Should Bamber make devastating retractions ?

[adam]

It would take Sheila 75 minutes to do everything after Neville's last ever telephone call, which Bamber claims was to the police at 3.26am. This includes things which the evidence shows she or Bamber certainly did, together with what supporters claim Sheila did.   

Bamber in 2010 claimed Sheila did everything in 22 minutes !

Upon further investigation it is possible to give Sheila 38 minutes to do everything. Providing Bamber makes the first devastating retraction that -

Neville did not call the police:


It is also possible to claim Sheila did everything within 35 minutes. Providing she worked mightily efficiently and started shooting people within a minute of Neville putting the telephone down from his 3.10am to Bamber. However more devastating retractions are needed -

Sheila did not shower

Sheila did not change.

Sheila did not look for the bible.

Sheila did not read the bible.

Sheila did not write a suicide note.

Sheila did not burn Neville's back


Making these seven devastating retractions obviously makes Bamber guilty. And shows he has made up ridiculous claims to keep his campaign alive. However refusing to budge makes him guilty as Sheila needed 75 minutes, not the 22 minutes Bamber gave her in 2010. 

What should Bamber do ?

[Holly Goodhead]

It would take Sheila 75 minutes to do everything after Neville's last ever telephone call, which Bamber claims was to the police at 3.26am. This includes things which the evidence shows she or Bamber certainly did, together with what supporters claim Sheila did.   

Bamber in 2010 claimed Sheila did everything in 22 minutes !

Upon further investigation it is possible to give Sheila 38 minutes to do everything. Providing Bamber makes the first devastating retraction that -

Neville did not call the police:


It is also possible to claim Sheila did everything within 35 minutes. Providing she worked mightily efficiently and started shooting people within a minute of Neville putting the telephone down from his 3.10am to Bamber. However more devastating retractions are needed -

Sheila did not shower

Sheila did not change.

Sheila did not look for the bible.

Sheila did not read the bible.

Sheila did not write a suicide note.

Sheila did not burn Neville's back


Making these seven devastating retractions obviously makes Bamber guilty. And shows he has made up ridiculous claims to keep his campaign alive. However refusing to budge makes him guilty as Sheila needed 75 minutes, not the 22 minutes Bamber gave her in 2010. 

What should Bamber do ?

Stick to the facts! And check and double check before he opens his mouth and/or allows others to do so on his behalf.

He's at a distinct disadvantage in that his access to case related material and the outside world is limited.  He is therefore reliant on others, such as Mike, who have filled his head with all sorts of nonsense.

Many who write to him receive Birthday and Christmas cards.  I never have and I get the feeling he is not overly keen on me probably because I have told him I will not support aspects of his case I don't believe in such as the phone call from NB.   I've also told him to go steady on his blogs re his deceased family/the victims and that I didn't agree with the 'Bake-off'.  Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind!

It doesn't really matter what is said on forums, websites etc.  Only the contents of CCRC applications and CoA hearings can influence the direction of JB's case. 

[adam]

Sticking to the crime scene facts means Sheila did not -

Shower.
Change.
Get the bible.
Read the bible.
Write a suicide note.
Burn Neville's back.

And that Neville did not call the police. To be honest it is not a fact that Neville called Bamber either. However...

All of the above are allegations, not facts.


Sheila not showering means her unmarked body cannot be explained.

Sheila not changing means her unmarked nightie cannot be explained.

Sheila not getting the bible means it was a plant.

Sheila not reading the bible in the dark means it was a plant.

Sheila not writing a suicide note in the dark is not a disaster that highlights guilt. It was just an after thought from the CT.

Sheila not burning Neville's back means it must have been Bamber. Agreed by  the OS, who  claim the marks are from a rifle end.

[Holly Goodhead]

Sticking to the crime scene facts means Sheila did not -

Shower.
Change.
Get the bible.
Read the bible.
Write a suicide note.
Burn Neville's back.

And that Neville did not call the police. To be honest it is not a fact that Neville called Bamber either. However...

All of the above are allegations, not facts.


Sheila not showering means her unmarked body cannot be explained.

I think its possible SC could have been responsible and not had any marks to her body.  The initial GSW's sustained by June and NB rendered them defenceless.  The rifle and ammo are not powerful enough to cause back spatter as evidenced by the fact that there's no blood around NB's resting place other than where blood pooled on the floor ie none on furniture, walls, aga, mantle surround from back spatter.

Sheila not changing means her unmarked nightie cannot be explained.

As above.  I think SC could have been responsible and not had any marks to her nightie.  There was so little blood on the rifle that it was impossible to group.  If JB wiped why was it found with "splashes" and "smears".  However as I said so little that impossible to group and no evidence of blood on SC's nightie from rifle resting over her chest.

Sheila not getting the bible means it was a plant.

June was a deeply religious woman and may have reached for the bible and walked around the bed with it.  For those that are religious I would imagine that a bible could be comforting in such a scenario.  It seems certain June walked around the bed to where the bible was found hence blood on the socks and carpet was found to be June's.  When the raid team opened the connecting door to the box room they may have moved the bible.  When JB was stood outside WHF he made numerous references to SC's mental illness but no reference to any religiosity.  Had he planted why not lay it on thick about SC and religion?

Sheila not reading the bible in the dark means it was a plant.

As above

Sheila not writing a suicide note in the dark is not a disaster that highlights guilt. It was just an after thought from the CT.

No evidence SC wrote a sucide note.

Sheila not burning Neville's back means it must have been Bamber. Agreed by  the OS, who  claim the marks are from a rifle end.

No evidence anyone burned NB's back with the rifle/silencer.  More likely a hot casing as Myster has  suggested.  Whoever you believe was responsible why would the perp single out NB for burning and not the other victims makes no sense to me

[Myster]

The rifle and ammo are not powerful enough to cause back spatter as evidenced by the fact that there's no blood around NB's resting place other than where blood pooled on the floor ie none on furniture, walls, aga, mantle surround from back spatter.

Not strictly true, as CAL noted. Other than backspatter, blood could have sprayed/spattered from the severe facial beating...

"There were blood smears on a tile above his head, on the kettle on the hob and the Aga at his side."

(Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 172) Pan Macmillan)

I've no idea where this was stated, so you either believe her or you don't.

[Holly Goodhead]

The rifle and ammo are not powerful enough to cause back spatter as evidenced by the fact that there's no blood around NB's resting place other than where blood pooled on the floor ie none on furniture, walls, aga, mantle surround from back spatter.

Not strictly true, as CAL noted. Other than backspatter, blood could have sprayed/spattered from the severe facial beating...

"There were blood smears on a tile above his head, on the kettle on the hob and the Aga at his side."

(Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 172) Pan Macmillan)

I've no idea where this was stated, so you either believe her or you don't.

I sort of stand corrected.  Thank you.  Sort of in that back spatter results in a fine spray so the blood described as "smears" may have been as a result of blood on NB's person touching the items?  As you said it is not referenced which is the norm throughout the book  &%+((£

P172 Collins also refers to spots of blood near cupboard.  Was this floor? 

Blood pattern analysis is a big part of soc now.

[Myster]

I sort of stand corrected.  Thank you.  Sort of in that back spatter results in a fine spray so the blood described as "smears" may have been as a result of blood on NB's person touching the items?  As you said it is not referenced which is the norm throughout the book  &%+((£

P172 Collins also refers to spots of blood near cupboard.  Was this floor? 

Blood pattern analysis is a big part of soc now.

There might also have been spots or smears (from left arm and shoulder wounds) on the AGA wainscotting which I seem to think that Nevill's left side was leaning against and which prevented his body from keeling over. Being deep-red in colour would make it harder to notice any blood on there, until it was wiped over during the clean-up.

PC Collins is referring to various spots on the floor, just in front of the cupboards where the phone is on the worktop.

[Holly Goodhead]

There might also have been spots or smears (from left arm and shoulder wounds) on the AGA wainscotting which I seem to think that Nevill's left side was leaning against and which prevented his body from keeling over. Being deep-red in colour would make it harder to notice any blood on there, until it was wiped over during the clean-up.

PC Collins is referring to various spots on the floor, just in front of the cupboards where the phone is on the worktop.

Thank you.  So no evidence of back spatter from victims' GSW's which could potentially have landed on SC's person/nightie.  Blood from injuries sustained by NB would not necessarily contaminate SC.

[Myster]

Thank you.  So no evidence of back spatter from victims' GSW's which could potentially have landed on SC's person/nightie.  Blood from injuries sustained by NB would not necessarily contaminate SC.

I think it would, given the severity of his mouth wounds, and from blood on his hands if they came into contact.

[adam]

What is meant by the hot casing burning Neville's back ?

They do look very much like burn marks from a rifle end. Which experts working for Bamber also allege.

[scipio_usmc]

Make a retraction where?   The trial is over he is stuck with his testimony as the record.

In the meantime we have no idea how long he stayed there to stage things.  He would want to stage things as quickly as possible and then to get the hell out of Dodge. It could have taken 15 minutes to do the staging before he left or could have taken up to half an hour.  I doubt he would have stayed a half hour though if he could have left sooner and surely he would not stay around even longer. The murders would have taken 10-15 minutes.  So the killings and staging could have been done within 25-45 minutes depending on how much time he decided to waste afterwards.