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: Vertigo Swirl on May 24, 2020, 02:35:57 PM
-
...JB burnt his parents clothes days after his parents’ murder doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
Please feel free to add any other “just becauses” to this thread, so long as they are unarguable.
-
Just because JB had his mother’s beloved pet dog put down within 24 hours of her death doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
-
Just because JB robbed his own family business doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
-
Just because JB went on a sun, sea and sex filled filled jolly holiday to the South of France within weeks of his family’s murder, and with the knowledge that he was under suspicion by the police, doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
-
Just because a jury of 10/2 found JB guilty of mass murder and two subsequent appeal judges upheld the verdict doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
-
Just because he giggled in the car at his parents' funeral, and told those present what he intended to do with Julie later on doesn't make him a murderer.
-
Just because he thought it was funny to spike his hair like one of the twins doesn't make him a murderer
-
Just because JB drove really slowly to the farmhouse that night despite his father’s alleged anguished and urgent phonecall, arriving after the police (who he called many minutes after the alleged phonecall from his father) doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
-
Just because he wanted to sell off family treasures -without informing the family of his intentions- within days of the murders doesn't make him a murderer.
-
Just because he admitted he knew a way of breaking into the farmhouse using a blade that was found outside the window after the murders doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
-
Just because he chose to phone Julie before informing the police about the alleged call from Nevill in which he sounded "terrified" doesn't make him a murderer.
-
JUst because Jeremy didn't call 999 after receiving a call at 03:10am from his dad staing that Sheila had gone crazy and had the gun, doesn't make him a murderer.
-
Just because he changed his account with regard to several key details (such as the phonecalls and where he left the gun) doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
-
Just because the first thing he went looking for on his return to WHF was his dads wallet, which he claimed was full of cash (and credit cards), doesn't make him a murderer.
-
Just because he tried to flog porny pics of his dead sister, to a s..mmy newspaper, doesn't make him a murderer.
-
Just because he talked about drugging his parents and burning the house down doesn't make him a murderer.
-
Just because a torn picture of the twins was found at Sheila's flat where he had been residing, doesn't make him a murderer.
-
Just because he tried to flog porny pics of his dead sister, to a s..mmy newspaper, doesn't make him a murderer.
We can’t include this because it cannot 100% be verified according to his supporters.
-
Just because he talked about drugging his parents and burning the house down doesn't make him a murderer.
Again, supporters will dispute this ever happened so cannot be allowed.
-
We can’t include this because it cannot 100% be verified according to his supporters.
Ok. Can it be deleted. Have to play fair.
-
We can’t include this because it cannot 100% be verified according to his supporters.
OK, just because he discussed phornographic pictures with Colin, stating 'you can see everything right down to the last detail and later admitted meeting with a Sun Jurno; after which an article appeared in The Sun stating that Bamber had tried to sell pornographic pictures to the paper using the sentence, 'you can see everything right down to the last detail' - doesn't make him a murderer.
-
Just because JB had his mother’s beloved pet dog put down within 24 hours of her death doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
What if Bamber couldn't look after the dog? Wasn't it normal for people to put down dogs when the dog wasn't wanted? Not very nice, but something that people tended to, especially in those days, and still do to an extent. A vet will put down a dog on virtually any pretext. And didn't the vet agree to do so?
The point doesn't really tell us anything, does it. I love dogs and have always had them, but I have had to put dogs down that I've inherited and couldn't look after.
Bamber was a rural boy and he might have had a hardened attitude.
-
Just because JB fixed himself a hearty breakfast on the morning of the murders doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
-
We can’t include this because it cannot 100% be verified according to his supporters.
But didn't the newspaper then print it as a story, in effect challenging Bamber to sue them for libel if it wasn't true? And why would the journalist lie? Did Bamber complain to the newspaper?
I'm inclined to believe it. I think Bamber was a nasty piece of work. But again, sorry to say this, and I know you'll laugh, but it doesn't make him a murderer.
-
But didn't the newspaper then print it as a story, in effect challenging Bamber to sue them for libel if it wasn't true? And why would the journalist lie? Did Bamber complain to the newspaper?
I'm inclined to believe it. I think Bamber was a nasty piece of work. But again, sorry to say this, and I know you'll laugh, but it doesn't make him a murderer.
Not laughing, Brancher. This thread is about all those "Just because he did..........." things which don't (necessarily!!) make him a murderer. So post away...........
-
Bit of a weird thing to do. The clothes were not going to incriminate him, unless they were the clothes they were wearing when killed.
The thread must be referring to the bed sheets and carpets. It was probably a joint decision between Bamber & the police to burn these. Bloodied carpet and bed sheets cannot stay in WHF indefinately.
-
The 60+ pieces of forensic evidence against one alive suspect, who had a motive, opportunity, no alibi and a witness against him, is what makes him guilty.
-
But didn't the newspaper then print it as a story, in effect challenging Bamber to sue them for libel if it wasn't true? And why would the journalist lie? Did Bamber complain to the newspaper?
I'm inclined to believe it. I think Bamber was a nasty piece of work. But again, sorry to say this, and I know you'll laugh, but it doesn't make him a murderer.
His supporters on here choose to believe the story was concocted by the Sun (a paper they claim regularly invents stories from scratch) with collaboration from family members that wanted JB put away. As there is no definitive independent proof that JB did approach the Sun apart from the journalist’s say-so and that of various other “untrustworthy” family and friends I’m not allowing it as a “just because”.
-
Bit of a weird thing to do. The clothes were not going to incriminate him, unless they were the clothes they were wearing when killed.
The thread must be referring to the bed sheets and carpets. It was probably a joint decision between Bamber & the police to burn these. Bloodied carpet and bed sheets cannot stay in WHF indefinately.
I'm not referring to the bed sheets, he loaded his parents clothes onto a trailer and got a farm hand to burn the lot.
-
I'm not referring to the bed sheets, he loaded his parents clothes onto a trailer and got a farm hand to burn the lot.
How long did the landlords give him?
What items were burned and when?
-
How long did the landlords give him?
What items were burned and when?
There is no record of that that I know of
He burned all of their clothes, they were 'piled high' on the trailer. Have you voted yet? That's the purpose of the thread.
-
How long did the landlords give him?
What items were burned and when?
Why not ask AA to ask JB? Or better still, ask him yourself as you have his contact details.
-
Just because JB drove really slowly to the farmhouse that night despite his father’s alleged anguished and urgent phonecall, arriving after the police (who he called many minutes after the alleged phonecall from his father) doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
But none of you believe there was a phone call, do you???
-
But none of you believe there was a phone call, do you???
It's the "alleged" bit that sneaks in, which gives it away, I suspect, isn't it?
-
But none of you believe there was a phone call, do you???
That’s why I referred to it as “alleged”.
-
That’s why I referred to it as “alleged”.
Wasn't it proven by an expert witness that there was a call made from WHF to J. Bamber's cottage? If Jeremy faked the call from WHF there still needed someone at the cottage to answer the call.
"27. At 3.35 a.m., Mr Bonnet arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm. A check
made by a British Telecom operator of the telephone line to the farm was made at 4.30 a.m.
The receiver was off the hook and all the operator could hear was the sound of a dog
barking. "
and
"68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available
these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call
having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the
caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a
sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the
handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been
replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an
automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the
appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone. "
https://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/bamber_jeremy/20011745.pdf
-
Wasn't it proven by an expert witness that there was a call made from WHF to J. Bamber's cottage? If Jeremy facked the call from WHF there still needed someone at the cottage to answer the call.
"27. At 3.35 a.m., Mr Bonnet arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm. A check
made by a British Telecom operator of the telephone line to the farm was made at 4.30 a.m.
The receiver was off the hook and all the operator could hear was the sound of a dog
barking. "
and
"68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available
these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call
having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the
caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a
sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the
handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been
replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an
automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the
appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone. "
https://murderpedia.org/male.B/images/bamber_jeremy/20011745.pdf
No it wasn't proven that a call was made because if it was, Bamber would be free. Bamber left the phone off the hook after killing everyone.
-
No it wasn't proven that a call was made because if it was, Bamber would be free. Bamber left the phone off the hook after killing everyone.
Jeremy always reported that the phone line went dead as if it was cut. He never said the handpiece was just left unhooked.
-
Jeremy always reported that the phone line went dead as if it was cut. He never said the handpiece was just left unhooked.
As he's never confessed to the murders, he's hardly going to admit to how he left the scene, is he?
-
As he's never confessed to the murders, he's hardly going to admit to how he left the scene, is he?
He has described what the phone conversation was like.
-
Jeremy always reported that the phone line went dead as if it was cut. He never said the handpiece was just left unhooked.
Maybe you should just think about what you have written for a while 8((()*/
-
He has described what the phone conversation was like.
And that 8((()*/
-
Maybe you should just think about what you have written for a while 8((()*/
Are you insulting my intelligence?
-
Are you insulting my intelligence?
Would I? &%%6
-
Are you insulting my intelligence?
I find some of your suggestions particularly unintelligent but I've put it down to your lack of familiarity with the case.
-
I find some of your suggestions particularly unintelligent but I've put it down to your lack of familiarity with the case.
That could be the case. I don't claim to know the case, so I'm asking questions. I just find it damn rude when people claim to know the answer and are unwilling to assist.
As in "I know the answer but I'm not telling you". Silly games like that just annoy me. OK that might be what they want.
-
He has described what the phone conversation was like.
Just because Bamber described the content of an alleged phone conversation doesn't mean the phone conversation actually happened.
-
That could be the case. I don't claim to know the case, so I'm asking questions. I just find it damn rude when people claim to know the answer and are unwilling to assist.
As in "I know the answer but I'm not telling you". Silly games like that just annoy me. OK that might be what they want.
We are not here to do your research. I have answered many of your questions only to have you repeat the same inaccurate information. You're doing it now, there was no other person present at the supper table and if you read up from reliable sources, you would know that!
-
Just because Bamber described the content of an alleged phone conversation doesn't mean the phone conversation actually happened.
What about the description of the conversation makes you think it never happened?
-
We are not here to do your research. I have answered many of your questions only to have you repeat the same inaccurate information. You're doing it now, there was no other person present at the supper table and if you read up from reliable sources, you would know that!
I was going from the writing of that author. Maybe the author was in error, but what made him make that mistake. That is what I'm trying to find out.
-
That could be the case. I don't claim to know the case, so I'm asking questions. I just find it damn rude when people claim to know the answer and are unwilling to assist.
As in "I know the answer but I'm not telling you". Silly games like that just annoy me. OK that might be what they want.
Might I be right in saying that any real interest you have lays with him being innocent? If that's the case, you'd be better speaking with those who believe him innocent. OR, if it's as suggested, that you're simply bored because nothing is happening on the MM site, perhaps you're just doing a wind up?
-
I was going from the writing of that author. Maybe the author was in error, but what made him make that mistake. That is what I'm trying to find out.
Perhaps he isn't saying that the person was there that night, but simply that they knew of Nevill and JUne mentioning fostering. They aren't named so we don't and can't know who he is referring to. The author died some years ago so we may never know.
-
Might I be right in saying that any real interest you have lays with him being innocent? If that's the case, you'd be better speaking with those who believe him innocent. OR, if it's as suggested, that you're simply bored because nothing is happening on the MM site, perhaps you're just doing a wind up?
I don't have any opinion on the case at all other than:
I find Jeremy's description of the call from WHF to Goldhanger to be plausible.
I found it odd that Colin Caffall wasn't considered a suspect.
-
Perhaps he isn't saying that the person was there that night, but simply that they knew of Nevill and JUne mentioning fostering. They aren't named so we don't and can't know who he is referring to. The author died some years ago so we may never know.
OK that is possible. OK I was more wondering if someone knew of another statement with that information in it.
Thanks.
-
I don't have any opinion on the case at all other than:
I find Jeremy's description of the call from WHF to Goldhanger to be plausible.
I found it odd that Colin Caffall wasn't considered a suspect.
Regarding the alleged phone call, I expect you do. Jeremy had planned it to sound plausible. Having gone to all that trouble, he didn't want to fall at the first hurdle.
I can't think why you find it odd that Colin wasn't a suspect. Jeremy hadn't planned that it should look like Colin was involved. He planned it to look like Sheila had gone mad and shot the family, leaving a tableau suggesting that this was what had happened.
-
OK that is possible. OK I was more wondering if someone knew of another statement with that information in it.
Thanks.
There isn't one because no on else was there.
-
Regarding the alleged phone call, I expect you do. Jeremy had planned it to sound plausible. Having gone to all that trouble, he didn't want to fall at the first hurdle.
I can't think why you find it odd that Colin wasn't a suspect. Jeremy hadn't planned that it should look like Colin was involved. He planned it to look like Sheila had gone mad and shot the family, leaving a tableau suggesting that this was what had happened.
Maybe he was leaving a way for Sheila to deal with the problems she was having. That has crossed my mind, especially when he leaves the gun and magazine fully loaded insight of her.
-
There isn't one because no one else was there.
I'll accept "There isn't one" but I'm undecided if it was due to "no one else was there".
-
Maybe he was leaving a way for Sheila to deal with the problems she was having. That has crossed my mind, especially when he leaves the gun and magazine fully loaded insight of her.
He was neither psychiatrist, psychologist nor counselor..............but he was a talented executioner.
-
I'll accept "There isn't one" but I'm undecided if it was due to "no one else was there".
So read up on it and as I have answered question about it, please don't ask me any more.
-
"On Tuesday, August 6, according to Jeremy and another relative, Nevill and June suggested to Sheila that the twins should be put into foster homes." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1012.0
Who was the other relative?
-
Robitty, you’ve completely ruined this thread, thanks.
-
...JB burnt his parents clothes days after his parents’ murder doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
Please feel free to add any other “just becauses” to this thread, so long as they are unarguable.
Back on track now please.
-
I don't have any opinion on the case at all other than:
I find Jeremy's description of the call from WHF to Goldhanger to be plausible.
I found it odd that Colin Caffall wasn't considered a suspect.
He may have been but the public aren’t privy to that information ?
-
"On Tuesday, August 6, according to Jeremy and another relative, Nevill and June suggested to Sheila that the twins should be put into foster homes." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1012.0
Who was the other relative?
‘Many people will trust him and assume that he’s a reliable and trustworthy journalist.
However, their trust is misplaced. His lack of due diligence with regard to his article about Rudy Guede and the Meredith Kercher case is disturbing and unacceptable. He doesn’t get the basics of journalism right - which is astonishing for someone who has worked as a journalist for decades. He gets basic facts wrong and he has made numerous demonstrably false claims.
A professional journalist should be able to substantiate every claim they make. Bob Woffinden is unable to do this because he has relied on some of the numerous factually inaccurate articles and the massive defense and PR spin about the case instead of the official court documents and court testimonies.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/comments/how_bob_woffinden_aggrandizing_investigative_journalist_attempts
-
He may have been but the public aren’t privy to that information ?
There were only ever two suspects, first Sheila and then Jeremy. Colin was home in London with his partner and he had no motive.
-
There were only ever two suspects, first Sheila and then Jeremy. Colin was home in London with his partner and he had no motive.
I don’t dispute that
But nowadays police investigations normally use the trace/interview/eliminate (TIE) strategy to identify suspects - which obviously didn’t happen in Bamber’s case
-
On the topic at hand, 'Just because...' could be used in either direction. I would say only one of the points raised is valid - the burning of the clothes/personal effects. That IS suspicious and I'm curious as to what reason he gave for doing it. The reason it is suspicious is that it may have been a cover for burning other things.
Did he burn these items himself or did he instruct somebody else to do it?
That being said, I'm given to understand that Ann Eaton disposed of things she should not have done, despite claiming to have suspicions about Jeremy or doubts about Sheila. If Jeremy's conduct was unsatisfactory, the same must apply to her.
-
Honestly, if you're entertaining the idea that Colin Caffell should have been a suspect, it is nonsense.
On the topic at hand, 'Just because...' could be used in either direction. I would say only one of the points raised is valid - the burning of the clothes/personal effects. That IS suspicious and I'm curious as to what reason he gave for doing it. The reason it is suspicious is that it may have been a cover for burning other things.
Did he burn these items himself or did he instruct somebody else to do it?
That being said, I'm given to understand that Ann Eaton disposed of things she should not have done, despite claiming to have suspicions about Jeremy or doubts about Sheila. If Jeremy's conduct was unsatisfactory, the same must apply to her.
Supporters are welcome to make their own thread, but they are all valid points. Like I said, on their own, maybe not but when accumulated there are just too many points on which you end up making excuses. Having been a supporter, I found myself doing that once too often.
I don't know if Bamber used the opportunity to dispose of evidence but even if he didn't the action exposes a cold and callous individual - and no, it doesn't make him a killer, just the kind of person who might be.
-
Supporters are welcome to make their own thread, but they are all valid points. Like I said, on their own, maybe not but when accumulated there are just too many points on which you end up making excuses. Having been a supporter, I found myself doing that once too often.
But that's just a statement of bias.
What evidence was Ann Eaton disposing of and why? We need to ask Jeremy questions, but she has questions to answer too. Of course, I accept that the (probable) mass murderer has more questions to answer than everybody else, but this is an impartial discussion of the case, is it not?
-
Supporters are welcome to make their own thread, but they are all valid points. Like I said, on their own, maybe not but when accumulated there are just too many points on which you end up making excuses. Having been a supporter, I found myself doing that once too often.
I don't know if Bamber used the opportunity to dispose of evidence but even if he didn't the action exposes a cold and callous individual - and no, it doesn't make him a killer, just the kind of person who might be.
Just because Bamber hated his mother enough to kill her in the cruellest manner doesn't mean she was a bad person but in my opinion it makes him evil beyond redemption.
Sometimes I think that murder victims very often become dehumanised and are treated with less than respect particularly when we pore over crime scene photos or diagrams exposing their vulnerability.
Just as we invade their humanity, privacy and lost dignity as we inspect every aspect of their lives and put our own prejudices and interpretation on them.
A reminder that June Bamber and her family were living, breathing human beings was brought home to me when I read ... "Jean offered them June’s collection of commemorative biscuit tins,"
I found that so poignant.
We've all got our little collections of memoirs which mean nothing to any but ourselves; we know when we bought them and where ~ we know who gave them to us and the occasion when they did.
June's collection of biscuit tins which had probably been consigned to a cupboard anyway serves as a reminder of a life which was cruelly destroyed.
Just because ...
-
But that's just a statement of bias.
What evidence was Ann Eaton disposing of and why? We need to ask Jeremy questions, but she has questions to answer too. Of course, I accept that the (probable) mass murderer has more questions to answer than everybody else, but this is an impartial discussion of the case, is it not?
Not really, I used to be a supporter and DID find myself making excuses which is why I can see it in others. It got to the point where there were just too many.
Disposing of? I have no idea what you're referring to?
-
Not really, I used to be a supporter and DID find myself making excuses which is why I can see it in others. It got to the point where there were just too many.
Disposing of? I have no idea what you're referring to?
It's still bias. It's not evidence that proves guilt.
-
It's still bias. It's not evidence that proves guilt.
If you read each of my “just because” statements you will see they all end with “doesn’t mean he’s a murderer”.
-
How long did the landlords give him?
What items were burned and when?
The tenancy hadn’t expired
Next.
-
Might I be right in saying that any real interest you have lays with him being innocent? If that's the case, you'd be better speaking with those who believe him innocent. OR, if it's as suggested, that you're simply bored because nothing is happening on the MM site, perhaps you're just doing a wind up?
I think she’s winding people up
Or she’s bored...NZ is a very boring country, actually
It’s scenic, but dead boring
A bit like Wales without the Taffs
-
I think she’s winding people up
Or she’s bored...NZ is a very boring country, actually
It’s scenic, but dead boring
A bit like Wales without the Taffs
Just someone learning about the case, I believe, and asking questions that make some posters feel uncomfortable !
-
Just someone learning about the case, I believe, and asking questions that make some posters feel uncomfortable !
No questions are uncomfortable at all!
He’s just posting them on wrong threads.
Why doesn’t he start a new thread asking for details, then people can reply if they wish to
Or why not read the books, court documents
Besides that, he doesn’t seem to grasp what’s said, however many times you tell him...
-
Just someone learning about the case, I believe, and asking questions that make some posters feel uncomfortable !
Only because they are so embarrassingly daft, imo.
-
Just someone learning about the case, I believe, and asking questions that make some posters feel uncomfortable !
And ignores answers and repeats the questions. I'd call it more irritating than discomforting.
-
No questions are uncomfortable at all!
He’s just posting them on wrong threads.
Why doesn’t he start a new thread asking for details, then people can reply if they wish to
Or why not read the books, court documents
Besides that, he doesn’t seem to grasp what’s said, however many times you tell him...
You tend to give me boring answers TBH.
-
And ignores answers and repeats the questions. I'd call it more irritating than discomforting.
What question, what answers?
-
What question, what answers?
Sincere apologies. I thought you to have repeated, this morning, a question you'd asked last night. Mea culpa..............................however, I now find that you ignored that I said there was an answering machine at Bourtree, and later asked if there was an answering machine.
-
Sincere apologies. I thought you to have repeated, this morning, a question you'd asked last night. Mea culpa.
He does keep repeating questions, he keeps asking for an alibi for Colin when he's been told morew than once.
-
He does keep repeating questions, he keeps asking for an alibi for Colin when he's been told morew than once.
APOLOGY HEREBY RETRACTED! 8)--))
-
Sincere apologies. I thought you to have repeated, this morning, a question you'd asked last night. Mea culpa..............................however, I now find that you ignored that I said there was an answering machine at Bourtree, and later asked if there was an answering machine.
With trying to moderate the forum as well as increase my knowledge of the case, and post etc it is possible to miss an added post. I do my best to read every post but I am aware posts can be added while I'm editing a prior post and hence it slips in without a message appearing.
-
He does keep repeating questions, he keeps asking for an alibi for Colin when he's been told morew than once.
If I'm not satisfied with your given answer of course I'll ask the question again.
In this instance, I wasn't looking for an apology.
-
If I'm not satisfied with your given answer of course I'll ask the question again.
In this instance, I wasn't looking for an apology.
If the answer you're given is the only one available, if you don't like it, it can't be said to be the poster's responsibility. It's down to you to provide a better/more acceptable one.
-
If I'm not satisfied with your given answer of course I'll ask the question again.
In this instance, I wasn't looking for an apology.
Good!
-
Just because Jeremy was a practical joker, ie playing pranks on farming reps, his mother, the house keeper, and just because he thought it was great fun to throw stones at ducklings and upset Sheila, whilst it might be a sign of an embryonic psychopath, it doesn't make him a murderer
-
Just because Jeremy was a practical joker, ie playing pranks on farming reps, his mother, the house keeper, and just because he thought it was great fun to throw stones at ducklings and upset Sheila, whilst it might be a sign of an embryonic psychopath, it doesn't make him a murderer
Try and sell that to the world!
-
Just because Jeremy started telling smutty jokes in the funeral car, and told Julie what he wanted do to her sexually that night as the cars slowly left the church, and just because he went out for a slap-up meal that very night, drank Champagne, then tried to flirt with a man standing at the bar including Brett doesn’t mean he’s a murderer
-
Just because Jeremy started telling smutty jokes in the funeral car, and told Julie what he wanted do to her sexually that night as the cars slowly left the church, and just because he went out for a slap-up meal that very night, drank Champagne, then tried to flirt with a man standing at the bar including Brett doesn’t mean he’s a murderer
And just because 2 days after the above he went to Angela Greaves flat in Kensington, made a pass at her and kissed her, discussed marriage with her and told her he was fed up with Julie (All supposedly whilst also dating and sleeping with her sister Virginia and had apparently asked Virginia to move in with him) doesn’t make him a murderer
-
Guys, can we keep the “just becauses” to things that his supporters can’t simply write off as malicious smears, ta.
-
Guys, can we keep the “just becauses” to things that his supporters can’t simply write off as malicious smears, ta.
I think that part of being a supporter is the obligation to "simply write off as malicious smears" anything negative said of Jeremy....................even the viciousness of his 'practical jokes' are brushed aside as being boyish larks.
-
Guys, can we keep the “just becauses” to things that his supporters can’t simply write off as malicious smears, ta.
What else did you think they were?
-
What else did you think they were?
I'm inclined to think nasty, aggressive and vicious suits acts like putting bags of live rats in someone's car, as is riding a bike at his mother in a way designed to frighten her, and stoning ducklings to frighten his sister and the friend who was able to recall it years later. Even embryonic psychopathy.
-
Still not a murderer.
-
What else did you think they were?
One person’s malicious smear is another person’s accurate assessment.
-
Still not a murderer.
Where did I claim it defines him as such? I deliberately posted in the "Just Because........." thread. I believe it was you who challenged me.
-
Where did I claim it defines him as such? I deliberately posted in the "Just Because........." thread. I believe it was you who challenged me.
Do what you like, but I never quoted anyone in particular, but just expressed my view that nothing Jeremy has done so far makes me think he is a murderer.
-
Do what you like, but I never quoted anyone in particular, but just expressed my view that nothing Jeremy has done so far makes me think he is a murderer.
Which in no way means he isn't.
-
Which in no way means he isn't.
Just because ..... he isn't.
-
Just because ..... he isn't.
That's a very sweeping statement from someone whose knowledge of the case is only just shy of being absolute zero.
-
One person’s malicious smear is another person’s accurate assessment.
Unless you know the people involved and their motives it's impossible to judge imo.
-
Unless you know the people involved and their motives it's impossible to judge imo.
Try telling that to Robertybobbertyboo.
-
Just because people "know" JB is guilty/innocent, doesn't mean he is.
-
Unless you know the people involved and their motives it's impossible to judge imo.
Fine, that’s why I requested that we keep these “just becauses” to things you can’t possibly argue with, and there’s still plenty of them.
-
Just because people "know" JB is guilty/innocent, doesn't mean he is.
Well, he must be one or the other. I go with the jury. The majority were in favour of guilt, just like the majority here.
-
That's a very sweeping statement from someone whose knowledge of the case is only just shy of being absolute zero.
I haven't seen one aspect that says guilty to me yet.
-
I haven't seen one aspect that says guilty to me yet.
You haven't understood most of what you have read so far, you just seem intent of blaming the victims.
-
Just because Jeremy told the police his shooting skills were so poor he couldn’t hit a barn door, but despite that he fully loaded the Anschutz “noticing” it had no scope or silencer on it, and tried to shoot a rabbit he heard or spotted doesn’t mean he’s a murderer
-
Just because his mothers bicycle was found with tyres caked in mud at his place, nobody else rode it and it made the ideal route unseen, quiet and swift- it doesn’t actually mean he used the bicycle even though the available evidence suggests that is exactly what he did.
-
Just because his mothers bicycle was found with tyres caked in mud at his place, nobody else rode it and it made the ideal route unseen, quiet and swift- it doesn’t actually mean he used the bicycle even though the available evidence suggests that is exactly what he did.
That's right.
-
Just because Bamber discussed killing his family with AT LEAST 4 people (Brett, Julie, Uncle Bobby, Charles Marsden) doesn't mean that he was planning to kill his family.
Oh, actually, hang on a minute......
it probably does.
-
Just because Bamber discussed killing his family with AT LEAST 4 people (Brett, Julie, Uncle Bobby, Charles Marsden) doesn't mean that he was planning to kill his family.
Oh, actually, hang on a minute......
it probably does.
Not allowed I’m afraid as all JB’s supporters claim that all these people simply made it up and there’s no way of proving otherwise.
-
Not allowed I’m afraid as all JB’s supporters claim that all these people simply made it up and there’s no way of proving otherwise.
But isn't that the point, they are all issues for which the supporters make excuses - such as he had in his possession some sleeping tablets that were obtained by Julie (this doesn't look good for her either) and his original plan was to drug the family and burn the house down. Why did HE have the sleeping tablets?
-
But isn't that the point, they are all issues for which the supporters make excuses - such as he had in his possession some sleeping tablets that were obtained by Julie (this doesn't look good for her either) and his original plan was to drug the family and burn the house down. Why did HE have the sleeping tablets?
I’m really only interested in the things the supporters struggle to make excuses for, and there are still quite a few of them.
-
I’m really only interested in the things the supporters struggle to make excuses for, and there are still quite a few of them.
They still make excuses and try and pass it off as normal behaviour - they actually know it isn't but still the excuses come thick and fast.
-
They still make excuses and try and pass it off as normal behaviour - they actually know it isn't but still the excuses come thick and fast.
One has to ask if they'd be making the same excuses/pass off as normal behaviour, if similar had gone on in their own family, or one they were close to.
-
They still make excuses and try and pass it off as normal behaviour - they actually know it isn't but still the excuses come thick and fast.
What you call "making excuses" might seem like "reasonable questioning" for someone who doesn't believe JB is guilty, who isn't sure either way, or who is new to the case.
-
What you call "making excuses" might seem like "reasonable questioning" for someone who doesn't believe JB is guilty, who isn't sure either way, or who is new to the case.
Like you have just said - I call it making excuses. I did it myself for quite some time until I realised that I was doing it more and more and found that even I thought that many excuses were just not credible.
-
Unless you know the people involved and their motives it's impossible to judge imo.
You don’t know him or the people involved, yet you’re the first to judge!😌
-
You don’t know him or the people involved, yet you’re the first to judge!😌
Please give examples to support your accusations.
-
Please give examples to support your accusations.
You posts in respect to June are quite judgmental.