New book "Blood Guilt: The White House Farm Murders" out soon.

[scipio_usmc]

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).

 

[scipio_usmc]

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.     

 

[Holly Goodhead]

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  ...... 

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

[Andrea]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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    Bet you are already beginning to regret ever mentioning it now 

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 

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.



 

[scipio_usmc]

8-)(--)  I don't think I've explained myself very well  8-)(--)  So for another of my boring adoption themed posts    Bet you are already beginning to regret ever mentioning it now 

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 

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.   
     

[Holly Goodhead]

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  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/

[scipio_usmc]

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  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.



 

[John]

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 Goodhead]

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.

 

[scipio_usmc]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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  >@@(*&)

[ActualMat]

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-)(--)

[Holly Goodhead]

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?

[ActualMat]

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.