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: Robittybob1 on June 23, 2020, 11:06:57 PM
-
Do Ann Eaton's statements point to Jeremy's innocence?
1. Jeremy basically has Ann as a support person during his interviews with the police.
2. Jeremy allows Ann and her brother to take over the WHF homestead. If he had hidden evidence left in the residence I doubt that he would have allowed that.
3. The reasons she records Jeremy as saying why he didn't rush over to WHF ahead of the police only makes sense if Sheila really had the gun.
-
It was reported that Ann Eaton said this: "Ann Eaton said that as soon as she heard the killing weapon had been reloaded, she realized Sheila could not possibly have done it. ‘She would not know one end of the barrel of a gun to another,’ Ann said.
Arlidge summing up for the prosecution:
Part of the post: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11580.msg595612#msg595612
-
CoA doc focuses on fingerprints found on the rifle but makes no comment about the lack of fingerprints from the relatives handling the silencer ungloved.
72. The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.
Recovery of the sound moderator 73. On 10 August 1985 members of the family, who were far from convinced that Sheila Caffell had been responsible for the killings, went to White House Farm with the executor of the estate, Basil Cock. During the afternoon David Boutflour found the sound moderator together with the telescopic sights for the murder weapon at the back of the gun cupboard in the downstairs office. His father, his sister Ann Eaton, the executor and the farm secretary all witnessed the recovery.
74. The silencer was taken to Ann Eaton's address for safekeeping and that evening members of the family examined it. They noticed that the "gun blue" of the surface had been damaged and there appeared to be red paint and blood upon it. The moderator was packaged up and the police were informed of the discovery. When collected by DS Jones on 12 August he noticed a grey hair, about an inch long attached to it. By the time the moderator had been delivered to the Forensic Science Service at Huntingdon the hair had been lost."
From the post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7466.msg349546#msg349546.
-
How many of the forum members have actually read right through the Ann Eaton statements?
-
"Another look at that pesky sound moderator"
A real good debate. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6514.0
Read the Ann Eaton statements and I think we can see how the silencer could possibly have been contaminated after the murders.
The murder scene was not properly clean.
Sheila's blood may have been able to be found in the area that she had lain.
Who would do such a thing?
-
Do Ann Eaton's statements point to Jeremy's innocence?
1. Jeremy basically has Ann as a support person during his interviews with the police.
2. Jeremy allows Ann and her brother to take over the WHF homestead. If he had hidden evidence left in the residence I doubt that he would have allowed that.
3. The reasons she records Jeremy as saying why he didn't rush over to WHF ahead of the police only makes sense if Sheila really had the gun.
Absolutely not!
1. AE supported him initially because she was in shock that such a terrible tragedy could have happened, but it didn't take long for the penny to drop when she heard Bamber coming out with lies, such as loving his parents, when giving his statement.
2. Bamber thought he'd cleaned up the moderator well enough so that nobody would notice he'd used it, and couldn't dispose of it elsewhere just in case questions were asked about its disappearance. A.Pargeter, for one, knew that one was fitted when he saw it on the cupboard.
3. Bamber didn't want it to appear that he was at the crime scene well before anyone else, thus ruining his alibi of being at Goldhanger when the shooting kicked off.
-
Absolutely not!
1. AE supported him initially because she was in shock that such a terrible tragedy could have happened, but it didn't take long for the penny to drop when she heard Bamber coming out with lies, such as loving his parents, when giving his statement.
2. Bamber thought he'd cleaned up the moderator well enough so that nobody would notice he'd used it, and couldn't dispose of it elsewhere just in case questions were asked about its disappearance. A.Pargeter, for one, knew that one was fitted when he saw it on the cupboard.
3. Bamber didn't want it to appear that he was at the crime scene well before anyone else, thus ruining his alibi of being at Goldhanger when the shooting kicked off.
1. Just because he was a bit of a rebel, doesn't mean he didn't love his Dad.
2. "Bamber thought he'd cleaned up the moderator well enough so that nobody would notice he'd used it, and couldn't dispose of it elsewhere just in case questions were asked about its disappearance." That must be a guess.
" A.Pargeter, for one, knew that one was fitted when he saw it on the cupboard." That was 2 weeks before and it only takes a minute or two to remove them.
3. "Bamber didn't want it to appear that he was at the crime scene well before anyone else, thus ruining his alibi of being at Goldhanger when the shooting kicked off."
According to Ann Eaton, "He said he was afraid that Sheila had set a trap". So if he went there quickly people could say he knew she was already dead and hence wasn't a threat and he knew it.
There is no right response as he would be condemned if he was there early and if he was there late.
-
1. Just because he was a bit of a rebel, doesn't mean he didn't love his Dad.
2. "Bamber thought he'd cleaned up the moderator well enough so that nobody would notice he'd used it, and couldn't dispose of it elsewhere just in case questions were asked about its disappearance." That must be a guess.
" A.Pargeter, for one, knew that one was fitted when he saw it on the cupboard." That was 2 weeks before and it only takes a minute or two to remove them.
3. "Bamber didn't want it to appear that he was at the crime scene well before anyone else, thus ruining his alibi of being at Goldhanger when the shooting kicked off."
According to Ann Eaton, "He said he was afraid that Sheila had set a trap". So if he went there quickly people could say he knew she was already dead and hence wasn't a threat and he knew it.
There is no right response as he would be condemned if he was there early and if he was there late.
1) Regardless of what he said, regarding his alleged love for his family, actions speak louder than words. Others can see the dynamic -body language, tone of voice- more clearly than those involved in it.
2) No more of a guess than some of Clouseau's thoughts. If something known to have been in a certain place becomes conspicuous -either sooner or later, by it absence, it's absence will be questioned.
3) I think that emphasizing he was at home in Goldhanger was part of his dotting I's and crossing T's, but you're correct in saying he'd have been challenged either way.
-
1) Regardless of what he said, regarding his alleged love for his family, actions speak louder than words. Others can see the dynamic -body language, tone of voice- more clearly than those involved in it.
2) No more of a guess than some of Clouseau's thoughts. If something known to have been in a certain place becomes conspicuous -either sooner or later, by it absence, it's absence will be questioned.
3) I think that emphasizing he was at home in Goldhanger was part of his dotting I's and crossing T's, but you're correct in saying he'd have been challenged either way.
1. Still, Jeremy could have been showing off.
2. Clouseau works from evidence really. Well, the silencer was in the gun cabinet, probably where Jeremy said Nevill left it. What proof was there that it had been used during the killings? If the blood on the baffles is the only bit one could claim it was planted there afterward. What I did notice from the Ann Eaton statements was that there was no shortage of blood to be found in a variety of places in the first few days afterward.
3. If he was home so be it.
What really took me by surprise in the Ann Eaton statements was the fact that WHF was fitted with a burglar alarm. Has anyone mentioned how that worked? [I've done a quick search on the forum and there was no mention of the WHF burglar alarm.]
-
WHF was only fitted with an alarm after the murders on the advice of the police. I think it was Stan Jones or some other officer who showed Ann Eaton how it operated.
-
WHF was only fitted with an alarm after the murders on the advice of the police. I think it was Stan Jones or some other officer who showed Ann Eaton how it operated.
OK so it was fitted within the first few days then for that is how I read Ann's statement.
Also the Blue has a similar comment " Jeremy told somebody that he corresponds with that the panic button was not installed until POST murders along with the burglar alarm. The relatives then admitted this was true!"
That was a very quick installation.
-
1. Still, Jeremy could have been showing off.
2. Clouseau works from evidence really. Well, the silencer was in the gun cabinet, probably where Jeremy said Nevill left it. What proof was there that it had been used during the killings? If the blood on the baffles is the only bit one could claim it was planted there afterward. What I did notice from the Ann Eaton statements was that there was no shortage of blood to be found in a variety of places in the first few days afterward.
3. If he was home so be it.
What really took me by surprise in the Ann Eaton statements was the fact that WHF was fitted with a burglar alarm. Has anyone mentioned how that worked? [I've done a quick search on the forum and there was no mention of the WHF burglar alarm.]
At the time of the murders, there wasn't one, NOR despite empty assertions, was there a panic alarm (not that ONE panic alarm would have been of use in a house that large)
-
At the time of the murders, there wasn't one, NOR despite empty assertions, was there a panic alarm (not that ONE panic alarm would have been of use in a house that large)
Was it ever determined who asked for this alarm system to be installed? Who did the work and who paid for it?
-
Was it ever determined who asked for this alarm system to be installed? Who did the work and who paid for it?
Allegedly, the police installed it because Nevill had been/could have been threatened by Jim Bell who he'd sent down -he hadn't. Jim Bell was tried and sentenced at High Court- don't think who fitted it was ever established. It was, presumably funded from the public purse.
-
Allegedly, the police installed it because Nevill had been/could have been threatened by Jim Bell who he'd sent down -he hadn't. Jim Bell was tried and sentenced at High Court- don't think who fitted it was ever established. It was, presumably funded from the public purse.
It would have just been a local alarm company that fitted it and the cost would have been billed to the Bamber's.
-
It would have just been a local alarm company that fitted it and the cost would have been billed to the Bamber's.
That being the case, it wouldn't have been authorized by police.................but of course, as he wasn't responsible for sending Jimmy down, there was no threat, so it wouldn't have been.
-
That being the case, it wouldn't have been authorized by police.................but of course, as he wasn't responsible for sending Jimmy down, there was no threat, so it wouldn't have been.
It wasn''t, Jeremy had it fitted on the advice from SJ. I believe the police organised the fitting but they wouldn't have paid the bill.
-
It wasn''t, Jeremy had it fitted on the advice from SJ. I believe the police organised the fitting but they wouldn't have paid the bill.
I've never heard of that happening before. So I wonder who knew how to turn the alarm off and where the spare keys were hidden in the first few days after the murders?
You must admit that the moderator could have been tampered with during the time of the burglar alarm installation.
There was the evidence promoted that the scratch marks to the mantelpiece were there prior to the murders.
-
I've never heard of that happening before. So I wonder who knew how to turn the alarm off and where the spare keys were hidden in the first few days after the murders?
You must admit that the moderator could have been tampered with during the time of the burglar alarm installation.
There was the evidence promoted that the scratch marks to the mantelpiece were there prior to the murders.
Well, as Jeremy had hidden it, it reasonable to suppose he could have tampered with it, although, why would he? And why would a.n.others go searching for something they didn't know the existence of?
-
Well, as Jeremy had hidden it, it reasonable to suppose he could have tampered with it, although, why would he? And why would a.n.others go searching for something they didn't know the existence of?
You are making a lot of assumptions here:
Who made the claim that Jeremy hid the moderator in the gun cupboard? It is in the right place for it to be found.
Have you read Ann Eaton's statements in full? I haven't as yet but I find there were others present when Jeremy is making statements, so the question of the moderator may have been raised and at least 4 others were hearing what Jeremy's answers were.
Ann Eaton even made notes about what Jeremy was saying in his statement. So no doubt she discussed her notes later with David her brother and Anthony her cousin (??).
They all went and searched for this item later, when it should have been the police's role to do so.
In the book "Blood Relations: The Definitive Account of Jeremy Bamber and the White House ...
By Roger Wilkes" he writes that Anony Pargeter had used that gun and set the sights on it. He knew it had a moderator and telescopic sights as well and where it was kept.
-
You are making a lot of assumptions here:
Who made the claim that Jeremy hid the moderator in the gun cupboard? It is in the right place for it to be found.
Have you read Ann Eaton's statements in full? I haven't as yet but I find there were others present when Jeremy is making statements, so the question of the moderator may have been raised and at least 4 others were hearing what Jeremy's answers were.
Ann Eaton even made notes about what Jeremy was saying in his statement. So no doubt she discussed her notes later with David her brother and Anthony her cousin (??).
They all went and searched for this item later, when it should have been the police's role to do so.
As I don't believe Sheila hid it, and I don't believe a.n.other did it, that only leaves Jeremy.
Unless Ann et al told police that a silencer was missing, why, if police were still going along with murder/suicide, would they look for a silencer?
-
As I don't believe Sheila hid it, and I don't believe a.n.other did it, that only leaves Jeremy.
Unless Ann et al told police that a silencer was missing, why, if police were still going along with murder/suicide, would they look for a silencer?
Of course, Sheila didn't hide it. Jeremy has already told us on the night the gun didn't have a silencer or the scope on it.
You say "As I don't believe Sheila hid it, and I don't believe a.n.other did it, that only leaves Jeremy.
But that isn't absolutely true as Julie later tells the police that MacDonald may have been involved, or that other suspect you mentioned above "Jim Bell". There are many others who could be involved so don't fall for the trap of saying that only leaves Jeremy.
Why should anyone go looking for a silencer? Taff Jones said it was murder-suicide but the others weren't so sure, and they seem to be supporting Ann Eaton to find some other evidence.
-
Ann Eaton - Statement dated 2 October 1985 seems largely a correction of facts that she has stated in earlier statements.
There is no real reason given why she made errors in the earlier statements.
Ann Eaton - Statement dated 16 November 1985 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3170.0
She Does not remember Jeremy saying Nevill was hurt when he rang Jeremy.
She also says she wasn't aware that Sheila and the kids had arrived for that week.
Also, the bike at Jeremy's looked identical to the one at WHF early in August.
-
Statements under the heading "Stokenchurch Inquiry statement". http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3171.0
On page 20 of Ann Eaton stated: "On the7th Ann Eaton rang Anthony Pargeter (Uncle Nevill's nephew) to inform him of the shootings and it was agreed that he would go to Oak Farm [Ann Eaton's residence] on the 8th August."
On page 45 same document Ann Eaton stated that Jeremy rang the Witham Police to find out what happened to his dad's wallet that he knew it had 400 - 500 Pounds plus Nevill's credit cards in it.
Personally I thought if he had removed the wallet on the night of the shooting he would hardly raise the issue of the wallet being missing several days later.
-
Do Ann Eaton's statements point to Jeremy's innocence?
1. Jeremy basically has Ann as a support person during his interviews with the police.
2. Jeremy allows Ann and her brother to take over the WHF homestead. If he had hidden evidence left in the residence I doubt that he would have allowed that.
3. The reasons she records Jeremy as saying why he didn't rush over to WHF ahead of the police only makes sense if Sheila really had the gun.
JB had no choice but to have Ann and the family look after WHF in the immediate days after he killed everyone. He claimed it was too traumatic to go there and someone had to go in there to make sure it was safe. Ann was also left with the sickening task of having to clear up blood etc...
If Jeremy thought Sheila had “the gun” as he called it (Freudian slip on his account), why didn’t he drive at the back of the police car going the same speed? They’d hardly have done him for speeding! Why lag behind for five full minutes, creeping along like a snail?
-
"Another look at that pesky sound moderator"
A real good debate. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6514.0
Read the Ann Eaton statements and I think we can see how the silencer could possibly have been contaminated after the murders.
The murder scene was not properly clean.
Sheila's blood may have been able to be found in the area that she had lain.
Who would do such a thing?
Sheila’s dried pools of blood and blood spots had soaked into the carpet UPSTAIRS. Her blood was nowhere else in the house.
The police BURNED the carpets the next day or so whilst they were still guarding it.
-
1. Just because he was a bit of a rebel, doesn't mean he didn't love his Dad.
2. "Bamber thought he'd cleaned up the moderator well enough so that nobody would notice he'd used it, and couldn't dispose of it elsewhere just in case questions were asked about its disappearance." That must be a guess.
" A.Pargeter, for one, knew that one was fitted when he saw it on the cupboard." That was 2 weeks before and it only takes a minute or two to remove them.
3. "Bamber didn't want it to appear that he was at the crime scene well before anyone else, thus ruining his alibi of being at Goldhanger when the shooting kicked off."
According to Ann Eaton, "He said he was afraid that Sheila had set a trap". So if he went there quickly people could say he knew she was already dead and hence wasn't a threat and he knew it.
There is no right response as he would be condemned if he was there early and if he was there late.
He wouldn’t have been condemned had he followed the police car at speed though...
-
1. Still, Jeremy could have been showing off.
2. Clouseau works from evidence really. Well, the silencer was in the gun cabinet, probably where Jeremy said Nevill left it. What proof was there that it had been used during the killings? If the blood on the baffles is the only bit one could claim it was planted there afterward. What I did notice from the Ann Eaton statements was that there was no shortage of blood to be found in a variety of places in the first few days afterward.
3. If he was home so be it.
What really took me by surprise in the Ann Eaton statements was the fact that WHF was fitted with a burglar alarm. Has anyone mentioned how that worked? [I've done a quick search on the forum and there was no mention of the WHF burglar alarm.]
Wow, you’ve spent HOURS of your time trying to solve a case that’s already been solved, and you still don’t understand the EVIDENCE proved the silencer had been used in the murders??!😳
-
OK so it was fitted within the first few days then for that is how I read Ann's statement.
Also the Blue has a similar comment " Jeremy told somebody that he corresponds with that the panic button was not installed until POST murders along with the burglar alarm. The relatives then admitted this was true!"
That was a very quick installation.
It only takes a day to fit an alarm system.
The police suggested in case of intruders who may steal valuable contents
No idea what system was put in, but the one I had in the 1990s (and they’re progressing all the time) had panic buttons downstairs and upstairs, for obvious reasons. Pointless just having one downstairs when you’re in bed at night.
It also had three separate buttons for Police, Fire, Ambulance
It was dog friendly, meaning my dog could walk downstairs without setting it off when it was on night mode
Had to pay a monthly fee for it to be monitored 24/7
Had to pay a one off annual fee to police so that when the alarm company got the panic alarm they’d send the police immediately, and as you paid the police they’d give you immediate priority and arrive in minutes. I always thought that was bad in a way, but that’s how it was and still is.
Nowadays alarms are all connected via wifi so are far more sophisticated
Not sure why I’ve rambled...but, anyway, there was nothing strange about the police suggesting WHF be fitted with an alarm system. They wouldn’t have paid for it, but may have arranged it.
-
I've never heard of that happening before. So I wonder who knew how to turn the alarm off and where the spare keys were hidden in the first few days after the murders?
You must admit that the moderator could have been tampered with during the time of the burglar alarm installation.
There was the evidence promoted that the scratch marks to the mantelpiece were there prior to the murders.
When an alarm is wired up around a house they don’t go inside cupboards, and the man fitting it isn’t going to nose around!
The police were possibly there when it was fitted, but don’t see why anyone else would’ve been there, no point.
The moderator wasn’t even FOUND in the very early days, so that smacks THAT theory out the window that it was tampered with.
There’s is NO evidence the mantel was damaged PRIOR to the murders, thats BS.
-
You are making a lot of assumptions here:
Who made the claim that Jeremy hid the moderator in the gun cupboard? It is in the right place for it to be found.
Have you read Ann Eaton's statements in full? I haven't as yet but I find there were others present when Jeremy is making statements, so the question of the moderator may have been raised and at least 4 others were hearing what Jeremy's answers were.
Ann Eaton even made notes about what Jeremy was saying in his statement. So no doubt she discussed her notes later with David her brother and Anthony her cousin (??).
They all went and searched for this item later, when it should have been the police's role to do so.
In the book "Blood Relations: The Definitive Account of Jeremy Bamber and the White House ...
By Roger Wilkes" he writes that Anony Pargeter had used that gun and set the sights on it. He knew it had a moderator and telescopic sights as well and where it was kept.
Ann Eaton wasn’t present when Jeremy was interviewed under caution TWICE.
She possibly overheard him talking to police on THAT day at Goldhanger, which is normal considering she was making cups of tea and the cottage was tiny. She probably did hear him lying. Saying how well he got on with his parents (that was a lie), so of course she’d be suspicious. Wouldn’t anyone?!
That first statement he gave to police was just a general one; intricate details wouldn’t have been discussed, such as moderators etc, as at that time the police had no idea one was used! No one did.
-
You are making a lot of assumptions here:
Who made the claim that Jeremy hid the moderator in the gun cupboard? It is in the right place for it to be found.
Have you read Ann Eaton's statements in full? I haven't as yet but I find there were others present when Jeremy is making statements, so the question of the moderator may have been raised and at least 4 others were hearing what Jeremy's answers were.
Ann Eaton even made notes about what Jeremy was saying in his statement. So no doubt she discussed her notes later with David her brother and Anthony her cousin (??).
They all went and searched for this item later, when it should have been the police's role to do so.
In the book "Blood Relations: The Definitive Account of Jeremy Bamber and the White House ...
By Roger Wilkes" he writes that Anony Pargeter had used that gun and set the sights on it. He knew it had a moderator and telescopic sights as well and where it was kept.
It’s YOU who’s making assumptions!
You’ve no idea what was said on that first day!
You’re ASSUMING. Wrongly too.
No-one went looking for the moderator straight after Jeremy spoke to the police on the FIRST day!
They didn’t even GO looking for the moderator WEEKS later when it was found by chance.
Jeremy had tucked it away in a box at the very back of the gun cupboard — so why would he have done that, eh? THINK about it.
Forensics also PROVED the blood spatter from Sheila INSIDE the moderator was SPATTER. IT would be impossible to replicate that pattern. It was also impossible for anyone to have known what blood group was Sheila’s, and as there was no blood left in the house no-one could have got a liquid sample of her blood and replicated the spatter pattern.
This was all proved 35 years ago!
-
Of course, Sheila didn't hide it. Jeremy has already told us on the night the gun didn't have a silencer or the scope on it.
You say "As I don't believe Sheila hid it, and I don't believe a.n.other did it, that only leaves Jeremy.
But that isn't absolutely true as Julie later tells the police that MacDonald may have been involved, or that other suspect you mentioned above "Jim Bell". There are many others who could be involved so don't fall for the trap of saying that only leaves Jeremy.
Why should anyone go looking for a silencer? Taff Jones said it was murder-suicide but the others weren't so sure, and they seem to be supporting Ann Eaton to find some other evidence.
All BS
-
Of course, Sheila didn't hide it. Jeremy has already told us on the night the gun didn't have a silencer or the scope on it.
You say "As I don't believe Sheila hid it, and I don't believe a.n.other did it, that only leaves Jeremy.
But that isn't absolutely true as Julie later tells the police that MacDonald may have been involved, or that other suspect you mentioned above "Jim Bell". There are many others who could be involved so don't fall for the trap of saying that only leaves Jeremy.
Why should anyone go looking for a silencer? Taff Jones said it was murder-suicide but the others weren't so sure, and they seem to be supporting Ann Eaton to find some other evidence.
Listen, Jeremy is a LIAR.
Of course he made out the gun had no silencer on, he had no choice. But it certainly DID have the silencer attached, as was PROVEN forensically.
What don’t you understand about that?
As for Macdonald — he was ruled out! That was ANOTHER lie of Jeremy’s.
There was NO-ONE else involved. You’re barking up the wrong tree
-
It only takes a day to fit an alarm system.
The police suggested in case of intruders who may steal valuable contents
No idea what system was put in, but the one I had in the 1990s (and they’re progressing all the time) had panic buttons downstairs and upstairs, for obvious reasons. Pointless just having one downstairs when you’re in bed at night.
It also had three separate buttons for Police, Fire, Ambulance
It was dog friendly, meaning my dog could walk downstairs without setting it off when it was on night mode
Had to pay a monthly fee for it to be monitored 24/7
Had to pay a one off annual fee to police so that when the alarm company got the panic alarm they’d send the police immediately, and as you paid the police they’d give you immediate priority and arrive in minutes. I always thought that was bad in a way, but that’s how it was and still is.
Nowadays alarms are all connected via wifi so are far more sophisticated
Not sure why I’ve rambled...but, anyway, there was nothing strange about the police suggesting WHF be fitted with an alarm system. They wouldn’t have paid for it, but may have arranged it.
Yours sounds rather different from the one installed in my friends' house around 1980. They were under threat from a family member and such was the level of concern for their safety that their children were moved out and every room in their house was alarmed, and directly linked to police HQ, including the downstairs loo which had a window. They certainly didn't have to pay for it and it was removed when the danger was past.
-
He wouldn’t have been condemned had he followed the police car at speed though...
I see your point if he arrived there at the same time as the police - no complaints. Have you ever followed a speeding police car?
-
Wow, you’ve spent HOURS of your time trying to solve a case that’s already been solved, and you still don’t understand the EVIDENCE proved the silencer had been used in the murders??!😳
I'm not sure if it really did. How could someone make it look like Jeremy did it? Was it just a matter of putting a drop of blood and a flake of paint onto his moderator? Then making sure that it ended up at the police station?
-
When an alarm is wired up around a house they go inside cupboards, and the man fitting it isn’t going to nose around!
The police were possibly there when it was fitted, but don’t see why anyone else would’ve been there, no point.
The moderator wasn’t even FOUND in the very early days, so that smacks THAT theory out the window that it was tampered with.
There’s is NO evidence the mantel was damaged PRIOR to the murders, thats BS.
I didn't mean the installers tamper with the alarm, but someone else uses it as an opportunity to enter the house.
-
Ann Eaton wasn’t present when Jeremy was interviewed under caution TWICE.
She possibly overheard him talking to police on THAT day at Goldhanger, which is normal considering she was making cups of tea and the cottage was tiny. She probably did hear him lying. Saying how well he got on with his parents (that was a lie), so of course she’d be suspicious. Wouldn’t anyone?!
That first statement he gave to police was just a general one; intricate details wouldn’t have been discussed, such as moderators etc, as at that time the police had no idea one was used! No one did.
I'm not sure about that. If Ann says Jeremy is giving a statement it may have just been a general one. I don't know.
-
It’s YOU who’s making assumptions!
You’ve no idea what was said on that first day!
You’re ASSUMING. Wrongly too.
No-one went looking for the moderator straight after Jeremy spoke to the police on the FIRST day!
They didn’t even GO looking for the moderator WEEKS later when it was found by chance.
Jeremy had tucked it away in a box at the very back of the gun cupboard — so why would he have done that, eh? THINK about it.
Forensics also PROVED the blood spatter from Sheila INSIDE the moderator was SPATTER. IT would be impossible to replicate that pattern. It was also impossible for anyone to have known what blood ground was Sheila’s, and as there was no blood left in the house no-one could have got a liquid sample of her blood and replicated the spatter pattern.
This was all proved 35 years ago!
Ann and her brother started looking for addition evidence immediately. She clearly details what she did.
-
All BS
No its not. You might have misunderstood me, as I was replying specifically to April.
-
Listen, Jeremy is a LIAR.
Of course he made out the gun had no silencer on, he had no choice. But it certainly DID have the silencer attached, as was PROVEN forensically.
What don’t you understand about that?
As for Macdonald — he was ruled out! That was ANOTHER lie of Jeremy’s.
There was NO-ONE else involved. You’re braking up the wrong tree
What was the forensic proof a silencer was used? What just the blood that could have been planted in the silencer? Or was there something else?
-
Yours sounds rather different from the one installed in my friends' house around 1980. They were under threat from a family member and such was the level of concern for their safety that their children were moved out and every room in their house was alarmed, and directly linked to police HQ, including the downstairs loo which had a window. They certainly didn't have to pay for it and it was removed when the danger was past.
That is interesting that an alarm was installed that the occupants didn't have to pay for.
That could well be the case here for it isn't clear who paid for the one at WHF and the police had to return several times to sort out issues with it.
-
That is interesting that an alarm was installed that the occupants didn't have to pay for.
That could well be the case here for it isn't clear who paid for the one at WHF and the police had to return several times to sort out issues with it.
It may be possible that we're talking about entirely different alarm systems, here. That, at WHF, because there was no one living there, was more of a burglar alarm, which could be tripped as soon as the barrier was crossed by ANY intruder, than a personal safety alarm which had to be activated if a specific intruder was either in the grounds, or had gained access.
-
It may be possible that we're talking about entirely different alarm systems, here. That, at WHF, because there was no one living there, was more of a burglar alarm, which could be tripped as soon as the barrier was crossed by ANY intruder, than a personal safety alarm which had to be activated if a specific intruder was either in the grounds, or had gained access.
Ann did not reveal any detail of the alarm system that I noticed in her statements.
-
Ann did not reveal any detail of the alarm system that I noticed in her statements.
I don't now why she would. I'm not certain it's significant.
-
I don't now why she would. I'm not certain it's significant.
A good 90% of her statement isn't significant. She added heaps of irrelevant details IMO.
-
I see your point if he arrived there at the same time as the police - no complaints. Have you ever followed a speeding police car?
Under the circumstances, however close to the patrol car he was, I think it would have been a point in his favour had he appeared to be in a hurry to get there. It would possibly have been a challenge for him to keep up with the police, although he knew the road well. Police have to pass the Advance Drivers Test. They'd have had no problems with ironing out all the bends in the road until it became a straight line.
-
Ann and her brother started looking for addition evidence immediately. She clearly details what she did.
Well, I can't see why they wouldn't. Try putting yourself in her position. A member of your family, being questioned by police, is lying. Aren't you going to wonder why? Are you not likely to be suspicious? I imagine the trigger was hearing Jeremy saying he had a good relationship with his parents -I've already said that actions speak louder than words and I've no doubt that Ann had witnessed his alleged "good relationship".
I also believe it possible that June MAY have confided in her sister, Pam, who would probably have passed it on to Ann, verifying what she'd witnessed. I certainly think RWB would have been quick to pick up on anything which smacked of tensions between Nevill and Jeremy.
I can fully understand Ann's suspicions. I'm willing to bet there are enough Poirot's and Christie's here to have done exactly what she did.
-
Do you know if Ann trained as a detective prior to her becoming a farmer's wife. Her methods and style were very much like a detective. She even gave clues away about her former self when she says she was "on duty" or a term like that indicating that the old roles came back into play. One of her husband's friends was a police officer or something like that too. The way she took notes and made checklists and involved herself in the case was remarkable if she hadn't been trained.
But really nothing that Jeremy said was more than what someone might if they had just won the lottery. After an act of carelessness, he had by no fault of his own ended up inheriting a vast fortune one that he appears to be only too willing to share with other the beneficiaries.
Ann sort of wonders why Nevill himself had not put the loaded gun away from the children, into the gun cabinet, as he too would have noted it, so she thought, but was he even in the kitchen? Or was he still out worrying about the harvest till all hours of the night?
Now as it happens I did see the signs of a farm issue from the clues in the Raid Team statements. There were 2 cars parked near the house. We are told by Ann one was Nevill's (was it a Citroen?) and the other, someone suggested, belonged to a farmworker who took the tractor home rather than his private car. The sort of thing that would happen if the farmwork went on too late to drive past the house and wake everyone one up, IMO. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11599.msg603029#msg603029
I wonder if a statement was ever obtained from that farmworker, finding out why he took the tractor home rather than his car?
-
Yours sounds rather different from the one installed in my friends' house around 1980. They were under threat from a family member and such was the level of concern for their safety that their children were moved out and every room in their house was alarmed, and directly linked to police HQ, including the downstairs loo which had a window. They certainly didn't have to pay for it and it was removed when the danger was past.
I can’t speak for your friend’s alarm system in 1980: I can only tell you how mine was set up
It had sensors high up on the walls which had flashing red lights when you walked past them. They were connected in all the main rooms, including the hallway, landing etc.
It was directly linked to police, albeit through the alarm company — but they’d arrive quickly if need be. I only pressed the panic button on one occasion when a man came to my front door and the police arrived in minutes and took him away in handcuffs.
My alarm system was solely mine and not paid for or arranged by the police. I’ve no idea how police ones work, but I do know that once you have the system fitted you wouldn’t like to be without it.
-
I see your point if he arrived there at the same time as the police - no complaints. Have you ever followed a speeding police car?
Yes
-
I'm not sure if it really did. How could someone make it look like Jeremy did it? Was it just a matter of putting a drop of blood and a flake of paint onto his moderator? Then making sure that it ended up at the police station?
It did.
So don’t concern yourself with it, you’re wasting your time, and whatever thoughts you conjure up will be ignored by the CPS as they have all the factual evidence.
-
I didn't mean the installers tamper with the alarm, but someone else uses it as an opportunity to enter the house.
While the police were guarding the house?
Come on, that’s ridiculous.
It didn’t happen.
-
I'm not sure about that. If Ann says Jeremy is giving a statement it may have just been a general one. I don't know.
Exactly.
You don’t know.
You’re imagining things...
-
Yes
Did you think they might give you a ticket for speeding?
-
Exactly.
You don’t know.
You’re imagining things...
I'm going to work it out of course.
-
While the police were guarding the house?
Come on, that’s ridiculous.
It didn’t happen.
Prove to us that the police were guarding the house?
-
I'm not sure if it really did. How could someone make it look like Jeremy did it? Was it just a matter of putting a drop of blood and a flake of paint onto his moderator? Then making sure that it ended up at the police station?
I believe it’s been explained to you numerous times
Forensics and ballistic experts have all said it would be impossible to recreate back spatter inside a moderator.
Look at the facts from the experts, Rob
-
Ann and her brother started looking for addition evidence immediately. She clearly details what she did.
Because she was rightly suspicious, as was everyone else
-
It did.
So don’t concern yourself with it, you’re wasting your time, and whatever thoughts you conjure up will be ignored by the CPS as they have all the factual evidence.
I haven't thought that far ahead yet.
-
What was the forensic proof a silencer was used? What just the blood that could have been planted in the silencer? Or was there something else?
I’m tired of this
The blood was IMPOSSIBLE to plant
-
Ann did not reveal any detail of the alarm system that I noticed in her statements.
Why should she have?
They weren’t significant and had nothing to do with the murders Jeremy committed
-
Because she was rightly suspicious, as was everyone else
I'd certainly question that. Ann was suspicious, who else?
Why should she have?
They weren’t significant and had nothing to do with the murders Jeremy committed
If she knew she would have I'm sure.
I’m tired of this
The blood was IMPOSSIBLE to plant
Absolutely not. Once they got around to DNA testing the blood there was unknown male DNA there too wasn't there?
-
Do you know if Ann trained as a detective prior to her becoming a farmer's wife. Her methods and style were very much like a detective. She even gave clues away about her former self when she says she was "on duty" or a term like that indicating that the old roles came back into play. One of her husband's friends was a police officer or something like that too. The way she took notes and made checklists and involved herself in the case was remarkable if she hadn't been trained.
But really nothing that Jeremy said was more than what someone might if they had just won the lottery. After an act of carelessness, he had by no fault of his own ended up inheriting a vast fortune one that he appears to be only too willing to share with other the beneficiaries.
Ann sort of wonders why Nevill himself had not put the loaded gun away from the children, into the gun cabinet, as he too would have noted it, so she thought, but was he even in the kitchen? Or was he still out worrying about the harvest till all hours of the night?
Now as it happens I did see the signs of a farm issue from the clues in the Raid Team statements. There were 2 cars parked near the house. We are told by Ann one was Nevill's (was it a Citroen?) and the other, someone suggested, belonged to a farmworker who took the tractor home rather than his private car. The sort of thing that would happen if the farmwork went on too late to drive past the house and wake everyone one up, IMO. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11599.msg603029#msg603029
I wonder if a statement was ever obtained from that farmworker, finding out why he took the tractor home rather than his car?
I shan’t reply to all this as it’s time consuming and has all been done and dusted. You really need to read the official reports, Rob.
Shall say this, though...Nevill always had a G&T after his shower each night, so most definitely would’ve gone to the kitchen to get ice.
There was no rifle there: no rifle on the ben h in the hallway: no rifle anywhere.
Jeremy had hidden it.
It’s very simple to understand...
-
I shan’t reply to all this as it’s time consuming and has all been done and dusted. You really need to read the official reports, Rob.
Shall say this, though...Nevill always had a G&T after his shower each night, so most definitely would’ve gone to the kitchen to get ice.
There was no rifle there: no rifle on the bench in the hallway: no rifle anywhere.
Jeremy had hidden it.
It’s very simple to understand...
"Hidden it" so you say without any proof at all.
-
A good 90% of her statement isn't significant. She added heaps of irrelevant details IMO.
Maybe not to you, Rob
But to a trained detective Ann’s details may have been far more significant than you’d realise
They are trained how to question: what to ask: and whilst they may seem of no importance they often are.
-
Did you think they might give you a ticket for speeding?
No
-
Prove to us that the police were guarding the house?
Us?
Who’s “us”?
Read the official reports, Rob...you’ll find it all there in B&W
-
I'd certainly question that. Ann was suspicious, who else?
If she knew she would have I'm sure.
Absolutely not. Once they got around to DNA testing the blood there was unknown male DNA there too wasn't there?
Nevill’s and June’s
There was no blood of an unknown Male
-
Do you know if Ann trained as a detective prior to her becoming a farmer's wife. Her methods and style were very much like a detective. She even gave clues away about her former self when she says she was "on duty" or a term like that indicating that the old roles came back into play. One of her husband's friends was a police officer or something like that too. The way she took notes and made checklists and involved herself in the case was remarkable if she hadn't been trained.
But really nothing that Jeremy said was more than what someone might if they had just won the lottery. After an act of carelessness, he had by no fault of his own ended up inheriting a vast fortune one that he appears to be only too willing to share with other the beneficiaries.
Ann sort of wonders why Nevill himself had not put the loaded gun away from the children, into the gun cabinet, as he too would have noted it, so she thought, but was he even in the kitchen? Or was he still out worrying about the harvest till all hours of the night?
Now as it happens I did see the signs of a farm issue from the clues in the Raid Team statements. There were 2 cars parked near the house. We are told by Ann one was Nevill's (was it a Citroen?) and the other, someone suggested, belonged to a farmworker who took the tractor home rather than his private car. The sort of thing that would happen if the farmwork went on too late to drive past the house and wake everyone one up, IMO. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11599.msg603029#msg603029
I wonder if a statement was ever obtained from that farmworker, finding out why he took the tractor home rather than his car?
Ann left school, went to college, then started work. It's always possible that she might have liked to do police work, though. You appear to be attributing things to her which aren't there. Whilst it may be possible that her husband became friendly with one of the detectives on the case, nothing has been said of any previous friendships. Why would it?
I have no idea from where you understand that Jeremy was going to share his fortune with the family. His intention was to sell up and lead an entirely different life as far from farming as possible.
I think Ann should be allowed some inside knowledge of what Nevill was likely to do, and I think we can reasonably accept that, in the main, he was an organized man.
There wouldn't have been any concerns about a farmworker driving past the house late and waking people. WHF goes nowhere. You can drive TO it and you can drive FROM it, but you can't drive passed it.
-
Nevill’s and June’s
There was no blood of an unknown Male
DNA from an unknown male not blood, DNA. So you don't know what's the cell type was (blood or skin etc) but the DNA still came back with unknown male DNA result IIRC.
-
Ann left school, went to college, then started work. It's always possible that she might have liked to do police work, though. You appear to be attributing things to her which aren't there. Whilst it may be possible that her husband became friendly with one of the detectives on the case, nothing has been said of any previous friendships. Why would it?
I have no idea from where you understand that Jeremy was going to share his fortune with the family. His intention was to sell up and lead an entirely different life as far from farming as possible.
I think Ann should be allowed some inside knowledge of what Nevill was likely to do, and I think we can reasonably accept that, in the main, he was an organized man.
There wouldn't have been any concerns about a farmworker driving past the house late and waking people. WHF goes nowhere. You can drive TO it and you can drive FROM it, but you can't drive passed it.
What I meant was why was the worker's car left there overnight? Has that been established?
There is nowhere it says Jeremy planned to keep the fortune to himself. There was that issue of the ring, Ann wanted it, but Jeremy said it was to stay with the body of June. Now that is seriously ungreedy IMO.
Ann mentions this friendship of her's with a police person. There are many odd details in her statements.
Have you gone through them opening them up one at a time? Is there a better way to see these statements?
-
What I meant was why was the worker's car left there overnight? Has that been established?
There is nowhere it says Jeremy planned to keep the fortune to himself. There was that issue of the ring, Ann wanted it, but Jeremy said it was to stay with the body of June. Now that is seriously ungreedy IMO.
Ann mentions this friendship of her's with a police person. There are many odd details in her statements.
Have you gone through them opening them up one at a time? Is there a better way to see these statements?
I can hear that you're itching to find something previously undiscovered, but I don't think there's anything sinister about the worker's car being there overnight. After a long day, if said worker had ended it being nearer home with a farm implement, he'd have used it to get back in the morning. It occurs to me that a mass murderer wouldn't leave his vehicle at the scene of crime.
It probably wasn't stated in words of one syllable what were Jeremy's intentions, but again, actions speak louder than words, and none of his actions suggest he was someone who's life was in farming (the terms of Nevill's will were that Jeremy had to be working the farm [in a way which satisfied the Trust?] before he could inherit, so, having seen the Will, such may have been the reason for him having recently 'knuckled under')
I don't believe there have been anything altruistic about Jeremy wanting June's jewellery incinerated (in fact, I believe it wasn't. I think the undertaker returned it to the family solicitor) and I'm going to throw in a really wild theory here!!!! Jeremy MAY have been superstitious. When a close supporter suggested employing a medium, Jeremy was furious -or was he scared?- MIGHT he have thought the owner's history could be discerned from holding their jewellery?
So Ann had a friend in the police force? And she put the friendship to good use? Under the circumstances, who of us wouldn't? If you picked it up, she clearly wasn't trying to hide it. She probably did voice her concerns and her friend may very well have suggested she kept a notebook with her to make sure she remembered everything. If she'd learned shorthand whilst doing her typing course, it would have been easy.
I have read her statements, but not recently.
-
I can hear that you're itching to find something previously undiscovered, but I don't think there's anything sinister about the worker's car being there overnight. After a long day, if said worker had ended it being nearer home with a farm implement, he'd have used it to get back in the morning. It occurs to me that a mass murderer wouldn't leave his vehicle at the scene of crime.
It probably wasn't stated in words of one syllable what were Jeremy's intentions, but again, actions speak louder than words, and none of his actions suggest he was someone who's life was in farming (the terms of Nevill's will were that Jeremy had to be working the farm [in a way which satisfied the Trust?] before he could inherit, so, having seen the Will, such may have been the reason for him having recently 'knuckled under')
I don't believe there have been anything altruistic about Jeremy wanting June's jewellery incinerated (in fact, I believe it wasn't. I think the undertaker returned it to the family solicitor) and I'm going to throw in a really wild theory here!!!! Jeremy MAY have been superstitious. When a close supporter suggested employing a medium, Jeremy was furious -or was he scared?- MIGHT he have thought the owner's history could be discerned from holding their jewellery?
So Ann had a friend in the police force? And she put the friendship to good use? Under the circumstances, who of us wouldn't? If you picked it up, she clearly wasn't trying to hide it. She probably did voice her concerns and her friend may very well have suggested she kept a notebook with her to make sure she remembered everything. If she'd learned shorthand whilst doing her typing course, it would have been easy.
I have read her statements, but not recently.
I would like to see what the farmworker had to say. You know I was trying to find evidence that Neville worked late that night. Apparently he did give a statement and came for his car the next day.
-
I would like to see what the farmworker had to say. You know I was trying to find evidence that Neville worked late that night. Apparently he did give a statement and came for his car the next day.
Like much other about this case, there are contradictions. If the car belonged to Fraser Bell and he gave a statement, fine, but there's an empty claim that he was only here because of a shooting -d'ya get where this is going?- he'd been involved with in SA, and he was picked up and given a lift when he was hitching to a port/airport to return to SA!!! There appear to be sub stories every step of the way!!!!
-
Like much other about this case, there are contradictions. If the car belonged to Fraser Bell and he gave a statement, fine, but there's an empty claim that he was only here because of a shooting -d'ya get where this is going?- he'd been involved with in SA, and he was picked up and given a lift when he was hitching to a port/airport to return to SA!!! There appear to be sub stories every step of the way!!!!
And then to say: "If Sheila didn't do it, it must be Jeremy" Its bizarre.
-
I'd certainly question that. Ann was suspicious, who else?
If she knew she would have I'm sure.
Absolutely not. Once they got around to DNA testing the blood there was unknown male DNA there too wasn't there?
Rob, BALLISTIC EXPERTS have categorically said it would be IMPOSSIBLE to recreate the pattern of back spatter inside a silencer.
You’re sayin it isn’t impossible, but you’ve no knowledge of back spatter.
-
"Hidden it" so you say without any proof at all.
It was found HIDDEN.
-
I haven't thought that far ahead yet.
Don’t bother
You weren’t on the case
You’re not a detective
You live on the other side of the planet
The case ended 35 years ago
You have no knowledge of the case; no experience; you’re just doing this as a hobby and you’re basing your imagination mainly on rumours. As if the police would take note if anything you came up with?! Don’t waste your time.
-
It was found HIDDEN.
You were talking about the gun, the .22 Anschutz.
-
DNA from an unknown male not blood, DNA. So you don't know what's the cell type was (blood or skin etc) but the DNA still came back with unknown male DNA result IIRC.
We all leave our DNA everywhere.
There must have been many, many people who handled that moderator: from the factory workers, sales assistants, Nevill’s friends when he went on shoots...doesn’t mean anything.
Jeremy wore gloves anyway, but had there been another man (there wasn’t) he’d have worn gloves too.
-
Don’t bother
You weren’t on the case
You’re not a detective
You live on the other side of the planet
The case ended 35 years ago
You have no knowledge of the case; no experience; you’re just doing this as a hobby and you’re basing your imagination mainly on rumours. As if the police would take note if anything you came up with?! Don’t waste your time.
I still could do it.
-
What I meant was why was the worker's car left there overnight? Has that been established?
There is nowhere it says Jeremy planned to keep the fortune to himself. There was that issue of the ring, Ann wanted it, but Jeremy said it was to stay with the body of June. Now that is seriously ungreedy IMO.
Ann mentions this friendship of her's with a police person. There are many odd details in her statements.
Have you gone through them opening them up one at a time? Is there a better way to see these statements?
That’s what Jeremy said — he wanted June cremated with her ring — but he could have been lying. He is a proven pathological liar.
He may have kept it and sold it.
-
I can hear that you're itching to find something previously undiscovered, but I don't think there's anything sinister about the worker's car being there overnight. After a long day, if said worker had ended it being nearer home with a farm implement, he'd have used it to get back in the morning. It occurs to me that a mass murderer wouldn't leave his vehicle at the scene of crime.
It probably wasn't stated in words of one syllable what were Jeremy's intentions, but again, actions speak louder than words, and none of his actions suggest he was someone who's life was in farming (the terms of Nevill's will were that Jeremy had to be working the farm [in a way which satisfied the Trust?] before he could inherit, so, having seen the Will, such may have been the reason for him having recently 'knuckled under')
I don't believe there have been anything altruistic about Jeremy wanting June's jewellery incinerated (in fact, I believe it wasn't. I think the undertaker returned it to the family solicitor) and I'm going to throw in a really wild theory here!!!! Jeremy MAY have been superstitious. When a close supporter suggested employing a medium, Jeremy was furious -or was he scared?- MIGHT he have thought the owner's history could be discerned from holding their jewellery?
So Ann had a friend in the police force? And she put the friendship to good use? Under the circumstances, who of us wouldn't? If you picked it up, she clearly wasn't trying to hide it. She probably did voice her concerns and her friend may very well have suggested she kept a notebook with her to make sure she remembered everything. If she'd learned shorthand whilst doing her typing course, it would have been easy.
I have read her statements, but not recently.
I can’t think of any murderers deliberately leaving their car outside 🙄
Nor can I understand why Rob thinks it’s odd that Ann was suspicious of Jeremy: nearly everyone was suspicious of him.
Ann had an obligation to keep her eye on a Jeremy considering his she’d heard blatantly lie to the police. Even DS Jones heard Jeremy chuckle with Julie on the very DAY of the murders!
Rob seems to think it’s OK for him to be suspicious, despite not knowing the family; having scant knowledge of the case; and he’s not a detective. I feel he’s yearning to discover something for his own satisfaction, but it’s all a pointless waste of time. The case is CLOSED and it’s established Jeremy Bamber is the murderer.
Dredging up old, old details that have been solved 35 years ago seems such a waste of time...
-
You were talking about the gun, the .22 Anschutz.
No, I was referring to the silencer which Jeremy tucked away in a box at the very back of the gun cupboard.
Do you think Sheila would have done that — and for what reason?
Do you think anyone else would have done that? Say, Nevill? Why would he HIDE his own silencer hwich he ALWAYS kept on his rifle?
The REASON Jeremy had to hide it was that he had killed her without it on as he realised she couldn’t have shot herself WITH it on, so HID it to make it look like she hadn’t used it at all. But as he’s slightly thick, he forgot (or just didn’t know) that back spatter would have been in the barrel — which it wasn’t. Which MEANS: Sheila was shot with silencer ATTACHED.
I’m not discussing this anymore. You either can’t or won’t understand it for some reason.
-
I still could do it.
*%87
-
I can’t think of any murderers deliberately leaving their car outside 🙄
Nor can I understand why Rob thinks it’s odd that Ann was suspicious of Jeremy: nearly everyone was suspicious of him.
Ann had an obligation to keep her eye on a Jeremy considering his she’d heard blatantly lie to the police. Even DS Jones heard Jeremy chuckle with Julie on the very DAY of the murders!
Rob seems to think it’s OK for him to be suspicious, despite not knowing the family; having scant knowledge of the case; and he’s not a detective. I feel he’s yearning to discover something for his own satisfaction, but it’s all a pointless waste of time. The case is CLOSED and it’s established Jeremy Bamber is the murderer.
Dredging up old, old details that have been solved 35 years ago seems such a waste of time...
This is the huge danger of finding oneself fascinated by an event which happened thousands of miles away, years after it happened. We could form opinions on cases which occurred in Oz, but if we didn't know the area, or anything of those involved, or how local policing worked it would be difficult to give a true assessment, but I think, out of interest, we'd all like to feel we could contribute something 'extra' which may, originally been missed.
-
No, I was referring to the silencer which Jeremy tucked away in a box at the very back of the gun cupboard.
Do you think Sheila would have done that — and for what reason?
Do you think anyone else would have done that? Say, Nevill? Why would he HIDE his own silencer hwich he ALWAYS kept on his rifle?
The REASON Jeremy had to hide it was that he had killed her without it on as he realised she couldn’t have shit herself WITH it on, so HID it to make it look like she hadn’t used it at all. But as he’s slightly thick, he forgot (or just didn’t know) that back spatter would have been in the barrel — which it wasn’t. Which MEANS: Sheila was shot with silencer ATTACHED.
I’m not discussing this anymore. You either can’t or won’t understand it for some reason.
I'll tell you something for a change - I'm not discussing the case with you anymore, because I double checked and you were discussing the gun and now you say you were discussing the silencer. I'm sick of you deliberately confusing the discussion. Wasting my precious time.
-
*%87
I'll tell you something for a change - I'm not discussing the case with you anymore
-
This is the huge danger of finding oneself fascinated by an event which happened thousands of miles away, years after it happened. We could form opinions on cases which occurred in Oz, but if we didn't know the area, or anything of those involved, or how local policing worked it would be difficult to give a true assessment, but I think, out of interest, we'd all like to feel we could contribute something 'extra' which may, originally been missed.
There are some internationally well known cases. Holly has commented on the Bain case (NZ) and the Chamberlain case(Australia).
Just last night on the news was a comment about the Scott Watson case, the one I worked on for 10 years, and his last appeal was on a point I raised with his parents while they were still alive all to do with the hair samples that were part of the case.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300043462/sounds-murders-scott-watsons-case-sent-to-court-of-appeal
"All of Watson's previous appeals have been rejected. His latest application for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy saw aspects of the case reviewed by retired High Court judge Sir Graham Panckhurst, whose advice was then sent to the justice minister and Governor General.
At the heart of Watson's application was the reliability of two hairs police say were found on his yacht, which were likely to have come from Hope. However the discovery and testing of these two hairs, has always been extremely controversial.
Little said the Governor General had accepted his advice that the case should be reconsidered by the Court of Appeal.
Chisnall said he "whooped" when he heard the news.
"I'm as excited about this as anything in the law I've ever been involved with. It's been a long time coming."
Chisnall said he had no doubt Watson had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice."
So do not get too sure that I couldn't have some effect on the Bamber case too.
-
I'm a little emotional now seeing that Chris is still alive.
'IT'S PRETTY GOOD'
Watson's father, Chris Watson, heard the news when it was announced publicly on Friday. He has stood by his son since he was arrested, adamant he was innocent.
He said it was the first time in 22 years they had managed "a win with the justice system".
"It's pretty good. We just have to get past the Court of Appeal now. We're not home free. But this is pretty much magnificent."
He had spoken to Watson earlier on Friday, though that was before the minister's announcement, but he expected to hear from his son as soon as he was able to ring from prison."
-
There are some internationally well known cases. Holly has commented on the Bain case (NZ) and the Chamberlain case(Australia).
Just last night on the news was a comment about the Scott Watson case, the one I worked on for 10 years, and his last appeal was on a point I raised with his parents while they were still alive all to do with the hair samples that were part of the case.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300043462/sounds-murders-scott-watsons-case-sent-to-court-of-appeal
"All of Watson's previous appeals have been rejected. His latest application for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy saw aspects of the case reviewed by retired High Court judge Sir Graham Panckhurst, whose advice was then sent to the justice minister and Governor General.
At the heart of Watson's application was the reliability of two hairs police say were found on his yacht, which were likely to have come from Hope. However the discovery and testing of these two hairs, has always been extremely controversial.
Little said the Governor General had accepted his advice that the case should be reconsidered by the Court of Appeal.
Chisnall said he "whooped" when he heard the news.
"I'm as excited about this as anything in the law I've ever been involved with. It's been a long time coming."
Chisnall said he had no doubt Watson had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice."
So do not get too sure that I couldn't have some effect on the Bamber case too.
You won't and I find it hard to believe you have been involved in any case.
-
You won't and I find it hard to believe you have been involved in any case.
Well that is your problem, because I have been involved, very deeply involved.
-
There are some internationally well known cases. Holly has commented on the Bain case (NZ) and the Chamberlain case(Australia).
Just last night on the news was a comment about the Scott Watson case, the one I worked on for 10 years, and his last appeal was on a point I raised with his parents while they were still alive all to do with the hair samples that were part of the case.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300043462/sounds-murders-scott-watsons-case-sent-to-court-of-appeal
"All of Watson's previous appeals have been rejected. His latest application for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy saw aspects of the case reviewed by retired High Court judge Sir Graham Panckhurst, whose advice was then sent to the justice minister and Governor General.
At the heart of Watson's application was the reliability of two hairs police say were found on his yacht, which were likely to have come from Hope. However the discovery and testing of these two hairs, has always been extremely controversial.
Little said the Governor General had accepted his advice that the case should be reconsidered by the Court of Appeal.
Chisnall said he "whooped" when he heard the news.
"I'm as excited about this as anything in the law I've ever been involved with. It's been a long time coming."
Chisnall said he had no doubt Watson had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice."
So do not get too sure that I couldn't have some effect on the Bamber case too.
Quickly looking at the link it says the two hairs were always controversial.
Cite:
“At the heart of Watson's application was the reliability of two hairs police say were found on his yacht, which were likely to have come from Hope. However the discovery and testing of these two hairs, has always been extremely controversial”
Where do you figure in this, Bob? And why did you spend 10 years on it all for free?
Did he win his appeal?
-
Well that is your problem, because I have been involved, very deeply involved.
You also said there were possibly TWO dead children in the Madeleine McCann case...
And New Scotland Yard didn’t respond to you
-
Quickly looking at the link it says the two hairs were always controversial.
Cite:
“At the heart of Watson's application was the reliability of two hairs police say were found on his yacht, which were likely to have come from Hope. However the discovery and testing of these two hairs, has always been extremely controversial”
Where do you figure in this, Bob? And why did you spend 10 years on it all for free?
Did he win his appeal?
l
Was the Scott Watson case in any way like the Bamber case? In a way, it was the local police didn't have the manpower to handle a major investigation so they handed it to the Christchurch police.
Like the London police getting involved with the Bamber case.
I got hold of the police file and I was able to cross-reference some 10,000 files (it was all on one CD) and after 10 years of cross-checking each and every person I figured out a possible solution.
I find with the Bamber case there are very few records released and those that are, aren't computerised and very hard to read in many cases.
In the file, the detective that went to collect hairs (comparative samples from Olivia Hope's house) said in his statement how many hairs he picked up, he said "between 5 and 50".
I thought that was poor. The bag that contained the hair had a slit in it and the hairs were examined on the same table as the blanket. There was a strong possibility the hairs had got there from the bag with the slit.
None of the hairs were able to be tested nuclear DNA but just mitochondrial DNA. Thousands of people will have the same Mitochondrial DNA profile.
Same sort of thing as the blood grouping in the silencer (Bamber case) Sheila and Robert Boutflour had identical blood results.
Why did I do it for free? Well, it was part-time then, I was working and that analysis was done in the evenings.
Often I would travel to the Sounds to be fully familiar with the area and to meet the people mentioned in the books written about the case. I stayed at the Watson's house, on one night and even slept in the bed they said Scott would normally sleep in.
As I said earlier to the forum it was a request from the Lord Jesus that I investigate the Scott Watson case. "Go help Scott for is being convicted of a crime he did not do." I was told this twice and only after 2 years delay did I begin the investigation.
-
You also said there were possibly TWO dead children in the Madeleine McCann case...
And New Scotland Yard didn’t respond to you
They might understand my theory a bit better now that they are investigating Christian B. Could he have swapped the dead child for Madeleine? They hardly ever respond to someone writing to them.
-
Was the Scott Watson case in any way like the Bamber case? In a way, it was the local police didn't have the manpower to handle a major investigation so they handed it to the Christchurch police.
Like the London police getting involved with the Bamber case.
I got hold of the police file and I was able to cross-reference some 10,000 files (it was all on one CD) and after 10 years of cross-checking each and every person I figured out a possible solution.
I find with the Bamber case there are very few records released and those that are, aren't computerised and very hard to read in many cases.
In the file, the detective that went to collect hairs (comparative samples from Olivia Hope's house) said in his statement how many hairs he picked up, he said "between 5 and 50".
I thought that was poor. The bag that contained the hair had a slit in it and the hairs were examined on the same table as the blanket. There was a strong possibility the hairs had got there from the bag with the slit.
None of the hairs were able to be tested nuclear DNA but just mitochondrial DNA. Thousands of people will have the same Mitochondrial DNA profile.
Same sort of thing as the blood grouping in the silencer (Bamber case) Sheila and Robert Boutflour had identical blood results.
Why did I do it for free? Well, it was part-time then, I was working and that analysis was done in the evenings.
Often I would travel to the Sounds to be fully familiar with the area and to meet the people mentioned in the books written about the case. I stayed at the Watson's house, on one night and even slept in the bed they said Scott would normally sleep in.
As I said earlier to the forum it was a request from the Lord Jesus that I investigate the Scott Watson case. "Go help Scott for is being convicted of a crime he did not do." I was told this twice and only after 2 years delay did I begin the investigation.
Sheila and Robert Boutflour did NOT have the IDENTICAL blood results! They had the same blood GROUP. BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE. RB did NOT have the SAME IDENTICAL 17 markers Sheila had, and hwich were in the silencer.
Your quote:
“Same sort of thing as the blood grouping in the silencer (Bamber case) Sheila and Robert Boutflour had identical blood results”
That’s WRONG.
Ask the Lord Jesus Christ why he keep talking to you...
Psychiatrists have a name for that
-
They might understand my theory a bit better now that they are investigating Christian B. Could he have swapped the dead child for Madeleine? They hardly ever respond to someone writing to them.
Email them again, then...
See how far you get
Your imagination is abnormal
-
Sheila and Robert Boutflour did NOT have the IDENTICAL blood results! They had the same blood GROUP. BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE. RB did NOT have the SAME IDENTICAL 17 markers Sheila had, and hwich were in the silencer.
Your quote:
“Same sort of thing as the blood grouping in the silencer (Bamber case) Sheila and Robert Boutflour had identical blood results”
That’s WRONG.
Ask the Lord Jesus Christ why he keep talking to you...
Psychiatrists have a name for that
Once again you change the subject. I'm talking blood group analysis and then you introduce DNA analysis.
You are so wrong.
-
Email them again, then...
See how far you get
Your imagination is abnormal
I don't have to now that I think they might be on the right track.
-
Well that is your problem, because I have been involved, very deeply involved.
But you’re not a detective or in the police, so you’ve never been involved in any cases. You work on a farm.
You’ve called yourself a scientist; a doctor; a pathologist...and when I questioned you, you said you were joking.
Maybe you like to joke on forums that are meant to take things seriously?
-
But you’re not a detective or in the police, so you’ve never been involved in any cases. You work on a farm.
You’ve called yourself a scientist; a doctor; a pathologist...and when I questioned you, you said you were joking.
Maybe you like to joke on forums that are meant to take things seriously?
I highlighted forensic pathologist to divert your attention away from the proper answer. What is the career that covers all of these "You work on a farm. You’ve called yourself a scientist; a doctor; a pathologist."
I do like to joke as well. But this is not a joke.
And remember I know the effects of the graveyard shift.
And just for a laugh, I rewrote Genesis. "Life started on Mercury".
-
Well that is your problem, because I have been involved, very deeply involved.
It's not a problem and I don't believe you.
-
It's not a problem and I don't believe you.
I'm disappointed in you.
-
I'm disappointed in you.
Likewise - most of the decent posters have gone - because there is no point. It WAS a good discussion, not it's just a joke.
-
Likewise - most of the decent posters have gone - because there is no point. It WAS a good discussion, not it's just a joke.
Holly is still here. That is the one that counts.
-
The board has peaks and troughs. The ITV series generated new interest including some of the McCannites but they're now busy on the MM board with the news from earlier in the month.
-
The board has peaks and troughs. The ITV series generated new interest including some of the McCannites but they're now busy on the MM board with the news from earlier in the month.
I don't do that so much. I stick to one case and see if I can solve it. The guy who left the car there is under the spotlight at the moment.
-
The case was solved 34 years ago, and your recent excursion to blue will addle your thinking far more than it is already.
-
Holly is still here. That is the one that counts.
But your confused opinion doesn't.