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: Holly Goodhead on April 17, 2020, 02:35:06 PM
-
For those who believe JB responsible.
-
For those who believe JB responsible.
He shot everyone.
-
Adam’s post below more or less covers it for me. It certainly makes alot more sense than any narrative involving Sheila.
“I re posted this scenario yesterday. A 'narrative' of how Bamber committed the massacre that matches the crime scene.
Cycle to WHF:
Evidence - Bike available. Easy journey. Unseen passing no dwellings. Quick journey. Bike taken to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre.
Get into WHF
Evidence - Bathroom window already loose or open. Quiet ground floor entrance. Bamber said he knew how to get in through this window. Bamber said found hacksaw by the window which was used on the window, was his hacksaw.
Pick up rifle:
Evidence ' Fully loaded rifle available as stated by Bamber.
Enter main bedroom:
Evidence - Two adults in this room who must be killed first as potential to provide most resistance.
Shoot an in bed June and Neville:
Evidence - 10 shots were fired in the main bedroom suggesting rifle was emptied in opening salvo. June and Neville shot in or near the bed.
Go to reload or chase Neville:
Evidence - Spare bullets found in kitchen. Neville found in kitchen after a kitchen fight.
Kitchen fight:
Evidence - Neville was brutally beaten there. Upturned and smashed kitchen items. Scratch marks on aga.
Shoot and kill a knocked out Neville:
Evidence - Four kitchen head shots into Neville.
Reload. Return upstairs:
Evidence - Further shots fired. All other shots upstairs.
Wake and persuade or force Sheila into the main bedroom. Or carry a sleeping Sheila. Or shoot an already awake Sheila who had moved into the main bedroom.
Evidence - Sheila found shot in the corner of main bedroom.
Shoot June once more:
Evidence - June had moved a few feet. Final head shot required.
Reload, shoot the sleeping twins:
Evidence - Twins shot 8 times in bed. Amount of bullets used shows two reloads carried out on the night.
Twins likely to stay asleep behind shut door in another room during massacre.Upstairs massacre had been quiet, with silencer on rifle. June and Sheila putting up minimal resistance. Nevill's resistance was downstairs.
Stage the scene:
Evidence - Gun and bible by Sheila. Silencer put in a box. Neville's body moved to give easy access to naked back. Nevill's back burnt to check for signs of life.
Exit out of kitchen window:
Evidence - Twenty sources say it can be banged shut from outside.
Housekeeper said items around the window had been moved.
Crime scene photo's show only vertical lock in shut position.
Cycle home:
Evidence - Bike found at Bambers cottage.”
-
Adam’s post below more or less covers it for me. It certainly makes alot more sense than any narrative involving Sheila.
“I re posted this scenario yesterday. A 'narrative' of how Bamber committed the massacre that matches the crime scene.
Cycle to WHF:
Evidence - Bike available. Easy journey. Unseen passing no dwellings. Quick journey. Bike taken to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre.
Get into WHF
Evidence - Bathroom window already loose or open. Quiet ground floor entrance. Bamber said he knew how to get in through this window. Bamber said found hacksaw by the window which was used on the window, was his hacksaw.
Pick up rifle:
Evidence ' Fully loaded rifle available as stated by Bamber.
Enter main bedroom:
Evidence - Two adults in this room who must be killed first as potential to provide most resistance.
Shoot an in bed June and Neville:
Evidence - 10 shots were fired in the main bedroom suggesting rifle was emptied in opening salvo. June and Neville shot in or near the bed.
Go to reload or chase Neville:
Evidence - Spare bullets found in kitchen. Neville found in kitchen after a kitchen fight.
Kitchen fight:
Evidence - Neville was brutally beaten there. Upturned and smashed kitchen items. Scratch marks on aga.
Shoot and kill a knocked out Neville:
Evidence - Four kitchen head shots into Neville.
Reload. Return upstairs:
Evidence - Further shots fired. All other shots upstairs.
Wake and persuade or force Sheila into the main bedroom. Or carry a sleeping Sheila. Or shoot an already awake Sheila who had moved into the main bedroom.
Evidence - Sheila found shot in the corner of main bedroom.
Shoot June once more:
Evidence - June had moved a few feet. Final head shot required.
Reload, shoot the sleeping twins:
Evidence - Twins shot 8 times in bed. Amount of bullets used shows two reloads carried out on the night.
Twins likely to stay asleep behind shut door in another room during massacre.Upstairs massacre had been quiet, with silencer on rifle. June and Sheila putting up minimal resistance. Nevill's resistance was downstairs.
Stage the scene:
Evidence - Gun and bible by Sheila. Silencer put in a box. Neville's body moved to give easy access to naked back. Nevill's back burnt to check for signs of life.
Exit out of kitchen window:
Evidence - Twenty sources say it can be banged shut from outside.
Housekeeper said items around the window had been moved.
Crime scene photo's show only vertical lock in shut position.
Cycle home:
Evidence - Bike found at Bambers cottage.”
Adam's reconstruction does not include the types of evidence that a professional shooting reconstruction is based on and which I've based my reconstruction on:
- Blood stains and lack of
- Casings, exited bullets and ricochet bullets
- Distance of shots
- Trajectories
- Wound tracks
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
If you think JB committed the killings I would be grateful if you can incorporate the above into your reconstruction.
-
Adam's reconstruction does not include the types of evidence that a professional shooting reconstruction is based on and which I've based my reconstruction on:
- Blood stains and lack of
- Casings, exited bullets and ricochet bullets
- Distance of shots
- Trajectories
- Wound tracks
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
If you think JB committed the killings I would be grateful if you can incorporate the above into your reconstruction.
Nah, you’re the expert, so you tell us how Adam’s reconstruction simply could not have happened as he describes.
-
The most important of all,motive!,who had most to gain?
-
Adam’s post below more or less covers it for me. It certainly makes alot more sense than any narrative involving Sheila.
Why use the poker to look for signs of life, instead of just shooting Nevill again, or as many as it took.
Isn't that the reason for the overkill, to ensure no ID?
-
Why use the poker to look for signs of life, instead of just shooting Nevill again, or as many as it took.
Isn't that the reason for the overkill, to ensure no ID?
Poker?
-
Poker?
Evidence - Gun and bible by Sheila. Silencer put in a box. Neville's body moved to give easy access to naked back. Nevill's back burnt to check for signs of life.
What did this mean?
-
Nah, you’re the expert, so you tell us how Adam’s reconstruction simply could not have happened as he describes.
You have ruled out Adam playing Devils advocate?
A shooting reconstruction is based on the physical evidence
found at soc. I will upload a couple of examples?
-
Evidence - Gun and bible by Sheila. Silencer put in a box. Neville's body moved to give easy access to naked back. Nevill's back burnt to check for signs of life.
What did this mean?
Where does it come from? Sounds like RWB's diary?
-
You have ruled out Adam playing Devils advocate?
A shooting reconstruction is based on the physical evidence
found at soc. I will upload a couple of examples?
What do you mean by “Adam playing Devils Advocate?“
-
Evidence - Gun and bible by Sheila. Silencer put in a box. Neville's body moved to give easy access to naked back. Nevill's back burnt to check for signs of life.
What did this mean?
Nevill had scorch marks on his back.
-
You have ruled out Adam playing Devils advocate?
A shooting reconstruction is based on the physical evidence
found at soc. I will upload a couple of examples?
No, what gives you that idea? I simply would like you to tell me what forensic evidence makes his scenario impossible.
-
Where does it come from? Sounds like RWB's diary?
It comes from Adam’s post above.
-
Nevill had scorch marks on his back.
Is that the conclusion the two pathologists arrived at?
-
Nevill had scorch marks on his back.
Why use the poker to look for signs of life, instead of just shooting Nevill again, or as many as it took.
Isn't that the reason for the overkill, to ensure no ID?
Was Adam suggesting that the poker was used, and if, why?
-
No, what gives you that idea? I simply would like you to tell me what forensic evidence makes his scenario impossible.
And I would like you to go through and identify the sources.
My reconstruction is based on the physical evidence with mostly reliable sources:
Blood stains and lack of - soc officers, biologist and senior lecturer in blood serology groups
Casings - soc officers
Distance of shots - ballistics
Trajectories of wounds - pathologist
Wound tracks - pathologist
-
Was Adam suggesting that the poker was used, and if, why?
Did the pathologists conclude the marks to NB's back were burns?
There's a mountain of material in the public domain. I look for reliable sources.
-
And I would like you to go through and identify the sources.
My reconstruction is based on the physical evidence with mostly reliable sources:
Blood stains and lack of - soc officers, biologist and senior lecturer in blood serology groups
Casings - soc officers
Distance of shots - ballistics
Trajectories of wounds - pathologist
Wound tracks - pathologist
The key to it all in my opinion lies in knowing the sequence of events. That is the order in which the executions were carried out.
There is no physical evidence which does that, is there. Therefore your version of events is no more valid than anyone else's.
-
The key to it all in my opinion lies in knowing the sequence of events. That is the order in which the executions were carried out.
There is no physical evidence which does that, is there. Therefore your version of events is no more valid than anyone else's.
The key to understanding it is a professional shooting reconstruction which should have taken place at the time but its never too late.
-
Prof Bernard Knight did not think the marks to NB's back were burns and Dr Vanezis wasn't sure.
-
You have ruled out Adam playing Devils advocate?
A shooting reconstruction is based on the physical evidence
found at soc. I will upload a couple of examples?
You're an advocate of Bambers innocence now unless you can get someone of the same mind as Sheila was supposed to be in to be the virtual shooter how do you see it playing out?
-
The key to understanding it is a professional shooting reconstruction which should have taken place at the time but its never too late.
I think that 'it is never to late' is a ludicrous statement to make at this remove. Your man was convicted on the evidence available at the time which was obviously still potent years later on appeal - and so it remains.
-
I think that 'it is never to late' is a ludicrous statement to make at this remove. Your man was convicted on the evidence available at the time which was obviously still potent years later on appeal - and so it remains.
You thinking something is ludicrous doesn't make it so.
My man is my Pete not JB.
Like all prisoners, no matter how henious the crimes they were convicted of, JB has access to the appeal courts who will grant leave to appeal if he's able to provide fresh evidence.
In this case the UK isn't known for its expertise in ballistics even today let alone 35 years ago unlike say the US where gun crime is routine.
I believe a reconstruction will make a compelling appeal point added to the two reasons for referral which relate to the blood and silencer evidence.
I would point out that there are many additional points other than a reconstruction.
The following gives some idea of a shooting reconstruction
https://youtu.be/R5JDhi4URds
-
This reads like ‘your’ Pete is an ex con Holly?
-
Was Adam suggesting that the poker was used, and if, why?
To explain the marks presumably,.
-
And I would like you to go through and identify the sources.
My reconstruction is based on the physical evidence with mostly reliable sources:
Blood stains and lack of - soc officers, biologist and senior lecturer in blood serology groups
Casings - soc officers
Distance of shots - ballistics
Trajectories of wounds - pathologist
Wound tracks - pathologist
Did all these learned experts conclude that JB could not have committed the crime then?
-
This reads like ‘your’ Pete is an ex con Holly?
On the contrary actually. He's a lawyer without so much as a parking ticket or speeding fine.
-
On the contrary actually. He's a lawyer without so much as a parking ticket or speeding fine.
@)(++(*
-
Another example of a shooting reconstruction: Tony Martin/Bleak Farm at 45 mins in:
https://youtu.be/BemcOAg53eM
-
Another example of a shooting reconstruction: Tony Martin/Bleak Farm at 45 mins in:
https://youtu.be/BemcOAg53eM
And as pointed out to you, there was a witness.
-
On the contrary actually. He's a lawyer without so much as a parking ticket or speeding fine.
Is that because he doesn’t drive ?
-
Another example of a shooting reconstruction: Tony Martin/Bleak Farm at 45 mins in:
https://youtu.be/BemcOAg53eM
You have mentioned this before Holly
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10643.msg520348#msg520348
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11197.msg572547#msg572547
So has Chud http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6020.msg523849#msg523849
-
And as pointed out to you, there was a witness.
And as pointed out to you, witnesses are not required for a reconstruction. Where does it refer to witnesses in the following:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
-
And as pointed out to you, witnesses are not required for a reconstruction. Where does it refer to witnesses in the following:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
In the case you are talking about, it was the witness's word against that of Tony Martin, the witness provided evidence of where Martin was when he shot the victim - the reconstruction was on the basis of their claims. In the Bamber case, you would still be left with 'who was holding the gun' and that's the question your reconstruction couldn't answer.
-
In the case you are talking about, it was the witness's word against that of Tony Martin, the witness provided evidence of where Martin was when he shot the victim - the reconstruction was on the basis of their claims. In the Bamber case, you would still be left with 'who was holding the gun' and that's the question your reconstruction couldn't answer.
Exactly - I can't see how the evidence could distinguish between Sheila and Jeremy being the perpetrator - anything Sheila could have done, could also have been done by Jeremy could it not?
-
Exactly - I can't see how the evidence could distinguish between Sheila and Jeremy being the perpetrator - anything Sheila could have done, could also have been done by Jeremy could it not?
And the deaths were more beneficial to Jeremy than to Sheila.
-
And the deaths were more beneficial to Jeremy than to Sheila.
They were murdered - ie murders
-
And the deaths were more beneficial to Jeremy than to Sheila.
He discussed burning down the Farm in 1984 with JM and one of his mates (when dragged in for questioning after JB's arrest) independently revealed that JB had talked about how much he would benefit from there being a fire at the Farm and all his relatives dying. I think this is proof that JB had considered doing away with his family and the JM was being truthful when she revealed this to the police.
-
In the case you are talking about, it was the witness's word against that of Tony Martin, the witness provided evidence of where Martin was when he shot the victim - the reconstruction was on the basis of their claims. In the Bamber case, you would still be left with 'who was holding the gun' and that's the question your reconstruction couldn't answer. (&^&
I think a reconstruction wouldn't determine anything. It would all be speculation. For example where was the first shot taken ~ where was the last shot taken ~ what were the movements in between?
As I said ~ all speculation with the exception that five individuals would remain dead and their killer would still have no chance of getting another bite at the cherry based on that ludicrous speculation.
-
And I would like you to go through and identify the sources.
My reconstruction is based on the physical evidence with mostly reliable sources:
Blood stains and lack of - soc officers, biologist and senior lecturer in blood serology groups
Casings - soc officers
Distance of shots - ballistics
Trajectories of wounds - pathologist
Wound tracks - pathologist
They were all carried out, Holly...you know that.
And all the scientific evidence proved Sheila couldn’t have done it!
Do you understand the reports or should we explain them to you? Or perhaps you should look through the COA & previous Court docs which highlight all these scientific investigations which proved Sheila couldn’t have carried out the murders, nor killed her self.
-
Did the pathologists conclude the marks to NB's back were burns?
There's a mountain of material in the public domain. I look for reliable sources.
Do you think, Holly, that all those reliable sources you’ve found amongst the mountain of evidence, is the reason why after 10 years or longer, you haven’t been able to find ONE solid piece of evidence that suggests Jeremy could be innocent?
-
The key to understanding it is a professional shooting reconstruction which should have taken place at the time but its never too late.
But they’re all dead!
How can they do a reconstruction when they can’t know Jeremy’s exact movements after he crawled in through the window?
He’s hardly going to tell anyone!
If they did do a reconstruction it would just be assumption, so it’s a pointless exercise. Anyway, it isn’t needed — they proved Jeremy Bamber is the murderer 35 years ago....
-
The most important of all,motive!,who had most to gain?
Jeremy Bamber &%54%
-
Do you think, Holly, that all those reliable sources you’ve found amongst the mountain of evidence, is the reason why after 10 years or longer, you haven’t been able to find ONE solid piece of evidence that suggests Jeremy could be innocent?
I'm not entirely certain Holly believes in his innocence,its more that a miscarriage resulted with the strength of evidence used to convict him,seen from today's world,there's a difference.I'm sure or there again maybe not she'll correct me if wrong.
-
Did all these learned experts conclude that JB could not have committed the crime then?
No, all these leading experts concluded Jeremy murdered them all.
-
On the contrary actually. He's a lawyer without so much as a parking ticket or speeding fine.
So you say...
If Pete is a solicitor he obviously doesn’t deal in criminal work, otherwise he’d have told you years ago you’re flogging a dead horse. Doesn’t he mind you spending all your time devoted to Jeremy Bamber and his case?
-
Is that because he doesn’t drive ?
(&^&
-
I'm not entirely certain Holly believes in his innocence,its more that a miscarriage resulted with the strength of evidence used to convict him,seen from today's world,there's a difference.I'm sure or there again maybe not she'll correct me if wrong.
Surely that’s even worse??! To expend so much time and energy on trying to get a man released from prison whose innocence you’re not entirely convinced by, a man who murdered 5 people including 2 six year old children??
-
Surely that’s even worse??! To expend so much time and energy on trying to get a man released from prison whose innocence you’re not entirely convinced by, a man who murdered 5 people including 2 six year old children??
From another thread.
No they're not. JB needs to produce some evidence that undermines his conviction to the extent that 3 appeal court judges will take the view that had jurors heard it they may have returned a different verdict.
-
From another thread.
Not sure what point you’re trying to make in response to my post.
-
Not sure what point you’re trying to make in response to my post.
Showing what I believe Holly's stance to be,I of course may be wrong.
-
Showing what I believe Holly's stance to be,I of course may be wrong.
She believes him to be honest and decent and a poor, poor victim judging by all the posts I’ve read of hers.
-
In the case you are talking about, it was the witness's word against that of Tony Martin, the witness provided evidence of where Martin was when he shot the victim - the reconstruction was on the basis of their claims. In the Bamber case, you would still be left with 'who was holding the gun' and that's the question your reconstruction couldn't answer.
It makes no difference whether there is a witness or not because not all witness testimony is reliable unlike the physical evidence.
-
Exactly - I can't see how the evidence could distinguish between Sheila and Jeremy being the perpetrator - anything Sheila could have done, could also have been done by Jeremy could it not?
The main purpose of a shooting reconstruction is to determine perp/victim location.
In this case the prosecution alleged at trial that JB entered his parents bedroom under stealth and opened fire on NB and June in bed. The defence offered no alternative scenario.
The pathological evidence and casings show NB sustained 4 gsw's upstairs 2 of which were fired within inches of his face rendering him incapable of purposeful speech thereafter. In which case how could he have made the call to JB? And given NB's injuries to his face caused heavy loss of blood externally and internally why wasn't the handset/mouthpiece bloodstained?
What a reconstruction will do, based on all the physical evidence: blood stains to the floor and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks, is show where in the farmhouse NB was positioned when he sustained the facial wounds and where the perp was positioned when he/she inflicted them.
To date there's no expert evidence available in this regard just the prosecution alleging what I've stated above.
I believe, based on the physical evidence, a professional reconstruction will show that when NB sustained the facial wounds he wasn't lying in bed but standing on the landing stairs which immediately precede the entrance to the bedroom. And the perp was standing just inside the bedroom firing out onto the landing. If I'm proved right then this puts a complete different complexion on this aspect of the case as it lends support to JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that it could be argued if NB was on the landing he had come up the main staircase from the kitchen having just called JB.
-
I'm not entirely certain Holly believes in his innocence,its more that a miscarriage resulted with the strength of evidence used to convict him,seen from today's world,there's a difference.I'm sure or there again maybe not she'll correct me if wrong.
Before I worked out the shooting reconstruction I wasn't entirely convinced but now I'm sure of his innocence.
-
He discussed burning down the Farm in 1984 with JM and one of his mates (when dragged in for questioning after JB's arrest) independently revealed that JB had talked about how much he would benefit from there being a fire at the Farm and all his relatives dying. I think this is proof that JB had considered doing away with his family and the JM was being truthful when she revealed this to the police.
Do you think someone who is planning to murder his family goes around making such comments?
-
No expert is on record claiming JB committed the murders. The pathologist has always made clear he was unable to say one way or the other whether SC was murdered or took her own life.
The most damning evidence at trial came from the so-called ballistics expert Malcolm Fletcher who told the court his relevant experience included 13 years working in the firearms department and "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy". All the other experts referred to high level qualifications, experience and membership of professional bodies.
He might have been competent to provide reliable evidence to the court about routine ballistic matters but there was no way he was competent to provide the sort of evidence he did which ventured into the pathology of gunshot wounds and explaining how blood from a contact gunshot wound could deposit inside a silencer.
-
Is that because he doesn’t drive ?
You do make me laugh with your quick wit, Nicholas!🤣
I thought Holly was English — not American: so why use the term “lawyer” when we say “solicitor”?😂
-
It makes no difference whether there is a witness or not because not all witness testimony is reliable unlike the physical evidence.
So why do police appeal for witnesses?
-
Before I worked out the shooting reconstruction I wasn't entirely convinced but now I'm sure of his innocence.
It will prove nothing of the sort. Casings on the landing or just inside the doorway could equally have come from the final shots to June. An absolute waste of time and anyone's money if they're foolish enough to back such a pie in the sky project.
-
The main purpose of a shooting reconstruction is to determine perp/victim location.
In this case the prosecution alleged at trial that JB entered his parents bedroom under stealth and opened fire on NB and June in bed. The defence offered no alternative scenario.
The pathological evidence and casings show NB sustained 4 gsw's upstairs 2 of which were fired within inches of his face rendering him incapable of purposeful speech thereafter. In which case how could he have made the call to JB? And given NB's injuries to his face caused heavy loss of blood externally and internally why wasn't the handset/mouthpiece bloodstained?
What a reconstruction will do, based on all the physical evidence: blood stains to the floor and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks, is show where in the farmhouse NB was positioned when he sustained the facial wounds and where the perp was positioned when he/she inflicted them.
To date there's no expert evidence available in this regard just the prosecution alleging what I've stated above.
I believe, based on the physical evidence, a professional reconstruction will show that when NB sustained the facial wounds he wasn't lying in bed but standing on the landing stairs which immediately precede the entrance to the bedroom. And the perp was standing just inside the bedroom firing out onto the landing. If I'm proved right then this puts a complete different complexion on this aspect of the case as it lends support to JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that it could be argued if NB was on the landing he had come up the main staircase from the kitchen having just called JB.
They established all this 35 years ago, Holly!
Nevill wasn’t shot in the bedroom (none of his bloodstains were there) — he was shot on the landing. Surely you know that? Surely you know police & forensics PROVED that by the casings and Nevill’s blood on the landing?
It’s blatantly obvious that the perp, Jeremy Bamber, quietly crept into the bedroom whilst June & Nevill were sleeping, and the bullets hit June first. Simple as that. Nevill obviously jumped up out of bed, struggled with Jeremy by the bedroom door and onto the landing — that’s where June comes in again — she raced to the door to try and help Nevill, hence her bloodstains on the carpet, Jeremy punched her in the face blackening her eye, she ran back a bit in all the panic and mayhem, then Jeremy shot her between her eyes. DEAD.
Nevill was then shot with the last of the bullets Jeremy had loaded in the rifle; Nevill would’ve known the rifle was now empty & raced downstairs to raise the alarm by calling 999 & possibly arming himself. You know the rest...Jeremy finished Nevill off in the kitchen.
-
The main purpose of a shooting reconstruction is to determine perp/victim location.
In this case the prosecution alleged at trial that JB entered his parents bedroom under stealth and opened fire on NB and June in bed. The defence offered no alternative scenario.
The pathological evidence and casings show NB sustained 4 gsw's upstairs 2 of which were fired within inches of his face rendering him incapable of purposeful speech thereafter. In which case how could he have made the call to JB? And given NB's injuries to his face caused heavy loss of blood externally and internally why wasn't the handset/mouthpiece bloodstained?
What a reconstruction will do, based on all the physical evidence: blood stains to the floor and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks, is show where in the farmhouse NB was positioned when he sustained the facial wounds and where the perp was positioned when he/she inflicted them.
To date there's no expert evidence available in this regard just the prosecution alleging what I've stated above.
I believe, based on the physical evidence, a professional reconstruction will show that when NB sustained the facial wounds he wasn't lying in bed but standing on the landing stairs which immediately precede the entrance to the bedroom. And the perp was standing just inside the bedroom firing out onto the landing. If I'm proved right then this puts a complete different complexion on this aspect of the case as it lends support to JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that it could be argued if NB was on the landing he had come up the main staircase from the kitchen having just called JB.
So what are you going to do, actually fire bullets into someone’s face to prove a point? They didn’t need to recreate the shooting of JFK to prove definitively that that killing bullet that took the top off the president’s head came from the Book Depository building.
-
Before I worked out the shooting reconstruction I wasn't entirely convinced but now I'm sure of his innocence.
Please explain why it is simply impossible for Jeremy to have shot NB upstairs?
-
Do you think someone who is planning to murder his family goes around making such comments?
It wouldn’t be the first time. How did the Bamber’s pub acquaintance come up with such a similar account as JM’s when called in for questioning? Was he in on the conspiracy to get JB?
-
Surely that’s even worse??! To expend so much time and energy on trying to get a man released from prison whose innocence you’re not entirely convinced by, a man who murdered 5 people including 2 six year old children??
Certainly, I find such an exercise distasteful in the extreme. However, in Holly's defence, it's what barristers do on a daily basis. As Alex McBride says in "Defending The Guilty", they're not interested in innocence or guilt -in fact, they'd prefer not to know- it's about being able to present a jury with a story they'll buy.
-
Certainly, I find such an exercise distasteful in the extreme. However, in Holly's defence, it's what barristers do on a daily basis. As Alex McBride says in "Defending The Guilty", they're not interested in innocence or guilt -in fact, they'd prefer not to know- it's about being able to present a jury with a story they'll buy.
You'll need to bump up the volume to max... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IFt_U4mcu4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IFt_U4mcu4)
-
Before I worked out the shooting reconstruction I wasn't entirely convinced but now I'm sure of his innocence.
Thank you for the clarity,but how can that prove it was not J Bamber.
-
So why do police appeal for witnesses?
I'm talking about a shooting reconstruction.
-
It will prove nothing of the sort. Casings on the landing or just inside the doorway could equally have come from the final shots to June. An absolute waste of time and anyone's money if they're foolish enough to back such a pie in the sky project.
Of course the casings alone do not support anything either way but the totality of the physical evidence does.
-
I'm talking about a shooting reconstruction.
Are you talking of a crime scene reconstruction or a shooting construction,I asked before you don't know the mindset of the protagonist at the time so how would you have the shooting or virtual shooting played out?
-
They established all this 35 years ago, Holly!
Nevill wasn’t shot in the bedroom (none of his bloodstains were there) — he was shot on the landing. Surely you know that? Surely you know police & forensics PROVED that by the casings and Nevill’s blood on the landing?
It’s blatantly obvious that the perp, Jeremy Bamber, quietly crept into the bedroom whilst June & Nevill were sleeping, and the bullets hit June first. Simple as that. Nevill obviously jumped up out of bed, struggled with Jeremy by the bedroom door and onto the landing — that’s where June comes in again — she raced to the door to try and help Nevill, hence her bloodstains on the carpet, Jeremy punched her in the face blackening her eye, she ran back a bit in all the panic and mayhem, then Jeremy shot her between her eyes. DEAD.
Nevill was then shot with the last of the bullets Jeremy had loaded in the rifle; Nevill would’ve known the rifle was now empty & raced downstairs to raise the alarm by calling 999 & possibly arming himself. You know the rest...Jeremy finished Nevill off in the kitchen.
Who is "They"?
-
The main purpose of a shooting reconstruction is to determine perp/victim location.
In this case the prosecution alleged at trial that JB entered his parents bedroom under stealth and opened fire on NB and June in bed. The defence offered no alternative scenario.
The pathological evidence and casings show NB sustained 4 gsw's upstairs 2 of which were fired within inches of his face rendering him incapable of purposeful speech thereafter. In which case how could he have made the call to JB? And given NB's injuries to his face caused heavy loss of blood externally and internally why wasn't the handset/mouthpiece bloodstained?
What a reconstruction will do, based on all the physical evidence: blood stains to the floor and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks, is show where in the farmhouse NB was positioned when he sustained the facial wounds and where the perp was positioned when he/she inflicted them.
To date there's no expert evidence available in this regard just the prosecution alleging what I've stated above.
I believe, based on the physical evidence, a professional reconstruction will show that when NB sustained the facial wounds he wasn't lying in bed but standing on the landing stairs which immediately precede the entrance to the bedroom. And the perp was standing just inside the bedroom firing out onto the landing. If I'm proved right then this puts a complete different complexion on this aspect of the case as it lends support to JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that it could be argued if NB was on the landing he had come up the main staircase from the kitchen having just called JB.
Therein it all falls down imo,the alleged phone call,why on earth would Nevill phone his son when his daughter is supposedly going crazy with a gun,it made no sense to the jury back in 86,it makes no sense with the passing of time.
-
So what are you going to do, actually fire bullets into someone’s face to prove a point? They didn’t need to recreate the shooting of JFK to prove definitively that that killing bullet that took the top off the president’s head came from the Book Depository building.
The JFK reconstruction showed where the shooter and JFK were located using bullet trajectory analysis. As we know this bullet travelled some distance.
A reconstruction at WHF will be based on the same principles albeit the distances are much shorter which provides for even greater accuracy as you don't have to contend with any air resistance and drag.
Why do you think the pathologist provided information about the trajectories of the gunshot wounds and wound tracks if they have no meaning?
Why do you think all the casings were photographed at soc?
Why do you think the blood stains to floors were photographed/documented and tested?
Why do you think info re the distance of shots was made available?
The fact the above hasn't to date been pulled together to reconstruct what happened based on the physical evidence/scientific facts doesn't mean its not going to happen in the future.
-
The JFK reconstruction showed where the shooter and JFK were located using bullet trajectory analysis. As we know this bullet travelled some distance.
A reconstruction at WHF will be based on the same principles albeit the distances are much shorter which provides for even greater accuracy as you don't have to contend with any air resistance and drag.
Why do you think the pathologist provided information about the trajectories of the gunshot wounds and wound tracks if they have no meaning?
Why do you think all the casings were photographed at soc?
Why do you think the blood stains to floors were photographed/documented and tested?
Why do you think info re the distance of shots was made available?
The fact the above hasn't to date been pulled together to reconstruct what happened based on the physical evidence/scientific facts doesn't mean its not going to happen in the future.
Why do you think it'll cast doubt on JB rather than reinforce his guilt?
-
It wouldn’t be the first time. How did the Bamber’s pub acquaintance come up with such a similar account as JM’s when called in for questioning? Was he in on the conspiracy to get JB?
I think you are referring to Charles Marsden who JB considered a friend.
What did Charles Marsden tell the jury?
-
Why do you think it'll cast doubt on JB rather than reinforce his guilt?
Because imo the physical evidence supports the reconstruction I've explained which lends support to a tel call/JB.
-
The JFK reconstruction showed where the shooter and JFK were located using bullet trajectory analysis. As we know this bullet travelled some distance.
A reconstruction at WHF will be based on the same principles albeit the distances are much shorter which provides for even greater accuracy as you don't have to contend with any air resistance and drag.
Why do you think the pathologist provided information about the trajectories of the gunshot wounds and wound tracks if they have no meaning?
Why do you think all the casings were photographed at soc?
Why do you think the blood stains to floors were photographed/documented and tested?
Why do you think info re the distance of shots was made available?
The fact the above hasn't to date been pulled together to reconstruct what happened based on the physical evidence/scientific facts doesn't mean its not going to happen in the future.
Where did I say “they have no meaning”? What is stopping you recreating all of this in your own home, videoing it and posting it on here for us all? If you think it will prove Jeremy couldn’t possibly have committed the crime then let’s understand why not.
-
I think you are referring to Charles Marsden who JB considered a friend.
What did Charles Marsden tell the jury?
I haven’t got to that bit yet. I have just read his statement to the police when brought in for questioning. Did he change his tune?
-
Certainly, I find such an exercise distasteful in the extreme. However, in Holly's defence, it's what barristers do on a daily basis. As Alex McBride says in "Defending The Guilty", they're not interested in innocence or guilt -in fact, they'd prefer not to know- it's about being able to present a jury with a story they'll buy.
And its what prosecuting counsel do too. They go to court to secure convictions not acquitalls
-
I haven’t got to that bit yet. I have just read his statement to the police when brought in for questioning. Did he change his tune?
He didn't testify.
You will find nearly all witnesses incl JB were dealt with almost single handedly by DS Jones. Same officer who was responsible for the silencer. Same officer who was the only dissenter from day 1. Same officer who told a Sky drama/docu that he knew JB had committed the killings but he just had to pray something would turn up to prove him right! And it did turn up by way of JM and the silencer both of which he was closely involved in.
-
No expert is on record claiming JB committed the murders. The pathologist has always made clear he was unable to say one way or the other whether SC was murdered or took her own life.
The most damning evidence at trial came from the so-called ballistics expert Malcolm Fletcher who told the court his relevant experience included 13 years working in the firearms department and "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy". All the other experts referred to high level qualifications, experience and membership of professional bodies.
He might have been competent to provide reliable evidence to the court about routine ballistic matters but there was no way he was competent to provide the sort of evidence he did which ventured into the pathology of gunshot wounds and explaining how blood from a contact gunshot wound could deposit inside a silencer.
Who are you to say the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher wasn’t experienced enough to provide evidence?
You’ve never fired a gun in your life, Holly. You’re not trained in forensics, ballistics, law, medicine...yet you come here saying who you think is inexperienced despite the court having total confidence in these EXPERTS!
You don’t have the knowledge or experience to make such damning comments when you’re totally uneducated in these matters.
-
Before I worked out the shooting reconstruction I wasn't entirely convinced but now I'm sure of his innocence.
Have you written to the court of appeal and told them you’ve worked it out, Holly?🧐
-
Where did I say “they have no meaning”? What is stopping you recreating all of this in your own home, videoing it and posting it on here for us all? If you think it will prove Jeremy couldn’t possibly have committed the crime then let’s understand why not.
My home isn't WHF. The reconstructions I uploaded JFK and Tony Martin were based at soc.
I've said what I think a reconstruction will show. Can you not look at the layout diagram of WHF and all the info I've highlighted and work it out in your mind's eye? It's not something you can latch onto in 5 mins. You have to piece it together like a jigsaw puzzle and it takes time.
It helps if you forget about thinking JB or SC and just focus literally on fitting the pieces together.
When I have time I'll pull all the info together and you can see what you make of it?
-
It wouldn’t be the first time. How did the Bamber’s pub acquaintance come up with such a similar account as JM’s when called in for questioning? Was he in on the conspiracy to get JB?
People have been known to tell people they’d like to “bump their partners off” , kill them, words to that effect...and people have dismissed it.
Some people have tried to hire hitmen to kill their spouse, and have often been given away by the hitman when he’s considered it too evil...that’s why NO hitman would have killed The Bamber family. Even hitmen have morals...
-
He didn't testify.
You will find nearly all witnesses incl JB were dealt with almost single handedly by DS Jones. Same officer who was responsible for the silencer. Same officer who was the only dissenter from day 1. Same officer who told a Sky drama/docu that he knew JB had committed the killings but he just had to pray something would turn up to prove him right! And it did turn up by way of JM and the silencer both of which he was closely involved in.
What are you suggesting?
-
Certainly, I find such an exercise distasteful in the extreme. However, in Holly's defence, it's what barristers do on a daily basis. As Alex McBride says in "Defending The Guilty", they're not interested in innocence or guilt -in fact, they'd prefer not to know- it's about being able to present a jury with a story they'll buy.
But Holly isn’t a barrister, April — she isn’t getting paid to defend him.
Which begs the question: what’s her fascination with him?
-
My home isn't WHF. The reconstructions I uploaded JFK and Tony Martin were based at soc.
I've said what I think a reconstruction will show. Can you not look at the layout diagram of WHF and all the info I've highlighted and work it out in your mind's eye? It's not something you can latch onto in 5 mins. You have to piece it together like a jigsaw puzzle and it takes time.
It helps if you forget about thinking JB or SC and just focus literally on fitting the pieces together.
When I have time I'll pull all the info together and you can see what you make of it?
Holly, can you definitively state that it is impossible for Jeremy Bamber to have shot NB from a position above him? If so, why? I can think of numerous scenarios which has Bamber towering over Nevill, how would you be able to prove none of them happened using a reconstruction?
-
Who are you to say the ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher wasn’t experienced enough to provide evidence?
You’ve never fired a gun in your life, Holly. You’re not trained in forensics, ballistics, law, medicine...yet you come here saying who you think is inexperienced despite the court having total confidence in these EXPERTS!
You don’t have the knowledge or experience to make such damning comments when you’re totally uneducated in these matters.
Experts demonstrate their competence through qualifications in large part. What qualifications did MF possess at trial that made him competent and suitable to provide the court with reliable testimony over matters involving very complex ballistics?
-
I'm talking about a shooting reconstruction.
You need witnesses for any reconstruction, otherwise it’s just assumption.
It’s a pointless exercise, and won’t determine anything
It would be laughed away...
-
They established all this 35 years ago, Holly!
Nevill wasn’t shot in the bedroom (none of his bloodstains were there) — he was shot on the landing. Surely you know that? Surely you know police & forensics PROVED that by the casings and Nevill’s blood on the landing?
It’s blatantly obvious that the perp, Jeremy Bamber, quietly crept into the bedroom whilst June & Nevill were sleeping, and the bullets hit June first. Simple as that. Nevill obviously jumped up out of bed, struggled with Jeremy by the bedroom door and onto the landing — that’s where June comes in again — she raced to the door to try and help Nevill, hence her bloodstains on the carpet, Jeremy punched her in the face blackening her eye, she ran back a bit in all the panic and mayhem, then Jeremy shot her between her eyes. DEAD.
Nevill was then shot with the last of the bullets Jeremy had loaded in the rifle; Nevill would’ve known the rifle was now empty & raced downstairs to raise the alarm by calling 999 & possibly arming himself. You know the rest...Jeremy finished Nevill off in the kitchen.
-
Who is "They"?
The CPS, court, QCs, police etc..
-
Experts demonstrate their competence through qualifications in large part. What qualifications did MF possess at trial that made him competent and suitable to provide the court with reliable testimony over matters involving very complex ballistics?
Have you got a qualified ballistics expert on your side that can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Jeremy could not have killed Nevill?
-
What are you suggesting?
I think he was hell bent on proving his theories, which Dr Vanezis said had no evidential value to them, and wasn't bothered about how he achieved it. This can be evidenced by the fact he entered the silencer into the wrong property book to avoid it coming under the sort of scrutiny it would have undergone had he entered it into the correct property book.
-
I think he was hell bent on proving his theories, which Dr Vanezis said had no evidential value to them, and wasn't bothered about how he achieved it. This can be evidenced by the fact he entered the silencer into the wrong property book to avoid it coming under the sort of scrutiny it would have undergone had he entered it into the correct property book.
Are you saying he fabricated witness statements?
-
Because imo the physical evidence supports the reconstruction I've explained which lends support to a tel call/JB.
But the courts aren’t interested in your opinion, Holly
You’re nothing to do with any of it
Bamber’s had three bites at the cherry, and that’s the end of it. If you seriously think they’re going to take notice of someone attempting a reconstruction that they’ve made up in their heads 35 years later, and it wouldn’t reveal anything of value, I can only congratulate you on your amazing amount of optimism when the chances of it happening are zero.
-
The JFK reconstruction showed where the shooter and JFK were located using bullet trajectory analysis. As we know this bullet travelled some distance.
A reconstruction at WHF will be based on the same principles albeit the distances are much shorter which provides for even greater accuracy as you don't have to contend with any air resistance and drag.
Why do you think the pathologist provided information about the trajectories of the gunshot wounds and wound tracks if they have no meaning?
Why do you think all the casings were photographed at soc?
Why do you think the blood stains to floors were photographed/documented and tested?
Why do you think info re the distance of shots was made available?
The fact the above hasn't to date been pulled together to reconstruct what happened based on the physical evidence/scientific facts doesn't mean its not going to happen in the future.
Holly, the reason everything was photographed and detailed was so that EXPERTS could examine the EVIDENCE they had put before them, and work out how events took place. A reconstruction wasn’t needed — they had the evidence there.
-
Experts demonstrate their competence through qualifications in large part. What qualifications did MF possess at trial that made him competent and suitable to provide the court with reliable testimony over matters involving very complex ballistics?
Enough qualifications and thirteen years experts satisfy the court he was an expert in his field.
What qualifications do you have to doubt him?
-
Therein it all falls down imo,the alleged phone call,why on earth would Nevill phone his son when his daughter is supposedly going crazy with a gun,it made no sense to the jury back in 86,it makes no sense with the passing of time.
It might make no sense to you but the totality of the physical evidence at soc suggests otherwise.
-
Have you got a qualified ballistics expert on your side that can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Jeremy could not have killed Nevill?
I would not entertain anyone who wasn't appropriately qualified and experienced. Why would I when the CoA wouldn't?
I've set out what I believe a reconstruction will demonstrate.
-
It might make no sense to you but the totality of the physical evidence at soc suggests otherwise.
Lack of physical evidence in the phone call you mean,one man's word,the jury never believed him.
-
Are you saying he fabricated witness statements?
I think he probably used coercion and intimidation. CC said as much in his book.
During JB's police interview he told him SC could not have shot herself twice. This is not what the pathologist said. He has always maintained he was unable to say one way or the other.
-
I think he probably used coercion and intimidation. CC said as much in his book.
During JB's police interview he told him SC could not have shot herself twice. This is not what the pathologist said. He has always maintained he was unable to say one way or the other.
False.
Why are you saying these things that aren’t true?
-
Lack of physical evidence in the phone call you mean,one man's word,the jury never believed him.
No barrier I mean the totality of the physical evidence at soc which shows NB was first shot on the landing stairs and the perp was shooting out of the bedroom onto the landing.
-
False.
Why are you saying these things that aren’t true?
What is false?
-
No barrier I mean the totality of the physical evidence at soc which shows NB was first shot on the landing stairs and the perp was shooting out of the bedroom onto the landing.
This proves it was Sheila as the shooter? how?
-
I think he probably used coercion and intimidation. CC said as much in his book.
During JB's police interview he told him SC could not have shot herself twice. This is not what the pathologist said. He has always maintained he was unable to say one way or the other.
Cite please. Is this police officer who you are besmirching still alive? Furthermore why has the witness who was coerced and intimidated into coming up with the exact same information as JM not come forward in the last 35 years to say how he was coerced and intimidated into lying in his police statement?
-
I would not entertain anyone who wasn't appropriately qualified and experienced. Why would I when the CoA wouldn't?
I've set out what I believe a reconstruction will demonstrate.
You didn’t answer the question.
-
Holly, can you definitively state that it is impossible for Jeremy Bamber to have shot NB from a position above him? If so, why? I can think of numerous scenarios which has Bamber towering over Nevill, how would you be able to prove none of them happened using a reconstruction?
Well?
-
No barrier I mean the totality of the physical evidence at soc which shows NB was first shot on the landing stairs and the perp was shooting out of the bedroom onto the landing.
Jeremy was either standing in the hallway a good few metres from the bedroom, after having shot June — then Nevill ran out the room to try and disarm Jeremy, or, Jeremy rushed downstairs knowing he only had four bullets left and stood at the bottom of the stairs as Nevill was at top and fired into him....that’s how he managed to shoot him in his face and arm
It’s obvious
-
Jeremy was either standing in the hallway a good few metres from the bedroom, after having shot June — then Nevill ran out the room to try and disarm Jeremy, or, Jeremy rushed downstairs knowing he only had four bullets left and stood at the bottom of the stairs as Nevill was at top and fired into him....that’s how he managed to shoot him in his face and arm
It’s obvious
Just a thought, but surely, had Nevill received that horrendous facial injury at the top of the stairs, it would have sent him reeling? Wouldn't there have been a blood trail all the way down the staircase?
-
He didn't testify.
You will find nearly all witnesses incl JB were dealt with almost single handedly by DS Jones. Same officer who was responsible for the silencer. Same officer who was the only dissenter from day 1. Same officer who told a Sky drama/docu that he knew JB had committed the killings but he just had to pray something would turn up to prove him right! And it did turn up by way of JM and the silencer both of which he was closely involved in.
The fact that the witnesses didn't make statements until September can't have helped matters, IMO.
-
People have been known to tell people they’d like to “bump their partners off” , kill them, words to that effect...and people have dismissed it.
Some people have tried to hire hitmen to kill their spouse, and have often been given away by the hitman when he’s considered it too evil...that’s why NO hitman would have killed The Bamber family. Even hitmen have morals...
Aw, I dunno. There are people who would do anything for money, IMO. Not saying I believe there was a hitman in this case, although it wouldn't surprise me if there were.
-
He didn't testify.
You will find nearly all witnesses incl JB were dealt with almost single handedly by DS Jones. Same officer who was responsible for the silencer. Same officer who was the only dissenter from day 1. Same officer who told a Sky drama/docu that he knew JB had committed the killings but he just had to pray something would turn up to prove him right! And it did turn up by way of JM and the silencer both of which he was closely involved in.
Correction. He was the only named dissenter. It doesn't, for a moment mean there weren't others.
-
looking forward to replies from Holly to my three posts above....
-
No barrier I mean the totality of the physical evidence at soc which shows NB was first shot on the landing stairs and the perp was shooting out of the bedroom onto the landing.
And who's hand was the gun in?
-
Just a thought, but surely, had Nevill received that horrendous facial injury at the top of the stairs, it would have sent him reeling? Wouldn't there have been a blood trail all the way down the staircase?
Not necessarily.
There was blood on the landing and staircase, of course, but not copious amounts. It depends on where exactly the bullets enter the body....much of Nevill’s bleeding was internal. His throat was filled with it (like Sheila’s was) so although there was blood of Nevill’s upstairs and in the kitchen too, the largest pool was by the side of him when Jeremy shot him in his head. Head wounds always gush out blood.
-
What is false?
You claiming DS Jones coerced Jeremy in the interview.
He didn’t at all! Jeremy had his solicitor with him, and DS Jones asked him perfectly reasonable questions. There was no coercion at all. And Jeremy was so arrogant and up himself, he could hardly be coerced.
He simply got tripped up because he isn’t that bright, and DS Jones was known to be a very intelligent and clever detective.
-
Not necessarily.
There was blood on the landing and staircase, of course, but not copious amounts. It depends on where exactly the bullets enter the body....much of Nevill’s bleeding was internal. His throat was filled with it (like Sheila’s was) so although there was blood of Nevill’s upstairs and in the kitchen too, the largest pool was by the side of him when Jeremy shit him in his head. Head wounds always gush out blood.
You might want to edit this post. Just sayin...
-
People have been known to tell people they’d like to “bump their partners off” , kill them, words to that effect...and people have dismissed it.
Some people have tried to hire hitmen to kill their spouse, and have often been given away by the hitman when he’s considered it too evil...that’s why NO hitman would have killed The Bamber family. Even hitmen have morals...
The only reasonable explanation for a hitman to use someone else's weapon would be to fit up a third party. But, in this case, it would take a particularly foolhardy hitman to agree to using such an inappropriate weapon to kill everyone inside the house.
-
The only reasonable explanation for a hitman to use someone else's weapon would be to fit up a third party. But, in this case, it would take a particularly foolhardy hitman to agree to using such an inappropriate weapon to kill everyone inside the house.
It would be the only way to do it to fit up Sheila though.
-
It would be the only way to do it to fit up Sheila though.
Yes, I conceded that point. But surely you consider hiring a hitman for a clinical job? I doubt even JB would suggest asking this hitman for a rubbish job and make it look like Sheila did it, when he could do that with a much more plausible result himself - given that the forum majority believe him to be a psychopath.
-
Yes, I conceded that point. But surely you consider hiring a hitman for a clinical job? I doubt even JB would suggest asking this hitman for a rubbish job and make it look like Sheila did it, when he could do that with a much more plausible result himself - given that the forum majority believe him to be a psychopath.
He hardly moved in hitman circles and would risk telling a third person of his intentions.
-
He hardly moved in hitman circles and would risk telling a third person of his intentions.
Indeed.
-
Thank you!!
I types far too quickly...so embarrassing!
I should edit before posting 🤦♀️
-
The only reasonable explanation for a hitman to use someone else's weapon would be to fit up a third party. But, in this case, it would take a particularly foolhardy hitman to agree to using such an inappropriate weapon to kill everyone inside the house.
Great point, General.
Besides that, professional hitmen are professional — they wouldn’t assassinate a family of five by breaking into their home where there’s dogs; not knowing the layout; not knowing what he’d be up against; risking leaving evidence/being seen nearby; using a weapon they weren’t sure was effective/working properly/loaded etc; and not even Mafia kill children at any price.
-
Cite please. Is this police officer who you are besmirching still alive? Furthermore why has the witness who was coerced and intimidated into coming up with the exact same information as JM not come forward in the last 35 years to say how he was coerced and intimidated into lying in his police statement?
So Holly has declined to answer any of my last few posts on this thread. That’s fine, I understand why. I’d just like to address the suggestion of police collusion, cover up and conspiracy to get Jeremy banged up for a crime he didn’t commit. After the court case and verdict Essex police came in for massive criticism and ridicule for their handling of the case, which they would not have done nearly as much if a verdict of not guilty had been reached, indeed they would have avoided any criticism at all if they had steadfastly stuck to their guns from the get go and done their best to cover up any suggestion of Jeremy’s involvement. So quite what was the motivation for them pursuing JB so hard when it only served to shine a light on what a cock-up the initial investigation had been? Rhetorical question and obviously not expecting Holly or any other supporter to respond.
-
So Holly has declined to answer any of my last few posts on this thread. That’s fine, I understand why. I’d just like to address the suggestion of police collusion, cover up and conspiracy to get Jeremy banged up for a crime he didn’t commit. After the court case and verdict Essex police came in for massive criticism and ridicule for their handling of the case, which they would not have done nearly as much if a verdict of not guilty had been reached, indeed they would have avoided any criticism at all if they had steadfastly stuck to their guns from the get go and done their best to cover up any suggestion of Jeremy’s involvement. So quite what was the motivation for them pursuing JB so hard when it only served to shine a light on what a cock-up the initial investigation had been? Rhetorical question and obviously not expecting Holly or any other supporter to respond.
I have made this point before, changing their mind, made them look stupid - so no motivation at all.
-
So Holly has declined to answer any of my last few posts on this thread. That’s fine, I understand why. I’d just like to address the suggestion of police collusion, cover up and conspiracy to get Jeremy banged up for a crime he didn’t commit. After the court case and verdict Essex police came in for massive criticism and ridicule for their handling of the case, which they would not have done nearly as much if a verdict of not guilty had been reached, indeed they would have avoided any criticism at all if they had steadfastly stuck to their guns from the get go and done their best to cover up any suggestion of Jeremy’s involvement. So quite what was the motivation for them pursuing JB so hard when it only served to shine a light on what a cock-up the initial investigation had been? Rhetorical question and obviously not expecting Holly or any other supporter to respond.
If you are expecting or wanting me to respond to a post(s) can you not just bump it up when I'm on the forum or send me the links via pm?
I had other things on yesterday and spent very liitle time here. When I arrived yesterday evening I spent most of that time editing and removing posts which contained comments of a personal nature one of which was yours.
Are the posts pending replies on this thread and from yesterday?
Off for the daily run followed by floor and weight exercises. I'll be back later!
-
So Holly has declined to answer any of my last few posts on this thread. That’s fine, I understand why. I’d just like to address the suggestion of police collusion, cover up and conspiracy to get Jeremy banged up for a crime he didn’t commit. After the court case and verdict Essex police came in for massive criticism and ridicule for their handling of the case, which they would not have done nearly as much if a verdict of not guilty had been reached, indeed they would have avoided any criticism at all if they had steadfastly stuck to their guns from the get go and done their best to cover up any suggestion of Jeremy’s involvement. So quite what was the motivation for them pursuing JB so hard when it only served to shine a light on what a cock-up the initial investigation had been? Rhetorical question and obviously not expecting Holly or any other supporter to respond.
Oh, I thought Holly would have responded by now...
Another thought; if the police wanted to stitch him up why didn’t they on day one? Why leave it so long?
I believe DCI Taff Jones was the major obstacle in preventing the police pursuing Jeremy sooner. He was a hysterical bully and threatened ANY officer with the sack if they didn’t agree with him. But nearly ALL those police were suspicious of JB from the very start, even outside WHF on the night, and when DS Jones asked Taff not to destroy evidence and to preserve the crime scene he went nuts! He clearly had an emotional disturbance, and as his behaviour was so erratic rumours started that they thought he may have a brain tumour — so he was the one who cocked up, not the police.
He seemed so determined to frame Sheila anyone would think he and Jeremy were in cahoots! I know that’s virtually impossible, but why WAS he so determined to blame Sheila? Maybe he wanted an open and shut case to make himself look efficient and further his own career...
Whatever, the police were suspicious BEFORE Julie confessed, so how anyone can say they set out to stitch Jeremy up is utter nonsense. Especially as you say, VS, by admitting their initial mistake (caused by Taff) they faced humiliation, demotions, and ridicule...so if they didn’t know for certain JB was the killer they’d NEVER have charged him because had he got off they’d have looked even worse & probably would’ve lost their jobs.
-
So what are you going to do, actually fire bullets into someone’s face to prove a point? They didn’t need to recreate the shooting of JFK to prove definitively that that killing bullet that took the top off the president’s head came from the Book Depository building.
They proved the perp's location by laser trajectory analysis which can be used in this case too.
What was known about the JFK or Fred Barras shooting that isn't known about the shooting of NB?
-
Oh, I thought Holly would have responded by now...
Another thought; if the police wanted to stitch him up why didn’t they on day one? Why leave it so long?
I believe DCI Taff Jones was the major obstacle in preventing the police pursuing Jeremy sooner. He was a hysterical bully and threatened ANY officer with the sack if they didn’t agree with him. But nearly ALL those police were suspicious of JB from the very start, even outside WHF on the night, and when DS Jones asked Taff not to destroy evidence and to preserve the crime scene he went nuts! He clearly had an emotional disturbance, and as his behaviour was so erratic rumours started that they thought he may have a brain tumour — so he was the one who cocked up, not the police.
He seemed so determined to frame Sheila anyone would think he and Jeremy were in cahoots! I know that’s virtually impossible, but why WAS he so determined to blame Sheila? Maybe he wanted an open and shut case to make himself look efficient and further his own career...
Whatever, the police were suspicious BEFORE Julie confessed, so how anyone can say they set out to stitch Jeremy up is utter nonsense. Especially as you say, VS, by admitting their initial mistake (caused by Taff) they faced humiliation, demotions, and ridicule...so if they didn’t know for certain JB was the killer they’d NEVER have charged him because had he got off they’d have looked even worse & probably would’ve lost their jobs.
Of course it is - there’s no evidence of a ‘stitch up’ nor that he’s a ‘political prisoner’ its propaganda & nothing more
Bamber jumped on the innocence fraud train and it was full steam ahead for a short time
His abuse of others is clear from the start - the police recognised it then as they do now
“In the last few decades, researchers have been measuring a cluster of traits ready-made to predict abuse — the Dark Tetrad (formerly Triad), a frankly exploitative, aggressive type marked by four traits: narcissism, best thought of, again, as the drive to feel special; psychopathy, a pattern of remorseless lies and manipulation; Machiavellianism, a cold, chess-playing approach to life and love; and finally, sadism, a troubling tendency to delight in the suffering of others. A quick glance at this cluster is enough to give anyone chills. But some of these traits are patently more dangerous than others.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/romance-redux/201802/is-what-everyone-should-know-about-covert-abusers
Bamber’s fraudulent ‘innocence campaign’ has exposed all of the above and his true psychopathic character is there for all to see
-
Please explain why it is simply impossible for Jeremy to have shot NB upstairs?
As I said previously, the prosecution case at trial was that JB entered his parents bedroom and opened fire and that NB's 4 upstairs gsw's were inflicted in the bedroom. The junior defence QC asked Malcolm Fletcher (ballistics from a HO run lab) whether any of the adults sustained any gsw's upstairs outside the bedroom and he replied 'No'. The pathological evidence showed after NB sustained the 2 facial gsw's, inflicted upstairs, he was incapable of purposeful speech thereafter. Therefore how could NB have made the call to JB when he arrived in the kitchen if he was incapable of purposeful speech and why was the hanset/mouthpiece free of blood when the facial wounds produced heavy blood loss internally and externally.
In this case MF was not asked and did not volunteer how he arrived at the above conclusion.
You can see from the JFK shooting it involves a multi-disciplinary team going to soc to reconstruct. In this case with the exception of Dr Vanezis and the prosecutor no one even visited WHF let alone carried out a reconstruction.
IMO all the physical evidence supports NB sustaining his facial gsw's on the landing stairs with the perp firing out of the bedroom onto the landing. NB then turned and when on the main staircase facing down towards the front door he sustained the two gsw's to his rear whilst the perp was behind ie higher up the staircase.
I don't expect most others here to share my views on this as most are wedded to JB guilty as charged, but what I struggle to understand is the denial that it is possible to carry out a professional reconstruction today.
-
You need witnesses for any reconstruction, otherwise it’s just assumption.
It’s a pointless exercise, and won’t determine anything
It would be laughed away...
Where does it mention witnesses in the following?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
-
You need witnesses for any reconstruction, otherwise it’s just assumption.
It’s a pointless exercise, and won’t determine anything
It would be laughed away...
*%87
-
Holly, can you definitively state that it is impossible for Jeremy Bamber to have shot NB from a position above him? If so, why? I can think of numerous scenarios which has Bamber towering over Nevill, how would you be able to prove none of them happened using a reconstruction?
But as I keep saying it's not just the trajectories or the casings or some other evidence. The totality of the physical evidence needs to fit together: blood stains and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks. Imo professionals will show NB's upstairs gsw's were sustained as I've said.
The layout of the farmhouse, furniture, fixtures, fittings and the physical evidence I've mentioned above narrows it down enormously. If you consider the JFK shooting you can see this involved a large open area hence so many theories existed as to the perp location.
Once detailed measurements are available re WHF in terms of room sizes, depth of stairs etc it will be possible to produce a 3d model working off hundreds of soc images too. Exact dimensions of rifle are a known along with victims' height from pathology report and JB's height.
-
Where does it mention witnesses in the following?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
You tell us
-
You tell us
I'm not the one saying witnesses are required for a reconstruction.
-
The totality of the physical evidence needs to fit together:
It already does
Your problem appears to be that your ignoring the psychological aspects
-
I'm not the one saying witnesses are required for a reconstruction.
No it appears you’re trying to prove some kind of point in order to reinforce your already flawed understanding of the case, as it appears to me
-
Of course it is - there’s no evidence of a ‘stitch up’ nor that he’s a ‘political prisoner’ its propaganda & nothing more
Bamber jumped on the innocence fraud train and it was full steam ahead for a short time
His abuse of others is clear from the start - the police recognised it then as they do now
“In the last few decades, researchers have been measuring a cluster of traits ready-made to predict abuse — the Dark Tetrad (formerly Triad), a frankly exploitative, aggressive type marked by four traits: narcissism, best thought of, again, as the drive to feel special; psychopathy, a pattern of remorseless lies and manipulation; Machiavellianism, a cold, chess-playing approach to life and love; and finally, sadism, a troubling tendency to delight in the suffering of others. A quick glance at this cluster is enough to give anyone chills. But some of these traits are patently more dangerous than others.
Bamber’s fraudulent ‘innocence campaign’ has exposed all of the above and his true psychopathic character is there for all to see
I don’t understand how anyone can fall for his lies and nonsense. He’s a diagnosed psychopathic, pathological liar and just uses people. His campaign group seems to change frequently, either when he turns on them and gets nasty, or they start to see through him. I think he’s sucked in a new one now...Yvonne? Forgotten her surname, but it’s in yesterday’s Daily Mirror and I don’t recognise the name — but I only know just a few of the names so she may not be new at all. I thought Trudi Benjamin ran it?
What he does — and it’s mainly women — he pulls them in once they’ve written to him by using subtle superficial charm. Once he’s got them smitten, he plays them against each other. I read on Twitter how women have had raging arguments over him when they’ve discovered the other one has received letters when they haven’t had any from him. He manipulates them, and tells them they’re his BEST friend, then stops writing and they wonder what THEY’VE done! He knows by “taking away” their special privileges (receiving his letters) he’ll play on their mind. It keeps them hooked, and keeps him in CONTROL.
When he’s truly angry when one of them doesn’t take out a £3000 loan for him, such as sweet Daisy, he didn’t say anything by letter, he allowed her to travel god knows how many miles to see him, and then took great delight in telling her to her face “I never liked you anyway!”
That’s the sadism in him. He got great satisfaction from that. And he was telling the truth too — anger always reveals the truth. I don’t think he likes any of his campaigners; he knows they’re “soft” for believing his rubbish, and he probably secretly despises them on the quiet.
Poor Sheila! No wonder she became unwell...she grew up with June’s coldness and religious mania, and had a brother who was a psychopath and who, I guarantee, said and did things to her to make her feel TERRIBLE. He was more than instrumental in Sheila becoming ill, I truly think that.
-
You didn’t answer the question.
I work behind the scenes with numerous other professionals.
-
I work behind the scenes with numerous other professionals.
I don’t believe you
-
But as I keep saying it's not just the trajectories or the casings or some other evidence. The totality of the physical evidence needs to fit together: blood stains and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks. Imo professionals will show NB's upstairs gsw's were sustained as I've said.
The layout of the farmhouse, furniture, fixtures, fittings and the physical evidence I've mentioned above narrows it down enormously. If you consider the JFK shooting you can see this involved a large open area hence so many theories existed as to the perp location.
Once detailed measurements are available re WHF in terms of room sizes, depth of stairs etc it will be possible to produce a 3d model working off hundreds of soc images too. Exact dimensions of rifle are a known along with victims' height from pathology report and JB's height.
As I keep telling you, it's one persons interpretation of the physical evidence, someone else, may have. another. You don't get to be 'definitive'. You criticise Fletcher for what you believe is a lack of qualifications - what are yours to make these assumptions?
-
It already does
Your problem appears to be that your ignoring the psychological aspects
To date a prefessional reconstruction hasn't taken place.
This thread has nothing to do with the psychological aspects.
-
I don’t believe you
Your choice.
-
I don’t understand how anyone can fall for his lies and nonsense. He’s a diagnosed psychopathic, pathological liar and just uses people. His campaign group seems to change frequently, either when he turns on them and gets nasty, or they start to see through him. I think he’s sucked in a new one now...Yvonne? Forgotten her surname, but it’s in yesterday’s Daily Mirror and I don’t recognise the name — but I only know just a few of the names so she may not be new at all. I thought Trudi Benjamin ran it?
Yvonne Hartley
“Even though I was only 18 at the time, I remember quite clearly the tragedies that occurred at White House Farm from the media coverage the case attracted, although it wasn’t until I watched the television programme “Crimes that shook Britain” about the case that I felt an overwhelming need to write to Jeremy to express my concerns about his wrongful conviction and to offer my support.
It’s quite embarrassing to recall the content of my first letter to Jeremy where I thought I had spotted something previously missed by the Defence, and wrote pages of analysis of how I saw the case from the limited amount of material available on the internet.
http://www.jeremybambertestimony.co.uk/yvonne-hartley
-
I work behind the scenes with numerous other professionals.
You have been saying this for the last couple of years and still have nothing to show for it.
-
I don’t understand how anyone can fall for his lies and nonsense. He’s a diagnosed psychopathic, pathological liar and just uses people. His campaign group seems to change frequently, either when he turns on them and gets nasty, or they start to see through him. I think he’s sucked in a new one now...Yvonne? Forgotten her surname, but it’s in yesterday’s Daily Mirror and I don’t recognise the name — but I only know just a few of the names so she may not be new at all. I thought Trudi Benjamin ran it?
What he does — and it’s mainly women — he pulls them in once they’ve written to him by using subtle superficial charm. Once he’s got them smitten, he plays them against each other. I read on Twitter how women have had raging arguments over him when they’ve discovered the other one has received letters when they haven’t had any from him. He manipulates them, and tells them they’re his BEST friend, then stops writing and they wonder what THEY’VE done! He knows by “taking away” their special privileges (receiving his letters) he’ll play on their mind. It keeps them hooked, and keeps him in CONTROL.
When he’s truly angry when one of them doesn’t take out a £3000 loan for him, such as sweet Daisy, he didn’t say anything by letter, he allowed her to travel god knows how many miles to see him, and then took great delight in telling her to her face “I never liked you anyway!”
That’s the sadism in him. He got great satisfaction from that. And he was telling the truth too — anger always reveals the truth. I don’t think he likes any of his campaigners; he knows they’re “soft” for believing his rubbish, and he probably secretly despises them on the quiet.
Poor Sheila! No wonder she became unwell...she grew up with June’s coldness and religious mania, and had a brother who was a psychopath and who, I guarantee, said and did things to her to make her feel TERRIBLE. He was more than instrumental in Sheila becoming ill, I truly think that.
What have the above posts got to do with the thread title?
I'll let the above stand but any responses need to go on the appropriate threads.
-
Due to the current activity levels on the board we need to maintain the following rule set out on the homepage:
* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
Going forward I will be removing all posts that are off topic.
Thanks.
-
As I said previously, the prosecution case at trial was that JB entered his parents bedroom and opened fire and that NB's 4 upstairs gsw's were inflicted in the bedroom. The junior defence QC asked Malcolm Fletcher (ballistics from a HO run lab) whether any of the adults sustained any gsw's upstairs outside the bedroom and he replied 'No'. The pathological evidence showed after NB sustained the 2 facial gsw's, inflicted upstairs, he was incapable of purposeful speech thereafter. Therefore how could NB have made the call to JB when he arrived in the kitchen if he was incapable of purposeful speech and why was the hanset/mouthpiece free of blood when the facial wounds produced heavy blood loss internally and externally.
In this case MF was not asked and did not volunteer how he arrived at the above conclusion.
You can see from the JFK shooting it involves a multi-disciplinary team going to soc to reconstruct. In this case with the exception of Dr Vanezis and the prosecutor no one even visited WHF let alone carried out a reconstruction.
IMO all the physical evidence supports NB sustaining his facial gsw's on the landing stairs with the perp firing out of the bedroom onto the landing. NB then turned and when on the main staircase facing down towards the front door he sustained the two gsw's to his rear whilst the perp was behind ie higher up the staircase.
I don't expect most others here to share my views on this as most are wedded to JB guilty as charged, but what I struggle to understand is the denial that it is possible to carry out a professional reconstruction today.
Dr Vanezis did indeed visit WHF the next day, Holly
He went with DS Jones and other officers
Taff turned up and went berserk, purple with rage, shouting abuse and demanding they left.
But Dr Vanezis had by that time seen the soc and pictures of the rifle, and that’s when he knew Sheila could not possibly have been the murderer or killed herself.
In the event, forensics proved all what you’re trying to deny happened by attempting a reconstruction which will throw nothing up at all. Forensics established whose blood was where, how many shots were fired, and more crucially — that Sheila had none of the others blood on her, no gun residue, no sugar, blood or glass on her feet, none of her blood running downwards which it would have done after she’d been shot the FIRST time...so that’s all been proven.
The only reconstruction you could do would to see how Sheila supposedly beat Nevill to a pulp and shot herself twice.
But there’s no point — it’s been proven she couldn’t have.
-
To date a prefessional reconstruction hasn't taken place.
This thread has nothing to do with the psychological aspects.
Unless you view victims and perpetrator as cardboard cut-outs, the psychological aspects are part of it.
-
Where does it mention witnesses in the following?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123822413/shooting-incident-reconstruction
You keep on about JFK, but he was the President of the United States where almost everyone has a gun, and they needed to establish exactly where the gunshots came from.
They don’t need to do this for the Bambers’ case: they know where the gunshots came from and from which direction. They know who was shot dead where, and knew where Jeremy Bamber must have been standing. And if he was standing an extra foot further away...so what? The forensics have established how they were shot, by bloods.
A reconstruction of the shootings wouldn’t establish who the shooter was, Holly.
But a reconstruction of Sheila shooting herself twice would be telling....Don't you think?
-
You keep on about JFK, but he was the President of the United States where almost everyone has a gun, and they needed to establish exactly where the gunshots came from.
They don’t need to do this for the Bambers’ case: they know where the gunshots came from and from which direction. They know who was shot dead where, and knew where Jeremy Bamber must have been standing. And if he was standing an extra foot further away...so what? The forensics have established how they were shot, where by bloods.
A reconstruction of the shootings wouldn’t establish who the shooter was, Holly.
But a reconstruction of Sheila shooting herself twice would be telling....Don't you think?
Even a rudimentary staging of the shooting would prove conclusive, if the sequence could be determined.
-
Even a rudimentary staging of the shooting would prove conclusive, if the sequence could be determined.
Any reconstruction is going to be subjective and it certainly wouldn't show who was holding the gun so, it's a waste of time.
-
Has that fake lawyer been released from prison yet? Maybe it’s him...
Was he into guns?
-
How we see any of their victims, with hindsight, depends largely on how the manipulator saw their potential in the beginning, and how successfully they were able to manipulate. Some manage to break the hold.
Giovanni di Stefano ?
-
Giovanni di Stefano ?
This never gets old, always watch it when I need a good @)(++(* ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUueF_u7kYM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUueF_u7kYM)
-
This never gets old, always watch it when I need a good @)(++(* ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUueF_u7kYM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUueF_u7kYM)
Thank-you Myster. I will watch. Maybe I'll learn?..................or not!!!
-
Despite asking everyone to remain on-topic at 12.22 I've just removed some 30 - 40 of off-topic posts which has taken about the same amount of time.
John reviews all removed posts and I will be emailing him recommending that the worst offenders face sanctions if they continually flout the rules. It surely isn't difficult to either retrieve old threads or start up new ones?
-
Dr Vanezis did indeed visit WHF the next day, Holly
He went with DS Jones and other officers
Taff turned up and went berserk, purple with rage, shouting abuse and demanding they left.
But Dr Vanezis had by that time seen the soc and pictures of the rifle, and that’s when he knew Sheila could not possibly have been the murderer or killed herself.
In the event, forensics proved all what you’re trying to deny happened by attempting a reconstruction which will throw nothing up at all. Forensics established whose blood was where, how many shots were fired, and more crucially — that Sheila had none of the others blood on her, no gun residue, no sugar, blood or glass on her feet, none of her blood running downwards which it would have done after she’d been shot the FIRST time...so that’s all been proven.
The only reconstruction you could do would to see how Sheila supposedly beat Nevill to a pulp and shot herself twice.
But there’s no point — it’s been proven she couldn’t have.
Holly doesn’t appear interested in facts
-
Holly and likeminded supporters believe that the mess in the kitchen was created by the police on entry to the house. How much confidence can there be therefore that easily moveable items like cartridge casings were left in exactly the same place as they fell (and that’s before we even consider the yappy dog that was loose in the house before the police entered).
-
Holly and likeminded supporters believe that the mess in the kitchen was created by the police on entry to the house. How much confidence can there be therefore that easily moveable items like cartridge casings were left in exactly the same place as they fell (and that’s before we even consider the yappy dog that was loose in the house before the police entered).
I think it more likely that NB stumbled into kitchen furniture.
In terms of the casings you're right research shows up to 25% deviation.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
To date a prefessional reconstruction hasn't taken place.
This thread has nothing to do with the psychological aspects.
How can it possibly NOT have? Every act carried out by every person, whether you like it or not, carries it's own psychology. It's about why we are who we are. It informs everything we do, irrespective of whether you agree.
-
I think it more likely that NB stumbled into kitchen furniture.
In terms of the casings you're right research shows up to 25% deviation.
As did Jeremy Bamber trying to knock him out with blows from the rifle, one or more of which caused a piece to shear off from the stock.
-
How can it possibly NOT have? Every act carried out by every person, whether you like it or not, carries it's own psychology. It's about why we are who we are. It informs everything we do, irrespective of whether you agree.
We are talking about the physical evidence APRIL. If you want to start up a new thread go for it.
-
As did Jeremy Bamber trying to knock him out with blows from the rifle, one or more of which caused a piece to shear off from the stock.
We're being led to believe Sheila was capable of this? edit that, some want to believe it was Sheila who was capable of this.
-
As did Jeremy Bamber trying to knock him out with blows from the rifle, one or more of which caused a piece to shear off from the stock.
How does a piece of wood shearing off from the rifle butt point to JB and rule out SC?
-
I think it more likely that NB stumbled into kitchen furniture.
In terms of the casings you're right research shows up to 25% deviation.
Your reconstruction is therefore rendered less useful if the physical evidence can’t even be relied on.
-
We're being led to believe Sheila was capable of this? edit that, some want to believe it was Sheila who was capable of this.
How does a piece of wood shearing off from the rifle butt point to JB and rule out SC?
-
Your reconstruction is therefore rendered less useful if the physical evidence can’t even be relied on.
As I keep saying a reconstruction is based on the totality of the physical evidence.
-
As I keep saying a reconstruction is based on the totality of the physical evidence.
Well get on with it then, Jeremy isn’t getting any younger...
-
How does a piece of wood shearing off from the rifle butt point to JB and rule out SC?
No bruises on her delicate hands, nor damage to her long fingernails. And before you put any links to Farmgirl as a distraction (I know your wily ways), Sheila wasn't built like a bulldozer either.
-
Well get on with it then, Jeremy isn’t getting any younger...
That's true...
-
No bruises on her delicate hands, nor damage to her long fingernails. And before you put any links to Farmgirl as a distraction (I know your wily ways), Sheila wasn't built like a bulldozer either.
But you're making an assumption as to how the piece broke off and how the perp held the rifle thought to be the blunt instrument used to inflict NB's non-gsw's.
The butt might have collided with the lampshade with both breaking in the process.
Afaik the shard piece wasn't forensically examined?
-
But you're making an assumption as to how the piece broke off and how the perp held the rifle thought to be the blunt instrument used to inflict NB's non-gsw's.
The butt might have collided with the lampshade with both breaking in the process.
Afaik the shard piece wasn't forensically examined?
Are you claiming a lampshade broke the butt of the rifle ?
-
Are you claiming a lampshade broke the butt of the rifle ?
I said:
The butt might have collided with the lampshade with both breaking in the process.
Can you see how it can be ruled out?
-
I said:
The butt might have collided with the lampshade with both breaking in the process.
Can you see how it can be ruled out?
Was it a concrete, rigid lampshade?
-
Was it a concrete, rigid lampshade?
I've no idea. I only know broken pieces were found on the floor.
(As an aside I was looking to add something to a thread you started 'How Sheila.....' which seems to have disappeared?)
-
I've no idea. I only know broken pieces were found on the floor.
(As an aside I was looking to add something to a thread you started 'How Sheila.....' which seems to have disappeared?)
Nowt to do with me guv.
-
How does a piece of wood shearing off from the rifle butt point to JB and rule out SC?
How does it rule JB out?
-
Was it a concrete, rigid lampshade?
@)(++(*
-
I've no idea. I only know broken pieces were found on the floor.
(As an aside I was looking to add something to a thread you started 'How Sheila.....' which seems to have disappeared?)
Do they sell concrete lampshades in B&Q ?
-
Even a rudimentary staging of the shooting would prove conclusive, if the sequence could be determined.
How?
They couldn’t conclude who the perpetrator was...
-
Even a rudimentary staging of the shooting would prove conclusive, if the sequence could be determined.
They already know who/where everyone was shot
Forensics proved that, as did where their bodies were
The only thing they can’t prove in a reconstruction is who shot them all
Which is why a reconstruction of Sheila supposedly being the shooter and beating Nevill to a pulp would prove conclusive who didn’t do it...
-
This never gets old, always watch it when I need a good @)(++(* ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUueF_u7kYM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUueF_u7kYM)
I like the way he pops up out of nowhere mid film, poring through a catalogue of scenarios made up by JB’s team, and saying in his high pitched voice while nodding his head emphatically “This man could not have done it”
Year later he was dragged off to jail himself for impersonating a lawyer 🤥
-
Holly doesn’t appear interested in facts
She probably misses them if she has multiple user accounts to run
And that’s without her jogging &%%6
-
Holly and likeminded supporters believe that the mess in the kitchen was created by the police on entry to the house. How much confidence can there be therefore that easily moveable items like cartridge casings were left in exactly the same place as they fell (and that’s before we even consider the yappy dog that was loose in the house before the police entered).
Fabulous point!
You come out with some brilliant questions, VS! 8((()*/
Is that why Holly doesn’t respond?
-
I think it more likely that NB stumbled into kitchen furniture.
In terms of the casings you're right research shows up to 25% deviation.
Would that have been after he was smashed so hard on his head that his brain was exposed?
-
We're being led to believe Sheila was capable of this? edit that, some want to believe it was Sheila who was capable of this.
Yes, let’s see a reconstruction of Sheila beating Nevill to a pulp in the kitchen
Quietly pressing the phone down without a whisper, as she casually held the 4ft rifle in one hand while standing next to Nevill — and he put his arms up and allowed her to match him back upstairs to shoot him....
-
How does a piece of wood shearing off from the rifle butt point to JB and rule out SC?
Strength
The power to smash the rifle so violently against a skull that the hard solid wood snaps and flies across the room
-
That's true...
Gosh, I read a reporter saying how much he’d aged and looked years older (he’s what, about 60?) and had jowls, white hair etc, but he has aged incredibly! And he doesn’t get the sun!
-
But you're making an assumption as to how the piece broke off and how the perp held the rifle thought to be the blunt instrument used to inflict NB's non-gsw's.
The butt might have collided with the lampshade with both breaking in the process.
Afaik the shard piece wasn't forensically examined?
Oh, Holly....c’mon...
Wood is harder than glass *%87
-
I said:
The butt might have collided with the lampshade with both breaking in the process.
Can you see how it can be ruled out?
So if you dropped a wine glass on a wooden coffee table which one would would smash and fly off? *%87
-
How?
They couldn’t conclude who the perpetrator was...
It could. The 'conclusion' might not be definitive, but it could establish with reasonable confidence pretty quickly which of the two whodunnit.
A more elaborate reconstruction, using the latest techniques, would be more definitive i.e. LIDAR, 3D modelling..
-
They already know who/where everyone was shot
Forensics proved that, as did where their bodies were
The only thing they can’t prove in a reconstruction is who shot them all
Which is why a reconstruction of Sheila supposedly being the shooter and beating Nevill to a pulp would prove conclusive who didn’t do it...
Then on the balance of probability's it just leave's the one and only JB.
-
They already know who/where everyone was shot
Forensics proved that, as did where their bodies were
The only thing they can’t prove in a reconstruction is who shot them all
Which is why a reconstruction of Sheila supposedly being the shooter and beating Nevill to a pulp would prove conclusive who didn’t do it...
Holly would disagree with you on that but then Holly can't see past the 'Jeremy Bamber is innocent' mantra.
This case was solvable on the simple basis of who could have done it and who couldn't. Who had access to the house and who didn't. Who had the physical presence to fight Nevill Bamber and who didn't. Who had everything to gain and who didn't. And finally, who was and still is a nasty piece of s... and who isn't. QED!!
-
Holly would disagree with you on that but then Holly can't see past the 'Jeremy Bamber is innocent' mantra.
This case was solvable on the simple basis of who could have done it and who couldn't. Who had access to the house and who didn't. Who had the physical presence to fight Nevill Bamber and who didn't. Who had everything to gain and who didn't. And finally, who was and still is a nasty piece of s... and who isn't. QED!!
I think in the end, it comes down to just one thing, ie who was it who stood to gain from committing such a crime.
-
Holly would disagree with you on that but then Holly can't see past the 'Jeremy Bamber is innocent' mantra.
This case was solvable on the simple basis of who could have done it and who couldn't. Who had access to the house and who didn't. Who had the physical presence to fight Nevill Bamber and who didn't. Who had everything to gain and who didn't. And finally, who was and still is a nasty piece of s... and who isn't. QED!!
Jeremy Bamber obviously knew how to get into WHF when it was locked, but was he the only one? The pathologist said Sheila Bamber was capable of inflicting Nevill's injuries. Jeremy gained from the murders, but others gained when he was convicted.
-
Jeremy Bamber obviously knew how to get into WHF when it was locked, but was he the only one? The pathologist said Sheila Bamber was capable of inflicting Nevill's injuries. Jeremy gained from the murders, but others gained when he was convicted.
I think that comes under the heading of unintended consequences. I can't imagine it crossed Jeremy's mind that by murdering his family he'd be gifting the family inheritance to his relatives.
-
Jeremy Bamber obviously knew how to get into WHF when it was locked, but was he the only one? The pathologist said Sheila Bamber was capable of inflicting Nevill's injuries. Jeremy gained from the murders, but others gained when he was convicted.
JB made clear in his police interviews he knew how to enter WHF through closed windows but didn't know how to exit leaving a window in the closed position.
I can't understand why judge and jury were not taken to WHF to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging in this regard.
-
JB made clear in his police interviews he knew how to enter WHF through closed windows but didn't know how to exit leaving a window in the closed position.
I can't understand why judge and jury were not taken to WHF to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging in this regard.
DCI Jones checked all windows and doors at soc on morning of 7th Aug and found all secured from within.
It seems it was the relatives who came up with ideas how JB exited although no one had to demonstrate exactly how. And more importantly the judge and jury were not taken to WHF to see exactly what the prosecution was alleging.
-
You can read in DS Jones' pocket notebook about how he checked the windows/doors on page 3:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=174.msg1783#msg1783
-
Holly would disagree with you on that but then Holly can't see past the 'Jeremy Bamber is innocent' mantra.
This case was solvable on the simple basis of who could have done it and who couldn't. Who had access to the house and who didn't. Who had the physical presence to fight Nevill Bamber and who didn't. Who had everything to gain and who didn't. And finally, who was and still is a nasty piece of s... and who isn't. QED!!
JB said he was able to enter WHF thru closed windows but he claims he didn't know how to exit leaving any of the windows closed behind. The prosecution alleged otherwise but never had to demonstrate how this was possible by demonstrating to judge and jury at soc.
According to the pathologist he didn't observe any injuries to any of the victims incl SC that SC was incapable of inflicting. So how does this rule out SC?
Like most middle class families, when the parents die adult children are beneficiaries to the estate but how does this prove JB was motivated to murder to fast forward his inheritance? It was a theory put forward by the prosecution. One could just as easily say those who testified against JB stood to gain if he was convicted.
-
You can read in DS Jones' pocket notebook about how he checked the windows/doors on page 3:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=174.msg1783#msg1783
The windows are also set in some detail here which starts at point 261.
-
JB made clear in his police interviews he knew how to enter WHF through closed windows but didn't know how to exit leaving a window in the closed position.
I can't understand why judge and jury were not taken to WHF to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging in this regard.
They didn’t need to
The prosecutor proved Jeremy lied when he made out he didn’t know how to get back out through the window...
They took photographs of the window and did demonstrations of how easy it was to force the latch down
It was all presented to the jury
-
Holly would disagree with you on that but then Holly can't see past the 'Jeremy Bamber is innocent' mantra.
This case was solvable on the simple basis of who could have done it and who couldn't. Who had access to the house and who didn't. Who had the physical presence to fight Nevill Bamber and who didn't. Who had everything to gain and who didn't. And finally, who was and still is a nasty piece of s... and who isn't. QED!!
Absolutely! 8@??)(
-
JB said he was able to enter WHF thru closed windows but he claims he didn't know how to exit leaving any of the windows closed behind. The prosecution alleged otherwise but never had to demonstrate how this was possible by demonstrating to judge and jury at soc.
According to the pathologist he didn't observe any injuries to any of the victims incl SC that SC was incapable of inflicting. So how does this rule out SC?
Like most middle class families, when the parents die adult children are beneficiaries to the estate but how does this prove JB was motivated to murder to fast forward his inheritance? It was a theory put forward by the prosecution. One could just as easily say those who testified against JB stood to gain if he was convicted.
Sheila Caffell was incapable of scrapping with Nevill over the kitchen table but then the pathologist never said she wasn't. Only someone reasonably tall and most definitely strong could have fought and overpowered Nevill Bamber. Your grasping at straws does you no favours Holly. Bamber is guilt and you will realise this in time.
-
JB made clear in his police interviews he knew how to enter WHF through closed windows but didn't know how to exit leaving a window in the closed position.
I can't understand why judge and jury were not taken to WHF to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging in this regard.
Well he would do wouldn't be as he did it again after the murders when he sneaked into the farmhouse for his passport instead of asking Barbara for the keys. As on the previous occasions he left the window with the snib dropped to give the appearance that it was locked and secure.
-
Sheila Caffell was incapable of scrapping with Nevill over the kitchen table but then the pathologist never said she wasn't. Only someone reasonably tall and most definitely strong could have fought and overpowered Nevill Bamber. Your grasping at straws does you no favours Holly. Bamber is guilt and you will realise this in time.
But that's your interpretation not the pathologists. The pathologist has always made clear he did not see anything at soc SC was incapable of and he was unable to conclude murder or suicide.
Dr Vanezis is a highly qualified expert of long experience with an unblemished career and I don't understand why you want to deviate from his professional opinion?
-
I think that comes under the heading of unintended consequences. I can't imagine it crossed Jeremy's mind that by murdering his family he'd be gifting the family inheritance to his relatives.
I bet he didn't... @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Well he would do wouldn't be as he did it again after the murders when he sneaked into the farmhouse for his passport instead of asking Barbara for the keys. As on the previous occasions he left the window with the snib dropped to give the appearance that it was locked and secure.
But most trials would involve a visit to soc to allow judge and jury to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging as to how JB supposedly exited leaving window(s) secured from within.
-
But most trials would involve a visit to soc to allow judge and jury to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging as to how JB supposedly exited leaving window(s) secured from within.
Police officers will have a lot of experience of criminals breaking-in and entering but how many criminals bother to secure the windows or doors after they've escaped with their ill-gotten gains? All the more reason the judge and jury needed to attend soc to see how this worked in practice.
It's highly questionable imo as to why judge and jury were not taken to WHF and why the defence didn't insist on this happening.
-
But most trials would involve a visit to soc to allow judge and jury to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging as to how JB supposedly exited leaving window(s) secured from within.
That is not true. SOC provide photographs and video for the benefit of juries usually.
-
Police officers will have a lot of experience of criminals breaking-in and entering but how many criminals bother to secure the windows or doors after they've escaped with their ill-gotten gains? All the more reason the judge and jury needed to attend soc to see how this worked in practice.
It's highly questionable imo as to why judge and jury were not taken to WHF and why the defence didn't insist on this happening.
If Jeremy never denied doing it, it was enough to prove it was possible. What would have been the point of dragging the jury there to debate it?
-
But that's your interpretation not the pathologists. The pathologist has always made clear he did not see anything at soc SC was incapable of and he was unable to conclude murder or suicide.
Dr Vanezis is a highly qualified expert of long experience with an unblemished career and I don't understand why you want to deviate from his professional opinion?
As opposed to your own interpretation? Vanezis didn't attend the CS while the bodies were in situ and as you know (but keep ignoring) he laid out his concerns after the trial and before you say he was 'hedging his bets' - take note of your last sentence and apply it to your own thinking.
-
That is not true. SOC provide photographs and video for the benefit of juries usually.
It is true. I will list high profile cases where juries have visited soc and/or been taken to other relevant sites:
- Tony Martin - Bleak Farm
- Barry George - Gowan Ave
- Wests - Cromwell St
- Noye - Hollywood Cottage
- Huntley - College Close
- Bridge - His home
It's a complete travesty the judge and jury were not taken to soc to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging about window(s).
-
If Jeremy never denied doing it, it was enough to prove it was possible. What would have been the point of dragging the jury there to debate it?
JB denied knowing of a way to exit WHF closing the window securely behind.
-
As opposed to your own interpretation? Vanezis didn't attend the CS while the bodies were in situ and as you know (but keep ignoring) he laid out his concerns after the trial and before you say he was 'hedging his bets' - take note of your last sentence and apply it to your own thinking.
He did not observe anything during the pm's that SC was incapable of.
He has always maintained to this very day afaik he was unable to conclude murder or suicide. If this wasn't the case why did the CCRC refer the case to CoA on the back of the blood/silencer? Why does it state in the 2002 CoA doc:
46.From the pathological evidence alone, the pathologist could not say, one way or the other, whether Mrs Caffell had been murdered or had taken her own life.
The prosecutor had every opportunity at trial to tease anything out of Dr Vanezis that supported the prosecution case but nothing. If you disagree please identify what in his court testimony was detrimental to JB.
-
JB denied knowing of a way to exit WHF closing the window securely behind.
Surely, if he knew how to enter through a securely closed window, he'd have discovered how to leave it the way he found it after he'd exited? However, if we allow for, perhaps he may not have bothered, can we be absolutely certain that every window was checked thoroughly? Finding 99% of those thoroughly checked to be secure, might not the last 1% have had just a cursory glance?
-
For those who believe JB responsible.
CAL describes im detail a (IMO) very plausible account of how Jeremy committed the killings. She (unlike you) has had access to many of those who were actually present at the scene of the crime, and interviewed many of the key players. She acknowledges that some of them have slight variances to her own theory but overall the account hangs together. Which elements of it are inaccurate or implausible in your view and why?
-
I think that comes under the heading of unintended consequences. I can't imagine it crossed Jeremy's mind that by murdering his family he'd be gifting the family inheritance to his relatives.
Doh! @)(++(*
-
Police officers will have a lot of experience of criminals breaking-in and entering but how many criminals bother to secure the windows or doors after they've escaped with their ill-gotten gains? All the more reason the judge and jury needed to attend soc to see how this worked in practice.
It's highly questionable imo as to why judge and jury were not taken to WHF and why the defence didn't insist on this happening.
Holly, usual criminals don't need to re-secure the window and the bathroom window was found to be closed but neot secure and with no reason for it having been opened in the first place, it must have been open all along - regardless of what Taff Jones claimed. Jeremy already admitted to being able to enter WHF and the hacksaw blade was found outside the bathroom window. A reconstruction of this wouldn't be possible now if they have changed the window, if not, then I would be happy to perform it for you.
-
Holly, usual criminals don't need to re-secure the window and the bathroom window was found to be closed but neot secure and with no reason for it having been opened in the first place, it must have been open all along - regardless of what Taff Jones claimed. Jeremy already admitted to being able to enter WHF and the hacksaw blade was found outside the bathroom window. A reconstruction of this wouldn't be possible now if they have changed the window, if not, then I would be happy to perform it for you.
That, of course, is assuming permission would be granted, by the Trust and the Eatons, for a reconstruction to be done. I can't imagine any Court giving an order for such, apart from the small matter of financing a replacement window with wood of the same age and condition as the window that was, and then financing the replacement of the replacement.
-
It is true. I will list high profile cases where juries have visited soc and/or been taken to other relevant sites:
- Tony Martin - Bleak Farm
- Barry George - Gowan Ave
- Wests - Cromwell St
- Noye - Hollywood Cottage
- Huntley - College Close
- Bridge - His home
It's a complete travesty the judge and jury were not taken to soc to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging about window(s).
The prosecution didn't need to,they convinced 10/2 that Bamber was guilty beyond reasonable doubt,whats you're beef with that? if they failed to secure a conviction then maybe you'd have something to whinge about on this point.
Why didn't the defence ask for it?
-
The prosecution didn't need to,they convinced 10/2 that Bamber was guilty beyond reasonable doubt,whats you're beef with that? if they failed to secure a conviction then maybe you'd have something to whinge about on this point.
Why didn't the defence ask for it?
Incompetent, negligent who knows!?
Why take judge and jury to an outside shooting range in an attempt to determine any difference in sound from the rifle with and without silencer which would sound totally different to shots fired inside the farmhouse with soft furnishings and furniture and yet not take judge and jury to WHF to see what the prosecution was alleging re the windows?
Sounds more like a circus than a criminal trial where a man's liberty was at stake!
-
Holly, usual criminals don't need to re-secure the window and the bathroom window was found to be closed but neot secure and with no reason for it having been opened in the first place, it must have been open all along - regardless of what Taff Jones claimed. Jeremy already admitted to being able to enter WHF and the hacksaw blade was found outside the bathroom window. A reconstruction of this wouldn't be possible now if they have changed the window, if not, then I would be happy to perform it for you.
265. Complaint is made that part of Mr Ainsley's Final Report was not disclosed to the Defence in which he wrote:
"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."
Was the downstairs bathroom window sash?
-
That, of course, is assuming permission would be granted, by the Trust and the Eatons, for a reconstruction to be done. I can't imagine any Court giving an order for such, apart from the small matter of financing a replacement window with wood of the same age and condition as the window that was, and then financing the replacement of the replacement.
It wouldn't require permission from the trustees and/or the Eaton's. The CCRC have wide reaching powers and if a reconstruction of any type required entry to WHF then the CCRC could order it to happen.
-
He did not observe anything during the pm's that SC was incapable of.
He has always maintained to this very day afaik he was unable to conclude murder or suicide. If this wasn't the case why did the CCRC refer the case to CoA on the back of the blood/silencer? Why does it state in the 2002 CoA doc:
46.From the pathological evidence alone, the pathologist could not say, one way or the other, whether Mrs Caffell had been murdered or had taken her own life.
The prosecutor had every opportunity at trial to tease anything out of Dr Vanezis that supported the prosecution case but nothing. If you disagree please identify what in his court testimony was detrimental to JB.
I repeat again, that he made it clear in his notes that he had he visited the crime scene, he would have had concerns. I don't know why I am having to repoeat this because you already know.
What in his court testimony was favourable to Bamber?
-
265. Complaint is made that part of Mr Ainsley's Final Report was not disclosed to the Defence in which he wrote:
"There was no apparent entry to or exit from the house and D.Chief Inspector Jones did in fact examine the inside of all ground floor windows and noted that they were all shut and secured on their latches. The scene was photographed. It seems however that after the inspection of D.Chief Jones some person had partially opened the transom window in the kitchen and also opened the catch on the ground floor bathroom windows. I have been unable to discover the person responsible but there was comment made of the smell in the kitchen and the flies gathering. There is no reason to believe that the bathroom window was opened, but following the departure of the Scene of Crime officer, the witness Police Sergeant Golding secured the windows mentioned."
Was the downstairs bathroom window sash?
Yes, I have read that and it was indeed a sash window.
-
Yes, I have read that and it was indeed a sash window.
273. Further complaint is made that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that DC Barlow examined the windows of White House Farm on 22 August 1985 and noted nothing of significance in relation to the bathroom window. His statement of 21 November 1985 indicates that:
"on Thursday the 22nd of August I was on duty when I went to White House Farm. There I made an examination of the kitchen window"
There is no reference in the statement to the bathroom window. 274. In notes written for the Essex Review (after trial) he wrote:
"22/8/85 first opportunity to go to White House Farm. Examined all the windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed"
-
273. Further complaint is made that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that DC Barlow examined the windows of White House Farm on 22 August 1985 and noted nothing of significance in relation to the bathroom window. His statement of 21 November 1985 indicates that:
"on Thursday the 22nd of August I was on duty when I went to White House Farm. There I made an examination of the kitchen window"
There is no reference in the statement to the bathroom window. 274. In notes written for the Essex Review (after trial) he wrote:
"22/8/85 first opportunity to go to White House Farm. Examined all the windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed"
They can be closed, I have done it but it wasn't closed, it was found to be open.
-
They can be closed, I have done it but it wasn't closed, it was found to be open.
I think you both mean locked and secured with a fastener similar to this one...
-
I think you both mean locked and secured with a fastener similar to this one...
It looks possible to slide the said hacksaw blade though to open that catch, but good luck doing the reverse.
-
It looks possible to slide the said hacksaw blade though to open that catch, but good luck doing the reverse.
If I remember, Caroline did a mock tryout using a length of strong thread/thin string wrapped around the moving part from outside, then pulled on it to refasten the lock. No doubt she'll confirm or not.
-
I thought the bolt fastened vertically, was stuck in the up position and could be knocked into place by tapping on the glass from the outside?
-
I thought the bolt fastened vertically, was stuck in the up position and could be knocked into place by tapping on the glass from the outside?
That was the kitchen casement-window lock, not the sash-window lock in the toilet/shower room where Bamber is alleged to have entered. The former was demonstrated in the ITV WHF series by the actress playing Ann Eaton. The toilet/shower room window lock was different, although hard to see on this poor quality photo...
-
So what are we arguing about?
-
Out of interest how were the doors locked? key left in?,yale locks? bolted? why couldn't JB leave by a door?
-
So what are we arguing about?
Holly's stubborness to accept the truth of what actually happened.
-
Out of interest how were the doors locked? key left in?,yale locks? bolted? why couldn't JB leave by a door?
Yes, all locked and/or bolted from inside, with keys still in place.
-
Out of interest how were the doors locked? key left in?,yale locks? bolted? why couldn't JB leave by a door?
The main front door was opened by APS Manners and he mentions no bolts, just a 'small flat knob' which he turned to unlock the door. [w/s 23/09/85]
-
Out of interest how were the doors locked? key left in?,yale locks? bolted? why couldn't JB leave by a door?
Why indeed. I can't see why he would have had trouble leaving the property; it was getting in that was the challenge.
-
CAL describes im detail a (IMO) very plausible account of how Jeremy committed the killings. She (unlike you) has had access to many of those who were actually present at the scene of the crime, and interviewed many of the key players. She acknowledges that some of them have slight variances to her own theory but overall the account hangs together. Which elements of it are inaccurate or implausible in your view and why?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7466.msg349195#msg349195
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7466.msg349195#msg349195
The difference between CAL's reconstruction and mine is hers is big on melo-drama and zero on the physical evidence and mine is big on the physical evidence and zero on melo-drama.
-
Holly's stubborness to accept the truth of what actually happened.
The only person who knows the truth about what happened that night is sadly no longer with us. Even NB and June would not have known exactly what happened since events occurred separately in different rooms.
-
The only person who knows the truth about what happened that night is sadly no longer with us. Even NB and June would not have known exactly what happened since events occurred separately in different rooms.
I see what you did there. But Jeremy knows, so does Julie Mugford - and, vicariously, so do we.
-
I see what you did there. But Jeremy knows, so does Julie Mugford - and, vicariously, so do we.
JB knows whether or not he was involved. If he was involved then obviously he knows exactly who was shot where and when. If he wasn't involved he will probably know less than we do here.
JM knows whether or not her testimony at trial was truthful. it wasn't truthful it could still mean JB was involved and he simply didn't tell her. If it was truthful JB may have said it as a wind-up.
A professional reconstruction will be unable to produce anything akin to cctv but what it will do is show NB's exact position in the farmhouse when he sustained the 4 upstairs gsw's along with the perp's location when he/she inflicted them and this is the most contentious part of the reconstruction:
- Did JB enter his parents bedroom, who up until that point were in bed, and open fire meaning NB was then unable to have made the call to JB as per the pathological evidence and lack of bloodstains on the phone or;
- Was NB already downstairs in the kitchen making the tel call to JB whilst SC went upstairs opened fire on June. NB hearing the shots and/or June left the phone call, run upstairs and as he was stood on the landing stairs immediately preceding the bedroom he sustained the 2 gsw's to his face which SC inflicted from just inside the bedroom. NB then turned to retreat downstairs with SC following and inflicting the two gsw's to his rear whilst the pair were positioned on the main staircase.
Unlike witnesses the physical evidence, of which there's a huge amount in this case, is capable of revealing the truth, which imo will show NB sustained all 4 gsw's as I've described above on the landing stairs and main staircase.
-
JB knows whether or not he was involved. If he was involved then obviously he knows exactly who was shot where and when. If he wasn't involved he will probably know less than we do here.
JM knows whether or not her testimony at trial was truthful. it wasn't truthful it could still mean JB was involved and he simply didn't tell her. If it was truthful JB may have said it as a wind-up.
*%87
-
JB knows whether or not he was involved. If he was involved then obviously he knows exactly who was shot where and when. If he wasn't involved he will probably know less than we do here.
JM knows whether or not her testimony at trial was truthful. it wasn't truthful it could still mean JB was involved and he simply didn't tell her. If it was truthful JB may have said it as a wind-up.
A professional reconstruction will be unable to produce anything akin to cctv but what it will do is show NB's exact position in the farmhouse when he sustained the 4 upstairs gsw's along with the perp's location when he/she inflicted them and this is the most contentious part of the reconstruction:
- Did JB enter his parents bedroom, who up until that point were in bed, and open fire meaning NB was then unable to have made the call to JB as per the pathological evidence and lack of bloodstains on the phone or;
- Was NB already downstairs in the kitchen making the tel call to JB whilst SC went upstairs opened fire on June. NB hearing the shots and/or June left the phone call, run upstairs and as he was stood on the landing stairs immediately preceding the bedroom he sustained the 2 gsw's to his face which SC inflicted from just inside the bedroom. NB then turned to retreat downstairs with SC following and inflicting the two gsw's to his rear whilst the pair were positioned on the main staircase.
Unlike witnesses the physical evidence, of which there's a huge amount in this case, is capable of revealing the truth, which imo will show NB sustained all 4 gsw's as I've described above on the landing stairs and main staircase.
It won’t
-
But that's your interpretation not the pathologists. The pathologist has always made clear he did not see anything at soc SC was incapable of and he was unable to conclude murder or suicide.
Dr Vanezis is a highly qualified expert of long experience with an unblemished career and I don't understand why you want to deviate from his professional opinion?
You’re wrong.
Dr Vanezis has officially stated that after having seen the soc, including photos etc, he is adamant Sheila could not possibly have murdered everyone, including beating Nevill to a pulp, and DEFINITELY couldn’t have shot herself.
It’s in CAL’s book and you’ll also find it by Googling... I take it you know how to research?
-
JB denied knowing of a way to exit WHF closing the window securely behind.
He denes everything...
As the prison psychiatrist said after many hours of speaking to Jeremy and listening to him, he asserted “Jeremy Bamber is a pathological liar and a psychopath. He’s guilty as hell”
-
Surely, if he knew how to enter through a securely closed window, he'd have discovered how to leave it the way he found it after he'd exited? However, if we allow for, perhaps he may not have bothered, can we be absolutely certain that every window was checked thoroughly? Finding 99% of those thoroughly checked to be secure, might not the last 1% have had just a cursory glance?
Was Jeremy Bamber ever found inside WHF house — trapped in?
Just asking....
It’s just that not many people break into a property (their own home at that) knowing they’d be trapped inside...
-
273. Further complaint is made that the prosecution failed to disclose the fact that DC Barlow examined the windows of White House Farm on 22 August 1985 and noted nothing of significance in relation to the bathroom window. His statement of 21 November 1985 indicates that:
"on Thursday the 22nd of August I was on duty when I went to White House Farm. There I made an examination of the kitchen window"
There is no reference in the statement to the bathroom window. 274. In notes written for the Essex Review (after trial) he wrote:
"22/8/85 first opportunity to go to White House Farm. Examined all the windows. Most are sash type and could be opened from outside but could not be closed"
The window that the perp, Jeremy escaped through was the KITCHEN window which was NOT a sash window.
Officers examined it and the latch and did exactly as Julie had described to them when Jeremy told her how he’d get out, and they too banged the window hard and the latch went down.
It was clearly an old, well-used latch, hence why it was looser than when new.
This has all been proven 35 years ago...
-
Was Jeremy Bamber ever found inside WHF house — trapped in?
Just asking....
It’s just that not many people break into a property (their own home at that) knowing they’d be trapped inside...
Good point
-
It wouldn't require permission from the trustees and/or the Eaton's. The CCRC have wide reaching powers and if a reconstruction of any type required entry to WHF then the CCRC could order it to happen.
The CCRC would need very good reason to spend money and time on reconstruction
They’d need really good evidence that the original findings were wrong, and there isn’t any — it’s just wishful thinking on a few supporters of JB who are like dogs with a bone....
There’s NOTHING to even suggest the original findings were wrong: several police officers carried out the experiment and it was all witnessed and logged.
I dare say that the original latch or even the whole window was repaired or replaced after Jeremy Bamber killed his family and it became public knowledge that the window latch was faulty. As if they’d leave the house unsafe for some random burglar to break in! I bet it’s one of the first things they made secure.
-
You’re wrong.
Dr Vanezis has officially stated that after having seen the soc, including photos etc, he is adamant Sheila could not possibly have murdered everyone, including beating Nevill to a pulp, and DEFINITELY couldn’t have shot herself.
It’s in CAL’s book and you’ll also find it by Googling... I take it you know how to research?
Whilst off the record snippets to a book author are of interest, they cannot and do not take precedence over official records prepared by the pathologist pre and post trial and his trial testimony none of which were harmful to JB.
The pathologist has always made clear he was unable to conclude murder or suicide. Its only those here who think they no more than a highly qualified pathologist with years of experience who was a guest on Desert Island discs!
-
The CCRC would need very good reason to spend money and time on reconstruction
They’d need really good evidence that the original findings were wrong, and there isn’t any — it’s just wishful thinking on a few supporters of JB who are like dogs with a bone....
There’s NOTHING to even suggest the original findings were wrong: several police officers carried out the experiment and it was all witnessed and logged.
I dare say that the original latch or even the whole window was repaired or replaced after Jeremy Bamber killed his family and it became public knowledge that the window latch was faulty. As if they’d leave the house unsafe for some random burglar to break in! I bet it’s one of the first things they made secure.
‘course it was
-
The CCRC would need very good reason to spend money and time on reconstruction
They’d need really good evidence that the original findings were wrong, and there isn’t any — it’s just wishful thinking on a few supporters of JB who are like dogs with a bone....
There’s NOTHING to even suggest the original findings were wrong: several police officers carried out the experiment and it was all witnessed and logged.
I dare say that the original latch or even the whole window was repaired or replaced after Jeremy Bamber killed his family and it became public knowledge that the window latch was faulty. As if they’d leave the house unsafe for some random burglar to break in! I bet it’s one of the first things they made secure.
The window is certainly nothing I'm talking to forensic scientists about. It's a sideshow afaic. In any event the trial judge has already killed it dead:
As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
It's what's known as a biased judge!
-
The CCRC would need very good reason to spend money and time on reconstruction
They’d need really good evidence that the original findings were wrong, and there isn’t any — it’s just wishful thinking on a few supporters of JB who are like dogs with a bone....
There’s NOTHING to even suggest the original findings were wrong: several police officers carried out the experiment and it was all witnessed and logged.
I dare say that the original latch or even the whole window was repaired or replaced after Jeremy Bamber killed his family and it became public knowledge that the window latch was faulty. As if they’d leave the house unsafe for some random burglar to break in! I bet it’s one of the first things they made secure.
The reconstruction is one of many additional points to the winning points.
-
The window is certainly nothing I'm talking to forensic scientists about. It's a sideshow afaic. In any event the trial judge has already killed it dead:
As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
It's what's known as a biased judge!
There’s been no evidence whatsoever (for 35 year) to show the judge was ‘bias’ Holly
-
The reconstruction is one of many additional points to the winning points.
?
Are these imaginary ‘winning points’ your focus & main goal Holy ?
-
Whilst off the record snippets to a book author are of interest, they cannot and do not take precedence over official records prepared by the pathologist pre and post trial and his trial testimony none of which were harmful to JB.
The pathologist has always made clear he was unable to conclude murder or suicide. Its only those here who think they no more than a highly qualified pathologist with years of experience who was a guest on Desert Island discs!
Who specifically are you referring to ?
-
Yes, all locked and/or bolted from inside, with keys still in place.
Is that a given,as per crime scene report,pictures etc?
-
Whilst off the record snippets to a book author are of interest, they cannot and do not take precedence over official records prepared by the pathologist pre and post trial and his trial testimony none of which were harmful to JB.
The pathologist has always made clear he was unable to conclude murder or suicide. Its only those here who think they no more than a highly qualified pathologist with years of experience who was a guest on Desert Island discs!
Oh Holly that's just ignoring things you don't want to hear. His statement etc. were made over 35 years ago and he's had time to reflect, his opinion on the subjects DOES matter and any new trial would include it.
-
The reconstruction is one of many additional points to the winning points.
Is that your opinion or one that Bamber's legal team is pushing?
-
Yes, all locked and/or bolted from inside, with keys still in place.
Yes they were but the bathroom window lock was found to be open with no reason for it to have been. No one admitted to opening it or closing it.
-
The reconstruction is one of many additional points to the winning points.
It's just an idea you dreamt up and has no official bearing.
-
The main front door was opened by APS Manners and he mentions no bolts, just a 'small flat knob' which he turned to unlock the door. [w/s 23/09/85]
Wheres that to G, please.,can't find it.
So going by that its possible Bamber could have left by that door.
Parallels to another case, why use a window when a perfectly operational door is available.
-
Whilst off the record snippets to a book author are of interest
What Bamber says to Scott Lomax is telling Holly as is the time around when he communicated with him
When did Bamber speak to him do you know?
-
Oh Holly that's just ignoring things you don't want to hear. His statement etc. were made over 35 years ago and he's had time to reflect, his opinion on the subjects DOES matter and any new trial would include it.
As would the police, CPS & CCRC
-
Wheres that to G, please.,can't find it.
So going by that its possible Bamber could have left by that door.
Parallels to another case, why use a window when a perfectly operational door is available.
Suggestive of ‘foresight’
-
The difference between CAL's reconstruction and mine is hers is big on melo-drama and zero on the physical evidence and mine is big on the physical evidence and zero on melo-drama.
Are you having a laugh? (&^&
CAL’s book was based on thoroughly RESEARCHED FACTS.
THERE was no melodrama at all!
All your arguments, Holly, are wishful thinking scenarios...that’s why you’ve been bleating on since 2014 and STILL haven’t achieved ONE single thing.
Nor will you.
-
I thought the bolt fastened vertically, was stuck in the up position and could be knocked into place by tapping on the glass from the outside?
That was the kitchen window, VS — the one Jeremy escaped through. He simply shut it after climbing through, banged it — and the handle slipped down (as it was loose) into what appeared to be the locked position
The window he entered by was the bathroom sash. He used a small blade to slide the latch across...easy as anything.
He admitted it, too. He told police he’d done it — he just altered the date, that’s all.
-
Are you having a laugh? (&^&
CAL’s book was based on thoroughly RESEARCHED FACTS.
THERE was no melodrama at all!
All your arguments, Holly, are wishful thinking scenarios...that’s why you’ve been bleating on since 2014 and STILL haven’t achieved ONE single thing.
Nor will you.
I concur
-
Whilst off the record snippets to a book author are of interest, they cannot and do not take precedence over official records prepared by the pathologist pre and post trial and his trial testimony none of which were harmful to JB.
The pathologist has always made clear he was unable to conclude murder or suicide. Its only those here who think they no more than a highly qualified pathologist with years of experience who was a guest on Desert Island discs!
You need to stop being disrespectful to experts.
CAL thoroughly researched everything for her book, including the correspondence Jeremy shared with her himself. You know, those FIVE OR SIX letter he claimed to have written to her. That FAT lie was proven when CAL posted up the HUNDREDS she’d received...so, Holly, was JB lying about that or not? Eh?
Dr Vanezis has STATED that he does NOT believe Sheila was capable of it — so you’re either lying too, or you’ve not assimilated what Vanezis said.
I don’t know how or why you bang on spouting same tired old nonsense...how many more years do you need before it registers that JB is a convicted murderer and will never, ever be released? The time you waste discussing trivial unimportant details that are too ludicrous to even reply to is staggering. Every time I come on here you’re online...you seem to live and breathe it. It’s so terribly unhealthy!
-
Wheres that to G, please.,can't find it.
So going by that its possible Bamber could have left by that door.
Parallels to another case, why use a window when a perfectly operational door is available.
Here you are.
-
The window is certainly nothing I'm talking to forensic scientists about. It's a sideshow afaic. In any event the trial judge has already killed it dead:
As the trial Judge said (at page 10E):
"… how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
It's what's known as a biased judge!
The Judge knows more about law than you, Holly
So do the appeal court — and TWICE they’ve slung out JB’s weak ludicrous claims
A whole HOST of overwhelming EVIDENCE convicted Jeremy Bamber....and the Judge was right. Despite discovering how Jeremy Bamber entrered and left the house, as he wasn’t SEEN, they couldn’t prove he did use those windows despite knowing he must have. It’s possible, though highly unlikely, he entered through another window, or even had a key cut to door that had no bolt ...it can’t be proven. What can be proved though are all the bloods, forensics, silencer, lack of gsw, blood etc on Sheila
And yes, maybe he DID use a key, no-one knows and it isn’t important
-
The Judge knows more about law than you, Holly
So do the appeal court — and TWICE they’ve slung out JB’s weak ludicrous claims
A whole HOST of overwhelming EVIDENCE convicted Jeremy Bamber....and the Judge was right. Despite discovering how Jeremy Bamber entree and left the house, as he wasn’t SEEN, they couldn’t prove he did use those windows despite knowing he must have. It’s possible, though highly unlikely, he entered through another window, or even had a key cut to door that had no bolt ...it can’t be proven. What cane be proved though are all the bloods, forensics, silencer, lack of gsw, blood etc on Sheila
This is boring now...
Plus the CPS know Bamber has been attempting innocence fraud since his arrest - his full life tariff supports this
-
You need to stop being disrespectful to experts.
CAL thoroughly researched everything for her book, including the correspondence Jeremy shared with her himself. You know, those FIVE OR SIX letter he claimed to have written to her. That FAT lie was proven when CAL posted up the HUNDREDS she’d received...so, Holly, was JB lying about that or not? Eh?
Dr Vanezis has STATED that he does NOT believe Sheila was capable of it — so you’re either lying too, or you’ve not assimilated what Vanezis said.
I don’t know how or why you bang on spouting same tired old nonsense...how many more years do you need before it registers that JB is a convicted murderer and will never, ever be released? The time you waste discussing trivial unimportant details that are too ludicrous to even reply to is staggering. Every time I come on here you’re online...you seem to live and breathe it. It’s so terribly unhealthy!
‘The Murders at White House Farm’ is available on audiobook now https://www.storytel.com/in/en/books/1169910-The-Murders-at-White-House-Farm
-
The Judge knows more about law than you, Holly
So do the appeal court — and TWICE they’ve slung out JB’s weak ludicrous claims
A whole HOST of overwhelming EVIDENCE convicted Jeremy Bamber....and the Judge was right. Despite discovering how Jeremy Bamber entrered and left the house, as he wasn’t SEEN, they couldn’t prove he did use those windows despite knowing he must have. It’s possible, though highly unlikely, he entered through another window, or even had a key cut to door that had no bolt ...it can’t be proven. What can be proved though are all the bloods, forensics, silencer, lack of gsw, blood etc on Sheila
And yes, maybe he DID use a key, no-one knows and it isn’t important
Maybe Holly buys into Bamber’s philosophy ?
Bamber - 2010
“the trick is to always hope that there is something that will help.”
-
Here you are.
Thank you,so its possible JB could have left this way,sort of a deadlock on it.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7466.msg349195#msg349195
I don’t see any rebuttal of CAL’s scenario?
-
The difference between CAL's reconstruction and mine is hers is big on melo-drama and zero on the physical evidence and mine is big on the physical evidence and zero on melo-drama.
Can you give an example of what you perceive to be “melo-drama” (sic)?
-
Whilst off the record snippets to a book author are of interest, they cannot and do not take precedence over official records prepared by the pathologist pre and post trial and his trial testimony none of which were harmful to JB.
The pathologist has always made clear he was unable to conclude murder or suicide. Its only those here who think they no more than a highly qualified pathologist with years of experience who was a guest on Desert Island discs!
Who knew DID was now a scientific qualification/ accolade.
-
Who knew DID was now a scientific qualification/ accolade.
If you are referring to dissociative identity disorder
Someone of twitter here https://mobile.twitter.com/LydiaAble/status/1253328409687556102
says,
‘When someone says "Disassociative" Identity Disorder, you know it's time for them to shut the f*ck up.
Presuming that’s what you are referring to ?
More here ’Problems investigating historical child sex abuse’ - 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/28/problems-investigating-historical-child-sex-abuse
-
If you are referring to dissociative identity disorder
Someone of twitter here https://mobile.twitter.com/LydiaAble/status/1253328409687556102
says,
‘When someone says "Disassociative" Identity Disorder, you know it's time for them to shut the f*ck up.
Presuming that’s what you are referring to ?
More here ’Problems investigating historical child sex abuse’ - 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/28/problems-investigating-historical-child-sex-abuse
LOL, no Desert Island Discs - Holly seems to think that appearing on the show is some sort of sceintific endorsement.
-
LOL, no Desert Island Discs - Holly seems to think that appearing on the show is some sort of sceintific endorsement.
@)(++(*
-
That was the kitchen window, VS — the one Jeremy escaped through. He simply shut it after climbing through, banged it — and the handle slipped down (as it was loose) into what appeared to be the locked position
The window he entered by was the bathroom sash. He used a small blade to slide the latch across...easy as anything.
He admitted it, too. He told police he’d done it — he just altered the date, that’s all.
Is it inconceivable JB didn't have a key to the house,being that he worked on the farm and he was a son,strange if he didn't imo.
-
Is it inconceivable JB didn't have a key to the house,being that he worked on the farm and he was a son,strange if he didn't imo.
There may have been a key to the kitchen door, but as Jeremy Bamber pointed out the key was in the lock on the inside so it wouldn't have worked.
-
Plus the CPS know Bamber has been attempting innocence fraud since his arrest - his full life tariff supports this
Some people won’t accept that fact, VS.
They’ll harp on ver irrelevant details of no significance in their desperate attempts to help a psychopathic mass murderer have yet ANOTHER appeal.
Ain’t gonna happen.
The courts are sick to death of his name popping up, trying yet another ruse to worm his way out...
-
My boyfriend is at the uni of Kent and he heard about it from a pal of his through rugby/Cardiff.
We are both fascinated by the case and can't stop talking about it: did he, didn't he?
My man is my Pete not JB.
On the contrary actually. He's a lawyer without so much as a parking ticket or speeding fine.
Does he practice Law Holly or is he non practising ?
-
Maybe Holly buys into Bamber’s philosophy ?
Bamber - 2010
She clearly does.
Strange, indeed...
Out of EVERYONE I’ve spoken to — friends, some of whom are reporters, well-known journalists who work for national radio and TV, police, QC’s, solicitors; family, social media contacts...not ONE, not ONE of them have ever said Jeremy Bamber is innocent. They all IMMEDIATELY say say words to the effect “Guilty as hell”. And not only that, they don’t even bother to discuss it further as they all know it’s set in stone.