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: Myster on November 09, 2018, 05:31:31 AM
-
... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVR3i2A5-wo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVR3i2A5-wo) 6&%5%
-
... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVR3i2A5-wo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVR3i2A5-wo) 6&%5%
What the .........? @)(++(*
How come so many people have commented in such a short time?
-
What the .........? @)(++(*
How come so many people have commented in such a short time?
They're some of 4,500 sheeple subscribers who idolise Armchair Detective vs the McCanns... says it all really. Dozy prat needs to do some serious research instead of wasting time following Bamber Fan Club videos and publishing misleading BS. Couldn't resist replying to one comment because it was so inane!
It’ll be a bloody miracle of the highest order if Bamber, Bain, Lundy, Tabak, Cannan, Park et al are all innocent! But with the CCRC referring cases willy-nilly, I’ve got a funny feeling I’m on the losing side.
-
They're some of 4,500 sheeple subscribers who idolise Armchair Detective vs the McCanns... says it all really. Dozy prat needs to do some serious research instead of wasting time following Bamber Fan Club videos and publishing misleading BS. Couldn't resist replying to one comment because it was so inane!
It’ll be a bloody miracle of the highest order if Bamber, Bain, Lundy, Tabak, Cannan, Park et al are all innocent! But with the CCRC referring cases willy-nilly, I’ve got a funny feeling I’m on the losing side.
It is a good video, it is true that Bamber Bain and Lundy are innocent, the others I don't know the cases yet.
Thanks for posting this Myster, it does seem to be persuasive on the third phone call, Nevill to police, but I need to watch again. What do you think of this evidence, because if true it is case closed.
-
It is a good video, it is true that Bamber Bain and Lundy are innocent, the others I don't know the cases yet.
Thanks for posting this Myster, it does seem to be persuasive on the third phone call, Nevill to police, but I need to watch again. What do you think of this evidence, because if true it is case closed.
Nevill made no call to the police.
-
Nevill made no call to the police.
Did you watch the video carefully and the phone parts a few times?
It looks to me they have used authentic shots. There is no shame in changing a case view in the light of more scrutiny, indeed it is about the most interesting thing seen on these threads.
-
Did you watch the video carefully and the phone parts a few times?
It looks to me they have used authentic shots. There is no shame in changing a case view in the light of more scrutiny, indeed it is about the most interesting thing seen on these threads.
The film isn't well researched and the information about the phone calls is incorrect and further more, had the person who made the film done some research on the phone system at the time, he wouldn't be holding out hope of proving such a call ever happened - you talk as though this is the first time you have ever heard of the 'supposed 999 call from Nevill?
I agree no shame in changing your view. I wore the same blinkers that you do quite some times ago.
-
The film isn't well researched and the information about the phone calls is incorrect and further more, had the person who made the film done some research on the phone system at the time, he wouldn't be holding out hope of proving such a call ever happened - you talk as though this is the first time you have ever heard of the 'supposed 999 call from Nevill?
I agree no shame in changing your view. I wore the same blinkers that you do quite some times ago.
This sort of badly researched crap is dangerous and gives rise to umpteen myths which feed the whole alleged miscarriage of justice frenzy thingy. Just goes to show how these cases can be perceived when the true facts are distorted.
-
This sort of badly researched crap is dangerous and gives rise to umpteen myths which feed the whole alleged miscarriage of justice frenzy thingy. Just goes to show how these cases can be perceived when the true facts are distorted.
I am open minded on the phone call, but I would expect Neville to call the police then Jeremy, I sure would.
I think the burden falls on those who are suggesting the video uses fabricated screen shots of the police logs.
I also think Holly discredits evidence of the phone call, but nothing changes the facts, Jeremy Bamber never did the crime.
-
This sort of badly researched crap is dangerous and gives rise to umpteen myths which feed the whole alleged miscarriage of justice frenzy thingy. Just goes to show how these cases can be perceived when the true facts are distorted.
No Miscarriages of Justice then. So what are we all doing here?
-
No Miscarriages of Justice then. So what are we all doing here?
A debate has two sides. That's why.
-
I am open minded on the phone call, but I would expect Neville to call the police then Jeremy, I sure would.
Exactly.
-
I am open minded on the phone call, but I would expect Neville to call the police then Jeremy, I sure would.
I think the burden falls on those who are suggesting the video uses fabricated screen shots of the police logs.
I also think Holly discredits evidence of the phone call, but nothing changes the facts, Jeremy Bamber never did the crime.
I have copies of the logs in question -thing about these so called 'fabricated' logs is that they ALL say the same thing! Isn't the purpose of fabricating something to make it say something else?
-
A debate has two sides. That's why.
How can one debate a Miscarriage of Justice if like Angelo one believes that there aren't any?
-
How can one debate a Miscarriage of Justice if like Angelo one believes that there aren't any?
I am sure this is one, having debated for eternity the fine detail, not sure your view though Eleanor.
-
I am sure this is one, having debated for eternity the fine detail, not sure your view though Eleanor.
I suspect that Jeremy Bamber is Innocent. But decidedly an unsafe conviction. I just don't have the time to go into it in any more detail than I already have.
The McCann Forum keeps me well occupied.
-
How can one debate a Miscarriage of Justice if like Angelo one believes that there aren't any?
But that is not what was said? But even if that were the case, the debate would be to argue that there are.
-
More of the same boring banality... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4RPd0MK7O4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4RPd0MK7O4)
-
People are so used to posting about Julie & the relatives framing Bamber, it's as if it this sort of thing has repeatedly happened before in other cases.
Does anyone have any other examples of people who did not commit a crime they were aware of, using evidence to help frame an innocent person for that crime ?
-
People are so used to posting about Julie & the relatives framing Bamber, it's as if it this sort of thing has repeatedly happened before in other cases.
Does anyone have any other examples of people who did not commit a crime they were aware of, using evidence to help frame an innocent person for that crime ?
I’m not really sure what you mean by “did not commit a crime they were aware of...” and what your definition of ‘evidence’ is.
The 3 girls in the case of Stefan Kiszko later admitted lying at his trial simply for a laugh. The trial judge praised the girls and said their testimony was key to SK’s conviction.
In JB’s case no one had any experience of mass shootings consequently the case revolved around a lot of subjective stuff. The 2002 appeal doc states the sequence of shootings was unknown. This would not have been the case in US as there was enough physical evidence at soc to map out what happened. It is obvious from CAL’s book and the reconstructions put forward by Dr Vanezis and MF that they have no idea simply because they are not considering the totality of the physical evidence and taking a multi disciplinary approach.
-
I’m not really sure what you mean by “did not commit a crime they were aware of...” and what your definition of ‘evidence’ is.
The 3 girls in the case of Stefan Kiszko later admitted lying at his trial simply for a laugh. The trial judge praised the girls and said their testimony was key to SK’s conviction.
In JB’s case no one had any experience of mass shootings consequently the case revolved around a lot of subjective stuff. The 2002 appeal doc states the sequence of shootings was unknown. This would not have been the case in US as there was enough physical evidence at soc to map out what happened. It is obvious from CAL’s book and the reconstructions put forward by Dr Vanezis and MF that they have no idea simply because they are not considering the totality of the physical evidence and taking a multi disciplinary approach.
The relatives & Julie were aware of the massacre after it happened. Although they were not involved. They then helped frame another person not involved - Jeremy. With evidence & court testimony.
Innocent people attempting to frame another innocent person may have only happened once - the Bamber case.
The only other explanation is Julie was telling the truth & the silencer was not fabricated.
-
The relatives & Julie were aware of the massacre after it happened. Although they were not involved. They then helped frame another person not involved - Jeremy. With evidence & court testimony.
Innocent people attempting to frame another innocent person may have only happened once - the Bamber case.
The only other explanation is Julie was telling the truth & the silencer was not fabricated.
We can see from the Dickinson report the relatives were allowed to influence the direction of the investiagation but this was down to overall poor standards at EP with the buck stopping at the Home Office. Trials need to be based on sound forensic evidence not all the rubbish we have in JB’s case.
IMO JM was coerced by EP and the silencer evidence was fabricated by EP and FSS. It was like a chain reaction. In the real world we know the perp was either JB or SC, only Mike could come up with so many outlandish alternative theories. The relatives didn’t think SC capable therefore as far as they were concerned it had to be JB. What experience of processing complex soc’s/mass shootings did the relatives have? Or EP, Dr Vanezis, lawyers, judges, FSS? In the absence of proper training and experience mistakes are made and subjectivity takes over!
-
It is all very sad.
Innocent people that knew Jeremy before the massacre, becoming criminals & helping to frame him. They knew he was innocent & how upset he would be after the massacre.
The police could not coerce Jeremy into false confession. So had to set up the 'industrial frame' department to ultimately get the guilty verdict.
-
It is all very sad.
Innocent people that knew Jeremy before the massacre, becoming criminals & helping to frame him. They knew he was innocent & how upset he would be after the massacre.
The police could not coerce Jeremy into false confession. So had to set up the 'industrial frame' department to ultimately get the guilty verdict.
Yes it is all very sad like the legal dispute between the farming family.
How well did JM and/or the relatives really know JB and vice-versa!?
-
Yes it is all very sad like the legal dispute between the farming family.
How well did JM and/or the relatives really know JB and vice-versa!?
In the case of JM, her rose-tinted specs fell off when she eventually realized she was besotted with a monster. As for the relatives, families know instinctively who their black sheep are, and JB was too thick to believe they wouldn't seriously question is dastardly plan.
-
In the case of JM, her rose-tinted specs fell off when she eventually realized she was besotted with a monster. As for the relatives, families know instinctively who their black sheep are, and JB was too thick to believe they wouldn't seriously question is dastardly plan.
And he probably would have got away with it had he not done the dirty on Julie which led to her giving evidence against him.
-
Yes it is all very sad like the legal dispute between the farming family.
How well did JM and/or the relatives really know JB and vice-versa!?
They didn't, they knew the face he showed them. This should be a red flag because after two years Julie should have known him pretty well if the side he showed her was genuine.
-
In the case of JM, her rose-tinted specs fell off when she eventually realized she was besotted with a monster. As for the relatives, families know instinctively who their black sheep are, and JB was too thick to believe they wouldn't seriously question is dastardly plan.
If this is so I am surprised it took an intelligent and well educated young woman like JM so long to smell the roses!
Why would the relatives know instinctively who any 'black sheep' were when by their own admission they had little to do with JB or SC with CC stating in his book the thing that surprised him the most during the day of the funerals in Essex was that no one in the family had any idea about the seriousness of SC's mental illness.
-
Not sure if it's the norm for people who commit a crime, to attempt to frame another person.
Suspect a criminal is usually just trying to avoid any evidence incriminating himself. Rather than actively seeking to incriminate others.
In this case, neither the relatives or Julie committed the crime. They were not suspects. Neither needed to divert police suspision away from them.
However both made huge, criminal, massively complex & wrong efforts to frame an innocent man. The police quickly jumping on board.
-
Bamber & an official Youtube video say Julie & the relatives helped frame him because -
She was (apparently) jilted - Julie.
Due to some farm land - Relatives.
----------
In Julie's case, she would be the most vindictive ex girlfriend ever.
The relatives were not being vindictive. Doubtful Bamber even knew about the land. They were just planning ahead & felt the best thing to do was frame Jeremy for the murder of his family.
-
Bamber & an official Youtube video say Julie & the relatives helped frame him because -
She was (apparently) jilted - Julie.
Due to some farm land - Relatives.
----------
In Julie's case, she would be the most vindictive ex girlfriend ever.
The relatives were not being vindictive. Doubtful Bamber even knew about the land. They were just planning ahead & felt the best thing to do was frame Jeremy for the murder of his family.
Imo the police approached JM and coerced her testimony making all sorts of threats if she didn't cooperate.
Realistically it had to be JB or SC. The relatives went for JB over SC with the police taking all their irrelevant claims seriously. Ie the relatives had nothing to offer of evidential value. Their opinions that SC was not capable of operating the rifle is not evidence of anything. Had EP been better trained, supervised and managed the relatives would have been told in no uncertain terms case closed: murder/suicide. Imo EP framed JB but this would not have been possible without significant assistance from FSS where Parliament has already acknowledged significant failings during the 1980's. Of course this was all done on the basis the police and FSS believed JB responsible. When I say EP and FSS I am referring to a tiny number of individuals with probably more involved at FSS than EP. There's no doubt in my mind the so-called forensic science underpinning JB's conviction will eventually be undermined in a very significant way leading to JB's conviction being quashed.
-
Imo the police approached JM and coerced her testimony making all sorts of threats if she didn't cooperate. [/b]
Realistically it had to be JB or SC. The relatives went for JB over SC with the police taking all their irrelevant claims seriously. Ie the relatives had nothing to offer of evidential value. Their opinions that SC was not capable of operating the rifle is not evidence of anything. Had EP been better trained, supervised and managed the relatives would have been told in no uncertain terms case closed: murder/suicide. Imo EP framed JB but this would not have been possible without significant assistance from FSS where Parliament has already acknowledged significant failings during the 1980's. Of course this was all done on the basis the police and FSS believed JB responsible. When I say EP and FSS I am referring to a tiny number of individuals with probably more involved at FSS than EP. There's no doubt in my mind the so-called forensic science underpinning JB's conviction will eventually be undermined in a very significant way leading to JB's conviction being quashed.
Such as what? They didn't know about the robbery until shevtold them, they knew nothing about the cheque book incident until she told them. Someone else called the police on her behalf, were the others also coerced? If so, what with?
-
Such as what? They didn't know about the robbery until shevtold them, they knew nothing about the cheque book incident until she told them. Someone else called the police on her behalf, were the others also coerced? If so, what with?
Such as accessory to murder on the basis JB called JM at circa 3.30 am seeking her opinion as to what action to take based on his claims of a tel call from NB and/or threat of drug related charges.
We don't know who knew what and when and who approached who as there's no reliable evidence eg recorded telephone conversations with a digital time and date stamp. DS Jones claiming LR contacted him is not evidence of anything especially when it can be evidenced he was happy to mislead.
The relatives and James (Jim) Carr claim they suspected JB of OCP burglary pre tragedy. They may well have voiced their opinions to EP who in turn put it to JM. If as I suspect they were able to coerce her into prosecution witness in chief they would tell her in no uncertain terms fess all as the defence will dig deep for dirt to use against you in an attempt to discredit ie what dirt does JB have on you...she may well have fessed up about the cheque book fraud, taking cocaine in a hotel room with 3 others, bringing cannabis into UK from Holland.
Yes possibly all were coerced with the threat of drug related charges: JM, SB, LR, MW, CM, MM, CB and JR.
-
Such as accessory to murder on the basis JB called JM at circa 3.30 am seeking her opinion as to what action to take based on his claims of a tel call from NB and/or threat of drug related charges.
We don't know who knew what and when and who approached who as there's no reliable evidence eg recorded telephone conversations with a digital time and date stamp. DS Jones claiming LR contacted him is not evidence of anything especially when it can be evidenced he was happy to mislead.
The relatives and James (Jim) Carr claim they suspected JB of OCP burglary pre tragedy. They may well have voiced their opinions to EP who in turn put it to JM. If as I suspect they were able to coerce her into prosecution witness in chief they would tell her in no uncertain terms fess all as the defence will dig deep for dirt to use against you in an attempt to discredit ie what dirt does JB have on you...she may well have fessed up about the cheque book fraud, taking cocaine in a hotel room with 3 others, bringing cannabis into UK from Holland.
Yes possibly all were coerced with the threat of drug related charges: JM, SB, LR, MW, CM, MM, CB and JR.
There is evidence, there are statements and none of those who Julie told have come forward to contradict the accepted version. There are lots of 'may haves' but there is no evidence to support your suggestions - not even any statements .....
-
There is evidence, there are statements and none of those who Julie told have come forward to contradict the accepted version. There are lots of 'may haves' but there is no evidence to support your suggestions - not even any statements .....
I don't consider statements unwitnessed by independent others as evidence of anything. There's no evidence JM told anyone anything.
Why would JM and/or others come forward to retract testimonies obtained by EP? They were no doubt sold the idea by EP JB was responsible who was subsequently found guilty in a court of law based primarily on the silencer evidence.
I accept there are lots of 'may haves' in my version of events but this is so for all other versions too. In the absence of concrete audit trials its all up for grabs!
-
I don't know what the exact rules were in Sept '85 re police interviews. But there's clear evidence DS Jones at the very least misled JB during his police interviews.
He told JB SC sustained 2 gsw's and either one was fatal. This interview was conducted while JB's solicitor was present.
In a later docu/dram DS Jones acknowledges the first shot would not have been fatal.
The pathologist has always maintained the first gsw was non-fatal and he could not say one way or the other from the pathological evidence whether SC was murdered or took her own life.
I will have to post confirmation of the above separately as I have an issue with minimising to the taskbar which I will have to find a fix for.
-
Here in JB's police interviews DS Jones tell JB SC had 2 shots fired into her and he understands both were fatal:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1304
-
Here in a much later docu/drama at 6 mins in DS Jones tells the prog that SC had 2 gsw's and he understands the first one was non-fatal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU
He goes on to say he thinks the first one would have knocked SC out. It wasn't for DS Jones to make such assumptions this is the reason we have pathologists and pathological evidence and there's no pathological evidence the first shot knocked SC out. The pathologist said it was possible SC could have walked around after the first shot although he thought it unlikely.
-
Here in JB's police interviews DS Jones tell JB SC had 2 shots fired into her and he understands both were fatal:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1304
The first shot would have killed her imo so I agree with DS Jones initial assertion. No doubt he changed that view later in line with the pathologist's opinion. IMO the pathologist was wrong.
As for Mugford being coerced by police, I agree with that too. They would have made it very clear to her, cooperate or be prosecuted for other crimes.
-
The first shot would have killed her imo so I agree with DS Jones initial assertion. No doubt he changed that view later in line with the pathologist's opinion. IMO the pathologist was wrong.
As for Mugford being coerced by police, I agree with that too. They would have made it very clear to her, cooperate or be prosecuted for other crimes.
Is it not usual procedure to overlook the lesser crime committed by one person in order to establish the greater crime committed by another?
-
The first shot would have killed her imo so I agree with DS Jones initial assertion. No doubt he changed that view later in line with the pathologist's opinion. IMO the pathologist was wrong.
As for Mugford being coerced by police, I agree with that too. They would have made it very clear to her, cooperate or be prosecuted for other crimes.
Not sure she could have been prosecuted for the caravan break in. Being a lookout while Bamber stole some cash.
The relatives were dead and according to BW knew about the caravan break in. But chose not to prosecute. Bamber denied he did this for criminal reasons, saying he did it to highlight security issues. Although he was eventually prosecuted.
As a first offence from months earlier, which she told the police about, there would be no prison sentance
Certainly not enough for the police to get her to compile a false WS & testimony.
-
I don't consider statements unwitnessed by independent others as evidence of anything. There's no evidence JM told anyone anything.
Why would JM and/or others come forward to retract testimonies obtained by EP? They were no doubt sold the idea by EP JB was responsible who was subsequently found guilty in a court of law based primarily on the silencer evidence.
I accept there are lots of 'may haves' in my version of events but this is so for all other versions too. In the absence of concrete audit trials its all up for grabs!
Statements would have been available at trial, we may not have seen such statements but why should we? If I were Liz Rimmington and it was public the public domain that Julie told me about Bamber committing murder and that it was I, not she who had reported such to the police - and it wasn't true ......... I would make sure that the FACTS were reported. As she has not come forward then I think we can take it as read, that she did make a statement and the official account is likely to be true.
IMO, the only reason Julie told of her other misdemeanors was because Jones asked her if there was anything in her past that might discredit her as a witness; something Bamber might know and which the prosecution might use to undermine her evidence.
-
Statements would have been available at trial, we may not have seen such statements but why should we? If I were Liz Rimmington and it was public the public domain that Julie told me about Bamber committing murder and that it was I, not she who had reported such to the police - and it wasn't true ......... I would make sure that the FACTS were reported. As she has not come forward then I think we can take it as read, that she did make a statement and the official account is likely to be true.
IMO, the only reason Julie told of her other misdemeanors was because Jones asked her if there was anything in her past that might discredit her as a witness; something Bamber might know and which the prosecution might use to undermine her evidence.
But wherever the statements may have been used the fact remains that there was no independent way to verify their authenticity ie no independent witness to verify the taking of the statement or tape recording of such etc.
The fact you or I may have taken a different course of action does not necessarily mean to say others would do the same especially if the police had some leverage over the indvidual(s).
Yes I agree JM's past had to come out as the police would know anything and everything that could be used by the defence to discredit JM might well be used in an attempt to undermine her credibility. According to various individuals JB was already prime suspect for OCP pre tragedy. Potentially this gave the police a head start when questioning JM. Thee's also much evidence the police were aware JB was growing cannabis at Bourtree cottage which no doubt led them to ask JM about her involvement, if any.
-
The first shot would have killed her imo so I agree with DS Jones initial assertion. No doubt he changed that view later in line with the pathologist's opinion. IMO the pathologist was wrong.
As for Mugford being coerced by police, I agree with that too. They would have made it very clear to her, cooperate or be prosecuted for other crimes.
The first shot would have killed SC had the second not supervened but in the interim both pathologists at trial, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight, said in no uncertain terms the first shot was not immediately fatal and that physiologically it was possible for SC to move around, inflict the second shot and there was a time interval of anything from a few seconds to a few minutes between the 2 shots.
If the police have leverage over potential prosecution witnesses do you think this makes them less reliable, more reliable or makes no difference?
-
But wherever the statements may have been used the fact remains that there was no independent way to verify their authenticity ie no independent witness to verify the taking of the statement or tape recording of such etc.
The fact you or I may have taken a different course of action does not necessarily mean to say others would do the same especially if the police had some leverage over the indvidual(s).
Yes I agree JM's past had to come out as the police would know anything and everything that could be used by the defence to discredit JM might well be used in an attempt to undermine her credibility. According to various individuals JB was already prime suspect for OCP pre tragedy. Potentially this gave the police a head start when questioning JM. Thee's also much evidence the police were aware JB was growing cannabis at Bourtree cottage which no doubt led them to ask JM about her involvement, if any.
Have you hear Liz Rimmington deny making such a statement?
-
The first shot would have killed SC had the second not supervened but in the interim both pathologists at trial, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight, said in no uncertain terms the first shot was not immediately fatal and that physiologically it was possible for SC to move around, inflict the second shot and there was a time interval of anything from a few seconds to a few minutes between the 2 shots.
If the police have leverage over potential prosecution witnesses do you think this makes them less reliable, more reliable or makes no difference?
Did either state, categorically, that it would have been possible for Sheila to move around after the first shot? Did they ever expand on what they meant by it? It seems to me, that having sustained a shot through the neck which grazed a couple of vertebrae -whilst not immediately fatal, a mortal wound- there may be some discrepancy between the ability to move one's head slightly and the possibility of managing to raise one's self, without putting undue and painful strain on the afflicted area, into an upright position to walk, prior to being felled by the second, immediately fatal shot.
-
The crime scene photo makes it abundantly clear that she never walked anywhere after the first shot, otherwise blood would have run vertically down her neck and nightdress, not sideways as it appears to do.
-
Both supporters & guilters agree Sheila did not walk around after the first shot.
Supporters have to be very optimistic and believe that Sheila was not totally immobilised after the firsr shot so able to shoot herself a second time.
-
Both supporters & guilters agree Sheila did not walk around after the first shot.
Supporters have to be very optimistic and believe that Sheila was not totally immobilised after the firsr shot so able to shoot herself a second time.
I read comments some time ago by a supporter who thought that being shot in the throat by a .22 rifle was no more devastating than being hit by an airgun pellet. I think some people need a reality check.
-
Have you hear Liz Rimmington deny making such a statement?
I dont know whether or not it was put to her at trial that she made x statement on y date and if so how much, if any, of the content was put to her for her to agree/disagree. But lets assume counsel put all the content to her why would she disagree regardless of whether the content was accurate to the best of her belief if the police coerced her WS?
-
Did either state, categorically, that it would have been possible for Sheila to move around after the first shot? Did they ever expand on what they meant by it? It seems to me, that having sustained a shot through the neck which grazed a couple of vertebrae -whilst not immediately fatal, a mortal wound- there may be some discrepancy between the ability to move one's head slightly and the possibility of managing to raise one's self, without putting undue and painful strain on the afflicted area, into an upright position to walk, prior to being felled by the second, immediately fatal shot.
Yes both said from a physiological perspective it was possible but both ruled out any significant movement ie standing, leaving the bedroom and returning on the basis of the blood distribution ie lack of blood stains running down the front of SC's nightdress.
Both pathologists pretty much agreed on everything except the burn marks to NB's back. Bottom line is that both agreed SC could have inflicted the second immediately fatal gsw ie they could not say one way or the other murder or suicide.
-
The crime scene photo makes it abundantly clear that she never walked anywhere after the first shot, otherwise blood would have run vertically down her neck and nightdress, not sideways as it appears to do.
Yes I agree and this is what both pathologists said. I only said it was possible to show that the level of mobility after the first gsw certainly does not rule out SC inflicting the second gsw.
-
Both supporters & guilters agree Sheila did not walk around after the first shot.
Supporters have to be very optimistic and believe that Sheila was not totally immobilised after the firsr shot so able to shoot herself a second time.
I don't think it's a case of being 'very optimistic'. The pathological evidence from Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight makes it very clear SC was able to inflict the second gsw. If this wasn't the case JB would have near zero support.
-
I don't think it's a case of being 'very optimistic'. The pathological evidence from Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight makes it very clear SC was able to inflict the second gsw. If this wasn't the case JB would have near zero support.
A second shot in a suicide isn't impossible because there have been others. However, that doesn't mean it is likely. Vanezis made it clear that he would have had 'concerns' had he attended the scene and saw Sheila in situ.
-
A second shot in a suicide isn't impossible because there have been others. However, that doesn't mean it is likely. Vanezis made it clear that he would have had 'concerns' had he attended the scene and saw Sheila in situ.
Multiple shots in suicide cases happen frequently in US. In this case the pathological evidence shows it was a distinct possibility. If this wasn't the case Dr Vanezis would have raised during PM and instead of saying he found nothing to contradict the initial police theory of murder/suicide his feedback to the officers present at PM would have been entirely different.
Of course post trial he was more cautious saying had he seen SC at soc he would have raised certain issues which included the position of rifle and bible. But was before forensic scientist Martyn Ismail gave evidence at the 2002 appeal asserting SC was pulled down by her feet moving her head propped against the bedside cabinet which just happens to corroborate with A/PS Woodcock's WS. SC was moved at soc and the whole soc by way of her body, rifle and bible compromised which jurors and judge were unaware of.
-
Multiple shots in suicide cases happen frequently in US. In this case the pathological evidence shows it was a distinct possibility. If this wasn't the case Dr Vanezis would have raised during PM and instead of saying he found nothing to contradict the initial police theory of murder/suicide his feedback to the officers present at PM would have been entirely different.
Of course post trial he was more cautious saying had he seen SC at soc he would have raised certain issues which included the position of rifle and bible. But was before forensic scientist Martyn Ismail gave evidence at the 2002 appeal asserting SC was pulled down by her feet moving her head propped against the bedside cabinet which just happens to corroborate with A/PS Woodcock's WS. SC was moved at soc and the whole soc by way of her body, rifle and bible compromised which jurors and judge were unaware of.
Of course, we have to bear in mind that there are more guns in the USA and more who are gun competent. I'm capable of firing a previously loaded rifle at a given target but being able to manipulate it into a position from which it would kill me would be an entirely different proposition. Have you considered that Jeremy may have forced her to fire the shot intended to kill her and fired the second shot himself after the first had failed?
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/innocent-man-part-4-shawtesko.html%3Fm%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwiOrp75vp_fAhXvVBUIHRG_CJY4FBAWMAJ6BAgHEAE&usg=AOvVaw38j_2Wa6hLzdtwBkixXbYR
'At the 1986 trial Dr Vanezis expressed the view that the first (non-fatal) bullet would have largely incapacitated Sheila, which implied Sheila would have been unable to fire the second shot, further implying that Jeremy had fired both bullets.
Vanezis conveniently forgot his statement on the 30th September 1985, it which he wrote that Sheila would only have been ‘stunned’ after the first bullet was fired and may not have lost consciousness for some considerable time. It wasn’t the only thing Dr Vanezis would happen to forget.'
----------
At worst Vanezis is saying Sheila would be incapacitated from the first shot. Making Jeremy the killer.
At best Sheila was 'stunned' and stayed alive after the first shot.
Everyone agrees Sheila did not stand up after the first shot. Whether stunned, incapacitated (or both) she was certainly immobilised.
Jeremy shot an almost certainly incapacitated but 100% stunned/immobilised Sheila a second time.
Jeremy could have shot Sheila straight after the first shot or later during the massacre. Either way, an incapacitated or stunned Sheila would have put up no resistance to the second shot.
-
It is very doubtful Jeremy shot Sheila twice in quick succession. A one shot suicide frame is a million times better than a two shot suicide.
The two shots were very close to each other. He knew under the chin was a good location to get a one shot killing.
Sheila was certainly instantly stunned & immobilised after his first shot. Jeremy believed his first shot had killed her. So he left her to continue about his business at WHF.
He later realised a stunned & immobilised Sheila was still breathing. Perhaps when putting her into position & taking the silencer off.
He had to make a snap decision on whether to shoot her again & decided to shoot her in a nearly identical location.
-
This is why Jeremy did not dispute the police when they told him Sheila could not have shot herself twice.
He knew his first shot had 'stunned', 'immobilised' & 'incapacitated' Sheila.
Although still breathing she would have been unconcious & not able to fire the second shot.
---------
Either the above or he did shoot Sheila twice in quick succeession & had no idea if the police were correct.
-
Multiple shots in suicide cases happen frequently in US. In this case the pathological evidence shows it was a distinct possibility. If this wasn't the case Dr Vanezis would have raised during PM and instead of saying he found nothing to contradict the initial police theory of murder/suicide his feedback to the officers present at PM would have been entirely different.
Of course post trial he was more cautious saying had he seen SC at soc he would have raised certain issues which included the position of rifle and bible. But was before forensic scientist Martyn Ismail gave evidence at the 2002 appeal asserting SC was pulled down by her feet moving her head propped against the bedside cabinet which just happens to corroborate with A/PS Woodcock's WS. SC was moved at soc and the whole soc by way of her body, rifle and bible compromised which jurors and judge were unaware of.
Frequently with a semi automatic weapon? From what I have read, the phenomenon is rare and generally occurs when the shootist misses essential organs. As we know, the first shot would eventually have killed Sheila and the fact that it's clear she didn't move under her own steam, the likelihood of her re positioning and shooting herself twice, is pretty far fetched.
Are you saying that Vanezis became cautious as a matter of convenience?
I agree, SC was moved at the SOC, she was moved by Bamber as he looked for what he 'thought' would give the best impression on discovery.
-
I dont know whether or not it was put to her at trial that she made x statement on y date and if so how much, if any, of the content was put to her for her to agree/disagree. But lets assume counsel put all the content to her why would she disagree regardless of whether the content was accurate to the best of her belief if the police coerced her WS?
So now the police are coercing LR? And what have they got on her? Did they coerce Malcolm Waters too?
-
Of course, we have to bear in mind that there are more guns in the USA and more who are gun competent. I'm capable of firing a previously loaded rifle at a given target but being able to manipulate it into a position from which it would kill me would be an entirely different proposition. Have you considered that Jeremy may have forced her to fire the shot intended to kill her and fired the second shot himself after the first had failed?
GSW trajectories sustained by SC were the only ones that went upwards. Pathologist Prof Knight thought it would be quite extraordinary for a.n other to inflict.
-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/innocent-man-part-4-shawtesko.html%3Fm%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwiOrp75vp_fAhXvVBUIHRG_CJY4FBAWMAJ6BAgHEAE&usg=AOvVaw38j_2Wa6hLzdtwBkixXbYR
'At the 1986 trial Dr Vanezis expressed the view that the first (non-fatal) bullet would have largely incapacitated Sheila, which implied Sheila would have been unable to fire the second shot, further implying that Jeremy had fired both bullets.
Vanezis conveniently forgot his statement on the 30th September 1985, it which he wrote that Sheila would only have been ‘stunned’ after the first bullet was fired and may not have lost consciousness for some considerable time. It wasn’t the only thing Dr Vanezis would happen to forget.'
----------
At worst Vanezis is saying Sheila would be incapacitated from the first shot. Making Jeremy the killer.
At best Sheila was 'stunned' and stayed alive after the first shot.
Everyone agrees Sheila did not stand up after the first shot. Whether stunned, incapacitated (or both) she was certainly immobilised.
Jeremy shot an almost certainly incapacitated but 100% stunned/immobilised Sheila a second time.
Jeremy could have shot Sheila straight after the first shot or later during the massacre. Either way, an incapacitated or stunned Sheila would have put up no resistance to the second shot.
From the CoA doc:
45. Sheila Caffell was also dressed in her nightwear and bare-footed. She had received two contact or near contact bullet wounds to her throat. The higher of the two wounds would have killed her almost instantaneously. The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately and a person having suffered such an injury may have been able to stand up and walk around for a little time. The lack of heavy blood staining to Sheila Caffell's nightdress suggested that this had not happened here. The lower of the two injuries must have been the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck and this would not have occurred to the same extent if the other wound, which would have been immediately fatal, had preceded it. Dr Vanezis gave evidence that the nature of the blood stains to the nightdress suggested that Sheila Caffell was sitting up when she received both injuries. After the second injury she would have immediately fallen back. There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle.
46. From the pathological evidence alone, the pathologist could not say, one way or the other, whether Mrs Caffell had been murdered or had taken her own life.
How did SC remain seated in an upright position for both gsw's if JB inflicted them? Bearing in mind they were not bang, bang. There must have been a time lapse of some seconds as evidenced by the hemorrhaging.
After the first gsw SC's was left physically able to walk around. This clearly did not happen as evidenced by the lack of blood staining to the front of her nightdress but the pathological evidence shows her level of mobility was such it was possible for SC to inflict the second gsw.
-
It is very doubtful Jeremy shot Sheila twice in quick succession. A one shot suicide frame is a million times better than a two shot suicide.
The two shots were very close to each other. He knew under the chin was a good location to get a one shot killing.
Sheila was certainly instantly stunned & immobilised after his first shot. Jeremy believed his first shot had killed her. So he left her to continue about his business at WHF.
He later realised a stunned & immobilised Sheila was still breathing. Perhaps when putting her into position & taking the silencer off.
He had to make a snap decision on whether to shoot her again & decided to shoot her in a nearly identical location.
The pathological evidence showed the two gsw's could have been fired within a few seconds to a few minutes.
Side of head into brain or into mouth and through roof would be more likely to deliver a fatal outcome after 1 gsw than neck.
-
This is why Jeremy did not dispute the police when they told him Sheila could not have shot herself twice.
He knew his first shot had 'stunned', 'immobilised' & 'incapacitated' Sheila.
Although still breathing she would have been unconcious & not able to fire the second shot.
---------
Either the above or he did shoot Sheila twice in quick succeession & had no idea if the police were correct.
JB did dispute DS Jones' claims that SC did not kill herself and that either gsw was fatal. Both claims at total odds with the pathological evidence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1304
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1306
The above imo shows DS Jones was quite happy to mislead and venture outside his area of expertise. This coupled with his heavy drinking on the job leads me to conclude he is totally unreliable,
-
Oh, here we go again with more character assassination. I think you should save that for JB!
-
Frequently with a semi automatic weapon? From what I have read, the phenomenon is rare and generally occurs when the shootist misses essential organs. As we know, the first shot would eventually have killed Sheila and the fact that it's clear she didn't move under her own steam, the likelihood of her re positioning and shooting herself twice, is pretty far fetched.
Are you saying that Vanezis became cautious as a matter of convenience?
I agree, SC was moved at the SOC, she was moved by Bamber as he looked for what he 'thought' would give the best impression on discovery.
Dr Vanezis covers the fact the weapon was a semi-auto and SC sustained 2 gsw's. He concludes that his examination did not reveal anything to contradict the murder/suicide theory.
Dr Vanezis did not conclude SC shooting herself twice was "far-fetched". He concluded it was a "high probablity".
The bottom line is Dr Vanezis was unable to conclude one way or the other murder or suicide. Lay people refuse to accept the expert evidence and unfortunately in this case were allowed to run amok.
There's much evidence SC was moved at soc between police locating and photographing as per first respondent A/PS Woodcocks's WS stating SC's head was raised against the bedside cabinet which corroborates with expert evidence from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail stating SC's head was raised against the bedside cabinet following the second gsw. This is at odds with soc images showing SC's head flat to the floor. The fact lawyers have not picked up on this and worse still allowed it to be used against JB shows a poor defence and not a guilty JB.
-
Oh, here we go again with more character assassination. I think you should save that for JB!
But JB was not acting in a professional capacity!
-
Oh, here we go again with more character assassination. I think you should save that for JB!
A person who was quite fond of misleading in his interviews peppered with "No comments", and irritating tooth-twanging.
-
But JB was not acting in a professional capacity!
He was professional enough with his Anschutz!
-
So now the police are coercing LR? And what have they got on her? Did they coerce Malcolm Waters too?
Yes I said in an earlier post imo all those in JB's circle were coerced. We can see from JB's police interviews, undertaken with a solicitor present, that DS Jones was happy to mislead ie telling JB SC was murdered and she could not have shot herself twice. Imo he relayed these comments to JB's circle and the fact most, if not all, used recreational drugs was used as additional leverage to get them to cooperate.
-
He was professional enough with his Anschutz!
A marksman at Greshams meaning had JB been perp the soc would look very different with far fewer shots fired/gsw's.
In the Bain case both suspects were familiar with firearms. The murder weapon was the same calibre used at WHF. In the Bain case we have a total of 5 victims with a total of 8 shots fired/8 gsw's. At WHF we have a total of 5 victims with 25 or 26 shots fired and 25/26gsw's includes 2 graze wounds. Of course those that believe JB guilty say he went for overkill to make it look amateurish and overkill.
-
A person who was quite fond of misleading in his interviews peppered with "No comments", and irritating tooth-twanging.
But why would JB's attitude by any different when it is quite obvious DS Jones was misleading/lying to him and accusing him of annihilating his family.
Dr Vanezis said although he listened to DS Jones' concerns he offered nothing of evidential value. We can hear from the 'Killing Mum and Dad' docu/drama that DS Jones offered nothing of evidential value.
-
A marksman at Greshams meaning had JB been perp the soc would look very different with far fewer shots fired/gsw's.
In the Bain case both suspects were familiar with firearms. The murder weapon was the same calibre used at WHF. In the Bain case we have a total of 5 victims with a total of 8 shots fired/8 gsw's. At WHF we have a total of 5 victims with 25 or 26 shots fired and 25/26gsw's includes 2 graze wounds. Of course those that believe JB guilty say he went for overkill to make it look amateurish and overkill.
Not if he was trying to make it look as if it had been done by someone who wasn't gun competent, ie Sheila. It could even be said that he was showing just how skilled he was
-
JB did dispute DS Jones' claims that SC did not kill herself and that either gsw was fatal. Both claims at total odds with the pathological evidence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1304
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1306
The above imo shows DS Jones was quite happy to mislead and venture outside his area of expertise. This coupled with his heavy drinking on the job leads me to conclude he is totally unreliable,
He didn't dispute it. When told both shots would be fatal he said 'I can't comment'. As well as saying Nevill may have said 'She' on the phone
Prior to that he said he thought Sheila killed herself.
Jeremy chose a good location for both shots into Sheila. It is agreed Sheila did not stand up after the first shot. She was 100% stunned & immobilised. If not unconcious she would be in extreme pain. Vanezis said she could also be incapacitated.
However Sheila was still breathing. When Jeremy later realised this he decided to fire the second shot, in exactly the same location. This shot killed her instantly.
-
The two shots into Sheila were only around 2 inches apart from each other.
If the second shot would have killed her instantly, the first shot surely knocked her out. It is agreed she did not stand up after the first shot which would have eventually killed her.
Jeremy had decided under the chin was a very good location for a one shot kill. He was right.The first shot immobilised her & would have eventually been fatal. The second shot was instantly fatal.
After later realising Sheila was still breathing from the first shot, he fired his second shot in the exact same location as the first.
-
If Jeremy was able to get his first Sheila shot away in such a good location, he would not instantly fire a second shot.
He would wait for his hoped & expected first shot reaction from Sheila - death, unconciousness, immobilty, shock, incapacitation.
He got all of the above (except death) from the first shot. So left Sheila to attend to other business inside WHF.
Minutes later & Sheila was still breathing. He then made a split decision to fire a second shot in the same location.
-
Jeremy fired his first Sheila shot into an excellent location. It was the pre planned location he was aiming for.
The shot certainly or almost certainly instantly immobilised, shocked, incapacitated & knocked her out.
The first shot would have certainly also killed her without the need for a second shot. Although perhaps not instantly.
This highlights that Sheila put up no or minimal resistance prior to the first shot. Allowing Jeremy to take aim into his chosen location.
The claim that Jeremy could not have easily controlled Sheila for a few seconds has always been extremly weak.
-
A marksman at Greshams meaning had JB been perp the soc would look very different with far fewer shots fired/gsw's.
In the Bain case both suspects were familiar with firearms. The murder weapon was the same calibre used at WHF. In the Bain case we have a total of 5 victims with a total of 8 shots fired/8 gsw's. At WHF we have a total of 5 victims with 25 or 26 shots fired and 25/26gsw's includes 2 graze wounds. Of course those that believe JB guilty say he went for overkill to make it look amateurish and overkill.
I don't say that !... far too risky, especially as he'd never shot any human being before. I just think things went banana-shaped because he disturbed his parents first and so they became moving targets before he had a chance to eliminate them with headshots, and maybe he also overestimated the rifle's power which required more bullets than the ten or eleven he thought were needed.
I also believe David Bain was guilty, because there was so much evidence stacked up against him, i.e. his misleading emergency call and subsequent faulty memory when interviewed of whose bodies he'd actually seen; the fact that he wouldn't let police in when they arrived; the trigger lock key whose location only he knew about; his little brother's bloodstain on the crotch of his shorts; the lens found in Stephen's bedroom and the distorted spectacle frame belonging to his mother (which he wore because his own were broken) with one lens missing found on a chair in his own bedroom; his machine-washing of bloodstained clothing, jersey, etc. in an attempt to destroy evidence; the date of when he had his arm tattoo which he lied about. There may be more which I can't remember offhand.
-
I don't say that !... far too risky, especially as he'd never shot any human being before. I just think things went banana-shaped because he disturbed his parents first and so they became moving targets before he had a chance to eliminate them with headshots, and maybe he also overestimated the rifle's power which required more bullets than the ten or eleven he thought were needed.
I also believe David Bain was guilty, because there was so much evidence stacked up against him, i.e. his misleading emergency call and subsequent faulty memory when interviewed of whose bodies he'd actually seen; the fact that he wouldn't let police in when they arrived; the trigger lock key whose location only he knew about; his little brother's bloodstain on the crotch of his shorts; the lens found in Stephen's bedroom and the distorted spectacle frame belonging to his mother (which he wore because his own were broken) with one lens missing found on a chair in his own bedroom; his machine-washing of bloodstained clothing, jersey, etc. in an attempt to destroy evidence; the date of when he had his arm tattoo which he lied about. There may be more which I can't remember offhand.
I'm inclined to think that if he'd shot with the prowess he'd displayed at Gresham it would have been obvious that it wasn't Sheila's work. Do you not think he'd have regained some equilibrium by the time he got to the twins, or might it be that it's loss was caused by shooting them?........................OR, having made a bit if a pig's ear of dispatching the parents, could he have made it work in his favour by using more shots than necessary on the children?
-
I'm inclined to think that if he'd shot with the prowess he'd displayed at Gresham it would have been obvious that it wasn't Sheila's work. Do you not think he'd have regained some equilibrium by the time he got to the twins, or might it be that it's loss was caused by shooting them?........................OR, having made a bit if a pig's ear of dispatching the parents, could he have made it work in his favour by using more shots than necessary on the children?
I'm just trying to picture myself in that master bedroom in the dead of night ready to shoot my sleeping parents (God forbid), armed with a rifle loaded with only ten or eleven bullets and being extremely careful not to waste any. My first priority would have been to try to ensure that I didn't wake them beforehand, for example by not alarming Crispy, so that their execution would be as swift as possible. But even the most well thought out plans go awry, and if I disturbed them so that they began to move, I'd probably fire off as many bullets as I could without too much thought about placement to prevent them getting out of bed and resisting, especially so in the case of Nevill. I'd be nervous, sweaty probably, with adrenaline pumping and time passing by in split seconds, but the least thing I'd be thinking about would be where Sheila might have directed the bullets.
I'm not sure whether the twins were killed first or last. If first, Bamber might have thought it was so easy, just like dispatching two small animals, that the same repeated on his dozing parents would be a cinch. If last, then he probably went for overkill to ensure the mistakes made with his parents weren't repeated.
-
I'm just trying to picture myself in that master bedroom in the dead of night ready to shoot my sleeping parents (God forbid), armed with a rifle loaded with only ten or eleven bullets and being extremely careful not to waste any. My first priority would have been to try to ensure that I didn't wake them beforehand, for example by not alarming Crispy, so that their execution would be as swift as possible. But even the most well thought out plans go awry, and if I disturbed them so that they began to move, I'd probably fire off as many bullets as I could without too much thought about placement to prevent them getting out of bed and resisting, especially so in the case of Nevill. I'd be nervous, sweaty probably, with adrenaline pumping and time passing by in split seconds, but the least thing I'd be thinking about would be where Sheila might have directed the bullets.
I'm not sure whether the twins were killed first or last. If first, Bamber might have thought it was so easy, just like dispatching two small animals, that the same repeated on his dozing parents would be a cinch. If last, then he probably went for overkill to ensure the mistakes made with his parents weren't repeated.
I think you'd probably fail miserably in your task, Myster. More likely, you wouldn't have been doing it in the first place as it's very clear just how abhorrent to you is the thought of dispatching your parents. I can't imagine Jeremy felt the same reticence. I think it would have been more about getting in, getting the job done as quickly as possible and getting out.
-
Yes I said in an earlier post imo all those in JB's circle were coerced. We can see from JB's police interviews, undertaken with a solicitor present, that DS Jones was happy to mislead ie telling JB SC was murdered and she could not have shot herself twice. Imo he relayed these comments to JB's circle and the fact most, if not all, used recreational drugs was used as additional leverage to get them to cooperate.
I'll ask again - how were they coerced? What could they have on LR or MW? And what was to stop them mentioning they had been coerced when giving evidence? It seems a bit of a cop out to dismiss the testimony of anyone who accused Bamber of murder as being coerced. I can see an argument for Julie - but not the others.
-
I don't say that !... far too risky, especially as he'd never shot any human being before. I just think things went banana-shaped because he disturbed his parents first and so they became moving targets before he had a chance to eliminate them with headshots, and maybe he also overestimated the rifle's power which required more bullets than the ten or eleven he thought were needed.
I also believe David Bain was guilty, because there was so much evidence stacked up against him, i.e. his misleading emergency call and subsequent faulty memory when interviewed of whose bodies he'd actually seen; the fact that he wouldn't let police in when they arrived; the trigger lock key whose location only he knew about; his little brother's bloodstain on the crotch of his shorts; the lens found in Stephen's bedroom and the distorted spectacle frame belonging to his mother (which he wore because his own were broken) with one lens missing found on a chair in his own bedroom; his machine-washing of bloodstained clothing, jersey, etc. in an attempt to destroy evidence; the date of when he had his arm tattoo which he lied about. There may be more which I can't remember offhand.
Of course you believe David Bain was guilty, there is a one to one correspondence involved, all believe (both guilty) or (both innocent).
Beliefs of course are simply misapplied knowledge, neither of the 23 year olds could plan for a successful crime or expect a fast path to the money.
In fact middle class 23 year olds don't think that way.
Did you?
By the way Holly has an expensive hard copy of a book "Trial by Ambush" on the David Bain case.
Should she choose to, she will dissect your beliefs like a pinned frog.
-
Of course you believe David Bain was guilty, there is a one to one correspondence involved, all believe (both guilty) or (both innocent).
Beliefs of course are simply misapplied knowledge, neither of the 23 year olds could plan for a successful crime or expect a fast path to the money.
In fact middle class 23 year olds don't think that way.
Did you?
By the way Holly has an expensive hard copy of a book "Trial by Ambush" on the David Bain case.
Should she choose to, she will dissect your beliefs like a pinned frog.
I also have that book - so what? £28.99 from Amazon - not cheap but hardly bank braking.
MOST 23 years old's don't think that way - just those impatient ones with a psychopathic nature.
Misapplied knowledge you say? Well Bamber was 24 when he murdered his family - not 23!
-
I also have that book - so what? £28.99 from Amazon - not cheap but hardly bank braking.
MOST 23 years old's don't think that way - just those impatient ones with a psychopathic nature.
Misapplied knowledge you say? Well Bamber was 24 when he murdered his family - not 23!
Then you will be aware that:
Dr Alec Dempster, the pathologist described the entry wound to Robin Bain as being 4mm in diameter surrounded by a ring of soot up to 10 mm in diameter.
"This indicates to me that this is a contact wound where the muzzle of the gun has been held in direct contact with the skin of the deceased." The quote comprises a first notebook entry shortly after the crime. Later the bullet trajectory would prove to conform precisely with the most convenient path for self delivery,holding the rifle barrel with the right hand, gun stock on the floor, and left hand easily reaching the trigger. One shot fired, remember more than one and David Bain could hardly expect a suicide conclusion.
Then Justice Ian Binnie from Canada would make the obvious points in recommending compensation:
37. It strikes me as inherently implausible that David Bain, however incompetent, would kill
four people, then take time out to do a paper route in clothes smeared in blood (albeit covered
in part by a red sweat shirt), anxious to be seen by customers along the way, leaving the scene
of the massacre open to discovery by Robin before his return.**Robin was often up and about
the house soon after his alarm went off at 6.30 am.15**Occasionally Robin was up earlier.16**He
sometimes used a downstairs door to come in from the caravan.17**This would have led him
directly to the scene of the murders.**Had Robin done this on the morning of 20 June, he would
immediately have discovered the carnage while David was out, and called the Police before
David got home.***
38. Such a mindless “four before one after” plan attributed to David, a university student, is
just not credible in the absence of (i) any expert evidence that David suffered from an
abnormality of the mind or (ii) possessed sub‐normal intelligence.***"
Now I didn't bring Robin Bain up, but the question remains
Who shot Sheila Caffel?
Who shot Robin Bain?
As I point out, and see here, people believe both are suicide or neither.
-
Of course you believe David Bain was guilty, there is a one to one correspondence involved, all believe (both guilty) or (both innocent).
Beliefs of course are simply misapplied knowledge, neither of the 23 year olds could plan for a successful crime or expect a fast path to the money.
In fact middle class 23 year olds don't think that way.
Did you?
By the way Holly has an expensive hard copy of a book "Trial by Ambush" on the David Bain case.
Should she choose to, she will dissect your beliefs like a pinned frog.
Such a shame then, that you "believe" Bamber, Bain and Lundy to be innocent.
Good to see you getting bogged down with DNA gobbledygook on IA, defending a chancer who was quite willing to wipe his wife (and daughter) off the face of the earth for the sake of a hefty insurance payout to settle his debts, then spend the rest on a luxury house complete with half-car bar to indulge his taste for drunken debauchery.
Holly is probably making good use of that questionable tome as a door stop, and I've absolutely no intention of forking out such an extortionate amount for a paperback either, TYVM.
You're lucky to have such a pretty PM with Jacinda in Kiwiland, can't say the same about our own. I was even tempted to emigrate until I saw that NZ has got its fair share of homicidal crackpots... such as ************ who murdered Grace Millane, and whose identity your compatriots are sure to know by now.
-
Such a shame then, that you "believe" Bamber, Bain and Lundy to be innocent.
Good to see you getting bogged down with DNA gobbledygook on IA, defending a chancer who was quite willing to wipe his wife (and daughter) off the face of the earth for the sake of a hefty insurance payout to settle his debts, then spend the rest on a luxury house complete with half-car bar to indulge his taste for drunken debauchery.
Holly is probably making good use of that questionable tome as a door stop, and I've absolutely no intention of forking out such an extortionate amount for a paperback either, TYVM.
You're lucky to have such a pretty PM with Jacinda in Kiwiland, can't say the same about our own. I was even tempted to emigrate until I saw that NZ has got its fair share of homicidal crackpots... such as ************ who murdered Grace Millane, and whose identity your compatriots are sure to know by now.
Why not join David 1918 on IA and help him explain the Teresa Halbach murder? At last you two will agree on something and be wrong together. Always the same brick wall, the evidence does not fit the prosecution theory. Not in Bamber, Bain, Lundy or Avery.
It certainly looks like that New Zealand guy did kill Grace Millane, and let's not get carried away with the fiendishly thorough police work, they have CCTV everywhere, a shovel handle covered in the guy's dna and no doubt CCTV of him purchasing it. They might fluke this one and get it right. Note we tend to do singles, just a fledgling nation. No Yorkshire Rippers or Freddie Wests yet, but give us time of course.
-
Why not join David 1918 on IA and help him explain the Teresa Halbach murder? At last you two will agree on something and be wrong together. Always the same brick wall, the evidence does not fit the prosecution theory. Not in Bamber, Bain, Lundy or Avery.
It certainly looks like that New Zealand guy did kill Grace Millane, and let's not get carried away with the fiendishly thorough police work, they have CCTV everywhere, a shovel handle covered in the guy's dna and no doubt CCTV of him purchasing it. They might fluke this one and get it right. Note we tend to do singles, just a fledgling nation. No Yorkshire Rippers or Freddie Wests yet, but give us time of course.
Unusual for me to agree with young David (born 1918?, so he should have received his anniversary message from Liz by now) on Lundy, not sure how he stands on Bain, but I've enough to cope with here and in the real world at the moment than to spend endless hours in unknown territory elsewhere.
-
He didn't dispute it. When told both shots would be fatal he said 'I can't comment'. As well as saying Nevill may have said 'She' on the phone
Prior to that he said he thought Sheila killed herself.
Jeremy chose a good location for both shots into Sheila. It is agreed Sheila did not stand up after the first shot. She was 100% stunned & immobilised. If not unconcious she would be in extreme pain. Vanezis said she could also be incapacitated.
However Sheila was still breathing. When Jeremy later realised this he decided to fire the second shot, in exactly the same location. This shot killed her instantly.
He did dispute DS Jones' claims that SC did not shoot herself:
DS Jones: Will you accept from me that she did not kill herself?
JB: Not really
DS Jones: I will tell you she has two shots fired into her and I understand that either or both would have been fatal, now what have you got to say
JB: I can't really comment can I
DS Jones: You must agree that if the first bullet wound was fatal she could not have shot another one into herself. Is that right
JB: No I don't believe that
And so it goes on. Fact is JB did stand his ground over SC's ability to inflict the second gsw and he had every reason and right to do so given two eminent pathologists agreed SC was able to inflict the second gsw.
-
I don't say that !... far too risky, especially as he'd never shot any human being before. I just think things went banana-shaped because he disturbed his parents first and so they became moving targets before he had a chance to eliminate them with headshots, and maybe he also overestimated the rifle's power which required more bullets than the ten or eleven he thought were needed.
I also believe David Bain was guilty, because there was so much evidence stacked up against him, i.e. his misleading emergency call and subsequent faulty memory when interviewed of whose bodies he'd actually seen; the fact that he wouldn't let police in when they arrived; the trigger lock key whose location only he knew about; his little brother's bloodstain on the crotch of his shorts; the lens found in Stephen's bedroom and the distorted spectacle frame belonging to his mother (which he wore because his own were broken) with one lens missing found on a chair in his own bedroom; his machine-washing of bloodstained clothing, jersey, etc. in an attempt to destroy evidence; the date of when he had his arm tattoo which he lied about. There may be more which I can't remember offhand.
The following shows the Home Office has calculated the lowest level of muzzle energy capable of inflicting a penetrating wound is one foot pound (1.35 joules).
http://www.mileoakshootingclub.co.uk/8.html
The calculation is based on speed (ft/s) x speed (ft/s) x weight (grain) divide by 450240. Here's how the calculation works:
https://www.pyramydair.com/article/What ... ust_2003/5
So the cartridges used at WHF:
1080 x 1080 x 40/450240 = 103.62 ft/llbs or 140.50 joules. So based on the Home Office saying 1 foot pound is needed to penetrate skin we can see how lethal the rifle and ammo used at WHF are at close rang providing 103.62 llbs ie >100% than the required force to penetrate skin alone. The fact so many bullets were required is evidence of an inexperienced shooter not a marksman underestimating the power of the rifle.
-
I'm just trying to picture myself in that master bedroom in the dead of night ready to shoot my sleeping parents (God forbid), armed with a rifle loaded with only ten or eleven bullets and being extremely careful not to waste any. My first priority would have been to try to ensure that I didn't wake them beforehand, for example by not alarming Crispy, so that their execution would be as swift as possible. But even the most well thought out plans go awry, and if I disturbed them so that they began to move, I'd probably fire off as many bullets as I could without too much thought about placement to prevent them getting out of bed and resisting, especially so in the case of Nevill. I'd be nervous, sweaty probably, with adrenaline pumping and time passing by in split seconds, but the least thing I'd be thinking about would be where Sheila might have directed the bullets.
I'm not sure whether the twins were killed first or last. If first, Bamber might have thought it was so easy, just like dispatching two small animals, that the same repeated on his dozing parents would be a cinch. If last, then he probably went for overkill to ensure the mistakes made with his parents weren't repeated.
There's no expert evidence re the sequence of shootings, if there was it would no doubt show NB sustained his upstairs gsw's on the landing and main stairs and not in the main bedroom.
The physical evidence by way of blood stains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks all support the above.
-
I'll ask again - how were they coerced? What could they have on LR or MW? And what was to stop them mentioning they had been coerced when giving evidence? It seems a bit of a cop out to dismiss the testimony of anyone who accused Bamber of murder as being coerced. I can see an argument for Julie - but not the others.
We've covered this previously...recreational drugs.
If they were successfully coerced by a police officer(s) pre-trial why would they suddenly fess up at trial? Especially if DS Jones told them SC sustained 2 gsw's and was unable to inflict the second.
-
We've covered this previously...recreational drugs.
If they were successfully coerced by a police officer(s) pre-trial why would they suddenly fess up at trial? Especially if DS Jones told them SC sustained 2 gsw's and was unable to inflict the second.
So because they smoked some weed, they were easily coerced into sending an innocent man to prison? Seriously? That's not in the slightest bit plausible - they most likely got their drugs from Bamber anyway which makes it even less likely.
-
So because they smoked some weed, they were easily coerced into sending an innocent man to prison? Seriously? That's not in the slightest bit plausible - they most likely got their drugs from Bamber anyway which makes it even less likely.
But it wasn't a case of just smoking some 'weed'. JB was growing cannabis at Bourtree cottage (production) and selling it to others with JM a distributor (dealing).
The drugs in this case present too many anomalies for it not to be mean something......
- MM spent the night of the murders with his part-time lover Mavis Southgate and yet there's no evidence she was interviewed under caution and/or had her home searched.
- On the other hand Christine Bacon, another of MM's part-time lovers also mother of his young son, was interviewed under caution, kept in custody overnight and had her home searched. Why, given she did not spend the night of the tragedy with MM and was only acquainted with JB through SF did EP adopt this heavy handed approach with this witness? I would suggest it was connected with DI Miller interviewing MM under caution where he was asked whether or not CB used cannabis to which he replied occasionally. He was then asked when she last used.
- MM was told his homegrown cannabis plants had been removed for analysis and that he could face charges over this and the fact he admitted to purchasing cannabis from some work colleagues.
- In JM's WS's reference is made to JB's neighbours alerting the drugs squad to JB's cannabis plants in his garden and their destruction. The WS makes ref to JM assisting JB produce and distribute around uni campus. It also makes ref to MM and JB producing and distributing cannabis.
- SB's WS also makes ref to JB/JM drugs referring again to drugs squad. The WS claims SB didn't like JM/JB bringing drugs into their shared house on the basis a couple of the lads who were sharing were part-timers in the army/TA. One of the lads, James Richard, was a prosecution witness telling the court/trial JB told him he hated his fcukin parents. As you know I am sceptical about the authors of these WS's. I think it likely these statements had a lot of input from EP and witnesses were cooerced using the drugs angle.
- JB was charged over OCP break-in. Why would EP press charges over this but not the drugs especially given the way MM/CB were handled over their involvement with drugs?
- JB was not even questioned about drugs during his police interviews.
- The CoA doc refers to OCP and JM's cheque fraud but not the drugs, why not?
- JM infers others in the JB/JM circle used drugs eg LR and Charles Marsden. As you know LR was at one time girlfriend to MW owner of Sloppy Joes and Frog N Bean. If these people were not only users but also distributors on licenced premises EP could quite easily close the business down if drugs were found.
- IF DS Jones sold it hard to witnesses SC had 2 gsw's and both were fatal ie she could not have inflicted second gsw, 33 plus years ago people were far more deferential than they are today especially to the police and the like. Unlikely they would say I want to see the PM and they certainly couldn't Google 'Multiple gunshots suicide'. They start to think maybe JB was responsible and coupled with the fact if they cooperate they avoid any potential charges re drugs putting an end to businesses and careers.
IMO DS Jones was a Harrold Shipman type character who got off on control ie with Shipman he decided who should live and die perhaps believing he was acting humanely if his patients were seriously ill. With DS Jones he had a hunch about JB but no evidence. As he said in the 'Killing Mum and Dad' docu/drama he had to hope and pray something would turn up and of course it did turn up by way of the silencer and JM's testimony both of which he had a helping hand in producing! DS Jones undoubtedly thought JB guilty and made sure he got the result he wanted. In both cases, Shipman and DS Jones, the systems and controls were weak with equally weak supervision and management hence the pair were able to act with impunity.
-
Well, that takes the biscuit, and something I never expected I would ever hear !!! Comparing a good old-fashioned cop like Stan Jones who nailed a murderer, to serial killer who dispatched 200+ elderly women, divesting some victims of their jewellery and forging the will of his last one to obtain £386,000 by deception. There were even suggestions that he got a sexual thrill from doing so.
-
But it wasn't a case of just smoking some 'weed'. JB was growing cannabis at Bourtree cottage (production) and selling it to others with JM a distributor (dealing).
The drugs in this case present too many anomalies for it not to be mean something......
- MM spent the night of the murders with his part-time lover Mavis Southgate and yet there's no evidence she was interviewed under caution and/or had her home searched.
- On the other hand Christine Bacon, another of MM's part-time lovers also mother of his young son, was interviewed under caution, kept in custody overnight and had her home searched. Why, given she did not spend the night of the tragedy with MM and was only acquainted with JB through SF did EP adopt this heavy handed approach with this witness? I would suggest it was connected with DI Miller interviewing MM under caution where he was asked whether or not CB used cannabis to which he replied occasionally. He was then asked when she last used.
- MM was told his homegrown cannabis plants had been removed for analysis and that he could face charges over this and the fact he admitted to purchasing cannabis from some work colleagues.
- In JM's WS's reference is made to JB's neighbours alerting the drugs squad to JB's cannabis plants in his garden and their destruction. The WS makes ref to JM assisting JB produce and distribute around uni campus. It also makes ref to MM and JB producing and distributing cannabis.
- SB's WS also makes ref to JB/JM drugs referring again to drugs squad. The WS claims SB didn't like JM/JB bringing drugs into their shared house on the basis a couple of the lads who were sharing were part-timers in the army/TA. One of the lads, James Richard, was a prosecution witness telling the court/trial JB told him he hated his fcukin parents. As you know I am sceptical about the authors of these WS's. I think it likely these statements had a lot of input from EP and witnesses were cooerced using the drugs angle.
- JB was charged over OCP break-in. Why would EP press charges over this but not the drugs especially given the way MM/CB were handled over their involvement with drugs?
- JB was not even questioned about drugs during his police interviews.
- The CoA doc refers to OCP and JM's cheque fraud but not the drugs, why not?
- JM infers others in the JB/JM circle used drugs eg LR and Charles Marsden. As you know LR was at one time girlfriend to MW owner of Sloppy Joes and Frog N Bean. If these people were not only users but also distributors on licenced premises EP could quite easily close the business down if drugs were found.
- IF DS Jones sold it hard to witnesses SC had 2 gsw's and both were fatal ie she could not have inflicted second gsw, 33 plus years ago people were far more deferential than they are today especially to the police and the like. Unlikely they would say I want to see the PM and they certainly couldn't Google 'Multiple gunshots suicide'. They start to think maybe JB was responsible and coupled with the fact if they cooperate they avoid any potential charges re drugs putting an end to businesses and careers.
IMO DS Jones was a Harrold Shipman type character who got off on control ie with Shipman he decided who should live and die perhaps believing he was acting humanely if his patients were seriously ill. With DS Jones he had a hunch about JB but no evidence. As he said in the 'Killing Mum and Dad' docu/drama he had to hope and pray something would turn up and of course it did turn up by way of the silencer and JM's testimony both of which he had a helping hand in producing! DS Jones undoubtedly thought JB guilty and made sure he got the result he wanted. In both cases, Shipman and DS Jones, the systems and controls were weak with equally weak supervision and management hence the pair were able to act with impunity.
So how can the other be coerced when they were users or BAMBERS drugs? Again, Bamber himself is the instigator. This is no way a good enough bargaining tool - they would have gotten a fine at the most and would have a pretty good story to tell about how the cops tried to frame an innocent man.
Don't really think Shipman can be likened to Stan Jones. %56&
-
Well, that takes the biscuit, and something I never expected I would ever hear !!! Comparing a good old-fashioned cop like Stan Jones who nailed a murderer, to serial killer who dispatched 200+ elderly women, divesting some victims of their jewellery and forging the will of his last one to obtain £386,000 by deception. There were even suggestions that he got a sexual thrill from doing so.
If DS Jones had a helping hand in fabricating the silencer evidence and coercing witnesses including JM this would take perverting the course of justice to a whole new level and imo amount to a heinous crime against potentially an innocent man. WHF was an exceptionally complex soc for the time and the fact it happened in this country where gun crime is relatively low. The fact DS Jones, a relatively low ranking officer, believed JB guilty based on a lot of subjective stuff eg JB's behaviour is neither here nor there.
We don't know whether or not DS Jones was a good old-fahsioned cop who always acted professionally. We know little about him apart from when he joined and retired from the police. We don't know anything about his disciplinary record, any complaints made against him and whether or not these were upheld, other cases he worked on, etc, etc.
Accountability and transparency were not what they are today hence the likes of clergy and Jimmy Savile were able to slip under the radar and sexually abuse children over decades.
-
So how can the other be coerced when they were users or BAMBERS drugs? Again, Bamber himself is the instigator. This is no way a good enough bargaining tool - they would have gotten a fine at the most and would have a pretty good story to tell about how the cops tried to frame an innocent man.
Don't really think Shipman can be likened to Stan Jones. %56&
There's no evidence the cannabis CB used around the beginning of 1985 (according to MM's interview) was sourced from JB. MM also produced his own and purchased from others.
JB may have been producing, using and dealing cannabis but others were also using and dealing eg JM. The fact JB produced/supplied is neither here nor there. The others were all adults and responsible for their own actions. Afaik JB was not threatening JM in any way to deal on campus or to use personally? If I'm in a pub and intend to drive home the fact someone might offer me a drink would not be grounds to absolve myself of the drink/driving laws. You seem to be saying because the drugs were supplied by JB this would absolve others who used drugs from this source?
Cannabis is currently a class B drug. Possession carries a max 5 year prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine. Supply and production carries a max 14 year prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine.
https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing
The police may have used all of this against those they wanted to use as prosecution witnesses. What on earth was the point in sending PC's Collins and Delgado to CB's house to carry out a search, interviewing her under caution and remanding her in custody overnight? Bearing in mind this woman sent JB a condolence card but ended up a prosecution witness in terms of blackening his character by claiming he supplied her with 2 ducks at Christmas which she says had been shot inhumanely!
-
There's no expert evidence re the sequence of shootings, if there was it would no doubt show NB sustained his upstairs gsw's on the landing and main stairs and not in the main bedroom.
The physical evidence by way of blood stains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks all support the above.
Have you been tucking into your Christmas pud laced with a whole bottle of brandy, already!
-
If DS Jones had a helping hand in fabricating the silencer evidence and coercing witnesses including JM this would take perverting the course of justice to a whole new level and imo amount to a heinous crime against potentially an innocent man. WHF was an exceptionally complex soc for the time and the fact it happened in this country where gun crime is relatively low. The fact DS Jones, a relatively low ranking officer, believed JB guilty based on a lot of subjective stuff eg JB's behaviour is neither here nor there.
We don't know whether or not DS Jones was a good old-fahsioned cop who always acted professionally. We know little about him apart from when he joined and retired from the police. We don't know anything about his disciplinary record, any complaints made against him and whether or not these were upheld, other cases he worked on, etc, etc.
Accountability and transparency were not what they are today hence the likes of clergy and Jimmy Savile were able to slip under the radar and sexually abuse children over decades.
Detectives go on hunches initially, as did Miss Marple at Bourtree. If they didn't no criminal would ever be prosecuted.
What's this fabricating of evidence re the moderator then... don't say we're back to that bloody water in the buckets again !
And why should we want to know anything more about Stan the Man, he wasn't on trial... nosey parker ! Just think, if he' d been sacked for insubordination, Jeremy Bamber would have got off scot-free.
-
Why an earth would the police have a hunch that Nevill had not rang Jeremy at 3am & said 'please come over, Sheila's gone crazy & she's got the gun' ?
Surprised Nevill said 'the gun'.
What gun ? There were several at WHF. Including shot guns. Massive difference between a shot gun & a rifle for shooting rabbits.
It was a rifle Sheila used, not a gun . It was also the rifle Jeremy had used earlier that evening.
It would not have taken any longer for Nevill to say 'she's picked up the rifle you left out'.
As it happened Jeremy was very perceptive & instantly assummed the 'gun' Nevill was referring to was actually a rifle for shooting rabbits he had left out.
-
Why an earth would the police have a hunch that Nevill had not rang Jeremy at 3am & said 'please come over, Sheila's gone crazy & she's got the gun' ?
Surprised Nevill said 'the gun'.
What gun ? There were several at WHF. Including shot guns. Massive difference between a shot gun & a rifle for shooting rabbits.
It was a rifle Sheila used, not a gun . It was also the rifle Jeremy had used earlier that evening.
It would not have taken any longer for Nevill to say 'she's picked up the rifle you left out'.
As it happened Jeremy was very perceptive & instantly assummed the 'gun' Nevill was referring to was actually a rifle for shooting rabbits he had left out.
That's a good point, Adam. Why specifically "the gun" when there were accessible shotguns in various locations at WHF. Nevill must have known exactly which weapon she'd got hold of, so why didn't he say - "She / Sheila's got your rifle... " or "She / Sheila's got your Anschutz..."?
https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/jeremy-bamber-fathers-alleged-phone-call (https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/jeremy-bamber-fathers-alleged-phone-call)
-
That's a good point, Adam. Why specifically "the gun" when there were accessible shotguns in various locations at WHF. Nevill must have known exactly which weapon she'd got hold of, so why didn't he say - "She / Sheila's got your rifle... " or "She / Sheila's got your Anschutz..."?
https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/jeremy-bamber-fathers-alleged-phone-call (https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/jeremy-bamber-fathers-alleged-phone-call)
I think it was a Freudian slip. It's highly likely the "THE" gun referenced the one which was on his mind, ie the gun he said he claimed to have taken on a futile bunny bashing foray and claimed he'd left in a prominent enough position for Sheila to see. In a house which was home to a multitude of different fire-arms, why would one be specific enough to be "THE" gun.
-
Detectives go on hunches initially, as did Miss Marple at Bourtree. If they didn't no criminal would ever be prosecuted.
What's this fabricating of evidence re the moderator then... don't say we're back to that bloody water in the buckets again !
And why should we want to know anything more about Stan the Man, he wasn't on trial... nosey parker ! Just think, if he' d been sacked for insubordination, Jeremy Bamber would have got off scot-free.
I prefer the idea of forensic science used to catch criminals not a prosecution built on hunches with fabricated evidence and unreliable testimony.
-
Why an earth would the police have a hunch that Nevill had not rang Jeremy at 3am & said 'please come over, Sheila's gone crazy & she's got the gun' ?
Surprised Nevill said 'the gun'.
What gun ? There were several at WHF. Including shot guns. Massive difference between a shot gun & a rifle for shooting rabbits.
It was a rifle Sheila used, not a gun . It was also the rifle Jeremy had used earlier that evening.
It would not have taken any longer for Nevill to say 'she's picked up the rifle you left out'.
As it happened Jeremy was very perceptive & instantly assummed the 'gun' Nevill was referring to was actually a rifle for shooting rabbits he had left out.
Anthony Arlidge referred to the rifle as a shotgun during the trial so I don't think anything can be read into the terminology used no more than it can be inferred a second moderator was introduced into proceedings on the basis the one used to convict JB was referred to as silencer and sound moderator simultaneously.
The CoA doc refers to the murder weapon as a rifle and gun:
13. The rifle was a .22 Anshutz automatic rifle. Together with a Parker Hale sound moderator (silencer) and telescopic sights, it had been bought by Nevill Bamber on 30 November 1984. 500 rounds of ammunition had also been purchased. There was evidence that the gun was used to shoot rabbits and would only ever be used with the sound moderator and the telescopic sights attached. A screwdriver was required to remove the telescopic sights but there was evidence that this was not normally done because of the time it took to realign them.
Throughout the doc the murder weapon is referred to as 'rifle' and 'gun'. A rifle is technically a gun.
-
AE also refers to the murder weapon as a 'rifle' and a 'gun'.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2199
-
AE also refers to the murder weapon as a 'rifle' and a 'gun'.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2199
It's generally accepted that "gun" is the generic term for a fire-arm, as "Hoover" is the generic term for a vacuum cleaner.
-
It's generally accepted that "gun" is the generic term for a fire-arm, as "Hoover" is the generic term for a vacuum cleaner.
Not any more... I dysoned the carpet this afternoon. 8((()*/
... but I suppose you could also vax it... or henry it ... or... ?
-
Not any more... I dysoned the carpet this afternoon. 8((()*/
... but I suppose you could also vax it... or henry it ... or... ?
Indeed you could $6(&
-
Indeed you could $6(&
Shhh... Don't tell anybody, but Holly still ewbanks her carpet !
-
Shhh... Don't tell anybody, but Holly still ewbanks her carpet !
With it's modern counterpart, the Hoky, perhaps?
-
With it's modern counterpart, the Hoky, perhaps?
Had to google that one ! @)(++(*
-
I prefer the idea of forensic science used to catch criminals not a prosecution built on hunches with fabricated evidence and unreliable testimony.
But your don't have any forensic evidence to back you 'hunch' that Julie et al were all coerced into making statements.
-
It's generally accepted that "gun" is the generic term for a fire-arm, as "Hoover" is the generic term for a vacuum cleaner.
Think Holly is leading you into that one April but most people interchange rifle and gun. I think the point Adam was making is that Jeremy was specific with 'the' - almost like he had the notion of THE gun in his head already!
-
But your don't have any forensic evidence to back you 'hunch' that Julie et al were all coerced into making statements.
No one's liberty rests on what I post. JB's liberty/incarceration is based primarily on the silencer evidence and to a lesser degree JM's testimony.
-
Think Holly is leading you into that one April but most people interchange rifle and gun. I think the point Adam was making is that Jeremy was specific with 'the' - almost like he had the notion of THE gun in his head already!
Based on JB's early WS: "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun" what word could NB/JB substitute for "the"?
-
Think Holly is leading you into that one April but most people interchange rifle and gun. I think the point Adam was making is that Jeremy was specific with 'the' - almost like he had the notion of THE gun in his head already!
I think it was a Freudian slip. It's highly likely the "THE" gun referenced the one which was on his mind, ie the gun he said he claimed to have taken on a futile bunny bashing foray and claimed he'd left in a prominent enough position for Sheila to see. In a house which was home to a multitude of different fire-arms, why would one be specific enough to be "THE" gun.
Yeah, That's what I reckoned 8((()*/
-
Based on JB's early WS: "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun" what word could NB/JB substitute for "the"?
'A' gun being as he's not supposed to know which gun she has.
-
No one's liberty rests on what I post. JB's liberty/incarceration is based primarily on the silencer evidence and to a lesser degree JM's testimony.
You're the one who brought up preferring evidence to hunches - but you use them yourself. We all do.
-
'A' gun, being as he's not supposed to know which gun she has.
-
Based on JB's early WS: "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun" what word could NB/JB substitute for "the"?
Why cause might Nevill have had to specify "the" gun unless he was alluding to "the" gun that Jeremy had left out? If that was the case and he was able to take time out to allegedly call Jeremy -at silly o'clock- to rub in what his laxity had caused, it seems that he didn't think there was anything to worry about.
-
You're the one who brought up preferring evidence to hunches - but you use them yourself. We all do.
Hunches have to do with gut instinct, our internal early warning system. It's the first thing which kicks in before we analyse the facts. I feel certain, that for those with long experience in any field, it's something they have come to rely on. My guess is that, mostly, it stands us in good stead. However, nothing is 100% fail safe.
-
You're the one who brought up preferring evidence to hunches - but you use them yourself. We all do.
Of course we do but hunches and theories posted on internet forums by a bunch of disparate people are unlikely to have any adverse effects on anyone.
-
'A' gun being as he's not supposed to know which gun she has.
Definition of 'a'
a1
/ə,eɪ/Submit
determiner
determiner: a; determiner: an
1.
used when mentioning someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation.
"a man came out of the room"
Sheilas gone crazy shes got a gun - this imo would sound appropriate if WHF did not contain any guns
-
Of course we do but hunches and theories posted on internet forums by a bunch of disparate people are unlikely to have any adverse effects on anyone.
Shouldn't that read desperate?
-
Definition of "the". "THE" is used to denote a person, place or object which is unique.
-
Shouldn't that read desperate?
@)(++(*
It was an opportunity to practice effects and affects!
-
Definition of "the". "THE" is used to denote a person, place or object which is unique.
Dictionary
Search for a word
the
/ðə,ðɪ,ðiː/Submit
determiner
determiner: the
1.
denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.
"what's the matter?"
used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique.
"the Queen"
INFORMAL•ARCHAIC
denoting a disease or affliction.
"I've got the flu"
(with a unit of time) the present; the current.
"dish of the day"
INFORMAL
used instead of a possessive to refer to someone with whom the speaker or person addressed is associated.
"I'm meeting the boss"
used with a surname to refer to a family or married couple.
"the Johnsons were not wealthy"
used before the surname of the chief of a Scottish or Irish clan.
"the O'Donoghue"
2.
used to point forward to a following qualifying or defining clause or phrase.
"the fuss that he made of her"
(chiefly with rulers and family members with the same name) used after a name to qualify it.
"George the Sixth"
3.
used to make a generalized reference to something rather than identifying a particular instance.
"he taught himself to play the violin"
used with a singular noun to indicate that it represents a whole species or class.
"they placed the African elephant on their endangered list"
used with an adjective to refer to those people who are of the type described.
"the unemployed"
used with an adjective to refer to something of the class or quality described.
"they are trying to accomplish the impossible"
used with the name of a unit to state a rate.
"they can do 120 miles to the gallon"
4.
enough of (a particular thing).
"he hoped to publish monthly, if only he could find the money"
5.
(pronounced stressing ‘the’) used to indicate that someone or something is the best known or most important of that name or type.
"he was the hot young piano prospect in jazz"
6.
used adverbially with comparatives to indicate how one amount or degree of something varies in relation to another.
"the more she thought about it, the more devastating it became"
used to emphasize the amount or degree to which something is affected.
"commodities made all the more desirable by their rarity"
I think we are sounding desperate getting hung up on this! But it also means as I've highlighted above.
1. You and others don't believe such a tel call was made.
2. For those that do believe the call was made we are only going on JB's recollection of a brief message at circa 3.15am taken after waking from sleeping like a log!
4. If SC was going crazy and had 'the' gun NB may have jumbled his words
5. We would need to know how NB and JB referred to the rifle. Was it the main gun used around the farm for general purpose eg dispatching vermin? If so it was no doubt referred to as 'the' gun.
-
Dictionary
Search for a word
the
/ðə,ðɪ,ðiː/Submit
determiner
determiner: the
1.
denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.
"what's the matter?"
used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique.
"the Queen"
INFORMAL•ARCHAIC
denoting a disease or affliction.
"I've got the flu"
(with a unit of time) the present; the current.
"dish of the day"
INFORMAL
used instead of a possessive to refer to someone with whom the speaker or person addressed is associated.
"I'm meeting the boss"
used with a surname to refer to a family or married couple.
"the Johnsons were not wealthy"
used before the surname of the chief of a Scottish or Irish clan.
"the O'Donoghue"
2.
used to point forward to a following qualifying or defining clause or phrase.
"the fuss that he made of her"
(chiefly with rulers and family members with the same name) used after a name to qualify it.
"George the Sixth"
3.
used to make a generalized reference to something rather than identifying a particular instance.
"he taught himself to play the violin"
used with a singular noun to indicate that it represents a whole species or class.
"they placed the African elephant on their endangered list"
used with an adjective to refer to those people who are of the type described.
"the unemployed"
used with an adjective to refer to something of the class or quality described.
"they are trying to accomplish the impossible"
used with the name of a unit to state a rate.
"they can do 120 miles to the gallon"
4.
enough of (a particular thing).
"he hoped to publish monthly, if only he could find the money"
5.
(pronounced stressing ‘the’) used to indicate that someone or something is the best known or most important of that name or type.
"he was the hot young piano prospect in jazz"
6.
used adverbially with comparatives to indicate how one amount or degree of something varies in relation to another.
"the more she thought about it, the more devastating it became"
used to emphasize the amount or degree to which something is affected.
"commodities made all the more desirable by their rarity"
I think we are sounding desperate getting hung up on this! But it also means as I've highlighted above.
1. You and others don't believe such a tel call was made.
2. For those that do believe the call was made we are only going on JB's recollection of a brief message at circa 3.15am taken after waking from sleeping like a log!
4. If SC was going crazy and had 'the' gun NB may have jumbled his words
5. We would need to know how NB and JB referred to the rifle. Was it the main gun used around the farm for general purpose eg dispatching vermin? If so it was no doubt referred to as 'the' gun.
I'm not entirely certain if the "we" you mention is the Royal or collective *%87 @)(++(* I am, however, totally certain of the sincerity of your belief in Jeremy's innocence and is the basis of the 5 points you make. The only established fact of which is point 1. Nothing can be established from the remaining 4.
-
If DS Jones did nudge the case in the direction he thought it should go by way of fabricating the silencer and coercing JM's testimony (some nudge) was this done solely on the basis of noble cause corruption and/or was he offered financial inducements by for example Peter Eaton?
According to AE's WS's an alarm was operating at WHF by Fri 9th Aug. And on Sat 10th Aug all valuables and firearms had either been removed by relatives and accountant Basil Cock or hidden within WHF. Therefore why was it deemed necessary for Chris Nevill and Peter Eaton to spend the night in CN's campervan at WHF on Sat 10th Aug ostensibly to prevent access? Why not the night before when firearms and valuables were still at WHF? Prior to this WHF was considered a soc and I assume the police were responsible for security and unlikely any would be burglars would chance their arm entering a high profile soc whether or not the police were present.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3104
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3106
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3108
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3110
Did CN/PE actually spend the night of 9th Aug at WHF and if so did the pair rendezvous with DS Jones to fabricate the silencer/scratches? Or was the silencer actually found on 11th Aug after a rendezvous on the evening of 10th Aug.
And what were Peter Eaton and DS Jones discussing into the small hours over a bottle of whisky on 12th Aug when the purpose of the meeting was simply for DS Jones to collect the silencer?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3582
-
Nevill & Sheila both went to bed & slept.
Both got out of bed & went downstairs, barefooted in their pyjamas & nightdress.
It is likely Sheila would have gone downstairs first. This woke a sleeping Nevill but not June.
Nevill either thought it was Sheila or the twins downstairs, therefore would have stayed in bed. Or he thought it was an intruder, so would have put footwear on & armed himself.
Once both were downstairs, things got out of hand & Sheila picked up the rifle. Nevill rang Jeremy after Sheila had 'gone crazy' with it.
-
Nevill & Sheila both went to bed & slept.
It would appear they both went to bed evidenced by indentations in pillows but we don't know whether or not either slept.
Both got out of bed & went downstairs, barefooted in their pyjamas & nightdress.
It appears they did get out of bed and went downstairs but the crucial aspect is when? Yes they were found barefooted and in pyjamas and nightdress.
It is likely Sheila would have gone downstairs first. This woke a sleeping Nevill but not June.
Yes to the first part but it's also possible NB went downstairs for whatever reason(s) and woke SC who might have thought of an intruder so went to wake NB only to find him out of his bed so assumed it was him and went downstairs. Anything is possible! We do not know who was sleeping only that NB's pillow contained an indentation and June was shot initially with her head on the pillow evidenced by the tracks of her wounds and bullets in the pillow.
Nevill either thought it was Sheila or the twins downstairs, therefore would have stayed in bed. Or he thought it was an intruder, so would have put footwear on & armed himself.
Unlikely NB would have stayed in bed if he thought one or both of the 6 year old twins were downstairs alone. If he thought it was an intruder all firearms were downstairs and unlikely he would keep outside shoes at the ready upstairs or even upstairs. Slippers wouldn't really assist defending against intruders.
Once both were downstairs, things got out of hand & Sheila picked up the rifle. Nevill rang Jeremy after Sheila had 'gone crazy' with it.
According to JB NB didn't say SC had gone crazy with it - he said "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun". This could mean anything any of us wish to turn our imagination to!
-
If DS Jones did nudge the case in the direction he thought it should go by way of fabricating the silencer and coercing JM's testimony (some nudge) was this done solely on the basis of noble cause corruption and/or was he offered financial inducements by for example Peter Eaton?
According to AE's WS's an alarm was operating at WHF by Fri 9th Aug. And on Sat 10th Aug all valuables and firearms had either been removed by relatives and accountant Basil Cock or hidden within WHF. Therefore why was it deemed necessary for Chris Nevill and Peter Eaton to spend the night in CN's campervan at WHF on Sat 10th Aug ostensibly to prevent access? Why not the night before when firearms and valuables were still at WHF? Prior to this WHF was considered a soc and I assume the police were responsible for security and unlikely any would be burglars would chance their arm entering a high profile soc whether or not the police were present.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3104 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3104)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3106 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3106)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3108 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3108)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3110 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=3110)
Did CN/PE actually spend the night of 9th Aug at WHF and if so did the pair rendezvous with DS Jones to fabricate the silencer/scratches? Or was the silencer actually found on 11th Aug after a rendezvous on the evening of 10th Aug.
And what were Peter Eaton and DS Jones discussing into the small hours over a bottle of whisky on 12th Aug when the purpose of the meeting was simply for DS Jones to collect the silencer?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3582 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3582)
I don't know, I wasn't a fly on the wall at the time, just a pupa in my mother's eye, but they were probably debating the relative merits of Jack Daniel's compared to a mature Scottish Malt.
Chris Nevill was over from Australia, wasn't he?... so he could have hired a camper van to tour the area and beyond, and two men would be more effective than one at subduing a burglar. Or they had a hunch that Jeremy might make a return visit to remove evidence seeing as they suspected him of mischief in the first place. Why not Friday? Police might have still been present then, or the family only had thoughts about being on site themselves after they realized how much valuable stuff was inside, but left it until the following day as they knew WHF was newly alarmed anyway.
-
It would appear they both went to bed evidenced by indentations in pillows but we don't know whether or not either slept.
It appears they did get out of bed and went downstairs but the crucial aspect is when? Yes they were found barefooted and in pyjamas and nightdress.
Yes to the first part but it's also possible NB went downstairs for whatever reason(s) and woke SC who might have thought of an intruder so went to wake NB only to find him out of his bed so assumed it was him and went downstairs. Anything is possible! We do not know who was sleeping only that NB's pillow contained an indentation and June was shot initially with her head on the pillow evidenced by the tracks of her wounds and bullets in the pillow.
Unlikely NB would have stayed in bed if he thought one or both of the 6 year old twins were downstairs alone. If he thought it was an intruder all firearms were downstairs and unlikely he would keep outside shoes at the ready upstairs or even upstairs. Slippers wouldn't really assist defending against intruders.
According to JB NB didn't say SC had gone crazy with it - he said "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun". This could mean anything any of us wish to turn our imagination to!
Most of us, at some point, have probably allowed our imaginations to go into overdrive, but to quote Steve_uk, it all -like much else- comes down to, what is considered to be, a balance of probabilities.
-
It would appear they both went to bed evidenced by indentations in pillows but we don't know whether or not either slept.
It appears they did get out of bed and went downstairs but the crucial aspect is when? Yes they were found barefooted and in pyjamas and nightdress.
Yes to the first part but it's also possible NB went downstairs for whatever reason(s) and woke SC who might have thought of an intruder so went to wake NB only to find him out of his bed so assumed it was him and went downstairs. Anything is possible! We do not know who was sleeping only that NB's pillow contained an indentation and June was shot initially with her head on the pillow evidenced by the tracks of her wounds and bullets in the pillow.
Unlikely NB would have stayed in bed if he thought one or both of the 6 year old twins were downstairs alone. If he thought it was an intruder all firearms were downstairs and unlikely he would keep outside shoes at the ready upstairs or even upstairs. Slippers wouldn't really assist defending against intruders.
According to JB NB didn't say SC had gone crazy with it - he said "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun". This could mean anything any of us wish to turn our imagination to!
Why would Nevill need outside shoes to go downstairs ? His normal shoes will be in his bedroom, together with slippers. So surprised he went downstairs bare footed & in pyjamas. Whether he thought it was Sheila, the twins or an intruder.
Nevill arming himself upstairs would be getting something he can use as a defensive/attacking weapon. A stool, bedside light, even a heavy shoe or boot. I have a bin in my bedroom & would take the hard top with me.
Whether Nevill woke Sheila or vice versa, both being bare footed & in pyjamas/nightdress helped the prosecution. They can say Jeremy prompted both to get out of bed a few seconds before killing them. Although with Nevill it was unexpected.
We can only imagine what Nevill's definition of 'crazy' was. He did not elaborate & just put the phone down.
-
I don't know, I wasn't a fly on the wall at the time, just a pupa in my mother's eye, but they were probably debating the relative merits of Jack Daniel's compared to a mature Scottish Malt.
Chris Nevill was over from Australia,Samson's turf. wasn't he?... so he could have hired a camper van to tour the area and beyond, and two men would be more effective than one at subduing a burglar. How could they be sure any burglar would act alone? Or they had a hunch that Jeremy might make a return visit to remove evidence seeing as they suspected him of mischief in the first place. The police had been in WHF for 3 days collecting soc evidence but overlooked the silencer which the relatives found apparently on 10th Aug. Why not Friday? Coz AE's WS states Sat and she was meticulous in making notes on her cards. Police might have still been present then. The police handed keys over to AE/PE at circa 5pm on Fri 9th and passed on info re the newly fitted alarm and code. or the family only had thoughts about being on site themselves after they realized how much valuable stuff was inside, According to AE's WS all valuables and firearms were either removed or hidden within WHF on Sat 10th Aug. but left it until the following day as they knew WHF was newly alarmed anyway.
-
Why would Nevill need outside shoes to go downstairs ? His normal shoes will be in his bedroom, together with slippers. So surprised he went downstairs bare footed & in pyjamas. Whether he thought it was Sheila, the twins or an intruder.
He wouldn't need outside shoes to go downstairs but you said if he thought it was an intruder he would have put footwear on. The only footwear he had to hand as evidenced by soc images was slippers. Why would he bother with slippers if he thought an intruder was insides? It's unlikely he kept his everyday footwear upstairs especially given WHF had a scullery and such like for outside wear.
Nevill arming himself upstairs would be getting something he can use as a defensive/attacking weapon. A stool, bedside light, even a heavy shoe or boot. I have a bin in my bedroom & would take the hard top with me.
Not much of a weapon from above. Even Sir Alex Ferguson throwing a football boot only managed a small graze above the top of David Beckham's eye! Why not rip off a wardrobe door for a plank of wood and/or take a light bulb and create a jagged edge like a broken bottle?!
Whether Nevill woke Sheila or vice versa, both being bare footed & in pyjamas/nightdress helped the prosecution. They can say Jeremy prompted both to get out of bed a few seconds before killing them. Although with Nevill it was unexpected.
Yes the prosecution was able to advance this theory at trial as the defence did not make any attempt to map out the physical evidence by way of blood stains or lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks and pull it altogether into a seamless narrative. There was no real expert evidence just Ed Lawson asking MF in a nonchalant manner whether anyone sustained any upstairs gsw's outside the main bedroom (apart from the twins) to which he replied no. This is MF who told the court his relevant experience included a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy. Hardly the stuff of a forensic scientist qualified in ballistics.
We can only imagine what Nevill's definition of 'crazy' was. He did not elaborate & just put the phone down.
Yep we can only imagine!
-
Most of us, at some point, have probably allowed our imaginations to go into overdrive, but to quote Steve_uk, it all -like much else- comes down to, what is considered to be, a balance of probabilities.
Yes but a balance of probabilities will be unfairly weighed if evidence is fabricated and testimony coerced.
Off to make a pulled ham hock and piccalilli sandwich.
-
Yes but a balance of probabilities will be unfairly weighed if evidence is fabricated and testimony coerced.
Off to make a pulled ham hock and piccalilli sandwich.
Which is nothing more than a hunch.
-
Definition of 'a'
a1
/ə,eɪ/Submit
determiner
determiner: a; determiner: an
1.
used when mentioning someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation.
"a man came out of the room"
Sheilas gone crazy shes got a gun - this imo would sound appropriate if WHF did not contain any guns
'A' is one of many, 'the' is particular to one item - In your example above, 'the man came out of the room' indicates that it is a particular room (like the rifle was a particular weapon) - if he came out of A room - then there could be many rooms. It isn't specific THE GUN is specific.
-
Which is nothing more than a hunch.
I assume there's a typo above and you meant lunch 8(0(*
-
'A' is one of many, 'the' is particular to one item - In your example above, 'the man came out of the room' indicates that it is a particular room (like the rifle was a particular weapon) - if he came out of A room - then there could be many rooms. It isn't specific THE GUN is specific.
But it doesn't say the 'the man came out of the room' it says 'a man came out of the room'. And the 'a' is "used when mentioning someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation."
A gun - "used when mentioning something for the first time.."
https://www.google.com/search?ei=FdYaXLCnHbWj1fAPkLe1gAI&q=meaning+of+a&oq=meaning+of+a&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.3551.5252..6210...0.0..0.104.398.5j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131.8Sst8nFm02g
The gun - "denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge".
https://www.google.com/search?q=meaning+of+the&oq=meaning+of+the&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j0l3.11268j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
-
But it doesn't say the 'the man came out of the room' it says 'a man came out of the room'. And the 'a' is "used when mentioning someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation."
A gun - "used when mentioning something for the first time.."
https://www.google.com/search?ei=FdYaXLCnHbWj1fAPkLe1gAI&q=meaning+of+a&oq=meaning+of+a&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.3551.5252..6210...0.0..0.104.398.5j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131.8Sst8nFm02g
The gun - "denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge".
https://www.google.com/search?q=meaning+of+the&oq=meaning+of+the&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j0l3.11268j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
In the case of "a man came out of the room" I would assume it to be the room which was the focus of attention. The fact that a man came out of it secondary, being neither here nor there.
-
In the case of "a man came out of the room" I would assume it to be the room which was the focus of attention. The fact that a man came out of it secondary, being neither here nor there.
I am afraid your assumption is wrong. The link I provided above explains the meaning of the word 'a' so the emphasis in the example is on the 'a' not the 'the' as follows:
https://www.google.com/search?ei=FdYaXLCnHbWj1fAPkLe1gAI&q=meaning+of+a&oq=meaning+of+a&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.3551.5252..6210...0.0..0.104.398.5j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131.8Sst8nFm02g
The 'a' is "used when mentioning something or someone for the first time" Example:
"A man came out of the room". (The man is being mentioned for the first time).
If NB had not mentioned the gun previously:
'SC's gone crazy shes got a gun'
NB had obviously mentioned the gun/rifle previously since he and JB purchased together:
"SC's gone crazy shes got the gun"
-
I am afraid your assumption is wrong. The link I provided above explains the meaning of the word 'a' so the emphasis in the example is on the 'a' not the 'the' as follows:
https://www.google.com/search?ei=FdYaXLCnHbWj1fAPkLe1gAI&q=meaning+of+a&oq=meaning+of+a&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.3551.5252..6210...0.0..0.104.398.5j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131.8Sst8nFm02g
The 'a' is "used when mentioning something or someone for the first time" Example:
"A man came out of the room". (The man is being mentioned for the first time).
If NB had not mentioned the gun previously:
'SC's gone crazy shes got a gun'
NB had obviously mentioned the gun/rifle previously since he and JB purchased together:
"SC's gone crazy shes got the gun"
That's as maybe, but in the real world the vast majority of English speakers don't resort to academia before considering how the words they utter will be received.
"NB had OBVIOUSLY"?!!!!!!! Really? I'd have thought that had NB been given cause to mention THE gun -the one which Jeremy says he left out- it's quite possible that it would have been in the form of a reprimand and rather than leaving it there he'd have put it away....................I'd also have thought that Jeremy might have mentioned any conversation he'd had with his father regarding it?
-
But it doesn't say the 'the man came out of the room' it says 'a man came out of the room'. And the 'a' is "used when mentioning someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation."
A gun - "used when mentioning something for the first time.."
https://www.google.com/search?ei=FdYaXLCnHbWj1fAPkLe1gAI&q=meaning+of+a&oq=meaning+of+a&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.3551.5252..6210...0.0..0.104.398.5j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131.8Sst8nFm02g
The gun - "denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge".
https://www.google.com/search?q=meaning+of+the&oq=meaning+of+the&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j0l3.11268j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Holly, this is silly - 'THE GUN' is specific no matter which way you twist it. They didn't have just ONE gun/weapon.
-
I am afraid your assumption is wrong. The link I provided above explains the meaning of the word 'a' so the emphasis in the example is on the 'a' not the 'the' as follows:
https://www.google.com/search?ei=FdYaXLCnHbWj1fAPkLe1gAI&q=meaning+of+a&oq=meaning+of+a&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.3551.5252..6210...0.0..0.104.398.5j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0i131.8Sst8nFm02g
The 'a' is "used when mentioning something or someone for the first time" Example:
"A man came out of the room". (The man is being mentioned for the first time).
If NB had not mentioned the gun previously:
'SC's gone crazy shes got a gun'
NB had obviously mentioned the gun/rifle previously since he and JB purchased together:
"SC's gone crazy shes got the gun"
Your argument is not making any sense Holly. Given that they had several weapons that Jeremy was familiar with, using the term 'the' in this instance wouldn't make it clear which gun he was talking about UNLESS Bamber knew which one he meant and as there is nothing to describe the weapon other than the word 'the' (and we only have Bambers word that the conversation ever happened), it's more likely that Jeremy slipped up - he used 'the' instead of 'a' because he KNEW which weapon was used, because he used it.
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/definitely-use-the-or-a/
A: you use this when you’re not necessarily referring to a specific thing (such as a nail, any nail). It’s called an indefinite article, because you’re not being definite or particular. There are many nails in this big world.
She owns a cat.
I work on a golf course.
The: you’re talking about a definite item, which is why the is called a definite article. Of course it only makes sense if both you and your listeners know which item you mean. If I commanded you, “Give me the money,” you would rightfully ask, “What money? I don’t owe you any money.”
The house on that corner once belonged to Charles Dickens.
The weather is very pleasant today.
-
Your argument is not making any sense Holly. Given that they had several weapons that Jeremy was familiar with, using the term 'the' in this instance wouldn't make it clear which gun he was talking about UNLESS Bamber knew which one he meant and as there is nothing to describe the weapon other than the word 'the' (and we only have Bambers word that the conversation ever happened), it's more likely that Jeremy slipped up - he used 'the' instead of 'a' because he KNEW which weapon was used, because he used it.
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/definitely-use-the-or-a/
A: you use this when you’re not necessarily referring to a specific thing (such as a nail, any nail). It’s called an indefinite article, because you’re not being definite or particular. There are many nails in this big world.
She owns a cat.
I work on a golf course.
The: you’re talking about a definite item, which is why the is called a definite article. Of course it only makes sense if both you and your listeners know which item you mean. If I commanded you, “Give me the money,” you would rightfully ask, “What money? I don’t owe you any money.”
The house on that corner once belonged to Charles Dickens.
The weather is very pleasant today.
It's not my argument or even my interpretation its based on the rules of language and English grammar.
You are using a Michael from daily writing tips to back up your argument. I am using the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/the
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/a
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/the
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/a
Both make it perfectly clear that the word 'a' is used when mentioning something or someone for the first time and the word 'the' is used when mentioning something or someone that has been referred to in the past.
NB would not have said "Sheilas gone crazy shes got a gun" as the gun/rifle had clearly been referred to in the past since NB and JB purchased together and it may well have been the main gun used around the farm on a regular basis for dispatching vermin. Whether JB is telling the truth or not the correct English language is "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun" as the gun had been referred to in the past.
-
It's not my argument or even my interpretation its based on the rules of language and English grammar.
You are using a Michael from daily writing tips to back up your argument. I am using the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/the
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/a
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/the
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/a
Both make it perfectly clear that the word 'a' is used when mentioning something or someone for the first time and the word 'the' is used when mentioning something or someone that has been referred to in the past.
NB would not have said "Sheilas gone crazy shes got a gun" as the gun/rifle had clearly been referred to in the past since NB and JB purchased together and it may well have been the main gun used around the farm on a regular basis for dispatching vermin. Whether JB is telling the truth or not the correct English language is "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun" as the gun had been referred to in the past.
It's also likely that, had he been gun specific, he'd have referred to "that" gun.
-
It's not my argument or even my interpretation its based on the rules of language and English grammar.
You are using a Michael from daily writing tips to back up your argument. I am using the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/the
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/a
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/the
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/a
Both make it perfectly clear that the word 'a' is used when mentioning something or someone for the first time and the word 'the' is used when mentioning something or someone that has been referred to in the past.
NB would not have said "Sheilas gone crazy shes got a gun" as the gun/rifle had clearly been referred to in the past since NB and JB purchased together and it may well have been the main gun used around the farm on a regular basis for dispatching vermin. Whether JB is telling the truth or not the correct English language is "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun" as the gun had been referred to in the past.
Holly, this is silly! The shot guns would have been referred to in the past and 'may' have been the main gun around the house is YOUR injection. No mater how you twist it, there were several guns around the house and using 'A' doesn't define anything where as 'the' does - it's specific. The article I posted makes perfect sense - did the author make up the comment that 'the' is a definite article?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/definite-article
-
It is most likely Jeremy would believe 'the gun' referred to by Nevill was the rifle he had loaded & left out a few hours earlier. He told the police as much.
This was the rifle him & Nevill had purchased together, the rifle Jeremy had fully loaded and the rifle he had left out (fully loaded). It was also likely the gun cupboard had been locked by Nevill & any weapons in there were not loaded anyway.
In this case it is very surprising that Jeremy dithered for so long & would not go within 50 yards of WHF.
Surely he would know him & Nevill together could easily restrain Sheila without obtaining any serious injuries.
It was also likely Nevill would have restrained Sheila prior to Jeremy arriving. Nevill may have rang Jeremy to help calm down Sheila after Nevill had disarmed her.
Sheila was holding a rifle used for shooting vermin, not a shot gun. Why were Nevill & Jeremy in such a panic ?
-
Holly, this is silly! The shot guns would have been referred to in the past and 'may' have been the main gun around the house is YOUR injection. No mater how you twist it, there were several guns around the house and using 'A' doesn't define anything where as 'the' does - it's specific. The article I posted makes perfect sense - did the author make up the comment that 'the' is a definite article?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/definite-article
I tried to explain in the sentence I used above:
You are using a Michael from daily writing tips to back up your argument. I am using the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries:
I'm referring to 'a' Michael as it is the first time he has been referred to whereas 'the' Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries are known quantities.
What would shotguns and rifles typically be used for and which do you think would be most often used at WHF?
Yes the shotguns would have been referred to in the past hence NB would not say "Sheilas got a gun" even if referring to the shotgun and not the rifle. If on the other hand Sheila had a knife from the kitchen drawer he would say "Sheilas got a knife" as its unlikely NB and JB referred to any particular knife in the past.
-
The gun cupboard didn't have a lock.
This shotgun might have also been left out and NB was referring to that rather than the Anschutz...https://imgur.com/FaHWQtJ (https://imgur.com/FaHWQtJ)
-
The gun cupboard didn't have a lock.
This shotgun might have also been left out and NB was referring to that rather than the Anschutz...https://imgur.com/FaHWQtJ (https://imgur.com/FaHWQtJ)
Which firearm was most likely to be used on a regular basis around WHF: rifle or shotgun?
-
It is most likely Jeremy would believe 'the gun' referred to by Nevill was the rifle he had loaded & left out a few hours earlier. He told the police as much.
This was the rifle him & Nevill had purchased together, the rifle Jeremy had fully loaded and the rifle he had left out (fully loaded). It was also likely the gun cupboard had been locked by Nevill & any weapons in there were not loaded anyway.
In this case it is very surprising that Jeremy dithered for so long & would not go within 50 yards of WHF.
Surely he would know him & Nevill together could easily restrain Sheila without obtaining any serious injuries.
It was also likely Nevill would have restrained Sheila prior to Jeremy arriving. Nevill may have rang Jeremy to help calm down Sheila after Nevill had disarmed her.
Sheila was holding a rifle used for shooting vermin, not a shot gun. Why were Nevill & Jeremy in such a panic ?
Because both would understand the power of the rifle and how lethal it could be. There's also the possibility the pair were growing opium poppies for the black market and wanted to avoid anyone from outside getting involved.
-
I tried to explain in the sentence I used above:
You are using a Michael from daily writing tips to back up your argument. I am using the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries:
I'm referring to 'a' Michael as it is the first time he has been referred to whereas 'the' Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries are known quantities.
What would shotguns and rifles typically be used for and which do you think would be most often used at WHF?
Yes the shotguns would have been referred to in the past hence NB would not say "Sheilas got a gun" even if referring to the shotgun and not the rifle. If on the other hand Sheila had a knife from the kitchen drawer he would say "Sheilas got a knife" as its unlikely NB and JB referred to any particular knife in the past.
But before Michael's knowledge is dismissed out of hand, it must be asked if he pulled out of thin air or retrieved it from some higher authority.
Referencing a hypothetical knife. If Sheila had wielded any old knife from the kitchen draw, it would certainly have been "A" knife. If, on the other hand it was the bone handled knife used by generations of Bambers, it would most likely have been "THE" knife.
-
I tried to explain in the sentence I used above:
You are using a Michael from daily writing tips to back up your argument. I am using the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries:
I'm referring to 'a' Michael as it is the first time he has been referred to whereas 'the' Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries are known quantities.
What would shotguns and rifles typically be used for and which do you think would be most often used at WHF?
Yes the shotguns would have been referred to in the past hence NB would not say "Sheilas got a gun" even if referring to the shotgun and not the rifle. If on the other hand Sheila had a knife from the kitchen drawer he would say "Sheilas got a knife" as its unlikely NB and JB referred to any particular knife in the past.
Who would say 'a Michael'? The notion that the rifle was THEE gun, is your injection. What we know is that there were several guns in the house not just THEE gun. It's actually a pointless argument but it is clear to me and others why Bamber said 'the' gun and I don't believe the words ever left Nevil's mouth.
-
But before Michael's knowledge is dismissed out of hand, it must be asked if he pulled out of thin air or retrieved it from some higher authority.
Why not go straight to the horse's mouth!
Referencing a hypothetical knife. If Sheila had wielded any old knife from the kitchen draw, it would certainly have been "A" knife. If, on the other hand it was the bone handled knife used by generations of Bambers, it would most likely have been "THE" knife.
Yes.
-
But before Michael's knowledge is dismissed out of hand, it must be asked if he pulled out of thin air or retrieved it from some higher authority.
Referencing a hypothetical knife. If Sheila had wielded any old knife from the kitchen draw, it would certainly have been "A" knife. If, on the other hand it was the bone handled knife used by generations of Bambers, it would most likely have been "THE" knife.
They might have had a favourite knife @)(++(*
-
Who would say 'a Michael'? The notion that the rifle was THEE gun, is your injection. What we know is that there were several guns in the house not just THEE gun. It's actually a pointless argument but it is clear to me and others why Bamber said 'the' gun and I don't believe the words ever left Nevil's mouth.
I said you are referring to a Michael because I've no idea who Michael is.
Which firearm do you think was the one most often used around WHF?
-
They might have had a favourite knife @)(++(*
About which they might have had a deep and meaningful conversation over supper that night. What, I think we may assume, is that no such conversation took place about "THEE" gun because Jeremy would surely have mentioned it.
-
About which they might have had a deep and meaningful conversation over supper that night. What, I think we may assume, is that no such conversation took place about "THEE" gun because Jeremy would surely have mentioned it.
Which firearm do you think was the one most often used around WHF?
-
Which firearm was most likely to be used on a regular basis around WHF: rifle or shotgun?
I just threw that in to see what you'd say.
But only used with a telescopic sight which Bamber removed less than two weeks before the murders... funny that.
13. The rifle was a .22 Anshutz automatic rifle. Together with a Parker Hale sound moderator (silencer) and telescopic sights, it had been bought by Nevill Bamber on 30 November 1984. 500 rounds of ammunition had also been purchased. There was evidence that the gun was used to shoot rabbits and would only ever be used with the sound moderator and the telescopic sights attached. A screwdriver was required to remove the telescopic sights but there was evidence that this was not normally done because of the time it took to realign them.
-
BTW, is anyone else having problems with formatting, spacing paragraphs properly, posting photos anything over a minuscule size? Or is it just me?
-
I just threw that in to see what you'd say.
But only used with a telescopic sight which Bamber removed less than two weeks before the murders... funny that.
13. The rifle was a .22 Anshutz automatic rifle. Together with a Parker Hale sound moderator (silencer) and telescopic sights, it had been bought by Nevill Bamber on 30 November 1984. 500 rounds of ammunition had also been purchased. There was evidence that the gun was used to shoot rabbits and would only ever be used with the sound moderator and the telescopic sights attached. A screwdriver was required to remove the telescopic sights but there was evidence that this was not normally done because of the time it took to realign them.
A .22 rifle and ammo designed to shoot vermin is evidence that the gun was used to shoot rabbits/vermin but which evidence are you referring to that points to the gun only ever being used with the sound moderator and telescopic sights? And which firearm do you think was the one most often used around WHF?
-
Which firearm do you think was the one most often used around WHF?
Without a knowledge of firearms it's not easy to answer. I can only use my own attachment to pens as a yard stick. I might buy one and not use it for months, preferring one I know. Much depends on the type of paper I'm planning to write on, the fineness of the nib, the colour of the ink. There certainly appears to have been a choice of guns at their disposal. Might different guns have been suitable according to what was being shot, and where? They couldn't both use the same gun if they were in different places on the same day, in which case I guess Jeremy would have used the newer one -ostensibly bought for him- and Nevill would have used whichever was his favourite.
It has just occurred to me that the gun in question isn't the gun Jeremy wanted. Didn't he seek Peter Eaton's advice and was told the gun he was suggesting wasn't appropriate? I wonder how thwarted he might have felt if Nevill insisted on accompanying him to Radcliff's. To make sure he bought something of which Nevill approved, perhaps?
-
BTW, is anyone else having problems with formatting, spacing paragraphs properly, posting photos anything over a minuscule size? Or is it just me?
I think its just you!
JB was a marksman. He may have have preferred the iron/open sights rather than the telescopic sights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds0IOBjF_FQ
-
A .22 rifle and ammo designed to shoot vermin is evidence that the gun was used to shoot rabbits/vermin but which evidence are you referring to that points to the gun only ever being used with the sound moderator and telescopic sights? And which firearm do you think was the one most often used around WHF?
I've just said which one or rather implied it - the Anschutz obviously, to shoot rats in the barn, the odd rabbit before they all scarpered, or a fox lurking in the farmyard at nightfall - "Dad only had to get the smell of a fox and he'd be out!"
Bamber had a zeroing-in session with AP and his new Anschutz didn't he? i.e. one fitted with telescopic sight which is indispensable when shooting any of the above.
-
I think its just you!
JB was a marksman. He may have have preferred the iron/open sights rather than the telescopic sights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds0IOBjF_FQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds0IOBjF_FQ)
Fitted by the gunsmith in November 1984, attached and used for 8 months, then suddenly removed within a few days of the murders... mmmm!
-
Because both would understand the power of the rifle and how lethal it could be. There's also the possibility the pair were growing opium poppies for the black market and wanted to avoid anyone from outside getting involved.
It was a rifle for shooting rabbits. So surprised a 6.4 farmer & 24 year old man were in such a panic when Sheila picked it up.
-
Because both would understand the power of the rifle and how lethal it could be. There's also the possibility the pair were growing opium poppies for the black market and wanted to avoid anyone from outside getting involved.
Straight as a die Nevill?... growing Poppies illegally?!!... Bullocks!!!
-
I'm off to pull some pork... or a bird. Can't decide which is tastier!
-
I've just said which one or rather implied it - the Anschutz obviously, to shoot rats in the barn, the odd rabbit before they all scarpered, or a fox lurking in the farmyard at nightfall - "Dad only had to get the smell of a fox and he'd be out!"
Bamber had a zeroing-in session with AP and his new Anschutz didn't he? i.e. one fitted with telescopic sight which is indispensable when shooting any of the above.
Which was no doubt referred to as the gun ie "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun" 8((()*/
I'm not aware JB had a zeroing-in session with AP?
No the open sights aka iron sights which are built into the rifle at manufacturing are perfectly good for shooting vermin at a wide range of distances. JB was a marksman and no doubt when in the cadets/at Greshams/as a boy on the farm learned to shoot with open sights.
The fact a telescopic sight was fitted when purchased in Nov '84 and AP claimed it was fitted last weekend of July '85 isn't evidence it was routinely used. Probably the only reliable source to confirm one way or the other would be NB. Others who may have known are Jean Boutell the housekeeper and farm worker Len Foakes both of whom were regulars at WHF unlike AP.
AP was wrong about scars to JB's hand so it could be argued he was an unreliable witness
-
Which was no doubt referred to as the gun ie "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun" 8((()*/
I'm not aware JB had a zeroing-in session with AP?
No the open sights aka iron sights which are built into the rifle at manufacturing are perfectly good for shooting vermin at a wide range of distances. JB was a marksman and no doubt when in the cadets/at Greshams/as a boy on the farm learned to shoot with open sights.
The fact a telescopic sight was fitted when purchased in Nov '84 and AP claimed it was fitted last weekend of July '85 isn't evidence it was routinely used. Probably the only reliable source to confirm one way or the other would be NB. Others who may have known are Jean Boutell the housekeeper and farm worker Len Foakes both of whom were regulars at WHF unlike AP.
AP was wrong about scars to JB's hand so it could be argued he was an unreliable witness
Sorry... AP's Anschutz wasn't new I don't think, only JB's. But they had a session in the barn with a block of wood or something and AP said his own wasn't shooting accurately. So JB fired a few rounds with it and found it was OK. In Wilkes, probably.
Anthony Pargeter, Nevill Bamber's nephew and a competition standard shot, stayed at White House Farm between 26-28 July 1985. He saw the .22 rifle in the gun cupboard in the ground floor office. The telescopic sights and sound moderator were attached and the gun appeared in a "new" condition. There were no scratches or marks upon it. Later the appellant, himself a good shot, took the rifle out for some target practice.
Why an unreliable witness? He noticed JB's Anschutz in the cupboard as above.
The rifle was a .22 Anshutz automatic rifle. Together with a Parker Hale sound moderator (silencer) and telescopic sights, it had been bought by Nevill Bamber on 30 November 1984. 500 rounds of ammunition had also been purchased. There was evidence that the gun was used to shoot rabbits and would only ever be used with the sound moderator and the telescopic sights attached. A screwdriver was required to remove the telescopic sights but there was evidence that this was not normally done because of the time it took to realign them
-
I'm off... this dodgy posting is driving me nuts.
-
Because both would understand the power of the rifle and how lethal it could be. There's also the possibility the pair were growing opium poppies for the black market and wanted to avoid anyone from outside getting involved.
No there isn't.
-
No there isn't.
I'll echo that. Nevill was representative of all those of a certain age and social type within the area. He was liked and trusted by all who knew him. The very worst that any of that group may have done is imbibe a little too freely once in a while. The idea that he'd have colluded with his son to do what he may have sent others down for is unacceptable...................however, if we allow ourselves to go down that road, we get a view of someone who bought his son up to believe he was above the law and anything he wanted was his for the taking as long as he didn't get caught.
-
Sorry... AP's Anschutz wasn't new I don't think, only JB's. But they had a session in the barn with a block of wood or something and AP said his own wasn't shooting accurately. So JB fired a few rounds with it and found it was OK. In Wilkes, probably.
Anthony Pargeter, Nevill Bamber's nephew and a competition standard shot, stayed at White House Farm between 26-28 July 1985. He saw the .22 rifle in the gun cupboard in the ground floor office. The telescopic sights and sound moderator were attached and the gun appeared in a "new" condition. There were no scratches or marks upon it. Later the appellant, himself a good shot, took the rifle out for some target practice.
Why an unreliable witness? He noticed JB's Anschutz in the cupboard as above.
The rifle was a .22 Anshutz automatic rifle. Together with a Parker Hale sound moderator (silencer) and telescopic sights, it had been bought by Nevill Bamber on 30 November 1984. 500 rounds of ammunition had also been purchased. There was evidence that the gun was used to shoot rabbits and would only ever be used with the sound moderator and the telescopic sights attached. A screwdriver was required to remove the telescopic sights but there was evidence that this was not normally done because of the time it took to realign them
The fact AP claimed the telescopic sights and silencer were fitted when he saw the rifle at WHF on last w/e of Jul '85 isn't evidence of anything. His recollection may have been wrong and if it wasn't wrong there's no evidence the sights and silencer were permanent fixtures. NB and/or JB may have preferred to use the iron/open sights and it was acknowledged at trial that the rifle would not fit in the case with the silencer attached as per JB's police interview.
AP claimed he saw small circular scars on JB's hands which was proved unfounded. If he was wrong about this he may well have been wrong about the silencer/scope. You can read about the scars at point 444 - ground 13:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
The fact AP claimed the telescopic sights and silencer were fitted when he saw the rifle at WHF on last w/e of Jul '85 isn't evidence of anything. His recollection may have been wrong and if it wasn't wrong there's no evidence the sights and silencer were permanent fixtures. NB and/or JB may have preferred to use the iron/open sights and it was acknowledged at trial that the rifle would not fit in the case with the silencer attached as per JB's police interview.
AP claimed he saw small circular scars on JB's hands which was proved unfounded. If he was wrong about this he may well have been wrong about the silencer/scope. You can read about the scars at point 444 - ground 13:
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html (http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html)
You omitted to say " in my opinion". ?{)(**
Who said the rifle was ever kept in a case?
-
It was a rifle for shooting rabbits. So surprised a 6.4 farmer & 24 year old man were in such a panic when Sheila picked it up.
I've recently posted about the power of the rifle/ammo combi:
The following shows the Home Office has calculated the lowest level of muzzle energy capable of inflicting a penetrating wound is one foot pound (1.35 joules).
http://www.mileoakshootingclub.co.uk/8.html
The calculation is based on speed (ft/s) x speed (ft/s) x weight (grain) divide by 450240.
So the cartridges used at WHF:
1080 x 1080 x 40/450240 = 103.62 ft/llbs or 140.50 joules. So based on the Home Office saying 1 foot pound is needed to penetrate skin we can see how lethal the rifle and ammo used at WHF are at close rang providing 103.62 llbs ie >100% than the required force to penetrate skin alone.
The bullets used were hollowed nose. Meaning upon impact they expand and open up like a petal. They are described as being like mini food blenders whizzing around the body tearing through tissue, muscle and organs.
People who have no knowledge of these things or are unable/unwilling to do any research talk as though the rifle/cartridges are akin to a table tennis bat and ping pong ball ie something that NB would simply bat away with a brush of his hand.
6' 4" farmer, 24 yoa man, Mike Tyson or little me at 5'3.5" 8st 711bs no one would stand a chance against a child with such a rifle/ammo and a light trigger pull bearing in mind also it is semi-auto capable of holding up to 11 cartridges.
-
You omitted to say " in my opinion". ?{)(**
Who said the rifle was ever kept in a case?
JB said the rifle wound not fit in the case with the silencer attached and this was proved to be the case at trial.
-
No there isn't.
Yes there is until someone can explain why WHF was growing opium poppies supposedly under licence for the pharma industry at a time when UK authorities did not grant such licences.
No one can explain the above any more than they can explain the anomalies with the cannabis and the various witnesses and JB.
-
I'll echo that. Nevill was representative of all those of a certain age and social type within the area. He was liked and trusted by all who knew him. The very worst that any of that group may have done is imbibe a little too freely once in a while. The idea that he'd have colluded with his son to do what he may have sent others down for is unacceptable...................however, if we allow ourselves to go down that road, we get a view of someone who bought his son up to believe he was above the law and anything he wanted was his for the taking as long as he didn't get caught.
NB was responsible for what went on at WHF and to date no one has explained the opium poppies.
Your perception of NB along with others is just that. Prince Charles thought the same about Bishop Ball and said as much:
The prince said in the 1980s and 1990s there was "a presumption that people such as Bishops could be taken at their word and, as a result of the high office they held, were worthy of trust and confidence".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44979209
-
NB was responsible for what went on at WHF and to date no one has explained the opium poppies.
Your perception of NB along with others is just that. Prince Charles thought the same about Bishop Ball and said as much:
The prince said in the 1980s and 1990s there was "a presumption that people such as Bishops could be taken at their word and, as a result of the high office they held, were worthy of trust and confidence".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44979209
Regarding Bishop Bell -and including Jimmy Savill- their misdeeds were very likely noted by some as evidenced after Savill died. Death of a perp makes it easier for victims/suspects to come forward. To date, it seems that no one has come forward with any suspicions regarding NB...................... However, should it ever be discovered that he'd done anything which could have bought dishonour to the position he held, and shame on the family, it would reveal a mindset totally other than the one he presented, and -in my opinion- cements Jeremy's guilt. If he'd grown up seeing how his father 'got away with it' why shouldn't he?
-
Regarding Bishop Bell -and including Jimmy Savill- their misdeeds were very likely noted by some as evidenced after Savill died. Death of a perp makes it easier for victims/suspects to come forward. To date, it seems that no one has come forward with any suspicions regarding NB...................... However, should it ever be discovered that he'd done anything which could have bought dishonour to the position he held, and shame on the family, it would reveal a mindset totally other than the one he presented, and -in my opinion- cements Jeremy's guilt. If he'd grown up seeing how his father 'got away with it' why shouldn't he?
Bishop Bell is still alive. He was tried and convicted. The point being there was/is a perception about certain individuals/institutions whereby they are able to slip under the radar in a way most others aren't.
It is often said NB was this, that and the other eg the CoA doc describes him as:
"Those who knew him spoke of him as a good and fair man".
This may well be the case but the fact he is described as above and was a church warden and magistrate doesn't imo automatically preclude him from any sort of wrongdoing.
Why would anyone come forward about any suspicions regarding NB? If he was growing opium poppies for the black market who was going to come forward? Other criminals he may have been working with?
No one has so far been able to explain the opium poppies and/or the anomalies with the various witnesses and JB re cannabis.
-
Bishop Bell is still alive. He was tried and convicted. The point being there was/is a perception about certain individuals/institutions whereby they are able to slip under the radar in a way most others aren't.
It is often said NB was this, that and the other eg the CoA doc describes him as:
"Those who knew him spoke of him as a good and fair man".
This may well be the case but the fact he is described as above and was a church warden and magistrate doesn't imo automatically preclude him from any sort of wrongdoing.
Why would anyone come forward about any suspicions regarding NB? If he was growing opium poppies for the black market who was going to come forward? Other criminals he may have been working with?
No one has so far been able to explain the opium poppies and/or the anomalies with the various witnesses and JB re cannabis.
The facts that "Those who knew him spoke of him as a good and fair man" and his positions as magistrate and church warden don't automatically imply he must should suspected of wrong doing.
I find it hard to believe, given how open and flat is the land around WHF and how poppies tend to stand out, that there was anything illegal occurring -although I allow that one poppy looks very like another- from whom have we learned that they were opium poppies as opposed to the common or garden variety?
-
Yes there is until someone can explain why WHF was growing opium poppies supposedly under licence for the pharma industry at a time when UK authorities did not grant such licences.
No one can explain the above any more than they can explain the anomalies with the cannabis and the various witnesses and JB.
No one needs to explain anything of the sort to members of an internet forum. You hold the hunch that there was something suspicious but I think you are alone in your thinking on this one.
-
I've recently posted about the power of the rifle/ammo combi:
The following shows the Home Office has calculated the lowest level of muzzle energy capable of inflicting a penetrating wound is one foot pound (1.35 joules).
http://www.mileoakshootingclub.co.uk/8.html
The calculation is based on speed (ft/s) x speed (ft/s) x weight (grain) divide by 450240.
So the cartridges used at WHF:
1080 x 1080 x 40/450240 = 103.62 ft/llbs or 140.50 joules. So based on the Home Office saying 1 foot pound is needed to penetrate skin we can see how lethal the rifle and ammo used at WHF are at close rang providing 103.62 llbs ie >100% than the required force to penetrate skin alone.
The bullets used were hollowed nose. Meaning upon impact they expand and open up like a petal. They are described as being like mini food blenders whizzing around the body tearing through tissue, muscle and organs.
People who have no knowledge of these things or are unable/unwilling to do any research talk as though the rifle/cartridges are akin to a table tennis bat and ping pong ball ie something that NB would simply bat away with a brush of his hand.
6' 4" farmer, 24 yoa man, Mike Tyson or little me at 5'3.5" 8st 711bs no one would stand a chance against a child with such a rifle/ammo and a light trigger pull bearing in mind also it is semi-auto capable of holding up to 11 cartridges.
On the other hand, they talk as if SC would be able to walk around the house after one of those bullets were lodged in her neck.
-
If the second shot would have killed Sheila instantly, the first shot from only an inch further down would have knocked her out. This means Sheila was not seen in the kitchen by the police.
The evidence shows she did not stand up after the first shot. So was not in the kitchen after shooting herself once.
However Sheila also did not have time to go upstairs & shoot herself twice after the police entered WHF. As the first shot would have knocked her out.
-
The only explanation is Sheila read June's bible, then shot herself once prior to 4am. This knocked her out.
She regained conciousness prior to the police entering WHF, stayed upstairs laying in the floor, then shot herself a second time.
There was no reason why Sheila would be in the kitchen at 7am, without the rifle waiting for the police to enter WHF, if she was planning to committ suicide. She had an earlier 4 hour window to do this upstairs.
-
If the second shot would have killed Sheila instantly, the first shot from only an inch further down would have knocked her out. This means Sheila was not seen in the kitchen by the police.
The evidence shows she did not stand up after the first shot. So was not in the kitchen after shooting herself once.
However Sheila also did not have time to go upstairs & shoot herself twice after the police entered WHF. As the first shot would have knocked her out.
There seems not to be cohesive opinion about Sheila's position when she received the first shot, ie was she standing? Sitting? Laying?
Standing seems unlikely. She may have fallen in a way that required the perp doing more than pulling her legs out straight. There surely would have been some blood evidence of it?
Sitting? Laying? Possibly somewhere between the two? Her back resting against the bedside table, perhaps? Seeking refuge from the shooter? Whilst there's no evidence of her loosing consciousness after the first shot, I'd have expected her to have been stunned. I accept that whilst her vertebrae weren't smashed, they were grazed -shaved- which would have been more likely to cause her head to loll to one side than enable her to stand upright from floor level, putting strain on her damaged spine.
I think the suggestion is generally regarded as a non starter that she was shot in the kitchen -either by her own hand or a.n.other's- and somehow managed to make her way upstairs.
-
Supporters will quote the expert who said Sheila may have been able to stand after the first shot. However the same expert says the evidence shows Sheila did not do this.
With the first shot being only an inch away from an instantly fatal second shot, the only explanation is the first shot knocked Sheila out but did not kill her.
The carnage inside WHF shows Sheila was determined to committ murder/suicide. There was no reason to wait 3 hours until 7am to fire her first suicide shot.
Sheila read the bible, then fired her first shot around 4am, which knocked her out. A some point within the next 3 hours she regained conciousness, stayed upstairs on the floor & shot herself the second time.
Only a dead Nevill was ever in the kitchen from around 4am.
Supporters are entitled to believe Sheila shot herself twice. But it is impossible for Sheila to have been in the kitchen at any time while the police & Jeremy were outside WHF.
-
The 4th cervical was fractured, APRIL, which I think would have been extremely painful as a result of damage to nerves coming out from the spinal cord...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=668;image (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=668;image)
-
The 4th cervical was fractured, APRIL, which I think would have been extremely painful as a result of damage to nerves coming out from the spinal cord...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=668;image (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=668;image)
Thanks for that confirmation, Myster. Such has always been my belief but some the facts, like many others in this case appear to have transmogrified to the point where often the original is no longer recognizable *%87
-
Possible:
Sheila reads June's bible, shoots herself once & is knocked out. Around 4am.
Sheila regains conciousness, stays lying on the floor and shoots herself again. Around 5am.
Impossible
Sheila shoots herself once. Then goes into the kitchen & waits for the police to enter WHF. Then goes upstairs to shoot herself again after the police enter WHF.
Reasons
The first shot knocked her out.
The first shot would have eventually killed her.
There is no evidence she stood up after the first shot.
There was no reason why Sheila would shoot herself once, then go to the kitchen & wait for the police to enter WHF.
Impossible
Sheila stays in the kitchen until the police enter WHF. Then goes upstairs & shoots herself twice.
Reasons
The first shot knocked her out so no time to fire a second shot.
There was no reason to keep herself alive & fully fit in the kitchen & wait for the police to enter WHF. Her aim was to committ murder/suicide.
-
Bamber and the CT are entitled to say Sheila shot herself twice hours before anyone entered WHF.
But they need to retract the ridiculous theory that Sheila was in the kitchen just prior to & during police entry.
-
The first shot would have also 'eventually' killed Sheila.
This supports that it was a very accurrate & damaging shot that knocked her out.
Sheila must have regained conciousness after the first shot, prior to this shot having the chance to kill her. Although had no strenght to stand up as the evidence shows.
She then had the strenght to fire the second shot before the first shot had killed her.
With a first shot knocking Sheila out & being damaging enough to eventually kill her, it is very surprising she regained conciousnes long enough to have the time & energy to fit in a second shot.
-
There is a strong chance Sheila would not regain conciousness prior to the first shot 'eventually' killing her.
This shot knocked her out & would have eventually killed her. Why would she regain conciousness before death ?
Mike's explanation here is the police shot Sheila. I assume he is referring to the second shot & believes the police used the WHF rifle, rather than their own.
-
The more likely explanation to Mike's is -
Jeremy shot Sheila once.
Sheila was instantly knocked out.
Sheila was going to eventually die from the first shot without regaining conciousness.
A few minutes after the first shot, Sheila was still unconciouss but breathing.
Jeremy saw Sheila was breathing. He was not aware Sheila was going to eventually die from his first shot.
Jeremy fired a second shot which killed Sheila instantly.
Sheila was no longer breathing & Jeremy could exit WHF.
-
The COA says -
'The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately'.
----------
It is likely Sheila would have continued breathing for a few minutes after the first shot. Although knocked out during this time.
Sheila was very frail & under sedation. The evidence shows she did not stand up after the first shot.
The first shot was in a very damaging location & only an inch away from the second shot, which killed her instantly.
There is no possibility Sheila would have regained conciousness & fired the second shot before the first shot had killed her.
So who had a reason to fire the second shot, Jeremy or the police ?
-
The police
The ridiculous theory that Sheila was alive in the kitchen when the police entered WHF is not credible.
The first bullet had entered Sheila hours ago. Sheila had died from it hours ago.
There was no reason for the police to get the rifle and shoot an already dead person in the same location.
Jeremy
Jeremy would be the only person with a motive to fire the second shot.
During the few minutes Sheila continued breathing after the first shot, Jeremy was the only person who saw this. Resulting in him firing the second shot.
-
In conclusion
The first shot knocked Sheila out. It would have quickly killed her. Sheila would not have regained conciousness prior to death, but would have continued breathing for a short period.
Sheila had been dead for several hours from the first shot when the police entered WHF. There was no reason for the police to use a WHF rifle to fire a second shot into a dead Sheila.
Jeremy saw Sheila in the short period between the first shot and her imminent death from it. He did not know the first shot was going to be fatal. Sheila was still breathing so he shot her again.
-----------
Now this has been cleared up I hope people don't go down the hit man team, Jeff Blake, AP etc were the killers route to try to support Jeremy.
-
The facts that "Those who knew him spoke of him as a good and fair man" and his positions as magistrate and church warden don't automatically imply he must should suspected of wrong doing.
Of course they don't no more than NB, or anyone else, is above being investigated.
I find it hard to believe, given how open and flat is the land around WHF and how poppies tend to stand out, that there was anything illegal occurring -although I allow that one poppy looks very like another- from whom have we learned that they were opium poppies as opposed to the common or garden variety?
We've been through this many times. It isn't illegal to grow opium poppies but what arouses suspicion is JB's claims of a "special licence" to grow them for the pharma industry. So we only have JB's word about the licence but if he was BSing about this on morning of tragedy why didn't EP pick up on this and use it against him? This would show he was jesting at an inappropriate time and moreover lying.
Local surveyor George Nicholls noted opium poppies on a valuation he compiled of WHF shortly before tragedy.
Dr Craig and Chief Sup Harris looked at the field on the morning of tragedy following JB's claims of a "special licence".
This is the whole point IF they were being grown for some illegal purpose who would suspect NB IF he told all those who needed to know eg JB, surveyor, farm workers they were being grown for pharma industry under a special licence?
-
No one needs to explain anything of the sort to members of an internet forum. You hold the hunch that there was something suspicious but I think you are alone in your thinking on this one.
Yes that was what I meant ie unless someone can explain the opium poppies in terms of forum discussion then I will continue to raise it as suspicious.
The fact I might be alone re my suspicions about the poppies does not make me wrong. Given there are some 7 billion people on planet earth with only a minuscule % having any knowledge about the case at all let alone the poppies is hardly a daunting fact that I might be alone in my thinking on this one.
-
On the other hand, they talk as if SC would be able to walk around the house after one of those bullets were lodged in her neck.
I think you're conflating two separate claims? Adam often claims NB was a 6' 4" farmer and would simply relieve 5'7.5" slim SC of the rifle regardless of what she was doing with it. The maths/physics behind the rifle/ammo combi show why not.
I don't who "they" is but the pathological evidence and COA doc state it was physiologically possible for SC to have walked around after she sustained the first gsw. It is obvious this did not happen due to the lack of blood staining down the front of her nightdress, but the point being her mobility was such she had the wherewithal to inflict the second gsw. If this wasn't the case the pathologist would have said as much and it would be curtains down for JB.
All adult victims sustained gsw's in two separate episodes whereby the first episodes were not immediately fatal but would have been had the second episodes not supervened.
-
If the second shot would have killed Sheila instantly, the first shot from only an inch further down would have knocked her out. This means Sheila was not seen in the kitchen by the police.
The evidence shows she did not stand up after the first shot. So was not in the kitchen after shooting herself once.
However Sheila also did not have time to go upstairs & shoot herself twice after the police entered WHF. As the first shot would have knocked her out.
The pathologist said the first gsw may have stunned SC but nothing about knocking her out.
Only cranks believe SC was seen in the kitchen shortly before EP broke in.
The expert evidence points to all victims dying around 3.30am - 4.00am.
-
The only explanation is Sheila read June's bible, then shot herself once prior to 4am. This knocked her out.
She regained conciousness prior to the police entering WHF, stayed upstairs laying in the floor, then shot herself a second time.
There was no reason why Sheila would be in the kitchen at 7am, without the rifle waiting for the police to enter WHF, if she was planning to committ suicide. She had an earlier 4 hour window to do this upstairs.
There's no evidence SC ever handled June's bible. The bible was blood stained and SC's palms and the inside of her fingers clean. Nor did the bible contain any of SC's fingerprints.
-
There seems not to be cohesive opinion about Sheila's position when she received the first shot, ie was she standing? Sitting? Laying?
Standing seems unlikely. She may have fallen in a way that required the perp doing more than pulling her legs out straight. There surely would have been some blood evidence of it?
Sitting? Laying? Possibly somewhere between the two? Her back resting against the bedside table, perhaps? Seeking refuge from the shooter? Whilst there's no evidence of her loosing consciousness after the first shot, I'd have expected her to have been stunned. I accept that whilst her vertebrae weren't smashed, they were grazed -shaved- which would have been more likely to cause her head to loll to one side than enable her to stand upright from floor level, putting strain on her damaged spine.
I think the suggestion is generally regarded as a non starter that she was shot in the kitchen -either by her own hand or a.n.other's- and somehow managed to make her way upstairs.
The pathological evidence points to SC seated/partially upright.
-
There's no evidence SC ever handled June's bible. The bible was blood stained and SC's palms and the inside of her fingers clean. Nor did the bible contain any of SC's fingerprints.
Or of June's either... so it must have been placed there by a gloved Jeremy Bamber. 8((()*/
Instead of going round and round in circles here, Holly, why don't you investigate the Sami Alexander murder. Much more interesting.
-
The pathologist said the first gsw may have stunned SC but nothing about knocking her out.
Only cranks believe SC was seen in the kitchen shortly before EP broke in.
The expert evidence points to all victims dying around 3.30am - 4.00am.
It is good that you agree that Sheila was not alive in the kitchen as the police broke in. This was an impossibility & all supporters should retract.
Yes Sheila would have been stunned after the first shot. As a very frail & sedated woman, it also knocked her out & there is no evidence she was upright after the first shot.
The first shot was quickly going to be fatal. An inch higher & the first shot would have been instantly fatal.
-
Of course they don't no more than NB, or anyone else, is above being investigated.
We've been through this many times. It isn't illegal to grow opium poppies but what arouses suspicion is JB's claims of a "special licence" to grow them for the pharma industry. So we only have JB's word about the licence but if he was BSing about this on morning of tragedy why didn't EP pick up on this and use it against him? This would show he was jesting at an inappropriate time and moreover lying.
Local surveyor George Nicholls noted opium poppies on a valuation he compiled of WHF shortly before tragedy.
Dr Craig and Chief Sup Harris looked at the field on the morning of tragedy following JB's claims of a "special licence".
This is the whole point IF they were being grown for some illegal purpose who would suspect NB IF he told all those who needed to know eg JB, surveyor, farm workers they were being grown for pharma industry under a special licence?
Thank-you for the clarification, from which I can only deduce that everything was kosher. Had that not been so, was Jeremy likely to have swanned off leaving evidence to be found of his -highly esteemed, respected, and much loved by him- father's illegal activities? What loving son would want his cruelly murdered father's good reputation sullied?
-
In conclusion
The first shot knocked Sheila out. It would have quickly killed her. Sheila would not have regained conciousness prior to death, but would have continued breathing for a short period.
Sheila had been dead for several hours from the first shot when the police entered WHF. There was no reason for the police to use a WHF rifle to fire a second shot into a dead Sheila.
Jeremy saw Sheila in the short period between the first shot and her imminent death from it. He did not know the first shot was going to be fatal. Sheila was still breathing so he shot her again.
-----------
Now this has been cleared up I hope people don't go down the hit man team, Jeff Blake, AP etc were the killers route to try to support Jeremy.
If the first gsw knocked SC out how does this figure with Dr Vanezis evidence at trial whereby he told the court SC was partially upright for both gsw's and following receipt of the second she would have fallen back immediately.
The idea EP shot SC is just one of many off the Richter scale cranky theories.
-
Or of June's either... so it must have been placed there by a gloved Jeremy Bamber. 8((()*/
Instead of going round and round in circles here, Holly, why don't you investigate the Sami Alexander murder. Much more interesting.
Or of June's either?
June's fingerprints were found on the bible and her palms and the insides of her fingers were contaminated with blood. June was deeply religious and had the physical wherewithal to carry the bible with her when she walked around the bed after sustaining her initial gsw's. The most interesting aspect of the bible is that it remains the only blood stained exhibit where blood stain test results remain non-disclosed to the defence. The defence are partly to blame for this in that they did not chase down pre trial.
I do not have the time or inclination to 'investigate' another case and like many lay people and professionals I find this one endlessly fascinating!
-
Thank-you for the clarification, from which I can only deduce that everything was kosher. Had that not been so, was Jeremy likely to have swanned off leaving evidence to be found of his -highly esteemed, respected, and much loved by him- father's illegal activities? What loving son would want his cruelly murdered father's good reputation sullied?
How have you deduced everything was kosher?
The story was and remains opium poppies were growing at WHF under special licence for the pharma industry. Only we now know, thanks to Google, that the UK authorities did not authorize the growing of opium poppies for the pharma industry until noughties.
Exactly. And this may well have been the reason why, upon being told about his family's fate, the first thing JB did was go to the field growing the opium poppies, pick a bunch, walk back to the yard with them and tell Dr Craig the farm had a licence to grow them for the pharma industry.
-
Or of June's either?
June's fingerprints were found on the bible and her palms and the insides of her fingers were contaminated with blood. June was deeply religious and had the physical wherewithal to carry the bible with her when she walked around the bed after sustaining her initial gsw's. The most interesting aspect of the bible is that it remains the only blood stained exhibit where blood stain test results remain non-disclosed to the defence. The defence are partly to blame for this in that they did not chase down pre trial.
I do not have the time or inclination to 'investigate' another case and like many lay people and professionals I find this one endlessly fascinating!
After being riddled with bullets... no chance!
Proof ?
You should, because you never know, we might just agree on someone's innocence for once... or not, as the case may be.
-
How have you deduced everything was kosher?
The story was and remains opium poppies were growing at WHF under special licence for the pharma industry. Only we now know, thanks to Google, that the UK authorities did not authorize the growing of opium poppies for the pharma industry until noughties.
Exactly. And this may well have been the reason why, upon being told about his family's fate, the first thing JB did was go to the field growing the opium poppies, pick a bunch, walk back to the yard with them and tell Dr Craig the farm had a licence to grow them for the pharma industry.
Where's the link?
-
Hopefully we will all soon have something new to discuss...JB's Christmas message blog:
'2018 has been a good year for the case. We can now show there were 2 silencers which will undoubtedly lead to my release in 2019.
Meanwhile my Campaign Team have been very active in garnering support from high profile 'z' list celebrities like actress Susan Penhaligon who certainly caused a stir in the dorms at Greshams when she featured in Bouquet of Barbed Wire' during the 70's. I am sure her support will generate similar interest in my case.
The Bamber merchandise shop hasn't been quite as successful as we hoped especially compared to the Madeline McCann merchandise shop but I guess a 57 year old convicted mass murderer doesn't quite have the same appeal as a cute looking missing toddler. That said we have sold 2 bracelets and 1 biro. I take encouragement from the Tesco ad 'Every Little Helps'.
Non-disclosure remains a problem in my case. I just know that once we have all the paperwork we will find numerous ambiguities and inconsistencies as we have in the past which will not only generate much fodder for further cranky theories but also my imminent release.
I look forward to meeting you all in 2019 perhaps for a steak at a Bernie over a glass of Blue Nun. I assume these things are still hip n cool...I am a bit time warped having spent some 33 years incarcerated at HMP.
Best wishes
Jeremy
-
Hopefully we will all soon have something new to discuss...JB's Christmas message blog:
'2018 has been a good year for the case. We can now show there were 2 silencers which will undoubtedly lead to my release in 2019.
Meanwhile my Campaign Team have been very active in garnering support from high profile 'z' list celebrities like actress Susan Penhaligon who certainly caused a stir in the dorms at Greshams when she featured in Bouquet of Barbed Wire' during the 70's. I am sure her support will generate similar interest in my case.
The Bamber merchandise shop hasn't been quite as successful as we hoped especially compared to the Madeline McCann merchandise shop but I guess a 57 year old convicted mass murderer doesn't quite have the same appeal as a cute looking missing toddler. That said we have sold 2 bracelets and 1 biro. I take encouragement from the Tesco ad 'Every Little Helps'.
Non-disclosure remains a problem in my case. I just know that once we have all the paperwork we will find numerous ambiguities and inconsistencies as we have in the past which will not only generate much fodder for further cranky theories but also my imminent release.
I look forward to meeting you all in 2019 perhaps for a steak at a Bernie over a glass of Blue Nun. I assume these things are still hip n cool...I am a bit time warped having spent some 33 years incarcerated at HMP.
Best wishes
Jeremy
Awwww sounds a nice boy to me 8)--))
-
After being riddled with bullets... no chance!
Proof ?
You should, because you never know, we might just agree on someone's innocence for once... or not, as the case may be.
We know June was able to get out of bed, walk around it and back to the door so what was preventing her picking up her bible off her bedside cabinet and walking with it around the bed?
-
Hopefully we will all soon have something new to discuss...JB's Christmas message blog:
'2018 has been a good year for the case. We can now show there were 2 silencers which will undoubtedly lead to my release in 2019.
Meanwhile my Campaign Team have been very active in garnering support from high profile 'z' list celebrities like actress Susan Penhaligon who certainly caused a stir in the dorms at Greshams when she featured in Bouquet of Barbed Wire' during the 70's. I am sure her support will generate similar interest in my case.
The Bamber merchandise shop hasn't been quite as successful as we hoped especially compared to the Madeline McCann merchandise shop but I guess a 57 year old convicted mass murderer doesn't quite have the same appeal as a cute looking missing toddler. That said we have sold 2 bracelets and 1 biro. I take encouragement from the Tesco ad 'Every Little Helps'.
Non-disclosure remains a problem in my case. I just know that once we have all the paperwork we will find numerous ambiguities and inconsistencies as we have in the past which will not only generate much fodder for further cranky theories but also my imminent release.
I look forward to meeting you all in 2019 perhaps for a steak at a Bernie over a glass of Blue Nun. I assume these things are still hip n cool...I am a bit time warped having spent some 33 years incarcerated at HMP.
Best wishes
Jeremy
@)(++(* Now that was funny! Maybe if he copied and pasted it, he might gain another one or two extra supporters.
-
How have you deduced everything was kosher?
The story was and remains opium poppies were growing at WHF under special licence for the pharma industry. Only we now know, thanks to Google, that the UK authorities did not authorize the growing of opium poppies for the pharma industry until noughties.
Exactly. And this may well have been the reason why, upon being told about his family's fate, the first thing JB did was go to the field growing the opium poppies, pick a bunch, walk back to the yard with them and tell Dr Craig the farm had a licence to grow them for the pharma industry.
All of which could have been checked at the time. However, Nevill's 'special licence' -or not, as the case may be- was unlikely to have been seen as having a link to the murder/suicide which was presently being dealt with. Incidentally, may it not have been possible that, because of Nevill's standing, a special licence was granted him ahead of those handed out more generally, later?
-
Hopefully we will all soon have something new to discuss...JB's Christmas message blog:
'2018 has been a good year for the case. We can now show there were 2 silencers which will undoubtedly lead to my release in 2019.
Meanwhile my Campaign Team have been very active in garnering support from high profile 'z' list celebrities like actress Susan Penhaligon who certainly caused a stir in the dorms at Greshams when she featured in Bouquet of Barbed Wire' during the 70's. I am sure her support will generate similar interest in my case.
The Bamber merchandise shop hasn't been quite as successful as we hoped especially compared to the Madeline McCann merchandise shop but I guess a 57 year old convicted mass murderer doesn't quite have the same appeal as a cute looking missing toddler. That said we have sold 2 bracelets and 1 biro. I take encouragement from the Tesco ad 'Every Little Helps'.
Non-disclosure remains a problem in my case. I just know that once we have all the paperwork we will find numerous ambiguities and inconsistencies as we have in the past which will not only generate much fodder for further cranky theories but also my imminent release.
I look forward to meeting you all in 2019 perhaps for a steak at a Bernie over a glass of Blue Nun. I assume these things are still hip n cool...I am a bit time warped having spent some 33 years incarcerated at HMP.
Best wishes
Jeremy
Haha! heehee!! Hoho!!! Did you write that for him, Holly?
-
If the first gsw knocked SC out how does this figure with Dr Vanezis evidence at trial whereby he told the court SC was partially upright for both gsw's and following receipt of the second she would have fallen back immediately.
The idea EP shot SC is just one of many off the Richter scale cranky theories.
If Sheila was partially upright for both shots, it means Jeremy put her in this position prior to his shots.
The two shots were only around an inch apart, so Jeremy would have put her in the same position prior to each shot.
-
Jeremy knew his onions regarding where to shoot Sheila -
First shot - Knocked Sheila out & would have been fatal.
Second shot - Instantly fatal.
----------
Although Sheila was still breathing after the first shot, he fired the second in exactly the same location.
-
Of course they don't no more than NB, or anyone else, is above being investigated.
We've been through this many times. It isn't illegal to grow opium poppies but what arouses suspicion is JB's claims of a "special licence" to grow them for the pharma industry. So we only have JB's word about the licence but if he was BSing about this on morning of tragedy why didn't EP pick up on this and use it against him? This would show he was jesting at an inappropriate time and moreover lying.
Local surveyor George Nicholls noted opium poppies on a valuation he compiled of WHF shortly before tragedy.
Dr Craig and Chief Sup Harris looked at the field on the morning of tragedy following JB's claims of a "special licence".
This is the whole point IF they were being grown for some illegal purpose who would suspect NB IF he told all those who needed to know eg JB, surveyor, farm workers they were being grown for pharma industry under a special licence?
There nothing to suggest NB didn't have a special licence.
-
Here's a link to JB's Christmas blog:
https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/
Blimey he sounds a bit defeatist in that 'it will soon be too late for me too!
-
There nothing to suggest NB didn't have a special licence.
Yes there is. We've been all over this previously including the history of opium grown in this country and there's no evidence the pharma industry was involved in cultivating opium poppies in this country until 21st century. And even then it is the pharma company that receives the relevant authorisation not the farmer(s).
-
Haha! heehee!! Hoho!!! Did you write that for him, Holly?
No ^*&&
I did really (&^& I've posted the real McCoy up thread.
-
All of which could have been checked at the time. However, Nevill's 'special licence' -or not, as the case may be- was unlikely to have been seen as having a link to the murder/suicide which was presently being dealt with. Incidentally, may it not have been possible that, because of Nevill's standing, a special licence was granted him ahead of those handed out more generally, later?
Yes you're right it could have been checked at the time when Dr Craig asked Chief Sup Harris if he was aware the farm had a 'special licence' for growing opium poppies for the pharma industry. Did Chief Sup Harris make inquiries? I haven't seen anything suggesting he did but that obviously doesn't mean he didn't. But farmers don't need a special licence to grow opium poppies for the pharma industry - it is the pharma company that requires authorisation and it seems pharma companies didn't start cultivating opium poppies grown in this country until 21st century.
If NB was growing opium poppies for some illegal purpose it may well have featured in him mind when deciding whether or not to call the police for assistance.
-
Yes you're right it could have been checked at the time when Dr Craig asked Chief Sup Harris if he was aware the farm had a 'special licence' for growing opium poppies for the pharma industry. Did Chief Sup Harris make inquiries? I haven't seen anything suggesting he did but that obviously doesn't mean he didn't. But farmers don't need a special licence to grow opium poppies for the pharma industry - it is the pharma company that requires authorisation and it seems pharma companies didn't start cultivating opium poppies grown in this country until 21st century.
If NB was growing opium poppies for some illegal purpose it may well have featured in him mind when deciding whether or not to call the police for assistance.
So he's growing opium poppies for all to see in the daylight BUT, decides that he shouldn't call the police when his family (and himself) faces alife/death situation because someone might see the poppies that he doesn't need a licence for anyway?
-
So he's growing opium poppies for all to see in the daylight BUT, decides that he shouldn't call the police when his family (and himself) faces alife/death situation because someone might see the poppies that he doesn't need a licence for anyway?
We've been over it all before on the following thread:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7323.msg339197#msg339197
To recap:
- It isn't illegal for farmers or anyone to grow opium poppies in the UK and no one requires a 'special licence' to do so:
- Legal uses (non-medicinal) include poppy seeds for bread and ornamental in gardens
- Legal uses (medicinal) the pharma company requires authorisation/licence from Home Office to CULTIVATE the poppies for opium which as most will know is used legally for powerful pain killing drug morphine.
- Illegal uses - opium to produce heroin
The whole story about opium poppies being grown for the pharma industry under 'special licence' is suspicious for the following reasons:
- A licence isn't required as explained above
- There's no evidence the pharma industry cultivated opium poppies in this country for legal drugs until 21st century
- Why wasn't JB challenged about his claims if it was a phony story? DS Jones claimed JB chuckled with JM when she first arrived at BC ie inappropriate behaviour in his opinion. Upon being told about the fate of his family the first thing JB apparently did was to go to the field growing the poppies, pick a bunch, carry them back to the yard and tell Dr Craig the farm had a special licence to grow them. Dr Craig then asked Chief Sup Harris if he was aware the farm had a 'special licence' to which he answered 'no'. The pair were obviously curious enough as they went to the field to take a look. If JB was bs'ing then why not use against him as this would show he was acting oddly at the time and also lying.
- If NB was growing the poppies for some illegal purpose he would obviously fear not only the authorities eg police as they might not so readily accept the 'special licence' story but he would certainly fear drug barons who he may have been working with. Others such as the surveyor who visited, farm workers, JB, June etc would no doubt accept the story. Why not?
- We live in enlightened times relative to some 30 years ago.
-
Another explanation might be NB seeing the Mr Bigs as untouchable in his role as magistrate may have agreed with the authorities a plan whereby NB works with a Mr Big on producing opium poppies which are then taken elsewhere for heroin production. Once turned into something ready for the black market the authorities swoop taking out a complete chain.
-
Help!!!!... Your sister (impersonal third-person) has gone crazy with the gun (i.e. your rifle)... please come over Gem, but whatever you do, don't amble over to the poppy field and give our little secret away!
Mark Alexander case, here I come!
-
And I'm sober and don't read fiction...impressive huh? ^*&&
-
Help!!!!... Your sister (impersonal third-person) has gone crazy with the gun (i.e. your rifle)... please come over Gem, but whatever you do, don't amble over to the poppy field and give our little secret away!
Mark Alexander case, here I come!
But according to JB, NB said "Sheilas gone crazy shes got the gun".
JB may have been in on it or suspected and so got in quick with the 'special licence'. If you recall I wrote to JB asking him about this and was told a man from the Min of Ag called and they were told the poppies would have to be grown a certain distance from roads and paths. Unless JB and or other independently verified this individual it could have been anyone!
-
I don't know how many more times I have to keep posting this link... https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/tracks
-
I enjoyed your blog skit though!
-
I don't know how many more times I have to keep posting this link... https://soundcloud.com/phil-garlic/tracks
I know but this was his recollection some 20 plus years after the event! Imo his first WS takes precedence which corroborates with others who heard him recall his version of events that morning eg AE
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2189
-
I know but this was his recollection some 20 plus years after the event! Imo his first WS takes precedence which corroborates with others who heard him recall his version of events that morning eg AE
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2189 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2189)
... he said something like "Sheila's gone crazy, she has got a gun" - not very definite.
... whereas this was written much nearer to his actual police phone call and more accurate...
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/12/3f/2b/123f2b37b5663efc40a20ee959ceaeaf.jpg (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/12/3f/2b/123f2b37b5663efc40a20ee959ceaeaf.jpg)
-
... he said something like "Sheila's gone crazy, she has got a gun" - not very definite.
... whereas this was written much nearer to his actual police phone call and more accurate...
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/12/3f/2b/123f2b37b5663efc40a20ee959ceaeaf.jpg (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/12/3f/2b/123f2b37b5663efc40a20ee959ceaeaf.jpg)
Accurate? The message taker was PC West 1990. This was the officer who couldn't even record the time correctly from a digital clock:
26. PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.
-
Accurate? The message taker was PC West 1990. This was the officer who couldn't even record the time correctly from a digital clock:
26. PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m. and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.
Bamber didn't dispute what he wrote at the time and now he even agrees with the time that West recorded.
-
Bamber didn't dispute what he wrote at the time and now he even agrees with the time that West recorded.
Agreed he didn't dispute what he said at the time. In fact when DS Jones was attempting to tie JB up in knots a month later JB referred DS Jones to his initial WS believing this to be the most accurate.
Fact remains when relying on recall and in the absence of digital recording in terms of content and time its totally unreliable.
The fact JB has said this, that or the other years after the event is as good as useless. If police officers are incapable of recording a time accurately at the time what hope for anyone else decades after the event?
During JB's police interviews under caution DS Jones tells JB he knows he called JM before EP and that the police clock is ALWAYS accurate. No one can say with any certainty what time the calls were made. More importantly DS Jones once again misleads JB:
- DS Jones claimed during JB's police interviews that SC could not have shot herself twice - FALSE according to two eminent pathologists.
- DS Jones claimed during JB's police interviews that the police clock is ALWAYS accurate - FALSE according to other officers and more importantly recording an accurate time depends not only on the clock but also the message taker who manually recorded the time and we know PC West and Mr Bonnett recorded different times and one must be accurate and the other inaccurate by some 10 mins.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=4080
What did Acting Sergeant John Stephen Holby Smith have to say about the accuracy of the clock?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=170.0;attach=321
-
And re-reading JB's WS he claims NB said:
"Sheilas gone crazy she has got a gun".
-
And who was the officer who turned up at JM's shared house unannounced to check on the accuracy of SB's clock?
When did the visit take place? Who else was present? And what else, if anything, took place during this visit?
312. In her evidence to the jury Susan Battersby was adamant that the time shown by her clock was 3.12 a.m. and that she had kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast. The prosecution supported her evidence about keeping the clock fast by calling evidence from her boyfriend and also by evidence from a police officer who had been to check the timing on her clock at a later date without forewarning her. In cross-examination the fact that she had originally said that the time was 3.15 a.m. was put to her. She explained that she had been quite nervous when she made her first statement and had not then appreciated the importance of giving the time exactly. Later she had thought about it and she could picture in her mind the time as being 3.12 a.m. and she remained certain that that was the time shown on the clock.
-
Agreed he didn't dispute what he said at the time. In fact when DS Jones was attempting to tie JB up in knots a month later JB referred DS Jones to his initial WS believing this to be the most accurate.
Fact remains when relying on recall and in the absence of digital recording in terms of content and time its totally unreliable.
The fact JB has said this, that or the other years after the event is as good as useless. If police officers are incapable of recording a time accurately at the time what hope for anyone else decades after the event?
During JB's police interviews under caution DS Jones tells JB he knows he called JM before EP and that the police clock is ALWAYS accurate. No one can say with any certainty what time the calls were made. More importantly DS Jones once again misleads JB:
- DS Jones claimed during JB's police interviews that SC could not have shot herself twice - FALSE according to two eminent pathologists.
- DS Jones claimed during JB's police interviews that the police clock is ALWAYS accurate - FALSE according to other officers and more importantly recording an accurate time depends not only on the clock but also the message taker who manually recorded the time and we know PC West and Mr Bonnett recorded different times and one must be accurate and the other inaccurate by some 10 mins.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=4080
What did Acting Sergeant John Stephen Holby Smith have to say about the accuracy of the clock?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=170.0;attach=321
But Bamber thought it was reliable, the reason he couldn't remember what he said the first time was because he wasn't relying on the memory of actual events, but a constructed story with no event memory so more difficult to accurately recall.
-
And who was the officer who turned up at JM's shared house unannounced to check on the accuracy of SB's clock?
When did the visit take place? Who else was present? And what else, if anything, took place during this visit?
312. In her evidence to the jury Susan Battersby was adamant that the time shown by her clock was 3.12 a.m. and that she had kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast. The prosecution supported her evidence about keeping the clock fast by calling evidence from her boyfriend and also by evidence from a police officer who had been to check the timing on her clock at a later date without forewarning her. In cross-examination the fact that she had originally said that the time was 3.15 a.m. was put to her. She explained that she had been quite nervous when she made her first statement and had not then appreciated the importance of giving the time exactly. Later she had thought about it and she could picture in her mind the time as being 3.12 a.m. and she remained certain that that was the time shown on the clock.
None other than your favourite officer Stan the Man!... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p6YeQ1djbM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p6YeQ1djbM)
In one of the books, I think.
For a moment I thought that read Pete In A Skirt... is she really a he?
-
And who was the officer who turned up at JM's shared house unannounced to check on the accuracy of SB's clock?
When did the visit take place? Who else was present? And what else, if anything, took place during this visit?
312. In her evidence to the jury Susan Battersby was adamant that the time shown by her clock was 3.12 a.m. and that she had kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast. The prosecution supported her evidence about keeping the clock fast by calling evidence from her boyfriend and also by evidence from a police officer who had been to check the timing on her clock at a later date without forewarning her. In cross-examination the fact that she had originally said that the time was 3.15 a.m. was put to her. She explained that she had been quite nervous when she made her first statement and had not then appreciated the importance of giving the time exactly. Later she had thought about it and she could picture in her mind the time as being 3.12 a.m. and she remained certain that that was the time shown on the clock.
Evn if she did say 3:15, it still makes the time of the cal to Julie BEFORE Bamber said that his father called.
-
Even if she did say 3:15, it still makes the time of the cal to Julie BEFORE Bamber said that his father called.
Even if we were to accept Jeremy's story at face value, it has one major flaw and that is that he found it necessary to speak to Julie before phoning the police. It is far more likely in my view that having murdered five people in cold blood he needed to seek reassurance from a friendly voice ahead of that call to the police.
-
Even if we were to accept Jeremy's story at face value, it has one major flaw and that is that he found it necessary to speak to Julie before phoning the police. It is far more likely in my view that having murdered five people in cold blood he needed to seek reassurance from a friendly voice ahead of that call to the police.
But Julie's response -having been woken from sleep at silly o'clock- sounded anything but friendly. In fact it doesn't even come across that he wanted to hear her voice, as much as he wanted her to hear what he had to tell her.
-
But Julie's response -having been woken from sleep at silly o'clock- sounded anything but friendly. In fact it doesn't even come across that he wanted to hear her voice, as much as he wanted her to hear what he had to tell her.
He had to offload his guilt on someone. Julie Mugford was placed in a difficult situation after that call, all sorts must have been going through her head when she realised Bamber was up to his neck in it.
-
He had to offload his guilt on someone. Julie Mugford was placed in a difficult situation after that call, all sorts must have been going through her head when she realised Bamber was up to his neck in it.
Or brag about his prowess, perhaps? According to Julie, it had been on the cards for some time -she probably had been dismissive of it, who wouldn't have been?- and it may have been an "I said I would" calls.
-
Even if we were to accept Jeremy's story at face value, it has one major flaw and that is that he found it necessary to speak to Julie before phoning the police. It is far more likely in my view that having murdered five people in cold blood he needed to seek reassurance from a friendly voice ahead of that call to the police.
I asked him who he called first and he told me he called the police first - the FACT that he still can't be honest should be a real big warning sign to anyone who thinks he's innocent.
-
Evn if she did say 3:15, it still makes the time of the cal to Julie BEFORE Bamber said that his father called.
What evidence exists, if any, showing JB's claim of a call from NB came after JB called JM?
-
Even if we were to accept Jeremy's story at face value, it has one major flaw and that is that he found it necessary to speak to Julie before phoning the police. It is far more likely in my view that having murdered five people in cold blood he needed to seek reassurance from a friendly voice ahead of that call to the police.
What evidence exists, if any, showing JB's claim of a call from NB came after JB called JM?
-
What evidence exists, if any, showing JB's claim of a call from NB came after JB called JM?
Jeremy himself. It was he who said he wanted to hear a friendly voice. Without an alleged call from Nevill, there'd have been no reason to idle away time looking for the number of a convenient police station, and no reason to get Julie out of bed at silly o'clock.
-
None other than your favourite officer Stan the Man!... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p6YeQ1djbM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p6YeQ1djbM)
In one of the books, I think.
For a moment I thought that read Pete In A Skirt... is she really a he?
Thanks, I thought it might have been DS Jones.
I wonder what John Stephen Holby Smith said about the accuracy of the clock?
Pele In A Skirt aka female Brazilian forward Marta Vieira da Silva - the best FIFA women's player 2018 (and UN goodwill ambassador for girls and women in sport).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoyeRU-S9mc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV3c3K8Kj70
-
Jeremy himself. It was he who said he wanted to hear a friendly voice. Without an alleged call from Nevill, there'd have been no reason to idle away time looking for the number of a convenient police station, and no reason to get Julie out of bed at silly o'clock.
I don't think anyone doubts JB called JM circa 3.30am? JB said he called JM circa 3.30am. JM said JB called her circa 3.30am. JM's house sharing pals said JB called JM circa 3.30am.
What evidence exists, if any, showing JB's claim of a call from NB came after JB called JM at circa 3.30am.
-
There was originally some confusion about the timing of Jeremy Bamber's call to Julie Mugford , with flatmates giving different times - Sue (3:12), Joanna Wood (between 2:00 & 2:59) and Helen Eaton (3:00 to 3:30). So in the end they settled on around 3 a.m., a good twenty to thirty minutes before Bamber called the police.
During his interview shortly after the murders Jeremy mixed up the timings of the telephone calls.
And in 2003 he claimed that, "I did not speak to Julie prior to speaking to the police, but spoke to her after I had spoken to them. The principle reason I spoke to her was because I was concerned about phoning the police and getting them involved in a private family matter."
-
I don't think anyone doubts JB called JM circa 3.30am? JB said he called JM circa 3.30am. JM said JB called her circa 3.30am. JM's house sharing pals said JB called JM circa 3.30am.
What evidence exists, if any, showing JB's claim of a call from NB came after JB called JM at circa 3.30am.
I do!
I don't understand the question you keep asking?
-
There was originally some confusion about the timing of Jeremy Bamber's call to Julie Mugford , with flatmates giving different times - Sue (3:12), Joanna Wood (between 2:00 & 2:59) and Helen Eaton (3:00 to 3:30). So in the end they settled on around 3 a.m., a good twenty to thirty minutes before Bamber called the police.
But surely the fact a bunch of people gave varying times does not then make the time of 3 am accurate? JM's WS of 8th Aug has the time at about 3.30 am.
During his interview shortly after the murders Jeremy mixed up the timings of the telephone calls.
JB's WS of 7th Aug states about 3.25am. He was not then asked about the times again until over a month later.
And in 2003 he claimed that, "I did not speak to Julie prior to speaking to the police, but spoke to her after I had spoken to them. The principle reason I spoke to her was because I was concerned about phoning the police and getting them involved in a private family matter."
I don't know what he said in 2003, some 18 years after the event. I go by what he said in his WS on 7th Aug which was taken only hours after the event.
-
I do!
JB's WS 7th Aug - he claims he called JM about 3.25am
JM's WS 8th Aug - she claims JB called her about 3.30am
I don't understand the question you keep asking?
What reliable evidence exists re times of tel calls eg digitally recorded info from tel comm providers with a timed call to the second? None. Just various guesstimates. Even those paid and trained to record times accurately were incapable of doing so with civilian Malcolm Bonnett and PC West some 10 minutes out.
I thought JB told JM he had committed the perfect murder? If so I'm surprised he didn't have his 'story' off pat.
-
JB's WS 7th Aug - he claims he called JM about 3.25am
JM's WS 8th Aug - she claims JB called her about 3.30am
What reliable evidence exists re times of tel calls eg digitally recorded info from tel comm providers with a timed call to the second? None. Just various guesstimates. Even those paid and trained to record times accurately were incapable of doing so with civilian Malcolm Bonnett and PC West some 10 minutes out.
I thought JB told JM he had committed the perfect murder? If so I'm surprised he didn't have his 'story' off pat.
I believe that Mugford was wrong to claim that his call was received at 3.30am. In my opinion based on the evidence of the other three girls in the house, the call was received just after 3am when Bamber got back to the farmhouse. That call most likely lasted some 15 minutes and it was then at around 3.26am that Bamber called Chelmsford Police. That call ended at about 3.36am and was duly recorded as such.
Bambers delay in going to the farm was due to him changing his clothes and cleaning up. He probably hid the bloodstained clothing on his way to the farm and later disposed of it completely. Had the police conducted a search of Bourtree Cottage and his route to the farm immediately after the murders they might just have found those items. As it was, blood discovered under a passenger seat of his father's car, which Jeremy just happened to be using, was indicative of blood stained clothing having been stashed there earlier.
-
JB's WS 7th Aug - he claims he called JM about 3.25am
JM's WS 8th Aug - she claims JB called her about 3.30am
What reliable evidence exists re times of tel calls eg digitally recorded info from tel comm providers with a timed call to the second? None. Just various guesstimates. Even those paid and trained to record times accurately were incapable of doing so with civilian Malcolm Bonnett and PC West some 10 minutes out.
I thought JB told JM he had committed the perfect murder? If so I'm surprised he didn't have his 'story' off pat.
He also let slip that he called Julie first and that he called her to get advice as to what to do. He can't be believed - NOW he is arguing that West's times are correct having previously accused him of falsifying the logs. Julie would (initially) do as she was told.
-
I believe that Mugford was wrong to claim that his call was received at 3.30am. In my opinion based on the evidence of the other three girls in the house, the call was received just after 3am when Bamber got back to the farmhouse. That call most likely lasted some 15 minutes and it was then at around 3.26am that Bamber called Chelmsford Police. That call ended at about 3.36am and was duly recorded as such.
Bambers delay in going to the farm was due to him changing his clothes and cleaning up. He probably hid the bloodstained clothing on his way to the farm and later disposed of it completely. Had the police conducted a search of Bourtree Cottage and his route to the farm immediately after the murders they might just have found those items. As it was, blood discovered under a passenger seat of his father's car, which Jeremy just happened to be using, was indicative of blood stained clothing having been stashed there earlier.
I think he hid them in the fire pit - the same pit they used to burn the bedding etc. and where he had his mum and dads clothes destroyed only a week later.
-
I don't think anyone doubts JB called JM circa 3.30am? JB said he called JM circa 3.30am. JM said JB called her circa 3.30am. JM's house sharing pals said JB called JM circa 3.30am.
What evidence exists, if any, showing JB's claim of a call from NB came after JB called JM at circa 3.30am.
Yes they do! He said he wasn't on the phone to Julie for very long because he had to ring the police, so he then fiddled about with a phone directory for 10 minutes looking for the nearest police station number when his father was in mortal danger and desperate for help.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=294.0;attach=1192;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=294.0;attach=1194;image)
But of course, in reality, he woke Julie up from her beauty sleep nearer to 3am soon after scuttling back from WHF because he couldn't wait until morning to tell her the dirty deed which he'd been planning for months was completed successfully..
-
I believe that Mugford was wrong to claim that his call was received at 3.30am. In my opinion based on the evidence of the other three girls in the house, the call was received just after 3am when Bamber got back to the farmhouse. That call most likely lasted some 15 minutes and it was then at around 3.26am that Bamber called Chelmsford Police. That call ended at about 3.36am and was duly recorded as such.
JM gave the time of 3.30 am having phoned the shared house in an attempt to establish what time JB called all of which was witnessed by AE and EP.
304. To consider this aspect of this ground, it is necessary to look at the available evidence at trial. The starting point has to be what Julie Mugford said at trial and in earlier statements. In the statement that she made to the police on the 8 August following a telephone call to one of her house mates, she said that the phone call had been at about 3.30 a.m. In a later statement she said that she had since learnt from Susan Battersby that it was at 3.15 a.m. In evidence she said that she had been woken by the telephone call between 3 a.m. and 3.30 a.m. She said that she had not looked at any watch or clock. In cross-examination, her first statement was put to her and the passage including the approximate time of 3.30 a.m. was read to the jury and she acknowledged that that was what she had said at the time. Mr Rivlin did not choose to establish that she had spoken to one of her flatmates before committing herself to the time of 3.30 a.m. although that fact was apparent from the evidence available to him. Doubtless this was because he thought it was of greater advantage that her independent recollection was 3.30 a.m. rather than establishing that it was or may have been somebody else's recollection. In any event the evidence that she had given did not conflict as to timing with the defence case.
At trial it was established that PC West misread the clock and JB's call was in fact at, or shortly before 3.26 am.
26. PC West recorded the time of the appellant's call as 3.36 a.m. At trial it was accepted that the officer had misread a digital clock. The officer's contact with Mr Bonnett was recorded as being at 3.26 a.m, and it seems clear that the appellant's call must have been at 3.26 a.m. or very shortly before.
27. At 3.35 a.m., Mr Bonnet arranged for a police car to go to White House Farm.
Bambers delay in going to the farm was due to him changing his clothes and cleaning up. He probably hid the bloodstained clothing on his way to the farm and later disposed of it completely. Had the police conducted a search of Bourtree Cottage and his route to the farm immediately after the murders they might just have found those items. As it was, blood discovered under a passenger seat of his father's car, which Jeremy just happened to be using, was indicative of blood stained clothing having been stashed there earlier.
What do you think caused JB's clothes to become blood stained?
If you believe JB's clothes were blood stained in such a way blood was capable of transferring to other surfaces, ie you have suggested NB's car, how do you think he managed to exit WHF, supposedly through a window, without tranferring blood to the surrounding area? And/or transferring blood to the bike he supposedly used as his get away mode of transport which was foreniscally analysed by FSS?
-
He also let slip that he called Julie first and that he called her to get advice as to what to do. He can't be believed - NOW he is arguing that West's times are correct having previously accused him of falsifying the logs. Julie would (initially) do as she was told.
But others who can't recall and/or change WS's etc can?
In the absence of digitally recorded info provided by independent witnesses it's all unreliable. Roll on 10 years after the Bamber case and this is what reliable tel evidence looks like (taken from Rettendon case CoA doc):
The telephone evidence
At trial the prosecution adduced detailed evidence of telephone calls to and from land lines and mobile phones which belonged to Nicholls, Steele, Whomes, Tate and his associates. The telephone companies provided details as to the time and duration of calls. In addition, this was one of the first cases in which the position of the makers and recipients of mobile phone calls was identified by the location of the cell sites through which the phones had sent or received the call. There was a great deal of factual and expert evidence on this subject at the trial. We shall have to return to it later as it gave rise to one of the bases upon which the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the matter to this Court. At the moment it is sufficient to summarise some of what it established. It included telephone contact between Nicholls and Steele on 6 December while Nicholls was still in the Sunbury area in the middle of the day. It also established contact between Steele's mobile phone and that of Whomes at 14.11. Around 14.30 there were calls from a telephone kiosk near a public house close to where Whomes was working. Two of the calls were to the mobile phone of Tucker and one (a missed call) was to the mobile phone of Tate. At 14.32 there was a call to a telephone kiosk in Basildon, close to where Tate lived. About 20 minutes later there was a call from the same telephone kiosk to Nicholls' mobile phone. There was other telephone contact between Nicholls and Steele, and Steele and Whomes in the course of the afternoon. At 17.03 a call was made from a telephone kiosk near The Halfway House public house on the A127 to Tate's mobile phone. Whomes telephoned Steele via the mobile phones at 17.12. At 18.03 and 18.09 calls were recorded between Steele's mobile phone and that of Whomes. At 18.44 there was a call of almost 4 minutes duration from an address in Basildon where Sarah Saunders was and the mobile phone of Tate. The case for the prosecution was that it was the call overheard by Steele as described by Nicholls at a time when Steele and Tate were in or near the Range Rover in the farm track at Rettenden. That call ended at about 18.48. At 18.59 two short calls were made from Whomes' mobile phone to that of Nicholls. The case for the prosecution was that they, or one of them (they lasted one and four seconds respectively) included the 'pick-up' call. Although there was no medical or scientific evidence as to the time of death of the three deceased, the case for the prosecution was that the murders took place between 18.48 and 18.59 and that the telephone evidence supported this. It is a fact that the mobile phones of the deceased men did not make or receive effective calls after that time. Although their bodies were not found until the following day, they had been expected home before 20.00hrs because they had social engagements. Both Tate and Tucker died with their mobile phones in their hands.
-
I think he hid them in the fire pit - the same pit they used to burn the bedding etc. and where he had his mum and dads clothes destroyed only a week later.
What do you think caused JB's clothes to become blood stained?
What, if any, forensic evidence do you think was lost through the destroyed bedding?
What would be the purpose of JB, or anyone, hanging on to his deceased parents clothes?
-
Yes they do! He said he wasn't on the phone to Julie for very long because he had to ring the police, so he then fiddled about with a phone directory for 10 minutes looking for the nearest police station number when his father was in mortal danger and desperate for help.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=294.0;attach=1192;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=294.0;attach=1194;image)
But of course, in reality, he woke Julie up from her beauty sleep nearer to 3am soon after scuttling back from WHF because he couldn't wait until morning to tell her the dirty deed which he'd been planning for months was completed successfully..
The most reliable WS's are those made immediately after the event not those made a month later.
-
But others who can't recall and/or change WS's etc can?
In the absence of digitally recorded info provided by independent witnesses it's all unreliable. Roll on 10 years after the Bamber case and this is what reliable tel evidence looks like (taken from Rettendon case CoA doc):
The telephone evidence
At trial the prosecution adduced detailed evidence of telephone calls to and from land lines and mobile phones which belonged to Nicholls, Steele, Whomes, Tate and his associates. The telephone companies provided details as to the time and duration of calls. In addition, this was one of the first cases in which the position of the makers and recipients of mobile phone calls was identified by the location of the cell sites through which the phones had sent or received the call. There was a great deal of factual and expert evidence on this subject at the trial. We shall have to return to it later as it gave rise to one of the bases upon which the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the matter to this Court. At the moment it is sufficient to summarise some of what it established. It included telephone contact between Nicholls and Steele on 6 December while Nicholls was still in the Sunbury area in the middle of the day. It also established contact between Steele's mobile phone and that of Whomes at 14.11. Around 14.30 there were calls from a telephone kiosk near a public house close to where Whomes was working. Two of the calls were to the mobile phone of Tucker and one (a missed call) was to the mobile phone of Tate. At 14.32 there was a call to a telephone kiosk in Basildon, close to where Tate lived. About 20 minutes later there was a call from the same telephone kiosk to Nicholls' mobile phone. There was other telephone contact between Nicholls and Steele, and Steele and Whomes in the course of the afternoon. At 17.03 a call was made from a telephone kiosk near The Halfway House public house on the A127 to Tate's mobile phone. Whomes telephoned Steele via the mobile phones at 17.12. At 18.03 and 18.09 calls were recorded between Steele's mobile phone and that of Whomes. At 18.44 there was a call of almost 4 minutes duration from an address in Basildon where Sarah Saunders was and the mobile phone of Tate. The case for the prosecution was that it was the call overheard by Steele as described by Nicholls at a time when Steele and Tate were in or near the Range Rover in the farm track at Rettenden. That call ended at about 18.48. At 18.59 two short calls were made from Whomes' mobile phone to that of Nicholls. The case for the prosecution was that they, or one of them (they lasted one and four seconds respectively) included the 'pick-up' call. Although there was no medical or scientific evidence as to the time of death of the three deceased, the case for the prosecution was that the murders took place between 18.48 and 18.59 and that the telephone evidence supported this. It is a fact that the mobile phones of the deceased men did not make or receive effective calls after that time. Although their bodies were not found until the following day, they had been expected home before 20.00hrs because they had social engagements. Both Tate and Tucker died with their mobile phones in their hands.
Yip because they had no reason to lie.
-
What do you think caused JB's clothes to become blood stained?
What, if any, forensic evidence do you think was lost through the destroyed bedding?
What would be the purpose of JB, or anyone, hanging on to his deceased parents clothes?
Blood from staging the bodies.
I didn't express any opinion on the bedding other than it was burned in the firepit.
None - BUT unless you're a callous and cold fish, you don't load them onto a trailer and burn them in the farm fire pit used for burning rubbish - the week after their murder while you're supposed to be grieving!
-
The most reliable WS's are those made immediately after the event not those made a month later.
Reliable? No, those made later by JB show he was lying because he just can't remember what he said during an event that SHOULD be etched on his brain.
-
The most reliable WS's are those made immediately after the event not those made a month later.
Reliable? No, those made later by JB show he was lying because he just can't remember what he said during an event that SHOULD be etched on his brain.
From JB's interview 10th Sept. '85. He couldn't remember who he phoned first... Julie or the police.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1236;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1238;image)
-
The most reliable WS's are those made immediately after the event not those made a month later.
Yet in his police statement made at the cottage on the 7th. August '85 only hours after the event, he failed to mention ringing Julie at 10pm to say "The crime will have to be tonight" or more succinctly "It's tonight or never", and that she might hear from him later. How extraordinary was that ?!!
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566;image)
-
And if the kitchen phone was off the hook as per CS photo, then it would have been impossible to ring Chelmsford police "immediately" afterwards as he claimed! So in September he changed his story yet again to say that he faffed about for 10 minutes looking up their number.
-
From JB's interview 10th Sept. '85. He couldn't remember who he phoned first... Julie or the police.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1236;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1238;image)
So he said.
-
And if the kitchen phone was off the hook as per CS photo, then it would have been impossible to ring Chelmsford police "immediately" afterwards as he claimed! So in September he changed his story yet again to say that he faffed about for 10 minutes looking up their number.
Yes, he had time to think about the guffs he made in his first WS.
-
Yet in his police statement made at the cottage on the 7th. August '85 only hours after the event, he failed to mention ringing Julie at 10pm to say "The crime will have to be tonight" or more succinctly "It's tonight or never", and that she might hear from him later. How extraordinary was that ?!!
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566;image)
Or that he had a bath - something he now recalls.
-
Or that he had a bath - something he now recalls.
Odd, is it not, that whilst he remains so uncertain of the sequence of events after the alleged call from his father, he clearly recalls watching programmes about punks and miscarriages prior. Given the horror of those events, I find this surprising. He rather overdoes it by claiming he "could hear the dog whining in a distressed manner" I'd have thought that whining in dogs was an indication of their distress.
-
Odd, is it not, that whilst he remains so uncertain of the sequence of events after the alleged call from his father, he clearly recalls watching programmes about punks and miscarriages prior. Given the horror of those events, I find this surprising. He rather overdoes it by claiming he "could hear the dog whining in a distressed manner" I'd have thought that whining in dogs was an indication of their distress.
He mentioned the programmes because they are time stamped. An innocent man would have simply said he watched TV - clearly the progammes (and the alleged call) were forming his alibi.
-
Yip because they had no reason to lie.
Only JM completed a WS on 8th Aug whereby she phoned the house from JB's cottage in the presence of AE and EP in an attempt to establish the time of JB's call with her housemates. She was told 3.30am and stated this in her WS of 8th Aug
How do we know the other witnesses/housemates were not coerced by DS Jones either on the basis JB was responsible eg SC could not have shot herself twice as per JB's interview (at odds with pathological evidence) and/or coercion on the basis JM and SB acknowledge illegal drugs were used (JB/JM at a min and stored at the shared house for distribution around uni campus)? DS Jones turned up unannounced supposedly to check on SB's alarm clock. How do we know he didn't 'find' any drugs?
There was no reason for any of the housemates to go to any effort to accurately record the time. They made WS's as follows:
JM - 8th Aug - Told by housemate(s), believed to be Helen Eaton, via tel call from JB's cottage time was 3.30am. This all happened in the presence of AE and EP.
SB - 10th Sep - 3.15am but may have been inaccurate as she supposedly kept her alarm clock 10 mins fast. Then on 19th Dec she made a further WS adamant that the time wasn't 3.15am but 3.12am. Apparently she was nervous upon making her first WS and this is the reason she messed up and realised she was 3 mins out!
HE - As above originally told JM 3.30am on 8th Aug but when completed her WS on 11th Sept stated 3am.
Joanne Woad - In her WS of 16th Sept she stated 2am. Then on 3rd Oct she made a further WS stating she could only recall the '2' on the alarm clock and therefore it could have been anywhere between 2am and 2.59am.
Douglas Dale made a WS on 9th Sept where he stated 3 am.
Totally unreliable imo whereby the above witnesses were coerced into providing times in an attempt to show JB calling JM before his claim of a tel call from NB.
In the absence of digitally recorded info by independent parties ie telecomm providers it's all hopelessly unreliable.
(Source: Points 290 - 330 CoA doc)
-
Blood from staging the bodies.
I didn't express any opinion on the bedding other than it was burned in the firepit.
None - BUT unless you're a callous and cold fish, you don't load them onto a trailer and burn them in the farm fire pit used for burning rubbish - the week after their murder while you're supposed to be grieving!
There's no evidence any of the victims were moved at soc prior to police entering. Once police entered there's strong evidence SC was moved between first observation at approx 7.30am and soc images taken at approx 10.30am as per A/PS Woodcock's WS and forensic scientist Martyn Ismail. The former stated SC's head was raised against NB's bedside cabinet and the latter said SC's head would have fallen back against bedside cabinet based on the position of her body and nightdress ad depicted in soc images.
People grieve in different ways eg AE taking her young daughter to WHF to remake the twins beds less than a week after the tragedy.
-
Reliable? No, those made later by JB show he was lying because he just can't remember what he said during an event that SHOULD be etched on his brain.
He was no doubt suffering PTSD!
-
From JB's interview 10th Sept. '85. He couldn't remember who he phoned first... Julie or the police.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1236;image)
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1238;image)
As he said his first WS is likely to be the most reliable.
-
Yet in his police statement made at the cottage on the 7th. August '85 only hours after the event, he failed to mention ringing Julie at 10pm to say "The crime will have to be tonight" or more succinctly "It's tonight or never", and that she might hear from him later. How extraordinary was that ?!!
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4566;image)
Off the Richter scale!!!
-
And if the kitchen phone was off the hook as per CS photo, then it would have been impossible to ring Chelmsford police "immediately" afterwards as he claimed! So in September he changed his story yet again to say that he faffed about for 10 minutes looking up their number.
The expert evidence at trial was that JB's handset would need to be replaced and remain in that position for a period of 1 to 2 minutes. He may have needed to use the loo!
68. There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.
-
Only JM completed a WS on 8th Aug whereby she phoned the house from JB's cottage in the presence of AE and EP in an attempt to establish the time of JB's call with her housemates. She was told 3.30am and stated this in her WS of 8th Aug
How do we know the other witnesses/housemates were not coerced by DS Jones either on the basis JB was responsible eg SC could not have shot herself twice as per JB's interview (at odds with pathological evidence) and/or coercion on the basis JM and SB acknowledge illegal drugs were used (JB/JM at a min and stored at the shared house for distribution around uni campus)? DS Jones turned up unannounced supposedly to check on SB's alarm clock. How do we know he didn't 'find' any drugs?
There was no reason for any of the housemates to go to any effort to accurately record the time. They made WS's as follows:
JM - 8th Aug - Told by housemate(s), believed to be Helen Eaton, via tel call from JB's cottage time was 3.30am. This all happened in the presence of AE and EP.
SB - 10th Sep - 3.15am but may have been inaccurate as she supposedly kept her alarm clock 10 mins fast. Then on 19th Dec she made a further WS adamant that the time wasn't 3.15am but 3.12am. Apparently she was nervous upon making her first WS and this is the reason she messed up and realised she was 3 mins out!
HE - As above originally told JM 3.30am on 8th Aug but when completed her WS on 11th Sept stated 3am.
Joanne Woad - In her WS of 16th Sept she stated 2am. Then on 3rd Oct she made a further WS stating she could only recall the '2' on the alarm clock and therefore it could have been anywhere between 2am and 2.59am.
Douglas Dale made a WS on 9th Sept where he stated 3 am.
Totally unreliable imo whereby the above witnesses were coerced into providing times in an attempt to show JB calling JM before his claim of a tel call from NB.
In the absence of digitally recorded info by independent parties ie telecomm providers it's all hopelessly unreliable.
(Source: Points 290 - 330 CoA doc)
I guess we can go on puggling, ad infinitum, at aspects of this/other cases when they don't fulfill our own expectations. It's probably a course which delivers little more than a sense of frustration and helplessness. I was watching, or rather NOT watching, a detective programme over Christmas -probably Poirot- when I heard the words "But the evidence is only circumstantial" to which the great man responded "Most murderers are convicted on such". How little, despite our advanced technology, have things changed since the 1920's? At least we no longer hang.
-
Only JM completed a WS on 8th Aug whereby she phoned the house from JB's cottage in the presence of AE and EP in an attempt to establish the time of JB's call with her housemates. She was told 3.30am and stated this in her WS of 8th Aug
How do we know the other witnesses/housemates were not coerced by DS Jones either on the basis JB was responsible eg SC could not have shot herself twice as per JB's interview (at odds with pathological evidence) and/or coercion on the basis JM and SB acknowledge illegal drugs were used (JB/JM at a min and stored at the shared house for distribution around uni campus)? DS Jones turned up unannounced supposedly to check on SB's alarm clock. How do we know he didn't 'find' any drugs?
There was no reason for any of the housemates to go to any effort to accurately record the time. They made WS's as follows:
JM - 8th Aug - Told by housemate(s), believed to be Helen Eaton, via tel call from JB's cottage time was 3.30am. This all happened in the presence of AE and EP.
SB - 10th Sep - 3.15am but may have been inaccurate as she supposedly kept her alarm clock 10 mins fast. Then on 19th Dec she made a further WS adamant that the time wasn't 3.15am but 3.12am. Apparently she was nervous upon making her first WS and this is the reason she messed up and realised she was 3 mins out!
HE - As above originally told JM 3.30am on 8th Aug but when completed her WS on 11th Sept stated 3am.
Joanne Woad - In her WS of 16th Sept she stated 2am. Then on 3rd Oct she made a further WS stating she could only recall the '2' on the alarm clock and therefore it could have been anywhere between 2am and 2.59am.
Douglas Dale made a WS on 9th Sept where he stated 3 am.
Totally unreliable imo whereby the above witnesses were coerced into providing times in an attempt to show JB calling JM before his claim of a tel call from NB.
In the absence of digitally recorded info by independent parties ie telecomm providers it's all hopelessly unreliable.
(Source: Points 290 - 330 CoA doc)
How could they be coerced? THEY offered the information. There was no reason for them to provide any evidence or statements unless they were factual. The only argument you can provide to the contrary, is that they must have been coerced but there is no evidence of this at all. I thought you were 'all about the evidence'?
-
In the absence of digitally recorded info by independent parties ie telecomm providers it's all hopelessly unreliable.
So prior to digital recorded info, all cases should be dismissed?
-
So prior to digital recorded info, all cases should be dismissed?
It occurs to me that if we insist that only forensic evidence/digital information can be used in convicting for murder, there may be far more free but guilty, than innocent and in prison.
-
How could they be coerced? THEY offered the information. There was no reason for them to provide any evidence or statements unless they were factual. The only argument you can provide to the contrary, is that they must have been coerced but there is no evidence of this at all. I thought you were 'all about the evidence'?
How? Undue influence. Witnesses were asked to provide info on 7th/8th Aug which they duly provided no doubt to the best of their knowledge. Over a month later, and with some witnesses many months later, the info provided did not support the murder/suicide case so witnesses adjusted their timings to support the murder case. We do not know who approached who in Sept and thereafter and what conversations took place.
I look at the case holistically to fit all the pieces together. EP's heavy handed approach with MM and CB over drugs (cannabis) tells me officer(s) were not averse to using this as a bargaining tool if required. It's clear when DI Miller asked MM if CB used cannabis and when was the last time she used where it was going. There does not appear to be any justifiable reason for EP to search CB's home and wait her arrival without prior arrangement and then to take her into custody for questioning and keep in her in overnight. This imo was done to intimidate and send out a message to others in the group.
We know drugs (cannabis) were kept at JM's shared house not only for own use but also distribution for financial gain.
-
I guess we can go on puggling, ad infinitum, at aspects of this/other cases when they don't fulfill our own expectations. It's probably a course which delivers little more than a sense of frustration and helplessness. I was watching, or rather NOT watching, a detective programme over Christmas -probably Poirot- when I heard the words "But the evidence is only circumstantial" to which the great man responded "Most murderers are convicted on such". How little, despite our advanced technology, have things changed since the 1920's? At least we no longer hang.
The jury did not convict on the phone calls. They convicted on the silencer evidence and to a lesser extent JM's testimony.
-
So prior to digital recorded info, all cases should be dismissed?
The threshold for finding someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law is high and I doubt any convictions rest on such info. None of the witnesses had any cause at the time to appreciate the seriousness of the situation so there was no reason for them to take a mental note of the time.
-
How? Undue influence. Witnesses were asked to provide info on 7th/8th Aug which they duly provided no doubt to the best of their knowledge. Over a month later, and with some witnesses many months later, the info provided did not support the murder/suicide case so witnesses adjusted their timings to support the murder case. We do not know who approached who in Sept and thereafter and what conversations took place.
I look at the case holistically to fit all the pieces together. EP's heavy handed approach with MM and CB over drugs (cannabis) tells me officer(s) were not averse to using this as a bargaining tool if required. It's clear when DI Miller asked MM if CB used cannabis and when was the last time she used where it was going. There does not appear to be any justifiable reason for EP to search CB's home and wait her arrival without prior arrangement and then to take her into custody for questioning and keep in her in overnight. This imo was done to intimidate and send out a message to others in the group.
We know drugs (cannabis) were kept at JM's shared house not only for own use but also distribution for financial gain.
Is there not a danger here of making much out of comparatively little? If Julie is now to be a big time dealer, I guess it would make Jeremy a big time supplier? Were the house sharers' recreational habits not curtailed because two of their number hoped to get into the military?......................conversely, I have no doubt that police used various tricks of their trade to extract information from those they believed could help with their enquiries, even if those enquiries could only be peripherally linked to the murders.
-
How? Undue influence. Witnesses were asked to provide info on 7th/8th Aug which they duly provided no doubt to the best of their knowledge. Over a month later, and with some witnesses many months later, the info provided did not support the murder/suicide case so witnesses adjusted their timings to support the murder case. We do not know who approached who in Sept and thereafter and what conversations took place.
I look at the case holistically to fit all the pieces together. EP's heavy handed approach with MM and CB over drugs (cannabis) tells me officer(s) were not averse to using this as a bargaining tool if required. It's clear when DI Miller asked MM if CB used cannabis and when was the last time she used where it was going. There does not appear to be any justifiable reason for EP to search CB's home and wait her arrival without prior arrangement and then to take her into custody for questioning and keep in her in overnight. This imo was done to intimidate and send out a message to others in the group.
We know drugs (cannabis) were kept at JM's shared house not only for own use but also distribution for financial gain.
Yeah but all they has to say was that they bought it from Bamber and would testify to such. It's not a strong enough bargaining tool and you have no evidence of it anyway. Julie offered up the drugs information as did MM. A number of years ago, someone I know was convicted of dealing (not just using) cannabis, they received a small fine and did some community service. Faced with that or setting a guy up for a life long prison sentence, I very much doubt they would have taken a similar deal.
-
Is there not a danger here of making much out of comparatively little? If Julie is now to be a big time dealer, I guess it would make Jeremy a big time supplier? Were the house sharers' recreational habits not curtailed because two of their number hoped to get into the military?......................conversely, I have no doubt that police used various tricks of their trade to extract information from those they believed could help with their enquiries, even if those enquiries could only be peripherally linked to the murders.
Big time, little time, either way it is breaking the law with the potential for a fine and/or custodial sentence as follows:
https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing
And in the case of all these middle class people the potential for a criminal record, reputational damage and the ending of careers before they even get started.
I believe EP used this sort of tactic against these middle class people ie 'drugs were found in your home and this will certainly put an end to your hopes of a career in the military/teaching profession'.
It appears EP were well aware JB was growing cannabis at his cottage and distributing via the likes of JM and his mail order business. Why not pursue him over this when he was pursued over OCP and we know EP adopted a heavy handed approach over drugs as evidenced by the way they handled MM over drugs.
The argument EP were interested in the murders not a 'piddly bit of weed' doesn't stand up given JB was charged over OCP.
The argument EP adopted a soft touch with cannabis doesn't stand up given how heavy handed they were with MM and CB.
-
Yeah but all they has to say was that they bought it from Bamber and would testify to such. It's not a strong enough bargaining tool and you have no evidence of it anyway. Julie offered up the drugs information as did MM. A number of years ago, someone I know was convicted of dealing (not just using) cannabis, they received a small fine and did some community service. Faced with that or setting a guy up for a life long prison sentence, I very much doubt they would have taken a similar deal.
But they didn't just buy from JB. Those in the shared house had a stash ready for distribution on campus. SB's WS states she and JM went to a bank branch to obtain plastic money bags to store the stuff ready for sale.
https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing
The penalty is likely to be more severe if you are found to be supplying or dealing drugs. Sharing drugs is also considered supplying.
We don't know who offered up what and when if indeed anything was offered up. In the case of MM I believe he had his house searched and this is how his cannabis plants came to light. MM was interviewed under caution. From what we know it appears JM wasn't interviewed under caution although I suspect in reality she was.
DS Jones told JB SC could not have shot herself twice which we know was wrong based on the pathological evidence. I suspect DS Jones sold it hard to the various witnesses SC was not responsible therefore JB must have been. Coupled with this and the witnesses discharging potential criminal convictions for various offences imo they testified against JB as per police instructions.
-
Big time, little time, either way it is breaking the law with the potential for a fine and/or custodial sentence as follows:
https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing
And in the case of all these middle class people the potential for a criminal record, reputational damage and the ending of careers before they even get started.
I believe EP used this sort of tactic against these middle class people ie 'drugs were found in your home and this will certainly put an end to your hopes of a career in the military/teaching profession'.
It appears EP were well aware JB was growing cannabis at his cottage and distributing via the likes of JM and his mail order business. Why not pursue him over this when he was pursued over OCP and we know EP adopted a heavy handed approach over drugs as evidenced by the way they handled MM over drugs.
The argument EP were interested in the murders not a 'piddly bit of weed' doesn't stand up given JB was charged over OCP.
The argument EP adopted a soft touch with cannabis doesn't stand up given how heavy handed they were with MM and CB.
I get that there would be no point in threatening the potential career of those who are never likely to have one so are you saying that the wrist slapping/threat tactic is only used on those who fit the middle class criteria? Is no other 'class' let off a first offence with just a warning?
IF EP were previously aware of Jeremy's 'cottage industry' it may just have been that it wasn't considered big enough to concern them, OR was it the MM and CB presented themselves as more likely candidates for their interests?
-
But they didn't just buy from JB. Those in the shared house had a stash ready for distribution on campus. SB's WS states she and JM went to a bank branch to obtain plastic money bags to store the stuff ready for sale.
https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing
The penalty is likely to be more severe if you are found to be supplying or dealing drugs. Sharing drugs is also considered supplying.
We don't know who offered up what and when if indeed anything was offered up. In the case of MM I believe he had his house searched and this is how his cannabis plants came to light. MM was interviewed under caution. From what we know it appears JM wasn't interviewed under caution although I suspect in reality she was.
DS Jones told JB SC could not have shot herself twice which we know was wrong based on the pathological evidence. I suspect DS Jones sold it hard to the various witnesses SC was not responsible therefore JB must have been. Coupled with this and the witnesses discharging potential criminal convictions for various offences imo they testified against JB as per police instructions.
It's small time Holly and it's just your 'hunch'. However, he sold it to the others, they had nothing to do with the murder and blackmailing them all into sending an innocent man to prison just isn't likely.
-
I get that there would be no point in threatening the potential career of those who are never likely to have one so are you saying that the wrist slapping/threat tactic is only used on those who fit the middle class criteria? Is no other 'class' let off a first offence with just a warning?
IF EP were previously aware of Jeremy's 'cottage industry' it may just have been that it wasn't considered big enough to concern them, OR was it the MM and CB presented themselves as more likely candidates for their interests?
Well JM certainly appears to have had a successful career in education. What makes you think the others haven't?
I guess the police deploy whatever tactics they feel appropriate and can get away with in order to get the desired results. Someone who has never done an honest days work and has no intention of doing so is unlikely to be bothered by reputational damage, criminal record.
According to JM EP were aware of JB's 'cottage industry' as the drug squad visited pre murders.
-
It's small time Holly and it's just your 'hunch'. However, he sold it to the others, they had nothing to do with the murder and blackmailing them all into sending an innocent man to prison just isn't likely.
It isn't just my 'hunch'. Too many anomalies exist for it not to mean something. I agree the prosecution witnesses had nothing to do with the murders but that doesn't mean to say the police didn't deploy brutal tactics in order to get them to testify.
-
Well JM certainly appears to have had a successful career in education. What makes you think the others haven't?
I guess the police deploy whatever tactics they feel appropriate and can get away with in order to get the desired results. Someone who has never done an honest days work and has no intention of doing so is unlikely to be bothered by reputational damage, criminal record.
According to JM EP were aware of JB's 'cottage industry' as the drug squad visited pre murders.
It would be too much of a coincidence to imagine that the drug squad visited -IF they did, indeed visit, OR if Jeremy told her they visited?- so close to the murders that the drugs investigation was linked in with it. You mention the "stash" that Julie kept. How much adds up to a "stash"? You mention the money bags she got from the bank. How many? Did she specify or did she just ask for some money bags?
-
It isn't just my 'hunch'. Too many anomalies exist for it not to mean something. I agree the prosecution witnesses had nothing to do with the murders but that doesn't mean to say the police didn't deploy brutal tactics in order to get them to testify.
Evidence? Also, given that the details of the drug taking were never a secret, why haven't ANY of them come forward to complain about their treatment at the hands of EP?
-
Without evidence (which doesn't include assumptions) your suggestion that JM's friends were coerced is nothing other then a hunch. Her friends coming forward is a problem if you believe JB is innocent because they had no motive to do so. There needs to be a reason why they would - clearly they MUST have been coerced because ......... ?
-
Evidence? Also, given that the details of the drug taking were never a secret, why haven't ANY of them come forward to complain about their treatment at the hands of EP?
Why would they come forward if they were sold hard on the idea SC could not have shot herself twice and only JB knew of a way to enter and exit leaving the property apparently secure from within. A jury found JB guilty primarily on the silencer evidence which had nothing to do with anyone's testimony so why rock the boat?
-
Without evidence (which doesn't include assumptions) your suggestion that JM's friends were coerced is nothing other then a hunch. Her friends coming forward is a problem if you believe JB is innocent because they had no motive to do so. There needs to be a reason why they would - clearly they MUST have been coerced because ......... ?
I don't think I've ever claimed it was anything other than a theory?
There's no evidence anyone came forward. The police may have deployed a range of tactics eg bugging/surveillance and were one step ahead in knowing what the friends were up to in terms of their drug habits.
The usual motives for providing testimony are altruistic, financial and self-preservation. If the 'friends' were sold the idea JB was responsible and not SC (it was one or the other) then the first applies to all. The second applies to JM and the latter applies to all if they were led to believe any drug related charges were negotiable if they testified against JB ie escape a possible fine/custodial sentence/criminal record.
-
I don't think I've ever claimed it was anything other than a theory?
There's no evidence anyone came forward. The police may have deployed a range of tactics eg bugging/surveillance and were one step ahead in knowing what the friends were up to in terms of their drug habits.
The usual motives for providing testimony are altruistic, financial and self-preservation. If the 'friends' were sold the idea JB was responsible and not SC (it was one or the other) then the first applies to all. The second applies to JM and the latter applies to all if they were led to believe any drug related charges were negotiable if they testified against JB ie escape a possible fine/custodial sentence/criminal record.
It isn't just my 'hunch'. Too many anomalies exist for it not to mean something. I agree the prosecution witnesses had nothing to do with the murders but that doesn't mean to say the police didn't deploy brutal tactics in order to get them to testify.
I think the above is a suggestion than it is MORE than a theory/hunch when in fact it's a complete hunch. Now you're implying that they employed such tactics as bugging devices when there is absolutely no evidence of such. Were they to employ these tactics, it would have been to catch out Bamber, not JM's friends.
A jury found JB guilty primarily on the silencer evidence which had nothing to do with anyone's testimony so why rock the boat?
So why waste time and effort on coercing JM's friends?
You usually have pretty strong arguments (although I may not always agree with them) but this one is a none starter.
-
I think the above is a suggestion than it is MORE than a theory/hunch when in fact it's a complete hunch. Now you're implying that they employed such tactics as bugging devices when there is absolutely no evidence of such. Were they to employ these tactics, it would have been to catch out Bamber, not JM's friends.
So why waste time and effort on coercing JM's friends?
You usually have pretty strong arguments (although I may not always agree with them) but this one is a none starter.
The fact you see it as a non-starter doesn't make it so.
JM's WS's refer to JB's cottage being bugged on morning of 7th Aug. We know for sure JB was placed under surveillance around mid-Sept. The WS's of JM and SB also refer to the drug squad. Imo the reference to bugging and drug squad originate from EP not JM/SB. If the police suspected JM of knowing more than she was letting on they may well have bugged the telephone and/or the house in general she shared with SB et al.
Inconsistencies over the way various witnesses were treated with regards to producing, possessing and selling drugs and other more minor criminal offences are imo pivitol to the case:
- One of the first things JB does upon being told by EP his family are all dead is walk off to the field growing the opium poppies and return clutching a bunch telling Dr Craig the farm has a licence to grow them for the pharma industry. This doesn't makes sense. Firstly the first UK pharma company to receive gov authorization for growing opium poppies was early 21st century. Secondly a licence is not required by farmers to grow opium poppies for the pharma industry. The pharma company requires it as they are responsible for turning a benign plant into a powerful pain killing drug via a chemical process.
- If JB was lying for whatever reason(s) about this then why wouldn't EP take him to task and use it at trial?
- Dr Craig, Chief Sup Harris and DI Miller were all aware opium poppies were growing at WHF. No doubt other officers were aware too. Dr Craig and Chief Sup Harris make reference to such in WS's and actually take a look at the field/poppies. DI Miller mentioned to MM that JB grew opium poppies.
- In JM's WS's she makes ref to smoking marijuana on the night of 6th Aug when JB called at circa 10pm. Other references to recreational drugs include:
- Taking cocaine in a hotel room with a friend called Stephanie and a couple of guys.
- JB growing cannabis inside and outside his cottage
- Tending to JB's cannabis plants ie watering
- JB growing cannabis between the barns at WHF
- MM bringing over seeds for JB to cultivate
- JB looking for distributors
- JM selling on campus
- JM stating the drugs squad had been to JB's cottage pre murders to take a look at his cannabis plants and he destroyed.
- Importing from Holland with JB and BC albeit small quantities
Despite all the above it appears EP did not take any action but did over OCP with JB charged at the local magistrates court. It doesn't even appear JB was asked about drugs during his interviews under caution despite the fact when he was arrested he had cannabis on his person and immediately handed it over. At trial jurors heard about JB's/JM's involvement in the OCP burglary and JM's cheque fraud but nothing about the drugs.
Conversely when MM was interviewed under caution he was asked extensively about his involvement with drugs. He told DI Miller he purchased some cannabis from work colleagues and was told this in itself was a criminal offence. He was also told his cannabis plants had been taken from his home for analysis and he may face criminal charges. He was asked/told about JB growing opium. He was asked whether or not Christine Bacon used cannabis and if so when. She clearly had nothing to do with the murders and yet had her home searched and was taken in for questioning and kept in custody overnight. She then testified against JB at trial by general character assassination.
Imo the likes of JM eta al along with the likes of Christine Bacon were all coerced by EP into believing a) JB was responsible and b) if they didn't cooperate they would face drug related charges.
-
The fact you see it as a non-starter doesn't make it so.
JM's WS's refer to JB's cottage being bugged on morning of 7th Aug. We know for sure JB was placed under surveillance around mid-Sept. The WS's of JM and SB also refer to the drug squad. Imo the reference to bugging and drug squad originate from EP not JM/SB. If the police suspected JM of knowing more than she was letting on they may well have bugged the telephone and/or the house in general she shared with SB et al.
Inconsistencies over the way various witnesses were treated with regards to producing, possessing and selling drugs and other more minor criminal offences are imo pivitol to the case:
- One of the first things JB does upon being told by EP his family are all dead is walk off to the field growing the opium poppies and return clutching a bunch telling Dr Craig the farm has a licence to grow them for the pharma industry. This doesn't makes sense. Firstly the first UK pharma company to receive gov authorization for growing opium poppies was early 21st century. Secondly a licence is not required by farmers to grow opium poppies for the pharma industry. The pharma company requires it as they are responsible for turning a benign plant into a powerful pain killing drug via a chemical process.
- If JB was lying for whatever reason(s) about this then why wouldn't EP take him to task and use it at trial?
- Dr Craig, Chief Sup Harris and DI Miller were all aware opium poppies were growing at WHF. No doubt other officers were aware too. Dr Craig and Chief Sup Harris make reference to such in WS's and actually take a look at the field/poppies. DI Miller mentioned to MM that JB grew opium poppies.
- In JM's WS's she makes ref to smoking marijuana on the night of 6th Aug when JB called at circa 10pm. Other references to recreational drugs include:
- Taking cocaine in a hotel room with a friend called Stephanie and a couple of guys.
- JB growing cannabis inside and outside his cottage
- Tending to JB's cannabis plants ie watering
- JB growing cannabis between the barns at WHF
- MM bringing over seeds for JB to cultivate
- JB looking for distributors
- JM selling on campus
- JM stating the drugs squad had been to JB's cottage pre murders to take a look at his cannabis plants and he destroyed.
- Importing from Holland with JB and BC albeit small quantities
Despite all the above it appears EP did not take any action but did over OCP with JB charged at the local magistrates court. It doesn't even appear JB was asked about drugs during his interviews under caution despite the fact when he was arrested he had cannabis on his person and immediately handed it over. At trial jurors heard about JB's/JM's involvement in the OCP burglary and JM's cheque fraud but nothing about the drugs.
Conversely when MM was interviewed under caution he was asked extensively about his involvement with drugs. He told DI Miller he purchased some cannabis from work colleagues and was told this in itself was a criminal offence. He was also told his cannabis plants had been taken from his home for analysis and he may face criminal charges. He was asked/told about JB growing opium. He was asked whether or not Christine Bacon used cannabis and if so when. She clearly had nothing to do with the murders and yet had her home searched and was taken in for questioning and kept in custody overnight. She then testified against JB at trial by general character assassination.
Imo the likes of JM eta al along with the likes of Christine Bacon were all coerced by EP into believing a) JB was responsible and b) if they didn't cooperate they would face drug related charges.
She didn't say his cottage was bugged she said Jeremy was paranoid about it.
-
She didn't say his cottage was bugged she said Jeremy was paranoid about it.
I didn't say she said his cottage was bugged. I said she referred to his cottage being bugged which she does:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
This clearly makes no sense. If JB really thought his cottage was bugged he was hardly likely to incriminate himself by discussing his involvement, albeit indirectly via MM, and then tell her they shouldn't discuss in the cottage again in case it was bugged! If he really thought his cottage was bugged he would suggest a trip to the local boozer or a walk along the seawall etc. If JB was as loose with his tongue as she apparently claimed then it begs the question why not get a recorded confession out of JB?
-
Did Julie ever say Jeremy discussed himself & MM at his cottage ?
Thought they always discussed it while outside. They both spent a lot time away from the cottage after the massacre.
-
Did Julie ever say Jeremy discussed himself & MM at his cottage ?
Thought they always discussed it while outside. They both spent a lot time away from the cottage after the massacre.
Yes see the links above.
-
Yes see the links above.
That was straight after the massacre. The police would not have decided to or had a chance to bug the cottage.
-
That was straight after the massacre. The police would not have decided to or had a chance to bug the cottage.
It would seem unlikely but the point is this is what JM claimed JB told.
-
It would seem unlikely but the point is this is what JM claimed JB told.
He clearly didn't want to talk about it so just made an excuse. Murderers don't have to make sense.
-
He clearly didn't want to talk about it so just made an excuse. Murderers don't have to make sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zh9zS21wi8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zh9zS21wi8)
-
I didn't say she said his cottage was bugged. I said she referred to his cottage being bugged which she does:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1114
This clearly makes no sense. If JB really thought his cottage was bugged he was hardly likely to incriminate himself by discussing his involvement, albeit indirectly via MM, and then tell her they shouldn't discuss in the cottage again in case it was bugged! If he really thought his cottage was bugged he would suggest a trip to the local boozer or a walk along the seawall etc. If JB was as loose with his tongue as she apparently claimed then it begs the question why not get a recorded confession out of JB?
But is there any indication that Jeremy truly believed the cottage was bugged?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zh9zS21wi8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zh9zS21wi8)
Makes perfect sense and so detailed &%%6 - unbelievable! %56&
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zh9zS21wi8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zh9zS21wi8)
Interesting how the killer attempts to control the conversation with the emergency services operator...classic.
-
Interesting how the killer attempts to control the conversation with the emergency services operator...classic.
Amazing how he had the gall to tell her not to "interrupt the next part" before he gave the full gory details of the murder, and his parting words about how he had to "do his thing"? when the police arrived!!
-
Amazing how he had the gall to tell her not to "interrupt the next part" before he gave the full gory details of the murder, and his parting words about how he had to "do his thing"? when the police arrived!!
Such as submerging his hard drives, usb sticks and mobile phone in the bathroom sink. He must have thought they were grimy and needed a good wash!
https://www.google.com/search?q=lewis+daynes+hard+drives&client=ubuntu&hs=0yO&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-wpbluKLgAhUVgHMKHSzXCMoQ_AUIDigB&biw=1026&bih=870#imgrc=t8wpnQHwnycBhM: (https://www.google.com/search?q=lewis+daynes+hard+drives&client=ubuntu&hs=0yO&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-wpbluKLgAhUVgHMKHSzXCMoQ_AUIDigB&biw=1026&bih=870#imgrc=t8wpnQHwnycBhM:)
-
Such as submerging his hard drives, usb sticks and mobile phone in the bathroom sink. He must have thought they were grimy and needed a good wash!
https://www.google.com/search?q=lewis+daynes+hard+drives&client=ubuntu&hs=0yO&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-wpbluKLgAhUVgHMKHSzXCMoQ_AUIDigB&biw=1026&bih=870#imgrc=t8wpnQHwnycBhM: (https://www.google.com/search?q=lewis+daynes+hard+drives&client=ubuntu&hs=0yO&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-wpbluKLgAhUVgHMKHSzXCMoQ_AUIDigB&biw=1026&bih=870#imgrc=t8wpnQHwnycBhM:)
Wonder if he had anymore luck than Lady Macbeth?
-
Wonder if he had anymore luck than Lady Macbeth?
Or whether he disposed of his nether region accoutrements in the same way as young David?
-
Or whether he disposed of his nether region accoutrements in the same way as young David?
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
what a boring video. how can he call himself a detective, even in the loosest sense of the word lol, he has given nothing new to what is already known and easily found online. as for being unbiased why show, and mention several times, the JB campaign website? there are thousands of images of JB and the case online he could have used.
-
what a boring video. how can he call himself a detective, even in the loosest sense of the word lol, he has given nothing new to what is already known and easily found online. as for being unbiased why show, and mention several times, the JB campaign website? there are thousands of images of JB and the case online he could have used.
The point is, Debcairns, there (probably, just for the sake of correctness!!) isn't anything new.