM?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=_i2CjYDJGTo

http://blogs.bcu.ac.uk/views/2012/03/29/itv-1-tonight-thursday-29th-march-19-30-bamber-the-new-evidence/

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=29.150

And have you considered Bambers defence at his original trial in relation to the SM? It might be worth you doing a timeline in your head in order to see how Bambers story has changed in relation to this point too. What has Bamber ACTUALLY said re this point?

It might also be worth taking on board the response of the COA and comments made by the CCRC re SM

Some links to Threads on SM http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6514.0

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1026.msg29574#msg29574

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.msg139559#msg139559

"Bamber made a fatal mistake"http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29.0;attach=820


"At Jeremy Bamber's trial, the judge in his summing up directed the jury to three crucial questions...

1. Did they believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber?

2. Did they believe that Nevill Bamber had made a phone call to his son Jeremy in the early hours.

3. And were they sure that Sheila did not kill the others before committing suicide and in particular did they believe a silencer was used?

If so they could conclude Jeremy was guilty. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=29.msg3857#msg3857

In answer to your question, no, subconsciously I do not share your concerns.. In pre planning the murders, Jeremy Bamber manufactured a story, which was initially believed by some - then the media ran with it. In so doing Bamber tied himself up in knots - hence why his subsequent appeals have failed. Bamber has made numerous "fatal mistakes none more so than murdering his 5 family members in cold blood! As I've pointed out previously, MY objection therefore is I'm mindful of his crimes and the subsequent devastating harm he's caused in maintaining innocence; especially in relation to all his other victims in: his surviving relatives, Julie Mugford etc etc.. Bamber has showed not an ounce of remorse. He's incapable of feeling shame for his actions. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3472521/Mass-murder-Jeremy-Bamber-sends-supporter-read-bizarre-rant-grave-parents-killed-blaming-sister-murdered-mass-killing.html His actions are indefensible.

[LuminousWanderer]

Why has Bamber never addressed and objected to the sound moderator (SM) element in a similar vein to you - above? You've clearly applied common sense - why hasn't he?

Many murder convictions have been obtained on circumstantial evidence alone. Here's a link to one such conviction with comments from jury members - worth a read IMO https://www.thoughtco.com/circumstantial-evidence-the-scott-peterson-trial-971080

Did you see the Mark Williams Thomas documentary re the sound moderator and have you read all the threads here, on blue, the "official" site and the available letters by Bamber on the SM?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=_i2CjYDJGTo

http://blogs.bcu.ac.uk/views/2012/03/29/itv-1-tonight-thursday-29th-march-19-30-bamber-the-new-evidence/

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=29.150

And have you considered Bambers defence at his original trial in relation to the SM? It might be worth you doing a timeline in your head in order to see how Bambers story has changed in relation to this point too. What has Bamber ACTUALLY said re this point?

It might also be worth taking on board the response of the COA and comments made by the CCRC re SM

Some links to Threads on SM http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6514.0

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1026.msg29574#msg29574

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.msg139559#msg139559

"Bamber made a fatal mistake"http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29.0;attach=820


"At Jeremy Bamber's trial, the judge in his summing up directed the jury to three crucial questions...

1. Did they believe Julie Mugford or Jeremy Bamber?

2. Did they believe that Nevill Bamber had made a phone call to his son Jeremy in the early hours.

3. And were they sure that Sheila did not kill the others before committing suicide and in particular did they believe a silencer was used?

If so they could conclude Jeremy was guilty. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=29.msg3857#msg3857

In answer to your question, no, subconsciously I do not share your concerns.. In pre planning the murders, Jeremy Bamber manufactured a story, which was initially believed by some - then the media ran with it. In so doing Bamber tied himself up in knots - hence why his subsequent appeals have failed. Bamber has made numerous "fatal mistakes none more so than murdering his 5 family members in cold blood! As I've pointed out previously, MY objection therefore is I'm mindful of his crimes and the subsequent devastating harm he's caused in maintaining innocence; especially in relation to all his other victims in: his surviving relatives, Julie Mugford etc etc.. Bamber has showed not an ounce of remorse. He's incapable of feeling shame for his actions. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3472521/Mass-murder-Jeremy-Bamber-sends-supporter-read-bizarre-rant-grave-parents-killed-blaming-sister-murdered-mass-killing.html His actions are indefensible.

Thank you for your points.  This is one of your more helpful and constructive posts, I am pleased to see it and commend you for it.  I have given you a 'Like'.

Let me emphasise again: I am not concluding one way or the other about guilt or innocence.