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: Iggy68 on March 23, 2013, 10:21:30 PM
-
As im new to the site and not aware if a thread has already been posted of the profiling of Bamber i'll start a new one.
Apart from thinking he is a psychopath im inclined to think Jeremy is egotistical too.
I know that any idea of this mentioned on the blue forum just gets poopoo'd
-
As im new to the site and not aware if a thread has already been posted of the profiling of Bamber i'll start a new one.
Apart from thinking he is a psychopath im inclined to think Jeremy is egotistical too.
I know that any idea of this mentioned on the blue forum just gets poopoo'd
Evening Iggy. You have to be careful because it has been shown that young psychopaths can evolve as they move from adulthood to middle age.
What Jeremy Bamber was in 1985 may not be valid in 2013.
-
As im new to the site and not aware if a thread has already been posted of the profiling of Bamber i'll start a new one.
Apart from thinking he is a psychopath im inclined to think Jeremy is egotistical too.
I know that any idea of this mentioned on the blue forum just gets poopoo'd
Evening Iggy. You have to be careful because it has been shown that young psychopaths can evolve as they move from adulthood to middle age.
What Jeremy Bamber was in 1985 may not be valid in 2013.
According to Roger Wilkes, author of Blood Relations, Mrs Bamber also suffered from mental illness. She was treated at a psychiatric hospital during the late 1950's and early 1980's. Sheila Caffell was treated at the same hospital in 1983 and 1985.
Wilkes also states that a few days before Jeremy's trial his QC, Geoffrey Rivlin, sought the opinion of an 'eminent' psychologist who stated that Jeremy showed all the traits of a psychopath. I'm unsure whether this 'eminent' psychologist actually met with Jeremy.
It appears Mr Bamber was the only member of the family not afflicted by either mental illness or psychopathy? >@@(*&)
-
As im new to the site and not aware if a thread has already been posted of the profiling of Bamber i'll start a new one.
Apart from thinking he is a psychopath im inclined to think Jeremy is egotistical too.
I know that any idea of this mentioned on the blue forum just gets poopoo'd
Evening Iggy. You have to be careful because it has been shown that young psychopaths can evolve as they move from adulthood to middle age.
What Jeremy Bamber was in 1985 may not be valid in 2013.
According to Roger Wilkes, author of Blood Relations, Mrs Bamber also suffered from mental illness. She was treated at a psychiatric hospital during the late 1950's and early 1980's. Sheila Caffell was treated at the same hospital in 1983 and 1985.
Wilkes also states that a few days before Jeremy's trial his QC, Geoffrey Rivlin, sought the opinion of an 'eminent' psychologist who stated that Jeremy showed all the traits of a psychopath. I'm unsure whether this 'eminent' psychologist actually met with Jeremy.
It appears Mr Bamber was the only member of the family not afflicted by either mental illness or psychopathy? >@@(*&)
That's very true Holly. It was a cruel coincidence that June, Jeremy and Sheila suffered in such a way when they weren't even related.
-
As im new to the site and not aware if a thread has already been posted of the profiling of Bamber i'll start a new one.
Apart from thinking he is a psychopath im inclined to think Jeremy is egotistical too.
I know that any idea of this mentioned on the blue forum just gets poopoo'd
Evening Iggy. You have to be careful because it has been shown that young psychopaths can evolve as they move from adulthood to middle age.
What Jeremy Bamber was in 1985 may not be valid in 2013.
According to Roger Wilkes, author of Blood Relations, Mrs Bamber also suffered from mental illness. She was treated at a psychiatric hospital during the late 1950's and early 1980's. Sheila Caffell was treated at the same hospital in 1983 and 1985.
Wilkes also states that a few days before Jeremy's trial his QC, Geoffrey Rivlin, sought the opinion of an 'eminent' psychologist who stated that Jeremy showed all the traits of a psychopath. I'm unsure whether this 'eminent' psychologist actually met with Jeremy.
It appears Mr Bamber was the only member of the family not afflicted by either mental illness or psychopathy? >@@(*&)
That's very true Holly. It was a cruel coincidence that both June, Jeremy and Sheila suffered in such a way when they weren't even related.
Quite John. I wonder if a statistician could put a number on it >@@(*&)
Are you able to confirm that Mr Bamber was free of mental illness/personality disorder?
Do you have any knowledge of Mrs Bamber's family and that of Sheila's and Jeremy's natural families in terms of mental illness/personality disorder?
-
Maybe Jeremy Bamber could have an MRI scan to determine if he really is a psychopath
-
Maybe Jeremy Bamber could have an MRI scan to determine if he really is a psychopath
Can they tell from that Iggy? 8-)(--)
-
Maybe Jeremy Bamber could have an MRI scan to determine if he really is a psychopath
Can they tell from that Iggy? 8-)(--)
I've not heard of MRI scans being capable of detecting psychopathic traits 8-)(--) But I think brain imagaing is capable of showing up certain emotions and neuroscience is a branch of science that is coming on leaps and bounds.
I think psychopathy is caused by a lack of empathy 8-)(--) But interestingly those with autistic spectrum disorders often lack empathy and yet in general these individuals are I believe non-violent 8-)(--)
-
Good heavens, what a mess. This sounds as though it was a disaster waiting to happen whoever did it. Although I am now leaning towards Jeremy Bamber, mainly because of lack of glass anywhere on Sheila. But was there any glass on Jeremy?
-
Eleanor, JB wasnt treated as a suspect until a month after the murders, any Glass particles on JB would be long gone by then.
-
You've got to remember that Jeremy wasn't suspected until about a month after the murders so he had plenty of time to dispose of evidence and clean up after himself. Those people who say his body showed no signs of having been in a struggle don't seem to realise that he was never examined because the police saw no need to do so (believing it to be an open and shut case).
-
Well that explains why no glass on Jeremy.
So the police found two gun shells next to Sheila's body. Two gun shot wounds. No evidence that she had been in the kitchen shooting her father. And it didn't occur to them that someone else might have done it? ORLY.
Not sure how The Police proved that Jeremy phoned his girlfriend at 3 am when British Telecom couldn't prove it, but that's by the by. No doubt I will discover a few more discrepancies, but nothing concrete so far.
I wish I had known about this Forum sooner. It is always more interesting to be in at the beginning.
-
You've got to remember that Jeremy wasn't suspected until about a month after the murders so he had plenty of time to dispose of evidence and clean up after himself. Those people who say his body showed no signs of having been in a struggle don't seem to realise that he was never examined because the police saw no need to do so (believing it to be an open and shut case).
Yes but I believe Jeremy was sleeping with his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, after the tragedy and surely she would have said in her witness statements that he had x and/or y scratches, bruises etc. Also shortly after the tragedy Ann Eaton observed Jeremy in a short sleeve shirt and commented in her witness statement that she was surprised to see his arms were free of any scratches, bruises etc. 8-)(--)
-
Well that explains why no glass on Jeremy.
So the police found two gun shells next to Sheila's body. Two gun shot wounds. No evidence that she had been in the kitchen shooting her father. And it didn't occur to them that someone else might have done it? ORLY.
Not sure how The Police proved that Jeremy phoned his girlfriend at 3 am when British Telecom couldn't prove it, but that's by the by. No doubt I will discover a few more discrepancies, but nothing concrete so far.
I wish I had known about this Forum sooner. It is always more interesting to be in at the beginning.
Stan Jones, the detective sergeant who met and interviewed Bamber at WHF and later at his cottage on the morning of the murders had his doubts from the beginning, but he was over-ruled by his superior Taff Jones (who had already made his mind up), which is the way it stayed until Robert Boutflour persuaded higher authority in Essex police to review the case, and Julie Mugford spilled the beans on what her boyfriend had told her of his plans.
Although one shot suicides are the norm, pathologist Peter Vanezis noted that there have been several cases of two shot ones in the past, and because the bullets were only low power .22 calibre used for rabbit shooting this was probably accepted initially by the police.
There were three other flatmates woken by Jeremy's 3am. call to her lodgings, who gave written evidence... this is detailed in the 2002 document that linked to.
-
Maybe Jeremy Bamber could have an MRI scan to determine if he really is a psychopath
Can they tell from that Iggy? 8-)(--)
Was just something i read -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2065161/Psychopaths-arent-just-mentally-different--brains-physically-deformed-prevent-feeling-fear-guilt.html
-
I wish I had known about this Forum sooner. It is always more interesting to be in at the beginning.
I'm glad i came here after the 'Blue' forum... the evidence put forward here makes far more logical sense than the nonsense put forward over on the other site
-
You've got to remember that Jeremy wasn't suspected until about a month after the murders so he had plenty of time to dispose of evidence and clean up after himself. Those people who say his body showed no signs of having been in a struggle don't seem to realise that he was never examined because the police saw no need to do so (believing it to be an open and shut case).
Yes but I believe Jeremy was sleeping with his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, after the tragedy and surely she would have said in her witness statements that he had x and/or y scratches, bruises etc. Also shortly after the tragedy Ann Eaton observed Jeremy in a short sleeve shirt and commented in her witness statement that she was surprised to see his arms were free of any scratches, bruises etc. 8-)(--)
Bamber was in the advantageous position of being fully dressed with body and arms covered up, and in addition he probably wore gloves.
He mentioned to Julie that during the struggle in the kitchen one of the gloves had come off the hitman's hand (who he had supposedly hired).
His parents and sister weren't so lucky, dressed only in flimsy nightwear.
-
I wish I had known about this Forum sooner. It is always more interesting to be in at the beginning.
I'm glad i came here after the 'Blue' forum... the evidence put forward here makes far more logical sense than the nonsense put forward over on the other site
The blue forums idea of evidence is ali bongo and a fictitious mystery man called 'Z' whom Mike Tesko meets in woods. Let's not forget the sky gazing and the photo of Sheila on the bed with one bullet hole in her neck. With followers like Tesko, Bamber will be lucky to ever see the light of day as a free man.
-
You've got to remember that Jeremy wasn't suspected until about a month after the murders so he had plenty of time to dispose of evidence and clean up after himself. Those people who say his body showed no signs of having been in a struggle don't seem to realise that he was never examined because the police saw no need to do so (believing it to be an open and shut case).
Yes but I believe Jeremy was sleeping with his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, after the tragedy and surely she would have said in her witness statements that he had x and/or y scratches, bruises etc. Also shortly after the tragedy Ann Eaton observed Jeremy in a short sleeve shirt and commented in her witness statement that she was surprised to see his arms were free of any scratches, bruises etc. 8-)(--)
Bamber was in the advantageous position of being fully dressed with body and arms covered up, and in addition he probably wore gloves.
He mentioned to Julie that during the struggle in the kitchen one of the gloves had come off the hitman's hand (who he had supposedly hired).
His parents and sister weren't so lucky, dressed only in flimsy nightwear.
Far from being unmarked, Julie was able to report that Jeremy had mysterious marks on the back of one hand. Could this have been the hand which the glove came off? Were these marks made by Nevill in the struggle?
We will never know because they had healed by the time Jeremy was examined by a police doctor.
-
I wish I had known about this Forum sooner. It is always more interesting to be in at the beginning.
I'm glad i came here after the 'Blue' forum... the evidence put forward here makes far more logical sense than the nonsense put forward over on the other site
The blue forums idea of evidence is ali bongo and a fictitious mystery man called 'Z' whom Mike Tesko meets in woods. Let's not forget the sky gazing and the photo of Sheila on the bed with one bullet hole in her neck. With followers like Tesko, Bamber will be lucky to ever see the light of day as a free man.
This Blue Forum sounds a bit David Icky. Not to forget "Sources Close To." Do I really want to go there? I already seem to have been somewhat misinformed.
-
You've got to remember that Jeremy wasn't suspected until about a month after the murders so he had plenty of time to dispose of evidence and clean up after himself. Those people who say his body showed no signs of having been in a struggle don't seem to realise that he was never examined because the police saw no need to do so (believing it to be an open and shut case).
Yes but I believe Jeremy was sleeping with his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, after the tragedy and surely she would have said in her witness statements that he had x and/or y scratches, bruises etc. Also shortly after the tragedy Ann Eaton observed Jeremy in a short sleeve shirt and commented in her witness statement that she was surprised to see his arms were free of any scratches, bruises etc. 8-)(--)
Bamber was in the advantageous position of being fully dressed with body and arms covered up, and in addition he probably wore gloves.
He mentioned to Julie that during the struggle in the kitchen one of the gloves had come off the hitman's hand (who he had supposedly hired).
His parents and sister weren't so lucky, dressed only in flimsy nightwear.
Myster thank you as always. You explain everything so well where would I be without you 8((()*/ Of course Jeremy was covered up and in fact I believe when he arrived at White House Farm he was wearing two jumpers. I wonder if he wore a balaclava to protect his face >@@(*&)
-
You've got to remember that Jeremy wasn't suspected until about a month after the murders so he had plenty of time to dispose of evidence and clean up after himself. Those people who say his body showed no signs of having been in a struggle don't seem to realise that he was never examined because the police saw no need to do so (believing it to be an open and shut case).
Yes but I believe Jeremy was sleeping with his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, after the tragedy and surely she would have said in her witness statements that he had x and/or y scratches, bruises etc. Also shortly after the tragedy Ann Eaton observed Jeremy in a short sleeve shirt and commented in her witness statement that she was surprised to see his arms were free of any scratches, bruises etc. 8-)(--)
Bamber was in the advantageous position of being fully dressed with body and arms covered up, and in addition he probably wore gloves.
He mentioned to Julie that during the struggle in the kitchen one of the gloves had come off the hitman's hand (who he had supposedly hired).
His parents and sister weren't so lucky, dressed only in flimsy nightwear.
Far from being unmarked, Julie was able to report that Jeremy had mysterious marks on the back of one hand. Could this have been the hand which the glove came off? Were these marks made by Nevill in the struggle?
We will never know because they had healed by the time Jeremy was examined by a police doctor.
Quite possibly David. Although Jeremy did work on a farm so he may have innocently acquired the marks on the back of his hand. If Julie thought the marks were mysterious I wonder why she didn't press Jeremy as to what they were?
-
You've got to remember that Jeremy wasn't suspected until about a month after the murders so he had plenty of time to dispose of evidence and clean up after himself. Those people who say his body showed no signs of having been in a struggle don't seem to realise that he was never examined because the police saw no need to do so (believing it to be an open and shut case).
Yes but I believe Jeremy was sleeping with his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, after the tragedy and surely she would have said in her witness statements that he had x and/or y scratches, bruises etc. Also shortly after the tragedy Ann Eaton observed Jeremy in a short sleeve shirt and commented in her witness statement that she was surprised to see his arms were free of any scratches, bruises etc. 8-)(--)
Bamber was in the advantageous position of being fully dressed with body and arms covered up, and in addition he probably wore gloves.
He mentioned to Julie that during the struggle in the kitchen one of the gloves had come off the hitman's hand (who he had supposedly hired).
His parents and sister weren't so lucky, dressed only in flimsy nightwear.
Far from being unmarked, Julie was able to report that Jeremy had mysterious marks on the back of one hand. Could this have been the hand which the glove came off? Were these marks made by Nevill in the struggle?
We will never know because they had healed by the time Jeremy was examined by a police doctor.
Good point Angelo,
moreover, David Boutflour when sitting talking with Jeremy at his cottage shortly after the murders, noticed some scratches on the palm of one of Bamber's hands. Without being prompted Bamber showed him the scratches and offered the explanation that he caught it 'on some barbed wire while working at the farm' and no more was said of it. Stan Jones much later theorised that the scratch(es) could have been made by the sight on end of the barrel of the .22 Anschutz rifle when Nevil unexpectedly fought for his life in the kitchen and probably managed, at one point, to wrest the rifle from Bamber's grasp, When Bamber gained control he swung the gun like a club holding it by the barrel. His hands (one now un-gloved in the struggle) centrifugal force dictates that his hands would have been sliding along the slick barrel with each successive and more ferocious swing. This would have meant that his now sliding grip would have come into contact with the small protruding sight at the end of the barrel with some force and would have undoubtedly scratched Bamber's palm. Although Jones did examine or maybe mention the marks to Bamber it was a pity that more wasn't made of this by DS Jones, but perhaps he knew that it could easily be explained away. (as Bamber had done with Boutflour) >@@(*&)
-
You've got to remember that Jeremy wasn't suspected until about a month after the murders so he had plenty of time to dispose of evidence and clean up after himself. Those people who say his body showed no signs of having been in a struggle don't seem to realise that he was never examined because the police saw no need to do so (believing it to be an open and shut case).
Yes but I believe Jeremy was sleeping with his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, after the tragedy and surely she would have said in her witness statements that he had x and/or y scratches, bruises etc. Also shortly after the tragedy Ann Eaton observed Jeremy in a short sleeve shirt and commented in her witness statement that she was surprised to see his arms were free of any scratches, bruises etc. 8-)(--)
Bamber was in the advantageous position of being fully dressed with body and arms covered up, and in addition he probably wore gloves.
He mentioned to Julie that during the struggle in the kitchen one of the gloves had come off the hitman's hand (who he had supposedly hired).
His parents and sister weren't so lucky, dressed only in flimsy nightwear.
Myster thank you as always. You explain everything so well where would I be without you 8((()*/ Of course Jeremy was covered up and in fact I believe when he arrived at White House Farm he was wearing two jumpers. I wonder if he wore a balaclava to protect his face >@@(*&)
Good point Holly, yes I also believe that Bamber was wearing protective clothing. Some have opined (including me) that he was also wearing his wetsuit top that he used for scuba diving (later found discarded on the farm grounds). This was in an effort to stop blood getting on to his clothing which he undoubtedly knew would occur. I believe he discarded this because it was a summer night and he would have been sweating profusely from his exersions (especially the fight in the kitchen with his father) He faced a frantic cycle ride home and knew he would probably overheat in the non-porous rubber top. At the farm he had already showered with it on so he simply discarded it with little risk of forensics being able to link it to the crime.
-
I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the discarded wetsuit top though.
-
was more made of the fact that when Jeremy arrived at the farm that night to meet the police he was wearing a shirt , 2 jumpers and a jacket ? surely it would be warm enough on an august night not to wear that lot
-
You've got to remember that Jeremy wasn't suspected until about a month after the murders so he had plenty of time to dispose of evidence and clean up after himself. Those people who say his body showed no signs of having been in a struggle don't seem to realise that he was never examined because the police saw no need to do so (believing it to be an open and shut case).
Yes but I believe Jeremy was sleeping with his girlfriend, Julie Mugford, after the tragedy and surely she would have said in her witness statements that he had x and/or y scratches, bruises etc. Also shortly after the tragedy Ann Eaton observed Jeremy in a short sleeve shirt and commented in her witness statement that she was surprised to see his arms were free of any scratches, bruises etc. 8-)(--)
Bamber was in the advantageous position of being fully dressed with body and arms covered up, and in addition he probably wore gloves.
He mentioned to Julie that during the struggle in the kitchen one of the gloves had come off the hitman's hand (who he had supposedly hired).
His parents and sister weren't so lucky, dressed only in flimsy nightwear.
Myster thank you as always. You explain everything so well where would I be without you 8((()*/ Of course Jeremy was covered up and in fact I believe when he arrived at White House Farm he was wearing two jumpers. I wonder if he wore a balaclava to protect his face >@@(*&)
Good point Holly, yes I also believe that Bamber was wearing protective clothing. Some have opined (including me) that he was also wearing his wetsuit top that he used for scuba diving (later found discarded on the farm grounds). This was in an effort to stop blood getting on to his clothing which he undoubtedly knew would occur. I believe he discarded this because it was a summer night and he would have been sweating profusely from his exersions (especially the fight in the kitchen with his father) He faced a frantic cycle ride home and knew he would probably overheat in the non-porous rubber top. At the farm he had already showered with it on so he simply discarded it with little risk of forensics being able to link it to the crime.
Hello Starryian you sound like a bit of a legend on this forum 8**8:/:
Do you think that Mr Bamber might have had some RAF issued protection eg a chemical suit which he retained and kept in the attic? Jeremy might have been aware of this and used for the ultimate protection?
-
I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the discarded wetsuit top though.
Agreed Goatboy. It sounds a high risk strategy to just discard it within the vicinity. I think I read somewhere it was seized by the police and analysed but nothing of interest was found.
-
Jeremy definitely had no visible marks to his face eg fingernail scratches, cuts from the broken lampshade, bruising from potential scuffle with Mr Bamber etc. How did he protect his face and eyes? Could he have worn a drysuit or wetsuit hood?
-
Jeremy definitely had no visible marks to his face eg fingernail scratches, cuts from the broken lampshade, bruising from potential scuffle with Mr Bamber etc. How did he protect his face and eyes? Could he have worn a drysuit or wetsuit hood?
a simple balaclava might have been enough to protect his face from scratches
-
Good point Angelo,
moreover, David Boutflour when sitting talking with Jeremy at his cottage shortly after the murders, noticed some scratches on the palm of one of Bamber's hands. Without being prompted Bamber showed him the scratches and offered the explanation that he caught it 'on some barbed wire while working at the farm' and no more was said of it. Stan Jones much later theorised that the scratch(es) could have been made by the sight on end of the barrel of the .22 Anschutz rifle when Nevil unexpectedly fought for his life in the kitchen and probably managed, at one point, to wrest the rifle from Bamber's grasp, When Bamber gained control he swung the gun like a club holding it by the barrel. His hands (one now un-gloved in the struggle) centrifugal force dictates that his hands would have been sliding along the slick barrel with each successive and more ferocious swing. This would have meant that his now sliding grip would have come into contact with the small protruding sight at the end of the barrel with some force and would have undoubtedly scratched Bamber's palm. Although Jones did examine or maybe mention the marks to Bamber it was a pity that more wasn't made of this by DS Jones, but perhaps he knew that it could easily be explained away. (as Bamber had done with Boutflour) >@@(*&)
Hi Ian, I think I welcomed you back already 8((()*/ Are you still working overseas?
I subscribe to what you have just posted but I didn't realise that Jeremy had other marks on the inside of his hand. I wonder is that the same hand?
What you have explained certainly makes very great sense, he would be holding the rifle by the barrel and swinging it like a club against Nevill and managed to clip the glass lamp shade. It must have taken quite a bit of force to break that piece off the stock too. I assume the stock must have come into contact with some very hard object to do such damage.
-
There must have been a fight of some kind with an object of some kind, to break the lamp shade. So why not a fight over the gun. Hardly likely to have been Sheila in that case.
Just musing.
-
Jeremy definitely had no visible marks to his face eg fingernail scratches, cuts from the broken lampshade, bruising from potential scuffle with Mr Bamber etc. How did he protect his face and eyes? Could he have worn a drysuit or wetsuit hood?
a simple balaclava might have been enough to protect his face from scratches
Agreed Iggy68 but I believe Jeremy was very image conscious so he probably wanted it all matching. Typical psychopath - shallow
-
There must have been a fight of some kind with an object of some kind, to break the lamp shade. So why not a fight over the gun. Hardly likely to have been Sheila in that case.
Just musing.
Eleanor I think I read somewhere that the lampshade may have already been broken as there was no glass found on the floor. I think when the relatives went in on the Friday they noticed the broken lampshade and assumed it was broken in the scuffle between Mr Bamber and either Jeremy or Sheila. I am not sure how reliable this is though. I'm new to the case. Perhaps one of the more experienced posters will know. ?{)(**
-
There must have been a fight of some kind with an object of some kind, to break the lamp shade. So why not a fight over the gun. Hardly likely to have been Sheila in that case.
Just musing.
Eleanor I think I read somewhere that the lampshade may have already been broken as there was no glass found on the floor. I think when the relatives went in on the Friday they noticed the broken lampshade and assumed it was broken in the scuffle between Mr Bamber and either Jeremy or Sheila. I am not sure how reliable this is though. I'm new to the case. Perhaps one of the more experienced posters will know. ?{)(**
Someone cited Sheila's innocence because she couldn't have been in the kitchen because there was no glass on her feet or clothing. So now I am lost again. That was my main reason for thinking her innocent.
-
Good point Angelo,
moreover, David Boutflour when sitting talking with Jeremy at his cottage shortly after the murders, noticed some scratches on the palm of one of Bamber's hands. Without being prompted Bamber showed him the scratches and offered the explanation that he caught it 'on some barbed wire while working at the farm' and no more was said of it. Stan Jones much later theorised that the scratch(es) could have been made by the sight on end of the barrel of the .22 Anschutz rifle when Nevil unexpectedly fought for his life in the kitchen and probably managed, at one point, to wrest the rifle from Bamber's grasp, When Bamber gained control he swung the gun like a club holding it by the barrel. His hands (one now un-gloved in the struggle) centrifugal force dictates that his hands would have been sliding along the slick barrel with each successive and more ferocious swing. This would have meant that his now sliding grip would have come into contact with the small protruding sight at the end of the barrel with some force and would have undoubtedly scratched Bamber's palm. Although Jones did examine or maybe mention the marks to Bamber it was a pity that more wasn't made of this by DS Jones, but perhaps he knew that it could easily be explained away. (as Bamber had done with Boutflour) >@@(*&)
Hi Ian, I think I welcomed you back already 8((()*/ Are you still working overseas?
I subscribe to what you have just posted but I didn't realise that Jeremy had other marks on the inside of his hand. I wonder is that the same hand?
What you have explained certainly makes very great sense, he would be holding the rifle by the barrel and swinging it like a club against Nevill and managed to clip the glass lamp shade. It must have taken quite a bit of force to break that piece off the stock too. I assume the stock must have come into contact with some very hard object to do such damage.
Hi John
Yes still overseas until the summer when I return to good old Blighty and devote some serious time to the excellent points raised on the forum. A very shrewd observation John, yes the glass lampshade - I'd quite forgotten that. It was probably broken as a result of the rifle being used as a club by Bamber. It also shows just how much Bamber was swinging it, and how far back each swing was aimed. The sheer ferociousness of the battering that Nevil received resulted in the wooden stock of the rifle being splintered and broken (a large piece was later discovered on the kitchen floor, as was Nevil's bloody wristw..ch (under a rug) This aspect of the crime was the turning point for me when I first read it, way back when. It was just not credible that the waif-like Sheila would have been able to muster such force 1. To wrest the rifle back from his strong grasp and 2. To batter him unconscious with unimaginable ferocity and callousness. I suspect that Bamber frogmarched Nevil to the kitchen in order to construct his later alibi of a distressed call from the farm. This was after shooting and wounding him in the bedroom. Bamber's plan almost went awry due to the fact that he had Nevil where he wanted him in the kitchen (by the sideboard as Nevil's blood was found here) and pulled the trigger and got the 'dead man's click' - He'd run out of bullets. Nevil saw his chance and went for it - severely injured though he was - grabbed the rifle. The two fought - one for life the other for death. After finally wresting the weapon from the severely injured man, Bamber proceeded to batter him - I believe it was here that Bamber sustained the scratches on the palm of his hand- until he was no longer a threat swinging the rifle like a club. The gunshot wounds to Nevil suggest that he was shot primarily where he sat or lay - across a chair, but (this is where I am almost certain) Bamber shot Nevil while he was standing on the other side of the kitchen table (the ballistic evidence substantiates this) There was a reason why Bamber did not finish Nevil off at close range and stood the other side of the table; because that's where the ammo was; on top of the kitchen sideboard, hastily pulled out of it's box. This was certainly not the work of a deranged woman, the evidence does not bear this out at all, but a young, fit determined and ruthless man. That man can only have been Jeremy Bamber.
-
There must have been a fight of some kind with an object of some kind, to break the lamp shade. So why not a fight over the gun. Hardly likely to have been Sheila in that case.
Just musing.
You're right Eleanor. The fight was over possession of the gun. Nevil was 6ft 4" tall, some 15 stones and very strong. A common myth is that Nevil was 'very old' He was not. Nevil had just turned 61, not even retirement age for a man.
To put this into perspective Sir Paul McCartney is 72 years old (we all love him) - some 11 years older than Nevil. He plays sell out concerts around the world and is still a huge draw and shows no signs of slowing down.(I am a big fan) 8((()*/
Workwise, Nevil Bamber was much the same. He had a work ethic that put men half his age to shame. He would regularly show the casual workers on the farm how to throw an impossibly heavy bail of hay onto a tractor trailer (no mean feat) and accomplish this with relative ease.
In short Nevil was a strong, powerful, working man. The 8 stone uncoordinated and waif-like Sheila Caffell would have been absolutely no match for him at all - deranged or not. This wholly absurd suggestion was what DS Stan Jones first suspect all was not what it seemed at the farm.
-
Gosh Starryian your posts above almost freaked me out as I felt we were there witnessing the event.
The pathologists report (page 10) states that Mr Bamber put up a "spirited defence". He also states that he was unable to tell whether Sheila had been murdered or committed suicide. If he thought Sheila could not have been the perpetrator due to the "spirited defence" surely he would have said? A pathologist is after all highly skilled and trained in such matters are they not?
I think some view women as passive due to the way they were portrayed in the media. I am very petite and feminine and yet I play fly-half for my uni's rugby team. I'm around 1.61 meteres and 53 kg and yet when I train with the team I can lift heavier weights that some of the bigger girls.
The US now allows women to fight on the front line. There is virtually nothing a woman can't do that a man can and vice-versa. To say otherwise I think could be seen as sexist.
-
Eleanor I think I read somewhere that the lampshade may have already been broken as there was no glass found on the floor. I think when the relatives went in on the Friday they noticed the broken lampshade and assumed it was broken in the scuffle between Mr Bamber and either Jeremy or Sheila. I am not sure how reliable this is though. I'm new to the case. Perhaps one of the more experienced posters will know. ?{)(**
No Holly, glass was all over the floor. If I may borrow from one of Ian's earlier posts...
A very good point. Furthermore after thinking this through carefully you may also like to consider this point. During the struggle in the kitchen a glass, ornamental lampshade hanging at least 7-8 feet above the kitchen table was broken. This can clearly be seen in crime scene photos. The glass was the type that is thin and will fragment exponentially and into a multitude of small pieces when broken violently and will spread over a wide area. The TFT mentioned in their logs that on their journey through the kitchen a 'crunching noise was widely heard' . It was inconceivable that Sheila Caffell did not show any signs of having walked upon or trod on this glass if she was present in the kitchen. The barefoot Sheila would have almost certainly have acquired at the very least; small nicks on the bottoms of her feet along with other glass residue (from the broken sugar bowl found at the scene) None was ever found. In fact, her feet were perfectly clean. Totally inconsistent with her alleged presence in the kitchen. My conclusion is straightforward and hardly surprising - Sheila was not present in the kitchen and therefore could not have murdered her father. Due to his phone call to the police claiming that 'Sheila had gone nuts with the gun' along with his claim that his father make a phone call (the kitchen phone was the only usable phone found in the house); leaves only ONE individual that could have done the deed - Jeremy Bamber. It is highly improbable to arrive to any other conclusion.
-
Eleanor I think I read somewhere that the lampshade may have already been broken as there was no glass found on the floor. I think when the relatives went in on the Friday they noticed the broken lampshade and assumed it was broken in the scuffle between Mr Bamber and either Jeremy or Sheila. I am not sure how reliable this is though. I'm new to the case. Perhaps one of the more experienced posters will know. ?{)(**
No Holly, glass was all over the floor. If I may borrow from one of Ian's earlier posts...
A very good point. Furthermore after thinking this through carefully you may also like to consider this point. During the struggle in the kitchen a glass, ornamental lampshade hanging at least 7-8 feet above the kitchen table was broken. This can clearly be seen in crime scene photos. The glass was the type that is thin and will fragment exponentially and into a multitude of small pieces when broken violently and will spread over a wide area. The TFT mentioned in their logs that on their journey through the kitchen a 'crunching noise was widely heard' . It was inconceivable that Sheila Caffell did not show any signs of having walked upon or trod on this glass if she was present in the kitchen. The barefoot Sheila would have almost certainly have acquired at the very least; small nicks on the bottoms of her feet along with other glass residue (from the broken sugar bowl found at the scene) None was ever found. In fact, her feet were perfectly clean. Totally inconsistent with her alleged presence in the kitchen. My conclusion is straightforward and hardly surprising - Sheila was not present in the kitchen and therefore could not have murdered her father. Due to his phone call to the police claiming that 'Sheila had gone nuts with the gun' along with his claim that his father make a phone call (the kitchen phone was the only usable phone found in the house); leaves only ONE individual that could have done the deed - Jeremy Bamber. It is highly improbable to arrive to any other conclusion.
Thank God for that. I was only just in the process of changing my mind about Mr. Jeremy Bamber, something that I do not do easily.
To me The Glass on the kitchen floor is the deciding factor.
-
Eleanor I think I read somewhere that the lampshade may have already been broken as there was no glass found on the floor. I think when the relatives went in on the Friday they noticed the broken lampshade and assumed it was broken in the scuffle between Mr Bamber and either Jeremy or Sheila. I am not sure how reliable this is though. I'm new to the case. Perhaps one of the more experienced posters will know. ?{)(**
No Holly, glass was all over the floor. If I may borrow from one of Ian's earlier posts...
A very good point. Furthermore after thinking this through carefully you may also like to consider this point. During the struggle in the kitchen a glass, ornamental lampshade hanging at least 7-8 feet above the kitchen table was broken. This can clearly be seen in crime scene photos. The glass was the type that is thin and will fragment exponentially and into a multitude of small pieces when broken violently and will spread over a wide area. The TFT mentioned in their logs that on their journey through the kitchen a 'crunching noise was widely heard' . It was inconceivable that Sheila Caffell did not show any signs of having walked upon or trod on this glass if she was present in the kitchen. The barefoot Sheila would have almost certainly have acquired at the very least; small nicks on the bottoms of her feet along with other glass residue (from the broken sugar bowl found at the scene) None was ever found. In fact, her feet were perfectly clean. Totally inconsistent with her alleged presence in the kitchen. My conclusion is straightforward and hardly surprising - Sheila was not present in the kitchen and therefore could not have murdered her father. Due to his phone call to the police claiming that 'Sheila had gone nuts with the gun' along with his claim that his father make a phone call (the kitchen phone was the only usable phone found in the house); leaves only ONE individual that could have done the deed - Jeremy Bamber. It is highly improbable to arrive to any other conclusion.
Thank God for that. I was only just in the process of changing my mind about Mr. Jeremy Bamber, something that I do not do easily.
To me The Glass on the kitchen floor is the deciding factor.
Eleanor hi. I have read that a bowl of sugar was knocked off the kitchen table by the raid team upon entering and that this can account for the crunching sound and possible broken crockery. Unsure about this though. Best to rely on one of the more experienced posters. My knowledge about this case is better than the McCann case but still limited. I hadn't heard of this case up until a month ago.
-
Gosh Starryian your posts above almost freaked me out as I felt we were there witnessing the event.
The pathologists report (page 10) states that Mr Bamber put up a "spirited defence". He also states that he was unable to tell whether Sheila had been murdered or committed suicide. If he thought Sheila could not have been the perpetrator due to the "spirited defence" surely he would have said? A pathologist is after all highly skilled and trained in such matters are they not?
I think some view women as passive due to the way they were portrayed in the media. I am very petite and feminine and yet I play fly-half for my uni's rugby team. I'm around 1.61 meteres and 53 kg and yet when I train with the team I can lift heavier weights that some of the bigger girls.
The US now allows women to fight on the front line. There is virtually nothing a woman can't do that a man can and vice-versa. To say otherwise I think could be seen as sexist.
Hi Holly and thank you for the reply. I stand by what I say there is no way that Sheila could have physically have tackled Nevil. This is not a generic statement regarding all women, but one merely pointed towards the evidence of Sheila and her condition at the time she was murdered. She was left physically weak and very uncoordinated due to her medication. There is absolutely nothing sexist about it.
-
I don't really know. Holly Goodhead. My knowledge of The McCann Case is vast, if not absolutely total. While my knowledge of Jeremy Bamber is limited.
I came into this discussion pretty certain in my own mind that Jeremy Bamber could be innocent. I am no longer anywhere near so sure. And it didn't take me all that long to question my previous conceptions.
There are some points of evidence that are fundamental, and you only need a couple of those. The rest is just dressing.
It is very doubtful that Sheila could have fought and won a physical battle against Neville Bamber.
I also am very strong physically, but i have yet to meet a man that I could beat in a stand up punch up. And I feel no shame about this. It is just a fact of life.
So why would she then go back upstairs and shoot herself twice when the first shot would almost certainly have disabled her?
This does not make sense. I suspect that Sheila never went downstairs in the first place. I also now suspect That Jeremy shot her twice because the first shot didn't actually kill her.
-
There is more to it than just the glass also Eleanor. A bowl of sugar had been upset onto the floor. It would also be inconceivable that a barefoot Sheila didnt manage to pick any of the glass or sugar up on the soles of her feet, especially when she is supposed to been in a vicious fight with her father in the kitchen. Put succinctly, she was not in the kitchen. Nor was she in a fight with her father - there is absolutely no evidence of either event happening whatsoever. This of course has enormous implications for Jeremy Bamber who claimed on the phone to a police officer that 'My father just phoned, he told me that Sheila has gone crazy and has got the gun' With this statement Eleanor, Bamber made it two horse race. It was either Sheila (if you believe Bamber's version of events) OR he was lying about that phonecall. The only possible reason for Bamber to lie about that phone call can only be that he was involved. There is no other scenario. Now if we look realistically at the evidence of Sheila's possible culpability, it amounts to absolutely zero. No blood on her pristine nightdress (inconceivable if she's just been in a brutal fight with her father) No debris on the soles of her feet (equally inconceivable if you couple this with the first point)
and she had managed to shoot herself twice (this is theoretically possible at least, but I do not believe she was conscious after the first shot - a sub-sonic bullet travelling into her chin at that speed would have knocked her unconscious, considering that the hardened chin of a heavyweight boxer meets the same unconscious state with just a fifty pounds of concussive pressure applied to the same area)
In sum, Eleanor, Bamber made his fatal mistake with the story about that phone call. It instantly closed the notion of any other person being responsible but Sheila or himself, and as we have seen she could not have been involved.
Bamber is undoubtedly guilty.
-
I don't really know. Holly Goodhead. My knowledge of The McCann Case is vast, if not absolutely total. While my knowledge of Jeremy Bamber is limited.
I came into this discussion pretty certain in my own mind that Jeremy Bamber could be innocent. I am no longer anywhere near so sure. And it didn't take me all that long to question my previous conceptions.
There are some points of evidence that are fundamental, and you only need a couple of those. The rest is just dressing.
It is very doubtful that Sheila could have fought and won a physical battle against Neville Bamber.
I also am very strong physically, but i have yet to meet a man that I could beat in a stand up punch up. And I feel no shame about this. It is just a fact of life.
So why would she then go back upstairs and shoot herself twice when the first shot would almost certainly have disabled her?
This does not make sense. I suspect that Sheila never went downstairs in the first place. I also now suspect That Jeremy shot her twice because the first shot didn't actually kill her.
Yes you might be right Eleanor. At uni we are always told "think critically" 8-)(--). I try not to assume too much. I think if it is so obvious then why did the police initially go down the 4 murders/1 suicide route? Also when presented with the victims, crime scene etc why did the pathologist not think it strange? Even when the pathologist was told the police enquiry was moving in a different direction he still maintained he was unable to confirm whether Sheila was murdered or committed suicide. Even two of the jurors at trial returned not guilty verdicts. I remind myself that Mr Bamber had already been shot four times by the time he reached the kitchen and might easily have been overpowered. The pathologist makes reference to traces of cannabis and Sheila's medication being present in her system but the pathologist would surely have known if this would have prevented Sheila from potentially overpowering her father due to uncoordination etc.
Re the two shots to Sheila, again the pathologist states he is unable to tell whether it is a case of murder or suicide.
Anyway need to get ready now for a girls night out on the town 8(>((
-
I don't really know. Holly Goodhead. My knowledge of The McCann Case is vast, if not absolutely total. While my knowledge of Jeremy Bamber is limited.
I came into this discussion pretty certain in my own mind that Jeremy Bamber could be innocent. I am no longer anywhere near so sure. And it didn't take me all that long to question my previous conceptions.
There are some points of evidence that are fundamental, and you only need a couple of those. The rest is just dressing.
It is very doubtful that Sheila could have fought and won a physical battle against Neville Bamber.
I also am very strong physically, but i have yet to meet a man that I could beat in a stand up punch up. And I feel no shame about this. It is just a fact of life.
So why would she then go back upstairs and shoot herself twice when the first shot would almost certainly have disabled her?
This does not make sense. I suspect that Sheila never went downstairs in the first place. I also now suspect That Jeremy shot her twice because the first shot didn't actually kill her.
I think Eleanor that Sheila did not go downstairs at all. Nothing on her person was found to indicate that she did. I believe that Bamber shot the twins first - then nevil hearing the noise got out of bed only to meet Jeremy on the landing (the bullet casing evidence bears this out) who then shot Nevil and wounded him. Nevil retreated into the bedroom, where he obviously tried to protect his wife June. Bamber callously shot June while she was sitting up in bed and shot Nevil a second time, whereupon he frogmarched him (Evidence of gun barrel marks on his back may bear this out) down to the kitchen, where the fight took place. Bamber then went back upstairs and saw June still moving. He stood over her and shot her once between the eyes killing her instantly. It was not that he entered the room of the heavily sedated Sheila, whom he aroused from her sleep and walked her to the main bedroom where she would have seen the body of her mother June. I believe that Bamber threatened Sheila with the life of her children if she did not cooperate (she did not know they were aleady dead) He coerced her into putting the rifle under her chin and he pulled the trigger. To his chargrin, Sheila was still alive, so he shot her again, this time fatally. He then showered and climbed out of the kitchen window and cycled home to make his 'father just phoned me' phone call.
-
There is more to it than just the glass also Eleanor. A bowl of sugar had been upset onto the floor. It would also be inconceivable that a barefoot Sheila didnt manage to pick any of the glass or sugar up on the soles of her feet, especially when she is supposed to been in a vicious fight with her father in the kitchen. Put succinctly, she was not in the kitchen. Nor was she in a fight with her father - there is absolutely no evidence of either event happening whatsoever. This of course has enormous implications for Jeremy Bamber who claimed on the phone to a police officer that 'My father just phoned, he told me that Sheila has gone crazy and has got the gun' With this statement Eleanor, Bamber made it two horse race. It was either Sheila (if you believe Bamber's version of events) OR he was lying about that phonecall. The only possible reason for Bamber to lie about that phone call can only be that he was involved. There is no other scenario. Now if we look realistically at the evidence of Sheila's possible culpability, it amounts to absolutely zero. No blood on her pristine nightdress (inconceivable if she's just been in a brutal fight with her father) No debris on the soles of her feet (equally inconceivable if you couple this with the first point)
and she had managed to shoot herself twice (this is theoretically possible at least, but I do not believe she was conscious after the first shot - a sub-sonic bullet travelling into her chin at that speed would have knocked her unconscious, considering that the hardened chin of a heavyweight boxer meets the same unconscious state with just a fifty pounds of concussive pressure applied to the same area)
In sum, Eleanor, Bamber made his fatal mistake with the story about that phone call. It instantly closed the notion of any other person being responsible but Sheila or himself, and as we have seen she could not have been involved.
Bamber is undoubtedly guilty.
Yep, I get all of that, Ian. Jeremy Bamber precluded any other explanation by his reporting of the phone call from his father. Glaringly obvious. If it wasn't Sheila then it had to be him. And I don't suppose you need me to explain why. Although I could if it was necessary.
The fact remains that Sheila could almost certainly not have done it because evidence puts her somewhere else at the time, without any evidence that she was ever in the kitchen when Nevile was shot to death.
I have already conceded defeat. And it only took me half of a day of reading proven evidence.
I am a bit sad about this, but thar you go.
-
I don't really know. Holly Goodhead. My knowledge of The McCann Case is vast, if not absolutely total. While my knowledge of Jeremy Bamber is limited.
I came into this discussion pretty certain in my own mind that Jeremy Bamber could be innocent. I am no longer anywhere near so sure. And it didn't take me all that long to question my previous conceptions.
There are some points of evidence that are fundamental, and you only need a couple of those. The rest is just dressing.
It is very doubtful that Sheila could have fought and won a physical battle against Neville Bamber.
I also am very strong physically, but i have yet to meet a man that I could beat in a stand up punch up. And I feel no shame about this. It is just a fact of life.
So why would she then go back upstairs and shoot herself twice when the first shot would almost certainly have disabled her?
This does not make sense. I suspect that Sheila never went downstairs in the first place. I also now suspect That Jeremy shot her twice because the first shot didn't actually kill her.
Yes you might be right Eleanor. At uni we are always told "think critically" 8-)(--). I try not to assume too much. I think if it is so obvious then why did the police initially go down the 4 murders/1 suicide route? Also when presented with the victims, crime scene etc why did the pathologist not think it strange? Even when the pathologist was told the police enquiry was moving in a different direction he still maintained he was unable to confirm whether Sheila was murdered or committed suicide. Even two of the jurors at trial returned not guilty verdicts. I remind myself that Mr Bamber had already been shot four times by the time he reached the kitchen and might easily have been overpowered. The pathologist makes reference to traces of cannabis and Sheila's medication being present in her system but the pathologist would surely have known if this would have prevented Sheila from potentially overpowering her father due to uncoordination etc.
Re the two shots to Sheila, again the pathologist states he is unable to tell whether it is a case of murder or suicide.
Anyway need to get ready now for a girls night out on the town 8(>((
Holly, this is the crux of this case. The police were duped from the start. Bamber had already painted the picture for them, telling them that his sister was 'a nutter' a 'dangerous woman who was deranged'. This was the mindset of the police that morning. The pathologists job is not to investigate - that is for the police. They are there to give their scientific opinion according to the evidence there at the scene to determine how somone died. The pathologist in this case stated he did not know. He was also being badgered by one Chief Investigator DCI Jones. A man who seems to have already made up his mind that it was four murders and a suicide. Despite some serious misgivings from junior officers, most noticably namesake Detective Sargeant Stan Jones. DCI Jones promptly ignored their misgivings and promptly went off to finish a game of golf at the local course. Furthermore, the scene was also badly handled and mismanaged by SOCO DI Cooke and much vital evidence was lost. Bamber even managed to convince police to destroy evidence shortly after the murders - such was the mindset of the police at the time. A 1992 City of London Police Review (COLP) Heavily criticised the shoddy police investigation with DCI Jones (By then deceased) coming in for most of the criticism for the mindset of the police that day. However, the report did highlight that althought the inital investigation was perfunctory the follow up was very thorough and managed to unmask the real culprit.
The poor quality of the initial investigation has given Bamber and his cronies leverage to question his conviction numerous times over the last 26 years or so. In the meantime he has also developed a habit of changing or inserting scenarios as and when they are offered to him by his supporters. Put simply, he is guilty and true-to-form has tried to squirm out of his rightful punishment. It has failed, just like his evil plan on the night of August 7th/8th 1985.
The two jurors could not make up their minds as to the guilt or innocence of Bamber but 10 DID. A 10-2 majority is all that is needed to secure a conviction. That conviction has stood the test of time, Bambers versions have not.
-
There is more to it than just the glass also Eleanor. A bowl of sugar had been upset onto the floor. It would also be inconceivable that a barefoot Sheila didnt manage to pick any of the glass or sugar up on the soles of her feet, especially when she is supposed to been in a vicious fight with her father in the kitchen. Put succinctly, she was not in the kitchen. Nor was she in a fight with her father - there is absolutely no evidence of either event happening whatsoever. This of course has enormous implications for Jeremy Bamber who claimed on the phone to a police officer that 'My father just phoned, he told me that Sheila has gone crazy and has got the gun' With this statement Eleanor, Bamber made it two horse race. It was either Sheila (if you believe Bamber's version of events) OR he was lying about that phonecall. The only possible reason for Bamber to lie about that phone call can only be that he was involved. There is no other scenario. Now if we look realistically at the evidence of Sheila's possible culpability, it amounts to absolutely zero. No blood on her pristine nightdress (inconceivable if she's just been in a brutal fight with her father) No debris on the soles of her feet (equally inconceivable if you couple this with the first point)
and she had managed to shoot herself twice (this is theoretically possible at least, but I do not believe she was conscious after the first shot - a sub-sonic bullet travelling into her chin at that speed would have knocked her unconscious, considering that the hardened chin of a heavyweight boxer meets the same unconscious state with just a fifty pounds of concussive pressure applied to the same area)
In sum, Eleanor, Bamber made his fatal mistake with the story about that phone call. It instantly closed the notion of any other person being responsible but Sheila or himself, and as we have seen she could not have been involved.
Bamber is undoubtedly guilty.
Yep, I get all of that, Ian. Jeremy Bamber precluded any other explanation by his reporting of the phone call from his father. Glaringly obvious. If it wasn't Sheila then it had to be him. And I don't suppose you need me to explain why. Although I could if it was necessary.
The fact remains that Sheila could almost certainly not have done it because evidence puts her somewhere else at the time, without any evidence that she was ever in the kitchen when Nevile was shot to death.
I have already conceded defeat. And it only took me half of a day of reading proven evidence.
I am a bit sad about this, but thar you go.
Eleanor, it is not defeat but merely an awakening. I too initially thought he was innocent until I looked deeper in to the case and found, somewhat to my disgust, that he was not only guilty but an incredibly devious, manipulative and evil man. The more I looked at his actions, his way of life, the more I became convinced that he was a psychopath that very nearly got away with a truly despicable crime. I think you are a questioning and somewhat clever woman. This is why you are here. You have searched for answers. Often it is not what we expect or hope to find, but we find it nonetheless. Keep posting Eleanor, your posts are excellent. 8@??)( 8((()*/
-
Holly, since you have raised the issue of the smashed glass light shade and suggested that there was no glass found on the kitchen floor I must draw your attention to the trial transcript below when the then SOCO DC Hammersley was questioned at trial.
I don't know who told you that there was no glass on the floor but they were wrong. There was also crockery scattered about the kitchen floor.
There exists somewhere photographs of this but they are yet to appear.
-
Thank you, Ian. I don't know if I am clever or not. I only think that I am logical. But a lot of other people think that without it being necessarily true.
Basically, I am a mathematician, albeit without formal qualification. But adding two plus two was never difficult for the likes of me, presuming that you know what two and two is. So therefor you should never jump to conclusion if you don't have all of the facts. I did do this with Jeremy Bamber, so more shame on me.
I did most definitely not come here to defend The McCanns, although Logistics tell me that they cannot possibly have done what they have been accused of. Mathematics again. Some things are just not logistically possible. But that is by the by on this Thread.
I followed The Casey Anthony Trial from start to finish. And not once did The Prosecution convince me that Casey had deliberately killed that child. So what she might have done became irrelevant. But this was America where more Miscarriages of Justice happen than I can bear to think of. And yes, they do seriously upset me. And I did take some serious lambasting on that one. So I am not afraid to go against the grain.
Not that Britain hasn't had a few of it's own. And we had a very serious Case in France not so long ago, which was eventually proved to be false. Unfortunately, I am not very good at arguing in French, so I wasn't of much use.
The only other one in France that I was alerted to resulted in his decapitation before I ever became aware of it. So my concerns were a bit too late for him.
But if any of you ever feel inclined to take up the cudgels for Leonor Cipriano in Portugal, then that might be a good one.
Sorry if I have gone off topic. I appear to have been wrong about Jeremy Bamber. But I am not always wrong.
-
Thank you very much for that Eleanor,
A very interesting posting. I agree that evidence is key, but I also belive that in cases involving human beings to use your instinct as well. The two combined helps police all over the world to set in mention an investigation and by using logical analysis decide to prosecute or not. I very much agree with you on the appalling rate of miscarriages of justice, especially in America, where the system is dare I say 'deeply flawed'. Having lived in America for some years, I got to witness many miscarriages. I used the term 'miscarriages' not just wheree the state have convicted an innocent person but where a clearly guilty person has gotten away with it. (OJ Simpson being the most notable example) It is a judicial system based on presentation, plea bargaining, acting and drama. This is why large trials in America focuses rather uncomfortably on the jury members and often interviews them and in some cases have paid ex jury members to make their own TV shows. It is a system that allows the 'attorneys' to become a high focus of attention (Who can but fail to remember high-priced antics of Johnny Cochran at O.Js trail?)
Moreover, miscarriages of justice especially involving the death penalty are rarely corrected and is the decision of the State Governor, who may have an election on the horizon and wants to appear 'tough on crime' (A certain George W. Bush was a class example of this. He refused to grant clemency to all of those who appealed during his tenure as Governor of Texas) Personally I believe the judical system in many countries are appalling. Norway seems to have completely lost the plot. Neo Nazi Anders Brievik was recently found guilty of the murders of 77 - yes that is 77 people whom he callously shot dead one by one in the infamous massacre a few years back, received 21 years, less than a person convicted of manslaughter or distributing Class A drugs in the US.
Now until we have a sensible, credible and accountable judiciary miscarriages of justice will undoubtedly occur (The most heartbreaking was the case of Stefan Kizsco who served 16 years in prison after he was wrongly convicted of the sexual assault and murder of 11 year old Lesley Molseed. His ordeal was described by one MP as "the worst miscarriage of justice of all time" Another man was later charged and convicted of her murder. The years of incarceration for something he had not done had both mentally and emotionally destroyed him. Kiszko became a virtual recluse and showed little interest in anything or anyone. Tragically Stefan died just one year after he was released and before he had received a penny in compensation for his suffering. I think it fair to say that we are all here to prevent another case like that of poor Stefan Kizsco.
-
Holly, since you have raised the issue of the smashed glass light shade and suggested that there was no glass found on the kitchen floor I must draw your attention to the trial transcript below when the then SOCO DC Hammersley was questioned at trial.
I don't know who told you that there was no glass on the floor but they were wrong. There was also crockery scattered about the kitchen floor.
There exists somewhere photographs of this but they are yet to appear.
Thank you for supplying this John. As I said in my post #33 I was unsure about the lampshade.
-
I think the 'no glass on the floor' to be yet another myth in the Jeremy Bamber case. I would love to know where you heard it though?
Could it have been a seminar at Bristol Uni?? >@@(*&)