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 May 23, 2020, 08:35:52 PM
-
The rifle was found on SC's body sans silencer. JB's relatives found the silencer at the back of a cupboard when they went into the farmhouse on 10th Aug ostensibly to clean and tidy up. Their w/s's conflict as to who was present when it was found, its state and what exactly happened to it until DS Jones collected it from the Eatons farmhouse on 12th Aug. DS Jones was supposed to enter such an exhibit into a particular 'property' book. He failed to do this meaning it avoided the type of scrutiny such a find would normally undergo. On 13th Aug DI Cook took the silencer to the FSS lab at Huntingdon for forensic examination along with other exhibits.
Glynis Howard was the scientist responsible for examining the silencer. I've uploaded a diagram describing the blood on the outside along with parts of her trial testimony relating to the silencer.
The relatives conflicting accounts include observation of blood and paint on the outside.
DS Jones and DI Cook claim to have observed a single grey hair but this was lost before it reached the lab.
Glynis Howard's diagram and testimony make reference to the blood only. Why does she not make any reference to the paint?
-
Relevant parts of testimony:
-
Errm... because she wasn't asked about the paint in those examination extracts you posted.
-
Errm... because she wasn't asked about the paint in those examination extracts you posted.
Correct but she does say she had difficulty examining it as she had to handle it gingerly to preserve fingerprints.
Investigators and forensics have to decide the order of examination to preserve evidence. In this instance a decision was made to remove the blood for examination before DI Cook took it away for fingerprinting which involved placing the silencer into the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber. Why not remove the tiny particles of paint beforehand to preserve their integrity?
-
Correct but she does say she had difficulty examining it as she had to handle it gingerly to preserve fingerprints.
Investigators and forensics have to decide the order of examination to preserve evidence. In this instance a decision was made to remove the blood for examination before DI Cook took it away for fingerprinting which involved placing the silencer into the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber. Why not remove the tiny particles of paint beforehand to preserve their integrity?
I thought they did remove the paint according to this third part...
-
I thought they did remove the paint according to this third part...
Yes they did remove the paint particles at a later date.
The control sample was not taken until 14th Aug.
-
Yes they did remove the paint particles at a later date.
The control sample was not taken until 14th Aug.
They weren't taking paint for blood grouping or DNA analysis, but only to compare a layer sample with a control taken from underneath the mantleshelf. So there was no need to be concerned about cyanoacrylate fumes affecting inert paint.
-
They weren't taking paint for blood grouping or DNA analysis, but only to compare a layer sample with a control taken from underneath the mantleshelf. So there was no need to be concerned about cyanoacrylate fumes affecting inert paint.
I agree the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber was unlikely to adversely affect the paint particles for further forensic examination unlike the blood. But assuming the paint particles were actually present on 13th Aug they were miniscule and embedded in the textured end meaning they were about 1mm in size. The hair had already been lost in transit so why take the risk with the paint particles? Why not remove them then and there? Although the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber was unlikely to adversely affect per se it may have caused them to dislodge.
In any event the silencer went in the fuming chamber on 15th Aug and yet we are told it wasn't until 25th Sep that Brian Elliot removed and examined the paint particles.
-
When DS Jones collected the silencer from the relatives on 12th Aug you might think he would go prepared with an exhibit bag/label and HO issued stationery for recording witness testimony. And yet he turned up empty handed but left with a belly full of whisky and the evidence that has underpinned JB's conviction for over 3 decades.
DB who actually found the silencer at WHF provided a w/s on 12th Sep. AE who stored the silencer at her farmhouse until DS Jones collected on 12th Aug provided a w/s on 8th Sep.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Here's the previous page of AE's w/s:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
PE handed the silencer over to DS Jones after the pair spent the evening drinking whisky together. He provided a w/s on 4th Nov saying he omitted from his first the grey hair. Neither AE or DB make reference to the grey hair.
-
PE handed the silencer over to DS Jones after the pair spent the evening drinking whisky together. He provided a w/s on 4th Nov saying he omitted from his first the grey hair. Neither AE or DB make reference to the grey hair.
That Famous Grouse bottle must have been emptied twenty times over from the number of times you've mentioned it, so I'm surprised Stan made it back home in one piece in his Citroen 2CV.
-
That Famous Grouse bottle must have been emptied twenty times over from the number of times you've mentioned it, so I'm surprised Stan made it back home in one piece in his Citroen 2CV.
Going by the ITV series I think he probably rolled home.
-
Going by the ITV series I think he probably rolled home.
He wasn't that obese, but CVs are notorious for rolling on corners, though they are pretty...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV#/media/File:Citroen_2CV_1X7A7979.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV#/media/File:Citroen_2CV_1X7A7979.jpg)
-
PE handed the silencer over to DS Jones after the pair spent the evening drinking whisky together. He provided a w/s on 4th Nov saying he omitted from his first the grey hair. Neither AE or DB make reference to the grey hair.
DI Cook testified at trial that he observed the single grey hair attached which was lost in transit to the lab. And yet neither AE nor DB mention the hair in their w/s's.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
He wasn't that obese, but CVs are notorious for rolling on corners, though they are pretty...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV#/media/File:Citroen_2CV_1X7A7979.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV#/media/File:Citroen_2CV_1X7A7979.jpg)
So are Reliant Robins!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer the Porsche kit car JB had his eye on!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1015.msg29645#msg29645
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1015.msg29647#msg29647
I could see him roaring around the Essex countryside with Angie by his side complete with his n her Ray-Bans 8(>((
Ironically he might even have had the silencer tweaked to make it sound more throaty!
-
That Famous Grouse bottle must have been emptied twenty times over from the number of times you've mentioned it, so I'm surprised Stan made it back home in one piece in his Citroen 2CV.
If it was an indiscretion by Jeremy Bamber, we'd never hear the last of it. Whole threads on here would probably be devoted to how Jeremy had a drinking problem and Peter Eaton swears blind that Jeremy downed the whole bottle. Drinking on duty, while driving, and while collecting a key exhibit, is a very serious lapse that could have jeopardised the whole case.
Unless of course Peter Eaton is lying or exaggerating?
Would Peter Eaton be prone to lying and exaggerating about things?
-
So are Reliant Robins!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer the Porsche kit car JB had his eye on!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1015.msg29645#msg29645
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1015.msg29647#msg29647
I could see him roaring around the Essex countryside with Angie by his side complete with his n her Ray-Bans 8(>((
Ironically he might even have had the silencer tweaked to make it sound more throaty!
He didn't have his eye on a kit car @)(++(*
-
As evidenced by the w/s's of AE and DB neither made reference to a grey hair attached to the silencer which apparently was lost en route when DI Cook transported it to the lab. Despite the fact it wasn't seen by anyone at the lab let alone defence experts/lawyers it didn't prevent the prosecution speculating about it at trial to the point the trial judge even mentioned it in his summing up to the jury.
-
He didn't have his eye on a kit car @)(++(*
He did costing some 2k like the one in the image.
-
If it was an indiscretion by Jeremy Bamber, we'd never hear the last of it. Whole threads on here would probably be devoted to how Jeremy had a drinking problem and Peter Eaton swears blind that Jeremy downed the whole bottle. Drinking on duty, while driving, and while collecting a key exhibit, is a very serious lapse that could have jeopardised the whole case.
Unless of course Peter Eaton is lying or exaggerating?
Would Peter Eaton be prone to lying and exaggerating about things?
An indiscretion implies a one-off which it wasn't. DS Jones consumed alcohol at JB's on 7th Aug; on 13th Aug when he collected the silencer from the Eatons and again at the Eatons on 14th Aug when he popped round with DI's Cook and Miller having taken a paint sample from the Aga surround at WHF.
The above are obviously the occasions we know about.
-
sorry to impose on this chat.
I've just been over to the blue looking for any electrical maps of the house.
Can anybody help please?
Thanks
-
From what I have read the blood found in the silencer was Sheila Caffell's blood and the only way it could have been found there was if the silencer was on the rifle and in close proximity to her when she was shot.
-
He did costing some 2k like the one in the image.
Don't believe it Holly, he wanted a Porsche but not a kit version.
-
sorry to impose on this chat.
I've just been over to the blue looking for any electrical maps of the house.
Can anybody help please?
Thanks
Sorry no idea. If anyone knows it sounds like the sort of thing Myster might be offay with.
-
If it was an indiscretion by Jeremy Bamber, we'd never hear the last of it. Whole threads on here would probably be devoted to how Jeremy had a drinking problem and Peter Eaton swears blind that Jeremy downed the whole bottle. Drinking on duty, while driving, and while collecting a key exhibit, is a very serious lapse that could have jeopardised the whole case.
Unless of course Peter Eaton is lying or exaggerating?
Would Peter Eaton be prone to lying and exaggerating about things?
Certainly, much would be made of it now, but back in the 80's? One of the local pubs in my village became HQ to police investigating another murder in the area around the same time. I'm told many of them didn't know which way was up when they left
-
sorry to impose on this chat.
I've just been over to the blue looking for any electrical maps of the house.
Can anybody help please?
Thanks
Unusual request... haven't seen any, but what do want to know? Busy putting a grocery order in now, so if I can answer a specific question I'll reply later, unless someone else contributes in the mean time.
-
From what I have read the blood found in the silencer was Sheila Caffell's blood and the only way it could have been found there was if the silencer was on the rifle and in close proximity to her when she was shot.
The type of tests carried out mid 80's were not statistically individualising. At the time about 8% of the white British population shared the same blood groups.
You said on the other thread the defence expert (Dr Patrick Lincoln) observed visible blood staining on the inside of the silencer but that's not actually correct:
-
DI Cook testified at trial that he observed the single grey hair attached which was lost in transit to the lab. And yet neither AE nor DB mention the hair in their w/s's.
The hair could have come from anywhere and may not have even been on the silencer when found. It could have been a dog hair or a hair that was picked up when stored at AE's house. It fell off - so what?
-
From what I have read the blood found in the silencer was Sheila Caffell's blood and the only way it could have been found there was if the silencer was on the rifle and in close proximity to her when she was shot.
Just to clarify the mechanism whereby blood enters a muzzle from a contact gunshot wound is known as 'drawback' sometimes referred to as 'blowback'. This is different from blood entering a muzzle from a non-contact gunshot wound where the blood is in free flight.
Forensic scientists, ballistics and pathologists seem to agree when drawback does occur it involves the following:
- Large calibre firearms (small calibre used at WHF. 22)
- High velocity ammo (low velocity ammo used at WHF subsonic)
- Head wounds (SC's wounds were to the neck)
- Blood usually contains tissue and bone fragments (No evidence the blood supposedly found inside the silencer contained tissue or bone).
- Any devices fitted to muzzles eg silencer will alter the outcome making it less likely still as it changes the whole mechanism of how scientists believe the phenomenon works ie unsilenced hot discharge gasses blast out the end of the muzzle into the wound creating a vacuum which causes blood to travel against the line of fire back into the muzzle. With a silencer fitted the hot discharge gases enter an expansion chamber where they cool and release slowly through a series of baffle plates.
- No cases, tests or research anywhere involving blood entering a silencer as a result of 'drawback'.
-
The hair could have come from anywhere and may not have even been on the silencer when found. It could have been a dog hair or a hair that was picked up when stored at AE's house. It fell off - so what?
Assuming the grey hair existed and wasn't just a figment of someone's imagination I agree but it didn't prevent the prosecution at trial, along with the trial judge, correographing a correlation between the grey hair and the silencer striking NB's head.
-
The only way traces of Sheila could have been found deep within the silencer was if she had been shot while it was attached to the weapon used to kill her and to wipe out
The distribution of blood in the moderator is an issue I addressed in great detail. The prosecution experts found visible blood on the first 5-7 baffles wiht the volume decreasing the further it got from the opening. The defense expert found microscopic traces of blood on the first 8 baffles. The blood was tested and detemrined to be group A. In addition a flake of blood that dried between baffles 1 and 2 was tested and determined to be group A but also had an anzyme which June didn't possess but Sheila did.
June and Sheila both have group A blood but Sheila has enzyme AK1 while June has enzyme AK2-1 so the flake was consistent with Sheila's blood not June's. AK2-1 is more hardy than AK1 and since the AK1 enzyme had not yet deteriorated that means had June's blood been present her AK2-1 enzymes would still have been present. So this speaks against the blood on the baffles or the flake containing any of June's blood because there was no AK2-1 present and there should have been if her blood was present because AK2-1 takes longer to deteriorate than AK1 and AK1 was present.
The only way for blood to get on the 8 baffles with the volume dimishing is if it were sprayed there. High velocity backspatter is a spray of atomized blood. The larger particles cannot travel as far as the fine particles so the larger blood will be on the early baffles. This is exactly what was observed.
You have no way at all to suggest the blood was anything other than backspatter from Sheila.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg222171#msg222171
No diagrams or photographic evidence exists depicting the blood supposedly found inside the silencer.
The silencer is effectively a hollow tube which features an expansion chamber one end and a series of baffle plates the other. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that the actual tube was examined by way of inserting a camera (if such things existed then) or even shinining a bright light down it. We are told the blood appeared on the baffle plates and yet the defence expert was unable to observe any blood staining visually.
At trial Malcolm Fletcher (HO ballistics) said he thought he saw blood as far down as the 6th baffle. John Hayward (HO biologist) said he thought the 5th baffle. Why so vague? Why no notes? I thought scientists worked through these things carefully and methodically?
John Hayward:
Q: About how many baffles down did it go?
A: I did not make a note at the time, sir, but from recollection I certainly detected it on the uppermost four or five baffles.
Malcolm Fletcher:
Q: Perhaps you can elaborate on that. We have heard some evidence that there was blood on the inside of it, down to about the fourth or fifth baffle. Can you help as to how far it went down on your observation?
A: Yes I certainly saw it down as far as the fifth, and I think there may have been a little further in as well, maybe the sixth or seventh possibly.
-
Assuming the grey hair existed and wasn't just a figment of someone's imagination I agree but it didn't prevent the prosecution at trial, along with the trial judge, correographing a correlation between the grey hair and the silencer striking NB's head.
Well everyone knows that correlation is not causation. But that was really up to the defence to highlight that the family scrutinised it and saw no hair. Who knows, maybe they did.
-
No diagrams or photographic evidence exists depicting the blood supposedly found inside the silencer.
The silencer is effectively a hollow tube which features an expansion chamber one end and a series of baffle plates the other. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that the actual tube was examined by way of inserting a camera (if such things existed then) or even shinining a bright light down it. We are told the blood appeared on the baffle plates and yet the defence expert was unable to observe any blood staining visually.
At trial Malcolm Fletcher (HO ballistics) said he thought he saw blood as far down as the 6th baffle. John Hayward (HO biologist) said he thought the 5th baffle. Why so vague? Why no notes? I thought scientists worked through these things carefully and methodically?
John Hayward:
Q: About how many baffles down did it go?
A: I did not make a note at the time, sir, but from recollection I certainly detected it on the uppermost four or five baffles.
Malcolm Fletcher:
Q: Perhaps you can elaborate on that. We have heard some evidence that there was blood on the inside of it, down to about the fourth or fifth baffle. Can you help as to how far it went down on your observation?
A: Yes I certainly saw it down as far as the fifth, and I think there may have been a little further in as well, maybe the sixth or seventh possibly.
There is this but it's not ver easy to read.
-
No diagrams or photographic evidence exists depicting the blood supposedly found inside the silencer.
The silencer is effectively a hollow tube which features an expansion chamber one end and a series of baffle plates the other. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that the actual tube was examined by way of inserting a camera (if such things existed then) or even shinining a bright light down it. We are told the blood appeared on the baffle plates and yet the defence expert was unable to observe any blood staining visually.
At trial Malcolm Fletcher (HO ballistics) said he thought he saw blood as far down as the 6th baffle. John Hayward (HO biologist) said he thought the 5th baffle. Why so vague? Why no notes? I thought scientists worked through these things carefully and methodically?
John Hayward:
Q: About how many baffles down did it go?
A: I did not make a note at the time, sir, but from recollection I certainly detected it on the uppermost four or five baffles.
Malcolm Fletcher:
Q: Perhaps you can elaborate on that. We have heard some evidence that there was blood on the inside of it, down to about the fourth or fifth baffle. Can you help as to how far it went down on your observation?
A: Yes I certainly saw it down as far as the fifth, and I think there may have been a little further in as well, maybe the sixth or seventh possibly.
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
In other words ... if Sheila had shot herself blood would have been drawn back into the barrel of the gun. If someone else had shot her using a silencer that draw back would have taken Sheila's blood into the silencer.
Sheila's blood was found in the silencer. Someone shot her. And the only person that could have been was Jeremy Bamber.
-
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
In other words ... if Sheila had shot herself blood would have been drawn back into the barrel of the gun. If someone else had shot her using a silencer that draw back would have taken Sheila's blood into the silencer.
Sheila's blood was found in the silencer. Someone shot her. And the only person that could have been was Jeremy Bamber.
Yes Brietta but Malcolm Fletcher only had 13 years of experience working in ballistic forensics - what does he know?
-
I agree the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber was unlikely to adversely affect the paint particles for further forensic examination unlike the blood. But assuming the paint particles were actually present on 13th Aug they were miniscule and embedded in the textured end meaning they were about 1mm in size. The hair had already been lost in transit so why take the risk with the paint particles? Why not remove them then and there? Although the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber was unlikely to adversely affect per se it may have caused them to dislodge.
In any event the silencer went in the fuming chamber on 15th Aug and yet we are told it wasn't until 25th Sep that Brian Elliot removed and examined the paint particles.
And it was all intact
So?
-
When DS Jones collected the silencer from the relatives on 12th Aug you might think he would go prepared with an exhibit bag/label and HO issued stationery for recording witness testimony. And yet he turned up empty handed but left with a belly full of whisky and the evidence that has underpinned JB's conviction for over 3 decades.
DB who actually found the silencer at WHF provided a w/s on 12th Sep. AE who stored the silencer at her farmhouse until DS Jones collected on 12th Aug provided a w/s on 8th Sep.
I don’t recall DS Jones knowing what the family had for him to look at; didn’t they just say they’d found “something “ they’d like him to look at? It could have been a letter, anything..
And do you know where he was when he got the message? I seem to remember his colleagues working under Taff Jones didn’t relay the message to him for DAYS
AND do you know what the procedures were back then in collecting sealed bags/containers when making a visit?
And what’s this about DS Jones leaving the Eaton’s with a “bellyful of whisky”? Stop exaggerating — you’re making yourself look silly
-
Going by the ITV series I think he probably rolled home.
Is that what you do now you’ve come off the wagon? 8(*(
-
He wasn't that obese, but CVs are notorious for rolling on corners, though they are pretty...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV#/media/File:Citroen_2CV_1X7A7979.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV#/media/File:Citroen_2CV_1X7A7979.jpg)
The real DS Jones wasn’t overweight going by the pictures...
Actually, I’m sure police had to be fit back then
Weight in accordance with their height.
It’s all changed now...you don’t need to be above a certain height to join up; don’t even need a good education let alone exams; and can even join up with convictions, albeit minor ones or spent ones
So basically, a dense, dodgy, obese midget who’s can’t waddle fast can join up now.
-
So are Reliant Robins!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer the Porsche kit car JB had his eye on!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1015.msg29645#msg29645
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1015.msg29647#msg29647
I could see him roaring around the Essex countryside with Angie by his side complete with his n her Ray-Bans 8(>((
Ironically he might even have had the silencer tweaked to make it sound more throaty!
Porsche are passé
They hold the road well, though
Jeremy Bamber didn’t have class, did he? He aspired to bling
An Aston Martin is much more classy
And to be really classy in the Essex countryside one should nip around in a Morgan 😤
-
Porsche are passé
They hold the road well, though
Jeremy Bamber didn’t have class, did he? He aspired to bling
An Aston Martin is much more classy
And to be really classy in the Essex countryside one should nip around in a Morgan 😤
Maybe he didn't have the patience to join the waiting list for a Morgan ... much the same as he didn't have the patience to wait to come into his inheritance.
-
If it was an indiscretion by Jeremy Bamber, we'd never hear the last of it. Whole threads on here would probably be devoted to how Jeremy had a drinking problem and Peter Eaton swears blind that Jeremy downed the whole bottle. Drinking on duty, while driving, and while collecting a key exhibit, is a very serious lapse that could have jeopardised the whole case.
Unless of course Peter Eaton is lying or exaggerating?
Would Peter Eaton be prone to lying and exaggerating about things?
Peter Eaton said they’d shared some whisky; civilised drinkers sip their drinks occasionally whilst discussing things, so how would you know if DS Jones had, say, just two glasses filled with ice and a mixer? Do you seriously think DS Jones would have jeopardised his CAREER by driving over the limit?
That’s a ridiculous suggestion.
Besides, what’s this got to do with Jeremy Bamber being a convicted psychopathic mass murderer?
-
As evidenced by the w/s's of AE and DB neither made reference to a grey hair attached to the silencer which apparently was lost en route when DI Cook transported it to the lab. Despite the fact it wasn't seen by anyone at the lab let alone defence experts/lawyers it didn't prevent the prosecution speculating about it at trial to the point the trial judge even mentioned it in his summing up to the jury.
It’s irrelevant, anyway
It’s been proven that Nevill’s head was smashed to a pulp with the rifle...
No point discussing it
The grey hair was lost — end of
-
An indiscretion implies a one-off which it wasn't. DS Jones consumed alcohol at JB's on 7th Aug; on 13th Aug when he collected the silencer from the Eatons and again at the Eatons on 14th Aug when he popped round with DI's Cook and Miller having taken a paint sample from the Aga surround at WHF.
The above are obviously the occasions we know about.
DS Jones had just one drink at the psychopath Jeremy Bamber’s house. So what? He didn’t share a joint with him, though...
Accepting a small nip of whisky when visiting victims homes for long discussions was almost de rigueur back then, Holly
I’m surprised you don’t remember that
-
He did costing some 2k like the one in the image.
But Jeremy Bamber told two different officers two different takes — on the same night too!
He told one policeman “Osea Road Campsite would see him a Porsche that year”
Then a few hours later he told another policeman, who mentioned “money” to Bamber, that he replied “Oh I’m a simple type. A little two-bed house, a small runaround, and enough cash in my pocket for a few beers at the weekend is all I need — that’s all I aspire to”
-
No diagrams or photographic evidence exists depicting the blood supposedly found inside the silencer.
The silencer is effectively a hollow tube which features an expansion chamber one end and a series of baffle plates the other. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that the actual tube was examined by way of inserting a camera (if such things existed then) or even shinining a bright light down it. We are told the blood appeared on the baffle plates and yet the defence expert was unable to observe any blood staining visually.
At trial Malcolm Fletcher (HO ballistics) said he thought he saw blood as far down as the 6th baffle. John Hayward (HO biologist) said he thought the 5th baffle. Why so vague? Why no notes? I thought scientists worked through these things carefully and methodically?
John Hayward:
Q: About how many baffles down did it go?
A: I did not make a note at the time, sir, but from recollection I certainly detected it on the uppermost four or five baffles.
Malcolm Fletcher:
Q: Perhaps you can elaborate on that. We have heard some evidence that there was blood on the inside of it, down to about the fourth or fifth baffle. Can you help as to how far it went down on your observation?
A: Yes I certainly saw it down as far as the fifth, and I think there may have been a little further in as well, maybe the sixth or seventh possibly.
Don’t be naive...of course the scientists and ballistics took notes!🙄
The court documents won’t show the notes MADE.
They just printed what was SAID by the EXPERTS in court
-
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
In other words ... if Sheila had shot herself blood would have been drawn back into the barrel of the gun. If someone else had shot her using a silencer that draw back would have taken Sheila's blood into the silencer.
Sheila's blood was found in the silencer. Someone shot her. And the only person that could have been was Jeremy Bamber.
Exactly, Brietta
I don’t know what Holly doesn’t understand about that — it’s perfectly clear 🤷♀️
-
sorry to impose on this chat.
I've just been over to the blue looking for any electrical maps of the house.
Can anybody help please?
Thanks
Why do you want a plan of the electrics, Aggy?
-
Why do you want a plan of the electrics, Aggy?
Should be the first thing you establish at a dinner party.
Closely followed by 'how likely is that dog to attack on a scale of 1-10'?
-
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
In other words ... if Sheila had shot herself blood would have been drawn back into the barrel of the gun. If someone else had shot her using a silencer that draw back would have taken Sheila's blood into the silencer.
Sheila's blood was found in the silencer. Someone shot her. And the only person that could have been was Jeremy Bamber.
Do you think I haven't pored over this with a magnifying glass?!
It wasn't "virtually certain" at all that blood would deposit in/on the barrel if the silencer wasn't attached.
From a book authored by Dr Vincent DiMaio - The Pathology Of Gunshot Wounds:
Page 326
"Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
Brie my challenge to you: find a case, test fire, forensic research, absolutely anything, where blood is found inside a silencer as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon. I'll give you a clue the physics behind the whole proposition make it impossible.
-
And when the UK Gov set up the Bloody Sunday inquiry why do you think it sought out the expertise from Dr DiMaio and not the likes of Malcom Fletcher?
-
And when the UK Gov set up the Bloody Sunday inquiry why do you think it sought out the expertise from Dr Di Maio and not the likes of Malcom Fletcher?
Here's MF's intro to JB's trial: 13 years experience in the firearms dept and a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy. Conversely here's Dr Di Maio introducing himself at a trial in the US. The difference could not be starker!
https://youtu.be/Ab2h2ceC5ic
-
457. Mr Fletcher, the firearms expert, gave evidence to explain how blood got into the moderator if it was attached, or into the barrel if there was no moderator attached. He said that the mechanism was complicated and not then fully appreciated. However, the expanding gas when the bullet left the muzzle was under normal circumstances distributed into the atmosphere. However with a contact shot there was no opportunity for this escape and the gas would follow the bullet into the wound as it expanded. Back pressure would then build up forcing the gas back out of the wound taking with it blood and tissue which would in effect be blasted back into the barrel if there was no moderator or into the moderator if one was attached. He said that even without direct contact, the same effect might occur but only if the gap between the end of the barrel, or the moderator if attached, and the skin was less than one millimetre. He said that the likelihood of such an occurrence was to an extent dependent on the part of the body to which the shot was delivered and the amount of blood present at that point.
458. If the shot to Shelia Caffell, which was a contact shot to the throat, had been fired without the moderator in place, he would have expected to find blood in the barrel of the gun. If the moderator was attached it was "virtually certain" that Sheila Caffell's blood would get into the moderator. There was, he said "a very slight possibility of it not happening, but very slight".
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
In other words ... if Sheila had shot herself blood would have been drawn back into the barrel of the gun. If someone else had shot her using a silencer that draw back would have taken Sheila's blood into the silencer.
Sheila's blood was found in the silencer. Someone shot her. And the only person that could have been was Jeremy Bamber.
And the only person that could have been was Jeremy Bamber. Why have you taken such a narrow view?
-
You really do have a limited understanding of this case, Rob!
-
Guys can we keep to thread topic please 8((()*/
-
Parliament has already acknowledged high profile quality issues at FSS during mid 80's:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
-
You really do have a limited understanding of this case, Rob!
Do you think Nevill died first? I don't. There ended up far more bullets in the house than what was in the opened box of .22 shells. Could someone else come there with another gun?
Could Jeremy have killed Nevill? Most people believe he did.
-
Guys can we keep to thread topic please 8((()*/
We have to take DB's word for it that they found the silencer in the gun cabinet at WHF. What right did they have to remove it from the scene of the crime?
-
If Jeremy Bamber had committed the crime don't you think he would have not allowed his relatives to have access to the house.
-
I will be deleting any further off-topic posts.
-
I will be deleting any further off-topic posts.
were my last two comments off-topic?
-
were my last two comments off-topic?
There's a tenuous link but the thread is discussing the forensic examination.
-
There's a tenuous link but the thread is discussing the forensic examination.
The Eatons and Boutflours had to get the silencer out of the house first before they handed it to the police for forensic examination. How do we know it was ever at the house on or after the 7th August? To me the chain of evidence is broken when they picked it up.
-
The Eatons and Boutflours had to get the silencer out of the house first before they handed it to the police for forensic examination. How do we know it was ever at the house on or after the 7th August? To me the chain of evidence is broken when they picked it up.
Where do you it was between 7th Aug and 9th Aug when the relatives claim to have found it?
-
The Eatons and Boutflours had to get the silencer out of the house first before they handed it to the police for forensic examination. How do we know it was ever at the house on or after the 7th August? To me the chain of evidence is broken when they picked it up.
This is one of the main tenets of the prosecution, so yes, I agree. Evidence, however, does get discovered in all sorts of ways (i.e. the sweatshirt in the trial of Russell Bishop) and it's continuity needs to be maintained.
The chain of custody may have been rigorous post it's discovery (aside from sticking it in a bog roll tube) but its provenance is in question.
-
This is one of the main tenets of the prosecution, so yes, I agree. Evidence, however, does get discovered in all sorts of ways (i.e. the sweatshirt in the trial of Russell Bishop) and it's continuity needs to be maintained.
The chain of custody may have been rigorous post it's discovery (aside from sticking it in a bog roll tube) but its provenance is in question.
The trial judge asked Rivlin QC if there was any dispute about the 'transmission' (think that was the word) over blood stained exhibits he answered no! I will find the trial testimony.
-
The trial judge asked Rivlin QC if there was any dispute about the 'transmission' (think that was the word) over blood stained exhibits he answered no! I will find the trial testimony.
That would just about amount to dereliction of duty; to reuse the opportunity to pick apart one of the two main prosecution elements of evidence is negligent if that's the case.
Bamber still did it though (for the baying masses)
-
That would just about amount to dereliction of duty; to reuse the opportunity to pick apart one of the two main prosecution elements of evidence is negligent if that's the case.
Bamber still did it though (for the baying masses)
From John Hayward's testimony (responsible for analysing blood stained exhibits).
Mr Justice Drake
Now, Mr Rivlin, the witness is going to be asked about a large number of items which later on he is going to tell us about, is there any dispute that they were transmitted properly to him, or where they were found?
Mr Rivlin
No, my Lord
-
From John Hayward's testimony (responsible for analysing blood stained exhibits).
Mr Justice Drake
Now, Mr Rivlin, the witness is going to be asked about a large number of items which later on he is going to tell us about, is there any dispute that they were transmitted properly to him, or where they were found?
Mr Rivlin
No, my Lord
So does this mean that their existence were explained to him, i.e. they were about to be brought up in evidence, and not pertaining to the concepts of the chain of custody or provenance?
-
So does this mean that their existence were explained to him, i.e. they were about to be brought up in evidence, and not pertaining to the concepts of the chain of custody or provenance?
DS Jones entered the silencer into the incorrect property book meaning it didn't undergo the sort of scrutiny such an exhibit would normally undergo. Scrutinised by whom? Police, FSS, defence, CPS, trial judge?
My interpretation of the above is that it was Rivlin's opportunity to beat the drum about chain of custody but he chose not to as it didn't fit with his strategy of SC using the silencer to murder her parents and children and returning it to the cupboard before shooting herself. The blood representing an intimate mix of June and NB's.
-
DS Jones entered the silencer into the incorrect property book meaning it didn't undergo the sort of scrutiny such an exhibit would normally undergo. Scrutinised by whom? Police, FSS, defence, CPS, trial judge?
My interpretation of the above is that it was Rivlin's opportunity to beat the drum about chain of custody but he chose not to as it didn't fit with his strategy of SC using the silencer to murder her parents and children and returning it to the cupboard before shooting herself. The blood representing an intimate mix of June and NB's.
Got it. Yes, clearly it would be counter-productive to pick the bones out of it, and the negative connotations would outweigh the positives derived from establishing slipshod evidence handling, presumably, despite the temptation.
So the established and agreed upon narrative was purely predicated on the apparent lack of mode of entry by persons unknown?
-
Where do you it was between 7th Aug and 9th Aug when the relatives claim to have found it?
They might have had it all the time.
-
478. On this information the CCRC decided that “the DNA results as they stood began to support
the theory put forward by the defence at trial”. They decided to take steps to see whether
the female DNA found within the moderator came from Sheila Caffell. To this end they
located Sheila Caffell’s natural mother and obtained a sample of her DNA. The evidence of
the testing of this sample was recorded as:
“The results of these tests were that…the DNA in the silencer could
not have come from Sheila Caffell”.
If the DNA did not come from Sheila Caffell neither did the blood. The blood group analysis showed it could be SC's but also the same result could be from a mixture of June and Nevill Bamber's blood.
So was the DNA matching June and Nevill Bamber? Or are there just no reference samples of their DNA to compare silencer results to?
-
Where do you it was between 7th Aug and 9th Aug when the relatives claim to have found it?
It was kept safe and separate from anything at the Eatons.
They called the police AS SOON as they discovered it, but the inept police didn’t pass the message onto the investigation team for two days. Everyone knows that: in fact, that came up in the police review when Parliament were aghast at how EP, particularly Taff Jones, handled the case.
Incidentally, you’re wrong about the back spatter, Holly
A bullet fires at the same speed whether a moderator is attached to a rifle or not.
When a bullet hits a target e.g. a human, the colossal impact creates back spatter regardless of whether a moderator is used or not. That’s plain PHYSICS.
Flesh and blood doesn’t know the bullet has travelled through a silencer, so where do you think that back spatter goes? In the opposite direction? Don’t be silly, Holly...
-
478. On this information the CCRC decided that “the DNA results as they stood began to support
the theory put forward by the defence at trial”. They decided to take steps to see whether
the female DNA found within the moderator came from Sheila Caffell. To this end they
located Sheila Caffell’s natural mother and obtained a sample of her DNA. The evidence of
the testing of this sample was recorded as:
“The results of these tests were that…the DNA in the silencer could
not have come from Sheila Caffell”.
If the DNA did not come from Sheila Caffell neither did the blood. The blood group analysis showed it could be SC's but also the same result could be from a mixture of June and Nevill Bamber's blood.
So was the DNA matching June and Nevill Bamber? Or are there just no reference samples of their DNA to compare silencer results to?
In the late 1990's when DNA testing became available they were unable to compare the results with samples from the victims because they were destroyed in 1996 by Essex Police (EP)
-
In the late 1990's when DNA testing became available they were unable to compare the results with samples from the victims because they were destroyed in 1996 by Essex Police (EP)
But they still had DNA from Sheila's biological mother. If the blood in the silencer was Sheila's 50% of the markers would match that obtained from the mother. I don't know if any matched at all. If it was as different as that then they could easily say “The results of these tests were that…the DNA in the silencer could
not have come from Sheila Caffell”.
Do we have access to the actual results?
-
But they still had DNA from Sheila's biological mother. If the blood in the silencer was Sheila's 50% of the markers would match that obtained from the mother. I don't know if any matched at all. If it was as different as that then they could easily say “The results of these tests were that…the DNA in the silencer could
not have come from Sheila Caffell”.
Do we have access to the actual results?
I haven't seen actual results, but they had samples from Sheila's mother, her husband and her children.
-
I haven't seen actual results, but they had samples from Sheila's mother, her husband and her children.
Yes you were right, they ground up Collin's collection of milk teeth from his kids to run DNA tests. I'm looking forward to see if that has assisted in any way. Surely it only supports the previous finding that the blood in the silencer was not Sheila's.
The DNA results from her husband could only make the situation worse if it was ever found that Colin wasn't the actual biological father.
-
This is what the Wikipedia Article on the Whitehouse Farm murder says:
"New silencer evidence
Bamber's appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice was dismissed in December 2002.
Although all the grounds (except 11) were reviewed by the court, the reason for the referral to the Court of Appeal was ground 15, the discovery of DNA on the silencer, the result of a test not available in 1986. The silencer evidence during the original trial had come from a Mr. Hayward, a biologist in private practice, formerly of the Forensic Science Laboratory. He had found a "considerable amount of blood" inside the silencer; he had stated that it was human blood and that the blood group was consistent with it having come from Sheila. He said there was a "remote possibility" that it was a mixture of blood from Nevill and June.[190]
Mark Webster, an expert instructed by Bamber's defence team, argued that Hayward's tests had been inadequate, and that there was a real possibility, not a remote one, that the blood had come from Nevill and June.[191] This was a critical point, because the prosecution case rested on the silencer having been on the gun when Sheila was shot, something she could not have done herself because of the length of her arms. If she was shot with the silencer on the gun, it meant that someone else had shot her. If her blood was inside the silencer, it supported the prosecution's position that she had been shot by another party, but if the blood inside the silencer belonged to someone else, that part of the prosecution case collapsed.[192]
The defence argued that new tests comparing DNA in the silencer to a sample from Sheila's biological mother suggested that the "major component" of the DNA in the silencer had not come from Sheila.[192] A DNA sample from June's sister suggested that the major component had come from June, the defence argued. The court concluded that June's DNA was in the silencer, that Sheila's DNA may have been in the silencer, and that there was evidence of DNA from at least one male. The judges' conclusion was that the results were complex, incomplete, and also meaningless because they did not establish how June's DNA came to be in the silencer years after the trial, did not establish that Sheila's was not in it, and did not lead to a conclusion that Bamber's conviction was unsafe."
yet the Appeal notes state:
"478. On this information the CCRC decided that “the DNA results as they stood began to support
the theory put forward by the defence at trial”. They decided to take steps to see whether
the female DNA found within the moderator came from Sheila Caffell. To this end they
located Sheila Caffell’s natural mother and obtained a sample of her DNA. The evidence of
the testing of this sample was recorded as:
“The results of these tests were that…the DNA in the silencer could
not have come from Sheila Caffell”.
-
Do you think I haven't pored over this with a magnifying glass?!
It wasn't "virtually certain" at all that blood would deposit in/on the barrel if the silencer wasn't attached.
From a book authored by Dr Vincent DiMaio - The Pathology Of Gunshot Wounds:
Page 326
"Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
Brie my challenge to you: find a case, test fire, forensic research, absolutely anything, where blood is found inside a silencer as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon. I'll give you a clue the physics behind the whole proposition make it impossible.
You seem determined to reinterpret the forensic evidence to suit yourself.
Snip
What Malcolm Fletcher has failed to take into account is that by using a silencer most of the gases are discharged in the silencer making it extremely unlikely that draw-back would occur.
It is possible to set up a reconstruction to confirm one way or the other. Even if draw-back takes place it will determine whether blood could be drawn back as far as the 8th baffle and whether it would have distributed the way in which it is claimed it was found. I have been in email contact with Dr Nordby. A letter is winging its way to JB for his approval to undertake a reconstruction. I have financial backers and the world's press are waiting in the wings
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6061.msg223553#msg223553
How did that pan out? Did the world's press miss out on something?
-
Do you think I haven't pored over this with a magnifying glass?!
It wasn't "virtually certain" at all that blood would deposit in/on the barrel if the silencer wasn't attached.
From a book authored by Dr Vincent DiMaio - The Pathology Of Gunshot Wounds:
Page 326
"Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
Brie my challenge to you: find a case, test fire, forensic research, absolutely anything, where blood is found inside a silencer as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon. I'll give you a clue the physics behind the whole proposition make it impossible.
So, just to be clear, you're saying that blood or tissue would never find its way inside a silencer and that physics proves it to be impossible?
Holly, can you PLEASE answer this question? You set a challenge and if I don't have clarity I can't attempt to take it on. You previously said you weren't saying it was impossible but now you're saying that it's beyond physics?
-
So, just to be clear, you're saying that blood or tissue would never find it's way inside the silencer and that physics proves it to be impossible?
If a silencer was pressed up against a bleeding wound I could imagine blood entering the end of the silencer.
-
It was kept safe and separate from anything at the Eatons.
They called the police AS SOON as they discovered it, but the inept police didn’t pass the message onto the investigation team for two days. Everyone knows that: in fact, that came up in the police review when Parliament were aghast at how EP, particularly Taff Jones, handled the case.
Actually, I'm not sure you've got your facts right there.
My understanding of what actually happened is that there was confusion among the relatives, who each thought one of the others had reported the find to the police, when in fact nobody had. It was only when Robert Boutflour attended at Whitham Police Station to make a general complaint and mentioned the silencer in passing that the police were alerted to the silencer's existence and then arranged to collect it.
My source for this is Colin Caffell's book. Or perhaps he is mistaken?
There is also a question mark over why the Eatons considered it necessary to remove this evidence from Whitehouse Farm, instead of reporting it immediately to the police and asking them to attend the scene forthwith, which would have been the more proper thing to do. Why didn't it happen that way?
We will have to trust that the forensic integrity of the evidence was maintained.
Incidentally, you’re wrong about the back spatter, Holly
A bullet fires at the same speed whether a moderator is attached to a rifle or not.
When a bullet hits a target e.g. a human, the colossal impact creates back spatter regardless of whether a moderator is used or not. That’s plain PHYSICS.
Flesh and blood doesn’t know the bullet has travelled through a silencer, so where do you think that back spatter goes? In the opposite direction? Don’t be silly, Holly...
Again, I must beg to differ.
Strictly speaking, it must be true that a bullet fires at the same speed whether the rifle is moderated/suppressed or not, but the velocity of the bullet can be affected by whether there is a moderator fitted. That being said, the overall effect is probably neutral, or negligible one way or the other, so as a generalisation, what you're getting at is accurate.
Back spatter is not an inevitability and mostly does not happen; it is thought to occur normally under very specific circumstances. Forward spatter is very common, though even that doesn't always occur as much depends on the situation, the weapon used and bullet velocity. My understanding is that Holly is referring specifically to traces of back spatter within the gun barrel and moderator itself, as opposed to the general phenomenon of back spatter. Also, while back spatter is, by definition, spatter of blood in a reverse direction to the line of firing, it does not always go in the exact opposite direction.
Holly isn't being silly. She is raising good and important points.
-
DS Jones entered the silencer into the incorrect property book meaning it didn't undergo the sort of scrutiny such an exhibit would normally undergo. Scrutinised by whom? Police, FSS, defence, CPS, trial judge?
My interpretation of the above is that it was Rivlin's opportunity to beat the drum about chain of custody but he chose not to as it didn't fit with his strategy of SC using the silencer to murder her parents and children and returning it to the cupboard before shooting herself. The blood representing an intimate mix of June and NB's.
What a stupid defence. How could any juror be expected to believe that Sheila would kill everybody and then go back to the gun cupboard to replace the silencer before killing herself?
What on earth were Jeremy Bamber's barristers thinking? They could have simply rested on the Crown's burden to prove that the moderator was used in the killings at all.
-
If a silencer was pressed up against a bleeding wound I could imagine blood entering the end of the silencer.
It doesn't work like that, Rob.
-
If a silencer was pressed up against a bleeding wound I could imagine blood entering the end of the silencer.
As a simple fact, this is true, but what we have to ask is:
What is the precise location of the blood on and within the moderator?
What is the pattern of blood?
What is the quantity of blood?
Each of these questions raises separate problems.
To my knowledge, the Crown did not prove a blood pattern within the moderator, but they did establish that it reached so far in (up to such-and-such baffles).
The defence have a problem too, in that there was quite a quantity of blood and I wonder if it is possible to credibly argue that it could have got there by accident or inadvertence, such as the method you describe or through some other contamination? And the blood was quite far in, to an extent that could be consistent with back spatter on contact.
However...! None of the gun shot wounds are consistent with the use of a moderator.
We should additionally note that the Crown did not establish it was Sheila's blood, only that it was a blood group analysis corresponding to hers, which is a very different thing.
Some years after the trial, the Crown did come up with a DNA result that is highly-probably linked to Sheila, but the method used does not establish the source of the DNA and contamination is highly-likely. The 2002 appeal judges rejected the DNA evidence on that basis.
These points need to be weighed up. To me, it points to either reasonable doubt or exclusion of the evidence altogether. I would not now quash Jeremy Bamber's convictions on this basis, instead I would throw out the moderator (and the Mugford evidence) and then consider whether the rest of the evidence still sustains the convictions.
-
So, just to be clear, you're saying that blood or tissue would never find it's way inside the silencer and that physics proves it to be impossible?
I'd like Holly to answer this for clarity as I thought she had previously stated that she hadn't said it wasn't impossible?
-
It doesn't work like that, Rob.
There is blowback and direct filling. Both methods would work.
-
What a stupid defence. How could any juror be expected to believe that Sheila would kill everybody and then go back to the gun cupboard to replace the silencer before killing herself?
What on earth were Jeremy Bamber's barristers thinking? They could have simply rested on the Crown's burden to prove that the moderator was used in the killings at all.
And that they did
And it was proven the silencer was used
Next,
-
Actually, I'm not sure you've got your facts right there.
My understanding of what actually happened is that there was confusion among the relatives, who each thought one of the others had reported the find to the police, when in fact nobody had. It was only when Robert Boutflour attended at Whitham Police Station to make a general complaint and mentioned the silencer in passing that the police were alerted to the silencer's existence and then arranged to collect it.
My source for this is Colin Caffell's book. Or perhaps he is mistaken?
There is also a question mark over why the Eatons considered it necessary to remove this evidence from Whitehouse Farm, instead of reporting it immediately to the police and asking them to attend the scene forthwith, which would have been the more proper thing to do. Why didn't it happen that way?
We will have to trust that the forensic integrity of the evidence was maintained.
Again, I must beg to differ.
Strictly speaking, it must be true that a bullet fires at the same speed whether the rifle is moderated/suppressed or not, but the velocity of the bullet can be affected by whether there is a moderator fitted. That being said, the overall effect is probably neutral, or negligible one way or the other, so as a generalisation, what you're getting at is accurate.
Back spatter is not an inevitability and mostly does not happen; it is thought to occur normally under very specific circumstances. Forward spatter is very common, though even that doesn't always occur as much depends on the situation, the weapon used and bullet velocity. My understanding is that Holly is referring specifically to traces of back spatter within the gun barrel and moderator itself, as opposed to the general phenomenon of back spatter. Also, while back spatter is, by definition, spatter of blood in a reverse direction to the line of firing, it does not always go in the exact opposite direction.
Holly isn't being silly. She is raising good and important points.
It’s you who’s got it all wrong
There was no confusion between the relatives at all
They all went to WHF to do a search as Jeremy was flogging off sentimental valuable items prior to probate. I have the wills.
Whilst searching, and unlike the police who only did a basic search; who didn’t seal off the crime scene; destroyed evidence by burning it at Jeremy’s request and Taff’s orders, when looking in the cupboard THOROUGHLY they found the silencer tucked away in a box at the very back. It had been put there purposely in the hope it wouldn’t be spotted — which it wasn’t. At first.
That silencer was NEVER kept in that box. Ever. It was ALWAYS attached to the rifle, along with the scope.
Upon discovering it, one of them heat it carefully on the edges, realising it was the silencer and realising it was strange why it had been hidden, he also realised he shouldn’t touch it in case any evidence was on it.
They couldn’t leave it at WHF — for obvious reasons.
They put it in a clean bag and took it home, they immediately rang the police to tell them they’d found something they should look at. The officer said he would relay the message. For some reason Taff Jones either never read his messages, or the officer didn’t relay it to the correct team.
When Boutflours went there two days later, appalled at their sloppiness, it was THEN they told DS Jones, who immediately went to the Eatons.
DS Jones was unaware they’d found the silencer; he had no idea what they had.
It’s BS he was drunk — someone said previously he was, which is utter shit — he was in duty and hadn’t had any alcohol at all. He realised the significance and urgency if the find, so placed it carefully in a kitchen roll inner and secured it with tape. He then took it to the station. In the event, although the one grey hair was lost AFTER Jones delivered it to the station, his method of transporting it was excellent given the conditions. Forensics discover all the blood inside, including the red paint which was still on the outer.
Your understanding if ballistics and physics is dire.
Back spatter will almost always enter the silencer or barrel, providing one isn’t shooting from many yards away. Several of the gunshots on the bodies were CONTACT shots, which ALWAYS produce back spatter.
They know for a FACT the moderator was used, not just because it contained Sheila's blood and June & Nevill’s, but then FACT — and please try to understand this...it’s very simple — there was NO blood inside the barrel
I’m becoming tired of explaining things that some people can’t grasp.
-
Can someone remind me again, for the hard of thinking, why didn't Bamber remove the silencer from the scene? What's the theory behind that? Is it purely because it was common knowledge that there was one?
-
Can someone remind me again, for the hard of thinking, why didn't Bamber remove the silencer from the scene? What's the theory behind that? Is it purely because it was common knowledge that there was one?
Well, one I can think of is that the resale value of the gun will be more if the silencer comes with it.
-
Can someone remind me again, for the hard of thinking, why didn't Bamber remove the silencer from the scene? What's the theory behind that? Is it purely because it was common knowledge that there was one?
You got it in one,
Well done.
-
Can someone remind me again, for the hard of thinking, why didn't Bamber remove the silencer from the scene? What's the theory behind that? Is it purely because it was common knowledge that there was one?
I suspect so. It's absence would have been noted.
-
I suspect so. It's absence would have been noted.
If that was the case why didn't they go looking for it? All the shooting was close-quarter work so there was no need for the telescopic sights.
If Jeremy was leaving the gun so Sheila could use it to kill the kids and then commit suicide there was a need to have the silencer off, for the gun is too long to commit suicide with it on.
So it seems to me that someone went and retrieved the gun from Seila, attached the silencer, killed June and Nevill, then returned the silencer, and then finished Sheila off.
At least this scenario accounts for why there was a mixture of Nevill and June's blood in the silencer, and none of Sheila's.
But knowing where the rooms are, and where the silencer would be found, where the extra ammo would be and how to get out of the house leaving the windows and doors appearing locked suggests a lot of local knowledge.
To me, there needs to be a third person, someone like a contract killer, but someone familiar with the house.
-
You got it in one,
Well done.
Thanks. Your generosity knows no beginning.
That's a level of strategy that I thought was beyond the dim-witted Bamber?
Needs a bit of further unpacking imo.
-
If that was the case why didn't they go looking for it? All the shooting was close-quarter work so there was no need for the telescopic sights.
If Jeremy was leaving the gun so Sheila could use it to kill the kids and then commit suicide there was a need to have the silencer off, for the gun is too long to commit suicide with it on.
So it seems to me that someone went and retrieved the gun from Seila, attached the silencer, killed June and Nevill, then returned the silencer, and then finished Sheila off.
At least this scenario accounts for why there was a mixture of Nevill and June's blood in the silencer, and none of Sheila's.
But knowing where the rooms are, and where the silencer would be found, where the extra ammo would be and how to get out of the house leaving the windows and doors appearing locked suggests a lot of local knowledge.
To me, there needs to be a third person, someone like a contract killer, but someone familiar with the house.
OR................Jeremy shoots them with the silencer on, maybe even firing the first shot into Sheila with it on before realizing she couldn't shoot herself with it on. He may have given it a cursory wipe before putting it away -we know Sheila wouldn't have bothered to hide it if she'd intended to kill herself- he may have hoped that by placing it at the back of the cupboard, A) it may not have been found for a long time, B) if it was found, because of it's placement, it would have been adjudged not to have been used.
-
OR................Jeremy shoots them with the silencer on, maybe even firing the first shot into Sheila with it on before realizing she couldn't shoot herself with it on. He may have given it a cursory wipe before putting it away -we know Sheila wouldn't have bothered to hide it if she'd intended to kill herself- he may have hoped that by placing it at the back of the cupboard, A) it may not have been found for a long time, B) if it was found, because of it's placement, it would have been adjudged not to have been used.
It is the difficulty of shooting someone upward from under their chin that makes me think the initial shot has to be a suicide shot rather than murder.
-
It is the difficulty of shooting someone upward from under their chin that makes me think the initial shot has to be a suicide shot rather than murder.
Especially when both pathologists at trial described SC as partially upright when she sustained both gsw's.
-
Especially when both pathologists at trial described SC as partially upright when she sustained both gsw's.
Holly do you accept that Sheila's blood was not in the silencer?
-
Holly do you accept that Sheila's blood was not in the silencer?
What's that got to do with your post I was replying to?
-
What's that got to do with your post I was replying to?
If she is sitting upright there is plenty of opportunity for the blood from her first wound to drip into the end of the silencer.
So I want to know your understanding: "Holly do you accept that Sheila's blood was not in the silencer?" Was the final shot to Sheila sitting up done with the silencer off?
-
I suspect so. It's absence would have been noted.
I don't disbelieve you, but by whom? It was Jeremy and Nevill who used that rifle, and Nevill was killed.
-
If she is sitting upright there is plenty of opportunity for the blood from her first wound to drip into the end of the silencer.
So I want to know your understanding: "Holly do you accept that Sheila's blood was not in the silencer?" Was the final shot to Sheila sitting up done with the silencer off?
I didn't say she was sitting upright. I said partially upright.
-
I don't disbelieve you, but by whom? It was Jeremy and Nevill who used that rifle, and Nevill was killed.
Mrswah, I can only speculate. It was a relatively new rifle. Nevill lived in gun knowledgeable society. His niece's husband was a gun dealer. It's very possible he'd have shown off, to any interested others, his new toy and it's attachments when he first got it.
-
I didn't say she was sitting upright. I said partially upright.
A very loose/ambiguous description.
-
OR................Jeremy shoots them with the silencer on, maybe even firing the first shot into Sheila with it on before realizing she couldn't shoot herself with it on. He may have given it a cursory wipe before putting it away -we know Sheila wouldn't have bothered to hide it if she'd intended to kill herself- he may have hoped that by placing it at the back of the cupboard, A) it may not have been found for a long time, B) if it was found, because of it's placement, it would have been adjudged not to have been used.
Like it, particularly the bit about it being stashed so as not to be found short term, but eventually it would come to light. He would have to assume that they would automatically start looking for it, which, as it transpired, nobody did.
I still think he may have been better served disposing of it altogether and dealing with the questions about it being missing ad hoc. As it transpired, if Boutflower hadn't stumbled upon it, it may never have been brought up, otherwise someone who knew about its existence surely would have enquired in the interim?
-
Mrswah, I can only speculate. It was a relatively new rifle. Nevill lived in gun knowledgeable society. His niece's husband was a gun dealer. It's very possible he'd have shown off, to any interested others, his new toy and it's attachments when he first got it.
The rifle was a fairly recent acquisition and obviously Nevill had to be there to purchase it and the ammunition as the licence holder.
One wonders if his son had any input to the choice of weapon as part of his planning to annihilate his family; or if the purchase excited his interest and put the thought into his head.
-
The rifle was a fairly recent acquisition and obviously Nevill had to be there to purchase it and the ammunition as the licence holder.
One wonders if his son had any input to the choice of weapon as part of his planning to annihilate his family; or if the purchase excited his interest and put the thought into his head.
There's something to that, as in it was as utilitarian as it legally could be - .22 calibre being the legal limit for self-loading rifles and had the threaded end to incorporate a moderator. In addition, to further prove it being optimally configured, the scope was removed prior to the atrocity.
-
Like it, particularly the bit about it being stashed so as not to be found short term, but eventually it would come to light. He would have to assume that they would automatically start looking for it, which, as it transpired, nobody did.
I still think he may have been better served disposing of it altogether and dealing with the questions about it being missing ad hoc. As it transpired, if Boutflower hadn't stumbled upon it, it may never have been brought up, otherwise someone who knew about its existence surely would have enquired in the interim?
It may have been that he felt momentarily caught out and it was one of those either/or, do I/don't I questions.
-
The rifle was a fairly recent acquisition and obviously Nevill had to be there to purchase it and the ammunition as the licence holder.
One wonders if his son had any input to the choice of weapon as part of his planning to annihilate his family; or if the purchase excited his interest and put the thought into his head.
Jeremy had already spoken with Peter Eaton about getting something very much more powerful. Maybe Nevill thought to maintain control of his choice by purchasing it himself?
-
I didn't say she was sitting upright. I said partially upright.
OK, If she is sitting partially upright there is plenty of opportunity for the blood from her first wound to drip into the end of the silencer.
So I want to know your understanding: "Holly do you accept that Sheila's blood was not in the silencer?" Was the final shot to Sheila partially sitting up done with the silencer off?
-
Jeremy had already spoken with Peter Eaton about getting something very much more powerful. Maybe Nevill thought to maintain control of his choice by purchasing it himself?
I read that it was actually Jeremy who persuaded Nevill to buy that rifle
-
Especially when both pathologists at trial described SC as partially upright when she sustained both gsw's.
And she was found laying down...
And it’s obvious why...
-
I read that it was actually Jeremy who persuaded Nevill to buy that rifle
I read that too (but can't recall where).
I doubt, however, whether Jeremy would have been able to persuade Nevill to buy something he didn't want to buy.
-
It’s you who’s got it all wrong
Oh dear, I've got it all wrong again! Go on then.....
There was no confusion between the relatives at all
They all went to WHF to do a search as Jeremy was flogging off sentimental valuable items prior to probate. I have the wills.
Whilst searching, and unlike the police who only did a basic search; who didn’t seal off the crime scene; destroyed evidence by burning it at Jeremy’s request and Taff’s orders, when looking in the cupboard THOROUGHLY they found the silencer tucked away in a box at the very back. It had been put there purposely in the hope it wouldn’t be spotted — which it wasn’t. At first.
That silencer was NEVER kept in that box. Ever. It was ALWAYS attached to the rifle, along with the scope.
Upon discovering it, one of them heat it carefully on the edges, realising it was the silencer and realising it was strange why it had been hidden, he also realised he shouldn’t touch it in case any evidence was on it.
They couldn’t leave it at WHF — for obvious reasons.
They put it in a clean bag and took it home, they immediately rang the police to tell them they’d found something they should look at. The officer said he would relay the message. For some reason Taff Jones either never read his messages, or the officer didn’t relay it to the correct team.
When Boutflours went there two days later, appalled at their sloppiness, it was THEN they told DS Jones, who immediately went to the Eatons.
DS Jones was unaware they’d found the silencer; he had no idea what they had.
Then perhaps you should take this up with Colin Caffell, whose version of what happened is slightly different, in that he says the confusion was on the part of the cousins, not the police. I can't get hold of a copy of David Boutflour's statement, but I notice in Ann Eaton's statement she skips over the issue, merely stating that the police were "then contacted".
It’s BS he was drunk — someone said previously he was, which is utter shit — he was in duty and hadn’t had any alcohol at all.
Peter Eaton must be lying then when he said that Jones had drunk most of the bottle. What else is Peter Eaton lying to us about? And why would he lie about Stan Jones like that?
He realised the significance and urgency if the find, so placed it carefully in a kitchen roll inner and secured it with tape. He then took it to the station. In the event, although the one grey hair was lost AFTER Jones delivered it to the station, his method of transporting it was excellent given the conditions. Forensics discover all the blood inside, including the red paint which was still on the outer.
Let's just recap - according to the prosecution witnesses, this key evidence was missed by the police, despite a search of the property and despite some of them suspecting Bamber from the start;
it was then removed from the crime scene without authority from police;
it was then examined and tampered with in the witnesses' own home and in the process, some forensic traces on it were destroyed forever;
it was then collected by a police officer, on duty, who drank most of a bottle of whiskey, put the evidence in a bog roll, and transported it in the boot of his car.
Your understanding if ballistics and physics is dire.
Is it?
Back spatter will almost always enter the silencer or barrel, providing one isn’t shooting from many yards away.
Almost always, you say? There are some forensic ballistics experts who'd like to have a word with you....
Several of the gunshots on the bodies were CONTACT shots, which ALWAYS produce back spatter.
Now you're strawmanning. I did not say that contact shots do not produce back spatter. But you state that contact wounds will always produce back spatter. That's not what the literature says, and anyway, we're dealing here with the question of back spatter traces in the rifle or moderator, a different thing.
They know for a FACT the moderator was used, not just because it contained Sheila's blood and June & Nevill’s, but then FACT — and please try to understand this...it’s very simple — there was NO blood inside the barrel
I’m becoming tired of explaining things that some people can’t grasp.
They may know for a fact that, or any, moderator was used, we don't. You may want to take as red what they say, I won't.
-
And that they did
And it was proven the silencer was used
Next,
No it wasn't.
-
So, just to be clear, you're saying that blood or tissue would never find its way inside a silencer and that physics proves it to be impossible?
Holly, can you PLEASE answer this question? You set a challenge and if I don't have clarity I can't attempt to take it on. You previously said you weren't saying it was impossible but now you're saying that it's beyond physics?
Bump (AGAIN!).
-
WHAT? WOW! Explains why he/she thinks inappropriate behaviour is normal %56&
Hopefully I can get them blocked. Interesting that he doesn't seem to have a problem with anyone else.
-
WHAT? WOW! Explains why he/she thinks inappropriate behaviour is normal %56&
Oh dear! "They" move among us. %56&
-
So, just to be clear, you're saying that blood or tissue would never find its way inside a silencer and that physics proves it to be impossible?
Holly, can you PLEASE answer this question? You set a challenge and if I don't have clarity I can't attempt to take it on. You previously said you weren't saying it was impossible but now you're saying that it's beyond physics?
?
-
Hopefully I can get them blocked. Interesting that he doesn't seem to have a problem with anyone else.
He’s gone. He had a problem with me too, because I suggested he might be being a little over sensitive. Strange chap, and now I’ll never know why he (claimed he) believed JB was guilty. :-(
-
And she was found laying down...
And it’s obvious why...
OK, why was she lying down in your opinion?
-
Do you think I haven't pored over this with a magnifying glass?!
It wasn't "virtually certain" at all that blood would deposit in/on the barrel if the silencer wasn't attached.
From a book authored by Dr Vincent DiMaio - The Pathology Of Gunshot Wounds:
Page 326
"Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
Brie my challenge to you: find a case, test fire, forensic research, absolutely anything, where blood is found inside a silencer as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon. I'll give you a clue the physics behind the whole proposition make it impossible.
What do you think "Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound" means?
-
What do you think "Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound" means?
Exactly what it says ie contact wounds do not always result with blood presenting in/on barrels.
-
Exactly what it says ie contact wounds do not always result with blood presenting in/on barrels.
Why can't you answer my question? I'll keep asking!
-
Exactly what it says ie contact wounds do not always result in blood presenting in/on barrels.
I think that is right, but it doesn't tell us what percentage results with blood presenting in/on barrels/silencers.
We have to include silencers as well as barrels.
For you said to Brie "Brie my challenge to you: find a case, test fire, forensic research, absolutely anything, where blood is found inside a silencer as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon. I'll give you a clue the physics behind the whole proposition make it impossible."
The same physics is happening when the gun has or hasn't got the silencer on it.
Do you accept this?
-
Why can't you answer my question? I'll keep asking!
I think you and I are asking the same question. Wait and see if we can resolve the physics issue, for my main understanding is understanding physics.
-
I think you and I are asking the same question. Wait and see if we can resolve the physics issue, for my main understanding is understanding physics.
She issued me a challenge which I intend to take BUT in order to do so, I need to know her exact stance because I'm not researching something just to have her come back with an excuse. Bit fed up with those recently.
Again .....
So, just to be clear, you're saying that blood or tissue would never find its way inside a silencer and that physics proves it to be impossible?
Holly, can you PLEASE answer this question? You set a challenge and if I don't have clarity I can't attempt to take it on. You previously said you weren't saying it was impossible but now you're saying that it's beyond physics?
-
Why can't you answer my question? I'll keep asking!
-
Especially when both pathologists at trial described SC as partially upright when she sustained both gsw's.
That’s why Jeremy had to pull her downwards...to pull out the bedside cabinet and unplug the bedroom telephone.
Fancy leaving one of the legs on top of Sheila’s hair...he’s not clever at all
-
That’s why Jeremy had to pull her downwards...to pull out the bedside cabinet and unplug the bedroom telephone.
Fancy leaving one of the legs on top of Sheila’s hair...he’s not clever at all
I hope you're not posting the above theories as facts?
-
I read that too (but can't recall where).
I doubt, however, whether Jeremy would have been able to persuade Nevill to buy something he didn't want to buy.
Jeremy was very, very manipulative
He told Nevill how he’d read about that rifle and how accurate it was, so why wouldn’t Nevill be persuaded in the gun shop, especially as the shop were eager to sell him such an expensive rifle? I think it cost about £3,000 in today’s money, so you can guarantee the assistant would have agreed with Jeremy.
-
It is the difficulty of shooting someone upward from under their chin that makes me think the initial shot has to be a suicide shot rather than murder.
Yes, Sheila was sitting up, terrified...against the bedside cabinet when evil Jeremy Bamber came to kill her; hence why he had to drag her body by her feet (keeping her foot pointed as she was dead) to unplug the telephone behind the cabinet
Oh, and although he’s thick, even he realised he’d have to shoot Sheila in her neck ...
-
Jeremy was very, very manipulative
He told Nevill how he’d read about that rifle and how accurate it was, so why wouldn’t Nevill be persuaded in the gun shop, especially as the shop were eager to sell him such an expensive rifle? I think it cost about £3,000 in today’s money, so you can guarantee the assistant would have agreed with Jeremy.
I can believe Jeremy was manipulative, but I'm surprised he was able to manipulate his father. Not disbelieving you: I just don't know.
-
Especially when both pathologists at trial described SC as partially upright when she sustained both gsw's.
She was
Jeremy shot her as she cowered behind the bed next to the bedside cabinet
After he finally shot her dead, and then fired more shots into the dead twins heads, he washed his gloved hands ...pulled Sheila downwards away from the cabinet...unplugged the phone....pushed the cabinet back, then eventually cycled home and probably made himself a ham butty before phoning Julie “all gay, light, jolly...telling her ‘something was wrong at the farm’ (no mention of his dad’s call!!!) and then telling her “I haven’t slept all night! Goodnight, love you “ as one does at 3am ...
-
She was
Jeremy shot her as she cowered behind the bed next to the bedside cabinet
After he finally shot her dead, and then fired more shots into the dead twins heads, he washed his gloved hands ...pulled Sheila downwards away from the cabinet...unplugged the phone....pushed the cabinet back, then eventually cycled home and probably made himself a ham butty before phoning Julie “all gay, light, jolly...telling her ‘something was wrong at the farm’ (no mention of his dad’s call!!!) and then telling her “I haven’t slept all night! Goodnight, love you “ as one does in at 3am ...in panic!
FFS
Where is the evidence she put up a fight?
-
I read that too (but can't recall where).
I doubt, however, whether Jeremy would have been able to persuade Nevill to buy something he didn't want to buy.
There’s different forms and ways of manipulation....we’re all open to it
Have you never gone into a car showroom and seen a beautiful car that costs a bomb, but after listening about it from the salesman, getting in it, going on a trial drive decide you love it so you buy it?
-
I think that is right, but it doesn't tell us what percentage results with blood presenting in/on barrels/silencers.
We have to include silencers as well as barrels.
For you said to Brie "Brie my challenge to you: find a case, test fire, forensic research, absolutely anything, where blood is found inside a silencer as a result of the 'drawback' phenomenon. I'll give you a clue the physics behind the whole proposition make it impossible."
The same physics is happening when the gun has or hasn't got the silencer on it.
Do you accept this?
Excellent point, Rob
-
I hope you're not posting the above theories as facts?
They’re not hypothesis — they’re THEORIES.
Based on EVIDENCE.
-
OK, why was she lying down in your opinion?
She was flat on the carpet when found, yes.
But as DR Vanezis confirmed, as do the pools of blood, Sheila was shot in an upright position.
Jeremy pulled her by her feet to lay her down — as her pointed foot proves — to enable him to pull the bedside cabinet out so he could unplug the phone.
It’s obvious that when he pushed it back towards the wall over the carpet he had to lift it slightly ; hence why Sheila’s hair became trapped BENEATH the leg.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Where is the evidence she put up a fight?
None
-
I can believe Jeremy was manipulative, but I'm surprised he was able to manipulate his father. Not disbelieving you: I just don't know.
I’ve got the statement from the gun shop somewhere...
The man who sold it to Nevill (who arrived with Jeremy) said how Jeremy was recommending that rifle...
-
What do you think "Absence of blood on or in the barrel does not preclude a close range or contact wound" means?
Good point, Rob
-
None
But doesn't that mean she wasn't being harassed by another person? Another person even if they had a gun would get attacked by the paranoid schizophrenic Sheila. She would put up a fight as she was known to.
-
Where is the evidence she put up a fight?
I never said Sheila tried to fight him off...what are you talking about!
-
But doesn't that mean she wasn't being harassed by another person? Another person even if they had a gun would get attacked by the paranoid schizophrenic Sheila. She would put up a fight as she was known to.
Sheila had NEVER been violent or fought with anyone in her life.
-
But doesn't that mean she wasn't being harassed by another person? Another person even if they had a gun would get attacked by the paranoid schizophrenic Sheila. She would put up a fight as she was known to.
A "paranoid schizophrenic Sheila" would certainly act differently from a cool, calm and calculated Sheila. The problem is that Jeremy's supporters can't seem to make up their minds which Sheila was in residence.
-
I never said Sheila tried to fight him off...what are you talking about!
My theory - she would put up a fight.
-
Sheila had NEVER been violent or fought with anyone in her life.
Stop making up stories...you’re making yourself look bad
That contradicts the statement of her pal Fred.
-
Sheila had NEVER been violent or fought with anyone in her life.
Stop making up stories...you’re making yourself look bad
I think you are wrong there. Next time I find it I'll amend the post.
-
That contradicts the statement of her pal Nick.
Sheila had never been violent to anyone, and you know it
When she had her couple of psychotic breakdowns she was hitting the walls and crying, but she wasn’t violent
-
I think you are wrong there. Next time I find it I'll amend the post.
Please find one incident where Sheila was violent to anyone.
-
Jeremy was very, very manipulative
He told Nevill how he’d read about that rifle and how accurate it was, so why wouldn’t Nevill be persuaded in the gun shop, especially as the shop were eager to sell him such an expensive rifle? I think it cost about £3,000 in today’s money, so you can guarantee the assistant would have agreed with Jeremy.
According to Douglas Wheatley (Police Admin) Nevill's firearms certificate was issued on 17th August 1983 allowing him to buy a .22 automatic rifle plus silencer. [w/s 23/9/85] He actually bought the gun on 30th November 1984. No-one (including you) knows what was said in the gun shop, but it's clear Nevill had the intention of buying such a gun long before he actually did so.
-
BS
Sheila had never been violent to anyone, and you know it
When she had her couple of psychotic breakdowns she was hitting the walls and crying, but she wasn’t violent
I get the impression you don’t like women...
What gives you that impression?
-
I think you are wrong there. Next time I find it I'll amend the post.
Whether someone is violent, or not, depends largely on what their accusers see as being violent. I've seen Sheila being accused of everything from being violent to self harming. I see these descriptions as being at the extreme ends of a spectrum, neither applying to her.
-
I think you are wrong there. Next time I find it I'll amend the post.
Incident where Sheila was violent days before being found dead.
This was from the Andrew Hunter draft book.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Incident where Sheila was violent days before being found dead.
This was from the Andrew Hunter draft book.
I believe the information he gives to have been discredited. Apparently the person mentioned wasn't able to be located. There are also lurid tales of Sheila being at and fleeing from a local Monastery, screaming incoherently. This, too, proved to be untrue. Jeremy's supporters have colourful imaginations.
-
Please find one incident where Sheila was violent to anyone.
Freddie Emani w/s 8/8/95. Scared for her and for himself.
-
Incident where Sheila was violent days before being found dead.
This was from the Andrew Hunter draft book.
I have heard about the alleged incident between Sheila and the man from the electricity board. I've been told that it didn't really happen!
That's the big problem with this case: there appear to be all sorts of rumours that may/may not be true, together with photos and statements that may/may not be fake.
And I can't possibly say what's true and what isn't.
-
Seems the last 2/3 pages of posts are off-topic.
-
Freddie Emani w/s 8/8/95. Scared for her and for himself.
Scared he may have been, but he remained unscathed. Sheila beat the wall, and I believe she hit herself with her hairbrush. The reason being that she was psychotic. The worse she did, when well, was throwing things when Colin's behaviour frustrated her. He did say she hit him, once. As a response to him hitting her.
-
Scared he may have been, but he remained unscathed. Sheila beat the wall, and I believe she hit herself with her hairbrush. The reason being that she was psychotic. The worse she did, when well, was throwing things when Colin's behaviour frustrated her. He did say she hit him, once. As a response to him hitting her.
I'm not making excuses, or trying to push a narrative; the point being Ispy asked for examples of 'violence', and there's at least one documented - but there will be other.s We're human beings, we're fallible. The whole gamut of emotions being manifested is inevitable.
For example I'm an inveterate misogynist, bent on wreaking havoc via the medium of manual labour.
-
I have heard about the alleged incident between Sheila and the man from the electricity board. I've been told that it didn't really happen!
That's the big problem with this case: there appear to be all sorts of rumours that may/may not be true, together with photos and statements that may/may not be fake.
And I can't possibly say what's true and what isn't.
It's been a problem for us all, Mrswah. From simple cherry-picking to outrageous lies, it's hard -and takes time- to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
-
I'm not making excuses, or trying to push a narrative; the point being Ispy asked for examples of 'violence', and there's at least one documented - but there will be other.s We're human beings, we're fallible. The whole gamut of emotions being manifested is inevitable.
For example I'm an inveterate misogynist, bent on wreaking havoc via the medium of manual labour.
Absolutely, re fallibility and emotions. I just feel the need to condense sweeping statements, born out of passionate emotions- into more confined and probable area.
Please feel free to carry on wreaking havoc during a bout of manual labour................keeping at a safe social distance and avoiding the mid-day sun.
-
Seems the last 2/3 pages of posts are off-topic.
Really? The question I posted was spot on topic but I guess you're too good to answer it. Not doing yourself any favours!
-
del
-
According to Douglas Wheatley (Police Admin) Nevill's firearms certificate was issued on 17th August 1983 allowing him to buy a .22 automatic rifle plus silencer. [w/s 23/9/85] He actually bought the gun on 30th November 1984. No-one (including you) knows what was said in the gun shop, but it's clear Nevill had the intention of buying such a gun long before he actually did so.
You obviously haven’t read CAL’s book, then
There’s quite some detail on how Jeremy Bamber suggested to Nevill which rifle to buy — from the salesman who sold the gun to Nevill when he came in with JB
In fact, he wanted Nevill to buy an automatic...
-
What gives you that impression?
The way you’re disrespectful to them, including Sheila
Maybe you don’t like beautiful women because they were never interested in you...or maybe you have some other reason why you like to debase them
You’re very transparent, General
-
Whether someone is violent, or not, depends largely on what their accusers see as being violent. I've seen Sheila being accused of everything from being violent to self harming. I see these descriptions as being at the extreme ends of a spectrum, neither applying to her.
Absolutely, April
I think it’s appalling how a minority of people who never knew Sheila state she was violent when there isn’t ONE incident of her ever attacking anyone. Ever.
It’s not enough for them that she had her life cut shirt at the young age of just 27, they’re trying to debase her with scurrilous lies to try and help that evil psychopath Jeremy who murdered her and her two sons’.
They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
-
Incident where Sheila was violent days before being found dead.
This was from the Andrew Hunter draft book.
Whoever Andrew Hunter is, not only can he not write, but he has a vivid imagination and ya stood blatant lies.
He’s another nut jumping on the bandwagon.
Oh, and Sheila was having monthly injections of her medication — so for Hunter to come out with this ludicrous lie that June supposedly told a stranger that Sheila hadn’t been taking her medication shows how mad he is. Furthermore, June never even told close family and friends about Sheila’s illness, so she’d hardly tell a stranger.
Andrew Hunter must have written this BS on behalf of the psychopath...
-
But doesn't that mean she wasn't being harassed by another person? Another person even if they had a gun would get attacked by the paranoid schizophrenic Sheila. She would put up a fight as she was known to.
.
Sheila wasn’t diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic — why are you exaggerating?
Her doctor said she had “mild schizophrenia “
-
Why do you hate women out of interest?
Dunno, just have this pathological and inexplicable urge to exclude and discriminate against half of the global population.
-
You obviously haven’t read CAL’s book, then
There’s quite some detail on how Jeremy Bamber suggested to Nevill which rifle to buy — from the salesman who sold the gun to Nevill when he came in with JB
In fact, he wanted Nevill to buy an automatic...
Which page number?
I found a part saying David Boutflour suggested Radcliffe's gun shop to Nevill and Jeremy and Anthony Pargeter discussed the type of rifle with him.
-
My theory - she would put up a fight.
She was too weak to fight, and obviously frozen with terror too!
She’d already seen June shot dead, so she knew she was next FFS!
I believe she tried to hide by the side of the bed — what other reason would she be there for?
Tell me why she’d choose to sit on the opposite side of the bed on the floor, next to the bedside cabinet if she wanted to shoot herself? Why position herself there of all places?
In fact, I bet she tried to hide UNDERNEATH the bed, where Crispy was hiding. Then the vile JB’s feet came into view and he found her.
He’s a monster. An evil, putrid monster.
-
Which page number?
I found a part saying David Boutflour suggested Radcliffe's gun shop to Nevill and Jeremy and Anthony Pargeter discussed the type of rifle with him.
No idea
And I’m not looking
I don’t work for you, and if you want to add cites you should read the book too — you’ll find it
-
Which page number?
I found a part saying David Boutflour suggested Radcliffe's gun shop to Nevill and Jeremy and Anthony Pargeter discussed the type of rifle with him.
I simply can't imagine that Radcliffe's would need introduction or recommendation. In this area, they are THE go to gun smith. The gun has yet to be invented that they can't give chapter and verse on.
-
Dunno, just have this pathological and inexplicable urge to exclude and discriminate against half of the global population.
Doubt that is true - but winding them up now and again - well, that's different! 8((()*/
-
Whoever Andrew Hunter is, not only can he not write, but he has a vivid imagination and ya stood blatant lies.
He’s another nut jumping on the bandwagon.
Oh, and Sheila was having monthly injections of her medication — so for Hunter to come out with this ludicrous lie that June supposedly told a stranger that Sheila hadn’t been taking her medication shows how mad he is. Furthermore, June never even told close family and friends about Sheila’s illness, so she’d hardly tell a stranger.
Andrew Hunter must have written this BS on behalf of the psychopath...
Andrew Hunter is a former MP, who took up Bamber's cause.
If you watch "Crimes that Shook Britain" on You Tube, he features in it. He's nothing like I expected!
-
Andrew Hunter is a former MP, who took up Bamber's cause.
If you watch "Crimes that Shook Britain" on You Tube, he features in it. He's nothing like I expected!
Contains more Myths than Inspector Clouseau's wardrobe @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Doubt that is true - but winding them up now and again - well, that's different! 8((()*/
Hey, I'm outnumbered about 20-1 here. I know my place.
-
Dunno, just have this pathological and inexplicable urge to exclude and discriminate against half of the global population.
I deleted my post when I realised you were on just another wind up, but you just caught it d’oh!
-
I deleted my post when I realised you were on just another wind up, but you just caught it d’oh!
Nah, apparently I hate all women and debase them all.
All of them. All the time. According to widow twanky over here.
Anyway, this sound moderator; an interesting facet of this case. Does Bamber realise his fundamental mistake on the fly, wipe it down as best he can and stick it in a box so it will inevitably be found relatively quickly?
All because he's aware that there are people that know it exists?
Why not launch it into the cesspit and let the police scrabble around to wonder whee it ended up?
-
I simply can't imagine that Radcliffe's would need introduction or recommendation. In this area, they are THE go to gun smith. The gun has yet to be invented that they can't give chapter and verse on.
According to CAL Radcliffe said that Nevill tended to use London-based gunsmiths for buying and repairing firearms. [kindle ed. p105]
-
Andrew Hunter is a former MP, who took up Bamber's cause.
If you watch "Crimes that Shook Britain" on You Tube, he features in it. He's nothing like I expected!
Lots of psychopaths become MP’s...so that explains it