Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty

[sika]

Holly, answer me honestly....who do you think was the most likely culprit, Jeremy or Sheila?

[scipio_usmc]

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.

[scipio_usmc]

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.
 

 

[scipio_usmc]

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.

[scipio_usmc]

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   

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.



 

[scipio_usmc]

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.

 

[scipio_usmc]

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.

[scipio_usmc]

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  ) 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.

[scipio_usmc]

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.   

[scipio_usmc]

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.   

[lane99]

...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

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.

[puglove]

Blimey, scipio, no wonder Mike couldn't risk you joining the blue forum!

Brilliant posts.   

[Myster]

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.

[scipio_usmc]

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. 

[Myster]

Blimey, scipio, no wonder Mike couldn't risk you joining the blue forum!

Brilliant posts.   

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 !