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: Holly Goodhead on March 29, 2014, 02:59:57 PM
-
The above is due to be published on 15 April 2014:
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Blood_Guilt.html?id=DUQVnwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y
by Carol Ann Lee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Ann_Lee
Published by mainstream publishing:
http://www.mainstreampublishing.com/truecrime.html
119
-
Thank you for bringing this book to our attention Holly. No doubt the 'experts' here will pull it apart in due course.
My own view and that shared by many others is that the blood evidence is but a minor part of Bambers conviction so attempts to undermine it will have little relevance.
Here for those interested is the pre launch guff...
A meticulously researched and ground-breaking new look at the White House Farm Murders of 1986.
In October 1986, 24 year-old Jeremy Bamber was convicted of murdering his parents, sister and six year-old twin nephews at White House Farm in Essex. The prosecution argued that he had done so to secure a generous inheritance, and that immediately after the brutal killings, he had placed the gun on his sister's body to convince police that it was a murder-suicide. Ordered to serve a minimum of 25 years in prison, in 1994 Bamber's sentence was increased to whole life. He has always maintained his innocence and in the last couple of years a huge amount of material has come to light -- much of it apparently deliberately suppressed at the time of the trial -- bringing growing support for Bamber, both by forensic experts, in the press, and by the public.
Today, at least two MPs are fighting his cause, documentaries question the validity of his conviction, and Bamber's internet profile is so compelling and widespread that it would put a public relations company to shame. Is Jeremy Bamber at the centre of one of the worst miscarriages of justice of our time or is he a cold, calculating killer who continues to exert control from behind bars? In Blood Guilt, bestselling true-crime author Carol Ann Lee has produced the definitive account of one of the most notorious crimes of our time.
Anyone got the sick bucket? @)(++(*
-
She is a few years out of date since Bambers support is at an all time low. Who are these MP's who are supporting a double child killer, let's give them some publicity too.
And dare I say it, Carol Ann Lee is but another grubby author attempting to line their pockets on the back of the White House farm murders.
-
"
Today, at least two MPs are fighting his cause, documentaries question the validity of his conviction, and Bamber's internet profile is so compelling and widespread that it would put a public relations company to shame"
What?? I don't think either of those things are true.
-
I am led to believe that Carol Ann Lee's forthcoming book is anti Bamber but this is based on bits I have picked up on Blue 8-)(--)
It is widely known that former Tory mp for Basingstoke, Andrew Hunter, is a strong proponent of JB suffering a MoJ. I understand he is also due to publish a book. Maybe now is the time to buy shares in Amazon/book stores 8-)(--)
In the past George Galloway has lent support to JB. He might be the other MP. Lol you could hardly find two mp's at opposite ends of the spectrum than George Galloway and Andrew Hunter. That in itself is fascinating!
Ever eager to further my understanding of the JB case I took the opportunity of visiting Waterstones to see if I could pre-order the book by Carol Ann Lee but apparently it is only available in Canada and Australia? The very helpful sales staff said this was not uncommon and might be due to legal constraints as JB is a serving prisoner 8-)(--)
-
Sounds very like the existing book called Blood Relations by Roger Wilkes first published in 1994.
-
Is there such a thing as a trade descriptions Act for novelists who publish crap? I ask the question because so much of that intro on the Amazon site is pure invention?
The very first line is untrue for instance.
"A meticulously researched and ground-breaking new look at the White House Farm Murders of 1986."
The murders were in 1985, not 1986. So much for the meticulous research.
"...in the last couple of years a huge amount of material has come to light -- much of it apparently deliberately suppressed at the time of the trial -- bringing growing support for Bamber, both by forensic experts, in the press, and by the public. "
No material has come to light which has been of any advantage to the defence, again more spin. As for support, most people who take the time to study the true facts in the case eventually realise Bamber is a filthy murderer."
"Bamber's internet profile is so compelling and widespread that it would put a public relations company to shame."
This one really takes the biscuit. Fortunately due to this forum Bambers internet profile has been all but destroyed. Thousands of people who would have otherwise been taken in by the rubbish posted on sites like Tesko's are now much wiser as to what really happened at White House farm. Lets hope the book isn't anything like the intro.
-
Is there such a thing as a trade descriptions Act for novelists who publish crap? I ask the question because so much of that intro on the Amazon site is pure invention?
The very first line is untrue for instance.
"A meticulously researched and ground-breaking new look at the White House Farm Murders of 1986."
The murders were in 1985, not 1986. So much for the meticulous research.
"...in the last couple of years a huge amount of material has come to light -- much of it apparently deliberately suppressed at the time of the trial -- bringing growing support for Bamber, both by forensic experts, in the press, and by the public. "
No material has come to light which has been of any advantage to the defence, again more spin. As for support, most people who take the time to study the true facts in the case eventually realise Bamber is a filthy murderer."
"Bamber's internet profile is so compelling and widespread that it would put a public relations company to shame."
This one really takes the biscuit. Fortunately due to this forum Bambers internet profile has been all but destroyed. Thousands of people who would have otherwise been taken in by the rubbish posted on sites like Tesko's are now much wiser as to what really happened at White House farm. Lets hope the book isn't anything like the intro.
I liked the bit about Bamber's internet profile, too! Mike and Misty, 4 old women pretending to like each other, and Gladys and his famous performing sphincter. Compelling indeed!
-
I have to wonder what could be groundbreaking.
An accurate book would simply recount everything we already know.
Some sloppy claims were already pointed out.
I have a feeling it will consist of accusations by Jeremy's defenders and little else. Recounting those claims would hardly be new or groundbreaking. Dismissing them would not be new or groundbreaking either.
So I don't see anyway it could be new or groundbreaking in any respect.
-
Ever eager to further my understanding of the JB case I took the opportunity of visiting Waterstones to see if I could pre-order the book by Carol Ann Lee but apparently it is only available in Canada and Australia? The very helpful sales staff said this was not uncommon and might be due to legal constraints as JB is a serving prisoner 8-)(--)
Mainstream Publishing are based at 7 Albany Street, Edinburgh, so I can't see them missing the opportunity for sales in Britain, as all of Carol Ann Lee's previous books have been published here. And the serving prisoner excuse didn't stop Roger Wilkes or Claire Powell. How many in Canada or Australia are going to be interested ?
I wonder what she thinks of Teskowski's corny efforts to waken a "slumbering Keith Bennett" on Saddleworth Moor ?
Quote:
"In her career as a true-crime writer Carol Ann, who is in a relationship with Alan Bennett*, younger brother of Keith Bennett, the victim of moors murders Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, has written about some appalling murders and murderers – not least Brady and Hindley themselves."
*(as of July, 2013)
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/lifestyle/books/10561889.___She_was_a_very_likeable_person__You_could_have_had_a_lovely_evening_with_Ruth_Ellis___/ (http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/lifestyle/books/10561889.___She_was_a_very_likeable_person__You_could_have_had_a_lovely_evening_with_Ruth_Ellis___/)
-
How many in Canada or Australia are going to be interested ?
There's always Julie and Brett although someone recently suggested he was deceased or 'gone to ground' to put it another way. 8(0(*
-
I thought Brett Collins seemed to have completely disappeared. Was he ever heard of again after the trial?
-
How will you guys feel if she's anti Bamber? You will be wanting to take her out to dinner @)(++(*
I'm led to believe she's anti but don't hold me to that.
True crime is the most popular genre. I think the WHF case is endlessly fascinating albeit very tragic. If she has researched the birth family's of SC and JB with their royal connections I think this would be very appealing to the Australian and Canadian market. Also JM and SC's birth mother currently reside in Canada. SC's British born grandfather took up the post of professor emeritus of theology at McGill University, Montreal.
I guess the title is connected to the open pages of the bible:
408. The pages on which the heavy staining appears in these photographs are pages including part or all of Psalms 51-55. It is said that these pages are significant and represented "Sheila Caffell's suicide note". A number of passages are highlighted and it will suffice if we give one example, taken from verse 14 of Psalm 51:
"Save me from blood guiltiness O God…"
(above from CoA doc)
-
How will you guys feel if she's anti Bamber? You will be wanting to take her out to dinner @)(++(*
I'm led to believe she's anti but don't hold me to that.
The press releases hint she is pro Jeremy.
If she is neither pro nor anti Jeremy and instead just presented all the evidence and let the reader decide that would be best. At the very least it should present all the evidence against Jeremy, all the arguments made by his supporters and to establish which claims have merit and which do not using solid evidence to prove it.
True crime is the most popular genre. I think the WHF case is endlessly fascinating albeit very tragic. If she has researched the birth family's of SC and JB with their royal connections I think this would be very appealing to the Australian and Canadian market. Also JM and SC's birth mother currently reside in Canada. SC's British born grandfather took up the post of professor emeritus of theology at McGill University, Montreal.
I guess the title is connected to the open pages of the bible:
408. The pages on which the heavy staining appears in these photographs are pages including part or all of Psalms 51-55. It is said that these pages are significant and represented "Sheila Caffell's suicide note". A number of passages are highlighted and it will suffice if we give one example, taken from verse 14 of Psalm 51:
"Save me from blood guiltiness O God…"
(above from CoA doc)
True crime stories usually sensationalize rather than provide a solid accounting of a case. DOcumentaries and books written in documentary form don't make much money. When the object is to make money and have a legacy the object is to sensationalize things. While it is possible to write a complete tale in an interesting fashion it is a challenge and writers often don't do so. They take creative license and in the process don't present a true complete accounting of things. A true complete accounting will not result in major fame that requires controversy. Hence why writers like to present controversy even when it is bogus.
The book won't be of any value to me at all unless it includes facts and evidence that I have not seen before. That is the only utility from my perspective. What arguments the author makes is not really important (so I don't care is she is pro or con Jeremy) only the evidence I can take from the work if there is any that is being used to back up/refute anything claimed will be of any importance to me.
Suppose Carole Ann believes he is guilty, does repeating that mean a hill of beans as far as a debate goes? Nope. It is not really of any value in a debate. Most people thought the world was flat at one point does that mean they were right?
If she makes good arguments and has solid evidence then that would mean something but her unsupported opinion would not.
If she is pro Jeremy but presents no solid reasoning and evidence to back up her claims then again who cares. If she presents some evidence then her arguments and evidence need to be tested to see if the evidence is accurate and claims hold water. That would actually be more interesting because it would give me something to do.
Otherwise I will have to go back to debating about Ukraine, Knox or one of the other various subjects I discuss besides this one.
-
I can't see her providing anything new unless she is brave enough to name Jeremy's co conspirator. And no I'm not going to reveal that here until my own enquiries are complete.
As far as her being a supporter or a critic of Jeremy is concerned I hope she simply repeats all the evidence and doesn't pick out the juicy bits just for the sake of it.
Everyone who has studied the Bamber case knows that Jeremy's guilt is based on Sheila's innocence. The former is intrinsically linked to the latter and that unfortunately for Jeremy is the reason he will never win an appeal. All the tangible evidence points to Sheila being a victim and that can never change no matter how many pigskins get shot at or how many paid 'exerts' or MP's crawl out from under a stone to bleat foul play.
On the subject of the book, time will tell but one thing is for sure, it would need to be a dam site better than the intro with its basic flaw or else it and Mss Lee are going to be torn to shreds!
-
I can't see her providing anything new unless she is brave enough to name Jeremy's co conspirator. And no I'm not going to reveal that here until my own enquiries are complete.
As far as her being a supporter or a critic of Jeremy is concerned I hope she simply repeats all the evidence and doesn't pick out the juicy bits just for the sake of it.
Everyone who has studied the Bamber case knows that Jeremy's guilt is based on Sheila's innocence. The former is intrinsically linked to the latter and that unfortunately for Jeremy is the reason he will never win an appeal. All the tangible evidence points to Sheila being a victim and that can never change no matter how many pigskins get shot at or how many paid 'exerts' or MP's crawl out from under a stone to bleat foul play.
On the subject of the book, time will tell but one thing is for sure, it would need to be a dam site better than the intro with its basic flaw or else it and Mss Lee are going to be torn to shreds!
I for one would be interested to hear your thoughts on a co-conspirator. Though do you mean someone who helped with the planning or someone who actually assisted him at the scene (not necessarily firing a gun but maybe making sure Sheila didn't run away etc)? I think most of the people who think he is guilty assume he did it single handedly. I would have thought if Bamber had someone with him for "crowd control" then there wouldn't have been the struggle with Neville. But as I said I would be interested to hear your theory.
-
I for one would be interested to hear your thoughts on a co-conspirator. Though do you mean someone who helped with the planning or someone who actually assisted him at the scene (not necessarily firing a gun but maybe making sure Sheila didn't run away etc)? I think most of the people who think he is guilty assume he did it single handedly. I would have thought if Bamber had someone with him for "crowd control" then there wouldn't have been the struggle with Neville. But as I said I would be interested to hear your theory.
As I recall there was a guy Julie Mugford spoke of who seemed to be aware ofJeremy's disregard for his family and may have known about the murders. I have not seen anything to suggest that person or anyone else helped him carry out the murders though.
-
I have no doubt whatsoever that this person whom I refer to as a co conspirator knew in advance what Jeremy was planning and most probably egged him on. I am not the only one who suspected this individual as those who have followed this case very closely will know.
-
I have no doubt whatsoever that this person whom I refer to as a co conspirator knew in advance what Jeremy was planning and most probably egged him on. I am not the only one who suspected this individual as those who have followed this case very closely will know.
Brett Collins?
-
Brett Collins?
Must be. That's the friend Julie said was constantly with Jeremy after the murders who was helping him sell everything. If anyone is going to claim Jeremy had help he would be the one.
-
No comment.
-
Must be. That's the friend Julie said was constantly with Jeremy after the murders who was helping him sell everything. If anyone is going to claim Jeremy had help he would be the one.
Based on what exactly? The idea that there's a huge pool of folk who suddenly just decide to help a mate slaughter his entire immediate family including two small boys is I think frankly a bit far fetched.
JB met Brett Collins while travelling/working in New Zealand, much the same as we all make and maintain friends we meet while travelling.
The police checked out BC and confirmed:
1. He was visiting family in Greece when the tragedy took place.
2. RWB had background checks carried out on BC and nothing untoward was found.
BC assisted JB in his dealings with Sotheby's as he had an interest in antiques (confirmed by AE in her wit stat). JB needed to raise cash to meet the significant inheritance tax liability on the estate. If JB did not want the items then why not sell them and raise cash for the considerable expenditure he faced:
- 5 x funerals
- Inheritance tax liability (known in 1985 as capital transfer tax): Nil rate band 85/86 = 67k. I haven't got time right now to work the figs out but the upper limit on an estate valued at 436k = 60% capital transfer tax (now known as inheritance tax)
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/inheritance/appendix_a8.pdf
NB had taken out loans to purchase land on behalf of the Eatons and to renovate his mother's former home in Surrey shortly before his death. Clearly not cash rich or why take out the loans?
How/when would you propose JB dealt with the considerable tax liability he was faced with?
-
Yes, he was in Greece when the murders took place, wasn't that lucky for him? Robert Boutflour went to the trouble and expense of putting a private detective on Mr Collins' tail and then turned the information over to the police. It appears he had a less than enthralling record down under and disappeared just as quickly as he had arrived to begin with. I have however managed to trace him to New Zealand and the small cottage he resided in but that is for another day.
-
Based on what exactly? The idea that there's a huge pool of folk who suddenly just decide to help a mate slaughter his entire immediate family including two small boys is I think frankly a bit far fetched.
JB met Brett Collins while travelling/working in New Zealand, much the same as we all make and maintain friends we meet while travelling.
The police checked out BC and confirmed:
1. He was visiting family in Greece when the tragedy took place.
2. RWB had background checks carried out on BC and nothing untoward was found.
BC assisted JB in his dealings with Sotheby's as he had an interest in antiques (confirmed by AE in her wit stat). JB needed to raise cash to meet the significant inheritance tax liability on the estate. If JB did not want the items then why not sell them and raise cash for the considerable expenditure he faced:
- 5 x funerals
- Inheritance tax liability (known in 1985 as capital transfer tax): Nil rate band 85/86 = 67k. I haven't got time right now to work the figs out but the upper limit on an estate valued at 436k = 60% capital transfer tax (now known as inheritance tax)
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/inheritance/appendix_a8.pdf
NB had taken out loans to purchase land on behalf of the Eatons and to renovate his mother's former home in Surrey shortly before his death. Clearly not cash rich or why take out the loans?
How/when would you propose JB dealt with the considerable tax liability he was faced with?
1) A co-conspirator by definition is different than an accomplice. He didn't need to help carry out the murders to be a co-conspirator. No one was suggesting that Jeremy had help doing the actual killing the claim was that someone helped Jeremy plan the murders and egged him on. I noted multiple times that I have not seen any reliable evidence to indicate anyone helped him plan it but the possibility is still there. Either Jeremy's own hatred of his family and desire for wealth was the sole driving force or there was th eadded force of someone who was egging him on and even perhaps helping wiht the planning. Julie was against it so maybe he did have someone else he was tlaking about it with.
2) Julie seems to hint that Collins was much more involved with Jeremy than simply as a broker for the goods. Maybe he did share with Collins much of what went down after the fact. Maybe he share dit before though or maybe Collins helped egg him on and even was invovled with the planning. Much more research would be needed to detemrine which is the case. It does seem odd that Jeremy didn't come up with the idea sooner if he came up with it all on his own. But there is no way to know how long someone will go before they decide to act on criminal impulses such as these. Apparently he talked about it with Julie for many months before he finally acted. Much ore needs to be known about what was going on behind the scenes to figure out if Collins actually helped him engineer the plan or egged him on.
3) You can invest money in stocks, bonds, certificates of deposit and other such instruments and it will not be immediately liquid. You take out loans so that you can hopefully make more on your investments than you pay in interest.
Many of the goods were not being sold because he needed money to pay death taxes. They were goods that he didn't want but that he thought were valuable like silverware that he thought was extremely valuable but wasn't. He was hoping to get a nice payday for various things he thought were antiques. He was trying to maximize his profits not to sell chattle so that he would be able to pay death taxes.
You need to stop straining so hard to explain things that can be explained away easy enough. It shows your bias even more. It is enough to say he didn't want the items because they were not his taste and he thought they were valuable antiques so decide to sell them. The cars were not his taste so he decided to sell them.
The thing that makes you wonder if he was involved is some of the things that Julie said about their actions together, being glued to eachother and even Collins joking about the murders. I am pretty damn blunt and irreverant but woul dnot joke about murders with a survivng family member. If you know there is no wound at all present to hurt maybe then you would make such jokes. So it seems to suggest he knew Jeremy didn't care about the loss at all and hints he might know alot more as some suggest. But that could be explained by Jeremy telling him about the murders or telling him about his desire to kill them. It doesn't necessarily mean he helped plan them or egged him on. Since he told Julie all those times he wanted to kill them and wished they were dead maybe he told the same to Collins.
Unless and until evidence surfaces to implicate a co-conspirator though I will just say it is a theory people have that has not been proven.
-
Based on the link above I've calculated the inheritance tax at £109,700. This was due by 31st January 1986. Interest was charged at 9% per day if unpaid
It seems the Bambers were not cash rich hence the bank loans for purposes where interest could not be off-set eg the renovation of NB's mother's home in Surrey.
It seems the main assets were as follows:
N & J Bamber Ltd
Maldon Growers
OCP
Farm equip (incl in N & J Bamber Ltd?)
Personal chattels
Property - Maida Vale
Property - Surrey
Property - Goldhanger
How was JB to fund the tax liability and cost of 5 funerals?
-
Based on the link above I've calculated the inheritance tax at £109,700. This was due by 31st January 1986. Interest was charged at 9% per day if unpaid
It seems the Bambers were not cash rich hence the bank loans for purposes where interest could not be off-set eg the renovation of NB's mother's home in Surrey.
It seems the main assets were as follows:
N & J Bamber Ltd
Maldon Growers
OCP
Farm equip (incl in N & J Bamber Ltd?)
Personal chattels
Property - Maida Vale
Property - Surrey
Property - Goldhanger
How was JB to fund the tax liability and cost of 5 funerals?
You are making matters worse for yourself. I don't care enough to look into the full financial picture as far as liquidity is concerned. It is sufficient to know that Jeremy himself admitted to playing a prank falsely claiming to his relatives that he needed to sell WHF to pay the inheritance tax. He didn't it was a joke, which suggests he did in fact have a means to pay it.
Worse yet the goods in question that Collins helped him sell did not bring in much thus barely made a dent in the death tax. He grossly overstimated the value of these goods.
Worst of all for your case though, you readily admit the tax was not due until more than 5 months after the murders.
January 1986 is far enough away not to have to immediately sell assets no sooner than they are in the ground. The assets were sold because he didn't want to keep them and thought he would get a nice bundle of money to go vacation with/ fund expensive living for a while.
This really demonstrates how different our philosophies are.
You don't accept that Collins was a co-conspirator because that would make Jeremy guilty.
I don't accept that Collins was a co-conspirator because I have not seen evidence to establish it and discuss objectively how it is a theory that people have that has not been supported to date with much evidence.
I am objective and follow the evidence, you are biased, decide what you believe based on your bias then try to twist to support what you want to believe even when no twisting is necessary.
The fact you don't understand the scientific principles at work and do not master the facts only makes things worse.
For instance you presented a great way for me to embarrass you but I didn't bother but now I will:
"Samples taken from the victims were able to produce a PGM reading which the sample was unable to produce. Have you any thoughts on this?"
PGM 1+ is a genetic marker that not all people have.
Sheila tested negative for PGM 1+ as did the sample taken from the moderator. Tested negative means she has no PG 1+ in her blood. The sample matched her blood perfectly. The sample was not missing anything.
Sheila- EAP BA, AK I, Hp 2-1
Evidence- EAP BA, AK1, Hp 2-1
It is June and nevill who had PGM markers in their blood.
You thus are highlighting that they had PGM markers while Sheila did not and the sample didn't have any either thus matched her perfectly.
I have no idea where you were trying to go with it but it hurts your cause it doesn't help your cause so why you brought it up I have no idea.
My answer to your question is simple. Sheila didn't have a PGM marker in her blood and thus the fact the sample didn't leave one either suggests it is her blood. If it had been June or Nevill's blood then it should have PGM 1+ in addition to BAP and AK2-1.
Someone competent would know that the defense made the following argument. That PGM 1+ breaks down reatively easily and suggested the blood in the suppressor was tested late enough that it had already broken down so was not detected. Also that the blood had not fully mixed intimately and thus AK2-1 (that should have been present if June's blood was there) ended up in a different location in the suppressor than the flake that was tested.
If you mastered the details you might not have to strain so hard and might not make so many mistakes.
The worst part is that most of those on the blue board are worse than you. Maggie and caroline have absolutely no idea how to think or formulate arguments, it is amazing.
Maybe you can place a post asking them to approve my membership so I can have fun making them chase their tails around and make their heads spin too.
-
You are making matters worse for yourself. I don't care enough to look into the full financial picture as far as liquidity is concerned.It is sufficient to know that Jeremy himself admitted to playing a prank falsely claiming to his relatives that he needed to sell WHF to pay the inheritance tax. He didn't it was a joke, which suggests he did in fact have a means to pay it.
Worse yet the goods in question that Collins helped him sell did not bring in much thus barely made a dent in the death tax. He grossly overstimated the value of these goods.
Worst of all for your case though, you readily admit the tax was not due until more than 5 months after the murders.
January 1986 is far enough away not to have to immediately sell assets no sooner than they are in the ground. The assets were sold because he didn't want to keep them and thought he would get a nice bundle of money to go vacation with/ fund expensive living for a while.
This really demonstrates how different our philosophies are.
You don't accept that Collins was a co-conspirator because that would make Jeremy guilty.
I don't accept that Collins was a co-conspirator because I have not seen evidence to establish it and discuss objectively how it is a theory that people have that has not been supported to date with much evidence.
I am objective and follow the evidence, you are biased, decide what you believe based on your bias then try to twist to support what you want to believe even when no twisting is necessary.
The fact you don't understand the scientific principles at work and do not master the facts only makes things worse.
For instance you presented a great way for me to embarrass you but I didn't bother but now I will:
"Samples taken from the victims were able to produce a PGM reading which the sample was unable to produce. Have you any thoughts on this?"
PGM 1+ is a genetic marker that not all people have.
Sheila tested negative for PGM 1+ as did the sample taken from the moderator. Tested negative means she has no PG 1+ in her blood. The sample matched her blood perfectly. The sample was not missing anything.
Sheila- EAP BA, AK I, Hp 2-1
Evidence- EAP BA, AK1, Hp 2-1
It is June and nevill who had PGM markers in their blood.
You thus are highlighting that they had PGM markers while Sheila did not and the sample didn't have any either thus matched her perfectly.
I have no idea where you were trying to go with it but it hurts your cause it doesn't help your cause so why you brought it up I have no idea.
My answer to your question is simple. Sheila didn't have a PGM marker in her blood and thus the fact the sample didn't leave one either suggests it is her blood. If it had been June or Nevill's blood then it should have PGM 1+ in addition to BAP and AK2-1.
Someone competent would know that the defense made the following argument. That PGM 1+ breaks down reatively easily and suggested the blood in the suppressor was tested late enough that it had already broken down so was not detected. Also that the blood had not fully mixed intimately and thus AK2-1 (that should have been present if June's blood was there) ended up in a different location in the suppressor than the flake that was tested.
If you mastered the details you might not have to strain so hard and might not make so many mistakes.
The worst part is that most of those on the blue board are worse than you. Maggie and caroline have absolutely no idea how to think or formulate arguments, it is amazing.
Maybe you can place a post asking them to approve my membership so I can have fun making them chase their tails around and make their heads spin too.
The Bambers were tenant farmers. 8@??)( @)(++(*. WHF was owned by The Henry Smith Charity, reg no. 230102)
The rest of your post is as bad as your first gaffe 8@??)( @)(++(*
Night night Scipio
-
The Bambers were tenant farmers. 8@??)( @)(++(*. WHF was owned by The Henry Smith Charity, reg no. 230102)
The rest of your post is as bad as your first gaffe 8@??)( @)(++(*
Night night Scipio
I know they were tenants. Where did I state otherwise? What gaffe did I make? I stated a fact. Jeremy decided to play a joke telling his relatives he had to sell WHF ot pay the death taxes. The joke wa sindeed on him because then he found out his parents didn't own it.
You can't prove anything I sad wrong so you create a false claim, claim I was wrong about it and that you have no need to address anything else.
That just makes you look like a dishonest fool who can't prove me wrong and thus is running away from the debate. But maybe that is in fact the case not just an appearance.
Anything you throw at me I can smash in great detail. Anything I throw at you, you run away from.
The truth hurts doesn't it.
-
You are making matters worse for yourself. I don't care enough to look into the full financial picture as far as liquidity is concerned. It is sufficient to know that Jeremy himself admitted to playing a prank falsely claiming to his relatives that he needed to sell WHF to pay the inheritance tax. He didn't it was a joke, which suggests he did in fact have a means to pay it.
Worse yet the goods in question that Collins helped him sell did not bring in much thus barely made a dent in the death tax. He grossly overstimated the value of these goods.
Worst of all for your case though, you readily admit the tax was not due until more than 5 months after the murders.
January 1986 is far enough away not to have to immediately sell assets no sooner than they are in the ground. The assets were sold because he didn't want to keep them and thought he would get a nice bundle of money to go vacation with/ fund expensive living for a while.
This really demonstrates how different our philosophies are.
You don't accept that Collins was a co-conspirator because that would make Jeremy guilty.
I don't accept that Collins was a co-conspirator because I have not seen evidence to establish it and discuss objectively how it is a theory that people have that has not been supported to date with much evidence.
I am objective and follow the evidence, you are biased, decide what you believe based on your bias then try to twist to support what you want to believe even when no twisting is necessary.
The fact you don't understand the scientific principles at work and do not master the facts only makes things worse.
For instance you presented a great way for me to embarrass you but I didn't bother but now I will:
"Samples taken from the victims were able to produce a PGM reading which the sample was unable to produce. Have you any thoughts on this?"
PGM 1+ is a genetic marker that not all people have.
Sheila tested negative for PGM 1+ as did the sample taken from the moderator. Tested negative means she has no PG 1+ in her blood. The sample matched her blood perfectly. The sample was not missing anything.
Sheila- EAP BA, AK I, Hp 2-1
Evidence- EAP BA, AK1, Hp 2-1
It is June and nevill who had PGM markers in their blood.
You thus are highlighting that they had PGM markers while Sheila did not and the sample didn't have any either thus matched her perfectly.
I have no idea where you were trying to go with it but it hurts your cause it doesn't help your cause so why you brought it up I have no idea.
My answer to your question is simple. Sheila didn't have a PGM marker in her blood and thus the fact the sample didn't leave one either suggests it is her blood. If it had been June or Nevill's blood then it should have PGM 1+ in addition to BAP and AK2-1.
Someone competent would know that the defense made the following argument. That PGM 1+ breaks down reatively easily and suggested the blood in the suppressor was tested late enough that it had already broken down so was not detected. Also that the blood had not fully mixed intimately and thus AK2-1 (that should have been present if June's blood was there) ended up in a different location in the suppressor than the flake that was tested.
If you mastered the details you might not have to strain so hard and might not make so many mistakes.
The worst part is that most of those on the blue board are worse than you. Maggie and caroline have absolutely no idea how to think or formulate arguments, it is amazing.
Maybe you can place a post asking them to approve my membership so I can have fun making them chase their tails around and make their heads spin too.
In the UK in order for an estate to be distributed to the beneficiaries in this case JB (had he not been convicted) the executors (Basil Cock the accountant was one not sure if others existed) need to be granted probate. Probate is not granted until any inheritance tax due has been paid to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). How was JB to meet the tax liability?
I agree the selling of the antiques was unlikely to put much of dent in the tax due but it would have sorted out the short term need for cash to fund his day to day expenditure and the unexpected cost of 5 funerals.
You might recall from JB's police interviews he was asked about his bank balances. He said they fluctuated between a few hundred quid to a few thousand. He had recently purchased various things for Goldhanger and was not particularly flush at the time. Oh and given JM £400 towards a hol. He signed an authority allowing EP to contact his bank. He faced his normal expenditure, plus time away to escape press intrusion, plus 5 funerals. How was he to fund all of this? The inheritance tax was due by 31st Jan 1986. We know NB purchased land on behalf of the Eatons for them to purchase at a later date. Assuming this was for financial reasons and AE/PE went to NB and not RB/PB it seems unlikely the relatives would have been in a position to offer any temporary help with the inheritance tax?
SC did not test negative for Phosphoglycerate Mutase (PGM) which is an enzyme and nothing to do with DNA as you suggest. The sample found in the silencer tested negative for PGM because this particular enzyme breaks down quickly once outside the body.
Here's the table which shows the blood type/group of the victims along with the sample found:
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Boutflour A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
In the UK in order for an estate to be distributed to the beneficiaries in this case JB (had he not been convicted) the executors (Basil Cock the accountant was one not sure if others existed) need to be granted probate. Probate is not granted until any inheritance tax due has been paid to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). How was JB to meet the tax liability?
I agree the selling of the antiques was unlikely to put much of dent in the tax due but it would have sorted out the short term need for cash to fund his day to day expenditure and the unexpected cost of 5 funerals.
You might recall from JB's police interviews he was asked about his bank balances. He said they fluctuated between a few hundred quid to a few thousand. He had recently purchased various things for Goldhanger and was not particularly flush at the time. Oh and given JM £400 towards a hol. He signed an authority allowing EP to contact his bank. He faced his normal expenditure, plus time away to escape press intrusion, plus 5 funerals. How was he to fund all of this? The inheritance tax was due by 31st Jan 1986. We know NB purchased land on behalf of the Eatons for them to purchase at a later date. Assuming this was for financial reasons and AE/PE went to NB and not RB/PB it seems unlikely the relatives would have been in a position to offer any temporary help with the inheritance tax?
SC did not test negative for Phosphoglycerate Mutase (PGM) which is an enzyme and nothing to do with DNA as you suggest. The sample found in the silencer tested negative for PGM because this particular enzyme breaks down quickly once outside the body.
Here's the table which shows the blood type/group of the victims along with the sample found:
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Boutflour A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said anything about DNA? All I have ever noted about DNA is that DNA tests were not available at the time so any tissue found in back spatter owuld not be worth noting becuase it had no vlaue. Today since we can figure out who tissue belongs to thatnks to DNA it has uitility.
That has no bearing on the issue at hand though.
You are like a broken record. There was no need to sell goods immediatley to pay a tax bill 5 months away. Jeremy didn't want the heirlooms and thouht they were worth a pretty penny so that is why he tried to sell them. He told Julie he didn't want to burn WHF down because these valuable heirlooms would have been destroyed. Had he known they were worthless and WHF was being leased and that his frame job was insufficient he probably would have burned it down if he had it to do over again.
The goods ended up being worthless so did not help at all with the death taxes nor were they likely to. He planned to sell many assets because he didn't want to keep running the businesses, he wanted the money to spend and some perhaps to invest in other endeavors where he would not need to do any work. The heirlooms he tried to dump for some nice money to play around with but only the cars were worth anything.
Jeremy never indicated any pressing need to sell anything except as a joke when he told his relatives he would have to sell WHF to pay the death taxes.
You are so desperate to be a JB apologist you make up things for him even when it is not necessary.
You seem not to care about the fact you demolish your own credibility at ever turn.
-
Who said anything about DNA? All I have ever noted about DNA is that DNA tests were not available at the time so any tissue found in back spatter owuld not be worth noting becuase it had no vlaue. Today since we can figure out who tissue belongs to thatnks to DNA it has uitility.
That has no bearing on the issue at hand though.
You are like a broken record. There was no need to sell goods immediatley to pay a tax bill 5 months away. Jeremy didn't want the heirlooms and thouht they were worth a pretty penny so that is why he tried to sell them. He told Julie he didn't want to burn WHF down because these valuable heirlooms would have been destroyed. Had he known they were worthless and WHF was being leased and that his frame job was insufficient he probably would have burned it down if he had it to do over again.
The goods ended up being worthless so did not help at all with the death taxes nor were they likely to. He planned to sell many assets because he didn't want to keep running the businesses, he wanted the money to spend and some perhaps to invest in other endeavors where he would not need to do any work. The heirlooms he tried to dump for some nice money to play around with but only the cars were worth anything.
Jeremy never indicated any pressing need to sell anything except as a joke when he told his relatives he would have to sell WHF to pay the death taxes.
You are so desperate to be a JB apologist you make up things for him even when it is not necessary.
You seem not to care about the fact you demolish your own credibility at ever turn.
You did! You claimed in your previous post that PGM is a genetic marker! It is not it's an enzyme!
I agree as DNA testing was not available in 85/86 it would not have been possible to identify who any skin tissue belonged to in the same way it was not possible to prove who the blood belonged to since blood type/groups are not exclusive to individuals. However you miss the point as per usual! The point being that it is virtually unheard of for back-spatter to occur without accompanying tissue being drawn back into the barrel/silencer along with the blood. Yet in the JB/WHF case we have no skin tissue but paint and a grey hair instead. How very novel >@@(*&)
Scipio I am not going round in circles with you. I really have better things to do with my time.
Carol Ann Lee's book will be published next week in Australia and Canada. I have no idea if it will be anti, pro or neutral but one thing is for sure it will generate new interest in the case. Paul Mason's book is to be published shortly in the UK I believe. This I understand is pro Bamber. Again this will generate further interest. We have lots to look forward to Scipio. Every cloud has a silver lining and for you it should mean that you no longer have to listen to my broken record @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*. You might have some new posters to bore enthral.
-
Are you allowed to say if the forthcoming books are pro or anti Bamber? One author got very cross with me for suggesting his book was pro Bamber. >@@(*&)
-
You did! You claimed in your previous post that PGM is a genetic marker! It is not it's an enzyme!
I agree as DNA testing was not available in 85/86 it would not have been possible to identify who any skin tissue belonged to in the same way it was not possible to prove who the blood belonged to since blood type/groups are not exclusive to individuals. However you miss the point as per usual! The point being that it is virtually unheard of for back-spatter to occur without accompanying tissue being drawn back into the barrel/silencer along with the blood. Yet in the JB/WHF case we have no skin tissue but paint and a grey hair instead. How very novel >@@(*&)
I didn't miss any point. I demolished the bogus point you tried to make. My response absolutely killed you which is why you did not respond substantively to what I wrote.
1) You are lying. It is not virtually unheard of for tissue not to be present in back spatter. You posted a source that made a generalized claim that tissue often accompanies blood. "Often" doesn't mean a majority of the time let alone always. "Regularly" is the term used to mean a majority of the time. That source was just a website anyway not a true source. Books on the subject and journal articles use the term "may" accompany blood. There are no sources that say ther eusually will be tissue let alone always. There are many factors at play particularly location of wound so general rules don't work. So right off the bat you distorted that if there wasn't tissue that means the blood wasn't back spatter though it is in fact quite possible for there to be blood but no tissue and in fact a majority of the time a neck wound of that sort will not result in tissue being deposited in the barrel. What kind of tissue ends up in a gun? Fatty tissue, muscle tissue or brain tissue. Occasionally there will be skin tissue. Is there fatty tissue, muscle or brain tissue in the neck area where the fatal shot occurred? Nope. At best skin tissue could have broken free but skin doesn't always break free, can go inside instead along with the bullet and would be quite small (microscopic) if any skin tissue did end up in the barrel. So your claim that tissue would have to be present for the blood to be back spatter doesn't survive scrutiny and needs no more response but I smashed it further.
2) You have no evidence that tissue wasn't found. BECAUSE there was no way to test tissue at the time to try to determine who it belonged to it was POINTLESS to try to examine any microscopic skin tissue even if some had been located. Thus there would be no reason to mention said tissue if it were found. The simple fact they only spoke about blood doesn't mean no tissue was found. You need to find testimony or a report that states no tissue was found to prove such claim.
3) They could have failed to find tissue that was present or ignored it because again during that era what mattered was the blood, a microscopic trace of tissue meant nothing and would add nothing to the equation at all. We now have more technology to both find tissue and to test determine who it blonged to so today it is sought out.
You never responded to any of these points, you just keep making the same bogus claim that tissue hads to be present for it to be back spatter. That is no more true than your bogus claim that only head shots produce back spatter or only high caliber weapons. You simply make up anything you feel like and ignore the testimony which was that it was vertually certain for the neck wound to deposit back spatter in the weapon.
Scipio I am not going round in circles with you. I really have better things to do with my time.
Carol Ann Lee's book will be published next week in Australia and Canada. I have no idea if it will be anti, pro or neutral but one thing is for sure it will generate new interest in the case. Paul Mason's book is to be published shortly in the UK I believe. This I understand is pro Bamber. Again this will generate further interest. We have lots to look forward to Scipio. Every cloud has a silver lining and for you it should mean that you no longer have to listen to my broken record @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*. You might have some new posters to bore enthral.
You love to debate when you deal with someone you can try your BS on. When it fails you just take your ball and go home.
No matter that just means the case I presented against Jeremy is unrebutted.
-
Based on the link above I've calculated the inheritance tax at £109,700. This was due by 31st January 1986. Interest was charged at 9% per day if unpaid
It seems the Bambers were not cash rich hence the bank loans for purposes where interest could not be off-set eg the renovation of NB's mother's home in Surrey.
It seems the main assets were as follows:
N & J Bamber Ltd
Maldon Growers
OCP
Farm equip (incl in N & J Bamber Ltd?)
Personal chattels
Property - Maida Vale
Property - Surrey
Property - Goldhanger
How was JB to fund the tax liability and cost of 5 funerals?
You do make a good point here, but let's examine the facts. Was Jeremy Bamber squirrelling away his money to pay funeral and tax bills? Or was he spending it on expensive restaurants, holidays and gifts? Again, not the actions of someone struggling to pay tax and funeral bills!
-
Are you allowed to say if the forthcoming books are pro or anti Bamber? One author got very cross with me for suggesting his book was pro Bamber. >@@(*&)
Oh! 'Mason Doyle' was on Blue a few days ago and told Gladys off for referring to Bob Woffinden as "woof woof" @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* (typical Gladys) so I wouldn't take his reprimands too seriously!
I have no real idea whether his book is pro, anti or neutral. I was just going on this:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Book+cop+I'll+show+Bamber's+innocent.-a0337437563
Where he states:
Harrison said: "It is not for me to say Jeremy is innocent, but his conviction is unsound. There has been a miscarriage of justice, of that I'm sure."
I am sure at some stage Scipio will be putting him right @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Here's the table which shows the blood type/group of the victims along with the sample found:
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Boutflour A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was told by Bridget on Blue, usually a reliable source of info., that the reason the sample found in the silencer was unable to produce a PGM reading is that once this particular enzyme leaves the body it breaks down very quickly. I wonder what the time differences were between the victims' samples being analysed at FSS and the silencer being analysed? I have always thought this is an area that should be explored further.
-
You do make a good point here, but let's examine the facts. Was Jeremy Bamber squirrelling away his money to pay funeral and tax bills? Or was he spending it on expensive restaurants, holidays and gifts? Again, not the actions of someone struggling to pay tax and funeral bills!
Quite. On the day of the funeral, didn't he treat his friends to champagne and lobster afterwards? As you do following such a traumatic event which had you sobbing like a 5 year old who had lost their favourite teddy...
Everyone was surprised at how good his appetite was a few hours after the killings, considering he had lost his entire family. He was calm enough to prepare and eat a full English breakfast. Reminds me of those murderers you read about who kill at night and then go to work as usual the following morning, as if they'd just swatted a few flies earlier on.
-
Off topic accepted but some estates can take years to conclude. There was no urgency for Jerry to sell anything I'm afraid, simply his greed and his own choice.
Out of interest, Paul Harrison (Mason Doyle) posted here for a while last year but left when he found that debating the Bamber case with informed people rather than just writing about it wasn't for him. I don't think there is much of anything he can bring to the case especially if he is pro Bamber. These books are always good for a laugh though! @)(++(*
-
Off topic accepted but some estates can take years to conclude. There was no urgency for Jerry to sell anything I'm afraid, simply his greed and his own choice.
Out of interest, Paul Harrison (Mason Doyle) posted here for a while last year but left when he found that debating the Bamber case with informed people rather than just writing about it wasn't for him. I don't think there is much of anything he can bring to the case especially if he is pro Bamber. These books are always good for a laugh though! @)(++(*
Most of us don't find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to fund five funerals in one hit.
I think he was advised by Basil Cock, the accountant, to sell off the antiques.
-
Quite. On the day of the funeral, didn't he treat his friends to champagne and lobster afterwards? As you do following such a traumatic event which had you sobbing like a 5 year old who had lost their favourite teddy...
Everyone was surprised at how good his appetite was a few hours after the killings, considering he had lost his entire family. He was calm enough to prepare and eat a full English breakfast. Reminds me of those murderers you read about who kill at night and then go to work as usual the following morning, as if they'd just swatted a few flies earlier on.
If you presented the above to any grief counsellor I think they would find it unremarkable.
-
You do make a good point here, but let's examine the facts. Was Jeremy Bamber squirrelling away his money to pay funeral and tax bills? Or was he spending it on expensive restaurants, holidays and gifts? Again, not the actions of someone struggling to pay tax and funeral bills!
Well I guess it was up to him what he spent his money on.
I guess Barbara Wilson, as farm secretary, might have been an authorised signatory on N & J Bamber Ltd? JB? JB would not have been able to access his parents' personal a/c's and/or *dispose of assets until probate was granted and that was likely to take some time with valuations required and agreements by HMRC.
*The antiques were probably the only assets that could 'disappear'.
-
Well I guess it was up to him what he spent his money on.
I guess Barbara Wilson, as farm secretary, might have been an authorised signatory on N & J Bamber Ltd? JB? JB would not have been able to access his parents' personal a/c's and/or *dispose of assets until probate was granted and that was likely to take some time with valuations required and agreements by HMRC.
*The antiques were probably the only assets that could 'disappear'.
Absolutely, it was up to him to spend his money how he wanted and I do believe people grieve in different ways. But when you claim he only sold the antiques and personal effects to meet the costs of the funerals and inheritance tax, the fact he he spent money like water on holidays and ostentatiously lavish meals out (he even offered to buy Julie an expensive designer dress, Julie in a crisis of conscience refused and got one from Miss Selfridge instead for about £30) makes rather a mockery of your claims that he only sold the goods to meet bills. I suppose trying to sell nude photos of Sheila to the Sun was another way to pay off the tax bill too?
-
Oh! 'Mason Doyle' was on Blue a few days ago and told Gladys off for referring to Bob Woffinden as "woof woof" @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* (typical Gladys) so I wouldn't take his reprimands too seriously!
I have no real idea whether his book is pro, anti or neutral. I was just going on this:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Book+cop+I'll+show+Bamber's+innocent.-a0337437563
Where he states:
Harrison said: "It is not for me to say Jeremy is innocent, but his conviction is unsound. There has been a miscarriage of justice, of that I'm sure."
I am sure at some stage Scipio will be putting him right @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
I would just like to add that it was you who mentioned MD's name and not me 8(0(*
-
Holly, I have said previously that you are to be commended for you blind faith in Bamber but what I cannot understand is why when everything points to his guilt and I do mean everything literally? Can you not see what happened in the Hall case and the Mrs actually married him?
Why do you believe he is innocent Holly when so many before you have been discarded by him after they have served their purpose?
-
Here's the table which shows the blood type/group of the victims along with the sample found:
ABO PGM EAP AK Hp
Nevill Bamber O PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
June Bamber A PGM1+ EAP BA AK2-1 Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Nicholas Caffell O PGM2+1+ EAP B AK1 Hp2
Sheila Caffell A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Boutflour A PGM1+ EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blood Sample A Nil EAP BA AK1 Hp2-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was told by Bridget on Blue, usually a reliable source of info., that the reason the sample found in the silencer was unable to produce a PGM reading is that once this particular enzyme leaves the body it breaks down very quickly. I wonder what the time differences were between the victims' samples being analysed at FSS and the silencer being analysed? I have always thought this is an area that should be explored further.
I noted the same thing to you. It is common to be unable to get a reading. You hard on the fact that the suppressor was not subited to police until days after the murders which is more than long enough to account for the negative reading.
In any event only the twins had a different PGM reading. But they both have HP2 yet HP2-1 was detected so they are ruled out without even needing a PGM reading.
So we are left with experts from the defense and prosecution both agreeing the blood was group A and very remote chance it was June and Nevill's mixed.
Since the chance of it being June and Nevill's is too remote to constitute reasonable doubt, you make up your own. You claim there is a reasonable likelihood that the blood and paint were planted on/in the suppressor.
Yet each time you are asked who did it, where they got the blood from, whose blood it was and how they planted it and what evidence you have to establish such details you have no response. Your sole evidence that it was tampered with and the evidence planted is the simple fact the suppressor was handed over to poice by the family and thus the family had the opportunity to tamper with it.
You have no evidence at all to establish they did tamper with it though. You failed miserably at establishing there is a reasonable likelihood it was tampered with. You have no idea who to even blame for it you just want to believe it was tampered with because you want to believe Jeremy is guilty. Notice I used the term want to believe because your demeanor suggests you don't believe it you just try to convince people including yourself that you believe it.
-
Well I guess it was up to him what he spent his money on.
I guess Barbara Wilson, as farm secretary, might have been an authorised signatory on N & J Bamber Ltd? JB? JB would not have been able to access his parents' personal a/c's and/or *dispose of assets until probate was granted and that was likely to take some time with valuations required and agreements by HMRC.
*The antiques were probably the only assets that could 'disappear'.
What a turnaround. You went from insisting he had to sell the antiques to save the money for the death taxes to admitting he sold them because they are the things that could vanish and he could use that money to fund some clubbing and extravagance.
Only since they were not of all that much value the extavagance wasn't as much as he hoped for.
I bet you are sorry you even brought this up because it enabled a new line of attack against him.
Similar to how I mentioned Rivlin bringing up things you wanted would have opened the door to more evidence against Jeremy at trial and would not have helped in the least as the theories you presented were spmashed but rather would have hurt him.
You can't deal with the blood the defense found on the first 8 baffles and niether could Rivlin the last thing he wanted was that before the jury.
-
Absolutely, it was up to him to spend his money how he wanted and I do believe people grieve in different ways. But when you claim he only sold the antiques and personal effects to meet the costs of the funerals and inheritance tax, the fact he he spent money like water on holidays and ostentatiously lavish meals out (he even offered to buy Julie an expensive designer dress, Julie in a crisis of conscience refused and got one from Miss Selfridge instead for about £30) makes rather a mockery of your claims that he only sold the goods to meet bills. I suppose trying to sell nude photos of Sheila to the Sun was another way to pay off the tax bill too?
I see the above as little more than character assassination eg "and ostentatiously lavish meals". Has anyone identified the restaurants involved so we can check them out to see how they compare. I think a regular haunt of JB's was the Caribbean Cottage at Burnham on Crouch. If so it is not exactly Kensington and Chelsea or Paris. I doubt there was much on offer at CC that was not within reach of Joe Average? Looks like it might be an Indian now.
JM might have had a crisis of conscience and opted for a £30 number from Miss Selfridge but it didn't stop her allowing JB to wine and dine her, take her away on weekend breaks/hols and accepting £400 towards a hol for a month or so after the tragedy. According to JM she knew straight away JB was responsible for WHF as JB told her "tonights the night"!
I think the less said about the Sun/journos the better. They claim they would never have published the photos and would have opted for the moral high ground 8-)(--). Don't believe that had they ever seriously been offered that they wouldn't have obtained proof even if only a tape recording and photos of the trio meeting up.
Yes I think JB wanted shot of anything he could lay his hands on to reduce the value of the estate and to help with the unexpected cost of 5 x funerals and the inheritance tax bill.
-
Holly, I have said previously that you are to be commended for you blind faith in Bamber but what I cannot understand is why when everything points to his guilt and I do mean everything literally? Can you not see what happened in the Hall case and the Mrs actually married him?
Why do you believe he is innocent Holly when so many before you have been discarded by him after they have served their purpose?
Awwww I think you are feeling protective towards me 8**8:/: Thank you.
Please be assured I will not be marrying JB. In fact I often feel quite guilty as I go months before replying to his letters. Any poster will tell you I'm not big into pm'ing.
Big difference between Bamber and Hall is that Hall had previous for violent conduct not so for JB.
I don't believe there's any reliable evidence at all which is why we have so much mud slinging. It is simply down to how individuals interpret the information.
-
I see the above as little more than character assassination eg "and ostentatiously lavish meals". Has anyone identified the restaurants involved so we can check them out to see how they compare. I think a regular haunt of JB's was the Caribbean Cottage at Burnham on Crouch. If so it is not exactly Kensington and Chelsea or Paris. I doubt there was much on offer at CC that was not within reach of Joe Average? Looks like it might be an Indian now.
JM might have had a crisis of conscience and opted for a £30 number from Miss Selfridge but it didn't stop her allowing JB to wine and dine her, take her away on weekend breaks/hols and accepting £400 towards a hol for a month or so after the tragedy. According to JM she knew straight away JB was responsible for WHF as JB told her "tonights the night"!
I think the less said about the Sun/journos the better. They claim they would never have published the photos and would have opted for the moral high ground 8-)(--). Don't believe that had they ever seriously been offered that they wouldn't have obtained proof even if only a tape recording and photos of the trio meeting up.
Yes I think JB wanted shot of anything he could lay his hands on to reduce the value of the estate and to help with the unexpected cost of 5 x funerals and the inheritance tax bill.
Character assassination? He's a convicted child killer! I hardly think mentioning that he did lead an extravagant lifestyle in the weeks after the murders is character assassination.
I'm no fan of Sun journos either. But are you denying that someone tried to sell these photos on his behalf? Even the diehards on blue try to claim it was Brett Collins who tried to broker the deal.
-
Awwww I think you are feeling protective towards me 8**8:/: Thank you.
Please be assured I will not be marrying JB. In fact I often feel quite guilty as I go months before replying to his letters. Any poster will tell you I'm not big into pm'ing.
Big difference between Bamber and Hall is that Hall had previous for violent conduct not so for JB.
I don't believe there's any reliable evidence at all which is why we have so much mud slinging. It is simply down to how individuals interpret the information.
Every criminal has a first time. Some have a violent history before that others do not. Some have a violenet history that everyone is unaware of because they were never caught. So trying to rely on the fact he hadn't been proven to be violent previously doesn't really establish anything.
Your excuses for why the evidence against JB is unreliable were all were torn to shreds on this board.
For instance you insist that nothing was suspicious about the bedroom phone being rlocated to the kitchen prior to the murders because the farm secretary said the phone bedroom was moved there routinely when the kitchen phone broke. You then claimed the kitchen cordless phone was in the shop so the bedroom phone simply replaced it. But the bedroom phone didn't replace the cordless phone you lied. The were normally 2 phones in the kitchen, a corded phone and a cordless. The corded phone was replaced by the bedroom phone. The corded phone was properly working it wasn't broken. Yet it was unplugged and hidden and the bedroom phone was plugged in the jack where it was normally plugged. The kitchen phone that wa sunplugged and hidden was touch tone. The bedroom phone that replaced it was rotary. Why would someone take a touch tone phone, replace it with a rotary phone and hide the touch tone phone so it could not be used at all? You coudl not answer that question. Instead you repeated the bogus claim that the bedroom phone replaced the cordless phone and that such was customary. You ignored the fact the touch one phone was hidden so that it had to be replaced by the bedroom phone and that there would be no valid reason for doing so. It is quite obvious the killer did this in advance because the killer intended to kill the victims in the bedroom and didn't want the victims to be able to call anyone to disclose what was transpiring or worse disclose who was perpetrating it.
This is not an example of disagreement over interpretation of the evidence. This is an example of you ignoring evidence and intentionally twisting the facts to suit your purposes. Your claim the cordless phone was replaced by the rotary bedroom phone is absolutely false. It replaced a perfectly working touch tone phone that was unplugged and hidden for no valid reason.
What about the blood and paint on/in the suppressor? You created a number of bogus assertions to justify your claim the blood was planted. You invented the fiction that tissue would have to be present in the blood in order for it to be back spatter even though that is far from the truth and tissue often doesn't acocmpany blood. Whether it is likely to or not is a function of the location of the wound among other variables. You also invented the fiction that the location of the wound in question would be unlikely to result in back spatter though the expert in the case testified to the contrary. The expert testified the location was virtually certain to result in back spatter and that there would be blood in the rifle if it had been used without the suppressor. The expert in the case also determined the fatal wound was either a contact wound or within 2mm of the throat. You ignored that and keep asserting the fiction that the fatal shot was fired from a distance and there would not be any back spatte rint he suppressor or muzzle. You have no evidentiary basis for any of these asserions you just make up things to suit your agenda. That is not a disagreement over interpretation of evidence. It is an example of you ignoring evidence and facts and simply making up bogus facts that suit you.
The bottom line is that you have no valid basis to assert the blood evidence and paint were planted. You don't believe it was planted because you interpret the evidence differently. You simply decided to blindly believe he is innocent and that means it must have been planted and try to make up bogus excuses to prove it was planted.
You don't even have a specific person in mind for the planting though. You were reapetedly asked who you believe planted the blood, where the blood came from, whose blood it is and how it was planted. You have no theory as to any of these. You just blindly say someone planted it because he is innocent.
That is not a disagreement over interpretation of evidence it is you ignoring evidence because it refutes what you want to believe.
What evidence do you have that supports your assertion that:
1) Sheila knew how to lock and load the gun and how to operate it.
2) Even though there was a full box of bullets right next to the gun when she retreived it, she went to the gun closet and took 5-8 bullets into the kitchen to leave with the other bullets.
3) Though Sheila was on her medication and docile before going to bed, Sheila went into a rage and woke up her parents between 2 and 3AM screaming at them while waiving a gun in her hands
4) Instead of disarming her Nevill went to the kitchen and phoned Jeremy to ask him to come disarm her whicke would take at least 5 minutes for him to arrive if not longer becaus ehe would need to dress before leaving to drive there.
5) She took the phone from Nevill's hand and hung it up then ordered him upstairs back to the bedroom because she wanted to shoot him there instead of the kitchen
6) Though she was extremely close to him and he could have tried to take the gun away, instead of disarming her like he wanted Jeremy to come do, he simply marched up the bedroom
7) Sheila doesn't stand int he doorway of the bedroom but rather goes all the way inside so that her parents have open access to the bedroom door. They race to the door and she opens fire. June is disabeled but Nevill escapes and runs back to the kitchen.
8) Nevill passes out in the kitchen and knocks a chair over as he collapses but instead of shooting him she then beats his limp body even bashing his arm so that it looks like he has defensive wounds and tried to defend himself. She breaks the rifle stock she hits him so hard but the stock doesn't leave a scratch on her hand.
9) She then shoots him several more times in the head killing him.
10) She goes back upstairs to finish off June and kill her boys.
11) She washes and changes her clothes
12) She kills herself
What evidence is there to support your account?
Note how you ignore the phone preplanning completely.
If this were true the gun was used without the suppressor and she was running around screaming first then why didn't the boys wake?
If they were shot first then Nevill would have noted such on the phone.
If she were out of control why would she take the phone and hang it up instead of shooting him?
If she were out of control why would she march him to the bedroom instead of shooting him in the kitchen?
Why would she march him to the bedroom then go all the way inside so his parents had access to the door while she was on the other side of the room facing them?
Why would Nevill never try to disarm her but expect Jeremy to come do it? Especially with the doors locked so Jeremy could not evne get in. Why wait 5-10 minutes or even longer for someone to try to disarm her?
The evidence proves the phone was never hung up as Jeremy claimed.
The evidence proves the killer planned in advance and was carried out in cold and calculated manner, not by someone out of control.
What would set her off while everyone was sleeping anyway?
The evidence proves the killer started shooting in the master bedroom while the parents were still in bed. Nevill only ran down to the kitchen a single time and had already been wounded and unable to speak by that time.
The evidence proves the gun had a suppressor attached when Sheila's fatal shot was delivered because there was no matter of any kind in the muzzle and there would have been.
The evidence proves the particualar suppressor used is the one with the blood/paint.
There is no evidence that Sheila changed her clothing and took a bath nor is there any reason she would do so. You had to misrepresent the facts of another case falsely claiming a killer washed his car after murdering his family but prior to committing suicide to try to pretend there was a way. The only clothing soaking was underwear and leggings not any blouses or nightgowns. There is nothing to suggest Sheila changed her clothing and that clothing had no evidence at all of any gunshot residue. She allegedly hugged the rifle to kill herself and still not a shred of GSR. There would have to be some if she fired 2 shots in such manner and certainly if she fired 25 total.
The evidence proves there was in fact a struggle in the kitchen and that the light was broken by the rifle having the suppressor attached because it would have been too short otherwise.
There is a whole lot more evidence including Julie's claims and Jeremy's actions which make no sense.
You simply ignore it all and make up excuses, you are not interpreting the evidence differently you choose not to believe any of the evidence though you have no valid reason for not believing it and instead make up your own facts that have no evidentiary basis at all.
So at the end of the day you are guilty as charged. You have blind faith in Jeremy for no reason you can justify on the basis of evidence and known facts. The lack of any basis for your beliefs is why it is called blind faith.
-
Tell me Holly, what is the one main factor which for you points to a miscarriage of justice in the Bamber case?
-
Character assassination? He's a convicted child killer! I hardly think mentioning that he did lead an extravagant lifestyle in the weeks after the murders is character assassination.
I'm no fan of Sun journos either. But are you denying that someone tried to sell these photos on his behalf? Even the diehards on blue try to claim it was Brett Collins who tried to broker the deal.
Yes I fully accept that in the eyes of the law JB is a mass murderer/child killer. My view is that a system, in this case the judicial, can call it wrong. An analogy might be the financial system pre global financial crisis Sep/Oct 2008. Prior to the trial I think JB suffered a character assassination:
- bully at school/broke a pupil's arm
- lazy
- greedy
- sexually promiscuous
- bisexual
- wore make-up
- was a b........ ie illegitimate
- didn't grieve appropriately in the eyes of others eg Barbara Wilson
- didn't attend young farmers club
- drove his cars fast
- was arrogant
- was cocky
- hated his parents/SC/the twins
In my opinion I find the above either benign or I simply don't believe the statements to be true. I believe JB to be a regular main stream guy with good and bad points like all of us. I do not believe he has 'a side' or that there's anything whatsoever sinister about him.
Your words "he did lead an extravagant lifestyle in the weeks after the murders" are subjective. What are we comparing it with? How do we know if any of it is true and accurate? Even if true and accurate doesn't make him a murderer. It was his money he earned from working at WHF to spend as he saw fit. He was a young guy from a middle class background and had surplus income in his pocket. His accommodation, fully expensed car and phone were paid for as part of his package for working at WHF. He probably had most of his meals at WHF too. He would not have had access to his parent's estate for many months after meeting the inheritance tax bill and probate being granted.
-
Tell me Holly, what is the one main factor which for you points to a miscarriage of justice in the Bamber case?
- June's mental illness 1959 requiring in-patient psychiatric care as a result of her decision to adopt SC
- SC in all likelihood suffering neglect and an attachment disorder as a result of the above
- The psychology of adoption
- Adoption reunions
-
Character assassination? He's a convicted child killer! I hardly think mentioning that he did lead an extravagant lifestyle in the weeks after the murders is character assassination.
I'm no fan of Sun journos either. But are you denying that someone tried to sell these photos on his behalf? Even the diehards on blue try to claim it was Brett Collins who tried to broker the deal.
Sorry I missed the bit about the photos in my previous post. I must admit its not an area of the case I have spent much time mulling over as to my mind it is a moot point. I understand BC or JB or both ? approached the Sun with a view to selling some porn photos of SC? A meeting was arranged between Michael Fielder, BC and JB? At some stage The Sun decided to take the moral high ground and reject the offer? Perhaps others can fill me in on the details of what supposedly took place?
-
Yes I fully accept that in the eyes of the law JB is a mass murderer/child killer. My view is that a system, in this case the judicial, can call it wrong. An analogy might be the financial system pre global financial crisis Sep/Oct 2008. Prior to the trial I think JB suffered a character assassination:
- bully at school/broke a pupil's arm
- lazy
- greedy
- sexually promiscuous
- bisexual
- wore make-up
- was a b........ ie illegitimate
- didn't grieve appropriately in the eyes of others eg Barbara Wilson
- didn't attend young farmers club
- drove his cars fast
- was arrogant
- was cocky
- hated his parents/SC/the twins
In my opinion I find the above either benign or I simply don't believe the statements to be true. I believe JB to be a regular main stream guy with good and bad points like all of us. I do not believe he has 'a side' or that there's anything whatsoever sinister about him.
Your words "he did lead an extravagant lifestyle in the weeks after the murders" are subjective. What are we comparing it with? How do we know if any of it is true and accurate? Even if true and accurate doesn't make him a murderer. It was his money he earned from working at WHF to spend as he saw fit. He was a young guy from a middle class background and had surplus income in his pocket. His accommodation, fully expensed car and phone were paid for as part of his package for working at WHF. He probably had most of his meals at WHF too. He would not have had access to his parent's estate for many months after meeting the inheritance tax bill and probate being granted.
What about his income from cannabis cultivation and selling? Was that subjective too Holls? @)(++(*
-
- June's mental illness 1959 requiring in-patient psychiatric care as a result of her decision to adopt SC
- SC in all likelihood suffering neglect and an attachment disorder as a result of the above
- The psychology of adoption
- Adoption reunions
So Jeremy is innocent because June and Sheila had mental health problems? Wow!!! That must be a first.
-
Sorry I missed the bit about the photos in my previous post. I must admit its not an area of the case I have spent much time mulling over as to my mind it is a moot point. I understand BC or JB or both ? approached the Sun with a view to selling some porn photos of SC? A meeting was arranged between Michael Fielder, BC and JB? At some stage The Sun decided to take the moral high ground and reject the offer? Perhaps others can fill me in on the details of what supposedly took place?
That's about right, the newspaper took the view that there was more mileage in the fact that Jeremy was trying to flog pictures of his sister than there was in the pictures on their own. Do you find his actions despicable Holls?
-
That's about right, the newspaper took the view that there was more mileage in the fact that Jeremy was trying to flog pictures of his sister than there was in the pictures on their own. Do you find his actions despicable Holls?
Are these the photos that SC had taken in a friend's garden by an Australian photographer? Once they were developed she realised she had misjudged and asked for the photos/negs back? I don't understand why she wouldn't have destroyed them? Why would she want them hanging around? Anyway in answer to your question if the photos were of a pornographic nature and if the story is true then yes I think JB also misjudged. If the photos amounted to glamour modelling then I guess the acid test might be would SC have wanted them in the public domain?
The important thing for me in all of this is we have an adoptee ie SC who came from a birth family of academics and intellectuals. Who grew up in a middle class adoptive family home with all the advantages eg fee paying education and yet:
- expelled from school twice
- teenage pregnancies
- underachieved at school
- sacked from her job as trainee hairdresser
- married young which lasted only 2/3 years
- post-natal depression - difficulty bonding with own children
- misuse of recreational drugs
- struggled to find paid employment and resorted to the above, which she regretted, and waitressing in a restaurant called School Dinners which by all accounts she hated
- low self-esteem
- serious mental illness
Imo all of the above were brought on by her early start in life:
Attachment disorder
http://www.attachmentexperts.com/whatisattachment.html
Neglect as a result of June's mental illness circa 1959 as a result of adopting SC
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp12/
SC should have been removed from the Bamber's care and they should have been prevented from adopting any further children.
-
What about his income from cannabis cultivation and selling? Was that subjective too Holls? @)(++(*
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/paul-mccartney-busted-growing-pot/
Sir Paul McCartney grew and until recently smoked weed regularly. He is probably one of the most peace loving individuals every to walk the planet.
-
So Jeremy is innocent because June and Sheila had mental health problems? Wow!!! That must be a first.
I don't believe June and SC's mental health problems were mutually exclusive.
Really need the likes of Allan Schore and David Brodinsky to review the case histories of June and SC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Schore
http://www.fmhconsultants.com/about-david/
Anyway its Friday and I feel the pub calling ?{)(**
-
So Jeremy is innocent because June and Sheila had mental health problems? Wow!!! That must be a first.
That's what Jeremy hoped people would believe. Instead of staging a break in and murdering them he tried to frame his sister.
Of course the evidence proves otherwise. Holly doesn't care about evidence she has demonstrated that she operates on blind faith alone. She ignores the evidence and declares he is innocent no matter what.
She does understand that others care about the evidence though so she has made up a number of distortions to try to convince people to be like her and ignore the evidence. Things like asserting there was no struggle in the kitchen, Nevill simply passed out and knocked things over as he fell so there was no reason for Sheila to get any hair out of place let alone receive any scratches during a struggle. or claiming a neck wound from a 22LR can't cause back spatter and back spatter has to include tissue. Also claiming Sheila's fatal wound was not a contact or near contact shot though that was the assessment of the experts who examined her body and their assessment to this day is uncontested. These are all completely made up by her to try to convince others to not look at evidence at all and just take a blind leap of faith.
John asked her what the single most important thing is that convinces her of his innocence. She can't identify anything though it is just blind faith. At the end of the day she is living in denial or at least not willing to admit he did it to others. Her deceptions indicate she knows he is guilty but simply doesn't want to admit it to others.
At this point she knows her distortions have failed and are totally unjustifiable so she refuses to discuss the evidentiary details anylonger. Now she is busy concentrating on the periphery to avoid discussion of the damning evidence of JB's guilt.
In order for JB to be innocent, among other things someone had to plant the blood and paint on/in the suppressor. She was repeatedly challenged as whether she believes such occurred and she eventually responded yes in a round about way. She said she doesn't believe the suppressor left the closet the night of the murders and kept saying that it was found days later in the possession of the cousins so it was unreliable. Her insinuation is that the cousins tampered with it but she offers no explanation as to who or how.
I asked her repeatedly who does she believe planted the blood, whose blood did they use, how did they know Sheila's blood type if they didn't use her blood, how did they obtain the blood, what did they use to deposit the blood so thoroughly and dispersed that it would be found by the defense on the first 8 baffles after the prosecution already had cleaned all visible blood from it and what evidence does she have to support her beliefs.
She won't posit an answer to any of these. She has not a shred of evidence the blood was planted so can't respond. She simply insists he is innocent therefore it must have been planed by someone.
The only thing she ever says is that it is unreliable because it was in the possession of the cousins before police. That's not enough though you need to establish there is a likelihood it was tampered with based on evidence. She has none though.
She makes a big deal that Boutflour had the same blood type but can't prove they likely knew Sheila's blood type before they handed the suppressor over let alone that someone cut him and planted his blood. Nor does she have any clue of how they could have planted it so thoroughly and dispersed.
This isn't the case of a drip of blood is at issue or simply a flake of blood. The blood was dispersed onto 8 baffles according to the defense expert not the prosecution.
This isn't a case where the family would have had access to Sheila's blood. The only blood they could have planted was someone else's but most people don't even know their own blood type let alone anyone else's. There is no evidence RB knew his own blood type let alone Sheila's. Dripping a little blood in the hole would not splash the first 8 baffles. In addition, the wound in question was virtually certain to result in back spatter inside the muzzle of the weapon yet none was found which means most likely a suppressor was attached. The suppressor had her blood type dispersed as would be expected if it were attached. All of these things factor into the likelihood of evidence being planted as opposed to depositing there during the murders.
There is no evidence that JB was framed by police or his relatives or didn't have a fair trial, his lawyers did what they could. There was more than enough evidence to convict him beyond a reas onable doubt. Holly just wants everyone to ignore that evidence and the lack of evidence that Sheila did anything except die at the hands of someone else and based on Jeremy knowing about the murders before anyone saw the bodies, profiting from the murders and Julie's testimony that this was long in the making it had to be his hands.
Holly will never admit he did it but her inability to refute the evidence against him means she has no basis for her assertion he is innocent and it amounts to blind faith at best (deciding to believe he is innocent no matte rwhat and living in denial), or stubborness at worst (to stubborn to admit he killed them though she knows he did).
-
I don't believe June and SC's mental health problems were mutually exclusive.
Really need the likes of Allan Schore and David Brodinsky to review the case histories of June and SC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Schore
http://www.fmhconsultants.com/about-david/
Anyway its Friday and I feel the pub calling ?{)(**
You need to prove Sheila committed the murders and then killed herself and that she did so as a result of her mental problems inspite of being on her medication. You are hampered by Jeremy's own claims.
There is not one shred of evidence to support his claim that she killed them.
Jeremy claims he received a phone call from his father who said Sheila was going crazy and got a hold of a gun so he wanted Jeremy to come disarm her.
Going crazy means irrationally and erractically running around screaming and being threatening- things of that sort. She supposedly had a gun in her hand as she was causing this commotion. Earlier in the evening she was very docile and calm so her medicine was working. They went to bed so there was no way they could agitate her. What prompted her to become agitated at 3AM while everyone was asleep in spite of being on medication that had been working?
If she did become agitated and make the commotion alleged then she would have woke up the whole house. Similarly firing an unsuppressed weapon would wake up anyone who had not already been awakened by her antics. Was everyone awake? No the boys were shot in a sound sleep.
So the timing for her to have an episode makes no sense at all (a crazy person wakes up and has an episode in the middle of the night with no one doing anything to her while on medication that kept her docile only hours earlier) nor does it accord that she could make a racket without waking up the boys.
Nor does it make sense that she would make a big commotion in her parent's bedroom, wake them up and simply make threats permitting Nevill to run to the kitchen to use the phone. If she were in a crazy rage and wanted to kill them then she would have went into their room and shot them. It makes no sense for her to make a racket and for Nevill to then go downstairs to use the phone.
Nor does it make sense that Nevill would go downstairs, phone Jeremy and ask him to come disarm Sheila. If Nevill felt that threatened by her then there would be a pressing need to disarm her right away. If he could wait 5-10 minutes for Jeremy to arrive then it can't have been that urgent. Why would he need Jeremy at all? He was big enough to disarm her himself. Instead of disarming her you claim he presents a nice stationary target by making a phone call in front of her.
Instead of shooting him right then and there you claim she grabbed the phone, hung it up (he didn't use that opportunity to disarm her) and marched him upstairs to the bedroom to shoot him and his mother together.
That doesn't sound consistent with someone who is in a crazy rage to me. That would be consistent with someone in full control who made the decision to kill them in the bedroom to make it appear they were sleeping and then shot in bed. Why would a crazy person need it to appear they had been shot in bed? Moroever, it that was her intention why would she march in their room, neglect to shoot the immediately and instead make a racket and permit Nevill to get out of bed and go downstairs?
Why didn't she block the door moreover? She marches in, makes a ton of noise and stands far from the door so they can run out if they want? That makes sense?
Why wasn't Nevill scared to run down stairs but marched back up because he was scared?
Nevill's supposed actions make no sense at all nor does any of this accord with a crazy person in a rage.
Removing the bedroom phone in advance also is not consistent with Sheila suddenly becoming agitated in th emiddle of the night. The killer unplug the kichen phone, hid it and replaced it with the bedroom phone. That means the killer decided in advance to kill the parents in their bedroom as they were sleeping. This is not consistent with the claim of someone suddenly going into acrazy rage in the middle of the night.
It gets worse though, there is substantial evidence the scene was staged.
Jerey claims he left a box of bullets and the gun in a particular location before leaving the house. Jeremy claims this box was either full or only missing 2-3 rounds. The bullets were found in that exact location thus Sheila did not move them. This box is where Sheila got the ammo from that she used supposedly. But the box had 30 rounds in it and even if it had been full there should only be 25 rounds in it. If not full then even fewer rounds should be there. This makes it impossible for all the bullets used to have come from this box. Sheila would have to have gone to the closet and taken out 5-8 rounds from the ammo bandolier. Next to this ammo bandolier was the suppressor interestingly. So she supposedly used 17-20 rounds from the box of ammo and went into the closet and got another 5-8 rounds to use for the murders. Why would she get 5-8 rounds when there were still 30 rounds left in the box she had been using? It makes no sense. Nor does it make sense the killer would march downstairs multiple times to reload. A killer aware of the ammo bandolier would have worn it so that reloading could take place immediately without having to run to another room.
Why would the killer take a few rounds from the bandolier just and leave it in the closet? Quite clearly the killer used the bandolier. The box of ammo was placed int he kitchen as a farce. Who placed that box in the kitchen? By his own admission it was Jeremy.
Moreover there is a host of evidence that the suppressor had been used in commission of the murders. The ceiling light was broken by the suppressor, the mantle was scratched by it during the course of the struggle with Nevill and it had back spatter proving it had been attached while Sheila was shot.
The suppressor and ammo bandolier were placed side by side in the closet after the murders.
Jeremy claimed the phone went dead because it was hung up on the other end but in fact it had not been hung up. It was left off the hook the call had been abandoned by Jeremy on the other end. So this conflicts with his claim.
Jeremy pretended his father called him though in fact he dialed his own number, left the phone off the hook so it would keep dialing as he wa sin transit home and answered the other end when he arrived home. He hung up the phone and his end cleared after 1-2 minutes so he could use his phone again. But the phone at WHF remained off the hook because no one was there to hang it up.
He didn't want to arrive back before police so didn't go back and hang it up though in hindsight he could have done so without any difficulty.
But he didn't so a crucial clue revealed how he was able to place the call to himself.
Sheila allegedly fired 25 shots but had no GSR on her clothing or hands. There is no evidence she changed her clothign she was still in her nightgown. She supposedly hugged the rifle and fired it 2 times yet no GSR on her clothing at all let alone hands. Worse yet she supposedly fired the 2nd shot after she was already dead. Aside from the fact nothing can account for her pushing a trigger down before she was already dead, the recoil of the rifle would have made it go up not down so a second shot if it had been possible would have been higher not lower.
Jeremy's own actions after allegedly receiving the call including refusing to go to investigate from outside and not pressing police to go inside but instead lying about his sister's proficiency with guns and all the lies he told under questioning make no sense unless he is the killer.
Then there are Julie's detailed claims that would be difficult to simply make up in such great detail.
There is nothing at all consistent with Sheila going crazy and killing the family and then herself. The evidence leaves no quesiton as to the killer.
You are trying to divert attention formt he murders with talk only about metnal health not the actual course of event the night in question.
Others might let you get away with such but I will not.
-
You need to prove Sheila committed the murders and then killed herself and that she did so as a result of her mental problems inspite of being on her medication. You are hampered by Jeremy's own claims.
There is not one shred of evidence to support his claim that she killed them.
Jeremy claims he received a phone call from his father who said Sheila was going crazy and got a hold of a gun so he wanted Jeremy to come disarm her.
Going crazy means irrationally and erractically running around screaming and being threatening- things of that sort. She supposedly had a gun in her hand as she was causing this commotion. Earlier in the evening she was very docile and calm so her medicine was working. They went to bed so there was no way they could agitate her. What prompted her to become agitated at 3AM while everyone was asleep in spite of being on medication that had been working?
If she did become agitated and make the commotion alleged then she would have woke up the whole house. Similarly firing an unsuppressed weapon would wake up anyone who had not already been awakened by her antics. Was everyone awake? No the boys were shot in a sound sleep.
So the timing for her to have an episode makes no sense at all (a crazy person wakes up and has an episode in the middle of the night with no one doing anything to her while on medication that kept her docile only hours earlier) nor does it accord that she could make a racket without waking up the boys.
Nor does it make sense that she would make a big commotion in her parent's bedroom, wake them up and simply make threats permitting Nevill to run to the kitchen to use the phone. If she were in a crazy rage and wanted to kill them then she would have went into their room and shot them. It makes no sense for her to make a racket and for Nevill to then go downstairs to use the phone.
Nor does it make sense that Nevill would go downstairs, phone Jeremy and ask him to come disarm Sheila. If Nevill felt that threatened by her then there would be a pressing need to disarm her right away. If he could wait 5-10 minutes for Jeremy to arrive then it can't have been that urgent. Why would he need Jeremy at all? He was big enough to disarm her himself. Instead of disarming her you claim he presents a nice stationary target by making a phone call in front of her.
Instead of shooting him right then and there you claim she grabbed the phone, hung it up (he didn't use that opportunity to disarm her) and marched him upstairs to the bedroom to shoot him and his mother together.
That doesn't sound consistent with someone who is in a crazy rage to me. That would be consistent with someone in full control who made the decision to kill them in the bedroom to make it appear they were sleeping and then shot in bed. Why would a crazy person need it to appear they had been shot in bed? Moroever, it that was her intention why would she march in their room, neglect to shoot the immediately and instead make a racket and permit Nevill to get out of bed and go downstairs?
Why didn't she block the door moreover? She marches in, makes a ton of noise and stands far from the door so they can run out if they want? That makes sense?
Why wasn't Nevill scared to run down stairs but marched back up because he was scared?
Nevill's supposed actions make no sense at all nor does any of this accord with a crazy person in a rage.
Removing the bedroom phone in advance also is not consistent with Sheila suddenly becoming agitated in th emiddle of the night. The killer unplug the kichen phone, hid it and replaced it with the bedroom phone. That means the killer decided in advance to kill the parents in their bedroom as they were sleeping. This is not consistent with the claim of someone suddenly going into acrazy rage in the middle of the night.
It gets worse though, there is substantial evidence the scene was staged.
Jerey claims he left a box of bullets and the gun in a particular location before leaving the house. Jeremy claims this box was either full or only missing 2-3 rounds. The bullets were found in that exact location thus Sheila did not move them. This box is where Sheila got the ammo from that she used supposedly. But the box had 30 rounds in it and even if it had been full there should only be 25 rounds in it. If not full then even fewer rounds should be there. This makes it impossible for all the bullets used to have come from this box. Sheila would have to have gone to the closet and taken out 5-8 rounds from the ammo bandolier. Next to this ammo bandolier was the suppressor interestingly. So she supposedly used 17-20 rounds from the box of ammo and went into the closet and got another 5-8 rounds to use for the murders. Why would she get 5-8 rounds when there were still 30 rounds left in the box she had been using? It makes no sense. Nor does it make sense the killer would march downstairs multiple times to reload. A killer aware of the ammo bandolier would have worn it so that reloading could take place immediately without having to run to another room.
Why would the killer take a few rounds from the bandolier just and leave it in the closet? Quite clearly the killer used the bandolier. The box of ammo was placed int he kitchen as a farce. Who placed that box in the kitchen? By his own admission it was Jeremy.
Moreover there is a host of evidence that the suppressor had been used in commission of the murders. The ceiling light was broken by the suppressor, the mantle was scratched by it during the course of the struggle with Nevill and it had back spatter proving it had been attached while Sheila was shot.
The suppressor and ammo bandolier were placed side by side in the closet after the murders.
Jeremy claimed the phone went dead because it was hung up on the other end but in fact it had not been hung up. It was left off the hook the call had been abandoned by Jeremy on the other end. So this conflicts with his claim.
Jeremy pretended his father called him though in fact he dialed his own number, left the phone off the hook so it would keep dialing as he wa sin transit home and answered the other end when he arrived home. He hung up the phone and his end cleared after 1-2 minutes so he could use his phone again. But the phone at WHF remained off the hook because no one was there to hang it up.
He didn't want to arrive back before police so didn't go back and hang it up though in hindsight he could have done so without any difficulty.
But he didn't so a crucial clue revealed how he was able to place the call to himself.
Sheila allegedly fired 25 shots but had no GSR on her clothing or hands. There is no evidence she changed her clothign she was still in her nightgown. She supposedly hugged the rifle and fired it 2 times yet no GSR on her clothing at all let alone hands. Worse yet she supposedly fired the 2nd shot after she was already dead. Aside from the fact nothing can account for her pushing a trigger down before she was already dead, the recoil of the rifle would have made it go up not down so a second shot if it had been possible would have been higher not lower.
Jeremy's own actions after allegedly receiving the call including refusing to go to investigate from outside and not pressing police to go inside but instead lying about his sister's proficiency with guns and all the lies he told under questioning make no sense unless he is the killer.
Then there are Julie's detailed claims that would be difficult to simply make up in such great detail.
There is nothing at all consistent with Sheila going crazy and killing the family and then herself. The evidence leaves no quesiton as to the killer.
You are trying to divert attention formt he murders with talk only about metnal health not the actual course of event the night in question.
Others might let you get away with such but I will not.
We'll see who gets away with what when I'm a mod ?>)()<...... 8(0(* @)(++(*
Anyway going back to the thread title I just had a thought 8-)(--) I wonder if the book, to be released in Australia and Canada on 15th April, has been timed to coincide with the Royal visit >@@(*&) Prince William and Kate are due on a tour of New Zealand and Australia. They arrive in Australia on 16th for 10 days. I am sure the Aussies will be fascinated to learn that SC's birth grandfather, Rev Eric G Jay, took part in the Queen's coronation >@@(*&) AND JB's birth father, Major Leslie Marsham, who was a member of the Royal Household and announced the arrival of Prince Harry, now resides in a mews house near Hampton Court Palace which was supposedly a gift from the Queen >@@(*&)
Confirmation of JB's birth father
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/He+went+to+lovely+people+who+gave+him+the+best+start+in+life.+He...-a0112751004
See clip 8 re JB's birth father announcing the arrival of Prince Harry
http://www.itnsource.com/en/compilations/people/royal-family/lr/S07020701/Princes-Footage/
Cofirmation of SC's birth grandfather's role in Queens coronation
See section under "The Archbishops and Lord Chancellor" Rev Eric G Jay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_participants_in_Queen_Elizabeth_II_coronation_procession
-
Hi Holly. You place far too much emphasis on the adoption of Sheila and Jb.
It was down to greed and impatience, had Bamber waited he would, in time, got his inheritance.
-
Hi Holly. You place far too much emphasis on the adoption of Sheila and Jb.
It was down to greed and impatience, had Bamber waited he would, in time, got his inheritance.
8-)(--) I don't think I've explained myself very well 8-)(--) So for another of my boring adoption themed posts 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( Bet you are already beginning to regret ever mentioning it now 8)><( 8)><( 8)><(
Dr David Kirschner in his book 'Adoption: Uncharted Waters' states the following:
"Although only a subset of adoptees are at risk for clinical problems, and just a small percent of these are prone to violence, we can learn much from the few who kill." - David Kirschner, Adoption: Uncharted Waters"
http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/aboutthebook.php
I think most psychologists/psychiatrists who practice in the area of adoption agree that there is a psychology peculiar to adoptees. Specifically 'closed' adoptions as opposed to 'open' adoptions. All the studies show that adoptees are at greater risk of emotional, behavioural and mental health problems than their non adopted peers. And that the reason for this is due to the psychology peculiar to 'closed' adoptions. Most will develop coping mechanisms to deal with it either consciously, sub-consciously or both. However when I look at the case of SC I see aspects that are off the Richter scale:
- separation from birth mother at around 2 weeks of age
- arrives in nursery for several weeks until collected by NB and June
- June then becomes depressed so much that she requires in-patient psychiatric care. Dr Ferguson (F) states in his witness statement that the reason for her depression was due to her decision to adopt.
- SC is then looked after by a.n other ? whilst June is in hospital
- SC eventually back with June when she is discharged from the psychiatric hospital
Psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience and paediatrics have moved on leaps and bounds since 1985/86. My view is that anyone would be hard pressed to find a suitably qualified person to confirm that the above is unlikely to have had little or no impact on SC.
It is very likely that SC formed insecure attachments. See 'attachment disorder' link below and we can see many issues that SC was plagued by:
http://www.attachmentexperts.com/whatisattachment.html
It is likely that SC experienced some neglect as June's mental health started to deteriorate:
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp12/
I think many people might have some difficulty in seeing a middle class, well intentioned woman like June neglecting a child but mental health knows no boundaries. It is neglect in the sense of being unresponsiveness.
See the adverse affects of maternal depression too:
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp8/
I know lots of women suffer with post-natal depression but I think June's depression was more serious than this. Hence the need for in-patient psychiatric care and ECT treatment. Also SC had numerous separations and loss of 'genetic mirroring'. Plus at the age of 8 she was bundled off to boarding school. Yes JB was also bundled off to boarding school but his early start to life was not nearly as disruptive as SC's was. Sad to say I think the key to WHF is June's mental illness circa '59.
When deciding SC v JB I have to take into account my knowledge of the above and off-set it against JB's psychological profile:
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
It is often said that JB was/is a psychopath, even though all the professionals that have assessed him have never identified any trace of psychopathy, personality disorder or mental illness.
A psychopath is typically an individual with no or low empathy. If you care to look at the 'attachment' link above you will see that a feature of an 'attachment disorder' is low empathy.
When I look at all the other so-called evidence eg phones, guns, ammo, injuries/gunshots to victims, silencer etc, etc I find it all unreliable. When I look at the above I see JB as a victim of a MoJ. Without my knowledge of the above I would very much be on the fence. Knowing what I know about the above causes me to have a different starting point and then to look at other aspects differently.
Perhaps as puglove said I'm just off the wall 8-)(--) @)(++(*
Hope you're not going to tell me off Andrea for not being straightforward in your no nonsense forthright Yorkshire style 8(0(*
PS Just forgot to add we know SC paid attention to the fact she was adopted etc hence the renuion with her birth mother some weeks before the tragedy.
-
8-)(--) I don't think I've explained myself very well 8-)(--) So for another of my boring adoption themed posts 8)><( 8)><( 8)><( Bet you are already beginning to regret ever mentioning it now 8)><( 8)><( 8)><(
Dr David Kirschner in his book 'Adoption: Uncharted Waters' states the following:
"Although only a subset of adoptees are at risk for clinical problems, and just a small percent of these are prone to violence, we can learn much from the few who kill." - David Kirschner, Adoption: Uncharted Waters"
http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/aboutthebook.php
I think most psychologists/psychiatrists who practice in the area of adoption agree that there is a psychology peculiar to adoptees. Specifically 'closed' adoptions as opposed to 'open' adoptions. All the studies show that adoptees are at greater risk of emotional, behavioural and mental health problems than their non adopted peers. And that the reason for this is due to the psychology peculiar to 'closed' adoptions. Most will develop coping mechanisms to deal with it either consciously, sub-consciously or both. However when I look at the case of SC I see aspects that are off the Richter scale:
- separation from birth mother at around 2 weeks of age
- arrives in nursery for several weeks until collected by NB and June
- June then becomes depressed so much that she requires in-patient psychiatric care. Dr Ferguson (F) states in his witness statement that the reason for her depression was due to her decision to adopt.
- SC is then looked after by a.n other ? whilst June is in hospital
- SC eventually back with June when she is discharged from the psychiatric hospital
Psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience and paediatrics have moved on leaps and bounds since 1985/86. My view is that anyone would be hard pressed to find a suitably qualified person to confirm that the above is unlikely to have had little or no impact on SC.
It is very likely that SC formed insecure attachments. See 'attachment disorder' link below and we can see many issues that SC was plagued by:
http://www.attachmentexperts.com/whatisattachment.html
It is likely that SC experienced some neglect as June's mental health started to deteriorate:
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp12/
I think many people might have some difficulty in seeing a middle class, well intentioned woman like June neglecting a child but mental health knows no boundaries. It is neglect in the sense of being unresponsiveness.
See the adverse affects of maternal depression too:
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp8/
I know lots of women suffer with post-natal depression but I think June's depression was more serious than this. Hence the need for in-patient psychiatric care and ECT treatment. Also SC had numerous separations and loss of 'genetic mirroring'. Plus at the age of 8 she was bundled off to boarding school. Yes JB was also bundled off to boarding school but his early start to life was not nearly as disruptive as SC's was. Sad to say I think the key to WHF is June's mental illness circa '59.
When deciding SC v JB I have to take into account my knowledge of the above and off-set it against JB's psychological profile:
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
It is often said that JB was/is a psychopath, even though all the professionals that have assessed him have never identified any trace of psychopathy, personality disorder or mental illness.
A psychopath is typically an individual with no or low empathy. If you care to look at the 'attachment' link above you will see that a feature of an 'attachment disorder' is low empathy.
When I look at all the other so-called evidence eg phones, guns, ammo, injuries/gunshots to victims, silencer etc, etc I find it all unreliable. When I look at the above I see JB as a victim of a MoJ. Without my knowledge of the above I would very much be on the fence. Knowing what I know about the above causes me to have a different starting point and then to look at other aspects differently.
Perhaps as puglove said I'm just off the wall 8-)(--) @)(++(*
Hope you're not going to tell me off Andrea for not being straightforward in your no nonsense forthright Yorkshire style 8(0(*
PS Just forgot to add we know SC paid attention to the fact she was adopted etc hence the renuion with her birth mother some weeks before the tragedy.
All you have done is try to deflect from the evidence relevant to the case because that evidence proves your pen pal Jeremy is guilty of murder.
You have done a poor job of demonstrating Sheila's adoption caused her mental problems. But that is not even pertinent to the case.
Jus tproving someone had mental problems is not enough. If you claim someone is crazy, had a psychotic episode and then killed someone during the course of such episode you have to prove they had a psychotic episode and killed someone during it.
You keep ignoring these requirements because the murders in question are not consistent with such.
You keep claiming Nevill ran to the kitchen to use the phone not once but twice. If he ran to use the phone after being shot then Jeremy is for sure guilty. So you invented the fable that he ran to the kitchen before he was shot and after.
So we are supposed to believe:
1) A perfectly working touchtone phone was unplugged, hidden and replaced by the bedroom dial phone for a valid reason though you can't come up with one other than claiming it was broken though it wasn't broken it was working fine and claiming it is sheer coincidence this perfectly good phone was hidden and replaced before murders that started in the bedroom where the phone was removed from
2) Sheila was nice and calm around 10PM. Why would she have a psychotic episode after everyone was sleeping? What would set her off in bed with everyone else asleep?
3) Sheila went crazy, marched into her parent's room screaming about how she was going to kill them but didn't open fire yet. Nevill decided that instead of trying to disarm her immediately himself he would phone Jeremy and ask Jeremy to come over to disarm her which would tkae at least 5-10 minutes before he could arrive. Nonetheless he decided to risk being shot at and got up and ran down to the kitchen to use the phone while June stayed in bed. Sheila was in a crazy frenzy but didn't shoot at him as he ran down or even shoot him in the kitchen as he picked up the phone.
3) He was even able to dial and speak for a while before she knocked the phone from his hand. Though in a frenzy she still didn't shoot she decided to kill him in bed for some reason. She ordered him back upstairs and though he wasn't afraid to run away from her while in the bedroom now he was scared and obeyed her every command.
4) He got back in bed and this time she opened fire. Even though he had nothing to lose in trying to disarm her since she had already opened fire he again chose to run to the phone instead of trying to disarm her. So he got up again and ran back downstairs. June tried to run too this time but her wounds were too severe and she didn't make it out the door.
5) This time he could not make it to the phone he passed out even though the coronoer said his wounds would have taken a long time to render him unconscious. Sheila then beat his limp body until the stock of the gun broke and then shot him.
If she were in a crazy murdering frenzy why wouldn't she shoot immediately upon entering the bedroom? Why would she yell at him merely, leave an open path to the door and not shoot as he was getting up to run out the door? Why wouldn't she shoot him as he was on the phone or after she knocked it from his hands? Why would she march him upstairs to shoot him in bed if she were in a crazy frenzy?
Nothing at all about this murder is consistent with a crazy frenzy.
Why do you shoot someone in bed at 3AM? Because while asleep they are likely to put up the least resistance and not to be able to harm/stop you as you carry the murders out.
Why do you remove the phone in advance? So the victims can't alert anyone to what is going on because they could reveal your identity or at minimum someone could respond before you get away and can see you fleeing the scene.
How do you get away with it? You frame someone else. The frame was incompetent though as Sheila had no evidence of taking part in it and worse the suppressor was used then put away and she can't have put it away.
The evidence all points to planned murders.
There is nothing at all to suggest the murders were carried out by someone who was mentally out of control. It was a controlled scene.
This is a big problem for you so you avoid this completely and instead keep trying to make it abattle over mental health alone.
You are not fooling anyone except yourself though.
-
All you have done is try to deflect from the evidence relevant to the case because that evidence proves your pen pal Jeremy is guilty of murder.
You have done a poor job of demonstrating Sheila's adoption caused her mental problems. But that is not even pertinent to the case.
Jus tproving someone had mental problems is not enough. If you claim someone is crazy, had a psychotic episode and then killed someone during the course of such episode you have to prove they had a psychotic episode and killed someone during it.
You keep ignoring these requirements because the murders in question are not consistent with such.
You keep claiming Nevill ran to the kitchen to use the phone not once but twice. If he ran to use the phone after being shot then Jeremy is for sure guilty. So you invented the fable that he ran to the kitchen before he was shot and after.
So we are supposed to believe:
1) A perfectly working touchtone phone was unplugged, hidden and replaced by the bedroom dial phone for a valid reason though you can't come up with one other than claiming it was broken though it wasn't broken it was working fine and claiming it is sheer coincidence this perfectly good phone was hidden and replaced before murders that started in the bedroom where the phone was removed from
2) Sheila was nice and calm around 10PM. Why would she have a psychotic episode after everyone was sleeping? What would set her off in bed with everyone else asleep?
3) Sheila went crazy, marched into her parent's room screaming about how she was going to kill them but didn't open fire yet. Nevill decided that instead of trying to disarm her immediately himself he would phone Jeremy and ask Jeremy to come over to disarm her which would tkae at least 5-10 minutes before he could arrive. Nonetheless he decided to risk being shot at and got up and ran down to the kitchen to use the phone while June stayed in bed. Sheila was in a crazy frenzy but didn't shoot at him as he ran down or even shoot him in the kitchen as he picked up the phone.
3) He was even able to dial and speak for a while before she knocked the phone from his hand. Though in a frenzy she still didn't shoot she decided to kill him in bed for some reason. She ordered him back upstairs and though he wasn't afraid to run away from her while in the bedroom now he was scared and obeyed her every command.
4) He got back in bed and this time she opened fire. Even though he had nothing to lose in trying to disarm her since she had already opened fire he again chose to run to the phone instead of trying to disarm her. So he got up again and ran back downstairs. June tried to run too this time but her wounds were too severe and she didn't make it out the door.
5) This time he could not make it to the phone he passed out even though the coronoer said his wounds would have taken a long time to render him unconscious. Sheila then beat his limp body until the stock of the gun broke and then shot him.
If she were in a crazy murdering frenzy why wouldn't she shoot immediately upon entering the bedroom? Why would she yell at him merely, leave an open path to the door and not shoot as he was getting up to run out the door? Why wouldn't she shoot him as he was on the phone or after she knocked it from his hands? Why would she march him upstairs to shoot him in bed if she were in a crazy frenzy?
Nothing at all about this murder is consistent with a crazy frenzy.
Why do you shoot someone in bed at 3AM? Because while asleep they are likely to put up the least resistance and not to be able to harm/stop you as you carry the murders out.
Why do you remove the phone in advance? So the victims can't alert anyone to what is going on because they could reveal your identity or at minimum someone could respond before you get away and can see you fleeing the scene.
How do you get away with it? You frame someone else. The frame was incompetent though as Sheila had no evidence of taking part in it and worse the suppressor was used then put away and she can't have put it away.
The evidence all points to planned murders.
There is nothing at all to suggest the murders were carried out by someone who was mentally out of control. It was a controlled scene.
This is a big problem for you so you avoid this completely and instead keep trying to make it abattle over mental health alone.
You are not fooling anyone except yourself though.
Errr Scipio where exactly did I say that SC's mental illness was caused by the fact she was adopted? If this was so the same could be said for every adoptee across the globe including myself, Jeremy Bamber, the likes of the late Steve Jobs, Kate Adie, The Right Hon Michael Gove MP, Debbie Harry (showing my age). I said that IMO the roots of SC's mental illness are to be found in June's mental illness circa 1959 caused, according to her psychiatrist Dr Ferguson, by her decision to adopt SC 8(8-)) This IMO led to an insecure attachment and neglect due to June's serious depression leading to the outcomes as per my links. I am afraid the bullet June received between the eyes is indicative of this.
http://www.attachmentexperts.com/whatisattachment.html
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp12/
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp8/
-
Errr Scipio where exactly did I say that SC's mental illness was caused by the fact she was adopted? If this was so the same could be said for every adoptee across the globe including myself, Jeremy Bamber, the likes of the late Steve Jobs, Kate Adie, The Right Hon Michael Gove MP, Debbie Harry (showing my age). I said that IMO the roots of SC's mental illness are to be found in June's mental illness circa 1959 caused, according to her psychiatrist Dr Ferguson, by her decision to adopt SC 8(8-)) This IMO led to an insecure attachment and neglect due to June's serious depression leading to the outcomes as per my links. I am afraid the bullet June received between the eyes is indicative of this.
http://www.attachmentexperts.com/whatisattachment.html
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp12/
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp8/
The bullet received between her eye was because Jeremy was a bum who wanted his family's wealth instead of having to work for a living. In a way he got what he wanted, he doesn't have to work for a living but he deosn't get to enjoy that freedom the way he would have liked to.
The evidence that proves his guilt is so irrefutable you won't even discuss it anymore. You jsut claim you believe he is innocent without being able to establish and valid evidence to establish such and ramble on about adoption.
If you have mental problems because you were adopted maybe you should seek mental treatment for it. Trying to blame all problems other adoptees face on it and use it to account for their actions doesn't fly.
The evidence proves Jeremy murdered his family and it wasn't because he wanted their money, that is why he killed even his nephews, he wanted the entire inheritance to himself. His motive is not exclusive to adoptees there are plenty of natural born children who have killed family for the same reason.
-
Holly, a question. How do you explain the overwhelming evidence against Jeremy? If there was the slightest chink in the story you might have had some sort of argument but as it stands there just isn't any. The books will not add anything to the story because everything that is capable of being determined from the crime scene and from witnesses has already been factored in. Only a full confession would be anything new. Events in Australia and more importantly in New Zealand prior to the murders might be of interest to some but have no relevance to the night in question. These books are nothing more than a bunch of authors attempting to cash in yet again...despicable!
-
Holly, a question. How do you explain the overwhelming evidence against Jeremy? If there was the slightest chink in the story you might have had some sort of argument but as it stands there just isn't any. The books will not add anything to the story because everything that is capable of being determined from the crime scene and from witnesses has already been factored in. Only a full confession would be anything new. Events in Australia and more importantly in New Zealand prior to the murders might be of interest to some but have no relevance to the night in question. These books are nothing more than a bunch of authors attempting to cash in yet again...despicable!
Initially all concerned were satisfied that the soc represented 4 murders/1 suicide. A month or so later after much of the soc had been tampered with, contaminated, destroyed etc it changed to 5 murders? The chief prosecution witness was unreliable in the same way as the four prosecution witnesses were in the Stefan Kiszko case.
-
Initially all concerned were satisfied that the soc represented 4 murders/1 suicide. A month or so later after much of the soc had been tampered with, contaminated, destroyed etc it changed to 5 murders? The chief prosecution witness was unreliable in the same way as the four prosecution witnesses were in the Stefan Kiszko case.
All concerned were not satisfied Holly. The man in charge of the investigation was satisfied and he was satisfied without having anything even analyzed anything yet in detail. He made the call based on the gun found on Sheila and the tale from Jeremy. His preconceived notions is why evidence was not immediately collected and was even destoryed. His underlings were not convinced and actually got him removed fromt he case from his ineptitude.
You like to point to proper procedures and procedures today. He didn't handle the investigaiton as it should have been done. It was not proper to make a judgment based on surface information and to stop investigating. It was not proper to not provide the coroner with all relevant information. The procedures then and even moreso today is to collect all available evidence from a homicide scene and keep all possible scenarios open instead of making a rash judment and failing to collect evidence. If these procedures had been followed then Jeremy's clothing would have been taken from him to be inspected and he would have been inspected physically for evidence. They did nothing of the sort.
You have not one shred of proof that anything was planted or contaminated. The destroying of evidence was done because Jeremy wanted it destroyed. The lack of a thorough search was because of the bungling fool who thought Sheila did it off the bat so didn't have his subordinates do a thorough search of the premises for evidence.
The reason why you do a thorough search and wait for the forensic results to be tested is because there are things that you can't tell from a cursory look as Taff Jones engaged in. He had no way to know that the fatal wound was a contact shot and that the gun had no back spatter despite the fact the wound would virtually certainly result in back spatter according to unrefuted testimony at trial. He had no way to know Nevill's wounds would have prevented him from speaking and thus the phone call can't have happened. He had no way to know there were too many rounds in the ammunition box Jeremy left in the kitchen for that ammo to have been used for the murders. They didn't know Sheila had no GSR on her nightgown or hands. I can go on and on about things learned later which is why the initial hunches changed. It wasn't just the discover of the suppressor tha changed things.
The most damning evidence can't have been contaminated. You were challenged repeatedly to explain how blood could accidentally be deposited so that even after cleaning out all visible traces of blood that microscopic drops of blood would still be present on the first 8 baffles. While very tiny there was sufficient quantity for the defense to test said blood and determine it to be group A. You can't explain any possible way for blood to be accidentally transferred in such manner period let alone a way that is reasonably likely to have occurred. Similarly you can't provide any suggestion of who could have planted the blood. In order for him to be innocent the blood and paint had to be planted.
You were repeatedly asked who planted it, where did they get the blood from, whose blood was it, if it wasn't Sheila's blood how did they know what her blood type was, how did they transfer it in a manner that accounts for the blood the defense found and last what evidence do you have to back up your claim. You could not answer any of them because you have no one shred of evidence that the blood was planted.
Your burden is to prove that there is a reasonable likelihood that the blood was planted not merely that it is some theoretical possibility. You can't even prove it is theoretically possible though. You run away anytime the details of what would be necessary to plan evidence are discussed because the facts are not on your side. You don't follow the facts you ignore the facts and just pretend anything that suits your agenda which is to assert he is innocent no matte rhow much evidence there is that says otherwise.
Everyone conspired to convict him. The police initially wer eon his side so much they did a crappy investigation yet you sa they railroaded him. The crappy evidence collection you constantly bring up is the result of them thinking he was innocent. This is a HUGE difference from genuine cases of police overreach. In real cases the police stop investigating because they think the defendant is guilty and they overlook evidence that leads to the real perp. Down the road such evidence surfaces and the police are embarrassed. What happened here is that they suspected Sheila so initially overlooked evidence leading to the real killer Jeremy. They didn't inspect his hands for GSR or wounds. They didn't take his clothing to test for GSR and blood spatter. They didn't search the scene for hidden evidence. They believed Jeremy's every word and destroyed evidence he wanted to be destroyed. This was to Jeremy's advantage and the disadvantage of prosecutors. Trying to paint the picture that blindly believing him and thus doing sloppy evidence collection that favored him was to set him up and disadvantaged him is pure nonsense. It damages your credibility when you make such claims.
I will pose you the same questions I have no less than a dozen times that you ran away from each time.
1) Who do you think planted the blood and paint on the suppressor?
2) Whose blood did they use and where did they get it from? If not Sheila's blood then how did they know her blood type to secure blood of the same type?
3) How did they deposit it so that microscopic droplets remained on the first 8 baffles after all visible blood was removed?
4) How did know police would be able to figure out that the suppressor got paint on it by scratching the underneath of the mantle shelf?
5) How did they know police would be able to definitively match the paint from the mantle to that on the suppressor?
6) Why would they even bother to go through all the trouble of planting the paint if they had planted blood?
7) Last and most importantly what evidence do you have to support your claims.
I know you won't answer these questions you will just continue to run away. But each time you run it demonstrates you have no basis to suggest the evidence was planted. Making a claim that is baseless doens't advance your cause in any way, shape or form.
-
Where are they?
Mason Doyle initially said his book would be out early autumn 2013. This was then put back to early spring 2014. We are now approaching early summer 2014 and not a whisper >@@(*&)
Carol Ann Lee said her book would be out 14th April. Again not a whisper >@@(*&)
-
When I posted about the complaints regarding MD's book - he sent me a rather long message about how he was going to sue etc and that I'd hear from him shortly, that he was going to get the blue admins to give him my I.P address.
This was just before Christmas. Not a peep since. 8-)(--)
-
When I posted about the complaints regarding MD's book - he sent me a rather long message about how he was going to sue etc and that I'd hear from him shortly, that he was going to get the blue admins to give him my I.P address.
This was just before Christmas. Not a peep since. 8-)(--)
I think I read a post on here about suing. Are you able to tell more?
-
Going from what I remember because this was just before Christmas - I posted asking why he hadn't contacted Bret for the book (Just to see MD's reaction).
And also MD said his book had been delayed - he wouldn't say why- I told people why (Due to him putting words into the mouth of someone he had interviewed)
So he then apparently phoned his publisher to ask them if what I said was true, although... shouldn't he already know?? That rang alarm bells for me.
Then he sent me his actual name and the PM about suing me..... His actual name led nowhere - I'm suspicious but open minded about the book as I think many people have slowly become.
-
Going from what I remember because this was just before Christmas - I posted asking why he hadn't contacted Bret for the book (Just to see MD's reaction).
And also MD said his book had been delayed - he wouldn't say why- I told people why (Due to him putting words into the mouth of someone he had interviewed)
So he then apparently phoned his publisher to ask them if what I said was true, although... shouldn't he already know?? That rang alarm bells for me.
Then he sent me his actual name and the PM about suing me..... His actual name led nowhere - I'm suspicious but open minded about the book as I think many people have slowly become.
Thanks Mat. All seems very odd >@@(*&)
-
Going from what I remember because this was just before Christmas - I posted asking why he hadn't contacted Bret for the book (Just to see MD's reaction).
And also MD said his book had been delayed - he wouldn't say why- I told people why (Due to him putting words into the mouth of someone he had interviewed)
So he then apparently phoned his publisher to ask them if what I said was true, although... shouldn't he already know?? That rang alarm bells for me.
Then he sent me his actual name and the PM about suing me..... His actual name led nowhere - I'm suspicious but open minded about the book as I think many people have slowly become.
He threatened to sue you? Really? Why?
-
He threatened to sue you? Really? Why?
I guess because he believed I had attempted to damage his future book sales by saying I thought the book wasn't gonig to be any good he said this was a "wholly libellous statement".
-
I guess because he believed I had attempted to damage his future book sales by saying I thought the book wasn't gonig to be any good he said this was a "wholly libellous statement".
defamation requires a factual misrepresentation by definition opinion is not actionable.
-
defamation requires a factual misrepresentation by definition opinion is not actionable.
Exactly. I didn't even bother replying.
-
Is there really any appetite for yet another book about this case?
-
Is there really any appetite for yet another book about this case?
-
Is there really any appetite for yet another book about this case?
I guess we will see if it ever hits the bookshelves!
Personally I think so yes. Anyone under 40 yoa is unlikely to remember the case. Most over 40 can only recall the most basic facts of which there are few 8(0(*
True crime is the most popular genre and, putting aside the very real human tragedy of the case, I find it fascinating and absorbing as I assume other posters on the forums do.
Everything has moved on since '85/'86 forensics, ballistics, soc, psychology, understanding of mental health, peoples' attitudes, media, availability of different mediums eg internet, twitter etc, etc.
To date there have been four books. Not many for a case of such notoriety and that in many ways is unique. I think it is a case that will always interest authors, readers and publishers long after JB's demise.
-
I guess because he believed I had attempted to damage his future book sales by saying I thought the book wasn't gonig to be any good he said this was a "wholly libellous statement".
If this book ever sees the light of day it had better be good, I'll not be too cheery if it's just re-hashed old stuff. I'll be wanting my £3.99 back. ?8)@)-)
-
I guess because he believed I had attempted to damage his future book sales by saying I thought the book wasn't gonig to be any good he said this was a "wholly libellous statement".
He threatened to sue me and another forum member for defamation of character too for pretty much the same thing. Though as John told me at the time, how can you defame a pseudonym?
-
He threatened to sue anyone who challenged him by the looks of it. I got so sick of his whinging crap I deleted his account. In my opinion he like the other authors have very little if anything new to bring to the actual investigation. The only person who knows every detail of what went on at White House Farm that night is Jeremy Bamber and he has been in prison since 1986.
-
He threatened to sue everybody by the looks of it. I got so sick of his crap I deleted his account. In my opinion he has nothing to offer the actual investigation, only two people know what happened at White House Farm that night and one of them has been in prison since 1986.
I felt special, but now that he's threatend to sue lots of people...not so much
-
Is there such a thing as a trade descriptions Act for novelists who publish crap? I ask the question because so much of that intro on the Amazon site is pure invention?
The very first line is untrue for instance.
"A meticulously researched and ground-breaking new look at the White House Farm Murders of 1986."
The murders were in 1985, not 1986. So much for the meticulous research.
"...in the last couple of years a huge amount of material has come to light -- much of it apparently deliberately suppressed at the time of the trial -- bringing growing support for Bamber, both by forensic experts, in the press, and by the public. "
No material has come to light which has been of any advantage to the defence, again more spin. As for support, most people who take the time to study the true facts in the case eventually realise Bamber is a filthy murderer."
"Bamber's internet profile is so compelling and widespread that it would put a public relations company to shame."
This one really takes the biscuit. Fortunately due to this forum Bambers internet profile has been all but destroyed. Thousands of people who would have otherwise been taken in by the rubbish posted on sites like Tesko's are now much wiser as to what really happened at White House farm. Lets hope the book isn't anything like the intro.
Not only is the year of the murders wrong but so is Bamber's age .... he was 25 not 24 as stated when he was convicted!
-
I'm currently reading Scott Lomax's book. I will reserve judgement until I finish it off but so far I am not impressed. I'm flicking between chapters. Chapter 16 'Proof of innocence' covers:
- Movement at window
- Communication with someone inside WHF
- Call to EP from NB
- SC seen in kitchen by raid team
Cant buy into any of the above.
Anyway according to NGB on Blue it now looks unlikely that the proposed book releases by Carol Ann Lee and Mason Doyle will surface in the near future, if at all! Make of that what you will! NGB seems to imply that there's some legal issues but other factors might be at play too!?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5735.msg255059.html#msg255059
-
I'm currently reading Scott Lomax's book. I will reserve judgement until I finish it off but so far I am not impressed. I'm flicking between chapters. Chapter 16 'Proof of innocence' covers:
- Movement at window
- Communication with someone inside WHF
- Call to EP from NB
- SC seen in kitchen by raid team
Cant buy into any of the above.
Anyway according to NGB on Blue it now looks unlikely that the proposed book releases by Carol Ann Lee and Mason Doyle will surface in the near future, if at all! Make of that what you will! NGB seems to imply that there's some legal issues but other factors might be at play too!?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5735.msg255059.html#msg255059
Thanx for that Holly...maybe they have had a lightbulb moment? ?{)(**
-
Thanx for that Holly...maybe they have had a lightbulb moment? ?{)(**
Yes maybe!
I think I recall Mason Doyle saying that he had turned something up and had to consult with SM. I assumed that this was something in JB's favour but perhaps not!
Given that MD launched onto Blue and Red letting us know about his forthcoming book etc (unlike Carol Ann Lee) I think the least he could do is put in an appearance and let us know the current state of play. I appreciate he might be constrained by various factors but to say nothing is imo just plain rude?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3151.msg120865.html#msg120865
-
I'm not sure how all this works! Would 'Mason Doyle' have been commissioned to write this book, or did he write it and then try to find a publisher?
-
I'm not sure how all this works! Would 'Mason Doyle' have been commissioned to write this book, or did he write it and then try to find a publisher?
Me neither Sika but given 'Mason Doyle's' background ie ex cop, judge's clerk, true crime author with a track record etc, I would have expected him to have foreseen the potential pitfalls in terms of legal issues. Publishers would certainly be switched on to the legal issues. Considerable resource must have been thrown at it in terms of man hours and MD said he had visited New Zealand, Canada and US. I would have thought that the book might have included some new material by way of re-evaluating crime scene photos using state of the art technology etc. All these things cost. So no book = someone out of pocket! Talking of out of pocket... I feel a drubbing coming on in respect of our wager 8)><(
-
Only four months to go... and the finance department of CiN are drooling at the mouth in anticipation! (http://i.imgur.com/bvSJfWV.gif)
-
Only four months to go... and the finance department of CiN are drooling at the mouth in anticipation! (http://i.imgur.com/bvSJfWV.gif)
Oh well it's for a good cause. Every little helps ?{)(**
-
Me neither Sika but given 'Mason Doyle's' background ie ex cop, judge's clerk, true crime author with a track record etc, I would have expected him to have foreseen the potential pitfalls in terms of legal issues. Publishers would certainly be switched on to the legal issues. Considerable resource must have been thrown at it in terms of man hours and MD said he had visited New Zealand, Canada and US. I would have thought that the book might have included some new material by way of re-evaluating crime scene photos using state of the art technology etc. All these things cost. So no book = someone out of pocket! Talking of out of pocket... I feel a drubbing coming on in respect of our wager 8)><(
@)(++(* I wasn't going to mention that! You were obviously drunk at the time!
I can't believe there's a sufficient public interest in this case, to warrant another book. Therefor, I would be surprised if a publisher commissioned one.
-
Me neither Sika but given 'Mason Doyle's' background ie ex cop, judge's clerk, true crime author with a track record etc, I would have expected him to have foreseen the potential pitfalls in terms of legal issues. Publishers would certainly be switched on to the legal issues. Considerable resource must have been thrown at it in terms of man hours and MD said he had visited New Zealand, Canada and US. I would have thought that the book might have included some new material by way of re-evaluating crime scene photos using state of the art technology etc. All these things cost. So no book = someone out of pocket! Talking of out of pocket... I feel a drubbing coming on in respect of our wager 8)><(
@)(++(* I wasn't going to mention that! You were obviously drunk at the time!
I can't believe there's a sufficient public interest in this case, to warrant another book. Therefor, I would be surprised if a publisher commissioned one.
Sober as a judge 8(0(*
Anyone under 40 is unlikely to have heard of JB. Anyone over 40 is unlikely to be interested unless a new book can offer something very compelling with a big marketing budget. That's as it stands. Obviously if JB's conviction is ever quashed then I think potentially the interest will be enormous worldwide.
I have almost finished reading Scott Lomax's book which I've found quite boring, but in fairness to SL I read the other 3 some 2 years ago and his, in the main, is just really a rehash of the others and covering all the stuff we discuss on the forum. I think if someone is new to the case it provides a good starting point. He claims new evidence which imo is not evidence at all eg SC seen in the kitchen, EP in conversation with someone inside WHF, phone call from NB and sighting of a male figure at the window. I haven't found any of the books particularly biased either way. I think they leave the reader to form his/her own opinions based on how they interpret and perceive the information.
-
Sober as a judge 8(0(*
Anyone under 40 is unlikely to have heard of JB. Anyone over 40 is unlikely to be interested unless a new book can offer something very compelling with a big marketing budget. That's as it stands. Obviously if JB's conviction is ever quashed then I think potentially the interest will be enormous worldwide.
I have almost finished reading Scott Lomax's book which I've found quite boring, but in fairness to SL I read the other 3 some 2 years ago and his, in the main, is just really a rehash of the others and covering all the stuff we discuss on the forum. I think if someone is new to the case it provides a good starting point. He claims new evidence which imo is not evidence at all eg SC seen in the kitchen, EP in conversation with someone inside WHF, phone call from NB and sighting of a male figure at the window. I haven't found any of the books particularly biased either way. I think they leave the reader to form his/her own opinions based on how they interpret and perceive the information.
These days, there's even less interest in Bamber than in the woman who put the cat in the wheelie bin. Even though some misguided oddballs paid for an Arizona pig shoot, the imperative "new evidence" hasn't happened, and it won't. The more you look into the case, the more you realise that Bamber is guilty, and the invented call from Ralph was Bamber's first and biggest mistake, even though he thought that it would be his alibi. Any more books will just be a waste of time and trees.
-
These days, there's even less interest in Bamber than in the woman who put the cat in the wheelie bin. Even though some misguided oddballs paid for an Arizona pig shoot, the imperative "new evidence" hasn't happened, and it won't. The more you look into the case, the more you realise that Bamber is guilty, and the invented call from Ralph was Bamber's first and biggest mistake, even though he thought that it would be his alibi. Any more books will just be a waste of time and trees.
Oh yes the woman who put the cat in the wheelie bin I wonder what happened to her! She looked very knitting circleish and worked for RBS. An unlikely candidate perhaps.
As far as I can see, based on the pathology reports, the burn marks on NB's neck/back were old wounds but don't get me started on that again. I wouldn't mind betting that SM and NGB didn't check them out with Dr Vanezis. (JACKIE ANY CHANCE YOU CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS FROM LOPSY? THANKS).
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=292.msg134570#msg134570
I am still of the opinion that JB is a MoJ. The fact we all have access to the same info but interpret it so differently is in itself as interesting as the case &%+((£
Don't think you will be sorting out that wonky table leg of yours with a copy of MD's 'Dead bodies don't move' anytime soon. Your chocolate fondue evenings will still be very messy affairs 8(0(*
-
The only possible new information which any book can bring to the Bamber case would relate to his exploits down under. I have done some basic detective work on this and there is a story to tell about JB and AN Other.
-
The only possible new information which any book can bring to the Bamber case would relate to his exploits down under. I have done some basic detective work on this and there is a story to tell about JB and AN Other.
Pray tell...Pleeeeze. Don't be such a tease 8)><(
-
I am not sure whether there is any truth in Andrew Hunter attempting a book on JB but if there is it might be hampered by his health:
http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/11258639.Former_Basingstoke_MP_Andrew_Hunter_suffers_a_stroke/
If you read this forum Andrew I would like to wish you a speedy and full recovery.
-
Pray tell...Pleeeeze. Don't be such a tease 8)><(
Don't hold your breath... I'm still waiting for the (http://i.imgur.com/CcIN1B0.gif) Blockbuster to materialise! 8(8-))
-
Pray tell...Pleeeeze. Don't be such a tease 8)><(
Checking out anything down under is not an easy task, they don't appear to have the same interest in Bamber and his former associates that we in the UK have which resulted in very little information being put on-line. That said however, I have managed to identify properties and towns associated with these individuals but until such time as this can be checked out by other sources I won't be posting it publicly.
It goes without saying that the passage of time has not helped this search.
It is also worth repeating that it is my belief that Jeremy was aided and abetted in what he did.
-
Checking out anything down under is not an easy task, they don't appear to have the same interest in Bamber and his former associates that we in the UK have which resulted in very little information being put on-line. That said however, I have managed to identify properties and towns associated with these individuals but until such time as this can be checked out by other sources I won't be posting it publicly.
It goes without saying that the passage of time has not helped this search.
It is also worth repeating that it is my belief that Jeremy was aided and abetted in what he did.
I thought EP checked out JB's time spent down under? Also RWB checked out BC? And nothing was turned up?
We hear all sorts re JB's exploits down under:
- Murder
- Dealing in class A drugs
- Thieving/robbing two expensive watches from a jewellers
- 'Acquiring' a bag of diamonds
I struggle to believe any of the above. In the same way that I struggle to believe a lot of the nonsense about others in the case eg SC had a drug debt of 40k.
-
I have been reading on blue that Mason Doyle has been banned from this forum because of threats he made to John. Is this correct?
-
I have been reading on blue that Mason Doyle has been banned from this forum because of threats he made to John. Is this correct?
I have been tied up this w.e (sadly metaphorically speaking 8)><() but been trying to keep up with Blue by browsing on my phone... OMG... it has been like a mega episode of every SOAP you can think of rolled into one! I couldn't keep up with who had fallen out with who. Sorry I digressed...I believe MD got all Prima Donna/Big Girls Blousy on here and made all sorts of threats and was banned. I think he is the only poster to have the honour of a ban from Blue and Red 8(>((. Someone really needs to start up Purple for the hardcore ?>)()<
-
Poor ol Nelly Belly Comb Over has been pulling his hair out so much that he has nothing left to comb over other than the two strands he uses to floss his teeth with @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Meanwhile Jackie has quite literally thrown caution to the wind by riding Trigger hard across the Essex countryside with a massive 8)--)) on her face @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
What an absolute hoot...
Reader has now been appointed mod on Blue. For those of you who don't know Reader is an absolute stickler for grammar and spelling often naming and shaming posters. I suspect he will be Billy No Mates by the end of the week @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Jackie seriously do you think you could get the producers of TOWIE interested in some sort of Blue/Red forum internet production? &%+((£
-
Poor ol Nelly Belly Comb Over has been pulling his hair out so much that he has nothing left to comb over other than the two strands he uses to floss his teeth with @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Meanwhile Jackie has quite literally thrown caution to the wind by riding Trigger hard across the Essex countryside with a massive 8)--)) on her face @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
What an absolute hoot...
Reader has now been appointed mod on Blue. For those of you who don't know Reader is an absolute stickler for grammar and spelling often naming and shaming posters. I suspect he will be Billy No Mates by the end of the week @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Jackie seriously do you think you could get the producers of TOWIE interested in some sort of Blue/Red forum internet production? &%+((£
Do dentures require flossing?
-
Yes, it's been highly amusing watching all the shenanigans over on blue. Caroline made a big deal about leaving, only to return about five minutes later! She just can't help herself, she always has to have the last word.
You've got to love Jackie! As long as she stays where she is and doesn't come back on here.
Oh.....and Stephs back!! It'll all end in tears. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Yes, it's been highly amusing watching all the shenanigans over on blue. Caroline made a big deal about leaving, only to return about five minutes later! She just can't help herself, she always has to have the last word.
You've got to love Jackie! As long as she stays where she is and doesn't come back on here.
Oh.....and Stephs back!! It'll all end in tears. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Right on cue! I don't think I've ever seen her make a case related post &%+((£
-
I thought it might be interesting to remind ourselves of Mason Doyle's foyer intro a little over 2 years ago.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3151.msg120865.html#msg120865
I made no comment/post as I thought the whole thing was a bit on the surreal side. He seemed to get a little prickly with Andrea @)(++(*
Carol Ann Lee notable by her absence &%+((£
-
I thought it might be interesting to remind ourselves of Mason Doyle's foyer intro a little over 2 years ago.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3151.msg120865.html#msg120865
I made no comment/post as I thought the whole thing was a bit on the surreal side. He seemed to get a little prickly with Andrea @)(++(*
Carol Ann Lee notable by her absence &%+((£
Carol Ann Lee?
-
Carol Ann Lee?
The title of this thread is a book by author Carol Ann Lee which was due for launch on 15th April 2014. I was just contrasting the fact that she chose not to introduce herself on Blue and Red unlike Mason Doyle/Paul Harrison, author, who was supposedly due to launch a book autumn 2013.
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Blood_Guilt.html?id=DUQVnwEACAAJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Ann_Lee
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Book+cop+I'll+show+Bamber's+innocent.-a0337437563
-
The title of this thread is a book by author Carol Ann Lee which was due for launch on 15th April 2014. I was just contrasting the fact that she chose not to introduce herself on Blue and Red unlike Mason Doyle/Paul Harrison, author, who was supposedly due to launch a book autumn 2013.
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Blood_Guilt.html?id=DUQVnwEACAAJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Ann_Lee
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Book+cop+I'll+show+Bamber's+innocent.-a0337437563
Thanks Holly, I thought I knew the name from somewhere. I got her mixed up with Carol Ann Scott!!
-
I thought EP checked out JB's time spent down under? Also RWB checked out BC? And nothing was turned up?
We hear all sorts re JB's exploits down under:
- Murder
- Dealing in class A drugs
- Thieving/robbing two expensive watches from a jewellers
- 'Acquiring' a bag of diamonds
I struggle to believe any of the above. In the same way that I struggle to believe a lot of the nonsense about others in the case eg SC had a drug debt of 40k.
Yes, they did some checking into Brett Collins and his background but not much of it was ever made public. Collins effectively disappeared under the radar after Jeremy's arrest and has kept a low profile ever since. Must not be confused with another Aussie of the same name.
Back on topic, I note there is another book currently being offered by Amazon called 'Blood Guilt', could this possibly have caused difficulties for Mss Lee?
-
I thought it might be interesting to remind ourselves of Mason Doyle's foyer intro a little over 2 years ago.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3151.msg120865.html#msg120865
I made no comment/post as I thought the whole thing was a bit on the surreal side. He seemed to get a little prickly with Andrea @)(++(*
Carol Ann Lee notable by her absence &%+((£
That didn't go too well either as Harrison has now been banned by Neil B for making threats against the blue forum. Snap! 8@??)( @)(++(*
www.jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5844.msg259924.html#msg259924
-
An update on Carol Ann Lee's forthcoming book now entitled 'The murders at White House Farm' (Previously titled 'Blood Guilt: The White House Farm murders'). Due to be published by Sidgwick and Jackson Ltd on 30th July 2015
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/carol+ann+lee/the+murders+at+white+house+farm/11448775/
"On 4 August 1985 a horrific crime took place at White House Farm - the murder of wealthy farmers Nevill and June Bamber, their daughter Sheila and her two young sons. Their son Jeremy Bamber was convicted of the murders in October 1986 but has always protested his innocence. Is he a victim of one of the worst miscarriages of justice in our time or a cold, calculating killer who continues to exert control from behind bars? Drawing on previously unpublished documentation and interviews with those involved in the case, including Jeremy Bamber himself, this is an absorbing and disturbing account of this highly complex case. Carol Ann Lee describes the years of rising tension in the family that culminated in the killings and gives insights into the characters of those involved as well as leading the reader step by step through the evidence. She sets the crime against the historical context, showing how Bamber was a product of Thatcher's eighties, a brash outsider who believed he could and should have it all. Full of revelations, fair and meticulous in its reporting, The Murders at White House Farm is a compelling read".
A touch of Steve_uk about that &%+((£
-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Murders-White-House-Farm/dp/0283072474
"On 7 August 1985, Nevill and June Bamber, their daughter Sheila and her two young sons Nicholas and Daniel, were discovered shot to death at Whitehouse Farm in Essex. The murder weapon was found on Sheila's body; a bible lay at her side. All the windows and doors of the farmhouse were secure, and the Bambers' son, 24-year-old Jeremy, had alerted police after apparently receiving a phone call from his father, who told him Sheila had 'gone berserk' with the gun. It seemed a straightforward case of murder-suicide but a dramatic turn of events was to disprove the police's theory. In October 1986, Jeremy Bamber was convicted of killing his entire family in order to inherit his parents' substantial estates. He has always maintained his innocence. Drawing on interviews and correspondence with many of those closely connected to the case, including Jeremy Bamber, and a wealth of previously unpublished documentation, Carol Ann Lee brings astonishing clarity to a complex and emotive case. Carol Ann Lee describes the years of rising tension in the family that culminated in the murders, and provides clear insight into the background of each individual and their relationships within the family unit. With forensic evaluation of the evidence, Lee brings astonishing clarity to a complex and emotive case. Scrupulously fair in its analysis, The Murders at White House Farm is an absorbing portrait of a family, a time and a place, and a gripping account of one of England's most notorious crimes".
-
For a start it isn't a complex case and can be explained in less than a few thousand words. Only those who cling to the delusion that Bamber innocent seek to muddy the waters.
This book is both unnecessary and unwelcome.
-
I don't know the reason(s) why lots of things appear to have changed from the original date of publication eg date, title and geographical area for publication however here's an image of the finished item:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Murders-White-House-Farm/dp/0283072210
Nearer the time of launch I will set up new threads for both books: CAL and PH. I will also try and set something up like a direct feed so we can see which author is the most successful in terms of sales.
-
Who wants a balanced account? Commitment's needed one way or the other, then we can all leave... knowing that Holly got it completely wrong.
-
Who wants a balanced account? Commitment's needed one way or the other, then we can all leave... knowing that Holly got it completely wrong.
Hmmm. I rather think you would me miss me along with my wordy and rambling posts 8)-)))
-
Hmmm. I rather think you would me miss me along with my wordy and rambling posts 8)-)))
The song, "I'm a rambler, I'm a rambler from ********** way" comes to mind. 8(*(
*Insert city/town as appropriate.
I wonder if "if..." had any influence on events?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9JL8Dae_yQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9JL8Dae_yQ)
-
The song, "I'm a rambler, I'm a rambler from ********** way" comes to mind. 8(*(
*Insert city/town as appropriate.
I wonder if "if..." had any influence on events?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9JL8Dae_yQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9JL8Dae_yQ)
Not in the literal sense but undoubtedly the fact JB was 'different' in that he attended a fee paying school as a boarder and was the adopted son played a part. Anything that marked people out as 'different' with the police in the 1980's was a red flag.
-
I don't know the reason(s) why lots of things appear to have changed from the original date of publication eg date, title and geographical area for publication however here's an image of the finished item:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Murders-White-House-Farm/dp/0283072210
Nearer the time of launch I will set up new threads for both books: CAL and PH. I will also try and set something up like a direct feed so we can see which author is the most successful in terms of sales.
Jeremy is in the unfortunate situation that these authors can write almost anything about him with impunity. Give a dog a bad name and all that.
-
She is a few years out of date since Bambers support is at an all time low. Who are these MP's who are supporting a double child killer, let's give them some publicity too.
*&*%£
-
She is a few years out of date since Bambers support is at an all time low. Who are these MP's who are supporting a double child killer, let's give them some publicity too.
*&*%£
By "she" I assume you mean Carol Ann Lee?
Perhaps the book(s) will generate an all-time-high interest in the case 8(0(* How many books 1, 2 , 3 or more 8(0(*
MP's? I guess anyone supporting JB will view him as a victim as a MoJ. I can't see anyone supporting a double child killer?
-
Jeremy is in the unfortunate situation that these authors can write almost anything about him with impunity. Give a dog a bad name and all that.
Yes that's true!
I have recently read Paul Harrison's book about his childhood and claims of child abuse:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Cupboard-Under-Stairs-Trapped/dp/1845967895
A reader on Amazon.com described the book as follows:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Cupboard-Under-Stairs-Trapped/product-reviews/1845967895/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1/175-4257506-8647812?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=helpful&reviewerType=all_reviews&formatType=all_formats&filterByStar=one_star&pageNumber=1
"This, like so many books about child abuse, is pornography thinly disguised as memoir. Unless your interest is strictly prurient, don't waste your money".