Due to police apathy this was never investigated at the outset but Julie reported that Jeremy had small abrasions on at least one of his arms following the murders which he claimed he got working on the farm. Whether this is true or these abrasions were a result of the battle in the kitchen may never be known.
When looking at the case and the murders in particular, Nevills is the one which convinces me that this was not Sheila.
I think you have to look at what parts of the murders the killer is in control and the parts where they are not.
The Twins- Controlled. Vanezis states that one of the boys was shot in an arc which would need a fair degree of skill. The amount of bullets used indicates that the killer was not worried about re-loading. I believe they were killed last.
Sheila- Controlled. Two central close range shots. The location of where her body was found in the main bedroom suggests to me that she was taken into the room at gunpoint. I think she was shot first.
June- First episode- Uncontrolled- Second episode- controlled. The trail of her blood round the bed to where Sheila was found indicates to me that she went to check on Sheila. The final position of her body would indicate that she was either trying to help either Nevill or trying to protect the twins. The second episode shooting inflicted on June was close contact, controlled, almost torturous shooting.
Nevill- First episode- Uncontrolled. Second episode- controlled. Why and How did Nevill and the killer end up downstairs? It seems pretty certain that the killer ran out of ammunition in the main bedroom. If you have planned to murder five people with a gun, i would assume that if you have run out of bullets, you would immediately return to the place where you can get more ammunition, hence the panicked flee to the kitchen. Nevill seems to have pursued quickly enough that the killer couldn't reload in time. Nevills injuries from the scuffle in the kitchen seems to indicate he took one hell of a beating. Loads of linear bruising to his arms and head.
I just don't buy into the fact that he ended up in that chair by chance. Someone being beaten unconscious in an all out assault doesn't just pass out conveniently, sitting in a chair. I think he was put there by the killer so they could reload and shoot him. I think he was shot upright, 4 times in quick succession and slumped forward with his head into the coal scuttle. The angle of the entry wounds of the head shots would indicate that the killer was above, behind and to the right of Nevill. No way did he receive those head shots where his body was found unless the killer knocked down the fireplace to do it. I would also like to state with certainty that those four head shots were all fired in the kitchen. There was no shot on the stairs, even with the presence of a shell case. The shell case on the stairs has been moved whether accidentally or deliberately, who knows but it should be in the kitchen. Any of those four head shots would have killed him very quickly, if not instantly and he would not be moving anywhere voluntarily after receiving any of them.
So, Why put Nevill in a chair to shoot him? Firstly ask yourself why would Sheila put him in a chair to shoot him? If she is going beserk, why would she bother moving him at all. Then again, why would she bother running downstairs to reload? If she was truly deranged why on earth would she care that every victim received a head shot?
Personally, i find the series of murders both planned and botched. It seems to me that the killer got things incredibly right and incredibly wrong. Gaining entry, presumably without detection due to Nevill and June being in bed, but running out of bullets in the bedroom, highlight the inconsistency of the murders. What seems constant are the head shots. It seems almost military or assassin like. All of the head shots were controlled shots. Nevills were in a cluster, June's were close contact and the boys again in a cluster or arc as Vanezis described them. The killer seems to like control and i have no doubt they were planned. I think the control impulse in the killer is why Nevill was placed in that chair. Its almost, a subliminal command to an unconscious Nevill, 'stay there, while i reload'.
Jeremy appears shocked in his statement when the Police tell him they don't have the technology to validate him receiving a call from WHF. I think there was a phonecall but not from Nevill to JB but from the killer to JB. I think that the phonecall was integral to JB's alibi and if there was itemised billing in 1985, Jeremy would not have seen a courthouse, let alone a cell.
The way i see the WHF murders in percentages of who committed the murder is Sheila 0%, Jeremy 40%, Someone else 60%. I need someone to start the Jeremy Bamber third party, theory, forum so i can fit in somewhere! 8((()*/
I'm positive it wasn't a lone hitman. If it was, Jeremy would have been staying somewhere far away, eg Julie's. Then there would have been the perfect alibi not the botched one he concocted.
Good theory simong, but this was no hired assassin. It was too controlled to be Sheila as we've established, but a hired assassin wouldn't have made the little mistakes Jeremy did. This was him thinking he had it all worked out but bungling his father and Sheila's "perfect" murders...
For example the assassin wouldn't have left the silencer in the gun cupboard - he/she would have worked out that the gun with the silencer was too long for Sheila to have killed herself with well in advance, and would therefore have used a pistol or similar. If they had used the silencer they would have taken it way with them and disposed of it somewhere it would never be found e.g. under their grandmother's patio in Surbiton. They would also not have been so careless with the phone, mantelpiece etc.
I think Jeremy needed his father to be downstairs as otherwise the alleged phone call would have been suspect. He probably planned to kill the children, June and Sheila upstairs and his father downstairs. Or he may have planned to replace the bedroom phone after the killings but didn't think it was necessary in the end as his father was downstairs.
Hired assassins make mistakes, esepcially if an amateur is hired but even supposed experts don't foresee ever occurrence. So the nature of the events doesn't preclude a hired killer.
Due to police apathy this was never investigated at the outset but Julie reported that Jeremy had small abrasions on at least one of his arms following the murders which he claimed he got working on the farm. Whether this is true or these abrasions were a result of the battle in the kitchen may never be known.
AE states in her wit stat that she had a good look at JB's arm(s) and was surprised to see no marks. It seems this was Friday 9th August.
See bottom of page:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3542
See top of page:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3171.0;attach=3544
His hands are what were likely to get injured not his arms. Particularly his knuckles, fingers in general, and palms. Julie says he told her he was wearing gloves though. Depending on the type of gloves that would have offired good protection excpet perhaps the stock as it broke but it depends a great deal on the gloves where any marks would be made from such or not.
Cops recalled seeing some marks on his hands but did not document it so we won't ever know much about them.
We will never know if Jeremy changed his clothes or not that night. Back spatter from gun shots is too tiny to see usually so most killers don't realize they have spater on them and don't change their clothing. That sinks many. At minimum it proves being present during an event. In the Amityville case he didn't know his pants had blood he only noticed it on his shirt because the pants were dark and the tiny spatter needed to be seen through a microscope. It proved he was present during the shots that killed his family. He even took a shower and put the same pants on again.
The biggest loss is that police didn't take the clothes he was wearing the day of the murders to test.
To scipio,Couldn't agree more.
As far as i am aware the telecom representative testified regarding Jeremy's calls to Julie from the payphone at the bottom of the road near WHF in the morning. These were trunk (long distance) calls and BT itemised these, in 1985. I have looked into this at exhaustive lengths and there was no itemised billing on local calls in 1985. WHF to JB's at Goldhanger was a local call and would not have been itemised. Where you have got this theory of him ringing his home from WHF, i don't know but the prosecution did not pursue this line on the phonecalls. They persisted with the theory that the call never took place because neither the defence or prosecution could prove they had or hadn't. What they could prove or disprove was Jeremy calling Julie in London (trunk call) but i have never come across any reference to it? Mike Tesko once posted up itemised billing from JB's at Goldhanger for the months (October/November) after the murders, so where are the itemised bills for August?
I do agree with a lot of what you post scipio and i admire the way you stimulate debate on this case so please don't feel that i am nitpicking.
As for the hitman scenario, this is all down to ones own interpretation. If you have watched a lot of Hollywood films then the hitman scenario is impossible. If you have met a wide rang of society, then the hitman theory is feasible. There are lots of desperate people from all walks of life that will do all sorts of shocking things for the promise of money.
Another thing as well, the murderer would definitely have been covered in blood. The fight with Nevill and the close contact shooting would have splattered the killer in blood.
Finally i just wanted to say how good it is to see Holly is still here. Its not easy being in a minority on a forum and i feel you handle yourself with a lot of dignity. You are an asset to this forum.
AE recorded on her cards she kept as aide memoirs that he had no scratches on his hands. EP inspected his hands on 12th Aug '85 and again found no marks.
From CoA Doc:
Ground 13 – scars on the appellant's hands 444. With all respect to the appellant's team, we have found this ground of appeal incomprehensible. Indeed, and in fairness to him, Mr Turner conceded at the outset of his submissions that he did not put this forward as a free-standing ground of appeal, and preferred to rely upon it as no more than an element in the factual background to his overarching allegation of unsatisfactory police behaviour. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, and in order to assess whether this particular complaint adds anything to the overall strength of the appellant's case, we are satisfied that we should consider and deal with it, albeit briefly.
445. The starting point for such consideration is the fact that at no point during the trial was any evidence led from any witness, nor any witness cross-examined, to establish or suggest that the appellant had at any material time had any scars or scratches on his hands. Indeed, on the hand-written postcard note from Ann Eaton (CAE/4) which was disclosed at trial, the entry for the 8 August recorded "No scratches on his hands - no shaking at all".
446. At one stage during his interview on 12 September 1985 DS Jones asked Mr Bamber to show him his hands, and he examined both the palms and the backs. He offered no explanation to the appellant as to why he had done this, but it seems highly likely that the stimulus for this action was a telephone call that appears to have been made on the previous day to the police by Anthony Pargeter, who was Nevill Bamber's nephew. He is said to have reported having seen small "circular scars" on Jeremy Bamber's right hand. This piece of information triggered a series of actions. By Action no. 96, on the 12 September 1985 DI Bright was instructed to take a further statement from Mr Pargeter on this matter. No result of this action is recorded, and no formal statement from Mr Pargeter appears in the documentation in the case. This may well be because of the other information that was forthcoming on the matter. By Action no. 97 of the same date DS Jones was instructed to interview the appellant on the same topic - and DS Jones' response referred to the notes of interview and reported that there were no marks visible.
447. On the 14 September 1985 by Action no. 200, DC Thomerson was instructed to take a statement from David Boutflour (the son of Robert Boutflour) to include, among other matters, any sightings of cuts on the appellant's hands on the day after the killings. This action produced a statement from David Boutflour which included a passage in which he stated that on the Wednesday or Thursday after the killings Jeremy Bamber had made a comment to him about having received two small cuts on his hand while working on the farm. "As he made this comment he showed me the palm of his right hand, but as I was about 5 feet away from him at the time I could not see the scratches to which he referred." This passage did not appear in the edited statement of this witness, which was served on the defence as evidence for use at trial. On 16 September, by Action no. 201, instructions were given for the trigger guard of the rifle to be examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory for blood. There is no record of any result.
448. By Action no. 302 on 19 September 1985 DS Jones was asked to submit a report about these matters, and in his reply DS Jones repeated that when Mr Bamber had been interviewed "There were no visible signs of scars etc". He added that if and when the appellant was re-interviewed an ultra violet light could be used to examine his hands again. This suggestion was picked up on the 24 September 1985 in Action no. 396 when DS Jones was instructed to carry out such an examination; but his response as recorded on the action sheet was "Bamber charged; above not done on instructions of A/D/C/ Superintendent Ainsley." Indeed, on the 26 September 1985 a letter from the office of the DPP indicated that in the view of the Director the appellant should not now be further interviewed.
449. As has already been made clear, the prosecution case against the appellant was conducted on the basis that there was no sign of any injuries to his hand subsequent to the killings. The complaint that the prosecution had kept the defence in ignorance of material which would have permitted them to mount an attack on the veracity of Mr Pargeter is misconceived; there was never any necessity to mount any such attack. Mr Pargeter had never given any evidence which incriminated the appellant in any way. So far from the prosecution seeking to advance dubious evidence hostile to the appellant's interests, it appears that they were unwilling to advance any suggestions by Mr Boutflour or Mr Pargeter that they were not able to confirm for themselves to be soundly based. One of the more remarkable contentions in the appellant's skeleton argument on this topic is the assertion that the defence "were kept in ignorance of the fact of the officer's examination of the appellant's hands....". The appellant, of all people, plainly knew himself that that had happened.
450. Finally, the decision not to pursue the instruction given under Action no. 396 and not to re-interview the appellant again was entirely consistent with code C under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, given that by that time the appellant was either about to be or indeed had just been charged.
451. In our judgment there is no foundation whatsoever for the suggestion that the matters complained of under this ground of appeal resulted in any prejudice to the appellant in the conduct of his defence. Nor, in our judgment, do the facts underlying these complaints provide any support for the assertion that the police officers concerned were determined to withhold information from the appellant or his advisors in an attempt to influence the evidence in favour of a prosecution. In reality, the opposite appears to be the case.
This offers no insight into how well anyone looked at his hands the first couple of days after the murders. When AP supposedly saw the marks on his hands is not disclosed. By the time police looked at him in detail it was a month after the murders so meaningless.
At any rate, as I already mentioned he told Julie he wore gloves which would minimize any injuries he would suffer and also prevent GSR from depositing on his hands. He had no idea that cops would not test his hands for GSR or wounds. That being the case he made sure he wore gloves.
The appeal sections above note that the presence of any wounds AP supposedly obsevered were never made a part of the case. The jury heard their were no marks and convicted him anyway and had eveyr right to do so because:
1) he could have received wounds that no one noticed and healed by the time police looked at him in detail a month later.
2) he could have wore gloves and thus not received any wounds.
To scipio,
As far as i am aware the telecom representative testified regarding Jeremy's calls to Julie from the payphone at the bottom of the road near WHF in the morning. These were trunk (long distance) calls and BT itemised these, in 1985. I have looked into this at exhaustive lengths and there was no itemised billing on local calls in 1985. WHF to JB's at Goldhanger was a local call and would not have been itemised. Where you have got this theory of him ringing his home from WHF, i don't know but the prosecution did not pursue this line on the phonecalls. They persisted with the theory that the call never took place because neither the defence or prosecution could prove they had or hadn't. What they could prove or disprove was Jeremy calling Julie in London (trunk call) but i have never come across any reference to it? Mike Tesko once posted up itemised billing from JB's at Goldhanger for the months (October/November) after the murders, so where are the itemised bills for August?
I do agree with a lot of what you post scipio and i admire the way you stimulate debate on this case so please don't feel that i am nitpicking.
As for the hitman scenario, this is all down to ones own interpretation. If you have watched a lot of Hollywood films then the hitman scenario is impossible. If you have met a wide rang of society, then the hitman theory is feasible. There are lots of desperate people from all walks of life that will do all sorts of shocking things for the promise of money.
Another thing as well, the murderer would definitely have been covered in blood. The fight with Nevill and the close contact shooting would have splattered the killer in blood.
Finally i just wanted to say how good it is to see Holly is still here. Its not easy being in a minority on a forum and i feel you handle yourself with a lot of dignity. You are an asset to this forum.
My mistake I see I put 12th Aug when it was in fact 12th Sep that EP inspected JB's hands. In any event I am sure that AE would have testified had JB had marks on his hands and she records on 8th Aug that he had no scratches to his hands.
Maybe Nevill got to the phone and the killer wasn't sure if he had made a call or not and from there the phonecall to JB was fabricated. Whatever way you look at this case, the phonecall is crazy in any scenario. If JB did it, why not wait until the bodies are discovered. If you feel he is innocent (Holly) you must think it is extremely odd that an ex serviceman would stop to ring his son 3miles away to tell them to come quick as his sister is going beserk with a gun. Surely he is going to disarm her, not ring someone who might not answer at 3am. Something caused that phonecall to be a necessity and it wasn't part of any plan.
Maybe Nevill got to the phone and the killer wasn't sure if he had made a call or not and from there the phonecall to JB was fabricated. Whatever way you look at this case, the phonecall is crazy in any scenario. If JB did it, why not wait until the bodies are discovered. If you feel he is innocent (Holly) you must think it is extremely odd that an ex serviceman would stop to ring his son 3miles away to tell them to come quick as his sister is going beserk with a gun. Surely he is going to disarm her, not ring someone who might not answer at 3am. Something caused that phonecall to be a necessity and it wasn't part of any plan.
Hello Simong. According to RB's wit stat NB had a low opinion of the police he likened them to Dad's Army. This may give some insight into NB's reluctance to involve the police along with the fact that according to CC's book NB and June were very private people:
"he (NB) commented that if they were like the police at Witham they were no more good than Dad's Army":
(bottom of 1st, top of 2nd)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1651
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=513.0;attach=1652
(You need to logon on to Blue to read the wit stats above)
An excerpt from Colin's book re the day of Sheila's funeral:
"One of the most striking things about that day, although not altogether surprising for me, was the fact that, the more I talked to June and Nevill's relations, the more I realised none of them actually knew anything had been seriously wrong with Bambs - not even June's sister Pam. Many of them said that had they known, they would have been more than willing to help and share the burden. Why hadn't I contacted them and told them all about it? I couldn't believe what I was hearing and could only reply by saying that I didn't feel it had been my business to betray the Bamber's confidence. They were very private people whose decisions I had to respect - whether right or wrong. These people had no idea how much I'd need them as allies to convince June and Nevill of how strongly I felt Bamb's treatment should have been changed".
"Their lack of awareness was probably a tremendous blessing, because without a full appreciation of her illness - which, for me, had acted like a smoke-screen to the truth - they were absolutely convinced Bambs couldn't have done it and, unbeknown to me then, were already pressing the police into further investigations, albeit with little initial success."
I was trying to find the tape recording which features JB saying that once he received the call from NB and was cut off he attempted to call back to clarify things. He went on to say that he wondered what help NB wanted ie what did he expect of JB. I will try to dig it out later. If Dr Ferguson had said to NB there was little or no chance of SC becoming violent he may have been lulled into a false sense of security. I do not think NB would have wanted police cars with sirens and flashing lights turning up at WHF. Especially as he viewed them as 'bungling'. Word would soon get around in the local community and NB would not have wanted this. Also he would have known that if the police were called SC would not have been allowed access to the twins unsupervised thereafter for a very long time if not indefinitely. I think it was a delicate balancing act and a desperate attempt by NB to keep it in-house.
The killings were done execution style with absolute precision. Not the sort of thing someone who was in the midst of a breakdown would do. You don't have to be an expert psychiatrist to work that one out.
CALLING Simong... hello
I found the audio clip I was looking for re JB's commentary on the phone call he claims to have received from NB
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-191151
>@@(*&)
The killings were done execution style with absolute precision. Not the sort of thing someone who was in the midst of a breakdown would do. You don't have to be an expert psychiatrist to work that one out.
Once again you ignore the evidence and common sense.
Jeremy's claim that he was on the phone and that it went dead was proven false by the telephone represeantative who testified a call was made to WHF and never hung up on WHF's end. Rather the phone call was disconnected by the person at Goldhanger hanging up and the line clearing after 1-2 minutes. The phone can't have gone dead, the line was not cut and the phone wasn't hung up at WHF. Jeremy is the one who ended the call and he did so by hanging up.
So Jeremy lied about the phone going dead and lied when he told Colin that he immediately tried to call back because it would take 1-2 minutes for his line to clear so tha the could make a call.
The best you can hope to argue based on the evidence is that someone called from WHF and stopped talking and that Jeremy thus hung up. But if that is the case then why did Jeremy lie and keep telling people the line went dead? Jeremy himself contradicted this when confronted with such evidence. He changed his claim to saying that after Nevill stopped talking he heard scuffling and maybe even gunshots.
You don't want to discuss this because it means he is contradicting himself and at the very minimum was lying in one of these accounts if not both.
The larger issue though is that since the phone call was ended at Goldhanger not WHF this means Jeremy could have dialed his own number, left the phone ringing his number as he traveled home, arrived home and answered the phone and then hung up and this explains the telephone evidence that was presented at tiral which features a call made from WHF that was ended by the phone at Goldhanger hanging up.
So this evidence presented by the telphon company doesn't establish any of the victims made the call rather Jeremy could have done so. Not only is it apossibility that Jeremy phoned himself from WHF there is physical evidence to prove that Nevill didn't.
The evidence demonstrates the killer entered the master bedroom and shot Nevill and Sheila as they were in bed. The killer was towards the foot of the bed not near the door so the door was not blocked. The victims thus got up and ran towards the door. June was immobilized but Nevill wasn't and was able to make it to the kichen before being killed. In the bedroom Nevill suffered shots that tore part of his lip off, shattered his jaw and severed his voicebox so he would have been unable to speak. If he picked up the phone at best he coudl have dialed (which would have gotten blood on the phone) but would not have been able to speak. So he can't have told Jeremy what Jeremy claims Nevill told him.
Your babble about Nevill would not want police there, ignores Nevill and June's injuries. Nevill couldn't speak but even if by some miracle he could speak his hatred of police would not prevent him from calling them for medical help. The notion that he would have tried to keep police out of it after he and his wife had been shot is absurd. Jeremy could not provide medical attention to them. Even if he had called Jeremy instead of 999 he would have declared they were shot and asked Jeremy to call for medical attention. He would not have announced to just come over to help disarm her he would have said they had been shot.
In order to get aorund this you make up the fiction that Nevill got away from Sheila twice. According to you she woke up her parents, June stayed in bed while Nevill ran to use the phone and called Jeremy. Instead of shooting or beating Nevill at that point she marched him back upstairs at gunpoint (and for some reason he complied though he risked being shot as he ran to the kitchen he decided not to take further risk) and wnet back to bed at gunpoint. Then she began shooting them and he got away a second time ot the kitchen but this time he passed out before reaching the phone a second time. She then beat his limp body and after she broke the rifle over his head she shot him. Why did she beat him instead of just shooting him if he passed out? No explanation from you, you ignore that such makes no sense because in fact your entire tale makes no sense and is not supported by any evidence.
What about the kitchen touchtone phone being unplugged, hidden and replaced by the bedroom dial phone? You say nothing is suspicious about that at all. You just deny reality hoping no one will notice.
Why would Sheila hide the phone in advance? Why would June just stay in bed while Sheila was chasing her husband? Why would Sheila insist on marching him to bed to shoot him instead of shooting him as he was dialing the phone? Why would Jeremy lie and claim the phone went dead if in fact it was just dropped and he could hear the commotion going on? His new account of having heard a struggle and shooting blows your claim out of the water. His claim is that the struggle and shooting happened right after the phone was knocked out of Nevill's hand. That blows your claim hey were marched upstairs and Nevill ran down a second time right out of the water. Where did this claim come from anyway? You simply made it up there is no evidence at all to support the killer and Nevill leaving the kitchen and returning a second time.
Why did you make it up? Because if Nevill entered the kitchen after he was already shot then the call Jeremy claims he received is impossible and Jeremy is for sure the killer.
Nevill and his wife were definitely in bed when the shooting started. A crazy person who decided to kill them would not order them to bed and insist on shooting them there. She would shoot them where they were standing. If she found the in bed th enotion she would not fire as Nevill got up to leave is silly. The notion June would stay in bed as Sheila ran after her husband is silly. The notion she would order Nevill back to bed to shoot him instead of shooting him in the kitchen is silly.
So too is it silly to suggest that a man who towered over Sheila and was very strong would call his son to come over to disarm her. By the acoc..t of every relative including Jeremy she had not touched a gun as an adult, never touched the gun in question and thus might not have even been able to load it. Thus Nevill would not even know if it were loaded. He was too scared to try to disarm her though instead he had th egun pointed at him as he called Jeremy. Jeremy had no greater ability to disarm her than Nevill did so why did he need to call Jeremy? In fact, she had a poor relationship with Jeremy so the greatest chance of her shooting would be if jeremy made her even angrier. Most importantly though Jeremy could not arrive in at least 5-10 minutes and might even take longer to dress and get there. Why would Nevill wait so long hoping Jeremy would find his way in the locked house instead of trying to disarm her himself? If I am scared of a smaller woman shooting me would I pick up the phone and present a nice neat target to try to call someone to come disarm her hoping she would not shoot me while on the phone and hoping she would not shoot me for at least 10 minutes so the person can come help or would I jump her? I would try to grab the weapon myself.
You ignore all of this and instead put forth a tale contradicted by evidence that makes no sense.
Many shots were near contact and the max range was a few feet away. How could even a novice miss? The one shot that was off-target was the grazing shot to NB's shoulder as he attempted to escape from the bedroom down the stairs. Surely if execution style with absolute precision the perpetrator would have been successful in shooting NB in the head instead of a grazing shot to the shoulder?
JB claims he attempted to call back and got the engaged tone. This is entirely consistent with expert evidence called at trial. Was NB on phone to EP making a call as per the second log?
Many shots were near contact and the max range was a few feet away. How could even a novice miss? The one shot that was off-target was the grazing shot to NB's shoulder as he attempted to escape from the bedroom down the stairs. Surely if execution style with absolute precision the perpetrator would have been successful in shooting NB in the head instead of a grazing shot to the shoulder?
You claim above the killer shot NB and SC in bed!? I assume you mean NB and June? In any event NB was not shot in bed. This can be evidenced from the soc photos and other evidence eg NB's wounds, location of bullets and pathology report. June was shot in bed and also out of bed as I assume she attempted to escape or move towards the killer in order to reason/plead? The twins were also shot in bed.
Jeremy phoned Julie Mugford around 3am (witnessed by 3 people) and told her about an alleged call he had received from Nevill. There was no record of any call from the Bambers to police prior to 3.26am. Next?
I see no blood on Nevill's side of the bed, scipio... although the pillow is indented where his head was lying.
From this it seems June was the first victim, and Nevill got up before he was shot, while standing on his side of the bed or at the foot.
I see no blood on Nevill's side of the bed, scipio... although the pillow is indented where his head was lying.
From this it seems June was the first victim, and Nevill got up before he was shot, while standing on his side of the bed or at the foot.
(http://i.imgur.com/aD9p48x.jpg)
Isn't it interesing how his story has come full circle.
This version is the same version he gave to police at the scene- that the phone went dead and that he hit redial but could not get through.
During his questioning though he claimed he immediately rang police, nothing about calling the house back. He also at one point claimed after his father stopped talking that he heard struggling on the other end and possibly shots fired.
So we have a variety of different stories from Jeremy about the call. He has apparently returned ot his initial claim but that is a bad idea because that claim is impossible. The one he made up about hearing struggling is the only plausible one which is why he made that up it was in direct response to the impossibility of his prior claims.
The testimony at trial was that it would have been impossible for him to ring anyone immediately. Contrary to his claim that the line went dead, the phone was not hung up at WHF. The call was ended on his end not at WHF. It was ende dby him hanging up. He would have to wait 1-2 minutes for the line to clear before he could dial out. So it is impossible for him to have hung up and immediately picked up the phone again and hit redial.
This statement you posted hurts him for additional reason though. He claims there was only one phone in his house, that he was in bed, was woken up and had to travel to reach the phone. How is it that Nevill had the time to dial, wait for Jeremy to pick up the phone and pass his message before Sheila made him put the phone down?
It would take minutes for all of this to occur. What was Sheila supposedly doing during this? If Sheila was there all along why would he not be scared to dial, wait for Jeremy to pickup and not afraid to speak but suddenly get scared and put the phone down?
Why would Nevill be scared to try to take away the gun himself and instead call Jeremy to do it knowing it would take time to for Jeremy to answer the phone (if he woke up and answered, given the location there is a chance it would not have woken him up), time for Jeremy to dress, time for Jeremy to drive over, time for Jeremy to try to find a way to get inside the house locked and bolted from the inside? Why would he be scared to try to take the gun away but not scared to sit on the phone talking as she aimed the gun at him?
If Sheila was going to start shooting then time was of the essence and he needed to disarm her immediately not waste minutes on the phone and then wait another 10 minutes or more for Jeremy to come.
So the call makes no sense just from that perspective, that is strike 1.
The fact he can't keep his story straight about this call even worse. But more significant is that his claim the phone went dead and he immediately either redialed or phoned police is refuted by the evidence. He can't have immediately dialed period because the line was not hung up at WHF as he claims. He neded the call and because the line at WHF was not hung up as well he had to wait 1-2 minutes for his line to clear. Testomony of Julie's roomates is that when the line cleared he phoned her. He was unaware his line took 1-2 minutes to clear which means he didn't try to call her until after it already had cleared so apparently he did something else first befoe calling her. He didn't imediately call anyone. This is strike 2.
Worst of all though, the evidence proves the shooting started in the bedroom while the parents were in bed. Nevill was shot at least 4 times in the bedroom and these wounds rendered him unable to speak. They were not severe enough to disable him though and he fled to the kitchen, June was not as fortunate she passed out before reaching the door. By the time Nevill got to the kitchen and could have used the phone he coudl not speak. So he can't have made the phonecall claimed. This is strike 3. Stick a fork in Jeremy, he's done.
Yes I know you maintain Nevill ran to the kitchen 2 times to use the phone. You claim Sheila made him put the phone down and ordered Nevill back to bed and she started shooting when both parents were back in bed then a seocnd time he fled to the kitchen but this time didn't make it to the phone before being killed. There is no evidence to support your claim and it makes no sense. If Sheila were in a crazy rage why would she choose not to shoot him in the kitchen as he was on the phone but instead to march him to bed to shoot him in bed? The only reason you shoot someone in bed is because that is when they are most vulnerable and in the worst position to try to disarm you. It makes no sense whatsoever but this is the best you could come up with to explain how Nevill could have made the phone call.
I agree, the spread of the bullet casings indicates that Nevill was shot just inside the bedroom door. The way I visualise it Nevill heard a noise and got out of bed to investigate leaving June in bed. He was shot probably as he opened the bedroom door and staggered back to the end of the bed where he was shot again. June was shot first in the head as she lay or sat on the bed. The blood on the pillow indicates that she was either lying on her pillow or fell back onto it initially before getting up only to be shot again. A most callous series of events.
As has been posted on another thread Jeremy was probably shocked to find one bullet wasn't enough to floor Nevill so had to run downstairs to get more ammunition. This was when Nevill decided to pursue him.
The unanswered question for me in all of this though is, where was Sheila at this time or was she locked in her bedroom?
Scipio the above are your views, beliefs, opinions which you are perfectly entitled to hold. What the above doesn't do however is provide any evidence whatsoever that JB is the perpetrator, no more than anything I have ever posted does either.
You make so many assumptions:
- How do you know SC made NB put the phone down?
- How do you know the reason NB called JB?
The natural assumption seems to be for assistance to disarm but it could just as well be to clarify for SC that her parents did not intend to move her back to Essex against her will and/or have the twins removed from her care. We do not know the family dynamics. We do know from Dr Ferguson's wit stat that SC harboured very disturbed thoughts about June and the twins. She saw NB as a support and mentor in her life. Dr F states that she made no ref to JB. If she felt JB was a threat then she is likely to have mentioned this to her psychiatrist. I believe she also discussed with her psychiatrist that she saw her friend Freddie as the devil. From this it appears she felt neutral about JB. No reference positively (as with NB) or negatively (as with June, the twins, Freddie). Perhaps NB felt JB would act as an ally in whatever point(s) he wanted to get over in an attempt to pacify and calm SC down. SC may have even asked NB to call JB as she wanted to confirm with JB what NB was telling her.
No doubt you will attempt to lambaste the above but the fact is you do not know no more than I do as we were not there. All that is known is that JB claims he received a call from NB telling him:
1. SC is going crazy
2. SC has the gun
And asking him:
1. Come over
The above does not equate to disarming.
You constantly misquote me. Please can you produce a post of mine where I have stated the following which I have extracted from your post above:
"Yes I know you maintain Nevill ran to the kitchen 2 times to use the phone. You claim Sheila made him put the phone down and ordered Nevill back to bed and she started shooting when both parents were back in bed then a seocnd time he fled to the kitchen but this time didn't make it to the phone before being killed. There is no evidence to support your claim and it makes no sense".
You are right it makes no sense so why would I have posted it? 8(0(*
You also state: "Testomony of Julie's roomates is that when the line cleared he phoned her".
Were the roommates there? How could they testify? They testified about the time JB made the call to JM. These times varied due to clocks being fast/slow and I would say people being half asleep and misinterpreting. Even the clock in the police station was out by 10 mins. How can any of this be reliable?
There is no way anyone can prove or disprove the said call was made. JB claims he received a call from NB. He attempted to call back a couple of times and claims he heard the engaged tone. This would take some 60 secs. He then looked up the local number for the police station. This would take at least another 60 secs. Expert evidence at trial said had NB left the phone off hook it would take some 1 - 2 mins for the line to clear. By the time JB rang the local police station the line would have cleared regardless of whether NB replaced the receiver or not. Even if he called JM first the line could have cleared. In any event at trial the second log hadn't surfaced so it was thought the phone off the hook was connected to the call JB claims to have received from NB. It could be completely unrelated eg NB calling EP as per second log.
In the judge's summing up he said the jury needed to decide whether JB was telling the truth re the phone call. If at trial it could be established by way of telephony technology or other means that JB invented the call then the judge would not have posed the above question for the jury to deliberate over would he? It would have been game over for JB and you and I in all likelihood might never have had the pleasure of exchanging posts 8(0(*
Hatched area from where the bullets could have been fired (poor quality but I think that is what it says).
Three bullets found in bed on June's side, and the one near the chair looks like it was underneath the bed, but was more easily drawn on plan away from the hatched area. All others are shell casings
DRH - Detective Constable David Hammersley, SOC Officer.
(http://i.imgur.com/yZXM3a6.png)
Whats to stop JB thinking Nevill was already dead, lying unconscious and continuing his dirty work around the house, then Nevill recovering consciousness whilst Jeremy was say, in the twins room. Before I read some of the other threads on here that was my take on it.
This being a meticoulously planned murder I have a hard time seeing Jeremy wouldnt have at least left some spare bullets on the upstairs landing within easy access should he need them, or similar. Im not sure he needed to go downstairs for ammo, NB could have made a run for it some time after being shot BUT before JB got round to cleaning that room and double checking June and NB were actually dead.
Feel free to shoot me down in flames I wont take offence
The question remains, why did Jeremy have to go downstairs leaving Nevill alive? The only reason I can see is that he wholly miscalculated the number of bullets he needed so had to get more.
If Nevill had fled down the stairs pursued by Jeremy he would have hit him with the gun. As it was, the blood on the wall half way down the stairs indicates that Nevill was in a bad way as he staggered down only to be assaulted by his killer again in the kitchen.