UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: John on March 04, 2012, 03:37:54 PM
-
Reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and why she never murdered her children and parents as claimed by Jeremy Bamber...
(http://i.imgur.com/brEV3.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/eoF3e.jpg)
Readers should note: It was stated at Jeremy Bamber's trial that as a consequence of what occurred on the morning of the murders and following Jeremy Bamber's own evidence, an innocent Sheila renders Jeremy Bamber guilty by default. It does not mean that he carried out the murders alone however.
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
Please post any suggestions for additions as you think fit.
-
Some great points but number 9's a bit off.
Sheila had smoked cannabis two days before at a party but not on that night. It can stay in the system for weeks which is why it showed up on the post mortem.
Would add the fact that not one shot missed which some very likely would if a psychotic gun novice was running around shooting everyone.
-
Some great points but number 9's a bit off.
Sheila had smoked cannabis two days before at a party but not on that night. It can stay in the system for weeks which is why it showed up on the post mortem.
Would add the fact that not one shot missed which some very likely would if a psychotic gun novice was running around shooting everyone.
Thanks for that input Lucy, I am sure it will amended and added to in due course.
-
Nice work. Here's a couple:
* Sheila had absolutely no interest in or experience of firing guns and would not have been able to load and reload the rifle and fire it 25 times without missing.
* Sheila was a doting mother and adored her father.Both her Doctor and the twins father do not believe Sheila would ever have harmed either.
(I think this list needs it's own thread admin ;D )
-
How about adding Julie Mugfords evidence since that also renders Sheila innocent?
-
Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between.
-
Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between.
Very good point Lucy. And Sheila by all accounts was normally not very coordinate and quote"would have trouble hitting toast with baked beans".
No possible way could she have handle that rifle like Bamber would have the world believe.
-
Evidence of Sheila's innocence...
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
Please post any suggestions for additions as you think fit.
-
An excellent thread which will show people at a glance the overwhelming amount of evidence which supports Sheila. Can I make the suggestion that it is stated at the beginning of the thread that Bamber is guilty by default if Sheila is innocent. It was Jeremy Bamber who implicated Sheila in the crime in the first instance when he telephoned the police and reported that she had gone berserk with a rifle in the farmhouse. If this is in fact rubbish then Jeremy Bamber is clearly lying and by inference, guilty of murder.
-
Oh look...9 out of 11 of those apply to JB too...the only two that don't apply are that he wasn't on cannabis and he wasn't on schizophrenic medication!
-
Other than just being wrong would you like to give us your theory of what happened at WHF that night. Please explain how Bamber could possibly be innocent?
Or are you another Roachy who after 26 years of debate admits himself he has no plausible theory? I don't think that's an unfair request.
-
No I will not theorise as to what happened at WHF on 7th August 1985. I wasn't there. But based on my many hours of reading evidence, statements and testimony etc. what I can say is that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that JB murdered five members of his family. In my opinion the original trial was a sham. Hearsay testimony and second hand evidence. Mind I do admit that JB's defence team left a lot to be desired. This however does not make him guilty.
-
It is looking well now and there are probably a few more genuine facts to be added on top of those already noted. I must get my thinking cap back on. 8-)(--)
-
Evidence of Sheila's innocence...
Readers should note: It was stated at Jeremy Bamber's trial that as a consequence of what occurred on the morning of the murders and following Jeremy Bamber's own evidence, an innocent Sheila renders Jeremy Bamber guilty by default. It does not mean that he carried out the murders alone however.
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
Please post any suggestions for additions as you think fit.
An excellent list of facts which supports Sheila's innocence. We know from Jeremy Bamber's own testimony that the murderer had to be him or his sister Sheila. The growing list of reasons as to why Sheila is innocent of any wrong doing is testament to Bambers GUILT!
Sheila never left her bedroom that morning and she certainly never wielded any rifle.
-
I agree that we should keep the above list foremost in our mind when discussing Sheila and any possible involvement she may or may not had in events.
I believe as long as this list cannot be challenged then Jeremy Bamber is most definitely guilty.
-
I didn't see that before. Am I right in thinking that an innocent Sheila equates to a very guilty Jeremy. i really must catch up on my reading some more. Well done guys and gals on an excellent forum.
-
I didn't see that before. Am I right in thinking that an innocent Sheila equates to a very guilty Jeremy. i really must catch up on my reading some more. Well done guys and gals on an excellent forum.
You got it in one Julie. It goes back to the evidence which Jeremy gave in Court at his trial. He said that his father phoned him and told him that Sheila had got the gun and had gone berserk. If this was true then Sheila was the killer but if it was a lie then Jeremy was the killer.
You cannot have both, either he lied or he told the truth. 8(0(*
-
Can I remind everyone of this list in the light of the soft lad theories being put about on fantasy forum Bamber.
Readers should note: It was stated at Jeremy Bamber's trial that as a consequence of what occurred on the morning of the murders and following Jeremy Bamber's own evidence, an innocent Sheila renders Jeremy Bamber guilty by default.
Evidence of Sheila's innocence...
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
-
Please add Dave ;D (Feel free to edit as necessary)
12. Sheila's doctor who had treated her in house just prior to the murders stated he did not believe Sheila would ever have hurt her sons or her father.
13. Colin Cafell, the twins father, stated Sheila hated guns and had never used them. She wouldn't even let her twins have toy guns.
14. Colin Cagell stated that although Sheila had some psychiatric problems she was a delicate, kind and gentle girl. He is absolutely convinced Sheila would never have hurt the twins and is equally as convinced of Bamber's guilt.
-
There have been several suggestions on twitter as well recently. Jeremy seems to have told the media he heard gunfire in ther house but failed to tell the police. Let me find you the link.
Weekly World News
Sept 17, 1985
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2e8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT46&lpg=PT46&dq=sheila+caffell+gone+too+soon&source=bl&ots=vNRKpGqaX0&sig=W_HklTQWsRKVuzoSiEoW6-SkQ2w&hl=en&ei=58tPTeqzCMOA5AbYwNGnCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=sheila%20caffell%20gone%20too%20soon&f=false
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Here is the bit that refers to two shots being heard over the phone.
-
This is more a thought than a reason but I was going to shoot all my family and then kill myself I wouldn't do it in a short nightie and no underwear. It's a woman thing.
I've always said this, Weets, and no amount of increasingly weird Mike-theories could dissuade me. She would have felt too vulnerable - she had obviously been in bed until the murders began.
-
It just doesn't feel right does it?
-
It just doesn't feel right does it?
I cannot afford to waste my time & energy reading all about this case, but I do like to keep abreast of cases etc.. I need to really...
I don't like these long winded conspiracy theories; as I've said before. But something doesn't sit right definately not...
And with loons like some across the road, the bloke doesn't stand a chance. The CCRC do read forums & websites. They did for Simon's last referral. So if they are doing it with JB's case he needs to shut some of them down IMHO.
-
I think we should update that list now, there should be about 13 reasons by this stage.
-
I did 12, 13 & 14 above Dave .... do you want to collect them all together and do an overall post or I will do it if ya like?
-
There seems to be even more reasons to prove that Sheila Caffell is innocent which means that Jeremy Bamber lied about the telephone call to police ergo he was involved in the killings. That newspaper article from September 1985 is interesting where it states that Bamber said he head two gunshots over the phone.
-
15, Sheila was found without underwear, had she planned to kill herself she wouldnt have wanted to be found in that way.
16, no suicide note
-
Hi Viki. I understand what you are saying but the only way she could have done such a thing would have been had she been off her head. I don't believe for a minute that this was the case. In any event, someone who is off their head would not have the presence of mind to be able to reload a rifle magazine twice and do so without leaving traces on their hands and fingers.
-
I agree, its just another 2 things to add to the list
-
Oh look...9 out of 11 of those apply to JB too...the only two that don't apply are that he wasn't on cannabis and he wasn't on schizophrenic medication!
Actually cannabis taken with Haloperidol can be a trigger for psychosis.
-
Evidence of Sheila's innocence...
Readers should note: It was stated at Jeremy Bamber's trial that as a consequence of what occurred on the morning of the murders and following Jeremy Bamber's own evidence, an innocent Sheila renders Jeremy Bamber guilty by default. It does not mean that he carried out the murders alone however.
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
Please post any suggestions for additions as you think fit.
-
It would have been nigh impossible for her to shoot herself in virtually the same spot with an accidental shot.
Perhaps this could be added to the misnomer list, then. The images of Sheila prove that she never regained consciousness after the first shot?
I was just thinking the same thing Shona. The fact that she had no blood on her hands just shows that she never touched the bleeding wound after the first shot as would have been a normal reaction. I will get admin to draft another one up in the morning, he likes his early nights just now as his wife is back from Africa.
I am not buying that. Those photos indicate that Sheila did indeed have her hand on the first wound (which, by the way, collide with my claim that she shot herself in quick succession). Take a good look.
P.S. The pictures are very unclear here - how come?
-
Excellent work everyone and now we have 13 reasons and growing. You should take up criminology as a career Shona you're so good at this.
We must promote these reasons over Twitter so just watch those ratings soar. ?>)()<
-
I am not buying that. Those photos indicate that Sheila did indeed have her hand on the first wound (which, by the way, collide with my claim that she shot herself in quick succession). Take a good look.
P.S. The pictures are very unclear here - how come?
How exactly do they show such a thing abs. Where is all the blood on her fingers?
(http://i.imgur.com/rC5Do.jpg)
and mores to the point where are the bloodied finger marks on her neck? THERE AREN'T ANY proving that Sheila was unconscious or unable to move when she was shot for the second time by her murderer.
Specifically note the totally clean left hand and the absence of any blood on the top of her nightie where her hand is resting!
(http://i.imgur.com/hjnJq.jpg)
-
There seems to be some smearing on the upper wound (which does not quite make sense.)
But there are smearmarks on Sheila´s nightgown, clearly made by fingers, most likely her fingers. There are streams of dried blood on her lower arm, consistant with her having held her arm/hand up to her neck. (I have seen this happen in front of my eyes recently. My husband had a sudden nosebleed, and he quickly moved his hand up to his face. Blood ran down his forearm, and I was amazed to see that the pattern was pretty much exactly like the streams you see on Sheila´s arm. The blood dried very quickly, and it "stopped" on the arm as you see in the photo.)
There is also the large, triangular bloodstain in Sheila´s armpit-area, which indicates that she had her hand up. How did it get there if she hadn´t - and how did the fingermark-smear on the nightgown get there - and the streams of blood on her lower arm? How?
-
There seems to be some smearing on the upper wound (which does not quite make sense.)
But there are smearmarks on Sheila´s nightgown, clearly made by fingers, most likely her fingers. There are streams of dried blood on her lower arm, consistant with her having held her arm/hand up to her neck. (I have seen this happen in front of my eyes recently. My husband had a sudden nosebleed, and he quickly moved his hand up to his face. Blood ran down his forearm, and I was amazed to see that the pattern was pretty much exactly like the streams you see on Sheila´s arm. The blood dried very quickly, and it "stopped" on the arm as you see in the photo.)
There is also the large, triangular bloodstain in Sheila´s armpit-area, which indicates that she had her hand up. How did it get there if she hadn´t - and how did the fingermark-smear on the nightgown get there - and the streams of blood on her lower arm? How?
The upper wound smearing was caused by her head being lifted forward thus creating a mirror image of the bullet hole and the existing smear.
It is noticeable that there is less of a mirror image with the lower wound.
(http://i.imgur.com/KN4xf.gif)
-
Sorry, I cannot see that at all. In your scenario, the blood runs uphill on her lower arm! I have seen this happen, as I said. Arm/hand up, and this was the pattern. I should have taken a photo.
-
I have to disagree, sorry!
-
I think the dark 'blobs' at the end of each blood run are where it ran to, not from, so I agree with abs. Not sure where that gets us though!
-
There seems to be some smearing on the upper wound (which does not quite make sense.)
But there are smearmarks on Sheila´s nightgown, clearly made by fingers, most likely her fingers. There are streams of dried blood on her lower arm, consistant with her having held her arm/hand up to her neck. (I have seen this happen in front of my eyes recently. My husband had a sudden nosebleed, and he quickly moved his hand up to his face. Blood ran down his forearm, and I was amazed to see that the pattern was pretty much exactly like the streams you see on Sheila´s arm. The blood dried very quickly, and it "stopped" on the arm as you see in the photo.)
There is also the large, triangular bloodstain in Sheila´s armpit-area, which indicates that she had her hand up. How did it get there if she hadn´t - and how did the fingermark-smear on the nightgown get there - and the streams of blood on her lower arm? How?
I agree with you Abs and think the prosecution did too.
Think that after the first shot Sheila was stunned and put her hand up to the wound (a natural reaction) which caused the blood streams on her arms.
Have to say though that after she did this she was shot again when JB realised she wasn't dead from the first shot and 'staged' afterwards to the position we see her in now.
-
I think the dark 'blobs' at the end of each blood run are where it ran to, not from, so I agree with abs. Not sure where that gets us though!
That is exactly what I mean. The blood dries very quickly (surprisingly so), and is arrested and the blood that follows, stops there as well because of a tiny "wall" of dried blood, hence the darker "droplet" at the end (there is more blood there.) Hard to explain, sorry!
-
My explanation is a little less technical - watch rain drops on a window - the 'blob' is always at the front.
-
My explanation is a little less technical - watch rain drops on a window - the 'blob' is always at the front.
Well, actually that is a good way to explain it.
-
For someone who was supposed to have wielded a rifle after she had shot herself in the throat there is remarkably little blood on the rifle itself.
-
I have been trying to find pictures of this blood-drying phenomenon online. This is all I could come up with so far. It is a blood-stained mattress leaning against a wall. The blood stops in larger/thicker droplets at the bottom (going downwards.)
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r318/astabasta_2006/tmp2120_thumb3.jpg)
-
That's a good example abs, so are we all agreed that the blood runs to the blob at the end where it congeals?
So basically, in the picture below the blood is running away from the wrist.
Do you think that blood could have run down her arm while she was still upright?
(http://i.imgur.com/rC5Do.jpg)
-
Aren't these gouge marks, John, with blood running away from them? Ralph had the same marks on his arm.
-
Aren't these gouge marks, John, with blood running away from them? Ralph had the same marks on his arm.
Hi shona, I think she must have been sitting or standing, yes. In my opinion, those are not gouge marks. I always disagree with you, but heck, I like you! 8(0(*
-
Aren't these gouge marks, John, with blood running away from them? Ralph had the same marks on his arm.
Hi shona, I think she must have been sitting or standing, yes. In my opinion, those are not gouge marks. I always disagree with you, but heck, I like you! 8(0(*
Hallo abs. I like you, too!! I think that they might well be gouge marks, where she was pulled by her arm, and I remember that Ralph had them, too. The ones on Ralph's arm were said to have been caused by shorter nails than Sheila's.
-
Aren't these gouge marks, John, with blood running away from them? Ralph had the same marks on his arm.
Hi shona, I think she must have been sitting or standing, yes. In my opinion, those are not gouge marks. I always disagree with you, but heck, I like you! 8(0(*
Hallo abs. I like you, too!! I think that they might well be gouge marks, where she was pulled by her arm, and I remember that Ralph had them, too. The ones on Ralph's arm were said to have been caused by shorter nails than Sheila's.
To me Ralph´s marks look very different - and personally I don´t think they are fingernail-marks. I disagree with a lot of people at the Bamber board about this; I may be wrong, but that is what I see until someone can prove otherwise to me.
-
Aren't these gouge marks, John, with blood running away from them? Ralph had the same marks on his arm.
Hi shona, I think she must have been sitting or standing, yes. In my opinion, those are not gouge marks. I always disagree with you, but heck, I like you! 8(0(*
Hallo abs. I like you, too!! I think that they might well be gouge marks, where she was pulled by her arm, and I remember that Ralph had them, too. The ones on Ralph's arm were said to have been caused by shorter nails than Sheila's.
To me Ralph´s marks look very different - and personally I don´t think they are fingernail-marks. I disagree with a lot of people at the Bamber board about this; I may be wrong, but that is what I see until someone can prove otherwise to me.
Do you think they could have been made with the sharp edge of the rifle stock being jabbed into his arm abs or do you go with the theory that the killer manhandled her by the arm?
-
I don't think they are gouge marks. Do we have the PM reports to confirm or deny that? If they were gouge marks they certainly would have been mentioned.
-
has anyone noticed that livor mortice has appeared on sheilas left upper arm, it also seems to have started to appear on her shoulder/neck at the left hand side?
-
has anyone noticed that livor mortice has appeared on sheilas left upper arm, it also seems to have started to appear on her shoulder/neck at the left hand side?
I've been saying that for MONTHS, Andy!! (Scott and Bailey tonight, matey, woop woop!!)
-
Well spotted girls, I missed that myself. Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees?? 8@??)(
-
Well spotted girls, I missed that myself. Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees?? 8@??)(
Livor mortis starts roughly at half an hour after death, rigor mortis after 3 hours.
It looks like Sheila had been slumped for a while, bleeding onto her nightdress, after the first shot. By the angle of her head, her hair splayed out and the back of her nightdress rucked up behind her I think that the murderer, on realising that she was unconscious and still alive (checked pulse on left wrist?) pulled her down by her feet to expose her neck for the second shot.
-
IMO, the first shot would have caused damage to the soft tissue in Sheila's neck and mouth, releasing blood into these areas. If Sheila was conscious after the first shot I don't believe that she could help but be distressed by this, and cough or choke or gag, spluttering out blood. She clearly didn't.
-
I'm probably doing a Mike again, but if Sheila and Ralph were "battling", trying to wrestle the gun from each other, what would have stopped Ralph kicking out at Sheila, or trying, with his foot, to knock her legs out from under her? Supposition, I know, but Sheila's legs were unmarked.
-
Could an apparently lethargic, uncoordinated Sheila have crept downstairs, picked up the rifle that JB had "left" (did she check how many bullets were in the magazine?) then crept back upstairs (couldn't have carried any spare bullets) and cleanly executed the boys, then entered her parents' room and fired randomly at June and Ralph? Then forced Ralph down the stairs (burn marks on Ralph's neck) and battled with him in the kitchen? Totally unprepared, in a flimsy nightdress and no underwear? And remain completely unscathed? Not very likely, is it?
-
And the logs clearly show that Ralph did NOT make a phone call from WHF that night. The message about Sheila was relayed from JB. Done and dusted.
-
Something else just doesn't sit well with these events Shona. Why on earth would Sheila go into the far corner of her parents bedroom to shoot herself and do so on the floor? It just isn't logical. If Sheila was going to commit suicide she would have done so on the bed.
It is more than obvious that Sheila was scared into the far reaches of the room and had nowhere else to go when she was shot in the neck.
-
That Mike Tesko IS FULLOF SHIT and that Hartley one has proved it for all to see 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Liar
Two-bit thief
Porno films
-
Something else just doesn't sit well with these events Shona. Why on earth would Sheila go into the far corner of her parents bedroom to shoot herself and do so on the floor? It just isn't logical. If Sheila was going to commit suicide she would have done so on the bed.
It is more than obvious that Sheila was scared into the far reaches of the room and had nowhere else to go when she was shot in the neck.
Colin Cafell addressed this in his book. Absolutely convinced that Sheila would never have hurt her boys or Nevill he also points out that Sheila would never have killed herself near her mother June, she would have died with her boys.
-
It does seem that the more we all look at events the more it becomes apparent that Sheila Caffell was one of the victims in this case and not the perpetrator. Gun firing tests in Arizona is one thing but the existing evidence points squarely at Jeremy Bamber whatever way you look at it . Tim is right about what Colin Caffell says about what Sheila would or would not have done. I think Colin was much better placed to know about what Sheila's state of mind was than all the silly theories now being rolled out as fact by Tesko some 26 years after the event.
-
It does seem that the more we all look at events the more it becomes apparent that Sheila Caffell was one of the victims in this case and not the perpetrator. Gun firing tests in Arizona is one thing but the existing evidence points squarely at Jeremy Bamber whatever way you look at it . Tim is right about what Colin Caffell says about what Sheila would or would not have done. I think Colin was much better placed to know about what Sheila's state of mind was than all the silly theories now being rolled out as fact by Tesko some 26 years after the event.
Quite agree David. Colin Caffell knew Sheila from an early stage and was extremely well placed to be able to say what she was or was not capable of. The strange thing is though why say has she finally done it or has this question been taken completely out of context.
When the police called with Colin on the morning of the murders they would not have told him straight out what had taken place for obvious reasons. When he was told that it concerned his ex wife he probably thought that she had got herself into some sort of trouble but murder was the last thing he suspected.
It must be said that he did go along with the 'Sheila did it' theory at the beginning, I wonder why he didn't say more then?
-
It does seem that the more we all look at events the more it becomes apparent that Sheila Caffell was one of the victims in this case and not the perpetrator. Gun firing tests in Arizona is one thing but the existing evidence points squarely at Jeremy Bamber whatever way you look at it . Tim is right about what Colin Caffell says about what Sheila would or would not have done. I think Colin was much better placed to know about what Sheila's state of mind was than all the silly theories now being rolled out as fact by Tesko some 26 years after the event.
Quite agree David. Colin Caffell knew Sheila from an early stage and was extremely well placed to be able to say what she was or was not capable of. The strange thing is though why say has she finally done it or has this question been taken completely out of context.
When the police called with Colin on the morning of the murders they would not have told him straight out what had taken place for obvious reasons. When he was told that it concerned his ex wife he probably thought that she had got herself into some sort of trouble but murder was the last thing he suspected.
It must be said that he did go along with the 'Sheila did it' theory at the beginning, I wonder why he didn't say more then?
Colins comments have been used to give the impression that Sheila was capable of murder, something he later categorically refutes. The visit to White House farm was to have been a new beginning for Sheila and Colin would probably have been part of that in time. Certainly Colin speaks of this in his video intervew.
-
Those who would preach on Jeremy Bambers behalf try to make out that Sheila had some sort of episode that morning which turned her into a madwoman who was capable of not only handling a quite complicated rifle but of firing it 25 times and reloading it twice all at the same time. I know, if it wasn't really sad it would be funny.
-
Those who would preach on Jeremy Bambers behalf try to make out that Sheila had some sort of episode that morning which turned her into a madwoman who was capable of not only handling a quite complicated rifle but of firing it 25 times and reloading it twice all at the same time. I know, if it wasn't really sad it would be funny.
its hardly likey is it john. someone who has an episode doesnt have the presence of mind to do what she did on the spur of the moment. women kill their children in all sorts of ways but it is usually premeditated with a build up of stress and anxiety. there was no such build up with sheila in fact she was over the moon that colin was taking an active part in the family again. as far as i see she was looking forward to the future positively.
-
Hardly likely and most unlikely. The thing that sells it for me though and Shona has pushed this point ad infinitum is the fact of the absence of any blood down the front of her neck or on the front of her nightie. Had she shot herself there would have been blood there, all over her hands and smears all over her mouth and face. The fact is there wasn't.
There would also have been blood on the TRIGGER OF THE RIFLE! THERE WASN'T!!
Jerry slipped up on that one.
-
Hardly likely and most unlikely. The thing that sells it for me though and Shona has pushed this point ad infinitum is the fact of the absence of any blood down the front of her neck or on the front of her nightie. Had she shot herself there would have been blood there, all over her hands and smears all over her mouth and face. The fact is there wasn't.
There would also have been blood on the TRIGGER OF THE RIFLE! THERE WASN'T!!
Jerry slipped up on that one.
thats right. in fact remarkably little blood was on found on the rifle and then only on the cocking mechanism and stock.
-
Hardly likely and most unlikely. The thing that sells it for me though and Shona has pushed this point ad infinitum is the fact of the absence of any blood down the front of her neck or on the front of her nightie. Had she shot herself there would have been blood there, all over her hands and smears all over her mouth and face. The fact is there wasn't.
There would also have been blood on the TRIGGER OF THE RIFLE! THERE WASN'T!!
Jerry slipped up on that one.
thats right. in fact remarkably little blood was on found on the rifle and then only on the cocking mechanism and stock.
There was blood on the rifle barrel, in the region of the foresight of the rifle, around the mechanism and on the stock.
Here is an extract from forensic scientist John Hayward's handwritten report.
The rifle (18) bears bloodsmearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight, round the mechanism and on
the stock. The stock of the rifle (18), which is broken, also bears blood splashes on one side. The damage to
the stock of the rifle (18) and the blood splashes on it could have resulted from the rifle (18) having been used
to hit a person who was already bleeding. Some of the blood from the stock, and near the breach of the rifle
(18) has been tested and in each case found to be of human origin. Tests to determine the group of these
bloodstains have been unsuccessful. There is no blood on the pull-through (135) from the barrel of the rifle (18).
(http://i.imgur.com/TBts2.jpg)
-
Hardly likely and most unlikely. The thing that sells it for me though and Shona has pushed this point ad infinitum is the fact of the absence of any blood down the front of her neck or on the front of her nightie. Had she shot herself there would have been blood there, all over her hands and smears all over her mouth and face. The fact is there wasn't.
There would also have been blood on the TRIGGER OF THE RIFLE! THERE WASN'T!!
Jerry slipped up on that one.
Actually Shona made a good point the other day which I meant to comment on - she pointed out that if Sheila had have been conscious after the lower, not immediately fatal wound was inflicted she would have been coughing up blood everywhere. That would sell it for me provided that the bullet damaged something that would have bled into her throat - do we know whether it did?
-
Hi, Weets. I think that the tissue damage caused by the first shot caused internal bleeding, as seen in the collection of blood in a pouch under Sheila's chin. I think that blood would have flooded into Sheila's mouth - remember the image from the documentary, and how much blood escaped from her mouth when her body was moved? IMO, if she was conscious at all after that first shot, she would have involuntarily expelled blood from her mouth. IMO that first shot rendered her unconscious and when the killer checked on her before leaving, they pulled her slightly by her feet, exposed her neck and shot her again. It would be really useful if a medical expert could look at the x ray and give an opinion.
-
The documentary image was after two shots - so the blood in her mouth could have come from either or both shots.
It does seem almost inconceivable that the first shot wouldn't have caused internal bleeding into her throat but if it could be shown for definate that it did, I really don't see how there could be any doubt that she didn't regain consciousness. That still allows for the two shots in quick succession theory I suppose, but certainly rules out the running around the house barking ones (not that they really needed ruling out given that the theories themselves were barking!).
-
The documentary image was after two shots - so the blood in her mouth could have come from either or both shots.
It does seem almost inconceivable that the first shot wouldn't have caused internal bleeding into her throat but if it could be shown for definate that it did, I really don't see how there could be any doubt that she didn't regain consciousness. That still allows for the two shots in quick succession theory I suppose, but certainly rules out the running around the house barking ones (not that they really needed ruling out given that the theories themselves were barking!).
Morning everyone. Firstly I would thank admin for the Julie Mugford statements. There is a lot of information in them so putting them back up slowly is a terrific idea. All that red text to just goes to show.
Can I ask Weety what you mean by the documentary image? Thanx
-
gasbag graham's doing some grovelling this morning @)(++(*
-
I imagine he's been told to.
David - it was a still image from Crimes that Shook Britain (I think) which Andrea spotted on You Tube. There was a thread about it but it may have been on the old forum - not sure.
-
gasbag graham's doing some grovelling this morning @)(++(*
He and his co hooligans had the riot act read to them yesterday about making public threats on the forum. It appears that Simon isn't to well pleased with their activities and may well resign if it continues. Thanx forr that snippet btw insider.
-
the asylum are going to have a secret thread so they can tear each other to bits in private @)(++(*
retired men can get jobs at B & Q these days
-
that graham one is now saying that it was Andreas fault that the Preece one stalked and threatened her ?8)@)-)
morals of an alley cat
-
I imagine he's been told to.
David - it was a still image from Crimes that Shook Britain (I think) which Andrea spotted on You Tube. There was a thread about it but it may have been on the old forum - not sure.
That image was taken hours afterwards. The original which was taken just after the police found her shows no blood smears on her face anywhere and just the blood runs from her mouth and nostril. This clearly indicates that she was never conscious enough after the first shot to be able to touch the wound.
-
that graham one is now saying that it was Andreas fault that the Preece one stalked and threatened her ?8)@)-)
morals of an alley cat
The bullies always blame the victim. Jackie Preece is a disgrace and I for one am pleased she got a dressing down yesterday. Has Tesko been released yet?
-
Teskos just chuntering away to himself, as per.
-
the asylum have just lost their best member, that nice bird from Leeds
what a bunch of idiots
-
the asylum have just lost their best member, that nice bird from Leeds
what a bunch of idiots
That Preece woman should be reported to the police - who knows what she is capable of? Absolutely disgusting behaviour. I'm sorry to say this, but these forums seem to be a breeding ground for bullies and stalkers. She is an absolute disgrace.
-
shes deffo not wired up right
-
shes deffo not wired up right
Indeed she isn't. I strongly believe that Jeremy Bamber should have a re-trial, as soon as possible, but I have no intention of joining a forum that harbours such an evil member. I would imagine that she would attack me after my first post. Hopefully, all the information that I need will be found on this forum. You seem a friendly bunch (if a little abstract at times!)
-
It's funny you should post this, LB. I feel very much the same. I want to show my support for Jeremy, but not at the cost of my personal details being aired if Jackie Preece takes against me if I should ask the wrong question. I'm very new to the case, and i will bide my time before joining a group. But it will certainly not be any group or forum that includes Jackie Preece. And I shall be writing to Jeremy to tell him this.
-
An excellent thread which will show people at a glance the overwhelming amount of evidence which supports Sheila. Can I make the suggestion that it is stated at the beginning of the thread that Bamber is guilty by default if Sheila is innocent. It was Jeremy Bamber who implicated Sheila in the crime in the first instance when he telephoned the police and reported that she had gone berserk with a rifle in the farmhouse. If this is in fact rubbish then Jeremy Bamber is clearly lying and by inference, guilty of murder.
A very good point. Furthermore after thinking this through carefully you may also like to consider this point. During the struggle in the kitchen a glass, ornamental lampshade hanging at least 7-8 feet above the kitchen table was broken. This can clearly be seen in crime scene photos. The glass wa sdthe type that is thin and will fragment expedentially and into a multitude of small pieces when broken violently and will spread over a wide area. The TFT mentioned in their logs that on their jouney through the kitchen a 'crunching noise was widely heard' . It was inconceivable that Sheila Caffell did not show any signs of having walked upon or trod on this glass if she was present in the kitchen. The barefoot Sheila would have almost certainly have acquired at the very least; small nicks on the bottoms of her feet along with other glass residue (from the broken sugar bowl found at the scene) None was ever found. In fact, her feet were perfectly clean. Totally inconsistent with her alleged presence in the kitchen. My conclusion is straightforward and hardly surprising - Sheila was not present in the kitchen and therefore could not have murdered her father. Due to his phone call to the police claiming that 'Sheila had gone nuts with the gun' along with his claim that his father make a phone call (the kitchen phone was the only useable phone found in the house); leaves only ONE individual that could have done the deed - Jeremy Bamber. It is highly improbable to arrive to any other conclusion.
-
An excellent thread which will show people at a glance the overwhelming amount of evidence which supports Sheila. Can I make the suggestion that it is stated at the beginning of the thread that Bamber is guilty by default if Sheila is innocent. It was Jeremy Bamber who implicated Sheila in the crime in the first instance when he telephoned the police and reported that she had gone berserk with a rifle in the farmhouse. If this is in fact rubbish then Jeremy Bamber is clearly lying and by inference, guilty of murder.
A very good point. Furthermore after thinking this through carefully you may also like to consider this point. During the struggle in the kitchen a glass, ornamental lampshade hanging at least 7-8 feet above the kitchen table was broken. This can clearly be seen in crime scene photos. The glass wa sdthe type that is thin and will fragment expedentially and into a multitude of small pieces when broken violently and will spread over a wide area. The TFT mentioned in their logs that on their jouney through the kitchen a 'crunching noise was widely heard' . It was inconceivable that Sheila Caffell did not show any signs of having walked upon or trod on this glass if she was present in the kitchen. The barefoot Sheila would have almost certainly have acquired at the very least; small nicks on the bottoms of her feet along with other glass residue (from the broken sugar bowl found at the scene) None was ever found. In fact, her feet were perfectly clean. Totally inconsistent with her alleged presence in the kitchen. My conclusion is straightforward and hardly surprising - Sheila was not present in the kitchen and therefore could not have murdered her father. Due to his phone call to the police claiming that 'Sheila had gone nuts with the gun' along with his claim that his father make a phone call (the kitchen phone was the only useable phone found in the house); leaves only ONE individual that could have done the deed - Jeremy Bamber. It is highly improbable to arrive to any other conclusion.
This is a point which we have not seen explored before Ian but it is an important one which we will add to the reasons thread. Had Sheila been involved in the attack in the kitchen she would indeed have had glass or cuts on the soles of her feet. Nice one!! 8((()*/
-
Reasons list updated...thank you to StarryIan for that contribution (see 3 below). 8((()*/
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
-
An extremely good post which adds to the evidence that it is highly improbable that Sheila could have been the killer. I would also add from knowledge of members of the extended family that Sheila was in a positive, optimistic frame of mind in the hours prior to the killing and had been in telephone contact with friends and relatives to arrange various outings with the twins over the next two or three days. Essex Police had this evidence but have either lost it or chosen to keep it under PII to protect witnesses. Bamber made a huge mistake when he reported the alleged phone call from Nevill about his sister and ever since his attempts to overturn his conviction have always relied on the implausible assertion that Sheila was responsible. It is really a very simple case and has only become convoluted because Essex Police made such an incredible mess of the investigation which became notorious in Police circles as an example of how not to investigate a major crime. All of this now fuels the endless circular debate on the pro Bamber forum.
-
An extremely good post which adds to the evidence that it is highly improbable that Sheila could have been the killer. I would also add from knowledge of members of the extended family that Sheila was in a positive, optimistic frame of mind in the hours prior to the killing and had been in telephone contact with friends and relatives to arrange various outings with the twins over the next two or three days. Essex Police had this evidence but have either lost it or chosen to keep it under PII to protect witnesses. Bamber made a huge mistake when he reported the alleged phone call from Nevill about his sister and ever since his attempts to overturn his conviction have always relied on the implausible assertion that Sheila was responsible. It is really a very simple case and has only become convoluted because Essex Police made such an incredible mess of the investigation which became notorious in Police circles as an example of how not to investigate a major crime. All of this now fuels the endless circular debate on the pro Bamber forum.
This is the entire crux of the debate as far as I'm concerned. Just because the Police investigation left a lot to be desired, it doesn't change the material facts of the case.
I personally don't even care about the infamous moderator debate - the mere fact that Sheila demonstrated no evidence of a struggle, nowhere near enough blood stains and no cuts to her feet is enough to make me believe that she had nothing to do with this. As has been repeated ad nauseum - if it wasn't Sheila, it had to be Jeremy.
-
Reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and why she never murdered her children and parents as claimed by Jeremy Bamber...
(http://i.imgur.com/brEV3.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/eoF3e.jpg)
Readers should note: It was stated at Jeremy Bamber's trial that as a consequence of what occurred on the morning of the murders and following Jeremy Bamber's own evidence, an innocent Sheila renders Jeremy Bamber guilty by default. It does not mean that he carried out the murders alone however.
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
Please post any suggestions for additions as you think fit.
The baby in the blue suit is absolutely gorgeous and I'm not a 'baby' person. His lovely smile 8)><(
-
Good to see Weety kicking ass on the blue forum.
Tesko off on his travels again? 8-)(--)
-
Oh no, my comment didn't show up!
The little boy in the blue outfit is totally gorgeous, he looks like he's lived before, hs beautiful smile.
8)><(
-
Oh no, my comment didn't show up!
The little boy in the blue outfit is totally gorgeous, he looks like he's lived before, hs beautiful smile.
8)><(
Yes I agree Joanne. Both beautiful little chaps. Sadly they would have been around 33 years old today, probably with wives and children of their own. We must remind ourselves - and I pull no punches when I say this - exactly what this inhuman beast took away for his own selfish greed. It is sometimes easy to let these smiling, happy souls depicted in these photos drift from our minds as we discuss the case with a discerning and sometimes clinical eye.
Yet we must never forget what Bamber did to them and what this cowardly s..mbag deliberately took away. It is also a stark reminder to us all why we are on this forum. We are going to make sure that this repugnant, psychopathic animal never sees the light of day for the rest of his life.
-
I've been one of Jeremy Bambers biggest fans/advocates.
I was absolutely convinced he hadn't done it and Sheila Had and Julie Mugford had set him up. I was even writing to him in HMP Full Sutton.
I'm glad I found this site because I'd have carried on. I now know why he keeps getting his appeals knocked back.
-
I've been one of Jeremy Bambers biggest fans/advocates.
I was absolutely convinced he hadn't done it and Sheila Had and Julie Mugford had set him up. I was even writing to him in HMP Full Sutton.
I'm glad I found this site because I'd have carried on. I now know why he keeps getting his appeals knocked back.
Hi Joanne. We don't make things up here like Mike 'the tosser' Teskowski over on the blue forum. Apparently he is in Scotland today in a taxi with a certain troll called Susan Ingham meeting a fictional character called 'z'. @)(++(*
The facts in the Jeremy Bamber case are all there Joanne. We believe in the evidence as compared to Tesko's fantasy theories and make-believe scenarios. I am glad that you have made up your own mind on this case, I am always pleased to help new members with any of the evidence since there is so much of it. 8((()*/
-
I've been one of Jeremy Bambers biggest fans/advocates.
I was absolutely convinced he hadn't done it and Sheila Had and Julie Mugford had set him up. I was even writing to him in HMP Full Sutton.
I'm glad I found this site because I'd have carried on. I now know why he keeps getting his appeals knocked back.
It is good to have you on here Joanne. We all have made mistakes in our lives and trusted the wrong people. It shows that you are a good and trusting person. There are so many good people out there of which Jeremy Bamber is certainly not one of them. Bamber is adept at manipulation, lying and deceipt which are as familiar to him as spring flowers to a farmer. He wears dishonesty like a cheap suit and can lie to someone while looking them in the eye at the drop of a hat. In short, this degenerate is as despicable as one could possibly ever be.
I also admire your honesty Joanne and the fact that you have the guts to shrug it off and redress the balance.
You have certainly done the right thing and I hope that your example be an inspiration to others that are now starting to have their doubts and suspicions about this appalling psychopath's supposed 'innocence'. 8@??)(
-
Thank you 8((()*/
-
Reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and why she never murdered her children and parents as claimed by Jeremy Bamber...
(http://i.imgur.com/brEV3.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/eoF3e.jpg)
Readers should note: It was stated at Jeremy Bamber's trial that as a consequence of what occurred on the morning of the murders and following Jeremy Bamber's own evidence, an innocent Sheila renders Jeremy Bamber guilty by default. It does not mean that he carried out the murders alone however.
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
Please post any suggestions for additions as you think fit.
I haven't had a chance to study recent postings on the Bamber case but I feel this is an excellent list which clearly identifies the evidence which exculpates poor Sheila of any wrongdoing. I certainly believe you should promote these reasons often and as widely as possible on your excellent twitter site.
There must be others we can add to this surely?
-
This would appear to be the most hotly contested subject at the moment since Team Bamber are attempting to discredit deceased Sheila Caffell. I personally believe that their actions are abhorrent. Attempting to defame a dead girl must be amongst one of the lowest and despicable things that they have attempted. I have no doubt that McChancer as Tim calls McKay is behind this campaign. He knows that only by pinning the blame on hapless Sheila will Jeremy Bamber ever have a hope in hell of ever getting back to the Appeal Court.
It is a while since we updated this list so I agree with everyone who has suggested that we revisit it. I feel that it is quite comprehensive as it is with the 14 unassailable reasons why Sheila is innocent and consequently why Jeremy Bamber must be guilty by default.
We welcome any further updates or additional points at any time. 8((()*/
-
This would appear to be the most hotly contested subject at the moment since Team Bamber are attempting to discredit deceased Sheila Caffell. I personally believe that their actions are abhorrent. Attempting to defame a dead girl must be amongst one of the lowest and despicable things that they have attempted. I have no doubt that McChancer as Tim calls McKay is behind this campaign. He knows that only by pinning the blame on hapless Sheila will Jeremy Bamber ever have a hope in hell of ever getting back to the Appeal Court.
It is a while since we updated this list so I agree with everyone who has suggested that we revisit it. I feel that it is quite comprehensive as it is with the 14 unassailable reasons why Sheila is innocent and consequently why Jeremy Bamber must be guilty by default.
We welcome any further updates or additional points at any time. 8((()*/
I agree John. It is utterly despicable of them to blame a woman that had no voice. I for one, find it true-to-form by a waste of oxygen like Bamber to take this tack. He has desecrated the memory of those he brutally murdered for the past 27 years. I want readers to take on board this point; not ONCE in 27 years has Jeremy Bamber had anything nice to say about those that died in the farmhouse that night. He has continually cast aspertions on their character and relegated them to just a footnote in his unnatural life. Instead he has fallen over himself to blame Sheila, the relatives and the police. Ordinary people that have lost loved ones have a strong emotional reaction called 'grief' A process we all, at some point in our lives sadly have to endure. Bamber has never displayed any grief of any sort. The crocodile tears at the funeral were nothing more than an act.
He is guilty of the murder of his family of that I am 100% convinced.
-
It would appear that bambers only hope is to implicate his sister sheila but that wont work as there is far to much evidence which points to her innocence. looks like the bottom has fallen out of his case by all accounts. @)(++(*
-
It would appear that bambers only hope is to implicate his sister sheila but that wont work as there is far to much evidence which points to her innocence. looks like the bottom has fallen out of his case by all accounts. @)(++(*
Spot on Jerry. Mad Mike's forum is hammering away trying desperately to sell this theme . Have you seen his latest thread on the blue forum ? Headed : " She was on a mission- a date with death, in league with the devil. " !!!!!
It then gets even worse. The man is completely bonkers . Time to send in the guys in white coats.
-
It would appear that bambers only hope is to implicate his sister sheila but that wont work as there is far to much evidence which points to her innocence. looks like the bottom has fallen out of his case by all accounts. @)(++(*
Spot on Jerry. Mad Mike's forum is hammering away trying desperately to sell this theme . Have you seen his latest thread on the blue forum ? Headed : " She was on a mission- a date with death, in league with the devil. " !!!!!
It then gets even worse. The man is completely bonkers . Time to send in the guys in white coats.
I'm sure jerry bamber will be so enthused by what he is doing on his behalf.if i were jerry bamber i would get shot of him pronto. ?{)(**
-
It would appear that bambers only hope is to implicate his sister sheila but that wont work as there is far to much evidence which points to her innocence. looks like the bottom has fallen out of his case by all accounts. @)(++(*
Spot on Jerry. Mad Mike's forum is hammering away trying desperately to sell this theme . Have you seen his latest thread on the blue forum ? Headed : " She was on a mission- a date with death, in league with the devil. " !!!!!
It then gets even worse. The man is completely bonkers . Time to send in the guys in white coats.
I'm sure jerry bamber will be so enthused by what he is doing on his behalf.if i were jerry bamber i would get shot of him pronto. ?{)(**
I beleive Bamber has tried to get shot of Tesko without success. Then fortunately for Mad Mike, Bamber isn't allowed access to guns any more .
-
What was the age dfference in Sheila and Jeremy?
-
2 or 3 years, i think.
-
I think its 3ish, I did think there was a big age difference for some reason.
-
What was the age difference in Sheila and Jeremy?
Sheila was born in 1957 and adopted at 8 weeks while Jeremy was born in January 1961 and adopted at 6 weeks.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202
So, Jeremy now says he adored his family.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202)
So, Jeremy now says he adored his family.
Reading through all that baloney you realise how totally divorced from reality he is,
the man who told Julie Mugford :-
that he was doing it as a mercy killing
that his father was getting "old and spent"
that his mother was mad anyway and "needed putting out of her misery"
that Bambs was also mad and her illness frightened him
that he was convinced the twins also had to be disturbed and emotionally unbalanced
No wonder Colin felt sick when he heard that, and thought he (Bamber) had to be completely mad.
(In Search of the Rainbow's End, page 103.)
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202
So, Jeremy now says he adored his family.
Yes. JB loved and respected Ralph so much that he broke into the caravan park, stole all the money and pissed it up the wall. He loved and respected June so much that he humiliated her.
Why isn't there one blue forum member with the courage to challenge Mike about the biological impossibility of Sheila wandering around the house with a mouth and throat full of blood and somehow managing not to breathe any out or swallow any of it? And why does he allow his forum to increasingly become an endless conversation between Dame Hilda and Dr. Evadne? (And surely if someone "clatters" their tambourine every Sunday, they could actually spell tambourine?!)
-
The blue forum are too busy chatting about other people to consider the facts of the matter.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202
So, Jeremy now says he adored his family.
Yes. JB loved and respected Ralph so much that he broke into the caravan park, stole all the money and pissed it up the wall. He loved and respected June so much that he humiliated her.
Why isn't there one blue forum member with the courage to challenge Mike about the biological impossibility of Sheila wandering around the house with a mouth and throat full of blood and somehow managing not to breathe any out or swallow any of it? And why does he allow his forum to increasingly become an endless conversation between Dame Hilda and Dr. Evadne? (And surely if someone "clatters" their tambourine every Sunday, they could actually spell tambourine?!)
Especially someone who "abhors spelling mistakes" 8(0(*
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202
So, Jeremy now says he adored his family.
Yes, it beggars belief doesn't it? He must think that we are all idiots. Virtually every single witness that appeared for the prosecution including some for the defence testified of Bamber dislike of his family. Charles Richards who knew Bamber once had a discussion with him and testified that he and Bamber had a discussion about his parents. Richards stated that Bamber said 'I fu**ing hate my parents' Richards, added that 'It really did sound like hate'
There were many incidences of Jeremy Bamber making his feelings known about his family. Everyone that knew him and made a police statement knew of his malevolent feelings towards them. For him to now say that he loved them and got along with them, is nothing more than a downright lie. Another futile and moronic attempt at painting a false picture off himself.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202
So, Jeremy now says he adored his family.
I think that the Mirror article paints quite an accurate picture of Jeremy and Sheila's childhood as idyllic with loving, involved adoptive parents. I have heard that voices were seldom raised and that it was a kindly environment lacking aggression. Jeremy is described as rather a nice but immature child at least until his mid teens. Not the nasty, dysfunctional family described by some of the blue forum's members, and a vindication of June and Nevill as well as the extended family. Not cuckoos at all ! So just possibly there is a side of Jeremy that is terribly sad that everything went so wrong subsequently and he does hark back to memories of a happy childhood.
However, at some point later in his teens, perhaps, he seems to developed into a very different person. All the evidence makes it highly unlikely that Sheila could have been responsible as any sensible analysis of the evidence shows. So this constant defamation of Sheila by his supporters is nonsense and just clutching at straws. Pure propaganda . The appeal against the earlier decision of the European Court has nothing to with his guilt and is really just a mini class action about the principal of whole life tarriffs. To try and present it as some sort of further appeal against guilt by any of the three applicants is misrepresentation.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202
So, Jeremy now says he adored his family.
You have to remember that Bamber is very much institutionalised now Joanne. He is basically living in cloud cuckoo land or la la land depending on your viewpoint.
He has long lost a sense of reality not that he ever had one to begin with by all accounts.
-
I just thought he was clutching at straws!
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202
So, Jeremy now says he adored his family.
Yes. JB loved and respected Ralph so much that he broke into the caravan park, stole all the money and pissed it up the wall. He loved and respected June so much that he humiliated her.
Why isn't there one blue forum member with the courage to challenge Mike about the biological impossibility of Sheila wandering around the house with a mouth and throat full of blood and somehow managing not to breathe any out or swallow any of it? And why does he allow his forum to increasingly become an endless conversation between Dame Hilda and Dr. Evadne? (And surely if someone "clatters" their tambourine every Sunday, they could actually spell tambourine?!)
They aren't interested in the truth Shona because the truth would make their efforts completely redundant. It's all a game fro Mike, nothing more and nothing less. Even Jeremy Bamber has distanced himself from Mike Teskowski and the forum now.
Mike has filled the forum with so much crap that he cannot upload anything any more.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202
So, Jeremy now says he adored his family.
Yes. JB loved and respected Ralph so much that he broke into the caravan park, stole all the money and pissed it up the wall. He loved and respected June so much that he humiliated her.
Why isn't there one blue forum member with the courage to challenge Mike about the biological impossibility of Sheila wandering around the house with a mouth and throat full of blood and somehow managing not to breathe any out or swallow any of it? And why does he allow his forum to increasingly become an endless conversation between Dame Hilda and Dr. Evadne? (And surely if someone "clatters" their tambourine every Sunday, they could actually spell tambourine?!)
They aren't interested in the truth Shona because the truth would make their efforts completely redundant. It's all a game fro Mike, nothing more and nothing less. Even Jeremy Bamber has distanced himself from Mike Teskowski and the forum now.
Mike has filled the forum with so much crap that he cannot upload anything any more.
Maybe Jackie got it right when she said that Mike is ill. I hope someone is looking after him. He seems to tilt at windmills, he's eaten up with JB's cause. I don't think that he's helping himself, or JB, anymore.
-
Just back what a wonderful day today 8)-)))
-
There are quite a few pictures of trees on the blue forum, he needs to get rid of some of them!
-
Shona has something happened with Mike?
-
Shona has something happened with Mike?
I don't know, Jac, I was just going to ask you about your day!! I think he's gone off at a tangent, but he does that a lot. For me, no amount of garbled "facts" that seem to change daily, will sway my opinion that Sheila no more shot the family than she had dinner on the moon.
-
Just back what a wonderful day today 8)-)))
Have you got all the sun again and I have the drizzle and the wind? ?8)@)-)
-
It's been nice here all day but I have been doing legal stuff all day but sitting on a balcony in the sunshine
I have a question for anyone who has their own company what happens if you have a few companies and you lie about your age and put different birthdays down?
-
Shona
Mike didn't use to be like he is now when we were first on the forum did he?
The first really strange thing I remember was the Ali bongo thing
-
Just back what a wonderful day today 8)-)))
Have you got all the sun again and I have the drizzle and the wind? ?8)@)-)
Maybe you should ask Gladys. He suffers terribly from the drizzle and the wind.
-
Shona
Mike didn't use to be like he is now when we were first on the forum did he?
The first really strange thing I remember was the Ali bongo thing
No, he didn't. I had huge admiration for Mike, he was a legend when he and JB were still working together. But it did get very odd, and you're right, it started with the Ali Bongo crap, and I lost respect for him when he turned against trusting members. He's an incredible warrior, but I wonder about his agenda. He doesn't do himself any favours when he hints that Ralph fathered the twins, and mentions, time and again, Sheila's private parts. It's just not called for.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-killer-says-he-adored-1153202
So, Jeremy now says he adored his family.
You have to remember that Bamber is very much institutionalised now Joanne. He is basically living in cloud cuckoo land or la la land depending on your viewpoint.
He has long lost a sense of reality not that he ever had one to begin with by all accounts.
Indeed John, Bamber has now spent more time in prison than he has as a free man. He was actually been in prison since September 1985 when he was first arrested and remanded in custody and taken to Wormwood Scrubs - nearly 27 years. It is fair to say that Bamber is institionalised. To put this into context - in 1985 in the USSR Premier Mikhail Gorbachev was pushing through the policy of Perestrioka and Glasnost. The Brixton Riots were kicking off, Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior was bombed and sunk in Auckland harbour by French agents, The Live Aid concert takes place in Wembley Stadium, London, UK and Philadelphia, USA. Everyone was raving about a new pop star called 'Madonna' and Michael Jackson made sure everyone was moonwalking to work. The average house price was £40,169 and a gallon of petrol would set you back the princely sum of £1.88
and, oh yes ......those were the days 8((()*/
-
I loved the 80's they were my era ?{)(**
-
Back in two minutes, i need a smoke .
-
I loved the 80's they were my era ?{)(**
Mine too Andrea. At the risk of sounding like an old fart, the 1980s were a great time to be alive, to be young and to experience.
Everyone knew what the Number 1 song in the charts actually was. Things were still reasonably cheap. You could eat British beef, no-one was scared that every time they opened their mouths they'd 'offend' someone. Young people still had respect for other people and we had music that had a melody and you could actually sing along to.
Clothes had big shoulders along with big hair-do's and you actually had to 'dress up' to go out.
Yup.............they were definitely the days! 8((()*/
-
I wish I'd lived in the 60's and 70's. I did have a good year in 1987 for several reasons, just seems like yesterday!
-
I wish I'd lived in the 60's and 70's. I did have a good year in 1987 for several reasons, just seems like yesterday!
Hey Joanne. A woman of my dreams?? 8)-)))
-
I'm a nightmare of a person!
-
Can anyone put the link up for the youtube clip about Sheila please (the my animoto one with Smile by Keegan Smith)? I have lost it from my youtube list-thank you.
-
Can anyone put the link up for the youtube clip about Sheila please (the my animoto one with Smile by Keegan Smith)? I have lost it from my youtube list-thank you.
You will find them if you go to the Home Page and about half way down look for Video Library.
Is this the one you want?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DfEdBzwRTsr0%26feature%3Dchannel&feature=channel&v=fEdBzwRTsr0&gl=US
-
Yes thank you. I did look on here but I missed them 8(8-))
-
Yes thank you. I did look on here but I missed them 8(8-))
I'm glad you brought up the subject of the videos Joanne. I had intended to create some longer versions since we now have so many more photographs available but the idea got lost somewhere along the way following the CCRC's refusal to refer Bambers case. 8((()*/
-
Yes thank you. I did look on here but I missed them 8(8-))
I'm glad you brought up the subject of the videos Joanne. I had intended to create some longer versions since we now have so many more photographs available but the idea got lost somewhere along the way following the CCRC's refusal to refer Bambers case. 8((()*/
I find videos to be both informative and entertaining.
The public love them so i would encourage anyone who wants to make them about the cases to do so. I wish I had your talents. 8@??)(
-
There is a programme on ITV1 at 9pm, Briefs, it's being advertised as the people who seemingly represent the unrepresentable but I don't think Giovanni De Stefano in it.
-
Does anybody know who daddyscaff is on youtube? He/she has posted 2 excellent videos on the case.
-
http://www.youtube.com/user/daddyscafff
That might be him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0gEf5IkM1w&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bocwzw3ZYf8&feature=context-cha
-
yes, ive seen the videos Jo, i just wondered if he ever posts on any of the forums.
-
I need to ask a question, please bear with me on this.
Assuming, Jeremy did it. He goes to WHF and calls his house as his dad saying Sheila has gone on a bender with a gun. Well, who answers the phone at Jeremy's end if he lives on his own, thus showing a call was made? He can't be at both ends and it had to be answered to give an alibi.
Another thing I don't understand is, if the phone was answered at Jeremy's end and the receiver not put back on again at the WHF end, if that happens here then I can still hear the other end and cannot dial out until the phone has been put back on again, so how did Jeremy, assuming the call was made, manage to call the local police bearing in mind we didn't have mobiles then-well, he might have but it's a long shot.
-
I need to ask a question, please bear with me on this.
Assuming, Jeremy did it. He goes to WHF and calls his house as his dad saying Sheila has gone on a bender with a gun. Well, who answers the phone at Jeremy's end if he lives on his own, thus showing a call was made? He can't be at both ends and it had to be answered to give an alibi.
Another thing I don't understand is, if the phone was answered at Jeremy's end and the receiver not put back on again at the WHF end, if that happens here then I can still hear the other end and cannot dial out until the phone has been put back on again, so how did Jeremy, assuming the call was made, manage to call the local police bearing in mind we didn't have mobiles then-well, he might have but it's a long shot.
Easy answers Joanne. He phoned the unmanned police station first, note it wasn't 999. Next he places a call to his own house and leaves the receiver dangling before scarpering back to his own house in Goldhanger. He answers the phone when he gets home and waits a minute before replacing the handset. He then phones Julie, this was just after 3am, has a chat before phoning the unmanned police station again and then Colchester. He never dialled 999 once.
In addition, after answering his own call he only has to replace the receiver for a minute to clear the line. In case anyone asks how do I know this, we have discussed this all at length already on both forums and checked it out with BT.
You see Joanne, all very doable and very logical.
-
I need to ask a question, please bear with me on this.
Assuming, Jeremy did it. He goes to WHF and calls his house as his dad saying Sheila has gone on a bender with a gun. Well, who answers the phone at Jeremy's end if he lives on his own, thus showing a call was made? He can't be at both ends and it had to be answered to give an alibi.
Another thing I don't understand is, if the phone was answered at Jeremy's end and the receiver not put back on again at the WHF end, if that happens here then I can still hear the other end and cannot dial out until the phone has been put back on again, so how did Jeremy, assuming the call was made, manage to call the local police bearing in mind we didn't have mobiles then-well, he might have but it's a long shot.
Easy answers Joanne. He phoned the unmanned police station first, note it wasn't 999. Next he places a call to his own house and leaves the receiver dangling before scarpering back to his own house in Goldhanger. He answers the phone when he gets home and waits a minute before replacing the handset. He then phones Julie, this was just after 3am, has a chat before phoning the unmanned police station again and then Colchester. He never dialled 999 once.
In addition, after answering his own call he only has to replace the receiver for a minute to clear the line. In case anyone asks how do I know this, we have discussed this all at length already on both forums and checked it out with BT.
You see Joanne, all very doable and very logical.
I think it is also worth pointing out that when you placed a telephone call in 1985 the phone would continue to ring until it was answered or the caller cancelled the call by replacing the handset on the receiver.
Thus when Jeremy was ready to exit the farmhouse he placed the call to his own house in Goldhanger and answered it when he got back some minutes later. Another reason why the telephone handset was left on the kitchen worktop and not replaced back on the phone. Simples! 8(0(*
-
Jeremy thought he had it all worked out as he sat on his tractor every day planning how he would do it. I would be curious to know what involvement he had in bringing Sheila and the boys over to stay. He knew he had to have all five members of the family together there in the farmhouse if his dastardly plan was to work properly.
-
I need to ask a question, please bear with me on this.
Assuming, Jeremy did it. He goes to WHF and calls his house as his dad saying Sheila has gone on a bender with a gun. Well, who answers the phone at Jeremy's end if he lives on his own, thus showing a call was made? He can't be at both ends and it had to be answered to give an alibi.
Another thing I don't understand is, if the phone was answered at Jeremy's end and the receiver not put back on again at the WHF end, if that happens here then I can still hear the other end and cannot dial out until the phone has been put back on again, so how did Jeremy, assuming the call was made, manage to call the local police bearing in mind we didn't have mobiles then-well, he might have but it's a long shot.
Easy answers Joanne. He phoned the unmanned police station first, note it wasn't 999. Next he places a call to his own house and leaves the receiver dangling before scarpering back to his own house in Goldhanger. He answers the phone when he gets home and waits a minute before replacing the handset. He then phones Julie, this was just after 3am, has a chat before phoning the unmanned police station again and then Colchester. He never dialled 999 once.
In addition, after answering his own call he only has to replace the receiver for a minute to clear the line. In case anyone asks how do I know this, we have discussed this all at length already on both forums and checked it out with BT.
You see Joanne, all very doable and very logical.
I think it is also worth pointing out that when you placed a telephone call in 1985 the phone would continue to ring until it was answered or the caller cancelled the call by replacing the handset on the receiver.
Thus when Jeremy was ready to exit the farmhouse he placed the call to his own house in Goldhanger and answered it when he got back some minutes later. Another reason why the telephone handset was left on the kitchen worktop and not replaced back on the phone. Simples! 8(0(*
I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.
-
I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.
When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset. BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.
-
I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.
When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset. BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.
Phew!! Thanks, John.
-
I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.
When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset. BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.
Phew!! Thanks, John.
Tesko's a bit tetchy tonight poor deluded soul. @)(++(*
-
I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.
When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset. BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.
Phew!! Thanks, John.
Tesko's a bit tetchy tonight poor deluded soul. @)(++(*
He needs to come to terms with the fact that Sheila very obviously did not run upstairs after shooting herself in the kitchen (she never moved after the first shot) rather than inventing convoluted theories.
-
I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.
When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset. BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.
Phew!! Thanks, John.
You will note that not a single call was placed to the emergency services via the 999 system because this would have drastically reduced Jeremy's window of opportunity (sorry about the pun). @)(++(*
You are quite right to labour that point Shona, had Sheila in fact moved the blood would have been all down the front of her neck and nightie.
-
Jeremy thought he had it all worked out as he sat on his tractor every day planning how he would do it. I would be curious to know what involvement he had in bringing Sheila and the boys over to stay. He knew he had to have all five members of the family together there in the farmhouse if his dastardly plan was to work properly.
I can't remember the reference for this, I'd have to do a bit of digging (probably Wilkes or Colin Caffell) but Bamber, for the first time ever, asked Sheila a few weeks before when she and the boys would next be staying at the farm.
-
Yes, to both Shona and John. That's why I wondered about the phone calls. I didn't know the phone would ring for as long as that, so David was right too.
-
Did the police and media ever off an apology to Sheila for initally blaming her for the murder/suicide theory?
-
Did the police and media ever off an apology to Sheila for initally blaming her for the murder/suicide theory?
Don't know the answer to that, Jo.... but I doubt it!
-
Did the police and media ever off an apology to Sheila for initally blaming her for the murder/suicide theory?
Don't know the answer to that, Jo.... but I doubt it!
I highly doubt it too.
They will have just moved onto Jeremy being guilty. They don't usually print 'sorry!" unless made to by a court.
-
I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.
When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset. BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.
Good heavens. Stunned I am. About the phone, that is.
Sadly, this is beginning to look as though the initial police cock up has created the controversy.
But there is little doubt that Sheila was mentally disturbed, and if Jeremy Bamber was responsible, then so was he. How did this come about in what is reported to have been a loving and caring adoptive family? Sheila and Jeremy did not have the same biological parents, so what went wrong?
The possibility of them both being crackers hasn't helped.
My query is entirely academic as I don't have any great desire to slag off anyone, but that can't be avoided as someone is clearly responsible as five people finished up dead.
-
An excellent thread which will show people at a glance the overwhelming amount of evidence which supports Sheila. Can I make the suggestion that it is stated at the beginning of the thread that Bamber is guilty by default if Sheila is innocent. It was Jeremy Bamber who implicated Sheila in the crime in the first instance when he telephoned the police and reported that she had gone berserk with a rifle in the farmhouse. If this is in fact rubbish then Jeremy Bamber is clearly lying and by inference, guilty of murder.
Hello santa. This is Bamber's fatal mistake, IMO. In his haste to scapegoat Sheila, he didn't put much thought into this point. I would imagine that Bamber probably thought that people were too stupid to work this out ie that if the call from Nevill had not happened, then how did Bamber know that something had happened at White House Farm. I bet Bamber was over the moon when at first the Police appeared to swallow his story, and to blame poor Sheila for the tragedy.
-
Yes, and if it hadn't been for DS Stan Jones he might just have gotten away with it.
-
Quite right John,
If not for DS Stan Jones' inital suspicions, Bamber had every chance of these appalling murders never coming to light. Bamber's plan hinged on the belief that they would never be uncovered. It would be seen as four murders and a suicide. He also knew that he would not be unduly bothered by something he did not posses - a conscience. This has proven to be the case in BOTH camps. Even if you take the view that he is somehow 'innocent' he freely admits that he left a dangerous loaded weapon in a house full of people and within easy reach of two small children, and not once has he ever expressed one iota of remorse for this appallingly negligent act. This is something that his supporters have often been mislead or plainly lied to about. Many claim that he did 'express remorse'. We only have Bamber's word for that (It has not stood the test of time at all) because the policemen present were somewhat taken aback by his totally matter-of-fact admission of negligence. Almost as if he was admitting he was late for work.
In short, Bamber planned the murders with the same arrogant callousness he know him for. The later admissions of being a 'mummy's boy' and being in a 'loving family circle' are utter bovine excrement, designed to cast doubt and convince yet more deluded Bamber-fodder to assist him.
-
15, Sheila was found without underwear, had she planned to kill herself she wouldnt have wanted to be found in that way.
is that like the old adage of children being told to wear clean underwear everyday in case they get involved in a serious accident and possibly needing hospital treatment ? >@@(*&)
-
I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.
When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset. BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.
Good heavens. Stunned I am. About the phone, that is.
Sadly, this is beginning to look as though the initial police cock up has created the controversy.
But there is little doubt that Sheila was mentally disturbed, and if Jeremy Bamber was responsible, then so was he. How did this come about in what is reported to have been a loving and caring adoptive family? Sheila and Jeremy did not have the same biological parents, so what went wrong?
The possibility of them both being crackers hasn't helped.
My query is entirely academic as I don't have any great desire to slag off anyone, but that can't be avoided as someone is clearly responsible as five people finished up dead.
psychopaths like Jeremy are not necessarily 'crackers'
-
A very good point. Furthermore after thinking this through carefully you may also like to consider this point. During the struggle in the kitchen a glass, ornamental lampshade hanging at least 7-8 feet above the kitchen table was broken. This can clearly be seen in crime scene photos. The led lights (http://www.niceledlights.com) wa sdthe type that is thin and will fragment expedentially and into a multitude of small pieces when broken violently and will spread over a wide area. The TFT mentioned in their logs that on their jouney through the kitchen a 'crunching noise was widely heard' . It was inconceivable that Sheila Caffell did not show any signs of having walked upon or trod on this glass if she was present in the kitchen. The barefoot Sheila would have almost certainly have acquired at the very least; small nicks on the bottoms of her feet along with other glass residue (from the broken sugar bowl found at the scene) None was ever found. In fact, her feet were perfectly clean. Totally inconsistent with her alleged presence in the kitchen. My conclusion is straightforward and hardly surprising - Sheila was not present in the kitchen and therefore could not have murdered her father. Due to his phone call to the police claiming that 'Sheila had gone nuts with the gun' along with his claim that his father make a phone call (the kitchen phone was the only useable phone found in the house); leaves only ONE individual that could have done the deed - Jeremy Bamber. It is highly improbable to arrive to any other conclusion.
you have mentioned plenty of inside points.. Even now I am trying to believe your words
-
Those like mike tesko who continually promote the agenda that Bamber is innocent always fail to refer to the obvious. By jeremy bambers own mouth the killer had to be one of two people namely him or his sister and his sister has been excluded by all the evidence. Like it or not mr tesko et all you are on a hiding to nada. 8**8:/:
-
Hi all I am new here. You have made some good points but I think there are a few considerations missed and a few overstatements.
I think the point about Sheila definitely being unfamiliar with any gun is an overstatement. I would phrase it as there is no reliable evidence that she ever used a gun or knew how to use any gun and that even Jeremy Bamber conceded he never saw her use any of the weapons that were in the house on the date of the murders. Family and friends testified she had no interest in guns and that they never saw her touch let alone use a gun. Jeremy testified that she fired a gun as a child when she went target shooting with him but that he has not seen her fire a weapon as an adult. The only people who would have a basis to know whether Jeremy was lying about her firing a gun as a child were the 3 adult victims. Since he is a known liar and was making a self-serving claim there is good reason to doubt him. Still it would be more accurate to say no reliable evidence she ever fired a weapon than to say for sure she didn't.
This touches upon a point I have never seen anyone raise before. Jeremy lied to police on the night of the murders. As he was speaking to the police at the scene he listed all the firearms in the house and told them that Sheila had fired all these weapons and was proficient with them. This scared the police so much that they refused to enter. They were unarmed and did not want to take the risk. This even disturbed the armed officers who arrived later so much that they waited a considerable time to enter.
Since at trial he conceded he had not seen her fire a weapon as an adult and the guns in the house were all obtained while she was an adult it means he can't have seen her fire any of them. So what basis did he have to tell police she fired all the weapons in the house and was proficient with them? The only conclusion for the rational mind is that he intentionally lied to police. The appropriate question that follows is why would he lie about this?
There are only 2 reasons for such a lie. 1) So police would not go in right away which would make it more difficult to establish the time of death and 2) So that police would believe she carried out the murders when they found her with the gun lying on top of her.
It worked on both counts. They waited so long to enter that it resulted in valuable time being lost to examine the bodies and try to fix the time of deaths. Moreover, they initially believed she did it and this resulted in sloppy evidence collection and preservation. They didn't examine Jeremy or test his hands or clothing. He milked their trust for all it was worth even though in the end it still didn't save him.
Even if Sheila had used a gun as a child that doesn't mean she would know how to operate the murder weapon. What kind of gun she operated as a child would be key and she might not even remember how to use that gun anymore. Jeremy never got into what weapon she supposedly used when she was with him as a child. The murder weapon was a semi-auto rifle. Jeremy claims the gun itself was unloaded but he left a loaded magazine next to it. While most people can figure out how to load a magazine into a gun, those unfamiliar with the operation of semi-autos will not know how to chamber a round or even know a round needs to be chambered in order for the gun to operate.
In the US, Manson follower Lynette Fromme tried to shoot President Gerald Ford with a semi-auto pistol. She pulled the trigger but it didn't fire. The reason it didn't fire is because she never chambered a round she simply loaded the magazine and tried to fire.
Even if she had managed to chamber a round and fire, since she either never fired a gun ever before or had not fired any weapon as an adult, there certainly would have been a learning curve. It seems pretty unlikely that she would not miss with a single shot, particularly since she allegedly was in a frenzied state and ran out of medication that would have counteracted the spasms caused by her Haloperidol sedatives.
Another issue relates to reloading. Since she never used the weapon before and may never have used a semi-auto before she would have to figure out how to release the empty magazine to reload it. Precious time would be lost as she tried to figure out how to remove it. From photos of the weapon I can see how to chamber a round but would have to see it close up to figure out where the magazine release is and how it works. Off hand I don't precisely know because I never used it and that is despite the fact I have considerable firearms expertise.
There was only one magazine for the weapon. The killer could not simply load in a fresh magazine. The killer had to take the added time to reload the magazine at least 2 times. This point likely explains why there was a struggle in the kitchen.
Evidence indicates the killer and Nevill struggled over the weapon. As they wrestled things were knocked over and the silencer scratched against the underside of the mantle. The killer punched Nevill in the face multiple times breaking his nose and giving him 2 black eyes. Apparently this enabled the killer to regain sole control of the rifle. The killer then beat Neville with the butt of the rifle. Nevill had defensive wounds on his arms where he tried to block the rifle blows and bruises on his head where he was struck by the rifle. The killer struck Neville so hard over the head that the killer broke the rifle stock and knocked him unconscious. Why would the killer stop shooting and instead beat him with the rifle? There is only one rational reason, the rifle was empty. If the rifle still had ammo the killer would have continued to shoot him.
This is particularly the case if Sheila were the killer. According to court records Nevill was 6'4" and in good physical condition (I have seen 6"2" listed on this site but the court records state 2 inches taller). She was small in comparison. She would have difficulty overpowering him. If she ran at him with the gun to strike him then he could have disarmed her. How could she have hit him in the head with it considering his height? This being the case why would she even try if she still had ammo in the gun? She would just continue to shoot him and so would in fact any killer. Only running out of ammo would force a killer to resort to hand to hand combat.
Either Nevill charged the killer to grab hold of the gun after he found out it was empty or the killer discovered it was empty and attacked Nevill with it and then Nevill grabbed hold. The killer would have needed to find a way to immobilize Nevill so that the killer would then have a chance to reload. Unless immobilized Nevill could disarm the killer while the killer tried to reload. Thus either the killer tried to knock out Nevill then reload or Nevill jumped the killer after the gun clicked empty. As you load more rounds the magazine spring has more tension and it becomes more difficult to push down. It takes quite a bit of effort to load the last couple of rounds. Not only time consuming but also someone with finger nails would probably break them rushing to accomplish it and certainly would incur some damage to the nails or polish during the course of a severe struggle. Even men bruise or cut their hands when punching other men or when handling sharp objects like the broken rifle stock.
The alleged phone call needs to be evaluated based on all of this but never is.
Jeremy repeatedly stated that his father told him his sister is in a crazy frenzy, she got a hold of the gun and he is scared she will use it so come right away to help. The assertion is that she didn't shoot anyone with it yet at the time Neville dialed but then his father was cutoff and he is unsure what happened at that point.
If Nevill did make the call as claimed he would have been shot 4-5 times already before he dialed. Also June already had to have been shot severely enough that she stayed in the master bedroom and did not try to escape the house or to try to help her husband. The shooting started upstairs in the master bedroom. June would not have stayed there unless she were shot enough times to immobilize her. Nevill was shot 4 times upstairs. The killer pursued Nevill down the stairs and shot him 4 more times downstairs. The killer is believed to have fired a shot from the stairs hitting him a 5th time (in the head) before he could possibly have reached the phone. Some believe the 5th shot was in fact fired in the kitchen after he was unconscious along with the other 3 rounds, they think the casing on the stairs stuck to a shoe and was trailed there by accident. The evidence could go either way.
This is very damaging to Jeremy's claims for a number of reasons.
Of the 8 bullets wounds that Nevill suffered: the 3 most severe wounds were headshots any one of which on its own would have at minimum rendered Nevill unconscious; 1 wound was to his lip; another fractured his jaw, teeth and larynx which rendered him unable to speak after that; another bullet was a right side headshot that might not have immediately rendered him unconscious; 1 wound to his left shoulder; and finally 1 wound to his left elbow.
Since he was able to run down the stairs obviously he can’t have suffered the most serious wounds upstairs. Also in the kitchen there was a severe struggle so he was not yet unconscious or that struggle would not have taken place and he certainly can't have made a phone call if unconscious. So we can assume the 3 most severe shots were fired last after he was incapacitated in order to finish him off. They were close range shots so consistent with such. Indeed the way to reach the top of his head would be because he was slumped over already not standing upright. That means one of the shots he suffered before reaching the phone had to be the shot that rendered him unable to speak. That right there destroys any claim he made a phone call to Jeremy.
For the moment let’s set aside the reality that Nevill would not have been able to speak over the phone and that at best he could have dialed but Jeremy would not be able to hear anything beyond unintelligible noises. Let’s pretend that Nevill defied science and was able to speak and analyze what Jeremy claims his father said to him and whether someone in Nevill’s position would actually say over the phone what Jeremy attributes to him.
Nevill's wife was shot and in unknown condition. He himself was shot at least 4 and possibly 5 times. Someone in his position would call 999 and request police assistance and an ambulance announcing he and his wife were shot and needed medical attention. Ok suppose he wanted help quicker what would he do? He would call the caretaker and tell the caretaker to call 999 requesting police and ambulance because they were shot and ask the caretaker to immediately come help disarm Sheila because he was close and the police might arrive too late.
Does he do either? No instead he calls Jeremy. There is substantial evidence and testimony that he didn't trust Jeremy. Indeed the caretaker had keys to the house but he didn't trust his son with a set of keys. That says something right there. He told at least one person he feared Jeremy was plotting to kill him, how ominous. But instead of calling the caretaker he calls his son who is only a little bit further away than the caretaker. Does he tell his son that they were shot and needed medical attention? No supposedly he said Sheila has a gun and might use it come right over I need your help. It is ludicrous to think that Nevill would call someone and not say he and his wife had been shot send medical help but would instead lie and say Sheila had not yet used the gun but he feared she would so come help disarm her.
So the conversation clearly was made up by Jeremy. There is no way such a conversation could have happened.
Mind you even if she had not shot anyone yet it still makes no sense to call Jeremy. Jeremy did not get along well with her so it is not as if Jeremy could offer a soothing effect to calm her down. Aside from her children, her favorite person was her father so he had the best chance to calm her down. Moreover given Nevill's size advantage he could have disarmed her physically without Jeremy's help. Why would he not attempt to disarm her instead of calling Jeremy to ask for his help? The prosecution brought this out but never drove home the fact that this is not what actually happened anyway. Nevill and his wife had already been shot by the time he reached the kitchen and could have tried to use the phone. Sheila and the twins might also have been shot prior to him reaching the kitchen. The killer could have fired a couple of shots in each victim and returned later to add more. Indeed 5 shots had to have been fired in victims other than Nevill before he reached the phone.
Maximum loading of the gun would be 11 rounds (1 in the chamber and 10 rounds in the magazine)
Nevill: shot 4-5 times before entering kitchen
Upon reaching kitchen magazine empty so Nevill beaten unconscious
Magazine: reloaded and Nevill shot 3-4 more times to finish him off
At minimum 5 shots (6 if all 4 final shots were delivered in the kitchen or it had been loaded with 11 rounds, 7 if all 4 final shots came in the kitchen and 11 rounds had been loaded) were fired into victims other than Nevill. Nevill could have been shot for the first time after the killer reloaded so potentially even more could have been fired into other victims by this time but at minimum 5 were. June and Sheila could already have been incapacitated by 4 and 1 shot respectively.
The fact that Jeremy insists his father didn't say anyone had been shot and to send for an ambulance is absolutely fatal to his claim his father called.
Jeremy's actions before and after supposedly receiving this call make no sense either.
At night he somehow sees bunnies through the window and decides to go shoot at them. He chooses a gun with no silencer or scope for the task though there were guns with silencer and scope attached. He loads the gun but then the bunnies are gone. He unloads the gun but is too lazy to take 30 seconds to put it away, he leaves it on the kitchen table instead with the loaded magazine and extra bullets beside it. This despite having two 6 year old nephews in the house. His father who is very careful not to leave guns around, especially while his grandsons are there, leaves it on the kitchen table and the mother doesn't mind either. They somehow set the table for breakfast anyway with the gun on it. This story makes no sense and all and what is the purpose of the tale? His sister would not go seek out a gun. So he made up this tale about it being easy for her to grab while having a crazy frenzy because it was right in front of her in the open and conveniently so were extra bullets. This also provides an excuse as to why his finger prints would be on some of the casings and the gun.
Ok in the middle of the night his father wakes him up to say come right over your sister got a hold of a gun and I am scared she might use it I want you to help me disarm her.
His father suddenly is cut off.
He lives 3 minutes away does he rush over to find out what happened and help his father?
No he calls his girlfriend reportedly to tell her that his father called him to tell him Sheila was in a frenzy state menacing with a gun.
Then after an undetermined amount of time he calls the regular police line. He tells police that he wants them to go check things out and wants them to pick him up along the way.
His sister is not known to be violent.
His sister has not used a gun since a child and never used any of the guns in the house so might not know how to use the one he left unloaded on the table
He has no idea if his family is hurt or not and is only 3 minutes away so could easily check
He doesn't even go over to peak in the windows and try to listen from outside, he stays at his place till police pass by and then he follows the police but drives slowly behind ot make sure that instead of arriving the same time as them he arrives minutes later. Either he is the biggest chicken ever or he wanted police to arrive first so he could say he was no where near the place till after police got there.
He lies to police and tells then that she has used every gun in the house and is proficient with weapons.
Police are scared to enter. He knows how to get in but he is not concerned enough to enter to try to find out what happened to his family. Instead of being impatient and entering to find out what transpired he calmly talks to police for hours about cars and guy stuff making sure that they go in first and doesn't even press them to go in. He even lies and claims he saw someone walking around inside the bedroom.
I have never seen Jeremy's supporters address any of these points. These points are aside from the evidence related to the silencer and lack of evidence that Sheila fired a gun that night. I have not even mentioned the incriminating evidence his girlfriend provided. That evidence just brings it home even more. But these points I raised on their own are enough to sink Jeremy.
The order of shots is something people wonder about but will never have a perfect answer. Here is what I suspect based on what killers usually do. He probably chambered a round and then loaded another bullet into the magazine so that he had 11 bullets in the gun. He figured the kids were too little to do anything to him so he took care of them last. Since his sister was on sedatives he probably was not worried about her either. Unless for some reason she was awake and in the master bedroom with her parents she probably was shot last.
Presumably the master bedroom only had June and Nevill in it when he entered. He probably shot June 7 times, and Nevill 4 times. Then he was empty. He pursued Nevill into the kitchen and the struggle ensued where the silencer scratched the mantle and they knocked things over. He knocked Neville unconscious and rather than take the time to reload fully he quickly loaded 4 rounds into the magazine and then shot 4 Nevill times more because he did not want to give Nevill a chance to come to and grab the weapon from him again. Then he fully reloads the magazine with 10 rounds. Goes up and shoots 1 nephew 5 times the other 3 times. Then grabs his sister and shoots her 2 times gun empty again. Removes the silencer and blood on his hands gets on the end of the silencer that had been screwed into the rifle and thus should not have any blood on it. He puts the silencer back in the closet because he doesn't want anyone to know it had been used and removes the scope as well so it looks like it had been used without the accessories. This is just what seems to me the most logical based on the evidence and what I know about weapons. Little kids sleep sound and Sheila probably was scared and did what she was told so the real threats were the mother that Sheila and Jeremy had a horrible relationship with and a strong father. If Jeremy didn't hate her so much and concentrated his efforts on his father alone his father might not have made it downstairs. I think that hatred and shooting her so much is what enabled Nevill to escape to the kitchen.
-
You certainly have been doing your research on the case. The points which you have highlighted so eloquently are very valid. Just one little point though about Jeremy going to the farmhouse.
When he was on the phone he asked the police to pick him up at his house in Goldhanger. They refused and told him to make his way to the farm independently. He set off in his Astra but stopped to put on a sweater. He was going so slow that the police overtook him. This was out of character for Jeremy as he was a speed fiend. Why did he go so slow? Obviously he needed the police to get there before him.
-
You certainly have been doing your research on the case. The points which you have highlighted so eloquently are very valid. Just one little point though about Jeremy going to the farmhouse.
When he was on the phone he asked the police to pick him up at his house in Goldhanger. They refused and told him to make his way to the farm independently. He set off in his Astra but stopped to put on a sweater. He was going so slow that the police overtook him. This was out of character for Jeremy as he was a speed fiend. Why did he go so slow? Obviously he needed the police to get there before him.
I left out the speed demon part because it is unnecessary. It was only a 3 minute drive for him. He didn't need police to get there first, he wanted them to get there first. Just putting on a sweater was not enough, he had to sit and wait for police to pass by him or he would have beat them there. As you point out he requested they pick him up but they refused. Since they would not pick him up he waited and then followed them the rest of the way. His excuse is that he was scared to go alone which makes no sense.
He could walk around the outside safely enough to try to listen or peak in a window even to see what is going on inside. A normal person would have done that before calling police or at the very least after calling police. He was supposedly too scared though he had to wait for police to go. That's also his excuse for not going in after cops decided they were waiting. The cops were scared to go inside and he said so was he. Who would wait for hours wondering if their parents are still alive? You would be looking in every window and then sneak inside. It was all an obvious act and that is what really sinks him. If my parents called me to say my brother had a gun and they fear he will use it I would not wait for police to get there. I would go inside. If police beat me there and then said they were waiting hours I would go in without them.
If he didn't call police and make up the ridiculous phone call then what? The farmworkers who had keys to the house could very well have found the family instead. If police figured out at some point that Sheila was framed then what? Jeremy would be a suspect since he inherited the estate but that is all they would have is suspicion because he had a motive. They would not have any solid evidence against him other than 1 fingerprint on the rifle. Which he could have gotten rid of had be bothered to clean the rifle better instead of spending time making up his phone story or could have simply said well everyone knows I borrow my father's guns so my prints are on all of them.
It would have been much more difficult to convict him had he not stuck himself in the middle. If workers found the bodies instead I would know that Sheila was framed but would not be positive of who did do it. I am positive because of what he said and did.
-
Hi all I am new here. You have made some good points but I think there are a few considerations missed and a few overstatements.
I think the point about Sheila definitely being unfamiliar with any gun is an overstatement. I would phrase it no reliable evidence that she ever used a gun or knew how to use any gun and that even Jeremy Bamber conceded he never saw her use any of the weapons in the house on the date of the murders. Family and friends testified she had no interest in guns and that they neve rsaw her touch let alone use a gun. Jeremy testified that she fired a gun as a child when she went target shooting with him but that he has not seen her fire a weapon as an adult. The only people who would have a basis to know whether Jeremy was lying about her firing a gun as a child were the 3 adult victims. Since he is a known liar and was making a self-serving claim there is good reaosn to doubt him. Still it would be more accurate to say no reliable evidence she ever fired a weapon than to say for sure she didn't.
This touches upon a point I have never seen anyone raise before. Jeremy lied to police on the night of the murders. As he was speaking to the police at the scene he listed all the firearms in the house and told them that Sheila had fired all the weapons and was proficient with them. This scared the police so much that they refused to enter. They were unarmed and did not want to take the risk. This even disturbed the armed officers who arrived so much that they waited a considerable time to enter.
Since at trial he conceded he had not seen her fire a weapon as an adult and these guns were all obtained while she was an adult it means he can't have seen her fire any of them. So what basis did he have to tell police she fired all the weapons in the house and was proficient with them? The only conclusion for the rational mind is that he intentionally lied to police. The appropriate question is why would he lie about this?
There are only 2 reasons for such a lie. 1) So police would not go in right away which would make it more difficult to establish the time of death and 2) So that police would believe she carried out the murders when they found her with the gun lying on her.
It worked on both counts. They waited so long to enter that it resulted in valuable time being lost to examine the bodies and try to fix the time of deaths. It initially resulted in sloppy evidence collection and he milked that for all it was worth even though in the end it still didn't save him.
Even if Sheila had used a gun as a child that doesn't mean she would know how to operate the murder weapon. What kind of gun she operated as a child would be key and she might not even remember how to use that gun anymore. Jeremy never got into what weapon she supposedly used when she was with him as a child. The murder weapon was a semi-auto rifle. Jeremy claims the gun itself was unloaded but he left a loaded magazine next to it. While most peopel can figure out how to load a magazine into a gun, those unfamiliar with the operation of semi-autos will not know how to chamber a round or even know a round needs to be chambered in order for the gun to operate.
In the US, Manson follower Lynette Fromme tried to shoot President Gerald ford with a semi-auto pistol. She pulled the trigger but it didn't fire. The reason it didn't fire is because she never chambered a round she simply loaded the magazine and tried to fire.
Even if she had managed to chamber a round and fire, if she had not fired any weapon as an adult there certianly would have been a learning curve. It seems pretty unlikely that she would not miss with a single shot, particularly since she allegedly was in a frenzied state.
Another issue relates to reloading. Since she never used the weapon before and may never have used a semi-auto before she would have to figure out how to release the empty magazine to reload it. Precious time would be lost as she tried to figure out how to remove it. From photos of the weapon I can see how to chamber a round but would have to see it close up to figure out where the magazine release is and how it works. Off hand I don't precisely know because I never used it and that is despite the fact I have considerable firearms expertise.
There was only one magazine for the weapon. The killer could not simply load in a fresh magazine. The killer had to take the added time to reload the magazine at least 2 times. This point explains why there was a struggle in the kitchen.
Neville had defensive wounds on his arms and bruises on his head caused by the rifle. The killer struck Neville so hard over the head that the killer broke the rifle stock. Why would the killer stop shooting and instead beat him with the rifle? There is only one rational reason, the rifle was empty. If the rifle still had ammo the killer would have continued to shoot him.
This is particularly the case if Sheila were the killer. According to court records Nevill was 6'4" and in good physical condition (I have seen 6"2" listed on this site but the court records state 2 inches taller). She was small in comparison. She would have difficulty overpowering him. If she ran at him with the gun to strike him then he could have disarmed her. How could she have hit him in the head with it? This being the case why would she even try if she still had ammo in the gun? She would just continue to shoot him and so would in fact any killer. Only running out of ammo would force a killer to resort to hand to hand combat.
The killer needed to immobilize him so that the killer would then have a chance to reload. Unless immobilized Neville could disarm the killer while the killer tried to reload. As you load more rounds the magazine spring has more tension and it becomes more difficult to push down. It takes quite a bit of effort to load the last couple of rounds. Not only time consuming but also someone with finger nails would probably break them and certainly would during the course of a severe struggle.
The alleged phone call needs to be evaluated based on all of this but never is.
Jeremy repeatedly stated that his father told him his sister got a hold of the gun and he is scared she will use it so come right away to help. The assertion is that she didn't shoot anyone with it yet at the time Neville dialed but then his father was cutoff and he is unsure what happened at that point.
If Nevill did make the call as claimed he would have been shot 5 times already before he dialed. Also June already had to have been shot severely enough that she stayed in the master bedroom and did not ry to escape the house or to help her husband. The shooting started upstairs in the master bedroom. June would not have stayed there unless she were shot enough times to immobilize her. Nevill was shot 4 times upstairs. The killer pursued Nevill down the stairs and fired a shot from the stairs hitting him a 5th time before he could possibly have reached the phone.
This is very damaging to Jeremy's claims for a number of reasons.
Of the 8 bullets wounds that Nevill suffered: the 3 most severe wounds were headshots any one of which on its own would have at minimum rendered Nevill unconscious; 1 wound was to his lip; another fractured his jaw, teeth and larynx which rendered him unable to speak after that; another bullet was a right side headshot that might not have immediately rendered him unconscious; 1 wound to his left shoulder; and finally 1 wound to his left elbow.
Since he was able to run down the stairs obviously he can’t have suffered the most serious wounds upstairs. Also in the kitchen there was a struggle so he was not yet unconscious or that struggle would not have taken place and he certainly can't have made a phone call if unconscious. So we can assume the 3 most severe shots were fired last after he was incapacitated in order to finish him off. They were close range shots so consistent with such. Indeed the way to reach the top of his head would be because he was slumped over already not standing upright. That means one of the 5 shots he suffered before reaching the phone had to be the shot that rendered him unable to speak. That right there destroys any claim he made a phone call to Jeremy.
For the moment let’s set aside the reality that Nevill would not have been able to speak over the phone at best he could have dialed and Jeremy would not be able to hear anything beyond unintelligible noises. Let’s pretend that Nevill defied science and was able to speak and analyze what Jeremy claims his father said to him and whether someone in Nevill’s position would actually say over the phone what Jeremy attributes to him.
Nevill's wife was shot and in unknown condition. He himself was shot 5 times. Someone in his position would call 999 and request police assistance and an ambulance announcing he and his wife were shot and needed medical attention. Ok suppose he wanted help quicker what would he do? He would call the caretaker and tell the caretaker to call 999 requesting police and ambulance because they were shot and ask the caretaker to immediately come help disarm Sheila because he was close and the police might arrive too late.
Does he do either? No instead he calls Jeremy. There is substantial evidence and testimony that he didn't trust Jeremy. Indeed the caretaker had keys to the house but he didn't trust his son with a set of keys. That says something right there. But instead of calling the caretaker he calls his son who is only a little bit firther away than the caretaker. Does he tell his son that they were shot and needed medical attention? No supposedly he said Sheila has a gun and might use it come right over I need your help. It is ludicrous to think that Nevill would call someone and not say he and his wife had been shot send medical help but woul dinstead lie and say she had not yet used the gun but he feared she would so come help disarm her.
So the conversation clearly was made up by Jeremy. There is no way such a conversation could have happened.
Mind you even if she had no shot anyone yet it still makes no sense to call Jeremy. Jeremy did not get along well with her so it is not as if Jeremy could offer a soothing effect. Aside from her children, her favorite person was her father so he had the best chance to calm her down. Moreover given his size advanatge he could have disarmed her physically without Jeremy's help. Why would he not attempt to disarm her instead of calling Jeremy to ask for his help? The prosecution brought this out but never drove home the fact that this is not what actually happened anyway. Nevill and his wife had already been shot by the time he reached the kitchen and could have tried to use the phone. Sheila and the twins might also have been shot prior to him reaching the kitchen. The killer could have fired a couple of shots in each victim and returned later to add more. Indeed 5 shots had to have been fired in victims other than Nevill before he reached the phone.
Magazine: 10 rounds
Nevill: shot 5 times before entering kitchen
Upon reaching kitchen magazine empty so Nevill beaten unconscious
Magazine: reloaded and Nevill shot 3 more times to finish him off
At minimum 5 shots were fired into other victims than Nevill. Nevill could have been shot for the first time after the killer reloaded so potentially even more could have been fired into other victims by this time but at minimum 5 were. June and Sheila could already have been incapacitated by 4 and 1 shot respectively.
The fact that Jeremy insists his father didn't say anyone had been shot and to send for an ambulance is absolutely fatal to his claim his father called.
Jeremy's actions before and after supposedly receiving this call make no sense either.
At night he somehow sees bunnies through the window and decides to go shoot at them. He chooses a gun with no silencer or scope for the task though there were guns with silencer and scope attached. He loads the gun but then the bunnies are gone. He unloads the gun but is too lazy to take 30 seconds to put it away, he leaves it on the kitchen table instead with the loaded magazine and extra bullets deside it. This despite having 2 6 year old nephews in the house. His father who is very careful not to leave guns around, especially while his grandsons are there, leaves it on the kitchen table and the mother doesn't mind either. They somehow set the table for breakfast anyway with the gun on it. This story makes no sense and all and what is the purpose? His siter would not go seek out a gun. So he made up this tale about it being easy for her to grab while having a crazy frenzy because it was right in front of her in the open and conveniently so were extra bullets. This also provides an excuse as to why his finger prints would be on some of the casings and the gun.
Ok in the middle of the night his father wakes him up to say come right over your sister got a hold of a gun and I am scared she might use it I want you to help me disarm her.
His father suddenly is cut off.
He lives 3 minutes away does he rush over to find out what happened and help his father?
No he calls his girlfriend reportedly to tell her that his father called him to tell him Sheila was in a frenzy state menacing with a gun.
Then after an undetermined amount of time he calls the regular police line. He tells police tha the wants the go go check things out and wants them to pick him up along the way.
His sister is not known to be violent.
His sister has not used a gun since a child and never used any of the guns in the house so might not know how to use the one he left unloaded on the table
He has no idea if his family is hurt or not and is only 3 minutes away so could easily check
He doesn't even go over to peak in the windows and try to listen from outside he stays at his place till police pass by and then he follows the police.
He lies to police and tells then that she has used every gun in the house and is proficient with weapons.
Police are scared to enter. He knows how to get in but he is not concerned enough to enter to try to find out what happened to his family. Instead of being impatient and entering to find out he calmly talks to police for hours about cars and guy stuff wanting them to go in first.
I have never seen Jeremy's supporters address any of these points. These points are aside from the evidence related to the silencer and lack of evidence that Sheila fired a gun that night. That evidence just brings it home even more. But these points I raised on their own are enough to sink Jeremy.
Scipio as far as I can see the only "overstatements" are the lengths of your posts!!
-
Scipio as far as I can see the only "overstatements" are the lengths of your posts!!
Being thorough and explaining point by point is necessary in order to communicate the complete picture. Those who claim Jeremy is innocent have no ability to deal with most of what sinks him so ignore most of it. When it is presented but they don't rebut it then it means their position is intenable.
-
Being thorough and explaining point by point is necessary in order to communicate the complete picture. Those who claim Jeremy is innocent have no ability to deal with most of what sinks him so ignore most of it. When it is presented but they don't rebut it then it means their position is intenable.
I have neither the time or inclination to go through your chapter and verse posts. You don't want to debate; you hijack threads and attempt, albeit unsuccessfully, to force your opinions on others. Why? JB has been found guilty in a court of law. He is serving LIFE. He has been in prison for some 28 years. Why bother telling me I need to face reality, or rather your reality? I have covered all the points you raise over the last two years on Blue and/or Red. I am not in the habit of repeating myself. Unless you can offer up something NEW I shall continue to believe JB is the victim of a MoJ. I am merely a poster on a forum. I have no influence whatsoever over the only people who are capable of overturning JB's conviction eg CCRC or CoA.
-
You certainly have been doing your research on the case. The points which you have highlighted so eloquently are very valid. Just one little point though about Jeremy going to the farmhouse.
When he was on the phone he asked the police to pick him up at his house in Goldhanger. They refused and told him to make his way to the farm independently. He set off in his Astra but stopped to put on a sweater. He was going so slow that the police overtook him. This was out of character for Jeremy as he was a speed fiend. Why did he go so slow? Obviously he needed the police to get there before him.
I've got to say by far the most considered, rational and explanatory posts I have ever read on this case on either forum and the more scipio_usmc posts the more I think Jeremy did it because their is no other explanation and everything comes into place.
I'm sorry Holly but scipio_usmc doesn't hijacks posts he just explains well, the fact that both of you have differing views is good and you don't need to repeat yourself but we do need differing views, so please don't stop posting.
-
I didn't say Scopio hijacked posts Joanne, I said threads ie he does not keep to the thread title and gives us chapter and verse re his views on the whole case. It's impossible to stay on thread/topic all the time and if this was the case would be a bit stilted but I thought the whole point of threads was to debate a particular issue not quote chapter and verse?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.msg130517#msg130517 ?>)()<
-
I didn't say Scopio hijacked posts Joanne, I said threads ie he does not keep to the thread title and gives us chapter and verse re his views on the whole case. It's impossible to stay on thread/topic all the time and if this was the case would be a bit stilted but I thought the whole point of threads was to debate a particular issue not quote chapter and verse?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.msg130517#msg130517 ?>)()<
All the parts of the case are related.
You want to look at each thing in isolation because the evidence as a whole is overwhelming.
For instance, you would like us to ignore that Jeremy claims Sheila was a crazy rage and that someone in a crazy rage would not hide the phone beforehand and go seek out a silencer for the gun she found on the table. Indeed if she went to the gun closet instead fo grabbing the silencer she could have grabbed a gun that already had one attached alone with a scope or any of he other weapons. You paint some of her actions as cold and calculating like knocking the phone out of his hand but not shooting him on site instead marching him upstairs to kill him only to have him run back down. or you claim she took a bath after killing everyone and changed her clothes before committing suicide.
You make excuse after excuse but if all those excuses are presented together nothing adds up or works.
This thread is about a mix anyway the mix of how there is no evidence to prove Sheila did a thing but plenty of evidence that Jeremy repeatedly lied and is guilty. It covers the whole ball of wax.
-
I've got to say by far the most considered, rational and explanatory posts I have ever read on this case on either forum and the more scipio_usmc posts the more I think Jeremy did it because their is no other explanation and everything comes into place.
I'm sorry Holly but scipio_usmc doesn't hijacks posts he just explains well, the fact that both of you have differing views is good and you don't need to repeat yourself but we do need differing views, so please don't stop posting.
Indeed differing views are the way to tell which views make sense and are accurate.
Part of debate is to go back and forth otherwise it is not a debate.
-
I have neither the time or inclination to go through your chapter and verse posts. You don't want to debate; you hijack threads and attempt, albeit unsuccessfully, to force your opinions on others. Why? JB has been found guilty in a court of law. He is serving LIFE. He has been in prison for some 28 years. Why bother telling me I need to face reality, or rather your reality? I have covered all the points you raise over the last two years on Blue and/or Red. I am not in the habit of repeating myself. Unless you can offer up something NEW I shall continue to believe JB is the victim of a MoJ. I am merely a poster on a forum. I have no influence whatsoever over the only people who are capable of overturning JB's conviction eg CCRC or CoA.
Some of my points were never raised so your claim you addressed them is a laugh.
That is the common claim of people who can't prove someone wrong, they claim they already did it in the past without being able to explain how.
If you want to believe in fantasy be my guest but tha tis not going to convince anyone else that your position is correct you need to produce evidence to prove it.
-
Some of my points were never raised so your claim you addressed them is a laugh.
That is the common claim of people who can't prove someone wrong, they claim they already did it in the past without being able to explain how.
If you want to believe in fantasy be my guest but tha tis not going to convince anyone else that your position is correct you need to produce evidence to prove it.
Scipio_usmc
My challenge to you is start off as many threads as you like on a SINGLE point and I will debate them with you. What I am not prepared to do is debate the whole case in one post. Plus I don't know how to split posts @)(+(*
Please can someone PM me with detailed instructions as to how I go about splitting quotes. Thank you.
-
Personally I find Scipio-usmc posts very useful and clear.
A lot better than the endless rambling you get on other forums (and this forum) when people just employ sound bites and say that any single point is a lie by the police, Julie Mugford, The Media, Prince Philip, McCanns and others.
One of the big weaknesses of any forum is the "Thread" business. The moment anyone varies from the heading, there is a scream of "hijacking the thread" and "going off point" and then the Admins delete the whole thing. It is a good way of suppressing good ideas and debate but a total bore.
Great posts Scipio and keep them up. If people cannot cope with more than one point at a time let them go onto "Blue."
-
Scipio_usmc
My challenge to you is start off as many threads as you like on a SINGLE point and I will debate them with you. What I am not prepared to do is debate the whole case in one post. Plus I don't know how to split posts @)(+(*
Please can someone PM me with detailed instructions as to how I go about splitting quotes. Thank you.
All you have to do to split up a quote is to make sure each part of the quote starts with the [quote author...] and ends with the [/quote]
Copy what is in the parenthesis and paste it before each quote you want to be independent and past [/quote] at the end of the quote.
-
Another thumbs up for Scipio's excellent posts 8((()*/
-
Personally I find Scipio-usmc posts very useful and clear.
A lot better than the endless rambling you get on other forums (and this forum) when people just employ sound bites and say that any single point is a lie by the police, Julie Mugford, The Media, Prince Philip, McCanns and others.
One of the big weaknesses of any forum is the "Thread" business. The moment anyone varies from the heading, there is a scream of "hijacking the thread" and "going off point" and then the Admins delete the whole thing. It is a good way of suppressing good ideas and debate but a total bore.
Great posts Scipio and keep them up. If people cannot cope with more than one point at a time let them go onto "Blue."
This particular thread is about everything as a whole, so I discussed everything as a whole. I actually did not bring up some evidence that was already discussed and is standard fare like Julie's damaging testimony or even to go into Sheila being shot with the suppressor therefore unable to have killed herself.
I try to stay on point on threads but sometimes other issues not raised yet are relevant and need to be raised because of the relation. You can't look at things that are related in isolation or it skews the result.
You also must consider all possibilities and see how they play out to be able to evaluate which ones make sense and are likely or unlikely.
-
Holly, but I meant to pursue this the other day - the lack of Sheila's prints on the gun, when she apparently used it both as a gun AND a club?
Thanking you! 8((()*/
-
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it rather than pulled it with her index finger.
That revelation alone negates any argument that she committed suicide.
-
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it rather than pulled it with her index finger.
That revelation alone negates any argument that she committed suicide.
Case solved - lunchtime!! 8((()*/
(I won't have the sprouts, thanks.)
-
Had Sheila used the rifle as Bamber suggests her prints would have been all over it. In fact, the almost absence of fingerprints on the rifle indicates that it was cleaned by the killer in an attempt to disguise what really occurred.
-
One more question, Holl. According to you, Sheila used the gun as a weapon and a club. Her prints would have been smeared all over that gun. Stock, barrel, everywhere. And, of course, on the trigger. But, nothing.
So?
-
One more question, Holl. According to you, Sheila used the gun as a weapon and a club. Her prints would have been smeared all over that gun. Stock, barrel, everywhere. And, of course, on the trigger. But, nothing.
So?
According to Chris Bewes and Mick Gradwell (see titles/background on clip) they are of the opinion that EP moved the gun and restaged it. Both think JB guilty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPRd912xv9M (see @ 6.30 min in)
I think anything from the soc is hopelessly unreliable due to a botched investigation as per EP's admission.
As I understand it one print from each of SC and JB was found on the gun.
-
According to Chris Bewes and Mick Gradwell (see titles/background on clip) they are of the opinion that EP moved the gun and restaged it. Both think JB guilty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPRd912xv9M (see @ 6.30 min in)
I think anything from the soc is hopelessly unreliable due to a botched investigation as per EP's admission.
As I understand it one print from each of SC and JB was found on the gun.
A firearms officer removed the rifle from on top of Sheila's body in order to make it safe Holly. The police were silly to let Bamber lead them in the manner he did but I believe they were so shocked by the thought that a person could do such a thing to his own family that they let ther emotions rule their head. Thankfully, DS Stan Jones was a real policeman.
-
According to Chris Bewes and Mick Gradwell (see titles/background on clip) they are of the opinion that EP moved the gun and restaged it. Both think JB guilty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPRd912xv9M (see @ 6.30 min in)
I think anything from the soc is hopelessly unreliable due to a botched investigation as per EP's admission.
As I understand it one print from each of SC and JB was found on the gun.
All the botches were in favor of Jeremy.
All of Jeremy's actions should have made him a suspect. Instead of inspecting him for wounds, gunshot residue and blood evidence (including his clothing) they simply assumed Sheila did it and that ensured any evidence that could have been obtained from Jeremy wasn't.
The fact they made their case inspite of all the lapses demonstrates how powerful the evidence against him truly is. I presented that evidence and you were unable to dent it. Instead you made up an absurd tale about Nevill running up and down the stairs repeatedly and Sheila taking a bath and changing her clothes so she could commit suicide without any evidence of having committed any murders not to mention the nonsense about her beating a dead body visciously. All of this fantasy on your part made no sense at all but was your way of trying to explain how she could have no evidence on her of having fired a weapon or of beaing anyone. You ddin't even try to address the issue of the phone being relocated to the kitchen by the killer in advance in anticipation of the murders or the fact Jeremy insists the gun had no suppressor when he left it on the kitchen table which means Sheila would have to have got the suppressor used it then took it off and put it away. Such planning is certainly not indicative of a psychotic episode.
None of your fantasy narrative accounted for Jeremy's actions of calling Julie in the middle of the night to wake her up (which is totally irrational except if he called to tell her his parents were dead which is what she asserts he told her) taking his sweet time before calling the police, refusing to go to the house to try to see what was going on until police were already there, lying to police about her firing every gun in the house and being proficient with them and finally instead of pressing police to take action or to go in himself to patiently wait close to 4 hours with them talking about cars and guy stuff.
Worse yet June and Nevill had already been shot before he could have reached the kitchen to use the phone. One of his wounds rendered him unable to speak. If he could speak he would have called to request medical help because he and June had been shot not to say Sheila got a gun and he feared she would shoot them so come disarm her.
Your account of Sheila waking her parents, Nevill then running downstairs to use the phone to call Jeremy to come disarm his sister (instead of Nevill disarming her himself), June staying in the bedroom wiating for Sheila to return, Sheila knocking the phone out of Nevill's hand and marching him back upstairs so she could shoot Nevill and June in the same room, opens fire but Nevill gets away and runs back down into the kitchen, passes out even though the wounds would not have made him pass out, then she beats his limp body including bashing the outside of his arm in what looks like classic defensive wounds, then shoots him. Then goes upstairs to kill everyone else. Then puts the silencer away, then showers and puts on a fresh nightgown and somehow gets rid of the old nightgown full of gunshot residue where it is never found to this day is absolutuely ludicrous.
Rational people recognize the killer entered the master bedroom and opened fire. June was shot severely enough that she was disabeled and didn't make it out of the room. Nevill received minor wounds to his left elbow and shoulder, had part of his lip shot off and 1 bullet shattered his jaw and severed his voicebox. He thus was unable to speak. Had he been able to speak and picked up the phone it would have had blood on it and he would have said he and his wife were shot send for help. Jeremy's story about the phone call gave himself away completely and totally. This further explains all his other actions which otherwise make no sense.
Waking his girlfriend to say "hey my parents called and said Sheila was having a psychotic episode and is running around with a gun, isn't that interesting" makes no sense. The only reason he would call her is if he knew they were dead and was excited to tell her about it because he needed to tell someone just like someone who gets a hole in one in golf is bursting at the seems to brag and share his excitement. Her account is that he called to say they were dead and that it was a follow up call to one made earlier where he told her tonight is the night. He had told her for a while about his desire to kill them.
Not going over to investigate or help makes no sense. The line would no have been able to be used by him for 1-2 minutes. He only lived 3 minutes away. He should have ran over to investigate then called police if necessary. At minimum he should have immediately called police as soon as the line cleared (which would have taken 1-2 minutes) then ran over to investigate. Calling his girlfriend, then police after quite a bit of time after he had hung up with Julie and refusing to drive the 3 minutes until after police were already there talking makes no sense at all unless he killed them he was changing his clothes and cleaning himself up and wanted police to arrive and find the bodies first because if he arrived first they could accuse him of staging the scene. He wanted them to find the bodies so they would not think he had anything to do with it. That is the only rational explanation for his actions and the only rational explanation of the phone call- it was made up.
-
Remember how, as he chugged gently along to WHF (after Ralph had begged him to "come quick") he stopped the car, got out, and put another layer of clothing on? >@@(*&)
-
A firearms officer removed the rifle from on top of Sheila's body in order to make it safe Holly. The police were silly to let Bamber lead them in the manner he did but I believe they were so shocked by the thought that a person could do such a thing to his own family that they let ther emotions rule their head. Thankfully, DS Stan Jones was a real policeman.
PV stated:
"He mentioned a number of points which I recall tended to relate to Jeremy's general reactions which D/Sgt.Jones did not think compatible with the manner in which he expected him to react. Whilst respecting his views there was nothing impressive about what he said and certainly I cannot recall anything of evidential substance to the effect that Sheila could not have done it".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=206.0
-
PV stated:
"He mentioned a number of points which I recall tended to relate to Jeremy's general reactions which D/Sgt.Jones did not think compatible with the manner in which he expected him to react. Whilst respecting his views there was nothing impressive about what he said and certainly I cannot recall anything of evidential substance to the effect that Sheila could not have done it".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=206.0
Not to put it too mildly, had Stan Jones not stood his ground and pursued his suspicions, Jerry might have got away with it. Remember too, that it was Jones who caught Bamber and Mugford sniggering at Goldhanger just hours after the murders.
-
Remember how, as he chugged gently along to WHF (after Ralph had begged him to "come quick") he stopped the car, got out, and put another layer of clothing on? >@@(*&)
I missed that - how strange. Where can I read about this? Was it from one of the police statements?
-
I missed that - how strange. Where can I read about this? Was it from one of the police statements?
It is one of the excuses he gave for arriving several minutes after the officers though he was 3 minutes away.
So here is the full story:
1) even though Nevill had part of his lip shot off, his jaw and teeth shattered and voicebox severed he still managed to speak perfectly clear for Jeremy to understand him even though doctors say that is not possible.
2) Nevill managed to use the phone without getting any blood on it though his mouth was bleeding
3) Though he had been shot at least 4 times and June had been shot and disabled instead of calling 999 he wanted to keep it in the family and called Jeremy to come over to disarm his sister. He didn't mention that any of them had been shot just claimed he feared she would shoot them and thus didn't Jeremy to summon any medical help.
4) Instead of taking the 3 minute drive right away to at least spy from outside to see what was going on instead Jeremy waits an undetermined amount of time from the supposed call (he had to wait at least 1-2 minutes according to the phone company for the line to clear and was unaware of this waiting period so obviously didn't immediately hang up and dial as he claimed) and calls Julie at 3AM, waking her and her roomates, to tell her Nevill had called to say Sheila was having a fit and running around with a gun and Nevill wanted him to come right over. (Julie says he called her to say his family was dead which makes far more sense than waking her to tell her Nevill told him to go over)
5) At 3:26AM Jeremy calls the police to tell them to go over and asks them to pick him up along the way. They refuse and tell him to go there to meet them.
6) Instead of taking the 3 minute drive he hangs out in his car waiting for police to appear. He parks on the side of the road. Police fly by and arrive around 3:45AM. He slowly follows them arriving several minutes after them though the entire drive was only 3 minutes. He indicates he stopped on the side of the road to put on a sweater.
7) He arrives and tells police Sheila is crazy and dangerous. He repeated the claim that his father called to tell him she was having a psychotic fit and running around with a gun. He described how many guns are in the house and each model. He lies and tells police that Sheila fired every gun in the house and was proficient with them all.
8) Instead of being concerned for his family and pressing police to take action or to take action himself he waits outside with them for nearly 4 hours calm as a cucumber chatting about cars and guy stuff.
Holly ignores all of this because is demonstrates his guilt. Holly knows that this proves his guilt and that none of her BS lies can account for any of it so instead simply ignores it. She knows he is guilty but insists he is innocent anyway. Her motive for this? Who knows.
-
I would recommend anyone who is really interested in this case to read the transcripts of the police interviews with Jeremy over several days. These alone reveal so much more about the real Jeremy.
The transcripts reveal a huge discrepancy in his version of the phone call to Julie at 3.00am and the later call to police at 3.26am.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=33.0
-
I would recommend anyone who is really interested in this case to read the transcripts of the police interviews with Jeremy over several days. These alone reveal so much more about the real Jeremy.
The transcripts reveal a huge discrepancy in his version of the phone call to Julie at 3.00am and the later call to police at 3.26am.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=33.0
Thank you. I did read them quickly when I first joined Blue but it would be good to read them again.
-
I would recommend anyone who is really interested in this case to read the transcripts of the police interviews with Jeremy over several days. These alone reveal so much more about the real Jeremy.
The transcripts reveal a huge discrepancy in his version of the phone call to Julie at 3.00am and the later call to police at 3.26am.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=33.0
The best part of the transcripts for me, and the most damning, was when he was told that it had been proven that Sheila couldn't have killed herself and/or carried out the killings. He then quickly changed what his father had allegedly said when he rang him from "Sheila has a gun" to "she has a gun".
Second best was when he suggested the dog pulled the trigger for the 2nd shot.
-
The best part of the transcripts for me, and the most damning, was when he was told that it had been proven that Sheila couldn't have killed herself and/or carried out the killings. He then quickly changed what his father had allegedly said when he rang him from "Sheila has a gun" to "she has a gun".
Second best was when he suggested the dog pulled the trigger for the 2nd shot.
He actually changed his story about many things over the course of the interview. For instance he intiially stated that until getting the gun to shoot bunnies a few hours before the murders he had not touched the gun in over a week. Once it was pointed out to him that the last person known to have used it said it had a suppressor on it, he changed his story and claimed he used it multiple times the week of the murders and had taken the suppressor off. He also changed whether the gun was loaded, whether he left a bullet in the chamber and where he supposedly left it.
My favorite part though is his excuse for calling Julie. He woke her up because the police ticked him off. He called her before the cops, oops. At any rate how did they tick him off and why would you wake her and her roomates for that? Did they tick him off by refusing to pick him up?
The dog part was in response to the question, if the first shot killed her don't you agree she can't have fired the second shot? To which he responded that her nerves might have been able to pull the trigger anyway or the gun fired on its own cause it is an automatic or the dog or something else could have set it off. Any excuse at all to deny that someone else would have to have killed her under such circumstances.
-
Anyone with an interest in the case really should read the police interviews, I agree. His no comment answers to many of the questions are particularly telling. Wouldn't an innocent man go out of his way to convince the police of his innocence? I've heard it said Bamber's police interviews aren't available on Blue which is pretty telling again if it is true.
For me, the police interviews strongly reinforce his guilt. As does his comment during the trial, when accused of lying he replied "that is what you have to establish". Most people accused of lying in a Court would emphatically deny this but Jeremy did not. IMO NOT the words of an innocent man and I'd be interested to hear how a Bamber supporter would justify this comment.
-
Anyone with an interest in the case really should read the police interviews, I agree. His no comment answers to many of the questions are particularly telling. Wouldn't an innocent man go out of his way to convince the police of his innocence? I've heard it said Bamber's police interviews aren't available on Blue which is pretty telling again if it is true.
For me, the police interviews strongly reinforce his guilt. As does his comment during the trial, when accused of lying he replied "that is what you have to establish". Most people accused of lying in a Court would emphatically deny this but Jeremy did not. IMO NOT the words of an innocent man and I'd be interested to hear how a Bamber supporter would justify this comment.
Some people actually forget things over time. He changes what he remembers though from interview to interview depending upon what is advantageous to him.
Police with him at the scene say he told them Sheila fired all the guns in the house and was proficient with them all. In his later interviews he denies he stated this and says he doesn't know if she ever fired a gun as she never went target hunting with him. Later it changes again and she target shot as a child.
His changing story about the bike is also interesting.
He never came up with any good excuse as to why he would call Julie and wake her up in the middle of the night. Calling her to say Nevill phoned and said Julie was going nuts makes no sense at all. You would go find out what happened if anything and then after knowing what actually happened call to tell your girlfriend. He called again at 6AM to tell her not to go to work. I always thought this call was much later I didn't realize it was around 6AM. Even before cops found the family dead he told Julie not to go to work and that he would have cops pick her up. This again demonstrates he knew they were dead already despite police not finding the bodies more than 1.5 hours later.
-
The best part of the transcripts for me, and the most damning, was when he was told that it had been proven that Sheila couldn't have killed herself and/or carried out the killings. He then quickly changed what his father had allegedly said when he rang him from "Sheila has a gun" to "she has a gun".
Second best was when he suggested the dog pulled the trigger for the 2nd shot.
CLASSIC!!! It wisnae me...it wiz the dug Crispy wot dun it!! @)(++(* 8@??)(
On a serious note, he waited quite a while before phoning the police at about 3.26am yet he was able to phone Julie for a chat at 3am and tell her then that something was going on at the farm. Julie told him to go back to bed.
Jeremy knew how to get into the farmhouse without a key so had he really been concerned for his family he could have been there within 5 minutes and got into the house but no, he waited until the police got there first and after waiting several hours watched as they smashed in the back door with a sledge hammer.
-
The best part of the transcripts for me, and the most damning, was when he was told that it had been proven that Sheila couldn't have killed herself and/or carried out the killings. He then quickly changed what his father had allegedly said when he rang him from "Sheila has a gun" to "she has a gun".
Second best was when he suggested the dog pulled the trigger for the 2nd shot.
The interviewing officer, DS Jones, repeatedly misleads JB by telling him that it had been proven that SC was murdered. This was not the case at all. The pathologist makes it quite clear that he was unable to confirm murder or suicide. It sounds to me very much like the questionable interviewing tactics that were used around that era that resulted in a number of high profile MoJ's.
JB does not suggest the dog pulled the trigger. He points out it was an automatic gun and that a number of things could have triggered the gun eg nerves, the dog.
"A fairly common problem is the apparently suicide that has fired two shots into the head. Even in the case of instantaneous death and destruction of the basal ganglia, double head shots are possible in suicides. There is a phenomenon called "cadaveric spasm" which is an intense non-specific, uncontrolled contraction of the muscles of the limbs immediately after death. This is quite capable of causing a second pulling of the trigger after death".
JB states all along he was unsure whether NB said "Sheila" or "She has". Was SC referred to as 'She' in the same way Jeremy was referred to as 'Jems'?
-
The interviewing officer, DS Jones, repeatedly misleads JB by telling him that it had been proven that SC was murdered. This was not the case at all. The pathologist makes it quite clear that he was unable to confirm murder or suicide. It sounds to me very much like the questionable interviewing tactics that were used around that era that resulted in a number of high profile MoJ's.
That was a tactic employed by CID in order to trip up a suspect Holly.
In respect of Dr Vanezis' inability to determine whether it was murder or suicide, that is explained very easily. The good doctor was never brought out to the farm on the morning of the murders. He never saw Sheila lying on the floor with the rifle lying on top of her and with a minimum of blood on her face and neck. He was very critical of Essex Police in regard to this situation.
What was presented to Dr Vanezis at autopsy was a completely different scenario to that eventually played out at the trial. He was told that Sheila had shot four members of her family before committing suicide. When the doctor first saw Sheila her face and neck were covered in blood. We now know that moving Sheila in the body bag was responsible for the blood transfer and staining on her face and neck.
When Vanezis later saw the photographs of what the scene was really like he was angry. If you read his last statement you will note that he was extremely concerned that he had effectively been misled to some extent as to the situation the police initially found. In particular, he noted the absence of blood smearing on Sheila's neck and face evidencing the fact that she had not touched the initial wound with her fingers. Had she been conscious after the first shot it would have been an automatic response to touch the wound. The absence of blood on her fingers or on the rifle trigger mechanism bears this out.
-
The interviewing officer, DS Jones, repeatedly misleads JB by telling him that it had been proven that SC was murdered. This was not the case at all. The pathologist makes it quite clear that he was unable to confirm murder or suicide. It sounds to me very much like the questionable interviewing tactics that were used around that era that resulted in a number of high profile MoJ's.
How would an innocent person respond to the knowledge that their sister was not responsible for the 4 murders and didn't kill herself? Why the defensiveness? Any innocent person would have been all ears - to start inventing nonsense like the dog being responsible for the shot just dug him into a deeper hole.
Also most high profile MoJs involve someone being arrested fairly quickly because they look dodgy etc, not the other way round as happened here where the police thought the case was closed until those who knew started to speak up.
JB states all along he was unsure whether NB said "Sheila" or "She has". Was SC referred to as 'She' in the same way Jeremy was referred to as 'Jems'?
Nope - he threw that one in when he was cornered. If his story was true he'd have stuck with one account, not tried to wriggle out of the corner he felt boxed into.
Anyway this to and fro discussion is academic - he is where he belongs and will never be released. All the conspiracy theories are just that - theories. The facts have been presented in court and he has been found guilty, and that's that really.
-
That was a tactic employed by CID in order to trip up a suspect Holly.
Indeed. There is only one truth, but several possible lies. If it is confidently stated that the "truth" could not have happened, the suspect who's told the truth would stick to their guns unless under extreme duress e.g. whilst being tortured, which we know wasn't the case here - it was a very civil discussion under caution. A liar would just come up with what they think is a more plausible story.
Reminds me of that murderer who raped and then killed that aspiring model in Croydon. He denied raping and murdering her, but when his DNA was found inside her he claimed he'd raped her corpse which he'd just stumbled upon in his travels.
-
Does anyone here disagree that the scratches on the mantelpiece were not there just after the murders?
If you do, why?
-
The interviewing officer, DS Jones, repeatedly misleads JB by telling him that it had been proven that SC was murdered. This was not the case at all. The pathologist makes it quite clear that he was unable to confirm murder or suicide. It sounds to me very much like the questionable interviewing tactics that were used around that era that resulted in a number of high profile MoJ's.
JB does not suggest the dog pulled the trigger. He points out it was an automatic gun and that a number of things could have triggered the gun eg nerves, the dog.
"A fairly common problem is the apparently suicide that has fired two shots into the head. Even in the case of instantaneous death and destruction of the basal ganglia, double head shots are possible in suicides. There is a phenomenon called "cadaveric spasm" which is an intense non-specific, uncontrolled contraction of the muscles of the limbs immediately after death. This is quite capable of causing a second pulling of the trigger after death".
JB states all along he was unsure whether NB said "Sheila" or "She has". Was SC referred to as 'She' in the same way Jeremy was referred to as 'Jems'?
Holly, The author you quoted from is not a trained in medicine and happens to be wrong about what cadaveric spasms are.
A cadaveric spasm is when someone's muscles essentially freeze in the state they are in at death. Sometimes there is violent contraction of muscles PRIOR to death and at death they freeze in this contracted state. Cadaveric spasm doesn't feature someone's muscles involuntarily contracting after death. Cadaveric spasms are rare but in cases where they occur they are useful at providing clues. With the exception of fully automatic weapons a cadaveric spasm cannot cause a gun to fire. If you pull a trigger and then die and freeze with the trigger still pulled down it is not going to fire a second time unless it is an automatic weapon. If the hammer of a weapon is cocked the trigger already is partially back and doesn't require as much force to pull. This is a two-stage trigger. In such instances it is somewhat common for people to get a shot off before they die though it often is misconstrued as firing after death. Most weapons though have substantial trigger pulls and the rifle in question is one such weapon. It had a single stage trigger with more than 2 pounds of pressure to fire required. Especially when trying to fire it backwards with a thumb it takes quite an effort.
If she did have a spasm and hand or hands locked in the same position as when she died then obviously she could not have pulled the trigger ever and must have been killed. Her hands when she was found were not in any position to hold a rifle and pull the trigger. There were no signs of cadaveric spasm though and since it is uncommon this absence alone was not enough evidence to preclude her from firing any shots. In combo with all the other evidence though it does.
Instead of looking at the actual evidence of this case you constantly scour the net for any excuse as to why something could theoretically be possible. The first order of business should be to see if she had actually had a cadaveric spasm before trying to figure out what it then means.
You are fishing for anything you can use because you don't want to accept the actual facts and evidence related to the case.
There is no way that she involuntarily fired the second wound if the first shot was fatal, especially not in the location where the other shot was. If the first shot was fatal as the medical examiner contends then that is absolute proof that someone else had to have fired the shots. his is why the defense maintained that the fatal shot was fired last even hough there is no blood evidence or other medical evidence that proves it.
At any rate to complete lack of any gun-shot residue at all is further evidence she didn't fire any shots let alone the 2 that killed her. Your effort to explain that away was in the same vein. You suggested that she took a bath and changed her clothes after the murders despite no evidence at all to support such and no explanation as to why she would do so. Even in that case she still would have had gunshot residue if she hugged the rifle and fired 2 times because she could not have washed herself again after she died.
Since you like theoretical info so much I will provide something else to you. The favored shooting location of rifle suicides is the mouth, nearly a quarter choose it. The second most popular is the right temple (if you add the left and right temple together it slightly exceeds the mouth as most popular), followed by the forehead and then chest. Less than 10 percent choose under the chin.
Another tidbit, in multiple shot suicides the "victim" nearly always chooses a different location to fire the additional shots than near the first location fearing that the second shot in a similar location would also fail. Larger (population wise not in area) US states generally have 1 multiple gunshot suicide every other year so they are rather rare. When you further analyze them you find it virtually unheard of for double shots to the chin from a rifle. The few instances reported were cases where the mouth and tongue were damaged but not the brain so the "victim" had to try again but in most such cases the "victim" chose a new location. In those cases where a throat shot failed the "victims" chose the mouth, forehead, temple or chest as a follow up. The most surefire way to kill is to damage the brain. That is why more than 50% of "victims" choose either the mouth, right temple or left temple. As long as the gun is in the mouth pointed upwards the brain is sure to be damaged. When you add all head locations together you get around 70%, 16% to the chest, 9% to the throat 2% to the abdomen and the remainder to various other locations. So there are not that many throat suicides to look a. How many double throat shots could I find reading through the various examples in medical journals? None let alone any where the victim managed to fire a second shot after already being killed by the first shot.
-
Does anyone here disagree that the scratches on the mantelpiece were not there just after the murders?
If you do, why?
Your question is ambiguous. It is unclear what you are driving at.
The scratches were definitely made by the suppressor. There are only 3 possibilities of how this occurred.
1) The scratches were made before the murders
2) The scratches were made during the course of the murders
3) The scratches were intentionally made after the murders
Which is most likely?
The scratches are not linear, they zig zag around. If the gun fell on the floor and someone simply picked it up and accidentally scratched it at the weapon was raised then there would be a mainly linear scratch.
If someone intended to intentionally scratch it they would tend to move in a linaear fashion.
The scratch is consistent with two people moving it back and forth as they fight over control of it. It just so happens that during the murders Nevill and his killer struggled over control of the weapon by this very mantle.
If not for this struggle then the killer would simply have shot Nevill to death and would not have needed to bludgeon him with the rifle. But since he was able to grab the rifle the killer first needed to regain sole control and needed to get far enough away to raise the rifle and aim it at Nevill.
The men wrestled over the gun breaking things in the process and knocking them over. Their bodies knocked over chairs and the like but the gun crashed into the ceiling light fixture and knocked other things on the floor. The killer punched Nevill breaking his nose and giving him black eyes and the killer eventually wrestled the gun away then bludgeoned him with it. The killer attacked his right side. Nevill blocked the blows with his right arm but the killer eventually got him in the head knocking him out, breaking the rifle stock in the process. The killer was then able to aim the weapon into his head as he lay passed out
There are no known struggles over the gun prior to the murders so it is most likely the scratches occurred during the murders not in a prior altercation. Indeed the ceiling lampshade being broken is consistent with the suppressor being attached during the altercation (the rifle probably would not have been high enough to break it otherwise) plus the fact it was used during the shootings further suggests it was attached during the struggle.
Heck the defense at trial suggested it was Nevill and June's blood in the suppressor. What is the likelihood the killer would remove the suppressor before running into the kitchen?
The chance of the marks being made before the murders is too remote to be seriously considered. The chance of occurring during the struggle? Very probable. The chance after? Unlikely to be staged at all let alone correctly staged instead of staging linear scratches and the motivation for staging is specious.
All in all the evidence points to the scratches being made during the known struggle over the weapon.
-
Thanks very much for detailing your argument. You say all the evidence points to the scratches being made in the course of the murders.
But a photography expert says the scratches are not present in the photos taken a number of hours after the murders had occurred. Which would be evidence they were not made in the course of the murders, but rather at some later time.
So do you disagree with Peter Sutherst's conclusion that the scratches aren't present in the photos taken by the police on Aug 7/85? And if so, why?
-
Thanks very much for detailing your argument. You say all the evidence points to the scratches being made in the course of the murders.
But a photography expert says the scratches are not present in the photos taken a number of hours after the murders had occurred. Which would be evidence they were not made in the course of the murders, but rather at some later time.
So do you disagree with Peter Sutherst's conclusion that the scratches aren't present in the photos taken by the police on Aug 7/85? And if so, why?
The photograpy expert had no basis upon which to make his assertions. Had there been photos of the underneath of the mantle taken on the day in question then those photos would be relevant and useful at demonstrating the marks were made subsequently.
There were no such photos taken though simply photos of the room as a whole. The photos he relied on do not show the underneath where the marks actually are. Even worse though the photos are from so far away that even if the scrathes had been on top of the mantle the scratches still would not have been captured in the photo because of the distance. That means the pictures are worthless in trying to assess whether the marks were there or not at the time the photos were taken. It would be like taking photos of the front of a car after a fender bender, the owner accusing the driver of the other car of causing a dent on the right side and having a photo expert saying the photos show there is no damage so the dent to must have occurred subsequently. The obvious response is that the photo doesn't show the area where the damage supposedly occurred so how could it establish anything?
No one thought to look underneath the mantle until paint was found on the suppressor. They looked all around to try to figure out where the paint came from and that was when they found the scratches and actually took photos of the exact area.
So my response is that there are no photos (or other evidence) that establish the marks were not there at the time of the murders and therefore nothing to disturb the most likely scenario that they were made during the struggle that took place during the course of the murders.
-
Attempting suicide with a rifle must be quite a rare occurrence as it is usually a hand gun or pistol which is used. To then attempt to do so by shooting oneself in the neck must be almost unknown outside of this case. The other glaringly obvious issue is the question of the targeting of the shot not only once but twice and managing to get the two shots within inches of each other.
-
The question I would like answered is how photographic expert Peter Sutherst was able to conclude that the marks under the mantel were not made until a month after the murders. This is a very serious allegation and hints at a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It also amounts to a defamation if proved to be untrue.
-
That was a tactic employed by CID in order to trip up a suspect Holly.
In respect of Dr Vanezis' inability to determine whether it was murder or suicide, that is explained very easily. The good doctor was never brought out to the farm on the morning of the murders. He never saw Sheila lying on the floor with the rifle lying on top of her and with a minimum of blood on her face and neck. He was very critical of Essex Police in regard to this situation.
What was presented to Dr Vanezis at autopsy was a completely different scenario to that eventually played out at the trial. He was told that Sheila had shot four members of her family before committing suicide. When the doctor first saw Sheila her face and neck were covered in blood. We now know that moving Sheila in the body bag was responsible for the blood transfer and staining on her face and neck.
When Vanezis later saw the photographs of what the scene was really like he was angry. If you read his last statement you will note that he was extremely concerned that he had effectively been misled to some extent as to the situation the police initially found. In particular, he noted the absence of blood smearing on Sheila's neck and face evidencing the fact that she had not touched the initial wound with her fingers. Had she been conscious after the first shot it would have been an automatic response to touch the wound. The absence of blood on her fingers or on the rifle trigger mechanism bears this out.
I have no experience/knowledge of police interviews conducted 'under caution' to know what is permissible and what isn't. It strikes me as somewhat unfair if the interviewee is expected to tell the whole truth and nothing especially when his/her evidence (contents of interview) can be used in court against him/her if it is permissible for the interviewer (police) to knowingly mislead?
The Soc photos clearly show blood trails from SC's wounds. All victims were bagged and treated as suspicious deaths. The pathologist would have been aware, trained and experienced in comparing soc photos and the victim in situ at the mortuary. He would have been able to account for the transfer of blood from any source eg smearing from body bag. He completed and signed off his autopsy report on 30th Sept 85.
If it was so obvious from the soc why did all the police officers run with 4 murders/1 suicide excl DS Jones? According to the pathologist there was nothing of evidential value that DS Jones said that impressed the pathologist. DS Jones felt uneasy about JB as he did not react how he expected someone to react given the situation.
The pathologist also stated that if SC was murdered she would have needed to have been drugged. Tests show that apart from her prescribed medication and minute traces of cannabis no other drugs were present in her system.
The highlighted section above are your words not the words of the pathologist. If she suffered a cadaveric spasm the first shot may have been the fatal shot with the non-fatal shot being as a result of cadaveric spasm.
-
How would an innocent person respond to the knowledge that their sister was not responsible for the 4 murders and didn't kill herself? Why the defensiveness? Any innocent person would have been all ears - to start inventing nonsense like the dog being responsible for the shot just dug him into a deeper hole.
Also most high profile MoJs involve someone being arrested fairly quickly because they look dodgy etc, not the other way round as happened here where the police thought the case was closed until those who knew started to speak up.
Nope - he threw that one in when he was cornered. If his story was true he'd have stuck with one account, not tried to wriggle out of the corner he felt boxed into.
Anyway this to and fro discussion is academic - he is where he belongs and will never be released. All the conspiracy theories are just that - theories. The facts have been presented in court and he has been found guilty, and that's that really.
The pathologist maintained as recently as the CoA 2002 hearing that he was unable to conclude whether SC was murdered or committed suicide. JB was well aware that he was being accused of murder while being interviewed under caution. I would say that if you're innocent (and I believe he is) and grieving the loss of your family that's a pretty uncomfortable place to be in.
According to DS Jones he suspected JB from the off simply because he didn't fit with his idea of a grieving relative. Ask any grief counsellor and I think you will find that there's no norm. You might recall the Princes William and Harry greeting crowds and seeming quite composed prior to their beloved mother's funeral. And how many tears did you see on the day of the funeral? None from the princes.
According to AE's wit stat she was unsure of the exact words JB said he used and the timing of the phone call. AE makes no ref to 'Sheila'.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3512
I certainly don't agree with your last point "he is where he belongs and will never be released". I have reason to believe that the so-called WHF murders will once again take centre stage. This time it will be very different with 24 hour news reporting, twitter, internet etc. Also a society that is far less deferential than it was back in 1986. The recent wrongdoing and cover-ups in public office will force the hand of the establishment to leave no stone unturned in getting to the truth whatever that might be 8(0(* ?>)()<
-High profile MoJ's
-Stephen Lawrence/Macpherson report
-Hillsborough
-Plebgate
-MP's expenses
-Financial Crisis
-NoW phone hacking
-Jimmy Savill
-Child sex abuse in church/amongst clergy
-
Holly, The author you quoted from is not a trained in medicine and happens to be wrong about what cadaveric spasms are.
A cadaveric spasm is when someone's muscles essentially freeze in the state they are in at death. Sometimes there is violent contraction of muscles PRIOR to death and at death they freeze in this contracted state. Cadaveric spasm doesn't feature someone's muscles involuntarily contracting after death. Cadaveric spasms are rare but in cases where they occur they are useful at providing clues. With the exception of fully automatic weapons a cadaveric spasm cannot cause a gun to fire. If you pull a trigger and then die and freeze with the trigger still pulled down it is not going to fire a second time unless it is an automatic weapon. If the hammer of a weapon is cocked the trigger already is partially back and doesn't require as much force to pull. This is a two-stage trigger. In such instances it is somewhat common for people to get a shot off before they die though it often is misconstrued as firing after death. Most weapons though have substantial trigger pulls and the rifle in question is one such weapon. It had a single stage trigger with more than 2 pounds of pressure to fire required. Especially when trying to fire it backwards with a thumb it takes quite an effort.
If she did have a spasm and hand or hands locked in the same position as when she died then obviously she could not have pulled the trigger ever and must have been killed. Her hands when she was found were not in any position to hold a rifle and pull the trigger. There were no signs of cadaveric spasm though and since it is uncommon this absence alone was not enough evidence to preclude her from firing any shots. In combo with all the other evidence though it does.
Instead of looking at the actual evidence of this case you constantly scour the net for any excuse as to why something could theoretically be possible. The first order of business should be to see if she had actually had a cadaveric spasm before trying to figure out what it then means.
You are fishing for anything you can use because you don't want to accept the actual facts and evidence related to the case.
There is no way that she involuntarily fired the second wound if the first shot was fatal, especially not in the location where the other shot was. If the first shot was fatal as the medical examiner contends then that is absolute proof that someone else had to have fired the shots. his is why the defense maintained that the fatal shot was fired last even hough there is no blood evidence or other medical evidence that proves it.
At any rate to complete lack of any gun-shot residue at all is further evidence she didn't fire any shots let alone the 2 that killed her. Your effort to explain that away was in the same vein. You suggested that she took a bath and changed her clothes after the murders despite no evidence at all to support such and no explanation as to why she would do so. Even in that case she still would have had gunshot residue if she hugged the rifle and fired 2 times because she could not have washed herself again after she died.
Since you like theoretical info so much I will provide something else to you. The favored shooting location of rifle suicides is the mouth, nearly a quarter choose it. The second most popular is the right temple (if you add the left and right temple together it slightly exceeds the mouth as most popular), followed by the forehead and then chest. Less than 10 percent choose under the chin.
Another tidbit, in multiple shot suicides the "victim" nearly always chooses a different location to fire the additional shots than near the first location fearing that the second shot in a similar location would also fail. Larger (population wise not in area) US states generally have 1 multiple gunshot suicide every other year so they are rather rare. When you further analyze them you find it virtually unheard of for double shots to the chin from a rifle. The few instances reported were cases where the mouth and tongue were damaged but not the brain so the "victim" had to try again but in most such cases the "victim" chose a new location. In those cases where a throat shot failed the "victims" chose the mouth, forehead, temple or chest as a follow up. The most surefire way to kill is to damage the brain. That is why more than 50% of "victims" choose either the mouth, right temple or left temple. As long as the gun is in the mouth pointed upwards the brain is sure to be damaged. When you add all head locations together you get around 70%, 16% to the chest, 9% to the throat 2% to the abdomen and the remainder to various other locations. So there are not that many throat suicides to look a. How many double throat shots could I find reading through the various examples in medical journals? None let alone any where the victim managed to fire a second shot after already being killed by the first shot.
But you are?
-
Wasn't the rifle a semi-automatic meaning each shot required the trigger to be pulled or in this case pushed again. I think you could be stretching the bounds of possibilities a bit too far to expect a second shot to be on target because of cadaveric spasms.
Assuming just for a moment that Sheila did shoot herself in the neck with the rifle, the weapon barrel would drop immediately and if a second shot did occur then it could not have hit her in the neck. Keeping the trigger depressed does not fire a second round when using a semi automatic rifle. The operator has to release the trigger before pulling it again.
-
Wasn't the rifle a semi-automatic meaning each shot required the trigger to be pulled or in this case pushed again. I think you could be stretching the bounds of possibilities a bit too far to expect a second shot to be on target because of cadaveric spasms.
Assuming just for a moment that Sheila did shoot herself in the neck with the rifle, the weapon barrel would drop immediately and if a second shot did occur then it could not have hit her in the neck. Keeping the trigger depressed does not fire a second round when using a semi automatic rifle. The operator has to release the trigger before pulling it again.
No idea! I am not a expert in such matters but I know a man who THINKS he is 8(0(* From my limited knowledge on cadaveric spasm it would seem possible but then I would say that wouldn't I.
The important thing for me is that the pathologist maintained at CoA 2002 that he was unable to confirm murder or suicide. Surely he would say if he thought one scenario was more likely over the other stating his reasons and perhaps some statistical probability?
The whole case needs reviewing using up-to-date modern technology and knowledge across a range of specialisms: ballistics, pathology, psychology etc. I think we forget that the trial was nearly 3 decades ago and the whole world has changed. I have only been paying partial attention to the trial of Oscar Pistorius but when I have there appears to be some parallels with JB's case and the expert evidence appears to have moved on.
-
But you are?
Someone who just explained what a Cadaveric Spasm ACTUALLY IS. Every medical article on this subject states what I said. It is not a contracting of the muscles after death. Some other terms for a cadaveric spasm are death grip and instant rigor- the muscles freeze in the position they are in upon death. By definition since the muscles freeze in the position they are in the hand is not going to release the trigger and fire again on its own. Normally the muscles return to their natural state and then rigor sets it while the muscles are in such state. However, when there is a cadaveric spasm the muscle freezes int he state it was in at death and doesn't return to its natural state. WHile rigor comes and goes a spasm doesn't the rigidity remains even after rigor is gone.
Also someone who explained the gun was not an automatic but rather a semi-auto so the hand freezing with the trigger down is not going to result in more bullets being fired.
Also someone who pointed out that Sheila's medical examiner found no evidence of cadaveric spasm. You are not looking at the facts and evidence of the case. You are trolling the internet for any eexcuse you can theoretically come up with to support your claim that Jeremy is innocent. You did not arrive at that conclusion by following the facts. You arrived at that conclusion simply because you want to argue he is innocent (for some unknown reason) and you are fishing for anything you can that oculd possibly support your claim he is innocent. Anytime someone like me comes up with evidence though you can't refute it and instead hide your head in the sand.
I presented a thorough explanation of why you were wrong. You failed to rebut any of my points because you can't.
All you have to do is research the topic of cadaveric spasm to see I am correct. You have no interest in doing so because the truth completely demolishes the fairytales you are telling.
Why is another term death grip? Because on the rare occasions it occurs the victim is found gripping an object that they had in their possession at the time of death such as a car accident victim gripping a steering wheel, murder victim gripping whatever they had in their hand when murdered or a suicide victim gripping a gun.
Normally a gun will fall from a suicide victim's hand. But on rare occasion a spasm will be suffered and the gun will remain. A murderer can't simply place a gun in the hand though and fool investigators into thinking a spasm occurred. A medical examiner will touch the hands and fingers and see they move and are not frozen so will know a cadaveric spasm did not occur.
This case is even worse because firing a trigger backwards with a thumb is not easy. The recoil from the weapon would thrust the gun up not down. this further hurts the claim you are making. The fatal shot was higher than the nonfatal shot. The recoil of the gun would have thrust the gun UP and thus if she did manage to fire a second shot it would have been higher than the first shot not lower.
But you want to ignore the laws of physics, ignore the actual examination of the body which found no evidence of a vadaveric spasm, even the photos show her hands are not frozen in a position to have fired a weapon in the manner she allegedly did. Nor are they frozen in a position to have been holding the weapon.
Your cliams hold no water at all and constitute simply desperation on your part.
-
No idea! I am not a expert in such matters but I know a man who THINKS he is 8(0(* From my limited knowledge on cadaveric spasm it would seem possible but then I would say that wouldn't I.
The important thing for me is that the pathologist maintained at CoA 2002 that he was unable to confirm murder or suicide. Surely he would say if he thought one scenario was more likely over the other stating his reasons and perhaps some statistical probability?
The whole case needs reviewing using up-to-date modern technology and knowledge across a range of specialisms: ballistics, pathology, psychology etc. I think we forget that the trial was nearly 3 decades ago and the whole world has changed. I have only been paying partial attention to the trial of Oscar Pistorius but when I have there appears to be some parallels with JB's case and the expert evidence appears to have moved on.
The job of the pathologist is to use MEDICAL knowledge and examination of the body to make a determination of the manner of death if possible. The important thing is that he coudd not say that it was suicide, that is what enables the prosecution for murder. Trying to pretend that his conclusions support suicide are blatantly false. his conclusions require looking at all the evidence that was looked at and relied upon to convict Jeremy.
-
Wasn't the rifle a semi-automatic meaning each shot required the trigger to be pulled or in this case pushed again. I think you could be stretching the bounds of possibilities a bit too far to expect a second shot to be on target because of cadaveric spasms.
Assuming just for a moment that Sheila did shoot herself in the neck with the rifle, the weapon barrel would drop immediately and if a second shot did occur then it could not have hit her in the neck. Keeping the trigger depressed does not fire a second round when using a semi automatic rifle. The operator has to release the trigger before pulling it again.
Yes it is a semi-auto. A fully automatic weapon you pull the trigger and it will continue to fire for as long as the trigger is held down or until it runs out of ammo. Thus if a victim firing a fully automatic weapon suddenly died and suffered from "death grip" (it is called death grip when the hands are affected and victim is holding an object at the time the spasm occurs) the victim could freeze holding the trigger down and thus it could continue to fire until it runs out of ammo. However, the recoil from the weapon could cause the weapon to leave the victim's hands anyway despite the death grip and it certianly will not be aimed but rather wildly jumping from the recoil. Something can still jar objects from the hands of someone with death grip. Their hand will still be frozen in position but the object can wiggle free. It depends on what the object is and how tight the grasp is. For instance death grip holding a small coin. In that instance the hand is all the way around the object so there is no way for it to fall out. Similarly when holding the hair ripped out of a killer's head it can be grasped totally. In contrast a wide heavy object can be able to break free. For instance there are cases where a victim fell and a gun or other object fell out of their hand even though it was frozen in the clenched position. The object would still be close to the hand though on the floor in such cases.
The recoil is important. Recoil will push the gun up not down. So after the fatal shot the gun would have raised higher not gone down so a second shot even if possible would have been higher not lower. The rifle would not have been likely to simply fall across her chest the way it was either. That is why many conspiracy theoriest claim the rifle was placed there by police. They suggest it was by her side and police put it on top of her.
The only conceivable way for the gun to be resting neatly across her chest is it Sheila ACTUALLY had suffered from a cadaveric spasm, then in that case she could have gripped the gun tightly enough for it to be on her chest but she would still be grasping it if that were the case. No acoc..ts have her grasping it and no photos show her grasping it. Worse yet for Holly, the examiner found no signs of cadaveric spasm. Holly would like to pretend it goes away, it doesn't. Death grip is instant rigor and unlike rigor it never releases. Some sort of mental trauma causes death grip we still don't know why it occurs for sure. All we know it is that it is instant freezing of muscles upon death and permanant. It tells us the exact position the frozen muscles were in at the time of death.
If Sheila's hands had suffered from a cadaveric spasm then it would be a sure sign she didn't kill herself. Look at the photos of her hands. Are they in a position to grasp a rifle? But her hands had no sign of death grip (Holly keeps ignoring this point which is significant because it means all of Holly's supposition is baseless) so in theory she could have held a gun fired it then her hands released it. But again in that case the rifle should have been at her side not nice and neat across her body.
Someone put that rifle beatly across Sheila's chest after death. The authorities insist it was Jeremy. Given the totality of the circumstances it probably was. Various Jeremy defenders say the police placed it on her chest. They rely primarily on the fact the gun was moved around by the investigators. Investigators say it was on her chest when they arrived, they removed it from her chest and later placed it back on her chest.
I have no reason to disbelieve the police that it was on her chest when they found her. The initial responders were not detectives and erroneously thought that it being on her chest proved she used it. Why would they intentionally take it from her side and put it on her chest and assert it was a suicide? It is not as if they put it on her chest to suggest it had been planted there by a murderer. They took it as a sign she committed suicide. Lay people including Jeremy think that is where a rifle would be. Only people who are very skilled in weapon use know otherwise. At ant rate the exact position of the rifle when found can be ignored when making the case against Jeremy, it is not necceary to use that against him to prove he did it because there is so much other evidence.
The bottom line is this:
1) a cadaveric spasm is instant, permanant rigor of a muscle- Holly's claim that it is involuntary muscle movement is totally wrong. It doesn't cause a gun to fire again except perhaps a gun that is full auto.
2) Sheila's pathologist found no evidence of cadaveric spasm in her hands or anywhere else so Holly is simply making up that Sheila suffered from death grip.
3) If Sheila did in fact suffer from cadaveric spasm in her hands but the pathologist missed it that would be extremely damning to Jeremy because Sheila's hands at death are not in a position to hold and fire the murder weapon and would mean someone else had to have shot her so Holly is definitly not helping her cause out with her claims.
-
...Had there been photos of the underneath of the mantle taken on the day in question then those photos would be relevant and useful at demonstrating the marks were made subsequently.
There were no such photos taken though simply photos of the room as a whole...
So my response is that there are no photos (or other evidence) that establish the marks were not there at the time of the murders.
Thank you for informing me there were no close-up photos of the underside of the mantlepiece taken on the day of the murders. I was unsure if there had been.
I recall reading somewhere the photo expert had inferred through some indirect reasonings that the scratches were not there on the day of the murders. For instance, he said there is no sign of chipped paint on the floor/carpet below the mantlepiece. I don't believe that is a strong argument, though.
I don't know what other reasonings he used, but I do believe were there some. And I would be interested to hear about them.
-
Attempting suicide with a rifle must be quite a rare occurrence as it is usually a hand gun or pistol which is used. To then attempt to do so by shooting oneself in the neck must be almost unknown outside of this case. The other glaringly obvious issue is the question of the targeting of the shot not only once but twice and managing to get the two shots within inches of each other.
Using a long gun to commit suicide is a hassle, a handgun is much easier. I say long gun because there actually are people who have used a shot gun not simply rifles. Roughly 9 percent of such murders are shots to the neck so it is rare. The number of cases to examine is quite small considering this. Of such cases I can't find a single one where e a failed shot to the throat was followind up by another shot to the throat. Failed throat shots are usually followed by head shots. When a victim realizes the throat failed they adjust by a head shot to ensure death. In general anytime a shot fails the killer would adjust the location for one more likely to work that is just the nature of it.
There is a first time for everything though so this can't be used as a sure sign it was staged it is just part of the overall mix.
The more damning thing is that the pathologist said the fatal shot occurred first. That is why Holly is desperately grasping at straws.
It is perplexing why after the fatal shot Jeremy would shoot Sheila again. Maybe he erroneously thought she was still alive. Maybe he took the suppressor off and decided to put her hand on the trigger and he pushed her hand firing it hoping that it would get gun shot residue on her hands. Unless he decides to talk we have no way to know why he would do such. He could have a reason that makes sense to a layman with limited understanding of murder evidence but doesn't to someone with much more knowledge.
-
Thank you for informing me there were no close-up photos of the underside of the mantlepiece taken on the day of the murders. I was unsure if there had been.
I recall reading somewhere the photo expert had inferred through some indirect reasonings that the scratches were not there on the day of the murders. For instance, he said there is no sign of chipped paint on the floor/carpet below the mantlepiece. I don't believe that is a strong argument, though.
I don't know what other reasonings he used, but I do believe were there some. And I would be interested to hear about them.
I'm a lawyer. You can pay an expert to say anything they want, just shop around to find one willing to say what you want. Depending on the nature of the trial and stage of the trial it is up to judges or a jury to determine if the expert has a valid basis for his assertions.
Police didn't look underneath tables, the mantle etc to try to document every scratch in the kitchen. They did a crappy job but you can't fault them for not searching for/taking photos of every scratch imaginable. I doubt I would bother to look under the mantle shelf either, let alone to take a photo of the underneath.
It seems far fetched that little paint scrapings and paint chips that didn't stay attached to the suppressor and presumably fell on the floor would be visible in photos of a room. It owuld be hard enough to notice them in person. Trying to guess what a tiny dot is and to say whether it is a tiny paint chip or not is simply not credible and not scientifically valid. Yet what he did was say that because he didn't see any such dots it means the scratches can't have been there.
This is exactly why an expert doesn't just get to render an opinion in court but must explain how he arrived at his opinion. That way the trier or fact or trier of law as the case may be can determine if the opinion is worth anything.
In this instance the appeal court did not consider this argument to have any merit for rather obvious reasons.
-
I have no experience/knowledge of police interviews conducted 'under caution' to know what is permissible and what isn't. It strikes me as somewhat unfair if the interviewee is expected to tell the whole truth and nothing especially when his/her evidence (contents of interview) can be used in court against him/her if it is permissible for the interviewer (police) to knowingly mislead?
In the US lying to a suspect is not a problem at all. If the suspect is telling the truth and has nothing to hide then a lie will not hurt him/her.
For instance, if police lie saying that a friend blamed the suspect a completely innocent suspect would say the friend is lying and he has no idea why he friend is doing it. The lie causes no harm if someone is truly innocent.
An accomplice though might respond by saying the friend is the one who had the gun and that he just drove the getaway car. It tricks him into admitting his role in addition to giving up his friend.
Why is it unfair to trick someone who is actually guilty? American courts have no problem with investigators tricking suspects in this regard.
In Britain it depends on the judge. There is no hard and fast rule of whether this is permissible it depends on the facts of the case. Judges will sometimes excluse confessions obtained as a result of lies.
In the Bamber case the police did not manage trick Bamber into confessing so there was no confession for him to make a motion to suppress. The police lies just help illustrate how he kept trying to make up new things and excuses which certainly doesn't make him look good but he didn't confess so there was nothing to suppress.
There are 3 different bases that judges use to exclude confessions:
1) obtained through oppression
2) the confession was unreliable
3) obtained unfairly
A confession obtained through trickery doesn't meet the definition of oppression but some judges will ignore such and use this ground anyway to exclude a confession
Normally a confession obtained through trickery is in fact reliable. Instances where it is not reliable are cases where a lie is related to a plea deal. In some such cases guilty parties will confess to avoid taking a chance at more jailtime if wrongly convicted. A lie like the one I gave an example of will not be unreliable in the objective sense. A judge might decide to pretend it is unreliable though and use this as a basis to suppress.
The most common prong to use to suppress a confession is the basis it was unfairly obtained. This again is a very fact specific inquiry. There is no hard and fast rule that a tricked confession is unfair. It is subjective and hinges much on the philosophy of the judge handing the matter.
The US is much better because judges don't have discretion to suppress confessions just because they don't like that a defendant was tricked. In turn suspects know police can lie and thus anything they say is at their own risk so they should think carefully and try to be honest if they are going to say anything at all. Normally we advise clients to not say a word though. We want to be present during any questioning of clients and want to tell them what question to answer or not and usually in advance will ask them what they would say to questions so we know what questions to let them answer. We are not supposed to help them make up things to say though we just try to figure out what they would say and try to help them say it in the least damaging way. Ethically we can't knowingly help them to lie, not that some lawyers don't violate such ethical canons surely some do.
The bottom line is that in the UK you don't know how far cops can get away with lying to those they question. It ultimately depends on whether the suspect confesses, if the suspect decides to go to trial maintaining his innocence anyway and if a judge can be conviced the confession should be tossed.
-
Excellent points as usual Scipio. The icing on the cake for me is that the 2nd fatal shot just happened to be the last bullet in the magazine. What would be the odds of that for a suicide?
-
Thank you for informing me there were no close-up photos of the underside of the mantlepiece taken on the day of the murders. I was unsure if there had been.
I recall reading somewhere the photo expert had inferred through some indirect reasonings that the scratches were not there on the day of the murders. For instance, he said there is no sign of chipped paint on the floor/carpet below the mantlepiece. I don't believe that is a strong argument, though.
I don't know what other reasonings he used, but I do believe were there some. And I would be interested to hear about them.
There was some confusion as to when the photo was taken, although a paint scraping of the underside of the shelf (near to the scratches) was sampled by Ron Cook on the Wednesday following the murders, after D.Sgt. Stan Jones realised that the red paint on the moderator end was similar to that of the AGA surround. This was a pre-arranged visit with permission from Jeremy Bamber although he didn't attend, and it was left to Ann Eaton who had the key to let them in. The photo might have been taken at the same time or later, as a yellow label covering the sample region is visible in it.
Peter Sutherst's findings were questioned as inconclusive by Andy Laws, another Imagery Analyst of LGC Forensics, and the CCRC didn't take it any further presumably because it was one expert's view against another, so the issue was never resolved and subsequently dropped from any further CCRC application.
Peter Sutherst claimed that no traces of paint could be seen in photos of the carpet/floor below the scratch marks, so he must have been assuming the flecks would have dropped down directly, whereas it was also possible that any paint remained attached to the moderator end until the rifle was pulled away forcefully from the shelf and then flicked off to some other part of the room, where no floor photographs were taken.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-new-photographic-evidence (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-new-photographic-evidence)
-
Excellent points as usual Scipio. The icing on the cake for me is that the 2nd fatal shot just happened to be the last bullet in the magazine. What would be the odds of that for a suicide?
The most important things for me are Jeremy's actions and the various phone calls in relation to the general course of events.
The physicial evidence related to the suppressor and Sheila's body simply corroborate what the other evidence already tells us.
1) Claiming that Nevill called him was a big problem since Nevill's injuries rendered him unable to speak and he obviously could not have even dialed the phone since it had no blood on it. Just as bad, what he claims Nevill told him makes no sense. Nevill and June had been shot before he could have reached the phone. We don't know whether Sheila and or the kids also had been shot prior to Nevill reaching the kitchen but at minimum June was shot and disabled thus never made it out of the bedroom while he was shot at least 4 times before he made it to the kitchen. If Nevill did manage to call someone and could actually speak he woudl not say Sheila has a gun and he is scared she is going to use it. He would say Sheila shot he and his wife and they need medical attention. He would not call Jeremy and ask him to come over to disarm her before she could shoot anyone. At minimum he would ask Jeremy to call an ambulance because they were shot and then ask Jeremy to come help save them by disarming her. Furthermore the phone was never hung up therefore Jeremy would have heard the scuffle that was taking place if he actually had been called as claimed. He would not have heard the phone fall and then nothing.
2) If he had received the call claimed what should he have done? Do the 3 minute drive to investigate would be the most natural reaction. Either inspect from outside or actually go inside and after establishing what was going on call police at that point if necessary. If I lived far away I might call police instead to check on my parents but not if I were only 3 minutes away. Even if one decided to be extra careful and call police after doing so you would go over and investigate. You would not ask police to pick you up to bring you there or wait outside for police to pass by and then make the trek. But even worse he didn't call police right away or go investigate right away instead he waited an undetermined amount of time and called Julie.
3) The fact he called Julie at all is suspicious. Why would someone in his position wake her and her roomates just to tell her Nevill called but you didn't go over so you were unsure if anything was actually wrong or not? It makes no sense at all. 2 of her roomates asserted the call came at 3 including the one who answered the phone. Another thought it was 3:12 but wasn't positive. The call to police was not until 3:26 though. So he called her before police and waited quite a while after she hung up to call police. The wait is only explainable by the fact he was the killer.
4) Why didn't he at least wait outside for police to arrive he could have done so safely. He instead made sure he arrived after police so that police would not accuse him of staging the scene or being there prior. He wanted them to find everything so they could not say he did anything to the scene. Why would he be so intent on arriving after them if he had done nothing wrong and had no idea what happened?
5) When he finally did go to the scene he reiterated what Nevill supposedly told him. He told police that his sister was a nut and claimed his father said she got a hold of a gun and was running around with it and was scared she would use it. Jeremy specifically said he was not sure if she had shot anyone or not after Nevill dropped the phone. Jeremy then detailed all the various guns in the house and lied telling police that Sheila had fired all of them and was proficient with them all. Later he was tape recorded admitting that he had never seen her touch any of the guns. Why did he lie to police? The only motive for such would be to convince police she was capable of the murders. Murders he supposedly didn't know occurred when he told this lie.
6) Instead of being panicked and pressing police to go inside and try to save his family or to tell police that he was going in if they were not, he patiently waited with them for nearly 4 hours. Some of that time was spent talking shop about cars and guy stuff. At 6AM though he slipped away to a phone and called Julie again. He told her not to go to work and that he would have someone pick her up and bring her to him. He knew the family was dead so he wanted her with him. The police had not yet gone in so how did he know the family was dead unless he killed them?
So for me Jeremy pretty much established his guilt just with all this BS. All of his actions demonstrate he knew they were dead and was not called by Nevill as claimed. The only way he could know anything was if he killed them.
Julie's testimony corroborates his guilt and provides us with the motive. The forensic evidence corroborates it as well that Sheila was simply a victim. She lacked any evidence of handling a weapon or of engaging in a brutal physical struggle with Nevill because she hadn't done either.
-
There was some confusion as to when the photo was taken, although a paint scraping of the underside of the shelf (near to the scratches) was sampled by Ron Cook on the Wednesday following the murders, after D.Sgt. Stan Jones realised that the red paint on the moderator end was similar to that of the AGA surround. This was a pre-arranged visit with permission from Jeremy Bamber although he didn't attend, and it was left to Ann Eaton who had the key to let them in. The photo might have been taken at the same time or later, as a yellow label covering the sample region is visible in it.
Peter Sutherst's findings were questioned as inconclusive by Andy Laws, another Imagery Analyst of LGC Forensics, and the CCRC didn't take it any further presumably because it was one expert's view against another, so the issue was never resolved and subsequently dropped from any further CCRC application.
Peter Sutherst claimed that no traces of paint could be seen in photos of the carpet/floor below the scratch marks, so he must have been assuming the flecks would have dropped down directly, whereas it was also possible that any paint remained attached to the moderator end until the rifle was pulled away forcefully from the shelf and then flicked off to some other part of the room, where no floor photographs were taken.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-new-photographic-evidence (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-new-photographic-evidence)
Sutherst esentially made the following arguments:
He inspected photos taken on the day of the murders and
1) could not find any evidence of the scratches in the photos
2) could not find any evidence of paint chips on the floor under the scratches
The findings were challenged by arguing the photos are too distant to be able to pick up small details like scratches and paint scraps (an expert for the government said small details like this would not be captured in the non-closeups) and do not even show the underneath of the mantle even from a distance. Furthermore the closeups that do exist of the floor only showed limited areas of the floor and the tiny paint peelings could have landed anywhere they would not necessarily just fall on the floor straight down and even if they might have done so could have been transferred during the investigation.
For the courts this was a simple issue to dismiss because of the circumstances.
-
Excellent points as usual Scipio. The icing on the cake for me is that the 2nd fatal shot just happened to be the last bullet in the magazine. What would be the odds of that for a suicide?
Many 'odds' appear to exist in this case:
- adoptive mother mentally ill requiring in-patient psychiatric care
- adopted daughter mentally ill requring in patient psychiatric care
- adopted son serving a life prison sentence for murdering the above along with three other family members
_________________
The then girlfriend of the above convicted mass murderer experiencing the following:
- physical violence at the hands of her step-father
- brutal anonymous rape while holidaying in France
- boyfriend discussed his proposals of murdering his entire immediate family and carried through
_________________
Back spatter/blow back supposedly occurred with silencer attached to gun used to carry out the above murders and yet:
- small calibre weapon - usually occurs with large calibre weapon
- no accompanying biological material eg tissue - usually present
- no blood/biological matter from only victim to receive a definite contact shot (Nicholas)to the head (most likely anatomical position for back spatter to occur) why SC and not Nicholas
_________________________
Then we have all the strange anomalies with written reports by the police:
- two bodies in the kitchen: one male, one female
- two phone logs reporting two separate phone calls from two different individuals reporting an incident at WHF
You really couldnt make it up....or could you >@@(*&)
-
Many 'odds' appear to exist in this case:
- adoptive mother mentally ill requiring in-patient psychiatric care
- adopted daughter mentally ill requring in patient psychiatric care
- adopted son serving a life prison sentence for murdering the above along with three other family members
_________________
The then girlfriend of the above convicted mass murderer experiencing the following:
- physical violence at the hands of her step-father
- brutal anonymous rape while holidaying in France
- boyfriend discussed his proposals of murdering his entire immediate family and carried through
_________________
Back spatter/blow back supposedly occurred with silencer attached to gun used to carry out the above murders and yet:
- small calibre weapon - usually occurs with large calibre weapon
- no accompanying biological material eg tissue - usually present
- no blood/biological matter from only victim to receive a definite contact shot (Nicholas)to the head (most likely anatomical position for back spatter to occur) why SC and not Nicholas
_________________________
Then we have all the strange anomalies with written reports by the police:
- two bodies in the kitchen: one male, one female
- two phone logs reporting two separate phone calls from two different individuals reporting an incident at WHF
You really couldnt make it up....or could you >@@(*&)
Haven't the phone logs and other police reports been referred to the CCRC already? Who said that the report was taken by an officer remotely in real time with no opportunity to correct the report as time was going on, hence the discrepancies.
The call logs do appear odd but, note that in the original call the receiver is Officer badge number 1990. In the second log Officer badge number 1990 is the sender. Rather clumsily he is paraphrasing what has been said to him in Jeremy's original call. Again, CCRC knew about this but confirmed the second call log allegedly from Nevill is merely the officer who took Jeremy's call passing on the message to another station. No big conspiracy, just something put in a confusing way.
The fact that Sheila had mental illness and her adopted brother turned out to be a psychopathic killer? No, not a coincidence at all. I feel the way they were both brought up definitely damaged them both and I think June could well have been responsible for this (not meaning to I hasten to add). Genetics simply don't come into play because none of them were related to each other by blood.
In Colin Caffel's book it's painfully clear that despite the tragedy he could not even begin to mourn June's death (unlike he did with Sheila, the twins and even Nevill whom Colin got on with very well apparently). It's been said that Sheila was very fond of Nevill but had a more distant relationship with June, it's also been alleged that Jeremy in particular could be mean to June too. Indicative that neither of the children had any great love for June.
-
Many 'odds' appear to exist in this case:
Back spatter/blow back supposedly occurred with silencer attached to gun used to carry out the above murders and yet:
- small calibre weapon - usually occurs with large calibre weapon
- no accompanying biological material eg tissue - usually present
- no blood/biological matter from only victim to receive a definite contact shot (Nicholas)to the head (most likely anatomical position for back spatter to occur) why SC and not Nicholas
Too bad you had to keep distorting to come up with oddities that actually matter
I have already corrected you multiple times with respect to back spatter but you keep intentionally presenting the bogus claims anyway.
Here is one such post directed to you which you did not respond to because you can't without admitting you are wrong:
"First of all you are distorting. The only shot determined to definitely be a direct contact shot was the fatal shot to Sheila. There were 4 other shots determined that it was possible they were contact shots. The second shot to Sheila was one of these shots. Another was one of the shots to Nevill. A third was the shot between June's eyes. Testimony was that there was a slight chance this was contact shot but most likely it wasn't. The assessment was that 1 of the wounds to Nicholas was close range and it is POSSIBLE that it might even have been a contact wound. The assessment was not that it definitely was a contact wound. The pathologist reported that the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot.
Second, small caliber bullets are unlikely to cause back spatter when fired into the head. It depends on where in the head but the further from the face the less likely it is possible. Because the skull is so hard and there is such little skin covering the head back spatter is only likely to result from large caliber weapons. This is why assassins love 22 caliber pistols. A few shots to the head and the bullets bounce around in there causing damage, it is hard for a doctor to remove the bullets and in the meantime it leaves little physical evidence on the killer.
Testimony was that it was virtually certain there would be back spatter from her fatal wound and thus blood would get into the rifle or moderator if it had been fired with the moderator attached. Testimony was that there was only a very slight possibility of it not happening."
You intentionally keep distorting the back spatter issue to suit your agenda. You are not relying on science but rather intentionally distorting it. There is nothing unusual at all with a lack of tissue from a neck wound either. The nature of the back spatter depends on the location where the wound is received. You ignore that time and again because the neck wound wound have almost certianly resulted in back spatter and this is something that harms your agenda. While you are at it you also keep distorting the analysis of which wounds were most likely contact wounds.
Then we have all the strange anomalies with written reports by the police:
- two bodies in the kitchen: one male, one female
- two phone logs reporting two separate phone calls from two different individuals reporting an incident at WHF
You really couldnt make it up....or could you >@@(*&)
The anomolies are easy to explain and have been explained. It is actually common for errors to be transcribed down the line by people not on the scene intiially.
A cop peeking through the kitchen window though Nevill was a lady he could not see Nevill close up and he was bent over so he could not see Nevill's face at all. Upon entering they discovered and reported he was male. Someone at police HQ who received both accounts assumed there were 2 bodies and wrote such. The reports by those who were on the scene and actually saw the bodies never asserted there were 2 bodies in the kitchen.
There were not 2 reports of phone calls from different people. The 2 reports were by different cops. Both reports referred to Jeremy's phone call. No way can either be construed as coming directly from Nevill both state Jeremy was passing a message supposedly relayed by his father. One cop passed the message to another cop that is why two different cops had reports on it. There is nothing odd in that at all the only anomoly is that one got the time wrong and marked 2:36 instead of 2:26. Typos happen all the time that is not unusual or very odd.
-
Haven't the phone logs and other police reports been referred to the CCRC already? Who said that the report was taken by an officer remotely in real time with no opportunity to correct the report as time was going on, hence the discrepancies.
The call logs do appear odd but, note that in the original call the receiver is Officer badge number 1990. In the second log Officer badge number 1990 is the sender. Rather clumsily he is paraphrasing what has been said to him in Jeremy's original call. Again, CCRC knew about this but confirmed the second call log allegedly from Nevill is merely the officer who took Jeremy's call passing on the message to another station. No big conspiracy, just something put in a confusing way.
It is not confusing. Jeremy Bamber supporters intentionally misrepresented this issue from start to finish.
You have to take something into consideration. At the time of trial things are fresh and thus games by the defense go no where because they are easy to disprove.
On appeal, especially appeals many years later, you have people who try to twist anything they can and because of the time that passed they think they might be able to get away with it.
It is readily apparent that the second log (the one shown at trial) is saying the caller was badge 1990 PC West. It is not confusing and there is no valid way to claim it states the caller was Nevill. West testified about the call he received and how he then contacted Chelsford HQ to dispatch a patrol car. The prosecution then presented this report as evidence of what West transmitted.
Dishonest people latched onto the quotes in the report and said this is proof that Chelsford HQ received a call from Nevill even though it the report has a section that records the caller and noted it was PC West. These same dishonest people suggest that PC West was added as the caller later to conceal that Nevill had called police.
What would be needed to establish such is to get the person who wrote the report (Malcolm Bonnett) to say he received the call from Nevill and that someone edited his report. Of course the conspiracy theorists did not obtain such because Bonnett maintains the only call he received regarding this issue was from PC West.
That brings me to another important issue. Truials are made up of testimony. Documents are only used to a limited extent at trials. Documents must be authenticated they are not simply accepted in isolation.
So at trial people who actually wrote reports including pathology reports are providing far more detail than their reports indicate and make assessments on broader information than they had available at the time they wrote reports.
You almost never see Jeremy supports mentioning trial testimony because the trial testimony absolutely kills any of the BS they want to argue. The games being played with this report and other reports can't be played if you look at the testimony which leaves no doubt as to who called Bonnett.
Similarly when you hear the pathologist and forensic testimony it leaves no room for many of the games being played trying to pretend that Sheila could have committed suicide.
-
Excellent points as usual Scipio. The icing on the cake for me is that the 2nd fatal shot just happened to be the last bullet in the magazine. What would be the odds of that for a suicide?
And add to that, why would anyone sit on the floor to commit suicide when they could sit or lie on the bed?
-
And add to that, why would anyone sit on the floor to commit suicide when they could sit or lie on the bed?
Why sit on the floor to say watch tv when one could sit on a sofa? Horses for courses I guess.
If JB wanted to stage a suicide why in the parents' room and in close proximity to June who by all accounts SC had a poor relationship with? Why not in her own room or the twins' room? Same applies to SC ie if she committed suicide why that location? The only explanation I can come up with is that SC was alive when the police broke in and was panicked into that location? >@@(*&)
-
The job of the pathologist is to use MEDICAL knowledge and examination of the body to make a determination of the manner of death if possible. The important thing is that he coudd not say that it was suicide, that is what enables the prosecution for murder. Trying to pretend that his conclusions support suicide are blatantly false. his conclusions require looking at all the evidence that was looked at and relied upon to convict Jeremy.
The 'evidence' that convicted JB would never get near a court of law today: an exhibit that was found days later by relatives who clearly disliked JB from the off as per their wit stats and an unreliable prosecution witness.
JB was a very vulnerable person. Due to his background and upbringing ie being the adopted son of those he was accused of murdering, and a rather fragmented upbringing by way of growing up on a remote farm and attending a boarding school miles from his family home noone really knew him to be able to come out in his defence. This also extended to his working life which in the main either took him to the other side of the world or working largely alone at WHF.
-
The 'evidence' that convicted JB would never get near a court of law today: an exhibit that was found days later by relatives who clearly disliked JB from the off as per their wit stats and an unreliable prosecution witness.
JB was a very vulnerable person. Due to his background and upbringing ie being the adopted son of those he was accused of murdering, and a rather fragmented upbringing by way of growing up on a remote farm and attending a boarding school miles from his family home noone really knew him to be able to come out in his defence. This also extended to his working life which in the main either took him to the other side of the world or working largely alone at WHF.
I have never laughed so much for ages, Jeremy Bamber a vulnerable person @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Sheila was innocent ergo Bamber is guilty so get over it Holls.
-
Why sit on the floor to say watch tv when one could sit on a sofa? Horses for courses I guess.
If JB wanted to stage a suicide why in the parents' room and in close proximity to June who by all accounts SC had a poor relationship with? Why not in her own room or the twins' room? Same applies to SC ie if she committed suicide why that location? The only explanation I can come up with is that SC was alive when the police broke in and was panicked into that location? >@@(*&)
For heavens sake Holly do try and think outside the box!! That's an excuse, not an explanation.
Ask yourself the question, did anyone hear a gunshot after they all arrived at the farm?
-
I have never laughed so much for ages, Jeremy Bamber a vulnerable person @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Sheila was innocent ergo Bamber is guilty so get over it Holls.
It's true! Victims of MOJ's are nearly always a little different:
Guildford 4, Maguire 7, Birmingham 6 (hope I've got them the right way round) Irish/Catholic
Stephen Downing - learning difficulties
Stephan Kiszko - socially awkward (Aspergers syndrome)
Sally Clarke - female and professional
Jeremy Bamber - adopted and privately educated/boarding school
Another example is Stephen Lawrence - black
The Macpherson report found the police institutionally racist but prejudice exists in many forms including a dislike/fear of anyone who might be considered 'different'.
-
For heavens sake Holly do try and think outside the box!! That's an excuse, not an explanation.
Ask yourself the question, did anyone hear a gunshot after they all arrived at the farm?
Yes I believe one of the firearm officers said he heard a noise? In any event there was a period of a few seconds when the door was smashed in. The officers were then in the kitchen reporting on NB. An extending mirror was then used up the stairs before progressing further. SC could well have committed suicide when all this was going on.
-
Someone who just explained what a Cadaveric Spasm ACTUALLY IS. Every medical article on this subject states what I said. It is not a contracting of the muscles after death. Some other terms for a cadaveric spasm are death grip and instant rigor- the muscles freeze in the position they are in upon death. By definition since the muscles freeze in the position they are in the hand is not going to release the trigger and fire again on its own. Normally the muscles return to their natural state and then rigor sets it while the muscles are in such state. However, when there is a cadaveric spasm the muscle freezes int he state it was in at death and doesn't return to its natural state. WHile rigor comes and goes a spasm doesn't the rigidity remains even after rigor is gone.
Also someone who explained the gun was not an automatic but rather a semi-auto so the hand freezing with the trigger down is not going to result in more bullets being fired.
Also someone who pointed out that Sheila's medical examiner found no evidence of cadaveric spasm. You are not looking at the facts and evidence of the case. You are trolling the internet for any eexcuse you can theoretically come up with to support your claim that Jeremy is innocent. You did not arrive at that conclusion by following the facts. You arrived at that conclusion simply because you want to argue he is innocent (for some unknown reason) and you are fishing for anything you can that oculd possibly support your claim he is innocent. Anytime someone like me comes up with evidence though you can't refute it and instead hide your head in the sand.
I presented a thorough explanation of why you were wrong. You failed to rebut any of my points because you can't.
All you have to do is research the topic of cadaveric spasm to see I am correct. You have no interest in doing so because the truth completely demolishes the fairytales you are telling.
Why is another term death grip? Because on the rare occasions it occurs the victim is found gripping an object that they had in their possession at the time of death such as a car accident victim gripping a steering wheel, murder victim gripping whatever they had in their hand when murdered or a suicide victim gripping a gun.
Normally a gun will fall from a suicide victim's hand. But on rare occasion a spasm will be suffered and the gun will remain. A murderer can't simply place a gun in the hand though and fool investigators into thinking a spasm occurred. A medical examiner will touch the hands and fingers and see they move and are not frozen so will know a cadaveric spasm did not occur.
This case is even worse because firing a trigger backwards with a thumb is not easy. The recoil from the weapon would thrust the gun up not down. this further hurts the claim you are making. The fatal shot was higher than the nonfatal shot. The recoil of the gun would have thrust the gun UP and thus if she did manage to fire a second shot it would have been higher than the first shot not lower.
But you want to ignore the laws of physics, ignore the actual examination of the body which found no evidence of a vadaveric spasm, even the photos show her hands are not frozen in a position to have fired a weapon in the manner she allegedly did. Nor are they frozen in a position to have been holding the weapon.
Your cliams hold no water at all and constitute simply desperation on your part.
There are many states: cadaveric or cataleptic which could be involved. However it is not necessary for SC to have been in any particular state as the pathologist has always maintained that it is not uncommon to find suicide victims died as a result of two gunshot wounds. In the case of SC he was unable to confirm suicide or murder; a fact you seem unable or unwilling to accept. Instead you expect me to fall hook line and sinker for your theories which to your mind are highly plausible but for the growing army of people from all walks of life who believe JB is the victim of a MoJ are anything but plausible! JB is currently serving a life sentence. He is where you want him. I can understand the likes of me posting up alternative views but quite why you feel the need to reinforce the established line with such vitriol I have no idea. What you want you effectively have ie JB behind bars, so I can only assume you have some fear about losing what you currently have 8(0(*
You are not qualified to comment on cadaveric spasm no more than I am. I have no idea when this phenomenon was first identified?
-
It's true! Victims of MOJ's are nearly always a little different:
Guildford 4, Maguire 7, Birmingham 6 (hope I've got them the right way round) Irish/Catholic
Stephen Downing - learning difficulties
Stephan Kiszko - socially awkward (Aspergers syndrome)
Sally Clarke - female and professional
Jeremy Bamber - adopted and privately educated/boarding school
Another example is Stephen Lawrence - black
The Macpherson report found the police institutionally racist but prejudice exists in many forms including a dislike/fear of anyone who might be considered 'different'.
Grasping at straws?
-
Yes I believe one of the firearm officers said he heard a noise? In any event there was a period of a few seconds when the door was smashed in. The officers were then in the kitchen reporting on NB. An extending mirror was then used up the stairs before progressing further. SC could well have committed suicide when all this was going on.
More silliness. If she had shot herself as the police effected entry she would still be warm when they got to her.. she wasn't.
-
Could I ask you Holly why you believe for a moment that Jeremy Bamber might be a miscarriage of justice when he has failed to bring anything to the table which could support his case?
-
There are many states: cadaveric or cataleptic which could be involved. However it is not necessary for SC to have been in any particular state as the pathologist has always maintained that it is not uncommon to find suicide victims died as a result of two gunshot wounds. In the case of SC he was unable to confirm suicide or murder; a fact you seem unable or unwilling to accept. Instead you expect me to fall hook line and sinker for your theories which to your mind are highly plausible but for the growing army of people from all walks of life who believe JB is the victim of a MoJ are anything but plausible! JB is currently serving a life sentence. He is where you want him. I can understand the likes of me posting up alternative views but quite why you feel the need to reinforce the established line with such vitriol I have no idea. What you want you effectively have ie JB behind bars, so I can only assume you have some fear about losing what you currently have 8(0(*
You are not qualified to comment on cadaveric spasm no more than I am. I have no idea when this phenomenon was first identified?
Very few people are even interested in Bamber these days, he doesn't even get a mention by Alison in the Guardian. He was found guilty in 1986, he is still guilty so let it lie before you end up like Tesko.
-
Grasping at straws?
A better response would be to counter my argument by identifying victims of MoJ's who might be termed 'mainstream'. I am sure there must be some but certainly the high profile victims I have identified could be seen as 'different' by investigating officers and most jurors. This could be extended further to Barry George (learning difficulties) and Sion Jenkins (father of foster child).
Most investigating officers and jurors at the time these crimes were committed were not Irish, catholic, black, socially awkward, suffering with learning difficulties, professional if female, adopted, boarding school educated, father to a foster child. Such individuals are already at a disadvantage by peoples' inbuilt prejudices. People are generally more tolerant and enlightened today but the above MoJ's occurred many years ago.
-
More silliness. If she had shot herself as the police effected entry she would still be warm when they got to her.. she wasn't.
Since we have no record of time of death as proper procedures were not followed we have no real idea.
-
Too bad you had to keep distorting to come up with oddities that actually matter
I have already corrected you multiple times with respect to back spatter but you keep intentionally presenting the bogus claims anyway.
Here is one such post directed to you which you did not respond to because you can't without admitting you are wrong:
"First of all you are distorting. The only shot determined to definitely be a direct contact shot was the fatal shot to Sheila. There were 4 other shots determined that it was possible they were contact shots. The second shot to Sheila was one of these shots. Another was one of the shots to Nevill. A third was the shot between June's eyes. Testimony was that there was a slight chance this was contact shot but most likely it wasn't. The assessment was that 1 of the wounds to Nicholas was close range and it is POSSIBLE that it might even have been a contact wound. The assessment was not that it definitely was a contact wound. The pathologist reported that the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot.
Second, small caliber bullets are unlikely to cause back spatter when fired into the head. It depends on where in the head but the further from the face the less likely it is possible. Because the skull is so hard and there is such little skin covering the head back spatter is only likely to result from large caliber weapons. This is why assassins love 22 caliber pistols. A few shots to the head and the bullets bounce around in there causing damage, it is hard for a doctor to remove the bullets and in the meantime it leaves little physical evidence on the killer.
Testimony was that it was virtually certain there would be back spatter from her fatal wound and thus blood would get into the rifle or moderator if it had been fired with the moderator attached. Testimony was that there was only a very slight possibility of it not happening."
You intentionally keep distorting the back spatter issue to suit your agenda. You are not relying on science but rather intentionally distorting it. There is nothing unusual at all with a lack of tissue from a neck wound either. The nature of the back spatter depends on the location where the wound is received. You ignore that time and again because the neck wound wound have almost certianly resulted in back spatter and this is something that harms your agenda. While you are at it you also keep distorting the analysis of which wounds were most likely contact wounds.
The anomolies are easy to explain and have been explained. It is actually common for errors to be transcribed down the line by people not on the scene intiially.
A cop peeking through the kitchen window though Nevill was a lady he could not see Nevill close up and he was bent over so he could not see Nevill's face at all. Upon entering they discovered and reported he was male. Someone at police HQ who received both accounts assumed there were 2 bodies and wrote such. The reports by those who were on the scene and actually saw the bodies never asserted there were 2 bodies in the kitchen.
There were not 2 reports of phone calls from different people. The 2 reports were by different cops. Both reports referred to Jeremy's phone call. No way can either be construed as coming directly from Nevill both state Jeremy was passing a message supposedly relayed by his father. One cop passed the message to another cop that is why two different cops had reports on it. There is nothing odd in that at all the only anomoly is that one got the time wrong and marked 2:36 instead of 2:26. Typos happen all the time that is not unusual or very odd.
The schedule of shots produced by Malcolm Fletcher clearly states that the only victim to receive a DEFINITE contact shot was Nicholas. Again as with much of this case the expert witnesses contradict themselves and each other in various documents. Eg the autopsy report states that SC's gunshot wounds APPEAR to be contact or close contact but the CoA document states the upper wound (fatal) was a contact shot and the lower wound (non fatal) when the muzzle was within 3 inches.
-
Since we have no record of time of death as proper procedures were not followed we have no real idea.
You have just claimed that Sheila could have shot herself as the police forced their way into the farmhouse. I have just explained two unassailable reasons why that is false so please don't come back with we don't know the time of death as this is irrelevant to your claim.
Sheila was long dead when first checked for life. Had she just been shot the paramedics standing outside would have been called in. There were no gunshots heard by anyone including Jeremy.
-
Could I ask you Holly why you believe for a moment that Jeremy Bamber might be a miscarriage of justice when he has failed to bring anything to the table which could support his case?
Yes Matthew firstly I believe the evidence that convicted JB ie the silencer was fabricated. At trial Geoffrey Rivlin QC should have presented to the jury the very realistic possibility that this evidence, which formed the central plank of the prosecutions case, was contaminated either accidentally or deliberately. It was then for the jury to reject or accept this in light of all the other evidence heard. He failed to do this. Instead he confused and misled the jury by concocting some bizarre story/theory about SC using the silencer and returning it to the gun cupboard before committing suicide and that the blood sample was an intimate mix of June and NB's. No one in their right mind would buy into this.
As I am sure you know the trial was in 1986 and by 1989 Geoffrey Rivlin was a full-time judge. Perhaps after the WHF trial he accepted that his advocacy skills were not his major strength and fearful of letting down further clients he opted to become a judge.
Without wishing to mince my words Geoffrey Rivlin QC simply lacked the balls to take on Robert Boutflour in the witness box. Instead he was wishy washy with 'did you drip blood into the silencer' to which he replied 'No'. This had no impact on the jury whatsoever as evidenced by their deliberations/queries to the judge asking about the intimate mix of blood (June and NB's) and SC's blood being a "perfect match" to that found in the silencer. Nothing about contamination as Geoffrey Rivlin failed to take the bull by the horns. A sad day for British justice.
JB is now in the very unenviable position of trying to override fabricated evidence. It is too late in the day to claim contamination as this should have presented at trial and would not now be considered 'new' evidence.
Secondly much more is now known about the effects of maternal depression on infants (June suffered severe depression in 1959 as a result of adopting Sheila). This can lead to neglect of the child and a failure to form an 'attachment' with the primary care giver. Sheila was already at risk as a result of being adopted and it is now widely accepted that a psychology exists peculiar to adoptees especially those brought up in 'closed' adoptions. (Which could perhaps explain some of my idiosyncrasies 8(0(*) Suicide is far more common amongst adoptees than their non-adopted peers. None of the psychiatrists at trial made reference to any of this.
Maternal depression
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp8/
The science of neglect
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp12/
Attachment
http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/attachment
Long-term outcome in adoption
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/03_01_12.PDF
Exploring links between past adoption practices and suicide
http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/news/archive/JCUPRD_045179
-
At last something I can agree with you on Holly, Jeremy was a damaged child who grew up a psychopath.
-
Very few people are even interested in Bamber these days, he doesn't even get a mention by Alison in the Guardian. He was found guilty in 1986, he is still guilty so let it lie before you end up like Tesko.
These things take years to come to light as with the financial crisis when Lord Turner stated the following:
“I think we – as the authorities, central banks, regulators, those involved today – are the inheritors of a 50-year-long, large intellectual and policy mistake,” he says.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9934819/Adair-Turner-Bankers-no-longer-in-denial.html
I know for a FACT that JB has many influential supporters. I am sure some will be familiar to you when the time is right 8(0(* I suspect you will have your hands full moderating this forum later in the year when the whole world will be watching and Misty's owner will be the least of your worries. A new CCRC application winging its way and two new books to boot ?>)()<
-
These things take years to come to light as with the financial crisis when Lord Turner stated the following:
?I think we ? as the authorities, central banks, regulators, those involved today ? are the inheritors of a 50-year-long, large intellectual and policy mistake,? he says.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9934819/Adair-Turner-Bankers-no-longer-in-denial.html
I know for a FACT that JB has many influential supporters. I am sure some will be familiar to you when the time is right 8(0(* I suspect you will have your hands full moderating this forum later in the year when the whole world will be watching and Misty's owner will be the least of your worries. A new CCRC application winging its way and two new books to boot ?>)()<
More people making money out of Bambers misfortune by the sounds of it.
Wasn't there a guy on here not so long ago claiming to be writing a book about Bamber but couldn't answer some of the most basic questions about the known evidence in the case?
-
These things take years to come to light as with the financial crisis when Lord Turner stated the following:
“I think we – as the authorities, central banks, regulators, those involved today – are the inheritors of a 50-year-long, large intellectual and policy mistake,” he says.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9934819/Adair-Turner-Bankers-no-longer-in-denial.html
I know for a FACT that JB has many influential supporters. I am sure some will be familiar to you when the time is right 8(0(* I suspect you will have your hands full moderating this forum later in the year when the whole world will be watching and Misty's owner will be the least of your worries. A new CCRC application winging its way and two new books to boot ?>)()<
The CCRC will never review the Bamber case again let alone refer it because it is well determined thanks to the 1991 DNA analyses.
-
Reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and why she never murdered her children and parents as claimed by Jeremy Bamber...
(http://i.imgur.com/brEV3.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/eoF3e.jpg)
Readers should note: It was stated at Jeremy Bamber's trial that as a consequence of what occurred on the morning of the murders and following Jeremy Bamber's own evidence, an innocent Sheila renders Jeremy Bamber guilty by default. It does not mean that he carried out the murders alone however.
1. Uncontaminated hands and nightdress completely free of any gunfire residue or gun oil. In fact no contaminants of any sort indicated that Sheila never handled the rifle let alone fired it 25 times in quick succession and reloaded its magazine at least twice.
2. Uncontaminated feet. Sheila's feet were completely clean and free of blood or any other contaminants evidencing the fact that she had been in bed when the attack took place and thereafter only walked on carpet. She could never have been downstairs in the kitchen that morning.
3. Uncut feet. Nevill Bamber was brutally attacked in the kitchen after having been shot several times in the upstairs bedroom. During the assault in the kitchen a glass lampshade was smashed leaving glass fragments all over the floor. Had Sheila taken part in that attack the soles of her feet or the soles of her slippers would have been pock marked with glass fragments. Sheila's feet were unmarked as were the soles of her slippers.
4. Only one fingerprint on the rifle evidencing the fact that Sheila did not wield it or fire it. Had she shot herself twice as alleged by some her thumbprint would have been on the trigger since she would have to had pushed it. It wasn't.
5. It is almost certain that blood and DNA belonging to Sheila was found in the sound moderator. Group 'A' human blood matching Sheila was recovered from the sound moderator in 1985. Later, advances in forensic science methods led to the recovery of DNA from inside the sound moderator which returned 17 markers out of 20 as a match to Sheila which was substantially better than the maximum coincidence rate of thirteen. Sheila could not have shot herself with the sound moderator attached nor could she have returned it to the gun cupboard after shooting herself twice in the throat.
6. Sheila was in good spirits, looking forward to the future as a family again. Her doctor and her ex husband stated that she was not capable of hurting her father or her children.
7. Two gunshots to her neck. Hardly indicative of a suicide especially when the first one would have incapacitated her. It is also noticeable that the gun and magazine were empty when found. Was that another coincidence that Sheila just happened to use the last bullet and had no others on her person?
8. No marks or injuries following a fight. Sheila was tiny compared to the 6' 2" Nevill. She could not have fought with him without sustaining some sort of injury or damage to her clothing.
9. Sheila had traces of cannabis in her system rendering her calm and docile, not violent or murderous.
10. Sheila had run out of her procyclidine which counteracts the effects of her medication haloperidol. Without this she would have been very shaky and uncoordinated (as described by various witnesses) and would not have had the control needed to get off 25 shots without missing one never mind trying to reload an awkward magazine in between time.
11. Sheila was unfamiliar with the rifle or any firearm for that matter and would have been unable to make 25 target shots.
12. If Sheila had shot herself in the throat and had remained conscious, there would have been blood in her mouth and throat with resultant blood spatter everywhere as she struggled to breathe. Her fingers would have touched the burning wound and ended up covered in blood as would have her face and neck. The blood trails running from this wound would have been smudged yet it was not. There was no secondary blood staining to her face or neck when the police initially found her. The inside of her hands and her finger tips did not have any blood staining. Sheila therefore was not conscious after the first shot and most certainly did not fire the second one.
13. Sheila's body was found on the far side of the master bedroom away from everyone. Had she committed suicide as some allege it is more than likely that she would have done so beside her children and not remote from them.
14. Perfectly manicured nails and all intact and unbroken. If Sheila had used the rifle and loaded it at least once she would have ended up with some nail damage. There was none.
Please post any suggestions for additions as you think fit.
Surely its time for an update?
-
At last something I can agree with you on Holly, Jeremy was a damaged child who grew up a psychopath.
No evidence of this to date:
http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/
I think in conjunction with the above and my previous post you will struggle to find any modern day mental health professional who, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, would run with JB over SC.
There can be no disputing that June's mental illness circa 1959 had a profoundly damaging effect on SC which can be evidenced by Dr Ferguson's wit stats and the fact that SC sought out her birth mother weeks before the murders.
-
More people making money out of Bambers misfortune by the sounds of it.
Wasn't there a guy on here not so long ago claiming to be writing a book about Bamber but couldn't answer some of the most basic questions about the known evidence in the case?
Good things come to those who wait 8(0(*
-
The CCRC will never review the Bamber case again let alone refer it because it is well determined thanks to the 1991 DNA analyses.
The DNA analysis was actually heard before the CoA in 2002. In any event in proved absolutely nothing. The three appeal court judges found it "utterly meaningless" due to the potential for contamination. It is well documented in the CoA hearing doc and I am not going all round the houses with that again.
-
The DNA analysis was actually heard before the CoA in 2002. In any event in proved absolutely nothing. The three appeal court judges found it "utterly meaningless" due to the potential for contamination. It is well documented in the CoA hearing doc and I am not going all round the houses with that again.
The analyses were done in 1991 following a breakthrough in DNA techniques. It is an almost certainty that Sheilas DNA was in the silencer and the only way it got there was by back spatter following the two close contact shots to her neck..
-
You have just claimed that Sheila could have shot herself as the police forced their way into the farmhouse. I have just explained two unassailable reasons why that is false so please don't come back with we don't know the time of death as this is irrelevant to your claim.
Sheila was long dead when first checked for life. Had she just been shot the paramedics standing outside would have been called in. There were no gunshots heard by anyone including Jeremy.
With or without a silencer gunshots with the said weapon within WHF were unlikely to be heard between floors let alone outside the building.
In the absence of a suitably qualified person being able to ascertain the approximate time of death it is all supposition.
-
The analyses were done in 1991 following a breakthrough in DNA techniques. It is an almost certainty that Sheilas DNA was in the silencer and the only way it got there was by back spatter following the two close contact shots to her neck..
If you want to live in a fool's paradise be my guest.
-
With or without a silencer gunshots with the said weapon within WHF were unlikely to be heard between floors let alone outside the building.
In the absence of a suitably qualified person being able to ascertain the approximate time of death it is all supposition.
That's totally false Holly, just the sort of side step I expected though.
Truth is that the night of the murders was very still with hardly a sound being heard from the house. A gunshot would have easily been heard by anyone standing outside listening let alone monitoring the open telephone line.
-
If you want to live in a fool's paradise be my guest.
You appear to be the one living it. I have no doubt whatsoever that Bamber is guilty as charged.
-
Holly, answer me honestly....who do you think was the most likely culprit, Jeremy or Sheila?
-
Why sit on the floor to say watch tv when one could sit on a sofa? Horses for courses I guess.
If JB wanted to stage a suicide why in the parents' room and in close proximity to June who by all accounts SC had a poor relationship with? Why not in her own room or the twins' room? Same applies to SC ie if she committed suicide why that location? The only explanation I can come up with is that SC was alive when the police broke in and was panicked into that location? >@@(*&)
First of all he may not have staged the location. That might be the location he found her when he shot her. Moving her body could have left drag marks or a blood trail so he would have little choice but to leave her wherever he killed her.
If he did march her there and then shoot her it was to make it appear that she killed herself after shooting June.
Your assertion that Sheila was alive when police broke in is absurd in addition to there being no evidence at all to support it. Police and Jeremy would have heard the shots fired by her, the gun had no supporessor which means it would have been even louder than usual and even with the suppressor it was still not silent. Moreover, the blood would have been wet and fresh not dried like it was. The only "wet blood" was pockets inside her mouth.
You intentionally make up nonsense to support your position because you have no real evidence upon which to claim Jeremy is innocent.
You even keep intentionally lying by saying the ME determined the only contact shot was against Nicholas though the finding was the only sure contact shot was her fatal throat shot.
You are just digging your hole deeper each time you make up nonsense.
-
The 'evidence' that convicted JB would never get near a court of law today: an exhibit that was found days later by relatives who clearly disliked JB from the off as per their wit stats and an unreliable prosecution witness.
JB was a very vulnerable person. Due to his background and upbringing ie being the adopted son of those he was accused of murdering, and a rather fragmented upbringing by way of growing up on a remote farm and attending a boarding school miles from his family home noone really knew him to be able to come out in his defence. This also extended to his working life which in the main either took him to the other side of the world or working largely alone at WHF.
As usual you are wrong. There are no procedures in place which could have prevented the evidence from appearing in court. The criticisms of the evidence collection are issues for the jury to weigh there is no problem so far as admissibility. If the crime happened today though since evidence collection procedures are different Jeremy would be in even greater trouble. It is actually even harder today to successfully frame someone in the manner he attempted to frame Sheila.
The most damning evidence of his guilt is his own actions and lies. Telling his girlfriend of his desire to kill them and plan was a big mistake. But an even bigger mistake were his actions to corroborate her claims. Had he not lied about receiving a phone call from Nevill, hadn't called his girlfriend 2 times before they even found the bodies and instead made someone else find the bodies without his aid or he pretended to find them in the morning he would have had a better shot at claiming frame up.
His calls to Julie at 3AM and 6AM telling her not to go to work make no sense if he didn't know his family was dead or even hurt. These calls reveal he knew they were dead before police ever entered. His lack of any pressure on police to get them to take action and instead waiting with them for nearly 4 hours also reveals he knew they were dead. Refusing to make the 3 minute drive to investigate and instead waiting unil police arrived first reveals he knew they were dead and didn't want police to find him on th escene because then they might think he was on scene and could have taken part or staged the scene. He wanted them as witnesses to say he wasn't there and thus try to use them as an alibi of sorts. He lied to them telling them Sheila fired every gun in the house and was proficient with them. Worst of all though is the claimed call from his father. The killer shot Nevill upstairs. He was shot at least 4 times before making it to the kitchen. There was no blood on the phone so he clearly never even made it to the phone. At any rate his injuries prevented him from talking so at most he could have dialed but not spoken intelligibly. That alone proves the phone call never took place and that Jeremy had to be the killer or he would have been at home sleeping and would not have known anything had occurred. Even Jeremy's own attorneys admit that if the call didn't happen it means Jeremy was the killer. What Nevill supposedly told Jeremy makes no sense nor does calling him instead of 999. At minimum he and his wife had been shot before he even got downstairs let alone could have reached the phone. I say at minimum because we don't know whether anyone else had also already been shot at that point. If by some miracle he could have spoken despite his mouth and voicebox wounds he would have called 999 saying they had been shot and needed medical attention. The claim he called his son to keep this event in the family is absurd. His son could not give them the medical attnetion they needed. Jeremy repeatedly told police he was not sure if Sheila had shot anyone or not he said that at the time the call was made she had not hurt anyone yet but to prevent her from hurting anyone Nevill wanted him to come disarm her. He said after being disconnected he was unsure what happened. But here is another rub because he changed his story on this. At first he claimed that there was a click and the phone call was disconnected which would mean it was hung up at White House Farms, presumably by the killer.
The phone company though said the phone was never hung up and simply remained off the hook. This prompted Jeremy to change his story from hearing a click to hearing various sounds including struggling and maybe gun shots being fired. He changed his story muliple times of what he heard.
All of this evidence establishes that Nevill did not make the call but Jeremy knew about the murders anyway and the only reason he could know is if her killed them.
When you take this into account it makes the conspiracy claims you assert where Jeremy was framed to be even more BS than on its face. The fact you won't admit it means nothing it is BS to anyone with half a brain.
-
Yes I believe one of the firearm officers said he heard a noise? In any event there was a period of a few seconds when the door was smashed in. The officers were then in the kitchen reporting on NB. An extending mirror was then used up the stairs before progressing further. SC could well have committed suicide when all this was going on.
Wrong, no officers reported hearing a firearm discharged. Everyone inside and out of the house were close enough to hear a gun discharge in the house. There is absolutely no evidence at all that this occurred you are just making evidence to support your agenda instead of following the evidence.
-
There are many states: cadaveric or cataleptic which could be involved. However it is not necessary for SC to have been in any particular state as the pathologist has always maintained that it is not uncommon to find suicide victims died as a result of two gunshot wounds. In the case of SC he was unable to confirm suicide or murder; a fact you seem unable or unwilling to accept. Instead you expect me to fall hook line and sinker for your theories which to your mind are highly plausible but for the growing army of people from all walks of life who believe JB is the victim of a MoJ are anything but plausible! JB is currently serving a life sentence. He is where you want him. I can understand the likes of me posting up alternative views but quite why you feel the need to reinforce the established line with such vitriol I have no idea. What you want you effectively have ie JB behind bars, so I can only assume you have some fear about losing what you currently have 8(0(*
You are not qualified to comment on cadaveric spasm no more than I am. I have no idea when this phenomenon was first identified?
The pathologist never said it is common to find suicide victims who died from 2 shots. Multiple gunshot suicides are rare not common. More importantly the pathologist said the fatal shot was fired first. She can't have pulled the second shot because she was already dead.
That is why you are now making up your own nonsense as usual to try to pretend she could have fired the second shot even though she was dead.
I explained what a cadaveric spasm is and how it works. I even explained under what situations it is called death grip and why. I explained how guns work. How can muscles freezing exactly in the state they are in at the time of death cause a gun that is not full auto to fire?
I actually backed up my points while you didn't. You never explain and prove anything. You make things up merely. You made up the claim that a cadaveric spasm is going to result in a second shot and worse you assert that she suffered from such a spasm even though no evidence was found by the pathologist and if her hands did freeze in the position they were in at the time of death then she definitely wasn't holding the rifle. Moreover as I pointed out the weapon's recoil would force it up not down thus even if she had still been alive a few seconds and able to push the trigger again the second would would have been higher not lower.
My theories that you say you refuse to fall for are not theories but rather facts. I take into account ALL available evidence and information and make an assessment based thereupon. You refuse to accept facts and evidence and instead make up your own like ignoring no evidence of death grip was found and assering it anyway as a possibility.
Since you want to discuss the likes of me and the likes of you I will do so.
I do not make up a position out of thin air because it is what I wish to believe and then seek out anything I can use to justify my position. I do not make up evidence or claims to support my position. I research all available evidence, evaluate the accuracy of that evidence and I follow the evidence where it takes me. That is how I come up with a position, I don't make up a position in advance I let the evidence determine what my position will be on any given issue.
You don't follow the evidence. You make up the position you want to take and then you look for evidence that can support your claims but if you can't find any then in that case you make it up. You ignore common sense and absolute facts to suit your agenda.
Your arguments consist of irrational desperation. Anytime the pathologist says something you don't like you ignore it, especially his damaging testimony. The pathologist found that Sheila's fatal wound was the only sure contact shot of any of the 25 wounds the victims suffered. He identified other shots that could possibly have been contact shots but he doubted it he believes they were simply close shopts. The pathologist declared that it was a virtual certaintly that a contact wound to the location where the fatal shot was delivered would result in back spatter. He said he was surprised that there was no back spatter in the rifle. He said this made sense only after the suppressor was provided to him and her blood type was found in the suppressor. He said the fact the rifle had no back spatter but the suppressor did indicated that she was shot with the suppressor attached when the fatal shot was fired. Of all 25 shots fired the only one for sure that he determined to be a contact wound was Sheila's fatal wound and he said based on the location it is a vurtual certaintly there would be back spatter.
You ignored his assessments and outright lied claiming that the only wound he determined to be a contact wound was to Nicholas. Next you made the unsupported claim that back spatter is rare. You completely ignored the required analysis to assess whether back spatter is likely. First and foremost that means the location of the shot. Some areas of the body are much more likely to result in back spatter than others. The location in question was extremely likely. A medical professional actually examined the body and made an assessment of how likely back spatter would be based on the exact location of the wound. But this evidence and conclusion completely demolish your position that Jeremy is innocent.
Do you accept the truth? No Do you seek out an expert who can analyze the body and come to different conclusions based on solid science? no you simply pretend the evidence doesn't exist and make up the claim back spatter would be unlikely to occur.
I started my research on the JB website and entertained the possiiblity he was innocent. The more research I did the more I realize his supporters are resorting to lies not valid argument supported by credible evidence. I independently came to the same conclusion as Jeremy's prosecutors, I did not simply adopt their views wholesale. I followed the evidence and tha tis how I know Jeremy is guilty. I don't just believe he is guilty the evidence is so overwhelming there is no doubt at all.
Why should I just let you run around spouting nonsense unchallenged? When nonsense goes unchallenged then it means ignorant people are more likely to fall for it. Is your problem that I stnad in the way of your propaganda campaign? I love to debate and I am interested in accurate information and the truth being published so that is where I stand. When I see inaccurate infromation posted I challenge it, simple as that.
-
The schedule of shots produced by Malcolm Fletcher clearly states that the only victim to receive a DEFINITE contact shot was Nicholas. Again as with much of this case the expert witnesses contradict themselves and each other in various documents. Eg the autopsy report states that SC's gunshot wounds APPEAR to be contact or close contact but the CoA document states the upper wound (fatal) was a contact shot and the lower wound (non fatal) when the muzzle was within 3 inches.
Malcolm Fletcher was the firearms expert he didn't inspect the bodies. Vanezis inspected the bodies and he determined the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot. The witness to defer to is Vanezis because he is the one who inspected the bodies not FLether so Flether has no basis to make any assertions about which shot was a contact shot or not. Moreover, Vanezis is the one with the medical knowledge not Fletcher.
-
With or without a silencer gunshots with the said weapon within WHF were unlikely to be heard between floors let alone outside the building.
In the absence of a suitably qualified person being able to ascertain the approximate time of death it is all supposition.
Says who? People who know somethigng about firearms including me disagree. How many guns have you fired? I own several 22 rifles.
You suggest the gunshots could not be heard not based on any facts but rather because you want people to believe the nonsense claims you are making up are theoretically possible.
-
Yes Matthew firstly I believe the evidence that convicted JB ie the silencer was fabricated. At trial Geoffrey Rivlin QC should have presented to the jury the very realistic possibility that this evidence, which formed the central plank of the prosecutions case, was contaminated either accidentally or deliberately. It was then for the jury to reject or accept this in light of all the other evidence heard. He failed to do this. Instead he confused and misled the jury by concocting some bizarre story/theory about SC using the silencer and returning it to the gun cupboard before committing suicide and that the blood sample was an intimate mix of June and NB's. No one in their right mind would buy into this.
Rivlin was limited by the evidence including his own expert. While you have no problem with just making up anything you feel like a lawyer cannot do that. A lawyer doesn't testify he gets evidence admitted through witnesses.
How could blood accidentally get inside the suppressor? The blood on the outside, particularly the blood on the rear part near the threads could have been (and obviously was) deposited by accident but blood that sprayed inside to the various baffles can't have gotten in by accident. How can human blood accidentally spray or even drip inside?
At any rate it wasn't dripped which harms your claim it was planted. Instead of just dripping there was spray which deposited on various baffles. The defense expert tested the gun after the prosecution already removed all visible blood. He still found blood on the first 7 baffles though. His findings about the blood type mirrored the prosecution's findings. Both found it was almost certainly Sheila's blood type but there was a very slight chance it could have been June and Nevill's blood mixed.
Based on these findings the only argument a lawyer could make is to assert the blood was June and Nevill's not Sheila's to try to dispute that the silencer was definitely affixed when Sheila's fatal shot was delivered. It is a weak argument but the only one permissible.
What is absurd is the argument you make. It is absurd to suggest Sheila's blood type got inside by accident. It is even more absurd to claim that the cousins knew Sheila's blood type (how would they know this), and had a cousin with the same blood type plant his blood inside. Moreover he didn't just tdrip it in he somehow sprayed it in to simulate back spatter.
The fact you claim your argument is more rational than the one made at trial illustrates just how ridiculous you bias is really is in this case.
The best part is that the suppressor was tested for DNA and nothing was found as relating to the cousin whose blood you suggest was planted. You suggest other DNA was transferred but his was entirely washed away. Even today with modern technology the defense would have little basis to suggest the blood had been planted.
You are embarrassing yourself by the claims you are making.
As I am sure you know the trial was in 1986 and by 1989 Geoffrey Rivlin was a full-time judge. Perhaps after the WHF trial he accepted that his advocacy skills were not his major strength and fearful of letting down further clients he opted to become a judge.
Without wishing to mince my words Geoffrey Rivlin QC simply lacked the balls to take on Robert Boutflour in the witness box. Instead he was wishy washy with 'did you drip blood into the silencer' to which he replied 'No'. This had no impact on the jury whatsoever as evidenced by their deliberations/queries to the judge asking about the intimate mix of blood (June and NB's) and SC's blood being a "perfect match" to that found in the silencer. Nothing about contamination as Geoffrey Rivlin failed to take the bull by the horns. A sad day for British justice.
JB is now in the very unenviable position of trying to override fabricated evidence. It is too late in the day to claim contamination as this should have presented at trial and would not now be considered 'new' evidence.
Secondly much more is now known about the effects of maternal depression on infants (June suffered severe depression in 1959 as a result of adopting Sheila). This can lead to neglect of the child and a failure to form an 'attachment' with the primary care giver. Sheila was already at risk as a result of being adopted and it is now widely accepted that a psychology exists peculiar to adoptees especially those brought up in 'closed' adoptions. (Which could perhaps explain some of my idiosyncrasies 8(0(*) Suicide is far more common amongst adoptees than their non-adopted peers. None of the psychiatrists at trial made reference to any of this.
Maternal depression
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp8/
The science of neglect
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp12/
Attachment
http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/attachment
Long-term outcome in adoption
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/03_01_12.PDF
Exploring links between past adoption practices and suicide
http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/news/archive/JCUPRD_045179
First of all posting all the evidence in the world about how some people commit murder suicides doesn't negate all the evidence of Jeremy's guilt which you conventiently ignore time and again.
At any rate, the events at WHF do not fit anything you posted.
Those who commit murder suicide because of depression typically kill their children and spouse if they have one before committing suicide. They kill their dependents and often spouse. They don't kill their parents or extended family as well typically. Mothers often kill their kids and then themselves, they often don't kill their spouse or ex-spouse.
Sheila suffereing from depression and deciding to kill herself and her kids doesn't explain murdering her parents.
This is why the psychotic episode claim is made for why she killed her father. It is suggested that she viewed him as the devil and that she killed him for that reason. This still doesn't explain killing the mother too.
Similarly Sheila having a psychotic episode and attributing her father as the devil does not account for the other murders.
Your past suggestions and the suggestions of other Jeremy apologists conflate various murders and murder suicides theories together. This is that one case where supposedly Sheila suffered from everything all at once. All at once she decided to kill herself and her kids because of her long term depression. At the same time she had a psychotic episode where she had delusions that her dad was the devil and her mother was some other evil entity she had to kill.
You fail to account for the thought that went into removing the telephone from the bedroom in advance ot make sure the victims could not phone for help. How would she know in advance she would have delusions and need the phone removed and why would the phone even matter to her in such circumstances. Why would she care if they used the phone as she was killing them? It is not as if it would matter if they would ID her as the killer over the phone before she killed them.
But consistency is not something you care about.
Indeed while you post all these links and insist it was a murder suicide for depression or the like you assert she didn't commit suicide right away. You assert she killed everyone else then showered and changed her clothes and hoped to get away with it but afte rpolice broke in then she decided to kill herself knowing she couldn't get away with it.
You don't even subscribe to your own theories you jump all over to try to find a way to claim Jeremy is innocent. You are a mess.
We are supposed to believe she had a psychotic episode and thus murdered her father and murder thinking they were the devil or something else of that sort. Then because of her severe depression she killed her kids and herself. So she suffered from 2 different things.
-
If you want to live in a fool's paradise be my guest.
That is called projection. You are projecting your own flaws onto others.
You are the one ignoring all the valid evidence and making up any ridiculous excuse you can to try to suggest that Jeremy is innocent.
Each time I list all the evidence you cry foul because you can't dent any of it. You can only make up excuses to try to dispute one point in isolation because in total your claims are contradictory and preposterous.
You suggest Sheila decided to kill her family and then herself. Yet in another breath she was a mastermind who planned in advance to hide the phone and planned to try to escape libability somehow blaming someone else. She kills everyone (beats Nevill's dead body for some unknown reason and because he was limp she receives no damage while beating him even though the rifle broke) then takes a bath, changes her clothes and spends hours trying to figure out a way to escape liability. When the police bust in she realizes she has no way out and shoots herself twice including one time after she was already dead. The rifle magically fires a second time and better yet does so lower instead of higher than the fatal shot.
You come up with some new BS anytime your old BS falls apart.
Fool's paradise:
The law of physics and sound ceased to operate at the times of the murders. The unsuppressed rifle fired 2 shots without making any sound that could be heard outside the house or in any other room in the house. The unsuppressed weapon had absolutely no recoil so the gun did not raise it lowered after the fatal shot and then magically fired again.
I could continue posting another 30 such claims from you to prove my point but don't think it is necessary.
-
You appear to be the one living it. I have no doubt whatsoever that Bamber is guilty as charged.
His inconsistency with respect to the telephone call is another issue his defenders never explain.
He initially said he heard a click and the phone went dead. Since the line was not cut that means someone at WHF would have to have hung the phone up.
The phone was off the hook though it was never hung up according the phone company. This is consistent with Jeremy dialing his number, going home then answering it knowing no one was on the other side so hanging up his phone which caused the connection to clear within a couple of minutes.
Jeremy changed his story and claimed the click was the phone falling from Nevill's hand and that he listened for a whole and could hear noises in the background. He then decided to call police so hung up and immediately called police.
If the latter had been true then why would he say initially he got disconnected?
His apologists never have any explanation for his actions or for him lying they ignore such lies. Holly refuses to address his lie to police around 4AM where he told them she was proficient with and had fired every weapon in the house.
-
...Peter Sutherst's findings were questioned as inconclusive by Andy Laws...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-new-photographic-evidence (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2010/feb/21/jeremy-bamber-new-photographic-evidence)
Appreciate it. This is the video I needed to see. Sutherst says the scratch marks on the underside of the mantleshelf "do not extend" into the picture of it taken at the time of the incident. And this is the remark I had previously heard him saying, and that piqued my interest.
I now understand he means by that nothing more than he can't visually see any scratches in the photos taken at the time of the incident. Until now, I thought he meant something more.
Thanks to all who replied to me.
-
Blimey, scipio, no wonder Mike couldn't risk you joining the blue forum!
Brilliant posts. 8@??)(
-
Appreciate it. This is the video I needed to see. Sutherst says the scratch marks on the underside of the mantleshelf "do not extend" into the picture of it taken at the time of the incident. And this is the remark I had previously heard him saying, and that piqued my interest.
I now understand he means by that nothing more than he can't visually see any scratches in the photos taken at the time of the incident. Until now, I thought he meant something more.
Thanks to all who replied to me.
Yes, that odd "do/did not extend" comment flummoxed me at first, until I realised that the pictures he referred to were the normal views of the AGA surround taken from a distance, not close-ups of the actual scratches. I doubt if the SOC photographer or the police even noticed them underneath the shelf when the first pictures were taken, or if they did, dismissed them as of no relevance. It was only when Stan Jones and Ron Cook later examined the scratched and red paint-flecked moderator that they put two and two together and realised where this damage had originated.
-
Appreciate it. This is the video I needed to see. Sutherst says the scratch marks on the underside of the mantleshelf "do not extend" into the picture of it taken at the time of the incident. And this is the remark I had previously heard him saying, and that piqued my interest.
I now understand he means by that nothing more than he can't visually see any scratches in the photos taken at the time of the incident. Until now, I thought he meant something more.
Thanks to all who replied to me.
He did assert other things such as claiming a dot in one of the photos is a piece of nail varnish. He claims he matched the shape of this speck to a tiny speck of varnish missing from Sheila's toenail.
But the notion he could figure out what a speck in a photo is let alone match it to a speck missing from her toenail is crazy.
It makes me wonder just how much he was paid for rendering these assessments.
-
Blimey, scipio, no wonder Mike couldn't risk you joining the blue forum!
Brilliant posts. 8@??)(
When scipio joined he/she said that a book wasn't in the pipeline. That's one promise broken. @)(++(*
If all the posts so far are printed and bound, it could turn out to be a best-seller ! 8((()*/
-
Blimey, scipio, no wonder Mike couldn't risk you joining the blue forum!
Brilliant posts. 8@??)(
I don't know how he has the patience to have to keep repeating the known evidence. Excellent work indeed. Sorry, off topic but maybe scipio will have a look at my own case and see if he can elicit arguments that I can use in my own revised application for review.
-
When scipio joined he/she said that a book wasn't in the pipeline. That's one promise broken. @)(++(*
If all the posts so far are printed and bound, it could turn out to be a best-seller ! 8((()*/
I would have a ball going head to head with Mike. If that ever happened I picture steam coming out of his ears like in cartoons. However, he seems to be the sort that would delete posts of critics if he were unable to refute their claims. He seems to be very selective of who he approves for his site and only allows logged in members to see certain attachments he posts. That is a red flag.
If the truth is on your side you have nothing to hide and you can handle debate from critics. He doesn't allow debate from what I have seen he just wants to make claims that go unchallenged. Since any challenges raised are valid he has no real way to deal with them.
What I don't understand is how he thinks his dishonest efforts help Jeremy. It is one thing to fool ignorant people who are too lazy to try to investigate whether Mike's claims are true. How does he think his efforts will help spring him though? Judges want real evidence. Making uncorroborated charges that the police altered evidence doesn't accomplish a thing.
I laughed so hard when I read his claim that police shot Sheila and then put the gun on her to make it look like she did it herself. I don't understand how anyone can take him serious after some of the crap he has claimed.
I have been accused of writing books in various posts and even emails. What I do that many people do not is I take the time to articulate all the relevant considerations with respect to any issue. By doing so that allows people to think for themselves as to whether a point is right or wrong and to understand why. Some people don't appreciate that though they want short answers without explanation.
-
I don't know how he has the patience to have to keep repeating the known evidence. Excellent work indeed. Sorry, off topic but maybe scipio will have a look at my own case and see if he can elicit arguments that I can use in my own revised application for review.
What case is that? I am always interested in something new, it gets boring to stick on the same subject only.
Edit: ok I now see you are John Lamberton. I will do a post over in that section because I don't want to cloud this topic with unnecessary issues.
-
What case is that? I am always interested in something new, it gets boring to stick on the same subject only.
Edit: ok I now see you are John Lamberton. I will do a post over in that section because I don't want to cloud this topic with unnecessary issues.
Certainly have a look at it, I haven't added to the board for a while but most of the information is there, it might even take some pressure off Holly.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=9.0
There are two websites associated with the case as well...
www.justice4johnlamberton.com
http://johnlamberton.webs.com/
-
Certainly have a look at it, I haven't added to the board for a while but most of the information is there, it might even take some pressure off Holly.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=9.0
There are two websites associated with the case as well...
www.justice4johnlamberton.com
http://johnlamberton.webs.com/
I can multi-task, Holly still is going to have me in her hair. My post in your section is awaiting approval. I still need alot more by way of facts and evidence used at trial.
-
Says who? People who know somethigng about firearms including me disagree. How many guns have you fired? I own several 22 rifles.
You suggest the gunshots could not be heard not based on any facts but rather because you want people to believe the nonsense claims you are making up are theoretically possible.
The jury were taken to the shooting range to hear the sound of the gun with and without silencer. Do we have any documentary evidence with the outcome?
I understand NGB over on Blue has considerable experience with guns and he has posted up that whether or not the silencer was attached would make very little difference in terms of sound. He also stated that more than 20 feet away (within WHF) and any sound is likely to be lost and very unlikely to have been heard outside even with windows open. Prior to actually entering WHF the nearest anyone got to it was an adjacent barn.
-
Holly, answer me honestly....who do you think was the most likely culprit, Jeremy or Sheila?
Sheila.
-
First of all he may not have staged the location. That might be the location he found her when he shot her. Moving her body could have left drag marks or a blood trail so he would have little choice but to leave her wherever he killed her.
If he did march her there and then shoot her it was to make it appear that she killed herself after shooting June.
Your assertion that Sheila was alive when police broke in is absurd in addition to there being no evidence at all to support it. Police and Jeremy would have heard the shots fired by her, the gun had no supporessor which means it would have been even louder than usual and even with the suppressor it was still not silent. Moreover, the blood would have been wet and fresh not dried like it was. The only "wet blood" was pockets inside her mouth.
You intentionally make up nonsense to support your position because you have no real evidence upon which to claim Jeremy is innocent.
You even keep intentionally lying by saying the ME determined the only contact shot was against Nicholas though the finding was the only sure contact shot was her fatal throat shot.
You are just digging your hole deeper each time you make up nonsense.
If you want nonsense I suggest you take a look at the late Robert Boutflour's claims about the location of SC's body:
The late Robert Boutflour claims the following:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=246.0;attach=639
"Excerpt from RB's diary on 11th August 1985:
"Wake up Sheila, Mummy wants you to say prayers with her, bring your bible, give me your arm, I'll help you". When in their mother's bedroom, "lie down here darling, put the bible on your chest" the bible is placed on her chest, "give me your hand Sheila darling". The gun has been rested on the bible, the hands are taken, the left hand is placed on the end of the barrell under the chin as the right hand is placed on the trigger guard and the thumb pressed onto the triger. bang - Sheila has committed suicide!!"
-
Sheila.
And your evidence for this is?
-
The jury were taken to the shooting range to hear the sound of the gun with and without silencer. Do we have any documentary evidence with the outcome?
I understand NGB over on Blue has considerable experience with guns and he has posted up that whether or not the silencer was attached would make very little difference in terms of sound. He also stated that more than 20 feet away (within WHF) and any sound is likely to be lost and very unlikely to have been heard outside even with windows open. Prior to actually entering WHF the nearest anyone got to it was an adjacent barn.
I doubt very much if Neil Bellis has fired a .22 rifle inside his house. As for nobody being around the farmhouse you are wrong yet again. There were police officers posted on every side and Jeremy walked around the entire property with several officers even before the firearms team arrived and a safe zone was established.
-
The pathologist never said it is common to find suicide victims who died from 2 shots. Multiple gunshot suicides are rare not common. More importantly the pathologist said the fatal shot was fired first. She can't have pulled the second shot because she was already dead.
That is why you are now making up your own nonsense as usual to try to pretend she could have fired the second shot even though she was dead.
I explained what a cadaveric spasm is and how it works. I even explained under what situations it is called death grip and why. I explained how guns work. How can muscles freezing exactly in the state they are in at the time of death cause a gun that is not full auto to fire?
I actually backed up my points while you didn't. You never explain and prove anything. You make things up merely. You made up the claim that a cadaveric spasm is going to result in a second shot and worse you assert that she suffered from such a spasm even though no evidence was found by the pathologist and if her hands did freeze in the position they were in at the time of death then she definitely wasn't holding the rifle. Moreover as I pointed out the weapon's recoil would force it up not down thus even if she had still been alive a few seconds and able to push the trigger again the second would would have been higher not lower.
My theories that you say you refuse to fall for are not theories but rather facts. I take into account ALL available evidence and information and make an assessment based thereupon. You refuse to accept facts and evidence and instead make up your own like ignoring no evidence of death grip was found and assering it anyway as a possibility.
Since you want to discuss the likes of me and the likes of you I will do so.
I do not make up a position out of thin air because it is what I wish to believe and then seek out anything I can use to justify my position. I do not make up evidence or claims to support my position. I research all available evidence, evaluate the accuracy of that evidence and I follow the evidence where it takes me. That is how I come up with a position, I don't make up a position in advance I let the evidence determine what my position will be on any given issue.
You don't follow the evidence. You make up the position you want to take and then you look for evidence that can support your claims but if you can't find any then in that case you make it up. You ignore common sense and absolute facts to suit your agenda.
Your arguments consist of irrational desperation. Anytime the pathologist says something you don't like you ignore it, especially his damaging testimony. The pathologist found that Sheila's fatal wound was the only sure contact shot of any of the 25 wounds the victims suffered. He identified other shots that could possibly have been contact shots but he doubted it he believes they were simply close shopts. The pathologist declared that it was a virtual certaintly that a contact wound to the location where the fatal shot was delivered would result in back spatter. He said he was surprised that there was no back spatter in the rifle. He said this made sense only after the suppressor was provided to him and her blood type was found in the suppressor. He said the fact the rifle had no back spatter but the suppressor did indicated that she was shot with the suppressor attached when the fatal shot was fired. Of all 25 shots fired the only one for sure that he determined to be a contact wound was Sheila's fatal wound and he said based on the location it is a vurtual certaintly there would be back spatter.
You ignored his assessments and outright lied claiming that the only wound he determined to be a contact wound was to Nicholas. Next you made the unsupported claim that back spatter is rare. You completely ignored the required analysis to assess whether back spatter is likely. First and foremost that means the location of the shot. Some areas of the body are much more likely to result in back spatter than others. The location in question was extremely likely. A medical professional actually examined the body and made an assessment of how likely back spatter would be based on the exact location of the wound. But this evidence and conclusion completely demolish your position that Jeremy is innocent.
Do you accept the truth? No Do you seek out an expert who can analyze the body and come to different conclusions based on solid science? no you simply pretend the evidence doesn't exist and make up the claim back spatter would be unlikely to occur.
I started my research on the JB website and entertained the possiiblity he was innocent. The more research I did the more I realize his supporters are resorting to lies not valid argument supported by credible evidence. I independently came to the same conclusion as Jeremy's prosecutors, I did not simply adopt their views wholesale. I followed the evidence and tha tis how I know Jeremy is guilty. I don't just believe he is guilty the evidence is so overwhelming there is no doubt at all.
Why should I just let you run around spouting nonsense unchallenged? When nonsense goes unchallenged then it means ignorant people are more likely to fall for it. Is your problem that I stnad in the way of your propaganda campaign? I love to debate and I am interested in accurate information and the truth being published so that is where I stand. When I see inaccurate infromation posted I challenge it, simple as that.
Lol Scipio and you accuse me of nonsense and BS!
I stopped after the first sentence but you are once again wrong in your assertions which are never backed up with any documentary evidence:
With regard to suicide by multiple gunshot wounds the pathologist actually stated:
"Suicide with two shots does occur. I have experienced four of five in the past".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=738
You claim the pathologist said the fatal shot was fired first. This again is simply untrue. This is what he ACTUALLY stated:
"The upper wound to the neck would have been fatal virtually instantaneously. The lower wound had caused substantial haemorrhage into soft tissues of the neck, principally from the right jugular vein. In my view this injury, although life threatening, would not have caused rapid death as in the other wound.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=672
It is absurd to assert that the first wound was fatal. If this was the case the pathologist would have confirmed murder or introduced some condition like cadaveric state.
I have not gone through the rest of your post as it is obvious you make it up as you go along and never include links to support your assertions. Oh I forgot no need is there because you just happen to be a lawyer, gun expert, pathologist, psychologist all rolled into one. Nice try my friend 8@??)(
-
I doubt very much if Neil Bellis has fired a .22 rifle inside his house. As for nobody being around the farmhouse you are wrong yet again. There were police officers posted on every side and Jeremy walked around the entire property with several officers even before the firearms team arrived and a safe zone was established.
I didn't say nobody was around the WHF I said the closest was an adjacent barn. I am well aware of the position of the firearms team.
-
And your evidence for this is?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=77.msg136700#msg136700
-
Malcolm Fletcher was the firearms expert he didn't inspect the bodies. Vanezis inspected the bodies and he determined the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot. The witness to defer to is Vanezis because he is the one who inspected the bodies not FLether so Flether has no basis to make any assertions about which shot was a contact shot or not. Moreover, Vanezis is the one with the medical knowledge not Fletcher.
He said they APPEAR to be contact or close contact. Other victims also incurred wounds which appear to be contact or close contact.
-
The jury were taken to the shooting range to hear the sound of the gun with and without silencer. Do we have any documentary evidence with the outcome?
I understand NGB over on Blue has considerable experience with guns and he has posted up that whether or not the silencer was attached would make very little difference in terms of sound. He also stated that more than 20 feet away (within WHF) and any sound is likely to be lost and very unlikely to have been heard outside even with windows open. Prior to actually entering WHF the nearest anyone got to it was an adjacent barn.
That is BS that 20 feet away you would not be able to hear the shots or that from in another room or outside the house you would not hear the shots. I have far more considerable experience with firearms than any clown who posts at "blue". I have fired every caliber imaginable from .50 browning to 22 rimfire.
Shots make noise for several different reasons. Unless ammunition is subsonic it produces a sonic boom. Anything at or over roughly 1100FPS will result in a sonic boom but because of temperature variations and other variations you can still have a sonic boom at over 1050FPS it depends on a variety of factors.
The other main source of noise are the gasses etc that are expelled (primarily out of the barrel). Just using subsonic ammo is not enough to significantly reduce the report of a weapon. You need to use a suppressor to handle the gases and subsonic ammo to handle the sonic boom.
When someone says there is no marked difference between firing with or without a suppressor that is a dead giveaway they are either intentionally lying or never fired a weapon using subsonic rounds with and without a suppressor. Using ordinary rounds there is little difference between a supressed and nonsupressed weapon. Using subsonic rounds (that actually work) with a suppressor and without have a siginficant difference in report.
If there is a lot of noise then people outside a house might miss a gun going off in the house. They could think it is just a drinking glass breaking or something like that. Cops specifically outside because they think there might be someone inside with a gun are going to hear a shot form an unsupressed weapon and are going to hear it especially if in the house.
You just stepped in it because you are touching upon why Jeremy's own claims are not credible. Testimony of others was that this gun was stored in the closet with the suppressor on it and that is was always used with the suppressor. This is especially the case for shooting rabbits. Rabbits are small targets so that alone makes it a challenge to shoot them. But worse they have great reaction time. They react when they hear a shot fired and that reaction is enough to miss. They don't have to move too far for the round to miss. That is the main reason why suppressors are used when shooting rabbits. The benefit of slightly reduced recoil, less damage to the shooters ears, less disturbance to third parties are all nice but the main reason for using the suppressor is so rabbits will not have time to react.
Jeremy first stated he had not used the weapon the week prior to the murders. To try to contradict his cousin's statement about the gun being stored with the suppressor and scope attached he later changed to claiming he had used it at various times throughout the week and claimed he had used it both with and without the suppressor and scope.
Why would he remove the suppressor and scope to shoot bunnies or even for target shooting? It makes no sense. He claimed it was necessary to remove them to put the gun in its case but the gun was not usually stored in its case. It was a hassle to have to take the gun from its case and then attach and zero the scope and attach the suppressor. It was easier to just store the weapon as is in the closet like was done with so many other rifles. That is what they typically did according to everyone who used these rifles- except Jeremy only he had a different story and his story makes no sense. They frequently used guns to shoot pests. They needed to grab them and use them right away to get the pests they didn't have time to zero weapons first. Given the frequency of use it made absolutely no sense to take the weapon apart to put in a case. That is what you do when you want to store it for a long period of time without use.
Jeremy says he used it with and without the accessories. He says that sometimes he was too lazy to reattach the accessories and just would use it as is without the accessories. That makes no sense if you are lazy you don't take the accessories off you leave them there and store the gun with them attached which is what they usually did. You would definitely want the accessories attached in order to shoot rabbits. It takes a minute to screw a suppressor on anyway so even if too lazy to attach the scope because of all the effort involved there is little effort to attach a suppressor. To shoot a rabbit you definitely want the suppressor. There was another gun in the closet that had a suppressor attached already why wouldn't he grab that weapon if he actually intended to shoot rabbits as claimed?
Naturally the answer to this quesiton on the "blue" forum is to make up the lie that the suppressor didn't really do anything. That lie is to try to make Jeremy's claims credible and seem like they make sense. But if that were the case no one would bother to buy a suppressor at all. The reason why people buy suppressors is because they do make an appreciable difference when used in combo with subsonic ammunition. It makes a difference on he shooter's ears and on the target hearing the shot coming.
In keeping with your nature you always do everything backwards you don't care about logic or evidence.
The burden is on you to establish that Sheila died significantly later than the other victims. Vanezis found no evidence that she died hours after the others. You need that kind of evidence to suggest your claim is even plausible. You don't have such evidence. You are not following the available evidence you are just making things up.
You have an agenda and in support of that agenda you ignore reality and make things up. In turn this means you have no credibility. WHy do you care so little about having credibility that you continue to ignore reality and make things up?
His claim he was going to go shoot rabbits without the scope and suppressor is downright stupid.
-
Rivlin was limited by the evidence including his own expert. While you have no problem with just making up anything you feel like a lawyer cannot do that. A lawyer doesn't testify he gets evidence admitted through witnesses.
How could blood accidentally get inside the suppressor? The blood on the outside, particularly the blood on the rear part near the threads could have been (and obviously was) deposited by accident but blood that sprayed inside to the various baffles can't have gotten in by accident. How can human blood accidentally spray or even drip inside?
At any rate it wasn't dripped which harms your claim it was planted. Instead of just dripping there was spray which deposited on various baffles. The defense expert tested the gun after the prosecution already removed all visible blood. He still found blood on the first 7 baffles though. His findings about the blood type mirrored the prosecution's findings. Both found it was almost certainly Sheila's blood type but there was a very slight chance it could have been June and Nevill's blood mixed.
Based on these findings the only argument a lawyer could make is to assert the blood was June and Nevill's not Sheila's to try to dispute that the silencer was definitely affixed when Sheila's fatal shot was delivered. It is a weak argument but the only one permissible.
What is absurd is the argument you make. It is absurd to suggest Sheila's blood type got inside by accident. It is even more absurd to claim that the cousins knew Sheila's blood type (how would they know this), and had a cousin with the same blood type plant his blood inside. Moreover he didn't just tdrip it in he somehow sprayed it in to simulate back spatter.
The fact you claim your argument is more rational than the one made at trial illustrates just how ridiculous you bias is really is in this case.
The best part is that the suppressor was tested for DNA and nothing was found as relating to the cousin whose blood you suggest was planted. You suggest other DNA was transferred but his was entirely washed away. Even today with modern technology the defense would have little basis to suggest the blood had been planted.
You are embarrassing yourself by the claims you are making.
First of all posting all the evidence in the world about how some people commit murder suicides doesn't negate all the evidence of Jeremy's guilt which you conventiently ignore time and again.
At any rate, the events at WHF do not fit anything you posted.
Those who commit murder suicide because of depression typically kill their children and spouse if they have one before committing suicide. They kill their dependents and often spouse. They don't kill their parents or extended family as well typically. Mothers often kill their kids and then themselves, they often don't kill their spouse or ex-spouse.
Sheila suffereing from depression and deciding to kill herself and her kids doesn't explain murdering her parents.
This is why the psychotic episode claim is made for why she killed her father. It is suggested that she viewed him as the devil and that she killed him for that reason. This still doesn't explain killing the mother too.
Similarly Sheila having a psychotic episode and attributing her father as the devil does not account for the other murders.
Your past suggestions and the suggestions of other Jeremy apologists conflate various murders and murder suicides theories together. This is that one case where supposedly Sheila suffered from everything all at once. All at once she decided to kill herself and her kids because of her long term depression. At the same time she had a psychotic episode where she had delusions that her dad was the devil and her mother was some other evil entity she had to kill.
You fail to account for the thought that went into removing the telephone from the bedroom in advance ot make sure the victims could not phone for help. How would she know in advance she would have delusions and need the phone removed and why would the phone even matter to her in such circumstances. Why would she care if they used the phone as she was killing them? It is not as if it would matter if they would ID her as the killer over the phone before she killed them.
But consistency is not something you care about.
Indeed while you post all these links and insist it was a murder suicide for depression or the like you assert she didn't commit suicide right away. You assert she killed everyone else then showered and changed her clothes and hoped to get away with it but afte rpolice broke in then she decided to kill herself knowing she couldn't get away with it.
You don't even subscribe to your own theories you jump all over to try to find a way to claim Jeremy is innocent. You are a mess.
We are supposed to believe she had a psychotic episode and thus murdered her father and murder thinking they were the devil or something else of that sort. Then because of her severe depression she killed her kids and herself. So she suffered from 2 different things.
If you want to talk about SC's psychological profile you need to factor in adoption, attachment and neglect. This is what sets SC and JB apart. We know JB has been screened on numerous occasions by different psychologists using various methods. None have found any trace of psychopathy or any other personality disorder or mental illness. We know SC was mentally ill but what the psychiatrists appear to have overlooked is;
-adoption psychology
-attachment disorder)
) June's mental illness 1959 as a result of adopting SC
-neglect )
We also know SC met with her birth mother just weeks before the murders.
"This article describes the possible etiology of sudden, uncharacteristic violence in adoptees. A "cumulative trauma" is identified that may foster unrealistic fantasies of the birth parents and lead to dissociation of parts of the self, including rageful feelings towards adoptive and birth parents. Real or perceived rejection may trigger emergence of this rage, with sometimes murderous results. Implication for the mental status defense as described"
http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/catathymic-violence.php
-
Sheila.
Holly, whilst I think you're a bit barmy, I also think you're a great asset to this forum.
Hope you don't mind me saying! ?{)(**
-
If you want to talk about SC's psychological profile you need to factor in adoption, attachment and neglect. This is what sets SC and JB apart. We know JB has been screened on numerous occasions by different psychologists using various methods. None have found any trace of psychopathy or any other personality disorder or mental illness. We know SC was mentally ill but what the psychiatrists appear to have overlooked is;
-adoption psychology
-attachment disorder)
) June's mental illness 1959 as a result of adopting SC
-neglect )
We also know SC met with her birth mother just weeks before the murders.
"This article describes the possible etiology of sudden, uncharacteristic violence in adoptees. A "cumulative trauma" is identified that may foster unrealistic fantasies of the birth parents and lead to dissociation of parts of the self, including rageful feelings towards adoptive and birth parents. Real or perceived rejection may trigger emergence of this rage, with sometimes murderous results. Implication for the mental status defense as described"
http://www.adoptionunchartedwaters.com/catathymic-violence.php
No I don't need to factor in adoption.
The issue is the murders and her alleged suicide. The issue is to look in detail at the causes behind murders and murder suicides of those with mental conditions and determine whether there is any evidence that occurred in this case.
It is alleged that she suffered from a psychotic episode. The issue is what evidence is there to establish she suffered from a psychotic episode and if she did what shape would such an episode take and who would she kill.
You keep trying to turn the inquiry upside down to suit your own agenda instead of following the facts.
The fact of the matter is that so far as murder suicides are concerned people in depression give up on life and decide to end their life and those they are responsible for taking care of. Some go further and decide to take as many innocent people as they can with them but that features much more than just depression at work. Her depression, in fact her schizophrenia, was not severe and even when it was first discovered years earlier none of her medical professionals thought it was serious enough that she would ever harm her children or herself. her case was MILD not severe. Moreover she was receiving treatment. Therein lies a big distinction between cases where suicide/murders are known to have occurred. Known cases involve people who were either not being treated or who were being treated but stopped taking their medication. It is difficult to find any cases where people with mental conditions kill themselves or others because of mental problems while on their medication unless under the influence of some other drug that induces psychosis.
Jeremy supporters consistently lie on this issue. They suggest she was not taking her medication or that it didn't work because it ran out. It was found in her system it had not run out. The next bogus claim is that because her dosage was lowered this means it would not likely be effective. Tests show that 100MG has no appreciable difference between 200MG. The standard dosage today is 50-100MG because higher dosages have much greater side effects with little difference in effectiveness. Only severe cases warrant more.
Only hours before her death her aunt spoke with her over the phone, she was docile and quiet not agitated.
Everyone would normally go to sleep shortly after that. So what would suddenly agitate her to a tremndous degree at a late hour so much that her medicine would stop working and she woudl ggo wake people up to even yell at them?
If she were depressed and wanted to end her life and her dependents why kill her parents too? That is not part of the pattern even of someone who is not medicated let alone medicated. Her father was among her most beloved people. Her mother is the one she had a problem with. So a different theory is posited for killing him. It is suggested her medication stopped working and she had a delusion he was the devil and she needed to kill him or that he had the devil in him and she needed to beat it out of him. That would not explain the deaths of the others though. People deluded like this will kill the one viewed as the devil not everyone. They will even wait calmly for police to arrest them afterwards. At any rate there are no examples of people who were actively taking their medication who ended up killing anyone else because of a delusion.
So we are supposed to buy that she suffered simultaneously from psychotic delusion and suicidal depression and both resulted in the various deaths. How many reported cases are there of this among medicated psyc patients? None.
You ignore all the issues of significance including the preparations made by the killer which evidence the killer intended to escape liability and go on living alone. That is the only reason for removing the phone. Also for putting the suppressor away.
You distorted the case of a man who killed himself with his family erroneously claiming he washed his car after he murdered them to suggest it is likely she took a bath and changed her clothes after killing everyone which again would be totally contrary to the murder suicide theory you allege.
Your claims are a complete mess. You are just embarrassing yourself.
Trying to divert attention to talk about her adoption will not work with me. I can't be dazzled with BS or diverted.
-
You can talk forever about how Sheila's upbringing/mental illness may have meant she was capable of a psychotic episode but when all is said and done the evidence proves that on that occasion it just didn't happen. Jeremy knew she was fragile and used that as way to get what he wanted by killing his family and get away with it.
-
You can talk forever about how Sheila's upbringing/mental illness may have meant she was capable of a psychotic episode but when all is said and done the evidence proves that on that occasion it just didn't happen. Jeremy knew she was fragile and used that as way to get what he wanted by killing his family and get away with it.
Allow me to present the typical Jeremy defender's response.
Sheila's medicine stopped working, she had a psychotic episode and she decided that everyone in the house was the devil and that she needed to kill them all. She assumed her best chance to kill them would be at night when no one else was around and they were sleeping. She thus planned her attack and her calm was all an act. The calm was focused rage. She planned to get away with these murders so she removed the phone from the bedroom. How did she intend to blame the murders on someone else? She died so we will never know what her plan was. After the murders she bathed and changed her clothing and went to bed. She woke up to find the police around the house. By this point she had snapped out of her psychotic episode she was having. She was disturbed by what she had done and realized there was no way out because there were cops all around outside so she decided to kill herself and pulled the trigger just as they broke in so it masked the sound of the gunshots.
The most well planned out psychotic episode in history. Something out of a book or movie because it is the only place you would find such fictional nonsense.
-
These things take years to come to light as with the financial crisis when Lord Turner stated the following:
“I think we – as the authorities, central banks, regulators, those involved today – are the inheritors of a 50-year-long, large intellectual and policy mistake,” he says.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9934819/Adair-Turner-Bankers-no-longer-in-denial.html
I know for a FACT that JB has many influential supporters. I am sure some will be familiar to you when the time is right 8(0(* I suspect you will have your hands full moderating this forum later in the year when the whole world will be watching and Misty's owner will be the least of your worries. A new CCRC application winging its way and two new books to boot ?>)()<
Will the new books both be alleging that his case is an MOJ?
You seem very confident about Jeremy's prospects at the moment, any particular reason? What's going to happen later this year?
-
Will the new books both be alleging that his case is an MOJ?
You seem very confident about Jeremy's prospects at the moment, any particular reason? What's going to happen later this year?
Ooh, I know this one!
They're little, round and green, and Jeremy Bamber thinks they should be cooked for 45 minutes. 8((()*/
-
Hello everyone in time i will read through everything on here so sorry if my questions have been asked before. I was wondering if SC was tested for gunshot residue.
-
Allow me to present the typical Jeremy defender's response...
She planned to get away with these murders so she removed the phone from the bedroom....
I'm assuming then it's uncontested by both sides that it was the murderer who removed the phone. I wonder why Bamber's supporters argue it necessarily means the sister did so to attempt a cover-up? As opposed to simply removing the ability for the victims to call for help, and preempting the possibility, however remote, of having responders arrive to interrupt the murders. Which would seem to me a more probable reason.
...there was no way out because there were cops all around outside so she decided to kill herself...
Is it dogma amongst typical or average Bamber supporters that the sister killed herself some hours after the murders? And not perhaps more immediately after showering and cleaning herself up?
-
I'm assuming then it's uncontested by both sides that it was the murderer who removed the phone. I wonder why Bamber's supporters argue it necessarily means the sister did so to attempt a cover-up? As opposed to simply removing the ability for the victims to call for help, and preempting the possibility, however remote, of having responders arrive to interrupt the murders. Which would seem to me a more probable reason.
If someone had removed the bedroom phone and simply hid it then that would be extremely suspicious. So instead someone hid the kitchen phone and replaced it with the bedroom phone presumably telling the victims it was broken. But it wasn't broken it was tested after the murders and was working fine.
What valid reason would there be to take the bedroom phone out of the bedroom, unplug a fully functioning kitchen phone, hide the kitchen phone and to plug the bedroom phone in the kitchen? The only explanation for this is that the killer did such.
Jeremy's supporters want to ignore that this happened but when challenged they have no valid argument to make accept admitting the killer did this and when they do they blame Sheila because she is the one they insist was the killer.
They were too far away from authorities and even neighbors for responders to be able to stop the killer unless the killer had a very limited ammo supply, ran out of ammo and had no other means to finish off the victims and they had to bleed to death. A killer who was determined to commit suicide after killing everyone else would not have any reason to worry in advance about moving the phone.
This is particularly true if the killer were Sheila. Shooting her parents in their bed would prevent them from using the phone. The phone would be a bigger concern if she had planned to shoot other adults in other rooms first and they might wake up and call someone.
So long as she was detemrined to commit suicide after killing everyone and didn't care if her identity was revealed she had no need to worry at all to worry about the bedroom phone being used. By the time even Jeremy could arrive and break in, it would be too late so long as she had sufficient ammo and there were hundreds of rounds in the house.
Is it dogma amongst typical or average Bamber supporters that the sister killed herself some hours after the murders? And not perhaps more immediately after showering and cleaning herself up?
Some of Jeremy's supporters are more irraitonal than others. The most irrational ones insist either police killed Sheila or she shot herself as police entered. Others suggest she shot herself soon after the others. Not all of them insist she bathed and changed her clothes. Some suggest she was wearing gloves. Others suggest the gunshot residue simply simply faded away from her body and clothing falsely asserting that gunshot residue simply dissipates all by itslef in the matter of a couple of hours. Jeremy's supporters change their claims depending upon what he claim is that they need to try to dispute.
If Sheila intended to commit murder suicide why would she take a bath and change her clothes before killing herself? Never are Jeremy's supporters able to explain this away. Those who respond typically will respond that maybe she didn't intend to kill herself and only decided to do so after she took the bath and changed.
That alters the entire dynamic of the crime though. That means her intention at the outset was to commit murder merely. That doesn't fit the claims made though of her having a psychotic episode.
His supporters like to tackle the case piecemeal. If you add up everything then their claims make no sense, are contradicted and fall apart. They want to take each issue in isolation and come up with some excuse to try to deal with that 1 issue.
-
"Some of Jeremy's supporters are more irrational than others." HO!! That's like saying that some of Jeremy Kyle's guests have 3 teeth rather than 2. And much as I'm fond of Holly and Ags, it's been almost 30 years now, and they're still hoping that Sheila ran up and down the stairs, barking like a dog. With a bullet in her throat. But no explanation for the second shot, or the lack of prints on the gun. Or how she had time to dry her hair after the "psychotic cleansing."
Tch.
-
Jeremy made numerous mistakes carrying out the murders which ultimately lead to his ridiculous claim of Sheila being the culprit falling apart. Putting the silencer in the cupboard (without cleaning it) as an attempt to hide it rather than leaving it near Sheila's body pretty much sells it for me. There is no plausable reason for Sheila to have done that, let alone have the ability to do so after being shot in the throat! JB's claim that his Father rang him puts him right in the frame, as does his inability to explain why he called his girlfriend after apparently receiving said call before calling the police - and not even 999 at that. Even without the actual evidence to prove his guilt I find it extremely difficult to believe Sheila was capable of the murders when Jeremy was the one planning on setting fire to WHF and trying to sell pictures of his dead sister days after her death.
-
Hello everyone in time i will read through everything on here so sorry if my questions have been asked before. I was wondering if SC was tested for gunshot residue.
Hi. No trace of gsr was found on Sheila. It's evident she hadn't fired a weapon that night unless she did somehow miraculously manage to wash her hands after doing so.
-
Jeremy made numerous mistakes carrying out the murders which ultimately lead to his ridiculous claim of Sheila being the culprit falling apart. Putting the silencer in the cupboard (without cleaning it) as an attempt to hide it rather than leaving it near Sheila's body pretty much sells it for me. There is no plausable reason for Sheila to have done that, let alone have the ability to do so after being shot in the throat! JB's claim that his Father rang him puts him right in the frame, as does his inability to explain why he called his girlfriend after apparently receiving said call before calling the police - and not even 999 at that. Even without the actual evidence to prove his guilt I find it extremely difficult to believe Sheila was capable of the murders when Jeremy was the one planning on setting fire to WHF and trying to sell pictures of his dead sister days after her death.
Nicely rounded up, Jodie. The biggest mistake that Bamber made was not smearing Ralph's blood on the phone. The call to Julie was a killer, and his behaviour before, during and after the funerals sealed the deal. Then...his feet on Ralph's desk, the disrespect, the mad selling of anything valuable, and the fact that he was "too busy" to attend the memorial.
So shabby.
-
Nicely rounded up, Jodie. The biggest mistake that Bamber made was not smearing Ralph's blood on the phone. The call to Julie was a killer, and his behaviour before, during and after the funerals sealed the deal. Then...his feet on Ralph's desk, the disrespect, the mad selling of anything valuable, and the fact that he was "too busy" to attend the memorial.
So shabby.
And, of course, the pathetic, dry-eyed faux grief at his parent's funeral. That he tried to record, but it didn't tape. And he was so pissed off about that.
But he salved his conscience by celebrating with champagne and lobster.
What a guy.
-
Nicely rounded up, Jodie. The biggest mistake that Bamber made was not smearing Ralph's blood on the phone. The call to Julie was a killer, and his behaviour before, during and after the funerals sealed the deal. Then...his feet on Ralph's desk, the disrespect, the mad selling of anything valuable, and the fact that he was "too busy" to attend the memorial.
So shabby.
I asked Jeremy this very question "why didn't you attend the memorial service for your parents?" He looked genuinely puzzled and said he was unaware that there ever was a service for them. He said they may have been mentioned at the normal Sunday service but he had no knowledge of an "official" memorial service. I can usually tell when Jeremy is lying and on this occasion I believed him. Also I have read Colin's book and there was no mention of a service and of course he was closer to the family than most.
Is this a nasty rumour which was started by someone wishing to discredit Jeremy further? If not I would like to see evidence of this service eg press reports etc. Failing that, rumours should not be continually repeated as fact. I apologise in advance if anyone can provide evidence of this memorial service.
-
As regards a memorial service. I can't find evidence that confirms there was a service or not, however, common sense dictates to me the following-: the murders took place on 7th August 1985 and the funeral a little over a week later, at this time it was classed as four murders and a suicide and within hours of this happening, there were reporters all over the village. With the funerals being so close to the event and all the publicity around it, it doesn't make any sense to have held a memorial service, it would have been chaos and probably might have turned somewhat disrespectful to have held a memorial with so many reporters around and the possibility of 'tourists' showing up to have a look, if that makes sense-I hope you'll understand how I'm looking at this.
However, there was a plaque erected and a light outside as a memorial to the Bamber's (Mr and Mrs Bamber) as they had been church wardens and whether this was then a chance for the villagers to come together to remember and pay tribute to the Bambers including Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel I don't know but this would make more sense to me and it wouldn't have attracted as much press and media intrusion or random strangers turning up either.
Its quite possible this happened either while Jeremy Bambers trial was up and running and the media attention was focused on that or after the trial had finished I don't know. It was probably a quiet and sombre affair in reflection of the people and the event and I can imagine it being very low key.
-
Nicely rounded up, Jodie. The biggest mistake that Bamber made was not smearing Ralph's blood on the phone. The call to Julie was a killer, and his behaviour before, during and after the funerals sealed the deal. Then...his feet on Ralph's desk, the disrespect, the mad selling of anything valuable, and the fact that he was "too busy" to attend the memorial.
So shabby.
Thanks. I think it didn't even enter Jeremy's mind to put blood on the phone. Its probably something he didn't think would be significant and that simply leaving the receiver off the hook would be enough to give weight to his claim that the line went dead/Ralph was interrupted. The fact that police would be able to determine the sequence of events and indeed that Ralph would have been unable to speak with the injuries he'd sustained is something I doubt JB would have been able to predict. After all, he didn't think the fact that Sheila's body was pristine would matter either.
-
Something else I found interesting was JB asking the police if it was possible to tell what order his family had died. A rather curious question, which he said was about the inheritance (shows where his mind was - your entire family has just been wiped out and your main focus is money!)
I've always wondered if he deliberately killed Sheila last just in case it was possible to tell what order they'd died, or if he killed her before June and/or Nevill and was anxious about the true order of deaths being discovered?
-
Something else I found interesting was JB asking the police if it was possible to tell what order his family had died. A rather curious question, which he said was about the inheritance (shows where his mind was - your entire family has just been wiped out and your main focus is money!)
I've always wondered if he deliberately killed Sheila last just in case it was possible to tell what order they'd died, or if he killed her before June and/or Nevill and was anxious about the true order of deaths being discovered?
As a practical matter there is little way to tell who dies first or last unless there are different causes of death such as smoke inhalation killing someone where there is a fire but others not having smoke in their lungs, that would indicate some were killed before the fire was set.
Even today with all our various tools avaiable the matter of minutes cannot be distinguished and on extremely rare occasions where they can determine someone would have survived longer than another victim it won't necessarily say who was shot first.
With that being said in order for his farce to be true Sheila needed to kill herself last or the others would not have been dead. I doubt he believed police would be able to tell who was shot first though. So he didn't really have to worry about it except he couldn't kill her far in advance of the others as that might be able to be discerned.
The claim he needed to know for inheritence sake is actually BS. Which parent died first matters not. Depending upon their wills it may or may not matter how long passed between their deaths and hers. Most wills have a clause that requires death of a beneficiary to occur 1 month later for the assest to pass under the dead beneficiary's will. If that is not the case with their will then potentially her will if she had one could have dicated what happened to her share. Either way he had to kill his nephews to inherit everything or they would get Sheila's share. That is why he had to do it when all of them were together.
If Sheila was depressed and wanted to kill herself and her kids she could have done so whenever she wanted. The killing of her parents was something Jeremy needed not her. The timing of day when it happened also was suited for Jeremy's purposes.
I think Jeremy was asking police though just to see if they were on to him and so he could see what potentially they had to dispute the notion Sheila killed them all and committed suicide.
I personally suspect he might have brought her in the bedroom and shot all 3 of them and while aiming at others that is how Nevill was able to escape the room. He thought the 2 shots into Nevill's face were sufficient but they were not and then he shot 2 more times as he was moving so hit him in the arm and shoulder only. That could explain his concern. Maybe Nevill was shot the final 4 times after Sheila was already dead.
We will neve rknow for sure though.
-
Holly, whilst I think you're a bit barmy, I also think you're a great asset to this forum.
Hope you don't mind me saying! ?{)(**
Thank you Sika ?{)(**
Hopefully in a few months time I will have completed the sale of my biz and will have some spare time on my hands. Subject to agreement from John I hope to set up a section on the forum entitled 'Consumer Affairs' (perhaps a bit sexier/more original) where we can compare energy tariffs, mobile phone contracts etc and a whole host of other impartial and relevant info for consumers. Basically putting members/the consumer in the driving seat 8(0(* 8(>(( It kinda fits with the name of the forum 'UK justice' and will certainly distinguish us from our main cough competitor 'Blue'. There may be some commercial benefits to this in the future too. Yes I know comparison sites exist but we will find an edge ?>)()< Indeed I can see one already which just needs developing 8(0(*
-
I've always wondered if he deliberately killed Sheila last just in case it was possible to tell what order they'd died, or if he killed her before June and/or Nevill and was anxious about the true order of deaths being discovered?
The most likely order was June, Nevill, then Sheila, with the twins either first or last.
The blood on June Bamber's pillow indicates that she was in bed when first shot, Nevill probably getting up to defend his wife and himself. Nevill then being shot tries to escape the onslaught or is forced downstairs, reaching the kitchen before he too was killed.
Sheila if in a haloperidol-induced drowsy state led from her bedroom to her parents' bedroom, or if fully awake and aware tried to hide - in the twins' bedroom, neighbouring box-room or by her parents' bedside where she was discovered.
Jeremy Bamber might have ensured June was dead by the last shot between her eyes as she lay by her bedroom door.
-
Thanks. I think it didn't even enter Jeremy's mind to put blood on the phone. Its probably something he didn't think would be significant and that simply leaving the receiver off the hook would be enough to give weight to his claim that the line went dead/Ralph was interrupted. The fact that police would be able to determine the sequence of events and indeed that Ralph would have been unable to speak with the injuries he'd sustained is something I doubt JB would have been able to predict. After all, he didn't think the fact that Sheila's body was pristine would matter either.
Hi Jodie. Welcome to the forum ?{)(**
Have you ever thought that the phone off the hook in the kitchen might be a complete red herring? Ie the natural assumption is that JB said he received a call and the phone was found off the hook therefore the two are connected? According to JB he received a call from NB. JB was apparently cut off and then found himself unable to reconnect with NB. Assuming this is true how do we know that:
1. No one had been shot at this stage and the situation developed whilst NB was on the phone to JB (office/kitchen) and NB curtailed conversation by dropping phone.
2. The situation escalated and NB cut off JB to call EP (as per log) and then left phone (kitchen) off hook to deal with sound of gunshot prior to being shot himself.
3. Phone replaced after 2 and SC later attempted to make a farewell call to a friend/Freddie/Colin/Birth mother or any other person even JB and left phone off hook.
I believe JB innocent but I don't believe that NB would call JB had anyone been shot. Absolutely not he would call emergency services.
-
Something else I found interesting was JB asking the police if it was possible to tell what order his family had died. A rather curious question, which he said was about the inheritance (shows where his mind was - your entire family has just been wiped out and your main focus is money!)
I've always wondered if he deliberately killed Sheila last just in case it was possible to tell what order they'd died, or if he killed her before June and/or Nevill and was anxious about the true order of deaths being discovered?
According to JB he was asked this info (standard) by solicitor/accountant? Generally speaking most married couples have 'mirror' wills ie if husband dies all goes to wife and vice-versa ie wife dies all goes to husband. Upon second death ie husband or wife it is usual for the children to be the main beneficiaries usually in equal shares. As far as I can see that's how it was in this case? There were small bequests eg Jean Boutell (housekeeper) 1K from June. I believe NB and June had slightly different wills eg Sheila was to receive June's share of OCP freehold and JB farm land? In reality it would have made little difference in terms of order of deaths. Sheila was divorced. The twins were not named beneficiaries of the wills. Therefore by default all would have ended up with JB regardless of order of deaths:
As SC was deceased and therefore NB and June's estate hadn't passed into SC's estate JB was next of kin to
NB
June
and therefore the sole beneficiary
-
No I don't need to factor in adoption.
The issue is the murders and her alleged suicide. The issue is to look in detail at the causes behind murders and murder suicides of those with mental conditions and determine whether there is any evidence that occurred in this case.
It is alleged that she suffered from a psychotic episode. The issue is what evidence is there to establish she suffered from a psychotic episode and if she did what shape would such an episode take and who would she kill.
You keep trying to turn the inquiry upside down to suit your own agenda instead of following the facts.
The fact of the matter is that so far as murder suicides are concerned people in depression give up on life and decide to end their life and those they are responsible for taking care of. Some go further and decide to take as many innocent people as they can with them but that features much more than just depression at work. Her depression, in fact her schizophrenia, was not severe and even when it was first discovered years earlier none of her medical professionals thought it was serious enough that she would ever harm her children or herself. her case was MILD not severe. Moreover she was receiving treatment. Therein lies a big distinction between cases where suicide/murders are known to have occurred. Known cases involve people who were either not being treated or who were being treated but stopped taking their medication. It is difficult to find any cases where people with mental conditions kill themselves or others because of mental problems while on their medication unless under the influence of some other drug that induces psychosis.
Jeremy supporters consistently lie on this issue. They suggest she was not taking her medication or that it didn't work because it ran out. It was found in her system it had not run out. The next bogus claim is that because her dosage was lowered this means it would not likely be effective. Tests show that 100MG has no appreciable difference between 200MG. The standard dosage today is 50-100MG because higher dosages have much greater side effects with little difference in effectiveness. Only severe cases warrant more.
Only hours before her death her aunt spoke with her over the phone, she was docile and quiet not agitated.
Everyone would normally go to sleep shortly after that. So what would suddenly agitate her to a tremndous degree at a late hour so much that her medicine would stop working and she woudl ggo wake people up to even yell at them?
If she were depressed and wanted to end her life and her dependents why kill her parents too? That is not part of the pattern even of someone who is not medicated let alone medicated. Her father was among her most beloved people. Her mother is the one she had a problem with. So a different theory is posited for killing him. It is suggested her medication stopped working and she had a delusion he was the devil and she needed to kill him or that he had the devil in him and she needed to beat it out of him. That would not explain the deaths of the others though. People deluded like this will kill the one viewed as the devil not everyone. They will even wait calmly for police to arrest them afterwards. At any rate there are no examples of people who were actively taking their medication who ended up killing anyone else because of a delusion.
So we are supposed to buy that she suffered simultaneously from psychotic delusion and suicidal depression and both resulted in the various deaths. How many reported cases are there of this among medicated psyc patients? None.
You ignore all the issues of significance including the preparations made by the killer which evidence the killer intended to escape liability and go on living alone. That is the only reason for removing the phone. Also for putting the suppressor away.
You distorted the case of a man who killed himself with his family erroneously claiming he washed his car after he murdered them to suggest it is likely she took a bath and changed her clothes after killing everyone which again would be totally contrary to the murder suicide theory you allege.
Your claims are a complete mess. You are just embarrassing yourself.
Trying to divert attention to talk about her adoption will not work with me. I can't be dazzled with BS or diverted.
Well without wishing to sound rude I think you do!
You will struggle to find a modern day psychologist that will disagree with the fact that a psychology exists peculiar to adoptive families especially those pertaining to the 'closed' system. It is futile to discuss SC's mental illness/psychological profile without factoring this in. We know for a fact that this loomed large in SC's mind hence the meeting with her birth mother only weeks before the murders. If you want to deny this be my guest but as I said you will struggle to find a mental health professional the world over who agrees with you. Moreover what throws it off the Richter scale is June's mental illness circa 1959 as a result of adopting SC. I would suggest this is how June ended up with a bullet between the eyes. I do not for one minute think June intended any harm to SC but the fact is she did albeit unintentionally:
The Beginning
SC - subjected to June's mental illness circa 1959 and possible neglect and attachment disorder as a result of
JB - n/a
The End
SC - met with her birth mother for the first time May '85
JB - showed no interest in his birth family until after his failed '02 appeal
This is what sets the adopted siblings apart and as I said you will struggle to find a modern day psychologist/psychiatrist etc the world over to see it otherwise. Especially against a backdrop of spurious 'evidence' 8(0(*
-
Will the new books both be alleging that his case is an MOJ?
You seem very confident about Jeremy's prospects at the moment, any particular reason? What's going to happen later this year?
We don't have a zippy mouth emoticon?
I feel confident that in the near future JB's case will once again be centre stage. This time I think it will be different in terms of no stone left being left unturned 8(0(*
-
Hi Jodie. Welcome to the forum ?{)(**
Have you ever thought that the phone off the hook in the kitchen might be a complete red herring? Ie the natural assumption is that JB said he received a call and the phone was found off the hook therefore the two are connected? According to JB he received a call from NB. JB was apparently cut off and then found himself unable to reconnect with NB. Assuming this is true how do we know that:
1. No one had been shot at this stage and the situation developed whilst NB was on the phone to JB (office/kitchen) and NB curtailed conversation by dropping phone.
2. The situation escalated and NB cut off JB to call EP (as per log) and then left phone (kitchen) off hook to deal with sound of gunshot prior to being shot himself.
3. Phone replaced after 2 and SC later attempted to make a farewell call to a friend/Freddie/Colin/Birth mother or any other person even JB and left phone off hook.
I believe JB innocent but I don't believe that NB would call JB had anyone been shot. Absolutely not he would call emergency services.
Hi Holly, it's great to talk to you. You bring up some interesting points although as I'm sure you're used to on here I think we may disagree on a few!
It could indeed be a red herring and not be connected to the murders but I find that unlikely. The fact the phone was in the kitchen in the first place raises my suspicions. If that phone was usually in the bedroom why was it in the kitchen at all? It seems very convenient that there was no phone in the bedroom meaning when the action started there was no way to call anyone for help without having to go downstairs. Someone not wanting to get caught would move the phone out of the way so as to prevent anyone from quickly using it and revealing the identity of the culprit. Do you have any theories as to why the phone was downstairs? You could argue I suppose that the fact it had been moved again is a red herring and has nothing to do with the murders but I find that hard to believe.
If Sheila did attempt to make a call from the kitchen how does that explain the lack of debris/blood on her feet? Or do you think she may have attempted this before carrying out the murders?
In your scenario, assuming Ralph wouldn't call Jeremy if any shots had already been fired, you believe he made the call before anyone was injured? What was Sheila doing whilst this was going on? We know Ralph was shot upstairs first before receiving fatal blows in the kitchen. Does that mean he came back upstairs after calling Jeremy to confront Sheila or was he forced up the stairs by her?
-
Ooh, I know this one!
They're little, round and green, and Jeremy Bamber thinks they should be cooked for 45 minutes. 8((()*/
Hi puglove
Think our fun with the 'other forum' has been somewhat curtailed 8)><( 8)><( 8)><(
You make me @)(++(* with JB and his BS!
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere JB does his own cooking? Is that the norm for cat A prisoners? Think Misty's owner posted up that JB cooked him a meal?
-
We don't have a zippy mouth emoticon?
I feel confident that in the near future JB's case will once again be centre stage. This time I think it will be different in terms of no stone left being left unturned 8(0(*
Is your piggy-bank that will soon be winging its way to Children-In-Need full of pound coins yet ? (http://imageshack.com/a/img825/4246/zipzipanimatedanimation.gif)
-
We don't have a zippy mouth emoticon?
I feel confident that in the near future JB's case will once again be centre stage. This time I think it will be different in terms of no stone left being left unturned 8(0(*
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLXT2UOW4gk
8((()*/
-
First prize for (http://i.imgur.com/NrrFnHl.gif) of the month !
-
A killer who was determined to commit suicide after killing everyone else would not have any reason to worry in advance about moving the phone...
I don't agree. Whether the end game included suicide or not, I don't see why a killer might not want to preclude the possibility (for reasons both practical and psychological) that their victims could call for help and/or alert others to the attack.
...If Sheila intended to commit murder suicide why would she take a bath and change her clothes before killing herself? Never are Jeremy's supporters able to explain this away. Those who respond typically will respond that maybe she didn't intend to kill herself and only decided to do so after she took the bath and changed.
Explain what away? You've asked a question there, not provided any reasoning. I can certainly think of a number of potential reasons why she might have bathed and changed with the full intent all along of committing suicide. And these would be reasons that I believe we'd find echoed in other cases of both suicide and murder-suicide.
So, were I a supporter of Jeremy Bamber, to the question of why she would have done that, it seems to me the initial response need be nothing more than "well, why wouldn't she?".
-
I don't agree. Whether the end game included suicide or not, I don't see why a killer might not want to preclude the possibility (for reasons both practical and psychological) that their victims could call for help and/or alert others to the attack.
Produce an example of where a killer decided to commit murder suicide and hid a phone from the victims hours in advance let alone an example where it supposedly was mental illness that caused the person to resport to murder suicide as opposed to someone who lost their job and could not support their family, or were depressed from losing a spouse or the like.
The fact of the matter is that only people who carefully plan a murder remove a phone in advance. Murders are carefully planned in order to get away with murder. Such people intend to get away with the crime so do not want authorities to arrive before they have a change to leave the scene and remove any incriminating evidence. Moreover they do not want their victims to identify themas the killer to anone before the victims die.
I overthink everything but if I planned to murder my family and commit suicide I could not care less if they reached a phone and dialed 911 successfully before I shot them. By th etime anyone could reach he house everyone including me would be dead.
If not even I would bother then why would a person in a crazy ramage think of it in advance and better yet how would the crazy person know they would later be in a crazy rampage?
The fact of the matter is that removing the phone was a sign of preplanning not consistent with the claims made of Sheila doing this in a crazy rage and in fact is something that someone who intends to flee without getting caught would resort to.
Explain what away? You've asked a question there, not provided any reasoning. I can certainly think of a number of potential reasons why she might have bathed and changed with the full intent all along of committing suicide. And these would be reasons that I believe we'd find echoed in other cases of both suicide and murder-suicide.
So, were I a supporter of Jeremy Bamber, to the question of why she would have done that, it seems to me the initial response need be nothing more than "well, why wouldn't she?".
In what cases did mothers who decided to commit murder suicide kill their entire family and then take a bath and change their clothes so they could be nice and clean when they killed themselves?
It doesn't make any sense at all to do such and I have not found any exemples of such.
At best there are examples of people who didn't intend to commit suicide from the outset but rather simply to commit murder who cleaned up and tried to act as if they committed no crime but could no live with the guilt and ended up killing themselves as well.
Taking a bath and changing clothes to wash away evidence is by definition acts conducted in order to attempt to escape liability. There is thus a trend here.
Both removing the phone in advance and the alleged claim to taking a bath and changing clothes are consistent with a killer intending to try to escape libaility not one who planned to commit suicide.
This runs completely counter to what Jeremy asserts. Jeremy asserts his sister went into a crazy rampage in the middle of the night (hours after he left the house) not that she planned to murder everyone and escape liability but was unable to do so.
Removing the phone in advance is not consistent with these claims nor would taking a bath and changing clothes be consistent wih it.
His supporters need to do 2 things.
1) Explain why Sheila would decide instead of killing herself immediately after killing everyone to take a bath first and and change her clothes before shooting herself
and
2) Provide evidence that she took a bath and changed her clothes. Was her hair still wet? DId her hair have evidence of being washed? What was she wearing during the murders and where did she place such clothes. No diry nightgowns were found only soaking panties. Why wouldn't she put on fresh panies if she planned to kill herself? Why would she be worried about ruining panties with blood from her period if she was killing herself and no longer would need clothes?
Her supporters have no evidence she took a bath or changed her clothes and no rational explanation of why she would do either.
The burden of proof rests with them I don't have to prove a negative.
-
The burden of proof rests with the one making the assertion. Which in this case is you.
-
The burden of proof rests with the one making the assertion. Which in this case is you.
You are playing foolish games.
You are the one asserting that a killer determined to commit murder suicide has reason to hide a phone in advance and to bathe and change before committing suicide. You even claimed it happened before.
I explained why your assertions make no sense and are therefore unfounded and challenged you to post examples of this actually occurring. You can't because it makes no sense and hasn't happened, instead you are trying to pretend I bear the burden of proof.
The bottom line is you failed to establish your claims and know you can't establish your claims so are trying to make those challenging you to prove a negative knowing that isn't possible. I don't need to prove a negative though you bear the burden of proof to establish your claims and failed to do so.
-
Produce an example of where a killer decided to commit murder suicide and hid a phone from the victims hours in advance let alone an example where it supposedly was mental illness that caused the person to resport to murder suicide as opposed to someone who lost their job and could not support their family, or were depressed from losing a spouse or the like.
The fact of the matter is that only those people who carefully plan a murder remove a phone in advance. Murders are carefully planned in order to get away with murder. Such people intend to get away with the crime so do not want authorities to arrive before they have a change to leave the scene and remove any incriminating evidence. Moreover they do not want their victims to identify themas the killer to anone before the victims die.
I overthink everything but if I planned to murder my family and commit suicide I could not care less if they reached a phone and dialed 911 successfully before I shot them. By th etime anyone could reach he house everyone including me would be dead.
If not even I would bother then why would a person in a crazy ramage think of it in advance and better yet how would the crazy person know they would later be in a crazy rampage?
The fact of the matter is that removing the phone was a sign of preplanning not consistent with the claims made of Sheila doing this in a crazy rage and in fact is something that someone who intends to flee without getting caught would resort to.
In what cases did mothers who decided to commit murder suicide kill their entire family and then take a bath and change their clothes so they could be nice and clean when they killed themselves?
It doesn't make any sense at all to do such and I have not found any exemples of such.
At best there are examples of people who didn't intend to commit suicide from the outset but rather simply to commit murder who cleaned up and tried to act as if they committed no crime but could no live with the guilt and ended up killing themselves as well.
Taking a bath and changing clothes to wash away evidence is by definition acts conducted in order to attempt to escape liability. There is thus a trend here.
Both removing the phone in advance and the alleged claim to taking a bath and changing clothes are consistent with a killer intending to try to escape libaility not one who planned to commit suicide.
This runs completely counter to what Jeremy asserts. Jeremy asserts his sister went into a crazy rampage in the middle of the night (hours after he left the house) not that she planned to murder everyone and escape liability but was unable to do so.
Removing the phone in advance is not consistent with these claims nor would taking a bath and changing clothes be consistent wih it.
His supporters need to do 2 things.
1) Explain why Sheila would decide instead of killing herself immediately after killing everyone to take a bath first and and change her clothes before shooting herself
and
2) Provide evidence that she took a bath and changed her clothes. Was her hair still wet? DId her hair have evidence of being washed? What was she wearing during the murders and where did she place such clothes. No diry nightgowns were found only soaking panties. Why wouldn't she put on fresh panies if she planned to kill herself? Why would she be worried about ruining panties with blood from her period if she was killing herself and no longer would need clothes?
Her supporters have no evidence she took a bath or changed her clothes and no rational explanation of why she would do either.
The burden of proof rests with them I don't have to prove a negative.
I really must get round to mastering the splitting of quotes. I think this has now grown so enormous in my mind that I can't face dealing with it for fear of failure >@@(*&) I need someone to hold my hand and gently guide me through it! Are you able to help me Scipio 8**8:/:
Re your "The fact of the matter is that only people who carefully plan a murder remove a phone in advance". Would these be the same people who would use a silencer then leave it at the soc, albeit in its rightful place, with 'incriminating evidence attached' by way of blood, paint and a hair?
Re your 1) and 2) above:
1) Without wishing to sound flippant I guess in SC's mind she was going to meet her maker and of course would want to look her best. We know for a fact from Dr F's wit stats that misguided religion played a part in SC's and June's thinking/mental illnesses. Around March '85 SC had a psychotic episode during which she told her friend Freddie (wit stat) that contrary to what her mother (June) had said God did love her. It seems unlikely that SC would not believe in an afterlife and on this basis she would want to be clean on arrival.
2) I understand there were 2 or 3 buckets of clothes left to soak in the kitchen. These should have been removed by EP for analysis. Do we have any record of a visual inspection ie a soc officer recording the content? I understand AE took the contents away? This being the case why? What did she want them for? Why not throw them out at WHF? What would AE want with a pair of blood stained pants and possibly other items of clothing? What happened to the leggings hanging over the bannisters? Oh and the slippers recovered from SC's room? Oh and the socks found by SC? Why were these items not analysed by FSS? EP asked AE about the bucket(s)/blood stained pants/clothing and she said it was menstrual blood. EP (Stan Jones I think) asked how she knew and she said it smells different. EP said you make sure you tell the court that. It's all in her wit stats.
Prof Knight @ trial spoke about instances where those who have committed suicide cleaned up afterwards.
91. Professor Knight, another defence witness, lent support to Dr Bradley's evidence as to the feature of excessive violence in parental killings. He also spoke of instances where the murderer (having killed their spouses in most cases) has then gone about some mundane or "ritualistic" task, such as cleaning up before committing suicide
Re the phones the housekeeper, Jean Boutell, referred to their movement as like "musical chairs". I don't see any significance in the bedroom phone being found in the kitchen especially as the cordless phone had been taken away for repair.
-
I really must get round to mastering the splitting of quotes. I think this has now grown so enormous in my mind that I can't face dealing with it for fear of failure >@@(*&) I need someone to hold my hand and gently guide me through it! Are you able to help me Scipio 8**8:/:
I already lead you by the hand in a previous post. I can't explain it any simpler than I did there.
Re your "The fact of the matter is that only people who carefully plan a murder remove a phone in advance". Would these be the same people who would use a silencer then leave it at the soc, albeit in its rightful place, with 'incriminating evidence attached' by way of blood, paint and a hair?
Jeremy either didn't realize it had blood inside (probably having no greater understanding of back splatter than you do despite being schooled on the subject repeatedly) or did not care because he didn't expect police to examine the suppressor or other items in the closet.
Re your 1) and 2) above:
1) Without wishing to sound flippant I guess in SC's mind she was going to meet her maker and of course would want to look her best. We know for a fact from Dr F's wit stats that misguided religion played a part in SC's and June's thinking/mental illnesses. Around March '85 SC had a psychotic episode during which she told her friend Freddie (wit stat) that contrary to what her mother (June) had said God did love her. It seems unlikely that SC would not believe in an afterlife and on this basis she would want to be clean on arrival.
Suicide is a mortal sin as is murder. If she were religious than tshe would expect to go to hell for her actions. The notion she didn't mind committing these mortal sins. Moreover religious peopel believe their soul goes to heaven not their body. So a dirty body would have no bearing on anything it would not leave Earth. The notion she didn't mind committing these mortal sins but wanted to have a clean body for God is downright stupid not merely absurd. One has to wonder how much effort it takes you to come up with such rubbish.
2) I understand there were 2 or 3 buckets of clothes left to soak in the kitchen. These should have been removed by EP for analysis. Do we have any record of a visual inspection ie a soc officer recording the content? I understand AE took the contents away? This being the case why? What did she want them for? Why not throw them out at WHF? What would AE want with a pair of blood stained pants and possibly other items of clothing? What happened to the leggings hanging over the bannisters? Oh and the slippers recovered from SC's room? Oh and the socks found by SC? Why were these items not analysed by FSS? EP asked AE about the bucket(s)/blood stained pants/clothing and she said it was menstrual blood. EP (Stan Jones I think) asked how she knew and she said it smells different. EP said you make sure you tell the court that. It's all in her wit stats.
I have not seen any accounting of evidence that establishes there were buckets of clothes soaking. Provide a reputable source for the claim. It was a claim made on the blue forum but they never backed it up with any evidence.
As for knowing the blood was menstrual on the panties, she was on her period according to the pathologist who examined her body, she had a tampon inside her and the blood was considerable not tiny drops. It is a natural deduction that it was menstrual. How else would the blood get inside her panties?
The burden of proof rests with you to prove there were other clothes that she wore that night. What other nightgowns were there covered with evidence that were soaking?
Prof Knight @ trial spoke about instances where those who have committed suicide cleaned up afterwards.
91. Professor Knight, another defence witness, lent support to Dr Bradley's evidence as to the feature of excessive violence in parental killings. He also spoke of instances where the murderer (having killed their spouses in most cases) has then gone about some mundane or "ritualistic" task, such as cleaning up before committing suicide
You mean like the guy who washed his car afterwards? Oh that's right he washed it before the murders you had no idea what you were talking about. What examples did Knight provide of people who were determined to commit murder suicide who washed up and changed clothes? None!
I pointed a specific question to you. Yes there are examples of people who initially planned to get away with murder who tried to clean up but when they realized they were going to be caught or they felt so horrible for their actions they ended up comitting suicide instead of facing justice.
I challenged you to provide an example of someone who decided to commit murder suicide who washed up to conceal evidence and change their clothes despite having the full intenetion of dying right after. That doesn't happen which is why you can't provide examples.
Re the phones the housekeeper, Jean Boutell, referred to their movement as like "musical chairs". I don't see any significance in the bedroom phone being found in the kitchen especially as the cordless phone had been taken away for repair.
This is another example of how you are too biased to be honest. Boutell referred to phones being moved when they broke. When the kitchen phone broke they often moved the bedroom phone to replace it. The problem is that the kitchen phone wasn't broken. It was unplugged and hidden and replaced with the bedroom phone.
For all we know Jeremy broke the cordless phone on purpose or merely said it was broken to get rid of it because it is the only phone in the house that recorded the history and thus would have killed his claims about the phone call. Whether he did or not makes no difference. The fact of the matter is that the bedroom phone didn't replace the cordless phone. The kitchen phone and bedroom phone were both not plugged in in the kitchen only the bedroom phone was plugged in.
Normally the cordless phone and another phone were both plugged in the kitchen phone jacks. The cordless phone was removed to be repaired. The other phone which worked properly was also removed and hidden leaving no phones plugged in the kitchen. The bedroom phone was brought to the kitchen so there would be a phone plugged in the kitchen phone jack. No one knew where the regilar kitchen phone was because it was hidden.
To anyone honest and objective it is suspicious because there was no valid reason to hide the working phone and replace it with the bedroom phone. Your claim there was nothing wrong with this just demonstrates why you don't have any credibility.
-
Ann Eaton mentions the blood soaked clothing in her statements:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3168.0
Some of Bamber's supporters genuinely try to claim that Ann Eaton extracted some of Sheila's menstrual blood from the clothing and placed it in the sound moderator.
Words fail me.
-
Ann Eaton mentions the blood soaked clothing in her statements:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3168.0
Some of Bamber's supporters genuinely try to claim that Ann Eaton extracted some of Sheila's menstrual blood from the clothing and placed it in the sound moderator.
Words fail me.
Can you tell me on what page? The only mention of clothing that I can locate is near the bottom of page 8 (stamped 132). It concerns police asking Ann Eaton whether specific articles of clothing found upstairs belonged to Sheila or June. I can't find any reference to bloody clothing.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1053.0
Sorry, wrong statement, page 44 of the above.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1053.0
Sorry, wrong statement, page 44 of the above.
Figures I should have waited, I actually found it on my own but had to read a lot to find it.
It mentions 3 buckets with clothes soaking. It only describes the knickers as being bloody though, none of the other buckets nor does it describe what was in the other 2 buckets.
It was not a total waste of a read though. Some interesting things were there. Jeremy lied repeatedly to Ann and others and this made her extremely suspicious. One of those lies was that the gun did not fit in the cupboard with the suppressor and scope attached but this was a lie. Another is that Sheila had gone shooting with Anthony and Nevill. Anthony denied the claim and even Jeremy ended up recanting it and stating to police later on that he never saw his sister handle guns as an adult. Never do Jeremy supporters address this lie or the lie he told police on the scene that Sheila had fired all the weapons in the house and was proficient with them.
Something else interesting is that Ann pointed out there was a spare key that Jeremy could have pointed police to. However he instead made them bust in. He didn't want them to sneak in early on so didn't tell them about the key. If they knew they could quietly enter using the key they would have been more apt to try.
Another thing is that the cousins took possession of all the guns in the house not merely the suppressor and scope. They were charged by Cook with taking the weapons and ammo. Interestingly Ann seems to have more firearms knowledge than the police and even Jeremy. Having police who don't use firearms and thus have limited firearm's knowledge definitely hurts in cases where guns are used.
There was an ammo carrier next to the suppressor which means presuambly the killer didn't need to run to the kitchen to relaod. The killer actually was carrying ammo around the house.
One of the main criticisms of Jeremy supporters is why the cousins didn't turn the suppressor over to police right away. They took charge of everything though not just the suppressor. That is why police had to obtain it from them.
Another issue is that June only bought the bike 1-2 weeks before she was murdered. I now see why police grilled him on the issue of how long the bike was at his house. He basically was claiming it was stored at his house before she even bought it. Why would she buy a bike and then immediately store it at his house?
The more details you look at the worse it gets for Jeremy. His claims were inconsistent. In one breath he told Ann that he didn't know how urgent it really was so that is why he didn't call 999. (He later told police it was because he didn't think it would matter in terms of response time) In the next breath he told her he didn't go because he was scared they were trying to lure him there to kill him. So which was it? Did he think there was really nothing wrong or that he was being set up to be shot? Not surprising at all that Ann got suspicious.
-
I already lead you by the hand in a previous post. I can't explain it any simpler than I did there.
Jeremy either didn't realize it had blood inside (probably having no greater understanding of back splatter than you do despite being schooled on the subject repeatedly) or did not care because he didn't expect police to examine the suppressor or other items in the closet.
Suicide is a mortal sin as is murder. If she were religious than tshe would expect to go to hell for her actions. The notion she didn't mind committing these mortal sins. Moreover religious peopel believe their soul goes to heaven not their body. So a dirty body would have no bearing on anything it would not leave Earth. The notion she didn't mind committing these mortal sins but wanted to have a clean body for God is downright stupid not merely absurd. One has to wonder how much effort it takes you to come up with such rubbish.
I have not seen any accounting of evidence that establishes there were buckets of clothes soaking. Provide a reputable source for the claim. It was a claim made on the blue forum but they never backed it up with any evidence.
As for knowing the blood was menstrual on the panties, she was on her period according to the pathologist who examined her body, she had a tampon inside her and the blood was considerable not tiny drops. It is a natural deduction that it was menstrual. How else would the blood get inside her panties?
The burden of proof rests with you to prove there were other clothes that she wore that night. What other nightgowns were there covered with evidence that were soaking?
You mean like the guy who washed his car afterwards? Oh that's right he washed it before the murders you had no idea what you were talking about. What examples did Knight provide of people who were determined to commit murder suicide who washed up and changed clothes? None!
I pointed a specific question to you. Yes there are examples of people who initially planned to get away with murder who tried to clean up but when they realized they were going to be caught or they felt so horrible for their actions they ended up comitting suicide instead of facing justice.
I challenged you to provide an example of someone who decided to commit murder suicide who washed up to conceal evidence and change their clothes despite having the full intenetion of dying right after. That doesn't happen which is why you can't provide examples.
This is another example of how you are too biased to be honest. Boutell referred to phones being moved when they broke. When the kitchen phone broke they often moved the bedroom phone to replace it. The problem is that the kitchen phone wasn't broken. It was unplugged and hidden and replaced with the bedroom phone.
For all we know Jeremy broke the cordless phone on purpose or merely said it was broken to get rid of it because it is the only phone in the house that recorded the history and thus would have killed his claims about the phone call. Whether he did or not makes no difference. The fact of the matter is that the bedroom phone didn't replace the cordless phone. The kitchen phone and bedroom phone were both not plugged in in the kitchen only the bedroom phone was plugged in.
Normally the cordless phone and another phone were both plugged in the kitchen phone jacks. The cordless phone was removed to be repaired. The other phone which worked properly was also removed and hidden leaving no phones plugged in the kitchen. The bedroom phone was brought to the kitchen so there would be a phone plugged in the kitchen phone jack. No one knew where the regilar kitchen phone was because it was hidden.
To anyone honest and objective it is suspicious because there was no valid reason to hide the working phone and replace it with the bedroom phone. Your claim there was nothing wrong with this just demonstrates why you don't have any credibility.
Yes thank you Scipio for your instructions re the quote splitting. I will endeavour to retrieve this and re-read it. You are so masterful 8**8:/:
The silencer didn't just have blood inside did it? It supposedly had blood, paint and hair on the outside so if it was a carefully planned murder, as you state, why not run it under the tap and give it a good clean?
I believe suicide is seen as a sin as far as Christianity goes but we know SC discussed suicide with not only her psychiatrist, Dr Ferguson, but also her ex-husband, CC, and a second cousin, Helen Grimster. I daresay others too. We also know SC did not stick religiously to the teachings of the bible/Christianity in terms of discussing suicide/ideation, sexual relationships and conception of children outside of marriage. We also know she placed great emphasis on her personal appearance. In any event Anne Eaton's witness statement (I read all yesterday and will post the relevant links later) are very telling regarding the buckets of clothing some of which she states were blood stained. It is absolute madness that these buckets were not removed by EP and passed to FSS for analysis. It is simply not good enough for anyone to dismiss them out of hand as being connected to SC's period. Based on personal experience and that of family and friends, females just do not leave menstrual stained clothing in soak in buckets in the kitchen. AE states there were three buckets. She identified two pairs of pants (panties to you and Misty's owner) and a pair of leggings. We know June was very PROPER and it goes against the grain that she would have all this hanging around with the twins running about, NB and JB turning up at WHF at the crack of dawn for work. He apparently always visited WHF first thing in the morning to discuss the day's work with NB. Would you want your soiled underwear on display in the kitchen? The fact is we have absolutely no idea what was in the buckets and it strikes me threre's every likelihood it was SC's blood stained clothing from the tragedy.
-
Yes thank you Scipio for your instructions re the quote splitting. I will endeavour to retrieve this and re-read it. You are so masterful 8**8:/:
The silencer didn't just have blood inside did it? It supposedly had blood, paint and hair on the outside so if it was a carefully planned murder, as you state, why not run it under the tap and give it a good clean?
The evidence proves it was a planned murder. I didn't say anything about it being perfectly planned. Criminals get caught because they are stupid and don't plan perfectly. The simple fact there was planning demolishes the claim that Seila suddenly went crazy and had a psychotic episode.
Yes there was paint on the suppressor. Obviously Jeremy either didn't notice it or didn't think it had any significance. Likewise he either didn't notice the blood on it or didn't think it had any significance. It was such a small amount on the suppressor that they could not even get the blood type. He obviously though that putting it in the closet and telling them he left the gun sitting out without the suppressor was sufficient for them not to search for a suppressor and examine it. At first his plan worked. In any event he had no idea they would be able to obtain evidence from inside of it and to prove it was used in the murders or he would have cleaned it.
He also didn't bother to count out how many bullets were in the box of ammo he stuck in the kitchen. He told police it was full or near full when he placed it there. Obviously he didn't take a box that was full or near full it was only partly full but he didn't count how many were in it. Thus a box that according to his own testimony had 45-50 bullets was left out and supposedly the killer got the bullets from it. 25 bullets were used thus the box should have had between 20 and 25 bullets. It had 30 though. The suppressor was found with an ammunition carrier that had extra ammo in it. Quite obviously the killer used this ammunition carrier and the suppressor then put them away together in the closet. He took out the partial box of ammo and put it in th ekitchen to bolste rhis claim that Sheila went into a psychotic rage, found the gun and ammo sitting in front of her as she raged so she grabbed it and used it.
His planning quite obviously was not up to snuff though.
Your suggestion that Sheila put the suppressor away in the closet out of habit before killing herself is absurd. The only reason she would need to remove the suppressor is because the only way to kill herself with it attached was perhaps if she used her toe to push the trigger. Even that might not work it depends on how long her legs were and I have not seen any info on the relevant stats of whether that would work or not. If she had removed the suppressor to kill herself she would have simply left it in the bedroom not to have walked down to hide it in the closet with the ammo carrier. No matter who committed the murders they had to have obtained ammo from elsewhere. It was not coincidence the ammo carrier was next to the suppressor.
If Sheila had committed the murders there is absolutely no reason for her to put the suppressor and ammo carrier in the closet. There was no reason for the suppressor and scope to have been removed prior to the murders and it was routinely stored with them attached.
Jeremy lied when he claimed the gun didn't fit in the closet with the accessories attached. Jeremy also lied about his use of the gun prior to the murders. He initially claimed he had not used the gun the week prior to the murders. After his cousin testified he was the last to use it and he put it in the closet with the accessories attached then Jeremy changed his story. He claimed he had used the gun repeatedly the week before the murders. He claimed it sometimes had the suppressor and scope attached when he fetched it othertimes it didn't. He claimed that during that week his father sometimes removed the accessories but other times didn't. Jeremy claimed he used it as found he never added or removed accessories. This is a perfect gotcha moment like seen on television. Someone questioning Jeremy about this could say so were you lying then or are you lying now? Either he lied initially about not using it or was lying about using it. This is only one of many lies and changing claims in which he ensnared himself because he didn't plan good enough in advance about what to do or say.
The bottom line is that we are left with half-assed planning from either Jeremy or Sheila. Jeremy actually has a motive for the planning while Sheila didn't. Jeremy hiding the suppressor had an actual motive. Sheila would have no reason to go hide it or the ammo carrier. Sheila would have no reason to unplug the kitchen phone, hide it and then place the bedroom phone in its place. Jeremy did have a reason to do so. There is a whole lot more evidence against Jeremy but this alone is enough to severely undermine his frame job against Sheila.
I believe suicide is seen as a sin as far as Christianity goes but we know SC discussed suicide with not only her psychiatrist, Dr Ferguson, but also her ex-husband, CC, and a second cousin, Helen Grimster. I daresay others too. We also know SC did not stick religiously to the teachings of the bible/Christianity in terms of discussing suicide/ideation, sexual relationships and conception of children outside of marriage. We also know she placed great emphasis on her personal appearance. In any event Anne Eaton's witness statement (I read all yesterday and will post the relevant links later) are very telling regarding the buckets of clothing some of which she states were blood stained. It is absolute madness that these buckets were not removed by EP and passed to FSS for analysis. It is simply not good enough for anyone to dismiss them out of hand as being connected to SC's period. Based on personal experience and that of family and friends, females just do not leave menstrual stained clothing in soak in buckets in the kitchen. AE states there were three buckets. She identified two pairs of pants (panties to you and Misty's owner) and a pair of leggings. We know June was very PROPER and it goes against the grain that she would have all this hanging around with the twins running about, NB and JB turning up at WHF at the crack of dawn for work. He apparently always visited WHF first thing in the morning to discuss the day's work with NB. Would you want your soiled underwear on display in the kitchen? The fact is we have absolutely no idea what was in the buckets and it strikes me threre's every likelihood it was SC's blood stained clothing from the tragedy.
You are the one claiming Sheila changed her clothing and took a bath for religious reasons. I challenged it by pointing out murder and suicide are sins and a religious person would expect to go to hell for such acts and moreover a soul moves on not clothing or bodies so the notions she would wash her body so it could be nice and clean when it arrives in heaven and her clothing would be nide and clean when it arrives in heaven make no sense and indeed are absurd.
The only excuse you can provide for why Sheila would change her clothes and wash before committing suicide is for an absurd reason. You can't think up anything that makes sense let alone prove anything.
Eaton looked in the buckets and only found blood in 1 bucket. Had she seen blood in more than one bucket she would have said so. Thus your speculation that others had blood inside are unwarranted and completely lacking in any support.
No one knows where these buckets were originally at the time of the murders. No one knows where they normally left buckets that had clothes soaking. By the time the clothes were found peopel had already been cleaing up the house to remove everything and things had been moved around quite a bit including many boxes of things being packed up and moved around.
If the contents of these buckets were in fact 3 pairs of panties and a pair of leggings how does this establish she changed her clothing after the murders? Why would she need 3 pairs of panties and how would panties get blood form the victims on them? Even leggings would be unlikely to have any blood fromt he victims. A shirt or gown would have most evidence that needed to be washed away especially gunshot residue. Someone firing a rifle will get GSR on their hands and their shirt or gown if wearing a gown.
GSR doesn't just magicly vanish on its own. She can't have fired the gun 25 times without getting GSR on her upper clothing. Similarly spatter from the bludgeoning would be on her gown or shirt mainly.
What evidence is there that she had a different gown or shirt on earlier that night? None.
What reason would she have for changing her clothing before killing herself? None.
What reason to take a bath to wash away GSR and any blood form Nevill that might have gotten on her fromt he bludgeoning? none
What evidence that she committed the bludgeoing by way of damage she suffered from the broken stock or the scuffle itself? None.
Jeremy wasn't tested for GSR or blood evidence nor was he inspected for wounds. Sheila was and tested negative for everything.
You keep making things up that demonstrate desperation.
-
Great points as always, scipio.
There are too many inconsistencies to argue anyone but Bamber carried out the murders. If Sheila was planning on killing herself all along in an enraged fit, there's simply no reason for her to carry out any of the thing that were clearly planned such as moving the phones/hiding the silencer etc.
In truth I think Jeremy was simply too arrogant to think the police wouldn't believe his blatant lies. I really don't see why he would put the silencer away with evidence all over it in a place it was extremely likely to be found! The best his supporters can come up with is either Sheila replaced the moderator in the cupboard after shooting herself the first time which is of course obscene and completely without evidence, or that the silencer was planted/contaminated by Eaton and others to incriminate JB. The fact of the matter is Jeremy either panicked when he realised Sheila would be unable to shoot herself and hid the silencer haphazardly or simply didn't foresee the significance it would have on the case or the severity of it's contamination.
Holly you didn't answer the questions in my other post (probably because you've answered them before in other threads?), maybe you could shed some light on these matters for us?
-
Great points as always, scipio.
There are too many inconsistencies to argue anyone but Bamber carried out the murders. If Sheila was planning on killing herself all along in an enraged fit, there's simply no reason for her to carry out any of the thing that were clearly planned such as moving the phones/hiding the silencer etc.
In truth I think Jeremy was simply too arrogant to think the police wouldn't believe his blatant lies. I really don't see why he would put the silencer away with evidence all over it in a place it was extremely likely to be found! The best his supporters can come up with is either Sheila replaced the moderator in the cupboard after shooting herself the first time which is of course obscene and completely without evidence, or that the silencer was planted/contaminated by Eaton and others to incriminate JB. The fact of the matter is Jeremy either panicked when he realised Sheila would be unable to shoot herself and hid the silencer haphazardly or simply didn't foresee the significance it would have on the case or the severity of it's contamination.
Holly you didn't answer the questions in my other post (probably because you've answered them before in other threads?), maybe you could shed some light on these matters for us?
There are 2 different reasons to remove the suppressor.
1) Sheila couldn't shoot herself with it attached
2) In general a suppressor suggests silence is necessary and some planning occurred (but in the case where a suppressor is normally not removed ever it is actually suspicious to remove it, Jeremy either didn't know it was not usually removed or didn't think there would be anyone left living who could inform police of the fact)
It appears Jeremy thought that had he placed it beside her that would make police wonder why she needed to use a suppressor. She was the only other adult in the house so didn't have to worry about waking up adults in other rooms who could potentially stop her. He didn't want police to know it had been used at all not merely that it had been used to shoot Sheila. He overthought things in some respects but underthought in others.
It is not merely arrogance but ignorance as well. Criminals simply do not know everything and he probably didn't know about back spatter. Even today with all the CSI type shows out there the understanding of such is limited. At that time it was much less so. He probably had no clue there was blood inside let alone it could be used to prove the suppressor was used to shoot Sheila. While he played up his expertise with guns others said they had not seen him shoot much if ever. They said he didn't like hunting. Rather ironic that he would not shoot animals but killed his family. That irony is somewhat common though. Sadists like to kill animals and escalate to humans. People who kill for money or some opportunistic often kill only for some set purpose they want to achieve not for the enjoyment of killing. He only seemed to have a basic understanding of firearms which would explain some of his mistakes.
We don't know whether Sheila was in the bedroom when he shot his parents or she netered/was ordered there later. If she was there and shot along with them from the initial magazine load when that explains for sure why he had not removed the suppressor before shooting her. If he marched her in later he should have removed it. Why march her in? To make it look like she killed them then shot herself immediately after.
Nevill was a sound sleeper but June wasn't. Nevill slept on the side of the bed near the window, June towards the door. I can't understand how Nevill was able to wake up after being shot and to have the presence of mind to run out the door so fast. To run out the door he would need to get past the killer and June. I can't help but wonder whether Jeremy marched Sheila in and woke his parents up, shot Nevill 2 times in the face while standing inside the room near the foot of the bed or window and while he was shooting June and Sheila this presented Nevill with the opportunity to run and he was hit in the arm and shoulder as he ran out. Jeremy would not have been able to block the doorway if he was inside the room instead of near the door.
He could have wrestled the rifle from Sheila had she blocked the door. At any rate why would June flee to the door if someone with a gun had been there? This suggests that the killer was inside the room not near the door as the firing erupted. That is the only reason both parents would run towards the door.
Murders are easy to get away with when you do not know the victim. When you know or worse are related to a victim that makes it much more challenging. It is hard to plan for every contingency and to do so you have to really think carefully including preparing what to say afterwards in detail. Few people have the discipline to prepare with such care.
-
...1) Without wishing to sound flippant I guess in SC's mind she was going to meet her maker and of course would want to look her best...
It won't have sounded flippant to anyone with any insight into suicide.
The simple fact is that it is well within the normal distribution of known outcomes for people about to commit suicide to take measures for their body to remain in as uncompromised and unoffensive a condition as possible. And there's a variety of reasons of why they do this.
-
It won't have sounded flippant to anyone with any insight into suicide.
The simple fact is that it is well within the normal distribution of known outcomes for people about to commit suicide to take measures for their body to remain in as uncompromised and unoffensive a condition as possible. And there's a variety of reasons of why they do this.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Name even a single case where it was determined that someone who decided to shoot their entire family and then themselves shot and killed everyone then took a bath and changed their clothing so that they would not have GSR on their clothign and body in the afterlife.
The only cases where peopel who ended up committing suicide tried to hide evidence and clean up was where they intended to get away with it at first.
-
Some recent posts have made ref to the buckets of water found in the kitchen containing clothing left in soak.
In AE's wit stats dated 8th - 13th Sept 1985 she describes finding three buckets and makes reference to one containing two pairs of blood stained ladies knickers.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3106
In AE's wit stats dated 14th Aug 1991 she describes two buckets with clothes in soak. One of these had Sheila's knickers in, the other tracksuit bottoms.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3556
Why the discrepancies? Three buckets to two? Ladies knickers to Sheila's knickers? Did not initially note the tracksuit bottoms at the time but recalled some 6 years later? Was there a third bucket and if so what was in it? >@@(*&)
-
If she wanted her body to be 'inoffensive' surely she would have ensured she was wearing underwear and not just a short flimsy nightie and a tampon.
I don't feel it's necessary to even argue such insignificant speculation as to whether she committed suicide or not when it's blatant she didn't!
Even if she had washed herself it doesn't explain why her hands were free from GSR even after she'd apparently shot herself fatally!
-
If she wanted her body to be 'inoffensive' surely she would have ensured she was wearing underwear and not just a short flimsy nightie and a tampon.
I don't feel it's necessary to even argue such insignificant speculation as to whether she committed suicide or not when it's blatant she didn't!
Even if she had washed herself it doesn't explain why her hands were free from GSR even after she'd apparently shot herself fatally!
I have no real idea what goes on in the minds of those that are led by misguided religious beliefs/commit suicide. I can only go by what the professionals say eg Dr Ferguson and Prof Knight in this case. Perhaps the idea of being clean is important but the attire less so >@@(*&)
It is blatant to you Jodie but not to me and JB's growing army of supporters. We firmly believe that JB's conviction is the worst MoJ in modern British criminal history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunshot_residue
"Victims don't always get GSR on them, even suicide victims can test negative for GSR".
-
I did say it was going off track slightly 8(0(*
However the important factors for me are that SC discussed suicide with a number of individuals including her psychiatrist. Also Prof Knight at trial spoke of instances where those committing suicide had gone about cleaning up beforehand.
She discussed it years earlier which is why she was being treated for Schizophrenia. Many people consider suicide at one point in their life most don't act upon it. The doctor doesn't think she was the type that would act upon it and she was improving because of her treatment.
I challenged you before to provide a case where someone with her illness who was being treated and on their medication ended up committing murder suicide.
The simple truth is that those with mental illness who commit murder, suicide or murder suicide do so before they had a chance to be treated or after stopping their treatment and/or medication. Those on their medication do not end up intentionally killing themselves or others.
At any rate she didn't say anything about her parents, her problem was herself and her children. Distraught mothers killing themselves and their children happens but the killing of her parents as well doesn't fit at all. There are no explanations for why she would kill them, her children and herself. The notion she had delusions of everyone being the devil doesn't fit. Wanting to end her own life for depression and killing her kids because she would not be around to take care of them doesn't explain killing her parents. This is why I started a thread on this very subject.
Invariably warning signs are missed in tradegies like this. No such warning signs can be found here and no explanations as to why she would kill everyone let alone why she would wait till 3AM while everyone was sleeping to do so. Nothing to indicate her medicine stopped working and she was agitated hours before.
This factored in with all the evidence against Jeremy just makes clear she didn't do it.
Yeah I know you choose to ignore all the evidence including that Nevill could not have made the phone call, even if he had been magically able to talk that he would have disclosed he ahd June had already been shot and needed medical attention or that Jeremy told Julie not to go to work because police would need to speak to her indicating his family was dead even though police had not yet found the bodies. While you choose to ignore these things rational people do not.
-
I have no real idea what goes on in the minds of those that are led by misguided religious beliefs/commit suicide. I can only go by what the professionals say eg Dr Ferguson and Prof Knight in this case. Perhaps the idea of being clean is important but the attire less so >@@(*&)
It is blatant to you Jodie but not to me and JB's growing army of supporters. We firmly believe that JB's conviction is the worst MoJ in modern British criminal history.
You and his supporters have no leg to stand on though. Your beliefs are not founded in evidence. It consists of a propaganda campaign merely. A review of the evidence doesn't suggest his innocence but rather his guilt. You spend most of your time running from the evidence not discussing it. You make excuses to avoid discussing the evidence.
You make bare bones claims without any evidence to supoort them and then when called on the carpet for them you go try to find some kind of evidence to make your claims plausible. If you actually followed the evidence and made your conclusions based on the relevant evidence you would be on more sound ground but the evidence leads to Jeremy's guilt so you won't. Instead you simply insist he is innocent because that is what you want to argue and then you go looking for something to twist to support your claim.
The doctors who saw Sheila say they don't think she would have followed through with suicide and saw improvement. She discussed it years prior not recently. They don't think she was at risk to actually commit suicide. The simply fact she discussed with her doctors that she thought about it before she started seeing them doesn't help much. She was at most risk when she thought about it but was not receiving treatment. If she didn't do it before receiving treatment even she was much less likely to do so once she was receiving treatment particularly while on her medication. Those off their medication or who never took it to begin with are the ones we see following through with suicide. This wasnt suicide merely though it was murder suicide and there is no way to account to her killing everyone except her brother that fits any known patterns even if off their medication. But again she had the emdicide in her system she was unde rits influence and docile only 5 hours before the murders.
As for religious motivations you have to look at the exact religion in question. You can't take some foreign religion that has no bearing and even worse compare fanatical muslim suicide bombers to the Bamber murders and then expect your argument to sway anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunshot_residue
"Victims don't always get GSR on them, even suicide victims can test negative for GSR".
Wow a generalized claim made in wikipedia that has no source to back the claim up that means a whole lot. Suicides take many shapes and forms. GSR might be minimal if only 1 shot is fired and the gun is not close to the body. Your own source indicates the closer the weapon is fired to the body the greater the amount of GSR that will be present. Does it say if someone hugs a rifle and fires 2 times that it is likely or even possible not to get any GSR on the clothing and body? Nope. All evidence was be looked at with specificity. Ther eis no hard and fast back spatter rule either liek you tried to pretend asserting it was rare. Back spatte ris not rare and the correct inquiry is to look at location of the wound and the other specfic variables at play in a particular case. Just so happens the expert determined it was a near certainy the nature and location of Sheila's fatal wound would produce back spatter. You tried to refute that with the unsupported claim back spatter is rare.
This particular case features the claim that she stuck the gun under her neck and her whole body was thus around the rifle. What is the chance she would get no GSR at all on her clothing under these circumstances? Nil which is why the testimony in court was that there was no reason to believe she fired the fatal shot. Again though there was not merely a complete absence of any evidence to implicate Sheila. There was evidence that she could not have done it because of the suppressor had been used to shoot her and a great deal of other evidence that implicated Jeremy.
You would like us to ignore the evidence and close our eyes to logic to also come to believe that Jeremy is innocent. I have faith in science and logic not in Jeremy. It doesn't really matter how many ignorant people are fooled by Jeremy's propagandist teams. What you and they believe matters not. What can be proved is what matters because that is how you convince a court and actually start a movement.
You are good at stating your unsupported opinions but you are not able to actually back them up with any evidence and that means you have no hope of winning the debate.
-
Some recent posts have made ref to the buckets of water found in the kitchen containing clothing left in soak.
In AE's wit stats dated 8th - 13th Sept 1985 she describes finding three buckets and makes reference to one containing two pairs of blood stained ladies knickers.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3106
In AE's wit stats dated 14th Aug 1991 she describes two buckets with clothes in soak. One of these had Sheila's knickers in, the other tracksuit bottoms.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3556
Why the discrepancies? Three buckets to two? Ladies knickers to Sheila's knickers? Did not initially note the tracksuit bottoms at the time but recalled some 6 years later? Was there a third bucket and if so what was in it? >@@(*&)
Does anyone have any ideas about the buckets/contents as per post above?
-
Does anyone have any ideas about the buckets/contents as per post above?
I read her statement and do not see a reference to 2 pairs of bloody underwear but rather only one pair. 2 pairs of bloody underwear is even greater evidence that it was not clothing she removed after the murders but rather clothing that was soaking in general because of menstrual stains.
As for the discrepancy in the number of buckets many years passed between the interviews. People often misrecollect after time passes which is why it is important to document things as close to an event as possible. If she did change the number as you claim then it doesn't really matter though the more conservative thing is to assume the contemporaneous interview is more likely correct. She could have meant to say 2 and said 3 by accident at that contemporaneous interview and thus the later one could be correct. But it is more likely that over the passage of time she simply forgot there were 3 and only recalled 2.
As for leggings, many leggings have the cotton consistency of sweat pants they simply are tight fitting instead of loose like men's sweats. Some even call women's sweat pants leggings. Some women go jogging in leggings which can thus result in them being called jogging pants. When I was young sweatpants were called jogging pants. But modern jogging pants tend to be lightweight and streamlined so different from sweat pants. The bottom line is there might not be a discrepancy at all. She simply might have chosen to call them something that in her eyes is a synonym. Much like many people call a polo shirt a golf shirt.
This is what most think of when we hear leggings:
http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server4500/21357/products/269/images/1039/9116_StirrupLeggings_bl_back__17986.1350071111.1280.1280.jpg?c=1
My nieces even have leggings that look like jeans, though I have no clue what they are actually made of it is not denim.
Some people seem to think these leggings were in fact nylons. If they were nylons then she most likely did not remember what they were other something than bottoms. I don't recall anyone calling them nylons though and those who talked about this seem to think they are pants like in the photo above.
The clothing soaking in the buckets was described and recorded as things that are worn on a lady's bottom half. Blood spatter from beating Nevill and GSR from gunshots would be primarily if not entirely concentrated on the upper half of the killer. So you need to find evidence of a shirt or gown that such evidence would have been on to suggest there is evidence she changed her clothing, put it somewhere to wash and that is why she had no such evidence on her gown.
Underwear for sure will not have any evidence of import unless a killer were to murder someone while wearing the underwear and nothing over them.
If a shirt were not covering pants then perhaps a drop or 2 of blood would get on the pants.
Why would Sheila wear leggings to bed though when she normally wore her night gown? Killing at 3AM would mean she went to bed but didn't sleep and got up and killed them. If she were going to go through the effort to wear pants she would put on some shoes to be more stable as she fired. I wouldn't want to fire a weapon barefoot.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence she put on special clothing to carry out the murders instead of wearing what she normally wore to bed and no evidence that she changed clothing after the murders.
-
I believe Jeremy Bamber is guilty and usually I am a person who sways for the defendant. The fact that Sheila's blood was on the silencer did it for me. She couldn't shoot herself and then take the silencer off the riffle. All the evidence points to Jeremy; he had a clear motive; I believe Julie Mugford.
-
Lesley1000, can you give some examples of controversial cases where you sided with the defendant?
-
Lesley1000, can you give some examples of controversial cases where you sided with the defendant?
I can give you a contemporary one- Amanda Knox. I don't like her, she was a pot smoking slut who was extremely stupid and naive and yet it is patently obvious she is innocent because there is no evidence at all against her and the allegations make no sense at all on top of there being a complete lack of evidence.
Some others are Casey Anthony and Robert Blake. Unlike Knox I actually think that both were involved in some manner in the deaths but there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they committed murder. Casey Anthony at minimum though was guity of child neglect and covering up the death if she didn't commit murder. She was a horrible mother quite obviously but there is not enough evidence to say she committed murder.
I care about evidence, I don't go my personal opinion of whether I like a defendant or not.
When I first read about OJ Simpson I said no way someone would be so stupid and ddn't believe he was guilty. I liked his HBO show First and Ten and his football accomplishments. I didn't know him personally so had no idea he was such a jerk or that he would be so stupid as to commit murder and leave so much evidence. After his infamous chase and the full evidence came to light it was obvious I was wrong about him. He was lucky enough to get away with murder because of a stupid jury (1 juror actually stated publicly that she didn't understand what it meant when the expert said the odds of the DNA belonging to someone else was in the biillions, she had no clue what the Earth's population was). You would think he would be extra careful from that point on knowing he was in the spotlight but demonstrated how stupid he truly is by committing armed robbery.
Stupid criminals get caught. That is really the lesson to learn.
-
Scipio, do you have any thoughts on the JonBenet Ramsey case?
-
Scipio, do you have any thoughts on the JonBenet Ramsey case?
There has been so much conflicting information released over the years. Initially we were told there were no tracks in the snow from the house so no one could have come and gone thus it had to be someone in the house.
Unknown male DNA was found on her clothing including her underwear. Why would a male be handling her underwear though? This suggests the DNA belongs to her killer. The ransom note suggests it is someone who knew them.
This is really as far as things progressed. They keep checking the DNA to see if the person it matches is ever arrested but that's it. If they catch the person it will either be th ekiller or someone with info because he had to do something for his DNA to get on her clothing. Either he did it or knows who did.
It is possible that the parents know who did it and were covering. We don't really have a basis to know for sure though. The police did a horrible job and allowed the scene to be contaminated. There is no way to really figure out if some one broke in or not. he DNA found on her body is their Hail Mary play to solving it. For all we know he is dead though, the mother died already. If so there is no hope to ever find him. The only way they will find him is if he is still alive, gets arrested for a crime of a serious nature and thus his DNA is taken. Unless he did their laundry or there was some other innocent way he could account for his DNA being on her clothing one would have to assume he was the killer or took part in the killings somehow. If the DNA did have an innocent explanation then that opens the door to the family again. It would mean the killer didn't leave DNA and could be an intruder, a guest or even the family members.
-
I can give you a contemporary one...
My interest was in hearing from Leslie1000. I'm presuming you are not him/her, so would still be looking forward to a reply from Leslie1000 if they find the time.
-
My interest was in hearing from Leslie1000. I'm presuming you are not him/her, so would still be looking forward to a reply from Leslie1000 if they find the time.
Maybe you should start a thread then instead of clouding this one which is about evidence. Leslie actually posted evidence explaining his her postion, something Jeremy supporters like you are unable to do.
-
Any lead/discolouration would be washed off by showering.
DB states in the following "Coupled with the fact that she hadn't had any experience with guns [reluctantly adds] or very little".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo @ 6.20 in
SC no doubt spent time as child with NB walking around the fields shooting. SC was a farmers daughter. Children pick up things without having to be sat down and shown. You don't need to be a nuclear physicist to load the said rifle and fire it. SC was from a birth family of academics and privately educated you seem to want to think of her as someone with learning difficulties.
You have no evidence she showered and bathed nor any reason why she would. You can't find a single case where someone decided to commit murder-suicide and after killing their family took a bath. It doesn't happen it is a stupid suggestion the best anyone could come up with is to raise bathing before ritualistic suicide which no one alleges was the case. Showering and bathing doesn't get rid of evidence on clothing anyway. The killer's clothing would have been covered with GSR, high velocity spatter and medium velocity spatter and gloves were used. No such clothing was found at WHF.
Your simplistic claims about guns have already been addressed and you have no rebuttal you just go back to the same stupid mantra over and over again.
Seeing someone shoot a gun doens't mean that you will be able to load and shoot it yourself. Iguarantee if I fire my semi-auto sniper rifle that you will not notice the steps I take asde from simply pulling the trigger and walking aorund me sometimes doesn't mean I will even perform such in your presence let alone you will understand and appreciate the subtle acts. Lynette Fromme grew up around guns and she failed to chamber around and was thus disarmed without a shot having been fired when she tried to kill president Ford. What rebuttal have you presented to this. Nothing you just ignore it and repeat the same mantra she would have known what to do no matter what because you actually don't care about the truth only pretending SHeila did it so you can present your psychology BS.
What semi-auto guns did they have on the farm? NONE until the murder weapon purchased at the end of 1984.
So if she was busy wathcing her father growing up and so forth then she would have seen him fire shotguns not a semi-auto. You ignore this time and again because it absolutely kills you. Walking with her father as he used a shotgun would not enable her to know how to use the murder weapon no matter how carefully she watched her father. Your simplistic she would have to know how to shoot any and all gun because she lived on a farm is simply pathetic and absurd.
The only thing worse is suggesting it is cake to just easily group shots and neve rmiss your first time using a wepaon you are unfamiliar with while in the middle of a crazy rage.
Even if we assume that the broken crockery was not caused by the raid team, as per soc pics it amounted to just a few large pieces. The glass lampshade was unlikely to be crystal glass and again perhaps a 2/3 pieces? Unless it was in her path she would simply avoided it. You realise that NB was also barefooted and he too had no cuts to his feet.
The killer broke the lamp by being right under it. Nevill was knocked down while the killer was supposedly standing on this mess swinging a rifle at Nevill battering him unconscious and then walked all around the kitchen afterwards. Nevill wasn't walking around was he? In fact the killed stepped on Nevill's feet and kicked his knees bruising them, probably in an effort to get him off his feet.
You have no idea when and how the stock broke. To claim it would cause hand damage is absurd.
The nature of the break demonstrates how it was being used. It was being used in a motion that demosntrates the back of the stock was being used to bash and the way that is done is by holding the weapon with one hand on the fore grip and the other on the narrow area of the stock.
Aside from no evidence the weapon was instead used as you claimed wither her holding the barrel that would still result in injury. The knurled grip of the moderator would cause damage to the arms and the iron sights would damage the wrist and hands. You never think things through you just make simplistic claims based on nothing other than your agenda.
All removed by showering with stained clothes in the buckets.
Again a completely absurd claim not supported by anything. You have no evidence she showered and bathed nor any reason why she would. You can't find a single case where someone decided to commit murder-suicide and after killing their family took a bath. It doesn't happen it is a stupid suggestion the best anyone could come up with is to raise bathing before ritualistic suicide which no one alleges was the case. Showering and bathing doesn't get rid of evidence on clothing anyway. The killer's clothing would have been covered with GSR, high velocity spatter and medium velocity spatter and gloves were used. No such clothing was found at WHF. The buck you cite contianed 2 pairs of panties and leggings all with the crotch stained thus indicative of being menstruated in during the day some time. Probably before she bought tampons and she went shopping that very day and had a supply of tampons including one inserted inside her when killed!
Where is the gown or blouse with GSR and blood spatter from the victims? It wasn't in the buckets so try again.
I don't believe that the silencer ever left the gun cupboard on that fateful night. Her blood may have been inside and if it was then I believe it was deliberately contaminated by EP with blood from SC's sample handed to EP by Dr V.
What you believe doesn't matter what you can provide evidence of matters. You have no evidentiary basis to assert such happened. You have no rational basis to believe it happened. The evidence says it did and unless you can refute that evidence it is a thorn that prevents your claims from being taken seriously. Just dismissing it because you don't want to face it doesn't make it go away.
Why do you think NB only had linear wounds to his right arm?
He had skin ripped off a finger, bruising to his elbow and his forearm had "relatively linear" wounds. The butt of the stock jabbing into his arm made the gauges. Yhe flat bottom, top or sides of the stock do not make gauges like that. It was made by the butt of the rifle glancing off and digging in.
(http://s27.postimg.org/jzo0w7qwz/arm1.jpg)
The buttplate has ridges and can thus gauge but worse loo at the corners of the butt
(http://s27.postimg.org/qmoxdztoj/arm2.jpg)
Nevill raised his right arm blocking his face with it. Elbow was facing to his right and his hand to his left. The killer was striking his arm with the butt of the rifle.
Given the shot NB received on the stairs ie downward it would seem SC followed NB downstairs. Why did NB head for the kitchen? He thought he could continue the conversation he started with JB before he run upstairs when he heard SC firing shots? To escape and raise the alarm and to deter JB from entering?
He didn't receive any shots on the stairs. If he was hit while running away down the stairs that would even be worse to try to claim Sheila made such a shot. There is zero evidence of a shot on the stairs. The shell casing would have been at the bottom of the stairs not the top if a killer were aiming at him as he was below running down the stairs. The killer would have shot him in the back and the only shots that coudl have been fired from the top of the stairs as he ran down based on angle of impact is one of the shots in the top of his head which woudl have made him collapse and which Vanzis said was clearly fired int he kitchen as all 4 shots were fired at the same range and tightly grouped and had they been delivered elsewher ehe would have passed out and not made it ot the kitchen. the shell caseing against the wall in the hall was somehow stuck to a shoe of either the killer or police and tracked up there because 4 shots were fired in the kitchen and only 3 casings were there. The only odd casing was in the hall and it could not have gotten in that location unless someone were shooting in that direction from th vicinity of Sheila's room.
The other 4 shots were all side profile shots and thus could not have been fired from someone standing behind Nevill so can't have been delivered on the stairs. Nevill's left side was facing the killer when the shots were fired.
The killer fired 11 rounds at June and Nevill in the master bedroom. That alone proves it was Jeremy, Sheial would not have loaded the gun to capacity. The gun was empty when either Nevill fled the bedroom with his killer giving chase or alternatively he chased his killer. Since he probably did not move that fast and left blood on the walls it is quite possible he was tailing his killer and could not catch up uintil the kitchen. It seems unlikely his killer would not catch up sooner. Why would his killer go the the kitchen? To get more ammo which Nevill woudl have every reason to try to stop. Why would Nevill go to the kitchen? Most likely to grab a weapon be it a knife, gun or something else available in the kitchen. The guns were stored in the back kitchen AKA office kitchen.
Dr V states NB put up a "spirited defense". He does not mention a "struggle".
A spirited defense is a struggle. It certainly refutes your claim Nevill passed out and his limp body was bludgeoned.
If you want to claim the above you need to rule SC out by providing the following measurements to the nearest mm:
Height from kitchen floor to lowest point of lampshade
Height of SC
Arm length/reach of SC
Length of rifle with and without silencer (Now kindly provided by Myster)
I believe EP fabricated the scratches after the tragedy.
I don't need to rule her out. The moderator had ot be attached to break the lampshade. That could have been accomplished by Sheila or Jeremy fighting with Nevill over it though much more likely Jeremy since he was taller and the higher the gun the easier to take away from sheila. The moderator attached period sinks Jeremy by your own admission that if it was attached then Jeremy is guilty so I have zero need to say she was too short to have broken the light with the moderator attached.
You need to provide evidence that the moderator was not attached and that the blood and paint were planted. you can't you have not even a detialed theory of how it came about let alone any evidence it is possible to plant blood in the manner it was found. You just refuse to believe the evidence. Taht doens't make it go away it just akes your opinion baseless.
You don't know when and how the stock was damaged. How could SC have told JB anything?
We do indeed know when and how. The broken piece was in the kitchen so it obviously was broke off while Nevill was being bludgeoned not some other time prior to the murders especially since the gun by Jeremy's own admission was unbroken prior ot the murders.
The way it was sheered off indicates the butt striking something hard and dorcing the stock into the receiver. This was all explained already.
You have nothing to rebut my points or evidence anymore than you have anything to establish the evidence on and in the mdoerator was planted. You just dismiss anythign you don't want to face. taht doesn't refute it though and doesn't make it go away.
The other rooms you refer to were bedrooms and the stairs. Not too much to break in those rooms. The other victims were perhaps not beaten as they didn't try to resist either verbally or physically.
Those with disorganised attachments are capable of extreme rage, aggression and violence as a result of the initial trauma.
There was plenty to break in the bedrooms and knock over. There were also victims to attack and bash in the bedrooms. Why only Nevill when he was the man who clamed her down instantly in the past? You have nothing at all to answer any of these questions.
ONly th emost dishonest clown refuseds to admit that Nevill was beaten because the killer was out of ammunition and needed to reload but Nevill was trying to disarm the killer and the killer had to knock him out in order ot be able to reload and then be able to shoot him dead. You can't refute any of this and so just childishly dismiss it as if that does a thing.
-
http://www.autism.org.uk/about-autism/autism-and-asperger-syndrome-an-introduction/high-functioning-autism-and-asperger-syndrome-whats-the-difference.aspx
-
You have no evidence she showered and bathed nor any reason why she would. You can't find a single case where someone decided to commit murder-suicide and after killing their family took a bath. It doesn't happen it is a stupid suggestion the best anyone could come up with is to raise bathing before ritualistic suicide which no one alleges was the case. Showering and bathing doesn't get rid of evidence on clothing anyway. The killer's clothing would have been covered with GSR, high velocity spatter and medium velocity spatter and gloves were used. No such clothing was found at WHF.
Your simplistic claims about guns have already been addressed and you have no rebuttal you just go back to the same stupid mantra over and over again.
Seeing someone shoot a gun doens't mean that you will be able to load and shoot it yourself. Iguarantee if I fire my semi-auto sniper rifle that you will not notice the steps I take asde from simply pulling the trigger and walking aorund me sometimes doesn't mean I will even perform such in your presence let alone you will understand and appreciate the subtle acts. Lynette Fromme grew up around guns and she failed to chamber around and was thus disarmed without a shot having been fired when she tried to kill president Ford. What rebuttal have you presented to this. Nothing you just ignore it and repeat the same mantra she would have known what to do no matter what because you actually don't care about the truth only pretending SHeila did it so you can present your psychology BS.
What semi-auto guns did they have on the farm? NONE until the murder weapon purchased at the end of 1984.
So if she was busy wathcing her father growing up and so forth then she would have seen him fire shotguns not a semi-auto. You ignore this time and again because it absolutely kills you. Walking with her father as he used a shotgun would not enable her to know how to use the murder weapon no matter how carefully she watched her father. Your simplistic she would have to know how to shoot any and all gun because she lived on a farm is simply pathetic and absurd.
The only thing worse is suggesting it is cake to just easily group shots and neve rmiss your first time using a wepaon you are unfamiliar with while in the middle of a crazy rage.
The killer broke the lamp by being right under it. Nevill was knocked down while the killer was supposedly standing on this mess swinging a rifle at Nevill battering him unconscious and then walked all around the kitchen afterwards. Nevill wasn't walking around was he? In fact the killed stepped on Nevill's feet and kicked his knees bruising them, probably in an effort to get him off his feet.
The nature of the break demonstrates how it was being used. It was being used in a motion that demosntrates the back of the stock was being used to bash and the way that is done is by holding the weapon with one hand on the fore grip and the other on the narrow area of the stock.
Aside from no evidence the weapon was instead used as you claimed wither her holding the barrel that would still result in injury. The knurled grip of the moderator would cause damage to the arms and the iron sights would damage the wrist and hands. You never think things through you just make simplistic claims based on nothing other than your agenda.
Again a completely absurd claim not supported by anything. You have no evidence she showered and bathed nor any reason why she would. You can't find a single case where someone decided to commit murder-suicide and after killing their family took a bath. It doesn't happen it is a stupid suggestion the best anyone could come up with is to raise bathing before ritualistic suicide which no one alleges was the case. Showering and bathing doesn't get rid of evidence on clothing anyway. The killer's clothing would have been covered with GSR, high velocity spatter and medium velocity spatter and gloves were used. No such clothing was found at WHF. The buck you cite contianed 2 pairs of panties and leggings all with the crotch stained thus indicative of being menstruated in during the day some time. Probably before she bought tampons and she went shopping that very day and had a supply of tampons including one inserted inside her when killed!
Where is the gown or blouse with GSR and blood spatter from the victims? It wasn't in the buckets so try again.
What you believe doesn't matter what you can provide evidence of matters. You have no evidentiary basis to assert such happened. You have no rational basis to believe it happened. The evidence says it did and unless you can refute that evidence it is a thorn that prevents your claims from being taken seriously. Just dismissing it because you don't want to face it doesn't make it go away.
He had skin ripped off a finger, bruising to his elbow and his forearm had "relatively linear" wounds. The butt of the stock jabbing into his arm made the gauges. Yhe flat bottom, top or sides of the stock do not make gauges like that. It was made by the butt of the rifle glancing off and digging in.
(http://s27.postimg.org/jzo0w7qwz/arm1.jpg)
The buttplate has ridges and can thus gauge but worse loo at the corners of the butt
(http://s27.postimg.org/qmoxdztoj/arm2.jpg)
Nevill raised his right arm blocking his face with it. Elbow was facing to his right and his hand to his left. The killer was striking his arm with the butt of the rifle.
He didn't receive any shots on the stairs. If he was hit while running away down the stairs that would even be worse to try to claim Sheila made such a shot. There is zero evidence of a shot on the stairs. The shell casing would have been at the bottom of the stairs not the top if a killer were aiming at him as he was below running down the stairs. The killer would have shot him in the back and the only shots that coudl have been fired from the top of the stairs as he ran down based on angle of impact is one of the shots in the top of his head which woudl have made him collapse and which Vanzis said was clearly fired int he kitchen as all 4 shots were fired at the same range and tightly grouped and had they been delivered elsewher ehe would have passed out and not made it ot the kitchen. the shell caseing against the wall in the hall was somehow stuck to a shoe of either the killer or police and tracked up there because 4 shots were fired in the kitchen and only 3 casings were there. The only odd casing was in the hall and it could not have gotten in that location unless someone were shooting in that direction from th vicinity of Sheila's room.
The other 4 shots were all side profile shots and thus could not have been fired from someone standing behind Nevill so can't have been delivered on the stairs. Nevill's left side was facing the killer when the shots were fired.
The killer fired 11 rounds at June and Nevill in the master bedroom. That alone proves it was Jeremy, Sheial would not have loaded the gun to capacity. The gun was empty when either Nevill fled the bedroom with his killer giving chase or alternatively he chased his killer. Since he probably did not move that fast and left blood on the walls it is quite possible he was tailing his killer and could not catch up uintil the kitchen. It seems unlikely his killer would not catch up sooner. Why would his killer go the the kitchen? To get more ammo which Nevill woudl have every reason to try to stop. Why would Nevill go to the kitchen? Most likely to grab a weapon be it a knife, gun or something else available in the kitchen. The guns were stored in the back kitchen AKA office kitchen.
A spirited defense is a struggle. It certainly refutes your claim Nevill passed out and his limp body was bludgeoned.
I don't need to rule her out. The moderator had ot be attached to break the lampshade. That could have been accomplished by Sheila or Jeremy fighting with Nevill over it though much more likely Jeremy since he was taller and the higher the gun the easier to take away from sheila. The moderator attached period sinks Jeremy by your own admission that if it was attached then Jeremy is guilty so I have zero need to say she was too short to have broken the light with the moderator attached.
You need to provide evidence that the moderator was not attached and that the blood and paint were planted. you can't you have not even a detialed theory of how it came about let alone any evidence it is possible to plant blood in the manner it was found. You just refuse to believe the evidence. Taht doens't make it go away it just akes your opinion baseless.
We do indeed know when and how. The broken piece was in the kitchen so it obviously was broke off while Nevill was being bludgeoned not some other time prior to the murders especially since the gun by Jeremy's own admission was unbroken prior ot the murders.
The way it was sheered off indicates the butt striking something hard and dorcing the stock into the receiver. This was all explained already.
You have nothing to rebut my points or evidence anymore than you have anything to establish the evidence on and in the mdoerator was planted. You just dismiss anythign you don't want to face. taht doesn't refute it though and doesn't make it go away.
There was plenty to break in the bedrooms and knock over. There were also victims to attack and bash in the bedrooms. Why only Nevill when he was the man who clamed her down instantly in the past? You have nothing at all to answer any of these questions.
ONly th emost dishonest clown refuseds to admit that Nevill was beaten because the killer was out of ammunition and needed to reload but Nevill was trying to disarm the killer and the killer had to knock him out in order ot be able to reload and then be able to shoot him dead. You can't refute any of this and so just childishly dismiss it as if that does a thing.
No No No No....You cannot prove that Sheila did not shower and equally no one can prove she didn't. It is a possibility. The bathroom light was on on the first floor, so someone had used it. One thing at time Scorpio...I mean ??????? lol
-
No No No No....You cannot prove that Sheila did not shower and equally no one can prove she didn't. It is a possibility. The bathroom light was on on the first floor, so someone had used it. One thing at time Scorpio...I mean ??????? lol
I don't have to prove that she didn't. Jeremy supporters have to establish she likely did. There is no reaosn at all why she would and no evidence that she did. Worse, there is no way to estbalish she likely changed her clothes. It again akes no sense and there is no evidence she changed her clothes and without finding clothing covered in blood and GSR that is a tremendous problem since the killer's clothing would have have had both on it. That doesn't even get to the issue of the moderator and so forth.
-
....You cannot prove that Sheila did not shower and equally no one can prove she didn't. It is a possibility...
It certainly is conceivable. And despite anyone else's fatuous rants to the contrary, it would not have been unheard of. Indeed, anyone familiar with the subject would know it's not particularly uncommon for people to bath before they commit suicide.
-
My aunt bathed before she took her life in 1936 she even had her hair done. She left no note and according to the witnesses she had enjoyed her day even up to the last hour before she took her life she had visited a neighbour and took socks she knitted for her children. Witness said her mood was a happy one. 8(8-))
-
I don't have to prove that she didn't. Jeremy supporters have to establish she likely did. There is no reaosn at all why she would and no evidence that she did. Worse, there is no way to estbalish she likely changed her clothes. It again akes no sense and there is no evidence she changed her clothes and without finding clothing covered in blood and GSR that is a tremendous problem since the killer's clothing would have have had both on it. That doesn't even get to the issue of the moderator and so forth.
If you take a peep at Sheila's cousins statement she made comment to the way Sheila looked and that she was constantly straightening the edge of her skirt. She was a model, albeit for a short time, but she liked to look nice.
The only argument I have is that Sheila was in her nightdress and not in normal clothes. If she had wanted to look nice after a shower, then why would she put night clothes on?
My other argument is the blooded clothes soaking in the bucket. Vital evidence thrown away. Panties and jogging bottoms were supposedly found...But, who is to say those jogging bottoms didn't belong to Sheila? After alol we do know that Sheila wore jogging bottoms there is photos of her wearing them in the archives. 8(0(*
-
If you take a peep at Sheila's cousins statement she made comment to the way Sheila looked and that she was constantly straightening the edge of her skirt. She was a model, albeit for a short time, but she liked to look nice.
The only argument I have is that Sheila was in her nightdress and not in normal clothes. If she had wanted to look nice after a shower, then why would she put night clothes on?
My other argument is the blooded clothes soaking in the bucket. Vital evidence thrown away. Panties and jogging bottoms were supposedly found...But, who is to say those jogging bottoms didn't belong to Sheila? After alol we do know that Sheila wore jogging bottoms there is photos of her wearing them in the archives. 8(0(*
Asking why would she change after a shower into a nightdress instead of something nice to kill herself in supports that she didn't shower and change and simply was sleeing when Jeremy woke her up to kill her.
As for the items in the buucket it is assumed they were Sheila's. June would not be menstruating at her age and Sheila was menstruating so eveyrone assumes they were heres. They have no bearing at lal on th emurders, the notion they were vital evidence is laughable. All they establish is she bled in her panties and leggings so establish she was menstruating but we already knew that.
-
If you take a peep at Sheila's cousins statement she made comment to the way Sheila looked and that she was constantly straightening the edge of her skirt. She was a model, albeit for a short time, but she liked to look nice.
The only argument I have is that Sheila was in her nightdress and not in normal clothes. If she had wanted to look nice after a shower, then why would she put night clothes on?
My other argument is the blooded clothes soaking in the bucket. Vital evidence thrown away. Panties and jogging bottoms were supposedly found...But, who is to say those jogging bottoms didn't belong to Sheila? After alol we do know that Sheila wore jogging bottoms there is photos of her wearing them in the archives. 8(0(*
Hello Patti
Ok. I guess I could let you have Scipio but the rest are all mine 8)-))) You have Hartley, Mat and Roch who are all hot guys on Blue (possibly Adam too?).
SC was found wearing stud earrings, watch, chunky looking ring and necklace. I accept all these things are personal/subjective but if I wearing that lot in bed it would drive me nuts. I never wear anything in bed except on the odd occasion when I've had too much to drink and forget to take off watch/jewellery. EP could have clarified with CC if SC normally wore watch/jewellery to bed. It is this sort of lack of detail that I find frustrating and had more females been involved in the investigation I feel sure they would have sought clarification on.
I take on board your point re SC always wanting to look nice and seeking confirmation form others. And as you said if she was planning on taking her own life would she have put on a nightdress instead of day clothes? Perhaps as the other victims were in nightwear she felt it was appropriate? Or maybe if she showered and changed she did not intend taking her own life. Perhaps when EP turned up she felt she had no other option? DI Jones attempted to make contact using a loud hailer with no response. She may just have been expecting JB and panicked when EP turned up. Whether SC or JB, I believe the order of those shot was June, NB, twins. And order of death NB, June, twins 8(8-))
-
If you take a peep at Sheila's cousins statement she made comment to the way Sheila looked and that she was constantly straightening the edge of her skirt. She was a model, albeit for a short time, but she liked to look nice.
The only argument I have is that Sheila was in her nightdress and not in normal clothes. If she had wanted to look nice after a shower, then why would she put night clothes on?
My other argument is the blooded clothes soaking in the bucket. Vital evidence thrown away. Panties and jogging bottoms were supposedly found...But, who is to say those jogging bottoms didn't belong to Sheila? After alol we do know that Sheila wore jogging bottoms there is photos of her wearing them in the archives. 8(0(*
Oops I missed the last bit of your post Patti. As you will see from the following AE refers to the clothing as "Track suit bottoms" not leggings. I think a pair of leggings were found hanging over the banisters. The following is worth a read Patti as I have brought together all the relevant WS's pertaining to the buckets. Myster kindly made available the kitchen photo showing the buckets. Patti of significance is why did none of the raid team make ref to the buckets? Or DC Bird - police photographer (although someone obviously took a photo) Or DC Hammersley - soc officer?
Something simply doesn't ring true about all of this and I feel certain that most females will feel the same. Why would SC/June allow menstrual stained soiled clothing to hang around in the kitchen where food was prepared and eaten? Especially with the twins running around? More so given they had other rooms eg scullery or whatever it was referred to as (general dumping ground). I feel sure that the housekeeper Jean Boutell could shed some light on this? Having been the housekeeper for some 20 years she would be familiar with routines concerning laundry. However unlike BW who is only to happy to share her views (and they are just that views she can provide nothing of evidential value) to anyone prepared to listen Jean Boutell is far less vocal, other than saying she had never heard JB make any negative comments about his family, or words to this effect, and the phones at WHF were frequently moved around. It is worth bearing in mind that June left Jean 1k in her will. BW was left nothing. Perhaps this is an indication of how the Bambers viewed Jean and BW?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146309#msg146309
-
Hey Patti remember that experiment you put me up to. Lol my friend:
There appears to have been an assumption that as Sheila was menstruating that it was menstrual blood found in the buckets. As per AE's wit stat when she was asked by (SJ) how she knew it was menstrual blood she said that it smelled differently. I wanted to find out if this was true and if there were any other differences. This is what I discovered (I would point out that it was Patti who talked me into doing the fuller experiment ;D)
APPARATUS
3 brand new buckets
3 brand new dish cloths
Cold tap water
Sterilised sharpened kitchen knife
2 bottles Rochefort 10 beer @ 11.3% abv = 7.4 units alcohol
Iphone/music/headphones
METHOD
Used 1 x dish cloth instead of normal tampon to absorb menstrual blood throughout day (a day spent at home). Around 8 pm (Wed) placed heavily soiled dish cloth in bucket filled with water to about a 1cm depth.
Bolted down two bottles of Rochfort 10 to numb the pain ;D. Headphones/music on to drown out the sound of tearing skin ;D. Made incision under knee to draw blood sufficient to cover dish cloth as 1 above. Around 8 pm (Wed) placed heavily soiled dish cloth in bucket filled with water to about a 1cm depth.
Control bowl with clean dish cloth as 1 and 2 above to eliminate any smells from bowl/cloth alone.
RESULTS
Checked for any changes morning and evening: Thu, Fri and Sat. From Sat morn, but not before, changes took place as follows:
Odour
A barely detectable odour was present. However the odour from both bowls was identical. The odour reminded me of rust and was reminiscent of the water that collected in my Dad's water butt which was I believe made out of some sort of metal. I observed the buckets over one week with water at 1 cm depth and a further week at 10 cm depth and the odour was identical for both buckets.
Colour
Both buckets of water started of a rose colour and from Sat morn turned a slightly darker shade by the end of two weeks the colour resembled deep burgundy/brown.
Consistency
As I lifted the buckets to smell the contents I noticed that a skum/film began to form on top of the water and around the sides. When the water level moved from my lifting of the buckets the skum/film moved from the top and clung to the sides. Very tiny particles also formed at the bottom. Looked a little like dark sand :-\
At the end of week one I topped up the water level to about 10 cm by the end of week two the odour had disappeared (too diluted I assume) and the colur and consistency remained broadly the same just slightly weaker.
CONCLUSION
The contents of bowls 1 and 2 behaved exactly the same at the same time in terms of
- odour
- colour
- consistency
There were no changes in control bucket 3.
When Stan Jones (?) asked AE how she knew it was menstrual blood she said it smelled differently? What was she comparing it with? He said make sure you tell the court that.
What exactly was in the buckets and how did they come to be?
A correction needs to be made to the above in that the police officer who AE discussed the smell/odour with was in fact DS Ainsley and not DS Jones.
-
As regards a memorial service. I can't find evidence that confirms there was a service or not, however, common sense dictates to me the following-: the murders took place on 7th August 1985 and the funeral a little over a week later, at this time it was classed as four murders and a suicide and within hours of this happening, there were reporters all over the village. With the funerals being so close to the event and all the publicity around it, it doesn't make any sense to have held a memorial service, it would have been chaos and probably might have turned somewhat disrespectful to have held a memorial with so many reporters around and the possibility of 'tourists' showing up to have a look, if that makes sense-I hope you'll understand how I'm looking at this.
However, there was a plaque erected and a light outside as a memorial to the Bamber's (Mr and Mrs Bamber) as they had been church wardens and whether this was then a chance for the villagers to come together to remember and pay tribute to the Bambers including Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel I don't know but this would make more sense to me and it wouldn't have attracted as much press and media intrusion or random strangers turning up either.
Its quite possible this happened either while Jeremy Bambers trial was up and running and the media attention was focused on that or after the trial had finished I don't know. It was probably a quiet and sombre affair in reflection of the people and the event and I can imagine it being very low key.
-
As regards a memorial service. I can't find evidence that confirms there was a service or not, however, common sense dictates to me the following-: the murders took place on 7th August 1985 and the funeral a little over a week later, at this time it was classed as four murders and a suicide and within hours of this happening, there were reporters all over the village. With the funerals being so close to the event and all the publicity around it, it doesn't make any sense to have held a memorial service, it would have been chaos and probably might have turned somewhat disrespectful to have held a memorial with so many reporters around and the possibility of 'tourists' showing up to have a look, if that makes sense-I hope you'll understand how I'm looking at this.
However, there was a plaque erected and a light outside as a memorial to the Bamber's (Mr and Mrs Bamber) as they had been church wardens and whether this was then a chance for the villagers to come together to remember and pay tribute to the Bambers including Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel I don't know but this would make more sense to me and it wouldn't have attracted as much press and media intrusion or random strangers turning up either.
Its quite possible this happened either while Jeremy Bambers trial was up and running and the media attention was focused on that or after the trial had finished I don't know. It was probably a quiet and sombre affair in reflection of the people and the event and I can imagine it being very low key.
Hi and welcome to the forum Charliesnike ?{)(**
I gather from your post you are trying to establish whether or not a memorial service was in fact held for Mr and Mrs Bamber but have been unable to find the confirmation you were looking for? I have no idea. I have read posts from others that JB did not attend and they felt, perhaps unsurprisingly, this was disrespectful and indicative of his overall character and attitude.
I am aware of the plaque and light erected. However imo given the enormity of the tragedy coupled with various facts eg June's family having long connections with the area; June and NB having been pillars of the community: church wardens, charities, NB as magistrate; and the motivation for the crime given as greed and hatred, I think the relatives of June and NB might have considered setting up a charity or endowment in their memory using the proceeds of their estate.
-
Oops I missed the last bit of your post Patti. As you will see from the following AE refers to the clothing as "Track suit bottoms" not leggings. I think a pair of leggings were found hanging over the banisters. The following is worth a read Patti as I have brought together all the relevant WS's pertaining to the buckets. Myster kindly made available the kitchen photo showing the buckets. Patti of significance is why did none of the raid team make ref to the buckets? Or DC Bird - police photographer (although someone obviously took a photo) Or DC Hammersley - soc officer?
Something simply doesn't ring true about all of this and I feel certain that most females will feel the same. Why would SC/June allow menstrual stained soiled clothing to hang around in the kitchen where food was prepared and eaten? Especially with the twins running around? More so given they had other rooms eg scullery or whatever it was referred to as (general dumping ground). I feel sure that the housekeeper Jean Boutell could shed some light on this? Having been the housekeeper for some 20 years she would be familiar with routines concerning laundry. However unlike BW who is only to happy to share her views (and they are just that views she can provide nothing of evidential value) to anyone prepared to listen Jean Boutell is far less vocal, other than saying she had never heard JB make any negative comments about his family, or words to this effect, and the phones at WHF were frequently moved around. It is worth bearing in mind that June left Jean 1k in her will. BW was left nothing. Perhaps this is an indication of how the Bambers viewed Jean and BW?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146309#msg146309
Funny because as we speak a shirt stained with my blood is soaking in our kitchen sink. I cut my hand on the snowblower. My wife is trying to soak it to get the stain out. She could have stuck it int he laundry room in a bucket but it is in our sink for whatever reaosn.
The bucket with the clothing being in the kitchen is quite possible but it wasn't in the kitchen where they eat it was in the section where they did the laundry. What in the world would it be doing there how out of place- NOT!
The room to the right in this photo is where the buckets were photographed by police.
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/1434/9kcm.jpg
That is not where food was prepared.
-
Funny because as we speak a shirt stained with my blood is soaking in our kitchen sink. I cut my hand on the snowblower. My wife is trying to soak it to get the stain out. She could have stuck it int he laundry room in a bucket but it is in our sink for whatever reaosn.
The bucket with the clothing being in the kitchen is quite possible but it wasn't in the kitchen where they eat it was in the section where they did the laundry. What in the world would it be doing there how out of place- NOT!
The room to the right in this photo is where the buckets were photographed by police.
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/1434/9kcm.jpg
That is not where food was prepared.
Paul I can't actually see the buckets? I think you will find them here in the kitchen and direct line of vision as the raid team entered:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3905.msg146317#msg146317
As you said why leave buckets of dirty/stained clothes in soak in the kitchen where food is prepared.
Night Paul.
-
&%&£(+ having worked in a secure psychiatric unit for years, I have seen the effects of haloperidol at first hand. even on the low dose that Sheila was on at the time of the murders, there is in my opinion no way she would have been physically capable of committing them. dizziness, jerking, weakness and spasm of muscles. even with medication to counteract side effects. it would have been easy for Jeremy to force Sheila to lie down to be shot. couple abject terror with this medication and she would have had no chance.
-
&%&£(+ having worked in a secure psychiatric unit for years, I have seen the effects of haloperidol at first hand. even on the low dose that Sheila was on at the time of the murders, there is in my opinion no way she would have been physically capable of committing them. dizziness, jerking, weakness and spasm of muscles. even with medication to counteract side effects. it would have been easy for Jeremy to force Sheila to lie down to be shot. couple abject terror with this medication and she would have had no chance.
Nurse A. HI. My own feeling is that -leaving ANY meds out of it- she was too weighed down by depression, bought on by the rejections and disappointments she'd experienced since leaving the psych clinic, to raise the energy to commit mass murder.....................however, perhaps you can clarify for me, that despite an apparent "wobble" over the strength of her meds, as she'd never shown any previous signs of aggression, she'd have been highly unlikely to explode into a psychosis which would have made it possible for her to slaughter her entire family.
-
hi april. never once had Sheila displayed violence to anyone except for a slap to colin (which is not acceptable but not indicative of simmering rage). she had damaged property, a door, I believe and hit a wall with her fists but never hit a person. i'm ashamed to say that I have slapped people before but wd never escalate into extreme violence. the people I have worked with have always displayed violence to people and animals from an early age. this has then progressed and manifested in terrible acts. in twenty years I have never seen anyone commit this sort of violence without the tell tale signs and examples of incidents in their youth. Sheila had never demonstrated these tendencies and for her to suddenly explode is extremely rare and almost unheard of. her diagnosis is a typical one and there are many people in society with depression and related psychoses that function reasonably well without any violent incidents. Jeremy has all the traits of a sociopath with psychopathic tendencies. self absorption. arrogance, denial of the crime, detachment from emotion.a charmer, intelligent, plausible because he himself believes he didn't do it. I have seen it all before.
-
&%&£(+hi april. never once had Sheila displayed violence to anyone except for a slap to colin (which is not acceptable but not indicative of simmering rage). she had damaged property, a door, I believe and hit a wall with her fists but never hit a person. i'm ashamed to say that I have slapped people before but wd never escalate into extreme violence. the people I have worked with have always displayed violence to people and animals from an early age. this has then progressed and manifested in terrible acts. in twenty years I have never seen anyone commit this sort of violence without the tell tale signs and examples of incidents in their youth. Sheila had never demonstrated these tendencies and for her to suddenly explode is extremely rare and almost unheard of. her diagnosis is a typical one and there are many people in society with depression and related psychoses that function reasonably well without any violent incidents. Jeremy has all the traits of a sociopath with psychopathic tendencies. self absorption. arrogance, denial of the crime, detachment from emotion.a charmer, intelligent, plausible because he himself believes he didn't do it. I have seen it all before.
There is an existing thread covering JB and psychopathy:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=548.msg16387#msg16387
I'm not sure if there's an existing thread about SC/her condition and the potential for violence. I'll have a look. If not it might be an idea to set up a new one.
-
&%&£(+hi april. never once had Sheila displayed violence to anyone except for a slap to colin (which is not acceptable but not indicative of simmering rage). she had damaged property, a door, I believe and hit a wall with her fists but never hit a person. i'm ashamed to say that I have slapped people before but wd never escalate into extreme violence. the people I have worked with have always displayed violence to people and animals from an early age. this has then progressed and manifested in terrible acts. in twenty years I have never seen anyone commit this sort of violence without the tell tale signs and examples of incidents in their youth. Sheila had never demonstrated these tendencies and for her to suddenly explode is extremely rare and almost unheard of. her diagnosis is a typical one and there are many people in society with depression and related psychoses that function reasonably well without any violent incidents. Jeremy has all the traits of a sociopath with psychopathic tendencies. self absorption. arrogance, denial of the crime, detachment from emotion.a charmer, intelligent, plausible because he himself believes he didn't do it. I have seen it all before.
Hi Ann,
I completely agree that Jeremy is all of those things and also very deceptive. Not sure what you mean by 'he himself believes he didn't do it' though?
-
ihave met many people over the years who totally believe that they did not commit the crimes for which they are detained. for example the lie detector Jeremy took. you will only come up as untruthful if you knowingly lie. therefore if you are asked did you kill your family and you really don't think you did it will show as truthful. a classic case is the green river killer in America, gary leon ridgeway, who passed with flying colours.he then went on to kill another thirty odd women before being caught red handed. he truly believed it wasn't him doing it. denial, detachment, dismissal. the three Ds in identifying psychopathic traits, which you can have without being a psychopath! sorry, Holly will introduce myself properly next time off shift.
-
I've posted my reply in the lie detection thread.
-
ihave met many people over the years who totally believe that they did not commit the crimes for which they are detained. for example the lie detector Jeremy took. you will only come up as untruthful if you knowingly lie. therefore if you are asked did you kill your family and you really don't think you did it will show as truthful. a classic case is the green river killer in America, gary leon ridgeway, who passed with flying colours.he then went on to kill another thirty odd women before being caught red handed. he truly believed it wasn't him doing it. denial, detachment, dismissal. the three Ds in identifying psychopathic traits, which you can have without being a psychopath! sorry, Holly will introduce myself properly next time off shift.
I've posted my reply in the psychopath thread.
-
ihave met many people over the years who totally believe that they did not commit the crimes for which they are detained. for example the lie detector Jeremy took. you will only come up as untruthful if you knowingly lie. therefore if you are asked did you kill your family and you really don't think you did it will show as truthful. a classic case is the green river killer in America, gary leon ridgeway, who passed with flying colours.he then went on to kill another thirty odd women before being caught red handed. he truly believed it wasn't him doing it. denial, detachment, dismissal. the three Ds in identifying psychopathic traits, which you can have without being a psychopath! sorry, Holly will introduce myself properly next time off shift.
The lie detector is basically a test for stress levels, it doesn't actually measure lies per se, simply the stress 'most' individuals would experience in such circumstances. Psychopaths don't need to suppress these memories because they don't feel any guilt or remorse and aren't prone to stress. If Jeremy had suppressed the memory of the killing, he would also needed to have suppressed the planning, discussing it with Julie and he would have had to convince himself that the phone call from his father was real and wouldn't need to change his story.
Gary Ridgway did indeed pass a lie detector test in 1987 while another suspect failed it, however, he later pleaded guilty to over 40 murders in 2003 to avoid the death penalty, supplying detectives with detailed accounts for each of the murders/ He admitted to killing prostitutes to avoid paying them and he liked to keep track of where he dumped the bodies.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/05/green.river.killings/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22467640
The Bamber killing were planned and staged and I am sure Jeremy remembers exactly what he did.
-
The lie detector is basically a test for stress levels, it doesn't actually measure lies per se, simply the stress 'most' individuals would experience in such circumstances. Psychopaths don't need to suppress these memories because they don't feel any guilt or remorse and aren't prone to stress. If Jeremy had suppressed the memory of the killing, he would also needed to have suppressed the planning, discussing it with Julie and he would have had to convince himself that the phone call from his father was real and wouldn't need to change his story.
Gary Ridgway did indeed pass a lie detector test in 1987 while another suspect failed it, however, he later pleaded guilty to over 40 murders in 2003 to avoid the death penalty, supplying detectives with detailed accounts for each of the murders/ He admitted to killing prostitutes to avoid paying them and he liked to keep track of where he dumped the bodies.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/05/green.river.killings/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22467640
The Bamber killing were planned and staged and I am sure Jeremy remembers exactly what he did.
Forum rules request posters keep to thread. Can I ask please that you post in the threads I have retrieved re polygraphs and psychopathy.
-
sorry holly. will do 8()-000(
-
sorry holly. will do 8()-000(
Think I suffer from eldest child syndrome ie bossy 8((()*/
-
It's true! Victims of MOJ's are nearly always a little different:
Guildford 4, Maguire 7, Birmingham 6 (hope I've got them the right way round) Irish/Catholic
Stephen Downing - learning difficulties
Stephan Kiszko - socially awkward (Aspergers syndrome)
Sally Clarke - female and professional
Jeremy Bamber - adopted and privately educated/boarding school
Another example is Stephen Lawrence - black
The Macpherson report found the police institutionally racist but prejudice exists in many forms including a dislike/fear of anyone who might be considered 'different'.
STOP attempting to rewrite history.
Re Stephen Downing
“Hale saw the Court of Appeal verdict as a personal victory. He wrote a book about the campaign and co-operated with a BBC1 drama, in which he was played by Stephen Tompkinson. But police files show that Hale falsely portrayed Downing as an artless innocent who was wrongly accused while the guilty parties got away scot free.
The files demonstrate that he suppressed evidence suggesting that Downing was indeed the likely killer of Sewell, and fabricated “facts” to implicate entirely innocent people.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/editor-invented-facts-to-clear-man-in-bakewell-tart-killing-fxb673cdpbb
Jeremy Bamber is NOT a miscarriage of justice.
His defence team learned he was a psychopath following assessments pre trial. Like in the Barry George case and others cases they weren’t used by the defence, for obvious reasons.
-
Forum rules request posters keep to thread. Can I ask please that you post in the threads I have retrieved re polygraphs and psychopathy.
They may indeed but I didn't introduce the topic, simply answered a new members post.
-
They may indeed but I didn't introduce the topic, simply answered a new members post.
New member nurse ann is four years older now... tempus fugit!
-
Think I suffer from eldest child syndrome ie bossy 8((()*/
Think?!!!
-
New member nurse ann is four years older now... tempus fugit!
Yeah I know but that's the first time I've seen the post. I'll get round to them all sooner or later @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Sheila Caffel’s blood spillage bothers me - my first instinct is that she was likely turned or rolled at some point. My reasoning being that there is something off about the contradictory running/gravity of blood flow/pooling, the angle of her head, the hint of blood staining hidden just under the bible that looks to mirror her nightgown staining, plus her left arm’s rigor mortis positioning looks like it could have been the arm used to turn her.
After having looked at all the new evidence, I still think JB is guilty and would theorise that he over powered her with his weight on her back, at which time her right arm would have been bent under her head or shoulder, whilst he angled the first shot into her neck - thereafter he would have turned her back around, and perhaps the movement of her body and head turning created a temporary surge of blood, gushing down into her armpit area. (I think if she was not rolled I would have expected the blood flow to have ended up under her head and not on the side of her nightgown). Also, the trail of blood at the very top of the night gown does not look consistent with the amount of blood in her armpit area - it is as if her head may have temporarily been at an angle, where it poured down but mostly missing the lapel of her gown. (Also, if the gun, during this manoeuvre, lay on the carpet next to her, it may explain why the silencer got blood inside it).
Also, looking at Neville’s clothes discarded on the chair, I imagine that both the socks and a lot of the blood spatter seen on the carpet around her are more likely his. (He appears to have woken when June leapt out of bed and was likely shot at, as he dashed out of the room).
We also know of Sheila’s character that she may have lain there frozen in fear, hardly breathing, playing dead. (Shallow breathing and now lying on her back would have restricted some of the blood flow which would likely have pooled in her throat, mouth etc which would have accounted for it still seeping down her hours later). Alternatively, I notice that the “first” shot is supposed to have hit her vertebrae and shattering into 14 pieces. I would imagine, looking at her x-Ray, that there was a good chance of some kind of paralysis caused from the injury to what looks like her atlas and axis vertebrae.
I think JB only realised that the shot had not been fatal when returning later with the gun, now minus silencer, unloaded and possibly wiped down in areas, ready to frame Sheila. At which point, I think he went downstairs reloaded - shot Sheila one more time - but this time, without her wriggling, he was able to administer a skin contact shot and a better angle . (This would also explain the newer evidence of the second shot being administered without the silencer attached).
Thereafter, possibly a little paranoid about the others, he went from victim to victim upstairs using his remaining bullets to ensure that they were definitely dead....which may account for the over use of bullets and why the gun was empty when he finally left it on Sheila’s body.
The only body I think he possibly did not shoot again was Neville Bamber - as by the time he got downstairs he may have realised he had already placed the empty gun or was out of bullets, so instead of reloading he may have heated up say a kitchen implement to check if Neville flinched - the idea possibly also gave him a slight thrill ie. branding him like one of the cattle on the farm and perhaps doing it three times was significant to him - maybe a burn for each of them that he had killed. (I imagine the twins did not feature in JB’s loathing of the family).
-
The alleged phone call from his dad "you sister has got the gun and is going berserk"
If we pretend it is real for a minute.
That clearly means she hasn't shot anyone because the shooter didnt miss once so its not that she is letting off shots in the air she must be waving the gun around only had she been shooting people his dad would have said she is shooting people and would have called the police instead. So here is a woman going crazy waving a gun around and her dad who is bigger and stronger than her wont stop her yet later while shot he fights her. She is going berserk yet later when she starts shooting with no gun experience she never misses a shot.?
If she is waving the guns around and the dad has time to go down to the kitchen to call jeremy how come everyone else died in their rooms why would they have not been grouped around her trying to talk her down or trying to get out of the house. why were they found in their rooms as if someone had suddenly attacked them without warning. Which is impossible if the phone call was real
How did she carry the bullets and were her fingerprints on the casing i assume not? why no bullet grease or GSR on her despite 25 shots.
Even if the silencer was attached and she removed it and put it in the cupboard or it was never attached jeremy claims the blood was wet hours later and she must of shot herself much later while he was outside. The only problem with that is none of the police officers reported hearing a shot. Had they heard a shot they would have recorded it. A late shot would remove all doubt she was the shooter
The gun is in the wrong position for suicide and so people defending him say the police put it like that to frame him. Thats a nice idea with one big problem. At the time the police believed the sister was the killer so had no reason to try to frame her brother. many days after when his ex pointed the finger at him either the police were shit hot on photoshop which hadn't been invented or they took her body back to the house set it up and retook the pictures. Its laughable to claim the police moved the gun by mistake and then took a picture of it in the wrong postition because before anything is touched police take photos
The ex said he had told her he would sneak into the house and then leave and lock the window from the outside. If the window is checked and can be locked in such a manor how would the ex ever know that information unless he had told her when she said he did.
Due to the lack of gsr, pockets and anything on her feet there would be only Two scenarios i can think of
She dresses in clothes and footwear and gets the gun and bullets which she puts in her pockets. She waves it going berserk scaring her father who calls jeremy the kids stay in bed and her mum stays in the bedroom. Following the call he then starts to call the police she then shoots him and beats him without marking her hands or getting his blood on her. meanwhile her mum stays in the bedroom doesn't try to block the door run to the kids or run downstairs. she goes up and in some order shoots her mum and kids. She gets changed into her nightie puts the clothes all away neat and washes her hands cleaning off the gsr. she then sits down and despite being a fantastic shot 23 times tries to shoot herself in the throat not under the chin. The first shot doesn't kill her so she then puts the gun under her chin and kills herself. Then (whilst dead) goes and washes the gsr off her hands before laying back down.
The second option is jeremy who has no issue with stealing from his family breaks in shoots his mother shoots and injuries his father who chases him downstairs fights his father kills him and then goes and kills his sister and her kids he then rides home and sometime later looks up the local police and reports it he then drives slowly to the scene and does not rush the police to enter. He does this for his family's money. The fact he tried to sell his story and nude pictures of his dead sister shows he is a monster
After the police arrest bamber i assume they re search the house. When searching they do not find the clothes she wore or her shoes or slippers covered in blood glass and or sugar.
What worries me is an appeal is heard by a judge i believe who can decide their is not enough evidence and release him. Any jury would discuss it and pick his story full of holes so i hope his appeal is never granted.
The gsr alone should be enough. its impossible to fire a gun and not have gsr on you let alone 25 times
Anyway thats all i have for today.
-
Very good points, Number1barber.
The problem with this case is oft percieved to be the lack of hard evidence, or a 'smoking gun', as it were. In fact, I think Jeremy Bamber is the best example of guilty beyond reasonable doubt based largely on circumstantial evidence. It all points to Jeremy being the perpetrator, bar none.
The police bungled the aftermath, assumed Sheila was the guilty party and allowed Jeremy to destroy vital evidence
Regarding your comments about Judges on appeal - Tellingly, after his failed 2002 CCRC review the judges remarked that the more they looked at the facts the more resolutely convinced they were of his guilt.
In my opinion the only chance he has of seeing the light of day as a very old man would be to confess now and show remorse. Then he may possibly see the light of day in 20+ years, on compassionate grounds as a frail octogenarian and Britains longest ever serving prisoner.