What Time Roughly Was The Bedroom Telephone Put In The Kitchen?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

What evidence do you have that any of us "believe everything Jeremy Bamber says is true" ???

The supporters of his on here obviously believe everything he says is true, otherwise they wouldn’t be so ferociously eager to try and help him get another appeal.

And they try desperately to come up with excuses for his behaviour, so if they don’t believe everything he says why on earth  are they trying to get a mass murderer set free?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

From what I've seen very few cites are provided anyway.

I have a good memory, though...

And although I seldom post cites, when I have done you’ve never acknowledged them.

Actually, as you’re so keen on cites, how about I do a new thread straight from the horse’s mouth?

I know where Jeremy Bamber’s two statements are that he made under caution.

Perhaps I could do a thread where we can compare all his contradictions he made in both of them, and maybe you could explain why he made so many? They’re cites, so you should be happy with that thread 😊

[Robittybob1]

I have a good memory, though...

And although I seldom post cites, when I have done you’ve never acknowledged them.

Actually, as you’re so keen on cites, how about I do a new thread straight from the horse’s mouth?

I know where Jeremy Bamber’s two statements are that he made under caution.

Perhaps I could do a thread where we can compare all his contradictions he made in both of them, and maybe you could explain why he made so many? They’re cites, so you should be happy with that thread 😊

Do it.   *Perhaps I could do a thread where we can compare all his contradictions he made in both of them,

[Robittybob1]

The supporters of his on here obviously believe everything he says is true, otherwise they wouldn’t be so ferociously eager to try and help him get another appeal.

And they try desperately to come up with excuses for his behaviour, so if they don’t believe everything he says why. On Earth are they trying to get a mass murderer set free?

Could it be because he didn't do it?

[Holly Goodhead]

I wholeheartedly agree, the annoying thing is that some posters are deciding to pick and choose over references and you begin to think - what's the point? Specifically - we have quoted Wilkes's book which states that Bamber was classified as a psychopath by a psychiatrist post trial and some posters are insinuating that this was made up. Common sense would tell you that given that the book was written in the early 90's when the defence team were very much alive and kicking, that had this been made up, they would have said so - Bamber would have said so. If Wilkes decided not to reveal the psychiatrist's name, that's up to him, but the cite is a valid one.

Definition of a cite:

refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.
"authors who are highly regarded by their peers tend to be cited"

Yes a cite has been provided for the statement JB has been diagnosed with psychopathy but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Definition of a cite:

refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.
"authors who are highly regarded by their peers tend to be cited"

Yes a cite has been provided for the statement JB has been diagnosed with psychopathy but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

In Your Opinion (another requirement of this forum which you appear to have forgotten).

[Holly Goodhead]

Definition of a cite:

refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.
"authors who are highly regarded by their peers tend to be cited"

Yes a cite has been provided for the statement JB has been diagnosed with psychopathy but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I can safely assert SC was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and June psychosis.  I can produce wit stats confirming such from their psychiatrist who I can identify on the GMC register.

I thought you might be a little more circumspect Caro after your dealings with PH and his book fiasco. 

[APRIL]

I have a good memory, though...

And although I seldom post cites, when I have done you’ve never acknowledged them.

Actually, as you’re so keen on cites, how about I do a new thread straight from the horse’s mouth?

I know where Jeremy Bamber’s two statements are that he made under caution.

Perhaps I could do a thread where we can compare all his contradictions he made in both of them, and maybe you could explain why he made so many? They’re cites, so you should be happy with that thread 😊

Leaving G-Unit's opinion out of it, because it's no more valid than anyone else's here, added to which, unless what is posted is pro Jeremy, she'll attempt to destroy it, I feel certain that everyone else would be VERY happy with it.

[APRIL]

I can safely assert SC was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and June psychosis.  I can produce wit stats confirming such from their psychiatrist who I can identify on the GMC register.

I thought you might be a little more circumspect Caro after your dealings with PH and his book fiasco.

The difference here is that whilst you big up Sheila and June's diagnosis, you try to destroy Jeremy's.

[Holly Goodhead]

I have checked the book now, and the “leaving the message”:revelation is in Chapter 31.  Turning to the back of the book under “Notes and References” for Chapter 31 item 4 is listed as “Virginia Greaves w/s 12 th September 1985.  Unless otherwise indicated the quotes that follow are from this source”.

Next!

Evidence of JB possessing an answering machine at Bourtree Cottage pre murders.

The argument is based on the premise if NB called JB at circa 3.30 am his answering machine would have kicked in before waking and walking downstairs. 

[Holly Goodhead]

The difference here is that whilst you big up Sheila and June's diagnosis, you try to destroy Jeremy's.

I've no need to big up Sheila and June's diagnosis.  I can simply quote from their psychiatrist's witness statement.

[G-Unit]

The difference here is that whilst you big up Sheila and June's diagnosis, you try to destroy Jeremy's.

The two women were diagnosed and their doctors were identified and gave evidence. Those are checkable facts. It is claimed that Jeremy Bamber was diagnosed but the doctor was not identified and didn't give evidence. The claims which have been made about Jeremy Bamber are not supported by checkable facts.

[APRIL]

The two women were diagnosed and their doctors were identified and gave evidence. Those are checkable facts. It is claimed that Jeremy Bamber was diagnosed but the doctor was not identified and didn't give evidence. The claims which have been made about Jeremy Bamber are not supported by checkable facts.

The only reason being that someone believed it helped their case to find these things out, ergo, those who delivered the opinions were asked. Presumably, it was considered, either to be a foregone conclusion, that anyone was unquestionably a psychopath who could slaughter their entire family, OR it wasn't believed it wouldn't be conducive to Jeremy's case for such a diagnosis to be known. But known it most definitely was, whether you choose to accept that or not.................

................And whilst we're on THAT subject, I probably know more people, who were close to the Bambers, than anyone here -and that's not a boast, it's an reasonable claim given that I live close and these people are my friends. Their names have never been seen in papers because, being close to the Bambers, they'd have refused to give interviews. Nor are there any witness statements from them, because they probably weren't asked. It does NOT make what they say, lies or irrelevancies. I will NOT, under any circumstances, reveal any names. I had enough problems on another forum when something I said in naivety -being an internet virgin- resulted in me being threatened with the police and having my qualifications revoked. There are still those supporters for whom nothing gives more pleasure than to hound and intimidate those who believe Jeremy to be a murderer. Information, concerning those who choose to remain private, won't come from me.

[G-Unit]

The only reason being that someone believed it helped their case to find these things out, ergo, those who delivered the opinions were asked. Presumably, it was considered, either to be a foregone conclusion, that anyone was unquestionably a psychopath who could slaughter their entire family, OR it wasn't believed it wouldn't be conducive to Jeremy's case for such a diagnosis to be known. But known it most definitely was, whether you choose to accept that or not.................

................And whilst we're on THAT subject, I probably know more people, who were close to the Bambers, than anyone here -and that's not a boast, it's an reasonable claim given that I live close and these people are my friends. Their names have never been seen in papers because, being close to the Bambers, they'd have refused to give interviews. Nor are there any witness statements from them, because they probably weren't asked. It does NOT make what they say, lies or irrelevancies. I will NOT, under any circumstances, reveal any names. I had enough problems on another forum when something I said in naivety -being an internet virgin- resulted in me being threatened with the police and having my qualifications revoked. There are still those supporters for whom nothing gives more pleasure than to hound and intimidate those who believe Jeremy to be a murderer. Information, concerning those who choose to remain private, won't come from me.

People who prefer to remain private should not be revealed, I agree wholeheartedly with that. Anything they may have said however, can't be relied on in debates for various reasons. Firstly it's hearsay. Secondly it's anonymous hearsay. The only way it can be aired is as opinion; i.e. "I heard that..." Claiming these opinions as facts is not tenable imo.

[APRIL]

People who prefer to remain private should not be revealed, I agree wholeheartedly with that. Anything they may have said however, can't be relied on in debates for various reasons. Firstly it's hearsay. Secondly it's anonymous hearsay. The only way it can be aired is as opinion; i.e. "I heard that..." Claiming these opinions as facts is not tenable imo.

So it maybe relied upon, because it's in Barbara Willson's WS -despite that she wasn't there- that 'things weren't right', 'Nevill wasn't himself', but when "Bert" witnessed a contretemps between Nevill and Jeremy, so abusive that it reduced Nevill to tears, it can be dismissed.