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: ISpyWithMyEye on March 25, 2020, 09:50:01 AM
-
It’s been established that Jeremy lied about breaking-in to WHF after he was released from police custody, as it’s been proven by police surveillance officers that he was in London on the weekend he claimed he’d gone to Essex to collect some paperwork for his car (not sure what paperwork he’d have needed, or why it would’ve even been at WHF)
He claimed that after driving all that way he realised he’d “forgotten” the WHF key — just like he “forgot” his wetsuit when he went surfing at Pevensey just two days after the funerals...
He used a fine blade to break-in to the shower room window, yet for some strange reason he discarded it (handy, that blade, too) and hid it amongst foliage. The window panes had been freshly painted just 6-8 weeks prior to him killing all his family, which made it easy for forensics to prove Jeremy had broken in recently. Is it me or does anyone else think it odd that when he supposedly realised he’d “forgotten “ the key, why didn’t he drive two minutes away to Barbara Walter’s and ask her for her key to the the house? Or...why not take the key that he knew was hidden in the coal bunker?
That’s what normal people would do, surely? Especially after he was already under suspicion. Why demonstrate AFTER the murders how easy it was for him to gain entry without a key? Ah, but I forget...Jeremy wasn’t banking on the police discovering that damaged window frame and brass catch, nor finding that blade...so he quickly thought that excuse up
That’s just ONE of Jeremy Bamber’s lies...there’s lots of others too....
But that’s one lie his supporters can try and wriggle out of while they’re self-isolating 😷
-
It’s been established that Jeremy lied about breaking-in to WHF after he was released from police custody, as it’s been proven by police surveillance officers that he was in London on the weekend he claimed he’d gone to Essex to collect some paperwork for his car (not sure what paperwork he’d have needed, or why it would’ve even been at WHF)
He claimed that after driving all that way he realised he’d “forgotten” the WHF key — just like he “forgot” his wetsuit when he went surfing at Pevensey just two days after the funerals...
He used a fine blade to break-in to the shower room window, yet for some strange reason he discarded it (handy, that blade, too) and hid it amongst foliage. The window panes had been freshly painted just 6-8 weeks prior to him killing all his family, which made it easy for forensics to prove Jeremy had broken in recently. Is it me or does anyone else think it odd that when he supposedly realised he’d “forgotten “ the key, why didn’t he drive two minutes away to Barbara Walter’s and ask her for her key to the the house? Or...why not take the key that he knew was hidden in the coal bunker?
That’s what normal people would do, surely? Especially after he was already under suspicion. Why demonstrate AFTER the murders how easy it was for him to gain entry without a key? Ah, but I forget...Jeremy wasn’t banking on the police discovering that damaged window frame and brass catch, nor finding that blade...so he quickly thought that excuse up
That’s just ONE of Jeremy Bamber’s lies...there’s lots of others too....
But that’s one lie his supporters can try and wriggle out of while they’re self-isolating 😷
I have argued MANY times at Bamber accessed the house from this window. Although Taff said he had checked all of the windows, this one was found to be closed but not secured and there was no reason for it to have been opened and no one admitted to doing so.
-
It’s been established that Jeremy lied about breaking-in to WHF after he was released from police custody, as it’s been proven by police surveillance officers that he was in London on the weekend he claimed he’d gone to Essex to collect some paperwork for his car (not sure what paperwork he’d have needed, or why it would’ve even been at WHF)
He claimed that after driving all that way he realised he’d “forgotten” the WHF key — just like he “forgot” his wetsuit when he went surfing at Pevensey just two days after the funerals...
He used a fine blade to break-in to the shower room window, yet for some strange reason he discarded it (handy, that blade, too) and hid it amongst foliage. The window panes had been freshly painted just 6-8 weeks prior to him killing all his family, which made it easy for forensics to prove Jeremy had broken in recently. Is it me or does anyone else think it odd that when he supposedly realised he’d “forgotten “ the key, why didn’t he drive two minutes away to Barbara Walter’s and ask her for her key to the the house? Or...why not take the key that he knew was hidden in the coal bunker?
That’s what normal people would do, surely? Especially after he was already under suspicion. Why demonstrate AFTER the murders how easy it was for him to gain entry without a key? Ah, but I forget...Jeremy wasn’t banking on the police discovering that damaged window frame and brass catch, nor finding that blade...so he quickly thought that excuse up
That’s just ONE of Jeremy Bamber’s lies...there’s lots of others too....
But that’s one lie his supporters can try and wriggle out of while they’re self-isolating 😷
CAL makes contradictory statements. On page 334 it says he said he used the bathroom window to enter WHF on the weekend of 15/16th September, but the records of the surveillance team place him in London on both evenings.
Reading the reference she has inserted on page 335, however; reference no 7, its says the surveillance ended at 1.30am on 16th September, which means he wasn't being watched on 16th.
-
CAL makes contradictory statements. On page 334 it says he said he used the bathroom window to enter WHF on the weekend of 15/16th September, but the records of the surveillance team place him in London on both evenings.
Reading the reference she has inserted on page 335, however; reference no 7, its says the surveillance ended at 1.30am on 16th September, which means he wasn't being watched on 16th.
Perhaps it means that the surveillance stopped at 1am because it wasn't 24/7.
-
The Bamber case isnt really worthy of being on any forum that promotes a potential innocent persons campaign for justice. How that man manages to twist (mostly) womens minds is worthy of interest though.
-
Ive lost interest in the actual did he/didnt he because he obviously DID. The interesting aspect here is how the hell are people taken in by him. That to me is more interesting than the actual case itself.
-
The Bamber case isnt really worthy of being on any forum that promotes a potential innocent persons campaign for justice. How that man manages to twist (mostly) womens minds is worthy of interest though.
It certainly isn't just women. Have a good look around the internet !
-
It certainly isn't just women. Have a good look around the internet !
The majority are women.
-
The Bamber case isnt really worthy of being on any forum that promotes a potential innocent persons campaign for justice. How that man manages to twist (mostly) womens minds is worthy of interest though.
How do you know that Jeremy Bamber is twisting minds?
-
How do you know that Jeremy Bamber is twisting minds?
BecUse despite clearly being guilty he has somehow managed to persuade a few sad individuals that he is not.
-
BecUse despite clearly being guilty he has somehow managed to persuade a few sad individuals that he is not.
Why do you think persuasion by Jeremy Bamber is involved?
-
Why do you think persuasion by Jeremy Bamber is involved?
There is no 'think' about it.
-
Why do you think persuasion by Jeremy Bamber is involved?
What has the creep been spending the last 35 years doing apart from trying to persuade anyone who will listen that he’s the victim in all this?
-
CAL makes contradictory statements. On page 334 it says he said he used the bathroom window to enter WHF on the weekend of 15/16th September, but the records of the surveillance team place him in London on both evenings.
Reading the reference she has inserted on page 335, however; reference no 7, its says the surveillance ended at 1.30am on 16th September, which means he wasn't being watched on 16th.
CAL hasn’t contradicted herself at all — you haven’t understood.
Jeremy Bamber was under surveillance EVERY DAY — they even followed him to St Tropez, for goodness sake.
Surveillance teams don’t just sit outside someone’s house in a nondescript van; they bug properties and phone lines too.
They’d have known (as they’re experts) that Jeremy went to bed at 1:30am, so as the flat in Maida Vale was bugged, they had no need to sit outside while he was sleeping. HAD Jeremy suddenly left the flat in the early hours the ST would have immediately been alerted as the bugging system is monitored 24/7. It has to be, there’d be no point otherwise.
The ST came back early the next morning and would have then monitored his movements as soon as he stepped out the door. And they don’t just have two surveillance officers; they have several at one time. They also work in shifts, obviously, so different teams followed him.
Fact is, Jeremy Bamber did NOT go to WHF that weekend.
You just don’t want to believe it...
-
The Bamber case isnt really worthy of being on any forum that promotes a potential innocent persons campaign for justice. How that man manages to twist (mostly) womens minds is worthy of interest though.
It is strangely interesting how he manages to warp certain women’s minds. And all the women are of the same ilk. I’ve seen them on Twitter. Take Trudie Benjamin, for example. Without wanting to sound personal, she comes across as a dowdy frump who clearly seeks excitement. I think she may be married (I’m not sure) but is she is, whatever must her husband make of her obsession? It’s clear she’s completely besotted with JB 😳
I believe she’s living in a twilight world and remembers Jeremy as he was in 1985. He was quite good-looking, and had nice hair, although I don’t think he was THAT handsome. But some women do. If he’d have looked like Fred West none of these women would be making him cakes and begging people to sign petitions.
Another thing that intrigues me about Trudie — though many wont agree – but I find it odd that for someone who’s dowdy and not at all glamorous, she always, always has her nails long and painted red, just like Sheila’s were. This sounds like I’m bonkers, as thousands of women have their nails painted red, but they don’t seem “her”. She doesn’t seem the type to want long, red fingernails...she’s more of a “sensible” neat, plain, fairly short fingernail type. Sorry, I know it sounds mad, but it’s just something that looks at odds...I wonder if her infatuation is such, that she copies Sheila’s nail shape/length/colour to feel closer to “Jem”. It sounds mad, but people like her do those things...
She even travelled miles to a pub near WHF to interview a woman who never knew Jeremy; was very young when it all happened; never met any of the Bambers’, but gave Trudie her opinion on the case — like, she’d know wouldn’t she? She lives in Essex &^^&*
I guarantee Trudie’s pilgrimage to Jeremy’s old stomping ground was to feel “closer” to him.
-
It certainly isn't just women. Have a good look around the internet !
The majority are women.
There’s a few men, but they may be gay...it’s alleged Jeremy is bisexual.
And some of the men who are sucked in by Jeremy are either thick, or ex-criminals themselves who probably cooked a deal with jeremy that if they helped him get out Jeremy would give them a good few grand.
-
How do you know that Jeremy Bamber is twisting minds?
Well, YOU believe him...there’s your answer
-
There is no 'think' about it.
How many have agreed that they were 'persuaded' by Jeremy Bamber?
-
How many have agreed that they were 'persuaded' by Jeremy Bamber?
Jeremy grooms certain types: the gullible, lonely, less bright, dowdy...the easy to manipulate
None of them would agree they were persuaded by Jeremy Bamber, because they don’t realise they’ve been brainwashed
Off topic, but I bet Jeremy hated that picture below, where he’s handcuffed to the police officer . That policeman is REALLY handsome. He has wonderful bone structure, amazing eyes (and much taller than Jeremy too), and he makes Jeremy look positively ordinary in comparison.
Jeremy was TERRIBLY vain, so I bet he spat feathers when saw such a handsome police officer stood next to him in that picture.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Well, YOU believe him...there’s your answer
No, you just think I do.
-
No, you just think I do.
Well, you have a strange way of admitting he’s guilty
-
Well, you have a strange way of admitting he’s guilty
So if I don't 'admit' he's guilty it's because he's 'persuaded' poor old gullible, lonely, less bright and dowdy me of his innocence and I'm not bright enough to realise it? In your opinion, that is.
-
How many have agreed that they were 'persuaded' by Jeremy Bamber?
Where do you think an innocent Bamber originated from? People wouldn't admit it because most people don't like to admit they were persuaded by anyone. Then again, some may have but I haven't counted them - silly question all round G.
-
Where do you think an innocent Bamber originated from? People wouldn't admit it because most people don't like to admit they were persuaded by anyone. Then again, some may have but I haven't counted them - silly question all round G.
Just as silly in my opinion as those who claim to 'know' what motivates others.
-
Just as silly in my opinion as those who claim to 'know' what motivates others.
Well, as none of Jeremy's can be said to have been altruistic, it limits any positive motivation, which leaves us with the self oriented, of which there are only finite from which to choose.
-
Just as silly in my opinion as those who claim to 'know' what motivates others.
Really? So when the police look for a motive they are just being silly? @)(++(*
-
Really? So when the police look for a motive they are just being silly? @)(++(*
I never mentioned the police, just posters on a forum who think they 'know' what others are motivated by.
-
I never mentioned the police, just posters on a forum who think they 'know' what others are motivated by.
Such as 'emotional abuse'? @)(++(*
-
I never mentioned the police, just posters on a forum who think they 'know' what others are motivated by.
Given that there is always a limit on how many motivations there are, as it's quite possible to eliminate several, it actually leave very few alternatives.
-
CAL makes contradictory statements. On page 334 it says he said he used the bathroom window to enter WHF on the weekend of 15/16th September, but the records of the surveillance team place him in London on both evenings.
Reading the reference she has inserted on page 335, however; reference no 7, its says the surveillance ended at 1.30am on 16th September, which means he wasn't being watched on 16th.
Further to my previous response, prior to Jeremy being arrested and charged with mass murder on Sunday 29th September, 1985 at Dover, he’d rented accommodation for 10 nights in St Tropez, then add in their drive to and from the south of France including stopovers en-route, he must have left England for France on or around the 16th...which would account for why it was noted the surveillance ended in London on that date: the surveillance team were following him to St Tropez.
The team knew where he was heading having bugged the flat and landline — and following all his movements — hence why the ST had their passports to follow him to France.
I hope that’s cleared it up for you 🙂
-
Further to my previous response, prior to Jeremy being arrested and charged with mass murder on Sunday 29th September, 1985 at Dover, he’d rented accommodation for 10 nights in St Tropez, then add in their drive to and from the south of France including stopovers en-route, he must have left England for France on or around the 16th...which would account for why it was noted the surveillance ended in London on that date: the surveillance team were following him to St Tropez.
The team knew where he was heading having bugged the flat and landline — and following all his movements — hence why the ST had their passports to follow him to France.
I hope that’s cleared it up for you 🙂
Jeremy was in Chelmsford on 16th because he met Michael Fielder to try and sell the pictures of Sheila. The story about him trying to sell the pictures broke on 17th and I believe he left for St Tropez on 19th or 20th. I haven't heard that he was followed there though?
-
Jeremy was in Chelmsford on 16th because he met Michael Fielder to try and sell the pictures of Sheila. The story about him trying to sell the pictures broke on 17th and I believe he left for St Tropez on 19th or 20th. I haven't heard that he was followed there though?
Well, he was definitely under 24/7 surveillance. 100%.
This means the ST followed him from London on the 16th, hence why they noted “London surveillance ended 1:30am”. Jeremy, being sly, probably thought he’d drive down in darkness because he suspected he was being watched. He isn’t bright at all.
The police definitely had two surveillance officers follow him to St Tropez: they even took photographs of Jeremy running on the beach, laughing, dining out...
I will find the link for you.
I think it may also be in one of the documentaries on YouTube where the police actually say hiw they followed him there and how carefree and happy he was.
I suspect he knew the net was closing in and decided to get a holiday in quickly while he was still free...
-
Another of Jeremy’s lies is the timing of when he claimed he went to shoot rabbits.
He told police he noticed the rabbits in the evening; went to shoot them; was unsuccessful; then came back and heard the family arguing about the twins while having supper. He gave two different accounts if where he’d left the gun: in one he said he left it on the settle in the hallway, then in his second account he said he left it in the kitchen.
But that’s at odds with what he told Colin.
He said to Colin that he’d seen the rabbits in the AFTERNOON, and that’s when he tried to shoot them...and then left the gun inside the house.
Two fat lies.
-
This isn’t a lie as such, but as Colin said, it doesn’t add up...
Jeremy claimed that the family were arguing about the twins that night.
But he also said “Sheila said nothing; she was just distant”
So how could they have been arguing if Sheila wasn’t saying anything?
-
The judge in his summing up mentioned the aledged fostering conversation.
Saying Sheila being non responsive means it cannot be used as a reason why Sheila could have committed the crimes.
-
The judge in his summing up mentioned the aledged fostering conversation.
Saying Sheila being non responsive means it cannot be used as a reason why Sheila could have committed the crimes.
Perhaps the judge didn't realise that Sheila was always non responsive when her mother told her what she should do.
-
The judge in his summing up mentioned the aledged fostering conversation.
Saying Sheila being non responsive means it cannot be used as a reason why Sheila could have committed the crimes.
Exactly.
Jeremy Bamber planted that seed to try and make out Sheila had a reason to go crazy.
All he unwittingly proved was that there couldn’t possibly have been an argument if Sheila was sat there quiet and vacant. JB is definitely thick in many ways.
Besides, the argument doesn’t make sense! For one thing June & Nevill couldn’t have made a decision on the twins: Colin had joint custody and would never have allowed it. Secondly, June would have been mortified at the thought her grandchildren were in foster care! If anything, she’d have suggested a live-in nanny.
But it’s all irrelevant because that discussion never took place: it was just part of evil Jeremy’s plot to make it look like Sheila had gone mad.
Sheila may have had problems, but hers were treatable. Unlike Jeremy who’s a twisted evil psychopath and still lies to this day,
-
Perhaps the judge didn't realise that Sheila was always non responsive when her mother told her what she should do.
ALWAYS? Really? Evidence?
-
ALWAYS? Really? Evidence?
Her friend Tora Tomkinson observed Sheila with her mother on many occasions but only once did she see her stand her ground. [CAL page 87]
Sheila told Colin Caffell the day before she went to WHF that she was unhappy with the treatment her parents had chosen, and was happy to let him speak to them on her behalf. In the event he spoke only about the twin's concerns
because they were his priority. [Cal page 6]
-
Her friend Tora Tomkinson observed Sheila with her mother on many occasions but only once did she see her stand her ground. [CAL page 87]
Sheila told Colin Caffell the day before she went to WHF that she was unhappy with the treatment her parents had chosen, and was happy to let him speak to them on her behalf. In the event he spoke only about the twin's concerns
because they were his priority. [Cal page 6]
That isn't anything like evidence for ALWAYS!
-
That isn't anything like evidence for ALWAYS!
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
-
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
You made the ALWAYS claim - a claim you can't possibly substantiate.
-
Her friend Tora Tomkinson observed Sheila with her mother on many occasions but only once did she see her stand her ground. [CAL page 87]
Sheila told Colin Caffell the day before she went to WHF that she was unhappy with the treatment her parents had chosen, and was happy to let him speak to them on her behalf. In the event he spoke only about the twin's concerns
because they were his priority. [Cal page 6]
It would be necessary, before coming to any conclusions, to know just how many times Tora was present when Sheila saw June. It's very possible that Sheila thought a word from Colin, on her behalf, might carry more weight. I fail to see how "Always" can be attached.
-
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Celestial teapot
-
You made the ALWAYS claim - a claim you can't possibly substantiate.
OK. To save getting sidetracked into arguments over a word I'll rephrase. I have seen evidence of one argument between Sheila Bamber and her mother in May 1983 by a friend of Sheila's, but I don't know who she was. [CAL page 81] I have seen no other reports.
-
OK. To save getting sidetracked into arguments over a word I'll rephrase. I have seen evidence of one argument between Sheila Bamber and her mother in May 1983 by a friend of Sheila's, but I don't know who she was. [CAL page 81] I have seen no other reports.
Big difference from always though eh?
-
Big difference from always though eh?
The exception that proves the rule, perhaps.
-
The exception that proves the rule, perhaps.
Or wishful thinking?
-
The exception that proves the rule, perhaps.
The fence is creaking under the strain of your leaning.
-
The fence is creaking under the strain of your leaning.
Hey----it's MY fence that does the creaking!
-
Hey----it's MY fence that does the creaking!
Perhaps creaking wasn't a strong enough word. We'll go for splitting instead @)(++(*
-
The fence is creaking under the strain of your leaning.
Whatever.
-
OK. To save getting sidetracked into arguments over a word I'll rephrase. I have seen evidence of one argument between Sheila Bamber and her mother in May 1983 by a friend of Sheila's, but I don't know who she was. [CAL page 81] I have seen no other reports.
G-unit, most families quarrel on occasion, but what they don’t do is quarrel in front of guests
It’s bad firm and embarrassing
You may think it’s normal to argue about private matters in front of outsiders, but most people keep their differences private.
You have no idea what went on — you’re just making assumptions — something you do frequently
Just because Sheila didn’t respond to her mother’s demands in front of people was that she didn’t want to embarrass everyone, including herself, and so probably let her mother ramble on...but when they were alone it may have been completely different.
Anyway, this doesn’t detract from the fact that Jeremy murdered his family: in fact, he used the tensions and problems as an excuse to blame Sheila for his heinous crime.
-
Whatever.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Your goading is noted.
-
Your goading is noted.
I think you're a little too sensitive!
-
I think you're a little too sensitive!
I think you should address the post rather than the poster. Do you have any evidence of Sheila arguing with her mother?
-
I think you should address the post rather than the poster. Do you have any evidence of Sheila arguing with her mother?
I did most certainly address the post until your childish 'whatever' comment!
Asking someone for evidence of an argument in a family throughout the years is just silly and more evidence that you are unwilling to see Bamber as the perpetrator.
-
I did most certainly address the post until your childish 'whatever' comment!
Asking someone for evidence of an argument in a family throughout the years is just silly and more evidence that you are unwilling to see Bamber as the perpetrator.
I'm not interested in arguing with you.
-
I'm not interested in arguing with you.
I'm not arguing, simply challenging your view. You say you're not a supporter (and there is nothing wrong with being one) but you look for every excuse to shift blame fro Jeremy to Sheila. I care not if you're a supporter but you must realise that it's how your posts read!
-
I think you should address the post rather than the poster. Do you have any evidence of Sheila arguing with her mother?
Hi G- Unit, I found this from Helen Grimster,
Seems Sheila and June had different views on religion, I dont take this to mean they had vehement arguments about it, although i cant know to be honest.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/335518240980305539/
-
Hi G- Unit, I found this from Helen Grimster,
Seems Sheila and June had different views on religion, I dont take this to mean they had vehement arguments about it, although i cant know to be honest.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/335518240980305539/
I doubt that "vehement" took any part in Sheila's relationship with June. It sounds very much as if, for the most part, Sheila simply allowed June to know what was best for her. It was probably easier.
-
I think you should address the post rather than the poster. Do you have any evidence of Sheila arguing with her mother?
According to Jeremy, G-Unit, the family were arguing whilst eating supper when he came back from trying to shoot rabbits (unsuccessfully)...shame he didn’t take the gun that had the scope and silencer, eh?
Don’t you believe him, then?
You sound unconvinced 😌
-
Hi G- Unit, I found this from Helen Grimster,
Seems Sheila and June had different views on religion, I dont take this to mean they had vehement arguments about it, although i cant know to be honest.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/335518240980305539/
Oh, for goodness sake, that’s a troll posting nonsense on behalf of Jeremy Bamber’s team
It’s nonsensical and boring to read, and whoever wrote such rubbish clearly didn’t ever meet Sheila, let alone know her.
Stop this BS...it’s boring
-
Hi G- Unit, I found this from Helen Grimster,
Seems Sheila and June had different views on religion, I dont take this to mean they had vehement arguments about it, although i cant know to be honest.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/335518240980305539/
By the way, Clockend, those supporters who create disgraceful lies under pseudonyms to try and make Sheila look like she was crazy, simply show how thick, dense and vile THEY are — and desperate.
They can’t even reveal their alleged source: they’re filled with BS, venom and and desperation. All for a man who is an evil psychopathic masss murderer.
They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves
-
Oh, for goodness sake, that’s a troll posting nonsense on behalf of Jeremy Bamber’s team
It’s nonsensical and boring to read, and whoever wrote such rubbish clearly didn’t ever meet Sheila, let alone know her.
Stop this BS...it’s boring
Actually Ispy, Helen Grimister is a real part of the case, she was Sheila's second cousin and visited WHF when Sheila was there around March 1985. That is indeed part of her statement.
-
You never “found this” on Pininterest — that’s SUCH a coincidence, Clockend (you, with just six posts)
You must think we’re all thick...
It could have been YOU putting that fake nonsense on there..anyone can write claptrap on there — especially when it’s a support group for the evil mass murderer, Jeremy Bamber
The more I see of his twisted dysfunctional “team” the more I realise there’s equally warped people walking free...
Hey we have to start somewhere Lol,
I was actually quite impressed by the intelligent discourse,
You attribute to much kudos to me if you think i wrote that,
Just sitting here during lock down, looking to contribute
-
Hey we have to start somewhere Lol,
I was actually quite impressed by the intelligent discourse,
You attribute to much kudos to me if you think i wrote that,
Just sitting here during lock down, looking to contribute
It is a genuine statement.
-
You never “found this” on Pininterest — that’s SUCH a coincidence, Clockend (you, with just six posts)
You must think we’re all thick...
It could have been YOU putting that fake nonsense on there..anyone can write claptrap on there — especially when it’s a support group for the evil mass murderer, Jeremy Bamber
The more I see of his twisted dysfunctional “team” the more I realise there’s equally warped people walking free...
Helen Grimster was the 13 year old daughter of June's cousin. On a visit to WHF in March 1985 she had a conversation with Sheila Bamber which frightened her. Sheila talked of suicide, drug-taking and religion. She chain-smoked cannabis and kept offering it to the girl. This inappropriate behaviour took place just after Sheila had been released from a stay in hospital.
-
Helen Grimster was the 13 year old daughter of June's cousin. On a visit to WHF in March 1985 she had a conversation with Sheila Bamber which frightened her. Sheila talked of suicide, drug-taking and religion. She chain-smoked cannabis and kept offering it to the girl. This inappropriate behaviour took place just after Sheila had been released from a stay in hospital.
I had already posted this without the added negatively loaded slant against Sheila.
Jeremy Bamber told Julie Mugford that he intended to kill his whole family, first by drugging and setting the house on fire, then by shooting. This inappropriate behaviour led to the deaths of 5 people, including two 6 year old children.
-
I think you should address the post rather than the poster. Do you have any evidence of Sheila arguing with her mother?
Pg 95 of CAL’s book talks of Sheila’s upset after a “stormy visit “ from her mother. That would suggest an argument to me.
-
Actually Ispy, Helen Grimister is a real part of the case, she was Sheila's second cousin and visited WHF when Sheila was there around March 1985. That is indeed part of her statement.
Thank you for correcting me, Caroline. I appreciate that, and I know that you have a huge amount more knowledge of the case than I do, and everything you say I can rely upon.
I’m jumping ahead here assuming that statement by Helen Grimister was taken in the very early days of the murders, when DCI Jones was anxious to paint Sheila in the worst possible light. When the police interviewed that young 13-year-old girl, I can imagine how when she recounted that meeting with Sheila the police wrote it in such a way that made it sound far worse. After all, we know how bad the police conducted the whole case.
It’s quite possible that Helen said ONE of the topics of conversation was suicide, when in fact, Sheila may have just been speaking about her time in hospital and maybe mentioned a patient there who had tried to kill herself. Helen didn’t say Sheila said SHE wanted to kill herself.
And religion would undoubtedly have been touched on, given what a fanatic June was: maybe Sheila simply asked Helen if she was religious too? Helen doesn’t seem to suggest that Sheila was influencing her to join a religious cult.
I’ve read that Sheila was a heavy smoker and also rolled her own cigarettes, and I’d find it strange if Sheila openly smoked cannabis inside the sitting room of the house. June would’ve have gone crazy — you can’t disguise the smell at all. It’s a remote possibility Sheila may have smoked one joint, but I find that very strange. And no-one chain smokes cannabis. I’d take that with a pinch of salt, especially as it seems most unlikely a 13-year-old girl who was probably sheltered living with farmers even knew what cannabis looked like. I’d even go so far to say that those words were put to her by the police and she agreed Sheila was smoking cannabis.
Whatever, Sheila never mentioned to Helen that she hated her family; wanted to kill her twins and parents’; or kill herself. So I strongly suspect that statement was deliberately embellished by the police to put Sheila in a bad light.
DCI Jones was anxious to get the case done and dusted. I actually think HE had some kind of emotional/mental issues himself too. He certainly wasn’t stable, exploding into “purple-faced” rages...
-
Thank you for correcting me, Caroline. I appreciate that, and I know that you have a huge amount more knowledge of the case than I do, and everything you say I can rely upon.
I’m jumping ahead here assuming that statement by Helen Grimister was taken in the very early days of the murders, when DCI Jones was anxious to paint Sheila in the worst possible light. When the police interviewed that young 13-year-old girl, I can imagine how when she recounted that meeting with Sheila the police wrote it in such a way that made it sound far worse. After all, we know how bad the police conducted the whole case.
It’s quite possible that Helen said ONE of the topics of conversation was suicide, when in fact, Sheila may have just been speaking about her time in hospital and maybe mentioned a patient there who had tried to kill herself. Helen didn’t say Sheila said SHE wanted to kill herself.
And religion would undoubtedly have been touched on, given what a fanatic June was: maybe Sheila simply asked Helen if she was religious too? Helen doesn’t seem to suggest that Sheila was influencing her to join a religious cult.
I’ve read that Sheila was a heavy smoker and also rolled her own cigarettes, and I’d find it strange if Sheila openly smoked cannabis inside the sitting room of the house. June would’ve have gone crazy — you can’t disguise the smell at all. It’s a remote possibility Sheila may have smoked one joint, but I find that very strange. And no-one chain smokes cannabis. I’d take that with a pinch of salt, especially as it seems most unlikely a 13-year-old girl who was probably sheltered living with farmers even knew what cannabis looked like. I’d even go so far to say that those words were put to her by the police and she agreed Sheila was smoking cannabis.
Whatever, Sheila never mentioned to Helen that she hated her family; wanted to kill her twins and parents’; or kill herself. So I strongly suspect that statement was deliberately embellished by the police to put Sheila in a bad light.
DCI Jones was anxious to get the case done and dusted. I actually think HE had some kind of emotional/mental issues himself too. He certainly wasn’t stable, exploding into “purple-faced” rages...
It is clear that the statement was made in response to questions asked and kids of that age are open to influence. The intonation is that Sheila was smoking joints - I have been around many people that used to smoke cannabis and in order to make a rolled joint, they crumbled some of the cannabis inside the rolly which was also made in a specific way. Sounds to me that she was asked if the cigarette 'smelled funny' and thinking she should agree, she said yes. The statement should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
-
It is clear that the statement was made in response to questions asked and kids of that age are open to influence. The intonation is that Sheila was smoking joints - I have been around many people that used to smoke cannabis and in order to make a rolled joint, they crumbled some of the cannabis inside the rolly which was also made in a specific way. Sounds to me that she was asked if the cigarette 'smelled funny' and thinking she should agree, she said yes. The statement should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
I wonder why this girl's statement should be questioned when other statements are not? Is it because she testified that Sheila told her she had contemplated suicide on more than one occasion, that her mother had told her she had lost her soul, that she had to get rid of evil in the world, that she had taken drugs, and that Sheila said all this despite having been injected with 200mg of Haloperidol a few days earlier.
Interestingly, Dr Ferguson said on 9th August that Sheila's prescription was for 200mg to be injected fortnightly by her GP. He seemed to be under the impression that she wanted to reduce the injections to the same amount being injected monthly rather than fortnightly.
-
I wonder why this girl's statement should be questioned when other statements are not? Is it because she testified that Sheila told her she had contemplated suicide on more than one occasion, that her mother had told her she had lost her soul, that she had to get rid of evil in the world, that she had taken drugs, and that Sheila said all this despite having been injected with 200mg of Haloperidol a few days earlier.
Interestingly, Dr Ferguson said on 9th August that Sheila's prescription was for 200mg to be injected fortnightly by her GP. He seemed to be under the impression that she wanted to reduce the injections to the same amount being injected monthly rather than fortnightly.
I suspect it may have to do with that you posted it in a way which suggested it was a definitive of Sheila's guilt. It's deconstruction helps to make sense of it. You claim that Sheila chain smoked cannabis. I suspect this is an exaggeration.
Sheila did request a lower dose of Haloperidol and this was forwarded to Dr Ferguson. She was subsequently given 100mg.
-
Another of Jeremy’s lies is the timing of when he claimed he went to shoot rabbits.
He told police he noticed the rabbits in the evening; went to shoot them; was unsuccessful; then came back and heard the family arguing about the twins while having supper. He gave two different accounts if where he’d left the gun: in one he said he left it on the settle in the hallway, then in his second account he said he left it in the kitchen.
But that’s at odds with what he told Colin.
He said to Colin that he’d seen the rabbits in the AFTERNOON, and that’s when he tried to shoot them...and then left the gun inside the house.
Two fat lies.
Poor Jer he didn't know very much about rabbit hunting...
http://www.bunnyhugga.com/a-to-z/rabbit-behaviour/rabbit-routine.html
Re the claimed argument about the twins being sent to Social Services - I don;t believe that due to the fact the the father, Colin, would have something to say about that, and Sheila must have known and trusted he would take the twins if anything happened to her.
-
I wonder why this girl's statement should be questioned when other statements are not? Is it because she testified that Sheila told her she had contemplated suicide on more than one occasion, that her mother had told her she had lost her soul, that she had to get rid of evil in the world, that she had taken drugs, and that Sheila said all this despite having been injected with 200mg of Haloperidol a few days earlier.
Interestingly, Dr Ferguson said on 9th August that Sheila's prescription was for 200mg to be injected fortnightly by her GP. He seemed to be under the impression that she wanted to reduce the injections to the same amount being injected monthly rather than fortnightly.
Helen was just 13-years-old for goodness sake! She was in a terrifying situation; was totally out of her depth being so young, naive and scared, that when questions were put to her she would have agreed not realising Sheila’s conversation was nothing like the police wanted Helen to say. In fact, I think it was wrong for the police to interview such a girl of just 13 who was clueless about drugs and mental health.
And Helen never said Sheila told her she’d contemplated suicide “many times” or even once! Why are you lying?!
You need to retract those vile lies, G-Unit.
You’re deliberately trying to tarnish a murder victim, and that’s despicable.
-
I wonder why this girl's statement should be questioned when other statements are not? Is it because she testified that Sheila told her she had contemplated suicide on more than one occasion, that her mother had told her she had lost her soul, that she had to get rid of evil in the world, that she had taken drugs, and that Sheila said all this despite having been injected with 200mg of Haloperidol a few days earlier.
Interestingly, Dr Ferguson said on 9th August that Sheila's prescription was for 200mg to be injected fortnightly by her GP. He seemed to be under the impression that she wanted to reduce the injections to the same amount being injected monthly rather than fortnightly.
Errrm, I think I already answered that in my reply and when have I said other statements shouldn't be questioned? So a 13 year old child used the term 'contemplated suicide'? Really? I think the statements shows that someone older was in charge of the words used and certainly the responses were to questions being asked!
I am aware of what injections were given and that they were later halved. However, before you suggest that it may have contributed to her going crazy, the autopsy showed that even though her next injection was due, she still had a moderate dose in her system.
-
Helen was just 13-years-old for goodness sake! She was in a terrifying situation; was totally out of her depth being so young, naive and scared, that when questions were put to her she would have agreed not realising Sheila’s conversation was nothing like the police wanted Helen to say. In fact, I think it was wrong for the police to interview such a girl of just 13 who was clueless about drugs and mental health.
And Helen never said Sheila told her she’d contemplated suicide “many times” or even once! Why are you lying?!
You need to retract those vile lies, G-Unit.
You’re deliberately trying to tarnish a murder victim, and that’s despicable.
Some people fail to grasp that in order for people to read and digest their argument it is lost when name calling comes into play- they lose the argument-simple!
The age of the witness is irrelevant as this is evidence from April Jones's " A DVD of police interviews with the seven-year-old, who cannot be identified because of her age, was played to the jury in Mark Bridger's trial at Mold Crown Court.
Five-year-old April vanished while playing with her friend near their homes in Machynlleth, Powys, Mid Wales, on October 1 last year." (2013 not 2019).
This is irrelevant, goading,untrue and a bit sanctimonious IMO "You’re deliberately trying to tarnish a murder victim, and that’s despicable."
Why not just stick to your argument- a lot of which I agree with, without the childish sniping.
-
Errrm, I think I already answered that in my reply and when have I said other statements shouldn't be questioned? So a 13 year old child used the term 'contemplated suicide'? Really? I think the statements shows that someone older was in charge of the words used and certainly the responses were to questions being asked!
I am aware of what injections were given and that they were later halved. However, before you suggest that it may have contributed to her going crazy, the autopsy showed that even though her next injection was due, she still had a moderate dose in her system.
Great point, Caroline!
What 13-year-old girl says “contemplated suicide”?!
I doubt she knew what “suicide” meant, and the word “contemplated” is never used by a 13-year-old!
That statement (if it exists — maybe G-Unit can produce it) were the words of an adult.
Really, G-Unit, you’re sounding desperate...
-
Did Jeremy Bamber call the police first or Julie ?
On the 7th of August in this statement, He said he called the police immediately, see page 6
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5631.0
In his 8th of September statement given under caution he reversed the order, see page7,
He said" i was on the phone to her for about two minutes, not long as i had to call the police"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=294.0
In a futher statement on the 10th of September, The police managed to impress on him this contradiction
for which he had no congruent answer. see page 17
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
-
Did Jeremy Bamber call the police first or Julie ?
On the 7th of August in this statement, He said he called the police immediately, see page 6
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5631.0
In his 8th of September statement given under caution he reversed the order, see page7,
He said" i was on the phone to her for about two minutes, not long as i had to call the police"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=294.0
In a futher statement on the 10th of September, The police managed to impress on him this contradiction
for which he had no congruent answer. see page 17
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
He claims he rang her to hear a friendly voice. Two minutes would hardly have given him time. He alters his mind, to fit with current thinking, about who it was he phoned first.
-
He claims he rang her to hear a friendly voice. Two minutes would hardly have given him time. He alters his mind, to fit with current thinking, about who it was he phoned first.
The evidence about this is summarised by the court in his 2002 appeal,
Which is here
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=title+(+bamber+)&method=boolean
At about 9.50 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August the appellant telephoned Miss Mugford. During their conversation that evening he said he was "pissed off" and had been thinking about the crime all day and that it was going to be "tonight or never". The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep. As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.
A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing. One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.
Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.
Joanna Woad gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.
-
Errrm, I think I already answered that in my reply and when have I said other statements shouldn't be questioned? So a 13 year old child used the term 'contemplated suicide'? Really? I think the statements shows that someone older was in charge of the words used and certainly the responses were to questions being asked!
I am aware of what injections were given and that they were later halved. However, before you suggest that it may have contributed to her going crazy, the autopsy showed that even though her next injection was due, she still had a moderate dose in her system.
You can think what you like, but all statements are evidence. Who reported that Jeremy knew what was in his father's wallet?
According to Ferguson Sheila was never given the 400mg of haloperidol a month he had recommended.
-
You can think what you like, but all statements are evidence. Who reported that Jeremy knew what was in his father's wallet?
According to Ferguson Sheila was never given the 400mg of haloperidol a month he had recommended.
Thanks for the permission! Of course all of the statements are evidence - when did I suggest they weren't? Ann Eaton reported that he knew how much was in the wallet. I'm surprised you haven't read her statement!
As to you last comment ......... and?
-
The evidence about this is summarised by the court in his 2002 appeal,
Which is here
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=title+(+bamber+)&method=boolean (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html&query=title+(+bamber+)&method=boolean)
At about 9.50 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August the appellant telephoned Miss Mugford. During their conversation that evening he said he was "pissed off" and had been thinking about the crime all day and that it was going to be "tonight or never". The following morning she was awoken by a telephone call from the appellant to her lodgings in London. The appellant said to her, "Everything is going well. Something is wrong at the farm. I haven't had any sleep all night … bye honey and I love you lots". Miss Mugford did not take him seriously and went back to sleep. As to the timing of this call, Miss Mugford said in evidence said that it was between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m.
A number of Miss Mugford's housemates were disturbed by the telephone call and provided additional evidence as to timing. One, Helen Eaton, had been consulted by Julie Mugford, when the latter was first making a statement to the police about it. She put the time at 3.00 a.m. in evidence but agreed in cross-examination that it might have been as late as 3.30 a.m.
Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.
Joanna Woad gave evidence that when she heard the telephone, she looked at her digital clock and all that she noted was that the time was 2 something. This meant that according to her clock the time was between 2.00 and 2.59 a.m. If it was at the end of that bracket, it differed very little from the time suggested by Susan Battersby's evidence.
Bamber avoids any mention of a second phone call to Julie in this interview from jail with Eric Allison of the Guardian. I wonder why?...
https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/unknown-album (https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/unknown-album)
-
Thanks for the permission! Of course all of the statements are evidence - when did I suggest they weren't? Ann Eaton reported that he knew how much was in the wallet. I'm surprised you haven't read her statement!
As to you last comment ......... and?
I got the impression that you value some statements more than others.
-
Helen was just 13-years-old for goodness sake! She was in a terrifying situation; was totally out of her depth being so young, naive and scared, that when questions were put to her she would have agreed not realising Sheila’s conversation was nothing like the police wanted Helen to say. In fact, I think it was wrong for the police to interview such a girl of just 13 who was clueless about drugs and mental health.
And Helen never said Sheila told her she’d contemplated suicide “many times” or even once! Why are you lying?!
You need to retract those vile lies, G-Unit.
You’re deliberately trying to tarnish a murder victim, and that’s despicable.
The statement posted on Pinterest DOES say that Sheila had contemplated suicide.
I imagine Helen would have had an adult with her when making her statement, as she was only 13, and perhaps her statement did take the form of answering questions put to her, I have no idea. However, I'm sure she would have remembered what Sheila had said to her.
Are you honestly suggesting that if anyone says that Sheila smoked cannabis or contemplated suicide, then that person is "tarnishing a murder victim"??? I don't know whether Sheila was a murder victim, or whether she killed her family because she was too ill to be responsible for her actions, but I do believe that yes, she thought of suicide and smoked cannabis. I don't know whether she did it once or more than once, but I have certainly read that she did. Nobody is telling "vile lies".
Please leave the nasty, personal remarks out of your posts, or they will be deleted-------I thought you would have realised this by now.
-
Did Jeremy Bamber call the police first or Julie ?
On the 7th of August in this statement, He said he called the police immediately, see page 6
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5631.0
In his 8th of September statement given under caution he reversed the order, see page7,
He said" i was on the phone to her for about two minutes, not long as i had to call the police"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=294.0
In a futher statement on the 10th of September, The police managed to impress on him this contradiction
for which he had no congruent answer. see page 17
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
He called Julie first.
-
The statement posted on Pinterest DOES say that Sheila had contemplated suicide.
I imagine Helen would have had an adult with her when making her statement, as she was only 13, and perhaps her statement did take the form of answering questions put to her, I have no idea. However, I'm sure she would have remembered what Sheila had said to her.
Are you honestly suggesting that if anyone says that Sheila smoked cannabis or contemplated suicide, then that person is "tarnishing a murder victim"??? I don't know whether Sheila was a murder victim, or whether she killed her family because she was too ill to be responsible for her actions, but I do believe that yes, she thought of suicide and smoked cannabis. I don't know whether she did it once or more than once, but I have certainly read that she did. Nobody is telling "vile lies".
Please leave the nasty, personal remarks out of your posts, or they will be deleted-------I thought you would have realised this by now.
There's a discrepancy here, though. It appears to me -although I'm prepared to be wrong- that G-Unit is suggesting that Sheila had implied that she'd wanted to commit suicide. There's a vast difference between thinking about any act and being desirous of committing it. There is also a vast difference between Sheila once having thought about suicide and currently thinking about. A point which G-Unit hasn't examined. I'd also suggest that had she chain-smoked cannabis for the best part of an hour, she may well have been asleep by the end of it.
Whether Helen remembered exactly what Sheila had said, given her age, is questionable. It would have been easy enough to make suggestions to a young and impressionable girl, or paraphrase what she said until it fitted with the way they wanted it to sound.
-
The statement posted on Pinterest DOES say that Sheila had contemplated suicide.
I imagine Helen would have had an adult with her when making her statement, as she was only 13, and perhaps her statement did take the form of answering questions put to her, I have no idea. However, I'm sure she would have remembered what Sheila had said to her.
Are you honestly suggesting that if anyone says that Sheila smoked cannabis or contemplated suicide, then that person is "tarnishing a murder victim"??? I don't know whether Sheila was a murder victim, or whether she killed her family because she was too ill to be responsible for her actions, but I do believe that yes, she thought of suicide and smoked cannabis. I don't know whether she did it once or more than once, but I have certainly read that she did. Nobody is telling "vile lies".
Please leave the nasty, personal remarks out of your posts, or they will be deleted-------I thought you would have realised this by now.
She would have remembered what Sheila had said 6 months previous?
-
She would have remembered what Sheila had said 6 months previous?
IMO, quite possibly, if she had been disturbed by it.
-
Thanks for the permission! Of course all of the statements are evidence - when did I suggest they weren't? Ann Eaton reported that he knew how much was in the wallet. I'm surprised you haven't read her statement!
As to you last comment ......... and?
I wonder how Ann knew this.
I have an uneasy feeling about the 13 year old having a conversation with Sheila with the subject matter being about suicide. Is there a transcript of this anywhere?
I am trying to visualize why that subject would come into a conversation with a child/teenager.
-
There's a discrepancy here, though. It appears to me -although I'm prepared to be wrong- that G-Unit is suggesting that Sheila had implied that she'd wanted to commit suicide. There's a vast difference between thinking about any act and being desirous of committing it. There is also a vast difference between Sheila once having thought about suicide and currently thinking about. A point which G-Unit hasn't examined. I'd also suggest that had she chain-smoked cannabis for the best part of an hour, she may well have been asleep by the end of it.
Whether Helen remembered exactly what Sheila had said, given her age, is questionable. It would have been easy enough to make suggestions to a young and impressionable girl, or paraphrase what she said until it fitted with the way they wanted it to sound.
Who would want to influence Helen's statement?
-
I wonder how Ann knew this.
I have an uneasy feeling about the 13 year old having a conversation with Sheila with the subject matter being about suicide. Is there a transcript of this anywhere?
I am trying to visualize why that subject would come into a conversation with a child/teenager.
On Monday 12th August Ann invited Jeremy to White House Farm for coffee. She kept a record on note cards and mentions Jeremy asking about Nevill's wallet on them. She also says immediately after "Dad and I almost felt guilty". I wonder why?
The statements and notes are on another forum.
-
I wonder how Ann knew this.
I have an uneasy feeling about the 13 year old having a conversation with Sheila with the subject matter being about suicide. Is there a transcript of this anywhere?
I am trying to visualize why that subject would come into a conversation with a child/teenager.
AE knew because he said it to her. After the murders, Jeremy was apprehensive to return to WHF. One afternoon, AE rang Jeremy and suggested he should come over and basically get it over with. He seemed nervous and anxious at first but she showed him around explaining what happened where (I'm sure he could have conducted a better tour on that score ....... anyway). They returned to the kitchen and Jeremy relaxed - he relaxed so much, he went back upstairs on his own and came running down complaining that his dads wallet was gone.
There is a full statement on the blue forum Re:Helen G and there is no real explanation about how such a conversation came about. Interestingly, it was taken a few weeks after Bamber was arrested and it was taken in the girls home, I am wondering if the statement was part of the defence case as at that point, the police had no reason to pursue a case against Sheila
-
On Monday 12th August Ann invited Jeremy to White House Farm for coffee. She kept a record on note cards and mentions Jeremy asking about Nevill's wallet on them. She also says immediately after "Dad and I almost felt guilty". I wonder why?
The statements and notes are on another forum.
Because they had collected valuables to give to the solicitor, the wallet was one of them. AE found the wallet because they were looking for valuables, Jeremy knew where it was and what it contained and this was his first visit to the farm since before the murders.
-
Because they had collected valuables to give to the solicitor, the wallet was one of them. AE found the wallet because they were looking for valuables, Jeremy knew where it was and what it contained and this was his first visit to the farm since before the murders.
Basil Cock mentions in his w/s an amount found in Mrs Bamber's purse, but not anything about Mr Bamber's wallet.
-
I wonder how Ann knew this.
I have an uneasy feeling about the 13 year old having a conversation with Sheila with the subject matter being about suicide. Is there a transcript of this anywhere?
I am trying to visualize why that subject would come into a conversation with a child/teenager.
I recall reading that Helen and Sheila were alone in the house at the time of the conversation. Perhaps Sheila just wanted to talk to someone; she could well have felt lonely at the farm, away from her friends.
-
I recall reading that Helen and Sheila were alone in the house at the time of the conversation. Perhaps Sheila just wanted to talk to someone; she could well have felt lonely at the farm, away from her friends.
Actually, it sounded, to me, more like musings, than conversation. The sort of thing a client will say to a counselor. We know it helps to hear our thoughts expressed. It gives clarification. I think this may have been what Sheila was doing. I can't see what she'd have had in common with Helen to have a two way dialogue with her.
-
Basil Cock mentions in his w/s an amount found in Mrs Bamber's purse, but not anything about Mr Bamber's wallet.
His wallet is listed on one of the exhibit lists. I'm not sure what you're getting at? Bamber went straight for the wallet after returning to WHF and asked about it's contents, he then called the police (specifically DS Jones to ask where it went). There is no way he should have known what was in the wallet, or where it was.
-
Caroline, just playing the devils advocate here, could Jeremy have witnessed the transaction where Nevill received that sum in cash? Perhaps he recently sold a plough or some butter or something in his son’s presence?
-
Caroline, just playing the devils advocate here, could Jeremy have witnessed the transaction where Nevill received that sum in cash? Perhaps he recently sold a plough or some butter or something in his son’s presence?
Then why didn't he say so when I asked him? Why avoid the question? Then totally deny he said it? I should also mention that he slipped up and told me he asked about the wallet in a separate letter.
-
Then why didn't he say so when I asked him? Why avoid the question? Then totally deny he said it? I should also mention that he slipped up and told me he asked about the wallet in a separate letter.
The point is, that he knew where the wallet should be and when he couldn't find it 'there' he didn't look anywhere else. How did he know that Nevill didn't leave it in the kitchen or in the safe? He went to one place and immediately knew it was missing. He totally ignored the question when I first asked, he said he didn't remember the question when I asked again and gave an evasive answer the second time (I didn't or no) but then on reading through his letters (looking for something else), I found that he had made reference to looking for the wallet. Finally, in his final letters he gave two excuses for not answering the question - the first that he didn't remember the question and gave the best answer he could, the second was that he didn't the the question was important. Make you own mind up but I know he was squirming around the question from the off.
-
Then why didn't he say so when I asked him? Why avoid the question? Then totally deny he said it? I should also mention that he slipped up and told me he asked about the wallet in a separate letter.
I agree, and it would be very much in keeping with his previous form for greed and entitlement to sneak a look at Nevills wallet.
-
Some people fail to grasp that in order for people to read and digest their argument it is lost when name calling comes into play- they lose the argument-simple!
The age of the witness is irrelevant as this is evidence from April Jones's " A DVD of police interviews with the seven-year-old, who cannot be identified because of her age, was played to the jury in Mark Bridger's trial at Mold Crown Court.
Five-year-old April vanished while playing with her friend near their homes in Machynlleth, Powys, Mid Wales, on October 1 last year." (2013 not 2019).
This is irrelevant, goading,untrue and a bit sanctimonious IMO "You’re deliberately trying to tarnish a murder victim, and that’s despicable."
Why not just stick to your argument- a lot of which I agree with, without the childish sniping.
By me pointing out that Helen was just 13-years-old doesn’t mean I’ve lost my argument, Miss Taken.
You’re comparing Helen to a 7-year-old girl who was possibly a more reliable witness as she was too young to be coerced
I’ve explained how police could have interviewed Helen, but you don’t like it because you want to believe that Sheila was some kind of moronic ogre. But she wasn’t: the only evil person in this horrific event is the convicted murderer Jeremy Bamber.
Furthermore, I’m not interested in the Bamber Brigade: they refuse to accept ANY facts which prove JB is a liar and murderer, so anything I say — or anyone else says — will fall on deaf ears.
I’m not going to pretend these odd people are rational when they’ve been mentally seduced by a cold-blooded murderer.
-
Did Jeremy Bamber call the police first or Julie ?
On the 7th of August in this statement, He said he called the police immediately, see page 6
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5631.0
In his 8th of September statement given under caution he reversed the order, see page7,
He said" i was on the phone to her for about two minutes, not long as i had to call the police"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=294.0
In a futher statement on the 10th of September, The police managed to impress on him this contradiction
for which he had no congruent answer. see page 17
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0
That’s just ONE of his hundreds of lies...
All his statements were littered with discrepancies, and the reason for that was he lied, lied, lied.
Because he was guilty.
-
You can think what you like, but all statements are evidence. Who reported that Jeremy knew what was in his father's wallet?
According to Ferguson Sheila was never given the 400mg of haloperidol a month he had recommended.
It’s handy that all statements are evidence, G-Unit: that means that Jeremy lied in ALL his statements because he kept changing his story!
-
Bamber avoids any mention of a second phone call to Julie in this interview from jail with Eric Allison of the Guardian. I wonder why?...
https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/unknown-album (https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/unknown-album)
He’s also forgotten he said to police that he took a shower (not a bath), made a sandwich and drink, watched TV until approximately 11pm and then went to bed.
His whole story is different.
He also pauses frequently in his phone call, clearly trying to recall what he’d said previously.
Neither did he mention what he’d told police at the time: that his father phoned him and then the phone cut off as though someone had pressed it down. Had that happened he’d have got the dialling tone...
He’s incredibly thick; a dreadful liar; and thoroughly evil.
-
The statement posted on Pinterest DOES say that Sheila had contemplated suicide.
I imagine Helen would have had an adult with her when making her statement, as she was only 13, and perhaps her statement did take the form of answering questions put to her, I have no idea. However, I'm sure she would have remembered what Sheila had said to her.
Are you honestly suggesting that if anyone says that Sheila smoked cannabis or contemplated suicide, then that person is "tarnishing a murder victim"??? I don't know whether Sheila was a murder victim, or whether she killed her family because she was too ill to be responsible for her actions, but I do believe that yes, she thought of suicide and smoked cannabis. I don't know whether she did it once or more than once, but I have certainly read that she did. Nobody is telling "vile lies".
Please leave the nasty, personal remarks out of your posts, or they will be deleted-------I thought you would have realised this by now.
Anyone can post on Pininterest; much of it fake.
If you take absolutely everything you read as truth, you can’t be trusted to evaluate.
I’ve never seen ANYWHERE where Sheila had said she wanted to commit suicide; none of her close family or friends said she ever said it, neither did her psychiatrist.
I trust THEM over someone who’s posted something up on Pininterest that may be totally false or alterered.
But then I’m not gullible...
-
IMO, quite possibly, if she had been disturbed by it.
If she was THAT disturbed by Sheila’s talk she’d have excused herself and left the room.
I do not believe for a moment that she sat there while Sheila allegedly chain smoked cannabis — people don’t chain smoke cannabis. This is all exaggerations twisted by the police.
Besides, this has all been thrashed out in court — and Jeremy was found guilty
What’s your difficulty with understanding that?
-
Who would want to influence Helen's statement?
DCI Taff Jones...that’s who
Haven’t you followed the case?
-
The point is, that he knew where the wallet should be and when he couldn't find it 'there' he didn't look anywhere else. How did he know that Nevill didn't leave it in the kitchen or in the safe? He went to one place and immediately knew it was missing. He totally ignored the question when I first asked, he said he didn't remember the question when I asked again and gave an evasive answer the second time (I didn't or no) but then on reading through his letters (looking for something else), I found that he had made reference to looking for the wallet. Finally, in his final letters he gave two excuses for not answering the question - the first that he didn't remember the question and gave the best answer he could, the second was that he didn't the the question was important. Make you own mind up but I know he was squirming around the question from the off.
As Jeremy RAN upstairs to get the wallet (wasn’t frightened then, was he?) he obviously knew exactly where it was. He obviously saw it when he killed them all — Nevill probably had it on his bedside cabinet — and the only reason Jeremy didn’t take it then was that if it was discovered missing it would be further proof Sheila wasn’t the killer.
He planned to collect it after the event, that’s obvious. And seems like he was furious it was missing!
I also believe all that rubbish he put on about being scared to enter the house was done for other people’s benefit. He wasn’t scared at all! He DID go back there, several times, and was extremely jolly as he showed all the goodies to the auctioneer!
He’s just an evil psychopath and I can’t understand how a few people think he’s normal!
-
On Monday 12th August Ann invited Jeremy to White House Farm for coffee. She kept a record on note cards and mentions Jeremy asking about Nevill's wallet on them. She also says immediately after "Dad and I almost felt guilty". I wonder why?
The statements and notes are on another forum.
You’re trying to attach too much importance to a throwaway comment
At that time, they all thought (albeit with difficulty) that a Sheila was the culprit and as Jeremy was playacting the scared grief stricken son, they possibly felt guilty for inviting him to WHF where he put on a display of feigned panic and grief.
-
Anyone can post on Pininterest; much of it fake.
If you take absolutely everything you read as truth, you can’t be trusted to evaluate.
I’ve never seen ANYWHERE where Sheila had said she wanted to commit suicide; none of her close family or friends said she ever said it, neither did her psychiatrist.
I trust THEM over someone who’s posted something up on Pininterest that may be totally false or alterered.
But then I’m not gullible...
I can guarantee Ispy that the statement isn't false, it is genuine but I would question how it was obtained, by who and for that purpose.
-
Who would want to influence Helen's statement?
The defence!
-
I can guarantee Ispy that the statement isn't false, it is genuine but I would question how it was obtained, by who and for that purpose.
I trust what you say, Caroline, but I can’t believe Sheila would have sat chain-smoking cannabis in front of her 13-year-old second cousin, sat in the sitting room of WHF. She only smoked it occasionally (about 4 days prior to Jeremy killing her), so she certainly wasn’t a daily smoker of it, let alone chain-smoked it.
I bet the police twisted Helen’s words and put them to her in such a way to make Sheila sound bad! Sheila did roll her own cigarettes, so the policeman may have planted a seed in young Helen’s mind. Don’t forget, the police behaved appallingy under the guidance of Taff Jones.
I simply don’t believe Sheila would have been so reckless to not only smoke cannabis flagrantly, sat in WHF, but would do so in front of a 13-year-old, and offer her some too!
Colin actually says how Sheila warned him NEVER to smoke pot in front of the twins, which he’d only done once, and had stopped smoking it, anyway....here’s an excerpt from his book:
-
Shall try again....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
And again....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Sorry, posted same on twice....
Second part
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I trust what you say, Caroline, but I can’t believe Sheila would have sat chain-smoking cannabis in front of her 13-year-old second cousin, sat in the sitting room of WHF. She only smoked it occasionally (about 4 days prior to Jeremy killing her), so she certainly wasn’t a daily smoker of it, let alone chain-smoked it.
I bet the police twisted Helen’s words and put them to her in such a way to make Sheila sound bad! Sheila did roll her own cigarettes, so the policeman may have planted a seed in young Helen’s mind. Don’t forget, the police behaved appallingy under the guidance of Taff Jones.
I simply don’t believe Sheila would have been so reckless to not only smoke cannabis flagrantly, sat in WHF, but would do so in front of a 13-year-old, and offer her some too!
Colin actually says how Sheila warned him NEVER to smoke pot in front of the twins, which he’d only done once, and had stopped smoking it, anyway....here’s an excerpt from his book:
The statement was made after Bambrs arrest and therefore TJ wasn't off the case. However, his defence are within their rights to take statements - I think it must have been down to them. I don't think it was ever used - Sheila wasn't on trial.
-
DCI Taff Jones...that’s who
Haven’t you followed the case?
DCI Jones was no longer in charge of the case when Helen Grimster was interviewed.
-
The defence!
Why would the defence be involved in the taking of a police statement?
-
Why would the defence be involved in the taking of a police statement?
Yes, my mistake, It's a ling time since I read the statement. See - no disgrace to admit you made a mistake or were wrong. No need for defensiveness or 'whatever's' 8((()*/
It doesn't say who took the statement but it does state that signatures were witnessed - however, there are no signatures and it was obtained from Helen at home.
-
DCI Jones was no longer in charge of the case when Helen Grimster was interviewed.
I had already posted this on the previous page.
-
I had already posted this on the previous page.
Page 8 reply #119?
-
His wallet is listed on one of the exhibit lists. I'm not sure what you're getting at? Bamber went straight for the wallet after returning to WHF and asked about it's contents, he then called the police (specifically DS Jones to ask where it went). There is no way he should have known what was in the wallet, or where it was.
So who gave the wallet to the police?
-
So who gave the wallet to the police?
Not Bamber - which is the point.
-
Page 8 reply #119?
120 - top of the page right above your post.
-
Not Bamber - which is the point.
I have a different opinion about what the point is. Do you have the reference number for the exhibit please.
-
I have a different opinion about what the point is. Do you have the reference number for the exhibit please.
I'm sure you do, you'll ignore the fact that the wallet was the first thing Bamber went looking for and that he knew where it should be and how much was inside. You'll ignore and try an divert attention elsewhere. It's all been done before by other 'fence sitters' and supporters. The list is on the blue forum - I don't have a number.
-
I have tried to find the list for you, but without knowing the title of the thread, it's pretty difficult. If I find it, I'll post it,
-
I have tried to find the list for you, but without knowing the title of the thread, it's pretty difficult. If I find it, I'll post it,
Thank you, I've been looking too and I can't find it.
-
Thank you, I've been looking too and I can't find it.
I wouldn’t waste your time, G-Unit
The case was done and dusted 35 years ago...
Jeremy Bamber is guilty of killing his family; he also beat both Nevill to a pulp before shooting bullets into his brain, AND he also beat June and made her suffer too!
The wallet was clearly taken by police or given to them by the family, so that part isn’t relevant. It makes no difference to the fact Jeremy knew exactly where Nevill had left it; knew how much money was in there; and rushed upstairs to get his dirty paws on it...
The police, lawyers and courts aren’t stupid — I doubt some armchair detective 35 years down the line could get the case reopened on the fact Nevill’s wallet was in the possession of the police...
-
DCI Jones was no longer in charge of the case when Helen Grimster was interviewed.
Yep, he got slung off the case for being inept
-
Yes, my mistake, It's a ling time since I read the statement. See - no disgrace to admit you made a mistake or were wrong. No need for defensiveness or 'whatever's' 8((()*/
It doesn't say who took the statement but it does state that signatures were witnessed - however, there are no signatures and it was obtained from Helen at home.
Not that it matters now, but out of curiosity where did this statement by Helen pop up?
It just seems so strange, especially as no-one seems to know who it was witnessed by, and the defence didn’t use it.
It’s surprising the defence didn’t use it — there must have been a very good reason for that 🤔
-
Not that it matters now, but out of curiosity where did this statement by Helen pop up?
It just seems so strange, especially as no-one seems to know who it was witnessed by, and the defence didn’t use it.
It’s surprising the defence didn’t use it — there must have been a very good reason for that 🤔
Hi I spy, just recieved Carol ANN Lee booK WHF,
As i am new to case i quickly looked at the References and on page 369 it espouses that
at 15 years old Helen Grimster was the youngest witness to take the stand and she
recounted her conversation with Sheila which she had at WHF in 1985
-
Hi I spy, just recieved Carol ANN Lee booK WHF,
As i am new to case i quickly looked at the References and on page 369 it espouses that
at 15 years old Helen Grimster was the youngest witness to take the stand and she
recounted her conversation with Sheila which she had at WHF in 1985
Thanks for that, I didn't know she was a witness, even after 8 years, there are still things to learn. I still take that statement with a pinch of salt, 13 year olds don't use words like 'contemplate' and it was obvious that the questioner was trying to given the impression that Sheila was smoking a joint.
-
I'm sure you do, you'll ignore the fact that the wallet was the first thing Bamber went looking for and that he knew where it should be and how much was inside. You'll ignore and try an divert attention elsewhere. It's all been done before by other 'fence sitters' and supporters. The list is on the blue forum - I don't have a number.
I found out why Ann and her father 'almost felt guilty'. It was because her father 'had checked the wallet and Uncle Nevill's trouser pockets on Saturday for Mr Cock'. [Ann Eaton's statement to SY 14/05/91]
So was Jeremy right? Was there four or five hundred pounds in it?
-
I found out why Ann and her father 'almost felt guilty'. It was because her father 'had checked the wallet and Uncle Nevill's trouser pockets on Saturday for Mr Cock'. [Ann Eaton's statement to SY 14/05/91]
So was Jeremy right? Was there four or five hundred pounds in it?
Of course he was right, he must have counted it to collect later - is that the first thing you would go looking for if your family were murdered? And how did h know it was missing?
-
Of course he was right, he must have counted it to collect later - is that the first thing you would go looking for if your family were murdered? And how did h know it was missing?
Ann never said if he was right or not, so how do you know? If he was right it should have been listed as cash in hand by Mr Cock, and it wasn't. Ann herself asked Jeremy on 8th August if her mother could have June's engagement ring. It seems he wasn't the only one with posessions on his mind.
[Ann Eaton statement 14/08/91 page 30]
-
Ann never said if he was right or not, so how do you know? If he was right it should have been listed as cash in hand by Mr Cock, and it wasn't. Ann herself asked Jeremy on 8th August if her mother could have June's engagement ring. It seems he wasn't the only one with posessions on his mind.
[Ann Eaton statement 14/08/91 page 30]
I have read AE's statement thanks - she never said it was wrong either. There is a big difference in scavenging for ready cash and wanting to keep a piece of jewellery. So how did he know where to look for the wallet and how did he know it was missing? He didn't bother to look any further - he knew it was missing from the off!
-
I have read AE's statement thanks - she never said it was wrong either. There is a big difference in scavenging for ready cash and wanting to keep a piece of jewellery. So how did he know where to look for the wallet and how did he know it was missing? He didn't bother to look any further - he knew it was missing from the off!
I don't know and neither do you, but you seem determined, just like his cousin was, to use it against him. Perhaps it suddenly dawned on him that stuff was disappearing.
-
I don't know and neither do you, but you seem determined, just like his cousin was, to use it against him. Perhaps it suddenly dawned on him that stuff was disappearing.
Eh? It was the FIRST time he's been back to the farm and things were disappearing because the executor asked for them to be removed. Too bloody right I will hold it against him - scrounging for cash would be the last thing on my mind if my family were murdered - unless I murdered them. I asked him about the wallet, he avoided answering - but you keep making excuses for him.
-
Hi I spy, just recieved Carol ANN Lee booK WHF,
As i am new to case i quickly looked at the References and on page 369 it espouses that
at 15 years old Helen Grimster was the youngest witness to take the stand and she
recounted her conversation with Sheila which she had at WHF in 1985
Gosh, you’ve got through the book quickly...
There’s contradictions about whether Helen took the stand — some sources say she did, whilst Jeremy Bamber’s team say she didn’t...but JB’s campaign team do lie, so you can’t believe anything they say
Whatever, whether Helen did take the stand or not, the defence didn’t get from her what they set out to achieve, did they?
I don’t believe for a second that Sheila was smoking cannabis inside the house: she’d have been terrified to. In fact, Nevill had found some of the cannabis Jeremy bought in Amsterdam long before he killed them all, and had kept it in his safe with a note.
Helen never said Sheila was smoking cannabis; she said she was chain-smoking cigarettes. Nor did Sheila say she was suicidal.
The defence would have inferred that, obviously...that’s their job — to get criminals off the hook by casting doubts in the jury’s minds. But because the evidence against Jeremy Bamber was so, so, so overwhelming it was clear he was guilty from the outset.
Incidentally, it’s very telling that the only witnesses Jeremy had to say his relationship with Nevill seemed OK were mere acquaintances who barely knew them...
Jeremy didn’t have ONE person testify on his behalf or give a character reference for him. Not ONE of his few associates who were close to him and knew him well agreed to testify for him. Brett Collins, Sue Ford, Michael Deckers, Rodney Brown, Virginia Grieves — they all refused to help him....
Speaks volumes....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Ann never said if he was right or not, so how do you know? If he was right it should have been listed as cash in hand by Mr Cock, and it wasn't. Ann herself asked Jeremy on 8th August if her mother could have June's engagement ring. It seems he wasn't the only one with posessions on his mind.
[Ann Eaton statement 14/08/91 page 30]
Why SHOULD have Ann told Jeremy what was inside Nevill’s wallet? Maybe, unlike him (the proven THIEF) she didn’t look? Maybe she just handed it over to Basil Cock?
And it’s perfectly natural to want a sentimental item belonging to your mother’s sister so it could stay in the family and go to her closest relative. Especially if it was expensive in value: why wouldn’t you? It’s a family treasure worth a lot both in money and sentiment.
Why would Ann Eaton, June’s niece want to watch as evil Jeremy started grabbing all the beloved possessions like a vulture and selling them off to strangers, just so he could squander the cash by pissing it up the wall?
He was a useless, sponging layabout — and everyone knew that BEFORE he murdered all his family.
He even sold the beautiful portrait of Beatrice that was painted when she was a little girl: and he makes out he “loved” his family?!
Makes me laugh how he posts this rubbish up about how much he adored his mum, yet treated her like dirt when she was alive; taunted her; insulted her; upset her by cycling round her then pulling up sharply; telling her to put her hand in his pocket where he had live rats that she had a fear of; deliberately chopping off all the budding daffodil/tulip heads she’d lovingly planted in the front....mocking her; ridiculing her; stealing from her...and telling everyone he knew how much he despised her.
-
I don't know and neither do you, but you seem determined, just like his cousin was, to use it against him. Perhaps it suddenly dawned on him that stuff was disappearing.
Rather as you appear to have determined to become the self appointed saviour of his reputation. I wonder if you'd be adopting the same stance had your family have been the victims and you were denied a sentimental keepsake? I'm going to suggest that the only things which were "disappearing" were those requested by BC, and had Jeremy been working with him, he'd have known this.
-
Gosh, you’ve got through the book quickly...
There’s contradictions about whether Helen took the stand — some sources say she did, whilst Jeremy Bamber’s team say she didn’t...but JB’s campaign team do lie, so you can’t believe anything they say
Whatever, whether Helen did take the stand or not, the defence didn’t get from her what they set out to achieve, did they?
I don’t believe for a second that Sheila was smoking cannabis inside the house: she’d have been terrified to. In fact, Nevill had found some of the cannabis Jeremy bought in Amsterdam long before he killed them all, and had kept it in his safe with a note.
Helen never said Sheila was smoking cannabis; she said she was chain-smoking cigarettes. Nor did Sheila say she was suicidal.
The defence would have inferred that, obviously...that’s their job — to get criminals off the hook by casting doubts in the jury’s minds. But because the evidence against Jeremy Bamber was so, so, so overwhelming it was clear he was guilty from the outset.
Incidentally, it’s very telling that the only witnesses Jeremy had to say his relationship with Nevill seemed OK were mere acquaintances who barely knew them...
Jeremy didn’t have ONE person testify on his behalf or give a character reference for him. Not ONE of his few associates who were close to him and knew him well agreed to testify for him. Brett Collins, Sue Ford, Michael Deckers, Rodney Brown, Virginia Grieves — they all refused to help him....
Speaks volumes....
The cannabis in the safe wasn't bought by Jeremy Bamber in Amsterdam.
-
The cannabis in the safe wasn't bought by Jeremy Bamber in Amsterdam.
And you’d know that would you?🤔
-
And you’d know that would you?🤔
You need to check, but my understanding is that it belonged to Nevill's nephew, Anthony Pargeter, who'd had a bit of a drug problem.
-
Thank you, April — I have read so much it’s sometimes hard to keep track of everything without checking.
Regardless, it just shows how strict Nevill was about illegal drug taking, so that’s why I don't believe Sheila would have openly smoked cannabis inside the house at WHF. She’d have been far too fearful, and she respected and loved her dad dearly. And she wasn’t addicted to cannabis...she was an occasional recreational user if it, unlike Jeremy, who was known to smoke it constantly in company.
-
Rather as you appear to have determined to become the self appointed saviour of his reputation. I wonder if you'd be adopting the same stance had your family have been the victims and you were denied a sentimental keepsake? I'm going to suggest that the only things which were "disappearing" were those requested by BC, and had Jeremy been working with him, he'd have known this.
I wouldn't have been asking for keepsakes on the day after a family member had been murdered, would you?
-
I wouldn't have been asking for keepsakes on the day after a family member had been murdered, would you?
Whilst this isn't about us I concur that I'd have found doing so in bad taste, HOWEVER, if I'd seen the house being raped of what the late owners had held dear, I think any reticence would have flown out the window. C'mon, if he cared that little for it, other than it's value, what difference was one ring going to make?
-
Whilst this isn't about us I concur that I'd have found doing so in bad taste, HOWEVER, if I'd seen the house being raped of what the late owners had held dear, I think any reticence would have flown out the window. C'mon, if he cared that little for it, other than it's value, what difference was one ring going to make?
As far as I'm aware nothing had been removed from WHF by 8th August, when Ann asked about June's engagement ring.
-
As far as I'm aware nothing had been removed from WHF by 8th August, when Ann asked about June's engagement ring.
It didn't need to have been if the intention to do so had been made clear.
-
It didn't need to have been if the intention to do so had been made clear.
Had the intention to do so been made clear?
-
I wouldn't have been asking for keepsakes on the day after a family member had been murdered, would you?
It wasn't the day after. Quite interesting how you have tried to deflect from the topic of the wallet to highlight the relatives. This is a common tactic of supporters. I'll ask again, how did Jeremy know where the wallet was ands having looked there, how did he know not to keep looking?
-
You need to check, but my understanding is that it belonged to Nevill's nephew, Anthony Pargeter, who'd had a bit of a drug problem.
That is correct April.
-
Had the intention to do so been made clear?
I suspect that silver, objets d'art, portraits, being removed/boxed up. may have given a clue.
-
As far as I'm aware nothing had been removed from WHF by 8th August, when Ann asked about June's engagement ring.
It was 9th August and was part of a conversation where Jeremy states that he was having everything valued by Sotherbys.
-
You need to check, but my understanding is that it belonged to Nevill's nephew, Anthony Pargeter, who'd had a bit of a drug problem.
Nope. It seems those who keep correcting me are rather hazy themselves when it comes to the details. It was Anthony's half brother, Roland, who wasn't actually a relative at all, although he spent school holidays at WHF as did Anthony and Jacqueline.
-
Nope. It seems those who keep correcting me are rather hazy themselves when it comes to the details. It was Anthony's half brother, Roland, who wasn't actually a relative at all, although he spent school holidays at WHF as did Anthony and Jacqueline.
It sounds as if others getting it wrong makes you feel smug?
-
It wasn't the day after. Quite interesting how you have tried to deflect from the topic of the wallet to highlight the relatives. This is a common tactic of supporters. I'll ask again, how did Jeremy know where the wallet was ands having looked there, how did he know not to keep looking?
Do you think you’ll ever get a sensible non-deflecting reply to this question?
-
It sounds as if others getting it wrong makes you feel smug?
It certainly doesn't encourage me to accept everything they say as fact.
-
It was 9th August and was part of a conversation where Jeremy states that he was having everything valued by Sotherbys.
Sorry, yes. the 9th. The same conversation during which Jeremy said nothing should be removed from the farmhouse; which was ignored. By what stretch of imagination was Ann Eaton within her rights to make off with Beatrice Bamber's jewellery?
-
Do you think you’ll ever get a sensible non-deflecting reply to this question?
No, she won't answer it because it's obvious that the only reason he knew it was missing ws because he knew where it should have been and that no one else COULD have moved it.
-
Sorry, yes. the 9th. The same conversation during which Jeremy said nothing should be removed from the farmhouse; which was ignored. By what stretch of imagination was Ann Eaton within her rights to make off with Beatrice Bamber's jewellery?
Better it was eventually returned to Nevill's family than the proceeds funding Jeremy, don't you think?
-
Sorry, yes. the 9th. The same conversation during which Jeremy said nothing should be removed from the farmhouse; which was ignored. By what stretch of imagination was Ann Eaton within her rights to make off with Beatrice Bamber's jewellery?
Nothing belonged to Bamber at that point, things were removed on the instructions of the executor including the jewellery. He probably knew that if the stuff was left at WHF, there would soon be nothing left.
-
Sorry, yes. the 9th. The same conversation during which Jeremy said nothing should be removed from the farmhouse; which was ignored. By what stretch of imagination was Ann Eaton within her rights to make off with Beatrice Bamber's jewellery?
Make off with? You’re making her out to have criminal intentions.
-
Nope. It seems those who keep correcting me are rather hazy themselves when it comes to the details. It was Anthony's half brother, Roland, who wasn't actually a relative at all, although he spent school holidays at WHF as did Anthony and Jacqueline.
I understand Roland Pargeter, known as Roly, stayed at WHF during the 70's. The purpose of the stay was supposedly to help kick a drug habit which begs the question why NB would retain any seized cannabis resin from the 70's to the mid 80's?
-
Nothing belonged to Bamber at that point, things were removed on the instructions of the executor including the jewellery. He probably knew that if the stuff was left at WHF, there would soon be nothing left.
According to Mr Cock he went to WHF that weekend because Ann Eaton told him that it was at Jeremy's request, which it clearly wasn't. [w/s 16/09/85] [CAL page 222]
-
According to Mr Cock he went to WHF that weekend because Ann Eaton told him that it was at Jeremy's request, which it clearly wasn't. [w/s 16/09/85] [CAL page 222]
They made the right decision to include him, with him there you can hardly claim they were scavenging the stuff for themselves.
-
They made the right decision to include him, with him there you can hardly claim they were scavenging the stuff for themselves.
If he hadn't been included Ann may have found herself reported for stealing jewellery from WHF. Cock allowed it because he was told she was acting on Jeremy Bamber's instructions.
-
If he hadn't been included Ann may have found herself reported for stealing jewellery from WHF. Cock allowed it because he was told she was acting on Jeremy Bamber's instructions.
She didn't steal it, unlike Bamber who had history in that department.
-
She didn't steal it, unlike Bamber who had history in that department.
As did the principle prosecution witness.
-
Nope. It seems those who keep correcting me are rather hazy themselves when it comes to the details. It was Anthony's half brother, Roland, who wasn't actually a relative at all, although he spent school holidays at WHF as did Anthony and Jacqueline.
Talking of strangers...what do you think about Brett Collins bouncing into WHF, rifling through all the valuables, inspecting them and suggesting their worth, then driving off in NEVILL’S car to go and see auctioneers?! Eh?
Brett even put one of Nevill’s dressing gowns on at one time, and when he and Jeremy moved into Sheila’s flat Brett helped Jeremy rummage through ALL her belongings, keeping all the things of value, and then chucked the twins’ toys/clothes etc in bin bags and dumped them in a cupboard!
I’m surprised Colin didn’t smash that F***** face in! Including the murderer, Jeremy.
Brett EVEN took control of the funerals...telling who could sit where.
This TOTAL stranger from New Zealand waltzing around like he owned the place! I’m surprised he’s still walking about!
-
It certainly doesn't encourage me to accept everything they say as fact.
You believe the pathological liar Jeremy Bamber though
-
As did the principle prosecution witness.
Why the continual comparisons with ANY other. They weren't on trial for murder.
-
Talking of strangers...what do you think about Brett Collins bouncing into WHF, rifling through all the valuables, inspecting them and suggesting their worth, then driving off in NEVILL’S car to go and see auctioneers?! Eh?
Brett even put one of Nevill’s dressing gowns on at one time, and when he and Jeremy moved into Sheila’s flat Brett helped Jeremy rummage through ALL her belongings, keeping all the things of value, and then chucked the twins’ toys/clothes etc in bin bags and dumped them in a cupboard!
I’m surprised Colin didn’t smash that F***** face in! Including the murderer, Jeremy.
Brett EVEN took control of the funerals...telling who could sit where.
This TOTAL stranger from New Zealand waltzing around like he owned the place! I’m surprised he’s still walking about!
But 35 years later, he is saying Jeremy is guilty!
-
I understand Roland Pargeter, known as Roly, stayed at WHF during the 70's. The purpose of the stay was supposedly to help kick a drug habit which begs the question why NB would retain any seized cannabis resin from the 70's to the mid 80's?
Well, he didn’t keep if for himself did he?
Otherwise he’d have smoked it.
He possibly forget he’d locked it away...or just left it there as he didn’t want to throw it away in case someone found it.
-
But 35 years later, he is saying Jeremy is guilty!
He knew Jeremy was guilty 35 years ago...he doesn’t fool me!
In fact, I even wonder if he gave Jeremy ideas on how to do certain things: it was convenient he was in Greece when it happened ...
And is he did believe Jeremy was innocent 35 years ago, why did he refuse to go in the witness stand for him?
He fled back to New Zealand!
And talking of NZ, did the NZ police ever catch up with Jeremy about the Cartier watched he stole; the diamonds he stole? How about this man who supposedly got killed out there? Did Jeremy and Brett ever help the NZ police with their enquiries?
-
Well, he didn’t keep if for himself did he?
Otherwise he’d have smoked it.
He possibly forget he’d locked it away...or just left it there as he didn’t want to throw it away in case someone found it.
There seems to be an assumption that it related to RP's stay at WHF during the 70's but where's the evidence for this?
-
There seems to be an assumption that it related to RP's stay at WHF during the 70's but where's the evidence for this?
Ask G-Unit...shes the one who said it
-
He knew Jeremy was guilty 35 years ago...he doesn’t fool me!
In fact, I even wonder if he gave Jeremy ideas on how to do certain things: it was convenient he was in Greece when it happened ...
And is he did believe Jeremy was innocent 35 years ago, why did he refuse to go in the witness stand for him?
He fled back to New Zealand!
And talking of NZ, did the NZ police ever catch up with Jeremy about the Cartier watched he stole; the diamonds he stole? How about this man who supposedly got killed out there? Did Jeremy and Brett ever help the NZ police with their enquiries?
Where's the evidence BC was called for the defence but declined?
Where's the evidence anyone was called by the defence but declined?
There's no evidence JB was involved in any criminality during his trips abroad. Oz and NZ are not lawless countries; if JB was involved in any criminality Where's the evidence of any police investigation, press reporting or lay witnesses reporting?
Claims of criminality abroad appear to originate from RB.
-
Just as a matter of interest (and I do realise this is of no importance), does anyone know whether Basil Cocks believed Jeremy was guilty ?
-
Ask G-Unit...shes the one who said it
Did she or did she just correct APRIL and Caroline that the claims surround Roland Pargeter and not Anthony Pargeter?
-
Just as a matter of interest (and I do realise this is of no importance), does anyone know whether Basil Cocks believed Jeremy was guilty ?
I don't think he's on record as expressing any views. I believe at trial he read out a letter from June to NB, SC and JB in the event of her death which was complimentary to all.
-
I don't think he's on record as expressing any views. I believe at trial he read out a letter from June to NB, SC and JB in the event of her death which was complimentary to all.
Thanks Holly.
-
Where's the evidence BC was called for the defence but declined?
Where's the evidence anyone was called by the defence but declined?
There's no evidence JB was involved in any criminality during his trips abroad. Oz and NZ are not lawless countries; if JB was involved in any criminality Where's the evidence of any police investigation, press reporting or lay witnesses reporting?
Claims of criminality abroad appear to originate from RB.
I never mentioned Basil Cock!
Jeremy’s defence asked him to find witnesses to support him, and not one of them agreed to. The evidence is in documents and also books, one of which is Colin’s
I’m not your secretary, Holly...please do your own research. In fact, considering you’ve followed the case for years you seem to have forgotten an incredible amount, which is why I suggest you refresh yourself with the facts.
I don’t work for you, Holly.
-
You believe the pathological liar Jeremy Bamber though
Just for the record, that's your opinion as I've never said I believe Jeremy Bamber.
-
I never mentioned Basil Cock!
Jeremy’s defence asked him to find witnesses to support him, and not one of them agreed to. The evidence is in documents and also books, one of which is Colin’s
I’m not your secretary, Holly...please do your own research. In fact, considering you’ve followed the case for years you seem to have forgotten an incredible amount, which is why I suggest you refresh yourself with the facts.
I don’t work for you, Holly.
You were referring to Brett Collins and I abbreviated to BC.
If you wish to assert something it is your responsibility to find the supporting evidence otherwise it's just your opinion.
There's no evidence the defence called JB's friends and family at trial. Friends by way of Brett Collins, Michael Decker, Andrew and Karen Bishop, the then girlfriend,
Anji Greaves, former Girlfriend, Sue Ford, and extended family members the Howies.
-
Just for the record, that's your opinion as I've never said I believe Jeremy Bamber.
If you don’t believe him then why do you consider the possibility that he might be innocent? Try explaining without referring to any of his witness testimony if you feel he is not to be believed.
-
As did the principle prosecution witness.
Under the influence of Bamber - he does seem to be able to convince people of a lot of thing. Superficial charm!
-
Why the continual comparisons with ANY other. They weren't on trial for murder.
It's the old supporter pass the buck routine.
-
Did she or did she just correct APRIL and Caroline that the claims surround Roland Pargeter and not Anthony Pargeter?
Huh? I haven't even mentioned the Pargeter's!
-
If you don’t believe him then why do you consider the possibility that he might be innocent? Try explaining without referring to any of his witness testimony if you feel he is not to be believed.
I attach very liitle weight to lay witnesses whether they be defence of prosecution.
I prefer to rely on the experts. When I say experts I look for high level qualifications, experience, unblemished records and membership of professional bodies.
-
Just for the record, that's your opinion as I've never said I believe Jeremy Bamber.
yes you have, you even used HIS WORD as evidence for one of your posts!
-
I attach very liitle weight to lay witnesses whether they be defence of prosecution.
I prefer to rely on the experts. When I say experts I look for high level qualifications, experience, unblemished records and membership of professional bodies.
No, you pick and choose depending on whether they match what you want to show.
-
I attach very liitle weight to lay witnesses whether they be defence of prosecution.
I prefer to rely on the experts. When I say experts I look for high level qualifications, experience, unblemished records and membership of professional bodies.
Were there no experts on the prosecution team?
-
yes you have, you even used HIS WORD as evidence for one of your posts!
Did I? When?
-
No, you pick and choose depending on whether they match what you want to show.
Not true. The only 'expert' I disregard is Malcolm Fletcher as there's no evidence he was appropriately qualified at trial to give the sort of evidence he did. His evidence was extremely important to the prosecution too.
-
Not true. The only 'expert' I disregard is Malcolm Fletcher as there's no evidence he was appropriately qualified at trial to give the sort of evidence he did. His evidence was extremely important to the prosecution too.
And it doesn't lend to your own thoughts.
-
Did I? When?
I'll post later but this will be the second time I have had to remind you of it.
-
Huh? I haven't even mentioned the Pargeter's!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11313.msg580747#msg580747
-
Did I? When?
Here!
A witness said he phoned him and the phone's receiver was off the hook.
The witness was his son.
-
Just for the record, that's your opinion as I've never said I believe Jeremy Bamber.
Actually, you have no need. Just carry on treating everyone else as potential liars.
-
Here!
So if I point out what a witness said you translate that as meaning I believe what the witness said?
-
Disappointing that we're going down the road of personal comments.
I seem to recall some time ago a considerable storm broke out on the Blue forum about posters referring to one another as liars. Please desist.
-
Disappointing that we're going down the road of personal comments.
I seem to recall some time ago a considerable storm broke out on the Blue forum about posters referring to one another as liars. Please desist.
No one has referred to anyone else on here as a liar.
-
So if I point out what a witness said you translate that as meaning I believe what the witness said?
You’re using the proven murderer’s words as evidence that Nevill phoned the proven murderer. Hmm, ok, clearly you don’t believe a word of it!
-
No one has referred to anyone else on here as a liar.
The word liar has been used and I want to preempt it going further end of.
-
So if I point out what a witness said you translate that as meaning I believe what the witness said?
You used it as evidence that something happened, it you don't believe it, then you don't believe the call took place therefore Bamber lied and .......
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11313.msg580747#msg580747
Only half read the post @)(++(*
-
The word liar has been used and I want to preempt it going further end of.
Is it not acceptable to refer to Jeremy as a liar now either?
-
Not true. The only 'expert' I disregard is Malcolm Fletcher as there's no evidence he was appropriately qualified at trial to give the sort of evidence he did. His evidence was extremely important to the prosecution too.
Hi Holly, I was wondering why you thought that Malcolm Fletcher was not qualified to give the evidence that he put forth
-
Hi Holly, I was wondering why you thought that Malcolm Fletcher was not qualified to give the evidence that he put forth
Because he made a flippant comment about having a pellet gun as a boy.
-
Because he made a flippant comment about having a pellet gun as a boy.
Thanks Caroline, Wow surely there must be more evidence than that, I thought it was claimed by Jeremy supporters he had never fired a gun, seems i have loads to learn yet
-
Thanks Caroline, Wow surely there must be more evidence than that, I thought it was claimed by Jeremy supporters he had never fired a gun, seems i have loads to learn yet
He was an expert witness so had to be qualified.
-
He was an expert witness so had to be qualified.
I agree with you Caroline, I just read if indeed it is the same Malcolm Fletcher, ballistics expert,
giving evidence at another trial regarding a gun shot murder that was commited on the 8/8/2001
-
I don't think he's on record as expressing any views. I believe at trial he read out a letter from June to NB, SC and JB in the event of her death which was complimentary to all.
That letter wasn’t complimenting anyone, Holly
It was shown to the jury to demonstrate a part of June’s character
She said she loved them all, which is dreadfully heartbreaking knowing Jeremy later shot her dead
-
You were referring to Brett Collins and I abbreviated to BC.
If you wish to assert something it is your responsibility to find the supporting evidence otherwise it's just your opinion.
There's no evidence the defence called JB's friends and family at trial. Friends by way of Brett Collins, Michael Decker, Andrew and Karen Bishop, the then girlfriend,
Anji Greaves, former Girlfriend, Sue Ford, and extended family members the Howies.
For someone who constantly expresses opinions, most, indeed almost all, groundless opinions, it’s amusing how you state it’s one’s responsibility to post with supporting evidence — when you yourself have NO evidence whatsoever that Jeremy Bamber could possibly be innocent!
Ive not seen ONE piece of evidence, or even SUGGESTION, that JB isn’t guilty. Not ONE!
And that’s because there isn’t any.
-
I attach very liitle weight to lay witnesses whether they be defence of prosecution.
I prefer to rely on the experts. When I say experts I look for high level qualifications, experience, unblemished records and membership of professional bodies.
And whom of these high level experts has told you Jeremy is innocent?😌
-
I agree with you Caroline, I just read if indeed it is the same Malcolm Fletcher, ballistics expert,
giving evidence at another trial regarding a gun shot murder that was commited on the 8/8/2001
This one? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2225827.stm - Very similar, murder or suicide?
Malcolm Fletcher's qualifications include BSc, FFSSoc, FSSoc Dip
-
You’re using the proven murderer’s words as evidence that Nevill phoned the proven murderer. Hmm, ok, clearly you don’t believe a word of it!
I think G-Unit is justifiably feeling embarrassed that she said the witness who “proved” Nevill rang Jeremy was Jeremy himself!🤣
-
You’re using the proven murderer’s words as evidence that Nevill phoned the proven murderer. Hmm, ok, clearly you don’t believe a word of it!
Another member said there was no evidence that Nevill used the phone. I pointed out that a witness testified that Nevill did use the phone. Evidence is evidence, whether it's believed or not.
-
Another member said there was no evidence that Nevill used the phone. I pointed out that a witness testified that Nevill did use the phone. Evidence is evidence, whether it's believed or not.
How can Jeremy be his own witness?!
That’s nuts.
-
This one? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2225827.stm - Very similar, murder or suicide?
Malcolm Fletcher's qualifications include BSc, FFSSoc, FSSoc Dip
And what qualified him to provide testimony at the time of JB's trial?
-
Is it not acceptable to refer to Jeremy as a liar now either?
I am only concerned with those who post here. If we allowed one poster to refer to another as a liar it would have the potential to send the forum into meltdown.
If you wish to refer to JB as a liar or any other disparaging term go for it.
-
I am only concerned with those who post here. If we allowed one poster to refer to another as a liar it would have the potential to send the forum into meltdown.
If you wish to refer to JB as a liar or any other disparaging term go for it.
Who called who on here a liar? The “others” referred to were the others involved in the case not people on this forum as I understood it. Jeremy IS a proven liar and it is therefore not disparaging to say so.
-
Who called who on here a liar? The “others” referred to were the others involved in the case not people on this forum as I understood it. Jeremy IS a proven liar and it is therefore not disparaging to say so.
Please stay on topic and desist with stiring.
-
Who called who on here a liar? The “others” referred to were the others involved in the case not people on this forum as I understood it. Jeremy IS a proven liar and it is therefore not disparaging to say so.
It may have been I who first used the word which has, indeed, been the cause of major fireworks elsewhere!! but I was actually referencing everyone OTHER than Jeremy, who apparently is the only one not guilty.
-
Please stick to the thread topic.
Any further off-topic posts will be removed on sight.
Thanks.
-
And what qualified him to provide testimony at the time of JB's trial?
13 years of working in the firearms department at the Home Office Forensic science lab - that's what.
-
Who called who on here a liar? The “others” referred to were the others involved in the case not people on this forum as I understood it. Jeremy IS a proven liar and it is therefore not disparaging to say so.
Another example of Jeremy Bamber’s blatant lies is when he told the police (more than once) as they were outside WHF, that his sister was a psychopath.
Sheila wasn’t a psychopath, which everyone knows.
He knew she wasn’t too....
If anyone wishes to verify that it’s in CAL’s book; several police officers repeated exactly what Jeremy said to them.
-
Another example of Jeremy Bamber’s blatant lies is when he told the police (more than once) as they were outside WHF, that his sister was a psychopath.
Sheila wasn’t a psychopath, which everyone knows.
He knew she wasn’t too....
If anyone wishes to verify that it’s in CAL’s book; several police officers repeated exactly what Jeremy said to them.
Thanks---I had missed that, although I recall Jeremy described Sheila as a "nutter".
IMO, Sheila was in no way a psychopath. Jeremy fits the bill far better. However, having never met either of them, and not being a psychiatrist, I'm really in no position to state either as fact.
-
Thanks---I had missed that, although I recall Jeremy described Sheila as a "nutter".
IMO, Sheila was in no way a psychopath. Jeremy fits the bill far better. However, having never met either of them, and not being a psychiatrist, I'm really in no position to state either as fact.
As a former school teacher you may well be familiar with attachment theory? I know it is covered on PGCE courses today. It has an evolutionary basis to it and involves how babies/toddlers/small children bond with their primary caregivers. If this goes awry it can cause problems during the attachment phase circa 2 years with the potential for various issues including learning. At the extreme end a correlation exists between attachment disorders and psychopathy. During 1959, when SC was 2 yoa, June suffered severe depression requiring in-patient psychiatric care and ECT. Imo this was at the root of SC's problems and mental illness.
-
As a former school teacher you may well be familiar with attachment theory? I know it is covered on PGCE courses today. It has an evolutionary basis to it and involves how babies/toddlers/small children bond with their primary caregivers. If this goes awry it can cause problems during the attachment phase circa 2 years with the potential for various issues including learning. At the extreme end a correlation exists between attachment disorders and psychopathy. During 1959, when SC was 2 yoa, June suffered severe depression requiring in-patient psychiatric care and ECT. Imo this was at the root of SC's problems and mental illness.
I can see where this is going. Do you believe Sheila killed (or was capable of killing) her entire family, except Jeremy bizarrely, then killed herself?
-
As a former school teacher you may well be familiar with attachment theory? I know it is covered on PGCE courses today. It has an evolutionary basis to it and involves how babies/toddlers/small children bond with their primary caregivers. If this goes awry it can cause problems during the attachment phase circa 2 years with the potential for various issues including learning. At the extreme end a correlation exists between attachment disorders and psychopathy. During 1959, when SC was 2 yoa, June suffered severe depression requiring in-patient psychiatric care and ECT. Imo this was at the root of SC's problems and mental illness.
Yes, I'm certainly familiar with attachment theory, and IMO, you make a valid point about June's relationship with Sheila.
-
I can see where this is going. Do you believe Sheila killed (or was capable of killing) her entire family, except Jeremy bizarrely, then killed herself?
I don't think the conversation was leading to Sheila being the killer, only to possible reasons for her illness, and nobody can deny that she did have severe mental health problems. June had suffered from mental health problems too.
I expect you were asking this question of Holly, but, for what it's worth, I do think Sheila was capable of carrying out the killings. Just my opinion though, and I am by no means sure that she did carry them out.
-
I can see where this is going. Do you believe Sheila killed (or was capable of killing) her entire family, except Jeremy bizarrely, then killed herself?
Everything I post is imo evidenced led.
My interpretation of SC's early start in life and all the physical evidence at soc leads me to conclude she was responsible.
JB did not live at WHF and did not have any say in SC's life unlike her adoptive parents particularly her mother.
SC discussed with her psychiatrist morbid thoughts re her twin sons and her mother. She never mentioned JB and there's no evidence she viewed her father as anything other than positive. Although the psychiatrist did say if her father made any suggestion about her being separated from her children he would expect her to react very strongly. According to JB her parents were discussing fostering of the twins.
-
Thanks---I had missed that, although I recall Jeremy described Sheila as a "nutter".
IMO, Sheila was in no way a psychopath. Jeremy fits the bill far better. However, having never met either of them, and not being a psychiatrist, I'm really in no position to state either as fact.
I agree with you, Mrswah, but we can only go by what first-hand witnesses have said; what her doctors said; and what all the highly experienced investigators said after studying all the factual evidence.
-
As a former school teacher you may well be familiar with attachment theory? I know it is covered on PGCE courses today. It has an evolutionary basis to it and involves how babies/toddlers/small children bond with their primary caregivers. If this goes awry it can cause problems during the attachment phase circa 2 years with the potential for various issues including learning. At the extreme end a correlation exists between attachment disorders and psychopathy. During 1959, when SC was 2 yoa, June suffered severe depression requiring in-patient psychiatric care and ECT. Imo this was at the root of SC's problems and mental illness.
Holly, please desist from going off-topic and posting your unfounded suppositions.
But as you’ve tried to imply Sheila may have been a psychopath when there’s absolutely NO truth in that whatsoever, I can inform you that nothing and no-one can turn a person into a psychopath.
Psychopathy is not a mental illness: it’s a personality DISORDER which you’re either born with or can be caused by a brain injury. Such as the head injury Jeremy suffered when he was accidentally dropped on his head...
-
Yes, I'm certainly familiar with attachment theory, and IMO, you make a valid point about June's relationship with Sheila.
MrsWah, with all due respect being a school teacher does not make one a medical expert in psychiatric disorders.
Sheila never displayed any signs of disturbance at school and she was a very popular girl with several close friends. She was also very sweet and caring, as all her teachers attested. She doted on animals; was caring, kind, and considerate.
The one who DID show signs of psychopathy as a child was Jeremy!
He used to taunt Sheila and make her cry by hitting her small animals with big sticks and throwing big stones at baby ducklings.
If anyone caused her pain it was Jeremy....
It is true that June wasn’t a typically affectionate mother, but Nevill made up for that which is why Sheila had he were so close.
-
As a former school teacher you may well be familiar with attachment theory? I know it is covered on PGCE courses today. It has an evolutionary basis to it and involves how babies/toddlers/small children bond with their primary caregivers. If this goes awry it can cause problems during the attachment phase circa 2 years with the potential for various issues including learning. At the extreme end a correlation exists between attachment disorders and psychopathy. During 1959, when SC was 2 yoa, June suffered severe depression requiring in-patient psychiatric care and ECT. Imo this was at the root of SC's problems and mental illness.
You’re not a psychiatrist, Holly, so your opinion is of no significance.
There’s thousands of people suffering from various disorders, and they don’t all become mass murderers.
You only have to look at some of the crazy, illogical ramblings some people make on the internet and how some people are clearly suffering from undiagnosed conditions. Some people who post on forums are seriously deluded; appear devoid of logical reasoning even when facts are staring them in their face; and make laughable claims without realising it’s THEY who are in need of treatment or/and therapy...
-
Everything I post is imo evidenced led.
My interpretation of SC's early start in life and all the physical evidence at soc leads me to conclude she was responsible.
JB did not live at WHF and did not have any say in SC's life unlike her adoptive parents particularly her mother.
SC discussed with her psychiatrist morbid thoughts re her twin sons and her mother. She never mentioned JB and there's no evidence she viewed her father as anything other than positive. Although the psychiatrist did say if her father made any suggestion about her being separated from her children he would expect her to react very strongly. According to JB her parents were discussing fostering of the twins.
You’re not posting facts, Holly.
You’re distorting.
And your conclusion that Sheila was the murderer highlights your lack of reasoning.
You’re in no position to suggest Sheila was affected by June’s breakdown when Sheila was only two-years-old. You’re not medically trained, and you’re completely biased. You WANT to believe Jeremy us innocent, and you should concentrate more on why that is...
Even your so-called “facts” are wrong. Jeremy DID live at WHF. He, like Sheila, moved out in their 20s when their parents’ bought them properties.
And please DESIST from wrongly saying June and Nevill were discussing the twins being fostered? That’s a wicked lie! You’re quoting the evil mass murderer, Jeremy, who’s bamboozled you.
June was saying to Pamela that she was WORRIED that if Sheila didn’t improve the children might be put into foster care — which terrified June!
Stop sullying dead people who were murdered!
Besides, Colin had custody of the twins and would never have allowed such a thing to happen, so stop perpetuating untrue rumours in order to blacken Sheila’s name, and June’s, just because you have a massive desire for a convicted evil child murderer who also killed both his parents and sister, to be set free!
I don’t understand why you’re so wrapped up in the psychopath...
-
You’re not a psychiatrist, Holly, so your opinion is of no significance.
There’s thousands of people suffering from various disorders, and they don’t all become mass murderers.
You only have to look at some of the crazy, illogical ramblings some people make on the internet and how some people are clearly suffering from undiagnosed conditions. Some people who post on forums are seriously deluded; appear devoid of logical reasoning even when facts are staring them in their face; and make laughable claims without realising it’s THEY who are in need of treatment or/and therapy...
Incidentally, I like your comment somewhere else that explains why he didn't torch the place, but considered it, as that's exactly what I would have done (if I'd have been a low-functioning, sociopathic narcissist intent on killing my entire family for inheritance at a remote farmhouse that was a veritable tinderbox).
-
You’re not posting facts, Holly.
You’re distorting.
And your conclusion that Sheila was the murderer highlights your lack of reasoning.
You’re in no position to suggest Sheila was affected by June’s breakdown when Sheila was only two-years-old. You’re not medically trained, and you’re completely biased. You WANT to believe Jeremy us innocent, and you should concentrate more on why that is...
Even your so-called “facts” are wrong. Jeremy DID live at WHF. He, like Sheila, moved out in their 20s when their parents’ bought them properties.
And please DESIST from wrongly saying June and Nevill were discussing the twins being fostered? That’s a wicked lie! You’re quoting the evil mass murderer, Jeremy, who’s bamboozled you.
June was saying to Pamela that she was WORRIED that if Sheila didn’t improve the children might be put into foster care — which terrified June!
Stop sullying dead people who were murdered!
Besides, Colin had custody of the twins and would never have allowed such a thing to happen, so stop perpetuating untrue rumours in order to blacken Sheila’s name, and June’s, just because you have a massive desire for a convicted evil child murderer who also killed both his parents and sister, to be set free!
I don’t understand why you’re so wrapped up in the psychopath...
Again, Spy, your enthusiasm is causing you to be unfair. Holly is absolutely correct in suggesting that Sheila was affected by separation from June. It may have been the case of a separation too many. Babies bond with their mothers in the w..b. For 9 months they are part of her. They hear her voice, arguably, they may be affected by her emotions, they live whatever lifestyle she leads. We know that in a matter of weeks, post birth, a baby recognizes it's mothers footfall, smell, voice, arms. In those few weeks, a baby waking to find itself in the arms, not of it's mother, but a strange woman, will cry. We know that during those times of hospital stays when parents weren't allowed to visit, a child would go from being hysterically/angrily/pleadingly tearful -during which time it was labeled as being naughty, to being quiet and compliant, when it was said to be behaving itself. We now understand that the child was displaying symptoms of depression because of maternal separation. Sheila, in her first few years was passed from one matriarchal figure to another. There was no permanency, added to which, it appears that June, who was to have offered permanency, didn't find motherhood easy, suffering a nervous breakdown as a result, and lacked natural maternal instinct.
-
I realise that babies/children who are separated from their mothers are affected deeply by that, which often leads to feelings of insecurity in later life. It’s very sad and is heartbreaking.
However, thousands of babies have been adopted over the years: I myself have a very close family member who was adopted as a baby and she has turned into a wonderfully happy woman with a fabulous career and family of her own, and she totally DOTES on her parents as they do her. They are her mum and dad, and she is their daughter. They’re actually closer than many people I know who have grown up with their biological parents. Perhaps she was one of the lucky ones: she had a wonderful upbringing; a very privileged one too; and has never felt insecure or an outsider.
I do agree that June was probably unsuitable for adopting a baby, and I suspect the infertility which afflicted either herself or Nevill made June very bitter, which is sad. I’ve even wondered if June was jealous of Sheila, not just because she was so stunningly pretty, but because Nevill doted on Sheila and although that was perfectly normal, June may have resented Nevill loving Sheila as his daughter when she wasn’t their biological child. I also think that’s why June seemed to show more love towards the twins and even wanted to adopt them at one stage: psychologically she found it easier to bond with the twins as they were a generation removed, so she didn’t feel what to her was the stigma of being an adopted mother and constantly reminded, albeit subconsciously, that she herself couldn’t conceive.
-
I realise that babies/children who are separated from their mothers are affected deeply by that, which often leads to feelings of insecurity in later life. It’s very sad and is heartbreaking.
However, thousands of babies have been adopted over the years: I myself have a very close family member who was adopted as a baby and she has turned into a wonderfully happy woman with a fabulous career and family of her own, and she totally DOTES on her parents as they do her. They are her mum and dad, and she is their daughter. They’re actually closer than many people I know who have grown up with their biological parents. Perhaps she was one of the lucky ones: she had a wonderful upbringing; a very privileged one too; and has never felt insecure or an outsider.
I do agree that June was probably unsuitable for adopting a baby, and I suspect the infertility which afflicted either herself or Nevill made June very bitter, which is sad. I’ve even wondered if June was jealous of Sheila, not just because she was so stunningly pretty, but because Nevill doted on Sheila and although that was perfectly normal, June may have resented Nevill loving Sheila as his daughter when she wasn’t their biological child. I also think that’s why June seemed to show more love towards the twins and even wanted to adopt them at one stage: psychologically she found it easier to bond with the twins as they were a generation removed, so she didn’t feel what to her was the stigma of being an adopted mother and constantly reminded, albeit subconsciously, that she herself couldn’t conceive.
I concur with all you say.
It's gratifying to be reminded that the huge majority of adoptions are successful.
Your point, suggesting that June may have been jealous of Sheila eg her stunning looks, her youth, her closeness with Nevill, her fertility, is entirely valid. So, too, are the reasons you give for her being able to dote on the twins. I will add, to that, one of my own. They were innocent. I believe Sheila's blossoming sexuality may have been something June recognized before Sheila was aware of it. It MAY simply have been that June feared for her, but the old and ugly thing about illegitimacy and stained characters raises it's head.
-
I concur with all you say.
It's gratifying to be reminded that the huge majority of adoptions are successful.
Your point, suggesting that June may have been jealous of Sheila eg her stunning looks, her youth, her closeness with Nevill, her fertility, is entirely valid. So, too, are the reasons you give for her being able to dote on the twins. I will add, to that, one of my own. They were innocent. I believe Sheila's blossoming sexuality may have been something June recognized before Sheila was aware of it. It MAY simply have been that June feared for her, but the old and ugly thing about illegitimacy and stained characters raises it's head.
You raise a very valid point: I too suspect June felt envy at Sheila’s blossoming maturity and potential fertility, and it reminded her of her own infertility or the fact she was unable to have a baby of her own with Nevill. That’s possibly why she viewed naked bodies as shameful, and seemed to suggest sex was sinful. One can only imagine the difficulties Nevill had with June later in life if she became frigid and wanted no intimacy with him. Many people assume couples no longer have a loving sex life as they age, but that isn’t true. Many people enjoy the closeness it brings up until they’re simply too old to desire it, and people in their early 60s are not deemed to be past it in this day and age. But I suspect every intimate pass Nevill made at June reminded her of their inability to have their own children, and to compensate for possibly being frigid to his advances she turned to the church as a distraction.
Nevill told his secretary June was no longer the girl she once was, and when they first met he’d caused a stir amongst the local women: he was tall, sporty, good fun, ex RAF, and came from an affluent family — so he was quite the catch. June too was a catch. Besides also coming from a wealthy family, she was intelligent, sporty, and was pretty. She seemed to turn into a frump, though, albeit well turned-out, and never displayed her femininity by wearing glamorous dresses or shoes on special occasions. She was a typical brogues and tweed skirt lady.
I also think there was a lot of depression in that house. Not with Nevill, who kept himself busy on the farm and enjoyed social occasions where he was gregarious, funny, enjoyed a drink, was generous, kind and enjoyed parties. The depression stemmed from June, and a huge sign of that was how little interest she took in furnishing the house nicely and keeping it homely. It looked gloomy, unloved and messy — all typical signs of depression.
-
Everything I post is imo evidenced led.
My interpretation of SC's early start in life and all the physical evidence at soc leads me to conclude she was responsible.
JB did not live at WHF and did not have any say in SC's life unlike her adoptive parents particularly her mother.
SC discussed with her psychiatrist morbid thoughts re her twin sons and her mother. She never mentioned JB and there's no evidence she viewed her father as anything other than positive. Although the psychiatrist did say if her father made any suggestion about her being separated from her children he would expect her to react very strongly. According to JB her parents were discussing fostering of the twins.
It's selective.
-
You raise a very valid point: I too suspect June felt envy at Sheila’s blossoming maturity and potential fertility, and it reminded her of her own infertility or the fact she was unable to have a baby of her own with Nevill. That’s possibly why she viewed naked bodies as shameful, and seemed to suggest sex was sinful. One can only imagine the difficulties Nevill had with June later in life if she became frigid and wanted no intimacy with him. Many people assume couples no longer have a loving sex life as they age, but that isn’t true. Many people enjoy the closeness it brings up until they’re simply too old to desire it, and people in their early 60s are not deemed to be past it in this day and age. But I suspect every intimate pass Nevill made at June reminded her of their inability to have their own children, and to compensate for possibly being frigid to his advances she turned to the church as a distraction.
Nevill told his secretary June was no longer the girl she once was, and when they first met he’d caused a stir amongst the local women: he was tall, sporty, good fun, ex RAF, and came from an affluent family — so he was quite the catch. June too was a catch. Besides also coming from a wealthy family, she was intelligent, sporty, and was pretty. She seemed to turn into a frump, though, albeit well turned-out, and never displayed her femininity by wearing glamorous dresses or shoes on special occasions. She was a typical brogues and tweed skirt lady.
I also think there was a lot of depression in that house. Not with Nevill, who kept himself busy on the farm and enjoyed social occasions where he was gregarious, funny, enjoyed a drink, was generous, kind and enjoyed parties. The depression stemmed from June, and a huge sign of that was how little interest she took in furnishing the house nicely and keeping it homely. It looked gloomy, unloved and messy — all typical signs of depression.
Good post, Spy.
-
You raise a very valid point: I too suspect June felt envy at Sheila’s blossoming maturity and potential fertility, and it reminded her of her own infertility or the fact she was unable to have a baby of her own with Nevill. That’s possibly why she viewed naked bodies as shameful, and seemed to suggest sex was sinful. One can only imagine the difficulties Nevill had with June later in life if she became frigid and wanted no intimacy with him. Many people assume couples no longer have a loving sex life as they age, but that isn’t true. Many people enjoy the closeness it brings up until they’re simply too old to desire it, and people in their early 60s are not deemed to be past it in this day and age. But I suspect every intimate pass Nevill made at June reminded her of their inability to have their own children, and to compensate for possibly being frigid to his advances she turned to the church as a distraction.
Nevill told his secretary June was no longer the girl she once was, and when they first met he’d caused a stir amongst the local women: he was tall, sporty, good fun, ex RAF, and came from an affluent family — so he was quite the catch. June too was a catch. Besides also coming from a wealthy family, she was intelligent, sporty, and was pretty. She seemed to turn into a frump, though, albeit well turned-out, and never displayed her femininity by wearing glamorous dresses or shoes on special occasions. She was a typical brogues and tweed skirt lady.
I also think there was a lot of depression in that house. Not with Nevill, who kept himself busy on the farm and enjoyed social occasions where he was gregarious, funny, enjoyed a drink, was generous, kind and enjoyed parties. The depression stemmed from June, and a huge sign of that was how little interest she took in furnishing the house nicely and keeping it homely. It looked gloomy, unloved and messy — all typical signs of depression.
That, IMO, is a 100% accurate assessment.
It's also possible that June's choice of attire was an unconscious way of stopping Nevill's advances. It may well have been that she believed the only function of sex was procreation? That for any other purpose, it was sinful? An irony, isn't it, that such a heinous sin provided her with the children she was unable to conceive.
Having only seen the kitchen -which is no different from the many other farmhouse kitchen's I've seen- I can't comment. However, whilst all these kitchens leave something to be desired, all other rooms are tastefully furnished, a la shabby chic, but probably go years between redecorating. Nevill, I know to have been much admired and his company much sought after at social gatherings. He was, as you say, a catch.
-
MrsWah, with all due respect being a school teacher does not make one a medical expert in psychiatric disorders.
Sheila never displayed any signs of disturbance at school and she was a very popular girl with several close friends. She was also very sweet and caring, as all her teachers attested. She doted on animals; was caring, kind, and considerate.
The one who DID show signs of psychopathy as a child was Jeremy!
He used to taunt Sheila and make her cry by hitting her small animals with big sticks and throwing big stones at baby ducklings.
If anyone caused her pain it was Jeremy....
It is true that June wasn’t a typically affectionate mother, but Nevill made up for that which is why Sheila had he were so close.
You're right, I'm certainly not an expert in psychiatric disorders.
However, "attachment theory" isn't directly to do with psychiatric disorders. It's about the possible effect on a child of being (temporarily or permanently) deprived of a primary carer when young. In SOME cases, this may lead to mental health issues later. Trainee teachers and psychology students (and I've been both) are required to study it.
It's a theory, rather than a certainty (google John Bowlby, if you like, and you'll find out about it), but it makes some sense to me.
-
Incidentally, does anyone know how old Sheila and Jeremy were when they discovered they were adopted?
-
Incidentally, does anyone know how old Sheila and Jeremy were when they discovered they were adopted?
As Jeremy was told at 8, just prior to being sent to boarding school, I'm imagining that Sheila may have been told at a comparable age, but given that she was 3 years ahead of him, did it mean that she had to keep it a secret until he was old enough(?!!) to be told.
-
Incidentally, does anyone know how old Sheila and Jeremy were when they discovered they were adopted?
Perhaps it became necessary when they asked why their cousins called them cuckoos.
-
You're right, I'm certainly not an expert in psychiatric disorders.
However, "attachment theory" isn't directly to do with psychiatric disorders. It's about the possible effect on a child of being (temporarily or permanently) deprived of a primary carer when young. In SOME cases, this may lead to mental health issues later. Trainee teachers and psychology students (and I've been both) are required to study it.
It's a theory, rather than a certainty (google John Bowlby, if you like, and you'll find out about it), but it makes some sense to me.
You’re right, “attachment theory” isn’t directly to do with psychiatric disorders. And when June had her breakdown Nevill was the primary carer, including the nanny. So Sheila wasn’t actually without a primary carer: she wasn’t in a children’s home being cared for by different people each day.
I too have studied psychology, and what you need to remember is that each individual, regardless of age, is affected differently by family upsets/traumas. You also need to remember that some families have a parent who is absent for weeks on end: businessmen, tycoons, airline pilots, off-shore engineers etc...and they don’t all develop MHP. What DOES affect a child is the behaviour of the parent when they’re home...
Jeremy certainly seemed to be affected by whatever went on at home. But his problems were vastly different to Sheila’s. Unlike Sheila who was naturally sweet, placid, and caring — Jeremy was spiteful, arrogant, nasty and cruel. So it stands to reason that he had deep hatred inside, so much so, that he was able to kill everyone.
-
You’re right, “attachment theory” isn’t directly to do with psychiatric disorders. And when June had her breakdown Nevill was the primary carer, including the nanny. So Sheila wasn’t actually without a primary carer: she wasn’t in a children’s home being cared for by different people each day.
I too have studied psychology, and what you need to remember is that each individual, regardless of age, is affected differently by family upsets/traumas. You also need to remember that some families have a parent who is absent for weeks on end: businessmen, tycoons, airline pilots, off-shore engineers etc...and they don’t all develop MHP. What DOES affect a child is the behaviour of the parent when they’re home...
Jeremy certainly seemed to be affected by whatever went on at home. But his problems were vastly different to Sheila’s. Unlike Sheila who was naturally sweet, placid, and caring — Jeremy was spiteful, arrogant, nasty and cruel. So it stands to reason that he had deep hatred inside, so much so, that he was able to kill everyone.
They don't ALL, because they're ALL different. You said that yourself, and as a student of psychology, you'll know it's not a question of one size fits all. Jeremy's genetic defence system was different from Sheila's because his gene pool was different. This isn't about which child suffered most. Suffering can't be measured like that.
-
Incidentally, does anyone know how old Sheila and Jeremy were when they discovered they were adopted?
They were both around 8 years old.
-
They were both around 8 years old.
That's what I thought. It means that Sheila, being some 3 years older, was probably told not to tell Jeremy.
-
That's what I thought. It means that Sheila, being some 3 years older, was probably told not to tell Jeremy.
Most likely but she would have been at boarding school most of the time.
-
Most likely but she would have been at boarding school most of the time.
It might have made holidays difficult for her. There were times when she could have felt tempted to tell him but afraid to. Holding such knowledge in must have been stressful.
-
It might have made holidays difficult for her. There were times when she could have felt tempted to tell him but afraid to. Holding such knowledge in must have been stressful.
Dunno - personally, if it were me, I'd have no wish to tell him.
-
They were both around 8 years old.
Thank you!
-
As Jeremy was told at 8, just prior to being sent to boarding school, I'm imagining that Sheila may have been told at a comparable age, but given that she was 3 years ahead of him, did it mean that she had to keep it a secret until he was old enough(?!!) to be told.
Thank you!
-
You’re not a psychiatrist, Holly, so your opinion is of no significance.
There’s thousands of people suffering from various disorders, and they don’t all become mass murderers.
You only have to look at some of the crazy, illogical ramblings some people make on the internet and how some people are clearly suffering from undiagnosed conditions. Some people who post on forums are seriously deluded; appear devoid of logical reasoning even when facts are staring them in their face; and make laughable claims without realising it’s THEY who are in need of treatment or/and therapy...
My opinions here about any aspect of the case are no more or less important than anyone else's.
I've asked you numerous times not to make any comments whatsoever of a personal nature about other posters. Any repeats will result in deletion of the post.
-
Perhaps it became necessary when they asked why their cousins called them cuckoos.
Were the cousins nasty to them?
I oft wonder why would someone adopt children then send them to boarding school. One would think wanting children was the point of being a 'family unit' living together.
-
Were the cousins nasty to them?
I oft wonder why would someone adopt children then send them to boarding school. One would think wanting children was the point of being a 'family unit' living together.
I rather think any name the cousins may have called them -more specifically, Jeremy- came from RWB's resentment. Children pick up on what parents say and run with it because they think it's right.
I was at school with an adopted child who boarded. Her brother and sister, both biological offspring of the parents, were day pupils. They all lived half a mile from school.
-
I rather think any name the cousins may have called them -more specifically, Jeremy- came from RWB's resentment. Children pick up on what parents say and run with it because they think it's right.
I was at school with an adopted child who boarded. Her brother and sister, both biological offspring of the parents, were day pupils. They all lived half a mile from school.
Sorry APRIL-I may be reading this wrong.
Who is RWB? and what is the resentment being harbored?
Re: boarding- are you saying the adopted child went full boarding (even though they lived down the road) and biological children went home every evening?
-
Sorry APRIL-I may be reading this wrong.
Who is RWB? and what is the resentment being harbored?
Re: boarding- are you saying the adopted child went full boarding (even though they lived down the road) and biological children went home every evening?
Robert Boutflour, father to Ann and David and Jeremy and Sheila's unc.
-
Sorry APRIL-I may be reading this wrong.
Who is RWB? and what is the resentment being harbored?
Re: boarding- are you saying the adopted child went full boarding (even though they lived down the road) and biological children went home every evening?
Sorry! That would be Robert Woodwiss Boutflour, aka Uncle Bobbie, bro in law to Nevill through his marriage with June's older sister, and possibly hoping that the at one time childless Bambers' money would find it's way to his branch of the family.l Jeremy was his bete noir.
Yes! The adopted child had to board, whilst her siblings -biological and younger children of their parents- went home every evening. She claimed her mother beat her with a riding crop/leather belt. Of course, back then, no one believed any child, less still, an adopted child.
-
Sorry! That would be Robert Woodwiss Boutflour, aka Uncle Bobbie, bro in law to Nevill through his marriage with June's older sister, and possibly hoping that the at one time childless Bambers' money would find it's way to his branch of the family.l Jeremy was his bete noir.
Yes! The adopted child had to board, whilst her siblings -biological and younger children of their parents- went home every evening. She claimed her mother beat her with a riding crop/leather belt. Of course, back then, no one believed any child, less still, an adopted child.
Jeremy called him Uncle Flunky. Did that reflect Nevill's opinion of him, I wonder?
[RWB w/s 4/9/91]
-
Sorry! That would be Robert Woodwiss Boutflour, aka Uncle Bobbie, bro in law to Nevill through his marriage with June's older sister, and possibly hoping that the at one time childless Bambers' money would find it's way to his branch of the family.l Jeremy was his bete noir.
Yes! The adopted child had to board, whilst her siblings -biological and younger children of their parents- went home every evening. She claimed her mother beat her with a riding crop/leather belt. Of course, back then, no one believed any child, less still, an adopted child.
Sorry, I'm lost now! Who claimed her mother beat her?
And, you are saying that RWB didn't like Jeremy? (and I do realise that this doesn't necessarily mean that JB didn't commit the murders!).
-
Sorry, I'm lost now! Who claimed her mother beat her?
And, you are saying that RWB didn't like Jeremy? (and I do realise that this doesn't necessarily mean that JB didn't commit the murders!).
The adopted child I was at school with.
Yes! There was no love lost between Uncle Bobbie and Jeremy. I imagine he'd been resentful of Jeremy from the off.
-
The adopted child I was at school with.
Yes! There was no love lost between Uncle Bobbie and Jeremy. I imagine he'd been resentful of Jeremy from the off.
I see. That's really sad (about your friend, I mean).
-
Jeremy called him Uncle Flunky. Did that reflect Nevill's opinion of him, I wonder?
[RWB w/s 4/9/91]
lol flunky. I wonder what that means G.
"Did that reflect Nevill's opinion of him, I wonder"?
opinion of who the uncle or Jeremy?
OK now I see a bit clearer. JB supporters could be claiming Junes family could have set up Jeremy for the inheritance which they thought more rightfully theirs? Hmm plausible argument- until JB blames Sheila and not his Flunky uncle and co.
APRIL "Yes! The adopted child had to board, whilst her siblings -biological and younger children of their parents- went home every evening. She claimed her mother beat her with a riding crop/leather belt. Of course, back then, no one believed any child, less still, an adopted child. "
Indeed who would believe as the adopted child who had fee paying school and all that jazz. Absolutely horrific, and that is why I wondered why would someone adopt a child and send them away? Makes no sense to me.
-
Jeremy called him Uncle Flunky. Did that reflect Nevill's opinion of him, I wonder?
[RWB w/s 4/9/91]
Ouch!
-
lol flunky. I wonder what that means G.
"Did that reflect Nevill's opinion of him, I wonder"?
opinion of who the uncle or Jeremy?
OK now I see a bit clearer. JB supporters could be claiming Junes family could have set up Jeremy for the inheritance which they thought more rightfully theirs? Hmm plausible argument- until JB blames Sheila and not his Flunky uncle and co.
APRIL "Yes! The adopted child had to board, whilst her siblings -biological and younger children of their parents- went home every evening. She claimed her mother beat her with a riding crop/leather belt. Of course, back then, no one believed any child, less still, an adopted child. "
Indeed who would believe as the adopted child who had fee paying school and all that jazz. Absolutely horrific, and that is why I wondered why would someone adopt a child and send them away? Makes no sense to me.
Well, in the simple event of a wealthy couple being childless, their wealth, when they die, is likely to be divided amongst the wider family. Enter adopted children and those financial hopes get blown out of the window.
-
Well, in the simple event of a wealthy couple being childless, their wealth, when they die, is likely to be divided amongst the wider family. Enter adopted children and those financial hopes get blown out of the window.
Was it just Jeremy who wasn't much liked by Neville/June and wide family?
-
Was it just Jeremy who wasn't much liked by Neville/June and wide family?
Well, regarding the cousins Ann and David, there were age gaps so large that they were generational. There was never likely to be close bonding there. (According to my friend, who knew the Bambers well, whilst all the other mothers would share stories about their children, June never did. I recall my friend saying, with the benefit of hindsight, that she now wonders if June thought they were all to lenient with their children. June have very high standards. Mybe she believed adopted children should behave better than others?)
The cousins had fewer advantages than their Bamber counterparts. State schools, state college, and back to work on the farm. Perhaps RWB thought their rewards would come later. But for the Bamber children, the heir not having the least interest in working the family business, only milking it.
-
The adopted child I was at school with.
Yes! There was no love lost between Uncle Bobbie and Jeremy. I imagine he'd been resentful of Jeremy from the off.
Interesting about RWB 's feelings towards Jeremy. I was aware of animosity within the wider family, but had thought it was the cousins versus Jeremy. Also interesting that Pamela seems to have kept out of it all.
If some "supporters" exploit this , I cannot honestly blame them.
-
Well, regarding the cousins Ann and David, there were age gaps so large that they were generational. There was never likely to be close bonding there. (According to my friend, who knew the Bambers well, whilst all the other mothers would share stories about their children, June never did. I recall my friend saying, with the benefit of hindsight, that she now wonders if June thought they were all to lenient with their children. June have very high standards. Mybe she believed adopted children should behave better than others?)
The cousins had fewer advantages than their Bamber counterparts. State schools, state college, and back to work on the farm. Perhaps RWB thought their rewards would come later. But for the Bamber children, the heir not having the least interest in working the family business, only milking it.
Did Jeremy and Sheila think they had advantages, though? They might have been much happier going to the local state school and thereby making friends locally. Jeremy wasn't happy at boarding school; not sure about Sheila.
-
Jeremy called him Uncle Flunky. Did that reflect Nevill's opinion of him, I wonder?
[RWB w/s 4/9/91]
He called him worse than that to me.
-
Did Jeremy and Sheila think they had advantages, though? They might have been much happier going to the local state school and thereby making friends locally. Jeremy wasn't happy at boarding school; not sure about Sheila.
It's rarely about how the children feel. Their opinions are rarely asked. it's always about how others perceive them. ie They're so lucky. They've had everything. Look at all the money they've had thrown at them
-
Interesting about RWB 's feelings towards Jeremy. I was aware of animosity within the wider family, but had thought it was the cousins versus Jeremy. Also interesting that Pamela seems to have kept out of it all.
If some "supporters" exploit this , I cannot honestly blame them.
The may exploit it without actually knowing the dynamics.
-
The may exploit it without actually knowing the dynamics.
Do any of us really know the dynamics?
Another point that interests me, is the history of those who lived at White House Farm before the Bambers (as outlined at the beginning of CAL's book). There were at least a couple of tragedies/suicides. I wonder if Jeremy knew about these people (whom, I gather, were not related to the family), and whether their tragedies inspired his planning of the murders??
-
Do any of us really know the dynamics?
Another point that interests me, is the history of those who lived at White House Farm before the Bambers (as outlined at the beginning of CAL's book). There were at least a couple of tragedies/suicides. I wonder if Jeremy knew about these people (whom, I gather, were not related to the family), and whether their tragedies inspired his planning of the murders??
Quite possibly,it took a bit of planning,not a spur of the moment job was it?
-
Quite possibly,it took a bit of planning,not a spur of the moment job was it?
What was the final trigger that pushed him to choose this day?
I mean, he's used the .22 purely because it was semi-automatic, which proves he was always intent on killing everybody in the shortest space of time. I think the fact that it was semi-automatic, whereby you have to manually re-cock the trigger back, would slow the rate of fire maybe enough for Nevil to mount an attack despite taking a round or two.
A 'psychotic' individual, conversely, would surely, naively grab a shotgun, which are easier to load and fire, but way slower, obviously.
-
What was the final trigger that pushed him to choose this day?
I mean, he's used the .22 purely because it was semi-automatic, which proves he was always intent on killing everybody in the shortest space of time. I think the fact that it was semi-automatic, whereby you have to manually re-cock the trigger back, would slow the rate of fire maybe enough for Nevil to mount an attack despite taking a round or two.
A 'psychotic' individual, conversely, would surely, naively grab a shotgun, which are easier to load and fire, but way slower, obviously.
I don't know that there was a particular final trigger/last straw -he was free to change his mind- it was more that it was a convenient time having them all under one roof. I believe him to have been jealous and resentful of what her perceived Sheila's London lifestyle to be, and jealous and resentful of the affection and pleasure he perceived June and Nevill as having for the twins balanced, perhaps, against his memories of both being lacking in his own childhood. Then, of course,the biggy!! They'd have robbed him of the inheritance he felt he was entitled to.
-
I don't know that there was a particular final trigger/last straw -he was free to change his mind- it was more that it was a convenient time having them all under one roof. I believe him to have been jealous and resentful of what her perceived Sheila's London lifestyle to be, and jealous and resentful of the affection and pleasure he perceived June and Nevill as having for the twins balanced, perhaps, against his memories of both being lacking in his own childhood. Then, of course,the biggy!! They'd have robbed him of the inheritance he felt he was entitled to.
Just my opinion, but I think there probably had been some sort of argument in the evening. It might have been to do with Sheila and the twins, or it might have been something else. Either the argument set Sheila off, and she committed the murders, or it set Jeremy off, and persuaded him that it was the right time for him to commit them. I do believe that, if Jeremy did it, he had been planning it, but if Sheila did it, it was done on impulse.
-
Just my opinion, but I think there probably had been some sort of argument in the evening. It might have been to do with Sheila and the twins, or it might have been something else. Either the argument set Sheila off, and she committed the murders, or it set Jeremy off, and persuaded him that it was the right time for him to commit them. I do believe that, if Jeremy did it, he had been planning it, but if Sheila did it, it was done on impulse.
Jeremy tells us that there was an argument re the future care of the boys, yet proceeds to say that when he left everything was hunky dory. There may have been an argument though. One between Jeremy and Nevill regarding a trailer Jeremy had failed to return, causing Nevill to do it himself.
-
Do any of us really know the dynamics?
Another point that interests me, is the history of those who lived at White House Farm before the Bambers (as outlined at the beginning of CAL's book). There were at least a couple of tragedies/suicides. I wonder if Jeremy knew about these people (whom, I gather, were not related to the family), and whether their tragedies inspired his planning of the murders??
No matter how intimately involved we are with others our view of them is subjective. And with regard to the extended family there's no evidence they ever spent much time with JB or SC.
If you read Doris Tweed's statement her view of JB is positive. DT's husband was a second cousin to NB and she states they met up with the Bamber's every month to 6 weeks.
She states:
"I liked Jeremy a lot".
Perish the thought someone who actually liked JB!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Do any of us really know the dynamics?
Another point that interests me, is the history of those who lived at White House Farm before the Bambers (as outlined at the beginning of CAL's book). There were at least a couple of tragedies/suicides. I wonder if Jeremy knew about these people (whom, I gather, were not related to the family), and whether their tragedies inspired his planning of the murders??
That isn'r really anything anyone can answer other than Jeremy himself.
-
No matter how intimately involved we are with others our view of them is subjective. And with regard to the extended family there's no evidence they ever spent much time with JB or SC.
If you read Doris Tweed's statement her view of JB is positive. DT's husband was a second cousin to NB and she states they met up with the Bamber's every month to 6 weeks.
She states:
"I liked Jeremy a lot".
Perish the thought someone who actually liked JB!
Not really - had there been more of them - there weren't.
-
Not really - had there been more of them - there weren't.
Didn't the Howies stand bail for him?
-
Didn't the Howies stand bail for him?
Yes they did.
I don't have access to CAL's book at present so if you do I would be grateful if you could post up the relationship between the Howies and June. From memory I think they were the daughters of June's father's brother? so June's cousins? They went to live with June's family, the Speakmans, as they lost both parents?
-
I don't know that there was a particular final trigger/last straw -he was free to change his mind- it was more that it was a convenient time having them all under one roof. I believe him to have been jealous and resentful of what her perceived Sheila's London lifestyle to be, and jealous and resentful of the affection and pleasure he perceived June and Nevill as having for the twins balanced, perhaps, against his memories of both being lacking in his own childhood. Then, of course,the biggy!! They'd have robbed him of the inheritance he felt he was entitled to.
....and isn't it odd that, if Sheila were to have done this, which she didn't, then she chose to spare Jeremy? How nice of her, given that, if she was so adept with the rifle, she could have waited until everyone was there.
-
....and isn't it odd that, if Sheila were to have done this, which she didn't, then she chose to spare Jeremy? How nice of her, given that, if she was so adept with the rifle, she could have waited until everyone was there.
Perhaps she got fed up waiting,after luring him with the telephone call.Easy this conspiracy lark.
-
What was the final trigger that pushed him to choose this day?
I mean, he's used the .22 purely because it was semi-automatic, which proves he was always intent on killing everybody in the shortest space of time. I think the fact that it was semi-automatic, whereby you have to manually re-cock the trigger back, would slow the rate of fire maybe enough for Nevil to mount an attack despite taking a round or two.
A 'psychotic' individual, conversely, would surely, naively grab a shotgun, which are easier to load and fire, but way slower, obviously.
Jeremy did try and obtain an automatic.
I can’t recall if he tried to buy one himself, or tried to encourage Nevill to
But I definitely read he wanted one, and considering he claimed not to be a good shot and not that interested in shooting is more evidence he had something planned.
-
Do any of us really know the dynamics?
Another point that interests me, is the history of those who lived at White House Farm before the Bambers (as outlined at the beginning of CAL's book). There were at least a couple of tragedies/suicides. I wonder if Jeremy knew about these people (whom, I gather, were not related to the family), and whether their tragedies inspired his planning of the murders??
I thought the men in the 1800s/early 1900s who took their lives were related to June...
-
What was the final trigger that pushed him to choose this day?
I mean, he's used the .22 purely because it was semi-automatic, which proves he was always intent on killing everybody in the shortest space of time. I think the fact that it was semi-automatic, whereby you have to manually re-cock the trigger back, would slow the rate of fire maybe enough for Nevil to mount an attack despite taking a round or two.
A 'psychotic' individual, conversely, would surely, naively grab a shotgun, which are easier to load and fire, but way slower, obviously.
Sorry, I forgot to add that Jeremy was simply waiting for the day when everyone was sleeping over.
He’d suddenly started asking Sheila when she was going to bring the twins over to stay, despite him showing little interest in them
-
Jeremy did try and obtain an automatic.
I can’t recall if he tried to buy one himself, or tried to encourage Nevill to
But I definitely read he wanted one, and considering he claimed not to be a good shot and not that interested in shooting is more evidence he had something planned.
I believe he went to Peter Eaton, Ann's husband, who was a gun dealer, but Peter said using such, for the reason given, would be unsportsmanlike. I think he did try to persuade Nevill to buy one.
-
I thought the men in the 1800s/early 1900s who took their lives were related to June...
I can't remember----will look it up!
-
Just my opinion, but I think there probably had been some sort of argument in the evening. It might have been to do with Sheila and the twins, or it might have been something else. Either the argument set Sheila off, and she committed the murders, or it set Jeremy off, and persuaded him that it was the right time for him to commit them. I do believe that, if Jeremy did it, he had been planning it, but if Sheila did it, it was done on impulse.
Sheila was very quiet that night, and tranquillised up with Haloperidol so there couldn’t have been an argument involving Sheila.
Further, this fostering nonsense Jeremy said it rubbish. June could have stood the shame, and more importantly, she adored the twins — and their father, Colin had joint custody — so that’s utter rubbish of Jeremy’s.
If there was an argument going on, as April says, it was probably a spat type thing between Nevill and Jeremy. Nevill tended to steer clear of arguments.
-
Sheila was very quiet that night, and tranquillised up with Haloperidol so there couldn’t have been an argument involving Sheila.
Further, this fostering nonsense Jeremy said it rubbish. June could have stood the shame, and more importantly, she adored the twins — and their father, Colin had joint custody — so that’s utter rubbish of Jeremy’s.
If there was an argument going on, as April says, it was probably a spat type thing between Nevill and Jeremy. Nevill tended to steer clear of arguments.
Personally (and this is only my opinion), I think the argument was over Jeremy b....ring about that evening, I don't think Nevill expected to have to get the last trailer of rape seed in himself. But I think Jeremy probably sparked the argument off on purpose.
-
Sorry, I forgot to add that Jeremy was simply waiting for the day when everyone was sleeping over.
He’d suddenly started asking Sheila when she was going to bring the twins over to stay, despite him showing little interest in them
I've seen no evidence of Jeremy asking Sheila to come to Essex.
-
I've seen no evidence of Jeremy asking Sheila to come to Essex.
He apparently said it to Julie.
-
No matter how intimately involved we are with others our view of them is subjective. And with regard to the extended family there's no evidence they ever spent much time with JB or SC.
If you read Doris Tweed's statement her view of JB is positive. DT's husband was a second cousin to NB and she states they met up with the Bamber's every month to 6 weeks.
She states:
"I liked Jeremy a lot".
Perish the thought someone who actually liked JB!
Doris Tweed was an elderly 80-year-old woman who only saw Jeremy very occasionally. Of course he’d have been on his best behaviour when she visited, and she probably did think him a nice man. Many elderly people like to see the good in people and push any doubts to the back of their minds as they feel its wrong to even think bad about anyone.
That statement is pointless: I’m not sure why you bothered to drag it up...is that the best you’ve got?
Anyway, fleeting visits don’t give you an insight to someone’s true character, in fact, even people who are very close to someone are often dumbfounded when told they’ve committed a heinous crime. You’ll frequently see in newspapers how next door neighbours thought the “jolly, friendly chap” next door was absolutely lovely — until they discover he’s actually a serial murderer/rapist...
-
Doris Tweed was an elderly 80-year-old woman who only saw Jeremy very occasionally. Of course he’d have been on his best behaviour when she visited, and she probably did think him a nice man. Many elderly people like to see the good in people and push any doubts to the back of their minds as they feel its wrong to even think bad about anyone.
That statement is pointless: I’m not sure why you bothered to drag it up...is that the best you’ve got?
Anyway, fleeting visits don’t give you an insight to someone’s true character, in fact, even people who are very close to someone are often dumbfounded when told they’ve committed a heinous crime. You’ll frequently see in newspapers how next door neighbours thought the “jolly, friendly chap” next door was absolutely lovely — until they discover he’s actually a serial murderer/rapist...
There actually, to my knowledge, hasn't been anyone who has known Jeremy all his life, who has come forward to say what a great guy and a good friend he's been over the years.
-
I believe he went to Peter Eaton, Ann's husband, who was a gun dealer, but Peter said using such, for the reason given, would be unsportsmanlike. I think he did try to persuade Nevill to buy one.
Thank you for establishing that, April.
Isn’t is strange that for someone who professes to dislike shooting would want a powerful automatic?
-
Didn't the Howies stand bail for him?
That was before the TRUTH came out, G-Unit
They wouldn’t now!
I bet they never write to him in prison, either....
In fact, did ANY of the family or Jeremy’s acquaintances ever write to him afterwards?
I know not ONE of them agreed to to go in the witness box for him...
-
I've seen no evidence of Jeremy asking Sheila to come to Essex.
He definitely did.
I’ve seen it — if/when I find it I’ll show you
It may have been in CAL’s book, or Colin’s...but I definitely read it
-
He definitely did.
I’ve seen it — if/when I find it I’ll show you
It may have been in CAL’s book, or Colin’s...but I definitely read it
Jeremy had no need to invite Sheila to come to Essex. The visit had already been arranged by the senior Bambers and it had nothing to do with Jeremy. I believe he checked with Colin that it was still on, though.
-
He definitely did.
I’ve seen it — if/when I find it I’ll show you
It may have been in CAL’s book, or Colin’s...but I definitely read it
When you find it I'll believe it.
-
When you find it I'll believe it.
No you won’t.
Because even when you’re presented with the TRUTH you either say “it’s wrong” or “they’re lying”
Funny how you never suspect Jeremy of lying, and how strange that when his lies ARE exposed, you go all quiet 🤐
-
No you won’t.
Because even when you’re presented with the TRUTH you either say “it’s wrong” or “they’re lying”
Funny how you never suspect Jeremy of lying, and how strange that when his lies ARE exposed, you go all quiet 🤐
I think it's funny how you make many claims, but can rarely provide the evidence to support them.
-
I think it's funny how you make many claims, but can rarely provide the evidence to support them.
You’re hilarious!
I post the truth; unlike you, who posts ridiculous assumptions that you’ve formed inside your head
-
You’re hilarious!
I post the truth; unlike you, who posts ridiculous assumptions that you’ve formed inside your head
I don't think that is quite fair Ispy. G will look and give cites to her claims, she will also have an opinion -same as everyone. I enjoy reading your posts,but I like verification as well on some points, it doesn't make me a bad person or JB lover, as it doesn't with G also.
-
You’re hilarious!
I post the truth; unlike you, who posts ridiculous assumptions that you’ve formed inside your head
Perhaps you could provide evidence of your "truths". You could start with these;
It's not been proved to be true that Colin Caffell spoke to the pathologist; that Jeremy Bamber asked the police to burn things; that Jeremy Bamber asked his sister to visit with her sons or that there were DNA tests carried out for the first trial.
-
I don't think that is quite fair Ispy. G will look and give cites to her claims, she will also have an opinion -same as everyone. I enjoy reading your posts,but I like verification as well on some points, it doesn't make me a bad person or JB lover, as it doesn't with G also.
G-Unit doesn’t always cite her claims, MT — and not all the so-called “evidence “ she provides is accurate.
I’ve read thousands of transcripts and there’s simply too many for me to hunt through
I could do, but it takes time and unless I feel it’s a really important point I don’t see the need of traipsing through everything to prove a point to someone who won’t believe the truth when they see it
These few women are brainwashed, and no amount of facts will change that
-
Perhaps you could provide evidence of your "truths". You could start with these;
It's not been proved to be true that Colin Caffell spoke to the pathologist; that Jeremy Bamber asked the police to burn things; that Jeremy Bamber asked his sister to visit with her sons or that there were DNA tests carried out for the first trial.
So you’re calling Colin Caffell a liar, are you? That’s what he said in his book, and I believe him against your accusations simply because you don’t want to believe the truth.
You’re also calling the police liars, because they said JB asked them to burn everything, claiming it would upset him to see all the blood.
And he DEFINITELY asked Sheila more than once when she was bringing the twins down...more than one person mentioned it. When I eventually find all these things I’ll post them, but I’ll do it at my time, as it’s hardly pressing is it?
As for the forensic testing, G-Unit, what don’t you understand about scientists establishing that the blood in the silencer was Sheila’s? They found 13 markers the first time, then years later they found 17 (out of 20), which meant anyone else having that same blood group was a trillion to one.
Your repetitive arguments that you want proof of is boring. I suggest you do research, but remember, your research is of no value because this was all verified 35 & 22 years by the courts, lawyers, jury, police, witnesses and forensics.
-
So you’re calling Colin Caffell a liar, are you? That’s what he said in his book, and I believe him against your accusations simply because you don’t want to believe the truth.
You’re also calling the police liars, because they said JB asked them to burn everything, claiming it would upset him to see all the blood.
And he DEFINITELY asked Sheila more than once when she was bringing the twi pans down...more than one person mentioned it. When I eventually find all these things I’ll post them, but I’ll do it at my time, as it’s hardly pressing is it?
As for the forensic testing, G-Unit, what don’t you understand about scientists establishing that the blood in the silencer was Sheila’s? They found 13 markers tye first time, then years later they found 17 (out of 20), which meant anyone else having that same blood group was a trillion to one.
Your repetitive arguments that you want proof is boring. I suggest you do research, but remember, your research is if no value because this was all verified 35 & 22 years by the courts, lawyers, jury, police, witnesses and forensics.
Asking Sheila when she and the boys were next visiting the farm, is rather different from him issuing an invitation, which you claim he did. It also occurs to me that, in order to do so, and for others to hear, he would have needed to be in her company. Perhaps you can confirm this by providing evidence of him being in her company at some time, other than the housewarming party at which the chances were high that he already knew that she was visiting the next day.
-
So you’re calling Colin Caffell a liar, are you? That’s what he said in his book, and I believe him against your accusations simply because you don’t want to believe the truth.
You’re also calling the police liars, because they said JB asked them to burn everything, claiming it would upset him to see all the blood.
And he DEFINITELY asked Sheila more than once when she was bringing the twi pans down...more than one person mentioned it. When I eventually find all these things I’ll post them, but I’ll do it at my time, as it’s hardly pressing is it?
As for the forensic testing, G-Unit, what don’t you understand about scientists establishing that the blood in the silencer was Sheila’s? They found 13 markers tye first time, then years later they found 17 (out of 20), which meant anyone else having that same blood group was a trillion to one.
Your repetitive arguments that you want proof is boring. I suggest you do research, but remember, your research is if no value because this was all verified 35 & 22 years by the courts, lawyers, jury, police, witnesses and forensics.
Still no evidence to uphold your claims though.
-
Asking Sheila when she and the boys were next visiting the farm, is rather different from him issuing an invitation, which you claim he did. It also occurs to me that, in order to do so, and for others to hear, he would have needed to be in her company. Perhaps you can confirm this by providing evidence of him being in her company at some time, other than the housewarming party at which the chances were high that he already knew that she was visiting the next day.
I shall try and find it, April
But I 100% definitely read that he asked Sheila when she was bringing the twins over. I can’t remember who overheard it, but someone definitely did.
In going to start taking screenshots and highlighting test on docs and books, otherwise this will be a full time job for me 😂
Please don’t think I’m being, funny, I know you only want me to do it so I can back up what I’ve seen 😊
-
I shall try and find it, April
But I 100% definitely read that he asked Sheila when she was bringing the twins over. I can’t remember who overheard it, but someone definitely did.
In going to start taking screenshots and highlighting test on docs and books, otherwise this will be a full time job for me 😂
Please don’t think I’m being, funny, I know you only want me to do it so I can back up what I’ve seen 😊
In this case, Spy, I concur. I, too, have seen it said that he asked Sheila when she was next going to be at the farm, but THAT is very different from him issuing an invitation.
I will be honest. Reading "I 100% definitely read.........." followed/preceded by "I shall try and fine it", knowing, from experience, there's unlikely to be any follow up,has become a little tedious. However, I remain hopeful 8(0(*
-
In this case, Spy, I concur. I, too, have seen it said that he asked Sheila when she was next going to be at the farm, but THAT is very different from him issuing an invitation.
I will be honest. Reading "I 100% definitely read.........." followed/preceded by "I shall try and fine it", knowing, from experience, there's unlikely to be any follow up,has become a little tedious. However, I remain hopeful 8(0(*
Oh, I mean to to find it , I do...but then I get distracted and forget. Sorry.
But I will hunt it down.
By the way, he didn’t invite the twins to WHF, he asked Sheila (more than once) when she’d be bringing them down, and someone found it odd why he seemed interested to know
I shall try and remember where I read/saw it...:)
-
Oh, I mean to to find it , I do...but then I get distracted and forget. Sorry.
But I will hunt it down.
By the way, he didn’t invite the twins to WHF, he asked Sheila (more than once) when she’d be bringing them down, and someone found it odd why he seemed interested to know
I shall try and remember where I read/saw it...:)
Hi Spy, this does ring a bell with me also.
-
Hi Spy, this does ring a bell with me also.
Which makes three of us. Was it in Colin's book? Was it something Julie overheard?
-
Which makes three of us. Was it in Colin's book? Was it something Julie overheard?
I shall try and find it...I’m logging off from here in a mo...I’ve done like a full day’s work 😂
It is so where, for sure :)
-
Wrong thread, but...
I'm trying to figure out Julie's diary entry for Jan. 2nd (yes, I know it wasn't written then) where she refers to Jeremy having Thrush in the mouth, spots on his middle wicket, lumps etc., cancers.... arrrgh!, and then a side reference to Sue Ford.
What was that all about.... was she having a dig at Suzette for giving him all those infections ?
And then was there a burglary at K + A's ? (Karen and Andy Bishop?)... and if so was she hinting that Jeremy was involved?
Quite so, I put some notes on the Julie Mugford Diary Thread recently. Her notes clearly show her state of mind at the time. The Wet Suit business, Pest - Dog (That is Crispy, June's dog that JB later killed probably early September). The sexual diseases, and I must admit I did not know about the burglary at K and As?
You were referring to Brett Collins and I abbreviated to BC.
If you wish to assert something it is your responsibility to find the supporting evidence otherwise it's just your opinion.
There's no evidence the defence called JB's friends and family at trial. Friends by way of Brett Collins, Michael Decker, Andrew and Karen Bishop, the then girlfriend,
Anji Greaves, former Girlfriend, Sue Ford, and extended family members the Howies.
Wasn’t there a note in JM’s diary about a ‘burglary & K & A ‘ ?
What’s known about this?
-
I think it's funny how you make many claims, but can rarely provide the evidence to support them.
[/quote
-
Wasn’t there a note in JM’s diary about a ‘burglary & K & A ‘ ?
What’s known about this?
K & A are Karen and Andy Bishop, Bamber apparently told Julie that he intended or had thought about burgling their house.
-
There's no evidence the defence called JB's friends and family at trial. Friends by way of Brett Collins, Michael Decker, Andrew and Karen Bishop, the then girlfriend,
Anji Greaves, former Girlfriend, Sue Ford, and extended family members the Howies.
K & A are Karen and Andy Bishop, Bamber apparently told Julie that he intended or had thought about burgling their house.
‘Friends’ of Bamber’s who he planned to rob *&^^&