Jeremy Bamber's murder convictions are again undergoing critical examination: Scott Jones and Glen Owen recount in a Mail article of 29 03 25 referencing another more detailed article by the journalist Heidi Blake on July 29th last year in the eminently respected New Yorker, a nicely read transcript of which can be found linked here, that a retired CID Officer erstwhile of the Essex Constabulary corroborates that a significant amount of evidence was withheld or tampered with which I always thought was fairly obvious from the amount of conflicting claims the case generated. It is quite difficult to grasp the extent to which it is unquestionably the case that what he was convicted on has been categorically discredited and there will be absolute hell to pay if he ever gets the matter back into court. I have always been fascinated by the case as I suppose have many since it has all the ingredients of an intriguing whodunnit concerning the gruesome gunshot slaughter of five members of three generations of a farming family in an isolated rural farmhouse with huge inheritances at stake where only one of two incredibly unlikely stories has to be correct in precise detail: according to Heidi Blake's article the house has a spooky history with not just one but two previous owners having committed suicide.

My own interest is somewhat more than generally incidental in that I tend to believe that June Bamber in particular, was far from unlikely to have been acquainted with perhaps several of my father's aunts and uncles as he had at least about half a dozen in Colchester in the later seventies, particularly his paternal aunt Queenie who was nearest in age to his father who was also himself a firstborn child. Since she, was like June Bamber a lifelong committed Anglican, it is rather unlikely that they were not to some extent acquainted within the same diocese. It is in fact quite probable that she had known June Bamber since she was a small child and in calling the matter to mind I believe it not entirely unlikely she might have mentioned the Bamber case the last time she spoke to me, which was as I recall it some years prior to her decease in the later nineties. I had only met her a few times but it was clear that she was the organiser in my paternal grandfather's family, had been a strikingly beautiful woman in her day, and I took her relatively friendly conversation in my direction as an admission that I was not to blame for the fact my father had gotten mixed up with a questionably behaved family from an Irish Magdalen Home: I was the consequence of that fact not the cause and I had rather been desperate to get away from them since the age of two. Such observations are really quite meaningless without a great deal of additional detail in that for instance in 69 they were all broke and my father had (if only just) managed to hold onto a decent white collar job as a senior librarian in local government, but by 75 he was pretty much down and out and my mother had lucratively remarried: not that I ever got anything out of it except the sabotage of any career aspirations.

The point is rather to say that in respect of my recollections of our last conversation this was not something that I heard in the sense of detecting sound waves or even of successfully interpreting their linguistic meaning, but rather of finding myself recently prompted to think back to the time/event and thinking the remark was something seen rather than heard as it were. I tend to imagine it a reasonable likelihood that certain of her descendants had been at least vaguely acquainted with Jeremy and Sheila and far from unlikely to have also been to baby-boomer parties at the farm. Pictures which have been hacked off my desktop in recent years tend to suggest something such in that I recall getting the distinct impression that photos/images I had downloaded showed the voices of people I had been at sixth form with in 80-81 (Jilly Hackitt's in particular). It is furthermore perhaps plausibly relevantly the case that my own severe problems with the legal establishment had blown up some six months or so before the unfortunate deaths at White House Farm and I would end up nearly stabbed to death in downtown Ipswich some 15 months later: what is quite interestingly of the fact I have always insisted a dysfunctional and dangerous series of official misunderstandings took place it this time. They were certainly very harsh times for me, by 1983 I had been abandoned by all my father's relatives as far as any helpful concern for a fairly dystopian personal situation might have existed, not that any of them had taken that much interest. He had disappeared abroad with another partner after having managed to jointly book us a flat in the worst place to live in the entire region which was suspiciously timed in that for the first time in my life I had space to do schoolwork only my school career had just been illegally terminated: the pictures of Sheila Caffel seem like some taunting reminder of a caring world that had been snatched away.

There does not seem much question that whatever else might be true, it does seem a fact that Jeremy was in 1985 all too arguably a rather spoiled and unappealing character who had among other things, according to the recent BBC drama wherein he was played by Freddie Fox, had the family dog put down because it was annoying him. This would intensely annoy many including myself: little could infuriate an English audience more than such a tale. He was certainly significantly successfully portrayed as a worthless sort of wannabee inheritor which is actually not specifically a crime; if it was huge numbers of public figures including at least half the House of Lords would be in gaol with him. It might not be quite fair to say that like many with family connections to money it seems he had to some extent sensed that the Thatcher regime was abandoning attempts to legislate for morality and economic inequality and had significantly resigned itself to the fact of greed being an uncontrollable fact of life.

There may in the first instance be some relatively innocent explanation for this tampering referenced by the whistleblower, since it had first appeared an open and shut case that would not require meticulous investigative analysis and record keeping as it appeared unquestionable that Sheila, Jeremy's adoptive sister, had killed the family and then herself during some kind of protracted and violent altercation. There were supposedly various fairly damning circumstantial facts that subsequently pointed at Jeremy, such as the conveniently broken window lock he supposedly used to make the farmhouse appear sealed from within as shown by the BBC drama, which is said to have been actually false according to what was published in the New Yorker, perhaps foremostly that Sheila was too small to have killed herself with an attached silencer, but I suppose it seems fair to assume the silencer evidence is surely now by any reckoning in at least some very serious question whatever the CCRC might have to say about it. One would have to have a spare decade to go over all the material the case has generated but One tends to imagine that the whistleblower might have some concern that Jeremy could be innocent for him or her to have spoken out in such terms. Whilst stopping short of an explicit statement about anyone's guilt, the individual in question does say that the crime scene has no integrity, so neither does the investigation, nor the case against him. Whilst the remark is not about guilt or innocence but rather the proper procedure for determining it, one tends to imagine that an experienced cop would not make such a remark without meaning to raise the question: information as to how much he or she might or might not have been paid for a simply saleable feature remains unknown. It is extremely troubling that the New Yorker should contradict the facts given by the BBC drama and I honestly never thought I would hear of such an allegation about what it seemed to purport as fact; One inevitably tends to imagine that some sort of qualifying statement about its sources ought to be forthcoming.

The last remark I left online about the Bamber case myself was to the effect that such police tactics tend to weaken public faith in the integrity of policepersons and that even if Jeremy is guilty they should not have tampered with the evidence to make it seem so, since among other things this might be likely to have had a disastrous impact on other investigations where public confidence is very key to their progression. According to my appreciation of such matters if police taint a crime scene it is not supposed to be anyone else's problem if they end up with no real or legitimate evidence for a case; it obviously seems a relevant sort of question as to which person or persons it was who suggested the evidence at the scene should be so quickly disposed of. If it was a crime scene Jeremy had himself prepared One tends to imagine that he would have wanted it examined in detail so this question seems very key to an understanding of what took place. A lot of simple procedural actions such as tests for gunshot residue that One also tends to consider could have ruled out any significant misinterpretation do not seem to have been undertaken. This is perhaps unsurprising in view of the fact it now seems at least informally accepted that a 999 call had been made from within while Jeremy was outside with officers who were I believe also convinced they had seen movement inside: it further seems they had at least initially made the putatively reasonable surmisal that the last person alive must have been the perpetrator.

It is interestingly and perhaps relevantly the case that despite an arguably quite hostile judge and an elaborate character assassination headed by the jilted girlfriend Julie Mugford of whom I seem to recall it has been said she was excused a smuggling rap for testifying, that two jurors were unconvinced, making the narrowest possible legal margin for conviction, and must among other things have believed that she was significantly untruthful. It seems reasonable to add that in such an extraordinary case if the official verdict is correct that there really should have been little or no demur once it and the accused had been exposed to the public, the media, and twelve jurors at quite some length. It seems logical to suggest that the whole thing should have been seen to have been exposed in terms of a psychological appraisal as it were, and that no real doubt should have existed at all if the guilty Jeremy theory had really been exposed as a blatant and unquestionable sort of horror. The fact that two jurors refused to concur with the prosecution's story despite everything that was quoted as fact at the time does tend to suggest that the jury did not quite see this as such a case of unquestionable culpability which some clearly want the public to believe. The recent quashing of the conviction of Andrew Malkinson for a very violent rape after 17 years in jail despite it being known for most of that time new evidence would have acquitted him, unfortunately tends to suggest that police can be simply uncaring about guilt or innocence and are often more interested in their pretensions, predilections, prejudices, pensions and public standing than the quality of justice.

In looking at the context of the quashing of all the guilty verdicts of supposed perpetrators of republican bombing outrages throughout the years of the Irish Troubles having led to the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and finding that it necessarily signifies an unfortunate fallibility on the part of the legal/judicial system, it has to be admitted it is clearly capable of committing enormities, that it is not good enough at confessing its mistakes, and that the judge was really unquestionably very favourable to the prosecution in his summing up at the Bamber trial: what is very much of accepting that much of the key information he directed the jury to believe seems to have been proven erroneous or unreliable at best.

If he is innocent, besides the fact that Mugford must have lied which does seem perhaps improbable under the particular circumstance of the case having attracted so much detailed investigation, there must also be some very strange input floating around between the members of the near family who had a clear inheritance motive for their insistence the real story was that Jeremy had killed the family and then staged the scene to make it appear his sister Sheila had done it prior to her own suicide: to which proposition one detective had swiftly concurred. Either story is as I say incomprehensibly unlikely but one of them must be the precise truth, and that is surely not remarkably unlikely to be clearly visible from some angle or other even now after forty years. Police were under an enormous amount of pressure to resolve this case as the victims were a WW2 RAF pilot veteran and local magistrate, his popular respected churchgoing wife, a troubled young woman their adopted daughter and her two children in a gruesome scene involving repeated execution style head shots during the discharge of more than twenty rifle rounds: many of those involved at the scene had apparently some trouble coping with this.

Jeremy as the only member of the immediate family left alive had attracted immediate opprobrium for an unlikeable manner and wanton lifestyle in his assumption of its very significant estate and a contrary story was brewed up at the significant instigation of hard up members of the wider family whom as far as I know do remain unanimous in their acclamation of his culpability. I acquired the impression that they had rather sought to obfuscate that Sheila's history was really quite troubled, and that it was in fact a reasonable statement that she had learned to use firearms such as the 22 rifle used for rabbiting that Jeremy claims to have left unsecured in the farmhouse: she would surely have been familiar with it. The mother June Bamber had also had relatively unremarkable mental health issues but Sheila's was really quite serious in that it did among other things include religious delusions to the extent of imagining her children evil: these really do appear to have been reliably documented as quite serious. Among the things which do tend to point at Sheila rather than otherwise is the fact that it seems Neville Bamber had been seriously thinking of having the children removed from her care. The scene first encountered when the farmhouse was entered seems to have included Neville Bamber being slumped over a chair with his trousers down with certain of Sheila's bloody period stained underwear soaking in a bucket nearby. These details arguably tend to paint a more generally conclusive sort of picture and the fact that June Bamber's mental health problems could perhaps seem to have initially stemmed from an inability to conceive, hence the two adopted children, arguably seems to suggest rather than otherwise, that something went wrong between Neville and Sheila within the context of a long term conversation/dialogue about motherhood and responsibility and suchlike: there could perhaps plausibly be some kind of undeclared subplot about the respectable magistrate having some trouble overlooking the charms of a youthful, sexy and stoned model in the family home.

One cannot help but feel that just for the sake of argument in putting the hypothesis of Jeremy's innocence under examination, that should it be the correct explanation for the tragic events of that August evening the wider family must be likely to know so in some instinctive sense. That is to say if he is innocent, among other things it might be easier to appraise by an examination of their conversation than from other perspectives. They would have to be making several certain fairly unmistakeable comments adding up to something like it being his fault anyway because he did not secure the rifle, perhaps likely knew what Sheila might be capable of, might even have left the rifle conveniently to hand with some deliberateness, and why should anyone care about someone so spoiled and worthless being permanently locked up? It is after all a simple sort of objective philosophical proposition that if he had euthanised the family dog because it was an unwanted nuisance he should imagine himself lucky to be alive at all. I suppose that does depend on the individual's view of a meaningless and deterministic universe but there you are and of course One has to ask how accurate is this particular detail since the New Yorker does claim the window latch story to have been fabricated by some agency: it would be impossibly difficult to view an individual sympathetically if he or she really honoured the memory of such a distinguished and unfortunately deceased veteran's memory by killing his dog!

Notwithstanding that I do not really know an immense amount about psychology or psychiatry I am perhaps the very last person who would treat these as other than theorising and self justifying sensationalism but I do consider there was much in the way of an attempt to belittle the serious nature of Sheila's mental health issues undertaken, and that on the balance of known possibilities and probabilities, the story that Sheila went mad with the rifle seems rather less unlikely than that Jeremy plotted an appalling murder spree on the family as for example he made no attempt to pacify or conciliate the wider family as many might consider a culpable person would, it seems very much the case he had always been to their significant distaste, they were immediately in conflict with him over the estate and household goods and he, seems to have made no obvious attempt to evade or deflect their supposedly reasonable suspicions. The theory that he planned and executed these horrific killings in an almost entirely unheard of sort of cold calculating scheme involving the murder of the couple who had rescued him from being an unwanted baby surely in general seems the more unlikely story. The generalised context of the story is very much of June Bamber having been unable to bear children of her own and of adoptees being unconventional, shall we say by the standards of rural conservative village society, and of their always having been a theoretical impediment to any acquisition of June Bamber's farming fortunes by her nephews and nieces.

Notwithstanding that forensic science was a much more rudimentary matter in the eighties than it is now, such a person would surely have also known that there must be the most enormous risk of leaving incriminating evidence behind in the fabrication of a fictional interpretation of the scene of a mass murder in which he would be the only alternative suspect. Any competent calculating mind would surely have reasoned that a single misplaced detail could have been utterly disastrous. I do not quite see that Jeremy has a real motive for the killings in that he was already a remarkably well starred individual with a great future. He was clearly a bit fed up with the ennui of rural existence but the notion he would take such an enormous risk in dramatically slaughtering all his near relatives to obtain further enormous riches does not quite float with me. It also seems reasonably commonsensical that any person capable of or inclined toward such a unspeakable calculated act, would surely have betrayed some tendency toward aberrant behaviour whilst being expensively educated and socialised, but Jeremy's history very arguably does not really mark him out as anything much more than a fairly typical example of young sociable bourgeoisie recently liberated from much informal constraint by the Thatcher government with a fashionable misdemeanour or two against his name. I really do think it reasonably commonsensical, that anyone capable of calmly discharging nine rounds into the face and head of two six year old children, and adding a dozen more to his parents and sister, has to be either obviously genuinely unhinged and deranged or such a cold fish as for it to have been previously observed as a character trait in some respect or other.

The scene which first presented itself to police officers seem to have been chaotic and inevitably suggestive of some sort of protracted struggle having gone on throughout several rooms in the house perhaps starting with the summary execution style killing of the six year old twins who seem to have been taken relatively unawares. This generally tends to argue against the murders being planned in that if you are going to shoot people and stage a fake interpretation of the scene you would surely do just that, you would work out how to take them down without also getting involved in some kind of a wrestling match as arguably seems to have taken place, you would certainly do that by shooting the six ft four ex military man first and from a safe distance, you would arrange your planned fake evidence, you would get out, get home, tidy up your appearance, mentally check over your alibi facts and start making calls to establish your faked narrative directing police toward prepared evidential corroborations of apparent facts: what actually happened was more like an investigative comedy of errors. Whilst on the one hand it seems not unreasonable to suggest such a person would be unlikely to faff around pointlessly pulling a dead victim's pants down for no obvious reason, it might for instance be surmised by proponents of the Jeremy guilty theory as a comment on the fact he was it seems, rightly suspected of having recently stolen the cash float from the campsite owned by the family and had been caught sneaking into the house. I seem to recall having read in other sources that the incident involved Mugford and that Neville Bamber had tidied the thing over discreetly so it might be viewed as a case of something more like him getting a bit too entitled than of him evidencing a genuinely malevolent disposition: Wikipedia quotes him as having explained the matter as wanting to prove that site security needed improvement. As far as the killings themselves are concerned what is of the remark that the prosecution made much of the implausibility that an injured man bleeding from various gunshot wounds would have called his adoptive son rather than emergency services but the campsite incident tends to mark out Neville Bamber as someone who was (as a magistrate unsurprisingly) highly sensitive to what people thought about his family and may have been thinking of trying to keep the matter of an outburst on Sheila's part within the designation of a domestic incident or something such: we really do not know exactly what happened in the farmhouse that night.

If Jeremy is innocent then it has to be approximately the case that the cousins cooked up some evidence to frame him, they may not have been thinking firstly of trying to engineer anything more than a re-negotiation of the default inheritance situation alleging that certain things had been said about inheritances as the killings unfolded, the cops then started getting leery about what had happened to the crime scene as more negative portrayals of Jeremy emerged, there must have been a certain amount of lobbying from the cousins and their allies but most importantly the Judge at the trial must have knowingly patronised what was a very convenient fiction for clog dancing shire folk. I do have to concede that is in fact just about believable especially within the context of the Thatcher government tightening its grip after the Falklands War and in respect of it wanting to be seen to be having an answer to the social progressiveness and economic levellerism of the Wilson-Callaghan era. The Daily Mail is letting itself down in this article of 10 08 25 in which reporters say he is twisted to have alleged that cops had accidentally shot Sheila a second time whilst monkeying around with the crime scene: one of the reporters is in fact a trainee. I would say it is a very good explanation for some of the anomalies in various accounts of the crime scene especially the silencer evidence which as far as I know does not stand up. It is after all the simplest of extrapolations to say that if cops and his own lawyers knew perfectly well that Andrew Malkinson was innocent of a violent rape whilst he rotted in jail for another ten years, that they are perfectly capable of lying about an accidental weapons discharge at a crime scene.

What probably sticks in the mind of most who have heard a little about the case was that at the funeral of his erstwhile relatives he really did look like someone who was acting badly and it did probably firstly seem that way to many who had seen the funeral footage and heard that he was subsequently charged and convicted. The fact is however that once you read a bit about how evidence was found, and Mugford coached as a witness, it becomes a quite reasonable assertion that the apparent fit of bad acting could be due to various reasons. My local regional newspaper The EADT has been running repeat features about the case recently and among the facts it has recently published is that Jeremy passed a polygraph test as innocent, and that the expert who undertook it, got no reply from Mr Boutflower the now deceased ringleader among Jeremy's accusers when asked if he would care to do the same: what are the odds I ask you?

I suppose I do think there is some meaningful connection between the Whitehouse Farm murders and my own familial contretemps over many years. The suggestion Sheila did in fact happen to have blown her top rather goes with my having sought to report that I had been very clumsily bawled out by a public defender in prior months, and recent elucidations on the fact tend to have prompted the observation that my original familial story evolved in precise parallel to the contemporary Irish Troubles.

(section added 19 10 25 and needs refining)

I suppose that does seem very interesting and there are clearly very arguably several interesting points that might seem, rather than being mere coincidence, to indicate some connection between my pitiful history and the events at White House Farm back in the summer of 85. Before examining the facts and constructing an hypothesis as to how this might have been the case, or perhaps rather as part of constructing an hypothesis as to how this might have been the case, I would ask a couple of questions. How could two contemporary new stories such as the parole hearings for one of Steven Lawrence's killers and the recent sealed files from enquiries into the disastrous crash of the Chinook mark 2 helicopter which crashed into the western highlands in June '94 killing dozens of members of the northern Irish intelligence community possibly be meaningfully or relevantly connected to the events at the farm that year and how could these events possibly be connected to the career of the serial killer Ted Bundy?

Offhand that sounds ludicrous I know, but the first point in the construction of any explanatory hypothesis has to lie in the suggestion which I have continually sought to discuss over at least the last twenty years or so as an explanation for the apparently inexplicable dystopian nightmare that has constituted the sum of my existence, that my paternal family had been significantly the focus for anti appeasement in the later 1930s. In recent years and months I have sought to focus on the events of the later 1930s not just in seeking explanations for personal matters but also in asserting that a proper understanding of what happened then, continues to decisively dictate the dynamics of contemporary political events.

I first heard of Ted Bundy in the later nineties when Americans I ran across in IRC (Internet Relay Chat) were making tasteless jokes about the fact of his infamy and like many I suppose I became grimly fascinated by the extraordinary and apparently inexplicable reign of terror he visited upon young women of a certain kind of germanic appearance. The only victim who did not quite fit this stereotypical appearance was his final victim and I have recently theorised in other documents that he may have targeted a half caste girl to disguise an anti-nazi motivation. Most who seek to explain his motivation for attacking women of north west European origin with long hair and centre partings (like my mother and her friends) focus on his rejection by a teenage sweetheart of that appearance but what seemed to present itself to me was that he is clearly to some extent of Jewish ancestry. His maternal half-brother Rich is far more obviously so but his date of birth in 1946 and unresolved allegations/stories about his parentage surely make it a reasonable looking suspicion that he was motivated by a consanguinity with holocaust victims and his hobnobbing with Republican politicians when most trendy young people had espoused a sort of classic liberalism rather associated with the Democrats, could conceivably signify some desire or impulse to hunt down the coterie of Nazi war-criminals that was then being co-opted into the anti communist cold war by the US government and his legalistic chicanery some comment upon the fact: that may seem rather vague and most would probably rightly assert that if such killers ever have an explicable motive his rejection by a girlfriend answering to this description is rather more straightforward.

Well I suppose it is all too arguably a very vague sort of long shot to suggest he was very interested in opposing antisemitism and that in very short, he could conceivably have overheard arguably key events in the UK, have appraised that a certain small infant (myself) had been attacked with a razor blade which left a nasty little scar on my/his right palm either by a woman answering to approximately this description, or at the partial behest of such a woman which was to the significant disapprobation of the/an anglo-jewish English speaking community, the point being, that Neville Bamber had perhaps been involved in some sort of laundry job on the incident and associated facts via some association with my paternal family. This of course does appear ludicrously remote, requires more elucidation than I can give it here and now, and does presuppose that the attack on my infant self had been widely noted within the context of post holocaust recriminations as it were, but certain contextual facts are oddly supportive of the hypothesis. It is likely mere coincidence that the judge who convicted him in Florida is a doppleganger of the hostile stepfather I had formally acquired in 1974 when he commenced his killing spree, but his attention to parenting, and the fact he frequently feigned to have some kind of an arm or hand injury as a ploy to lure his victims, does tend to arrest the attention of a diligent and enquiring mind.

Many will not thank me for asserting I think it fairly obvious what is approximately the content and conclusion of the sealed files relating to the Chinook crash of 94 and many others will probably take the contrary view. The unfortunate occurrence has, like various versions of the events at White House Farm been subject to so many revisions, deceptions and contradictions that it is almost impossible to distinguish between fact and convenient fiction without a huge effort of logistical analysis. The most recent conclusion I thought it seemed possible to reasonably make, was that its US manufacturers were to blame for the software glitch which it seems made the thing turn the wrong way: I believe that software error is the favourite explanation now. Within the last year or two however I noted it had been alleged that our domestic defence establishment had in fact been responsible for writing the allegedly faulty software and without going into an immense amount of causative detail, what is of the prima facie theory that the software error originated from an insistence that a certain individual, yours truly, did not have a torrid sinister nightmare of an upbringing commencing with having been attacked by some individual who had inflicted a lifelong scar on a two year old who would among other things sustained some kind of a long term amnesiac complex, various cognitive problems and a certain amount of passive behavioural disorder such as the fact he/I cannot argue reasonably in the way most do. In this respect the fact I tend to abandon arguments rather than seek some kind of middle ground or affect a violent overwhelming response, is it seems fair to say quite synonymous with having had my head nastily bitten off at the age of two and no-one admitting to it. The point as far as the narrative is concerned is that quite a few sinister accidents appear to ensue from this fact over the years including quite strikingly the great Ipswich docks fire of '82 and there seems at least to me, some good reason to surmise that some software writer's catastrophic mistake could be reasonably linked to the scar on my right palm.

Again, the matter deserves far more attention to detail than I can afford to give it here and now but broadly speaking the improbability of such an apparent coincidence being meaningful tends to be countered by the suggestion that my father's family had been the subject of an unusual amount of attention in prior decades and had perhaps for example been seen to have been related to the late Dame Vera Lynn. What is perhaps relevantly of the fact that by the later eighties I had related to the local Constabulary that my mother and her partner had told a load of lies to a public defender about my father not having any social issues despite the fact he had recently fled to Thailand with a spuriously acquired partner, the motivation for which was clearly to evade a discussion of his parenting history. What is of having to reiterate that the 'de facto' reality was that the public defenders negligent and overwhelming hostility coupled with the lies related to him had left me being forced to work fraudulently under the explicit threat of summary imprisonment: what is obviously of relating that the fact by 93 I think it was, instead of concluding that she had been in effect conducting a criminal blackmail they (the Suffolk police) gave my mother a job, she being then a competent and very fast typist, is definitely the kind of circumstance that might contribute toward a software engineer getting something catastrophically wrong. As far as the crash itself is concerned, well obviously no-one will ever speak of what happened on board that helicopter but aside from the fact it has taken about forty years of endless lies about it having eventually been expunged if not quite entirely on a formal basis, the fact remains that some authority insisted on using the mark two and its new computerised navigation systems in defiance of the most enormous misgivings of various veteran pilots so the software engineers may in all fairness not be quite entirely to blame. Another interesting circumstance is that by the approximate time of the crash I hade made friends with a young man from the neighbourhood of North Ipswich by the name of, lets call him Alexei Bergin via the then Suffolk College, and in subsequent years he had been good enough to share some of his computer science savvy with me (unlike my so called brother Sean) and indeed is responsible for first instructing me on how to compose webpages and the point is to say that it is another meaningful looking coincidence that his family are related to RJ Mitchell whose brainchild was the Supermarine Spitfire: what is of the remark that he has ADHD and is often infuriatingly off the point.

The final main point is as to how could the murder of Stephen Lawrence be connected to the fateful events at White House Farm in the summer of 95 and the answer seems to lie in the suggestion that June and Neville Bamber, especially June, were closely acquainted with one of my father's aunts and were not highly unlikely to have been familiar with the dysfunctional familial intrigues authored by or associated with my father. What is of reiterating it seems unquestionable that I had been attacked with a razor blade during some incident involving the shortage of money for cocaine, probably during the latter part of 66 when Jeremy Bamber and Sheila Caffel were of primary school age, and that my father was unable to report it without setting in motion a chain of events that would have sent him back to prison. What is additionally of having to restate that my paternal grandmother might seem to have been something of a Nazi sympathiser, a remark which does require some significant further careful examination before being taken as fact, and that things had never been genuinely pleasant between her daughter my paternal aunt and herself. What is for instance of observing that many had good reason to support Hitler and that it was a much better idea in the mid thirties than it had become by the mid sixties. Without going to excessive repetitive detail what was of the fact that when my father died I alleged it had become apparent there was something distinctly malign about this paternal aunt's demeanour, that she was struggling hard to appear an innocent victim of various dysfunctional circumstances that she had in fact all too evidently assiduously and surreptitiously engineered. One of the family photos I found in the aftermath of my father's violent demise was one which clearly showed her muttering what appeared to be death threats into her mother's ear as they examined my cot so I have to presume that she may have actually been seriously considered for a first or second degree murder charge in respect of her mother's death. It is quite easy to imagine that conflict in the household subsequent to my grandfather's death may have led to her mother's resentment of her proprietary airs and I got the distinct impression there may have been reports from neighbours of them having violent arguments. I had been told that my grandmother died from complications ensuing from gall stones which could have been a euphemism for her being effectively, or in effect, having been kicked in the slats. If there is any kind of truth in such an interpretation there is again no question that my father would have had difficulty in explaining details without exposing himself to the threat of another prison sentence. What is of the remark therefore that none of my natural parents generation had related the truth about family history, that all were hoping I would never commence recalling how I acquired a nasty palm scar in infancy, and that they patronised some twaddle about my wanting to be a labour devotee during the early years of the Thatcher administration when I was trying to secure public housing in my own right.

What is quite arguably of the remark this underhand scripting by my paternal aunt underscored the fracas among a group of what might be termed nationalist skinheads in an east Ipswich pub the John Bull back in 1982 which led to someone's death, a strangling in the old Caribbean Club the following year which seems to have disappeared from official records but may have been as I have mentioned here and there previously, what prompted the attack on Stephen Lawrence since his father was acquainted with the principal suspects and it might even be fair to call him an associate of theirs: not a lot of people know dat. If I use the past tense it is because the individual seeming to have been the principal suspect killed himself on a brand new superbike about a fortnight after I heard that my name was connected with the failure of the investigation via my supposed identity as a youthful wannabee leftist firebrand. I think Steven was likely to have been unlucky in being caught with conversation about the murder on his wires so to speak and he probably did not know a great deal about it: people don't really tend to go around committing murder for no reason as there are severe theoretical penalties attached. It is furthermore the case it is highly likely I was acquainted with the Caribbean Club victim, was likely nearby at the time and was myself almost stabbed to death a few dozen yards away in late 86. The notion my aunt's scripting was a significant or decisive factor in these events does I supose betoken some acceptance of the idea that many had seen my paternal family to have been unusually involved with the voices and actions of major public figures in prior decades, and what is also of reiterating that the individual who would become the country's youngest female double murderer in the months following my father's violent decease at the hands of his other son, one Lorraine Thorpe, was someone who had quite inadvertantly had an earful of my aunt's scheming prior to what I would have said was her relatively unwilling involvement in her own father's death.

Oh yes of course: what is of the arguably quite reasonable suspicion that Neville Bamber may have been drawn into tacitly laundering some of these matters via June's plausibly having been an intimate acquaintance of my great aunt. Sheila could have been aware of the fact of my existence in quite some detail and if she was the shooter she might have been inflamed by some of what was being laundered: she might also have stumbled into 'troubles' related headaches which may have amplified her distemper. Besides the fact I had been attacked by someone at the age of two and had a lifelong scar inflicted other events that had occurred to me from the age of six had forced me into a state of involuntary denial just to cope with day to day realities and I have to repeat it was supreme folly to have laundered what had taken place and allowing my father to have booked joint accommodation for us when I attained the minimum age for housing in my own right. I have repeated a few times in recent years that some of the details of what had taken place did not resurface into consciousness until several years after the Millennium and it is only e.g. in recent days that I have for instance recalled having been made to run around naked in Kielder Forest with my two putative stepbrothers at the age of about six or seven. I have only seen them a few times since we grew up but the last time I saw the elder in 2007 I could have sworn he had alleged that his mother had been involved in prostituting his mildly retarded younger half brother: I really would like to think I was mistaken about this but I don't think so ...............

This is the point where I remind readers that my thoughts as set down here are speculative and that I will likely be refining the document fairly soon