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: G-Unit on March 11, 2020, 11:46:03 AM
-
The general consensus seems to be that Sheila Caffell couldn't have defeated her father in the kitchen. Nevill wasn't, however, fully fit. He had been shot in his lip, chin, spine, jaw, shoulder and upper arm. He was a one-armed man bleeding, shocked and in terrible pain.
-
Yes of course she could for all the reasons you've stated. Moreover, Dr V said he was not surprised that a woman of SC's build, in possession of a loaded firearm and possibly in a "deranged" state of mind could cause the injuries present.
Another notable case where a slim women attacked, overpowered and murdered a powerfully built male is that of Tracie Andrews and Lee Harvey. And this case involved a far less lethal weapon ie a knife as opposed to a rifle.
-
Dr V was not surprised:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742
-
Yes of course she could for all the reasons you've stated. Moreover, Dr V said he was not surprised that a woman of SC's build, in possession of a loaded firearm and possibly in a "deranged" state of mind could cause the injuries present.
Another notable case where a slim women attacked, overpowered and murdered a powerfully built male is that of Tracie Andrews and Lee Harvey. And this case involved a far less lethal weapon ie a knife as opposed to a rifle.
She was able to overpower him because he didn't know she had a knife which is far easier to conceal than a rifle, She also showed signs of a struggle - Sheila didn't.
-
A fully fit Nevill would have instantly negated Sheila. It is a natural reaction of a father, husband, grandfather & head of the family. He also had an early start in the morning.
Doing anything else would not enter his head. Espescially ringing Bamber.
He would know it was a rifle for shooting rabbits and Sheila had no experienve with it.
An injured Nevill would have just used his massive height and weight advantage to fall onto Sheila. Rather than wrestle for a rifle and let himself get batterred with it.
-
A fully fit Nevill would have instantly negated Sheila. It is a natural reaction of a father, husband, grandfather & head of the family. He also had an early start in the morning.
Doing anything else would not enter his head. Espescially ringing Bamber.
He would know it was a rifle for shooting rabbits and Sheila had no experienve with it.
An injured Nevill would have just used his massive height and weight advantage to fall onto Sheila. Rather than wrestle for a rifle and let himself get batterred with it.
Surely, that depends on how injured he was at that point, and how much pain he was in?
-
A fully fit Nevill would have instantly negated Sheila. It is a natural reaction of a father, husband, grandfather & head of the family. He also had an early start in the morning.
Doing anything else would not enter his head. Espescially ringing Bamber.
He would know it was a rifle for shooting rabbits and Sheila had no experienve with it.
An injured Nevill would have just used his massive height and weight advantage to fall onto Sheila. Rather than wrestle for a rifle and let himself get batterred with it.
He had an early start in the morning? I presume you're making a rather tasteless joke?
-
Local story of a gruesome psychotic attack by a female on her mother - note that she hadn't taken her medication for 'weeks' prior to the attack. Must warn that this is a pretty gruesome case!
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/odessa-carey-murder-trial-live-17862049
-
The general consensus seems to be that Sheila Caffell couldn't have defeated her father in the kitchen. Nevill wasn't, however, fully fit. He had been shot in his lip, chin, spine, jaw, shoulder and upper arm. He was a one-armed man bleeding, shocked and in terrible pain.
Nevill would have swiftly overpowered her upstairs though — had it been Sheila
Except it wasn’t , was it? It was Jeremy Bamber
What’s more, despite Nevill being 6”4”, in excellent health, extremely fit, and strong...and despite him being shot in the jaw, mouth and upper arm...he was STILL able to put a tremendous fight in the kitchen which proves just how strong he was
And with all that adrenaline surging through him, as he fought for his life he’d have felt almost no pain — that’s a medical fact. Soldiers in war have often continued fighting after being shot totally unaware they've even been injured!
Nevill literally fought to the death, and it’s ludicrous to suggest he couldn’t have overpowered Sheila
-
Yes of course she could for all the reasons you've stated. Moreover, Dr V said he was not surprised that a woman of SC's build, in possession of a loaded firearm and possibly in a "deranged" state of mind could cause the injuries present.
Another notable case where a slim women attacked, overpowered and murdered a powerfully built male is that of Tracie Andrews and Lee Harvey. And this case involved a far less lethal weapon ie a knife as opposed to a rifle.
Tracy Andrews was sat right next to Lee Harvey in the car when she suddenly stabbed that knife into him — he was taken by surprise and trapped for goodness sake
You can’t even compare the two cases
-
He had an early start in the morning? I presume you're making a rather tasteless joke?
No, Adam obviously wasn’t making a tasteless joke.
-
No, Adam obviously wasn’t making a tasteless joke — that’s how YOUR head works, G-Unit
I didn't want to believe he was actually suggesting that Nevill would have been thinking about his early start the following morning, but if you think that's a serious possibilty so be it.
You come across to me as someone who can't interact with others who hold different opinions without resorting to insults. I thought that was against the rules, I must check. Ah yes have you read them?
Please treat all members with respect, avoid speculation and ensure that any material posted is accompanied by the relevant links.
Please avoid conflict and do not enter into prolonged arguments over matters which are speculative or cannot be corroborated at this time.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg4#msg4
-
The general consensus seems to be that Sheila Caffell couldn't have defeated her father in the kitchen. Nevill wasn't, however, fully fit. He had been shot in his lip, chin, spine, jaw, shoulder and upper arm. He was a one-armed man bleeding, shocked and in terrible pain.
That question is purely academic since Nevill was initially shot in the bedroom and he hadn't been injured at that point. If Sheila had appeared at the bedroom door with a rifle she would have been disarmed instantly.
-
That question is purely academic since Nevill was initially shot in the bedroom and he hadn't been injured at that point. If Sheila had appeared at the bedroom door with a rifle she would have been disarmed instantly.
So Nevill would have disarmed Sheila instantly but made no attempt to disarm Jeremy?
-
So Nevill would have disarmed Sheila instantly but made no attempt to disarm Jeremy?
How do we know he didn't?
-
That question is purely academic since Nevill was initially shot in the bedroom and he hadn't been injured at that point. If Sheila had appeared at the bedroom door with a rifle she would have been disarmed instantly.
How could anyone, regardless of background and stature, disarm anyone, regardless of background and stature, in possession of a loaded firearm with the muzzle within inches of their face. The rifle had a very light trigger pull and a muzzle velocity of 1040 ft/s?
-
How do we know he didn't?
Because NB was found murdered with 7 entry gunshot wounds.
-
Because NB was found murdered with 7 entry gunshot wounds.
Does that rule out the attempt -albeit, failed- to disarm Jeremy?
-
How do we know he didn't?
By the lack of evidence of a fight in or near the bedroom?
-
When I was on the Injustice Anywhere forum (US domained) a number of US posters mentioned numerous cases in US where small children shoot dead adults. Here's one such example:
https://amp.azcentral.com/amp/981696001
-
Does that rule out the attempt -albeit, failed- to disarm Jeremy?
No evidence of any sort of struggle upstairs. JB did not sustain any sort of visible wounds and others who saw him naked or semi-naked did not say anything to the contrary.
Dr V described NB's wounds as defensive. Since he lost complete use of his left arm upstairs he probably raised his right arm in the kitchen in an attempt to shield himself from blows from the rifle.
-
No evidence of any sort of struggle upstairs. JB did not sustain any sort of visible wounds and others who saw him naked or semi-naked did not say anything to the contrary.
Dr V described NB's wounds as defensive. Since he lost complete use of his left arm upstairs he probably raised his right arm in the kitchen in an attempt to shield himself from blows from the rifle.
Neither did Sheila.
-
Neither did Sheila.
As would be expected if you believe, like I do, she was in possession of the rifle.
-
As would be expected if you believe, like I do, she was in possession of the rifle.
Then it's unlike that Bamber would have had injuries either so the point is moot.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9971.msg455277.html#msg455277
The kitchen fight between Jeremy and Nevill has been broken down. Going by the evidence.
Bamber was fully clothed and in shoes. So there waa no reason he would sustain any injuries.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9971.msg455277.html#msg455277
The kitchen fight between Jeremy and Nevill has be broken down. Going by the evidence.
Bamber was fully clothed and in shoes. So there waa no reason he would sustain any injuries.
The wetsuit he wore would have protected him — that’s just one of the reasons divers wear them
It’s evident to everyone that Nevill could’ve so easily disarmed Sheila, but a few people don’t want to believe it
It doesn’t matter what they believe as it won’t make a blind bit of difference: Jeremy was found guilty because he was guilty, he’s lost all his appeals, attempts for leave to appeal, his appeal at the Human Rights Court — and the courts are sick to death of him spouting and rehashing the same weak old “new” evidence that isn’t new at all, and was slung out decades ago
People are bored by him now, especially as WhiteHouseFarm has finished....everyone’s moved on.
He’s guilty.
End of.
-
The wetsuit he wore would have protected him — that’s just one of the reasons divers wear them
It’s evident to everyone that Nevill could’ve so easily disarmed Sheila, but a few people don’t want to believe it
It doesn’t matter what they believe as it won’t make a blind bit of difference: Jeremy was found guilty because he was guilty, he’s lost all his appeals, attempts for leave to appeal, his appeal at the Human Rights Court — and the courts are sick to death of him spouting and rehashing the same weak old “new” evidence that isn’t new at all, and was slung out decades ago
People are bored by him now, especially as WhiteHouseFarm has finished....everyone’s moved on.
He’s guilty.
End of.
Do you have any evidence of a wet suit being worn?
-
Do you have any evidence of a wet suit being worn?
Just to clarify wet suits are porous unlike dry suits. What would have been the advantage to the perp in wearing a wet suit? The theory seems to have emanated from Robert Boutflour.
JB was into windsurfing and did own a wet suit which I believe was examined by the police and found negative although I haven't seen any evidence to this effect.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9971.msg455277.html#msg455277
The kitchen fight between Jeremy and Nevill has been broken down. Going by the evidence.
Bamber was fully clothed and in shoes. So there waa no reason he would sustain any injuries.
I can't see anything in the link that SC was incapable of.
The general disarray in the kitchen might have been caused by NB stumbling into furniture. The facial wounds upstairs were very serious to the point Dr V said had the downstairs head shots not supervened the facial shots would have killed him.
I haven't seen any mention of this previously but thinking about it now I wonder if his eyesight, hearing and balance were adversely affected?
-
I can't see anything in the link that SC was incapable of.
The general disarray in the kitchen might have been caused by NB stumbling into furniture. The facial wounds upstairs were very serious to the point Dr V said had the downstairs head shots not supervened the facial shots would have killed him.
I haven't seen any mention of this previously but thinking about it now I wonder if his eyesight, hearing and balance were adversely affected?
Obviously Nevill would have used his massive height and weight advantage to take Sheila to ground. Rather than wrestle for the rifle and let himself get hit multiple times.
He would have negated the situation instantly while fully fit. Or at the least upstairs when Sheila started shooting.
Nevill had no choice but to fight back in the kitchen after Jeremy opened fire.
-
Obviously Nevill would have used his massive height and weight advantage to take Sheila to ground. Rather than wrestle for the rifle and let himself get hit multiple times.
He would have negated the situation instantly while fully fit. At the least upstairs when Sheila started shooting.
Nevill had no choice but to fight back in the kitchen after Jeremy opened fire.
Where do you think the perp was standing when opening fire in the main bedroom?
-
Where do you think the perp was standing when opening fire in the main bedroom?
Myster posted a diagram which shows where they believed the killer was standing to fire the shots.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11235.msg577767#msg577767
-
Where do you think the perp was standing when opening fire in the main bedroom?
He was standing by the bed. On June's side. The rifle on the end of his arms was long enough to fire close range shots at both people in bed.
-
Where do you think the perp was standing when opening fire in the main bedroom?
Initially at the foot of the bed June's side when, SC imo, opened fire on June whilst she had her head on the pillow evidenced by the blood stains and the fact two bullets were found embedded in the pillow. NB was in the kitchen on the tel to JB and when he heard the shots he dropped the phone and run upstairs. When he was stood on the landing stairs which immediately preecede the entrance to the main bedroom I believe SC turned approx 90 degrees facing NB approx diagonally where he sustained the facial shots. NB then turned to retreat downstairs with SC following where he sustained the two gunshot wounds to his rear: shoulder and elbow/chest graze wound. All supported by the gunshot wound trajectories and wound tracks.
Others here will disagree but it is one lay person against another as to date a shooting reconstruction has not taken place and therefore expert evidence does not exist in this regard. All the data for a reconstruction exists so all to play for.
-
He was standing by the bed. On June's side. The rifle on the end of his arms was long enough to fire close range shots at both people in bed.
62. Mr Fletcher also gave evidence of the range at which the shots had been fired. The lower (and not immediately fatal) of the injuries suffered by Sheila Caffell was caused when the muzzle of the gun was within three inches of the throat. The upper injury was a contact shot.
63. Of the seven injuries suffered by June Bamber, five were shots from the gun held at least one foot away from the body. The bullet wound between the eyes was fired from less than one foot away, and could have been with the gun in contact with the skin, although he viewed that as unlikely. Mr Fletcher was unable to estimate the range of the shot which had caused the injury to the right side of Mrs Bamber's chest.
64. In respect of the eight shots into Nevill Bamber's body, the six to his head and face were fired when the rifle was within a few inches of the skin. The remaining injuries to the arm were caused when the gun was at least two feet from the body.
65. As regards the twins, four of the five injuries suffered by Daniel were caused when the gun was held within one foot of his head, the fifth was from over two feet away. The three wounds to Nicholas were contact or close proximity shots.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
The overall length of the rifle is 48" I think from memory.
It is possible to visualise what took place by the casings, distance of shots, trajectories, wound tracks, length of rifle, room measurements, fixtures, fittings and furniture.
-
I was wondering why Nevill's upstairs shots hit the left side of his body and June's the right side (assuming she was standing and heading for the door in the end). Did she have to pass the perp at the bottom of the bed?
-
If Sheila is responsible for firing all 25 shots then at what point did she re-load the gun twice, and what was Nevill doing while this was all going on? In fact, someone who thinks Sheila did it please give us a shot by shot account of events as they unfurled. How long does it take for a woman like Sheila, not very experienced with guns to fully re-load this gun on each occasion? Who is alive and who is already dead each time she does this?
“Examination of the rifle 69. The rifle was a German made Anschutz model 525 .22 self-loading rifle in good working order. Cartridges are loaded into a magazine, which has a capacity of 10. It is, as the jury found when they conducted the exercise themselves, progressively harder to load as the number of cartridges increases. Loading the tenth is exceptionally hard. Assuming a full capacity at the commencement of the shooting at the farm, the discharge of the rifle twenty-five times would require it to be re-loaded a minimum of two more times”.
-
How do Bamber supporters explain the presence of Sheila’s blood on the silencer found hidden in the gun cupboard?
“77. Mr Hayward added in evidence that he would be very surprised to find blood from a person, who had not been shot with a contact or very close contact shot, inside the muzzle of the moderator. He concluded that since (a) the blood inside the moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell and (b) there was no blood within the barrel of the rifle of the gun, that she had been shot whilst the moderator was fitted to the rifle”.
-
Given that Sheila, if she was the shooter, must have handled ammunition and gun, how do Bamber supporters account for the lack of grease or lead dust on her hands?
“The condition of Sheila Caffell's body and her clothing 47. The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were "perfectly clean". Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.
48. The act of loading the magazine of an automatic weapon (carried out at least twice in this case) would be expected to leave visible traces of the lubricant and the materials from the bullets on the hand”.
-
Given that Sheila, if she was the shooter, must have handled ammunition and gun, how do Bamber supporters account for the lack of grease or lead dust on her hands?
“The condition of Sheila Caffell's body and her clothing 47. The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were "perfectly clean". Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.
48. The act of loading the magazine of an automatic weapon (carried out at least twice in this case) would be expected to leave visible traces of the lubricant and the materials from the bullets on the hand”.
Do you always take everything at face value? If so then of course you will form the opinion JB is guilty as charged.
I have handled the same cartridges and loaded them into the same magazine and my hands were clean to the naked eye.
Anyone who wishes to check this out can do so by visiting a gun shop. Unless you have a firearms licence you will be unable to purchase but it shouldn't be a problem to handle them within the shop.
-
How do Bamber supporters explain the presence of Sheila’s blood on the silencer found hidden in the gun cupboard?
“77. Mr Hayward added in evidence that he would be very surprised to find blood from a person, who had not been shot with a contact or very close contact shot, inside the muzzle of the moderator. He concluded that since (a) the blood inside the moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell and (b) there was no blood within the barrel of the rifle of the gun, that she had been shot whilst the moderator was fitted to the rifle”.
It has never been proven that SC's blood was inside the silencer only her blood groups which at the time were shared by 8% of the white British population. If SC's blood was in the silencer then how did it get there?
-
It has never been proven that SC's blood was inside the silencer only her blood groups which at the time were shared by 8% of the white British population. If SC's blood was in the silencer then how did it get there?
It got there from a contact and close range shot in an area of high blood flow.
-
Do you always take everything at face value? If so then of course you will form the opinion JB is guilty as charged.
I have handled the same cartridges and loaded them into the same magazine and my hands were clean to the naked eye.
Anyone who wishes to check this out can do so by visiting a gun shop. Unless you have a firearms licence you will be unable to purchase but it shouldn't be a problem to handle them within the shop.
There's over thirty years difference between the bullets manufactured in 1985 and those of today. The amount and consistency of lubricant could be totally different.
-
There's over thirty years difference between the bullets manufactured in 1985 and those of today. The amount and consistency of lubricant could be totally different.
Hopefully you will recall my communication with technical people at the manufacturers confirming no changes.
-
It has never been proven that SC's blood was inside the silencer only her blood groups which at the time were shared by 8% of the white British population. If SC's blood was in the silencer then how did it get there?
Let's not restart your silly blood from the buckets theory again!
-
Hopefully you will recall my communication with technical people at the manufacturers confirming no changes.
They weren't working for Eley in 1985, no doubt.
-
It got there from a contact and close range shot in an area of high blood flow.
The 'drawback' phenomenon is mostly observed with large calibre firearms, high velocity ammo and headshots. Afaik it has never been observed in a case with a silencer attached to the firearm as this changes what supposedly causes the phenomenon to occur in the first place ie hot discharge gases blasting out of the barrel into the wound causing blood to travel back against the line of fire. The chamber and baffle plates within the silencer slows the release of the hot gases.
-
They weren't working for Eley in 1985, no doubt.
They have to keep the tech lit relating to manufacturing.
-
Let's not restart your silly blood from the buckets theory again!
You want David for that not moi.
-
You want David for that not moi.
So where did the blood in the moderator come from, seeing as you believe it was planted inside?
-
They have to keep the tech lit relating to manufacturing.
But not any bullets from '85.
-
Do you have any evidence of a wet suit being worn?
One doesn’t need physical evidence to realise he was wearing his wetsuit — it was at the farmhouse for one thing, and he always kept it at home
In many murder cases there’s no concrete evidence as such, but providing you’re relatively bright it isn’t difficult to work out the startlingly obvious...
-
How do Bamber supporters explain the presence of Sheila’s blood on the silencer found hidden in the gun cupboard?
“77. Mr Hayward added in evidence that he would be very surprised to find blood from a person, who had not been shot with a contact or very close contact shot, inside the muzzle of the moderator. He concluded that since (a) the blood inside the moderator belonged to the same group as Sheila Caffell and (b) there was no blood within the barrel of the rifle of the gun, that she had been shot whilst the moderator was fitted to the rifle”.
Bump
-
Absolutely
-
Do you always take everything at face value? If so then of course you will form the opinion JB is guilty as charged.
I have handled the same cartridges and loaded them into the same magazine and my hands were clean to the naked eye.
Anyone who wishes to check this out can do so by visiting a gun shop. Unless you have a firearms licence you will be unable to purchase but it shouldn't be a problem to handle them within the shop.
“To the naked eye”...
-
Do you always take everything at face value? If so then of course you will form the opinion JB is guilty as charged.
I have handled the same cartridges and loaded them into the same magazine and my hands were clean to the naked eye.
Anyone who wishes to check this out can do so by visiting a gun shop. Unless you have a firearms licence you will be unable to purchase but it shouldn't be a problem to handle them within the shop.
I thought Sheila’s hands were swabbed and no gunpowder residue found? Did you also fire the gun 25 times and have your hands forensically examined afterwards because if not your anecdotal evidence is completely worthless imo.
-
It has never been proven that SC's blood was inside the silencer only her blood groups which at the time were shared by 8% of the white British population. If SC's blood was in the silencer then how did it get there?
How do you think?
-
62. Mr Fletcher also gave evidence of the range at which the shots had been fired. The lower (and not immediately fatal) of the injuries suffered by Sheila Caffell was caused when the muzzle of the gun was within three inches of the throat. The upper injury was a contact shot.
63. Of the seven injuries suffered by June Bamber, five were shots from the gun held at least one foot away from the body. The bullet wound between the eyes was fired from less than one foot away, and could have been with the gun in contact with the skin, although he viewed that as unlikely. Mr Fletcher was unable to estimate the range of the shot which had caused the injury to the right side of Mrs Bamber's chest.
64. In respect of the eight shots into Nevill Bamber's body, the six to his head and face were fired when the rifle was within a few inches of the skin. The remaining injuries to the arm were caused when the gun was at least two feet from the body.
65. As regards the twins, four of the five injuries suffered by Daniel were caused when the gun was held within one foot of his head, the fifth was from over two feet away. The three wounds to Nicholas were contact or close proximity shots.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
The overall length of the rifle is 48" I think from memory.
It is possible to visualise what took place by the casings, distance of shots, trajectories, wound tracks, length of rifle, room measurements, fixtures, fittings and furniture.
How come you csn pick and choose which parts of this report to accept at face value and which you reject because they don’t fit with your theory?
-
Let's not restart your silly blood from the buckets theory again!
Is this where it was suggested the blood came from Sheila’s bloodstained underwear?
Firstly, menstrual blood is completely different to normal blood and forensics would have discovered that immediately
Secondly, had anyone even thought to attempt to put Sheilas week/weeks old menstrual blood that had been copiously diluted with water deep into the silencer, they’d have had to spray it exactly the same way as back spatter, which would be be impossible
So, due to both points it’s ludicrous to suggest it was planted.
-
Just to clarify wet suits are porous unlike dry suits. What would have been the advantage to the perp in wearing a wet suit? The theory seems to have emanated from Robert Boutflour.
JB was into windsurfing and did own a wet suit which I believe was examined by the police and found negative although I haven't seen any evidence to this effect.
You’re wrong again, Holly
Nearly all wetsuits (he had a wetsuit, not a dry suit) are non-porous
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
'Firstly, menstrual blood is completely different to normal blood and forensics would have discovered that immediately.'
---------
That negates Davids theory. Back to the drawing board.
-
Is someone seriously suggesting that Sheila’s menstrual blood was planted in the silencer??
-
Is someone seriously suggesting that Sheila’s menstrual blood was planted in the silencer??
A few of Bamber’s supporters have clutched at that straw, which shows how unknowledgeable they are — not to mention desperate
-
A few of Bamber’s supporters have clutched at that straw, which shows how unknowledgeable they are — not to mention desperate
Well I guess they have to have an answer for this particular point (no matter how far-fetched) otherwise their theory is totally destroyed.
-
Is someone seriously suggesting that Sheila’s menstrual blood was planted in the silencer??
Oh there is a few who put this theory forward.
-
Well I guess they have to have an answer for this particular point (no matter how far-fetched) otherwise their theory is totally destroyed.
Yes, they claim the Boutflours stumbled upon Sheila’s blood and planted it in the silencer
That they managed to spray it deep down in the silencer in exactly the same pattern that back spatter creates
All they’re highlighting is how strange their thought processes are...
-
Oh there is a few who pit this theory forward.
When you put together all the things that need to have happened to make this remotely Sheila’s doing, all the people who had to be involved in a conspiracy to lock up poor little Jeremy, well it’s beyond farcical really.
-
When you put together all the things that need to have happened to make this remotely Sheila’s doing, all the people who had to be involved in a conspiracy to lock up poor little Jeremy, well it’s beyond farcical really.
Also, it has to start even before the bodies were discovered with Bambers phone call to West - he neglected to tell Jeremy that his father had already called and got Malcolm Bonnett to lie too. @)(++(*
-
Yes, they claim the Boutflours stumbled upon Sheila’s blood and planted it in the silencer
That they managed to spray it deep down in the silencer in exactly the same pattern that back spatter creates
All they’re highlighting is how strange their thought processes are...
Were the Boutflowers so canny as to realise that rifle plus silencer would have been too long for Sheila to have used to commit suicide? And then managed to happen upon some of Sheila’s menstrual blood which they squirted down the silencer? What evil genii!
-
Also, it has to start even before the bodies were discovered with Bambers phone call to West - he neglected to tell Jeremy that his father had already called and got Malcolm Bonnett to lie too. @)(++(*
Perhaps this was all planned with Sheila in advance, the conspirators knew she was suicidal, so put her up to it to get bsck at Jeremy and she agreed to kill everyone including herself but make it look like Jeremy by bleeding a bit down the silencer and then “ hiding” it but obviously letting the Boutlflowers know where to find it. *%87
-
Were the Boutflowers so canny as to realise that rifle plus silencer would have been too long for Sheila to have used to commit suicide? And then managed to happen upon some of Sheila’s menstrual blood which they squirted down the silencer? What evil genii!
You have yet to explain how they managed to extricate the blood from the water in which the knickers had been sitting for several hours..................and any detergent which may have been added to it.
-
Perhaps this was all planned with Sheila in advance, the conspirators knew she was suicidal, so put her up to it to get bsck at Jeremy and she agreed to kill everyone including herself but make it look like Jeremy by bleeding a bit down the silencer and then “ hiding” it but obviously letting the Boutlflowers know where to find it. *%87
You might be onto something here! 8)-)))
-
You have yet to explain how they managed to extricate the blood from the water in which the knickers had been sitting for several hours..................and any detergent which may have been added to it.
I’m sure one of them possessed a rudimentary chemistry set, should have been a doddle.
-
One doesn’t need physical evidence to realise he was wearing his wetsuit — it was at the farmhouse for one thing, and he always kept it at home
In many murder cases there’s no concrete evidence as such, but providing you’re relatively bright it isn’t difficult to work out the startlingly obvious...
Well, there should be concrete evidence if a jury is going to convict somebody of murder. And, that concrete evidence is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt.
You have already been warned about making personal remarks about other posters, BTW.
-
One doesn’t need physical evidence to realise he was wearing his wetsuit — it was at the farmhouse for one thing, and he always kept it at home
In many murder cases there’s no concrete evidence as such, but providing you’re relatively bright it isn’t difficult to work out the startlingly obvious...
I've seen no evidence of the whereabouts of his wetsuit.
-
I've seen no evidence of the whereabouts of his wetsuit.
It was in his bedroom at WHF.
-
It was in his bedroom at WHF.
How do you know?
-
How do you know?
Because it's included in the evidence list. However, you seem to be basing all of your posts around CAL's book, I guess you missed this bit.
"Police also discovered the top and bottoms of Jeremy’s wetsuit in his bedroom at the farm and the headpiece at Bourtree Cottage."
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 325). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
-
Because it's included in the evidence list. However, you seem to be basing all of your posts around CAL's book, I guess you missed this bit.
"Police also discovered the top and bottoms of Jeremy’s wetsuit in his bedroom at the farm and the headpiece at Bourtree Cottage."
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 325). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
Thank you, I did miss that. Do you have a link to the evidence list please? Did they send the wetsuit to the FSS do you know?
-
Thank you, I did miss that. Do you have a link to the evidence list please? Did they send the wetsuit to the FSS do you know?
I can't send you a limk, it's on another forum and you have to be a member to view the documents there. I may have a copy, If I can find one, I'll post it.
-
I can't send you a limk, it's on another forum and you have to be a member to view the documents there. I may have a copy, If I can find one, I'll post it.
Thank you.
-
Don't know why Bamber's wet suit would be at WHF. He had lived in his cottage a long time.
If he committed the crime in it, why not cycle back in it. Rather than leave it at the crime scene.
-
Don't know why Bamber's wet suit would be at WHF. He had lived in his cottage a long time.
If he committed the crime in it, why not cycle back in it. Rather than leave it at the crime scene.
Surely, if he really had committed the crime in his wetsuit, he would have taken it home and washed it, or disposed of it somewhere, rather than leaving it at WHF.
-
I thought Sheila’s hands were swabbed and no gunpowder residue found? Did you also fire the gun 25 times and have your hands forensically examined afterwards because if not your anecdotal evidence is completely worthless imo.
The only test used in an attempt to determine whether or not someone has discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue.
SC's hands were swabbed during post mortem using a kit for this specific purpose. The swabs were then sent to FSS with an unrelated firearm and as such rejected.
-
Surely, if he really had committed the crime in his wetsuit, he would have taken it home and washed it, or disposed of it somewhere, rather than leaving it at WHF.
Why? There was a shower at WHF. He could have showered there and put it in a cupboard. It probably would never have been found if Jeremy had managed to swing it on Sheila.
-
The only test used in an attempt to determine whether or not someone has discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue.
SC's hands were swabbed during post mortem using a kit for this specific purpose. The swabs were then sent to FSS with an unrelated firearm and as such rejected.
What?? This makes no sense to me, kindly elucidate.
-
What?? This makes no sense to me, kindly elucidate.
The lab rejected the swabs because they could have been contaminated by the firearm. They were however later resubmitted and tested.
-
The lab rejected the swabs because they could have been contaminated by the firearm. They were however later resubmitted and tested.
1) if they had been contaminated then something, not nothing, wwould have shown up in the trsts 2) what were the results from the second test?
-
1) if they had been contaminated then something, not nothing, wwould have shown up in the trsts 2) what were the results from the second test?
It morphed into a test for lead which isn't a valid scientific test.
-
It morphed into a test for lead which isn't a valid scientific test.
I might have known “incompetence” would put the kybosh on that particular piece of the puzzle, no doubt the same excuse for the lack of any grease or residue on her nightclothes and complete absence of prints on gun and ammunition too. There’s always an answer isn’t there?
PS why wer the appeal summary conclusions allowed to state that there were no residues on her hands and clothes?
-
I might have known “incompetence” would put the kybosh on that particular piece of the puzzle, no doubt the same excuse for the lack of any grease or residue on her nightclothes and complete absence of prints on gun and ammunition too. There’s always an answer isn’t there?
PS why wer the appeal summary conclusions allowed to state that there were no residues on her hands and clothes?
If you've already made up your mind and/or the best you can do is make facetious comments why should I bother?
The case involves a mass shooting unwitnessed by independent others as such its unique in British criminal history and not straightforward.
-
If you've already made up your mind and/or the best you can do is make facetious comments why should I bother?
The case involves a mass shooting unwitnessed by independent others as such its unique in British criminal history and not straightforward.
Why should you bother indeed. The evidence against Bamber is irrefutable and thus understandably you cannot be bothered to try. Fair enough.
-
Surely, if he really had committed the crime in his wetsuit, he would have taken it home and washed it, or disposed of it somewhere, rather than leaving it at WHF.
Believe he may have had a wet suit on underneath ordinary clothes. It would be good body protection.
There would be no incriminating evidence on the wet suit. Espescially after a shower. Wet suits probably cost a bit, so he would not want to dump it. He left the damp wet suit ar WHF, knowing he would have access to WHF soon to collect it.
His other clothes from the night were disposed of.
-
Believe he may have had a wet suit on underneath ordinary clothes. It would be good body protection.
There would be no incriminating evidence on the wet suit. Espescially after a shower. Wet suits probably cost a bit, so he would not want to dump it. He left the damp wet suit ar WHF, knowing he would have access to WHF soon to collect it.
His other clothes from the night were disposed of.
,
Did the police find his damp wetsuit at WHF? Surely, if they had, they would have thought it suspicious and not been so quick to blame Sheila?
-
Well, there should be concrete evidence if a jury is going to convict somebody of murder. And, that concrete evidence is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt.
You have already been warned about making personal remarks about other posters, BTW.
Whatever are you talking about?
There’s thousands of cases held each year in which there’s no concrete evidence: in fact, if there is indeed concret evidence the defendant usually pleads guilty as they know they’re snookered
Most defended trials are when much of the evidence is circumstantial, hence a jury!
-
,
Did the police find his damp wetsuit at WHF? Surely, if they had, they would have thought it suspicious and not been so quick to blame Sheila?
Don't know if it was damp when the police found it. Says earlier in the thread it was found at WHF.
Maybe the CT can explain what it was doing at WHF.
-
,
Did the police find his damp wetsuit at WHF? Surely, if they had, they would have thought it suspicious and not been so quick to blame Sheila?
They weren't looking for one.
-
,
Did the police find his damp wetsuit at WHF? Surely, if they had, they would have thought it suspicious and not been so quick to blame Sheila?
The police find, what to all intents and purposes, appears to be murder/suicide committed by a young woman who has the weapon conveniently draped across her. Please explain why it is you think they'd be looking for anything, let alone a wetsuit?!!!!!
-
The police find, what to all intents and purposes, appears to be murder/suicide committed by a young woman who has the weapon conveniently draped across her. Please explain why it is you think they'd be looking for anything, let alone a wetsuit?!!!!!
Because they are police officers and trained to understand all is not always as it seems!
In this case about a month on it was subject to an internal review. The review concluded murder/suicide which the relatives and DS Jones were not prepared to accept. Shortly after this the case turned on the silencer and JM.
-
Because they are police officers and trained to understand all is not always as it seems!
In this case about a month on it was subject to an internal review. The review concluded murder/suicide which the relatives and DS Jones were not prepared to accept. Shortly after this the case turned on the silencer and JM.
They also listen to witness's of which Bamber was one. The fact that they made mistakes is well documented.
-
Because they are police officers and trained to understand all is not always as it seems!
In this case about a month on it was subject to an internal review. The review concluded murder/suicide which the relatives and DS Jones were not prepared to accept. Shortly after this the case turned on the silencer and JM.
The difference between what appears to be murder/suicide and searching for an item as irrelevant as a wet suit is off the scale. They'd have needed to totally ransack the entire house to find it, and WHY would there have been any connection between it and murder/suicide when the 'perpetrator' was laying in front of therm, complete with murder weapon?
Those at the scene, convinced of Jeremy's sincerity, must have been enormously grateful to him for providing them with such invaluable information. It would only have been when they eventually took a step back, and, yes, listen to what others had to say, that they started to see a possible alternative to the way things appeared to be.
-
The police find, what to all intents and purposes, appears to be murder/suicide committed by a young woman who has the weapon conveniently draped across her. Please explain why it is you think they'd be looking for anything, let alone a wetsuit?!!!!!
I would have expected the police to do a thorough search, even if they did think they knew the answer.
-
The difference between what appears to be murder/suicide and searching for an item as irrelevant as a wet suit is off the scale. They'd have needed to totally ransack the entire house to find it, and WHY would there have been any connection between it and murder/suicide when the 'perpetrator' was laying in front of therm, complete with murder weapon?
Those at the scene, convinced of Jeremy's sincerity, must have been enormously grateful to him for providing them with such invaluable information. It would only have been when they eventually took a step back, and, yes, listen to what others had to say, that they started to see a possible alternative to the way things appeared to be.
Had they come across a wetsuit that was damp, I think that would have looked suspicious. They wouldn't have been ransacking the house for it either---if Jeremy had showered in it or washed it, it would have been hanging up drying somewhere conspicuous. Nobody puts damp clothing at the back of a wardrobe!
-
I would have expected the police to do a thorough search, even if they did think they knew the answer.
They did look into his bedroom, but as has been said, the use of a wetsuit was far from their minds at that stage. It was only when Robert Boutflour started to throw out some ideas of how the crime was committed that questions were asked.
-
Had they come across a wetsuit that was damp, I think that would have looked suspicious. They wouldn't have been ransacking the house for it either---if Jeremy had showered in it or washed it, it would have been hanging up drying somewhere conspicuous. Nobody puts damp clothing at the back of a wardrobe!
So there's this large farmhouse. 5/6 bedrooms. 5 Bodies. Why, when it's perfectly clear, that it was a case of murder/suicide, with the perpetrator laying dead in front of them, would they go to the bother of searching every wardrobe in the house, and why wardrobes, anyway? Why not chests of draws, or ottomans and cupboards? The list goes on. Again, what would be the point when quite clearly, it was murder/suicide?
-
Had they come across a wetsuit that was damp, I think that would have looked suspicious. They wouldn't have been ransacking the house for it either---if Jeremy had showered in it or washed it, it would have been hanging up drying somewhere conspicuous. Nobody puts damp clothing at the back of a wardrobe!
There is no way they would be looking in wardrobes and even if they did, why would they have need to feel wether a wetsuit was damp or not? I don't believe he worse the wetsuit but I don't any significance in then n to finding it - they weren't looking for it until it was suggested.
-
Well, there should be concrete evidence if a jury is going to convict somebody of murder. And, that concrete evidence is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt.
You have already been warned about making personal remarks about other posters, BTW.
It’s extremely rare to have concrete evidence: if that were the case you wouldn’t need juries.
All types of evidence can be flawed, so the best case against a suspected criminal is one in which different types of evidence reinforce one another. Even DNA can be flawed, such as contamination during the collection and in the lab processing. Pathologists can reach different conclusions. Fingerprint analysis can be biased by experts. Circumstantial evidence may have innocent explanations.
However, when multiple types of evidence reinforce one another, the case becomes solid.
Hence why Jeremy Bamber was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
-
I've seen no evidence of the whereabouts of his wetsuit.
The police saw evidence: they found it in his messy locked bedroom which was filled with boxes, magazines and general clutter.
So don’t worry yourself that you haven’t seen the evidence: you weren’t required to be informed.
But to cast aside your doubts, the wetsuit was found at WHF — inside his LOCKED bedroom that held no valuables — and prior to him murdering all his family the wetsuit was always kept at Goldhanger. Don’t you think it odd that it suddenly got to WHF? His flippers didn’t make their way to WHF, nor his snorkel — just his wetsuit...😌
-
Don't know why Bamber's wet suit would be at WHF. He had lived in his cottage a long time.
If he committed the crime in it, why not cycle back in it. Rather than leave it at the crime scene.
Jeremy couldn’t cycle back wearing his wetsuit as it was wet after standing under the shower to wash away any blood he no doubt received through back spatter & in the struggle with Nevill. He then dried it with a towel (which he took back to Goldhanger and stuck in his washing machine); then put dried wetsuit in his bedroom — and locked the door for some reason...
He also couldn’t cycle back wearing the wetsuit just in case he was spotted, which he wasn’t as there was no-one around in the dead of night. But he wasn’t taking any chances: in the same way he didn’t drive to commit the murders in case a neighbour heard his car leave, then return.
-
It’s extremely rare to have concrete evidence: if that were the case you wouldn’t need juries.
All types of evidence can be flawed, so the best case against a suspected criminal is one in which different types of evidence reinforce one another. Even DNA can be flawed, such as contamination during the collection and in the lab processing. Pathologists can reach different conclusions. Fingerprint analysis can be biased by experts. Circumstantial evidence may have innocent explanations.
However, when multiple types of evidence reinforce one another, the case becomes solid.
Hence why Jeremy Bamber was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
I totally agree.
-
Jeremy couldn’t cycle back wearing his wetsuit as it was wet after standing under the shower to wash away any blood he no doubt received through back spatter & in the struggle with Nevill. He then dried it with a towel (which he took back to Goldhanger and stuck in his washing machine); then put dried wetsuit in his bedroom — and locked the door for some reason...
He also couldn’t cycle back wearing the wetsuit just in case he was spotted, which he wasn’t as there was no-one around in the dead of night. But he wasn’t taking any chances: in the same way he didn’t drive to commit the murders in case a neighbour heard his car leave, then return.
A . 22 rifle and subsonic ammo are unlikely to generate back spatter.
The non-gsw's NB sustained in the beating didn't produce any blood.
The rifle contained so little blood it was impossible to group unlike the 1/2 " flake of blood in the silencer!
Therefore unlikely the perp sustained any back spatter.
A wetsuit is porous so what would be the point in wearing it?
-
It’s extremely rare to have concrete evidence: if that were the case you wouldn’t need juries.
All types of evidence can be flawed, so the best case against a suspected criminal is one in which different types of evidence reinforce one another. Even DNA can be flawed, such as contamination during the collection and in the lab processing. Pathologists can reach different conclusions. Fingerprint analysis can be biased by experts. Circumstantial evidence may have innocent explanations.
However, when multiple types of evidence reinforce one another, the case becomes solid.
Hence why Jeremy Bamber was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
About a month after the murders Det Sup Kinnelly (spelling?) carried out a review of the case and concluded murder/suicide. Shortly after this the blood flake was identified inside the silencer and JM's testimony emerged.
JB was found guilty primarily on a flake of blood found within the silencer.
-
The only test used in an attempt to determine whether or not someone has discharged a firearm is a test for gunshot residue.
SC's hands were swabbed during post mortem using a kit for this specific purpose. The swabs were then sent to FSS with an unrelated firearm and as such rejected.
Forensics PROVED there was no gun residue on Sheila’s hands, nor anyone else’s blood spatter
Whatever are you talking about?!
-
If you've already made up your mind and/or the best you can do is make facetious comments why should I bother?
The case involves a mass shooting unwitnessed by independent others as such its unique in British criminal history and not straightforward.
You’ve sidestepped the question, Holly
That’s because you can’t answer it as it proves Jeremy’s guilt
The FACT is:
There was NO gun residue on Sheila’s hands
There was NO gun residue on Sheila’s nightdress
There was NO blood from Nevill on Sheila’s body or nightdress — and she’d have been covered in it
There was NO sugar, NO glass fragments on her feet, which proved she hadn’t walked in the kitchen
There’s was NO blood on her feet at all
There’s was NO blood down her nightdress which proved she couldn’t have walked about after being shot the first time
There was only ONE if her fingerprints on the rifle which Jeremy obviously created by pressing her finger on the rifle when she was dead — the rifle would’ve been COVERED in her fingerprints, blood, spatter and tissue
When you have evidence like that you don’t NEED witnesses
-
Believe he may have had a wet suit on underneath ordinary clothes. It would be good body protection.
There would be no incriminating evidence on the wet suit. Espescially after a shower. Wet suits probably cost a bit, so he would not want to dump it. He left the damp wet suit ar WHF, knowing he would have access to WHF soon to collect it.
His other clothes from the night were disposed of.
It’s also highly suspicious that when Jeremy slowly poodled up the lane to meet the police on that August evening, they were surprised to see him wearing a tee-shirt beneath not one, but TWO jumpers — plus a jacket
It wasn’t a bitterly cold winter’s night — it was summer
Yes, the air can chill at night even in August, but I’ve not met anyone wearing TWO jumpers. Ever.
The police were wearing their normal uniforms and didn’t feel cold at all...
There must have been a reason why Jeremy wore two thick jumpers on top of his tee-shirt...
What is obvious is that when he first went back to Goldhanger he didn’t get changed for bed; he had no intention of going to bed at all
He even lied to the police and said he’d pulled the second jumper on whilst driving, claiming that was why he was going so slowly. But that doesn’t add up at all. It wasn’t particularly cold. His car had a heater. And what’s the chances of having a spare jumper in your car? What would be the point? Not forgetting how materialistic he was and how crooked his mind worked: he bought good quality clothes beyond his means, so he’d hardly leave an expensive jumper in his car as an invitation for someone like him to spot it, smash the window and run off with it.
There’s definitely something amiss about that
-
If you've already made up your mind and/or the best you can do is make facetious comments why should I bother?
The case involves a mass shooting unwitnessed by independent others as such its unique in British criminal history and not straightforward.
What WOULD be unique if it had of been Sheila who’d murdered her family
She’d have been the first and only female in all history to have shot dead her mother, father, two sons and then herself
She’d also have been the first female in UK history to have shot herself dead, not once, but TWICE
She’d have gone down in history as having been the first person to have shot herself in the throat despite being unable to pull the trigger as her fingers couldn’t reach, and then shoot herself a SECOND time when she was partially paralysed having fractured her spine where the bullet ended, and unable to breathe properly as her throat pumped up with blood effectively drowning her
-
,
Did the police find his damp wetsuit at WHF? Surely, if they had, they would have thought it suspicious and not been so quick to blame Sheila?
They only found the wetsuit weeks later
Remember, the inept DCI Jones believed Jeremy’s account of events, despite all the other police being highly suspicious of him. DCI Jibes was a bully and intimidated everyone, thus why Jeremy almost got away with it and wasn’t arrested until weeks later — by which time his wetsuit had been bone dry for weeks
Wetsuits dry relatively quickly, especially when you haven’t been diving: just showered wearing it, then dried it off
-
They did look into his bedroom, but as has been said, the use of a wetsuit was far from their minds at that stage. It was only when Robert Boutflour started to throw out some ideas of how the crime was committed that questions were asked.
Don’t forget, Jeremy told Julie he planned to wear his wetsuit if he carried out the killings. She thought he was joking, but he wasn’t.
He always kept the wetsuit at his house, so the fact it was mysteriously at WHF, and his flippers/snorkel etc were at Goldhanger absolutely stinks
-
A . 22 rifle and subsonic ammo are unlikely to generate back spatter.
The non-gsw's NB sustained in the beating didn't produce any blood.
The rifle contained so little blood it was impossible to group unlike the 1/2 " flake of blood in the silencer!
Therefore unlikely the perp sustained any back spatter.
A wetsuit is porous so what would be the point in wearing it?
But the .22 did indeed produce back spatter — forensics proved that
And the beating Nevill sustained in the struggle did indeed produce blood — he suffered facial and head injuries from being struck with the rifle. Nevill obviously didn’t bleed when he was ruthlessly kicked and beaten AFTER he was dead
The rifle must have had blood on it due to the beating alone — a shaft broke off when he was hit over the head with it! Jeremy certainly released all his pent-up hatred that night...and then he simply rinsed the gun under the tap in the kitchen sink. That’s why when the gun was forensically tested they found hardly any fingerprints....it would’ve have been covered otherwise. The fact there were barely any prints is irrefutable proof it was wiped/washed clean.
I dare say Jeremy the perp didn’t have much back spatter or blood on him, except for Nevill’s during the violent struggle. Whatever, he showered it off...
Wetsuits are NOT porous. They’re made of Neoprene (invented in the 1950s) and are designed to dry quickly
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You’ve sidestepped the question, Holly
That’s because you can’t answer it as it proves Jeremy’s guilt
The FACT is:
There was NO gun residue on Sheila’s hands
There was NO gun residue on Sheila’s nightdress
There was NO blood from Nevill on Sheila’s body or nightdress — and she’d have been covered in it
There was NO sugar, NO glass fragments on her feet, which proved she hadn’t walked in the kitchen
There’s was NO blood on her feet at all
There’s was NO blood down her nightdress which proved she couldn’t have walked about after being shot the first time
There was only ONE if her fingerprints on the rifle which Jeremy obviously created by pressing her finger on the rifle when she was dead — the rifle would’ve been COVERED in her fingerprints, blood, spatter and tissue
When you have evidence like that you don’t NEED witnesses
When Holly has rebutted each one of these facts with precise forensic evaluation and explanation then I will start to take her (and others) seriously. Until then...
-
When Holly has rebutted each one of these facts with precise forensic evaluation and explanation then I will start to take her (and others) seriously. Until then...
It's all been done and dusted. It's much the same as many believe the dog alerts are significant in the McCann case.
If you're interested check it out yourself. Google something like gunshot wounds always generate back spatter and see what conclusions you come to.
I'll give you one concrete example re fingerprints on the rifle. Firearms are coated in a substance referred to as 'bluing' which makes it difficult to recover fingerprints from. I was told this in an email (shared with Myster) from arguably the world's foremost fingerprint expert.
Obviously JB handled the rifle extensively hence one of his fingerprints was found on it but a fingerprint was also found from SC:
72. The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.
I guess the silencer was coated with bluing too hence it did not generate any fingerprints despite the relatives handling ungloved.
-
Don’t forget, Jeremy told Julie he planned to wear his wetsuit if he carried out the killings. She thought he was joking, but he wasn’t.
He always kept the wetsuit at his house, so the fact it was mysteriously at WHF, and his flippers/snorkel etc were at Goldhanger absolutely stinks
I haven't seen Julie mention the wetsuit other than in the diary she used for notes which was simply the word 'wetsuit?'. Looks to me like she was asked about it in one of her interviews - the only comments I recall her making on the subject was to say it was normally kept at Jeremy's house.
-
It's all been done and dusted. It's much the same as many believe the dog alerts are significant in the McCann case.
If you're interested check it out yourself. Google something like gunshot wounds always generate back spatter and see what conclusions you come to.
I'll give you one concrete example re fingerprints on the rifle. Firearms are coated in a substance referred to as 'bluing' which makes it difficult to recover fingerprints from. I was told this in an email (shared with Myster) from arguably the world's foremost fingerprint expert.
Obviously JB handled the rifle extensively hence one of his fingerprints was found on it but a fingerprint was also found from SC:
72. The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.
I guess the silencer was coated with bluing too hence it did not generate any fingerprints despite the relatives handling ungloved.
Yes, it was all done and dusted in 1986 when Jeremy Bamber was convicted of mass murder
There’s no need to Google “back spatter “ — proof of that was Sheila's back spatter in the silencer. I think, though I’m not sure, one of the twins had back spatter in the silencer too: I shall check
As for fingerprints on the gun: if they’re hard to retrieve due to ‘bluing’ why did forensics bother looking for them, and how did they find one of Sheila’s and Jeremy’s on there?
It’s obvious that Jeremy pressed Sheila’s finger firmly against the gun in order to frame her: the jury realised that. They also realised how very strange it was that only one of her prints were on there...
Jeremy had also covered himself by claiming he’d handled the gun just hours earlier...he thought some things through during his pre-planning, but not all. He obviously wiped/washed that gun clean prior to murdering Sheila, hence why as you rightly say — there was only one of his fingerprints on it when it should have been covered in them.
I’m slightly confused here: you’re contradicting yourself, Holly. On the one hand you’re saying ‘bluing’ prevents fingerprints from staying on the gun, then you say that as Jeremy had handled it that’s why one of his was found on the gun...
The silencer had no fingerprints on it because the family handled it carefully so as not to destroy and evidence. And the reason no prints were found on it was that Jeremy’s gloves would’ve wiped it clean and obviously had none of his on it due to the gloves he wore.
You still haven’t answered the other questions have you...
You haven’t explained why the silencer wasn’t next to Sheila’s body
-
I haven't seen Julie mention the wetsuit other than in the diary she used for notes which was simply the word 'wetsuit?'. Looks to me like she was asked about it in one of her interviews - the only comments I recall her making on the subject was to say it was normally kept at Jeremy's house.
I shall find it for you, Caroline
I’ve read so much, and from different official sources, I’ll need to look for it: but during one of his conversations with Julie when he was telling her of the different ways he could kill them all e.g. burn the house down etc...he also mentioned the perpetrator needing protective clothing that left no fibres, such as a wetsuit...
It’s the ideal clothing to commit murder
-
It's all been done and dusted. It's much the same as many believe the dog alerts are significant in the McCann case.
If you're interested check it out yourself. Google something like gunshot wounds always generate back spatter and see what conclusions you come to.
I'll give you one concrete example re fingerprints on the rifle. Firearms are coated in a substance referred to as 'bluing' which makes it difficult to recover fingerprints from. I was told this in an email (shared with Myster) from arguably the world's foremost fingerprint expert.
Obviously JB handled the rifle extensively hence one of his fingerprints was found on it but a fingerprint was also found from SC:
72. The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.
I guess the silencer was coated with bluing too hence it did not generate any fingerprints despite the relatives handling ungloved.
if the evidence pointing to it being Sheila is as tenuous as the dog alerts in the McCann case then no wonder Bamber keeps losing appeal after appeal. Is that really the best you can do? Guns don’t yield fingerprints? Apart from the ones they do of course. What utter nonsense.
-
if the evidence pointing to it being Sheila is as tenuous as the dog alerts in the McCann case then no wonder Bamber keeps losing appeal after appeal. Is that really the best you can do? Guns don’t yield fingerprints? Apart from the ones they do of course. What utter nonsense.
If you think you know more than a forensic scientist whose area of expertise is fingerprints so be it.
For those who wish to learn about the case and understand the facts I can confirm that fingerprints are difficult to recover from some surfaces which includes firearms. The fact a fingerprint from JB and SC was found suggest both handled the rifle extensively.
There are numerous articles online from reliable sources testifying to the above ie fingerprints are difficult to recover from firearms.
-
If you think you know more than a forensic scientist whose area of expertise is fingerprints so be it.
For those who wish to learn about the case and understand the facts I can confirm that fingerprints are difficult to recover from some surfaces which includes firearms. The fact a fingerprint from JB and SC was found suggest both handled the rifle extensively.
There are numerous articles online from reliable sources testifying to the above ie fingerprints are difficult to recover from firearms.
What part of the gun was Sheilas finger prints found?
-
If you think you know more than a forensic scientist whose area of expertise is fingerprints so be it.
For those who wish to learn about the case and understand the facts I can confirm that fingerprints are difficult to recover from some surfaces which includes firearms. The fact a fingerprint from JB and SC was found suggest both handled the rifle extensively.
There are numerous articles online from reliable sources testifying to the above ie fingerprints are difficult to recover from firearms.
Why does one single fingerprint from SC indicate that she handled thegun extensively and not that her finger was pressed to the gun post death?
-
I shall find it for you, Caroline
I’ve read so much, and from different official sources, I’ll need to look for it: but during one of his conversations with Julie when he was telling her of the different ways he could kill them all e.g. burn the house down etc...he also mentioned the perpetrator needing protective clothing that left no fibres, such as a wetsuit...
It’s the ideal clothing to commit murder
Yes please - I must have missed it.
-
If you think you know more than a forensic scientist whose area of expertise is fingerprints so be it.
For those who wish to learn about the case and understand the facts I can confirm that fingerprints are difficult to recover from some surfaces which includes firearms. The fact a fingerprint from JB and SC was found suggest both handled the rifle extensively.
There are numerous articles online from reliable sources testifying to the above ie fingerprints are difficult to recover from firearms.
No it doesn't, Jeremy already accounted for his prints being on the weapon but he could have easily placed Sheila's prints on it.
-
If you think you know more than a forensic scientist whose area of expertise is fingerprints so be it.
For those who wish to learn about the case and understand the facts I can confirm that fingerprints are difficult to recover from some surfaces which includes firearms. The fact a fingerprint from JB and SC was found suggest both handled the rifle extensively.
There are numerous articles online from reliable sources testifying to the above ie fingerprints are difficult to recover from firearms.
It appears that a print from Sheila's right ring finger was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. This in itself isn't evidence of anything really as she was staying in the same house as the rifle. For all anyone knows, Jeremy Bamber asked her to hold the rifle hours earlier or placed the print from her finger there after her death.
I don't think the identification of a single print on a murder weapon found in such circumstances suggests much if anything given that Sheila hated guns. I think your claim that this suggests extensive use is just a little far fetched.
-
If you think you know more than a forensic scientist whose area of expertise is fingerprints so be it.
For those who wish to learn about the case and understand the facts I can confirm that fingerprints are difficult to recover from some surfaces which includes firearms. The fact a fingerprint from JB and SC was found suggest both handled the rifle extensively.
There are numerous articles online from reliable sources testifying to the above ie fingerprints are difficult to recover from firearms.
How would just one fingerprint suggest Sheila handled the gun “extensively”?
If anything, I’d say that suggests Jeremy Bamber pressed her finger against it...
It seems that the gun wasn’t “blued” either: had it been, the forensics would have said that was why there so few prints on it
And it also seems that Jeremy knew that too, which is another reason he wore gloves — and he also told Julie he was worried because “the hitman” — who Jeremy made out he’d hired — had lost a glove in the struggle with Nevill. He obviously retrieved it after killing Nevill, but it worried him nonetheless...
It’s also astonishing that NO blood or back spatter was inside the barrel, yet you claim the silencer wasn’t used.
But blood was deep inside the silencer. You know, the silencer that you suggest Sheila took downstairs after semi-paralysing herself with the first shot; looked for a carrier bag; washed the silencer under the tap; wrapped it in the carrier bag; walked across blood, broken glass and sugar; headed to the cupboard; bent down; tucked it away out of sight at the back of the cupboard; walked back upstairs; laid down near to June rather than the twins; decided to read a verse of the Bible as she lay with her head at an awkward angle and as her neck ballooned with blood; and then shot herself a second time.
And all that without one single drop of her blood anywhere in the house...
-
To get back to the thread title for a moment, I personally cannot see any circumstances in which Sheila could have overcome Nevill Bamber even after the initial gunshots. Nevill could have disabled Sheila with one arm and a single strategic blow. Whoever fought with Nevill over the kitchen table was a strong individual and not a petite young woman imo.
-
I've seen no evidence of the whereabouts of his wetsuit.
G-Unit, now you’ve been shown evidence that Jeremy Bamber left his wetsuit in his LOCKED bedroom at WHF after killing all his family, you’ve gone strangely quiet. I notice you do that when irrefutable evidence is shown...
The police found his wetsuit in his old bedroom at WHF weeks later, when they realised he was the murderer
Julie told the police that Jeremy always kept his wetsuit at Head Street, and proof of that is his flippers and snorkel were at Head Street. Why would he separate them? There’s simply no reason to. He took his wetsuit to WHF because he knew he’d easily be able to wash away any blood that may have backfired onto him. He didn’t take his flippers & snorkel as they’d have been a hindrance
You should ask yourself why he’d take his wetsuit to WHF for no reason whatsoever.
I did read (I’m trying to find it) that he mentioned to Julie after dismissing burning WHF down, that shooting them all would be “good”. He mentioned the “hitman” would need to wear something like a wetsuit so his clothes weren’t contaminated.
It’s very telling that just TWO days after Jeremy was buckling at the knees & stricken with grief at his parents’ and Sheila’s funeral, and the day before the twins funeral, he made a marvellous recovery and took up the invitation to go windsurfing at Pevensey Bay with Julie and her friends, the Bishops — whose family lived down there
They left Head Street at 10:30am travelling in two cars
Lo and behold, when they all got to the beach Jeremy exclaimed “I’ve forgotten my wetsuit!”
That’s akin to walking to the ski slopes, standing by the lift, then saying “Whoops, I’ve forgotten my skis!”
In the event, Andy Bishop was able to lend him one of his which he kept at his parents’ home in Pevensey...
Of course, the REAL reason Jeremy couldn’t conjure up a wetsuit at Goldhanger was that he knew it was at WHF where he’d left it after he’d murdered everyone, and could hardly be seen going into the farmhouse to pick it up as it would have looked so suspicious — especially as Julie knew he always kept it at Goldhanger.
-
G-Unit, now you’ve been shown evidence that Jeremy Bamber left his wetsuit in his LOCKED bedroom at WHF after killing all his family, you’ve gone strangely quiet. I notice you do that when irrefutable evidence is shown...
I've seen no such evidence, sorry. I've been repeatedly told it exists but it hasn't been produced afaik.
-
G-Unit, now you’ve been shown evidence that Jeremy Bamber left his wetsuit in his LOCKED bedroom at WHF after killing all his family, you’ve gone strangely quiet. I notice you do that when irrefutable evidence is shown...
The police found his wetsuit in his old bedroom at WHF weeks later, when they realised he was the murderer
Julie told the police that Jeremy always kept his wetsuit at Head Street, and proof of that is his flippers and snorkel were at Head Street. Why would he separate them? There’s simply no reason to. He took his wetsuit to WHF because he knew he’d easily be able to wash away any blood that may have backfired onto him. He didn’t take his flippers & snorkel as they’d have been a hindrance
You should ask yourself why he’d take his wetsuit to WHF for no reason whatsoever.
I did read (I’m trying to find it) that he mentioned to Julie after dismissing burning WHF down, that shooting them all would be “good”. He mentioned the “hitman” would need to wear something like a wetsuit so his clothes weren’t contaminated.
It’s very telling that just TWO days after Jeremy was buckling at the knees & stricken with grief at his parents’ and Sheila’s funeral, and the day before the twins funeral, he made a marvellous recovery and took up the invitation to go windsurfing at Pevensey Bay with Julie and her friends, the Bishops — whose family lived down there
They left Head Street at 10:30am travelling in two cars
Lo and behold, when they all got to the beach Jeremy exclaimed “I’ve forgotten my wetsuit!”
That’s akin to walking to the ski slopes, standing by the lift, then saying “Whoops, I’ve forgotten my skis!”
In the event, Andy Bishop was able to lend him one of his which he kept at his parents’ home in Pevensey...
Of course, the REAL reason Jeremy couldn’t conjure up a wetsuit at Goldhanger was that he knew it was at WHF where he’d left it after he’d murdered everyone, and could hardly be seen going into the farmhouse to pick it up as it would have looked so suspicious — especially as Julie knew he always kept it at Goldhanger.
Something that I. find VERY suspicious is that about a week after the murders, he bundled ALL his recently deceased parents clothes onto a trailer and burned the lot in the farm fire pit. Not really the action of a grieving some but makes you wonder what else he might have burned at the same time!
-
I've seen no such evidence, sorry. I've been repeatedly told it exists but it hasn't been produced afaik.
I posted the link from CAL's book, the very book that you have been using to back up your own claims. The wetsuit was found in his wardrobe - that's a fact!
-
I posted the link from CAL's book, the very book that you have been using to back up your own claims. The wetsuit was found in his wardrobe - that's a fact!
CAL's book says 'in his bedroom', not 'in his wardrobe' but she doesn't say where the information came from.
-
To get back to the thread title for a moment, I personally cannot see any circumstances in which Sheila could have overcome Nevill Bamber even after the initial gunshots. Nevill could have disabled Sheila with one arm and a single strategic blow. Whoever fought with Nevill over the kitchen table was a strong individual and not a petite young woman imo.
The gsw's NB sustained initially upstairs would have killed him if others hadn't supervened.
Dr V said he wasn't suprised:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742
The likes of Chief Sup Harris and Dr Craig clearly had no problems believing SC was capable.
I think it's gender stereotyping in believing only males can be aggressive, physical and violent.
The following is my opinion only and something I've only recently thought about but I'm wondering if the facial gsw's NB sustained impaired his balance, vision and hearing which may have caused him to stumble into the kitchen table and chairs.
-
The gsw's NB sustained initially upstairs would have killed him if others hadn't supervened.
Dr V said he wasn't suprised:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742
The likes of Chief Sup Harris and Dr Craig clearly had no problems believing SC was capable.
I think it's gender stereotyping in believing only males can be aggressive, physical and violent.
The following is my opinion only and something I've only recently thought about but I'm wondering if the facial gsw's NB sustained impaired his balance, vision and hearing which may have caused him to stumble into the kitchen table and chairs.
I'm surprised. that the way Nevill was found, has never been looked at. I don't believe he ended up in that position bt accident. I have seen the real CS pictures of Nevill and the ITV drama reconstruction of his Nevill was found, was spot on. I have taken a still of the scene and will post when I get the chance.
-
Yes, it was all done and dusted in 1986 when Jeremy Bamber was convicted of mass murder
There’s no need to Google “back spatter “ — proof of that was Sheila's back spatter in the silencer. I think, though I’m not sure, one of the twins had back spatter in the silencer too: I shall check
As for fingerprints on the gun: if they’re hard to retrieve due to ‘bluing’ why did forensics bother looking for them, and how did they find one of Sheila’s and Jeremy’s on there?
It’s obvious that Jeremy pressed Sheila’s finger firmly against the gun in order to frame her: the jury realised that. They also realised how very strange it was that only one of her prints were on there...
Jeremy had also covered himself by claiming he’d handled the gun just hours earlier...he thought some things through during his pre-planning, but not all. He obviously wiped/washed that gun clean prior to murdering Sheila, hence why as you rightly say — there was only one of his fingerprints on it when it should have been covered in them.
I’m slightly confused here: you’re contradicting yourself, Holly. On the one hand you’re saying ‘bluing’ prevents fingerprints from staying on the gun, then you say that as Jeremy had handled it that’s why one of his was found on the gun...
The silencer had no fingerprints on it because the family handled it carefully so as not to destroy and evidence. And the reason no prints were found on it was that Jeremy’s gloves would’ve wiped it clean and obviously had none of his on it due to the gloves he wore.
You still haven’t answered the other questions have you...
You haven’t explained why the silencer wasn’t next to Sheila’s body
Back spatter and drawback are totally different phenemenon. The former is caused when blood from a gunshot wound travels back against the line of fire and is known as high impact (or velocity) back spatter. The latter arise from a contact gunshot wound when the hot discharge gases which normally dissipate in the atmosphere are forced into the wound and travel back again where blood and tissue can deposit in/on barrel.
In this case none of the conditions present for either phenemenon to occur.
Back spatter is observed with large calibre firearms and high velocity ammo.
Drawback is observed also with large calibre firearms, high velocity ammo and head shots. When it does present the blood contains tissue which didn't present in this case. Moreover a silencer changes everything as instead of the hot discharge gases blasting into the wound they are cooled in the expansion chamber before being released slowly through a series of baffle plates.
It is possible to test whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle and ammo and this will form the basis of a third appeal.
-
How would just one fingerprint suggest Sheila handled the gun “extensively”?
If anything, I’d say that suggests Jeremy Bamber pressed her finger against it...
It seems that the gun wasn’t “blued” either: had it been, the forensics would have said that was why there so few prints on it
And it also seems that Jeremy knew that too, which is another reason he wore gloves — and he also told Julie he was worried because “the hitman” — who Jeremy made out he’d hired — had lost a glove in the struggle with Nevill. He obviously retrieved it after killing Nevill, but it worried him nonetheless...
It’s also astonishing that NO blood or back spatter was inside the barrel, yet you claim the silencer wasn’t used.
But blood was deep inside the silencer. You know, the silencer that you suggest Sheila took downstairs after semi-paralysing herself with the first shot; looked for a carrier bag; washed the silencer under the tap; wrapped it in the carrier bag; walked across blood, broken glass and sugar; headed to the cupboard; bent down; tucked it away out of sight at the back of the cupboard; walked back upstairs; laid down near to June rather than the twins; decided to read a verse of the Bible as she lay with her head at an awkward angle and as her neck ballooned with blood; and then shot herself a second time.
And all that without one single drop of her blood anywhere in the house...
It's a fallacy that everything we touch leaves indelible fingerprints. It's dependant upon many factors. In the case of firearms bluing is one factor. It stands to reason if someone had minimal contact with the rifle eg simply picked it up to move it statistically they would be less likely to leave fingerprints on it than if they handled it extensively. The fact the rifle contained one fingerprint from JB and SC suggests both handled it extensively.
The silencer underwent the same tests for for fingerprints and revealed none when we know DB and others handled it without any precautions.
-
I've seen no such evidence, sorry. I've been repeatedly told it exists but it hasn't been produced afaik.
I have a wetsuit. They're porous so what would be the point in wearing one to protect from back spatter which wouldn't present with the small calibre firearm and subsonic ammo anyway.
Yes you could stand in the shower in it but it would not remove all debris hence numerous options exist for washing them.
This theory emanated ftom RB who clearly had no idea about the conditions needed for back spatter and how wet suits work. He probably didn't know the difference between a dry suit and a wet suit. Dry suits being non porous.
All the low level stuff about the windows, bike, wet suit emanate from the relatives.
-
I'm surprised. that the way Nevill was found, has never been looked at. I don't believe he ended up in that position bt accident. I have seen the real CS pictures of Nevill and the ITV drama reconstruction of his Nevill was found, was spot on. I have taken a still of the scene and will post when I get the chance.
So how do you think Nevill finished up perched so precariously on the arm of that chair with head in scuttle, Caroline?
Whoever lifted and positioned him there must have been strong enough to do so, and can't have avoided getting some blood on themselves... not necessarily from the last four head shots, but from his earlier mouth and arm wounds.
-
So how do you think Nevill finished up perched so precariously on the arm of that chair with head in scuttle, Caroline?
Whoever lifted and positioned him there must have been strong enough to do so, and can't have avoided getting some blood on themselves... not necessarily from the last four head shots, but from earlier his mouth and arm wounds.
I would think JB would struggle to lift NB let alone SC.
I recall a senior police officer commenting about the murder of car dealer John Marshall who was found murdered in the boot of his Range Rover that he thought two individuals were involved as it would take two to lift him.
Given there's much evidence SC was moved at soc NB may have been moved too prior to being photographed. Or photos of before and after existed and when the investigation changed shape the before photos were destroyed.
I think Dr V said there was no corresponding marks on NB's head to support the idea his head fell in/on the coal scuttle by chance.
I think he was interfered with at soc by either police officers, Dr Craig or the man from the coroners office. This explains the trousers and cushions placed on the floor too.
-
So how do you think Nevill finished up perched so precariously on the arm of that chair with head in scuttle, Caroline?
Whoever lifted and positioned him there must have been strong enough to do so, and can't have avoided getting some blood on themselves... not necessarily from the last four head shots, but from his earlier mouth and arm wounds.
I think Bamber put him there - will post the pict from the drama in a sec. it would be almost impossible to end up in that position by accident!
-
I would think JB would struggle to lift NB let alone SC.
I recall a senior police officer commenting about the murder of car dealer John Marshall who was found murdered in the boot of his Range Rover that he thought two individuals were involved as it would take two to lift him.
Given there's much evidence SC was moved at soc NB may have been moved too prior to being photographed. Or photos of before and after existed and when the investigation changed shape the before photos were destroyed.
I think Dr V said there was no corresponding marks on NB's head to support the idea his head fell in/on the coal scuttle by chance.
I think he was interfered with at soc by either police officers, Dr Craig or the man from the coroners office. This explains the trousers and cushions placed on the floor too.
According to Vanezis, livor mortis was consistent with the position in which he was found, much earlier than when the TFU entered.
-
I doubt Sheila could do this and I very much doubt he ended up like this by accident. I do stress that this is a still from the drama and NOT the actual CS photograph but having seen the original, the only difference I can see is that on the original, there is some clothing next to the coal scuttle soaking up the blood. But the position of the body/wounds etc. is EXACT!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
CAL's book says 'in his bedroom', not 'in his wardrobe' but she doesn't say where the information came from.
Sorry, I guess bedroom solves a point about the case and wardrobe doesn't (I wish there was a rolling eyes emoji!)
-
I would think JB would struggle to lift NB let alone SC.
I recall a senior police officer commenting about the murder of car dealer John Marshall who was found murdered in the boot of his Range Rover that he thought two individuals were involved as it would take two to lift him.
Given there's much evidence SC was moved at soc NB may have been moved too prior to being photographed. Or photos of before and after existed and when the investigation changed shape the before photos were destroyed.
I think Dr V said there was no corresponding marks on NB's head to support the idea his head fell in/on the coal scuttle by chance.
I think he was interfered with at soc by either police officers, Dr Craig or the man from the coroners office. This explains the trousers and cushions placed on the floor too.
No, that;s not right and what is odd is that on the original photograph, the trousers on the floor are UNDER Nevill's leg, so they were placed there before he was.
-
Actual SOCO photo
(https://i.imgur.com/KRqE8.jpg)
-
Actual SOCO photo
(https://i.imgur.com/KRqE8.jpg)
Not very clear though - sorry, when I said I had seen a CS picture, I meant a high res picture.
-
The gsw's NB sustained initially upstairs would have killed him if others hadn't supervened.
Dr V said he wasn't suprised:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=742
The likes of Chief Sup Harris and Dr Craig clearly had no problems believing SC was capable.
I think it's gender stereotyping in believing only males can be aggressive, physical and violent.
The following is my opinion only and something I've only recently thought about but I'm wondering if the facial gsw's NB sustained impaired his balance, vision and hearing which may have caused him to stumble into the kitchen table and chairs.
What, and Nevill bashed himself over his head with the rifle causing a shard to fly off in the kitchen? And then struggled with himself while holding the rifle causing deep scratches underneath the mantel?
And then he swung on the glass lampshade causing it to crash down?
Are you seriously saying he beat himself up, then went back upstairs to give the gun to Sheila?
That’s insane.
It’s also insane to imagine a fit, strong, 6”4” man who was well-nourished, worked as a farmer doing hard physical work couldn’t have disarmed frail, shaky Sheila had she suddenly walked into the bedroom with that long rifle. Nevill was fit enough to put up a violent struggle in the kitchen, so he was sure as hell strong enough to disarm her upstairs.
-
Back spatter and drawback are totally different phenemenon. The former is caused when blood from a gunshot wound travels back against the line of fire and is known as high impact (or velocity) back spatter. The latter arise from a contact gunshot wound when the hot discharge gases which normally dissipate in the atmosphere are forced into the wound and travel back again where blood and tissue can deposit in/on barrel.
In this case none of the conditions present for either phenemenon to occur.
Back spatter is observed with large calibre firearms and high velocity ammo.
Drawback is observed also with large calibre firearms, high velocity ammo and head shots. When it does present the blood contains tissue which didn't present in this case. Moreover a silencer changes everything as instead of the hot discharge gases blasting into the wound they are cooled in the expansion chamber before being released slowly through a series of baffle plates.
It is possible to test whether the drawback phenemenon is possible with the rifle and ammo and this will form the basis of a third appeal.
In that case, then, Sheila would have been covered in it
She had NONE on her or her clothing — which rules her out as the killer
Indeed, Sheila was ruled out as the killer in 1986 when Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of being the perp.
And don’t you think that once they got rid of DCI Jones the police went through everything with a fine tooth comb?
This has all been forensically tested decades ago. And Jeremy was also found guilty on other hugely incriminating evidence too. What can’t you grasp about that?
There will never be another appeal: Jeremy’s already lost two, including attempts to apply for Leave to Appeal, and including him trying his luck at the European Court of Human Rights.
He failed miserably. Each time.
The courts will never entertain him again — he’s simply wasting everyone’s time. In fact, I think he knows he’ll never be freed, and he’s just doing all this as he’s bored and enjoys attention.
He also gets batty women sending him pictures of cakes, birthday cards, perfumed letters , and CASH. He does like CASH @)(++(*
-
I have a wetsuit. They're porous so what would be the point in wearing one to protect from back spatter which wouldn't present with the small calibre firearm and subsonic ammo anyway.
Yes you could stand in the shower in it but it would not remove all debris hence numerous options exist for washing them.
This theory emanated ftom RB who clearly had no idea about the conditions needed for back spatter and how wet suits work. He probably didn't know the difference between a dry suit and a wet suit. Dry suits being non porous.
All the low level stuff about the windows, bike, wet suit emanate from the relatives.
You must have a cheap wetsuit, then
ALL wetsuits are non-porous for obvious reasons — and they have been since the 1950s. They’re made of Neoprene .
You can spout this nonsense until you’re blue in the face, but no-one will listen to you
Jeremy wore his wetsuit to carry out the murders, hence why he left it at WHF. Accept the truth, Holly
You still haven’t answered my question: why wasn’t the silencer by Sheila’s side?
-
I would think JB would struggle to lift NB let alone SC.
I recall a senior police officer commenting about the murder of car dealer John Marshall who was found murdered in the boot of his Range Rover that he thought two individuals were involved as it would take two to lift him.
Given there's much evidence SC was moved at soc NB may have been moved too prior to being photographed. Or photos of before and after existed and when the investigation changed shape the before photos were destroyed.
I think Dr V said there was no corresponding marks on NB's head to support the idea his head fell in/on the coal scuttle by chance.
I think he was interfered with at soc by either police officers, Dr Craig or the man from the coroners office. This explains the trousers and cushions placed on the floor too.
There’s NO evidence at all that Sheila was moved!
In fact, if you look at both photos of her which were taken; one prior to them even touching her, and then one where the PO moved the gun so the photographer could capture the bloodstain on her nightdress, you can see she’s in the EXACT same position; EXACT same space by the bed; and her nightdress is in the EXACT same position too
I suggest you look at the photos again
As for Nevill, Jeremy probably shoved him backwards into the chair and then once he was dead deliberately shoved his face into coal shuttle out of evil hatred
He’s a psychopath, remember
-
I doubt Sheila could do this and I very much doubt he ended up like this by accident. I do stress that this is a still from the drama and NOT the actual CS photograph but having seen the original, the only difference I can see is that on the original, there is some clothing next to the coal scuttle soaking up the blood. But the position of the body/wounds etc. is EXACT!
That coal shuttle definitely wouldn’t have normally been in that position — in the way of everything
Jeremy must have put it there to shove Nevill’s face into it
-
In that case, then, Sheila would have been covered in it
She had NONE on her or her clothing — which rules her out as the killer
Indeed, Sheila was ruled out as the killer in 1986 when Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of being the perp.
And don’t you think that once they got rid of DCI Jones the police went through everything with a fine tooth comb?
This has all been forensically tested decades ago. And Jeremy was also found guilty on other hugely incriminating evidence too. What can’t you grasp about that?
There will never be another appeal: Jeremy’s already lost two, including attempts to apply for Leave to Appeal, and including him trying his luck at the European Court of Human Rights.
He failed miserably. Each time.
The courts will never entertain him again — he’s simply wasting everyone’s time. In fact, I think he knows he’ll never be freed, and he’s just doing all this as he’s bored and enjoys attention.
He also gets batty women sending him pictures of cakes, birthday cards, perfumed letters , and CASH. He does like CASH @)(++(*
And very specific writing stationary (apparently).
-
I would think JB would struggle to lift NB let alone SC.
I recall a senior police officer commenting about the murder of car dealer John Marshall who was found murdered in the boot of his Range Rover that he thought two individuals were involved as it would take two to lift him.
Given there's much evidence SC was moved at soc NB may have been moved too prior to being photographed. Or photos of before and after existed and when the investigation changed shape the before photos were destroyed.
I think Dr V said there was no corresponding marks on NB's head to support the idea his head fell in/on the coal scuttle by chance.
I think he was interfered with at soc by either police officers, Dr Craig or the man from the coroners office. This explains the trousers and cushions placed on the floor too.
She wasn't moved, the CS photo's prove it.
-
And very specific writing stationary (apparently).
Oh yes, he will insist on “good quality envelopes “ 😤
I’m surprised he doesn’t tell them to send him personalised writing paper embedded with gold Italics:
Jeremy Bamber Esq.
H.M.P.
Yorkshire
-
Oh yes, he will insist on “good quality envelopes “ 😤
I’m surprised he doesn’t tell them to send him personalised writing paper embedded with gold Italics:
Jeremy Bamber Esq.
H.M.P.
Yorkshire
The name of the stationary used to be on the official site, it's not now.
-
You must have a cheap wetsuit, then
ALL wetsuits are non-porous for obvious reasons — and they have been since the 1950s. They’re made of Neoprene .
You can spout this nonsense until you’re blue in the face, but no-one will listen to you
Jeremy wore his wetsuit to carry out the murders, hence why he left it at WHF. Accept the truth, Holly
You still haven’t answered my question: why wasn’t the silencer by Sheila’s side?
If you disagree with a post it is sufficient to say you disagree and why. Please desist with all the rest eg 'You can spout this nonsense until you're blue in face...'
I am not wrong about wet suits at all. They are porous allowing water to penetrate trapping a thin layer which the body heats to help keep the wearer to stay warm. When immersed in water the wearer is always wet hence the name wet suit!
http://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/wetsuit/
-
You must have a cheap wetsuit, then
ALL wetsuits are non-porous for obvious reasons — and they have been since the 1950s. They’re made of Neoprene .
You can spout this nonsense until you’re blue in the face, but no-one will listen to you
Jeremy wore his wetsuit to carry out the murders, hence why he left it at WHF. Accept the truth, Holly
You still haven’t answered my question: why wasn’t the silencer by Sheila’s side?
No one is obliged to answer your questions. I don't believe a silencer was used in the murders/suicide.
-
She wasn't moved, the CS photo's prove it.
That's your opinion and its certainly not shared by experts eg forensic scientist Martyn Ismail and blood stain analyst Prof Macdonnell.
-
That's your opinion and its certainly not shared by experts eg forensic scientist Martyn Ismail and blood stain analyst Prof Macdonnell.
Other experts may have different opinions.
-
Other experts may have different opinions.
But to date they haven't given any so its your opinion that other experts may have different opinions.
-
But to date they haven't given any so its your opinion that other experts may have different opinions.
Or maybe they haven't been asked. I'm certain you can understand why I find it difficult to accept that the opinions of two experts -in different disciplines- can't be accepted as being definitive.
I can see that you rely strongly on facts, ie Jeremy's psychopathy.............or not. You can comfortably assert that he isn't because CERTAIN psychiatrist(s) have said he isn't. You refuse to countenance that, because it isn't in black and white, others, just as qualified, are equally certain that he is. At the end of the day, it all comes down to personal opinion.
-
That's your opinion and its certainly not shared by experts eg forensic scientist Martyn Ismail and blood stain analyst Prof Macdonnell.
OK, then post the proof where either of them state that the police moved Sheila's head?
-
OK, then post the proof where either of them state that the police moved Sheila's head?
No one is claiming the police moved SC's head since non police were in attendance too.
-
No one is claiming the police moved SC's head since non police were in attendance too.
Post where they stated that someone moved her head after discovery - you know what I mean Holly, but you also know none exists.
-
If you disagree with a post it is sufficient to say you disagree and why. Please desist with all the rest eg 'You can spout this nonsense until you're blue in face...'
I am not wrong about wet suits at all. They are porous allowing water to penetrate trapping a thin layer which the body heats to help keep the wearer to stay warm. When immersed in water the wearer is always wet hence the name wet suit!
http://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/wetsuit/
I disagree, Holly
Here’s why...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
No one is obliged to answer your questions. I don't believe a silencer was used in the murders/suicide.
Jeremy Bamber believed a silencer was used!
He said that he had a document written by DCI Taff Jones in which he said he’d found the silencer under the bed when he went to the SOC and saw Sheila dead on the floor. According to Jeremy, Taff Jones wrote in this statement that he caught sight of the silencer under the bed and decided to remove it 😳
Jeremy said that DCI Jones then went down to the gun cupboard (not sure how he knew where it was...but hey, he was one clever detective!) and then he tucked it away in the gun cupboard to keep it “safe”.
Taff Jones didn’t leave the silencer in situ to be photographed, nor did he put it in forensic wrapping, he simply picked it up from under the bed, strolled downstairs, spotted the gun cupboard, and placed it deep inside for safe keeping.
Strangely....this written document of Taff Jones that Jeremy claimed to have “discovered” — years after DCI Jones death — was never submitted by Jeremy...can’t think why!
-
Jeremy Bamber believed a silencer was used!
He said that he had a document written by DCI Taff Jones in which he said he’d found the silencer under the bed when he went to the SOC and saw Sheila dead on the floor. According to Jeremy, Taff Jones wrote in this statement that he caught sight of the silencer under the bed and decided to remove it 😳
Jeremy said that DCI Jones then went down to the gun cupboard (not sure how he knew where it was...but hey, he was one clever detective!) and then he tucked it away in the gun cupboard to keep it “safe”.
Taff Jones didn’t leave the silencer in situ to be photographed, nor did he put it in forensic wrapping, he simply picked it up from under the bed, strolled downstairs, spotted the gun cupboard, and placed it deep inside for safe keeping.
Strangely....this written document of Taff Jones that Jeremy claimed to have “discovered” — years after DCI Jones death — was never submitted by Jeremy...can’t think why!
Hi Eye,
Can you say where this is from?
-
Hi Eye,
Can you say where this is from?
Yes, it’s in CAL’s book....
I will find the page for you now
-
I have tried posting images from the book, but must be doing something wrong as it won’t accept them
It’s Chapter 45 or 46 , first page
-
No one is obliged to answer your questions. I don't believe a silencer was used in the murders/suicide.
Why did the jury believe it and why has its use never been disproved? It’s the single most compelling piece of evidence and there have been one trial and (two?) appeals that have all failed to prove that silencer could not have been used in the killings.
-
Yes, it’s in CAL’s book....
I will find the page for you now
Thanks, never heard that before but it's typical of the way Bamber makes things up!
"Post-trial controversy about its provenance began in April 1987, when the press office of Essex Police took a call from a Sunday Express reporter. He wanted to know if they would comment on Jeremy’s claim that a statement dated 7 August 1985 from DCI Jones revealed that he had found the silencer that day under the bed and placed it in the gun cupboard for safety. Former senior investigating officer Mike Ainsley derided the claim as ‘total nonsense’ in a letter to the Crown Prosecution Service, adding that if such a document ever appeared, it would be forged.1 He had also spoken to Jeremy’s solicitor Paul Terzeon who hadn’t seen the statement but was assured by his client that he had posted it to his office. It didn’t arrive, but Jeremy’s defence team admitted they were ‘always suspicious of the circumstances in which the moderator came to be found’, although they assured their client that the evidence, as it was known, had been investigated thoroughly.2 They warned him that even if that was shown to be untrue, ‘it would have to be of such a falsehood that it went to the core of that which the prosecution was trying to prove’.
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 394). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
-
Thanks, never heard that before but it's typical of the way Bamber makes things up!
"Post-trial controversy about its provenance began in April 1987, when the press office of Essex Police took a call from a Sunday Express reporter. He wanted to know if they would comment on Jeremy’s claim that a statement dated 7 August 1985 from DCI Jones revealed that he had found the silencer that day under the bed and placed it in the gun cupboard for safety. Former senior investigating officer Mike Ainsley derided the claim as ‘total nonsense’ in a letter to the Crown Prosecution Service, adding that if such a document ever appeared, it would be forged.1 He had also spoken to Jeremy’s solicitor Paul Terzeon who hadn’t seen the statement but was assured by his client that he had posted it to his office. It didn’t arrive, but Jeremy’s defence team admitted they were ‘always suspicious of the circumstances in which the moderator came to be found’, although they assured their client that the evidence, as it was known, had been investigated thoroughly.2 They warned him that even if that was shown to be untrue, ‘it would have to be of such a falsehood that it went to the core of that which the prosecution was trying to prove’.
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 394). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
That’s it, Caroline.
Jeremy is so adapt at tying himself up in knots — he excels at that 8@??)(
I wonder what his supporters make of this?
Perhaps they’d like to comment on this alleged statement that Jeremy Bamber claims DCI Jones wrote?
-
That’s it, Caroline.
Jeremy is so adapt at tying himself up in knots — he excels at that 8@??)(
I wonder what his supporters make of this?
Perhaps they’d like to comment on this alleged statement that Jeremy Bamber claims DCI Jones wrote?
This is similar to the claim that there is a suicide note - it's all bollox!
-
This is similar to the claim that there is a suicide note - it's all bollox!
That was nuts too
The note inside June’s Bible was written by June!
I suppose Jeremy’s deluded supporters will say Sheila forced June to write it before she shot her 🙄
The more nonsense that comes out the more I realise how odd some people are...
-
It is highly unlikely that someone who was on a sedentary medication would become deranged.
Going back to where they all were before the shooting and what was the 'suggested' trigger for the 'drugged' small female to go and get a gun, with plenty ammo.
This was planned massacre a deranged person doesn't plan. if guns were all over the place, how did she know which gun and ammo could be used together at such short notice being deranged. According to witnesses she never did any shooting to be that knowledgeable
-
It is highly unlikely that someone who was on a sedentary medication would become deranged.
Going back to where they all were before the shooting and what was the 'suggested' trigger for the 'drugged' small female to go and get a gun, with plenty ammo.
This was planned massacre a deranged person doesn't plan. if guns were all over the place, how did she know which gun and ammo could be used together at such short notice being deranged. According to witnesses she never did any shooting to be that knowledgeable
What a very well balanced observation, Miss Taken Identity.
-
It is highly unlikely that someone who was on a sedentary medication would become deranged.
Going back to where they all were before the shooting and what was the 'suggested' trigger for the 'drugged' small female to go and get a gun, with plenty ammo.
This was planned massacre a deranged person doesn't plan. if guns were all over the place, how did she know which gun and ammo could be used together at such short notice being deranged. According to witnesses she never did any shooting to be that knowledgeable
Absolutely spot on!
Sheila had never used a gun, had no idea how to, and wasn’t physically or mentally capable — and that’s without the fact she had no gun residue on her nightdress or body...
The other burning question people should have asked, if Jeremy saw rabbits outside why didn’t he pick up one of the two other rifles Nevill kept that did indeed have both scopes and silencers attached? You NEED both attachments to kill rabbits, so why would he pick up the rifle that he claimed didn’t have a silencer and scope attached? Eh?
Of course, everyone knows that rifle had them attached...he removed the scope on the sly, and then hid that rifle somewhere. Just like he hid the kitchen phone. He didn’t leave that rifle on the kitchen worktop....Nevill would have seen it, as would June!
Jeremy Bamber is an evil vile liar and murderer.