An analysis of Nevill’s murder

[scipio_usmc]

AE recorded on her cards she kept as aide memoirs that he had no scratches on his hands.  EP inspected his hands on 12th Aug '85 and again found no marks.

From CoA Doc:

Ground 13 – scars on the appellant's hands 444. With all respect to the appellant's team, we have found this ground of appeal incomprehensible. Indeed, and in fairness to him, Mr Turner conceded at the outset of his submissions that he did not put this forward as a free-standing ground of appeal, and preferred to rely upon it as no more than an element in the factual background to his overarching allegation of unsatisfactory police behaviour. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, and in order to assess whether this particular complaint adds anything to the overall strength of the appellant's case, we are satisfied that we should consider and deal with it, albeit briefly.

445. The starting point for such consideration is the fact that at no point during the trial was any evidence led from any witness, nor any witness cross-examined, to establish or suggest that the appellant had at any material time had any scars or scratches on his hands. Indeed, on the hand-written postcard note from Ann Eaton (CAE/4) which was disclosed at trial, the entry for the 8 August recorded "No scratches on his hands - no shaking at all".

446. At one stage during his interview on 12 September 1985 DS Jones asked Mr Bamber to show him his hands, and he examined both the palms and the backs. He offered no explanation to the appellant as to why he had done this, but it seems highly likely that the stimulus for this action was a telephone call that appears to have been made on the previous day to the police by Anthony Pargeter, who was Nevill Bamber's nephew. He is said to have reported having seen small "circular scars" on Jeremy Bamber's right hand. This piece of information triggered a series of actions. By Action no. 96, on the 12 September 1985 DI Bright was instructed to take a further statement from Mr Pargeter on this matter. No result of this action is recorded, and no formal statement from Mr Pargeter appears in the documentation in the case. This may well be because of the other information that was forthcoming on the matter. By Action no. 97 of the same date DS Jones was instructed to interview the appellant on the same topic - and DS Jones' response referred to the notes of interview and reported that there were no marks visible.

447. On the 14 September 1985 by Action no. 200, DC Thomerson was instructed to take a statement from David Boutflour (the son of Robert Boutflour) to include, among other matters, any sightings of cuts on the appellant's hands on the day after the killings. This action produced a statement from David Boutflour which included a passage in which he stated that on the Wednesday or Thursday after the killings Jeremy Bamber had made a comment to him about having received two small cuts on his hand while working on the farm. "As he made this comment he showed me the palm of his right hand, but as I was about 5 feet away from him at the time I could not see the scratches to which he referred." This passage did not appear in the edited statement of this witness, which was served on the defence as evidence for use at trial. On 16 September, by Action no. 201, instructions were given for the trigger guard of the rifle to be examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory for blood. There is no record of any result.

448. By Action no. 302 on 19 September 1985 DS Jones was asked to submit a report about these matters, and in his reply DS Jones repeated that when Mr Bamber had been interviewed "There were no visible signs of scars etc". He added that if and when the appellant was re-interviewed an ultra violet light could be used to examine his hands again. This suggestion was picked up on the 24 September 1985 in Action no. 396 when DS Jones was instructed to carry out such an examination; but his response as recorded on the action sheet was "Bamber charged; above not done on instructions of A/D/C/ Superintendent Ainsley." Indeed, on the 26 September 1985 a letter from the office of the DPP indicated that in the view of the Director the appellant should not now be further interviewed.

449. As has already been made clear, the prosecution case against the appellant was conducted on the basis that there was no sign of any injuries to his hand subsequent to the killings. The complaint that the prosecution had kept the defence in ignorance of material which would have permitted them to mount an attack on the veracity of Mr Pargeter is misconceived; there was never any necessity to mount any such attack. Mr Pargeter had never given any evidence which incriminated the appellant in any way. So far from the prosecution seeking to advance dubious evidence hostile to the appellant's interests, it appears that they were unwilling to advance any suggestions by Mr Boutflour or Mr Pargeter that they were not able to confirm for themselves to be soundly based. One of the more remarkable contentions in the appellant's skeleton argument on this topic is the assertion that the defence "were kept in ignorance of the fact of the officer's examination of the appellant's hands....". The appellant, of all people, plainly knew himself that that had happened.

450. Finally, the decision not to pursue the instruction given under Action no. 396 and not to re-interview the appellant again was entirely consistent with code C under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, given that by that time the appellant was either about to be or indeed had just been charged.

451. In our judgment there is no foundation whatsoever for the suggestion that the matters complained of under this ground of appeal resulted in any prejudice to the appellant in the conduct of his defence. Nor, in our judgment, do the facts underlying these complaints provide any support for the assertion that the police officers concerned were determined to withhold information from the appellant or his advisors in an attempt to influence the evidence in favour of a prosecution. In reality, the opposite appears to be the case.

This offers no insight into how well anyone looked at his hands the first couple of days after the murders.  When AP supposedly saw the marks on his hands is not disclosed.  By the time police looked at him in detail it was a month after the murders so meaningless.

At any rate, as I already mentioned he told Julie he wore gloves which would minimize any injuries he would suffer and also prevent GSR from depositing on his hands.   He had no idea that cops would not test his hands for GSR or wounds.  That being the case he made sure he wore gloves.


The appeal sections above note that the presence of any wounds AP supposedly obsevered were never made a part of the case.  The jury heard their were no marks and convicted him anyway and had eveyr right to do so because:

1) he could have received wounds that no one noticed and healed by the time police looked at him in detail a month later.

2) he could have wore gloves and thus not received any wounds.   

[Holly Goodhead]

Thank you Simong and Sika.

Here's the expert evidence called at trial about the phone call:

68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone

[Holly Goodhead]

This offers no insight into how well anyone looked at his hands the first couple of days after the murders.  When AP supposedly saw the marks on his hands is not disclosed.  By the time police looked at him in detail it was a month after the murders so meaningless.

At any rate, as I already mentioned he told Julie he wore gloves which would minimize any injuries he would suffer and also prevent GSR from depositing on his hands.   He had no idea that cops would not test his hands for GSR or wounds.  That being the case he made sure he wore gloves.


The appeal sections above note that the presence of any wounds AP supposedly obsevered were never made a part of the case.  The jury heard their were no marks and convicted him anyway and had eveyr right to do so because:

1) he could have received wounds that no one noticed and healed by the time police looked at him in detail a month later.

2) he could have wore gloves and thus not received any wounds.

My mistake I see I put 12th Aug when it was in fact 12th Sep that EP inspected JB's hands.  In any event I am sure that AE would have testified had JB had marks on his hands and she records on 8th Aug that he had no scratches to his hands.

[simong]

Thanks for posting that up Holly. I have memories of that happening whilst trying to use the phone as a whippersnapper, before I phones! So the theory of JB ringing his place from WHF is possible.

With regard to the phonecall and JB using it as an alibi. The phonecall might not have been planned but adapted due to circumstance. Things did not go to plan whether JB did it or a hitman. Nevill put up a tremendous fight and June was left alive upstairs. Maybe the phonecall was because things had not gone to plan and to work out what to do next (possibly due to Sheila being shot twice).

Maybe it is worth considering that this was a plan acted on impulse. I would agree that if a third party had committed this atrocity, JB would have been best off in London with Julie. It was midweek, harvest time and JB was a pissed off little bunny that day. Nevill wouldn't let him use the new farm toy. Maybe Jeremy just lost it that long summers day and decided, now or never.

[scipio_usmc]

To scipio,

As far as i am aware the telecom representative testified regarding Jeremy's calls to Julie from the payphone at the bottom of the road near WHF in the morning. These were trunk (long distance) calls and BT itemised these, in 1985. I have looked into this at exhaustive lengths and there was no itemised billing on local calls in 1985. WHF to JB's at Goldhanger was a local call and would not have been itemised. Where you have got this theory of him ringing his home from WHF, i don't know but the prosecution did not pursue this line on the phonecalls. They persisted with the theory that the call never took place because neither the defence or prosecution could prove they had or hadn't. What they could prove or disprove was Jeremy calling Julie in London (trunk call) but i have never come across any reference to it? Mike Tesko once posted up itemised billing from JB's at Goldhanger for the months (October/November) after the murders, so where are the itemised bills for August?

I do agree with a lot of what you post scipio and i admire the way you stimulate debate on this case so please don't feel that i am nitpicking.

What I have read indicates there was no itemized billing period in 1985 and thus a telephone employee had to testify to confirm the various calls. Moreover I read that a telephone employee testified about the call from WHF to Goldhanger and that the phone was left off the hook but hung up on Jeremy's end.  He specifically testified the line would not clear until 1-2 minutes passed before Jeremy could then use the phone.  This was used to rebut his claim he hung the phone up and immediately dialed police.  He would not have been able to do so because the line would not clear until it had been hung up for 1-2 minutes. 

This is from the 2002 appeal decision:

"There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone."

More detail was provided in other sources which stated this expert was in fact an employee of the telephone company who verified the call took place but that it was not ended by someone at WHF as claimed.  I assume this info to be accurate and that the court would not simply make it up.  Quite clearly this is not about the payphone call to Julie later. If you have evidence that the appeal court is in error I welcome seeing it, I am just going by the information I have seen.

   

As for the hitman scenario, this is all down to ones own interpretation. If you have watched a lot of Hollywood films then the hitman scenario is impossible. If you have met a wide rang of society, then the hitman theory is feasible. There are lots of desperate people from all walks of life that will do all sorts of shocking things for the promise of money.

Another thing as well, the murderer would definitely have been covered in blood. The fight with Nevill and the close contact shooting would have splattered the killer in blood.

Finally i just wanted to say how good it is to see Holly is still here. Its not easy being in a minority on a forum and i feel you handle yourself with a lot of dignity. You are an asset to this forum.

A big problem is that expectations are based on hollywood.  In Hollywood you see hitmen who murdered hundreds of people and who are extremely skilled.  In real life you find mafia hitmen with 2-4 kills and they are anything but perfectly executed usually.  I can't tell you how many hit men ented up getting caught and then turning on their client.

If you have the stones to kill someone yourself then you don't hire a hitman.  If you are too weak to do the deed yourself then you hire a hitman.  But that not only costs money you end up with someone who can implicate you. The more people involved in a crime the more people to rat you out.

When yo uhire a hitman you make sure that you know when the murder will be and you make sure you have witnesses to say you were with them. That is the reality of what you do when you hire a hitman so you can say you had nothing to do with it and had a solid alibi.  Jeremy didn't do that.  It is pretty obvious he made up the hitman claim because he didn't want Julie to know he was a cold blooded killer. You are still responsible either way but you are even more coldblooded to do the killings yourself.


 

[simong]

Maybe Nevill got to the phone and the killer wasn't sure if he had made a call or not and from there the phonecall to JB was fabricated. Whatever way you look at this case, the phonecall is crazy in any scenario. If JB did it, why not wait until the bodies are discovered. If you feel he is innocent (Holly) you must think it is extremely odd that an ex serviceman would stop to ring his son 3miles away to tell them to come quick as his sister is going beserk with a gun. Surely he is going to disarm her, not ring someone who might not answer at 3am. Something caused that phonecall to be a necessity and it wasn't part of any plan. 

[scipio_usmc]

My mistake I see I put 12th Aug when it was in fact 12th Sep that EP inspected JB's hands.  In any event I am sure that AE would have testified had JB had marks on his hands and she records on 8th Aug that he had no scratches to his hands.

How close a look would he have given her at the palms of his hands though?  Unless you cut your knuckles on teeth or bones you just get abrasions which are whitish and unless you look close up you can't see them.  I doubt she made him show her close up. What AP claims to have seen sounds like abrasions merely not cuts but again we don't know when he supposedly saw them. Jeremy could have gotten abrasions weeks after the murders, it does happen.

Jeremy told Julie he wore gloves and I am sure he knew about gunshot residue so I believe that he did wear them.   Rudimentary planning would feature gloves because of not only GSR but if you leave a print in the victim's blood you are screwed.  There are plenty of other ways to mess up but a bloody print is the most notable. Jeremy told Julie he was worried his glove came off and that he might have left a hand or palm print in blood so he had to be aware of such possibility.

Knife crimes are where wounds to a perp are most significant. Someone wielding a knife will often cut their own hands.  A bloody knife is slippery and your hand ends up sliding up the knife onto the blade.  This leaves the killer's blood behind and a cut for authorities to find IF the examine the perp before it can heal.  Sometimes there will even be scars depending up the size of the knife that made the wound and depth of the wound.

In this case, the best chance for a wound that would cause the killer's blood loss is the stock breaking. The stock would have scratched the hand if not cut it, but gloves could have prevented any injury. 

[scipio_usmc]

Maybe Nevill got to the phone and the killer wasn't sure if he had made a call or not and from there the phonecall to JB was fabricated. Whatever way you look at this case, the phonecall is crazy in any scenario. If JB did it, why not wait until the bodies are discovered. If you feel he is innocent (Holly) you must think it is extremely odd that an ex serviceman would stop to ring his son 3miles away to tell them to come quick as his sister is going beserk with a gun. Surely he is going to disarm her, not ring someone who might not answer at 3am. Something caused that phonecall to be a necessity and it wasn't part of any plan.

According to the 2002 Appeal Court decision the telephone company testified the call actually happened.

As to why JB made the call, it was because he feared leaving the rifle on top of Sheila was not enough to convince anyone that she was responsble.  Remember that she didn't have a mark on her body and no GSR on her clothing or body.  He didn't want police to think the killer shot her then simply left the gun on her and fled. His way to make sure she got the blame was to get police to think she was going crazy with the gun before police ever found the bodies. He felt the best way to make sure she got the blame was by spoonfeeding them about leaving the gun out and some other things and claiming his father told him she was the one doing it.  Moreover, if the bodies were found the next day potentially police could have determined they could have been shot while Jeremy was still there at 10PM.  He wanted the time of the murders fixed to a time when he was not supposedly there.  He did that by telling police he received a call thus they were alive still and died after that. To this day the time of death is fixed at 2-3AM because of his claims during the call.  For all we know it happened midnight though. Police never nailed the TOD down based on science.

So it is not as if he had no reason at all to try this farce.  He had no idea all of that would backfire and reveal that he was the killer.  He didn't realize the wounds prevented Nevill from being able to talk or that police would figure out the suppressor had been used. He didn't think about the fact the phone hadn't been hung up either or might have told police a little different version that matched the facts more.. 

It is ironic that had he not called police and instead made someone else find the victims in the morning he would have had a better chance of escaping liability. If he made it look like a robbery that would have been even better still. He figured the best frame was his sister though because people just chalk up anything to crazy people.  But to frame her he should have done it a different hour when she they would have been awake at least and thus a confrontation more likely. 

Killers who plan like to kill people in their sleep because they are most vulnerable at that time.  If you try to shoot everyone in a hall or the like to make it appear a burglar was caught and had to kill them then you run the risk of some escaping, jumping you, or even phoning for help. Trying to kill people in their sleep is consistent with a planned execution though.  A burglar doesn't need to search a whole house to kill everyone they kill the people who see them then get their ass out of there.  They don't go search for people still in bed to shoot as well.  So it is not that easy to plan the perfect scenario.  There are risks always of the plan being botched and then you are up the creek.

The best way to get away with murder is to kill strangers and leave no fingerprints, DNA or the like behind. The ability to link you will be nil in such case. Killing someone you know is tricky.
   

[scipio_usmc]

I forgot to address the suggestion Jeremy would have been covered in blood.   

There is no evidence to suggest he moved bodies around which is the number 1 way of getting covered in blood.

The fight with Nevill may or may not have resulted in him covered in blood. It would depends on how close they were in contact with one another as they struggled. He would have had some back spatter from the gunshots but it would not have necessarily "soaked" him. Forward spatter and cast off spatter is much larger than back spatter droplets which is why they are usually missed just from looking with the naked eye. So it doesn't follow that he had to be covered in blood in the sense that we think that covered with blood means.

The big thing about back spatter is that it can't result from innocent transfer after the fact, it is proof someone was at the scene at the time a shooting occurred.

I personally think he changed his clothes before calling police, it would explain the gap in time between the call to Julie and police.  The only way to know this for sure would have been if police tested his clothing.  If back spatter were found it would mean he didn't change his clothing but if it were not found it means he did change his clothing. Since police didn't test the clothes he was wearing the night of the murders we will never know.

     

[Holly Goodhead]

Maybe Nevill got to the phone and the killer wasn't sure if he had made a call or not and from there the phonecall to JB was fabricated. Whatever way you look at this case, the phonecall is crazy in any scenario. If JB did it, why not wait until the bodies are discovered. If you feel he is innocent (Holly) you must think it is extremely odd that an ex serviceman would stop to ring his son 3miles away to tell them to come quick as his sister is going beserk with a gun. Surely he is going to disarm her, not ring someone who might not answer at 3am. Something caused that phonecall to be a necessity and it wasn't part of any plan.

Hello Simong.  According to RB's wit stat NB had a low opinion of the police he likened them to Dad's Army.  This may give some insight into NB's reluctance to involve the police along with the fact that according to CC's book NB and June were very private  people:

"he (NB) commented that if they were like the police at Witham they were no more good than Dad's Army":

(bottom of 1st, top of 2nd)

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1651

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1652

(You need to logon on to Blue to read the wit stats above)

An excerpt from Colin's book re the day of Sheila's funeral:

"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam.  Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden.  Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it?  I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence.  They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong.  These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".

"Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness -   which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn't have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."

I was trying to find the tape recording which features JB saying that once he received the call from NB and was cut off he attempted to call back to clarify things.  He went on to say that he wondered what help NB wanted ie what did he expect of JB.  I will try to dig it out later.  If Dr Ferguson had said to NB there was little or no chance of SC becoming violent he may have been lulled into a false sense of security.  I do not think NB would have wanted police cars with sirens and flashing lights turning up at WHF.  Especially as he viewed them as 'bungling'.  Word would soon get around in the local community and NB would not have wanted this.  Also he would have known that if the police were called SC would not have been allowed access to the twins unsupervised thereafter for a very long time if not indefinitely. I think it was a delicate balancing act and a desperate attempt by NB to keep it in-house. 

[scipio_usmc]

Hello Simong.  According to RB's wit stat NB had a low opinion of the police he likened them to Dad's Army.  This may give some insight into NB's reluctance to involve the police along with the fact that according to CC's book NB and June were very private  people:

"he (NB) commented that if they were like the police at Witham they were no more good than Dad's Army":

(bottom of 1st, top of 2nd)

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1651

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1652

(You need to logon on to Blue to read the wit stats above)

An excerpt from Colin's book re the day of Sheila's funeral:

"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam.  Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden.  Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it?  I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence.  They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong.  These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".

"Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness -   which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn't have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."

I was trying to find the tape recording which features JB saying that once he received the call from NB and was cut off he attempted to call back to clarify things.  He went on to say that he wondered what help NB wanted ie what did he expect of JB.  I will try to dig it out later.  If Dr Ferguson had said to NB there was little or no chance of SC becoming violent he may have been lulled into a false sense of security.  I do not think NB would have wanted police cars with sirens and flashing lights turning up at WHF.  Especially as he viewed them as 'bungling'.  Word would soon get around in the local community and NB would not have wanted this.  Also he would have known that if the police were called SC would not have been allowed access to the twins unsupervised thereafter for a very long time if not indefinitely. I think it was a delicate balancing act and a desperate attempt by NB to keep it in-house.

Once again you ignore the evidence and common sense.

Jeremy's claim that he was on the phone and that it went dead was proven false by the telephone represeantative who testified a call was made to WHF and never hung up on WHF's end. Rather the phone call was disconnected by the person at Goldhanger hanging up and the line clearing after 1-2 minutes.  The phone can't have gone dead, the line was not cut and the phone wasn't hung up at WHF. Jeremy is the one who ended the call and he did so by hanging up.

So Jeremy lied about the phone going dead and lied when he told Colin that he immediately tried to call back because it would take 1-2 minutes for his line to clear so tha the could make a call. 

The best you can hope to argue based on the evidence is that someone called from WHF and stopped talking and that Jeremy thus hung up.  But if that is the case then why did Jeremy lie and keep telling people the line went dead?  Jeremy himself contradicted this when confronted with such evidence.  He changed his claim to saying that after Nevill stopped talking he heard scuffling and maybe even gunshots. 

You don't want to discuss this because it means he is contradicting himself and at the very minimum was lying in one of these accounts if not both.

The larger issue though is that since the phone call was ended at Goldhanger not WHF this means Jeremy could have dialed his own number, left the phone ringing his number as he traveled home, arrived home and answered the phone and then hung up and this explains the telephone evidence that was presented at tiral which features a call made from WHF that was ended by the phone at Goldhanger hanging up.

So this evidence presented by the telphon company doesn't establish any of the victims made the call rather Jeremy could have done so.  Not only is it  apossibility that Jeremy phoned himself from WHF there is physical evidence to prove that Nevill didn't.

The evidence demonstrates the killer entered the master bedroom and shot Nevill and Sheila as they were in bed.  The killer was towards the foot of the bed not near the door so the door was not blocked.  The victims thus got up and ran towards the door.  June was immobilized but Nevill wasn't and was able to make it to the kichen before being killed.  In the bedroom Nevill suffered shots that tore part of his lip off, shattered his jaw and severed his voicebox so he would have been unable to speak.  If he picked up the phone at best he coudl have dialed (which would have gotten blood on the phone) but would not have been able to speak.  So he can't have told Jeremy what Jeremy claims Nevill told him.

Your babble about Nevill would not want police there, ignores Nevill and June's injuries.  Nevill couldn't speak but even if by some miracle he could speak his hatred of police would not prevent him from calling them for medical help.  The notion that he would have tried to keep police out of it after he and his wife had been shot is absurd.  Jeremy could not provide medical attention to them.  Even if he had called Jeremy instead of 999 he would have declared they were shot and asked Jeremy to call for medical attention.  He would not have announced to just come over to help disarm her he would have said they had been shot.

In order to get aorund this you make up the fiction that Nevill got away from Sheila twice.  According to you she woke up her parents, June stayed in bed while Nevill ran to use the phone and called Jeremy.  Instead of shooting or beating Nevill at that point she marched him back upstairs at gunpoint (and for some reason he complied though he risked being shot as he ran to the kitchen he decided not to take further risk) and wnet back to bed at gunpoint.  Then she began shooting them and he got away a second time ot the kitchen but this time he passed out before reaching the phone a second time.  She then beat his limp body and after she broke the rifle over his head she shot him.  Why did she beat him instead of just shooting him if he passed out?  No explanation from you, you ignore that such makes no sense because in fact your entire tale makes no sense and is not supported by any evidence.

What about the kitchen touchtone phone being unplugged, hidden and replaced by the bedroom dial phone?  You say nothing is suspicious about that at all.  You just deny reality hoping no one will notice.

Why would Sheila hide the phone in advance?  Why would June just stay in bed while Sheila was chasing her husband?  Why would Sheila insist on marching him to bed to shoot him instead of shooting him as he was dialing the phone?  Why would Jeremy lie and claim the phone went dead if in fact it was just dropped and he could hear the commotion going on?  His new account of having heard a struggle and shooting blows your claim out of the water.  His claim is that the struggle and shooting happened right after the phone was knocked out of Nevill's hand. That blows your claim hey were marched upstairs and Nevill ran down a second time right out of the water. Where did this claim come from anyway? You simply made it up there is no evidence at all to support the killer and Nevill leaving the kitchen and returning a second time.

Why did you make it up? Because if Nevill entered the kitchen after he was already shot then the call Jeremy claims he received is impossible and Jeremy is for sure the killer.

Nevill and his wife were definitely in bed when the shooting started.  A crazy person who decided to kill them would not order them to bed and insist on shooting them there. She would shoot them where they were standing.  If she found the in bed th enotion she would not fire as Nevill got up to leave is silly.  The notion June would stay in bed as Sheila ran after her husband is silly. The notion she would order Nevill back to bed to shoot him instead of shooting him in the kitchen is silly.

So too is it silly to suggest that a man who towered over Sheila and was very strong would call his son to come over to disarm her.  By the acoc..t of every relative including Jeremy she had not touched a gun as an adult, never touched the gun in question and thus might not have even been able to load it.  Thus Nevill would not even know if it were loaded.  He was too scared to try to disarm her though instead he had th egun pointed at him as he called Jeremy.  Jeremy had no greater ability to disarm her than Nevill did so why did he need to call Jeremy? In fact, she had a poor relationship with Jeremy so the greatest chance of her shooting would be if jeremy made her even angrier.  Most importantly though Jeremy could not arrive in at least 5-10 minutes and might even take longer to dress and get there.  Why would Nevill wait so long hoping Jeremy would find his way in the locked house instead of trying to disarm her himself?  If I am scared of a smaller woman shooting me would I pick up the phone and present a nice neat target to try to call someone to come disarm her hoping she would not shoot me while on the phone and hoping she would not shoot me for at least 10 minutes so the person can come help or would I jump her?  I would try to grab the weapon myself.               

You ignore all of this and instead put forth a tale contradicted by evidence that makes no sense.

[John]

The killings were done execution style with absolute precision.  Not the sort of thing someone who was in the midst of a breakdown would do. You don't have to be an expert psychiatrist to work that one out.

[scipio_usmc]

The killings were done execution style with absolute precision.  Not the sort of thing someone who was in the midst of a breakdown would do. You don't have to be an expert psychiatrist to work that one out.

Not perfectly executed though.  Nevill making it out of the bedroom was a major undoing. He should have blocked the door instead of shooting from the foot of the bed.

At least one journalist suggested the following:

The phone was not moved from the bedroom until after the murders. Jeremy left the phone off the hook in the kitchen so the bedroom phone could not call out. Nevill could not call so fled to the kitchen to try to reach the kitchen phone instead.  Sheila would be unlikely to take it off the hook so no calls coudl be made if she were simply in a crazy frenzy so Jeremy decided to move the phone to give a reaosn why Nevill would have to go downstairs to use the phone. 

This is of course a possible scenario, just as much as removing the phone in advance of the murders.  I personally think blood would have been on the phone had it been in the bedroom and moved after.

In either case it shows planning that a person who went into a crazy rage suddenly would not have done.   

Other errors include the box of ammo with 30 rounds he stuck in the kitchen (instead of making sure it had 25) and of course not cleaning the suppressor but even had he done so it might not have washed all the blood away.  The defense still found blood after the police removed all visible blood.

He was quiet enough to not wake the boys and did manage to kill everyone though so he was not wholly incompetent. Considering he didn't use guns much if at all (he lied about using them regularly) he didn't do so bad I suppose. 

[Holly Goodhead]

CALLING Simong... hello

I found the audio clip I was looking for re JB's commentary on the phone call he claims to have received from NB

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151

 >@@(*&)

[steve_trousers]

This is a very interesting thread.

For me, if Bamber is innocent then there is no reason at all for him to lie about the 3am call from Nevill. in that conversation Nevill supposedly states that "Sheila has gone crazy and has got the gun". This means that the killer is either Sheila or Jeremy, and all the evidence suggest that Sheila didnt do it.
Then, Jeremy Bamber himself a few years ago floated the possibility that there was a 3rd party assailant, a person who, If Jeremy is Innocent, knows cannot exist!

Regarding the clothing that Jeremy wore that night, Bob Woffinden mentioned in his article recently that Jeremy most probably wore a wet suit. This is the first time I heard this mentioned with regard to this case and I suppose it is just his supposition but it would appear to be logical and sensible apparel for 'dirty work'.  Just have a quick shower in your bloodied wetsuit and bobs your uncle, provided you can dispose of it properly you are as clean as a whistle.