Author Topic: An analysis of Nevillís murder  (Read 14045 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

An analysis of Nevillís murder
« on: February 20, 2014, 01:11:38 AM »
The shootings started upstairs.  It will never be known if the twins were shot first or last.  It will also never be known if Sheila was awakened and came into the master bedroom during the initial shootings upstairs and was immediately shot or whether she was woken up by the killer after he killed everyone else and she was forced into the bedroom at gunpoint and then shot. 

Nevill was shot 4 times in the bedroom.  He fled downstairs and was shot 4 more times being killed in the kitchen.  There was 1 casing on the stairs and 3 casings in the kitchen  Thus it is argued the killer was on the stairs and shot him before he entered the kitchen and 3 more times in the kitchen.  Some believe one of the shell casings was accidentally transferred to the stairs and that all 4 shots were fired in the kitchen.  The 4 most destructive gunshots were in the top of his head and the upper right side.  Given Nevillís 6í4Ē stature, it would be difficult for the killer to shoot Nevill in his upper head if Nevill were upright.  The exception to this is if the killer were firing from the stairs because then he killer would potentially be at a height where he could hit Nevill in the upper head.  In the kitchen Nevill was found bent over a chair that was upside down.  His head was thus exposed for the final shots.  Whether all 4 were delivered in this manner or only 3 we canít tell for certain because it is possible the least serious of the 4 wounds was delivered from the stairs.  This means Nevill had suffered at least 4 and possibly 5 gunshots before he ever entered the kitchen.
Prior to chasing Nevill the killer had to have shot June severely enough that she was immobilized.  Otherwise she would not have waited in the master bedroom for the killer to come finish her off.  She most likely would have tried to get out the front door to run away.  It is also possible that Sheila was shot once in the room and sat there.  How many bullets remained in the gun as the killer chased after Nevill?  This is an important question.

Jeremyís proponents argue the killer had enough bullets to run in the kitchen and shoot him dead.  They completely ignore evidence that there was a struggle first.  They say Neville rushed in the kitchen, he collapsed and then Sheila rushed in, found him slumped over and conveniently was able to shoot him in the head to kill him.  They say there was no scuffle. They also say there was no silencer on the gun.  Interestingly they often donít even mention his supposed phone call to Jeremy.  They just say he ran in the kitchen, collapsed and she was able to shoot him.  This simply explanation is used because she would have a hard time overpowering him so the struggle is ignored.

The struggle is important though.  Despite claims cops knocked over the chairs etc the mess was observed through the window before cops went in.  Nevill had gray hair and was slumped over the upside down chair and was mistaken by one cop as an old woman.  The broken stock and wounds on Nevill that matched the rifle also proved he was beaten.  His arms had defensive wounds from where the rifle stuck him as he raised his arms to protect himself and his head had some blows.  He did not run in the kitchen and collapse because of his the gunshots he was bludgeoned with the rifle until he passed out slumped over and then was finished off by the final shots.   

Why did this struggle happen?  If as proponents claim Sheila ran in with the gun still loaded and the silencer not attached then she would have shot him simply.  She would not have needed to beat him.  Frankly no matter who the killer was, he or she should have simply shot Nevill in the kitchen if the gun were still loaded as opposed to fighting hand to hand with him. This struggle denotes one of 3 things happened:

1) the killer ran out of bullets and Nevill charged to disarm the killer, got a hold of the rifle and they wrestled over the gun.  Scratches on the underside of the mantle were made by the silencer, the paint rubbed off onto it.  No doubt this happened as they struggled over the weapon.  Nevill grabbed it and was trying to wrest it away from his killer.  The killer punched him giving him black eyes and a broken nose and eventually got sole possession of the rifle and began to beat him with it. Nevill put up his arms to block but eventually he was struck in the head with it several times so hard that the stock broke and he was knocked unconscious over the chair.  The killer reloaded and then finished him off.   

2) the killer ran out of bullets and rather than go reload the killer decided to bludgeon Nevill before he could use the phone or reach one of his other guns. As he attacked Nevill, Nevill fought back grabbed the gun and tried to wrest it away from his killer.  The killer punched him giving him black eyes and a broken nose and eventually got sole possession of the rifle and began to beat him with it. Nevill put up his arms to block but eventually he was struck in the head with it several times so hard that the stock broke and he was knocked unconscious over the chair.  The killer reloaded and then finished him off.   

3) the killer still had bullets left in the gun but Nevill charged to disarm the killer, got a hold of the rifle and they wrestled over the gun.  The killer could not get a shot at Nevill because Nevill was too close to him.  With the silencer attached the gun was too long to simply point at Nevill.  Without the silencer attached then the killer could have tipped the gun enough so that it would have been aimed at Nevillís head or face as they struggled over the weapon but the silencer made it too long to do so.  Scratches on the underside of the mantle were made by the silencer, the paint rubbed off onto it.  No doubt this happened as they struggled over the weapon.  The killer punched him giving him black eyes and a broken nose and eventually got sole possession of the rifle but was still too close to fire so beat him with it instead. Nevill put up his arms to block but eventually he was struck in the head with it and knocked unconscious over the chair.  The killer was able back up and then shoot him.

These are the only possible scenarios based on the evidence.  Nevill didnít just slump over he tried to wrestle the gun away from his attacker and it definitely had a silencer based on the damage.  Moreover, if the gun had no silencer and had been loaded as JB proponents contend then as Nevill went for the gun Sheila could have shot him.  The thing that would have prevented the killer from shooting him if the gun were loaded still would be the presence of the silencer.  That silencer would prevent the killer from bending the rifle enough to shoot him.

Picture the following:  Sheila with one hand around the grip of the rifle and the other hand around the stock/trigger area.  She is holding it against her body as she enters the kitchen.  The barrel would be eye level or around her forehead. Neville places his hands on it too so all 4 hands are on it fighting over it.  The barrel would be near his face and if she shot then she could potentially hit him at minimum the blast would burn his face and probably make him let go.  But with the silencer attached it would be above his head and therefore he would not have to worry about being shot. She holds on with one hand and with the other she breaks his nose and gives him black eyes then wrestles it away?  She didnít have enough weight behind her to do that. Nevill would have been able to get the gun away from her most likely.  The wounds would have rendered him unable to speak but would have been unlikely to allow her to beat him severely.  Surely during such a struggle something would have happened to her.  At minimum in a severe fight where you break a nose and give a black eye your hands have bruises.  My knuckles have scars to prove that.  The stock broke and had sharp edges.  There is no way she could have beaten him and yet suffered no damage at all to herself in the process.  When you factor in the complete absence of evidence that she fired a gun though threw would have been evidence on her clothing and body had she done so, no evidence she even knew how to use a gun, never used the gun in question before, how docile she was from her medicine, how well she got along with her father and the fact the killer hid the phone and silencer the only possible conclusion is the killer was someone else.         

In the search for who the killer was the only answer is Jeremy because he implicated himself by his own actions.  He claimed his father called though he would not have been able to speak.  Instead of going over after supposedly receiving this call he wasted time talking to his girlfriend and eventually called police telling them to go over. Instead of going to investigate after that he waited till police got there before going.  He lied telling police Sheila knew how to use all the guns in the house to frighten them.  He probably even lied claiming he saw someone move to spook them more.  In all likelihood no one saw anything move.  Instead of being anxious to find out what happened to his family and to get inside ASAP in case someone needed medical attention he was content waiting for hours showing no concern at all.  When you add in the testimony about how his father was scared he would kill him and the admissions to Julie it is a slam dunk. 

Nevillís murder and Jeremyís actions are the key to the whole case.     
ď...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.Ē  NiccolÚ Machiavelli

Offline John

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2014, 12:39:21 PM »
Due to police apathy this was never investigated at the outset but Julie reported that Jeremy had small abrasions on at least one of his arms following the murders which he claimed he got working on the farm.  Whether this is true or these abrasions were a result of the battle in the kitchen may never be known.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposť of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2014, 04:15:49 PM »
Due to police apathy this was never investigated at the outset but Julie reported that Jeremy had small abrasions on at least one of his arms following the murders which he claimed he got working on the farm.  Whether this is true or these abrasions were a result of the battle in the kitchen may never be known.

Unless he was wearing gloves, some injuries would have resulted from the incident. The scope was probably bashing against him during the struggle which can explain why he removed it.  The spintered stock definitely would have done something to him. Had police actually investigated him right away I am sure they would have found some injuries and possibly some blood on clothing he was wearing if he didn't change or on clothing at his house.  It is routine now to test clothing people supposedly wore to see if they were at the scene.  Blood doesn't always indicate one is the killer but would mean someone was present during the killings. There is often splatter that can't be seen with the naked eye and this often is the undoing of killers.

Police should have been suspicious of Jeremy for a variety of reasons.  Jeremy's refusal to go there until after police were already on the scene despite living only 3 minutes away should have sparked questions.  The fact he was so calm and patient should also have sparked questions.  Anyone in his place would have either gone in themselves to see what happened or would have at least pressed police to go inside and find out if anyone was hurt and needed help.  Waiting hours means people hurt could die instead of receiving medical attention and being saved.

A big question was why his father would call him instead of police. His explanation was his father wanted to keep their troubles in the family- presumably meaning he didn't want his daughter arrested he just wanted her disarmed so decided to ask Jeremy to help instead of police.  If his father were a feeble weak old man that would make sense that he would need help to diarm her.  But he wasn't he was big and strong despite his age. In contrast Sheila was shorter and thin.  He had much weight on her so physically he was in as good a position as Jeremy to be able to disarm her.  In mental terms he was in a better position to disarm her than Jeremy.  She was not on great terms with Jeremy or her mother for that matter. But she was on very good terms with her father. She was a daddy's girl. He took care of her and the twins financially and was taking care of them as they stayed with him. If she did go crazy he was in the best position out of anyone to calm her down.  He would not call Jeremy to clam her down.  He trusted Jeremy so little that he would not give Jeremy a key to the house though the caretaker had keys and to third persons he even voiced the fear his son wanted him dead so why would he ask Jeremy for help?  Jeremy could very well intentionally make things worse.  So if she had not actually done anything yet but brandish a gun why would he call Jeremy to ask for help?

But we know based on Nevill's murder that he could not have reached the kitchen and dialed the phone until after June had been shot and immobilized and he himself had been shot at least 4 or 5 times.  Under these circumstances why would he call his son instead of 999?  He and his wife needed medical attention that Jeremy could not provide to them.  There would be no way to keep things in the family and away from authorities.  The only possible reason to call Jeremy would be to say, "Sheila shot your mother and I call for an ambulance and police right away then come over to try to help disarm her before she shoots us some more" But Jeremy insists that he called to say she had the gun but had not shot anyone yet.  Based on the evidence that is impossible he would have been shot already.  So this calls Jeremy 's account into serious question.  It is further called into question because 2 of the wounds he suffered before could have reached the phone would have prevented him from speaking coherently. One tore part of his lip off the other shattered his teeth, jaw and and voicebox.  He was bleeding profusely from the mouth area. This means if he did try to talk on the phone he would have gotten blood on it and would not have been able to communicate. Jeremy would have heard some grunts maybe bu for sure would not have been able to understand any words.

These facts sink Jeremy. They prove the phone call was made up, Nevill could not have spoken to him and said what Jeremy claims he said.  Moreover, even if Nevill had been able to speak intelligently he would have stated he was shot send for medical help.  Jeremy would have been better off going home, going to sleep and making farm workers find the bodies in the morning. When farm workers found the doors locked they either would have called the caretaker to get the key and discovered the bodies, would have called Jeremy to let him know the doors were still locked and something is wrong or would have called police.

Jeremy would be able to feign having no knowledge and when the frame of his sister fell apart there would be suspicion against him because he inherited the estate but not any solid evidence.  His knowledge of the murders at the time they happened was crucial to proving he was the one who framed Sheila as opposed to someone else doing it.

               

Once other details came out though his story unraveled 

Once other details were revealed 

     
ď...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.Ē  NiccolÚ Machiavelli

Offline simong

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2014, 03:03:44 AM »
When looking at the case and the murders in particular, Nevills is the one which convinces me that this was not Sheila.

I think you have to look at what parts of the murders the killer is in control and the parts where they are not.

The Twins- Controlled. Vanezis states that one of the boys was shot in an arc which would need a fair degree of skill. The amount of bullets used indicates that the killer was not worried about re-loading. I believe they were killed last.

Sheila- Controlled. Two central close range shots. The location of where her body was found in the main bedroom suggests to me that she was taken into the room at gunpoint. I think she was shot first.

June- First episode- Uncontrolled- Second episode- controlled. The trail of her blood round the bed to where Sheila was found indicates to me that she went to check on Sheila. The final position of her body would indicate that she was either trying to help either Nevill or trying to protect the twins. The second episode shooting inflicted on June was close contact, controlled, almost torturous shooting.

Nevill- First episode- Uncontrolled. Second episode- controlled. Why and How did Nevill and the killer end up downstairs?  It seems pretty certain that the killer ran out of ammunition in the main bedroom. If you have planned to murder five people with a gun, i would assume that if you have run out of bullets, you would immediately return to the place where you can get more ammunition, hence the panicked flee to the kitchen. Nevill seems to have pursued quickly enough that the killer couldn't reload in time. Nevills injuries from the scuffle in the kitchen seems to indicate he took one hell of a beating. Loads of linear bruising to his arms and head.

I just don't buy into the fact that he ended up in that chair by chance. Someone being beaten unconscious in an all out assault doesn't just pass out conveniently, sitting in a chair. I think he was put there by the killer so they could reload and shoot him. I think he was shot upright, 4 times in quick succession and slumped forward with his head into the coal scuttle. The angle of the entry wounds of the head shots would indicate that the killer was above, behind and to the right of Nevill. No way did he receive those head shots where his body was found unless the killer knocked down the fireplace to do it. I would also like to state with certainty that those four head shots were all fired in the kitchen. There was no shot on the stairs, even with the presence of a shell case. The shell case on the stairs has been moved whether accidentally or deliberately, who knows but it should be in the kitchen. Any of those four head shots would have killed him very quickly, if not instantly and he would not be moving anywhere voluntarily after receiving any of them.

So, Why put Nevill in a chair to shoot him? Firstly ask yourself why would Sheila put him in a chair to shoot him? If she is going beserk, why would she bother moving him at all. Then again, why would she bother running downstairs to reload? If she was truly deranged why on earth would she care that every victim received a head shot?

Personally, i find the series of murders both planned and botched. It seems to me that the killer got things incredibly right and incredibly wrong. Gaining entry, presumably without detection due to Nevill and June being in bed, but running out of bullets in the bedroom, highlight the inconsistency of the murders. What seems constant are the head shots. It seems almost military or assassin like. All of the head shots were controlled shots. Nevills were in a cluster, June's were close contact and the boys again in a cluster or arc as Vanezis described them. The killer seems to like control and i have no doubt they were planned. I think the control impulse in the killer is why Nevill was placed in that chair. Its almost, a subliminal command to an unconscious Nevill, 'stay there, while i reload'.

Jeremy appears shocked in his statement when the Police tell him they don't have the technology to validate him receiving a call from WHF. I think there was a phonecall but not from Nevill to JB but from the killer to JB. I think that the phonecall was integral to JB's alibi and if there was itemised billing in 1985, Jeremy would not have seen a courthouse, let alone a cell.

The way i see the WHF murders in percentages of who committed the murder is Sheila 0%, Jeremy 40%, Someone else 60%. I need someone to start the Jeremy Bamber third party, theory, forum so i can fit in somewhere!  8((()*/
« Last Edit: April 06, 2014, 03:10:33 AM by simong »

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2014, 03:22:29 AM »
When looking at the case and the murders in particular, Nevills is the one which convinces me that this was not Sheila.

I think you have to look at what parts of the murders the killer is in control and the parts where they are not.

The Twins- Controlled. Vanezis states that one of the boys was shot in an arc which would need a fair degree of skill. The amount of bullets used indicates that the killer was not worried about re-loading. I believe they were killed last.

Sheila- Controlled. Two central close range shots. The location of where her body was found in the main bedroom suggests to me that she was taken into the room at gunpoint. I think she was shot first.

June- First episode- Uncontrolled- Second episode- controlled. The trail of her blood round the bed to where Sheila was found indicates to me that she went to check on Sheila. The final position of her body would indicate that she was either trying to help either Nevill or trying to protect the twins. The second episode shooting inflicted on June was close contact, controlled, almost torturous shooting.

Nevill- First episode- Uncontrolled. Second episode- controlled. Why and How did Nevill and the killer end up downstairs?  It seems pretty certain that the killer ran out of ammunition in the main bedroom. If you have planned to murder five people with a gun, i would assume that if you have run out of bullets, you would immediately return to the place where you can get more ammunition, hence the panicked flee to the kitchen. Nevill seems to have pursued quickly enough that the killer couldn't reload in time. Nevills injuries from the scuffle in the kitchen seems to indicate he took one hell of a beating. Loads of linear bruising to his arms and head.

I just don't buy into the fact that he ended up in that chair by chance. Someone being beaten unconscious in an all out assault doesn't just pass out conveniently, sitting in a chair. I think he was put there by the killer so they could reload and shoot him. I think he was shot upright, 4 times in quick succession and slumped forward with his head into the coal scuttle. The angle of the entry wounds of the head shots would indicate that the killer was above, behind and to the right of Nevill. No way did he receive those head shots where his body was found unless the killer knocked down the fireplace to do it. I would also like to state with certainty that those four head shots were all fired in the kitchen. There was no shot on the stairs, even with the presence of a shell case. The shell case on the stairs has been moved whether accidentally or deliberately, who knows but it should be in the kitchen. Any of those four head shots would have killed him very quickly, if not instantly and he would not be moving anywhere voluntarily after receiving any of them.

So, Why put Nevill in a chair to shoot him? Firstly ask yourself why would Sheila put him in a chair to shoot him? If she is going beserk, why would she bother moving him at all. Then again, why would she bother running downstairs to reload? If she was truly deranged why on earth would she care that every victim received a head shot?

Personally, i find the series of murders both planned and botched. It seems to me that the killer got things incredibly right and incredibly wrong. Gaining entry, presumably without detection due to Nevill and June being in bed, but running out of bullets in the bedroom, highlight the inconsistency of the murders. What seems constant are the head shots. It seems almost military or assassin like. All of the head shots were controlled shots. Nevills were in a cluster, June's were close contact and the boys again in a cluster or arc as Vanezis described them. The killer seems to like control and i have no doubt they were planned. I think the control impulse in the killer is why Nevill was placed in that chair. Its almost, a subliminal command to an unconscious Nevill, 'stay there, while i reload'.

Up until this point I agree completely except with a minor correction. Nevill wasn't sitting in a chair, the chair actually turned over and he was on the turned over chair.  Other than this I agee. One of Murphy's rules of combat is no plant remains intact after first contact (with the enemy).  What this means is plans have to adjust because something always happens that was not expected. Nevill making it out of the room obciously wasn' expected. There were some acual errors but moreso in Jeremy's telling than anything else.  He didn't think cops would be able to figure out what happened so didn't bother to think through what to say about certian things. 

Jeremy appears shocked in his statement when the Police tell him they don't have the technology to validate him receiving a call from WHF. I think there was a phonecall but not from Nevill to JB but from the killer to JB. I think that the phonecall was integral to JB's alibi and if there was itemised billing in 1985, Jeremy would not have seen a courthouse, let alone a cell.

The way i see the WHF murders in percentages of who committed the murder is Sheila 0%, Jeremy 40%, Someone else 60%. I need someone to start the Jeremy Bamber third party, theory, forum so i can fit in somewhere!  8((()*/

The phone company verified a call was made to Goldhanger from WHF.  Instead of a statement though they had to have a worker testify in court.  So the jury heard that the call took place.  The problem is the nature of the call is consistent with Jeremy dialing, leaving the phone off the hook, going home and answering it himself.  He had to leave it off the hook dialing to answer. He told police he phone went dead meaning it was hung up as he was speaking.  But the phone had not been hung up it remained off the hook and Jeremy is the one who ended the call by hanging up.  Worse yet Nevill could not have made the claimed call because he couldn't speak.

These are where Jeremy gave himself away.  I don't know what makes you think someone else called Jeremy but he lied and claimed it was Nevill.  It is readily apparent Jeremy made the call himself and he therefore is the killer.

 
ď...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.Ē  NiccolÚ Machiavelli

Offline Lindyhop

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2014, 11:43:46 AM »
Good theory simong, but this was no hired assassin. It was too controlled to be Sheila as we've established, but a hired assassin wouldn't have made the little mistakes Jeremy did. This was him thinking he had it all worked out but bungling his father and Sheila's "perfect" murders...

For example the assassin wouldn't have left the silencer in the gun cupboard - he/she would have worked out that the gun with the silencer was too long for Sheila to have killed herself with well in advance, and would therefore have used a pistol or similar. If they had used the silencer they would have taken it way with them and disposed of it somewhere it would never be found e.g. under their grandmother's patio in Surbiton. They would also not have been so careless with the phone, mantelpiece etc.

I think Jeremy needed his father to be downstairs as otherwise the alleged phone call would have been suspect. He probably planned to kill the children, June and Sheila upstairs and his father downstairs. Or he may have planned to replace the bedroom phone after the killings but didn't think it was necessary in the end as his father was downstairs.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2014, 11:56:24 AM by Lindyhop »

Offline goatboy

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2014, 11:50:34 AM »
I'm positive it wasn't a lone hitman. If it was, Jeremy would have been staying somewhere far away, eg Julie's. Then there would have been the perfect alibi not the botched one he concocted.

Offline Lindyhop

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2014, 11:53:01 AM »
I'm positive it wasn't a lone hitman. If it was, Jeremy would have been staying somewhere far away, eg Julie's. Then there would have been the perfect alibi not the botched one he concocted.

Indeed, and I think the timing was opportunistic - he had to be sure all 5 were at WHF at the same time and he didn't establish this until I think the week before. Hence his "tonight's the night" to Julie: it was then or possibly never.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2014, 12:38:53 PM »
Good theory simong, but this was no hired assassin. It was too controlled to be Sheila as we've established, but a hired assassin wouldn't have made the little mistakes Jeremy did. This was him thinking he had it all worked out but bungling his father and Sheila's "perfect" murders...

For example the assassin wouldn't have left the silencer in the gun cupboard - he/she would have worked out that the gun with the silencer was too long for Sheila to have killed herself with well in advance, and would therefore have used a pistol or similar. If they had used the silencer they would have taken it way with them and disposed of it somewhere it would never be found e.g. under their grandmother's patio in Surbiton. They would also not have been so careless with the phone, mantelpiece etc.

I think Jeremy needed his father to be downstairs as otherwise the alleged phone call would have been suspect. He probably planned to kill the children, June and Sheila upstairs and his father downstairs. Or he may have planned to replace the bedroom phone after the killings but didn't think it was necessary in the end as his father was downstairs.

Hired assassins make mistakes, esepcially if an amateur is hired but even supposed experts don't foresee ever occurrence.  So the nature of the events doesn't preclude a hired killer. 

Moreover, if he had hired a hitman then Jeremy would be just as responsible for the murders as the shooter.

What tells us Jeremy did it is the fact he was aware of details only the killer would know, and if he hired a killer then he would have had the killer do it while he was with people who could give him an alibi.  He would not have done it at night when there was no one to give him an alibi and would not have made up the phone call from Nevill.

Hiring a hitman would have reduced his take and left someone to rat on him, both are reasons why he likely decided not to hire someone.  Even his lawyers conceded that either he did it or Sheila, there were no in betweens.
ď...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.Ē  NiccolÚ Machiavelli

Offline Lindyhop

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2014, 01:07:40 PM »
Hired assassins make mistakes, esepcially if an amateur is hired but even supposed experts don't foresee ever occurrence.  So the nature of the events doesn't preclude a hired killer. 

Indeed. I was really commenting on simong's assertion that the semi-professional nature of the job made it look more like the work of a hitman. However to me the mistakes Jeremy made are strongly suggestive of an amateur at work, and why would Jeremy hire an amateur when one needed a really good knowledge of the house layout, how to get in and out etc for this to work as planned? He only introduced this angle in his conversations with Julie (and maybe Brett) to reduce his culpability - not that it made him any less culpable.

Introducing that phone call meant it was him or Sheila. I'm sure he rues making that alibi up - it probably sounded water-tight in his mind at the time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2014, 03:40:36 PM »
Due to police apathy this was never investigated at the outset but Julie reported that Jeremy had small abrasions on at least one of his arms following the murders which he claimed he got working on the farm.  Whether this is true or these abrasions were a result of the battle in the kitchen may never be known.

AE states in her wit stat that she had a good look at JB's arm(s) and was surprised to see no marks.  It seems this was Friday 9th August.

See bottom of page:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3542

See top of page:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3544





Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2014, 04:07:42 PM »
AE states in her wit stat that she had a good look at JB's arm(s) and was surprised to see no marks.  It seems this was Friday 9th August.

See bottom of page:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3542

See top of page:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3544

His hands are what were likely to get injured not his arms.  Particularly his knuckles, fingers in general, and palms.  Julie says he told her he was wearing gloves though.  Depending on the type of gloves that would have offired good protection excpet perhaps the stock as it broke but it depends a great deal on the gloves where any marks would be made from such or not.

Cops recalled seeing some marks on his hands but did not document it so we won't ever know much about them.

We will never know if Jeremy changed his clothes or not that night. Back spatter from gun shots is too tiny to see usually so most killers don't realize they have spater on them and don't change their clothing.  That sinks many.  At minimum it proves being present during an event.  In the Amityville case he didn't know his pants had blood he only noticed it on his shirt because the pants were dark and the tiny spatter needed to be seen through a microscope.  It proved he was present during the shots that killed his family. He even took a shower and put the same pants on again.     

The biggest loss is that police didn't take the clothes he was wearing the day of the murders to test. 
ď...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.Ē  NiccolÚ Machiavelli

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2014, 04:18:29 PM »
His hands are what were likely to get injured not his arms.  Particularly his knuckles, fingers in general, and palms.  Julie says he told her he was wearing gloves though.  Depending on the type of gloves that would have offired good protection excpet perhaps the stock as it broke but it depends a great deal on the gloves where any marks would be made from such or not.

Cops recalled seeing some marks on his hands but did not document it so we won't ever know much about them.

We will never know if Jeremy changed his clothes or not that night. Back spatter from gun shots is too tiny to see usually so most killers don't realize they have spater on them and don't change their clothing.  That sinks many.  At minimum it proves being present during an event.  In the Amityville case he didn't know his pants had blood he only noticed it on his shirt because the pants were dark and the tiny spatter needed to be seen through a microscope.  It proved he was present during the shots that killed his family. He even took a shower and put the same pants on again.     

The biggest loss is that police didn't take the clothes he was wearing the day of the murders to test.

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

From CoA Doc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline simong

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2014, 07:10:16 PM »
To scipio,

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

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

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

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

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

Offline sika

Re: An analysis of Nevillís murder
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2014, 07:21:03 PM »
To scipio,

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

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

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

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


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

Couldn't agree more.